I've dealt with this before with my current regime, so I know what to do, I always thought the cafs generals is a safe space though.
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
would this be applied to tourists too or just immigrants?Off to a protest tonight. Debating whether to make a sign or not.
Pipes doesn't seem to say, here's his two previous articles on the matters:
Trump: You Should Ban Islamists, Not Muslims - http://www.danielpipes.org/16331/trump-ban-islamists-not-muslims
Identifying Islamists through Interrogations - http://www.danielpipes.org/16438/identifying-islamists-interrogations
I'd imagine for the process to have any meaning it would have to apply to all visitors, immigrant or casual, no?
As a Muslim, it would probably put me off even going there (maybe that's what they want), while i can understand some of the questions to figure stuff out, but some of them gives the impression that having mainstream muslim views means you are an islamist, especially the theological questions.
Also people with ill intentions can easily lie and get around those questions.
It's all far too complicated and time-consuming to ever be implemented anyway. The fact that Pipes thinks it's feasible is probably a sign that he's going (more) mad. On the other hand I sometimes think Pipes uses his relatively mainstream position to sound out ideas and theories that are subsequently expanded upon by his more extreme allies - an example of that would be the idea of Obama as a Muslim, which Pipes spent years 'wondering' out loud about, all the while it got 'hijacked' by those to his right (tight space there). The worry would be that elements in the Trump administration have something else in mind when thinking of the 'extreme' part of the process.
TBF to Trump or any other western country if they have intel on someone who is potentially dangerous i would say it's justified to to have an interview before letting them in. But to have a blanket procedure for everyday muslims is demonising and unnecessary.
Yeah of course.
My point is I don't agree with the petition. He shouldn't be offered a state visit, but not because it might embarrass the Queen. I suspect most people don't even bother to read the wording of the petition though, which doesn't say much for the process…
"because it would cause embarrassment to Her Majesty"
I don't agree with this vetting at all but i do think its within the realms of reasonable to vet those from countries who don't have adequate protections in place (what those are would be a beyond me). Financial activity is for instance heavily vetted and monitored by nothing more than high risk countries so I don't see a major difference.
Its all a very fine line.
Did you just swap out Ceausescu for Assad?
The royals do meet a lot of despots, though. It's a big part of their job.
Yeah, I didn't want to load the post with photos and though Assad would be more obvious to the point
And I'm not even moaning at the Royals. Like fine, they have to do it and the Queen has to grit her teeth. Just the wording of the petition is ridiculous.
Yeah of course.
My point is I don't agree with the petition. He shouldn't be offered a state visit, but not because it might embarrass the Queen. I suspect most people don't even bother to read the wording of the petition though, which doesn't say much for the process…
"because it would cause embarrassment to Her Majesty"
I read the wording of the petition, didn't really agree with it for the same reasons as you, but signed it anyway.
Seems asinine to quibble over the specifics and divide forces when the more signatures one petition gets makes it more impactful (not that these every really change anything) relatively speaking.
No whey, Trumpey, Trump knows squat.
Casein point; *insert other weight lifting related pun here*
Sorry I don't know what you do other than lift things.
Could make the point that of the two (Trump and the Queen), the Queen is the more repressive, merely by virtue of her station. At least Trump holds elected office.
Also, I only found out Trump was 70 this week, which for some reason surprised me
You DO have tons of drugs pouring in from the northern border.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/26/canada-border-is-drug-wars-2nd-front/
That's probably a fair point, but I enjoy quibbling over minor details
Also, sadly, I think the country probably will respond more to 'Oh what will Queeny think?' than it will 'Donald Trump is a thunder cnut and we shouldn't give him a state visit out of principle'. There is at the very least a sizeable minority of people in this country that sadly agree with Trump's thundercuntery.
I could draw a picture of Trump saying 'No whey, Jose'?
8 days
Just one of many protests around the USA and the world. He's certainly bringing people together. Just not how he would have wanted, completely against him.
This is the flaw in the Electoral College. It doesn't take much for a president that lost the popular vote by 3m to lose credibility.
They've already answered the petition with a two finger salute so it definitely won't change much. Neither will the protests but its a good place to vent i guess.
They haven't officially answered it, and Theresa May doesn't have the authority to do so. That is up to the petitions committee, which has at least some opposition MP's on, who I would expect to put this forward for a debate in the House of Commons. The only other similarly popular petition was debated, and theres actually a pretty decent success rate in getting things debated from these: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions
Of course, ultimately, it will do nothing, but its a vehicle to voice displeasure if nothing else.
"Please give Raoul back!"
Failing that:
"God is a cnut!" - Mockney '**
(** can't quite remember the year)
It might get debated but it will only be the same answer given. It'll give MPs particularly Labour a good chance to question Trump and pile some pressure on which is at least a good cause i suppose.
a bit petty to be fair but a funny message to send to Trump nonetheless. I still can't get over how stupid this has been by the republicans. If they'd have done what Obama did with enhancing the vetting for Iraqis it would have almost equated to a temp ban anyway. Rhetoric is all this is, dangerous rhetoric at that.
There seems to be no online reference to the existence of any such committee. Fake news. Sad.
Are there any US people on here who voted for Trump? Would be interested in their take on all this.
I still can't get over how stupid this has been by the republicans. If they'd have done what Obama did with enhancing the vetting for Iraqis it would have almost equated to a temp ban anyway. Rhetoric is all this is, dangerous rhetoric at that.
Trump had to deliver on his 'promise'. He will keep a lot of his voters because of his actions.
Iraqis won't be able to stick to their guns - far too much involved. But, Iraq is the only country of the 7 that can actually make a dent with a reciprocal act.
I still can't get over how stupid this has been by the republicans. If they'd have done what Obama did with enhancing the vetting for Iraqis it would have almost equated to a temp ban anyway. Rhetoric is all this is, dangerous rhetoric at that.
Tens of thousands of American contractors and businessmen are in Iraq (leaving aside the elephant in the room - US Military).
So, this'll be the Iraqis making a symbolic stance - trying to regain a little of pride and then caving (because, really that's the only option they have)
The new Newbies policy might make it easier to access now.
You know your on a C.I.A. hit list now?
Think the CIA as it's hands full with the Narcissist In Chief . Yeah gloves and a chastity belt .Truth be told, they don't care. Obama (the black guy) is finally out of the White House and Hillary isn't President so that's all that matters to them. Trump could ban them from eating and they'd still want to make America great again.
True for now I am sure. But this is important. Trump is not going to be forced out by the people who never voted for him and never would. I see this as a four year battle to win back a good slug of those who voted for him. Probably a combination of not actually keeping people safe + not actually bringing back jobs could do it, though in the latter case the economy is probably in an up cycle.
But this is already being done, especially in the US. These Trump supporters are very very ignorant to the fact that when it comes to actually letting people into the country, the US has some of the strictest laws on the books. Where it goes downhill is that there isn't an efficient enough system to track folks AFTER they've entered the country and how long they've stayed. This is where most of the work and money should be focused on. And besides, a donkey or a dog has an easier and faster chance of being made a legal immigrant than a translator helping their own army fight their wars.
Last edited:
- Status