Will Britain Ban Trump?

Post Reply New Topic

Ssshhh......you'll give the liberals nightmares with ideas like that.

On second thought keep it up!
I love the idea.
United States of the Anglosphere
Has a nice ring to it.

Believe me you won't want Blighty, we will annoy the hell out of each other.

Now sod off you pesky Yanks!

^ We'll tow it over here and park it off the coast of the mid atlantic states and make a national park out of it.

Last edited by Raptor on 19 Jan 2016, 2:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

What Trump said isn't out of line from what a lot of European politicians already say, I don't think the UK would be too wise to ban someone who might be the next POTUS nor does your government have the right to interfere in our politics or would you like it the other way around?

How is it interfering in your politics? Whatever has Trump being allowed to come to the UK got to do with US politics?

If he were banned, it would be because what he has said about Muslims was deemed 'hate speech'. He can say what he will about Muslims in the US, and the UK, if it sees fit, can stop him from coming here.

I really can't see that happening, though.

U.K. Parliament debate: Donald Trump gets pummeled by the British - Washington Post

You already have Long Island for that you just need to pull it a little south. Its not like you are doing much with it, and it is a cheaper option. You can have that one for free.

No, we want this:


Not this:


Hey, at least you'll be closer to this:

Seriously, a free travel citizenship union of the Anglosphere. See!

Was going to post, then saw how this thread got progressively worse as time went on. Was going to react, but resisted. Definitely started to rustle jimmies though, so credit for that.

At first I thought (of the "ban Trump" people): "I guess this again points out the difference between the U.S. with it's "Bill of Rights" and it's 'Freedom of Speech" when compared to G.B. I still think this is a valid comparison.

Has G.B. banned ALL politicians from Iran (and including N.Korea, etc. et al)???? This would show some consistency and fortitude. Now, in those other countries, is where you hear some really GREAT hate speech. No prevarication there...they will kill you. Shouldn't all such be announced publicly as "haters" when they are banned? Why are they not? Or have they been "secretly" banned?

Or is this another English put-on "hissy fit" for show in order to gain attention (my guess)......? Just like to jump on someone else's bandwagon when you yourself have nothing to contribute (but want some of that "limelight.")

Typical. I'm not impressed.

If this is another 'English hissy fit', would you point out to me the earlier ones?

Would you also explain to me how petitioners protesting Trump's remarks on Muslims is 'jumping on someone else's bandwagon'?

Anyway. It helps if you know what you're talking about. Saves one from looking a ninny.

So.

There is a system in place in the UK where, if a petition started on the UK Government website gains more than 100,000 signatures, the matter of the petition is likely to be given time for discussion and debate in parliament. No vote is held.

The petition in question gained some 575,000 votes. In keeping with the arrangement, it was discussed and debated. To be clear, this was at the request of (some of) the people, rather than the government.

If the Home Secretary wants to ban someone from entering Britain, they can do so at their discretion. Such a thing is rare. More often, divisive or hateful figures who visit Britain do face public protest (such protests in turn are often met with force from the police). I imagine this would be the outcome for Trump.

So, there we are. Some people wanted the possibility of his being banned from the UK discussed in parliament, and used a procedure to get this done.

If this is another 'English hissy fit', would you point out to me the earlier ones?
From the Urban Dictionary: "hissy fit. A short-lived temper tantrum. Babies and mothers were known to have hissy-fits. The Trump "outrage" will have been forgotten along with many other "deeply troubling" issues in less than a week. Then they're on to other "do nothing" debates.

Would you also explain to me how petitioners protesting Trump's remarks on Muslims is 'jumping on someone else's bandwagon'? This comment was made on Dec. 8th, 2015 to Americans, not to you. I'm sure there are events relative to England et.al. that transcend this statement awfulness every day in England. Talk about a "Tempest in a Tea Pot."

Anyway. It helps if you know what you're talking about. Saves one from looking a ninny. Thanks?

So.

There is a system in place in the UK where, if a petition started on the UK Government website gains more than 100,000 signatures, the matter of the petition is likely to be given time for discussion and debate in parliament. No vote is held.

The petition in question gained some 575,000 votes. In keeping with the arrangement, it was discussed and debated. To be clear, this was at the request of (some of) the people, rather than the government.
Any Muslims I wonder? Considering there are about 2,660,116 Muslims in England alone this would appear the other 2,155,116 Muslims aren't interested in having you debate the issue (and might agree with Trump?)

If the Home Secretary wants to ban someone from entering Britain, they can do so at their discretion. Such a thing is rare. More often, divisive or hateful figures who visit Britain do face public protest (such protests in turn are often met with force from the police). I imagine this would be the outcome for Trump. Very civilized. Have the Parliament do your fighting for you instead of facing the English "Bobbies?"

So, there we are. Some people wanted the possibility of his being banned from the UK discussed in parliament, and used a procedure to get this done.
I SEE! The problem here is the news feeds make this appear as a genuine effort by some parliamentarians to treat this as a SERIOUS subject to be treated seriously but it sounds more like the ranting of buffoons and a discussion based on 575,000 anonymous Muslims biased beliefs. Was there any discussion about Sharia law replacing English jurisprudence or is this an ongoing discussion in Parliament?

You don't seem all that Zen, Den.

I know what a hissy fit is. I was asking for examples of other 'English hissy fits'. You said this debate over banning trunp was 'another English hissy fit'. I was asking what other English hissy fits you had in mind.

As to it being over 'in less than a week' - if he made the remarks on the 8th of December, that makes it a good six weeks already.

Yes, there are matters of more importance going on in Britain. How does this mean that the matter of Trump's remarks over Muslims should not be discussed?

I am sure some Muslims did sign the petition, yes. What does that have to do with the matter? That's like dismissing a petition about animal rights because some pet owners have signed it.

As to this:

it's not either/or, you know.

It is up to you as an individual how seriously you take it, as it is up to the news organisations. The parliamentarians involved would have taken the matter seriously.

You like Trump, or you dislike Muslims, or the English, or what you see as an attempt to stifle his 'free speech'. Whatever combination of these that has riled you, it's been a delight to watch your rationalise and try and bring together that 1) this petition and discussion is an outrage and 2) that it is insignificant.

How dare those filthy citizens follow procedures and exercise their democratic rights? How dare parliament honour its agreement with the British public? What next, votes for black people? HARRUMPH!

Allergy Warning! This post may contain sarcasm.

This is the kind of thing you get with direct democracy / populism. Trump of all people should understand populism.

Governance is about determining whether is is good idea or not. Petitioners aren't always right.