Trump Thread

[Seamus Fermanagh]

But that's just presenting the temporal bias. So you suppose the current intensity of the counter-Trump grassroots will suffer from flagging enthusiasm over time at the expense of calm and serious opposition? Almost certainly. Whether or not one feels Trump's discourse is one that shouldn't be acknowledged or tolerated by society, the arc of culture bends toward habituation...

Exploiting, as you notate it, "temporal bias" is what the political theatre stuff is all about. Most folks won't dig into the more substantive elements of policy or the implications, preferring the theater. Trumps refugee hiatus isn't, when spelled out, nearly the "Neolithic" policy it is made out to be. Arguably, there are a number of "threat" countries that are NOT listed that are as worrisome as the ones he has listed. I am far more concerned with getting a useful vetting policy in place then I am with the temporary travel bans. His "wall" order is likely to be more costly to the US taxpayer than his campaign wall promise -- and this is no longer being addressed well at all. Heck, his comments on NAFTA are more profound long term impact as well.

[Strike For The South]

So now everyone cares about extra judicial killings in the Iran-Saudi proxy way. Fucking typical.

[Dâriûsh]

The problem with your point about policies enacted by undemocratic governments is that, when the UK and US overthrew one of these (Iraq), they were excoriated for invading another country. The moderate Left in the UK has been marginalised consequent to this, resulting in free rein for the Right (any arguments that remotely smell of Blair are met with "blood on their hands" and "warmonger"). So the lesson from that is that the west should not intervene in the affairs of another country, however unpleasant their government. But these other countries, undemocratic as you say they are, unilaterally take measures against yet other countries. If western countries aren't allowed to meddle in the affairs of middle eastern countries, yet middle eastern countries implement restrictive measures on citizens of other countries, the only way western countries can respond is to, on their side, implement reciprocal measures. Are Trump's measures reciprocal? Dunno, but your argument about not being held responsible for the actions of your government holds little water when western citizens are held responsible for the actions of their government (see the continued terrorist actions here "justified" by Iraq and whatnot).

Thank you for your comment.

However, I fail to see how my point, about a citizen not being responsible for the acts of a repressive and undemocratic government, is undermined by the potential political consequences for politicians of foreign invasion powers.

I am no authority on rights or wrongs of military intervention – I believe that sometimes they may be necessary – for instance in the case of Rwanda – but I am glad I do not have to make such decisions. Where it becomes problematic however, is when that intervention is opportunistically exploited by the intervening power to obtain beneficial international advantages (as France criminally did in the case of Rwanda).

But thank you for bringing up Iraq. There are few cases of abject hypocrisy as bad as that. From 1963 to now, the United States have continuously meddled in Iraqi politics. First they supported the coup that brought Baath-party into power. Then they supported the Baathist Iraqi army with weapons for use against the Kurds. Then they supported Saddam with weapons for use against Iran (while also supplying weapons to Iran – the Iran–Contra affair). Then there was the Kuwait War debacle (see the April Glaspie meeting with Saddam). Then the sanctions where up to half a million Iraqi children died. Then there was the 2003 war and occupation. Then the ensuing sectarian conflict during said occupation. Then there was the bombing campaign against Islamic State in Northern Iraq. And now those “troublesome” Iraqi refugees are barred from entry into the United States.

Anyway…

You say that my “argument about not being held responsible for the actions of your government holds little water when western citizens are held responsible for the actions of their government (see the continued terrorist actions here "justified" by Iraq and whatnot).”

Your reasoning sounds like extremist-logic to me and it is not an opinion I share with you. A family living in Raqqa is no more complicit in the crimes of the so-called Islamic State than you or I. Yet, for some reason, I (and others as well) am the one who must suffer collective punishment for having the wrong birthplace.

Finally, let me comment on how that last sentence sounds to me; it implies that I am somehow responsible for terrorism because of my place of birth. I had actually written a longer reply denouncing terrorism – but I will not bother. Even by disassociating myself from such criminal acts, I know some Muslim-haters (not implying that is you or anyone else on the org) will smugly enjoy that I feel compelled to do so. No thanks.

[Dâriûsh]

The kind of people who were the most in my thoughts when I wrote the first post, were those who either agree with or are indifferent to similar travel bans in place in their own countries. I am sure that many such people exist, and also that if they were interviewed by news media - foreign or domestic - they would likely be presented purely as victims.

The responsibility ordinary citizens have for their authoritarian government is an interesting topic in its own right. Without modification, the principle that you cannot expect citizens to stand up to their authoritarian government would extend all the way up to the point where genocide is being carried out.

My honest opinion – I am genuinely indifferent. With a regime that hangs homosexuals from cranes, discriminates its minorities, and funds foreign wars, a travel ban on foreigners is really the last on the list of grievances. Are those regime hypocrites? You better believe it, and not just in one case – that list is longer than this thread.


Furthermore, I do believe that I wrote resist, if you can. It is easy to tell others to risk their lives standing up to the overwhelming might of murderous authoritarian regimes.


And sorry, everyone. I do believe that I have derailed this thread enough. The point is this, I feel personally slighted by that travel ban. Because it reminds me that no matter how I think of myself, I am considered complicit by default, by that man and his supporters, in crimes committed by others, for no other wrong than my birthplace.

[Montmorency]

So now everyone cares about extra judicial killings in the Iran-Saudi proxy way. Fucking typical.

What is that about?

[Pannonian]

Thank you for your comment.

However, I fail to see how my point, about a citizen not being responsible for the acts of a repressive and undemocratic government, is undermined by the potential political consequences for politicians of foreign invasion powers.

I am no authority on rights or wrongs of military intervention – I believe that sometimes they may be necessary – for instance in the case of Rwanda – but I am glad I do not have to make such decisions. Where it becomes problematic however, is when that intervention is opportunistically exploited by the intervening power to obtain beneficial international advantages (as France criminally did in the case of Rwanda).

But thank you for bringing up Iraq. There are few cases of abject hypocrisy as bad as that. From 1963 to now, the United States have continuously meddled in Iraqi politics. First they supported the coup that brought Baath-party into power. Then they supported the Baathist Iraqi army with weapons for use against the Kurds. Then they supported Saddam with weapons for use against Iran (while also supplying weapons to Iran – the Iran–Contra affair). Then there was the Kuwait War debacle (see the April Glaspie meeting with Saddam). Then the sanctions where up to half a million Iraqi children died. Then there was the 2003 war and occupation. Then the ensuing sectarian conflict during said occupation. Then there was the bombing campaign against Islamic State in Northern Iraq. And now those “troublesome” Iraqi refugees are barred from entry into the United States.

Anyway…

You say that my “argument about not being held responsible for the actions of your government holds little water when western citizens are held responsible for the actions of their government (see the continued terrorist actions here "justified" by Iraq and whatnot).”

Your reasoning sounds like extremist-logic to me and it is not an opinion I share with you. A family living in Raqqa is no more complicit in the crimes of the so-called Islamic State than you or I. Yet, for some reason, I (and others as well) am the one who must suffer collective punishment for having the wrong birthplace.

Finally, let me comment on how that last sentence sounds to me; it implies that I am somehow responsible for terrorism because of my place of birth. I had actually written a longer reply denouncing terrorism – but I will not bother. Even by disassociating myself from such criminal acts, I know some Muslim-haters (not implying that is you or anyone else on the org) will smugly enjoy that I feel compelled to do so. No thanks.

I present to you two liberal arguments, fundamentally opposite to one another.

1. Self determination is the basis of all international relations. The people of a nation should determine its own government, without interference from foreign powers. This principle became currency during WWI, and has been the basis of all international relations since then, at least when not overruled by power.
2. Liberal democracy is the natural state of all nation states. Where this is denied by repressive governments, foreign powers should intervene to bring it about. This was the argument of the neoconservatives.

Which is right?

[Dâriûsh]

Which is right?

Oh, no you don’t.


Who am I to decide? And who are you, for that matter?

Neither argument is valid and neither is entirely invalid.

[Pannonian]

Oh, no you don’t.


Who am I to decide? And who are you, for that matter?

Neither argument is valid and neither is entirely invalid.

The first decision has already been made, and was made by the proposed League of Nations back in WWI even before the US actively joined the war (both sides were trying to woo her and other neutrals with this argument). 1 is the default. The US, backed by the UK, made the decision to ignore this in favour of argument 2. We can safely say that argument 2 is no longer fashionable. So we default back to argument 1.

Within argument 1 is the assumption, barring excessively inhuman practices as prosecuted post-WWII, that states have control of their own internal affairs. Self determination is based on the assumption that foreign states have no right to intervene in the affairs of other states, except where they impinge on the affairs of others. One of these internal affairs, implicit in the formation of cohesive nation states, is border control. Borders are inviolate, and controlled by the state whose borders they are. Borders involving multiple states are governed by interstate agreements. Where one side wishes to differ, this difference is governed by the principle of reciprocity. If one side wishes to make a different arrangement, other sides are entitled to reciprocate in the same manner. No outside agency is entitled to impose its decision on another.

If outside countries aren't allowed to bring their preferred brand of government to, say, Iran (as has been made clear in the Iraq fiasco), then we revert to argument 1, which has its own set of rules and assumptions. If you feel victimised by this, too bad. The US, like any other state, is entitled to do what it likes with its own borders. Other states may reciprocate in retaliation, and they may well be morally right to do so. But how you feel in relation to the US has little bearing on what the US is entitled to do.

[Husar]

The problem with your point about policies enacted by undemocratic governments is that, when the UK and US overthrew one of these (Iraq), they were excoriated for invading another country. The moderate Left in the UK has been marginalised consequent to this, resulting in free rein for the Right (any arguments that remotely smell of Blair are met with "blood on their hands" and "warmonger"). So the lesson from that is that the west should not intervene in the affairs of another country, however unpleasant their government. But these other countries, undemocratic as you say they are, unilaterally take measures against yet other countries. If western countries aren't allowed to meddle in the affairs of middle eastern countries, yet middle eastern countries implement restrictive measures on citizens of other countries, the only way western countries can respond is to, on their side, implement reciprocal measures. Are Trump's measures reciprocal? Dunno, but your argument about not being held responsible for the actions of your government holds little water when western citizens are held responsible for the actions of their government (see the continued terrorist actions here "justified" by Iraq and whatnot).

I think a big part of the problem with Iraq was that there was no plan. And it was based on lies. The US went in as a preemptive strike saying that Iraq was manufacturing WMDs. Later they admitted that they lied. And then there was no plan, there was neither the claim to free the people nor a plan on how to go about it or any kind of long-term committment. The result was the rise of the IS, borne from former elite soldiers of the Iraqi army who were replaced with noobies by the US and allies IIRC.
I'm not going to pretend that everyone would be fine with it, but had they had a more decent plan about how to fix the country, or, even better, had they actually fixed the country the first time they invaded in the early 90s, there'd have been far fewer complaints and problems.
Dariush already mentioned how the US basically played with the country for decades.

I was not asserting that the theatrics were irrelevant -- else they would not be so oft repeated. All of our politicos engage in such because it sways public opinion (even if only briefly) and public opinion in your favor is part of the currency of power.

I'm not sure whether his approval ratings reflect that at this point.

And sorry, everyone. I do believe that I have derailed this thread enough. The point is this, I feel personally slighted by that travel ban. Because it reminds me that no matter how I think of myself, I am considered complicit by default, by that man and his supporters, in crimes committed by others, for no other wrong than my birthplace.

I think you made some excellent contributions and voiced your concerns very well.

I present to you two liberal arguments, fundamentally opposite to one another.

1. Self determination is the basis of all international relations. The people of a nation should determine its own government, without interference from foreign powers. This principle became currency during WWI, and has been the basis of all international relations since then, at least when not overruled by power.
2. Liberal democracy is the natural state of all nation states. Where this is denied by repressive governments, foreign powers should intervene to bring it about. This was the argument of the neoconservatives.

Which is right?

Right is obviously the conservative option.
Otherwise it depends so much on the circumstances IMO that one cannot make a general rule. The only rule there might be is that when the major motivator to go in and "help" is that one expects huge benefits for one's own national interests, it is very likely to turn sour. If one goes in to help, there should be some altruism involved to make it more likely to work and be received well. With enemies like the Taliban even that rule is not universally true though.

[Pannonian]

I think a big part of the problem with Iraq was that there was no plan. And it was based on lies. The US went in as a preemptive strike saying that Iraq was manufacturing WMDs. Later they admitted that they lied. And then there was no plan, there was neither the claim to free the people nor a plan on how to go about it or any kind of long-term committment. The result was the rise of the IS, borne from former elite soldiers of the Iraqi army who were replaced with noobies by the US and allies IIRC.
I'm not going to pretend that everyone would be fine with it, but had they had a more decent plan about how to fix the country, or, even better, had they actually fixed the country the first time they invaded in the early 90s, there'd have been far fewer complaints and problems.
Dariush already mentioned how the US basically played with the country for decades.

