Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Trump Banned from the UK

Trump Banned from the UK
Thread Tools
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2016, 10:57 PM
 
So our government is having to discuss this due to a petition. As much as I don't want him here, I don't think he should be top of the list of people banned for hate speech. Others are far worse and more influential.

In the unlikely event that he were to be banned from entering the UK, would this enhance his popularity in the US and boost his chances of becoming POTUS or would this hinder him?

I'm guessing the former.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2016, 08:26 AM
 
Its just embarrassing that UK politics has been reduced to whining assholes being hypocrites.
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2016, 08:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Its just embarrassing that UK politics has been reduced to whining assholes being hypocrites.
Somehow I doubt its our racist contingent that have been voting to ban him so I'm not sure where the hypocrisy comes into it.
Its the same rule you have. If enough people endorse it on the government website, the government has to address it. I actually think its a good rule utilising modern technology in the spirit of democracy.

People here don't want Trump entering the country because he's a tasteless loudmouthed racist ****. More to the point, they are probably thinking that you guys might not elect a POTUS who is banned from setting foot in the UK because that would be logical and sensible. I strongly suspect they are completely wrong because that would be logical and sensible.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2016, 09:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
People here don't want Trump entering the country because he's a tasteless loudmouthed racist ****.
Yet embraced Yasser Arafat (racist scumbag extraordinaire) and let him come and go as he pleased. Hypocrisy doesn't even begin to describe their actions.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2016, 10:41 AM
 
Clickbait title
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2016, 11:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
More to the point, they are probably thinking that you guys might not elect a POTUS who is banned from setting foot in the UK because that would be logical and sensible.
Is this really how you think geopolitics works?

I think you're pulling my leg.
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2016, 04:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Yet embraced Yasser Arafat (racist scumbag extraordinaire) and let him come and go as he pleased. Hypocrisy doesn't even begin to describe their actions.
You and Badkosh both appear to be assuming that the creators and signatories of the petition speak for the entire UK or for the UK government. They don't. There would certainly be hypocrisy in play if the ban were enacted, but I highly doubt Cameron has the balls even if he wanted to.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2016, 04:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Clickbait title
I will concede that, yes.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2016, 04:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is this really how you think geopolitics works?

I think you're pulling my leg.
I thought I was quite clearly stating that I don't think it works that way. I think it should, because being barred from setting foot on the land of your closest ally should be a big deal or at the very least a massive hint worthy of the consideration of the populace. But like I say, my opinion was that it will simply make Americans more likely to vote for him just because they've been told/asked/hinted/begged/suggested not to.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2016, 05:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
You and Badkosh both appear to be assuming that the creators and signatories of the petition speak for the entire UK or for the UK government. They don't. There would certainly be hypocrisy in play if the ban were enacted, but I highly doubt Cameron has the balls even if he wanted to.
I'm trying to find where Brits were protesting, let alone trying to block, Arafat entering the UK.

This is just more bullshit from Regressives on the Left. They're terrified of words, actively trying to silence opinions they don't like. This goes hand-in-glove with university ban lists, pretty soon the entire country will be one huge "Safe Space"... unless you're Muslim, then you can abuse, kidnap, and molest whomever you want.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2016, 09:17 PM
 
I don't think it's a wise decision to disallow someone in the country just because you disagree with him. The British government should reject the petition.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
This is just more bullshit from Regressives on the Left.
Corbyn, the leader of the Labor Party, is against a ban and has invited Trump to see Britain's multicultural life in person.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2016, 09:25 PM
 
He needs to work harder at getting his constituents in line, then. Bans don't work, they only highlight issues that people want to avoid. See Streisand Effect.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 19, 2016, 10:45 PM
 
They want to debate banning Trump, an American, for engaging in free speech.

Yet they seem to accommodate and appease an ideology which kills their citizens on public transport, beheads their soldiers on their streets, promotes their followers to travel across the world to commit genocide, and violates their children (while their police(and media) are too afraid to do or say anything lest they be labeled racists).

Are those the value sets for us to compare here?

