The State House News Service reports Gov. Baker got pretty angry after reading Trump's thoughts:
Baker noted that he had just celebrated the “miracle of Hanukkah” to commemorate the fight of the people of Jerusalem for religious freedom. That celebration took place in the State House, which he described as a mile from the Warren Tavern in Charlestown where “the patriots of this nation” held early conversations about securing freedom from the British crown. He said the earliest settlers, in fact, had come to America for the chance to practice their religion freely.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
And to think you thought all
By anon
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 6:58am
And to think you thought all Republicans were the face of evil.
im not sure what you mean by this
By Scumquistador
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 9:19am
and im not sure that you do, either
why stop at the face?
By teric
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 9:21am
.....and no one has ever said "all"..some of my best fri....uh, never mind.
correct me if i am wrong
By Scumquistador
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 6:59am
wasnt baker one of the people advocating for not allowing any refugees into MA like two weeks ago
What gov Baker and Trump are
By anon
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 7:16am
What gov Baker and Trump are saying are quite different. Can't you understand words and sentences ?
i can. can you?
By Scumquistador
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 8:30am
they didn't say the same thing but they definitely exist in the same echo chamber when it comes to sentiment.
edit: only sometimes though, depending on how baker feels that day, or what he ate for breakfast, or who he is talking to, or whatever.
No, no they don't
By bosguy22
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 9:43am
They're not the least bit similar, but nice try.
Mmm, okay
By SwirlyGrrl
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 10:34am
So grandstanding, blustering, and making constitutionally unacceptable statements is somehow better than grandstanding, blustering, and making constitutionally unacceptable statements if you say it in a kind of nice way.
Right.
I hope that you aren't a referee. I'd love to hear your argument that somehow being one foot out of bounds is really really different from being three feet out of bounds.
How would you even see the flag?
By Stevil
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 11:54am
You're not even in the right stadium.
Charlie Baker (and about 30 other governors) said we are not accepting settlement of Syrian refugees in our state until you can share with us your plan for vetting the refugees to make sure people with known ties to those who would like to hurt us don't get in. That's common sense national security.
Donald Trump says "No Muslims". That's despicable.
This morning I heard that Trump's supporters are generally whites without a college education - and I'm guessing mostly male. Which explains why everyone I talk to doesn't just consider Trump a nut - increasingly they think he's dangerous - and these are no liberals.
Yes and no
By lbb
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 12:54pm
Not disagreeing with you that there's a difference between Trump's and Baker's position, but how is it "common sense national security" to advocate a STATE course of action that you cannot actually carry out?
They both have leverage
By Stevil
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 9:06pm
And this can get tied up in the courts for years - but Obama can't just unilaterally force the states to do things - at least not without Congressional approval. Not saying he won't try - and has (as did Bush), but at some point you cross the legal lines/get a revolt - even from the Democratic states who will hold you hostage for the money to care for/transition these people.
How do we do this without tens/hundreds of millions of dollars - and where does Obama get that money without Congressional action?
Way too complicated for my pay grade - but I'm sure Charlie and the other governors can rally the resources to beat this back if they aren't satisfied.
It doesn't work that way
By lbb
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 3:47pm
Oh, that Obama, he does everything.
Seriously, what makes you think this has anything to do with Obama? The right of free movement within the country has been around since the country was established, with a relatively brief four-year hiatus. It's blowhardiness of the first order to talk about Obama "unilaterally forc[ing] the states" to simply abide by the centuries-old law of the land.
You sound like someone who is more interested in shooting things down than listening to answers, but I'll take a stab at it anyway. It may surprise you that the United States has had refugee resettlement programs in place for some time now. In addition to the cost of their plane ticket which they must repay, the refugees who are resettled (after extensive screening) are given a $1000 stipend from the government. That's it, and it has to cover everything. They don't get subsidized housing or any other kind of subsidy, they have to compete on the open market. Nonprofits do the lion's share of the work when it comes to refugee assistance. Refugees also must apply for jobs if they're of working age. In short, their financial impact on your wallet is negligible, particularly compared to what red-white-and-blue corporate welfare recipients are getting.
Excuse me? Is your pay grade "citizen of the United States"? Then it damn well is not "way too complicated" for you to educate yourself about, and if you don't, you're just way too lazy.
I'll go in reverse
By Stevil
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 4:49pm
a) I was talking about the legal issues - I'm not a lawyer - but I'm sure the governors opposed could tie this up in any number of ways. I'm not exactly going to go to law school to figure this out.
b) Are you kidding me?
