I'm almost certainly less wrong than you.
The obvious effects are not always the main intentions.
Printable View
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".
Her voting history is sufficient evidence for me. Show me she voted against these wars and I'll start to listen.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Is that a yes or a no?
The war against ISIS has been "won" during Trump's time in office. I interpret that as Trump deciding to pull the plug.
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.
I actually don't care because she's irrelevant since she lives in the woods now.
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.
I missed a post...
We're in agreement here. I've said multiple times now that USA should accept their responsibilities to migrants in their country.Quote:
Again, not relevant to how they're treating people on the US side.
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.Quote:
13/90,000 is 13 too many. Trump's human rights abuse is on a much larger scale, however.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Also, don't forget 'Obama did bad things'. That's another of your whatabout arguments you use to deflect from Captain Retard's failings.
Good.Quote:
I actually don't care because she's irrelevant since she lives in the woods now.
Wasn't Bush Jnr nominated for that? That "prize" is a joke in today's world.Quote:
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.
Another question... who funded ISIS?
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
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!!!!!
Quote:
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]
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.
Here's a list of Trump's human rights abuses...
Not adequately feeding and cleaning migrants
Feel free to add anything I've missed.
Here's more from Wikipedia...Quote:
Edit: Well here's what Wiki says, but it's probably lying to cover up the conspiracy that it was... Hillary!!!!!
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?
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.
No, a coincidence is when things happen at the same time. ISIS was already losing when Trump took over. This probably didn't hurt, but it wasn't the deciding factor.
Yeah, 'cause they never would have found anywhere to buy arms from if not for this Timber Sycamore thing. Riiiigght.
Oh, and here's another of those expert opinions you value so much.
Quote:
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?Quote:
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."
Jesus fucking wept.
Who the fuck is going to provide arms and funding on the same scale as USA + allies?Quote:
Yeah, 'cause they never would have found anywhere to buy arms from if not for this Timber Sycamore thing. Riiiigght.
Answer - nobody.
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.
Sorry if you're not grasping that scale of abuse is an important factor.Quote:
Point is if you only ever commit one human rights atrocity, it's hardly a point in your favour.
I mean, I would argue that creating migrants is a bigger human rights abuse than treating already existing migrants with contempt.
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.Quote:
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.
Really, we can go and create another list of things Trump isn't currently doing that abuses human rights if that's your wish. I already absolved him of blame for the war in Vietnam though and several other things that happened before he became POTUS, so it seems redundant to add another list for other horrible things he isn't currently doing. He may very well not be beating his wife either. That seems like a point in his favour by your standards.
I disagree that unnecessarily causing human suffering is minor. And I also think it's irrelevant to compare the current problem with problems created or exacerbated by others in the past, because that can be used to excuse virtually anything.
Anything but the Holocaust is 'not as bad as the Holocaust'. So?
Not the topic I'm discussing here. You got me sidetracked for a post or two, that's it. If you want to go full Mojo and blame the crisis at the border on the industrial revolution and the introducton of the combine harvester, then go right ahead. Just don't expect me to engage.
Human suffering is widespread. I do agree that the treatment of migrants in US camps is "unnecessary". It is indeed a black mark against the Trump administration. But it's perfectly reasonable to compare it to previous human rights abuse, especially recent ones at the hands of Trump's predecessors. If this is the extent of USA's human rights abuse, then it's a vast improvement.Quote:
I disagree that unnecessarily causing human suffering is minor.
Same is true in the UK, fwiw. France is perfectly safe, so those at Calais wanting to come here are economic migrants who have chosen the UK for economic reasons.
Actually no it isn't.
Arguably it isn't, but really it's a moot point. If Germany went and started WWIII but only killed 2 million jews no-one would say 'well, that's an improvement. At least this new guy isn't as bad as Hitler was.'
How do you once again compare not giving migrants soap with the killing of Jews?Quote:
If Germany went and started WWIII but only killed 2 million jews
You're on another planet.
Does this mean France shouldn't have to treat them humanely, or if some of them swam over to Dover that the UK wouldn't have to treat them humanely?
Or is there some other way in which this is relevant to the discussion of human rights abuses at the US border?
Combine harvester?
You're conflating presenting an analogy to support a logical argument about degrees of 'badness' with making a direct comparison between the border and the Holocaust.
Here, try this if you're going to get triggered by the Holocaust analogy.
If you steal 5 marbles from your friend, but your dad once stole 10 marbles from his friend, stealing 5 marbles is still wrong.
I wonder if a lawyer would ever argue in court that his client deserves a light sentence because he only raped a single child when he was a Boy Scout leader and the guy who had the job before him actually raped three.
Stealing 5 marbles is not as bad as stealing 10 marbles. Well done, you're getting somewhere. Stealing marbles off your friend is a shitty thing to do. But it's not nearly as shitty as, say, raping his sister.
Oh look you went back to arguing that an analogy is a direct comparison.
Actually he wouldn't because he's a lawyer and it's not his job to point out the stupidly obvious to a judge. He also wouldn't compare it to stealing 11 marbles, 6 marbles, or 300 billion marbles. He also woudn't say it's not as bad as a human rights abuse because that's also stupidly obvious.
So, in the end I sum up your position as follows:
1. Human rights abuses at the border are bad and should be stopped.
2. Shit could be worse.
3. Arrgggh, immigrants!
Is that about it?
The point of an analogy is to provide a comparison.Quote:
Oh look you went back to arguing that an analogy is a direct comparison.
Allow me to sum up your position...
1. Human rights abuses at the border are bad and should be stopped.
2. This is analogous to, but not directly comparable to, killing Jews and raping boy scouts
3. Arrgggh, Trump!
Is that about right?
An analogy is a comparison on some level, but not a direct comparison. That's why 'analogy' and 'comparison' are separate words with distinct entries in the dictionary.
If I had argued Trump is as bad as Hitler because the southern border is the equivalent to Auschwitz, then 'arrrrgggh!' would have been an appropriate response. I did not say that, however, because it's retarded and I generally don't say things that are blatantly retarded. Generally.
What I said was you don't get excused from a human rights abuse because worse abuses have been committed in the past. That's pretty much the opposite of saying the current situation is comparable to the worst mass crime in human history. So if anything 'arrrghgghg!' to yourself for interpreting my analogy as a direct comparison.
An analogy is suppose to draw a reasonable comparison. I wouldn't draw an analogy between having a bonfire and setting fire to a hospital, despite both involving fire.
4. is analogous to "arrrgggggh Trump!".
On my planet, an analogy is used to make a logical point stand out independent of context. In the present discussion, I provided two very different analogies using jews and then marbles to argue about the scale of a crime because I wrongly assumed you would see the logic behind the first one.
If I had anticipated you making the silly assertion that I was offering such a stupid and unfounded direct comparison as one between 6 million dead jews and tens of thousands of shabbily-treated immigrants, I would have presented the marble analogy first.
No, but you could draw an analogy between burning things down and human rights abuses at the US border. You could say in response to your 'but other people have done worse shit' argument, e.g., that burning a house down is a bad thing to do, regardless of the fact that burning a hospital down is worse.
No, because you're a lib who likes to use powerful language to overstate your point. I basically was not allowing that.Quote:
because I wrongly assumed you would see the logic behind the first one.
That's one interpretation I guess.
I'm more inclined to think you wrongly assumed I was deliberately making a direct comparison that made no sense rather than a convenient analogy with the first human rights abuse that came to mind because it seemed like a good way to discredit me.
Further, I'm guessing that the fact it's obvious that such a comparison would be wrong didn't dissuade you from ascribing it to me because you're against 'libs' in general and it struck you as as a good opportunity to take a shot at one.
Either that or you really are just learning today the subtle difference between an analogy and a comparison.
Key word - "subtle".Quote:
...the subtle difference between an analogy and a comparison.
Nope. It's obviously not a direct comparison, we both agree on that. So based on that, you should understand why it's a bad analogy. It's more in fitting with your tendency to use language to exaggerate your point.Quote:
I'm more inclined to think you wrongly assumed I was deliberately making a direct comparison
Though I am aware that these two words do mean different things, you're wrong to say that different words always mean different things.Quote:
That's why 'analogy' and 'comparison' are separate words with distinct entries in the dictionary.
For example, I have used two words recently which mean exactly the same thing... "exaggerate" and "overstate".
What a lot of people don't get about analogies is that they're not about a general equivalence between the two sets of things being compared. They're a logical framework for highlighting an important aspect of an argument.
A:a is analagous to B:b, but it's also analagous to tree:sapling or adult:child. One is bigger than the other. That doesn't mean making such an analogy is anything like concluding that 'A' is therefore an adult and 'a' is therefore a child.
