President Donald Trump

[Hornsby]

This may be one of the funniest articles ever written if it weren't for the fact that it's so damn scary in scope. Two "unnamed" senior White House officials actually hold a press conference with media explaining "“It really is a massive success story in terms of implementation on every single level”. Really? This is what the WH calls a "Massive Success Story"? Alternative facts anyone?

Two days into President Trump's new ban on refugees, migrants and foreign nationals from seven countries, there was still
mass confusion about the details. On Sunday evening, the White House organized a briefing for reporters with two senior
administration officials who agreed to explain the president's executive order — but only on the condition of anonymity.

One senior administration official explained the ground rules to reporters gathered at the White House and listening on a
conference call, then said: “With that, I'll turn it over to a senior administration official.”
“Thank you,” the other senior administration official said before beginning a 45%minute defense.


Their overarching message: Everything is going exactly according to plan, nothing has changed since the order was signed, and
the news media need to calm down their “false, misleading, inaccurate, hyperventilating” coverage of the “fractional, marginal,
minuscule percentage” of international travelers who have been simply “set aside for further questioning” for a couple hours
on their way into the greatest country in the world.

“It really is a massive success story in terms of implementation on every single level,” the administration official said at one
point.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/01/29/unnamed-white-house-official-on-implementing-travel-ban-it-really-is-a-massive-success-story/?utm_term=.e916c07528f9

[Teenwolf]

Islamic terror is a speck on a flea on a donkey's ass of the US domestic terror conundrum... All the numbers make this clear.

Questions for Trump supporters:

Do you think this is what winning "The War On Terror" looks like? Not a single person has died in any of the attacks perpetrated in the United States by terrorists from the seven blocked countries since 2001! Cowering in fear from Muslim countries, when you have magnitudes more people dying from preventable gun deaths you refuse to even look at changing? This is winning? Sure looks pathetic, to me.

You think this is creating more terrorists, or less? You think that the celebration of the Muslim Jihadis we're now hearing about is all just a show? Or a widespread lie from the liberal left media? Trump is purposefully creating more terrorists. As he has said in the past "war is a beautiful thing".

[TranaGreg]

So throwing shit against the wall and then cleaning up the splatters afterwards is going to to be this administration's motis operandi?

I read a blog on the weekend from a legal perspective making the point that there's no way that this executive order was vetted or reviewed by any legal counsel ... it uses all kinds of phrases & terminology (such as "entry") which have no legal definition (and that any junior counsel would have caught).

[Moonlight J]

I read a blog on the weekend from a legal perspective making the point that there's no way that this executive order was vetted or reviewed by any legal counsel ... it uses all kinds of phrases & terminology (such as "entry") which have no legal definition (and that any junior counsel would have caught).

It wasn't. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/u...haos.html?_r=0

"As President Trump signed a sweeping executive order on Friday, shutting the borders to refugees and others from seven largely Muslim countries, the secretary of homeland security was on a White House conference call getting his first full briefing on the global shift in policy.Gen. John F. Kelly, the secretary of homeland security, had dialed in from a Coast Guard plane as he headed back to Washington from Miami. Along with other top officials, he needed guidance from the White House, which had not asked his department for a legal review of the order.
Halfway into the briefing, someone on the call looked up at a television in his office. “The president is signing the executive order that we’re discussing,” the official said, stunned."

[Bernie Brewer]

Islamic terror is a speck on a flea on a donkey's ass of the US domestic terror conundrum... All the numbers make this clear.

Questions for Trump supporters:

Do you think this is what winning "The War On Terror" looks like? Not a single person has died in any of the attacks perpetrated in the United States by terrorists from the seven blocked countries since 2001! Cowering in fear from Muslim countries, when you have magnitudes more people dying from preventable gun deaths you refuse to even look at changing? This is winning? Sure looks pathetic, to me.

You think this is creating more terrorists, or less? You think that the celebration of the Muslim Jihadis we're now hearing about is all just a show? Or a widespread lie from the liberal left media? Trump is purposefully creating more terrorists. As he has said in the past "war is a beautiful thing".

First, I am NOT a Trump supporter. That said, I am Conservative and would typically identify as a Republican. I did not vote for him and was embarrassed that he was the "best" the GOP could muster. I have no interest in defending his actions thus far nor do I wish to be starting a flame war on this thread with anyone. I am honestly asking these questions and though it may seem naive, I assure you that my interest is genuine.

