If the visa ban really is about protecting the US from terrorists...

[loganberrybunny]

Public

...then why doesn't it extend to Saudi Arabia? I know, it's a bit of a rhetorical question, but Saudi terrorists have murdered several thousand Americans on US soil, whereas Somali terrorists have murdered zero there.

Comments

[jhall1]

There's an interesting table in today's paper, listing the number of victims in the US of acts of terrorism post 9/11 by nationals from different Muslim countries: Afghanistan 49, Pakistan 14, Kuwait 5, Russia 3, Egypt 2, banned countries combined 0. It also points out that Trump has business interests in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Turkey, four countries not covered by the ban.

[loganberrybunny]

Yes, I saw that table -- though I think only retweeted by someone. It's a remarkable coincidence, isn't it?

[riath]

It's not about terrorism at all. Those Muslim-majority countries excluded from the ban are the ones that Donald does business with. The ones who are banned, he doesn't. This just gives him the appearance of looking tough on terrorism while really just being a self-serving racist garbage fire.

[loganberrybunny]

a self-serving racist garbage fire

That is an excellent phrase. I'm almost surprised I haven't seen it on a placard yet.

[sabotlours]

Shhhhh. You must have gotten those alternative facts from fake news. The next thing you'll tell me is that the emperor has no clothes.

[loganberrybunny]

All my news is fake. I take pride in it.

[xolo]

I'm just relieved that we finally have a President who's interested in protecting America, even if his plans have to accomodate the real world. It's a great improvement over what we had.

And, as much as I personally dislike the Saudis, they do seem to be working to prevent their own nationals from engaging in terror. I recall how in the six months or so after 9/11, there were always little articles buried deeply in the news about how this or that Saudi prince had drowned in his pool, had died in a car crash, had had a heart attack,etc. You couldn't go a week without reading about a dead Saudi prince. The one that impressed me the most was the announcement that so-and-so had become lost in the desert, and died of thirst.

[loganberrybunny]

Pakistan isn't on the list either, now I come to think of it. Their government isn't exactly as well-oiled* as the Saudis. As for Trump, for now he's doing mostly what he wants. He's not going to be able to keep this pace up for four/eight years, given he's already 70. More and more, I suspect President Pence will happen at some point.

* Unintentional, but I left it in because I was feeling silly. =:P

[xolo]

That scoundrel Reagan was the same age, and he lasted eight years. IMHO Trump looks healthier than RR ever did ^1, not that that means a lot, I suppose.

I tend to think, whatever he's actually said on the subject, that he'll do one term, and then not run again. The ferocious way he's attacking problems tends to confirm me in my belief. He's working like a man who intends to get everything done right up front. I can't see him having much interest in being President after he's gotten all the dramatic and world-shaking stuff done. He's not the administrative type.

Pence as President is an ever-looming nightmare, yes. I think still that Trump added him as a "poison pill" to keep anyone to his left from supporting a possible impeachment. I suppose the one consolation of him becoming POTUS would be to hear the screams of horror from the Democrats.

^1 Reagan, frankly, always looked dead and embalmed to me. That, or some demonically-possessed waxwork come to life.