The Chronicles of Narcissist

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

I agree. It's a shame that we get only people who would be horrible Presidents to choose from. 16 years of the worst Presidents in US history and it looks like we're going to have 4-8 more with Hillary.

Regardless of what you think of Presidents Bush and Obama, and Hillary Clinton, at least they were competent enough to get on the ballot. O'Malley on the other hand? Yeah, not even that.

 

[Istbor]

It is a shame that what we may have to look forward to with the coming election is the 'lesser' of two evils. Whether or not you believe Hillary and Trump are terrible choices, the mere fact that it is on many American's minds is disheartening.

Up shot, if Trump wins, can we change our National bird to that abomination that is called Trump's hair? The little boy inside me would like that very much.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The UK has no problem with free speech. They have a problem with any political personages whose speech they deem detrimental to international relations between their country and ____________. That's one way diplomats get ejected.

Trump, as a candidate for the highest political office in the UKs most important ally, has proven himself to be someone they don't feel comfortable talking to in a political dialog. So they're keeping him out.

A subtle message from them to us.

No, that's still a problem with free speech. It's clearly saying 'we don't like what you say, so we, as the government, are going to take action to prevent you from saying it here.' That's textbook censorship.

Now, you may think it's justified, and that's fine, doesn't change it. Also, the UK really doesn't have very strong free speech protections (they have protections, just not strong ones like the US), so this isn't a legal issue for them at all. Given the scope of denying foreigners admission, the US doesn't have much of a problem legally with similar actions either (we forbid people from entering on much flimsier rationals than just what they've said). But it's still not in the spirit of free speech to censor someone based on what they say.

 

[delericho]

Looks as if Trump may not be welcomed into the U.K later this month. Too bad we can deport him from the U.S.

There is no chance whatsoever of the UK government deciding to ban him. They'll discuss it, because the sheer number of signatures on that petition pretty much requires that they do so, and then they'll decide not to take any action.

Because, quite simply, the UK cannot have a ban in place that prevents a visit from the head of state of our most powerful ally. Which means that if we did ban DT and he did become President, our government would then enjoy the high-profile humiliation of rescinding that high-profile ban.

So as long as there remains any chance of DT becoming Pres, he's not getting banned.

Though it will be fun seeing which of our politicians says the stupidest thing in the debate.

 

[delericho]

No, that's still a problem with free speech.

Eh, nobody allows completely free speech.

It's just somewhat ironic that laws intended to block extremist hate-preachers have been phrased in such a way as to apply (technically) to DT also.

Though as I said, while our government are going to debate banning him, there's no chance of them actually doing so. And I presume you don't have a problem with them talking about it?

 

[Istbor]

You have this voting American's permission to ban him, should the need arise. You can even stick to your guns and keep the ban if he is President. We'll likely be too embarrassed to take extra insult.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Eh, nobody allows completely free speech.

It's just somewhat ironic that laws intended to block extremist hate-preachers have been phrased in such a way as to apply (technically) to DT also.

Though as I said, while our government are going to debate banning him, there's no chance of them actually doing so. And I presume you don't have a problem with them talking about it?

Have I said anything that would imply otherwise? I thought I was talking about it myself. Now I have questions!

 

[delericho]

Have I said anything that would imply otherwise? I thought I was talking about it myself.

Well, you did say, "No, that's still a problem with free speech." Does it count as a problem with free speech if we're talking about, but haven't yet chosen to censor him?

Now, if they're mad enough to actually ban him, that's another thing. But we're not there yet.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, you did say, "No, that's still a problem with free speech." Does it count as a problem with free speech if we're talking about, but haven't yet chosen to censor him?

Now, if they're mad enough to actually ban him, that's another thing. But we're not there yet.

I dunno, does talking about killing someone count as a a discussion of murder? I didn't think what I said was overly contentious, but apparently it is?

Look, if there can be a legit legal discussion about censoring someone, then there's a free speech issue -- it's legal to censor. That doesn't mean it's wrong, or that you should still talk about it. Free speech is an ideal state, one not ideally met anywhere (sometimes even for good reasons). Noting that a discussion of censoring still involves the concepts of free speech does not, in any way, restrict or condemn the discussion. It just says, 'no, it does involve free speech, because it's specifically about censoring people.' I don't get how that implies that you can't still talk about censoring people (for or against). Maybe I'm missing something?

 

[Mallus]

I'm an old (well, sort of), card-carrying East Coast liberal, and I don't like the talk of banning Trump from the UK. Then again, I don't have a problem with Trump saying what he says. Free speech means very little if it only applies to speech I like.

My issue is with the people listening to him and agreeing. That's an embarrassment to the nation.