Anyone else becoming terrified of Liberals.

jimmycrackcorm

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

There's a significant difference in raising EOs in the knowledge that they may not come to fruition due to being blocked by the courts, vs expecting that the courts should not be allowed to rule against them as lawful.

demfad

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

They failed in what they promised to do with regards illegal immigration/federal funding/border security and Trump might succeed, and you're using that to attack Trump. That is bad really screwed up logic.

You also asked for an example of supposed Fascism from a previous administration and I pointed out Obama/Bill Clinton ( probably others don't have time to check ) spouted the exact same things Trump said about illegal immigration solutions.

I didn't say I agreed with everything Trump has done, but as the usual when I answer a question I get met with another 5.

Please quote exactly what Obama/Clinton said about illegal immigration. I am not willing to take your word that they are fascists. If you dont, then best not to reply.

Suryavarman

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Hillary's positions have nothing to do with why Trump is a proto-fascist. But I'll humour your obsession with her nonetheless.

Authoritarian: there is no evidence to suggest that, as President, Clinton would use the power of the presidency to constantly attack judges and the free press. Trump has already begun using his position of power to begin peddling propaganda by deleting papers that disagree with his world view from the White House website and making baseless claims such as millions of fraudulent votes being cast in the election.

Nationalistic: Wikileaks revealed Clinton to be in favour of a hemispheric open border. Trump ran on a campaign of reducing immigration, increasing tariffs and ripping up trade deals.

Coporatist: Trump has already begun using his power to enrich himself and his family. He's also seen fit to intervene in the affairs of individual businesses and heavily criticised any business that opposes him.

Then of course the icing on the cake is that he's incredibly popular among the actual fascists that constitute the alt right. He's also hugely supportive of a number of authoritarian strongmen.

And yet one of these is termed a "liberal" and the other is termed a "proto-fascist," largely because of partisan politics. This shows that these kinds of labels are often emotive and not based on a thorough investigation of fact.

We could be here all day explaining why Trump is a proto-fascist, if you can't accept that he is then I have no intention of wasting my time trying to explain to you why that is the case.

I don't personally see how any proponent of big-government solutions can genuinely be called "liberal." Even if a politician genuinely believes that she is using the power of the state for good, she is still relying on an authoritarian and coercive structure to accomplish her allegedly noble goals, which is de facto illiberal.

That's because you use a 200 year old definition of liberal that few others use.

Suryavarman

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Obama enacted Executive orders at a lower rate than any President since Grover Cleveland.

demfad

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

1. It's not a Muslim ban because the vast majority of Muslims won't be effected and it's temporary. I don't necessarily agree with the Countries chosen. Polls show in Europe 55% of people are in favor of an outright Muslim ban, and a recent Politico poll shows 55% of people in the US agree with his EO.

It is a Muslim ban because only majority Muslim countries are affected, because Trump campaigned on bringing in a Muslim ban, and because his close associate Rudy Giuliani said that Trump had asked him how to make a 'Muslim ban look legal'. Also, the ban does not make America more secure.

2- Link? I don't see a thing about this anywhere.

http://www.refinery29.com/2017/01/137406/trump-violence-against-women-grants-cut

3- http://www.snopes.com/trump-terror-watch-program/ According to this you're wrong

Yes, he has planned this: not implemented yet.

4 - Do you have any examples of Bannon of being a White supremacist besides being involved with Breitbart? I think he's hard right for sure, but I've never seen any actual evidence of White supremacy.

Why would you exclude deliberately hosting the biggest platform for white supremacists, KKK, Nazis etc. in the US? Why would you omit a full section of BN entitled 'Black crime'?

Recently he omitted that Jewish people were targetted in Trumps holocaust speech. His wife reported that he went spare with her for trying to enrol his estranged kids in a school with Jewish children etc.

5 - What racist comments did Sessions make? I know he was a major player in taking down the Klan.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-attorney-general-jeff-sessions-racist-remarks_us_582cd73ae4b099512f80c0c2

The man who President-elect Donald Trump will nominate as the 84th attorney general of the United States was once rejected as a federal judge over allegations he called a black attorney “boy,” suggested a white lawyer working for black clients was a race traitor, joked that the only issue he had with the Ku Klux Klan was their drug use

WMD, overthrowing Saddam

So you have no evidence that an American president executed a foreign leader. It was waffle.

Hank Scorpio

demfad wrote: »

Please quote exactly what Obama/Clinton said about illegal immigration. I am not willing to take your word that they are fascists. If you dont, then best not to reply.

Now will you answer the 5 questions I replied to? Because most of what you said appears to be untrue.

Hank Scorpio

demfad wrote: »

I'll answer your questions because some of the things mentioned I haven't see before and I'm interested in seeing proof.



It is a Muslim ban because only majority Muslim countries are affected, because Trump campaigned on bringing in a Muslim ban, and because his close associate Rudy Giuliani said that Trump had asked him how to make a 'Muslim ban look legal'.

It's a ban on certain Muslim majority countries, it's not a Muslim ban. You're twisting it. The vast majority of Muslims are still allowed to enter the Country.

http://www.refinery29.com/2017/01/137406/trump-violence-against-women-grants-cut

This is the headline


"Donald Trump Might Cut Violence-Against-Women Programs"

So you're wrong claiming that and it's pure speculation.

3- http://www.snopes.com/trump-terror-watch-program/ According to this you're wrong

Yes, he has planned this: not implemented yet

So more speculation then.

Why would you exclude deliberately hosting the biggest platform for white supremacists, KKK, Nazis etc. in the US? Why would you omit a full section of BN entitled 'Black crime'?

Recently he omitted that Jewish people were targetted in Trumps holocaust speech. His wife reported that he went spare with her for trying to enrol his estranged kids in a school with Jewish children etc.

So no actual proof and just more speculation? Breitbart is far right, it's not a nazi or kkk site.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-attorney-general-jeff-sessions-racist-remarks_us_582cd73ae4b099512f80c0c2

Sessions you're right he lost a position because of remarks I'll concede that. He has a checkered past.

The rest of your points are garbage. The US are responsible for Iraq and Hussein and it was all based on one big fat lie. The "We came, we saw, he died" spiel with Gaddafi isn't far behind.

Zubeneschamali

Suryavarman wrote: »

Obama enacted Executive orders at a lower rate than any President since Grover Cleveland.

Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.

demfad

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Now will you answer the 5 questions I replied to? Because most of what you said appears to be untrue.

You said this demonstrates that Obama/Bill Clinton are Fascists. This says that they talked about deporting criminals who are also illegal immigrants. I did not see any reference to a muslim ban, banning green card holders, or stopping refugees. Please stop wasting my time with nonsense.

Hank Scorpio

demfad wrote: »

You said this demonstrates that Obama/Bill Clinton are Fascists. This says that they talked about deporting criminals who are also illegal immigrants. I did not see any reference to a muslim ban, banning green card holders, or stopping refugees. Please stop wasting my time with nonsense.

No, I was pointing out their illegal immigration and border problem stances were pretty much identical to Trump's. Majority of Americans agree with Trump in the Politico poll with his ban. You're the one claiming Trump is a fascist, I never claimed anyone to be. You'll need to do better than speculate over alternative facts to convince me otherwise.

demfad

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

It's a ban on certain Muslim majority countries, it's not a Muslim ban. You're twisting it. The vast majority of Muslims are still allowed to enter the Country.

Trump himself called it a Muslim ban throughout his campaign. He hasnt banned Muslim countries the US trades a lot of oil with or that Trump has businesses in. But it's a Muslim ban. Trump said so many times. Talk to him.

This is the headline


"Donald Trump Might Cut Violence-Against-Women Programs"

So you're wrong claiming that and it's pure speculation.

It is listed on his proposed cuts so your 'pure speculation' comment is unfounded.

So more speculation then.

The article YOU linked says he has planned it. Do you disagree with the article you linked?

So no actual proof and just more speculation? Breitbart is far right, it's not a nazi or kkk site.

The site posts just inside the legal definition of hate speech for such 'news' sites. It uses code and innuendo to bridge the gap to right supremacy. The comments section is dominated by the KKK, Fascists, Nazis etc. The site quacks like a duck and walks like a duck and so does its former CEO.

Sessions you're right he lost a position because of remarks I'll concede that. He has a checkered past.

No. He is a racist.

The rest of your points are garbage. The US are responsible for Iraq and Hussein and it was all based on one big fat lie. The "We came, we saw, he died" spiel with Gaddafi isn't far behind.

You said the US president executed a foreign leader. You lied.

demfad

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

No, I was pointing out their illegal immigration and border problem stances were pretty much identical to Trump's. Majority of Americans agree with Trump in the Politico poll with his ban. You're the one claiming Trump is a fascist, I never claimed anyone to be. You'll need to do better than speculate over alternative facts to convince me otherwise.

You said if Trump was a fascist then Obama/Clinton was and this was your proof. Didn't work out for you so move the goalposts.

Alternative facts? Thats something that fascist supporters like Kelly Anne Conway make up and use isn't it?

Hank Scorpio

demfad wrote: »

Trump himself called it a Muslim ban throughout his campaign. He hasnt banned Muslim countries the US trades a lot of oil with or that Trump has businesses in. But it's a Muslim ban. Trump said so many times. Talk to him.

The site posts just inside the legal definition of hate speech for such 'news' sites. It uses code and innuendo to bridge the gap to right supremacy. The comments section is dominated by the KKK, Fascists, Nazis etc. The site quacks like a duck and walks like a duck and so does its former CEO.

No. He is a racist.

You said the US president executed a foreign leader. You lied.

Did you expect I meant Obama himself killed someone with his own hands? The US Government were involved in the invasion and killing of foreign leaders, like it or lump it, that's a fact. The bolded part, when you have to resort to lies and try to justify your alternative facts there's no point talking to you anymore. Good day.

demfad

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Did you expect I meant Obama himself killed someone with his own hands? The US Government were involved in the invasion and killing of foreign leaders, like it or lump it, that's a fact. The bolded part, when you have to resort to lies and try to justify your alternative facts there's no point talking to you anymore. Good day.

You said the president of the United States had a foreign leader killed. You lied.
If anyone takes a look at the comment section on Breitbart (not recomended) they will see supporters of these groups and worse dominating.

Again, alternative facts are for the Kelly Anne Conways, the Trumps the Putins and minions. Don't push the phrase on reasonable people.

Hank Scorpio

Look at all the Nazi's. Hide yo kids, hide yo wife.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/01/28/sheriff-clarke-im-tired-one-percenters-like-mark-zuckerberg-lecturing-us/

I don't visit or post there regulary fwiw, but I have never seen what you describe. It's like reddit or where ever else, the comments for the most part are relatively clean. I'd compare it to a Sean Hannity audience, far right.

demfad

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Look at all the Nazi's. Hide yo kids, hide yo wife.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/01/28/sheriff-clarke-im-tired-one-percenters-like-mark-zuckerberg-lecturing-us/

I don't visit or post there regulary fwiw, but I have never seen what you describe. It's like reddit or where ever else, the comments for the most part are relatively clean. I'd compare it to a Sean Hannity audience, far right.

Bull. Link well back to when Bannon was CEO. Were talking about Bannon

If anyone types 'black' into the search bar they will get a nice list of white supremacist headlines.

Fiest up: Black Lawyer Calls on Black Jurors to Vote ‘Innocent’ for Any Black Person Accused of Murdering a White Person Not recommended.


