Predictions for the reign of President Trump

[Wahaay]

I hear you Wahaay .
Surely , as you say ,Obama had covered these countries without Mr Trump in his handling of this sending wrong signals to the world.
It seems Mr Trump is more concerned with (pleasing) his base rather than governing sensibly for America ?
I am old nuff to remember and to worry that each generation seems to {adopt a bogeyman} be it Jews,Commies, and now Islam?.
{bogeymen } fear appeals to illogical and alternative fact reasoning = dangerous.

In him visiting Uk = grand = visit away = I think Mrs May in her Brexit rush is flailing about a bit .

If you think the maintenance of cordial relations between the leader of the most powerful country on earth without whom NATO would collapse and a country responsible for a million jobs as the largest single investor in the US is flailing about then I don't think you have a very firm grasp on international relations.
It's why Enda Kenny would be right to laugh at suggestions from low-grade Irish politicians that he should somehow snub Trump.

 

[Gerry Canning]

Not saying that .

What I do say and say clearly is that it helps no one internationally to have Mr Trump going out of his isolationist way to irritate people !
I do get the point of Enda etc , but why oh why create hassle .

 

[cremeegg]

The countries were already part of anti-terrorism legislation brought in by Obama because of the threat they posed.
The US perceived an intelligence-based threat from those countries before Trump came to power.

This is a fair point, rightly or wrongly the countries on the list were identified during Obama's presidency. The omission of Saudi Arabia, home to most of the 9/11 bombers, from the list suggests however that the whole thing is just a PR exercise, with Mr Trump wanting to be seen taking action rather than seriously expecting it to have any impact on security.

Trump has merely set up a 90-day ban while his administration works out how to deal with that threat - it was part of the reason why he was elected.It is often hugely difficult to vet people coming from countries where there is no functioning system of identification as Merkel has found out to her cost.
Although it may appear to be a blunt instrument you shouldn't underestimate the concerns,albeit often unwarranted, that many Americans have about terrorism even in small towns in Nowheresville.

Its a pity that unwarranted concerns are allowed to drive policy.

A serious analysis of what actions that are within the US control might increase their security might be a better place to start. Obama's decision not to bomb Syria was one of the few US foreign policy decisions in recent years that have not made the situation worse.

 

[Delboy]

Obama's decision not to bomb Syria was one of the few US foreign policy decisions in recent years that have not made the situation worse.

The people of Aleppo might say otherwise

 

[cremeegg]

The people of Aleppo might say otherwise

The reporting of the situation in Aleppo contrasted with the reporting of the situation in Mosul is to my mind an excellent example of post fact news.

As I understand it the reality for both cities is that Sunni Islamic militants are being driven out by predominantly Shia militants supported by superpower bombing. The suffering in the affected cities must be unbearable.

The attack on Aleppo began in early November and lasted until 22 December. The attack on Mosul started 17 October and is ongoing.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38132163

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37702442

We in the west are expected to believe the smart US bombs are only killing bad guys in Mosul, while nasty Russian bombs are killing indiscriminately in Aleppo. You may accept this I don't.

 

[Purple]

I agree Cremeegg. The West backed the wrong side in Syria.

 

[Wahaay]

This is a fair point, rightly or wrongly the countries on the list were identified during Obama's presidency. The omission of Saudi Arabia, home to most of the 9/11 bombers, from the list suggests however that the whole thing is just a PR exercise, with Mr Trump wanting to be seen taking action rather than seriously expecting it to have any impact on security.




Its a pity that unwarranted concerns are allowed to drive policy.

What I meant by unwarranted were those small towns in America where the chances of terrorist attack are slim.
As a whole the country should be on high alert.
With regard to the 90-day ban six out of the seven countries involved ( all of which were already subject to anti-terrorism measures brought in by Obama ) have no functioning central government or intelligence service and Europe has seen plenty of examples of terrorists slipping into countries posing as refugees.
To suggest the US shouldn't be vigilant against those countries just because none of their citizens have been involved in terrorist attacks doesn't really wash I'm afraid.
I can't help thinking much of the protests against Trump are by Democrats still unable to accept that he won the Presidency.
Opinion polls show that his actions still reflect the views of a majority of US citizens,rightly or wrongly.

