Trump Hysteria

I’d say the often hysterical reaction to the election of Trump and his executive orders is baffling to me, but based on my view of politics, it isn’t baffling at all – it’s something I expected.  However, I don’t see much in the way of rational, principled justification for the kind of over-the-top anti-Trump behavior we find not only at the street level, but also in the implied (if not outright) consent and support such intimidating and violent tactics are often provided in public forums by many politicians and media figures. We’ve had people call for the removal of Trump by “any means necessary” and calling for impeachment, military coups and even assassination.

From my perspective, the hysteria is fueled by two things; an identity-politics, virtue-signalling culture that is largely bereft of critical thinking skills and any foundation of reasoned, civil discourse; and an information/media complex that signals, via various figures of authority or popularity, preferred behaviors. (I’ll leave out my third view: that third-party manipulators are paying for agitation towards political and financial ends).

I voted for Trump purely because I agreed with virtually all of his platform.  Usually when I encounter someone who didn’t vote for Trump, I immediately notice an obvious emotional quality to their perspective – they hate or are disgusted by the guy personally, but can’t even tell me what his policy positions are.  They immediately assume I am racist, misogynistic, islamophobic, etc.

I wonder if it’s possible to have a rational discussion about Trump and his policies and actions since being elected with anyone who voted against him?  Do any of you think the way he is being characterized by the mainstream media is unfair?  Do any of you think that there has been a double-standard from the way people and the press reacted to Obama’s actions, and the way they are reacting to Trump’s? Do any of you think the election was “illegitimate”?

371 thoughts on “Trump Hysteria

  1. but can’t even tell me what his policy positions are.

    That’s because he doesn’t have any, besides whatever he says in the moment he figures will get him more money and power.

    But… since you agree with basically his entire platform, do you also just grab them by the pussy?

  2. … unlike the response to Obama. An amazingly large number of Republicans still think that he was a Muslim terrorist born in Kenya who was going to seize absolute power by sending Black Panthers out to confiscate everyone’s guns and round up all his critics and put them in concentration camps.

    This would be done using helicopters that were painted black. You see, painting a helicopter black endows it with superpowers.

  3. A self-described highly-functioning sociopath strongly supports an amoral narcissist. Quelle surprise.

  4. My first response to all the hysteria was hysterical laughter. But now I think maybe we need to take seriously the harm to the country these people could do.

    ETA: And I agree that this is completely unlike the response to Obama.

  5. Mung: My first response to all the hysteria was hysterical laughter

    Over the years I’ve gotten the impression that your response to something as mundane as toast popping up in a warm toaster would be hysterical laughter

  6. REW: Over the years I’ve gotten the impression that your response to something as mundane as toast popping up in a warm toaster would be hysterical laughter

    It could be that I am insane, and it could be that is how I keep from going insane. 🙂

    I try to not take myself too seriously.

  7. Mung: It could be that I am insane, and it could be that is how I keep from going insane.

    I try to not take myself too seriously.

    Yes. It helps to be able to laugh about it as Western Civilization goes down the drain.

  8. ….but as to Trump. Conservatives would work themselves into a frenzy criticising Bill Clinton for his womanizing which was mild by comparison to many celebrities. Trump is a lowlife that makes Clinton tame by comparison but no conservatives seem to care about that. Of course its not completely unreasonable to ignore that if you think Trump is the only one that can save us.

  9. REW:
    ….but as to Trump.Conservatives would work themselves into a frenzy criticising Bill Clinton for his womanizing which was mild by comparison to many celebrities.Trump is a lowlifethat makes Clinton tame by comparison but no conservatives seem to care about that.Of course its not completely unreasonable to ignore that if you think Trump is the only one that can save us.

    What makes Trump a lowlife? All you assholes have an opinion but you never seem to be able to back it up.

  10. REW: Yes. It helps to be able to laugh about it as Western Civilization goes down the drain.

    Why is it going down the drain?

