The Trump presidency

We get it durham, really we do. Trump is odious, racist, sexist, xenophobic and just plain dumb. Everyone on here agrees with you. The world has wised up to him and now it's just a matter of wait and see as to whether his planned visit to HM will go ahead and the outcome of that will be. Nothing is to be gained by dragging Melania Trump into this discussion; that seems unfair and unjust to me, she's done nothing wrong, as far as I'm aware.

Surely Trump has just condemned himself!

Interesting little spat on channel 4 news between a white SNP politician lecturing a black American pastor.
The paster supports Trump and insists he's not a racist. The SNP woman insists that he is. The paster said to her: " I'm a black man from the Deep South and I know what a racist is"
She insisted she knew better than him.

'Each presidential administration must decide who it considers a priority for deportation. Mr. Trump’s order focuses on anyone who has been charged with a criminal offense, even if it has not led to a conviction. He also includes, according to language in the order, anyone who has “committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense,” meaning anyone the authorities believe has broken any type of law — regardless of whether that person has been charged with a crime.

Mr. Trump’s order also includes anyone who has engaged in “fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency,” a category that includes anyone who has used a false Social Security number to obtain a job, as many unauthorized immigrants do. Anyone who has received a final order to leave the country, but has not left, is also considered a priority.

Finally, he allows the targeting of anyone who “in the judgment of an immigration officer” poses a risk to either public safety or national security. That gives immigration officers the broad authority they have been pressing for, and no longer requires them to receive a review from a supervisor before targeting individuals.'

Do you think Melania would be included in this if she wasn't married to Trump?

She has perfected That Smile - so if you see her smiling then it is her State Visit Smile.

HM will not be 'temporarily indisposed' - why should she be? She'll do what she always does, just get on with it.

Personal likes and dislikes don't come into it.

www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/24/journalists-charged-felonies-trump-inauguration-unrest

Do we really want this man coming here, someone who has arrested six journalists for covering American unrest?
By the way, Trump has changed the definition of a felony. You can be removed from the country if you are charged with a felony, not if you are convicted. It was in the order he signed on Friday.

www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html?_r=0

There is normal OTT and then there is state coach/golf at Balmoral OTT varian

It will be OTT, Charles will greet him , there will be protests which will have no effect al all.

I fear for innocent Americans who may become victims of revenge

State visits are by definition OTT. I think her majesty might be excused due to a temporary indispisition and Prince Charles should do the honours.

I am becoming more relaxed about a State Visit as long as it is not OTT.
And the more people who become enraged over it not going ahead the more he will be cock-a-hoop when it does go ahead (which it will because he is Head of State of the most powerful country in the world, like it or not).

Best to ignore him as Prince Charles would like to do.

You can't get in a rage over thinking that people don't do what you think they should, when you do not know what else they do.

now, is that referring to Trump or posters on here?
As we know what Trump is doing but not what is is not doing iyswim

They do, though. I have signed e-petitions and written to my MP on all those things you mention, so why do you assume we do not care about those things?
I care about a lot more than that. I have demonstrated against lots of things that you probably do not know about. We do not move in the same type of circles, so you have no idea. Do not assume to know everything about me.

You haven't said what you do really get in a rage over, though. Just writing on here isn't enough.
What do you get in a rage over? Simple question.
You can't get in a rage over thinking that people don't do what you think they should, when you do not know what else they do.

durhamjen 16.01

POGS

"I simply cannot get in a rage over a State Visit to be honest."

What can you get into a rage over?

You are referring to my post of 13.21 today I assume.

My answer is I don't get in a rage although I am watching many who do.

As I posted this in the same post you are concerned over I would have thought the answer to your question was quite clear as to what sort of thing 'upsets' me. I wrote the following:-

" I simply cannot get in a rage over a State Visit to be honest.

This point was made on the Theresa May thread

"What is so concerning is that some have argued that we can no longer afford to hold to our values, or our moral values because we need a trade deal."

Fair enough but if I saw those voices shouting so loudly to 'hold our values, our moral values' , going on demonstrations, signing e.petitions getting as worked up and angry over Female Genital Mutilation, Under age marriage, forced marriage, peadophillia, breast ironing, women being seen as no more than the chattel of their brothers, fathers and husbands, the laws of those religions that are so diametrically opposed to our UK laws with regard to women's rights, opposing Hate Preachers spewing out their vile thoughts then maybe I could get excited"..

They don't though do they."

'Once again' I have answered your question to myself but I would think that 'once again' you will not understand what I say.

www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/us/trump-hotels-tweet-refugees.html?rref=collection%2Fnewseventcollection%2FThe%20Trump%20White%20House

Trump might wish he didn't use twitter, particularly for his hotels.

Quite Varian one of Trump's spokesmen was challenged by BBC presenter and, of course in complete denial. Because having lots of guns around in the community keeps people safer. Of course it does.

During 2015 more Americans were killed or injured by toddlers with guns than terrorists from any country.

file:///C:/Users/Val/Desktop/Toddlers%20Killed%20More%20Americans%20than%20Terrorists%20in%202015%20_%20snopes.com.html

No Americans have been killed on American soil by nationals of these seven banned countries in the last forty years.

53% of Americans support the ban. That's from john snow ( not the DM

Trump's order specifically mentions 9/11. The majority of those responsible for that atrocity came from Saudi Arabia.

Fortunately there are lots of legal people who understand, including those from UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration, whose words are much more important than even Trump's.

theconversation.com/trumps-order-barring-refugees-flies-in-the-face-of-logic-and-humanity-72061

Indeed niggly, indeed. Scary times ahead. Mikhail Gorbachev has spoken out about how worried he is that Trump and Putin seem intent on creating war. Bad enough on gransnet at the minute!

I should think Putin and the Chinese (Those two beacons of democracy!!) must be beside themselves with laughter at this particular western charade!! What fools we consistently make of ourselves!!

And they've done a fair bit too rosies ! Like I said up thread, Trump has by no means been a trail blazer on this issue. All been done before.

I have no axe to grind regarding Trump,but do like to see the whole picture, including what former POTUS have done.

penstemon been and checked re "countries with a large terrorism presence " and Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Uganda and Pakistan still showing as being "countries where terrorists have long found refuge and where there are significant terrorist operations". This was from the www.terrorism-research website. Saudi Arabia hasn't been included on any search that I've found yet but maybe someone else could corroborate that? duram is adamant that Saudi Arabia is the main catalyst so maybe she has a link for that?

Well, yes,rechecking and intensifying checks does effectively act as a ban , although I concede your point that it wasn't actually called a ban.
Calling it a ban is much more emotive, maybe that's why Obamas people didn't.
If Trump had called it the same.....and traffic from those countries dwindled whilst these rechecking and intensifying practices went on, would that have been better?
Perhaps.