Trump Thread

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[Kagemusha]

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.

[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!

[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.

[Sarmatian]

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.

[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.

[spmetla]

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.

[Xiahou]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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?

[Pannonian]

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

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

[Viking]

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.

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.

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

Interesting pre-war perspective.

[Husar]

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?