*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

So let me walk you through this particular logically valid analogy again.

Trump bad: other recent presidents worse (your argument) is logically analagous to 2 million dead: 6 million dead, and to stealing 5 marbles: stealing 10 marbles, and for that matter, to proton: universe.

The problems with this line of arguments are twofold: First, you haven't provided a convincing argument for your premise 'other recent presidents worse', you just linked a Wiki page with some wars listed on it, most of which Trump is still involved in afaik. Granted, asking you to support a premise of your argument is a fool's errand, but that doesn't mean your premises are true by default.

Second, the conclusion you expect to be drawn from 'Trump bad: other recent presidents worse', assuming the latter is true, is unclear. Assuming you agree that 2 million dead people would also be bad, but not as bad as 6 million dead, the logical conclusion seems to be that 'Trump still bad'.

Or are you positing that this argument, assuming the premises are accurate, actually supports the conclusion that Trump is therefore a good POTUS? 'Cause I'm pretty sure that doesn't follow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

It's interesting you keep saying "direct comparison", as though I've used that phrase.

I haven't. That's you adding that word in to support your flawed argument.

---

All I've done is point out that my analogy is logically valid using the dictionary definition of a logical analogy. Do you agree with that or not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

'Cause I'm pretty sure that doesn't follow.

---

Oh wait, I better clarify my use of the word 'follow' here because I'm worried you may be inclined to apply some other interpretation to it that is more folksy, even though it would make no sense given the context.

Here ya go:

follow:

be a logical consequence of something.

Quote:

---

Trump bad: other recent presidents worse (your argument) is logically analagous to 2 million dead: 6 million dead, and to stealing 5 marbles: stealing 10 marbles, and for that matter, to proton: universe.

---

Is your avatar actually you? That would make quite a lot of sense.

Quote:

---

First, you haven't provided a convincing argument for your premise 'other recent presidents worse'

---

They are in terms of number of people killed in wars of aggression. If you wish to challenge that argument, go right ahead.

Quote:

---

most of which Trump is still involved in afaik.

---

I've stated that I'm in no position to know what Trump is doing to end such wars. Though, I did cite an article which shows he changed policy towards ISIS within months of taking office, and during his term ISIS have been defeated. Your response was to say it was a "gift to Putin", like that is somehow worse than allowing ISIS to thrive.

I don't think Trump is a good president. I just think he's better than others during my lifetime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Is your avatar actually you? That would make quite a lot of sense.

---

Yes, I'm really a dog. Woof.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

They are in terms of number of people killed in wars of aggression. If you wish to challenge that argument, go right ahead.

---

Ok, well we can agree that GWB is way ahead of the field in that respect.

Apart from him, I'm not sure you can say Trump is clearly ahead of or behind any other particular potus in the last 40 years or however old you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I've stated that I'm in no position to know what Trump is doing to end such wars. Though, I did cite an article which shows he changed policy towards ISIS within months of taking office, and during his term ISIS have been defeated. Your response was to say it was a "gift to Putin", like that is somehow worse than allowing ISIS to thrive.

---

I'm not an expert on this topic, but my understanding is that ISIS was on its last legs when he took over. It seems optimistic to give him credit for 'defeating ISIS'. An analogy would be to say he deserves credit for the strenght of the US economy in his first few months of being POTUS. A lot of the groundwork for both was laid before he sat his fat orange ass in the Oval Office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I don't think Trump is a good president. I just think he's better than others during my lifetime.

---

Fine.

Quote:

---

Apart from him, I'm not sure you can say Trump is clearly ahead of or behind any other particular potus in the last 40 years or however old you are.

---

Bush Snr has the Gulf War I on his hands, Obama has Syria. Not sure about Reagan, I'm only really thinking about my adult life, since I had no interest in geopolitics as a child.

Quote:

---

...but my understanding is that ISIS was on its last legs when he took over.

---

Yeah, thanks to Russia.

Maybe I am being hasty giving him the credit for defeating them, but cutting their funding and arms was certainly a good move.

Reagan was involved with less high profile wars with Afghanistan, Angola and Nicaragua.

Trump has the Venezuela crisis harming his foreign policy credibility, but as best I can tell, that hasn't actually turned into a war yet.

I really enjoy knowing that Hillary Clinton, who is easily the most prolific US politician (let alone woman) to never become president, was beaten by a guy who basically picked up politics because he was fucking bored as a media stunt.

It reminds me of that time that a man won the woman of the year award. We're just better at everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Bush Snr has the Gulf War I on his hands,

---

That wasn't really 'aggressive' was it? SH invaded Kuwait and wouldn't leave. I suppose they could have just left him there, but like once they kicked him out they fucked off again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Obama has Syria.

---

Nowhere near on the same scale as IWII though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Not sure about Reagan, I'm only really thinking about my adult life, since I had no interest in geopolitics as a child.

---

The only one I remember from Reagan was Grenada, but that was basically just walking in and taking over. There may be others though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

I really enjoy knowing that Hillary Clinton, who is easily the most prolific US politician (let alone woman) to never become president, was beaten by a guy who basically picked up politics because he was fucking bored as a media stunt.

It reminds me of that time that a man won the woman of the year award. We're just better at everything.

---

The funniest thing about her to me was that she was quite possibly the least likeable politican I can ever remember. Her face made me sick and her voice was so seriously grating that it made me want to punch her face. If it was a choice between sitting in a bar with Trump and with her I'd pick Trump every day. Then I'd glass him.

Quote:

---

That wasn't really 'aggressive' was it? SH invaded Kuwait and wouldn't leave. I suppose they could have just left him there, but like once they kicked him out they fucked off again.

---

Depends which narrative you subscribe to, but I can overlook this one since I was too young at the time to understand what was happening. I might be wrong to assume it was avoidable with a better policy.

Quote:

---

Nowhere near on the same scale as IWII though.

---

Is this a typo? You mean GWII? Syria is utterly destroyed, it's a terrible situation. Obama also has drone attacks in Pakistan that have killed many civilians. He's not getting a clean pass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

I really enjoy knowing that Hillary Clinton, who is easily the most prolific US politician (let alone woman) to never become president, was beaten by a guy who basically picked up politics because he was fucking bored as a media stunt.

It reminds me of that time that a man won the woman of the year award. We're just better at everything.

---

Didn't Charlie Chaplin enter a Charlie Chaplin Lookalike contest and come third? Or is that an urban myth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Is this a typo? You mean GWII?

