Trump II

[Schewe]

But he was right and you were wrong about it's constitutionality.   

I think you are confused...

Kindly point to any post where I said the travel ban was unconstitutional.

I'm pretty sure I never said that...I'm pretty sure I said something about the fact that the first travel ban was so poorly written and implemented and that it was a terrible idea and would be used by radical jihadists as a recruitment tool...but I'm pretty sure I never said it was unconstitutional.

[pegelli]

It seems Trump knew more about the US Constitution then many people here.

I think the only conclusion can be that Trump did get some advisors the second time that wrote something that for the time being seems to be upheld after a considerable struggle.
 Anything more is just a plain overstatement.

[Alan Klein]

I think the only conclusion can be that Trump did get some advisors the second time that wrote something that for the time being seems to be upheld after a considerable struggle.
 Anything more is just a plain overstatement.

The Supreme Court ruled in Trump's favor 9-0.

[Farmer]

No. They. Did. Not.  For crying out loud, Alan.  Stop telling lies.

[pegelli]

The Supreme Court ruled in Trump's favor 9-0.

Only that he has the power to make a rule, not that the rule itself is right. They even restricted the rule to some extent so it's not even a full "win". The full verdict is still to come in a couple of month's. But you already knew that, but I understand it feels good to keep repeating yourself

Also having to go to the surpreme court indicates it hasn't been an easy and quick ride.

[Alan Klein]

Only that he has the power to make a rule, not that the rule itself is right. They even restricted the rule to some extent so it's not even a full "win". The full verdict is still to come in a couple of month's. But you already knew that, but I understand it feels good to keep repeating yourself

Also having to go to the surpreme court indicates it hasn't been an easy and quick ride.

You don't believe SCOTUS will reverse themselves, do you?  They were very clear that the lower courts' ruling to block Trump was a bridge too far and allowed him to proceed with 99.9% of his plan.  Sure, it was not an ""easy and quick ride".  But the process affirmed that he has been acting legally.  Supreme Court decisions, which are normally respected even if you lose,  are very important in our society because it stops arguments and reduces the animal instincts of the people to rebel and blow up things.  I'm sure it's the same in your country.  We need a way of settling things without killing each other and go on in life. 

[pegelli]

You don't believe SCOTUS will reverse themselves, do you? 

Time will tell, but saying that now they ruled 9-0 in his favour on the actual content of the rule is simply far besides the truth.
And if you're so sure they will not reverse and grant him the content they will most probably also not reverse the restrictions they put on it, so in their eyes it wasn't fully legally justified.

[Alan Klein]

Time will tell, but saying that now they ruled 9-0 in his favour on the actual content of the rule is simply far besides the truth.
And if you're so sure they will not reverse and grant him the content they will most probably also not reverse the restrictions they put on it, so in their eyes it wasn't fully legally justified.

Nice try.  The ban blocks 99.9% of the people who have no relations with America or Americans.  If there are terrorists, they will come from the 99.9% group not the 0.1% of the people who do have relations.  The latter "relationship"  group have been pretty much vetted anyway since they have a job in America, or have been accepted by a university or have family in the country already.  There's a paper trail. 

It's the 99.9% who we can't easily vet that is the reason the ban was instituted.  There's no paper trail on these people.  These 6 states do not allow a reliable way to vet.  5 of them are failed states.  How do you check government records if there are none?  The other, Iran, is on America's list of terrorist states.

[pegelli]

Nice try.  The ban blocks 99.9% of the people who have no relations with America or Americans.  If there are terrorists, they will come from the 99.9% group not the 0.1% of the people who do have relations.  The latter "relationship"  group have been pretty much vetted anyway since they have a job in America, or have been accepted by a university or have family in the country already.  There's a paper trail. 

It's the 99.9% who we can't easily vet that is the reason the ban was instituted.  There's no paper trail on these people.  These 6 states do not allow a reliable way to vet.  5 of them are failed states.  How do you check government records if there are none?  The other, Iran, is on America's list of terrorist states.