I keep reading and hearing variations of the question/comment highlighted above that these types of actions cause more to join ISIS or radical movements to take up arms against the US. Though Teenwolf is asking it as a question, his final sentence leads me to believe it is more of a conclusion. My questions:

1. What is the evidence that these types actions really cause people to join ISIS or the jihad against the western world?

2. Why is this Ban different than the one President Obama issued in 2011, given the seven countries listed are the same. Were people outraged then by the omission of the four countries that contributed jihadists to 9/11? I really don't recall.

3. Did Obama's ban cause an increase in recruiting for Jihad or al Qaeda since it was prior to ISIS, or did it lead to ISIS being formed from the remnants of al Qaeda.

[TranaGreg]

I'll take a shot at #2 (your statement re: the seven countries being the same is wrong - see below).

-This ban is a general ban impacting the 7 countries; it is not clear what specifically motivated it. The 2011 ban was implemented against one country (Iraq) as a result of a specific incident (“Several dozen suspected terrorist bombmakers, including some believed to have targeted American troops, may have mistakenly been allowed to move to the United States as war refugees.”).
-This ban affects anyone from going to the US from the identified countries for 90 days; the 2011 ban affected Iraqi refugees only ( the temporary halt on the process did not affect green card holders, anyone with a visa, or any refugees who had already gone through the vetting process).
-This ban was communicated via public media and effective immediately, with less-than-clear instructions (that's being kind) re: how it should be implemented; the 2011 ban was not initially announced via the media, allowing time to develop operating protocols for immigration officials.
-In addition, there has been reference to prioritizing minority religions from these countries once the ban is lifted (I'm not sure if this was part of the EO or not); once the 2011 ban ended the new processes made no reference to religion.

re: #1 - I'm not sure but I suspect that there's probably a similar amount of evidence that indicates that this EO will help to make the US safer.

And I don't think anyone can reasonably answer your question #3.

edit: re: #1, while I didn't (and don't) think any of us know enough to speak to the impact on extremist group's "membership drives", this guy might - former CIA director (from the Bush admin) ...

Former CIA director Michael V. Hayden said that the order and other possible measures have probably forced U.S. diplomats, military commanders and agency station chiefs abroad into damage-control mode.

“We’ve got good people who will work hard at it, but there is no question that this has already created an irretrievable cost,” Hayden said. The refu%gee order “inarguably has made us less safe. It has taken draconian measures against a threat that was hyped. The byproduct is it feeds the Islamic militant narrative and makes it harder for our allies to side with us.”

[Bernie Brewer]

I'll take a shot at #2 (your statement re: the seven countries being the same is wrong - see below).

-This ban is a general ban impacting the 7 countries; it is not clear what specifically motivated it. The 2011 ban was implemented against one country (Iraq) as a result of a specific incident (“Several dozen suspected terrorist bombmakers, including some believed to have targeted American troops, may have mistakenly been allowed to move to the United States as war refugees.”).
-This ban affects anyone from going to the US from the identified countries for 90 days; the 2011 ban affected Iraqi refugees only ( the temporary halt on the process did not affect green card holders, anyone with a visa, or any refugees who had already gone through the vetting process).
-This ban was communicated via public media and effective immediately, with less-than-clear instructions (that's being kind) re: how it should be implemented; the 2011 ban was not initially announced via the media, allowing time to develop operating protocols for immigration officials.
-In addition, there has been reference to prioritizing minority religions from these countries once the ban is lifted (I'm not sure if this was part of the EO or not); once the 2011 ban ended the new processes made no reference to religion.

re: #1 - I'm not sure but I suspect that there's probably a similar amount of evidence that indicates that this EO will help to make the US safer.

And I don't think anyone can reasonably answer your question #3.

Thanks for the very reasoned response. I keep hearing and reading the same 7 countries thing and I either wasn't paying attention then or age is causing me to not remember. In either case, it seems that this comparison then could also be considered as fake news by comparing the two events then. then. Fair? But, why would networks like CNN keep reporting this without much follow up.