If you are a "liberal" and care about "liberal" values, why would you defend an ideology which subjugates women, kills homosexuals and pretty much eradicates any minority. (And no, i'm not referring to the Nazis from 1939. I'll bet that sounds pretty Naziophobic tho). Supporting fascists and making excuses for them, does not make you liberal, nor tolerant, nor enlightened, it makes you a right-wing-lunatic!

PS>>
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
racist ****.
Which specific race(s) are you/they referring to?
( Last edited by Hawkeye_a; Jan 19, 2016 at 11:16 PM. )
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2016, 04:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
Which specific race(s) are you/they referring to?
Mexicans? I guess. Though they've had enough issues with being racist towards them in the media, themselves. Islam isn't a race, so it can't be that. Right?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2016, 09:14 AM
 
Why is it that some Americans insist on knowing what is best for other countries while insisting that other countries do not know what is best for America?
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2016, 10:30 AM
 
Because those other places are chaotic crapholes.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2016, 10:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Because those other places are chaotic crapholes.
Hahaha, gotta love US exceptionalism.

Many European countries, Canada, Japan, Australia, etc. all checking in on the US situation and going "WTF guys" WRT guns, healthcare, etc. are all chaotic crapholes, and you know better than everybody else because the US is exceptional and you back the right US party?
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2016, 11:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
They want to debate banning Trump, an American, for engaging in free speech.

Yet they seem to accommodate and appease an ideology which kills their citizens on public transport, beheads their soldiers on their streets, promotes their followers to travel across the world to commit genocide, and violates their children (while their police(and media) are too afraid to do or say anything lest they be labeled racists).

Are those the value sets for us to compare here?

If you are a "liberal" and care about "liberal" values, why would you defend an ideology which subjugates women, kills homosexuals and pretty much eradicates any minority. (And no, i'm not referring to the Nazis from 1939. I'll bet that sounds pretty Naziophobic tho). Supporting fascists and making excuses for them, does not make you liberal, nor tolerant, nor enlightened, it makes you a right-wing-lunatic!
You can support someone or their rights without agreeing with them at all. You guys do it all the time. The UK isn't quite as protective of free speech for some reason (unless it in the press who probably abuse it more than anyone else) but we have banned people from entering on the grounds of inciting violence or supporting terrorism. I think we banned an anti-semitic French comedian a couple of years ago because he was encouraging violence and we have banned certain islamic clerics for the same sorts of reasons. You can't ban a religion from a free country so I don't know why you are using that as a comparison.
Watching some "highlights" of the Trump debate, most of our MPs seemed to mock him rather strongly but I think most were not in favour of banning him because he hasn't incited any hatred or violence in others. Yet.
I don't think they can ban him for that reason. The petition was merely left wingers exercising their own free speech and the debate was mandatory due to the policy on the government website. Didn't Obama have to say something about building a Death Star for similar reasons?



Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
Which specific race(s) are you/they referring to?
Yes, it is my understanding that he explicitly used a derogatory term in regards to Mexicans, but even if thats inaccurate building a wall to keep them out seems kinda racist to me unless you build one to stop the Canadians too.
Also while Islam is indeed a religion and not a race, I'm not sure I credit Trump with appreciating the difference. Even if he does, discriminating against an entire religion seems rather at odds when you claim to represent freedom and the constitution. Freedom of religion seems like a more fundamental part than the bit about not being president if you were born abroad which Trump is unwaveringly particular about.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2016, 02:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I thought I was quite clearly stating that I don't think it works that way. I think it should, because being barred from setting foot on the land of your closest ally should be a big deal or at the very least a massive hint worthy of the consideration of the populace. But like I say, my opinion was that it will simply make Americans more likely to vote for him just because they've been told/asked/hinted/begged/suggested not to.
Why would you want a world where other countries get to **** with who you elect to run things?
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2016, 09:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Why would you want a world where other countries get to **** with who you elect to run things?
For crying out loud.

