Political Violence

[Alan Klein]

And for what it's worth - as a foreigner - I quite easily recognise your DOI.  Actual US citizens have no excuse.

I think that's great, Phil, that you know.  It's also true, whenever they have those man-in-the-street interviews, and the questioner starts asking about politics, the country's history, and things like that, people are awfully ignorant.  It's embarrassing and funny the asinine answers they give.  But I wonder if this isn't true in most countries.  People just don't seem to have the time for what interests us in these forums.   We're into it so we know a lot.  We get the facts  right if not the interpretations of what they mean correct.    We tend to filter according to our belief system.  All these posts.  Who's changed their minds? 

[LesPalenik]

Democracy in action:
Here are some gruesome pictures from the G20 protest scene in Hamburg.  Looks worse than the G20 protests in 2010 in Toronto.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/g-20-newsblog-in-english-protests-as-world-leaders-meet-in-hamburg-a-1156308.html

[Farmer]

I think that's great, Phil, that you know.  It's also true, whenever they have those man-in-the-street interviews, and the questioner starts asking about politics, the country's history, and things like that, people are awfully ignorant.  It's embarrassing and funny the asinine answers they give.  But I wonder if this isn't true in most countries.  People just don't seem to have the time for what interests us in these forums.   We're into it so we know a lot.  We get the facts  right if not the interpretations of what they mean correct.    We tend to filter according to our belief system.  All these posts.  Who's changed their minds?

This wasn't a "ask them in the street" situation, Alan.  It was people going out of their way to respond on Twitter accusing NPR of attacking Trump, when in fact all they were doing was posting the DOI in 140 character chunks (which they've done previously on the 4th).  That they don't recognise one of the seminal documents on modern democracy and western values, one that founded their own nation, is bad enough.  That they think those values are attacks on Trump is pretty much beyond description in terms of the reflection on them and Trump.

But perhaps you hit the nail on the head.  People are awfully ignorant about politics and national history.  Perhaps they should learn before they support a president who is equally ignorant?

[Alan Klein]

This wasn't a "ask them in the street" situation, Alan.  It was people going out of their way to respond on Twitter accusing NPR of attacking Trump, when in fact all they were doing was posting the DOI in 140 character chunks (which they've done previously on the 4th).  That they don't recognise one of the seminal documents on modern democracy and western values, one that founded their own nation, is bad enough.  That they think those values are attacks on Trump is pretty much beyond description in terms of the reflection on them and Trump.

But perhaps you hit the nail on the head.  People are awfully ignorant about politics and national history.  Perhaps they should learn before they support a president who is equally ignorant?

It really gets tiring with people calling Trump ignorant.  You accused Trump of not understanding the constitution when he instituted the travel ban.  You applauded yourselves for being so smart when the lower court and appeals court showed just how unconstitutional his thinking is.  But then he was redeemed 9-0 by the Supreme Court who left most of his travel ban intact.  But you go on and on accusing him of stupidity.  Yet you lack in any kind of humility when you are proven wrong.  There's more than ignorance when you just get the facts wrong.  Being humble enough to admit that maybe, just maybe, you had been wrong is often the character trait that is the most important. 

[Alan Klein]

Democracy in action:
Here are some gruesome pictures from the G20 protest scene in Hamburg.  Looks worse than the G20 protests in 2010 in Toronto.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/g-20-newsblog-in-english-protests-as-world-leaders-meet-in-hamburg-a-1156308.html

I remember back in the 1950's when Soviet inspired attacks on America around the world were pushed.  Nothing new what's happening in Germany.  Here is a newspaper clip when Vice President Nixon under President Eisenhower was attacked by Venezuelans.  Now the people there are rioting against their own president.  Must be karma.
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1958/05/14/page/1/article/first-nixon-riot-pictures

[Alan Klein]

Regarding the newsclip.  I like the one called "Anti-American Riots Spread Around the World"  It explain how the Democrats were opposed to the Republican president sending troops to protect the VP.  Of course, the Republicans in Congress supported such a move.  So in 60 years, nothing much has changed.  It's a good lesson to show that we shouldn't get too excited with things the parties argue about.  It's all politics.  They've always been fighting with one another and will continue to do so.
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1958/05/14/page/1/article/anti-american-riots-spread-around-world

[Farmer]

It really gets tiring with people calling Trump ignorant.  You accused Trump of not understanding the constitution when he instituted the travel ban.  You applauded yourselves for being so smart when the lower court and appeals court showed just how unconstitutional his thinking is.  But then he was redeemed 9-0 by the Supreme Court who left most of his travel ban intact.  But you go on and on accusing him of stupidity.  Yet you lack in any kind of humility when you are proven wrong.  There's more than ignorance when you just get the facts wrong.  Being humble enough to admit that maybe, just maybe, you had been wrong is often the character trait that is the most important.

Again, Alan, you're telling lies at this point.  The SCotUS has not ruled on the constitutionality of any aspects of Trump's EO.  You know this.  It has been explained countless times.  Stop telling lies.

