politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump’s net Gallup approval ratings drops 8 points in first we
Options
Comments
-
Exactly. He'd have dealt better with the situation.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I don't think so. I'd have thought the trip to the States would have been much the same, albeit a bit frostier, and without the whole "holding hands" thing to distract. Maybe Cameron would have had a statement out, but not a substantive one. Surely I'm not the only one who thinks this situation can't resolved in fifteen minutes?midwinter said:
I'd imagine Cameron at least would have dealt far better with the situation. Sure I recall both he and Osborne making their views on Trump very clear.Ishmael_Z said:
She was a model of icy distance compared to Blair Brown and Cameron's respective feats of rectal mountaineering with their respective POTUSes.surbiton said:
She should have maintained a distance and not try to give an enthusiastic impression about their meeting. Always use the long spoon when you sup with the devil !Ishmael_Z said:
What should she have done differently?williamglenn said:
She's snookered herself. If she gives an appropriate response she destroys the goodwill she's created with Trump. If she doesn't then she loses credibility at home. Her strategy now fully depends on Trump being impeached.Black_Rook said:If by tomorrow lunchtime there's no response, or no appropriate response at any rate, on this subject then, by all means, go to town.
0 -
Matthew Syed is correct. Mo Farah cannot enter the US.0
-
-
The order says he is invoking particular parts of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which would imply the order is compatible with federal law.surbiton said:
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
USC 1182:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
So not unconstitutional.0 -
The claim was the entire senior management resigned because of trump and had gone that day and that has never happened before. This was a Washington post story which was the repeated unchecked all over the place.RobD said:
I wasn't following, what wasn't true in the resignation story?FrancisUrquhart said:
This is where the media keep making the same mistake. They have got right at this, total outrage, when there is still elements which aren't clear. Then when Trump "clarifies" he is able to claim fake news media.SouthamObserver said:This is week one. This ban will be clarified, Trump will back-peddle, say it was all misinterpreted, and we'll move on. Then something else will happen and then something else and then something else. And each time we'll see that photo of Trump and May hand in hand.
We know they have to deal with the lying and slippery moves / backtracking etc, but they have already been caught this week on the wrong end of the "mass resignation" story.
Firstly, it was 4 not the entire, second it is standard practice for people in those positions to offer their resignation when a new president comes in. Sometimes they keep them, sometimes not, sometimes they stay on for a bit. In this case one guy is past retirement age, one was involved in bezgahi scandal and none are getting the heave ho immediately.
Oh and none mentioned trump in any way (which is probably protocol)
Even left leaning Vox did a story that said is bullshit.0 -
A Republican Congressman
@justinamash: 1/ Like Pres. Obama's executive actions on immigration, Pres. Trump's executive order overreaches and undermines our constitutional system.
@justinamash: 2/ It's not lawful to ban immigrants on basis of nationality. If the president wants to change immigration law, he must work with Congress.0 -
If John Tory stood as mayor for the Canadian Conservatives in St John, New Brunswick, would he be St John Tory Mayor John Tory?Scott_P said:
0 -
Fake news indeed! I think I read a bit about it on the telegraph, but that's gone so far down the crapper these days that it's no surprise they covered it.FrancisUrquhart said:
The claim was the entire senior management resigned because of trump and had gone that day and that has never happened before. This was a Washington post story which was the repeated unchecked all over the place.RobD said:
I wasn't following, what wasn't true in the resignation story?FrancisUrquhart said:
This is where the media keep making the same mistake. They have got right at this, total outrage, when there is still elements which aren't clear. Then when Trump "clarifies" he is able to claim fake news media.SouthamObserver said:This is week one. This ban will be clarified, Trump will back-peddle, say it was all misinterpreted, and we'll move on. Then something else will happen and then something else and then something else. And each time we'll see that photo of Trump and May hand in hand.
We know they have to deal with the lying and slippery moves / backtracking etc, but they have already been caught this week on the wrong end of the "mass resignation" story.
Firstly, it was 4 not the entire, second it is standard practice for people in those positions to offer their resignation when a new president comes in. Sometimes they keep them, sometimes not, sometimes they stay on for a bit. In this case one guy is past retirement age, one was involved in bezgahi scandal and none are getting the heave ho immediately.
Oh and none mentioned trump in any way (which is probably protocol)
Even left leaning Vox did a story that said is bullshit.0 -
Why are we surprised? Half the time the discussions on this site revolve around reviewing the integration of minorities. It's even more odd in the case of minorities who are from Commonwealth countries.Jobabob said:It is sickening to witness the snivelling, skin crawling, sinister sycophancy from the PB Leaver Trumptons ramp up a level with every passing day. The pathetic, cap-doffing snotty slugs sliming up to the Grade A twat is a truly disgusting spectacle. Eurgh.
0 -
Perhaps some of the UK media need to read up about the limits of Presidential powers before they get home.0
-
-
It still is. All I said was you can tell how integrated with the host country different groups are by how many mixed marriages there are from each group. It is a good indicator, that's all, nothing to get worked up aboutThe_Apocalypse said:
Being pro-interracial relationships used to be about letting others date whoever they wanted to. Not about proving how much you identify with Britain. And I say as someone who is mixed race.isam said:
I know someone who smoked like a chimney but lived to 100 so smoking isn't necessarily linked to bad healthThe_Apocalypse said:Also, re the previous thread: pleased to see the reaction to comments regarding Lee Rigby's murderers being Black. But I do find it odd that some PBers seem to see being in an interracial relationship as being some sort of litmus test for integration. There are plenty of immigrants, such as my grandparents on my mother's side (Jamacian immigrants) who have integrated while being married to people of the same race.
0 -
This is an impossible situation for May. Charging in and meeting Trump so quickly whilst he is in the middle of all these announcements is going to be looked back on as a terrible mistake.0
-
An executive order is always an interpretation of the law. This interpretation is clearly unlawful. It will be defeated in the courts.RobD said:
The order says he is invoking particular parts of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which would imply the order is compatible with federal law.surbiton said:
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
USC 1182:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
So not unconstitutional.0 -
"Clearly unlawful"? Based on what?surbiton said:
An executive order is always an interpretation of the law. This inpetation is clearly unlawful. It will be defeated in the courts.RobD said:
The order says he is invoking particular parts of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which would imply the order is compatible with federal law.surbiton said:
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
USC 1182:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
So not unconstitutional.0 -
Bloody well hope us. It is almost now Berlin 1936. We must not make the same mistake again.Scott_P said:0 -
Again there is a bit of a story, normally an administration doesn't accept 4 super senior officials resignations and it is probably that having worked for obama for 8 years that they didn't fancy working for trump anyway...but they were so desperate to run outrage story they didn't nail.down the facts, overstated the real scenario, had no insider quotes etc etc etc .RobD said:
Fake news indeed! I think I read a bit about it on the telegraph, but that's gone so far down the crapper these days that it's no surprise they covered it.FrancisUrquhart said:
The claim was the entire senior management resigned because of trump and had gone that day and that has never happened before. This was a Washington post story which was the repeated unchecked all over the place.RobD said:
I wasn't following, what wasn't true in the resignation story?FrancisUrquhart said:
This is where the media keep making the same mistake. They have got right at this, total outrage, when there is still elements which aren't clear. Then when Trump "clarifies" he is able to claim fake news media.SouthamObserver said:This is week one. This ban will be clarified, Trump will back-peddle, say it was all misinterpreted, and we'll move on. Then something else will happen and then something else and then something else. And each time we'll see that photo of Trump and May hand in hand.
We know they have to deal with the lying and slippery moves / backtracking etc, but they have already been caught this week on the wrong end of the "mass resignation" story.
Firstly, it was 4 not the entire, second it is standard practice for people in those positions to offer their resignation when a new president comes in. Sometimes they keep them, sometimes not, sometimes they stay on for a bit. In this case one guy is past retirement age, one was involved in bezgahi scandal and none are getting the heave ho immediately.
Oh and none mentioned trump in any way (which is probably protocol)
Even left leaning Vox did a story that said is bullshit.
If they gave it a few weeks they probably could have got something more concrete.0 -
At the very least said that she disagreed with the policy. As it is, events will compel her to say that at some point anyway.Ishmael_Z said:
What should she have done differently?williamglenn said:
She's snookered herself. If she gives an appropriate response she destroys the goodwill she's created with Trump. If she doesn't then she loses credibility at home. Her strategy now fully depends on Trump being impeached.Black_Rook said:If by tomorrow lunchtime there's no response, or no appropriate response at any rate, on this subject then, by all means, go to town.
Regarding other posts, I don't think the ban (though obnoxious) is unconstitutional per se. What is blatantly unconstitutional is the detention of travellers with valid visa documents as a result of the ban:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/28/trump_has_suspended_due_process_for_muslims.html0 -
The Olympics would cost more than his wall, and leave less of a legacy...Scott_P said:0 -
And he backed Theresa May's stance (but you missed that out)surbiton said:Matthew Syed is correct. Mo Farah cannot enter the US.
0 -
Out of all the Black Britons in the UK, it is Afro-Carribean men who are generally involved in interracial relationships the most. By what you've said, Afro-Carribean women, and African men and women are all less integrated than Afro-Carribean men because they are not as involved in interracial relationships. African Black Britons are the same group which Conservatives on PB believe they can attract btw (I recall such a conversation shortly after GE 2015). Seemingly more so than Afro-Carribeans, who intermarry more.isam said:
It still is. All I said was you can tell how integrated with the host country different groups are by how many mixed marriages there are from each group. It is a good indicator, that's all, nothing to get worked up aboutThe_Apocalypse said:
Being pro-interracial relationships used to be about letting others date whoever they wanted to. Not about proving how much you identify with Britain. And I say as someone who is mixed race.isam said:
I know someone who smoked like a chimney but lived to 100 so smoking isn't necessarily linked to bad healthThe_Apocalypse said:Also, re the previous thread: pleased to see the reaction to comments regarding Lee Rigby's murderers being Black. But I do find it odd that some PBers seem to see being in an interracial relationship as being some sort of litmus test for integration. There are plenty of immigrants, such as my grandparents on my mother's side (Jamacian immigrants) who have integrated while being married to people of the same race.
0 -
Yeah, that is particularly bad. There is even an exemption for it in the orderNigelb said:
At the very least said that she disagreed with the policy. As it is, events will compel her to say that at some point anyway.Ishmael_Z said:
What should she have done differently?williamglenn said:
She's snookered herself. If she gives an appropriate response she destroys the goodwill she's created with Trump. If she doesn't then she loses credibility at home. Her strategy now fully depends on Trump being impeached.Black_Rook said:If by tomorrow lunchtime there's no response, or no appropriate response at any rate, on this subject then, by all means, go to town.
Regarding other posts, I don't think the ban (though obnoxious) is unconstitutional per se. What is blatantly unconstitutional is the detention of travellers with valid visa documents as a result of the ban:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/28/trump_has_suspended_due_process_for_muslims.html
(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.0 -
The US has form on this. The entire Japanese community was interned during WW2. 62% were US citizens.0
-
Taps mic....sniff sniff...failing corrupt IOC, they need to drain the swamp there too.Scott_P said:
0 -
What about the Saatchis? Should be interestingScott_P said:
Poor Theresa. It was all going so well.
0 -
-
RobD said:
Yeah, that is particularly bad. There is even an exemption for it in the orderNigelb said:
At the very least said that she disagreed with the policy. As it is, events will compel her to say that at some point anyway.Ishmael_Z said:
What should she have done differently?williamglenn said:
She's snookered herself. If she gives an appropriate response she destroys the goodwill she's created with Trump. If she doesn't then she loses credibility at home. Her strategy now fully depends on Trump being impeached.Black_Rook said:If by tomorrow lunchtime there's no response, or no appropriate response at any rate, on this subject then, by all means, go to town.
Regarding other posts, I don't think the ban (though obnoxious) is unconstitutional per se. What is blatantly unconstitutional is the detention of travellers with valid visa documents as a result of the ban:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/28/trump_has_suspended_due_process_for_muslims.html
(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.0 -
Perhaps Mr Trump and his accolytes should read it up too.dr_spyn said:Perhaps some of the UK media need to read up about the limits of Presidential powers before they get home.
