US election

[Ben]

I agree with that Ben, absolutely disgraceful to target all Muslims with the ISIS brush. I know from personal experience that they're not all the same

I agree, Tony. This policy does indeed tar all Muslims with the same brush for the actions mainly of ISIS. This ban is affecting people in our own country. I was watching Andrew Marr yesterday and Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi who revealed he is banned from seeing his two children who are studying in America. He said the policy is "demeaning" and sad." He is totally right and it is also against US law. This 90-day ban and seven countries could be the start of something even worse and be indefinite and cover all countries. We just don't know with this man.

Why should all Muslims in these countries and of other countries be tarred with the same brush for the actions of a tiny minority who engage in terrorist attacks? I was reading something Billy Bragg (the singer/songwriter) posted on Facebook about the number of Americans killed annually over a ten-year average by certain groups of people and events. All Islamic Jihadist terrorists killed 9 Americans annually, compared to 11,737 who were killed after being shot by another American. Things such as being hit by a bus, lawnmowers and lightning killed more Americans. So in the words of Bragg, "If Trump really wants to make Americans safer, maybe there's something else that he should ban?" Guns.

 

[Tony1874]

Strange thing is, like it or not, he's sticking to the promises that got him elected. So use to politicians telling lies and going back on their word, not saying he should be respected for that but he's got some balls.

 

[Ben]

Strange thing is, like it or not, he's sticking to the promises that got him elected. So use to politicians telling lies and going back on their word, not saying he should be respected for that but he's got some balls.

I'll give him that, Tony. Although, in this case, I'd rather him not have stuck to his promises.

 

[Tony1874]

I'll give him that, Tony. Although, in this case, I'd rather him not have stuck to his promises.

He seems extreme to me too but that's how he won the Presidency through the democratic process. I also fail to see how Hilary Clinton would have done a better job. The US have ****** themselves with the two worst candidates in US history, question is, which is the lesser of two evils.

 

[Ben]

He seems extreme to me too but that's how he won the Presidency through the democratic process. I also fail to see how Hilary Clinton would have done a better job. The US have ****** themselves with the two worst candidates in US history, question is, which is the lesser of two evils.

True, Trump won the presidency through the democratic process of the American political system, namely that he secured more electoral college votes than Clinton. However, Clinton did beat him in the popular vote and in fact 3/4 of all Americans did not vote for him. As a result, the country has been left split and divided in a similar way to Brexit.

I'm not saying Clinton was the perfect candidate, far from it. But never in the history of American politics, have I seen a president more extreme and divisive in his nature than Trump. Clinton would have at the very least shown respect, decency and tolerance for women, gay people, Muslims, Mexicans etc.. so she was always my choice.

 

[FCUM Dave]

True, Trump won the presidency through the democratic process of the American political system, namely that he secured more electoral college votes than Clinton. However, Clinton did beat him in the popular vote and in fact 3/4 of all Americans did not vote for him. As a result, the country has been left split and divided in a similar way to Brexit.

I'm not saying Clinton was the perfect candidate, far from it. But never in the history of American politics, have I seen a president more extreme and divisive in his nature than Trump. Clinton would have at the very least shown respect, decency and tolerance for women, gay people, Muslims, Mexicans etc.. so she was always my choice.

The difference being my friend more people actually voted for Brexit so it's not similar in any way, but don't let that cloud your views.
I actually respect him, as someone has already stated, he said what he was going to do and he's doing it, albeit a bit quicker than anyone thought.
That's what his manifesto was and that's what he got voted in to do.

 

[Tony1874]

I listened to the PM's speech and cringed everytime she mentioned our 'Special Relationship' with the US, Churchill quotes and references to Regan and Thatcher. Script obviously designed to rouse the Republican Congressional Conference. Fact is it doesn't take much to rouse a yank, mention America, Stars and Stripes and wars that they won and you'll always get a reaction.

 

[Andy]

Do I agree that Trumps idea is the best way to deal with the situation? Not really, but its the Hysteria around it that confuses me.

