Search:

Hai Super Jack :>

Hai Super Jack

My comments are still triggering libs even 3 years later :laugh:

My comments are still triggering libs even 3 years later

The cost of living in California is just not worth it for people trying to raise a family or struggling to get by. The average house is $437,000, vs $179,000 for the U.S. as a whole ([URL="https://www.lao.ca.gov/reports/2015/finance/housing-costs/housing-costs.aspx"]in 2015[/URL]). That $62,000 doesn't go very far all things considered. That's before getting into the traffic, the overpopulation, above average unemployment, the beyond-repair statehouse politics, the insane taxes on everything, regulations and red-tape, etc.

It's basically a warmer Canada with more horrific income inequality. Seriously just look at San Francisco today, it's just a playground for the rich. There are good incomes to be had but the regulations and vested interests of homeowners have created a massive housing shortage so the poor are losing out.

Most of the cities grew out rather than up, a product of urban planning in the age of the automobile, and now scar the landscape with massive low-density sprawl. Most attempts to correct this by building more densely in the urban centers is resisted tooth and nail by legions of busybodies. The recent drought shows just how much the state is straining due to overpopulation and poor management. And it seems like the forests are always on fire. Don't get me wrong there are plenty of great things about California, but it's not the empty frontier of endless promise it was for most of the 20th century. The frontier has definitively closed, and the spirit of individualism is dead.

The cost of living in California is just not worth it for people trying to raise a family or struggling to get by. The average house is $437,000, vs $179,000 for the U.S. as a whole (in 2015). That $62,000 doesn't go very far all things considered. That's before getting into the traffic, the overpopulation, above average unemployment, the beyond-repair statehouse politics, the insane taxes on everything, regulations and red-tape, etc.

It's basically a warmer Canada with more horrific income inequality. Seriously just look at San Francisco today, it's just a playground for the rich. There are good incomes to be had but the regulations and vested interests of homeowners have created a massive housing shortage so the poor are losing out.

Most of the cities grew out rather than up, a product of urban planning in the age of the automobile, and now scar the landscape with massive low-density sprawl. Most attempts to correct this by building more densely in the urban centers is resisted tooth and nail by legions of busybodies. The recent drought shows just how much the state is straining due to overpopulation and poor management. And it seems like the forests are always on fire. Don't get me wrong there are plenty of great things about California, but it's not the empty frontier of endless promise it was for most of the 20th century. The frontier has definitively closed, and the spirit of individualism is dead.

[QUOTE=Helz;670260]I would also argue that the electoral college specifically functions to eliminate the ability of a one party state to dictate elections for the nation. Just look at the election:
States won: Trump +10
Electoral votes won: Trump + 68
Average margin of victory in winning states: Trump +2.4%
[COLOR="#FFFFFF"]Counties won: Trump 2623 vs Hillary 489[/COLOR]
Popular vote total: Clinton +2.8 Million
Popular vote total (Excluding California): Trump +1.4 Million
And this year for California no republicans ran for Senate, No republicans ran for the House seats.
California is totally a 1 party state and its margin of republican vs democrat was a 17% larger gap than the election 8 years ago while there has been a 13% gap in new vote registrations for democrats vs new republicans. The only reason the popular vote was anywhere near close is because in the Hillary states (Or more likely the anti-trump states who just voted for her to keep him out) had a disproportional margin of voters sliding one way.
I would equate this argument to when people try to blame Obama for doubling the national debt. Yeah he is responsible for maybe 2.5 - 3.5 trillion of it and contributed more than any president in history before him but although it is true the national debt doubled when you start to dig into the numbers that argument is bullshit. The largest portion of that debt is a result of the decrease in national revenue which is attributed to the crash of the economy and the tax cuts Bush put into play.

Btw- If Trump Nuked California I would giggle. I say that and I lived there for 4 years. A significant amount of people in that state are kinda shitty human beings from my experience. If you go to New York or Chicago there may be assholes everywhere but they are still good people.[/QUOTE]

Congressional Republicans held their 14 House seats in 2016 just to correct you (out of the state's 53 total). But yeah the state has come a long way since they voted decisively for Bush Sr. in 1988. Lots of people forget that California was seen as a Republican stronghold into the 1980s. Then all the illegals started having kids, on top of unprecedented levels of legal immigration. The demographic replacement became a political replacement. Non-Hispanic whites are an endangered breed there now and the few that remain are looking to greener pastures in Texas and anywhere with a better cost of living. In less than 40 years it went from paradise on earth to Mexico 2.0.

