Cable Forum
Page 2 of 32 1 2 345612 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   U.S President: Donald Trump (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33704412)

TheDaddy 09-02-2017 03:29
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35884754)
I think you're the one very confused.... :nutter:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7353876.html

Mick 09-02-2017 03:40
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35884755)
Perhaps you had a sense of humour bypass ?

http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-date-daughter/

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snopes
Donald Trump kinda sorta once said that he'd like to date his daughter Ivanka, but he was clearly joking.
So yep, I think you're still delusional .. :nutter:

TheDaddy 09-02-2017 04:05
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35884756)
Perhaps you had a sense of humour bypass ?

http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-date-daughter/



So yep, I think you're still delusional .. :nutter:
Considering my origional comment was tongue in cheek I don't think it's been by passed and I find your continued defence of all things trump pretty funny to.

Interesting snopes only cites one example of him being humorous, what about all the other times he's said something creepy about his daughter?

Mick 09-02-2017 04:16
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35884757)

Interesting snopes only cites one example of him being humorous, what about all the other times he's said something creepy about his daughter?
No idea, go look for them if it turns you on.. :erm: :nutter:

Kursk 09-02-2017 04:25
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
I think he's just proud of his family.

Ivanka is very beautiful.

[img][/img]

TheDaddy 09-02-2017 04:46
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35884758)
No idea, go look for them if it turns you on.. :erm: :nutter:
What an odd thing to say

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kursk (Post 35884759)
I think he's just proud of his family.

Ivanka is very beautiful.

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2017/02/12.jpg
She is very beautiful, it's probably why to quote the donald that he kisses her at every opportunity

Ramrod 09-02-2017 08:17
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
The always excellent Rod Liddle writing in the Spectator: Shock horror! Many Europeans agree with Trump on Muslim immigration

Quote:
Well, now… would you just look at this. I’d read it here if I were you because I suspect it won’t be covered on the BBC News tonight. A large majority of Europeans are in total agreement with Donald Trump in his restriction upon immigrants from Muslim countries. Here are the figures.

Now, never mind what I think. And for that matter, never mind what you think. Simply accept that the shrieking at Trump and from that idiotic, jumped-up thick-as-mince dwarf, Bercow, weighing in with his two pennorthworth, is a million miles from how the majority of people in our continent view the matter. Again, this is not about my point of view or yours, it is simply an invitation to accept that this is what most people believe. Once you’ve grasped that, despite the enormous local propaganda dissuading them from that view, then we can move on. But grasp it and grasp it now, you libtards. On the issue of Muslim migration, Trump easily has the population with him.

Now, how about reflecting that in your news programmes, BBC?

Pierre 09-02-2017 10:03
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
it's the inconvenient truth for the political class.

Too many, too quick.

It might not be on the BBC, but the O'Reilly Factor is all over it :-)

Mr Banana 09-02-2017 10:22
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Why are some pro Trump posters resorting to insulting posters who are not as keen on Trump ? Its as if you are becoming like the man himself!

1andrew1 09-02-2017 10:46
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Banana (Post 35884775)
Why are some pro Trump posters resorting to insulting posters who are not as keen on Trump ? Its as if you are becoming like the man himself!
I honestly don't get it. I guess it's just quicker to insult someone than enter into a debate.
Personally, I don't think you learn from people who agree with you all the time and to me, that's the attraction of this thread.

Osem 09-02-2017 11:37
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod (Post 35884763)
The always excellent Rod Liddle writing in the Spectator: Shock horror! Many Europeans agree with Trump on Muslim immigration
Well I guess not covering news doesn't count as propagating 'alternative facts'.

Pierre 09-02-2017 12:17
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
This senator pretty much nails it.

https://youtu.be/WMzp8D0hKYE

Stephen 09-02-2017 13:27
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Banana (Post 35884775)
Why are some pro Trump posters resorting to insulting posters who are not as keen on Trump ? Its as if you are becoming like the man himself!
Lack of intelligence?

I really still don't get why Trump is allowed to tweet freely, especially as the POTUS account keep retweeting some of his nonsense.

Mick 09-02-2017 13:41
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 35884790)
Lack of intelligence?

I really still don't get why Trump is allowed to tweet freely, especially as the POTUS account keep retweeting some of his nonsense.
Now whose trying to insult? :rolleyes:

As for him tweeting, there is no law says he cannot, he is a free person like you and me or are you saying as a human being, Trump, just because he is the President, is not allowed to free speech? If so, that to me suggests a lack of intelligence or ignorance, ignorance of course, when it suits being a typical liberal trait.

pip08456 09-02-2017 13:41
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35884785)
This senator pretty much nails it.

https://youtu.be/WMzp8D0hKYE
He explains the "Liberal left" perfectly.;)

Stephen 09-02-2017 13:46
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35884792)
Now whose trying to insult? :rolleyes:

As for him tweeting, there is no law says he cannot, he is a free person like you and me or are you saying as a human being, Trump, just because he is the President, is not allowed to free speech? If so, that to me suggests a lack of intelligence or ignorance, ignorance of course, when it suits being a typical liberal trait.
Whinging when things don't go his way is not really going to do him any favours with anyone. Just makes him look even more of an idiot than people already think he is.

1andrew1 09-02-2017 13:56
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 35884794)
Whinging when things don't go his way is not really going to do him any favours with anyone. Just makes him look even more of an idiot than people already think he is.
Presumably he does it because he's been advised to do so in order to push his "outsider" or "tell it as it is" brand of Presidency. His supporters will lap up his David v Goliath story without question.

Mick 09-02-2017 14:19
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 35884794)
Whinging when things don't go his way is not really going to do him any favours with anyone. Just makes him look even more of an idiot than people already think he is.
That's your opinion, but good to see you're whinging that he whinges, what gives ?

If I had made an Executive Order restricting border control, as the President of the United States and some judge halted that EO, that was based off principles I was Democratically Elected on, I'd bloody whinge on Twitter as well!

But nice dodging of my question there Stephen, I will ask it again, are you saying he is not entitled to Free speech like you or me?

