zardeh

That makes me even more curious:

what is the market share of adwords things (my understanding this is mostly going to be people offering services) that is impacted by AMP? An ecommerce site won't support AMP so won't be affected, and are news sites and blogs going to be using adwords to advertise their news and blog offerings that much?

E: (and then does it even matter if you're ads are still shown on your AMPed site so you get paid per hit?)

>so you still have to pay for a click even if the user never really visited your website

Don't you mean so you get paid for a click even if the user never visited your website?

Ah, I entirely misread that as "probably a better comparison is" instead of "than".

Whoops.

Why? In this case, the majority of these employees are likely not in tech roles, but in various parts of the fulfillment pipeline. That makes them more similar to FedEx or Walmart.

Edit: Disregard this, I can't read.

>It's not a tangent. Ms. Yates apparently feels the president does not have the legal authority to make orders of this nature when President Trump is in office, but that he does have the authority when President Obama is in office.

There's a very simple answer to this:

She did not believe that the Obama EO was unconstitutional, whereas she believed that this one was. Then, everything makes sense. You can rant about how "there's no credible argument", but I'm inclined to believe an Attourney General over someone on an internet forum with regards to the law.

So tell me this: what should she have done if she believed the EO, as applied, would be unconstitutional?

Edit: also the judiciary is moving swiftly, in the past two days, the EO has been practically gutted in the courts.

>but the affirmative action one is pretty damning

The supreme court agrees that affirmative action is constitutional (within certain bounds), see the recent Fisher v. UT case, or Bakke for the original example.

>Last year, the vetting process somehow managed to grant visas to 9500 terror linked individuals, all of whom are missing. When the visas were revoked, there was no way to locate them. (Source: House oversight committee hearings & Mainstream media ~ 2015 / 2016)

No, since 2001, 9500 "terror linked individuals" were given visas. Unfortunately, I can't find any explanation of what "terror linked" means in this context. Each year, the US grants approximately 8-9 million visas. So, in 15 years, across over 100 million issued visas, approximately 10,000 may have been given to individuals who were "terror linked", where that could mean "confirmed terrorist", or it could mean "their uncle once went to a market that we believe is a known terrorist hotspot". Again, there's no explanation, anywhere, of what "terror linked individual" means in this context.

Please stop editorializing.

That's interesting. I totally see this as a valid argument (and I don't disagree that this might be politically motivated on the judge's part). However, it seems to me that

>any clear conviction that the law was unconstitutional

is the wrong way of going about it. I would think you'd want to be pretty darn sure that the actions you were carrying out were constitutional before doing them. That is, I'd much rather people not enforce a law that might be unconstitutional, but isn't, than enforce a law that is unconstitutional. Err on the side of caution.

And they are allowed to be vilified for their ambivalence. Saying "I don't care" doesn't absolve you of any guilt.

Well, cookiecutter came first, has a huge library of supported templates, and works across multiple languages.

>That story mentions Bishops and priests who are very likely to not be Syrian Citizens, and instead be capable of just flying back to their home countries.

I'm by no means saying that every Christian will be more capable of leaving, or not be a citizen. But if 30% of Christians are citizens elsewhere, and only 3% of Muslims, then you have 70% of 10% of the poopulation as potential Christian refugees, and 97% of 90% of the population as Muslim refugees, which would make 7.4% of asylum seekers Christian, as opposed to 10% of the population.

If (and that is a potentially big if) Trump continues the Obama admin plan of responding to all petitions that have >100K signatures, it will be interesting to see what the response to 'hey you should let this young female student who was already here back in, since she poses no danger to the US'.

But would they be more likely to be refugees?

That is, I'd expect that a Christian in the middle east would be more likely to have citizenship or family in a western nation than your average Syrian.

Now it could be, but 'they are being specifically targeted' doesn't immediately imply to me that 'they should be a disproportionately high number of refugees'.

That story mentions Bishops and priests who are very likely to not be Syrian Citizens, and instead be capable of just flying back to their home countries.

You may be, but trump didn't say anything about Muslim immigration, he said a and again, I'm quoting his website:

> a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States

A shutdown of entry, to use your own words.

>When it comes to constitutionality, SCOTUS precedent is not good or bad, it's simply is reality.

It depends, there are SCOTUS rulings that (most) people consider "bad". These create precedent.

>Him being quoted by Breitbart means nothing. I mean Obama has been quoted by them. Clinton has been. Pretty much every single prominent Democrat politician has been. The only thing that is exposed by saying "breitbart" is that you disagree with the right.

No, I was pointing out that I had already addressed this specific example when I stated that "The only people I can find who believe it might be constitutional are non-constitutional laywers quoted by Breitbart." Banzhaf is the non-constitutional lawyer who was quoted by Breitbart. Now, you're quite correct that I don't find Breitbart to be a reliable source of news (although construing that to 'I disagree with the right' is a bit of gymnastics), but its also orthogonal to my point.

> I'm saying that anyone who says that it's unconstitutional on it's face is full of it.

That also very much depends. If we're talking " a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States", that is on its face unconstitutional, since it includes American Citizens. If we're talking a registry, it probably isn't. If we're talking about refugees who are Muslim, then there's the grey area. But if you take him at the words he used, it is unconstitutional, and most of the blogs have caveats that say something along the lines of "a ban on American Citizen Muslim's returning from abroad is unconstitutional on its face, so we'll ignore that and talk about refugees and immigrants"