  11. It is going to awesome when the USA is doing much better in a couple of years than it was under Obama.

  12. REW: It helps to be able to laugh about it as Western Civilization goes down the drain.

    And that only began when Trump got elected? Laughs hysterically!

  13. I wonder if it’s possible to have a rational discussion about Trump and his policies and actions since being elected with anyone who voted against him?

    I doubt it.

    Do any of you think the way he is being characterized by the mainstream media is unfair?

    I try not to listen to those morons. But from what bits I’ve seen I would say yes.

    Do any of you think that there has been a double-standard from the way people and the press reacted to Obama’s actions, and the way they are reacting to Trump’s?

    Yes. I supported Romney but when Obama got elected I thought it was cool and didn’t get all weepy-eyed and pissed off about it.

    Do any of you think the election was “illegitimate”?

    I don’t. I think the American populace spoke loud and clear and that’s the way it’s supposed to work. [Apart from the fact that I think the way we elect the President is unconstitutional in the first place.]

  14. So, in response to my O.P. about the apparent lack of rational, policy-oriented debate from the anti-Trump side is character assassination and emotional invective?

    Rumraket claims Trump “doesn’t have any” policy positions, but that’s not true. I read through all of them (and Clinton’s) on their campaign websites. What Trump and Clinton said on the campaign trails mirrored and often expanded on those core policy positions. So far, Trump (in a mere two weeks) has far exceeded my expectations (admittedly low expectations, considering past presidents from both parties) in doing all he can to deliver on those promises and platform policies.

    What is it about Trump’s policies or current executive orders do you disagree with, and do you consider that disagreement a reasonable foundation for others in the public to react to him and his appointments, family and supporters with the kind of intimidation tactics, violence and vitriol currently on display (even here, in this young thread)?

    Or is it all about identity politics and virtue signalling? Is that the new reality, in your minds, that politics is about identity politics, PC culture and virtue signalling, normalizing violence and threats of violence, shaming and attempting to ruin anyone who disagrees with your political views?

    Is the time of civil discourse based on issues and policy over? Is the time for “losing gracefully” over, admitting that the other side now has a valid authorization from an election to put their people in power and pursue the policies they were elected to install?

  15. Mung: I don’t. I think the American populace spoke loud and clear and that’s the way it’s supposed to work. [Apart from the fact that I think the way we elect the President is unconstitutional in the first place.]

    Are you serious about that last part? How is it, in your opinion, unconstitutional?

  16. William J. Murray: So, in response to my O.P. about the apparent lack of rational, policy-oriented debate from the anti-Trump side is character assassination and emotional invective?

    Welcome to TSZ! It is a broken venue, William. You need to write posts mocking materialism

  17. Kantian Naturalist:
    A self-described highly-functioning sociopath strongly supports an amoral narcissist. Quelle surprise.

    I didn’t support Obama, so it’s not like I make a habit of supporting amoral narcissists.

    Whether or not Trump is an “amoral narcissist” is irrelevant to me when it comes to deciding who to vote for; what matters to me is which candidate, in my view, represents the best chance for implementing policies I think would be in the best interests of the country. It became clear fairly early on that Trump represented that best chance.

    Two weeks is really too soon to tell, but even before the inauguration Trump was delivering on his promises. I’m actually kind of blown away at the vigor with which he is pursuing his agenda even in the face of the kind of opposition he’s facing.

  18. I would characterize much of the opposition to Trump as counterproductive. I sometimes wonder if the protesters are being paid by Trump.

    I’m not just referring to the fire starters. I’m thinking also of mainstream journalists.

  19. Maybe people think that the title means “This is the place to post your Trump hysteria”. I’d actually like to get into better conversations about Trump than expressions of hysteria if possible.

  20. William J. Murray: Is the time of civil discourse based on issues and policy over? Is the time for “losing gracefully” over, admitting that the other side now has a valid authorization from an election to put their people in power and pursue the policies they were elected to install?

