*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[oskar]

I know I said I wasn't going to make another serious post, but in all seriousness, I think this could be a fundamental premise that we (and plenty of other people) disagree on: I don't think that people have a right to asylum.

Ok. You keep talking about your fantasies like they have a chance of happening. Trump couldn't get a foot of wall built in 2 years when he had the house and the senate. He shut down the government for 2 months to get a worse deal than he had before. It's not happening. Thinking there's a way to abolish asylum is fantasyland level thinking and even if it were remotely realistic, it wouldn't address the situation right now.

Right now you have thousands of kids who the government argues don't need soap and toothbrushes to be safe and sanitary. This is not a matter of money. Pence spelled it out: They're holding these kids hostage for wall money and they'll hold them in conditions that facilitate death until congress pays the randsome. There shouldn't even be a discussion if this was negligence or incompetence. This is clearly deliberate torture of children for political gains. You either think that's ok - most republicans seem to think it is, or you don't. What your core philosophy on immigration is really doesn't factor into it. This is a separate issue.

[spoonitnow]

Ok. You keep talking about your fantasies like they have a chance of happening. Trump couldn't get a foot of wall built in 2 years when he had the house and the senate. He shut down the government for 2 months to get a worse deal than he had before. It's not happening. Thinking there's a way to abolish asylum is fantasyland level thinking and even if it were remotely realistic, it wouldn't address the situation right now.

Right now you have thousands of kids who the government argues don't need soap and toothbrushes to be safe and sanitary. This is not a matter of money. Pence spelled it out: They're holding these kids hostage for wall money and they'll hold them in conditions that facilitate death until congress pays the randsome. There shouldn't even be a discussion if this was negligence or incompetence. This is clearly deliberate torture of children for political gains. You either think that's ok - most republicans seem to think it is, or you don't. What your core philosophy on immigration is really doesn't factor into it. This is a separate issue.

Don't get triggered bro.

[oskar]

I was going to post a video of that festival I was talking about. I didn't even register that it's the biggest, period.
https://www.28degreescard.com.au/tra...the-globe.html

I'm a bit disappointed that I can't find a video that properly shows the scale. John McTiernan said about shooting Predator: real jungle doesn't look impressive because you don't see anything, and that 100% applies here. I've been in abject pain for the last three days from running around for 5 hours a day every day. It's this:



but you can walk for an hour, and then there's a stage twice that size on the other side.

The video is of the first stage from my house.
The light in the background is a slightly smaller stage. There are two stages A LOT larger than this one and a couple roughly equal. 13 stages in total over the next 5 kilometers and it's basically shoulder-to-shoulder most of the way.

I can't find numbers yet. I think it broke 3 million this year. It was an incomprehensible number of people. I don't usually like crowds, but when I do, I like the largest crowds.

[CoccoBill]

Here you can see the recent massive influx of refugees and the rising amount of illegal immigrants:

https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-stat...k/2017/table13
https://www.pewhispanic.org/2018/11/...l-in-a-decade/

[Poopadoop]

Here you can see the recent massive influx of refugees and the rising amount of illegal immigrants:

https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-stat...k/2017/table13
https://www.pewhispanic.org/2018/11/...l-in-a-decade/

Dunno, pretty sure this Fox news report was accurate. I know they wouldn't lie to us!

[Poopadoop]

Oh wait, wrong video. Sorry.

[spoonitnow]

This is the kind of thing that you seem like you'd like to know about: https://www.twincities.com/2018/04/1...-make-a-point/

Minnesota millionaire tells lawmakers he got food stamps to make a point
Millionaire Rob Undersander tells a Minnesota House committee Wednesday, April 11, 2018, that he accepted food stamps for 19 months as a test to see if someone who does not need the aid can receive it. With him is Rep. Jeff Howe, R-Rockville, who has a bill to figure assets into determining whether food stamps should be issued.

He went on to talk about how it was clear that the system was broken because there were people who actually needed the help who could only get $14/month (or less) instead of the $300/month he got while being 100 percent truthful and lawful on his paperwork.

[CoccoBill]

^Sounds like it should be fixed.

In other news

[MadMojoMonkey]

The thing with the food stamps is that the system can be setup like that because of the negative social stigma attached to social welfare programs and the fact that people self-regulate when it comes to accessing those services.

