US Politics: YOUTUBE LINKS OR GTFO

[Kalbear]

And with all THAT being said, given that the timeframe is 3 months, it makes no sense to actually have the order in place at all; obviously you'd have enough time to get whatever extreme vetting you need in by the time Gorsuch is confirmed and everything is done. I'd make that argument if I were the lawyers too - that the ban was for a set period of time while they got the security requirements in place and they now have the time, so there should be no need for this order regardless. 

[LongRider]

59 minutes ago, Zorral said:

We have never had a potus endorsed by the KKK before little hands.  Griffith, Dixon etc. tried to get Wilson to endorse them but he wouldn't play that game for them.

He's gonna unleash 'em, and we're going to see a return to the horrors of the Jim Crow years, for there will be no legal repercussions and they want to go huntin' so bad!  Their trigger fingers are itching, itching, itching to turn those big expensive guns on black homse, schools, churches and communities in a communal orgy of blood and terror.

 

Obligatory youtube link or GTFO

https://youtu.be/lv0jav4lNsk

"Tomorrow Belongs to Me"

[JGP]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

And with all THAT being said, given that the timeframe is 3 months, it makes no sense to actually have the order in place at all; obviously you'd have enough time to get whatever extreme vetting you need in by the time Gorsuch is confirmed and everything is done. I'd make that argument if I were the lawyers too - that the ban was for a set period of time while they got the security requirements in place and they now have the time, so there should be no need for this order regardless. 

While you're making the same argument the Spec.Counsel did, POTUS seems intent on having his ban now.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying, Kal. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, JEORDHl said:

While you're making the same argument the Spec.Counsel did, POTUS seems intent on having his ban now.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying, Kal. 

The original goal of the EO was to do a temporary ban on new visas, existing visas and existing immigration along with refugees for 3 months so that they could put into place a vetting system. 

If the proceedings for ruling on the constitutionality of this EO take longer than 3 months, there's no value in having it at all. The original rationale has long past, and there is nothing stopping them from implementing their 'extreme vetting' process or at least attempting to. 

The only counterpoint to this also throws it out on its ear right away - if they say that they need more time, then the scope of this is clearly not just a temporary ban and is indefinite, which makes it far more broad. I think that the DoJ isn't going to go that route for precisely that reason - because they know that it'll be defeated right away - but it's a possibility. 

[sToNED_CAT]

23 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And your reasoning behind ignoring 1.5 million displaced people without jobs and the multiple researchers who disagree with you is...what, precisely? 

Multiple biased researchers trying so hard to pin the revolution on global warming, so that climate change can be made to look soooo dangerous to political stability.  Again, in 2010-2011 there were revolutions all over Arab world. It is logical to conclude that Syria is just one case out of many not special one caused by climate change and economic distress, especially when at the time of revolution the situation was already improving. Timeline simply doesn't fit sorry.

[Kalbear]

Oh hey, look where the first Syrian revolt happened in 2011.

Quote

It was in the impoverished drought-stricken rural province of Darʿā, in southern Syria, that the first major protests occurred in March 2011. A group of children had been arrested and tortured by the authorities for writing antiregime graffiti; incensed local people took to the street to demonstrate for political and economic reforms. Security forces responded harshly, conducting mass arrests and sometimes firing on demonstrators. The violence of the regime’s response added visibility and momentum to the protesters’ cause, and within weeks similar nonviolent protests had begun to appear in cities around the country. Videos of security forces beating and firing at protesters—captured by witnesses on mobile phones—were circulated around the country and smuggled out to foreign media outlets.

But I'm sure that had nothing to do with anything.

[Kalbear]

Just now, sToNED_CAT said:

Multiple biased researchers trying so hard to pin the revolution on global warming, so that climate change can be made to look soooo dangerous to political stability.  Again, in 2010-2011 there were revolutions all over Arab world. It is logical to conclude that Syria is just one case out of many not special one caused by climate change and economic distress, especially when at the time of revolution the situation was already improving. Timeline simply doesn't fit sorry.

As I pointed out above, it fits perfectly. 1.5 million people were displaced. 85% of farms were wiped out. 75% of ranches. Those people moved elsewhere and were impoverished and angry. 