0 -
-
Pretty certain my colleague was born in Tehran.RobD said:
Yeah No 10 would be very wise to actually say something on this issue, Even if it is to disagree with Trump, which May said she would do in public if necessary. Doubly so if British citizens without any other nationality are being banned.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I don't think so. I'd have thought the trip to the States would have been much the same, albeit a bit frostier, and without the whole "holding hands" thing to distract. Maybe Cameron would have had a statement out, but not a substantive one. Surely I'm not the only one who thinks this situation can't resolved in fifteen minutes?midwinter said:
I'd imagine Cameron at least would have dealt far better with the situation. Sure I recall both he and Osborne making their views on Trump very clear.Ishmael_Z said:
She was a model of icy distance compared to Blair Brown and Cameron's respective feats of rectal mountaineering with their respective POTUSes.surbiton said:
She should have maintained a distance and not try to give an enthusiastic impression about their meeting. Always use the long spoon when you sup with the devil !Ishmael_Z said:
What should she have done differently?williamglenn said:
She's snookered herself. If she gives an appropriate response she destroys the goodwill she's created with Trump. If she doesn't then she loses credibility at home. Her strategy now fully depends on Trump being impeached.Black_Rook said:If by tomorrow lunchtime there's no response, or no appropriate response at any rate, on this subject then, by all means, go to town.
It's always been a heavily Right leaning site - in recent years though the loons have drowned out the voices of sensible conservatives.The_Apocalypse said:
Why are we surprised? Half the time the discussions on this site revolve around reviewing the integration of minorities. It's even more odd in the case of minorities who are from Commonwealth countries.Jobabob said:It is sickening to witness the snivelling, skin crawling, sinister sycophancy from the PB Leaver Trumptons ramp up a level with every passing day. The pathetic, cap-doffing snotty slugs sliming up to the Grade A twat is a truly disgusting spectacle. Eurgh.
-1 -
What they going to do? Throw us out?Scott_P said:0 -
If only there was an alternative group of democracies that we could join, which together could act as a counterweight to the US.0
-
Unfortunately the INA does give him this power of proclamation.foxinsoxuk said:
Perhaps Mr Trump and his accolytes should read it up too.dr_spyn said:Perhaps some of the UK media need to read up about the limits of Presidential powers before they get home.
0 -
Can someone rescue Big_G's tongue last seen disappearing on the White House steps....Big_G_NorthWales said:
Give it a restwilliamglenn said:
Not rushed to visit the White House so quickly.Ishmael_Z said:
What should she have done differently?williamglenn said:
She's snookered herself. If she gives an appropriate response she destroys the goodwill she's created with Trump. If she doesn't then she loses credibility at home. Her strategy now fully depends on Trump being impeached.Black_Rook said:If by tomorrow lunchtime there's no response, or no appropriate response at any rate, on this subject then, by all means, go to town.
0 -
This has really rattled ed's cage. Heart of stone not to laugh.Scott_P said:0 -
PatheticRoger said:
Can someone rescue Big_G's tongue last seen disappearing on the White House steps....Big_G_NorthWales said:
Give it a restwilliamglenn said:
Not rushed to visit the White House so quickly.Ishmael_Z said:
What should she have done differently?williamglenn said:
She's snookered herself. If she gives an appropriate response she destroys the goodwill she's created with Trump. If she doesn't then she loses credibility at home. Her strategy now fully depends on Trump being impeached.Black_Rook said:If by tomorrow lunchtime there's no response, or no appropriate response at any rate, on this subject then, by all means, go to town.
0 -
-
You're right, if only there was. But there isn't.Jonathan said:If only there was an alternative group of democracies that we could join, which together could act as a counterweight to the US.
0 -
The "always" marks you out as a bit of a neophyte!Jobabob said:
It's always been a heavily Right leaning site - in recent years though the loons have drowned out the voices of sensible conservatives.
Circa 2007 was fairly clearly left-leaning.0 -
You only have to go back 8 months to find a weaker Tory PM than May.Jobabob said:
You have to go back several decades to find a weaker Tory PM than Theresa May. She capitulated to the Tory Right within weeks of coming to power then brown-nosed a bigoted moron in the White House soon after. Sir John Major and David Cameron look like lionhearts compared to her.surbiton said:
Shame on this weak Prime Minister when echoes of the 1930's are clearly audible.Scott_P said:@benrileysmith: Number 10, Home Office and Foreign Office declining to comment on Trump ban impacting Brits. Uh oh.
Only Corbyn is keeping her from being in deep trouble. Her support is a mile wide, and a millimetre deep.
0 -
Actually the leader of his party, and the prime minister of this country - but I agree with the sentiment, however inelegantly expressed.Scott_P said:
0 -
A lot can be traced back to Farage but A Prime Minister should be strong enough and wise enough to see the writing on the wall. It's not like she didn't have Tony's template to know what not to do when you have a crackpot in the White House.....and this one's worseStark_Dawning said:
If Theresa is damaged by this, then all the blame will have to be laid at Farage's door. He spooked Theresa into this who-can-meet-Trump-first contest with that silliness in the lift. They should have let Trump bed in for a few months so everyone could acclimatise to him. Instead Theresa is looking like a Trump courtier. She is in danger of losing her reputation for cool detachment.Scott_P said:Lots of Labour MPs tweeting in support of Nadhim Zahawi, and Tory MPs against Trump
If May doesn't get her act together her approval ratings are in trouble0 -
Agree. Observant Jews tend not to intermarry but are well integrated.The_Apocalypse said:
Out of all the Black Britons in the UK, it is Afro-Carribean men who are generally involved in interracial relationships the most. By what you've said, Afro-Carribean women, and African men and women are all less integrated than Afro-Carribean men because they are not as involved in interracial relationships. African Black Britons are the same group which Conservatives on PB believe they can attract btw (I recall such a conversation shortly after GE 2015). Seemingly more so than Afro-Carribeans, who intermarry more.isam said:
It still is. All I said was you can tell how integrated with the host country different groups are by how many mixed marriages there are from each group. It is a good indicator, that's all, nothing to get worked up aboutThe_Apocalypse said:
Being pro-interracial relationships used to be about letting others date whoever they wanted to. Not about proving how much you identify with Britain. And I say as someone who is mixed race.isam said:
I know someone who smoked like a chimney but lived to 100 so smoking isn't necessarily linked to bad healthThe_Apocalypse said:Also, re the previous thread: pleased to see the reaction to comments regarding Lee Rigby's murderers being Black. But I do find it odd that some PBers seem to see being in an interracial relationship as being some sort of litmus test for integration. There are plenty of immigrants, such as my grandparents on my mother's side (Jamacian immigrants) who have integrated while being married to people of the same race.