[LesPalenik]

I remember back in the 1950's when Soviet inspired attacks on America around the world were pushed.  Nothing new what's happening in Germany.  Here is a newspaper clip when Vice President Nixon under President Eisenhower was attacked by Venezuelans.  Now the people there are rioting against their own president.  Must be karma.
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1958/05/14/page/1/article/first-nixon-riot-pictures

Yes, what's happening in Germany is nothing new. However, the scale of these "protests" and inflicted damage on buildings, shops, cars, policemen and innocent bystander lives is increasing every year.
According to German press, there were 3,500 disturbers (the bad guys, dressed in black, not peaceful protesters), and 21,000 policemen were engaged so far (plus some army units). When you add the cost of the aftermath cleanup, you could build a good size hospital with all that money.

[Alan Klein]

Again, Alan, you're telling lies at this point.  The SCotUS has not ruled on the constitutionality of any aspects of Trump's EO.  You know this.  It has been explained countless times.  Stop telling lies.

Phil, I realize that when you're stuck with lemons, the best thing is to make lemonade.  But, you're the only person who doesn't think Trump won on his travel ban.  SCOTUS reversed the restraining order of the lower courts.  They allowed Trump to implement his travels ban against 99.9% of the people in those 6 countries.  They cannot get a visa to come to the US.  You're not going to convince anyone that SCOTUS is going to overrule their 9-0 vote when the final ruling is issued.  Good try.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

But, you're the only person who doesn't think Trump won on his travel ban.

You are lying again here. Several others have also pointed out just here on LuLa that SCOTUS has not ruled on the content of the travel ban yet. It looks to me as if you are the only person who does think Trump has won on his travel ban, at least to judge from the sampling of posts on LuLa.

[Farmer]

Alan, the only over ruling SCotUS could do in this matter is decide that the lower court did consider the matter sufficiently in the first place, but that will never happen because they're not required to re-rule on that.  They can consider the matter to the degree required and either support or reject the EO without any effect on their commentary on the lower court.  Or they can send it back to the lower court to show due consideration and then accept the ruling.

You are deliberately making up BS and refusing to understand the detailed explanations that have been given as to what the SCotUS has actually ruled on.  You're a troll, and it's pathetic.

[Alan Klein]

Alan, the only over ruling SCotUS could do in this matter is decide that the lower court did consider the matter sufficiently in the first place, but that will never happen because they're not required to re-rule on that.  They can consider the matter to the degree required and either support or reject the EO without any effect on their commentary on the lower court.  Or they can send it back to the lower court to show due consideration and then accept the ruling.

You are deliberately making up BS and refusing to understand the detailed explanations that have been given as to what the SCotUS has actually ruled on.  You're a troll, and it's pathetic.

Explain that to the 99.9% of the people from those 6 nations who can no longer come to the USA since the SCOTUS ruling. 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Explain that to the 99.9% of the people from those 6 nations who can no longer come to the USA since the SCOTUS ruling.

They know it's a pathetic Muslim ban (excluding Saudi Arabia as real funders of radical Islamism, for short-term monetary gain) and a great recruiting tool for terrorists. Besides, the 90-day higher level of scrutiny for imminent danger should have passed by now, unless the Trump administration has been sitting on its hands, or the ban is plain Muslim/religion-based discrimination. Who's next, Jews, or people with red hair, or photographers, or ...?

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

They know it's a pathetic Muslim ban (excluding Saudi Arabia as real funders of radical Islamism, for short-term monetary gain) and a great recruiting tool for terrorists. Besides, the 90-day higher level of scrutiny for imminent danger should have passed by now, unless the Trump administration has been sitting on its hands, or the ban is plain Muslim/religion-based discrimination. Who's next, Jews, or people with red hair, or photographers, or ...?

Cheers,
Bart

Stop with the liberal "it's a recruiting tool" for the terrorists.  So maybe we shouldn't have bombed German cities during WWII because it was a recruiting tool for the Nazis? Because of Trump and Mattis, our bombing and toughness against Raqqa is about to force out ISIS from their last city stronghold.  No one seems to be giving credit to Trump who said during the election campaign that he intended to destroy ISIS.  Obama did little but talk a lot about toughness.  Trump gets the job done.

Regarding the 90 days, the lower court held up the government from working out the details of the ban.  It wasn't  until June 12 that the Appeals court allowed the government to continue.  Now that the SCOTUS has ruled, Trump has already announce the new procedures for visas for these 6 countries.  Only those with close ties to America will be let in.  So the new procedures are set.

Regarding the Muslim faith, it is true that most of the people in the 6 countries are Muslim.  But that's the point.  So are the terrorists.  But there are many more Muslims in other countries who were not banned.  They were blocked from the 6 nations only because those are failed states or a terrorist state in the case of Iran.  But SCOTUS didn't even address the religious argument that was addressed by the lower court.  SCOTUS assessed that the lower courts had no right to stop the president from banning certain countries and non Americans from entering this country as is his right by congressional legislation.  Religion played no part in the SCOTUS decision. It wasn't even mentioned.   

