back to article Parliamentary Trump-off? Pro-Donald petition passes 100k signatures

Proving that democracy is just fine in the internet era, a petition demanding that Donald Trump should be invited to make a state visit to the UK has passed 100,000 signatures – passing the threshold to be "considered" for a Parliamentary debate. The petition was set up in response to a much more popular one demanding that …

Page:

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: nice!

        It's had all of two and a half days I think as it started on Sunday morning (I signed the anti trump somewhere around the 40K signature mark) to reach almost 1.8 million signatures so it's unlikely to reach the same giddy levels but the main reason I feel uneasy is the moronic premise that the debate is actually a separate one, Teresa Dismay has already invited Trumplethinskin to come and see what he's buying.

        Fortunately he probably won't be able to take back our country, it's a bit big for hand luggage.

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: nice!

          "Teresa Dismay has already invited Trumplethinskin to come and see what he's buying."

          I think the prime purpose is actually to embarrass her for her naivety rather than preventing Trump embarrassing the Queen.

      2. cantankerous swineherd

        Re: nice!

        you won, congratulations.

      3. veti Silver badge

        Re: nice!

        Big John, nice to see you clutching straws here.

        One petition has been "waiting for 3 days for a government response". In other words, it passed the 10,000 threshold (and got noticed and publicised) 3 days ago. The other has been "waiting for 2 days for a government response".

        One day ago, as reported on this very site, it was at 1 million signatures. Now it's close to 1.8 million.

        The other petition is approaching 200,000.

        So please, do feel free to tell us all about which one is growing "very rapidly".

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: nice!

          I stand corrected. You are on the winning side. Whatever that means. Frankly the winner of this particular horse race isn't a big concern of mine, I'm just interested in the process. It IS a process, isn't it?

          1. Red Bren

            Re: nice!

            "You are on the winning side. Whatever that means."

            Based on recent referenda and elections, being on the winning side means you get to claim:

            - "The People" have spoken

            - a marginal victory is a landslide/overwhelming/unanimous

            - you have a mandate to carry out the most extreme policies, even when they contradict the assurances you gave before the vote*

            - that any further democratic opposition is moaning/treason

            * To be fair to Trump, he's carrying out the extreme policies he promised, although he's not "draining the swamp", just filling it with his own bunch of reptiles.

        2. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Devil

          Re: nice!

          "So please, do feel free to tell us all about which one is growing 'very rapidly'."

          Uh, the one that appeals to HOWLER MONKEYS?

      4. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Devil

        Re: nice!

        "Notice how some people will grasp at any straw(man) to maintain their world view. "

        The original petition was probably "astro-turf" (not 'grass roots'). Getting 1.5 million 'howler monkey' types to sign it wouldn't be all that hard (especially if it's all done electronically).. The fact that conservatives are "bothering at all" with a petition like that actually means A LOT MORE, even if the total count is lower.

        It's like "percentage of the left who sign petitions" vs "percentage of the right who sign petitions".

        It ALSO reminds me of the recent pre-election polls (for both Trump _and_ Brexit), which were oddly skewed in the wrong direction. OR, the ratio of downvotes that a typical conservative poster gets in El Reg article comments.

      5. lansalot

        Re: nice!

        Well, John... after a good week now, they appear to have tailed off at 1.85m versus 300,000.

        https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions?state=open

        So my comparison stands. Feeling uneasy, are you?

    1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Re: nice!

      You are mistaking Polish Medieval Democracy for Ancient Greek Democracy.

      In Polish Medieval Democracy the votes are shouted and the party who shouts the louder elects the future king. +/- some fighting under the influence on the sidelines.

      In Ancient Greek democracy the votes are counted and whoever gets the most votes is elected.

      We used to have a variant of the Greek Democracy. We now have switched to the Polish one, with the sole distinction that the same newspapers which licked Hitler's ass in the days of Chamberlain are used as Seim Floor Loudhailers.

      What I really dislike is where it is going. From trouncing crusaders, Russian (the only ones to take Moscow and hold it successfully installing a puppet government), Turks or anyone who was unlucky to get in their way Poland became a failed state. In the blink of an eye. A couple of weak kings shouted-in wrongly and that was it. So thanks, I'd rather not have us switch to Medieval Polish Democracy as a form of government. It's fun, but it does not end well.

