Donald Trump Wins UK Parliament Debate!!!!

[Vigilante]

breitbart.com ^ | January 18
Hundreds of years of parliamentary tradition, British expectancy over free speech, and indeed decades of the "special relationship" were tossed out of the window today as hard-line left-wing Members of Parliament, combined with virtue-signalling pseudo-conservatives gathered in a British Parliament committee room to debate banning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump. ... Hands down, Donald Trump won that debate. And he didn't even have to be there.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

England is begging for ISIS to take over their government. Had they banned Trump, I would support a boycott of their country.

 

[Pogo]

breitbart.com ^ | January 18
Hundreds of years of parliamentary tradition, British expectancy over free speech, and indeed decades of the "special relationship" were tossed out of the window today as hard-line left-wing Members of Parliament, combined with virtue-signalling pseudo-conservatives gathered in a British Parliament committee room to debate banning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump. ... Hands down, Donald Trump won that debate. And he didn't even have to be there.

He didn't "win" jack squat. Six hundred thousand Britons signing on to the petition meant that Parliament had to debate it. And that was the whole point. The People made it happen, so The People "won".

Amazing -- Rump isn't the only entity that can stir attention in the media; The People can do it too. Who knew.

 

[Vigilante]

breitbart.com ^ | January 18
Hundreds of years of parliamentary tradition, British expectancy over free speech, and indeed decades of the "special relationship" were tossed out of the window today as hard-line left-wing Members of Parliament, combined with virtue-signalling pseudo-conservatives gathered in a British Parliament committee room to debate banning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump. ... Hands down, Donald Trump won that debate. And he didn't even have to be there.

He didn't "win" jack squat. Six hundred thousand Britons signing on to the petition meant that Parliament had to debate it. And that was the whole point.

Amazing -- Rump isn't the only entity that can stir attention in the media; The People can do it too.

Who knew.

Damn it OCDGirl, that's only about 20+% of UK Muslim population in 2011 which was ~2,706,066!!!!!

Amazing how truly dumb this bitch is!

 

[TheOldSchool]

It would certainly be amusing if they decided to ban Trump from Britain. But it would also remind me how grateful I am to live in a country that's not so full of pussies. Or that the founder's created intending to defend it from pussies.

 

[Pogo]

It would certainly be amusing if they decided to ban Trump from Britain. But it would also remind me how grateful I am to live in a country that's not so full of pussies. Or that the founder's created intending to defend it from pussies.

I don't see any evidence that anyone seriously expected a literal ban -- it was a verb chosen to make a point. By what little means the proletariat have to make one. A popular vote of disapproval.

Such political statements are not to be taken literally. Except maybe by partisan hacks skulking around in trenchcoats.

 

[TheOldSchool]

It would certainly be amusing if they decided to ban Trump from Britain. But it would also remind me how grateful I am to live in a country that's not so full of pussies. Or that the founder's created intending to defend it from pussies.

I don't see any evidence that anyone seriously expected a literal ban -- it was a verb chosen to make a point. By what little means the proletariat have to make one. A popular vote of disapproval.

Such political statements are not to be taken literally. Except maybe by partisan hacks skulking around in trenchcoats.

Well they banned Michael Savage from the UK. He's an ass and a moron, but only a country that doesn't think much of freedom would ban him.

 

[Pogo]

It would certainly be amusing if they decided to ban Trump from Britain. But it would also remind me how grateful I am to live in a country that's not so full of pussies. Or that the founder's created intending to defend it from pussies.

I don't see any evidence that anyone seriously expected a literal ban -- it was a verb chosen to make a point. By what little means the proletariat have to make one. A popular vote of disapproval.

Such political statements are not to be taken literally. Except maybe by partisan hacks skulking around in trenchcoats.

Well they banned Michael Savage from the UK. He's an ass and a moron, but only a country that doesn't think much of freedom would ban him.

They did? What for?
And was it initiated by a public petition?

 

[Pogo]

>> Donald Trump has been roundly denounced by MPs from all parties in a debate in the British parliament. But most of those MPs who spoke were critical of the call in a petition signed by 575,000 people for Trump to be banned from the UK because of his proposal for Muslims to be prevented from entering the US and the debate, which took place in an annex outside the main Commons chamber, ended without a vote. One of the functions of a parliament is allow a nation to let off steam and effectively that is what happened this afternoon.
... The government is firmly opposed to a ban and, summing up, the Home Office minister James Brokenshire said that the US was Britain’s most important partner.

It is in the UK’s interests that we engage all presidential candidates, Democratic and Republican, even though we may disagree profoundly on important issues. Where there are clear differences of opinion, the most effective way to influence our America partners is through a frank and open exchange of views, in taking on those arguments. And today’s robust debate has, I think, provided a platform to do just that."
​

--- Andrew Sparrow, The Guardian

 

[Political Junky]

Those Brits have a sharp sense of humour .. ouch.

U.K. Parliament debate: Donald Trump gets pummeled by the British

 

[TheOldSchool]

It would certainly be amusing if they decided to ban Trump from Britain. But it would also remind me how grateful I am to live in a country that's not so full of pussies. Or that the founder's created intending to defend it from pussies.

I don't see any evidence that anyone seriously expected a literal ban -- it was a verb chosen to make a point. By what little means the proletariat have to make one. A popular vote of disapproval.

Such political statements are not to be taken literally. Except maybe by partisan hacks skulking around in trenchcoats.

Well they banned Michael Savage from the UK. He's an ass and a moron, but only a country that doesn't think much of freedom would ban him.

They did? What for?
And was it initiated by a public petition?

I don't really know why. He said some crazy shit and they banned him. And reaffirmed the ban in 2011:

Britain reaffirms its ban on Michael Savage

But anyways just because you disagree with something doesn't mean you should ban someone's right to support it.

 

[Pogo]

It would certainly be amusing if they decided to ban Trump from Britain. But it would also remind me how grateful I am to live in a country that's not so full of pussies. Or that the founder's created intending to defend it from pussies.

I don't see any evidence that anyone seriously expected a literal ban -- it was a verb chosen to make a point. By what little means the proletariat have to make one. A popular vote of disapproval.

Such political statements are not to be taken literally. Except maybe by partisan hacks skulking around in trenchcoats.

Well they banned Michael Savage from the UK. He's an ass and a moron, but only a country that doesn't think much of freedom would ban him.

They did? What for?
And was it initiated by a public petition?

I don't really know why. He said some crazy shit and they banned him. And reaffirmed the ban in 2011:

Britain reaffirms its ban on Michael Savage

But anyways just because you disagree with something doesn't mean you should ban someone's right to support it.

It says in there it had something to do with national security, though from what I read, they don't say what it is.

In any case if it's not generated by a public petition as this was, then it's not quite the same thing.

 

[Roudy]

breitbart.com ^ | January 18
Hundreds of years of parliamentary tradition, British expectancy over free speech, and indeed decades of the "special relationship" were tossed out of the window today as hard-line left-wing Members of Parliament, combined with virtue-signalling pseudo-conservatives gathered in a British Parliament committee room to debate banning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump. ... Hands down, Donald Trump won that debate. And he didn't even have to be there.

Ha ha ha. Even in Londonistan Trump wins.

 

[Roudy]

600,000 Muslim invaders to UK signed a petition and their Muslim lackeys in the Parlaiment lobbied and they still couldn't get Scottish Donald Trump banned. Ha ha ha.

 

[pismoe]

It would certainly be amusing if they decided to ban Trump from Britain. But it would also remind me how grateful I am to live in a country that's not so full of pussies. Or that the founder's created intending to defend it from pussies.

I don't see any evidence that anyone seriously expected a literal ban -- it was a verb chosen to make a point. By what little means the proletariat have to make one. A popular vote of disapproval.

Such political statements are not to be taken literally. Except maybe by partisan hacks skulking around in trenchcoats.

Well they banned Michael Savage from the UK. He's an ass and a moron, but only a country that doesn't think much of freedom would ban him.

------------------------------- and they did the same to my good man 'Geert Wilders' when he was supposed to show the film 'fitna' to some segment of their government lords and ladies . Something silly about 'preserving the public order' so they banned good old Geert . In other words the English dhimis fear their imported muslim population .

 

[TheOldSchool]

It would certainly be amusing if they decided to ban Trump from Britain. But it would also remind me how grateful I am to live in a country that's not so full of pussies. Or that the founder's created intending to defend it from pussies.

I don't see any evidence that anyone seriously expected a literal ban -- it was a verb chosen to make a point. By what little means the proletariat have to make one. A popular vote of disapproval.

Such political statements are not to be taken literally. Except maybe by partisan hacks skulking around in trenchcoats.

Well they banned Michael Savage from the UK. He's an ass and a moron, but only a country that doesn't think much of freedom would ban him.

They did? What for?
And was it initiated by a public petition?

I don't really know why. He said some crazy shit and they banned him. And reaffirmed the ban in 2011:

Britain reaffirms its ban on Michael Savage

But anyways just because you disagree with something doesn't mean you should ban someone's right to support it.

It says in there it had something to do with national security, though from what I read, they don't say what it is.

In any case if it's not generated by a public petition as this was, then it's not quite the same thing.

If the U.S. banned everyone who had a public petition against them we'd have no government. You can get people to sign anything anyways. Settle down.

 

[TheOldSchool]

It would certainly be amusing if they decided to ban Trump from Britain. But it would also remind me how grateful I am to live in a country that's not so full of pussies. Or that the founder's created intending to defend it from pussies.

I don't see any evidence that anyone seriously expected a literal ban -- it was a verb chosen to make a point. By what little means the proletariat have to make one. A popular vote of disapproval.

Such political statements are not to be taken literally. Except maybe by partisan hacks skulking around in trenchcoats.

Well they banned Michael Savage from the UK. He's an ass and a moron, but only a country that doesn't think much of freedom would ban him.

------------------------------- and they did the same to my good man 'Geert Wilders' when he was supposed to show the film 'fitna' to some segment of their government lords and ladies . Something silly about 'preserving the public order' so they banned good old Geert . In other words the English dhimis fear their imported muslim population .

Geert Wilders is certainly a master of spreading hatred and discord across the planet, but if you truly believe in freedom of speech you must let him be.

 

[pismoe]

here is some info on Geert and his being banned --- Dutch politician Geert Wilders attempts to defy UK entry ban to show controversial film critical of Qur'an --- English are a buncha wankers who don't allow Free Speech !!

 

[pismoe]

and a little info on Mike Savage --- Britain reaffirms its ban on Michael Savage ---

 

[Pogo]

600,000 Muslim invaders to UK signed a petition and their Muslim lackeys in the Parlaiment lobbied and they still couldn't get Scottish Donald Trump banned. Ha ha ha.

Uh--- he's from Queens. Fittingly.

What Scotland did, besides dealing with his eminent domain edifice complex for that golf course on the coast of Aberdeen, was take away his honourary degree and his position as a "business ambassador".

I uh, don't think any of the above has jack-khara to do with "Muslims".