Half of Americans want Trump impeached -- but his supporters want to give him dictatorial power

PPP's new national poll finds that Donald Trump's popularity as President has declined precipitously just over the last two weeks. On our first poll of his Presidency voters were evenly divided on Trump, with 44% approving of him and 44% also disapproving. Now his approval rating is 43%, while his disapproval has gone all the way up to 53%. If voters could choose they'd rather have both Barack Obama (52/44) or Hillary Clinton (49/45) instead of Trump.

Just three weeks into his administration, voters are already evenly divided on the issue of impeaching Trump with 46% in favor and 46% opposed. Support for impeaching Trump has crept up from 35% 2 weeks ago, to 40% last week, to its 46% standing this week. While Clinton voters initially only supported Trump's impeachment 65/14, after seeing him in office over the last few weeks that's gone up already to 83/6.

***

-Voters are concerned by the implications of Trump's fight with the Judiciary. 53% of voters say they trust Judges more to make the right decisions for the United States, to only 38% who trust Trump more. And only 25% of voters think Trump should be able to overturn decisions by Judges that he disagrees with, to 64% who don't think he should be able to do that. Trump voters have evidently had enough of the Constitution and those pesky checks and balances though- 51% of them think he should personally be able to overturn decisions he doesn't agree with, to only 33% who dissent.

Lots more bad news for Trump at source: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2017/02/americans-now-evenly-divided-on-impeaching-trump.html

Gotta post a bit more from this:

Perhaps as an outgrowth of that sentiment only 45% of voters support Trump's Executive Order on immigration, to 49% who are opposed to it. Among those who do support it you have to wonder how well thought out their position is- by a 51/23 margin Trump voters say that the Bowling Green Massacre shows why Trump's immigration policy is needed.

By a 48/43 spread, voters do think that the intent of the Executive Order is to be a Muslim ban. And just 22% support a Muslim ban, to 65% who are opposed. The order has also increasingly raised issues about Trump's competence in voters' eyes- only 27% think the Executive Order was well executed, to 66% who think it was poorly executed. The spread on that question was 39/55 when we asked last week.

Another aspect of voters already feeling safe is that they don't want to pay for the wall with Mexico. Just 32% support a 20% tax on items imported to the United States from Mexico, to 55% who are opposed to that concept. And in general only 37% of voters want the wall if US taxpayers have to front the cost for it, to 56% who are against that.

Bullshit poll waffle...

Their polls also said Hillary would win by double-digit margins. Surprise!

You have to go back to June of last year to find a poll suggesting a double-digit win. In October, it was more like a win by around 3 percentage points, and that was what Clinton won by.

Wanted to add, it's always amusing how the right simply disbelieve any negative poll. You always say the poll is right when it tells you want to hear!

Ben Reilly wrote:

PPP's new national poll finds that Donald Trump's popularity as President has declined precipitously just over the last two weeks. On our first poll of his Presidency voters were evenly divided on Trump, with 44% approving of him and 44% also disapproving. Now his approval rating is 43%, while his disapproval has gone all the way up to 53%. If voters could choose they'd rather have both Barack Obama (52/44) or Hillary Clinton (49/45) instead of Trump.

Just three weeks into his administration, voters are already evenly divided on the issue of impeaching Trump with 46% in favor and 46% opposed. Support for impeaching Trump has crept up from 35% 2 weeks ago, to 40% last week, to its 46% standing this week. While Clinton voters initially only supported Trump's impeachment 65/14, after seeing him in office over the last few weeks that's gone up already to 83/6.

***

-Voters are concerned by the implications of Trump's fight with the Judiciary. 53% of voters say they trust Judges more to make the right decisions for the United States, to only 38% who trust Trump more. And only 25% of voters think Trump should be able to overturn decisions by Judges that he disagrees with, to 64% who don't think he should be able to do that. Trump voters have evidently had enough of the Constitution and those pesky checks and balances though- 51% of them think he should personally be able to overturn decisions he doesn't agree with, to only 33% who dissent.

Lots more bad news for Trump at source: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2017/02/americans-now-evenly-divided-on-impeaching-trump.html

just a small point but 49% is not half of americans
they can never have obama as he has done his 2 terms.

Isn't it lucky that polls dont determine the law.

It's about time the "liberals" or should that be "illiberals" got over the fact that the chosen one, wasn't and moved on and actually tried to make america great again.
despite all the meme's, placards and destruction of property, Trump IS YOUR president and will be for 4 years.
all the violence and destruction that has occurred in the last couple of months just confirms what many of us have know for years, the most intolerant people out there are those that preach tolerance.

Impeach him and succeed and you still have president Pence.

they aren't going to give it to the clinton women ever. that horse has bolted.

Nah, Clinton's never going to get it. But I would vastly prefer Pence as president.

Pence is someone who has experience in government, but moreover, he has respect for it. I could never picture Pence calling a Bush-appointed judge who was seated by a 99-1 Senate confirmation vote a "so-called judge." Pence understands the checks-and-balances system that Trump should have learned about in school when he was 10 years old.

Pence isn't going to get on Twitter and whine about something like Nordstrom dropping his daughter's clothing line, or do something like this:



... when a judge halts his executive order. (That just looks like Trump is coming unglued)

Pence would be far more likely to govern by working with Congress than by fiat. And he's already better prepared to safeguard U.S. national security because he actually goes to the briefings!

Lastly, I'm not going to simply *get over* having a regressive president who lost the popular vote by a wide margin and with the help of the Russian government and a rogue FBI director.

Funny how you on the right who preach freedom of speech have spent so much energy trying to shut down the millions of people across America and the world who know that electing Trump was a mistake.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Lots more bad news for Trump at source: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2017/02/americans-now-evenly-divided-on-impeaching-trump.html

just a small point but 49% is not half of americans
they can never have obama as he has done his 2 terms.

Isn't it lucky that polls dont determine the law.

It's about time the "liberals" or should that be "illiberals" got over the fact that the chosen one, wasn't and moved on and actually tried to make america great again.
despite all the meme's, placards and destruction of property, Trump IS YOUR president and will be for 4 years.
all the violence and destruction that has occurred in the last couple of months just confirms what many of us have know for years, the most intolerant people out there are those that preach tolerance.

Impeach him and succeed and you still have president Pence.

they aren't going to give it to the clinton women ever. that horse has bolted.

Why should people get over it?
Did you get over Labour, when they were in power?
No, you constantly argued against them daily and presented a view to deligitimize them in order to change peoples support of them. Is that getting over something, or are you actively then seeking to bring about a change?

If Corbyn ended up being the chosen one, would you get over this and leave him be, not starting countless threads about him? Guess what, so did I and often with good reason. The fact you do, when he is not even a threat, shows that you constantly work at continuing to deligitimize him. To further consolidate people being against him. Thus ensuring he will never enter power.

Trump will only be President if he continues to apply the letter of the law.

So far he has had his arse handed to him on a plate over attempting to fuck with the constitution, by judges.

Ben Reilly wrote:Gotta post a bit more from this:

Perhaps as an outgrowth of that sentiment only 45% of voters support Trump's Executive Order on immigration, to 49% who are opposed to it. Among those who do support it you have to wonder how well thought out their position is- by a 51/23 margin Trump voters say that the Bowling Green Massacre shows why Trump's immigration policy is needed.

By a 48/43 spread, voters do think that the intent of the Executive Order is to be a Muslim ban. And just 22% support a Muslim ban, to 65% who are opposed. The order has also increasingly raised issues about Trump's competence in voters' eyes- only 27% think the Executive Order was well executed, to 66% who think it was poorly executed. The spread on that question was 39/55 when we asked last week.

Another aspect of voters already feeling safe is that they don't want to pay for the wall with Mexico. Just 32% support a 20% tax on items imported to the United States from Mexico, to 55% who are opposed to that concept. And in general only 37% of voters want the wall if US taxpayers have to front the cost for it, to 56% who are against that.

The MSM has done an excellent job of presenting the executive order as a Muslim ban, despite 44 Muslim country's not being affected. The list of countrys is based on the list drawn up by the divine obama the deporter in chief.

whilst the order may have been overturned, are the vetting procedures going to be stopped as well. the situation you have now is that anyone can come to america with less vetting that may be required.
If people think that daesh are not trying to get what they call soldiers into the US to commit an large attack then they are naive beyond reason.
the boston bombers were immigrants even if they had been there a decade before deciding to murder people in the name of islam.


Lets not forget all the 911 attackers were there on visas. Perhaps if better vetting procedures were in place that attack may not have occurred.


the attacks on america since 911 have been inspired by AQ and daesh even if they used home grown terrorists.
I have had no problem with long queues and being questioned at immigration when I have visited america numerous time over the last 20 years and I dont have a problem with being vetted if I go there again.
In fact strong security at teh departure airport as well as the arrival airports is a good thing in my view even if it does add some time to travel plans, better than being ripped apart at 35000 feet.

america does not want to turn into farnce, germany, belgium or sweden, the only way to ensure it does not is to know who you are allowing into your country.


as has been shown by the european experience of refugee's. Many of those claiming to be refugees are not who they say they are.
I see syrian refugees every day as there are a million or more living in the district of turkey where I live. I have no issue with them as they are on the whole just people trying to get on with their lives. the ones I have spoken with by and large just want to go back to syria when the situation allows. Most have gotten out with their families and are not trying to get too far from home.
One chap who I see regularly is trying to get to australia now as he has brothers and children living there, but he has to go through lots of red tape to organise it. He left syria after living in alleppo and being bombed by the syrians, the FSA and Daesh.
those you see trudging across europe are by an large young unaccompanied men of fighting age.

Most wont be terrorists I am sure, but as only 8 islamists killed over 130 people in paris it does not take many to create slaughter, especially if you have no idea who they are. 1 guy with a truck can kill dozens.

Ben Reilly wrote:You have to go back to June of last year to find a poll suggesting a double-digit win. In October, it was more like a win by around 3 percentage points, and that was what Clinton won by.

newsflash, she did not win.

Thorin wrote:
So far he has had his arse handed to him on a plate over attempting to fuck with the constitution, by judges.

Pfft... hardly.
The 9th Circuit court is one of the top 2 most Liberal and most overturned courts in the nation.

Eight of out of 10 cases from the 9th Circuit reviewed by the Supreme Court are overruled, according to a 2010 analysis published by the American Bar Association. The 9th Circuit, which is known for its liberal tendencies, has the second-highest reversal rate of the 13 appellate courts below the Supreme Court.

9th Circuit Has 80 Percent Reversal Rate At Supreme Court

That's right.  8 out of 10 cases that are heard by the 9th Circuit are overturned.
It's filled with Liberals that fancy themselves as "activist Judges".  Their way of carrying picket signs and hurling eggs at political foes, is to assert their power in a non-judicial manner.  They wrongly attempt to legislate from the bench, instead of mediating from it.  It's not their place to try to construe a law to fit their Liberal narrative -- their job is to read the law from the four corners of the pages it was written on and faithfully interpret the law's spirit and intent.

That court is a disgrace to objective courts and judges, everywhere.  It's rejection rate speaks volumes of the judges' incompetence.

Sorry, Liberals.  All this "win" means is that, statistically speaking, this case has an 80% chance of being overruled.

Ben Reilly wrote:Wanted to add, it's always amusing how the right simply disbelieve any negative poll. You always say the poll is right when it tells you want to hear!

a single poll is a snapshot of that moment. It is also subject to a margin of error, usually around +-3points.

you cannot read much into a single poll, you can read a little more in trends from numerous polls from several different organisations. If the polling is done properly then then there should be some correlation between different polling companies taken at similar times.
whether it is online polling, face to face or by telephone can also make a substantial difference to the outcome. even the wording of the poll questions can skew the results.


the point is in the UK general election,brexit and the presidential election the pollsters got it entirely wrong, either through trying to fix things or their methodology was just plain wrong.
much was made of the way some news media organised their polling by "fixing" those polled to skew the results.
there was a time when polling was pretty accurate, today I have an idea it is not so accurate, certainly not in a close run race, because to much emphasis is put on online polling with people who are anonymous.

back in the day much of the polling was done face to face.

