OK, I'm going to go there.

[Medic007]

it might make a difference as to how long it takes before some bad hombre slips into the country and does bad things.

And that might is good enough for me in a land of little guarantees.

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?

What evidence supports that there isn't a problem in the system? What harm is there in making sure it's doing everything that needs to be done? The country isn't in chaos. Certain groups of people have lost their minds though.

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.

Out with the previous administration and in with the new. Reviewing policies of the previous administration isn't a new concept.

 

[Medic007]

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.

Way out there with the Baylor reference.

I'm beginning to think Washington DC isn't as difficult as it's been made to be. Maybe We the People would be better served without Their politics. Novel idea these days, but only because We the People have let it be that way. I voted for change.

Regarding the last paragraph, that is exactly what Trump is doing. Putting a pause/ban/temporary restraining order/etc seems very logical as he installs his people and they review the policies of the previous administration. Perfectly logical. Could it have been rolled out better? Yep. But the core principle isn't flawed.

 

[MegaPoke]

The country isn't in chaos.

@Been Jammin I think this is an important point. The country is not in chaos. The narrative of chaos is being purposely pushed by the same corporate media the Trump administration correctly labeled the opposition, rather than the Democrats.

These riots are not spontaneous and there are videos of Berkley students confronting the antifa nuts because they are smart enough to realize how it impacts them. University donors are beginning to withdraw over these things.

As during the campaign, the size of Hillary crowds and Trump protests were significantly exaggerated by camera angles and selective coverage while huge organic Bernie protests were ignored, now we see a few hundred rioters here and there infiltrating legitimate protest groups and becoming the story. Statistically irrelevant, but they get an inordinate amount of coverage and fuel the chaos narrative.

The purpose is to make you think this is widespread chaos and motivate someone in a MAGA hat to shoot a few of them so they have their big story. I hope that doesn't happen, because as long as it doesn't, they damage their own image by being ubiquitously awful. Won't be long until they try to circle someone who pulls a gun on them and puts a few of them down. Then they will go from "protesters" to "victims" instead of going from "rioters" to "dead perps"

 

[Been Jammin]

Regarding the last paragraph, that is exactly what Trump is doing. Putting a pause/ban/temporary restraining order/etc seems very logical as he installs his people and they review the policies of the previous administration. Perfectly logical. Could it have been rolled out better? Yep. But the core principle isn't flawed.

This is exactly what doesn't make sense to me. Once again, there is no evidence that there is a problem with our current vetting system. There is some evidence that it is working just fine considering that no terrorists, from overseas, have made a successful attack, in the US since 9/11.

There is really nothing logical about "starting a pause/ban/temporary restraining order" for a problem that may not even exist. Especially when the pause/ban etc was not well thought out and was implemented in such a way that everyone involved looks like they are part of a Benny Hill episode.

I agree that the core principle is not necessarily flawed, but it sure feels like this is what happened.

Trump: "I promised I would do this during the campaign, let's do it right now".

Advisor: "OK, we can get that done, but we need a few days to make sure that everyone understands how to handle the changes that will be put in place"

Trump: "No, I want to sign the XO today. Everyone will just have to deal with the inconvenience"

 

[MegaPoke]

This is exactly what doesn't make sense to me. Once again, there is no evidence that there is a problem with our current vetting system. There is some evidence that it is working just fine considering that no terrorists, from overseas, have made a successful attack, in the US since 9/11.

There is really nothing logical about "starting a pause/ban/temporary restraining order" for a problem that may not even exist. Especially when the pause/ban etc was not well thought out and was implemented in such a way that everyone involved looks like they are part of a Benny Hill episode.

I agree that the core principle is not necessarily flawed, but it sure feels like this is what happened.

Trump: "I promised I would do this during the campaign, let's do it right now".

Advisor: "OK, we can get that done, but we need a few days to make sure that everyone understands how to handle the changes that will be put in place"

Trump: "No, I want to sign the XO today. Everyone will just have to deal with the inconvenience"

Try a thought exercise. Let's agree it was rolled out in an unnecessarily ham-fisted way, but imagine for a second that there is a plan, and this was in fact a purposeful list that was approved by Mattis, Flynn, etc. and unofficially by then unapproved Sec State Tillerson as well as other advisors. In other words, maybe lots of smart people put eyes on this, but maybe few politicians did, so how to sell it was not considered as heavily as perhaps it should've been.

IF that's the case - and again, I'm allowing that it's pure ego, I just don't see a guy who built a construction and entertainment empire being a guy that is careless or stupid - IF that's the case, then maybe filter it through this reply I had to syskatine in another thread just now.

↑
syskatine: i guess all 7 countries on the list. Where are the terrorist attacks? That's what we're concerned with preventing, terrorist attacks?

MegaPoke:
1. It was Obama's list. You'll have to ask him for sure. However...
2. My understanding of the list is that they are the likeliest 7 countries to which the ISIS cockroaches will flee when the 1st Armored division rolls into Alepo and blows their huts up.
3. Nobody has said they are the countries that previous terrorists have come from or that this was a criteria for their inclusion on the list. This argument is a lot like the popular vote argument - pointless, irrelevant to the likely actual strategy behind the list.

I would view this list as evidence that bad things are on the horizon for ISIS and immediate groundwork to keep the cockroaches from doing what they said they will do - infiltrate the refugee flow once the carnage begins.

 

[Been Jammin]

@Been Jammin I think this is an important point. The country is not in chaos. The narrative of chaos is being purposely pushed by the same corporate media the Trump administration correctly labeled the opposition, rather than the Democrats.

I'm not just referring to demonstrations, but I don't buy the idea that they are all made up, staged, or overblown by the Trump hating media.
He did lose the popular vote by a significant amount and many of the people who did not vote for him are truly unhappy and worried about the future. Those people exist and are not figments of the opposition media's imagination.

But, besides the demonstrations, Berkely riot, etc, I am talking about the people whose lives have been disrupted by the way the XO was implemented. Airline employees. Agents for homeland security and the justice department, lawyers, judges, families with members who have green cards/visas and have already spent months/years going through the vetting process, etc.

You and I both agree that it could have been handled much more deftly. Neither of us knows for sure if it was even needed. Trump invented the term "extreme vetting". It may well be that "extreme vetting" was already in place and was working. It seems like it would have made a lot of sense to research the situation and take a bit more time to implement any desired changes.

The president wants us all to believe that if he announced that he was going to change the vetting process 2 weeks from now, terrorists would find a way to get into the country during that 2 week period. But, it doesn't work like that. It is not that easy to get in, and you can't complete the process in such a short period of time. Maybe he should not announce that we are building a wall along the southern border until it is complete, otherwise too many illegal aliens and terrorists will cross the border during the time it takes to build that wall.

Besides, he wouldn't have to announce to the public that a change in the vetting procedures would take place on a particular day. Just work on it behind the scenes, implement it, and announce that he has turned our vetting process into an extreme vetting process. Wouldn't we all be happy with that, feel safer, and feel like he kept another one of his campaign promises?

 

[Been Jammin]

Try a thought exercise. Let's agree it was rolled out in an unnecessarily ham-fisted way, but imagine for a second that there is a plan, and this was in fact a purposeful list that was approved by Mattis, Flynn, etc. and unofficially by then unapproved Sec State Tillerson as well as other advisors. In other words, maybe lots of smart people put eyes on this, but maybe few politicians did, so how to sell it was not considered as heavily as perhaps it should've been.

IF that's the case - and again, I'm allowing that it's pure ego, I just don't see a guy who built a construction and entertainment empire being a guy that is careless or stupid - IF that's the case, then maybe filter it through this reply I had to syskatine in another thread just now.

↑
syskatine: i guess all 7 countries on the list. Where are the terrorist attacks? That's what we're concerned with preventing, terrorist attacks?

MegaPoke:
1. It was Obama's list. You'll have to ask him for sure. However...
2. My understanding of the list is that they are the likeliest 7 countries to which the ISIS cockroaches will flee when the 1st Armored division rolls into Alepo and blows their huts up.
3. Nobody has said they are the countries that previous terrorists have come from or that this was a criteria for their inclusion on the list. This argument is a lot like the popular vote argument - pointless, irrelevant to the likely actual strategy behind the list.

