Political Roundtable Part XIII

[Induveca]

Whether or not it ends up being legal - meaning seen as an actual travel ban and not a Muslim ban - its still horrible policy. The leaks coming out of the Intel community show reports and findings that show:

1. Country of origin is a poor predictor of extremist activity

2. Most extremists in the US radicalized well after coming here. Lone wolf attacks are the real danger. The Tsarnaev brothers behind the Boston bombing is far more representative.

3. Actions that alienate Muslim communities in the US from local and national law enforcement negatively impacts our ability to identify potential lone wolf attacks.

The Muslim ban is a campaign promise though. I do get that. But a "Travel Ban" is already different - why not instead examine the evidence and talk to experts to find out what actually works?

Why did you use GDelt or GNIP?

I used GDELT for examining tone in news reporting for increases or decreases in conflict and instability. We also used their event graph for event reporting, but its a pretty noisy dataset. I never used GNIP, but did access that data through Crimson Hexagon, a social media analytics product with full access to the twitter firehose, including deleted tweets. This is really cool for tracking extremist conversation, for instance, and they are often deleted quickly.

Right, that's what is interesting. These kind of data pipes (GNIP especially) are heavily relied upon by government agencies for watch lists. If someone is applying for a US visa from a GCC nation, rest assured their social media history for the past 6-7 years will be analyzed if available along with local electronic government /educational records.

I've seen these programs executed, and one person applying for a visa, when flagged for questionable activity, suddenly exposes a network of 5-10 more people who are then labeled individuals of concern. None of this is possible without the cooperation of the local government providing electronic access to birth certificates etc for a verified identity.

Why is this considered 100% crucial/critical in educated/wealthy Muslim nations (with the mantra to keep out extremists) when someone is applying for a US or EU visa, if it's apparently not critical for a country like Somalia?

The data isn't there for Somalia in terms of social media, (maybe a bit if you're lucky) so that's understood. However, the local records of the government can't be trusted as the vast majority aren't electronic and their databases aren't integrated into visa application systems or simply don't exist.

Curious SFam, for a country like Somalia. Would it not make you nervous if performing a consular review of an applicant not having any verifiable data? Why are people opposed to a methodology used in all Muslim nations, not being even partially enforced in places like Somalia and Sudan? My understanding is the idea is to attempt to force these nations to implement electronic passports tied back to a verifiable government data source.

[Zonkerbl]

Breitbart then sends me here for what they think healthcare and health insurance reform should look like:

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/03/20-ideas-to-crush-obamacare-and-cure-americas-health-care-crisis

Interesting read.

[sfam]

Why did you use GDelt or GNIP?

I used GDELT for examining tone in news reporting for increases or decreases in conflict and instability. We also used their event graph for event reporting, but its a pretty noisy dataset. I never used GNIP, but did access that data through Crimson Hexagon, a social media analytics product with full access to the twitter firehose, including deleted tweets. This is really cool for tracking extremist conversation, for instance, and they are often deleted quickly.

Right, that's what is interesting. These kind of data pipes (GNIP especially) are heavily relied upon by government agencies for watch lists. If someone is applying for a US visa from a GCC nation, rest assured their social media history for the past 6-7 years will be analyzed if available along with local electronic government /educational records.

I've seen these programs executed, and one person applying for a visa, when flagged for questionable activity, suddenly exposes a network of 5-10 more people who are then labeled individuals of concern. None of this is possible without the cooperation of the local government providing electronic access to birth certificates etc for a verified identity.

Why is this considered 100% crucial/critical in educated/wealthy Muslim nations (with the mantra to keep out extremists) when someone is applying for a US or EU visa, if it's apparently not critical for a country like Somalia?

The data isn't there for Somalia in terms of social media, (maybe a bit if you're lucky) so that's understood. However, the local records of the government can't be trusted as the vast majority aren't electronic and their databases aren't integrated into visa application systems or simply don't exist.

Curious SFam, for a country like Somalia. Would it not make you nervous if performing a consular review of an applicant not having any verifiable data? Why are people opposed to a methodology used in all Muslim nations, not being even partially enforced in places like Somalia and Sudan? My understanding is the idea is to attempt to force these nations to implement electronic passports tied back to a verifiable government data source.

For some reason, this never gets out to the news. If we are not able to vet someone and their background, they are not allowed in. Our vetting is not like, "Well, we don't know who you are, so you're probably OK..."

Bottom line, you are not allowed in without complete verifyable data, and without a clear income and family ties to show you will return. It is complete and utter BS to suggest otherwise. This really isn't the case. In practice, the consular process usually weeds out most in the lower income levels.

So no, the consular folks working on countries like Somalia already have really strong rules for this. Twitter is not going to get you much out of Somalia, but so what? They are far more likely to use mobile apps like WhatsApp and others. This is also true for wealthy Muslim nations. You might get the raging lunatic online, but if someone is planning to enter and attack the US, chances are pretty high their twitter feed won't reflect that.

[sfam]

And my last little pop to those that feel the ACA is a sustainable program. By eliminating it - the deficit will go down $337B and that includes that tax on the rich that was "supposed" to pay for it.

And 24 million more will be uninsured. But they will still get health care. And their cost to the overall GDP will be exorbitantly higher. Either hospitals pay the brunt or they saddle government and the rest of us with the costs.

The HUGE problem with the ACA is the republicans never allowed it to be fully implemented. Most republican governors forgoes the medicaid funding to fund insurance for the poorest, and they did everything possible to nick and cut it since its been implemented.

Costs were rising out of control prior to the ACA. That they are still rising isn't shocking. At least ACA reduced the rate of growth.



To your larger point, again, totally agree we as a country need to reduce the debt, including entitlement growth. The answer seems pretty clear - increase taxes and reduce or cut out of control costs. Most discretionary out of control costs are in the intel and military, yet Trump is increasing them.

[AFM]

Best headline of 2017?
http://truepundit.com/video-babbling-like-a-hobo-rifling-through-a-dumpster-unhinged-john-mccain-calls-rand-paul-a-russian-spy-on-senate-floor/

[sfam]

Trump is hoisted in his own petard. Both rulings that have come out against his "Travel Ban" - literally calling it a "Muslim Ban", used the words of Trump ("I think Islam hates us...we can't let those coming in who hate us...you don't know who is who...") and his staff against them. Stephen Miller indicated the new EO is just the same as the last one, but is a "watered down" version. They used Guiliani's "Trump asked me for a legal way to make a Muslim ban" language and other similar comments.

But perhaps maybe the larger point here is why would Trump expect a positive ruling after personally questioning the ethics of every judge he's encountered? Where else is this a good idea? He was at it again last night calling these judges politically motivated.

[dckingsfan]

...increase taxes...

Check. To a point where it is now holding back growth and that lack of growth lowering tax receipts and that lack of tax receipts are driving up the debt. Just saying...

[Induveca]

I used GDELT for examining tone in news reporting for increases or decreases in conflict and instability. We also used their event graph for event reporting, but its a pretty noisy dataset. I never used GNIP, but did access that data through Crimson Hexagon, a social media analytics product with full access to the twitter firehose, including deleted tweets. This is really cool for tracking extremist conversation, for instance, and they are often deleted quickly.

Right, that's what is interesting. These kind of data pipes (GNIP especially) are heavily relied upon by government agencies for watch lists. If someone is applying for a US visa from a GCC nation, rest assured their social media history for the past 6-7 years will be analyzed if available along with local electronic government /educational records.

I've seen these programs executed, and one person applying for a visa, when flagged for questionable activity, suddenly exposes a network of 5-10 more people who are then labeled individuals of concern. None of this is possible without the cooperation of the local government providing electronic access to birth certificates etc for a verified identity.

Why is this considered 100% crucial/critical in educated/wealthy Muslim nations (with the mantra to keep out extremists) when someone is applying for a US or EU visa, if it's apparently not critical for a country like Somalia?

The data isn't there for Somalia in terms of social media, (maybe a bit if you're lucky) so that's understood. However, the local records of the government can't be trusted as the vast majority aren't electronic and their databases aren't integrated into visa application systems or simply don't exist.

Curious SFam, for a country like Somalia. Would it not make you nervous if performing a consular review of an applicant not having any verifiable data? Why are people opposed to a methodology used in all Muslim nations, not being even partially enforced in places like Somalia and Sudan? My understanding is the idea is to attempt to force these nations to implement electronic passports tied back to a verifiable government data source.

For some reason, this never gets out to the news. If we are not able to vet someone and their background, they are not allowed in. Our vetting is not like, "Well, we don't know who you are, so you're probably OK..."

Bottom line, you are not allowed in without complete verifyable data, and without a clear income and family ties to show you will return. It is complete and utter BS to suggest otherwise. This really isn't the case. In practice, the consular process usually weeds out most in the lower income levels.

So no, the consular folks working on countries like Somalia already have really strong rules for this. Twitter is not going to get you much out of Somalia, but so what? They are far more likely to use mobile apps like WhatsApp and others. This is also true for wealthy Muslim nations. You might get the raging lunatic online, but if someone is planning to enter and attack the US, chances are pretty high their twitter feed won't reflect that.

Not really my experience. As of 2014 Somalia was essentially forced by the GCC nations to begin implementing electronically verifiable IDs (both for national use, and passports). US tech was used, implemented by Emirati and Omani corporations.

It still has not been implemented inside Somalia (only at foreign consulates) due to Somaliland, Puntland etc not recognizing the Mogadishu government. Tie that together with AQ and AS having such a strong presence in the nation it's a nightmare for any reliable vetting.

[gtn130]

Trump is hoisted in his own petard. Both rulings that have come out against his "Travel Ban" - literally calling it a "Muslim Ban", used the words of Trump ("I think Islam hates us...we can't let those coming in who hate us...you don't know who is who...") and his staff against them. Stephen Miller indicated the new EO is just the same as the last one, but is a "watered down" version. They used Guiliani's "Trump asked me for a legal way to make a Muslim ban" language and other similar comments.

But perhaps maybe the larger point here is why would Trump expect a positive ruling after personally questioning the ethics of every judge he's encountered? Where else is this a good idea? He was at it again last night calling these judges politically motivated.

4D chess.

Trump wants the Muslim Ban to fail to distract us from other next level genius plays he's making

[DCZards]

And my last little pop to those that feel the ACA is a sustainable program. By eliminating it - the deficit will go down $337B and that includes that tax on the rich that was "supposed" to pay for it.

...and by repealing ACA and replacing it with the Republican plan the healthcare premiums of Americans 64 and older go through the roof. As much as 8x as much as that demographic is paying under ACA.

I'm guessing there are better (less harmful) ways to cut the deficit.

[dckingsfan]

Breitbart then sends me here for what they think healthcare and health insurance reform should look like:

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/03/20-ideas-to-crush-obamacare-and-cure-americas-health-care-crisis

Interesting read.

Zonk, did you see my post to you on Dutch prisons?

BTW, I agree with many of those. I think you pointed out previously that healthcare will never be affordable without action on prices. The ACA and ACHA both go in the wrong direction.

[sfam]

Read on Twitter

doh! Looks like US Institute of Peace is zero'd out of the last budget. Should I feel less bad of being let go there? Seriously, this is a ridiculous cut of like 30 million.

[dckingsfan]

And my last little pop to those that feel the ACA is a sustainable program. By eliminating it - the deficit will go down $337B and that includes that tax on the rich that was "supposed" to pay for it.

...and by repealing ACA and replacing it with the Republican plan the healthcare premiums of those 64 and older go through the roof. Reportedly 8x as much as that demographic is paying under ACA.

Not in agreement with the ACHA. I have stated that they shouldn't repeal the ACA until they have something better. I agree with Sen. Cotton, “Pause, start over. Get it right.” The ACHA as it is currently constructed sucks.

My point was - the ACA was never sustainable. That stands. It was the wrong way to approach a problem that still isn't solved.

[nate33]

Trump is hoisted in his own petard. Both rulings that have come out against his "Travel Ban" - literally calling it a "Muslim Ban", used the words of Trump ("I think Islam hates us...we can't let those coming in who hate us...you don't know who is who...") and his staff against them. Stephen Miller indicated the new EO is just the same as the last one, but is a "watered down" version. They used Guiliani's "Trump asked me for a legal way to make a Muslim ban" language and other similar comments.

But perhaps maybe the larger point here is why would Trump expect a positive ruling after personally questioning the ethics of every judge he's encountered? Where else is this a good idea? He was at it again last night calling these judges politically motivated.

But if his personal attacks on the judges are affecting their decisions, doesn't it prove that the judges are politically motivated?

The very notion that judges are using statements from Trump's surrogates as a means of divining the intent of his orders is outrageous beyond words. The executive order is what it is. The judges need to evaluate the words on the paper, not the intent behind them.

This is judicial tyranny and it will not stand. This will force Trump to take profound steps to stop judicial overreach. Trump's public tributes to Andrew Jackson are not accidental. The Judicial Branch has steadily expanded it's power without check for a hundred years. It's time for some pushback.

[Kanyewest]

Trump's disapproval rating is increasing, now more people disapprove of Trump than approve in Rasmussen and Fox News.

Sent from my LG-D851 using RealGM mobile app

[sfam]

Trump is hoisted in his own petard. Both rulings that have come out against his "Travel Ban" - literally calling it a "Muslim Ban", used the words of Trump ("I think Islam hates us...we can't let those coming in who hate us...you don't know who is who...") and his staff against them. Stephen Miller indicated the new EO is just the same as the last one, but is a "watered down" version. They used Guiliani's "Trump asked me for a legal way to make a Muslim ban" language and other similar comments.

But perhaps maybe the larger point here is why would Trump expect a positive ruling after personally questioning the ethics of every judge he's encountered? Where else is this a good idea? He was at it again last night calling these judges politically motivated.

But if his personal attacks on the judges are affecting their decisions, doesn't it prove that the judges are politically motivated?

The very notion that judges are using statements from Trump's surrogates as a means of divining the intent of his orders is outrageous beyond words. The executive order is what it is. The judges need to evaluate the words on the paper, not the intent behind them.

This is judicial tyranny and it will not stand. This will force Trump to take profound steps to stop judicial overreach. Trump's public tributes to Andrew Jackson are not accidental. The Judicial Branch has steadily expanded it's power without check for a hundred years. It's time for some pushback.

If you mouthed off to a judge at traffic court and she found you at fault and threw the book at you, would you think she was politically motivated? It might just prove she's human.

EDIT: As to providing context as being outrageous beyond words, the fact that two separate judges did this, three now if you take the last case, I don't find it all that outrageous. If I told you I was going to remove all people from Kansas because I hated them, and then came up with a "security" policy to temporarily remove all Kansans to check for pollutants in their state, would you question my motives, even if there was nothing written on paper?

[dckingsfan]

... Most discretionary out of control costs are in the intel and military, yet Trump is increasing them...

Eh, not so much.



But would I like to see this as a smaller percentage - yep. But I am guessing many would disagree with the two of us. Still 67% is spent on entitlements + interest. It is squeezing out all those other programs you like.

[sfam]

... Most discretionary out of control costs are in the intel and military, yet Trump is increasing them...

Eh, not so much.



But would I like to see this as a smaller percentage - yep. But I am guessing many would disagree with the two of us.

Entitlements aren't discretionary spending.

[nate33]

Trump is hoisted in his own petard. Both rulings that have come out against his "Travel Ban" - literally calling it a "Muslim Ban", used the words of Trump ("I think Islam hates us...we can't let those coming in who hate us...you don't know who is who...") and his staff against them. Stephen Miller indicated the new EO is just the same as the last one, but is a "watered down" version. They used Guiliani's "Trump asked me for a legal way to make a Muslim ban" language and other similar comments.

But perhaps maybe the larger point here is why would Trump expect a positive ruling after personally questioning the ethics of every judge he's encountered? Where else is this a good idea? He was at it again last night calling these judges politically motivated.

But if his personal attacks on the judges are affecting their decisions, doesn't it prove that the judges are politically motivated?

The very notion that judges are using statements from Trump's surrogates as a means of divining the intent of his orders is outrageous beyond words. The executive order is what it is. The judges need to evaluate the words on the paper, not the intent behind them.

This is judicial tyranny and it will not stand. This will force Trump to take profound steps to stop judicial overreach. Trump's public tributes to Andrew Jackson are not accidental. The Judicial Branch has steadily expanded it's power without check for a hundred years. It's time for some pushback.

If you mouthed off to a judge at traffic court and she found you at fault and threw the book at you, would you think she was politically motivated?

That's different. In your scenario, the victim of the judge's wrath would be me personally. In this case, the victim is an executive order that could save lives. I realize you dispute the effectiveness of the executive order, and there are valid reasons to do so, but those considerations are completely irrelevant in the context of the judge's decision.

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

Movement in the polls since last election

Read on Twitter