It doesn't really need to be fixed until and unless it is shown that people whom do not need these services are taking advantage. A single wealthy person doing it to make a point is not a systemic problem. If that person's actions then motivated hundreds or thousands of otherwise well-off people to collect on food stamps, then it'd be different.

The fact that those programs are so easy to access is part of why they work at all. Poor people whom need that help may or may not have proof of identity, proof or address, a bank account number, etc. Forcing people in need to prove things like that undercuts the ability of that public service to work.

[spoonitnow]

...and the fact that people self-regulate when it comes to accessing those services.

lol you're cute

[MadMojoMonkey]

lol you retreat into a shell when you hear something intelligent that you want to argue against, but don't have the argument.

[Poopadoop]

Meanwhile, at the border:

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2019/06...ntration-camp/

[spoonitnow]

Meanwhile, at the border:

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2019/06...ntration-camp/

Should have kept their asses in Mexico.

[Poopadoop]

Should have kept their asses in Mexico.

Good point! I heard a lot of those little kids came on their own initiative.

Never trust anyone under six.

[OngBonga]

Good point! I heard a lot of those little kids came on their own initiative.

Never trust anyone under six.

Interesting fact... they didn't. Their parents took them to the border and tried to smuggle them into a foreign country. Honest question... are these parents the kind of people you want emigrating to whatever country you live in? People who will put their children at risk and break the law?

I mean I'd be down with taking the children in, deporting their parents back to Mexico or wherever, and finding foster homes for the kids. Only problem with that is it provides incentive. Better would be to stop them getting through in the first place, and prioritise those who attempt to migrate lawfully.

[Poopadoop]

Honest question... are these parents the kind of people you want emigrating to whatever country you live in? People who will put their children at risk and break the law?

Maybe they thought their kids were at less risk than they would be staying in their own country? Or do you think they just don't care about their families but are only looking for that great job they always dreamed of picking strawberries?

And, regardless of the virtues of the people showing up at your border, do you not think you have a responsibility to at least try to feed and wash them? Especially since, as coco pointed out, it's roughly the same number as have been showing up for years?

I mean I'd be down with taking the children in, deporting their parents back to Mexico or wherever, and finding foster homes for the kids. Only problem with that is it provides incentive.

Incentive for desperate people to give up their kids so they don't have to face whatever horrors exist in their home country? Yeah, that's really opening yourselves up to be exploited.

Better would be to stop them getting through in the first place, and prioritise those who attempt to migrate lawfully.

Better yet would be to follow international law

Article 14(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which was adopted in 1948, guarantees the right to seek and enjoy asylum in other countries.

So let's take a hypothetical: France goes under in a civil war. A hundred thousand people show up at Dover over the course of several years. What should we do with them - put them in concentration camps so they're discouraged from running for their lives? Or hope they take the hint and try their luck somewhere else?

[spoonitnow]

Interesting fact... they didn't. Their parents took them to the border and tried to smuggle them into a foreign country. Honest question... are these parents the kind of people you want emigrating to whatever country you live in? People who will put their children at risk and break the law?

You better stop with all of that logic before you trigger some libtards.

I mean I'd be down with taking the children in, deporting their parents back to Mexico or wherever, and finding foster homes for the kids.

The Obama administration tried something similar, but a non-trivial number of the kids ended up in human trafficking situations according to the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/u...port-says.html).

[oskar]

Sure. You know what. I think I'm exactly as triggered as all the sjw's you're triggering so good on the reddit.

[Poopadoop]

Looks impressive.

On a side note, what idiot thinks they can get good footage of a concert by holding up their phone? Lol.

[oskar]

They had TV helicopters flying around and the best I can find of that is a 3 second swoop around the main stage at daylight. I'm glad anyone was filming.

[Poopadoop]

They had TV helicopters flying around and the best I can find of that is a 3 second swoop around the main stage at daylight. I'm glad anyone was filming.

Did the right-wing coalition ban the media before they got ousted?

Just goes to show you what you can accomplish when you're evil AND organised, as opposed to just evil.

[Poopadoop]

Say Oskar, did the right-wingers ever have an Ausxit as part of their platform, or what was their reason for getting votes?

