"SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"
To which the ACLU replied:
"We have been saying this for a while."
President Trump has suffered a serious blow to his authority following a decision by a court of appeals against his controversial travel ban. Late Thursday, the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco denied an emergency motion to lift an injunction against the ban, which restricted people from seven Muslim-majority countries from …
Ploy all along, I think he knew it wouldn't fly, that it'd get struck down, but now, it's not his fault, he's tried, he's done what he said he would on the campaign trail, and the elite have stopped him, the liberals are holding the nations safety back. It plays into his narrative perfectly.
I disagree. He promised he'd keep 'America safe'. If a terrorist attack happens now, no matter what the reason, he'll have failed to keep one of his biggest and boldest campaign promises.
He made the promise, it's up to him to keep it within the bounds of the law and the Constitution of the United States.
Add to the that his wall probably won't even start to be built for several years, he'll be hard pushed to win another term (assuming Congress doesn't see an opportunity to impeach his ass before then, in a shameless attempt to look reasonable to the electorate before the mid-terms).
His popularity is already tanking, and it isn't even a month in and has a major judicial showdown AND and embarrassing military failure under his belt; it's altogether not looking good for the orange buffoon. He was already looking weak and ineffectual and this 3-0 appellate court decision against him makes it even worse and further solidifies the fact you can't rule by EOs and PMs alone.
Uh...what? "He made the promise, it's up to him to keep it within the bounds of the law and the Constitution of the United States."
Stop right there, buddy. That's not how this works. Trump made promises. Trump drained the swamp. Trump shook up Washington. Everything that didn't happen exactly as he said it would is because of obstruction by disgusting progressive liberals who hate America. The only way to make America great again is to elect Trump a second time. And then a third! And a fourth! Never elect someone who is not Trump!
This thing where you think Trump voters are going to look at Trump's record as though he hast o play by any rules whatsoever is...wrong. That simply isn't how his base performs communes with alternate facts.
If you define Trump's base as those who'll stand by their man now matter what, then where are they now? Why aren't they out there supporting his sagging poll numbers? If he can't constantly stick it to the liberals and win, win, win, he'll keep losing the confidence of those who make up his base. And his casual supporters will abandon his unpopular extremism and turn to insider team players like Ryan and McConnell to get things done.
Calm down Trevor. Perhaps you should go and sit in a darkend room for a while?
Trump can't be elected for more than two terms. That is the law and even a GOP controlled congress would want to repeal that given their antipathy of the current TWIC (Tweeter in Chief).
There is still lots of things he can do to in his words 'shake up America'. Other people will see it as destroying the american way of life. I know that many of my american friends are looking at leaving.
If the TWIC does not like the ruling then he can as he said, see them in court. That is due process but I do get the feeling that he'll lose the case as it currently stands. There are many organistations ready to take him on in a legal battle.
As the americans say, 'Popcorn time'.
> The only way to make America great again is to elect Trump a second time. And then a third! And a fourth! Never elect someone who is not Trump!
One of the commentators on the inauguration said that it was great to see that 4 past presidents had attended, and also that the next 4 presidents were there (as his children walked in).
"I disagree. He promised he'd keep 'America safe'. If a terrorist attack happens now, no matter what the reason, he'll have failed to keep one of his biggest and boldest campaign promises."
But that's my entire point, anything goes wrong and he points to the immigration ban not being inplace (even if it transpires they're from Jersey) - that's his level and the level he's playing to, everything else is alternative facts and fake news.
"everything else is alternative facts and fake news"
And? So? What does that mean?
If the people whose votes actually matter only care about alternative facts and fake news then why does the truth, evidence or actual facts matter? Have you even read 1984? It has some lessons about how you can run a post-truth nation that I think you missed.
I promise you: Steve Bannon didn't miss those lessons at all.
Well, what this shows us is that the man has no interest in governing. He's still campaigning.
Remember, he doesn't have to answer any difficult questions about what he does. Because the only media his base believes is the media that he, or his henchmen, directly and personally control. They've been taught that everything else is fake and lies, so it simply doesn't matter what any half-way neutral reporter or outlet says.
I guess you were not paying attention to the media during the election, or any other time.
98 out of 100 of the top publications in the US were opposing trump. Just were do you think you can find even 'half-way neutral' reporting?
Define opposing Trump.
Do you mean that they portrayed him and a misogynistic, racist, bigoted serial liar, then you are wrong they didn't portray him like that, he did.
Any commentary from the press say he was/is not fit for president was just stating the bleeding obvious.
Just were do you think you can find even 'half-way neutral' reporting?
Perhaps they are neutrally reporting that this is a clusterfuck?
Neutral means publishing articles based on the complete range of facts available, not bending the article's text to be neutral even though the facts don't back this up.
"... 98 out of 100 of the top publications in the US were opposing trump. Just were do you think you can find even 'half-way neutral' reporting?"
I'm not sure you understand what neutral means: It does not mean that 50% has to be in favor and 50% against any batshit crazy idea...
Yes, you are right, Soros and a handful others own all the mainstream news media and the politicians in Europe.
They lost the US president as their lackey, but then still have a rear guard of judges and Republican traitors on their payroll. It is not over until all these catalysts of evil are stopped in their tracks.
The replies in this thread show, they still manage to shepherd the opinion of the ignorant quite well.
This post has been deleted by its author
You are so right. This is what Americans really need to be afraid of. That Nazi fucker Bannon wants a war with China, thinks white christians are already in a global war against muslims (blacks hispanics and asians don't count for shit on his shoe in his universe unless they are indian geeks that code his websites). He's desperate for a war because it's the only way he can get around the checks and balances.
