OK, I'm going to go there.

[Alpha Poke]

The side that hates Trump and sees flaws in his actions taken to protect Americans.

The braying jackasses in the street that have no idea how much they're being steered by what they hate - an actual greedy nazi.

 

[Been Jammin]

The side that hates Trump and sees flaws in his actions taken to protect Americans.

You believe that those people want to weaken our borders, and allow terrorists into the country so they can get rich off of the chaos?

 

[squeak]

The evidence supports this.

We will know for sure in 90 days if our screening is acceptable or needs to be improved.

 

[Alpha Poke]

Is it really that hard to see the Muslim immigrant problem show up on our doorstep?

Europe can't take anymore. Where are they going? Not Canada because they're almost all single males 18-25.

 

[Medic007]

Certainly didn't seem too bothered.

What exactly do I have control of? I can and do speak with my vote but we both know that only goes so far in regards to the government. I doubt I'm even aware of all of the methods the government can use to watch my every move and transaction, secret courts and all.

Should I sue because it's becoming a giant pain in the ass to buy ammonium nitrate for my yard? I wrote to my state legislators way back when to tell them that making me feel like a criminal when buying pseudoephedrine won't do anything to curb meth in Oklahoma. I'm a white non-religious male and I can't even get into the OU stadium with anything but the clothes I'm wearing unless I'm on duty.

Outside of voting, there doesn't seem to be much a peeon like me can do about any of it.

 

[Alpha Poke]

You believe that those people want to weaken our borders, and allow terrorists into the country so they can get rich off of the chaos?

No, that's not what I said.

That's cute though you should work for CNN.

Do five minutes research on Soros then maybe you'll see what I'm saying. It's bigger picture than you seem to be able to accept.

 

[Been Jammin]

We will know for sure in 90 days if our screening is acceptable or needs to be improved.

Would the answer to that question be the same with or without the travel ban during the 90 days?

 

[Been Jammin]

No, that's not what I said.

That's cute though you should work for CNN.

Do five minutes research on Soros then maybe you'll see what I'm saying. It's bigger picture than you seem to be able to accept.

Well, let's be clear on something. I didn't accuse you of saying that. Notice the question mark at the end of my sentence? I am asking you if that is what you are saying, because that was my interpretation of your comments. I was thinking, "wow, that is some real tin foil hat level stuff right there", which I found surprising coming from you. If that is not what you were saying, then I'm a little confused.

 

[Medic007]

The evidence supports this.

What evidence? If we're not going to compare apples and oranges, we certainly can't point to our lack of a recent Paris style attack as proof our system works, since that is comparing apples and oranges.

We have a big ocean that separates us from the problem unlike Europe. Europe "opened their borders" and took in millions of refugees. The results for their citizens isn't the model of success in more than one way, at least not according to US values. I don't want any part of it repeated in the US ever.

So what is our vetting process and how do we know it's working? Take Obama's word for it? Iraqi refugee/combatants made it into the US previously. What besides politics and inconvenience are the downsides of a new administration pausing things to review the process? At this point the optics of a botched rollout are under the umbrella of politics.

 

[Medic007]

Would the answer to that question be the same with or without the travel ban during the 90 days?

Can't be predicted, so why take a chance?

 

[Been Jammin]

Can't be predicted, so why take a chance?

Wait. The question is, "Is our current vetting weak enough to make it easy for terrorists to get into our country"? Are you telling me that the answer to that question might be different 90 days from now with the travel band as to opposed to 90 days from now without the ban?

Surely, you don't think the 90 day ban is going to change the answer to the question.

 

[squeak]

Would the answer to that question be the same with or without the travel ban during the 90 days?

Yes.

Then why have the ban?

Because trump assumes the screening is not acceptable now.

But no terrorists from those states have blown up a building in the US or done something crazy.

Obama labeled those states.



We could go on and on and on. Personally I don't want any refugees.

 

[Been Jammin]

We could go on and on and on. Personally I don't want any refugees.

