Happy Inauguration Day Eve!!

Something I forgot to add: Trump is violating a 1965 law that prevents the banning of immigration from specific nations. This Executive Order is, quite literally, against the law.

Also, the nations affective by the EO:
Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen

Nations of origin of terrorists who perpetrated attacks on the US:
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kuwait, the United States and one from Somalia.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/polit...411982045.html

Sounds to me he is fulfilling his campaign promises, for which people chose to vote for him.

Mm hm. But it doesn't change the illegality of it, nor the unilateral nature.

Or the fascist undertones of trying to solve the 'Muslim problem'. We have a pretty accurate record of what occured in 1930s Germany as the Nazis rose to power. Sometimes if it quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's a duck.

Even if you wanted this, do you really want the United States to become the next fascist power? Aren't you opposed to the idea of freedom being contingent on belonging to the government approved set of beliefs?

As far as I have been able to determine, the only two things that can overturn Trump's executive orders are the US Supreme Court and either in 4 years or 8 years when a new President of the USA is elected into office.

https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2016/05/11/...u-should-care/

So if presidential directives were good enough for Obama to utilize, I can't see any logical reason why they would be any less so for Trump.

As for the immigrants, a temporary hold was put into place in order to try to get some sort of effective vetting system in place to make sure we weren't stupidly and suicideally allowing terrorists to infiltrate this country even more than they already have. You believe this is stupidity in action? Sorry, I disagree. There are just some people that it is prudent that we do not consider them as being welcome to our country.

And immigration control makes a lot of sense not only because of the problem of importing terrorists, but also because the economy of the USA isn't strong enough (thanks to the liberal policies that have chased industry offshore and weakened severely those that remain) to support unrestrained immigration. Where are they going to work? Is the USA bursting at the seems with jobs going unfilled? Are they going to be taking the rare jobs that Americans are trying to land? Or are they all just going to go onto a form of welfare that the taxpayers are going to have to further shoulder? Quite frankly, I am all for an "AMERICA FIRST" philosophy, for a change.

As for "fascism" seems there are many definitions of that term, so what is yours? Perhaps a lean towards "fascism" and away from liberal "Obamaism" is what the election of Trump was all about. Might the pendulum swing too far in the other direction? Perhaps. I am in wait and see mode, myself, hoping for the best in a change of direction that was sorely needed.

So what steps that took place with Nazism are you seeing in the first week of Trump's presidency? So are we swinging towards Nazism or Fascism? I guess as long as no one attempts to gut the Second Amendment, we won't have too much to worry about. We will still have that last line of defense to call on, if needed.

Trump appears to be leaning towards a more Constitutional based government, so in my opinion, that certainly has to be better than what we have seen in the recent past. This country NEEDS to turn around, and turn around FAST. If Trump can do that, then more power to him. But I seriously think that Trump will only be able to offer too little too late, and will take the blame for a plunge off of the edge that cannot be stopped now. I strongly believe that Obama was destructive for this country, and I further believe VERY STRONGLY that Hillary Clinton would have been no better, and probably even worse. But I am not naive enough to believe that the downward spiral began with Obama, so there is certainly enough blame to go around where applicable.

But tell you what, if Canada wants all the immigrants that America turns away for it's own best interests, or at least puts on hold for a while, you are welcome to them. But please don't make us have to then build a wall on the northern front because Canada has become infested with radicals and terrorists and therefore become dangerous to America from the overflow that wants to head south and infest us. If the internal turmoil that terrorists will bring destroys Canada, it takes very little imagination to understand that they won't stop willingly at the USA's northern border.

If making America great again means making other countries and cultures not so great anymore because they got too used to our giving, well, so be it. Maybe America has just given enough, and needs to be at the very least the not giving what we can no longer afford to give side, for a while to get back on an even keel.

Sorry, but I do not believe that the rest of the world is America's financial responsibility and it's time we start acting like that. With this country nearly 20 trillion dollars in debt, we HAVE to start thinking rationally about what we need to do in order to save ourselves.

If this truly was about terrorism, then why hasn't he banned immigration from nations from which actual terrorists originated? Somalia is the only nation, and only a single terrorist came from there. Most of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, the rest from Egypt, and immigrants from neither are banned.

A significant amount of extremism that results in terrorism, Muslim or otherwise, is domestic. This action has nothing to do with terrorism and will do nothing to restrain it.

And immigration doesn't take away jobs from other people any more than having children does. The jobs market isn't zero sum. The more people there are, the more demand for products and services. As a Canadian, I'm happy for my country to remain free and open and not submit to fear and cowardice.

And regarding similarities to Nazism (Which is a form of Fascism, not that all Fascism is Nazism), it's perhaps subjective, but Trump has essentially declared a single religion unwelcome. Has this ever happened before in US history? At what point would you consider this unacceptable?

If Trump moves to remove citizenship from Muslims, as Hitler did with Jews, would you stand against him? Or perhaps removing gun ownership rights from Muslims? Considering his tact with using terrorism to justify this executive order, would you accept terrorism as an acceptable justification for curtailing rights of those who belong to a faith not government approved?

From a purely legal standpoint, the Cato institute had this to say:

https://www.cato.org/publications/co...on-ban-illegal

Originally Posted by Nova_C

From a purely legal standpoint, the Cato institute had this to say:

https://www.cato.org/publications/co...on-ban-illegal

Interesting, but how does that explain "no fly" lists for known or suspected terrorists? Would they not also be illegal? Now is such a list actually coded into law or is it just a policy? Regardless, there is a form of discrimination taking place, but I guess one would have to ask whether or not such discrimination is actually good or bad for the country as a whole.

Regardless, how long do you think it will take such a court case to wind it's way through to the Supreme Court for a decision? Longer or shorter than it will take the Republican congress to amend the law you mentioned if it proves to be troublesome for Trump to help protect our (my) country? And when it reaches the Supreme Court who will be the makeup of that court when that time comes?

Originally Posted by Nova_C

If this truly was about terrorism, then why hasn't he banned immigration from nations from which actual terrorists originated? Somalia is the only nation, and only a single terrorist came from there. Most of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, the rest from Egypt, and immigrants from neither are banned.

I don't know. And quite likely, neither do you. I am assuming that a guy who has run multiple businesses amassing quite the fortune just might be smarter than me and quite capable of engaging in affairs in a capable manner. That is even disregarding the fact that he has a slew of people to advise him that will certainly have an experience edge over Trump and able to provide him with advise that just might have pointed to the actions he took as being the best course of action. For now. There could very well be a PART 2, or more, but best to see how the first step works before progressing further.

So how about you? Have you gotten smarter since you were able to earn your first billion dollars with your uncanny and astute business acumen? And how about your own advisors? Are they capable and trustworthy in such foreign affairs to give you similar advice in similar situations?

Just sayin'......

The guy has been in office for just over a week now. And already you are judging him not by any results, but solely on your own presumptions that you know what his intentions and plans are, much less what the RESULTS actually will be of such plans. Don't you think that the wisest path might be to just sit tight and see some RESULTS that would actually be judgement worthy instead of presuming that you MUST be smarter than Trump and KNOW what is going to happen?

Originally Posted by Nova_C

A significant amount of extremism that results in terrorism, Muslim or otherwise, is domestic. This action has nothing to do with terrorism and will do nothing to restrain it.

So you are claiming that Islamic extremists have no intentions whatsoever of coming into the USA? That they have no wish to cause terror on our shores because they would rather keep such activities limited to their own countries? Or they would want to avoid coming to the USA, thinking they would get in the way of, or perhaps in trouble with, the homegrown terrorists within the USA? So how can you possibly say that halting immigration from countries known to harbor terrorists (even if it does not cover every single one of them) can not have any sort of influence over terrorists coming into this country with mischief on their minds? And that the attempt to do so has nothing at all to do with trying to limit terrorism? So tell me, why do YOU think Trump initiated this policy?

Originally Posted by Nova_C

And immigration doesn't take away jobs from other people any more than having children does. The jobs market isn't zero sum. The more people there are, the more demand for products and services. As a Canadian, I'm happy for my country to remain free and open and not submit to fear and cowardice.

I see. So you feel that allowing 1 million adults into our country has the same impact as 1 million births taking place. Ohhh kayyy.....

So if we completely open our borders with no restrictions to all comers, and let's say 1 million people come into this country, you are seriously claiming that it will have no impact at all? That 1 million jobs will magically appear overnight to accommodate the influx? That there will be no need to be giving any of them government subsidy checks (welfare, food stamps, etc.) as the exploding jobs market you appear to claim will take care of that immediately? Is that what you are claiming? Well, if that is the case, why do we still have unemployment now, since there are obviously people who cannot find employment. Why hasn't this magical creation of jobs already taken place for them? Obviously there are people already HERE that certainly could use those jobs, isn't there? Or does that magic only work for immigrants?

Again, you and Canada are welcome to all of those immigrants who want to come to the USA and find themselves unable to do so because of government imposed restrictions. I really want to see how the job market explodes in Canada for them, as you seem to claim will do so here in the USA. Maybe our government should be taking notes when that happens.

Originally Posted by Nova_C

And regarding similarities to Nazism (Which is a form of Fascism, not that all Fascism is Nazism), it's perhaps subjective, but Trump has essentially declared a single religion unwelcome. Has this ever happened before in US history? At what point would you consider this unacceptable?

Nope. He has declared that immigration from a certain troublesome region known to harbor terrorists needs to be put on hold temporarily until a reliable and accurate method to investigate and clear persons being allowed into our country can be instituted. I am sorry, but I just don't see a problem with that logic. And I mean REAL logic, not "the sky is falling" sort of stuff that the liberal media wants to wallow in.

Originally Posted by Nova_C

If Trump moves to remove citizenship from Muslims, as Hitler did with Jews, would you stand against him? Or perhaps removing gun ownership rights from Muslims? Considering his tact with using terrorism to justify this executive order, would you accept terrorism as an acceptable justification for curtailing rights of those who belong to a faith not government approved?

No, not as a group, unless I would concur with the reasoning (as will be explained later), but I would certainly support, as well as encourage, that any group of people with the potential for harboring individuals with the inclination towards terrorism to be at least investigated and such people ferreted out as quickly and as effectively as possible. And no, unless such people were found, as individuals, to harbor the strong probability of being terrorists or actively supporting terrorism, I would not be inclined to support any of their rights (as bonafide American citizens) being restricted. Again, with the caveat mentioned below.

I believe trying to curtail and prevent terrorism IS Trump's goal with his executive order. The fact that IF the terrorism is inseparable from the any religion, then that gives a strong case of probable cause to look into such people for the subset of them that probably do have those terrorist tendencies.

And I believe you are getting way ahead of yourself in claiming that any religion right now, or in the REALISTICALLY foreseeable future will become disallowed by the government. That only excludes to possibility that any such religion will put us into the position of having to choose between OUR survival, or theirs. In such a case, I will certainly choose OUR survival over THEIRS.

In my opinion, any person of any race, creed, ethnic group, religion, etc., should be welcome in this country as long as they are willing to be melted into this "melting pot" we call America, become actual AMERICAN citizens, acting as such and joining our existent culture, and certainly not try to bring the culture they decided to leave behind and force that upon the rest of us Americans. If they want to retain their culture, then the solution is simple: Stay where your culture already is. That certainly includes acts of terrorism as well, regardless of why they choose to engage in such activities. Any terrorists, no matter how they are identified via any other criteria or relationships, need to be prevented from entering our country. Period. If that effort fails or proves to be ineffective, then they will need to be dealt with via the harshest means possible in order to curtail that sort of activity HERE.

But if for some reason it is found that terrorism and any religious, ethnic, creed, race, etc., becomes inseparable, then you tell me, what would YOU do in Trump's place being tasked with the responsibility of protecting your country? If a religion states in no uncertain terms that all members of that religious faith MUST kill the unbelieving "infidels" of different faiths, and they choose to follow that dictate and seek out such infidels in their own home country for this purpose, what would YOU do about it? Just let them in, in the name of OUR freedom? In such a case, is the government of OUR country really doing it's job?

Originally Posted by Rich Z

I don't know. And quite likely, neither do you. I am assuming that a guy who has run multiple businesses amassing quite the fortune just might be smarter than me and quite capable of engaging in affairs in a capable manner. That is even disregarding the fact that he has a slew of people to advise him that will certainly have an experience edge over Trump and able to provide him with advise that just might have pointed to the actions he took as being the best course of action. For now. There could very well be a PART 2, or more, but best to see how the first step works before progressing further.

So how about you? Have you gotten smarter since you were able to earn your first billion dollars with your uncanny and astute business acumen? And how about your own advisors? Are they capable and trustworthy in such foreign affairs to give you similar advice in similar situations?

Trump inherited his fortune. Like, he's not a good businessman. He's a shadow of his father, the Trump who actually built a business from nothing. If you are just handed a billion dollar empire because of an accident of birth, are you suddenly the man who created it? Trump is a grifter, a con man. And the fact that his businesses routinely fail is proof of this. Trump refuses to release his tax returns because the whole house of cards he's trying to sell to you as his business acumen would come tumbling down.

And his advisers? Like Conway, who said they use 'alternative facts' when making decisions? Guiliani? Who was asked by Trump to figure out to ban Muslims without US law stoping them and came up with this Immigration ban propaganda? Your nation is danger.

[quote[
The guy has been in office for just over a week now. And already you are judging him not by any results, but solely on your own presumptions that you know what his intentions and plans are, much less what the RESULTS actually will be of such plans. Don't you think that the wisest path might be to just sit tight and see some RESULTS that would actually be judgement worthy instead of presuming that you MUST be smarter than Trump and KNOW what is going to happen?
[/quote]

I don't care about his intentions. I care about what he does. Intentions are meaningless when the acts you undertake damage or destroy the foundations of a free nation, or bring the world closer to an avoidable war.

So you are claiming that Islamic extremists have no intentions whatsoever of coming into the USA? That they have no wish to cause terror on our shores because they would rather keep such activities limited to their own countries? Or they would want to avoid coming to the USA, thinking they would get in the way of, or perhaps in trouble with, the homegrown terrorists within the USA? So how can you possibly say that halting immigration from countries known to harbor terrorists (even if it does not cover every single one of them) can not have any sort of influence over terrorists coming into this country with mischief on their minds? And that the attempt to do so has nothing at all to do with trying to limit terrorism? So tell me, why do YOU think Trump initiated this policy?

Trump initiated this policy to cause exactly what's happening - destabilizing the US further, and to bring about the destruction of the state. Although, it may not be Trump's intention, he may think he's doing something good, but he's surrounded himself with people who are committed to deconstructing the system and bringing about the end of the US as we know it. Bannon is now part of the government's Principle's Committee, which is unusual to put it mildly, and he's been quoted as a man trying to 'destroy the state'. Terrorists won't need to take action against the US to achieve their goals - you've elected people dedicated to the same goals.

https://twitter.com/froomkin/status/...332545/photo/1

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-leninist.html

I see. So you feel that allowing 1 million adults into our country has the same impact as 1 million births taking place. Ohhh kayyy.....

So if we completely open our borders with no restrictions to all comers, and let's say 1 million people come into this country, you are seriously claiming that it will have no impact at all? That 1 million jobs will magically appear overnight to accommodate the influx? That there will be no need to be giving any of them government subsidy checks (welfare, food stamps, etc.) as the exploding jobs market you appear to claim will take care of that immediately? Is that what you are claiming? Well, if that is the case, why do we still have unemployment now, since there are obviously people who cannot find employment. Why hasn't this magical creation of jobs already taken place for them? Obviously there are people already HERE that certainly could use those jobs, isn't there? Or does that magic only work for immigrants?

Again, you and Canada are welcome to all of those immigrants who want to come to the USA and find themselves unable to do so because of government imposed restrictions. I really want to see how the job market explodes in Canada for them, as you seem to claim will do so here in the USA. Maybe our government should be taking notes when that happens.

I didn't say it would have no effect, stop putting words in my mouth. But immigration doesn't cause unemployment.

Nope. He has declared that immigration from a certain troublesome region known to harbor terrorists needs to be put on hold temporarily until a reliable and accurate method to investigate and clear persons being allowed into our country can be instituted. I am sorry, but I just don't see a problem with that logic. And I mean REAL logic, not "the sky is falling" sort of stuff that the liberal media wants to wallow in.



No, not as a group, unless I would concur with the reasoning (as will be explained later), but I would certainly support, as well as encourage, that any group of people with the potential for harboring individuals with the inclination towards terrorism to be at least investigated and such people ferreted out as quickly and as effectively as possible. And no, unless such people were found, as individuals, to harbor the strong probability of being terrorists or actively supporting terrorism, I would not be inclined to support any of their rights (as bonafide American citizens) being restricted. Again, with the caveat mentioned below.

I believe trying to curtail and prevent terrorism IS Trump's goal with his executive order. The fact that IF the terrorism is inseparable from the any religion, then that gives a strong case of probable cause to look into such people for the subset of them that probably do have those terrorist tendencies.

And I believe you are getting way ahead of yourself in claiming that any religion right now, or in the REALISTICALLY foreseeable future will become disallowed by the government. That only excludes to possibility that any such religion will put us into the position of having to choose between OUR survival, or theirs. In such a case, I will certainly choose OUR survival over THEIRS.

In my opinion, any person of any race, creed, ethnic group, religion, etc., should be welcome in this country as long as they are willing to be melted into this "melting pot" we call America, become actual AMERICAN citizens, acting as such and joining our existent culture, and certainly not try to bring the culture they decided to leave behind and force that upon the rest of us Americans. If they want to retain their culture, then the solution is simple: Stay where your culture already is. That certainly includes acts of terrorism as well, regardless of why they choose to engage in such activities. Any terrorists, no matter how they are identified via any other criteria or relationships, need to be prevented from entering our country. Period. If that effort fails or proves to be ineffective, then they will need to be dealt with via the harshest means possible in order to curtail that sort of activity HERE.

But if for some reason it is found that terrorism and any religious, ethnic, creed, race, etc., becomes inseparable, then you tell me, what would YOU do in Trump's place being tasked with the responsibility of protecting your country? If a religion states in no uncertain terms that all members of that religious faith MUST kill the unbelieving "infidels" of different faiths, and they choose to follow that dictate and seek out such infidels in their own home country for this purpose, what would YOU do about it? Just let them in, in the name of OUR freedom? In such a case, is the government of OUR country really doing it's job?

And there it is. You're totally okay with curtailing the constitution against entire groups of people if the government can convince you they're harbouring someone scary.

That's cowardice.

That's fascism.

Perhaps I should remind you of the words of one of America's founding fathers:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.