The question I have regarding the temporary ban on refugees is what evidence is there that the current vetting process is inadequate, as the Trump administration claims?  As I understand it, the vetting done before a refugee may be admitted to the U.S. is the most rigorous in the world. It is my understanding that we have not had terrorism involvement of a refugee admitted to the U.S . since 2011, when the Obama administration intensified the protocols. Trump talked on the campaign trail as if the current vetting process is inadequate for ensuring our security.  I never heard or have read what specifically is lacking. So, what is prompting this review, and what protocols have been deemed to be suspect or inadequate?  Obviously, we could just permanently ban immigration from  all 7 countries, as is being done for Syria on an indefinite basis, and justify it by saying we are erring on the side of the security of the American people on American soil.  That, however, would seem to go against American tradition of accepting refugees. Still, in this climate, I am not surprised that a lot of people are in favor.  The fact that Trump on the campaign trail said he was in favor of a temporary ban on Muslims did not help.            
 

Here ya go.  This is just my opinion and nothing more.  Its only if wishes could be horses, then we would all be riding.  Don't make it into anything more than that.  I still have an open mind on everything.

Immigration

I, like Trump, insist on the distinction between legal and illegal immigrant.  To conflate the two means that there are no laws or rules that apply to the matter.  With or without papers is a legal distinction that means that laws and rules do apply somewhere, somehow.  And immigration laws are not racist or bigoted when applied evenly.

No one other than US citizens has a right to enter this country at will with their proof of citizenship.  Everyone else is granted privileges to enter on condition of rules and laws that are subject to change.

I share the same belief that a country without respected borders is not a country and what ever laws are in place, they could only be considered transient and malleable based upon expediency and convenience only.  It renders the US Constitution meaningless as only the country called the USA can defend it and its worth within its borders.  It applies no where else.

There are enough existing laws, so that if enforced we already have enough to straighten out the mess we are in.  The mess we are in stems from selective enforcement of the existing laws to further political ends deemed worthy in the name of Social Justice.  That is the case of ends justifying the means.  The Constitution is designed to prevent this from happening.

Since the 60’s I have used the term Anchor Babies once I became aware of the act.  I, like Trump, believe that the 14^th Amendment is not being properly used as the right used to justify it in this case.  Congress has the right to decide the citizenship status of births on USA soil to non resident foreign citizens while here as provided in the Constitution.  Congress has never acted in its role on this nor has this interpretation ever been challenged in court.

There are four fronts on the immigration front.  Legal, illegal, border security and enforcement.  There is a system in place for all four, yet none of them are properly and evenly applied.

What I hope Trump will do …

Build the wall, once and for all regardless of who pays for it.  It was acknowledged in the 80’s as necessary.  We were going to pay for it then, why is now any different other than it would have been a lot cheaper and would have helped a long way in not letting things get to where we are today.  Once we have secured the border and are evenly enforcing the laws such as employment laws, holding employers criminally liable for violating them and using tools like E-Verify, then and not before can we then decide the fate of those who are illegally here.  In the meantime, we end Sanctuary Cities which in addition to ignoring law provides a magnet that attracts and initiates illegal immigration.  We deport on a priority basis, with number one being criminal illegal aliens.  There will be enough there that will keep everyone busy leaving everyone else, except those who overstay their visas, that we can wait to deal with them once our border is considered under control.  We will force the country of their citizenship to take them back and detain them until that happens.  Steps to make these counties take back their citizens have already been identified and I believe will be taken very shortly.  They will not be released to roam the streets and continue their criminal acts. The second priority is to enforce the terms of our visas, like every other country in this world.  The majority of illegal aliens here is from the overstaying of visas.  We must get our visa system functional.

I am compassionate towards those here who embrace this country for what it is supposed to be (the meaning of which needs to be defined by a public conversation but until then shall mean embracing and compliance with existing laws) and that they be given a legal status of some kind short of citizenship (serving in our military would be a worthy exception) and be allowed to remain.  Those who come here wanting to change this country for whatever reasons as a reason for being here, well no way.

