Executive order and Business ties

[tinselwolverine]

I'm just going by the article I read. I think initially green card holders were thought to be included because Trump and Co did such a shitty job preparing, communicating, and executing the changes. They then had to clarify. It's all bullshit. Feels rushed and amateur, just like most of his executive orders have so far.

Apparently Donald Trump is starting to realize that he has a government job - for the first time in his life - and therefore isn't really going to be held to that high of a standard.

Especially since - when you think about it - in reality, he doesn't report directly to anyone.

 

[Spartanmack]

Its ridclues they forgot the green card holders and contractors with the United states armed forces and to lump Iraq in with Iran then ask them to die for American fighting Isis which they already do just shows this administration swamp is a jv squad.
The hypocrites left out all or most of Trump's countries he does business in . The judge correctly ruled this was wrong and issued a stay. BTW immigrants are already throughly vetted. American liberty is freedom of religion. Country was founded on religious tolerance, and freedom for all. The ban is unconstitutional.

how "throughly" vetted was Tashfeen Malik?

 

[Spartanmack]

Mitch the GOP has no plan.. Did you miss the leaked conversion at the GOP conference?
Gop leaders are very worried the plan and or plans they have are flawed that will kill them in the next set of elections if they try. Just shows you that the lying hypocritical GOP leaders who campaigned on repealing and replacing Obamacare only wanted to use it on the campaign trails. Novel concept was trying to fix what was not working and make the ACA work and make it cheaper? But as you know McConnell couldn't have that man in the white house get a win. You know guys like Marco Rubio who crushed any hope the ACA had to be competitive and affordable..

you think that congress killed the competitiveness of Obamacare? I'd love to hear how they did that when the law itself took a market with very little competitiveness to begin with and made it less competitive by driving companies out of markets altogether all over the country.

 

[Michchamp]

how "throughly" vetted was Tashfeen Malik?

Are you actually familiar with the amount of processing, due diligence, and background checks that are part of the immigration process (regardless of the basis for immigration, ie work visa, green card, refugee, asylum seeker, and regardless of their country of origin) or are you just speculating from a position of ignorance that there is no - or almost no - vetting of immigrants?

 

[Michchamp]

I'm just going by the article I read. I think initially green card holders were thought to be included because Trump and Co did such a shitty job preparing, communicating, and executing the changes. They then had to clarify. It's all bullshit. Feels rushed and amateur, just like most of his executive orders have so far.

people with valid green cards were detained and in some cases cuffed at airports.

its exactly what you speculated: Trump and the clowns he appointed to high positions way beyond their competency are just shooting from the hip here, pandering to the basest instincts of their voters.

this sounds a lot more like the NCAA's blanket "camp ban" they had to walk back because it affected all sorts of legit activities, not just Harbaugh going to SEC country.

I expect most of Trump's executive orders (until he's impeached or resigns under pressure from his own party) will follow this pattern.

and in this case, it wasn't just that the Exec Order was overbroad... it was poorly executed as well. the people detained and just released described the process as chaotic and said the immigrations and customs officials had no idea what they were supposed to do under the Order... they had never had to detain valid green card holders before. Amateur hour.

when I read comments from people that Hillary was as "unqualified" as Trump made me scratch my head. at least the trains would've run on time (so to speak) with the sort of experienced (albeit corrupt to some degree) appointees she would've appointed to office. this idea that we're better off bringing in someone who has never managed a large organization as opposed to an experienced civil servant just because they paid lip service to the "drain the swamp" ideology is wrong and bad.

 

[biggunsbob]

you think that congress killed the competitiveness of Obamacare? I'd love to hear how they did that when the law itself took a market with very little competitiveness to begin with and made it less competitive by driving companies out of markets altogether all over the country.

You can thank Marco Rubio For Helping Make the ACA worse. Novel concept Hack why not work together to make the bill work for all Americans instead of fighting It tooth and nail like you know the Gop did. Is the ACA good for everyone probaby not but please tell me why didn't the Gop try and make it better so it would work great?

Health Insurance should be a right for everyone which I know you disagree with. It is sad when a person who has decent insurance like my wife's friend Vicky who's son has a rare form of cancer and she may still have to declare bankruptcy because of bills. This is crazy in America that anyone would have to suffer seeing her sons whole face reconstructed because of cancer and still get stuck with a unaffordable bill. How freaking American Is that?


The point is why didn't the Gop try and make the ACA work better ?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...we-wiped-out-obamacare-bailout-fund-insuranc/

 

[Michchamp]

this article has a little more on the "Muslim ban" including: the fact that the head of Homeland Security had to issue a press release clarifying that valid green card holders were not included in the ban, indicating the doofuses in the White House are just making this up as they go along; the observation that no one from any of the 7 countries impacted by the ban has been involved in terrorist attacks on American soil (unlike, say Saudi Arabia); and also a video clip of Rudy Giuliani bragging that this policy was intended to be a Muslim ban. Even if it didn't target every Muslim nation, It targeted the countries Muslims were most likely to come from (wealthy Saudis are not rushing to emigrate to the US).

just so happens to also impact the countries we're bombing/already bombed. It's almost like bombing and attacking a country makes it worse for the people living there... even if you tell them you're bringing them freedom! Who could've predicted that?!?!

