Omni

I think the courts have clearly explained their findings. It's called "unconstitutional"

He's going to try a rewrite. Let's see how far that gets through the judiciary. Maybe some good advice would be for him to include some countries who's people have actually hurt the US. Saudi perhaps?

It seems to be mostly the "experts" from Lock-Mart who claim the F 35 is a good deal.

Looks like Trump is abandoning the idea of taking a run at the SCOTUS. Perhaps he finally got some good legal advice which he finally decided to pay attention to. http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/immigration-executive-order-white-house/

I guess that's why their population is getting so old especially working age people, and therefore the economic future looks dicey. So you reckon that Trump get the US in the race to the bottom?

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between requiring a visa and a total travel ban but the courts do though.

Trump cam only hope that Gorsuch gets to his seat prior to his appeal being heard at the SCOTUS. BUT, Trump did irk Gorsuch with his not so presidential ranting about a "so called judge", so there could be some payback. Even if Gorsuch is partisan, he probably also understands what the constitution says.

Except this ban had nothing to do with controlling borders, it was supposedly an attempt to strengthen national security, and that idea was found to have no merit. Trump picked the wrong countries is what it boils down to. Geography is maybe not his strong suit, along with constitutional issues as well it seems.

Except the power we'd get from site C would cost roughly twice what it would if we simply redirected power we currently sell to the US.

Trying to blame green energy here is just flat ass wrong. The problem with site C is just that it's not needed, at least for some time to come. We have all the power we need simply by tweaking the Columbia River Treaty.

I certainly don't envy Trudeau having to go deal with Trump now that the federal courts have continued to shut down his attempt at a racist ban. I'm interested to see how childish his tantrum over that will be.

Who cares? Do you want an idiot like Trump spending your tax dollars?

Not the point. How many SuperHornet orders have been increased and how many F 35 contracts scaled back. Not only in the US but worldwide.

Obviously he's not going to just snap his fingers and have it go away. And as the article states, he may be too late anyway. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/trump-f-35/510329/

Since even Trump doesn't like the F 35 and has been encouraging Boeing I'd say Canada is making a smart choice.

Do you not see the hilarity/irony of trying to take your potshots at JT for tweeter comments when we all have seen the myriad gaffes from Trump? I'll let you throw a few ha ha's in behind that.

Thank you for proving my point, once again.

Being bigoted against an entire group, some of which may also be bigoted, is still bigotry. Progressives get that.

I just had a flashback to Dr. Strangelove only with Donald Trump taking the ride instead of Slim Pickens.

Well Trump did say something a while back about why have nuclear weapons if you don't use them.

I suspect the recent cross border meetings at the cabinet level will have smoothed the way for the leaders meet. I agree a shouting match would not be good for either side, and I think/hope JT is smart enough to stick handle around the Donald/

Maybe Trump ism't a hawk, I'm not so sure but: Bannon was conducting an interview on Breitbart radio with conservative author Lee Edwards when he said:

Well then another one if you can't understand that one is the "non decriminalization clause" of the ina.

Hey I found what might be at least a hint of a silver lining inside the Trump cloud. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38909322

Maybe it' irrelevant to you, but not to people who comprehend law.