U.S. Politics

[Rugeley Villa]

6 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

You'll end up with a million people on the streets, disrupt, huge police costs and all the trouble that comes with that - it'll be a horror show. 

And why will all of this rioting and disrupt happen?

[Brumerican]

[Davkaus]

This is surely a coincidence, I mean, his businesses are in a "blind trust". He's obviously not a self-serving piece of shit.

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/28/511996783/how-does-trumps-immigration-freeze-square-with-his-business-interests?utm_source=tumblr.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170128

Quote

 

Even as President Trump takes steps to restrict visitors from some majority-Muslim countries, he and his family continue to do business in some of the others.

Ethics experts question whether that might indicate conflicts between Trump's business interests and his role as U.S. president.

The executive action, "Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States," targets seven nations: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Trump has no business interests in those countries.

One other thing they have in common, as NPR's Greg Myre writes: "No Muslim extremist from any of these places has carried out a fatal attack in the U.S. in more than two decades."

The 19 terrorists in the Sept. 11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates, Myre points out. They are among the Muslim-majority countries not affected by Trump's immigration freeze, but where Trump does business.

He has significant commercial interests in Turkey and Azerbaijan, is developing properties in Indonesia and Dubai, and has formed companies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. His daughter Ivanka said in 2015 that the company was looking at "multiple opportunities in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Saudi Arabia — the four areas where we are seeing the most interest."

POLITICS

Trump Signs A Record Number Of Executive Actions — But Nothing About Ethics

Critics said it appears that Trump is picking favorites, overlooking terrorist links in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey that have their own history of terrorism.

And there appear to be conflict-of-interest questions, which could raise legal and constitutional concerns for the Trump White House.

Norman Eisen, a former ethics adviser to President Obama and a current fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, told NPR in an interview:

"I don't believe that our Constitution allows the president to order State Department and other U.S. government employees to discriminate between otherwise identical people, favoring those from countries he likes because they give him unconstitutional foreign emoluments, and punishing those from other countries that do not pay such personal and illegal tribute to him."

Emoluments are gifts. A provision of the U.S. Constitution, called the emoluments clause, prohibits U.S. officials from taking gifts of value from foreign officials or governments.

PARALLELS

Trump's Immigration Freeze Omits Those Linked To Deadly Attacks In U.S.

Eisen said of Trump: "Normally he would, of course, have freer rein legally in these foreign policy, immigration and refugee matters, but his open and notorious violation of the Constitution changes that. This is the corrupt misconduct of a medieval potentate, not an American president."

Speaking with NPR Friday, Eisen said the executive action may lead to lawsuits, for example by American citizens whose family members are now barred from joining them in this country. "These decisions about who to let in and not to let into the United States can now be challenged, because there's an unconstitutional basis for the president's decision," he said.

The Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive think tank, hit the same point harder, saying Trump was "carpet-bombing U.S. foreign policy":

One might think that Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the two countries that nearly all the 9/11 hijackers came from — and which are currently known to be backing ISIS and other terrorists, in Saudi Arabia's case, and facing serious terror attacks on their own soil largely in response to government repression, in Egypt's — would be included in Trump's twisted analysis as potential sources of terrorism.

But no, those countries were ignored. Conflicts of interest? Nah, just a coincidence.

 

 

Edited January 29, 2017 by Davkaus

[HanoiVillan]

30 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

And the democrats can?

If you're looking for a serious discussion about this, not just making a drive-by, the answer is 'broadly, certainly more so than Republicans, but with massive weaknesses in individual areas and the caveat that Hilary Clinton, in particular, was quite shit on this topic'. 

Obama's only real foreign policy success was the Iran nuclear deal, but this was a significant success. Otherwise, he improved relations with Russia in 2009, but that had been eliminated in any case by the end of his presidency. 'Not getting further involved in Syria's civil war' would count as a triumph, except it was achieved against Obama's judgement. On the other hand, looking at his failures, you would need to count Libya very highly, and the decision to back Saudi Arabia and its allies in a destructive and counter-productive war in Yemen. 

Clinton was and is more hawkish than Obama, and would have made worse decisions. It's hard to think of an issue on which I would have backed her to make a better decision than he did. 

However, the Republican party are a different level of destructive stupidity when it comes to foreign policy. Amongst absolutely mainstream Republican opinion, a succession of desperately wrong-headed opinions are articles of faith; that America has unfairly treated Israel ('abandoned it', even) and that moving the US embassy to Jerusalem would be a good idea; that America received a poor deal from Iran in the nuclear deal; that going to war with Iran is a worthwhile option worth discussing; and that backing Saudi Arabia and its allies in Yemen is a tremendous idea. These are all wrong, and bad ideas, that will have real negative consequences. 

Obama's foreign policy was admittedly poor; Trump's is shaping up to be a thousand times worse. 

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

Its genius by Trump.  He knew it was going to cause an uproar and would end up having its claws clipped.  If there are no attacks in the US, extreme vetting works,  if there are attacks and they are recent immigrants then he will be untouchable.  "I tried to shut the borders an it was reversed and now US citizens are dead." etc etc

Could be a calculated risk by Trump an his team.  Could well get a lot of unwanted idiots out of the woodwork also.  

[Xann]

28 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

And the democrats can?

Of course not, but the Bannon appointment to the National Security Council is frightening.

When you're considering benchmarks for evil, profiteering warmongering in recent times it's names like Rumsfeld that define the scale.