The only reason I think it should work that way is because the electorate should have the following sensible thought process:

"Our greatest ally hates this guy so much that they have banned him from setting foot in their country. Maybe they have spotted something we haven't and so we shouldn't vote for him to be our leader. Or at any rate, its going to be really awkward having a leader who is banned from entering other countries on the grounds that he's a racist, bigoted asshat. Voting someone like that into office is clearly going to go down very badly with 99% of the developed world and make a whole lot of international diplomacy very awkward and difficult going forward. Lets just vote for someone else and save the hassle and embarrassment."

Instead of the more likely thought process:

"Them Brits says we cant vote for Trump. I says we best vote twice each for him to show those bastards a lesson!"

I'm not saying there should be anything enshrined in law to award any decision making powers between two separate countries, I'm saying it would be nice to be able to give Americans more credit and not have them prove us foolish for doing so. Like you guys did with GW Bush second time around. Seriously, we were flabbergasted. Thats why we're all terrified you'll do it again. Its as if having the worst possible presidential candidate is a dare to you people.
"Oh you think we won't elect you just because you're the worst human being we could find? Challenge accepted!"
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 20, 2016, 10:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Why would you want a world where other countries get to **** with who you elect to run things?
Free speech and freedom of action of other governments is not interference in domestic affairs. It's entirely legitimate for governments to show their disagreements with foreign politicians by banning them from their country. I don't think this should happen to Trump, I'm just saying that it's non-sensical to claim that this “effs with US elections”.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2016, 03:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Free speech and freedom of action of other governments is not interference in domestic affairs. It's entirely legitimate for governments to show their disagreements with foreign politicians by banning them from their country. I don't think this should happen to Trump, I'm just saying that it's non-sensical to claim that this “effs with US elections”.
What?

"I'm doing this with the express purpose of making it less likely he's elected, but I'm not interfering."

What?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2016, 03:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What?

"I'm doing this with the express purpose of making it less likely he's elected, but I'm not interfering."

What?
You are mistake having an influence on American public opinion with interference in the democratic process (i. e. interfering with domestic affairs). There is nothing nefarious about the former, it is part and parcel of free speech in a globalized society.

Edit: In my previous post, I distinguished between influence and interference: certainly public opinion in other countries influences American politics, but it doesn't interfere.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Jan 21, 2016 at 03:37 AM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2016, 04:15 AM
 
We're not talking about public opinion, banning leaders from other countries is foreign policy.

A country is allowed to have this foreign policy, I'm not arguing it isn't. My point is it's a dickbag policy.

I mean, FFS, even we don't do that, and we're Americans. We try to do three dickbag things before breakfast.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2016, 05:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
A country is allowed to have this foreign policy, I'm not arguing it isn't. My point is it's a dickbag policy.
We are in complete agreement on that. I was just responding to what I felt was the common sentiment that this is nefariously interfering with American politics.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I mean, FFS, even we don't do that, and we're Americans. We try to do three dickbag things before breakfast.
Actually, there are quite a few cases of America harassing people (citizens and non-citizens) at the border. Laura Poitras comes to mind, she gets regularly searched for several hours when she enters the country. So even though she is an American, she is getting harassed for her opinions and her work.

In any case, I don't want to sidetrack the discussion, I don't think this is appropriate in either case.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2016, 07:38 AM
 
One imagines that Trump's proposed ban on all muslims would exclude several foreign leaders from entering the US.

I expect the point of the proposed Trump ban is to just to highlight how awful he is. "If you want to ban 1/5 of the world because some tiny percentage of them might try to commit certain crimes, we will ban you specifically because there is 100% chance that you're a dick." Something like that.

I notice no-one is really answering my OP question. Would banning Trump from the UK drive more support towards Trump in the US out of defiance? Or would Americans take notice and think less of him?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2016, 11:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
One imagines that Trump's proposed ban on all muslims would exclude several foreign leaders from entering the US.
Only if they're undocumented, but I don't see how that's possible.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2016, 02:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
We are in complete agreement on that. I was just responding to what I felt was the common sentiment that this is nefariously interfering with American politics.

Actually, there are quite a few cases of America harassing people (citizens and non-citizens) at the border. Laura Poitras comes to mind, she gets regularly searched for several hours when she enters the country. So even though she is an American, she is getting harassed for her opinions and her work.

