Court Refuses to Reinstate Travel Ban, Dealing Trump Another Legal Loss

[bluesmoke]

Would love to stick to the subject when people do the same thing and quite making things like this political. My point stands, being proactive saves lives and being reactive means people have already died. You don't seem to have grasped the concept.

Why is it you pick 2009 when Democrats controlled the Congress and legislative agenda starting in January 2007? Why is it you ignore that Obama was hired to bring us out of the recession and make things better? When the recession began the U-6 rate was 8.4%, it is 9.4% now. Maybe that is what the electorate saw that you don't see and why the Democrats lost the Congress AGAIN. I would pick the numbers as the recession began vs. at its low point, why don't you?

As for the issue of the courts, this is all about claiming a victory over the defeating of the TEMPORARY BAN so now tell me what exactly did you win?

You have pointed out to you many things you’ve said that are to do with me that are flat out false. Yet you continue to do so without responding those times I’ve questioned your falsehoods you continue not answering.

You wrote: “Would love to stick to the subject when people do the same thing…”

Where have I strayed from the original subject, being your post:

What is quite telling is the blame the left put on Bush for not doing in one month what Clinton didn't do in 3 years with his 12/98 PDB that actually predicted the 9/11 attack showing what happens when you react instead of being proactive something the left doesn't understand. Obviously it is easier to place blame than accept responsibility


??

You wrote: “…and quite making things like this political.”

Where have I made things political, that were not a response to something political of yours?

You wrote: “My point stands…” and “You don't seem to have grasped the concept.”

What statement did I make against the point you speak of? Do you understand that even if I didn’t see a need for increased airport security, that doesn’t mean I don’t grasp the concept of being pro-active vs. reactive?

You wrote: “Why is it you pick 2009 when Democrats controlled the Congress and legislative agenda starting in January 2007?”

I picked 2009 because that was the last year Bush was financially responsible for, including employment statistics, as he and Congress set the budget that controlled such plans as for addressing unemployment.

You wrote: “Why is it you ignore that Obama was hired to bring us out of the recession and make things better?”

Obama did bring us out of the recession. I gave you various stats on what was made better.

Your wrote: “When the recession began the U-6 rate was 8.4%, it is 9.4% now. Maybe that is what the electorate saw that you don't see and why the Democrats lost the Congress AGAIN.”

In Dec. of 2009 the U-6 rate was 16.7, the last month for when Bush was responsible, and dropped to 9.4% by the end of Obama’s years of responsibility. I doubt the electorate looked, saw or heard these figures. I think the electorate would pick from when a president takes office, with some honeymoon, to when he/she leaves office.

You wrote: “I would pick the numbers as the recession began vs. at its low point, why don't you?”

Because your perspective of unemployment during a recession in, I presume, the context of economic purpose. My perspective was of unemployment during Presidential unemployment terms in the context of Presidential performance.

"As for the issue of the courts, this is all about claiming a victory over the defeating of the TEMPORARY BAN so now tell me what exactly did you win?"

Again, you assume something of me that I've not given you direct indication of. I'm no part of claiming a victory nor declaring a win. All I've said is that I believe what the 9th Circuit ruled will hold under SCOTUS review, as in the future, not now. But it ain't over until it's over.

 

[Conservative]

You have pointed out to you many things you’ve said that are to do with me that are flat out false. Yet you continue to do so without responding those times I’ve questioned your falsehoods you continue not answering.

You wrote: “Would love to stick to the subject when people do the same thing…”

Where have I strayed from the original subject, being your post:

What is quite telling is the blame the left put on Bush for not doing in one month what Clinton didn't do in 3 years with his 12/98 PDB that actually predicted the 9/11 attack showing what happens when you react instead of being proactive something the left doesn't understand. Obviously it is easier to place blame than accept responsibility


??

You wrote: “…and quite making things like this political.”

Where have I made things political, that were not a response to something political of yours?

You wrote: “My point stands…” and “You don't seem to have grasped the concept.”

What statement did I make against the point you speak of? Do you understand that even if I didn’t see a need for increased airport security, that doesn’t mean I don’t grasp the concept of being pro-active vs. reactive?

You wrote: “Why is it you pick 2009 when Democrats controlled the Congress and legislative agenda starting in January 2007?”

I picked 2009 because that was the last year Bush was financially responsible for, including employment statistics, as he and Congress set the budget that controlled such plans as for addressing unemployment.

You wrote: “Why is it you ignore that Obama was hired to bring us out of the recession and make things better?”

