Donald Trump

Ilovemybricks

pumpkin4life wrote: »

I'll be honest, one of the out and out funniest moments this year was the collective meltdown on facebook over Brexit.

POPULISM!

YOU WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO VOTE THIS WAY! I KNOW BETTER THAN ALL OF YOU! WHERES PAUL KRUGMAN? WHAT DOES HE THINK?

BUNCH OF SOCCER HOOLIGANS!

MAYBE WE CAN HAVE A SECOND ELECTION?!?

I sincerely hope Mr Trump will continue in the important work of ruining SJW lives.

Trump will win. Unfortunately, it's unlikely MLP will follow in his footsteps in next year's French presidential elections.

Brexit, Trump and Le Pen. What an unholy trinity that would be! The usual suspects would lose the plot.

Butters1979

Rightwing wrote: »

Hilary's health has to be a concern, is it pneumonia or parkinsons or worse?

Worse. It's leftism :eek:

Well, left of trump anyway.

Foxtrol

Butters1979 wrote: »

Well terrorism breeds fear doesn't it? I don't think people are 'refusing to think logically' They're just not all thinking the way you want them to.

The aim of terrorism is to breed fear but it doesn’t mean that it is logical.

A lot of fear is totally illogical, you have people who drink and drive regularly who are afraid when they get on a plane.

You have most Trump supporters that want to ban all Muslims from entering the US but do not want to increase gun controls, when they are much more likely to get murdered by a gun than a Muslim immigrant.

Pro Hoc Vice

Rightwing wrote: »

Hilary's health has to be a concern, is it pneumonia or parkinsons or worse?

She is pregnant with Trump's baby!

Rightwing

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

She is pregnant with Trump's baby!

Chuckle chuckle

The thought of that is enough to make me sick.

Butters1979

Foxtrol wrote: »

The aim of terrorism is to breed fear but it doesn’t mean that it is logical.

A lot of fear is totally illogical, you have people who drink and drive regularly who are afraid when they get on a plane.

You have most Trump supporters that want to ban all Muslims from entering the US but do not want to increase gun controls, when they are much more likely to get murdered by a gun than a Muslim immigrant.

A lot of fear is also logical. And I've explained the chances of being killed by terrorist isn't the only reason to want to prevent it.
I'm curious. Do you actually read that website you quoted. I'd really like to know.

Billy86

Butters1979 wrote: »

Well I'm happy you're sure. If there was white supremacist and Christian fundamentalists immigrating in massive numbers then you'd have an argument to stop them too. Maybe trump would also be trying to stop them entering the country.

The point is that isn't an option because they're not immigrating. They're home grown and also a big problem for America. The argument because we already have problems of our own so can't argue against creating more doesn't really make sense.

The point is that you exaggerated wildly for effect, and we're wrong. Hence why I corrected you on it. That carry on achieves nothing and is a big, big part of the problem, and it's something ISIS' recruiters absolutely feed off of.

Butters1979

Billy86 wrote: »

The point is that you exaggerated wildly for effect, and we're wrong. Hence why I corrected you on it.

You corrected me without any data.
And the point is just becuase you have other problems isn't an argument against doing something about one problem.

Pro Hoc Vice

Do I need to say anything?

Butters1979

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Do I need to say anything?

It's not even raining in the trump photo. Is that photoshopped or is he keeping the sun off his dodgy wig? That's just weird.

Foxtrol

Butters1979 wrote: »

A lot of fear is also logical. And I've explained the chances of being killed by terrorist isn't the only reason to want to prevent it.

I would agree if the prevention technique proposed had any evidence that it would solve the terrorism issue but it doesn’t. Banning muslims is simplistic pandering to the most fearful and ignorant and could make the terrorism problem even worse.

I'm curious. Do you actually read that website you quoted. I'd really like to know.

What the Washington Post? Yes, I do read that from time to time.

Billy86

Butters1979 wrote: »

You corrected me without any data.
And the point is just becuase you have other problems isn't an argument against doing something about one problem.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States - I had figured you would ha e at least looked at the first link to show up on most searches for us terror attacks, or done some kind of research into your point rather than doing a Trump on it.

Making up facts to alienate Muslims and cause others to do so too (like claiming over half terrorist incidents in the US were caused by Muslims in the last 20 years, which is exactly what I was responding to) does nothing to help anyone except ISIS' recruiters. You're just making the problem worse in doing so.

Butters1979

Billy86 wrote: »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States - I had figured you would ha e at least looked at the first link to show up on most searches for us terror attacks, or done some kind of research into your point rather than doing a Trump on it.

Making up facts to alienate Muslims and cause others to do so too (like claiming over half terrorist incidents in the US were caused by Muslims in the last 20 years, which is exactly what I was responding to) does nothing to help anyone except ISIS' recruiters. You're just making the problem worse in doing so.

In the past 20 years? And certainly the most victims. And no I am not making the problem worse. Denial is.

