A thought for you all:
Suppose the intelligence services told Trump that there was a specific imminent terrorist threat by X, Y, and Z. However, to ban them specifically would tip them off to America’s sources of information or get them to engage other actors in their stead or both. Fortunately, there’s a previous Executive Order - signed by Obama, even - which could be extended and give the US time to zap the terrorists.
Hmm…
I’m trying to comprehend the immeasurable difference that makes, and I can only conclude that it’s immeasurable in the sense of ‘too small to measure.’
Buahahahaha!!!
The editorial page of the Washington Post hasn’t been ‘liberal’ in decades. Hell, even during the impeachment summer of 1974, David Broder was writing columns about how the Dems were overreaching, and just setting Nixon up for his inevitable comeback. I’m not sure they ever were all that liberal, aside from issues relating to minority and women’s rights, and their opinion section damn sure hasn’t been anytime in the last couple of decades. They spent most of Bush’s Presidency in the tank for Bush, and during all those years when the Republicans had decided in advance to block every move they could while Obama was President, they did the ‘both sides share the blame’ number right out the wazoo. Liberal, my ass.
And it’s still a ridiculous notion, regardless of who says it.
So your theory is that Trump started talking about what he is currently doing back before he was even President, to set up what he’s now doing? He was so obviously going to be President that the security services clued him in to this plan way back when?
A thought for you [del]all[/del]:
Suppose a Trump apologist made up some completely implausible utterly unfalsifiable bullshit.
Hmm…
That would be an interesting and possibly relevant thought experiment, if the incoming President (a) had been getting his daily intel briefings so he might actually know what threats were coming at us, (b) had been working with the operational branches to come up with a workable scheme, and (c) hadn’t been chomping at the bit for over a year to institute a Muslim ban.
However…
Yeah right.
Glad you agree.
That would be pretty much their entire editorial page, aside from E.J. Dionne, Eugene Robinson, and perhaps some of the newer names that have been added to the roster since I stopped subscribing several years back.
Outright conservatives on their op-ed page would include Michael Gerson, Robert Kagan, Charles Krauthammer, Charles Lane, Kathleen Parker, Jennifer Rubin, Marc Theissen, and George Will.
But most of the others worship at the Bothsidesdoitist Church, finding Dems and Republicans equally responsible for the government’s failings, no matter what’s actually happening. Or they’re foreign policy/national security columnists who are basically mouthpieces of the so-called ‘deep state’ that largely supports military interventions, domestic surveillance, and minimal oversight of our intelligence agencies.
No, the opinion section of the Washington Post is not particularly liberal. If anything, it leans a little to the right of center.
Now the news sections have gotten more liberal lately, because these days the paper has a more activist news editor in Marty Baron, and that’s a move to the left in an era where the facts have an increasingly liberal bias, due to the right’s increasing dependence on abandoning facts in order to preserve its beliefs. So that’s a whole 'nother thing entirely.
And it looks like the ‘inconvenience’ resulting from the Muslim ban may include one fatality:
Per the rest of the story, he was bringing her home for medical treatment. She didn’t get there, so didn’t get treated, and died the next day.
Inconvenience!
And the multitudes supporting Trump will delight in her death (“only good Muslim is a…”) or delight in denying their delight.
And those are the same people ready to fight you for saying “Happy holidays” in December because it’s a “War” on Christianity. What would these ass clowns do if there were actual federal policies doing harm to actual Christians? What do they think Muslims will do? Say, “Ok, you’re right. We’ll worship Jesus quietly in the corner now.”
Dontcha sometimes hope there IS a hell? I sure do.
Jesus said treat visitors to your land as you would a native…let’s see…we have two options:
Treat everyone like shit, including the natives
Keep visitors out, that way you dont have to treat them well
A group of bipartisan former federal prosecutors have said that Yates did the right thing:
Your logic is impeccable 
Or he could put the CTU on the case and have Jack Bauer pinpoint the location of the terrorists and take them out within 24 hours.
Speaking of the Bible, I’ve been thinking about the story of the Good Samaritan a lot lately. I’ve thought, “How could any good Christian read that story and believe it’s ok to pass by the person in desperate need of assistance? By turning our backs on the refugees, we’re acting just like the priest and Levite who passed by the injured traveller, right?”
But now I’m starting to think many right-wing Christians see themselves as the injured traveler, and Donald Trump is their Good Samaritan. The libtards and the media are the priest and Levite who ignored them and let them bleed.
Delicate snowflakes, indeed; the poor victims.
Suppose Custer at little Big Horn realized that in order to win the Indian Wars the US needed to galvanize support, and so he cleverly drove his men into a position where they were surrounded and vastly outnumbered so that the events of that day would become a rallying cry that freed the great United states from heathen hands.
Hmm…
I suspect so. Some of the most ardently Christian people I know have been clamoring on FB to deny refugees - and I just shake my head and think WWJD? I do not understand the reasoning there - your interpretation makes sense.
Remember the Incompetent General!
“…Please, Mr. Custer…I don’t want to go!..”