OK, I'm going to go there.

[HighStickHarry]

I'm addressing the permanence issue.

It seems you guys saying you're not talking about permanent resettlement really are talking about permanent resettlement.

It also sounds like a lot of the "it's NOT a ban" folks here would prefer it actually be so....at least at a minimum for "military aged males".

That's why this pause is a non issue to us. Ban them permaantly and try to convince them the Koran is wrong or at a minimum not to be taken literally.

Muslim ghettos in Europe are a reality and not something we should have. Sorry about being mean.

And maybe our vetting process is great and every Muslims coming over is eddie Murphy from coming to America. If so let's figure out what the hell is going on and then we can bring American loyalist Muslims slowly and deliberately.

 

[Been Jammin]

JFC, there is no ban. It's a temporary pause while we figure out what the **** is going on and to find a way to properly vet those that want to come here.

Pause...not ban.

Trump has called it a "ban" multiple times. Including last night on twitter.

But, my issue is this....Why is is that anyone thinks we don't know "what the **** is going on"? Is it because Trump said that during his campaign? Vetting procedures are already in place and have been since 9-11. There is no evidence that it is easy for terrorists to enter this country and pull off a successful attack.

Someone above brought up the European Union. Obviously, they have an issue. There have been multiple terror related attacks in France, and other surrounding countries. Does anyone believe that those terrorists chose to hit those countries, rather than the U.S. at random? They chose those countries because they are softer targets and easier to get in to. That is due to our vetting procedures already in place, IMO.

 

[CowboyJD]

That's why this pause is a non issue to us. Ban them permaantly and try to convince them the Koran is wrong or at a minimum not to be taken literally.

Muslim ghettos in Europe are a reality and not something we should have. Sorry about being mean.

And maybe our vetting process is great and every Muslims coming over is eddie Murphy from coming to America. If so let's figure out what the hell is going on and then we can bring American loyalist Muslims slowly and deliberately.

This is what I want from Trumpies and from Donnie himself.....not semantics over "it's not a ban" when, in fact, it is a ban....at least a temporary one.

 

[HighStickHarry]

If you really squint and turn your head to the side you can see what trump did versus what most of his supporters wanted during the campaign is actually pretty pragmatic.

 

[ThorOdinson13]

I'm addressing the permanence issue.

It seems you guys saying you're not talking about permanent resettlement really are talking about permanent resettlement.

It also sounds like a lot of the "it's NOT a ban" folks here would prefer it actually be so....at least at a minimum for "military aged males".

Not talking permanence. I don't understand how you've drawn that inference from anything I have said. Unless it's the permanence of accepting refugees vs the impermanence of a safe zone in their own region creating the issue.

I don't know if you consider me a "Trumpy" or not, but I fully support a ban. I'm not going to beat around the bush or argue the semantics of language. As I said above the only exception for me would be those facing genocide/religious persecution.

 

[CowboyJD]

If you really squint and turn your head to the side you can see what trump did versus what most of his supporters wanted during the campaign is actually pretty pragmatic.

I get what you're saying about being "pragmatic". I kinda agree. I'd call it "politics as usual" though. That's not necessarily a criticism. In fact,the way I proposed something like this being rolled out was even more "political" and "pragmatic"....just slow rolling any entries even to the point of no more entries for as long as you wanted.

Do you believe the ban....suspension.....whatever the hell we're gonna call it....is going to go away on 90-120 days?

I'm just trying to wrap my head around the bucket of internal contradictions that I see in Trump.

 

[Ponca Dan]

OK, but, once again. As far as we know, no terrorists have entered the U.S. from any of those countries. So, what difference is the temporary ban going to make? Wouldn't it have been wiser to start studying the current vetting procedures, upgrading them, then implementing the new procedures after you have your ducks in a row?

Trump wants us to believe that terrorists are regularly flowing into the country whenever they want to. Yet there is no evidence that it is close to true.

I guess it could be argued that they actually are flowing in and are just lying in wait until the time is right to attack, but that seems far fetched, IMO. It doesn't fit the terrorist m.o. to hide for years before attacking.

Been, you may be right about the 7 countries. From what country did the female murderess at San Bernadine come? And the "refugee" that attacked students at Ohio State. Where did he come from? I don't know the answers.

 

[CowboyJD]

Not talking permanence. I don't understand how you've drawn that inference from anything I have said. Unless it's the permanence of accepting refugees vs the impermanence of a safe zone in their own region creating the issue.