In any case, I don't want to sidetrack the discussion, I don't think this is appropriate in either case.
I qualified my claim with "leaders".
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2016, 03:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
For crying out loud.

The only reason I think it should work that way is because the electorate should have the following sensible thought process:

"Our greatest ally hates this guy so much that they have banned him from setting foot in their country. Maybe they have spotted something we haven't and so we shouldn't vote for him to be our leader. Or at any rate, its going to be really awkward having a leader who is banned from entering other countries on the grounds that he's a racist, bigoted asshat. Voting someone like that into office is clearly going to go down very badly with 99% of the developed world and make a whole lot of international diplomacy very awkward and difficult going forward. Lets just vote for someone else and save the hassle and embarrassment."

Instead of the more likely thought process:

"Them Brits says we cant vote for Trump. I says we best vote twice each for him to show those bastards a lesson!"

I'm not saying there should be anything enshrined in law to award any decision making powers between two separate countries, I'm saying it would be nice to be able to give Americans more credit and not have them prove us foolish for doing so. Like you guys did with GW Bush second time around. Seriously, we were flabbergasted. Thats why we're all terrified you'll do it again. Its as if having the worst possible presidential candidate is a dare to you people.
"Oh you think we won't elect you just because you're the worst human being we could find? Challenge accepted!"
Let me try this a different way.

The people who want to ban Trump?

They're behaving like Trump.
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2016, 09:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
One imagines that Trump's proposed ban on all muslims would exclude several foreign leaders from entering the US.

I expect the point of the proposed Trump ban is to just to highlight how awful he is. "If you want to ban 1/5 of the world because some tiny percentage of them might try to commit certain crimes, we will ban you specifically because there is 100% chance that you're a dick." Something like that.

I notice no-one is really answering my OP question. Would banning Trump from the UK drive more support towards Trump in the US out of defiance? Or would Americans take notice and think less of him?
I'll bet in that warped worldview of yours, Roosevelt & Churchill would be the "dicks" since they were standing up for western liberal values, while Hitler & Hirohito were the heroes. At least Chamberlain, appeaser though he was, didnt defend fascism. It's no wonder so many of YOUR fellow "citizens" are committing genocide in the name of that ideology. I wonder where that illusive so-called moderate majority has been; maybe they're busy protesting "Islamophobia" since thats a more pressing issue, no doubt.

Regarding the southern border. It is the right of every nation to defend it's borders however it sees fit, each nation can opt to permit/deny anyone entry. If there were similar masses of people breaching the northern border it would become a political issue as well. Race has nothing to do with it, except, maybe for you. But i guess being in the utopia that is Europe, the concept of borders doesn't compute. How's that working out?

Seeing as how far your nation seems to bend over backwards to accommodate and appease the fascism of our time (not in small part due to people with views unlike your own), its no wonder your representatives are debated banning a political figure of your "biggest ally" (which actually came to your nation's rescue the last time, after finally deciding to fight genocide and anti-semitism and not appease it).
( Last edited by Hawkeye_a; Jan 21, 2016 at 09:57 PM. )
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2016, 10:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Only if they're undocumented, but I don't see how that's possible.
I never heard him use that qualifier.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2016, 10:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Let me try this a different way.

The people who want to ban Trump?

