I gave DJT a chance, now I'm out

[BedellBrave]

I'm just glad we finally found a way to blame this on OBUMMER. I was getting anxious for a second there.

And who is doing that?

I think if you honestly look at how responses have unfolded over the past few days you will acknowledge that critics (and I am one) suggested that the nations that were chosen were chosen because Trump didn't have business interests there. But then we look a bit deeper and we see that the nations chosen are nations that the previous administration had already targeted and that Trump was following suit.

[BedellBrave]

I don't know. I find the both the external circumstances and the internal processes different enough to blunt the BUT OBAMA DID IT defense. I'm surprised that you don't. Another point that's worth mentioning is that there was an FBI investigation that involved an international conspiracy to use stateside refugees to send weapons back to Iraq. That's materially different than the threat from a self-radicalized and self-described "lone wolf."

Whether Obama's action was right or wrong, I will say that his administration earned the benefit of the doubt on a few counts that the current one has not. Is Trump going to get less slack? Absolutely. I think you have to concede that, at least in part, he's reaping the whirlwind for the injudicious and inflammatory language that he's used for 18 months.

I am not surprised that those who supported the previous administration didn't and don't have much problem with his actions in regard to Iraqi refugees, Syrian refugees, Cuban refugees, or many matters to be frank.

And to be clear, the argument isn't "but Obama did it, so it's okay for Trump to do this." This is not a defense of Trump. The argument is let us be more consistent in our criticism.

I do wonder whether the ****-storm is actually concerned for refugees as much as it is an opportunity to blast a jerk.

[BedellBrave]

I've still been trying to figure out exactly why this e.o. was handled so clumsily. My first thought was, "well, what should I expect? Trump is an idiotic bull in a china shop." Yet, I remember back during the primaries figuring out that he's not really dumb at all, he, at least in the campaign, was actually very shrewd and had a better grasp on things than the plethora of pundits and opponents. So, that has made me second guess my initial reaction now. I read the following last night and maybe it's the better explanation:

The following are a few thoughts on President Trump’s recent executive order and the response to it.

1.
We should never forget that the president is a reality TV star. Television and, more recently, the Internet are the media that define contemporary politics. President Trump is at home with and driven by these media to a degree that few other politicians are. We shouldn’t forget how focused Trump is on things such as ratings, applause, opinion polls, positive press, and audience numbers.

Rather than fixating on how Trump is doing law and regular politics badly, we should consider the possibility that Trump is approaching politics as reality television and the nation as the audience of his political theatre. To the extent that our politics is increasingly hostage to the media of TV and the Internet, Trump may be a lot better at working the audience of the nation than a regular politician. However, in many respects we are now seeing the profound tension that exists between the spectacle of politics in the mass and social media age and the substance of prudent political governance. Trump’s brilliance at the former is not unconnected with his catastrophic unsuitability for the latter.
We should also stop trying to find something behind the spectacle when it comes to Trump, whether that be some dark fascist vision or Scott Adams’ style nimble navigation of a master negotiator. For Trump, the spectacle is not a mask, but the thing that really matters. This does not mean that Trump isn’t able to play the games of specious media exceedingly well, or that there aren’t others around him taking advantage of the spectacle that he creates.

Extending this point, our fixation on television and social media as citizens or subjects is also a reason for the volatile character of modern democracy, on both sides of the aisle. Just as the narcissistic President Trump is focused upon his image in the water of social media and television, so we increasingly carry out our politics as self-preoccupied identity-signalling.
*
2.
Taking such a perspective, I wonder how much of the supposed clumsiness of President Trump’s executive order is actually intended to serve as political theatre. It makes Trump look tough to his base. It attacks a liberal sacred cow, provoking many hysterical reactions that make the left look stupid. It heightens the sorts of tensions that brought Trump to power in the first place. It acts as a demonstration to certain immigrant groups and their communities that the gloves are off and, if they don’t get in line, the system won’t be nice and reasonable with them. Whatever the actual content of the order, the spectacle is clearly calculated to make Muslims feel unwelcome, which is a powerful signal to a base that is disgusted with Europe’s and American liberals’ blinkered Islamophilia. It is an ugly order and it was intended to be ugly. It is very poorly calculated to tackle the actual problem of radical Islamists and the difficulties of integration. However, it delivers the desired spectacle, which was always more important than the substance.

Trump is already thinking ahead to 2020. Campaigning for the presidency comes far more naturally to him than actually executing the office. I suspect that the next few years will involve Trump acting more as a wrestling ‘heel’ than as a conventional president: maximizing spectacle and the confusion that accompanies it, breaking the rules, playing to a highly partisan base by attacking the unpopular ‘babyface’ of the progressive left, while complaining that things are rigged against him. It will be great television, widely appreciated by the masses, and generally terrible for the country.


Link

[bravesnumberone]

The reality television thing definitely has some weight. I mean he's announcing his Supreme Court pick in prime time tomorrow night. If he had his way, the hearings would probably be done in prime time as well.

[bravesnumberone]

That said, I kind of like it if only for the reason that the people would be more informed if they watched our "leaders" deliberate at night.

[Hawk]

First, Obama responded to an actual threat

Yemeni Houthi rebels (aligned with and funded by Iran) fired missiles at Navy Destroyers in the Red Sea multiple times late last year. We were conducting anti-terror raids there as recently as 48 hours ago.

Al-Qaeda is also operating out of Yemen.

Al-Qaeda has three factions in Somalia, one in Libya and in Iraq. Connections in Sudan and Syria (where they have recently been aligning with Daesh splinter groups).

Do you think Qaeda is an "actual threat" to the United States or not?

Do you think we should allow citizens to enter the US from a country that recently sentenced 2 US citizens to 10 years in prison for "cooperating with the US government"?

[Julio3000]

I think that would depend entirely on who those individuals were. Seems kind of odd that the administration apparently wasn't spending time during the transition parsing the efficacy of the vetting process.

[weso1]

Watched Morning Joe clip from this morning. Looks like Stephen Miller is being thrown under the bus. In the end maybe this poorly worded and executed EO might wind up being a good thing. I would expect that from here on out Trump's foreign policy cabinet will have more say in these types of things. Reign in Bannon a bit.

[sturg33]

I think the best thing about the Trump presidency is that the press will go back to scrutinizing our government, and people may second guess giving so much power to our government/executive branch.

We'll see

[Julio3000]

Watched Morning Joe clip from this morning. Looks like Stephen Miller is being thrown under the bus. In the end maybe this poorly worded and executed EO might wind up being a good thing. I would expect that from here on out Trump's foreign policy cabinet will have more say in these types of things. Reign in Bannon a bit.

If this doesn't change, I expect we'll see a lot of resignations from State/DoD/DHS. Trump may count on popular support to insulate him from criticism of bad decisions, but it's not going to keep the professionals on the reservation if they continue to be cut out.

[Julio3000]

This is the most effective response to the "Obama Did It" defense that I've seen. Link.

Excerpted one point which cannot be stressed enough:

4. Orderly, organized process: The Obama administration’s review was conducted over roughly a dozen deputies and principals committee meetings, involving Cabinet and deputy Cabinet-level officials from all of the relevant departments and agencies — including the State, Homeland Security and Justice Departments — and the intelligence community. The Trump executive order was reportedly drafted by White House political officials and then presented to the implementing agencies a fait accompli. This is not just bad policymaking practice, it led directly to the confusion, bordering on chaos, that has attended implementation of the order by agencies that could only start asking questions (such as: “does this apply to green card holders?”) once the train had left the station.

[Metaphysicist]

And to be clear, the argument isn't "but Obama did it, so it's okay for Trump to do this." This is not a defense of Trump. The argument is let us be more consistent in our criticism.

The point is, Bedell, what Obama did is not comparable. So asking us to "be consistent" just comes off as deflection.

[sturg33]

The point is, Bedell, what Obama did is not comparable. So asking us to "be consistent" just comes off as deflection.

How are they not comparable? I concede thay're not exactly the same thing... but not comparable?

The best argument Julio admitted to was that Obama did it better... so he did a bad deed in a better format. Yay?

[goldfly]

Obama rejects comparison between Trump’s immigration policy and his own, encourages protests

Former president Barack Obama rejected the idea Monday that President Trump based his immigration executive order on a policy adopted by his own administration, and he endorsed the protests that have been taking place across the country in response to the new restrictions.

Trump has said that his move to ban the entry of migrants from seven Muslim-majority countries into the United States, and to suspend temporarily the admission of refugees, was based in part on a decision in 2011 by then-President Obama to ban the admission of Iraqis to the country after evidence surfaced that two Iraqis seeking resettlement had been linked to terrorist activity in their homeland. The Obama and Trump administrations also identified the same seven countries as harboring terrorism threats.

Former Obama administration officials have denied that there was ever a halt to the awarding of visas to Iraqis, though the processing of these applications slowed after they were subject to more intense scrutiny.

Obama, who has remained publicly silent about his successor since leaving office 10 days ago, pledged before leaving office to only speak about Trump's policy moves “where I think our core values may be at stake.” On Monday, his spokesman Kevin Lewis said in a statement, “With regard to comparisons to President Obama’s foreign policy decisions, as we’ve heard before, the President fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion.”

Alluding to the widespread protests taking place in major airports and cities in response to the new immigration policy, Lewis said that Obama “is heartened by the level of engagement taking place in communities around the country.”

“In his final official speech as President, he spoke about the important role of citizen and how all Americans have a responsibility to be the guardians of our democracy — not just during an election but every day,” Lewis said. “Citizens exercising their Constitutional right to assemble, organize and have their voices heard by their elected officials is exactly what we expect to see when American values are at stake.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.7e9e9bef1fa8

[Julio3000]

How are they not comparable? I concede thay're not exactly the same thing... but not comparable?

The best argument Julio admitted to was that Obama did it better... so he did a bad deed in a better format. Yay?

That was one point of several. But, yay.

[sturg33]

That was one point of several. But, yay.

Apologies... I read your post as that point was the most effective... not the entire article.

[BedellBrave]

The point is, Bedell, what Obama did is not comparable. So asking us to "be consistent" just comes off as deflection.

You guys have made a good case. I'm not sure though I'd say there are no points of comparison.

Did y'all have any concerns with the slowness of Obama's original response to the Syrian crisis (i.e., the paltry numbers of refugees we took in from the beginning of the crisis until the very end of his administration); his effective ban of Christian refugees when the problem was understood and still not addressed; with his targeting the 7 countries Trump's e.o. has targeted; Obama's sudden change in regards to Cuba (leaving refugees in the lurch), etc.?

I'd be happy to know that your concerns are indeed for refugees and not just picking low-lying fruit.

[cajunrevenge]

Why do I never hear any mention of atheist refugees?

[jpx7]

You guys have made a good case. I'm not sure though I'd say there are no points of comparison.

Did y'all have any concerns with the slowness of Obama's original response to the Syrian crisis (i.e., the paltry numbers of refugees we took in from the beginning of the crisis until the very end of his administration); his effective ban of Christian refugees when the problem was understood and still not addressed; with his targeting the 7 countries Trump's e.o. has targeted; Obama's sudden change in regards to Cuba (leaving refugees in the lurch), etc.?

I'd be happy to know that your concerns are indeed for refugees and not just picking low-lying fruit.

Yes to all—especially the first—but with an asterisk for the last one. I approve of normalizing relations with Cuba, however sudden, but not "leaving refugees in the lurch" as part of that process.

[cajunrevenge]