261–270 of 401 posts
I don't think it is by chance or coincidence that Trump's admin is targeting Iranians . What really is it with American government hating Iran and Iranians, when there are equal or even worse ethnocentric, human-rights-abusing, racially intolerant states in the Middle East?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think Donald will sell his stake in projects in Turkey?
It could happen, it's business after all. He might also be forced to sell by the turkish government. We don't have a stable political environment, and I wouldn't be super surprised if something happened there. Tax laws come to mind, for example, when Turkish government wanted extra tax money, they started going after American companies. Edit: Added last para.
[1] http://presstv.com/Detail/2016/06/25/472171/erdogan-trump-to...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looks like it also affects dual citizens of those countries as well. per http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38783512
I doubt it will affect anyone with a US passport at the border, but it's about time for the USA to adopt the Japanese policy and simply ban all dual citizenship. If you hold a foreign passport or any kind of documents from a foreign country for its citizens, your US citizenship should be revoked and you should be deported.
Most of these though, I feel, should not happen retroactively. In other words, if they are already naturalized citizens and now have two citizenships, they should remain so. US shouldn't go after all the generations who naturalized. It's fair if they require you renounce your former citizenship going forward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No the House of Commons would stop him. Unlike the USA, countries with governments based on the Westminster system, such as Australia, NZ etc don't give the Prime Minister this type of unlimited power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_system
I don't think the two systems are fundamentally different. If a British PM has a Commons majority and retains the support of their own party, they can basically do whatever they like. Conversely, if Congressional Republicans wanted to stop Trump, they could pass legislation stripping him of much of the power Congress has delegated to him (and override any veto), they could pass a joint/concurrent resolution censuring…
The difference is that a PM has no independent power; they don't just need a partisan majority in the Commons, they need the confidence of the majority of the Commons.
The President has independent power, and is not subordinate to the Congress the way the cabinet (including the PM) is to the Parliament in a Westminster system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that it's not right or helpful to mislabel people or call names. Please don't read my comment as supporting that in any way. What I was addressing is the perception that it's one-sided. I don't think looking at a single submission is adequate in dealing with the perception issue, but for the sake of argument, I looked at all of the references for "nazi" (as it was the first on your list) in the comments for t…
Searching for 'Racist' gives you a better picture of the situation with 40 hits and most comments in bad faith. The nazi thing is to the most extreme. Do people really believe trump supporters are warming their ovens? Israel is great supporter of Trump. Donald's daughter is a jewish as is grandkids for example. Thanks for the good faith.
Good faith means doing that work upfront to ensure that what you're saying has some basis, and in the case of contentious issues, strong basis. Good faith also means backing down when you're called out on something and found to be lacking that strong basis, not continuing to push it forward.
Most people's good faith doesn't extend infinitely. They're fools if they do continue to extend it when repeatedly shown that the people they're engaging with aren't doing so as well.
And you still don't seem to have gotten my original point: I agree that name-calling is uncalled for and actively unconstructive and uncivil. The perception that "your side", whatever that may be, is being treated unfairly pops up on all sides of contentious issues here on HN. Go out and do some real stats work if you think there's something pernicious about some particular behavior. The data is out there. Just anecdotes don't cut it. Your bias (and mine, and anyone's) isn't going to let you see the picture clearly on its own. And when you're done, share the data, methodology, and results with the rest of us. I know there are a lot of people besides me who would be interested in seeing it, regardless of the actual results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm against this order and generally agree with you, but the conflict-of-interest article is BS. The list of countries is the same as was targeted under Obama for extra screening: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/visa-waiver-libya-somali...
This needs more emphasis. These countries were already hard for US citizens to do business in (hence no Trump holidings). I don't think Trump cares much about money - he is interested in Power. "Corruption" is a distraction. I also think the thing about his tax returns is the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could happen, it's business after all. He might also be forced to sell by the turkish government. We don't have a stable political environment, and I wouldn't be super surprised if something happened there. Tax laws come to mind, for example, when Turkish government wanted extra tax money, they started going after American companies. Edit: Added last para.
Erdogan already said some stuff about removing Trump (just the name) from Istanbul in 2015 [1]. That said, Erdogan says a lot of things. [1] http://presstv.com/Detail/2016/06/25/472171/erdogan-trump-to...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The queen is a figurehead and doesn't get involved in politics - the point being that she doesn't fiddle with parliament's politics, and they don't cut her out of the picture. Been that way for centuries. Here in Australia, the picture is similar. The Governor General (queen's representative) is the ceremonial head of state and can dissolve government prompting new elections, but can't direct government to a certain…
The GG... can dissolve government Can the Regent no longer do this in the U.K.? Basically, the Queen maintains her power But you implied just earlier that she has no power.
She has the power to divide her time among several palaces, have lots of servants waiting on her night and day, have Prime Ministers and Presidents lining up to dine and chat with her, have the Royal Air Force fly her in luxury wherever she wants to go, etc, etc, etc... basically more power than you or I will likely ever have. She has all the power she needs.
But in terms of her formal legal/political power – on paper she has enormous power, but she only retains that power because 99.999% of the time she does whatever the politicans tell her to do. (If she ever started refusing to obey them, they would take all that power away from her very quickly.)
However, in the very rare circumstance of a constitutional crisis, she does actually have some real political power. Consider something like the 1975 situation in Australia – if something similar were to happen in the UK, she would have real power to decide what course of action to take.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the site broken or delayed or something? There was 1 signature, I signed it (and verified my email) and it still says there is 1 signature.
The petition just got created under an hour ago, and the signature counter probably doesn't update in real time.