Obama did bring us out of the recession. I gave you various stats on what was made better.

Your wrote: “When the recession began the U-6 rate was 8.4%, it is 9.4% now. Maybe that is what the electorate saw that you don't see and why the Democrats lost the Congress AGAIN.”

In Dec. of 2009 the U-6 rate was 16.7, the last month for when Bush was responsible, and dropped to 9.4% by the end of Obama’s years of responsibility. I doubt the electorate looked, saw or heard these figures. I think the electorate would pick from when a president takes office, with some honeymoon, to when he/she leaves office.

You wrote: “I would pick the numbers as the recession began vs. at its low point, why don't you?”

Because your perspective of unemployment during a recession in, I presume, the context of economic purpose. My perspective was of unemployment during Presidential unemployment terms in the context of Presidential performance.

"As for the issue of the courts, this is all about claiming a victory over the defeating of the TEMPORARY BAN so now tell me what exactly did you win?"

Again, you assume something of me that I've not given you direct indication of. I'm no part of claiming a victory nor declaring a win. All I've said is that I believe what the 9th Circuit ruled will hold under SCOTUS review, as in the future, not now. But it ain't over until it's over.

This Thread is about the Temporary Travel Ban and the overturning of the 90 day ban and what I pointed out was the last time that the United States failed to adhere to a warning which was 12/98 and what happened less than 3 years later. This is about being proactive and not reactive. The left wants us to believe that the citizens of those countries on the ban never attacked us BUT prior to 9/11 neither had the Saudi Citizens. You get the comparison yet?

As for Obama's record, I posted links that will give you the official data yet you want to ignore that data. Please explain to me why with those strong economic results you want to give him credit for he lost the House in 2010-2012, the Congress in 2014-2016 and Democrats lost the WH? are those indications of good economic and foreign policy results? Isn't it possible that you are wrong and the electorate right?

You state your opinion and I gave you specific PDB information that shows why our country has to be proactive instead of being reactive. The rest of your post is for another thread many of which have been discussed here. Start one up and I will gladly educate you on where you are wrong. the question is are you mature enough to admit it?

The last thing, do you know that there was no Bush budget for fiscal year 2009? He submitted it as required but it was rejected. The Democrats controlled the Congress and knew that people like you wouldn't understand that and would blame Bush for all that happened in 2009 including the deficit. Obama signed the 2009 budget in March, Bush spending authority ran out in March as did the Continuing resolutions and we were left with a 10.6 trillion dollar debt. It is 20 trillion today.

Now I await that thread you want to start and give me the link, Would love to school you more including why 2009 isn't the place to start judging Obama

 

[j-mac]

No, that was Fletch's argument, two things which have nothing to do with each other. I pointed out the absurdity using the grilled chicken example.

Ok, got it.

I didn't see it last night (WWE Elimination Chamber was on and friends were over to watch), so please don't spoil anything...but how was last night's episode?

Yeah, I don't know yet either...I usually DVR it because Sunday nights are when I am coming back in from up north....

I agree. It WAS irrelevant, that was the point. I used something irrelevant to point out that us never having an airplane attack before 9/11 was also irrelevant to this discussion. I agree it was irrelevant, that was the point.

Without meaning to be snarky, perhaps if you would re-read my post, knowing that it was intended to be irrelevant, maybe the point would make more sense to you. Again, I say that genuinely, not being an ass.

Ok, fair enough...I'll go back and take another look with that in mind, thanks.

It goes to intent. We have copius amounts of evidence to suggest this ban was not about keeping the country safe, but rather about imposing a religious test for entry into the country.

I'm not an attorney either, but here's some information which will help guide understanding that A) it does matter if the administration is telling the truth or not and B) why the courts are getting involved:

Doesn't the statute state that the President can deny immigration for any reason he deems relevant to national security?

It matters whether or not there is a tangible threat to this country. And it matters what the motivations behind the ban are. We know President Trump has, on numerous occasions, called for a Muslim ban. We know he has said he wants to help Christians. We know Giuliani said Trump to Rudy to craft a Muslim ban legally. We know those things. We have ample evidence this travel ban is not security motivated, but religiously motivated and you run into Constitutional issues if that is the case.

It matters. And this is why the courts are involved.

We are also at 'war' with a group that considers it a 'religious calling' to destroy us' right? So, I really don't see how he gets around that talking point....IOW, there will always be those that don't want Trump doing anything aggressive, out of fear of reprisal, looking to undermine what he is doing here....And should he re write the EO, they will simply find a different reason to object....As you already know, I am on the side that thinks that for too long we have coward from radical Islam, and have done nothing but extend this mess by trying to appease these savages.

But one thing I'd like to ask you Sly, because I think it is interesting when you say that his temporary travel ban runs afoul of Constitutional stead, in the 14th amendment when because of speech he used during the campaign is involved, 1. wouldn't that mean that ANY travel ban he tries in the ME would be accused of being a religious ban because of that....? And 2. Green card holders aside, How is it that anyone who a.) isn't a citizen of the United States, and b.) has never been to the United States, has any right at all to demand entry?

Like I said, this whole thing seems fishy to me, the objection to it that is...I mean it is a minor temporary travel ban for goodness sake....I mean hell, the President could just say ALL immigration to the United States is halted until he deems that National Security is secure....

 

[Excon]

Has anyone seen or been discussing this?

Unidentified 9th Circuit Judge seeks vote on further review of panel Order

A Judge at the 9th Circuit, whose name is not revealed, has requested a vote be taken whether to conduct en banc (full court) review of the February 9, 2017, Order by a three-judge panel denying Trump’s request for a stay of the District Court Temporary Restraining Order.

[...]

​

Unidentified 9th Circuit Judge seeks vote on further review of panel Order​

This to me is an indication that at least one Judge from that circuit believes the ruling was not quite right, not the reason why though.

 

[CriticalThought]

Im all for putting armed guards in schools, but its not just you going nuts. There were over 1200 terrorist attacks in 2016 just by muslims.

There were over 15,000 homicides by Americans last year. Compared to the approximately 125 people who have died in terrorist attacks since 9-11 in this country, over 15 years. Your terror phobia is not statistically sound. Why should I be more afraid of Muslim terrorists than you?

 

[jonny5]

There were over 15,000 homicides by Americans last year. Compared to the approximately 125 people who have died in terrorist attacks since 9-11 in this country, over 15 years. Your terror phobia is not statistically sound. Why should I be more afraid of Muslim terrorists than you?

You should be concerned about BOTH.

 

[Slyfox696]

Yeah, I don't know yet either...I usually DVR it because Sunday nights are when I am coming back in from up north....

I watched it yesterday...not the greatest episode ever, but not bad.

Doesn't the statute state that the President can deny immigration for any reason he deems relevant to national security?

There has to be a legitimate need for it though. That's why the courts constantly asked the administration's attorneys for evidence.

We are also at 'war' with a group that considers it a 'religious calling' to destroy us' right?

Technically no, since we do not officially recognize ISIS (or terrorists) as a sovereign nation.

IOW, there will always be those that don't want Trump doing anything aggressive, out of fear of reprisal, looking to undermine what he is doing here....And should he re write the EO, they will simply find a different reason to object.

In politics, it is guaranteed that nearly any action from one party has a strong possibility of "outrage" from the other.

But one thing I'd like to ask you Sly, because I think it is interesting when you say that his temporary travel ban runs afoul of Constitutional stead, in the 14th amendment when because of speech he used during the campaign is involved, 1. wouldn't that mean that ANY travel ban he tries in the ME would be accused of being a religious ban because of that....?

If the Trump administration could have provided any solid evidence this ban was necessary due to specific threats, I think it would have had a much better chance. But they didn't provide that evidence and we have no choice but to assume there isn't specific evidence. There's always a general threat, but such a general threat is hardly limited only to the Middle East.

And you definitely have a point that any travel ban would be subjected to additional security because President Trump called for a total Muslim ban...in other words, what a president says actually means something and has consequences. A president cannot just say anything he wants...this is just one piece of evidence for that, perhaps.

And 2. Green card holders aside, How is it that anyone who a.) isn't a citizen of the United States, and b.) has never been to the United States, has any right at all to demand entry?

The issue isn't about demanding entry. It's about many things actually, but one of the arguments goes to religion.

Like I said, this whole thing seems fishy to me, the objection to it that is...I mean it is a minor temporary travel ban for goodness sake....I mean hell, the President could just say ALL immigration to the United States is halted until he deems that National Security is secure....

He could...but didn't. He also didn't ban travel from several countries from where we've experienced troubles.

There are a lot of reasons this executive order was not a good one and why the Trump Administration seems to be letting it go and focusing on writing a new one.

 

[Conservative]

You should be concerned about BOTH.

The let is only concerned about one thing, increasing their voter base illegal and legal. They really don't care about solving a problem just finding someone else to blame for it. Being proactive isn't something that interests them

 

[j-mac]

I watched it yesterday...not the greatest episode ever, but not bad.

Cool, watching it now....

Technically no, since we do not officially recognize ISIS (or terrorists) as a sovereign nation.

Again, I am no lawyer but, just as Bush II, and Obama justified certain actions using the AUMF to point to an overall 'War with terror" then I think it still could be used today to justify the heightened state of National Security...

There has to be a legitimate need for it though. That's why the courts constantly asked the administration's attorneys for evidence.

I thought that the phone call hearing was supposed to be limited to the TRO, and standing, rather than evidence like that? I could be wrong...

In politics, it is guaranteed that nearly any action from one party has a strong possibility of "outrage" from the other.

I'll drink to that...(takes a sip of coffee...:lol

If the Trump administration could have provided any solid evidence this ban was necessary due to specific threats, I think it would have had a much better chance. But they didn't provide that evidence and we have no choice but to assume there isn't specific evidence.

I don't know if I'd go that far, because we aren't privy to what is briefed, or classified. And that this list of countries was a list that the Obama intel community came up with in the later part of 2015, shows that there may be some considerations in there that are pertenant to the decision to order a halt of travel until we have better ways of screening. I think to assume at this point is folly.

There's always a general threat, but such a general threat is hardly limited only to the Middle East.

Yes, but we have to be strategic right, so I think that triage is the way to win....

And you definitely have a point that any travel ban would be subjected to additional security because President Trump called for a total Muslim ban...in other words, what a president says actually means something and has consequences. A president cannot just say anything he wants...this is just one piece of evidence for that, perhaps.

The words that are being used against him are rhetoric from a bitter, and hard fought campaign. Not when he was President. There have been many throughout the years in here that have acknowledged that politicians often say many things on the campaign trail that they aren't held to when actually sworn into office...And that is practical, because there are many things that candidates don't know until they are sworn into office...Look, I understand that the 'resistance' against President Trump is bitter. That it is, many in opposition feel warranted. But, I fear that some of this treads in to subversion, and not just opposition....

The issue isn't about demanding entry. It's about many things actually, but one of the arguments goes to religion.

Have we had an that type of hearing yet? You may say yes that is what the hearing before the 9th was, but I would argue that it wasn't supposed to be, and that along with maybe a DoJ that didn't at the time have it's head, was working with the former administrations placements and structure, that undermined its preparedness....

He could...but didn't. He also didn't ban travel from several countries from where we've experienced troubles.

He has always said that he was free to take a broader look as things progressed....It would help if his people could get into their roles in the cabinet...

There are a lot of reasons this executive order was not a good one and why the Trump Administration seems to be letting it go and focusing on writing a new one.

On this point we can agree, even if for different reasons....I think at this point re writing it carefully, and making it airtight and re instituting it is the way to go.

 

[Slyfox696]

Cool, watching it now....

Aren't DVRs great?

I don't know if I'd go that far, because we aren't privy to what is briefed, or classified.

Agreed, but given the timing of the EO and the fact there was no evidence presented, I think it's safe to assume this EO wasn't about a specific threat.

And that this list of countries was a list that the Obama intel community came up with in the later part of 2015, shows that there may be some considerations in there that are pertenant to the decision to order a halt of travel until we have better ways of screening. I think to assume at this point is folly.

Do you really think a specific threat developed in the first three days of the Trump Administration and that an EO was written that quickly to deal with the threat? Because Obama was still President at the time, and he didn't take specific action. Furthermore, it seems a little too much of a coincidence that this is something President Trump promised and then signed within the first few days.

I'm sure there are always threats from that region...I strongly doubt there was a specific threat from all seven countries which demanded an EO within the first few days of Trump's presidency. I think it is folly to assume this EO was in response to a specific credible threat, rather than fulfilling a campaign promise.

The words that are being used against him are rhetoric from a bitter, and hard fought campaign. Not when he was President.

According to Rudy Giuliani, President-Elect Trump asked Giuliani to craft a Muslim ban legally. That's not campaign rhetoric.

Also...campaign rhetoric matters. At least it should.

There have been many throughout the years in here that have acknowledged that politicians often say many things on the campaign trail that they aren't held to when actually sworn into office...And that is practical, because there are many things that candidates don't know until they are sworn into office

I agree with that...but he didn't step away from what he promised, he did essentially what he said he was going to do. A little different.

Look, I understand that the 'resistance' against President Trump is bitter. That it is, many in opposition feel warranted. But, I fear that some of this treads in to subversion, and not just opposition....

