Olive oil is good for the skin

Have you read the executive order?

It's a temporary ban on travel from specific countries, while vetting procedures are examined and revised (this is the stated purpose in the order). After 90 days, the ban ends for all countries but Syria, with immigration resuming under whatever new vetting procedures have been adopted. Preferential treatment will be given to persecuted religious minorities (which can include any Muslim minority denominations). Syria is also only temporary, but it's indefinite, given that it is a 'hot' region of the world, and vetting could be more difficult.

At worst, this is a paranoid waste of time, after which immigration authorities will conclude that no new procedures need to be adopted. After the 90 days, travel will resume. I have read the executive order, and see no problem with it. While there may be legal issues with it (as law is often complex and arcane) there is nothing in there I would consider morally objectionable. Maybe add a deadline by which Syrian immigration must be reconsidered, rather than an open-ended indefinite ban. To put Trump next to Holland almost electing a man who wanted to ban mosques and the Quran is disingenuous bullshit. Regarding this situation Trump is, at worst, paranoid. Geert Wilders was a facist, plain and simple.

I am worried, because this kind of reaction to Trump is what gave that facist Wilders a chance. Whenever anything happens that might so much as inconvience Muslims, a certain part of the world throws a fit, calling it racist and bigotted. When the left refuses to take any consideration of problems that are the result of mass immigration of people from a part of the world where people support the death penalty for apostasy (and harsh penalties for blasphemy), they leave a big gaping hole for people like that Dutch Facist to come into. When the Southern Poverty Law Center declares Majiid Nawaz a man trying to reform his religion in a more peaceful direction an "Anti-Muslim Extermist" they disallow reasoned discourse, which can only leave room for unreasoned discourse.

There does not appear to be any serious political anti-muslim movement in the US, at least not yet. But if the only choice presented to people is between the SPLC view of the world, and the Geert Wilders view of the world... then I couldn't blame anybody for voting for Wilders, because the world has gone mad and presented them with two insane perspectives. The best way to avoid that mad dichotomy is to stop treating things like Trumps travel ban as if it were fueled by nothing more than bigotry.

@Sines You hit the nail on the head with this. There are several Muslim majority nations that are not on the ban list.

@Kero

Yeah, and I have a black friend, so I can't be a racist.

@Sines They did not almost elect Wilders, the Netherlands isn't the US, it's not first past the post, he actually would have needed a majority to win. He got 20 out of the 75 seats he would have needed to win.

@Sines You know Sines, the "lesser evil" STILL is evil. How about not banning anyone and just develop and implement the new vetting procedures? Or how about banning citizens from countries who have killed Americans in US soil?

Spin it as you might, this is just about Trump trying to appease the xenophobes by saying "hey, I said I would ban them Moslems and I banned them" -for 90 days, but then, 90 days it's the exact amount of time Western politicians plan for: "Will this become a crisis in the next 90 days? No? Then let's move onto something else".

You don't appease to xenophobes, period.

@Sines So it's the "left" who is to blame for demagoges like Trump and fascists like Wilders? We should accept Trump just because he is not as bad as Wilders? Nobody forced you to vote for Trump who asked for your vote so he could, in his own words, ban all muslims. Political correctness is a myth made up by the right wingnuts. You support whatever immigration policy you want but please take some responsibility for your actions.

@Sines Not going to waste words arguing with someone who is intellectually dishonest enough to write all that you just wrote; instead, I'll leave this here as the go-to source for why it IS a Muslim ban: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/01/31/is-this-a-muslim-ban-look-at-the-history-and-at-trumps-own-words/?utm_term=.a0e2a2baed0d

@TuxedoCartman , @ Rogers, stop your hysteria. This isn't Muslim ban; this is unstable-muslim-nations-ban. Of all nations banned, only Iran currently isn't in a state of civil war or deep internal crysis. As it was mentioned above - if it was a "muslim ban", so where is Indonesia or Pakistan?

'@Dilandu' let's see how long it would take for someone to call you a paid Russian troll.

@comrade_Comrade , probably not very long. Adaptation of Godvin's Law.

@Sines thank you for this well thought out view.

You are entirely correct that the overblown and infantile reaction to anything President Trump and Conservatives do only drives people towards them while promoting fear and panic among people who the progressive left relies on as a voting and action base.

@Sines And yet, all that talk about the ban is overshadowing others issues. Like the border control getting harsher on all muslim, banned country or not.

@Sines
Of course. The "Muslim Ban"* was written by lawyers.
It could be a completely empty sheet of paper for all people give a damn about. It won't have any real effect anyways (aside from a couple millions lost in trade).
So long as the Public** treats it as a Muslim Ban, it's a Muslim Ban.

You are missing the big picture.

The "Muslim ban" is a FUCKING INSANE proposal to make. And an stupidly inflammatory way to frame it.

When your public discourse ever-so-slightly appeases xenophobes, then Bigotry takes hold.
Why?
People like easy answers.
Xenophobia is the easiest of them all.
There's a reason it's so hard for famous anti-Islamism or Islam Reformation scholars (like Sam Harris or Maajid Nawaz***) to get their point across:
"You have to be quite educated to understand why xenophobic policies aren't the answer. And even more to support changes within a culture that's completely alien to you".