They're behaving like Trump.
If you like. The people who want to ban him are just that. They signed a petition exercising their freedom of speech to tell their government they don't like him and don't want him here. Legally I don't think they have enough to ban him, but they are as hell are allowed to say they want to and its astounding that any American would find that odd or complain about it.
Besides that, people are hypocrites. Besides that, you take a freedom too far and someone is going to want to reign you back in. Its often perfectly reasonable. Its why we have laws isn't it? You're free to do something as long as virtually everyone can be trusted not to take the piss. Once enough people are abusing that freedom, it gets curbed.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2016, 11:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
I'll bet in that warped worldview of yours, Roosevelt & Churchill would be the "dicks" since they were standing up for western liberal values, while Hitler & Hirohito were the heroes. At least Chamberlain, appeaser though he was, didnt defend fascism. It's no wonder so many of YOUR fellow "citizens" are committing genocide in the name of that ideology. I wonder where that illusive so-called moderate majority has been; maybe they're busy protesting "Islamophobia" since thats a more pressing issue, no doubt.
Hilariously hypocritical and/or ass-backward in every possible respect.
First I have a view of how the world should be and its not the same as how I think the world is. Im not sure which one you don't like, but I'm guessing its both. Including the one where I think it would be nice if everyone had basic reasoning skills, though I'm utterly unsurprised that you would rally against that since it would require you to learn stuff.
Second, Trump is the Fascist. He wants segregations and alienation of minorities. Registers of people which will make it easier to send his stormtroopers round for later no doubt. He wants to bomb other countries indiscriminately for not being rich, white, Christian and American enough. Fascist. And once again its the British making a stand while half your population wants to vote him as leader. At least last time you only fannied about for a couple of years while you were making your minds up.
I don't why anyone here would raise something like Islamophobia with me. You all know how much I love religion. ANY religion. Islam is probably my least favourite for the record. Even so you allow your citizens to kill each many more of other for a much less important right than freedom of religion so shut up.


Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
Regarding the southern border. It is the right of every nation to defend it's borders however it sees fit, each nation can opt to permit/deny anyone entry. If there were similar masses of people breaching the northern border it would become a political issue as well. Race has nothing to do with it, except, maybe for you. But i guess being in the utopia that is Europe, the concept of borders doesn't compute. How's that working out?
Right so its ok for you to defend your borders as you see fit, criticising all Mexicans and Muslims (~2 billion people?), but we don't have the same right to single out just one who is actually a complete turd. Are you trying to embarrass yourself?
The uk isn't in the Shenzhen zone btw.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
Seeing as how far your nation seems to bend over backwards to accommodate and appease the fascism of our time (not in small part due to people with views unlike your own), its no wonder your representatives are debated banning a political figure of your "biggest ally" (which actually came to your nation's rescue the last time, after finally deciding to fight genocide and anti-semitism and not appease it).
I can't be bothered to work out how many negatives you're using in those first two lines. Its gibberish. Or it means that people who don't share my views are largely responsible for my nation appearing to accommodate fascism.
Which firmly implies I'm not a part of the problem so maybe this is just an observation? Perhaps you'll clarify.

Fighting fascism with fascism is not the way to do it. Its not how we did it last time. We took the high ground and we have to continue to do so if we want to be proven right in the long term. Sadly there is a cost for this. Eventually these medieval-minded misogynists will catch up to the rest of the world, but we have to provide something for them to catch up to.

Our MPs had no choice but to run the debate because our people demanded it. I honestly think they saw it as an opportunity to send America a message:

Please don't elect Trump. He's a ****wit.
Its clear enough that he isn't running for good reasons, he is telling idiots and racists what they want to hear and the whole think is a power/ego trip for him. He will not make good decisions. He should not be given nuclear launch codes.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2016, 04:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I never heard him use that qualifier.
Then you didn't watch the debates.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2016, 04:48 PM
 
I didn't watch the debates.

Trump is calling for a shutdown of Muslim travel to the US. Did he discuss exceptions for leaders in the debates?
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2016, 05:39 PM
 
@waragainstsleep

You seem to be missing my point(and i seem to communicating it poorly).

Trump has called for a ban, and your parliament has discussed a ban.

I am not against either side advocation or even banning anything they want.

Where i think we disagree is, I don't think all bans are equal.

Whom and why has Trump suggested banning? Muslims who are not residents/citizens, why? Look around maybe? Was it a hindu/jew/christian/buddhist/atheist who fires weapons at people of other faiths because they feel its their religious duty? Could it possibly be because the people who you refer to as the "moderate majority" are incapable or unwilling to police their own (especially when the victims are not part of their "tribe")? So why is it so unreasonable(to you) for a politician to recognize that exclusive link, and suggest ways to protect fellow citizens?(ie the opposite of what Merkel has done for her fellow citizens)

Now your parliament discusses banning Trump. Why? What has he advocated or committed against your citizens? Has your parliament even debated banning muslims after the terror attacks in 2007, or the muslim sex gang that preyed exclusively on white non-muslim children(information which your police and media tried to suppress), or the fact that so many "citizens" of your country committing genocide and warcrimes are exclusively followers of that religion?

So you see, not all bans are equal. As a nation you seem more concerned about banning Trump for what he *said* (and not even about your country), rather than debating about how best to shield your citizens from the barbarity of that ideology. That says a lot about you and your nation's values, and maybe where it is headed.

And your specific line of questioning clearly suggests you have a bigger issue with Trump's words than with the crimes of muslims committed against your fellow citizens enabled exclusively by the ideology they adhere to.

In the 30s and 40s, would you as a citizen of the UK supported banning Nazis from traveling to the UK? How about banning an American who suggested it?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2016, 06:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I didn't watch the debates.

Trump is calling for a shutdown of Muslim travel to the US. Did he discuss exceptions for leaders in the debates?
He plainly said that anonymous Muslims shouldn't be allowed in, "If we don't know where they're from, they shouldn't get in." Wouldn't we know where the leader of an Islamic country is from? Not that the media really cares. I mean, I despise the bastard, but this isn't one of those reasons.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2016, 06:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
He plainly said that anonymous Muslims shouldn't be allowed in, "If we don't know where they're from, they shouldn't get in." Wouldn't we know where the leader of an Islamic country is from? Not that the media really cares. I mean, I despise the bastard, but this isn't one of those reasons.
Here's a direct quote from Trump's website:

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

I think the media has treated Trump very poorly, but there's no media spin here. This is the policy position exactly as Trump wishes it to be disseminated. Unless I've missed it, there's no discussion of documentation in the press release.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-r...im-immigration
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2016, 07:06 PM
 
If Trump had said the ban should apply to Arabs or Mexicans or Africans or Europeans, THAT would have been racist and unacceptable as it says nothing of the values those individuals subscribe to and practice.

It would be like someone saying we should ban Germans(as opposed to Nazis), in 1940.

I am all for religious freedom and debate, except when it puts the lives of ALL others in such a real danger.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2016, 10:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Here's a direct quote from Trump's website:

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

I think the media has treated Trump very poorly, but there's no media spin here. This is the policy position exactly as Trump wishes it to be disseminated. Unless I've missed it, there's no discussion of documentation in the press release.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-r...im-immigration
One of his problems, of which there are a multitude, is that he frequently expresses opinions that appear to negate each other. He likes to say whatever can get him the most exposure at any given moment. That's no way to lead.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2016, 10:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Then you didn't watch the debates.
I like having some faith in humanity. I want to keep what I have left.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2016, 02:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
If Trump had said the ban should apply to Arabs or Mexicans or Africans or Europeans, THAT would have been racist and unacceptable as it says nothing of the values those individuals subscribe to and practice.

It would be like someone saying we should ban Germans(as opposed to Nazis), in 1940.

I am all for religious freedom and debate, except when it puts the lives of ALL others in such a real danger.
C'mon, man...

Even ****ing Israel doesn't have a policy like this.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2016, 02:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
One of his problems, of which there are a multitude, is that he frequently expresses opinions that appear to negate each other. He likes to say whatever can get him the most exposure at any given moment. That's no way to lead.
He's welcome to change the statement on his own website. I'm not stopping him.

Lacking a better option, I consider what's written there as accurate reflection of his policy.
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2016, 02:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
@waragainstsleep

You seem to be missing my point(and i seem to communicating it poorly).

Trump has called for a ban, and your parliament has discussed a ban.

I am not against either side advocation or even banning anything they want.

Where i think we disagree is, I don't think all bans are equal.
We totally agree so far.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
Whom and why has Trump suggested banning? Muslims who are not residents/citizens, why? Look around maybe? Was it a hindu/jew/christian/buddhist/atheist who fires weapons at people of other faiths because they feel its their religious duty? Could it possibly be because the people who you refer to as the "moderate majority" are incapable or unwilling to police their own (especially when the victims are not part of their "tribe")? So why is it so unreasonable(to you) for a politician to recognize that exclusive link, and suggest ways to protect fellow citizens?(ie the opposite of what Merkel has done for her fellow citizens)

Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental tenet of every justice system in the free world. And I'd be remiss if I didn't point out the Christian shooter from Charleston as just one example of a non-muslim terrorist.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
Now your parliament discusses banning Trump. Why? What has he advocated or committed against your citizens? Has your parliament even debated banning muslims after the terror attacks in 2007, or the muslim sex gang that preyed exclusively on white non-muslim children(information which your police and media tried to suppress), or the fact that so many "citizens" of your country committing genocide and warcrimes are exclusively followers of that religion?
Trump has made his views known. Our citizens, under the impression that he is a despicable racist, sexist bigot who makes fun of disabled people have triggered a mechanism our government to discuss their wishes. Nearly 600,000 people signed that petition and frankly if it was a petition to have them collectively sing a cover of a Lady Gaga track I'd be pleased they are required to listen and comply to voters requests
Do you mean the attacks of 2005? We didn't discuss banning all muslims after that because we don't hold 1.5 billion people responsible for the actions a few others. We didn't ban all Irish people despite 30 years of sustained indiscriminate attacks either. Neither did you lot.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
So you see, not all bans are equal. As a nation you seem more concerned about banning Trump for what he *said* (and not even about your country), rather than debating about how best to shield your citizens from the barbarity of that ideology. That says a lot about you and your nation's values, and maybe where it is headed.
It says maybe we are the land of the free but you guys are too scared to be these days. Wow, a Democrat should use that against Trump.

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
And your specific line of questioning clearly suggests you have a bigger issue with Trump's words than with the crimes of muslims committed against your fellow citizens enabled exclusively by the ideology they adhere to.
I was surprised to see who else we've banned. An ex-Grand Dragon, Shirley Phelps and her old man Fred, Mike Tyson, Chris Brown (So in favour of that one), Snoop Dogg and for some reason Martha Stewart. I have no idea why Martha was picked on.
As I said elsewhere, I think Trump is getting the treatment because we want America to know they shouldn't elect him.
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
In the 30s and 40s, would you as a citizen of the UK supported banning Nazis from traveling to the UK? How about banning an American who suggested it?
In the 40s, absolutely. Before war broke out, I personally have no problem banning them if they were openly hating on the Jews back then.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2016, 03:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
C'mon, man...

Even ****ing Israel doesn't have a policy like this.
Jerusalem is why Israel lets them in (it being holy to all the Abrahamic religions), not because it's "nice". However, they still don't allow undocumented people in, regardless of ethnicity, and we shouldn't either.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2016, 04:09 AM
 
Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental tenet of every justice system in the free world. And I'd be remiss if I didn't point out the Christian shooter from Charleston as just one example of a non-muslim terrorist.
Irrelevant. No one has the Right to enter anyone else's country, let alone take up residence. Period. Countries have always been selective regarding immigration, at least until very recently with nutjobs wanting to shelter any Muslim migrant/refugee they can find. If you doubt that, try simply moving to Japan, S Korea, or Switzerland. How many have they volunteered to take in?

Dylann Roof was Christian? He's a crazy person, his religion (or lack of it) had no bearing on his attacks, unlike Jihadis.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2016, 05:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Jerusalem is why Israel lets them in (it being holy to all the Abrahamic religions), not because it's "nice". However, they still don't allow undocumented people in, regardless of ethnicity, and we shouldn't either.
I imagine Israel does it that way because the converse is boneheaded.

It's the same construction as boneheaded gun legislation. The policy restricts only law-abiding Muslims. One who intends harm need merely lie.

I agree 100% with you about documentation, but if that's who Trump's policy is meant to apply to, he couldn't be arsed to bring that up on his own website.
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2016, 02:09 PM
 
@waragainstsleep

Innocent until proven guilty, absolutely agree with that. So why then are you in favor of a blanket ban on Nazi's after WWII broke out? According to your arguments, wouldn't that be "racist"?