Kermit.de.frog

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izlS15orhP0

Butters1979

Foxtrol wrote: »

I would agree if the prevention technique proposed had any evidence that it would solve the terrorism issue but it doesn’t. Banning muslims is simplistic pandering to the most fearful and ignorant and could make the terrorism problem even worse.



What the Washington Post? Yes, I do read that from time to time.

No ones claiming it would solve it. Just that it would reduce it.
Also claiming the ban idea would make it worse without evidence is just as bad. No ones ever done it before. Therefore no evidence is available either way. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Billy86

Butters1979 wrote: »

In the past 20 years? And certainly the most victims. And no I am not making the problem worse. Denial is.

I have already linked you to the source. Start at 1996.

You are making the problem worse because gross exaggerations and generalisations like the one you made - and your steadfast refusal to accept you were wrong, and that it was wrong to do so - is what is leading young Muslims to feel unwanted and marginalised. Until that is someone comes along showing them where there are thousands of other once disaffected Muslims who now feel a part of something, like they or their lives matter, and who are serving a higher purpose. And guess who that is?

You're assisting ISIS and co with their recruitment. Not nearly as much as Trump has and would continue to do as a president if he won, but you absolutely are doing your part to assist in Islamic terrorism.

Of course you don't see it, but that's why ISIS and such feed off this fear mongering.

You exaggerated. You were wrong. Accept it and move on.

Butters1979

Billy86 wrote: »

I have already linked you to the source. Start at 1996.

You are making the problem worse because gross exaggerations and generalisations like the one you made - and your steadfast refusal to accept you were wrong, and that it was wrong to do so - is what is leading young Muslims to feel unwanted and marginalised. Until that is someone comes along showing them where there are thousands of other once disaffected Muslims who now feel a part of something, like they or their lives matter, and who are serving a higher purpose. And guess who that is?

You're assisting ISIS and co with their recruitment. Not nearly as much as Trump has and would continue to do as a president if he won, but you absolutely are doing your part to assist in Islamic terrorism. Marginalisation of Muslims is a reaction to attacks. Not a cause.

Of course you don't see it, but that's why ISIS and such feed off this fear mongering.

You exaggerated. You were wrong. Accept it and move on.

A lot more have been killed by Islamic terrorism than anyone else. Your try to say because people are worried about terrorism it's creating terrorism. That's basically victim blaming on a large scale. It's my fault Muslim terrorists exist? You are literally making excuses for muderers. Marginalisation of Muslims is reaction to attacks. Not the cause.

Foxtrol

Butters1979 wrote: »

No ones claiming it would solve it. Just that it would reduce it.

There’s no evidence that it would even reduce it either in the short term. How many of those who took part in recent terrorist attacks were recent immigrants to the US?

Also claiming the ban idea would make it worse without evidence is just as bad. No ones ever done it before. Therefore no evidence is available either way. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

There is evidence that it would cause resentment amongst Muslims already within the US and there is evidence that those who have a greater hostility towards the US are more likely to be radicalised.

I agree there’s no proof either way but if someone proposes something that may reduce a risk but at the same time may increase a risk I’d look for another option, not clap my hands because it sounds like an idea that is an easy fix (when in fact it would be incredibly difficult and costly).

MRnotlob606

Trump is what happens when you pursue neoliberal economic policies.

Billy86

Butters1979 wrote: »

A lot more have been killed by Islamic terrorism than anyone else. Your try to say because people are worried about terrorism it's creating terrorism. That's basically victim blaming on a large scale. It's my fault Muslim terrorists exist? You are literally making excuses for muderers. Marginalisation of Muslims is reaction to attacks. Not the cause.

Don't try to shift the goalposts. You made up a number out of thin air and was a gross exaggeration, and you were wrong about it.

So just face the fact that nowhere near half half the terrorist incidents in the US for the last 20 years were Islamist extremists, or keep doing ISIS bidding for them.

Also don't put words in my mouth. I never said people being worried about terrorism is the problem. I said people feeding those fears with made up bullsh*t like you did is a huge part of the problem. Because it is.

You were wrong. That's all there is to it. Stop making things up and try educating yourself before these ignorant, incorrect statements keep leaving your mouth and keyboard.

Kermit.de.frog

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

Trump is what happens when you pursue neoliberal economic policies.

Trump is what happens when you pursue a liberal agenda, it's the backlash against do-goodery.

PopePalpatine

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izlS15orhP0

"Hurr hurr, those SJWs get so triggered when we say stuff like "women can't keep control of their emotions" and "darkies are dumb"!"

*hear/read someone saying/writing "Drumpf"/"Cheeto Jesus"/anything else making fun of Trump*

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!"

B_Wayne

Rightwing wrote: »

Hilary's health has to be a concern, is it pneumonia or parkinsons or worse?

Well, parkinsons would be a conspiracy with no basis.

Butters1979 wrote: »

Well I'm happy you're sure. If there was white supremacist and Christian fundamentalists immigrating in massive numbers then you'd have an argument to stop them too. Maybe trump would also be trying to stop them entering the country.

The point is that isn't an option because they're not immigrating. They're home grown and also a big problem for America. The argument because we already have problems of our own so can't argue against creating more doesn't really make sense.

Butters1979 wrote: »

In the past 20 years? And certainly the most victims. And no I am not making the problem worse. Denial is.

475 people died from just mass shootings in last year. 13000 died from being shot. Under Obama, there has been a tiny amount of terror attacks. But people will claim that terror is the burning issue. The burning issue is spree shootings. Racially profiling people is of feck all benefit besides stirring hatred.

pumpkin4life wrote: »

I'll be honest, one of the out and out funniest moments this year was the collective meltdown on facebook over Brexit.

POPULISM!

YOU WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO VOTE THIS WAY! I KNOW BETTER THAN ALL OF YOU! WHERES PAUL KRUGMAN? WHAT DOES HE THINK?

BUNCH OF SOCCER HOOLIGANS!

MAYBE WE CAN HAVE A SECOND ELECTION?!?

I sincerely hope Mr Trump will continue in the important work of ruining SJW lives.

Great to see you support an absolutely dangerous idiot as the leader of the US. Can guarantee you that this will bring plenty of negative consequences including economic.

Sweetemotion

Foxtrol wrote: »

There have been 8 separate investigations into Benghazi, most led by republicans, and despite trying their best they could not find anything serious that could stick to her. Trump has never needed to make a life or death decisions but a huge number of decisions he has made in his working life put his own companies out of business, which were disastrous for thousands of workers and those he owed money (unsurprisingly he made sure they were never too disastrous for himself).

Clinton definitely hasn’t been truthful as she could have been regarding her server but Trump lies consistently. Politifact is an independent website that fact checks statements made by the candidates and from those they reviewed they found 70% of Trump’s fell into the bucket of either mostly false, false, or pants on fire, while only 28% of Clinton’s statements fell into those buckets.

You posted two of the most frequently trotted out arguments against Clinton. After comparing these apparent weaknesses for her to Trump, I again ask how people can say with any authenticity she is no better than him?

osarusan

Whatever else, Bill Maher is insufferably smug with a face that was designed to be punched.

Billy86

Sweetemotion wrote: »

This is like someone trying to prove their football team has more points than another by showing a single goal the other team conceded once. It makes no sense and does nothing to argue against Trump being - by far - the less honest person between the two, as shown by the Politifact numbers.

Its almost as if you had no response to make but felt you just had to type something all the same.

pumpkin4life

B_Wayne wrote: »

Great to see you support an absolutely dangerous idiot as the leader of the US. Can guarantee you that this will bring plenty of negative consequences including economic.

Yes.

The fire rises.

Trent Houseboat

pumpkin4life wrote:

The fire rises.

Republicans complained last time around that The Dark Knight Rises purposefully used the name Bane to smear Mitt's Bain Capital and draw comparisons between the billionaire presidential nominee and the movie villain.

This time out Republican supporters are actively promoting links between the pretend billionaire nominee and the movie villain.

This is easily the most bizarre campaign of all time.

RDM_83 again

B_Wayne wrote: »

475 people died from just mass shootings in last year. 13000 died from being shot. Under Obama, there has been a tiny amount of terror attacks. But people will claim that terror is the burning issue. The burning issue is spree shootings. Racially profiling people is of feck all benefit besides stirring hatred.

But thats exactly the response people have about BLM that in comparison to Black on Black shootings police shootings are statistically a non issue. You can't (well you can but people notice it) apply one standard of logic onto one issue while buying into a different line of thinking on another.

Anyway the whole point of terrorism is that it has a disproportionate impact on society, Northern Ireland ran a death rate from the Troubles that was proportionately less than the murder rate of a fair few american cities in 80's and 90's but its not the death tole thats important as such its the disruption to civil infrastructure and so on

wes

RDM_83 again wrote: »

But thats exactly the response people have about BLM that in comparison to Black on Black shootings police shootings are statistically a non issue. You can't (well you can but people notice it) apply one standard of logic onto one issue while buying into a different line of thinking on another.

Except that the logic isn't the same. The Police represent the state, and the statistical comparison to criminals murdering people is not an apt one. The police shouldn't disproportionately be killing unarmed members of a ethnic minority. Basically, the police are suppose to protect people and not kill them. Basically, you are comparing the police to criminals. Surely, we should expect higher standards of the police? Right?

That isn't even getting into the fact that there is rarely any kind of censure involved in killing by the police against unarmed victims, and things become worse imho.

The entire notion that the police can murder a black man, and get away with it is rather problematic.

Look at this case as an example:
Bipolar Milwaukee inmate’s ‘profound dehydration’ death ruled homicide at troubled jail run by Trump-loving sheriff

Man was basically execute for flooding his last cell. You can't tell me that is all kinds of messed up.