Edit: Looks like Bannon was into Eugenics (racial purity) about a decade ago

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/02/09/steve-bannon-wanted-mel-gibson-for-his-movie-about-nazis-abortion-mutants.html

Hank Scorpio

Is the article inaccurate? I seen a story about a Church before but haven't seen much else.

http://abovethelaw.com/2016/12/heres-how-black-people-could-use-jury-nullification-to-break-the-justice-system/

"Maybe it’s time for black people to use the same tool white people have been using to defy a system they do not consent to: jury nullification. White juries regularly refuse to convict or indict cops for murder. White juries refuse to convict vigilantes who murder black children. White juries refuse to convict other white people for property crimes. White juries act like the law is just a guideline and their personal morality (or lack thereof) should be controlling."

Personally, I don't see the problem calling out a lawyer spewing such hatred and calling on people to ignore the law.

edit: Thread is gone way off topic now - You're free to think what you want about Trump. Personally I think Trump is a hard hitter and so are some of his cabinet members, and they're the kind of people you need to straighten messes out. There's some cabinet members I don't agree with, and things he's done I don't agree with either. I think a lot of the hysteria would dissipate if he stayed off twitter but I doubt that's gonna happen. Have to remember it was a choice of two flawed candidates, he's hasn't done something so outlandish yet that I feel the need to start opposing him, maybe he will sooner or later who knows. It's my opinion with the twitter use, the media is fielding most of the hysteria.

KingBrian2

Democrats are racist towards blacks just as the Republicans are perhaps not as blatantly though. The Democrats appealed to Blacks during the election so they could get their vote. You could say the same about the Latinos. The Dems were using the fear of White America as the reason for voting Dems. For huge swathes of Blacks in America life has not changed enormously when Obama got into the White House. You could say the Republicans are the cause for that but the more likely reason is that the Democrats are not representative of all Blacks indeed some of Obama's biggest critics came from that very demographic.

demfad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Democrats are racist towards blacks

So you are presumable saying that Barack Obama the Democratic US president for 8 years was racist towards blacks?

Hank Scorpio

demfad wrote: »

So you are presumable saying that Barack Obama the Democratic US president for 8 years was racist towards blacks?

The inner cities are a war zone

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/01/us/chicago-murders-2016/

KingBrian2

demfad wrote: »

So you are presumable saying that Barack Obama the Democratic US president for 8 years was racist towards blacks?

Obama made sure not to divide Black Americans from White Americans even though Black Americans have concerns and issues that set them apart from their counterparts. Fact is Obama became too much of a Republican when he got into office.

Zubeneschamali

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

The inner cities are a war zone

Wait until Trump sends the National Guard in to tackle crime, then you'll see a war zone.

If Chicago doesn't fix the horrible "carnage" going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016), I will send in the Feds!

Hank Scorpio

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Wait until Trump sends the National Guard in to tackle crime, then you'll see a war zone.

If Chicago doesn't fix the horrible "carnage" going on, 228 shootings in 2017 with 42 killings (up 24% from 2016), I will send in the Feds!

Can't get any worse.

Brian?

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Can't get any worse.

Care to place a wager on that?

Zubeneschamali

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Can't get any worse.

A republican governor has already said that what is needed to stop protests is "another Kent State" - meaning have the national guard fire live rounds into the crowds.

If that starts, it will make Chicago gang violence look very tame indeed.

Hank Scorpio

Brian? wrote: »

Care to place a wager on that?

I'll willing to bet but the problem with betting on this is the time frame, I think it'll improve but it might take 2 years or more. If the terms are 2 or 3 months or something I'm just burning money.

KingBrian2

Brian? wrote: »

Care to place a wager on that?

Chicago is like what you see in Iraq or Afghanistan. Not trying to be provocative here. Gang violence in Chicago has destroyed the communities there. A crisis that has not been tackled by Republican or Democratic predecessors. Trump's convention speech was directed at cities like Chicago and nobody on the left can argue Chicago is not facing lawlessness. Bareface denial.

