kurtster wrote: 
spoken like a true enemy of the state.  

 Isabeau wrote: 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Thank you.

 Isabeau wrote: 
I'll give it a try, but just by offering my opinion based upon my own observations.  So if that's not good enough, stop reading now.

Addressing the countries on that list not excluded.  Lebanon, I'm not sure why.  Egypt and the UAE are not currently at war with anyone and Obama himself has judged the UAE secure enough to take in Gitmo releasees.   

Saudi Arabia, should be, but for a lot of reasons I can imagine, not.  First, although at war with adjacent country Yemen, it is peaceful within yet fragile, its also stable and vetting can be done easily under present circumstances.  Perhaps after the review Trump has ordered, that will change.  Whatever the conclusions of the review, I think that it is safe to conclude that the standards arrived at will be universally applied.  I have absolutely no love for Saudi Arabia, but its stability in that area is of utmost importance, until we are totally free of the need for any oil in that region.  Once free, we can boogie and let the rest of the world deal with the Middle East on their own, paid for by the rest of the world for a change.  Russia doesn't need their oil, but China does.  I think that its time for China to step up to the plate on the Middle East and taste shit for the first time in a long, long time.

2¢ 

For more information, click.

 kurtster wrote: 
No darling. That was FDR. He had money. He also experienced a humbling, disabling condition. Thus having more compassion for those less off than himself.

Trumplethinskin is worried about crowd sizes and how the media portrays him. Please spare me the comedy that this man has any redeeming character.

Your argument is paper thin...

 kurtster wrote: 
   "All those Rich Guys dont need anymore money, so they won't be swayed by it."

OMG, the naiveté !!

 ojibwe wrote: 
I voted to destroy the status quo, the establishment, which has a stranglehold on both parties and the country.  In essence the state for that is what the state is presently.  The government is not functioning the way it should, imo.

This is the second time in my life where a POTUS who is independently wealthy and thus not subject to the usual pressures that the establishment can exert.  The first was JFK, but we all know how that ended.  I fear Trump will suffer the same fate for the same reasons.  I just hope that he can get enough done before that happens.

Rarely does a second chance like this happen.  I believe that Trump is trying to dismantle the establishment and put the government back to the way it was designed and intended by the Constitution and its authors.  He's making us talk about things we should have dealt with decades ago.  Maybe we will get it right, again.  That is my hope. 

If that is grounds for hate, then so be it. 

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
"But I brought you into my home. I fed you, I nursed you back to health, how can you do this to me?"

and the Snake replied: "I am a snake, I bite and it is poisonous. Madam, you knew I was a snake when you took me in." 

 KurtfromLaQuinta wrote:  
Since he hit the ground running and every single thing he has done is horribly misguided in my view, I think I can stop giving him a chance.

But really, what does giving a politician a chance mean? Not criticizing things you disagree with? Not advocating for what you believe? Sitting on the sideline while freedom you value is attacked from within? It just seems like such an odd concept at this point.

I suppose you could give him a chance to present an improved version of health care as he has promised. Ok, that isn't a choice one way or the other on your part. And it is true I am highly skeptical that any changes will be for the better. But repealing ACA with no replacement isn't adequate to 'give him a chance'. 

 Red_Dragon wrote: 
Betting pools are beginning as to when Trump totally crosses the line and the GOP decide to move forward with impeachment (plenty of material) and install Pence as an interim until 2020. Then they will have a new candidate.
They will NOT allow him to jeopardize the security of the country, the wealthy's comfort, the status quo in Congress, or big money made in Trade deals. I'm thinking civil unrest and violent outbreaks by Mid April, a full-on riot on Capital Hill around July 4th.
I hope its a bet I will lose.

Yes - see the 25th amendment... 

 KurtfromLaQuinta wrote: 
Yes they are.

So why is Trump judging Every Person from 7 Countries as AUTOMATICALLY SUSPECT? 

Indeed, let's hear more about Open Minds...

After all that he said during the campaign, after the first week of his presidency... there is no "give him a chance". No. None.

 ojibwe wrote: 
Open minds are good things.

 Isabeau wrote: 
Wow.

 KurtfromLaQuinta wrote: 
I am cool with that. I did not mean to come off all in-yo-face. There are many who are giving him a chance, and I hope he comes around and accurately gauges the mood of the country. 

 ojibwe wrote: 
Spot on sir.