Cable Forum - U.S Election 2016

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - U.S Election 2016 (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33702280)

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35882950)

It was in the news yesterday that cases are being dealt with, on a case by case basis. I am sure if Mo Farah or the Tory MP that is said to run in to problems, or whoever else has a residence in the US will be admitted as the exception, it does say that if people have bothered to read the Executive Order.

I've seen a lot of hypocrisy this weekend and I cannot be bothered to explain it, so I'll just leave these here:-

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/an...e3a4d1e5ded377

AND:-

https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28...wont-tell-you/

I'm sorry but you're going to have to make less sense Mick. Common sense doesn't work against the liberal mindeset :D

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gavin78 (Post 35882978)

Let him run his country how he wants...the reason we were leaving the EU is because we were being told what to do by someone else. who are we as other countries to decide what he should and shouldn't do...you all wonder why he might push that button because there are some out there that don't agree with him like a lot of things and will carry on till they get there own way.

i don't think it's the libtard way to keep out of other peoples business ;)they have to be outraged on behalf of all those who aren't actually bothered what others are doing in their country .:)

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35882947)

Sounds like another one of those hypocrites who decry those who advocate violence, intimidation, abuse, hate crime etc. but don't seem to mind indulging in some of it when it suits. It's pathetic and it's about time the police started cracking down on it. I look forward to seeing what happens in this case.

Don't hold your breath. I'm not :(

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35882981)

i don't think it's the libtard way to keep out of other peoples business ;)they have to be outraged on behalf of all those who aren't actually bothered what others are doing in their country .:)

And it's often the alt-right mindset to hate anyone who is different and have an utter disregard for basic human rights. People who can't go home, legal residents, and you cheer that.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35882983)

And it's often the alt-right mindset to hate anyone who is different and have an utter disregard for basic human rights. People who can't go home, legal residents, and you cheer that.

i'm not cheering anything -what i'm doing is not getting involved in another country's domestic policy ,and even if i did get involved i doubt the USA is remotely interested in my ten pence worth they don't like foreigners interfering in their affairs .

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35882984)

Then what's wrong with expressing disgust at things happening elsewhere in the world? If we only concerned ourselves with the immediate environment the world would be a far worse place.

Re: US Election 2016

Why is it that all the moaners are so desperate to live/visit america?.There are plenty other countries to live in/visit in the world.If america does not want you that is their perogative.Go somewhere where you will be welcomed.As bob dylan said,"the times they are a changing,"

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by figgyburn (Post 35882989)

Some of them already live there and were turned away.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35882985)

Then what's wrong with expressing disgust at things happening elsewhere in the world? If we only concerned ourselves with the immediate environment the world would be a far worse place.

if we concerned ourselves with with our immediate environment ,we would be down a few wars and there would be a lot more people alive in the world ,they might not have a perfect life but they would have life ,it seems to me that all our interventions leave behind is grieving mothers and rubble .
and it all starts with interfering with those in charge it might not be palatable or perfect but its not our place to change the world .

---------- Post added at 21:44 ---------- Previous post was at 21:38 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by figgyburn (Post 35882989)

the good people of America have granted the mother in law legal status to live in Florida i will always be in their debt ;)

Re: US Election 2016

As much as i think Trump's approach is not suited to his current position there is a part of me that's glad someone is finally sticking to their political campaign promises and it isn't a shock that it's not a politician. As to the right or wrong of the policy it's none of my business I'm a UK citizen not a US one and I'm not of the mindset that's become prevalent in the west in the last thirty years that says i sit on my high horse casting my disapproval down on other nations that I'm not a citizen of. We in the west have a pretty lousy track record over the last thirty years creating far more problems then we have solved and maybe instead of running around sticking our noses into everything we would be better off concentrating on home and letting other places run their affairs.

Plus I'd be a hypocrite if i started to complain or lecture the US about this given how I didn't appreciate Obama's intervention in our referendum and had the attitude he was wrong to involve himself in that. Buckle up people because in a few years i think people will look back at this as Trump's moderate phase.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35882983)

And it's often the alt-right mindset to hate anyone who is different and have an utter disregard for basic human rights. People who can't go home, legal residents, and you cheer that.

Don't know why you bother Damien. You'll get nowhere talking about human rights on here; suspect some of the posters are borderline trolling anyway ( at least I hope they are, otherwise it's really worrying).

