Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://usuncut.news/2017/01/30/sean-spicer-retweeted-the-onion-and-the-internet-will-never-let-him-live-it-down-screenshots/

So Trumps latest Executive Order is that a new law can only be enacted if 2 old ones are removed.

Seems like a good idea on the face of it, but does it essentially just make it impossible to get anything new enacted?

I mean, we had a "nominate laws you want to get rid of" campaign at the start of our last government sitting, but it didn't inhibit any new laws being enacted.

There's lots of stupid laws they can get rid of. Apparently in North Dakota it's illegal to have beer and pretzels at the same time. Also, in Alabama, you're not allowed to have an ice cream cone in your back pocket. So there's 2 right there..

 Necros wrote:
There's lots of stupid laws they can get rid of. Apparently in North Dakota it's illegal to have beer and pretzels at the same time. Also, in Alabama, you're not allowed to have an ice cream cone in your back pocket. So there's 2 right there..

Now you know why North Dakota only has a population of 6 people...Bakken oil field workers notwithstanding.

Wouldn't they just be better off having a purge of obsolete laws, and then introduce any that they actually need?

I don't doubt there's literally thousands of pointless laws, but it seems like a stupid way to go about repealing them. You might get on quite well if you hire a lawyer in each state, and have them spend 6-12 months nominating stuff to be removed.

Herzlos wrote:
Wouldn't they just be better off having a purge of obsolete laws, and then introduce any that they actually need?

I don't doubt there's literally thousands of pointless laws, but it seems like a stupid way to go about repealing them. You might get on quite well if you hire a lawyer in each state, and have them spend 6-12 months nominating stuff to be removed.

They're not "laws" in literal sense... they're regulations (or interpretations) that's authorized by legal statutes.

Many laws purposely allows an agency to enact regulations, as long as said law expressly allows for it.

This EO is a clumsy... but, may be effective since we have a plethora of WTF/WTH regulations.

OgreChubbs wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 sebster wrote:
There's a headwind against the Dems, sure. But it happened before in a situation that might be repeated...

As I said. I'm not claiming they won't succeed it. I'm just saying I'm affraid it's not as foregone conclusion as many seem to think. If people were concerned with quality of goverment they wouldn't have voted Trump in the first place. Or republicans in general...

I think they are doing far better then the last 8 years. The attempt to get health care to people by forcing them to buy it is..... just stupid.

Also I am grossly against late term abortion which the deems seem to be pro killing babies.... Kinda bothers me. I could never vote for anything that hurts babies so I could never vote for them.

So women and unborn babies dying is much more preferable then? You DO know banning abortion leads to more dead women right?

Rebublicans. Life is sacred until birth.

 whembly wrote:

This EO is a clumsy....

That seems to be the only consistent thing so far

 Necros wrote:
There's lots of stupid laws they can get rid of. Apparently in North Dakota it's illegal to have beer and pretzels at the same time. Also, in Alabama, you're not allowed to have an ice cream cone in your back pocket. So there's 2 right there..

Those are state laws, Trump's EO is only in regards to Federal laws and really doesn't apply to laws at all. Congress can pass a new law anytime it has the votes to do so regardless of what the PotUS wants. Trump is trying to address new Federal regulations which he can do because he can tell his cabinet what to do and his cabinet runs all the Federal departments so Trump, technically, controls all of the Federal bureaucracy that creates Federal regulations.

There's plenty of room for debate in regards to Federal regulations. Not all regulations are of equal importance or need. There are Federal regulations that do useful things like set safety standards for the interstate transportation of hazardous materials and there are Federal regulations that a product of crony capitalism that stifles competition within an industry to benefit established leaders that lobby for regulations that put them in advantageous positions. There are plenty of Federal regulations that we could live without but we need to actually take the time to examine and evaluate all of them and not just treat them as all being bad. Weeding out counter productive regulations is a good idea that would help the economy but doing what Trump is doing is just stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 sebster wrote:
There's a headwind against the Dems, sure. But it happened before in a situation that might be repeated...

As I said. I'm not claiming they won't succeed it. I'm just saying I'm affraid it's not as foregone conclusion as many seem to think. If people were concerned with quality of goverment they wouldn't have voted Trump in the first place. Or republicans in general...

I think they are doing far better then the last 8 years. The attempt to get health care to people by forcing them to buy it is..... just stupid.

Also I am grossly against late term abortion which the deems seem to be pro killing babies.... Kinda bothers me. I could never vote for anything that hurts babies so I could never vote for them.

So women and unborn babies dying is much more preferable then? You DO know banning abortion leads to more dead women right?

Rebublicans. Life is sacred until birth.

The two people you're quoting are an Aussie and a Canadien, I don't think either is a registered Republican or even eligible to vote in US elections. I could be wrong but I don't think OgreChubbs is secretly Reince Preibus or Karl Rove.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
With the way they are not able to share scientific findings and silencing the EPA sounds bit like oppression.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/have-politics-trumped-science/


Well that was fast
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/01/29/aclu-fundraising-records-muslim-immigrant-ban/97218098/


http://bgr.com/2017/01/30/donald-trump-vs-white-house-rogues/

Holy gak, I hope those tweets aren't fake....

That sticks and sounds interesting at the same time.

I wouldn't put it past the current president to be very unhappy that everything he does is met with protest.

Nah, I'm pretty sure Trump is a firm believer in the adage that any publicity is good publicity.

 ulgurstasta wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:


Fair point - modern Leftism is anything but liberal, and modern Conservatism is anything but conservative. We are long due with updates in terminology. I think the terms "Neo-Marxists" and "Evangelical Theocrats" would fit pretty well, respectively.

So wait, the Democrats are Neo-marxists?

How did you get to that conclusion?

Well depends on how you define the term

I mean Marx was all about the tragedy of men reduced to mere capital for the powerful and how that is a system doomed to destroy itself, which does seem like something American Liberals might agree with

As a non American I have found the election and now Trump Administration quite interesting, particularly the E.O Trump can do. I personally don't see the point of halting people in U.S airports but I do understand the need for tougher immigration laws against certain nationalities. I don't see Trumps E.O as a 'Muslim Ban' but I do see it as a way to halt the Refugee Crisis. All the countries involved with his E.O are yes Muslim, but each country is a complete and utter mess of political extremist opposites and government coups. The problem is you let one family in, they need a home, social security, language lessons, education lessons, school places etc and then said family want their 50 other relatives to join them in the same area. That makes a huge logistical nightmare through paper work and public funding.

Going back to Trump, overall I believe he will a benefit to the U.S.A. He is force of change, something Obama struggled to achieve in 8 years due to the Republicans. People will never agree on everything he says, but he is a focal point for topics which have never been discussed globally on such a level. What I do like about Trump is his business sense and we will definitely see new global trade deals between countries and hopefully faster growing economies in all countries.

The problem with the world is that it is gripped in 'Trump fever', I know this hasn't been helped by his divisive opinions but he has only been in office days. I say give the man a chance and calm down, I truly don't understand the point of all these protests because at the end of the day they achieve little to nothing. Even in the U.K there is now a protest to ban him from meeting the Prime Minister. How on Earth do people think trade deals and international relations can be improved when you try to ban the man in charge from the country you want to be friends with?

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Was Syria multiyears into a an ethnic civil war between the dictatorship, reactionary Islamist revolutionary groups, and ISIL at the time?

Were multiple groups calling for attacks within the US at the time?

Were we at the whim of a petulant man-child? Were we a country that looked forward and not backwards? Were we a country that remembered the sage advice that "All we have to fear is, fear itself."?

Of course FDR wasn't facing the business end of a Japanese bayonet, nor was he unemployed in the Depression. Normal people had lots to fear.

Also FDR interred the Japanese, and contemplated interring Germans and Italians but realized a very large portion of the US was made of Germans and Italians.

