Jump to content

The Official Former President Trump thread


banana

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Aladdin said:

Obama suspended visas and asylum applications for Iraqis in 2011 after 2 refugees were linked to a bombing in Irag.  He also removed a few countries from the visa waiver system meaning they had to obtain visas prior to travelling.  

He didnt just ban all nationals from a number of countries that have posed little threat in terms of international terrorism whilst ignoring the Saudis, Kuwait and Qatar who are the largest promoters of the hardline ideology adopted by terrorists and sources of funding for terrorist groups.

This is the bit that sticks in my craw, buddy.  The bit that irks me is Trump picking on the wee guys whilst ignoring the terrorist countries*.

*terrorist countries and terrorists funded by America may be a different discussion ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump has nominated a judge to the Supreme Court and the Republicans are already saying that Democrats shouldn't even dare trying to block it.

The hypocrisy is astounding. Are people just going to forget that they stopped Obama nominating a judge when he still had a year of his Presidency to go?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump has nominated a judge to the Supreme Court and the Republicans are already saying that Democrats shouldn't even dare trying to block it.

The hypocrisy is astounding. Are people just going to forget that they stopped Obama nominating a judge when he still had a year of his Presidency to go?


From the little I've read, he's a very middle of the road pick (i.e somewhere to the left of Attila the ***) who the Democrats are unlikely to block. But yes, the Republicans have been shameless.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Reuters poll: Do you agree or disagree with the Executive Order that President Trump signed blocking refugees and banning people from seven Muslim majority countries from entering the US?

Agree - 49%

Disagree 41%

6 hours ago, Savage Henry said:

 


From the little I've read, he's a very middle of the road pick (i.e somewhere to the left of Attila the ***) who the Democrats are unlikely to block. But yes, the Republicans have been shameless.

 

He's an originalist, just like Scalia. Assuming he holds true to his history once on the Supreme Court, the balance will not change and there will still be two originalists.

roeder-scotus-nominee-gorsuch.png?qualit

6 hours ago, Sooky said:

Trump has nominated a judge to the Supreme Court and the Republicans are already saying that Democrats shouldn't even dare trying to block it.

The hypocrisy is astounding. Are people just going to forget that they stopped Obama nominating a judge when he still had a year of his Presidency to go?

The Republicans stole the idea from Joe Biden, who as head of the Senate judiciary committee in 1992 announced that he would not allow hearings on any potential Supreme Court nominee until after the election.

"It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."

Sen. Joe Biden

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, welshbairn said:

If Trump was serious about security he should be concentrating his resources on extreme vetting of white nationalists. Proportionate to their numbers they're a far bigger threat than a random Muslim. How many potential Anders Breiviks, Dylann Roofs or Alexandre Bissonnettes are merrily trolling the internet with their witty alt right banter right now?

You can do both. Of course there is one major difference. The balance a government must strike between security and liberty is going to be different when it comes to foreigners and citizens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Cerberus said:

Not really a Trump thing but visa reform legislation has been introduced to, amongst other things double the minimum salary for H-1B visa holders to $130,000.

H-1B is the temporary work permit visa. In theory it's meant to stop companies exploiting low paid foreign workers at the expense of Americans.
It affects India the most but if approved a career in the U.S. for most just got a lot harder.

Excellent idea.

Also, the Washington Post got ahold of a couple executive order drafts that are being considered. One would expand the number of government programs a potential immigrant is likely to use when determining if they should be denied entry as a potential "public charge." A second would prioritize deportation of immigrants who go on welfare programs soon after entering the country. Trump is going to specifically argue that the public savings from these first two will be put into inner city programs. A third would order a review of work visas and withdrawal of any visas that are out of compliance with the law. A fourth would authorize steps to combat the birth tourism phenomenon where Asian women enter the US on a tourist visa and give birth. They generally do this so their child will then be entitled to education at a US university. A fifth would require visa sponsors to pay back any welfare payments that go to the people they sponsored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Theo Snelders said:

Come on Banana. you're having a laugh. She was standing up for the law and that thing the Americans hold dear- you know, the Constitution. The thing she swore to uphold in office.

Agree, and agree that what she's done is dangerous.

However, if we want to moan about bureaucrats, politicians and law-types being robotical line-followers with a lack of morals, I find it hard to completely slate her. She stood up knowing she'd be for the chopping block, and for that I've got to give her some credit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Carl Cort's Hamstring said:

I know I shouldn't rise to the nonsense, but in 2015 lightning killed  27 in the USA, while the police racked up a far more impressive 1,134 deaths, including 300 black people.

Still, it was a good line, just completely wrong.

You win all the whooshes of the day, Carl :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, banana said:

Agree, and agree that what she's done is dangerous.

However, if we want to moan about bureaucrats, politicians and law-types being robotical line-followers with a lack of morals, I find it hard to completely slate her. She stood up knowing she'd be for the chopping block, and for that I've got to give her some credit.

Fair do's, but should she no have resigned then said what she said?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, banana said:

Agree, and agree that what she's done is dangerous.

However, if we want to moan about bureaucrats, politicians and law-types being robotical line-followers with a lack of morals, I find it hard to completely slate her. She stood up knowing she'd be for the chopping block, and for that I've got to give her some credit.

Hmm, I wasn't suggesting her actions were dangerous, though I agree she possibly knew she'd be sacked.

My difficulty with this is that if her actions were dangerous, it says something. Upholding the law should only be dangerous when a dictator is in power. Otherwise the law of the land should be respected. I do agree that politicians etc should stand up for their beliefs more instead of towing the party line- but that's not just what she was doing. She was upholding the law and the Constitution.

In an unrelated but similar thing here, we had the MSM crying foul about the BREXIT stuff going to court and the Judges were declared to be 'The enemies of the people' and Farage et al stirring outrage. That is really concerning to me. If you lose the Judiciary (or impartial Judiciary) from the functions of state you are in a dangerous place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

No, her job was to uphold the law and refuse to obey orders she considers illegal or unconstitutional. 

 

15 hours ago, Deplorable said:

...In our Constitutional structure the entire executive branch is just an extension of the President. The President is the elected position. The bureaucrats within the executive branch are supposed to carry out his wishes faithfully within the law. The fact that you don't like a policy has nothing to do with it's legality or constitutionality. If you have a problem with a policy you are asked to implement then you resign. At least that's how professional public servants would handle that situation. Politicized public servants will seek to undermine democracy from within.

 

 

16 hours ago, Deplorable said:

...The executive order was approved by the legal team at her own department before being issued. Her statement on not enforcing the order mentioned no legal statute that would prevent enforcement. What it did was talk about "fairness," which has nothing to do with the law and is open to interpretation. Nameless lefty bureaucrat who was going to be out of a job as soon as a Trump AG is confirmed by the Senate saw a chance to make a name for herself and set up a new career path. Disgraceful conduct and a good reason why civil service protections are anti-democratic.

 

I still think she should have resigned then gave reason why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Wee Willie said:

 

 

I still think she should have resigned then gave reason why.

I really wouldn't recommend using Swampy as a source.

P.S. I remember when our craven Attorney General said the Iraq War was illegal but made a 180 degree turn and said it was legal after Blair set the hounds on him.

Edited by welshbairn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I really wouldn't recommend using Swampy as a source.

 

Fair do's but I get all my political knowledge from the illustrious forums in P&B.
Who should I believe regarding American politics?
A guy who sounds like he is up-to-date with the political scene in America or a guy who says he bides in Inversnekie?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...