Trump: The Protests & Petition - Discuss

[Macman]

The people who are protesting against Trump.

My question is, surely the folk who are protesting actually realise that the protests isn't really going to make much of an impact

And less than 3% of the UK population has voted against Trump making a State Visit.

Him being President doesn't really bother me in the slightest, because it doesn't affect me in the sense that he doesn't rule Britain. So why are these people protesting?

Is it his views on Islam? I agree something needs to be done to try and clamp down on terrorists, but lets be honest here. We cannot identify terrorists, what we do know is terrorists are faithful to their version of the Islamic Faith* so Trump is essentially targeting Muslims. As bad as it sounds, what other choice does he have?

If those who are against Trump, tell me. How would you deal with Terrorists?

Please keep this on a discussion level and don't make it personal.

[kalniel]

And less than 3% of the UK population has voted against Trump making a State Visit.

But 0% have voted in favour of him making a visit. You have to be careful not to use numbers in the wrong way.

People protest over things which don't affect them for a number of reasons - expressing solidarity and support for those who are affected perhaps, or simply because they think it's a morally right thing to do.

With regard impact - it depends how you measure said impact. If by impact you mean getting him to change his mind, then yes you're probably right, little impact. But impact in terms of reassuring other people that there are a number of people who he's not acting on behalf of can be quite significant. It's a measure of both the moral standards of the population and the freedom of expression granted by the governance of those populations that said protests are able to go ahead.

Is it his views on Islam? I agree something needs to be done to try and clamp down on terrorists, but lets be honest here. We cannot identify terrorists, what we do know is terrorists are faithful to their religion so Trump is essentially targeting Muslims. As bad as it sounds, what other choice does he have?

Actually we know they're not faithful to their religion - terrorists actions have been denounced as not-muslim, and the fact is the majority of the targets of such terrorist actions are in fact muslim themselves.

As for what to do about it? Well we know that certain factors help reduce terrorism - development is a key one, as is freedom of choice in governance and religious expression. So we need to work on helping the base countries to improve their development and governance. Isolationism is counter to that aim.

Post edit edit:

We cannot identify terrorists, what we do know is terrorists are faithful to their version of the Islamic Faith* so Trump is essentially targeting Muslims. As bad as it sounds, what other choice does he have?

Well he could just target the terrorists who have their own twisted beliefs, rather than the Muslims who don't share those beliefs in the slightest. It is quite simply as bad as saying Hitler was a white man, therefore all white men should be banned from ever holding a position of authority.

[Macman]

I'm not the best when it comes to debates/discussions but I always like to see other peoples views hence my post.

But 0% have voted in favour of him making a visit. You have to be careful not to use numbers in the wrong way.

The 3% simply came from the approx. population VS the number of people who actively signed the petition. I just used those figures as it was the closest thing I could think of that was relating to this topic.

People protest over things which don't affect them for a number of reasons - expressing solidarity and support for those who are affected perhaps, or simply because they think it's a morally right thing to do.

Suppose they can with regards to solidarity, support and showing moral support.

Actually we know they're not faithful to their religion - terrorists actions have been denounced as not-muslim, and the fact is the majority of the targets of such terrorist actions are in fact muslim themselves.

I meant faithful to their religion, they class themselves as Muslims, they adhere to the Quran but its not the actual Quran they are referring to from what I've been told. My ex was Muslim, and these terrorists attacks was something that we discussed quite a lot with her family and it was once mentioned that ISIS are essentially like "one of these crazy cults of the Christian faith but more extreme".

As for what to do about it? Well we know that certain factors help reduce terrorism - development is a key one, as is freedom of choice in governance and religious expression. So we need to work on helping the base countries to improve their development and governance. Isolationism is counter to that aim.

Development? Evidence of that would be what? Isolationism - Is that when one country doesn't get involved in anothers affairs?

[kalniel]

The 3% simply came from the approx. population VS the number of people who actively signed the petition. I just used those figures as it was the closest thing I could think of that was relating to this topic.

