Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
Or by the looks of it, not included in the graph. According to line 4 and 5, this was data up until 2014.
Anyone else watching the Oompha Loompa become president? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter James Smith
- Start date
Or by the looks of it, not included in the graph. According to line 4 and 5, this was data up until 2014.
Gazolba
Well-Known Member
I don't know what all the fuss is about. Trump has imposed a temporary ban on immigrants from a few countries that sponsor terrorism. As expected, the media has labelled this a 'Muslim Ban', which it is not. Once the US has organized stringent vetting procedures, the ban will be lifted. Obama would have just let in anyone, terrorists or not. We already know there are many terrorist cells operating in the USA and Europe and they are using the refugee program to smuggle in their operatives.
Gazolba
Well-Known Member
2996 killed, including many British citizens, on Sept 11, 2001.
Several similar attacks have been planned since and been foiled by good intelligence work.
It's not just what happens you have to worry about but also the many planned attacks that are successfully thwarted.
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
Why isn't Saudi Arabia on the list?
I come from an Irish family and can vividly remember my mother being spat at in front of me as a child...no doubt we were potential terrorists in your eyes?
Last edited:
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Giuliani has said he helped Trump draft the order for vetting procedures after Trump asked him how he could implement a Muslim ban legally. The vetting process is already 24 months long. Its not like in Europe where refugees are turning up at the borders.
Must be coincidence that the Muslim countries where Trump has business interests aren't included on the list.
Must be coincidence that the Muslim countries where Trump has business interests aren't included on the list.
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
I take it, this is all made up and just a right wing propaganda video?
Would be interested to hear alternative views on this video?
dutchman
Well-Known Member
More Britons are in favour of a Donald Trump state visit to the UK than are against it, poll shows
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/01/britons-favour-donald-trump-state-visit-uk-against-poll-shows
A greater number of Britons are in favour of Donald Trump’s state visit than oppose it, according to new polling data from YouGov.
When asked whether they thought the visit should go ahead or be cancelled, 49 per cent of British adults were in favour of the visit, compared to just 36 per cent who were against it.
Within the headline figure of 49 per cent there were some key splits among the population.
Men were more in favour of Donald Trump coming to the UK than women were, with three in five men saying they thought the state visit should proceed - among women the figure was two in five.
Age was also a defining factor in how many people supported Trump's proposed visit, with more support for it the older the respondents were.
Another obvious split concerned how respondents had voted in the EU referendum last June. As many as 68 per cent of Leave voters thought Trump's state visit should go ahead, while there was half as much support among those on the Remain side.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/01/britons-favour-donald-trump-state-visit-uk-against-poll-shows
A greater number of Britons are in favour of Donald Trump’s state visit than oppose it, according to new polling data from YouGov.
When asked whether they thought the visit should go ahead or be cancelled, 49 per cent of British adults were in favour of the visit, compared to just 36 per cent who were against it.
Within the headline figure of 49 per cent there were some key splits among the population.
Men were more in favour of Donald Trump coming to the UK than women were, with three in five men saying they thought the state visit should proceed - among women the figure was two in five.
Age was also a defining factor in how many people supported Trump's proposed visit, with more support for it the older the respondents were.
Another obvious split concerned how respondents had voted in the EU referendum last June. As many as 68 per cent of Leave voters thought Trump's state visit should go ahead, while there was half as much support among those on the Remain side.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
A lot of people I've heard commenting on this haven't grasped that Trump can still visit without it being a state visit. There's only been 3 previous state visits by US Presidents and they had all been president for a long time and made several previous visits before being granted a state visit.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Makes perfect sense that he should score lower with females, as he has been rather derogatory to women in general.More Britons are in favour of a Donald Trump state visit to the UK than are against it, poll shows
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/01/britons-favour-donald-trump-state-visit-uk-against-poll-shows
A greater number of Britons are in favour of Donald Trump’s state visit than oppose it, according to new polling data from YouGov.
When asked whether they thought the visit should go ahead or be cancelled, 49 per cent of British adults were in favour of the visit, compared to just 36 per cent who were against it.
Within the headline figure of 49 per cent there were some key splits among the population.
Men were more in favour of Donald Trump coming to the UK than women were, with three in five men saying they thought the state visit should proceed - among women the figure was two in five.
Age was also a defining factor in how many people supported Trump's proposed visit, with more support for it the older the respondents were.
Another obvious split concerned how respondents had voted in the EU referendum last June. As many as 68 per cent of Leave voters thought Trump's state visit should go ahead, while there was half as much support among those on the Remain side.
Unfortunately, however you look at it and whatever you think of him, we have to work with the bloke.
We have to work and negotiate with all kinds of unsavoury leaders.
The problem being that this is the first time that the USA has a nazi as chief strategist. Up until now they were the leader of the "West". His whole world view revolves around Breitbart false facts and reports. All politicians lie/ spin, but Trump's team takes it to Orwellian levels. We have got ourselves into a position where we will have to renegotiate trade deals with the whole world and especially the USA. Trump must be laughing.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Shown his true colours again today.
Obama signed an agreement with Australia to take 1,200 refugees currently held in detention camps by the Australian government into the US.
Australia had refused to take them in there. Refugees are from Afghanistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc.
It is thought that 80% of them are genuine refugees.
Trump has come out and said taking them in would be like 'accepting the next Boston Bombers into this country.'
Lovely racial stereotyping right there.
He's a clown.
Obama signed an agreement with Australia to take 1,200 refugees currently held in detention camps by the Australian government into the US.
Australia had refused to take them in there. Refugees are from Afghanistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc.
It is thought that 80% of them are genuine refugees.
Trump has come out and said taking them in would be like 'accepting the next Boston Bombers into this country.'
Lovely racial stereotyping right there.
He's a clown.
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
Two polite points if I may Otis.
1) Australia had refused to take them in. Why? Also, why no outcry there?
2) What about the other 20%, who are not genuine refugees?
Otis
Well-Known Member
No, I don't think it reads quite like that. They know 80% are genuine, they don't know about the other 20%.
Any anyway, even if they are not genuine refugees that doesn't make them terrorists does it?
As for Australia, it's not these particular refugees, they have just refused to take any. It's not because of these refugees in particular.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Would like to see how he would get on doing that to the Chinese leader or Putin.
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
No it doesn't, but is there any point in taking a risk?
My point still stands. Trump is an arse, but here he has just followed Australia, and actually Obama before. There was no outcry there.
Otis
Well-Known Member
I am picking up more on the point that he is saying that accepting the refugees is like accepting the next Boston Bombers.
That's an outrageous thing to say.
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
I agree with you on that.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
Haven't you noticed. Outright racism is ok now and if you don't accept it you're either a liberal snowflake or not living in the real world
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
He's already pissed China off by speaking to the Taiwanese leader before them. Not the done thing.
Steve Bannon, the white supremacist Trump has appointed as chief strategist at the White House has said recently "We’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years, there’s no doubt about that. They’re taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those. They come here to the United States in front of our face – and you understand how important face is – and say it’s an ancient territorial sea.”.
China has also warned that war between the two countries is possible. “A ‘war within the president’s term’ or ‘war breaking out tonight’ are not just slogans, they are becoming a practical reality” was the statement made by the Chinese military on the day of Trumps inauguration.
Bannon has also said the US will be going back in to the Middle East “Some of these situations may get a little unpleasant, but you know what, we’re in a war. We’re clearly going into, I think, a major shooting war in the Middle East again.”
Otis
Well-Known Member
Yay!! I can't wait.
It's democracy.. get over it...
Really. Thanks for the info.. Who is your source at the Pentagon? Better let Steve Bannon know about that.
dutchman
Well-Known Member
I don't need a 'source' since they've hardly made any secret of it. You only have to look at all the actions they've taken since the supposed end of the Cold War.
Liquid Gold
Well-Known Member
If war was inevitable then I'd rather America didn't have a bigoted narcissist as commander in chief.
Gazolba
Well-Known Member
It makes perfect sense to me not to allow people into your country who have no intent to integrate and could well pose a danger to society.
I have no problem letting in a reasonable number of genuine refugees once you have in place a reliable vetting procedure to ensure they really are genuine refugees.
And that is exactly what Trump is doing.
We already know for a fact that ISIS have used the refugee crisis to smuggle operatives into Europe.
I have no problem letting in a reasonable number of genuine refugees once you have in place a reliable vetting procedure to ensure they really are genuine refugees.
And that is exactly what Trump is doing.
We already know for a fact that ISIS have used the refugee crisis to smuggle operatives into Europe.
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
I spent a bit of time talking with my girlfriend's 96 year old great aunt in Italy this week about the current state of the western world....it's a shame that the lessons learnt from fascism have been forgotten.
The cold war ended in the 90s. Hilary cannot be blamed for everything since then. I think you need a source if you want to claim they are planning for war with Russia. Steve Bannon on the other hand has made it quite clear that China and the ME are on his list.
I don't know that the tactics are forgotten by the extreme right. The tactics are the same, only difference being that you don't have to go a meeting a beer hall any more. You just switch on your YouTube and there they are. Screaming at you, mocking the democrats and free thinkers. Spreading false or distorted news. Blaming minorities. Threatening wars and repression. The Trump fascists are successful so far. We know where this all leads, but they will try and stop it going bandy as it did with Hitler and Mussolini at the end. They think they are cleverer than them - or so it appears.
Sick Boy
Well-Known Member
It's a sad day when you have to read bile on an English football forum defending a white supremacist.
We defeated those with these vile views and we will do again.
Yes, but ISIS are not sending into America as the vetting is already very strong - especially for Syrians.
It is bollocks. The countries that have attacked America are not on the list. The worst country IMO is Saudi Arabia. They are not on the list. They sponsor the ideology and the 9/11 tossers came mainly from there. The woman attacker who came as a bride, came from Pakistan - also not on the list.
" could well pose a danger " is also bollocks. Either they do or they don't pose a danger. You cannot be guilty of " may pose a danger ".
What is a reasonable number of refugees?
How do you vet people on the run. It takes over a year to vet the Syrians selected from the camps. The ones still running cannot be vetted.
Trump has said the US is a mess. They have lower unemployment than for many years. The stock market has recovered from the collapse ( under Bush ). They have modern industries and are leading players in the arts ( e.g. films and music ). It is not a mess.
Germany is not a mess. Violent crime is going down. Gun crime? What's that? Oh yes, one mass shooting in 2015 - compare that to the US.
It has a trade surplus and a balanced budget. Berlin has just announced the highest ever number of employed people in the city. Leipzig is booming, Hamburg is booming etc. etc.. Trump wants to smash Germany and destroy the EU. They are too good for him. What a wanker.
Trump has said the world is an angry place and he will clean it up. That is also bollocks. If anyone is angry, it is the spoilt brat that hung up on the Australian PM a couple of days ago.
The biggest danger of a violent death in the US is from a shooting - no comparison to the minute risk of terrorism. Introduce gun control if you really are concerned - do not blame everything on terrorists who don't even come from the countries you are banning. Pure bollocks.
The man is a c**t and Bannon is a nazi. Look at what they have done until now and watch what happens within the next 2 years.
Fuck Trump.
dutchman
Well-Known Member
Not for some.
I never suggested she was. Her husband however was entirely responsible for the bombing of non-aligned Yugoslavia and the ceding of Kosovo to Islamic extremists.
I don't need anything of the sort, it's plain to see for any observer of military planning. The US and its allies have already occupied most of the former eastern-bloc countries which border Russia and but for a rebellion by British MP's in 2013 would have bombed Assad's forces in Syria which would have brought them into direct military conflict with Russia.
He may have his agenda but the Pentagon also have theirs which has not changed since the supposed ending of the Cold War.