I am always being polled by yougov on a range of subjects. most people I would guess have never been polled in their lives, oohhh errr missus.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:You have to go back to June of last year to find a poll suggesting a double-digit win. In October, it was more like a win by around 3 percentage points, and that was what Clinton won by.

newsflash, she did not win.

She got 48 percent of the popular vote to Trump's 45 percent, almost exactly in line with what the polls predicted.

Ben Reilly wrote:Nah, Clinton's never going to get it. But I would vastly prefer Pence as president.

Pence is someone who has experience in government, but moreover, he has respect for it. I could never picture Pence calling a Bush-appointed judge who was seated by a 99-1 Senate confirmation vote a "so-called judge." Pence understands the checks-and-balances system that Trump should have learned about in school when he was 10 years old.

Pence isn't going to get on Twitter and whine about something like Nordstrom dropping his daughter's clothing line, or do something like this:



... when a judge halts his executive order. (That just looks like Trump is coming unglued)

Pence would be far more likely to govern by working with Congress than by fiat. And he's already better prepared to safeguard U.S. national security because he actually goes to the briefings!

Lastly, I'm not going to simply *get over* having a regressive president who lost the popular vote by a wide margin and with the help of the Russian government and a rogue FBI director.

Funny how you on the right who preach freedom of speech have spent so much energy trying to shut down the millions of people across America and the world who know that electing Trump was a mistake.

I think the point why trump won was because he wasn't involved in politics. Much of america and the world is sick and tired of the establishment figures who never make anything better for anyone but themselves. Drain the swamp resonated with much of america that has been left behind by the trendy metropolitan elites.
Now if trump could drain the swamp then that would be a very good thing indeed. I expect vested interests will slow him down or stop him where ever they can.

Who's stopping him from draining the swamp? He's making these decisions all on his lonesome and has managed to pack his Cabinet with Wall Street insiders and billionaires.

Face it -- 77,744 people allowed America to fall victim to the biggest con job in world history.

Ben Reilly wrote:Nah, Clinton's never going to get it. But I would vastly prefer Pence as president.

Pence is someone who has experience in government, but moreover, he has respect for it. I could never picture Pence calling a Bush-appointed judge who was seated by a 99-1 Senate confirmation vote a "so-called judge." Pence understands the checks-and-balances system that Trump should have learned about in school when he was 10 years old.

Pence isn't going to get on Twitter and whine about something like Nordstrom dropping his daughter's clothing line, or do something like this:



... when a judge halts his executive order. (That just looks like Trump is coming unglued)

Pence would be far more likely to govern by working with Congress than by fiat. And he's already better prepared to safeguard U.S. national security because he actually goes to the briefings!

Lastly, I'm not going to simply *get over* having a regressive president who lost the popular vote by a wide margin and with the help of the Russian government and a rogue FBI director.

Funny how you on the right who preach freedom of speech have spent so much energy trying to shut down the millions of people across America and the world who know that electing Trump was a mistake.

you say that with not a scrap of evidence.
The russians did not make people vote for trump. If that had been the case then surely the other half of america that didn't vote at all would have voted for him.
clinton lost because she was an absolutely dreadful choice, and because she believed she was entitled to the presidency because she was a woman. 75% of america did not agree with her.

america will have a woman president one day, thank god it wont be hilliary

The aspect of support based on Polls is irrelevant here

What is relevant, is whether people support the ban based off emotions through fear or reason.

The US already has checks put in place and not only that the ban is based off a confirmation bias against some countries and a prejudice on guilt by association.

Its even more so a flawed and unconstitutional policy. Born from one, to win support to consolidate his Presidency in power. Its a battle of support for the people. Playing off things people are susceptible to fear.

What you have to ask, is has such a ban made the US any safer from a terrorist attack.

The simple answer, is no.

#TrumpGrets

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
just a small point but 49% is not half of americans
they can never have obama as he has done his 2 terms.

Isn't it lucky that polls dont determine the law.

It's about time the "liberals" or should that be "illiberals" got over the fact that the chosen one, wasn't and moved on and actually tried to make america great again.
despite all the meme's, placards and destruction of property, Trump IS YOUR president and will be for 4 years.
all the violence and destruction that has occurred in the last couple of months just confirms what many of us have know for years, the most intolerant people out there are those that preach tolerance.

Impeach him and succeed and you still have president Pence.

they aren't going to give it to the clinton women ever. that horse has bolted.

Why should people get over it?
Did you get over Labour, when they were in power?
No, you constantly argued against them daily and presented a view to deligitimize them in order to change peoples support of them. Is that getting over something, or are you actively then seeking to bring about a change?

If Corbyn ended up being the chosen one, would you get over this and leave him be, not starting countless threads about him? Guess what, so did I and often with good reason. The fact you do, when he is not even a threat, shows that you constantly work at continuing to deligitimize him. To further consolidate people being against him. Thus ensuring he will never enter power.

Trump will only be President if he continues to apply the letter of the law.

So far he has had his arse handed to him on a plate over attempting to fuck with the constitution, by judges.

I dont recall vast right wing riots and destruction of property when labour won.
I certainly did not agree with much labour ever does but I did not feel the need to take to the streets and destroy peoples livelihoods.
the right as far as I can see in britian just get on with it and wait for the next election to make their change.
I dont need to de-legitimize corbyn, he does an absolutely fabulous job of that himself.
I thoroughly enjoy watching the mess labour has inflicted on itself over the last decade.
they took a winning formula, Blair, and crowned brown to replace him, ensuring they would be defeated, instead of thinking oh, we won 3 and now have lost one by going further left they decide, no, the reason we lost was we were not left wing enough so they ensconce special Ed and when he proves to be an utter failure they think to themselves, no no no, not left wing enough and elect corbyn, a man who befriends terrorists the world over as their leader and now they find themselves 15 or more points behind in mid terms, special ed was at least 10 points up at the similar point in his mid term during the coalition.

the tide is turning and the "progressives", an odd turn of phrase as they are anything but, are finding out that the people will not fall for it any more.
The EU is heading for collapse, not because of people like le pen, gert wilders, or even brexit, but because of people like junkers, shultz and merkel who put the project before any sort of common sense.
It seems that the little man is fed up to the back teeth of nanny knowing best.

those that stand against the blessed EU are always presented as monsters, as racists, as bigots. that is how the MSM has worked for years, that has also been seen through by most of the common man.
I can understand why the under25's may be so keen on the EU, because they have been spoon fed a non stop diet of eu propaganda practically since the day they were born.
even those under 40 have had that, although it is not a new thing as in the 70's when I was at school we were also told repeatedly how wonderful joining the EEC would be for us. so for at least 45 years people have had the eu propaganda rammed down their throats by the media and by educators.
those of us over 40 may well have had far more experience of what being in the EU means and that is why we wanted to leave.