      1. JimC

        Re:We used to have a variant of the Greek Democracy.

        Not really, no. Our representational democracy was/is really very different in detail to the Athenian democracy, which wouldn't really scale. As for the suggestion its not working as well as it should and perhaps once did, I'm inclined to agree, but am awfully aware that (at least partially blind) nostalgia for how much better the good old days were is something else we have in common with 5thC BC Athens...

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: nice!

        Love it, racism and ignorance all nicely wrapped up and ready to consume. Pat yourself on your (racist) back. Oh, and extra kudos for supporting a slave owning society as an exemplar - you must be a lefty through and through.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: nice!

          mm I hate to point this out, for fear of being labelled a Nazi and punched in the face by a liberal but,

          The Trump should be allowed to visit petition has an end date of 30th of July 2017

          The Trump should not be allowed to visit petition has an end date of the 29th of May 2017

          So this would imply that the ban Trump one is the one from two months ago.

          Also it should be noted that the Trump visit one was likely written in response to the hysteria in the press and "liberal" segment of society as opposed to the actual petition. I doubt many people read the actual petition and just the headlines in the papers.

          Anyway it's all a wonderful distraction to the real issues such as the collapse of the NHS with Nurses being forced to work long hours in understaffed conditions. People dying when they don't need to and all sorts of other things.

          But don't worry celebrities are out protesting a chap in charge of the USA saying, hey maybe we should review letting people in to the country from places that have collapsed, are in civil war or are our long term enemy. Much as the previous chap in charge of the USA was looking at.

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: nice!

              So let Parliament debate it. I will watch with interest.

              Please tell me, ignorant Yank that I am, what can be expected from this debate? Will there be fisticuffs? That always gooses the ratings.

              Um, any chance they actually will block the Prez from getting at the Queen?

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: nice!

                no chance in the slightest.

                Lots of talking politely followed by boos cheers and jeeers

              2. katrinab Silver badge

                Re: nice!

                I believe the previous ban Trump debate is available to watch somewhere.

                They take place in Westminster Hall which is also where MPs go when they call other people to give evidence to the House.

                They had a very civil discussion, and had a non-binding vote which decided that he shouldn't be banned. This petition doesn't ask for him to be banned, just that he shouldn't be invited on a state visit, and it is very rare for US Presidents to be invited on state visits.

                1. SundogUK Silver badge

                  Re: nice!

                  Three out of the last five have had state visits, so it's not exactly 'very rare' any more is it?

    2. Polardog

      Re: nice!

      Most people don't really care it's only the little snowflakes and z listers that make a fuss. The world keeps turning! Why not bang on about Jews being banned from traveling to 16 different nations all Islamic.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: nice!

        Fuck - you are one of those people that have been tasked to learn the word "snowflake" this year. I urge you to keep expanding that vocabulary, one word at a time.

    3. John 104

      Re: nice!

      @lansalot

      It isn't that there aren't as many supporters. Its just that so many of them actually have jobs and can't be arsed with the whole thing.

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I think I should be taking all this trump visit business seriously as if it affects three people in the Solomon Islands it must be a big deal.

    1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

      The Solomon Islands

      Perhaps the threat of Global Warming and rising sealevels and complete islands disappearing might be the reason for people there wanting to show their displeasure with Trump?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The Solomon Islands

        And yet, NO islands have gone under or even look like they will be any time soon. It's all threat. Kinda like those polar bears who were dying in droves, only they weren't.

        BTW, you need to get with the program. "Global Warming" is passé (wasn't happening), so now you are to always call it "Climate Change," since climate always changes and no one can prove it isn't us causing it. Neat, eh?

