ADVERTISEMENT

UK to Debate Banning Donald Trump

Nov 28, 2010
87,450
42,218
113
Maryland
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35052505

A petition calling for Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump to be barred from entering UK has gathered more than 200,000 names, so MPs will have to consider debating the issue.

The petition went on Parliament's e-petition website on Tuesday.

It was posted in response to Mr Trump's call for a temporary halt on Muslims entering the United States.

Chancellor George Osborne criticised Mr Trump's comments but rejected calls for him to be banned from the UK.

Any petition with more than 100,000 signatures is automatically considered for debate in Parliament.
 
First of all this sort of shows that we can't debate things in congress because you got 100,000 people or some number of people to sign them. Bad idea by the UK to do that IMO.

As to the actual issue of banning Trump from a nation. You don't fix people who want to take away other people's human rights by going and taking away that person's human rights.

If trump meets all the other qualifications to enter their country he should be allowed to enter without any extra legal hurdles or harassment.
 
First of all this sort of shows that we can't debate things in congress because you got 100,000 people or some number of people to sign them. Bad idea by the UK to do that IMO.

As to the actual issue of banning Trump from a nation. You don't fix people who want to take away other people's human rights by going and taking away that person's human rights.

If trump meets all the other qualifications to enter their country he should be allowed to enter without any extra legal hurdles or harassment.
As some of you may know, the White House has a petition format that used to require 25K votes, iirc. If a petition got 25K votes, it would get a response. They later raised that to 100K. I don't know where it stands now.

So, yes, I agree that 100K may be too low for Parliament to take it up. But maybe not. It's a smaller country, after all. And Parliament can take up and dismiss things very quickly if they are so-disposed.

I assume that for most voters, this was an "Up Yours" to Trump (and to Americans who are apparently too stupid to dismiss him out of hand) - and they don't really expect Parliament to ban Trump.

Hard to disagree with them.
 
As some of you may know, the White House has a petition format that used to require 25K votes, iirc. If a petition got 25K votes, it would get a response. They later raised that to 100K. I don't know where it stands now.

So, yes, I agree that 100K may be too low for Parliament to take it up. But maybe not. It's a smaller country, after all. And Parliament can take up and dismiss things very quickly if they are so-disposed.

I assume that for most voters, this was an "Up Yours" to Trump (and to Americans who are apparently too stupid to dismiss him out of hand) - and they don't really expect Parliament to ban Trump.

Hard to disagree with them.

I wouldn't go with any number.

I would venture that every person out there has some idea that is at least somewhat crazy sounding (and very well may be crazy) and their idea would either violate someone's rights, would be wholly illegal, or just would not find any amount of broad support. Not hard using the internet to find a large group of people with the same or similar ideas. Then petition and wham someone in the government is wasting their time debating or responding to something ridiculous, illegal, or just something that is never going to happen.

On top of that people on the internet often like to troll the government and the political system just for the sheer fun of it. Stephen Colbert and John Oliver have made careers of doing just that, but even ordinary internet folks enjoy trolling with these petitions.

If people want to be involved in their government. . . go vote, run for office if you can, volunteer for campaigns, etc etc. And there are a lot of good things we can do to help get individuals more involved with the government but this is not a good one.
 
As some of you may know, the White House has a petition format that used to require 25K votes, iirc. If a petition got 25K votes, it would get a response. They later raised that to 100K. I don't know where it stands now.

So, yes, I agree that 100K may be too low for Parliament to take it up. But maybe not. It's a smaller country, after all. And Parliament can take up and dismiss things very quickly if they are so-disposed.

I assume that for most voters, this was an "Up Yours" to Trump (and to Americans who are apparently too stupid to dismiss him out of hand) - and they don't really expect Parliament to ban Trump.

Hard to disagree with them.

The Administration shares your desire for job creation and a strong national defense, but a Death Star isn't on the horizon. Here are a few reasons:

  • The construction of the Death Star has been estimated to cost more than $850,000,000,000,000,000. We're working hard to reduce the deficit, not expand it.
  • The Administration does not support blowing up planets.
  • Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship?
 
I sure hope the right gives me something to think about in the voting booth next year. Trump is an obvious huge step back for this party. Just waiting for the shock and awe to wear off so we can get to a real candidate (fingers crossed).
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT