The Trump Presidency

[ThunderHorse]

This article is probably in the 'too long, don't read' category for most - especially if you're an administration loyalist as it progresses some pretty anti-Trump assumptions: How to Build an Autocracy

But, nestled in the very long article are some interesting observations and insights. I thought this one neatly summarized some things that have been discussed on this board:

"Trump has scant interest in congressional Republicans’ ideas, does not share their ideology, and cares little for their fate. He can—and would—break faith with them in an instant to further his own interests. Yet here they are, on the verge of achieving everything they have hoped to achieve for years, if not decades. They owe this chance solely to Trump’s ability to deliver a crucial margin of votes in a handful of states—Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania—which has provided a party that cannot win the national popular vote a fleeting opportunity to act as a decisive national majority. The greatest risk to all their projects and plans is the very same X factor that gave them their opportunity: Donald Trump, and his famously erratic personality. What excites Trump is his approval rating, his wealth, his power. The day could come when those ends would be better served by jettisoning the institutional Republican Party in favor of an ad hoc populist coalition, joining nationalism to generous social spending—a mix that’s worked well for authoritarians in places like Poland. Who doubts Trump would do it? Not Paul Ryan. Not Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader. For the first time since the administration of John Tyler in the 1840s, a majority in Congress must worry about their president defecting from them rather than the other way around."

The author, David Frum, is a speechwriter from the G.W. Bush administration and pretty strong proponent of Rove-era Republican policy. He's got solid anti-Obama credentials but is also from the never-Trump portion of the Republican party from the get-go. I won't claim comprehensive knowledge of conservative opinion writers by any stretch of the imagination but I think of him as much more Ross Duthat vs David Brooks on the spectrum if that makes sense.

This is one of those way too early Top 25 type predictions following the national championship game.

 

[Il Duce]

This is one of those way too early Top 25 type predictions following the national championship game.

Agree on the start of the article - but if you can get past that I think there are some pretty readable concerns, expressed in a way that's not coming from the left. But I get it, it's a long read and I would probably be too turned off to continue after the dystopian-future presented at the beginning if it was describing an administration I admired.

 

[Gunz]

Crap... I miss your razor sharp tongue, Friend request inbound.

(Someday we need to publish the @racing_kitty 's legendary rants.)

 

[ThunderHorse]

The City of San Francisco is suing Trump, or the Office of the President...San Francisco sues Trump over executive order targeting 'sanctuary cities'

I'm honestly confused, we used to say: suing the administration. They can't exactly sue the individual over something like this.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Because Outrage, Because Muslim Ban...oh wait: Syrian Christian immigrants turned back at airport - CNN.com

 

[amlove21]

Because Outrage, Because Muslim Ban...oh wait: Syrian Christian immigrants turned back at airport - CNN.com

Is your point here, "We aren't only turning Muslims away, fleeing a 'horror', it's Christians too." ? Maybe I am missing a tongue in cheek part or something.

The irony of President Trump's claim that "large numbers of Christians executed" and his own feeling that the ban (which puts more of those Middle Eastern Christians at risk because they can no longer seek refuge here) is going "very, very nicely" should be noted. He's patted himself on the back for perpetuating his own self-admitted horror.

I think we need enhanced vetting to ensure that terrorists aren't hiding in the refugees entering the country. We may need an all stop in order to make that happen, but I feel this ban is the lesser of two evils. Deny refuge to people that need it in order to give us the sense of security and clean up our immigration process, or let everyone in and risk terror attack. The false dichotomy we've been force fed aside, that's where this one lies and we chose the former.

When we look back on this ban, I am going to need to see some sort of proof that it really did make America safer, as we've constantly been told it will.

 

[Gunz]

View attachment 17907
Is your point here, "We aren't only turning Muslims away, fleeing a 'horror', it's Christians too." ? Maybe I am missing a tongue in cheek part or something.

The irony of President Trump's claim that "large numbers of Christians executed" and his own feeling that the ban (which puts more of those Middle Eastern Christians at risk because they can no longer seek refuge here) is going "very, very nicely" should be noted. He's patted himself on the back for perpetuating his own self-admitted horror.

I think we need enhanced vetting to ensure that terrorists aren't hiding in the refugees entering the country. We may need an all stop in order to make that happen, but I feel this ban is the lesser of two evils. Deny refuge to people that need it in order to give us the sense of security and clean up our immigration process, or let everyone in and risk terror attack. The false dichotomy we've been force fed aside, that's where this one lies and we chose the former.

When we look back on this ban, I am going to need to see some sort of proof that it really did make America safer, as we've constantly been told it will.

Is "enhanced vetting" even possible? What I mean is, have the countries these refugees are fleeing kept adequate records that can be checked by our DHS people?

 

[ThunderHorse]

There's no tongue in cheek. It is not a Muslim Ban, construing it as such because your feelings are hurt is not how this works.

The other day I thought to myself, I'm a poor Christian for not wanting to give these folks a home. But then I think to myself what is going on in Europe and how that has had an effect upon them. I guess this is where we gave up our liberty for Security. But I'm not going to allow some rando into my house for fear of getting murdered in my sleep, just like I'm not going to do this.

We should admit people for refugee status and immigration under normal circumstances to those who have a possibility of assimilating into our culture. How you define that is up to you. But the Czechs and the Slovaks have already set a precedent in Europe on who they would accept as refugees in their country.

BTW, on the AP twitter:" 872 refugees to be admitted despite new restrictions. " Or you could say in accordance with new restrictions as it gives the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security override power IOT allow refugees in.

 

[amlove21]

There's no tongue in cheek. It is not a Muslim Ban, construing it as such because your feelings are hurt is not how this works.

The other day I thought to myself, I'm a poor Christian for not wanting to give these folks a home. But then I think to myself what is going on in Europe and how that has had an effect upon them. I guess this is where we gave up our liberty for Security. But I'm not going to allow some rando into my house for fear of getting murdered in my sleep, just like I'm not going to do this.

We should admit people for refugee status and immigration under normal circumstances to those who have a possibility of assimilating into our culture. How you define that is up to you. But the Czechs and the Slovaks have already set a precedent in Europe on who they would accept as refugees in their country.

BTW, on the AP twitter:" 872 refugees to be admitted despite new restrictions. " Or you could say in accordance with new restrictions as it gives the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security override power IOT allow refugees in.

Well, you've beaten me to the "your feelings are hurt" argument. Dammit, guess you win this round, Sir.

In my post in response to your "appeal to emotion" recreational anger CNN news story (I believe Pres Trump has labeled that fake news and 'the opposition party') post, I asked you to clarify your point and highlighted the disconnect in President Trump's actions (the ban) and a tweet. That's all. Not attacking- I asked you a question. And you felt so defensive you needed to resort to the common song of your sect, "You're feelings are hurt."

You immediately went to appeal to emotion (again), even invoking being murdered in your sleep by a refugee. Do you really feel that you'll have to take a refugee into your house and risk being murdered by them? Is that what you think the process is?

I am glad we got the 872 refugees in. I am really hopeful that we find a process to balance the need to allow refugees into our country and proper screening for people meaning to do this country harm. Until we do, I am holding the administration accountable for those that are seeking asylum, do not mean to do this country harm, and are turned away to go back to a hell on earth scenario (like Syria right now) for no other reason than that's where their house is located.

 

[amlove21]

Is "enhanced vetting" even possible? What I mean is, have the countries these refugees are fleeing kept adequate records that can be checked by our DHS people?

Man I have no clue. If there's no diplomatic presence, and people don't have any sort of indicator (explosive powders? uhhhhhh no clue what else) at the border- no idea.

We can't even detect/stop homegrown lone wolf type attacks or foresee them, and these are people that live in America in close contact with other Americans. How are we supposed to "extreme vet" someone in real time that has lived in a place where it's perfectly normal to say, "Death to the West"?

I am very anxious to hear the administration's plan on extreme vetting and what that process looks like. I think the visa application process needs an overhaul, and I think we would have more control over that process. As for people from the 7 countries listed in the ban? I don't think I am smart enough for that one.

 

[Kraut783]

Is "enhanced vetting" even possible? What I mean is, have the countries these refugees are fleeing kept adequate records that can be checked by our DHS people?

No...not at all. But at this time we do not know what "enhanced vetting" is going to include...any increase in scrutiny is on the right track.

 

[Il Duce]

Enhanced vetting would be very difficult - because vetting is already incredibly advanced on refugees: Top 5 Fallacies About Syrian Refugees To The US, Debunked

 

[RackMaster]

This is an interesting incite into Bannon and why the NSC change up. It also explains the appearance of things being slow in the previous administration; allowing everyone and anyone their voice as long as they had clearance, not necessarily need to know. It's also concerning that these leaks think that the press is their only choice.

Former Breitbart News head pulling the strings on White House national security — and erasing the paper trail

 

[ThunderHorse]

Well, you've beaten me to the "your feelings are hurt" argument. Dammit, guess you win this round, Sir.

In response to only this, it's not your feelings I'm specifically talking about. But rather the appeal to emotions being played up on the MSM, SM, and Print Media.

 

[Il Duce]

This is an interesting incite into Bannon and why the NSC change up. It also explains the appearance of things being slow in the previous administration; allowing everyone and anyone their voice as long as they had clearance, not necessarily need to know. It's also concerning that these leaks think that the press is their only choice.

Former Breitbart News head pulling the strings on White House national security — and erasing the paper trail

I saw a very similar report in another paper - likely using exactly the same source. Interesting to say the least.

To me it highlights the difficulties in national security issues with trust. If you trust the President and his advisors making decisions with smaller groups, cutting out opportunities for leaks, and making decisions faster looks decisive and direct. If you mistrust the same people it looks like a nefarious power grab, lack of transparency, and cutting key institutions and processes out to further your political ends.

I think that reliance on trust is one of the reasons political capital through adherence to norms is important in a national security context - even if you want to go scorched earth in other political arenas.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Some asshole in the California State House filed for the release of Melania's immigration records: Senator from Berkeley demands release of Melania Trump's immigration documents

 

[Red Flag 1]

Rather odd, the above. I don't recall seeing anyone named Trump but Donld being on the ballot I saw.

Why would the California Senator be looking into the life of a private individual who lives in the City and State of NY? Seems excessive and abusive to me.

Strange times. I hate politics.

 

[TLDR20]

Some asshole in the California State House filed for the release of Melania's immigration records: Senator from Berkeley demands release of Melania Trump's immigration documents

Lol some asshole? I think her papers are relevant.

We had people calling for Obama's real birth certificate years after it was provided, and people still call him Kenyan. POTUS wife is an immigrant. A legal one most likely, but why not show the documents and stop any searching.


*****this whole post used not my own reasoning, but that which was provided by those seeking a Obama birth certificate******

 

[Totentanz]

Man I have no clue. If there's no diplomatic presence, and people don't have any sort of indicator (explosive powders? uhhhhhh no clue what else) at the border- no idea.

We can't even detect/stop homegrown lone wolf type attacks or foresee them, and these are people that live in America in close contact with other Americans. How are we supposed to "extreme vet" someone in real time that has lived in a place where it's perfectly normal to say, "Death to the West"?

I am very anxious to hear the administration's plan on extreme vetting and what that process looks like. I think the visa application process needs an overhaul, and I think we would have more control over that process. As for people from the 7 countries listed in the ban? I don't think I am smart enough for that one.

I would have no problem with leaving the door shut on the basis of having no way to verify someone's background.

 

[Gunz]

Leave Melania alone. Who cares if she has papers? She's hot.