        1. Sinick

          Re: The Solomon Islands

          Oh BigMouth John. As always, you lie like a whole goddamn rug store.

          https://www.newscientist.com/article/2087356-five-pacific-islands-vanish-from-sight-as-sea-levels-rise/

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: The Solomon Islands

            Sinick, do you really think that linked site supports your smarmy attitude? Did you even read it? Apparently 5 tiny uninhabited reef islands have disappeared since 1947 (out of many many thousands). The site admits that "stronger trade winds" are present to raise sea levels slightly in that area, but global sea level rise (supposedly 3mm per year) is also blamed.

            Even if true, 3mm/year amounts to 300mm per century (one foot) and most inhabited low islands see more erosion than that just from normal human activity.

            This gives you the right to call me childish names? Puhleeze.

            1. ACcc

              Re: The Solomon Islands

              The fact you're an idiot that can't understand science gives me the reason you childish names.

              You goldfish minded buffoon.

              Also "big John"...really? Compensating for your tiny..."intellect"...

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: The Solomon Islands

              An additional note, tiny reef islands are basically underwater reefs that have managed to collect enough sand to poke above the waves. They are ephemeral by nature and typhoons often scour away the sand, leaving just the reef making a few waves. I suppose the 6 inches of purported sea rise since 1947 might have contributed too, given the extremely low profile of reef islands.

              Conversely a few new reef islands have probably risen from the waves since then as well, but I guess the New Scientists weren't interested in finding any of those.

              So my statement stands. Real inhabited islands more than a few inches high are not being covered by sea rise at all. However the Maldives and some other islands have serious issues with sand being lost due to wave action combined with human activity. Still not something that supports any climate change catastrophe theory, fortunately.

              1. ACcc

                Re: The Solomon Islands

                "Real inhabited islands more than a few inches high are not being covered by sea rise at all."

                Yet. Because sea level rise is g.r.a.d.u.a.l. Which means "it takes time" for the hard of thinking around here.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: The Solomon Islands

                  How much time do you need?

                  http://www.tradingeconomics.com/solomon-islands/land-area-sq-km-wb-data.html

              2. beast666

                Re: The Solomon Islands

                Big John hands out a pwning again! Well done Sir.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: The Solomon Islands

                  I'm not trying to belittle anyone (well, maybe a little). I really believe that there's a bad thing going on here. The world has a lot of very pressing problems that could use attention, but at the higher levels it's all about faked up crises, designed to enrich those in control, and they are stealing resources from the real problems. It's no different than a fake charity that deprives real charities by diverting their funding away from them. THAT is why I so dislike the global warming scare and similar bogus causes.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: The Solomon Islands

                    I don't think any debate on climate change or global warming is going to be resolved here so is there any way we can contact these three people from the Solomon Islands for their opinion? They obviously have one.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: The Solomon Islands

            But that's a crap, lying, inaccurate article (but typical of new scientist). Low lying islands do "pop-up" and disappear regularly, it's quite a normal thing. The way to study it is to look at enough of them to get a trend, and the last one that did that showed that the trend was for more islands to appear than disappear.

            So the New Scientist cherry picks the data to show what it wants to be true, showing a political and anti-scientific bias. Next, news at eleven, water is wet.

        2. Bloodbeastterror

          Re: The Solomon Islands

          Ah, Big John... As soon as I read the name (after I'd read the post) the penny dropped and all became clear - I knew I could safely ignore the message. Apart from downvoting it on principle, of course. You're the guy who hates homosexuals because they're perverts, right? As in the great North Carolina rest room fiasco last year in which you exposed yourself. As a bigot. Welcome back - you make these threads funnier.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: The Solomon Islands

          The islands are not sinking below the waves, the land area is mostly expanding. Of course you should not let factual information interfere with the debate.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Brits do go to the Solomons for 'business'

      https://army.mod.uk/news/28777.aspx "Bomb disposal in the Solomon Islands"

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Maybe if these muppets were campaigning so loudly about something that matters, like indicting Bush or Blair as war criminals. Or trying to stop the UK doing arms deals with countries that have pretty dodgy human rights issues, or campaigning against countries that routinely murder their own citizens for speaking out I might have more respect for them.

    But until then...

    1. GingerOne

      "Maybe if these muppets were campaigning so loudly about something that matters, like indicting Bush or Blair as war criminals. Or trying to stop the UK doing arms deals with countries that have pretty dodgy human rights issues, or campaigning against countries that routinely murder their own citizens for speaking out I might have more respect for them."

