U.S President: Donald Trump

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

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]

Originally Posted by passingbat

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]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

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]

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]

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]

So Trudeau isn't going to lecture Trump. I wonder why not? After all he's such a despicable racist, sexist, monster...

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?

Trump's senior security adviser, Flynn, has resigned over his contacts with Russia: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38965557

Originally Posted by Pierre

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]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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 ----------

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

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

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]

Originally Posted by martyh

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]

Originally Posted by martyh

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.

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.

Originally Posted by passingbat

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]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

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.

Originally Posted by Pierre

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

Originally Posted by Damien

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.