[Farmer]

SCOTUS assessed that the lower courts had no right to stop the president from banning certain countries and non Americans from entering this country as is his right by congressional legislation.

Lies.  They did no such thing.  Quote anything from the SCotUS that says this at all, or stop telling lies.

[Rob C]

Lies.  They did no such thing.  Quote anything from the SCotUS that says this at all, or stop telling lies.

Look, there comes a time in the heart of every devotee to a cause that the difference between fact and fiction does not exist: belief is all.

Never has this been more clear than in this set of (written!) threads. One can just click on anywhere in the lengthy list and see that nothing has changed one iota. It's religion, baby.

Rob

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Regarding the 90 days, the lower court held up the government from working out the details of the ban.  It wasn't  until June 12 that the Appeals court allowed the government to continue.

That's clearly nonsense. Courts cannot stop the government working on details, they can only judge the legality of final decisions, executive orders, interpretation of laws.

Cheers,
Bart

[jeremyrh]

My feeling is that there are too many people on both sides taking violent positions in social media as well as in more public displays.

When the President of the United States posts videos of himself purportedly showing him physically assaulting journalists, you can bet that the real life violence will soon follow.

[Alan Klein]

That's clearly nonsense. Courts cannot stop the government working on details, they can only judge the legality of final decisions, executive orders, interpretation of laws.

Cheers,
Bart

Your post is clearly nonsense.  Courts can and did in this case stop all executive review.  The lower federal court enjoined the government from undertaking internal executive review of the procedures.  That was not reversed until June 12 by the Appeals Court of the Ninth Circuit as referred to in the SCOTUS decision pg 6.  Here's that paragraph - see the last sentence.  Note that subsequent to the SCOTUS decision of June 26, the government did issue the new procedures within the 20 day period the EO called for.  They are now in the 50 day period (corrected from 70 day) for the nations to be notified of the new rule to give them time to adjust their procedures. 

"...On the same day respondents filed, the Ninth Circuit ruled in Hawaii. ___ F. 3d ___, 2017 WL 2529640 (June 12, 2017) (per curiam). A unanimous panel held in favor of respondents the State of Hawaii and Dr. Ismail Elshikh, an American citizen and imam whose Syrian mother-inlaw is seeking entry to this country. Rather than rely on the constitutional grounds supporting the District Court’sdecision, the court held that portions of EO–2 likely exceeded the President’s authority under the INA. On that basis it upheld the injunction as to the §2(c) entry suspension, the §6(a) suspension of refugee admissions, and the§6(b) refugee cap. The Ninth Circuit, like the Fourth Circuit, concluded that the injunction should bar enforcement of these provisions across the board, because they would violate the INA “in all applications.” Id., at *28. The court did, however, narrow the injunction so that it would not bar the Government from undertaking the internal executive reviews directed by EO–2."

[Alan Klein]

Lies.  They did no such thing.  Quote anything from the SCotUS that says this at all, or stop telling lies.

From page 11 of the SCOTUS decision.  The decision was 9-0.  While three judges wrote a concurring opinion, their opinion was even more restrictive not allowing any foreigners into the country including those with close ties.  Think about this.  Not one of the liberal justices wrote a dissenting opinion. Even Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Breyer agreed.   It was 9-0.  Yet you want us to believe that when the full review process is completed in a few months, that the court is going to reverse what they already acknowledged in their stay of most of the lower court's  injunction. 


From the SCOTUS decision:  (pg 11)  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf

"...But the injunctions reach much further than that: They also bar enforcement of §2(c) against foreign nationals abroad who have no connection to the United States at all. The equities relied on by the lower courts do not balance the same way in that context. Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party’s relationship with the foreign national. And the courts below did not conclude that exclusion in such circumstances would impose any legally relevant hardship on the foreign national himself. See id., at 762 (“[A]n unadmitted and nonresident alien . . . had no constitutional right of entry to this country”). So whatever burdens may result from enforcement of §2(c) against a foreign national who lacks any connection to this country, they are, at a minimum, a good deal less concrete than the hardships identified by the courts below.

At the same time, the Government’s interest in enforcing §2(c), and the Executive’s authority to do so, are undoubtedly at their peak when there is no tie between the foreign national and the United States. Indeed, EO–2 itself distinguishes between foreign nationals who have some connection to this country, and foreign nationals who do not, by establishing a case-by-case waiver system primarily for the benefit of individuals in the former cate- gory. See, e.g., §§3(c)(i)–(vi). The interest in preserving national security is “an urgent objective of the highest order.” Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U. S. 1, 28 (2010). To prevent the Government from pursuing that objective by enforcing §2(c) against foreign nationals unconnected to the United States would appreciably injure its interests, without alleviating obvious hardship to anyone else."