• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Donald Trumps comes to London

Farage claims he has been 'banned' by the PM from meeting trump.
 
I am confuzzled. When a previous President or two went there and it was a "State Visit", there were comments in the reports about it that this isn't normally done because this was a bigger deal than a normal international visit and indicated a higher level of approval/recognition/friendship with the non-UK leader being honored in this way, so it was only supposed to be reserved for special leaders whose relationship with the UK was especially good, not just anybody who happens to be in the leadership office of some foreign country at the time. Those are welcome to come & go all the time to do the usual government/diplomatic stuff, but it can't be something special every time, and this was supposedly something special. (In context, the complaint was that the President in question wasn't special enough to deserve it, although of course nobody would have suggested that an American President not visit the UK at all; just not the Super Special kind of visit.)

But there's no way that the current government of the UK would give such a specially reserved honor to Trump; they just don't like him. It's a wonder that they'd have him back at all, nevermind going an extra step to honor him.

So what's the deal? Was I misled about the nature of what a "State Visit" is? Or is this not actually that, but merely an ordinary routine visit between heads of state, with the wrong label getting applied?
 
Last edited:
Delvo said:
I am confuzzled. When a previous President or two went there and it was a "State Visit", there were comments in the reports about it that this isn't normally done because this was a bigger deal than a normal international visit and indicated a higher level of approval/recognition/friendship with the non-UK leader being honored in this way, so it was only supposed to be reserved for special leaders whose relationship with the UK was especially good, not just anybody who happens to be in the leadership office of some foreign country at the time. Those are welcome to come & go all the time to do the usual government/diplomatic stuff, but it can't be something special every time, and this was supposedly something special. (In context, the complaint was that the President in question wasn't special enough to deserve it, although of course nobody would have suggested that an American President not visit the UK at all; just not the Super Special kind of visit.)

But there's no way that the current government of the UK would give such a specially reserved honor to Trump; they just don't like him. It's a wonder that they'd have him back at all, nevermind going an extra step to honor him.

So what's the deal? Was I misled about the nature of what a "State Visit" is? Or is this not actually that, but merely an ordinary routine visit between heads of state, with the wrong label getting applied?
Click to expand...

Due to the whole 'brexit' thing, the government are desperate to pander to anyone that is potentially a trade partner, chlorinated warts 'n' all.
 
Did Trump recently make a comment about Megan Markel that was, perhaps, unkind? I recall hearing something about a Trump-tweet - yesterday?
 
Delvo said:
I am confuzzled. When a previous President or two went there and it was a "State Visit", there were comments in the reports about it that this isn't normally done because this was a bigger deal than a normal international visit and indicated a higher level of approval/recognition/friendship with the non-UK leader being honored in this way, so it was only supposed to be reserved for special leaders whose relationship with the UK was especially good, not just anybody who happens to be in the leadership office of some foreign country at the time. Those are welcome to come & go all the time to do the usual government/diplomatic stuff, but it can't be something special every time, and this was supposedly something special. (In context, the complaint was that the President in question wasn't special enough to deserve it, although of course nobody would have suggested that an American President not visit the UK at all; just not the Super Special kind of visit.)

But there's no way that the current government of the UK would give such a specially reserved honor to Trump; they just don't like him. It's a wonder that they'd have him back at all, nevermind going an extra step to honor him.

So what's the deal? Was I misled about the nature of what a "State Visit" is? Or is this not actually that, but merely an ordinary routine visit between heads of state, with the wrong label getting applied?
Click to expand...

Huh? A "state visit" in the UK is by invitation of the Queen. Said visitors usually stay at the Palace, unless they've got cooties like Trump. (Seriously, the Palace is currently undergoing renovations, the official excuse.)

On Trump's previous visit, the palace wouldn't issue the formal invitation but agreed to have the Queen meet with him as a courtesy. Actual "State Visits" have nothing to do with Parliament. The Palace will work hand-in-glove with 10 Downing, but whether or not the current government likes the visiting head of state really has nothing to do with it. Otherwise, China wouldn't lead the list with five State Visits over Liz's reign.

Only three Presidents have had State Visits, and they're not who you'd think. My theory is that Liz is getting soft in her old age and has decided to forgive us all that dumping their tea in the harbor and refusing to pay taxes and shooting at their soldiers and stuff. No President prior to Dubya had a formal State Visit, and each since then now has.
 
