Trump Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

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?

---

Brexit presumably.

You make strong posts btw.

----

DAPL should not really be getting this much opposition, and opposition on the basis of pipeline vs. other transport modes is a red herring. If the procedures are complete and the property is secured, go ahead with the damn thing.

On the other hand, abortion and regulations are pretty much the best things ever.

----

Here's some historical perspective on Hitler and the destruction of the Jews (skip to 6:51 if lazy):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuAUlCemH68

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

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.



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.

---

I have repeated this several times, but I’ll do it again: The difference is what to expect from a state run by a nationalist military dictatorship versus a state with democratically elected leader (and one who might only spend 4 years or less on the post).

So that logic you present would only apply if the United States were a xenophobic and isolationist regime. It is not.


And no, you make it very clear that a travel ban is not something very serious to you. Perhaps it is difficult to comprehend legislation being drawn up to discriminate you specifically, not for your opinion or political views, but for where you are born.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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?

---

When Germany remilitarized Rhineland during 1936 the WW1 Allied powers gained a casus belli against Nazi Germany. After a clear violation of a international treaty, there was no need for an preemptive strike. The cause for war against Germany was there, but the Western allies did not use it. So those circumstances really dont apply as example of preemptive forceful regime change conducted by an external power.

Of course this is a complicated issue and there is no simple answer, but how i see it. If you meddle with internal affairs of others without their consent the responsibility concerning the outcome lies with you afterwards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

I have repeated this several times, but I’ll do it again: The difference is what to expect from a state run by a nationalist military dictatorship versus a state with democratically elected leader (and one who might only spend 4 years or less on the post).

So that logic you present would only apply if the United States were a xenophobic and isolationist regime. It is not.


And no, you make it very clear that a travel ban is not something very serious to you. Perhaps it is difficult to comprehend legislation being drawn up to discriminate you specifically, not for your opinion or political views, but for where you are born.

---

It's discrimination based on citizenship. I browse a Pakistani forum from time to time, and the posters there were surprised they weren't already on the list, given their reputation, and expected to be added once India put their two cents in. The Pakistani Brits said that this was the signal for them to give up their Pakistani citizenship, which would remove the black mark. They also drew a comparison between Pakistan, which allows dual citizenship, and India, which does not, and wondered whether the latter path was better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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?

---

The question isn't which is right but who decides.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Again, they said the same thing about Hitler, see Monty's video as well in that regard.
Saying the goal of protesters is somehow execution or something like that is a strawman or whatever you call it, I'm pretty sure most of them would be okay with Trump being less extreme as a result of public pressure for example. Public pressure usually doesn't come from shutting up though. When Obama got elected he was declared the antichrist as well and people said he would come to prosecute them for owning guns etc., so in a way it's just typical partisan American behavior and you should just chill as well. ~;)
Now you may wonder why I made the Hitler comparison then, well:
1. It's funny for me.
2. Trump actually did announce plenty of outrageous things and seems to show more authoritarian behavior than Obama. And then I trust some of his supporters and especially that Bannon-dude even less than Trump himself. That he raised Bannon to such important positions is what I'd find worrying. I wouldn't even think of Bannon-dude as a mellowing force in his cabinet, more like a stirring one... And Trump removed some experienced generals from permanent positions, they might have been mellowing forces... :wall:

Remember when Hitler put the extremists in all the important positions? :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

So much fuzz not enough facts.

---

That would seem like an uninterrupted continuation from Trump's election campaign then...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

When Germany remilitarized Rhineland during 1936 the WW1 Allied powers gained a casus belli against Nazi Germany. After a clear violation of a international treaty, there was no need for an preemptive strike. The cause for war against Germany was there, but the Western allies did not use it. So those circumstances really dont apply as example of preemptive forceful regime change conducted by an external power.

Of course this is a complicated issue and there is no simple answer, but how i see it. If you meddle with internal affairs of others without their consent the responsibility concerning the outcome lies with you afterwards.

---

Preemptive regime change sounds weird. Iraq was said to be a preemptive strike because Iraq was supposedly planning a strike with its WMDs and was supposedly harboring terrorists. The regime change was more of a by-product in the official narrative IIRC. While there may have been doubts about the WMDs and the terrorism ties at the time, there was obviously sufficient support to make them go ahead.

