Originally Posted by GarryP (Post 12174072)

Interesting idea has popped up of who is behind the Trump cabal.

As people will have noticed, Trump is very pro Putin, anti China, etc. The common thread seems to be oil, fossil fuels, and the threat of the rise of alternatives. Russia makes most of it's money from oil/gas exports - and they have been hurting recently because of the low price. China is pushing away from fossil fuels and towards solar, etc. and people were counting on them for a growing market.

Now along come trump and attacks the EPA; has an energy policy that talks about more coal and doesn't talk at all about solar; and tries to ignore climate change as if it weren't already happening, etc.

Suggestion is the fossil fuel industry, led by Russia, have bought themselves an american administration that will help them out. Probably not with Trump directly (he's an idiot), but via people like Bannon who can control him and get him to play the clown to order whilst they arrange things nicely for their 'friends' in the background.

Originally Posted by Beoz (Post 12173674)

3 different topics here sport.

Nazi Germany, gun control, and placing temporary bans on those who the are from countries the Obama administation deemed as threats.

If you want to discuss gun control discuss it but stop reaching to me for a discussion.

If you want to discuss temporary travel bans go for it but you are trying to draw parallels between the two and there are no parallels. You are trying to create one because you know the facts are going to limit your argument to be an annoying lefty. Stick to the facts - its far to easy to bring you down if you start talking feelings.

Yes it will be fleshed out whether Trump can put in those travel bans or not. So what?

By the time that's over, so might be the 90 days and the extreme vetting measures may be in place. From what I can see, Obama already cancelled the use of the VWP program for VWP holders who have visited these countries. It was all based on the Paris shootings apparently. A VWP citizen could travel to Syria, be trained, then enter the US with minimal scrutiny. I can see their point. Both Obama and Trump. Not an easy solution here if their aim is to prevent those who have been radicalised and trained in terror hotspots from entering the country.

Originally Posted by OzTennis (Post 12174108)

You still don't see that if he is trying to stop 'bad people' he's only doing it on one front. I won't repeat it again.

Originally Posted by GarryP (Post 12174072)

Suggestion is the fossil fuel industry, led by Russia, have bought themselves an american administration that will help them out. Probably not with Trump directly (he's an idiot), but via people like Bannon who can control him and get him to play the clown to order whilst they arrange things nicely for their 'friends' in the background.

Originally Posted by Trumpmare

"SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"

Originally Posted by GarryP (Post 12175808)

9th Circuit appeals court unanimously rejects the white house appeal to stay the injunction again the muslim ban executive order.

Trump is throwing a tantrum about it - Donald Trump: Travel ban suspension upheld by court



He seems not to realise that he's saying this to a court ... and one that heard his arguments and was unimpressed.

Originally Posted by Beoz (Post 12175829)

Looks like the judges are playing you down Garry. Did you gloss over the last paragraph?

During the hearing the judges expressed scepticism over the need for the travel ban that covers seven predominantly Muslim countries, but also downplayed the importance of public comments that suggested the ban targeted Muslims.

Originally Posted by mrken30 (Post 12175871)

another one gone, I hope his twitter account doesn't get hacked

U.S. Cyber Security News: White House Chief Information Security Officer Reportedly Removed From Position

Originally Posted by GarryP (Post 12175857)

Nice try - but Giuliani gave the game away by publicly admitting that it was scoped and shaped in the way it was to try and get around the legalities, after Trump explicitly said he was targeting muslims (illegal). In an actual court case the court is going to recognise that it targeted on a religion and therefore against the law, there's plenty of evidence.

And in fact, reading the actual judgement, it says that they 'reserve consideration of these claims until the merits of this appeal have been fully briefed' - or in other words "trump has already lost this appeal, and this is a serious claim that we don't therefore have to deal with until the full trial". So the news story is warping the actual judgement statements.