Being able to travel without borders in europe is not a price worth paying for all the negatives that come with being members of the EU.
I used to travel europe before the border controls were removed and it really wasn't that bad even in lorries getting through borders, you just had to make sure the carnet was accurate and was stamped at each border. It meant stopping at borders but it did allow you to stretch your legs and get a cup of coffee.

the collapse of the EU as an entity will be a good thing.

Now I think I have covered everything so back to the studio

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

Thorin wrote:
So far he has had his arse handed to him on a plate over attempting to fuck with the constitution, by judges.

Pfft... hardly.
The 9th Circuit court is one of the top 2 most Liberal and most overturned courts in the nation.

Eight of out of 10 cases from the 9th Circuit reviewed by the Supreme Court are overruled, according to a 2010 analysis published by the American Bar Association. The 9th Circuit, which is known for its liberal tendencies, has the second-highest reversal rate of the 13 appellate courts below the Supreme Court.

9th Circuit Has 80 Percent Reversal Rate At Supreme Court

That's right.  8 out of 10 cases that are heard by the 9th Circuit are overturned.
It's filled with Liberals that fancy themselves as "activist Judges".  Their way of carrying pickets signs and hurling eggs at political foes, is to assert their power in a non-judicial manner.  They wrongly attempt to legislate from the bench, instead of mediating from it.  It's not their place to try to construe a law to fit their Liberal narrative -- their job is to read the law from the four corners of the pages it was written on and faithfully interpret the law's spirit and intent.

That court is a disgrace to objective courts and judges, everywhere.  It's rejection rate speaks volumes of the judges' incompetence.

Sorry, Liberals.  All this "win" means is that, statistically speaking, this case has an 80% chance of being overruled.

doesnt it say in the constitution that the president can decide to restrict who enters the country? I may have paraphrased somewhat but that is the gist

Okay, TDYK, I've let this pass but you should know, the rioteers were not leftists, they were anarchists.

Ben Reilly wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
newsflash, she did not win.

She got 48 percent of the popular vote to Trump's 45 percent, almost exactly in line with what the polls predicted.

and how many of the electoral collage votes did she get? you know the votes that actually determine who becomes president

Ben Reilly wrote:Who's stopping him from draining the swamp? He's making these decisions all on his lonesome and has managed to pack his Cabinet with Wall Street insiders and billionaires.

Face it -- 77,744 people allowed America to fall victim to the biggest con job in world history.

you are discounting the other 100million who didnt vote?

Thorin wrote:The aspect of support based on Polls is irrelevant here

What is relevant, is whether people support the ban based off emotions through fear or reason.

The US already has checks put in place and not only that the ban is based off a confirmation bias against some countries and a prejudice on guilt by association.

Its even more so a flawed and unconstitutional policy. Born from one, to win support to consolidate his Presidency in power. Its a battle of support for the people. Playing off things people are susceptible to fear.

What you have to ask, is has such a ban made the US any safer from a terrorist attack.

The simple answer, is no.

does allowing anyone to enter the country make it safer then?

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

Thorin wrote:
So far he has had his arse handed to him on a plate over attempting to fuck with the constitution, by judges.

Pfft... hardly.
The 9th Circuit court is one of the top 2 most Liberal and most overturned courts in the nation.

Eight of out of 10 cases from the 9th Circuit reviewed by the Supreme Court are overruled, according to a 2010 analysis published by the American Bar Association. The 9th Circuit, which is known for its liberal tendencies, has the second-highest reversal rate of the 13 appellate courts below the Supreme Court.

9th Circuit Has 80 Percent Reversal Rate At Supreme Court

That's right.  8 out of 10 cases that are heard by the 9th Circuit are overturned.
It's filled with Liberals that fancy themselves as "activist Judges".  Their way of carrying pickets signs and hurling eggs at political foes, is to assert their power in a non-judicial manner.  They wrongly attempt to legislate from the bench, instead of mediating from it.  It's not their place to try to construe a law to fit their Liberal narrative -- their job is to read the law from the four corners of the pages it was written on and faithfully interpret the law's spirit and intent.

That court is a disgrace to objective courts and judges, everywhere.  It's rejection rate speaks volumes of the judges' incompetence.

Sorry, Liberals.  All this "win" means is that, statistically speaking, this case has an 80% chance of being overruled.

doesnt it say in the constitution that the president can decide to restrict who enters the country? I may have paraphrased somewhat but that is the gist

First, the order is unconstitutional because it is unsupported with fact and obviously was not researched or vetted. Therefore, it is simply arbitrary. Such brazen arbitrariness occurs rarely, but here you have an example of it. It is, in constitutional parlance, "irrational."


This kind of action is precisely what the Framers feared and the Constitution forbids.

The only justification for an unvetted, fact-bare and hastily issued order like this one would be a time of emergency. While the Constitution does not explicitly grant power to the president to exercise emergency power, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to imply such a power.

The most recent example would be the actions taken by then-President George W. Bush in response to 9/11: He was acting within his emergency power when he shut down United States airspace. But that is a far cry from today.

Without an emergency, Trump lacked the power to unilaterally halt the movement of those who had been following legal channels to enter the United States.

The order also violates the separation of power between the federal government and the states — federalism — because it imposes an extraordinary burden on the states' economies and governance without justification. It is commanding the states to dance to the president's tune and to take the hit for his policy.