And yes, it's a complicated issue because trade can already be seen as meddling in other peoples' affairs. If Trump punishes corporations for building or operating factories in Mexico, how is he not meddling with Mexican affairs? He's actively destroying jobs in Mexico and Mexico cannot realistically hope to do anything about it other than symbolic measures.

It's very interesting the contrast between the Trump launch and the bush launch. With Bush, 90% of the American orgahs were fairly fiercely pro Bush. Very hawkish and nationalistic. Even hanging on to support through the Iraq and Afghanistan catastrophes.

With Trump it seems that the best the American orgahs can do is a few sheepish "let's wait and see" or "actions aren't as bad as his words".

I predict that he either starts ww3 or doesn't last 2017.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

The question isn't which is right but who decides.

---

So who has the right to decide, in your view?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

I have repeated this several times, but I’ll do it again: The difference is what to expect from a state run by a nationalist military dictatorship versus a state with democratically elected leader (and one who might only spend 4 years or less on the post).

So that logic you present would only apply if the United States were a xenophobic and isolationist regime. It is not.

---

I disagree with this. I think we should expect (as in require) the same from authoritarian countries as we do from liberal ones; even if the issue in question is much less serious than other things.

So if one happens to meet, for example, a Syrian Assad supporter who is angry about not being able to travel to the US, they could be challenged about the travel ban in place in their own country. Scenarios like that is what I had in mind when I wrote the first post. Don't let people off the hook.

Even if you do expect more from democratic countries, the US travel ban is still typically less serious than things like people dying of treatable diseases, extreme poverty etc. It just shouldn't be high on the list, because there are much worse things going on, according to this logic.

Quote:

---

And no, you make it very clear that a travel ban is not something very serious to you. Perhaps it is difficult to comprehend legislation being drawn up to discriminate you specifically, not for your opinion or political views, but for where you are born.

---

Beyond travel bans typically being less serious than things like extreme poverty and genocide, I have not intended to say much about its seriousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Here's some historical perspective on Hitler and the destruction of the Jews (skip to 6:51 if lazy):

---

Interesting pre-war perspective.

Also a question: How do they ban people with dual nationality in practice? Is there some note in their passports that says they also have another nationality or why can't they just leave the banned passport at home and get in with the other one?
I've heard of people who try to get as many nationalities as possible for various reasons, do they have to let each new one be entered into all their other passports? Or is this some secret shenanigans where the NSA hacks all national databases and compares all the data? :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

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.

---

Nope, not a victim. I was trying to explain to you why you're making it impossible for me and others to take you seriously. There's no point in trying to engage in you in any sort of discourse.... so I won't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Trump actually did announce plenty of outrageous things and seems to show more authoritarian behavior than Obama.

---

It's all perspective, I'm afraid. Obama did more to consolidate power in the presidency and to weaken the other branches of government. He just got better PR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by link

Many constitutional scholars and politicians on the right have spent the last eight years rallying against the Obama presidency, arguing that he had overstepped his powers, especially with regard to national security.

But this is now likely to yield to protests from the left, with the same criticisms applying to Trump.

“For eight years Republicans have complained that the presidency was too powerful, that President Obama ruled like a dictator, and that the powers of the presidency needed to be curbed,” Nichols said. “My guess is that they’re not going to be very serious about that principle.”

With the shoe on the other foot, the left may soon realize how terrifying some of the president’s authorities can be.

“If you are concerned about overreach of executive authority, and the only thing that was keeping your concerns at bay was that President Obama had that authority… [it’s] going to come back to bite people in the rear, because now a President Trump will rely on those same authorities,” said Bradley Moss, a lawyer specializing in national security law.

---

Call me when Trump prosecutes a war without congressional approval or orders the death of American citizens without judicial review. Then we'll be onto something. Most of the anti-Trump theatrics thus far, look too much like naked partisanship. It's ok if my guy does it, but if the other guy does it he's Hitler 2.0. Trump's executive overreach hasn't come near Obama's yet. And I don't want him to go as far as Obama did. I didn't vote for Trump, and if he abuses his power as badly, I won't vote for him next time either. But we survived Obama and we'll survive Trump too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

I have repeated this several times, but I’ll do it again: The difference is what to expect from a state run by a nationalist military dictatorship versus a state with democratically elected leader (and one who might only spend 4 years or less on the post).

So that logic you present would only apply if the United States were a xenophobic and isolationist regime. It is not.


And no, you make it very clear that a travel ban is not something very serious to you. Perhaps it is difficult to comprehend legislation being drawn up to discriminate you specifically, not for your opinion or political views, but for where you are born.

---

Note on your sig, Dariush. I think you mean Fatehi and not the actress in your second quotation -- but some might miss that without the surname.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

It's all perspective, I'm afraid. Obama did more to consolidate power in the presidency and to weaken the other branches of government. He just got better PR.

Call me when Trump prosecutes a war without congressional approval or orders the death of American citizens without judicial review. Then we'll be onto something. Most of the anti-Trump theatrics thus far, look too much like naked partisanship. It's ok if my guy does it, but if the other guy does it he's Hitler 2.0. Trump's executive overreach hasn't come near Obama's yet. And I don't want him to go as far as Obama did. I didn't vote for Trump, and if he abuses his power as badly, I won't vote for him next time either. But we survived Obama and we'll survive Trump too.

---

Ironically, you and others IMO end up conflating the Presidency and the Executive. The latter has increased its ambit over national security, but the POTUS itself is still much weaker than during the mid-century. Now, admittedly there is indeed scope for a sitting POTUS to take advantage of the growth of his department to work toward conjoining the two, to consolidate power away from party consensus rule, and to exercise personal authority over increasingly-fine matters - but this has not been the case for generations. Obama did not buck the trend, and I believe Trump is not doing and will not do so, regardless of his conceits or the indignation of his opponents.

Concisely: the indirect power of POTUS in the world (coercive, that is) has increased, but the direct power of POTUS in the US government has decreased. Moreover, the former is more an outcome of technological factors and the nature of contemporary conflicts than any mechanical developments in law.

That's my line and I'm sticking to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

I have repeated this several times, but I’ll do it again: The difference is what to expect from a state run by a nationalist military dictatorship versus a state with democratically elected leader (and one who might only spend 4 years or less on the post).

So that logic you present would only apply if the United States were a xenophobic and isolationist regime. It is not.


And no, you make it very clear that a travel ban is not something very serious to you. Perhaps it is difficult to comprehend legislation being drawn up to discriminate you specifically, not for your opinion or political views, but for where you are born.

---

Not legislation, but an executive order. Such orders spell out the process by which the executive branch will execute the law promulgated by Congress. Were Congress to oppose the measures taken in the Executive Order, they could modify the law by which the President is empowered placing whatever limitations they preferred on the books. This change would require a 2/3 majority so as to be veto-proof, but that is the system under which we operate.

The executive order was NOT aimed at you personally, of course, though any refugee or would-be immigrant from Iran -- obviously including you -- will be barred from entry for the next 114 days or so. The sloppy execution of the order (e.g. holding up the entry of current legal residents) makes it clear that too many are aware of the media version without reading the blinking thing, including Customs officers apparently.

The only indefinite ban (at least so far) is on those from Syria.

The order will, from the look of things, probably be extended to other nations of concern after about 60 days -- based in part on their willingness/ability or lack of willingness/ability to provide the additional information envisaged in the new and more robust vetting procedures referenced in the order.

The whole point is to resume immigration and the refugee program after this hiatus, with the hiatus having been used to establish and place assets to conduct the more rigorous screening. The more rigorous screening is not, apparently, going to be applied to all and sundry (though I expect that it will be, bowing to political pressure for fairness, once the new procedures are in place). Customs and immigration is about to become a good deal more costly to the taxpayer.

I actually think that a better vetting process is a good idea, and that it should be applied to all and sundry both for fairness and because much of the potential threat but by no means all of a potential threat is lodged in these nations. As this was such a centerpiece of his campaign for so long, however, I am a bit frustrated that a more complete process is going to take 4 months to get in place. Should have had people working on the specifics from 11/15 on

Quote:

---

I actually think that a better vetting process is a good idea, and that it should be applied to all and sundry both for fairness and because much of the potential threat but by no means all of a potential threat is lodged in these nations. As this was such a centerpiece of his campaign for so long, however, I am a bit frustrated that a more complete process is going to take 4 months to get in place. Should have had people working on the specifics from 11/15 on

---

What in particular could be improved in the process, arduous as it is? Is anything concrete meant to be achieved by such a reform, or by an intention of reform?

This isn't a question of process after all, but one of source. Some classes are prima facie unacceptable, others are not, and all before any paperwork or interviews come into play. The contest now is whether "Muslims" may be considered among the unacceptable classes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

What in particular could be improved in the process, arduous as it is? Is anything concrete meant to be achieved by such a reform, or by an intention of reform?

This isn't a question of process after all, but one of source. Some classes are prima facie unacceptable, others are not, and all before any paperwork or interviews come into play. The contest now is whether "Muslims" may be considered among the unacceptable classes.

---

I think the intent will be to screen out those who have demonstrated a threat potential (supporting or conducting violence for the cause etc.). Probably some kind of flag for people with violent criminal history as well, whether terrorist or no.

Using the religion in and of itself would be both inappropriate and unconstitutional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1st Ammendment to the Constitution of the United States of America

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...

---

The use of the religion as a whole would obviously contradict the "free exercise" portion. It would also be offensive to more than 3 million U.S. citizens who are Muslim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

It's discrimination based on citizenship. I browse a Pakistani forum from time to time, and the posters there were surprised they weren't already on the list, given their reputation, and expected to be added once India put their two cents in. The Pakistani Brits said that this was the signal for them to give up their Pakistani citizenship, which would remove the black mark. They also drew a comparison between Pakistan, which allows dual citizenship, and India, which does not, and wondered whether the latter path was better.

---

Discrimination based on citizenship is generally deemed legitimate.

See Germany's stance of citizens of Syria claiming refugee status.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Preemptive regime change sounds weird. Iraq was said to be a preemptive strike because Iraq was supposedly planning a strike with its WMDs and was supposedly harboring terrorists. The regime change was more of a by-product in the official narrative IIRC. While there may have been doubts about the WMDs and the terrorism ties at the time, there was obviously sufficient support to make them go ahead.

---

Yes.People believed the lies of the "agressive regime". I am not sure did the neocons themselves had any idea what they were about to do, or just more likely exited to just do something with their power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

And yes, it's a complicated issue because trade can already be seen as meddling in other peoples' affairs. If Trump punishes corporations for building or operating factories in Mexico, how is he not meddling with Mexican affairs? He's actively destroying jobs in Mexico and Mexico cannot realistically hope to do anything about it other than symbolic measures.

---

Thankfully long past are the days of Mercantilism. Trump can punish corporations in US and that is it. Will that happen is a completely other story, but then i am not sure how well the real estate businessman understands the global economy, at least the analyst are terrified what will happen, but that seems to be their default reaction to anything these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Discrimination based on citizenship is generally deemed legitimate.

See Germany's stance of citizens of Syria claiming refugee status.

---

Generally?
The justification that some of his surrogates have put forth is that the countries involved have previously been designated as potential sources of terrorism during the Obama administration. Superficially, that would seem like a good reason.

It's fairly obvious however that the measure is only intended to placate those voters who were attracted to his promise of a Muslim ban. A proposal that was a flagrant violation of the US constitution.

They put hardly any effort at all in arguing there's a serious, urgent need for the measure (the USA already had an extremely thorough vetting process to begin with) and implemented it overnight, without any regard for people who'd been through weeks (if not months) of paperwork and would end up being turned away at the airport.

Maybe the order will largely survive constitutional review in the end. Regardless it's a meanspirited measure, and dishonest in its motivations (since it's only aimed at keeping campaign promises, not genuine security concerns)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

It's very interesting the contrast between the Trump launch and the bush launch. With Bush, 90% of the American orgahs were fairly fiercely pro Bush. Very hawkish and nationalistic. Even hanging on to support through the Iraq and Afghanistan catastrophes.

With Trump it seems that the best the American orgahs can do is a few sheepish "let's wait and see" or "actions aren't as bad as his words".

I predict that he either starts ww3 or doesn't last 2017.

---

As one of the Orgahs that supported Bush for much longer than I should have I fall in the anti-Trump crowd. We have no real alternatives other than 'wait and see' though. He's emasculated the Republican leadership throughout the election and is forcibly completing its conversion into a "Tea Party" crackpot political group. This is unfortunately what the Republicans get for fostering the Tea Party folks and what the Democrats get for supporting every counter culture ultra-minority group (the people that claim non-binary gender for example). I'm not a pro- unchecked open border immigration guy by any means but the outright racism that's evident in his talk and actions is downright frightening to me; especially when coupled to his authoritarian approach to dissent.

I too fear he will blunder into a major war while dismembering NATO at the same time. Every day the news is more and more depressing to watch. I hated Clinton but I could at least have dealt with her competence versus this buffoon's approach.

Our system of checks and balances don't work if his own party feel obliged to toe the line on all his policies no matter how reprehensible just for the sake of being re-electable in two years.

So Trump nominated Gorsuch for the SCOTUS. From what I know of him, he's a fantastic choice- said to be a reliable Constitutional originalist, a textualist when it comes to ruling on legislation and tends to show deference to states rights over federal.

And yet... even when he's doing something great, Trump still makes my skin crawl when I hear him talking about it. He still manages to give off the slimy con-man vibe. :sweatdrop:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhbOD5QZu3M

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Generally?
The justification that some of his surrogates have put forth is that the countries involved have previously been designated as potential sources of terrorism during the Obama administration. Superficially, that would seem like a good reason.

It's fairly obvious however that the measure is only intended to placate those voters who were attracted to his promise of a Muslim ban. A proposal that was a flagrant violation of the US constitution.

They put hardly any effort at all in arguing there's a serious, urgent need for the measure (the USA already had an extremely thorough vetting process to begin with) and implemented it overnight, without any regard for people who'd been through weeks (if not months) of paperwork and would end up being turned away at the airport.

Maybe the order will largely survive constitutional review in the end. Regardless it's a meanspirited measure, and dishonest in its motivations (since it's only aimed at keeping campaign promises, not genuine security concerns)

---

The countries in question are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen

With the exception of Iran those countries are all going through massive unrest or are in a state of systemic collapse. Trump see Iran as an enemy of the US. By contract Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are fairly stable internally and nominally US Allies.

I agree with you this is mean spirited and primarily a political move but I don't think it's a crude domestically targeted one. Someone thought quite hard about this - by making is virtually impossible for people from these countries to enter the US you send the message that these people are not welcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

said to be a reliable Constitutional originalist,

---

How can you reliably interpret the Constitution the way the founders did, when they could not agree on how to interpret it on day 1?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

How can you reliably interpret the Constitution the way the founders did, when they could not agree on how to interpret it on day 1?

---

I think originalism is a close cousin to textualism... I'll just steal this from Wikipedia rather than trying to paraphrase:

Quote:

---

The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be. It is this view with which most originalists, such as Justice Scalia, are associated.

---

I think that's pretty succinct.

Don't invent new meanings from the words that are written. Read what's there and apply it as literally as possible. If you don't like what's written- have your legislators change it. I think that's a good judicial philosophy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I think originalism is a close cousin to textualism... I'll just steal this from Wikipedia rather than trying to paraphrase:
I think that's pretty succinct.

Don't invent new meanings from the words that are written. Read what's there and apply it as literally as possible. If you don't like what's written- have your legislators change it. I think that's a good judicial philosophy.

---

Who is reasonable? Where is the line between inventing new meanings and discovering implied powers? Why must we redefine the Constitution through legislation to justify decisions when we can extend the logic that has already been provided? Do we toss aside our right to privacy as 20th century activism?

Ultimately, the arguments that originalist's make are colored by the inherent bias of the man within the robe. The people they cite and the logic they apply suit to fit their narrative of "reasonable men in year X". This cannot be avoided by even the most intellectually honest justices, as even Scalia clearly defiled his own philosophy on several occasions in order to uphold his Catholic values.

This is why anyone who supports originalism is deluded. This attempt to peg the Constitution to its history feels right only because we think of history itself as static and unchanging, like the book it is written in. In reality the United States has since its very beginning been a battle of ideologies, and it is the highest perversion to assert that in the 1870s out of 100 reasonable US citizens you would get anything other 100 different meanings of the Reconstruction Amendments.

The idea that you can strip away all context from any document and then try to interpret it in any meaningful way is shit. Context gives words meaning.

if strict textualists meant what they said, all gun owners would have to be will drilled, registered with their state, and willing to commit to training. Because they way that sentence is written, the reason for gun ownership is an organized militia.

I also wouldn't have a problem if most of these guys were like Thomas and said "the court can't decide" rather than Scalia "the court erodes power".

If textualism as such were possible, all Supreme Court cases would be decided unanimously or by a bureaucratic council of lawyers, without recourse to "reasonable" hypotheticals at any point in history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

The idea that you can strip away all context from any document and then try to interpret it in any meaningful way is shit. Context gives words meaning.

if strict textualists meant what they said, all gun owners would have to be will drilled, registered with their state, and willing to commit to training. Because they way that sentence is written, the reason for gun ownership is an organized militia.

I also wouldn't have a problem if most of these guys were like Thomas and said "the court can't decide" rather than Scalia "the court erodes power".

---

To be generous, by the same token given a modern context we could offer differing notions of what constitutes militia. For example, police, neighborhood watch, verifying general fitness to be National Guard (without joining), probably others. So there are certainly ways to weaken even a hybrid interpretation.

If this view is correct, then the Republicans played out a Machiavelli textbook type play on the American public. :book:

Top Republicans and strategists realised that neither of the candidates stood any real chance against Hilary Clinton, no matter how hard they would try and turn the election in their favour. Neither of them. Hilary was overwhelmingly tipped to win. But they had "the Trump card" (pun intended). Trump didn't play out by the traditional political rules, which allowed the Republicans to gather on support from an electoral base that wasn't traditionally Republican, hence why they were able to expand their voter base even into Democratic strongholds. Trump's reality TV appeal also made him well known to the American public, in comparison to all of the others.

Pence however is the real Republican candidate.

He's a conservative Republican member, has a good track record in Indiana and he is respected and appreciated by the Republicans. But he had no chance against Hilary.

So the Republicans picked Trump as their sole chance of winning, they won it and Pence is the VP. With Trump creating a firestorm every single day, the chances for impeachment are ticking upwards, leading to a possibility of demotion... and Pence as the ideal Republican President.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Note on your sig, Dariush. I think you mean Fatehi and not the actress in your second quotation -- but some might miss that without the surname.

---

What, that old thing?

Or perchance it could be the actress and hence a quote from the darkest (and so far yet unreleased) episode of How I Met Your Mother. Think about it. :clown:

I’ll change it if you can give me a better one. :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Not legislation, but an executive order. Such orders spell out the process by which the executive branch will execute the law promulgated by Congress. Were Congress to oppose the measures taken in the Executive Order, they could modify the law by which the President is empowered placing whatever limitations they preferred on the books. This change would require a 2/3 majority so as to be veto-proof, but that is the system under which we operate.

The executive order was NOT aimed at you personally, of course, though any refugee or would-be immigrant from Iran -- obviously including you -- will be barred from entry for the next 114 days or so. The sloppy execution of the order (e.g. holding up the entry of current legal residents) makes it clear that too many are aware of the media version without reading the blinking thing, including Customs officers apparently.

The only indefinite ban (at least so far) is on those from Syria.

The order will, from the look of things, probably be extended to other nations of concern after about 60 days -- based in part on their willingness/ability or lack of willingness/ability to provide the additional information envisaged in the new and more robust vetting procedures referenced in the order.

The whole point is to resume immigration and the refugee program after this hiatus, with the hiatus having been used to establish and place assets to conduct the more rigorous screening. The more rigorous screening is not, apparently, going to be applied to all and sundry (though I expect that it will be, bowing to political pressure for fairness, once the new procedures are in place). Customs and immigration is about to become a good deal more costly to the taxpayer.

I actually think that a better vetting process is a good idea, and that it should be applied to all and sundry both for fairness and because much of the potential threat but by no means all of a potential threat is lodged in these nations. As this was such a centerpiece of his campaign for so long, however, I am a bit frustrated that a more complete process is going to take 4 months to get in place. Should have had people working on the specifics from 11/15 on

---

Executive order there, potential legislation here. Rightwing politicians around Europe is watching the United States (and that man) on this. The fewer protests such measures evoke, the more likely the European extremists will be inclined to copy, or escalate upon, said measures.


Regarding a better vetting process - as a “Muslim” guy, I have experienced my fair share of vetting up until now.

This includes them taking my laptop and phone and demanding access codes, implying that they have the right to demand access to my Facebook profile and email, and generally just been forced to wait for hours. I dread to think they can take it any further.

Seeing your non-Muslim-looking friends and co-workers go through checks without incidents, often smiling sheepishly afterwards and apologizing (as if they have to), is both demeaning and humiliating.

Stuff like this is difficult not to take personal. So I am all for fairness.