• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Holy Crap - The Revolution is about to start

You're right, Trump is dogshit, and his style is abhorrent. I don't approve of it at all.

But he's NOT the only one doing it. Let's just acknowledge that democratic nominees and politicians are a bit more sophisticated about their sophistry... but that doesn't mean it's not there. Clinton started accusing Trump of being a russian plan, a foreign agent, and a traitor way back at the start of the 2016 campaign. None of those accusations bore fruit, none of it was actually true.

Are you sure? Among other things, an ex-KGB agent has said that the Soviets/Russia have been cultivating Trump as an “asset” for the last 40 years. This is not proof, but it is circumstantial evidence, and there is more besides, like Trump’s utter refusal to condemn any Putin act. But even more to the point, could you cite where Clinton actually said any of those things?
Also a bipartisan senate investigation found collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and Russian interference in the election.
Reference please?
Google is your friend @Emily Lake :

A bipartisan Senate investigation found that the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russian intelligence services during the 2016 presidential election posed a “grave” counterintelligence threat. The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report, which is nearly 1,000 pages long, detailed extensive contacts between Trump campaign associates and Russian operatives, and concluded that Russia launched an aggressive effort to interfere in the election on Trump’s behalf

That you are ignorant of facts like this, should give you pause about making more “both sides” pronouncements.

The finding was that there were there was contact, but no evidence of a coordinated scheme between Trump and Russia. Thus, not collusion.

"There was collusion" is a partisan rallying cry that is intentionally misleading. "Russia is a bad actor trying to fuck up our elections, and seems to have favored Trump over Clinton" is an accurate characterization.
 
It's my belief that Trump does NOT think Obama literally started ISIS, and that he likely recognizes that Obama didn't handle the ME great but also didn't materially cause ISIS to be formed
I think Trump is a very sick and damaged human being, whose “beliefs” follow the track of whatever it would be best for him to “believe”. Reality plays little if any part of it.
Thing is, he is incredibly STUPID. He does not even know that normal people try to tie their beliefs to reality. But Trump has no reality. He thinks everyone is as selfish and mean as he is. He never got an education, can’t follow logic and doesn’t care how his actions or beliefs affect anyone except Donald J Trump. Asking if he believes what he says, I’d say he believes that what he says, contains equal verity to anything anyone else says, and that they have no better clue about reality than he does.
He knows more science than scientists.
More psychology than psychologists, more about macro economy than economists etc AD INFINITUM.

If there’s evidence to the contrary, lay it on out.
 
Trump reminds me of this nigga

View attachment 48157

Out here telling us the US is on fire when he the one starting it. Why do you think they call him smokey?
Trying to translate this...

Is it your opinion that if only Trump weren't out there being a snide and childish blowhard... Our economy would be awesome, health care costs wouldn't be rapidly rising, food costs would be at pre-covid levels, and immigration would be at massively lower levels? Or do you think that the only "fire" we have is politicians being nasty about each other?

Food costs today are lower than they were in 2019, the data show. Obama deported more people than Trump did, and earlier this year Trump ordered Republicans to vote against an immigration bill they had crafted with Democrats. They cravenly did that.
 
Trump reminds me of this nigga

View attachment 48157

Out here telling us the US is on fire when he the one starting it. Why do you think they call him smokey?
Trying to translate this...

Is it your opinion that if only Trump weren't out there being a snide and childish blowhard... Our economy would be awesome, health care costs wouldn't be rapidly rising, food costs would be at pre-covid levels, and immigration would be at massively lower levels? Or do you think that the only "fire" we have is politicians being nasty about each other?

Food costs today are lower than they were in 2019, the data show. Obama deported more people than Trump did, and earlier this year Trump ordered Republicans to vote against an immigration bill they had crafted with Democrats. They cravenly did that.
^ good example of him not knowing and not caring what the truth is. And Emily’s unawareness of those facts demonstrates exactly how Trump’s lies “work” on other people, and how they draw “contact stupid” from him.
 
Is it your belief that Trump genuinely believes that Obama headed over to the ME incognito during his presidency and kickstarted ISIS?

Or is it your belief that Trump genuinely believes that Obama did such a poor job of managing the conflict that he might as well have started ISIS, and that ISIS is a direct result of Obama's poor handling? Note that this is a question about what you think Trump believes, not what you believe.

It's my belief that Trump does NOT think Obama literally started ISIS, and that he likely recognizes that Obama didn't handle the ME great but also didn't materially cause ISIS to be formed, even indirectly, but that he knows he'll get political capital out of painting powerful democrats in a poor light using hyperbole and rhetoric.
Other than sycophants, who has any reason to preference "what he must have meant" over "what he has repeatedly said" when it comes to Donald Trump?
Other than partisans lacking integrity, who has any reason to preference "what this might possibly have meant if taken to the worst possible extreme" over "contextually supported interpretation with an understanding of figurative language"
 
Is it your belief that Trump genuinely believes that Obama headed over to the ME incognito during his presidency and kickstarted ISIS?