There will always be people who say things like "he's not my President". But that's just partisan nonsense talking. There were plenty of people who did the same thing to President Obama, President Trump included. So don't bog down too much into the "subversion" stuff. Just call it what it is...partisan stupidity. President Trump is our President, for good or for bad. Most people accept that.

Have we had an that type of hearing yet? You may say yes that is what the hearing before the 9th was, but I would argue that it wasn't supposed to be

All I can say is that multiple courts have asked for evidence from the Trump administration and none of the courts have received it. I don't know enough about the legal process to say what should or shouldn't be, only what has been.

He has always said that he was free to take a broader look as things progressed....It would help if his people could get into their roles in the cabinet...

They're starting to fill out, but yes, his nominees need to be confirmed. I'm not exactly sure what's taking so long. I know Democrats have resisted many of them, but they are a definite minority and nominees are passing with only 51 votes (for example, DeVos passed 51-50, with Pence casting a tiebreaker). So I'm not sure what the delay is.

On this point we can agree, even if for different reasons....I think at this point re writing it carefully, and making it airtight and re instituting it is the way to go.

I'm sure they'll rewrite it in accordance to what courts have said...the only question is if the newly rewritten EO will still have the effects of the first one or if it will drop what so many found offensive in an attempt to remain valid

 

[j-mac]

Aren't DVRs great?

Yeah they are...:thumbsup:

Agreed, but given the timing of the EO and the fact there was no evidence presented, I think it's safe to assume this EO wasn't about a specific threat.

I don't think they were prepared to offer evidence of 'specific threat' because I believe that they thought this was a standing hearing, and the guy arguing for the government sounded like he got collared walking down the hall that morning, and told 'hey, you're going to argue this tonight, so get ready'.... Now, I don't know if there was a specific threat or not, and I am not going to assume there was, because at the heart of this was supposed to be just a temporary pause to examine our vetting process, not because of any specific threats...

Do you really think a specific threat developed in the first three days of the Trump Administration and that an EO was written that quickly to deal with the threat? Because Obama was still President at the time, and he didn't take specific action. Furthermore, it seems a little too much of a coincidence that this is something President Trump promised and then signed within the first few days.

That there could have been a threat that Obama declined to take immediate action on is plausable, and I don't know the specifics on threat assessment for the moment they drafted this EO. But, I am inclined to believe that the administration thought sincerely that this was just a pause to take a look at our policies and procedures for vetting people entering our country from a region of the world manufacturing, and exporting terror across the world, and really didn't think it would bring this kind of ****storm....

I'm sure there are always threats from that region...I strongly doubt there was a specific threat from all seven countries which demanded an EO within the first few days of Trump's presidency. I think it is folly to assume this EO was in response to a specific credible threat, rather than fulfilling a campaign promise.

Yeah, there may not have been a specific threat from these countries other than their current status in terms of ability to work with us to vet people coming from them...:shrug: But, I also don't think that the statute defines that there needs to be any immediate threat either....In fact, I believe it leaves it solely to "the President's discretion" does it not?

According to Rudy Giuliani, President-Elect Trump asked Giuliani to craft a Muslim ban legally. That's not campaign rhetoric.

Also...campaign rhetoric matters. At least it should.

That's been reported in several news outlets that have shown themselves to be more than a little biased against the administration, so I think, I'd need to see their sources for that....

I agree with that...but he didn't step away from what he promised, he did essentially what he said he was going to do. A little different.

Yes, which leaves more than a few of us wondering just why a temporary pause to examine our own process, and procedure is such an out of the question proposition...

 

[j-mac]

There will always be people who say things like "he's not my President". But that's just partisan nonsense talking. There were plenty of people who did the same thing to President Obama, President Trump included. So don't bog down too much into the "subversion" stuff. Just call it what it is...partisan stupidity. President Trump is our President, for good or for bad. Most people accept that.

Well, I hope you're right about that...And it seems very rational to view it like that...Thanks.

All I can say is that multiple courts have asked for evidence from the Trump administration and none of the courts have received it. I don't know enough about the legal process to say what should or shouldn't be, only what has been.

There are many courts that are going to be disappointed if it comes to releasing classified information to them...I believe that many of the extraneous law suits are nuisance suits to bog the administration down....But the only one that matters right now is before the 9th, and possibly SCOTUS....All of the others take a back seat until that one is decided.

