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.

 KurtfromLaQuinta wrote: 
You are correct that there were American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan during those wars and may still be in the future. I think we can agree that military action is different from terrorism and civilian death. Not that the one life is more valuable than another, but we specifically order military personnel to go into areas where they will be shot at. A decision not to be taken lightly. The graphic isn't clear on this point but I'm pretty sure it is referring to civilian deaths and probably deaths on American soil. 

Certainly the whole policy discussion is around how to prevent terrorism (the pragmatist in me would say to minimize attacks). It is my opinion that admitting Syrian refugees would be one of the best ways to fight against radicalization that builds home-grown terrorism. These are the people who know first-hand the evil of ISIS and other anti-democratic groups in the middle east. Supporting moderate Islam is probably the only effective way to reduce the threat from fundamentalism. Leaving aside the moral arguments, Trump's ban will lead to further radicalization and shoots himself in the foot.

Ms. Conway subtly suggesting a purge (in the interest of ehm, shareholders/business, and gasp, reputation) while nurturing a rather familiar type of persecution complex:

We have all the headlines, people should be embarrassed. Not one network person has been let go. Not one silly political analyst and pundit who talked smack all day long about Donald Trump has been let go. They are on panels every Sunday. They’re on cable news every day.

Who’s the first editorial — the first blogger that will be left out that embarrassed his or her outlet? We know all their names. I’m too polite to call them by name. But they know who they are, and they’re all wondering, will I be the first to go?

The election was three months ago. None of them have been let go. If this were a real business, if the mainstream media were a thriving private sector business that actually turn a profit, which is not true of many of our newspapers, Chris, 20 percent of the people would be gone. They embarrassed, they failed to protect their shareholders and their board members and their colleagues.

And yet we deal with him every single day. We turn the other cheek. If you are part of team Trump, you walk around with these gaping, seeping wounds every single day, and that’s fine. I believe in a full and fair press.

I’m here every Sunday morning. I haven’t slept in a month. I believe in a full and fair press. But with the free press comes responsibility. And responsibility is to get the story right. Biased coverage is easy to detect. Incomplete coverage impossible to detect. That’s my major grievance, is the media are not — they’re not giving us complete coverage.

Pre-post-fact fact: It's impossible to go without sleep for a month. The body would shut down much, much earlier, after a period of impaired mental functioning, delusions, hallucinations, etc.

 KurtfromLaQuinta wrote: 
Sarcasm dear, not hysterics. A shame men like you cannot tell the difference.