All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[pErvinalia]

His cabinet is the swamp.

[Tero]

Trump forced to turn SOTU speech into maga hat campaign type rally:
He quickly said he would hold an unspecified "alternative" event and contended that the California Democrat is "afraid of the truth." He called Pelosi's move "a great blotch on the incredible country that we all love."

[Tero]

Reservation is on Trump wall location:
Plans for the exact wall route have not been released, but because its nation spans both countries, the tribe is concerned; Jose has been lobbying congressional lawmakers.

Jose says the Tohono O'odham land in the U.S. totals 2.8 million acres, home to around 32,000 tribal citizens. About 2,000 tribal citizens live in Mexico, he says, though it's unclear the exact boundaries of that land.
https://www.kios.org/post/native-americ ... not-answer

[Cunt]

Nonetheless, I'll explain my question so that you don't misunderstand it again, and so that we can avoid a further shifting of the goalposts.

What 'goalposts'?


Am I supposed to grant you a touchdown?

So, your response to a cartoon which clearly insinuated that Trump's political rhetoric was a dangerous act of moral turpitude was to blame the media - which at a stroke shifted responsibility for his own words away from Trump and on to the media.

Are you going to use 'his own words'? Or the medias (and your) interpretation of them?

The widest swath of media seems to think it's fine to be angry because someone wears a hat supporting the current President.

It should be possible for both sides to have a discussion. Both sides should be able to show their support for their candidate or team.

By my question I hoped you'd explain how, for example, Trumps rhetoric in relation to a rag-tag collection of desperate migrants and refugees being an invasion which threatens the nation's security,

I understand that you don't think so. Neither does Ms. Pelosi. Trump and others do think it is an invasion, and that it is a national security threat.

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't true.

that they're criminals

If they commit the crime of entering or staying in the US illegally, they ARE criminals.

No matter how desperately you cling to the media message that they aren't.

and terrorists and 'not good people',

If I were thinking about how to get a bad person into the US, I would absolutely consider their miles and miles of unfenced, unmonitored border.

Border Patrol are in favour of having more resources to do their jobs, by the way.

that their movements towards the border represented an attack on America,

If that group is coming with intent to force entry into the country, then it absolutely is an attack.

Are you of the opinion that migrants should be able to crash any border they want to?

Why the hell did the last 'caravan' decline offers of help, in favour of crashing the US border? They walked a LONG way to avoid Texas in favour of California too.

So they weren't 'needy', or if they were, they were not honest about their needs. (Mexico offered them shelter, but they declined. Maybe they are racist against Mexicans)

that troops would be moved to the border with shoot-to-kill orders, or saying that voting Democrat is a vote to let 'MS-13 run wild with our communities', or his insulting and degrading people on the basis of what he considers their low-IQ, their looks, or their disabilities, is actually something the media is actually responsible for.

The media is responsible for what they publish. If he mocks people, does that hurt your feelings?

Should leaders be 'nicer' to you? Or just nicer on TV, and shitty in practice?

If asking questions about views expressed on a forum is unduly 'focusing on the person' then what the Ben and Jerry's are we doing here?

You want to know about me, but you keep trying to presume I accept your lies as truth. You listed a bunch of garbage there to support the idea that it is not the media promoting a bunch of garbage as truth.

Good work, Brian.

[Tero]

satire...since we do not have a joke thread anymore
https://karireport.blogspot.com/2019/01 ... -fall.html

[Cunt]

With some folks having a complete inability to even imagine respecting someone who doesn't hate Trump, this thread has PLENTY of jokes in it.

Not clicking that shit though. Looks suspicious. Might accidentally support a Planned Parenthood political contribution.

[Tero]

Don't you get Trump? We don't give a shit about you. It's about Trump! Trump Trump! Trump! Trump Trump! Trump! Trump Trump! Trump! Trump Trump!

[Animavore]

[Animavore]

[Animavore]

Just finished this book.

A must read for those who have forgotten the past.