0 -
So why was the Yazidi woman stopped. Her husband is in the US and was an US Army interpreter.RobD said:
Yeah, that is particularly bad. There is even an exemption for it in the orderNigelb said:
At the very least said that she disagreed with the policy. As it is, events will compel her to say that at some point anyway.Ishmael_Z said:
What should she have done differently?williamglenn said:
She's snookered herself. If she gives an appropriate response she destroys the goodwill she's created with Trump. If she doesn't then she loses credibility at home. Her strategy now fully depends on Trump being impeached.Black_Rook said:If by tomorrow lunchtime there's no response, or no appropriate response at any rate, on this subject then, by all means, go to town.
Regarding other posts, I don't think the ban (though obnoxious) is unconstitutional per se. What is blatantly unconstitutional is the detention of travellers with valid visa documents as a result of the ban:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/01/28/trump_has_suspended_due_process_for_muslims.html
(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.0 -
Bear in mind that a previous Executive Order signed by FDR (who signed more than 3500 of the things) ordered the imprisonment in camps of tens of thousands of US citizens simply because of ancestry. Trump is unfortunately following in some pretty awful footsteps. That is not to excuse him, just to point out the EOs are a rather evil way of making law.surbiton said:
An executive order is always an interpretation of the law. This interpretation is clearly unlawful. It will be defeated in the courts.RobD said:
The order says he is invoking particular parts of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which would imply the order is compatible with federal law.surbiton said:
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
USC 1182:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
So not unconstitutional.
(That said Truman used EOs to ban race discrimination of any form in the military and Federal organisations so they can do some good)0 -
-
No, you are (hopefully deliberately) misunderstanding me. I don't really see why you are trying to have a problem with this. It is a two way street, and if certain groups of people are more prone to inter marry with the host nation than others, it is a good indicator of how successfully integrated that group is.The_Apocalypse said:
Out of all the Black Britons in the UK, it is Afro-Carribean men who are generally involved in interracial relationships the most. By what you've said, Afro-Carribean women, and African men and women are all less integrated than Afro-Carribean men because they are not as involved in interracial relationships. African Black Britons are the same group which Conservatives on PB believe they can attract btw (I recall such a conversation shortly after GE 2015). Seemingly more so than Afro-Carribeans, who intermarry more.isam said:
It still is. All I said was you can tell how integrated with the host country different groups are by how many mixed marriages there are from each group. It is a good indicator, that's all, nothing to get worked up aboutThe_Apocalypse said:
Being pro-interracial relationships used to be about letting others date whoever they wanted to. Not about proving how much you identify with Britain. And I say as someone who is mixed race.isam said:
I know someone who smoked like a chimney but lived to 100 so smoking isn't necessarily linked to bad healthThe_Apocalypse said:Also, re the previous thread: pleased to see the reaction to comments regarding Lee Rigby's murderers being Black. But I do find it odd that some PBers seem to see being in an interracial relationship as being some sort of litmus test for integration. There are plenty of immigrants, such as my grandparents on my mother's side (Jamacian immigrants) who have integrated while being married to people of the same race.
Is it your contention that all groups are equally well integrated? (integrated not meaning "becoming white British" but meaning "building successful relationships with, in the example of the UK, white British"
If so, how do you measure it?
0 -
Why not put up the Rasmussen Reports poll which shows 55% approval rating?
No, OGH has only bad news for Trump.0 -
Don't put yourself downJobabob said:
Pretty certain my colleague was born in Tehran.RobD said:
Yeah No 10 would be very wise to actually say something on this issue, Even if it is to disagree with Trump, which May said she would do in public if necessary. Doubly so if British citizens without any other nationality are being banned.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I don't think so. I'd have thought the trip to the States would have been much the same, albeit a bit frostier, and without the whole "holding hands" thing to distract. Maybe Cameron would have had a statement out, but not a substantive one. Surely I'm not the only one who thinks this situation can't resolved in fifteen minutes?midwinter said:
I'd imagine Cameron at least would have dealt far better with the situation. Sure I recall both he and Osborne making their views on Trump very clear.Ishmael_Z said:
She was a model of icy distance compared to Blair Brown and Cameron's respective feats of rectal mountaineering with their respective POTUSes.surbiton said:
She should have maintained a distance and not try to give an enthusiastic impression about their meeting. Always use the long spoon when you sup with the devil !Ishmael_Z said:
What should she have done differently?williamglenn said:
She's snookered herself. If she gives an appropriate response she destroys the goodwill she's created with Trump. If she doesn't then she loses credibility at home. Her strategy now fully depends on Trump being impeached.Black_Rook said:If by tomorrow lunchtime there's no response, or no appropriate response at any rate, on this subject then, by all means, go to town.
It's always been a heavily Right leaning site - in recent years though the loons have drowned out the voices of sensible conservatives.The_Apocalypse said:
Why are we surprised? Half the time the discussions on this site revolve around reviewing the integration of minorities. It's even more odd in the case of minorities who are from Commonwealth countries.Jobabob said:It is sickening to witness the snivelling, skin crawling, sinister sycophancy from the PB Leaver Trumptons ramp up a level with every passing day. The pathetic, cap-doffing snotty slugs sliming up to the Grade A twat is a truly disgusting spectacle. Eurgh.
