Petition calling for Donald Trump's state visit to be banned smashes 100,000 signatures

[????]

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Yes, he said he didn't want dialogue with Trump

> and so you called him a fascist. You, one

> assumes, do want dialogue with Trump. I fail to

> see how that's not you "shrieking Nazis at

> anything which isn't our viewpoint."

He said a bit more than that

If so, no I do not want any

> dialogue with Trump, his supporters or those who

> cravenly submit to his will.

He said a bit more than that

[rendelharris]

???? Wrote:

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

> He said a bit more than that

>

> If so, no I do not want any

> > dialogue with Trump, his supporters or those

> who

> > cravenly submit to his will.

>

> He said a bit more than that

So that sentence is enough to justify you accusing him of being a fascist?

[????]

Oh read the other post please - your quite tedious, you know what I was trying to say, but you follow me around like a rash on here, with selective quoting, and picking bits that suit you from my many posts....it's a style that reminds me of some old time posters on here. I know exactly what you're trying to do here with your fake "Quids" bonhomie......

[rendelharris]

It's true, my entire life is devoted to consuming and replying to your posts. You comment quite a lot on my posts as well, and I enjoy the debate - if one is going to participate in debate on this forum, it's natural that one should generally choose to respond to those with whom one disagrees. If you don't want to respond to what I say, go ahead and ignore it.

Over the last few days you've been worryingly aggressive about things, moving from political debate to personal insult - your post above and calling someone a fascist, which is a pretty unpleasant and serious insult, for no good reason, being cases in point. Although I generally don't agree with your views I usually find your posts interesting, that's why I respond to them - if you want to believe I have some mission to "follow you round like a rash" you're welcome to do so - but I hope you'll soon return to actually debating issues rather than just firing off insults to those who happen to disagree with you.

[jaywalker]

OK, back from rather a long day to find I've been condemned as a fascist. Great.

Google suggests these sorts of things to spot one: authoritarian, totalitarian, autocrat, Nazi, extreme/far right-winger, rightist, blackshirt, militarist.

Not sure which of my posts qualify me here, but we all have our blind spots.

And it is, probably, for me, too raw an expression to use as a trope (given what those who literally qualify actually did). It is also, in political rhetoric, perhaps something of a weakened clich? - because it tends to get banded around like a debased currency.

[Seabag]

???? Wrote:

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

> Oh read the other post please - your quite

> tedious, you know what I was trying to say, but

> you follow me around like a rash on here, with

> selective quoting, and picking bits that suit you

> from my many posts....it's a style that reminds me

> of some old time posters on here. I know exactly

> what you're trying to do here with your fake

> "Quids" bonhomie......

Ah, so funny. I've not seen ????'s in such good form sinse the 'Stella Days'

TBH, you've been asking for that RH

And be honest, you like it (a bit)

[teddyboy23]

I'm not that much into to politics. just wanted to mention Obama backing the demonstrations about the Donald banning Muslims from entering USA. Yet in 2011 Obama banned refugees from Iraq comming to the USA for 6 months.was the outcry back then if there was; the same or is this worst ?

[Borky]

tropespeak is risen

[Alan Medic]

As the other petition stating Trump should make a state visit is on the verge of smashing 100,000 signatures, what happens now? Call it a draw and ignore both would be my choice.

[JohnL]

Alan Medic Wrote:

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

> As the other petition stating Trump should make a

> state visit is on the verge of smashing 100,000

> signatures, what happens now? Call it a draw and

> ignore both would be my choice.

Ignore both but May really needs good advise here or

it could blow up in her face.

Impeachment is not out of the question - probably due

to his business interests.

[Jules-and-Boo]

I just found this on the internet

After a weekend of chaos at airports, mass protests and diplomatic outcries, criticism of Trump's proposal even came from Barack Obama, who broke his silence for the first time since leaving office.

"President Obama is heartened by the level of engagement taking place in communities around the country," Obama spokesman Kevin Lewis said.

Isn't it Ex-President Obama? Are they trying to play some power games here?

Is America having selective memory?

Why isn't Obama coming out and saying - yes, I identified these as threats. I also stopped immigration.

Is that a bit like America forgetting they voted Trump in, knowing he would do this?

[Louisa]

What angers me about petitions are their selective nature. Courting dictatorships who murdered and inprisoned freedom fighters, silenced voices of democracy- apparently that's OK. No one says a word. The minute an American president is involved, the selective memories go into overdrive with how outraged they happen to be.

I agree with post above, Obama started this process back in the 2011 and no one protested or marched in the streets then did they? So what is it- are you just selectively outraged when the opposition suits your political motive? That's how it's coming across. A strong hint of sour grapes.

Louisa.

[JohnL]

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> I just found this on the internet

>

> After a weekend of chaos at airports, mass

> protests and diplomatic outcries, criticism of

> Trump's proposal even came from Barack Obama, who

> broke his silence for the first time since leaving

> office.

> "President Obama is heartened by the level of

> engagement taking place in communities around the

> country," Obama spokesman Kevin Lewis said.

>

>

> Isn't it Ex-President Obama? Are they trying to

> play some power games here?

>

> Is America having selective memory?

> Why isn't Obama coming out and saying - yes, I

> identified these as threats. I also stopped

> immigration.

> Is that a bit like America forgetting they voted

> Trump in, knowing he would do this?

Presidents in the USA remain Presidents for life.

[red devil]

What was Obama's 'process' Lou?...

[Jules-and-Boo]

yes, of course - thanks for correcting me, John L.

[JohnL]

Chicago Tribune has this

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-trump-refugee-policy-fact-check-2011-20170129-story.html

and

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

No doubt Trump would say lying fake news :) and you would find papers with the opposing view

[rendelharris]

The claim that Trump is somehow continuing a process Obama put in place needs some clarification. In 2011 the Obama administration suspended processing refugee applications from Iraq only for six months. Iraqis who were eligible for visitor visas, green cards and whose refugee status had already been vetted were not excluded, as they have been by Trump (though he has subsequently backed down on green card holders). The Obama administration decision was taken after a dozen (at least) meetings with Homeland Security and the Departments of State and Justice in response to a specific identified threat; Trump's decision was prepared by his team in the White House and presented to those agencies as a fait accompli.

The seven countries to which Trump has applied the visa ban were not banned by Obama; in 2015 he amended the visa waiver program (the one which allows reciprocal arrangements, so US citizens don't need a visa to come to Britain and vice-versa) to end the reciprocal arrangements with these countries. So anyone from the seven affected countries could still travel to the USA, but they had to apply for a visa first. That's somewhat different to Trump's blanket ban.

You can still approve of Trump's actions, but claiming (as the current administration is) they're somehow following on from the previous administration's initiatives is disingenuous in the extreme.

Source: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

[Louisa]

red devil Wrote:

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

> What was Obama's 'process' Lou?...

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/sorry-mr-president-the-obama-administration-did-nothing-similar-to-your-immigration-ban/

"1. Much narrower focus: The Obama administration conducted a review in 2011 of the vetting procedures applied to citizens of a single country (Iraq) and then only to refugees and applicants for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), created by Congress to help Iraqis (and later Afghans) who supported the United States in those conflicts. The Trump executive order, on the other hand, applies to seven countries with total population more than 130 million, and to virtually every category of immigrant other than diplomats, including tourists and business travelers."

Taken directly from the article above. Wasn't past of the then presidents mandate or program on which he was re-elected, as far as I can see. Whereas Trump stated very early on this was one of the things he intended to do upon winning the election. He won the electoral college and is now implementing what he said he would. Rightly or wrongly, those are the facts. Now why didn't anyone say anything else on here back in 2011 about the US Administrations policy on certain Iraqi citizens? genuinely interested to find out.

Louisa.

[rendelharris]

Louisa Wrote:

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

> "1. Much narrower focus: The Obama administration

> conducted a review in 2011 of the vetting

> procedures applied to citizens of a single country

> (Iraq) and then only to refugees and applicants

> for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs), created by

> Congress to help Iraqis (and later Afghans) who

> supported the United States in those conflicts.

> The Trump executive order, on the other hand,

> applies to seven countries with total population

> more than 130 million, and to virtually every

> category of immigrant other than diplomats,

> including tourists and business travelers."

>

> Taken directly from the article above. Wasn't past

> of the then presidents mandate or program on which

> he was re-elected, as far as I can see. Whereas

> Trump stated very early on this was one of the

> things he intended to do upon winning the

> election. He won the electoral college and is now

> implementing what he said he would. Rightly or

> wrongly, those are the facts. Now why didn't

> anyone say anything else on here back in 2011

> about the US Administrations policy on certain

> Iraqi citizens? genuinely interested to find out.

>

>

>

> Louisa.

Personally because I wasn't here in 2011...but Obama's action was taken, as I noted above, in consultation with all relevant US Departments of State and in response to a specific identified threat, presumably that terrorists were attempting to use the SIV process to gain access to America. This is quantatively different from banning all citizens of seven countries from travelling, a decision taken without any consultation with the relevant Departments of State.

Yes, Trump did promise to do this and he was elected, I don't see why that means one can't be outraged by it or oppose it. If Putin runs for re-election in 2018 on a promise that he will invade the Baltic states and gets in, will we just sit back and say well, that's what he promised and he's been elected, so...?

[red devil]

Exactly rendel, context is everything. The EDF follows the news, it doesn't set the news agenda.

I don't get 'the Americans voted for this' bleating either. Are we all supposed to roll over and ask to have our tummy tickled? There is such a thing as an opposition, and in a democracy regardless of the political hue of the Gov, it's imperative that opposing voices are heard...

[Otta]

I think this whole petition is childish and pathetic.

As are most of the petitions I see shared on Facebook.

In January 2016 Parliament debated whether or not to let Trump in to the UK (following a petition of course). MPs had a great time slagging him off, never believing that he'd actually become president. Now they#re going to waste more time doing the same, with the same outcome.

I believe we should be pressuring Theresa May to condemn things Trump says, and stand up to him. But refusing to engage with him is not helpful for anyone. He is the democratically elected leader of a country that (thanks to our stupidity), we need to deal wioth and be "friends" with.

And no, I am no Trump fan. I think he's a feckin lunatic, but he's been elected, and pissing him off just for the sake of it isn't going to do much good.

[jaywalker]

so a state visit for a lunatic. very childish to oppose that, of course. did you read the comments by the previous permanent secretary at the foreign office today? is he also childish?

This is a monumental blunder by May: it will define her term in office.

[Otta]

And that's a bonus.

[Loz]

Trump is many bad things, but a lunatic?

[Lynne]

So, we don't approve of his banning people, so we ban him. Perhaps someone could explain the logic of this to me?