I would view this list as evidence that bad things are on the horizon for ISIS and immediate groundwork to keep the cockroaches from doing what they said they will do - infiltrate the refugee flow once the carnage begins.

Foreign Policy’s Jon Finer: The List Of Countries That “Trump Is Borrowing From” Was Compiled In “A Totally Different Context” In 2015. Foreign Policy’s Jon Finer explained that Trump’s claim “that the seven countries listed in the executive order came from the Obama administration is conveniently left unexplained” and “is borrowing from a totally different context.” Finer noted that the law Obama signed “did not bar anyone from coming to the United States” and “only required a relatively small percentage of people to obtain a visa first.” From the January 30 article (emphasis original):

6. The notorious “seven countries”: The White House’s claim that the seven countries listed in the executive order came from the Obama administration is conveniently left unexplained. A bit of background shows that Trump is borrowing from a totally different context: soon after the December 2015 terror attack in San Bernadino, Obama signed an amendment to the Visa Waiver Program, a law that allows citizens of 38 countries to travel to the United States visa-free (and gives Americans reciprocal privileges in those countries). The amendment removed from the Visa Waiver Program dual nationals who were citizens of four countries (Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and Syria), or anyone who had recently traveled to those countries. The Obama administration added three more to the list (Libya, Somalia, and Yemen), bringing the total to seven. But this law did not bar anyone from coming to the United States. It only required a relatively small percentage of people to obtain a visa first. And to avoid punishing people who clearly had good reasons to travel to the relevant countries, the Obama administration used a waiver provided by Congress for certain travelers, including journalists, aid workers, and officials from international organizations like the U.N. [Foreign Policy, 1/30/17]

I would view this list as evidence that bad things are on the horizon for ISIS and immediate groundwork to keep the cockroaches from doing what they said they will do - infiltrate the refugee flow once the carnage begins.

Come on. We have been fighting against ISIS for years. Are we expecting them to fall any day now? When they do fall, are we expecting it to take only a few days/weeks for their fighters to escape Syria/Iraq, make their way to Libya/Somalia, etc, acquire some kind of false documents, apply for a U.S. visa, get passed through the current vetting process, and get into the country. That is extremely far fetched, and certainly not a logical excuse as to why it was rolled out in such a ham-fisted way.

 

[MegaPoke]

I'm not just referring to demonstrations, but I don't buy the idea that they are all made up, staged, or overblown by the Trump hating media.

They aren't all - but I believe far more are than you currently do. I think nearly all the airport demonstrators for example were prepared and ready because they already knew he would be making the announcement.

http://unclesamsmisguidedchildren.com/airport-protests-not-spontaneous-carefully-planned/

He did lose the popular vote by a significant amount and many of the people who did not vote for him are truly unhappy and worried about the future. Those people exist and are not figments of the opposition media's imagination.

soapbox/

He didn't lose something that wasn't a contest. Put it this way - if we make more field goals vs Baylor wednesday night, do we win? No. You have to consider - who shoots the most free throws? How many of those field goals were threes? You are looking at a metric that was not part of the final score.

The analogy I like best is total yards in football. Yards are a predictable indicator of putting yourself in scoring position, but they don't go on the scoreboard. The strategy for the EC is completely different than it would've been for the Popular Vote. It's fantasy argument like who would win in a fight between Mohammed Ali and Mike Tyson in their prime? Mental masturbation because it was not the game being played.

Take California out of the equation and there is no popular vote deficit. How much time did Trump spend campaigning in Cali? None. At all. Hell, he didn't even campaign in his home state because he knew he was unlikely to receive a plurality of the total vote in those heavily blue states, but he certainly could've made a dent in the margin of those popular votes if the national popular vote were a thing - which it's not.

/soapbox

Now, to your larger point - I agree those people exist, but this is far from the first time that a president had failed to win a majority - Bill Clinton and George W Bush for example, also failed to. No riots.

Many of the people who didn't vote for him are unhappy and worried... so? That's true of tens of millions of people every single election cycle, regardless of who wins the popular vote. Just because Obama destroyed McCain, does that mean that the tens of millions of Americans who voted for McCain didn't exist? Of course they did, but as Obama said, elections have consequences.

Rasmussen polls indicate most Americans support the ban and Trump's support is up about 15% (Consistent mid-50's % approval according to Rasmussen) from before the election. The narrative being pushed is that there is a near global rejection of Trump's hatful ideology - and that's simply a fabrication. At this point it is anyway. The guy has a thin margin and will lose support quickly if he doesn't bring results and keep promises. We shall see.

 

[Medic007]

There is some evidence that it is working just fine considering that no terrorists, from overseas, have made a successful attack, in the US since 9/11.

False narrative. Why would anyone claim that the lack of "successful" attacks is a measure of success? What about the number of unsuccessful attacks that could have been successful?

As part of that false narrative, people who came to the US from a foreign country that have become legal residents and citizens still came from that foreign country, something the talking heads don't acknowledge. If a Somsli refugee is brought into the US and is made a permanent resident alien or becomes a US citizen as part of that process, it doesn't change the fact they came to this country as a refugee from Somalia, unless of course you're trying to create a false narrative.

A simple Google search, if you chose to do it, will show we've been damn fortunate not to have had more successful attacks from people who immigrated to the US.

 

[MegaPoke]

We have been fighting against ISIS for years. Are we expecting them to fall any day now?

Dropping bombs with one hand and funding/arming their subsidiary brands with the other is not "fighting" Yes I expect if we put our attention on destroying them, they'll get destroyed. If that solves the larger problem of radical Islamic terror is another question, but yes - ISIS is operating in a bubble that's about to get popped.

A big part of the reason the intelligence and executive establishment was against Trump was because he is likely discontinuing the efforts to overthrow the Syrian government by supporting the so called moderate rebels - Something Democrat rep Tulsi Gabbard says do not exist. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...-gabbard-brings-message-there-are-no-moderate

 

[MegaPoke]

False narrative. Why would anyone claim that the lack of "successful" attacks is a measure of success? What about the number of unsuccessful attacks that could have been successful?

As part of that false narrative, people who came to the US from a foreign country that have become legal residents and citizens still came from that foreign country, something the talking heads don't acknowledge. If a Somsli refugee is brought into the US and is made a permanent resident alien or becomes a US citizen as part of that process, it doesn't change the fact they came to this country as a refugee from Somalia, unless of course you're trying to create a false narrative.

A simple Google search, if you chose to do it, will show we've been damn fortunate not to have had more successful attacks from people who immigrated to the US.

This is a great example of confirmation bias on Been's part. You can't prove a negative, so how can you argue against the idea that everything we've done SINCE 9/11 has been mostly successful? I guess my question is, on 9/10, what percentage of the US population would've thought we were being extremely successful in preventing a massive terrorist attack that could kill thousands of people in just a few moments? 90% 100% Certainly most of us would've thought so.

 

[Been Jammin]

As part of that false narrative, people who came to the US from a foreign country that have become legal residents and citizens still came from that foreign country, something the talking heads don't acknowledge. If a Somsli refugee is brought into the US and is made a permanent resident alien or becomes a US citizen as part of that process, it doesn't change the fact they came to this country as a refugee from Somalia, unless of course you're trying to create a false narrative.

I don't get your point here. Who cares if a Somali refugee comes here and becomes a US citizen as long as they abide the law and don't become dependent upon the government for survival? Are all Somali refugees bad people? Are they not good enough to go through the proper process and, eventually, become U.S. citizens? Why should any of us care where an individual came from, or who they were, as long as they are going through all of the proper channels and abiding by the local and federal laws once they get here?

 

[Been Jammin]

This is a great example of confirmation bias on Been's part. You can't prove a negative, so how can you argue against the idea that everything we've done SINCE 9/11 has been mostly successful? I guess my question is, on 9/10, what percentage of the US population would've thought we were being extremely successful in preventing a massive terrorist attack that could kill thousands of people in just a few moments? 90% 100% Certainly most of us would've thought so.

I'm not claiming that the current system is perfect and foolproof. I am just saying that there is no evidence that "extreme vetting" is needed other than the fact that Trump says it is an issue. As I have said, multiple times, he might be right. But, he went from point A to point F without taking the time for B,C,D,and E.

I think there is a big discrepancy between Trump's rhetoric that our borders are porous and our current vetting is easy to get around vs. the known terror activity, within this country, not perpetrated by individuals who were born/raised in the U.S.

