ldrews

Well, you are right, I am currently resident in Mexico. So, you are saying that as a US citizen, currently residing outside of the US, that I have no standing in this debate. And that that would be true for the several million other citizens of the US living outside the US? Tell me, does that include vacationers and other US citizens in transit?

Well, apparently the Trump administration does not agree with your viewpoint. And the list of proscribed countries was compiled during the Obama administration by the intelligence community as representing danger to the US. Trump is just implementing. Of course I get that your understanding of security concerns and effective responses is clearly superior to the US intelligence services.

No, I don't think so. What I am demanding is for those that wish to allow green card holders from the proscribed countries to freely return to the US to indemnify me and the rest of the public against potential terrorist actions from those green card holders. Since you think the risk is negligible there should be no problem in you indemnifying me and the rest of the US public. I do not think the risk is negligible. Since I and many others do not wish to take the risk we prefer to enforce the executive order against green card holders. If you and others wish to have us cooperate with you to allow green card holders from the proscribed countries to return without further vetting, then indemnify us and we will be happy to cooperate. What could be simpler?

For the countries on the list prepared by the Obama administration, yes I think it is a good idea to re-vet those green card holders. They are not being "banned", just being asked to come in for a re-qualifying interview. Given that Quebec just experienced another "terrorist" attack from individuals shouting "Allah Akhbar!", don't you think so too?

Are familiar with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) that insures your bank accounts? Transferring risk for a fee is a fundamental part of our economic system, called "insurance". Perhaps you have heard of it?

Ah, I see. No real arguments, just adhomiben attacts. Classy.

I don't know. I wonder what is the motivation for removing the Joint Chiefs? Adding Steve Bannon may be just a delegation of responsibility. My take is Trump is not a detail person and delegates as much as possible. But removing the military suggests a hidden agenda.

And by the way, the world does work that way. Car/public liability insurance, indemnity insurance, performance bonds, financial options, etc. All are forms of one party insuring/indemnifying another party.

I agree, life is inherently risky. But you and I both get the opportunity to choose which risks we take and which we mitigate. But I have no right to choose for you and vice versa. I am not at war with Islam. But neither am I foolish enough to ignore their cultural/religious imperatives or their history. So I am not motivated to invite them into my society. But I wish them well in theirs. The point of the indemnify comment is to point out that the risk is there and to bring to the surface that you would like me to share in that risk. But I do not want to share in that risk if I do not have to. So if you insist, then indemnify me. Then we are both happy.

Vituperative language and bad manners seems to be a badge of honor with you. Would you like to have a discussion or do you want to continue to rant? Immigration, green cards, and visas are not a right of people from other countries, they are a privilege extended by the US Government. And can be withdrawn or amended at any time. And since a couple of the terrorist incidents in the US were committed by children of legal immigrants, one would think that looking more deeply into their cultural motivations would be warranted before extending citizenship. We have enough social problems already; I don't see the benefit to inviting more.

You are welcome to take on whatever risks you desire. But don't force your risky behavior on me, please. And if the risk is negligible then surely you would be willing to indemnify the rest of the public, right?

Well, by your definition I must be insane. Green card holders from the countries designated as supplying terrorists/terrorism represent an increased opportunity for terrorists to legally enter the US. Unless you can verify the good intentions of all of those green card holders, then there exists increased risk. Verifying the good intentions is what the "enhanced vetting" is all about. Are you opposed to verifying those good intentions? In the commercial world, companies mitigate increased risk by requiring the "risky" party to post a bond to cover potential damages/loss. Would you be agreeable to requiring green card holders from "risky" countries posting a substantial bond to pay for potential damages? If the green card holder is an upstanding individual, he/she should be able to persuade an insurance company to post the bond for a reasonable fee. And if an insurance company won't, why should we, the public, assume the risk?

Constitutional crisis, hmmph! The government may have overstepped its boundaries (the courts will soon tell us), but apparently only with respect to individuals in transit. And even then we have to wait for the courts to tell us. But a constitutional crisis? Be serious! Once again let me explain: Trump says: "Give me 110%", opposition says:"No way! 100% at most!, Trump says: "OK"

What constitutional crisis? A judge issued a partial stay on Trump's Executive Order, which stay may be overturned on review/appeal. The Executive Order is well within the President's authority. What constitutional crisis?

Well, I think it too early to judge Trump's effectiveness. After all he did defeat 17 Republic candidates in the primaries and Clinton in general election. He has run a business empire of some 500 companies. And in one week he has initiated actions to carry out several of his campaign promises and also seems to have his opposition in a tizzy. Additionally, his cabinet picks do not seem like pushovers, but rather many of them have experience in managing large organizations. So, you may not agree with or like him, but Trump seems like a formidable opponent.

I totally agree that the fear of terrorism is overblown. However, the President has some power to do something about immigration, but relatively no power to do anything about guns or drunk driving. The US tried to legislate against alcohol, remember. That didn't work out very well. And since guns are embedded in our constitution, the President has little power to do anything about it. Do you have any concrete practical suggestions for addressing these two issues?

Who was talking about Syria? The topic is immigration control into the USA for the purposes of increasing the safety of US Citizens. Neither Syria nor North Korea pose an immediate threat to the US as far as I can tell. So your solution is to go kill millions of people in other nations in order to feel safer. I guess that is the traditional left/liberal method.

Question: how do you get the quote source in the header to the quote? Nevermind, I found it!

I find the reactions amazing! Trump says: "Give me 110% of what I want!" The opposition says:"110%! That is outrageous! Nobody gets that extra 10%! We won't give you more than 100%!" Trump:"OK"

Well, since Trump voters currently have power, would you find it acceptable for them to shoot you?

This doesn't answer the question. What is your alternative solution?

Apparently a lot of people (those who voted for Trump) feel that potential terrorism from people from the Middle East is a major problem. Trump has just made some attempt to address that perception/problem. If you object to his approach, how would you address that perception/problem?

As I said, a political appointee.

I thought I read that those sacked were political appointees, not career civil servants. Isn't that standard procedure whenever a new administration of a different party comes into power?

Yes, thank you PassedOut. I had not seen this data. It did take me a little while to find it myself even with your trailblazing. The data does refute any suggestion of bias. It is amazing that Detroit had so many problems. Clearly the Detroit/Michigan voting methodology can stand improvement. If similar evidence can be made available for the assertion of "illegals" voting in California and other similar states then it could be shown that Trump is indeed delusional regarding the popular vote. Since he is now our President for the next 4 years, I sincerely hope that that is the extent of his delusions.