CDZ UK Parliament Debates Trump Ban

[Esmeralda]

And this:
Donald Trump debate: Could UK really ban him? - CNNPolitics.com

"What has Trump said about the debate?
Trump has warned that he would end all current and future investments in the United Kingdom if he's banned from entering the country."

He isn't even elected and he is destroying our alliance with our most impotant ally.

It seems reasonable to me that if he is banned that he ends all current and future investments FROM TRUMP ENTERPRISES in the UK. After all, wouldn't a ban be a way of saying that they don't want Trump or his investments in the UK?

Of course he is not going to be banned so the point is moot.

The point is how willing he is to cut ties with our greatest ally. He says if he were president, he would ban current and future investments in the UK. He doesn't mean Trump Enterprises, he means the US economy. He would try to ban our economy from having investments in the UK. That's ridiculous and would do huge, inestimable damage to US-UK relations.

Yes, banning all US investments would be rediculous. Since the articles you linked do not spell out that he meant all US investments, I choose to believe that he means his own investments.

You choose wrong.

 

[JoeMoma]

And this:
Donald Trump debate: Could UK really ban him? - CNNPolitics.com

"What has Trump said about the debate?
Trump has warned that he would end all current and future investments in the United Kingdom if he's banned from entering the country."

He isn't even elected and he is destroying our alliance with our most impotant ally.

It seems reasonable to me that if he is banned that he ends all current and future investments FROM TRUMP ENTERPRISES in the UK. After all, wouldn't a ban be a way of saying that they don't want Trump or his investments in the UK?

Of course he is not going to be banned so the point is moot.

The point is how willing he is to cut ties with our greatest ally. He says if he were president, he would ban current and future investments in the UK. He doesn't mean Trump Enterprises, he means the US economy. He would try to ban our economy from having investments in the UK. That's ridiculous and would do huge, inestimable damage to US-UK relations.

Yes, banning all US investments would be rediculous. Since the articles you linked do not spell out that he meant all US investments, I choose to believe that he means his own investments.

You choose wrong.

Can you back that up? I may change my mind if you can, otherwise your bias is showing.

 

[Dr Grump]

Try to remember who stood by us when we fought for our freedom and who burned our towns, raped our women and shot us in our heads..

Your fellow Brits...you do realise that until you won the war of independence you were still Brits..

 

[Esmeralda]

And this:
Donald Trump debate: Could UK really ban him? - CNNPolitics.com

"What has Trump said about the debate?
Trump has warned that he would end all current and future investments in the United Kingdom if he's banned from entering the country."

He isn't even elected and he is destroying our alliance with our most impotant ally.

It seems reasonable to me that if he is banned that he ends all current and future investments FROM TRUMP ENTERPRISES in the UK. After all, wouldn't a ban be a way of saying that they don't want Trump or his investments in the UK?

Of course he is not going to be banned so the point is moot.

The point is how willing he is to cut ties with our greatest ally. He says if he were president, he would ban current and future investments in the UK. He doesn't mean Trump Enterprises, he means the US economy. He would try to ban our economy from having investments in the UK. That's ridiculous and would do huge, inestimable damage to US-UK relations.

Yes, banning all US investments would be rediculous. Since the articles you linked do not spell out that he meant all US investments, I choose to believe that he means his own investments.

You choose wrong.

Can you back that up? I may change my mind if you can, otherwise your bias is showing.

It's just simple logic.

 

[JoeMoma]

It seems reasonable to me that if he is banned that he ends all current and future investments FROM TRUMP ENTERPRISES in the UK. After all, wouldn't a ban be a way of saying that they don't want Trump or his investments in the UK?

Of course he is not going to be banned so the point is moot.

The point is how willing he is to cut ties with our greatest ally. He says if he were president, he would ban current and future investments in the UK. He doesn't mean Trump Enterprises, he means the US economy. He would try to ban our economy from having investments in the UK. That's ridiculous and would do huge, inestimable damage to US-UK relations.

Yes, banning all US investments would be rediculous. Since the articles you linked do not spell out that he meant all US investments, I choose to believe that he means his own investments.

You choose wrong.

Can you back that up? I may change my mind if you can, otherwise your bias is showing.

It's just simple logic.

No it's not. Trump invests millions in the UK that he has complete control. His company is currently in the process of investing in some property for golf courses in the UK. It is logical that he would withdraw such investments if banned.
Even if Trump were elected president, he would not have the authority to ban all current and future US investments in the UK. Yet you believe that it is simple logic that is what he meant. Trump is an attention whore, but he is also a brilliant business man. As you said yourself, it would be ridiculous for him to ban all US investments (which he couldn't do anyway). My logic tells me that he was speaking about that which he has control -- his own investments.

 

[Esmeralda]

"Even if Trump were elected president, he would not have the authority to ban all current and future US investments in the UK"

Being the idiot he seems to be regarding the power the US president has, I doubt he realizes he would not have 'authority to ban all current and future US investments in the UK.' He seems to think he has the authority to build a wall on the US-Mexican border and to ban American citizens who are Muslim from returning to the US if they travel outside our borders. He's got no idea what he would be able to ban or not ban as president, but he was speaking about ruining US-UK trade relations once he became president, if he were banned. On the whole, the UK government does not care one whit if Trump (as a private businessman) stops doing business with them. He is not Bill Gates. Bill Gates is worth 81.5 billion. Donald Trump has a net worth of $4 billion. The UK government is not afraid of Trump. He's a blowhard, a loudmouth, and an embarrassment to himself and the GOP.

 

[Kalki]

"Now, to address the overwhelming amount of undocumented migrants in the U.S, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) launched Operation Wetback in June 1954, as a way to repatriate illegal laborers back to Mexico. The illegal workers who came over to the states at the initial start of the program were not the only ones affected by this operation, there were also massive groups of workers who felt the need to extend their stay in the U.S well after their labor contracts were terminated.[2] In the first year, over a million Mexicans were sent back to Mexico; 3.8 million were repatriated when the operation was all set and done." From: wikipedia under the Bracero program

The Bracero Program - Rural Migration News | Migration Dialogue

Texas and the Bracero Program, 1942-1947 on JSTOR

 

[Kalki]

"The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act, including the National Origins Act, and Asian Exclusion Act (Pub.L. 68–139, 43 Stat. 153, enacted May 26, 1924), was a United States federal law that limited the annual number of immigrants who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890, down from the 3% cap set by the Immigration Restriction Act of 1921, according to the Census of 1890. It superseded the 1921 Emergency Quota Act. The law was primarily aimed at further restricting immigration of Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans.[1] In addition, it severely restricted the immigration of Africans and outright banned the immigration of Arabs and Asians. According to the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian the purpose of the act was "to preserve the ideal of American homogeneity". From wikipedia under Immigration Act of 1924

There were other acts like this as well. Congress has the power to naturalize and regulate immigration, the president does not have the authority, but certain ones have violated the Constitution by granting amnesty to illegal aliens in America, in the past. Amnesty is illegal by circumventing the immigration laws.

U.S. Constitution:

Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power [...] To establish a uniform rule of naturalization...

If anyone is in America, please study history and the Constitution as a civic duty.

Certain liars in the news media and elsewhere, have stated that the 14th amendment applies to illegal aliens, however:

"A 2010 Congressional Research Service report, however, observed that, though it could be argued that Congress has no power to define “subject to the jurisdiction” and the terms of citizenship in a manner contrary to the Supreme Court’s understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment as expressed in Wong Kim Ark and Elk, since Congress does have broad power to pass necessary and proper legislation to regulate immigration and naturalization under the Constitution, Art. I, § 8, cls. 4 & 18 of the constitution Congress arguably has the power to define “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” for the purpose of regulating immigration." From wikipedia

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/147254.pdf

 

[MisterBeale]

Try to remember who stood by us when we fought for our freedom and who burned our towns, raped our women and shot us in our heads..

Your fellow Brits...you do realise that until you won the war of independence you were still Brits..

Whatever. The king didn't consider the folks over here Brits. They were considered colonists and royalty looked down their nose upon them. What do you think the impetus for the for the Third Amendment was? Royalty considered the colonists no better than cattle or property. They were not considered proper British subjects.

Even in Britain there are different social classes.

It's called a caste system.

In the US, we don't have any such notion, and never have. It's why the US has always, even during the Revolution, been more intellectually closer to France and Russia, because, aside from the elites, the folks here believe in fraternity.

XXXX--- Mod Edit..

 

[Dr Grump]

Try to remember who stood by us when we fought for our freedom and who burned our towns, raped our women and shot us in our heads..

Your fellow Brits...you do realise that until you won the war of independence you were still Brits..

Whatever. The king didn't consider the folks over here Brits. They were considered colonists and royalty looked down their nose upon them. What do you think the impetus for the for the Third Amendment was? Royalty considered the colonists no better than cattle or property. They were not considered proper British subjects.

Even in Britain there are different social classes.

It's called a caste system.

In the US, we don't have any such notion, and never have. It's why the US has always, even during the Revolution, been more intellectually closer to France and Russia, because, aside from the elites, the folks here believe in fraternity.

Stuff it ya limey.

Really, no class system in the States? Here's a term for you - invented in the States. "White Flight". Look it up...

 

[MisterBeale]

Try to remember who stood by us when we fought for our freedom and who burned our towns, raped our women and shot us in our heads..

Your fellow Brits...you do realise that until you won the war of independence you were still Brits..

Whatever. The king didn't consider the folks over here Brits. They were considered colonists and royalty looked down their nose upon them. What do you think the impetus for the for the Third Amendment was? Royalty considered the colonists no better than cattle or property. They were not considered proper British subjects.

Even in Britain there are different social classes.

It's called a caste system.

In the US, we don't have any such notion, and never have. It's why the US has always, even during the Revolution, been more intellectually closer to France and Russia, because, aside from the elites, the folks here believe in fraternity.

Stuff it ya limey.

Really, no class system in the States? Here's a term for you - invented in the States. "White Flight". Look it up...

Invented by whom? The people, or the elites I previously referred to? Apparently you don't know squat about ruling class journalism. The CFR has ties to the Royal Institute of International Affairs.


Point, and. . . . match.


Rulers of every nation on the planet seek to divide and rule. They have been doing it since the time of the Roman Empire.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It seems the US congress isn't the only governmental body that wastes its time and the taxpayers money on stupid shit

 

[Esmeralda]

What they think of the president is entirely irrelevant. The UK is not going to ban Trump and the 'debate' over it was a joke. At no time should we be considering what other nations want in our president - we should only be considering what we want.

the fact that you don't understand WHY the president needs to get along with other countries shows a complete lack of understanding about anything outside your front door.

Its not my lack of understanding that prevents me from knowing that Trump gets along with England and its governing body just fine. it is also not my lack of understanding that prevents me from factoring signatures in another nation when I vote for president.

This is partisan bullshit anyway - you would sing an entirely different tune if there was some sort of referendum on Hillary.

The idea that we should listen to CITIZENS in the UK when selecting our president is the height if idiocy.

There wouldn't be a referendum like this on Mrs. Clinton because she wouldn't be offending half the planet.

 

[MisterBeale]

I'll remember that next time the discussion turns to equality and slavery.

You don't know your history very well. Slavery in the US ended 150 years ago and had nothing to do with the British. England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales did not have slavery. The American Revolution was 240 years ago. There is no connection between the two. The Revolution was from England, but that was 240 years ago and since they we have been strong allies, especially in modern times. Slavery has not a thing to do with our connection with the UK.

You just said, something that happened a long time ago has no bearing on today.

Thus, when we talk about race relations today, you can not bring up slavery, it happened a long time ago.

Stop being so obtuse.

XXXXX -- Mod Edit

This discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with the American Revolution or with slavery in America. You brought up those things and they are inappropriate and off topic.

Fine, I'll accept your capitulation. Anyone reading this will see it for what it is.

