[kazimuth]

I mean, bombing Syria does seem farther away, in the geographical (and therefore emotional) sense.

Plus, the United States is sickeningly nationalistic, and still carries a hint of pride about its immigrant origins. "This child wanted to come into the U.S., but the cruel President Trump won't let him!" packs more punch than "President Obama issued a drone strike against one side of a multifaceted conflict in a small country you know nothing about."

There's also the fact that Obama was on the team that typically opposes military intervention and racism (at least ideologically...), and it's harder to get people outraged at their own side. The Republicans might have had trouble riling up their base with drone strikes on muslims, so they went for other hot buttons. The Democrats, on the other hand, are perfectly happy to sink their teeth into the travel ban.

[Consultant32452]

At least you recognize that this is political posturing and virtue signaling and not an actual principled stand in favor of people from other countries.

I'm one step more cynical than that. I think this is the butt-hurt media riling people up because their darling lost the election. Oh, and of course ratings. When the news broke via wikileaks that the CIA, under Obama, started the Syrian civil war which as led to half a million deaths it was barely a blip on the radar because the media liked the guy who did it.

[rgbrenner]

The syrian civil war started 2.5 years before US involvement.

And just so I understand you correctly.. you're saying the green card holders and other visa holders who had their lives disrupted by this order, the judges who ruled that the order is likely illegal, the 97 tech companies in this article whos lawyers think this is illegal, Sally Yates, ACLU, Cato institute, state AGs in CA, WA, CT, HI, IL, IA, ME, MD, NM, NY, OR, PA, VT, VA, and DC...

are all acting entirely politically.

You're even accusing the judicial branch, including judge(s?) appointed by republicans, of ruling against this order because the dems lost an election?

[Consultant32452]

The US sent the CIA into Syria in 2006 (Bush then continued by Obama) to train and fund opposition forces which resulted in the Arab Spring breaking out in 2011. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2011/0418/...

The Syrian civil war is at least in part THE RESULT of US involvement.

I'm not saying the green card holders are acting politically. I'm saying the thousands of people protesting are expressing partisan bullshit selective outrage.

Obama bombed Syria so much we literally ran out of bombs. I'm going to repeat that again for effect. The United States of Bomb-merica bombed Syria so much we ran out of bombs. We're making cluster bombs and selling them to be dropped on these places, weapons which the use of is a war crime in most of the world. For years there's not been an peep out of these people. Now suddenly some people can't travel where they wanted to and it's like the next rise of Hitler. Gimme a break, there's half a million dead on Obama's hands and nobody gave a shit.

The EO was a pretty shit idea. I don't support it and I don't support Trump. If the Judicial is able to clear it up, then that's great. The group(s) I was referring to with the political posturing are the media with frankly disgusting coverage intended to inflame an already delicate situation, and the protesters who are largely their pawns.

[rgbrenner]

I was ready to give you an upvote for the link, but your link doesnt support the claim ("US sent the CIA into Syria in 2006") you're making.

In fact, if you read the actual document from Wikileaks, the funding seems to consist of funds for informational campaigns, conferences, etc -- all talk. A lot of it entirely outside of Syria. And the amount is fairly small as well - $6m over 4 years. No military/cia operations, nothing about rebels, etc are found in the document.

To get back to the topic though.. I would suggest that if the issue is legitimate, then the protest is also legitimate.