Thats not the US's deepeest recesses, not hardly.
-Look up pictures at the turn of the century of public luynchings. Hundreds of people are there are look at the locations, all over the US.
-Jim Crow
-Slavery
-Hey where'd all the Iroquois go? Must be hanging with the Kiowa and Comanche in Kansas...
Pointing out a black stain on American history, Japanese-American internment, makes the shame of this administration's action all the more repugnant. The idea is to learn a lesson from history, not sink back into it's deepest recesses.

Never said it was the deepest. We've got as much dirty laundry as the next nation, I just don't think we need to be hanging any more.

So is the counter-argument I am reading essentially, "The U.S. did bad things to immigrants and people before, so we should continue doing bad things to immigrants because we did in the past?" I really hope that isn't the argument people are making. Would you clarify your point please?

Sentinel1 wrote:

The problem with the world is that it is gripped in 'Trump fever', I know this hasn't been helped by his divisive opinions but he has only been in office days. I say give the man a chance and calm down, I truly don't understand the point of all these protests because at the end of the day they achieve little to nothing. Even in the U.K there is now a protest to ban him from meeting the Prime Minister. How on Earth do people think trade deals and international relations can be improved when you try to ban the man in charge from the country you want to be friends with?

Probably the same way people think that trade deals and international relations can be improved by trying to deal with someone who doesn't even care enough to spell your Prime Minister's name right.

 Easy E wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Was Syria multiyears into a an ethnic civil war between the dictatorship, reactionary Islamist revolutionary groups, and ISIL at the time?

Were multiple groups calling for attacks within the US at the time?

Were we at the whim of a petulant man-child? Were we a country that looked forward and not backwards? Were we a country that remembered the sage advice that "All we have to fear is, fear itself."?

Of course FDR wasn't facing the business end of a Japanese bayonet, nor was he unemployed in the Depression. Normal people had lots to fear.

Also FDR interred the Japanese, and contemplated interring Germans and Italians but realized a very large portion of the US was made of Germans and Italians.

Thats not the US's deepeest recesses, not hardly.
-Look up pictures at the turn of the century of public luynchings. Hundreds of people are there are look at the locations, all over the US.
-Jim Crow
-Slavery
-Hey where'd all the Iroquois go? Must be hanging with the Kiowa and Comanche in Kansas...
Pointing out a black stain on American history, Japanese-American internment, makes the shame of this administration's action all the more repugnant. The idea is to learn a lesson from history, not sink back into it's deepest recesses.

Never said it was the deepest. We've got as much dirty laundry as the next nation, I just don't think we need to be hanging any more.

So is the counter-argument I am reading essentially, "The U.S. did bad things to immigrants and people before, so we should continue doing bad things to immigrants because we did in the past?" I really hope that isn't the argument people are making. Would you clarify your point please?

Its not bad. No noncitizen has a right to enter the USA, or any nation they are not a citizen of. Thats pretty freaking basic.
Considering many European countries have puched back similarly, the hypocrisy is impressive. How about all those refugees sitting in near the chunnel? Thats ok but America bad.

Starbucks wants to create 10 000 jobs for migrants.
I guess lowly paid. If so, its clear that they are against Trump's EO.

Sentinel1 wrote:


The problem with the world is that it is gripped in 'Trump fever', I know this hasn't been helped by his divisive opinions but he has only been in office days. I say give the man a chance and calm down, I truly don't understand the point of all these protests because at the end of the day they achieve little to nothing. Even in the U.K there is now a protest to ban him from meeting the Prime Minister. How on Earth do people think trade deals and international relations can be improved when you try to ban the man in charge from the country you want to be friends with?

He has already shown himself to be bad. Bad for everybody except filthy rich white. Regular people(especially poor and middle class americans but also YOUR wallet) are getting hurt. People, including americans, are going to die because of his actions. He will make terrorism increase. isis are thrilled at this.

The more he does the worse it's going to be. Luckily america suffers most but unless you are filthy rich white american you too will feel it

 wuestenfux wrote:
Starbucks wants to create 10 000 jobs for migrants.
I guess lowly paid. If so, its clear that they are against Trump's EO.

It's clear by the letter sent by outgoing CEO Howard Schultz to Starbucks employees that Schultz disapproves of Trump's EO but Starbucks isn't hiring 10,000 refugees in the US. Starbucks plans to hire 10,000 new employees who qualify as refugees, based on UN standards for the term, spread across the 75 countries wherein Starbucks has open locations over the course of the next 5 years. How many of those new hires will be made in the US remains to be seen but it's likely to be a small portion of the 10,000.

There are more than 65 million citizens of the world recognized as refugees by the United Nations, and we are developing plans to hire 10,000 of them over five years in the 75 countries around the world where Starbucks does business. And we will start this effort here in the U.S. by making the initial focus of our hiring efforts on those individuals who have served with U.S. troops as interpreters and support personnel in the various countries where our military has asked for such support.

https://news.starbucks.com/news/living-our-values-in-uncertain-times

Oh look Starbucks announced 6,000 layoffs in the US.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-layoffs-dmqsragw-photo.html

Herzlos wrote:
So Trumps latest Executive Order is that a new law can only be enacted if 2 old ones are removed.

Seems like a good idea on the face of it, but does it essentially just make it impossible to get anything new enacted?

I mean, we had a "nominate laws you want to get rid of" campaign at the start of our last government sitting, but it didn't inhibit any new laws being enacted.

I'm pretty sure the executive has no power to order or enforce something like that...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
So Trumps latest Executive Order is that a new law can only be enacted if 2 old ones are removed.

Seems like a good idea on the face of it, but does it essentially just make it impossible to get anything new enacted?

I mean, we had a "nominate laws you want to get rid of" campaign at the start of our last government sitting, but it didn't inhibit any new laws being enacted.

I'm pretty sure the executive has no power to order or enforce something like that...

Correct. EOs can't change or create or strike down Federal laws. The PotUS does have control over Federal regulations and can issue EOs regarding regulations because the cabinet controls the Federal depts/bureaucracy and they take orders from PotUS.

tneva82 wrote:

Sentinel1 wrote:


The problem with the world is that it is gripped in 'Trump fever', I know this hasn't been helped by his divisive opinions but he has only been in office days. I say give the man a chance and calm down, I truly don't understand the point of all these protests because at the end of the day they achieve little to nothing. Even in the U.K there is now a protest to ban him from meeting the Prime Minister. How on Earth do people think trade deals and international relations can be improved when you try to ban the man in charge from the country you want to be friends with?

He has already shown himself to be bad. Bad for everybody except filthy rich white. Regular people(especially poor and middle class americans but also YOUR wallet) are getting hurt. People, including americans, are going to die because of his actions. He will make terrorism increase. isis are thrilled at this.

The more he does the worse it's going to be. Luckily america suffers most but unless you are filthy rich white american you too will feel it

I think you are exaggerating a little, time will tell, but I believe he will be investing money in infrastructure across the U.S.A. This could be roads, bridges, schools, hospitals etc so I think most Americans will benefit from either better public services or direct/indirect employment. Trump will go down the road of true Republican policies which will favour large companies who will help employ the average Joe. When the world economy is stable the US economy will thrive, however if there is another economic downturn Trumps Republican policies will hit you hard.

What his plans for ISIS are etc, we don't know but I doubt he would order another military debacle such as Iraq and Afghanistan. If he does anything it will be more airstrikes, but I believe Trump will focus on America first and only for the time being and that means being isolationist to world events.

There is no proof that Trump increases terrorism, if anything his pursuing policies of making the US harder to enter and giving your CIA free reign to interrogate terrorists should make it harder for Terrorists. You are currently more likely to see a misguided anti-Trump protester or individual using that as an excuse to cause a terrorist incident in the U.S.A.

