Competence matters

[SamSpade]

Because trump ran on making America great again, not on making America the same as it was under Obama.

Since I am a federal worker, I'm grateful he decided NOT to can everyone in my agency under the notion that to make the nation great again, it first needs to replace every federal employee and change every program currently running.

Since I've been doing it now under five different Presidents, administration change doesn't mean MY job changes.

And neither necessarily would intel agencies or the State department employees.

 

[SamSpade]

In the last 20 years, how many terrorist have come from these 7 countries and perpetuated crimes in the USA?

like I said, this will be just as effective as an assault weapons ban.

I was going to refer to Session's web site at the Senate which identifies 72 people from those countries between the date of 9/11 to June 2014, but I have since learned that - while the government may have used this list - it's flawed. No one has been *killed* as a result of terrorists hailing from these countries but a few have been convicted of attempting terrorism.

But - I only have access to data on the Web and have no access to classified data. I can only guess. BUT if the Obama administration flagged these seven as the most serious, then there may be something not found on the Internet. I don't know.

 

[littlelady]

Since I am a federal worker, I'm grateful he decided NOT to can everyone in my agency under the notion that to make the nation great again, it first needs to replace every federal employee and change every program currently running.

Since I've been doing it now under five different Presidents, administration change doesn't mean MY job changes.

And neither necessarily would intel agencies or the State department employees.

After all these years, I missed the part that you were a federal worker.You have had it cushy for a long time. How is your health insurance treating you? Just wondering. The reason I say this is because my dot got screwed on insurance when she was diagnosed with MS 4 months ago, and Grainger changed from Aetna to BCBS. Go, America, or whoever.

 

[littlelady]

I was going to refer to Session's web site at the Senate which identifies 72 people from those countries between the date of 9/11 to June 2014, but I have since learned that - while the government may have used this list - it's flawed. No one has been *killed* as a result of terrorists hailing from these countries but a few have been convicted of attempting terrorism.

But - I only have access to data on the Web and have no access to classified data. I can only guess. BUT if the Obama administration flagged these seven as the most serious, then there may be something not found on the Internet. I don't know.

You may want to keep it under your hat, Sam.

 

[SamSpade]

After all these years, I missed the part that you were a federal worker.You have had it cushy for a long time. How is your health insurance treating you? Just wondering. The reason I say this is because my dot got screwed on insurance when she was diagnosed with MS 4 months ago, and Grainger changed from Aetna to BCBS. Go, America, or whoever.

Insurance I think only went up about a hundred a month (for me). But I also have BCBS, which has awful dental and vision coverage, and I pay extra for that.

I left federal employ for two years and returned. When I left, it was for more money - when I came back, it was for less money - but it paid good benefits and was fairly secure. Once you've found yourself unemployed and middle aged - job security will trump pay especially if you have children. So I don't get the overpaid crap. It's always been less. I come here because if I do my job well, I get to keep it.

 

[littlelady]

Insurance I think only went up about a hundred a month (for me). But I also have BCBS, which has awful dental and vision coverage, and I pay extra for that.

I left federal employ for two years and returned. When I left, it was for more money - when I came back, it was for less money - but it paid good benefits and was fairly secure. Once you've found yourself unemployed and middle aged - job security will trump pay especially if you have children. So I don't get the overpaid crap. It's always been less. I come here because if I do my job well, I get to keep it.

I love your use of the trump reference. And, your reference to job security is well received. Hub has been with USBank for 20 years, and he has about had it with them. He says he will just get a job with HomeDepot and be done with it, and watch all the illegals in the parking lot looking for work. I am going to start getting my ss in March; a whole 648/mo. I am officially old. This is my other post that I edited.

Well, I understand what you say. And, I have always thought highly of you on this forum. I want to add that my hub has been an exemplary employee for USBank for 20 years. But, even we have been screwed by Obamacare (even when a huge company is self insured). No one will ever convince me different that Obama didn't want to change our country; as in the same that I believe that Johnson had Kennedy killed. Not, that it is your problem in what I believe. I still will always value what you have to say.

 

[PsyOps]

In the last 20 years, how many terrorist have come from these 7 countries and perpetuated crimes in the USA?

like I said, this will be just as effective as an assault weapons ban.

So, you're suggesting a ban be implemented on all Mideast countries?

 

[Larry Gude]

It's stupid to call it a Muslim ban for the same reason if we were to ban all residents of Hong Kong or Taiwan and call it a Chinese ban.

