Looks I might be avoiding the US for a few years

[The Romulan Republic]

"But its to keep us safe from the Mooslims!"

I'm tempted to make a joke about the consequences of electing a man who gropes women to the Presidency.

[Ralin]

Do the Republicans just want to make sure they are never able to be elected again? Because this widespread change is going to affect everyone, including their core base.....

Just pile them all on guys. Make sure your party can never be trusted with power again.

Their core base will support it because they're doing something and that makes it look like they're helping and that makes them feel better.

I'm not kidding. You can give these people detailed explanations about security theater and why it isn't helping and how it's harmful and they will turn around and say "I'm glad they're doing it because it makes me feel safer." I've done it. I've seen it happen.

[Dragon Angel]

Their core base will support it because they're doing something and that makes it look like they're helping and that makes them feel better.

I'm not kidding. You can give these people detailed explanations about security theater and why it isn't helping and how it's harmful and they will turn around and say "I'm glad they're doing it because it makes me feel safer." I've done it. I've seen it happen.

I mean, if they go so far as to institute a Mandatory Anal Probing policy that shows up almost every time a person flies, given enough years enough white people should be sufficiently inconvenienced for it to affect the Republicans' ratings. Previous administrations' breaches of American rights will look like abstract art compared to what Trump is cooking.

Then again, maybe him calling it necessary for True American Safety could just be another Alternative Fact™.

[FaxModem1]

Do the Republicans just want to make sure they are never able to be elected again? Because this widespread change is going to affect everyone, including their core base.....

Just pile them all on guys. Make sure your party can never be trusted with power again.

That's dependent on enough Republican voters using the airport. And of those that do, how many get a pat down? How many rural voters use the airlines? I think it's more common to use the bus.

Out of sight, out of mind.

[Adam Reynolds]

Do the Republicans just want to make sure they are never able to be elected again? Because this widespread change is going to affect everyone, including their core base.....

Just pile them all on guys. Make sure your party can never be trusted with power again.

That's dependent on enough Republican voters using the airport. And of those that do, how many get a pat down? How many rural voters use the airlines? I think it's more common to use the bus.

Out of sight, out of mind.

It is not common for rural Americans to ride a bus, it is common for them to just drive themselves everywhere and own multiple cars, often gas guzzling pickups and SUVs. They are also more likely to own an RV, so they drive across the country as an alternative to flying and staying in a hotel.

Their destruction of the Affordable Care Act without an effective replacement is far more likely to be destructive to the Republican base than any problems that affect airline travelers.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah.

Apparently their are a lot of Republicans who like the Affordable Care Act, hate Obamacare, and didn't have a clue that they're one and the same.

[Tsyroc]

There are a few things they don't seem to think about in regards to the ACA.

By requiring everyone to have insurance it is beneficial to hospitals. The hospital I work at has had to eat far, far less in costs because of the ACA. We are a not for profit but we still need to get paid to keep operating, making improvements etc.. The ACA has helped that a great deal. IIRC from some of the meetings it has probably saved the hospital from writing off $5-6 million a year in unrecoverable charges. We still eat about $2 million a year but that is much better than the alternative.

It's kind of a weird situation. The US is capitalist but "Christian" enough that hospitals are required to provide a certain amount of care for any patient regardless of the ability of that person to pay. It's one of the reasons I find the Republican attitude about the ACA interesting/confusing. They are supposedly the Christian party who should want to help those who can't help themselves, but they are also the party that gets the most butthurt from "freeloaders". Real freeloaders and people out to get whatever they can for free do irritate me but going full on Capitalist in medicine is just a horrific idea.

If anything says we should have a single payer healthcare system it's the idea that someone can be responsible with their money for all their life but can suddenly come under threat of bankruptcy because they develop a long term illness that put them and their family under serious financial threat.

[Wing Commander MAD]

They are supposedly the Christian party who should want to help those who can't help themselves, but they are also the party that gets the most butthurt from "freeloaders".

Depends on the brand of Christianity in part. The Prosperity Gospel and Calvinism are rather heavily ingrained in modern American Christians, to such a degree that it probably colors the views, consciously or not, of those it should not i.e. Catholics, Greek Orthodox Christians, etc..

[The Vortex Empire]

They are supposedly the Christian party who should want to help those who can't help themselves, but they are also the party that gets the most butthurt from "freeloaders".

Depends on the brand of Christianity in part. The Prosperity Gospel and Calvinism are rather heavily ingrained in modern American Christians, to such a degree that it probably colors the views, consciously or not, of those it should not i.e. Catholics, Greek Orthodox Christians, etc..

Actually have some stats on religion and politics, from Reuters Polling Explorer.

Trump Approval/Mixed Feelings/Disapproval
Catholics: 48.0%/3.1%/48.9%
Presbyterians: 48.2%/5.0%/46.7% (small sample size)
Methodists: 53.2%/5.1%/41.8% (small sample size)
Episcopalians: 41.8%/4.7%/52.9% (small sample size)
Lutherans: 46.0%/6.0%/46.7%
Baptists: 57.5%/3.4%/38.4%
Other Protestants: 57.5%/5.1%/38.2%
Mormons: 52.2%/4.8%/42.9% (small sample size)
Jews: 40.9%/0.8%/58.2% (small sample size)
Muslims: Not enough sample size for any results
Hindus: Not enough sample size for any results
Other Religions: 42.6%/7.0%/50.3%
No Religion: 27.4%/3.9%/69%

Born Again Christians: 64.6%/4.8%/30.6%

Religious Attendance:
Never: 31.5%/7.1%/61.4%
Less Than Once A Year: 51.1%/2.4%/46.9%
Once A Year: 58.0%/5.0%/36.7%
Several Times a Year: 50.1%/3.6%/46.4%
Once a Month: 54%/4.3%/41.8% (small sample size)
Two to Three Times a Month: 42.0%/2.7%/53.9%
Nearly Every Week: 54.9%/5.6%/39.9%
Every Week: 54.6%/7.8%/37.6%
More Than Once a Week: 60.8%/4.4%/35.0%

[mr friendly guy]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-10/d ... rs/8341420

Donald Trump's America facing unique travel challenges
ANALYSIS
By Sara James
Posted Fri at 10:37am

Its formal name is the Executive Order Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, but is President Donald Trump's new executive order in fact a 'Muslim Ban 2.0'?

That is the contention of Hawaii Attorney-General Doug Chin.

Hawaii became the first state to challenge the US President's revised travel ban and a hearing is scheduled for next week.

The new executive order prohibits foreign nationals of six predominantly Muslim nations from entering the US for 90 days.

Among the changes from the first order, travellers from Iraq are no longer banned. Neither are those who have visas or hold a US Green Card.

The executive order is slated to take effect on March 16 and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson says, "President Trump is exercising his rightful authority to keep our people safe".

The state of Hawaii begs to differ: "This second executive order is infected with the same legal problems as the first Order — undermining bedrock constitutional and statutory guarantees."

Mr Trump's first ban sparked chaos and protests at airports across the country.

As the legal skirmish for the revised order gets underway, it seems those from banned countries are not the only ones who may give the US a miss in coming months.

Several Australians have told me they have put their US travel plans on hold. And Australians are not the only ones.

Travel analyst ForwardKeys, a company that predicts travel patterns, says the travel ban has hurt bookings.

"Travel to the USA suffers 6.5 per cent Trump slump," proclaims the company's website.

Of course, millions will still visit the US, but the changes seem to have made entering the country just that bit harder.

When I arrived in the US at the end of February, I was reminded international travel sometimes ranks up there with root canal surgery as a painful exercise.

Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), had lengthy queues of passengers winding their way through customs.

I exited with a sigh of relief — only to discover the lines for connecting flights.

"Holy Mother of God," breathed an Australian next to me. "Another queue."

I had the benefit of travelling on a US passport, but it was still tough.

Travel crackdown could hurt Americans the most

A few days later, in tourist mecca New York, I found signature stores in Manhattan decked out in red, white and blue. Freedom Tower downtown shimmered in the sun. The city was at its vibrant, sassy, bossy best.

But the Big Apple is bracing for the economic impact of fewer foreign visitors. Tourism agency NYC & Company forecasts 300,000 fewer international visitors than in 2016 — the first drop in seven years.

The US Travel Association last week chimed in, saying the President's immigration policies are hurting tourism.

The White House disputed this. But an estimated 18 million Americans work in industries connected to tourism.

While the President has taken credit for returning thousands of manufacturing jobs to the US at companies such as Carrier, a major tourism downturn could cost the US economy billions of dollars and wipe out tens of thousands of jobs. There is growing alarm.

As the latest travel ban was debated, it was perhaps ironic that a crackdown by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) indicated it might be Americans, rather than foreigners, who are the biggest risk.

As I hopscotched between airports, I noticed overall airport security was more vigilant than usual. The random "pat-down" I received at Denver International Airport was more robust than I had remembered.

I was experiencing first-hand (so to speak) the TSA's new standardised pat-down procedures. The new protocol is more thorough and includes "sensitive" areas.

But the TSA says there are reasons for the crackdown.

Gun-toting travellers

On March 2, as I travelled from Virginia to New York, a North Carolina man was detained at Charlotte Douglas International Airport.

At 6:00am, he had tried to bring a loaded handgun through airport security. Thirty minutes later, another man attempted to do the same thing.

The two incidents seemed unrelated — which is perhaps even more disturbing.

It seems more and more Americans consider essential travel items to include toothpaste, toothbrush, shampoo … and a weapon.

How many people are trying to bring guns on planes?

In 2016, the TSA confiscated 3,391 firearms — a record — and a 28 per cent increase from 2015.

Adding to the anxiety, more than 80 per cent of the weapons seized were loaded.

The worst day ever for the TSA was February 23 this year when it discovered 21 weapons in a single day.

As the sign in the customs hall at LAX said: "Welcome to the United States of America."

[Ralin]

but going full on Capitalist in medicine is just a horrific idea.

Going full-blown capitalist/free market with healthcare would be a marked improvement over the insurance company cartel we have in the US.

Which is not to say that I think we should do that, but it's better than the worst of all worlds. Obamacare improved it somewhat, but still.

[Flagg]

They are supposedly the Christian party who should want to help those who can't help themselves, but they are also the party that gets the most butthurt from "freeloaders".

Depends on the brand of Christianity in part. The Prosperity Gospel and Calvinism are rather heavily ingrained in modern American Christians, to such a degree that it probably colors the views, consciously or not, of those it should not i.e. Catholics, Greek Orthodox Christians, etc..

Actually have some stats on religion and politics, from Reuters Polling Explorer.

Trump Approval/Mixed Feelings/Disapproval
Catholics: 48.0%/3.1%/48.9%
Presbyterians: 48.2%/5.0%/46.7% (small sample size)
Methodists: 53.2%/5.1%/41.8% (small sample size)
Episcopalians: 41.8%/4.7%/52.9% (small sample size)
Lutherans: 46.0%/6.0%/46.7%
Baptists: 57.5%/3.4%/38.4%
Other Protestants: 57.5%/5.1%/38.2%
Mormons: 52.2%/4.8%/42.9% (small sample size)
Jews: 40.9%/0.8%/58.2% (small sample size)
Muslims: Not enough sample size for any results
Hindus: Not enough sample size for any results
Other Religions: 42.6%/7.0%/50.3%
No Religion: 27.4%/3.9%/69%

Born Again Christians: 64.6%/4.8%/30.6%

Religious Attendance:
Never: 31.5%/7.1%/61.4%
Less Than Once A Year: 51.1%/2.4%/46.9%
Once A Year: 58.0%/5.0%/36.7%
Several Times a Year: 50.1%/3.6%/46.4%
Once a Month: 54%/4.3%/41.8% (small sample size)
Two to Three Times a Month: 42.0%/2.7%/53.9%
Nearly Every Week: 54.9%/5.6%/39.9%
Every Week: 54.6%/7.8%/37.6%
More Than Once a Week: 60.8%/4.4%/35.0%

What a shock, Mormons by and large support President Pussygrabber (though I acknowledge the small (like their minds) sample size). I thought "The Church" was supposed to be all pro-woman (in that they can speak without the permission of their husbands) and doing minority outreach (letting them not just join, but downplaying that they are lesser beings and letting "the good ones" hold small positions of power)? Oh well, gone with the wind I suppose.