I am honestly surprised that we haven't had an Al Qaeda/ISIS attack, within the U.S. since 9/11. We all know that those people hate us. We all know that they have been successful in Europe, but likely hate the U.S. more than they hate any European country. They proved (on 9/11) that they are smart and resourceful. Yet, they have not been able to do anything significant in over 15 years. Medic wants to attribute it to luck, and maybe that is a big part of it. But, reality doesn't seem to jibe with what Trump wants us all to believe.

 

[Medic007]

I don't get your point here. Who cares if a Somali refugee comes here and becomes a US citizen as long as they abide the law and don't become dependent upon the government for survival? Are all Somali refugees bad people? Are they not good enough to go through the proper process and, eventually, become U.S. citizens? Why should any of us care where an individual came from, or who they were, as long as they are going through all of the proper channels and abiding by the local and federal laws once they get here?

The point is simple. If they come to the US as a refugee, and they commit or attempt to commit terrorism, whether they've become legalized or not, they came from a foreign country. The attempt to whitewash it as "homegrown" terrorism by calling them "legal" is a false narrative.

Check out Abdul Razak Ali Artan that committed the Ohio State attack. Look up
Guled Ali Omar and Abdurahman Yasin Daud as examples.

Again, what is the downside of making sure the vetting process is adequate and correcting deficiencies found? The only one that has been brought up is virtue signalling Islamaphobia.

 

[Medic007]

Medic wants to attribute it to luck, and maybe that is a big part of it.

Nope. But we have been lucky. We've all sacrificed liberties so that the FBI can investigate and deal with terrorism. If I can bear some inconvenience for our safety, so can people who wish to travel/immigrate/get placed here.

I gave two concrete examples of evidence of ignorance on the terrorist part for not having a bigger body count.

 

[Been Jammin]

So, Abdul Razak Ali Artan came to this country from Pakistan, which is not one of the 7 countries. The other 2 guys were Kenyan born U.S. citizens, unless I am not mistaken.

That is the best you can come with as to why Trump's XO is logical and makes sense?

I will see your 3 terrorists and raise you over 3 million refugees that have entered the country since 1980. I'm still not convinced that we currently have a problem that needs fixing. Certainly not one that needs to be fixed TODAY, rather than 2 weeks from now. It defies logic, pure and simple.

 

[Medic007]

So, Abdul Razak Ali Artan came to this country from Pakistan, which is not one of the 7 countries. The other 2 guys were Kenyan born U.S. citizens, unless I am not mistaken.

That is the best you can come with as to why Trump's XO is logical and makes sense?

I will see your 3 terrorists and raise you over 3 million refugees that have entered the country since 1980. I'm still not convinced that we currently have a problem that needs fixing. Certainly not one that needs to be fixed TODAY, rather than 2 weeks from now. It defies logic, pure and simple.

That is three examples of foreign born terrorists that immigrated in some fashion to the US. All three originally came from Somalia. Can you prove they didn't have radical Islamic ideology when they hit US soil?

That was limited to three Somalis. There are plenty more cases from various countries out there for you, as I stated earlier.

As for logical, did Obama review/modify/change any Bush policies immediately after taking office? And why can't the Trump administration take time to review current policies while simultaneously suspending something the current administration may not be completely familiar with? What is the downside? You've avoided that question every time I've asked it.

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

If an Islamic terrorist wants to get into the US , there are much easier ways than pretending to be a refugee, that's one of the hardest ways to get in

 

[Medic007]

If an Islamic terrorist wants to get into the US , there are much easier ways than pretending to be a refugee, that's one of the hardest ways to get in

And what exactly are those easier ways? Since we don't have any idea how refugees are vetted, how do we know that's the hardest way? They've done it in Europe.

 

[Been Jammin]

That is three examples of foreign born terrorists that immigrated in some fashion to the US. All three originally came from Somalia. Can you prove they didn't have radical Islamic ideology when they hit US soil?

That was limited to three Somalis. There are plenty more cases from various countries out there for you, as I stated earlier.

As for logical, did Obama review/modify/change any Bush policies immediately after taking office? And why can't the Trump administration take time to review current policies while simultaneously suspending something the current administration may not be completely familiar with? What is the downside? You've avoided that question every time I've asked it.

The downside is minimal if you get all your ducks in a row before the final version of the XO is written and signed. But, that is not what happened. Which is my entire point.

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

Europe is a lot easier to get into, you land boarder on three sides. England not easy but the rest of Europe is. They have said all along that the refugees are vetted, and none have committed a terrorist act here. The easiest way would be to go to Mexico and come across the boarder or come in as a student I would imagine

 

[Medic007]

The downside is minimal if you get all your ducks in a row before the final version of the XO is written and signed. But, that is not what happened. Which is my entire point.

Good dodge again. But I know why you don't want to answer, so I won't keep asking.

 

[Been Jammin]

Good dodge again. But I know why you don't want to answer, so I won't keep asking.

I have answered the downside multiple times ITT. The people responsible for implementing the XO were not prepared ahead of time. There was confusion. Mega agreed that the implementation was ham fisted. It resulted in demonstrations. Families torn apart. Judges and lawyers working overtime and on weekends. The executive branch in a pissing contest with the judicial branch.
All of it could have been easily avoided by just slowing down a bit.

Go back and read my OP ITT.

 

[Medic007]

Europe is a lot easier to get into, you land boarder on three sides. England not easy but the rest of Europe is. They have said all along that the refugees are vetted, and none have committed a terrorist act here. The easiest way would be to go to Mexico and come across the boarder or come in as a student I would imagine

Building a wall help with the Mexico thing? Suspending student visas help with the student visa thing? How do they get into Mexico? Does Mexico take refugees? If they have no documentation, will Mexico let them enter?

Again, "none have committed a terrorist act here" is wordsmithing and fails to acknowledge that terrorists have indeed made their way into the US.

You guys are making just as many assumptions as you've accused Trump of.

 

[Alpha Poke]

I've been searched in every EU country and every time I entered the States when I lived overseas.

For two years I traveled every week out of Amsterdam and more often than not I got taken out of line and questioned on both ends.

Being young white and successful is a bitch.

 

[Been Jammin]

I've been searched in every EU country and every time I entered the States when I lived overseas.

For two years I traveled every week out of Amsterdam and more often than not I got taken out of line and questioned on both ends.

Being young white and successful is a bitch.

You left "good looking" off your list

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

Building a wall help with the Mexico thing? Suspending student visas help with the student visa thing? How do they get into Mexico? Does Mexico take refugees? If they have no documentation, will Mexico let them enter?

Again, "none have committed a terrorist act here" is wordsmithing and fails to acknowledge that terrorists have indeed made their way into the US.

You guys are making just as many assumptions as you've accused Trump of.

My only problem with the ban, is that I know how hard it is to get a Visa to get here, it took us two years and $4000 back in 1992, people that get a visa have gone through a lot. I think if they have gone through all that they should be let in. Now I strongly disagree with publicly insulting a judge just because he rules against the administration. That is his job

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

Also, there are other countries not on the list that also should be banned if you are going to ban any country

 

[Medic007]

I have answered the downside multiple times ITT. The people responsible for implementing the XO were not prepared ahead of time. There was confusion. Mega agreed that the implementation was ham fisted. It resulted in demonstrations. Families torn apart. Judges and lawyers working overtime and on weekends. The executive branch in a pissing contest with the judicial branch.
All of it could have been easily avoided by just slowing down a bit.

Go back and read my OP ITT.

So, some protests and some people working extra. Protests are a downside that take priority over safety? Hardly. I had to travel to NM for a week of training in January, away from my family, because of terrorists. Working some overtime over a weekend gets zero sympathy from me. Sorry, but inconvenience isn't a downside. If played up properly, it can certainly sound dramatic and terrible to those who only listen to that message, but that's not a problem caused by Trump. If I can be inconvenienced to fly within my own country, so can foreigners wishing to travel here.

What families were "torn apart? Sounds like dramatic anecdote to me as all reports are that things got ironed out for those who were initially affected.

Rollout was hamfisted, but that's just a reality of policy changes, especially in a new administration. Maybe Trump should have a beer summit.

 

[Medic007]

Now I strongly disagree with publicly insulting a judge just because he rules against the administration.

