President Trump- The Implications

[Conan71]

Life is deadly. Whether its a lightning bolt or a recluse spider or a plane dropping out of the sky and falling on you, the percentages are always going to be used in an argument like that. It is legitimate. You really don't have the choice to not take those risks. Terrorism is just a part of life that also has nothing to do with action on the person's part. One must assume all of life is a deadly risk. Once you realize that there is no safety, then you can start to assign the relative risk. Terrorism of all kinds has less effect on ones safety than weather related risks and you cannot responsibly spend more money and effort to defend against terrorism than against a hurricane. But, I also agree that the how the public "feels" is also a consideration politically.

Saying there is no safety or you have no choice in the matter is absolutely incorrect.  There are all sorts of examples out there of how we attempt to minimize the risk to the public.

You can mitigate risk, take calculated risks, or choose not to take certain risks. 


There are also measures against natural disaster individuals can take such as shelters or not buying or building a home in an earthquake, hurricane, or tornado-prone area.  You can't stop those disasters from happening, but you do have ways to minimize your risk or to avoid that risk altogether.  I'm not sure how you pick a meteor proof area though. 

If you don't want to die as a result of drunk driving you don't drive drunk and don't go driving around when the bars have just closed.  Wearing your seatbelt is also a really good idea if you don't want to die in a collision.  Those things don't eliminate all risk of death behind the wheel, but it does add a good measure of safety.

The government has mandated all sorts of changes to cars and trucks to reduce vehicular deaths.  Government prescribes speed limits, road design and construction codes for the safer roads.

You can completely avoid the probability of dying in a fall from a high rise building by choosing not to become a window washer or a BASE jumper.

If you are working on the roof of your house, you can choose to tie off to the chimney so you don't fall two stories and risk breaking your neck.

We mitigate risk all the time for the public with convicted killers and other violent offenders being locked away to keep society safe.

We screen domestic travelers and their baggage, using approved documents to travel, metal detectors, and X-ray machines to minimize the risk to other travelers.

If you think about it having to pass through metal detectors at airports, courthouses, libraries, high schools, federal buildings, etc. is the result of very few and rare incidents perpetrated by a very tiny part of our population. 

Prior to the Murrah bombing, who ever thought going to a federal building was dangerous?  Prior to Columbine, who ever thought a couple of students were capable of wounding nearly 40 people and killing 15 of those?  Prior to 9/11, who ever thought four commercial jetliners could be hijacked almost simultaneously and used as WMD?

You learn from unprecedented events and try to mitigate future events such as these.  We have all lost some liberty and faced a lot of inconvenience as a result of these aforementioned events.  This is what happens when we depend on the government to keep us safe and what government does when it defines what its role is in trying to keep us safe.  I think it's somewhat of a PITA to fly these days but when I do, I have reasonable assurance the plane I'm riding in won't be hijacked by people with box cutters.  The plane could still crash as a result of a weather-related event but there's enough security these days to act as a disincentive for terrorists or just some sick love to fly a plane load of people into the ground just because he always wanted to.

[patric]

Trump jokes with sheriffs about destroying a Texas legislator's career over asset forfeiture
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/07/trump-jokes-with-sheriffs-about-destroying-a-texas-legislators-career-over-asset-forfeiture/

At a meeting on Tuesday with sheriffs from across the country, President Trump joked about destroying the career of an unnamed Texas state senator who supported curtailing a controversial police practice for seizing people's property.

Sheriff Harold Eavenson of Rockwall County, Tex., brought up the issue of civil asset forfeiture, which allows authorities to seize cash and property from people suspected, but in some cases never convicted or even charged, with a crime.

Eavenson told Trump of a "state senator in Texas that was talking about legislation to require conviction before we could receive that forfeiture money."
"I told him that the cartel would build a monument to him in Mexico if he could get that legislation passed."

"Who's the state senator?" Trump asked. "Do you want to give his name? We'll destroy his career," he joked, to laughter from the law enforcement officials in the room.

Oklahoma police took $53,000 in cash from the manager of a Burmese Christian band because they didn't like his explanation for why it was in his car. They
eventually returned it after a Post story highlighted the case.

Trump's nominee to lead the Justice Department, Sen. Jeff Sessions, has been an enthusiastic proponent of civil asset forfeiture.

[Hoss]

Or ratings.  Sometimes it seems he is still looking at the presidency as if it were a reality TV show.

If the leaks coming from the WH are to be believed (and who wouldn't with Trump's obvious narcissism), it might be the most dysfunctional administration ever.  He allegedly spends no time getting briefs from his aides, is constantly watching cable news TV and gets fumed when people point out his shortfalls.

You guys complained about Obama being an 'emperor without clothes'.  This guy appears to be the epitome of one.

And before you ask me to source, Just put 'white house leaks' into "The Google".

EDIT:  And this kind of stuff doesn't help

[heironymouspasparagus]

So far.

IF that was a real concern, why not a ban on the country - the only country - the has sourced the largest deadly attack so far??   9/11.


It's all about the hypocrisy, lies, deception, deflection, and overall fraud being perpetrated on the US.

[heironymouspasparagus]

But the perception is (correct or not) by and large something CAN be done about it. Whereas a lightning strike, not so much. Airplanes, we take measures to reduce that. The perception is shared by many that something MORE could be done to alleviate this risk.

Sometimes politics has to deal with perception more than reality.

Ok... What?   We have the most extensive, strictest, most effective vetting process in the world.  As shown by the lack of successful attacks.

Specifics - how to make it better that hasn't already been done or thought of??   To think that Trump could come up with something better in a day or two after 15 years of our best and brightest working on this...   Idiots who believe him.


I submit nobody has a better idea than what has been thought of and/or tried so far.

[Hoss]

IF that was a real concern, why not a ban on the country - the only country - the has sourced the largest deadly attack so far??   9/11.


It's all about the hypocrisy, lies, deception, deflection, and overall fraud being perpetrated on the US.

It is.  But keep in mind this president comes into office with the worse approval rating in history.  Oh wait...fake polls.  My bad.   

[cannon_fodder]

The issues that keep being ignored by the pro-ban argument, which they cannot address, are three fold:

1) Fear is not the same as serious risk.  While the public can be made to fear just about anything (Muslims, Jews, communists, capitalists, immigrants...), that doesn't make it a "serious risk."  And not all risks require emergency attempts to "fix" them.

2) The "risk" posed by immigrants is well known, the data is available and the calculations have been done.  With our present screening process the risk falls below your clothes catching on fire but just above spontaneous human combustion. There are thousands of things that pose a greater risk to the American public than refugees, you are far more  likely to die from hot tap water, cows, vending machines, wind, roller coasters, or suffocation in bed.  Don't confuse fear with risk.  And finally-

3) The implementation was meant to be dramatic, not effective. The United States updates the process all the time, certain countries get more scrutiny, others get less. New things are added, old procedures are dropped.  But the changes are reviewed ahead of time and then quietly implemented. There isn't a dramatic signing ceremony and a promise of trying to find out if there is a problem so that they can consider making a plan later.  (immigration - promise to come up with a plan.  Education - Davos will come up with a plan.  ISIS - Trump has asked the generals to come up with a plan. Obama Care - we should have a plan by 2018.  The Wall - he's working on a plan.)

Stranding people at airports; stranding engineers who live in the US that were overseas for major corporations; professors, researches and students couldn't get to Universities; people needing medical care just told "too bad;" families that were split; and scores of tourists who will not longer be coming to Disney, NYC, or LA. Most of the people actually affected by the ban (and to be clear, after Trump's team spent a week denying it was a ban...Trump again called it a ban) have lived in the US for a long time.  With a stroke of a pen Trump's fear declared them a risk.

It is a PR stunt, not sound policy.  If you want to tighten immigration/refugee/tourist protocol, that's fine.  It is the prerogative of the executive branch. But if there really was a problem, they would at least be able to point to what needs to be fixed.  Instead, we get a signing ceremony and promises that there will be a plan.



Finally, is it legal?  I have no idea.   But Trump's utter disdain for an independent judiciary is a strong sign of someone who wants to be a tyrant. "If something bad happens blame the judge..." is classic fear mongering. The message is "it doesn't matter if it is Constitutional, I'm keeping YOU safe and the judge is putting you at risk. I need unlimited power to keep you safe!"  His other statements are even more grotesque:



So called judge?  The guy is a federal judge, that's just a fact.  And the judiciary didn't "take away law enforcement," it is trying to review if the decree you signed is constitutional. You know...that pesky document you swore to uphold.  Never even read it, disgraceful.  Horrible!



Well, for starters, it has come to a system of government with three independent branches providing checks and balances.  Did you miss 3rd grade?  And I don't think the judge through out a century of immigration laws, border checkpoints, and patrols- or did I miss something?  No?  OK, then not "anyone" can come in.  The only people that can come in with the ban lifted are people already authorized to travel to the United States, most of whom have already been here for years.

Someone get The Donald a classroom civics poster from a 3rd grade classroom.

[Hoss]

So, over the last couple of days you would think from the lack of responses in here that everything had calmed down right?

Not really.

Nordstrom's announces they are going to drop Ivanka's line of merchandise (which she really hasn't been a part of for some time via reports).  Trump goes on another Twitter ragefest.



Wouldn't have been so bad coming from his personal account, but the official POTUS account retweeted it.

Didn't have the desired effect I guess; as later that day Nordstrom's stock rose.

Then, per reports, Trump's pick for the SCOTUS had some choice remarks about Trump's use of Twitter to talk bad about the Federal Court.  These remarks were confirmed by Gorsuch's White House appointed spokesperson.

What does he do?  He goes on the offensive against the Senator who initially reported these remarks, which were also confirmed, as I stated above, by his WH appointed spokesperson.

He makes mention of said Senator's exaggeration of his Vietnam War service...which did happen.

However, I think someone who had 4 deferrments should probably keep his mouth shut about it.

This administration?

[BKDotCom]

Trump is a toddler who is pushing boundaries to see how much they can get away with before being disciplined.
Unfortunately congress and senate are dysfunctional.    The public is treating him like someone else's kid.

[Hoss]

Trump is a toddler who is pushing boundaries to see how much they can get away with before being disciplined.
Unfortunately congress and senate are dysfunctional.    The public is treating him like someone else's kid.

The problem is he is diminishing the US' status and reputation abroad, much as I suspected he would do, although I had hoped for better than this.

He doesn't understand the basics of the Separation of Powers.  One of his advisers (KellyAnn Whichway?) is now possibly in violation of 5 CFR 2635.702 (which essentially states that the use of public office for private gain is not lawful).

[heironymouspasparagus]

Somehow, I told you so....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBgeCZW3upg

[patric]

Trump is a toddler who is pushing boundaries to see how much they can get away with before being disciplined.
Unfortunately congress and senate are dysfunctional.    The public is treating him like someone else's kid.

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/99921e11-b5ec-4c92-b2dd-e10e49048144

[swake]

Unanimous ruling defeats Trump Admin's appeal.


Twitter engaged.....

[Hoss]

Unanimous ruling defeats Trump Admin's appeal.


Twitter engaged.....

His response?

"See you in court".

He doesn't realize that it doesn't work like all the lawsuits he's been a part of.

[swake]

Did you hear that on his call with Putin he had to be told what the START treaty was? He's not a bright or informed man. Scary.