 

[Purple]

What I meant by unwarranted were those small towns in America where the chances of terrorist attack are slim.

As a whole the country should be on high alert.

Yes, they should, but a ban is a stupid and blunt way of doing it and plays into the hands of their enemies.

With regard to the 90-day ban six out of the seven countries involved ( all of which were already subject to anti-terrorism measures brought in by Obama ) have no functioning central government or intelligence service and Europe has seen plenty of examples of terrorists slipping into countries posing as refugees.

What’s that got to do with anything? The USA isn’t taking refugees like we are.

To suggest the US shouldn't be vigilant against those countries just because none of their citizens have been involved in terrorist attacks doesn't really wash I'm afraid.

Who said they shouldn’t be vigilant?

I can't help thinking much of the protests against Trump are by Democrats still unable to accept that he won the Presidency.

I agree.

Opinion polls show that his actions still reflect the views of a majority of US citizens,rightly or wrongly.

Can you post a link please?

 

[Wahaay]

Yes, they should, but a ban is a stupid and blunt way of doing it and plays into the hands of their enemies.

You think Isis are sitting there saying " We really must carry out a terrorist attack on America because Trump has banned immigrants from 7 countries travelling to America " ?

What’s that got to do with anything? The USA isn’t taking refugees like we are.

Donald Trump has committed to honour the deal with Australia to take refugees from Manus Island and Nauru – even as his ban against refugees, migrants and visitors from some Muslim-majority countries is enforced.

www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jan/29/donald-trump-malcolm-turnbull-phone-call-immigration-ban-muslim

Can you post a link please?

The Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 49 percent of Americans agreed with the order and 41 percent disagreed.

www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-poll-exclusive-idUSKBN15F2MG

 

[Wahaay]

Here's Texas cowboy Chad Prather's take on the Trump demonstrators.
What a thick hillbilly ...

https://twitter.com/ANOMALY1/status/820697850636017668

 

[Gerry Canning]

Wahaay,
you are correct in that too much of anti-Trump stuff = hypocrisy .
But I have NIL doubt that he has handled this country/people blocking in a way that does not enhance the reality of real threats to USA and sadly just gives USA enemies a PR coup.
It is of little value to quote that more people support him , he should work for all Americans and enact legislation on known facts or threats.
I am very afraid that {islamists} are this generation of {bogeymen} , like the jews ,commies etc were .
When a leader has {bogeymen} he can twist real facts and will harm the USA .
Hope I am wrong..

 

[Wahaay]

Wahaay,
you are correct in that too much of anti-Trump stuff = hypocrisy .
But I have NIL doubt that he has handled this country/people blocking in a way that does not enhance the reality of real threats to USA and sadly just gives USA enemies a PR coup.
It is of little value to quote that more people support him , he should work for all Americans and enact legislation on known facts or threats.
I am very afraid that {islamists} are this generation of {bogeymen} , like the jews ,commies etc were .
When a leader has {bogeymen} he can twist real facts and will harm the USA .
Hope I am wrong..

The simple fact is that when every major terrorist atrocity since and including 9/11 has been carried out by Islamic extremists it is perfectly understandable that Trump wishes to enact the EO that he has.
It is a temporary ban covering Muslims and non-Muslims from those 7 countries.
The fact that a majority of Americans back his move is hugely important.His primary job is the welfare and security of the citizens.

 

[Firefly]

The simple fact is that when every major terrorist atrocity since and including 9/11 has been carried out by Islamic extremists it is perfectly understandable that Trump wishes to enact the EO that he has.

9/11 hmmm....Bin Laden and his links to the Saudi Royal family. Why didn't trump include Saudi Arabia in the list of countries he is currently banning people entering from?

 

[Leo]

It's all just populist pandering though. It's just an easy means of being seen to act while conveniently ignoring the real issues. It does nothing to address the fact that 83% of those charges with jihadist terrorism (for both domestic and foreign acts) are American citizens or permanent residents. Since 9/11, 94 people have died at the hands of 12 Jihadists, all 12 were American citizens or permanent residents, and none of those had family links back to any of the countries on the list of 7, but 3 x African-Americans, 3 had family links to Pakistan, 1 had Palestinian links, 2 Russia, 1 Egypt, 1 Kuwait and 1 Afghanistan.

To say all every major atrocity has been carried out by Islamic extremists fails to acknowledge the far-right extremists who have killed 55 people over that same period. Some argue they pose a far greater threat.

 

[Wahaay]

It's all just populist pandering though. It's just an easy means of being seen to act while conveniently ignoring the real issues. It does nothing to address the fact that 83% of those charges with jihadist terrorism (for both domestic and foreign acts) are American citizens or permanent residents. Since 9/11, 94 people have died at the hands of 12 Jihadists, all 12 were American citizens or permanent residents, and none of those had family links back to any of the countries on the list of 7, but 3 x African-Americans, 3 had family links to Pakistan, 1 had Palestinian links, 2 Russia, 1 Egypt, 1 Kuwait and 1 Afghanistan.

To say all every major atrocity has been carried out by Islamic extremists fails to acknowledge the far-right extremists who have killed 55 people over that same period. Some argue they pose a far greater threat.

I think by populist pandering you must mean carrying out the promises on which he was elected.I know it's an unusual concept but that's why Trump surprised everyone with his election win.
It's also incredibly naive to suggest a country should base its terrorist threat simply on what has gone before it.
The Obama administration had very serious doubts about the seven countries on Trump's banned list and rightly so.Six of them have no functioning central government and it has been proved in Europe that terrorist atrocities have been carried out by citizens of those countries who have arrived on the continent posing as refugees.

 

[Leo]

I think by populist pandering you must mean carrying out the promises on which he was elected.

In fairness to him, he is following through on some of his promises to date, but you have to remember his promises were mostly populist pandering in the first place.

It's also incredibly naive to suggest a country should base its terrorist threat simply on what has gone before it.

No one has suggested they should simply focus all their efforts on countries where previous jihadists or their ancestors have come from. Trump has made a big deal about 'wiping out radical Islam'. His defence of the travel ban claiming it will have any positive effect on the overall threat level is beyond naive.

 

[Firefly]

His primary job is the welfare and security of the citizens.

I don't disagree but why focus on banning Muslims entering his country when a much greater threat to the safety of citizens in the US lies in gun control (or lack thereof) - the bit is bold is interesting - in 2013 alone more deaths were caused by accidental use of guns than have ever been killed by terrorists since 9/11. Over 33 thousand deaths in all!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

In 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.2 injuries per 100,000 U.S. citizens),[2][3] and 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" (10.6 deaths per 100,000 U.S. citizens).[4] These deaths consisted of 11,208 homicides,[5] 21,175 suicides,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental or negligent discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms use with "undetermined intent"

Populism at its best!

 

[Wahaay]

I don't disagree but why focus on banning Muslims entering his country when a much greater threat to the safety of citizens in the US lies in gun control (or lack thereof) - the bit is bold is interesting - in 2013 alone more deaths were caused by accidental use of guns than have ever been killed by terrorists since 9/11. Over 33 thousand deaths in all!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

In 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.2 injuries per 100,000 U.S. citizens),[2][3] and 33,636 deaths due to "injury by firearms" (10.6 deaths per 100,000 U.S. citizens).[4] These deaths consisted of 11,208 homicides,[5] 21,175 suicides,[4] 505 deaths due to accidental or negligent discharge of a firearm, and 281 deaths due to firearms use with "undetermined intent"

Populism at its best!

I agree entirely.
But every president of both political parties has failed to tackle gun control so it's hardly a charge to be levelled at Trump alone in his second week in office.
Also,none have managed to solve the problem of why the vast majority of victims and perpetrators of gun murders are young black males.

 

[Firefly]

But every president of both political parties has failed to tackle gun control so it's hardly a charge to be levelled at Trump alone in his second week in office.

I agree with that but my point is that I consider it to be populist to be banning entrants from some Muslim countries, in the name of safe-guarding American lives, when a much bigger threat is alive & well inside their borders already.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

It's a populist and opportunist publicity stunt.

It's only for a short period until the "extreme vetting" is in place. 90 days or whatever will have totally negligible effect in terms of stopping bad dudes getting in.

But it is getting massive publicity giving the impression of a man of action who delivers on his promises. If he had simply waited and announced when extreme vetting was in place, that would go down like a lead balloon with the rednecks.