Donald J Trump

Carter did not ban an entire religion so there is no comparison.
I am not going to get involved in a 'my terrorist is more dangerous than your terrorist' bragging match other than to observe that the UK did not enter hysterical over-reaction mode after each outrage.

Does American exceptionalism stretch as far as making acts against it also 'exceptional'?

Look up the 10 April 1992 Baltic Exchange bombing and the 24 April 1993 truck bomb in the City of London at Bishopsgate and you tell me. Can we also count the near misses like the Canary Wharf failed bombing on 16 November 1992?

 

You really don't have to ban an entire religion. 90% of the problem is Arab Muslims. Indonesia, the Philippines, even the @$$holes in Africa aren't taking their crap outside local politics. But, the Arab nations? Their crazies seemingly want to spread theirs and they appear to have lots of implicit support from the population to do it.

 

Don't bother Slip...There is, what, over 100 years of precedence.

Page Act of 1875 - aimed mainly at Asians.
Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 - aimed at the obvious nationality.
Alien Contract Labor Law of 1885(Foran Act) - aimed at foreign workers.
Chinese Exclusion Act of 1892(Geary Act) - extended the original Chinese Exclusion Act an added more restrictions.
Several Naturalization Acts & Immigration Acts between 1903 and 1917 - aimed at, basically, all foreigners.
Emergency Quota Act of 1921 - ditto...
Immigration Act of 1924 - aimed at those countries on Europe's fringes and those in Asia.

Basically, Donald Rump is going "old school"...really "old school." It might not be moral, it might not be ethical, but it is legal. Foreign nationals that have not yet set foot on our shores do not have Constitutional protection.

 

According to Trump it is not 'foreign Nationals' but an entire religion. Including US Citizens of that religion who go abroad and then try and come home. It seems pretty popular with a good proportion of the electorate so it can not be sad to be a 'small minority' in favour.

 

Again...It is legal.

Nah...Donald Rump quickly back-tracked on that one

Guess, he is not as moronic as I thought.

Edit: I still would sooner vote for a brick as POTUS than Donald Rump.

 

Trump did later state that US citizens weren't included in this, M. Kenny...

 

Australia has just passed laws that duel citizens will LOSE their Australian citizenship if they commit any act or contribute to terrorism...i should think so too.
We are having (and im sure the US aswell) a small problem with otherwise upstanding citizens going to the middle east to fight against ISIS then coming back to Australia...and being promptly arrested. This includes an MP who had medical experience and went to the middle east to render assistance medically...and was met by the Feds on his arrival back here...Arent these mercenaries? Or a separate group of people?

 

What was the law about someone,in desperation, bringing Hitler in a debate ?

 

Render assistance medically to WHOM ?

 

The Kurds from memory...

 

There is no comparison between Hitler and a US Presidency. Hitler got elected in a minority vote as part of a new parliament. He finagled his way to power through forming a coalition with other parties as so often happens in European politics and got appointed Chancellor / Prime Minister. From there he was able to get emergency powers and end up a dictator. The nearest equivalent in recent history is Hugo Chavez.

The US system is different. The President is the executive of the nation. He controls the running of the government but has no legislative powers to speak of. Congress has the legislative power and doesn't, and frequently isn't, have to be the same party as the President. The court system has a say in any actions either takes with regard to law or operation of the government.
Thus, with the current administration, Obama had just 2 years where he could have effectively tried something like Chavez or Hitler did and he couldn't manage to come close to doing that. The best he managed was Obamacare and that is being slowly dismantled as this is written.

There is no means for a President to be granted sweeping emergency powers. The courts and Congress would get a say and almost certainly overrule any attempt to get or use them.

The US system was designed to limit power not concentrate it. For example, the next President could come in and throw out or negate any or all previous Presidential executive orders. While this would be considered unprecedented, there really is nothing illegal in US law to prevent it. In fact, some have been rescinded by later presidents.

So, whoever the next president might be they can't simply become a dictator even if they can become a major F... up in terms of US society. Obama is hardly the first president to occupy the office that wasn't competent to get his agenda moved forward.

 

Or maybe ISIS ?

Why should an Australian politician with medical experience go to the ME ?

Besides,what is his name ? And what are his political opinions ?And,are there proofs that he was giving medical assistance to the Kurds ? And why would the Kurds deserve medical assistance ? Were they fighting against ISIS? Or against Turkey ?

The fact is that by going to the ME,he was choosing side ,and is it the job of an Australian politician (MP) to choose side in a conflict in the ME ?

 

It is not unreasonable to consider the European Muslims as coresponsable for the terrorist attacks in Europe,because

1) they must have known about the attacks,but refused to inform the police


2) after the attacks they remained indifferent and refused to condemn ISIS,to fight against ISIS : thousands went to the ME to join ISIS, no one went to the ME to fight against ISIS.

Given the fact that they remained indifferent about the ISIS atrocities against Muslims and non Muslims in the ME, it is obvious that the reason why they remain indifferent about the attacks in Europe,is that they consider non Muslims as christian dogs,as Untermenschen .

The same can be argued about the Muslims in the US .

 

Definitely not ISIS...this wasn't an Arab Australian, an ex army medic.
Can't remember his name for the life of me sorry, but Matthew Gardiner was another...he was supposedly 'fighting'...why would they go? Because (usually) they are ex army...and have their countries threatened and feel the need to do something about it, or have seen whilst in the army the plight and need to help them out...it's what Aussies do. And I'm sure there are more reasons still...as to the proof...I trust our intelligence gathering ability...second to none.

 

Apparently so...
http://www.news.com.au/national/australian-jets-drop-first-bombs-on-islamic-state-targets-in-syria/news-story/5e5bd0e73b5153bdc98dade485793f1f

 

Don't bother explaining CAC.

In LJAd's very narrow view. Kurd are Muslims. Muslims are evil. and anyone who provides support to Muslims is also evil.

So, it would not matter which side he fought for your guy was still evil.

 

Nonsense : it has been claimed that an Australian politician,with medical experience was going to the ME to help the Kurds : in their battle against ISIS ? against Turkey ?

About Gardiner : it is even worse : he went to the ME to fight with the Kurds : what would have been the situation of the Australian ambassador in Turkey if Gardiner had been taken prisonner by the Turkish army and been accused of terrorism and espionnage ?
the Kurds are not only fighting against ISIS ,but also against Turkey and Iran,and in the past also against Iraq .And in the ME the past can easily become the future .Gardiner had no business in the ME .

 

NO : the fact that the Australian government was joining the war against ISIS,gives individual Australians not the same right :it is more than probable that Australian muslims are joining ISIS,and what would than be the legal situation if Ali Hussein (Australian citizen) was killed by Mathew Gardiner (Australian citizen) ?

 

One thing you're forgetting is we are an island...it is very difficult to leave and fight for ISIS without the authorities knowing...there is an entire intelligence network, spanning a number of countries, including Indonesia I might add...very few have slipped the net...doesn't mean the government always does something about it...but it usually knows. And few are leaving to,join ISIS...my understanding is the ISIS mob are via the net telling Australian Muslims to stay put and cause damage.
The beauty of moonlighting as a fighter is you can pick your causes...they fight for a cause...they don't fight people that aren't connected to that cause, like Iran etc...they leave and come home to peaceful Australia.
Your assumptions would ring true for many nations, but not countries like Australia, New Zealand, and yes the US...you express an understanding of 'them' and their values, but seem a little bereft of any idea of how we work and think...