Trump's Presidency

[britbox]

So the Don has been in power a couple of weeks at the time of writing... First impressions?

 

[Federberg]

Too soon to tell. I like the fact he's looking to get rid of Dodd Frank. But some of the stuff I'm hearing about the EPA is scary.

Foreign policy looks confused, but maybe he'll flesh it out some more. Same stance with Israel as Obama at first sight, tougher with Iran, but aren't they Russian allies, how does that square (not a bad thing, just asking). But what I've found utterly bizarre is his stance on trade vis a vis China and Germany (the 2 largest exporters in the world). Accusing them of currency manipulation is the height of hypocrisy, and frankly a bit silly if you want to avoid damaging confidence globally. I would say... so far he's team has looked a bit amateurish, but they'll learn soon enough.. I'll say this for him, he's doing what he said he would do. I might not like it, but I can respect that

 

[britbox]

Yeah, he sure is... the rhetoric about China particularly is concerning. He's clearly got a beef with Mexico, Iran and China.... I see that escalating.

Apparently he put the phone down on the Australian Prime Minister after 25 minutes of a scheduled hour long call after an argument about American taking some refugees from an Australian detention camp. Obama had apparently agreed to it and Trump wasn't happy.

 

[Federberg]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-derided-Trump-known-conservative-views.html

 

[Federberg]

 

[Federberg]

did everyone see this? Thought it was hilarious, but made me wonder about their marriage

 

[Federberg]

Riddle me this... this travel ban. How come none of the countries whose people were involved in 9/11 aren't on the travel ban... i.e., Saudi Arabia?

 

[Asmodeus]

Riddle me this... this travel ban. How come none of the countries whose people were involved in 9/11 aren't on the travel ban... i.e., Saudi Arabia?

That's because it's not his travel ban. He is using a ban set in place by Obama for countries in war or those with more serious civil rights abuses than SA. It's funny how everyone is pissed off that he issued it when he only reinstated a ban that Obama originally had in place. It seems a bit hypocritical that no one protested Obama but decided to protest the current president.

Also, Congress and the Court have given the executive wide latitude in halting non-citizens from entering the US. The Immigration and Nationality Act of the early 1950s specifically gives the president this authority.

 

[Moxie]

That's because it's not his travel ban. He is using a ban set in place by Obama for countries in war or those with more serious civil rights abuses than SA. It's funny how everyone is pissed off that he issued it when he only reinstated a ban that Obama originally had in place. It seems a bit hypocritical that no one protested Obama but decided to protest the current president.

Also, Congress and the Court have given the executive wide latitude in halting non-citizens from entering the US. The Immigration and Nationality Act of the early 1950s specifically gives the president this authority.

This is wrong: Obama named those countries as "nations of concern," which was primarily about US citizens visiting them. The ban is a completely different thing, and gloms opportunistically on Obama's citing of those nations as a group, and pretends that they're only continuing what Obama was already doing. Apples and oranges.

 

[Moxie]

Riddle me this... this travel ban. How come none of the countries whose people were involved in 9/11 aren't on the travel ban... i.e., Saudi Arabia?

Interesting question, isn't it? Saudi Arabia is the easy one, because we're completely politically (read: oil) in bed with them. But none of them?

 

[Asmodeus]

This is wrong: Obama named those countries as "nations of concern," which was primarily about US citizens visiting them. The ban is a completely different thing, and gloms opportunistically on Obama's citing of those nations as a group, and pretends that they're only continuing what Obama was already doing. Apples and oranges.

This is NOT wrong. Obama expanded the number of Muslim countries where visa restrictions were imposed as late as last year. Trump merely used those as a basis for his order--though if you read his executive order only Syria is explicitly listed.

Either way, it is certainly legal for the president to ban foreign nationals from entering the U.S. They are not U.S. citizens and have no legal right to enter this country. You can make the argument that this is a morally incorrect position to take, but it is legal.

 

[Moxie]

OK, then I take the position that it is morally incorrect. Also, more likely to feed into ISIL propaganda and recruitment. People in the US have much more to fear from another American with a gun, by a lot. This is a bogeyman strategy of divisiveness.

 

[britbox]

Didn't some judge in Seattle block this? At least for the time being?

 

[Federberg]

I think it's moved on from that. It's now with the 9th circuit.

I'm looking at what's going on right now with concern. This isn't a policy difference. I find it worrying that Trump seems to be attacking the judiciary. I can only hope that the legislature realises that their first duty is to protect the constitution not blindly follow party lines. This is bigger than that. As I've said before.. and it seems hysterical to some, but this is how despots like Hitler started. Delegitimising core institutions and then doing away with them all together. The history books are there for all to read. I'm stunned at the level of complacency in the world today

 

[mrzz]

I see your point, Federberg, even if judging from the outside I would say that the American institutions are too strong to let the thing go too far. But you have to keep your eyes open. Trump have too much of a childs mentality, so he has a hard time dealing with anything that stands in his way. It remains to be seen, however, if his media oriented attacks will be backed up by something more serious and substantial. From what we read here he is still only acting through legitimate channels.

Regarding complacency, I could not agree more. People tend to forgive anything that comes from someone with the same political rhetoric. It is the devious by-product of an age of little substance.

 

[Federberg]

^Yes exactly. And to me, it seems like America is in an especially vulnerable moment where partisanship could allow Trump to do things that constitutionalists would normally not tolerate. I hope I'm wrong. Funnily enough I was watching a conservative Republican Senator, Ben Sasse, talking about this issue and I was pleasantly surprised and thoroughly impressed by him

 

[Moxie]

The 9th Circuit court upheld the lower court's decision to block the ban. Trump tweeted: SEE YOU IN COURT! THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE! (Yes, in all caps. Sounds vaguely like a threat...the 2nd part.)

 

[Moxie]

On the lighter side, I found this Guardian piece hilarious, and a bit scary. But I think everyone can find it amusing:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...s-karma-reincarnated-as-himself-frankie-boyle

 

[britbox]

What's your view on the stuff that went on at Berkeley @Moxie? Milo Yiannopoulos being forced to leave without making his speech?

 

[Federberg]

I think that progressives need to be extremely careful. It's bad enough this namby pamby stuff about safe zones. But when you can't even allow people to make speeches you don't agree with what exactly are they fighting for? I thought free speech was one of the central pillars of the liberal cause? If they're not careful they could find themselves marginalised from the centre. This just might be what Trump is hoping for. They need to look at the history of the Labour Party and specifically the militant movement in the 80s. That way spells doom...