Depends who's paying me.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.
Printable View
Depends who's paying me.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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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
Not at all. Just those who are obsessed.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?
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:
What is this based on?
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:
Do you not think there are people on your side calling everyone on the other side a cunt too?
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.Quote:
Some people are cunts. They're the ones doing the hating.
American politics. But he is.
Cunts do, but haters... orders of magnitude.Quote:
And they exist on both sides.
I do not think the word "reasonable" is a fair word to describe the state of society today.Quote:
But most people are actually fairly reasonable
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:
This is the problem with social media.
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:
It gives what I think is an unrealistic impression that everyone is really divided and triggered
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:
but that's only because the triggered people are the ones making the most noise.
Fair enough, but I genuinely think you're in the minority when it comes to libs.Quote:
As for Trump, I don't even hate him, as I've said before.
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 don't think he's really evil so much as just selfish.
Conman? Probably. I don't care. Again, most politicians are corrupt in some way or another.Quote:
I also think he's a conman retard unlicked cub.
I like how you slip the grope word in here.Quote:
trying to grope his way along
That'll be Clinton, or more to the point, the Dems and the entire liberal establishment.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.
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.
He's only passionate about what he thinks are stupid fucked up things going on. I don't think that's unusual or obsessive.
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.
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.
That seems to be the opposite of what most triggered people do. Or maybe I misunderstand what 'triggered' means.
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.
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.
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.
Probably to some people. But I think the Dems gave up on trying to get the Bible thumper vote a while ago.
Here's a fun game for you. I know you won't play, but let's still go there.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.
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.
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:
He's only passionate about what he thinks are stupid fucked up things going on. I don't think that's unusual or obsessive.
I remember when we could respect other people's political opinions. The mass mental illness of society happened during my adult life.Quote:
As opposed to when?
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:
Very few people are actually raging lunatics irl,
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:
That seems to be the opposite of what most triggered people do. Or maybe I misunderstand what 'triggered' means.
This is highly speculative, and not only that, massively ironic, since his opponents can't accept he won in good grace.Quote:
Even if he lost a fair election, Trump would never leave with good grace.
Another cheap shot. And FYI, I haven't smoked in a few weeks. Not through choice, sadly food and rent is more important.Quote:
Damn, you're paranoid sometimes. Lay off the spliffs man.
Indeed, they have a different strategy. Import voters.Quote:
Probably to some people. But I think the Dems gave up on trying to get the Bible thumper vote a while ago.
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.
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.
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'.
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?
It's hard to ignore certain things.
Really? Has anyone taken a shot at him, or tried to impeach him yet? I must have missed that.
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.
Probably, yep.
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.
The shooter (i'm assuming that's who this other person was) was charged first, grand jury hung, then they charged the mother.Quote:
Police initially charged Ebony Jemison, 23, with manslaughter but the charge was dismissed when a grand jury failed to indict her.
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.
You really are the king of analogies.Quote:
It's like someone complaining about some retired footballer who they never liked after some present footballer scores an own goal.
Fair enough. I shouldn't play down the seriousness of it.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.
If a soul is a thing, then even Hitler had a soul.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.
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:
Yeah, that's a really arrogant thing to say, as if he is incapable of autnomous thought.
We all think we're on the right side.Quote:
Maybe he gets outraged more than the average person would be, but he's at least on the right side of the argument.
Yeah that's bad, but something something at least he's not starting wars.Quote:
Not just saying 'yeah that's bad, but something something Hillary'.
This isn't unique to me.Quote:
Maybe you're just exposed to people whose views differ from your own more now than you were before.
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:
(who presumably tend to share your world view)
Perhaps, but it's unhealthy to obsess about a politician, especially one from another country. And one who was democratically put into office.Quote:
It's hard to ignore certain things.
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:
Really? Has anyone taken a shot at him, or tried to impeach him yet? I must have missed that.
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:
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.
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:
Probably, yep.
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.
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:
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.
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:
the Mexico-paying part sounded really, really dumb.
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:
Muslim ban didn't exactly strike me as a wise step either, given most terrorist acts...
You should run for Mayor of London.Quote:
the welcoming of immigrants and diversity
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:
which made me think it was not an expression of the majority's will.
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.
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.
You should have run for EU parliament.
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.
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.”
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.
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:
From the transcript:
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:
Further, how does one country pay another 'economically'?
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:
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.
How silly of me to forget that you are in favour of perpetual uncertainty.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.
fyp
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.
