Political Roundtable Part XII

[nate33]

Report: 72 convicted of terrorism from 'Trump 7' mostly Muslim countries

Since 9/11, 72 individuals from the seven mostly Muslim countries covered by President Trump's "extreme vetting" executive order have been convicted of terrorism, a finding that clashes sharply with claims from an appeals court that there is "no evidence" those countries have produced a terrorist.

According to a report out Saturday, at least 17 claimed to be refugees from those nations, three came in as "students," and 25 eventually became U.S. citizens.

The Center for Immigration Studies calculated the numbers of convicted terrorists from the Trump Seven:

— Somalia: 20
— Yemen: 19
— Iraq: 19
— Syria: 7
— Iran: 4
— Libya: 2
— Sudan: 1

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-72-terrorists-came-from-7-muslim-countries-trump-targeted/article/2614582

[Doug_Blew]

Report: 72 convicted of terrorism from 'Trump 7' mostly Muslim countries

Since 9/11, 72 individuals from the seven mostly Muslim countries covered by President Trump's "extreme vetting" executive order have been convicted of terrorism, a finding that clashes sharply with claims from an appeals court that there is "no evidence" those countries have produced a terrorist.

According to a report out Saturday, at least 17 claimed to be refugees from those nations, three came in as "students," and 25 eventually became U.S. citizens.

The Center for Immigration Studies calculated the numbers of convicted terrorists from the Trump Seven:

— Somalia: 20
— Yemen: 19
— Iraq: 19
— Syria: 7
— Iran: 4
— Libya: 2
— Sudan: 1

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-72-terrorists-came-from-7-muslim-countries-trump-targeted/article/2614582

I cant say that these numbers are wrong but they come from the Center of Immigration studies. According to the CIS page on Wikipedia.

Reports published by the CIS have been widely deemed misleading and riddled with basic errors by scholars on immigration; think tanks from across the ideological and political spectrum; media of all stripes; several leading nonpartisan immigration-research organizations; and by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The organization has also drawn criticism for its financial and intellectual ties to extremist racists

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies

When the judge asked the Lawyer representing the administration how many arrests of foreign nationals from these countries were made since 9/11. The Lawyer said she didn't know, Which indicates that the Trump administration didn't know, Which seems to be a common theme with this administration and doesn't give the public confidence that they should be signing executive orders.

[closg00]

Doug beat me to it, the administration lawyers were hobbled by their bosses incompetence, they had no facts that they submitted at the time so it made the judges work easy.
Also, in one of the linked articles, the author incorrectly implies that the judge or his clerks could have looked this information up, HOW STUPID!!! Judges are not going to do your work for you.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[montestewart]

Report: 72 convicted of terrorism from 'Trump 7' mostly Muslim countries

Since 9/11, 72 individuals from the seven mostly Muslim countries covered by President Trump's "extreme vetting" executive order have been convicted of terrorism, a finding that clashes sharply with claims from an appeals court that there is "no evidence" those countries have produced a terrorist.

According to a report out Saturday, at least 17 claimed to be refugees from those nations, three came in as "students," and 25 eventually became U.S. citizens.

The Center for Immigration Studies calculated the numbers of convicted terrorists from the Trump Seven:

— Somalia: 20
— Yemen: 19
— Iraq: 19
— Syria: 7
— Iran: 4
— Libya: 2
— Sudan: 1

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-72-terrorists-came-from-7-muslim-countries-trump-targeted/article/2614582

I cant say that these numbers are wrong but they come from the Center of Immigration studies. According to the CIS page on Wikipedia.

Reports published by the CIS have been widely deemed misleading and riddled with basic errors by scholars on immigration; think tanks from across the ideological and political spectrum; media of all stripes; several leading nonpartisan immigration-research organizations; and by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The organization has also drawn criticism for its financial and intellectual ties to extremist racists

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Immigration_Studies

When the judge asked the Lawyer representing the administration how many arrests of foreign nationals from these countries were made since 9/11. The Lawyer said she didn't know, Which indicates that the Trump administration didn't know, Which seems to be a common theme with this administration and doesn't give the public confidence that they should be signing executive orders.

Trump administration repeatedly seems unprepared to argue its case in any forum not wholly or heavily dependent on public opinion. Wherever they need to back up bluster with facts in real time, they don't do it very well, because they haven't really had to. Trump's going to flip out when he realizes that all the so-called judges on the Supreme Court might, you know, want some facts from time to time.

EDIT: The Washington Examiner article cited is either sloppy or more likely intentionally dishonest (dishonesty of the type Trump supporters reflexively accuse all non-PTM of practicing) in reporting that the court said, "that there is 'no evidence' those countries have produced a terrorist." It's generally not the court's place to independently investigate facts; the court weighs the arguments and facts presented. I haven't read the full ruling, but the language repeatedly quoted more fully is, "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." The government made an argument without introducing facts sufficient to back it up. The imperial president and his posse are not used to accountability.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[montestewart]

I've never seen a president so defiantly unwilling to try and win over the people who didn't vote for him. Nixon and Reagan won reelection in landslides, yet at least superficially they positioned themselves as everyone's president, and outwardly their rhetoric communicated magnanimity toward the losing side. Trump and his crew, after barely winning an election, seem to have nothing but a big FU for the "losers," not even bothering to try and distinguish shades of opposition. Anyone who didn't vote for him is the enemy. He's starting to make Nixon's paranoia seem normal by comparison. And his marriage is starting to make the creepy Clinton marriage seem normal by comparison. And the words coming out of his mouth make Bush seem intellectual by comparison.

Does Trump think being president is nothing but ceremony and signing giant pieces of paper? Does he imagine he's making a yuge sacrifice for his country by roughing it in the White House? What's with those psycho handshakes? What's with a sitting president loudly attacking retailers who make business decisions not beneficial to the Trump empire? Does he realize he's creeping out his SC nominee (and the Japanese PM)? Does he realize he's naked? If Putin orders him to take Snowdon back, does that mean Wikileaks will turn on Trump? Or will Wikileaks turn on Snowdon? Maybe Putin and Assange order Trump to pardon Snowdon? Or maybe all Snowdon gets from Assange is crocodile tears as he heads off to prison? So many questions and just three weeks in.

Can't wait to see how Trump's hotel--whose business model was declared unsustainable by multiple rivals in the hotel industry, was getting horrible reviews, and was nowhere near break even occupancy--suddenly becomes the most expensive and profitable hotel in town, all rooms filled with lobbyists and representatives of foreign powers. About as subtle as leaving a satchel of cash on the front steps of the White House.

[dckingsfan]

@zonk - http://tinyurl.com/zphqvcm

...

[dckingsfan]

You just click on the country - very funny

http://everysecondcounts.eu/europe.html

[dckingsfan]

I just wanted to add on that acting like the Democratic Party and Republican Party are equally "incompetent and evil" is just not true.

This is the path that has led us to where we are - they are more evil than us... it hasn't been very effective. It led to Hillary's deplorable quote - and we know how that turned out. Maybe we should consider a different approach?

One party is coherent and presenting sensible, clear policy

Smh, neither party is doing this well - hence why we are where we are... why a populist could win is because neither party has governed well.

...while the other has completely abandoned its principles because their voters chose a conning buffoon

Not sure this was a R issue - remember, much of the R elite was against him. I think this is an outcome of voters willing to blow it up.

and they are unable to do things like present a clear replacement healthcare plan that they talked such a big game about and have slapped together the most unqualified, openly corrupt, by far wealthiest and potentially destructive cabinets in history.

Yup.

I am no fan of bought out Democrats like Cory Booker who don't seem to understand that using Citizens United to your benefit is not what real progressives want and is just going to be your typical establishment Democrat when he runs.

Yup.

I was also no fan of Hillary Clinton, but she was one of the most qualified candidates to ever run for President. Her problem was she ran in the wrong election, being a boring (dumb that something like this matters so much, but it's how Americans are) corporatist running against an entertaining populist when that was what the country wanted.

No, the problem was she is a policy wonk and should have stayed in the Senate. Only the corruption in the DNC allowed her to become the candidate.

But to act like the two parties are equal is not correct. False equivalencies is what got us into this mess.

No, they are definitely different. But the we are less evil mantra is what got us into this mess.

[Wizardspride]

Doesn't necessarily mean anything but...

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

@bealwithit - maybe this is a better way to say what I was trying to convey:
http://tinyurl.com/jhyf39n

[montestewart]

I just wanted to add on that acting like the Democratic Party and Republican Party are equally "incompetent and evil" is just not true.

This is the path that has led us to where we are - they are more evil than us... it hasn't been very effective. It led to Hillary's deplorable quote - and we know how that turned out. Maybe we should consider a different approach?

I have found that Republicans are not inherently evil, but have fallen under the spell of Satan. I have also found, when talking with my Republican friends and relatives, that when I lead with,"You are evil," the devil's web of treachery forces them to become defensive and shut down, and all my deprogramming efforts are for naught.

[nate33]

I've never seen a president so defiantly unwilling to try and win over the people who didn't vote for him. Nixon and Reagan won reelection in landslides, yet at least superficially they positioned themselves as everyone's president, and outwardly their rhetoric communicated magnanimity toward the losing side. Trump and his crew, after barely winning an election, seem to have nothing but a big FU for the "losers," not even bothering to try and distinguish shades of opposition. Anyone who didn't vote for him is the enemy. He's starting to make Nixon's paranoia seem normal by comparison. And his marriage is starting to make the creepy Clinton marriage seem normal by comparison. And the words coming out of his mouth make Bush seem intellectual by comparison.

I think Trump has (perhaps rightfully) calculated that there is no winning over the people who opposed him other than to totally abandon the people who supported him. Did you really think Trump is going to not build the Wall after winning on that platform? Was he not going to do whatever he can to restrict immigration for terrorism-prone nations?

What I find just as amazing is the complete lack of any "grace period" to give Trump a chance. Objectively speaking, portions of Trump's agenda should appeal to old-school Democrats. Trump is opposed to cutting entitlements. He seems genuinely interested in stopping the crime to help save inner cities. He is pro-union and pro blue collar worker. He's for Keynesian spending on infrastructure. He is the most LGBT friendly Republican ever. We've seen a stock market boom since the moment he got elected. We've seen many pledges from companies to move or keep jobs here, and we had a very positive GDP growth report this quarter. But none of that matters. In the eyes of liberals, Trump is Literally Hitler™ and the mainstream media has given up all pretense of covering him fairly.

For 40 years, liberals had a monopoly on the media, with only Fox News as an alternative. Any conservative had to curry favor with the leftists running the media in order to gain positive press. So conservatives responded by always electing nice guys who at least appeared moderate. They played by the rules. Indeed, the only way for conservatives to maintain any kind of favorable rating in the face of a left wing media was to drift leftward and end up betraying their base. That's how "Read my lips, no new taxes" turned into a tax hike. That's how George W ended up radically expanding the prescription drug program. That's how the left has won every battle in the culture war until we're at the point where a man in a dress can share a bathroom with my 13 year old daughter.

Meanwhile, none of these restraints applied to Democrats. It was Democrats who first "Borked" a SC nominee and denied a President's choice. It was Democrats who first filibustered a SC nominee and denied a President's choice even when he had 50 votes in the Senate. It was then Democrats who first utilized "the Nuclear Option" to stop a party from filibustering nominees after they so brazenly did so just a few years before. It was the Democrats who rammed through Obamacare through a budget reconciliation process that was highly dubious constitutionally. They did so based on Obama's lie that "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan". It was rammed through despite a Republican winning Ted freaking Kennedy's Senate seat because the public so desperately wanted to stop the implementation. It was the Democrats who elected to stop enforcing the illegal immigration laws on the books and arbitrarily permit Dreamers into the country with no input from Congress. Failure of the Executive Branch to enforce the law is just as unconstitutional as the Executive Branch creating law. All of these tactics would have been a complete outrage if they were tried by Republicans, but the media allows it to happen with Democrats. Now we have Democrats routinely committing actually physical violence in the streets against Trump supporters and media still manages to suggest that the violence is caused by Trump's side.

What many of you seem to fail to understand is that the rules of the game have changed. With the internet making an end-run around the broadcast networks, conservatives no longer have to care what the mainstream media thinks. Trump is the first one to figure this out. It is freed up the Right to fight just as dirty as the left has fought for 40 years. You are not seeing a President employing unusually divisive tactics. You are merely seeing Republicans using the same divisive tactics that the Democrats have utilized with impunity in the past but has been overlooked by a sympathetic media. And you are frustrated because the usual shaming tactics employed by the media don't work on Trump.

[montestewart]

I've never seen a president so defiantly unwilling to try and win over the people who didn't vote for him. Nixon and Reagan won reelection in landslides, yet at least superficially they positioned themselves as everyone's president, and outwardly their rhetoric communicated magnanimity toward the losing side. Trump and his crew, after barely winning an election, seem to have nothing but a big FU for the "losers," not even bothering to try and distinguish shades of opposition. Anyone who didn't vote for him is the enemy. He's starting to make Nixon's paranoia seem normal by comparison. And his marriage is starting to make the creepy Clinton marriage seem normal by comparison. And the words coming out of his mouth make Bush seem intellectual by comparison.

I think Trump has (perhaps rightfully) calculated that there is no winning over the people who opposed him other than to totally abandon the people who supported him. Did you really think Trump is going to not build the Wall after winning on that platform? Was he not going to do whatever he can to restrict immigration for terrorism-prone nations?

What I find just as amazing is the complete lack of any "grace period" to give Trump a chance. Objectively speaking, portions of Trump's agenda should appeal to old-school Democrats. Trump is opposed to cutting entitlements. He seems genuinely interested in stopping the crime to help save inner cities. He is pro-union and pro blue collar worker. He is the most LGBT friendly Republican ever. We've seen a stock market boom since the moment he got elected. We've seen many pledges from companies to move or keep jobs here, and we had a very positive GDP growth report this quarter. But none of that matters. In the eyes of liberals, Trump is Literally Hitler™ and the mainstream media has given up all pretense of covering him fairly.

For 40 years, liberals had a monopoly on the media, with only Fox News as an alternative. Any conservative had to curry favor with the leftists running the media in order to gain positive press. So conservatives responded by always electing nice guys who at least appeared moderate. They played by the rules. Indeed, the only way for conservatives to maintain any kind of favorable rating in the face of a left wing media was to drift leftward and end up betraying their base. That's how "Read my lips, no new taxes" turned into a tax hike. That's how George W ended up radically expanding the prescription drug program. That's how the left has won every battle in the culture war until we're at the point where a man in a dress can share a bathroom with my 13 year old daughter.

Meanwhile, none of these restraints applied to Democrats. It was Democrats who first "Borked" a SC nominee and denied a President's choice. It was Democrats who first filibustered a SC nominee and denied a President's choice even when he had 50 votes in the Senate. It was then Democrats who first utilized "the Nuclear Option" to stop a party from filibustering nominees after they so brazenly did so just a few years before. It was the Democrats who rammed through Obamacare through a budget reconciliation process that was highly dubious constitutionally. They did so based on Obama's lie that "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan". It was rammed through despite a Republican winning Ted freaking Kennedy's Senate seat because the public so desperately wanted to stop the implementation. I was the Democrats who essentially elected to stop enforcing the illegal immigration laws on the books and arbitrarily permit Dreamers into the country with no input from Congress. Failure of the Executive Branch to enforce the law is just as unconstitutional as the Executive Branch creating law. All of these tactics would have been a complete outrage if they were tried by Republicans, but the media allows it to happen with Democrats. Now we have Democrats routinely committing actually physical violence in the streets against Trump supporters and media still manages to suggest that the violence is caused by Trump's side.

What many of you seem to fail to understand is that the rules of the game have changed. With the internet making an end-run around the broadcast networks, conservatives no longer have to care what the mainstream media thinks. Trump is the first one to figure this out. It is freed up the Right to fight just as dirty as the left has fought for 40 years. You are not seeing a President employing unusually divisive tactics. You are merely seeing Republicans using the same divisive tactics that the Democrats have utilized with impunity in the past but has been overlooked by a sympathetic media. And you are frustrated because the usual shaming tactics employed by the media don't work on Trump.

