Trump administration signals that some temporary bans on entry into the U.S. could become permanent.
Wonderful…
What in the world are you talking about? What does Dana Boente have to do with Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel decision on the legality of the Executive Order that was taken several days before Boente was appointed to be Acting AG?
And I see that Mr. Boente was nominated/appointed by Obama to his post of US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Hardly a “Trump stooge”. Just because he’s actually willing to do his job doesn’t make him a stooge.
I’m getting “PAGE NOT FOUND” message.
Well, that makes it a good analogy. Because, in fact, if Donald Trump had been Mitt Romney, I probably would not have been nearly so worried about him having a 10% chance of winning…but when it was a 10% chance of having Donald Trump elected president, I was very worried…and, in retrospect, justifiably so!
Sorry Czarcasm. I just went to the LA Times web site and it appears the page was removed. Weird. Try this page entitled Living with Shit for Brains.
Never mind… (I.e., ignore this post)
The International Business Times reports:
Meanwhile, Dana Boente, the new acting attorney general, overruled the advice of Yates that the president’s travel ban was not lawful and should not be defended.
“Based upon the Office of Legal Counsel’s analysis, which found the Executive Order both lawful on its face and properly drafted, I hereby rescind former Acting Attorney General Sally Q. Yates January 30, 2017, guidance and direct the men and women of the Department of Justice to do our sworn duty and to defend the lawful orders of our President,” Boente wrote in a statement.
**Yup, a Trump stooge. **
And the Attorney General of Virginia.
So what? The previous incumbent was an Obama stooge.
The last few words are very telling - even though Doyle MacCree, that senile old bastard didn’t realize it…
“It’s his law now,” MacCree said about Trump.
It’s his law now
his law
his.
Is that all you’ve got? The old “those guys did it too” equivalency bullshit?
Try harder.
Don’t have time to go back & read your link. I enjoy the Post, but they are open-minded enough to allow a few non-liberal commentators. Anyway, I just checked Pew Research:
After you read the article, I suggest you take two aspirin & lie down for a while…
…
Both the previous acting AG and current acting AG were appointed to their positions before becoming acting AG by Obama.
There are those in the United States who would be personally very happy to man the guard towers in the camps where their fellow citizens were being gassed, as long as they got to wear an arm band with the American Flag emblazoned on it.
You seem to be assuming that the only meaningful applications of mathematics to the real world are ones in which predictions are falsifiable by exactly reproducible experiments. That’s not so.
[QUOTE=Okrahoma]
Pundit A claims the probability of E happening of 98%
Pundit B - 50%
Pundit C - 2%
E happens. Which pundit was right and which was wrong? Can you say that pundit C was wrong? 2% is quite possible - it happens 2% of the time.
[/quote]
No, you can’t say that any of the pundits were wrong about the event happening, because they did not predict whether or not the event would happen. They assigned a probability to its happening. That’s not the same as making an “unfalsifiable prediction”.
Surely you understand this on some level. For example, due to the chaotic nature of weather systems, every day’s weather is a non-repeatable event: it “hasn’t happened before and it will not happen again”. If a meteorologist predicts an 80% chance of rain on a given day, and it doesn’t rain that day, was the meteorologist wrong? No; any possible outcome with probability less than 1 might not occur. Does that mean that probabilistic models of weather prediction are meaningless? No.
[QUOTE=Okrahoma]
So if you can’t say which one was wrong, how does the “probability” they assign have meaning?
[/quote]
That is a perfect formulation of naive misunderstanding of probability, I’m ripping it verbatim for the homework problem.
Some chapters of the Klan, at least in Illinois and Indiana, have been actively recruiting recently.
Here is a reality confusion for you. Just saw a few posts on another forum. Couple of posters there have an odd take on this executive order. They are convinced that Obama wrote the executive order and that “Trump is merely enforcing it”.
How do you reason with such people?
RTF gives it a shot here.
It gets even better than that.
Popular vote loser Donald Trump is working on another immigration restriction … While Trump’s immigration ban last week focused on national security and preventing terrorism, the new draft orders would be focused on Trump’s campaign promises to protect American workers and to create jobs, immediately restricting the flow of immigrants and temporary laborers into the U.S. workforce. … “Our country’s immigration laws are designed to protect American taxpayers and promote immigrant self sufficiency. Yet households headed by aliens are much more likely than those headed by citizens to use Federal means-tested public benefits,” reads one draft order obtained by The Post, titled “Executive Order on Protecting Taxpayer Resources by Ensuring Our Immigration Laws Promote Accountability and Responsibility.” …
This one is about deporting legal immigrants.
… telling the Department of Homeland Security to “issue a rule saying that an immigrant can’t be admitted to the U.S. if he’s likely to get any benefit ‘determined in any way on the basis of income, resources, or financial need.’” And if they legally come into the U.S. and end up having to use public benefits, they can be deported. But it gets even worse—the person who sponsored them would be forced to reimburse the government for any funds they might have received.
It just keeps getting more insane.