---

Iraq War II.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Syria is utterly destroyed, it's a terrible situation. Obama also has drone attacks in Pakistan that have killed many civilians. He's not getting a clean pass.

---

Iraq was destroyed too. Afghanistan invaded. And a lot more dead directly due to the US during Bush Jr. than Obama. Miles more I would think.

Quote:

---

Iraq War II.

---

Fairly obvious, yet that didn't occur to me! At least I took it as a typo for Gulf War II, ie the same war.

Quote:

---

Iraq was destroyed too. Afghanistan invaded. And a lot more dead directly due to the US during Bush Jr. than Obama. Miles more I would think.

---

Probably right, maybe GWB does have more blood on his hands than Obama. But Trump doesn't have any that I'm aware of. Venezuela is touchy, Iran might happen under his term, but other than a MOAB dropped in Afghanistan (probably as a message to China or North Korea), I can't recall any serious foreign policy issues. That is worthy of note, whether you like the guy or not.

I seem to recall a Chinese port getting fucked. Tianjin? I kinda felt that was an American attack, Rods From God, but that might be my imagination getting carried away.

How did I get dragged into this?

The Combine Harvester conversation was to elucidate that "they'll take our jobs" is a thin argument, and indicates a transitional period at most. It doesn't indicate a permanent loss of jobs, as though the number and kind of jobs is a static commodity.

Basically, the CH already took everyone's job. We all have new, different jobs, many of which didn't exist at the time of the CH's introduction.

IDK why you think it's such a sidetrack or non-sequitur. It was a specific example from history of a significant "loss of jobs" that has had only (or at least mostly) positive long-term effects (so far). Once the transitional period passed, we became a far more technologically capable planet.

It's hard to imagine the rise of the computer age or the communication age or whatever you want to call it would be possible on any remotely similar time scale if not for all those "took jobs." It's an argument that there's at least some evidence that a widespread taking of jobs was perhaps one of the best things to happen to humans.

It's not a conclusive argument. It is a historical fact to keep in mind when worrying about the impact of a loss of jobs on an economy. It's not a clear and persistent "bad" to lose jobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

How did I get dragged into this?

---

I missed you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

The Combine Harvester conversation was to elucidate that "they'll take our jobs" is a thin argument, and indicates a transitional period at most. It doesn't indicate a permanent loss of jobs, as though the number and kind of jobs is a static commodity.

Basically, the CH already took everyone's job. We all have new, different jobs, many of which didn't exist at the time of the CH's introduction.

IDK why you think it's such a sidetrack or non-sequitur. It was a specific example from history of a significant "loss of jobs" that has had only (or at least mostly) positive long-term effects (so far). Once the transitional period passed, we became a far more technologically capable planet.

It's hard to imagine the rise of the computer age or the communication age or whatever you want to call it would be possible on any remotely similar time scale if not for all those "took jobs." It's an argument that there's at least some evidence that a widespread taking of jobs was perhaps one of the best things to happen to humans.

It's not a conclusive argument. It is a historical fact to keep in mind when worrying about the impact of a loss of jobs on an economy. It's not a clear and persistent "bad" to lose jobs.

---

That puts everything in context, thanks.

It also has nothing to do with people seeking better economic opportunities in other countries. Poop, you are clearly an economic migrant. You came to the UK because you were offered a job, and you saw it as advantageous to accept it. That's fine. But if you turned up at a port claiming you were fleeing Canada because you feared for your safety, when really you just wanted a better job than what you could get at home, that's not fine.

The reason it's important is because economic migrants don't share the same rights as war migrants. People who claim to be fleeing danger when they are not, they are basically liars and should be very low priority. Just like people who try to enter a country illegally.

I assume you brought up the combine harvester because you feel my anti-immigration stance is because "they're taking our jobs". That's not true. More people working makes for a stronger economy, which breeds new jobs. So I don't have a problem with migrants coming here to work. I have a problem with liars and criminals, and I have a problem with migrants who refuse to integrate, as though our culture is something we should be ashamed of and seek to replace with another culture.

Immigration is not bad. I simply want the right kind of immigration.

Deport Illegals 2020

Is anyone really saying not to deport illegals?

I understand the problem is determining who's legal and who's not a lot of the time. We've mentioned asylum seekers, but I'm not too informed on the specifics of that topic. What I understand is that it takes time to process an asylum claim and that while people are in that limbo, their conditions are pretty poor. IDK if the families are being separated in these cases.

I mean. If people are obviously trying to sneak in away from an official border checkpoint, then they are criminals and treating them as such is appropriate.

If that treatment is being directed to people coming to checkpoints and seeking asylum, then that's where I get a bit uncomfortable with it. Treating people whom are following the law as though they are not doesn't seem like it's what America stands for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I mean. If people are obviously trying to sneak in away from an official border checkpoint, then they are criminals and treating them as such is appropriate.

---

Even this would be better than how they're being treated now. Are criminals' (even the worst of them like murderers) children taken to overcrowded camps where they are denied proper nutrition (no fruits/veg AT ALL in their rations), denied actual beds (not concrete floors) to sleep on, denied basic hygeine needs like diapers and toothbrushes and baths (so kids are walking around in their own pissed-in pants), and are not subject to adult supervision? Do the teenagers at these child-of-murderers camps get told to look after the toddlers, 'cause no adults have time to do it?

If this is the kids, I'm guessing the adult 'criminals' don't have it much better.

The weirdest thing is how none of this seems to make a dent in Trump's base, any more than openly admitting he'd collude with a foreign power, or what's the number we're up to now (22 is it?) sexual assault allegations against him. I think he was right when he said he could shoot someone in the face and they'd still support him.

What a bunch of fucking mongs.

Quote:

---

any more than openly admitting he'd collude with a foreign power

---

This actually does the opposite of hurt him. I mean, they'd ALL collude if it meant getting dirt on their opponents, it's just the vast majority of politicians would lie about it.

Quote:

---

sexual assault allegations

---

I allege you have sexually assaulted me.

You're up to one, you disgusting human being.

That's how easy it is, if you're holding "allegations" against people.

So far, he has one black mark against him as far as I'm concerned, and that's the treatment of migrant detainees. That would possibly be enough to stop me voting for him, if I had the ability to vote in a US election, but that really does depend on who he's up against. If he's up against, say, Hillary Clinton, I'd weigh up the pros and cons and I'd probably decide that a few ill treated migrants is a lesser evil than creating migrants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

This actually does the opposite of hurt him. I mean, they'd ALL collude if it meant getting dirt on their opponents, it's just the vast majority of politicians would lie about it.

---

Believe it or not, actually they wouldn't all collude. You'd like to think this, but it's very unlikely to be true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I allege you have sexually assaulted me.

---

You wish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You're up to one, you disgusting human being.

---

"You're the disgusting one making a false allegation."

Note that's different from saying "You're not my type."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

That's how easy it is, if you're holding "allegations" against people.

---

Are you prepared to take your allegation to court? To face a media shitstorm and all kinds of threats? 'Cause that doesn't sound so easy to me.

I know I like to bang on about Clinton, but this is why I find it really hard to get on the Trump hatewagon. I don't pretend he's a nice guy, nor do I think he's a particularly great President. But the alternative was a far more terrifying prospect. The worst thing about the Trump presidency is the relentless hate that exists in society. Even Bush wasn't hated this much, and that really is saying something. The media campaign against him is remarkable, and very effective in terms of creating division. If that doesn't show who's in control of the media, I don't know what does.

We're almost at the point where if you admit to not hating Trump, you're seen as a bad person. Maybe we are at that point. The irony is, I don't really hate anyone. I don't hate Clinton, I simply think she's a deeply unpleasant person, and I'm glad she didn't win. Do I hate her? No, the only time I even think about her is when I'm talking about Trump. But the hate against Trump has become and obsession in a great many people.

It's the same with Brexit. Admit to voting leave, and you're labelled a cunt by a lot remainers. I don't have a problem with remainers. I just disagree with them. Had they won. I wouldn't hold it against people who voted remain. I'd get on with my life being glad I lived in a democratic country.

Society has become very divided, almost to the point you have to choose a side. Well I'm not choosing the side that is obsessively hateful and resentful. I'm certainly not choosing a side that doesn't respect democracy.

Our future generations will look back on people of this age and think we were mentally ill.

Quote:

---

Are you prepared to take your allegation to court? To face a media shitstorm and all kinds of threats? 'Cause that doesn't sound so easy to me.

---

Depends who's paying me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Depends who's paying me.

---

If it's so trivial, why isn't every politician accused of multiple sexual assaults? You'd think that'd be in everyone's playbook.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

If it's so trivial, why isn't every politician accused of multiple sexual assaults? You'd think that'd be in everyone's playbook.

---

Because not every politician has an orchestrated hate campaign against him by the entire liberal media.

Do you think an allegation is evidence of guilt? How about 22 allegations against the most hated man on the planet? Seems to me you're just happy to add it to the list.

You know who else has a string of allegation against her? Clue... her. Yet if I start blabbering on about those, I'll get accuse of being a tin hatter. Funny how that works, huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I know I like to bang on about Clinton, but this is why I find it really hard to get on the Trump hatewagon. I don't pretend he's a nice guy, nor do I think he's a particularly great President. But the alternative was a far more terrifying prospect. The worst thing about the Trump presidency is the relentless hate that exists in society. Even Bush wasn't hated this much, and that really is saying something. The media campaign against him is remarkable, and very effective in terms of creating division. If that doesn't show who's in control of the media, I don't know what does.

We're almost at the point where if you admit to not hating Trump, you're seen as a bad person. Maybe we are at that point. The irony is, I don't really hate anyone. I don't hate Clinton, I simply think she's a deeply unpleasant person, and I'm glad she didn't win. Do I hate her? No, the only time I even think about her is when I'm talking about Trump. But the hate against Trump has become and obsession in a great many people.

It's the same with Brexit. Admit to voting leave, and you're labelled a cunt by a lot remainers. I don't have a problem with remainers. I just disagree with them. Had they won. I wouldn't hold it against people who voted remain. I'd get on with my life being glad I lived in a democratic country.

Society has become very divided, almost to the point you have to choose a side. Well I'm not choosing the side that is obsessively hateful and resentful. I'm certainly not choosing a side that doesn't respect democracy.

Our future generations will look back on people of this age and think we were mentally ill.

---

You're ascribing hate to everyone on the other side who doesn't agree with you. What is this based on? A few people on the internet calling you a cunt?

Do you not think there are people on your side calling everyone on the other side a cunt too? And people on the other side saying 'see how much they hate us?'

Some people are cunts. They're the ones doing the hating. And they exist on both sides. But most people are actually fairly reasonable, even if they don't agree with you or me or whoever.

This is the problem with social media. It gives what I think is an unrealistic impression that everyone is really divided and triggered, but that's only because the triggered people are the ones making the most noise. There's a lot of people quietly sitting there going 'wtf is this spaztard's problem?' when they see someone on their side losing their shit and being abusive.

As for Trump, I don't even hate him, as I've said before. I don't think he's really evil so much as just selfish. I also think he's a conman retard unlicked cub. If anything I kind of feel sorry for him, because I think he's pretty much entirely clueless about what he's doing and is just trying to grope his way along and hope no-one notices how useless he is. And I feel even more sorry for the people who think he's some kind of gift from God sent to save the USA from whatever they think it's in danger from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Because not every politician has an orchestrated hate campaign against him by the entire liberal media.

---

Wait, wat? So if someone had publicly accused Obama of butt-raping her, that wouldn't have showed up in the news? Lol, get real.

Joe Biden touches a little girl on her undeveloped chest and Fox News goes apeshit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Do you think an allegation is evidence of guilt? How about 22 allegations against the most hated man on the planet? Seems to me you're just happy to add it to the list.

---

Where there's smoke there's usually fire. Seems to me your just happy to assume all 22 women are lying as part of some grand conspiracy.

Look at the guy's own behaviour. Listen to him talk about grabbing women by the pussy. Who the fuck says that?

Look at him being interviewed and saying things about his own daughter. How does that not make you think 'eeewwww!'.

Look at him going backstage at Ms. Universe or whatever that pageant was where the models were all naked. Would you just waltz in there like that? And then brag about it like some 14 year old kid who found a peephole into the girls' shower?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You know who else has a string of allegation against her? Clue... her. Yet if I start blabbering on about those, I'll get accuse of being a tin hatter. Funny how that works, huh?

---

Always back to Hillary. Please. She's gone to live in the woods. No-one cares about her except people trying to defend Trump the scumbag.

Here's some more MAGA for y'all.

