leicsmac Posted 30 January 2017 Share Posted 30 January 2017 1 minute ago, Grewks said: What right do we have to tell Trump what laws he can and cannot pass affecting America? None, him passing laws by himself being an overextension of executive powers notwithstanding. But we can certainly engage in lively debate about it and talk about the people who do have that right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 30 January 2017 Share Posted 30 January 2017 Just now, Grewks said: What right do we have to tell Trump what laws he can and cannot pass affecting America? None, but as soon as it's a Republican in the Whitehouse doing something we don't like we have to go absolutely mental, even when numerous countries all over the World, including some staunch allies of ours, imprison, rape, torture and kill people for things such as sexuality, political opinion and religious belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voll Blau Posted 30 January 2017 Share Posted 30 January 2017 2 minutes ago, Grewks said: What right do we have to tell Trump what laws he can and cannot pass affecting America? By that logic what right does anyone have to tell Hitler what laws he could pass affecting Germany, Saddam in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 30 January 2017 Share Posted 30 January 2017 21 hours ago, Strokes said: https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-made-the-muslim-ban-possible-and-the-media-wont-tell-you/ I'd be interested to learn the Sunni/Shia take on this given that many believe Obama's a Muslim (key In Obama' s Muslim connection or similar), though whether he'd be Sunni or Shia seems open to debate. Iran is essentially Shia, Iraq has a strongly Shia military now so I believe and is otherwise divided, Yemen's Sunni opposition is under attack from Saudi and yet staunchly Sunni Saudi is not on the list). It's a huge pity any nation's citizens have been banned and I suspect such an approach will be counter productive. That doesn't change my favouring strong security vetting both here and elsewhere in the West, I also believe in dramatically reduced immigration policies and that all immigrants, whatever their faith, should have a commitment to our society and its core values including equal rights - and proper respect - for all women. I cannot see why a points system - with proper checks and security verification - cannot achieve this. Anyone saying Syrians bad, Saudis good, or Iranians bad, Sudanese bad is just in fantasyland. Whatever's done needs to be fair and considered. But it should also put our own nation and its peaceful future first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 30 January 2017 Share Posted 30 January 2017 18 minutes ago, MattP said: None, but as soon as it's a Republican in the Whitehouse doing something we don't like we have to go absolutely mental, even when numerous countries all over the World, including some staunch allies of ours, imprison, rape, torture and kill people for things such as sexuality, political opinion and religious belief. Getting into bed with the Saudis in particular is one of the most reprehensible things the US - regardless of administration - has done, but seeing as there's precious little difference between the main parties on that particular policy (oil being God after all) the current onus is going to be on the differences that do exist. And there are a few differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grewks Posted 30 January 2017 Share Posted 30 January 2017 19 minutes ago, Voll Blau said: By that logic what right does anyone have to tell Hitler what laws he could pass affecting Germany, Saddam in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan etc. You do realize that for 2 out of those 3 we are responsible for, if not causing, directly worsening. Trump has made a decision based on what he thinks is helping to improve the safety and security of his country. In the last decade not only have we worsened the state of affairs in the middle east, but we've also contributed to the development of a threat from the East to the West. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 30 January 2017 Share Posted 30 January 2017 And for something a bit different: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38753819 I have an enormous respect for Musk and sincerely hope he gets involved more with this administration - if only to act as a bulwark against the clear anti-science (whether to do with climate change it or otherwise) voices within it already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 30 January 2017 Share Posted 30 January 2017 11 minutes ago, Voll Blau said: By that logic what right does anyone have to tell Hitler what laws he could pass affecting Germany, Saddam in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan etc. What right? The people of Germany elected Hitler just as Americans elected Trump. I don't know the backgrounds regarding Saddam and The Taliban but suspect that neither could have stayed in power without substantial support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voll Blau Posted 30 January 2017 Share Posted 30 January 2017 1 minute ago, Thracian said: What right? The people of Germany elected Hitler just as Americans elected Trump. I don't know the backgrounds regarding Saddam and The Taliban but suspect that neither could have stayed in power without substantial support. I guess we should all just stop taking an interest in anything that happens beyond our shores full stop then seeing as it's all none of our business... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 30 January 2017 Share Posted 30 January 2017 Oh, and apparently the new nomination for the vacant seat on the Supreme Court will be announced tomorrow too. Roe v Wade and Oberfell v Hodges hang in the balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 30 January 2017 Share Posted 30 January 2017 6 minutes ago, leicsmac said: And for something a bit different: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38753819 I have an enormous respect for Musk and sincerely hope he gets involved more with this administration - if only to act as a bulwark against the clear anti-science (whether to do with climate change it or otherwise) voices within it already. Couldn't agree more about Musk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grewks Posted 30 January 2017 Share Posted 30 January 2017 1 minute ago, Voll Blau said: I guess we should all just stop taking an interest in anything that happens beyond our shores full stop then seeing as it's all none of our business... Not at all. We should be learning from other nations. Our government continually seems to take an approach that foreigners are more important that it's own citizens. Trump is making a decision based on common sense and experience, if France had taken a similar approach, the attacks in paris would have been far less likely to occur. With the current state of the world, Trump may bring some common sense back to politics. I certainly warm to many of his views, even if sometimes he goes the wrong way about implementing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voll Blau Posted 30 January 2017 Share Posted 30 January 2017 2 minutes ago, Grewks said: Not at all. We should be learning from other nations. Our government continually seems to take an approach that foreigners are more important that it's own citizens. Trump is making a decision based on common sense and experience, if France had taken a similar approach, the attacks in paris would have been far less likely to occur. With the current state of the world, Trump may bring some common sense back to politics. I certainly warm to many of his views, even if sometimes he goes the wrong way about implementing them. Mixed messages there chief. Are you saying we should be learning from foreigners or ignoring them because we're more important? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grewks Posted 30 January 2017 Share Posted 30 January 2017 Just now, Voll Blau said: Mixed messages there chief. Are you saying we should be learning from foreigners or ignoring them because we're more important? There are no mixed messages. I simply said you learn from the actions of others. Both those which are successful, and those which are not. As for being more important than 'foreigners'? The simple answer for our government, should be yes. Our government is elected to meet the demands of those who elected it. Quite frankly, whether morally correct or not, our government shouldn't risk the safety of even 1 of our citizens for 100,000 refugees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 30 January 2017 Share Posted 30 January 2017 Barely anyone outside of London is actually bothered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grewks Posted 30 January 2017 Share Posted 30 January 2017 8 minutes ago, MattP said: Barely anyone outside of London is actually bothered. So the largest area in England which wanted to remain in the E.U for 'trading reasons', now want to prevent the leader of the free world getting the state visit all previous president's have been offered. With that logic, how on earth is London the financial capital of Europe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 30 January 2017 Share Posted 30 January 2017 10 minutes ago, Voll Blau said: I guess we should all just stop taking an interest in anything that happens beyond our shores full stop then seeing as it's all none of our business... My instinct is to say we've no right to interfere in the way other countries make their laws/decisions and run their administrations but when thinking about it I immediately added a rider ... unless those laws and decisions have international effect which affects either ourselves or the planet we live on. And the minute I thought about that and came up with the obvious idea of "climate change" I started realising how many decisions really do have quite serious national or international consequences. In saying we have no right to tell others what to do I'm reminded of our attitude to Iraq. We had major misgivings but in the end Tony Blair . would accept nothing but Americas line, deceived our nation and launched us into the most catastrophic human and economic interference in another country's destiny. Interference the consequences of which grew like a monstrous hydra in the years that followed - a hydra that grew multiple heads and left international carnage in its wake. So for me you can only set an example, voice concerns and offer a view when it's asked for in the main. Yes, disassociating yourself with a leader or nation is an option but not a good one. The wise words "judge not that you be not judged," come to mind and you'll never have much influence on anyone if you turn them into an enemy. Best to keep avenues of dialogue open and hope for a brighter day. We've quite enough problems choosing the right paths for our own country without creating more by closing the roads to others. People are campaigning to call off Trumps meeting with the Queen yet someone like our queen is exactly who he needs to meet. Someone with vast global respect and experience over many years and concerning countless subjects. If anyone's likely to talk some sense into anyone it's QE11. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benguin Posted 30 January 2017 Share Posted 30 January 2017 2 hours ago, leicsmac said: Oh, and apparently the new nomination for the vacant seat on the Supreme Court will be announced tomorrow too. Roe v Wade and Oberfell v Hodges hang in the balance. Roe v Wade has always hung in the balance. Abortion has always been a hugely controversial topic with as much support as opposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 30 January 2017 Share Posted 30 January 2017 2 minutes ago, Benguin said: Roe v Wade has always hung in the balance. Abortion has always been a hugely controversial topic with as much support as opposition. True enough, but the makeup of the Supreme Court has managed to keep it reasonably off the table until now. With this new appointment that might not necessarily be the case, though the judge being replaced was hardly a bastion of support for it either. Really amazed that the US still considers it an issue whereas practically nowhere else in the OECD does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 30 January 2017 Share Posted 30 January 2017 2 hours ago, MattP said: Barely anyone outside of London is actually bothered. These protests are testament to that, I've just looked at a few on Facebook, Leicester has no more than a hundred soap dodgers and Leeds no more than 200. See it's so easy to sign these faceless petitions these days, with no effort or thought due to its online nature. If people had to go to their village hall to fill it out, I bet this petition would have got less than 10,000 signatures......I might set up an online petition, calling for online petitions to be banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benguin Posted 30 January 2017 Share Posted 30 January 2017 2 minutes ago, leicsmac said: True enough, but the makeup of the Supreme Court has managed to keep it reasonably off the table until now. With this new appointment that might not necessarily be the case, though the judge being replaced was hardly a bastion of support for it either. Really amazed that the US still considers it an issue whereas practically nowhere else in the OECD does. Yeah but it needs to be put back on the table, opposition against it is as prevalent as it always has been, particularly with the whole 'planned parenthood' thing. Art 2 is challenged regularly it the echr so it's not just America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicsmac Posted 30 January 2017 Share Posted 30 January 2017 2 minutes ago, Benguin said: Yeah but it needs to be put back on the table, opposition against it is as prevalent as it always has been, particularly with the whole 'planned parenthood' thing. Art 2 is challenged regularly it the echr so it's not just America. Really? Didn't know that. Which countries are challenging it? Guess it's the ones with the highest fundie populations. Planned Parenthood shouldn't be an issue on this matter as federal funds for it to do abortions haven't been the case for decades, but I guess right now lots of people think it does and things seem to be a lot more about what people believe and not what's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barky Posted 30 January 2017 Share Posted 30 January 2017 12 minutes ago, Strokes said: These protests are testament to that, I've just looked at a few on Facebook, Leicester has no more than a hundred soap dodgers and Leeds no more than 200. See it's so easy to sign these faceless petitions these days, with no effort or thought due to its online nature. If people had to go to their village hall to fill it out, I bet this petition would have got less than 10,000 signatures......I might set up an online petition, calling for online petitions to be banned. I bet if the eu referendum was online only it would have been a clear remain vote. Banning technology is certainly one way to make sure old fashioned principles are kept alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benguin Posted 30 January 2017 Share Posted 30 January 2017 5 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Really? Didn't know that. Which countries are challenging it? Guess it's the ones with the highest fundie populations. Planned Parenthood shouldn't be an issue on this matter as federal funds for it to do abortions haven't been the case for decades, but I guess right now lots of people think it does and things seem to be a lot more about what people believe and not what's true. Not countries specifically, more individuals who have failed at domestic level. Obviously Ireland and Poland are the origin of most given the religious climate. I'm not against abortion personally but I feel strongly that issues with such a divide should be continually challenged in the courts, Norma McCorvey herself (Original plaintiff in Roe v Wade) is now extremely against abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strokes Posted 30 January 2017 Share Posted 30 January 2017 Just now, Barky said: I bet if the eu referendum was online only it would have been a clear remain vote. Banning technology is certainly one way to make sure old fashioned principles are kept alive. It probably would have, but as things stand it's not a secure way of doing anything democratic. So it's a moot point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.