You're suggesting the UK is "the land of the free" when compared to the US? Really? You're the one advocating and boasting about banning people for their speech/thoughts (as opposed to their actions and practices), not me.

Last i checked, most of the muslim majority countries in the middle east expelled all their Jewish citizens; 800,00 of them and no one batted an eyelid, least of all the illusive "moderates" you tend to bring up. Europe still pours money into Turkey even though they still deny genocide across religious and ethnic lines against the Armenians. When one of the oldest Christian community in the world was destroyed via genocide in the last 5 years, no one, least of all the neighboring muslim Turks, Arab or Persian nations stepped in to shield them.

It's really astonishing that you suggest trump is a racist, bigot, sexist..... because of his words. Yet if i were to ask you which countries are the most racist & bigoted and sexist in the year 2016, I wonder if countries such as Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Iran, Kuwait, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan would be on your list. You so desperately want to send Trump and Americans who support him a message; and what message have you sent the citizens of those other countries? Apart from Europe's open borders message?

You are repulsed by one man, Trump, yet ready to welcome this?


Regarding Charleston. All murder is deplorable. If you were trying to use Charleston as a benchmark, he was one guy, out of 1+ billion Christians, and last i checked, Christianity clearly preaches "Thou shall not kill", and i doubt the perp cited Christianity as his motivation. I even doubt he yelled out "God is great" when pulling the trigger. So, I would rather focus my energy on dealing with the biggest problem, and saving/protecting the most lives possible.

It's no wonder the Jews of Europe have been fleeing. Europe has drifted so far to the right, by making excuses for, supporting and encouraging the migration of anti-semites, racists and sexists. And it's humorous to see the ones who are against those principles be labeled 'right wing'.

Maybe it's simply the case of old anti-semitism and racism, welcoming new anti-semitism and racism...


PS>>Regarding Israel. If there is ONE country i would suggest learning from on how to deal with islamic terrorism, it would be Israel. Israel has to contend with the fact that it's neighborhood is not conducive to peace, and has as such invested heavily in defense and intelligence. They have learned the hard way on how to deal with it, and what balance is required.

I doubt Europe has a fraction of the ability Israel has to cope; Western Europe has had a relative geographic advantage (a continent and sea away from the muslim world), and the benefit of having outsourced their security needs to the US since WWII. So it's strange to see them inviting millions, yet not surprising watching the aftermath of that policy.

UGH. i hate making such long posts. I think im just flabbergasted at the stance of the UK parliament(and the op) against Trump, when they so obviously have bigger more pressing issues facing their citizens. Trump might offend and hurt some feelings, but that, to me takes the back seat to people losing their lives, children getting violated and media&police so afraid of the PC-brigade that they don't inform and protect the public. The same can be said of the rest of Europe these days as well. Facts don't care about feelings.
( Last edited by Hawkeye_a; Jan 23, 2016 at 11:03 PM. )
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2016, 09:22 PM
 
I want to address most of your post but I haven't even read most of it yet but I feel the need to make a short separate one because you and others are complaining about the UK government wasting its time on this or being hostile to Trump.

They had NO CHOICE but to have this debate. There is a rule regarding petitions on the government site and having to debate topics if enough signatures are collected. The criteria was met, they were obliged to hold the debate. Their official stance is up to Cameron or down to a vote and that hasn't happened. They didn't make a decision, they just had a discussion because their voters demanded it. I'm normally all for ragging on them, but this time they have done nothing wrong.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2016, 11:00 PM
 
Dont worry about it . i shouldnt have made such a long post to begin with. ill try and edit it down.

But to address your original question, my opinion is that Trump (and many of the Americans your country has banned), IMO pose no threat whatsoever to the UK as a country, nor its citizens. It just baffles me that y'all are debating banning Trump, when there are so many worse people, who are doing real harm to you and your citizens and others that you have not even considered sanctioning.

It smacks of the soft bigotry of expectations, you (and many on the left) are ready to hold Americans( and Israel) to unreasonably high expectations and hold the muslim world to unreasonably LOW expectations.

Check out the videos i posted above. the second one specifically addresses the bigotry of expectations.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:15 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,