We'll see if it works. I alluded to voters who with but a slight alteration in stance, or even just demeanor, might have been Trump supporters, and I could see his approach backfiring, not winning over enough centrist Clinton voters to offset centrist Trump voters who are ultimately put off by his administration. More to come.

Here's an interesting perspective on liberal media bias. Conservatives Are Right: The Media Is Very Liberal

[nate33]

Trump administration repeatedly seems unprepared to argue its case in any forum not wholly or heavily dependent on public opinion. Wherever they need to back up bluster with facts in real time, they don't do it very well, because they haven't really had to. Trump's going to flip out when he realizes that all the so-called judges on the Supreme Court might, you know, want some facts from time to time.

EDIT: The Washington Examiner article cited is either sloppy or more likely intentionally dishonest (dishonesty of the type Trump supporters reflexively accuse all non-PTM of practicing) in reporting that the court said, "that there is 'no evidence' those countries have produced a terrorist." It's generally not the court's place to independently investigate facts; the court weighs the arguments and facts presented. I haven't read the full ruling, but the language repeatedly quoted more fully is, "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." The government made an argument without introducing facts sufficient to back it up. The imperial president and his posse are not used to accountability.

The Ninth Circus of Appeals might overrule itself:

9th Circuit Judge Wants Another Vote over Trump Travel Ban Decision

In a rare move, one of the judges on the Ninth Circuit of Appeals has made a request that a vote be taken as to whether the order issued by the three judges Thursday night should be reconsidered en banc, which means before 11 federal judges of the Ninth Circuit. It’s not clear if this means that this judge (who was not named in the order) believes that there are enough votes to overturn the lower court’s decision which put a temporary halt on Trump’s controversial travel ban or if the judge simply wasn’t satisfied with the panel’s decision. Regardless, it is an interesting move that could bode well for President Trump, and throws yet another legal twist into the ongoing court battle between Trump and those trying to prevent his controversial immigration ban from being enforced.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/breaking-9th-circuit-judge-wants-another-vote-on-trump-travel-ban-decision/

[montestewart]

Trump administration repeatedly seems unprepared to argue its case in any forum not wholly or heavily dependent on public opinion. Wherever they need to back up bluster with facts in real time, they don't do it very well, because they haven't really had to. Trump's going to flip out when he realizes that all the so-called judges on the Supreme Court might, you know, want some facts from time to time.

EDIT: The Washington Examiner article cited is either sloppy or more likely intentionally dishonest (dishonesty of the type Trump supporters reflexively accuse all non-PTM of practicing) in reporting that the court said, "that there is 'no evidence' those countries have produced a terrorist." It's generally not the court's place to independently investigate facts; the court weighs the arguments and facts presented. I haven't read the full ruling, but the language repeatedly quoted more fully is, "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." The government made an argument without introducing facts sufficient to back it up. The imperial president and his posse are not used to accountability.

The Ninth Circus of Appeals might overrule itself:

9th Circuit Judge Wants Another Vote over Trump Travel Ban Decision

In a rare move, one of the judges on the Ninth Circuit of Appeals has made a request that a vote be taken as to whether the order issued by the three judges Thursday night should be reconsidered en banc, which means before 11 federal judges of the Ninth Circuit. It’s not clear if this means that this judge (who was not named in the order) believes that there are enough votes to overturn the lower court’s decision which put a temporary halt on Trump’s controversial travel ban or if the judge simply wasn’t satisfied with the panel’s decision. Regardless, it is an interesting move that could bode well for President Trump, and throws yet another legal twist into the ongoing court battle between Trump and those trying to prevent his controversial immigration ban from being enforced.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/breaking-9th-circuit-judge-wants-another-vote-on-trump-travel-ban-decision/

The panel's decision went directly against the president's desire, in a very high profile case. Even if they don't have the votes or have no particular problem with the decision, given the importance of the matter, an en banc rehearing could make sense as providing a broader level of public confidence that the decision wasn't rigged and was given a high level of scrutiny.

[bealwithit]

@bealwithit - maybe this is a better way to say what I was trying to convey:
http://tinyurl.com/jhyf39n

Thanks for linking, clears everything up. Good article. We obviously agree on the premise of it, that the Democratic Party has to change and move in a direction of Sanders/Ellison rather than staying with Schumer/Booker/Perez. The only issue I had with this article is this:

I see the argument. Had Democrats lost the popular vote and been thoroughly blown out there would be no question that they must change. I'd agree with that as well. If Ellison does not become the new DNC chair it will be an awful start to making the necessary changes to get the party back into the WH. However, the statement about removing all of those things from the election would ensure Hillary winning is basically true. I like to be blunt about this and if people want to be offended then so be it, but we have a lot of stupid people in this country and they fell for the "scandals" of the e-mail server and the Clinton Foundation. This doesn't need to turn into a discussion about her e-mail server, but it was simply a dumb decision that showed a total disrespect fo transparency. There wasn't really anything in the investigation that was damning, same for anything to do with the Clinton Foundation. I watched CNN/MSNBC (Fox doesn't explaining for what they talked about everyday) daily for the last couple months of the election and when this liberal media wasn't talking about Trump's gaffe of the day, his new policy ideas, or showing his rallies almost in full, they were talking about the e-mail server, e-mails from the DNC, the FBI, Wikileaks and the Clinton Foundation.There was barely ever any reporting or discussion of what exactly Hillary's proposals were. Clinton surrogates would come on and try to talk about Hillary and immediately be shot down and given questions about these things. Trump surrogates would also be on to defend Trump's mistakes but also had a consistent message. Wall. Immigration. Terrorism. Jobs. After the pussy tape, the liberal media then went all in on these Hillary scandals for reasons that I will never know. Did they assume that the Donald had no chance and that they could act like neutral observers? Maybe. But the Clinton campaign wasn't able to get their message out. Their message was basically, let's keep doing more of the same but with some tweaks and... ugh... getting back to recapping the election which has already been recapped an infinite amount of times. You get the idea. I do agree the messaging was a problem, especially when your candidate's plain personality makes it difficult for her to do it herself.

Basically what I'm saying is yes, the popular vote figure is relevant, despite this writer's attitude of dismissing it since the Dems lost. The majority of people who voted saw through the scandals and Trump's con, this is true, and it's what should give you any hope for the future of the party. There was just frankly a sizable amount of stupid people who got swept up into the constant talk of scandals around Hillary and that she was a criminal that needed to be locked up. Lock her up was literally chanted at the RNC. This viewpoint cannot be ignored. Now do you hear anything about how Hillary is a dangerous criminal, running free in America and needs to atone for her lawbreaking ways? No. Because there was never anything there. It was all a sideshow. She represented everything negative about the Democratic Party, but there was no criminal there. Enough people bought into that and felt, hey, I'd rather have a guy who talks about grabbing pussies, "tells it like it is" and says he's the smartest guy ever vs a *gasp* criminal in the White House! That's one of the biggest reasons she lost. Because people are stupid.

The Democratic Party still needs to change, even if they had won this election. If that's what you were trying to get at dc, then I'm with ya bud. The impending aging of the far-left millennials will be happening soon and they as a voting bloc will expand, forcing that change. I think they will see improvements at the state and local level as this election has caused younger voters and apathetic observers to wake up and see what happens when they don't act on their beliefs. We've already seen it with the protests, marches and increased presence at town halls. The problems are very fixable. Let's hope they don't blow it again next time.

EDIT:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/upshot/one-third-dont-know-obamacare-and-affordable-care-act-are-the-same.html

In the survey, 35 percent of respondents said either they thought Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act were different policies (17 percent) or didn’t know if they were the same or different (18 percent). This confusion was more pronounced among people 18 to 29 and those who earn less than $50,000 — two groups that could be significantly affected by repeal.

So like I said, stupidity.

[Wizardspride]

Jeff Sessions as AG....still shaking my head at that selection.

[AFM]

I'd rather have Ramon Sessions

[Benjammin]

Calling people stupid for voting their perceived interests means we're all stupid because that's what most people do.

Sent from my XT1650 using RealGM mobile app