Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 47
  1. #1
    Gold Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,699

    Default Trump's Policies: Pros and Cons

    If you want, raise a policy proposal of Trump that he is implementing or has recommended and we can discuss it. This is flexible as we can shift between policies. Let's start with the Muslim ban from seven countries.

    Pro????

    Con: Likely unconstitutional, overly broad as it bars many people who are not a threat, not broad enough as it does not bar people from countries that have had larger numbers of terrorists (the last two points can be summed up as arbitrary and poorly tailored), discriminatory as it targets Muslims, and it could have reciprocal effects on Americans traveling abroad.

    Anyone other thoughts?



  2. #2
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,472

    Default Re: Trump's Policies: Pros and Cons

    There are no new policies yet, Trump has issued Executive Orders that amend or annul existing provisions in law, the Cardin-Lugar Provision being one example. I don't know how long it takes but the more meaty stuff will be on the plate when Trump and the Republican Party propose new laws in Congress, presumably in the next three months, but from what we learned in the campaign a lot of the 'new' law may in effect be reversals of or amendments to existing law, the Affordable Health Care Act being one example. After all, the immigration control measures are but an extension of existing law amended to suit the prejudices of the Trump team, presumably the Strategic Initiatives Group; just as 'the Wall' and the 'round-up' of illegal immigrants are extensions of existing law. As a Republican interviewed on the BBC in January argued, the priority must be to reverse everything Obama introduced in the last 8 years, so the first year or so of Trump may actually be just one long sequence of revenge.



  3. #3
    Silver Poster hippifried's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    3,968

    Default Re: Trump's Policies: Pros and Cons

    The POTUS is not a king. President Trump doesn't have the power to nullify anything by executive directive, except other executive directives. He can't nullify Cardin-Lugar, or any other Act of Congress.

    Everyone's watching the clown car, while ringmaster Paul Ryan and his trained monkeys are picking the circus patron's pockets to steal their Social Security and Medicare.



  4. #4
    5 Star Poster sukumvit boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    los angeles area
    Posts
    2,241

    Default Re: Trump's Policies: Pros and Cons

    "The White House is running...believe me ,so smoothly, so smoothly".
    Text book psychopathic response .
    Approval level is now 38%.


    Last edited by sukumvit boy; 02-19-2017 at 06:54 AM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,472

    Default Re: Trump's Policies: Pros and Cons

    Quote Originally Posted by hippifried View Post
    The POTUS is not a king. President Trump doesn't have the power to nullify anything by executive directive, except other executive directives. He can't nullify Cardin-Lugar, or any other Act of Congress.
    Everyone's watching the clown car, while ringmaster Paul Ryan and his trained monkeys are picking the circus patron's pockets to steal their Social Security and Medicare.
    We can agree that on his own a President has limited powers, but we should also agree that a President, his White House team, and the alliances they make in Congress can and do create new laws, and amend existing law to reverse components of that law, extend it, and so on. And we can also agree, I hope, that States can make an even more powerful impact on law through the way in which they implement law in their state, as has been seen with transgender and voting rights and registration in some States. Can we also agree that just as Congress is the engine, the Republicans have thrown their weight behind Trump to get what they want, just as in the future -some predicting it will happen this year or next- they will make their moves to remove Trump from office or make no effort to protect him, given that Trump is not a Republican, and setting aside other factors such as Trump suffering a heart attack, stroke etc.

    The policy agenda Broncofan thus wants addressed remains to be the highlight of the thread I hope I have not diverted attention away from it through remarks on procedure.



  6. #6
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,472

    Default Re: Trump's Policies: Pros and Cons

    A relevant policy issue to discuss is the USA and NATO, not least because the newspapers today claim that last year the Russians attempted to assassinate the Prime Minister of Montenegro and destabilize the country having 'warned' it against joining NATO, which Montenegro is scheduled to complete later this year. Some however claim it was a stunt organized by Prime Minister Djukanovic to cement his grip on power, though for the Russians the concern is that when Montenegro joins Serbia will remain its only ally in the Balkans while there is also the loss of access to the Adriatic port of Bar.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7588051.html

    In addition Trump has argued NATO members must meet their commitment to spend 2% of GDP on NATO which currently only 5 member states do, though Germany, which does not, argues there are other ways of maintaining its commitment than through this financial measure. The broader context is one in which the USA is perceived to be weak in its commitment to European peace, taking a softer line with Russia's aggressive policies in the Ukraine, the Baltic State region and the Balkans. The concern is not helped with mixed messages coming from Trump on the one hand, and Defence Secretary Mattis and VP Pence on the other which may reflect the division between the President and the Republican Party.