Refugees ?  Sure, if they come here to join us and accept us as we are and want to be here.  Having no other place to go is not acceptable.  I think that this is what Trump wants and is self explainable.  I want to know more about how refugees end up where they do.  Do they express a desire for one place over another or does someone else tell them where they are going in spite of their desires.

I believe if Trump follows the above, it will be good for all involved.  I believe that this is what he wants.  And I do believe that the majority of Trump supporters agree based upon many conversations and observations.

Judging Trump as a POTUS

Politician versus Businessman …

The way that this country has been run in my lifetime by professional politicians uses the standard of intentions as the only way they should be judged.  Results are not to be considered, as long as their hearts were in the right place.  Unintended consequences are to overlooked rather than anticipated and no one should be held accountable again, if their intentions were good.

A businessman is judged by results bound within compliance of existing laws and held accountable for their actions including unintended or unanticipated consequences.  Intentions have no place as a justification for poor results or breaking or ignoring laws to achieve a goal.

The two are diametrically opposed.  The former is the establishment thinking and the latter is the thinking that threatens the establishment thinking.  The establishment defends itself by saying the government is too bulky and too unwieldy to hold anyone accountable for poor results and unintended consequences.  Yet government is a business anyway you look at it.

What Trump brings to the table is the skill and approach of a project manager, responsible for coordinating many moving parts and variables to produce the intended result.  He is used to being measured and judged by results and held accountable, unlike career politicians who will remain in office as long as they keep convincing enough people to vote for them with the faulty premise that they are the only ones who can fix the messes they created in the first place.  They also know that if they fix things they will no longer be considered irreplaceable.  So to speak.

As a businessman Trump has had to work with politicians to accomplish his goals.  He knows what works and does not work and why.  He is the bullshitter that you cannot bullshit to use a professional term.  Based on that, I believe he does have the skill set to make things work and get results, in spite of establishment myth and opposition, which comes from both sides equally.

Drain the swamp

I can only hope.  One beginning is keeping lobbyists on a leash which is already under way.  The charges that he is putting billionaires and cronies in his cabinet thereby keeping the swamp intact on face value might be disturbing.  I’m looking at it another way.  First, I don’t believe another billionaire is going to have any problem telling Trump he is full of shit and out of line if they think so.  They will not be yes men by default.  They are also goal and result oriented so everyone understands the mission.  Hope enters the equation that they are in it for the good of the country as opposed to themselves.  That they like Trump, are giving back with their time and skills as opposed to simply passing out money and saying do something good with it.  They are just as tired as Trump and the rest of us who voted for Trump, with the establishment and the status quo which in addition to what was mentioned above also serves up uncertainty which serves to make it hard for anything to get done and serves them in the area of keeping power and maintaining their own job security.

This also is what is meant by tearing down / destroying the government.  No, the government can and will work properly if the establishment can be knocked out of power.  We don’t need pitchforks, torches and blood in the streets to do it.  We just need someone who is not afraid of the establishment and hasn’t been bought out and compromised before they raise their hand and say … so help me God.   And has an ability to do it.  Trump is the second one in my life time to make it this far.  I can say that I used tear down and destroy the government as a metaphor for draining the swamp and removing the establishment from uncontested power.  I believe in government as intended in the Constitution, with very limited powers, certain responsibilities with accountability to the people and laws of the land.

Just took a peak at the thread to see what I have left unaddressed and it’s too late to stop this undertaking Scott.  I did want to wait like you suggested before even bothering to do something like this, but there was interest expressed.

So wrapping this up, who is and isn’t an outsider ?  That will always be debated with shifting goal posts.  All’s I can say is that Trump is my outsider.  Do I believe that he really cares about me as an individual ?  No, I am not that foolish, but I do believe that he cares about fixing the system and leveling the playing field in favor of those of us who are here and belong here, giving us the best chance we have had in ages to do more than just cope and survive.