[Poopadoop]

Lol, "freedom party"

Political background
Further information: German nationalism in Austria

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Party_of_Austria

I guess that's pretty much all I need to know.

[oskar]

Lol, "freedom party"



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Party_of_Austria

I guess that's pretty much all I need to know.

After watching Chernobyl (highly recommended) I started reading news paper archives from around that time, and it was just when Austria voted on Waldheim. During the campaign it came out that he was a much more enthusiastic nazi than he previously disclosed. Still won the election. Stayed president for one period. The blue party has a solid nazi past.
It just wasn't that long ago. Both my grandfathers fought in WW2 - for the nazis ldo. One of them was a socialist and listened to allied radio (punishable by death) so I assume he wasn't all that into it, but you never know. This is Vienna after the annexation by Germany:



Not everyone was there to say: Hey! Wait a minute! That's not ok.

[Poopadoop]

Not everyone was there to say: Hey! Wait a minute! That's not ok.

I heard Goebbels tweeted it was the largest rally in the history of everything.

I wonder how many of those people were just thinking 'yay we're united with our German brothers' and how many we're actual Nazi ideologues.

[oskar]

It's hard to tell with this country because people moan about everything all the time, but I don't think most people would seriously back an Auxit if it were put to a vote. Our whole political system is very splintered.

This is how our parliament looks like:



6 parties and a couple 'miscellaneous.'
Blue is nazis 2.0
Black is basically gop in the fiscal sense, meaning they'll do whatever their donors tell them to, but minus the insane religious undertones and racism. Pink is the same as black but pink and campaigns on lgbt and women's stuff. Confuses a lot of people. Green was founded to protest the destruction of one of our biggest national parks, and succeeded. They're pretty well respected even by the people who hate them. The president was the head of the green party for decades. I literally did not know yellow made it until just now. Red is just fine.

The reason I'm telling you this is: it means that for a government to form 2 or more parties have to form a coalition... always. So it's really hard for super insane ideas to get through. Especially the far-right tends to campaign on insane promises, but they'll be kept in check as long as they don't get a majority, which is pretty much impossible.

[Poopadoop]

Especially the far-right tends to campaign on insane promises, but they'll be kept in check as long as they don't get a majority, which is pretty much impossible.

I wonder how many thought that about the Reichstag in 1930.

Reichstag 1930.jpg

But yeah, much less likely to happen nowadays, given how things turned out there.

[OngBonga]

I dunno who that is in the vid you linked but it's crap. Tell me there's some good music at such a large festival? Is there a reggae stage? Is there a beer tent with traditional Bavarian music? Don't tell me Lisa Stansfield was as good as it got (I checked to see who I'd heard of).

[OngBonga]

Maybe they thought their kids were at less risk than they would be staying in their own country?

So you're in favour of taking in an entire population?

do you not think you have a responsibility to at least try to feed and wash them?

Yes, no argument here.

so they don't have to face whatever horrors exist in their home country

Why do only the ones that show up at the border have these problems? And if they don't, why take in the ones who try to cross illegally at the expense of those who attempt to do so lawfully?

Better yet would be to follow international law

International law does not dictate that a nation must admit migrants.

France goes under in a civil war.

Are Mexico in a state of civil war? Or are you referring to the people who have fled various parts of Central and South America, and travelled through a peaceful Mexico, to get to USA?

Let's do this a different way... the UK becomes embroiled in civil war. Do I think I have the right to waltz to whichever country I can get to? No I don't. At the moment, I have the right to go to France, and French people have the right to come here. But let's fast forward a year or two and assume we're out of the EU, and we no longer have freedom of movement. I no longer have the right to go anywhere else.That might not stop me trying, but if I got politely told to fuck off, I wouldn't think I was being treated unfairly. I mean, why should I be allowed in but not the rest of the population? What makes me special? In fact, if I turn up at the border with a backpack, I'm less special than the people who actually apply for asylum before arriving.

[Poopadoop]

So you're in favour of taking in an entire population?

Not sure what you mean by 'take in' here or 'an entire populaton'. I'm in favour of looking after people who show up at your border, whether they do so legally or not. By 'looking after', I mean managing their basic hygeine and nutrition needs, not giving them all their own house and a beamer.

Yes, no argument here.

Good, then you're in agreement with basic human decency. That isn't what appears to be happening at the US border, however.

Why do only the ones that show up at the border have these problems?

Relevance? Are you suggesting the government is equally responsible to go into a war-torn country and feed and clothe people, as it is to do the same with refugees that show up at its border?

And if they don't, why take in the ones who try to cross illegally at the expense of those who attempt to do so lawfully?

First, they're not all trying to cross illegally. Many are presenting at the border to seek asylum. They're also being put in 'camps.' Second, if some are crossing illegally they should be given low priority for asylum status, but they still need to be fed and housed in appropriate conditions.

International law does not dictate that a nation must admit migrants.

Not sure exactly what the laws are, but there seems to be an international consensus that you need to deal humanely with refugees dragging themselves to your border. And I'm fairly sure the humane treatment of prisoners is guarded by international law.

Are Mexico in a state of civil war? Or are you referring to the people who have fled various parts of Central and South America, and travelled through a peaceful Mexico, to get to USA?

The latter.

Let's do this a different way... the UK becomes embroiled in civil war. Do I think I have the right to waltz to whichever country I can get to? No I don't.

Why not? If you can get to the country of your choice, what does geography have to do with it?

At the moment, I have the right to go to France, and French people have the right to come here.

That's not how it works lol. There's no 'you can go to a country your native country is part of an economic union with, but that's it.' Otherwise why would the Syrian refugees be getting asylum all over the world? No-one in Canada or most of Europe (including the UK fwiw) said 'sorry fuck you, we don't have a trade deal with Syria. You can't come here.'

But let's fast forward a year or two and assume we're out of the EU, and we no longer have freedom of movement. I no longer have the right to go anywhere else.That might not stop me trying, but if I got politely told to fuck off, I wouldn't think I was being treated unfairly. I mean, why should I be allowed in but not the rest of the population? What makes me special? In fact, if I turn up at the border with a backpack, I'm less special than the people who actually apply for asylum before arriving.

You can argue this if you want; I'm just saying what the international consensus is. If you're fleeing a dangerous situation where you live, you have a right to asylum in the country of your choice. If you're in Sierra Leone and want to escape the child killer gangs with your family, you aren't expected to go to the nearest border (say Nigeria) and apply for asylum. You can go anywhere in the world you can get to, and by international agreement they have to take you afaik.

But this isn't about the behaviour of the people showing up at the US border and whether they're doing things the right way or not; surely some of those showing up at the border aren't. The question is how the US is treating these people regardless of whether they're doing things the right way or not, and I think we've already agreed the US is out of line in that respect.

[OngBonga]

If you're fleeing a dangerous situation where you live, you have a right to asylum in the country of your choice.

This isn't quite true, either. You have a right to asylum in the first "safe country" you can get to. You can't simply pick any country in the world. Doing so is a matter of economics.

[Poopadoop]

This isn't quite true, either. You have a right to asylum in the first "safe country" you can get to. You can't simply pick any country in the world. Doing so is a matter of economics.

Ong.jpg

So, let's see if I got this straight. Canada accepted something like 25k Syrian asylum seeking refugees a couple years ago. Are you saying those refugees had such bad luck that every country they went through on their way from Syria to Canada was unsafe?

Stop. Talking. Shit.

[OngBonga]

So, let's see if I got this straight. Canada accepted something like 25k Syrian asylum seeking refugees a couple years ago. Are you saying those refugees had such bad luck that every country they went through on their way from Syria to Canada was unsafe?

Stop. Talking. Shit.

No, you didn't get that straight, and once again demonstrate you can't read. I'm saying that Canada had no obligation to take them in. Those that went to Canada chose to go there, and Canada chose to accept them. For the migrants, it was an economic choice. I can't blame them, I'd rather live in Canada than Turkey.

[Poopadoop]

No blankets, no toothbrushes, no chance to bathe.

Forget about the fact that some of these people are immigrants and/or asylum seekers for a minute. Assume they're all in killer gangs caught bringing fentanyl across the border with their kids in tow 'cause they couldn't get a babysitter. There's still no way to justify this. None. It's fucking cruel, end of story.

[OngBonga]

Good, then you're in agreement with basic human decency. That isn't what appears to be happening at the US border, however.

This doesn't change the fact that priority should be given to legal migrants and not criminals with children in tow.

Relevance? Are you suggesting the government is equally responsible to go into a war-torn country and feed and clothe people, as it is to do the same with refugees that show up at its border?

I'm merely questioning why only a tiny fraction of the population are turning up at the border. If staying in a country is more dangerous to your children than attempting to cross a border illegally, something is very wrong in that country.

It's not about fleeing danger, it's about wanting a better life. Or to put that another way... it's economics.

First, they're not all trying to cross illegally. Many are presenting at the border to seek asylum. They're also being put in 'camps.' Second, if some are crossing illegally they should be given low priority for asylum status, but they still need to be fed and housed in appropriate conditions.

Turning up at the border is not the way to apply for asylum. Not unless you're in immediate danger. People who turn up at the border unannounced should be turned back.

Not sure exactly what the laws are, but there seems to be an international consensus that you need to deal humanely with refugees dragging themselves to your border.

Nope, just the ones who successfully cross the border. Why does USA have to comply with "international consensus" but not Mexico? Those on the Mexican side are Mexico's responsibility.

And I'm fairly sure the humane treatment of prisoners is guarded by international law.

Yep. Like I say, I agree detainees should be fed and cleaned. But there's no obligation to admit migrants in the first place. If they're on the Mexican side, they are not America's problem, they are Mexico's/

The latter.

What's wrong with Mexico?

It's ok, I know the answer... economics.

Why not? If you can get to the country of your choice, what does geography have to do with it?

A nation state has a responsibility to its citizens, not the world's population.

That's not how it works lol.

We're talking about rights here, and it's exactly how it works. Syrians do not have an automatic right to settle in the UK. The French do, currently.

If you're fleeing a dangerous situation where you live, you have a right to asylum in the country of your choice.

Do you think people have the right to seek economic opportunities in whichever nation on the planet they choose?

[OngBonga]

Poop seems to think it's more dangerous for a Guatemalan family to settle in Mexico than continue through Mexico and illegally cross the border into USA.

[Poopadoop]

Fine, they should have stopped in Mexico. But they didn't. Now they're in your country. Should you treat them humanely or should you treat them cruelly?

If it were any other president but Captain Retard, this wouldn't even be a question.

[OngBonga]

Also, you might note that Trump hasn't started any major wars yet. Even Iran, previous administrations would be there by now, but Trump pulled back. I don't think he had ordered strikes then changed his mind, he's simply trying to make Iran think it's that close.

Since Trump hasn't started any major wars, there's currently no Trump-initiated migrant crisis.

I'd argue it's cruel and inhumane to start a war with a country and force people to become unsettled in the first place. Captain Retard is the only president in my lifetime that hasn't done this yet.

[Poopadoop]

Also, you might note that Trump hasn't started any major wars yet. Even Iran, previous administrations would be there by now, but Trump pulled back. I don't think he had ordered strikes then changed his mind, he's simply trying to make Iran think it's that close.

Since Trump hasn't started any major wars, there's currently no Trump-initiated migrant crisis.

I'd argue it's cruel and inhumane to start a war with a country and force people to become unsettled in the first place. Captain Retard is the only president in my lifetime that hasn't done this yet.

What wars did Obama and/or Clinton start?

[OngBonga]

What wars did Obama and/or Clinton start?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...t-century_wars

[Poopadoop]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...t-century_wars

Oh right, I forgot about all those. Did Trump stop any of them once he took power?

[Poopadoop]

Even Iran, previous administrations would be there by now,

Speculative and almost certainly wrong. There have been a lot better excuses to attack Iran since 1979 than there are now just because they (supposedly) shot down a drone. They raided the US embassy and took a bunch of Americans hostage in '79 ffs.

Iran is not a pushover and it's a long way from the USA. Fighting a serious war with Iran would have a huge cost in money and lives.

[OngBonga]

Speculative and almost certainly wrong. There have been a lot better excuses to attack Iran since 1979 than there are now just because they (supposedly) shot down a drone. They raided the US embassy and took a bunch of Americans hostage in '79 ffs.