    I don't know if the average American knows much or indeed, cares much about NATO. During the EU referendum debate in the UK the Leave campaign regularly trashed the idea that the EU had kept the peace in Europe claiming it was NATO, a false argument that quite deliberately ignored the role played by both, not least because the Germans tend to view the Ostpolitik of former SPD Chancellor Willy Brandt as a key mechanism that unlocked the East through dialogue. The fact that the military back-up deterred the USSR from attacking the West may be true but did not prevent the USSR from crushing the uprising in Hungary in 1956, the Prague Spring in 1968, the the Solidarity movement in Poland in 1980, NATO being impotent on all occasions, though one wonders what it could have done in the military sense. NATO failed to act when the military seized power in a coup in Greece in 1968, or when Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974, an illegal invasion which remains to this day.

    There have also been rifts within NATO, with France withdrawing from the military aspect of the alliance in stages between 1959-1966, a typical example of General de Gaulle's antipathy to the dominance of the USA and his belief that France could look after itself -France rejoined the military alliance in 2009. Marine Le Pen has indicated she might follow de Gaulle's example and leave NATO altogether.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7938191.stm

    What purpose does NATO serve now? Would it matter if NATO was dissolved, the US military bases in Europe dismantled and the personnel sent home? Would the European states simply create an alternative military alliance, even though the UK, for example, does not have an independent nuclear deterrent being dependent on the USA for materiel and an agreement not to fire a weapon without US approval -? Although it would fit in with Trump's penchant for isolationism, the status of nuclear weapons may need to be reviewed, particularly if the Trump administration is going to allow civilians to have selfies taken with the dude carrying the Nuclear Codes, a major security lapse if ever there was one. One also hopes that an order to strike Iran doesn't become Iraq, or Iceland become Ireland, or Chad become Chard because dumb Americans in the administration who can't spell send the missiles to the wrong place.



  7. #7
    Senior Member Junior Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    221

    Default Re: Trump's Policies: Pros and Cons

    Quote Originally Posted by broncofan View Post
    Con: Likely unconstitutional, overly broad as it bars many people who are not a threat, not broad enough as it does not bar people from countries that have had larger numbers of terrorists (the last two points can be summed up as arbitrary and poorly tailored), discriminatory as it targets Muslims, and it could have reciprocal effects on Americans traveling abroad.
    False. Not unconstitutional. The Constitution provides protections to American citizens, and to nobody else. The U.S.A. can deny entry to any foreign national that we wish, for any reason, including if they are Muslims. We can openly say "fuck you Muslims, we don't want you or your poison bullshit 'religion' in America, so go take a long walk off a short dock," and it would be Constitutional.



  8. #8
    Senior Member Gold Poster holzz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    omnipresence
    Posts
    4,504

    Default Re: Trump's Policies: Pros and Cons

    I support the ban. Thing is, what if an Iranian is a Zoroastrian? or a Christian? What about Turkey (an Islamic country)? Indonesia? Pakistan? Bangladesh? Malaysia? Brunei? Tunisia? Algeria? What about a Nigerian? some are Christian, some are Muslim. It may make sense in theory. In practice, it won't work.



  9. #9
    Gold Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,699

    Default Re: Trump's Policies: Pros and Cons

    Quote Originally Posted by Budweiser View Post
    False. Not unconstitutional. The Constitution provides protections to American citizens, and to nobody else. The U.S.A. can deny entry to any foreign national that we wish, for any reason, including if they are Muslims. We can openly say "fuck you Muslims, we don't want you or your poison bullshit 'religion' in America, so go take a long walk off a short dock," and it would be Constitutional.
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._violates.html

    These are two professors of constitutional law at University of Virginia Law School. They disagree with you and have probably forgotten more about the constitution than you will ever know. Specifically, they say it violates equal protection, due process, and first amendment protections. So why don't you walk off a short dock, you ignoramus or read something about our constitution.


    1 out of 1 members liked this post.

  10. #10
    Gold Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,699

    Default Re: Trump's Policies: Pros and Cons

    http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2017/0...migration-ban/

    A discussion of legal scholars. Laurence Tribe and Erwin Chemerinsky have written the two treatises that are recommended to every first year law student.


    1 out of 1 members liked this post.

Similar Threads

  1. Obama Supporters Actually Hate Obama's Policies...
    By Ben in forum Politics and Religion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-26-2012, 06:25 PM
  2. David Cameron's policies...
    By Ben in forum Politics and Religion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-14-2010, 05:43 AM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-13-2010, 09:53 AM
  4. bush/mccain energy policies you voted for
    By natina in forum Politics and Religion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-31-2008, 11:14 PM
  5. Saturday night Squeeze Pros & Cons...............
    By JohnnyWalkerBlackLabel in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 08-13-2006, 09:14 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •