Why are we banning someone from entering the country? Because he's said something we don't like?

Listen, trump is a facist pig and you'll get no argument from me. But have we slipped so far now that we ban people because they're say dumb idiotic things? Surely the way to counter this is to argue and debate it, not just ban it.

Sorry I know this is most likely unpopular but I really don't understand when we 'ban' things like this. It sets a very dangerous precedent. Hell we all know that freedom of speech in the UK is increasingly restricted, especially when criticising certain 'taboo' topics like extremism which is prevalent in many Islamic communities in the UK (not even Muslims in those communities can criticise it / eg. Trojan horse scandal) And don't read this as a pass for trump. The guy is a fucking moron and has no place in a presidential election (or politics of any kind), but his views are the ones that liberal democracies were set up to rebut , no? Does banning achieve that in any way shape or form? Seems like he's got a lot of support in the US. Will banning make these people go away or strengthen their resolve?

I just want to know what banning him is going to achieve, aside shielding us from listening to things he's said before.

If the SNP and Labour (who started the movement to ban him entering) wanted to do the correct thing they'd invite him here and challenge him. How embarrassing would that look for him? Instead he gets to play the martyr because he's got a potential easy out.

or rather, let me ask it another way. Why is banning him from entering a good thing and why? What do we in the UK gain by not allowing him in. And I don't mean in a personal way (eg. I/we disagree with his views or his views are offensive). What is there political/societal gain? And importantly why? Honest question.

I'm all for banning Trump, purely because this nation can only handle one scruffily blonde right-wing pillock who occupies a position in a government and constantly puts his foot in his mouth - a role that is currently handled quite magnificently by Boris Johnson

(December 10, 2015 at 11:12 am)Kaiser Wrote: I'm all for banning Trump, purely because this nation can only handle one scruffily blonde right-wing pillock who occupies a position in a government and constantly puts his foot in his mouth - a role that is currently handled quite magnificently by Boris Johnson

Kaiser.. if trump is president he will play nuclear football and he will fumble

<chuckle>

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/donald-t...-gop-race/

Quote:Donald Trump surges to 35 percent in national poll on 2016 GOP race

Quote:Mr. Trump picked up 13 points of support in the poll since October. Sen. Ted Cruz is now in second place at 16 percent, while retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who led Mr. Trump in October, was in third at 13 percent.

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida was in fourth at 9 percent. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, meanwhile, was at 3 percent - his lowest percentage in CBS News polling.

Just the other day when asked if he would support Trump, Bush said "he's not going to be the nominee...I am."

Amusing.

If Trump gets the nomination it will be interesting to see what percentage of registered Republicans just stay home vs. the percentage who will vote for him strictly out of party loyalty or anti-Hilary animus.

Of course, I'm referring to those Republicans who aren't already on board with his message.

(December 10, 2015 at 3:11 am)Ashground Wrote: I've added my name to the petition.
Any British citizens (Or UK residents) who want to add their name to the petition can do so here
Also, you can use this link if you want to check up on the current total signatures.

Quote:Petition
Block Donald J Trump from UK entry

The signatories believe Donald J Trump should be banned from UK entry.
▼More details

The UK has banned entry to many individuals for hate speech. The same principles should apply to everyone who wishes to enter the UK.

If the United Kingdom is to continue applying the 'unacceptable behaviour' criteria to those who wish to enter its borders, it must be fairly applied to the rich as well as poor, and the weak as well as powerful.

The total number of names as of this post: 380,418 signatures and still rising.

This sets a dangerous president. Free speech should take priority over offence regardless of whether we agree with an individuals message.
I could see something like this being applied to someone reasonable but unpopular.
Alot can be interpreted as hate speech, especially in these times.

No, the US elections will set a dangerous president. This will merely set a precedent, whatever the adjective.

(December 7, 2015 at 4:42 pm)abaris Wrote: Napoleon totally didn't stand for Texan values.

Well, we can all have a change of heart...

(December 10, 2015 at 4:17 am)Pandæmonium Wrote: Why are we banning someone from entering the country? Because he's said something we don't like?

He's not going to get banned anyway mate, even if they had a million signatures.

"Donald Trump"

Donald Sillyface McBadperson more like, eh?