      Just because it's not widely reported doesn't mean it's not happening. i don't know where you live or work but take a wander around the streets of London any day of the week and all of these things are being protested. Join Change.org and you will see there are many people campaigning on all of these issues.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        I didn't say it wasn't, it's the fake indignation against Trump by weekend protestors who'll forget all about this next week that I take exception with.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "I didn't say it wasn't, it's the fake indignation against Trump by weekend protestors who'll forget all about this next week that I take exception with."

          I can only speak for myself, of course - but let me assure you that my indignation against Mr. Trump is very real indeed.

    2. Rich 11

      There's always someone who says 'Don't talk about this thing I'm not interested in. Talk about this thing I am interested in, else I can't take you seriously'.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        If you are going to protest against something, protest against something worth protesting against.

        There are far worse things in the world than whether or not the Queen might be embarressed to meet Trump to protest against.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Maybe if they were serious they would indict Obama for war crimes, something he is undoubtedly guilty of, but oh dear, it would be "wacist" to even thing of that wouldn't it !

  3. Mage Silver badge
    Flame

    "he is the leader of a free world"

    No, he's not.

    He's only the leader of the USA. Maybe 13% of the population, but consuming 75% of resources?

    How many countries of the 195 to 205 (Not everyone agrees which countries are "real") are "free"* and have equality of opportunity.

    [For an extra 5 points define "free"]

    1. Rich 11

      Re: "he is the leader of a free world"

      How many countries of the 195 to 205

      244. It's 244 or Kaspersky's claim that Antarctica is the least cyber-attacked territory/nation is false.

    2. Chris Miller

      Re: "he is the leader of a free world"

      The USA has a GDP 4 times larger than the next largest 'free' nation (whatever your definition of 'free', I expect that China wouldn't fall within it). In terms of military muscle, the gap is far wider, probably more like 10x. Trump is the head of state of the USA. So if anyone is the "leader of the free world", that would be him.

    3. JustNiz

      Re: "he is the leader of a free world"

      >> [For an extra 5 points define "free"]

      Cheaper than cheap?

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "he is the leader of a free world"

      Free - The sound I make when saying three due to my Mancunian accent our kid.

      Where do I claim my 5 points?

  4. JLV

    quip? not all that clever, no.

    >and even Ronald Reagan.

    The problem with including The Gipper in that list is that it makes it really look like no Republican president would be acceptable to your tender sensibilities.

    Reagan is controversial in some ways (I still joke about "Reagan vegetables"), and trickle-down economics didn't turn out as claimed (you could argue it was the starting shot for the great inequality race).

    But Reagan was also quite successful at both knocking the USSR out of the Cold War. And, when that happened, actually taking a chance at more productive relations with Russia. Granted, not much $ or effort was expended in bolstering civil society and economies in ex-Soviet block countries (or Afghanistan) later, but that was on other people's watch, mostly.

    Point is, he may not be to everyone's liking, but he doesn't belong on that list with the other psychopaths. And, since he was the least toxic of the recent Republican presidents (along w Bush Sr), you are basically saying "no Republican is acceptable". What's your suggestion? That the Dems keep power permanently? No matter how competent Bill and Barack might have been, it's toxic to stick with one party. Granted, 4 (or 8) more years of Democrats would have been better than the current buffoon.

    Great attitude. IMHO, gives credence to morons like Bannon, Limbaugh and the like when they tell Rep voters that everyone's out to get them. And look where that bit of voter polarization got us this time. Someone who's already well on the way to displacing Bush Jr as the most incompetent POTUS of recent times.

    As far as the Queen meeting with El Toupe or not, that's UK citizens' business. If I were making decisions, I'd keep my powder dry and reserve opposition to Trump where it really matters, not surface levels of protocol. Slighting him would not, at this point, achieve much. There are plenty of other opportunities awaiting, I suspect, where a principled stand against Trump will be more relevant. We are, not quite, yet, at the point where the main way to influence the US is to boycott everything, like with South Africa in the 90s.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like