And therein lies the crux of the issue. At least we are now to the point that we are calling what it is.

 

[squeak]

And therein lies the crux of the issue. At least we are now to the point that we are calling what it is.

I'm not the President.

 

[Medic007]

And therein lies the crux of the issue. At least we are now to the point that we are calling what it is.

"We" as in the collective conversants? If that's your belief, there is zero reason for me to keep posting in a 5 page thread.

 

[Medic007]

Are you telling me that the answer to that question might be different 90 days from now with the travel band as to opposed to 90 days from now without the ban?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm telling you. The same guy has been in office for 8 years. A new guy was sworn into office on Jan 20. The new guy pledged during his campaign to temporarily suspend visas and refugees from 7 countries and took that action quickly as promised. He's done nothing different than every President before him in regards to suspending, revoking, and changing the policies of the previous administration.

 

[Been Jammin]

"We" as in the collective conversants? If that's your belief, there is zero reason for me to keep posting in a 5 page thread.

Not necessarily you. Just pointing out that there are a lot of people in this country who are anti-refugee, but are couching their argument as "We have a huge terrorism issue".

 

[Been Jammin]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm telling you. The same guy has been in office for 8 years. A new guy was sworn into office on Jan 20. The new guy pledged during his campaign to temporarily suspend visas and refugees from 7 countries and took that action quickly as promised. He's done nothing different than every President before him in regards to suspending, revoking, and changing the policies of the previous administration.

So, how does the 90 day ban affect our current vetting procedures one way or another? Maybe I am missing something here.

 

[Medic007]

So, how does the 90 day ban affect our current vetting procedures one way or another? Maybe I am missing something here.

It pauses the vetting for 90 days while the process of vetting is reviewed.

 

[CBradSmith]

"We" as in the collective conversants? If that's your belief, there is zero reason for me to keep posting in a 5 page thread.

He appears to be"debating" from a mind made-up point of view.

 

[CBradSmith]

Not necessarily you. Just pointing out that there are a lot of people in this country who are anti-refugee, but are couching their argument as "We have a huge terrorism issue".

@squeak Are you racist?

 

[Been Jammin]

It pauses the vetting for 90 days while the process of vetting is reviewed.

OK, but if we spent 90 days reviewing the vetting, without the ban, would the findings not be the same after the 90 days review period? Isn't it possible to study the vetting without the ban?

What about people entering the country from the other 180+ countries in the world?. They are still being vetted, right? So, we are not pausing vetting for 90 days.

I'm just saying that the ban is separate from the process of evaluation of the vetting process. They are somewhat related, but are independent of each other.

 

[Medic007]

Not necessarily you. Just pointing out that there are a lot of people in this country who are anti-refugee, but are couching their argument as "We have a huge terrorism issue".

Well I'm in the camp that we HAVE to take refugees because our country f*cked up a LOT in the past 16 years. But we also have to take every single action necessary to make sure terrorists aren't brought here. An evaluation of the current system is simply just part of that.

 

[Been Jammin]

@squeak Are you racist?

If he was, I doubt he would say yes. With that said, being opposed to refugees does not make one a racist, necessarily. I hope you don't think I was implying that he is.

 

[Been Jammin]

Well I'm in the camp that we HAVE to take refugees because our country f*cked up a LOT in the past 16 years. But we also have to take every single action necessary to make sure terrorists aren't brought here. An evaluation of the current system is simply just part of that.

100% agree with this.

 

[Been Jammin]

He appears to be"debating" from a mind made-up point of view.

Aren't we all?

 

[MegaPoke]

You believe that those people want to weaken our borders, and allow terrorists into the country so they can get rich off of the chaos?

Destabilization not just a profit motive. It's necessary to undermine the republic. The US is a very inconvenient entity for globalists.

 

[Been Jammin]

Well I'm in the camp that we HAVE to take refugees because our country f*cked up a LOT in the past 16 years. But we also have to take every single action necessary to make sure terrorists aren't brought here. An evaluation of the current system is simply just part of that.

