The Trump thread: All things Donald

[Athos_131]

Melania Trump claims she lost millions after Daily Mail story calling her 'elite escort'

Melania Trump, the lawsuit continued, "had the unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, as an extremely famous and well-known person, as well as a former professional model and brand spokesperson, and successful businesswoman, to launch a broad-based commercial brand in multiple product categories, each of which could have garnered multi-million dollar business relationships for a multi-year term during which Plaintiff is one of the most photographed woman in the world."

[Athos_131]

Donald Trump will not be allowed to address Parliament on UK state visit, Speaker John Bercow says

[phtlc]

Donald Trump will not be allowed to address Parliament on UK state visit, Speaker John Bercow says

Denying him the chance to speak would be a mistake unfortunately regardless of whether you agree with him.

[Lois]

He can still speak.  Why does he have to do it before Parliament?

[Katiebee]

Remember he was castigated for hate speech, which is against the law over there. I think it is only fitting that his ego be deflated.

In 3 weeks he has made what is basically an assault on our democracy, and our government. He is formenting a Constitutional Crisis.

[phtlc]

He can still speak.  Why does he have to do it before Parliament?

Ok let me rephrase my statement

Denying him the chance to speak before parliament would be a mistake unfortunately regardless of whether you agree with him.

[Northwest]

He can still speak.  Why does he have to do it before Parliament?

Ok let me rephrase my statement

Denying him the chance to speak before parliament would be a mistake unfortunately regardless of whether you agree with him.

Why? What's your reasoning here?

I don't see that he has any rights beyond what they choose to grant him, and in this case they don't.

Tell me what I'm missing.

[phtlc]

Remember he was castigated for hate speech, which is against the law over there. I think it is only fitting that his ego be deflated.

In 3 weeks he has made what is basically an assault on our democracy, and our government. He is formenting a Constitutional Crisis.

Yet he has a following, and the best way to increase that following is to appear to deny him the right to spread his message.

I firmly believe that letting people speak however abhorrent you find their ideas is far better than denying them the chance. If you believe someone is wrong, the best weapon you have against them is their own words. Let him speak and then challenge him. The fact is quite a few people voted for him, and these people will see this as censorship (I'm not saying I see it as that) and it will strengthen support for him.

[phtlc]

He can still speak.  Why does he have to do it before Parliament?

Ok let me rephrase my statement

Denying him the chance to speak before parliament would be a mistake unfortunately regardless of whether you agree with him.

Why? What's your reasoning here?

I don't see that he has any rights beyond what they choose to grant him, and in this case they don't.

Tell me what I'm missing.

See my response to KatieBee

[Northwest]

See my response to KatieBee

Okay; I follow you.

You may be right. Maybe not, too, but your position is reasonable regardless.

Thanks for responding.

[Katiebee]

Remember he was castigated for hate speech, which is against the law over there. I think it is only fitting that his ego be deflated.

In 3 weeks he has made what is basically an assault on our democracy, and our government. He is formenting a Constitutional Crisis.

Yet he has a following, and the best way to increase that following is to appear to deny him the right to spread his message.

I firmly believe that letting people speak however abhorrent you find their ideas is far better than denying them the chance. If you believe someone is wrong, the best weapon you have against them is their own words. Let him speak and then challenge him. The fact is quite a few people voted for him, and these people will see this as censorship (I'm not saying I see it as that) and it will strengthen support for him.

It may be a moot point by then anyway. At the rate he is going he may have engineered his own impeachment by then, or done something totally wrong as to cause his approval rating to go into single digits. And then he might resign because no one likes him.

[phtlc]

Remember he was castigated for hate speech, which is against the law over there. I think it is only fitting that his ego be deflated.

In 3 weeks he has made what is basically an assault on our democracy, and our government. He is formenting a Constitutional Crisis.

Yet he has a following, and the best way to increase that following is to appear to deny him the right to spread his message.

I firmly believe that letting people speak however abhorrent you find their ideas is far better than denying them the chance. If you believe someone is wrong, the best weapon you have against them is their own words. Let him speak and then challenge him. The fact is quite a few people voted for him, and these people will see this as censorship (I'm not saying I see it as that) and it will strengthen support for him.

It may be a moot point by then anyway. At the rate he is going he may have engineered his own impeachment by then, or done something totally wrong as to cause his approval rating to go into single digits. And then he might resign because no one likes him.

OK, but the reason people don't like him is because of his actions and words. Why deny him the rope to hang himself with?

[Katiebee]

Because it's not just him who he'll hang.

[phtlc]

Because it's not just him who he'll hang.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Can you please clarify?

[Katiebee]

He talks without first engaging his brain. He thinks he is negotiating with a business in private. He insults allies, gives provocation to enemies,. He makes policy wihout thinking and doesn't ever consider that whatever he says is believed and this has consequences.

He thinks he can do spin control and say "That's not what I mean," and that will make it alright and fix things. International politics does not work that way. Piss off people in power and they will screw you badly, one way or another.

[phtlc]

He talks without first engaging his brain. He thinks he is negotiating with a business in private. He insults allies, gives provocation to enemies,. He makes policy wihout thinking and doesn't ever consider that whatever he says is believed and this has consequences.

He thinks he can do spin control and say "That's not what I mean," and that will make it alright and fix things. International politics does not work that way. Piss off people in power and they will screw you badly, one way or another.

He'll still do those things anyway so it's best he makes public spectacles of himself so people might be embarrassed into voting him out next time. I have to stand by my position on free speech on this one. The best thing you can do for Trump is deny him opportunities to speak where he can be challenged.

[Lois]

Trump can and will speak.  No one can stop him. He twits out crap on a daily basis. 

The Parliament does not want to provide him with a legitimate platform to speak his nonsense, and I don't blame them. It would look like they approve of what he has to say.

[phtlc]

Trump can and will speak.  No one can stop him. He twits out crap on a daily basis. 
The Parliament does not want to provide him with a legitimate platform to speak his nonsense, and I don't blame them. It would look like they approve of what he has to say.

I have to disagree. By refusing to provide him a legitimate platform, they create the appearance that they are afraid of what he'll say. It may not be censorship by technical definition, but it will still come across that way. I'm no political scientist, but when was the last time a US president was denied the opportunity to speak in the UK in an official capacity? (I honestly don't know).

This is the time for his opponents to take the high road in spite of his conduct. You don't defeat an ideology by denying it a chance to speak. You allow it to speak and challenge it openly.

[Well Behaved Lady]

Trump may not speak in Westminster Hall but that doesn't mean he won't get to speak in Parliament.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/04/donald-trump-snub-us-president-could-denied-westminster-hall/

[joan1984]

  President Trump should send a recording of his favorite speeches to the Queen, so she can play it for Parliament, then release it worldwide, so Citizens everywhere can hear and see it.

  Trump does not need Parliament.

  Actually President Trump should look at the various politicians who attempt to travel here for any reason, and complicate their lives, just because he can.