Right is obviously the conservative option.
Otherwise it depends so much on the circumstances IMO that one cannot make a general rule. The only rule there might be is that when the major motivator to go in and "help" is that one expects huge benefits for one's own national interests, it is very likely to turn sour. If one goes in to help, there should be some altruism involved to make it more likely to work and be received well. With enemies like the Taliban even that rule is not universally true though.

There was little secret about the agenda of the neocons. I was aghast at the time that people were buying the WMD argument, when it was plain that they were based on ideology. Or as I called it at the time, idiocy. That liberal democracy could be spread like an ink spot on blotting paper. The subsequent 2005 attacks were justified by the perpetrators and their supporters, not on doing a bad job in Iraq, but being in Iraq in the first place. Hence argument 1.

There is no butting and umming about times and circumstances. It's been clear since WWI that argument 1 is the default. There is no void of argument where you decide how much of each to apply. Argument 1 applies unless a sovereign nation agrees otherwise. If they agree otherwise, then the subsequent agreement applies. But in the absence of such an agreement, argument 1 applies.

I might accept ideological consistency from someone like Bush or Blair, who genuinely believed in argument 2. In such a case, I wouldn't call the hypocrites. I'd call them idiots instead, as I did in 2003 and subsequently as it turned out as badly as I'd expected. But anyone who criticised the US and UK for going into Iraq has no right to argue that they should not be held responsible for their governments. Argument 2 was a genuine attempt to establish a different paradigm from argument 1. If they don't want argument 2, then argument 1 is what they're stuck with.

[Dâriûsh]

If outside countries aren't allowed to bring their preferred brand of government to, say, Iran (as has been made clear in the Iraq fiasco), then we revert to argument 1, which has its own set of rules and assumptions. If you feel victimised by this, too bad. The US, like any other state, is entitled to do what it likes with its own borders. Other states may reciprocate in retaliation, and they may well be morally right to do so. But how you feel in relation to the US has little bearing on what the US is entitled to do.

Hey, yeah, too bad for me.

In my humble opinion, there is a vast difference between blasting regime-change all over another country and protesting discriminatory policies, do you agree? I practice the latter. My protests in this regard relates to my concern that other countries might begin copying these restrictions. Well that and the fact that I find this ban utterly distasteful.

Have a nice evening.

[Husar]

The subsequent 2005 attacks were justified by the perpetrators and their supporters, not on doing a bad job in Iraq, but being in Iraq in the first place. Hence argument 1.

The people who perpetrated these attacks cannot be argued with anyway, hence:

With enemies like the Taliban even that rule is not universally true though.

Basing your policies and opinions solely on the opinions of extremist idiots is setting yourself up for failure IMO.
Might as well listen to the Neo Nazis then because if we don't, they'll complain all the time...

That's true for leftist extremists as well as rightist ones. The choice between two completely opposed options is usually some extremist thing.
Take appeasement before WW2, that's your argument 1. Now it can be argued that an allied invasion in Germany prior to the outbrak of WW2 would have increased German resentment etc., but that's why the world and politics can be complicated, not a reason to resort to simplistic solutions. Had the allies exposed the death camps during such an invasion and installed a democratic government again, it may have actually worked.

[Kagemusha]

I present to you two liberal arguments, fundamentally opposite to one another.

1. Self determination is the basis of all international relations. The people of a nation should determine its own government, without interference from foreign powers. This principle became currency during WWI, and has been the basis of all international relations since then, at least when not overruled by power.
2. Liberal democracy is the natural state of all nation states. Where this is denied by repressive governments, foreign powers should intervene to bring it about. This was the argument of the neoconservatives.

Which is right?

Number 1. is right and should still be followed. People would have take responsibility of their own government and overthrow/ fight it if necessary. US has created itself only harm by trying to forcefully spread democracy, thus making itself a scapegoat in the eyes of anyone looking for some instance to blame, for their problems in any way, if US has actively mingled with their self determination.

In any case this ban by Trump government does not have anything to do with what Pannonian is asking. This is discriminating order that does not have any real coherent logic behind it. Why Syrians or Iranians are not able to travel to US while Saudi´s or Afghan´s can? There is no logic. It simply a populist gesture towards the angry anti immigrant supporters of Trump.

