Prevent Donald Trump from making a state visit to the United Kingdom - petition

[dejavuatbtn]

They keep their country worryingly clean too, have a good standard of living, and the people are very friendly as well as being better at speaking English than we are at speaking ENGLISH.

I have corrected your comment.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I don't need to because politics will win out.

The evidence suggests that the majority of the electorate support Trump's policy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...rt-donald-trumps-immigration-ban-oppose-poll/

If the legal/constitution system prevents a democratically elected representative from delivering policies supported by the will of the electorate then change will happen.

So, change will happen.........whether in the US, UK or wherever.

You could just as well point to how the UK's laws currently are integrated with the EU, however that is going to change, due to the will of the electorate. You seem to have some difficulty understanding this..........it's like you can't see the wood for the theatre of trees!

I'm here all week.......I thank you.

Unlikely given one needs a 2/3 majority in both houses to change the constitution. There's absolutely no way anything mildly divisive can get through so there's zero chance of Trump being able to change the constitution. You only need to look at the number and nature of previous changes to see this.

 

[Theatre of Trees]

I don't need to because politics will win out.

The evidence suggests that the majority of the electorate support Trump's policy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...rt-donald-trumps-immigration-ban-oppose-poll/

If the legal/constitution system prevents a democratically elected representative from delivering policies supported by the will of the electorate then change will happen.

So, change will happen.........whether in the US, UK or wherever.

You could just as well point to how the UK's laws currently are integrated with the EU, however that is going to change, due to the will of the electorate. You seem to have some difficulty understanding this..........it's like you can't see the wood for the theatre of trees!

I'm here all week.......I thank you.

And for politics to win out Trump needs control of the system, and the American system has never allowed the President complete control of the decision making process. Any major overhaul requires input from all three branches of the government and a change to the constitution. And a change to the latter requires agreement with a set number of individual states as well. You seem to be completely in ignorance of what is needed for Trump to succeed. There are a large number of Senate seats up for election in 2018 these will be the barometer for whether Trump has been successful, the will of the electorate does not reside solely in the election of the President.

Your comparison with the EU is utterly ridiculous both our relation with the EU and the individual states relations to the US Federal government are two completely different things.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

If the legal/constitution system prevents a democratically elected representative from delivering policies supported by the will of the electorate then change will happen..

Too smug.

Labour were elected to run the GLC in the early 80s with a clear policy to halve tub fares. After they were elected, Bromley Council took them to court and won (some bollocks that was apparently law). As a consequence tube fairs were actually increased.

If Trump has broken the law, I expect the outcome will be the same. @theatreoftrees is correct. Bitter sweet for me - I was quite upset to see labour thwarted by the law, but quite amused to see Trump trumped by the same gambit.

 

[Brighton Mod]

And no doubt their football team are cheats and England are just unlucky eh?

Not a real answer is it, surely you can address the facts Pifken.

 

[Brighton Mod]

They keep their country worryingly clean too, have a good standard of living, and the people are very friendly as well as being better at speaking English than we are at speaking German.

Well some have a good standard of living, don't generalize too much, they're not very friendly to Turkish immigrants and speak good english. They have their own issues with the far right, the left and have a fantastic ability to keep real issues quiet. they don't have an equivalent to GCHG, are too quick to cosy up with Putin because of energy supplies and the CEO of BMW wants to trade freely on the world market, no doubt he will be followed by those of mercedes, Porsche, Audi and of course the pretty much neutred VW. Germany has many issues that we are not aware of due to our parochial press in this country. At the moment the attention is focused on the UK over Brexit, just watch the infighting that will go on in Europe once we invoke artice 50 and the negotiations start, we'll see how cohesive it all becomes then.

 

[cunning fergus]

Unlikely given one needs a 2/3 majority in both houses to change the constitution. There's absolutely no way anything mildly divisive can get through so there's zero chance of Trump being able to change the constitution. You only need to look at the number and nature of previous changes to see this.

Whilst ordinarily past performance is no guide to future performance, I think an exception can be made with your predictions.

The very fact you have publicly stated that it won't happen has already made it more likely..........not that I am making the case that Trump will change the constitution. I do think however that he will implement a ban, by one way or another.

 

[cunning fergus]

Too smug.

Labour were elected to run the GLC in the early 80s with a clear policy to halve tub fares. After they were elected, Bromley Council took them to court and won (some bollocks that was apparently law). As a consequence tube fairs were actually increased.

If Trump has broken the law, I expect the outcome will be the same. @theatreoftrees is correct. Bitter sweet for me - I was quite upset to see labour thwarted by the law, but quite amused to see Trump trumped by the same gambit.

Maybe, I think the very fact That a man like Trump is in office as the most powerful man in the world is indicative of the trajectory of change, and the political will of his electorate.

The comparison to the GLC may be relevant in the legal context, however I think that the likes of Livingstone and Cutler as politicians would not be in the same league as Trump.

We will see what happens, however my money is on a Trump win here.........

 

[cunning fergus]

And for politics to win out Trump needs control of the system, and the American system has never allowed the President complete control of the decision making process. Any major overhaul requires input from all three branches of the government and a change to the constitution. And a change to the latter requires agreement with a set number of individual states as well. You seem to be completely in ignorance of what is needed for Trump to succeed. There are a large number of Senate seats up for election in 2018 these will be the barometer for whether Trump has been successful, the will of the electorate does not reside solely in the election of the President.

Your comparison with the EU is utterly ridiculous both our relation with the EU and the individual states relations to the US Federal government are two completely different things.

Change has already happened, for the first time in modern history a non politician is the President of the US.

You know much more about the affairs of the US than me, I am not suggesting otherwise.

However the political mood in the US is behind Trump and I think therefore he will win out in this impasse.........that is the crux of it, I know you don't and that's your view.

It is this political mood that is similar in the US to the UK (and even wider EU countries) that I am referring to as you know full well, and it's why the status quo here in how the UK runs its affairs that is also changing.........that is a fact, whether you like it or not.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Change has already happened, for the first time in modern history a non politician is the President of the US.

You know much more about the affairs of the US than me, I am not suggesting otherwise.

However the political mood in the US is behind Trump and I think therefore he will win out in this impasse.........that is the crux of it, I know you don't and that's your view.

But how can he win out, as you put it? Even with support behind him how do you think he will overcome the 2/3s he needs in both houses to enact a change in the constitution? Its not about the US electorate wanting change, it's not about firsts in political history, it's about there not being a realistic situation which will deliver it. He needs all his Senate members plus about half the democrats to side with him. How do you think he will achieve this? I really am keen to hear your reasoning.

 

[cunning fergus]

But how can he win out, as you put it? Even with support behind him how do you think he will overcome the 2/3s he needs in both houses to enact a change in the constitution? Its not about the US electorate wanting change, it's not about firsts in political history, it's about there not being a realistic situation which will deliver it. He needs all his Senate members plus about half the democrats to side with him. How do you think he will achieve this? I really am keen to hear your reasoning.

Well, I guess my reasoning is that Trump, being President of the US, will find a way to implement travel bans on those jurisdictions that he, as President of the US wants to ban.

That is what he promised in his campaign, and it is part of the reason why his electorate voted him in. He has the political mandate to do that. Evidently there is an obstacle now, I think he will find a way to overcome it.

That's it.........no more no less.

 

[Theatre of Trees]

But how can he win out, as you put it? Even with support behind him how do you think he will overcome the 2/3s he needs in both houses to enact a change in the constitution? Its not about the US electorate wanting change, it's not about firsts in political history, it's about there not being a realistic situation which will deliver it. He needs all his Senate members plus about half the democrats to side with him. How do you think he will achieve this? I really am keen to hear your reasoning.

An amendment to the constitution must also be ratified by at least three quarters of the legislatures of the 51 individual states. That is around 38 states.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Well, I guess my reasoning is that Trump, being President of the US, will find a way to implement travel bans on those jurisdictions that he, as President of the US wants to ban.

That is what he promised in his campaign, and it is part of the reason why his electorate voted him in. He has the political mandate to do that. Evidently there is an obstacle now, I think he will find a way to overcome it.

That's it.........no more no less.

So you don't really know.

If you read up on US politics you'll soon realise the president can't just do what he wants. Unless he overthrows the country and forms a dictatorship he has to operate within the constitution and its legal frame work.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

An amendment to the constitution must also be ratified by at least three quarters of the legislatures of the 51 individual states. That is around 38 states.

