Warning: file_get_contents(/home/www/settings/mirror_forum_db_enable_sql): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /var/www/html/content/Forum/functions.php on line 8
I keep asking this question. What does Extreme Vetting mean? How is it different from the rigorous screening process currently in place? Who does it? What assets do they have available? Where does the information come from? Who pays for it? Wouldn't that require legislation?
During the campaign, in a speech in Youngstown, Ohio, Trump called for “extreme, extreme vetting.” He said the extreme vetting would be designed to keep out anyone who does not share “American values” and who is not prepared to “embrace a tolerant American society.”
Trump said that until such a test is in place, America should suspend immigration from Muslim countries.
And so here we are.
Now what are "American values?"
Be specific. Tell me what American values are. Give me a list. A list that applies to every American. One we all agree on.
Come now, this should be easy. This is the basis of the whole damned thing. So, tell me, who decides what is American and what isn't? And what is it that makes up an American? Give me a specific list, point by point. Show your work.
Now — NOW — once you have that list, you tell me how to TEST each potential immigrant for those values.
What?
No. I'm dead serious. You tell me how you test a human being for ... what? Love of baseball, mom, and Apple Pie? Tolerance? Patriotism?
Tell me how you do that.
Please, by all means you tell me how to do that. BE SPECIFIC.
And while you're at it, show me how your tests are different, better, more effective, than what we currently have in place. Where does the information come from? What assets do the Chekas have at their disposal? How will they be trained, the Chekas? Who pays for it? Does this new system of Extreme Vetting require legislation? If not? WHY not?
These questions seem to me not unreasonable.
They should be put to President Trump and his Administration by the Press and hammered hard until the citizens of the United States get some goddamned answers.
That is exactly what I voted for. People who are not afraid to be honest and tell the truth about the big picture. I would love to see the entire unedited interviews, but I can already fill in the blanks and know the context that these things were said in.
The first states the goal. The current political establishment must go. The second states the reality for what comes if we continue with the establishment kicking the can down the road till it hits the metaphorical wall and the riots start. Not saying he wants it, just stating the obvious truth, in a straight forward way.
Yeah, Trump is a bully. He's making everyone eat their metaphorical vegetables.
There is a lot of anger out there. It was stirred up on the campaign trail and the winner of the election has done nothing to tamp it down. Winning presidential candidates are supposed to unite, right? The current president has done nothing but rend greater, deeper divisions. He does not want to appear to be the president of all Americans, only those who voted for him.
I think he is an extremely dangerous man. His non-qualification for command makes him reliant on those he trusts, specifically a known bomb-thrower and agent provacateur. Bannon is pulling the strings now, and appallingly, he has been rewarded with a seat on the National Security Council. He has zero business there, and if I were the intelligence community, I would be looking at filtering the results presented in that forum.
The president, meanwhile, is obsessed with trivial and superficial matters, and leaves him unprepared to deal with substantive issues and crises. There will be a crisis, guaranteed, some time in the next year, and the world will then see how prepared he is.
The president has a lot to answer for, and he refuses to do so. Until he does, expect the anger to get worse.
Does it really matter anymore ? Being nice gets nothing but more kicks in the ass.
guess it is all a question of what sort of person you want to see yourself as. you are the sole arbiter of that. Ain't got anything to do with any of us.
Holy Crap! This guy is actually trying to do what he said he would do! I will be honest and figured that he was spewing nonsense to get elected like the rest of them and that would save us. Who ever heard of a President actually doing what he said he would do? This is crazy and of course will never work, maybe this will give more support to the Libertarians who appear to be the only voice of reason, but then again, that is nothing new.
Does it really matter anymore ? Being nice gets nothing but more kicks in the ass.
There is a lot of anger out there. It was stirred up on the campaign trail and the winner of the election has done nothing to tamp it down. Winning presidential candidates are supposed to unite, right? The current president has done nothing but rend greater, deeper divisions. He does not want to appear to be the president of all Americans, only those who voted for him.
I think he is an extremely dangerous man. His non-qualification for command makes him reliant on those he trusts, specifically a known bomb-thrower and agent provacateur. Bannon is pulling the strings now, and appallingly, he has been rewarded with a seat on the National Security Council. He has zero business there, and if I were the intelligence community, I would be looking at filtering the results presented in that forum.
The president, meanwhile, is obsessed with trivial and superficial matters, and leaves him unprepared to deal with substantive issues and crises. There will be a crisis, guaranteed, some time in the next year, and the world will then see how prepared he is.
The president has a lot to answer for, and he refuses to do so. Until he does, expect the anger to get worse.
I'm sorry but I have ZERO interest in comparing whether Republican or Democratic voters were attacked more by people with opposing views. There are intolerant people on the right and left. There are people on the right and left who've been disrespectful to people on the other side. I don't give a damn about anecdotal stuff. People have been cruel and violent towards each other over politics for hundreds of years.
If there's a bigger, more lasting story—if we can find an issue stemming from these attacks that points to matters of public policy or social ills or polarization of Americans over political or social problems—then I'm interested in discussing the attacks.
(...) Neo-Nazi radio show host Hal Turner wrote on his blog that his "inauguration dream" was for somebody to send an explosives-laden aerial unmanned drone or chemical-filled balloons into inaugural crowds. In a follow-up posting, Turner maintained that Obama and congressmen and senators attending the inauguration deserved to die, as did African Americans ("sub-human simians") and liberals ("mentally-ill Whites") in the crowd. (...)
I only wish there was a name I could do it in your name. You're on the wrong side of history (again). You and your like minded kind will be remembered as small minded, wounded little cowards. You are acting like the extremists you claim to hate.
I'm an aware of only one incident by a Trump supporter like you mention. I can think of many incidents where Trump supporters responded to attacks, but did not instigate any other than the one incident on the Delta flight.
But the attacks and false stories initiated by anti Trump people are nearly endless.
Behold the results of these google searches ... go deep, many pages into the search ... what do you see ?
(snip)
I will disagree with the bolded to a certain extent. People are using it for their own confirmation bias and using it to go out and riot, destroy property and torture people as did that group in Chicago who tortured that disabled white teenager. These shameless lies called news reports are being used as the justification to hate and hurt people. These reporters liars do not consider themselves culpable which is the real crime and they are getting away with it. . So with all the hate and rioting going on that has been initiated by the wonderfully tolerant liberal left, where is all the rioting going on from the terribly intolerant conservatives ? In fact can you show me any examples of conservatives rioting ?
I'm sorry but I have ZERO interest in comparing whether Republican or Democratic voters were attacked more by people with opposing views. There are intolerant people on the right and left. There are people on the right and left who've been disrespectful to people on the other side. I don't give a damn about anecdotal stuff. People have been cruel and violent towards each other over politics for hundreds of years.
If there's a bigger, more lasting story—if we can find an issue stemming from these attacks that points to matters of public policy or social ills or polarization of Americans over political or social problems—then I'm interested in discussing the attacks.
Judge Ann M. Donnelly of Federal District Court in Brooklyn, who was nominated by former President Barack Obama, ruled just before 9 p.m. that implementing Mr. Trump’s order by sending the travelers home could cause them “irreparable harm.” She said the government was “enjoined and restrained from, in any manner and by any means, removing individuals” who had arrived in the United States with valid visas or refugee status.
The ruling does not appear to force the administration to let in people otherwise blocked by Mr. Trump’s order who have not yet traveled to the United States.
The judge’s one-page ruling came swiftly after lawyers for the A.C.L.U. testified in her courtroom that one of the people detained at an airport was being put on a plane to be deported back to Syria at that very moment. A government lawyer, Gisela A. Westwater, who spoke to the court by phone from Washington, said she simply did not know.
The author of the op-ed piece below is an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.
President Trump signed an executive order on Friday that purports to bar for at least 90 days almost all permanent immigration from seven majority-Muslim countries, including Syria and Iraq, and asserts the power to extend the ban indefinitely.
But the order is illegal. More than 50 years ago, Congress outlawed such discrimination against immigrants based on national origin.
...
Nonetheless, Mr. Trump asserts that he still has the power to discriminate, pointing to a 1952 law that allows the president the ability to “suspend the entry” of “any class of aliens” that he finds are detrimental to the interest of the United States.
But the president ignores the fact that Congress then restricted this power in 1965, stating plainly that no person could be “discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.” The only exceptions are those provided for by Congress (such as the preference for Cuban asylum seekers).
When Congress passed the 1965 law, it wished to protect not just immigrants, but also American citizens, who should have the right to sponsor their family members or to marry a foreign-born spouse without being subject to pointless discrimination.
Let's talk about stuff with more substance. 