I have a better idea of North American culture than you, that's how.
Take it to the 'arrrruggghggh!' thread, Brexit Boy.
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?
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.
I don't have an argument so I'll say something random.Quote:
Combine harvester..
Are you an economist?Quote:
What generally happens in these situations is the more dominant country suffers economically, it just suffers less than the less dominant country.
Another piss poor analogy.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.
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:
I have a better idea of North American culture than you, that's how.
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.Quote:
Take it to the 'arrrruggghggh!' thread, Brexit Boy.
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.
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!
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.
Canadians and Americans have a similar culture. Canadians are exposed to American media. So yeah, I definitely understand American culture better than you.
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.
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.
Forgive me if your reference to the combine harvester is completely going over my head.Quote:
Me: Combine harvester.
Well done for missing out the bit where I said he was trying to appeal to some of his vote base.Quote:
You: Trump didn't mean Mexico would actually pay for the Wall directly, just 'economically'.
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:
Explain how it's wrong.
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.Quote:
Better yet, answer the original question and explain how one country can make another 'pay economically' for its civil construction project.
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.
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.Quote:
Canadians and Americans have a similar culture. Canadians are exposed to American media. So yeah, I definitely understand American culture better than you.
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.
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.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.
You probably know more about French culture than I do, considering you come from a country that has a lot of French-speaking people.
Nice. Accuse me of not listening while continually ignoring probably the most important reason why we can't keep voting on EU membership.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.
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.
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.
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'.
lol no shit.
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.
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.
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.
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:
Originally Posted by mojo
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:
Maybe this is 'cause I'm American, and if there's one thing we aren't insecure about, it's our culture.
8...9...10
Attachment 1157
So Ong, are you going to admit that:
1. Trump actually intended Mexico to pay up front for the Wall; and
2. You can't explain how one country could pay for another country's building project 'economically' through tariffs or whatever else you vaguely remember Wuf saying before he went over to r_thedonald full time?
1. Of course he didn't expect Mexico to pay up front. What Trump actually meant is anyone's guess. Why do you care? I don't. It's of no consequence to me. That's why I pay it little attention, and that's why I wasn't aware of conversations he had with Pablo.
2. You think I remember what wuf was blabbering about? I can tell you that trade and economics is in neither of our areas of expertise.I think I have a better idea of how politicians work though. You expect honesty.
He's on the phone with Nieto and the first thing Pena says is 'we're not paying for the Wall.' So obviously the question had come up before.
Back when the convo started I said it was a dumb thing to say, that Mexico would pay for the Wall. And you said 'hurr durr, he meant economically.' And now you're busted and you're saying 'hurr durr I don't care'. lol, whatever man.
fyp
lol, and people are still contributing to this after the guy got caught buying himself a yacht. Lmfao at these retards.
https://uk.gofundme.com/TheTrumpWall
Oh wait,they claim to have built 2300 feet of wall now. So what only 4999.6 miles to go?
I'll elaborate on this point a bit here instead of putting in an edit that will probably be missed due to new posts. I have two things to say, one of which is from a strategic heaven/"above the fray" perspective and the other of which is on a policy/action level.
........
On a strategic heaven/"above the fray" level:
If we look at the primaries alone, Trump beat out 12+ of the top candidates that the Republican Party had to offer despite having virtually no experience with politics. What he does have the most experience with is marketing, and that is what he used to win.
The entire group of Republican names he was against were as boring as watching paint dry. None of them would have rallied the base sufficiently to beat Hillary Clinton, who was by far the most prolific politician in the entire race and probably the most prolific US politician of our time (possibly of the entire history of the country) to never win a presidential race.
No matter what people think of his policies (or lack thereof), there is no denying that his win was absolutely impressive.
........
On a policy/action level:
For me personally, I love how much the MAGA agenda triggers the fuck out of people and makes them go absolutely insane. I will play this up to a tremendous degree because I enjoy the responses it gets.
All of that aside, Trump won because of the policy he put forward and represented having on immigration. The so-called "Muslim ban" was a good step in the direction of following what he's said with action, but it pretty much stopped there.
The people who voted for Trump, in general, want a much stricter set of criteria used for accepting refugees, federal funding cut for sanctuary cities, a wall built, illegal immigrants rounded up and deported. He was the first person to really tackle the immigration issue head-on in his campaign, and that focus combined with what I wrote above on a strategic level are why he won.