Pregnant woman gets in an argument with guy in store. He shoots her in the stomach. Unborn baby dies.

Guess who's getting charged with manslaughter.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8976946.html

Quote:

---

You're ascribing hate to everyone on the other side who doesn't agree with you. What is this based on? A few people on the internet calling you a cunt?

---

Not at all. Just those who are obsessed.

Quote:

---

What is this based on?

---

Observation. Here's a tip for you... go to Twitter, check trump's feed, and read the replies. Tell me these people are not obsessed.

Quote:

---

Do you not think there are people on your side calling everyone on the other side a cunt too?

---

For sure there are, but it's not nearly as numerous. We're talking orders of magnitude here. Go back to Twitter and check out Clinton's feed. How many people are hating on her? Compare that to Trump.

Quote:

---

Some people are cunts. They're the ones doing the hating.

---

No. Oskar isn't a cunt, but he's hating. He's Austrian and has no reason to be so passionately and emotionally invested in.
American politics. But he is.

Quote:

---

And they exist on both sides.

---

Cunts do, but haters... orders of magnitude.

Quote:

---

But most people are actually fairly reasonable

---

I do not think the word "reasonable" is a fair word to describe the state of society today.

Quote:

---

This is the problem with social media.

---

Social media definitely has done a great deal of harm. When so many people are united in hate, it makes hate feel like it's normal and ok.

Quote:

---

It gives what I think is an unrealistic impression that everyone is really divided and triggered

---

People are divided. Very much so. I think the word triggered is very much overused, it's a shit attempt to slap people down, just like the word snowflake.

Quote:

---

but that's only because the triggered people are the ones making the most noise.

---

The haters make the most noise. And there's a lot of noise. Triggered people don't necessarily shout. If I was genuinely triggered, I'd stop talking about whatever is triggering me and do something else.

Quote:

---

As for Trump, I don't even hate him, as I've said before.

---

Fair enough, but I genuinely think you're in the minority when it comes to libs.

Quote:

---

I don't think he's really evil so much as just selfish.

---

Is that really a problem? Every politician is selfish, it takes a special kind of person to want to rule over others. They might say they got into it because they want to make the world a better place, but that's in their image.

Quote:

---

I also think he's a conman retard unlicked cub.

---

Conman? Probably. I don't care. Again, most politicians are corrupt in some way or another.

Quote:

---

trying to grope his way along

---

I like how you slip the grope word in here.

Quote:

---

And I feel even more sorry for the people who think he's some kind of gift from God sent to save the USA from whatever they think it's in danger from.

---

That'll be Clinton, or more to the point, the Dems and the entire liberal establishment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Here's some more MAGA for y'all.

Pregnant woman gets in an argument with guy in store. He shoots her in the stomach. Unborn baby dies.

Guess who's getting charged with manslaughter.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8976946.html

---

Fucking Alabama. Also, can't read story, paywalled because adblock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Go back to Twitter and check out Clinton's feed. How many people are hating on her? Compare that to Trump.

---

You really seem obsessed with Clinton, which is even stranger than being obsessed with Trump as she's not even remotely as important or powerful as he is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

No. Oskar isn't a cunt, but he's hating. He's Austrian and has no reason to be so passionately and emotionally invested in.
American politics. But he is.

---

He's only passionate about what he thinks are stupid fucked up things going on. I don't think that's unusual or obsessive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I do not think the word "reasonable" is a fair word to describe the state of society today.

---

As opposed to when?

You need a control group where you can sample social media discourse from another era. Such a sample doesn't exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Social media definitely has done a great deal of harm. When so many people are united in hate, it makes hate feel like it's normal and ok.

---

I hope I'm not being ignorant here, but maybe you should get out and talk to more people irl. Very few people are actually raging lunatics irl, or even turn into raging lunatics once they get on social media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Triggered people don't necessarily shout. If I was genuinely triggered, I'd stop talking about whatever is triggering me and do something else.

---

That seems to be the opposite of what most triggered people do. Or maybe I misunderstand what 'triggered' means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Fair enough, but I genuinely think you're in the minority when it comes to libs.

---

Maybe that's sampling bias. I know a lot of reasonable people on both sides. They just don't get involved in shitstorms on twitter or w/e.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Is that really a problem? Every politician is selfish,

---

Every person is selfish. But some are prepared to sacrifice their own good for the greater good.

An example of this was Nixon. Once he was busted, he bowed out more or less gracefully. Even if he lost a fair election, Trump would never leave with good grace. He would have to be dragged from the WH like a 2 year old kid being dragged to a bath. Claw marks on the door frames lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I like how you slip the grope word in here.

---

Oh right because I need to subliminally allude to what I just stated explicitly with examples.

Damn, you're paranoid sometimes. Lay off the spliffs man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

That'll be Clinton, or more to the point, the Dems and the entire liberal establishment.

---

Probably to some people. But I think the Dems gave up on trying to get the Bible thumper vote a while ago.

Quote:

---

You really seem obsessed with Clinton, which is even stranger than being obsessed with Trump as she's not even remotely as important or powerful as he is.

---

Here's a fun game for you. I know you won't play, but let's still go there.

Go through my posts and note how many times I've said "Clinton". The go through yours and see how many times you've said "Trump" or "Captain Retard". Let me know the results.

This is a cheap shot and it's wide of the mark. You obviously didn't absorb what I said just a few hours ago. The ONLY time I even think about Clinton is when I'm talking about why I don't hate Trump. If I were obsessed, it would consume my life.

Quote:

---

He's only passionate about what he thinks are stupid fucked up things going on. I don't think that's unusual or obsessive.

---

Trump gets special treatment. I've said it before, there's much worse going on in the world. If he was passionate about the fucked up things in the world, migrants not getting soap would be low down on his list of priorities. So no, not buying this. In my opinion, oskar is consumed by the liberal media and is programmed to be outraged whenever the word "Trump" is even mentioned.

Quote:

---

As opposed to when?

---

I remember when we could respect other people's political opinions. The mass mental illness of society happened during my adult life.

Quote:

---

Very few people are actually raging lunatics irl,

---

It's more subtle than "raging lunatics". But things have definitely changed. Politics consumes people a great deal more now than it used to.

Quote:

---

That seems to be the opposite of what most triggered people do. Or maybe I misunderstand what 'triggered' means.

---

I think it means different things to different people. I take is to mean "angered" or "upset", something along those lines. A poker analogy may be in order here... "tilted". What's the best thing to do if you're tilted? Stop playing poker.

Quote:

---

Even if he lost a fair election, Trump would never leave with good grace.

---

This is highly speculative, and not only that, massively ironic, since his opponents can't accept he won in good grace.

Quote:

---

Damn, you're paranoid sometimes. Lay off the spliffs man.

---

Another cheap shot. And FYI, I haven't smoked in a few weeks. Not through choice, sadly food and rent is more important.

Quote:

---

Probably to some people. But I think the Dems gave up on trying to get the Bible thumper vote a while ago.

---

Indeed, they have a different strategy. Import voters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

This is a cheap shot and it's wide of the mark. You obviously didn't absorb what I said just a few hours ago. The ONLY time I even think about Clinton is when I'm talking about why I don't hate Trump. If I were obsessed, it would consume my life.

---

Lol, it's just funny that's all.

It's like someone complaining about some retired footballer who they never liked after some present footballer scores an own goal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Trump gets special treatment. I've said it before, there's much worse going on in the world. If he was passionate about the fucked up things in the world, migrants not getting soap would be low down on his list of priorities.

---

You keep mentioning soap, and not food, bedding, separation from parents, lack of diapers for babies; all as if they just forgot to give them soap one day and that's the limit of the clusterfuck.

Try not to discount this thing; it's an outrage to anyone with a soul, no matter who is potus. Oskar's no different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

In my opinion, oskar is consumed by the liberal media and is programmed to be outraged whenever the word "Trump" is even mentioned.

---

Yeah, that's a really arrogant thing to say, as if he is incapable of autnomous thought. Maybe he gets outraged more than the average person would be, but he's at least on the right side of the argument. Not just saying 'yeah that's bad, but something something Hillary'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I remember when we could respect other people's political opinions. The mass mental illness of society happened during my adult life.

---

Maybe you're just exposed to people whose views differ from your own more now than you were before. Before social media, did you spend time mostly talking to your chosen friends (who presumably tend to share your world view) or did you go out to different parts of the world and engage with different people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

It's more subtle than "raging lunatics". But things have definitely changed. Politics consumes people a great deal more now than it used to.

---

It's hard to ignore certain things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

This is highly speculative, and not only that, massively ironic, since his opponents can't accept he won in good grace.

---

Really? Has anyone taken a shot at him, or tried to impeach him yet? I must have missed that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Another cheap shot.

---

You basically accused me of trying to subtly propagandize you or some shit. If you can give a cheap shot, you should be able to take one in return.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Indeed, they have a different strategy. Import voters.

---

Probably, yep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Here's some more MAGA for y'all.

Pregnant woman gets in an argument with guy in store. He shoots her in the stomach. Unborn baby dies.

Guess who's getting charged with manslaughter.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8976946.html

---

Purely from a legal perspective and describing what happened instead of judging it (or its legality) as right or wrong:

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the recent laws passed in Alabama or really with the fact that she was pregnant. In the United States, if you commit a felony that leads to someone dying, you're generally charged with manslaughter or murder as a result. From what I can tell, she started the altercation, and the victim shot her in self-defense. There is no duty to retreat in Alabama, and you have the right to use deadly force if you have reasonable cause to believe unlawful physical force is about to be used on you, which can explain why the victim was not charged with anything (which is the case from what I've read about it).

My point is that this has nothing to do with MAGA, and the same laws she was charged by were in place before Trump was even in office.

My personal perspective:

I have no sympathy for someone who gets shot because they attacked someone else. It's a tragedy that the child died, and unless there's a lot that has been misrepresented in the handful of articles I've read about the situation I believe she has full responsibility for this.

Quote:

---

Police initially charged Ebony Jemison, 23, with manslaughter but the charge was dismissed when a grand jury failed to indict her.

---

The shooter (i'm assuming that's who this other person was) was charged first, grand jury hung, then they charged the mother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

The shooter (i'm assuming that's who this other person was) was charged first, grand jury hung, then they charged the mother.

---

Yeah I misspoke and meant indicted. The grand jury wasn't hung (in the sense that it's used in the US), but rather they refused to bring her to trial because they determined it to have been in self defense.

In a number of states in the US in situations of shooting someone in self-defense, you're often charged initially before there's a pre-trial hearing to determine if the situation fell under the state's self-defense laws, etc.

Edit: Fixed a comma.

As I understand it, being charged with a crime is an Executive branch action. It is a precursor to starting the Judicial branch's process of determining whether a crime was committed.
Being charged with a crime is not necessarily indicative of being guilty of said crime.

IDK if it's just Hollywood, but in the case of non-criminal offenses it seems like there may be a difference between filing charges against someone and pressing charges against someone. I think it's that anyone can file charges, but only the DA can choose whether or not to press those in court.

Quote:

---

It's like someone complaining about some retired footballer who they never liked after some present footballer scores an own goal.

---

You really are the king of analogies.

Quote:

---

You keep mentioning soap, and not food, bedding, separation from parents, lack of diapers for babies; all as if they just forgot to give them soap one day and that's the limit of the clusterfuck.

---

Fair enough. I shouldn't play down the seriousness of it.

Quote:

---

Try not to discount this thing; it's an outrage to anyone with a soul, no matter who is potus. Oskar's no different.

---

If a soul is a thing, then even Hitler had a soul.

Quote:

---

Yeah, that's a really arrogant thing to say, as if he is incapable of autnomous thought.

---

Arrogance is an exaggerated sense of one's importance. I don't think I'm even remotely important. I am the polar opposite of arrogant. Find a better word.

Quote:

---

Maybe he gets outraged more than the average person would be, but he's at least on the right side of the argument.

---

We all think we're on the right side.

Quote:

---

Not just saying 'yeah that's bad, but something something Hillary'.

---

Yeah that's bad, but something something at least he's not starting wars.

Quote:

---

Maybe you're just exposed to people whose views differ from your own more now than you were before.

---

This isn't unique to me.

Quote:

---

(who presumably tend to share your world view)

---

My friends have their own views. I recently had a civilised discussion on facebook about Brexit with a friend. He's a staunch remainer. It surprised me how civilised a discussion it was. Obviously I'm glad it was civilised because I don't want to fall out with irl friends over politics.

Quote:

---

It's hard to ignore certain things.

---

Perhaps, but it's unhealthy to obsess about a politician, especially one from another country. And one who was democratically put into office.

Quote:

---

Really? Has anyone taken a shot at him, or tried to impeach him yet? I must have missed that.

---

Haven't they been trying to find reasons to impeach him since he took office? And I've seen a lot of people state they would like to see him assassinated. And these same people think he's evil. Irony.

Quote:

---

You basically accused me of trying to subtly propagandize you or some shit. If you can give a cheap shot, you should be able to take one in return.

---

I don't care if you want to take cheap shots. I'll just point it out when you do it, because it shows your argument is weak.

Quote:

---

Probably, yep.

---

Do you not think this is exploiting people at the expense of national interest? I don't understand how you can agree here and not have a problem with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Do you not think this is exploiting people at the expense of national interest? I don't understand how you can agree here and not have a problem with it.

---

I said 'Probably, yep'. Not 'Probably, yep, and I think it's fine to do that.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I said 'Probably, yep'. Not 'Probably, yep, and I think it's fine to do that.'

---

Interesting. So why do you oppose Trump's anti-immigration policy? I understand why you oppose him treating migrants like shit, that doesn't need explaining.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Interesting. So why do you oppose Trump's anti-immigration policy? I understand why you oppose him treating migrants like shit, that doesn't need explaining.

---

This may be surprising, but I am against Trump's work on immigration with regards to the southern border.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Interesting. So why do you oppose Trump's anti-immigration policy?

---

I think he lost me when he came down the escalator, said a bunch of racist stuff, and started talking about building a Wall that Mexico would pay for. Even if you can dispute whether what he said was actually racist (I think it was but w/e), the Mexico-paying part sounded really, really dumb.

Muslim ban didn't exactly strike me as a wise step either, given most terrorist acts (I include mass murders here as terror - e.g., school shootings) in the US are committed by native-born loonies, not foreign loonies of any particular religion. Secondarily, it also seemed to go directly against a core ethos of the US which has been, historically, the welcoming of immigrants and diversity, which made me think it was not an expression of the majority's will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

This may be surprising, but I am against Trump's work on immigration with regards to the southern border.

---

It's not surprising you don't blindly support everything he does.

Quote:

---

I think he lost me when he came down the escalator, said a bunch of racist stuff, and started talking about building a Wall that Mexico would pay for.

---

I didn't give a fuck about this at all. I don't care if he builds a wall or not. I don't care who pays for it, so long as it's not the UK.

Quote:

---

the Mexico-paying part sounded really, really dumb.

---

Sounded to me like he was trying to appeal to his voters in the South. And it sounded to me like he meant they would pay for it economically, not by writing out a cheque.

Quote:

---

Muslim ban didn't exactly strike me as a wise step either, given most terrorist acts...

---

You may find this surprising, but people who oppose Islamic immigration do not tend to oppose it based on fear of terrorism. It's usually based on the nature of the religion, the way they treat women and homosexuals, and perhaps a fear of their culture replacing ours over a long period of time.

Quote:

---

the welcoming of immigrants and diversity

---

You should run for Mayor of London.

Quote:

---

which made me think it was not an expression of the majority's will.

---

How ironic that the "majority's will" is an important factor in your position here. You know what I'm getting at here, don't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

And it sounded to me like he meant they would pay for it economically, not by writing out a cheque.

---

Lol, you ascribe a level of sophistication to him that simply isn't there.

Further, how does one country pay another 'economically'? Give me one example of this ever happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You may find this surprising, but people who oppose Islamic immigration do not tend to oppose it based on fear of terrorism. It's usually based on the nature of the religion, the way they treat women and homosexuals, and perhaps a fear of their culture replacing ours over a long period of time.

---

we're not talking about you here, we're talking about the US. If you ask most anti-Muslims in the US why they feel that way, the answer will include 'terrorism' as reasons 1, 2 and 3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You should run for Mayor of London.

---

You should have run for EU parliament.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

How ironic that the "majority's will" is an important factor in your position here. You know what I'm getting at here, don't you?

---

The majority's will is not a static thing. A small majority supported lots of things at one time and not three years later. A lot of elections have proven that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

And it sounded to me like he meant they would pay for it economically, not by writing out a cheque.

---

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Trump...eto_transcript

From the transcript:

Nieto: It has nothing to do with you personally, Mr. President. But it is an unthinkable that I cannot ignore this because we find this completely unacceptable for Mexicans to pay for the wall that you are thinking of building.

Trump: So what I would like to recommend is – if we are going to have continued dialogue – we will work out the wall. They are going to say, “who is going to pay for the wall, Mr. President?” to both of us, and we should both say, “we will work it out.” It will work out in the formula somehow. As opposed to you saying, “we will not pay” and me saying, “we will not pay.”

Nieto: This is what I suggest, Mr. President – let us stop talking about the wall. I have recognized the right of any government to protect its borders as it deems necessary and convenient. But my position has been and will continue to be very firm saying that Mexico cannot pay for that wall.

Trump: But you cannot say that to the press. The press is going to go with that and I cannot live with that. You cannot say that to the press because I cannot negotiate under those circumstances.

Nieto: I clearly understand what this issue constitutes for you in the United States. And for Mexico, it is also an issue that goes beyond the economic situation because this is an issue related to the dignity of Mexico and goes to the national pride of my country. Let us for now stop talking about the wall. Let us look for a creative way to solve this issue, for this to serve both are your government, my government, and both of our societies. Let us leave this topic – let us put it aside and let us find a creative way of looking into this issue.

Trump: Okay, Enrique, that is fine and I think it is fair. I do not bring up the wall but when the press brings up the wall, I will say, “let us see how it is going – let us see how it is working out with Mexico.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Trump...eto_transcript

---

Damn. That's a good read, poopy.

Give that a read, oskar. Loads of complete sentences by Trump, not even reading from a prompter. Actual diplomacy, even.
I'm even impressed. I didn't think he had that in him.

I guess business negotiations aren't all that different from international negotiations. At least, there's a lot of transferable skills.

Quote:

---

From the transcript:

---

What you have here is an example of how politics actually works. Politicians say whatever they feel will win them votes. Both of these men are concerned about one thing... image.

Quote:

---

Further, how does one country pay another 'economically'?

---

Tariffs and sanctions are examples of how nations pay economically against their will. The more dominant economy will always prevail in such situations Maybe that hasn't happened, but it's a means.

Quote:

---

If you ask most anti-Muslims in the US why they feel that way, the answer will include 'terrorism' as reasons 1, 2 and 3.

---

Well I wouldn't know this, and I don't see how you would either. Have you asked a large sample of Americans? I know why I oppose Islamic immigration, and I don't get the sense that here in the UK, terrorism is a huge concern.

Quote:

---

The majority's will is not a static thing. A small majority supported lots of things at one time and not three years later. A lot of elections have proven that.

---

How silly of me to forget that you are in favour of perpetual uncertainty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

given most terrorist acts (I include mass murders here as terror - e.g., school shootings) in the US are committed by native-born loonies

---

Per capita, it goes to Muslims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Combine harvester..

---

fyp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Tariffs and sanctions are examples of how nations pay economically against their will. The more dominant economy will always prevail in such situations Maybe that hasn't happened, but it's a means.

---

What generally happens in these situations is the more dominant country suffers economically, it just suffers less than the less dominant country.

It's like a boxing match. You can beat up someone smaller than you, but you don't get their health given to you. You still end up with bruises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Well I wouldn't know this, and I don't see how you would either.

---

I have a better idea of North American culture than you, that's how.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

How silly of me to forget that you are in favour of perpetual uncertainty.

---

Take it to the 'arrrruggghggh!' thread, Brexit Boy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Per capita, it goes to Muslims.

---

Not my impression at all. But I'm open to seeing the per capita data.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Damn. That's a good read, poopy.

Give that a read, oskar. Loads of complete sentences by Trump, not even reading from a prompter. Actual diplomacy, even.
I'm even impressed. I didn't think he had that in him.

---

Me neither frankly. Actual grammar and sentence structure and all that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

I guess business negotiations aren't all that different from international negotiations. At least, there's a lot of transferable skills.

---

yea, but he was basically trying to negotiate something for nothing. That's usually not how diplomacy works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Not my impression at all. But I'm open to seeing the per capita data.

---

They're around 1.1-1.2 percent of the population in the US and commit around 11-13 percent of the terrorist attacks. These numbers are for the past five years. You can see the raw data from the Global Terrorism Database from the University of Maryland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

They're around 1.1-1.2 percent of the population in the US and commit around 11-13 percent of the terrorist attacks. These numbers are for the past five years. You can see the raw data from the Global Terrorism Database from the University of Maryland.

---

I don't see how you disentangled those numbers from that site, but holy fuck there's a lot of things they call terrorist attacks. No school shootings included though afaik.

https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search...=217&count=100

Also, how did 851 people get injured in the LV attack? Was there more than one person, or was it just people stampeding over each other trying to get away?



Here's something I found that seems to agree with you though. Fair enough.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...t-wing/581284/

Quote:

---

From 2009 through 2018, right-wing extremists accounted for 73 percent of such killings, according to the ADL, compared with 23 percent for Islamists and 3 percent for left-wing extremists. In other words, most terrorist attacks in the United States, and most deaths from terrorist attacks, are caused by white extremists. But they do not cause the sort of nationwide panic that helped Trump win the 2016 election and helped the GOP expand its Senate majority in the midterms.

---

This seems to suggest even a higher % of attacks are by Muslims. It doesn't include things like LV or other mass shootings though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror..._United_States

From this, there were 57 terrorist attacks in the US since 2010, 24 of which were committed by Muslims. The Muslim attacks caused 86 deaths and 443 casualties. The non-Muslim attacks caused 57 deaths and 110 casualties.

If Muslims are 1.1% of a US pop. of 300,000,000, this would work out to 1 terrorism-related death for every 383k Muslim citizens and 1 non-fatal casualty for every 62k Muslim citizens since 2010.

So, are Muslim citizens a serious threat to American lives?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

I don't see how you disentangled those numbers from that site,

---

The percentage of the population wasn't from that site.

So who wants to talk about child pornography laws?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

So who wants to talk about child pornography laws?

---

Shoot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Shoot.

---

Ba dum tiss.

That aside, I think it's fucked up that I can fuck a girl in the ass and choke her on my dick until she pukes when she's 16, and that's all good.

But if she sends me a picture of her tits, I'm put on a sex offender registry and go to federal pound me in the ass prison.

If that's true, then I agree it's fucked up.

No need to keep repeating it like anyone here is all, "That is a perfectly reasonable state of affairs."

Don't get me wrong. I love fucking the dog shit out of 16-year-old girls. I just think they should be able to send me pictures of their tits without it being a goddamn felony.

Quote:

---

Combine harvester..

---

I don't have an argument so I'll say something random.

Quote:

---

What generally happens in these situations is the more dominant country suffers economically, it just suffers less than the less dominant country.

---

Are you an economist?

Quote:

---

It's like a boxing match. You can beat up someone smaller than you, but you don't get their health given to you. You still end up with bruises.

---

Another piss poor analogy.

Quote:

---

I have a better idea of North American culture than you, that's how.

---

You may well do. But then again you might be making assumptions that are not correct. When did you last spend time in North America? And does a Canadian understand American culture? I wouldn't pretend to know more about the French than, say, spoon, just because I was born in a nation closer to France than he was.

Quote:

---

Take it to the 'arrrruggghggh!' thread, Brexit Boy.

---

You know, you haven't once even tried to answer this point, and that's because you're incapable of doing so. You're of the opinion than perpetual uncertainty is worse than Brexit itself. It's not. I mean, given a straight up choice... do we vote on this every 3-4 years, or remain in the EU, remaining would be far more preferable. Uncertainty is bad for business, bad for society. Business cannot adapt to new economic landscapes if that landscape might change again quickly.

If you're going to promote another referendum after 3 years based on "people change their minds", then in order to be intellectually honest and consistent, you have to accept that we'll need another vote after another few years, regardless of the result. And then another one after another few years. That is what I mean by perpetual uncertainty. It simply is not an option. If you sincerely think it is, then you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I don't have an argument so I'll say something random.

---

You: Why don't you like Trump's immigration policy?

Me: Among other things, he said Mexico would pay for the Wall. That's just dumb.

You: Trump didn't mean Mexico would actually pay for the Wall directly, just 'economically'.

Me: What do you mean 'economically'? How is that even possible? Oh and btw, Trump tried to make Mexico pay for the Wall. Here's the proof.

You: That's politics. It's all about image.

Me: Combine harvester.

You: You answered my non-sequitur with another non-sequitur!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Another piss poor analogy.

