3 ms·
I know it's counterfactual history... but what if his only advisers would have been fanatics? Seeing his rhetoric in the campaign, with a full radicalized Tru
by molmalo 10y ago
I know it's counterfactual history... but what if his only advisers would have been fanatics? Seeing his rhetoric in the campaign, with a full radicalized Trump, I guess the ban would have been much larger, including many other countries (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Lebanon, etc).
And the same could be applied to other issues: e.g. exit NAFTA altogether overnight instead of renegotiating.
- hackuser 10y agoIs the argument really that 'it could be worse'? I guess that argument theoretically can be used anywhere, but then what does it mean? Arguably, it's never been worse. My strong belief is that lack of opposition makes things much worse than lack of advice. As a side note, one radical advisor people are forgetting about in this discussion is National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.
- molmalo 10y agoThe argument is that giving up and leaving, is the best way to have a more radicalized group leading the country, and that will result in even worse policies. You don't want to have a POTUS with majority control of the Congress and a friendly SCOTUS, to be fully radicalized. But that is what you'll get if their only advisers left are the ones wanting him to rule like that.
- dustinblake 10y agoAnd the only reason why the ban doesn't encompass those countries (Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc.) is because Trump has business dealings there.