There's a few facts the the media aren't too keen on sharing...

1. in 2011 Barak Obama place the same style ban for 6 Months on Iraq, there was no uproar then.

2. It was the Obama administration that actually identified the 7 countries chosen.

3. These 7 countries (and 11 more) have exactly the same ban on Israeli passport holders. Which, is tarnishing all Israelis' with the same brush...

4. But the biggest lie, is the media pushing this as "a muslim ban". It certainly is not that, this ban only effects 13% of muslims of the 1.6 billion on the planet. All this lie from the media is doing, is driving already divided nation apart. At a time when America needs to pull together, the media is trying to push them further and further apart. This policy put a temporary ban on the 7 most dangerous nations on the planet whilst the they sort out their vetting. This is ban for everyone in that nation, not just those of Islam. As soon as the security services in the US are happy, the boarder will be reopen to those in need.

Like I said, I'm not saying I think this is the best way to deal with it, I'm just pointing out the Hysteria being whipped up by the media is doing more harm than good.


Europe and the US have spent the last 2 years of this crisis arguing about how many Thousands of refugees we should take in, rather than actually deal with the problem. A recent study show's that for the cost of housing 10,000 refugees in the US, you could house 121,000 closer to home in places such as Saudi Arabia. Now let that sink in, you could save 10,000 and leave 111,000 in a warn torn nation such as Syria. Believe it or not, the majority of the the people effected by this crisis do want to stay in that region, it's there home. Surely it's more humanitarian to help 121,000 people at a more local level, rather than just a select 10,000 or those that can afford to travel away.

If I was a refugee, if given the choice of leaving my friends and family to live in an alien country, or stay where I live, where i want to be with my friends and family, it's not a hard choice is it?

Alot of people say "we need to help", and we do, but the facts are, we can help 10 times as many people by taking action locally in the middle east. Isn't that the humanitarian thing to do? Help as many people as you can? Rather than doing what makes you "look good"?

I'm not the best with words, this man puts is better than I can:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Alan M]

Whether or not the policy itself will or will not make US citizens safer (and that was the stated aim but I cannot see much evidence on which to stake that aim), it was introduced in the most cackhanded and shambolic manner possible and lacked even the vaguest sign of it being thought through and checked against US laws and constitution, or of any of the consequences (both in the reaction around the globe and to the actual people affected) being considered. If he had done so, rather than treating the office of President as some form of legislative lucky dip ("which campaign tweet shall I enact today?"), then maybe he'd have avoided all the silly knock-on effects (US citizens stranded abroad, people with leave to remain or enter being told it was withdrawn, Mo Farah being separated from his family, etc etc) which he has since had to backtrack on. It is worrying evidence of political ineptitude (including from his team of advisors).

 

[Pete]

15565 estimated murders in USA in 2015 (last year stats available for) not a single one by a terrorist born outside the country. No death in USA by a terrorist born outside the country since 9/11. Just makes you wonder at priorities.

 

[Chubbs]

Smoke and mirrors Pete? And to keep the NRA happy of course!

 

[Andy]

In 24 hours Trump has done more to solve this crisis than the rest of the world have in 2 days... confused? Take a look at the facts the media for some reason are keeping quiet...

https://www.ft.com/content/d9d6f33a-e6c5-11e6-967b-c88452263daf

You call him evil, but he's a politician that's actually taking steps to solve this humanitairian disaster, rather than use the refugees as political pawns. They're not pawns, they're people, remember.

And then it's all explained by someone far more intelligent than myself:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The era of common sense is upon us, and the era of just saying things that make you look good is over .

 

[Ben]

The difference being my friend more people actually voted for Brexit so it's not similar in any way, but don't let that cloud your views.
I actually respect him, as someone has already stated, he said what he was going to do and he's doing it, albeit a bit quicker than anyone thought.
That's what his manifesto was and that's what he got voted in to do.