Indeed, but it's a mis-use of figures. Not all of the total population were invited to sign the petition. It's a bit like saying only 17 million people voted for brexit so therefore the majority of the country didn't.

I meant faithful to their religion, they class themselves as Muslims, they adhere to the Quran but its not the actual Quran they are referring to from what I've been told. My ex was Muslim, and these terrorists attacks was something that we discussed quite a lot with her family and it was once mentioned that ISIS are essentially like "one of these crazy cults of the Christian faith but more extreme".

Yes, I'd agree. So my question is why is he targeting other Muslims? We know they don't believe the same thing, just like not all white men think like Hitler. He could just ban extremists.

Development? Evidence of that would be what? Isolationism - Is that when one country doesn't get involved in anothers affairs?

Isolationism isn't just not getting involved, it's being held apart so there are limited possibilities for exchanging ideas, goods, education etc. Evidence of development would be seen in economic, education and standard of living factors.

[cptwhite_uk]

I think you're missing the point about the 3%. Statistically you're correct I'm sure, but the point is 3% activately expressed their view for him not to visit. While (as far as I'm aware) there's no poll of people actively expressing their wish for him to come.

I've also heard the argument that "97% haven't objected to him coming"...but that's not the same as actively expressing your view.

[Macman]

Indeed, but it's a mis-use of figures. Not all of the total population were invited to sign the petition. It's a bit like saying only 17 million people voted for brexit so therefore the majority of the country didn't..

Make a fair point.

Yes, I'd agree. So my question is why is he targeting other Muslims? We know they don't believe the same thing, just like not all white men think like Hitler. He could just ban extremists.

It's a bit hard identifying extremists. ISIS put a suicide vest on a child in Turkey I believe? Got the child to walk into a Police Station.

ISIS are taking "soldiers" from such a young age and brainwashing them. There is videos out there showing children severing heads off . These terrorist attacks are only going to get worse as time goes on, we are already seeing Drones now being used to drop grenades? How long before we see a cyber attack on hospital? Or the National Grid?

Article

Isolationism isn't just not getting involved, it's being held apart so there are limited possibilities for exchanging ideas, goods, education etc. Evidence of development would be seen in economic, education and standard of living factors.

I guess all I can say it's easier said than being done, because ANY plan of action would be seen as "sketchy". I think we as a society have done too much damage as it is to try and resolve the issues we are currently facing.

I to some degree agree with Trumps comment, "We have to fight fire with fire".

[kalniel]

It's a bit hard identifying extremists. ISIS put a suicide vest on a child in Turkey I believe? Got the child to walk into a Police Station.

I to some degree agree with Trumps comment, "We have to fight fire with fire".

Just pulling these two comments out to address directly: It is hard to identify extremists, but that doesn't excuse the action of fighting fire by applying fire to a third party who are both a) innocent and b) already being burned by the same group you're trying to address.

Banning whole countries is a completely disproportionate and counter-productive response IMHO. There was that factoid whose veracity I can't prove that said more Americans each year are shot dead by toddlers than killed by extremists. Maybe they ought to ban child-birth?!

I've a better suggestion: Do the opposite of banning people from these countries. Instead, welcome them and educate them so they can make their own decisions, to take back with them and improve the situation in their home country, thus actually reducing the root causes of terrorism.

[Galant]

Can I be blunt? It's stupid. I don't want to invalidate whatever people may be feeling, but as a rational response or action it's stupid - just venting.

1 - If you look at what Trump is or has done vs. any number of other international relationships the UK in engaged with, the response doesn't make sense. There are far more objectionable issues, relationships and actions ongoing and the public at large couldn't seem to care in the slightest.

Of course, people are free to direct their attention and 'care' however they please, but the way this gets framed as a principled and moral stance just doesn't bear up.

2 - This sort of 'protest & petition' response seems to be growing in popularity of late, no doubt due to the prevalence of social media. Yet in general it might be the least effective thing anyone can do. I get it though, signing an online petition hardly takes any effort, but it lets me "make my voice heard" (not really), and then immediate emotional outrage feels like a powerful way to speak out against things, even though it's more realistically just another easy, low-effort, low-thought way of engaging with things that upset us. More power, less effort and less responsibility thanks.

Here's a graphic picture of something horrible that may or may not actually have anything to do with...
Something going on that it's easy to get upset about even if it may be more complicated and less outrageous than initially seems...
And for which there may be no easy answers...

So Share, Like & Comment and...
Here's a link to a petition you can sign.

Rinse Repeat.

[Smudger]

There are a lot of people in this country who, whilst not being citizens of the US, are affected by the ban. By virtue of place of birth or dual citizenship, they can no longer travel to the US, where they might have family or business relationships.
I think that people are also wary that they see parallels between this and Germany in the 1930s. ( I know, Godwin's law). Trump has surrounded himself with a bunch of ultra-conservative (white-supremacist in at least one case) white men, and is playing to their tune. His liking of Putin is also worrying. So why not protest? It is a right we have. From what I've seen, the protests we saw, in the UK at least, all passed off peacefully.

Plus he's a massive douchecanoe with tiny hands and cornflake hair.

[Macman]

Banning whole countries is a completely disproportionate and counter-productive response IMHO. There was that factoid whose veracity I can't prove that said more Americans each year are shot dead by toddlers than killed by extremists. Maybe they ought to ban child-birth?!

I've a better suggestion: Do the opposite of banning people from these countries. Instead, welcome them and educate them so they can make their own decisions, to take back with them and improve the situation in their home country, thus actually reducing the root causes of terrorism.

C'mon man.. if an American is killed by a toddler, more than likely it's a freak accident. And if killed by a terrorist, it's premeditated...?

I've no qualms with welcoming folk from other countries. But how do we know that EVERYONE that is entering the country is legit? And not a wolf in sheep clothing? Because that IS happening. There has been articles showing ISIS troops trying to get in to EU posing as a refugee?

[Macman]

There are a lot of people in this country who, whilst not being citizens of the US, are affected by the ban. By virtue of place of birth or dual citizenship, they can no longer travel to the US, where they might have family or business relationships.
I think that people are also wary that they see parallels between this and Germany in the 1930s. ( I know, Godwin's law). Trump has surrounded himself with a bunch of ultra-conservative (white-supremacist in at least one case) white men, and is playing to their tune. His liking of Putin is also worrying. So why not protest? It is a right we have. From what I've seen, the protests we saw, in the UK at least, all passed off peacefully.

Plus he's a massive douchecanoe with tiny hands and cornflake hair.

I was under the impression, the travel ban is only in place for 90 days? Until they get the change to make an evaluation of some sort?

And cornflake hair, haha, that's a first. lol

[Top_gun]

The people who are protesting against Trump.

My question is, surely the folk who are protesting actually realise that the protests isn't really going to make much of an impact

I disagree with this piece of lazy thinking. Protesters have altered the course of history. Take the poll tax riots, for example, leading to Margaret Thatcher losing her PM status. Vietnam war protesters having an impact on US foreign policy. They influence thinking in the government and media alike.

Not protesting against Trump could be interpreted as everyone has accepted him which we all know isn't the case. Naturally, the British government will reject the Trump state visit to the UK petition leading to more protesters giving him a reception on his arrival.

[opel80uk]

If those who are against Trump, tell me. How would you deal with Terrorists?

No one has a definitive answer to that question, but what has proven to be extremely counterproductive, time and again all over the world, is that by doing anything that doesn't target terrorists specifically but instead treats all of those from a specific group that the terrorists also belong to, (Race, Religion, Nationality etc) as if they are also terrorists or at least under suspicion of being terrorists, does nothing but plays into the terrorists hands - it's exactly what they want you to do.

