US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6773

On February 05 2017 07:36 xDaunt wrote:
This idea that there's no valid security national security interest in tightening immigration controls is just ludicrous given that there have been multiple intelligence reports warning of terrorists infiltrating refugee populations to gain entrance to western nations.

On February 05 2017 07:04 Nyxisto wrote:


This is quite important, in this whole discussion nobody has ever bothered explaining what exactly the problems of American security are that warrant this measure. The only thing that seems to count is apparently the vague idea of 'not being safe enough' which seems to be a gut feeling of sorts.

By just pointing to a vague threat out there and public safety you can really justify anything no matter how unlawful or inappropriate. This loops back to the whole problem of politics not operating on reality any more.

On February 05 2017 07:45 Danglars wrote:

I don't think there's many left that think you would be convinced otherwise; aka a temporary stop is a good thing, the power to do so wasn't doubted in the Obama administration, and the justifications to not fear terrorist infiltration are about as vague. The CIA reported ISIS was intent on smuggling terrorists into refugee flows, but that's reduced to 'not being safe enough' and 'gut feeling.' The massacre in Paris was perpetrated by operatives posing as refugees, but justified fears is now not part of reality.

I call this another partisan difference in conclusions and partly based on ideological differences in priorities. It's also an echo back 'This Is Why Trump Won': Voters weighed a temporary ban on immigration, of which Trump referenced a whole year and two months ago, and decided it was a good idea "until we figure out what's going on." It follows that people who think deaths from terrorism should be compared to accidental deaths would think the action is unsupported and chaotic. And they'll certainly have their chance to have that voice heard two years from now and four years from now. Last I heard, it was a 51-45 split against, so congratulations, you've got 6% more believing it was bad, go celebrate your stunning victory!

+ Show Spoiler +

On February 05 2017 07:25 biology]major wrote:


This was the judge's point, he wanted facts to support the 'national security' concern, not feelings. I still don't get how a judge is entitled to that opinion since he doesn't have all the relevant intelligence.

Also did anyone else see Trump's prediction on 9/11? Dumb luck or good instinct?

On February 05 2017 08:06 pmh wrote:


Wow,i didn't knew about this and had to google it. He actually did predict a big attack one year before 9/1. Good instinct I think,though the motive for an attack has been there for decades and it should not have come as that big as of a surprise,other then that they actually managed to pull it off. All this kinda is in trumps favor when it comes to this executive order.

On February 05 2017 08:10 zlefin wrote:

haven't looked into this in detail, but quite googling indicates he didn't particularly predict an attack, and at any rate, the question is not whether you made a prediction and it came true, the question is how many of your predictions came true?
trump says a LOT of stuff. a lot of it is wrong, some of it would be right by chance. if you make enough predictions some will be right.

also, if someone makes a vague prediction and turns out to be right, it might just be because the prediction was vague enough it could've applied ot a lot of things, and it's not hard to find something after the fact that could plausibly be the thing described.

there's a bunch of psych research and other research into this and related phenomena if you'd like some more details.

On February 05 2017 08:21 biology]major wrote:


If hypothetically Trump was president during that time and preemptively executed a travel ban as he is doing now, it would have caused a massive outrage. Even more than it is currently raising, but if it prevented 9/11 as a consequence, would it have been worth it? Ofcourse, so it's kind of a lose/lose situation.

On February 05 2017 08:36 zlefin wrote:

a complicated hypothetical, but not that relevant since it's not the scenario we're looking at.

an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and good prevention programs are worthwhile.
the evidence does not indicate this is a good prevention program, which is admittedly a complicated question of fact.

also, this travel ban, or one akin to it, wouldn't have stopped 9/11 anyways, since it ignored saudi arabia. just as this one doesn't seem focused on actual threat sources well.

On February 05 2017 08:39 biology]major wrote:


Yeah I mean I think most people are in agreement that if you are going to do a travel ban, not including SA or UAE or Egypt is suspect. However, it has been over a decade and it might be foolish to assume the same countries are still problematic in the same way as they were then. Ofcourse it could just be conflicting interests with SA, but whatever idk.

On February 05 2017 08:01 zlefin wrote:


I'd call it almost entirely a partisan difference in conclusions, with some weight going to the fact that the weight of the evidence is that the ban is not part of a well-thought out program to reduce actual risk, as evidenced by the number of people that were caught up in it.

one of the basic challenges, in addition to partisan bias itself, is that people in part rely on authorities to decipher matters they're simply not familiar enough to have an intelligent opinion on (ofc most people have opinions anyways, but that's another matter), but different people rely on different authorities, and the authorities themselves have incentive to exaggerate and support a narrative that supports their side.

most people have opinions, but most of those opinions (on all sides) are terrible and based on a poor understanding of the actual issues, and their only basis for thinking there is or is not a problem is what their leaders and community tell them. it should be noted that people who choose to discuss these matters in detail on forums are in all likelihood already more well informed than most.



PS i'm inclined to think that if the EO had been far narrower in scope, it would've been much likelier to be uncontested or at least less contested and with no stays granted. like if it focused solely on refugees.

On February 05 2017 09:01 zlefin wrote:
It is indeed interesting how it's not so much the refugees/immigrants themselves that are terrorists, but the 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants that do so.
that also presents an interesting ethical quandary: what to do if the threat comes not from the immigrants themselves, who behave fine, and not from some sort of improper parenting, but simply from the difficulties of fitting in for the children of the immigrants through societal processes not well understood?

On February 05 2017 09:01 zlefin wrote:
It is indeed interesting how it's not so much the refugees/immigrants themselves that are terrorists, but the 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants that do so.
that also presents an interesting ethical quandary: what to do if the threat comes not from the immigrants themselves, who behave fine, and not from some sort of improper parenting, but simply from the difficulties of fitting in for the children of the immigrants through societal processes not well understood?

On February 05 2017 09:34 biology]major wrote:


This is a great point and I think an underestimated concern with refugee immigration, or immigration in general from these unstable countries. Given that refugees get to rely on the state, and also have a hard time with finding employment, the children aren't going to be in great conditions and are more prone to radicalization.

On February 05 2017 09:01 zlefin wrote:
It is indeed interesting how it's not so much the refugees/immigrants themselves that are terrorists, but the 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants that do so.
that also presents an interesting ethical quandary: what to do if the threat comes not from the immigrants themselves, who behave fine, and not from some sort of improper parenting, but simply from the difficulties of fitting in for the children of the immigrants through societal processes not well understood?