Hugh 09-02-2017 14:22
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
And the Judiciary and the Legislative arms of the Government are there to provide oversight and governance on the Executive (the President) - he is not a dictator who can do what he wants, even if that is what is voters want.

https://kids.usa.gov/three-branches-...nt/index.shtml
Quote:
Constitution

The Founding Fathers, the framers of the Constitution, wanted to form a government that did not allow one person to have too much control. With this in mind they wrote the Constitution to provide for a separation of powers, or three separate branches of government.

Each has its own responsibilities and at the same time they work together to make the country run smoothly and to assure that the rights of citizens are not ignored or disallowed. This is done through checks and balances. A branch may use its powers to check the powers of the other two in order to maintain a balance of power among the three branches of government.

Mick 09-02-2017 14:36
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35884800)
And the Judiciary and the Legislative arms of the Government are there to provide oversight and governance on the Executive (the President) - he is not a dictator who can do what he wants, even if that is what is voters want.

https://kids.usa.gov/three-branches-...nt/index.shtml
Is he doing what he wants ? No, so all you just posted there is largely irrelevant.

He is being critical of the judges actions, just like you or I would be when a Judge hands the wrong sentence to someone who is clearly guilty of something. You cannot kill off free speech, just because:

A) You don't like the person.
B) You don't like what is said.

pip08456 09-02-2017 14:38
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Try telling that to the corporate lobbyists.

Hugh 09-02-2017 14:49
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35884802)
Is he doing what he wants ? No, so all you just posted there is largely irrelevant.

He is being critical of the judges actions, just like you or I would be when a Judge hands the wrong sentence to someone who is clearly guilty of something. You cannot kill off free speech, just because:

A) You don't like the person.
B) You don't like what is said.
Perhaps this might make things clearer...

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...-but-there-are
Quote:
115

Executive orders give Trump lots of power, but there are limits
© Getty
The first weeks of President Trump's presidency has seen a wave of executive orders signed, all of which are controversial. Among other actions, the president has proposed making true on his campaign promise to "build the wall" along the U.S. southern border and, more recently, issued a travel ban on refugees coming from seven Muslim-majority nations.

There has been much written by the media, political scientists, members of the legal community and other pundits about the power and influence of executive orders. While I do not wish to minimize the importance of this power of the president, I believe that a fuller description and explanation of the limits on executive orders deserve to be aired, as well.

Despite the usual description of executive orders as a "unilateral power" of the president, this description is somewhat overblown.

First, few — if any — executive orders are self-executing. At least as importantly, there are many checks on the reach of executive orders outside the executive branch, and at least one major check within the executive branch.

In this article, I discuss four important limits on executive orders: the federal judiciary, Congress, the public and the Office of Legal Counsel. It is true that executive orders carry the force of law, but they are far less permanent than laws because they can be overturned with ease by subsequent presidents. And, like legislation passed by Congress, they are subject to checks and balances built into the governing system described in the Constitution....

,,,The federal judiciary consistently reviews executive orders, and while the vast majority of executive orders are not overturned by federal courts, some have been ruled unconstitutional by federal courts.

In the near-immediate wake of attempted enforcement, District Court Judge Ann Donnell issued a stay on Trump's travel ban.

The second and third limits on presidential power are Congress and the public, and because of the representative nature of the legislative branch, these limits often go hand-in-hand.

Famously, President Obama — like Trump — used an executive order to attempt to fulfill a campaign promise; in Obama's case, to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, within a year of taking office.

Despite the president's action, Congress prevented this action by refusing to fund the effort. The effort was overwhelming, with a 90-6 vote in the Senate. Individual members of Congress spoke out publicly about preventing Obama from shifting detainees to domestic prison sites.
The President does not have unilateral powers, the other arms of the Government are there to provide checks and balance (just like the President does to them).

Everyone has free speech, but everyone else has the right to criticise what they say - however, as the President, what he says has much more import than just your every day voter, and he needs to recognise that.

Even his Supreme Court nominee was uncomfortable with his comments about the Judge.

Mick 09-02-2017 15:19
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35884806)
Perhaps this might make things clearer...

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...-but-there-are

The President does not have unilateral powers, the other arms of the Government are there to provide checks and balance (just like the President does to them).
Hugh, I am well aware of the limits to Presidential powers but I will say it again, he is not doing what he wants just like that, what he plans to do will obviously have to go through Congress and he should know that by now and will have been advised of it, do you not think he will have a team of senior advisers around him with note books and clipboards?

He might be asking, can I do this, can I do that ? And they will be advising him of all sorts of things he can do legally and what he cannot do, he obviously has to act within the realms of the law and the Constitution, because he took an Oath to preserve, protect and defend it, working outside this and doing things illegally, will obviously get him impeached.

The Executive Order he signed to restrict access to the US for 90 days, went through legal hurdles before it was commenced, a Judge in Boston actually upheld his Order, yet two Court rulings have since suspended it. So one Judge thinks his order was in check but another two don't.

With a healthy Republican majority in both chambers of Congress, I don't think he will have an issue of getting things passed, where as Obama did, but I do accept not all Republicans are behind him and they could side with the Democrats on some of his other things he may want to get passed.

---------- Post added at 14:19 ---------- Previous post was at 14:14 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35884806)

Even his Supreme Court nominee was uncomfortable with his comments about the Judge.
Yes, I know I read about it this morning but he has to get through his nomination, he has to be seen to have objective views, even against the President, and that he would have to publicly state he disagrees with Trump's remarks on the Judge(s), hence why this is news.

1andrew1 09-02-2017 15:29
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Let's get one myth sorted out. Trump is no lover of free speech. He has banned US organisations from discussing abortions except in special circumstances.
"In one of his first acts as president, Donald Trump introduced a ban on funding for any international organization that, anywhere in its health care programs, provides or even discusses abortions with patients, other than in cases of rape, incest or life endangerment."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/o...als-death.html

pip08456 09-02-2017 16:11
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35884815)
Let's get one myth sorted out. Trump is no lover of free speech. He has banned US organisations from discussing abortions except in special circumstances.
"In one of his first acts as president, Donald Trump introduced a ban on funding for any international organization that, anywhere in its health care programs, provides or even discusses abortions with patients, other than in cases of rape, incest or life endangerment."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/o...als-death.html
Let's get this myth that the liberal left keep trumpeting about (pun intended) out of the way.

He has not put a ban on free speech, as a believer in Pro-Life he has removed funding from organisations that promote abortions except in the case of "rape, incest or life endangerment".

Sounds a lot different now doesn't it.

Paul 09-02-2017 16:17
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Last Warning

If I continue to see people insulting other members, warnings will start to fly.

You are free to disagree, you are not free to keep insulting each other.

1andrew1 09-02-2017 16:42
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35884823)
Let's get this myth that the liberal left keep trumpeting about (pun intended) out of the way.

He has not put a ban on free speech, as a believer in Pro-Life he has removed funding from organisations that promote abortions except in the case of "rape, incest or life endangerment".

Sounds a lot different now doesn't it.
Not really and I'm not sure what the liberal left have got to do with anything.

No one is saying that Trump has banned all free speech. I'm not the kind of person to compare him against dictators as that's daft. But he has prevented US organisations from talking about abortion unless under special circumstances. That is an attack on free speech in my book. But I happily accept that others may not view it as an attack on free speech.

pip08456 09-02-2017 16:50
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35884832)
Not really and I'm not sure what the liberal left have got to do with anything.

No one is saying that Trump has banned all free speech. I'm not the kind of person to compare him against dictators as that's daft. But he has prevented US organisations from talking about abortion unless under special circumstances. That is an attack on free speech in my book. But I happily accept that others may not view it as an attack on free speech.
But here we go again, he hasn't prevented anyone saying anything about abortion. There has been no attack on free speech.

If you think there has then please share.

1andrew1 09-02-2017 17:12
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35884834)
But here we go again, he hasn't prevented anyone saying anything about abortion. There has been no attack on free speech.

If you think there has then please share.
I believe I have done just that. The newspaper article I cited said "Known as the global gag rule because it prevents talking with women about the procedure..."

In preventing people taking about abortion, I believe that Trump is attacking free speech.

Mick 09-02-2017 17:35
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35884839)
I believe I have done just that. The newspaper article I cited said "Known as the global gag rule because it prevents talking with women about the procedure..."

In preventing people taking about abortion, I believe that Trump is attacking free speech.
You cannot prevent people talking about it but he can withhold funding which is what he has done, that has nothing to do with free speech whatsoever.

Infact, it seems to be a Republican Policy, Ronald Reagan introduced it in 1984, then Bill Clinton god rid, then George W Bush brought it back and then Barack Obama revoked it in 2009.

Quote:
WASHINGTON ― In one of his first acts as president, Donald Trump has reinstated a federal ban on U.S. funding for international health organizations that counsel women on family planning options that include abortion.

The Mexico City policy, also known as the global gag rule, was first put in place by President Ronald Reagan in 1984. It prohibits giving U.S. funding to nongovernmental organizations that offer or advise on a wide range of family planning and reproductive health options if they include abortion ― even if U.S. dollars are not specifically used for abortion-related services.

Since then, the gag rule has been something of a political football, rescinded and reinstated as soon as presidents take office. President Bill Clinton did away with the rule, President George W. Bush reinstated it and then President Barack Obama again revoked it in 2009.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...xx9cl5edrc0udi

Nothing to do with free speech and abortion, women can freely talk about it to their hearts content, they just cannot seek counsel from nongovernmental organizations who might work outside US abortion laws.

But as usual because it's Trump who has done it, he's extra bad.

Give me a break. :rolleyes:

1andrew1 09-02-2017 17:50
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35884844)
You cannot prevent people talking about it but he can withhold funding which is what he has done, that has nothing to do with free speech whatsoever.

Infact, it seems to be a Republican Policy, Ronald Reagan introduced it in 1984, then Bill Clinton god rid, then George W Bush brought it back and then Barack Obama revoked it in 2009.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...xx9cl5edrc0udi

Nothing to do with free speech and abortion, women can freely talk about it to their hearts content, they just cannot seek counsel from nongovernmental organizations who might work outside US abortion laws.

But as usual because it's Trump who has done it, he's extra bad.

Give me a break. :rolleyes:
You deserve a break Mick, let's agree on that. :)
I don't believe Trump is extra bad here - and I've not said he is.
But he is attacking free speech. Those organisations cannot even discuss abortion with women.

Mick 09-02-2017 17:59
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35884846)
But he is attacking free speech. Those organisations cannot even discuss abortion with women.
No he isn't. They can talk about it all they want, they just won't get government funding for it. Call them a charity if you want, nothing to do with free speech, as already outlined.

1andrew1 09-02-2017 18:09
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35884850)
No he isn't. They can talk about it all they want, they just won't get government funding for it. Call them a charity if you want, nothing to do with free speech, as already outlined.
Your statement is at odds with the press report I originally quoted:

"In one of his first acts as president, Donald Trump introduced a ban on funding for any international organization that, anywhere in its health care programs, provides or even discusses abortions with patients, other than in cases of rape, incest or life endangerment."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/o...als-death.html

Stephen 09-02-2017 18:12
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Didn't he also place an EO preventing the EPA from publicly speaking about projects or releasing info, which went against what Obama did.

1andrew1 09-02-2017 19:32
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 35884853)
Didn't he also place an EO preventing the EPA from publicly speaking about projects or releasing info, which went against what Obama did.
I'd forgotten about that but you're absolutely correct. It's a bit totalitarian but in case anyone jumps in, I'm not equating Trump to Mussolini.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/u...-moves-in.html

Mick 09-02-2017 19:51
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35884852)
Your statement is at odds with the press report I originally quoted:

"In one of his first acts as president, Donald Trump introduced a ban on funding for any international organization that, anywhere in its health care programs, provides or even discusses abortions with patients, other than in cases of rape, incest or life endangerment."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/o...als-death.html
No it is not at odds, it is a ban on funding, not speech, it is not banning free speech, nothing of the sort, those organisations can freely discuss abortion but they will not get any funding from government sources, if they choose to counsel/advise on abortion.

---------- Post added at 18:39 ---------- Previous post was at 18:35 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 35884853)
Didn't he also place an EO preventing the EPA from publicly speaking about projects or releasing info, which went against what Obama did.
You work or worked for ntl/Virgin Media, you had to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement as part of your terms of employment, what's the difference here ?

---------- Post added at 18:51 ---------- Previous post was at 18:39 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35884866)
I'd forgotten about that but you're absolutely correct. It's a bit totalitarian but in case anyone jumps in, I'm not equating Trump to Mussolini.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/u...-moves-in.html
Trump is not first President to issue gags.... I guess Obama was being totalitarian to ALL Americans it would seem....