Yes you're right, more people did vote for Brexit, but the fact remains that both results were close and have left Britain and America split and divided almost in half. Just look at the protests in both Britain and America. You're going to get a lot of unhappy people.

Also, yes, he's sticking to what he said in his manifesto and it's good to see some honesty from a politician for a change, but I don't personally have any respect for a man who will trample all over the rights of so many different people.

As for blaming the media, they only report what Trump says and does. The media and 'establishment' may be against him, but with good reason. All I can say is that thank god we have the media to expose this man and his 'policies'!

 

[Andy]

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...p-not-fascist-champion-for-forgotten-millions

 

[paul]

With the rule of law challenging and even outdoing on occasion MP's in this country and Trump in America, which is ultimately trying to defy the will of the majority of the people in both countries, is it time for a major rethink on the parliamentary system if democracy is always going to be questioned, challenged and possibly defeated?

Personally I think the words "the people have spoken" is a thing of the past. Poor Theresa is damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. She knows what she should do but gets a new obstacle thrown in the way at every opportunity. Lawyers to rule the UK and the US, is that the way to go? I think not but it appears to be the way it is going.

 

[Andy]

What the people want only goes if some pompous "supreme" judge agrees.

They're fighting a losing battle thankfully.

 

[paul]

Exactly. Whilst the high profile people trying to block Brexit have some valid and sensible arguments against it they do not have the right to defy the will of the majority and never will do. Same in America, whilst some of Trump's policies are extreme it is what the majority of the country voted for. Democracy should always rule.

 

[Andy]

Correct. They said it's "constitutional" to go through parliament and the courts. They didn't seem to bothered about the constitution when law after law came through from Brussels.

As for in the court ruling in the US, just let this sink in...

When it comes to Guns, the US liberals have no care for the Constitution. "I don't care if it's in the constitution, they're dangerous"

However, when it comes to a 90 day halt on immigration from nations identified by the security services under Obama, the constitution is suddenly their favourite thing.

And a small correction for those people, take a look at US code 1182 - it's perfectly fine for a President to this:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

 

[paul]

Correct. They said it's "constitutional" to go through parliament and the courts. They didn't seem to bothered about the constitution when law after law came through from Brussels.

As for in the court ruling in the US, just let this sink in...

When it comes to Guns, the US liberals have no care for the Constitution. "I don't care if it's in the constitution, they're dangerous"

However, when it comes to a 90 day halt on immigration from nations identified by the security services under Obama, the constitution is suddenly their favourite thing.

And a small correction for those people, take a look at US code 1182 - it's perfectly fine for a President to this:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

Don't know enough about the US election to comment mate but all I do know is there were 6 v 1 MP's wanting the EU referendum vote. The biggest vote in UK history then turned up to vote out of the EU, I was one of them. I have never had the opportunity to vote out of the EU in my lifetime and have always wanted to since Tony Blair said it was the best thing since sliced bread, because I was never convinced. What does p**s me off now is people trying to stop it because they don't agree with the result and didn't get their way. I understand their points of view but we need to stick together and get on with it rather than damaging what we can achieve.

 

[Andy]

The most dangerous people in America right now? Nope, not Trump and the people who voted for him. It's the far left.

Since his inauguration they haven't stopped rioting and attacking anyone that doesn't agree with them. Last weeks riots at Berekley College (ironically the starting point of free speech in College campus') needs to be the final straw.

They smashed up their own College and attacked people because of a "Gay Jewish Immigrant with Conservative beliefs" wanted to give a talk. That's right, they lost their minds because someone who is to the right of the Political spectrum wanted to give a talk.

https://beinglibertarian.com/saw-anti-milo-uc-berkeley-riots/


Ironically, the majority of the trouble has come from Antifa, a supposedly "Anti Fascism" movement. However they're the ones running riot and attacking anyone that doesn't agree with them, trying to silence and intimidate anyone that dares think for themselves. Behavior very similar to that of the Brownshirts in Germany...

However, Winston Churchill did say “The Fascists of the future will be the anti-fascists.”