Political Roundtable Part XII

[nate33]

More mainstream media mess-ups: The Muslim Olympian 'detained because of President Trump's travel ban' was detained under Obama

Reporters are at it again – and again, and again and again.

The latest spun-up, anti-President Trump story involves Ibtihaj Muhammad, a New Jersey native who made headlines last year when she became the first female Muslim-American to win an Olympic medal for the United States. Muhammad, a lifelong American citizen, claimed in an interview last week that she was detained "just a few weeks ago" by U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents. She said she was held for a few hours without explanation.

Many journalists skipped over the "when" of her story, and rushed to publish reports tying her anecdotal claim to the president's immigration order. "Olympic athlete Ibtihaj Muhammad was detained because of President Trump's travel ban," read a headline published by Time magazine's Motto. The U.K.'s Independent went with a story titled, "US Olympic fencer Ibtihaj Muhammad says she was detained by customs after Donald Trump's 'Muslim ban.'

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/more-mainstream-media-mess-ups-the-muslim-olympian-detained-because-of-president-trumps-travel-ban-was-detained-under-obama/article/2614645

This stuff is intentional. The mainstream media is not a fair arbiter. They are the propaganda arm for the Democrat Party.

[nate33]

From a leading conservative foreign policy voice, who is not particularly fond of Trump:

Read on Twitter

Frum has been a NeverTrumper from the get go.

How is this different from the vast majority of foreign policy conservatives? The widely recognized problem in filling positions is Trump won't let folks who criticized him - Eliot Abrams, for instance - to join his administration.

There just aren't that many conservative foreign policy thinkers who didn't criticize Trump. No worries though - I'm sure this will be turned into Democrats slow rolling the nominations.

I'm just adding it for context. The fact that Frum is saying negative things about Trump now isn't surprising in the slightest. It's about the same as Will Kristol or Evan McMullan saying bad things about Trump. Their tenuous position in the GOP hierarchy now depends upon Trump failing.

[Doug_Blew]

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

We are officially f...'ed. Stephen Miller is now using this same research from the Center of Immigration Studies that 72 terrorists from the 7 banned countries have been convicted. According to Wikipedia, the Center of immigration Studies has ties to racist extremists.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/02/13/stephen-millers-claim-that-72-from-banned-countries-were-implicated-in-terroristic-activity/

How do Trump supporters like Nate so quickly believe research like this but refuse to believe anything from the MSM?

I came across this today from Byron York:

Last year the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest released information showing that at least 60 people born in the seven countries had been convicted — not just arrested, but convicted — of terror-related offenses in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001. And that number did not include more recent cases like Abdul Artan, a Somali refugee who wounded 11 people during a machete attack on the campus of Ohio State University last November.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-fact-free-debate-on-immigration-order/article/2614298

A Senate Judiciary Committee seems like a more legitimate source than the CIS. When i click on the link in the examiner article it does not take me to the committee's findings.

[nate33]

We are officially f...'ed. Stephen Miller is now using this same research from the Center of Immigration Studies that 72 terrorists from the 7 banned countries have been convicted. According to Wikipedia, the Center of immigration Studies has ties to racist extremists.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/02/13/stephen-millers-claim-that-72-from-banned-countries-were-implicated-in-terroristic-activity/

How do Trump supporters like Nate so quickly believe research like this but refuse to believe anything from the MSM?

I came across this today from Byron York:

Last year the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest released information showing that at least 60 people born in the seven countries had been convicted — not just arrested, but convicted — of terror-related offenses in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001. And that number did not include more recent cases like Abdul Artan, a Somali refugee who wounded 11 people during a machete attack on the campus of Ohio State University last November.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-fact-free-debate-on-immigration-order/article/2614298

A Senate Judiciary Committee seems like a more legitimate source than the CIS. When i click on the link in the examiner article it does not take me to the committee's findings.

Yeah, it looks like that website is down. I found several other news articles referring to it though. Here's one:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/22/senate-committee-580-terror-convictions-in-u-s-since-911-380-terrorists-are-foreign-born/

And another

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/22/anatomy-terror-threat-files-shed-light-on-nature-extent-plots-in-us.html?intcmp=hpbt3

[sfam]

Frum has been a NeverTrumper from the get go.

How is this different from the vast majority of foreign policy conservatives? The widely recognized problem in filling positions is Trump won't let folks who criticized him - Eliot Abrams, for instance - to join his administration.

There just aren't that many conservative foreign policy thinkers who didn't criticize Trump. No worries though - I'm sure this will be turned into Democrats slow rolling the nominations.

I'm just adding it for context. The fact that Frum is saying negative things about Trump now isn't surprising in the slightest. It's about the same as Will Kristol or Evan McMullan saying bad things about Trump. Their tenuous position in the GOP hierarchy now depends upon Trump failing.

Tenuous positions??? These are decades long leading conservative thinkers. Granted, I cannot recall a time ever that William Kristol has been right about anything, so I get the concern. I also agree Frum is not an unbiased observer - he's just a more sarcastically funny than most.

At some point Trump will not be around (even if he wishes otherwise). The question of what conservative thought looks like at that point is a pretty open question.

[bealwithit]

I posted the Miller article about a page back. Very informative and gives you an idea of why he seemed so strange on TV yesterday.

[payitforward]

Spare me. Trying to pin Nazism on Christianity is absurd. Hitler was an atheist. I note that you didn't remark on the 30 million killed by Stalin, who was inspired by the Jewish Trotskyites. If you're going to make tenuous connections, I can too.

And lynching took place 100 years ago (and whites were lynched too). Lynch mobs were more common in a time and place with less developed law enforcement. I imagine, 100 years ago, I'd be a little less alarmed by Sharia Law.

And again, you have to go back over 20 years to find a white-perpetrated terrorist attack on the same scale as what Muslims do hundreds of times per year across the globe. Your attempt at establishing moral equivalency between the Western world and the Muslim world is a failure.

If I were interested in pinning Nazism on Christianity, you are right -- it would be absurd.

Happy to include Stalin among the great mass murderers, nate. No question. But... the idea that he was inspired by Jewish Trotskyists is distinctly incorrect. Plus irrelevant. Perhaps what you meant to say is that Jews too are capable of violence & injustice. If so, of course that's the case. I wouldn't want to give the impression of sparing anyone.

For that matter, in the partition of India & Pakistan, Hindus killed @ a quarter million Muslims (number from memory -- it was a big one!).

Towards the end of WWII, the Allies (mostly the English) bombed Dresden into ruins. 120,000 German civilians died in one week. There was no military reason for it, just revenge. Nor do bombs know a loyal Nazi from a 2-year old child.

If you want to look at human violence on other humans, then really look at it. "Homo homini lupus est" goes the old Roman proverb -- man is wolf to man.

As with all proverbs, this one captures a partial truth not the whole truth. But it's a real part of the truth, and it has nothing whatever to do with different religions.

[sfam]

Quite informative article on Stephen Miller, the guy who was on the Sunday shows today.
Enjoy.
http://www.univision.com/univision-news/politics/how-white-house-advisor-stephen-miller-went-from-pestering-hispanic-students-to-designing-trumps-immigration-policy

I don't mind the racism in that sense - you sort of expect it from those close to Trump.

What was more concerning was the authoritarian statements. Miller's view that the president's power is unreviewable by the Judiciary is definitely a new one on me - and far more concerning than his anti-hispanic views, as bad as those are. Then again, considering he's close to Trump, we should expect authoritarianism from him as well.

[bsilver]

also anyone who thinks the rollout of the muslim ban was GOOD is plainly a moron. literally nobody on this planet except Trump and Sean 'Goebbels' Spicer actually claims that with a straight face. Even if you are a racist authoritarian, you can still see the actual rollout was an unmitigated disaster

Not only that, anyone who actually thinks that the SC is going to overturn the ruling is delusional and/or a complete moron.

The Supreme Court will indeed overturn the ruling. Mark my words.

If the Trump administration thought they had a chance at the SC they would have already appealed. There are four sure votes against Trump. Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor. With only 8 justices, and a ninth being months away, the court won't even accept the case at this point unless 5 justices indicate there's a chance of overturning the Appeals court, and there's four at most at this time.
There's no way to predict where Kennedy and Roberts will stand. The original judge who suspended the ban was a Republican nominee, and one of the three appeals court judges was a Republican nominee. Anyone who can think the can predict Kennedy's vote in this case hasn't a clue.
The only votes Trump can depend on are Alito and Thomas.
Another factor is the anymosity building up against Trump in the federal judiciary. His words obviously disturbed Gorsuch, and likely many more. Roberts is the type of judge who would also find Trump distasteful.
At this point, Trumps best strategy is to rewrite the EO and try again with a more limited scope.

[sfam]

Not only that, anyone who actually thinks that the SC is going to overturn the ruling is delusional and/or a complete moron.

The Supreme Court will indeed overturn the ruling. Mark my words.

If the Trump administration thought they had a chance at the SC they would have already appealed. There are four sure votes against Trump. Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor. With only 8 justices, and a ninth being months away, the court won't even accept the case at this point unless 5 justices indicate there's a chance of overturning the Appeals court, and there's four at most at this time.
There's no way to predict where Kennedy and Roberts will stand. The original judge who suspended the ban was a Republican nominee, and one of the three appeals court judges was a Republican nominee. Anyone who can think the can predict Kennedy's vote in this case hasn't a clue.
The only votes Trump can depend on are Alito and Thomas.
Another factor is the anymosity building up against Trump in the federal judiciary. His words obviously disturbed Gorsuch, and likely many more. Roberts is the type of judge who would also find Trump distasteful.
At this point, Trumps best strategy is to rewrite the EO and try again with a more limited scope.

The tough constitutional questions probably cannot be addressed by rewriting the order, and most likely would still have issues with Conservative justices. There is a clear and compelling history of statements that talks about a Muslim ban. The context won't change, nor will Trump's or his surrogates words.

[sfam]

Conway just said Trump has full confidence in Flynn. The cool part about having no credibility is it won't be that much of a hit towards Conway if they dump Flynn.

But if they don't dump Flynn, what does he have on them? Did Trump direct his actions?

[payitforward]

...I see (Trump) as a corrective President suitable for the necessary tasks ahead of us in the short term. Future presidents can blame Trump the individual for his bullying tactics, while privately appreciating Trump's accomplishments in putting America in a better position on the world stage.

That's interesting, nate. You're sort of "weaponizing" Trump, if that's the right word. But... are you assuming those two bolded passages? This early? I have to assume not. But, rather, you hope/want him to be, or maybe even have some confidence that he'll be, a "corrective", in whatever sense you're giving that word, & put America in a better position (again however you would unpack that phrase).

Am I correct? & does that mean that you think things are going well so far in those directions? I.e. in his first 3+ weeks in office?

Edit -- Actually, you have answered that question, I believe, in the affirmative. No need to reprise the answers. I've asked a few follow up questions in the just previous post by me.

[closg00]

I posted the Miller article about a page back. Very informative and gives you an idea of why he seemed so strange on TV yesterday.

Oops!! I missed that page. It's not an exaggeration to say that this WH communications apparatus is singing from the Goebbels hymn book, deliberate lying as a matter of policy to appease their emperor Trump, and to keep the deplorables fearful. When a populous is fearful, they will support all kinds of draconian laws etc.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[bealwithit]

Quite informative article on Stephen Miller, the guy who was on the Sunday shows today.
Enjoy.
http://www.univision.com/univision-news/politics/how-white-house-advisor-stephen-miller-went-from-pestering-hispanic-students-to-designing-trumps-immigration-policy

I don't mind the racism in that sense - you sort of expect it from those close to Trump.

What was more concerning was the authoritarian statements. Miller's view that the president's power is unreviewable by the Judiciary is definitely a new one on me - and far more concerning than his anti-hispanic views, as bad as those are. Then again, considering he's close to Trump, we should expect authoritarianism from him as well.

Yeah, I had only seen about half of his appearance on George Stephanopoulos' show and didn't see that quote until this morning. Like seriously, how is that not immediately highly concerning to EVERYONE regardless of party or ideological view? The stuff these people get away with saying is baffling.

[payitforward]

I'm curious, nate -- you were a strong Trump supporter throughout the election season, I believe. Would you say that the first three weeks of his Presidency have rendered you a bigger supporter of the man? Made you less of a supporter? Made you consider ending your support for him? Or had no effect on your level of support for Trump?

I'm just as strong of a supporter of him now as I was on November 8th. I'm heartened that he still has zero respect for the press and he correctly perceives them as his enemy, and not as a fair arbiter. I'm very happy with his preliminary moves on the Wall, immigration enforcement, law enforcement, and investigation of voter fraud.

I willingly cede that there have been some administrative mistakes so far, particularly with the amount of leaks and the poor way in which his legal team fought the Travel Ban case; but I expected it because he has so few allies among the Democrats and Establishment Republicans so the entrenched bureaucracy is fighting him tooth and nail. It's going to take him time to purge the saboteurs and convince the honest civil servants to work with him. It would also help if he had his cabinet confirmed.

Ok, interesting. A couple of points & questions.

1. Surely, depending on the situation, to be someone's "enemy" can also be to be "a fair arbiter."

2. What makes you think there's a "voter fraud" problem to investigate? Oh, and what investigation? I've only seen accusations.

3. "Purge the saboteurs" -- how are you using that word? Do you mean people who disagree with him? Or do you mean to suggest that he's been subject to sabotage in the real meaning of the word?

4. Finally, you make no mention of things like Flynn having (perhaps?) discussed sanctions w/ the Russians, Trump referring to an appellate court judge appointed by Bush as a "so-called judge," & a healthy list of other issues that seem to be seen as significant by the public & by the press. Are these insignificant matters? Should the press not attend to these things? E.g. to the issues with Flynn?

[sfam]

Quite informative article on Stephen Miller, the guy who was on the Sunday shows today.
Enjoy.
http://www.univision.com/univision-news/politics/how-white-house-advisor-stephen-miller-went-from-pestering-hispanic-students-to-designing-trumps-immigration-policy

I don't mind the racism in that sense - you sort of expect it from those close to Trump.

What was more concerning was the authoritarian statements. Miller's view that the president's power is unreviewable by the Judiciary is definitely a new one on me - and far more concerning than his anti-hispanic views, as bad as those are. Then again, considering he's close to Trump, we should expect authoritarianism from him as well.

Yeah, I had only seen about half of his appearance on George Stephanopoulos' show and didn't see that quote until this morning. Like seriously, how is that not immediately highly concerning to EVERYONE regardless of party or ideological view? The stuff these people get away with saying is baffling.

Exactly. Most conservatives hate the idea of unchecked executive power. My guess is the judges on the conservative side won't change their "deeply held core beliefs" as easily as most Republicans in Congress.

- Previously, family values were the most important thing in a leader. Now P-grabbing without permission, adultery and bragging about stealing spouses is totally cool.

- It used to be Russia was one of the worse players on the international stage. Now, everybody brutally kills folks, so no problems there either.

- It used to be free trade was critical for economic growth. Now protectionism is really where its at.

I just don't think conservative judges made those switches. I'm close to positive they don't buy Miller's argument of unchecked executive power.

[payitforward]

I posted the Miller article about a page back. Very informative and gives you an idea of why he seemed so strange on TV yesterday.

Oops!! I missed that page. It's not an exaggeration to say that this WH communications apparatus is singing from the Goebbels hymn book, deliberate lying as a matter of policy to appease their emperor Trump, and to keep the deplorables fearful. When a populous is fearful, they will support all kinds of draconian laws etc.

Yeah, "Goebbels" was my first thought on this guy.

Can't wait for him to be gone.

[bealwithit]

I don't mind the racism in that sense - you sort of expect it from those close to Trump.

What was more concerning was the authoritarian statements. Miller's view that the president's power is unreviewable by the Judiciary is definitely a new one on me - and far more concerning than his anti-hispanic views, as bad as those are. Then again, considering he's close to Trump, we should expect authoritarianism from him as well.

Yeah, I had only seen about half of his appearance on George Stephanopoulos' show and didn't see that quote until this morning. Like seriously, how is that not immediately highly concerning to EVERYONE regardless of party or ideological view? The stuff these people get away with saying is baffling.

Exactly. Most conservatives hate the idea of unchecked executive power. My guess is the judges on the conservative side won't change their "deeply held core beliefs" as easily as most Republicans in Congress.

- Previously, family values were the most important thing in a leader. Now P-grabbing without permission, adultery and bragging about stealing spouses is totally cool.

- It used to be Russia was one of the worse players on the international stage. Now, everybody brutally kills folks, so no problems there either.

- It used to be free trade was critical for economic growth. Now protectionism is really where its at.

I just don't think conservative judges made those switches. I'm close to positive they don't buy Miller's argument of unchecked executive power.

Agreed, no way they buy it. I don't have much to add except to include that Trump went out of his way to compliment Miller's Sunday show circuit performance on Twitter. This indicates that this the kind of thinking going on in Trump's mind (haven't even mentioned the voter fraud Miller blubbered about) and the type of rhetoric he wants to hear from his team. Pretty scary stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[nate33]

1. Surely, depending on the situation, to be someone's "enemy" can also be to be "a fair arbiter."

Yes. For example, The Intercept has been viciously negative about Trump, but they were quite negative towards Obama's policy in the Middle East as well. They earned credibility with me in their treatment of Obama, so I'm less willing to dismiss their negative treatment of Trump as purely partisan.

2. What makes you think there's a "voter fraud" problem to investigate? Oh, and what investigation? I've only seen accusations.

There were over 1000 illegal aliens registered to vote in just 8 counties in Virginia. Project that nationwide, and factor that many counties in the Southwest have a much higher proportion of illegal aliens, and it could amount to millions. That's enough evidence to me to warrant an investigation. What's so wrong with investigating this? With 13 million illegal immigrants here, and many states using only the "honor system" to determine citizenship status, I think a review of the system is reasonable.

3. "Purge the saboteurs" -- how are you using that word? Do you mean people who disagree with him? Or do you mean to suggest that he's been subject to sabotage in the real meaning of the word?

There have been a lot of leaks from the bureaucracies designed to hurt Trump. I consider that sabotage. I hope Trump finds those leakers and fires them.

4. Finally, you make no mention of things like Flynn having (perhaps?) discussed sanctions w/ the Russians, Trump referring to an appellate court judge appointed by Bush as a "so-called judge," & a healthy list of other issues that seem to be seen as significant by the public & by the press. Are these insignificant matters? Should the press not attend to these things? E.g. to the issues with Flynn?

Yes. I consider them insignificant compared to the actual policies being implemented. It was reckless of Obama to make a drastic change in foreign policy with Russia, as a lame duck, one week before leaving office, without consulting with Trump's people. It doesn't surprise me if Russia contacted Flynn through back channels to get a sense if this was going to be the policy of the future administration. It's a breach in protocol, but so is radical changes in foreign policy designed to put the next President in a box.

I continue to hope that the media pursues these non-issues. I believe that Ninth Circus ruling was ludicrous. Congress explicitly gave the President plenary power to restrict immigration from anyone whom he considers a threat. This is a clear separation of powers issue. The President shouldn't have to check with each of the thousands of District Court judges before executing foreign policy. I guarantee that this will be overturned by the Supreme Court.

[sfam]

3. "Purge the saboteurs" -- how are you using that word? Do you mean people who disagree with him? Or do you mean to suggest that he's been subject to sabotage in the real meaning of the word?

There have been a lot of leaks from the bureaucracies designed to hurt Trump. I consider that sabotage. I hope Trump finds those leakers and fires them.

I think you're confusing things. Trump has had nonstop leaks from HIS STAFF for the entire campaign, which has continued for the first 3 weeks of his presidency. This has nothing to do with the bureaucracy in Washington. Leaks like this coming from the White House are unheard of this early in a new Administration. This is all Trump and his game of thrones vibe, and has nothing to do with civilians in Washington.

EDIT: there are even rumours that Trump is among the "anonymous leakers" as he was during the campaign.

4. Finally, you make no mention of things like Flynn having (perhaps?) discussed sanctions w/ the Russians, Trump referring to an appellate court judge appointed by Bush as a "so-called judge," & a healthy list of other issues that seem to be seen as significant by the public & by the press. Are these insignificant matters? Should the press not attend to these things? E.g. to the issues with Flynn?

Yes. I consider them insignificant compared to the actual policies being implemented. It was reckless of Obama to make a drastic change in foreign policy with Russia, as a lame duck, one week before leaving office, without consulting with Trump's people. It doesn't surprise me if Russia contacted Flynn through back channels to get a sense if this was going to be the policy of the future administration. It's a breach in protocol, but so is radical changes in foreign policy designed to put the next President in a box.

There is only one President at a time. These were the policies being implemented. The fact that the sanctions were in response for Russians destabilizing our democracy in helping to elect Trump made it necessity for Obama to act, as Trump clearly would not. This is a really serious issue. Its an impeachable offense if Trump directed this interaction during the course of the campaign. This won't happen within the first two years if true, but if there is a landslide in 2018, Trump should be concerned.

I continue to hope that the media pursues these non-issues. I believe that Ninth Circus ruling was ludicrous. Congress explicitly gave the President plenary power to restrict immigration from anyone whom he considers a threat. This is a clear separation of powers issue. The President shouldn't have to check with each of the thousands of District Court judges before executing foreign policy. I guarantee that this will be overturned by the Supreme Court.

You may have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, but I doubt this gets overturned. Even Trump has realized this. He's not taking it to the Supreme Court.