Finally, it violates the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause because it is based on animus toward Muslims.

In response to the Trump administration's attempts to say that the ban is not a "Muslim ban," a previous Supreme Court decision runs contrary to that argument. In Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, the court held that the First Amendment not only forbids obvious targeting of religious entities, it also "subtle departures" from neutrality.

The fact that the government attaches a neutral label or explanation to the order, as Trump has attempted to do so by arguing it targets seven countries as opposed to only Muslims, does not save it. This order, particularly in the context of the president's anti-Muslim rhetoric before and after the campaign and the religious makeup of these countries, is not a subtle departure from neutrality.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/318116-what-makes-trumps-travel-ban-so-unconstitutional

Ben Reilly wrote:Okay, TDYK, I've let this pass but you should know, the rioteers were not leftists, they were anarchists.

not much difference to the people who's property was destroyed. instead of anarchists just say far leftists

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Okay, TDYK, I've let this pass but you should know, the rioteers were not leftists, they were anarchists.

not much difference to the people who's property was destroyed. instead of anarchists just say far leftists

Actually, people who voted for Hillary Clinton are quite unlikely to favor tearing down the United States government, as the anarchist rioters wish. To find that kind of sentiment, look no further than one of Trump's chief national security advisers:

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Why should people get over it?
Did you get over Labour, when they were in power?
No, you constantly argued against them daily and presented a view to deligitimize them in order to change peoples support of them. Is that getting over something, or are you actively then seeking to bring about a change?

If Corbyn ended up being the chosen one, would you get over this and leave him be, not starting countless threads about him? Guess what, so did I and often with good reason. The fact you do, when he is not even a threat, shows that you constantly work at continuing to deligitimize him. To further consolidate people being against him. Thus ensuring he will never enter power.

Trump will only be President if he continues to apply the letter of the law.

So far he has had his arse handed to him on a plate over attempting to fuck with the constitution, by judges.

I dont recall vast right wing riots and destruction of property when labour won.
I certainly did not agree with much labour ever does but I did not feel the need to take to the streets and destroy peoples livelihoods.


Now I think I have covered everything so back to the studio

I deleted out the irrelevance to the points raised.

Complete misdirection to my points
You went off tangent over whether you need to do something, thus eluding to the fact that you do in fact try to deligitimize Corbyn
The point stands, that you never have nor will sit back, whilst someone or party is in power, that could be a possible risk to society and the system that its run on. Hence why people will continue to fight against what they see wrong. You don;t take to the streets but clearly take to the internet to express your disdain of things and on forums, do you not? Is that not a form of protesting? Whether right wings fascists acted violent or not to Labour winning is again irrelevant. As your view is to them cast all who did act violent, as if they represent all people who oppose Trump. Its about as a poor an argument and deflection as it gets.

You then act like a child with pathetic insults at the end.

So just address one simple question.

If you claim to being in acceptance of people gaining power. Then why did you whilst Labour was in power, daily try to delegitimize them?

I guess if there's anything I would like to demonstrate to the right here and elsewhere, it's basically that Trump and Trumpism are really not much like what y'all support. I had a great conversation with a Republican friend of mine yesterday about this.

Republicans and conservatives in America in general do *not* want a king or dictator. We want a president, right or left, who respects the constitution and the balance of powers.

Ben Reilly wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
doesnt it say in the constitution that the president can decide to restrict who enters the country? I may have paraphrased somewhat but that is the gist

First, the order is unconstitutional because it is unsupported with fact and obviously was not researched or vetted. Therefore, it is simply arbitrary. Such brazen arbitrariness occurs rarely, but here you have an example of it. It is, in constitutional parlance, "irrational."


This kind of action is precisely what the Framers feared and the Constitution forbids.

The only justification for an unvetted, fact-bare and hastily issued order like this one would be a time of emergency. While the Constitution does not explicitly grant power to the president to exercise emergency power, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to imply such a power.

The most recent example would be the actions taken by then-President George W. Bush in response to 9/11: He was acting within his emergency power when he shut down United States airspace. But that is a far cry from today.

Without an emergency, Trump lacked the power to unilaterally halt the movement of those who had been following legal channels to enter the United States.

The order also violates the separation of power between the federal government and the states — federalism — because it imposes an extraordinary burden on the states' economies and governance without justification. It is commanding the states to dance to the president's tune and to take the hit for his policy.

Finally, it violates the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause because it is based on animus toward Muslims.

In response to the Trump administration's attempts to say that the ban is not a "Muslim ban," a previous Supreme Court decision runs contrary to that argument. In Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, the court held that the First Amendment not only forbids obvious targeting of religious entities, it also "subtle departures" from neutrality.

The fact that the government attaches a neutral label or explanation to the order, as Trump has attempted to do so by arguing it targets seven countries as opposed to only Muslims, does not save it. This order, particularly in the context of the president's anti-Muslim rhetoric before and after the campaign and the religious makeup of these countries, is not a subtle departure from neutrality.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/318116-what-makes-trumps-travel-ban-so-unconstitutional

doesn't it say in the constitution that the president can refuse entry to any individual or groups of people.

I looked this up and this was authorised by congress at some time in the past to the president of the day

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.


http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/03/is-trumps-travel-ban-constitutional-immigration-law-experts-from-both-sides-weigh-in/

it also says in this article
As for the order not including majority Muslim countries such as the UAE, Van Spakovsky pointed out the governments in those countries are able to work with the U.S. to thoroughly vet immigrants applying for American visas. That’s not the case with the countries included in Trump’s order.

“This doesn’t go after all the countries in the world from where terrorists have sprung. It goes after the seven worst countries in the Middle East, all of which are failed or failing countries,” Van Spakovsky explained.

countries from obamas list by the way.

there are 44 islamic country's that are not on his list so it is not a Muslim ban.
now I can see good reason why america might not want people from iran entering the country as they almost weekly have demonstrations calling for death to america.
I can understand why they might not want somalians coming as it is practically a failed state and it is hard to verify who anyone is
the same could be said for syria, and iraq.
so many blank syrian passports have been stolen by daesh and other terrorist groups in syria that they really should not be accepted by anyone.

Ben Reilly wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
not much difference to the people who's property was destroyed. instead of anarchists just say far leftists

Actually, people who voted for Hillary Clinton are quite unlikely to favor tearing down the United States government, as the anarchist rioters wish. To find that kind of sentiment, look no further than one of Trump's chief national security advisers:

was he out on the streets burning down business's?

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
I dont recall vast right wing riots and destruction of property when labour won.
I certainly did not agree with much labour ever does but I did not feel the need to take to the streets and destroy peoples livelihoods.


Now I think I have covered everything so back to the studio

I deleted out the irrelevance to the points raised.

Complete misdirection to my points
You went off tangent over whether you need to do something, thus eluding to the fact that you do in fact try to deligitimize Corbyn
The point stands, that you never have nor will sit back, whilst someone or party is in power, that could be a possible risk to society and the system that its run on. Hence why people will continue to fight against what they see wrong. You don;t take to the streets but clearly take to the internet to express your disdain of things and on forums, do you not? Is that not a form of protesting? Whether right wings fascists acted violent or not to Labour winning is again irrelevant. As your view is to them cast all who did act violent, as if they represent all people who oppose Trump. Its about as a poor an argument and deflection as it gets.

You then act like a child with pathetic insults at the end.

So just address one simple question.

If you claim to being in acceptance of people gaining power. Then why did you whilst Labour was in power, daily try to delegitimize them?

you seem to be a delicate little flower if you think back to the studio is an insult. rofl

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
not much difference to the people who's property was destroyed. instead of anarchists just say far leftists

Actually, people who voted for Hillary Clinton are quite unlikely to favor tearing down the United States government, as the anarchist rioters wish. To find that kind of sentiment, look no further than one of Trump's chief national security advisers:

was he out on the streets burning down business's?

No, he's in the White House, burning down the country.

Fact is, the constitution doesn't allow the president to restrict legal travel in the absence of a national emergency.

Did anyone else see how Dean lost his own argument?

Maybe Dean can show me where under 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens. Then be sure to read the small print on this and show me where you can based a ban on simple prejudice?

Does Trumps ban meet the following requirements?


(B)Terrorist activities
(i)In generalAny alien who—
(I)
has engaged in a terrorist activity;
(II)
a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));
(III)
has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity;
(IV)is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of—
(aa)
a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(bb)
a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;
(V)
is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);
(VI)
is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
(VII)
endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;
(VIII)
has received military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(IX)
is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under this subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,
 is inadmissible. An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for purposes of this chapter, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.





https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

Ben Reilly wrote:I guess if there's anything I would like to demonstrate to the right here and elsewhere, it's basically that Trump and Trumpism are really not much like what y'all support. I had a great conversation with a Republican friend of mine yesterday about this.

Republicans and conservatives in America in general do *not* want a king or dictator. We want a president, right or left, who respects the constitution and the balance of powers.

I note that democrats had little problem with obama governing by presidential orders. he did just shy of 300 or 1/10000 of the number of people he deported.

It's just a bit of fun

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:

I deleted out the irrelevance to the points raised.

Complete misdirection to my points
You went off tangent over whether you need to do something, thus eluding to the fact that you do in fact try to deligitimize Corbyn
The point stands, that you never have nor will sit back, whilst someone or party is in power, that could be a possible risk to society and the system that its run on. Hence why people will continue to fight against what they see wrong. You don;t take to the streets but clearly take to the internet to express your disdain of things and on forums, do you not? Is that not a form of protesting? Whether right wings fascists acted violent or not to Labour winning is again irrelevant. As your view is to them cast all who did act violent, as if they represent all people who oppose Trump. Its about as a poor an argument and deflection as it gets.

You then act like a child with pathetic insults at the end.

So just address one simple question.

If you claim to being in acceptance of people gaining power. Then why did you whilst Labour was in power, daily try to delegitimize them?

you seem to be a delicate little flower if you think back to the studio is an insult.  rofl

Point easily proven by me.
You continue to to resort to infantile tactics
Fail to answer the points by misdirection again, onto me.

I will ask again, to prove your double standards and hypocrisy here


So just address one simple question.

If you claim to being in acceptance of people gaining power. Then why did you whilst Labour was in power, daily try to delegitimize them?

Ben Reilly wrote:I guess if there's anything I would like to demonstrate to the right here and elsewhere, it's basically that Trump and Trumpism are really not much like what y'all support. I had a great conversation with a Republican friend of mine yesterday about this.

Republicans and conservatives in America in general do *not* want a king or dictator. We want a president, right or left, who respects the constitution and the balance of powers.

then both parties should have put up people who could win. they didn't and you are left with what you got.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I guess if there's anything I would like to demonstrate to the right here and elsewhere, it's basically that Trump and Trumpism are really not much like what y'all support. I had a great conversation with a Republican friend of mine yesterday about this.

Republicans and conservatives in America in general do *not* want a king or dictator. We want a president, right or left, who respects the constitution and the balance of powers.

I note that democrats had little problem with obama governing by presidential orders. he did just shy of 300 or 1/10000 of the number of people he deported.

It's just a bit of fun

Executive actions aren't in and of themselves unconstitutional. None of Obama's were as massively disruptive as Trump's, let alone as poorly thought-out. Unless, of course, you think denying refuge to our Syrian allies who need to bug out after fighting ISIS was smart.

Thorin wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
you seem to be a delicate little flower if you think back to the studio is an insult.  rofl

Point easily proven by me.
You continue to to resort to infantile tactics
Fail to answer the points by misdirection again, onto me.

I will ask again, to prove your double standards and hypocrisy here


So just address one simple question.

If you claim to being in acceptance of people gaining power. Then why did you whilst Labour was in power, daily try to delegitimize them?

because they were doing an appalling job. I didn't go out rioting and crying my eyes out for 13 years over it, I dont recall a single violent demonstration from the right over the blair/brown years.
I do recall several violent protests from the left during the blair years. But then that seems to be the way the left reacts to anything.

Okay, who disagrees with this statement:

"It is not the business of the government of a free country to come up with reasons people can do things, but reasons why they can't."

Telling people they cannot do something without good reason is the antithesis of freedom.

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:I guess if there's anything I would like to demonstrate to the right here and elsewhere, it's basically that Trump and Trumpism are really not much like what y'all support. I had a great conversation with a Republican friend of mine yesterday about this.

Republicans and conservatives in America in general do *not* want a king or dictator. We want a president, right or left, who respects the constitution and the balance of powers.

then both parties should have put up people who could win. they didn't and you are left with what you got.

Glad you are seeing sense. 3 quarters of people did not vote for trump, those eligible.
Now clearly, some of them are starting to stand up against him.
Its called civil disobedience.

Ever heard of civil rights?
You know, that Liberal policy, you excercize daily?
The one where you are here now bitching against that very same principle and policy?
Civil rights to protest against anything?

Everyone has a right, not to be happy with their situation. To say people should just accept that. Is like saying to a man who has had his wife cheat on him a thousand times. That the majority of his friends accept that she has, and he should just accept it.

What people like you are attempting to do, is poorly try to silence people, saying wrongly they have no right, to counter the current Presidency.

In simpleton terms, that is just plain horseshit.

Of course anyone can stand up to prejudice and discrimination.

If not, you would not even be able to buy, let alone reside, in a country, you were not born to.

Progressive Liberal values, allowed you to that

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Point easily proven by me.
You continue to to resort to infantile tactics
Fail to answer the points by misdirection again, onto me.

I will ask again, to prove your double standards and hypocrisy here


So just address one simple question.

If you claim to being in acceptance of people gaining power. Then why did you whilst Labour was in power, daily try to delegitimize them?

because they were doing an appalling job. I didn't go out rioting and crying my eyes out for 13 years over it, I dont recall a single violent demonstration from the right over the blair/brown years.
I do recall several violent protests from the left during the blair years. But then that seems to be the way the left reacts to anything.

You are again avoiding the question with misdirection.
Many Clinton supporters also did not go out rioting.
You clearly did protest against Labour for 13 years online, when they were in power.
And yet you then stupidly, equate people against Trump, airing their views online to comparability to those who commit violence.

Its as dumb as it gets to equate off. You are dealing with people vocal here, just like you, on things they are against. So to  equate rioting by some idiots and then claiming people should accept a situation. Of which you never did with Labour in power. That they should just knuckle under, based off the actions of violent people. Shows even more how ridiculous an argument you are making. You are equating rioters, to people expressing their views against Trump online.

They are not even comparable

So just address one simple question.

If you claim to being in acceptance of people gaining power. Then why did you whilst Labour was in power, daily try to delegitimize them?

TDYK wrote:
"doesnt it say in the constitution that the president can decide to restrict who enters the country?"

You are correct.
The Liberals like to whitewash that part because it is counter to their political war on Trump.
An interesting news clip appeared on my news feed, yesterday, and it addresses your specific question. The analyst speaking about the case is Judge Jeanine Pirro.

In another thread, Thorin was confused as to how US laws and its Constitution applies to foreign nationals.
http://www.newsfixboard.com/t19556-report-gop-aides-drafted-trump-s-ban-behind-congress-s-back

I attempted to explain, but perhaps hearing it from an imminent judge could help everyone to better understand.

Judge wrote:
Pirro blasted the notoriously liberal court Thursday, arguing that constitutional rights apply only to U.S. citizens and any foreign citizen currently in the U.S. Pirro further argued that American constitutional rights do not apply to any foreign citizen who is not already on American soil.

“You’re going to tell me that a citizen of another country who we don’t even know, whose country won’t even tell us who that person is, has primacy over the United States citizen and that the president of the United States has to tell a federal judge why under Section 8 Article I of the constitution of the United States … has the primacy and gives the president the power?” Pirro said.

The section of the Constitution cited by Pirro focuses on the role of both Congress and the president in passing federal legislation and signing it into law. Article II Section I grants the president “executive power.”

Pirro continued by saying the idea that foreign citizens somehow have priority over Americans citizens is “hogwash.”

“The Supreme Court will give Trump the win on this,” Pirro said.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/video-embed.html?video_id=5317906101001

Ben Reilly wrote:

The Devil, You Know wrote:
I note that democrats had little problem with obama governing by presidential orders. he did just shy of 300 or 1/10000 of the number of people he deported.

It's just a bit of fun

Executive actions aren't in and of themselves unconstitutional. None of Obama's were as massively disruptive as Trump's, let alone as poorly thought-out. Unless, of course, you think denying refuge to our Syrian allies who need to bug out after fighting ISIS was smart.

I think they would not have had to bug out had obama shown leadership 5 years ago when assad started murdering protesters on the streets of syrian towns and cities.
Instead america and the west allowed the whole situation to escalate to what we have today.
the arming of the syrians was a disastrous move because by the time it happened the jihadiis had infiltrated everywhere.


the rush to get out of iraq and the middle east allowed the slaughter of getting on for a million people over the last 5 years.
much of that blood can be laid at the hands of obama as the "leader" of the free world, although he showed scant leadership in the whole syrian debacle.
cameron is not much better in that respect, but britain could not possibly remain once america pulled out.
We left the syrians and the iraqi's to their fate, but at least obama got re-elected.

Obama's foreign policy was a disaster. He left the world a far more dangerous place than he inherited. And it was pretty dangerous even back then, but we were not facing imminent war with russia back then or the destruction of europe by people, many of whom will bring their intolerance with them and try to destroy the freedoms that allowed them in from within.

One could say trump is a response to the divisions obama made in the US.

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

TDYK wrote:
"doesnt it say in the constitution that the president can decide to restrict who enters the country?"

You are correct.
The Liberals like to whitewash that part because it is counter to their political war on Trump.
An interesting news clip appeared on my news feed, yesterday, and it addresses your specific question.  The analyst speaking about the case is Judge Jeanine Pirro.  

In another thread, Thorin was confused as to how US laws and its Constitution applies to foreign nationals.  
http://www.newsfixboard.com/t19556-report-gop-aides-drafted-trump-s-ban-behind-congress-s-back

I attempted to explain, but perhaps hearing it from an imminent judge could help everyone to better understand.

Judge wrote:
Pirro blasted the notoriously liberal court Thursday, arguing that constitutional rights apply only to U.S. citizens and any foreign citizen currently in the U.S. Pirro further argued that American constitutional rights do not apply to any foreign citizen who is not already on American soil.

“You’re going to tell me that a citizen of another country who we don’t even know, whose country won’t even tell us who that person is, has primacy over the United States citizen and that the president of the United States has to tell a federal judge why under Section 8 Article I of the constitution of the United States … has the primacy and gives the president the power?” Pirro said.

The section of the Constitution cited by Pirro focuses on the role of both Congress and the president in passing federal legislation and signing it into law. Article II Section I grants the president “executive power.”

Pirro continued by saying the idea that foreign citizens somehow have priority over Americans citizens is “hogwash.”

“The Supreme Court will give Trump the win on this,” Pirro said.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/video-embed.html?video_id=5317906101001

Fine example of misdirection and begging for support, from another poster

I was never confused and by the fact, you are still pissed over being wrong, that non US citizens do have rights under the US constitution, eats you up.
Hey, you have to live with that, not me

So Dean is wrong and here is why

Ever heard of civil rights?
You know, that Liberal policy, you excercize daily?
The one where you are here now bitching against that very same principle and policy?
Civil rights to protest against anything?

Everyone has a right, not to be happy with their situation. To say people should just accept that. Is like saying to a man who has had his wife cheat on him a thousand times. That the majority of his friends accept that she has, and he should just accept it.

What people like you are attempting to do, is poorly try to silence people, saying wrongly they have no right, to counter the current Presidency.

In simpleton terms, that is just plain horseshit.

Of course anyone can stand up to prejudice and discrimination.

If not, you would not even be able to buy, let alone reside, in a country, you were not born to.

Progressive Liberal values, allowed you to that


Many Clinton supporters also did not go out rioting.
You clearly did protest against Labour for 13 years online, when they were in power.
And yet you then stupidly, equate people against Trump, airing their views online to comparability to those who commit violence.

Its as dumb as it gets to equate off. You are dealing with people vocal here, just like you, on things they are against. So to  equate rioting by some idiots and then claiming people should accept a situation. Of which you never did with Labour in power. That they should just knuckle under, based off the actions of violent people. Shows even more how ridiculous an argument you are making. You are equating rioters, to people expressing their views against Trump online.

They are not even comparable

So just address one simple question.

If you claim to being in acceptance of people gaining power. Then why did you whilst Labour was in power, daily try to delegitimize them?

Oh an why I know your constitution better than you Independent?
I studied American Politics at school

14th Amendment

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I shall now await your apology

Ben Reilly wrote:Okay, who disagrees with this statement:

"It is not the business of the government of a free country to come up with reasons people can do things, but reasons why they can't."

Telling people they cannot do something without good reason is the antithesis of freedom.

the business of government should be to protect the people, empty the trash and make sure the transport system works.
It certainly should not be involved in every minute aspect of peoples lives.

Thorin wrote:

Lord Independent Thoughts wrote:

You are correct.
The Liberals like to whitewash that part because it is counter to their political war on Trump.
An interesting news clip appeared on my news feed, yesterday, and it addresses your specific question.  The analyst speaking about the case is Judge Jeanine Pirro.  

In another thread, Thorin was confused as to how US laws and its Constitution applies to foreign nationals.  
http://www.newsfixboard.com/t19556-report-gop-aides-drafted-trump-s-ban-behind-congress-s-back

I attempted to explain, but perhaps hearing it from an imminent judge could help everyone to better understand.


http://video.foxnews.com/v/video-embed.html?video_id=5317906101001

Fine example of misdirection and begging for support, from another poster

I was never confused and by the fact, you are still pissed over being wrong, that non US citizens do have rights under the US constitution, eats you up.
Hey, you have to live with that, not me

So Dean is wrong and here is why

Ever heard of civil rights?
You know, that Liberal policy, you excercize daily?
The one where you are here now bitching against that very same principle and policy?
Civil rights to protest against anything?

Everyone has a right, not to be happy with their situation. To say people should just accept that. Is like saying to a man who has had his wife cheat on him a thousand times. That the majority of his friends accept that she has, and he should just accept it.

What people like you are attempting to do, is poorly try to silence people, saying wrongly they have no right, to counter the current Presidency.

In simpleton terms, that is just plain horseshit.

Of course anyone can stand up to prejudice and discrimination.

If not, you would not even be able to buy, let alone reside, in a country, you were not born to.

Progressive Liberal values, allowed you to that


Many Clinton supporters also did not go out rioting.
You clearly did protest against Labour for 13 years online, when they were in power.
And yet you then stupidly, equate people against Trump, airing their views online to comparability to those who commit violence.

Its as dumb as it gets to equate off. You are dealing with people vocal here, just like you, on things they are against. So to  equate rioting by some idiots and then claiming people should accept a situation. Of which you never did with Labour in power. That they should just knuckle under, based off the actions of violent people. Shows even more how ridiculous an argument you are making. You are equating rioters, to people expressing their views against Trump online.

They are not even comparable

So just address one simple question.

If you claim to being in acceptance of people gaining power. Then why did you whilst Labour was in power, daily try to delegitimize them?

you are a very angry person. Have you ever considered anger management, I am told it can work wonders.,

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Okay, who disagrees with this statement:

"It is not the business of the government of a free country to come up with reasons people can do things, but reasons why they can't."

Telling people they cannot do something without good reason is the antithesis of freedom.

the business of government should be to protect the people, empty the trash and make sure the transport system works.
It certainly should not be involved in every minute aspect of peoples lives.

Trash?

Who is the trash in your books?

Please defined based off their usefulness to need to the system

Those that cannot pay into the system?

The homeless?
Some of the disabled?
Every single citizen when born to the ages of 16?
The elderly?
The sick?
The poor?
Ect