Donald Trump

Trump's New Travel Ban Is More Incoherent and Just as Useless As the Old

Throwing North Korea and Venezuela on the list doesn't make it less discriminatory or America more safe

|

Donald Trump's latest travel ban is much more likely to withstand legal challenges against it on grounds that it

Trump
ToddKrainin

imposes an unconstitutional religious test on foreigners than its initial iterations. But that's not because it is any less discriminatory than the previous "Muslim" ban. It is because it found a clever way to whitewash its actual intent by also throwing in the mix non-Muslim countries like North Korea and Venezuela that are on the president's shit list for other reasons.

Turning foreign policy into a tool for settling personal vendettas might be politically clever, I note in my morning column at The Week. But it won't make America safe from terrorists.

Motivated terrorists don't need a permission slip from the government to enter the country. They will find ways to do so. But the foreigners whom the ban will manage to keep out are precisely the ones who mean America no harm and are fleeing the very terrorists that threaten this country. Indeed, foreigners from the banned countries killed precisely zero Americans on American soil from 1975 to 2015.

In short, the ban won't Make America Safe Again. It will just raise the hysteria level yet again.

Go here to read the whole thing.

NEXT: N.C. Body Camera Law Used to Shield Greensboro Police from Accusations of Abuse

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Nobody except Americans has a right to enter America. Sorry.

    1. Why this is such a controversial stance amongst the writers here is baffling.

  2. Screening of potential visitors should be performed on the merits, or lack thereof, of the individual applicant, NOT based on what side of an imaginary line that person happened to be born on.

    1. Isn;t discovering the merits, or demerits, of an individual what these new rules are about? How to you do “discovery” if the potential immigrant’s nation is uncooperative, keeps shoddy records, etc.?

    2. Let’s say our plot of land bounded by imaginary lines declares war on another plot of land bounded by imaginary lines. Would it be acceptable to ban people from that other imaginarily bounded area from coming to this imaginarily bounded area?

      1. yes, because nation-states are the only possible way to constrain government. otherwise you’ll be overrun with tribal warlords.

        1. Translation: Government is the only way to constraint government, otherwise you’ll be overrun with government. Donald logic.

          1. Who else would restrain government?

            Your translator is stupid.

          2. Government is (or was) supposed to be constrained by Constitutional principles, which are considered law and enforced by said government, which is made up of human beings dedicated to those principles.

            You can try finding your anarchist paradise, but you’re not going to last more than a month, at best.

            1. You can try finding your anarchist paradise, but you’re not going to last more than a month, at best.

              Oh, but what a month it would be. Economists fifty years hence would look back on the tremendous growth achieved and ignore it as ever so much white noise.

          3. your logic is that a fire in a fireplace is just as dangerous as a wildfire. I mean they’re both fire, amirite?

      2. “Would it be acceptable to ban people from that other imaginarily bounded area from coming to this imaginarily bounded area?”

        Fly to South Korea, walk through the DMZ into North Korea, get back to us on how ‘imaginary’ those lines are.

    3. Most of that screening relies on procedures put in place by the folks on the other side of the imaginary line. That’s the whole point of the bans – that those folks aren’t competent to provide the necessary vetting.

    4. I am all for a merits-based immigration system. but since we don’t have one, banning people from backwards, ridiculous countries is fine by me. We don’t need more low-performing, poorly-educated “refugees”; we have enough idiots being cranked out and subsidized in the ghettos and hollers.

  3. This is gonna be a fun comment section.

    1. I would like to discuss the tenets of libertarianism with Shikha.

    2. We already got a cool new guy right above.

      1. New guy? I assumed it was a regular who just felt like flinging some shit around.

        1. I am one of the Great Old Ones; an eldritch, sightless god with no regard for your puny lives.

        2. That grade A Libertarian shit, not that pleb prog stuff you see at the local five and dime!

        3. That grade A Libertarian shit, not that pleb prog stuff you see at the local five and dime!

  4. But that’s not because it is any less discriminatory than the previous “Muslim” ban.

    Look, I don’t like the ban. But to claim that it’s not less discriminatory is fucking bullshit. It could never have been reasonably considered a Muslim ban, regardless of the motivations, due to the overwhelming majority of Muslim’s that it did not cover. And how the fuck can it not be less discriminatory when it adds a handful of fuckstain countries that clearly aren’t Muslim majority populations?

    1. /Throws ‘The Big Book of Narratives’ at MP.

    2. because it’s TURMP AND HE MUST BE BAD AND DISCRIMINNITERY

    3. All aboard the MAGA HATE TRAIN! Destination who the fuck cares!

  5. Right – these immigrants mean us no harm except at our Tennessee churches, you mean.

    Muslims commit a wildly disproportionate amount of terror: they’re 1% of the population but responsible for 44% of the terrorist attacks in the United States, and are more lethal while they’re doing it. That’s per Cato’s dishonest report on terrorism which CONVENIENTLY excludes 9/11.

    Does Dalmia ever bring facts, or just name-calling?

    1. Because every Muslim is responsible for the actions of every other Muslim. Got it.

      1. I don’t care. I really don’t. no one is entitled to come here, and Muslims are not liberal enough that they’re worth having.

        Look at Every. Single. Muslim. Country. They are backward, illiberal holes, where everyone is fucking goats, their cousins, or a combination of both. we don’t need them here. I am not sorry to say that.

        1. According to title IX those goats were raped.

      2. That’s not what he said, but the stats are true. It has nothing to do with Muslims as a collective, but everything to do with the ideology of Islam that rewards martyrdom. It’s not the people, it’s the ideology.

      3. do you have any refutation to the obvious fact that Muslims commit disproportionately more terror than any other group?

        When the bombs go off in Manchester, or London, or the trucks go crazy in Nice, or the guns go off in San Bernardino or Orlando…did you even wonder if it was anyone OTHER than Muslims?

        It’s so rare for a non-Muslim to commit a major terror attack we’re all shocked when it happens. That’s not normal. No nation should have to put up with that shit because OH NO WE’RE DISCRIMINATING

        I don’t fucking care.

        1. What are the other 56% of terrorist attacks?

          1. According to CATO, a random assortment of unaffiliated random attacks by-and-large if memory serves. I believe the takeaway from the one I read was that white Christian males are the biggest terrorists, but they way they arrived there was intentionally misleading due to weighted stats and omissions. It was a completely dishonest report, and I’m not saying that because I have a particular stance one way or the other. It was just badly constructed, and clearly had a bias.

            Honestly, CATO is pretty crap these days.

            1. yep, and even their own poorly-constructed and dishonestly reported study didn’t bear out what they wanted it to.

              if you have a report that has such a clear bias and it still can’t clear the hurdle it wants to clear, then lord knows what an honest study would show.

          2. native citizens, with bunches of those being environmentalist attacks or just random shooting sprees.

            irrespective, when 1% of the country is responsible for nearly half of terrorist attacks, and a majority of *deaths* due to terror, that population is a problem.

            1. It can be hard to say right. For instance, say there were two terrorist attacks a year, and one was committed by a muslim, then muslim’s would be responsible for 50% of terrorist attacks and so it’s somewhat of a statistical anomaly.

              Looking at Wikipedia, and I welcome a different source of data if you have it, I see 71 acts of terrorism in the United States listed since 2001. Let’s assume that all of those belonged to some specific nationality or identifiable group. I’ll use muslims here because that’s what we’ve been talking about.

              Let us say every one of those attacks was done by a muslim, and that that each attack involved 10 people. This gives us 710 muslims responsible for the terrorist attacks. In the US there are about 3.3 million muslims according to the census. This means that in this extreme case about 0.02% of all muslims are terrorists. This is a very rare incidence at this point.

              1. Hit character limit:

                Now, I won’t say any comment about immigration or anything like that, but I will say that terrorism is such a relatively rare event that we should not give it outsized credit in how we function as a nation. In fact, that is the very purpose of terrorism to do scary actions that draw outsized responses to the actual threats the present. We must take a breath, and not give undue weight in our legal considerations to terrorism. This is how we have increased our police state to the point it is now, where there is a high-level of surveillance and increasing attacks on our privacy. This in the end does far more to injure us as people then it does to actually protect us from terrorists

                Those are some of my thoughts on this. What about you?

