(03-16-2017 12:56 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 12:44 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  you need to educate yourself on the vetting process

How does it help the discussion for you to pretend that you know everything and that I know nothing?


Just state your argument, without all the high horse crap.

You must be new here.

(03-16-2017 11:40 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 11:22 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  How do we vet someone from Somalia.

The same that we vet any person trying to resettle in the country -- they go through years of interviews with like nine different agencies.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Oh believe me, I know what this place is.

It's their den. Conservative Club Med.

With a very welcoming flavor to fringes like the Alt-Right, far libertarians (anarcho-capitalists), and out and out racists.

(03-16-2017 01:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Oh believe me, I know what this place is.

It's their den. Conservative Club Med.

With a very welcoming flavor to fringes like the Alt-Right, far libertarians (anarcho-capitalists), and out and out racists.

...and here you are, the resident communist, and we engage with you. You haven't been blindfolded and marched to the wall yet. No?

(03-16-2017 01:03 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 01:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Oh believe me, I know what this place is.

It's their den. Conservative Club Med.

With a very welcoming flavor to fringes like the Alt-Right, far libertarians (anarcho-capitalists), and out and out racists.

...and here you are, the resident communist, and we engage with you. You haven't been blindfolded and marched to the wall yet. No?

Yep, Bison fits right in here.

(03-16-2017 01:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Oh believe me, I know what this place is.

It's their den. Conservative Club Med.

With a very welcoming flavor to fringes like the Alt-Right, far libertarians (anarcho-capitalists), and out and out racists.

How many out-of-country background checks have you run?

I'll go out on a limb here and say that you think that background checks on American gun purchasers aren't reliable enough.

(03-16-2017 01:10 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  How many out-of-country background checks have you run?

Doesn't mean that I'm not allowed to hold the viewpoint that the judges injunction on the second Muslin ban is correct.

(03-16-2017 01:17 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 01:10 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  How many out-of-country background checks have you run?

Doesn't mean that I'm not allowed to hold the viewpoint that the judges injunction on the second Muslin ban is correct.

It's only "correct" because you're importing a new underclass. Mission accomplished.
You couldn't give a rat's ass about our ability to accurately vet these folks.

(03-16-2017 12:56 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 12:44 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  you need to educate yourself on the vetting process

How does it help the discussion for you to pretend that you know everything and that I know nothing?


Just state your argument, without all the high horse crap.


Or do I need to pull out the My Cousin Vinny scene? "Sustained! Counselor's entire opening statement, with the exception of thank you, will be stricken from the record."

It's not my job to educate you on something you have implied that you have knowledge of.

But here's a hint.....we do extensive background checks and that requires the assistance of the originating country. Without said assistance the background check simply cannot be completed.

This isn't Hollywood where the federal government has an extensive database of every citizen of the world. Hell, despite what the tin foil hat folks think the federal government doesn't have an extensive database of it's own citizens. If they have to do field interviews with people to vet Bill Jones of Falls Church, VA for a job as a courier for the Veterans Administration then they certainly have to do them for Sair Mohammed of the Jabal al Gharbi District in Libya for entry to the US.

There are plenty of articles out there that spell out the vetting process. I suggest that you avail yourself of them in order to not look foolish in the future.

(03-16-2017 11:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 11:42 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Have judges ever placed TRO on visa/refugee EO's by a President before? Guessing when Obama suspended travel from Iraq nobody sued?

Apples and Oranges.

There are major differences between Trump's immigration ban and Obama's 2011 policy

But the point is the POTUS has wide latitude on these matters. Whoever argued in Hawaii that relatives can't visit (so what they have to wait a few more months), and it hurts tourism lol, these people are poor. They can afford vacations in Hawaii? that is laughable.

(03-16-2017 01:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  It's not my job to educate you

Correct. So don't. And don't use that as an excuse to back down from discussion.

(03-16-2017 01:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Without said assistance the background check simply cannot be completed.

You're assuming this. It has to be shown.

State your argument.


Here's mine: it doesn't matter if someone comes from Timbuktu. You can interview that person, and uncover their motives for wanting to visit the US. If they claim to be visiting people who are here, you can find those people and interview them. Etc.

That can always be done. And it works.

(03-16-2017 01:24 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 11:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 11:42 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Have judges ever placed TRO on visa/refugee EO's by a President before? Guessing when Obama suspended travel from Iraq nobody sued?

Apples and Oranges.

There are major differences between Trump's immigration ban and Obama's 2011 policy

But the point is the POTUS has wide latitude on these matters. Whoever argued in Hawaii that relatives can't visit (so what they have to wait a few more months), and it hurts tourism lol, these people are poor. They can afford vacations in Hawaii? that is laughable.

It matters not what some Hawaii resident argues, what matters is what's in the suit. And it is more substantial than poor relatives.

Also, a judge in Maryland has also ordered a halt on the EO.

Face it, Trump is not going to win here...and it's his own fault. This was sold a a Muslim ban from the beginning and he has failed to prove otherwise.

Trump will win when it gets to the Supreme Court. These orders are huge abuses of judicial power done by activist judges trying to score political points.

(03-16-2017 01:42 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 01:24 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 11:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 11:42 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Have judges ever placed TRO on visa/refugee EO's by a President before? Guessing when Obama suspended travel from Iraq nobody sued?

Apples and Oranges.

There are major differences between Trump's immigration ban and Obama's 2011 policy

But the point is the POTUS has wide latitude on these matters. Whoever argued in Hawaii that relatives can't visit (so what they have to wait a few more months), and it hurts tourism lol, these people are poor. They can afford vacations in Hawaii? that is laughable.

It matters not what some Hawaii resident argues, what matters is what's in the suit. And it is more substantial than poor relatives.

Also, a judge in Maryland has also ordered a halt on the EO.

Face it, Trump is not going to win here...and it's his own fault. This was sold a a Muslim ban from the beginning and he has failed to prove otherwise.

The case will be won. All this does is slow it down. The Hawaii judge essentially admits that if Obama sent him the same ban it would have been Constitutional. The judge is just a political hack and his ruling is not based in law.

(03-16-2017 01:42 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 01:24 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 11:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 11:42 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Have judges ever placed TRO on visa/refugee EO's by a President before? Guessing when Obama suspended travel from Iraq nobody sued?

Apples and Oranges.

There are major differences between Trump's immigration ban and Obama's 2011 policy

But the point is the POTUS has wide latitude on these matters. Whoever argued in Hawaii that relatives can't visit (so what they have to wait a few more months), and it hurts tourism lol, these people are poor. They can afford vacations in Hawaii? that is laughable.

It matters not what some Hawaii resident argues, what matters is what's in the suit. And it is more substantial than poor relatives.

Also, a judge in Maryland has also ordered a halt on the EO.

Face it, Trump is not going to win here...and it's his own fault. This was sold a a Muslim ban from the beginning and he has failed to prove otherwise.

This screams that the judge knew his ruling was total BS.
Watson said he will not stay his ruling should an appeal be pursued. "The Court declines to stay this ruling or hold it in abeyance should an emergency appeal of this order be filed," he said.

(03-16-2017 01:33 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 01:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Without said assistance the background check simply cannot be completed.

You're assuming this. It has to be shown.

State your argument.

Not assuming anything.

We can't ask the Syrians, Libyans, or Yemeni to conduct background checks on large portions of the people trying to come here because they do not have control of large swaths of their countries due to civil war and are unable to determine with any accuracy the information needed.

Somalia and Sudan are both failed states so there simply isn't anyone there to ask.

Iran wouldn't tell us even if they knew because as the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism they are probably the ones backing the terrorists to begin with.

It's friggin' common sense.

Quote:Here's mine: it doesn't matter if someone comes from Timbuktu. You can interview that person, and uncover their motives for wanting to visit the US. If they claim to be visiting people who are here, you can find those people and interview them. Etc.

That can always be done. And it works.

LMAO

Having conducted a couple thousand employment interviews and hundreds of criminal interviews I'm not claiming to be an expert but I will say that this is quite possibly the most incorrect assumption you have ever made on here. That in itself says a lot.

But if a simple interview can determine motive then explain Tashfeen Malik. Why wasn't she detected?

Hell, the FBI interviewed Omar Mateen TWICE in 2013. Why didn't they determine he was becoming radicalized then? What about the FBI interviews with Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2011?

(03-16-2017 01:49 PM)appst89 Wrote:  Trump will win when it gets to the Supreme Court. These orders are huge abuses of judicial power done by activist judges trying to score political points.

This makes little to no sense. Federal judges are basically appointed for life. There is really no need to score any points.

(03-16-2017 02:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 01:49 PM)appst89 Wrote:  Trump will win when it gets to the Supreme Court. These orders are huge abuses of judicial power done by activist judges trying to score political points.

This makes little to no sense. Federal judges are basically appointed for life. There is really no need to score any points.

Fair enough. Do they abandon their political ideologies once appointed?

(03-16-2017 02:06 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 02:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 01:49 PM)appst89 Wrote:  Trump will win when it gets to the Supreme Court. These orders are huge abuses of judicial power done by activist judges trying to score political points.

This makes little to no sense. Federal judges are basically appointed for life. There is really no need to score any points.

Fair enough. Do they abandon their political ideologies once appointed?

Nope. But it doesn't make conservative judges any better than liberal ones.

https://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2017/03...-must-end/

I don't agree with the author that the Supreme Court would be 4-4. Breyer will side with the president. Good chance two others will as well.

There's this from the 9th circuit:

"...But legality is not the issue. Political warfare is the name of the game. Judge Watson, joined by a handful of his anti-Trump confrères and the vast majority of the media elite, has decided that the judiciary, not the executive branch, is in charge of international relations and foreign affairs. (In fact, they believe that the judiciary, so long as it hews to a progressive agenda, is in charge of everything, but that is an issue for another day.)


Now the Ninth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over the case, is famously latitudinarian. It sided with Judge Robart in his original TRO last month. But things may be different this time around. Yesterday, five judges said they considered that decision incorrect. "Whatever we, as individuals, may feel about the president or the executive order," Judge Jay Bybee of the Ninth Circuit wrote, "the president's decision was well within the powers of the presidency."..."