[Closed] I'm so torn by this

Ya but we know Salmond is going to be the first president of Scotland than bankrupt the place innit!

Freedooomm! 😆

I saw this and disagree. I think banning him might further galvanize his support back home. I wonder if Salmond is allowing a personal tit for tat with Trump to come to this view.

Yes more free publicity for Trump who after the pointless debate will be able to claim "they don't have the balls to ban me" or "some Muslim Brit politician tried to ban me from the uk and failed" (ref this story [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12104425/Muslim-MP-pledges-to-tear-to-shreds-the-reputation-of-Donald-Trump-during-debate-on-banning-the-Presidential-hopeful.html ]link[/url]

Trump has already put Salmond firmly in his place pointing out the size of his ego unveiling a portrait of himself instead of attending the debate on airstrikes in Syria

Would that be the debate before which Alex Salmond had already been briefed by MI5 and MI6 on account of him being a Privy Councillor and the portrait unveiling that raised over £50,000 for the CLIC Sargent charity - or was it a different one?

To be fair scotroutes I don't think the unveiling raised £50,000. IIRC fans of Salmond bought the painting for £50,000 with the proceeds of the sale going to a worthy charity. Don't know if this was dependent on his appearance to unveil it. I will add though that I am sure he was fully briefed as you say on the vote.

On topic, IF Trump becomes president, can sanctions be brought to bear if he goes through with some of his excessive policies? Expulsiom frpm G8 perhaps? Or is American influence and power to mighty to break.

As discussed on other Trump threads, [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_banned_from_entering_the_United_Kingdom ]we ban lots of other people from entry into the UK[/url] based on them [i]"engaging in unacceptable behaviour by fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the United Kingdom"[/i] (to quote [url= http://web.archive.org/web/20090507181855/http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/hate-promoters-banned-UK-named ]the Home Office[/url])

That sounds like it my apply here, so why should Trump be immune from at least being considered for a similar ban?

Loving the picture of Trump's closed fist salute in front of the Constitution.

[img] [/img]

He might want to turn around and read the first clause of the First Amendment:

[i][b]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[/b]; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/i]

He is not immune. He is being considered for a similar ban. I just wonder if a ban may increase his poll rating. On account of that I would not ban him.

[quote=athgray ]I saw this and disagree. I think banning him might further galvanize his support back home.

Amongst those who will vote for him whatever he or anybody else does - I'm not so sure that any publicity is good publicity applies to the "swing" voters - hopefully the debate will go as Ms Siddiq suggests and that it will do nothing to enhance his reputation with anybody with half a brain.

[quote=athgray ]On topic, IF Trump becomes president, can sanctions be brought to bear if he goes through with some of his excessive policies? Expulsiom frpm G8 perhaps? Or is American influence and power to mighty to break.

😆 er, yes, the US is just too big and powerful - see how we can't do anything meaningful to curb Russia who are still members of the G8 etc. despite all they get up to - nowadays Russia is but a pimple compared to the US.

[quote=GrahamS ]That sounds like it my apply here, so why should Trump be immune from at least being considered for a similar ban?

Because politics

This Alex Salmond?

The same Alex Salmond who tried to get Trump to back the Megrahi release?

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13076170.Salmond_under_pressure_over_Megrahi_Trump_leak/

Trump has already put Salmond firmly in his place pointing out the size of his ego unveiling a portrait of himself instead of attending the debate on airstrikes in Syria

Why have you repeated the partial truth rather than the actual truth?
and again
Pressed if he should not have been there to help make the SNP’s case against intervention, given his debating skills, Mr Salmond said: “It’s a statement by the Prime Minister therefore it is responded to by the leader of the party. That’s the way it should be.”
Mr Robertson confirmed the party will not support a vote for military action unless key questions over issues such as Syria’s reconstruction are "satisfactorily" answered.
Mr Salmond later told the Buzzfeed website that both MI5 and MI6 were present for his briefing so “nothing in the statement was a surprise to me.” He said that he would be present in the Commons when MPs vote on military action.

jambalaya - Member

Trump has already put Salmond firmly in his place pointing out the size of his ego unveiling a portrait of himself instead of attending the debate on airstrikes in Syria

Not merely a #jambafact, but one I've corrected you on before and you backed down on. But hey, whatevs.

Can we ban Salmond swimming south? 😆

Not in favour of banning any one.
Has anyone ever seen Trump and Boris Johnson together?

Let's ban those who ban others then we ban each other for a total ban. 😆

Can we ban you Chewkw? 😆

Far better to invite Trump over for a month away with Salmond, Galloway and Farrage at the same hotel - keep them all out of trouble and the headlines for a period. They could mentally torment each other, with pay per view coverage on Dave +1

How about we invite him over cancel his visa halfway and the yanks revoke his passport?

Far better to invite Trump over for a month away with Salmond, Galloway and Farrage at the same hotel

And then nuke it from orbit. A bit like Celebrity Big Brother but with a more satisfying ending.

Pointless attempts to ban him (as if we'd even contemplate banning someone who could well be the next POTUS) only serve his agenda.