They're starting to fill out, but yes, his nominees need to be confirmed. I'm not exactly sure what's taking so long. I know Democrats have resisted many of them, but they are a definite minority and nominees are passing with only 51 votes (for example, DeVos passed 51-50, with Pence casting a tiebreaker). So I'm not sure what the delay is.

The problem in my view is that Democrats, whom are under severe pressure from their base to 'resist', and obstruct, are doing everything they can do to slow walk these nominees, and to the extent that they can throw as much against the wall as they can....That's the problem...And the base is making it increasingly difficult to see any path to working with democrats at all through this administration....

I'm sure they'll rewrite it in accordance to what courts have said...the only question is if the newly rewritten EO will still have the effects of the first one or if it will drop what so many found offensive in an attempt to remain valid

What so many are finding objectionable, is the signature at the bottom rather than the text....

 

[Slyfox696]

That there could have been a threat that Obama declined to take immediate action on is plausable

But I would argue unlikely.

But, I am inclined to believe that the administration thought sincerely that this was just a pause to take a look at our policies and procedures for vetting people entering our country from a region of the world manufacturing, and exporting terror across the world, and really didn't think it would bring this kind of ****storm....

Then they are dumber than either one of us, because we both earlier stipulated the opposition party will always be "outraged".

But, I also don't think that the statute defines that there needs to be any immediate threat either....In fact, I believe it leaves it solely to "the President's discretion" does it not?

Obviously not, as numerous judges have found otherwise.

That's been reported in several news outlets that have shown themselves to be more than a little biased against the administration, so I think, I'd need to see their sources for that....

Their source for that is Giuliani himself on Fox News:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGOwEOTYfuE

Start at 2:50. In fairness to Giuliani, he claimed the commission's focus was safety, not religion, but we're talking about Trump's intent and Giuliani clearly stated Trump's intent was a Muslim ban.

Yes, which leaves more than a few of us wondering just why a temporary pause to examine our own process, and procedure is such an out of the question proposition...

...why did we need a temporary pause to examine the process? We've had a running process for a very long time. What exactly was the purpose?

In my opinion, the purpose was clear...fulfill a campaign pledge to ban Muslims. I have yet to see any other evidence this ban was necessary for anything.


On a side note, I just want to say I've appreciated the civil debate. It's nice to have. :thumbs:

 

[j-mac]

Then they are dumber than either one of us, because we both earlier stipulated the opposition party will always be "outraged".

You have a valid point there...Well, no one said we elect the 'smartest' people for the job....and these days that seems to be more true than ever....

Obviously not, as numerous judges have found otherwise.

So far as I can see none of them has addressed, much less cited the statute at all, so to me anyway it isn't surprising that these judges can't find anything in that respect...

Their source for that is Giuliani himself on Fox News:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGOwEOTYfuE

Start at 2:50. In fairness to Giuliani, he claimed the commission's focus was safety, not religion, but we're talking about Trump's intent and Giuliani clearly stated Trump's intent was a Muslim ban.

Wow, thank you for making it so clear....I can't disagree with you there....That right there should force their hand in scrapping the first EO then and making it clear, if this is still what they want to do, that the next EO has NOTHING to do with any 'Religion', but rather a simple policy/procedure examination on our end....

...why did we need a temporary pause to examine the process? We've had a running process for a very long time. What exactly was the purpose?

In my opinion, the purpose was clear...fulfill a campaign pledge to ban Muslims. I have yet to see any other evidence this ban was necessary for anything.

I think, it is a terminology problem that Trump has....Remember he isn't a politician....So, he is firing off his mouth before his policy experts have a chance to inform him how he should frame things....Disappointing if you are me...But it is really working out my skills trying to figure out how to explain some of this stuff....:mrgreen:

On a side note, I just want to say I've appreciated the civil debate. It's nice to have.

Thanks for noticing...Some are still trying to make it hard on me, but I am really trying hard to stick to civil ways of approaching things....And I appreciate that those affording me the chance to do that are actually teaching me some new things too....

 

[bluesmoke]

This Thread is about the Temporary Travel Ban and the overturning of the 90 day ban and what I pointed out was the last time that the United States failed to adhere to a warning which was 12/98 and what happened less than 3 years later. This is about being proactive and not reactive. The left wants us to believe that the citizens of those countries on the ban never attacked us BUT prior to 9/11 neither had the Saudi Citizens. You get the comparison yet?

As for Obama's record, I posted links that will give you the official data yet you want to ignore that data. Please explain to me why with those strong economic results you want to give him credit for he lost the House in 2010-2012, the Congress in 2014-2016 and Democrats lost the WH? are those indications of good economic and foreign policy results? Isn't it possible that you are wrong and the electorate right?