I look on it that at least Trump means change, if Hilary Clinton won it would be the same status quo of the last 8 years and people would still be moaning about problems at home albeit less on a global scale. Hillary would also be continuing the US's out dated trade policies and terrible appeasement to the 'One Policy China'. Forgive me, I don't know if you Americans know about your countries China Policy. Basically to keep political peace China has free reign to control former independent states, take away democracy e.g. Hong Kong and is creating a mini empire by illegally concreting coral reefs to form military bases all over the pacific. Anyway I don't want to drift off topic, but if everyone is hates Trump, how did you let him become your leader?

Sentinel1 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Sentinel1 wrote:


The problem with the world is that it is gripped in 'Trump fever', I know this hasn't been helped by his divisive opinions but he has only been in office days. I say give the man a chance and calm down, I truly don't understand the point of all these protests because at the end of the day they achieve little to nothing. Even in the U.K there is now a protest to ban him from meeting the Prime Minister. How on Earth do people think trade deals and international relations can be improved when you try to ban the man in charge from the country you want to be friends with?

He has already shown himself to be bad. Bad for everybody except filthy rich white. Regular people(especially poor and middle class americans but also YOUR wallet) are getting hurt. People, including americans, are going to die because of his actions. He will make terrorism increase. isis are thrilled at this.

The more he does the worse it's going to be. Luckily america suffers most but unless you are filthy rich white american you too will feel it

I think you are exaggerating a little, time will tell, but I believe he will be investing money in infrastructure across the U.S.A. This could be roads, bridges, schools, hospitals etc so I think most Americans will benefit from either better public services or direct/indirect employment. Trump will go down the road of true Republican policies which will favour large companies who will help employ the average Joe. When the world economy is stable the US economy will thrive, however if there is another economic downturn Trumps Republican policies will hit you hard.

What his plans for ISIS are etc, we don't know but I doubt he would order another military debacle such as Iraq and Afghanistan. If he does anything it will be more airstrikes, but I believe Trump will focus on America first and only for the time being and that means being isolationist to world events.

There is no proof that Trump increases terrorism, if anything his pursuing policies of making the US harder to enter and giving your CIA free reign to interrogate terrorists should make it harder for Terrorists. You are currently more likely to see a misguided anti-Trump protester or individual using that as an excuse to cause a terrorist incident in the U.S.A.

I look on it that at least Trump means change, if Hilary Clinton won it would be the same status quo of the last 8 years and people would still be moaning about problems at home albeit less on a global scale. Hillary would also be continuing the US's out dated trade policies and terrible appeasement to the 'One Policy China'. Forgive me, I don't know if you Americans know about your countries China Policy. Basically to keep political peace China has free reign to control former independent states, take away democracy e.g. Hong Kong and is creating a mini empire by illegally concreting coral reefs to form military bases all over the pacific. Anyway I don't want to drift off topic, but if everyone is hates Trump, how did you let him become your leader?

One China policy is better than nuclear war. And it's one of the reasons that China never built up it's nuclear armament, as we had a sort of unspoken agreement of neutrality. We might see that reverse in the rhetoric continues from the Trump admin,

As far as him getting elected, there's a quirk in out system that means people can get elected without a majority of the vote if they get the vote int he right places, and he did. Not to mention a lot of the Democrats are winy little bitches who won't vote for a candidate unless they are prefect in every way, and would rather have a horrid candidate win than dare stain thier contence with voting for a good but flawed candidate. And the twenty years of hate and bile that have been spewed towards HRC hasn't helped.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Starbucks wants to create 10 000 jobs for migrants.
I guess lowly paid. If so, its clear that they are against Trump's EO.

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but couldn't Starbucks have had this on the cards for some time and then used Trump's actions as an excuse to hire 10,000 unskilled migrants at a lower pay rate, whilst making a statement that makes them look like Corporate equality hero's?

 whembly wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Wouldn't they just be better off having a purge of obsolete laws, and then introduce any that they actually need?

