U.S President: Donald Trump

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by Damien

Where were the right-wing protests against those killings in Canada from a person claiming to do in their name?.

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

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

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


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

[Ramrod]

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.

False comparison. If right wingers were responsible for terrorism on the scale that islam is in the world atm then the majority of right wingers would be marching in protest.

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

Originally Posted by passingbat

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

iirc, his ban didn't affect something like 85% of the muslims in the world.

Originally Posted by martyh

The courts disagreed with you on every point

Why ? Did you ask them all ? Are you sure about that with your armchair degree in law?

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

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

A federal judge in Boston declined Friday to extend a temporary injunction against President Donald Trump's travel ban. But a separate federal ruling in Seattle later in the day put the ban on hold nationwide.

So no, not ALL the courts disagreed at all.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by passingbat

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





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


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

More of a bandwagon than a ban...

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by martyh

The courts disagreed with you on every point

Well you offered two point that I responded to.

Point one that

He will have to show that the countries are a threat the the USA

My response

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

That's a much lower bar than a threat.

The actual judgement from the Circuit Nine Court advised

The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States. Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all. We disagree

So the administration didn't provide any evidence at all, they just argued that the County court shouldn't be able to overturn the EO.

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

Your second point was

and he will have to remove any religious bias ,which he failed to do

my response

There was no religious bias in the original order. Religion wasn't mentioned

The actual judgement from the Circuit Nine Court says

The Government has not shown that it is likely to succeed on appeal on its arguments about, at least, the States’
Due Process Clause claim, and we also note the serious nature of the allegations the States have raised with respect to their religious discrimination claims. We express no view
as to any of the States’ other claims.

So they advise that the administration are unlikely to win an appeal in regards to the "due process" part of the claim. They note the allegation of religious discrimination but that is not why the appeal was not upheld

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

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

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

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

Washington Post is saying Trump was warned weeks ago about Flynn by the DOJ:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ampht...401_story.html

---------- Post added at 18:34 ---------- Previous post was at 17:26 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

There's a big difference between fake news and satire as well, you know private eye is classed as fake news by some outlets. Mmm perhaps organs is more apt than outlets actually.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Private Eye does far more RIGEROUS research than than the DF or the Sun and therefore those outlets need to do some more research if they consider PE as fake.

I saw that story and to be fair what happened is some university in America was compiling a list and misunderstood the satire/news thing the Private Eye does. It's not a usual format to mix real reporting with the joke stuff and whilst Private Eye makes it clear, you would have to be pretty slow to be unable to distinguish them, it seems someone compiling the list didn't know the magazine.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Damien

Washington Post is saying Trump was warned weeks ago about Flynn by the DOJ:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ampht...401_story.html

---------- Post added at 18:34 ---------- Previous post was at 17:26 ----------





I saw that story and to be fair what happened is some university in America was complying a list and misunderstood the satire/news thing the Private Eye does. It's not a usual format to mix real reporting with the joke stuff and whilst Private Eye makes it clear, you would have to be pretty slow to be unable to distinguish them, it seems someone compiling the list didn't know the magazine.

Americans are pretty slow in a number of ways.

Originally Posted by passingbat

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

It was a Muslim ban from the specified countries because it gave priority to Christians

Originally Posted by Mick

Why ? Did you ask them all ? Are you sure about that with your armchair degree in law?

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

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



So no, not ALL the courts disagreed at all.

Yes because Trumps Muslim ban was thrown out of court and denied ,had the judges agreed with it he would have won ,even you should be able to understand that simple piece of logic.You can be as pedantic as you like Mick pretending that because one judge initially allowed it "so not ALL the courts disagreed at all"(but the rest banned the ban)that just makes you look ridiculous ,you need to accept that he was wrong ,the judges said he was wrong ,you need to accept it .No doubt you will come up with more reasons why you are right and the USA's judiciary are wrong because your armchair degree is better than mine but i really can't be arsed with you and your ilk any more so i'll leave you to come up with more ways to be wrong

---------- Post added at 19:09 ---------- Previous post was at 19:09 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well you offered two point that I responded to.

Point one that

My response

The actual judgement from the Circuit Nine Court advised

So the administration didn't provide any evidence at all, they just argued that the County court shouldn't be able to overturn the EO.

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

Your second point was

my response

The actual judgement from the Circuit Nine Court says

So they advise that the administration are unlikely to win an appeal in regards to the "due process" part of the claim. They note the allegation of religious discrimination but that is not why the appeal was not upheld

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

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

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

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

see above

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by martyh

It was a Muslim ban from the specified countries because it gave priority to Christians

You mean the specific group of people that ISIS are targeting to Kill (in barbaric ways).

Originally Posted by passingbat

You mean the specific group of people that ISIS are targeting to Kill (in barbaric ways).

and what about the Muslims that ISIS are targeting to kill(in barbaric ways)


You may (or may not ) be surprised to learn that US counter Terrorist Center ( the ones that tell Trump who's dangerous or not ) reported in 2009 that

According to a 2009 report published by the Counter Terrorism Center at the United States Military Academy at West Point, Al-Qaeda kills over seven times more Muslims than non-Muslims.

State Department commented:

NCTC [i.e. the National Counterterrorism Center] maintains its statistical information on the U.S. government’s authoritative and unclassified database on terrorist acts, the Worldwide Incidents Tracking System (WITS).

***

Muslims continued to bear the brunt of terrorism ….

In cases where the religious affiliation of terrorism casualties could be determined, Muslims suffered between 82 and 97 percent of terrorism-related fatalities over the past five years.
Muslim majority countries bore the greatest number of attacks involving 10 or more deaths ….

The UN reported last year that Muslims are the largest victims of ISIS in Iraq.

In 2013, the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism’s Global Terrorism Database – joint government-university program on terrorism, hosted at the University of Maryland noted that between 2004 and 2013, about half of all terrorist attacks, and 60% of fatalities due to terrorist attacks, took place in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan – all of which have a mostly Muslim population:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/muslims...rnment/5516565

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by martyh

and what about the Muslims that ISIS are targeting to kill(in barbaric ways)

I agree; I've stated several times that any religious persecution is wrong and that if there were a group of radical Christians killing people, they should also be subject to a temporary ban until secure vetting procedures can be put in place.

Originally Posted by passingbat

I agree; I've stated several times that any religious persecution is wrong and that if there were a group of radical Christians killing people, they should also be subject to a temporary ban until secure vetting procedures can be put in place.

Well the vetting procedure that Obama put in place seems to be working because no one from any of those countries has committed a terrorist act ,so why did Trump see the need to ban everyone from those countries but give special dispensation to minority religions (making it in practice a Muslim ban).

[passingbat]

Originally Posted by martyh

Well the vetting procedure that Obama put in place seems to be working because no one from any of those countries has committed a terrorist act ,so why did Trump see the need to ban everyone from those countries but give special dispensation to minority religions (making it in practice a Muslim ban).

Because the Obama Administration identified these seven countries as needing more travel restrictions. The fact that Obama didn't implement them says more about Obama. Have you never heard of 'Sleepers"?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by martyh

Well the vetting procedure that Obama put in place seems to be working because no one from any of those countries has committed a terrorist act ,so why did Trump see the need to ban everyone from those countries but give special dispensation to minority religions (making it in practice a Muslim ban).

As long as his supporters see him trying to do the right thing by trying to get the ban in place, he'll be happy. The courts' decisions against him may also help him reinforce his anti-establishment image, which again will go down well with his supporters. It's all about the perceptions of voters and not any threats for as you say, the vetting procedures have worked well.

---------- Post added at 19:58 ---------- Previous post was at 19:50 ----------

Google headline to read full article or subscribers can use link below

Pressure builds for probe into Trump-Russia ties
The White House is facing mounting pressure to explain the relationship between President Donald Trump and the Kremlin, after Michael Flynn was fired as national security adviser following claims that he may have illegally discussed sanctions with Russia’s ambassador to Washington.
The abrupt ousting of Mr Flynn after 24 days in the White House role has intensified the focus on the Trump administration’s ties to Russia and made it impossible for the White House to convince sceptics that all is smooth inside the West Wing.
https://www.ft.com/content/d9c46b52-...8-6876151821a6

Originally Posted by passingbat

Because the Obama Administration identified these seven countries as needing more travel restrictions. The fact that Obama didn't implement them says more about Obama. Have you never heard of 'Sleepers"?

Yes he did ,it passed through congress in 2015 407 to 19 ,it is called

Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015.

Trump decided to take something that was already working and make it not work