Trump

Discussion in 'Taylor's Tittle-Tattle - General Banter' started by Moose, Jan 18, 2016.

  1. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    MPs will debate whether or not to ban Donald J Trump from the UK. There is Donald J Trump thread, but a poll on this issue might be fun.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35327565

    My own feelings are against a ban. That's not because I'm against banning anyone at all (A few anti-semitic 'preachers' have been banned in the past - a good thing I think), I just believe it would be counterproductive in this case. It also has the possibility of being very, very funny indeed. Let him come and get taken apart by everyone from Paxman to twitter.
     
  2. Norwayhornet

    Norwayhornet Squad Player

    If Trump is banned Obama should be banned as well
     
  3. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    Unfailingly daft Norway.
     
  4. Norwayhornet

    Norwayhornet Squad Player

    No Moose only being fair old boy you know like what us brits are meant to be jolly hockeysticks and all that ,what!
     
  5. GoingDown

    GoingDown "The Stability"

    Anyone who says that all Muslims should be shot should be banned from entering the UK IMO.
     
  6. Norwayhornet

    Norwayhornet Squad Player

    You could actually say that the UK is losing the right to free speech , something our fathers and forefathers stood up for and our leaders today are hellbent on giving away.
     
  7. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    Let's humour you. Why should Obama be banned?
     
  8. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    What is it you are not allowed to say and by whom?
     
  9. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    Has someone said that?
     
  10. Steve Leo Beleck

    Steve Leo Beleck Squad Player

    The debate is a complete waste of Parliament's time in my view. The shock and ridicule that his comments were initially greeted with over here was a sufficient response. The petition that secured the debate is another example of a holier than thou social media campaign - far easier to take two minutes to sign a petition or share something on Facebook than actually do anything constructive to try to help change the world in even a small way.
     
    dynamo380 and Pob like this.
  11. Norwayhornet

    Norwayhornet Squad Player

    dont ask me Moose why not ask a load of americans , the american expat community in stavanger Norway its about 95 % hate his guts and 4% dont care and 1% like him .but as these are oil folk I accept that they all wont vote democrat! A lot of Americans accuse him of ruining the country , selling out ,accepting too many immigrants and oh ! backhandedly arming Iran !
    I dont like him coz he sticks his nose in our business and says we should stay in EU and as you probably have gathered now I strongly support Brexit. I also dont like him for his involvement in TTIP which will only (imo) harm the NHS
     
  12. Norwayhornet

    Norwayhornet Squad Player

    Agreed the PC brigade gone mad yet again.
     
    dynamo380 likes this.
  13. Can I vote to ban him on the basis sometimes his face is white and sometimes it is orange, whilst his hair is sometimes ginger and sometimes blonde and sometimes grey. I therefore believe he is in fact at least 2 people possibly 3, and therefore must be breaking some sort of law.
     
  14. Arakel

    Arakel First Team

    Yep, mostly powered by misunderstanding and outright lies circulated by elected Republican politicians. Some of the bold faced lies (from both parties) I see in this country make my jaw drop, but politics is such a team sport over here that no one cares about lies as long as someone is lying for "their" team.

    See: the Planned Parenthood kerfuffle, which was proven to have been created by a pro-life company deliberately doctoring footage yet still has Republican politicians banging on about it. Truth isn't even remotely relevant in US politics.

    On topic, Trump's a bully, narcissistic and completely crass, but that's not really sufficient reason to ban him from entry. As yet he hasn't crossed that line, but there is no doubt that his rhetoric is incendiary and has massively inflamed tensions towards Muslims in the US (who were already bogeymen). His comments are so ridiculous that terrorists have reportedly been using footage of his vocal attacks on Muslims in their propaganda.

    It will be hard to know exactly when he has gone over the line if he keeps getting worse (and he has been getting progressively worse as the campaign has worn on), but as of right now I don't think he's gone over it yet.
     
  15. GoingDown

    GoingDown "The Stability"

    Did he not say that? I just made an assumption based on all the furore.
     
  16. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    Silly.
     
  17. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    i disagree. The petitions rule allows for sections of the public to get what they want debated. A visit by Trump as a candidate means the state will be involved by offering him security and hospitality, even if he pays for it.

    Substitute the words 'Irish' or 'Jew' for 'Muslim' or 'Mexican' and maybe we'd feel differently. I would still let him in on the basis that he is hyperbolic rather than having a well thought out agenda, but he's not far off being worthy of a ban. i'd prefer us to have some sport with him and ruin his political career though.
     
  18. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    What you are saying is you don't like him and you have some conspiraloonacy to offer.
     
  19. Steve Leo Beleck

    Steve Leo Beleck Squad Player

    The general public don't understand how Parliament works though, the petitions are a gimmick. There is no vote and no mechanism for the petition-led debate to lead to a ban on Trump, it would be a decision for the Home Secretary. If you are particularly bored, you can read through the debate below, only about 40 MPs turned up and it's no great surprise that within that number were some of the most pompous/egocentric from all sides. It was an opportunity for MPs to compete to show that they disapproved of Trump the most and to try to get a pithy soundbite into the 10 o'clock News. It achieved nothing other than making sure that once again he's the most talked about candidate (and might even have raised some sympathy for him in the States). Parliament at its worst in my opinion...

    http://www.parliament.uk/business/p...mons/todays-commons-debates/read/unknown/795/
     
    Pob likes this.
  20. hornmeister

    hornmeister Tired

    No. Let him in and have an open debate and show him up for the lunatic he is.

    This is very different to hate preaching and radicalisation.
     
  21. Lloyd

    Lloyd Squad Player

    For sheer entertainment value let's get him over asap
     
  22. Jumbolina

    Jumbolina First Team

    Quite. Anything that gets discussed in parliament due to the petition gimmick is driven by social media zealots who are by definition utter *******s.
     
  23. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    Of 17 petitions so far debated they correspond to a number of vocal interest groups of the left and right with a few randoms.

    In terms of policy the debate Introduce a tax on sugary drinks in the UK to improve our children's health would appear to have a chance of happening.

    My understanding was that a petition needed 100k signatures for a debate but Stop the scathing cuts to the Police budget was debated with less than 10k - probably because it was going to be debated anyway.

    Politically there have been the two Trumps (..got to war one is all that you can score), for and against, two saying no to UK involvement in Syria, one supporting help for refugees and one proposing that no more immigrants should be allowed into the UK (one for Norwayhornet to like), one against the junior doctor contract, one to keep the NHS Training Bursary, one of no confidence in Health Sec Jeremy *unt and one in support of steel production.

    The randoms have been,

    Make the production, sale and use of cannabis legal (Thank you Cyan)
    Make an allowance for up to 2 weeks term time leave from school for holiday (Mumsnet innit)
    Free Sergeant Alexander Blackman
    Stop the destructive 'building our future' office closure programme in HMRC
    Don't kill our bees! Immediately halt the use of Neonicotinoids

    So I don't know really - plenty of issues I'm not in favour of, but then we moan there is little participative democracy, but what would that look like? A bit like this - a succession of important issues with a few hobbyhorses thrown in.

    Trump may well become President. If he does parliament will have had to have thought out a response to his racism.
     
  24. MiserableGit

    MiserableGit Academy Graduate

    We don’t have free speech, so dragging that old chestnut out is an exercise in futility. The days of that often misquoted line, about not agreeing with what someone says but defending the right to say it - are dead. We live in an age where causing offence, (the right kind of offence – naturally), is viewed as borderline criminal – in some cases, actually criminal. Especially if it can be construed as “hate speech – whatever that is. It isn’t going to get any better either, what with all this nonsense about “safe-spaces” and such.

    On the subject of Trump - the precedent has already been set hasn’t it? I mean, the UK government has already banned individuals from visiting the UK, for simply saying stuff. Whether that “stuff” was promoting radical Islam, or radical Christianity - such as that insane woman from the Westboro Baptist Church. So the only relevant question is, “Donald Trump – is he too "radical" to be allowed in the UK”?

    That You Gov petition nonsense – we all know it’s a con. “It’s democratic” I hear you say. Well the Office For National Statistics said that the UK had 46,139,900 registered voters in 2013. So even if you do get the required tiny number to force a debate – how is that democratic? Do, as our transatlantic cousins would say – the math – and see what a percentage of the electorate that is. Is this what democracy is evolving into – the voices of the vociferous, carry more weight than the pensive but silent?

    Personally, I’m for proper free-speech. Running off crying to “teacher” because a nasty person said something that upset or offended you isn’t going to solve anything. I always cite the case of “Fatty” Griffin. If we had listened to the cry-babies who wanted him booted off Question Time, he could still be hanging around the BNP. Complaining about how “the establishment” were silencing him. Instead, he was given his day in the sunshine and proved to anyone with an IQ in (barely) double figures, that he was a complete and utter buffoon.

    Let The Donald in – then quiz him about the practicalities of his (cough) refreshingly radical policies.
     
  25. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    It always baffles me why old gits like you get more exercised about those who want to restrict hate speech than the 10's of thousands who abuse and threaten women over social media for as much as wanting a lady or two of achievement on a bank note.

    I agree - let people, for the most part, say what they want to say, but don't claim there is an easily defined 'proper free speech' that we are being denied by a bunch of rabid do-gooders. Everyone wants to ban someone, or feels there is a line somewhere, you I suspect are no different.

    Your point about the debates is pointless - lots of democratic activity, local government for example, gets poor participation. Doesn't make it worthless.
     
  26. Arakel

    Arakel First Team

    Er, yes we do. Freedom of speech is (and always has been) about the right to voice your opinion without the Government censoring what you are saying. It has never been about the right for us to voice awful things without others being able to criticise or ostracise us for them. You're fully entitled to say whatever you like. Other people are entitled to label you a c*** for it and ban you from their campus/place of work/whatever.

    There is basically nothing you can say in the UK that the Government will attempt to censor or suppress outside of speech intended to incite violence.

    Freedom of Speech does NOT equate to Freedom from Consequences, however. If you're going to act like a c*** then expect to be treated like one.
     
  27. miked2006

    miked2006 Premiership Prediction League Proprietor

    Just banning people you don't agree with is a pretty stupid way of dealing with the problem.

    But he's a moron, no doubt about that.

    p.s. I like that that people can get anything debated. It is one of the only successful modern ways of increasing participation in politics.
     
  28. MiserableGit

    MiserableGit Academy Graduate

    Equally, I love the way people tell me I’ve got “free speech” – then wade in with the caveats. Things such as “hate speech”, (whatever that is), and “inciting violence”, are verbal fig leaves. They are pretty broad terms and have been used - by the government - to stop people from speaking, (by not letting them into the country).

    I thought I had made my position crystal clear – I cannot think of anyone, or anything I would like to ban. That’s not saying I agree, or even like, some of the things that are said but I’d like to address the issues they raise – not silence them.

    The point about “consequences” is pretty topical. I take it those who hold similar views are not “with” Charlie Hebdo? Those godless Gauls got what they deserved eh? Some things are out of bounds to the p**s-take? IMHO, the problem isn’t someone taking the p**s out of religion, (any religion), but that it’s not being done enough.

    Ladies on banknotes? Where the fork did that come from? You imply that my views are knee-jerk, old-phart reactionary, then wade in with a nonsense, left-field, non-sequitur like that. Personally speaking, I’d like to see Holly Willoughby naked on the £10 note – then perhaps I wouldn’t spend as much.

    Minimal participation may not be pointless but representing it as the voice of the people, (or even the majority), is simply dishonest. Just because a few thousand people click a box on a web site, doesn’t mean jack. It’s perfectly decent of those nice people in Westminster to pretend to take notice - but we all know it’s pointless. Similarly, Mr Corbyn can reshape his shadow cabinet to his heart’s content – surrounding himself with like-minded sycophants – so what? The only true test will come in 2020, where he will either emerge triumphant – or go “on holiday”.
     
  29. Arakel

    Arakel First Team

    Ok then...detail all the ways the government has ever prevented you from freely speaking your mind.

    I'm sure it won't take you long.
     
  30. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    I mentioned the bank notes as a related free speech issue. One that ought to as equally annoy you as limiting free speech. But it's not the sort of thing that interests you because of your narrow tabloid focus on the sins of the left, despite your claims to be some refreshing plague on both your houses merchant.

    I repeat, Governments should ban as little as possible. I agree that some 'progressives' get over excited about the power of words and labels too. But it's not really impingeing upon your free speech at all unless you want to go to a university and argue women should be in the kitchen or gay people shouldn't marry. It's an armchair fantasy that it affects you. We have wide free speech in this country. You can say what you like about most things, the Royals, immigration, revolution take your pick, but as has been observed you may get challenged.

    There is a depressing tendency to be cynical about any form of mildly 'worthy' or political activity. It doesn't surprise me you don't like petitions. You probably don't like blogs, charities, campaigns, health advice, anything that requiring you to consider your more distant neighbours. Easier just to pretend that everyone else deserves what they get and anyone who says not is a middle class fruitloop.
     
  31. hornmeister

    hornmeister Tired

    The only issue is that morons get together through social media to request unimportant things to get debated when there's more import stuff that there ends up being no time for.

    Couldn't care less about Trump. I'd rather a decision on Heathrow, doctors pay, immigration, Europe etc. **** like this is just embarrassing.
     
  32. Steve Leo Beleck

    Steve Leo Beleck Squad Player

    My problem with e-petitions is that I don't believe that people understand what a successful petition leads to. Would 500,000 people really have signed a petition to ban Donald Trump if they understood that there was no vote attached to the debate and there was no possibility of him being banned following their debate as it's not a decision taken by MPs? If they'd known that it would be an empty three hour debate followed by no chance of action would they still have signed it? I'm sure some would but I imagine a lot of people would have thought it was a pretty empty gesture.

    Maybe I'm wrong and all these people who signed it are patting themselves on the back about how brilliant it was that 40 MPs debated this in a side room in Westminster Hall for three hours. In my view, it was a complete waste of time, doesn't enhance democracy whatsoever and is symptomatic of our social media bandwagon culture.
     
  33. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    None of those things are affected at all by the petitions system. The Government will decide on the first two and we never stop debating the others.

    If you think it's utterly purposeless then so is almost any other form of talking or writing unless it leads to a Parliamentary vote. But in the case of the sugar tax clearly the Government took note.
     
  34. miked2006

    miked2006 Premiership Prediction League Proprietor

    I think the last sentence is probably the most 'first world problem' ever.

    "Isn't it just the worst when just about anyone can start a campaign online, against the government agenda, and if it gathers significant support then they are forced to debate it in parliament."
     
  35. The Voice of Reason

    The Voice of Reason First Team Captain

    Slightly off topic; have you seen who is endorsing him to be the next president of the USA?

    None other than Sarah Palin!

    Now there's a dream ticket for president and V president, NOT!!!!
     

Share This Page