I would add that we HAVE to take refugees because it is the right thing to do, and is ultimately in the best interest of our country. If we become isolationalist, it is only going to make the rest of the world hate us more than they already do. Eventually, we will have no allies willing to fight alongside us, and the number of terrorists who want to find a way into the country will multiply exponentially. In addition, many of the brightest minds in the world will migrate to countries other than the U.S. and we will fall behind technologically and economically.

 

[Medic007]

OK, but if we spent 90 days reviewing the vetting, without the ban, would the findings not be the same after the 90 days review period? Isn't it possible to study the vetting without the ban?

What about people entering the country from the other 180+ countries in the world?. They are still being vetted, right? So, we are not pausing vetting for 90 days.

I'm just saying that the ban is separate from the process of evaluation of the vetting process. They are somewhat related, but are independent of each other.

In how many of those other 180+ countries does ISIS have their own state, lack anything resembling a central government, or have a government publicly shouting "Death to America!?"

The 90 day ban simply stops any terrorists from coming to the US while the new administration reviews the current process.

I'll ask this of you. If there wasn't a ban, and the findings after review are that the current process has glaring weaknesses that have to be corrected, what can we go back and do to mitigate the issues the 90 days without the ban may bring? Or do we just shrug our shoulders and say "Oh well, at least we didn't inconvenience anyone." Time travel is not an option.

 

[CBradSmith]

If he was, I doubt he would say yes. With that said, being opposed to refugees does not make one a racist, necessarily. I hope you don't think I was implying that he is.

Stirring the pot.

"He's a racist" is a knee-jerk reaction for many who don't agree with a position simply due to differing values.

In that way it's similar to loose allusions to Hitler said with a straight face.

 

[Medic007]

I would add that we HAVE to take refugees because it is the right thing to do, and is ultimately in the best interest of our country. If we become isolationalist, it is only going to make the rest of the world hate us more than they already do. Eventually, we will have no allies willing to fight alongside us, and the number of terrorists who want to find a way into the country will multiply exponentially. In addition, many of the brightest minds in the world will migrate to countries other than the U.S. and we will fall behind technologically and economically.

I don't agree with all of that but who cares. It's the right thing to do because of our serious foreign policy f*ckups during the last 16 years. We owe it to the people because our unrelenting thirst for regime changes has made life a living hell for quite a few folks that had the opposite of that before we screwed them over.

 

[CowboyJD]

Aren't we all?

No.

 

[CowboyJD]

It pauses the vetting for 90 days while the process of vetting is reviewed.

Which I personally have no problem with.

My objections to the EO was the revocation/suspension of immigration from green card and visa holders that had already been vetted and approved with the stroke of a pen.

That is being addressed in the courts now, and I'm good with that.

Just my $.02 for the day on this topic.

 

[Been Jammin]

In how many of those other 180+ countries does ISIS have their own state, lack anything resembling a central government, or have a government publicly shouting "Death to America!?"

The 90 day ban simply stops any terrorists from coming to the US while the new administration reviews the current process.

I'll ask this of you. If there wasn't a ban, and the findings after review are that the current process has glaring weaknesses that have to be corrected, what can we go back and do to mitigate the issues the 90 days without the ban may bring? Or do we just shrug our shoulders and say "Oh well, at least we didn't inconvenience anyone." Time travel is not an option.

Now we are getting somewhere. This is the most cogent, logical argument in this thread (other than some of mine, but I am biased ).

As I have said, it doesn't make sense to me that we have glaring weaknesses, currently. Of course, the president wants us all to believe that we have something akin to no vetting, and terrorists are "pouring in" daily. I admit, that I know nothing about our vetting processes, so maybe he is more right than I am. Maybe.

