The Next President is...

[brickhistory]

Dear President Trump,

It's now been three weeks and one day since you took your Oath of Office.

I don't mean to be unkind, but we all expected you to have solved everything, everywhere by now.

I mean your predecessor had already issued his first executive order to close Gitmo and would soon abandon the agreed-upon at some risk to themselves missile defense systems in the Czech Republic and Poland at the behest of Russian demands.

Speaking of dang foreigners, you replacing the bust of Winston Churchill in the Oval Office during your first week in direct contrast to the last guy who removed that thing in the same time frame absolutely merits the Speaker of the British Parliament not wanting you to speak there.  I mean, really, recognizing in a very public way "the special relationship" in direct opposition to the way that relationship was immediately telegraphed in 2009 is the height of ill manners.

Your, perhaps, negotiating ploy of not calling the Russian president a psychotic publically would seem weak sauce compared to being caught on open mic with his creature Medvedev and "having more room to maneuver" in order to appease Putin.  I am truly surprised you haven't sent your Secretary of State over with the whited-out reset (translated incorrectly) button.  The guy's been sworn in for nearly a week.  Time's awastin' it would seem to most of us.  Please don't even think of establishing any red lines anywhere either.

And while your predecessor had already made his plans for the first of his  'round the world apology tours denigrating the idea of American Exceptionalism and been brushing up on his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech for not being GWB, you seem to be fixated on trying, however inartfully, to follow through on some of your campaign promises.  And please don't even think of resurrecting that Monroe Doctrine also publicly repudiated.  Everyone gets to interfere now, right?  Except you and America.  You and she should lie back and think of England...

I mean really, is stopping the flow of unvetted refugees from failed nation-states that have a history of trying to kill 'Muricans really something you should be bothering with now especially since the last guy did the exact same thing and for a longer period of time?  Lena Dunham and Madonna have called you out.  I respectfully recommend you "Giddy-up" on burnishing your talk show appearances and not waste your time or my tax dollars on cheaper F-35s, defunding locales that refuse to follow federal law, or such nonsense.

You might upset some folks and that's not acceptable. 
 

[HeloDude]

39 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

@tac airlifter so you upvoted @daynightindicator's post and so did I...guess we can agree after all!

BL: no need to go crazy war-hawk and start threatening to nuke Russia, but no need to tickle Putin's balls either. Several previous admin have tried a middle ground somewhere in between those two, I guess now we'll see how far kissing the ring gets us...

I'm pretty sure Obama did more to help the Ayotolla in Iran than Trump has helped Putin in the last couple of weeks.  And I remember the silence on the left when Obama helped the Ayotolla...it was deafening...

[tk1313]

3 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Dear President Trump,

*letter*
 

I particularly enjoyed the reference to the hot mic.

Obama: Ugh, Putin just leave me alone right now so I can get re-elected... It's MY time... Annex Crimea next year, but just get off my back for a second...

[Guest]

7 hours ago, brickhistory said:

Dear President Trump,

It's now been three weeks and one day since you took your Oath of Office.

I don't mean to be unkind, but we all expected you to have solved everything, everywhere by now.

I mean your predecessor had already issued his first executive order to close Gitmo and would soon abandon the agreed-upon at some risk to themselves missile defense systems in the Czech Republic and Poland at the behest of Russian demands.

Speaking of dang foreigners, you replacing the bust of Winston Churchill in the Oval Office during your first week in direct contrast to the last guy who removed that thing in the same time frame absolutely merits the Speaker of the British Parliament not wanting you to speak there.  I mean, really, recognizing in a very public way "the special relationship" in direct opposition to the way that relationship was immediately telegraphed in 2009 is the height of ill manners.

Your, perhaps, negotiating ploy of not calling the Russian president a psychotic publically would seem weak sauce compared to being caught on open mic with his creature Medvedev and "having more room to maneuver" in order to appease Putin.  I am truly surprised you haven't sent your Secretary of State over with the whited-out reset (translated incorrectly) button.  The guy's been sworn in for nearly a week.  Time's awastin' it would seem to most of us.  Please don't even think of establishing any red lines anywhere either.

And while your predecessor had already made his plans for the first of his  'round the world apology tours denigrating the idea of American Exceptionalism and been brushing up on his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech for not being GWB, you seem to be fixated on trying, however inartfully, to follow through on some of your campaign promises.  And please don't even think of resurrecting that Monroe Doctrine also publicly repudiated.  Everyone gets to interfere now, right?  Except you and America.  You and she should lie back and think of England...

I mean really, is stopping the flow of unvetted refugees from failed nation-states that have a history of trying to kill 'Muricans really something you should be bothering with now especially since the last guy did the exact same thing and for a longer period of time?  Lena Dunham and Madonna have called you out.  I respectfully recommend you "Giddy-up" on burnishing your talk show appearances and not waste your time or my tax dollars on cheaper F-35s, defunding locales that refuse to follow federal law, or such nonsense.

You might upset some folks and that's not acceptable. 
 

Always love the history you bring, but can we extend the invitation to countries with terrorists that have done us more harm in the past?

 

i am thinking Saudi, Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon....you know the usual 9/11 line up. I understand they are not failed states but since we are no longer weak sauce, using a new playbook what would it hurt if we are being true to keeping the bad guys at bay? Or at the vetting policies of those big four or others not on the list like Pakistan passed some US bar of approval for vetting?

 

 

 

[17D_guy]

Probably wouldn't be so much outrage if he could just act presidential and not use official twitter account to retweet and push his kid's business - 

And/or get a press secretary who could make even a modicum of sense of what he's doing - 

http://www.snappytv.com/tc/3889840

Edited February 9, 2017 by 17D_guy
Trying to figure out why it doesn't show @POTUS re-tweet, then I stopped caring

[matmacwc]

He a buisiness man, not a politician, he's doing what he knows.  

[daynightindicator]

He a buisiness man, not a politician, he's doing what he knows.  

Heard a great quote on a show I was watching recently.

"I'm not talented enough to be unprepared."


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Guest]

Court refuses to reinstate Trump travel ban http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38927175

 

looks like the 9th said No to Donnie. 

"The government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States," it said.

 

it made no sense why Saudi, Emirates, Lebanon and Egypt was not on the list. But hey, we are not weak sauce anymore, and shaking things up so we should no longer be scared or feel the need to apologize since we owe no one nothing. 

 

 They need to rewrite the travel ban order, incorporate some common sense as to where those bad guys are really coming from because that was JV.

maybe Saudi has solved their extremist problem.

governing is hard, tweeting and governing is even harder.

[17D_guy]

My favorite part - 

Didn't think they'd be a fan of the "We know something you don't know" argument.  

Edited February 10, 2017 by 17D_guy

[RTB]

2 hours ago, 1111 said:

Court refuses to reinstate Trump travel ban http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38927175

 

looks like the 9th said No to Donnie. 

"The government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States," it said.

 

it made no sense why Saudi, Emirates, Lebanon and Egypt was not on the list. But hey, we are not weak sauce anymore, and shaking things up so we should no longer be scared or feel the need to apologize since we owe no one nothing. 

 

 They need to rewrite the travel ban order, incorporate some common sense as to where those bad guys are really coming from because that was JV.

maybe Saudi has solved their extremist problem.

governing is hard, tweeting and governing is even harder.

Ridiculous but predictable from the 9th...seems they missed the point entirely.

Pretty dumb that the standard they used is that no one committed a terrorist attack from those countries...I thought we wanted to prevent them, not react to them.

The list was made up of countries that, 1) are unable to properly vet travelers, and 2) have elements of their populations that are a high risk and are therefore a risk to the US.  

It's specifically NOT a list of countries where people who have attacked us have come.

Why this is considered a bad idea is beyond me.  It's just a pause to make sure we're doing the right thing to verify visitors to our country. 

[17D_guy]

27 minutes ago, RTB said:

Ridiculous but predictable from the 9th...seems they missed the point entirely.

Pretty dumb that the standard they used is that no one committed a terrorist attack from those countries...I thought we wanted to prevent them, not react to them.

The list was made up of countries that, 1) are unable to properly vet travelers, and 2) have elements of their populations that are a high risk and are therefore a risk to the US.  

It's specifically NOT a list of countries where people who have attacked us have come.

Why this is considered a bad idea is beyond me.  It's just a pause to make sure we're doing the right thing to verify visitors to our country. 

Man, good think Pakistan's on that list.  Got a whole section of the country the gov't just gave to terrorists... Oh wait...

This isn't even that big a smackdown despite what CNN, Fox, whomever says.

They didn't say the EO was bad/good.  The standard wasn't that we haven't been attacked by those countries.  The Fed could have presented evidence of a credible threat, but nope.  Hence the pic I posted above.

Fed went Wookie defense on it.  9th Court said the gov't couldn't prove that allowing the injunction of the EO could be proved to cause harm to the nation, while also not causing irreparable harm to the states while the lower courts figured out the case.  They also discussed standing and judicial review.  The plaintiff (WA, etc) just has to show that they've got a good chance of winning and the order causes harm.  Apparently they did, I thought WA's oral (STS) argument was weak.  The gov't had to prove danger to the nation. 

Unless you're arguing the courts shouldn't review anything the Executive says in "National Security," which they addressed directly since that was also part of the Fed's argument.  It's a well written ruling without any court overreach or legislating from the bench that I can tell.  It's not terribly long, give it a read.

So now, it either goes back to the lower court while restrained, or the Executive appeals to SCOTUS.  9th Court is most overturned in history, but the case law in their review seemed pretty pedantic.  

Do people think terrorists are just flooding in here differently now than they have the past 8 years?  The rules for entry haven't changed.

 

EDITED to add that the twitter, campaign and advisers (ex. Rudy G.) statements CAN be used in this case is hilarious.  Also, when it goes back to lower court discovery is going to be allowed...wonder if they're going to attempt executive privilege on any/all communications on this?  That would be an interesting SCOTUS case.

Edited February 10, 2017 by 17D_guy

[RTB]

8 minutes ago, 17D_guy said:

Man, good think Pakistan's on that list.  Got a whole section of the country the gov't just gave to terrorists... Oh wait...

This isn't even that big a smackdown despite what CNN, Fox, whomever says.

They didn't say the EO was bad/good.  The standard wasn't that we haven't been attacked by those countries.  The Fed could have presented evidence of a credible threat, but nope.  Hence the pic I posted above.

Fed went Wookie defense on it.  9th Court said the gov't couldn't prove that allowing the injunction of the EO could be proved to cause harm to the nation, while also not causing irreparable harm to the states while the lower courts figured out the case.  They also discussed standing and judicial review.  The plaintiff (WA, etc) just has to show that they've got a good chance of winning and the order causes harm.  Apparently they did, I thought WA's oral (STS) argument was weak.  The gov't had to prove danger to the nation. 

Unless you're arguing the courts shouldn't review anything the Executive says in "National Security," which they addressed directly since that was also part of the Fed's argument.  It's a well written ruling without any court overreach or legislating from the bench that I can tell.  It's not terribly long, give it a read.

So now, it either goes back to the lower court while restrained, or the Executive appeals to SCOTUS.  9th Court is most overturned in history, but the case law in their review seemed pretty pedantic.  

Do people think terrorists are just flooding in here differently now than they have the past 8 years?  The rules for entry haven't changed.

OK, I read it.  Disagree with your assessment that it's not legislating from the bench, but I'm no legal scholar and wouldn't know a well written ruling from a bad one.  But saying that Washington state's economy and Universities were irreparably damaged by the EO is absurd IMO.  I really don't care that 2 'scholars' planning to visit from an EO country were temporarily unable to fly to Washington state.

Obviously the EO was rolled out horribly without clear guidance and caused some problems both here and overseas for people who should absolutely have been been able to travel.  It shouldn't have stopped valid green card holders and others who had already been vetted (like Iraqi interpreters, etc).  

Terrorists probably aren't flooding in here now more than the past 8 years, but why is that the standard we have to follow?  If ANY have flowed here or plan to flow here, why should we keep the status quo?

Going to be an interesting few months to see how this plays out.

[sqwatch]

You guys write so many words. The art of brevity is lost on all millennials.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nsplayr]

 

9 hours ago, RTB said:

...I'm no legal scholar and wouldn't know a well written ruling from a bad one.  But saying that Washington state's economy and Universities were irreparably damaged by the EO is absurd IMO.

Well, at least you recognize that your legal opinion isn't on par with federal appeals court judges (neither is mine FWIW).

