News:

if there were no need for 'engineers from the quantum plenum' then we should not have any unanswered scientific questions.

Main Menu

Deeper into the Trump Abyss.

Started by Dave, January 30, 2017, 07:22:23 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Recusant

Quote from: Mr. B on February 24, 2017, 01:01:38 AM

I have often felt that it is improper for people who have knowledge and understanding to withhold their information from the ill informed. It's like the old saying, "If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you."

How does anyone learn anything if knowledge and information aren't shared?

I promise to stop using false dichotomies to try and illustrate my way of thinking if you help me understand yours.

From a security standpoint, why should refugees be treated differently than immigrants?

The article by the person who has worked in the refugee vetting system makes it clear that the process is rigorous and does an effective job of screening out those who shouldn't get into the country. Refugees from places like Syria are already treated differently than regular immigrants. Undocumented workers from south of the border are treated differently than either one of the above.

Do you think that a person from Mexico coming to the United States to try to make a better life for themself is a national security risk?

I don't recall accusing you of using false dichotomies. In fact, I've been pretty clear that I think you're doing something entirely different--failing to acknowledge the fact that there are two discreet topics here: Undocumented migrants entering the country over the southern border and people who wish to enter the country as refugees from overseas are not the same thing. There is nothing "artificial" about distinguishing between the two from a policy standpoint, as the government has done.

I understand that you may have limited time but responding without reading the sources I've presented, as you have in this thread, doesn't help in gaining greater understanding of the topic. That's why your comment about not sharing information falls a bit flat.



"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Mr. B

Quote from: Recusant on February 24, 2017, 01:53:29 AM
Quote from: Mr. B on February 24, 2017, 01:01:38 AM

I have often felt that it is improper for people who have knowledge and understanding to withhold their information from the ill informed. It's like the old saying, "If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you."

How does anyone learn anything if knowledge and information aren't shared?

I promise to stop using false dichotomies to try and illustrate my way of thinking if you help me understand yours.

From a security standpoint, why should refugees be treated differently than immigrants?

The article by the person who has worked in the refugee vetting system makes it clear that the process is rigorous and does an effective job of screening out those who shouldn't get into the country. Refugees from places like Syria are already treated differently than regular immigrants. Undocumented workers from south of the border are treated differently than either one of the above.

Do you think that a person from Mexico coming to the United States to try to make a better life for themself is a national security risk?

I think anyone could be a national security risk. Hell, Donald Trump is a national security risk. I don't think anyone should be treated differently because of their status.

QuoteI don't recall accusing you of using false dichotomies.[/quote[

You didn't. I just recognized that I did and that was wrong. I shouldn't have done that.

QuoteIn fact, I've been pretty clear that I think you're doing something entirely different--failing to acknowledge the fact that there are two discreet topics here: Undocumented migrants entering the country over the southern border and people who wish to enter the country as refugees from overseas are not the same thing.

And I am still conflating the two based on the way I perceive the laws and the risks.

QuoteThere is nothing "artificial" about distinguishing between the two from a policy standpoint, as the government has done.

Politics is artificial. When people politicize an issue they create an artificial dialogue. 

QuoteI understand that you may have limited time but responding without reading the sources I've presented, as you have in this thread, doesn't help in gaining greater understanding of the topic. That's why your comment about not sharing information falls a bit flat.

I have read most of that article since then but it's been a few days. I'll need to go back and re read it. At the time I was reading it, I don't remember seeing anything that clearly spelled out why refugees from Syria should be treated differently than migrants from Mexico or Canada.

I am tired and sick and feeling cantankerous so I am going to bed. Hopefully I will feel better tomorrow and have an opportunity to reevaluate this conversation. 
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Magdalena

Awww...Mr. B.  :therethere:
I was gonna say a bunch of things, right now, but maybe you should get some rest. We'll talk about this whole thing another day.