Obama Firearm gag: http://www.truthandaction.org/obama-...elated-speech/

Obama Stimulus Gag: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/24/fl...mulus-package/

But again, I guess because it's Trump, he must be extra bad he is issuing gag orders? :rolleyes:

heero_yuy 09-02-2017 20:02
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
John Bercow faces a vote of no confidence in the House of Commons after a Conservative MP tabled a motion in response to the Speaker's comments on Donald Trump.

Mr Bercow said the US President should not be allowed to address Parliament when he visits the UK for a state visit later this year.

James Duddridge, MP for Rochford and Southend East, described Mr Bercow's comments, which called out the billionaire businessman's "racism" and "sexism", as "wholly inappropriate".

Mr Duddridge tabled the motion after earlier writing to Theresa May to ask for the Commons to be given a free vote in the event of a vote of no confidence in the Speaker.
Source

As yea sow so shall yea reap.

Pierre 09-02-2017 21:51
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35884868)

You work or worked for ntl/Virgin Media, you had to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement as part of your terms of employment, what's the difference here ?
Just for the record, you don't sign an NDA as part you employment term at VM.

Mick 09-02-2017 21:56
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35884929)
Just for the record, you don't sign an NDA as part you employment term at VM.
Now that I recall, I don't remember ever having to sign one either to be honest.

papa smurf 09-02-2017 21:56
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35884929)
Just for the record, you don't sign an NDA as part you employment term at VM.
you just have to protect our privates ;)

Mr Banana 09-02-2017 23:03
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Looks like someone is in trouble

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38925753

Pierre 09-02-2017 23:16
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Only a big deal for the bitter Dems.

On a scale of stuff that matters, really, it's a 0.3 out of 10.

TheDaddy 09-02-2017 23:50
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35884963)
Only a big deal for the bitter Dems.

On a scale of stuff that matters, really, it's a 0.3 out of 10.
This might cheer them up, the prospect of her winning cheers me up at any rate and I'm not even down

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...uit-daily-mail

1andrew1 10-02-2017 00:21
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35884929)
Just for the record, you don't sign an NDA as part you employment term at VM.
NDAs are normally signed by third parties eg if a third paty is working for a company and needs access to internal information from that company.
A direct employee's contract of employment usually covers the non-disclosure of confidential information.

---------- Post added at 23:18 ---------- Previous post was at 23:11 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35884868)
Trump is not first President to issue gags.... I guess Obama was being totalitarian to ALL Americans it would seem....

Obama Firearm gag: http://www.truthandaction.org/obama-...elated-speech/

Obama Stimulus Gag: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/24/fl...mulus-package/

But again, I guess because it's Trump, he must be extra bad he is issuing gag orders? :rolleyes:
I'm happy to criticise gagging efforts by any President. Are you?

---------- Post added at 23:21 ---------- Previous post was at 23:18 ----------

Trump loses appeal to reinstate controversial travel ban

A US appeals court has upheld the suspension of President Donald Trump's controversial travel ban.
The ruling, from a panel of three appeal court justices in San Francisco, could pave the way for a showdown in the Supreme Court.

http://news.sky.com/story/president-...l-ban-10761899

Pierre 10-02-2017 07:49
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35884971)
NDAs are normally signed by third parties eg if a third paty is working for a company and needs access to internal information from that company.
A direct employee's contract of employment usually covers the non-disclosure of confidential information.[COLOR="Silver"]
I know what an NDA is. Thank you.

Quote:
A US appeals court has upheld the suspension of President Donald Trump's controversial travel ban.
The ruling, from a panel of three appeal court justices in San Francisco, could pave the way for a showdown in the Supreme Court.

http://news.sky.com/story/president-...l-ban-10761899
No surprise, most talking heads didn't expect him to win with this panel of judges.

Supreme Court is a certainty.

Mr Banana 10-02-2017 08:20
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
He keeps talking about the security of the country is at stake. However, in my opinion, if he had carried out this plan the right way rather than being like a bull at a gate, he wouldn't have opened up this window of opportunity for any terrorists to sneak in.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38927175

---------- Post added at 07:20 ---------- Previous post was at 07:15 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35884963)
Only a big deal for the bitter Dems.

On a scale of stuff that matters, really, it's a 0.3 out of 10.
Out of interest, what would your view be if one of Theresa Mays aides, went on TV and told people they should buy Theresa's daughters (if she had one) products?

Pierre 10-02-2017 10:12
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Banana (Post 35884986)

Out of interest, what would your view be if one of Theresa Mays aides, went on TV and told people they should buy Theresa's daughters (if she had one) products?
It would depend on the context.

If it was a comment given during a line of questioning - not that bothered.

If they came on screen and specifically made a statement like that, purely for that reason. Then I wouldn't be ok with that.

1andrew1 10-02-2017 23:38
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35884984)
Supreme Court is a certainty.
Donald Trump 'won't challenge Muslim travel ban' in Supreme Court

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7574541.html

Pierre 11-02-2017 00:01
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35885128)
Donald Trump 'won't challenge Muslim travel ban' in Supreme Court

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7574541.html
Yeah, just saw that.

Well, I haven't read anything but the headline as yet.

Not sure where he goes from here, will have to have a read.

Mick 11-02-2017 00:12
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35885128)
Donald Trump 'won't challenge Muslim travel ban' in Supreme Court

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7574541.html
While he does not have his Supreme Court Pick confirmed, a 4-4 ruling there would see original suspension upheld from Seattle Judge and it could take months for his pick to be confirmed.

A fresh re-worked Executive Order is now highly probable as he won't abandon an election pledge.

ianch99 11-02-2017 03:46
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
I am not too clued up about the American democratic process but how is Trump issuing EO's to enact policy without the Senate and Congress being involved to ratify them. Where's the democratic process here?

Seems really strange to me ..

papa smurf 11-02-2017 08:22
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 35885151)
I am not too clued up about the American democratic process but how is Trump issuing EO's to enact policy without the Senate and Congress being involved to ratify them. Where's the democratic process here?

