-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
It should also be noted that the only people likely to cause problems at the pro-Trump rally are the counter protesters. So they get their own massive rally with mayor approved blimp and their own threats of violence mean that the rally from the other side is cancelled. Again, that's totally fucked up.
Agree with the second part but not the first.
Trouble makers exist on both sides, there was trouble caused by the rally that went ahead after they met up with free Tommy supporters.
I’m really pissed off with London at the moment. The football World Cup run was glorious but behind that is just constant negativity of May, Trump, Khan, EU, Boris etc.
The two sides on all of the above are just so far apart, nobody can find a middle ground.
I’d love a leader like Trump to just say SHUT THE FUCK UP, this is happening, this way.
Although I suspect the brits may not really fall in line to thst style of leadership!!
Have to strongly disagree with that. In fact based on events the past year I'm not sure how you can make that claim. Yes there are dickheads on both sides, but do you seriously think that a pro-Trump rally was going to cause trouble? If it went to shit that would be 100% on the so called antifacists fighting to ensure that your views are exactly the same as theirs.
-
@victor-meldrew said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel Sadiq Khan and his supporters are so thin-skinned and naive when responding to Trump it's become embarrassing, He's happy to attack Trump but doesn't seem to have the smarts to realise he's playing Trump's game. He then reacts like a child when Trump calls him out on London's violent crime levels.
I'm increasingly thinking there's one thing loonier than Trump - grandstanding anti-Trump politicians and protesters
Yeah, that anti-Trump rally was next level weird. It seems to me a lot of these people were already mentally unstable, and the over-the-top rhetoric from media and politicians about Trump has driven them over the edge.
Stuff like this is pretty concerning behaviour:
-
This post is deleted!
-
@rancid-schnitzel no I think a massive percentage of protestors have no interest in trouble.
But a small amount do. Regardless of what they are protesting against. Thus, I’m not just going to immediately blame anti trump people for trouble at a pro trump rally.
Same view on vice versa too.
-
So you agreed with Trump after Charlottesville then?
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel no I think a massive percentage of protestors have no interest in trouble.
But a small amount do. Regardless of what they are protesting against. Thus, I’m not just going to immediately blame anti trump people for trouble at a pro trump rally.
Same view on vice versa too.
C'mon MR, the vast majority of incidents are started by the antifa type people. Just look at the bullshit that occurs every G8 or G20 meeting. Or look at the idiocy that occurs when evil Hitler incarnate Milo shows up at a college. Sure there are dickheads on all sides but the anti-Trump people are far more likely to raise holy hell than vice versa.
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
So you agreed with Trump after Charlottesville then?
Colossal bow to draw.
-
@rancid-schnitzel if you ask them they will say they were only responding to threats from the other side.
It seems the whole world is laughing at the Brit protests against Trump, except me. And I imagine Trump supporters would be pissed off too. Hence why I could see trouble happening caused from within.
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel if you ask them they will say they were only responding to threats from the other side.
It seems the whole world is laughing at the Brit protests against Trump, except me. And I imagine Trump supporters would be pissed off too. Hence why I could see trouble happening caused from within.
We'll just agree to disagree on that 👍.
What I find most disgraceful is the attitude of Khan. There is no way this guy would have allowed an Obama blimp. He would have muttered something about important ally and being a guest in London etc etc. He's also spent millions on protecting hurt feelings online. But now he's all for free speech and couldn't give a shit about offending Britain's most important ally, an alliance of particular importance in a post-Brexit world. I know most politicians are hypocritical tossers, but this takes it to new heights. He's demonstrating exactly what his stance is. It isn't about free speech. It's got sweet fa to do with free speech. It's all about the type of speech he believes in and agrees with. It's disgusting and he should be called out on it by both sides.
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
So you agreed with Trump after Charlottesville then?
Colossal bow to draw.
How so?
Werent you just arguing that there are bad people on both sides? -
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel if you ask them they will say they were only responding to threats from the other side.
It seems the whole world is laughing at the Brit protests against Trump, except me. And I imagine Trump supporters would be pissed off too. Hence why I could see trouble happening caused from within.
We'll just agree to disagree on that 👍.
What I find most disgraceful is the attitude of Khan. There is no way this guy would have allowed an Obama blimp. He would have muttered something about important ally and being a guest in London etc etc. He's also spent millions on protecting hurt feelings online. But now he's all for free speech and couldn't give a shit about offending Britain's most important ally, an alliance of particular importance in a post-Brexit world. I know most politicians are hypocritical tossers, but this takes it to new heights. He's demonstrating exactly what his stance is. It isn't about free speech. It's got sweet fa to do with free speech. It's all about the type of speech he believes in and agrees with. It's disgusting and he should be called out on it by both sides.
We can agree on that. Khan is shocking.
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
So you agreed with Trump after Charlottesville then?
Colossal bow to draw.
How so?
Werent you just arguing that there are bad people on both sides?Really?
One situation happened and was basic denial of who caused it.
One is a theory only.
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
So you agreed with Trump after Charlottesville then?
Colossal bow to draw.
How so?
Werent you just arguing that there are bad people on both sides?Really?
One situation happened and was basic denial of who caused it.
One is a theory only.
Cause what? The clashes at Charlottesville? You think that was all one sided?
right.....
What exactly do you believe Trump said?
-
@baron-silas-greenback I’m out for the day now
Let’s turn this round. You explain your points here.
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback I’m out for the day now
Let’s turn this round. You explain your points here.
Sure.
You said that you were not going to immediately blame anti Trump people for trouble at a pro Trump rally... and vice versa.
Correct?
Why wouldn't you blame anti Trump people at a pro Trump rally? Presumably because of your stated belief that there are small amount of people on both sides looking for trouble? Bad actors on both sides?
Trump said “You had a group on one side that was bad. You had a group on the other side that was also very violent."
Before that he had tweeted
"We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Lets come together as one!"So not much different to your position?
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
It isn't about free speech. It's got sweet fa to do with free speech. It's all about the type of speech he believes in and agrees with. It's disgusting and he should be called out on it by both sides.
That's what's so dangerous. It breeds a view, reinforced by many in authority, that only certain views are acceptable and those that express contra views are to be attacked as stupid, brain-washed, uncaring, evil, dangerous - or called "deplorables" as Hilary Clinton did.
It presents an almost open-goal for far-right and extremist groups and others to exploit.
-
Well, this should be interesting....
"Campaign to fly Sadiq Khan baby blimp in London raises £50,000
Donald Trump fans have come up with a devious scheme to hit back at Sadiq Khan over the controversial Trump baby blimp.
They are crowdfunding for their own humiliating balloon portraying the London mayor – and have smashed their target.
More than £50,000 has been raised by the online fundraiser in just a week."
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
I’m not ignoring this - you raise fair points but not all correct. I’ll go over it when back on work on thurs. too hard on iPhone
Good old Fern, reducing productivity since forever. Another variable the politicians don't account for.
-
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
So you agreed with Trump after Charlottesville then?
Colossal bow to draw.
When you first wrote this, I wasn't sure if you were talking to me or RS. As I've pointed out already the situations are very different.
This chat - RS is proposing that the only people likely to cause trouble at a pro Trump rally are anti-Trumps. If you take the view that opposition are likely to cause it only, then sure. But after pressing, RS made it clear that it's not just an opposition, it's the anti Trump brigade he's referring to.
Charlottesville - white supremist, pro-Trump rally. Guy does actually commit domestic terrorism there, from the pro-Trump side. Trump's comments were on the back of something that did actually happen, not on the back of a theory. Were both sides in the wrong - probably, media reporting has certainly taken the side of the anti-Trump's (how surprising), but reality is that nobody from the anti Trump side actually committed an act of domestic terrorism.
Hence another conclusions, does Charlotesville indicate that "next-level" incidents are more likely to occur from the pro Trump side?
So therefore, me saying that there are good/bad people on both sides is a collosal bow to draw to agree with Trump, who said the same (amongst other things) after an actual incident.
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
How so?
Werent you just arguing that there are bad people on both sides?There are good and bad people on sides of every argument/position, so yes, I agree with Trump there. However, I'm not going to say that after an incident - blame shall be laid where it's due.
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
Sure.
You said that you were not going to immediately blame anti Trump people for trouble at a pro Trump rally... and vice versa.
Correct?Correct. Because nothing has happened - the world isn't like minority report.
Why wouldn't you blame anti Trump people at a pro Trump rally? Presumably because of your stated belief that there are small amount of people on both sides looking for trouble? Bad actors on both sides?
Because nothing happened. If it did, and it was caused by pro or anti Trump, then I'd be more than happy to lay blame.
Trump said “You had a group on one side that was bad. You had a group on the other side that was also very violent."
Before that he had tweeted
"We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Lets come together as one!"So not much different to your position?
His position was on the back of an incident, mine was on the back of a "minority report".
In my view, the only thing that Trump was guilty of (initially) was refusal to flat out blame some of his support base - hardly something as a (now) politician, he's isolated in. Further updates and dissection of his comments suggest he did, but reality is that white supremists are extremely outdated, and dangerous people to the modern world. They are also largely Trump supporters. So when he refused to admonish them directly, the world took aim.
British Politics