I don't know if you consider me a "Trumpy" or not, but I fully support a ban. I'm not going to beat around the bush or argue the semantics of language. As I said above the only exception for me would be those facing genocide/religious persecution.

Permanence in the sense of no resettlement in Western nations/USA....not in the sense of being permanently in tents....which you addressed directly here.

Sorry for my lack of clarity. Mea culpa.

 

[HighStickHarry]

I get what you're saying about being "pragmatic". I kinda agree. I'd call it "politics as usual" though. That's not necessarily a criticism. In fact,the way I proposed something like this being rolled out was even more "political" and "pragmatic"....just slow rolling any entries even to the point of no more entries for as long as you wanted.

Do you believe the ban....suspension.....whatever the hell we're gonna call it....is going to go away on 90-120 days?

I'm just trying to wrap my head around the bucket of internal contradictions that I see in Trump.

The lame answer is it depends on what we find out.

The jaded answer is this is just an expensive and chaotic way of placating your supporters.

The super triple dog jaded response is this arguing amongst our selves is a global slight of hand while something else is going on.

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

I'm tired of Islam. It has turned Europe on its head in a horrific way. The same thing will happen here if we allow it. Even those Islamists who are not necessarily violent and destructive never seem to condemn those who are, and there are enough who are to make life a living hell.

 

[CowboyJD]

Been, you may be right about the 7 countries. From what country did the female murderess at San Bernadine come? And the "refugee" that attacked students at Ohio State. Where did he come from? I don't know the answers.

San Bernadino = Pakistan (not on the list)
Ohio State = Sudan (on the list)

 

[CowboyJD]

The lame answer is it depends on what we find out.

The jaded answer is this is just an expensive and chaotic way of placating your supporters.

The super triple dog jaded response is this arguing amongst our selves is a global slight of hand while something else is going on.

Good answer.

 

[ThorOdinson13]

Been, you may be right about the 7 countries. From what country did the female murderess at San Bernadine come? And the "refugee" that attacked students at Ohio State. Where did he come from? I don't know the answers.

OSU - Somalia
San Bernadino - him Chicago her Pakistan

Another key point that's ignored by leftists calling some of them homegrown and trying to write it off is the obvious propensity for radicalization among Muslims, even native born.

 

[Rdcldad]

I'm just trying to wrap my head around the bucket of internal contradictions that I see in Trump.

perhaps for your minds eye you could imagine trump as the same everybody gets free ice cream president as obama

he just doesn't give away the goods

 

[Medic007]

Vetting procedures are already in place and have been since 9-11.

Are they guaranteed to prevent a terrorist from entering the US? A couple of Iraqi dudes that fought Americans in Iraq made it in. That caused some change in the vetting process under Obama. Should the current administration just blindly trust the previous administration? Or should the new administration take a little time to review the process in place to make sure it is still sufficient and make improvements if needed?

It only takes one terrorist to do terrorist shit. Despite the rhetoric of the previous administration, it isn't any safer out there than when he took office.

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

Are they guaranteed to prevent a terrorist from entering the US? A couple of Iraqi dudes that fought Americans in Iraq made it in. That caused some change in the vetting process under Obama. Should the current administration just blindly trust the previous administration? Or should the new administration take a little time to review the process in place to make sure it is still sufficient and make improvements if needed?

It only takes one terrorist to do terrorist shit. Despite the rhetoric of the previous administration, it isn't any safer out there than when he took office.

Under that scenario, since this administration didn't write the Constitution, maybe we should just suspend it until they review it

 

[CowboyJD]

OSU - Somalia
San Bernadino - him Chicago her Pakistan

Another key point that's ignored by leftists calling some of them homegrown and trying to write it off is the obvious propensity for radicalization among Muslims, even native born.

I've studied this as a result of work, and I don't agree with any claim of obvious propensity for radicalization based upon religion for native born people.

 

[shortbus]

One thing we know is that they are beyond dedicated and methodical in their agenda.

It could very well be that they are simply patiently saturating the country before their next big attack so that there is an established basis of players here.

These people live only for this and are willing to blow themselves up.

It's not out of the question to believe they are willing to spend a lifetime preparing.

Okay technically if they blow themselves up they're always spending their lifetime but you know what I mean.

We've only had one attack like 9/11 ever. Who's to say we need any of the "protections" we put in place since then?

Maybe had we done nothing different, nothing still would have happened since.

 

[Medic007]

Under that scenario, since this administration didn't write the Constitution, maybe we should just suspend it until they review it

That's a really, really dumb reach and I think you know it is.