You state your opinion and I gave you specific PDB information that shows why our country has to be proactive instead of being reactive. The rest of your post is for another thread many of which have been discussed here. Start one up and I will gladly educate you on where you are wrong. the question is are you mature enough to admit it?

The last thing, do you know that there was no Bush budget for fiscal year 2009? He submitted it as required but it was rejected. The Democrats controlled the Congress and knew that people like you wouldn't understand that and would blame Bush for all that happened in 2009 including the deficit. Obama signed the 2009 budget in March, Bush spending authority ran out in March as did the Continuing resolutions and we were left with a 10.6 trillion dollar debt. It is 20 trillion today.

Now I await that thread you want to start and give me the link, Would love to school you more including why 2009 isn't the place to start judging Obama

No, I don’t get the comparison you speak of, because there is no logic. To begin with, it was Saudi Arabia from where most citizens that made up the 9/11 terrorists came from. Your logic is that, therefor, rather than be reactive by building up airport security as we did after being attacked by Saudi citizens, a buildup unrelated to Saudi Arabia, we should now ban citizens from other countries that have less a record of terrorism against other countries than…other countries, like Egypt, for instance. Your entire argument is based on a false premise, after which any argument is moot.

Your unsupported assumption runs out your ears. Bush had the same info, plus what little more there was, as Clinton. I’ve pointed this out to you twice before. Did you have that information before? I gave it to you. Based on that information, if you were President, would you go ahead and make as much the change as has been made to airport security?

You’ve not given direct response to my several ago questions, nor to those in my immediate past post. Your try to stretch out time between you and your responsibilities. An adolescent, conscious strategy. Step-up and take the responsibility of responding as to whom you are corresponding with has reciprocated. I’ve answered every question you’ve asked of me. You have not done so, and owe so. If you can't, I will go away and not waste other's time with what goes nowhere.

 

[Conservative]

bluesmoke;1066883624]No, I don’t get the comparison you speak of, because there is no logic. To begin with, it was Saudi Arabia from where most citizens that made up the 9/11 terrorists came from. Your logic is that, therefor, rather than be reactive by building up airport security as we did after being attacked by Saudi citizens, a buildup unrelated to Saudi Arabia, we should now ban citizens from other countries that have less a record of terrorism against other countries than…other countries, like Egypt, for instance. Your entire argument is based on a false premise, after which any argument is moot.

Prior to 9/11 how many Saudis attacked this country? You really don't understand being proactive at all thus have no logic and common sense.
Your unsupported assumption runs out your ears. Bush had the same info, plus what little more there was, as Clinton. I’ve pointed this out to you twice before. Did you have that information before? I gave it to you. Based on that information, if you were President, would you go ahead and make as much the change as has been made to airport security?

What would you have Bush do when he got that PDB in August 2001? You are the one without logic and common sense. Again, what legally could Bush have done in less than a month?

You’ve not given direct response to my several ago questions, nor to those in my immediate past post. Your try to stretch out time between you and your responsibilities. An adolescent, conscious strategy. Step-up and take the responsibility of responding as to whom you are corresponding with has reciprocated. I’ve answered every question you’ve asked of me. You have not done so, and owe so. If you can't, I will go away and not waste other's time with what goes nowhere.

Since you don't have knee replacement thus aren't here as much I am carrying on a conversation with many over a number of threads. I have no idea what questions you asked but I do know that you lack basic logic and common sense when it comes to national security. A terrorist has to be right ONCE, this country 100% of the time and it is better to be safe than sorry for when you are reactive people die, not so in being proactive

 

[Cassandra]

Prior to 9/11 how many Saudis attacked this country? You really don't understand being proactive at all thus have no logic and common sense.
Your unsupported assumption runs out your ears. Bush had the same info, plus what little more there was, as Clinton. I’ve pointed this out to you twice before. Did you have that information before? I gave it to you. Based on that information, if you were President, would you go ahead and make as much the change as has been made to airport security?

What would you have Bush do when he got that PDB in August 2001? You are the one without logic and common sense. Again, what legally could Bush have done in less than a month?



Since you don't have knee replacement thus aren't here as much I am carrying on a conversation with many over a number of threads. I have no idea what questions you asked but I do know that you lack basic logic and common sense when it comes to national security. A terrorist has to be right ONCE, this country 100% of the time and it is better to be safe than sorry for when you are reactive people die, not so in being proactive

I am sure that Team Trump will resubmit a more narrowly written muslim travel ban and you will be able to rest easy that starving, traumatized Syrian women and children will be unable to enter the country.

