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

[sparkie]

He is a crook though, just look at Trump University, which scammed people out of thousands, and he ended up having to settle for $25 million.

He calls it 'smart'.

 

[CHAPPERS]

Trump may be many things but he is a patriot and is not crooked.

That's an incredible statement.

 

[Bladders]

I think that Obama's body count is not that bad when compared to George Dubya's.?

Possibly on paper, but if you add the kills from the CIA agitators that were paid for, trained and thrown into these Muslim countries during Obamas term then I'm sure they're pretty neck and neck


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bladders]

I dont think this is correct
He didnt choose the countries at all, they were already identified previously under the Obama administration..
The executive order doesnt name them it just references them with regard to previous Obama legislation on immigration.

Odd the MSM with their "balanced" news haven't really touched on this fact.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The Clamp]

You can't give yourself a made up extreme question and then answer it as if it is likely to happen and then get scared ...... FFS.

With all due respect, I can do what the **** I like.
Nothing will seem extreme with Trump before long. Besides I don't think internment camps are a huge leap in the imagination. They already have Guantanamo, camps for asylum seekers. I could quite easily see Trump extending internment for Muslims already residing in the US under the banner of protecting the nation. A kind of "leave or go into a camp" deal. Extreme measures occur in increments and unless scrutinised at every level, fascists like Trump will have free reign to exercise any whim he chooses. It happens all over the world. Don't think for a second it cannot happen in a Western society.

 

[The Clamp]

double

 

[nicko31]

Absolutely this. You really have outlined the very likely scenario to occur.May is gonna bend over for Trump and we are gonna really suffer. As you say, to prove Brexit is not a failure.

Indeed it is all political and not practical

There is no need to rush into a trade deal with the US, Australia rushed into one and came off very badly. Its damage control right now preserving what we have, the pragmatic approach is to pay into EU coffers and get some trade concessions.

There's a lot of hysteria about Trump across the world, anything less what be utter complacency.

 

[MattBackHome]

Odd the MSM with their "balanced" news haven't really touched on this fact.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The fact that the countries were already identified under Obama was fully explained at length in places like the BBC, Telegraph & Guardian, i.e. Classic MSM. You may have missed it but it was (and is) there.

More than this, the BBC also aired the incorrect view that this order was reasonably comparable to Obamas 2011 'Iraq' order, courtesy of an interview with Farage, and didn't question his guff at all.

 

[rippleman]

This just feels odd.

HM entertained Robert Mugabe on a State visit.

We fling our doors open and welcome with open arms the leaders of China and particularly Saudi Arabia; those well known bastions of human rights with barely a murmur and yet there are those who want to ban Trump?

Could someone explain to me why they feel so strongly about Trump's visit, but are not minded to protest about the Saudis who chop appendages off in public, have no fair and open justice system, have a truly appalling record on women's rights and freedoms, and sponsor international terrorism?

 

[studio150]

I never knew this, but Trump is doing nothing new in America.

In his 1905 State of the Union address, President Theodore Roosevelt had spoken of the need “to keep out all immigrants who will not make good American citizens.”

Unlike modern presidents, Roosevelt did not view Islam as a force for good. Instead he had described Muslims as “enemies of civilization”, writing that, “The civilization of Europe, America and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization", praising Charles Martel and John Sobieski for throwing back the "Moslem conquerors" whose depredations had caused Christianity to have "practically vanished from the two continents."


A hundred years ago, Muslims were furious over an immigration bill whose origins lay with advocacy by a headstrong and loudmouthed Republican in the White House.

The anti-immigration bill offended the Ottoman Empire, the rotting Caliphate of Islam soon to be defeated at the hands of America and the West, by banning the entry of “all polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”

This, as was pointed out at the time, would prohibit the entry of the “entire Mohammedan world” into the United States.

And indeed it would.

The battle had begun earlier when President Theodore Roosevelt had declared in his State of the Union address back in 1906 that Congress needed to have the power to “deal radically and efficiently with polygamy.” The Immigration Act of 1907, signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, had banned “polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”

It was the last part that was most significant because it made clear what had only been implied.

The Immigration Act of 1891 had merely banned polygamists. The newest law banned anyone who believed in the practice of polygamy. That group included every faithful believing Muslim.

The Ottoman Empire’s representatives argued that their immigrants believed in the practice of polygamy, but wouldn’t actually take more than one wife. This argument echoes the current contention that Muslim immigrants may believe in a Jihad against non-Muslims without actually engaging in terrorism. That type of argument proved far less convincing to Americans than it does today.

Muslim immigration was still slight at the time and bans on polygamy had not been created to deliberately target them, but the Muslim practice of an act repulsive to most Americans even back then pitted their cries of discrimination and victimhood against the values of the nation. The Immigration Act of 1907 had been meant to select only those immigrants who would make good Americans.

I think things have moved on in the last 112 years, so that while interesting on a historical perspective what Roosevelt did way back then is irrelevant to what Trump is doing. If this is not the case I wonder how long before some start quoting the sermon by the Pope in 1095 which started the 1st Crusade as evidence that attacks on Muslims are justified today.

 

[SeagullRic]

So he's enjoying all the benefits of being a British citizen but still wants an Iranian passport.Why? I wouldn't think that would improve anything at all except his ability to get in and out of Iran. And you can bet that the mullahs there have a nice file on him.There's something wrong with this concept that's particularly unappealing.

Iraq not Iran...

You're right, having a dual Iraqi passport makes him feel a lot safer travelling about the country- not sure why that is unappealing, he's had dual citizenship since birth!

I trust you'd be just as outraged if somebody has dual UK-Australian citizenship and is able to enjoy the benefits that brings?

 

[The Clamp]

This just feels odd.

HM entertained Robert Mugabe on a State visit.

We fling our doors open and welcome with open arms the leaders of China and particularly Saudi Arabia; those well known bastions of human rights with barely a murmur and yet there are those who want to ban Trump?

Could someone explain to me why they feel so strongly about Trump's visit, but are not minded to protest about the Saudis who chop appendages off in public, have no fair and open justice system, have a truly appalling record on women's rights and freedoms, and sponsor international terrorism?

Because it's happening in the West, somewhere we have more connections with and more in common with, I'd guess.

 

[Two Professors]

This just feels odd.

HM entertained Robert Mugabe on a State visit.

We fling our doors open and welcome with open arms the leaders of China and particularly Saudi Arabia; those well known bastions of human rights with barely a murmur and yet there are those who want to ban Trump?

Could someone explain to me why they feel so strongly about Trump's visit, but are not minded to protest about the Saudis who chop appendages off in public, have no fair and open justice system, have a truly appalling record on women's rights and freedoms, and sponsor international terrorism?

Cos it's their culture,init?

 

[Two Professors]

Been away for a couple of days,but all the loonies are still frothing at the mouth,I see!What is wrong with protecting the USA (not the UK) from people who might want to do them harm?Get a life,you utter saddos.

Iran.Sponsors of international terrorism through al Quds,and main sponsors of Hezbollah.
Iraq.Heavy presence of ISIL,al Quds,Hezbollah.
Libya.Chaotic civil war,with an alphabet soup of terrorist organisations.
Somalia.Chaotic civil war,al Quaeda,al Shabab.
Sudan.al Quaeda
Syria.alphabet soup + of islamic terror organisations.
Yemen.chaotic civil war.al Quaeda,Hezbollah,al Quds.
Wonder what the Foreign Office advice is for travel to these countries?

 

[nicko31]

This just feels odd.

HM entertained Robert Mugabe on a State visit.

We fling our doors open and welcome with open arms the leaders of China and particularly Saudi Arabia; those well known bastions of human rights with barely a murmur and yet there are those who want to ban Trump?

Could someone explain to me why they feel so strongly about Trump's visit, but are not minded to protest about the Saudis who chop appendages off in public, have no fair and open justice system, have a truly appalling record on women's rights and freedoms, and sponsor international terrorism?

Think its says a lot of how we feel about America. Its a close relationship and whilst they don't get everything right, most feel they are usually for the common good.

From China, Russia etc, we just accept that's the way things and sometimes you have to deal with people you don't like, and bad stuff happens there

 

[beorhthelm]

The fact that the countries were already identified under Obama was fully explained at length in places like the BBC, Telegraph & Guardian, i.e. Classic MSM. You may have missed it but it was (and is) there..

i dont think its covered "at length". its the sort of detail that gets mentioned in pieces by columnists who have dug a bit deeper, but omitted from the "front page" version of the story that tends to simplify the issue, for brevity and editorial. once a point goes against the general narrative of the story, the media will not mention it further, lest they appear to have switched "sides" or something, i dont really know why they do this. and so subtly alternative version of history is retained in the public conscious.

 

[MattBackHome]

i dont think its covered "at length". its the sort of detail that gets mentioned in pieces by columnists who have dug a bit deeper, but omitted from the "front page" version of the story that tends to simplify the issue, for brevity and editorial. once a point goes against the general narrative of the story, the media will not mention it further, lest they appear to have switched "sides" or something, i dont really know why they do this. and so subtly alternative version of history is retained in the public conscious.

Yeah that's definitely a fair point - though my post was more to contradict the absurd view that this part of the story was deliberately withheld by the nefarious suits running the MSM. I would venture that there are a number ill-informed protesters who think Trump picked the countries himself, though personally I wouldn't blame the MSM for that; the reporting output is there for posterity and they are on record as it were.

I'd argue that the choice of countries here isn't the egregious part of the order; it's more the sheer incompetence with which it has been 'ordered' without any prior consultation with the relevant departments, and the fact that this isn't predicated on a direct threat but a far more woolly idea of 'safety'.

 

[Brighton Mod]

Been away for a couple of days,but all the loonies are still frothing at the mouth,I see!What is wrong with protecting the USA (not the UK) from people who might want to do them harm?Get a life,you utter saddos.

Iran.Sponsors of international terrorism through al Quds,and main sponsors of Hezbollah.
Iraq.Heavy presence of ISIL,al Quds,Hezbollah.
Libya.Chaotic civil war,with an alphabet soup of terrorist organisations.
Somalia.Chaotic civil war,al Quaeda,al Shabab.
Sudan.al Quaeda
Syria.alphabet soup + of islamic terror organisations.
Yemen.chaotic civil war.al Quaeda,Hezbollah,al Quds.
Wonder what the Foreign Office advice is for travel to these countries?

Thats pretty succinct, how many protesters have even visited these countries or have knowledge of the current security situtaion.

 

[sydney]

Because it's happening in the West, somewhere we have more connections with and more in common with, I'd guess.

Mugabe has turned zimbabwe from a prosperous country into an out and out basket case , he has syphoned off foreign aid into hisown private accounts and is now an immensely rich individual while his country lies poverty stricken.....the western media could easily have made a pariah out of him but didn't......his north korean trained 5th brigade killed thousands of matebele tribesmen in the bulawayo area after independence.........it was barely mentioned......you can blame the media for beating the idiots up into hysterics about things that have very little bearing and make very little difference to the average person in the street......who owns the media .. why do so many english feel compelled to come out against trump .....

 

[The_Viper]

Been away for a couple of days,but all the loonies are still frothing at the mouth,I see!What is wrong with protecting the USA (not the UK) from people who might want to do them harm?Get a life,you utter saddos.

Iran.Sponsors of international terrorism through al Quds,and main sponsors of Hezbollah.
Iraq.Heavy presence of ISIL,al Quds,Hezbollah.
Libya.Chaotic civil war,with an alphabet soup of terrorist organisations.
Somalia.Chaotic civil war,al Quaeda,al Shabab.
Sudan.al Quaeda
Syria.alphabet soup + of islamic terror organisations.
Yemen.chaotic civil war.al Quaeda,Hezbollah,al Quds.
Wonder what the Foreign Office advice is for travel to these countries?

The advice? Probably not to go if you're a woman or gay. But you know, it's the US or the UK that's the problem.