Without saying the election was rigged by Russia.
The problem more generally with that is that once you give that much power up with out an expiration date it will be very hard to restore back to a moderate position.
And even the proponents of banning muslims to cut back on terrorists entering should be upset at the implementation, because the ban hits none of the countries who have sent us actual real successful terrorists like Saudia Arabia or the UEA. So even if you think it's worth stretching out our democracy to get a no-nonsense strongman into fix border security, you should be upset that this ham handed approach hits the wrong countries, generates backlash, and will likely be repealed by federal judges, making it ineffective and worse than nothing at all.
As for electing someone because you don't believe they will follow through on their campaign promises, only to be disappointed when they try to do what they claimed they would, that is the culmination of a whole mess of other problems.
1. We look capricious and incompetent to international allies, especially Iraqis.
2. The federal judges decision to stay parts of the order is not being enforced in its entirety. CBP refused to allow lawyers to meet with those being detained, in Dulles and in LA, even with Members of Congress attempting to enforce it in Dulles. This confusion among the rank and file about what a federal court order means is really worrysome and shows the checks aren't as strong as they should be. Real people are being harmed as a result of not at least explaining it in full to people who have to enforce it before it took effect.
3. The underlying motivations for the rule include discrimination against Muslims, as evidenced by Rudy Guilloani's statements that they were instructed to write a legal "Muslim ban". The word is out that the president, who is also a symbolic head of state and not just an acting office, is anti-Muslim in policy as well as rhetoric. No longer can we claim to take the high ground against ISIS or other radical Islamic group. (Edit: wrt religious freedom. As a commentor points out this obviously does not make us equivalent to ISIS)
This order will be mostly rescinded, leaving nothing but backlash.
> No longer can we claim to take the high ground against ISIS or other radical Islamic group.
That's pretty grand claim. While Trump's order indeed caused a lot of trouble, I think trouble of being detained for a day or even sent back to the port of origin is not the same as trouble of being murdered, raped, sold to sexual slavery, having head cut off, burned alive, etc. which ISIS routinely does. The position of "is US government does something wrong they are the same of ISIS" is idiotic. Of course US government will do a lot of things wrong, they are as imperfect as huge bureaucracy composed of hundreds of thousands of imperfect people can be. It doesn't mean they are the same as terrorist death cult.
[1] http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2017/01/30/defense-secreta...
While a lot of people in US certainly think some aspects of current practices of some Muslims are problematic, there's no law in US that limits Muslim practices, exercise of their religion or any aspect of their life based on their religion. It's not even on the same planet with what ISIS does - where not only being a non-Muslim but even being a Muslim not devout enough by their standards means death sentence. You might compare it to Saudi Arabia maybe, which bans anybody who ever visited Israel from entering, it still would be way wrong and misguided, but at least it would be regular wrong, not insanely wrong.
In fact, I think this overblown rhetoric is exactly why immigration debate is getting so insane in the US - each time somebody says "ok, let's discuss how risky is to import people from Yemen or Syria and what precautions we may want to take so that good people get in and bad people stay out" people are screaming "you bigot, you hate Muslims, damn you, filthy Nazi!". So people start thinking "sigh, we can't really discuss it anymore in any sane way, so let's just elect Trump who would ban it altogether without discussing anything - at least it's more safe that way".
And the other side takes it as a confirmation that it's all plot to oppress Muslims. And so on. So the choice we get is between two insane extremums instead of a sensible policy in between. We need to get down from that tree and we need no more to see anti-Muslim bigot in each person that wants immigration to be more controlled than we need to see anti-Western terrorist in each Muslim. It just doesn't help anything.
> 7 countries targeted not because Muslims live there
This nonsense has got to stop. Those nations have sent us exactly 0 terrorists to my knowledge. Meanwhile plenty of nations like Saudia Arabia have clear links to terror groups and remain free to travel to the US. What they all have in common is they are convenient Muslim bogeymen without the ability to strike back internationally and with plausible deniability about this being a Muslim ban in some circles. [0]
It can be discrimination against a group without targeting the entire group if it disproportionately affects that group and if there aren't other reasonable explanations- this does fit that bill.
Trump also promised a shutdown of muslims entering the country on the campaign trail? Are you saying he just happened to sign this executive order based on other unrelated principles?
You use a false analogy to equate people calling Trumps policy bigoted with muslims being bigoted against westerners. We aren't painting an entire class of people as bigoted. Trump has said bigoted things about muslims. That is reason to believe that orders Trump gives mean exactly what he has said they would mean on the campaign trail. There is no extrapolation from a few to a whole group.
Furthermore Rudy Giuliani's description of how the ban came to be should put this point to bed. [1]
We can have immigration reform without people calling you a Nazi. Obama put into place some very strict immigration controls on those same countries without outright banning.
[0] conveniently also no Trump company interests in those states [1] http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2017/01/30/political-panel-on-t...
2. I'm fine with that. It's a work in progress, and the "harm" of travel delays that everyone in the world is aware of is pretty overstated. I think focus here is mostly a consequence of people being willing to place blame for harm caused by government action while giving harm caused by government inaction a free pass.
3. Same as 1. I'm pretty sure everyone already knew Trump, and by extension, the country, hated Muslims. As for ever having had the high ground, that's largely a delusion fueled by blind patriotism.
Your original argument even stated the courts functioning as a reason that things could continue like this.
Yes they fucking are.
> we knew that's how this candidate wanted to operate and voted for it anyway
Most didn't vote for him.
California and New York have different exports and interests than say, Wisconsin.
You would feel quite different about granting power to overpopulated areas if they were conservative rednecks, wouldn't you? Of course you would.
It's pretty similar to the disruption in the tech industry. "What do you mean you deploy bugs to production and then fix them after end users report them? Haven't you heard of QA?!!"