We all know Trump's a canute. He just proves it more forcibly every day. Individual Americans are armed to the teeth. Not just Republicans but Democrats too. So can't one of them do the decent thing a.s.a.p. then?
So you advocate assassination of a democratically elected President? I'm not sure you do. After all, that's a Democrat policy. End of the day, Americans have bought and paid for their President and they will have to get used to it. After all, there are far worse leaders in the world than Donald Trump.
They don't have to get used to it. They can challenge him by any means available to them. An election isn't game over, it's game on.
I'm not so sure, but god I hope you're right. On the other hand, his replacement would not only be every bit as terrible, Mike Pence truly believes in the kooky crap Trump's handlers are getting him to enact. Also note that the Democratic establishment is nearly completely AWOL.
History doesn't support this I'm afraid. In the interim we've intervened in Libya and nearly in Syria. Our troops have seen direct combat in a number of arenas, albeit covertly. Not answering the US call to war would be an enormous call to make. I have commended to this house that the UK should avoid the repeating those failed interventions of the past. But today, Mr Speaker, I must, regrettably, inform the house that I have learned of a critical threat to British interests and the security of our allies. This threat is of such a nature that the security of our country itself is at stake, yet the intervention required of us can be targeted, limited and quickly achieved...
Nothing would really surprise me. Arms manufacturers in the US and UK, like the National Rifle Association in the US are strong vested interests. Difficult to contend with as they are rich and powerful.
Refreshing honesty, or Putin's man? Trump goes 'meh' to concerns about killings carried out by the Russian state. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38872328 The world is looking a bit 1984ish right now. Three big blocks, Oceania, Eurasia (Russia), Eastasia (China) set to prop each other up as they carve up the resources of the rest of the world. Trump signal to Putin - murder who you like as long as you do not interfere in my business.
Agreed to an extent on the 1984 bit (never in my lifetime has the planet's future seemed so unpredictable). But Eurasia ain't just Russia. The EU remains (despite us leaving) a huge economic block in its own right as does the good 'ol USofA. In what way is Oceania yet significant at all? Russia is only the12th biggest economy in the world and completely ****ed now that their gas and oil is in competition with fracked shale reserves elsewhere. The fact that they've got a 'big chunk of land' is kinda irrelevant. They only remain a big player because they're still armed to the teeth. That makes them dangerous in their death-throws and both they and the USA (also in its death-throws) are now 'ruled' by unpredictable megalomaniacs. And both are very pissed off by the inevitable rise of the Chinese to assume 'top-dog' nation status.
Anyway. On Trump. It looks like he's now run out of the initial flurry of Executive Orders which was entirely predictable (including being predicted by me). He's now being forced to engage with judicial and political processes he's never encountered before. Having been used to dictating in his business empire, and starting off his presidency as a dictator, he's now in conflict with men who will try to say no as opposed to them all being men from Del Monte. Beginning with an (at least temporary) spanner-in-the-works chucked in by the judiciary into his most controvesial dictat yet (excepting the 'wall' maybe). So what can we expect next? That he'll hang on in there and go through due process and endure endless delays with the assistance of his entourage and somewhat reluctant Republican majorities? That he'll get fed up and go and sulk in a gold-plated Trump tower or that place near Miami? That he'll get fed up and just quit? He doesn't strike me as a patient man. That he'll get fed up and drop a big one on Tehran/Pyongyang/Beijing/Moscow? That he'll get blown away by a maverick gunslinger in the good 'ol, gun-toting, USofA? And, given any of the above, that there might be something approaching civil war in the US? The jury's currently out.
It's coming out now that Trump didn't even know what he was signing when he appointed Bannon to the National Security Council. That's reassuring, then.
Typical of the fake left, ban people because you don't agree or like what they say, what happened to freedom of speech? Like democracy, should it just be forgotten or banned? Asymptomatic of everything that's wrong with modern politics. George Galloway nails it on here: https://youtu.be/h4b5zV_nQZY , (in the process sums up everything wrong the the SNP).
I don't think many people actually want Trump banned. It is the State visit that I object to. He should be encouraged to visit here and speak as I definitely think it is better to engage with people that you disagree with than try to silence them.
Obama. But I believe he had been in office several years and had been on at least two diplomatic visits first. The Trump state visit smells of a Brexit induced panic to try and get a trade deal. I would love to play poker with May. She's played her best card far too early. *oops - :doh: missed read your post Otter! UEA is a better reader than me :sign15:
Jeez, what if most people wanted him banned for his hate speech? That's hardly 'fake' unless you consider concerns about racism and misogyny 'fake'. There is also a real concern that he would simply be fawned over by our Government, this ****ing sex case you couldn't leave your daughter alone in a room with. In saying this, I am still not in favour of a ban. A full state visit is not required, but let him visit the UK and have to abide by our civilised discourse. Let him feel the public anger, this man who enjoys the support of white supremacists.
When was the last time a US president was offered an invitation for a full state visit here, that invitation delivered during his first week in office? I believe the answer's never. Happy to be corrected ...
FCO gossip I heard was that he turned down an invite (and didn't get another one) over the fact that "our" government had given the George Bush Sr.'s republican party all of the MI5, MI6 and Special Branch surveillance information/briefings/reports that they had from Bill's time at Oxford.
CNN reporting that US Intelligence have confirmed some of the aspects of the Russia dossier. The confirmed items relate to a number of conversations reported in it, not the...er, "compromising material". http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/russia-dossier-update/
As a genuine question, do you think there should be any limit on freedom of speech? I'd be interested to know if you feel the same about Muslim extremists, or Holocaust deniers. Should they be given a spot on primetime TV?
Age old argument Mike but a fair question. Many people argue with 'free speech' comes obligations and responsibilities. I do understand that argument and know questions arise for example over defamation and hatred incitement. The problem is, once you start following that argument it becomes a closed speech society, and one that is becoming increasingly so. What about the weapon of increasing censorship for the powerful people exploit the public? I'd probably argue that free speech is probably the most liberal of all liberal values, the bedrock of a genuinely free society. Which is why I argue for total freedom of speech. Not popular maybe, potential problems doubtless, but my view nonetheless. Some supposed liberals now find it perfectly acceptable to violently accost or threaten people whose words offend their delicate sensibilities. They seem not to realize that the best remedy for bad ideas is to openly catechize and scrutinise them, to subject them to the to debate and rational inspection, free from censorship and interference from the law. Surely a healthy thing in a liberal, free society. I know you've selected extreme examples of use of free speech quite deliberately, but yes, I think even the uncomfortable arguments of extremist Muslims and Holocaust deniers in a truly liberal and free society have a place to be heard. Let their arguments see the light of day, expose them to the ridicule and rejection which they will ultimately get and I personally believe deserve. I don't accept the notion that we defeat intolerance with violent suppression of free speech, that the remedy for bad ideas is not the free and open debates of civil society, but the Orwellian speech codes of an authoritarian dictatorship. The most shocking thing personally I've seen over the last few months is people I genuinely regarded and respected as being liberal, tolerant people in all their eager overwrought opposition to intolerance - become a picture of intolerance. That's been an eye-opener. (Thought this was an interesting article in the Spectator , Mary Whitehouse part made me laugh http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/11/...ys-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/
I think this is probably right banjo, but one of the functions of a democracy is to draw a line. We shouldn't be afraid that this may be less than perfect. It should be a high line, but repeated attempts to stir up tensions between citizens, such as holocaust denial should be imo, resisted and outlawed. There will be issues concerning this, because many people will see many issues as important as holocaust denial. But as we have seen people are susceptible to pernicious lies and a democracy is entitled to defend itself against them. We have courts to provide final rule on this. I don't get why if you support free speech that the anger towards Trump offends you so.
Which is all well and good if you have a media which is critical and questioning at the time statements are made. However, when even the mainstream media are incapable of picking up on, and questioning , the utter ****e and 'alternative facts' that spew out of Trump, Conway and Spicer; whilst in the interests of 'fairness' equal airtime is given, for example, to both sides of the global warming debate even though expert opinion is split 99:1; while a large section of the population live in bubbles devouring whatever extremists of various stripes feed them whilst completely switching off anything that may counter the poison, then I think there must be a way of stopping the poison at source. And if freedom to lie and sow hate is a victim, so be it. However, on the question of Trump, let him come. There will be such a mass of protest everywhere he goes that even he won't be able to spin it into a triumph. However, do you honestly think he will face critical questioning of his views and pplicies? If he does any interviews it won't be with Paxman, it'll be Piers Morgan.
I don't think it is possible to change a historical fact. If it is a fact then it remains. Holocaust deniers are simply arguing that the perceived facts are incorrect.
I accept total freedom of speech. A person can say what they wish to. However there is also the freedom to prosecute a person for inciting violence or hatred. You can say something but you will pay the lawful penalty if you do say certain things in a certain way. Freedom for both parties.
As you say, many are changing facts to better serve their own purposes which is the same as fake news...they don't deserve freedom of speech as they are lying
Lying can be exposed as such. A person may even believe what another person considers as a lie - it is not always as crystal clear as the holocaust. Remember that history is written by the victors.