Trump Tweets

I never called Meghan Markle “nasty.” Made up by the Fake News Media, and they got caught cold! Will @CNN, @nytimes and others apologize? Doubt it!
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

I never called Meghan Markle “nasty.” Made up by the Fake News Media, and they got caught cold! Will @CNN, @nytimes and others apologize? Doubt it!
Click to expand...

Captain_Swoop said:
It’s literally on tape.
Click to expand...
We all know how poorly Trump spells. When he spoke the word pronounced [nastē], it was written in his notes as 'a pussy she would let me grab'.

Common misunderstanding when translating between languages.
 
I'm willing to entertain the notion that Trump didn't intend to call Markle "nasty", and that it seemed that way because of his imprecision of language. In the common vernacular, his sentence could well be taken to mean that he *didn't know* about the things said of her. He might have been kept ignorant of what negativity his handlers could shield him from...
 
Lurch said:
I'm willing to entertain the notion that Trump didn't intend to call Markle "nasty", and that it seemed that way because of his imprecision of language. In the common vernacular, his sentence could well be taken to mean that he *didn't know* about the things said of her. He might have been kept ignorant of what negativity his handlers could shield him from...
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure he's used "nasty" before to describe someone who criticizes him. His intent doesn't matter so much as the fact that he's denying he said something that he's on tape saying.

He really has no choice. Either admit that he's an illiterate buffoon who only has certain imprecise pejoratives or claim he didn't say it. "Hey, I didn't mean "nasty nasty", I meant "nasty nasty". "....
 
I'm with Lurch on this. He was informed about her comments - with which he was unaware - and it was made clear that Markle's comments were quite strong. At that point 'nasty' can relate to her as a person ('she's nasty'), or to her comments ('she was nasty about me').

That said, even a wet-behind-the-ears politician knows how to avoid making awkward responses at times like this, and at the very least his denial should have made clear the context of the denial. If he's suggesting he didn't even use the word then ... it's just Trump and he just spews whatever drivel is in his head in the moment.
 
Last edited:
Delvo said:
I am confuzzled. When a previous President or two went there and it was a "State Visit", there were comments in the reports about it that this isn't normally done because this was a bigger deal than a normal international visit and indicated a higher level of approval/recognition/friendship with the non-UK leader being honored in this way, so it was only supposed to be reserved for special leaders whose relationship with the UK was especially good, not just anybody who happens to be in the leadership office of some foreign country at the time. Those are welcome to come & go all the time to do the usual government/diplomatic stuff, but it can't be something special every time, and this was supposedly something special. (In context, the complaint was that the President in question wasn't special enough to deserve it, although of course nobody would have suggested that an American President not visit the UK at all; just not the Super Special kind of visit.)

But there's no way that the current government of the UK would give such a specially reserved honor to Trump; they just don't like him. It's a wonder that they'd have him back at all, nevermind going an extra step to honor him.

So what's the deal? Was I misled about the nature of what a "State Visit" is? Or is this not actually that, but merely an ordinary routine visit between heads of state, with the wrong label getting applied?
Click to expand...

Trump wanted a state visit a couple of years ago but due to his rather tactless comments about London Mayor Saddiq Khan and his openly expressed prejudice against all Muslims, he had to pay a 'working visit' instead.

This one is a proper state visit. He wanted to talk before the house of commons but he'll do it over Speaker John Bercow's dead body.

There is nothing special to be read into a State Visit - which is an invitation by the Queen, not the government - as all sorts of tinpot dictators (e.g, Pinochet, Ceauscescu and Saudi princes) have been entertained by her. Even the Chinese minister after unfortunately executing one of our chaps a few weeks before.
 
Lurch said:
I'm willing to entertain the notion that Trump didn't intend to call Markle "nasty", and that it seemed that way because of his imprecision of language. In the common vernacular, his sentence could well be taken to mean that he *didn't know* about the things said of her. He might have been kept ignorant of what negativity his handlers could shield him from...
Click to expand...

Ha! We can be sure he avidly scours the papers and knows all about her.
 
Vixen said:
Ha! We can be sure he avidly scours the papers and knows all about her.
Click to expand...

Not sure about that. She's not a fixture on Fox or Breitbart or The White Power Hour, so he legitimately may not know who she is. Hell, he probably has trouble separating Harry and William. It's quite likely he thought they were talking about Merkel and was confused as to how the German leader had married into the Royal Family.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom