Donald Trump

[Sriram]

Trump is now threatening to quit GOP and run as an independent......and many of his supporters are likely to continue to support him I understand!

And the KKK is now joining in the anti muslim rhetoric, I think.

[Hope]

Such as?

Sorry, Gordon, have been out at the gym, getting some instructions in what I can and what I can't do as I recover. 

Over the years, some of the comment on the Muslim thread have been pretty contentious if one was a radical Islamist.  Even some of the more general denials of the existence of a deity - such as some of Floo's.

[Hope]

A reaction from our First Minister.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35054360

What made anyone in the SNP or any other party ever think that he was someone fit to be an ambassador for anyone or anything other than himself?  Will Nicola nationalise Turnberry and/or Donald's own course in Aberdeenshire?

[Shaker]

Over the years, some of the comment on the Muslim thread have been pretty contentious if one was a radical Islamist.

Nothing specific, then. Nothing we can actually see for ourselves.

Even some of the more general denials of the existence of a deity - such as some of Floo's.

How "could" (your words) these "lead to acts of terror"?

[wigginhall]

An interesting point that Trump's ideas, if put into practice, would lead to much greater radicalization of young Muslims, both in the US and in other countries.  Of course, this might still happen, even if not elected. 

[Jack Knave]

Transparency is the best method. Allow him in and then rip his viewpoint apart and make him look like a real Trump, and all his supporters.

[Hope]

Nothing specific, then. Nothing we can actually see for ourselves.

Well, the Muslim board (sorry, not thread) has had some pretty contentious threads - if you look at them from a Muslim perspective - Gabriella has not been happy with some of the comments.

How "could" (your words) these "lead to acts of terror"?

Shaker, I used the term 'could lead to acts of terror' because Floo had used them and I was responding to her post. I also emphasised the word 'could' so that people didn't assume that I was saying 'would'.  However, if you read stuff that explains why people have become radicalised, one of the reasons is that of disrespecting a person's faith.  Over the yers, there have been a number of posts which could have been read as disrespecting a person's beliefs - think of how vocal Matt has been over what he believes to have been the disrespecting of his beliefs.

Remember, as with so much now, it isn't what the speaker/poster intended that is important; it is what the reader/hearer interprets something as that matters in law.

[Shaker]

Mild irritation on an internet forum is hardly the first step toward 9/11 pt. 2 though is it?

[Red Giant]

Presumably a decision to ban somebody should be made on non-political grounds.

He might be considered a genuine threat to public order.  On the other hand, Labour would say that when the real reason was different.

I'd sooner these things were decided by judges.

[Bubbles]

Mild irritation on an internet forum is hardly the first step toward 9/11 pt. 2 though is it?

It could be, if the reader of posts was mentally unstable in the first place.

In which case anything could set them off.

You never know what furies exist in other people's minds.

However, deliberately courting and setting out to make people angry and widen divisions is a good enough reason to ban something.

Spreading hatred has to be stopped, or it spreads like a disease.

Donald trump is stupid enough to wind people up or spread anger against a section of the community.

[Bubbles]

Presumably a decision to ban somebody should be made on non-political grounds.

He might be considered a genuine threat to public order.  On the other hand, Labour would say that when the real reason was different.

I'd sooner these things were decided by judges.

I'm not sure judges have a more balanced view than anyone else.

[jeremyp]

There are certain opinions like those of Trump which could lead to acts of terror!

Nothing leads to acts of terror quite so effectively as suppressing free speech.

[floo]

Nothing leads to acts of terror quite so effectively as suppressing free speech.

So we permit all the hate preachers, who encourage people to join ISIS to shout their evil from the rooftops do we?

[Aruntraveller]

Nothing leads to acts of terror quite so effectively as suppressing free speech.

I'm not sure I follow the logic of this argument. Many acts of terrorism are carried out in countries where free speech exists. The perpetrators may or may not come from countries where it doesn't exist. So how does this proposition work?

[Gordon]

I tend to agree with Jeremy.

If nonsense peddled by the likes of Trump is aired in the public mainstream, such as being a part of democratic political campaigning, then it can be forcefully rebutted in public - but drive it underground, by trying to suppress it, then such nonsense may still circulate among the hard of thinking or easily influenced without them also being exposed to any contrasting rebuttals.

[Hope]

Mild irritation on an internet forum is hardly the first step toward 9/11 pt. 2 though is it?

What is mild irritation to you and I may be far more for someone else, Shakes.  You can't base your judgements of people's responses to things on your own responses.

[Outrider]

Perhaps he can confine himself to such descriptions of Jesus as "the zombie on a stick, " which he has used on occasions.  Nice people you mix with, eh, Trent?

Well that's just blatantly wrong, he was an avatar whilst he was on the stick, he wasn't a zombie until he got up in the cave.

You'd think that would obvious to even the most casual observer...

O.

[Outrider]

Trump is now threatening to quit GOP and run as an independent......and many of his supporters are likely to continue to support him I understand!

And the KKK is now joining in the anti muslim rhetoric, I think.

Excellent. If he stands as an independent he splits the nutbag vote between himself and the Republicans, improving the chances of the Democrat nominee being elected as some sort of defence against the rabid Christian extremist GOP right that currently controls both houses.

O.

[Outrider]

So we permit all the hate preachers, who encourage people to join ISIS to shout their evil from the rooftops do we?

Yes. Let them in, let their bile be spouted in public, and then address those words in public. If you have people who feel they are being pushed to the fringes of society, then banning their idols from speaking just pushes them further because their needs aren't being addressed.

If their idols are permitted to speak and then those people are thoroughly hosed in a public forum, those followers see the weaknesses in the argument. Otherwise all they do is look up uncontested speeches on the internet, only get one side, ramped up by a sense of persecution and isolation.

Words can only hurt you if you let them, but silence leads to ignorance, and ignorance can hurt any number of people.

O.

[Aruntraveller]

Perhaps he can confine himself to such descriptions of Jesus as "the zombie on a stick, " which he has used on occasions.  Nice people you mix with, eh, Trent?

As far as I know I've only ever mixed with him in the same way you have which is on Message Boards. As to the insult you quote - so what? You aren't beyond using insults yourself. Glass houses and all that.

PS would you like to pop over to the football thread and admonish Ad-o for his language. Thanks ever so.

[~TW~]

As regards Mr Trump his remarks about no go areas in London has been confirmed by the police as correct.Also when I drove a cab in London there were no go areas that the police would not enter in those days,so he is not all wrong.

 ~TW~

[Hope]

As regards Mr Trump his remarks about no go areas in London has been confirmed by the police as correct.Also when I drove a cab in London there were no go areas that the police would not enter in those days,so he is not all wrong.

 ~TW~

Yet, the other day the Met Police denied this story - again.  When did that change, ~TW~?

[Hope]

Excellent. If he stands as an independent he splits the nutbag vote between himself and the Republicans, improving the chances of the Democrat nominee being elected as some sort of defence against the rabid Christian extremist GOP right that currently controls both houses.

O.

I suppose it depends on who is the Democrat nominee.  Some of them are pretty horrendous.  I would certainly fear for the future of the USA if either Trump or Clinton were to get into the White House.

[Aruntraveller]

Yet, the other day the Met Police denied this story - again.  When did that change, ~TW~?

Yes I'd be interested in that too Hope.

I think that we do not have No Go areas in the way that Americans understand them. I think we have areas we feel uneasy in - and that is due to perception more than anything else.

There are parts of Nottingham I do not particularly want to go into at night - but they are without exception some of the white working class areas. I have no problem with wandering around the supposedly notorious Hyson Green - which is a very ethnically diverse area. That is all down to my personal experiences and I expect others would come to different judgements based on their particular experiences.

[Outrider]

I suppose it depends on who is the Democrat nominee.  Some of them are pretty horrendous.  I would certainly fear for the future of the USA if either Trump or Clinton were to get into the White House.

Three Democrat candidates - Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley - at the moment, with a few other (even) less known names on the fringes, though it seems unlikely they'll have a run this late.

Of the three, none are of the calibre of Obama as far as their prestige on the international stage. Sanders appears too left wing to win the actual election, which I think will lead most Democrat voters to hedge their bets and nominate Clinton - whilst she's far from perfect, she's a hell of a site better than Trump, Carson or indeed any of the other Republican candidates.

In terms of international economics and politics any of the Democrat candidates are a vast improvement on the Republicans, especially with the Republican control of the Senate and the lower House.

O.

O.