News3 mins ago
Trump Supports Britain First !
Answers
Naomi, do you believe everything you read? I have not personally investigated JaydaBF's posts to see whether they are true. From reading around, it seems that they are not. I might have guessed they wouldn't be, based on past form. It makes no difference to me, because I'm not retweeting them. I get my news from more reliable sources, not those with a vested...
13:44 Tue 05th Dec 2017
> All he did was tweet those videos to condemn the actions of their main-players
If you were right about then he would be a naive idiot. But you're wrong about that. He did not tweet those videos, he retweeted @JaydaBF's tweets, it seems without even fact-checking them. So tweeting those videos to condemn the actions of their main-players was not all he did. He involved @JaydaBF. He supported her.
Trump has 44M followers. Just before his tweets, @JaydaBF had 51,000 followers, collected over 18 months. Now, a week later, @JaydaBF has 91,000 followers. That is the effect of his support - an 80% increase in followers in a week.
If you were right about then he would be a naive idiot. But you're wrong about that. He did not tweet those videos, he retweeted @JaydaBF's tweets, it seems without even fact-checking them. So tweeting those videos to condemn the actions of their main-players was not all he did. He involved @JaydaBF. He supported her.
Trump has 44M followers. Just before his tweets, @JaydaBF had 51,000 followers, collected over 18 months. Now, a week later, @JaydaBF has 91,000 followers. That is the effect of his support - an 80% increase in followers in a week.
//Now, a week later, @JaydaBF has 91,000 followers. That is the effect of his support - an 80% increase in followers in a week.//
And so, Ellipsis?
Can we keep a sense of proportion here? Despite all the atrocities committed by Muslims (and all the talk about rising "hate crime" and anti-Muslim "backlashes") I can think of only two murders (those of Jo Cox and of the guy run down outside Finsbury mosque) and one assault by a deadly weapon (rasher of bacon as I recall) which have been committed by presumed members of "far-right" groups.
How many of Ms Fransen's extra followers are going to rush out and kill a Muslim?
And so, Ellipsis?
Can we keep a sense of proportion here? Despite all the atrocities committed by Muslims (and all the talk about rising "hate crime" and anti-Muslim "backlashes") I can think of only two murders (those of Jo Cox and of the guy run down outside Finsbury mosque) and one assault by a deadly weapon (rasher of bacon as I recall) which have been committed by presumed members of "far-right" groups.
How many of Ms Fransen's extra followers are going to rush out and kill a Muslim?
V_E, the topic of the thread is "Trump Supports Britain First", which he patently was doing through his tweets. I'm not seeking to make points about Islamist or far right murderers in that context, simply to call into question Trump's judgement for retweeting three Britain First tweets.
I know through personal experience that people can be taken in by Britain First, but did not expect to see Trump so duped. In fact I don't think I have seen that. Instead, I think I've seen more evidence of his true nature. It's either one or the other, though.
Given his position, that's worthy of discussion. He has supported a British, far right, ultranationalist, failed political organisation, whose name happens(?) to be the words shouted by the MP Jo Cox's murderer as he killed her.
As for the murderous actions of the far right, how far back do you want to go? Shall I retweet Hitler's views on vegetarianism because I happen to agree with them, conveniently ignoring all that other baggage he carries? Or should I pick a better example of a vegetarian human being, or even simply post my own thoughts or findings? Was Trump not capable of that?
And yes, I fully condemn Islamist terrorism. In fact I don't like terrorism of any kind ...
I know through personal experience that people can be taken in by Britain First, but did not expect to see Trump so duped. In fact I don't think I have seen that. Instead, I think I've seen more evidence of his true nature. It's either one or the other, though.
Given his position, that's worthy of discussion. He has supported a British, far right, ultranationalist, failed political organisation, whose name happens(?) to be the words shouted by the MP Jo Cox's murderer as he killed her.
As for the murderous actions of the far right, how far back do you want to go? Shall I retweet Hitler's views on vegetarianism because I happen to agree with them, conveniently ignoring all that other baggage he carries? Or should I pick a better example of a vegetarian human being, or even simply post my own thoughts or findings? Was Trump not capable of that?
And yes, I fully condemn Islamist terrorism. In fact I don't like terrorism of any kind ...
Ellipsis, //Now, a week later, @JaydaBF has 91,000 followers. That is the effect of his support - an 80% increase in followers in a week.//
From that I can only assume that you conclude that all those extra followers you say Trump has drummed up for her agree with everything that BF promotes. However, v-e asks ‘Can we keep a sense of proportion here?’, but clearly the answer to that is ‘No’, because when hatred becomes an obsession, rationality is abandoned. Think about it.
From that I can only assume that you conclude that all those extra followers you say Trump has drummed up for her agree with everything that BF promotes. However, v-e asks ‘Can we keep a sense of proportion here?’, but clearly the answer to that is ‘No’, because when hatred becomes an obsession, rationality is abandoned. Think about it.
Quality posts from naomi and v_e, accusing of irrationality and derangement.
This is a long thread that has been perpetuated by naomi's insistence that Trump did not support Britain First, something I have disproven with hard facts. Now you resort to personal insults.
At least Theland has the honesty to be direct and open about his support for BF. I don't with his intellectual position, nor with his characterisation that any Briton who does not support BF is not loyal - echoes of fascism there - but he is at least honest.
This is a long thread that has been perpetuated by naomi's insistence that Trump did not support Britain First, something I have disproven with hard facts. Now you resort to personal insults.
At least Theland has the honesty to be direct and open about his support for BF. I don't with his intellectual position, nor with his characterisation that any Briton who does not support BF is not loyal - echoes of fascism there - but he is at least honest.
Ellipsis. I haven’t insulted you. You’re insisting that because Trump posted videos which were already in the public domain, that he supports BF. Therefore you are not keeping a sense of proportion. Incidentally, there are none more fascist than radical Islamists, but heaven forbid that reality should cloud your judgement.
> You’re insisting that because Trump posted videos which were already in the public domain, that he supports BF
No, I'm insisting that in retweeting BF he supported BF, which is borne out by the fact that @JaydaBF's Twitter following almost doubled in the week following Trump's retweets. If you check that account now, the main photo is of Trump, and in her first tweet you'll find JaydaBF appealing for even more support:
Pinned Tweet
Jayda Fransen @JaydaBF Nov 29
WATCH: Jayda appeals for Donald Trump's help @JaydaBF @realDonaldTrump
No, I'm insisting that in retweeting BF he supported BF, which is borne out by the fact that @JaydaBF's Twitter following almost doubled in the week following Trump's retweets. If you check that account now, the main photo is of Trump, and in her first tweet you'll find JaydaBF appealing for even more support:
Pinned Tweet
Jayda Fransen @JaydaBF Nov 29
WATCH: Jayda appeals for Donald Trump's help @JaydaBF @realDonaldTrump
Ellipsis, this reminds me of Mikey who appears to assume that because members of the KKK say they support Trump it follows that Trump supports them. Flawed logic. The bottom line is Trump condemned atrocities committed by Islamist madmen – but never mind the Islamist madmen – let’s all jump on the ever-rolling bandwagon of spite and ostracise Trump for it. Pathetic, it really is.
VE....( 18:36 )....you asked "How many of Ms Fransen's extra followers are going to rush out and kill a Muslim?"
Well, here is one who did try, in Harrow :::::
http://
Well, here is one who did try, in Harrow :::::
http://
Ellipsis, allow me - again - to give you the benefit of the doubt. But .... regardless of the source of the evidence was Trump wrong to expose the actions of the festering carbuncle that is radical Islam? Would you really rather it be swept under the carpet for fear of generating more widespread abhorrence of something that is a far greater menace to our society than BF?
Same question to you, Mikey.
Same question to you, Mikey.
Naomi....trump has been roundly criticized by almost everybody, for re-tweeting BFs video clips.
Farage said at the weekend that "of course Trump doesn't know who and what Britain First is"
If that is the case, then he gave support to BF, without checking any of the facts, something you would, and should have done.
If, on the other hand, he did know who and what BF is, then he was still giving this racist organisation support and credibility.
Either way, the support was there. As I said earlier, almost everybody accepts that he was wrong to do what he did....accept you.
Farage said at the weekend that "of course Trump doesn't know who and what Britain First is"
If that is the case, then he gave support to BF, without checking any of the facts, something you would, and should have done.
If, on the other hand, he did know who and what BF is, then he was still giving this racist organisation support and credibility.
Either way, the support was there. As I said earlier, almost everybody accepts that he was wrong to do what he did....accept you.
> regardless of the source of the evidence was Trump wrong to expose the actions of the festering carbuncle that is radical Islam
You can't disregard the source of the evidence. The source of the evidence is the whole problem.
But let me say that Trump, had he further exposed, with proper evidence and without supporting an organisation like BF, the festering carbuncle that is radical Islam, I would be very happy with that. For example, retweeting Tweets like these:
https:/
You can't disregard the source of the evidence. The source of the evidence is the whole problem.
But let me say that Trump, had he further exposed, with proper evidence and without supporting an organisation like BF, the festering carbuncle that is radical Islam, I would be very happy with that. For example, retweeting Tweets like these:
https:/
Mikey, why do you continue to assume that other people’s opinions influence me? Unless they’re sensible, they don’t.
Of course Farage is right in saying Trump doesn’t know who BF is. Why would he?
//If, on the other hand, he did know who and what BF is, ….//
‘If’? I could have sworn you headed this thread with a very definite ‘Trump Supports Britain First!’
Ellipsis, //The source of the evidence is the whole problem.//
That implies that had the source been otherwise the message would have been acceptable to you - which makes your current stance quite bizarre considering that the evidence presents a far greater danger than the source. Whoever exposes radical Islam for what it is does the world a favour. Shooting the messenger simply because you don’t like him or them – and that’s what you’re doing - never was the rational option. A threat to our society is exactly that – whoever exposes it.
Of course Farage is right in saying Trump doesn’t know who BF is. Why would he?
//If, on the other hand, he did know who and what BF is, ….//
‘If’? I could have sworn you headed this thread with a very definite ‘Trump Supports Britain First!’
Ellipsis, //The source of the evidence is the whole problem.//
That implies that had the source been otherwise the message would have been acceptable to you - which makes your current stance quite bizarre considering that the evidence presents a far greater danger than the source. Whoever exposes radical Islam for what it is does the world a favour. Shooting the messenger simply because you don’t like him or them – and that’s what you’re doing - never was the rational option. A threat to our society is exactly that – whoever exposes it.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.