The Observation Deck

Rudy acknowledges that the wording was carefully crafted to be a Muslim ban that would withstand legal/constitutional challenges.
But the intent was that it be a Muslim ban.
http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/pol ... /97215850/

One also has to include the campaign pronouncements of the past year by Trump. He called for a Muslim ban then and he has now.

Why not a Presbyterian (Trump's supposed religious affiliation) ban?

Dan Alaimo wrote:Rudy acknowledges that the wording was carefully crafted to be a Muslim ban that would withstand legal/constitutional challenges.
But the intent was that it be a Muslim ban.
http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/pol ... /97215850/

If it is a "Muslim ban", i.e. if the intent is against Muslims, then it is not legal--in my opinion it would be unconstitutional.

It can't be a Muslim ban and be legal in my opinion--so I don't get the Giuliani doublespeak.

Again, it seems to me that what Mr. Giuliani said in the video is much different than what I am reading in the order.

If Giuliani was the draftsman, then it seems he failed to draft a Muslim ban as he claims he was instructed.

Mr. Essi, Giuliani is stating the GOAL. The goal is to create a constitutional Muslim ban...just go find a damn lawyer to do it. Even if it's imperfect, and it's proven unconstitutional, that ultimate decision takes weeks and months and dollars and energy from the opposition, and diverts opposition resources from other bad actions they will push. Shock and Awe, baby!

Brian Essi wrote:

Dan Alaimo wrote:Rudy acknowledges that the wording was carefully crafted to be a Muslim ban that would withstand legal/constitutional challenges.
But the intent was that it be a Muslim ban.
http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/pol ... /97215850/

If it is a "Muslim ban", i.e. if the intent is against Muslims, then it is not legal--in my opinion it would be unconstitutional.

It can't be a Muslim ban and be legal in my opinion--so I don't get the Giuliani doublespeak.

Again, it seems to me that what Mr. Giuliani said in the video is much different than what I am reading in the order.

If Giuliani was the draftsman, then it seems he failed to draft a Muslim ban as he claims he was instructed.

They've got to make it very clear to their base what they are doing because it large parts of it (the ones who don't live in Lakewood, of course) are not big on subtlety, while dodging the legal bullet.

Dan Alaimo wrote:

Brian Essi wrote:

Dan Alaimo wrote:Rudy acknowledges that the wording was carefully crafted to be a Muslim ban that would withstand legal/constitutional challenges.
But the intent was that it be a Muslim ban.
http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/pol ... /97215850/

If it is a "Muslim ban", i.e. if the intent is against Muslims, then it is not legal--in my opinion it would be unconstitutional.

It can't be a Muslim ban and be legal in my opinion--so I don't get the Giuliani doublespeak.

Again, it seems to me that what Mr. Giuliani said in the video is much different than what I am reading in the order.

If Giuliani was the draftsman, then it seems he failed to draft a Muslim ban as he claims he was instructed.

They've got to make it very clear to their base what they are doing because it large parts of it (the ones who don't live in Lakewood, of course) are not big on subtlety, while dodging the legal bullet.

I agree that it is largely about pleasing the "base" on both sides of the "red vs blue" world we live in. On this issue, the "blues" are reacting both logically and emotionally that pleases their base--the tears of Chuck Schumer is a prime example.

Where I will give the rookie president some slack (in the short run) is that many of the people who voted for him (Hillary's deplorables) wanted some form a increased security at the border, if nothing else so that they can "feel safer"--and Trump is trying to deliver on that. Elections have consequences. The guy is charge now might actually believe he can "make America safe again" partly through this order. It is not the end of civil liberties and the all out assault on Muslims that is being portrayed for emotional or strategic purposes by the blues. BTW, I have no opinion as to whether the order will actually make us safer, but if it does, it will make us all safer---including Muslims here and Muslims be let in going forward who may be the subjects of the ire of the "Bad Dudes" that might be kept out by the order.

There are a lot of ifs, ands and maybes in this, but the new guy was not elected to do nothing.

In Lakewood, it is not strictly a red v blue thing, but Summers has perpetuated, if not created, an "us v them" dynamic in Lakewood. Summers pretends he cares, but runs over people because he really only cares about how he looks.

Trump, on the other hand, does not really care about how he looks---he has a list of tasks and he is plowing through them at breakneck speed. The critics be damned. His lashing out at the media is all a head fake and for show to please the base.

Brian

I'm curious as to what you think Trump would have thought of the Cleveland Clinic betrayal of Lakewood.

From what I see of Trump, he greatly admires Toby Cosgrove and thinks he's a great businessman - ergo his placement on an advisory board comprised of leaders in business.

Trump also thinks "losers" are losers because they lack some vital skill, or are deficient in some way that validates the idea that they deserve to be losers.

I quite think that looking at our situation, that Trump would consider this from a business standpoint, would trust Toby's statements more than those of the SLH gang, and approve what happened as the inevitable result of having made a good business decision. You know, cut out the money losing parts and move on.

What do you see in Trump that would make you think he would back all the little people in Lakewood over a star like Toby?

Just wondering.

Bridget Conant wrote:Brian

I'm curious as to what you think Trump would have thought of the Cleveland Clinic betrayal of Lakewood.

From what I see of Trump, he greatly admires Toby Cosgrove and thinks he's a great businessman - ergo his placement on an advisory board comprised of leaders in business.

Trump also thinks "losers" are losers because they lack some vital skill, or are deficient in some way that validates the idea that they deserve to be losers.

I quite think that looking at our situation, that Trump would consider this from a business standpoint, would trust Toby's statements more than those of the SLH gang, and approve what happened as the inevitable result of having made a good business decision. You know, cut out the money losing parts and move on.

What do you see in Trump that would make you think he would back all the little people in Lakewood over a star like Toby?

Just wondering.

Ms. Conant,

I don't hold Trump in high regard for helping others so I don't get any warm and fuzzies from the man. He did give money to charity and run a large charity but I heard there was some legal trouble with it.

If Trump sat on the LHA board as Lakewood's mayor, I doubt he would have played second fiddle to anyone. I certainly think he would have negotiated a better deal than Summmers.

Trump has to snuggle up to healthcare CEOs to get whatever he plans to do with healthcare done. Obama did the same.

"It is not the end of civil liberties and the all out assault on Muslims that is being portrayed for emotional or strategic purposes by the blues"

Millions disagree with you. I feel, rightly so.

"His lashing out at the media is all a head fake and for show to please the base"

There is much more going on here with the deception. More than just pleasing his base. You might be willing to give this guy a chance, one who so overtly lies to your face, which surprises me, given what you've written on other subjects. I can not.

Trump has an adversarial relationship with all but one news outlet, and he rails against media outlets as producing "fake news."

Summers has a cozy relationship with all news outlets but one, and he embraces "fake news" from news outlets that Summers and his hired handlers manufacture.

Brian Essi wrote:Trump has an adversarial relationship with all but one news outlet, and he rails against media outlets as producing "fake news."Summers has a cozy relationship with all news outlets but one, and he embraces "fake news" from news outlets that Summers and his hired handlers manufacture.

Actually, Team Summers was doing the "fake news" bit long before Trump.
I've repeatedly seen Jay Foran refer to the Observer as the "fake paper".......that's the standard Team Summers response whenever "Lakewood Neighborhood News" is mentioned.

Brian,

I don't even know where to begin with Summers and Company and their control over the media. Perhaps Summers has allegedly 'bribed' them too! Maybe it is the power of the Clinic? Don't bother calling the local media, no matter what evidence you have, they will NOT go against Summers. Hmmmm.