Go ask people what the hell is the "SPLC" and what does it do. Nobody cares.

No Anti-Muslim Institutions?
Were there ever established Anti-Women or Anti-Negro institutions? ¡Of course not!
The only reason Pro-Slavery institutions existed was because they were Trade Unions.

There already are "anti-muslim" institutions.
These backwards-activism exist within backwards institutions like the KKK, or the infowars mailing list.
There are hundreds of xenophobic groups where the ignorant can share and spread their prejudices.

And when they get the tiniest of approval, they come out of their shame-holes.

Look, one of my best friends is a Neonazi.
Xenophobes aren't evil, they aren't dumb, some are well-informed!
They just hold a lot of faith on a Easy Answer... a pernicious easy answer.

And as I said. Easy Answers are like a cancer. It spreads and kills from within.

It's metastasis when a Public figure spreads the hate.


* Trump gave it the name through his campaign, not the media nor liberals)
** The Media, Politicians and Public Discourse
*** Sam Harris and Majiid Nawaz condemn the Muslim Ban too.
As Nawaz said. "Trump is trying to crack a nut with a sledgehammer, and he is missing" (parraphrasing).

@Sines
You think the Southern Poverty Law Center is "insane"? Really?

@Sines I want to say a lot of the fear and hate towards the executive order comes from Trump not expressing how it actually work, like, at all. I mean, if you heard him describe it, you'd think it was permanent.

I was amused by the (very stupid) Twitter troll who commented that Hawaii was 5000 miles away from 9/11, so they should sit down and shut up. The Twitterverse dumped a whole ton of "Pearl Harbor, you stupid idiot" on the guy.

@DrRandy
Also, New York and Washington D.C. citizens are also largely in opposition to Mr. Orange-with-a-wig as well. If I remember correctly, those guys were rather close to 9/11.

@Narf

Not largely - massively.

Clinton won New York city with 80% of the vote - a city Trump was born and has lived his whole life in.

New York hates that guy.

@Nisse_Hult I think it's fair to assume that the people of Trumps hometown knows him better that everyone else.

@Nisse_Hult New Yorker here. We absolutely do. With a burning passion.

@ItsAGiraffe aw, but I read so many Facebook posts about what a great guy he is to work for and stuff. XD

@Akamar I'm sure he's cool to his employees. But when you have *that* much of an ego, and go bankrupt just about every Tuesday, it's pretty hard to like you

@Akamar

Are you joking or do you actually believe things people you have no idea who they are writes on Facebook?

Because there is absolute no way to know if any of that is true at all, you know.

There are probably thousands of people that claim to know or have worked for Trump on there that's never had any contact with him at all, in any way.
For a host of different reasons but a lot of people like to make a lot of shit up.

@Nisse_Hult Pretty sure he's joking.That comment is just dripping with sarcasm.

@Kvaseren

Well "she's" actually... ;-)
The problem with sarcasm is that it doesn't travel well in writing.
Maybe I'll get a reply and know for sure. :-)

@Nisse_Hult It was a joke. I apologize, sarcasm doesn't tend to translate well without some sort of expression of voice tone.

@Akamar

I'm sorry, but I don't know what I said and what you wrote or anything. I've tried to look but this sites comments is completely messed up and I don't have time to spend 2 hours looking through every singe comment to find this thread. :-(

But in general I agree - sarcasm dosen't translate well in writing at all. That's what smiley's are for. :-)

@Nisse_Hult yeah, it's pretty easy to loose track of original threads on here.

@DrRandy Does that mean in two to three generations we will be obsessively drooling all over Middle Eastern Arts and Crafts? Though that will probably require a total secular revolution between now and then.

'@DrRandy' well, Hawaii judges didn't seem to oppose concentration camps back then either, didn't they?

@DrRandy I've heard some pretty bad things said about muslims, but I'm still pretty sure they didn't do Pearl Harbor.

@DrRandy Oh yeah, that tweet was pure gold, and totally something that's gonna come up again.

When you must lie to promote a narrative prehaps you should look at the narrative.

This is not a ban it is a halt and the judge in question is a friend of the former POTUS.

Additionally Hawaii has not taken any refugees that I am aware of and has a history of activist judges acting based on money and outrage from off the island. They have enacted many protectionist laws that unfairly tax off island products and services to promote local business but only of those groups and industries that donate and vote to them. The judge did not talk about the legal reasons for challenging the EO but instead went to the progressive playbook and cited "feelings." He ignored case law and precedent and used opinion and creative intent and I am certain and hopeful he is overturned.

But I'm sure I'll get some hate and outrage so go for broke and say Former President Obama had a BAN in place for roughly six to seven months. He denied refugee status for Christians targeted and already attacked by ISIS and refused Saudi offer of ground troops and logistics in the middle east creating a vacuum that ISIS used to establish itself.

Education is the enemy of propaganda and you dear artist are guilty of the most base form of it.

@Baddancer It's a halt, so a temporary ban. Semantics. "Ban" is the president and his administration's word, by the way.
I don't know how citing Trump's own boasts during the campaign is citing feelings, and if you think that is possible to hang a case on then you really don't understand American law. Also, the precedent was set a few weeks ago, when the last travel ban was shot down in court.

This order is not banning all travelers from Muslim countries because Trump and his administration know they cannot legally or logistically implement such a thing. They are trying to work around the law in the same manner Trump has manipulated the law while running his shitty businesses. Think about it: if he just needed time to plan his "extreme vetting" procedure, why have we seen no progress on that front? Shouldn't that be his priority instead of watering down the travel ban until it meets the technicality of law? How much time and effort has been wasted on this?

Particularly considering there was no imminent threat coming from any of these countries. Therein lies the enormous difference between Obama's actions and Trump's. Obama responded to a direct threat, which is the prerequisite for implementing a travel ban.

All of your (incorrect) talking points come directly from Fox news, widely known for its propaganda, yet you accuse another of falling for propaganda? Give me a break.

@stfrantica thank you for the well thought out and civil response, it is appreciated. I will give you a break.

On the contrary I have a good handle on Constitutional law and how our American laws were structured, at least at one point, after that document.

First I will state that I do not support or enjoy Fox news I believe most mainstream news exists only to provide an echo chamber for people. Rarely do they report anything against the party narrative. My question is do you believe that any network does not act in the same way. News networks have become little more than commentary on tweets and heavily biased reporting from both sides.

Second the previous immigration pause was not shot down it was poorly written and tied up by a virtue signalling judge and rather than drag it through court a better (somewhat) version was written.

My issue with the judge is that the written brief does not adequately cite cause for revoking it. Pure and simple the judge ruled on feelings and not facts. Legally you can only argue the facts not how you feel the facts should be viewed based on how you 'feel' the speaker was motivated. You did not dispute my other stated points but instead said that is is okay because Former President Obama did it. This is the constant defense I am presented with when I bring up any similarity between President Trump and Former President Obama's policies.

Either what is good for the goose is good for the Gander or else hypocrisy thy name be judged.

There was, and is, a demonstrable cause for a pause in immigration while a workable process for vetting can be had. In simple terms you do not continue to fill a bucket that had a hole in it while you plan on how to plug the leak. You stop adding water until the hole is fixed. The 'extreme vetting' at times consisted of nothing more than a translated interview with no documentation and even less than that in others.

Demanding perfection, cooperation, and transparency is apparently trendy again. Less than half a year ago questioning the President was considered verboten. I found this view unpalatable in much the same way I find the feckless attacks on the sitting POTUS distasteful. I hold and will continue to hold President Trump to the same standard I held Former President Obama to and Former President Bush to. I have no agenda and no inclination to hold one to any different standard or make excuses for actions.

@Baddancer

@Baddancer Do you realize how condescending it sounds for you to first accuse Humon of being gullible, then tell me you'll "give me a break"? I just want you to hear how you're coming across.

Whatever your concept of constitutional law is, you have to accept that most consider the constitution to be a living document that is subject to interpretation. That is literally why the supreme court exists. You also have to accept that there are sometimes legal questions which arise from unprecedented actions, such as those of Trump's. Judges are often forced to make decisions regarding the spirit of the law when the letter of the law is ambiguous or inadequate for the situation. Calling a ruling "feelings" based is reductive.

If by goose and gander you are referring to the travel bans, there is a clear difference between the two. Obama perceived an imminent threat from Iraq because a terror plot was narrowly thwarted whereas Trump targeted countries that had been barred from a visa waiver program under Obama. Meaning these countries were already being more closely scrutinized than the others. That made those countries a prime starting point for the ban which Trump promised multiple times during the campaign. If he and his supporters didn't want to be under this much scrutiny, legal or otherwise, they might have toned down that damning rhetoric just a hair.

For the record, I absolutely don't agree with everything Obama did, and it took me years to even like him as a president. It's asinine to assume that people who dislike Trump, or even the MSM, just blindly allowed Obama to do whatever he wished without criticism. That man endured a LOT of criticism and a LOT of opposition, but people have short memories.

@stfrantica As bad is Fox is, you can't say they're any worse than the others. 2 of the other networks were caught in a corruption scandal in the election, with the heads of the networks agreeing to censor news stories in emails to the DNC.

If you're going to argue about someone not looking at things for what they are, you should do the same.

@Recon250

I'm gonna call bullshit on that claim until you prove it with a credible source.

That sound just like the kind of conspiracy theory nonsense Trump reads on Breitbart or Info Wars and then tweets out that Obama tapped his phones without a shread of evidence.

@Nisse_Hult https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4025

There's a few articles that support this as a legitimate email. Washington Times has one. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/23/wikileaks-exposes-dnc-strong-arm-tactics-chuck-tod/

You can also do a search for Chuck Todd DNC email and you'll find more.

It's ridiculous, I know, but this was a very real thing.

@Recon250

Yes, it's ridiculous - because as I suspected this is not a real thing.

All you have is a mail sent by some one a DNC that wanted MSNBC to stop criticizing then DNC chairman Debbie Wassermann Schultz.
Chuck Todd, the person who actually got this, is quoted in the article you linked to as saying this is a "non-issue":

"I think it's clear what it was. Someone complaining about coverage," Mr. Todd said. "Something that happens daily from every campaign we interact with."