Brian?

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Chicago is like what you see in Iraq or Afghanistan. Not trying to be provocative here. Gang violence in Chicago has destroyed the communities there. A crisis that has not been tackled by Republican or Democratic predecessors. Trump's convention speech was directed at cities like Chicago and nobody on the left can argue Chicago is not facing lawlessness. Bareface denial.

The situation in Chicago is bad, but it's not like Afghanistan or Iraq.


https://www.google.ie/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=chicago&tbm=nws

El_Duderino 09

KingBrian2 wrote:

Chicago is like what you see in Iraq or Afghanistan. Not trying to be provocative here. Gang violence in Chicago has destroyed the communities there. A crisis that has not been tackled by Republican or Democratic predecessors. Trump's convention speech was directed at cities like Chicago and nobody on the left can argue Chicago is not facing lawlessness. Bareface denial.

If there wasn't an anti black/minority angle, he would be touching it. It's about making his base feel good at the expense of the minority.

He might actually try to help the people of Chicago. Most likely he will just wait for a cop to be killed or a cop to kill a black lad in dubious circumstances. Then he can back the white cop agsinst the black lads. Simple divide and conquer.

I'd be shocked if he does anything useful to help the people of Chicago. What do you expect him to actually do beyond pointing to the black people as the problem?

KingBrian2

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If there wasn't an anti black/minority angle, he would be touching it. It's about making his base feel good at the expense of the minority.

He might actually try to help the people of Chicago. Most likely he will just wait for a cop to be killed or a cop to kill a black lad in dubious circumstances. Then he can back the white cop agsinst the black lads. Simple divide and conquer.

I'd be shocked if he does anything useful to help the people of Chicago. What do you expect him to actually do beyond pointing to the black people as the problem?

It was the city authorities that have let the people down in Chicago and before we drag Trump into this quagmire it was Trump that highlighted the endemic gang violence in Chicago when Pres Obama was doing nothing down in D.C.

As for my comparisons with Iraq and Afghanistan it is not much of a gap between the two. Weapons in the hands of felons, entire regions not under gvt control. If the US worried more about the Mid West than the Arab world the gangs in Chicago would have far less impunity.

El_Duderino 09

KingBrian2 wrote:

It was the city authorities that have let the people down in Chicago and before we drag Trump into this quagmire it was Trump that highlighted the endemic gang violence in Chicago when Pres Obama was doing nothing down in D.C.
As for my comparisons with Iraq and Afghanistan it is not much of a gap between the two. Weapons in the hands of felons, entire regions not under gvt control. If the US worried more about the Mid West than the Arab world the gangs in Chicago would have far less impunity.

Righty-o, Obama's dreadful ... Iraq and Afghanistan, weapons in the hands of felons.

What's trump going to do?

KingBrian2

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Righty-o, Obama's dreadful ... Iraq and Afghanistan, weapons in the hands of felons.

What's trump going to do?

Well he not doing a good job getting his message across that America has to stop arming Jihadi fanatics in the Muslim world and when he turns around and tries to implement a travel ban gets a right kicking.

The idea that persons who oppose Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, Hamas and Islamic Jihad are somehow Islamophobic is a tired excuse from liberals who want to pretend that Pres Trump is a threat to American democracy.

marienbad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Well he not doing a good job getting his message across that America has to stop arming Jihadi fanatics in the Muslim world and when he turns around and tries to implement a travel ban gets a right kicking.

The idea that persons who oppose Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, Hamas and Islamic Jihad are somehow Islamophobic is a tired excuse from liberals who want to pretend that Pres Trump is a threat to American democracy.

Why is Saudi Arabia not included in his travel ban ?

KingBrian2

marienbad wrote: »

Why is Saudi Arabia not included in his travel ban ?

You'd have to ask the man of the hour that.

marienbad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You'd have to ask the man of the hour that.

So no opinion then ? What about stooping the Jihadi fanatics you referred to ?

KingBrian2

marienbad wrote: »

So no opinion then ? What about stooping the Jihadi fanatics you referred to ?

Refugees who have come into Europe or America who have a background as a member of a terrorist organisation should be turned away at the border. Requests are piling up in Athens and Malta for Muslim refugees to gain access to richer states. This will continue until and unless Europe and America has a coherent policy towards this refugees. You can't let all these people in and as you know Europe will be inundated with Muslims as a result. We have no idea than are they part of ISIS, Hamas, Islamic Jihad. It will be a case of Muslims living in Europe and the authorities won't know were they came from.

Brian?

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Refugees who have come into Europe or America who have a background as a member of a terrorist organisation should be turned away at the border. Requests are piling up in Athens and Malta for Muslim refugees to gain access to richer states. This will continue until and unless Europe and America has a coherent policy towards this refugees. You can't let all these people in and as you know Europe will be inundated with Muslims as a result. We have no idea than are they part of ISIS, Hamas, Islamic Jihad. It will be a case of Muslims living in Europe and the authorities won't know were they came from.

Name one act of terrorism committed on US soil by a refugee.

marienbad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

. This will continue until and unless Europe and America has a coherent policy towards this refugees.

And this travel ban is a coherent policy ?

KingBrian2

Brian? wrote: »

Name one act of terrorism committed on US soil by a refugee.

I'm talking Europe and indeed within the Arab world and should those refugees that caused harm over here gain access to America with its already strict immigration system you guys will receive the same terror attacks that have been perpetrated around the world.

MightyMandarin

All I ever here from the same xenophobic people on this topic is 'Refugees means more terror, more refugees means more deaths' etc. but do you actually stop for a second and think, hang on, what about all those attacks caused by people with french, belgian, german passports? How is stopping the flow of refugees going to stop EU citizens committing these acts?

El_Duderino 09

KingBrian2 wrote:

Well he not doing a good job getting his message across that America has to stop arming Jihadi fanatics in the Muslim world and when he turns around and tries to implement a travel ban gets a right kicking.

The idea that persons who oppose Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, Hamas and Islamic Jihad are somehow Islamophobic is a tired excuse from liberals who want to pretend that Pres Trump is a threat to American democracy.

Righty-o. Arming jihadis, Muslims, travel ban. Isis, Hamas, leberals...

Now what do you think will trump do about Chicago?

KingBrian2

MightyMandarin wrote: »

All I ever here from the same xenophobic people on this topic is 'Refugees means more terror, more refugees means more deaths' etc. but do you actually stop for a second and think, hang on, what about all those attacks caused by people with french, belgian, german passports? How is stopping the flow of refugees going to stop EU citizens committing these acts?

That's the tricky part the Jihadi's make it so difficult for counter terrorism experts to do their jobs. They want to incite culture clash between Muslim and non Muslim.

MightyMandarin

KingBrian2 wrote: »

That's the tricky part the Jihadi's make it so difficult for counter terrorism experts to do their jobs. They want to incite culture clash between Muslim and non Muslim.

Look who's falling for their trap!

They want the US and the western world to be seen to be anti-muslim so that they seem justified in the islamic world, and Trump, Wilders, Le Pen and all their supporters are playing right into their plan.

Whether you're pro or against letting refugees settle here, in any form or quantity, we can all agree ISIS and Jihadists need to be stopped. There's two ways to stop them: drain their resources and finances and stop their recruitment. The actions of the people I mentioned above and the general anti-islam attitude I see everywhere is helping ISIS and Jihadists, because if both sides create this 'Islam vs the world' image then which side do you think most muslims are going to swing to?

If we want to stop them, trust our authorities in the police and counter-terrorism to do their jobs, and in the meantime, make anyone who comes here legally feel welcome, because a sure way to make them hate us is to hate them first.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

I'd be shocked if he does anything useful to help the people of Chicago. What do you expect him to actually do beyond pointing to the black people as the problem?