[cardboardbox]

Thanks for the very reasoned response. I keep hearing and reading the same 7 countries thing and I either wasn't paying attention then or age is causing me to not remember. In either case, it seems that this comparison then could also be considered as fake news by comparing the two events then. then. Fair? But, why would networks like CNN keep reporting this without much follow up.

I think you're hearing that obama had listed those same 7 countries as sponsors of terrorism.

[cardboardbox]

SCOTUS pick tmw. Probably will be Hardiman or Gorsuch.

[cardboardbox]

With Trump prepared to announce his nominee on Tuesday evening, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said in an interview on Monday morning that he will filibuster any pick that is not Merrick Garland and that the vast majority of his caucus will oppose Trump’s nomination. That means Trump's nominee will need 60 votes to be confirmed by the Senate.

“This is a stolen seat. This is the first time a Senate majority has stolen a seat,” Merkley said in an interview. “We will use every lever in our power to stop this.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-democrats-filibuster-supreme-court-pick-234368

Hell, if the filibuster is coming anyway dont nominate a possible squishy judge like Hardiman.

[Redbirds Fan]

SCOTUS pick tmw. Probably will be Hardiman or Gorsuch.

God help us.

So long as it isn't Pryor. I think Gorsuch would be better than Hardiman, but only as the lesser of two evils.

That's the thing about providing an early list of 20+ bad candidates, at least a half dozen of which had not a day's experience as a judge. The bar then becomes so low that people actually debate with a straight face whether one of these guys would be good, when the real answer is that they were put on the list because they are undistinguished idealogues with no real judicial chops, so it doesn't really matter which one you pick. The 'winner' will be confirmed. When you look at all the top notch conservative judicial minds in the country who could have been on this list, and you see this group, it makes you, well, sad.

The only reason I like Gorsuch the best is that, based upon his background, there is a slight chance that once he hits the Court he could spit the bit and decide to become a little more independent than expected. It has happened before.

[Redbirds Fan]

Shape of things to come...

Six months to plan it, and they couldn't get a two-page Executive Order on banning Muslims right. Either too vain or too afraid to have it vetted by attorneys before they put it out.

Bannon has clearly become the Svengali here...drafting these EOs, worming his way onto the Security Council. One source said he has already become the most powerful VP in history. I don't think the President realizes that Bannon is playing with house money and has nothing to lose. He can burn the whole thing down, walk away, and will have served his own agenda quite well.

Bannon is the person who should scare the GOP most.

[Hornsby]

Shape of things to come...

Six months to plan it, and they couldn't get a two-page Executive Order on banning Muslims right. Either too vain or too afraid to have it vetted by attorneys before they put it out.

Bannon has clearly become the Svengali here...drafting these EOs, worming his way onto the Security Council. One source said he has already become the most powerful VP in history. I don't think the President realizes that Bannon is playing with house money and has nothing to lose. He can burn the whole thing down, walk away, and will have served his own agenda quite well.

Bannon is the person who should scare the GOP most.

To your point...article was written August 22nd of last year.

Then we had a long talk about his approach to politics. He never called himself a “populist” or an “American nationalist,” as so many think of him today. “I’m a Leninist,” Bannon proudly proclaimed.

Shocked, I asked him what he meant.

“Lenin,” he answered, “wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.” Bannon was employing Lenin’s strategy for Tea Party populist goals. He included in that group the Republican and Democratic Parties, as well as the traditional conservative press.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/22/steve-bannon-trump-s-top-guy-told-me-he-was-a-leninist.html

[Redbirds Fan]

Spicer, just now, on SCOTUS: "The President has the right to have his nominee taken up." Apparently, this is a recently discovered right.

He also explained that the whole Muslim ban thing was "blown out of proportion" and constituted just an "inconvenience" to those detained. He said that entering our country is a "privilege" and not a "right". While I agree with that statement as a general rule, I'm not sure that is how the green cards work. Driving a car is a privilege, but once you get a license it becomes a right, provided you follow the rules. Anyone know anything about the green cards these detainees held?

Katie Tur just casually used the word "truncated". I love her so much.

[Pogues]

I read a blog on the weekend from a legal perspective making the point that there's no way that this executive order was vetted or reviewed by any legal counsel ... it uses all kinds of phrases & terminology (such as "entry") which have no legal definition (and that any junior counsel would have caught).

On the plus side I could read it and understand it!