Iran is not a pushover and it's a long way from the USA. Fighting a serious war with Iran would have a huge cost in money and lives.

Funny how you tell me I'm speculating and almost certainly wrong, then you go on to speculate and are almost certainly wrong.

It's not about being a "pushover". Wars are not meant to be "won". They are meant to cause economic misery and suffering. That would be easy to achieve.

[Poopadoop]

Funny how you tell me I'm speculating and almost certainly wrong, then you go on to speculate and are almost certainly wrong.

I'm almost certainly less wrong than you.

It's not about being a "pushover". Wars are not meant to be "won". They are meant to cause economic misery and suffering. That would be easy to achieve.

The obvious effects are not always the main intentions.

[OngBonga]

Here's an article for your reading pleasure poop. I know you're not a big fan of outspoken former ambassadors turned whistle blowers, but he makes some fine points...

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...-of-character/

I am absolutely convinced that, were Hillary President, the Middle East would now be devastated by the biggest of all the recent wars, and America would have invaded both Syria and Iran by now. Hillary was an enthusiast for the destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan and she was personally involved in starting the obliteration of the advanced Libyan state on the flimsiest of pretexts. The potential devastation she would have inflicted and the millions who would now be dead, maimed or orphaned outweighs in my view all the harm perpetrated by Trump. So my conclusion is this: I would far rather not have President Trump nor President Clinton, but forced into a straight binary choice I will take Trump. He has a better character; for all his faults he is the only one of the two who is not a psychopathic killer.


How the Trump administration plays out, given the warmongering advisors from the political Establishment with whom Trump has surrounded himself, is a fascinating question. John Bolton is as near evil as any human being can be. Which brings me back to the faux left and their views. In 2013, I spoke in a ceremony at the Oxford Union to give the Sam Adams Award for Integrity, of which previous winners include Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, John Kyriakou, Thomas Drake and myself. Hundreds of students from the “left” at Oxford University were engaged in a rowdy picket against the Sam Adams award aimed to stop the event because of the ridiculous allegations in Sweden against Assange.


Now get this. Exactly the day before, the Oxford Union had hosted an evening with John Bolton. Not a single member of the “left”, who tried to prevent Ray McGovern and I from speaking, had demonstrated against the egregious war criminal, responsible for the death of millions. There could not be a more stark example of the spectacular success of the Establishment in using the false trail of identify politics to split and divert the left, particularly among young people.

[Poopadoop]

Here's an article for your reading pleasure poop. I know you're not a big fan of outspoken former ambassadors turned whistle blowers, but he makes some fine points...

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...-of-character/

So what? Someone says 'if so-and-so were POTUS instead of Trump, it'd be nonstop war.' We'll never know if they're right, so who cares?

[OngBonga]

So what? Someone says 'if so-and-so were POTUS instead of Trump, it'd be nonstop war.' We'll never know if they're right, so who cares?

Hilary has a proven track record for supporting wars of aggression. You can say he's speculating all you like, but the truth of the matter is, he is a great deal more qualified to speculate on such matters than both you and I.

[Poopadoop]

Hilary has a proven track record for supporting wars of aggression. You can say he's speculating all you like, but the truth of the matter is, he is a great deal more qualified to speculate on such matters than both you and I.

So are a lot of people. If you can find a large consensus of them that aren't politically motivated AND that say Hillary would have been a war monger POTUS, then I'll start to listen.

[OngBonga]

Fine, they should have stopped in Mexico. But they didn't. Now they're in your country. Should you treat them humanely or should you treat them cruelly?

Depends which side of the border they're on. There's nothing wrong with USA doing their utmost to keep them on the Mexican side.

If it were any other president but Captain Retard, this wouldn't even be a question.

Not true. Read that article spoon just liked. The Obama administration couldn't be bothered to conduct background checks. That is cruel, not humane.

[Poopadoop]

Depends which side of the border they're on. There's nothing wrong with USA doing their utmost to keep them on the Mexican side.

Again, not relevant to how they're treating people on the US side.

Not true. Read that article spoon just liked. The Obama administration couldn't be bothered to conduct background checks. That is cruel, not humane.

