Top Trump: A Poem

[MyNameIsTerry]

Well, we've got Trump coming for his state visit in June. There is already a petition to stop him again. Corbyn has snubbed the meet on the grounds we shouldn't roll out the red carpet but he said he would like to talk to him.

I do find this hysteria over Trump so strange given the henious characters the Queen and our politicians have to entertain over here. I guess this "leader of the free world" nonsense goes to people's heads, the US is not my leader! I never understood this thinking as there are many things wrong in the US, and historically, that we surely wouldn't consider it a country that leads in those respects?

I hope to see the same resistance next time the Saudi's pop over (in between chopping off heads in executions for dubious reasons or bombing schools in Yemen), the Sultan of Brunei now he has made homosexuality punishable by death or perhaps China with their internment camps?

Considering the number of misogynists, racists, homophobes and anti Semites that stand up to debate in Parliament it seems a bit of a strange double standard from an American point of view

[Hollow]

I agree with you, Terry. Our politicians, most of whom are satanists, paedophiles and traitors are not in a position to take the moral high ground over Trump's state visit.

The US is the leader of the "free" world when it comes to spreading death, destruction and chaos all around the world. It's also the number one exporter of every type of moral depravity. The American empire is on it's last legs but will it die a slow death or trigger major world wars with Russia and China?

US military THREAT: Trump shows off US warships in 'warning' to Russia - 'more LETHAL'

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world...s-today-latest

Jon Huntsman, the US Ambassador to Russia, said: “When you have 200,000 tonnes of diplomacy that is cruising in the Mediterranean – this is what I call diplomacy – this is forward deployed diplomacy.

[MyNameIsTerry]

Hollow,

Politicians have always got themselves in trouble for the things they say and do but social media seems to have given them an easier way to make themselves look like fools without having a lawyer there to say "are you sure that sounds the way you think it does, sir?". But it makes me think about my own workplaces and how they weren't sesspits of racism, misogyny, homophobia and anti Semitism.

These people are elected representations for us and in front of the rest of the world yet it seems to attract so many people who would be consider nobs in any workplaces. I just don't get it how the % of these types seems so high in Parliament and how through their endless training about how to be in public they come off worse than many of us who haven't had that training and just fall back on the respect we learnt growing up.

[Noivous]

Hey Hollow is this guy a pal of yours?

Report: Suspected CA Synagogue Gunman Called Trump ‘Jew-Loving, Anti-White, Traitorous C*cksucker’ in Manifesto.

Right Terry! Leader of the free world? Silly talk. It's funny...the people in the UK who want to ban President Trump from entering the country are often the same ones in favor of illegals coming into the US.

[Hollow]

[MyNameIsTerry]

The US takes a backwards step in health care with a new law to protect medical staff who want to put religion above their duty. A strange situation perhaps to us in the UK who would expect our doctors to act in accordance with the law but not with special opt outs due to religious sensitivity. Does that mean parents might have the ability to prevent treatment if their children in certain circumstances if they find a "tame" doctor? And how will it impact on patients where it's time to turn the machine off? Or a do not resuscitate? Which law trump's which in that case?

[Noivous]

Hey Hollow is that you I see at March of the Living...in the back row waving hello?

https://m.jpost.com/International/Ma...ch-live-588524

Freedom of religion is very important here, Terry. in fact it is part of the First Amendment. it was one of the reasons we left England for the new world in the first place. But believe me there have been a few cases where parents didn't want to get a child treatment because of their religious beliefs and the government stepped in and took over the treatment. I get that but I don't get if a baker who is Christian doesn't want to bake a cake for a so called gay wedding ( btw aren't most weddings gay - mine was) he should not be punished for his beliefs. Btw the Supreme Court just found in favor of that baker.
N.

[Noivous]

Iraq Syria Libya Ukraine Venezuela...Yeah I'm ok with that. A real axis of evil there.

[jray23]

The US takes a backwards step in health care with a new law to protect medical staff who want to put religion above their duty. A strange situation perhaps to us in the UK who would expect our doctors to act in accordance with the law but not with special opt outs due to religious sensitivity. Does that mean parents might have the ability to prevent treatment if their children in certain circumstances if they find a "tame" doctor? And how will it impact on patients where it's time to turn the machine off? Or a do not resuscitate? Which law trump's which in that case?

Terry, there's a significant percentage of uneducated backwater yokels here that double as prejudiced "Christians", and they view things like AIDS as "God's wrath on the sinner". Therefore they don't really care if a person in a situation like that gets medical treatment or not. Despite the fact that Jesus Christ Himself made it a point to heal the sick, ESPECIALLY if they were poor, weak, sinful, or in some other way maligned by the community.

Unfortunately those yokels are a large part of the Republican base.



Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

[MyNameIsTerry]

Hey Hollow is that you I see at March of the Living...in the back row waving hello?

https://m.jpost.com/International/Ma...ch-live-588524

Freedom of religion is very important here, Terry. in fact it is part of the First Amendment. it was one of the reasons we left England for the new world in the first place. But believe me there have been a few cases where parents didn't want to get a child treatment because of their religious beliefs and the government stepped in and took over the treatment. I get that but I don't get if a baker who is Christian doesn't want to bake a cake for a so called gay wedding ( btw aren't most weddings gay - mine was) he should not be punished for his beliefs. Btw the Supreme Court just found in favor of that baker.
N.

We get the same over here, N. Jehovah's Witnesses have been some cases over the years but there are others. Luckily religion has been on the decline in the UK for a long time and despite many of us being baptised and CofE we don't bother with it. It was just something you did, get baptised as it's just what we do in society. That's changed further in recent generations.

The issue with the gay baker (over here, Northern Island) went further(Supreme Court) where it was ruled it was ok to refuse it. Believe me, there are plenty of non religious people who support LGBT+ rights that view cases like that with suspicion. People deliberately targeting places they know will get them in the media. In our case he was a gay righrs activist in a country next to another where gay marriage was being campaigned for. He deliberately walked in there to cause that as he knew who they were. They had served him before and agreed to serve him something else. He wasn't discriminated against because he was gay as they offered all other services as they do for anyone else. So it ended up no different than me walking in asking for a cake to support sticking MP's heads on stakes.

But we have an Equality Act here and if you want to run a business you have to agree to law as the rest of us do. You can be a Christian baker and turn down an employee because they are gay but in a tribunal you will lose. To me, people are people. I would rather have someone gay than someone who is straight who is an unpleasant individual. Why should the unpleasant person be protected because they are straight yet you could have a brilliant gay person?

There has to be balance but certainly over here freedom of religious expression stops at the point it infringes on the rights of another or causes offence. You also have free speech embedded in your constitution yet here you can say it but expect to face consequences for it if it fails the test of another law. Does your Amendment protect against that?

I've never been married so I can't attest to them being gay...but I assume so in the old sense.