Journalists get these kind of letters from political operatives during campaign season all the time. It's political operatives job to try and influence the media to report positively about them and it's the medias job to resist that influence.
This kinf of thing has gone on for ever in every democracy in the world. Usually it's conducted like this, in private, though - and not by the POTUS attacking specific networks on twitter and calling them "enemies of the people".
That's the kind of thing you see in dictatorships - not in democracies.

If the Russians who hacked both the DNC and the GOP had released what they got from the GOP you'd have the same kind of letters sent from them.
But the Russians of course didn't, since their aim was to hurt only the Democrats to help Trump win - the joint US intelligence community has already stated that.

And a friendly advise - stop reading the Washington Times. It's one of only a handful of right-wing news sources that's approved by the Trump administration because they only publishes Trump's spin.

On the side you linked to they push an article by Andrew Napolitano - the Fox News pundit who recently claimed that Obama used the British intelligence community to spy on Trump. A claim White House press secretary Sean Spicer repeated which led to immediate denials and anger from the British. The White House had to call and apologize for that one.

Also on the site is a reader poll where people are asked if Rachel Maddows release of one year of Trump tax returns was "fake news".
As of now 80% of the readers of the Washington Times believe so.

"Fake news" is untrue news - not news you disagree with.
Trump tax returns where completely true - the White House actually released the figures BEFORE Rachel Maddow, when she said she had them and they have never made any attempt to deny them, at all.

So no - they where clearly not in any way "fake news".
Obama spying on Trump or networks agreeing to censor news after a request from the DNC - THAT'S fake news.

@Nisse_Hult I just pulled up the article that was first listed, and that was just to confirm to you that the email was a valid email and not fabricated. I don't read the Washington Times. That's hardly the point though.

You admit that there IS coordination between a political government entity and the people who direct the news, in an effort to stop them from reporting on a negative story, but even them being a political agency and the other being a liberal news network isn't important. It wouldn't really matter if it was the President or the Mafia, if someone calls the director of a news station and says to stop reporting on something, and the coverage stops, that's a serious issue. Nothing about Russia, nothing about politics, one organization influencing another to hide bad news about it is wrong. If you want to say everyone does it, you're going to need to back that claim up. Here's evidence of them doing it, and you aren't even saying that it's a bad thing.

Seriously, you're looking at complete evidence of censoring of news, or at the very least an attempt at it that wasn't denied by the director, and you're not even saying this is wrong. You're talking about Russia and dictators and Trump, but won't say "This is a bad thing that compromises the news they tell us".

You wanted your evidence and you got it. Admit there is a problem. Don't bring in Russia, don't bring in Trump, don't muddle this event with anything else. Look at this event, at what happened, and say whether you think this is honest behavior or untrustworthy.

@Recon250

Did you not read a word I wrote?

"You admit that there IS coordination between a political government entity and the people who direct the news, in an effort to stop them from reporting on a negative story"

NO - there is no "coordination" - Chuck Todd said as much in the article you yourself linked to!
A mail from an political operative doesn't prove cooperation in any way of course.
I can send a mail to the White House right know with the header "Donald, this must stop" right now - that doesn't prove that Trump is "coordinating" with me, of course.

As Todd said in the article - and as I wrote to you - this happens all the time and this is how democracy works. Politicians and their staff try to get their message out and they try to influence not only voters but journalists too of course.

"If you want to say everyone does it, you're going to need to back that claim up."

Yeah Todd just said so - in the article you linked to. Also every political journalist in any democracy in the world can tell you this is how it works.

"Here's evidence of them doing it, and you aren't even saying that it's a bad thing."

No, all this is evidence of is that someone at the DNC sent Chuck Todd an email. That's not a bad thing - it's a very normal thing.

And I brought up the GOP and the Russians because it's a fact the Russians broke into GOP servers as well - the US intelligence community has confirmed that.
But they chose to not release that stuff, since they wanted to hurt the DNC to help Trump win.
But if they would have released the GOP's mail you'd see the same kind of mails sent from them.

Chuck Todd probably has a bunch of complaints in his inbox from both sides - but as I said these things are not usually talked about in public and Todd would never release them since their meant to be confidential.
Journalists need to be able to have informal conversations with politicians and other officials sometimes - that's why the phrase "off the record" exists.

"Seriously, you're looking at complete evidence of censoring of news, or at the very least an attempt at it that wasn't denied by the director, and you're not even saying this is wrong."

Christ you're a broken record...
No - there is still no evidence at all here - not even a partial one.
And I don't even know what "director" you're talking about here, but if it's someone from MSNBC I'm sure they said the same thing journalist always do in these situations; that their discussions with others are confidential and that they can't betray that trust by discussing in any detail what other have said to them.

In general terms they do however of course claim their independence and that they're not "coordinating" with anyone or censuring any news.
You might believe otherwise but if you want to convince me or an average person of that you need more "proof" then this email.

@Nisse_Hult "And I don't even know what "director" you're talking about here"

Chuck Todd is a director of MSNBC. You really aren't reading into what you're talking about.

@Nisse_Hult if you aren't going to do research on what you say, there's no point in talking with you. You're just repeating headlines and babble. I was hoping we'd actually talk about things that happened, and not just the first 10 words in an article.

