90 day suspension of visas for certain countries

keane2097 · 30-01-2017 12:43pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I'm not.... I'm not a lawyer, no one gives a fook about pedantry.

You would agree that a visa applicant will still be able to enter the USA after the 90-day wait plus whatever time it takes to process a visa?

So after they enter the country after that period of time, what happened to the "ban"?

It really seems like admitting you were wrong about what 'ban' means and moving on would be quicker and easier, it's not the end of the world.

Wanderer78 · 30-01-2017 12:43pm

Nody wrote: »

That is why the economy has never been better. Obama has turned around what was a disaster of Bush II economics into growth and this is reflected by both the stock market and in the fact the Feds can finally raise the interest rates again due to the strength of the economy coming back from a point Fed never had to go previously.

or are we misinterpreting this data and possibly not looking at the data that truly represents our economies and societies?

BoJack Horseman · 30-01-2017 12:48pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The rustbelt and its people are the single biggest chain around the ankle of the United States in the 21st century. They simply blame the Mexicans for their own failures.

Can you elaborate on that?

My brother in law has visited Mexico twice in 2016.
The reason was, the company he works for is (as of March) moving production from Wisconsin to Mexico.
He had to go to Mexico to train the people that would be doing the jobs moved from Wisco south of the border.

The guy works very very hard, he always has & he is no line worker, he has some sort of design role (motorcycle parts mostly) which he went to night college to do some sort of CAD qualification.

He has a wife and 5 children aged between 6 & 17 to support, one of which is disabled.

Can m'learned friend elaborate for me what is his failure?
It would be interesting to know.

Rightwing · 30-01-2017 12:49pm

Nody wrote: »

First of all I'm a moderator on a completely different forum; hence here I'm a normal poster but nice try for a cheap shot.

Yes; because to date the Feds rate has never been at zero for this extend of time. Only under Obama has he managed to turn around the economy to the point Feds can actually go up on their interest rate again from basically zero.

Because the stock market has gone up to never seen heights reaching new records:

That is why the economy has never been better. Obama has turned around what was a disaster of Bush II economics into growth and this is reflected by both the stock market and in the fact the Feds can finally raise the interest rates again due to the strength of the economy coming back from a point Fed never had to go previously.

2 things to consider:
Business cycle....peaks and troughs.
Zero interest rates + massive QE stimulus. This has to drive the asset prices higher as investors need a return. On a forward price earnings, asset prices are historically well overvalued. Future consumption will be impacted, charts never reflect this.

Billy86 wrote: »

While the rust belters go back to fawning over the next snake oil salesman offering them manufacturing jobs that they (the politician) knows they will never deliver on, and could not ever deliver on even if they wanted to, I presume?

I've no sympathy for these losers. But losers have a vote, and a very important one as it happens.

Nody · 30-01-2017 12:50pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

or are we misinterpreting this data and possibly not looking at the data that truly represents our economies and societies?

You asked me to justify my answer with data to back up my opinion; I've given you the data I used to justify my reply. Now you may not like or agree with my selection of data used or my conclusions from it; and that's fully in your right to do so but your question was answered which was do you have any data to back that up.

FreudianSlippers · 30-01-2017 12:51pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I'm not.... I'm not a lawyer, no one gives a fook about pedantry.

You would agree that a visa applicant will still be able to enter the USA after the 90-day wait plus whatever time it takes to process a visa?

So after they enter the country after that period of time, what happened to the "ban"?

In fairness, you're the one who started the pedantry. Remember?

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What has happened to the English language where a 90-day stay on an entry visa is called a "ban"?

Are all media lacking in dictionaries?

Furthermore, the order contains wording to make the ban permanent after 60 days at the discretion of the President by way of "Presidential proclamation" on advice from the DHS and Secretary of State; however there is nothing that says that the President has to follow this advice or can't permanently ban people from countries not recommended by them. See section 3 of the executive order.

Wanderer78 · 30-01-2017 12:54pm

Nody wrote: »

You asked me to justify my answer with data to back up my opinion; I've given you the data I used to justify my reply. Now you may not like or agree with my selection of data used or my conclusions from it; and that's fully in your right to do so but your question was answered which was do you have any data to back that up.

id argue that the data you showed represents the economy of the minority, some would call 'the rentier class'. theres a massive disparity between this minorities economy and that of the majority. we are being lead to beleive that 'the market' represents the economy of virtually all, minorities and majorities, but i beleive it doesnt for the reasons ive outlined.

FreudianSlippers · 30-01-2017 12:56pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Can you elaborate on that?

My brother in law has visited Mexico twice in 2016.
The reason was, the company he works for is (as of March) moving production from Wisconsin to Mexico.
He had to go to Mexico to train the people that would be doing the jobs moved from Wisco south of the border.

The guy works very very hard, he always has & he is no line worker, he has some sort of design role (motorcycle parts mostly) which he went to night college to do some sort of CAD qualification.

He has a wife and 5 children aged between 6 & 17 to support, one of which is disabled.

Can m'learned friend elaborate for me what is his failure?
It would be interesting to know.

Ugh, I knew immediately after posting that someone would pick up on this. I obviously didn't mean every single person; I meant more the attitude of the area as a whole in failing to adapt to changing economic realities - I mean you do know why it's called the rust belt right?

Nody · 30-01-2017 12:57pm

Wanderer78 wrote: »

id argue that the data you showed represents the economy of the minority, some would call 'the rentier class'. theres a massive disparity between this minorities economy and that of the majority. we are being lead to beleive that 'the market' represents the economy of virtually all, minorities and majorities, but i beleive it doesnt for the reasons ive outlined.

And then we'd need to start talking about Bush Senior policies on salaries and deregulation of profits, unions etc. and the effect on the economy and the richest 1%. Want to guess who benefits most under a Republican government in the last 20 years?

Screen%20Shot%202013-03-08%20at%2011.36.19%20AM.png

Screen%20Shot%202013-03-08%20at%2011.36.19%20AM.png

The simple fact is the American economy, policies and regulations would need a ground up overhaul to change the above and let's be honest the vested interests (all parties) will never allow that to happen.

FreudianSlippers · 30-01-2017 12:58pm

Rightwing wrote: »

2 things to consider:
Business cycle....peaks and troughs.
Zero interest rates + massive QE stimulus. This has to drive the asset prices higher as investors need a return. On a forward price earnings, asset prices are historically well overvalued. Future consumption will be impacted, charts never reflect this.

That's actual fluff, a mish-mash of words without any coherent answer.

Wanderer78 · 30-01-2017 1:00pm

Nody wrote: »

And then we'd need to start talking about Bush Senior policies on salaries and deregulation of profits, unions etc. and the effect on the economy and the richest 1%. Want to guess who benefits most under a Republican government in the last 20 years?

completely agree, great info by the way. thank you. we re now seeing the accumulation of failed economic policies of both democratic and republican parties particularly over the last few decades. we re all now in deep trouble

Rightwing · 30-01-2017 1:01pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's actual fluff, a mish-mash of words without any coherent answer.

It means despite adding almost $10 trillion of debt, and keeping interest rates at historically low rates, Obama was the 1st to fail to get GDP above 3% for any of his years in charge.

A damning statistic by any reference.

FreudianSlippers · 30-01-2017 1:06pm

Rightwing wrote: »

It means despite adding almost $10 trillion of debt, and keeping interest rates at historically low rates, Obama was the 1st to fail to get GDP above 3% for any of his years in charge.

A damning statistic by any reference.

FASAB notes that approximately $5bn of that is on-book permanent debt resulting from Fannie/Freddie bailout.

alastair · 30-01-2017 1:31pm

psinno wrote: »

What is there on the EU border to stop hundreds of thousands of people just walking in?

If you're looking for a state anywhere with a wall around all their border, you'll be looking a while. The EU doesn't have open borders, except in the instance of other Schengen states.

Carlos Orange · 30-01-2017 1:38pm

alastair wrote: »

If you're looking for a state anywhere with a wall around all their border, you'll be looking a while. The EU doesn't have open borders, except in the instance of other Schengen states.

If the only thing stopping hundreds of thousands of people walking in is their good will then the borders are pretty open.

BoJack Horseman · 30-01-2017 1:42pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I obviously didn't mean every single person; I meant more the attitude of the area as a whole

No, m'learned friend is very precise with his words.
I don't doubt you meant what you wrote.

I'm happy to give you more rope though to show your character.
Elaborate on how the "area as a whole" are failures?

Out of family obligation rather than desire I am there at least once a year... so I might be more familiar than you.
My father in law retired in the summer after spending over 20 years working in a factory that reconditions/balances massive turbines used in electricity generation, it is manual but skilled work.

He took me to the factory once, near West Allis. It was a huge place, very tall, reminded me of a hanger for a blimp.... this was for the huge cranes to move a 60ft turbine from one part of the floor to another.
The area was full of huge facilities., almost all sadly abandoned.

These people were very skilled and very hard working.
They had to adjust a lot. They faced competition from overseas & had several takeovers & downsizes but always managed to keep going because their work was good quality and managed to eek out orders.

In the last couple of years after another re-org his shift was changed to 4am to 2pm...
It was terrible..... but the man worked very hard.... he adjusted.... he didn't fail (as you mock).
He continued through ill health, he has diabetes & worked while having prostate cancer... up at 3am for a 10-14hr shift depending on how busy it was... he had to take the hours while they were there.

The cancer forced him to retire two years ahead of schedule so he could have it treated.... a shame as it dented his pension a bit.

The odd time since his boss asks him to work a day as a 'consultant' if they need to get an order sorted.... he's happy to earn some coin and see his colleagues so obliges.

I know you sneer at these people you see as beneath you.
You mock them as "failures" because you think them luddites or dinosaurs who won't move with the times..... you are wrong.
Fixing electricity turbines wasn't his first job, not by a long shot.
After previous redundancies he retrained.... as so many people there do.

In a way Ireland was almost lucky to have no industrial base to eviscerate... fewer jobs to inevitably lose because of our "failure"... as you call it.

These people work very hard, they do adjust & keep on going..... but eventually globalisation f*cks them one time too many.

Wisconsin voted red for the first time since Reagan.
My relatives there are blue-collar & about 50:50 dems/GOP.... but they all held their noses and voted Trump this time.
Years of seeing good jobs leave, with nothing but sneering contempt from people like you will do that!

Go on.... tell me how their work attitude makes them failures.

Billy86 · 30-01-2017 1:52pm

Bojack (typo), how many jobs do you see Trump creating within the rust belt during his presidency?

BoJack Horseman · 30-01-2017 1:59pm

Billy86 wrote: »

how many jobs do you see Trump creating within the rust belt during his presidency?

I don't know william.
5.... 50,000, 5,000,000?

I've no idea.
You might as well ask how many snowflakes will fall in Peru tomorrow.

A stupid unanswerable question stated only to sneer and contributes less than nothing.

Billy86 · 30-01-2017 2:05pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I don't know william.
5.... 50,000, 5,000,000?

I've no idea.
You might as well ask how many snowflakes will fall in Peru tomorrow.

A stupid unanswerable question stated only to sneer and contributes less than nothing.

Considering it was the main/only reason these people voted for him and you're rowing right in behind them for doing so, it would seem relevant. Yet you seem very, very hostile to put it mildly towards someone asking any kind of specifics.

BoJack Horseman · 30-01-2017 2:08pm

Billy86 wrote: »

Yet you seem very, very hostile to put it mildly towards someone asking any kind of specifics.

Yes, because it is so utterly pointless!

Remember, you are asking me how many industrial jobs I think will be created in the next 4 years from Wisco to Pennsylvania?

What answer can I give that would satisfy you?

So, If I say: 1,285,689.... give or take....

Does that satisfy you?
Do you see what stupid pointless questions get you!?

alastair · 30-01-2017 2:09pm

psinno wrote: »

If the only thing stopping hundreds of thousands of people walking in is their good will then the borders are pretty open.

I guess. Except that isn't actually happening, is it?

Rightwing · 30-01-2017 2:11pm

Billy86 wrote: »

Considering it was the main/only reason these people voted for him and you're rowing right in behind them for doing so, it would seem relevant. Yet you seem very, very hostile to put it mildly towards someone asking any kind of specifics.

Well technically he is right, it's a dumb question.

I suspect Trump will be able to do very little for them regarding manufacturing jobs, but Trump knows he can get another 4 more yeas by appeasing to them, so he might pull an unlikely rabbit out of the hat. Getting very tough on Mexico/China could well be that. Overall, the country would suffer, but will he care about liberals elsewhere?

Billy86 · 30-01-2017 2:14pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Yes, because it is so utterly stupid!

Remember, you are asking me how many industrial jobs I think will be created in the next 4 years from Wisco to Pennsylvania?

What answer can I give that would satisfy you?

So, I will say: 1,285,689.... give or take....

Does that satisfy you?
Do you see what stupid pointless questions get you!?

Not in the least, once again - your friend seems to have been a single issue voter, in voting for Trump on the basis of rust belt jobs. You seem to support him in this. Yet you do not have the slightest clue if Trump will create, or even show the mildest interest in, creating rust belt jobs.

My money is on him not doing so, and unemployment across those regions being higher -probably by a great deal- in 2, 3, 4 years time than it is now. Your friend, in my opinion, got conned by a guy who has made a career out of conning blue collared workers out of a living and who has never shown any interest in them whatsoever right until it came time to ask for their vote, and his appointments thus far do absolutely nothing but back that up.

recedite · 30-01-2017 2:14pm

Nody wrote: »

Your understanding is wrong; green cards holders are included in the order as confirmed by the White house chief of staff Reince Priebus.

Inquitus wrote: »

White House seems to be backing the truck up a bit:

Trump’s chief of staff, Reince Priebus, however, appeared to concede ground when he said the ban would no longer apply to green-card holders.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/trump-muslim-country-travel-ban-john-mccain

Inquitus wrote: »

The White House backed up the truck on this one, they clearly stated Green Cards were included then did a U Turn today due to the pressure being mounted.

Its interesting to see all this the Fake News being created and promulgated on this issue. But the one, true, and only Fact is, Green cards were never included in the order.

Check the Guardian link above and you'll see they have now edited it from that quoted by Inquitus above which was "Reince Priebus, however, appeared to concede ground when he said the ban would no longer apply to green-card holders."

But the same article now reads; "In an abrupt, apparent change from the White House’s original policy, Priebus said the order would no longer affect green-card holders. He then contradicted himself, and suggested that “other countries” may be added to the travel ban"

Which is The Guardian "backing up the truck" a little, but its still wrong.
Priebus did not "concede ground" or "back up the truck" or "change the original policy". And he did not contradict himself either. Here's what (the extraordinarily patient) Priebus actually said;

Priebus wrote:

We didn't overrule the Department of Homeland Security. As far as green card holders, moving forward it doesn't affect them....

...The executive order doesn't affect green card holders moving forward. I've said that. But what I'm suggesting to you is that Customs and Border Patrol, I would suspect, if they have a person that's traveling back and forth to Libya, or Somalia, or Yemen, I would suspect within their discretion they might ask a few more questions at JFK or some other airport when someone is coming back and forth within their discretionary authority as a Customs and Border Patrol agent and what I'm saying is I would suspect that most Americans would agree that that might be a good thing to do. What I'm not suggesting to you is that that is in the order moving forward. I'm suggesting that within the discretion of the CBP that those questions would likely be asked.

alastair · 30-01-2017 2:28pm

recedite wrote: »

Its interesting to see all this the Fake News being created and promulgated on this issue. But the one, true, and only Fact is, Green cards were never included in the order.

Check the Guardian link above and you'll see they have now edited it from that quoted by Inquitus above which was "Reince Priebus, however, appeared to concede ground when he said the ban would no longer apply to green-card holders."

But the same article now reads; "In an abrupt, apparent change from the White House’s original policy, Priebus said the order would no longer affect green-card holders. He then contradicted himself, and suggested that “other countries” may be added to the travel ban"

Which is The Guardian "backing up the truck" a little, but its still wrong.
Priebus did not "concede ground" or "back up the truck" or "change the original policy". And he did not contradict himself either. Here's what (the extraordinarily patient) Priebus actually said;

Oh please. It's not 'fake news'. The administration did state that green card holders from those states were also included. Don't blame the media for reporting accurately on the headless chicken routine in the Whitehouse.

"It will bar green card holders," Gillian Christensen, acting Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman, said in an email.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-greencard-idUSKBN15C0KX

fran17 · 30-01-2017 2:41pm

Ultra liberal Hollywood elitists are outraged as two members of the white helmets will be refused entry to the US for Oscar night.The white helmets being Syrian jihadi's who masquerade as civil defense.You really could not make this up.

Akrasia · 30-01-2017 2:41pm

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I don't know william.
5.... 50,000, 5,000,000?

I've no idea.
You might as well ask how many snowflakes will fall in Peru tomorrow.

A stupid unanswerable question stated only to sneer and contributes less than nothing.

One of the growth sectors in the short to medium term is the switch-over from fossil fuels to green electricity sources

That turbine plant might have had enough work under a president that believes in global warming. Instead, Trump will build a pipeline to transport oil from the tundra completely bypassing the rustbelt.

alastair · 30-01-2017 2:49pm

fran17 wrote: »

Ultra liberal Hollywood elitists are outraged as two members of the white helmets will be refused entry to the US for Oscar night.The white helmets being Syrian jihadi's who masquerade as civil defense.You really could not make this up.

The white helmets aren't jihadist. And the 'masquerading' as a civil defence organisation is pretty convincing stuff - you'd swear it was an actual civil defence organisation!

:rolleyes:

woppi · 30-01-2017 3:03pm

Rightwing wrote: »

2 things to consider:
Business cycle....peaks and troughs.
Zero interest rates + massive QE stimulus. This has to drive the asset prices higher as investors need a return. On a forward price earnings, asset prices are historically well overvalued. Future consumption will be impacted, charts never reflect this.

I've no sympathy for these losers. But losers have a vote, and a very important one as it happens.

Definitely going off topic here but any argument that refers to Dow Jones Industrial Average to back up or refute is built on sand. There are more representative stock market indices out there. Perhaps S&P 500, while not being perfect, is more diverse and has the benefit of 50+ years history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_500_Index#/media/File:S_and_P_500_chart_1950_to_2016_with_averages.png

oscarBravo · 30-01-2017 3:07pm

fran17 wrote: »

The white helmets being Syrian jihadi's who masquerade as civil defense.You really could not make this up.

It's amazing how often someone says something that's a complete fabrication, followed by "you couldn't make it up".

I'm getting to the point of reading "you couldn't make it up" as "I just made it up".

90 day suspension of visas for certain countries

Comments