Executive order restricting refugees, immigrants, and travel

What's happening in your world? Discuss it here.
Forum rules
Play nice. We will be watching

Re: Executive order restricting refugees, immigrants, and tr

Postby gisambards » Sat Feb 11, 2017 12:59 am

I suspect that the number of people who support Trump likely does decrease by a small amount every time he or one of his people says or does something offensive, stupid or just plain bizarre. Every time, I'm sure someone somewhere in America who previously supported him sees the latest thing and starts to question that support. And then they'll notice the next thing that happens, and their support will waver even more.
I think this does just happen to demagogues after a while: in the short term they can rile vast amounts of people up through blatant misinformation and empty but powerful rhetoric, but in the long term it's much harder to maintain that, and individuals will trickle away - someone hears the demagogue say something they can't convince themselves is true, and realise that what they'd thought was "telling it like it is" was actually just lying; someone hears an opposing politician offer a solution to one of their issues, and realises it makes infinitely more sense; something just suddenly makes someone realise the politician they honestly loved is actually a horrible, manipulative person - and they'll either go back to not voting, or shift their support somewhere else. I would honestly be amazed if Trump wins a second term, as I don't see how his support can do anything but decrease from here.
  • 6

User avatar
gisambards
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:45 pm
Show rep

Re: Executive order restricting refugees, immigrants, and tr

Postby Aquila89 » Sat Feb 11, 2017 1:06 am

gisambards wrote:I suspect that the number of people who support Trump likely does decrease by a small amount every time he or one of his people says or does something offensive, stupid or just plain bizarre.


I don't. He constantly did that during the campaign, and he won. Offensive, stupid, bizarre; these are ultimately subjective terms. His supporters don't see the things he says and does it that way.

gisambards wrote:I would honestly be amazed if Trump wins a second term, as I don't see how his support can do anything but decrease from here.


Yeah, people were amazed when he won his first term too.

I hate to say all this, I really do. But I basically lost hope in the US. I'd love to be proven wrong.
  • 8

As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being.
--Carl Jung
User avatar
Aquila89
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3442
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 1:45 pm
Location: Hungary
Show rep

Re: Executive order restricting refugees, immigrants, and tr

Postby Doodle Dee. Snickers » Sat Feb 11, 2017 1:08 am

aviel wrote:Gallup Daily Approval Polls. Alternately, CNN approval polls, which show how little Donald Trump is liked compared to previous Presidents.


Point of order: He doesn't seem to be hemorrhaging support, he's just kinda been oscillating between 40 and 45 percent since the inauguration.

That said, I think 538 put it best. With his strategy, he's not making any new friends or trying to invite anyone to the tent, so he'll only ever make enemies. Yeah, he probably loses a little support for each executive order, but I don't know that it's enough. I mean, remember, a lot of people wanted what he's doing, and unless/until the negative effects of some of his financial orders (how the fuck do you justify turning over the fiduciary rule?) hit, they're ride or die.

As I mentioned in my "Trump's an Asshole" thread, I sincerely doubt Trump wins a popular vote, and he probably loses the next one by an even greater margin, but I'm almost wiling to put money down that he wins yet ANOTHER popular/electoral vote split. Which I'd bet would cause a little bit of a constitutional crisis, because winning without the popular vote once is bad enough, but twice?
  • 11

Doodle Dee. Snickers
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 2730
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 8:15 pm
Show rep

Re: Executive order restricting refugees, immigrants, and tr

Postby Learned Nand » Sat Feb 11, 2017 2:13 am

I wasn't trying to make any predictions about the next election, nor am I here. I was only noting that Tess' statement, that Trump was losing support, is accurate given these data. It's pretty much impossible to say how that will translate into an election taking place nearly four years from now.

That said, there's no guarantee that next election will be a repeat of this one. There were a number of factors working in Trump's favor, many of which need not in the next election. While Trump's appeal to uneducated white voters gives him an electoral college advantage, this was exacerbated by Hillary's electoral college disadvantage. For example, she did far better in Southern states than recent Democratic nominees have, which doesn't help her at all because she wasn't going to win those states regardless.

Furthermore, it's worth pointing out that, even running against a horribly disliked candidate, in the middle of one of her most unfavorable news cycles, in an election in which much of the Democratic base complacently believed that their nominee was certain to win, Trump still lost the popular vote. If any of those factors had not gone in his favor, then it's quite likely he could have lost the election as well.

This isn't to say, for the record, that Trump is certainly going to lose in 2020. Only that some things that helped him in 2016 need not help him in 2020, and so he could lose as a result. Alternately, it's possible that (by sheer luck) the economy could be doing great come the election, and that this combined with an incumbent advantage gives Trump a comfortable margin of victory. This far out, we really have no way of knowing. But Tess' statement about his current support is accurate nonetheless.
  • 11

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
Learned Nand
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

Re: Executive order restricting refugees, immigrants, and tr

Postby Doodle Dee. Snickers » Sat Feb 11, 2017 2:20 am

aviel wrote:But Tess' statement about his current support is accurate nonetheless.


I was arguing about his current supporters, because his numbers seem mostly unchanged from where they were two weeks ago, which doesn't bring to mind a 'dwindling' support. He's just sitting in the 40-45 range and not really breaking out of it in either direction. Is it possible he's just getting a honeymoon from the Republicans he isn't getting from Democrats? Possible, but I wonder if polarization will keep him there no matter what he does.
  • 4

Doodle Dee. Snickers
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 2730
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 8:15 pm
Show rep

Re: Executive order restricting refugees, immigrants, and tr

Postby Learned Nand » Sat Feb 11, 2017 2:26 am

He is probably unlikely to drop substantially below the 40% mark, due to political polarization, but I don't think that renders Tess' statements inaccurate. He started with a net zero approval ratings (which is already terrible on inauguration day) and has, in only a couple of weeks, fallen to a net -10% approval rating. I don't see a reason to dismiss that movement as trivial, even if it's bounded.
  • 5

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
Learned Nand
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

Re: Executive order restricting refugees, immigrants, and tr

Postby gisambards » Sat Feb 11, 2017 2:29 am

Aquila89 wrote:
gisambards wrote:I suspect that the number of people who support Trump likely does decrease by a small amount every time he or one of his people says or does something offensive, stupid or just plain bizarre.
I don't. He constantly did that during the campaign, and he won. Offensive, stupid, bizarre; these are ultimately subjective terms. His supporters don't see the things he says and does it that way.

My argument is that they more and more often will over the coming years. People turn to demagogues not because they're stupid, but because they're frustrated enough to believe anyone who promises something different. But that belief just won't last, beyond a few core fanatics. These demagogues peak - some more than others, and Trump peaked particularly well (although I suspect the two-party system artificially boosted that - had there been a more credible Libertarian candidate, things could have been very different) - but then they decline. Most people who voted for Trump are actually perfectly rational people, and every time they have to lie to themselves to continue to defend him, there's a chance they'll realise that's what they're doing.
Yeah, people were amazed when he won his first term too.

Well I wasn't, so I don't think that detracts from my argument.
  • 2

User avatar
gisambards
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:45 pm
Show rep

Re: Executive order restricting refugees, immigrants, and tr

Postby cmsellers » Sat Feb 11, 2017 2:42 am

W. dropped well below the 40% mark near the end of his term. The key question is whether he gives Republicans what they want, without costing them down ballot. He's given them Gorsuch and y'all know that Gorsuch will be on the Supreme Court by the start of the next term. He's repealed a lot of Obama's executive orders, and is enabling Congress to roll back a lot of federal regulation. (One bill I noticed will remove the requirement that businesses report payments they make to foreign governments, which ... WTF!? You guys seriously don't think businesses should have to disclose that?) So right now, they're getting stuff they want and are relatively happy with him.

He's promised to end Obamacare, but it's looking like either chunks of Obamacare will survive or else it will be replaced with something that looks a lot like it but has a different name. Lots of Republicans will be pissed with the former option and may not be thrilled with the latter. Honestly, outright repealing Obamacare and lying about the consequences seems like it would be the smarter political strategy, but several GOP senators won't let that happen even if Trump wanted to go down that road.

And if the Republicans lose the House because of Trump, something that was thought to be pretty much impossible with their current districts, they will be pissed at him. If the Democrats make significant gains in state legislatures, they might also be annoyed, since they recognize that that's the key to keeping their advantage in the House.

But I imagine that if the Democrats win a majority all ballots cast for Congressional races and still fail to capture the House (which I imagine is the most likely result), it would serve only to reinforce the anti-democratic tendencies in the GOP rather than undermining Trump. They wouldn't say "Oh, an absolute majority of Americans dislike what Trump is doing." They'll say "look at those elitist Democrats and their ignorant voters in their coastal strongholds. It sure is a good thing we had the foresight to pack them all into a handful of districts. But our base keeps calling us with stories about illegal immigrants voting in those elections; we really should implement a national ID law, just to be sure that isn't happening."
  • 4

User avatar
cmsellers
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9316
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:20 pm
Location: Not *that* Bay Area
Show rep
Title: Broken Record Player

Re: Executive order restricting refugees, immigrants, and tr

Postby Doodle Dee. Snickers » Sat Feb 11, 2017 3:26 am

I should ask, aviel, in terms of a SCOTUS appeal, how admissible will Trump's past statements be?
  • 3

Doodle Dee. Snickers
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 2730
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 8:15 pm
Show rep

Re: Executive order restricting refugees, immigrants, and tr

Postby Learned Nand » Sat Feb 11, 2017 4:15 am

Doodle Dee. Snickers wrote:I should ask, aviel, in terms of a SCOTUS appeal, how admissible will Trump's past statements be?


I elaborate on that a little more here, but in short, they'd be entirely admissible. Plaintiffs in this case are alleging that the Executive Order violates the rights of immigrants to equal protection under the law because the order was intended to discriminate against Muslims. If a law has a discriminatory impact and was motivated by a discriminatory purpose, then it is subject to strict scrutiny, Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976). Laws subject to strict scrutiny are only constitutional if they further a compelling government interest, and are narrowly tailored to do so. It's difficult for a law to meet this standard. Strict scrutiny has often (if, perhaps, a little unfairly) been called "strict in theory, but fatal in fact". Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. at 200 (1995).

The Supreme Court can go beyond the text of the Executive Order when looking to see if it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. They can look at the history behind the order, including statements made by Trump. The Supreme Court has said explicitly that "contemporary statements by members of the decisionmaking body" can be used to demonstrate discriminatory motivation. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, at 268 (1977).

Indeed, plaintiffs in this case introduced Trump's statements as evidence of discriminatory purpose. Though the decision of the 9th Circuit didn't spend much time evaluating the merits of plaintiffs' religious discrimination arguments, it noted that these statements contributed to their argument. Specifically, the opinion said the following:

Washington v. Trump, No. 17-35015 (slip op., at 25) (9th Cir. 2017) wrote:The States argue that the Executive Order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses because it was intended to disfavor Muslims. In support of this argument, the States have offered evidence of numerous statements by the President about his intent to implement a "Muslim ban" as well as evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to be that ban, including sections 5(b) and 5(e) of the Order. It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims.


In later stages of litigation, after discovery, plaintiffs may have even more evidence of discriminatory intent. But, as Washington's lawyer noted at oral arguments, statements made by Trump and Giuliani have given them an unusual amount of evidence of discriminatory purpose given that this is just the pleading stage. So yes, Trump's statements are admissible. But it's possible that, at later stages in the proceedings, they could just be icing on the Islamophobic cake.
  • 13

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
Learned Nand
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

Re: Executive order restricting refugees, immigrants, and tr

Postby Crimson847 » Sat Feb 11, 2017 8:06 am

I mostly agree with gisambards, but with one important reservation:

gisambards wrote:I would honestly be amazed if Trump wins a second term, as I don't see how his support can do anything but decrease from here.


Two words: economic boom.

Tbh, I'm slightly worried about what the GOP is going to end up doing with their economic plan. Cutting taxes and cutting spending together has major downsides for the GOP from a political standpoint--done the way the GOP is likely to do it, that approach would please people who are already firmly in their camp and alienate more persuadable voters. However, with Trump (and more importantly Bannon) in the mix we may end up with the classic GOP economic plan instead: cut taxes and raise spending anyway. Massive deficit spending would tend to have a stimulative effect on the economy in the short term, possibly allowing Trump and the GOP to hold on through 2020. They'd piss off the Tea Party wing by doing this, but it's unclear whether it would alienate those folks enough for them to stay home, and the GOP can afford to lose a fair amount of support in deep-red areas as long as they pick up support from swing voters as compensation.

The plus side is, it seems like this crop of GOP congressional leaders believe in cutting spending and balancing the budget as a matter of principle...and if they had ever chosen principle over political advantage, that would be more comforting.
  • 6

"If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them; but the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
User avatar
Crimson847
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3195
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:18 am
Show rep

Re: Executive order restricting refugees, immigrants, and tr

Postby Doodle Dee. Snickers » Sat Feb 11, 2017 1:01 pm

I should also ask, of our resident expert: how likely do you think it is that the SCOTUS, with the exception of Thomas and Alito, sends a warning shot across the bow make a point, what with the pres trying to undermine the courts?
  • 2

Doodle Dee. Snickers
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 2730
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 8:15 pm
Show rep

Re: Executive order restricting refugees, immigrants, and tr

Postby blehblah » Sat Feb 11, 2017 4:43 pm

On Trump's poling/approval numbers, he has a high floor, and a low ceiling. That has been the case all along. Those who like him, like him a lot. He will maintain core believers despite everything short of something highly impeachable. There are plenty of folks who simply believe in him, and facts and logic don't enter into it. He has brazenly broken every political taboo, and won. Examples are myriad.

The Republicans are performing acrobatic maneuvers that would make Cirque du Soleil performers jealous. McCain, who will probably not fight another campaign, supports Trump with his votes. Trump, Spicer, et al, can have rained-down incredibly disingenuous shit on McCain, yet he still votes along party lines.

Political calculus is at work, and the formula is always, "Will I win the next election?" The Republicans, from Paul Ryan down (and down is relative; it's far, far below ground) don't want to piss-off that base of believers Trump has. It's the same political calculus that allowed the Tea Party to ravage the Republican party.

The trick is Republicans can't turn against a freshly minted Republican POTUS right off the bat, especially when they control Congress. Trump just won the election, and the world is their oyster. So, they have to toe the line. On the other hand, if they let this gong show proceed for weeks, months, a year, two years... they can't suddenly turn on a dime. Their own numbers may take a hit, but after tolerating Trump for a period of time, people will naturally want to know, "Why now?" The exceptions will be those who have mid-term battles to fight, and if Trump's base actually erodes in a significant way, making it safe to go against him.

Every politician behaves the same, though I've observed, over and over, that right-wing (versus true conservatives) politicians are likely to play for themselves, the team, and only then, principles, in that order. It's right there in the philosophy - individualism over socialism.

In any case, the POTUS is a grasping ignoramus being led around by one of the most dangerous people to ever occupy a spot in the White House - Steve Bannon. That guy is anything but stupid, and entirely crazy. His beliefs are off-the-scale batshit-insane. When he gets Trump to pronounce the batshit from the mount, the core believes it too. Bannon is a guy who wants to see it all burn, and he has the chops to make it happen. Pence is a gadfly next to Bannon.

So, here we are. A POTUS who is influenced by a nutjob from Breitbart, a Congress that has folded under the weight of their own cowardice, and an as-yet unrealized executive branch who can't figure-out how to turn on the fucking lights.

But, hey, at least Canada is looking forward to the possibility of having Sarah Palin as the US ambassador to Canada.

You guys are really outdoing yourselves. Bra-fucking-vo.
  • 12

A quantum state of signature may or may not be here... you just ruined it.
User avatar
blehblah
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3895
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 9:16 pm
Show rep
Title: Error General, Panic Colonel

Re: Executive order restricting refugees, immigrants, and tr

Postby Learned Nand » Sat Feb 11, 2017 11:06 pm

Doodle Dee. Snickers wrote:I should also ask, of our resident expert: how likely do you think it is that the SCOTUS, with the exception of Thomas and Alito, sends a warning shot across the bow make a point, what with the pres trying to undermine the courts?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The Supreme Court cares quite a bit about being perceived as apolitical, so a decision that is construed as a "fuck you" to Trump, rather than just to his Executive Order, isn't very likely. That doesn't preclude the inclusion of a more subtle message criticizing Trump's behavior towards the judiciary into an opinion (in fact, I think that the 9th Circuit's opinion being a per curium may have been such a message), but if so, it is certainly going to be too subtle for Trump to understand.
  • 13

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
Learned Nand
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

Re: Executive order restricting refugees, immigrants, and tr

Postby Tuli » Mon Feb 13, 2017 6:38 am

Even US-born citizens are not safe: http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/12/14583124/nasa-sidd-bikkannavar-detained-cbp-phone-search-trump-travel-ban

Not only is he a natural-born US citizen, but he’s also enrolled in Global Entry — a program through CBP that allows individuals who have undergone background checks to have expedited entry into the country. He hasn’t visited the countries listed in the immigration ban and he has worked at JPL — a major center at a US federal agency — for 10 years.


Nevertheless he was detained until he gave up his phone for the border control to rifle through, thereby violating NASA information security requirements. As for the cause of the search, none was given. Presumably because "looking brown" is still not a reason the CBP can say out loud.
  • 13

User avatar
Tuli
TCS Camper
TCS Camper
 
Posts: 920
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2015 5:55 pm
Location: Estonia
Show rep
Title: Experimental Protrude

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests

cron