Hell, I can read the Constitution any time I'd like. Where is this vetting process documentation located for me to read?

 

[CowboyJD]

One thing we know is that they are beyond dedicated and methodical in their agenda.

It could very well be that they are simply patiently saturating the country before their next big attack so that there is an established basis of players here.

These people live only for this and are willing to blow themselves up.

It's not out of the question to believe they are willing to spend a lifetime preparing.

Okay technically if they blow themselves up they're always spending their lifetime but you know what I mean.

We've only had one attack like 9/11 ever. Who's to say we need any of the "protections" we put in place since then?

Maybe had we done nothing different, nothing still would have happened since.

ISIS and AQ no longer have direct operational capabilities for a mass attack done at their planning and command. 9/11 style mayhem is no longer their strategy....certainly in the U.S.

Their strategy is directed to encouraging through social media and their various jihadist releases (in just about every language) the types of attacks we have seen recently....a few individuals of their own initiative and funding they themselves acquire performing shootings, knife attacks and vehicles as weapons attacks. Their social media cell structure is pretty damned effective and we are still getting our asses kicked on that front. In fact, many of their recent publications have advised jihadists to not even risk getting caught trying to buy guns and explosives, but to rather grab a bunch of knives or an ax, rent a box truck, and plow into a mass gathering then come out swinging.

I don't say this to suggest that they are any less of a danger to America.....it's more to suggest where our enforcement and intelligence efforts are and should be focused. In fact, this change in strategy makes it much harder to discover, anticipate, and defend against attacks.

 

[Medic007]

One thing we know is that they are beyond dedicated and methodical in their agenda.

It could very well be that they are simply patiently saturating the country before their next big attack so that there is an established basis of players here.

These people live only for this and are willing to blow themselves up.

It's not out of the question to believe they are willing to spend a lifetime preparing.

Okay technically if they blow themselves up they're always spending their lifetime but you know what I mean.

We've only had one attack like 9/11 ever. Who's to say we need any of the "protections" we put in place since then?

Maybe had we done nothing different, nothing still would have happened since.

It hasn't been because of lack of effort. 9/11 hasn't happened again because we've taken steps to eliminate it as a possibility. Increased vetting before getting on a plane, reinforced cockpit doors, air marshals, etc. But we have had some dudes trying to down airplanes over population centers using their underwear and shoes. In both instances, success was only limited by the lack of knowledge of the bomb builder.

People are lucky that the results of the Boston Marathon bombing were as minimal as they were compared to what they could have been had the terrorists simply constructed their devices using cast iron pressure cookers instead of cheap aluminum ones and used hex nuts as shrapnel instead of BBs. There's more, but I'll stop there.

The Times Square attempted bombing could have been quite deadly if the terrorist understood that firecrackers don't produce a shockwave that can detonate a secondary or tertiary high explosive.

We've been lucky. I think we've also seen that shooting rampages are now the en vogue thing. Low cost, little expertise required, high body counts, soft targets, easy planning, and easy mobility.

Great points you made shortbus.

 

[Been Jammin]

Are they guaranteed to prevent a terrorist from entering the US? A couple of Iraqi dudes that fought Americans in Iraq made it in. That caused some change in the vetting process under Obama. Should the current administration just blindly trust the previous administration? Or should the new administration take a little time to review the process in place to make sure it is still sufficient and make improvements if needed?

It only takes one terrorist to do terrorist shit. Despite the rhetoric of the previous administration, it isn't any safer out there than when he took office.

First off, I am sure that there are enough of them, who are dedicated to their cause, that they will eventually find a way to circumvent whatever safeguards we have in place. Nothing is foolproof. Trump could make the vetting much more "extreme", and it might make a difference as to how long it takes before some bad hombre slips into the country and does bad things.

But, to this point, there is no real evidence that we have a problem with the current system. Why make sudden radical changes to the current system that throw the country into chaos?

@shortbus suggests that maybe they have been pouring into the country and biding their time. I think that is a bit far fetched. The longer they are here, the more likely it is that they make a mistake and get caught. The terrorist attacks in Europe have not been perpetrated by individuals who were "hiding in plain sight" for years and years. But, even if his suggestion is correct, and we have a bunch of terrorists already here, what does the travel ban accomplish? It does nothing to prevent those people from performing terrorist acts. Maybe it prevents some future acts, but there really is no evidence to support that line of thinking. It is all just conjecture/paranoia.

I don't think anyone would be questioning this XO if we had some evidence that it was correcting an existing problem. Personally, I need more than, "it is just a temporary measure until we can see what is going on". That is just a sentence that really means nothing if you break it down and actually think about it.

 

[HighStickHarry]

I've said for years that it was fishy there had been few attacks in the us. Three packages of black cats under a wash tub at the Super Bowl or New Year's Eve in Times Square would shut us down. Throw in two guys with basic guns shooting as people fled would be and epic disaster. The Mexican border being what it has been and the ease to purchase firearms from criminals it strikes me as more than odd that we haven't had multiple small attacks.

One sniper shut down the eastern sea board a few years ago. Why has this possibility not come to fruition?

 

[Been Jammin]

That's a really, really dumb reach and I think you know it is.

Hell, I can read the Constitution any time I'd like. Where is this vetting process documentation located for me to read?

If the current vetting process was posted on the internet, it would likely make it a lot easier for a terrorist to figure out a way to circumvent it, don't you think? Do you really want to know what system is currently in place?

The evidence that it is not good enough is that Trump says it is not good enough and we need something better.

The evidence that it is good enough is that it seems to be working.

With that said, if Trump felt that we needed something better, he could have easily made that happen without signing the XO. It would have taken some time, but there really is no reason to believe that any change needed to be immediate.

 

[Been Jammin]

I've said for years that it was fishy there had been few attacks in the us. Three packages of black cats under a wash tub at the Super Bowl or New Year's Eve in Times Square would shut us down. Throw in two guys with basic guns shooting as people fled would be and epic disaster. The Mexican border being what it has been and the ease to purchase firearms from criminals it strikes me as more than odd that we haven't had multiple small attacks.

One sniper shut down the eastern sea board a few years ago. Why has this possibility not come to fruition?

Is this evidence that terrorists are pouring into our county and waiting to do something that dwarfs 9-11, or is this evidence that our government knows what they are doing and are keeping them out (or catching them before they are able to do anything significant).

I have wondered about Mexico also. Maybe they are pretty good at vetting as well. It does seem like it would be easy for a terrorist to slip into the country from Mexico if it is easy for them to get into Mexico.

 

[MegaPoke]

Been the basic answer to your questions is confirnstion bias

This is what I want from Trumpies and from Donnie himself.....not semantics over "it's not a ban" when, in fact, it is a ban....at least a temporary one.

Fair enough. Words matter and he and his admin need to be held accountable for such things.

But, I also think it's important to remember the guy isn't a politician and a big part of how he got here was people opposing him who (forgive me for using a Glenn Beck (whom I despise) phrase).... take him literally but not seriously.

Getting caught up on the semantics of the word ban and phrases like alternative facts are pointless distractions IMO from the question I have: Was it constitutional? If it wasn't, is it now after modifications? If not, it still needs more work. But, the fact remains, he simply did what he said he would do - so I kind of laugh at the pre-packaged "spontaneous" protests that instantly popped up with professionally printed signs, ready to be deployed to wherever they could create the most visible opposition narrative.

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

The main gist of Trump's immigration ban will stand and there is really nothing anyone can do about it. All of the road blocks he encounters on the way to fulfilling his concisely communicated campaign promises that the American people voted for simply demonstrate who in the swamp will ultimately be drained. Unfortunately, all of this nonsense is expected and is somewhat necessary for the long-range goals of changing Washington DC for the better and for good.

 

[Been Jammin]

Been the basic answer to your questions is confirnstion bias


Fair enough. Words matter and he and his admin need to be held accountable for such things.

But, I also think it's important to remember the guy isn't a politician and a big part of how he got here was people opposing him who (forgive me for using a Glenn Beck (whom I despise) phrase).... take him literally but not seriously.

Getting caught up on the semantics of the word ban and phrases like alternative facts are pointless distractions IMO from the question I have: Was it constitutional? If it wasn't, is it now after modifications? If not, it still needs more work. But, the fact remains, he simply did what he said he would do - so I kind of laugh at the pre-packaged "spontaneous" protests that instantly popped up with professionally printed signs, ready to be deployed to wherever they could create the most visible opposition narrative.

Yes, he did what he said he would do. But, as you say, he is not a politician. He said a lot of things, despite minimal political knowledge and understanding of how things work in the political world. He said, that we need to shut down entry, into the country, from certain countries until "we figure out what is going on". But, I'm sure you can admit that what he said is a very ambiguous statement. Should we evacuate Waco until we figure out "what is going on" at Baylor?