Yep - tens of thousands of people are going to show up here from a foreign country with $1000 in their pockets and get jobs immediately and not need a dime from our own broke governments. This isn't about shooting things down - it's reality. Do you read the papers? We are draining our rainy day fund, wasted $500 million on a crappy website (when we had one that worked perfectly well before Obama and his minions forced us to get a new one) and the T is stone broke - and that's just the state and just for starters. And that's not even the issue for the governors - it's the question of security.
c) That's the hard part for the states
First - apparently the only person that can authorize this (that actually will) is Obama - and his administration. The states are saying - fine - but show us your vetting process. But if the feds don't satisfy Baker et. al that the process is sufficient, they can't stop these people from coming - but they can make it very hard to settle in their states without government benefits - which they are not going to dole out to non-residents. If, for example, California wants them to go there - sure. Just don't blame Charlie Baker when one of these guys turns out to be closet ISIS and pulls off another San Bernardino. I wouldn't want to be the governor on the evening news in a file photo hugging the "refugees" getting off a plane that just blew up their government subsidized apartment building making pipe bombs in the bath tub.
I have no problem with these people coming in. HOWEVER - they had better have a pretty good trail - diplomas, internet presence, social media, job history etc. that proves they are civilized members of society. I know a lot of these people don't have that. Sorry - but Saudi Arabia can take them in. There are plenty that do that can come here.
Wow
By lbb
Wed, 12/09/2015 - 10:06am
You really are amazing, Donald Trump. You absolutely refuse to believe well-established and well-documented facts. I've done enough googling on your behalf -- you're willfully ignorant because remaining ignorant allows you to continue believing in falsehoods. You should pray that you're never in a situation where you need help from another human being -- you live in the world you make.
What would those be
By Stevil
Wed, 12/09/2015 - 4:08pm
What am I not believing?
I don't have to google anything. In this day and age requesting that people who are coming from an area that is home to a hornet's nest of terrorists be properly vetted isn't a case of believing or not believing in established facts. It's called making the world we live in safe for ourselves and our families. It's the principal role of government. Once they are satisfactorily vetted I have no problem with them coming in. I'll leave the definition of "satisfactorily vetted" to those whose job it is.
Why on God's green and blue earth is that too much to ask?
Not too much to ask
By Sock_Puppet
Wed, 12/09/2015 - 6:09pm
That all those passengers stay aboard the St. Louis until and unless they're properly vetted.
Same demographic as Baker.
By Baker-Christie 2016
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 12:55pm
Same demographic as Baker. Look at the maps of Baker country, he didnt win in minority neighborhoods but he did really well in areas with undereducated whites.
Moreover, Trump's supporters are complete dupes.
By mplo
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 2:54pm
It's hard to believe that people are gullible enough to support this guy. Charlie Baker was correct to call Trump what he is (an anti-American jerk.), but I don't trust Charlie Baker either, on the long run, as he helped screw our MBTA system up, big time, as well.
Yeah Baker says no refugees
By wtf021
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 10:52am
Yeah Baker says no refugees in my state and Trump says no refugees in my country. Big difference.
Baker never said no refugees,
By Patricia
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 1:00pm
Baker never said no refugees, as much as people wish it.
Baker, and I agree with him, and other governors would like the Fed's to explain their vetting process.
After last week's incident in San Bernadino, I would think it is common sense, but then again common sense is getting to be a thing of the past.
It is easy to paint anyone questioning this fine administration as a racist, bigot, etc... but I remember a time when dissention was patriotic.
After last week's incident in
By anon
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 1:13pm
Which is entirely irrelevant seeing as neither of them was a refugee.
No but maybe visit the Visa
By Patricia
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 3:36pm
No but maybe visit the Visa process as she came over under a "fiance" visa - K1?. Weren't the Tsarnev brothers on expired visa's? Were they student or refugee status? If they were refugee status, someone should've noticed the trips back home. Again, with this terrorist from last week, she didn't even give her correct address on the visa application and no one caught it.
Now they come out and say this couple have been involved in terrorist teachings for some time. Again, our government missed it.
To say that the status quo is fine is wrong, in my opinion.
And, someone need not be brow beaten to suggest a look at any holes in our current system.
Both Tsarnaev brothers...
By Michael Kerpan
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 3:45pm
... were legal residents and the younger brother was a US citizen.
Yes and I believe they came
By Patricia
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 4:16pm
Yes and I believe they came over and was granted asylum status, but the facts that led the feds to grant the famiy asylum are now questionable.
Considering they went back home a few times would make me doubt their need for asylum, or at least revisit their claims.
And, considering Russia had warned us about them yet we turned a blind eye to that, or our federal and state agencies don't talk to each other so it was missed just makes me think we do need to revisit our current visa and more importantly, the cooperation between government agencies.
it's more complicated than that
By Malcolm Tucker
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 5:02pm
The Tsarnaevs were forcibly moved from Chechnya to Kyrgyzstan (where Dzhokhar was born), and then sought asylum in the U.S. To this day, Chechnya is a dangerous place. I don't mean to excuse the Tsarnaev brothers for what they did at all. I just want to point out that this isn't a clear case of terrorists lying about their circumstances in order to get into the United States. Their family had good reason to seek asylum. The brothers didn't have any good reason to kill and maim so many people, but no one ever does.
Almost
By Roman
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 7:53pm
Look, I came over here on refugee status myself as a kid, so I'm not gonna rock the boat too badly, but the story that seems to have came out about the Tsarnaevs after the fact was the the old man got into trouble with the local mafia and dressed up the details a bit to get refugee or asylum status for his family.
And unsurprisingly, when you let in the sort of people that get into hot water with the mob and lie about their education and career to make it look like they have prospects when they really don't, they don't always become productive members of society. And their kids turn out just as defective, and criminals. And with them there was a body count, and sadly it was here.
So, Trump can go rot, but it's neither racist nor evil to be careful about you let in, and it's not too far off from common sense to hold the federal government accountable to make sure it happens, especially when said federal government is headed by folks who let their instinct for PC get ahead of their better judgment from time to time.
important lesson
By Malcolm Tucker
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 10:49pm
Elected officials will always only ever do what is politically advantageous to ensure that they are elected. If politicians at the federal level think that their careers will best be served by catering to so-called "PC" interests, they'll swing that way. If they think those interests will best be served by playing the part of a frothing racist, they'll swing that way instead.
The way the system is set up, we are careful about whom we allow into this country - but some people still fall through the cracks. The only solution to preventing that would be Trump-like: building literal and figurative walls to prevent anyone from ever entering this country again. However, that is - for a whole host of reasons - irresponsible and inhumane, so I personally am against it.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=state
By ninjers
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 7:53pm
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=state+department+refugee+program
You can also easily find information about visas by using The Internet, but nobody on the news told you to be scared about them yet, only about refugees.
but that doesn't answer the
By Patricia
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 4:16pm
but that doesn't answer the two in San Bernadino... her application wasn't properly vetted I assume.
per the NY Times
By Malcolm Tucker
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 6:43pm
Sounds like it was as thoroughly vetted as these things ever are.
yes and that is the point.
By Patricia
Wed, 12/09/2015 - 12:27pm
yes and that is the point.
uh
By Malcolm Tucker
Wed, 12/09/2015 - 1:59pm
It didn't sound like the point you were making. It sounded like you were attempting to insinuate that (a) terrorists commit fraud to enter the U.S. (Tsarnaevs), and/or (b) the U.S. is just too lazy/incompetent to bother screening any of these nasty people entering the country as thoroughly as they ought to (Malik). Forgive me if I've misinterpreted your meaning.
In any event, I hope we've cleared up the Tsarnaev issue; and as far as legal immigration procedures in this country, I think they're mostly pretty safe. Bad people can still get in, unfortunately. Good people can get in and then turn bad later on. The only way to prevent that is to slam the borders shut. I find that a morally reprehensible stance to take, but that's just my opinion.
Order of operations matter
By Kaz
Wed, 12/09/2015 - 2:30pm
It was and if she became radicalized as a result of her husband turning to ISIS as a solution to his problems with co-workers or whatever reason he chose, then it happened after she came here. Immigration/asylum/refugee screening isn't pre-cognition. It doesn't figure out who is *going* to turn bad.
What's that dragging sound?
By lbb
Wed, 12/09/2015 - 10:06am
Oh, it's the sound of shifting goalposts. Carry on!
Nope
By Patricia
Wed, 12/09/2015 - 12:28pm
Nope
Well
By bosguy22
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 3:53pm
Banning gun sales to those on the no-fly list is also irrelevant, as neither shooter was on that list, but that doesn't stop those w/an agenda from using this tragedy as a rallying call. Assholes who politicize everything (refugees, gun control, faith) do so on both sides of the aisle.
Also, Trump didn't mention refugees
By Waquiot
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 1:15pm
He made a blanket statement of all Muslims, regardless of national origin or reason for migration.
In sum-
Baker- we want all Syrian refugees (regardless of religion) vetted before we accept them in Massachusetts.
Trump- no Muslims allowed.
I don't get how people cannot get the less than subtle differences.
Except..
By lbb
Wed, 12/09/2015 - 10:09am
Baker - ignoring the fact that they ARE vetted. Dope.
True, but
By Waquiot
Wed, 12/09/2015 - 11:26am
Once again, to make it clear, he is not singling out Syrian Muslims.
Also, he'll walk away from his original rhetoric, while the Donald is doubling down.
How about 2 weeks ago
By Christie-Baker 2016
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 3:05pm
How about 2 weeks ago terrorist attack in Colorado? The terrorist was Christian and came from South Carolina, should Baker bar South Carolinians from entering MA? One of the terrorists in Paris was Belgian, and several French. Should Baker bar French and Belgians from entering our state? Baker doesn't have any real views any more than Romney did, he will change them (or make up fish stories and cry) according to what pols best.
Careful now
By Roman
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 7:56pm
I'm with you on banning crazies from entering Massachusetts (though that might diminish our population by a large fraction of the 30% or so that are committed Democrats).
I'm gonna let you figure out the flaw in your use of "French" and "Belgians" to argue against what I think you're arguing against.
Do I hear the sound of ethnic identity politics?
By lbb
Wed, 12/09/2015 - 10:10am
So, if your ancestry is anywhere other than France, you can't be French? How far back do you have to go -- to Vercengetorix or just Louis XIV?
Born there, holding citizenship -- if that's not enough to be French or Belgian, then you're just talking pure ethnic identity politics. Shame on you.
All Muslims are refugees or all refugees are Muslim?
By bohemka
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 1:11pm
Can I get a Ven diagram up in here?
"NO refugees"
By dmcboston
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 1:26pm
would actually be quite legal. A country has the right to limit immigration. No refugees based on religion might be a bit more problematic.
On the other hand, noted progressive Franklin Delano Roosevelt locked up a whole race based on their...race.
Trumps comments were not
By anon
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 1:43pm
Trumps comments were not limited to refugees. He's literally advocating for blocking all people of the Muslim faith from entering the country - on vacation, business, etc.
Not to defend the internment camps...
By Michael Kerpan
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 1:46pm
... but not "a whole race" -- only Japanese on the Pacific coast of the continental United States -- not in Hawaii (where they were so numerous and vital that imposition of such a detention policy would have wrecked the territory's economy) or in the remainder of the country. Which made the policy even more arbitrary, stupid and cruel. Not Roosevelt's finest moment.
Tis the season
By Sock_Puppet
Wed, 12/09/2015 - 5:37am
To ban middle-eastern refugees
But when Baker says it, it's good.
By Sock_Puppet
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 7:24am
Trump says something one inch farther out, and it's bad.
The question is, did Baker find there are limits to his weaselly grandstanding, or is it just because Trump said it?
trump is scary and dangerous
By Scumquistador
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 7:35am
and so are those that support him. if i read the article right it sounds like trump is advocating for muslims that are american citizens to not even be allowed here?
the irritating part about it all is that trump is not (by my estimation) a stupid man. he knows that all of his rhetoric and BS is what it is- rhetoric and BS. but the fact is that he understands that there are a considerable amount of people that want to hear it, and that those people vote.
the man has some considerable guile. oh well. baker is probably an even bigger turd, taking any opportunity to look like he knows what the hell he is doing even if he contradicts himself.
I read something recently
By dmcboston
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 8:08am
that said the key to understanding Trump is to understand how he deals. He even said recently, paraphrasing, that you ask for three times what you want and when you settle, you have what you want.
He throws out these ideas, probably, as 'feelers' to gauge the response. He can walk back a bit, no problem. I've read that his official website makes no such claims as to 'deporting every Mexican' or round up the Muslims.
via CNN
By Scumquistador
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 8:17am
preemptively blaming muslims for attacks similar to one that killed 3k and injured 6k more seems really smart and awesome
have we been attacked by any radical groups that we DIDNT fund/support at one point in time? maybe instead of calling them muslims, we should call them "former co-conspirators". or maybe if i am being as fair as i know how to be, some of them we maybe didn't outright fund, we just created by causing a power vacuum and massive instability.
Yup.
By dmcboston
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 2:02pm
"outright fund, we just created by causing a power vacuum and massive instability."
We had an occupational force in Germany for years, in Japan it was converted to 'guests of the nation' in 1952 or 3.
Both stable democracies, Japan being a feudal society until then. Full sufferagette rights after that.
Could have happened in Iraq if we were committed to the long run, but your genius president had to play politics...
Oh, please, knock it off with the 'Bush did it' bullshit. This one's on the White House and our clever President and Secretary of State.
Add to : Partitioning of the
By kvn
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 3:32pm
Add to : Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire
''The partitioning of the Ottoman Empire (30 October 1918 – 1 November 1922) was a political event that occurred after World War I. The huge conglomeration of territories and peoples that formerly comprised the Ottoman Empire was divided into several new states.[1] The partitioning brought the creation of the modern Arab world ''
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitioning_of_the_...
Most of today's worst geopolitical problems...
By Michael Kerpan
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 4:02pm
... are the result of horrible decisions made by the United Kingdom and France after World War I (after the United States decided it didn't care anymore about what happened abroad after that war ended).
ww1
By Scumquistador
Wed, 12/09/2015 - 6:37am
is the single most relevant happening in the world to this point*, it truly was the Great War. for anybody that has a passing interest in history but hasn't exercised that muscle in awhile, read up on the tensions that lead to WW1 as well as the way it was handled when it was over. if you're good at connecting dots or at least eager to read you'll find it startlingly relevant to today.
on the plus side i'm sure VIP motorcades learned a lot from good ol' franz.
Edit: well, maybe not single most important. mastering the science of fire and inventing the wheel and domesticating animals was pretty important too but i think it still conveys my point
It is surprising how little attention...
By Michael Kerpan
Wed, 12/09/2015 - 11:55am
... is paid to such an important event (and its still-enduring consequences).
you might want to seek medical help
By Scumquistador
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 3:54pm
because you're delusional if you think i've even mentioned bush
you might consider also looking at some of the biggest financial supporters of the mujahideen, which would be the united states and our friend and our friends in saudi arabia, including noted best amigo of the USA, osama bin laden
and then connect a few more dots and see how that ended up playing out ~20 years later
I'll bite
By Sock_Puppet
Wed, 12/09/2015 - 5:48am
US forces were removed from Iraq with a deadline of December 31, 2011, per the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement signed by President Bush in 2008.
Anybody who blames this on Obama was sleeping through the whole thing. Obama was just following the law Bush signed. Believe it or not, presidents don't just get to do what they want all the time, no matter what the laws say or other signatories to treaties think.
Obama's administration entered negotiations for a new SOFA in November 2010, with the goal of maintaining thousands of US troops in Iraq past 2011, but Iraq did not want more than an embassy and a couple of consulates there anymore, and refused to grant legal immunity for US troops outside those walls, so only 160 US troops were left garrisoned at the embassy after 2011.
This is history. You can go read up on it. Try Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement
Well, no
By lbb
Wed, 12/09/2015 - 10:14am
Not for quite some time. Google "Meiji Restoration".
you said it.
By Malcolm Tucker
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 10:15am
If Trump believes the things he's saying, he's an idiot. If he doesn't - and he's just doing this to fire up the crazies - he's a sociopath. There's no other explanation.
Other explanation
By Nobody
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 3:56pm
He's just trolling.
He made a gentlemen's bet with Clinton that he could win the Republican nomination.
He's having the most fun he can in winning that bet.
that doesn't disprove my point
By Malcolm Tucker
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 4:40pm
If he's trolling on this scale, he's a sociopath.
hitlers last words
By Scumquistador
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 4:46pm
"it was 4 teh lulz"
alternatively
"told u i was hardcore"
and also
By Malcolm Tucker
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 5:03pm
"please make sure you burn my body so those nasty Russians can't see that I'm rowing with only one oar :("
Assuming....
By boo_urns
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 10:22pm
the Gentleman's bet with Clinton, does that put Clinton in the same camp?
well
By Malcolm Tucker
Tue, 12/08/2015 - 10:52pm
I doubt any of that premise is true - but I'm no fan of Hillary, so my cynicism regarding HRC runs deep enough that I wouldn't be surprised if it had happened.
#feelthebern
yes
By Scumquistador
Wed, 12/09/2015 - 5:01am
not everybody that thinks trump is a bag of shit is a hillary or bernie supporter, or even necessarily on the left side of the political spectrum.
However...
By lbb
Wed, 12/09/2015 - 10:16am
...it sure looks like only those on the left side of the political spectrum are doing a damn thing about it.
Well to be fair
By Jeff F
Wed, 12/09/2015 - 12:43pm
Nearly no one on the 'left side of the political spectrum' will be able to do bupkis about Trump unless/until he runs in the general election.
Until then, the only people who can and are doing anything to stop his run for office are registered republicans, most of whom I assume we'd both place on the 'right side' of the spectrum.
Sure, if
By Sock_Puppet
Wed, 12/09/2015 - 1:27pm
pointing and laughing is a damn thing
Pages
Add comment