Yes, they will see your posts for what they are -- posts by someone who doesn't understand or even accept the topic of this thread and who isn't adhering to the rules of the CDZ.

XXXX-Mod Edit. You KNOW that when it comes to cultures, the ages of peoples and families, and nations, 250 years is the blink of an eye, you even admitted as much.


What the British did to us is, and are doing to us is horrible. Their ruling elites were and are still heavily entrenched within our government. The revolution did nothing to throw off those chains.

It is the uneducated and uninformed that believe those ties were cut with the revolution. That debt never went away.


There was another war, it was the War of 1812. It was, ostensibly a draw. Oh, what? They are our allies? BULLSHIT.

Just as our political system is split, so are our the loyalties within our domestic elite political system. So long as the Federal Reserve Banking system exists, sure, we will be closely allied with the financial system of the LONDON BANKING district.

But I for one hope that the idiots in the British Parliament Ban Trump, then maybe we'll get that full Audit of the Federal Reserve that Ron Paul and Rand Paul have been wanting, and America will once again be free from. . . what Andy Jackson termed, that den of Vipers and Thieves.


Some of us know what the globalists are up to. Some of us know how the crown works. I'd really like to see where Trump stands, seriously.

We know what this is about. The City of London is nervous they will have another Andrew Jackson and not another leashed politician. I don't know what Trump is yet. We'll know when he goes to appoint the first Fed Chair, won't we?

 

[Mertex]

And this:
Donald Trump debate: Could UK really ban him? - CNNPolitics.com

"What has Trump said about the debate?
Trump has warned that he would end all current and future investments in the United Kingdom if he's banned from entering the country."

He isn't even elected and he is destroying our alliance with our most impotant ally.

It seems reasonable to me that if he is banned that he ends all current and future investments FROM TRUMP ENTERPRISES in the UK. After all, wouldn't a ban be a way of saying that they don't want Trump or his investments in the UK?

Of course he is not going to be banned so the point is moot.

The point is how willing he is to cut ties with our greatest ally. He says if he were president, he would ban current and future investments in the UK. He doesn't mean Trump Enterprises, he means the US economy. He would try to ban our economy from having investments in the UK. That's ridiculous and would do huge, inestimable damage to US-UK relations.

Yes, banning all US investments would be rediculous. Since the articles you linked do not spell out that he meant all US investments, I choose to believe that he means his own investments.

You choose wrong.

Can you back that up? I may change my mind if you can, otherwise your bias is showing.

Common sense would indicate that he is talking about US investments....if the UK is trying to ban him, he would have no choice but to ban his own investments there....seems that you're the one that would have to back up your perception that he's talking about his own investments.

 

[Mertex]

The point is how willing he is to cut ties with our greatest ally. He says if he were president, he would ban current and future investments in the UK. He doesn't mean Trump Enterprises, he means the US economy. He would try to ban our economy from having investments in the UK. That's ridiculous and would do huge, inestimable damage to US-UK relations.

Yes, banning all US investments would be rediculous. Since the articles you linked do not spell out that he meant all US investments, I choose to believe that he means his own investments.

You choose wrong.

Can you back that up? I may change my mind if you can, otherwise your bias is showing.

It's just simple logic.

No it's not. Trump invests millions in the UK that he has complete control. His company is currently in the process of investing in some property for golf courses in the UK. It is logical that he would withdraw such investments if banned.
Even if Trump were elected president, he would not have the authority to ban all current and future US investments in the UK. Yet you believe that it is simple logic that is what he meant. Trump is an attention whore, but he is also a brilliant business man. As you said yourself, it would be ridiculous for him to ban all US investments (which he couldn't do anyway). My logic tells me that he was speaking about that which he has control -- his own investments.

It wouldn't be a "new" thing that he (T-Chump) would say something that he couldn't do. Of course he couldn't ban all US investments in the UK....of course he can't tag all Muslims, of course he can't get Mexico to pay for his "beautiful" wall.......but does it keep him from saying it? It also doesn't keep you from believing it, does it?

 

[320 Years of History]

Donald Trump ban debated in UK Parliament - CNN.com


"London (CNN)For Donald Trump, in politics as in life, it seems the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.
But Monday, the Republican presidential candidate is entering unfamiliar territory, even by his larger-than-life standards, as members of the British Parliament hold a debate over a petition calling for the U.S. businessman-turned-politician to be banned from the country."

Please read the entire article.

Some may think it is not important how other countries may view our president, not even our allies, but it is extremely important how our president is percieved on the world stage, especially by our allies.


Open for discussion.

I think it's important. Working primarily outside the U.S., during the Bush II presidency, I was at least monthly asked "how can you Americans have managed to elect such a 'mental midget' as your President?" (That or something much like it.) Agreeing or disagreeing with them, among the last things I wanted to have to do was answer that question, much less engage in conversation about what I think of the American electorate in general.

There were and remain several reasons why I didn't want to do that, but none of them have to do with what I think about Mr. Bush's mental acuity. The point is that if nothing else, it's important to me that we have a well perceived President largely so I don't get entreated to serve as the (or a) spokesperson for a nation of 315M+ people.

 

[jillian]

What they think of the president is entirely irrelevant. The UK is not going to ban Trump and the 'debate' over it was a joke. At no time should we be considering what other nations want in our president - we should only be considering what we want.

the fact that you don't understand WHY the president needs to get along with other countries shows a complete lack of understanding about anything outside your front door.

Perhaps we have the wrong allies?

Donald Trump is right about Putin's popularity in Russia

A November study written by four American researchers backs up Trump’s point, finding about 80 percent of Russians really support Putin.

David Cameron maintains high approval rating, despite Labour’s poll lead

According to an Opinium/Observer poll, the prime minister is approved of by 41% of the voting population and disapproved of by 42%.

Try to remember who stood by us when we fought for our freedom and who burned our towns, raped our women and shot us in our heads.


I know that folks in Alaska remember who our friends are.

Russia/Pooting is not our friend.

Its very telling that a dictator likes Drumpf. Much of what Drumpf says he will do is very like the jack booted actions of Pooting. Drumpf would not be president. He would be king.

Russia isn't exactly a "dictatorship." It's a quasi dictatorship.

And believe me, I agree with you, the two parties here are taking notes on how the Russians and the Chinese do things.

Don't you remember the Holder ruling on those Black Panthers intimidating voters?

Malik Shabazz's brother was the one that was doing that, and Holder just let him walk. Turns out, Shabazz was the one that incited the riots in both Ferguson and Baltimore. So you see, the Russian system and Chinese system isn't a whole lot different than ours.

And these partisans, and the elites that control them talk about combining them. . . there is much agreement, they just have to hide it.

What, you didn't know that?

If the Dem's don't get their shit together, it might be that Obama will use his brown shirts and throw them behind Biden if he can get him to run. . .

wow,... given that your entire post is conspiracy theorism.... do you have anything that has even the slightest substantiation by anyone except for alex jones and his adherants?

 

[Carla_Danger]

And this:
Donald Trump debate: Could UK really ban him? - CNNPolitics.com

"What has Trump said about the debate?
Trump has warned that he would end all current and future investments in the United Kingdom if he's banned from entering the country."

He isn't even elected and he is destroying our alliance with our most impotant ally.

Donald Trump is an egotistical buffoon, who likes to hold a grudge. He's too thinned skinned to be the president, and would be an embarrassment. He already is an embarrassment.

 

[Carla_Danger]

And this:
Donald Trump debate: Could UK really ban him? - CNNPolitics.com

"What has Trump said about the debate?
Trump has warned that he would end all current and future investments in the United Kingdom if he's banned from entering the country."

He isn't even elected and he is destroying our alliance with our most impotant ally.

Some folks think it's our most important ally, others remember the truth. . .

It's not a matter of thinking they are our most important ally; they are our most important ally. What happened 240 years ago is not relevant today.

I'll remember that next time the discussion turns to equality and slavery.

False comparison fallacy.