KingBrian2 wrote:

It was the city authorities that have let the people down in Chicago and before we drag Trump into this quagmire it was Trump that highlighted the endemic gang violence in Chicago when Pres Obama was doing nothing down in D.C.
As for my comparisons with Iraq and Afghanistan it is not much of a gap between the two. Weapons in the hands of felons, entire regions not under gvt control. If the US worried more about the Mid West than the Arab world the gangs in Chicago would have far less impunity.

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

What's trump going to do?

KingBrian2 wrote:

Well he not doing a good job getting his message across that America has to stop arming Jihadi fanatics in the Muslim world and when he turns around and tries to implement a travel ban gets a right kicking.

KingBrian2 wrote:

The idea that persons who oppose Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, Hamas and Islamic Jihad are somehow Islamophobic is a tired excuse from liberals who want to pretend that Pres Trump is a threat to American democracy.

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

Now what do you think will trump do about Chicago?

I kept asking what you think trump will actually do about Chicago and you went all around the houses instead of attempt to address the question. You don't have a clue what he'll do to help the people of Chicago, do you? You just know you support it whatever it is. The tail is wagging the dog.

You could prove me wrong by making a prediction about what you think he will actually do to help the people in Chicago. Said what I think he'll do

KingBrian2

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I kept asking what you think trump will actually do about Chicago and you went all around the houses instead of attempt to address the question. You don't have a clue what he'll do to help the people of Chicago, do you? You just know you support it whatever it is. The tail is wagging the dog.

You could prove me wrong by making a prediction about what you think he will actually do to help the people in Chicago. Said what I think he'll do

We don't know what he will do because he has been concentrating on the refugee crisis and what we do know which the liberals won't admit is that Islamic terrorism has blighted the world. I hate to say this but liberals are looking at the human rights of Jihadi's instead of concentrating on the causes of Islamic terrorism.

El_Duderino 09

KingBrian2 wrote:

We don't know what he will do because...

You could have said that to begin with. Are you fairly sure you'll like whatever he does whenever he does it? Does he even have to do anything about it in your view?

Or has he done enough already by pointing out the trouble with the bloody ahem you-know-what-colour fellas?

listermint

KingBrian2 wrote: »

We don't know what he will do because he has been concentrating on the refugee crisis and what we do know which the liberals won't admit is that Islamic terrorism has blighted the world. I hate to say this but liberals are looking at the human rights of Jihadi's instead of concentrating on the causes of Islamic terrorism.

I think you'll find they are looking at the human rights of humans.

The sooner the world is rid of religious muck tribal ****e we can start exploring the universe and fulfill the potential of man kind.

Humans are capable of so much more than this insidious bickering

Widdershins

MightyMandarin wrote: »

because if both sides create this 'Islam vs the world' image then which side do you think most muslims are going to swing to?

Do you mean that most Muslims would join ISIS if they weren't made welcome?

I totally disagree about ''anti Islam''. In this day and age it's sensible to be critical of religions, especially such fast growing ones that have their own legal and political system.

You don't want the West to play into ISIS hands? Then we'd better stop drawing provocative cartoons, dressing how we please, kissing in public and marching in solidarity with gay people. We don't modify our behaviour to suit ISIS, do we?

Widdershins

What's going on in Chicago?

El_Duderino 09

Widdershins wrote:

What's going on in Chicago?

Trump pointed out that there's a huge problem with gangs, guns and drugs (that's code for black lads causing trouble). Trump's fans are delighted that he pointed it out but they don't have a clue what he will do to solve the problem.

As far as I can see, pointing out problems with minorities is an integral part of making white Americans feel great again. He doesn't really need to do anything about the problem (policies can be messy to implement).

He just needs to keep pointing out the problem with black lads and be sure to back any white cops who shoot any blast lads in dubious circumstances. Job's oxo.