This as well. It's as though constitution is designed so you can't go changing it willy nilly.

 

[beorhthelm]

Well, I guess my reasoning is that Trump, being President of the US, will find a way to implement travel bans on those jurisdictions that he, as President of the US wants to ban.

That is what he promised in his campaign, and it is part of the reason why his electorate voted him in. He has the political mandate to do that. Evidently there is an obstacle now, I think he will find a way to overcome it.

That's it.........no more no less.

the problem with your reasoning is that democracy does not trump all, there is also justice and law. a democratic elected leader acting beyond the bounds of law is indistinguishable from tyranny. Trump's problem is he's trying to discriminate and that's not lawful and is not acceptable alongside of the notion equitable law. and if there is one nation in the world that understand the rule of law its the litigious US.

if he wants to implement travel bans he needs to change the law, not use a executive order, to make that lawful. he'll need support of the majority of congress, who did not stand on a commitment to do this, it will sit very uncomfortably with many, and is arguably unconstitutional. so now he needs to change the constitution, needing 2/3 support on a matter that goes to the very heart of being American (nation of immigrants, freedom of religion). there are a group of his supporters that will back this narrow subject all the way, but i believe the vast majority of those that voted for him would not support a wholesale ban on immigrants and would shy away from a discriminatory policy.

the fact he hasnt had the balls to ban Saudis or Egyptians will work against him with that narrow support, they wont understand why. he's backed away from a real ban on muslims, using instead a showcase ban for countries previously designated unsafe, so he isn't as strong on this issue as trying to portray and so unlikely to go to war with the constitution over it.

 

[studio150]

Well, I guess my reasoning is that Trump, being President of the US, will find a way to implement travel bans on those jurisdictions that he, as President of the US wants to ban.

That is what he promised in his campaign, and it is part of the reason why his electorate voted him in. He has the political mandate to do that. Evidently there is an obstacle now, I think he will find a way to overcome it.

That's it.........no more no less.

By becoming a dictator

 

[cunning fergus]

So you don't really know.

If you read up on US politics you'll soon realise the president can't just do what he wants. Unless he overthrows the country and forms a dictatorship he has to operate within the constitution and its legal frame work.

That's right I don't, this matter is just like the outcomes of football matches, referendums and general elections in that there are different outcomes possible.

You think the ban won't be overturned by Trump because of the legal constitutional framework, I think it will..........so let's see what happens?

 

[cunning fergus]

the problem with your reasoning is that democracy does not trump all, there is also justice and law. a democratic elected leader acting beyond the bounds of law is indistinguishable from tyranny. Trump's problem is he's trying to discriminate and that's not lawful and is not acceptable alongside of the notion equitable law. and if there is one nation in the world that understand the rule of law its the litigious US.

if he wants to implement travel bans he needs to change the law, not use a executive order, to make that lawful. he'll need support of the majority of congress, who did not stand on a commitment to do this, it will sit very uncomfortably with many, and is arguably unconstitutional. so now he needs to change the constitution, needing 2/3 support on a matter that goes to the very heart of being American (nation of immigrants, freedom of religion). there are a group of his supporters that will back this narrow subject all the way, but i believe the vast majority of those that voted for him would not support a wholesale ban on immigrants and would shy away from a discriminatory policy.

the fact he hasnt had the balls to ban Saudis or Egyptians will work against him with that narrow support, they wont understand why. he's backed away from a real ban on muslims, using instead a showcase ban for countries previously designated unsafe, so he isn't as strong on this issue as trying to portray and so unlikely to go to war with the constitution over it.

That is one way to assess this issue, I don't read it the same way.

My view is that Trump will position this as a national security issue, which he is responsible for as President but is being impeded from making decisions by the Courts.

I am not an expert on the process here, maybe the President of the US does not have the power to restrict who can come to live/visit the US.

I think he does, and we will find out in due course.

 

[cunning fergus]

By becoming a dictator

Countries tend to get the leaders they deserve..........

 

[Half Time Pies]

This is surely taking things too far now, there must be something in place to stop the US president from asking the population to blame a judge for interpreting the law. Lets hope they hold Trump to account if something happens to this judge.