Update: the live broadcast from the Ninth Circuit Court hearing oral arguments about Trump's Muslim ban is now over (political)

"Xyl0c41n3" (i-am-xyl0c41n3) 02/07/2017 at 18:41 • Filed to: None

3

28

The New York Times is livestreaming audio from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, where three appellate judges are listening to oral arguments in regards to a temporary restraining order (TRO) granted in Washington state which halted the Muslim ban’s implementation. Several correspondents are supplying real-time commentary next to the video window. Listen below:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/07/us/ninth-circuit-oral-arguments-trump-immigration.html?_r=0

HammerheadFistpunch > Xyl0c41n3 02/07/2017 at 18:50

1

Just a reminder that political discussions should have a safety image and any of the politicin’ should happen after the jump.

jkm7680 > Xyl0c41n3 02/07/2017 at 18:54

5

There was never a “Muslim Ban.”

Jkm out, he will not attend to replies unless they’re dumb.

Xyl0c41n3 > HammerheadFistpunch 02/07/2017 at 18:56

5

The image is literally a screen shot of the New York Times’ website with a black slate of a court proceeding presided over by a bipartisan panel. (If you’ve been listening in, then you would have heard the severe grilling the GOP-leaning judge has given the Washington state lawyer). Is Oppo so fragile that a bipartisan issue needs a safety image?

Furthermore, where have the warnings come of every other post over the last few days that haven’t had a political warning at all? I’ve properly labeled every single one of my posts.

And before you say that I’m politicking, so I should jump the text: I am not politicking. I’m not offering a single commentary about the court proceedings, and again, the link, image, and text included in my OP are all about LIVE NEWS COVERAGE.

HammerheadFistpunch > Xyl0c41n3 02/07/2017 at 18:57

2

It’s the rules. This is the warning.

Xyl0c41n3 > HammerheadFistpunch 02/07/2017 at 18:59

2

And I’m saying, why haven’t you applied the rules equally?

HammerheadFistpunch > Xyl0c41n3 02/07/2017 at 19:05

2

Same reason you didn’t seem to notice the post about this that was reposted again: I don’t see all. I’ve reminded several people politely in the last few days the same, I even edited a few.

facw > HammerheadFistpunch 02/07/2017 at 19:05

1

So where does this rule come from? Because I don’t see it in the posting rules (unless you consider politics NSFW?):

http://oppositelock.kinja.com/a-slightly-revised-oppositelock-handbook-for-commenting-1750418920

Or in the recent mod-post on political discussion:

http://oppositelock.kinja.com/mod-post-what-oppo-is-all-about-1791842272

Frankly a safety image makes no sense for political topics. Does it also apply to all non-car topic posts?

HammerheadFistpunch > facw 02/07/2017 at 19:14

4

“ Political / Sensitive topics are welcome, even encouraged, however it is recommended that you announce such content in the title and that all sensitive material is posted “after the jump.”

Obviously it’s not hard and fast nor is not doing it going to earn you a timeout. Is recommended to keep the peace in the community as a whole and to protect the site from being used a an exclusively political platform. Basically it’s a way to help let people who want it to have it and people who don’t want it from being turned off by volume.

facw > HammerheadFistpunch 02/07/2017 at 19:17

1

Thanks I missed that (was looking for references to a safety image). I really don’t think this image should be sensitive, but I guess that is a subjective thing.

Xyl0c41n3 > HammerheadFistpunch 02/07/2017 at 19:18

2

Exactly. And I posted precisely zero sensitive material. The entirety of my post was essentially me saying “live news coverage of current affairs issue. Here’s the link.” I offered no commentary about the issue one way or another.

And the link (which was after the jump) is to a reputable news organization’s website. And the people offering commentary aren’t offering PERSONAL commentary, either. They were reciting the court testimony and occasionally providing historical context.

HammerheadFistpunch > facw 02/07/2017 at 19:25

1

The intent is made more clear in my edited comment above. On mobile so it’s truncated

IanZ - limited-slip indifferential > jkm7680 02/07/2017 at 19:53

7

So despite Trump’s many calls for a Muslim ban, him asking Rudy Giuliani how to do a Muslim ban legally , and despite the ban targeting 7 Muslim majority nations, despite those nations not having produced any terror attacks on the US, despite the ban ignoring countries that support terror groups (Trump has business ties to those countries ignored) it’s not a Muslim ban. Sure.

jkm7680 > IanZ - limited-slip indifferential 02/07/2017 at 20:00

1

It’s not a “Muslim ban” if Christians coming from these countries are not allowed to enter either.

Also, read my first comment.

IanZ - limited-slip indifferential > IanZ - limited-slip indifferential 02/07/2017 at 20:01

5

My last point there was about how useless the ban will be at actually preventing terror attacks. No one from the 7 countries targeted has actually perpetrated terror attacks on the US, and the ban convienently ignores immigrants from countries that Trump has business ties to.

Not to mention the amazing recruitment material this ban provides for terror groups like ISIS. Their whole message to Muslims is that the west hates them. And Trump has just provided them with a great propaganda tool.

**I edited that second sentence for clarity**

CB > jkm7680 02/07/2017 at 20:01

1

I was going to type something out, but IanZ already covered it, and the fact that discussing politics on the internet usually turns into a shouting match is kind of lame. Sweet take, though.

IanZ - limited-slip indifferential > jkm7680 02/07/2017 at 20:10

6

Sure, he hasn’t put up signs along the border saying “no Muslims allowed” with a big red X over a crudely painted hijab, but throughout his campaign he called for a Muslim ban and this is clearly the closest possible thing he can get to one legally. And without, of course, sacrificing his own business holdings.

IanZ - limited-slip indifferential > jkm7680 02/07/2017 at 20:12

4

And also Trump has said he will give priority to christians.

jkm7680 > IanZ - limited-slip indifferential 02/07/2017 at 20:13

1

Protecting our country is a must. But I don’t support his immigration ban beyond a few aspects. More vetting? Sure. A complete standstill? Nope.

Plus, like Iran. What the hell have they done recently to be included in this?

jkm7680 > IanZ - limited-slip indifferential 02/07/2017 at 20:20

0

Christians are being persecuted in Syria. Nobody in Syria is having fun, but I do think Christians living in Syria are at an elevated risk simply due to that.

DipodomysDeserti > jkm7680 02/07/2017 at 20:54

5

FYI, the executive order gives preference to religious minority refugees (ie non Muslims).

jkm7680 > DipodomysDeserti 02/07/2017 at 21:00

0

Yup, as I said I do know Christians are being persecuted in Syria. But the other countries on the list, I’m not too sure about.

DipodomysDeserti > jkm7680 02/07/2017 at 21:05

5

Yzidis, Shias, Kurds, women, and children are all being persecuted in Syria.

jkm7680 > DipodomysDeserti 02/07/2017 at 21:08

1

You clearly know a lot more about this than I do. To be honest, I’m not nearly as informed about Syria than I should be.

How do you feel in general about prioritization of certain groups based on how they’re being treated?

DipodomysDeserti > jkm7680 02/07/2017 at 21:28

3

ISIS is going after anyone that isn’t ISIS, and they’re mostly made up of young men, many of whom aren’t even Syrian. They aren’t really favoring one group over another. I would give priority to children, women, and families, regardless of ethnicity or religion.

I saw refugee families begging in the subways of Paris this summer, and it was hard to stomach, especially when kids are involved. I could see the pain on the fathers’ faces that they can’t take care of their families, and the look of trauma in the kids’ eyes. I empathize with my fellow humans regardless of where they think they go wen they die or where they were born.

jkm7680 > DipodomysDeserti 02/07/2017 at 21:38

0

I agree. We’re all human and entering a situation like this with minimal empathy is a mistake. The overwhelming majority of these refugees are good people, it’s only a few that ruin everything for everyone. We all have the right to life.

On another note, I do think that a more rigorous vetting process should be put into place.

DipodomysDeserti > jkm7680 02/07/2017 at 21:47

2

If you look at how rigorous it is now, there’s not much else you could do. Many of the things the Trump administration is saying we need to do were already being done. Refugees are vetted more than any other group. People who want to wage war can stick around in Syria and shoot “infidels”. They don’t have to try and come here to do that.

There’s a reason refugees haven’t committed terrorist acts in the US. Even if they had, I don’t live my life in fear that someone is going to kill me. I’m far more likely to develop cancer as a result of industrial poisoning or have a heart attack from eating too many cheeseburgers. I ride a forty year old motorcycle around because it is fun, despite being very dangerous. We Americans, we don’t live our lives in fear, we live our lives (for better or for worse).

jkm7680 > DipodomysDeserti 02/07/2017 at 21:53

1

To be honest, yeah. UNHCR has done a good job thus far. Now that I think of it, the process takes 1-2 years IIRC.

I give Trump one thing, he’s doing what he said he’d do during his campaign. I’m just hoping for some common ground. 

Exactly on that second point. Either way, no Syrian radical is going to undergo the already long vetting process just to come here and commit an act of terror.

HammerheadFistpunch > Xyl0c41n3 02/10/2017 at 12:27

0

To clarify; that my when I said “It’s the rules. This is the warning” that is wasn’t written as “this is a warning” but rather in response to asking why their hadn’t been prior warning. The only warnings that mean anything from the moderators are actions and no action was taken or was planned to be taken. I realize what I said was unclear and could have been taken the wrong way. I also realize that this specific case doesn’t necessarily merit an after the jump, but that I saw a string of political posts and I wanted to remind you, as I have reminded others with similar posts, that political material is typical done “after the jump” out of respect for the community who have every right for political discussion but a low tolerance for being used as a political platform.