Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Economics brought down the U.S.S.R. and the Berlin Wall.
Republicans like to crow about how Reagan gave a speech, then lo and behold, two yeas later the wall came down.
We used to have a rooster that thought he made the sun come.
You are wrong about Reagan giving himself credit for the fall of the wall, etc. He gave Gorbie full credit & downplayed his own efforts.
Republicans (all of them?) do not "all" think Reagan gave a speech & then the wall fell. Not by any means & it's rather insulting & condescending of you to make such a broad & all inclusive comment. I & many Americans remember when the wall was built. Seeing the last part of the wall put in place & what was captured on live TV at that time, certainly had an impact on Americans regarding how serious & dark this situation truly was.
You nor I have any idea what impact Trump may or may not have on Putin's actions going forward. We owe it to our President & our country to give Trump a chance to see what he can do.
You are wrong about Reagan giving himself credit for the fall of the wall, etc. He gave Gorbie full credit & downplayed his own efforts.
Republicans (all of them?) do not "all" think Reagan gave a speech & then the wall fell. Not by any means & it's rather insulting & condescending of you to make such a broad & all inclusive comment. I & many Americans remember when the wall was built. Seeing the last part of the wall put in place & what was captured on live TV at that time, certainly had an impact on Americans regarding how serious & dark this situation truly was.
You nor I have any idea what impact Trump may or may not have on Putin's actions going forward. We owe it to our President & our country to give Trump a chance to see what he can do.
No doubt that Reagan did not give himself full credit - although not enough public praise is given to George HW Bush who in his role as vice president then later president tirelessly worked with Gorbachev. Reagan *was* reflective, a student of history. Looking back, he wrote that earlier in his Presidency he had not fully comprehended the impact of his negative rhetoric against the USSR. If USSR hardliners instead of Gorbachev remained in power the story might have had a very different ending.
Which brings us to the rhetoric Trump employs against Muslims. Is it wise? Post-911, Bush sure avoided that trap. Most terrorists are homegrown, lone wolves and it's important to have a community that identifies as loyal "American" than alienated "Muslim." Folks tend to respond the way you treat them. It's human nature.
Also, we have troops and operatives on the ground in places like Iraq and Syria who again are dependent on Muslims for THEIR security. Trump may well be sending more. Don't send them over there then make it more dangerous.
Vetting is good. Increased vetting is fine. Reducing visas is fine, if warranted (or even if not). Put America First. But quietly. Rather like Obama did it, frankly. Certainly not this.
Last edited by EveryLady; 02-09-2017 at 10:31 AM..
... Of course Trump is going to try to downplay the significance of the number of people affected by this order. Unfortunately for him, the facts aren't on his side.
In the end, of course, the numbers are irrelevant. Do not matter. How does the saying go? A picture tells a thousand words. If the goal is to prevent terrorism, then one looks at what influences terrorists. The Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse photos undercut the US military. Fight the battles you can win ... and certainly don't create ones you cannot.
The Muslim Ban rhetoric played great for a candidate; not so well for a US president. It's irrelevant what any Court does. The damage is done.
I think that the EO is ambiguous and perhaps unconstitutional. It will not stand in its current form. The president could continue with his appeal, or he could go back to square one and issue an EO that has been fully vetted, with input from the DOD, DHS, NSA, and key members of Congress. You know, like he should have done in the first place.
BTW, just because a judge rules against your perceived interests doesn't make him or her crazy.
The EO went through the normal process.
It was written by lawyers, it was sent to the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel where it was approved.
It was written by lawyers, it was sent to the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel where it was approved.
Lots and back and forth about who saw and who did not see the order and who had an opportunity to comment. Drafts seem to have been available to at least some Cabinet members who probably showed them to attorney staff who may have provided an initial reaction.
But no way could an order of this magnitude been fully researched or "approved" in a few days. Just like there are diverging opinions in the Courts, there would have been various legal opinions to resolve before any "approval." Too, what is relevant are NEVER just the legal opinions. Cabinet members weigh in on the aspect of any Administrative action that impacts the concerns of their particular bailiwick. Homeland Security may be in favor; Defense (considering troops in the field) not. The buy-in of State who needs to defend it to US allies is important.
That the Order was reviewed and "approved" is a sound bite.
It was written by lawyers, it was sent to the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel where it was approved.
From the NYT -
Trump’s Immigration Order Tests Limits of Law and Executive Power
"By circumventing normal practices for formulating policies and their execution, the White House has created still-swirling confusion about whom the order targets and how it will be enforced..."
"The order’s apparent breaches with usual protocol over how policy is made, and potentially with the law, are already creating major problems in its enforcement..."
"Ordinarily, a president drafts policy changes by consulting, over a period of weeks or months, with federal agencies and other stakeholders in and outside the government. Those practices are meant to vet a policy for its legality and ability to be enforced, as well as for unforeseen consequences. The process also lets agencies begin planning how they will execute the policy and allows those affected to prepare."
"The administration appears to have largely skipped that process, drafting this and other recent orders within a small circle of political advisers. Relevant agencies and the National Security Council were granted little or no review over the immigration order before it was signed."
In the end, of course, the numbers are irrelevant. Do not matter. How does the saying go? A picture tells a thousand words. If the goal is to prevent terrorism, then one looks at what influences terrorists. The Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse photos undercut the US military. Fight the battles you can win ... and certainly don't create ones you cannot.
The Muslim Ban rhetoric played great for a candidate; not so well for a US president. It's irrelevant what any Court does. The damage is done.
The damage started a few decades ago. Odd in all that time that we have learned absolutely nothing.
In the end, of course, the numbers are irrelevant. Do not matter. How does the saying go? A picture tells a thousand words. If the goal is to prevent terrorism, then one looks at what influences terrorists. The Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse photos undercut the US military. Fight the battles you can win ... and certainly don't create ones you cannot.
The Muslim Ban rhetoric played great for a candidate; not so well for a US president. It's irrelevant what any Court does. The damage is done.
See, there is one of the big problems you and other apologists use which is blaming Abu Ghraib or GITMO or whatever instead of seeing and understanding that what motivates them is we are NOT a Muslim nation and will NOT bend to Sharia law.
It is a religious war, they want to kill anyone who either A. Won't convert to being a Muslim.
B.Won't strictly adhere to Sharia laws.
THAT is what motivates them and they believe it's their "god given right" to kill anyone who dares to disagree.
Why do I say this and what evidence do I have? THEY SAY IT REPEATEDLY, before,during and after cutting off heads, stoning people to death, shooting people,blowing 'em up etc etc etc.
So why are some having such a hard time believing the very terrorists that are killing people?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