And Hus the death camps were not in existence before WW2, not at least in the form they operated after 1942. If we go to down that slippery slope with hindsight and make wrong decisions, which could create something even more horrible, who takes the responsibility for those mistakes, or will it just be a shrug and "we tried"...

[Pannonian]

Number 1. is right and should still be followed. People would have take responsibility of their own government and overthrow/ fight it if necessary. US has created itself only harm by trying to forcefully spread democracy, thus making itself a scapegoat in the eyes of anyone looking for some instance to blame, for their problems in any way, if US has actively mingled with their self determination.

In any case this ban by Trump government does not have anything to do with what Pannonian is asking. This is discriminating order that does not have any real coherent logic behind it. Why Syrians or Iranians are not able to travel to US while Saudi´s or Afghan´s can? There is no logic. It simply a populist gesture towards the angry anti immigrant supporters of Trump.

And Hus the death camps were not in existence before WW2, not at least in the form they operated after 1942. If we go to down that slippery slope with hindsight and make wrong decisions, which could create something even more horrible, who takes the responsibility for those mistakes, or will it just be a shrug and "we tried"...

I strongly disagree with the UK's choice of government and the decision it made in June last year. But I have to live with it, and deal with it in whatever small way I can within the UK, as an individual. Whatever the UK ends up with as a result of Brexit, even though I strongly disagree with it, I don't expect the EU to ameliorate it in any way.

[Xiahou]

I'm still in "wait and see" mode on Trump. Most anything that comes out of his mouth or Twitter feed are pure idiocy, but so far, I like a good many of the policies that he's been pushing in practice (not in word). Rolling back Obama's regulatory overreach is good. Fast-tracking long stalled environmental reviews of pipelines is good. Limiting government funding of abortion is good. Even the temporary immigration ban/increased vetting isn't terrible on it's face- though it's implementation appears to be rather incompetent.

I find if I actually look at what Trump's doing and ignore whatever is coming out of his mouth, he's actually ok so far. Though, I tend to think it may be due more to the advisors he is delegating power to, than through his own action/ideas. Because, I still think he's a twit.

[Husar]

And Hus the death camps were not in existence before WW2, not at least in the form they operated after 1942. If we go to down that slippery slope with hindsight and make wrong decisions, which could create something even more horrible, who takes the responsibility for those mistakes, or will it just be a shrug and "we tried"...

Yes about the camps, but I thought the appeasement policy was widely seen as a huge failure? Would you say it was the only right thing to do?

I'm still in "wait and see" mode on Trump. Most anything that comes out of his mouth or Twitter feed are pure idiocy, but so far, I like a good many of the policies that he's been pushing in practice (not in word). Rolling back Obama's regulatory overreach is good. Fast-tracking long stalled environmental reviews of pipelines is good. Limiting government funding of abortion is good. Even the temporary immigration ban/increased vetting isn't terrible on it's face- though it's implementation appears to be rather incompetent.

How exactly has Trump rolled back regulatory overreach by issuing one presidential decree after the other? Maybe I missed one.
Didn't he regulate the borders far more? Then he also regulated lobbying, tries to regulate outsourcing and offshoring efforts, etc.

[Husar]

As for the whole "the cabinet will mellow him", "he can't do anything without the parliament" and so on, according to this German article, people said the exact same things about Hitler when he was made chancellor...

http://www.zeit.de/2017/05/adolf-hit...nung-jahrestag

Other quotes include "I got Hindenburg's trust, in two weeks we'll have cornered him that he squeams" and that Hitler would now have to prove "that he is capable of being a statesman". Many people also saw him as a puppet of other actors such as vice chancellor von Papen.

Of course I have no idea why or how any of that could be relevant for this thread.

[Greyblades]

Attachment 19429

Not to forget that his children running his business is laughable in terms of his being detached from the business...

I have seen this as well, though my experience of it was tempered by the inclusion of this nugget of information; the nations listed were identified by the Department of Homeland Security as risk nations during the last few years and had resulted in the same seven being targeted with travel restrictions in a bill signed by the previous administration.

One story told is that Trump is simply using the restrictions Obama laid down as a template to ratchet up restrictions quickly before he can compose a better plan, another is that those nations exempted are allies and or strategically vital to the fight against ISIS and pissing them off would be a bad idea.

With this level of information available whichever explanation you believe that is likely predicated on your willingness to give trump the benefit of the doubt.