0 -
Dan Hannon has already made that point. Yes, it's the fault of the Left...Richard_Tyndall said:That is not to excuse him, just to point out the EOs are a rather evil way of making law.
https://twitter.com/danieljhannan/status/825473554984665089
Ummm0 -
Extreme case I know, but could we have a thread on how we might integrate the PB Trumpton Arselicker Loonies into civilised society? Is there much intermarriage in that section of the community?dixiedean said:
Agree. Observant Jews tend not to intermarry but are well integrated.The_Apocalypse said:
Out of all the Black Britons in the UK, it is Afro-Carribean men who are generally involved in interracial relationships the most. By what you've said, Afro-Carribean women, and African men and women are all less integrated than Afro-Carribean men because they are not as involved in interracial relationships. African Black Britons are the same group which Conservatives on PB believe they can attract btw (I recall such a conversation shortly after GE 2015). Seemingly more so than Afro-Carribeans, who intermarry more.isam said:
It still is. All I said was you can tell how integrated with the host country different groups are by how many mixed marriages there are from each group. It is a good indicator, that's all, nothing to get worked up aboutThe_Apocalypse said:
Being pro-interracial relationships used to be about letting others date whoever they wanted to. Not about proving how much you identify with Britain. And I say as someone who is mixed race.isam said:
I know someone who smoked like a chimney but lived to 100 so smoking isn't necessarily linked to bad healthThe_Apocalypse said:Also, re the previous thread: pleased to see the reaction to comments regarding Lee Rigby's murderers being Black. But I do find it odd that some PBers seem to see being in an interracial relationship as being some sort of litmus test for integration. There are plenty of immigrants, such as my grandparents on my mother's side (Jamacian immigrants) who have integrated while being married to people of the same race.
-1 -
Would that be the same Tory Pm who said that any ban on Muslim immigrants would be divisive stupid and wrong? I believe that was just after he won the Tory party their first majority since 1992 and just before he kept his promise to hold a referendum where he got shafted by the less cerebral members of his party.No_Offence_Alan said:
You only have to go back 8 months to find a weaker Tory PM than May.Jobabob said:
You have to go back several decades to find a weaker Tory PM than Theresa May. She capitulated to the Tory Right within weeks of coming to power then brown-nosed a bigoted moron in the White House soon after. Sir John Major and David Cameron look like lionhearts compared to her.surbiton said:
Shame on this weak Prime Minister when echoes of the 1930's are clearly audible.Scott_P said:@benrileysmith: Number 10, Home Office and Foreign Office declining to comment on Trump ban impacting Brits. Uh oh.
Only Corbyn is keeping her from being in deep trouble. Her support is a mile wide, and a millimetre deep.0 -
Oh, very droll.FrancisUrquhart said:
What they going to do? Throw us out?Scott_P said:
0 -
What a stagnant world it must be, inside your little head. Do you ever post about anything else?isam said:
No, you are (hopefully deliberately) misunderstanding me. I don't really see why you are trying to have a problem with this. It is a two way street, and if certain groups of people are more prone to inter marry with the host nation than others, it is a good indicator of how successfully integrated that group is.The_Apocalypse said:
Out of all the Black Britons in the UK, it is Afro-Carribean men who are generally involved in interracial relationships the most. By what you've said, Afro-Carribean women, and African men and women are all less integrated than Afro-Carribean men because they are not as involved in interracial relationships. African Black Britons are the same group which Conservatives on PB believe they can attract btw (I recall such a conversation shortly after GE 2015). Seemingly more so than Afro-Carribeans, who intermarry more.isam said:
It still is. All I said was you can tell how integrated with the host country different groups are by how many mixed marriages there are from each group. It is a good indicator, that's all, nothing to get worked up aboutThe_Apocalypse said:
Being pro-interracial relationships used to be about letting others date whoever they wanted to. Not about proving how much you identify with Britain. And I say as someone who is mixed race.isam said:
I know someone who smoked like a chimney but lived to 100 so smoking isn't necessarily linked to bad healthThe_Apocalypse said:Also, re the previous thread: pleased to see the reaction to comments regarding Lee Rigby's murderers being Black. But I do find it odd that some PBers seem to see being in an interracial relationship as being some sort of litmus test for integration. There are plenty of immigrants, such as my grandparents on my mother's side (Jamacian immigrants) who have integrated while being married to people of the same race.
Is it your contention that all groups are equally well integrated? (integrated not meaning "becoming white British" but meaning "building successful relationships with, in the example of the UK, white British"
If so, how do you measure it?0 -
Indeed. People have (deliberately) short memoriesmidwinter said:
Would that be the same Tory Pm who said that any ban on Muslim immigrants would be divisive stupid and wrong? I believe that was just after he won the Tory party their first majority since 1992 and just before he kept his promise to hold a referendum where he got shafted by the less cerebral members of his party.No_Offence_Alan said:
You only have to go back 8 months to find a weaker Tory PM than May.Jobabob said:
You have to go back several decades to find a weaker Tory PM than Theresa May. She capitulated to the Tory Right within weeks of coming to power then brown-nosed a bigoted moron in the White House soon after. Sir John Major and David Cameron look like lionhearts compared to her.surbiton said:
Shame on this weak Prime Minister when echoes of the 1930's are clearly audible.Scott_P said:@benrileysmith: Number 10, Home Office and Foreign Office declining to comment on Trump ban impacting Brits. Uh oh.
Only Corbyn is keeping her from being in deep trouble. Her support is a mile wide, and a millimetre deep.0 -
I post a lot about betting, I throw in a few jibes at your expense... what more do you want?Jobabob said:
What a stagnant world it must be, inside your little head. Do you ever post about anything else?isam said:
No, you are (hopefully deliberately) misunderstanding me. I don't really see why you are trying to have a problem with this. It is a two way street, and if certain groups of people are more prone to inter marry with the host nation than others, it is a good indicator of how successfully integrated that group is.The_Apocalypse said:
Out of all the Black Britons in the UK, it is Afro-Carribean men who are generally involved in interracial relationships the most. By what you've said, Afro-Carribean women, and African men and women are all less integrated than Afro-Carribean men because they are not as involved in interracial relationships. African Black Britons are the same group which Conservatives on PB believe they can attract btw (I recall such a conversation shortly after GE 2015). Seemingly more so than Afro-Carribeans, who intermarry more.isam said:
It still is. All I said was you can tell how integrated with the host country different groups are by how many mixed marriages there are from each group. It is a good indicator, that's all, nothing to get worked up aboutThe_Apocalypse said:
Being pro-interracial relationships used to be about letting others date whoever they wanted to. Not about proving how much you identify with Britain. And I say as someone who is mixed race.isam said:
I know someone who smoked like a chimney but lived to 100 so smoking isn't necessarily linked to bad healthThe_Apocalypse said:Also, re the previous thread: pleased to see the reaction to comments regarding Lee Rigby's murderers being Black. But I do find it odd that some PBers seem to see being in an interracial relationship as being some sort of litmus test for integration. There are plenty of immigrants, such as my grandparents on my mother's side (Jamacian immigrants) who have integrated while being married to people of the same race.
Is it your contention that all groups are equally well integrated? (integrated not meaning "becoming white British" but meaning "building successful relationships with, in the example of the UK, white British"
If so, how do you measure it?0 -
Protestors at JFK. This is the answer to that idiot who said that referring to Hitler's holocaust was abusing the memory of his 39 family members murdered more than 70 years ago. If other countries had accepted more refugees, maybe they wouldn't have been murdered. Jews and Christians are among those protesting against the ban and the detentions at JFK.
0 -
The Germans were into that sort of thing as well during 1939-45?surbiton said:The US has form on this. The entire Japanese community was interned during WW2. 62% were US citizens.
0 -
-
I'm disagreeing with your use of interracial marriage as a litmus test for integration. I outlined why I disagreed with this in my post to you. I don't seriously believe that Afro-Carribean women for example, are less integrated than their male counterparts because they are less involved in interracial relationships. @dixiedean makes a good point on Observant Jews, for example.isam said:
No, you are (hopefully deliberately) misunderstanding me. I don't really see why you are trying to have a problem with this. It is a two way street, and if certain groups of people are more prone to inter marry with the host nation than others, it is a good indicator of how successfully integrated that group is.The_Apocalypse said:
Out of all the Black Britons in the UK, it is Afro-Carribean men who are generally involved in interracial relationships the most. By what you've said, Afro-Carribean women, and African men and women are all less integrated than Afro-Carribean men because they are not as involved in interracial relationships. African Black Britons are the same group which Conservatives on PB believe they can attract btw (I recall such a conversation shortly after GE 2015). Seemingly more so than Afro-Carribeans, who intermarry more.isam said:
It still is. All I said was you can tell how integrated with the host country different groups are by how many mixed marriages there are from each group. It is a good indicator, that's all, nothing to get worked up aboutThe_Apocalypse said:
Being pro-interracial relationships used to be about letting others date whoever they wanted to. Not about proving how much you identify with Britain. And I say as someone who is mixed race.isam said:
I know someone who smoked like a chimney but lived to 100 so smoking isn't necessarily linked to bad healthThe_Apocalypse said:Also, re the previous thread: pleased to see the reaction to comments regarding Lee Rigby's murderers being Black. But I do find it odd that some PBers seem to see being in an interracial relationship as being some sort of litmus test for integration. There are plenty of immigrants, such as my grandparents on my mother's side (Jamacian immigrants) who have integrated while being married to people of the same race.
Is it your contention that all groups are equally well integrated? (integrated not meaning "becoming white British" but meaning "building successful relationships with, in the example of the UK, white British"
If so, how do you measure it?
I don't think that all groups are equally well integrated. But in terms of integration, I'd measure it by how much a group participates within our society.
0 -
We interned a lot of Germans and Italians too, often refugees from Nazism themselves.Sunil_Prasannan said:
The Germans were into that sort of thing as well during 1939-45?surbiton said:The US has form on this. The entire Japanese community was interned during WW2. 62% were US citizens.
0 -
No more wanted thanks!isam said:
I post a lot about betting, I throw in a few jibes at your expense... what more do you want?Jobabob said:
What a stagnant world it must be, inside your little head. Do you ever post about anything else?isam said:
No, you are (hopefully deliberately) misunderstanding me. I don't really see why you are trying to have a problem with this. It is a two way street, and if certain groups of people are more prone to inter marry with the host nation than others, it is a good indicator of how successfully integrated that group is.The_Apocalypse said:
Out of all the Black Britons in the UK, it is Afro-Carribean men who are generally involved in interracial relationships the most. By what you've said, Afro-Carribean women, and African men and women are all less integrated than Afro-Carribean men because they are not as involved in interracial relationships. African Black Britons are the same group which Conservatives on PB believe they can attract btw (I recall such a conversation shortly after GE 2015). Seemingly more so than Afro-Carribeans, who intermarry more.isam said:
It still is. All I said was you can tell how integrated with the host country different groups are by how many mixed marriages there are from each group. It is a good indicator, that's all, nothing to get worked up aboutThe_Apocalypse said:
Being pro-interracial relationships used to be about letting others date whoever they wanted to. Not about proving how much you identify with Britain. And I say as someone who is mixed race.isam said:
I know someone who smoked like a chimney but lived to 100 so smoking isn't necessarily linked to bad healthThe_Apocalypse said:Also, re the previous thread: pleased to see the reaction to comments regarding Lee Rigby's murderers being Black. But I do find it odd that some PBers seem to see being in an interracial relationship as being some sort of litmus test for integration. There are plenty of immigrants, such as my grandparents on my mother's side (Jamacian immigrants) who have integrated while being married to people of the same race.
Is it your contention that all groups are equally well integrated? (integrated not meaning "becoming white British" but meaning "building successful relationships with, in the example of the UK, white British"
If so, how do you measure it?0 -
You're free to disagree, we disagree! So what?The_Apocalypse said:
I'm disagreeing with your use of interracial marriage as a litmus test for integration. I outlined why I disagreed with this in my post to you. I don't seriously believe that Afro-Carribean women for example, are less integrated than their male counterparts because they inter-marry less. @dixiedean makes a good point on Observant Jews, for example.isam said:
No, you are (hopefully deliberately) misunderstanding me. I don't really see why you are trying to have a problem with this. It is a two way street, and if certain groups of people are more prone to inter marry with the host nation than others, it is a good indicator of how successfully integrated that group is.The_Apocalypse said:
Out of all the Black Britons in the UK, it is Afro-Carribean men who are generally involved in interracial relationships the most. By what you've said, Afro-Carribean women, and African men and women are all less integrated than Afro-Carribean men because they are not as involved in interracial relationships. African Black Britons are the same group which Conservatives on PB believe they can attract btw (I recall such a conversation shortly after GE 2015). Seemingly more so than Afro-Carribeans, who intermarry more.isam said:
many mixed marriages there are from each group. It is a good indicator, that's all, nothing to get worked up aboutThe_Apocalypse said:
Being pro-interracial relationships used to be about letting others date whoever they wanted to. Not about proving how much you identify with Britain. And I say as someone who is mixed race.isam said:
I know someone who smoked like a chimney but lived to 100 so smoking isn't necessarily linked to bad healthThe_Apocalypse said:Also, re the previous thread: pleased to see the reaction to comments regarding Lee Rigby's murderers being Black. But I do find it odd that some PBers seem to see being in an interracial relationship as being some sort of litmus test for integration. There are plenty of immigrants, such as my grandparents on my mother's side (Jamacian immigrants) who have integrated while being married to people of the same race.
Is it your contention that all groups are equally well integrated? (integrated not meaning "becoming white British" but meaning "building successful relationships with, in the example of the UK, white British"
If so, how do you measure it?
I don't think that all groups are equally well integrated. But in terms of integration, I'd measure it by how much a group participates within our society.0 -
-
FDR was a Democrat or a Republican?Dromedary said:Protestors at JFK. This is the answer to that idiot who said that referring to Hitler's holocaust was abusing the memory of his 39 family members murdered more than 70 years ago. If other countries had accepted more refugees, maybe they wouldn't have been murdered. Jews and Christians are among those protesting against the ban and the detentions at JFK.
0 -
Dangerously close to a Godwin although admittedly Trumper makes it hard to avoid at timesSunil_Prasannan said:
The Germans were into that sort of thing as well during 1939-45?surbiton said:The US has form on this. The entire Japanese community was interned during WW2. 62% were US citizens.
0 -
Surely Dan can get a link to it also being the fault of Remain as well.Scott_P said:
Dan Hannon has already made that point. Yes, it's the fault of the Left...Richard_Tyndall said:That is not to excuse him, just to point out the EOs are a rather evil way of making law.
0 -
-
This should be good...
@RidgeOnSunday: Tory MP and Chair of the Foreign Affairs committee @crispinbluntmp will be in the studio to talk Trump and our special relationship #Ridge pic.twitter.com/SxKcRHjZAV0 -
-
Are any of the protestors saying vote Democrat? (But if more people had, Trump wouldn't be in office.)Sunil_Prasannan said:
FDR was a Democrat or a Republican?Dromedary said:Protestors at JFK. This is the answer to that idiot who said that referring to Hitler's holocaust was abusing the memory of his 39 family members murdered more than 70 years ago. If other countries had accepted more refugees, maybe they wouldn't have been murdered. Jews and Christians are among those protesting against the ban and the detentions at JFK.
PS My guess is that that woman with the banner saying "Jews welcome refugees" is absolutely not a Zionist. Good on you, girl!
0 -
This is not right vs. Left. This is nuts vs. not nuts.0
-
More people did.Dromedary said:
Are any of the protestors saying vote Democrat? (But if more people had, Trump wouldn't be in office.)Sunil_Prasannan said:
FDR was a Democrat or a Republican?Dromedary said:Protestors at JFK. This is the answer to that idiot who said that referring to Hitler's holocaust was abusing the memory of his 39 family members murdered more than 70 years ago. If other countries had accepted more refugees, maybe they wouldn't have been murdered. Jews and Christians are among those protesting against the ban and the detentions at JFK.
0 -
Corbyn's consistent opposition to American policies was one of the things that made him look fringey. Trump is succeeding in making such sentiments maintstream.Scott_P said:@bbclaurak: Corbyn-'May should have stood up for Britain and our values by condemning his actions. It should sadden our country that she chose not to'
I've not been a knee-jerk Trump-hater, since i see him as a populist who likes being cheered more than a serious racist reactionary. But I think we're seeing a fairly clear pattern. Where he can score points and satisfy his base by taking actions that may not achieve much but look good, he's ready to do them regardless of criticism and without too much concern for legal and treaty constaints.
What we don't yet know is how he'll handle more complex issues, such as what (if anything) he'll have to replace Obamacare and how smoothly he'll have the transition to it. Will he do careful, detailed policy as well as shooting pronouncements from the hip?
0 -
Would anyone like to hazard a guess at how sympathetic (or not) the UK public would be to banning people from various places?
0 -
Democrat. Not sure what difference it makes though. The party positions have changed dramatically over the years. It is worth remembering that up to WW2 the South was strongly democrat and the KKK was founded by Democrats. In its first incarnation one of its aims was the driving out or murder of Republicans. George Wallace the Alabama Governor who resisted integration in the 1960s was a Democrat.Sunil_Prasannan said:
FDR was a Democrat or a Republican?Dromedary said:Protestors at JFK. This is the answer to that idiot who said that referring to Hitler's holocaust was abusing the memory of his 39 family members murdered more than 70 years ago. If other countries had accepted more refugees, maybe they wouldn't have been murdered. Jews and Christians are among those protesting against the ban and the detentions at JFK.
0 -
-
@DPJHodges: Does Theresa May seriously think she's going to get away with holding a state visit for Donald Trump after all this.0
-
Very Un- I would hope. Banning individuals is one thing. A blanket ban on anyone based on their place of birth is dumber than a bag of rocks.chestnut said:Would anyone like to hazard a guess at how sympathetic (or not) the UK public would be to banning people from various places?
0 -
Which is typically disingenuous BS from that source. The is nothing to do with right/left - pretty well all presidents have used executive orders:Scott_P said:
Dan Hannon has already made that point. Yes, it's the fault of the Left...Richard_Tyndall said:That is not to excuse him, just to point out the EOs are a rather evil way of making law.
https://twitter.com/danieljhannan/status/825473554984665089
Ummm
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order
What makes the policy obnoxious is the policy itself.
0 -
Doesn't the very name 'Democrat' refer to the 'democratic' right to keep slaves? Or is that an urban legend?Richard_Tyndall said:
Democrat. Not sure what difference it makes though. The party positions have changed dramatically over the years. It is worth remembering that up to WW2 the South was strongly democrat and the KKK was founded by Democrats. In its first incarnation one of its aims was the driving out or murder of Republicans. George Wallace the Alabama Governor who resisted integration in the 1960s was a Democrat.Sunil_Prasannan said:
FDR was a Democrat or a Republican?Dromedary said:Protestors at JFK. This is the answer to that idiot who said that referring to Hitler's holocaust was abusing the memory of his 39 family members murdered more than 70 years ago. If other countries had accepted more refugees, maybe they wouldn't have been murdered. Jews and Christians are among those protesting against the ban and the detentions at JFK.
0 -
Exactly. The fact that we've seen opposition to this from across the political spectrum in itself is telling.Jonathan said:This is not right vs. Left. This is nuts vs. not nuts.
0 -
Much as I hate to interrupt the discussion of the migration criteria imposed by another country on itself, may I ask the PB Brains Trust about something more pressing? Specifically, movements in USD/GBP over the next week. I purchased some USD at £1=$1.21 prior to May's outline of Brexit approach. This was in the expectation of GBP going south. But that did not happen and a few days later, Trump was inaugurated and USD started going down at the rate of about 2-2.5 cents per week. It's currently at £1=$1.255.
The consensus was that USD would increase throughout the year. Republican presidents usually have a honeymoon period in which USD increases, there are rumours of a rise in US interest rates later in the year, and there's Article 50 in March. So I though USD was a slam dunk. But Trump is a RINO and his remarks and actions are frightening the markets, who prefer calm pursuit of profit to all this shouting and ideological gubbins.
So I'm wondering: will USD continue to drift south? Is Brexit baked in and Trump now the New Abnormal? Anybody got any thoughts?0 -
Apparently Godwin himself thinks Trump is fair game.Jobabob said:
Dangerously close to a Godwin although admittedly Trumper makes it hard to avoid at timesSunil_Prasannan said:
The Germans were into that sort of thing as well during 1939-45?surbiton said:The US has form on this. The entire Japanese community was interned during WW2. 62% were US citizens.
From December 2015
"If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician."0 -
Yougov daily had 33% approving of similar policies here, 36% against the rest on the fence.chestnut said:Would anyone like to hazard a guess at how sympathetic (or not) the UK public would be to banning people from various places?
Whether those figures survive prolonged contact with reality though...0 -
I had not heard that one before but the Democratic party was closely tied to the Confederate cause after the Civil War.Stark_Dawning said:
Doesn't the very name 'Democrat' refer to the 'democratic' right to keep slaves? Or is that an urban legend?Richard_Tyndall said:
Democrat. Not sure what difference it makes though. The party positions have changed dramatically over the years. It is worth remembering that up to WW2 the South was strongly democrat and the KKK was founded by Democrats. In its first incarnation one of its aims was the driving out or murder of Republicans. George Wallace the Alabama Governor who resisted integration in the 1960s was a Democrat.Sunil_Prasannan said:
FDR was a Democrat or a Republican?Dromedary said:Protestors at JFK. This is the answer to that idiot who said that referring to Hitler's holocaust was abusing the memory of his 39 family members murdered more than 70 years ago. If other countries had accepted more refugees, maybe they wouldn't have been murdered. Jews and Christians are among those protesting against the ban and the detentions at JFK.
0 -
I suspect that people would work from the reverse perspective of the Miliband's and Corbyn's of this world.Richard_Tyndall said:
Very Un- I would hope. Banning individuals is one thing. A blanket ban on anyone based on their place of birth is dumber than a bag of rocks.chestnut said:Would anyone like to hazard a guess at how sympathetic (or not) the UK public would be to banning people from various places?
Instead of let everyone in - unless we can prove they aren't suitable, it would be let no one in, unless they can prove they are .0 -
Guilty until proven innocent?chestnut said:
I suspect that people would work from the reverse perspective of the Miliband's and Corbyn's of this world.Richard_Tyndall said:
Very Un- I would hope. Banning individuals is one thing. A blanket ban on anyone based on their place of birth is dumber than a bag of rocks.chestnut said:Would anyone like to hazard a guess at how sympathetic (or not) the UK public would be to banning people from various places?
Instead of let everyone in - unless we can prove they aren't suitable, it would be let no one in, unless they can prove they are .0 -
Guilty until proven innocent.chestnut said:
I suspect that people would work from the reverse perspective of the Miliband's and Corbyn's of this world.Richard_Tyndall said:
Very Un- I would hope. Banning individuals is one thing. A blanket ban on anyone based on their place of birth is dumber than a bag of rocks.chestnut said:Would anyone like to hazard a guess at how sympathetic (or not) the UK public would be to banning people from various places?
Instead of let everyone in - unless we can prove they aren't suitable, it would be let no one in, unless they can prove they are .0 -
Have you ever tried to just walk into someone's home?Jonathan said:
Guilty until proven innocent.chestnut said:
I suspect that people would work from the reverse perspective of the Miliband's and Corbyn's of this world.Richard_Tyndall said:
Very Un- I would hope. Banning individuals is one thing. A blanket ban on anyone based on their place of birth is dumber than a bag of rocks.chestnut said:Would anyone like to hazard a guess at how sympathetic (or not) the UK public would be to banning people from various places?
Instead of let everyone in - unless we can prove they aren't suitable, it would be let no one in, unless they can prove they are .
0 -
Is Daniel Hannan genuinely contending that Executive Orders (or variants thereof) originated with Obama or was an unusually large user of them?Nigelb said:Which is typically disingenuous BS from that source. The is nothing to do with right/left - pretty well all presidents have used executive orders:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order
What makes the policy obnoxious is the policy itself.
Seriously?
0
This discussion has been closed.