M423 - Donald Trump Motion 2017 Watch

This discussion is closed.
adam9317
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
Donald Trump Motion 2017, TSR Libertarian Party
This House believes that the Government should invite US President Donald Trump to make an official state visit to the United Kingdom. As a nation that prides itself for its free speech, we find it completely unjust that Mr Trump should be denied a state visit on the basis of his personality and policies. A poll conducted by ‘YouGov’ in January showed that a greater number of Britons supported his visit than opposed it. Donald Trump may be a divisive and controversial character but we recognise that it would be a bad diplomatic move to block him from coming to our country.
Source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...st-poll-shows/
1
BobBobson
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
Aye. John Bercow is a fake conservative if he opposes what Donald Trump is calling for in America. Some of the MPs irl need to learn a lesson or two from him.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 years ago
#3
So we should extend an invitation that has already been extended and accepted? A good start for the libers.
5
username1751857
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 years ago
#4
Aye - we've rolled the red carpet for much more extreme leaders than Trump.
0
Snufkin
Badges: 21
#5
Report 2 years ago
#5
God, no.
0
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 years ago
#6
Aye. As a supporter of freedom of speech, I fully back this motion. Of course Trump has said unpalatable things, but the way to tackle that is not to simply shut him out, but to challenge those views through debate. Plus, the UK has hosted far more extreme leaders, so why are we taking issue with Trump?
0
username456717
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 years ago
#7
Nay, he does not deserve it.
0
_gcx
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#8
Report 2 years ago
#8
(Original post by Snufkin)
God, no.
Why?
0
CoffeeAndPolitics
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 years ago
#9
Abstain
0
Basiil17
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 years ago
#10
Nay.
0
username2718212
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#11
Report 2 years ago
#11
Abstain.
0
Tanqueray91
  • Study Helper
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 years ago
#12
I back the motion on the basis of what it's trying to do, however, as Jammy has already said, it's unnecessary.
0
Snufkin
Badges: 21
#13
Report 2 years ago
#13
(Original post by _gcx)
Why?
Trump does not deserve the attention.
1
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 years ago
#14
(Original post by notneb)
Nay, he does not deserve it.
And, I'm assuming, you think that Robert Mugabe, Xi Jingping and the numerous other vile cretins that have made state visits and spoken in parliament 'deserved it'?

To the motion, aye, we've had worse, and I'm positive that we'll have worse still, but freedom of speech is absolute and no one should be barred from entering because of their political views, a couple of countries tried that approach in the last century; didn't work particularly well.
0
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 2 years ago
#15
(Original post by toronto353)
Aye. As a supporter of freedom of speech, I fully back this motion. Of course Trump has said unpalatable things, but the way to tackle that is not to simply shut him out, but to challenge those views through debate. Plus, the UK has hosted far more extreme leaders, so why are we taking issue with Trump?
I completely agree.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 years ago
#16
(Original post by CoffeeGeek)
Aye - we've rolled the red carpet for much more extreme leaders than Trump.
(Original post by toronto353)
Aye. As a supporter of freedom of speech, I fully back this motion. Of course Trump has said unpalatable things, but the way to tackle that is not to simply shut him out, but to challenge those views through debate. Plus, the UK has hosted far more extreme leaders, so why are we taking issue with Trump?
(Original post by Birchington)
I completely agree.
So you support a lazy motion that calls for something that is already happening to be done?
0
LifeIsFine
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 2 years ago
#17
Agree with Jammy Duel and mobbsy91 in this case.
The state visit is already to take place, and so this motion is redundant.
0
Birchington
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 years ago
#18
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
So you support a lazy motion that calls for something that is already happening to be done?
I do agree that the motion pretty much states the obvious, but see no reason to vote No purely because the motion is 'lazy'.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 years ago
#19
I see Jammy's point. However, I support the premise of this motion and accordingly shall vote aye.
0
toronto353
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 years ago
#20
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
So you support a lazy motion that calls for something that is already happening to be done?
I don't support that element of the motion, but for me, it's about making clear I support Trump's visit, so though the motion is poorly worded and timed, as you rightly mention it, I will still be voting aye.
1
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Chemistry Paper 3 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (274)
31.53%
The paper was reasonable (423)
48.68%
Not feeling great about that exam... (105)
12.08%
It was TERRIBLE (67)
7.71%

Watched Threads

View All