Or is it your belief that Trump genuinely believes that Obama did such a poor job of managing the conflict that he might as well have started ISIS, and that ISIS is a direct result of Obama's poor handling? Note that this is a question about what you think Trump believes, not what you believe.

It's my belief that Trump does NOT think Obama literally started ISIS, and that he likely recognizes that Obama didn't handle the ME great but also didn't materially cause ISIS to be formed, even indirectly, but that he knows he'll get political capital out of painting powerful democrats in a poor light using hyperbole and rhetoric.
Other than sycophants, who has any reason to preference "what he must have meant" over "what he has repeatedly said" when it comes to Donald Trump?
Other than partisans lacking integrity, who has any reason to preference "what this might possibly have meant if taken to the worst possible extreme" over "contextually supported interpretation with an understanding of figurative language"

Oh, we are supposed to take a man who tried to overthrow the government and stole government documents seriously but not literally, is that it? :confused2: :hysterical:

We need to take Trump’s rhetoric seriously, not literally vs. Have that guy killed.
 
Oh, we are supposed to take a man who tried to overthrow the government and stole government documents seriously but not literally, is that it? :confused2: :hysterical:
Welcome to the the world of the Trumpsucker.
Not all Trumpsuckers consider themselves Trump supporters.
 
Trump reminds me of this nigga

View attachment 48157

Out here telling us the US is on fire when he the one starting it. Why do you think they call him smokey?
Trying to translate this...

Is it your opinion that if only Trump weren't out there being a snide and childish blowhard... Our economy would be awesome, health care costs wouldn't be rapidly rising, food costs would be at pre-covid levels, and immigration would be at massively lower levels? Or do you think that the only "fire" we have is politicians being nasty about each other?

I really appreciated the effort—it was funny. But to put it simply, what I'm saying is, he's projecting.
 
I do not see direct quotation of a political candidate as evidence of a "lack of integrity", no. If anything, when I meet someone who wants to ardently convince me that black is grey and geese are just uncommonly large ducks, I immediately start wondering about their integrity.
 
Trump reminds me of this nigga

View attachment 48157

Out here telling us the US is on fire when he the one starting it. Why do you think they call him smokey?
Trying to translate this...

Is it your opinion that if only Trump weren't out there being a snide and childish blowhard... Our economy would be awesome, health care costs wouldn't be rapidly rising, food costs would be at pre-covid levels, and immigration would be at massively lower levels? Or do you think that the only "fire" we have is politicians being nasty about each other?

Food costs today are lower than they were in 2019, the data show.
That's just plain false. I don't know what data you're looking at, but it's wrong.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/price-tracker/
The rate of inflation is lower today than it was a couple of years ago - but it's still a positive number. Prices are still rising, they're just not rising as fast as they did. They're not, however, reducing. Food costs on average are about 25% higher than they were in 2019.
Obama deported more people than Trump did
Obama had fewer people entering the country too. Biden has deported fewer than Trump did. I don't particularly care who you try to lay this on, the reality is that a whole lot of people have crossed the border over the last few years, and a large number of them are being released into the US on their own recognizance while their claim sits in a neverending queue. I get that there's a backlog, but the effect of this is that a very large number of people have been allowed to move to the US on the promise of showing up for a court date a decade in the future. You can wrap all kinds of technicalities around that, but it pretty much boils down to "Sure, come on in and set up shop!".
, and earlier this year Trump ordered Republicans to vote against an immigration bill they had crafted with Democrats. They cravenly did that.
Here's a pretty decent write up that covers some of the issues in the bill as well as the tactics involved. It's easy to say "Oh tnoes, they're bad for not backing this bill". It's easy to paint the Dems as long-suffering martyrs trying to make nice and the Reps as horn-headed ne'er-do-wells that delight in obstruction. Reality is somewhere in the middle. Dems favor a much more generous approach to immigration, with little in the way of barriers; Reps favor much more stringent barriers and requirements to immigration; neither has a very good plan for how to deal with the millions and millions of non-citizens currently here.
 
Oh, we are supposed to take a man who tried to overthrow the government and stole government documents seriously but not literally, is that it? :confused2: :hysterical:
Welcome to the the world of the Trumpsucker.
Not all Trumpsuckers consider themselves Trump supporters.
I would dearly like you to stop with this invective and insult all the damned time. You aren't being subjected to constant denigration and name-calling, so have some modicum of decency and at least attempt to engage like an adult.
 