"I've had several "spiritual" or numinous experiences over the years, but never felt that they were the product of anything but the workings of my own mind in reaction to the universe." ~Recusant

Davin

Quote from: Mr. B on February 24, 2017, 01:01:38 AM
Quote from: Davin on February 23, 2017, 08:04:43 PM
Quote from: Mr. B on February 23, 2017, 06:25:46 PM
Truth is, and it took me awhile to really think about it, I am conflating the two issues because I do not see them as separate issues. From where I sit, I don't understand why anyone would separate issues of national security into two artificially different political problems. Under Obama we had several high level security advisors warning us that ISIS planned to smuggle in it's members among refugees including through the Mexico border.

http://www.hannity.com/onair/the-sean-hannity-show-55176/heres-the-list-of-highranking-us-14822366/
I'm just passing through, but I read that Hannity article and I find that the usage of the language is very misleading. Other than the disreputable sources like Breitbart, the quotes are not warnings. They are conceding that it is possible and that they should probably keep an eye on it, but no one high up warned that ISIS was actually planning any of that.

That's why I don't like Hannity and many other shitty "news" sources, they use misleading language and out of context misquoting to warp reality to create whatever narrative they want.

I don't much care for Hannity either but I sometimes listen to his show on the way home from work. He is a shill but concerning the topic at hand, are the quotes from the people mentioned accurate? In other words, it's not as important to me how Sean spins his narrative I just want to know if those people said what he, and others, claim they said?
So if you're asking if the people actually said the portions that were quoted, then the answer is, yes. But if you're asking if they are saying what Hannity says they are saying, then the answer is, no.

Would you like me to demonstrate using your own words, how easy it is to make what you said appear to be something far different than what you meant using the same dishonest techniques? This is a serious question. It's like Darwin's quote where out of context it appears that Darwin conceded that evolution couldn't explain the human eye.

You have to look at what they are actually saying, these people use precise language, that can be easy to change over a game of translating to colloquial. On of the people said, "I think we should watch it. We should be conscious of the potential that Daesh (aka ISIS) may attempt to embed agents within that population." Accepting the potential and saying that it should be watched, is not "warning that ISIS is planning to send agents with refugees."

Another said, "We don't obviously put it past the likes of ISIL to infiltrate operatives among these refugees." Again, same as above. Then again and again they say it's "possible" but none have warned that ISIS is actually planning it.

It's also possible that they could circumvent the process entirely like people from Cuba had done. Shit, they could hide in one of the million shipping containers that come in a day because not every one of those can be searched. There are a lot of possible ways to get into the country, but what is missing here, is whether any are using any of those possibilities.

Quote from: Mr. B
Quote from: Davin
Quote from: Mr. BMany years ago it was declared that the immigration system was broken. I haven't seen anything yet which explains when, how or who broke it. However, from my understanding, the two solutions offered are either to ignore our laws and erase the borders to let everybody in and grant them full citizenship privileges or baton down the hatches and enforce the laws that are already on the books.
Most immigration violations come from people who entered the country legally, and for one reason or another, failed to get their visa extended or just didn't even try. The only way we could take a significant leap into enforcing those violations, would require the "papers please" kind of bullshit that the Nazi's were doing in Germany. Something that goes against our constitutional rights.

I'm not suggesting border enforcement or immigration enforcement go door to door looking for people but it is a fact that if you get pulled over by police, the second thing they ask for is your license, registration and insurance. In that typical situation, what are they expected to do if the person driving isn't here legally and doesn't have the proper papers?
Depends. If you're driving a car, you need a license, if you don't have one then you shouldn't be driving. So I'm OK with it in that case. But there is a problem when you're not white and walking around where cops will give a "lawful order" to request identification. I've even been treated like that just because I dressed like a slob. It's not a pleasant experience to be treated like shit by a cop when you're done nothing wrong.

Even in sanctuary cities they do deport immigrants if they commit any of a list of crimes, the kinds of crimes that harm others. I'm fine with that.

Quote from: Mr. B
Quote from: DavinI also think you're misrepresenting one of the two sides. People are not saying they want to just open up the borders to everyone, that is misleading information being spread by dishonest people like Hannity. They are more in the middle of your two extremes, they want to increase security on immigration, as well as making the process easier and faster for those who should be allowed in. Sure, there is also talk about amnesty or amnesty light, but that is another topic that gets complicated, but overall, it's not unsafe and costs less.

I apologize for presenting two extremes. I was being hasty. One of the problems I have heard over the years was that there aren't enough judges available to review immigration requests and deportation cases. The legal system is inundated and understaffed in that area.
Understaffed courts is one problem. Another problem is that there are many forms, a lot of things to pay for, almost no one to explain the process, and the process changing all the time.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Dave

#94
More contacts with Russia? More rifts between the Shite House and the spooks? Or just the same old ones grumbling on?
QuoteReince Priebus accused of asking FBI to refute critical Trump story
The story alleged numerous contacts during the campaign between Russia and Trump team members
Sort of asking a favour, yet, at the same time:
QuoteTRUMP HITS FBI: 'Totally unable to stop the national security "leakers"'
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Recusant

Quote from: Mr. B on February 24, 2017, 03:38:27 AM. . . I am tired and sick and feeling cantankerous so I am going to bed. Hopefully I will feel better tomorrow and have an opportunity to reevaluate this conversation.

I hope you feel better soon, Mr. B.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Tank

Quote from: No one on February 23, 2017, 09:31:35 PM
The deeper into the abyss you dwell, the deeper the abyss dwells within you.
That's very deep.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Dave

Trump's press pool has been "expanded" . . . by excludng the BBC, CNN and NYT.

OK, they have let others in - like Breitbart, Fox News, Washington Times . . . All good, solid conservatives (or worse).
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Recusant

The Associated Press has obtained a document produced by the Department of Homeland Security (I will always find that name redolent of authoritarianism) for the Trump administration that seems to put a gaping hole in the rationale for the travel ban.

"AP Exclusive: DHS report disputes threat from banned nations" | AP

QuoteAnalysts at the Homeland Security Department's intelligence arm found insufficient evidence that citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries included in President Donald Trump's travel ban pose a terror threat to the United States.

A draft document obtained by The Associated Press concludes that citizenship is an "unlikely indicator" of terrorism threats to the United States and that few people from the countries Trump listed in his travel ban have carried out attacks or been involved in terrorism-related activities in the U.S. since Syria's civil war started in 2011.

Trump cited terrorism concerns as the primary reason he signed the sweeping temporary travel ban in late January, which also halted the U.S. refugee program. A federal judge in Washington state blocked the government from carrying out the order earlier this month. Trump said Friday a new edict would be announced soon. The administration has been working on a new version that could withstand legal challenges.

Homeland Security spokeswoman Gillian Christensen on Friday did not dispute the report's authenticity, but said it was not a final comprehensive review of the government's intelligence.

"While DHS was asked to draft a comprehensive report on this issue, the document you're referencing was commentary from a single intelligence source versus an official, robust document with thorough interagency sourcing," Christensen said. "The ... report does not include data from other intelligence community sources. It is incomplete."

[Continues . . .]

The document itself is available here. The "key findings" are quoted below:

Quote

  • DHS I&A [Intelligence & Analysis] assesses that country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity. Since the beginning of the Syrian conflict in March 2011, the foreign-born primarily US-based individuals who were inspired by a foreign terrorist organization to participate in terrorism-related activity were citizens of 26 different countries, with no one country representing more than 13.5 percent of the foreign-born total.

  • Relatively few citizens of the seven countries by E.O. 13769, compared to neighboring countries, maintain access to the United States.

  • Terrorist groups in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen pose a threat of attacks in the United States while groups in Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan remain regionally focused.

The document obtained by AP does nothing but confirm the information contained in one of the articles I previously linked: "It's Not Foreigners Who are Plotting Here: What the Data Really Show" | Lawfare
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Arturo

Quote from: Recusant on February 25, 2017, 03:41:13 AM
The Associated Press has obtained a document produced by the Department of Homeland Security (I will always find that name redolent of authoritarianism) for the Trump administration that seems to put a gaping hole in the rationale for the travel ban.

"AP Exclusive: DHS report disputes threat from banned nations" | AP

QuoteAnalysts at the Homeland Security Department's intelligence arm found insufficient evidence that citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries included in President Donald Trump's travel ban pose a terror threat to the United States.

