The Trump Presidency

[Diff-chan]

Then you're an idiot who chooses to believe things that are objectively, demonstrably wrong. Hillary Clinton would have been a far better president than Donald Trump. Saying otherwise is laughably stupid, but if you still believe this to be true by now then no amount of proof will change your mind. Have fun with your false equivalency, though.

Seriously, how can you possibly believe this?

Hillary Clinton would have been a better President if you wanted more corporatist center-left governance.

Maybe people didn't want that.

[cka]

people are eager for that religion war that's been brewing for a few decades now

[Drewbacca]

Some shit's going down. For sure. But when was the last time a week went by without bad news, politically?

I'm really not trying to advocate for Trump. I just see things as having gone from bad to bad.

Disrupting and detaining thousands of humans isn't just "bad news". It's horrible misguided policy that was rolled out without any operational guile or tactical intelligence. This is a very cavalier way to frame this modern day human rights disaster.

It's certainly within the US rights to curb who enters its borders. But shutting the curtain to ppl with green cards and work visas? Who the eff is that helping.

And for the record I don't think Hillary was a good choice either. The people on these forums insulting you for not thinking she was aren't doing themselves any favours. She would have been better than Trump imo because she has op experience. Trump has lined his cabinet w corporate schills and seems no less likely to continue the wars than she was. His hiring freeze excluded the military after all. The fact that this Muslim ban has been executed so sloppily should be of great concern even if you liked the idea.

[A Robot Bit Me]

It's entirely possible, from my standpoint, to look at what Trump has done and say" eh, little of that affects me directly."
It's also entirely possible, from my standpoint, to look at what Hillary has done, at the type of person she has proven herself to be, and say "eh, some of that would affect me directly."
That's when additional facts and figures could be introduced to sway my outlook.
You know, like what's supposed to happen in a discussion.

If that's really where the division lies, can facts and figures explain to someone why they should be concerned with what affects people other than themselves?

[Some Stupid Japanese Name]

It took a while, but they did me.
And let's be honest, 90% of a person's outlook is defined by "what directly affects me."
How many times have I read coastal's putting down middle America? "Your jobs are gone! Get over it! Adapt! Move!"
Yet when something affects them, there's no rallying cry for the same. As an outsider looking in, it's very obnoxious.

[Doc Holliday]

Then you're an idiot who chooses to believe things that are objectively, demonstrably wrong. Hillary Clinton would have been a far better president than Donald Trump. Saying otherwise is laughably stupid, but if you still believe this to be true by now then no amount of proof will change your mind. Have fun with your false equivalency, though.

Seriously, how can you possibly believe this?

Trump is coming in like a wrecking ball, sweetie.

[Ryan]

Immigrants are already thoroughly vetted.

I thought it was shown the last time this issue came up that the vetting process was incredibly robust. This whole thing comes off as a poorly executed dog and pony show.

[Doc Holliday]

I don't approve of half the shit Trump is doing in his first week, but seeing a POTUS come in like daddy with a belt makes me diamonds.

[Diff-chan]

The issue has been completely politicized, where you have left-wing sources basically saying that the refugee screening process is ironclad and then you have right wing sources saying that Osama bin Laden can walk it by claiming he's a kebab merchant in Damascus. The truth is as always somewhere in the middle. But where in the middle is obviously the big thing. Here is an article from WaPo.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.f9302048d530

To use Don Rumsfeld parlance, it's the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns that's the problem here. We know our sources for vetting are incomplete and we don't totally know where the holes are.

And when we're talking about people coming from a region where they are known to drive trucks through public gatherings, it's a big problem IMO.

We also can point to what has happened in Germany as they have had functionally an open door policy. The truth is that lots of people who came to Germany as "refugees" are in fact not, they lied about their origins and threw away their ID. They are not children as they claim and the country loses track of them.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/0...103349856.html

That article is from 2015 but I've read here and there the number is actually way higher than 30%.

[Rumpy]

Yes, which makes this "extreme vetting" line ridiculous. It's way easier to come in on a student visa.

Trump reorganized the National Security Council by limiting the roles of the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And who's getting a seat at that table? Stephen Bannon. This dude is moving in like a fucking carpenter ant. If there was any doubt about who the POTUS really is, there you go.