Obama had fewer people entering the country too. Biden has deported fewer than Trump did. I don't particularly care who you try to lay this on, the reality is that a whole lot of people have crossed the border over the last few years, and a large number of them are being released into the US on their own recognizance while their claim sits in a neverending queue. I get that there's a backlog, but the effect of this is that a very large number of people have been allowed to move to the US on the promise of showing up for a court date a decade in the future. You can wrap all kinds of technicalities around that, but it pretty much boils down to "Sure, come on in and set up shop!".
Why do you have a problem with that policy? Your description of our border policy isn't accurate, but if that were our policy I wouldn't have a problem with it. What is someone supposed to do while their case is considered? Sit in jail at taxpayer expense? Applying for asylum is not a crime.
 
I do not see direct quotation of a political candidate as evidence of a "lack of integrity", no. If anything, when I meet someone who wants to ardently convince me that black is grey and geese are just uncommonly large ducks, I immediately start wondering about their integrity.
Sure. And Harris actually literally directly called 18 to 24 year olds stupid. Therefore, any time a Republican claims that Harris called potential voters stupid, they have completely integrity in doing so, because she said those words.

LITERAL VERSUS FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE IS IMPORTANT, AS IS CONTEXT

Why is it so much to ask for, that the same approach to understanding nuance, context, and subtext is applied to all public figures regardless of party?
 
I do not see direct quotation of a political candidate as evidence of a "lack of integrity", no. If anything, when I meet someone who wants to ardently convince me that black is grey and geese are just uncommonly large ducks, I immediately start wondering about their integrity.
Sure. And Harris actually literally directly called 18 to 24 year olds stupid.
Cite?
Therefore, any time a Republican claims that Harris called potential voters stupid, they have completely integrity in doing so, because she said those words.

LITERAL VERSUS FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE IS IMPORTANT, AS IS CONTEXT

Why is it so much to ask for, that the same approach to understanding nuance, context, and subtext is applied to all public figures regardless of party?
Because, among many other reasons, Trump has already attempted to OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT, and has STOLEN AND REFUSED TO RETURN TOP-SECRET GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS. He is also a convicted FELON facing SCORES of indictments in separate felonious criminal cases.

I think he has given all of us AMPLE REASON to take him LITERALLY rather than FIGURATIVELY.
 
Obama had fewer people entering the country too. Biden has deported fewer than Trump did. I don't particularly care who you try to lay this on, the reality is that a whole lot of people have crossed the border over the last few years, and a large number of them are being released into the US on their own recognizance while their claim sits in a neverending queue. I get that there's a backlog, but the effect of this is that a very large number of people have been allowed to move to the US on the promise of showing up for a court date a decade in the future. You can wrap all kinds of technicalities around that, but it pretty much boils down to "Sure, come on in and set up shop!".
Why do you have a problem with that policy? Your description of our border policy isn't accurate, but if that were our policy I wouldn't have a problem with it. What is someone supposed to do while their case is considered? Sit in jail at taxpayer expense? Applying for asylum is not a crime.
I have a problem with it because it's not something happening in isolation.

We currently have a fairly significant problem with homelessness in many parts of the US
We have increased inflationary pressures with 20% to 25% increases in food and utilities over the last five years
We have skyrocketing rents and a serious lack of affordable housing
We have steadily increasing costs for health care

All of these are things that make it incredibly hard on lower income earners in the US.

Allowing a large influx of people who will be directly competing with our own citizens for those jobs and those homes amplifies the negative effects on americans - and in my opinion, americans should take precedence.

As far as what should happen? Deny them entry while they await their case. The vast majority of them are not going to win their asylum pleas because they are not being persecuted. They're coming from areas with high poverty and high crime, and none of that qualifies them for asylum. But by the time their cases actually get heard, they'll be established, and the argument is going to shift gears to "oh, it's not nice to deport them, they've been here for a decade! We need to give them amnesty!" When in truth, they should never have been granted entry in the first place.
 
Obama had fewer people entering the country too. Biden has deported fewer than Trump did. I don't particularly care who you try to lay this on, the reality is that a whole lot of people have crossed the border over the last few years, and a large number of them are being released into the US on their own recognizance while their claim sits in a neverending queue. I get that there's a backlog, but the effect of this is that a very large number of people have been allowed to move to the US on the promise of showing up for a court date a decade in the future. You can wrap all kinds of technicalities around that, but it pretty much boils down to "Sure, come on in and set up shop!".
Why do you have a problem with that policy? Your description of our border policy isn't accurate, but if that were our policy I wouldn't have a problem with it. What is someone supposed to do while their case is considered? Sit in jail at taxpayer expense? Applying for asylum is not a crime.
I have a problem with it because it's not something happening in isolation.

We currently have a fairly significant problem with homelessness in many parts of the US
We have increased inflationary pressures with 20% to 25% increases in food and utilities over the last five years
We have skyrocketing rents and a serious lack of affordable housing
We have steadily increasing costs for health care

All of these are things that make it incredibly hard on lower income earners in the US.

Allowing a large influx of people who will be directly competing with our own citizens for those jobs and those homes amplifies the negative effects on americans - and in my opinion, americans should take precedence.

As far as what should happen? Deny them entry while they await their case. The vast majority of them are not going to win their asylum pleas because they are not being persecuted. They're coming from areas with high poverty and high crime, and none of that qualifies them for asylum. But by the time their cases actually get heard, they'll be established, and the argument is going to shift gears to "oh, it's not nice to deport them, they've been here for a decade! We need to give them amnesty!" When in truth, they should never have been granted entry in the first place.
You're just making up "facts" about asylum seekers, at this point. None of the above is actually true, or particularly relevant. The current rate of inflation is unrelated to whether a particular asylum seeker is going to have success in their case or not. There is very little competition between citizens and asylum-seekers for most jobs an asylum-seeker is qualified to work. You're throwing a bunxh of words at the screen, but very few of them are relevant to the situation of an asylum seeker at a US port or border crossing.

As for expelling someone from the country who has arrived as a refugee without even hearing their case, the very idea of it is morally repugnant. Should you ever be forced to flee your country, I hope you will remember how you once talked about others who were in your position.
 
It's this:
But this is exactly what I'm talking about. Yes, those specific words came out of his mouth.

In combination with this:
Look - I don't agree with his assessment. The situation in the ME predated Obama, and while Obama didn't materially improve it, I don't think he really made it worse either. It was what it was - and pretty much still is.

That’s what makes him unhinged. He says things in a ridiculous way, and even when you dig deeper to figure out what he really means, it’s still nonsense. The real unhinged part is he genuinely believes his own nonsense. :whistle:
Is it your belief that Trump genuinely believes that Obama headed over to the ME incognito during his presidency and kickstarted ISIS?

Or is it your belief that Trump genuinely believes that Obama did such a poor job of managing the conflict that he might as well have started ISIS, and that ISIS is a direct result of Obama's poor handling? Note that this is a question about what you think Trump believes, not what you believe.

It's my belief that Trump does NOT think Obama literally started ISIS, and that he likely recognizes that Obama didn't handle the ME great but also didn't materially cause ISIS to be formed, even indirectly, but that he knows he'll get political capital out of painting powerful democrats in a poor light using hyperbole and rhetoric.

I believe both the Bush and Obama administrations indirectly contributed to the conditions that allowed ISIS to rise. The Bush administration's invasion of Iraq and the destabilization that followed created fertile ground for extremist groups, while the Obama administration's handling of the Syrian conflict and limited intervention contributed to the chaos ISIS exploited.

As for Trump, he's using his typical rhetoric, where he blames Democrats for any negative outcome. I don’t think he genuinely believes Obama literally started ISIS, but he likely believes Obama's handling of the Middle East contributed to the conditions that allowed ISIS to emerge. While that’s only part of the story, since factors from both the Bush and Obama administrations played a role, Trump simplifies it to blame the Democrats. Do you have any evidence that shows he doesn’t think it was solely the Democrats’ fault? Even if you have proof, isn’t it still fair to call the argument that Obama is solely responsible for ISIS complete bullshit?
 
Obama had fewer people entering the country too. Biden has deported fewer than Trump did. I don't particularly care who you try to lay this on, the reality is that a whole lot of people have crossed the border over the last few years, and a large number of them are being released into the US on their own recognizance while their claim sits in a neverending queue. I get that there's a backlog, but the effect of this is that a very large number of people have been allowed to move to the US on the promise of showing up for a court date a decade in the future. You can wrap all kinds of technicalities around that, but it pretty much boils down to "Sure, come on in and set up shop!".
Why do you have a problem with that policy? Your description of our border policy isn't accurate, but if that were our policy I wouldn't have a problem with it. What is someone supposed to do while their case is considered? Sit in jail at taxpayer expense? Applying for asylum is not a crime.
I have a problem with it because it's not something happening in isolation.

We currently have a fairly significant problem with homelessness in many parts of the US
We have increased inflationary pressures with 20% to 25% increases in food and utilities over the last five years
We have skyrocketing rents and a serious lack of affordable housing
We have steadily increasing costs for health care

And yet none of these problems are caused by immigrants, legal or otherwise, or refugees.

Indeed, grocery prices are kept DOWN by the exploitation of immigrant labor. If you want to drive out undocumented immigrants, penalize that companies that hire them. After that, you can start complaining about your skyrocketing grocery prices.
 
Back
Top Bottom