13/90,000 is 13 too many. Trump's human rights abuse is on a much larger scale, however.

[Poopadoop]

Funny how every argument with you about how shitty a POTUS Trump is turns into some version of 'what about Hillary's emails?'

[OngBonga]

Funny how every argument with you about how shitty a POTUS Trump is turns into some version of 'what about Hillary's emails?'

I didn't mention any emails, and haven't done for a very long time.

It's more "what about how fucking psychopathic Hilary is".

If you can find a large consensus of them that aren't politically motivated AND that say Hillary would have been a war monger POTUS, then I'll start to listen.

Her voting history is sufficient evidence for me. Show me she voted against these wars and I'll start to listen.

Is that a yes or a no?

I genuinely don't know, and I'm not going to find out by googling. I have no idea what actions Trump has taken to end wars that USA were already involved in, and neither do you.

[Poopadoop]

I didn't mention any emails, and haven't done for a very long time.

It's more "what about how fucking psychopathic Hilary is".

Same shit different pile.

Also, don't forget 'Obama did bad things'. That's another of your whatabout arguments you use to deflect from Captain Retard's failings.

Her voting history is sufficient evidence for me. Show me she voted against these wars and I'll start to listen.

I actually don't care because she's irrelevant since she lives in the woods now.

I genuinely don't know, and I'm not going to find out by googling. I have no idea what actions Trump has taken to end wars that USA were already involved in, and neither do you.

I'm genuinely confident it's a number close to zero. And he's not been put up for the Nobel Peace Prize afaik, so there's that.

[Poopadoop]

I bet there's also a long list of thiings Trump hasn't done that other people might be doing in an alternate universe where they are POTUS. Jesus, I never even considered that.

[OngBonga]

Is it a coincidence that as soon as the USA stopped funding and arming "Syrian rebels" (aka ISIS), they started to lose the war? I'll credit Trump with that.

Ransoms and donations is not enough to maintain a caliphate. You need arms, and international support.

[OngBonga]

The war against ISIS has been "won" during Trump's time in office. I interpret that as Trump deciding to pull the plug.

[Poopadoop]

The war against ISIS has been "won" during Trump's time in office. I interpret that as Trump deciding to pull the plug.

The war was won because ISIS didn't have any territory left. I don't think that was due to Trump's military genius or the grand total of 2k US troops that were there. He didn't exactly need to do a Napoleon on ISIS to beat them.

And most of those 2k US troops are still in Syria.

[OngBonga]

The war was won because ISIS didn't have any territory left. I don't think that was due to Trump's military genius or the grand total of 2k US troops that were there. He didn't exactly need to do a Napoleon on ISIS to beat them.

And most of those 2k US troops are still in Syria.

Why did ISIS lose territory?

[OngBonga]

I missed a post...

Again, not relevant to how they're treating people on the US side.

We're in agreement here. I've said multiple times now that USA should accept their responsibilities to migrants in their country.

13/90,000 is 13 too many. Trump's human rights abuse is on a much larger scale, however.

13 too many. Yes, in a perfect world. It's not a perfect world,and it wouldn't be if Trump wasn't in office. 13 or whatever the actual number is, it's a tiny fraction and can be accidental and unavoidable.

And Trump's human rights abuse? Every president since fuck knows is guilty of major human rights abuse. Who is to blame for Guantanamo Bay? Not Trump.

[OngBonga]

Also, don't forget 'Obama did bad things'. That's another of your whatabout arguments you use to deflect from Captain Retard's failings.

Yes, I do like to argue that while Trump isn't a fantastic guy, he's less terrible than his predecessors. That's because his predecessors didn'y get nearly the level of hatred that Trump is subject to, both from the media and the public.

I actually don't care because she's irrelevant since she lives in the woods now.

Good.

I'm genuinely confident it's a number close to zero. And he's not been put up for the Nobel Peace Prize afaik, so there's that.

Wasn't Bush Jnr nominated for that? That "prize" is a joke in today's world.

[Poopadoop]

And Trump's human rights abuse? Every president since fuck knows is guilty of major human rights abuse. Who is to blame for Guantanamo Bay? Not Trump.

Ikr? There's all sorts of bad things that Trump didn't do, why do people keep blaming him for the bad things he is doing?