Clearly the 9th circuit feel that the plaintiffs' claims are valid, i.e. that Washington State and the other plaintiffs will suffer harm should the EO be in place. The likelihood of this decision being sound is fairly high since the three-judge panel ruled unanimously, concurring with the lower court decision that originally halted the EO's enforcement. We'll all get to find out what another 8 judges thinks here shortly...

9 hours ago, RTB said:

Terrorists probably aren't flooding in here now more than the past 8 years, but why is that the standard we have to follow?

Because the defendant in the case, the President of the United States, claims specifically that this is happening due to the enforcement of the EO being halted by the courts. He also went ahead and pre-blamed the judiciary for any future attack that might happen for good measure.

He went from "may be pouring in" on Feb 4th to "pouring in" with some greater certainty on Feb 5th.

On Feb 8th he claims (citation needed...) that there's a big increase in traffic (i.e. immigration) from "certain areas," which we're left to assuming are the 7 countries the EO addresses. This is something that is either true or it isn't, and the State Department and DHS, who work for the President, could provide the data to say conclusively one way or the other.

So long story short, I completely agree with you that it's very unlikely that terrorists are suddenly flooding into the U.S. I also completely agree that we need to thoroughly vet all refugees, immigrants and people seeking temporary visas before they come to the U.S.

Maybe the administration should request Congress appropriate more money for the State Department's consular operations since consular officers are on the front lines abroad actually reviewing and approving individual immigration and visa cases.

But as evidenced by his public statements, the defendant in this case that's bound for SCOTUS seems to believe that perhaps there is a specific threat from one or all of the 7 countries in question, that the threat is increasing while the EO is stayed, and that federal judges rather than the CINC will be to blame if an attack were to occur.

Mr. President, good luck making that argument in front of the court!

Edited February 10, 2017 by nsplayr

[HeloDude]

For those on the left who think this is political, they are correct...and if I was a betting man, I bet Trump wins.  Think about it:. All that has to happen in the next few years is an attack in the US by one refugee from one of these countries and Trump will win the argument politically.  Don't forget, just like th election, he's not trying to convince those on theft, just sure up support from those in the middle and on the right (the ones who elected him).  So what are the odds we have some type of an attack from one of thes tens of thousands of refugees?  Unfortunately it's a pretty good bet.  

Full disclosure: I'm obviously not for terrorist attacks, but I am smart enough to know that they happen and will continue to happen.  So just when the left uses mass shootings to say that's why need more gun control, Trump will use a future refugee attack to say he was right politically.  It's all sad that this is how politics works in our country, but when both sides are deeply polarized then this is what you get.  I'm not a big fan of Trump, but the fact that half the country thinks he is stupid plays right into his hands--he did it with GOP nomination, the general election, and he's doing it now.  So far Trump has been playing 3 dimensional chess...only time will tell if the strategy will continue to work.  

[RTB]

9 hours ago, sqwatch said:

You guys write so many words. The art of brevity is lost on all millennials.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ha! Valid.  Not a millennial, more like an old broken retiree, but point taken...

[RTB]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

Clearly the 9th circuit feel that the plaintiffs' claims are valid, i.e. that Washington State and the other plaintiffs will suffer harm should the EO be in place. The likelihood of this decision being sound is fairly high...

Likelihood is high?  Aren't they the most overturned appeals court in the country? 

Not wasting any more time on this topic...we all have our opinions and ours are 180 out

 

[Mark1]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

For those on the left who think this is political, they are correct...and if I was a betting man, I bet Trump wins.  Think about it:. All that has to happen in the next few years is an attack in the US by one refugee from one of these countries and Trump will win the argument politically...

History would suggest that an attack by someone from the countries affected by the executive order is low probability (although inevitable given enough time), but it won't even take an attack by someone from these countries.  Any Muslim who isn't a natural born citizen will suffice to illustrate the need for the government to clamp down.  In fact, a natural born Muslim citizen that lives in a community saturated with immigrants that could have influenced them will probably be good enough for Trump.  He will absolutely say "I told you so" and look to capitalize off of it.  And as you said, the event necessary for this is inevitable.

It's the same playbook as WWII internment camps, the PATRIOT ACT, and the anti-gun movement every time there's a mass shooting.  Use fear to drive your agenda.  And the populace falls for it every time.  I find it sad that the stereotypical Trump supporter being a red-blooded, rough-and-tumble, non-PC, Chevy Duramax Texas Edition driving, military and freedom loving dude is apparently the least willing of everyone to accept the risk that comes along with living in a free society.

I hope that the executive order stays hung up in the courts for at least 90 days because at that point the administration should abandon the fight.  They'll have had the 90 days they wanted to investigate the problem and come up with solutions to properly vetting immigrants and there will no longer be a need for the temporary measure.  That's what it's all about right?

Anybody want to place bets on the administration dropping the issue, if that circumstance comes to pass?

[Herk Driver]

Funny that no court has yet to rule on the constitutionality or merits of the case.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[Prozac]

31 minutes ago, Herk Driver said:

Funny that no court has yet to rule on the constitutionality or merits of the case.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

Exactly.  Yet the 9th District is being portrayed as having made a highly politicized decision.  Their only position is that the judiciary does in fact have the right to weigh-in here, which is a win for separation of powers, something that many here have professed to value greatly.  I happen to think that it's likely the ban will be upheld, perhaps with some significant changes and clarification.  However, the administration is arguing that the court should have no say, even going so far as to question the validity of the judiciary.  To me, that is far more concerning than the ban itself. 

[Herk Driver]

Exactly.  Yet the 9th District is being portrayed as having made a highly politicized decision.  Their only position is that the judiciary does in fact have the right to weigh-in here, which is a win for separation of powers, something that many here have professed to value greatly.  I happen to think that it's likely the ban will be upheld, perhaps with some significant changes and clarification.  However, the administration is arguing that the court should have no say, even going so far as to question the validity of the judiciary.  To me, that is far more concerning than the ban itself. 

Personally, I would rescind the original order and re-frame it to not include green cards/ permanent residents and some others, etc. My problem is that the 1952 law clearly gives the POTUS the sole authority to decide on this issue. Marbury v Madison and judicial review aside, it's a much easier argument to make when you use the law, as written, to then defend your position.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[nsplayr]

You guys are 100% correct that the President has a ton of latitude here.  The fact that this EO is hung up in the courts and not currently in force is due almost solely to the administration's sloppiness and incompetence. If they really want this thing to stick because it's so GD vital to national security, they absolutely rescind the JV version 1.0 and re-write something that makes a little more sense and is on firmer legal ground. Exempting green card holders and those with approved visas (i.e. they've been vetted already), include countries where terrorists have actually come from, give new and specific instructions to the State Department on visa approvals and DHS on screening at ports of entry, etc.

For those that think this will win at SCOTUS on the merits of the case, I guess we'll see.

As was stated above, once the 90 days are up I'm sure they'll have figured out a much stronger vetting system and this can just fall by the wayside right? Or they could almost immediately end the litigation by rescinding the original EO and writing a new one that more competently accomplished the stated goal. I mean, the President said that bad people are pouring into our country right now under his watch right...shouldn't he be quickly drafting a new EO to stem the tide and beat back the mongol hordes?

I for one am not holding my breath on either of those outcomes, because at this point it's just a pissing contest, and the President doesn't seem to take perceived insults or losses lightly.

Edited February 10, 2017 by nsplayr

[Prozac]

57 minutes ago, Herk Driver said:

Personally, I would rescind the original order and re-frame it to not include green cards/ permanent residents and some others, etc. My problem is that the 1952 law clearly gives the POTUS the sole authority to decide on this issue. Marbury v Madison and judicial review aside, it's a much easier argument to make when you use the law, as written, to then defend your position.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

He has wide latitude to be sure, but wide latitude does not equal unfettered power.  The man has a history of provocative statements regarding Muslims.  It's no wonder his plan has alarm bells going off.  There is legitimate concern that this was an abuse of power.  Add that to the way the ban was haphazardly implemented and it should come as no surprise to anyone that there are legal challenges to it.

[17D_guy]

3 hours ago, Prozac said:

...The man has a history of provocative statements regarding Muslims....

I think this is one of the problems the 9th sees.  Again, not a lawyer, but they made it sound like you can't do this because of due process and equal protection under the law against possible future individuals who could come under the US' courts jurisdiction.

It's an interesting argument (if I understood correctly), not one I'm sure I'm comfortable with.

[matmacwc]

Right, the US constitution being applied to non Americans?  How 'bout nope, thats what makes us special.