Cant say I expected that but good on em if just to make a point.
Proving that democracy is just fine in the internet era, a petition demanding that Donald Trump should be invited to make a state visit to the UK has passed 100,000 signatures – passing the threshold to be "considered" for a Parliamentary debate. The petition was set up in response to a much more popular one demanding that …
...debating whether the Trumpness should be allowed a state visit will debate both sides of the argument.
So this petition is a total waste of time (or possibly even more of a total waste of time given that debates on petitions are not binding on Parliament) and was apparently signed by over 100,000 people who don't actually know what a debate is...
Not to mention that the petition is that DT should be invited for a state visit. Something that has already happened...
The executive order that bans support for services that mention abortion as an option for birth control is the same thing, but worse because it means women will die in childbirth, have unsafe abortions and there will be loads more unwanted children.
Or how about Russia's "No promotion of homosexuality" legislation, that conservative enough for you? Not providing a platform for someone is no big deal compared to outlawing their sexuality.
Stop trying to make out the left are the only side that have unreasonable arseholes.
"were 3,000 signatures from Germany, 6,700 from France – and three from the Solomon Islands"
I guess there are possibly that many Brits currently abroad with an opinion. Students? Though if the signatories give their name as Bertrand or Schneider then some virtue-signalling may be going on.
will show up as being in Germany. I use a VPN for all my traffic. The endpoint is in Berlin.
I did give my UK post code when signing the No petition.
As for claims that most signatories came from places with large student populations or lefty luvvies, I'm hardly that. I'm a pensioner and generally on the right of centre and think the Corbyn is a joke.
"We should have a third petition asking for Brian Blessed to be invited to the event."
And recite Ozymandias; that's what that wall puts me in mind of.
My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away."
That should be read at the ceremony appointing any political leader.
My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Rather ironic that the Ozymandias of Shelley's verse was none other than the Egyptian Pharaoh Rameses II. You know, the guy whose works include the temple at Abu Simbel, which was moved in the 1960s (so that it wouldn't become submerged under Lake Nasser after the building of the Aswan High Dam) at a cost to UNESCO of some $40 million.
The remains described in the Greek poem upon which Shelley based his work were those of a different (and rather more ruined) temple: Rasmes's mortuary temple at Thebes; but even so, methinks Rameses II is one of a very few people in history who had a right to say "look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" and not be laughed off the stage.
Spelling mistakes... check.
Couldn't be bothered to read/comprehend the thing their railing about.... check
Insisting that their ignorant strawman viewpoint is just as deserving of consideration as one that has been well thought out and considered... check
And then these people get mad when they are called out for their buffoonery.
What's the quote? "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
Spelling mistakes... check.
Couldn't be bothered to read/comprehend the thing their railing about.... check
Insisting that their ignorant strawman viewpoint is just as deserving of consideration as one that has been well thought out and considered... check
Remember who started the petition after the Brexit vote? This petition could well have been created by false-opposition to reinforce their own sterotypes and divert from valid arguments. There was an attempt to submit another petition but it was rejected as a duplicate (though technically it was not).
The list of countries facing immigration restrictions looks more like those least co-operative with the US, rather than where most terrorists come from.
"The list of countries facing immigration restrictions looks more like those least co-operative with the US, rather than where most terrorists come from."
So Trump has just slammed the door shut on any Iranian dissidents who might want to overthrow a regime that the US doesn't like.
"This petition could well have been created by false-opposition to reinforce their own sterotypes and divert from valid arguments."
I'd say that about the ORIGINAL petition, the 1.5 million anti-Trump signatures from an astro-turf (aka "fake grass roots") well paid group of sock puppets for George Soros, and/or the left in general, as well as the arrogant/elitist HOWLER MONKEYS that sling poo and downvote as much as possible to make it SEEM as if they're significant, when they're not. [maybe they're just bored]
The thing is, conservatives tend to be busy running their OWN lives [not trying to manage EVERYBODY ELSE through INTIMIDATION and BULLYING and MEANINGLESS DEMONSTRATIONS] and as a result, don't have THEIR views being echoed on the evening news. "If it bleeds, it leads" so guess what gets the media attention? The anti-Trump viewpoint, that's what! And it's in line with their (the lamestream media's) attention, and creates controversy, and they quietly profit from it all.
it's like that bunch of B.I.itchy ladies that showed up to protest (in various places) on the day after Trump's inauguration, wearing pink cat-ear hats (read: neko mimi cosplay gear), calling them "pussy hats" in reference to a comment Trump made one time when the camera was rolling, complete with a laughable speech by Madonna and other performers, venting their vaginas over Trump's off-color comment, the kind of comment that *MOST* men have made at one point or another, but won't admit to because their lady friends and/or wives would make them sleep in the bathtub for having said such a thing at one time in their lives. Because, they don't have a sense of humor any more!
*cough* - well, now I'm out of breath.
HOWLER MONKEYS. that's who signed the original petition! The response was just a tiny fraction of the people who are OUTRAGED ENOUGH at the fake "popularity" of the anti-Trump crowd, speaking out and saying HEY, WAIT JUST A DAMN MINUTE (or its equivalent), being SO tired of the one-sidedness and HOWLER MONKEY bullying with the downvotes and the sock puppets and other well-known (lame) techniques of trying to seem BIGGER than they are.
> The thing is, conservatives tend to be busy running their OWN lives [not trying to manage EVERYBODY ELSE through INTIMIDATION and BULLYING and MEANINGLESS DEMONSTRATIONS]
What, by doing things like making it harder for someone to get an abortion, whatever that person's beliefs might be?
Or, in fact, by attacking abortion clinics.
Or deciding that people from several specific countries are far too high risk to let in, despite there not having been any real sign of that risk yet.
I'm not pretending the side are any better, just point out that what you've said is bullshit.
> being SO tired of the one-sidedness and HOWLER MONKEY bullying with the downvotes and the sock puppets and other well-known (lame) techniques of trying to seem BIGGER than they are.
Like capitalising random words for no good reason? Very lame and tired.
Like getting 3 million more votes? Or are you buying into any bullshit conspiracy theory that props up the tangoe'd ones massive ego?
sorry, let me fix that so you'll understand:
Like getting THREE MILLION more VOTES? Or are you buying into any BULLSHIT CONSPIRACY THEORY that props up the tangoe'd ones MASSIVE EGO?
I'm actually quite cheered by this - 1.6 million versus 100,000.
Sometimes, it feels as though the Trumpeteers are in roughly equal numbers, so if this is indicative then perhaps things aren't as bad as I'd thought.
Had to laugh at Britain First's saluting him as a patriot. Cowardice at its finest.
Well, it might only be a sign of which group of people are more likely to make themselves feel better by an utterly pointless action...
The depressing part, of course, is that, like all political threads, this one has immediately descended into "yah boo sucks all your side are idiots/fools/deluded/morons/[delete or add insults and ad hominems as required]", coming in roughly equal measure from both sides of the debate^h^h^h^h^h^h name calling competition.
"like all political threads, this one has immediately descended into "yah boo sucks all your side are idiots/fools/deluded/morons/[delete"
That's hardly surprising. Both sides in a political match are pretty well always composed of idiots/fools/deluded/morons. If they weren't, they'd be doing something constructive instead, wouldn't they ?
"Well, it might only be a sign of which group of people are more likely to make themselves feel better by an utterly pointless action..."
effective action would be a high powered rifle and a spot with a good view, putting your name on a petition is trying to keep things civilised. Whether you mock this as 'weakness' or complain about its ineffectiveness depends on which side of the political canyon you are shouting from.
Disclaimer. This post is no more advocating political assassination ( or pest control ) than Trump himself was when he publicly suggested the NRA "deal with" Hillary Clinton back when it looked likely she would win.
as if thats going to help :(
Another thought is that one of the petitions has been advertised in all the media and the other one hasn't.
As to assassinating Trump, in a way I would chuckle if someone did because it would mean the "progressives" would be wiped out in the states. Nazi would go back to meaning terrible people in the lead up and during ww2 that implemented and ran a system for murdered millions of Jews in a systematic and ruthless fashion and fascist could go back to meaning a supporter of a failed political ideology focusing on totalitarian one party states, militarism, nationalism and mixed economic policies. Maybe everyone will stop politicizing everything as well. Stealing chicken from a chicken shop because the owner doesn't believe in gay marriage? I don't go to a chicken shop for moral guidance, I go for chicken that'll probably give me food poisoning. It was like when I used to wear cats and some lunatic was all "oh I don't buy those they sell bulldozers to Israel" I don't care, good shoes to go on my feet, and now I know if I want to knock down houses they sell good bulldozers too.
> "I'm actually quite cheered by this - 1.6 million versus 100,000."
Notice how some people will grasp at any straw(man) to maintain their world view. This new petition is very rapidly growing, so make sure to point out how comparatively small it is (so far), without mentioning that the other petition has had many days to grow.
Uneasy, are you?
> "This new petition is very rapidly growing, so make sure to point out how comparatively small it is (so far), without mentioning that the other petition has had many days to grow."
The "No" petition hit almost 1000000 votes in the first 24 hours.
The "Yes" petition hit 100000 in the first 24 hours.
So it's growing at 10% of the rate of the "No" campaign.
Now, what was that about grasping at any strawhaired man to maintain their world view?
The pro-Trump-state-visit petition is about 24 hours and 1.5 million votes behind. The anti-Trump-state-visit petition is still piling on votes faster (about 15,000 per hour compared to 6,000) .
This is not a case of betting on Leicester City to win the Premier, or to use a more classical allusion putting your money on the reptile - the tortoise is not going to beat the hare.
It's had all of two and a half days I think as it started on Sunday morning (I signed the anti trump somewhere around the 40K signature mark) to reach almost 1.8 million signatures so it's unlikely to reach the same giddy levels but the main reason I feel uneasy is the moronic premise that the debate is actually a separate one, Teresa Dismay has already invited Trumplethinskin to come and see what he's buying.
Fortunately he probably won't be able to take back our country, it's a bit big for hand luggage.
Big John, nice to see you clutching straws here.
One petition has been "waiting for 3 days for a government response". In other words, it passed the 10,000 threshold (and got noticed and publicised) 3 days ago. The other has been "waiting for 2 days for a government response".
One day ago, as reported on this very site, it was at 1 million signatures. Now it's close to 1.8 million.
The other petition is approaching 200,000.
So please, do feel free to tell us all about which one is growing "very rapidly".
"You are on the winning side. Whatever that means."
Based on recent referenda and elections, being on the winning side means you get to claim:
- "The People" have spoken
- a marginal victory is a landslide/overwhelming/unanimous
- you have a mandate to carry out the most extreme policies, even when they contradict the assurances you gave before the vote*
- that any further democratic opposition is moaning/treason
* To be fair to Trump, he's carrying out the extreme policies he promised, although he's not "draining the swamp", just filling it with his own bunch of reptiles.
"Notice how some people will grasp at any straw(man) to maintain their world view. "
The original petition was probably "astro-turf" (not 'grass roots'). Getting 1.5 million 'howler monkey' types to sign it wouldn't be all that hard (especially if it's all done electronically).. The fact that conservatives are "bothering at all" with a petition like that actually means A LOT MORE, even if the total count is lower.
It's like "percentage of the left who sign petitions" vs "percentage of the right who sign petitions".
It ALSO reminds me of the recent pre-election polls (for both Trump _and_ Brexit), which were oddly skewed in the wrong direction. OR, the ratio of downvotes that a typical conservative poster gets in El Reg article comments.
You are mistaking Polish Medieval Democracy for Ancient Greek Democracy.
In Polish Medieval Democracy the votes are shouted and the party who shouts the louder elects the future king. +/- some fighting under the influence on the sidelines.
In Ancient Greek democracy the votes are counted and whoever gets the most votes is elected.
We used to have a variant of the Greek Democracy. We now have switched to the Polish one, with the sole distinction that the same newspapers which licked Hitler's ass in the days of Chamberlain are used as Seim Floor Loudhailers.
What I really dislike is where it is going. From trouncing crusaders, Russian (the only ones to take Moscow and hold it successfully installing a puppet government), Turks or anyone who was unlucky to get in their way Poland became a failed state. In the blink of an eye. A couple of weak kings shouted-in wrongly and that was it. So thanks, I'd rather not have us switch to Medieval Polish Democracy as a form of government. It's fun, but it does not end well.
Not really, no. Our representational democracy was/is really very different in detail to the Athenian democracy, which wouldn't really scale. As for the suggestion its not working as well as it should and perhaps once did, I'm inclined to agree, but am awfully aware that (at least partially blind) nostalgia for how much better the good old days were is something else we have in common with 5thC BC Athens...
mm I hate to point this out, for fear of being labelled a Nazi and punched in the face by a liberal but,
The Trump should be allowed to visit petition has an end date of 30th of July 2017
The Trump should not be allowed to visit petition has an end date of the 29th of May 2017
So this would imply that the ban Trump one is the one from two months ago.
Also it should be noted that the Trump visit one was likely written in response to the hysteria in the press and "liberal" segment of society as opposed to the actual petition. I doubt many people read the actual petition and just the headlines in the papers.
Anyway it's all a wonderful distraction to the real issues such as the collapse of the NHS with Nurses being forced to work long hours in understaffed conditions. People dying when they don't need to and all sorts of other things.
But don't worry celebrities are out protesting a chap in charge of the USA saying, hey maybe we should review letting people in to the country from places that have collapsed, are in civil war or are our long term enemy. Much as the previous chap in charge of the USA was looking at.
I believe the previous ban Trump debate is available to watch somewhere.
They take place in Westminster Hall which is also where MPs go when they call other people to give evidence to the House.
They had a very civil discussion, and had a non-binding vote which decided that he shouldn't be banned. This petition doesn't ask for him to be banned, just that he shouldn't be invited on a state visit, and it is very rare for US Presidents to be invited on state visits.
And yet, NO islands have gone under or even look like they will be any time soon. It's all threat. Kinda like those polar bears who were dying in droves, only they weren't.
BTW, you need to get with the program. "Global Warming" is passé (wasn't happening), so now you are to always call it "Climate Change," since climate always changes and no one can prove it isn't us causing it. Neat, eh?
Sinick, do you really think that linked site supports your smarmy attitude? Did you even read it? Apparently 5 tiny uninhabited reef islands have disappeared since 1947 (out of many many thousands). The site admits that "stronger trade winds" are present to raise sea levels slightly in that area, but global sea level rise (supposedly 3mm per year) is also blamed.
Even if true, 3mm/year amounts to 300mm per century (one foot) and most inhabited low islands see more erosion than that just from normal human activity.
This gives you the right to call me childish names? Puhleeze.
An additional note, tiny reef islands are basically underwater reefs that have managed to collect enough sand to poke above the waves. They are ephemeral by nature and typhoons often scour away the sand, leaving just the reef making a few waves. I suppose the 6 inches of purported sea rise since 1947 might have contributed too, given the extremely low profile of reef islands.
Conversely a few new reef islands have probably risen from the waves since then as well, but I guess the New Scientists weren't interested in finding any of those.
So my statement stands. Real inhabited islands more than a few inches high are not being covered by sea rise at all. However the Maldives and some other islands have serious issues with sand being lost due to wave action combined with human activity. Still not something that supports any climate change catastrophe theory, fortunately.
I'm not trying to belittle anyone (well, maybe a little). I really believe that there's a bad thing going on here. The world has a lot of very pressing problems that could use attention, but at the higher levels it's all about faked up crises, designed to enrich those in control, and they are stealing resources from the real problems. It's no different than a fake charity that deprives real charities by diverting their funding away from them. THAT is why I so dislike the global warming scare and similar bogus causes.
But that's a crap, lying, inaccurate article (but typical of new scientist). Low lying islands do "pop-up" and disappear regularly, it's quite a normal thing. The way to study it is to look at enough of them to get a trend, and the last one that did that showed that the trend was for more islands to appear than disappear.
So the New Scientist cherry picks the data to show what it wants to be true, showing a political and anti-scientific bias. Next, news at eleven, water is wet.
Ah, Big John... As soon as I read the name (after I'd read the post) the penny dropped and all became clear - I knew I could safely ignore the message. Apart from downvoting it on principle, of course. You're the guy who hates homosexuals because they're perverts, right? As in the great North Carolina rest room fiasco last year in which you exposed yourself. As a bigot. Welcome back - you make these threads funnier.
Maybe if these muppets were campaigning so loudly about something that matters, like indicting Bush or Blair as war criminals. Or trying to stop the UK doing arms deals with countries that have pretty dodgy human rights issues, or campaigning against countries that routinely murder their own citizens for speaking out I might have more respect for them.
But until then...
"Maybe if these muppets were campaigning so loudly about something that matters, like indicting Bush or Blair as war criminals. Or trying to stop the UK doing arms deals with countries that have pretty dodgy human rights issues, or campaigning against countries that routinely murder their own citizens for speaking out I might have more respect for them."
Just because it's not widely reported doesn't mean it's not happening. i don't know where you live or work but take a wander around the streets of London any day of the week and all of these things are being protested. Join Change.org and you will see there are many people campaigning on all of these issues.
No, he's not.
He's only the leader of the USA. Maybe 13% of the population, but consuming 75% of resources?
How many countries of the 195 to 205 (Not everyone agrees which countries are "real") are "free"* and have equality of opportunity.
[For an extra 5 points define "free"]
The USA has a GDP 4 times larger than the next largest 'free' nation (whatever your definition of 'free', I expect that China wouldn't fall within it). In terms of military muscle, the gap is far wider, probably more like 10x. Trump is the head of state of the USA. So if anyone is the "leader of the free world", that would be him.
>and even Ronald Reagan.
The problem with including The Gipper in that list is that it makes it really look like no Republican president would be acceptable to your tender sensibilities.
Reagan is controversial in some ways (I still joke about "Reagan vegetables"), and trickle-down economics didn't turn out as claimed (you could argue it was the starting shot for the great inequality race).
But Reagan was also quite successful at both knocking the USSR out of the Cold War. And, when that happened, actually taking a chance at more productive relations with Russia. Granted, not much $ or effort was expended in bolstering civil society and economies in ex-Soviet block countries (or Afghanistan) later, but that was on other people's watch, mostly.
Point is, he may not be to everyone's liking, but he doesn't belong on that list with the other psychopaths. And, since he was the least toxic of the recent Republican presidents (along w Bush Sr), you are basically saying "no Republican is acceptable". What's your suggestion? That the Dems keep power permanently? No matter how competent Bill and Barack might have been, it's toxic to stick with one party. Granted, 4 (or 8) more years of Democrats would have been better than the current buffoon.
Great attitude. IMHO, gives credence to morons like Bannon, Limbaugh and the like when they tell Rep voters that everyone's out to get them. And look where that bit of voter polarization got us this time. Someone who's already well on the way to displacing Bush Jr as the most incompetent POTUS of recent times.
As far as the Queen meeting with El Toupe or not, that's UK citizens' business. If I were making decisions, I'd keep my powder dry and reserve opposition to Trump where it really matters, not surface levels of protocol. Slighting him would not, at this point, achieve much. There are plenty of other opportunities awaiting, I suspect, where a principled stand against Trump will be more relevant. We are, not quite, yet, at the point where the main way to influence the US is to boycott everything, like with South Africa in the 90s.
Regan definitely does "belong on the list with the other psychopaths". He and his cronies actively supported the IRA with arms and cash in a largely successful attempt to destabilize an allied nation.
I grew up in Belfast during that period. Regan was an asshat.
But I also have a bone to contend with this articles author. He states:
"The JSON data for the petition, publicly viewable on the Parliamentary petitions website, revealed that in among the 1.6 million signatures from Britons opposing Trump's state visit were 3,000 signatures from Germany, 6,700 from France – and three from the Solomon Islands. Only signatures from British citizens and UK residents are eligible to be counted towards its total."
Yeah... about that. Never heard of people relocating due to work or family reasons or even being on holiday? Heaven forbid an actual British citizen might be currently living in another country, the unmitigated horror that must create in the bowls of your soul eh? I for example am currently in Japan, according to your statement I must presume that you think I got my British passport as a prize in a cereal box? Or could you perhaps just be trying to delegitimize the petition using the narrative of bigotry and hate by implying that nasty foreigners are despoiling our green and pleasant petition system? Get the barrel scrapers wound up by stirring the pot a bit? Berk.
Well, hum, actually, Reagan did do much worse, in addition to what you've mentioned. The whole Central American dirty wars / death squad affair was a massive ethical fail. It's actually surprising there was so little public outcry about it at the time, and it's encouraging that I, perhaps naively, don't believe similar abuses would be quite as unchallenged nowadays.
Totally forgot about it in this instance, my bad. I still think of Reagan being a relatively competent leader overall, but by no means a saint, no.
These guys are so funny lol! The Queen "embarrassed" What a joke. The queen does not embarrass - that is the point of the Queen. Are they even British? She can easily control some billionaire playboy and show him a thing or two. We need Trump here. We need the debate. Stand up against this left wing media brainwashed politically correct bullshit and sign the counter petition. Even if just symbolic. It's about time the voice of the people is finally represented! Up to 130K now https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/178844.
I would not introduce Rumpy Pumpy Trumpy to my mother, let alone the Queen. He's a sack of shit! BTW good luck with your petition, I very much doubt that it will exceed the will of the intelligent people of this country. Prove me wrong.
"I suspect that you meant to write I very much doubt that it will exceed the will of the self - appointed intelligent people of this country."
Intelligence is mildly subjective, yes. But there is no doubt that, in the UK at least and also the US, Trump supporters are on average significantly less intelligent than Trump detractors. This is a real fact; if you don't like which side of the line that puts you, then that is your problem, and you don't get to invent a new pseudo-fact to make that information go away.
"These guys are so funny lol! The Queen "embarrassed" What a joke. The queen does not embarrass - that is the point of the Queen."
This guy seems to disagree with you: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38805196
Of course he's only an expert so doesn't know as much as you.
Reagan happened to be in office when the USSR collapsed due to it's own inefficiencies, not anything dear Ronald did. Trump lacks any class, just shoots from the hip at everyone who is slightly different from himself (American white big inheritance). I had thought it was a safe bet that Nixon would be the worst president in my lifetime but I was wrong, we have a new winner who loves fake tan and is a truly disgusting individual (whose first wife cited rape).
"Not only fake news, but revisionist history now?"
ACK. Just because a lefty "saiz" it, does not make it true, even when REPEATEDLY ECHOED by the howler monkeys, at volumes so loud, no amount of capitalization and punctuation can simulate it!
And 'same' for the 'trickle down' commentary another poster did. Supply side economics works EVERY! TIME! IT! IS! TRIED!! Trump economics will be just that: Tax cuts, smaller gummint, spending only when necessary (not propping up politically-correct industries like Solyndra nor devaluing currency via 'quantitative easing'), de-regulate, and let the private sector do its "thang".
That's what Reagan did. That's what Trump will do. That's why the 80's were so successful, why the Soviet Union broke apart, and why we had sustained economic growth for 2 additional decades. Yes, it took THAT long for the left to RUIN the U.S. economy, claiming 'our days are over' in the process, so that the USA could _also_ be subservient to EU socialism.
Good thing the UK voted Brexit, too. Same idea. The "petition" that MATTERS aka "an election".
Nixon the individual was the worst, true.
As a president, in terms of outcome? You get the China trick, that's a major, major, kudo to him. And the scandal mainly reflected badly on himself and his co-conspirators. The impeachment system functioned well, and he was ousted in a mostly bi-partisan manner. A bit of a stain on the presidency, but not that much practical effect and probably even some reinforced checks and balances (can't remember which Pres had the CIA do dirty tricks to the opposition, something about LSD on stair railings).
So, overall, the outcome wasn't as bad as say Bush Jr, who messed up the two wars he got involved with and raised partisanship and division to new heights. Could Obama have done more to heal the divide? Not sure, not with fools like Bannon and Limbaugh. In hindsight, maybe it was a mistake to wave the red flag of Clinton-hood to the Rep-leaning voters. After all, Jeb Bush suffered from his family name as well.
Sadly, so far Trump is, in my opinion, well on the way to making Bush Jr look like a thoughtful, organized and clever president. With a competent cabinet. And if he does mess up badly, in this climate there is little chance that neutering him will be as clean and harmonious as removing Nixon. Ideally his reign will serve to inoculate the American public* to quick easy populist demagoguery (I count Bernie in that camp too, though I believe him to an honest and ethical man).
* yes, and I believe in magical flying ponies too.
Saving the queen from embarassment? really? can their argument even get any more lame and passive-agressive?
If they'd have actually bothered to inform themselves first, they would have quickly realised that in the real world, Trump is in fact the US president, and that the queen is in fact a prettty tough lady who has already been demonstrating for about 65 years now and still counting, her amazing ability to manage just about any situation with class and style and still do her duty. I'm sure meeting the US president is just a walk in the park for her.
However ... For someone over the age of 12 to say this... "Donald Trump should be invited to make an official State Visit because he is the leader of a free world and U.K. is a country that supports free speech and does not believe that people that appose [sic] our point of view should be gagged." Reminds me of ... "We're all doomed" - John Laurie/private Frazier.
I don't care either way, the only view have on all of this is... Always look for motive first. And when dealing with politicians and the exceedingly wealthy, never expect altruism to be anywhere near that motivation.
...even know what the anti-Trump petition says? The disinformation has worked so well that on last night's UK news a talking-head nonentity MP said in an interview that of course we can't ban Trump because that would lower us to his level, completely missing the point of the argument that it's not about banning the buffoon, but about not giving him a state welcome.
If even our elected MPs can't understand this simple point... duh...
It is not stupidity it is a deliberate misinterpretation - one of the simpler "news management" techniques.
Apparently the only people who don't pick up on it are journalists, which I'm beginning to suspect is because they start from the assumption that they're too clever for their interviewee.
This also explains why it is possible to vote for both petitions without being inconsistent.
> "...it's not about banning the buffoon, but about not giving him a state welcome."
Fine, it's not a simple ban. It's a mostly symbolic slap in the face to our President, and by extension to the US. Message received.
Oh, and I doubt the adults in the British government will ever allow spiteful crap like that out the door. One can always hope tho...
"Proving that democracy is just fine in the internet era... "
Yeah, well, about that... it takes a little more to keep a democracy alive, well and working than klicking buttons on websites or posting on internet forums.
And before you ask, yes, I actually try to do my bit outside the internet.
"By far the most insightful point made by the majority of anti-trump statements here are that they are all just just braindead personal attacks. It actually says far more about the intellectual level of the commentards than that of Trump."
OK, fine. You want an anti-Trump comment that is not ad hominem then that should be pretty easy.
1) He's a racist and misogynist, who has (allegedly) sexually assaulted a dozen women. Note that this is not an ad hominem attack, just as calling Osama Bin Laden a terrorist is not an ad hominem.
2) He has completely failed to divest his considerable foreign business interests, likely against the constitutional requirement that he not be in receipt of foreign emoluments while in office, considering the places he does business.
3) In addition to this, there is also the ethical problems with that even if he technically does just about satisfy the letter of the law. Declaring that technically the White House isn't a government body and therefore the anti-nepotism laws don't apply means it's wrong. If you have to use the word 'technically' in your justification, normally that means you are in the wrong.
4) The Muslim ban. (Don't pretend it's not.) Also certainly incompatible with the current body of US law, in particular a 1955 statute whose name I currently forget. As well as gaining almost universal condemnation from around the world, which generally should suggest you are in the wrong.
I could continue, but I can't be bothered. If you are a Trump supporter, his crimes and personal faults are of no interest to you, as you will support him regardless. But if he fails to make America first again or whatever bullshit slogan he came up with, whom do you pick next time? There's not much more extreme than Trump you can do, except maybe the reanimated corpse of Pol Pot.
"You want an anti-Trump comment that is not ad hominem then that should be pretty easy."
Apparently not. You started off with 'racist' and 'misogynist'. Nice throwing of word-bombs! You might as well add 'sexist' 'homophobe' and 'bigot' to complete the copy/pasta list of accusations that are thrown at ANYONE who isn't a politically correct member of "the left". By the HOWLER MONKEYS.
Those words echo so badly that they're sounding hollow. Maybe *THAT* is why you didn't recognize them as ad hominem attacks!
Bob, none of them are howler monkeys, and you lower yourself to their level by doing that. DC is merely upset and confused, due to the world not conforming to the script he's been conditioned to believe in. It's not really his fault. He really believes Trump is a racist (and all the rest) because Trump refuses to accept the PC dictates of the Left, and that's not allowed by correct-thinking people, period. No discussion is allowed on that point, because that would expose the world-class hypocrisy the Left operates under.
I could only find the petition supporting his visit when searching Google at about 5pm. Adding a site directive returned 100s of marginally different worded petitions in support of Donald Duck's state visit.
Donald Trump should be allowed to enter the UK in his capacity ...
Donald Trump should make a State Visit to the United Kingdom ...
Donald Trump should be invited to make an official State Visit because ...
Allow Donald Trump to visit the UK for a state visit.
Support President Donald Trump in making his State Visit to the ...
Support Donald Trump and Invite him to make a State Visit to the ...
As we all know Donald trump is due over here for a state visit. Unfortunately there are narrow minded people trying to get him banned from ...
Looks to me like an organised attack on the petitions website (mind you they ask for it). I wonder if any members of the public have signed that counter petition?
" ... one-time Royal Military Academy Sandhurst officer cadet ... "
Are you sure? I ask because I knew the man who claimed to be the first of his tribe (and tribalism was still rife) to go to Sandhurst. The reason he was selected was that he was of Idi Amin's tribe and not, like all the previous Ugandan cadets, one of the just overthrown Milton Obote's tribe.
...kept silent (although they allowed themselves an inward snigger at all the collective "outrage" and pantie-wetting of the petitionards).
Also amusing was that the Dear Old Beeb seemed to be loosing the Fake News "War on Trump" (see most popular of 7,000+ comments on www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38795998/comments)
Has anyone else actually read the executive order that is supposed to have "banned muslims" or whatever the Bad Thing (tm) was ?
Can anyone explain to me how the ban works?
I read it and it seemed to be mostly about the Mexico border and just to insist on the application of existing legislation - presumably enacted by previous administrations.
Just asking (but taking cover ahead of expected "point & shriek" attacks ;-)
Executive order is here
(link from BBC site http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38786660)
"To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period ......I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order [list of exclusions follows]"
And "The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days"
And "hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time "
It gets 'better'.
"To be more transparent with the American people... make publicly available within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter:
(i) ...the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation, or material support to a terrorism-related organization...
(ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts...
(iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals..."
Now what use is 6-month data to public, save to whip up anti-foreigner feeling
Thanks for posting the correct link (I should have known that the Beeb one was just wrong).
Seems to me (though I recognize that you probably disagree) that it's fair enough. IIRC refugees only get the right to the nearest safe country, so Uncle Sam is going beyond that in accepting the numbers he has.
And it's their country. And the order makes it plain that they want to exclude folks that don't agree with American Values: "the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including "honor" killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation."
Their gaff, their rules (I write as someone once deported - long story). And they are prepared to evaluate individual cases - they want to be satisfied that each individual is not a threat.
Finally, it would be good (probably much better all round) to encourage countries nearer to Syria, etc and with more similar cultures to take refugees, which I don't think is happening at present (correct if wrong).
Which one is gaining votes most quickly? Who cares - both are asking for the exactly the same outcome.
The original petition started two calendar months ago but was probably largely ignored until last Friday when Treezapeeza decided to use the queen as a bargaining chip to limit the wanton destruction she's carrying out in order to keep the Tory party together. Since Friday, literally 100s more petitions have been submitted to parliament who allowed one of these to continue (strictly speaking against their rules). They've then linked all the other 150 petitions to the second one (thus increasing the hit rate in search engines for the proTrump petition).
At last count roughly 1.75m + 175k petitioners are all asking parliament to debate whether Trump should be afforded a state visit or not. Still, it saves all that going out in the cold and wet and doing all that shouting.
I'm signing it because of the utter hypocrisy of most of those who oppose Trump never saying a word against the bigoted states on that list. Lets be honest, how many of us would actually want to live under an Islamic theocracy Iran style ? It was also Obama who singled out these states as having a terrorist problem. So yes a temporary ban to improve vetting is ok. Meanwhile the genocide against religious minorities (and atheists) continues in many of those states on the list and yet no one protests against them. Utter hypocrisy.
The issue is much more complex than many people seem to understand (Obvs not reg commentards - we all understand it perfectly :) ) .
Its clear that Trump is a polarising person, the marmite of politicians if you will, but on the scale of dickish world leaders that the UK deals with he's not even in the top 5.
Personally I don't like his policies, his opinions or the persona that he projects in public however if we are going to start shunning world leaders because we don't like their policies Trump is an odd place to start.
As an example, T May last week met with the US's Trump AND Turkeys Erdogan... Which of the two has the worse record to date?
I'll just leave this here :
A quick glimpse shows : Turkey, Russia, Ghana and others all of which have human rights records far worse than the US.
I'm not for a second saying that we shouldn't be discussing blocking visits from countries that we don't want to deal with, but its a bigger discussion than "Lets block trump" we should be saying lets set a bar.. a minimum level of [Insert some metric here*], any lower than that and we wont deal with you.**
If the UK is as in demand by the rest of the world as Farrage and the Leavers claim then maybe we will have enough sway for them to start making improvements just so that they can deal with the UK.
* Suggestions for metrics:
Does the country employ torture of prisoners?
Is there a fair legal system in place?
Do they employ the death penalty?
Are they fulfilling commitments to international organisations they are members of (NATO, UN etc)
and are they complying with any conventions etc they have signed up to?
** My personal opinion is that if we do this, trump will end up making the block list before the end of his term anyway.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019