Re: US Election 2016

Special Relationship Trumps travel ban as Donald says ALL British citizens welcome to US

ALL British citizens will be allowed into the United States after Donald Trump changed his mind about a ban on travellers from seven Muslim-majority countries.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...ary-travel-ban

---------- Post added at 22:07 ---------- Previous post was at 22:06 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35882995)

Don't know why you bother Damien. You'll get nowhere talking about human rights on here; suspect some of the posters are borderline trolling anyway ( at least I hope they are, otherwise it's really worrying).

well your the expert who are we to argue.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35882969)

Wrong, as always.

Just like you were wrong when you said this:-

As the following looks like a real tweet by her, waiting on an assassination, is essentially asking for one by tweeting it:-

https://twitter.com/indiaknight/stat...37748013092864

You will eventually have to accept that Trump is just wrong .. on many levels .. too numerous to mention.

You are just being stubborn here. I guess you don't want to lose face, coming up with weak attempts to defend that he is doing. Some day soon, even you may have to accept that the man is a fool. But then again, maybe you wont.

I don't care but someday, you might ..

Re: US Election 2016

I think that Trump is walking on dangerous ground here. There are certain things he cannot do. And over ride the Courts.

So if someone comes from Syria, BUT has a American passport. What then ? Does that make him a terrorist.

I honestly think that he wont last long. Some of his colleagues hate the sight of him. And don't forget he is trying to run the Presidency like 'his'toy.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35882997)

well your the expert who are we to argue.

Mr K, recipient of Hugh's loser award thingy recently, discussing others trolling.... :rofl:

---------- Post added at 23:24 ---------- Previous post was at 23:08 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35882999)

You will eventually have to accept that Trump is just wrong .. on many levels .. too numerous to mention.

I have not agreed with every thing he has said or done, a point I have made before in this thread, however, regardless what you or I agree on is irrelevant. He was Elected on a Mandate to strict border control. The people who voted for him obviously wanted this and given the US is not mine nor your country, it's none of our business.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35883004)

Do you agree with Sir Mo Farrah that the recent travel ban is "divisive and discriminatory?"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/38788910

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35883009)

Do you agree with Sir Mo Farrah that the recent travel ban is "divisive and discriminatory?"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/38788910

I saw the story earlier today on the news. I refer you to my last post, whatever I/we agree/don't agree on is irrelevant, though I point out the massive hypocrisy, that there was already a 'Muslim ban' before this so called 'Muslim ban' before Trump became President and no-one bat an eyelid during or since it's inception.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35882950)

The big difference Mick is that Obama didn't use an executive order to ban Muslims ,he went through congress,he didn't arbitrarily ban anyone and the legislation was thought about ,it went through the correct process to ensure it was right .Trump has obviously just woken up at 3am and thought "i know,i'll ban Muslims from some countries today" and as a result the legislation has caused problems for many people with a legal right to be in the country ,also what you linked to and what Obama did isn't a ban ,it merely states that people from some countries need visas .How long before he starts rounding Muslims up and deporting them

It's also noteworthy that Trump has business interests in many Muslim countries that are linked with terrorism ,like Saudi Arabia for example ,the country that most of the 9/11 terrorists came from,why no ban for them ?

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35883016)

It's also noteworthy that Trump has business interests in many Muslim countries that are linked with terrorism ,like Saudi Arabia for example ,the country that most of the 9/11 terrorists came from,why no ban for them ?

Any Muslim country with either a Trump hotel or office has not been placed on the list.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35883019)

Any Muslim country with either a Trump hotel or office has not been placed on the list.

You have to admire Trump's foresight when expanding his business not to do so into a country that future President Trump would place a ban on.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35883019)

Any Muslim country with either a Trump hotel or office has not been placed on the list.

Well that's alright then, as long as you're not on 'the list'.

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2017/01/2.jpg

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35883016)

The big difference is that there is no difference, a ban is a ban either by EO or formed in to law by Congress.

Not noteworthy at all, you see this is where the massive hypocrisy lies, the 7 countries deemed a risk and currently on the list are a prior selection by the Obama Administration.

And it was a ban by the Obama Administration: Text saying "Under the Act, travelers in the following categories will no longer be eligible to enter or be Admitted in to the US, under the VWP." : This sure as hell looks like a ban to me.

Another false flag, he did not dream this up at 3AM. He said he was going to do this as an Election Pledge.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35883022)

It means they had to apply for a Visa. It's right there in your quote '"Under the Act, travelers in the following categories will no longer be eligible to enter or be Admitted in to the US, under the VWP (Visa Waiver program)." That's not a ban. Trump has banned them from getting Visas and until now has also banned those with valid visas and even with Green Cards from re-entering.

Here is the announcement of Obama's policy:

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/...waiver-program

Including:

Quote:

Individuals impacted will still be able to apply for a visa using the regular immigration process at our embassies or consulates. For those who need a U.S. visa for urgent business, medical, or humanitarian travel to the United States, U.S. embassies and consulates stand ready to provide visa interview appointments on an expedited basis. The new law does not ban travel to the United States, or admission into the United States, and the great majority of Visa Waiver Program travelers will not be affected.

Re: US Election 2016

The petition with withdraw Trump's invite is closing in on 1 million.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/171928/

Re: US Election 2016

I'm sticking to my original view that its massive hypocrisy at it's finest. No one bats an eyelid when Christians are slaughtered in the Middle East and no one bat an eyelid when Obama banned Iraqis in 2011 for 6 months.

Re: US Election 2016

It's not a Muslim ban.

It's a country ban, countries that the US deem to be risky. If you're a Christian from one of these countries you are also banned.

Pakistan the biggest muslim country in the world is not banned, nor is Indonesia.

If you are muslim from the UK, France, Spain etc you are not banned.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35883026)

It's a country ban, countries that the US deem to be risky. If you're a Christian from one of these countries you are also banned.

I think you're right but what happened to Trump's pledge to allow Syrian Christians in? Was it deemed inpractical?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7550521.html

Re: US Election 2016

Actually it's debatable if it actually is a ban or not.

According to the Executive Order it is merely a 90 suspension

Quote:

To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established...

Re: US Election 2016

https://twitter.com/Morning_Joe/stat...29134186835968

The blame for this seems to be moving towards Trump's aides who wrote the EO without consulting anyone.

---------- Post added at 12:28 ---------- Previous post was at 12:04 ----------

And...https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/2....co/QPe1K1s9kI

Quote:

Mr. Kelly’s department had suggested green card holders be exempted from the order, but Mr. Bannon and Mr. Miller, a hard-liner on immigration, overruled him, according to two American officials.

Why would they do that? It was a intentional decision to bar Green card holders. They must have wanted the outrage.

Re: US Election 2016

1 million sign petition to stop Trump's state visit. I wonder if there's been any abuse of that particular mechanism. If not maybe we ought to adopt it for minor stuff like general elections.

I heard Baroness Chakrabati being interviewed on TV this morning. Evidently she says doesn't want to offend Trump but doesn't mind calling him a racist, misogynist. Unsuprisngly she didn't have too much to say about all the other oppressive leaders who've been granted state visits in the past and whose records (as opposed to rhetoric) are far worse than Trump's. Still I suppose we weren't being 'governed' by Twitter-rage in those days...

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35883042)

I heard Baroness Chakrabati being interviewed on TV this morning. Evidently she says doesn't want to offend Trump but doesn't mind calling him a racist, misogynist. Unsuprisngly she didn't have too much to say about all the other oppressive leaders who've been granted state visits in the past and whose records (as opposed to rhetoric) are far worse than Trump's. Still I suppose we weren't being 'governed' by Twitter-rage in those days...

There is so much injustice in the world do we need to have condemn very single one of them to able to condemn another? I don't think she was in favor of those state visits. Under such logic everyone would be a hypocrite anytime they condemned anyone.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35882981)

i don't think it's the libtard way to keep out of other peoples business ;)they have to be outraged on behalf of all those who aren't actually bothered what others are doing in their country .:)

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35883042)

Indeed she said "let's call it for what it is, a ban on Muslims" .

It was then pointed out to her that it wasn't, she didn't correct herself, but just went on to say how nasty he was

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35883026)

It's not a Muslim ban.

It's a country ban, countries that the US deem to be risky. If you're a Christian from one of these countries you are also banned.

Pakistan the biggest muslim country in the world is not banned, nor is Indonesia.

If you are muslim from the UK, France, Spain etc you are not banned.

The US Embassy in London disagrees with you...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7552911.html

Quote:

However a statement issued by the US embassy in London on Monday morning marked as an “urgent notice” said that no visas would be issued to any dual nationals of the countries listed under the “Muslim ban”.

It said the embassy would not even see dual nationals of the countries listed by Mr Trump for interviews to arrange a visa to travel to America.

“Per U.S. Presidential Executive Order signed on January 27, 2017, visa issuance to aliens from the countries of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen has been suspended effective immediately until further notification,” the US embassy’s statement said.

“If you are a national, or dual national, of one of these countries, please do not schedule a visa appointment or pay any visa fees at this time.

“If you already have an appointment scheduled, please DO NOT ATTEND your appointment as we will not be able to proceed with your visa interview.”

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35883049)

There is so much injustice in the world do we need to have condemn very single one of them to able to condemn another? I don't think she was in favor of those state visits. Under such logic everyone would be a hypocrite anytime they condemned anyone.

No it wouldn't because the tone and severity of language being used to make those condemnations ought to reflect the reality not what people think he's going to do. The way people are talking about Trump at this stage anyone would think he's a murdering despot like Saddam Hussein. He isn't! Yes, Trump's been an idiot and been very offensive in his remarks to certain groups but on the Richter scale of world evil right now he registers very low down the list. Yes that may change and if it does that'll be the time to resort to all the demonisation.

Meantime the Twitterati will continue demonising Trump using their Chinese made devices. That's true hypocrisy for you.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35883062)

Meantime the Twitterati will continue demonising Trump using their Chinese made devices. That's true hypocrisy for you.

Because their computers are made in China, should they be silenced from sharing their opinions with anyone? :confused:

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35883058)

The US Embassy in London disagrees with you...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7552911.html

We've already covered this, that statement is for dual nationals.

Ok,perhaps I should have said if you are a UK citizen, and not also a national of the listed states, then you are not banned.

it doesn't change that it is not a muslim ban, if you are Christian in the UK, but also a national of the other states then you are banned.

It is not a Muslim ban.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35883004)

The people who voted for him obviously wanted this and given the US is not mine nor your country, it's none of our business.

Then why are you posting in the thread about the US Election 2016 if what goes on there is none of your business?

What I see here is you come up with a weak, flawed "alternative fact" theory to support Trump which is clearly rubbish. You then see that your argument has no credibility whatsoever so you come up with the "well, actually, it none of our business what happens in the US" after countless posts in this thread totally making the US election your business.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35883058)

The US Embassy in London disagrees with you...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7552911.html

What is going on? Boris Johnson proudly boasted about extracting concessions for Britsih citizens with dual nationality but subsequently the US Embassy in London has contradicted him. Doesn't bode well for the trade deal with the US that Bo Jo is so anxious for.

---------- Post added at 14:37 ---------- Previous post was at 14:28 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35883010)

I'm not sure you're being awfully fair here Mick.
You have requested posters to advise you of policies of Trump's that are divisive. When I supply an example of a potential policy that is described by Sir Mo Farah as divisive you refuse to say whether you agree if it divisive or not.
Why pose the question in the first place?

Re: US Election 2016

The US Embassy will change their advice soon apparently.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35883066)

Then why are you posting in the thread about the US Election 2016 if what goes on there is none of your business?

You have a problem reading or understanding English?

Quote:

...none of our business.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35883069)

The US Embassy will change their advice soon apparently.

What to?

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35883071)

What to?

That they'll be able to travel.

The US is backing down from the Green Card ban as well.

---------- Post added at 14:51 ---------- Previous post was at 14:50 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35883070)

You have a problem reading or understanding English?

'your' would be inclusive of 'our' there

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35883073)

That they'll be able to travel.

The US is backing down from the Green Card ban as well.

---------- Post added at 14:51 ---------- Previous post was at 14:50 ----------

'your' would be inclusive of 'our' there

It would also be inclusive of everyone posting in this thread rather than individuals.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35883073)

That they'll be able to travel.

The US is backing down from the Green Card ban as well

Interesting. Looks like Trump is starting to appreciate the differences between running a privately-held company and running a country. And, far better to learn this lesson as early as possible.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35883080)

Interesting. Looks like Trump is starting to appreciate the differences between running a privately-held company and running a country. And, far better to learn this lesson as early as possible.

I am not sure the extent to which Trump intended to ban Green Card holders. Reports suggest that Homeland security were told it applied to them by Bannon.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35883066)

Then why are you posting in the thread about the US Election 2016 if what goes on there is none of your business?

That's none of your business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99

What I see here is you come up with a weak, flawed "alternative fact" theory to support Trump which is clearly rubbish. You then see that your argument has no credibility whatsoever so you come up with the "well, actually, it none of our business what happens in the US" after countless posts in this thread totally making the US election your business.

Absolute bollocks ianch99. You really do need to get over yourself. I like how you tell me what you see and then tell me what I see too, that is an interesting ability you have being able to see what I see.... because let me you tell you something, no you don't !

Because actually, I do NOT see that the issues of hypocrisy has no credibility. Obama's Administration did stop processing Iraqis from entering the US for 6 months and no-one bat an eyelid, it was Obama's Administration that had assessed and formed the original 7 Countries on the list and no-one bat an eyelid, that IS called hypocrisy-end of.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35883081)

I am not sure the extent to which Trump intended to ban Green Card holders. Reports suggest that Homeland security were told it applied to them by Bannon.

It will be interesting to see how Bannon fares. Is he too valuable to Trump to lose some of his responsibilities?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7553276.html

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35883085)

That's none of your business.

Absolute bollocks ianch99. You really do need to get over yourself. I like how you tell me what you see and then tell me what I see too, that is an interesting ability you have being able to see what I see.... because let me you tell you something, no you don't !

Because actually, I do NOT see that the issues of hypocrisy has no credibility. Obama's Administration did stop processing Iraqis from entering the US for 6 months and no-one bat an eyelid, it was Obama's Administration that had assessed and formed the original 7 Countries on the list and no-one bat an eyelid, that IS called hypocrisy-end of.

I know you don't see it, that's the point. You're not really Steve Bannon are you? :)

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35883096)

that's the point.

What point ? You have not made any valid point, other than you do not agree with me, now get over yourself as I said earlier. :rolleyes:

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35883089)

It will be interesting to see how Bannon fares. Is he too valuable to Trump to lose some of his responsibilities?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7553276.html

I wonder how much of Bannons's Breibart white supremacist, racist, etc. agenda he will bring to the NSC?

Here's some wise words from the man himself:

Steve Bannon once suggested only property owners should vote. What would that look like?

Quote:

In its Monday editions, the New York Times reported on a conversation in which Stephen K. Bannon, named as a senior strategist by President-elect Donald Trump, had allegedly floated the idea of reverting the right to vote back to the 18th century. The Times quotes Julia Jones, a former colleague of Bannon’s when he worked in the film industry.

Ms. Jones, the film colleague, said that in their years working together, Mr. Bannon occasionally talked about the genetic superiority of some people and once mused about the desirability of limiting the vote to property owners.

“I said, ‘That would exclude a lot of African-Americans,’ ” Ms. Jones recalled. “He said, ‘Maybe that’s not such a bad thing.’ I said, ‘But what about Wendy?’ ” referring to Mr. Bannon’s executive assistant. “He said, ‘She’s different. She’s family.’ ”

---------- Post added at 17:47 ---------- Previous post was at 17:28 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35883099)

What point ? You have not made any valid point, other than you do not agree with me, now get over yourself as I said earlier. :rolleyes:

Calm down. You are allowed to be wrong:

Trump’s facile claim that his refugee policy is similar to Obama’s in 2011

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35883103)

They're not from the man himself, they're from Julia Jones.

Re: US Election 2016

Given Trump is actually doing the things he said during the campaign how long.l before the first Court Marshall of a solider who refuses to torture the women and children of suspected terrorists?

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35883081)

I am not sure the extent to which Trump intended to ban Green Card holders. Reports suggest that Homeland security were told it applied to them by Bannon.

This is what i touched on earlier .Trump appears to have woken up at 3am and decided there and then to ban Muslims from some countries without giving it any thought at all and without consulting the people that would be enforcing it and without consulting the legal people

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35883103)

Calm down. You are allowed to be wrong:

Trump’s facile claim that his refugee policy is similar to Obama’s in 2011

Well.....only slightly wrong. Agreed the issues are not identical but they are similar.

But the Obama administration did cease processing all visas from Iraq for a six month period, they were however responding to a specific identified threat, and they also did not publicise the move.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35883065)

It is a Muslim ban ,the order states that Christian refugees will be given preference over Muslim refugees.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35883115)

It is a Muslim ban ,the order states that Christian refugees will be given preference over Muslim refugees.

Really, kindly point it out to me then

Quote:

FULL EXECUTIVE ORDER TEXT

PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.

Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security's determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.

(c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

(d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.

(e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.

(f) At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment.

(g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.

(h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this order within 30 days of the date of this order, a second report within 60 days of the date of this order, a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant's likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant's ability to make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this order.

Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.

(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.

(c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.

(d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.

(e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest -- including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship -- and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.

(f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.

(g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.

Sec. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda.

Sec. 7. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the date of this order. Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational.

Sec. 8. Visa Interview Security. (a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions.

(b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected.

Sec. 9. Visa Validity Reciprocity. The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If a country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable.

Sec. 10. Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To be more transparent with the American people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter:

(i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation, or material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national security reasons since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later;

(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and

(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and

(iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.

(b) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the date of this order, provide a report on the estimated long-term costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.

Sec. 11. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE, January 27, 2017

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

Re: US Election 2016

The CIA are back on the National Security Council. That didn't last long.

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.

I'm sure you're correct Pierre but couldn't you be a tad politer to Marty. After all, this is not the Brexit thread! ;)

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.

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

Quote:

Former New York mayor Rudy W. Giuliani said President Trump wanted a “Muslim ban” and requested he assemble a commission to show him “the right way to do it legally.”...

...Fox News host Jeanine Pirro asked Giuliani whether the ban had anything to do with religion.

“How did the president decide the seven countries?” she asked. “Okay, talk to me.”

“I'll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.' "

Giuliani, an early Trump supporter who once had been rumored for a Cabinet position in the new administration, appeared on Fox News late Saturday night to describe how Trump's executive order temporarily banning refugees came together.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

'Malignant narcisissm': Donald Trump displays classic traits of mental illness, claim psychologists

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35883199)

* excluding Muslim countries where Trump has business interests

Yet more nonsense. :rolleyes:

As I repeatedly said in this thread now the selection of countries on the ban list, they was previously selected by the Obama Administration as the countries at risk to the US.

Re: US Election 2016

Boris Johnson happily lumps Trump in with Robert Mugabe and Nicolae Ceaușescu! Very harsh. And the Queen won't be happy to be reminded about this, particularly when Mugabe wasn't a dictator at the time. A big bungle from Bo Jo, surely it must put that US trade deal even further out of reach.

UK Foreign Secretary: We Invited Dictators In The Past, Trump Should Be Fine

"Even if he was making the point that the UK had invited Not Great People in the past despite disagreeing with their policies, that’s still putting the president of the United States among them. Which is, again, weird."
https://www.buzzfeed.com/hayesbrown/...VrP#.prlP51j8n

---------- Post added at 23:51 ---------- Previous post was at 23:38 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35883211)

If he'd put his business interests into a blind trust then he would be less open to such accusations but obviously he can't "unknow" things. The only way to be whiter than white in this area is to sell his business interests. Otherwise, the accusations will keep on coming.

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35883175)

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

WTF is Rob ?

And Oi.... Don't include me in your petty arguing with what you think is a Muslim ban or not, nowhere have I commented about it not being a 'Muslim ban' and in actual fact, I talked about hypocrisy and there being a 'Muslim ban' before a 'Muslim ban' in the following post: http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...postcount=1817

www.bbc.com/news/uk-38795998

Quote:

More than 1.3 million people have signed a petition urging the government to call off President Donald Trump's state visit to the UK, amid a row over his recent immigration measures.[more]

Lets hope thier petition makes a difference!!

THIS GUY IS A BLOODY MORON!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: US Election 2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35883199)

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

It's 90 day ban on nationals from certain countries in the Middle East that the US administration consider pose a risk to the US, whilst US overhauls it's immigration clearing process.

Quote:

excluding Muslim countries where Trump has business interests

And up until that point I thought you weren't an idiot.

Re: Million sign petition to stop Trumps visit

Maybe but he is the elected president of the united states oh sorry i forgot democracy only counts when some people get what they want my apologies carry on as before.

Re: US Election 2016

Dictator Trump has sacked his top attorney because she feels the Muslim ban is illegal

Quote:

She had said that she did not believe the order would be "consistent with this institution's solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what's right".

She also said that she was not convinced that the order was "lawful".

http://news.sky.com/story/trump-fire...l-ban-10749596

Re: US Election 2016

What happens if the government just ignores the law? Who actually ends up enforcing it? I mean the Supreme Court could say no but if Trump orders the policy to continue...

Re: Million sign petition to stop Trumps visit

Quote:

Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35883224)

Maybe but he is the elected president of the united states oh sorry i forgot democracy only counts when some people get what they want my apologies carry on as before.

What part of signing a petition is undemocratic?

Re: Million sign petition to stop Trumps visit

signing petitions and waving bits of cardboard around it's quite a revolution .

where is the petition to keep trump coming i'll sign that .

Re: Million sign petition to stop Trumps visit

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35883234)

where is the petition to keep trump coming i'll sign that .

Me too :tu:

Re: Million sign petition to stop Trumps visit

Quote:

Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35883224)

Maybe but he is the elected president of the united states oh sorry i forgot democracy only counts when some people get what they want my apologies carry on as before.

Quite a big part of democracy is protesting or does democracy only consist of one vote every four or five years, imo it's one of the best parts of it actually, everyone likes moaning

Re: Million sign petition to stop Trumps visit

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35883234)

signing petitions and waving bits of cardboard around it's quite a revolution .

where is the petition to keep trump coming i'll sign that .

Nothing stopping you starting your own.

Re: US Election 2016

it take as a lot for me to dislike someone but this Spicer weasle has managed it in two weeks.

"Get with the programme or go" trying to sound tough when he actually sounds like limp wristed Trump muppet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_...lines/38804464

Re: Million sign petition to stop Trumps visit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35883240)

Nothing stopping you starting your own.

there really is no need he's coming anyway and he will meet the queen ,but it gives others time to gather up the cardboard and felt tip pens .;)love to hate trump .;)

Re: Million sign petition to stop Trumps visit

These protestors are only interested in their version of democracy not the universal concept they woukd happily overturn the election to get Trump out if they could nothing democratic about them they dislike Trump and that's all that matters to them.

Re: Million sign petition to stop Trumps visit

Quote:

Originally Posted by RizzyKing (Post 35883244)

Again what's undemocratic about protest and petitions? Not have you're imagining them doing but what they actually are doing? Do you think the democratic thing would be to keep quiet?

Re: Million sign petition to stop Trumps visit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35883245)

Again what's undemocratic about protest and petitions? Not have you're imagining them doing but what they actually are doing? Do you think the democratic thing would be to keep quiet?

Indeed peaceful protests and petitions are part of democracy unless a minority on here think otherwise.;)

Re: Million sign petition to stop Trumps visit

It's better than nothing but look what happened to the petition that got 4 million signatures ( on triggering a fresh EU referendum). Ignored.
These petitions are only to give the public an illusion of having some influence. Unless it's something the Govt. agree with they mean little. The Queen saying no, or taking a sickie that day might be more effective; has anybody checked if she's signed ;)

Re: Million sign petition to stop Trumps visit

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35883234)

signing petitions and waving bits of cardboard around it's quite a revolution .

where is the petition to keep trump coming i'll sign that .

And me :tu: Anything that sticks in the craw of lefty wet liberals...:D

Re: Million sign petition to stop Trumps visit

I think he should come and visit so he can see how an integrated society does work, even with well ordered protests (if we can keep the idiots away) to express disagreement. Need carrot and stick approach to teach sometimes.

Even the petition itself is a good thing to allow disapproval to be expressed but in our democracy petitions are just that and do not need to be followed. I would disagree with a petition to overturn a public vote though, so a large group of people "vote again" the same way they voted before - so what? If it was simply a parliamentary vote on leaving then yes, petition away but not on a referendum.

Re: Million sign petition to stop Trumps visit

Quote:

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 35883265)

Fat chance that he'll notice anything except if the crowds aren't as big as for former US presidents..

Re: Million sign petition to stop Trumps visit

So the most effective protest would be to simply not be there! Don't protest, don't wave placards, shout, sing. Simply let him be driven through "deserted" streets with any people there pretty indifferent.

Re: US Election 2016

Threads merged - we do not need two threads discussing one subject.

Re: Million sign petition to stop Trumps visit