Donald Trump

[Patrick S]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...0c90efeff0ed0?

Yes, and apparently comparing the new ban with Obama's was enough to get the former president to break his silence on his successor. I liked his statement.

By the way, those people protesting and "vilifying" Trump aren't all in the media, I'm sure, and only about half of the eligible voting population voted, so there's no way Trump is "popular"!

Shall we start a betting pool on how long Trump will last as dict-- er, I mean-- president? I'm going for less than a year. It'll depend how soon the Far Right gets everything they want passed, before they dump him.

I hate Obama's statement. It should never have been made. He should understand as well as anyone the challenges presidents face and follow the example of George W. Bush and keep his mouth shut, let alone go around making statements that foment protests (and violence) against the Trump administration. This is the guy who told John McCain out of the chute that "elections have consequences and I won". They DO have consequences. Like or loath it, Trump is doing exactly what he said he would do when ran for the office he now holds. By winning the election, he has that OBLIGATION! I'll say that again: Trump is OBLIGATED to do what he said he would do during the campaigns because that's what he was put in office to do.

I consider myself to be fairly non-ideological in that I hold some opinions that are popular on the right, some popular on the left, and many that are popular with neither. I consider Trump to be far less offensive and potentially destructive than Obama was and continues to be in that he attracts to his cult of personality his media lap-dogs, left-wing ideologues, minorities who see him - understandably - as an example of what they can aspire to become, and the masses who simply want to be popular on social media and accepted by all their cool, (supposedly) open-minded liberal friends. He fully understands what he can get away with and he'll push the envelope on that front until his last breath.

[Jon Guy]

If so, then how did you come to the conclusion that banning these countries' citizens from entry would relieve the strain of security forces?

Maybe a simple analogy will help.

In the 1980s English football teams were banned from European competitions because a minority of the supporters were violent hooligans.

Before this ban, security forces/ intelligence agencies had to monitor groups and individuals, before, during and after the football matches. They had to infiltrate the groups and monitor their movement across Europe.

After the ban, individuals with previous had to hand in passports, or their passports were marked, so they could not travel at certain times or to certain countries.

Don`t you think this ban took the pressure of the British and European Intelligence agencies ?

So, thanks to President Trump fulfilling his election promises in record time, you guys in the States will be safer for it.
Who really gives a **** if someone from Baghdad can`t visit Disney land this year ?

Isis had been given a good kicking last year. Now their army will disperse around the world. Which is why those particular countries have been flagged.
Now the US security forces can put more resources into monitoring who is flying into the States from say, Belgium or Paris.

[Robert]

Julie, that's a good thing, isn't it? There is a Vice-president who performs symbolic functions. Let's get back to the days of Dennis Thatcher, who kept clear and played golf.

[Karl]

I`m not sure how you came to that conclusion.
There are border controls and there are the security forces.
Two different things.

If so, then how did you come to the conclusion that banning these countries' citizens from entry would relieve the strain of security forces?

[Limehouse]

It appears to me that, now he is President, Mrs Trump is set to be the most silent and invisible First Lady in living history. He's not having her stealing his thunder or saying anything unscheduled!

[Pcdunn]

Indeed, but the restrictions imposed had nothing to do with citizenship, but rather people who had visited those countries within a specified time frame. Not necessarily people from those countries. In fact, first and foremost not, as it is far more suspicious that someone should visit a conflict zone rather than flee from it. Trump's ban is nothing more than sheer populism, which will have zero effect as far as terrorist prevention is concerned.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barack-obama-donald-trump-immigration-ban_us_588f8f70e4b0c90efeff0ed0?

Yes, and apparently comparing the new ban with Obama's was enough to get the former president to break his silence on his successor. I liked his statement.

By the way, those people protesting and "vilifying" Trump aren't all in the media, I'm sure, and only about half of the eligible voting population voted, so there's no way Trump is "popular"!

Shall we start a betting pool on how long Trump will last as dict-- er, I mean-- president? I'm going for less than a year. It'll depend how soon the Far Right gets everything they want passed, before they dump him.

[Robert]

Could I just say that no politician can be described as compassionate unless he opens his own wallet and donates his own money. You can't be compassionate with someone else's money.

[Jon Guy]

On the contrary - this will require resources to stop people who have these countries as a birthplace, while the exact same amount of monitoring as before will be required besides. In fact, drawing resources to check if people were born in these specific countries will draw focus away from people who have visited these countries. Passport control is not automatic, and unless Trump is planning on hiring extra staff, the net effect will be less monitoring - not more.

Even if he does hire extra staff, however, the birthplace of an individual is immaterial. Only the activity within certain countries matters. Most Islamic terrorists have not been citizens of these countries anyway, so this ban is thus not only generating more sympathy against the US, but is actually drawing attention away from the actual root of the problem - which isn't tied to citizenship in the slightest.

I`m not sure how you came to that conclusion.
There are border controls and there are the security forces.
Two different things.

[Karl]

Hi Karl

Banning these "bad neighbourhoods" will take some of the strain off the security forces, allowing them to closely monitor other countries.

On the contrary - this will require resources to stop people who have these countries as a birthplace, while the exact same amount of monitoring as before will be required besides. In fact, drawing resources to check if people were born in these specific countries will draw focus away from people who have visited these countries. Passport control is not automatic, and unless Trump is planning on hiring extra staff, the net effect will be less monitoring - not more.

Even if he does hire extra staff, however, the birthplace of an individual is immaterial. Only the activity within certain countries matters. Most Islamic terrorists have not been citizens of these countries anyway, so this ban is thus not only generating more sympathy against the US, but is actually drawing attention away from the actual root of the problem - which isn't tied to citizenship in the slightest.

[Jon Guy]

Trump's ban is nothing more than sheer populism, which will have zero effect as far as terrorist prevention is concerned.

Hi Karl

Banning these "bad neighbourhoods" will take some of the strain off the security forces, allowing them to closely monitor other countries.

[Karl]

This article says they were first identified as countries of concern "under the Obama administration":

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politi...e-7-countries/

Indeed, but the restrictions imposed had nothing to do with citizenship, but rather people who had visited those countries within a specified time frame. Not necessarily people from those countries. In fact, first and foremost not, as it is far more suspicious that someone should visit a conflict zone rather than flee from it. Trump's ban is nothing more than sheer populism, which will have zero effect as far as terrorist prevention is concerned.

Anyway, yesterday Trump fired acting Attorney General Sally Yates for not wanting to go through with the ban until she could be convinced of the legality of it. ICE director Daniel Ragsdale was also replaced, though so far no justification was given.

[Patrick S]

The community organizer and the demagogue? Stark contrast indeed.

Even Trump supporter Newt Gingrich is saying that the rollout of the executive order banning persons from those seven countries is like an off-Broadway show! Betrays amateurishness. And to use as justification the Obama administration's naming of those seven countries is facile at best. Obama never instituted such a travel ban.

The worst effect may be to have Iraq among the countries affected -- Iraq is our ally in the war against ISIS. As written, the ban affects Iraqis who have worked as interpreters or in other capacities for the U.S. military. The ill-thought out ban is putting at risk the lives of both friends of the U.S. and members of the U.S. armed forces.

Community Organizer. How admirable.

Well. As far as demagogues go, I rank Obama much higher on that scale than Trump (at least to this point). In my view, Obama was a corrosive and damaging influence both politically and culturally. Abetted by an adoring press, he vilified the opposition party - to a greater extent than any threat, real or imagined (or those he simply ignored for political purposes), foreign or domestic - from his first day until his last day in office and he'll continue on that front until the day he dies because that's who he is.
Trump has mostly vehement opposition among the media and he vilifies anyone who doesn't compliment his every move, every word, every tweet. Hard to discern a real ideology from a man reviled by a high percentage of the republican party.

While I'm rolling....as far as narcissism goes, that's probably a pick 'em. Both are equally convinced of their own rectitude in all things at all times. I think Obama is better at feigning competence than Trump. He presents a better façade. He SEEMS like an intellectual, though he's certainly not one. His admiring cheerleaders in the press tell you tales of intelligence, his compassion, his daring-do. In general the media tells us that Trump is dangerous, inexperienced, stupid, Hitlerian, in Russia's pocket, corrupt, and dishonest.

Aside from a thin veneer of likability (invisible as far as I'm concerned) and the media perpetuated myth of pragmatism (and his sneering hatred of America's history and values), Obama in his approach to jamming Obamacare down our collective throats wasn't much different than Trump in his enactment of the travel ban. Although, I don't think it's debatable that the former had much more far-reaching impact on Americans than the latter. But then, these days it's all about how something FEELS, not it's actual impact. Good or bad.

Trump wants to pump his propaganda out to the masses. The problem he's having is that cannot penetrate the American media's own propaganda bubble, designed to drive him from office and reduce the republican party to ashes. But, that's been their obvious mission for thirty years. So, yeah. Nothing really new here. American's have virtually no access to the truth....and the beat goes on.

I find it absurd that republicans/conservatives present Trump as acceptable (or anything less then reprehensible) simply because Obama was unacceptable, incompetent, dishonest, and ultimately left the nation in worst shape than he found it (all of which is true but, to be fair, the same can be said of most 20th century presidents). The reverse is true, as well. Obama wasn't successful in retrospect because Trump is fool, a blowhard, dangerously incompetent, arrogant, and a liar. They're the same guy from opposing parties. They're both without substance, true intellect, honesty, and genuine compassion. Perhaps it's time to focus upon the stupidity of the American electorate's commitment to electing charlatans to the presidency rather than the charlatans themselves?

[ChrisGeorge]

As much of an overreach as the travel ban is, I think the most notable aspect of this thing is HOW it was enacted. Key advisors, cabinet members, etc., had no idea it was coming. That demonstrates a level of insulation around Trump that serves as an echo chamber, keeping dissenting/opposing views on the outside looking in. In shot, cabinet positions, advisory roles, etc. are filled simply because they must be. The ideas come from Trump, they are vetted by Trump and those that agree - 100% - with him.

To be fair, Obama set the standard for modern presidents, surrounding himself with Valerie Jarett and a Chicago cabal that agreed with him come hell or high water. Alas, in just over a week, I think Trump has made Obama look like a non-ideological consensus builder by comparison.

The community organizer and the demagogue? Stark contrast indeed.

Even Trump supporter Newt Gingrich is saying that the rollout of the executive order banning persons from those seven countries is like an off-Broadway show! Betrays amateurishness. And to use as justification the Obama administration's naming of those seven countries is facile at best. Obama never instituted such a travel ban.

The worst effect may be to have Iraq among the countries affected -- Iraq is our ally in the war against ISIS. As written, the ban affects Iraqis who have worked as interpreters or in other capacities for the U.S. military. The ill-thought out ban is putting at risk the lives of both friends of the U.S. and members of the U.S. armed forces.

[Patrick S]

As much of an overreach as the travel ban is, I think the most notable aspect of this thing is HOW it was enacted. Key advisors, cabinet members, etc., had no idea it was coming. That demonstrates a level of insulation around Trump that serves as an echo chamber, keeping dissenting/opposing views on the outside looking in. In shot, cabinet positions, advisory roles, etc. are filled simply because they must be. The ideas come from Trump, they are vetted by Trump and those that agree - 100% - with him.

To be fair, Obama set the standard for modern presidents, surrounding himself with Valerie Jarett and a Chicago cabal that agreed with him come hell or high water. Alas, in just over a week, I think Trump has made Obama look like a non-ideological consensus builder by comparison.

[Pcdunn]

Wasn't it the Obama administration who outlined the countries for this executive order?

This article says they were first identified as countries of concern "under the Obama administration":

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/how-the-trump-administration-chose-the-7-countries/