Donald Trump

[Mayerling]

I'll remember this the next time Democrats, or their media operatives, accuse Trump and his supporters of Fascism. It's kind of acceptable in modern culture to punch a fascist. It's not so big a jump to then shoot one.

I would say up till now, bearing in mind the violence from the protests/riots, the Trump side have behaved fairly well. It's the Left that have descended into violence. As I say until now. Things may change in future. But I just hope you and yahoo news hold the liberal side to the same standards when it comes to fearing a link between violence and rhetoric.

Hi Jason,

I have been giving serious thought to responding but I'm tired of responding. Not due to you or your point of view - it's just the subject is annoying and any response by us seems pointless.

So, I have come to the conclusion that I'll read this thread, and if I can explain some point I'll do so. Otherwise, no reason to extend commentary so early in this Presidency on the Donald.

Jeff

[Pcdunn]

Hi, John,

Thanks for the reply. I remember hearing a little bit about the death of the female M.P.

This story from the New York Times came out just this week. I almost feel a bit sorry for Mr. Trump, alone in the Residence in an unfamiliar city and a new job.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/u...-strategy.html

[John G]

That was an interesting read, thank you. I find many informative pieces at Vox.

You probably know by now that the 9th Circuit Court declined to remove Robart's injunction against the travel ban, meaning it stands for now, and people are allowed to come and go. I particularly liked Robart's comment that an order such as this one should be based "in fact, not fiction." I suppose that means that no terrorist attacks involved persons from the seven named countries.

The Presidency is looking at other options, including "starting over with a brand new order." Try, try again, is his motto, presumably.

My worry is that a Muslim-focused ban will only upset Muslims already here and win more to the cause of the jihadists. What are your thoughts?

Of course, what is deeply ironic is that the main victims of Islamic terrorism are Muslims themselves: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30883058

Interestingly, in Britain, since the 2005 London bombings, there has been only one death as a consequence of Islamic terrorism, compared with two deaths which were motivated by white supremacism: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ded-one-so-far

[John G]

That was an interesting read, thank you. I find many informative pieces at Vox.

You probably know by now that the 9th Circuit Court declined to remove Robart's injunction against the travel ban, meaning it stands for now, and people are allowed to come and go. I particularly liked Robart's comment that an order such as this one should be based "in fact, not fiction." I suppose that means that no terrorist attacks involved persons from the seven named countries.

The Presidency is looking at other options, including "starting over with a brand new order." Try, try again, is his motto, presumably.

My worry is that a Muslim-focused ban will only upset Muslims already here and win more to the cause of the jihadists. What are your thoughts?

Hi Pat,

Yes, I think a lot of moderate Muslims will view President Trump's Executive Order as deeply discriminatory. In fact, it's already upset Iraq, who are supposed to be an important ally in the war on terror: https://www.rt.com/news/375495-iraq-trump-muslim-ban/

Regarding the substantive legal issues, which have yet to be considered, the President clearly has a wide discretion as regards national security: see Harisiades v Shaughnessy (1952), where the Supreme Court upheld the right of Congress to expel non-citizens who were former communists. Justice Frankfurter remarked: "In recognizing this power and this responsibility of Congress, one does not in the remotest degree align oneself with fears unworthy of the American spirit or with hostility to the bracing air of the free spirit. One merely recognizes that the place to resist unwise or cruel legislation touching aliens is Congress, not this court."

Conversely, if the Order is deemed to amount to religious discrimination it almost certainly will be regarded as unconstitutional: see, for example, Larsen v Valente (1982), where the Supreme Court held that, "The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another."

And, as the article makes clear, the courts will be entitled to consider the real purpose of the Executive Order, rather than simply the stated reason: Yick Wo v Hopkins (1886); Loving v Virginia (1967).

And, in this respect, both President Trump and Rudolph Giuliani have made some pretty injudicious comments.

[Pcdunn]

Thanks!

Oops, that's embarrassing! I've got my threads mixed up! Try this: http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017...on-refugee-ban

That was an interesting read, thank you. I find many informative pieces at Vox.

You probably know by now that the 9th Circuit Court declined to remove Robart's injunction against the travel ban, meaning it stands for now, and people are allowed to come and go. I particularly liked Robart's comment that an order such as this one should be based "in fact, not fiction." I suppose that means that no terrorist attacks involved persons from the seven named countries.

The Presidency is looking at other options, including "starting over with a brand new order." Try, try again, is his motto, presumably.

My worry is that a Muslim-focused ban will only upset Muslims already here and win more to the cause of the jihadists. What are your thoughts?

[John G]

Check that link, please, John.

Oops, that's embarrassing! I've got my threads mixed up! Try this: http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017...on-refugee-ban

[Pcdunn]

Wrong link?

This is an excellent analysis of the Constitutional issues relating to President Trump's travel ban: http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...rulesmenu-2015

Check that link, please, John.

[jason_c]

Another worry raised by the ill-considered actions of the man who brags that he is going to keep America safe.

"Trump attacks on judiciary raise safety concerns for judges" by MARTHA BELLISLE, Associated Press.

I'll remember this the next time Democrats, or their media operatives, accuse Trump and his supporters of Fascism. It's kind of acceptable in modern culture to punch a fascist. It's not so big a jump to then shoot one.

I would say up till now, bearing in mind the violence from the protests/riots, the Trump side have behaved fairly well. It's the Left that have descended into violence. As I say until now. Things may change in future. But I just hope you and yahoo news hold the liberal side to the same standards when it comes to fearing a link between violence and rhetoric.

[John G]

This is an excellent analysis of the Constitutional issues relating to President Trump's travel ban: http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...rulesmenu-2015

[ChrisGeorge]

Another worry raised by the ill-considered actions of the man who brags that he is going to keep America safe.

"Trump attacks on judiciary raise safety concerns for judges" by MARTHA BELLISLE, Associated Press.

[Pcdunn]

I didn't get that at first, until I remembered Williams voiced the Genie in the Disney "Aladdin" films. Strange dovetail, as that role was a few years off in 1986.

Some comments on the president's body language and weird handshake:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-handshakes_us_589e2d45e4b03df370d65e55?ncid=NEWSSTAND0001

I know the handshake got started by warriors to prevent a sneak attack, and that males are into tests of strength, but Trump's habit of tugging men towards him is strange. (At least he doesn't go for their groins, like with the women he meets...)

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, on a more serious note, some say an author named Richard Rorty predicted the win of someone like Trump back in a book that was published in 1998

Robin Williams, in his 1986 show Live at the New York Met, thought things had reached their nadir with Ronald Reagan. "Don't you see?", he quipped, "Reagan was Walt Disney's last wish!"

If only he was around now...

[Mayerling]

Sam, on a more serious note, some say an author named Richard Rorty predicted the win of someone like Trump back in a book that was published in 1998:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/b...ming.html?_r=0

The fact that the Left and the Right have digressed so drastically in this country is why we have come to this. Can we reunite against the man child in the White House? Lord, I hope so...

I think we will. He's already annoyed enough of his allies in the right to force him to jump on some of his promises. Soon he'll be doing the same on the left. His stupid lack of knowledge (on anything outside of stealing a buck from everyone else) is glaring and both sides are getting tired of it. Although the Republicans have approved all of his appointments so far, I'm waiting for them to start bewailing these choices, and finger pointing between the "moderates" and the "tea partyists" is inevitable. It's not going to be pretty - we'll have a three party system until a number of people lose elections, and the Democrats will probably be the "trimmers" (17th Century term for a group around Lord Halifax, I believe) who may have the real balance of power in Congress.

Jeff

[Pcdunn]

Sam, on a more serious note, some say an author named Richard Rorty predicted the win of someone like Trump back in a book that was published in 1998:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/b...ming.html?_r=0

The fact that the Left and the Right have digressed so drastically in this country is why we have come to this. Can we reunite against the man child in the White House? Lord, I hope so...

[Pcdunn]

I'm as baffled as you are...

Yet this is the man who became President of the USA! How on earth could that happen?

... And very embarrassed for my country.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/10/british-officials-drop-plans-donald-trump-address-parliament-queen-elizabeth