Having been in grade school during the aftermath of the Sputnik launch and the Cuban Missile Crisis, I have a pretty good feel what an actual serious threat of global thermonuclear war looks like, and IMO this ain't one of them.

Just sayin...

sure, and i know a lot of "LEFT LIBTARDS" who would agree with it.

nothing special about that article tbh

That article pretty much sums up why I can't be a Democrat despite hating Republicans. As soon as they get the opportunity (let's block Trump's SC nominee, let's boycott nomination hearings) they act the same way as the people I dislike.

They are making Milo into a martyr, which legitimizes everything he says. Just ignore the guy and he goes away. The same way with Maher inviting the blond idiot onto his show (actually, there are a bunch, Ann Coulter was first, and now the new one.) He gets better ratings, but now a fringe lunatic is mainstream. Which is one sep closer to her ideas becoming the norm.

Not just in terms of war but if you're okay with xenophobe bans, putting exxon CEOs, white supremacists and incompetent "friends" in the highest seats of power for security, education and environment while going ahead with plans to destroy the economy with stupid walls and wallstreet collusion while alienating half your allies across the world then sure I can see why you're not stressed about anything.

War is the least dangerous thing Trump has been threatening.

but those issues are all A-OKAY for most spineless republicans.

When the final adjudication takes place, I will agree with you. But generally speaking when Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley agree on a constitutional issue, it is probably on pretty good logical ground.

Pretty telling how chaired professor at GW and Harvard become "legal advice provided on CNN" when you don't like the conclusions they arrive at....

But regardless, it will all shake out in the fullness of time.

It is just so interesting that you cannot write a single sentence without using inflammatory descriptors. Of course you have to because that is the way you justify shutting down rational discussion. To go point by point with you is, how could one say, ummm pointless.

But you fellas with your incessant Chicken Little-ism and whining is just too funny.

Here's the reality on the ground. Trump won the 2016 election on the square and is going to do his best to install as much of his agenda as possible, no matter how much Prozac you fellas threaten to take.

And we will see if it for good or bad in the fullness of time. Two and four years from now, you can go to the ballot box and see how things work out and make a change if the American public cares to.

Excepting just about everyone on this board disagrees. They think shutting down Milo through violence was the prototypical "end justifying the means".

There is literally a 0% chance that there isn't at least 1 muslim currently present on US soil who is planning an attack. Probably 0% for a muslim born in the USA as well. What does this have to do with Trump's ban they are unrelated

I'm traveling through Greece and haven't had any problems with anybody. Most of them are either too busy dealing with their own country's problems or genuinely curious about why people support Trump.

What about predator drone strikes on civilian sites and unlawful surveillance programs? Or extrajudical killings? How about his war against whistleblowers?

Obama ain't Trump but don't rewrite history to make him out to be an angel.

I travel frequently for business. Agree Trump remains a curiosity and almost all Euros are consuming enough American media and culture to internalize the broad outlines of our political culture. And they understand right-wing nationalist fervor, global trade skepticism, anti-immigration anger, the intersections of tabloids and celebrity and politics, whatever. They are not a super exotic concepts. UK has UKIP, France has Le Pen, Denmark has the People's Party, Sweden has their Sweden Democrats, Italy had Berlesconi and a nascent Lega Nord movement, etc. Remember the Murdochian tabloid sensationalist style of Fox News or whatever is a foreign import.

I'm sure it's fair to say there's concern or interest, both academic and personal. America has a vast sprawling empire here, Europeans are going to be effected if the US really devolves here. But I've never felt anyone in any way get aggressive or threaten me or really even say anything out of line when traveling in Europe. Non-issue imo.

Remember too that American reputations aren't exactly sterling. I think almost all of the panic about Trump is justified but remember it was like less than 15 years ago we invaded Iraq with completely bull**** pretenses and sent the Middle East into chaos. I don't know if it's youth of some people here or short memories but the Cold War is over, and America, Golden Light of Freedom to the World hasn't been true for many for a long time. The exceptionalism of old is a fading memory. And Trump is still way, way behind Bush in terms of damage wrought by foreign policy ****-ups and global calamities. I think he's a favorite to catch him but remember, just last decade America waged a pretty transparent war of aggression, systemically violated human rights, left a giant mess behind where the consequences remain manifest (e.g., ISIS, instability across the region). If you guys think Trump's boorishness and some visa problems are going to send global populations into violent fits of retributive rage against American tourists and travelers, I think you are either underestimating or overestimating Euros.

I'd reiterate something others have said but in many ways America was exceptional for not having political movements and strident partisan atmosphere like we have now, and we're steadily becoming more European in our politics. When I first started doing business travel in France and the UK in the mid-aughts, the British and French used to like to joke that Americans liked to pretend our politics were friendly and everyone were great mates and it was probably a bit of a put-on, and that our political parties were just different shades of center-right. Remember our present reality is far closer to European-style political culture than the situation ten or twenty years ago. In that sense, I get the feeling most Europeans are far more understanding of our culture than a lot of Americans who haven't lived through a moment like this.

That's why you don't just sign executive orders without thinking stuff through. If there are muslim extremists that want to destabilise the US Trump has created the perfect circumstances for them to act.

In other news, Chiefsplanet really believes that the protests were all funded by George Soros.

How does this nonsense work in their heads? Like, the ban came out and there were protests at airports within hours. How exactly did ol' George pay hundreds of thousands of people that quickly? How was the money distributed? Does he have a few hundred thousand people on call in every major city?

Like for a really long time I thought these people weren't necessarily stupid, just blinded by nativist rage and major group think. Trump is really highlighting that yes, these people are just incredibly ****ing stupid.

glasses houses and stones and such

I'm worried that this guy is right.

I mean, he's obviously wrong to blame "the left" for what's about to happen. But now when an Islamic extremist inevitably blows himself up, shoots up a mall or otherwise kills a load of people on US soil, the Trump fans will all scream TOLD YOU SO at anyone who objected to the ban. We can all sit here and patiently point out that the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia / were homegrown / wouldn't have been stopped by the ban, but nobody will listen and the Trump regime will have a mandate to not only implement even harsher restrictions on immigration, but to deport existing residents. Oh, and launch missile strikes on Yemen / Iran / whichever target Trump Fox News is discussing.

It's pretty chilling to see where this is heading.

Many I've run into are surprised with how quickly it happened. Most far-right parties in Europe have grown slowly over time. The GOP was coopted by the far-right populist Trump and in 2 weeks has made more progress than UKIP did in 23 years. That's incredible growth.

Like most places in the world, tourists will be fine so long as they don't act as though they own the country.

Yes.

And every time people do things like stop a Milo speaking at a university, or protest to the point where electoral promises are being overturned by judges ...

You vindicate Trump by making what he says correct -- literally putting him in the right, when he should be in the wrong.

I'm afriad by the time people on the left in general actually realise this -- that they have planned directly into the hands of Bannon's master strategy -- it will be too late.

It's what happens when people are partisan to the point where they are no longer really thinking about what they are doing or saying. Hence, widespread articles spinning their wheels about why it is ethically right to punch Nazis in the street or to stop someone from the alt right speaking at a university.

If you behave in a way that is no better than facists, and literally make them the victims, how do you ever expect to beat them?

You have to be smarter than that. I fear that no one can be or will be.

The far-right has been infiltrating the GOP for a long time

The extremes being a genuine political force is definitely something we in Europe have almost always had to confront at the ballot boxes, even if, for much of my lifetime in countries like mine, it never got close to genuine power. In more innocent times I remember thinking that the one possible good that could come from a Trump run would be America acknowledging there is significant support for extreme right politics, and calling it by that name.

One dissimilarity worth noting, though, is that, in the European context, support for the extremes is usually via their own parties and movements. Sometimes these become the mainstream in that they enjoy plurality support for a while, but they don't efface the political organisations of the more central ideologies. There still seems no credible alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans, and, with the rise of Trump, it's now totally obvious (if it wasn't before) that 50% of the existing political organisations that offer a route back to power for the mainstream are, at the very least, massively compromised.

I don't mean this as a criticism of the comparison, obviously parties can whither and die and those that get power become more entrenched, so similar worries certainly exist in multi-party democracies as well, but it seems a particularly worry in the US. From afar the thing I hope most to see from the Trump opposition is old school political organisation - the harnessing of anger and protest into an movement with a credible plan to exercise what power they have and re-take what they don't.

An important difference is that, while somewhat extreme parties are fairly standard in Europe's parliamentary systems, there is an inherent advantage for the center parties in coalition negotiations and this greatly limits the actual influence of extreme parties.

In most systems a radical party with 25-30% of votes will either fail entirely to find coalition partners (resulting in approx. zero influence), or it will have to strongly moderate their program in order to form a government coalition. In the US the trump wing with maybe 30% support (being generous) is basically in full control now.

Imagine a US parliamentary system with 4 parties of Sanders/Clinton/GOPe/Trump, the Trump wing would need to form a coalition to get >50%. They only have the center/right GOPe as potential partner, and GOPe can always threaten to form a coalition with the moderate Dems instead. So Trump wing has very little leverage when negotiating a coalition program. (Let's ignore that the left wing parties would actually have the majority if going by popular vote.)

The chance that there is a terrorist attack on US soil that would have been prevented by the ban is really really low.

The terrorirst attacks in the EU did not change our stance to refugees & muslim integration significantly, because they are mostly unrelated to our current refugee crisis.

It did give a bump to extreme right voters in most countries. In most countries they are still very far from winning an election. France should be very interesting and could set a precedent though. Everything could change if Le Pen wins.

Maybe I just don't understand USA politics but if a USA-born muslim commits a suicide attack in a month this shouldn't change people their opinions on the ridiculous ban Trump tried to get through. It makes no difference.



I also would like to point out the fallacies in Conway's recent interview. She says terrorism has changed and people are now radicalized over the internet which makes it harder to catch & track terrorists. This argument makes no sense with the solution Trump et al. proposed. If terrorist-producing countries radicalize people over the internet, banning them from entering a country will not change anything, especially in the USA. No need to smuggle guns/money to radicals in the USA, yall got plenty.

Intent matters. And the fact that he's a ****ing idiot who during an interview admitted that it was his intent to give preferential treatment to Christians mean's it's not really hard to prove what his intent was here.

It's not contempt of court but it's unethical for an attorney to publicly disparage a judge or court ruling that attorney is a party in during the course of the proceedings. As an attorney you definitely can't issue a press release after getting an unfavorable ruling and call it "outrageous," that is a big no-no. Could lead to disciplinary proceedings.

This is fine.