But the old adage, "as California goes, so goes the country" is true as ever. The other 49 states are demographically where California was about 20 years ago.

Originally Posted by Helz

I would also argue that the electoral college specifically functions to eliminate the ability of a one party state to dictate elections for the nation. Just look at the election:
States won: Trump +10
Electoral votes won: Trump + 68
Average margin of victory in winning states: Trump +2.4%
Counties won: Trump 2623 vs Hillary 489
Popular vote total: Clinton +2.8 Million
Popular vote total (Excluding California): Trump +1.4 Million
And this year for California no republicans ran for Senate, No republicans ran for the House seats.
California is totally a 1 party state and its margin of republican vs democrat was a 17% larger gap than the election 8 years ago while there has been a 13% gap in new vote registrations for democrats vs new republicans. The only reason the popular vote was anywhere near close is because in the Hillary states (Or more likely the anti-trump states who just voted for her to keep him out) had a disproportional margin of voters sliding one way.
I would equate this argument to when people try to blame Obama for doubling the national debt. Yeah he is responsible for maybe 2.5 - 3.5 trillion of it and contributed more than any president in history before him but although it is true the national debt doubled when you start to dig into the numbers that argument is bullshit. The largest portion of that debt is a result of the decrease in national revenue which is attributed to the crash of the economy and the tax cuts Bush put into play.

Btw- If Trump Nuked California I would giggle. I say that and I lived there for 4 years. A significant amount of people in that state are kinda shitty human beings from my experience. If you go to New York or Chicago there may be assholes everywhere but they are still good people.

Congressional Republicans held their 14 House seats in 2016 just to correct you (out of the state's 53 total). But yeah the state has come a long way since they voted decisively for Bush Sr. in 1988. Lots of people forget that California was seen as a Republican stronghold into the 1980s. Then all the illegals started having kids, on top of unprecedented levels of legal immigration. The demographic replacement became a political replacement. Non-Hispanic whites are an endangered breed there now and the few that remain are looking to greener pastures in Texas and anywhere with a better cost of living. In less than 40 years it went from paradise on earth to Mexico 2.0.

But the old adage, "as California goes, so goes the country" is true as ever. The other 49 states are demographically where California was about 20 years ago.

[QUOTE=SilverWolf;670259]It's an opinion piece. Of course you like it if it agrees with your opinion. Those that don't agree, won't. It really doesn't mean anything other than that. Who cares what color her skin is? How does being black suddenly make it a masterpiece? LOL[/QUOTE]

I didn't say her being black made it a masterpiece. I said that her showing her face was a "masterstroke". It's a shame it has to be this way but the mere fact that she is black will shut down 100% of the arguments the left could have used against her piece. Namely, "racist, racist, racist." Among the regressive left the pro-Trump arguments she uses go a lot further coming from someone like her than from someone like me.

Originally Posted by SilverWolf

It's an opinion piece. Of course you like it if it agrees with your opinion. Those that don't agree, won't. It really doesn't mean anything other than that. Who cares what color her skin is? How does being black suddenly make it a masterpiece? LOL

I didn't say her being black made it a masterpiece. I said that her showing her face was a "masterstroke". It's a shame it has to be this way but the mere fact that she is black will shut down 100% of the arguments the left could have used against her piece. Namely, "racist, racist, racist." Among the regressive left the pro-Trump arguments she uses go a lot further coming from someone like her than from someone like me.

[QUOTE=BananaCucho;670247]Fuck Trump[/QUOTE]

How edifying.


In other news, I read a very calm and reasoned defense of Trump's order on CNN of all places. The author, a black woman, posted a photo of herself prominently near the top of the piece in order to completely disarm all SJW cries of "racism!". A masterstroke.

[url]https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/opinions/trump-travel-ban-christians-swain-opinion/index.html[/url]

Originally Posted by BananaCucho

Fuck Trump

How edifying.


In other news, I read a very calm and reasoned defense of Trump's order on CNN of all places. The author, a black woman, posted a photo of herself prominently near the top of the piece in order to completely disarm all SJW cries of "racism!". A masterstroke.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/opinio...ion/index.html

[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;670233]You realize that this isn't only about refugees? The order bans anyone who holds nationality or dual citizenship from any of those 7 countries from coming to the US, even if they had pre-approved green cards (though that part was overturned) and visas. My friend who came to Canada from Somalia when he was a baby and has lived here for his whole life isn't allowed to enter the US now. The vast majority of people affected by this aren't refugees.



At this point I get the feeling that remaining stubbornly "impartial" is more important to you than actually being "fact driven". Obama's first few executive orders, with the exception of closing Guantanamo (which never actually happened), were nowhere as controversial as Trump's first week of executive orders. There is no way you can actually, objectively say that the anti-Trump controversy is the same as the opposition to Obama, given how Trump's approval rating is the lowest of any president (and disapproval the highest), he won with substantially fewer votes than his opponent, influential GOP figures like McCain and Graham have started to stand up to him, world leaders have staunchly opposed his actions, and Obama has already spoken out against him. Some racists and reactionaries in Republican states and GOP politicians speaking out against Obama is nowhere near the same.

I'm willing to wager that if Trump started a civil war and nuked California you'd go on about how America was screwed no matter how the election went because Clinton was endorsed by Saudi Arabia and Obama drone striked American citizens so really it isn't too much different and everyone just needs to simmer down.[/QUOTE]

Do I get to make predictions too? I'm willing to wager that if Donald Trump just acts on his campaign promises and eliminates illegal immigration and substantially lowers legal immigration, all while delivering 4% GDP growth the left will still hate his guts no matter what!

Trump should wear Juan MexiCain and Lindsey Grahamnesty's disapproval as a badge of honor. Those traiterous Gang if Eighters have been working hard to undermine American labor for a long time. If they start saying nice things about Trump I'll be really worried.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

You realize that this isn't only about refugees? The order bans anyone who holds nationality or dual citizenship from any of those 7 countries from coming to the US, even if they had pre-approved green cards (though that part was overturned) and visas. My friend who came to Canada from Somalia when he was a baby and has lived here for his whole life isn't allowed to enter the US now. The vast majority of people affected by this aren't refugees.



At this point I get the feeling that remaining stubbornly "impartial" is more important to you than actually being "fact driven". Obama's first few executive orders, with the exception of closing Guantanamo (which never actually happened), were nowhere as controversial as Trump's first week of executive orders. There is no way you can actually, objectively say that the anti-Trump controversy is the same as the opposition to Obama, given how Trump's approval rating is the lowest of any president (and disapproval the highest), he won with substantially fewer votes than his opponent, influential GOP figures like McCain and Graham have started to stand up to him, world leaders have staunchly opposed his actions, and Obama has already spoken out against him. Some racists and reactionaries in Republican states and GOP politicians speaking out against Obama is nowhere near the same.

I'm willing to wager that if Trump started a civil war and nuked California you'd go on about how America was screwed no matter how the election went because Clinton was endorsed by Saudi Arabia and Obama drone striked American citizens so really it isn't too much different and everyone just needs to simmer down.

Do I get to make predictions too? I'm willing to wager that if Donald Trump just acts on his campaign promises and eliminates illegal immigration and substantially lowers legal immigration, all while delivering 4% GDP growth the left will still hate his guts no matter what!

Trump should wear Juan MexiCain and Lindsey Grahamnesty's disapproval as a badge of honor. Those traiterous Gang if Eighters have been working hard to undermine American labor for a long time. If they start saying nice things about Trump I'll be really worried.

[QUOTE=PowersThatBe;670220][MENTION=8936]thedougler[/MENTION] -- nice cherry picking what I said. The ACLU didn't invoke the Geneva convention. The chancellor of Germany had to call Donald trump and explain to him...

And after she did...he's changed it and is going to take some refugees...just accept that Donald trump is a moron and one day, even you will turn on him.[/QUOTE]

I didn't cherry pick. The ACLU guy brought up imternational law after mentioning "muh first amendment religious persecution". The interviewer then specifically referenced the Geneva Conventions right at the end.

Also LOL at anyone taking advice from Merkel. She literally covered up the rapefugee crisis to prevent a political backlash. She also totally cucked her country and because the refugees skew younger than the general population, this will guarantee yet another non-productive non-assimilated minority like the Turks. The 1.5 million young Afghans, Syrians, etc. admitted since 2015 will reach 10-15% of the population in the next generation as native Germans cease to reproduce, and the second generation is always far more radicalized than the first.....

I know Trump is a moron, but he's a smarter and more ethical moron than the rest we've had in power. He's keeping his promises and taking heat for it like his supporters knew he would. I am at least 90% pleased with everything he's done so far.

If you're bringing up Merkel as an example... The left must really be desperate. She makes dog-whistle groans against the "failure of multi-culturalism" whenever elections draw close. Then when her mandate is secured she opens the floodgates to the Third World hordes. Typical bought-and-paid-for, spineless, neo-lib TRASH. Just like Cameron, Harper, and Sarkozy. When Mark Fuckerberg is praising your politicians you're in big trouble lmao.

Originally Posted by PowersThatBe

@thedougler -- nice cherry picking what I said. The ACLU didn't invoke the Geneva convention. The chancellor of Germany had to call Donald trump and explain to him...

And after she did...he's changed it and is going to take some refugees...just accept that Donald trump is a moron and one day, even you will turn on him.

I didn't cherry pick. The ACLU guy brought up imternational law after mentioning "muh first amendment religious persecution". The interviewer then specifically referenced the Geneva Conventions right at the end.

Also LOL at anyone taking advice from Merkel. She literally covered up the rapefugee crisis to prevent a political backlash. She also totally cucked her country and because the refugees skew younger than the general population, this will guarantee yet another non-productive non-assimilated minority like the Turks. The 1.5 million young Afghans, Syrians, etc. admitted since 2015 will reach 10-15% of the population in the next generation as native Germans cease to reproduce, and the second generation is always far more radicalized than the first.....

I know Trump is a moron, but he's a smarter and more ethical moron than the rest we've had in power. He's keeping his promises and taking heat for it like his supporters knew he would. I am at least 90% pleased with everything he's done so far.

If you're bringing up Merkel as an example... The left must really be desperate. She makes dog-whistle groans against the "failure of multi-culturalism" whenever elections draw close. Then when her mandate is secured she opens the floodgates to the Third World hordes. Typical bought-and-paid-for, spineless, neo-lib TRASH. Just like Cameron, Harper, and Sarkozy. When Mark Fuckerberg is praising your politicians you're in big trouble lmao.

Fuck 16 posts in and I already proved Godwin's Law. Why must Hitler/WW2 be so relevant in every context?

Fuck 16 posts in and I already proved Godwin's Law. Why must Hitler/WW2 be so relevant in every context?

LOL International Law is, was and always will be a joke (until the whole world is united under one government). As it exists it benefits the rich countries who bankroll the UN, to which America contributes twice as much as the next largest contributor. Violations are flagrantly disregarded whenever the laws drafted at The Hague are deemed inconvenient at the national level. Even petty dictators can avoid its judgements so long as they stay in their borders or don't travel to countries who will extradict them.

The laws are unenforceable in most cases and violations going unpunished is more the rule than the exception. At the worst some economic sanctions will be agreed upon but even then the people rather than the leaders suffer from them. Plus there are always rogue nations who run the blockade for quick profit (eg. when Israel was a diehard supporter of Appartheid South Africa), because everything is 100% voluntary.

The U.S. isn't Germany in 1945 with 4 pissed off occupying powers looking to throw the book at a defeated enemy. International Law has always lacked a consistent enforcement mechanism and if you think it is at all relevant here the joke is on you. If the ACLU is looking beyond America's own laws for validation they must be truly desperate.

Congress has already totally disregarded the Geneva Conventions. From the Military Comissions Act of 2006:

[I]No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions, or any protocols thereto, in any habeas or civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States, is a party, as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories.[/I]

And the U.S. is hardly alone. Russia, China, France, etc. have all violated international laws and treaties in the past (or even the present) and suffered/are suffering few if any serious consequences. Russia is currently facing economic sanctions but that is more due to Obama-era geopolitics than a good-faith attempt to uphold international law. If Hitler has taught us anything it's that treaties mean nothing if there is no army backing them. When he invaded Poland he had already made a farce of the Treaty of Versailles by remilitarizing the Rhineland, annexing Austria and then occupying Czechoslovakia. He had little reason to believe Britain and France would finally respect their international obligations in 1939, and was probably caught somewhat by surprise when the declarations of war came.

LOL International Law is, was and always will be a joke (until the whole world is united under one government). As it exists it benefits the rich countries who bankroll the UN, to which America contributes twice as much as the next largest contributor. Violations are flagrantly disregarded whenever the laws drafted at The Hague are deemed inconvenient at the national level. Even petty dictators can avoid its judgements so long as they stay in their borders or don't travel to countries who will extradict them.

The laws are unenforceable in most cases and violations going unpunished is more the rule than the exception. At the worst some economic sanctions will be agreed upon but even then the people rather than the leaders suffer from them. Plus there are always rogue nations who run the blockade for quick profit (eg. when Israel was a diehard supporter of Appartheid South Africa), because everything is 100% voluntary.

The U.S. isn't Germany in 1945 with 4 pissed off occupying powers looking to throw the book at a defeated enemy. International Law has always lacked a consistent enforcement mechanism and if you think it is at all relevant here the joke is on you. If the ACLU is looking beyond America's own laws for validation they must be truly desperate.

Congress has already totally disregarded the Geneva Conventions. From the Military Comissions Act of 2006:

No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions, or any protocols thereto, in any habeas or civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or a current or former officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent of the United States, is a party, as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories.

And the U.S. is hardly alone. Russia, China, France, etc. have all violated international laws and treaties in the past (or even the present) and suffered/are suffering few if any serious consequences. Russia is currently facing economic sanctions but that is more due to Obama-era geopolitics than a good-faith attempt to uphold international law. If Hitler has taught us anything it's that treaties mean nothing if there is no army backing them. When he invaded Poland he had already made a farce of the Treaty of Versailles by remilitarizing the Rhineland, annexing Austria and then occupying Czechoslovakia. He had little reason to believe Britain and France would finally respect their international obligations in 1939, and was probably caught somewhat by surprise when the declarations of war came.

[QUOTE=Apocist;670155]Except for maybe breaking our constitutional right to freedom of speech: [url]https://boingboing.net/2017/01/25/trumps-first-4-days-a-ban-o.html[/url][/QUOTE]

Because the speech of scientists representing a government is totally equal to the speech of individuals representing themselves, right? I could scream from the rooftops about how I think global warming is a chinese hoax, and so long as I'm willing to live with the consequences to my professional career that is fine. But you need to realize that the moment I do so purporting to represent the view of a larger organization the equation has changed.

[QUOTE=yzb25;670157]There's no point banning those countries if they're not actually contributing to terrorism though. If this isn't actually doing much to stop terrorism, then it's just a political gesture.

[I]"Nothing Trump has done so far is illegal or [U]even unprecedented[/U]. The Lautenberg Amendment of 1989 was very similar in that it gave preference to religious minorities (mostly Jews and Ruthenian Catholics) in the Soviet Union and gave them refugee status even if the fear of persecution was small to non-existent."[/I]

It's a stretch to compare [U][I]this[/I][/U] to a comprehensive ban towards all people of a certain nationality, because those people are related to countries which are related to a religion that is related to terrorism. People with a UK dual-membership are banned, people who are well-known critics of Islam are banned, I could go on. I don't know jackshit about the legal side, but this looks pretty new and unprecedented. So, comparing this to refugee-preferences to undermine a genuine world threat (the Soviet Union) is crazy.

Anyway, overall, this looks kinda dumb, and seems like a dick move besides. I imagined banning Islamic immigration was unfeasible and ridiculous anyway, but I didn't think they'd just pick on the poor shitholes that the rest of the world kicks into the dirt, to appease people more worried about ragheads than cancer.[/QUOTE]

I'm not comparing it with the ban, I'm comparing it to the new shape of refugee admissions policy after the ban:

[I]Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.[/I]

In effect Middle-Eastern Christians will get higher priority than Muslims for those 50,000 slots, just how Jews from the Soviet Union previously had priority over everyone else.

Originally Posted by Apocist

Except for maybe breaking our constitutional right to freedom of speech: https://boingboing.net/2017/01/25/tru...s-a-ban-o.html

Because the speech of scientists representing a government is totally equal to the speech of individuals representing themselves, right? I could scream from the rooftops about how I think global warming is a chinese hoax, and so long as I'm willing to live with the consequences to my professional career that is fine. But you need to realize that the moment I do so purporting to represent the view of a larger organization the equation has changed.

Originally Posted by yzb25

There's no point banning those countries if they're not actually contributing to terrorism though. If this isn't actually doing much to stop terrorism, then it's just a political gesture.

"Nothing Trump has done so far is illegal or even unprecedented. The Lautenberg Amendment of 1989 was very similar in that it gave preference to religious minorities (mostly Jews and Ruthenian Catholics) in the Soviet Union and gave them refugee status even if the fear of persecution was small to non-existent."

It's a stretch to compare this to a comprehensive ban towards all people of a certain nationality, because those people are related to countries which are related to a religion that is related to terrorism. People with a UK dual-membership are banned, people who are well-known critics of Islam are banned, I could go on. I don't know jackshit about the legal side, but this looks pretty new and unprecedented. So, comparing this to refugee-preferences to undermine a genuine world threat (the Soviet Union) is crazy.

Anyway, overall, this looks kinda dumb, and seems like a dick move besides. I imagined banning Islamic immigration was unfeasible and ridiculous anyway, but I didn't think they'd just pick on the poor shitholes that the rest of the world kicks into the dirt, to appease people more worried about ragheads than cancer.

I'm not comparing it with the ban, I'm comparing it to the new shape of refugee admissions policy after the ban:

Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.

In effect Middle-Eastern Christians will get higher priority than Muslims for those 50,000 slots, just how Jews from the Soviet Union previously had priority over everyone else.

[QUOTE=PowersThatBe;670150]Banning people because of their religion or natural origin violates our own civil rights laws. It also flies in the face of the first amendment.[/QUOTE]

Nothing Trump has done so far is illegal or even unprecedented. The Lautenberg Amendment of 1989 was very similar in that it gave preference to religious minorities (mostly Jews and Ruthenian Catholics) in the Soviet Union and gave them refugee status even if the fear of persecution was small to non-existent. The left really has no legal leg to stand on here.

Even if his order was illegal I'd still support it tbh, but I can't see how it is. The way it's worded makes clear that national origin isn't the deciding factor behind the ban.

Originally Posted by PowersThatBe

Banning people because of their religion or natural origin violates our own civil rights laws. It also flies in the face of the first amendment.

Nothing Trump has done so far is illegal or even unprecedented. The Lautenberg Amendment of 1989 was very similar in that it gave preference to religious minorities (mostly Jews and Ruthenian Catholics) in the Soviet Union and gave them refugee status even if the fear of persecution was small to non-existent. The left really has no legal leg to stand on here.

Even if his order was illegal I'd still support it tbh, but I can't see how it is. The way it's worded makes clear that national origin isn't the deciding factor behind the ban.

The real answer as to why he did not fulfill his promise, as always, is more complicated. He chose countries that have been featured on the US State Dept. "State Sponsors of Terrorism" List, presumably to head off a potential court challenge for discriminating based purely on national origin. And Somalia, which would probably be on that list if it had any state to speak of.

North Korea, interestingly, is on the list, but was not included in the ban. But formal emmigration from NK is already non-existent, so there's no point creating legislation with regards to it.

I for one am quite disappointed with his executive order. He isn't deporting all illegals, merely the criminal ones. He also isn't banning all Islamic immigration as he had promised. But judging by the vicious opposition of the media to this more limited order, he is just doing what he can get away with. It's better than the status quo under Obama, that's for sure.

The real answer as to why he did not fulfill his promise, as always, is more complicated. He chose countries that have been featured on the US State Dept. "State Sponsors of Terrorism" List, presumably to head off a potential court challenge for discriminating based purely on national origin. And Somalia, which would probably be on that list if it had any state to speak of.

North Korea, interestingly, is on the list, but was not included in the ban. But formal emmigration from NK is already non-existent, so there's no point creating legislation with regards to it.

I for one am quite disappointed with his executive order. He isn't deporting all illegals, merely the criminal ones. He also isn't banning all Islamic immigration as he had promised. But judging by the vicious opposition of the media to this more limited order, he is just doing what he can get away with. It's better than the status quo under Obama, that's for sure.