[tattuchu]

Holocaust schmolocaust. It was just a few bad apples getting into a bit of healthy mischief, was all. In fact, not even bad apples. Those Jews WANTED to step into the ovens. The real problem, that's right the REAL problem, was the Lamestream Media® with their Fake News® making a big hullabaloo over nothing, and whipping up a TOTALLY UNFAIR anti-Führer frenzy in the process
.
By the way, Mr.Cunt, there's still a place in Comrade Cорок Двава's book for a foreword
.

[pErvinalia]

[Brian Peacock]

Nonetheless, I'll explain my question so that you don't misunderstand it again, and so that we can avoid a further shifting of the goalposts.

What 'goalposts'?

Wanting to focus this discussion on migration and migrants rather than on Trump's rhetoric, the media, and where the responsibility for such rhetoric resides

Am I supposed to grant you a touchdown?

Do you consider this a game? If so what do you think the score is so far?

So, your response to a cartoon which clearly insinuated that Trump's political rhetoric was a dangerous act of moral turpitude was to blame the media - which at a stroke shifted responsibility for his own words away from Trump and on to the media.

Are you going to use 'his own words'? Or the medias (and your) interpretation of them?

Yes, I used his own words in that post, and he actually said everything I ascribed to him therein.

The widest swath of media seems to think it's fine to be angry because someone wears a hat supporting the current President.

It should be possible for both sides to have a discussion. Both sides should be able to show their support for their candidate or team.

Of course.

By my question I hoped you'd explain how, for example, Trumps rhetoric in relation to a rag-tag collection of desperate migrants and refugees being an invasion which threatens the nation's security,

I understand that you don't think so. Neither does Ms. Pelosi. Trump and others do think it is an invasion, and that it is a national security threat.

This isn't about whatever you think my views and opinions are but about political rhetoric and its relationship with the truth. Describing "a rag-tag collection of migrants and refugees" as an invading force of criminals and terrorists is not an accurate statement supported by the facts - but I will accept that it does support Trumps political agenda of America being under attack from ill-intended outsiders of low character. Look, I don't speak for or represent the Democratic Party here, so waving the Pelosi flag won't work on me - my views on this are born out of my views about people rather than Trump, Republicans, Pelosi or Democrats specifically.

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't true.

I understand that an number of people had banded together for safety in a journey to America in the hope of starting a new life. If I'm not understanding how those people constitute an invading force of criminals and terrorists then please feel free to disabuse me of my misconceptions with some facts and shit.

that they're criminals

If they commit the crime of entering or staying in the US illegally, they ARE criminals.

And yet Trump was using those terms while the people where nowhere near the Southern border - referring to them as criminals is simply fearmongering, assuming the future turpitude of others is a given in order to justify the action of treating them as criminals in the present - it's kind of like a thought crime.

No matter how desperately you cling to the media message that they aren't.

But it isn't a 'media message' - its a fact. You are completely entitled to your opinion, but the facts remain the same. The issue here is why Trump, and you, want to paint some desperate people who are striking out for a better life in the US, which is not a crime, and who haven't arrived at the border, which is not a crime, and haven't tried to get into the country yet as criminals. Why is that? Because some of them might not go through offical channels? That's both generalising from the particular - a common error in thinking - as well as branding a swathe of people as morally degenerate - the ad hom favoured by the scoundrel.

and terrorists and 'not good people',

If I were thinking about how to get a bad person into the US, I would absolutely consider their miles and miles of unfenced, unmonitored border.

What? Let's actually think about this.

Who wants to get a bad person into the US?

• In this instance, it's you. You're undertaking a thought experiment - thinking about the problem of how to get so-called 'bad person' into the US.
  Then you're imagining a way to solve the problem you've posed yourself (a bad person will cross the open portion of the boarder)..
  Then you're assuming that solution reflects the desires or intentions of the "rag-tag collection of desperate migrants and refugees" I mentioned.
  Additionally, you support the now 'bad' intent of migrants and refugees approaching the Southern border by calling them criminals entirely on the basis that they are bad people who intend to cross the boarder illegally (a tautology).

The reasoning here is circular (the premise == the conclusion) and self-authorising (because premise/conclusion therefore conclusion/premise).

Now, here's another thought experiment you might want to undertake...

Can you think of a way to get a good person into the US, accepting that border enforcement and immigration policy assumes that all good people are bad?

Border Patrol are in favour of having more resources to do their jobs, by the way.

The police and the military also in favour of having more resources too, but at some point society has to decide if political policy is to be directed and/or led by law enforcement of the military, that is; whether or not we want to live in a police or military state. When institutions like law enforcement or the military start deciding the extent of policy then that's where we're headed.

that their movements towards the border represented an attack on America,

If that group is coming with intent to force entry into the country, then it absolutely is an attack.

Indeed, and your view it seems rests entirely on that conjunctive conditional 'if'. But I'd still like to know how this is an 'attack' - beyond you simply saying that it is?

Are you of the opinion that migrants should be able to crash any border they want to?

This question is irrelevant, but no. You often trot this one out, as do many, that if someone challenges or objects to a point of view then they are automatically in favour of the most extreme or ridiculous version of its opposite.

The question is not about what migrants should and shouldn't do, but how the media are responsible Mr Trump's political rhetoric.

Why the hell did the last 'caravan' decline offers of help, in favour of crashing the US border? They walked a LONG way to avoid Texas in favour of California too.

So they weren't 'needy', or if they were, they were not honest about their needs. (Mexico offered them shelter, but they declined. Maybe they are racist against Mexicans)

Mexico also deported a goodly proportion of 'the caravan' but, again, this is just imaginary waffle supporting 'only bad people' thinking. Firing tear gas over the fence and men, women and children becomes the entire caravan trying to 'crash' the border. I'd ask you to consider the alternative: how can good people get into the US, especially when the administration obliges enforcement authorities to assume that good people are bad?.

that troops would be moved to the border with shoot-to-kill orders, or saying that voting Democrat is a vote to let 'MS-13 run wild with our communities', or his insulting and degrading people on the basis of what he considers their low-IQ, their looks, or their disabilities, is actually something the media is actually responsible for.

The media is responsible for what they publish. If he mocks people, does that hurt your feelings?

OK, so the media are responsible for what Trump says because they report what Trump says. I guess if they didn't report whatever he said then there'd be no problem with whatever he said.

My 'feelings' have nothing to do with it - other than being something you'd apparently like to wave around for some reason - I don't think mocking people on the basis of their IQ, looks, or disability is reasonable, particular when if comes from someone with the media profile of a president of the US.

Should leaders be 'nicer' to you? Or just nicer on TV, and shitty in practice?

Now who's "focusing on the person" eh? Get over yourself and back to the topic at hand.

If asking questions about views expressed on a forum is unduly 'focusing on the person' then what the Ben and Jerry's are we doing here?

You want to know about me, but you keep trying to presume I accept your lies as truth. You listed a bunch of garbage there to support the idea that it is not the media promoting a bunch of garbage as truth.

Good work, Brian.

Hmm. My question was: do you think the turpitude of one person justifies the turpitude of another? I asked this question because you cited the media as culpable in response to a cartoon which implied Trump has been engaging in hatemongery. I'm not interested in you as person in that way - but I am interested in your views. This is me wanting to know about your views, not about you in the personal sense. On that matter I'll draw my own conclusions privately.

[Animavore]

Beware the Furies, President Trump


WASHINGTON — After I’d been writing a column for a few years, a male boss gave me a T-shirt depicting the Furies swooping.

He didn’t mean it as a compliment.

The three sisters, the “infernal goddesses” of ancient mythology born from the blood shed by Uranus when he was castrated by his son, were known for relentlessly hounding men. But the Furies took vengeance on wicked men who hurt women and swore false oaths.

So I took it as a compliment.

The capital has suddenly been infused with the spirit of the Furies. After many false springs and discouraging backlashes, we are finally experiencing a revolutionary assertion of women’s power that is transforming Congress.

“Kill Bill”-style, the fiery Democratic women keep coming, driven by vengeance against the wicked man in the White House with the history of hurting women and swearing false oaths.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/opin ... kQWriOCDsI

[Animavore]