:
|
Trump's a man of action, not the kind of person who is willing to wait while his cabinet gets filled out. Besides, voters expect results, and, again, Trump is a man of action, i.e. results.
|
:
|
I could say that Trump isn’t really banning people from the 7 Middle Eastern countries, he’s just told CBP to stop processing people with nationalities pertaining to those countries.
Either way, the setup to both is the same. The ban (temporary halt, if you will) in 2011 was due to a bomb threat, while the temporary halt (ban, if you will) this past weekend was sparked by events such as the Orlando shooting and Ohio State car-knife attack.
|
"Trump is a man of action" seems more of a glorification of his person than anything. Many of us think he's headstrong and stupid, and we don't trust his actions. It's not a matter of how confident he is, it's a matter of how competent he is, that's the problem. Obama fought with congress for literally EVERY decision he EVER tried to make, and virtually everything he did had to involve severe compromise in order for it to get passed, if at all. Now with a Republican in office, presidential decisions are quicker to process because we have a right-wing majority at this time with a right-wing cabinet. So far, since Trump has officially been president he's made what many of us consider a bad business deal of sorts, building a wall which we think will not be worth our tax payer's money, and now this whole airport situation is further indication of bad things to come. Innocent people like the OP's spouse are being denied access to their families back in the US because of an irrational, wild form of discrimination, meanwhile professional business men and women are facing work-related crisises as they can't continue their international work.
I keep using the word "xenophobia" because this is exactly what is being encouraged and what will continue to be encouraged with this attitude, regardless of why these decisions are being made. We've already had a problem with religious discrimination since 9/11, and while I agree that doing nothing about threats to national security is a worse option, automatically deeming someone a potential threat because of who they pray to or where they were born only reminds one of the Japanese internment camps of WW2. There are appropriate ways to deal with problems, and there are over-reactions which fuel bigotry.
I don't recall the last time the KKK initiated victory parades instead of protests for a president elect. It doesn't matter whether or not you call it an actual "ban" or the "temporary cease of processes". As you said, the initiation is the same, and the effect is the same too. Even if there is reason to temporarily halt the processing of certain kinds of people, the ultimate effect we're getting seems to be doing more harm than good as a "preventative measure". The same could probably be said for similar actions from previous administers.
Forgive me if I’m being stupid, but didn’t Trump say at some early point in his campaign that gross and overzealous safety procedures in airports were a problem we had to deal with? Maybe I misinterpreted or I’m remembering wrong, but that doesn’t really fit with what’s going on now.
:
|
How was I saying they were the same issue, when I explicitly stated that it’s not just illegal immigration and refugees that are the problem?
|
You did kind of bunch the issue of immigration and outsourcing together, it kind of looked like you were using one to prove the other point, which even confused me a little until I read it over a couple of times.
:
|
That article makes it sound like only illegal immigrants raise wages. We can reap the rewards of letting in people legally, while enforcing our immigration laws to keep out people who don’t care to follow the rules. Heck, Trump wants to streamline the immigration process.
|
:
|
It may seem that way if President Nieto is unwilling to negotiate, but the reality is that we hold all the cards. One thing to remember is that we don't need Mexico to literally pay us, it's just that Trump promised that Mexico will "pay for" the wall. For instance, Trump just recently asked Congress to approve a 20% import tax on Mexican goods. Other potential solutions include driving up the price of visas and forbidding Mexican immigrants from sending money back home to their families (amounts to $24 billion a year).
|
If Trump will really make it easier for people to migrate here legally and start a healthy American life, then I'm all for that, but I haven't really seen any indication of that. If anything, the message I've been hearing from him sounds more like he's trying to crack down on immigration all together and keeping people out more than anything. The idea of preventing people from using work Visa's to send money back home, which as you mentioned could pay for the wall, sounds more insensitive than anything. Many immigrants keep their actual families on the other side of the border because they honestly can't afford to go through the legal process to move them here much less buy a house or pay rent. Going harder on work Visas will only decrease legitimate, legal immigration. That's not streamlining. Raising prices for Visas also sounds like a way to make life harder for low-income, desperate families seeking the American dream, and nothing more.
:
Estimated wall cost: Around 25$ billion
>be Obama
>propose $70 billion budget to carry out regulations
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susandud.../#cc4e1b1c7e4b
vs.
>be Trump
>for every new regulation, 2 regulations will be diced
>want to build $25 billion wall
>25 isn’t even half of 70 |
Okay, so Obama’s idea was more expensive. Was it more reasonable though? What these regulations, specifically? Maybe they were a better idea than what Trump’s trying to do or maybe they weren’t. Either way, that doesn’t change the fact that many of us still think that the all mighty border wall won’t actually help our nation enough to be worth that kind of money.
:
Is it really Hungary's problem how the refugees feel, since they're the very refugees that Hungary wants to keep out? Maybe the people of Hungary know something we don't? Isn't that grounds for negotiation?
That goes for other countries. Bringing in people from war-torn countries with a very different perception of human rights… What could go wrong?
I don’t know what European Union you’re talking about, but they seem to have the right idea. Japan saw trouble a mile (well, many miles) away, and only took in a few refugees. Guess what two of them (Turkish) wound up doing?
Evidently, the statistics you brought up didn’t work for Japan. Maybe they haven't worked out for America, either? Maybe that's why Trump won the election? |
:
|
But I am not concerned about the effectiveness of a hypothetical wall – of course putting a wall up will stop people. What worries me is the implication behind these walls; the ideology they represent. Let alone the prohibitive financial cost of such a wall would be quite possibly the largest waste of federal money on a vanity project the US has ever seen.
Hungary’s wall represents one part of the rising anti-refugee sentiment in Europe. Let’s recap: refugees are people fleeing war, seeking asylum, fleeing from terror. They risk life and limb abandoning their homes to travel across the world to find safety; but now instead they are finding themselves blocked, turned away, or penned in to despicable holding camps. The European Union is failing to support people desperately in need of help – is that the example the US wants to follow?
|
Once again, Mexican immigrants – who are the ones allegedly going to be effected by the wall – are by no means like immigrants over there in the middle-east. Plus, you still can’t ignore the kind of image a giant wall presents to other countries. I think Manco hit it pretty hard here.
:
|
The barrier worked, didn't it? That's what we're talking about here.
|
Again that’s not the issue – of course a wall will reduce illegal immigration. What I keep stressing is I honestly don’t think that issue is affected the country enough to warrant spending that kind of money. We should just invest in better security measures if anything. Or again, how about make it easier to legally migrate here? You know, streamline it?
:
|
Also... "Trump's Racist Wall"
"Mexican" is not a race. While we're at it, neither is "Muslim."
|
Apples and oranges. There is no need to be a dictionary here. It’s an idea that will promote discrimination, in a time where people are already resentful towards Hispanics. Though I have yet to be directly discriminated against, I have seen my mother and father discriminated against quite often growing up. Discrimination and resentment towards Mexicans is very much alive in this country, especially in border states. This wall presents a bad sentiment and I firmly believe it will not be worth the money to build.
:
|
We’ve been treating the Middle East like a chew toy for the past few decades.
Do you know why? Because we act in our own interests. If you look at my Sweden example above, that’s what happens when a country values foreigners over its own people. That’s what happens when a government fails to prioritize the well-being of its own people.
|
Things are different now since 9/11, but the Gulf War was a situation we had to deal with because we were obligated to defend an ally who was being wrongfully invaded.
:
|
We don’t want to have our government make that mistake. That’s why we elected Trump.
|
Trump got elected because of the electoral college, he did not win because of the popular vote – which to this day he still stubbornly claims was due to “all those damn dirty illegals” with absolutely no evidence to support such claims. I absolutely promise you that if someone better than Hillary won the head of the Democrats, Trump would have lost to an absolute landslide.
In fact, I promise you so much that if I had a time machine and could go and change who won the primary on the left and make it Bernie Sanders, Trump would have lost the general election by like 25% vs 75% AT LEAST. I promise you that so much that I would seriously give you a THOUSAND dollars if I would be wrong after using such a time machine. There are A LOT of Republicans who refused to vote because of Trump, and many I know personally would have voted for Bernie – some of which voted Hillary during the general just to try to keep Trump out of office. The Democrats fucked themselves one way or another by selecting Hillary to be their head. And many believe it happened in part because of the corruption in our politics – she is Wall Street incarnate and a witch.
:
|
>be Office of Government Ethics
>sue Trump
>win
>Trump is somehow impeached by republican-dominated Congress
>be President Mike Pence
>”amperes for queers” Pence
>”turning fruits into vegetables” Pence
>conservative evangelical Christian
>no conflict of interests... with God
>federalize conversion therapy
>nuke Middle East
>deusvult.jpg
|
Yes I agree, Pence is a scumbag and a much worse potential leader. The problem though is, how much of his kind would Trump cater towards to secure the next election? We’re probably going to see religion meddle more and more with government decisions and regulations as time goes by.
:
|
The hypocrisy comes from his businesses outsourcing abroad, with him then turning around and proclaiming that businesses outsourcing abroad are a problem, without doing anything to change his own business practices. Has he stopped his businesses from outsourcing? Has he implemented any actual policy about this yet? It is far from the only hypocritical thing he has done.
|
:
|
Is there reason for concern? Yes. But, personally, I could care less.
|
….
:
|
We’re a republic. Our votes represent our will. When a candidate wins, that means we approved of what they’re going to do, and any amount of us changing our minds will only matter come the next election cycle.
Besides, if a president was REALLY obligated to act on the people’s will, then we get a thing called “tyranny of the majority,” which our founding fathers specifically set up the Electoral College to counter.
|
That represents an entirely different issue that many others have been debating since its creation, and many have been calling for its abolishment. In fact, even TRUMP HIMSELF has stated before during his early campaign that the electoral college is an example of federal tyranny that must be abolished for the betterment of the American people. He said this, and then now he’s said the opposite because IT WAS THE REASON HE WON. This is one of the largest, most talked about examples of his hypocrisy. And of course now many more people are raging against it because here we are with Trump as our president.
Also, I agree polls aren't the most reliable of sources. But massive protests and just the simple word of mouth are when it comes to the general popularity of someone. Trump is by no means a 50-50 split, it's far more than that. Hillary and him were two of the most hated presidential candidates EVER to fight each other - both of whom hated by their own parties. This is not a matter of the "liberal media making him look bad". I can promise you that though Trump has his legitimate supporters, he has many more people who absolutely /hate/ him.
My history teacher, my federal government teacher and even my Texas government teacher all agreed on this, and they obviously studied this subject very thoroughly. 2016 is perhaps the most vicious, toxic election the country has ever seen, or at least it's the most absurd in that /both/ party's major candidates achieved the victory of the primary despite overwhelming hatred from their own parties. My federal government teacher stressed almost every single day that "These are two of the most unpopular candidates fighting that we've ever seen in a single election".