A draft document obtained by The Associated Press concludes that citizenship is an "unlikely indicator" of terrorism threats to the United States and that few people from the countries Trump listed in his travel ban have carried out attacks or been involved in terrorism-related activities in the U.S. since Syria's civil war started in 2011.

Trump cited terrorism concerns as the primary reason he signed the sweeping temporary travel ban in late January, which also halted the U.S. refugee program. A federal judge in Washington state blocked the government from carrying out the order earlier this month. Trump said Friday a new edict would be announced soon. The administration has been working on a new version that could withstand legal challenges.

Homeland Security spokeswoman Gillian Christensen on Friday did not dispute the report's authenticity, but said it was not a final comprehensive review of the government's intelligence.

"While DHS was asked to draft a comprehensive report on this issue, the document you're referencing was commentary from a single intelligence source versus an official, robust document with thorough interagency sourcing," Christensen said. "The ... report does not include data from other intelligence community sources. It is incomplete."

[Continues . . .]

The document itself is available here. The "key findings" are quoted below:

Quote

  • DHS I&A [Intelligence & Analysis] assesses that country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity. Since the beginning of the Syrian conflict in March 2011, the foreign-born primarily US-based individuals who were inspired by a foreign terrorist organization to participate in terrorism-related activity were citizens of 26 different countries, with no one country representing more than 13.5 percent of the foreign-born total.

  • Relatively few citizens of the seven countries by E.O. 13769, compared to neighboring countries, maintain access to the United States.

  • Terrorist groups in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen pose a threat of attacks in the United States while groups in Iran, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan remain regionally focused.

The document obtained by AP does nothing but confirm the information contained in one of the articles I previously linked: "It's Not Foreigners Who are Plotting Here: What the Data Really Show" | Lawfare

Recusant I must applaud you in your efforts of finding, posting , and (I assume) reading them all thoroughly. I wish I had your stamina in more facets of my life.
It's Okay To Say You're Welcome
     Just let people be themselves.
     Arturo The1  リ壱

Dave

Trump's Shite House says the DHS report is, "politically motivated". Does that mean "the facts do not  match our policies"? I can see that the country of origin of a person is not an indicator of his political leanings. Militant Islamism has no national ties.

So, more divisions between the administration and those they are, supposedly, administrating? Thought the DHS boss was a Trump assignee, has he no authotity over his own department?
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Icarus


[/quote]

Recusant I must applaud you in your efforts of finding, posting , and (I assume) reading them all thoroughly.[/quote]


Seconded.  Rec' has long been one of our more erudite, go to guys.  We have several members who are commendably good at what they do and how they inform themselves. 

Dave

#102
Trump's choice for Navy secretary withdraws..

Well, at least one more appointee, after Vincent Viola, was honest enough to decide he prefers money to serving his nation for four years (max, hopefully)

Strangely most of the links for this news seem to be from the more conservative media, nothing for the NYT , CNN or BBC.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trumps-choice-to-by-navy-secretary-withdraws/2017/02/26/aebc5700-fc80-11e6-9b78-824ccab94435_story.html?utm_term=.6273b84d6cfd
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Recusant

Thank you, Arturo and Icarus. It's not so much stamina as it is compulsion. These are interesting times, and as the "old Chinese curse" reminds us, that's not a good thing. :sidesmile:
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Arturo

Quote from: Gloucester on February 27, 2017, 09:11:12 AM
Trump's choice for Navy secretary withdraws..

Well, at least one more appointee, after Vincent Viola, was honest enough to decide he prefers money to serving his nation for four years (max, hopefully)

Strangely most of the links for this news seem to be from the more conservative media, nothing for the NYT , CNN or BBC.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trumps-choice-to-by-navy-secretary-withdraws/2017/02/26/aebc5700-fc80-11e6-9b78-824ccab94435_story.html?utm_term=.6273b84d6cfd

My Dad watches "local" news and all he knows about him is that the travel ban and the he's "putting a stop to transgenders in school bathrooms"
It's Okay To Say You're Welcome
     Just let people be themselves.
     Arturo The1  リ壱