6 ms·

How is Trump an immediate threat? I'm really curious. All of his policies are about protecting American interests, and rebuilding America's manufacturing comple

How is Trump an immediate threat? I'm really curious. All of his policies are about protecting American interests, and rebuilding America's manufacturing complex. If you're referring to the Immigration EO... please read it first. It's a really well-written bill. For those curious about whether it was a religious discrimination see this pie chart of the Muslims that are excluded[1]. The goal of the EO is to mitigate the influx of refugees from states that foment anti-Western ideals. It just happens to be this group are radicalized, and violent Islamic people. [1] https://i.redditmedia.com/09_97z77yJ2MRBOVMVYvkcVEi66uJI5KSwwqQNj7FGo.png?w=1024&s=97db18b42aa36517285f9405330f011a https://i.redditmedia.com/09_97z77yJ2MRBOVMVYvkcVEi66uJI5KSw...

cirath 10y ago
Trump is a more long term threat due to the long term fallout and international perception of the United States as a result of his actions. Yes, his Immigration related EO does not affect nearly as many people as the rhetoric would indicate -- but what it does do is prevent travel to the United States for some 22,000 persons (and counting) at the very least while, by consensus, not really being likely to prevent entry to actual terrorists. It is not that the bill is truly discriminatory, just that it is likely to be ineffective in its aims while damaging international credibility of America as a land of inclusion (or, to rely on imagery from the plaque of the Statue of Liberty, a golden door, to accept your tempest-tossed refuse). Second, while his threat of 20% tariffs on importation from Mexico may seem like it originally promotes "buying local", there are several long term ramifications. First, construction materials and machinery [1] for American factories will ultimately increase the price of American produced goods as a result of this measure. Second, this bill will, directly and immediately, grant China greater bargaining power--with the United States. Thirdly, it causes Mexico to negotiate more aggressively with its local neighbors and with overseas partners, potentially closing trade avenues altogether with America. Ultimately, it boils down to one thing: Trump's measures appear to be reactionary, with little view for long term fallout, international reputation, and future trade relations with partners that are not directly related to his current target (eg: trade relations with Mexico deteriorating, giving China greater negotiating power). [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-does-the-u-s-import-from-mexico-a-whole-lot/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-does-the-u-s-import-from-me...
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Yes, his Immigration related EO does not affect nearly as many people as the rhetoric would indicate It potentially affects, well, everyone, really: while much focus has been on the effect of the refugee ban and the 90-day shutdown from named countries, the order directs certain executive officers to determine information that foreign countries (all countries, not just the specific ones addressed by the 90 say ban) must share with the US regarding potential immigrants and orders that those officers provide recommendations of countries that should be added to an immigration ban list because they do not share the required information. So it impacts all potential immigrants to the United States, and all third parties (including US citizens about whom a foreign government has information) about whom (because of direct or indirect relationship ship to a potential immigrant) the US might demand information from a foreign government as a condition of allowing immigration from that country.
  - williamle8300 10y ago
    No, you're wrong. You can preempt intentions of a bill. A bill is a bill. If Trump wants to overreach he'll have to introduce another bill. This bill is specifically to curb nations that have been havens for radical Islamic people.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      The E.O. is not a bill, and no new bill would be required to implement the parts of it that I related. (Well, it might be legally required just as new legislation might be legally required to do what is called for in the 90-day ban, which is being challenged as a violation of existing law; but that's an after-the-fact constraint that doesn't prevent overreach, it just potentially provides a basis for responding to it, provided the courts are doing their job more faithfully than the President is doing his.)
- williamle8300 10y ago
  There's always going to be some unwanted effects of any kind of legislation. I agree that those are bad side effects... but you have to look at the general thrust of the legislation: curbing unwanted immigrants to America. There's no deterministic way to discover whether someone has terrorist sentiments... so a blanket statement is used. It's sloppy but accomplishes the goal, no? Reactionary? Yes, I agree. Trump's most shining quality is that he acts quickly. Obama didn't accomplishing this much in his 8 years, as Trump has in 2 weeks... I would anticipate he has a very lean and agile approach to legislation and everything is subject to iteration.
klipt 10y ago
> The goal of the EO is to mitigate the influx of refugees Yet it blocked MIT professors with work visas (initially even green cards until they backpedaled) just because they were born in Iran/etc. The EO is ridiculously hamfisted.
- ams6110 10y ago
  Though if you read Art of the Deal or have studied how Trump operates, his initial position on anything is always more than he wants. So they "backpedaled" on green cards and legal visas and still have what they really wanted.
  - klipt 10y ago
    Yes I know about "talk past the deal". But that's not how democratic leaders are meant to act, that's how dictators act. I feel like America is selling its birthright - a democratic republic - for the illusion of security. It's been happening ever since 9/11 but now it's even worse.
    - smsm42 10y ago
      No, that's not how dictators act. How dictators act is they do what they want and if you resisted, they put you in jail or kill you. Dictators don't need negotiating tactics because negotiation is part of democratic process which requires consensus. Dictators don't negotiate, they dictate.
      - klipt 10y ago
        Consensus ... crowd pleasing ... dictators can do that. The hallmark of the dictator is their disrespect for individual rights, but you can totally please a crowd while stepping on individual rights, see Chavez: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/27/in-venezuela-we-couldnt-stop-chavez-dont-make-the-same-mistakes-we-did/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/27/...
        10y ago
sprafa 10y ago
What worries me about the EO is how incompetent it was, and his running excuse that terrorists would just jump into planes to fly to the US if they heard about it first! That's nuts and it's the beggining of an excuse for him to do this over and over again, eroding the ability of Congress to vet his actions. "There's no time" does anyone actually believe that? I am not blind to Trump's virtues. Economically he has a lot of good ideas. I agree that PC was going too far! But he's a lying son of a gun who's trying to screw us all.
maxerickson 10y ago
His stated goal is protecting American interests. It's not at all clear that his policies do anything to accomplish that goal. His executive order on immigration was quite likely counterproductive to American interests. Sure, it disrupted travel for a large number of people that had already been through a thorough vetting process (the claims that doing this made us safer are weak, the existing vetting process was effective, people who went through it had killed 0 people in the US), but it also made the US look foolish and capricious.
fmihaila 10y ago
> The goal of the EO is to mitigate the influx of refugees from states that foment anti-Western ideals. It just happens to be this group are radicalized, and violent Islamic people. I don't understand this reasoning. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, to take only two examples, are also places where a lot anti-Western activity comes from, both in ideology (via jihadist religious schools), and logistic support. If what you say is true, they should have been included in the ban. Equally illogical is Trump's argument [1] that they couldn't take the time to consult the relevant parties from Justice, State, and Congress because that would have meant "the "bad" would rush into our country" before the EO's enactment. How does that not apply to the Muslim countries left out, like the two mentioned above, whose citizens have been the source of documented attacks on U.S. interests multiple times in the past (as opposed to the 7 countries included in the order)? [1] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826060143825666051 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/82606014382566605...
mikeash 10y ago
I read the EO first. It pretty clearly excludes people who should have the right to be here, including people on work and student visas, and permanent American residents. The White House has since walked that back a little bit, no doubt due to the massive backlash, but the order itself is clear enough, and the order continues to block people who should be allowed to come here. I don't know what "well-written" would mean here, but it's not a good order by any means. The threat posed by Trump goes far beyond this, though. Right now, my hope is simply that we're all still alive to vote again in 2020. I'm quite serious about that. Trump has shown himself over and over to be highly insecure, obsessed with revenge, and unable to let any slight slide without a response. Put such a person in charge of the world's most powerful military and there's a good chance of a catastrophe. Ignoring the threat of nuclear annihilation, there's also the threat to the foundations of our democracy. He constantly attacked our electoral system and refused to commit to accepting the outcome of the election. We didn't find out how he would have handled losing in 2016, but how would he handle losing in 2020, or hitting the 22nd Amendment in 2024? I wouldn't be at all surprised if he refuses to leave and precipitates a crisis. There's plenty more, for example his offhand desire to strip American citizenship as punishment for flag burning, but those are the two main ones that concern me.

