In fact Trump has *always* maintained a reason; national security, not that it was needed. The law gives him the absolute right to bar entry to anyone, as you point out, for any reason or no reason.
Of course explaining every descision to everyone is silly. It's pretty tough to maintain state secrets if you have to explain everything to everyone. Of course stupid leftists will say that there should be no secrets. ...then whine about their pol's getting outed.
That really doesn't matter. It wouldn't matter if the bad were against icelanders. The law is quite clear.
Because Slowman can't comprehend something hardly makes it incomprehensible. It's rather simple (which, again, doesn't help Sloman's comprehension).
Strange that the judges in the courts that blocked his orders as unconstitutional don't share that opinion.
They've just been to law school and practiced as lawyers with enough distinction to get on the bench.
Krw has access to a much more reliable source of information - his infallible imagination.
The problem with Trump is that he has explained why he wants to ban all immigrants from certain selected countries, and his explanation was silly.
And as the federal district court judge who blocked the order pointed out, the law clearly doesn't support that kind of blanket ban, even if krw thinks it does.
Krw may think that his opinion is more authoritative than that of a federal district court judge, but he's also got lots of other silly ideas.
Krw thinks he understand lots of issues where he hasn't got a clue. This seems to be one more of them. Because I don't share his silly ideas, he thinks there has to be something wrong with my comprehension - which is one more of his silly ideas.
I got into the Oval Office, as part of a tour group from a science fair. Nobody searched us or anything. People used to go to the guard shack at the side of the White House and, if the place wasn't too busy, get a tour.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
lunatic fringe electronics
o fix things. His budget is so moronic that it can't possibly be enacted, a nd anybody with any sense would be aware of that. You, Trump and Steve Barr on do seem to be devoid of that minimal quantum of sense.
We're spending something like 20% more than revenues. Trump's budget cuts what, 1.3%?
Fred's video plays the song "Sixteen tons, and what to you get? Another day older AND DEEPER IN DEBT."
(The United States should tax Bill Sloman to fix all those things he thinks we need to spend more on. We promise to use it on solar panels and iPhone s for poor children. And Bill would like it, because he's all about redistribution and helping the children--it's a twofer.)
Five 9th circuit judges found it necessary to vacate the earlier idiots' three-judge panel decision from their own circuit court. They echo your and Kevin's points, and expand:
"In one of the most ruthless opinions issued of fellow panel judges, five judges from across the political spectrum in the Ninth Circuit went out of their way to issue an opinion about a dismissed appeal, to remind everybody just how embarrassingly bad the prior Ninth Circuit stay panel decision was on Trump?s travel ban."
"[T]he five Ninth Circuit judges noted their ?obligation to correc t? the ?manifest? errors so bad that the ?fundamental ? errors ?confound Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent.? "
James Arthur's ideas about "ripeness" have a lot to do with his "flat earth " economic and political delusions
It's not US debt that the real problem, but an inegalitarian society - most visible in the income distributions, but if power wasn't so heavily conce ntrated in the hands of the well-off they wouldn't be collecting quite as h igh a proportion of the national income.
Trump would like to be a dictator, but he can't manage the attention to det ail required.
The US may not yet be a failed state but it has been running a large balanc e of payments deficit since Reagan, and it has off-shored a great many jobs - Trump wouldn't be president if the US manufacturing economy was in bette r shape.
By contrast Germany has had positive balance of trade since about 1963
formatting link
It slumped a bit immediately after the re-unification with former East Germ any, but recovered quite rapidly and now looks extremely impressive.
Europe as a whole includes a lot of countries which were moldering behind t he iron curtain for years, but there's not a whole lot of economic distress around. At least they've got reasonably egalitarian income distributions, unlike the US, and are free from the worst of the social problems inequalit y carries with it.
formatting link
most_Always_Do_Better
Since the US mostly has to compete with China, this isn't all that importan t.
There are high-tech areas where the US can still compete - Boeing isn't far behind Airbus - but Trump wouldn't have a clue about any of that.
I don't consider myself to be a communist, but I know some kids in their
20s who would consider themselves to adhere to that philosophy.
Things they believe about Conservative capitalists: that they'd gladly let a million children die before ever voluntarily parting with a single penny of their wealth, if taxes ceased to exist. "They'd spit on their corpses for good measure!" I believe was how one put it.
Perhaps that wasn't the impression that anyone in the Republican party intended to give, but it does seem to be how they interpret things.
That's the community disorganizers' talking-point, but it's backwards. Propaganda.
The ideas of liberty and free enterprise are the ideas that have lifted up billions upon billions from poverty and desperation. In the same time socialism has fallen on its face at best, genocide at worst.
is that high levels of inequality within a society correlate with lower lif e expectancy for everybody - the poor don't live anything like as long as t he rich, but the rich don't live as long as even the poor in more egalitari an advanced industrial countries. The community organisers do have a valid talking point, and only particularly backward (or particularly evidence-res istant) right-wingers fail to see the point.
Totalitarian "socialism" was never socialism - just one more way of justify ing the priviliged position of an exploitative oligarchy.
Socialism in Scandinavia and Germany seems to be able to exploit the virtue s of liberty and free enterprise, while keeping the free market well enough regulated to stop it degenerating into cartels and monopolies.
US politicians talk a lot about freedom and liberty, but what they mean in practice is the freedom of the top 1% of the income distribution to take li berties that give them 17% of the national income, which is an unusually hi gh proportion.
So the USSR had the Communist Party and the US has the rich. The USSR put a lot of its population into labour camps, while the US puts an unusually hi gh proportion of its population into prison - 698 per 100,000.
Other advance industrial countries go from about 150 down to 75. US "libert y" is thinner on the ground than it is in most places.
Well for me the first step is to stop calling each other names, and then to listen. I read a story about Glen Beck. (Who I've never listened to.) But it sounds like he's had a change of heart.
Pioneers go out to explore and exploit new territory.
You haven't go a clue about the territory you are thrashing about in, and l ook less like a pioneer and more like somebody who is totally lost in a ter ritory he doesn't comprehend.
But you are much too interested in appearing self-confident to spend any ti me working out where you are, and admitting that you didn't have clue where you were would be utterly humiliating - while you don't seem to mind posti ng stuff that makes your ignorance obvious.
The oft-repeated sentiment that the only thing liberalism is capable of doing is leading straight to the gallows and the gulag is, in my estimation, pretty ignorant of actual history and selling it way, way short.
Stalin and Mao were malignant narcissists, and knew nothing of liberalism, socialism, or very much else other than their own distorted reality picture.
A valid criticism might be that liberalism relies on the intrinsic "goodness" of people too much. Fair enough. If my "crime" is believing that there are better ways to lift billions from poverty than selling stuff, so be it.
Because if you notice, the act of selling itself never lifted a single person from poverty, intrinsically. Sort of like how the insurer-based "healthcare system" never provided a single dimes worth of healthcare to anybody.
The real problem with leftism (which is not the same as liberalism) is that leftists want to control everything and are really bad at it.
The printing was developed to sell books. The industrial revolution was invented to sell clothing, food, coal, transportation. Farmers don't fight to increase yield out of altruism; they want to sell more corn.
Sort of like how the insurer-based
Kaiser takes good care of me, for a fixed fee per month.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
Neo-liberalism does *not* rely on the intrinsic "goodness" of people, it does the absolute opposite. Neo-liberalism is fanatically *distrustful* of people, and seeks power to control them.
That's an economically barren argument. The act of selling something, in a free society, implies a voluntary exchange *each* party felt was to their advantage--it raises them *both* up, otherwise they wouldn't do it!
Voluntary exchange is *precisely* what raises people up. "I baked some bread, would you trade me some nails for it?" is how the baker gets nails to build his house, so he can live in a better place!
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.