The Trump Era (Jan 20, 2017 – XXXX) Political Discussion Including Foreign Impacts

jobo

bondjames wrote: »

Any man who could stand on a stage with a straight face and debate for 1.5 hrs after the humiliating disgrace of grab em by the pussygate is tough. That was the test and he passed it. Hillary didn't pass her FBI test.

Yes. He is some hero, isn't he...

=))

Gustav_Graves

Ooowh, this is interesting. Now Trump starts his usual....

.....again.

This time it's ex-president Obama who receives Trump's blame for 'inspiring' him to initiate this newest executive order to ban people from 7 mostly Muslim nations, including Iran:
http://nos.nl/artikel/2155678-trump-vergelijkt-inreisverbod-met-maatregel-van-obama.html

And, sadly, today another terrorist attack, but now in Quebec, Canada. Curious how Trump will respond to this particular terrorist attack:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/29/americas/quebec-mosque-shooting/index.html

bondjames

@Gustav_Graves, I have already commented on where those 7 countries come from. They have been noted not only by the Obama Administration (which in fact recommended increased vetting from these countries prior to granting visas) and Congress.
----

Regarding pussygate: I'm not condoning it. However, he did prove he was tough in being able to weather that scandal (which was caused by comments on a hot mic from 11 years ago being made public). I wouldn't have been able to do it.
----

Regarding the Executive Order: as I said, I don't believe it's unconstitutional and I don't believe it's against the Geneva Conventions (since there are exceptions for refugees under certain extenuating circumstances even while the ban exists). This is a temporary security freeze until they get the process clarified and tightened up (or, as in Mr. Trump's language from last year: "until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.!"). I agree with Bob Corker that it was very poorly implemented however.

Bob Gates, former Defense Secretary under both the Bush and Obama Administration said yesterday that

"Any effort to strengthen national security to improve the vetting process, I think that's all perfectly reasonable and totally legitimate," Gates told ABC's Martha Raddatz on Sunday's This Week. "In fact, we would expect that of the president."

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/robert-gates-trump-travel-ban-reasonable/2017/01/29/id/770939/
----

@bigladiesman indeed, Saudi Arabia is indirectly the #1 sponsor of Islamic terrorism. I've always believed that the Obama Administration's rapprochement with Iran (over the nuclear deal) was to try and reduce dependency on Saudi oil. In fact, US/Saudi relations deteriorated under the prior Administration, because Saudi Arabia (along with Israel) were both not in favour of that nuclear deal. I hope President Trump keeps that deal in place, and also that he doesn't give into pressure from Mr. Netanyahu to scrap it. The deal is not perfect, but it's better than the alternative.

jobo

I think Trump is getting far to much credit for benefiting on the stupidity of his voters. He never "weathered" his own scandals. The public just didn't care. People say we underestimated Trump. On the contrary we overestimated the American people. In any other democratic country, his pathetique campaign would not have lasted through the primaries.

Gustav_Graves

@BondJames:

Trump Doubles Down on Muslim Ban

Confusion reigned over the weekend due to President Trump's executive order to ban people from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the U.S.—including green-card holders from those countries, who have a legal right to enter and live in the U.S. In the face of domestic and global outrage over the ban, lawsuits were filed and protests were organized. After a string of judges ruled that, at least for the moment, the order could not be enforced, Trump insisted that it could be and would be enforced. But immigration officials were unsure of what to do.

Legality and morality aside, the order was drawn up in an extremely sloppy manner, in part due to Trump's desire to sign something—anything—quickly. He got a huge amount of blowback for banning the re-entry of green-card holders, dual nationals, and people who had already landed and were waiting in line at immigration at various airports. While these are corner cases, legislation that is carefully drawn up is usually very long precisely to deal with all the corner cases that might arise. Also, rules normally do not go into effect the instant the president's pen leaves the paper. If the order had stated that it will go into effect on, say, Feb. 1, then there would have been time for immigration officials to prepare better and prevent the chaos that happened during the weekend.

To add to the confusion, the attorneys general of 16 states, including New York and California, said they would use all their powers to fight the executive order, which they said is unconstitutional, as well as in violation of a 1965 law that stripped the president of the power to designate groups of people as inadmissible.

Democrats are nearly unanimous in their opposition to the executive order, while Republicans are beginning to fracture. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) said that the order goes too far. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that it could help ISIS recruit more terrorists. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) urged caution and noted that the U.S. needs Muslims to help fight terrorism. Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) said that the order was not thought through carefully.