Yup. It's like banning white people from the deep South for fear they may be in the klan but OK'ing people from Indiana and New York because those two states do a better PR job even though Indiana has a strong klan history and New York is, today, #3 in the number of identified hate groups. The left says "What about Saudi and Egypt, huh?" and I say "Good point"

 

[stgislander]

You know, I annoy my kids with the same tactic. It is without a doubt, a ban on people from countries where radical Islamic terrorists are.
If they were in CUBA, we'd add Cuba to the list.
If they were in North Korea, we'd add them to the list.
But it would be WEIRD for radical Islamic terrorists to live in such places, wouldn't it?
Radical Islamic terrorists live in countries where the people are Muslim. Really not a big jump.
BTW - if we banned Cubans, y'all would call it a Catholic ban - or Hispanic ban. It wouldn't make sense, but Muslim ban doesn't, either.



Nor from what I read would it currently be necessary. Aside from three nations which are currently regarded as state sponsors of terrorism - which UAE and SA are not - the other nations on the list have very little in the way of a working government OR we are currently FIGHTING terrorists. Other nations could have made the list - such as Egypt and Lebanon. But the State department doesn't currently consider them the same kind of threat because at the moment we do have arrangements with their government - along with SA and UAE - where we can check and examine and cooperate. We have no such arrangement with the nations currently under the ban. Remember that it is 90 days - just until we can establish a better means of checking. I've waited longer for a back order of a book.

It's stupid to call it a Muslim ban for the same reason if we were to ban all residents of Hong Kong or Taiwan and call it a Chinese ban.

You can say that until you are blue in the face and some still will not get it.

 

[Larry Gude]

You can say that until you are blue in the face and some still will not get it.

To give KSA a pass is unconscionable. They cast out their worst because they can't kill them or jail them in a vulgar mindset of political expediency to these other semi failed countries precisely to deflect criticism and responsibility. They KNOW their bad guys will become lightening rods and that that, cynically, serves the kingdom.

 

[PsyOps]

To give KSA a pass is unconscionable. They cast out their worst because they can't kill them or jail them in a vulgar mindset of political expediency to these other semi failed countries precisely to deflect criticism and responsibility. They KNOW their bad guys will become lightening rods and that that, cynically, serves the kingdom.

It's just an odd alliance we have with that country. As long as they let us use their country as a strategic launching pad in this 'war' they will remain untouched.

 

[stgislander]

To give KSA a pass is unconscionable. They cast out their worst because they can't kill them or jail them in a vulgar mindset of political expediency to these other semi failed countries precisely to deflect criticism and responsibility. They KNOW their bad guys will become lightening rods and that that, cynically, serves the kingdom.

It's just an odd alliance we have with that country. As long as they let us use their country as a strategic launching pad in this 'war' they will remain untouched.

Plus they tend to purchase a ton of military hardware from us. Hey, I agree that KSA should be under additional scrutiny (and maybe they already are).

 

[Larry Gude]

It's just an odd alliance we have with that country. As long as they let us use their country as a strategic launching pad in this 'war' they will remain untouched.

It's not odd. It's immoral and unethical.

Us being there guarantees a study supply of jihadi's, they know it, we know it, thus guaranteeing us lots of targets. They know it, we know it. I suppose the argument goes that we keep it up, provoking fundamentalists to act and then we kill them until there are no more but that fails on 2 counts, at least 2; one, as part of the deal we've let them export their beliefs to the US under the guise of religious freedom, thus spreading the problem, dislocating, de-cenrtalizing the problem, giving it life elsewhere. And, two, it has come, or will, come to a state of equilibrium where it is always there AND becomes entrenched, deeply, and simply goes about winning in other ways. As long as a drug king pin in the city keeps his street guys under control, the cops go after the unruly ones all the while the drug distribution and profits, remain.

Add it a 3rd, the cynical weapons sales. Absent the threat, and power, of fundamentalism, no arms race. We perpetuate, expand upon and profit from the otherwise puny, self healing problem. And a tolerable number of people around the world keep it in the headlines and keep the game going; "Security!!!!"

 

[SamSpade]

The left says "What about Saudi and Egypt, huh?" and I say "Good point"

Remember this isn't "revenge" - it's vetting. As I said before, the State Department has a description of the cooperation they have, and the amount of information received about people who come here, from there. They're being more certain about it, but it's not currently needed to add them to the ban.

What IS needed is a mechanism from these countries we have very little to zero cooperation with - AND IT IS TEMPORARY until we have a better set of rules. Somalia is a nation without a government; we're more or less at war with South Yemen; Sudan is embroiled in a mild form of civil war as of yet with the part that broke off. We don't have the relationship with them - yet. Egypt is a reasonably good example of a nation we work with - heck, I think they're number two in total foreign aid, but I might be wrong (not checking Internet, just typing).

 

[Larry Gude]

Remember this isn't "revenge" - it's vetting. As I said before, the State Department has a description of the cooperation they have, and the amount of information received about people who come here, from there. They're being more certain about it, but it's not currently needed to add them to the ban.

What IS needed is a mechanism from these countries we have very little to zero cooperation with - AND IT IS TEMPORARY until we have a better set of rules. Somalia is a nation without a government; we're more or less at war with South Yemen; Sudan is embroiled in a mild form of civil war as of yet with the part that broke off. We don't have the relationship with them - yet. Egypt is a reasonably good example of a nation we work with - heck, I think they're number two in total foreign aid, but I might be wrong (not checking Internet, just typing).

It's vetting based on our level of trust with a duplicitous, self serving monarchy. In and of itself, it makes perfect sense IF you start with accepting that we have a good relationship with Saudi. To me, this is where you say TO THEM, if we have such a great relationship, go get the bad guys. You know who they are, where they are. YOU fund them. They ARE you. DEAL WITH IT.

 

[SamSpade]

It's vetting based on our level of trust with a duplicitous, self serving monarchy.

It's the best we can hope for with the tools we have. Bear in mind, with this meager effort, the left has gotten the country in a complete LATHER over the "Muslim ban".
Can you even imagine what the Republican would be up against if they went the distance they'd need to go?

 

[Larry Gude]

It's the best we can hope for with the tools we have. Bear in mind, with this meager effort, the left has gotten the country in a complete LATHER over the "Muslim ban".
Can you even imagine what the Republican would be up against if they went the distance they'd need to go?

I disagree. It's the best we're willing to do. DHS, Pat Act, that was the whole point to justify sacrificing liberty; we have the tools. We just still want/need to protect the KSA.

 

[SamSpade]

I disagree. It's the best we're willing to do. DHS, Pat Act, that was the whole point to justify sacrificing liberty; we have the tools. We just still want/need to protect the KSA.

Then we disagree. We have a sizable portion of our nation who seriously go ape#### if it is suggested we vet Muslims or anyone who might do us harm. We are called everything from Islamophobes to racists, and it profoundly inhibits our ability to address it. Remember, this is a NINETY DAY BAN, and the nation has gone nuts over it. As I said in another thread, I've waited longer for a book to come back on order.

 

[Larry Gude]

Then we disagree. We have a sizable portion of our nation who seriously go ape#### if it is suggested we vet Muslims or anyone who might do us harm. We are called everything from Islamophobes to racists, and it profoundly inhibits our ability to address it. Remember, this is a NINETY DAY BAN, and the nation has gone nuts over it. As I said in another thread, I've waited longer for a book to come back on order.

As I say, in and of itself, it makes perfect sense. Where Trump went wrong was in not being public about it in the first place. I think people are liking the constant communication from our president. he failed to do so then and I think it would have smoothed the path. Open-ness, communication. Makes us feel like he's on the job and paying attention. Silence is bad. Secrecy is bad.

 

[Midnightrider]

Since I am a federal worker, I'm grateful he decided NOT to can everyone in my agency under the notion that to make the nation great again, it first needs to replace every federal employee and change every program currently running.

Since I've been doing it now under five different Presidents, administration change doesn't mean MY job changes.

And neither necessarily would intel agencies or the State department employees.

nice strawman.But president trump campaigned on being a new sheriff in town. if all he is going to do is follow Obama's lead he isn't making anything great or draining the swamp.

I was going to refer to Session's web site at the Senate which identifies 72 people from those countries between the date of 9/11 to June 2014, but I have since learned that - while the government may have used this list - it's flawed. No one has been *killed* as a result of terrorists hailing from these countries but a few have been convicted of attempting terrorism.

But - I only have access to data on the Web and have no access to classified data. I can only guess. BUT if the Obama administration flagged these seven as the most serious, then there may be something not found on the Internet. I don't know.

and there you have it. a ban to prevent terrorism that isn't happening, at least not being perpetrated by people from those 7 countries.

So, you're suggesting a ban be implemented on all Mideast countries?

that's a pretty stupid read of my argument. If I said assault weapons bans don't work, plus you aren't even trying to ban the guns used most in killing people, would you think I support banning all guns?

like I said, the people who want to kill us are going to try anyway. this ban will do nothing except make skeered people feel good, until the next attack