                1. the converse of your statistic is Muslims are responsible for X% of some rare attack, where X is dependent upon terror as a whole but is virtually guaranteed to not be “1%”. So while not all Muslims are terrorists, a wildly outsized share of terrorist attacks are perpetrated by Muslims. It’s also rather convenient, not saying you are doing this intentionally, that counting terror attacks is always “from 9/12/01 on”. 9/11 is no small thing.

                  I will gladly take other factors into account, but terror is not a small concern. While it may be a rare event, it is also uniquely capable of causing people to feel unsafe in all areas of public. The San Bernardino one took place in an office park. Orlando was in a gay club. Nice was at an outdoor Christmas festival. Manchester was at a concert filled with children. The Ohio State one was at a college, and the one before that in Columbus was at a restaurant. Fort Hood was at a deployment center. What avenue of public life ISN’T threatened by Muslim terror?

                  Regardless…(cont.)

                  1. Regardless, we can consider other factors, and on those counts, Muslims fail at almost every aspect of integrating with a liberal (classical) culture. They have backwards views on gays, women, the disciplining of children, they have an “honor” culture, they’re not really tolerant toward other religions, especially in countries where they are the majority….

                    What is the value of having Muslims here? I don’t see an upside that outweighs all of the negatives.

                    1. What avenue of public life ISN’T threatened by Muslim terror?

                      Statistically, almost none. I am saying that by making large and unwieldy action reaction to terrorism we actually encourage an environment of fear. People seem to fear it a lot, but they have considerably less fear about actual realistic dangers. For instance, the amount of car accident deaths far outpaces the amount of terrorist related deaths, but yet most people are not deathly afraid of cars. Or heart disease, or diabetes. We do not have this intense level of fear about those. So the question is, why do we have such intense fear of terrorist attacks? One reason I posit is that we feed into the panic and give credence to their actions by reacting so extremely to them.

                      9/11 is certainly also a very scary event, and it is a bigger deal. My count I gave I believe included it as I counted from 2,000. I question the intelligence of much of our reactions though. Maybe more than any event in my lifetime 9/11 fundamentally changed how politics function in the US. I believe that many of our reactions have been bad though. We have evidence that our actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and the ME in general have made things worse. Have lead to the rise of ISIS and have in general caused tremendous mayhem world wide. There is also the body count of US citizens which at this point is now higher than 9/11. If we count the injured it becomes even more extreme.

                      Continued:

                    2. Terrorism is something to consider, but I believe swinging wildly does more harm than good. It harms us tremendously as our freedoms here, both economic and personal, are squashed. It harms people abroad in military action. And it does so without making us particularly safer. I believe we need more measured reaction to these things, and that is the way to handle it. But I also have the rather depressing view that not everything can be prevented. Something will always happen, and learning how to deal with that without overreaction is important.

                      Now, in regards to your other, non-terrorism points, I actually don’t have much consideration there. When it comes to refugees I am very neutral, I don’t believe that we have any moral requirement to do so. Well, at the very least the government doesn’t as the government should not be viewed as a moral entity to being with. So I do not believe it is the place for the government to fund to bring refugees over here.

                      As for muslims immigrants in general, I cannot say much as I don’t know it very well. The muslims I know have been good people, but that’s purely anecdotal and so I say this merely to not ignore your comment entirely, but I understand it has no weight.

                      My major point is that overreaction to terrorism has tremendously negative outcome, and that they far, far outweigh the supposed advantages it gives us.

                    3. “they’re not really tolerant toward other religions”

                      Convert or die! I don’t think it gets much less tolerant.

                    4. Regardless, we can consider other factors, and on those counts, Mormons fail at almost every aspect of integrating with a liberal (classical) culture. They have (or had) backwards views on gays, women, the disciplining of children, they have a strongly theocratic culture, they’re not really tolerant toward other religions, especially in states where they are the majority…

                      What is the value of having Mormons here? I don’t see an upside that outweighs all of the negatives.

                    5. Regardless, we can consider other factors, and on those counts, Southern Baptists fail at almost every aspect of integrating with a liberal (classical) culture. They have (or had) backwards views on gays, women, the disciplining of children, they have a strongly theocratic culture, they’re not really tolerant toward other religions, especially in places where they are the majority…

                      What is the value of having Southern Baptists here? I don’t see an upside that outweighs all of the negatives.

                    6. Regardless, we can consider other factors, and on those counts, Orthodox Jews fail at almost every aspect of integrating with a liberal (classical) culture. They have (or had) backwards views on gays, women, the disciplining of children, they have a strongly theocratic culture, they’re not really tolerant toward other religions, especially in places where they are the majority…

                      What is the value of having Orthodox Jews here? I don’t see an upside that outweighs all of the negatives.

      4. “Because every Muslim is responsible for the actions of every other Muslim. Got it.”

        When did grown adults decide that the way to engage in a conversation and be taken seriously was to speak like a child?

        1. the mid-aughts Internet “snark” really grabbed ahold of a lot of good people, and now they all speak like they’re still shitposting on SomethingAwful. It’s a real tragedy.

        2. Yeah, my mom would have given me the stink-eye if I had tried to unload that one.

    2. An FBI analysis before did that too, as well as excluding the DC Beltway sniper.

  6. Trump’s New Travel Ban Is More Incoherent and Just as Useless As the Old

    I think the opposite is true. Now, with Skihs preeining bs out of the way…

    Brave Actresses Want You To Know They’ll Never Date A Trump Supporter

    A brave statement we’re sure will help ticket sales and not alienate half of their potential audience, not to mention foster that unity and tolerance the left always speaks of.
    “No. Nope,” Page answered bluntly when asked how she felt about dating a someone who voted for Trump in the 2016 election…”To ignore the depressed population, or the working class of America, we can’t do that,” she continued. “They were searching for something and they really believed in it, and I think that’s really earnest. But I think in the end, everyone is starting to see what’s happening.”
    “So, um, nah, no,” she said of dating a Trump voter. “I don’t think I could get an earful.”
    “If you are a Trump supporter ? well, at any point because they’ve been saying this the whole time ? but by this point, I’m sorry, no,” interjected Page.

    MAGA hearts are breaking all around the country.

    Ha!

    1. Kate Mara withheld comment, which means she’s a secret MAGA-lover. She’s the only one worth considering of the three anyway.

      1. And Page is a lesbian, so it’s not like she’ll ever run in any circles that have Trump supporters to begin with.

        Speaking of Hollywood, my wife just finished binge-watching “The Girlfriend’s Guide to Divorce”, which appeared to be “Girls” after the group reaches middle age. I’m now hoping Kim’s ICBMs will at least be able to reach Hollywood.

      2. or she’s apolitical, which is about the best you can hope for from celebs

    2. I used to like the taste of tears. But I’ve had too much of a good thing. Now they just taste like sour grapes.

    3. Brave? Oh, that must be another one of those words that has lost all meaning.

      1. well Daily Wire gets more based every day so it’s definitely sarcasm.

        1. Ah, I didn’t the source.

          Their source is blocked at work so I can’t check if they call it “brave”.

    4. “To ignore the depressed population, or the working class of America, we can’t do that,”

      Maybe the working class wised up and figured out that socialism doesn’t benefit them.
      Isn’t it weird how so few socialists belong to the working class, yet claim to represent them? Stop voting against your interests you stupid rednecks! Let us confiscate your property and put it to scientifically-planned use, just trust us this time!

  7. Motivated terrorists don’t need a permission slip from the government to enter the country. They will find ways to do so.

    As Kevin Williamson, famous Trump supporter at NRO , points out, Muslim terrorists need Muslim communities in which to operate and find support. Remove the Muslim communities, remove the terrorists. Poof. Simple.

    1. Remove the guns and the violence disappears!

      1. I don’t need to carefully vet members of a death cult, no matter how “moderate” they are.

        Muslim terrorists need Muslim communities. Comparing my position to “gun bans” is completely disanalogous. “guns” don’t kill a disproportionate number of people as compared to their ownership rates.

      2. So you’re saying that Muslim terrorists are inanimate objects with no actual will except when wielded by someone with bad intentions?

      3. Er, as the UK shows they use knives and then apparently acid if they can’t get guns.

  8. If Donald really wanted to make heads explode, he would have created a new program for Venezuelans called something like “Refugees of Socialism”. Only admit those willing to support themselves but unable to do so thanks to their government’s position on property rights.

    Missed opportunity.

    1. The worst part is Somalia was included on this one, cutting off the world’s lone supply of Real Libertarians from our shores.

  9. Weren’t we supposed to not worry about the ban because it was only temporary? Will a country or two be added to the ban every 90 days until we’ve banned the entire world?

    1. Don’t be ridiculous. We only need to be keep adding to the ban until America is Great Again.

      1. you’re either a completely open-borders person or you agree with limits as well. and by “completely” I mean even the sick and the dangerous and the criminal.

    2. After that can we start banning certain states? Start with California.

  10. Since when as entry into the US during peacetime been governed by presidential edict? Why do people on the right consider this normal and sensible?

    1. why do I give a shit if some low-IQ, low-skilled, barely-literate “refugees” aren’t allowed in the United States?

      1. Why do I give a shit if some Trump-sucking asshole is blown up by a terrorist?

        1. maybe you don’t? but that “Trump sucking asshole” is a citizen with rights, and a potential immigrant has no rights.

          1. Tell me another one!

            1. Tell me another one!

              Why do I give a shit if you’re shot in an Orlando nightclub?

        2. So the government grants you rights?

    2. I’m not a rightist, but they say it’s because they think Muslim immigrants are dangerous. You may disagree.

      To your other point

      “Since when”

      This is a logical fallacy and not worth responding to.

    3. That would be ever since Congress passed a statute granting the President the authority to do just that:

      “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

      1. Yep, and this law has been on the books since 1952. Various Presidents have used it over the years, including Saint Jimmy of Carter.

      2. Yep. Say what you will about the legislature granting the executive such sweeping powers, but it’s certainly legal.

        (I personally think it was a bad idea)

    4. We’re in “peacetime”? You’re either pretty dumb, or as dishonest as Nick Gillespie.

      1. Point me to an actual declaration of war.

    5. “Since when as entry into the US during peacetime been governed by presidential edict? Why do people on the right consider this normal and sensible?”

      The Supreme Court has been quite deferential over the years to the President’s powers as commander-in-chief. Certainly, as a libertarian, I say that if government has any legitimate purpose at all, it’s to protect our rights. We have a police force to protect our rights from criminals, a military to protect our rights from foreign threats, and if our immigration policies don’t protect our rights from terrorists that mean us harm, then they need to be updated.

      Of course, all those policies should respect the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and due process. The first travel ban didn’t do that. This last one does.

      Even so, I’m not certain we’re only talking about the President’s powers as commander-in-chief. Congress has the enumerated power to set the rules of naturalization (enumerated in the same place as the power to declare war), and the rules of naturalization are about the entire process of becoming a citizen–from coming into the country in the first place to establishing residency and eventually becoming a citizen. If congress deferred on this to the President through legislation in making calls like this, then they’re perfectly free to do so.

  11. Dalmia calling someone else incoherent and useless, now there is some weapons-grade projection.

    1. Another one of her standard-issue sanctimonious lectures about immigration is almost a relief after her sanctimonious lecture about how we should care more about her friend and the domestic politics of India.

  12. The rationale for taking Sudan off the list seems to be the following:

    “According to Becca Hella, director of the International Refugee Assistance Project, it suggests “the government of Sudan was pressured into agreeing to accept massive numbers of deported Sudanese nationals from the US in exchange for being dropped from the travel ban”.”

    —-The Guardian

    “Trump’s latest travel ban: what’s new, who’s covered, and why now?”

    http://tinyurl.com/yam52o4c

    It makes sense that if we had trouble deporting Sudanese citizens that proved to be security threats because it wasn’t possible to deport them (say, after they served sentences for violating someone’s rights), then that’s a serious problem.

    If that problem was solved because of the leverage Trump created with the travel ban, then we should give credit where credit is due.

  13. f the “travel ban”.

    this is what we need –

    http://pedestrianinfidel.blogs…..dment.html

    it is the only way to be sure.

  14. It is because it found a clever way to whitewash its actual intent by also throwing in the mix non-Muslim countries like North Korea and Venezuela that are on the president’s shit list for other reasons.

    it’s called a dogwhistle, get with the program

  15. Does everybody have a right to enter the US?

    Is the control of immigration into the US a lawful responsibility of the government?

    If the US government wants to ban Muslims, or Christians, or Pastafarians, is that lawful?

    What is the big deal here?

    1. Empathy meter at 0, I guess.

      1. Sorry that our country operates under the rule of law.

        That was sarcastic by the way; I’m not at all sorry our country operates under the rule of law. Your whiny liberal horseshit might fit in better at the New York Times.

        1. Hah, yeah our country operates under the rule of law. You got it chief.

          1. well because you can find some injustice somewhere we may as well blow the whole thing up. Our country is no different from North Korea right?

            just because we fall short of our aspirations doesn’t mean the whole thing is just a joke. You’re a child.

            1. So I got called “liberal horseshit” and a child because I commented on someone having no empathy. Neat.

              1. I’m of the opinion that a lot of why we’re in the messes we are, has a lot to with ’empathy.’ Do we really need more of it?

    2. The problem is that you’re mixing two things, here–and that’s what gets people excited.

      “Is the control of immigration into the US a lawful responsibility of the government”

      Setting the rules of naturalization (of which immigration is a part) is an enumerated power of congress. That’s because inflicting an unpopular immigration policy on the American people is like inflicting an unpopular war. Congress, in their great wisdom, saw this, and so they gave that power to congress to decide–that way, it’s democratic. And it should be democratic.

      “If the US government wants to ban Muslims, or Christians, or Pastafarians, is that lawful?”

      Here’s the problem–the government cannot constitutionally violate the First Amendment.

      Notice 1) Congress has the power to set immigration policy, but 2) the First Amendment starts, “Congress shall make no law . . . ”

      No, according to the First Amendment, congress cannot ban Muslims.

      Good thing this last travel ban isn’t about banning Muslims. It’s about banning people from countries where anti-American terrorism presents a substantial threat to our rights.

      1. There is a separate law prohibiting discrimination in immigration based on religion. I don’t believe it applies to non-immigrant visas.

        1. The prohibition against discriminating against anybody because their religion is the First Amendment.

          It has nothing to do with immigration status or citizenship.

          It has to do with whether it’s the government. The government is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, period.

      2. 1. The US constitution has no force beyond US territory. People who are not citizens of the US seeking a US Visa have no constitutional rights. The first amendment does not apply in this situation.

        2. A travel ban does not prohibit religion in any way. Those who are not admitted to the US can practice whatever religion they choose. Outside the US.

        3. At least you made a weak attempt at a logical argument, unlike the ridiculous “empathy” appeal. I think SCOTUS would not agree with you, but I suppose it is possible.

        4. The travel ban is not a Muslim ban in any case, so the EO restricting US entry doesn’t even raise the 1A question in the first place. I probably should not have raised the issue either.

    3. What is the big deal here?

      Liberty?

  16. brass tacks: there will be borders, hence the need for some measure of border control.

    If you believe the deathly ill, criminal and/or terroristic should be kept out, then you don’t have absolute moral authority on the subject and should stop thumping your chest.

    If you believe everyone, including the deathly ill and ISIS, should be allowed in, you’re wildly out of step with just about everybody in the world and you can report over to the fringe of the fringes and let the adults speak.

    1. Do you think the latter point is reasonable? That at some point an argument could no longer hold value simply because it is an uncommon view?

      1. to answer your questions: yes and no. i find “let them all in including ISIS” to be so deeply unserious and so do you. and you know it.

    2. What exactly is your beef against the deathly ill? You’ve mentioned them more than once. Do they constitute any sort of a threat to anyone? Am missing the reference.

  17. Remember when the 90 days part of the ban was really important and was used to defend the ban itself many times? Maybe Trump enacted the ban, and used that time to figure out that the ban was a good thing and needed to be expanded? Don’t agree, but I suppose that this line of thought is plausible.

    Interesting stuff.

    1. “Remember when the 90 days part of the ban was really important and was used to defend the ban itself many times? ”

      Right. But it never really was enacted account of the judges striking it down left and right. This isn’t about immigration, it’s just Trump firing up the base. It’s about distraction from the real problems right now, like Puerto Rico, Florida and Texas.

      I don’t think the government wants us to see how incapable it really is of reacting to these calamities, that they claim we need them for.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.