I thought Trump just stopped all lobbying, especially from foreign countries.

Boris may have been born in america he isnt under it's employ, at least not yet

Hey, yeah, too bad for me.

Immigration is not a right but a privledge that any sovereign nation is entirely justified in restricting as they wish, So yes too bad for you.

[Xiahou]

How exactly has Trump rolled back regulatory overreach by issuing one presidential decree after the other? Maybe I missed one.

Maybe you did miss one.

There's also the plan to use CRAs to roll back many of Obama's "midnight" regulations that he rolled out last month. This is good.

[CrossLOPER]

I'm still in "wait and see" mode on Trump.

Saying this at this point is like hoping that the train brakes will kick in while the train is still going 30 kph and about 20 feet away.

Most anything that comes out of his mouth or Twitter feed are pure idiocy, but so far, I like a good many of the policies that he's been pushing in practice (not in word).

Like banning people from entire nations from immigrating, devaluing protections of the environment and protected groups and fuck knows what else?

Rolling back Obama's regulatory overreach is good.

How? With an avalanche of unconstitutional reforms focused solely on making the US dirtier, meaner and more isolated and repressed?

Fast-tracking long stalled environmental reviews of pipelines is good.

Pipelines leak. A lot.

Limiting government funding of abortion is good.

Limiting availability of services to vulnerable groups is heinous.

Even the temporary immigration ban/increased vetting isn't terrible on it's face- though it's implementation appears to be rather incompetent.

Incompetent is a mild way to put it. Terminally retarded is a much better description. It does absolutely nothing positive and solves no problems. It created a massive amount of problems and is rapidly eradicating any positive view of the US.

I find if I actually look at what Trump's doing and ignore whatever is coming out of his mouth, he's actually ok so far. Though, I tend to think it may be due more to the advisors he is delegating power to, than through his own action/ideas. Because, I still think he's a twit.

He is CONSOLIDATING power into as few people as possible and his agents are threatening dissenting opinions. "Getting with the program" and "taking names" are thinly veiled threats that precede authoritarian moves.

Maybe you did miss one.

How in the fuck do you decide what a regulation is or what it includes? This is going to work out great.

Replacing:
Regulation 1: Org must do A.
Regulation 2: Org must do B.

Enacting:
Regulation 3: Org must do A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I...

There's also the plan to use CRAs to roll back many of Obama's "midnight" regulations that he rolled out last month. This is good.

Too bad it is going to be used against pollution regulations.

Fuck yeah Beijing skies!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Lord love a duck. The tone of these posts suggests that impeachment would fall short, and that summary execution for thought crimes is the only acceptable measure for Trump.


CHILL....he is just another occupant of the oval. No need to check the scalp for tattoos.

[Xiahou]

Saying this at this point is like hoping that the train brakes will kick in while the train is still going 30 kph and about 20 feet away.

Ok...

Pipelines leak. A lot.

Not as much as railcars, tanker trucks or ships. They also explode a lot more than pipelines. A lot more.

Limiting availability of services to vulnerable groups is heinous.

Murdering defenseless children is heinous.

Incompetent is a mild way to put it. Terminally retarded is a much better description. It does absolutely nothing positive and solves no problems. It created a massive amount of problems and is rapidly eradicating any positive view of the US.

Incompetent in that it was rolled out with little to no warning for the agencies tasked with implementing it and then issuing contradictory statements on what to do with current visa/green card holders... first let them back in, then not, then let them back in. I guess they got it right 2/3 of the time.

He is CONSOLIDATING power into as few people as possible and his agents are threatening dissenting opinions. "Getting with the program" and "taking names" are thinly veiled threats that precede authoritarian moves.

Not so different from Obama's prosecution of whistleblowers and spying on members of the press, huh? See, this is a problem I have with the media and liberals in regards to Trump. They're completely losing their minds- the level of signal to noise is completely out off the charts. I think it's only a matter of time before Trump does something truly reprehensible- but with all the partisans wailing, gnashing their teeth and rending their clothes every time Trump farts, it's going to be much harder to see it and give it the coverage it deserves. Basically, it's going to be a 'boy who cried wolf' scenario. Trump doing something you disagree with is not the same as the second coming of Hitler. All your constant howling is doing is making it that much easier for him to brush you off when you have a more serious criticism.