Moving into the immediate future, the scale will need rejigged - Or you'll be needing a much bigger bit of graph paper.

27 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

You'll end up with a million people on the streets, disrupt, huge police costs and all the trouble that comes with that - it'll be a horror show. 

Bring it on.

What odds on a U-turn on the water cannon?

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

5 minutes ago, Xann said:

What odds on a U-turn on the water cannon?

Isn't that a U-Bend ? 

[Xann]

Just now, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

Isn't that a U-Bend ? 

You think the portaloo empties into the water tanks?

[OutByEaster?]

57 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

And why will all of this rioting and disrupt happen?

Because he's a little bit unpopular.

[StefanAVFC]

15 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Because he's a little bit unpopular.

Silly liberals just DON'T WANT TO GIVE HIM A CHANCE.

[Keyblade]

2 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Silly liberals just DON'T WANT TO GIVE HIM A CHANCE.

Because I'm sure they would give Hillary a chance right.

[mjmooney]

52 minutes ago, Keyblade said:

Because I'm sure they would give Hillary a chance right.

A state visit to Britain by president H. Clinton would provoke no more than some fairly polite debates on social media. A state visit by Trump will see demonstrations. 

[OutByEaster?]

It'll be debated in Parliament anyway - an online .gov petition reached 300,000 signatures in a matter of hours.

 

[Genie]

It was pretty bizarre for the Queen to issue this invitation at this stage, didn't they not think it through? 

They could have hung on for a couple of months to see the lie of the land.

[mjmooney]

14 hours ago, snowychap said:

 

I wonder where Mo Farah is at the moment?

His latest Facebook post:

Quote

On 1st January this year, Her Majesty The Queen made me a Knight of the Realm. On 27th January, President Donald Trump seems to have made me an alien. 

I am a British citizen who has lived in America for the past six years - working hard, contributing to society, paying my taxes and bringing up our four children in the place they now call home. Now, me and many others like me are being told that we may not be welcome. It’s deeply troubling that I will have to tell my children that Daddy might not be able to come home - to explain why the President has introduced a policy that comes from a place of ignorance and prejudice.

I was welcomed into Britain from Somalia at eight years old and given the chance to succeed and realise my dreams. I have been proud to represent my country, win medals for the British people and receive the greatest honour of a knighthood. My story is an example of what can happen when you follow polices of compassion and understanding, not hate and isolation.

 

[Rugeley Villa]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

If you're looking for a serious discussion about this, not just making a drive-by, the answer is 'broadly, certainly more so than Republicans, but with massive weaknesses in individual areas and the caveat that Hilary Clinton, in particular, was quite shit on this topic'. 

Obama's only real foreign policy success was the Iran nuclear deal, but this was a significant success. Otherwise, he improved relations with Russia in 2009, but that had been eliminated in any case by the end of his presidency. 'Not getting further involved in Syria's civil war' would count as a triumph, except it was achieved against Obama's judgement. On the other hand, looking at his failures, you would need to count Libya very highly, and the decision to back Saudi Arabia and its allies in a destructive and counter-productive war in Yemen. 

Clinton was and is more hawkish than Obama, and would have made worse decisions. It's hard to think of an issue on which I would have backed her to make a better decision than he did. 

However, the Republican party are a different level of destructive stupidity when it comes to foreign policy. Amongst absolutely mainstream Republican opinion, a succession of desperately wrong-headed opinions are articles of faith; that America has unfairly treated Israel ('abandoned it', even) and that moving the US embassy to Jerusalem would be a good idea; that America received a poor deal from Iran in the nuclear deal; that going to war with Iran is a worthwhile option worth discussing; and that backing Saudi Arabia and its allies in Yemen is a tremendous idea. These are all wrong, and bad ideas, that will have real negative consequences. 

Obama's foreign policy was admittedly poor; Trump's is shaping up to be a thousand times worse. 

Was just asking the question and thank you for taking the time to reply in depth.

[Rugeley Villa]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

Silly liberals just DON'T WANT TO GIVE HIM A CHANCE.

Or are always using violence when things don't go their own way.

[Rugeley Villa]

1 hour ago, Keyblade said:

Because I'm sure they would give Hillary a chance right.

There would be none of the stuff you are seeing now. 

[StefanAVFC]

4 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Or are always using violence when things don't go their own way.

Yeah, that's only confined to the left.

**** me.

[StefanAVFC]

15 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

There would be none of the stuff you are seeing now. 

Yeah, it's not as if people spent 8 years calling Obama a secret Muslim, denouncing him as a real citizen with a fake birth certificate, attacking Michelle etc. 

I know it's very easy to dismiss protests as spoilt people having a tantrum because they didn't get their way, but I'm sure the same was said about any protestors against any rising authoritarian regime. It has been a week. A WEEK. And we already have legal immigrants being detained at the airport based around nothing other than their religion and/or where they were born. A week in.

Also, the fact that millions and millions marched for the Women's march last week worldwide, with a tiny, tiny amount of arrests in comparison shows that your pathetic attempt to paint the left, and only the left, as violent rioters is exactly that. A pathetic attempt.

18 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

Was just asking the question and thank you for taking the time to reply in depth.

Don't just thank him. Take what he says and start expanding your opinion. Because we all know that however long down the line, we will have the same comments and people will take time to explain things yet again and then however long down the line again and so on.

I'm getting really tired so these one-line snipes with regards to any political issue, yet when challenged there's no detailed rebuttal. Just more one-line snipes.

Edited January 29, 2017 by StefanAVFC