rendelharris

Borky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Everyone is now an expert on the US political > process. No, I happened to read about it this morning, ITATM asked a question so I answered it. Sorry if that's a problem for you.

intexasatthe moment Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And is Trumps filing to run again in 2020 have any > particular significance ? Yes it's very significant - under US law any non-profit campaigning against a presidential candidate (or any other candidate for office) risks having its tax-free charitable status revoked by the IRS. So, for example, if Planned Parenthood campaign against his anti-abortion stance, he can accuse them of politically attacking a candidate for the 2020 election and go after their charitable status. Declaring as a candidate also allows him to solicit funds from businesses and other organisations in a way the President is not allowed to but a candidate is.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "1. Much narrower focus: The Obama administration > conducted a review in 2011 of the vetting > procedures applied to citizens of a single country > (Iraq) and then only to refugees and applicants > for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), created by > Congress to help Iraqis (and later Afghans) who > supported the United States in those conflicts. > The Trump executive order, on the other hand, > applies to seven countries with total population > more than 130 million, and to virtually every > category of immigrant other than diplomats, > including tourists and business travelers." > > Taken directly from the article above. Wasn't past > of the then presidents mandate or program on which > he was re-elected, as far as I can see. Whereas > Trump stated very early on this was one of the > things he intended to do upon winning the > election. He won the electoral college and is now > implementing what he said he would. Rightly or > wrongly, those are the facts. Now why didn't > anyone say anything else on here back in 2011 > about the US Administrations policy on certain > Iraqi citizens? genuinely interested to find out. > > > > Louisa. Personally because I wasn't here in 2011...but Obama's action was taken, as I noted above, in consultation with all relevant US Departments of State and in response to a specific identified threat, presumably that terrorists were attempting to use the SIV process to gain access to America. This is quantatively different from banning all citizens of seven countries from travelling, a decision taken without any consultation with the relevant Departments of State. Yes, Trump did promise to do this and he was elected, I don't see why that means one can't be outraged by it or oppose it. If Putin runs for re-election in 2018 on a promise that he will invade the Baltic states and gets in, will we just sit back and say well, that's what he promised and he's been elected, so...?

The claim that Trump is somehow continuing a process Obama put in place needs some clarification. In 2011 the Obama administration suspended processing refugee applications from Iraq only for six months. Iraqis who were eligible for visitor visas, green cards and whose refugee status had already been vetted were not excluded, as they have been by Trump (though he has subsequently backed down on green card holders). The Obama administration decision was taken after a dozen (at least) meetings with Homeland Security and the Departments of State and Justice in response to a specific identified threat; Trump's decision was prepared by his team in the White House and presented to those agencies as a fait accompli. The seven countries to which Trump has applied the visa ban were not banned by Obama; in 2015 he amended the visa waiver program (the one which allows reciprocal arrangements, so US citizens don't need a visa to come to Britain and vice-versa) to end the reciprocal arrangements with these countries. So anyone from the seven affected countries could still travel to the USA, but they had to apply for a visa first. That's somewhat different to Trump's blanket ban. You can still approve of Trump's actions, but claiming (as the current administration is) they're somehow following on from the previous administration's initiatives is disingenuous in the extreme. Source: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I didn't realise a certain time need to pass > before a new President was welcomed. Is that for a > reason? Or is it just historically accidental. > > i.e. are they making a big deal about Trump coming > earlier than any other President (no pun intended) > becauase it breaches protocol? or just because > they have found a thread to pick? According to The Guardian it was hastily proposed just a fortnight after Trump's election to fight the influence of Farage. Whether this is true.... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/31/how-nigel-farages-taunts-prompted-hasty-offer-of-trump-state-visit

Oh well that's alright then, should we cease all attempts to call our leaders to account until their actions fall below the standards of an Islamic dictatorship?

It's true, my entire life is devoted to consuming and replying to your posts. You comment quite a lot on my posts as well, and I enjoy the debate - if one is going to participate in debate on this forum, it's natural that one should generally choose to respond to those with whom one disagrees. If you don't want to respond to what I say, go ahead and ignore it. Over the last few days you've been worryingly aggressive about things, moving from political debate to personal insult - your post above and calling someone a fascist, which is a pretty unpleasant and serious insult, for no good reason, being cases in point. Although I generally don't agree with your views I usually find your posts interesting, that's why I respond to them - if you want to believe I have some mission to "follow you round like a rash" you're welcome to do so - but I hope you'll soon return to actually debating issues rather than just firing off insults to those who happen to disagree with you.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Signing petitions piece of pointless > piss. This petition has forced Parliament to have a debate on the issue, so not entirely pointless.

Bathmophobia, not bathophobia, but I do love the algorithm's choice of advert!

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > He said a bit more than that > > If so, no I do not want any > > dialogue with Trump, his supporters or those > who > > cravenly submit to his will. > > He said a bit more than that So that sentence is enough to justify you accusing him of being a fascist?

Yes, he said he didn't want dialogue with Trump and so you called him a fascist. You, one assumes, do want dialogue with Trump. I fail to see how that's not you "shrieking Nazis at anything which isn't our viewpoint."

Ta.

Apparently he suffers from bathmophobia, causing him to feel anxious on slopes and stairs...here's hoping they put the nuclear button on an upper floor...

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Sports drinks are better for you than fizzy drinks > - they actually replenish your body with nutrients > - yes there is also sugar - I didn't say that > there wasn't. There are studies that prove the > telomeres in your cells are reduced (shortened) > from fizzy drinks, which causes your cells to > age... Sorry to be ignorant, but when you say "fizzy drinks" do you just mean those with sugar, or is the fizz itself detrimental? When I'm off the beer, as at present, I'm fond of sparkling mineral water - is that actually bad for one?

The thing that's making me yawn most on the EDF at the moment Louisa is your continuous whining about the "urban liberal elite." For heaven's sake, you've shown many a time that you can make thoughtful and intelligent contributions to debate, why do you have to resort to just recycling the same tired old trope over and over (something which is nonsense anyway, as I've mentioned elsewhere, your continual insistence that Brexit is really the fault of those who voted against it, and Trump is the fault of those who voted for Hillary, as if the working class are some mass of mentally defective sheep who can't be trusted to make sensible decisions but only vote in opposition to the great demon liberal urban elite). As for petitions, the one I signed is the one on the official government website which, having garnered more than a million signatures, means there has to be a debate on the issue in the Commons. It may not be much, but it's something. If you want to set up a petition banning self-styled working class heroes from dismissing people, who are simply expressing their well-founded disquiet about the state of the world at present, as urban elite liberal guardianistas (what a witty term, never heard that one before!) then put me down for a signature.

Quids at 8.14: "we need to be realistic about what that is rather than shrieking Nazis at anything which isn't our viewpoint" Quids at 8.17 to someone who doesn't share his viewpoint: "you're a fascist of sorts too you know, like many who seem to think they have enlightened opinions." Touch of the old cognitive dissonance going on there...

Rough night Quids?

The magic of t'internet! http://pork.ahdb.org.uk/prices-stats/prices/pig-prices-uk-spec/

Yes as far as I can ascertain wholesale pork is only a penny more a kilo (less than 1%) now than it was in September 2016 and a whole tenpence cheaper than it was at its high in 2014. No doubt there will be hard times and price rises ahead at some point, but if someone's hiked their prices by 25% and says it's because of the wholesale price, they're telling you porkies!

Plenty of sense there and yes, there's much to be said about Labour's move away from its heartland - though that's part of the point in a way, just because voters feel betrayed by one party, rightly or wrongly, it doesn't mean their decision to go with a movement which appears in opposition to that party is just some form of reaction to that. That feels too simplistic to me and negates the ability of the working class to actually make proper informed decisions... It shouldn't be forgotten that back in the '70s when Labour was much more the party of the working class and the unions that a vast swathe of the workers voted for Thatcher because they didn't like that either, that wasn't a vote against the urban elite - for it, if anything. There are no easy answers to explain the discontent so evident at present, I'm just tired of it all being blamed on one group (who aren't in any way as homogenous and all powerful as some seem to think anyway). Case in point last week, there was a politico on the radio confidently informing us that the Brexit vote was a vote against "the liberal elite propoganda we have pumped out of the BBC." Not one mention of the fact that the most popular newspapers in the country spent the whole Brexit campaign pumping out a flow of personal attacks on Remainers, skewed (or often downright lying) statistics, racist scaremongering etc and the effect that had on the popular vote. What has more influence on the working class vote, Today on Radio Four or the Daily Mail? Discuss.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Far too easy for the urban liberal elite to jump > on the bandwagon here. Part of the cause of the > problem. Brexit and Trump were exacerbated by the > self entitled guardians of all things righteous, > siting in urban ivory tower baffled as to why > people don't think, feel and act the same way they > do. Doesn't solve anything, just reinforces > extreme views and creates more divide. Nauseating. > > > Louisa. Ah, the good old Alice in Wonderland world where those really responsible for Brexit are those who voted against it, and it's the people who voted for Hillary who are responsible for Trump. I don't agree with those who voted for Brexit or for Trump, but I do give them the credit of being able to think for themselves and vote how they see fit, instead of patronisingly saying that they're not responsible for the results of their actions.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well done! But I imagine that is a rarity. And > he sounds foreign too. What about a Roy Race or > Nicholas Jarvis? Someone who gets the bus into > training, eats fish and chips, drinks bitter, and > smokes Players, and then returns back to his digs > where he helps the widdow landlady with her > domestic chores. Here's one I remember from my > childhood. > http://www.lfchistory.net/images/keegan.kevin/tras > h.jpg > > (Yes I know Deli Ali isn't foreign) This is real shoehorning I admit but I can never resist getting in an anecdote about my grandfather, Jim Tompkins, who played for Fulham from 1934-1939 (killed in the war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Tompkins_(footballer)). One of my great uncle's jobs when Fulham were playing at home was to go down to the Rose and Crown in Putney for a crate of brown ale on a Friday night, so that they could have a drink without Fulham fans knowing. Old school.

Agreed, I was just balancing uncle's implication that only anti-trumpers (wind blockers?) were behaving badly.

I know, cringeworthy - reminded me of the American lady who marched up to James Joyce and said, "Sir, I want to shake the hand that wrote Ulysses!" Joyce replied, "It's done a lot of other things as well, madam."

Free refills of the diet/sugarfree versions but full charge for the "full fat" versions might be a good incentive.