I gave DJT a chance, now I'm out

[chop2chip]

I voted HRC in the election. To be perfectly honest, I wasn't really all that impressed by her, but I figured I knew what she was and Trump could have been anything. When Trump won, I was skeptically optimistic that maybe once he was in office he would surround himself with enough good voices that he would enact enough sound policies that it would make up for who he was as a person.

With this ban on Muslim immigration, I'm out on him. I gave him a chance and he disappointed.

[cajunrevenge]

Atleast he acknoledges the threat. I dont want a President who blames people for offending Muslims as the reason for things like Bengahzi. I think we need to make a point to offend then so we know who the crazies are. If you are willing to kill for your religion you are a threat.



I have worked with several people from Iran who were good people. I am fine with taking non muslims or muslims who dont take it seriously.

[The Chosen One]

Do you just let any Muslims in your house before opening the door and seeing their Muslim?

[cajunrevenge]

I dont anyone in my home..... when I had one. I dont even answer the door.

[thethe]

I don't see how you can go about this any differently. There is a real threat out there

[cajunrevenge]

Peoppe are more upset with Trump for blocking immigrants from these countries than they were with Obama for bombing them. If there is no threat from people in these countries why were we bombing them?

[chop2chip]

I don't see how you can go about this any differently. There is a real threat out there

It's wrong thethe

It's unambiguously, morally wrong.

[cajunrevenge]

If you think we have freedom if religion try inventing your own and see how much people respect it. Its more like freedom to choose one of the major religons of the world.




I like how I am the bad guy for not wanting people who think women are property and that there are acceptable situations where you can rape and beat women into the country. We just need an effective way to filter out the ones that feel that way. Even if they dont go out and rape women I am worried about them voting their beliefs. I dont want to give people voting rights who refuse to vote for a woman or employ women.

[thethe]

It's wrong thethe

It's unambiguously, morally wrong.

Yes on the face it is wrong.

We don't live in a perfect world and tough choices need to be made. This will make us safer.

[thethe]

If you think we have freedom if religion try inventing your own and see how much people respect it. Its more like freedom to choose one of the major religons of the world.




I like how I am the bad guy for not wanting people who think women are property and that there are acceptable situations where you can rape and beat women into the country. We just need an effective way to filter out the ones that feel that way. Even if they dont go out and rape women I am worried about them voting their beliefs. I dont want to give people voting rights who refuse to vote for a woman or employ women.

We can't solve Islam's problems. The moderate Islamic people need to stand up for themselves. In the meantime we need to make sure our people are safe. The Muslims that are here are here. Can't do anything about that and we shouldnt. But we absolutely need to prevent more potential terrorists from entering the country

[sturg33]

The ban is ridiculous and Republican leaders need to speak up.

Unfortunately, a conservative, small party no longer exists in this country

[goldfly]

i hear ya Chop

could see how it was going to go when he started naming cabinet picks but it's truly a sad day to call ourselves citizens of this country

and his quote while signing it is just utterly pathetic:

" "I'm establishing new vetting measures to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of the United States of America. We don't want 'em here.""

it's like he thinks anyone wants terrorists here.

[BedellBrave]

It's wrong thethe

It's unambiguously, morally wrong.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. But I would note two things:

1. Upon what standard is this "unambiguously, morally wrong"? Strong language.

2. Secondly, the standard to which I would appeal is the law of God (in the Judeo-Christian sense) as seen through and applied by the teaching of Christ and his apostles (i.e., NT ethic). Upon that standard love of neighbor is a moral imperative of highest order. Yet, love of neighbor, can be argued for the refugee, the foreigner, the sojourner, etc., and next door neighbor and family. And so, I think we should debate to what extent we should go to protect our neighbors from those who might be seeking their destruction. Now of course, when you actually look at the chances we and our neighbors are actually threatened, they are infinitesimally small. And so, in my opinion, using appropriate vetting procedures, we ought to extend love to the potential neighbor and not bar immigration.

That said, I'm not sure how terrible a 90 day waiting period is actually and I would say that I do appreciate that the Trump administration versus the previous administration, isn't going to discriminate against Christian refugees. No matter the rhetoric of the previous administration, their actions effectively gave immense preference to Muslim refugees over Christian. Why give preference to either?

[Julio3000]

I wanted to start a "give him a chance" thread earlier, so I'm glad you've started the ball rolling.

This executive order is just staggering, both in its effect and its conception. It appears to have originated from WH policy people and not been passed through State or DHS. It is hard to imagine that professionals--of any political stripe--would sign off on an immigration ban that prevents current green card holders and those on valid visas from re-entering the country. This is what comes of an uncritical adherence to the idea that we're somehow better off with amateurs and so-called outsiders running the show. Never mind that I think that this policy is misguided and xenophobic in even its narrowest interpretation, the fact that it apparently applies to folks who have already been approved to live, work, and contribute to American society is just hard to fathom.

Also in that raft of executive orders is a paragraph that directs DHS thusly:

"...on a weekly basis, make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens."

Godwin's Law is snapping at my heels right now.

Republicans in Congress seem content to go along with this as long as they get their tax cuts and repeal of the ACA. When is the pivot going to happen? When is this pragmatic, non-ideological Trump going to emerge?

[sturg33]

I wanted to start a "give him a chance" thread earlier, so I'm glad you've started the ball rolling.

This executive order is just staggering, both in its effect and its conception. It appears to have originated from WH policy people and not been passed through State or DHS. It is hard to imagine that professionals--of any political stripe--would sign off on an immigration ban that prevents current green card holders and those on valid visas from re-entering the country. This is what comes of an uncritical adherence to the idea that we're somehow better off with amateurs and so-called outsiders running the show. Never mind that I think that this policy is misguided and xenophobic in even its narrowest interpretation, the fact that it apparently applies to folks who have already been approved to live, work, and contribute to American society is just hard to fathom.

Also in that raft of executive orders is a paragraph that directs DHS thusly:

"...on a weekly basis, make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens."

Godwin's Law is snapping at my heels right now.

Republicans in Congress seem content to go along with this as long as they get their tax cuts and repeal of the ACA. When is the pivot going to happen? When is this pragmatic, non-ideological Trump going to emerge?

I agree with all this... shocking action

[Julio3000]

I don't necessarily disagree with you. But I would note two things:

1. Upon what standard is this "unambiguously, morally wrong"? Strong language.

2. Secondly, the standard to which I would appeal is the law of God (in the Judeo-Christian sense) as seen through and applied by the teaching of Christ and his apostles (i.e., NT ethic). Upon that standard love of neighbor is a moral imperative of highest order. Yet, love of neighbor, can be argued for the refugee, the foreigner, the sojourner, etc., and next door neighbor and family. And so, I think we should debate to what extent we should go to protect our neighbors from those who might be seeking their destruction. Now of course, when you actually look at the chances we and our neighbors are actually threatened, they are infinitesimally small. And so, in my opinion, using appropriate vetting procedures, we ought to extend love to the potential neighbor and not bar immigration.

That said, I'm not sure how terrible a 90 day waiting period is actually and I would say that I do appreciate that the Trump administration versus the previous administration, isn't going to discriminate against Christian refugees. No matter the rhetoric of the previous administration, their actions effectively gave immense preference to Muslim refugees over Christian. Why give preference to either?

That's pretty easy for us to say, as we sit in safety and comfort. Why do it at all?

Also, who's to say it won't directly cost lives?

[BedellBrave]

That's pretty easy for us to say, as we sit in safety and comfort. Why do it at all?

Also, who's to say it won't directly cost lives?

It may - but hopefully it won't. Wish all the anti-ISIS players would carve out temporary safe havens for refugees in any interim period.

The reason I stated it was because as of yet - this isn't a permanent ban but a hold. So, it's not as bad yet as it's being portrayed and hopefully will be dumped soon.

[Julio3000]

It may - but hopefully it won't. Wish all the anti-ISIS players would carve out temporary safe havens for refugees in any interim period.

The reason I stated it was because as of yet - this isn't a permanent ban but a hold. So, it's not as bad yet as it's being portrayed and hopefully will be dumped soon.

I hope so. I also think it will take a push from all sides to make that happen.

[BedellBrave]

Btw, this: link

May we all use this time wisely - advocating for sanity, compassion, and justice. And working to be ready to extend a personal hand to refugees - not just a government hand.

[bravesnumberone]

Every politician who has ever praised our military for "promoting democracy and our way of life around the world" should stand up against this.

This is not what we stand for or should be about. The sad thing is a lot of the same people who stand there and say we need this to protect against a terrorist attack will shrug their shoulders at our next school shooting.