Seems really strange to me ..
Executive orders are issued by United States presidents and directed towards officers and agencies of the Federal government of the United States. Executive orders have the full force of law when based on the authority derived from statute or the Constitution itself. The ability to make such orders is also based on express or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).[1]

Like both legislative statutes and regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review and may be overturned if the orders lack support by statute or the Constitution.[2] Major policy initiatives require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree legislation will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging wars, and in general fine-tuning policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes.
wiki

TheDaddy 11-02-2017 08:29
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35885160)
Executive orders are issued by United States presidents and directed towards officers and agencies of the Federal government of the United States. Executive orders have the full force of law when based on the authority derived from statute or the Constitution itself. The ability to make such orders is also based on express or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).[1]

Like both legislative statutes and regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review and may be overturned if the orders lack support by statute or the Constitution.[2] Major policy initiatives require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree legislation will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging wars, and in general fine-tuning policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes.
wiki
:Yikes:

I'd be pooing my pants if I were Mexican, especially since he threatened, sorry kindly offered to perhaps send the troops in to "assist" the mexicans with "some real bad hombres" just the other day

papa smurf 11-02-2017 10:06
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Donald Trump 'considering NEW IMMIGRATION ORDER' after travel ban suspension

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...er-white-house


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38941016

1andrew1 11-02-2017 19:25
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35885161)
:Yikes:

I'd be pooing my pants if I were Mexican, especially since he threatened, sorry kindly offered to perhaps send the troops in to "assist" the mexicans with "some real bad hombres" just the other day
It's not that long ago that Mexican troops crossed the US border to help the US out. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.815f0abcfdf8

Mick 11-02-2017 21:14
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35885161)
:Yikes:

I'd be pooing my pants if I were Mexican, especially since he threatened, sorry kindly offered to perhaps send the troops in to "assist" the mexicans with "some real bad hombres" just the other day
That's FAKE NEWS, according to this:-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.e8b70a89995a

Quote:
MEXICO CITY — Did President Trump threaten to invade Mexico?

That's the question at the heart of the new controversy over the phone call last Friday between Trump and President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico, and both sides say the answer is no. Several published accounts mentioned that Trump referred to all the "bad hombres" in Mexico and said that the U.S. military might have to take care of the problem if Mexico's armed forces weren't up to the task.

Mexican officials did not equate that with a threat to deploy south of the border.

"It's absolutely false that the United States president threatened to send troops to Mexico," Peña Nieto's spokesmen Eduardo Sanchez said in a radio interview.

TheDaddy 11-02-2017 21:27
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35885258)
That's FAKE NEWS, according to this:-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.e8b70a89995a
Not surprised they're not admitting it, is it true is it fake news, who knows, I for one am just glad there's another story doing the rounds about trump and hombres, brings back memories of the debates

1andrew1 12-02-2017 01:19
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Public support Speaker Bercow on barring Donald Trump from Parliament speech, poll finds

The public is broadly split on the subject of Donald Trump’s forthcoming state visit to the UK:
* 45% agree that Bercow was right to block Trump from speaking in Parliament, 39% disagreed.
* 47% say that when he comes he should meet the Queen.
* A majority of people disagree with the President’s “Muslim ban”,
* Only 29% back a similar travel ban for the UK. However, 75% of Ukip voters support a similar ban.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7575481.html

Mick 12-02-2017 02:03
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35885293)
Public support Speaker Bercow on barring Donald Trump from Parliament speech, poll finds

The public is broadly split on the subject of Donald Trump’s forthcoming state visit to the UK:
* 45% agree that Bercow was right to block Trump from speaking in Parliament, 39% disagreed.
* 47% say that when he comes he should meet the Queen.
* A majority of people disagree with the President’s “Muslim ban”,
* Only 29% back a similar travel ban for the UK. However, 75% of Ukip voters support a similar ban.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7575481.html
I guess you missed my post (re-posted below) that absolutely makes that poll seem like alternative facts....That poll is at odds with a larger sample size of polling done across 10 EU Countries, over 10,000 people were asked about Trumps Immigrant ban, only 20% disagreed with it and in no Country was the disagree amount above 32%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35884656)

As for the Travel ban, which others like to call it.... shock horror:-

55% of Europeans agree with Trump's Immigration Restriction, only 20% disagreed with it, 25% neither agreed or disagreed or was not sure of it....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7567301.html

TheDaddy 12-02-2017 02:43
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Wonder if the donalds worried, I doubt he is although it's early days, might be a different story in a few months

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

passingbat 12-02-2017 14:10
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35885296)
I guess you missed my post (re-posted below) that absolutely makes that poll seem like alternative facts....That poll is at odds with a larger sample size of polling done across 10 EU Countries, over 10,000 people were asked about Trumps Immigrant ban, only 20% disagreed with it and in no Country was the disagree amount above 32%.

Expect to see that reported on the BBC news.... or maybe not.

1andrew1 12-02-2017 14:32
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35885296)
I guess you missed my post (re-posted below) that absolutely makes that poll seem like alternative facts....That poll is at odds with a larger sample size of polling done across 10 EU Countries, over 10,000 people were asked about Trumps Immigrant ban, only 20% disagreed with it and in no Country was the disagree amount above 32%.
They're different polls taken at different times with different questions so unlikely to be the same. I don't know what the sample size of the most recent one was but it could well be higher for the UK than the 1,000 people in the UK which the previous poll was.

---------- Post added at 13:32 ---------- Previous post was at 13:23 ----------

A cunning move if true.

The US President hopes a sell-out arena address will celebrate the special relationship during his state visit to Britain later this year.
Plans are under discussion with Whitehall officials to stage the event and the £10 ticket sales will be donated to Britain’s war veterans.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/766...stadium-speech

Mick 12-02-2017 15:17
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35885345)
Expect to see that reported on the BBC news.... or maybe not.
I wouldn't see it because I don't, nor would I ever, watch BBC News, too liberal.

Mr K 12-02-2017 15:20
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35885358)
I wouldn't see it because I don't, nor would I ever, watch BBC News, too liberal.
lol Mick you are most amusing sometimes :D

I avoid BBC weather too, communist weather for the brain dead masses....

passingbat 12-02-2017 15:21
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Here's what makes no sense to me re these travel ban protests.

The seven countries were identified by the Obama administration as needing more travel restrictions. The problem is that the documentation they arrive with lacks a significant amount of relevant information to see if they are a security risk. Hence the need for a temporary ban to work out ways to fill those gaps. That seems sensible to me.

How can it be a Muslim ban, if many, many more Muslim nations are not affected by the ban?

Why were there no massive protests when Obama banned Iraqis from entering the country for 6 months?

Where are the massive protests against rich Muslim nations not taking in refugees?

1andrew1 12-02-2017 15:27
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35885358)
I wouldn't see it because I don't, nor would I ever, watch BBC News, too liberal.
Are you more of a Sputnik, Fox News and RT kind of viewer?

passingbat 12-02-2017 15:58
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
And one more question. Why aren't peaceful Muslims massively protesting against ISIS? ISIS is affecting peaceful Muslims' lives dramatically in real ways.

Mick 12-02-2017 17:25
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35885362)
Are you more of a Sputnik, Fox News and RT kind of viewer?
No.

figgyburn 12-02-2017 18:43
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
You know this matter of "fake news" really depresses me.All the major news agencies have really had their biases blown wide open for all to see with brexit/trump.I know that certain news outlets had left/right leaning tendencies but i still thought that they would give the "other sides"point of view a fair airing and try to be as neutral as was possible without seeming unduly biased.Now i do not trust any of them including the BBC,CNN etc.As for crappy twitter,facebook,(anti)social media they are at front of the false news vanguard.End of days for impartial news.

Hugh 12-02-2017 19:25
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
But there's a huge difference between bias/spin and completely making stuff up...

To conflate them all together is very disappointing, and what they want you to do - not trust anything, and only believe that which confirms pre-conceptions...

Pierre 12-02-2017 19:30
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod (Post 35884763)
The always excellent Rod Liddle writing in the Spectator: Shock horror! Many Europeans agree with Trump on Muslim immigration
It is a worry that I haven't seen this reported on any news outlet at all whatsoever.

Then people are surprised when the right wing start winning elections all over the shop. Because politicians and the media are not identifying with the populations concerns.

passingbat 12-02-2017 20:04
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35885420)
It is a worry that I haven't seen this reported on any news outlet at all whatsoever.
I am not surprised at all.

Have you seen any UK news outlet reporting on the link between Mexican drug cartels and ISIS? Don't hold your breath for it to happen.

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/52117...#sp=show-clips

figgyburn 12-02-2017 21:40
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35885417)
But there's a huge difference between bias/spin and completely making stuff up...

To conflate them all together is very disappointing, and what they want you to do - not trust anything, and only believe that which confirms pre-conceptions...
I am i think politically savvy enough to weed through the bias bull that both sides peddle but,to people and there are a lot of them, in fact I would say the majority, of people who have no interest in politics, believe what the major news networks tell them and don't question the validity or truthfullness of what they are being told.

TheDaddy 12-02-2017 22:20
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35885417)
But there's a huge difference between bias/spin and completely making stuff up...

To conflate them all together is very disappointing, and what they want you to do - not trust anything, and only believe that which confirms pre-conceptions...
There's a big difference between fake news and satire as well, you know private eye is classed as fake news by some outlets. Mmm perhaps organs is more apt than outlets actually.

1andrew1 12-02-2017 23:38
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35885420)
It is a worry that I haven't seen this reported on any news outlet at all whatsoever.

Then people are surprised when the right wing start winning elections all over the shop. Because politicians and the media are not identifying with the populations concerns.
Mick's posted a link on this thread twice - it was in The Independent and other publications.

---------- Post added at 22:38 ---------- Previous post was at 22:32 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35885417)
But there's a huge difference between bias/spin and completely making stuff up...

To conflate them all together is very disappointing, and what they want you to do - not trust anything, and only believe that which confirms pre-conceptions...
Fake news protagonists want the undecideds to take the view that all sources are as bad as each other. They know that they won't win over the opposition but that's not their objective.

passingbat 13-02-2017 00:04
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35885441)
Mick's posted a link on this thread twice - it was in The Independent and other publications.

.

Any sign of it on TV news? The BBC were reporting the ban protesters pretty much non stop at one point. Surely it would be relevant to point out that there was significant European support for the ban.


But of course that would have gone against the BBC's anti Trump agenda. Throughout the Trump coverage, they have focused on the man himself and not his proposed policies or taken the time to analyse those policies and why they have the support of so many Americans.

1andrew1 13-02-2017 00:20
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35885445)
Any sign of it on TV news? The BBC were reporting the ban protesters pretty much non stop at one point. Surely it would be relevant to point out that there was significant European support for the ban.


But of course that would have gone against the BBC's anti Trump agenda. Throughout the Trump coverage, they have focused on the man himself and not his proposed policies or taken the time to analyse those policies and why they have the support of so many Americans.
I recommend you invest a little time in research as Mick has done and you'll find it reported. I don't have the spare time to do this for you I'm afraid.

Maggy 13-02-2017 00:36
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35885440)
There's a big difference between fake news and satire as well, you know private eye is classed as fake news by some outlets. Mmm perhaps organs is more apt than outlets actually.
Private Eye does far more RIGEROUS research than than the DF or the Sun and therefore those outlets need to do some more research if they consider PE as fake.:rolleyes:

---------- Post added at 23:36 ---------- Previous post was at 23:35 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35885417)
But there's a huge difference between bias/spin and completely making stuff up...

To conflate them all together is very disappointing, and what they want you to do - not trust anything, and only believe that which confirms pre-conceptions...
:tu:

pip08456 13-02-2017 02:13
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Sean Spicer (Melissa McCarthy) Press Conference Cold Open - SNL:D:D:D

passingbat 13-02-2017 03:07
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35885447)
I recommend you invest a little time in research as Mick has done and you'll find it reported. I don't have the spare time to do this for you I'm afraid.

It was pretty much a rhetorical question, but thank you for your response.


I have done my research, and I know the reasons why Trump was elected President. I just think it's a shame that the BBC did not explore and present these reasons and ignored statistics such as those we're discussing that there is support across Europe for such a ban.


Why in the main news coverage was their focus on the protesters, but failed to point out that the seven countries were identified by the Obama administration as needing more travel restrictions. And that the reason was lack of sufficient documented information from those particular countries. There was constant inference that it was a Muslim ban, when far, far more Muslim countries were not affected by the ban.


That is skewed reporting and the BBC should be ashamed of itself.

Pierre 13-02-2017 10:08
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35885441)
Mick's posted a link on this thread twice - it was in The Independent and other publications.
I, like many other people, don't buy Newspapers or subscribe to their sites.

I watch BBC, Sky, Channel 4 news and their websites.

considering the BBC website reports every time Trump is mentioned by absolutely anyone in passing, I would have thought this story would have bee worthy of a mention.

---------- Post added at 09:08 ---------- Previous post was at 09:05 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 35885447)
I recommend you invest a little time in research as Mick has done and you'll find it reported. I don't have the spare time to do this for you I'm afraid.
If you have to do "research" in order to find very important and truthful reporting, that actually gives credence to Trumps actions of which are reported widely, daily by everyone.

You do have to ask yourself is there any media 'bias' occurring ?

tweetiepooh 13-02-2017 11:50
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35885371)
And one more question. Why aren't peaceful Muslims massively protesting against ISIS? ISIS is affecting peaceful Muslims' lives dramatically in real ways.
There is a "proverb" that runs on the lines of "My and my brother against my cousins, me and my cousins against my tribe, me and my tribe against the world."

Essentially this means that there is a reluctance built in, before fear of retribution comes in, to the culture that would look on that as siding with non-Muslims against other Muslims. They may not agree with ISIS, they may even fight against ISIS but they won't (appear to) side with "the West" against ISIS.

passingbat 13-02-2017 13:57
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 35885500)
There is a "proverb" that runs on the lines of "My and my brother against my cousins, me and my cousins against my tribe, me and my tribe against the world."

Essentially this means that there is a reluctance built in, before fear of retribution comes in, to the culture that would look on that as siding with non-Muslims against other Muslims. They may not agree with ISIS, they may even fight against ISIS but they won't (appear to) side with "the West" against ISIS.


I can understand that in countries where ISIS is active. But what about Muslims living in the Western democratic countries? Why do they not protest?


ISIS is not just a terrorist group, they are working out their end time Eschatology beliefs. They are waiting for al-Mahdi, the "the rightly-guided one" who, according to Islamic Hadiths (traditions), will come before the end of time to make the entire world Muslim.


I heard an expert on these things say that 40% of peaceful Muslims believe in this. (sorry I can't remember where)


Given this, surely people can't blame the West for taking measures such as extreme vetting and on occasions, temporary bans.

nidave 13-02-2017 19:46
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Stephen Miller implies the president does not have to follow the constitution and the courts can not tell him what to do.

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/wat...%3Dsm_fb_mojoe

Pierre 13-02-2017 21:16
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
The issue is whether immigrants should be afforded the protections of the constitution.

If they are not in the US they are not, and have no entitlement.

But as soon as they arrive on US soil, they are entitled.

His first EO could have been considered unconstitutional, especially in regards to green card holders etc. But the first EO was certainly within the power and remit of the office president.

If he goes for another EO, I'm sure it will be watertight. If he goes for it.

Osem 13-02-2017 22:55
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
So Trudeau isn't going to lecture Trump. I wonder why not? After all he's such a despicable racist, sexist, monster... :rolleyes:

Quote:
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said he will not lecture President Donald Trump on Syrian refugees.
"The last thing Canadians expect is for me to come down and lecture another country on how they choose to govern," he said at the White House.
Both leaders stressed the countries' shared economic goals and co-operation at a joint news conference.
I wonder how long Canadians will put up with accepting the US's cast off refugees?

Damien 14-02-2017 06:05
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Trump's senior security adviser, Flynn, has resigned over his contacts with Russia: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38965557

martyh 14-02-2017 09:11
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35885584)
The issue is whether immigrants should be afforded the protections of the constitution.

If they are not in the US they are not, and have no entitlement.

But as soon as they arrive on US soil, they are entitled.

His first EO could have been considered unconstitutional, especially in regards to green card holders etc. But the first EO was certainly within the power and remit of the office president.

If he goes for another EO, I'm sure it will be watertight. If he goes for it.
If he goes for another ban then he will have to base it on fact not perception .He will have to show that the countries are a threat the the USA ,which he failed to do at the appeal and he will have to remove any religious bias ,which he failed to do

Ramrod 14-02-2017 10:00
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35885420)
It is a worry that I haven't seen this reported on any news outlet at all whatsoever.

Then people are surprised when the right wing start winning elections all over the shop. Because politicians and the media are not identifying with the populations concerns.
Left wing/liberal/'progressive' politicians are fully aware of the populations concerns but they don't care about them. They have their own agendas and are trying to push them through come hell or high water.

---------- Post added at 09:00 ---------- Previous post was at 08:57 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 35885500)
There is a "proverb" that runs on the lines of "My and my brother against my cousins, me and my cousins against my tribe, me and my tribe against the world."

Essentially this means that there is a reluctance built in, before fear of retribution comes in, to the culture that would look on that as siding with non-Muslims against other Muslims. They may not agree with ISIS, they may even fight against ISIS but they won't (appear to) side with "the West" against ISIS.
And then of course, you have this
Quote:
A Dutch immigration professor is warning the European Union that more than 50 million Muslims accept violence and terror attacks as a means to defend their faith.
Koopmans said while many extremist sympathizers would never commit violent acts, they support those who do.

“They support the radicals, they encourage them and provide them shelter or simply keep their mouths shut when they observe radicalization,” he told a German website.

Among the studies Koopmans pointed to was a German survey that showed 8% of that country’s Muslims agreed to using violence against the “Infidels”.

In the Netherlands, 11% of Muslims agreed with this statement from the Pew Research Center: “‘There are situations in which it is acceptable for me from the perspective of my religion, that I use violence.”

passingbat 14-02-2017 10:23
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35885634)
If he goes for another ban then he will have to base it on fact not perception

The Obama administration identified those 7 countries as needing further travel restrictions. The reason was lack of background information in document provided by those countries. That is why the ban was temporary to work out how to obtain that.


Re religion, if there was currently a radical group of Christians committing the same atrocities as ISIS I would support a similar ban on Christians

Pierre 14-02-2017 10:43
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35885634)
If he goes for another ban then he will have to base it on fact not perception .He will have to show that the countries are a threat the the USA ,which he failed to do at the appeal
He doesn't have to show that they are a "threat". The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, gives the president the power to suspend or impose restrictions on the entry of foreign nationals if he determines their entry "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."

That's a much lower bar than a threat.

Quote:
and he will have to remove any religious bias ,which he failed to do
There was no religious bias in the original order. Religion wasn't mentioned. They argue that even though the White House has repeatedly said the order does not constitute a "Muslim ban," that his repeated call for such a ban on the campaign trail shows the true intent of his order.

That may be so, but the judges are only supposed to be judging whether the ban is legal or not and therefore should only be Judging what is written within the four corners of the paper the order is written on. Not what they think the president may or may not be thinking.

Damien 14-02-2017 10:59
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35885371)
And one more question. Why aren't peaceful Muslims massively protesting against ISIS? ISIS is affecting peaceful Muslims' lives dramatically in real ways.
Where were the right-wing protests against those killings in Canada from a person claiming to do in their name? Maybe a collection of millions of diverse people aren't all responsible for each other's actions and the world is not a black and white place.

Osem 14-02-2017 11:43
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod (Post 35885639)
Left wing/liberal/'progressive' politicians are fully aware of the populations concerns but they don't care about them. They have their own agendas and are trying to push them through come hell or high water.

---------- Post added at 09:00 ---------- Previous post was at 08:57 ----------

And then of course, you have this
Correct. They care not a jot about those they're claim to represent and are only concerned about achieving their end goal. So intransigent are they that they carry on regardless in spite of the resulting social and political unrest.

martyh 14-02-2017 13:30
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35885645)
He doesn't have to show that they are a "threat". The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, gives the president the power to suspend or impose restrictions on the entry of foreign nationals if he determines their entry "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."

That's a much lower bar than a threat.



There was no religious bias in the original order. Religion wasn't mentioned. They argue that even though the White House has repeatedly said the order does not constitute a "Muslim ban," that his repeated call for such a ban on the campaign trail shows the true intent of his order.

That may be so, but the judges are only supposed to be judging whether the ban is legal or not and therefore should only be Judging what is written within the four corners of the paper the order is written on. Not what they think the president may or may not be thinking.
The courts disagreed with you on every point

Maggy 14-02-2017 13:34
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35885648)
Where were the right-wing protests against those killings in Canada from a person claiming to do in their name? Maybe a collection of millions of diverse people aren't all responsible for each other's actions and the world is not a black and white place.
:tu:

passingbat 14-02-2017 13:44
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35885648)
Where were the right-wing protests against those killings in Canada from a person claiming to do in their name?.

I agree with you. As I indicted in a previous post, violence against any religious group should be condemned. Or any religious group committing violence should be condemned and relevant action taken.


Quote:
Re religion, if there was currently a radical group of Christians committing the same atrocities as ISIS I would support a similar ban on Christians.

Trump's ban was not a Muslim ban. The fact that many, many more Muslim nations were not affected by the ban, shows that accusation to be nonsense.


The world is so blinded by political correctness, that simple common sense seems to have departed many people in areas such as this.

Ramrod 14-02-2017 14:42
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35885648)
Where were the right-wing protests against those killings in Canada from a person claiming to do in their name? Maybe a collection of millions of diverse people aren't all responsible for each other's actions and the world is not a black and white place.
False comparison. If right wingers were responsible for terrorism on the scale that islam is in the world atm then the majority of right wingers would be marching in protest.

---------- Post added at 13:42 ---------- Previous post was at 13:40 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35885664)
Trump's ban was not a Muslim ban. The fact that many, many more Muslim nations were not affected by the ban, shows that accusation to be nonsense.
iirc, his ban didn't affect something like 85% of the muslims in the world.

Mick 14-02-2017 14:45
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35885659)
The courts disagreed with you on every point
Why ? Did you ask them all ? Are you sure about that with your armchair degree in law?

A Federal Judge in Boston initially upheld Trumps Order, before a District Judge, in Seattle, temporarily blocked it nationwide.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...l-ban-45237826

Quote:
A federal judge in Boston declined Friday to extend a temporary injunction against President Donald Trump's travel ban. But a separate federal ruling in Seattle later in the day put the ban on hold nationwide.
So no, not ALL the courts disagreed at all.

Osem 14-02-2017 14:48
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by passingbat (Post 35885664)
I agree with you. As I indicted in a previous post, violence against any religious group should be condemned. Or any religious group committing violence should be condemned and relevant action taken.





Trump's ban was not a Muslim ban. The fact that many, many more Muslim nations were not affected by the ban, shows that accusation to be nonsense.


The world is so blinded by political correctness, that simple common sense seems to have departed many people in areas such as this.
More of a bandwagon than a ban...

Pierre 14-02-2017 15:34
Re: U.S President: Donald Trump
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35885659)
The courts disagreed with you on every point
Well you offered two point that I responded to.

Point one that
Quote:
He will have to show that the countries are a threat the the USA
My response
Quote:
He doesn't have to show that they are a "threat". The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, gives the president the power to suspend or impose restrictions on the entry of foreign nationals if he determines their entry "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States."

That's a much lower bar than a threat.
The actual judgement from the Circuit Nine Court advised
Quote:
The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States. Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all. We disagree
So the administration didn't provide any evidence at all, they just argued that the County court shouldn't be able to overturn the EO.

So that test about the level of detriment/ threat hasn't been done.

Your second point was
Quote:
and he will have to remove any religious bias ,which he failed to do
my response
Quote:
There was no religious bias in the original order. Religion wasn't mentioned
The actual judgement from the Circuit Nine Court says
Quote:
The Government has not shown that it is likely to succeed on appeal on its arguments about, at least, the States’
Due Process Clause claim, and we also note the serious nature of the allegations the States have raised with respect to their religious discrimination claims. We express no view
as to any of the States’ other claims.
So they advise that the administration are unlikely to win an appeal in regards to the "due process" part of the claim. They note the allegation of religious discrimination but that is not why the appeal was not upheld

So in reality the Court (singular) didn't disagree with me on anything.

I'm surprised you've made this mistake as you're usually so very well informed.

If you want to digest the courts ruling you can here:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...9/17-35105.pdf


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:26.
Page 2 of 32 1 2 345612 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum