Cable Forum - U.S Election 2016

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...-a7552661.html

Oh dear, please tell me he isn't really anywhere near the nuclear button and there is a fail safe. If he'd only stop tweeting crap that would be progress.

Pierre

30-01-2017 22:26

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35883140)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...do-it-legally/

And..........?

He may of wanted a Muslim ban and that was what he ran on, but he didn't get one as that would be illegal.

So I don't know what you're trying to say, but It is not a Muslim ban. End of argument.

martyh

30-01-2017 22:28

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35883128)

Really, kindly point it out to me then

in fact point out to me where muslims and christians are mentioned at all......................as you're so well informed.

Quote:

(b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization

Right there , it's been all over the news today .It was highlighted by the media when the ban was first announced.Also Trump said so himself

Quote:

President Donald Trump said in a new interview Friday that persecuted Christians will be given priority over other refugees seeking to enter the United States, saying they have been "horribly treated."

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/27/po...tian-refugees/

Of course Trump could be lying and making up fake news or more alternate facts

Once again, it's a Muslim ban.

Arthurgray50@blu

30-01-2017 22:32

Re: US Election 2016

It will be our business if there are passengers stopped at Heathrow on route to the US. or even Gatwick for that matter.

I have a feeling that this will be sorted out through the courts.As several people are taking the matter through the Federal Courts.

Trump may be President. But he is NOT above the Law. And he may have broken rules of the Constitution.

Pierre

30-01-2017 22:37

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35883158)

Right there , it's been all over the news today .It was highlighted by the media when the ban was first announced.

Doesn't mention any particular religion.

That could just as easily apply to ahmadis or alawites

Quote:

Once again, it's a Muslim ban.

No it's not, as the link Hugh posted confirms such a ban would be illegal.

So you're again mid-informed, nut then again you're used to that.

Hugh	30-01-2017 22:41

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35883156)

Guiliani said Trump wanted a Muslim ban, so they made it happen, but worded it to be legal...

Paul	30-01-2017 22:45

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

in fact point out to me where muslims and christians are mentioned at all

Quote:

to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35883158)

Right there , it's been all over the news today

Right where ? I do not see either muslims or christians mentioned. :confused:

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35883158)

Once again, it's a Muslim ban.

In your head maybe, but not in the text of the order.

Mr K	30-01-2017 22:47

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul M (Post 35883168)

In your head maybe, but not in the text of the order.

However it is a ban on Muslims in spirit, and that's the main thing for the Donald and his moronic disciples.

martyh

30-01-2017 22:56

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35883166)

Doesn't mention any particular religion.

That could just as easily apply to ahmadis or alawites

No it's not, as the link Hugh posted confirms such a ban would be illegal.

So you're again mid-informed, nut then again you're used to that.

Possibly could apply to any other religion..... apart from Muslims because Muslims are the majority religion in the countries in question.Whichever way you try to spin it ,it is definitely a Muslim ban

---------- Post added at 21:54 ---------- Previous post was at 21:52 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul M (Post 35883168)

Right where ? I do not see either muslims or christians mentioned. :confused:

In your head maybe, but not in the text of the order.

I quoted and highlighted the relevant passage from the order that Pierre quoted

---------- Post added at 21:56 ---------- Previous post was at 21:54 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35883171)

However it is a ban on Muslims in spirit, and that's the main thing for the Donald and his moronic disciples.

It's a ban on Muslims in practice ,everybody has managed to work it out apart from Mick,Pierre and now Rob

Damien

30-01-2017 22:59

Re: US Election 2016

Ford, Amazon and Bank of America have now all come out strongly against the ban. I think Apple, Google and Microsoft already have too. Ford is one of the bigger ones since they were one of the few to say something nice about Trump after the election.

Pierre

30-01-2017 23:22

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35883167)

Guiliani said Trump wanted a Muslim ban, so they made it happen, but worded it to be legal...

I don't know how many times you need to hear this to get it.

They worded it to be legal, and thereby made it " not " a Muslim ban, as a Muslim ban would be illegal.

---------- Post added at 22:22 ---------- Previous post was at 22:21 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35883171)

However it is a ban on Muslims in spirit, and that's the main thing for the Donald and his moronic disciples.

That means absolutely nothing. A waste of finger tapping.

ianch99

30-01-2017 23:26

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35883166)

Weren't you asked to be nicer to Marty? Not sure what "mid-informed" means but calling someone a nut isn't nice, is it?

Let me ask you this then: what religion forms the majority in these banned countries?

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2017/01/1.jpg

Could it be, no it can't be, surely not, impossible, it musn't be or could it be .. Muslims?

Pierre

30-01-2017 23:32

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35883175)

Whichever way you try to spin it ,it is definitely a Muslim ban

I'm just looking at it factually.

1) A ban on muslims would be illegal.
2) muslims are not mentioned in the order.
3) many other Muslim countries are not affected, including Pakistan which. I think is the most populous Muslim country on the globe.

= not a Muslim ban

---------- Post added at 22:32 ---------- Previous post was at 22:29 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35883191)

Are they the only Muslim countries on the planet?

ianch99

30-01-2017 23:51

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35883193)

Let's compromise: it's a ban on citizens from nominated Muslim countries* unless they happen to be Christians living in said Muslim countries.

* excluding Muslim countries where Trump has business interests

pip08456

31-01-2017 00:17

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35883199)

If you are going to compromise then let's do it right:- it's a ban on citizens from nominated Muslim countries unless they happen to be Christians living in said Muslim countries who are suffering from religeous persecution. Otherwise it also applies to them.

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:05.

Page 125 of 144

125

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page