US Election & Presidency

A simple google search is enough to tell you what Bannon, Sessions & Gorka think about Islam. They all have senior positions in his team. As far as they are concerned it's the religion they have problems with and not the radical few.

Trump needs to reign in his twitter rants and concentrate on getting skilled people to write legal Executive Orders that respect the Constituition, US and International Law.

It would also help if they took his phone off him so he can't tweet when he's watching cable TV!

(10-02-2017 20:58 )MR PERFECT Wrote:  the problem with your explanation is that two courts gave reasons why Trump hasn't got his ducks in a row. It has nothing to do with views on a forum.

The courts made a legal decision. IT was pretty clear the suspentions were going to be challanged right from the get go.

The views on this forum are pretty representative from what I can see.

(10-02-2017 21:25 )The Silent Majority Wrote:  No, he actually wanted a complete Muslim ban. It was his advisers that told him it couldn't be done.

I just googled and those views are form 2015, I only became aware of him following Breixt, but has it stands NOW, it is extremist and not all Muslims.

At least it shows he takes some advise.

(10-02-2017 22:06 )wackawoo Wrote:  I just googled and those views are form 2015

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...52751.html

Check the date. And, in case you're wondering, Fox News is pro Trump

(10-02-2017 20:48 )wackawoo Wrote:  This was a 90 suspention for people born in only 7 of the 50 odd Islamic countries of the world.

WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THAT is the important bit and what happens after that nobody has no idea

You've repeated this line of argument several times, and I disagree with the premise.
Personally, I can't just dismiss his actions on the basis that they are temporary.
A bad, ill-thought out, arguably racist, ban of citizens from a seemingly arbitrary list of countries, on the excuse of national security (whilst ignoring those countries that have actually had citizens involved in terrorist actions in the country), that's just a bad policy from a piss-poor leadership spouting soundbites instead of logic and sense. Temporary or not, it's still bad and deserves to be opposed on idealogical grounds, as well as the legal challenges.

If this is allowed to proceed unchallenged 'because it's only temporary', then what happens after that will be potentially far worse, and potentially harder to oppose, because the precedent has been set.

He's not taking it to the Supreme Court!


Look out for a redraft....

He probably can't risk it before Gorsuch's confirmed and that could take weeks.

(10-02-2017 22:12 )The Silent Majority Wrote:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...52751.html

Check the date. And, in case you're wondering, Fox News is pro Trump

I watched that, it still doens't alter that now it's the extremist.

There's many on the world that would have all religion banned, I've notice some very anti religious views on here, Muslim, Christiany being the two most people attack openly.

(10-02-2017 22:19 )munch1917 Wrote:  You've repeated this line of argument several times, and I disagree with the premise.
Personally, I can't just dismiss his actions on the basis that they are temporary.
A bad, ill-thought out, arguably racist, ban of citizens from a seemingly arbitrary list of countries, on the excuse of national security (whilst ignoring those countries that have actually had citizens involved in terrorist actions in the country), that's just a bad policy from a piss-poor leadership spouting soundbites instead of logic and sense. Temporary or not, it's still bad and deserves to be opposed on idealogical grounds, as well as the legal challenges.

If this is allowed to proceed unchallenged 'because it's only temporary', then what happens after that will be potentially far worse, and potentially harder to oppose, because the precedent has been set.

They are not abitrary, they are the same 7 countries previous administrations had problems with.

As for wait and see, it's all you can do. If the courts challange his policies legally that's fine. i never once said not to challange it. Let the law take it's course.

My point is, the more the world and his wife attack Trump, the more he's likely to dig his heels' any politician to get into twitter arguments probbaly isn't that most dimplomatic person out there..

Waiting and seeing it is becoming increasingly obvious that he is not going to be reasonable, and it's abundantly clear he seems the type to dig his heels in the more you attack.

Also parliament attacking him and not allowing him to speak in parliament you can kiss good bye to any trade agreements and a smoother Brexit.

Trump digging his heels is what we expect him to do but that is no reason to cower down and just give him what he wants. If he continues to disrespect the constitution of which he swore to protect he must be removed from office.