    I have neither the time nor patience to pretend that civil dialogue with fascists is possible or desirable.

  21. Kantian Naturalist: I have neither the time nor patience to pretend that civil dialogue with fascists is possible or desirable.

    Do you really think that everyone who voted for Trump, or supports him, is a “fascist”?

    Apparently, you’re answering some of my questions in the affirmative that, in your opinion, the time for civil discourse and behavior is over, and that you support (perhaps even advocate?) the intimidation, violent, and vitriolic tactics now in use? Is that the case?

  22. William J. Murray: Are you serious about that last part? How is it, in your opinion, unconstitutional?

    I don’t see any provision for a popular vote for the Presidency. If we didn’t have this we’d get rid of all the debate over who won the popular vote v who won the electoral vote.

    Article II Section 1.2, Article II Section 1.3

    http://constitutionus.com/

    And notice the possibility for a Pres and VP from different parties.

  23. Mung: I don’t see any provision for a popular vote for the Presidency.

    That’s because it is the United STATES, and not the United People

  24. In a leftish (SJW, et.) world where micro-aggression has become an obsession, Trump is a macro-aggression.

    Nothing really new about either side being irrational and emotional about an election outcome, but there seems to be a greater moralistic intensity to Trump opposition at the present time. While on the one hand there are many who stand for free speech for someone like Milo Yiannopoulos if campus organizations invite him to speak at universities, when his speech is shut down with violence there seems not to be much concern from the sensitivity crowd (and where were the cops?).

    Same old, but more so now.

    Glen Davidson

  25. William, J. Murray, I voted for Trump purely because I agreed with virtually all of his platform.

    Can you specify? I’m not aware of any political platform of Trump apart from “Close the borders” and “Jail Hillary.” I take you agree with those. Anything else?

  26. Mung: I don’t see any provision for a popular vote for the Presidency. If we didn’t have this we’d get rid of all the debate over who won the popular vote v who won the electoral vote.

    Because of problems that arose in a couple of elections, the states ratified the 12th amendment, which set up a uniform way (ratified by the states) for the states to choose electors – by popular vote for the candidate of their choice.

    Originally, the states were free to set up their own methodology for choosing electors, but problems arose. Ratifying an amendment is the same as the states agreeing to choose their electors in a certain way.

    Originally, it was not any popular vote that was supposed to decide the election, but the electors. As we found out, this is still true – the electors chose the president, not the popular vote, by the methodology of choosing electors the states agreed to in 1804. I don’t see how you construe this as being in violation of the Constitution even in principle. Before 1804, the states were constitutionally free to use popular vote elections to choose electors to represent their votes.

  27. Erik: Can you specify? I’m not aware of any political platform of Trump apart from “Close the borders” and “Jail Hillary.” I take you agree with those. Anything else?

    His platform consisted of:
    1. Pausing immigration and refugee relocations into the US from certain trouble areas until a better vetting system was in place;
    2. Extreme vetting of immigrants and refugees, in particular with whether or not their views were irreconcilable with democracy, liberal freedoms, and equal rights and protections for women and the LGBTQ community;
    3. Reforming the tax and tariff system to promote repatriation of corporate wealth, keeping business in the USA and attracting businesses and in particular manufacturing jobs back into the USA;
    4. WRT #3, getting out of or renegotiating NAFTA and getting out of the TPP;
    5. Tax reform – cutting taxes;
    6. Stopping the individual mandate under Obamacare, and replacing Obamacare with better alternatives;
    7. Getting the same prescription drug deals other countries enjoy to lower prescription costs;
    8. Putting in constitutionalist Supreme Court judges;
    9. Freezing federal hiring in most agencies to cut spending by attrition;
    10. Cutting regulations on business; for every new regulation, two others must be eliminated from the books;
    11. Executive branch appointees and other highly placed individuals must sign agreements that they cannot lobby for businesses for 5 years and for foreign countries ever;
    12. Take actions to end “sanctuary cities”;
    13. Build a wall along the southern border to reduce illegal immigration from that avenue;
    14. Issue executive directives to better enforce safety on the streets in many problem areas during “protests”;
    15. Assemble a team to tackle the problem of gun violence and lack of opportunity in many big city areas – a new program of “inner-city development” and opportunity;
    16. Pursuing with vigor criminal charges wrt any politician or bureaucrat involved in criminal activities;
    17. Improve childcare infrastructure for working class mothers;
    19. Build up the military;
    20. Pursue cooperation with Russia and any other willing country to put an end to Islamo-fascist military groups harming and threatening to harm the USA;
    21. Get out of the business of toppling regimes and country-building;

