The Trump Presidency – 2016

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by BigPapi

Did Trump promise Mexico would build the wall- or that a wall would be built? Because most voters took Trump at his word that he would build a wall -I agree. If he promised Mexico would pay for it I missed it; either way I would have dismissed that part under political rhetoric- as I think most did- as MBBF I think was implying.

Really? He said, on multiple occasions, that he was going to get Mexico to pay for it. Most recently he said it during the inauguration speech.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by BigPapi

Did Trump promise Mexico would build the wall- or that a wall would be built? Because most voters took Trump at his word that he would build a wall -I agree. If he promised Mexico would pay for it I missed it; either way I would have dismissed that part under political rhetoric- as I think most did- as MBBF I think was implying.

He said it like every single campaign speech. He said it in debates. He said it in interviews.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

You kept using that same logic during the election. How'd that work out?

So you think he's really super popular right now?

I'll take the long term track record of data over I just know...

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by BigPapi

Did Trump promise Mexico would build the wall- or that a wall would be built? Because most voters took Trump at his word that he would build a wall -I agree. If he promised Mexico would pay for it I missed it; either way I would have dismissed that part under political rhetoric- as I think most did- as MBBF I think was implying.

The international coverage on this part of his campaign definitely focused on the 'Mexico will pay for it' part, as well as Nieto's response to it. I doubt he ever used the word "promise" in his entire campaign, just "I will"

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Ooooooo, good addendum to this topic. Trump and video games!

Video game industry prepares for coming of possible trade tariff - Polygon

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

20% tax on Mexican imports... I guess we can say goodbye to tableside guac.

Zero chance a Republican Congress votes for that.

[Easy Mac]

Was it really that long ago that we were the ones asking people to tear down walls?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Was it really that long ago that we were the ones asking people to tear down walls?

Minor memo. That wall kept people in. This one is to keep people out.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Trump has the lowest approval ratings of any incoming president. To say this is working for him is ignoring the only data we have.

Hillary would've (almost certainly) also had the lowest approval ratings of any incoming President. Trump's numbers declining since his election is evidence that the approach isn't resonating, but merely having those low approval ratings is more a sign of the highly partisan and negative climate imo.

[JPhillips]

Bush2 had a much higher approval rating when he took office. I would bet that Hillary would have been over 50% even if it was lower than previous presidents.

[Brian Swartz]

Based on what, exactly? When was the last time Hillary's approval rating was over 50? Certainly wasn't during the campaign. Would it be higher than Trump's? Almost certainly. I think a majority of the posters here could satisfy the demand of 'better than Trump at being president' though. It's a really low bar .

[SirFozzie]

Agreed that Hillary would have been below 50 as well.

[CrescentMoonie]

Hillary wouldn't have sniffed 50%. She was only slightly less disliked than Trump.

[jbergey22]

I wonder if the year was 2000 if this election would have had as much nationwide political divide as we have in 2016. I really wonder if social media and all of the fabricated stories arent widening the political gaps to levels never seen. All I really gathered from the campaign was Trump is narcissist that pouts when something doesnt go his away. I had zero love for Hillary either so the results(while I probably preferred HRC) didnt matter much to me. I am more annoyed/concerned with what I am seeing now. The diehard liberals not accepting the results and the conservatives basically antagonizing the liberals creating a very hostile situation right now.

Liberals just need to accept the situation and Trump needs to back off on trying to take everything away in such short order. From what I am seeing right now is Trump doesnt negotiate he forces his opinion on the people that actually think he has a fully functioning brain.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by rjolley

About the State Department firings/resignations, isn't that normal when a new President comes into office, especially from the other party? So, that's basically much ado about nothing?

The Post article mentions:

Assistant Secretary of State for Administration Joyce Anne Barr, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Michele Bond and Ambassador Gentry O. Smith, director of the Office of Foreign Missions, followed him out the door. All are career Foreign Service officers who have served under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

[Radii]

With all of the executive orders, do remember that one of the first things Obama did was sign an executive order that ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay. We know how well that worked.

Time will tell on the stuff Trump is doing.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by BigPapi

Did Trump promise Mexico would build the wall- or that a wall would be built? Because most voters took Trump at his word that he would build a wall -I agree. If he promised Mexico would pay for it I missed it; either way I would have dismissed that part under political rhetoric- as I think most did- as MBBF I think was implying.

Alternative facts FWIW!

Also not entirely understanding how making the US public pay more for Mexican goods, and/or forcing US importers to slash their margins, is likely to be a popular solution?

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Minor memo. That wall kept people in. This one is to keep people out.

Um, walls do both things....at the same time.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Liberals just need to accept the situation and Trump needs to back off on trying to take everything away in such short order. From what I am seeing right now is Trump doesnt negotiate he forces his opinion on the people that actually think he has a fully functioning brain.

Maybe that's why liberals feel they can't just "accept the situation?"

[Flasch186]

Im not going to lie the requiring a gag order on climate stuff etc has me a little worried about that.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Um, walls do both things....at the same time.

So you think the East Germans had the same idea in mind that Donald Trump has for this wall? You think it will be as difficult for me to travel to Mexico once the wall is built as it would have been to travel to West Germany?

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by BigPapi

Did Trump promise Mexico would build the wall- or that a wall would be built? Because most voters took Trump at his word that he would build a wall -I agree. If he promised Mexico would pay for it I missed it; either way I would have dismissed that part under political rhetoric- as I think most did- as MBBF I think was implying.

He's still saying it repeatedly today although he's migrated it to Mexico paying for it indirectly through tariffs and such now (hence the indication he'll be charging 20% on Mexican imports).

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

He's still saying it repeatedly today although he's migrated it to Mexico paying for it indirectly through tariffs and such now (hence the indication he'll be charging 20% on Mexican imports).

From the time he said it, I always figured the plan would be to have Mexico pay for the wall through other means. (crossing the border tax, tariffs, etc.)

Rather than everyone throwing a fit about the wall (which I think is a horrible idea by the way), I wish someone would come up with a real F'ing solution to the issue of illegal immigrants in this country. So far we have had 2 solutions. Option 1 is Obamas "dream" act and sanctuary cities all over the damned country allowing illegals to come in and do whatever they want. They get access to health care, drivers licenses, bank accounts and sometimes more benefits than LEGAL immigrants.

The second way is to build an expensive wall that won't keep them out, will hurt the environment and end up in complete disaster.

I'm with him on hammering sanctuary cities. I'm with him on massive immigration reform. I'm with him on extra security checks and stricter policies on refugees from high terror areas. I'm not with him on Gestapo like extraditions and expensive, ineffective walls.

I'm not saying I have to LIKE the immigration policy the dems and reps come up with, but it would have been nice to have done something before it ever came to this level of idiocy.

[Easy Mac]

You do realize illegal immigration has remained unchanged over the last decade and exactly how stringent the refugee checks already are.

If you could, please list all the instances of terror attacks committed by refugees in the US over... lets go since Bush took office.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by panerd

So you think the East Germans had the same idea in mind that Donald Trump has for this wall? You think it will be as difficult for me to travel to Mexico once the wall is built as it would have been to travel to West Germany?

Yes and yes.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

You do realize illegal immigration has remained unchanged over the last decade and exactly how stringent the refugee checks already are.

If you could, please list all the instances of terror attacks committed by refugees in the US over... lets go since Bush took office.

1 - If we have accurate data on illegal immigration rates then that opens up all kinds of questions.
2 - It isn't JUST about terror attacks. Its about infrastructure demands. Its also not a huge leap in logic to gather that the same way terrorists identified and exploited airline security, you can bet they have identified and are planning on exploiting border security issues. In other words, just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it wont.
3 - A wall is stupid. Its ineffective. I dont care if its 1,000 feet high. If you dont have armed turret towers ever 500 yards someone can break through it in a couple hours MAX with hand tools, and seconds with heavy equipment.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

2 - It isn't JUST about terror attacks. Its about infrastructure demands. Its also not a huge leap in logic to gather that the same way terrorists identified and exploited airline security, you can bet they have identified and are planning on exploiting border security issues. In other words, just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it wont.

It isn't like we're letting them in after vetting them for an hour. The average time is at least 18-24 months. That's plenty of time to review their application and determine if they pose a threat. If they're that good at hiding their intentions, then there's little chance to stop them anyway if we make them wait 5 years..

Also, Trump's going to fix our infrastructure. What better way to tie the two together than to expand infrastructure in general and to accomodate the refugees. You can even put them to work on infrastructure projects. I feel like that's a win-win.

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

1 - If we have accurate data on illegal immigration rates then that opens up all kinds of questions.

Isn't that the case with anything? We have to trust numbers are right, otherwise we just assume every crowd or standing ovation is the biggest, best thing ever.

[lungs]

I would be happy with revising the H2A visa process to allow guest workers to stay 2-3 years rather than the current 10 month maximum that is currently in place. It was originally designed for seasonal agricultural work but obviously a dairy farm is a year round thing. I can't afford to be turning my staff over every ten months. Make it two years and renewable, and allow those who do well on the work visa to eventually apply for permanent residence. Permanent residence is not citizenship, that would have to come much later.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

You do realize illegal immigration has remained unchanged over the last decade and exactly how stringent the refugee checks already are.

If you could, please list all the instances of terror attacks committed by refugees in the US over... lets go since Bush took office.

Illegal immigration and refugees are two separate issues. The argument against illegal immigration is more about the strain on infrastructure and social safety nets than terrorism.

In the last year or so off the top of my head I can think of San Bernardino, Orlando, Ohio State & the Minnesota ones all committed by refugees or the children of immigrants from war torn Muslim-majority countries, not to mention all the European ones. I don't oppose refugee resettlement because I'm worried about my safety (I oppose it because I think our limited spots should go to hard working people in the queue instead of jumping groups to the head of the line because their country is more war torn than other shitty 3rd world ones), and it still takes an extremely disaffected person to fall into that life, but it's burying your head in the sand if you don't think people with family in war torn Muslim-majority countries are more likely to become homegrown terrorists. Especially if we're in a climate that's not as good for full assimilation.

[Easy Mac]

Dylan Roof, the dude who shot at the pizza place, the dude who assaulted a delta worker because she was Muslim. Should we be ban white men from moving about the country because they may attack people?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Dylan Roof, the dude who shot at the pizza place, the dude who assaulted a delta worker because she was Muslim. Should we be ban white men from moving about the country because they may attack people?

I don't see where he is banning US citizens from moving about the country.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I think the hands issue proved it.

If this is real...

Dana Schwartz on Twitter: "Trump 100% photoshopped his hand bigger for this picture hanging in the white house, which is the most embarassing thing I've ever seen https://t.co/MGTbFfdLqp"

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't see where he is banning US citizens from moving about the country.

I asked people to mention terrorist attacks by refugees. They pointed to attacks by American citizens who were children/grandchildren of immigrants. If we're going that far down the line, it only makes sense to extend that to any other group who have immigrated here whose descendants have carried out the same type of attacks.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Dylan Roof, the dude who shot at the pizza place, the dude who assaulted a delta worker because she was Muslim. Should we be ban white men from moving about the country because they may attack people?

Every situation is horrible. Roof, the dude with the pizza place, the idiot who assaulted the Delta worker. . . they are already here and unless we wanted to deport them (or their parents before they had them), there isn't a lot we can do.

People coming into the country can and need to be vetted as good as we can do it. We won't be perfect and there will be mistakes. But simply opening up the gates and not even attempting to look for issues? Sorry, that's bad judgement.

This is usually the part where the racist talk starts. (why don't you think the same of white people Troy, you clearly hate other nationalities) If a bunch of white Australians come into this country and start in with terrorist attacks because they are unhappy the US doesn't consume enough vegemite, I will damned well want anyone from Australia to go through some extra screening before we allow them into this country.

If the IRA had bombed America repeatedly for being allies with the British, I'd damned well want them looked at too. We seem to have an issue in the world right now where a very specific group of people don't respect people and think it is perfectly OK to kill over a cartoon. ALL the people from that region are not that way. But it makes sense to give anyone coming from that region of an extra look over before we integrate them into our society. It isn't my fault that the specific group I'm talking about happens to be non white.

Until we start having a lot of attacks from Scandinavian immigrants, you'll just have to trust me on this one.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

If this is real...

Dana Schwartz on Twitter: "Trump 100% photoshopped his hand bigger for this picture hanging in the white house, which is the most embarassing thing I've ever seen https://t.co/MGTbFfdLqp"

[AlexB]

While I enjoy laughing at Crazy Donald as much as anyone, they are two different photos taken from two different positions at slightly different times

Look at the position of Trump in relation to the naval officer, the position of the saluting arm and hand, and Obama's left hand.

I don't think it's photoshopped: I think Trump is patting Obama's shoulder with his left hand - on the left hand photo Trump's hand is away from Obama's shoulder, and on the right one it's on his shoulder.

This is just two photos with slightly different perspectives

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Dylan Roof, the dude who shot at the pizza place, the dude who assaulted a delta worker because she was Muslim. Should we be ban white men from moving about the country because they may attack people?

You named 1 terrorist and 2 people who didn't even put anyone in the hospital out of ~100 million white males, while the total Muslim population (not just refugees or their children) is at best 1/30th of that. (And since women commit violence at a lower rate than men, an accurate comparison would be 1/60th). The overwhelming majority of Muslims, and immigrants, and presumably Syrian refugees, are no better or worse than the average American. There are bad apples in any group, including white men (and there's somewhat of an interesting debate about how people like Roof or Adam Lanza should be classified and how the media portrays them). There are idiot racists, but I don't think people here deny this. There is also a higher percentage of disaffected people who are Islamic, speak Arabic, and/or have family in these war-torn countries/regions of countries where extremists run rampant that fall under the spell of terrorist organization recruiters. That's not racist or #AlternativeFacts, but bringing it up gets you tagged with those labels.

Again, I don't oppose refugees on those grounds, I think we should do a better job assimilating those we have taken (though I think we're MUCH better than Europe in that regard) and I'll argue against anyone who thinks the majority of refugees are security risks, but to pretend there isn't an elevated risk and shout down anyone who says it is ignoring a real thing.

This is also a much different debate than any sort of Muslim registry or restrictions on actual U.S. citizens or people already here. (Well, more of a registry than we had for the last decade+) I'll strongly oppose those, and sign up for any registry as a Muslim if Trump somehow gets past the courts & ACLU and forces people to register. But while saying we should take the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free sounds inspiring, it's never been our actual policy, and I have zero problem with a more selfish policy for the limited legal immigration spots we give out every year. Though I do wish we'd stay away from Islamophobia and focus on bringing in more educated emigres.

[molson]

I think refugees have been great for Boise, and we've had a lot of them. I just read that 1,300 of the 26,000 students in Boise are refugees. Of course there's a spectrum. There's some criminals, some well-meaning but unacceptable behavior by the standards of western society (letting your small children wander around town by themselves), a lot of very hard workers (my girlfriend is a manager at a grocery store - she much prefers hiring refugees to 20-25 year old Americans, she says that generally, refugees are just better workers who don't complain as much), some get really involved in the community and local churches (there's a big refugee presence at our farmer's markets), and some become community leaders and successful entrepreneurs (there's an awesome Ethiopian restaurant owned by a guy who started his first restaurant in a refugee camp). I think a country like the U.S. needs some influx of new talent and approaches.

And I really dislike illegal immigration, and the concept of undocumented, unscreened people coming across the border and straining services and resources. And I get get annoyed how that's often spun as a conservative or even racist perspective, even though every country on earth has some kind of immigration controls. But refugee resettlement, through the processes involved with that, is the most legal kind of immigration you can have. We know who they are, we know how many of them there are, we know where they're coming from, we're able to control those numbers, and we're able to promote their success as best we can by settling them places where it makes sense to settle them (places like Boise, with low cost of living, lots of unskilled jobs, affordable housing, churches and community organizations in place who welcome them, etc.)

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I asked people to mention terrorist attacks by refugees. They pointed to attacks by American citizens who were children/grandchildren of immigrants. If we're going that far down the line, it only makes sense to extend that to any other group who have immigrated here whose descendants have carried out the same type of attacks.

The Tsarnaev's came here as refugees from Chechnya seeking political asylum. The Ohio State attacker was a Somali refugee. The St. Cloud mall stabber came here as a Somali refugee. Over two dozen more Somalian's from the Twin Cities alone joined al-Shabaab, with 10+ more also charged with an attempt to join ISIL (though I didn't dig in to how many came here on refugee visas vs were born here.) Considering that's out of a population of ~17,000 Somali refugees in the Twin Cities, that's a problem.

Self-radicalization is a very hard thing to stop, but of course it's higher the more familial or psychological ties you have to countries where terrorism and anti-American sentiment abound. There weren't many lone wolf attacks for basically the decade after 9/11, but in the last few years social media has greatly accelerated these types of attacks both here and in Europe because of how much easier it is for disaffected young men to find radical preachings, for people to communicate through encrypted apps, and probably how much harder it is for our security apparatus to get actual analysts to look at what data mining turns up when there is this much information.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

The Tsarnaev's came here as refugees from Chechnya seeking political asylum. The Ohio State attacker was a Somali refugee. The St. Cloud mall stabber came here as a Somali refugee. Over two dozen more Somalian's from the Twin Cities alone joined al-Shabaab, with 10+ more also charged with an attempt to join ISIL (though I didn't dig in to how many came here on refugee visas vs were born here.) Considering that's out of a population of ~17,000 Somali refugees in the Twin Cities, that's a problem.

Self-radicalization is a very hard thing to stop, but of course it's higher the more familial or psychological ties you have to countries where terrorism and anti-American sentiment abound. There weren't many lone wolf attacks for basically the decade after 9/11, but in the last few years social media has greatly accelerated these types of attacks both here and in Europe because of how much easier it is for disaffected young men to find radical preachings, for people to communicate through encrypted apps, and probably how much harder it is for our security apparatus to get actual analysts to look at what data mining turns up when there is this much information.

touche. I guess I could argue I was try to say they were already radicalized when they came here, since the discussion is banning them from even coming over. But I would argue I'm moving the goalposts.

I guess what I'm just trying to say is, I believe banning these people from even getting a chance to come over is worse for society than the threat they pose. I just see it as a way for a politician to play into ethnic/racial fears to score some cheap points at the expense of helping people.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

The Tsarnaev's came here as refugees from Chechnya seeking political asylum. The Ohio State attacker was a Somali refugee. The St. Cloud mall stabber came here as a Somali refugee. Over two dozen more Somalian's from the Twin Cities alone joined al-Shabaab, with 10+ more also charged with an attempt to join ISIL (though I didn't dig in to how many came here on refugee visas vs were born here.) Considering that's out of a population of ~17,000 Somali refugees in the Twin Cities, that's a problem.

Self-radicalization is a very hard thing to stop, but of course it's higher the more familial or psychological ties you have to countries where terrorism and anti-American sentiment abound. There weren't many lone wolf attacks for basically the decade after 9/11, but in the last few years social media has greatly accelerated these types of attacks both here and in Europe because of how much easier it is for disaffected young men to find radical preachings, for people to communicate through encrypted apps, and probably how much harder it is for our security apparatus to get actual analysts to look at what data mining turns up when there is this much information.

See, one of the major problems I have with these blanket bans is I feel it will only increase radicalization. If I was ISIS or someone looking to recruit and/or radicalize others, then I'd love for a blanket ban that treats all people like they're terrorists to be implemented, because it's an easy thing to point to and show that America isn't just against violent, radical Muslims, they're against Islam in general.

[Easy Mac]

This article is absolutely fascinating. I apologize if it's been posted before, but I think it spells out quite well how Trump won. Incredible foresight by Bannon. It's a shame that such hateful seeming people seem to have been the first to figure out how to use it (Extreme right wing in the US and Europe). Of course, of the far far left figured it out first, who knows what they'd be doing.

https://antidotezine.com/2017/01/22/trump-knows-you/

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

This article is absolutely fascinating. I apologize if it's been posted before, but I think it spells out quite well how Trump won. Incredible foresight by Bannon. It's a shame that such hateful seeming people seem to have been the first to figure out how to use it (Extreme right wing in the US and Europe). Of course, of the far far left figured it out first, who knows what they'd be doing.

https://antidotezine.com/2017/01/22/trump-knows-you/

That reads more like an advertisement. I'm sure there are dozens, maybe hundreds, of similar techniques and tools that were used by Clinton, Trump and probably any other elected official of importance. So these guys wrote a profile on one of the tools. Yawn.

Why he won and Clinton didn't has been covered ad nauseum and it wasn't a single magical algorithm.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

This article is absolutely fascinating. I apologize if it's been posted before, but I think it spells out quite well how Trump won. Incredible foresight by Bannon. It's a shame that such hateful seeming people seem to have been the first to figure out how to use it (Extreme right wing in the US and Europe). Of course, of the far far left figured it out first, who knows what they'd be doing.

https://antidotezine.com/2017/01/22/trump-knows-you/

Oh God, we'd all be forced to drive Priuses or something. Bring on the wall and the Muslim ban because both sides are equally bad!

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

See, one of the major problems I have with these blanket bans is I feel it will only increase radicalization. If I was ISIS or someone looking to recruit and/or radicalize others, then I'd love for a blanket ban that treats all people like they're terrorists to be implemented, because it's an easy thing to point to and show that America isn't just against violent, radical Muslims, they're against Islam in general.

This is precisely what ISIS wants and Trump will happily give it to them.

[booradley]

He's at 55% according to Rasmussen, 59% per Washington Times, and 59% per Townhall.

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™

[JPhillips]

Banning refugees on Holocaust Remembrance Day sure is a highlight.

[RainMaker]

Reminder that Trump has stated many times that he admires Putin.

Russia parliament votes 380-3 to decriminalize domestic violence

[RainMaker]

Trump’s Immigration Ban Excludes Countries With Business Ties

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Trump’s Immigration Ban Excludes Countries With Business Ties

Purely coincidence.