The Koch brothers did not support Trump during the election and don't seem to be enthusiastic about him now either. The president of the Charles Koch Foundation, Brian Hooks criticized Trump yesterday, saying:

The travel ban is the wrong approach and will likely be counterproductive. Our country has benefited tremendously from a history of welcoming people from all cultures and backgrounds. This is a hallmark of free and open societies.

This is the first public statement from any Koch network official since Election Day. Lest Democrats think the Kochs are their new best friends, Charles Koch said that his network was planning to spend $300 million to $400 million in 2018, presumably all to elect Republicans. However, given their dislike for Trump, some of that may go to primary candidates who oppose Trump.

Meanwhile, the White House stonewalled, saying:

Saturday's ruling [from a Brooklyn judge] does not undercut the president's executive order. All stopped visas will remain stopped. All halted admissions will remain halted. All restricted travel will remain prohibited. The order remains in place.

This is dangerously close to, "We don't care what the courts rule. We're doing things our way." Kellyanne Conway defended the ban by saying that international travel disruption was a small price to pay for greater security. Sooner or later the Supreme Court is going to find this on its plate, and then it gets interesting. Will the soon-to-be-appointed justice recuse himself from the case, possibly leading to a 4-4 tie? What will Trump do if he loses the case? We may soon find out.

bondjames

@Gustav_Graves, I agree that the implementation was extremely sloppy, as was the communication. It's very interesting though that I was able to find and communicate some of the key points here on Saturday evening EST, while the majority of the American press didn't. Sensationalism ruled again, and I have a feeling the Trump Administration knew this would be the case (they would have been foolish not to have expected this given the hostile relationship they have with the press).

I believe this order is not unconstitutional, unless it can be shown that there is a religious test being exercised. Challenges on that basis are likely to fail.

There are other arguments which can be made regarding whether it should have been done, whether it facilitates or impedes security or not, whether it should have been rolled out over time, whether it should have received Congressional input etc. etc. However, the argument that it is a 'muslim ban' is not accurate, at least based on the actual 'order', which I have read fully.

bigladiesman

bondjames wrote: »

@bigladiesman indeed, Saudi Arabia is indirectly the #1 sponsor of Islamic terrorism. I've always believed that the Obama Administration's rapprochement with Iran (over the nuclear deal) was to try and reduce dependency on Saudi oil. In fact, US/Saudi relations deteriorated under the prior Administration, because Saudi Arabia (along with Israel) were both not in favour of that nuclear deal. I hope President Trump keeps that deal in place, and also that he doesn't give into pressure from Mr. Netanyahu to scrap it. The deal is not perfect, but it's better than the alternative.

Well, as I said, my thoughts and opinions about Trump are in the line of @Jobo's and @Gustav_Graves' so my personal hopes of him making wise decisions are slim to say the least. It's just that I try to remain neutral: It isn't my everyday world, so how can I formulate a correct opinion? It's hard to remain diplomatic but it can be done.

bondjames

bigladiesman wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

@bigladiesman indeed, Saudi Arabia is indirectly the #1 sponsor of Islamic terrorism. I've always believed that the Obama Administration's rapprochement with Iran (over the nuclear deal) was to try and reduce dependency on Saudi oil. In fact, US/Saudi relations deteriorated under the prior Administration, because Saudi Arabia (along with Israel) were both not in favour of that nuclear deal. I hope President Trump keeps that deal in place, and also that he doesn't give into pressure from Mr. Netanyahu to scrap it. The deal is not perfect, but it's better than the alternative.

Well, as I said, my thoughts and opinions about Trump are in the line of @Jobo's and @Gustav_Graves' so my personal hopes of him making wise decisions are slim to say the least. It's just that I try to remain neutral: It isn't my everyday world, so how can I formulate a correct opinion? It's hard to remain diplomatic but it can be done.

Indeed, and I believe it should be. Good discussion can only take place in a civil environment. None of us have all the facts anyway, particularly when it comes to matters of National Security and foreign policy.

GBF

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2016-09-01-1472759565-493250-extreme_extreme_vetting.jpg

bondjames

@GBF, yes, I saw that . Kardashian posted it, I believe.

The interesting thing about such stats are they are all fine and good until a mass terror attack occurs on US soil (with a lorry/truck, or at a place of worship, at a nightclub, or even at an airport - all of which have taken place in Europe/Turkey last year). Nobody will look at such stats then, because such events are 'high impact'.

We all know that more people die in traffic accidents than airplane crashes, but it's the latter that we remember.

Moreover, the President of the United States is not responsible for deaths on account of lawnmowers, lightning, falling out of bed or buses,

GBF

It is the last number that concerns me... And actually the American president could influence this number.... I can understand that people fear terroristic attacks and that fear is not always rational. But banning the inflow of all people with a particular nationality is really a step too far. In Germany, for example, many citizens have a German and an Iranian passport. They came to Germany in the late 70s / early 80s in order to escape from the Iranian revolution. Most of them are perfectly integrated in Germany and some are even high level polititians who are even working in the committe for German-American relations. One of them was even a candidate for becoming the next German president.

Gerard

And there's that :

cracked.com/personal-experiences-2448-these-soldiers-fought-u.s.-trump-just-banned-them.html

If Trump is trying to set himself up as the next De Gaulle, he's on the right track. Except that betraying the Harkis was the worst thing that he did.

bondjames

@GBF, yes, I agree. The last number is ridiculous. From what I've read, a lot of that is occurring in Chicago, which has seen crazy violence over the past few years.

I just want to clarify something which may be misunderstood: The ban is temporary. It affects countries that are basically on a current 'watch list' as identified by the previous Administration and Congress as being 'high risk' when it comes to granting access and visas. The previous Administration in fact encouraged stronger vetting from these specific countries. Many are in a state of chaos, unstable or ruled by warlords, and in the case of Iran there is no way of cooperating on terrorism because, among other things, they fund Hezbollah which is classified as a terrorist organization as far as the US is concerned. Moreover, they have a different point of view regarding Middle East security compared to US foreign policy establishment views.

Within 90 days, new vetting procedures should be in place which can result in a removal of the ban. If Homeland Security, State and FBI cannot get the necessary assurance on vetting of citizens from particular countries, then the ban will apparently stay in place until such assurance can be obtained. However, exceptions will be made.

Thunderfinger

Our idiot Foreign Minister has said it is unacceptable to deny people entry into your country, based on their nationality, religion or skin colour.

GBF

Well, with regard to Iran I can hardly understand the ban. Of course there have been tensions between Iran and the US for more than 37 years now and I understand that these two countries share a mutual mistrust. But actually Iran has never been blamed to be funding foreign terrorism in the Western world. They are presumed to fund Hisbollah in Lebanon which is a militarisitc organisation which however is not operating in any Western country but is currently operating in Syria in order to support Assad. At least I don't know any terroristic attack in the Western world which was proven to be funded or supported by Iran.

Therefore, I don't think that the ban of Iranian immigrants has anything to do with an actual fear on terrorism but should signal Israel that they have changed their foreign strategy again in the Middle East. I just wonder where this will lead to? Actually there has been some diplomatic development in Iran and Rohani is a rather moderate president. The new law is a complete destruction of the slowly developing relations between the two countries.
Everyone knows that there will never be any military solution in the Middle East. There need to be some kind of cooperation including America, Iran and Israel.

The other question is, does the danger of terrorsim rather apply to immigrants or those who already live in the country. It could be that the new ban will motivate radical islamists already living in the US to commit terroristic attacks in the US.

Thunderfinger

Rouhani isn t moderate, he is an outright bastard.I feel sorry for the Iranian people.

SaintMark

Thunderfinger wrote: »

Rouhani isn t moderate, he is an outright bastard.I feel sorry for the Iranian people.

They chose for these bastards when they tossed out the Shah and family & CIA. So who is the US to judge?

jobo

It is ironic, if not to say incredible, how Trump's supporters demand diplomacy and sophisticated discussion from everyone... EXCEPT the president they themselves voted into the white house. ;)) Would I be more accepted perhaps if I went on a Twitter tirade calling you all "sad, overrated losers"? "Evil folks"? "Dangerous dudes"? "Crooked liers"? "Fake news"? :))

DarthDimi

With due respect, @jobo, Trump's supporters have asked for this thread, they have gotten it, and they have stayed on it, leaving the other side alone. A few anti-Trumpers, however, have come here on frequent occasions to fart in these people's soup. The point of having two threads was always to keep the opposite sides from lynching each other. The Trump supporters have committed themselves to this thread and stayed away from the other. I had hoped that could have worked on both sides. It's sad that we must ask people to avoid certain threads but politics is a childish affair and we must learn to cope with that fact. Anti-Trumpers have their own thread, Trumpers have theirs. If one side wants to read what the other has to say, they can visit, not post, and further discuss matters in their own thread. Sadly, some anti-Trumpers couldn't resist and just HAD to speak up here; loads of flags came our way and now we're seriously considering closing both threads and imposing a hard no-politics rule on this forum. I don't respect Trump but I have absolutely no complaints about how the hosts of this thread have taken care of things here. They stayed here!

jobo

DarthDimi wrote: »

The point of having two threads was always to keep the opposite sides from lynching each other.

I was honestly not aware of this rule, and I suspect that is the case with the other ´guilty´ members as well... I will oblige from now on. I´ve said what I wanted to say.

DarthDimi

@jobo, please don't take this personally. I wasn't looking at you specifically. It has occasionally been mentioned why we have these two threads but it's normal in such active threads that posts sink down fast.

Gustav_Graves

DarthDimi wrote: »

I don't respect Trump but I have absolutely no complaints about how the hosts of this thread have taken care of things here. They stayed here!

That's what scares me though. Every Trumpite doesn't seem to be interested in what goes on on the other side. Whereas I am interested in what goes on in here. Because I still think there's a good lesson to learn from what's happening in here. But that also goes the other way around.

The thing that worries me especially is Trump's chief strategist Steve Bannon. I mean, if you say things like this:

“Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”

I mean, if you actually believe such things, if you say these things, then I think it's good to discuss such views.

jobo

DarthDimi wrote: »

@jobo, please don't take this personally. I wasn't looking at you specifically. It has occasionally been mentioned why we have these two threads but it's normal in such active threads that posts sink down fast.

No worries, I didn´t :) And I understand the reasoning

4EverBonded

Hey, @Bondjames himself has said that he welcomes all and others (dissenting opinions) could post here - but I have purposefully stayed on the other thread only. Just my personal preference. I do read this one once in awhile.

@DarthDimi, I do agree that the best use of two threads, is to keep them separate. People have a choice to write pro Trump here or anti Trump on @chrisisall's thread. People in the middle - go for it! ;)

So if that is the rule we go by, that is fine with me. But it was simply not clear up until right now. Dimi.

bondjames

Thank you for your comments @DarthDimi. You saved me the trouble of flagging the poster before you for being a persistent & annoying nuisance here.

I have no problems with people coming along to critically discuss issues from the other perspective. As I said in my opening preamble, I welcome a healthy debate and we've been able to have that with some users (such as @GBF, @bigladiesman, @SaintMark, @Gustav_Graves, @BeatlesSansEarmuffs and others) who may have a different viewpoint as we've gone along. That's what the thread is for.

Just respect the Trump side's opinions & discuss respectfully, as there is another thread devoted to the constant negatives after all. There's only been a couple of bad apples who have an an agenda, and most know who they are. It's plain to see.

Getafix

jobo wrote: »

I think Trump is getting far to much credit for benefiting on the stupidity of his voters. He never "weathered" his own scandals. The public just didn't care. People say we underestimated Trump. On the contrary we overestimated the American people. In any other democratic country, his pathetique campaign would not have lasted through the primaries.

I'm afraid the evidence of the Brexit campaign (which Leave won through lies and distortion) suggest a Trump could do very well in the UK.

Alan007

I don't care about trump or American politics but I was just wondering does the Senate/congress not have to pass everything he says he's doing? Like build a wall, ban Muslims, stop Obama care or can he just do what he wants

DarthDimi

I don't think he can. Would be coming close to a dictatorship, no?

timmer

In any democracy, a dictatorship would require a suspension of the Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution delineates three branches of government, legislative branch(Congress -House&Senate) Executive and Judicial.
They act as check and balance on each other.
Each has delineated powers. Congress has big power of the purse. Legislative and Executive branch often have to negotiate to get things done. Executive Branch has much veto power.
Judicial branch has power to overrule Executive branch on constitutional grounds.
Health Care reform strikes me as a joint effort on behalf of both the legislative and and executive branches.
Elections are held every two years.
All branches operate within their respective areas of constitutional competence.
As for what can get done, it would have to be assessed on a case-by-case.
Much comes down to political will, which is influenced by any number of factors.

BeatlesSansEarmuffs

jobo wrote: »

DarthDimi wrote: »

The point of having two threads was always to keep the opposite sides from lynching each other.

I was honestly not aware of this rule, and I suspect that is the case with the other ´guilty´ members as well... I will oblige from now on. I´ve said what I wanted to say.

Ditto. I thought we as a society had a need to communicate with each other. Try to get others to understand one's own point of view & so on. I don't think I've ever been insulting to another member here -- and I'd appreciate hearing from from the mods off-thread if my opinion on this matter is inaccurate.