Furthermore, if Trump was really concerned about Terrorism, why is Saudi Arabia not on the list? The fact that that that country is omitted makes a mockery of the assertion that the ban is primarily about stopping terrorism. So in answer to your question, what Trump should probably do if he wants to go some way to dealing with terrorists, is a) stop the aggressive rhetoric towards Iran & Iraq that acts as a recruiting sergeant for these groups, b) make clear distinctions, in both word and actions, between Islamic terrorists and Muslims who, by the way, are the biggest victims of Islamic Terrorists, and c) put pressure on Saudi Arabia to stop it facilitating the funding and arming of a lot of the large Islamic Terrorist organisations.

Britain went through the Blitz and the IRA bombing campaign and, despite what the papers say, the chances of someone in the West being killed in a terrorist attack are minuscule. Far more people are killed on the roads, but I don't hear anyone proposing banning cars. When did we become so bloody soft.

[Macman]

I disagree with this piece of lazy thinking. Protesters have altered the course of history. Take the poll tax riots, for example, leading to Margaret Thatcher losing her PM status. Vietnam war protesters having an impact on US foreign policy. They influence thinking in the government and media alike.

Not protesting against Trump could be interpreted as everyone has accepted him which we all know isn't the case. Naturally, the British government will reject the Trump state visit to the UK petition leading to more protesters giving him a reception on his arrival.

It's not lazy thinking. Politics is not my area, but it's something I'm intrigued in since I've heard conversations about it on Whatsapp, Discord, Reddit and being a talking point in work.

Through discussions one can learn things about Past and present just like now. I spent much of my youth in hospital and missed out on several years of Primary and Secondary.

When I was talking about 'impact' I meant folk in the UK protesting against Trump which is a USA matter and has no bearing on the UK. But as Kalniel pointed out, one could look at that as a sign of Solidarity/Support/Moral Compass which is a fair point which then changes my opinion that the Protest can be effective in some ways.

[Macman]

No one has a definitive answer to that question, but what has proven to be extremely counterproductive, time and again all over the world, is that by doing anything that doesn't target terrorists specifically but instead treats all of those from a specific group that the terrorists also belong to, (Race, Religion, Nationality etc) as if they are also terrorists or at least under suspicion of being terrorists, does nothing but plays into the terrorists hands - it's exactly what they want you to do.

Furthermore, if Trump was really concerned about Terrorism, why is Saudi Arabia not on the list? The fact that that that country is omitted makes a mockery of the assertion that the ban is primarily about stopping terrorism. So in answer to your question, what Trump should probably do if he wants to go some way to dealing with terrorists, is a) stop the aggressive rhetoric towards Iran & Iraq that acts as a recruiting sergeant for these groups, b) make clear distinctions, in both word and actions, between Islamic terrorists and Muslims who, by the way, are the biggest victims of Islamic Terrorists, and c) put pressure on Saudi Arabia to stop it facilitating the funding and arming of a lot of the large Islamic Terrorist organisations.

Britain went through the Blitz and the IRA bombing campaign and, despite what the papers say, the chances of someone in the West being killed in a terrorist attack are minuscule. Far more people are killed on the roads, but I don't hear anyone proposing banning cars. When did we become so bloody soft.

I agree with you regarding Saudi Arabia...

However, that's not going to happen because there is money involved. There has to be.

And another point to make... when EU was taking immigrants in at France, Hungary, UK etc... Saudi Arabia had a massive camp that wasn't being used, why?
Article

[Top_gun]

It's not lazy thinking. Politics is not my area, but it's something I'm intrigued in since I've heard conversations about it on Whatsapp, Discord, Reddit and being a talking point in work.

Through discussions one can learn things about Past and present just like now. I spent much of my youth in hospital and missed out on several years of Primary and Secondary.

When I was talking about 'impact' I meant folk in the UK protesting against Trump which is a USA matter and has no bearing on the UK. But as Kalniel pointed out, one could look at that as a sign of Solidarity/Support/Moral Compass which is a fair point which then changes my opinion that the Protest can be effective in some ways.

My comment wasn't an attack on you but on the comment itself.

Only history will tell if the protesters against Trump were successful. Trump is doing his best to create history, the protesters must do theirs.