Yes the fox and the hen house.  I get it and understand everyone’s concerns.  If Trump was in his 40’s and 50’s, I would certainly be concerned.  But he’s in his 70’s.  Taking over a country and becoming a dictator is a young man’s game.  Fixing things and trying to leave the world in a better place is an old man’s game.  He may be old, but he has demonstrated stamina and energy that few in their 50’s have.  He has the skill set.  I have watched him fumble and fuck up during his campaign which is to be expected with any neophyte politician, but what kept me going and believing in him was his ability to recognize these failures and gaffes and make the necessary adjustments to keep going forward and overcoming himself getting in his own way.  He had no problem blowing Corey Lewandowski and Paul Manifort out of the way when it was clear that they had to go.  He hired better people and brought it home across the finish line.  He made the yuge gaffe when he implemented his travel ban on Friday, yet worked quickly to fix it.  I give him a pass for two reasons.  First he is new at this.  Second, perhaps iffen he had a Secretary of State and his own Attorney General in place, it would have been done properly or at least much better.  But he didn’t, he was left with himself to determine what was best to do as he saw it.  Maybe he hasn’t admitted he effed up, but things were quickly fixed regardless, which is most important and bodes well for things to come and illustrates that he has the high learning curve ability needed to learn and make the needed changes, rather than stammer and say I meant well … gimme a break, like a career politician more than likely would have.  Having watched Trump over the years and during the campaign, I don’t think he starts anything he thinks he can’t succeed with and finish.  That is what a builder does.  I know this being the son of a builder / architect.  I know this as a Business Administration major with a recent degree from an accredited university in 2007. 

He was in it to win it from day one.  He’s already spoken in terms of 8 years.  He ain’t walking off the job.

Lastly, as I have mentioned before, he is not going to do much on the social front.  He will not pursue overturning R v. W.  He has been pro choice nearly his entire life and would rather not be bothered with it.  I believe he really wants to fix our health care system and as an employer round the world, has had to deal with many systems and also knows the good and bad of each.  He really wants to get it right.  I know I didn’t touch on taxes, trade policy, etc.  That’s for another time.

There ya have it.  Its time for a nap.

This is too long to reply to so don’t try.  Just highlight some stuff, copy and paste it in a post if you want to address any of this.   Otherwise discuss it amongst yourselves.  I’ll be around.

 
I am mostly thinking aloud on these labels and what meaning(s) should be attached to them, and are being attached to them.

Similarly, I am not really sure what we mean by "blowing up the system."  I think that is what some of NoEnz's questions were aimed at discovering. It probably means different things to different people, but a good chunk of folk undoubtedly like the sound of it — at least before we get down to particulars. 

I know some of this gets back to a desire to return to citizen-statesmen, instead of "career" politicians.  Not sure how we do that in this day and age.

We do have one power — to vote out, or try to vote out, those who are participating in a manner of governance with which we disagree.  The problem is that you can read now where people who are protesting various Trump actions and statements are demanding that their elected representatives in Congress do the same.  This is happening a lot with Trump nominations.  Similarly, the constituents of some of the so-called tea party congressmen have demanded in the past that they shut down the government over some policy standoff. In many of these cases, we have met the enemy — it is us.    

 
I wonder about that "outsider" thing, too.  Sure, Trump has never served in government; never held or even ran for elected office. Does that add an element that bodes well for the country?  As a businessman, Trump has been steeped in the system/culture in which he has flourished.  During his campaign, he essentially said he could fix the "broken" system because he had exploited it and benefitted from it.  Of course, this also means we are buying into a fox guarding the henhouse scenario.  The fox knows how other foxes are getting to and eating the chickens because that fox has done it.  The question becomes:  Can that fox be trusted to not be a fox any longer? And I am not presupposing the answer to that.  People can change their stripes; persons who have pursued wealth their entire lives, sometimes ruthlessly, can and do become interested in leaving a legacy beyond the accumulation of riches. Now, back to the outsider label.  I suppose Reagan would have been considered an outsider when he ran for Governor of California.  Does the fact that he had been Governor of California then make him not-an-outsider when he ran for President?  In the DC area, Sen. Mark Warner made a small fortune as a businessman and then got into politics.  He has been in politics quite some time now.  I assume he is no longer an outsider.  But at what point does the tipping occur?  Would Michael Bloomberg, former Mayor of NYC, be considered an outsider if he were to run for President?  Or is that label reserved solely for someone,like Trump, who runs for President without ever having held any elected position or run for office? Trump trumpeted his outsider status; so did Ted Cruz and others.   To me, it seems rather amoeba-like. 

Edit:  Also, this notion that being "politically incorrect" is somehow valuable appears to me to be a canard.    

Being perfectly honest, I think it will be good for you to do, but I don't think you should post it here. I already assume I will see circular logic, conclusions that conflict with your stated goals, etc etc. And if that's what I expect to see, I'm sure I'll find it. That might be more "on me" than on you, but still, I don't want to see you waste your time. I'd much rather see you create a scorecard for his first, say, 2 weeks. Are you okay with his nominations? Most of us howl at the "drain the swamp" gang getting on board with Trump nominating a whole family of Swamp Things.

Yes, I've set a simple trap: If you agree with everything so far, I cannot consider you to be in your right mind. Any rational person who still wants to be a team player would at least say "Betsy DeVos isn't my favorite, but maybe she'll work out." Or some other kind of faint praise for the picks they are unsure of. As opposed to my suckup senators who are all gushing about how great all of Trump's picks have been.  

Donald Trump often says things that are not true, a pattern that has continued right into the presidency. Much has been made of this, but it should not obscure the fact that his official actions thus far have been perfectly consistent with the principles and priorities he broadcasted during the campaign.

He is what he said he was: an enemy of free trade, immigration, regulation, abortion rights; a defender of the American fossil fuel industry and the use of torture. He won an election on these foundations, and his energetic pursuit of them as president is fitting and legitimate. The idea that Mr Trump is to be taken “seriously but not literally” — now worn smooth with repetition — was a canard all along.

No laws were made in Mr Trump’s first week, of course. He signed executive orders directing that Obamacare implementation be slowed, environmental approvals for infrastructure projects be expedited, immigration law be comprehensively enforced, and the Mexican border wall built. He published memoranda making way for oil pipelines, freezing hiring in parts of the government, withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement and banning funding for global aid organisations that provide abortions.

Barack Obama, in the first week of his presidency, signed an order commanding that the Guantánamo Bay detention facility be closed. It remains operational today. Congress needs to fund and enact Mr Trump’s agenda. But the Republicans who control both houses have signalled no objections. Many if not all of these commands, and many more on similar lines, will be effected. The only area where Mr Trump’s party has shown any inclination to resist is on torture.

https://www.ft.com/content/a24b2868-e48c-11e6-9645-c9357a75844a?segmentId=15eb3a28-7dee-8067-0b1d-198855707e9d

Being perfectly honest, I think it will be good for you to do, but I don't think you should post it here. I already assume I will see circular logic, conclusions that conflict with your stated goals, etc etc. And if that's what I expect to see, I'm sure I'll find it. That might be more "on me" than on you, but still, I don't want to see you waste your time. I'd much rather see you create a scorecard for his first, say, 2 weeks. Are you okay with his nominations? Most of us howl at the "drain the swamp" gang getting on board with Trump nominating a whole family of Swamp Things.

Yes, I've set a simple trap: If you agree with everything so far, I cannot consider you to be in your right mind. Any rational person who still wants to be a team player would at least say "Betsy DeVos isn't my favorite, but maybe she'll work out." Or some other kind of faint praise for the picks they are unsure of. As opposed to my suckup senators who are all gushing about how great all of Trump's picks have been.  

Yeah, there may not be a good ending here, and Kurtster may be in a no-win situation.  But I do understand NoEnz's inquiries because I have been curious regarding the ardent support for Trump that is being voiced out there. Kurtster has been the focus here because he is the most ardent — only ardent? — Trump supporter active on the forum.  I do know others in my "real" life, including one who labeled Trump an embarrassment early in the GOP primaries, supported Kasich up to the end of those primaries, and now treats Trump like a savior and sees criticism of him as being ultra-partisan and fed by a dishonest liberal media.  How does that kind of transformation happen? I grew up with this guy, and he is educated, informed, and able to articulate reasonably well his positions.