Anti-Trump protesters in London harassed and assaulted Trump supporters

Thousands of demonstrators gathered in London to protest Failing Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon’s UK visit this week. But instead of successfully bothering the president, they settled for a much darker consolation: severely harassing Trump supporters.

Protesters in the British capital’s government district hoped to disrupt Trump’s Tuesday meetings with members of the royal family and outgoing Prime Minister Theresa May. Many expected the crowds to surpass last year’s gathering, which would’ve served as another powerful rebuke by citizens of a country that almost universally dislike the president.

But a massive security presence and the lack of novelty led to a smaller showing this year, it seems. That made it harder for demonstrators to make their signs of “Stand up against Trump,” “Make racists afraid again,” and “Dump Trump” visible to the president. Trump, of course, took all that to mean the size of the crowd was negligible (it wasn’t) and that most actually favored him (nope).

https://www.vox.com/2019/6/5/18653470/trump-uk-protest-london

The videos are on the link and at least Vox got it right with their end comment

If the anti-Trump crowd’s goal was to openly and loudly show Trump the error of his ways, then the protesters failed miserably. The error, in this case, was clearly theirs.

London always was a great town for freedom of speech and assembly.

Original Quill wrote:London always was a great town for freedom of speech and assembly.

That woman screaming Nazi, is a far left radica. Who just lost her job over this. Well she resigned when she was exposed.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7111533/More-1-300-people-sign-petition-urging-NHS-sack-protester.html

But Trump said there were only hundreds railing against him, whilst tens of thousands were supporting him.

Surely the US President didn't lie?

Andy wrote:Surely the US President didn't lie?

Heaven forbid!

Anti Trump supporters should be ashamed of themselves, commemorating the D-DAY landings was the object ! These left wing demonstrators should shut the fuck up. These Vets saved them from speaking German !

nicko wrote:Anti Trump supporters should be ashamed of themselves,  commemorating the D-DAY landings was the object ! These left wing demonstrators should shut the fuck up. These Vets saved them from speaking German !

Nicko, we have talked about this.

The demonstrations were not timed to be on D-Day. Trump chose that day to be in town. Blame any timing on him.

The demonstrations were timed to Trump's arrival.

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:Anti Trump supporters should be ashamed of themselves,  commemorating the D-DAY landings was the object ! These left wing demonstrators should shut the fuck up. These Vets saved them from speaking German !

Nicko, we have talked about this.

The demonstrations were not timed to be on D-Day.  Trump chose that day to be in town.  Blame any timing on him.

The demonstrations were timed to Trump's arrival.

So you think Trump is now more important to protest against than actually celebreting and commemorating the sacrifice of tens of thousands of allied soldiers, sailors and airmen, in their quest to defeat Nazism.??

wow

It seems the people protesting, have not a clue. Trump is a racist bigoted idiot, but not even close to the hate of Hitler. On this day what mattered, was the memory of those who fought against Nazism.

Protest the day beforfe as they did and i support that, but why on d-day?

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nicko, we have talked about this.

The demonstrations were not timed to be on D-Day.  Trump chose that day to be in town.  Blame any timing on him.

The demonstrations were timed to Trump's arrival.

So you think Trump is now more important to protest against than actually celebreting and commemorating the sacrifice of tens of thousands of allied soldiers, sailors and airmen, in their quest to defeat Nazism.??

wow

It seems the people protesting, have not a clue. Trump is a racist bigoted idiot, but not even close to the hate of Hitler. On this day what mattered, was the memory of those who fought against Nazism.

Protest the day beforfe as they did and i support that, but why on d-day?

Attention.

Those protesters are so childish. That silly robot and stupid balloons show they need to grow up.

Raggamuffin wrote:Those protesters are so childish. That silly robot and stupid balloons show they need to grow up.

Well, I tend to agree but this is the country of free speech and whilst I don’t support war of any kind, it was a tad distasteful to choose D-day to do it.

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:Anti Trump supporters should be ashamed of themselves,  commemorating the D-DAY landings was the object ! These left wing demonstrators should shut the fuck up. These Vets saved them from speaking German !

Nicko, we have talked about this.

The demonstrations were not timed to be on D-Day.  Trump chose that day to be in town.  Blame any timing on him.

The demonstrations were timed to Trump's arrival.

He didn't choose that day to be in town....he was invited by HM the Queen to be rightfully included in the DDay celebrations.
The US was our ally in WW2, whether you like him or not he is POTUS......and  that position deserved respect. on DDay.

