Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

What is

> the point of objecting? May has just done an arms

> deal with Turkey. Object about that too. It is at

> least as distasteful.


I think there are two reasons. 1. (as the leader writers in the FT, Times and Standard all made clear today) the refugee decree potentially damages the UK's national interests (as it, and like measures, will for example risk fostering terrorism). 2. We claim to have a special relationship in which our nuclear security is founded on absolute trust with them - it matters far more that we can trust them than countries like Turkey or China where deals are made for purely commercial benefit.


There is also the growing sense that the EU itself is being undermined in an unholy alliance between the USA and Russia. As May to her credit has made clear, that is certainly NOT in our interests.

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> SuperSize burgers and soda pop at the banquet

>

> Advertising emblazoned on the mounted soldiers of

> the Household Cavalry

>

> Ticker tape parade down The Mall

>

> I can't wait



Ok, you sold it, I'm there.


Do we get Corn Dogs ?


They look grim, taste grim, are grim. But people eat them.

Some genuine questions i'd like answered and some thoughts to ponder around Trumps EO on 'the ban' before the whole virtue signalling internet collapses please


1) If it's a "ban on muslims' how come many muslim countries aren't in it, including say Indonesia or Turkey both big population Muslim countries? I think it's actually ban on failed muslim states is it not? I think these were identified by the administration of that well known fascist american president Obama as the most current risk to US security. So it's not a ban of muslims contrary to headlines posts and the general stupidness of the Guardian et al.

2) I've read that it's a ban that ignores the muslim countries that have killed the most americans but these are ignored because of Trumps business interests - I think this is palpably horseshit (see above, the list is Obama's)

3) I've read that it's a ban - I *think* it's actually a suspension for 3 months whilst proper vetting is put in place on entries from those 6 countries (again as recommended by the Obama fascist dictatorship)- is this right?

4) Encouragingly in the spirit of tolerance and defending freedom of ethnicity/religon etc I've also seen 100s of posts on the forum and on Facebook, and of course multiple politicians , condemning those 16 countries who ban Israeli passport holders from entering (6 of them ban any passport holder with an Isreali immigration stamp in them!). Er, no I'm joking, I've seen feck all on this anywhere from the worthy defenders of freedom and decency.



Personally I think Trump is an idiotic choice as President and the execution of this demonstrates* - but he was democratically elected, is starting to do what he said he would on his campaign in the belief that it will solve the US problems (i very much doubt it will). But fook me I've seen a bunch of hysterical,emotive and incorrect shite all over Social Media and on the streets. A post fact world full of emotive tosh indeed.


* and that execution has had really unpleasant and even dangerous outcomes for many clearly

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Better to precisely wrong than vaguely right eh

> Keano


I've never signed any online petition and never will. But whoever has started this petition should have asked someone to proofread it before launching it.


The President has already been formally invited and the word is opposed not apposed.

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ???? Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Better to precisely wrong than vaguely right eh

> > Keano

>

> I've never signed any online petition and never

> will. But whoever has started this petition should

> have asked someone to proofread it before

> launching it.

>

> The President has already been formally invited

> and the word is opposed not apposed.




Don't get hung up on all this Keano


Opposed / Apposed , they're both right in the #AltFact world we now live in


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/shortcuts/2017/jan/23/alternative-facts-the-greatest-strongest-facts-that-ever-existed

Well, he IS doing what he said he would do if he was voted in. America did democratically vote him as their President.


It's not an anti-muslim ban. He didn't make up the list himself - he did inherit it from Obama's administration. It's not a permanent ban. It's about vetting immigrants.


Absolute uproar, all sorts of 'facts' misinterpreted at convenience.


It's quite remarkable that he is not swayed by popular opinion.

No doubt he will burn bridges and cause huge unsettlement, but we don't actually know what good he is capabale of, either.


I think we should not try and prevent the Queen honouring her invitation - we've had all sorts over here.

If anything, it's a good thing - an opportunity to work together rather than letting chaos resume unchecked.


The Queen is pretty awesome. I think even Blair was a bit scared of her.



And before you start saying I said something I didn't - I haven't actually said I like or dislike Trump. And refusing to insult him does not mean I am by default racist/ sexist etc.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well, he IS doing what he said he would do if he

> was voted in. America did democratically vote him

> as their President.

>

> It's not an anti-muslim ban. He didn't make up the

> list himself - he did inherit it from Obama's

> administration. It's not a permanent ban. It's

> about vetting immigrants.

>

> Absolute uproar, all sorts of 'facts'

> misinterpreted at convenience.

>

> It's quite remarkable that he is not swayed by

> popular opinion.

> No doubt he will burn bridges and cause huge

> unsettlement, but we don't actually know what good

> he is capabale of, either.

>

> I think we should not try and prevent the Queen

> honouring her invitation - we've had all sorts

> over here.

> If anything, it's a good thing - an opportunity to

> work together rather than letting chaos resume

> unchecked.

>

> The Queen is pretty awesome. I think even Blair

> was a bit scared of her.

>

>

> And before you start saying I said something I

> didn't - I haven't actually said I like or dislike

> Trump. And refusing to insult him does not mean I

> am by default racist/ sexist etc.


Best post on all these Trump threads BY FAR. Wish some of the rest of you could be this level headed.


Louisa.

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes, well said- especially pre-empting any more

> toys being thrown out of the ED pram. Trump is not

> a dyed-in-the-wool politician which is why he has

> the courage of his convictions- refreshing isn't

> it.


I can see the similarities Unc, both of you like to throw hand grenades without actually producing any evidence/facts to back them up. Seabag is still waiting for you to answer his questions by the way...

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> I think we should not try and prevent the Queen

> honouring her invitation - we've had all sorts

> over here.

> If anything, it's a good thing - an opportunity to

> work together rather than letting chaos resume

> unchecked.


Lord Ricketts makes an interesting point on this issue, saying that to invite a POTUS so soon is unprecedented (no pun intended). Instead of waiting to see how Trump performs, May is clearly playing on his narcissism by offering a sweetener of getting to meet dear old Queenie as part of trade deal 'negotiations'...


ETA: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38805196

I didn't realise a certain time need to pass before a new President was welcomed. Is that for a reason? Or is it just historically accidental.


i.e. are they making a big deal about Trump coming earlier than any other President (no pun intended) becauase it breaches protocol? or just because they have found a thread to pick?

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I didn't realise a certain time need to pass

> before a new President was welcomed. Is that for a

> reason? Or is it just historically accidental.

>

> i.e. are they making a big deal about Trump coming

> earlier than any other President (no pun intended)

> becauase it breaches protocol? or just because

> they have found a thread to pick?


According to The Guardian it was hastily proposed just a fortnight after Trump's election to fight the influence of Farage. Whether this is true.... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/31/how-nigel-farages-taunts-prompted-hasty-offer-of-trump-state-visit

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I sometimes don't feel as comfortable as I did but it's not because I'm older, it's because I'm sober. Staggering home when I was younger I always felt I like a had a cloak of invisibility around me. And a magic compass - not even sure how I found my way home some nights. 
    • I'm London born and bred and have always considered myself streetwise having grown up in Notting hill (pre getrification) and I lived on the border of Harlesden (kensal green) in the 90's  when it was pretty sketchy round there .and I spent much of the 80's and early 90's in downtown New York.. I would walk everywhere at all hours of the day and night and never felt particularly uneasy largely because I was always mindful of my surroundings and walked with 'purpose'. I don't know wether its because I'm now so much older but I don't feel as comfortable as I used to walking round London. Today I was in the West end and I made sure to carry my bag on the opposite arm to that facing the kerb and felt uneasy when I saw people wizzing around on limebikes or scooters close to the kerb..I never got my phone out at all...I never used to feel like this but just recently I've had friends witness phone and bag snatching in central london in broad daylight..apparently it happened so fast in both instances there was nothing anyone could do to help..One phone snatching was during the tube strike 7.30am two guys on bikes grabbed a mans phone..My friend took the victim to a nearby hotel to sit down and recover the hotel said due to the tube strike they had witnessed many duo's of youth out very early on bikes aware that there were more pedestrians around at that time with their phones out trying for Ubers or looking at directions. I would'nt say I feel 'unsafe' I just feel more aware of being a possible target for crime than formerly. I don't know if this is due to being older or due to reading the press.
    • The fact everyone has had a CCTV camera in their pockets for the last 15+ years has done a huge amount to prevent and mitigate random drunken violence.  Thugs can't get away with what they used to anymore.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...