    That’s all I can remember right now, off the top of my head. I also voted for Trump as a proxy by which the tide of PC culture might be challenged, and also to some degree by which the mainstream media narrative would be challenged, but those were not policy platforms.

  28. William J. Murray,

    I don’t think there’s anything about the popular (state) vote in the 12th amendment. That’s why there was a short-lived attempt to get electors to switch their votes away from Trump, there’s nothing in the constitution that ties their votes to the popular (state) vote, or to anything else that I can see (the state can decide on electors and how they’re supposed to vote, IMO). Many states have fines against electors voting contrary to the popular (state) vote.

    Glen Davidson

  29. Trump’s popularity and the fervor with which his supporters defend him is a mystery to me. I’ve heard many liken him to a cult leader and his fan base a cult of personality, but unlike a cult leader, he’s not remotely charismatic — he’s creepy, bone-headed, and childish, not to mention utterly incompetent.

  30. William J. Murray,

    Kudos for being able to actually produce a list. And since you dispute nothing there, I can assume you agree with everything, right?

    So, you complain about “over-the-top anti-Trump behavior” and “implied (if not outright) consent and support such intimidating and violent tactics” while supporting a list that includes “Extreme vetting of immigrants and refugees, in particular with whether or not their views were irreconcilable with democracy, liberal freedoms, and equal rights and protections [i.e. strictly ideological vetting to demonstrate by deeds that you care about none of the rights that your ideology promotes in words]”, “Reforming the tax and tariff system to promote repatriation of corporate wealth [i.e. recipe for class warfare]”, “getting out of or renegotiating NAFTA and getting out of the TPP [i.e. breaking international treaties, creating strife with neighbours and insecurity in international trade]” etc.

    Now, as someone who supports such a politically insane platform (which is directly bad for business, too), why do you think you are in position to complain about “over-the-top anti-Trump behavior”?

  31. I just couldn’t resist this one.

    Well, lets see, just off the top of my head:
    -He rolled back a regulation which prevented coal companies from dumping their waste into rivers.
    -He wants to expand polices ability to seize personal assets from people who haven’t even been accused of a crime.
    -He thinks one of our most pressing needs is a wall from Mexico, which is physically impossible to build, when there are more people leaving to go back to Mexico, then there are immigrants coming here.
    -He is against minimum wages.
    -His two closest advisors are his son in law, and Steve Bannon, two people with absolutely zero government experience, and one whose main claim to fame is being a proud white racist.
    -He wants less regulations for banks to be able to invest in risky ventures, without oversight.
    -He has picked the least qualified cabinet members in history.
    -He is not interested in lengthy intelligence briefings because it takes away from his tv time.
    -He doesn’t know if a strong dollar or a weak dollar is better for the economy.
    -He publicly expresses that its ok if other countries have murdering thugs for leaders, because our country also does the same.
    -He wants to reinstate torture, taking away the ability of our allied partners from pressuring other countries not to torture our servicemen, putting all of their lives in grave risk.
    -He has no curiosity about world politics, diplomacy, or diplomatic precedent.
    -He doesn’t believe conflicts of interest apply to him.
    -He doesn’t read books.
    -He claims he wants to give more power to the states, but he wants to punish California if they have their own immigration policies.
    -He chose Betsy Vos for Secretary of Education, Rick Perry for Secretary of Energy, Ben Carson for HUD, Jeff Sessions for Attorney General, and Scott Pruitt as head of the EPA.