Me too, but Trump isn't the only President to have done this and similar. Legal challenges happen all the time. If they didn't, I'd be very very afraid of the government.

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

Me too, but Trump isn't the only President to have done this and similar. Legal challenges happen all the time. If they didn't, I'd be very very afraid of the government.

I have never heard any President called one a " so called judge" and say his decision was ridiculous

 

[Medic007]

I have never heard any President called one a " so called judge" and say his decision was ridiculous

Fair enough, and I'm not going to spend the time to peruse the internets for an example otherwise. Obama did tell Republicans they could sit in the back of the bus. That was appalling.

 

[CBradSmith]

@Medic007 owning this thread.

 

[Medic007]

I have never heard any President called one a " so called judge" and say his decision was ridiculous

On second thought, I recall Obama being inappropriate regarding the Obamacare lawsuit. The details are foggy to me, but he had a lot to say on the issue before the Supreme Court ruled, which I believe was considered without precedent. I'll refresh my memory when I have more time.

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

If he did insult the judge or court publicly then that is wrong . Is never acceptable

 

[Medic007]

If he did insult the judge or court publicly then that is wrong . Is never acceptable

Obama was a wordsmith. Trump is a belcher. The actual message is important and I agree Trump is in the wrong on this one. Not panty wadding worthy to me at this point though.

 

[Been Jammin]

@Medic007 owning this thread.

Why? Because his opinions align with yours?

Because he still hasn't given me a compelling reason as to why Trump couldn't get things ironed out prior to signing the XO.

He still hasn't given a logical answer to this part of my OP

What I don't get is the following. If Trumps stance were accurate, wouldn't it stand to reason that terrorists, wanting to do us harm, have had an easy time getting into this country since 9/11? If that were the case, wouldn't it seem likely that there would have been regular terrorist attacks, by immigrants/refugees, in this country, since 9/11?

Or this

The way I see it, the U.S. already has vetting procedures in place that seem to be working. It is not easy to get into the U.S.. Could the vetting be more "extreme"? I am sure it could. But, Trump acts like there is no vetting in place at all, and any member of Al Qaeda/ISIS can just buy a plane ticket and be in the U.S. looking to buy fertilizer and shrapnel within a week. Obviously, that is not close to accurate, or we would be dealing with Boston Marathon-like bombings every week.

Or this.

So, can one (or more) of you, please explain why Trump's executive order is so important, and how it makes the U.S. significantly safer?

His basic argument appears to be the same as Trump's. "We have a serious safety issue because I say we have a serious safety issue." "We have to close this enormous loophole immediately, because if we wait another day the results will be on par with 9/11." "Anyone who doesn't like it can just go ahead and F off".

 

[Headhunter]

Read this entire thread. People wanting to come to the US should be willing to submit any information we need to make sure they are coming here for the right reasons. Anyone who can't satisfy that requirement should not inter.

Why is that wrong?

 

[Been Jammin]

What families were "torn apart? Sounds like dramatic anecdote to me as all reports are that things got ironed out for those who were initially affected.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/01/31/iraq-boy-burned-surgery-immigration-trump-executive-order/

http://time.com/4649876/donald-trump-visa-ban-executive-order-lives/

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-divided-families-20170128-story.html

I assume that most of the above issues have since been ironed out. But, my point is the same as it has been since I started this thread. I can't see any reason to roll it out in such a ham-fisted manner. Trump wants us to believe that changes had to take place immediately, but that really doesn't make much sense. All of the linked issues could have been avoided with just a bit of due diligence, preparation and careful consideration (which is what I would expect from a billionaire successful businessman).

 

[COWBOYintheUK]

Read this entire thread. People wanting to come to the US should be willing to submit any information we need to make sure they are coming here for the right reasons. Anyone who can't satisfy that requirement should not inter.

Why is that wrong?

Agree 100%. When we were finalizing my wife's Visa at the Embassy in London there was a lady at the counter and she was from Iran or Iraq, can't remember, but she said she had worked for the government and they kept asking her what was her job and she kept saying she could not tell them. This went on for 30 minutes, the attendant at the counter finally just said she was denied and bashed the stamp down on her paperwork. I could not believe she actually thought they would give it to her