There certainly were revolutions all over the Arab world in 2011. None of them had the same cause. If you think that the Egyptian changes had the same root cause as Libya, you're...well, stoned. 

The point isn't that it was CAUSED by a climate event. It was exacerbated by it. Heavily. Which is the general conclusion of the US military too - that climate events and global warming are going to act like a threat multiplier. It made what was likely a small issue into a larger one. There are a lot of other issues that exacerbated this as well - Western encouragement, instability in Iraq that caused more refugees to flee to Syria, Iranian support, bad policies by Assad - but the notion that the drought that displaced 1.5 million people didn't do anything is incredibly stupid. 

[Altherion]

50 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

So far, have any of your potential stays based on congress held up to muster? Any of them?

Which ones have not? They have not funded the wall yet, Trump has not even tried to deport everyone who is here illegally and ACA is still in place.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Altherion said:

Which ones have not? They have not funded the wall yet, Trump has not even tried to deport everyone who is here illegally and ACA is still in place.

Congress has stated publicly that they will fund the wall and work is already underway on it. We've started deporting people who had been safe in the US for 22 years. The ACA is still in place, that's true - but the votes have already been cast and both and EO that undermines it along with the reconcilliation process have started.

So basically the only reason the above are true is because we're only 3 weeks in. There is zero sign of any of these things being stopped or even slowed down. Congress has not once stopped or slowed down a single item here. Not once.

[JGP]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The original goal of the EO was to do a temporary ban on new visas, existing visas and existing immigration along with refugees for 3 months so that they could put into place a vetting system. 

If the proceedings for ruling on the constitutionality of this EO take longer than 3 months, there's no value in having it at all. The original rationale has long past, and there is nothing stopping them from implementing their 'extreme vetting' process or at least attempting to. 

The only counterpoint to this also throws it out on its ear right away - if they say that they need more time, then the scope of this is clearly not just a temporary ban and is indefinite, which makes it far more broad. I think that the DoJ isn't going to go that route for precisely that reason - because they know that it'll be defeated right away - but it's a possibility. 

Ah, ok I get what you're saying now. It would actually be wise for the DoJ to drop it now, if Trump will let them.

[Kalbear]

Just now, JEORDHl said:

Ah, ok I get what you're saying now. It would actually be wise for the DoJ to drop it now, if Trump will let them.

Yeah, they won't do that, like, ever. Because it's clear that the ban is not remotely meant to last 3 months, and there will never be any kind of actual change in vetting, only a change in who is let in at all. 

[Kalbear]

And here, @Altherion - here's an example of Trump 'not deporting everyone': ICE raids in  California going after people who had given freely their information to ICE.

 

[Altherion]

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And here, @Altherion - here's an example of Trump 'not deporting everyone': ICE raids in  California going after people who had given freely their information to ICE.

Oh, come on. Even under Obama there were on the order of 1000 deportations per day. My point was that Trump could not deport millions without additional funds and this is still the case.

[Rippounet]

33 minutes ago, sToNED_CAT said:

Multiple biased researchers trying so hard to pin the revolution on global warming, so that climate change can be made to look soooo dangerous to political stability.

I don't believe anyone here said climatic events create political instability ex nihilo.
What they can do is transform such instability into an open conflict. Which might or might not have happened otherwise.
I honestly can't judge how important the climatic factor was in starting the Syrian civil war. What I can do is point out that some researchers made a convincing case for that, and thus that it shows us how climate change could start a number of comparable crises around the globe in the next decade.
I personally believe the drought was a trigger in Syria. Call me biased all you want.

The CIA also said that climate change worsens existing problems (and even that it may create new ones):
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2015-speeches-testimony/brennan-remarks-at-csis-global-security-forum-2015.html

Quote

In many developing societies, growing pessimism about the prospects for economic advancement is fueling instability. Regions with burgeoning youth populations, such as the Arab world, have been unable to achieve the growth needed to reduce high unemployment rates. Perceptions of growing inequality have resulted in more assertive street politics and populism. At the same time, slower growth has left these nations with fewer resources to devote to economic, humanitarian, and peacekeeping assistance to address these challenges.

Mankind’s relationship with the natural world is aggravating these problems and is a potential source of crisis itself. Last year was the warmest on record, and this year is on track to be even warmer.

Extreme weather, along with public policies affecting food and water supplies, can worsen or create humanitarian crises. Of most immediate concern, sharply reduced crop yields in multiple places simultaneously could trigger a shock in food prices with devastating effect, especially in already fragile regions such as Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Compromised access to food and water greatly increases the prospect for famine and deadly epidemics.

 

 

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Oh, come on. Even under Obama there were on the order of 1000 deportations per day. My point was that Trump could not deport millions without additional funds and this is still the case.

ICE wasn't doing raids on people who hadn't committed any crimes under Obama, however. They weren't deporting mothers of two who had been here since they were 14 and are now 31. 

And as I pointed out before, Trump already put into place the step needed to do it without extra funds - the secure communities EO, which allows local and state resources to be used in raids. Which...ICE is doing, literally, right now. He has also requested funding for ICE and the DHS for these purposes, and when that bill hits it will almost certainly be funded. 

I'm really not sure where your optimism comes from. Again, have you seen a single sign of you being even close to right? The closest you've grabbed is that in the 18 days of Trump's office he has not (yet) repealed and replaced the ACA successfully, though he's put steps in place for it. In 18 days. Really, aren't you even a little bit surprised how wrong you've been?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, TrueMetis said:

It is more that Newtonian mechanics where shown to be incomplete, not incorrect. That's why we can, and do, still use Newtonian physics in many applications. There is no "Newtonian climate change" though.

Y'all are missing my point.  The scientific consensus is correct until it is incorrect.  As such it is absolutely right and proper for scientists who disagree with that concensus to speak about their disagreement.  To say otherwise is to reject the scientific method.

Another example. Scientific concensus was that the expansion of the Universe was slowing until it was shown that it was accelerating.  That will be considered true unless someone shows that data or the analysis of that data to be faulty.  The Scientific Method demands falsification.

[Mexal]

Seems Flynn did discuss the sanctions with the Russian ambassador in December. Not a good look.

Quote

National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country’s ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said.

Flynn’s communications with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak were interpreted by some senior U.S. officials as an inappropriate and potentially illegal signal to the Kremlin that it could expect a reprieve from sanctions that were being imposed by the Obama administration in late December to punish Russia for its alleged interference in the 2016 election.

Flynn on Wednesday denied that he had discussed sanctions with Kislyak. Asked in an interview whether he had ever done so, he twice said, “No.” 

On Thursday, Flynn, through his spokesman, backed away from the denial. The spokesman said Flynn “indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up.

...

Neither of those assertions is consistent with the fuller account of Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak provided by officials who had access to reports from U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies that routinely monitor the communications of Russian diplomats. Nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

All of those officials said ­Flynn’s references to the election-related sanctions were explicit. Two of those officials went further, saying that Flynn urged Russia not to overreact to the penalties being imposed by President Barack Obama, making clear that the two sides would be in position to review the matter after Trump was sworn in as president.

“Kislyak was left with the impression that the sanctions would be revisited at a later time,” said a former official.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

FUCKING NAILED IT! Just have to gin blossom up her nose a bit. 

 

[JGP]

5 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

FUCKING NAILED IT! Just have to gin blossom up her nose a bit. 

 

hahahahahahahaha

[OldGimletEye]

http://robertreich.org/post/157024204180

Quote

A group of former Republican officials (including James A. Baker, Henry Paulson, George P. Shultz, Marty Feldstein and Greg Mankiw) is proposing a carbon tax starting the tax at $40 per ton, that would gradually increase. 

The proceeds of the tax would be distributed to every American.

The average family of four would receive $2,000 annually in dividends. As the tax rises, so would their dividends. Since everyone would receive the same amount of revenue from the tax regardless of their income level, the dividend would make a bigger difference for poorer families than for wealthier ones.

It’s a win-win: Less carbon in the atmosphere, and more equal distribution of income.

That it’s being proposed by Republicans doesn’t make the idea any less worthy. 

I’m aware that some on the left would rather use revenues from such a tax to invest in clean energy and other social causes rather than return the revenues directly to the public. That detail can be worked out.

The idea is getting a hearing in the White House. And in these dreadful times, that’s good news indeed.

It's interesting how some prominent Democrats are jumping on idea started by some Republicans and not  just playing team Democrat.

Now, all you have to do is: Convince the Republican Party. Good luck.