 

[sggatecl]

The core ideas at the center of the ACA was to create a regulated exchange for people to buy insurance that ignores preexisting conditions; there’s an individual mandate requiring all people to sign up for insurance; and to make sure everyone can afford insurance, there are subsidies available for households with low incomes.

Both the House and the Senate were on board with these parameters when talk of health reform began. However, the 2009 House bill on insurance was seen as more aggressive than the relatively cautious Senate version. The two were supposed to go through a merging process called reconciliation once they both passed, but the surprise victory of Republican Scott Brown in the special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts Senate seat in January 2010 deprived the Democrats of the 60 votes they needed for that to happen. The House responded by passing the Senate bill instead, giving us the ACA that Trump axed in week 1.

The House bill was basically abandoned, along with its public insurance option that would exist in all the exchanges, holding down costs by using the government’s large footprint to compete with private insurers.

 

[Michchamp]

The core ideas at the center of the ACA was to create a regulated exchange for people to buy insurance that ignores preexisting conditions; there?s an individual mandate requiring all people to sign up for insurance; and to make sure everyone can afford insurance, there are subsidies available for households with low incomes.

Both the House and the Senate were on board with these parameters when talk of health reform began. However, the 2009 House bill on insurance was seen as more aggressive than the relatively cautious Senate version. The two were supposed to go through a merging process called reconciliation once they both passed, but the surprise victory of Republican Scott Brown in the special election to fill Ted Kennedy?s Massachusetts Senate seat in January 2010 deprived the Democrats of the 60 votes they needed for that to happen. The House responded by passing the Senate bill instead, giving us the ACA that Trump axed in week 1.

The House bill was basically abandoned, along with its public insurance option that would exist in all the exchanges, holding down costs by using the government?s large footprint to compete with private insurers.

also note that this was "Romneycare" before it became "Obamacare" ... and therefore bad.

 

[Spartanmack]

The ohio state guy? Oh you mean the Somali legal permanent resident with a green card that said he was sick of how Americans treated Muslims because they were being killed and tortured. Thats not terrorism in my definition. He was living in terror....and got sick of it.

that's exactly right - he was "thoroughly vetted" as was the St. Cloud machete attacker and the NY/NJ bomber who injured 30 people with dumpster bomb in Chelsea 4 months ago. All of these people had been through the Visa program - 2 of them from Somalia but people keep saying nobody from any of the 7 countries has committed an act of terrorism on US soil. Why is no one calling them liars? clearly, they are lying.

 

[Spartanmack]

He had a green card so what? He wasn't American. That was terrorism. He killed in the name of ISIS, hello Terrorism. How can you be okay with that? I know it's the political way but damn.. We now give a free pass to everyone?

isn't that exactly the point - he was vetted and he had a green card yet he still tried to kill a bunch of people in the name of Allah. hughes is providing evidence and making the point he's trying to disprove.

 

[Spartanmack]

Are you actually familiar with the amount of processing, due diligence, and background checks that are part of the immigration process (regardless of the basis for immigration, ie work visa, green card, refugee, asylum seeker, and regardless of their country of origin) or are you just speculating from a position of ignorance that there is no - or almost no - vetting of immigrants?

I'm saying maybe this "thorough" process isn't as robust as it's held out to be given that a radical islamist went through it, got in and then went on a shooting rampage. Are you familiar with the shortcomings of the current process? Are you aware of why these 7 specific countries were selected? Or do you just think it's because they're majority muslim countries like CNN tells you? Those 7 countries were selected because they lack the infrastructure to provide reliable data on the identification and background of their people. And if that data isn't available or reliable (garbage in, garbage out), then the process, no matter how thorough is questionable. It's not unreasonable to put a temporary halt in place for the Trump administration to assess the process and make adjustments as necessary.

 

[Spartanmack]

The core ideas at the center of the ACA was to create a regulated exchange for people to buy insurance that ignores preexisting conditions; there?s an individual mandate requiring all people to sign up for insurance; and to make sure everyone can afford insurance, there are subsidies available for households with low incomes.

Both the House and the Senate were on board with these parameters when talk of health reform began. However, the 2009 House bill on insurance was seen as more aggressive than the relatively cautious Senate version. The two were supposed to go through a merging process called reconciliation once they both passed, but the surprise victory of Republican Scott Brown in the special election to fill Ted Kennedy?s Massachusetts Senate seat in January 2010 deprived the Democrats of the 60 votes they needed for that to happen. The House responded by passing the Senate bill instead, giving us the ACA that Trump axed in week 1.

The House bill was basically abandoned, along with its public insurance option that would exist in all the exchanges, holding down costs by using the government?s large footprint to compete with private insurers.

also note that this was "Romneycare" before it became "Obamacare" ... and therefore bad.

Also note that it was passed without a single Republican vote and that the 60th vote was provided by Al Franken, who likely won his seat through voter fraud, which doesn't exist even though it does.

 

[sggatecl]

Also note that it was passed without a single Republican vote and that the 60th vote was provided by Al Franken, who likely won his seat through voter fraud, which doesn't exist even though it does.

Was that the controversy where they found that convicted felons had voted? I think I remember that.

 

[Gulo Blue]

1) I think you can separate the intent of the executive order from how it was rolled out. Regardless of whether or not you think the ban is a good idea, how it was rolled out was an inexcusable "cluster-whoopsie" (to borrow a phrase from Kenneth the page from 30 Rock.) It was either enacted this way due to incompetance, or worse, Trump wanted all the trouble/protesting/media coverage, and doesn't care who he screws over as long as it makes headlines.

2) ACA should never have been called "Obamacare". It's not Obama's plan. It's the healthcare insurance companies's plan. You should have zero surprise when Republicans either do an about-face and try to relabel it as their own or dismantle it selectively, leaving the parts the insurance companies want to keep. Or, maybe, now that prices have been jacked up, maybe they can repeal it, as long the the prices stay where they are. Either way, prices aren't going back down.

 

[Michchamp]

I'm saying maybe this "thorough" process isn't as robust as it's held out to be given that a radical islamist went through it, got in and then went on a shooting rampage. Are you familiar with the shortcomings of the current process? Are you aware of why these 7 specific countries were selected? Or do you just think it's because they're majority muslim countries like CNN tells you? Those 7 countries were selected because they lack the infrastructure to provide reliable data on the identification and background of their people. And if that data isn't available or reliable (garbage in, garbage out), then the process, no matter how thorough is questionable. It's not unreasonable to put a temporary halt in place for the Trump administration to assess the process and make adjustments as necessary.

I am familiar with the process. it has to be one of the most thorough processes we require on a large scale (avg. of over 1,000,000 people admitted to the US most years going back to 2000, and 100,000s more rejected each year). There is a background check, in person interviews, biometric analysis (fingerprints, & photographs) in each case, as well as requiring and reviewing supporting evidence for each applicant which can be dozens of pages, photos, forms, documents, & records. additionally, there are substantial fees (a few thousand dollars or so for each applicant) involved... which serve as a bar in and of themselves. and for individuals coming from certain nations (ie failed states, particularly ones we bombed into ruin) there is already additional scrutiny and often applicants have to go through multiple interviews and submit additional evidence before they pass muster. so I'm not sure how you think this should be more thorough... unless you want to make it a bigger bureaucracy than it already is. and of course... big government = bad, right?

The cases you're citing involved individuals who became "radicalized" and committed crimes here in the US.

of course, proposing draconian bans and hamfisted regulations to address the statistically miniscule chances of harm happening is un-American, un-Constitutional, and wrong. it's holding a group of people (Muslims) to an impossible standard based on their religion.

I already addressed some of the other baseless claims about Muslim immigrants you and Mitch made here in a later post above.

 

[tinselwolverine]

1) I think you can separate the intent of the executive order from how it was rolled out. Regardless of whether or not you think the ban is a good idea, how it was rolled out was an inexcusable "cluster-whoopsie" (to borrow a phrase from Kenneth the page from 30 Rock.) It was either enacted this way due to incompetance, or worse, Trump wanted all the trouble/protesting/media coverage, and doesn't care who he screws over as long as it makes headlines.

Well we don't exactly do this every day.

You got a figure someone was going to drop a ball a time or two in the process.

 

[Michchamp]

person with a mental disorder snapping = not terrorism

unless they're muslim...?

dylan roof killing 9 african american church goers to spark a race war... not terrorism?

Robert Dear opening fire, ina Planned Parenthood parking lot in CO, killing 3 and wounding 9, to protest the practice of abortion... not terrorism?

a Somali student losing it and stabbing some random people on a street before being gunned down by cops... TERRORISM! He was trying to establish an Islamic State!

 

[mhughes0021]

this article has a little more on the "Muslim ban" including: the fact that the head of Homeland Security had to issue a press release clarifying that valid green card holders were not included in the ban, indicating the doofuses in the White House are just making this up as they go along; the observation that no one from any of the 7 countries impacted by the ban has been involved in terrorist attacks on American soil (unlike, say Saudi Arabia); and also a video clip of Rudy Giuliani bragging that this policy was intended to be a Muslim ban. Even if it didn't target every Muslim nation, It targeted the countries Muslims were most likely to come from (wealthy Saudis are not rushing to emigrate to the US).

just so happens to also impact the countries we're bombing/already bombed. It's almost like bombing and attacking a country makes it worse for the people living there... even if you tell them you're bringing them freedom! Who could've predicted that?!?!

I read a report that said homeland security wasnt even notified the ban was going to take place lmao.....talk about a fucking shit show.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Well we don't exactly do this every day.

You got a figure someone was going to drop a ball a time or two in the process.

I'm torn between making a 'drop a ball' joke and trying to think of past examples where something like this has happened.

The trick to finding examples of similar missteps is ignoring the difference in media reaction. It's entirely possible past Presidents have gotten away with cluster-whoopsies.