 

[Conservative]

I am sure that Team Trump will resubmit a more narrowly written muslim travel ban and you will be able to rest easy that starving, traumatized Syrian women and children will be unable to enter the country.

I hope you are on the list to adopt a few and see how that turns out for you. Maybe you will get one of these

This is how Muslims think.



 
By Dr. Arieh Eldad an M.D. at Hadassah Hospital in Israel

I was instrumental in establishing the "Israeli National Skin Bank", which
is the largest in the world. The National Skin Bank stores skin for every
day needs as well as for war time or mass casualty situations.

This skin bank is hosted at the Hadassah Ein Kerem University hospital in
Jerusalem where I was the Chairman of plastic surgery.

This is how I was asked to supply skin for an Arab woman from Gaza , who
was hospitalized in Soroka Hospital in Beersheva, after her family burned
her.

Usually, such atrocities happen among Arab families when the women are
suspected of having an affair.

We supplied all the needed Homografts for her treatment She was
successfully treated by my friend and colleague, Prof. Lior Rosenberg and
discharged to return to Gaza

She was invited for regular follow-up visits to the outpatient clinic in
Beersheva.

One day she was caught at a border crossing wearing a suicide belt.
She meant to explode herself in the outpatient clinic of the hospital where
they saved her life.

It seems that her family promised her that if she did that, they would
forgive her.

This is only one example of the war between Jews and Muslims in the Land of
Israel. It is not a territorial conflict. This is a civilizational conflict, or rather a 
war between civilization & barbarism.

Bibi (Netanyahu) gets it, Obama did not, but Trump does
I have never written before asking everyone to please forward onwards so
that as many as possible can understand radical Islam and what awaits
the world if it is not stopped.

Dr. Arieh Eldad

 

[upsideguy]

His presidency is going swimmingly.

Onward to glory and victory
http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx …

Trump's approval rating falls into the 20's, he becomes toxic to the Republican party and they will have no choice but to impeach him.

 

[Slyfox696]

You have a valid point there...Well, no one said we elect the 'smartest' people for the job....and these days that seems to be more true than ever....

Amen to that.

So far as I can see none of them has addressed, much less cited the statute at all, so to me anyway it isn't surprising that these judges can't find anything in that respect...

They have addressed it. The Trump Administration argued in the appeals court that the President's power is unreviewable in these situations...the judges pretty much laughed that one out of court.

But August Flentje, special counsel to the assistant attorney general, argued that the president has the ultimate authority to protect the national security and that his action in that regard — namely, the travel ban — was unreviewable by the courts.

In their ruling, the judges were unequivocal. "There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our democracy," the court wrote.

Appeals Court Rejects Bid To Reinstate Trump's Travel Ban : The Two-Way : NPR


The court dismissed that argument quite clearly.

Wow, thank you for making it so clear....I can't disagree with you there

No problem.

....That right there should force their hand in scrapping the first EO then and making it clear, if this is still what they want to do, that the next EO has NOTHING to do with any 'Religion', but rather a simple policy/procedure examination on our end....

Which is what it sounds like they are trying to do. The problem is if it takes them another month to write a new EO...what would be the point of a pause? Can they not also be currently reviewing the processes? It's not like it's heavy machinery, where you have to shut down the machine to investigate problems.

I know there are reports they are working on a new EO, but given how much time will have already passed, I don't see much logical point in it.

I think, it is a terminology problem that Trump has....Remember he isn't a politician....So, he is firing off his mouth before his policy experts have a chance to inform him how he should frame things

Which is one of the concerns many many people have with him being President. It's not good to have a President who doesn't make informed and reserved statements.

Thanks for noticing...Some are still trying to make it hard on me, but I am really trying hard to stick to civil ways of approaching things....And I appreciate that those affording me the chance to do that are actually teaching me some new things too....

It's certainly appreciated in this thread. :thumbs:

 

[Conservative]

Trump's approval rating falls into the 20's, he becomes toxic to the Republican party and they will have no choice but to impeach him.

OMG, ROFLMAO, He is delivering on every promise he made during the campaign, something Obama never did. I posted poll numbers yesterday that had him a 48% so you can continue to throw that temper tantrum or realize that all you are doing does nothing but drive up YOUR blood pressure. Pro growth, Pro Jobs, Pro National security, ALL IS GOOD and Improving

RealClearPolitics - 2016 Latest Polls