Donald Trump Considers Issuing New Travel Ban

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38941016


He has given up trying to defeat the American legal system, and its all now back to the drawing board.

This is making up policy on the hoof !

[mikey4444]

Well.....that promise didn't last very long did it !

[Jackdaw33]

As Magnus said, I've started so I'll finish.

[ichkeria]

I strongly endorse mikey on this. Trump is big news. We cope with lots of 'rants' from various sources here and let's face it while some of it is repetitive they have a certain fascination.
And Trump is a ranter himself so he asks for it.

[Zacs-Master]

Eh up. Back so soon JD? Obviously a man of principles.

[anneasquith]

Jack you're boycott didn't last long ?

[mikey4444]

38 mins Anne !

[Baldric]

Pedant!

[Old_Geezer]

Of course he'll consider rephrasing the legislation. It's been rejected due to it being discriminatory on religious grounds. It must be badly written as it isn't intended to be anything of the sort: it is intended to be discriminating against countries that he believes to have a high risk level of fanatical religious terrorists that one doesn't want entering one's own country. The issue is the terrorism, the religious aspect is merely by the way. If it is to be rejected it should be on the grounds that he's got the wrong countries on the list, not for being discriminating on religious grounds.

[ichkeria]

This story is now resurfacing...
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/flynn-russia-us-sanctions-reports/

[mikey4444]

OG...lets get this straight, once and for all.

The ban IS on religious grounds. If a Christian wanted to go to America, from those 7 countries, he would have no problem getting in, I am sure.

But Trump isn't interested in Christians....he only concerned with Muslims, and he said as much many, many times on the campaign trail.

And that is why his EO has failed.

I am sure you knew that OG, but there are a surprising amount of people that don't.

[Old_Geezer]

It has been mentioned here, but as I understand it it's more a case of exceptions being made for religions that do not seen to spawn terrorists, which isn't quite the same ting as it being a ban on Muslims because they are Muslims. And probably the part of the rejected legislation that needs looking at if it is going to be resubmitted.

[Peter Pedant]

// You do realise that your constant anti-Trump rants are turning away people from the News topic in droves.//

like us ( jackie n me)

and other are compulsively driven to rise to the occasion

Often happens to "policy on the hoof"
and the tax payer pays and how !
I have no idea how much it has cost the american tax payer to find out something that we all knew anyway

[ the english equiv of " is the executive order of the President of the US of A reviewable in a a court "

was " Does the kings decree trump ( haha!) an act of parliament ?" and the answer was 'no' in 1620 and 'no' again in 1685 ( short memories then ) when James II tried to suspend by decree the punitive legislation against Roman Cathoics
all discussed in the Brexit case

and the justices even said ( somewhere ) a narrower 0rder may well fill the bill.....( bill .... good one huh ?)

[mikey4444]

OG....as he now been to look a fool by the Judiciary system, he will go back to the drawing board and do it properly next time.

[anotheoldgit]

Zacs-Master
/// Eh up. Back so soon JD? Obviously a man of principles. ///

anneasquith
/// Jack you're boycott didn't last long ? ///

mikey4444
/// 38 mins Anne ! ///

The small pack of hyenas gather.

[mikey4444]

Peter....if only I could understand half of what you say !

[Peter Pedant]

// It has been mentioned here, but as I understand it it's more a case of exceptions being made ......yak yak yak because they are Muslims.//

it is ( was ) a blanket ban and it is quite difficult to give reasons for such a thing

and the ban didnt involve countries who had supplied terrorists

Egypt for example - there have been a few terrorists from there butchering people (Qena apparently is a hotbed of terrorism and unpleasantness - but .....
as one Egyptian explained - - - Egypt allows the CIA to run black prisons, detain without trial and torture prisoners

so I dont think we are gonna be on the list this year

[Peter Pedant]

// Peter....if only I could understand half of what you say !//

o never mind Mikey

there was this banny thing over in America
and the president said " they shall not come in !"
and signed a big document saying so with a big flourish. Trumpets sounded and there was all sorts of la-di-da

the judges - they are important people who live in places called 'courts' said " this is the biggest load of ...."
said ..... " nope not lawful"

and the president he said " I appeal !"

and the judges banged their gavels and said
" our second opinion is - it is still not lawful "
and went out for tea

and the President said " I am so powerful I dont have to obey the law ! I am the one who gives them ! "

and the judges put their redrobes back on and long wiggie fings ( yeak OK I know they dont wear them over there)
and said in tired voices

No mr president you DO have to obey the law

and he said " you know what ? I'll try again"

[ and a little boy in the corner squealed
we knew all this in England from a case called brexit where the prime minister ( a VIP! and much given to ordering and governing and so on) said "I have triggered Brexit" and Jean Jeanie said no you cant it is against the law for you to do that ...]


it has been all over the news Mikey
I wonder that you havent heard about it
and commented on it

[-Talbot-]

Awwwwww Peter .... I was hoping your story would finish with


and they all lived happy ever after ........

[anotheoldgit]

What ever Trump has done, if nothing else he has at least done one thing right, he has upset the right-on liberal left and that has surly got to be a good thing?

[vortex]

^ well, I hope DT is remembered for more meaningful achievements than that when his term of office is concluded!