London’s New Muslim Mayor Warns Trump: Let In Muslims Or They Will Attack America

Hardly, the American right is one of the most tolerant groups on the planet. If you want intolerance look to the left...

 

According to Trump today, the ban on Muslims was just a suggestion.

http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36272236

 

London is probably the worst place in the UK, costs a fortune to even visit.

 

Oddly enough, the very next line says the following:

Which is precisely the point - and remarkable, that a simple definition of the word includes the example of the UK not having one.

You made the same vague assertion, as I said.

That statement is entirely contradictory. The maximum that can be stated is that there are powers that resemble those of a constitution. But to say in effect that a distinguishing feature of the "constitution" is that there actually isn't one anywhere is a nonsense statement, and that it comes from a government source doesn't make it any less nonsensical - although it's certainly remarkably distinguishing. There is no constitution. Anything that suggests otherwise, including you, is wrong, and citing equally wrong sources doesn't make either you or they any less wrong.

 

I guess he'll end up rowing back on pretty much everything that made him stand out. Then he'll be truly another "establishment" candidate, and the media et al will tell us how much better a candidate he is now he's singing from their hymn book.

Ho-hum.

 

Brilliant, you are actually arguing with a Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor and the English Oxford Dictionary!

Why do you not understand that a non codified constitution is just as valid as a codified constitution?

Why would someone who claims to be British think you need a single document called a constitution in order to have a constitution?

 

Well, they will. Alienating Muslims through generalisations and blanket bans is hardly the answer. But I still think Khan is an idiot for engaging in this sort of puerile fear-mongering (and an idiot in general - he based his entire campaign around his status as a minority, and what's more, London bought into that crap).

 

LOL, yeah. That is a definite possibility.

 

He is shrewd, part of him dialing it back for the general season.

He did a lot to smooth things over with the establishment today.

Might have just secured his presidency.

 

Not a bluff. I'm not gonna scurry off and dig up the info and post it because I don't care what you think or what snark you throw at me. It's up to people to be informed. If Londoners better informed and had their sovereignty and best interests - their priorities in order, they'd not have let Islamists attain citizenship in their country and enabled the election of a foreigner who's aligned with their sworn enemy.

 

That's one way of looking at it. Say and promise things during the primaries, they throw them out the window into the trash once the nomination is secured. How can one ever believe a word the man says? Or doesn't it matter what he says and promises today knowing Trump will say just the opposite tomorrow?

It seems the Donald is more of a politician than the establishment types. Say and promise anything as long as it gets you votes. I suppose one could say Trump out establishment the establishment. Not bad.

 

If you know he is an Islamist then just state why, no need to scurry off and dig up info, and he is not a foreigner!

 

How dare you actually read it, use reason and correct quotations.

 

Politicians have no particular expertise on many matters, so that isn't remarkable. The dictionary quote you gave, with remarkable coincidence, pointed out that the UK does not have a constitution - a quote you left out.

In English, the subjunctive tense doesn't exist in any practical sense, but it remains valid. An constitution that doesn't exist may be valid in some esoteric sense, but it remains non-existent.

Your point is? I'm not British? You really want to push that one? I don't think that's a particularly productive avenue for you. The question "why would somebody think something" is plain silly, irrelevant and largely meaningless.

You know perfectly well that we don't have such a thing. I don't know what you think you're achieving by doggedly trying to suggest we do, particularly to a largely American audience who do have a constitution, can perfectly well understand that the UK has nothing equivalent and are probably currently scratching their collective heads as to where you think you're going with this.

 

Pretty pyrrhic victory if he ends up ditching everything that got him the nomination.

 

Just out of interest, if you do not accept the Oxford dictionary or the UK governments authority on this who would you accept?

 

The Secret Life of Sadiq Khan, London’s First Muslim Mayor

I recommend reading the whole thing for context, but there were a few pullable quotes from someone who knows him.

"Sadiq Khan is no Muslim extremist. And it is not only his track record voting for gay rights that proves this. Having known him when I was a Muslim extremist, I know that he did not subscribe to my then-theocratic views...

The seeds were sown with Khan’s now-former in-laws. During London’s ’90s Islamist heyday, Khan’s brother-in-law Makbool Javaid was affiliated and listed as a spokesman to the now-banned terrorist group al-Muhajiroun, founded by the hate preacher Omar Bakri Muhammad, and then led by the infamous fanatic Anjem Choudary. I knew of Makbool back then, too. His brothers were colleagues of mine, affiliated to my former extremist organization, Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Through such connections Khan ingratiated himself in the London Islamist scene. In 2003, he appeared at a conference alongside Sajeel Abu Ibrahim, a member of that same banned al-Muhajiroun.

Sajeel ran a camp in Pakistan that trained the 7/7 bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan. Speaking there, too, was one Yasser al-Siri, who had been convicted in Egypt over a political assassination attempt that left a young girl dead.

In his MCB capacity, Khan argued in Parliament that the Muslim Brotherhood cleric Dr. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi “is not the extremist that he is painted as being.”

This is Qaradawi who, among other things, authored a book called The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam, in which he justifies wife beating and discusses whether homosexuals should be killed.
Infamously, Qaradawi also issued a fatwa advocating suicide bombings against Israeli civilians, a view which has seen him join the likes of Omar Bakri Muhammad in being denied entry to the U.K.

Khan’s relationships with extremists ran so deep in fact, that he attended events for the jihadist rights group Cage, and wrote a foreword for one of their reports. Cage has since declared ISIS executioner ‘Jihadi-John’ to be a beautiful man live on the BBC."

 

The first act of the newly elected London Mayor was to attend a Holocaust memorial service, which was greatly appreciated by survivors and relatives.

 

Here's the real truth:

[video=youtube;MpVi8TJ2RGw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpVi8TJ2RGw[/video]

 

From day one I knew he wasn't a dictator-he needs to be able to make deals to get what he wants done.

The theme is he's going to reign in immigration, legal and illegal, and I think he can do that if he convinces enough people.

We are going to be seeing a softer tone from him in the general. Thats to his advantage I think.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think he has.

 

If Trump is to make inroads among the independent ranks he will have to shed the I am running for a TV reality show host and act and show he is actually running for president. It seems his supporters don't mind his shifting positions on the issues and going back on what was once as Trump stated, written in stone.

This is why I think when it comes to THE Donald, it is all about his persona and not where he stands on the issues or his political ideology. That continues to change all the time. Perhaps he really has no hard core ideology, his track record has been all over the place. But be that as it may, the question is can he persuade those independent voters who view him unfavorably, close to 70% to come around to his side. Trump is lucky that Clinton is right up there in the 60% range unfavorables among the indies. Still the average is 38-38 Trump vs. Clinton with a whopping 20% of independents either taking a pass, not voting or voting for some third party candidate. Lots of lesser two evil votes among that 38-38 tie.

This is an election where the majority of Americans do not want either candidate. Yet one has to win. This is sure one for the history books.

 

That's as real as your grip on reality.

 

Yeah? How many Muslims voted for the non-Muslim do you think?

 

Considering that Labor has an antisemite problem, it was a smart move.

 

It's to his advantage if it pulls back more voters than his actual stated stances at the time dissuaded. But if his desire for office turns him into a version of exactly what his core supporters voted for him as an alternative to, it's going to be a bit pointless even if he gets the top job (which I hope he does, even if he does start wussing out).

He's already rowed back on his temporary ban on Muslim immigrants comment. Arguments will be made for no change there as the proposal was only temporary, but he's quite clearly changed his tone. And he has a history of inconsistency. If he does a u-turn on the wall, that'll be pretty categoric.

Anyway, let's see if he holds firm.