    But it has only been two weeks, and I have only spent about 11 seconds thinking about it, so one question remains, are you out of your fucking mind?

  32. TristanM,

    Obama’s popularity and the fervor with which his supporters defend him is a mystery to me. I’ve heard many liken him to a cult leader and his fan base a cult of personality, but unlike a cult leader, he’s not remotely charismatic — he’s creepy, bone-headed, and childish, not to mention utterly incompetent.

  33. Erik: Kudos for being able to actually produce a list. And since you dispute nothing there, I can assume you agree with everything, right

    Yes.

    So, you complain about “over-the-top anti-Trump behavior” and “implied (if not outright) consent and support such intimidating and violent tactics” while supporting a list that includes “Extreme vetting of immigrants and refugees, in particular with whether or not their views were irreconcilable with democracy, liberal freedoms, and equal rights and protections [i.e. strictly ideological vetting to demonstrate by deeds that you care about none of the rights that your ideology promotes in words]”,

    I don’t understand your connection here. What “ideology” of mine are you referring to? Are you attempting to make a case that if one believes that the best form of government and culture is a liberal democracy with equal rights protections for its citizens, then one must logically extend those protections to and include people that are not citizens and are antagonistic to that form of government and culture? I don’t see that one has any necessary logical entailment of the other. Could you explain?

    “Reforming the tax and tariff system to promote repatriation of corporate wealth [i.e. recipe for class warfare]”,

    Not sure how repatriating corporate wealth from outside of the US to inside the US is a “recipe for class warfare”. That corporate wealth exists whether it is inside or outside the USA; I’d rather have it here.

    “getting out of or renegotiating NAFTA and getting out of the TPP [i.e. breaking international treaties, creating strife with neighbours and insecurity in international trade]” etc.

    Nobody said anything about “breaking international treaties”; everything Trump has done wrt these treaties has been legal. I don’t think that other countries feeling “insecure” or threatening “strife” are significant reasons for either making an economic treaty or continuing with it as-is, especially if that agreement is detrimental to American jobs & wealth creation.

    Now, as someone who supports such a politically insane platform (which is directly bad for business, too), why do you think you are in position to complain about “over-the-top anti-Trump behavior”?

    So, if it is bad for business, why is it that trump has been lining up new business eager to come to the USA (Alibaba) and getting current businesses (Ford, Carrier, Apple) to commit to keeping business (manufacturing) in the USA that was either headed out or was already elsewhere?

    That over-the-top behavior threatened the peaceful transfer of power and continues to threaten the legitimately elected new administration. I think it represents a growing breakdown in civil political discourse and civil society, and is dangerous to the future of our country.

    It’s not like you had this same kind of thing from the other side when Obama was elected. Why is the left being given a pass on terroristic behavior, political intimidation, and seditious commentary?

  34. WJM,

    Pausing immigration and refugee relocations into the US from certain trouble areas until a better vetting system was in place;

    Better how? And given no refugee from any of those locations has killed any americians, why?

  35. William J. Murray: What “ideology” of mine are you referring to?

    See again: “Extreme vetting of immigrants and refugees, in particular with whether or not their views were irreconcilable with democracy, liberal freedoms, and equal rights and protections…”

    The claim to democracy, liberal freedoms, equal rights and protections screams IDEOLOGY. It is particularly screaming when in the same sentence with EXTREME VETTING, in which case it’s blatantly obvious that there is no pretention to attempt the delicate balance that is democracy, liberal freedoms, etc. They are very delicate, you know.

    But I doubt you see that. Why would a Trumpist understand and care? No reason.

  36. OMagain: Better how? And given no refugee from any of those locations has killed any americians, why?

    Better wrt to vetting their history and ideology. For some of those countries there exist no means by which to vet refugee history at all because there is no state infrastructure by which any meaningful historical vetting can take place. Given that ISIS is using refugee movement to infiltrate the West, I think a temporary ban is reasonable on countries that were already under travel restrictions. It’s precuationary, not reactionary.

    I assume there were good intelligence-driven reasons why Obama put those restrictions on in the first place, reasons we may not be privvy to.

    I prefer extreme caution wrt whom we allow in this country to make sure they are not here to harm us or undermine our liberal democracy.

  37. Erik: See again: “Extreme vetting of immigrants and refugees, in particular with whether or not their views were irreconcilable with democracy, liberal freedoms, and equal rights and protections…”

    The claim to democracy, liberal freedoms, equal rights and protections screams IDEOLOGY. It is particularly screaming when in the same sentence with EXTREME VETTING, in which case it’s blatantly obvious that there is no pretention to attempt the delicate balance that is democracy, liberal freedoms, etc. They are very delicate, you know.

    But I doubt you see that. Why would a Trumpist understand and care? No reason.

    Erik, are you not up to a civil discussion? It seems to me that you have emotionally demonized any and all Trump supporters? Is it possible for you to check your priors at the door?

    It is not a part of my “ideology” that all humans are capable of living civilly in a liberal democracy such as our. Some humans are violently opposed to such a culture. Some will take guns into nightclubs and kill those who have different sexual or gender orientations. Some think female genital mutilation is a good thing. Some thing raping children is okay. Some think the subjugation of women is okay. Some think blowing up innocent civilians is okay. Some think violence is a perfectly acceptable way of adjudicating political differences.

    I prefer to use extreme caution in determining whom we admit to the USA, especially from countries that appear to have rather large groups with ideologies that include any of the above.

    I don’t see how this is logically irreconcilable with my view that the best form of government is a liberal democracy with equal rights protections for its citizens. If other people want to live where under a theocracy that offers no such protections, they should go elsewhere.

    I don’t get your objection, Erik. Are you saying we should allow anyone who wants to enter the USA to enter, even if they are bent on destroying our liberal democracy and feel that it is “good” to kill gays and subjugate women?

  38. Now, you see, I’ve calmly answered many questions and requests and have stated with civility the reasons for my supporting Trump. You may not agree with those policy platforms, but I don’t see how any of this makes me a “fascist” or a “racist” or unworthy of civil dialogue, or worthy of violent retribution or intimidation.

  39. WJM, you are a useful idiot for Isis, performing their plan for them. Too much fox news war on christmas / here comes sharia has radicalized you.

  40. William J. Murray: It is not a part of my “ideology” that all humans are capable of living civilly in a liberal democracy such as our. Some humans are violently opposed to such a culture. Some will take guns into nightclubs and kill those who have different sexual or gender orientations. Some think female genital mutilation is a good thing. Some thing raping children is okay. Some think the subjugation of women is okay. Some think blowing up innocent civilians is okay. Some think violence is a perfectly acceptable way of adjudicating political differences.

    Yes, yes, and therefore extreme vetting of immigrants and refugees is compatible with democracy, liberal freedoms, equal rights and protections, right? Well, you have that platform up there, so of course right.

    William J. Murray: I prefer to use extreme caution in determining whom we admit to the USA…

    Think: Was anything the matter with immigration policies under Obama and W? What specifically should be changed? You want a wall on the Mexican border? How about Canadian border too, even better!

    Better still, don’t think. Your thinking has already made you a fan of Trump who is the master of breaching his word. You will see him break his word on (hopefully) every single point rather sooner than later. That’s what politicians do. Except that he is not a politician, he is a businessman like that. “[Not paying taxes] makes me smart!”

  41. OMagain:
    WJM,

    Better how? And given no refugee from any of those locations has killed any americians, why?

    In fact the Muslim-majority countries that were NOT included in the ban were the only Muslim-majority countries ever to be involved in terror attacks on US soil.

