What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Oexmelin]

Not quite.

Six Iranians, six Sudanese, two Somalis, two Iraqis, and one Yemeni.

Between 1975 and now.

From the Cato Institute, that den of communists. https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/terrorism-immigration-risk-analysis

[OttoVonBismarck]

I didn't fact check our boy in Seattle, but that's apparently what he said in court. I don't necessarily doubt it. How many terrorist attacks have we had domestically since 9/11 that resulted in arrests? I know we had Ft. Hood (which Obama never acknowledged as terrorism,  Nidal Hasan was born in Virginia, the Boston Marathon bombing, and the surviving Tsarnaev was born in Kyrgyzstan. Struggling to remember many others where there was an arrest. Richard Reid the failed "shoe bomber" who was arrested not long after 9/11 was a British national.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Not quite.

Six Iranians, six Sudanese, two Somalis, two Iraqis, and one Yemeni.

Between 1975 and now.

From the Cato Institute, that den of communists. https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/terrorism-immigration-risk-analysis

Without making me read that, how many were after 9/11/01 (which is what Judge Robart apparently said in court), and how many were arrested?

[mongers]

I didn't fact check our boy in Seattle, but that's apparently what he said in court. I don't necessarily doubt it. How many terrorist attacks have we had domestically since 9/11 that resulted in arrests? I know we had Ft. Hood (which Obama never acknowledged as terrorism,  Nidal Hasan was born in Virginia, the Boston Marathon bombing, and the surviving Tsarnaev was born in Kyrgyzstan. Struggling to remember many others where there was an arrest. Richard Reid the failed "shoe bomber" who was arrested not long after 9/11 was a British national.

Well there will have been a few Brits, excluding the UK nationals who didn't consider themselves part of it.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Also Oex your article appears to be about the nationality of terrorist perpetrators in general, which wasn't what Judge Robart actually was talking about, he said basically that of the seven countries on Trump's ban list none had nationals who were "arrested for terrorism since 9/11."

[Oexmelin]

Also Oex your article appears to be about the nationality of terrorist perpetrators in general, which wasn't what Judge Robart actually was talking about, he said basically that of the seven countries on Trump's ban list none had nationals who were "arrested for terrorism since 9/11."

Without making me read that, how many were after 9/11/01 (which is what Judge Robart apparently said in court), and how many were arrested?

Good question.

The author does get into that later in the report (which was made before Trumpism), but from the data included, it appears that only 5 people were arrested on terrorism charges since 2001, none of whom came from the 7 banned countries. So, judge Robart seems to be right.

[Admiral Yi]

I didn't fact check our boy in Seattle, but that's apparently what he said in court. I don't necessarily doubt it. How many terrorist attacks have we had domestically since 9/11 that resulted in arrests? I know we had Ft. Hood (which Obama never acknowledged as terrorism,  Nidal Hasan was born in Virginia, the Boston Marathon bombing, and the surviving Tsarnaev was born in Kyrgyzstan. Struggling to remember many others where there was an arrest. Richard Reid the failed "shoe bomber" who was arrested not long after 9/11 was a British national.

Florida gay club. There was that planned attack on the NJ army base that got nipped in the bud.  California couple shooting up their coworkers.

[CountDeMoney]

I don't think even his supporters expected him to pass up the chance to make money as president.

This.  His supporters don't care.  And the fact that it torques up the "establishment" and the "mainstream media" only reinforces their support.  KC was right the other week:  he's never going to release his taxes, because nobody cares except the media--and as far as Trump's supporters are concerned, they're the real enemy. 

This is the going to be the worst Presidential cabinet ever assembled, which so many ethical conflict of interests--and not even, like, Teamsters-style cash-in-an-unmarked-envelope-wink-wink conflicts of interest, mind you, but outright 19th century, cock-in-your-face corruption--and designed specifically to destroy the departments to which they have been nominated, and the minority majority absolutely loves it. 

It's a shame, really.  It's one thing to want to change things, but this is all just feral nihilism.  Sad thing is, despite all the smug self-satisfaction they're enjoying at the moment, those smirking now will not be smirking later. 

[11B4V]

I have a feeling they will get leaked.

[alfred russel]

Banning travel from a single specific country isn't without precedent in times of diplomatic crisis or war, but again, those are in times of diplomatic crisis or war. Trump's order is fairly unprecedented and probably on legally murkier standing since he targeted seven Muslim states almost with no logical reasoning behind why he chose them, and in absence of any other ongoing factors like say, war with those countries, ongoing demonstrable security concerns or etc.

You can argue that we are in a state of war in several of those countries, against entities in the states, and the government apparatus has failed (as the states are failed states). In Syria, Yemen, and Somalia I'd say that is a fair analysis, actually.

Iran is the exception, but relations are not normal, and it can be considered a state sponsor of terror.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I agree about all that. I heard a Georgetown law prof and I think a GW law prof lay out an argument that Robart's ruling was based on an overly broad conception of who has standing, and suggested it was an improper ruling. So at least in the legal egg head community it appears there isn't necessarily a unified view so my earlier thought that Trump was clearly afoul of the law may not be so cut and dry.

[LaCroix]

otto, I've read anti-trump fed gov lawyers reluctantly agree trump's EO is constitutional. given the wide range of authority in this arena given to congress and the executive, I'm pretty sure without even looking at the orders or law that it's an uphill battle for opponents. plenary power, bitches.

plus, this ban wasn't even a big deal. only half the country disagrees with the ban, and of that 50% probably only 20%~, if that, really care. and probably 10% of the 20% would be upset-but-meh with it if obama had ordered it. so much reaction in general over the next four years is going to be so influenced by the fact it's trump doing it. the anti-trump bs is just plaguing parts of the nation.

I mean, just  at these magazine covers from the Totally Unbiased, Neutral media

[LaCroix]

germany's spiegel shit is excused because they're euros, so there's a level of hypocrisy that can be expected by euros judging america. but at these american media companies making $$ on the rabid left. yeah, trump has literally killed america's liberty with its 90 day temporary ban on immigrants from seven shit-hole countries 

[mongers]

germany's spiegel shit is excused because they're euros, so there's a level of hypocrisy that can be expected by euros judging america. but at these american media companies making $$ on the rabid left. yeah, trump has literally killed america's liberty with its 90 day temporary ban on immigrants from seven shit-hole countries 

Who is the crowd you're playing to?

[LaCroix]

Who is the crowd you're playing to?

why would I be playing to a crowd