If you said Holocaust:US border is analogous to A:a, therefore it's not a big deal, I'd say it's a perfectly valid analogy, but that you've drawn a poor conclusion.
Other key word - "difference". It's the combination of "subtle" and "difference" that highlights the distinction is nuanced but real.
But you argued it was a poor comparison, not a poor analogy.
I understand why you want to argue it's a bad analogy. However, it's a perfectly valid one, just as the marble analogy is.
If this is really a tendency of mine, perhaps you can provide some more examples to support your contention?
You implied they are different words with different meaning simply because they have their own entry in the dictionary.
It's a poor analogy because it's a poor comparison.Quote:
But you argued it was a poor comparison, not a poor analogy.
They're both bad analogies.Quote:
However, it's a perfectly valid one, just as the marble analogy is.
I have no intention of reading your 6000+ posts to support such a claim. Referring to the Holocaust when talking about lack of soap is enough evidence for me.Quote:
If this is really a tendency of mine, perhaps you can provide some more examples to support your contention?
No I did not. I said they have different meanings and this involved different entries in the dictionary. If you want to be a pedant, perhaps I should have elaborated with 'and the entry for analogy does not simply say 'see comparison'.'
lol, give it up.
What do you think an analogy is, apart from a fancy word for comparison?
yeah but 6000 posts is less than 6 million jews, so it's ok.
It's a reasonable comparison. The more reasonable the comparison, the better the analogy.Quote:
What do you think an analogy is, apart from a fancy word for comparison?
You said it's why they have different entries in the dictionary. Here...Quote:
No I did not. I said they have different meanings and this involved different entries in the dictionary.
Quote:
That's why 'analogy' and 'comparison' are separate words with distinct entries in the dictionary.
There's nothing in there about that except the bold.
Also, a logical analogy is not 'better' or 'worse' it's either valid or invalid.
analogy
/əˈnalədʒi/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: analogy; plural noun: analogies
1. a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
"an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"
2. a correspondence or partial similarity.
"the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"
3. a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects.
"works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"
4. Logic
a process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects.
"argument from analogy"
Let me help you connect the dots further here:
reasonable
/ˈriːz(ə)nəb(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
adjective: reasonable
1.
having sound judgement; fair and sensible.
"no reasonable person could have objected"
based on good sense.
"it seems a reasonable enough request"
archaic
able to reason logically.
"man is by nature reasonable"
2.
as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate.
So, using the definition of analogy from logic (I'll leave it to you to look up logic and what it means re: arguments, 'cause I don't have all day to teach you for free), which is certainly going beyond any simple comparison, a reasonable analogy would be a logical one. It has nothing to do with appropriateness of scale. A:a is logically just as analagous to tree:sapling as it is to universe: proton.
I mean fair enough I gave you too much credit for knowing what a logical analogy was, instead of assuming you thought all analogies required a direct comparison (which also isn't true, but is a more common misunderstanding of the word).
But even once I explained how it was a logical analogy you still tried to argue it was a bad comparison, like somehow logical analogy and direct comparison are interchangeable terms.
Great. Now google synonyms of "reasonable" and "analogy", and tell me if "sensible comparison" is a synonym of "reasonable analogy".
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.
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.
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.
Is your avatar actually you? That would make quite a lot of sense.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.
They are in terms of number of people killed in wars of aggression. If you wish to challenge that argument, go right ahead.Quote:
First, you haven't provided a convincing argument for your premise 'other recent presidents worse'
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.Quote:
most of which Trump is still involved in afaik.
I don't think Trump is a good president. I just think he's better than others during my lifetime.
Yes, I'm really a dog. Woof.
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.
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.
Fine.
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:
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.
Yeah, thanks to Russia.Quote:
...but my understanding is that ISIS was on its last legs when he took over.
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.
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.
Nowhere near on the same scale as IWII though.
The only one I remember from Reagan was Grenada, but that was basically just walking in and taking over. There may be others though.
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.
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:
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.
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:
Nowhere near on the same scale as IWII though.
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 War II.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
any more than openly admitting he'd collude with a foreign power
I allege you have sexually assaulted me.Quote:
sexual assault allegations
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.
Believe it or not, actually they wouldn't all collude. You'd like to think this, but it's very unlikely to be true.
You wish.
"You're the disgusting one making a false allegation."
Note that's different from saying "You're not my type."
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.