The problem is that he has dropped the ball in terms of action. Republicans had the thing locked up, and it was never pressed like it should have been.
If he loses reelection, then it will primarily be because the base doesn't show up because of the lack of action on the immigration issue.
It's actually more impressive that Hillary managed to lose to him, given how unpopular he was. You can argue that Hillary was a really strong candidate because she was 'prolific' (whatever you mean by that, I guess 'high profile, experienced?'), but aside from that she had nothing. No new ideas, barely dragged herself out in public, spent half the time she was in public fainting or rolling her eyes at balloons.
A fairly large proportion of people who voted for her weren't thinking 'yay Hillary' but instead 'boo Trump.' That would certainly have been my sentiment had I been a voter.
And a lot of people who voted for Trump also would have voted for anyone who wasn't Hillary, including Bernie.
The 2016 election was like no other in recent history inasmuch as it was basically an unpopularity contest, and Hillary won by a few thousand votes in the rust belt. Trump made it close by being Trump, but seriously, anyone decent could have beat either Hillary or Trump to a pulp.
btw, if being prolific was important to being elected POTUS, there's a lot of people who should never have won their election - e.g., Obama.
I'm halfway hoping Kamala Harris gets the D nomination now just to watch her completely wipe the debate floor with Trump's fat orange ass. She wouldn't just sit there and smirk and be all 'oh Donald' like Hillary was, she'd fucking take him apart lol.
And in case you didn't read that link I posted, here's Trump directly telling Nieto Mexico has to pay for the Wall.
Quote:
The only thing I will ask you though is on the wall, you and I both have a political problem. My people stand up and say, “Mexico will pay for the wall” and your people probably say something in a similar but slightly different language. But the fact is we are both in a little bit of a political bind because I have to have Mexico pay for the wall – I have to. I have been talking about it for a two year period, and the reason I say they are going to pay for the wall is because Mexico has made a fortune out of the stupidity of U.S. trade representatives. They are beating us at trade and they are beating us at the border, and they are killing us with drugs. Now I know you are not involved with that, but regardless of who is making all the money, billions and billions and billions – some people say more – is being made on drug trafficking that is coming through Mexico. Some people say that the business of drug trafficking is bigger than the business of taking our factory jobs. 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.”
Because you and I are both at a point now where we are both saying we are not to pay for the wall. From a political standpoint, that is what we will say. We cannot say that anymore because if you are going to say that Mexico is not going to pay for the wall, then I do not want to meet with you guys anymore because I cannot live with that.
If you think this was a non-sequitur, then I'm not sure what to tell you.
Pena had to give a politician's answer to save face and look like he was doing something against big bad daddy Trump no matter if he believed the whole mess or not.
You're thinking on too low of a level with this.Quote:
And in case you didn't read that link I posted, here's Trump directly telling Nieto Mexico has to pay for the Wall.
No, you're thinking on too high of a level. You're ascribing a level of sophistication to their discussion that wasn't there. Trump told him he needed Mexico to pay for the Wall or they wouldn't negotiate any further on a trade deal, and Pena said what any ratonal person would say: no, sorry, not happening sir.
You can argue that Trump can't actually be that stupid, so it must be some 3D chess game he's playing, but the reality is he really can be that stupid. He's been that stupid before and he'll in all likelihood be that stupid again.
Oh yes, the ol, "He's stupided his way into the White House," line.
More like he conned his way into the WH.
He is stupid in nearly every single way excepting marketing.
Or maybe you think he smarted his way into losiing a billion dollars in ten years.
And anyways, let's say Trump is really being a master negotiator in that convo, and poor stupid Pena is just falling for it by refusing to sign a cheque for the Wall. What's the endgame supposed to be here? Where is the great deal that America got from that? Congress still hasn't ratified the USMCA, and probably won't now the Ds control the house. Fucking pointless.
Build a Wall! Make America pay for it!
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/londo...avan-1.5195399
That is fucking ridiculous.Quote:
Insulin prices in the United States nearly doubled to an average annual cost of $5,705 US in 2016 from $2,864 in 2012, according to a study in January.
Quinn Nystrom, a leader of T1International's Minnesota chapter, said in May that the price in the U.S. of insulin per vial was $320 US, while in Canada the same medication under a different name was $30.
On one hand it is ridiculous to have the free market do its thing with drugs that people need to live... on the other hand, americans... do we need 'em?
I am starting to warm up to Kamala Harris. Not only will she wipe the debate floor with Trump, but she also won't do shit about healthcare. So you get a cool american president, but also lots of dead americans from preventable causes. So it's a win-win!
Trump's got more important things to do than address healthcare, like triggering libs on social media. Priorities!
lol, bringing up Wuf today reminded me of that time before the election when he was quoting that Dilbert guy as saying something like Trump tries to look bad on purpose so when he starts acting normal he'll look great by comparison. I guess he's still waiting for the right moment to execute part 2 of that plan lol.
I believe I have been staunchly consistent on this. I prefer the people responsible for a fatal stupidity to be the victims of that stupidity. If there was a way to take the fatalities caused by american missiles in Yemen and transfer that death toll to the US, I'd play that card faster than you could say 'Isn't that still genocide!'
You can argue about the morals of this, but I don't think it's flawed in the sense that it is consistent with my moral philosophy.
You also seem to think that ones moral outrage about a thing ought to be informed by ones proximity to it. I don't think you've explained why.
I was wondering when this would happen after her performance in the debate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88_9O5iUSh8
What does that even mean? She was playing the black card to describe why busing was a personal issue for her, which Biden opposed and she got Biden to stumble into saying he merely supported states rights. *slow clap*
And that was somehow illegitimate because she's not the right kind of black? Wut?
Oh yeah, and we got Trump saying “Well, [busing is] something that they’ve done for a long period of time. You know, there aren’t that many ways you’re going to get people to schools… It is certainly a primary method of getting people to schools,”
I didn't know what busing was when I heard her say it, but it was clear from the context that it was different from my understanding, so I googled it, and 30 seconds later I knew what she was talking about. How can you say that this man is not retarded? How does a non-retarded person think that Harris was just being weirdly invested in riding on the bus?
That and thinking that "western liberalism" is liberals on the west coast. Come on!
https://twitter.com/ScottHech/status...090443776?s=20
I would love to know what republicans would think of this if roles were reversed. Some men are emotional wrecks.
I thought wuf made this clear in 2016. He's pretending to be a total retard on purpose. Sometime before the end of his life, when the time is right, he will start acting not-retarded, and everyone will think he's way smarter than they gave him credit for. Just wait and see! 3D chess ftw!
Kamala Harris is a joke who sucked dick to get to where she is in politics. Her qualifications end at having a vagina. She's like all the worst parts of Obama and Hillary mixed in one.
I'm so triggered!!!
Attachment 1159
Oh wait, I missed the part where she's not qualified. So, what does it take to qualify?
Speaking of lacking qualifications.
Starting at 3.30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJvXoobKKgE
"Hey guys...guys...guys?"
I'm not hot on Ivanka. I'm a bigger fan of Tiffany. That bitch keeps it real.
https://i.redd.it/m49jjyl5muux.jpg
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/sta...425920000?s=20
Well fuck me, Ong was right, this actually is about fish & chips.
Damn, that Revolutionary Army was better than I thought. They even took over the airports from the British!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-6OpkqNn4M
Around the 15s mark he realizes that this is way above his reading level and just starts to riff.
It's the golden age of debate.
https://twitter.com/RationalDis/stat...251336192?s=20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eUxMoL49As&feature=youtu.be
- sees new post, first for days
- notes it's oskar
- predicts it's related to Trump
- feels smug
You're like this guy, only that it's not just any car crash, it's a clown car that crashed into a nazi parade and there's a carousel and cotton candy and Trump's the president. Fuck no, I'm not going to look away, it's the greatest show on earth!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCSPKh0DCSc
Just today Epstein was arrested on sex trafficking charges that he was previously cleared on. Epstein literally raped and kidnapped children. He got an illegal non-prosecution agreement that allowed him not to name co-conspirators. Alexander Acosta who was the federal prosecutor overseeing the case at the time, and who let Epstein off with house arrest... for the rape and kidnapping of children, is now the Trump appointed Secretary of Labor. Trump is now named as a potential witness in the Epstein case.
The clown car has no brakes!
Am I fuck. That's a German speaking in English. In Germany. The man has no shame. You wouldn't hear me speaking in German, not unless I'm ordering beer. Einen weissbier bitte danke dat ist gut ja. All the German one needs to politely get about in Germany.
Who the fuck takes photos of a crash anyway? I can understand rubbernecking, it's hard to not look for a dead body as you drive past the scene of an accident. But to take photos? The fuck is wrong with people?