monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

"Level of freedom" differs from state to state? Can you explain what those differences are? I've lived in three states, and have not noticed any difference on my freedoms.

You aren't paying enough attention then.

Retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey said in an interview Monday that President Donald Trump's comments about Russian President Vladimir Putin might be "the most anti-American statement" ever made by a U.S. president.

"How concerned are you about not just what the President is saying but the relationship that means the U.S. is going to have with Russia, where that goes from here?" MSNBC's Hallie Jackson asked McCaffrey.

"I'm actually incredulous that the President would make a statement like that," he replied. "One could argue that's the most anti-American statement ever made by the president of the United States, to confuse American values with Putin."

Quote:

You aren't paying enough attention then.

Another one of your stock non answers.

Ten former high-ranking diplomatic and national security officials, nearly 100 Silicon Valley tech companies, more than 280 law professors, and a host of civil liberties and other organizations have formally lent their support to the legal bid to block President Trump’s immigration order.

There are two very troubling things about Donald Trump’s tweeted threat to hold “the court system” responsible for future terrorist acts he claims his embattled travel ban might prevent. The first and worst, as my colleague Eric Levitz explains, is that such inflammatory charges endanger the independence of the judiciary, and with it the rule of law.

But on a political level, there is something else sinister about this sort of talk coming from the president of the United States: he is preemptively clearing himself and his administration of any responsibility for future terrorist acts its policies might fail to prevent — or even invite. As Jeet Heer notes:

Quote:

t’s…a candid admission about how [Trump] intends to play the politics of terrorism. If the U.S. is hit by a terrorist attack that can be connected to Islamic radicalism, Trump will blame his opponents, whether they be the courts, politicians, journalists, or whomever; the terrorist attack will be anyone’s fault but his own.

It says a lot about the political system’s (and the news media’s) adjustment to the Trump Era that this tweet from the president of the United States seems like routine news:

Quote:

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Any negative polls are fake news, just like the CNN, ABC, NBC polls in the election. Sorry, people want border security and extreme vetting.

Polls aren’t inherently flawed, it seems: just those that are “negative” about Trump’s policies. That is because he is uniquely qualified to understand what the American people want. Why? Well, presumably because he won the presidency despite “fake polls” suggesting he would lose.

It appears Trump is going to keep repeating this chain of convoluted logic until people who look favorably upon him accept it implicitly: He won a big, landslide victory that was disguised by media lies and many millions of fraudulent votes against him; thus he has a mandate to do exactly what he is doing; and what he’s doing is popular, notwithstanding the lies about it from the same lying pollsters and media.

Once you accept the “landslide” premise, it all follows naturally, since Trump’s popular-vote defeat and incredibly narrow path to an electoral vote majority are wished away, and with them the reasonably good record of national polls, which were more accurate in 2016 than in 2012.

Thus, the foundational untruth about the actual results of the 2016 election paves the way to the authoritarian (in the most literal sense of the term) premise that only Trump or Trump-approved sources of information can ever, ever be trusted. And actually, that may understate the claim, since the president constantly asserts that media are deliberately, consciously lying about him. And so: Once you accept his overarching lie, everything that contradicts it must be a malicious untruth. The logic is inexorable...

I suspect that the terrorist would get the majority of the blame.

But, let me ask you (purely hypothetically because I really, really hope that nothing does actually happen)... if, in the next 90-120 days, there is a terrorist attack and the assholes doing it can be traced back to "refugees" let in after this judgement, who should bear some of the responsibility?