Trumped

[Amazing Larry]

I know, that Schumer joke should not have been ignored.

[Jay]

I didn't see Schumer but was he really crying or was it bullshit?

there's really no good answer to that question.

[red321]

You're right...it shouldn't have been highlighted.

 

[InsideThePark]

4 hours ago, Lawrence said:

It won't be nonsense when regulations start going bye bye.

You really like simplistic policy, don't you?

Build That Wall.

Raise tariffs.

Two regulations cut for every new one.

Don't you think the goals that these policies intend to achieve should be more detailed and thought out? These are slogans turned into policies lol

[InsideThePark]

3 hours ago, Jay said:

 

This is the Breitbart/AM radio argument. It falls short.

Obama didn't campaign on a Muslim ban, or use anti-islamic rhetoric to shore up his base, or say that Christian refugees take priority. You're naive if you can't see the difference.

And then there's this.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/giuliani-says-trump-asked-him-how-to-legally-enact-muslim-ban-174303609.html

Taking everything into account, the "Obama did it too" rationalization doesn't work.

[Blarg]

1 hour ago, mtangelsfan said:

I don't expect to see something overnight.  I do expect some of your best and brightest going on national tv and expressing, in a rational and passionate way why these policies are wrong and unconstitutional.   It is time to present a passionate, yet coherent alternative.  People shouting, screaming, blocking traffic and slowing down air travel is not going to get it done.

The best and brightest can bring their expertise but they are still being asked questions then cutoff by the media that wants their answers. 

[Make Angels Great Again]

 

[Amazing Larry]

Build That Wall

I'm for more than building the wall. I'm for increased border protection through surveillance and enforcement of current law.

Raise tariffs

Tariffs are an effective weapon to balance trade. Right now our trade with China is completely one-sided so I am of the opinion that tariffs can serve a useful purpose.

Two regulations cut for every new one.

It's simple but if it helps cut the vast amounts of unnecessary regulation burdening this country, I'm for it.

[InsideThePark]

3 minutes ago, Lawrence said:

Build That Wall

I'm for more than building the wall. I'm for increased border protection through surveillance and enforcement of current law.

Raise tariffs

Tariffs are an effective weapon to balance trade. Right now our trade with China is completely one-sided so I am of the opinion that tariffs can serve a useful purpose.

Two regulations cut for every new one.

It's simple but if it helps cut the vast amounts of unnecessary regulation burdening this country, I'm for it.

You have your positions, and that's fine... I just hope this Administration eventually realizes that there are more effective methods in accomplishing their objectives. I really believe that we would come to regret the wall if Congress is dumb enough to go through with it.

China has more leverage on us than we do on them. So in addition to the immediate rising cost of goods that would ensue, raising tariffs would have other unintended consequences. China isn't just going to sit back and take it.

There may be too many regulations as it stands today, but obviously some of them are there for good reason. Trading two-for-one won't always work.

[Tank]

7 hours ago, mtangelsfan said:

I think some of us cons are dancing around this because it is uncomfortable.  I think it is reasonable for some of the libs to expect some kind of response that doesn't include "Hillary", "Obama" or the "DNC".  It is fair because the action that Trump is taking is all about Trump.  No dem had anything to do with his immigration policy.

Here is why I hate it:

1.  It is unconstitutional, folks can debate all they want but the First Amendment clearly states that no law can be made that discriminates based on religion.  Just because that said religion is unpopular does not negate that.  If they can somehow misrepresent the action to actually pass, then at least they are not following the spirit of the clause as in.

 

i'm not going to argue the merits of your opinion, but something struck me as i was reading #1. This was done by EO, not by an act of congress. Yes, that's splitting hairs a bit, but does that by itself get around the constitutional aspect of what he's trying to do?

just curious, really.

[Adam]

I'm not sure why the administration didn't present it much differently than they did. Seems to me that if they would have just said something like: "Those 7 countries President Obama classified as terror threats - we're not going to accept new immigrants or refugees from them for 90 days." 

[Tank]

i think it was @nate that advocated a complete ban on immigration for what, 18 months, until they could figure out a few things. trump wants to halt it only from certain countries for 90 days and the morons who think blocking traffic is a good idea are not blocking LAX in protest.

somewhere in our collection thinking and wisdom we need to come to the understanding of how to address this. some advocate for the acceptance of all refugees, no matter where they come from, while others don't want any refugees at all. isn't there a position somewhere in the middle that is both smart & safe for our country while also being compassionate to those that really need our help? why is the argument always presented as all or none? that, IMHO, is the biggest roadblock to any real progress being achieved.

[Adam]

Imagine that, an elected official doing exactly what he said he was going to do when he ran. 

[Jay]

Could have been rolled out better for sure. I think with experience things like this will be handled better.

Why do the protesters sound like a high-school cheerleading squad?

 

[Make Angels Great Again]

2 minutes ago, Jay said:

Could have been rolled out better for sure.

Why do the protesters sound like a high-school cheerleading squad?

 

 

Funny you say that.

 

 

[mtangelsfan]

27 minutes ago, Tank said:

i'm not going to argue the merits of your opinion, but something struck me as i was reading #1. This was done by EO, not by an act of congress. Yes, that's splitting hairs a bit, but does that by itself get around the constitutional aspect of what he's trying to do?

just curious, really.

An interesting point.  One that I figured someone would go to.  One more reason why EO's are awful.  The president is not supposed to be creating law.  The fact that this one is unconstitutional makes it that much worse.  So while they may argue that is skirts that, it really doesn't.

[mtangelsfan]

16 minutes ago, Tank said:

i think it was @nate that advocated a complete ban on immigration for what, 18 months, until they could figure out a few things. trump wants to halt it only from certain countries for 90 days and the morons who think blocking traffic is a good idea are not blocking LAX in protest.

somewhere in our collection thinking and wisdom we need to come to the understanding of how to address this. some advocate for the acceptance of all refugees, no matter where they come from, while others don't want any refugees at all. isn't there a position somewhere in the middle that is both smart & safe for our country while also being compassionate to those that really need our help? why is the argument always presented as all or none? that, IMHO, is the biggest roadblock to any real progress being achieved.

I'm sure there is a middle ground that most folks would be ok with.  Of course you have the few on both sides that say all or none but that doesn't mean there isn't a solid solution in there somewhere.

[Spirit]

22 hours ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

So is this the longest thread in AW history yet?

 

To think ... this thread started out in a hotel room in Chicago while an anti-Trump riot ... errrr ... rally was going on down on the streets below. 

Just a hotel room, a laptop and a puny $250 per diem. 

We've all come so far.

 

 

 

[Kevin]

First step is getting rid of any potential religious test for entry. Seen it mentioned but don't know if it's really happening. 

[mtangelsfan]

Considering a Christian Syrian family was not allowed in, maybe we are getting there.

[RallyMo]

4 hours ago, Jay said:

 

Yeah, I'm not so sure that posting a Tweet that links to an article which:

T) states the system was overhauled after the discovery of terrorists in the US

and

7.3) also notes that a man that helped the US was assassinated while waiting for the US to let him in

does much for your POV.

[InsideThePark]

3 minutes ago, RallyMo said:

Yeah, I'm not so sure that posting a Tweet that links to an article which:

T) states the system was overhauled after the discovery of terrorists in the US

and

7.3) also notes that a man that helped the US was assassinated while waiting for the US to let him in

does much for your POV.

Yep, there's that too. Obama took the advice of Homeland Security officials. Trump didn't consult them until after the policy was rolled out. Pretty big difference.

[red321]

Who needs homeland security when you have Steve Bannon

[InsideThePark]

[Blarg]

That is a pretty awesome cartoon.