cirath 10y ago

Trump is a more long term threat due to the long term fallout and international perception of the United States as a result of his actions. Yes, his Immigration related EO does not affect nearly as many people as the rhetoric would indicate -- but what it does do is prevent travel to the United States for some 22,000 persons (and counting) at the very least while, by consensus, not really being likely to prevent entry to actual terrorists. It is not that the bill is truly discriminatory, just that it is likely to be ineffective in its aims while damaging international credibility of America as a land of inclusion (or, to rely on imagery from the plaque of the Statue of Liberty, a golden door, to accept your tempest-tossed refuse). Second, while his threat of 20% tariffs on importation from Mexico may seem like it originally promotes "buying local", there are several long term ramifications. First, construction materials and machinery [1] for American factories will ultimately increase the price of American produced goods as a result of this measure. Second, this bill will, directly and immediately, grant China greater bargaining power--with the United States. Thirdly, it causes Mexico to negotiate more aggressively with its local neighbors and with overseas partners, potentially closing trade avenues altogether with America. Ultimately, it boils down to one thing: Trump's measures appear to be reactionary, with little view for long term fallout, international reputation, and future trade relations with partners that are not directly related to his current target (eg: trade relations with Mexico deteriorating, giving China greater negotiating power). [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-does-the-u-s-import-from-mexico-a-whole-lot/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-does-the-u-s-import-from-me...

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Yes, his Immigration related EO does not affect nearly as many people as the rhetoric would indicate It potentially affects, well, everyone, really: while much focus has been on the effect of the refugee ban and the 90-day shutdown from named countries, the order directs certain executive officers to determine information that foreign countries (all countries, not just the specific ones addressed by the 90 say ban) must share with the US regarding potential immigrants and orders that those officers provide recommendations of countries that should be added to an immigration ban list because they do not share the required information. So it impacts all potential immigrants to the United States, and all third parties (including US citizens about whom a foreign government has information) about whom (because of direct or indirect relationship ship to a potential immigrant) the US might demand information from a foreign government as a condition of allowing immigration from that country.
- williamle8300 10y ago
  No, you're wrong. You can preempt intentions of a bill. A bill is a bill. If Trump wants to overreach he'll have to introduce another bill. This bill is specifically to curb nations that have been havens for radical Islamic people.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    The E.O. is not a bill, and no new bill would be required to implement the parts of it that I related. (Well, it might be legally required just as new legislation might be legally required to do what is called for in the 90-day ban, which is being challenged as a violation of existing law; but that's an after-the-fact constraint that doesn't prevent overreach, it just potentially provides a basis for responding to it, provided the courts are doing their job more faithfully than the President is doing his.)
williamle8300 10y ago
There's always going to be some unwanted effects of any kind of legislation. I agree that those are bad side effects... but you have to look at the general thrust of the legislation: curbing unwanted immigrants to America. There's no deterministic way to discover whether someone has terrorist sentiments... so a blanket statement is used. It's sloppy but accomplishes the goal, no? Reactionary? Yes, I agree. Trump's most shining quality is that he acts quickly. Obama didn't accomplishing this much in his 8 years, as Trump has in 2 weeks... I would anticipate he has a very lean and agile approach to legislation and everything is subject to iteration.

klipt 10y ago

> The goal of the EO is to mitigate the influx of refugees Yet it blocked MIT professors with work visas (initially even green cards until they backpedaled) just because they were born in Iran/etc. The EO is ridiculously hamfisted.

ams6110 10y ago
Though if you read Art of the Deal or have studied how Trump operates, his initial position on anything is always more than he wants. So they "backpedaled" on green cards and legal visas and still have what they really wanted.
- klipt 10y ago
  Yes I know about "talk past the deal". But that's not how democratic leaders are meant to act, that's how dictators act. I feel like America is selling its birthright - a democratic republic - for the illusion of security. It's been happening ever since 9/11 but now it's even worse.
  - smsm42 10y ago
    No, that's not how dictators act. How dictators act is they do what they want and if you resisted, they put you in jail or kill you. Dictators don't need negotiating tactics because negotiation is part of democratic process which requires consensus. Dictators don't negotiate, they dictate.
    - klipt 10y ago
      Consensus ... crowd pleasing ... dictators can do that. The hallmark of the dictator is their disrespect for individual rights, but you can totally please a crowd while stepping on individual rights, see Chavez: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/27/in-venezuela-we-couldnt-stop-chavez-dont-make-the-same-mistakes-we-did/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/27/...
      - 10y ago

sprafa 10y ago

What worries me about the EO is how incompetent it was, and his running excuse that terrorists would just jump into planes to fly to the US if they heard about it first! That's nuts and it's the beggining of an excuse for him to do this over and over again, eroding the ability of Congress to vet his actions. "There's no time" does anyone actually believe that? I am not blind to Trump's virtues. Economically he has a lot of good ideas. I agree that PC was going too far! But he's a lying son of a gun who's trying to screw us all.

maxerickson 10y ago

His stated goal is protecting American interests. It's not at all clear that his policies do anything to accomplish that goal. His executive order on immigration was quite likely counterproductive to American interests. Sure, it disrupted travel for a large number of people that had already been through a thorough vetting process (the claims that doing this made us safer are weak, the existing vetting process was effective, people who went through it had killed 0 people in the US), but it also made the US look foolish and capricious.

fmihaila 10y ago

> The goal of the EO is to mitigate the influx of refugees from states that foment anti-Western ideals. It just happens to be this group are radicalized, and violent Islamic people. I don't understand this reasoning. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, to take only two examples, are also places where a lot anti-Western activity comes from, both in ideology (via jihadist religious schools), and logistic support. If what you say is true, they should have been included in the ban. Equally illogical is Trump's argument [1] that they couldn't take the time to consult the relevant parties from Justice, State, and Congress because that would have meant "the "bad" would rush into our country" before the EO's enactment. How does that not apply to the Muslim countries left out, like the two mentioned above, whose citizens have been the source of documented attacks on U.S. interests multiple times in the past (as opposed to the 7 countries included in the order)? [1] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/826060143825666051 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/82606014382566605...

mikeash 10y ago

I read the EO first. It pretty clearly excludes people who should have the right to be here, including people on work and student visas, and permanent American residents. The White House has since walked that back a little bit, no doubt due to the massive backlash, but the order itself is clear enough, and the order continues to block people who should be allowed to come here. I don't know what "well-written" would mean here, but it's not a good order by any means. The threat posed by Trump goes far beyond this, though. Right now, my hope is simply that we're all still alive to vote again in 2020. I'm quite serious about that. Trump has shown himself over and over to be highly insecure, obsessed with revenge, and unable to let any slight slide without a response. Put such a person in charge of the world's most powerful military and there's a good chance of a catastrophe. Ignoring the threat of nuclear annihilation, there's also the threat to the foundations of our democracy. He constantly attacked our electoral system and refused to commit to accepting the outcome of the election. We didn't find out how he would have handled losing in 2016, but how would he handle losing in 2020, or hitting the 22nd Amendment in 2024? I wouldn't be at all surprised if he refuses to leave and precipitates a crisis. There's plenty more, for example his offhand desire to strip American citizenship as punishment for flag burning, but those are the two main ones that concern me.