'Loony left' Trump opponents "harassing" 'radical right' Trump-supporting snowflakes...

Sounds like 'business as usual' in good ol' London town..

Syl wrote:He didn't choose that day to be in town....he was invited by HM the Queen to be rightfully included in the DDay celebrations.

So you are saying the Queen is to blame?  Well, shame on her.  

Those armed forces died for the very reason that those people protesting him were able to do so.

Cass wrote:Those armed forces died for the very reason that those people protesting him were able to do so.

Yes, unfortunately it was the last war that had a legitimate purpose.

Original Quill wrote:

Cass wrote:Those armed forces died for the very reason that those people protesting him were able to do so.

Yes, unfortunately it was the last war that had a legitimate purpose.

I agree to a certain extent. It was also the last one that was conclusively won, no ands, ifs or buts apart from perhaps France vs Algeria and that was mostly about a colony gaining independence which Algeria won. I think the Falkland Islands would be another legitimate conflict from the UK’s point of view.

Anyway goodnight Quill. Off to bed with AJ Liebling!

Cass wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, unfortunately it was the last war that had a legitimate purpose.

I agree to a certain extent. It was also the last one that was conclusively won, no ands, ifs or buts apart from perhaps France vs Algeria and that was mostly about a colony gaining independence which Algeria won. I think the Falkland Islands would be another legitimate conflict from the UK’s point of view.

But was Falkland Islands even a legitimate conflict? It was started because of internal politics inside Argentina.

Gd nite.

Original Quill wrote:

Cass wrote:

I agree to a certain extent. It was also the last one that was conclusively won, no ands, ifs or buts apart from perhaps France vs Algeria and that was mostly about a colony gaining independence which Algeria won. I think the Falkland Islands would be another legitimate conflict from the UK’s point of view.

But was Falkland Islands even a legitimate conflict?  It was started because of internal politics inside Argentina.

Gd nite.

Sorry?

Was this not an example of Lebensraum by Argentina, according your view point?

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But was Falkland Islands even a legitimate conflict?  It was started because of internal politics inside Argentina.

Gd nite.

Sorry?

Was this not an example of Lebensraum by Argentina, according your view point?

No it wasn't.  Argentina provoked the war as a distraction, because it was having difficulties at home.  It was a ‘shiny object’ to cause people to look away from domestic problems.

War History wrote:In Argentina, a military junta under the name National Reorganization Process was the government in the period of 1976-1983 and ruled with an iron hand, dealing with political with imprisonment and execution. The man behind the junta, who was the main advocate of the attack, was Admiral Jorge Anaya. He estimated that the British would not pursue a military conflict, but would rather choose a diplomatic solution, in which the Argentinians could further promote the idea of sovereignty over the archipelago.

The campaign was designed and executed in the midst of devastating economic stagnation in Argentina, which provoked civil unrest. To divert the civilian attention from the fall of living standard and the inflation climb of 600%, a military government did what it does best – mobilize the population towards a general nationalistic sentiment for the islands, several hundred kilometers from the Argentinian coast, that were under British colonial rule.

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/the-argentinian-side-falklands-m.html

It had the appearance of a land-grab, but it was really started as a political diversion, directing attention away from the strife at home.

Original Quill wrote:

Cass wrote:

I agree to a certain extent. It was also the last one that was conclusively won, no ands, ifs or buts apart from perhaps France vs Algeria and that was mostly about a colony gaining independence which Algeria won. I think the Falkland Islands would be another legitimate conflict from the UK’s point of view.

But was Falkland Islands even a legitimate conflict?  It was started because of internal politics inside Argentina.

Gd nite.

That’s why I said from the UK’s point of view it was. And probably for the vast majority on the Argentine side. There’s no doubt that internally the country was in serious disorder and on the verge of breaking down but I don’t believe they invaded as a distraction, rather as a sign of hope, that they were still a mighty nation taking back what the saw as theirs.

See how when the tables are turned Quill looks to excuse this. You cannot begin to laugh at the doble standards of Quill. The islands have been viewed as Argentian, even though, no such concept existed, when the Spaniards took them through conquest centuries before. It was based on your concept of Lebensraum, exactly to your meaning and why I can wrap you up in knots on this.

Israel is ther place when the genisis of jews formed. Its where their culture, religion, language formed. In any other situation where the people are also indigenous. Like in the US with the indigenous, you would never deny them their rightful home, but only the Jews it seems with their ancestral home. The Jews were ethnically cleansed, not once from this area, but multiple times and even in the 20th century. Yet you call Jews resettling lands they were ethnically cleansed from as  Lebensraum. It shows the poor unedcuated understanding you have of this. Even worse when people call israel a colonial state. When no Jewish european statye existed to colonise here. They were simple Jews in diaspora, decolonising the area. That had been colonised by the Arabs. Through arabization. Yet the Jews also wanted the arabs to coexist with them. Its why 20% of the population of israel is Arab. This is why I rightly see you as antisemitic. You dont want the indigenous people to reclaim their lands. Mainly as you are a colonist yourself that took lands, from the indigenous yourself. So your claims to Lebensraum, is nothing short than super charged hate, against an indigenous people reclaiming their ancestral lands

Raggamuffin wrote:Those protesters are so childish. That silly robot and stupid balloons show they need to grow up.

They are heroes!!!

phil wrote:See how when the tables are turned Quill looks to excuse this.

I know you lean toward seeing things in conflict terms, but a serious academic explanation seeks to clarify things.  I am not trying to excuse anything...simply to truly define an important event and correct a fallacy.  The Falkland Islands conflict really was a subterfuge, to distract from strife and dissension at home in Argentina.

It was a statement by the Argentine Junta: look over there, not over here!

Original Quill wrote:

phil wrote:See how when the tables are turned Quill looks to excuse this.

I know you lean toward seeing things in conflict terms, but a serious academic explanation seeks to clarify things.  I am not trying to excuse anything...simply to truly define an important event and correct a fallacy.  The Falkland Islands conflict really was a subterfuge, to distract from strife and dissension at home in Argentina.

It was a statement by the Argentine Junta: look over there, not over here!

A serious academic, that compares Israel policy to the nazis?

Opps

Do you see how I easily suckered you in on your own game of falsehood?

So you are not a serious academic, as no serious academic would charge Israel with the nazi policy of Lebensraum.

Only an antisemite would

phildidge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I know you lean toward seeing things in conflict terms, but a serious academic explanation seeks to clarify things.  I am not trying to excuse anything...simply to truly define an important event and correct a fallacy.  The Falkland Islands conflict really was a subterfuge, to distract from strife and dissension at home in Argentina.

It was a statement by the Argentine Junta: look over there, not over here!

A serious academic, that compares Israel policy to the nazis?

Opps

Do you see how I easily suckered you in on your own game of falsehood?

Oh, outstanding.  Jolly good show, ol' boy.  Did you see how easily I suckered you into losing the point?

phil wrote:So you are not a serious academic, as no serious academic would charge Israel with the nazi policy of Lebensraum.

Only an antisemite would

This is not about me.  I did not say I was the academic, but described how an academic analysis would go.  You don't read, and consequently you don't follow a train of thought.

The Point: That most aggressor nations describe themselves as merely taking defensive measures.  They are not just fighting the 'land-grab' war, but fighting the public relations debate as well.  They inevitably try to convey their actions as mere innocent, protective measures.

What did the US say when they caused a war half way around the globe: we're protecting freedom and democracy!  WTF?

Did you sucker me into a point you cannot now explain?

I know you are not an academic, you are not even someone that has a knowledge of history as I easily keep explaining

So if we look at the history of conflicts with israel, they have coinstantly been attacked since it was reformed as a nation. So that is not simple taking offensiove action, but an action of actual survival. When those nations have proclaimed to destroy them. This again shows, you have not a clue of the history of this conflict going on.

Even someone with a basic Gsce has a better understanding than you on this conflict

I mean look at your argument. You are trying to poorly make a connection to the policies of Hitler to Israel, through the most flimiest stand point. Based on how he felt and not what he actually did. Its like saying, you agree with Hitler, that his invasion of Poland, was a defensive action. That is essentially what you are claiming. That is the bases for your argument. That you believe Hitler himself on his motives and claims and not what he actually did. It means you are defending the actions of hitler and his arguments to do so for his invasions

All I can say to that is wow and i think any sound minded person would be embarresed with your argument

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:He didn't choose that day to be in town....he was invited by HM the Queen to be rightfully included in the DDay celebrations.

So you are saying the Queen is to blame?  Well, shame on her.  

The Queen put her personal views to one side, as she always does, and acted with more decorum in her little finger than the protesters urged on by Corbyn and Khan,  have in their whole bodies.... I can see that clearly and I'm not even a Royalist.