BREAKING: Federal Court Issues National Stay of Trump's Refugee Ban

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Roughly 100.000-150.000 people living in Austria are currently unable to travel to the US because they are either citizens of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Libya, Sudan or Somalia - or Austrian citizens who also hold citizenship/passports of these countries.

And what business or connection do they possibly have here? I have yet to hear a reason as to why the right to immigrate here is apparent universal.

Because, no matter how hard the tiny-brained fascist cult prays to their orange false deity, the United States is still a modern nation and part of the free world, not Trump-istan.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

John McCain says he's against the ban on his Facebook and Chris Murphy said he intends to introduce a bill overturning it this week.  Should be interesting to see how that goes.

That would certainly be better than it being struck down by the courts. The latter would allow Trump to say, "I tried, but was foiled by the corrupt globalist establishment." Followed by him packing the courts with rubber stampers. Let the representatives of the people vote on this.

I would just love it if one of Trump's first interactions with his own party's Congress was having his executive order repealed.

Unfortunately, we probably have enough cucks in the Congress to stop that from happening.

[Tartarus Sauce]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In a nutshell, you just cited the Left's stereotype of Ronald Reagan. This is hogwash, to put it kindly.

Read Lou Cannon's "President Reagan: Role of a Lifetime." And then try "The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan: A History of the End of the Cold War" by James Mann. Both will (with citations and well grounded facts) demonstrate your assertions to be false.  

Anyway, let's take your positions and break them down.

1. Reagan did very, very, very little. Nonsense. Reagan cut taxes, held domestic spending down (outside defense), led a successful arms race that neutralized the Soviet Union and led them to negotiations, negotiated the nuclear arms deals, and then wound down the Cold War. He also began to shift the Court to the right, appointing O'Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy. Not to mention the lower courts. And he sped up the deregulation that began under Jimmy Carter. And oh, he got Vice President Bush elected President in his own right.

Most of all, Reagan was a realigning President that shattered the New Deal coalition, and inaugurated a new conservative era. The 1994 Republican Congress took their "Contract with America" from Reagan's 1985 State of the Union. His Administration was the most conservative since the Coolidge Administration and was consequential in how it ended the string of liberal presidencies (and alignment) between Roosevelt and Carter.

Anyway you add it up, the 40th President was a very consequential president. We can't say anything about the 45th because Trump has been in office a week.

2. He was a front man for a shadowy cabal of advisers who were largely interconnected with Vice President Bush and the Republican establishment. lol no. Reagan was their bete noir. Let's start with the fact he started out as a speaker for Barry Goldwater in "A Time for Choosing." From the start, Reagan was aligned with the conservative National Review - Goldwater wing of the party, as evidenced by his 1966 gubernatorial run (his other primary challenger was a more moderate Republican).

Reagan's talk about the arms race and then pivoting to negotiations ran contrary to the Republican establishment's wishes at the time. Nixon and Kissinger had fathered detente, which Reagan blasted in the 1976 primaries. Then as President, Reagan launched an arms race to force the Soviet Union to come to the table. His spending and tax cuts were also far more draconian than anything attempted by Nixon, Ford, or Eisenhower. And then, in the late 1980s, he negotiated with the Commies, which again was opposed by Nixon, Ford, and company. In fact, President Bush 41 suspended relations with the Soviet Union in 1989 because the establishment didn't trust Reagan.

Reagan was very much his own man. James Sears, his 1976 campaign manager, tried to control him, and was linked to the more moderate wing of the GOP. He was fired in 1980 for trying to dominate Reagan. In the White House, Reagan led the ideological charge, while his aides tried to temper him. He was nothing like that a puppet figure, from January 20, 1981 to January 20, 1989. Even James Baker couldn't control Ronald Reagan and ended up being Treasury Secretary after he was burnt out. It was said in the Reagan White House that there existed a committee, where his advisors held 3 votes and Reagan held 4. It was very true. (And Reagan very much stuck to his guns even if his advisors told him to not do x or y).

3.  It's also seriously under-estimated how similar the level of hatred for Reagan from the contemporary press and left matched if not even exceeds what Trump faces. Certainly. The difference being of course, the Left had just lost power and the New Deal era had just come crashing down in 1981. The Left in 2016 has lived for 36 years under Reagan's shadow.

They hated Reagan but were powerless because the Reagan realignment was broadly supported by the country. Trump, elected with 46% of the vote and facing middling approval ratings, has nothing of the armor that Ronald Reagan had, namely that he had the popular will of the electorate behind him. It's why he was considered the Teflon President, because he had that popular goodwill throughout his entire presidency, even through Iran Contra.

4. The reality of Reagan as opposed to the narrative of Reagan sounds to me to be very similar to the "worst case scenarios" imagined for Trump. Not sure what you mean by this, so I won't respond to this yet.

5. Reagan's success was based in his amiable personality and charisma. Yes and no. Of course, Reagan was amiable and charismatic. But no, Reagan's real power was this - he had a broad electoral mandate and he was deeply popular in the country, having lifted the GOP to the Senate majority and given the GOP extra House seats. For most of his presidency, there existed an effective conservative coalition (GOP majority in the Senate, Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans in the House). Congress would have treated him like they did Nixon if he hadn't won the election by ten points and maintained huge reservoirs of popularity in the districts of Congress.

This is something Donald Trump doesn't have that Reagan did. Trump ran behind most GOP members of Congress and completely lost in Democratic districts. This means that the GOP members of Congress has to fear a primary challenge but Trump may not be as helpful in the General election as they like. And the Democrats have no incentive to cooperate with Trump, given his approval ratings.

6.  He came to office at a time of calm after two decades of chaos. That is what made him teflon. On the other hand, Trump is taking office in the fifth year of our own "twenty year storm" that is underway. Trump's teflon is his bully pulpit and force of personality. I don't think this was a time of calm. When Reagan was elected, stagflation and the Misery Index were major issues, as was the Iran hostage crisis. In fact, the "period of calm" you refer to did not begin until the economic boom of 1982 that lasted (with minor recessions) all the way to 2000 (and the economic expansion went all the way to 2008). Trump is taking office in the 15th year of a period of discontent that began under George W. Bush and has continued to this day. You can point to the divisive 2000 election as the beginning of the "twenty year storm," and very much, Trump is part of that storm, not the solution.

As for his bully pulpit and force of personality, I think they are great assets but I don't think he will be a successful presidency because of the galvanized opposition he has. He has that sort of opposition that ultimately brings down presidencies - outright opposition from some 48-50% of the country. He will never convince the coastal areas and the urban areas to back him, and they comprise about 45% of the country, at least.

I expect Trump to govern with a blunt hand, without much regard to uniting the country as much as he wants to placate his supporters. This is a serious mistake if he wants to maintain a legacy that isn't simply overturned by the next Administration. He and Obama are pretty similar in this regard. For all Obama's song of post-partisanship and bipartisanship and what not, Obama governed as a partisan Democrat who catered to his urban and coastal Democratic base and ignored the heartland. Now Trump governs in a manner that ignores the coastal areas and urban areas and governs straight to the heartland GOP base.  I do think this is all why we end up with a new realignment in the next Presidency (after Pence, anyway) that unites the coastal areas and the heartland behind a new coalition.

Trump is highly unlikely to repair the division or to lead a new alignment like Thatcher. You'll remember Thatcher's 1979 election results was a victory by 7 points, and she had a continual reservoir of support for her Conservative government. There was actual broad support for the Iron Lady method of governing; Trump's 46% and the intense (and crucially) broad opposition to him suggests otherwise.

7. Lastly Reagan had eight years as Governor and two presidential campaigns ('68 and '76) by the time he took office, and that was even still not enough to make him any more prepared for the role than Trump is. And this is the last point I want to address. This is completely fictitious. Cannon's book on Reagan's governorship very clearly lays out how Reagan grew from being just an actor to an effective politician during the governorship. Reagan dealt with protests in his first term. He did welfare reform in his second term as CA Governor, and learned to negotiate with the legislature. The Presidential runs and the CA governorship prepared Reagan for the rigors of the Presidency and enabled him to be an effective spokesman for the conservative Right. (In fact, Reagan had been a spokesman for the Right since the 1950s, with his Speech that he used in  General Electric. The CA Governorship honed his talent and made him more than just an actor; it made him an effective politician).

Trump, however, comes to the office with zero experience. As I said in another thread, Presidents are usually state governors, senators, or military generals or what have you. They're experienced in dealing with the federal bureaucracy. Trump has zero in overseeing a bureaucracy, dealing with politicians as colleagues, or marshaling support for a public agenda. Obama learned to speak to "red state residents" in his Senate bid in 2004, for example. Bush 43 learned about immigration as Governor of Texas. Etc etc. Trump, in his prior career, had no real connection to the issues of his day.  He has no preparation for the Presidency, which is very much in contrast to Ronald Reagan.

Well said, pretty much puts almost all my thoughts into words about the fallacious thinking Trump supporters are falling for as Trump being some sort of imminently popular leader that will somehow heal the divisions of this country with broadly supported policies, when in reality he is accelerating the polarization to the breaking point with his bitterly divisive style. Republicans are walking into the same trap the Democrats did despite having amply exploited it for their own gain under Obama, but with the potential for far more dire consequences. 

[Meclazine for Israel]

Something needs to change:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-30/donald-trump-travel-ban-stops-iranian-scientist-returning-to-us/8222212

These situations are a bit absurd. I can understand new refugees and the process of vetting, but you want your PhD scientists as fast as you can get them.

[pbrower2a]

The courts dislike administrative chaos. An executive order that creates such chaos is a disaster in itself.

[Dr. Arch]

McCain responds: https://www.facebook.com/johnmccain/posts/10155025180078707

"John McCain
7 h ·

Our government has a responsibility to defend our borders, but we must do so in a way that makes us safer and upholds all that is decent and exceptional about our nation.

It is clear from the confusion at our airports across the nation that President Trump’s executive order was not properly vetted. We are particularly concerned by reports that this order went into effect with little to no consultation with the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security.

Such a hasty process risks harmful results. We should not stop green-card holders from returning to the country they call home. We should not stop those who have served as interpreters for our military and diplomats from seeking refuge in the country they risked their lives to help. And we should not turn our backs on those refugees who have been shown through extensive vetting to pose no demonstrable threat to our nation, and who have suffered unspeakable horrors, most of them women and children.

Ultimately, we fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism. At this very moment, American troops are fighting side-by-side with our Iraqi partners to defeat ISIL. But this executive order bans Iraqi pilots from coming to military bases in Arizona to fight our common enemies. Our most important allies in the fight against ISIL are the vast majority of Muslims who reject its apocalyptic ideology of hatred. This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security."

[The Other Castro]

Green card holders permitted entry:

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Roughly 100.000-150.000 people living in Austria are currently unable to travel to the US because they are either citizens of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Libya, Sudan or Somalia - or Austrian citizens who also hold citizenship/passports of these countries.

And what business or connection do they possibly have here? I have yet to hear a reason as to why the right to immigrate here is apparent universal.

Immigrate? The ban also applies to those who simply want to travel to the United States.

That includes visiting family, doing business, going on vacation, etc.

Immigrate, seeking asylum, travel, etc, all the same. No one has aright to enter any country unless they are citizens (which many affected by this are-I've made it clear that this order was poorly thought out).

Are you endorsing sakoku?

[Crumpets]

Here's a list of Republicans in Congress who have taken a position, either for or against, on Trump's travel ban:

http://www.vox.com/2017/1/29/14427466/republican-congress-silent-trump-refugee

Here's a map of House members' statements, based on that article (sorry for the non-atlas colors):



Dark blue is for Democrats who oppose the order (157)
Medium blue is for Democrats who haven't released a statement (36)
Light blue is for Democrats who support the order (0)

Dark red is for Republicans who support the order (12)
Medium red is for Republicans who haven't released a statement (216)
Light red is for Republicans who oppose the order (12)

Total opposed: 169
Total in support: 12
No Statement: 252

Basically, dark colors for people sticking to the party line and light colors for mavericks. Interesting to see that a lot of the Democrats who haven't issued a statement come from minority-majority districts in the South.

[Sir Mohamed]

LOL, even Dick Cheney is criticizing the Trumpster. I mean, if even Dick “the warmonger” Cheney slams you for this executive action, then something is deeply wrong. At least this dude as some decency left. I hope that the courts will throw all these unconstitutional actions into the garbage, where they belong. The Trumpster is betraying American values.