@Recon250

There is nothing here to research - this is nothing!
You're the one needing to prove the "cooperation" you claim exist and you have NOTHING! This is just like Trump's "Obama tapped my phone in Trump Tower!" - there is NOTHING to prove that!
So there is nothing to talk about, no "things" happened - this is just actual fake news like Trump and the right wing now wrongly calls all news the don't like.
Someone at the DNC sending Chuck Todd an email is not proof of any "cooperation" what so ever - you really need to understand that basic fact.

It's ridiculous you're even trying to argue anything else and clearly intellectually dishonest.
If someone sent you an email like that and I would then use it as "proof" that you where in on some secret conspiracy with that person, you'd never accept that as proof in a million years of course!

It's so obvious you're adapting your definition of "proof" to fit your own desires here. You BELIEVE there to be a conspiracy between the Democrats and the media so you'll use anything as "proof" of that conspiracy.

What will you do next? Claim that the fact that Chuck Todd has met just about every leading Democrat as "proof" of this conspiracy? Measure the distance between their homes or offices and if they happen to be closer then between Todd and the Republicans use that as "proof"?
Read some tea leafs? This is just utterly ridiculous...

Regarding the "director" comment - it's not my job to guess what you mean. If you talk about Chuck Todd you should use his name.
I'm sure Todd is a lot of things like a father, brother - maybe a golfer or Presbyterian, but if you chose to describe him as such instead of using his name you run the risk of not being understood. That's your problem - not the readers.
MSNBC of course also has a lot or different directors so using just that term without stating which one you're talking about is just setting yourself up to not be understood. And again - it's not the readers job to guess what you mean - it's you job to express yourself clearly.

@Nisse_Hult Guy, you're grasping at straws we're literally talking about one dude. I said he was a director. It's fine if I later refer to him as a director. There is one noun in this conversation, the director Chuck Todd. If you're writing a paragraph about this detail, a genuine non-issue, you're getting way to into the arguing and not enough about understanding.

You're not listening to an opinion, you're just looking for something to complain about.

@Nisse_Hult Ah, and if you check the news now, you'll see that there was surveillance on Trump during the election. Next time you hear some crazy claim that you insist isn't true, you might want to wait a bit. Burnie Sanders accused the DNC of conspiring against him for months, and it wasn't until it was too late that it came out the heads of the DNC were actually conspiring against him. Another one of those emails has them saying they won't let him be president, and discussing ways to paint him more negative.

Like I said from the beginning, these things are ridiculous. I'm not a big Trump fan, I think he's a wack job who doesn't know what he's talking about. But that doesn't mean that there's a not shit happening, and pretending it's fine isn't OK.

@Recon250

You're the one grasping at straws. You talked about Chuck Todd as the "director" without specifying it was him you referred to, so I wrote:

"And I don't even know what "director" you're talking about here, but if it's someone from MSNBC I'm sure they said the same thing journalist always do in these situations; that their discussions with others are confidential and that they can't betray that trust by discussing in any detail what other have said to them."

Now this wasn't a big thing in any way and my answer still stands - I'm sure Chuck Todd said just what I said above.

But desperate to detract from the lack of proof for your pet theory you make a big deal out of it:

"Chuck Todd is a director of MSNBC. You really aren't reading into what you're talking about."
"if you aren't going to do research on what you say, there's no point in talking with you."

To which I simply stated the obvious fact that it isn't my job to guess what you mean when you don't write clearly.

"you're getting way to into the arguing and not enough about understanding"

There is nothing to understand here. You made a claim about "cooperation" between the DNC and media and you haven't been able to provide a shred of evidence of this.
Instead you add new falsehoods.

"Ah, and if you check the news now, you'll see that there was surveillance on Trump during the election. Next time you hear some crazy claim that you insist isn't true, you might want to wait a bit."

Trump claim was that OBAMA had him wiretapped in Trump office - there is NO proof of that. Nor is there any proof of any "surveillance on Trump during the election" now.

What there is evidence of so far is that Trump associates have spoken to Russians who where under surveillance. But that's not surveillance of either Trump or his associates, but of the Russians. But if they call Russians known to the US intelligence agencies as spies, their conversations will of course be recorded as well.

There is still no proof what so ever that any surveillance has been targeted directly at Trump or his associates - and certainly no evidence that any of this has anything to do with Obama, as Trump claimed, at all.

The US intelligence community regularly monitors a lot of foreign agents in the US and any American that comes into contact with them will be recorded as well of course. This is completely routine and has been going on for decades - Obama has nothing to do with this.

Now if there where any - as of yet unknown - surveillance actually directed directly at Trump or his associates - that would be very, very serious indeed.
Because that would show that those individuals activities where enough of a concern for the US intelligence community for them to look closer, directly at them.

Now there is still no proof of this, but according to the Guardian the FBI actually sought a warrant to conduct such directly targeted surveillance against four Trump associates during last summer. That request was denied but there is unverified reports that a later request was granted.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/fbi-chief-given-dossier-by-john-mccain-alleging-secret-trump-russia-contacts

This is still not evidence that any actually surveillance directed at Trump associates or himself has ever happened and certainly no evidence that Obama was involved in any way.
The FBI conducts it's own operations, so if they actually did this and even more so if they obtained a warrant that's really bad news for Trump as that shows that the FBI apparently believes there are issues of national importance in Trump associates contacts with the Russians.

Which in other words means treason.

So - no proof of anything you or the right-wing media claim, but the smoke coming from this whole pile rather seems to indicate that Trump's team are the ones in trouble here.

Which is of course why he and they are desperately trying to direct attention away from that with ridiculously fake claims about irregularities or even illegalities on the Democratic side.

@Nisse_Hult I found this link interesting. My hubby sent it to me, as I am the one who watches the news in the house whilst we both read the paper.

http://imgur.com/7xHaUXf

@Recon250 I said Fox is widely known for its propaganda. I said nothing about any other news sources.

@Recon250 I never indicated that propaganda is only a fox issue. I was pointing out the irony of fox propaganda being used in a post ranting about propaganda.

@Baddancer "But I'm sure I'll get some hate and outrage so go for broke and say Former President Obama had a BAN in place for roughly six to seven months." Yes, you will. That is traditionally how people respond to outright lies, especially lies that have been disproven so many times and for so long, that they only possible reason someone would bring them up is to be a troll.

And then Sister Japan gets a nosebleed...

Most Americans don't like trump. He lost the popular vote during the election but still won because archaic beauracracy, his approval rating is a toilet, and the only reason his party doesn't care is because he distracts the country while they can ram through terrible policies while they have house/senate majority (ie. The new healthcare plan and dismantling the department of education and environmental protection agency). It's all rather sad...

@Daigga We all know. It's been discussed ad nauseum in other strips. Heh.

@Daigga Old news... I'm essentially an optimist, so my hope is that the next time the Democrats get back in power, they'll be able to reinstate the policies/agencies that are really necessary, and the ones that they don't manage to get back will be the ones we didn't need, anyway.

@Aaron
If there's money left for that. The US were already financially troubled before the angry orange became POTUS, I very much doubt things won't worsen under him.

@Narf Eh. That depends on which economist you speak with.

@Narf I don't feel especially financially troubled, personally. I mean, I want to get paid more, but I don't think that's abnormal.

@Aaron
Congratulations for completely missing that this is about countries, not individuals working their individual jobs.

@Narf Hey, man, you're the one that made the truth claim. I don't actually need a decent sample size to dispute it.

Also, sarcasm is mean. Curb your enthusiasm.

@Aaron
First of all: if I really wanted to be truly sarcastic, I'd have written that differently. Sorry if that offended you.

Second: You completely deviated from the topic by making this about the private sector and the wages it pays, not national/international financial statesmanship. That's not within the scope of downsizing the scale, that is a whole another matter that has nothing to do with the topic. Silly, inadequate comparisons get us nowhere in a discussion.

@Narf I must have misunderstood what you meant when you said that the United States is having economic problems. The wealth of a nation ultimately derives from its production, which is accomplished by the private sector. If private sector jobs are paying well, then they must be profitable, which means they are producing well. If the private sector is producing well, then the country is economically fine.

The GDP is growing last quarter by roughly the median amount for the past few years, although not as well as it was previously.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

Recent unemployment has been very low. People that want jobs, have jobs.
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

I'll grant that real household income is not matching GDP, though. I'm not sure what that means in the long term.
https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2016/12/the-puzzle-of-real-median-household-income/?utm_source=series_page&utm_medium=related_content&utm_term=related_resources&utm_campaign=fredblog

There. Now you have aggregate numbers from me, rather than anecdotal evidence.

@Aaron
Still the wrong sector.

Your government is still facing large deficits every year, to a point where they had to suspend operations of state institutions because they could not afford them. Apparently your private sector's growth is not nearly getting through to them as well as you'd hope. Obama managed to reduce your yearly deficit quite a bit lately, but it is still very significant and growing again after a low of 438 million in 2015. And looking at Trump's policies, it is going to be back to quadruple digits again in no time, as it was last time in 2012. Logically, your national debt is increasing as well, reaching new all time highs every year and sitting somewhere around 19 trillion at this time. Which is more than 100% of your GDP despite the latter's growth.

And this is what we were talking about. Not the private sector, but the state finances.

@Daigga Yes, because if we went by popular vote this country would fall apart. Red states matter too but you lefties seem to think you're the only ones who matter.

@v0ider Red states have less population and, therefore, are less representative of the country as a whole. Yes, they matter, but not to the extent of the influence they are given. We should institute a proper majority rule; maybe get rid of voting based on state and nationalize the whole process. The country should vote, not the country's sub-divisions.

'@ItsAGiraffe' the idea was that majority of laws would be made inside subdivisions and power of federal government will be limited to more global affairs. If you're going to ditch electoral college, ditch the federation as well and abolish state borders, taxes and laws in favor of centralization.

@comrade_Comrade I don't think that logic follows. The subdivision of states is necessary for more localized laws for a reason which is still a good reason, whereas the electoral college is a relic of a time we don't live in anymore. The logistics of counting the entire nations votes in a representative manner was impossible to do accurately and efficiently until computers came along.

'@GoldenBanana' problem is that that relic is the only reason why flyover country matters anymore.
Switching to popular vote carries with it a good chance that presidential elections will be dominated by a single party, since major population centers are convenient for campaigning/gotv effort and at the same time inevitably lean left. If Dems lock in POTUS, ability to control individual states via SCOTUS, executive orders, budget, legislative spam combined with veto power and various agencies (see also: attempts to regulate coal industry via EPA to circumvent Congress, WV should have loved it) would be such that individual states have little to no reason to exist. If Bay Area, New York and Chicago are able to dominate federal government, it is unlikely that you will be able to come up with more restrictive laws and regulations at local level, and being less restrictive is not an option when federal law and agencies have priority.
Then again, I'm looking at it from a point where having a Soviet Union of America is not a good thing.

@v0ider
"Red states" are kind of an illusion, though. Plenty of people in those states aren't Republican voters. The folks that do vote Republican aren't all as far to the right as Newt Gingrich or Paul Ryan. The state legislatures may be right-wing, but that doesn't mean all the people who were born there are. Even a very red state may have 40% of the state's citizens be not so extremely right-wing. Maybe Republicans in "red states" would get more respect if they acted like those citizens mattered.

"I'm trying to do everything Hitler did to my people cuz I'm the greatest leader in the whole universe. Hell, I'm a fucking Caliph, who can stop me? My people? I'll bomb the shit out of them! Other leaders better not oppose me, because democracy, freedom and shit. If they do, I'll call 'em Neo-Nazis and Hitler himself, that'll shut them up...



...I'm awesome."

@Mertamphetamine I am so sad to say it took me a second to figure out if you were talking about Turkey or Trump.

@TuxedoCartman
Well, at some point they're like separated at birth, so....

Turkey still won't admit the Armenian Genocide happened. On par with Holocaust deniers.

@CaliforniaAmazon Worse yet, Turkey actually punishes citizens who claim that the government committed the genocide (there is a law against talking bad about Turkey's founders) and uses its influence to prevent other nations from discussing it.

The irony is that the world's opinion of Turkey would actually IMPROVE if they admitted to committing the Armenian Genocide. That would show that they are sorry for and learning from their mistakes.

@PaxRomana Because it's not exactly black on white that they did.

@TheDungen

You mean, genocide is justified in some cases, if, for example, the people annihilated are creating administrative problems for the ruling empire? That's a bit too much grey area for my taste.

@TheDungen

You need to read up on that part of history apparently.
There is no serious academic debate about the fact that the Ottoman Empire commit a genocide against the Armenian people during and after the first world war.
It's established historical fact and the only reason modern Turkey is denying it is out of crude nationalism.

The same ignorant impulse that made American Republicans complain about Obama "apologizing" for the US.
Not that he actually did, but almost every country has done terrible things at some point in history.
Only chauvinistic nationalists try to deny that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

@PaxRomana Worked for the Germans. I mean, for years "German" was synonymous with "Nazi." Today, I consider them the leaders of the free world. (ESPECIALLY today... literally, today... when our Tangerine-In-Chief made an ass out of himself in front of Merkel. God, I've never been so embarrassed by my country).

@TuxedoCartman Yeah that meeting went as expected. A amateur like Trump stay away from a beast like Merkel.

'@Rogers' one would think that previous not-amateurs would be more effective at getting beast like Merkel pay Germany's share in NATO. Oh well...
At least Putin wouldn't stand up to Merkel as well?
Any time now.

@PaxRomana I know, I am aware of that disgusting fact too. Problem is, I don't think they are very sorry at all, much like when Japan finally formally apologized for forcing women in South Korea to become "comfort women", when only a few years prior, Japan threw an apoplectic diplomatic snit when the city of Glendale, CA erected a regular life sized statue of a women in memory of those South Korean comfort women, claiming those women wanted to be prostitutes to the occupying Japanese forces during WWII.

From an LA Times article: "..., multiple delegations of conservative Japanese politicians have traveled to Glendale to ask the City Council to get rid of the monument.

...

For years, surviving comfort women have been calling on the Japanese parliament, known as the Diet, to draft a resolution apologizing for the mistreatment of an estimated 80,000 to 200,000 women from Korea, China and other countries.

But the awareness campaign has angered Japanese nationals who deny that their country was involved in a system of sexual slavery, despite a personal apology to former comfort women from an ex-prime minister and an admission by the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs that some women working in brothels overseen by the government were deprived of their freedom."

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-comfort-women-20140812-story.html

Since this article was published, Japan has formally apologized.

@CaliforniaAmazon #9611033 Yeah we should tell them they can come speak in our country if they admit the truth

@CaliforniaAmazon
They don't want to admit that any part of Armenia or Kurdistan ever existed within what are now their borders. Turkey is one of the most ridiculous nations in the world.

It's not a Muslim ban. It's a ban on unstable middle-eastern countries that have poor or no background checks during their immigration process to other countries.

@v0ider
Which just coincidentially happen to not include countries Trump's companies do business with and not include the countries with the biggest/most effective terrorist cells which actually have conducted terroristic activities in the US. Yup. Just coincidence. Also it's not like Trump and his homies have talked about banning muslims from entering time and time again, right?

@v0ider
http://imgur.com/a/kg6Zu
yes this is on the prior ban, but the second one was just a rehash that they thought might be able to slip in under the radar despite knowing it had already been declared unconstitutional... but maybe you should educate yourself before rehashing breitbart talking points?

