What makes you think Trump is acting with any kind of new information at all? I heard many times that from conservatives that Trump is blameless because “this is the same list that Obama picked”. Well, which one is it? Does he have new information, in which case, what is said information, or is he just following a list that Obama made, so what information does he have that the public does not?
Teddy Roosevelt said it better than I could:
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
― Theodore Roosevelt
Not necessarily so. I can think of examples where it is in the national interest to not share intelligence of a specific region with the public.[quote=“magnet, post:616, topic:128236”]
There must be a rational basis linking the action to a legitimate public concern
[/quote]
I’m not sure this is necessary, but what was the Obama Administration’s basis for identifying the same countries as “countries of concern”? In 2015 President Obama signed into law a measure placing limited restrictions on travelers who has visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011. Two months later he added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to that list. to address “the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters.” Presumably he wasn’t just making that up and had a rational basis for taking the actions that he did.[quote=“Fifth_Fret, post:618, topic:128236”]
I think you are maybe exaggerating a little!
[/quote]
I think we can likely agree that Trump exaggerates in most (all?) things. Politicians say all kinds of stupid things and he exaggerates as a core strategy of negotiation.[quote=“Misguided, post:619, topic:128236”]
To me, questioning our leaders is a foundation of our democracy.
[/quote]
I concur whole-heartedly.
Maybe there are examples of this that I’ve missed, but I don’t see him quashing any of these things. There have been a lot of protests. The media is saying all kinds of things about him so they don’t seem threatened by him. As far as I know he hasn’t sent Federal agents in to shut down any religious gatherings.
But it ignores that it’s a subset associated with a specific region. If you want to play word games, fine, but it is bigotry I am completely comfortable with because it picks out a very specific segment which is concerning to security experts.[quote=“Timex, post:625, topic:128236”]
Even if you were able to establish something like, “Most terrorists are muslims!” that still does not provide some rational basis for profiling and assuming some sort of guilt about someone… because such things could be done for everyone.
[/quote]
I’ll assume you are joking. If it’s based on facts then of course it provides a rational basis. Likewise, it could not be done for everyone unless the facts support the correlation.[quote=“Timex, post:625, topic:128236”]
So then it absolutely is immensely relevant to the discussion for you to establish how, exactly, this will make anyone safer. Because if that cannot be established, then the deal is bad.
[/quote]
So here is the rub. Establishing a correlation for the ban and implementing the ban does not necessarily mean that it will make anyone safer. As people have said, we can all see the negative aspect of this move as well. The effectiveness of the ban is ultimately based on opinion. Therefore, it’s the President’s perrogative to have the Executive opinion on the matter. That’s what we pay him for (except Trump doesn’t accept the salary).[quote=“Timex, post:625, topic:128236”]
This is nonsensical. Even if you perceive that the status quo is unacceptable, that in itself does not automatically justify ANY action.
[/quote]
Politics is nonsensical sometimes, isn’t it?[quote=“Timex, post:625, topic:128236”]
What about those citizens who have family who were turned away, for no reason, as a result of this ban? Do you care about THOSE citizens?
[/quote]
You say “for no reason”. That’s your opinion. I care about all people of the world, but I care about US citizens first. I also put my money where my mouth is and encourage others to do the same with micro loans via Kiva.[quote=“Timex, post:625, topic:128236”]
And beyond that, do you care about non-americans? Are they less than humans? Less deserving of dignity and respect?
[/quote]
Of course I do. I’m just more concerned about protecting US citizens. If they’re inconvenienced, I’m okay with that.
It’s more subtle than that. It’s discrediting the press. It’s threatening to (allegedly) question all press entering the country on their views. It’s saying that the people protesting are paid agitators and that the majority are in agreement with him (goes hand in hand with stuff about polls).
You can certainly argue that’s not the same thing, but I believe that is the intent in the long run.
There also sure seem to be a lot of reports of protesters getting arrested who haven’t done anything wrong. Maybe the administration isn’t directly responsible for that, but one does start to wonder.
Trump doesn’t so much exaggerate as propagate bald-faces lies which are demonstrably provable as such. That is not a position from which to negotiate as the starting position is not even close to tenable and everyone across the table knows it, even if they hide their contempt.
Well this needs a like, at least! ;)
I love Teddy – one of my favorite Presidents and he was right on target with this comment.
No, what you’re saying here is wrong, on multiple levels.
It’s not word games. It’s the literal definition of bigotry, in the very real, very immoral sense.
I would suggest that the reason you are ok with it, is that you’ve never experienced bigotry directed at you in any real way, and haven’t considered what it would mean to be judged in that way.
“Muslims” are not concerning to security experts. Because it’s a ridiculously broad group of people. “Muslims” as a whole are only concerning to islamophobic bigots.
Now, if you had a muslim who demonstrated specific behaviors that could be linked to terrorism, then that would be fine. Again, to take the example of a serial killer, picking up a white male and interrogating him to determine if he were a serial killer, given NOTHING else besides his being a white male, would be wrong, right? Despite the fact that the vast majority of serial killers are white men. It’s not ok to invade his privacy and detain him until he’s actually done something that indicates his potential mindset, such as abusing animals, or demonstrating some other sort of mental problem.
No, dude. Wrong. Sound policy is not based on fucking opinion. That’s totally absurd. Policy isn’t good because you FEEL like it’s good. It’s good because it actually achieves its fucking goals. And sound policy actually has some practical mechanism by which to do exactly that.
Is this really where you’re going to retreat to? That doing nonsense is ok, because whatever? So then all policy is equal. There are no good ideas, no bad ideas… just whatever the president feels like, and it’s great, because he’s the president.