[Strike For The South]

So much fuzz not enough facts. I can only assume everything I read is from some damnable KGB agent in some Moscow hovel. They get one pair of blue jeans and go right back to hating the capitalists.

in any event, I can't get behind a man who will leave those who collaborated with American forces out to dry. Those muslims did more for this country than Trump. It's unforgivable to pick up sticks and leave them high and dry.

[CrossLOPER]

Ok...

Keep thinking about it. You're a smart guy.

Not as much as railcars, tanker trucks or ships. They also explode a lot more than pipelines. A lot more.

Would you like one on your property?

Murdering defenseless children is heinous.

Placing the value of a non-viable formation of cells over a living human being is insane. Who knows? They might be a threat. Better extinguish it before it turns 5.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuacCIchzuc

You want to talk about saving children? Start with the ones that have already been born.

Incompetent in that it was rolled out with little to no warning for the agencies tasked with implementing it and then issuing contradictory statements on what to do with current visa/green card holders... first let them back in, then not, then let them back in. I guess they got it right 2/3 of the time.

It shouldn't have been an executive order. At all. You don't make an executive order of this scale and complexity based on arbitrary and cloudy guidelines. Complex thinking is something that seems to elude this administration.

Not so different from Obama's prosecution of whistleblowers and spying on members of the press, huh? See, this is a problem I wibbilty bibbilty blobby boo

Only one post and you immediately go off on about liberals and Obama and whatnot, and then mention Hitler. One post and you are a victim of the liberal agenda. Unbelievable.

[Kagemusha]

So much fuzz not enough facts. I can only assume everything I read is from some damnable KGB agent in some Moscow hovel. They get one pair of blue jeans and go right back to hating the capitalists.

in any event, I can't get behind a man who will leave those who collaborated with American forces out to dry. Those muslims did more for this country than Trump. It's unforgivable to pick up sticks and leave them high and dry.

You must have missed the memo, but Russia is now your buddy and Uncle Putin your best friend,while it is the dirty Chinese who are now source of all evil. The process of deciding which Muslims are good and which are bad is still ongoing, but its has been so for the last 50 years...

[Dâriûsh]

Immigration is not a right but a privledge that any sovereign nation is entirely justified in restricting as they wish, So yes too bad for you.

Thanks. Your sympathy is heartwarming.

I am not even talking about immigration. I am talking about personally being denied entry into an entire country. The reason for which is that I am suddenly tainted somehow. Nevermind how I live my life or who I am – my birthplace condemns me.

I can only speculate that your callous disregard in this matter is because you assume such discriminatory measures will never affect you.

[Pannonian]

Thanks. Your sympathy is heartwarming.

I am not even talking about immigration. I am talking about personally being denied entry into an entire country. The reason for which is that I am suddenly tainted somehow. Nevermind how I live my life or who I am – my birthplace condemns me.

I can only speculate that your callous disregard in this matter is because you assume such discriminatory measures will never affect you.

On the contrary, he voted for it last June. I was against it, but I'll have to live with it anyway because the likes of GB voted for it.

[Dâriûsh]

On the contrary, he voted for it last June. I was against it, but I'll have to live with it anyway because the likes of GB voted for it.

I am sorry. Contrary to what? I am not sure how this relates to my post.

What discriminatory measures has he (Greyblades?) voted for, that you have to live with?

[Viking]

My honest opinion – I am genuinely indifferent. With a regime that hangs homosexuals from cranes, discriminates its minorities, and funds foreign wars, a travel ban on foreigners is really the last on the list of grievances. Are those regime hypocrites? You better believe it, and not just in one case – that list is longer than this thread.

By the same logic, because of much worse things going on in the world, people from seven countries being denied entry to the US is not much to care about.

I think it can be a good idea to point out things that are 'wrong', even if they are far down on the priority list. Some things may be more connected than they first seem, for example.

Furthermore, I do believe that I wrote resist, if you can. It is easy to tell others to risk their lives standing up to the overwhelming might of murderous authoritarian regimes.

I am not telling people to stand up to their authoritarian governments; but to the extent that they do not, it may alter the, shall we say, moral equation. But it is a debate that is probably best for a separate topic, as a travel ban is normally not something very serious.

[Idaho]

It seems that we have fully moved away from politics being a rational argument, to it being like one of those arguments with people who are incoherent and inconsistent. So there is no agreed framework or reference. Anyone can blurt out any old shit and any objections or thoughtful responses are just drowned out by a tidal wave of such blurting.