@v0ider It's a Muslim ban in all but name, and the intent is what actually matters here. And besides, the refugee programs in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere already have some of the most intensive vetting processes in the world. So maybe you should do a little research instead of uncritically believing the bullshit the Administration is feeding you.

@SydneyCarton
@Narf
A question to y'all.
If it is a muslim ban, how come that some of the Muslim countries, based on @v0ider 's source are not included in the ban?

@Cordisiolol Because those countries are ones Trump has business in, and he can't ban the people he does business with. Rather, he's going to reward them.

@Cordisiolol Shhh, don't question supreme overlord Obama you racist sexist Nazi! It HAS to be a Muslim ban because supreme overlord Obama said so and he NEVER lies! NEVER!

@v0ider

Actually it's Trump who called it a Muslim ban.
He did so throughout his campaign so it's quite obvious that's what it is, even if he now no longer want to call it that.

IF Obama ever would have wanted to do anything as stupid as this, he at least wouldn't have been so stupid as to call it something that no court would allow. But since Trump and his minions are idiots they have been calling this a Muslim ban for months now and stopped only a few weeks ago.

@Cordisiolol
It's a ban on Muslim countries which can easily be bullied. Oil-rich and/or powerful countries, or good customers to Trump and other American companies, are not included.

Similar to how Iraq was punished for 9/11, despite not being involved, while Saudi Arabia faced no consequences, despite providing the ideology and more than half the terrorist cell.

@Myrica
They were customers since George Bush Sr was in charge. Yet... Iraq, Libya have oil as well.
...
Iraq was a punching bag for USA after that Iran-Iraq war and its invasion in 2003 was crucial. Only to dethrone someone who disciplined his people. At least we survived from them in 1953.

@v0ider No, its a ban on refugees from those countries. The whole point of being a refugee is that your own country is not safe for you. The countries that are on the list don't vet them, we do. All refugees coming from those countries are vetted by the United States in a process that is the strictest in the world. If you have a problem with inadequate background checks, talk to the NSA, FBI, CIA, and DOD because they're the ones who determine if a refugee should be cleared to enter the country (FYI, they're pretty damn good at their jobs, you have a higher chance of becoming one of Trump's wives than getting killed by a terrorist attack by a refugee. You know why? Because there have been no fatal terror attacks committed by refugees since 1980)

John Oliver is a comedian who explains this all breathtakingly well, and I highly recommend his video as it's very informative. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umqvYhb3wf4

Its's just hilarious how Erdogan is accusing Germany and the Netherlands of being Nazis when the turkish ministers just haven't properly registered themselves like any politician, foreign or not, would have had to.
I recently saw a satirist who was talking about this and how Erdogan wants to detract power from the parliament and all... and how similar that was to a certain someone. XD Has any of you ever had Hitler and how he became dictator as a subject in history class?

@Amber_Ly I'm German... We didn't only have that in history class (at least twice) but also in social sciences and in German class.

@Mirage_GSM That was meant as irony actually XD

@Amber_Ly Well, Indonesia has another problem altogether (Dutch and later Japan) so we didn't really care about what those guys in west are doing.

Trump is trying to stop terrorists from entering the country. Now that ISIS is losing they're all flocking to the west, Europe is basicaly fucked

@Astrid_95 If that were true he'd ban Saudi Arabia, not the people who've worked through two years of the most difficult visa process possible.

@steelcobra It IS somewhat odd that as a general rule, the countries who are actually most involved in international terrorism and assassinations are NOT on the list, while those ON the list generally have little involvement in such things. This has been roughly how the whole "war on terror" has operated ever since 9/11, actually, mainly because most of the key terrorism backers (like Saudi Arabia or Qatar) are our best buds, while those Muslim countries and groups NOT generally involved in international terrorism (eg Iran) are often either our enemies or just politically irrelevant and so expendable. So in the name of fighting terrorism we stroke terrorists and mess with the innocent.
Trump isn't really a departure here, just an intensification.

@Astrid_95 Very few of the Muslim Refugees are terrorists. Most of them are peaceful and industrious people seeking to escape from bad conditions, and some even fought AGAINST terrorists.

Europe can expect to have an increase in manpower and brainpower because the refugees come from all walks of life; doctors, engineers, artisans, and laborers. And Europe needs it too because the people in your continent stopped having children so the fertility rate is dropping.

@PaxRomana manpower... Maybe, although, to be fair, Europe is not really needing manpower at the moment... This is seen in the amount of unemployment in the youth of southern Europe.

Brainpower... Not really, true a number of engineers and doctors are coming... Often however, it is discovered that their level of expertise, is not that impressive, and in more cases than one would suspect, their level of education is not even up to a BA.

"And Europe needs it too because the people in your continent stopped having children so the fertility rate is dropping." Well the fertility rate is actually going up in a number of countries (also if one discard the "new blood").

It is a very positive view you have on the situation, but I am afraid it is a bit more problematic than that...

@PaxRomana I'm glad to see people in the U.S. expressing positive, rather than fear-laced views on refugees; however, I find it a bit strange that you're talking about another continent, one in which you don't live in and many people here do, like you're the expert on what it needs and what's best for it. It's like an affluent white person taking a job in the black ghetto because "they know what the people there need."