Obviously only a small number of people without "relations" will come to the US anyway, so claiming these very high percentages is meaningless and a pyrrhic victory.
The point is the Surpreme Court
-1- Did not yet rule on the "content", despite your wishful thinking
-2- It did find a problem with the rule that they already corrected, so it wasn't as spanky clean as some claimed

[Alan Klein]

Obviously only a small number of people without "relations" will come to the US anyway, so claiming these very high percentages is meaningless and a pyrrhic victory.
The point is the Surpreme Court
-1- Did not yet rule on the "content", despite your wishful thinking
-2- It did find a problem with the rule that they already corrected, so it wasn't as spanky clean as some claimed

I never said it was "spanky clean".  And it's very possible the SCOTUS will tweak it even further, especially regarding who makes up "close family members". 

But it was not a "pyrrhic" victory.   Your argument that only a small number would try to come in is just a diversion to try to diminish the all encompassing block of the ban.

The ban blocks 99.9% of people who cannot be vetted which is ALL the people who do not have relationship to America.   It's from the 99.9% group where the concern is that a terrorist may  try to sneak in.   

[pegelli]

I never said it was "spanky clean".  And it's very possible the SCOTUS will tweak it even further, especially regarding who makes up "close family members". 

But it was not a "pyrrhic" victory.   Your argument that only a small number would try to come in is just a diversion to try to diminish the all encompassing block of the ban.

The ban blocks 99.9% of people who cannot be vetted which is ALL the people who do not have relationship to America.   It's from the 99.9% group where the concern is that a terrorist may  try to sneak in.   

Alan, I'm not trying to diminish the ban, just putting it in perspective. 

[Alan Klein]

Alan, I'm not trying to diminish the ban, just putting it in perspective. 

Well now that the appeals court has kicked the can back up to SCOTUS, we will get a final review and decision regarding the whole thing.  My guess is it'll stay as is except they might let the grandmother in. How could anyone be against grandmothers? 

[pegelli]

My guess is it'll stay as is except they might let the grandmother in. How could anyone be against grandmothers? 

How about the grandsons? 

[Alan Klein]

How about the grandsons? 

Oh no.  Those are the dangerous ones. 

[Alan Klein]

I see the Netherlands was the only country to oppose banning nuclear weapons.  You guys are pretty dangerous.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-us-skip-vote-treaty-banning-nuclear-weapons/

[Schewe]

I see the Netherlands was the only country to oppose banning nuclear weapons.  You guys are pretty dangerous.

Hum did you bother to read why?

"The Netherlands deputy U.N. ambassador Lise Gregoire-Van-Haaren told delegates her country couldn't vote for a treaty that went against its NATO obligations, had inadequate verification provisions or that undermined the NPT - and "this draft does not meet our criteria."

So they were honoring their NATO obligations... and that's a bad thing?

[Alan Klein]

Hum did you bother to read why?

"The Netherlands deputy U.N. ambassador Lise Gregoire-Van-Haaren told delegates her country couldn't vote for a treaty that went against its NATO obligations, had inadequate verification provisions or that undermined the NPT - and "this draft does not meet our criteria."

So they were honoring their NATO obligations... and that's a bad thing?

I was making a joke. 

[Robert Roaldi]

I see Ivanka is straightening those G20 guys out. I guess she needed something to do while Jared fixes the Middle East.

[Alan Klein]

 She's being groomed for future political office
  It'll all look good on her resume.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Hum did you bother to read why?

"The Netherlands deputy U.N. ambassador Lise Gregoire-Van-Haaren told delegates her country couldn't vote for a treaty that went against its NATO obligations, had inadequate verification provisions or that undermined the NPT - and "this draft does not meet our criteria."

So they were honoring their NATO obligations... and that's a bad thing?

Correct, we are hosting a number of nuclear warheads for the USA on our military airfields (I won't disclose where, but most of us in the Netherlands all know where). You know, closer to the potential target, means quicker response times to protect the USA.

What Alan's joke also suggests, is the total ignorance about what the NATO partners are doing to protect American interests. Hence the brainless remarks about the USA pulling back support if the European partners do not spend enough (or waste equal amounts on defense as the USA does).

We are not allowed to deploy them ourselves, so they offer no deterrent protection to us (besides the Article 5 pledge that an attack on Any NATO member state is an attack on All), but only benefit the USA as a now unreliable partner for us, despite shared objectives.

Since we stock them on our soil, we cannot sign an agreement that prohibits us from stationing nuclear weapons on our soil.

Cheers,
Bart