Ultimately, I don't have a problem with the ban if he had just taken the time to roll it out in less of a cluster-**** manner. Like figured out a way to prevent it from causing problems for U.S. citizens returning from those 7 countries. And preventing it from causing problems for people who have green cards, student visas, work visas, etc (and have already been through the vetting process. Iron out the kinks. Make sure the airlines understand how it is going to work. Make sure the DOJ and HS employees, on the front lines, know how it is going to work.

But, your overall point is fair, and I admit that I may well be eating crow in about 90 days.

 

[Alpha Poke]

I don't think we owe the world crap. I think a very few people shoulder that responsibility and it isn't the schmucks that pay for it like us. So I don't get the collective guilt there. Fool me once.

 

[CBradSmith]

Aren't we all?

Well, some are more persuadable than others.

And some people's inability to be persuaded means that the "points" they put forward in support of their own position aren't always on the up-and-up when they sense that their "case" is being flanked by one supported by superior evidence (or a better presentation of evidence).

In the end, all this debate seems to attribute intent. The reality is that it is premature to discern intent. Actions have taken place, but not enough to discern intent...and certainly not enough to derive motive.

What's left? Either operate from a place of extending the benefit of the doubt that actions will ultimately be shown to align with words (stated intent and/or motivations) or an attempt to read the sparse data and forecast. By doing the latter, one can abandon good faith and supplant it with a projection, one that ultimately reinforces personal desires/motivations.

Medic and I may not align on a lot of policy, but I respect the hell out of the wisdom he exhibits in a slow and steady consumption of reality along with the application of sufficient filters to aid in discerning what is real and what isn't. I respect the hell out of ANYBODY that does that.

Trump's consistent actions will ultimately inform us all if he's doing right by people or not. Obviously, each of us will interpret "right" by our own set of values.

 

[Been Jammin]

@CBradSmith I liked your post, but wanted to like it twice, so consider this a 2nd like.

 

[CBradSmith]

Ultimately, I don't have a problem with the ban if he had just taken the time to roll it out in less of a cluster-**** manner. Like figured out a way to prevent it from causing problems for U.S. citizens returning from those 7 countries. And preventing it from causing problems for people who have green cards, student visas, work visas, etc (and have already been through the vetting process. Iron out the kinks. Make sure the airlines understand how it is going to work. Make sure the DOJ and HS employees, on the front lines, know how it is going to work.

I read this to mean that your true beef (and JDs) is with execution.

In that case, that is fair criticism. Though where a debate may be fruitful is in determining whether when an EO is issued, for example, do you start your "negotiating position" purposefully far in one direction knowing checks and balances will brush that position back to an appropriate place?

And is this not especially true in matters which ultimately require legislative debate?

 

[Been Jammin]

I read this to mean that your true beef (and JDs) is with execution.

In that case, that is fair criticism. Though where a debate may be fruitful is in determining whether when an EO is issued, for example, do you start your "negotiating position" purposefully far in one direction knowing checks and balances will brush that position back to an appropriate place?

And is this not especially true in matters which ultimately require legislative debate?

Makes sense. Maybe he (and his advisers) are playing chess, while I feel like they are playing checkers. As I have said multiple times ITT, it just looks like he signed it prematurely. I find it hard to believe that he would have inconvenienced US citizens and Visa holders, traveling from those countries, as part of his strategy.

 

[CowboyJD]

I read this to mean that your true beef (and JDs) is with execution.

In that case, that is fair criticism. Though where a debate may be fruitful is in determining whether when an EO is issued, for example, do you start your "negotiating position" purposefully far in one direction knowing checks and balances will brush that position back to an appropriate place?

And is this not especially true in matters which ultimately require legislative debate?

My "true beef" is not with execution. It's with the substantive decision to apply it to present green card holders and visa holders.....which I understand they are at least in part continuing to defend in court.

As for the discussion of issuing an EO purposefully far in one direction....to the point of (IMO) being unlawful...as a "negotiating position" to be left up to the checks and balances of the court is something that never should be done. Our officials should not be issuing unlawful EOs with an eye to negotiating back to lawfulness when checked by the courts. Doing that raises huge issues and concerns to me.