---

Explain how it's wrong. Economics is not a zero-sum game. Better yet, answer the original question and explain how one country can make another 'pay economically' for its civil construction project.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You may well do. But then again you might be making assumptions that are not correct. When did you last spend time in North America? And does a Canadian understand American culture?

---

Canadians and Americans have a similar culture. Canadians are exposed to American media. So yeah, I definitely understand American culture better than you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I wouldn't pretend to know more about the French than, say, spoon, just because I was born in a nation closer to France than he was.

---

If you don't know more about France than a random American you must be pretty clueless. And, neither he nor Mojo has jumped up to say I'm wrong. So maybe I am better informed than you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You know, you haven't once even tried to answer this point, and that's because you're incapable of doing so.

---

Maybe I don't see any value in talking to someone who doesn't want to listen, but would rather just keep saying the same things over and over and over ad nauseum. Like I said, it's boring.

Quote:

---

Me: Combine harvester.

---

Forgive me if your reference to the combine harvester is completely going over my head.

Quote:

---

You: Trump didn't mean Mexico would actually pay for the Wall directly, just 'economically'.

---

Well done for missing out the bit where I said he was trying to appeal to some of his vote base.

Quote:

---

Explain how it's wrong.

---

I'm not an economist. What I can tell you is that economics is not boxing. You throw out an analogy that relates the two... that exchanging tariffs is akin to trading punches. Maybe it's not. Maybe it's like playing chess and sacrificing the bishop for a positional advantage. I can do crap analogies,too.

Quote:

---

Better yet, answer the original question and explain how one country can make another 'pay economically' for its civil construction project.

---

By taxing them more for their imports, aka tariffs. I might not be an economist, but I can figure out that more tax means more money. If Mexico strike back with return tariffs, then USA strikes back again. The larger economy will always win this battle, because the smaller economy is more reliant on bilateral trade. America doesn't need to sell stuff to Mexico, but Mexico does need to sell stuff to USA.

Maybe, I really don't know. I'm not an economist, and neither are you. You can tell me I'm wrong, and I might be. But you don't know I'm wrong, you're just assuming so.

Quote:

---

Canadians and Americans have a similar culture. Canadians are exposed to American media. So yeah, I definitely understand American culture better than you.

---

Did you just say the C-word? Dirty. So it's about culture, not geography? Fine. USA and UK have similar cultures too. There are differences, just like there are differences between Canadian and US culture, or indeed Canadian and UK culture.

You might well be right, maybe USA are more worried about terrorism than how woman and homosexuals are treated, or the dilution of their culture. I'm not taking your word for it though.

Quote:

---

If you don't know more about France than a random American you must be pretty clueless. And, neither he nor Mojo has jumped up to say I'm wrong. So maybe I am better informed than you.

---

I'm not obsessed with French culture, so I wouldn't expect to know more about France than any random from any western country. Apart from perhaps geography. I probably know where towns and cities in France are better than Americans do.

You probably know more about French culture than I do, considering you come from a country that has a lot of French-speaking people.

Quote:

---

Maybe I don't see any value in talking to someone who doesn't want to listen, but would rather just keep saying the same things over and over and over ad nauseum. Like I said, it's boring.

---

Nice. Accuse me of not listening while continually ignoring probably the most important reason why we can't keep voting on EU membership.

You're the one with fingers in ears on this matter.

In the South, there's this old, classic joke that I think could be repurposed for OngBonga. I'll present it in its original form:

Do you know what the difference is between a Yankee and a damn Yankee?

A Yankee comes down to visit. A damn Yankee comes down and stays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

And it sounded to me like he meant they would pay for it economically, not by writing out a cheque.

---

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

By taxing them more for their imports, aka tariffs.

---

That doesn't explain how this amounts to taking money from the other country. The tariffs are paid for by the consumers in the US, not the producers in the other country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

If Mexico strike back with return tariffs, then USA strikes back again. The larger economy will always win this battle, because the smaller economy is more reliant on bilateral trade. America doesn't need to sell stuff to Mexico, but Mexico does need to sell stuff to USA.

---

That's why the US would suffer less from a trade war than Mexico, correct. That's not an explanation for how the US would get money from Mexico for the Wall 'economically'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I'm not an economist,

---

lol no shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Nice. Accuse me of not listening while continually ignoring probably the most important reason why we can't keep voting on EU membership.

---

I've already answered this at least three times. Sorry if you don't like the answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You're the one with fingers in ears on this matter.

---

That's right. I'm not going to keep having the same argument over and over. Try to move on with your life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

What I can tell you is that economics is not boxing.

---

I'm really glad I wasn't being paid to teach you about logical analogies because you are the kind of person who would rather argue with facts than learn something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Maybe it's like playing chess and sacrificing the bishop for a positional advantage.

---

So in your analogy, making a country 'pay economically' involves sacrificing something of lesser value in a zero sum game?

Do you get extra points at the end of the chess match for having more material? If so, that analogy would make more sense. It would still not support your argument, but at least it would hew to the standards of logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I can do invalid logical analogies.

---

fyp.

What am I supposed to be speaking on behalf of all Americans about?
That poopy said Americans are more concerned about Islamic terrorism than a loss of American culture to Islamic immigrants?

That sounds right to me. Ong's sense of the importance of culture is really weird to me. I don't know anyone who puts national culture on so high a pedestal as he does. Maybe this is 'cause I'm American, and if there's one thing we aren't insecure about, it's our culture.

You got fancy little bread rolls? What do you call them? Croissant? Nice. We'll take those.
You make tasty noodles and spicey foods? Awesome. Please setup a dozen restaurants in every city.
You have a cute accent? Please read us our news.

So in boxing, do you ever stop boxing and just shake hands, say let's not punch the shit out of each other and be friends?

I told you I can do shit analogies too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mojo

I don't know anyone who puts national culture on so high a pedestal as he does.

---

The crazy thing is, it's not on that high a pedestal. I mean, I'm not particularly proud to be English. But that doesn't mean I want to see English culture slowly diluted and cast into history, replaced with a more oppressive one. And then I see people talk about culture like it's a dirty word. There are lots of cultures in the world, many better than ours, and they should be cherished, too.

Quote:

---

Maybe this is 'cause I'm American, and if there's one thing we aren't insecure about, it's our culture.

---

Your population is much larger than ours. It'll be a lot longer before the dilution of American culture is such a problem for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

So in boxing,
Attachment 1156

---

lol, ok.