I mean this is just a partial list of things he's not responsible for. What about them? Why are people so focussed on the present?

Vietnam War
Bikini Atoll testing
Allende Coup
Custer's Last Stand
1980s techno pop
The EU
Acid rain
Cancer
Pizza cheese that sticks to the carton

[OngBonga]

Another question... who funded ISIS?

[Poopadoop]

Another question... who funded ISIS?

Was it Google? Apple? I don't know.

Edit: Well here's what Wiki says, but it's probably lying to cover up the conspiracy that it was... Hillary!!!!!

According to a 2015 study by the Financial Action Task Force, ISIL's five primary sources of revenue are as followed (listed in order of significance):

proceeds from the occupation of territory (including control of banks, oil and gas reservoirs, taxation, extortion, and robbery of economic assets)
kidnapping for ransom[1]
donations by or through non-profit organizations
material support provided by foreign fighters
fundraising through modern communication networks[2]

[OngBonga]

Here's a list of Trump's human rights abuses...

Not adequately feeding and cleaning migrants

Feel free to add anything I've missed.

Edit: Well here's what Wiki says, but it's probably lying to cover up the conspiracy that it was... Hillary!!!!!

Here's more from Wikipedia...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore

Note that "In July 2017, US officials stated that Timber Sycamore would be phased out". Who was POTUS in July 2017?

[Poopadoop]

Here's a list of Trump's human rights abuses...

Not adequately feeding and cleaning migrants

Feel free to add anything I've missed.

Ikr? Heydrich was only responsible for killing the jews who lived in Czechoslovakia. He didn't do anything else to abuse human rights, therefore he was overall an ok guy.

[OngBonga]

Ikr? Heydrich was only responsible for killing the jews who lived in Czechoslovakia. He didn't do anything else to abuse human rights, therefore he was overall an ok guy.

Not providing adequate care for immigrants = killing Jews.

Fucking hell mate, you're struggling here.

[Poopadoop]

Not providing adequate care for immigrants = killing Jews.

Fucking hell mate, you're struggling here.

Sorry if that analogy was too sophisticated for you to grasp easily.

Point is if you only ever commit one human rights atrocity, it's hardly a point in your favour.

[OngBonga]

I mean, I would argue that creating migrants is a bigger human rights abuse than treating already existing migrants with contempt.

[OngBonga]

Robert Baer, a former CIA officer and CNN contributor, strongly criticized the Trump administration's cancellation of the program, calling it "a strategic mistake" and "a gift to Vladimir Putin."

Do you really live in a world where Putin is worse than ISIS?

Jesus fucking wept.

[Poopadoop]

Do you really live in a world where Putin is worse than ISIS?

Jesus fucking wept.

Not sure you understand the nuance there. It's not an either/or situation.

[OngBonga]

Not sure you understand the nuance there. It's not an either/or situation.

It sort of is. I mean it was the opposite of a gift to ISIS. The idea it was a "gift to Putin" is based on the fact Putin was actually fighting ISIS, rather than pretending to while actually arming and funding them.

Point is if you only ever commit one human rights atrocity, it's hardly a point in your favour.

Sorry if you're not grasping that scale of abuse is an important factor.

[Poopadoop]

Sorry if you're not grasping that scale of abuse is an important factor.

You're absolutely right about this obvious thing. Killing 6 million jews is worse than being cruel to thousands of refugees.

My point, in case you need clarification, is that this doesn't make the latter ok, even if it is your only human rights abuse.

[OngBonga]

Yeah, 'cause they never would have found anywhere to buy arms from if not for this Timber Sycamore thing. Riiiigght.

Who the fuck is going to provide arms and funding on the same scale as USA + allies?

Answer - nobody.

[Poopadoop]

Who the fuck is going to provide arms and funding on the same scale as USA + allies?

Answer - nobody.

Wait, they gave them the money to pay for the arms they sold to others that ended up on the black market?

[OngBonga]

My point, in case you need clarification, is that this doesn't make the latter ok, even if it is your only human rights abuse.

I do agree here. I'm not saying it's ok. I'm simply saying that, by human rights abuse standards, it's pretty minor. Much worse has been happening the last few decades as a result of US policy.