I don't doubt there's literally thousands of pointless laws, but it seems like a stupid way to go about repealing them. You might get on quite well if you hire a lawyer in each state, and have them spend 6-12 months nominating stuff to be removed.

They're not "laws" in literal sense... they're regulations (or interpretations) that's authorized by legal statutes.

Many laws purposely allows an agency to enact regulations, as long as said law expressly allows for it.

This EO is a clumsy... but, may be effective since we have a plethora of WTF/WTH regulations.

The problem is this is about the most asinine way possible to go about it, and will almost certainly result in lots of good regulations being gotten rid of to enrich certain parties at the expense of the public.

"Sorry, y'all wanted new safety standards for 2017 cars, we're gonna have to drop seatbelts and crumple zones to get that enhanced rollcage protection".


This is how we end up with a nationwide West Virginia.

Sentinel1 wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Starbucks wants to create 10 000 jobs for migrants.
I guess lowly paid. If so, its clear that they are against Trump's EO.

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but couldn't Starbucks have had this on the cards for some time and then used Trump's actions as an excuse to hire 10,000 unskilled migrants at a lower pay rate, whilst making a statement that makes them look like Corporate equality hero's?

You're misconstruing what Schultz said. Starbucks is hiring 10k people who qualify as the UN definition of refugee over the next 5 years across the 75 countries Starbucks operates in. Starbucks didn't say they would hire 10k refugees in the US. Starbucks is cutting jobs in the US. I don't know what the going rate is for hourly pay in the majority of the 75 countries Starbucks operates in so who knows if Starbucks pays well there or not?

Starbucks announces thing like this quite often :

remember the veterans one ?

https://news.starbucks.com/news/starbucks-hires-5500-veterans-and-military-spouses

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/01/28/boston-area-academics-facing-bans-entering/StddgeCOncofRfEFVG7LTL/story.html


clearly all those medical researchers are worth stopping.

whilst the USA embassy in the UK has taken an entire working day to be able to start to clarify how the travel ban applies to dual passport holders.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Sentinel1 wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Starbucks wants to create 10 000 jobs for migrants.
I guess lowly paid. If so, its clear that they are against Trump's EO.

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but couldn't Starbucks have had this on the cards for some time and then used Trump's actions as an excuse to hire 10,000 unskilled migrants at a lower pay rate, whilst making a statement that makes them look like Corporate equality hero's?

You're misconstruing what Schultz said. Starbucks is hiring 10k people who qualify as the UN definition of refugee over the next 5 years across the 75 countries Starbucks operates in. Starbucks didn't say they would hire 10k refugees in the US. Starbucks is cutting jobs in the US. I don't know what the going rate is for hourly pay in the majority of the 75 countries Starbucks operates in so who knows if Starbucks pays well there or not?

The rate of pay will differ immensely in each country, as each country sets a different rate of pay, some are quite frankly appalling and that's why people move to other countries for work. The terrible thing is companies are planning expansion based on the predicted rates of refugees in years to come. I know the worlds not perfect, but we shouldn't have to have a continuous flow of Refugees for the next 5 years. I haven't looked into it, but I think the UN is now changing the rules on who actually classes as a Refugee. This is because over the last 3 years many middle eastern and central African economic migrants were abusing the system and were getting classed as Refugees when they weren't. This has made it a lot harder for real Refugees.

Until Trumps E.O I didn't realise the U.S.A was accepting Syrian Refugees as the global policy was they had to register Asylum in the first country they landed in. (I know most ignored that and crossed borders to try and get into the country they wanted to stay in.) So has the US flown Refugees in especially or have other countries just passed them on flights?

 d-usa wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:
With the way they are not able to share scientific findings and silencing the EPA sounds bit like oppression.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/have-politics-trumped-science/

It may take a little bit, but I'm sure that FOIA laws require that research with public funding is public. So that should make it through the courts before too long if it sticks.

It's a basic principle of science to share results, data, methods etc. It is fundamental to the way scientific research is carried out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Also I am grossly against late term abortion which the deems seem to be pro killing babies.... Kinda bothers me. I could never vote for anything that hurts babies so I could never vote for them.

I would expect lack of healthcare to hurt babies way more than abortions, as the former let them be sick when available treatment could save them, and the former doesn't concern babies but fetuses…

The proportion of late term abortions is very small and they are only carried out for medical necessity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
As a student of American history, you appreciate the wider historical trends and how much the nation has changed over the years.

So the USA of old, strong and confident in its values, wouldn't have worried about a few immigrants or refugees attacking its values, they would have welcomed these immigrants in with open arms.

Trump's decision, to place bans on 7 countries, could actually be seen as a crisis in the USA, and of course the Western World.

Is the USA really that lacking in confidence that they're scared of a few immigrants?

And of course, the hysterical over-reaction from the other side leads me to conclude that both sides are as bad as each other...

And we've got 4 more years of this...

In American history there have been bans on Irish, Catholics, Eastern Europeans, Chinese, and of course the terror filled wastes of Leichtenstein.

That is why a law was brought in against it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

OgreChubbs wrote:
I am wondering if the media is feeling most if not all the hate. Them declaring a Muslim ban when it is a whole ban across the whole country just fuels ignorance and hate of the goverment. A lot of what the media does now a days is just click bait it seems.

I just think a lot of the current......... movements is just ignorance brought on by a few not the smartest people falling for click bait.

The ban on Syrians has an exception for Christian Syrians, thus it effectively is a ban on Muslim Syrians, not a ban across the whole country.

Sentinel1 wrote:

I think you are exaggerating a little, time will tell, but I believe he will be investing money in infrastructure across the U.S.A. This could be roads, bridges, schools, hospitals etc so I think most Americans will benefit from either better public services or direct/indirect employment. Trump will go down the road of true Republican policies which will favour large companies who will help employ the average Joe. When the world economy is stable the US economy will thrive, however if there is another economic downturn Trumps Republican policies will hit you hard.

The trickle down theory has been proven false long time ago.

What his plans for ISIS are etc, we don't know but I doubt he would order another military debacle such as Iraq and Afghanistan. If he does anything it will be more airstrikes, but I believe Trump will focus on America first and only for the time being and that means being isolationist to world events.

The 7 country ban alone will help ISIS recruit people. This is just what ISIS has been hoping. This allows them to recruit more people that gets radicalized which WILL mean more terrorist attacks.

I look on it that at least Trump means change, if Hilary Clinton won it would be the same status quo of the last 8 years and people would still be moaning about problems at home albeit less on a global scale. Hillary would also be continuing the US's out dated trade policies and terrible appeasement to the 'One Policy China'. Forgive me, I don't know if you Americans know about your countries China Policy. Basically to keep political peace China has free reign to control former independent states, take away democracy e.g. Hong Kong and is creating a mini empire by illegally concreting coral reefs to form military bases all over the pacific. Anyway I don't want to drift off topic, but if everyone is hates Trump, how did you let him become your leader?

Change isn't automatically good and in this case it would be bad.

Funny thing is things were already changing for BETTER. In pretty much every measurement it's been steady climb up in America. Unemployment reduced, poor&middle class have got wealthier, crimes are down etc etc etc etc. Pretty much only thing that's been going worse is goverment debt and that started going downhill already with Bush&co. You don't change that easily.

Only Trump's alternative facts are saying it has been going worse.

And btw you don't even need to be good president to get voted. Technically speaking in US 25 or so people could vote somebody into president over 100M+ votes...

 d-usa wrote:
So Obama killed a US-born citizen, his son, and now Trump killed his 8 year old daughter.

Both sides are bad

"Collateral damage" is a sad but practically inevitable consequence of military attacks on land targets based in areas that also may contain civilians. The Geneva Convention recognises this and does not ban it, only saying that care should be taken to minimise the damage.

If Obama deliberately targetted a child with a drone missile, that would be a serious crime. Similarly, if the US commandos searched for this little girl to shoot her deliberately. But this isn't what happened.