Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Prevent Donald Trump from making a state visit to the United Kingdom - petition



W.C.

New member
Oct 31, 2011
4,927
I'm not a Christian so really couldn't give a toss about this, so try not to get any of your knickers in a twist, I'm just posting it as it made me laugh.

[tweet]827288628724314112[/tweet]
 




Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
62,697
The Fatherland
Just thought you might answer a few of my points, why would your prioritise an elected democratic president to actually protest against, when you forgot to do it when Obama was in power and when other countries have adopted a far more punitve migration policy without so much as a peep from any of you.

You can speak out against anything you want, but my god if you want to feel principled and righteous then perhaps show some level of consistency in your personal outraged-ometer.

I appreciate this wasn't a reply to me but I'll answer. Personally I am aware of other nations with similar policies and have criticised and acted accordingly. Being a member of an international political party exposes you to stuff. I have never discussed them on here because there has never been any threads pertaining to them. Equally I have never felt compelled to start one because there has never been much interest. One thing polarising politics does is energise people and kick start interest in people where there hasn't been any previously. I think for many the US's new policies is the first time punitive migration issues have entered their world. Their first reaction will be direct i.e. against the US. But we will see a ripple of protest and interest widening out to other nations I'm sure. That said, it's human nature to fight what directly affects you so the majority will most likely just criticise the US. An American friend of mine is now directly and negatively affected by these new laws, and the way Trump is posturing with another nation, so my concentration is definitely with opposing Trump at the moment.

That said, I'm consistent in my ideology but I don't feel any need to apportion my energy equally amongst causes. I also don't feel anyone else needs to. No one has time for this; we're not professional 24/7 protesters. Also, I make my rules.
 
Last edited:


studio150

Well-known member
Jul 30, 2011
30,229
On the Border
BBC4 last night started a rerun of The Nazis a warning from history. This is an excellent a2ard winning 6 part documentary.

What struck me was something that popped up during Hitler's speeches during election rallies before he was invited to become Chancellor, which was ' Germany first'.

The parallels are frightening and need to be challenged.

Worrying times
 


CHAPPERS

DISCO SPENG
Jul 5, 2003
45,092
Straight up, unadulterated, liars in the White House.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...efugees-bowling-green-massacre-never-happened

Kellyanne Conway, a senior adviser to Donald Trump, has come in for criticism and ridicule after blaming two Iraqi refugees for a massacre that never happened.

Conway, the US president’s former campaign manager who has frequently faced the press to defend his controversial moves, cited the fictional “Bowling Green massacre” in an interview in which she backed the travel ban imposed on visitors from seven Muslim-majority countries.

Interviewed by Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball programme on Thursday evening, Conway compared the executive order issued by Trump in his first week in the White House to what she described as a six-month ban imposed by his predecessor Barack Obama.

This claim has been debunked by commentators who have pointed out that the 2011 action was a pause on the processing of refugees from Iraq after two Iraqi nationals were arrested over a failed attempt to send money and weapons to al-Qaida in Iraq.

Conway told Matthews: “I bet it’s brand new information to people that President Obama had a six-month ban on the Iraqi refugee program after two Iraqis came here to this country, were radicalised and they were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre.

“Most people don’t know that because it didn’t get covered.”

It didn’t get covered, many are now pointing out, because there was no such massacre.

The two Iraqi men arrested in 2011 did live in Bowling Green, Kentucky, and are currently serving life sentences for federal terrorism offences. But there was no massacre, nor were they accused of planning one. The US department of justice, announcing their convictions in 2012, said: “Neither was charged with plotting attacks within the United States.”

Analysis by the Cato Institute of terrorist attacks on US soil between 1975 and 2015 found that foreign nationals from the seven countries targeted by Trump’s travel ban – Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia – have killed no Americans.

Following the Conway interview, some social media users pointed out that false rumours about a Halloween massacre had circulated in several universities, including Ohio’s Bowling Green state university, in 1998.

But the likelihood that Conway had Kentucky in mind was bolstered when that state’s senator Rand Paul also made a variation of her false claim. In a separate interview with MSNBC, Paul referred to “the attempted bombing in Bowling Green, where I live”.

Conway had already prompted astonishment by describing comments by White House spokesman Sean Spicer that Trump’s inauguration crowd “was the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration, period” as “alternative facts”.

“You’re saying it’s a falsehood, and they’re giving – Sean Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts to that,” Conway told NBC last week.

Matthews did not press Conway on her Bowling Green massacre claim in the interview, and she has not yet responded to reports that she misrepresented the events of 2011.

I wonder if one of our resicent Trump apologists can explain that and tell me why it's not extremely concerning.
 


ROSM

Well-known member
Dec 26, 2005
6,771
Just far enough away from LDC




hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
62,759
Chandlers Ford
Try looking up deaths due to al-Quaeda attacks.Even by UN estimates it's over 6,000 men women and children.Where is your sympathy for them?Perhaps you just want to let them slaughter who they like?You and your ilk only ever see one side as being right.If you don't want any action taken that will perhaps cause casualties,then are you happy to see these madmen blow up British nurseries and schools?If operations like the one in Yemen don't take place,that is what will happen-will you be happy then?No-you will be hand-wringing about how useless the security services are.It's a war.War has casualties.How many children have been killed in Syria?Obama moved half his Air Force to the Middle East and then did nothing.Get a sense of proportion,you apologist.

Pompous arse.

I'm not an 'apologist' for anyone, thanks. Why should I be? All this 'you and yours' crap? You have literally no clue what my values are - what I stand for.

One thing I'm fairly strong on is not making fun of the brutal death of innocent children - regardless of the crimes of their relations.

If we accept that such 'collateral damage' is inventible, that's one thing. Making light of it is quite another, and shows you for exactly who you are.
 


ROSM

Well-known member
Dec 26, 2005
6,771
Just far enough away from LDC
Just to point out that a number of people on here posted in defence of Trumps young son who was being ridiculed. I think any child shouldn't have to pay for the actions of their parents whether that's ridicule or death
 


Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
62,697
The Fatherland
Did you miss him hanging up on the Australian pm?

No, I did read about the and the "dumb" policy. Its embarrassing.
 






studio150

Well-known member
Jul 30, 2011
30,229
On the Border
When you think it can't getvany worse Trump reverses another Obama legacy by allowing the mentally ill to own guns.

Surely more gun control is required not less.
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
36,015
When you think it can't getvany worse Trump reverses another Obama legacy by allowing the mentally ill to own guns.

yes, thats a special kind of stupid. its going to be interesting how nutter element in US deal with the next shooting atrocity, for the past decade they've claimed them to be staged events to bring about gun control.
 




vegster

Sanity Clause
May 5, 2008
28,273
When you think it can't getvany worse Trump reverses another Obama legacy by allowing the mentally ill to own guns.

Surely more gun control is required not less.

Sadly, in Trumps world not. Bear in mind he now has to please all the various sub groups who supported him in his election. we have already seen the shift in abortion law in order to please the Pro life Christian lobby, the wall is going ahead ( allegedly ) for those anti immigration/jobs for the US types. This will appease the republican gun lobby who felt their rights were being threatened. If he does not live up to his many promises he may well find himself on the wrong end of a gun.
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
36,015
on the other hand, at this rate he'll have fulfilled about every election pledge by end of February, without having done much tangible. what will he do for the rest of his 4 years :fishing: :guns: :rock: :timmy: :flounce:
 


Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
62,697
The Fatherland
When you think it can't getvany worse Trump reverses another Obama legacy by allowing the mentally ill to own guns.

Surely more gun control is required not less.

To be fair this could solve one particular problem I currently have with the US :wink:
 






BigGully

Well-known member
Sep 8, 2006
7,139
I appreciate this wasn't a reply to me but I'll answer. Personally I am aware of other nations with similar policies and have criticised and acted accordingly. Being a member of an international political party exposes you to stuff. I have never discussed them on here because there has never been any threads pertaining to them. Equally I have never felt compelled to start one because there has never been much interest. One thing polarising politics does is energise people and kick start interest in people where there hasn't been any previously. I think for many the US's new policies is the first time punitive migration issues have entered their world. Their first reaction will be direct i.e. against the US. But we will see a ripple of protest and interest widening out to other nations I'm sure. That said, it's human nature to fight what directly affects you so the majority will most likely just criticise the US. An American friend of mine is now directly and negatively affected by these new laws, and the way Trump is posturing with another nation, so my concentration is definitely with opposing Trump at the moment.

That said, I'm consistent in my ideology but I don't feel any need to apportion my energy equally amongst causes. I also don't feel anyone else needs to. No one has time for this; we're not professional 24/7 protesters. Also, I make my rules.

You have offered your view as to why you choose not to apportion your political energy equally, I think most of us are similar, however when you and others show particular vitriol against Trump based on a policy that Obama firstly recommended already then implementing something more punitive without a similar reaction then you wonder if firstly you even knew or if you did why not a consistent reaction, it absoluelty undermines the credibility of attacking Trump.

For me personally I wasnt aware of Obamas intervention, but I am wholly consistent, if I did know I would have supported Obamas position just as I do Trumps.
 


CHAPPERS

DISCO SPENG
Jul 5, 2003
45,092
He's just tweeted about the knife attack in Paris.

He said nothing about the Quebec attack at any time at all.
 






hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
62,759
Chandlers Ford


carlzeiss

Well-known member
May 19, 2009
6,236
Amazonia
On Sunday night, when he believed the attacker was a Moroccan, and was happy to use the incident as justification for his travel ban.

Since the Moroccan guy was identified as a witness, and the attacker as a white Canadian right-wing nutjob, Trump has declined to comment further (unless I've missed it?)


Why would he need to alter his condolences after the identity of the perpetrator had been clarified ?
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here