This ruling plays so nicely into his alternative facts narrative .. Despite the George W appointed judge who issued the stay AND the republican appointed judge on the appeal panel voting alongside his democrat appointed counterparts, the narrative is already: liberal elite judges appointed by commie-faggot-muslim-kenyan-born Obama supported by the Sorros-global-jewish-conspiracy-cabal are thwarting the WILL OF THE SHEEPLE (seriously, if you want to shoot yourself, read some of the nutbrained crap output from the wacko conspiracy theorists and obscure, barely vaguely concealed neo nazi white supermacist "thinkers" that inform the likes of Bannon, Miller and Trump)
You can just see him playing to Trumps narcissism and need for control... "the only way we can drain the swamp Mr President is to get emergency powers. Murica is broken with liberal scum able to block you through the courts and liberal scum media lying to slander you and make you unpopular. We need to show them all muslims are dangerous and evil." And off Bannon will go and concoct some massive atrocity committed by muslims from some of those countries forcing a supine repub congress to grant the president extra-ordinary powers. (Not in jersey though .. Trump thinks jersey is full of illegal hispanics who cheered in their hundreds of thousands when the twin towers came down so he doesn't give 2 fucks and pussy grab for anyone there.)
Then the courts will be ignored and all but fox, breibart and other batshit crazy right wing media will be gagged. Heil Bannon!!!
"it plays into his narrative perfectly"
Don't forget the supreme court challenge. that's next. Nobody thought the leftist liberal elitists would lay down and allow Trump to have his presidency, and this is just an example of what's to come, it seems. George Soros has a LOT of pocket change to disrupt everything and create the chaos into which loudmouthed liberals can "take charge" and dismantle what freedoms we have left... by ABusing the legal system.
Nobody thought the leftist liberal elitists would lay down and allow Trump to have his presidency
Yes. Those masked hitmen were all ready to swing into action. Time and again we thought that would be the real solution, as everyone said at the time. Yet somehow not a shot was fired and Trump ascended safely to the pinnacle of his dreams. Those goddamn lily-livered yellow liberals just chickened out, didn't they, Bob? They just couldn't give the kill order, not like a True American would.
@Bombastic Bob: Why should they? The Republicans did not exactly roll over and let Obama have everything he wanted, did they?
I think there was even a shutdown of government, but hey, my impression as an outsider is that the system is designed like that :-)
Ploy all along, I think he knew it wouldn't fly, that it'd get struck down
There are several problems with this:
Campaign mode might resume next year in the run up to the mid-terms with the hope of gaining a super majority in the Senate to push for constitutional change, which is clearly what Bannon, et al. are after. Trump, as ever, just wants to be popular.
"Ploy all along, I think he knew it wouldn't fly, that it'd get struck down, but now, it's not his fault, he's tried, he's done what he said he would on the campaign trail, and the elite have stopped him, the liberals are holding the nations safety back. It plays into his narrative perfectly."
For any normal politician this would be both perfect and correct. But Trump is neither normal, nor a politician. His personality cannot tolerate the impression that he might be wrong, or might have failed at something. Well, at least not unless it's somebody else's fault.
This post has been deleted by its author
> "I can't help but feel this is over almost before it began."
Over? How so? One leftist judge was found that was willing to exceed his authority. The infamous Ninth Circuit Court sided with him, the same circuit that has been overridden more than any other. THIS has you feeling victory over the President?
I know you would be more comfortable in your bubble, but knowing what is to come I feel obligated to inform you of certain facts so they don't eventually crash in on your delicate mind and destroy it.
Sure, right now the ban might be on hold, but the future awaits, and it doesn't contain victory for you very soon. Trump may face a setback now, but do you think this is going to stop him? Will it crush him? No, it won't. And you know this too. TRY to deny it!
He will regroup, and learn, and go at it again, because it needs to be done. Most of the Middle East countries seem to have little problem with his ban, did you know that? One way or another the flood of migrants (future Democrat voters) will be choked off. Really. The damage Obama did to our country will be repaired, and the insane left will be revealed as the small minority they are. Trust me, I've lived long enough to see more than one cycle of this type.
Okay, maybe the country is different now, but I kinda doubt it's changed all that much. And about those future Dem voters? Most of them will slowly become Americans and will stop believing in the pap squirted at them by the Left, and become the conservatives they really are. Just a matter of time.
The Left will ALWAYS be a noisy violent minority. It's actually a good thing. Keeps the conservative majority from becoming soft and complacent. Thank you.
This is a justification for the separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary so that one man cannot set himself up as Hitler.
It may be distasteful if you don't get your way every time but in the long run it keeps democracy safe.
Try widening your political perspective by reading how Alexander Lukashenko hijacked a democracy in Belarus. http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2016/01/belarus-europe-dictator-160120104016003.html
Most of the Middle East countries seem to have little problem with his ban, did you know that?
What the ones with the good ties to the US like the Emirates and Saudi Arabia? You might want to look at the list of countries from which there are known international terrorists and wonder why they're not on the list.
As a European I'm looking forward to all the business from Iran and elsewhere that will come our way as the US withdraws from international trade.
This word is doing the rounds. It's used by people to slag off anyone who gets in the way of a narcissist and his all-night dreams.
Even people who are really quite right wing fall under the steam roller of this term.
If you don't support Trump, ergo Leftist!
This has been done countless times before by regimes spiralling into a pit of darkness.
Honestly, why not calm down instead and have a cup of tea, rather than screaming LEFTIST! at the dog and postman.
I wonder if Trump's nominated judge will be sitting on the Supreme Court bench when it comes to a decision on this issue. He is apparently on record expressing disquiet about Trump's attitude to judges who disagree. Trump is setting up a grudge match with the Supreme Court judges.
Once the new man is on the Supreme Court bench he is effectively freed of many political and career restraints - and can then follow his own conscience and integrity. I suspect he may not end up as such a hard line conservative as Trump expects.
There are precedents for judges who have reached their final career stage - and would not interpret laws arbitrarily in favour of a head of state decree.
Unless Trump finds a way to blackmail or realistically threaten the judges and their families - then he will find it difficult to just dismiss them.
Gorsuch would have to be confirmed and sitting on the court when the case is argued before it in order to have a say in deciding the case.
As for changes once on the Supreme Court...look up Earl Warren.
Trump has no way to remove a sitting judge. It can only be done by Congress through impeachment (in the House) and conviction (in the Senate). It's only been done 8 times in US history.
This post has been deleted by its author
Once the new man is on the Supreme Court
Even if he is successfully cleared by then, he will be the sole dissenting opinion. If at all.
