The visit could take such a long time to arrange he could have been impeached/arrested for disturbing the peace by then.
Why doesn't Starmer hold another referendum?
The last Trump thread has run out of space. I suspect we need a new one. As he steams through his first week issuing royal edicts on a range of things and asserting that he will build a wall, how will politicians in Washington react to his fascist agenda along with his apparently immature and decidedly dodgy personality?
The visit could take such a long time to arrange he could have been impeached/arrested for disturbing the peace by then.
assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3438628/CAIR-Suit-EDVA-20170130.pdf
One of the legal complaints against Trump. Led by the woman who started the women's march.
I am meeting a friend next week and I am sure she is a Trump supporter although I haven't seen her since the latest proclamations.
So I am practising my HM The Queen State Visit Smile.
And my John McEnroe 'You Can't Be Serious' look.
Good luck, Jalima. Any chance of staying off politics?
I hope you are meeting far away from anywhere a placard could be seen.
Apparently the order denies immigrant benefits to Muslims who are already in the country legally.
It's clause 7 or 8 of the document link above.
He's not just stopping people coming in to the US, but punishing those already there for being Muslim.
If anyone has access to The Times tomorrow's front page story is headlined: Trump Visit will hurt the Queen, May is told.
I'm trying to read it from a small image on twitter; as far as I can make out it is saying that The Palace is not happy.
Comments from the former Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office
'It is unprecedented for US presidents to be given a State visit in their first year in the White House'
"Theresa May has put the Queen in a very difficult position"
"It would have been far wiser to wait to see what kind of president he would turn out to be before advising the Queen to invite him"
More detail would be appreciated from anyone who has access.
It does look as though May has made a bit of a booboo...
1,574,000+ signatures and still rising steadily.
She is lovely and has been very kind to me. We will not be alone.
Mr Google found me this, chewbacca. I have no idea of its stance, bias or anything.
foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/
This about the 7 countries
*Bonus: Obama’s “seven countries” taken out of context: Trump’s claim that the seven countries listed in the executive order came from the Obama administration is conveniently left unexplained. A bit of background: soon after the December 2015 terror attack in San Bernadino, President Obama signed an amendment to the Visa Waiver Program, a law that allows citizens of 38 countries to travel to the United States without obtaining visas (and gives Americans reciprocal privileges in those countries). The amendment removed from the Visa Waiver Program dual nationals who were citizens of four countries (Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and Syria), or anyone who had recently traveled to those countries. The Obama administration added three more to the list (Libya, Somalia, and Yemen), bringing the total to seven. But this law did not bar anyone from coming to the United States ( my emphasis ). It only required a relatively small percentage of people to obtain a visa first. And to avoid punishing people who clearly had good reasons to travel to the relevant countries, the Obama administration used a waiver provided by Congress for certain travelers, including journalists, aid workers, and officials from international organizations like the United Nations.
nypost.com/2017/01/29/white-house-warns-prince-charles-against-lecturing-on-climate-change/
Surely if this happened as it says, the visit should be cancelled.
How can the Whitehouse control a meeting like this? Trump will erupt?
May should erupt on Charles behalf, surely.
Theresa May was told about what Trump was going to do on Friday, apparently. She wasn't told all the details but knew he was going to do something about refugees. She didn't try and stop him.
did I post that earlier? I am losing track of threads.
without a link though
Do you mean Prince Charles?
I know it was mentioned on a thread sometime. Like you say, losing track of threads.
I thought the link showed more detail about what was said.
Yes, it was P Charles
I heard it but couldn't find a link but it says the same thing, the White House has warned P Charles not to mention climate change because Trump will 'erupt'.
That's more contextual Maisie and certainly gives more information than I found on Fox News. As you say, it's difficult to know what the bias of the reporting is, especially in an overseas newspaper.
Excellent article, Maizie.
Unfortunately, those who ought to read it will not, and if they do, they will not believe it.
This is good as well. There's hope yet.
foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/3-ways-to-get-rid-of-president-trump-before-2020-impeach-25th-amendment-coup/
He's sacked the Attorney General for questioning his banning order. No rule of law in Trumps world.
I wonder if he'll ban Canadians from America.
A French-Canadian has been charged with murdering six people in a mosque in Quebec. Apparently, he had known far right views.
That is why our judges should for ever remain politically independent.
Indeed not! The Attorney General said that she wasn't convinced that Trump's executive order was constitutional, so he sacked her. It seems he doesn't even care about the constitution.
Not if they are far right he won't. Bosom buddies.
I'm just going to make a cup of tea.
Quote of the week " Its all working out very very nicely"
Does anyone recall the definition of a psychopath?
There is a Facebook post currently listing the characteristics of a narcissist as identified in one of the US diagnostic manuals. Various well qualified psychologists and others queuing up to confirm the Donald fits the 10 diagnostic characteristics listed.
We have to be so relieved that our Judiciary are not chosen by whichever government is in power. Imagine, sacking an Attorney General because she concluded the directive from the President wasn't legal. Mind you, it does remind us of the DM headline, calling our Judges "enemies of the people" because they analysed the law and didn't reach the same conclusion as that newspaper.
Iam64 - yes, it said that eminent US psychiatrists had made their opinions public. The man appears to be unstoppable, there must be some legal way of constraining him, his powers isn't absolute. Is it?
Appalled to have dreamt about him last night, R4/World Service not a good station for late night listening. I feel invaded, I'm not being funny.
This discussion thread has reached a 1000 message limit, and so cannot accept new messages.
Start a new discussion
Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.