Donald Trump

[Wrong-Direction]

The blokes a c*nt, can we just leave it there?

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Actually if Trump is banned then all the radical preachers that are allowed in will be stopped also.....and there goes a flying pig.

How many who signed the petition to ban trump would do the same to ban radical preachers, I wonder. Would it be the case they wouldn't sign one because they are too scared of offending Muslims, and worried about being labeled. Here lies the problem, and why so many problems have been brushed underneath the carpet in the past.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

The blokes a c*nt, can we just leave it there?

...seems not mate[emoji17]

 

[AlbionPics&SouthCoastTwit]

double post

 

[AlbionPics&SouthCoastTwit]

Signing the petition to block Trump from entry to the UK is like bidding in the card game bridge........

............2 no trump

 

[Arthritic Toe]

Fair enough. I presume you want Trump banned because you feel he is spreading fear and hate with his comments, would you also extend that to signing another petition if you knew that a radical preacher was trying to enter the UK to spread their own fear and hate? It's not a trick question, I'm just interested where people stand on this whole Trump issue that's all.

Thats not really the reason (although it is of course all true). I think banning him (and it'd never happen) would send a message to the American people that they really ought to think twice about voting for someone who's views are regarded as pretty repugnant by their closest allies. Even the existence of a well supported petition goes some way to sending that message, if it gets reported over there.

 

[Soulman]

Thats not really the reason (although it is of course all true). I think banning him (and it'd never happen) would send a message to the American people that they really ought to think twice about voting for someone who's views are regarded as pretty repugnant by their closest allies. Even the existence of a well supported petition goes some way to sending that message, if it gets reported over there.

I think we realise that but your answer avoided the question that you responded to.

 

[LlcoolJ]

All this bickering over the petition. People have missed the fact that it's just a thoroughly British joke.

Trump says "ban muslims from travelling to the US".

We say "ban Trump from travelling to the UK".

It's never going to happen but it does send the message that "we think Trump is the World's stupidest bottom burp" and for that reason I find it very funny, the correct sentiment and have signed it.

 

[Psychobilly freakout]

Thats not really the reason (although it is of course all true). I think banning him (and it'd never happen) would send a message to the American people that they really ought to think twice about voting for someone who's views are regarded as pretty repugnant by their closest allies.

Do you honestly think most Americans give a flying fig leaf what we think, most Americans do not even consider us as their closest allies anymore.... Nearly every country in Europe and beyond think they have close alliance with America, only recently the Americans were obviously showing support for France and one of the main reasons why they have a "special" relationship with America is that they fought us together for their freedom....

They don't give a shit what we think, say or do, least of all Trump supporters.

Be that right or wrong, but money talks, if he wins he will come at some point.

 

[Arthritic Toe]

I think we realise that but your answer avoided the question that you responded to.

The question followed a false assumption and was therefore not relevant.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

I just love that point where a pumped-up egotistical billionaire faces the reality check that all his money and all his bullying shoutiness isn't worth a furk against the will of the common people.

 

[Soulman]

The question followed a false assumption and was therefore not relevant.

Ok, just confused me why you responded or didn't actually, to a post that was not relevant, with a post that was not relevant to the post you were responding to.

 

[spring hall convert]

so on that basis he should be advocating the expulsion of every other demographic associated with those that go on a shooting spree. a handful of extremist christians that shoot up their local school or cinema for example outweigh the benefits of all others of the similar faith, right?

No, just muslims 'cos they wear funny hats and I don't trust them.

 

[Arthritic Toe]

Ok, just confused me why you responded or didn't actually, to a post that was not relevant, with a post that was not relevant to the post you were responding to.

Flippin 'eck. My post was entirely relevant to the post I responded to. He (or she) said something like "Assuming you signed the petition because of X, would you do Y?" My reply was "No I didn't sign it because of X, I signed it because of Z".

If someone said to you "I assume you would you like a cup of tea with your breakfast, would you like sugar in it?"
If you didn't want tea, would you say "No tea thanks" or just not respond because their assumption was incorrect.

 

[spring hall convert]

The racism and sexism, I can just about understand. It's all part of his immense insecurity.

But bullying 90 year old women. I'm oot

http://uk.businessinsider.com/donal...an-over-scottish-golf-course-2015-6?r=US&IR=T

 

[symyjym]

I just love that point where a pumped-up egotistical billionaire faces the reality check that all his money and all his bullying shoutiness isn't worth a furk against the will of the common people.

It's just another bad hair day.

 

[La` Cucaracha¤]

Yup, this is you 99% funking idiots who posts on here. I'd hate to see you all sitting around the table having an debate as there wouldn't be one as you'd be shit scared of offending one another. I've never read so much simpleton crap in this thread from liberal idiots.

[yt]-t83VFKH6Lk[/yt]

 

[AlbionPics&SouthCoastTwit]

Apropos of nothing, there's plenty of countries who outright refuse Israelis entry

I'm all for fairness, so if we go after Trump for his comments I'd like the same applied to the leaders of the above countries too. And I wonder what all those countries have in common.

Do they keep both Jewish Isreali citizens and Arab Isreali citizens from entering their countries?

 

[AlbionPics&SouthCoastTwit]

Thats not really the reason (although it is of course all true). I think banning him (and it'd never happen) would send a message to the American people that they really ought to think twice about voting for someone who's views are regarded as pretty repugnant by their closest allies. Even the existence of a well supported petition goes some way to sending that message, if it gets reported over there.

I have told a lot of people in Chicago with conservative leanings about the fact that the petition with the highest amount of signatories to go before parliament is the "Block Donald J Trump from UK entry" petition. As in most cases with these conservatives their support of Trump will not be swayed by people who they consider liberal (including the conservatives in parliament). The ones who it would have effected a great deal are the Democrats and half of the Republicans who are already very much against Trump that they will never vote for him. The US is a greatly divided country at this time and Trump has continued the polarization of America.

 

[Soulman]

How many who signed the petition to ban trump would do the same to ban radical preachers, I wonder. Would it be the case they wouldn't sign one because they are too scared of offending Muslims, and worried about being labeled. Here lies the problem, and why so many problems have been brushed underneath the carpet in the past.

Well if you look at Bedfordshire Police homepage you can see why it might be hard to keep track of radicals. The PDF file from their site shows the different approach used to investigating Muslim and non Muslim suspects.... More appeasement could not be more forthcoming.

"Our Ref:
2011/00
5
99
9 June 2011
Dear
Member of the Public,
REQUEST UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT Reference No F
-
2011
-
00
599
I write in connection with your request fo
r information received
on
8
June 2011
.
I note you seek
access to
the following information
:
Confirmation that there are different procedures for dealing with people of different
faiths/religions that are the same or similar to the text below and what c
aveats exist for other faith
and/or religious groups
?
“UK’s Bedfordshire Police’s rules regarding terrorists and dangerous criminals
If they’re non
-
Muslim
• Consider the most opportune time of day to be able to arrest suspects with minimum
resistanc
e
• Apply all necessary force to enter the premises and arrest suspects accordingly.
If they’re Muslim:
• Community leaders must be consulted before raids into Muslim houses.
• Officers must not search occupied bedrooms and bathrooms before dawn.
•
Use of police dogs will be considered serious desecration of the premises.
• Cameras and camcorders should not be used in case of capturing women in inappropriate
dress.
• If people are praying at home officers should stand aside and not disrupt the prayer
.
They should be allowed the opportunity to finish.
• Officers should take their shoes off before raiding a Muslim house.
• The reasons for pre
-
dawn raids on Muslim houses needs to be clear and transparent.
• Officers must not touch holy books or religious
artefacts without permission.
• Muslim prisoners should be allowed to take additional clothing to the station.

http://www.bedfordshire.police.uk/pdf/Response Letter 2011-00599.pdf