Supremes do not take contempt of the judicial system lightly. Based on his attitude expressed so far if Trump is stupid enough to persist (which he is) he is setting himself up for a massive whack. My guess will be an 8:1 judgement (if Gorshuch is past the vote by then).
Now if the Eu can make my day and hand back the papers to the new US ambassador and ask him to leave the building...
I disagree with that assessment. There has been more than one case, and not all courts have agreed to stay the order. See Judge Gorton's (District of Massachusetts) decision at http://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net/wp/2017/02/Gorton-order.pdf
Unlike Robards, Gorton discusses legal arguments in detail. It seems the SCOTUS has its work cut out, since the Immigration and Nationality Act clearly does give the President authority to "impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate". Pretty much a Constitutional crisis, so I doubt that anywhere near a unanimous (or quick) decision is forthcoming.
Gorsuch is strongly in favour of states' rights. Any judge likely to rule in favour of states over abortion bans, is just as likely to rule in their favour against overreach of the federal government. And there are going to be plenty of those going forward.
But, in any case, given that he'll best questioned on this in the hearings, he would have to recuse himself from the case, should be approved by the time any case is brought.
"45 contains reliability, patience, focus on building a foundation for the future, and wit. 45 is worldly and sophisticated"
I like numbers and am intrigued. Is there another meaning for 45 to which one is not privy?
22 skiddoo to yooo...
RE: "Perhaps you've noticed that the above is written using only little tiny words"
Perhaps you've noticed; Twitter is mostly comprised of such words. His base is yuge and does not appreciate being considered stupid. You're just being elitist. If he IS a loser you can be sure he will be the greatest loser ever, the best. As will we. And it will all be our fault for not letting him win.
1) amazing how a group so focussed on "law and order" is so willing to bash and denigrate the very laws they claim to support. Total and utter hypocrisy.
2) if they wanted to protect the USA, perhaps they should have banned travellers from countries whose citizens have actually attacked the USA in the last couple of decades. Namely Saudi Arabia. More hypocrisy from the right wing Trumpites.
The really scary thing is they're considering sending Sarah Palin as ambassador to Canada. Can we build a wall around the embassy? Please?
OMG!! I totally missed that! TOTALLY! Sarah Palin, Ambassador. I think they are just sitting round in a back room over drinks and drugs making up shit to see what happens.
Sarah Palin and the Offensive Canadian Stereotype are like matter and anti matter. There will be blood. And big bangs and hovering helicopters. And the return of that awesome Canadian politician who was filmed getting high whose name I totally cannot recall. And, oh, the spectacle. I almost hope it comes to pass...
RE: "perhaps they should have banned travellers from countries whose citizens have actually attacked the USA "
Yes. They should stop US citizens who leave the Fatherland from returning home. That might cut down on some of the bloodshed, in a statistically insignificant way.
The really scary thing is they're considering sending Sarah Palin as ambassador to Canada. Can we build a wall around the embassy? Please?
There is already a wall around the embassy. Those ugly-looking bollards around it are solid steel, go four meters into the bedrock, and are supposed to be able to stop a main battle tank. The exterior windows are 6-inch thick armoured glass, and are specced to stop a direct-fire shell from the same main battle tank. In fact, the whole building was designed by somebody with a bit of a fetish about main battle tanks.
And in case you are wondering, it wasn't the Orange One: this is how America built all its embassies for the past 20 years: warm, friendly, and distinctly imperial with a light militaristic twist.
The exterior windows are 6-inch thick armoured glass, and are specced to stop a direct-fire shell from the same main battle tank.
Would love to believe this - but you have to admit it stretches credibility.
The 6-inch armored glass bit is likely true - it was mentioned in the Ottawa Citizen profile of the building at the time it was opened back at the very end of the 20th century (sadly, the profile does not seem to be available online anymore). You can also estimate the glass thickness of the outer glass layer from the double-pattern reflections (due to the cramped layout of the site, a pedestrian can get within 20 feet of the outer walls in places). Without knowing the refractive index of the glass assembly, it is hard to be precise - but it is at least several inches thick.
One can also see vague signs of the second glass layer behind it.
Whether it will actually stop a high-explosive or armour-piercing shell is not for me to speculate. One interesting bit of protection requirements mentioned in the same Ottawa Citizen profile was stopping a blast from a high-explosives laden lorry in the public roadway immediately outside, 30 feet from the building wall. The same blast was estimated to cause 100+ casualties in the National Gallery building 1000 feet away if it were to happen during the gallery's busy time.
As you might have expected, many locals (including myself at the time) somewhat justifiably felt this security posture to be somewhat incomprehensible coming from a good neighbor.
Correct. Despite what most of the lame-o's here believe, Trump works within the system and always has. Even Obama did this, bad as he was. President Trump will not break laws as he cleans out the filth left by the last Oval Occupant, and it WILL be cleaned out. And to assist him is a firmly Republican Congress, and most of the governorships and state legislatures too.
The only real political force left to block the conservative agenda is the corporate media, and their bias is now plain for all to see. I look forward to a bright future. Do any of you? No? well, try thinking with your brain instead of your glands and maybe you will see it's not really as bad as you believe right now.
"Despite what most of the lame-o's here believe, Trump works within the system and always has"
Can smell the bullshit on that one at a thousand paces. The tangerine fucktrumpet is doing his absolute level best to bend, break or otherwise corrupt the system, and when it has the temerity to stand in his way he takes to Twitter in the hope that his intellectually challenged minions will 'rise up' and remove the troublesome Judge - which can then be blamed on MUSLIM TERRORISTS and it's game on.
Unfortunately for him it's now not just 1 judge but 4 who've seen through his twattery. And if the Supremes have any sense, they'll take his unconstitutional executive order, fold it into a nice hard round object and shove it up his fat fucking arse.
"Trump works within the system and always has"
So, as a matter of fact, does Putin. The difference is that he doesn't go in for late night tweeting. Or getting his Press Secretary to promote a family business. Or denigrating judges.
Perhaps the reason Putin wanted Trump elected - if he did - was to have a powerful world politician who made him look impressively statesmanlike. He seems to have succeeded.
If the states are so very much behind the TWIC then why did the case for overturning the Decree get files by a number of State Attourney Generals?
You may say that they are 'blue'/lefty states.
If the president had drafted the order differently then all this could have been avoided but no he didn't.
He did it in haste and now he may very well have to repent.
The USSC could even say 'we are not going to consider it'. What then eh Big John?
The whole thing is a veritable clusterfuck.
He has only himself to blame. Well that and the cronie/sycophants that he has around him.
And it all could have been avoided with a bit more consulation and the willingness to take advice from others.
Big John, if Trump was working within the system, he wouldn't be issuing EOs that were so easily shown to be unlawful, or liable to challenge.
I confess to being a little blank about the 'filth' of the last Oval Office. It seemed to contain the sort of people that Trump, too has appointed: Goldman Sachs alumni, big business, vested interests (albeit different vested interests). I think Trump has some good ideas: I think all the trade agreements recently structured are bad for countries and good for corporations who do their best not to pay tax. I am all for increasing jobs for Americans in America. But I thought Obama had some good ideas, too, including a healthcare insurance system that allowed poorer people, for the first time, to have access to decent medical care.
I AM APPALLED, APPALLED, SAD. BUY SOME OF MELANIA'S SHIT, BUY
AFAIK she is not actively selling any goods at the moment and the question of her selling (or not) her goods and services once upon a time is in court too.
So you probably mean the product of Trump's "Head of Settler" relations.
I don't agree with the mentality and someone has probably mentioned this before but I don't see the press lambasting, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Algeria, Bangladesh, Brunei, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Oman, Pakistan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates ban on a certain nationality from entering their countries.
So if it's ok for them why not for another country? More Trump bashing? Oh! hang on, I forgot we're civilized so we can't do shit like that, can we!
Sometimes the only way to deal with oppressive, unfair regimes is to show them that you mean business.
Thank you for setting out navigational markers straight.
USA are supposed to take democracy lessons from: Syria, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Algeria, Bangladesh, Brunei, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Oman, Pakistan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates
Assad and the Ayatollahs are definitely our shining beacon in the night. We are definitely going in that direction. I will not even mention the other other petrol driven cleptocracies or failed states on your list.
Now, there's an interesting angle: Trump himself seems to be an impulsive narcissist, but his closest adviser-cum-controller is Steve Bannon. And Mr. Bannon, like the Iranian ex-president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, appears to be a believer in apocalyptic confrontation. Benjamin Netanyahu is another. Ahmadinejad believes that an end-times battle between Islam and evil will end in a triumph of Islam and the return of the Mahdi; Netanyahu believes that the Amalekites, who arise each generation and must be defeated by the Jews, are incarnate in Iran and a massive confrontation is in the offing. (Reffie: Der Spiegel, 2009)
Bannon appears to believe in a similar messianic role for himself and his Trump. He believes the West and America in particular face an apocalyptic battle with Islam.
"We're at the very beginning stages of a very brutal and bloody conflict, of which, if the people in this room, the people in the church, do not bind together and really form what I feel is an aspect of the church militant, to really be able to not just stand with our beliefs, but to fight for our beliefs against this new barbarity that's starting... We are in an outright war against jihadist Islamic fascism. And this war is, I think, metastasizing far quicker than governments can handle it." (Remarks to conservative Catholics at the Vatican, 2014).
Bannon believes in a mystical "fourth turning" (reffie: Business Insider) in the face of which all other concerns are trivial: the Constitution is a bit of old paper, and the courts will scatter in the winds of change; the legislative branch will be a tool for battle or be discarded; and a leader will arise to lead the battle (a "gray champion" in the Fourth Turning lexicon, but in this case more orangish).
So, Voland's RH, it appears that the most influential man in the US cabinet is indeed mirroring the apocalyptic-religious-nutcase beliefs we more commonly associate with radical ayatollahs and imam.
I agree that what those are doing is bad also but the reason whybthis is not the same is that this is a decree from the POTUS.
The US prides itself on being open, fair (even when this is a fairy tale) and a land built on a series of laws. Grudgingly I suspect a lot of us admire America, sure they make some howlers (Iraq being notable) but bye and large their heart seems in the right place. But with this POTUS it is in danger of losing that respect around the world.
It is Trumps arbitrary "I know best and laws don't apply to me" attitude that is so against what I for one want to see from the "leader of the free world".
The Western press do lambast those states. Quite often in fact, but you do have to listen/read foreign affairs programmes to hear it.
And our ambassadors to those states - where they haven't been withdrawn due to same - also privately encourage those states to improve.
Until they get ejected for saying so, anyway.
As to why you haven't noticed it:
US behaviour has a much larger impact on Western citizens, because many of us live there or travel there very often. It's not just foreign affairs and you'll see it on other programmes/articles as well.
"I don't see the press lambasting, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Libya..."
Well, actually I see that fairly often, but usually we have come to expect those countries to act like that. If you want the USA to be categorised in that list, then your wish is close to being granted.
How can America be Leader of the Free World, if no one respects the leader? And that's not a political thing: there are plenty of highly regarded Republicans who could do it. McCain would be a good example of someone who would have some credibility.
I've visited Malaysia once, I live in Bangladesh. Yeah it's now a failed country, there's no democracy here. But still I don't know any nation who are banned here. Now very few foreigner come to my country because of it's condition but no one is banned. Are you talking about relation with Israel? Both country has unofficial relation with Israel as far I know, it's just behind the camera. Due to the absence of formal relation you can't directly go to or come from Israel or Palestine. You have to come/go via Lebanon/Egypt. While I rarely see reports of high class Israeli official coming, I don't personally know anyone who have gone there. I don't know any pilgrim who have visited Al Aqsa mosque after the creation of Israel. Israel is not well known for respecting International laws. if you're a Muslim and they arrest you, there a high chance you won't see the light of the day soon. People here fear going that country.
No one is banned from coming here.
"We are not worse than Syria, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Algeria, Bangladesh, Brunei, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Oman, Pakistan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates". Would it make you happy if you could say that with a straight face? If yes, then you are setting the expectations for your own country very, very low.
"Sometimes the only way to deal with oppressive, unfair regimes is to show them that you mean business."
It was the USA who destroyed democracy in Iran in the 1950's and installed their sock puppet Shah Reza Pahlevi. The current government in Iran descends from the revolutionaries who overthrew the oppressive, unfair regime that was installed their by the USA. And then, at a time when the USA and Saddam Hussein were still best friends, they supported Iraq in a murderous war against the Iran where thousands were killed by poison gas. If you look at the moral position, I'd say the USA is way, way behind.
Hello my UK tech friends and enemies. You know me as an avowed Microsoft apologist but just this once I hope you will actually listen to me. Do not let the nutcase who is President of the US come and speak officially in the UK. When he does come to visit, if you will do me the favor of protesting, I will accept a single negative post about Microsoft without retort from each of you who choose to protest. I honestly don't know what else I might have to offer you.
Thank you from the bottom of my Microsoft loving heart.
Some English seem to have fallen in love with Trump and are determined to have the speaker of the house thrown out because he doesn't like Trump to speak in the house. The vote on this could be quite revealing regarding the balance between decency and imaginary relief from responsibility.
This post has been deleted by its author
Now I can understand that any of the comments here posted by citizens of the United Kingdom don't have the foggiest idea about the US Constitution, but any American citizens who've never read it, or if they did, didn't understand it (since it's written at a fifth grade reading level, (which leaves out most devout liberals, progressives, and/or Democrats) here's a clue: the US Constitution grants the President as the only decider as to what constitutes "National Security", not Congress, not the courts. Secondly, the laws on immigration which the Congress has passed over the years, have ceded to the President the authority and responsibility to carefully screen all those people who wish to enter our shores. Immigration is a privilege, not a right. The President has the right under the Cinstitution and immigration laws to refuse entry to anyone, for any reason, particularly if he/she deems such persons as potential risks to our national security. We have borders for a reason. SCOTUS has made many, many rulings over the years upholding these presidential powers. The Ninth Circuit (which has a lifetime average of being overturned by SCOTUS, even when the court was controlled by liberal justices, of over 85% - I wouldn't bet the farm that they won't be overturned, and for the umpteenth time, admonished by the Supremes for extreme judicial overreach). I'm not a big Trump supporter (it was "hose the nose" time fir the election), however, when SCOTUS gets this big sticking pile landed in their laps, their answer will likely be swift, pointed in reversing the Ninth, yet again. If you want to respond to this, please, read the constitution and 8USC1182 first before making any uniformed responses.
Beginning with an ad hom attack on the intelligence of liberals and Democrats isn't a great way to convince people you're not a Trump fan.
As for the court's decision, well, we'll have to wait and see. Certainly the conservatives and Republicans who are happy to grant that Trump does have the power to determine immigration policy were just as adamant that President Obama didn't have such power, and he was blocked by that same Supreme Court you seem quite confident will allow Trump to proceed.
Not a joke. Rather an intentional heading off of Muphry's law ... I've used it before, I'll use it again. Old habit, leftover from mailing lists and USENET ... although I first started using it when bleeding on (proofreading and marking up with a red pencil) inter-office memos just before the mimeograph stage. A simple mispleling on the cover-sheet produced more dates with the departmental secretary ;-)
"here's a clue: the US Constitution grants the President as the only decider as to what constitutes "National Security", not Congress, not the courts."
Yeah, no it doesn't.
"have ceded to the President the authority and responsibility to carefully screen all those people who wish to enter our shores"
Nope. "Traditionally deferred to" does not translate to Ceded. Buy a dictionary and read it.
"The President has the right under the Cinstitution and immigration laws to refuse entry to anyone, for any reason."
No he doesn't. Read the 5th and 14th Amendments.
"SCOTUS has made many, many rulings over the years upholding these presidential powers"
Fucktrumpery. Gosh you're on a roll here.
"I'm not a big Trump supporter"
"please, read the constitution and 8USC1182 first before making any uniformed responses"
And by Uniformed response, you mean returning the Wayward Colony back to the Empire from whence it came, given that you've managed to fuck up the management hereof to such stellar levels?
You win the award for the most spectacularly uniNformed post of the year. Read your own damn Constitution. And a dictionary.
Sorry Donnie, you didn't get to ban the muslims after all. I'd point out that those judges just made my America slightly safer by shutting down your fuckery, but you're too dumb to understand causational relationships and how the muslim extremists would use that ban to bolster recruitment. Read that again, you're too dumb. You're not just rolling dice in a game of Risk here, your actions have real consequences. Honestly, keep doing what you're doing. You'll fail bigly, you'll be impeached, and it will be even easier to keep Pence on a leash than your dumb ass.
Trump is trying to make America great again and these unelected so called 'judges' are trying to ruin a nation and ruin his great works. You need to stop and ask yourself what their agenda actually is? Maybe these so called 'judges' should stick to enforcing the laws the President hands down to them, ether than trying to make them up. Remember a large majority of US citizens (I.e. the ones whose opinions matter) voted for him because they all knew Trump would deliver, whereas Obama just wanted to smile into the nearest camera and talk lots of hot air.
And shame on you The Registrar. You used to be a fair to middling tech site, but now, like the rest of the media, you're acting childish because your third wave feminist narrative has been shown up for the rank hypocracy that it is. And you commenters. Stop having opinions that shame a nation. If any of you were brave you'd use your real names and post your home address too so we could all meet up for some reasoned discussion and a cup of tea. But no, you just want to be spiteful about President Trump and First Lady Melanoma. She is a credit to the nation, having been a lady wife to the great man for decades. Her clothes range keeps prosperous America looking beautiful and she must cry to listen to what you're saying about her husband.
If any of he so called 'judges' are reading this: back off, let go. What do you know about the law anyway.
To create a totalitarian or authoritarian regime first you must remove the checks and balances of democracy.
How do you do that? If it was me I would undermine the legal system first then I would go for the legislative branch which is exactly what Trump is going for.
In case you are wondering I live on an island in the pacific where I stroke my cat while I plan to take over the world, feel free to stop by and I'll happily tell you all my plans before I put you in a certain death situation that you will invariably escape from.
"To create a totalitarian or authoritarian regime first you must remove the checks and balances of democracy."
First you push your powers to rule by decree - claiming you are obeying the will of the patriotic people who elected you. Then you appoint heads of executive branches who have espoused your views to make the country great again by any means. Add to your inner circle some powerful business owners who see a profit in the implementation.
Renege on international agreements and blame other countries for your ills. Make vague threats of war to those who won't appease you. Accelerate a build up of your armed forces.
Demonise minorities and any internal opposition. Falsely attribute any major incidents to a minority or the opposition. Make the media your censored mouthpiece for fake news.
To get judicial things interpreted to your benefit - insert judges who know which side their bread is buttered. For those judges who are too principled and hold high positions - send the boys to suggest quietly that they should think about retiring to care for their loved ones.
It has worked many times before.
"First you push your powers to rule by decree - claiming you are obeying the will of the patriotic people who elected you."
First you push your powers to rule by decree - claiming you are obeying the will of the patriotic people who elected you. You proclaim that the country is under a great threat from outside.
FTFM (viz edit)
"First you push your powers to rule by decree - claiming you are obeying the will of the patriotic people who elected you. You proclaim that the country is under an immediate, existential threat from outside such that the only warning you'll get of them coming is the H-bomb detonated 20 miles over South Dakota to fry all the electricals; then all the immigrants who came in in the meantime will suddenly rise up and overpower everyone because they learned to live without electricity. Unless I have total and immediate power, America can DIE on a moment's notice and there'll be nothing you can do to stop it."
There, FTFTFY. And yes, there really are people out there who honestly believe it.
Well, no, I think any blanket ban that discriminates against any group and is unfair, especially where a greater good cannot be demonstrated (as opposed to speculated) would have been opposed. If Trump had tried to block all Christians from South America (but letting in the atheists from those countries), it would still be wrong and would still be opposed.
His own website states he wanted a Muslim Immigration ban.
He stated it while on the campaign trail as well.
Want to try and deny it's a ban on Muslims again?
Just because it's been renamed and had the word Muslim removed does not mean it's a different ban.
This post has been deleted by its author
... the liberal left walked right into this one and shot their feet off.
By appearing not to care about the security of the US the liberal left have left themselves wide open to having everything that even appears to attack the country or its people laid on them - 'see what happens when you let the left have control'.
Doing this also consolidates Trump's position with those the left hates and puts him in a much stronger position for a second term, but then it appears the left isn't noted for thinking only emoting.
Liberal Americans -- why would they care less about the security of their country? I think anyone concerned with American security would first ensure that nobody came from any country that actually had delivered terrorists onto American soil. That would be Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Russia (which contains Chechnya, which supplied the Boston bombers), to name a few. But these countries have not been blocked.
And why can't security be create through laws coming from Congress? The PATRIOT Act etc have shown that the Govt are willing to act broadly and swiftly. I can't understand why, with a Republican House and a Republican President, the conservatives don't trust the American system that is supposed to be better than any other country's.
I'm getting really tired of trump supporters assuming all opposition comes from "liberals." As if "being liberal" is a prerequisite for "wanting good government". I'm twice as conservative as most of these "conservative" trumpites, who seem perfectly fine with big government as long as it also forwards their personal agendas.
By not caring about constitutional checks and balances, trump supporters have left themselves wide open to... oppression. One word. No additional verbage needed.
Damn, should have put that all in CAPS! I'd like to thank the Illuminati who obviously control the media for secretly supporting Trump. Look at CNN's ratings, the massive spike in New York Times sales, etc, since he was elected. You might think his tweets criticizing them are sincere - not so, he's being played like the sock puppet he is.
It's also given the rest of the world a chance to both laugh at and feel superior to the United States - not something that happens very often. The rest of the world's media are raking it in. there's never been a better time to be a satirist or cartoonist, petition sites are booming and every second social media post includes the word Trump.
I rest my case your Honour (ps, please don't send it to appeal).
<It's also given the rest of the world a chance to both laugh at and feel superior to the United States - not something that happens very often.>
Actually we do it all the time but we have not had this level of pantomime for a long time... Ronald (the president's brain is missing) Regan and Dubya were great for the satirists but Trump...? Comedians are going to have material for years with this one.
I wouldn't worry about Sarah Palin. Was anybody ever angry about her, surprised yes, as a possible vice president. But seriously we laugh at Larel and Hardy and similar while we know they play "stupid", Sarah on the other hand does not play, she is totally genuine.
It is a ban of people who come from certain countries as long as they are not any faith but one. Nobody is saying Trump is banning all Muslims from anywhere. And the security forces seem to be interpreting this as an all-out ban, e.g. that Canadian who was born in Morocco who was trying to visit family in the USA and got stopped, and had her phone scanned, because she was Muslim. That is a de facto Muslim ban, albeit haphazardly applied.
That's just disrespectful.
I bet you feel like a big man running around shouting names at people who don't agree with you.
Instead all you prove is how ridiculously stupid you are... please continue, I insist.
The more and more you try and take some kind of high ground on others, more will turn against you because... well... your a prick.
All Trump has done is to repeat the actions of Clinton, Bush and Obama with this 90 day travel ban on seven specific countries (Specified by the Obama administration) which are either failed states or openly hostile to the USA. It is emphatically not a 'Muslim Ban' and it is both misleading and disingenuous to report it as such. The fact that they are majority Muslim countries doesn't affect the visa suspension for those citizens who are not Muslim.
The blinkered and partisan can downvote this post all they like, but it won't change the fact that a similar visa suspension under the Obama administration lasted for eleven months, not the 90 day suspension Trump has tried to put in place. The UAE (A Muslim country) also have a similar travel ban. Where was the self-righteous outcry against those? *Crickets*
Without wishing to upset anyone can I point out that not only did he ban those countries but he actively supported minority religions entering the USA. Now I'm guessing these minorities are not going to be trying to escape from Western countries which means non-Muslims. Therefore I think the general consensus is that Trump is anti-Muslim.
A potato is a potato no matter how you pronouce it. You say potato, I say potato, trump tells the Muslims to f*** off.
Another factually challenged 'journalist' with an axe to grind. This Reg hack, like some others, ignores facts because they don't fit the narrative. Agree or disagree on the 7 country ban, but at least be factual.
"However, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest used publicly available information and identified at least 17 individuals from these seven nations that from March 2014 to June 2016 were implicated in terrorism. Eight of these are terrorists convicted for crimes mainly related to giving material support or attempting to give material support to ISIS."
"However, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest used publicly available information and identified at least 17 individuals from these seven nations that from March 2014 to June 2016 were implicated in terrorism.
Wow, 17 whole people from 7 different nations.
How about this then:
In Great Britain, between 11 September 2001 and 31 December 2015, 656 individuals were prosecuted for terrorist offences, 542 of whom were convicted.
That's a mean of roughly 38 a year, from one country.
So maybe the UK should be added to the immigration ban as well?
...it does mean that those who managed to slip into the USA were caught. Which means your security services are doing their job. Terrorists are not superhumanly smart. You have the NSA and the CIA and the FBI. Do you think they are all so incompetent that only closing your borders will make you safe? The two chaps in Bowling Green were noted as they came in, had an eye kept on them and, as soon as they actually did something, were dealt with. No excessive force, no excessive reaction, simply sensible watchfulness and sensible actions.
But perhaps it is more exciting to think that diabolically clever and cunning evilness is threatening the USA from every corner and only S.H.I.E.L.D.-like reactions can save you all, and that every effort you make is somehow heroic.
"Another factually challenged 'journalist' with an axe to grind. This Reg hack, like some others, ignores facts because they don't fit the narrative. Agree or disagree on the 7 country ban, but at least be factual."
Honestly this is why I barely even read this site anymore in all honesty it reads more like some shoddy tabloid now.
I hate to inform all the liberal minded fools but your cell operatives are highlighting their allegiance. ...this will result in them being replaced (directly or indirectly) and 2 years down the line all the liberal fools will have been replaced with Trumps warriors and Trump will get anything he desires. ...clearly POTUS is not the most powerful position in the world if your own people can undermine your decisions ...it is clearly obvious that Putin is probably the most powerful person in the world ...because his followers and his citizens adore him / accept him, unlike America, which is a cluster-f*ck of hypocrisy.
I hate to inform all the liberal minded fools but your cell operatives are highlighting their allegiance. ...this will result in them being replaced (directly or indirectly) and 2 years down the line all the liberal fools will have been replaced with Trumps warriors and Trump will get anything he desires.
That's just disrespectful.
I bet you feel like a big man running around shouting names at people who don't agree with you.
Instead all you prove is how ridiculously stupid you are... please continue, I insist.
The more and more you try and take some kind of high ground on others, more will turn against you because... well... your[sic] a prick.
Irony - adj. a bit like iron.
The days of Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan are long over and not lamented. The world history of strong men dominating others is not a happy one. Can we perhaps grow up and stop looking for a super-hero and just get on with talking and negotiating and all of that? There is no such thing as a saviour.
...you've been happy with the reporters and with your fellow Commentards, but as soon as we move onto this new topic, we are suddenly untrustworthy out-of-touch, and stupid. Perhaps, on balance, it turns out that techies are skeptical, don't like bullshit, are suspicious of self-appointed saviors, and are intolerant of bombast? Seems to me we're pretty consistent, whether it is Apple or Microsoft or Trump.
So do I, but now let me revel something very funny, I know more twats where I live than American twats, And I hope you will understand that without first studying statistics and logic. It just happens that I don't find Trump suited to be the president of any country regardless of him being black yellow pink Muslim Jew or an Eskimo.
I have both studied and worked abroad and travelled in more than fifty countries and you meet people you like, people you agree with and at times you rather change table or topic and it would not surprise me if there are more twats in the USA than in say Greenland.
Lets not dive into that black hole where all logic and humanity disappears and we start to hate people for no reason, out of fear.
Judges are human and they read / listen to the news.
For this so-called president to have Twittered away negatively just demonstrates his immaturity.
This undoubtedly spurred the Appeals Court to work overtime and really issue a Decision that the so-called president would have a hard time fighting in the superior courts.
It will be reinstated. As much as the 9th circuit court, and the people who hate anything Trump does want it to be different, you can't just piss on the constitution. The constitution gives POTUS the authority to do what he did. Period. The stay and the current ruling are blatant overreach by the judicial branch. their job is NOT to create or interpret policy. Don't like it? Change the constitution. That's how it works. But be careful... Changes you make today because you don't like the current president will affect future ones as well.
The sad thing is this: everything Obama did was lauded as amazing and wonderful by the left. We know this not to be true, but he could do no wrong according to the media party. Now, everything that Trump does will be racist, evil, whatever. Whether it is good or bad. Its a shame, really. It is only going to get worse for this country no matter what party is in control. Our governance is more and more like a reality TV show and less and less like it should be. For the people, by the people.
"The constitution gives POTUS the authority to do what he did. Period."
Please cite the exact text of the Constitution where this is stated, then. Please note, also, that the Bill of Rights (where discrimination against religion is forbidden) was ratified AFTER the original Article II, therefore anything it says takes precedence as official Amendments.
And don't give us that bit about national security because if that were true, Saudi Arabia would be on that list (since the 9/11 hijackers and the Al Queda mastermind all came from there). Also the US would be banning ITSELF since homegrown terrorists have committed atrocities as well (Oklahoma City in particular).
Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber" is a Brit.
Perhaps with that fact in mind Trump should have included the UK as an eighth country on his Executive Order. That would make more sense than his current list of seven.
I'm sure Donald thinks his first three weeks in office have gone very well...
"everything Obama did was lauded as amazing and wonderful by the left"
OK, the rest of the comment aside, this is actually relevant. The Democratic party's largely unquestioning support of Obama has indeed been disturbing. One good thing about Trump's election is that now it is socially acceptable for people on the left to express discontent with abuses of executive power, whereas previously there was largely a dead silence when Obama would, say, ratify domestic spying powers or whatever. Criticism of drone bombings has been very quiet and reasoned; "Oh that was rude, they really should be more careful which buildings they blow up." Imagine if Trump drone-bombed the wrong target.
So, in one small way, Trump's election is a positive, because people should be outraged. My question is: how the heck does this add up to a defense of Trump? It doesn't. So now we have a mirror reaction from the far right, who seem totally OK with the same "crimes" Obama committed being perpetrated by Trump.
Basically, I'm surrounded by idiots. I don't know if we deserve what's coming, but we certainly asked for it.
If our judges fail to uphold the constitutional laws our representatives have enacted in our names. Then they should be removed from the bench and never be allowed to serve in public office again.
" Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
This is the law whether those that refuse to work and oppose The President of the United States of America. Protesting in America is a right of the people. Sedition is not.
Judges saying no unrepairable damage has been done by the immigrants and illegal aliens should have their heads pulled out of their asses so they can .look around and see the permanent damage done to woman that have been raped, men and woman that have been beaten and killed by Individuals let into our country from the nations included in the ban. This veteran did not fight in service of this country to let a bunch of morons allow people that have sworn to kill Americans and take over this country into our country. Too many of our young citizens have been brainwashed by their tactics to fight against our own country. Too many mosques have been found containing weapons for was within them. Too many Muslim leaders (already in this country) have stood up and spoken (which is their right) and encourage those of the Muslim faith to do everything they can to take over and destroy the American way of life and our country. Irreparable damage has already been done to The USA.
Once again I have to stand up and fight against the enemies, both foreign and DOMESTIC that are attacking our nation from within. Every patriotic American citizen and veteran should be doing the same.
You're a disgrace to the nation, please fire yourself as an American immediately.
We've done that whole "Discriminating against others based on race/ethnicity/culture" in the past. That was when we established concentration camps for Japanese-Americans out of the terrifying fear that the slant-eyed yellow bastards would all draw swords from thin air, shout BANZAI and start slaughtering people.
Guess what? Statistically speaking, not a single one of them had any love for Hirohito or the Imperial Japanese government.
Meanwhile, a truly alarming number of German-American citizens were staging outright Nazi-sympathizing rallies and establishing an American Nazi Party, and we certainly didn't do anything to them because they were white Christians who looked like the average guy next door.
People like you, and Trump, are a disgrace to this country. You want to make America great again? Start by disenfranchising yourself.
So many twats commenting on things they don't understand that I won't post this as a reply to any single one (consider it a reply to all of you).
I keep seeing "to within the restraints of the law". Let me tell you what the Constitution says (I believe that counts as "the law")...
Section 1182(f), which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”
Where in that is there any confusion as to whether or not he has the legal leg to stand on?
As for "no syrians have been convicted of terrorists attacks in America" how about that little attack on Paris back in 2015? Do we have to wait until that happens here before we act? That's just foolish. If Martians were attacking European capitals would we need to wait until it happens to ours before we decide to do something?
It blows my mind that this is even an issue. It's so obvious that this is simply the left doing anything it can to "obstruct" and "confuse" the American people using it's only tools remaining. They still control the media and the legislative branch (due to years of leftist appointees that never come up for renewal once appointed).
I think any judge involved in this obstruction should be immediately reviewed for disbarment and / or impeachment for interfering with the function of the U.S. Federal government and usurping the Article 1 constitutional powers of Congress to regulate commerce with foreign countries and set the rules of naturalization and immigration, and the President’s Article 2 powers as Commander in Chief and the sole officer responsible for interaction with foreign powers.
The swamp is wide and deep. We need to get rid of quite of few of these judging nitwits that believe they are the voice of a higher power. You're just a lawyer without a boss. Your boss is supposed to be the SCOTUS, but since you're ignoring the 1936 and 1948 SCOTUS judgements that already settled this and established the POTUS has this authority, if I were your boss I'd fire your ass on the spot.
This EO WILL be allowed and I hope Trumps team is making a list of those who tried to stop it. I'd love to see some of these embedded traitors strung up on their own noose.
Just a patriotic American's viewpoint.
Technically correct, in that an ‘act’ refers to laws passed by the Congress. Hence the constitution does not contain acts (they are used to enforce provisions in the constitution). I think 1182(f) is pretty clear and is still a "law" backed by the constitutional powers it clarifies.
Next time, post your name instead of as an Anonymous Coward, if you want to be treated as a human.
<i>Next time, post your name instead of as an Anonymous Coward, if you want to be treated as a human.</i>
That from "steve 124".....
I'd rather post as an anonymous coward, thank you. Sorry if this bother people with thin skins and wee little hands.
Steve 124 - you asked:
Section 1182(f), which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate”
Where in that is there any confusion as to whether or not he has the legal leg to stand on?
The pertinent section here is 'would be detrimental to the interests of the United States'.
Herein lies the reason for Donald to hop around because his legal leg has been removed. What grounds are there to ban these specific countries when there are so many more that have not only threatened but made good on those threats - Saudi Arabia and all the rest mentioned previously, including the UK. If the ban is because they would be detrimental then where is the proof, and why such a selective group of people?
You could also look at your internal right to bear arms. After all that hasn't inspired terror with how many people killed by guns each year - not even having to go into the atrocities where children get killed, but that's OK so long as you still have the right to inspire terror at whim by deciding to go to a school and terrorize everyone by shooting people at random - it's in the constitution.
Ultimately it was a badly thought out, badly imposed EO. Why can't you people just admit that and sort it out. If you want to ban people with justification that is your right, but that justification should be imposed evenly, not just as a means of grabbing a headline then whining because Trumpy boy isn't getting his own way, and it's not fair.
Here's a thought - why not use that massive multi group intelligence set up you have to target those people who may be a problem and just ban them. Of course you might actually have to have some intelligence in your intelligence services rather than just blanket ban a large number of people for the hell of it. But if you used that intelligence you might actually have some support for it, especially if you let the people implementing it know exactly what you want to do rather than leave them to try and work it out for themselves with the resulting chaos it causes.
America - land of the free, home of the brave - the only country to actually have sarcasm in it's national anthem.