Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[ldrews]

As for your suggestion about indemnification:

 

The world doesn't work this way

I know this. You should know this.

 

 

And by the way, the world does work that way. Car/public liability insurance, indemnity insurance, performance bonds, financial options, etc. All are forms of one party insuring/indemnifying another party.

[PassedOut]

I am not at war with Islam. But neither am I foolish enough to ignore their cultural/religious imperatives or their history. So I am not motivated to invite them into my society. But I wish them well in theirs.

Regarding national security, do you consider it a wise move to remove the chairman of the Joint Chiefs from a permanent position on the National Security Council and to add Steve Bannon? I don't.

[ldrews]

Regarding national security, do you consider it a wise move to remove the chairman of the Joint Chiefs from a permanent position on the National Security Council and to add Steve Bannon? I don't.

 

I don't know. I wonder what is the motivation for removing the Joint Chiefs? Adding Steve Bannon may be just a delegation of responsibility. My take is Trump is not a detail person and delegates as much as possible. But removing the military suggests a hidden agenda.

[USViking]

Constitutional crisis, hmmph! The government may have overstepped its boundaries (the courts will soon tell us), but apparently only with respect to individuals in transit. And even then we have to wait for the courts to tell us. But a constitutional crisis? Be serious!

A constitutional crisis exists when the government defies a court order, as our border and customs security agencies have.

 

What worries me is that Trump and his corps of baboons will try to invoke ex part Merryman as a precedent for saying they can do anything they damn please. Merryman was a 1861 case where Lincoln is generally considered to have defied an order from Chief Justice Roger Taney forbidding emergency suspention of habeas corpus.

 

Now, Trump is not facing anything like the crisis Lincoln faced, but Trump and his baboons are the kind of people who might think nothing of provoking the kind of crisis Lincoln faced.

[hrothgar]

The point of the indemnify comment is to point out that the risk is there and to bring to the surface that you would like me to share in that risk. But I do not want to share in that risk if I do not have to. So if you insist, then indemnify me. Then we are both happy.

 

You don't share any "risk" (as if there was any meaningful risk). You ran off to Mexico to save a few bucks...

 

Even if we were part of the same risk pool, we're not part of the same society.

As far as I am concerned, when you ran off to dodge taxes, you exited the social contract.

You don't get to make claims about what America needs to do for you...

[hrothgar]

And by the way, the world does work that way. Car/public liability insurance, indemnity insurance, performance bonds, financial options, etc. All are forms of one party insuring/indemnifying another party.

 

I'm only aware of a handful of examples where a government has provided indemnification in advance for policy decisions.

 

Arguably "virus court" works in this manner.

[cherdano]

Vituperative language and bad manners seems to be a badge of honor with you. Would you like to have a discussion or do you want to continue to rant?

 

Immigration, green cards, and visas are not a right of people from other countries, they are a privilege extended by the US Government. And can be withdrawn or amended at any time. And since a couple of the terrorist incidents in the US were committed by children of legal immigrants, one would think that looking more deeply into their cultural motivations would be warranted before extending citizenship. We have enough social problems already; I don't see the benefit to inviting more.

 

cherdano: "I see no point in throwing apples at traffic lights."

 

ldrews: "I really like mandarines."

 

It is you who doesn't want a discussion - by constantly making stuff up, by "replying" to my posts and arguing against something I didn't said, etc.

 

Here is a simple question: the EO said that green card holders would not be permitted to re-enter the US except in a case-by-case basis. (Now DHS says this "case-by-case" exception will be applied basically to everyone.) Do you think that was a good idea?

[ldrews]

You don't share any "risk" (as if there was any meaningful risk). You ran off to Mexico to save a few bucks...

 

Even if we were part of the same risk pool, we're not part of the same society.

As far as I am concerned, when you ran off to dodge taxes, you exited the social contract.

You don't get to make claims about what America needs to do for you...

 

Ah, I see. No real arguments, just adhomiben attacts. Classy.

[ldrews]

I'm only aware of a handful of examples where a government has provided indemnification in advance for policy decisions.

 

Arguably "virus court" works in this manner.

 

Are familiar with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) that insures your bank accounts?

 

Transferring risk for a fee is a fundamental part of our economic system, called "insurance". Perhaps you have heard of it?

[ldrews]

 

Here is a simple question: the EO said that green card holders would not be permitted to re-enter the US except in a case-by-case basis. (Now DHS says this "case-by-case" exception will be applied basically to everyone.) Do you think that was a good idea?

 

For the countries on the list prepared by the Obama administration, yes I think it is a good idea to re-vet those green card holders. They are not being "banned", just being asked to come in for a re-qualifying interview. Given that Quebec just experienced another "terrorist" attack from individuals shouting "Allah Akhbar!", don't you think so too?

[hrothgar]

Are familiar with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) that insures your bank accounts?

 

Transferring risk for a fee is a fundamental part of our economic system, called "insurance". Perhaps you have heard of it?

 

Once again, you are listing a set of requirements that the government has established to govern relationships between citizens (or in this case banks and citizens).

 

You are demanding that the government indemnify its citizens (in advance) for its own policies.

 

For all intents an purposes, the US government is self insuring.

This sort of thing doesn't happen

[andrei]

You are misunderstanding the purpose of the EO. The purpose isn't to address terrorism. The purpose is to make life miserable for as many Muslims in the US as the White House legally can (or believes it cans) - just so it can proudly report that it made life miserable for Muslims.

Terrorism is a problem. We blame Muslims for it. Ergo we make their life miserable.

 

Trump administration prove their ineptitude yet again.

They are trying to make Muslims life miserable, yet the travel ban applies to only 12% of the world's total Muslim population.

[Winstonm]

Who didn't see this coming? (except the idiots occupying the WH)

 

WaPo:

 

Jihadist groups hail Trump’s travel ban as a victory

In social-media postings, Islamic State supporters see the order as validation for their claim that the U.S. is at war with Islam.

By Joby Warrick

 

Trump has handed Isis a recruitment tool they could only dream about - and at the same time shown the U.S. to be cowering from Isis. Nice, job, dumbass.

[cherdano]

Trump administration prove their ineptitude yet again.

They are trying to make Muslims life miserable, yet the travel ban applies to only 12% of the world's total Muslim population.

Well, it's a start.

[cherdano]

For the countries on the list prepared by the Obama administration, yes I think it is a good idea to re-vet those green card holders. They are not being "banned", just being asked to come in for a re-qualifying interview. Given that Quebec just experienced another "terrorist" attack from individuals shouting "Allah Akhbar!", don't you think so too?

I was asking about the original policy, not the modified one in place now. The original one said they would not be let back in, unless DHS made an exception.

 

But to answer your question, no I don't think so. Noone in law enforcement working on terrorism asked for this, and there are very good reasonservice for that. Interviewing someone for hours who is not suspected of anything is a waste of resources. What are you gonna ask? Are you planning any terrorist attacks? How is your aunt? When did you stop beating your wife?

[andrei]

Well, it's a start.

 

LOL.

 

You said all Muslims are being targeted, when pointed out that only 12% are, "it's a start".

You must have info from Trump's inner circle. When is the next travel ban coming?

[Zelandakh]

Given that Quebec just experienced another "terrorist" attack from individuals shouting "Allah Akhbar!", don't you think so too?

I would hope that you are aware that those that died in this incident are all Muslims. I would also hope that you are aware that many more Americans have been killed by right-wing groups than those from all 7 of the banned countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen) put together. Indeed the number of American deaths from nationals of these countries in the period I have seen documented (1975-2015) is zero. On the other hand, the 4 countries with the most Jihadi terrorists - Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE - are excluded from the ban. Coincidentally, all of these are also allies.

 

The EO simply does not make sense on any security basis whatsoever. Security-wise, the US would be far better off rounding up those with links to right wing groups. But as has already been pointed out, the EO has nothing to do with security whatsoever. It takes either a very naive or an incredibly stupid person to believe that the two things are linked. Or xenophobia - that would probably work too. The truth is though that none of the groups that support this kind of thing are worth debating with, I applaud Arend and Hrothgar for trying but honestly, you guys are far too clever to be wasting your time with the likes of them. Why bother?

[Zelandakh]

When is the next travel ban coming?

Just as soon as the other Muslim countries stop being important allies of the USA. Give the administration a few months to sour relations enough and they can be added.

 

It was nice of you to admit that the Trump administration is inept and that the EO was only designed to cause misery to Muslims though. What? That was sarcasm? I don't believe it - you have not yet demonstrated a level of intelligence high enough for such an act. :ph34r: :lol:

[cherdano]

LOL.

 

You said all Muslims are being targeted, when pointed out that only 12% are, "it's a start".

You must have info from Trump's inner circle.

Yes I do. And so does everyone else who has access to the Internet.

 

(Google for Giulianis comments if you care to find out. You may also have heard about proposals of a Muslim registry.)

 

Hint: in the US, it is illegal to discriminate based on religion. They thought by relying on a list of countries that were previously listed as concerning (in quite different context), they could target as many Muslims as possible without running afoul of anti-discrimination. Of course, they forgot to tell Giuliani to shut up about it.

[Zelandakh]

On the subject of religious discrimination, does anyone want to defend the position stated by Trump of prioritising Christian refugees over everyone else? I am a little surprised this is not getting even more ire than the travel ban.

[andrei]

Just as soon as the other Muslim countries stop being important allies of the USA. Give the administration a few months to sour relations enough and they can be added.

 

 

(Google for Giulianis comments if you care to find out. You may also have heard about proposals of a Muslim registry.)

 

Then save your rants for later.

[Winstonm]

More on the Bannon White House. The Daily Kos reports the basis of the ban:

 

Mr. Bannon, who believes in highly restrictive immigration policies and saw barring refugees as vital to shoring up Mr. Trump’s political base, was determined to make it happen. He and a small group made up of the president’s closest advisers began working on the order during the transition so that Mr. Trump could sign it soon after taking office.

 

Why would Bannon be so adamantly against Muslims?

 

From his 2014 talk:

 

They have a Twitter account up today, ISIS does, about turning the United States into a “river of blood” if it comes in and tries to defend the city of Baghdad. And trust me, that is going to come to Europe. That is going to come to Central Europe, it’s going to come to Western Europe, it’s going to come to the United Kingdom. And so I think we are in a crisis of the underpinnings of capitalism, and on top of that we’re now, I believe, at the beginning stages of a global war against Islamic fascism

 

So you see, there is an ideology driving this administration, but it is not Donald Trumps vision - it is the vision of Steve Bannon.

[barmar]

Hint: in the US, it is illegal to discriminate based on religion. They thought by relying on a list of countries that were previously listed as concerning (in quite different context), they could target as many Muslims as possible without running afoul of anti-discrimination. Of course, they forgot to tell Giuliani to shut up about it.

Not to mention Trump himself. When he signed this EO, didn't he say that it was intended to protect against radical Islamists?

[ldrews]

You are demanding that the government indemnify its citizens (in advance) for its own policies.

 

 

No, I don't think so. What I am demanding is for those that wish to allow green card holders from the proscribed countries to freely return to the US to indemnify me and the rest of the public against potential terrorist actions from those green card holders. Since you think the risk is negligible there should be no problem in you indemnifying me and the rest of the US public. I do not think the risk is negligible.

 

Since I and many others do not wish to take the risk we prefer to enforce the executive order against green card holders. If you and others wish to have us cooperate with you to allow green card holders from the proscribed countries to return without further vetting, then indemnify us and we will be happy to cooperate. What could be simpler?

[ldrews]

I would hope that you are aware that those that died in this incident are all Muslims. I would also hope that you are aware that many more Americans have been killed by right-wing groups than those from all 7 of the banned countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen) put together. Indeed the number of American deaths from nationals of these countries in the period I have seen documented (1975-2015) is zero. On the other hand, the 4 countries with the most Jihadi terrorists - Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE - are excluded from the ban. Coincidentally, all of these are also allies.

 

The EO simply does not make sense on any security basis whatsoever. Security-wise, the US would be far better off rounding up those with links to right wing groups. But as has already been pointed out, the EO has nothing to do with security whatsoever. It takes either a very naive or an incredibly stupid person to believe that the two things are linked. Or xenophobia - that would probably work too. The truth is though that none of the groups that support this kind of thing are worth debating with, I applaud Arend and Hrothgar for trying but honestly, you guys are far too clever to be wasting your time with the likes of them. Why bother?

 

Well, apparently the Trump administration does not agree with your viewpoint. And the list of proscribed countries was compiled during the Obama administration by the intelligence community as representing danger to the US. Trump is just implementing.

 

Of course I get that your understanding of security concerns and effective responses is clearly superior to the US intelligence services.