To me, the X.O. feels like a knee jerk attempt to keep one of his campaign promises. It clearly wasn't well thought out or well implemented.

The smart move, and one that I would expect a successful business man to make, would be to say, "hey, this is what I want to do", then surround himself with people familiar with politics, diplomacy, the justice department, homeland security and the intelligence community and say, "how can we make this happen" and "let's talk about the pros and cons of this idea". Shooting from the hip, and asking questions later is probably not the best way for the President of the U.S. to do things.

 

[MegaPoke]

He said a lot of things, despite minimal political knowledge and understanding of how things work in the political world.

With respect, that is your perception and it is a popular narrative. It may not be reality. The intention may even be to present a carefully vetted plan specifically as an outsider shooting from the hip. At minimum, he's got a successful 40 year history of delegating and team building. I find it highly unlikely he's doing these things in a vacuum, but concede he may be.

 

[Been Jammin]

The main gist of Trump's immigration ban will stand and there is really nothing anyone can do about it. All of the road blocks he encounters on the way to fulfilling his concisely communicated campaign promises that the American people voted for simply demonstrate who in the swamp will ultimately be drained. Unfortunately, all of this nonsense is expected and is somewhat necessary for the long-range goals of changing Washington DC for the better and for good.

On election day, when it was clear that he won, I figured that we would find out that a lot of his promises were just rhetoric. He clearly seems motivated to make everyone understand that is not the case as quickly as possible.

Damn the torpedoes! Full steam ahead!

It will be interesting to see if that plan/attitude ends up "changing Washington DC for the better and for good" and accomplishing his goals of making the country safer and stronger economically.

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

On election day, when it was clear that he won, I figured that we would find out that a lot of his promises were just rhetoric. He clearly seems motivated to make everyone understand that is not the case as quickly as possible.

Damn the torpedoes! Full steam ahead!

It will be interesting to see if that plan/attitude ends up "changing Washington DC for the better and for good" and accomplishing his goals of making the country safer and stronger economically.

Me and many millions of others voted for him to carry out these pledges. Nothing more and nothing less. And one of the main reasons we voted for him is we knew he would do it.

 

[MegaPoke]

On election day, when it was clear that he won, I figured that we would find out that a lot of his promises were just rhetoric. He clearly seems motivated to make everyone understand that is not the case as quickly as possible.

Damn the torpedoes! Full steam ahead!

It will be interesting to see if that plan/attitude ends up "changing Washington DC for the better and for good" and accomplishing his goals of making the country safer and stronger economically.

It will be interesting. It'll also be interesting to see if the narrative continues to be hysterical nazi hyperbole and obsession over phrasing while that success happens (if indeed it does). I would suggest that if thats the case, it's going to be very hard to put up a candidate on that kind of platform if people see that these things worked out in our favor after all. Thoughts?

 

[Been Jammin]

Me and many millions of others voted for him to carry out these pledges. Nothing more and nothing less. And one of the main reasons we voted for him is we knew he would do it.

I'm not opposed to the idea of "more extreme vetting". Just feels like he didn't go about it in a way that makes sense for multiple reasons. He could have easily kept that promise by taking some time to implement it in an effective, well thought out way.

 

[Been Jammin]

It will be interesting. It'll also be interesting to see if the narrative continues to be hysterical nazi hyperbole and obsession over phrasing while that success happens (if indeed it does). I would suggest that if thats the case, it's going to be very hard to put up a candidate on that kind of platform if people see that these things worked out in our favor after all. Thoughts?

I see two (possible) likely scenarios.

1). The economy improves, the deficit decreases, the borders become less permeable, the U.S. becomes more feared by our enemies, etc. In that scenario, he gets re-elected and the liberal agenda/hyperbole slowly dies down.

2). The chaos continues. Mistakes are made. He proves himself to clearly be out of his element. The Democratic party wins the election of 2020 easily.

I'm not a Trump fan, but I will be happy if the things in #1 happen. However, after the first 2 weeks, #2 seems more likely to me.

 

[MegaPoke]

I'm not opposed to the idea of "more extreme vetting". Just feels like he didn't go about it in a way that makes sense for multiple reasons. He could have easily kept that promise by taking some time to implement it in an effective, well thought out way.

I agree. The way it was rolled out probably could've been more artful.

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

I see two (possible) likely scenarios.

1). The economy improves, the deficit decreases, the borders become less permeable, the U.S. becomes more feared by our enemies, etc. In that scenario, he gets re-elected and the liberal agenda/hyperbole slowly dies down.