    Probably because Trump owns hotels and golf courses in those countries.

  42. WJM sez:

    I prefer to use extreme caution in determining whom we admit to the USA…

    The United States already has one of, if not the , most cautious and rigorous vetting processes for refugees in the world, involving something like 18 agencies and taking up to two years.

  43. TristanM:
    WJM sez:

    I prefer to use extreme caution in determining whom we admit to the USA…

    The United States already has one of, if not the , most cautious and rigorous vetting processes for refugees in the world, involving something like 18 agencies and taking up to two years.

    That’s great. I’d like to continue to err on the side of extreme caution.

  44. William J. Murray: That’s great. I’d like to continue to err on the side of extreme caution.

    I think those who are opposed Trump feel to same way about the safety of our democracy

  45. TristanM: In fact the Muslim-majority countries that were NOT included in the ban were the only Muslim-majority countries ever to be involved in terror attacks on US soil.

    Probably because Trump owns hotels and golf courses in those countries.

    So the reason Obama did not put those countries on travel restrictions in the first place years ago was … because Trump owns hotels and golf courses in those countries?

    Perhaps a more reasonable interpretation is that Trump didn’t put those countries on the list for the same reasons Obama didn’t put those countries on his list – because of deep economic and military ties that would make such actions highly problematic and require diplomacy and negotiation, whereas the current 7 countries represent low-hanging diplomatic/economic/military fruit he can take immediate action on.

  46. William J. Murray: Perhaps a more reasonable interpretation is that Trump didn’t put those countries on the list for the same reasons Obama didn’t put those countries on his list – because of deep economic and military ties that would make such actions highly problematic and require diplomacy and negotiation, whereas the current 7 countries represent low-hanging diplomatic/economic/military fruit he can take immediate action on.

    So it was not so much about safety but for the show of toughness?

  47. William J. Murray: That’s great.I’d like to continue to err on the side of extreme caution.

    Wouldn’t it also be wise, then, to not assist ISIS recruiters so much by further alienating and angering young Muslim men in countries where anti-West militant groups may lurk?

    And again, the ban does not include any countries whose citizens have actually immigrated to the US and committed acts of terror. This doesn’t bother you?

  48. Erik: Yes, yes, and therefore extreme vetting of immigrants and refugees is compatible with democracy, liberal freedoms, equal rights and protections, right? Well, you have that platform up there, so of course right.

    You haven’t explained, logically, how it is not compatible. Are you relying on me drawing some sort of emotional connection between the two? Why not just explain the logic of how one necessarily precludes the other.

    Was anything the matter with immigration policies under Obama and W? What specifically should be changed? You want a wall on the Mexican border? How about Canadian border too, even better!

    The problem under both presidents is that the current laws on the books were not being enforced to the best of their ability to enforce, and were, in Obama’s case, aggressively circumvented by executive order. I wouldn’t be opposed to a Canadian border wall.

    Better still, don’t think. Your thinking has already made you a fan of Trump who is the master of breaching his word. You will see him break his word on (hopefully) every single point rather sooner than later. That’s what politicians do. Except that he is not a politician, he is a businessman like that. “[Not paying taxes] makes me smart!”

    As I said, I voted for Trump because I saw him as representing the best chance for those policy positions to be implemented. He can’t break on “every single point” because he has already delivered on a few of them.

  49. TristanM: Wouldn’t it also be wise, then, to not assist ISIS recruiters so much by further alienating and angering young Muslim men in countries where anti-West militant groups may lurk?

    Historically, appeasement as a strategy has never worked. Let me ask you, do you think you are risking angering the wrong kind of people if you put a lock on your door and install a security system? What kind of logic is that?

    And again, the ban does not include any countries whose citizens have actually immigrated to the US and committed acts of terror.This doesn’t bother you?

    Sure it does, but I recognize that there are many factors involved with some of these countries that would make a temporary ban more problematic.

Leave a Reply