Surely you see how profoundly idiotic that is.
I say “for no reason” because you are unable to provide me with a reason.
If you believe there is a legitimate purpose that it serves, and how it will achieve some beneficial goal, then lay it out.
Otherwise, you can’t dispute my statement.[quote=“RoyalWe, post:629, topic:128236”]
I care about all people of the world, but I care about US citizens first.
[/quote]
I asked you about American citizens. Those citizens who have family overseas, who spent tons of money and time to go through the visa and greencard processes, only to have them turned away at the last minute.
Do you care about THOSE American citizens?
I’m pretty sure I have never referred to being concerned about Muslims as a group. Nor do I believe the actions by Trump say that either. So, I agree with your statement. You seem to not understand my position on this, although I’m certain I’ve been quite clear.[quote=“Timex, post:634, topic:128236”]
No, dude. Wrong. Sound policy is not based on fucking opinion. That’s totally absurd. Policy isn’t good because you FEEL like it’s good. It’s good because it actually achieves its fucking goals. And sound policy actually has some practical mechanism by which to do exactly that.
[/quote]
So, before policy is enacted you don’t know if it will be effective. There might be unintended consequences. But ultimately, you DO NOT KNOW. Unless you have a working Magic 8 Ball, your decision to enact a policy will be based on analysis which is largely OPINION. Now AFTER policy is enacted then you can see what the result was and then change the policy. Is that clearer?[quote=“Timex, post:634, topic:128236”]
Is this really where you’re going to retreat to? That doing nonsense is ok, because whatever? So then all policy is equal. There are no good ideas, no bad ideas… just whatever the president feels like, and it’s great, because he’s the president.
[/quote]
We’ve been here before. Trump said he was going to do something and he is doing it. That’s the politics side of this. It may be a shitty idea, but he’s doing what he said he would do.[quote=“Timex, post:634, topic:128236”]
If you believe there is a legitimate purpose that it serves, and how it will achieve some beneficial goal, then lay it out.
[/quote]
One purpose is to buy time to come up with a more effective vetting process. Does that meet your criteria?[quote=“Timex, post:634, topic:128236”]
Those citizens who have family overseas, who spent tons of money and time to go through the visa and greencard processes, only to have them turned away at the last minute.
Do you care about THOSE American citizens?
[/quote]
I’m a very caring person and I’ve stated my position on this already.
But this is absurd.
Simply because you don’t know with 100% certainty what the outcome of any action is, that doesn’t make all actions equally rational.
Sound policy has a rational basis. It is able to say, “We believe that this policy will achieve outcome X via this causal chain of events.”
You may make mistakes, or there may be unforeseen consequences, that’s the nature of the world.
But here, with this particular policy… we don’t have that rational basis. There is no causal chain of events where the ban actually results in increased safety. There’s not even a specific credible threat that it is directed at with the goal of reducing.
It’s like the freaking underpants gnomes.
- Ban muslims from 7 countries
- ?
- SECURITY!
The question isn’t whether he’s doing it. The question is whether it’s right and just.
How does it buy you time? It’s not somehow blockading off terrorism. No terrorists have come from those countries. They’ve all come from other places, or they were already here.
You are mistaking a claimed effect for one that actually could happen. Again, this isn’t a matter of opinion, this is a factual reality. There is no way that this ban, as defined, “buys you time”, because it doesn’t actually target terrorism.
It’s like shooting a missile up in a random direction into space, and then saying that it’s gonna “buy you time” while you develop some kind of anti-comet defense system. There’s no reason to believe that the missile is going to have any beneficial impact at all, even insofar as blocking comets.
But you discarded their hardship, even though they are American citizens just like you. You believed that it’s ok for them to have to suffer those hardships, in exchange for the totally irrational promise of this ban, which is akin to magic beans.
I think Pelosi made a similar comment about the ACA (much more poorly worded), and it wasn’t received well as far as I remember.
It’s nice that you guys talk at the Trump supporters like they’re people. You’re all very big people.
Bigly people?
This concludes my positive contribution to the thread.
I mean… he literally said it many times. His people have literally said it many times as well.
Yea, but literally literally, or figuratively literally?
I don’t really know why you responded to this part - my point was that ‘looking into his soul’ was far from what I’m actually suggesting. This was a cheeky remark about you! But we’ve now moved on to Trump’s exaggerations? Okay then.
Does he exaggerate? We all said that about the wall. “Nobody would be so stupid as to build a literal wall!” we said. “That must be an exaggeration!” And yet here we are.
You don’t make a lot of sense. Stand by your choices.
According to the lawsuit, Ramirez was asleep at his father’s home last Friday morning when ICE agents arrived and arrested the father. When they entered, they asked Ramirez if he was in the country legally, and Ramirez said he had a work permit, the lawsuit stated.
ICE agents took Ramirez to a processing center in Seattle and he again disclosed his DACA work permit, the lawsuit stated.
“It doesn’t matter, because you weren’t born in this country,” one of the agents said, according to the lawsuit.
The empowerment of the small-minded petty thugs in ICE, CBP, TSA - it makes my fucking blood boil.
There are absolutely good folk working in those agencies, making an honest effort to keep America safe and secure while respecting the rights and dignity of the flood of humanity they’re faced with every day.
There are also a shitload of absolute assholes who savor ramming every ounce of their greasy, unearned power down the throat of every poor bastard who dares to impinge upon their day. You know this. You’ve dealt with them. Even as a natural-born white American with every cultural signifier of being a boring middle-class midwestern white guy, I feel dehumanized and oppressed going through the fucking nanny state security theater garbage. I can’t imagine what it’s like without those advantages.