2). The chaos continues. Mistakes are made. He proves himself to clearly be out of his element. The Democratic party wins the election of 2020 easily.

I'm not a Trump fan, but I will be happy if the things in #1 happen. However, after the first 2 weeks, #2 seems more likely to me.

Just because George Soros money puts people in the streets to create a false narrative of chaos, does not mean Trump supporters buy it. This is not the old days when people believe fake news from the mainstream media/Democrat Party. The very election that sent Trump to the White House decimated that paradigm.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

I see two (possible) likely scenarios.

1). The economy improves, the deficit decreases, the borders become less permeable, the U.S. becomes more feared by our enemies, etc. In that scenario, he gets re-elected and the liberal agenda/hyperbole slowly dies down.

2). The chaos continues. Mistakes are made. He proves himself to clearly be out of his element. The Democratic party wins the election of 2020 easily.

I'm not a Trump fan, but I will be happy if the things in #1 happen. However, after the first 2 weeks, #2 seems more likely to me.

It really shows your bias when you think number 2 is more likely based on your definitions. You may want to go back and read your number 1 response and compare it to Trumps first two weeks.

 

[MegaPoke]

However, after the first 2 weeks, #2 seems more likely to me.

Based just on the artlessness of the immigration ban and what... crowd size dick measuring? I think that it's fairly objectively provable that he's gotten a lot done in his first two weeks that were exactly what he was elected to do. Right now it's easy stuff - EO's that overturn other EO's, mostly.

As an economic barometer, jobs creation and reinvestment in American workers and manufacturing is already robust.

For me, further proof that he's being successful will be:

1. How he handles ISIS. I'm confident this will be Mattis' plan and it will work as well as any plan can.

2. How he handles Iran and China - both potential hot spots, but both need to be brought to heel before they become larger global problems.

3. Tax plan, does it kick start the economy as planned? What are the details?

4. Repeal/Replace - I like what I've seen of Rand Paul's plan. This needs to be the direction we go IMO. Will we and how quickly do we? Will it work?

5. Border security/Immigration - we have an open southern border that far scarier people than just "dreamers" from Mexico cross every day. Between this and a hit and miss vetting process, it's not a matter of if but when we suffer heavy consequences for these policies - which are less humanitarian and more about votes anyway.

I don't care about people being scared or offended. I do care about the Constitution. As long as he stays within it's boundaries, I'm not worried about the authoritarian stuff. That will be my primary question in anything he does - not did he phrase it right? Did he offend someone? Don't f*ing care.

 

[Medic007]

But, to this point, there is no real evidence that we have a problem with the current system.

What evidence says there aren't any problems? What typically happens when a new CEO takes over?

Personally, I need more than, "it is just a temporary measure until we can see what is going on".

Ok, and? Plenty of us want the process reviewed to make sure enough is being done and a temporary halt isn't unreasonable.

 

[OKSTATE1]

Based just on the artlessness of the immigration ban and what... crowd size dick measuring? I think that it's fairly objectively provable that he's gotten a lot done in his first two weeks that were exactly what he was elected to do. Right now it's easy stuff - EO's that overturn other EO's, mostly.

As an economic barometer, jobs creation and reinvestment in American workers and manufacturing is already robust.

For me, further proof that he's being successful will be:

1. How he handles ISIS. I'm confident this will be Mattis' plan and it will work as well as any plan can.

2. How he handles Iran and China - both potential hot spots, but both need to be brought to heel before they become larger global problems.

3. Tax plan, does it kick start the economy as planned? What are the details?

4. Repeal/Replace - I like what I've seen of Rand Paul's plan. This needs to be the direction we go IMO. Will we and how quickly do we? Will it work?

5. Border security/Immigration - we have an open southern border that far scarier people than just "dreamers" from Mexico cross every day. Between this and a hit and miss vetting process, it's not a matter of if but when we suffer heavy consequences for these policies - which are less humanitarian and more about votes anyway.

I don't care about people being scared or offended. I do care about the Constitution. As long as he stays within it's boundaries, I'm not worried about the authoritarian stuff. That will be my primary question in anything he does - not did he phrase it right? Did he offend someone? Don't f*ing care.

.
Millenials are easily offended...snowflakes, in my day we called them pussies and if they did not like it we settled it with fists, not with guns, knives, bats, pepper spray, and fire. Afterwards usually became friends, hard not to respect someone defending themselves even if you kick their butt. Trump also won because Americans are tired of political correctness and being shamed in to silence - silencing the truth.