*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

I can't be fucked to check the historical accuracy of my comments. My point is that the English are not German... both the English and the Germans are largely descended from the same people... Germanic people. At no point in history have Germany invaded England and fucked our women to contaminate our blood.

I don't know if I'm Celtic or Anglo-Saxon, so that one was best left alone. The Normans (the French who conquered us) were descended from Vikings, who were indeed Germanic people. Were the Vikings German? Nope, they were Norse (Norwegian). So Germanic does not mean "from Germany", does it? At least not in the context of the Germanic people. It refers to the ancient culture of Northern Europe, including parts of Germany, but also Scandinavia. It's a broad term.

Germany was named after the Germanic people who occupied it. That much is accurate.

What do you think Trump said about the mayor of london? Did he say anything besides: 'The mayor of london is bad. I am good.' I think that's a perfect summary that doesn't leave out any information. He doesn't qualify his statements, he doesn't say what he's referring to... it's a carbon copy of what he says about everyone he dislikes.

"I don't think he should be criticizing a representative of the US" Why not. He doesn't say why... because it's a retarded thing to say and there is no reason why Sadik Khan shouldn't criticize Trump.

OMG I just now went back and listened to the question. The question is: 'Jeremy Corbyn has criticized you... could you imagine making a trade deal with him?' - She didn't name Corbyn by name, and "the london mayor" was the only subject Trump recognized, so he latched on to that. He did not answer the question because, being a fucking retard, he didn't even understand the goddamn question!

NEXT!

Quote:

---

What do you think Trump said about the mayor of london?

---

He called him a loser who's doing a bad job, pointing out that crime is on the increase in London. Trump pointed out that Khan should not be insulting the elected leaders of allies, which is absolutely true.

Quote:

---

"I don't think he should be criticizing a representative of the US" Why not. He doesn't say why... because it's a retarded thing to say and there is no why.

---

It's obvious why. I'll ask you, why does Trump need to go into intricate detail about what he thinks of a plonker who takes pot shots at him in order to boost his flailing popularity? He's on a state visit and has better things to talk about, such as trade.

Quote:

---

He did not answer the question because being a fucking retard, he didn't even understand the goddamn question!

---

So it's his fault the dumb newswoman incorrectly clarified who she was talking about? He asked her directly if she's referring to the Mayor of London, and she said "yes". Why aren't you calling her a retard?

He said criticize, not insult. He shouldn't be insulting foreign leaders, sure, but saying Khan shouldn't criticize them is r e t a r d e d.

Even if the woman who asked the question nodded (she didn't say yes) to Trump asking to clarify "you were talking about the major of London, is that who you said?" I wouldn't fault her for not seeing this as a deliberate misdirection but rather that he might have misheard. But of course he didn't mishear, it's clear as day that she was asking about Corbin and used two examples of Corbin criticizing Trump to ask if he could imagine making a trade deal with Corbin in light of this... Which is a really bad question, but not ill-formed.

Anyone not fucking retarded knows that that Khan wasn't the subject of the question. I expect more from a 12 year old in terms of comprehension level. This was not a hard question, Trump, being a mentally disabled person just had no clue who the opposition leader is, so he had to make the question about something he can run his boilerplate bad guy monologue on.

"Did I hear that name in there somewhere?" BOOM "Many people have said many bad things and many things, they say are in a very bad way, but we've been doing a tremendous job."

Quote:

---

He's on a state visit and has better things to talk about, such as trade.

---

HE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED ABOUT TRADE!
He chose to answer a different question. Why do you think that is? I have a pretty solid theory over here if you want to take a gander!

Quote:

---

He said criticize, not insult.

---

Splitting hairs.

Quote:

---

but saying Khan shouldn't criticize them is r e t a r d e d.

---

He's not critisising his policy, he's saying stupid shit like he's become a "poster boy for the far right", which is nothing more than a political pot shot. There's no substance, just rhetoric that is designed to appeal to his leftie supporters.

Critisising policy is fine. I won't argue with that. But political jibes are insults, not critisisms.

Quote:

---

Even if the woman who asked the question nodded (she didn't say yes)

---

You're right, but I have to assume she nodded, because he went on to discuss Khan. But even if she didn't nod, she didn't clarify her question.

Quote:

---

I wouldn't fault her for not seeing this as a deliberate misdirection but rather that he might have misheard.

---

I would. She should clarify her question. "No, Jeremy Corbyn. Can you work with him regarding trade?".

Quote:

---

But of course he didn't mishear

---

This is your assumption, and is subjective.

Quote:

---

it's clear as day that she was asking about Corbin

---

Not at all, the woman literally asked May straight after if she though Khan was a "stone cold loser". So it's completely understandable why Trump thought that was who the question referred to. Again, this is your subjective opinion (and mine), not an objective fact.

Quote:

---

Anyone not fucking retarded knows that that Khan wasn't the subject of the question.

---

Subjective.

Quote:

---

HE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED ABOUT TRADE!

---

Didn't he quickly move on to specifically discuss trade?

Quote:

---

He chose to answer a different question. Why do you think that is? I have a pretty solid theory over here if you want to take a gander!

---

Let me guess... it's your subjective theory not based on objective fact? Fire away.

I know I'm going into this with a very colored perception, but I think I'm treating this fairly. I have lowered the bar for Trump quotes I will be reviewing from "smart" down to "coherent" and the first thing you dig up is him answering the question if he would consider making a trade deal with Jeremy Corbyn by saying he thinks Sadiq Khan is a bad major and crime is up in london. How would you judge that on coherence?

Coherence is being understood. I have no problem understanding what he's saying.

And I only posted this because, truth be told, I can't be bothered to dig through old speeches from Trump. I had an interest in what he had to say yesterday, so I watched that. At no point did I find him incoherent, nor did he say anything I thought was retarded.

And yes, you're definitely viewing this with a huge amount of bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Coherence is being understood. I have no problem understanding what he's saying.

And I only posted this because, truth be told, I can't be bothered to dig through old speeches from Trump. I had an interest in what he had to say yesterday, so I watched that. At no point did I find him incoherent, nor did he say anything I thought was retarded.

And yes, you're definitely viewing this with a huge amount of bias.

---

No, coherence is being coherent. Like having the second part of your sentence be in any way connected to the first part, or when being asked a question to answer that question and not a different question. That is coherence. If you ask me if the sky is blue and I say the ocean is a beautiful color today, that would make me incoherent even though you can understand what I'm saying. Trump was incoherent in that clip.

Quote:

---

He's not critisising his policy, he's saying stupid shit like he's become a "poster boy for the far right", which is nothing more than a political pot shot. There's no substance, just rhetoric that is designed to appeal to his leftie supporters.

Critisising policy is fine. I won't argue with that. But political jibes are insults, not critisisms.

---

Again, you are making Trump way smarter than he is. Trump said he shouldn't criticize. He didn't say anything about the content of Khans criticism. If I ever said someone shouldn't criticize someone else for any reason, it would have been just as stupid. Anyone can criticize anyone for any reason, and if you have a problem with the criticism you should address the content of the criticism and not the person delivering it.

Quote:

---

If you ask me if the sky is blue and I say the ocean is a beautiful color today, that would make me incoherent even though you can understand what I'm saying.

---

Ok fair enough. But If you ask me what colour the ocean is, and I ask "did you ask what colour the sky is" and you either nod or remain silent, then when I answer "it's grey because it's cloudy", it's hardly my fault I'm incoherent.

If he didn't ask for clarity, you'd have a valid point.

Quote:

---

Again, you are making Trump way smarter than he is.

---

Once again, in your opinion. I don't think he's as smart as he thinks he is, but I think he's smarter than you think he is. Regardless, how smart either of us think he is is very much subjective.

https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1136146240582955008?s=20

“I did say, ‘Well, the United States right now has among the cleanest climates there are based on all statistics.’ And it’s even getting better because I agree with that we want the best water, the cleanest water. It’s crystal clean, has to be crystal clean clear.”

“I believe that there is a change in weather. And, I think it changes both ways.

"Don’t forget: it used to be called ‘global warming’ – that wasn’t working. Then, it was called ‘climate change.’ Now, it’s actually called ‘extreme weather’ - because, with ‘extreme weather,’ you can’t miss."


ceaseless stupidity

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D8iduzeX...jpg&name=small

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ars-tweet-nasa

"Trump’s declaration shocked many space enthusiasts, because the moon has not traditionally been regarded as part of Mars."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

"Trump’s declaration shocked many space enthusiasts, because the moon has not traditionally been regarded as part of Mars."

---

Key word there is 'traditionally'. Lots of things people traditionally believed, like that obstruction of justice is a crime and that children shouldn't be separated from parents, are facing reconsideration these days.

...or that the forest needs to be swept to prevent fires, or that windmills cause cancer, or that only Einstein understands magnets and that's why steam is better.

https://i.redd.it/fyfqmzi7g7331.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boost

I don't understand your goal here. This quote is from the context of me criticizing this police officer for participating in a wide spread systemic issue in policing. To bolster my point, I make it clear that I'm not an ACAB drooler. Being anti-cop is nonsensical. No one actually wants to live in a society without police. You might say the words, you might think you mean them-- but when you get down to the nuts and bolts, when you actually understand the implications, it's not what you want.

Being anti-cop is a childish response to a serious set of issues. It's akin to the people who hear about a rapist going to prison and proclaim their hope that they themselves get raped. It's dumb. Mulling it over for half a second makes it abundantly clear how dumb of a position it is.

---

Off topic but I preferred when you were called boostNslide, it had a much better ring to it.

Oh, thanks for bumping that!

I think the police has much too broad a spectrum of responsibilities. For handling domestic disturbances it would make a lot more sense to send someone whose skill set is closer to that of a social worker. Traffic cops don't need to be armed any heavier than a train conductor, and the people who deal with actual crime should have more extensive training.

There's a universal problem with police officers covering for each other. This goes beyond camaraderie - electricians and construction workers sue the shit out of each other all the time for shoddy work, and they expect their colleagues to do the same. Do your job right or gtfo. When a police officer is sued, the police investigates itself which results in an absurdly low rate of convictions. This is near universal. There is a clear structural problem, as you said, and it's so widespread and so pervasive the only way to remedy it imo is a fundamental structural change that would redefine what the police is.

https://twitter.com/Blackmediagrp/st...942584320?s=20

Guess which one went to jail?
And guess which one thinks he's jesus incarnate:

https://www.instagram.com/ohnoitsdapopo/?hl=en

He's so not racist that every picture of him ever taken has at a minimum one black person in it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Oh, thanks for bumping that!

I think the police has much too broad a spectrum of responsibilities. For handling domestic disturbances it would make a lot more sense to send someone whose skill set is closer to that of a social worker. Traffic cops don't need to be armed any heavier than a train conductor, and the people who deal with actual crime should have more extensive training.

There's a universal problem with police officers covering for each other. This goes beyond camaraderie - electricians and construction workers sue the shit out of each other all the time for shoddy work, and they expect their colleagues to do the same. Do your job right or gtfo. When a police officer is sued, the police investigates itself which results in an absurdly low rate of convictions. This is near universal. There is a clear structural problem, as you said, and it's so widespread and so pervasive the only way to remedy it imo is a fundamental structural change that would redefine what the police is.

---

Another problem is that in the US at least, being fired for gross misconduct is not the end of the career for a police officer. They just move to another city and get another job, then go on being a shitty cop.

Send a social worker to domestic disturbances? Are you implying that you don't think a man beating his wife is "actual crime"?

I agree with regards traffic wardens. And you're absolutely right about the police investigating themselves. This is why we have an independent body to investigate complaints against the police. America should follow suit.

Where I grew up, a domestic dispute involved a cop coming out, telling people to calm down, writing down everyone's story and offering a card to contact someone about restraining orders.

In domestic cases, the line about "who started it." is often blurred to all hell, and when 2 people choose to attack each other, that's not a crime. If it's not clear that one person was an unwilling victim of assault, then what's the cop to do?

It's your choice to have a home MMA match.
So long as both people are free to leave, and neither leaves, then there's no victim and no crime, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Send a social worker to domestic disturbances? Are you implying that you don't think a man beating his wife is "actual crime"?

---

Why would you assume their gender?

MMM was faster. Unless there's an ongoing beating, they're just referring the case to social services anyway.
Here's a classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq-LPQin7zk
Social worker trying to get autist playing with a toy truck off the street, then police comes to help. Officer got acquitted of all charges. For how much of their work puts them in contact with people with psychological problems or mental disabilities, they receive just about zero training in that area.

Quote:

---

Why would you assume their gender?

---

Sorry, I'll refer myself to the hate crime police first thing tomorrow.

Sure, most domestics will be a waste of time. But what happens when a social worker gets beaten by a man (or very strong woman, or indeed someone who is neither man nor woman)? What happens if the social worker is unable to intervene and a child is hurt? That's when people start saying "this is a job for the police".

Putting aside the fact that the words "this is a job for the police" have never entered my mind, I'd wager there are more cases of the police exacerbating a situation than the police helping a situation when it comes to family stuff.
I'm not saying send a social worker to a hostage situation, I'm saying send the appropriately trained people on the appropriate call.

Quote:

---

I'm not saying send a social worker to a hostage situation, I'm saying send the appropriately trained people on the appropriate call.

---

I agree with this. So have specially trained domestic police officers, rather than sending any old plod round. I'm sure police have exacerbated domestic disturbances before, but if the police are specially trained, this shouldn't happen.

Whoever goes to investigate needs to have the power of arrest, needs to have a weapon of sorts (truncheon or tazer, not a gun) and needs to have a body cam.

Mark your calendars because the dumbest thing is about to happen!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D8uSNHbX...jpg&name=large

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Here's a classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq-LPQin7zk
Social worker trying to get autist playing with a toy truck off the street, then police comes to help.

---

Wow, that is so fucked up. I've seen a lot of fucked up cop shit on youtube, but that really takes the cake and eats it too.

Horror as Trump Administration Plans to Detain Migrant Children at Former Japanese Internment Camp

https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/...1/311/free.jpg

Just curious... were you horrified when Obama did exactly this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Just curious... were you horrified when Obama did exactly this?

---

Come again?

https://www.apnews.com/dc11025f23a746b2bf858f7ca1d01c4c

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by read the link oskar posted

As Time pointed out, the horrific practice of detaining immigrants at the site of a former internment camp did not begin with Trump.
"In 2014, the Obama administration placed around 7,700 migrant children on bases in Texas, California, and Oklahoma, including Fort Sill. The temporary shelters were shuttered after four months," Time reported. Under Obama, Fort Sill was used to detain around 200 children.

---

.

Thanks mojo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Thanks mojo.

---

But it's not a relevant question is it? It's like saying 'are you ok with Hitler putting people in concentration camps, but not Trump?'. Well no, he didn't say that...

Moreover, Trump is the one doing it now, so it seems timely to comment on what's happening now rather than 4 (or 80) years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

.

---

Can you put your thoughts into words?

"read the link oskar posted"
seems clear enough

"Thanks Mojo"
Ong got it.

"but it's not a relevant question"
-poop to ong's prior question that was elucidated to be different than poop originally answered because my post quoting the link in your post clarified it.


What's your beef?

You're implying something by quoting that section. I want you to put into words the thing that you're implying. I'm not asking much. One short sentence telling me why you're quoting that section. EZ.

Hello?

Really?

fine.

ong said, "why you no so upset that Obama did it, too?"
poopy said, "Obama didn't separate families."
MMM said, "this isn't about family separation, it's about putting immigrants and children in places that were once Japanese internment camps, which Obama did"
Everyone else: TY, got it.

oskar: I don't understand what you mean by quoting the thing I posted in its direct context to explain a misunderstanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Hello?

---

sup

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

But it's not a relevant question is it? It's like saying 'are you ok with Hitler putting people in concentration camps, but not Trump?'. Well no, he didn't say that...

Moreover, Trump is the one doing it now, so it seems timely to comment on what's happening now rather than 4 (or 80) years ago.

---

This isn't "whataboutism", I'm simply curious if oskar, or indeed you, hold Trump to different standards to other Presidents. And your language here is deliberately provocative. Do you suppose these children are being kept in the same conditions as prisoners of war? I don't.

Personally, I don't have a problem with Obama or Trump using secure military complexes to temporarily house immigrant children, so long as the conditions are suitable, and by that I mean they are getting proper medicine, education, exercise, food, care, entertainment etc, and so long as there is action with regards to finding a longer term solution.

First and foremost these children should be somewhere safe while they are processed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

This isn't "whataboutism",

---

It absolutely is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I'm simply curious if oskar, or indeed you, hold Trump to different standards to other Presidents.

---

And I'm simply pointing out that it's irrelevant because Obama is no longer in charge. If Obama were currently ruling a different country and doing the same thing as Trump, and we chose to only criticize one but not the other, you'd have a point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Personally, I don't have a problem with Obama or Trump using secure military complexes to temporarily house immigrant children, so long as the conditions are suitable, and by that I mean they are getting proper medicine, education, exercise, food, care, entertainment etc, and so long as there is action with regards to finding a longer term solution.

First and foremost these children should be somewhere safe while they are processed.

---

I agree, and if you'd said that in the first place I wouldn't have taken issue with your post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Everyone else: TY, got it.

---

Got what? Do you really think that my assessment on whether or not it is moral to forcibly separate children from their parents with no plan of reuniting them depends on who's doing it? Is that really what you think? I really don't get it. Is that really it? That was supposed to be a gotcha, and I'm supposed to go "oh shit! Obama did it? Well I guess it's ok then!" - ??? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

This isn't "whataboutism", I'm simply curious if oskar, or indeed you, hold Trump to different standards to other Presidents. And your language here is deliberately provocative. Do you suppose these children are being kept in the same conditions as prisoners of war? I don't.

Personally, I don't have a problem with Obama or Trump using secure military complexes to temporarily house immigrant children, so long as the conditions are suitable, and by that I mean they are getting proper medicine, education, exercise, food, care, entertainment etc, and so long as there is action with regards to finding a longer term solution.

First and foremost these children should be somewhere safe while they are processed.

---

No, Ong, just saying "it's not whataboutism" doesn't make it not whataboutism. It is the dictionary definition of whataboutism. Person A points out that Y did a thing, then Person B says: but person Z also did that thing! It means nothing. So what!

Btw I'm with you in the last paragraph. As of last week there will be no education, no outdoor activities and no legal aid in these camps. The death toll is up to 22 in the past 2 years (ICE detention included). These are concentration camps. They are not nazi death camps, but they are concentration camps where undesirables are being held indefinitely. The forced family separation is cruel and unnecessary and it is being done with shameless neglect. Thousands of children have been taken from parents with no records kept. They cannot be reunited because the Trump administration did not document whose children they took. The UN has called it child abuse, which it obviously is. The Trump administration openly calls it a 'deterrent.' - They are hoping the prospect of having their child ripped from them will deter people from seeking asylum. This will be what Trump era US will be remembered for. An utterly impotent congress and blindsighted electorate during one of the worst human rights abuses in modern history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDW4r4sCV2I

No idea how credible vice are. 22 dead 2 years is not what I'd call a concerning figure when we talk about a population of 10k+. There's no context at all. How many kids per thousand have leukemia? How many kids per thousand die of flu? What conditions are these kids arriving in?

Honestly, I have no idea what to believe. I find it very hard to believe they're not letting kids play football. It's practically free. That's the easiest way to stop them from getting bored. You think they're just being left unattended in these buildings with nothing to do? They'd be crawling the fences to get out. If you're telling me you believe that someone somewhere is making a decision to not allow these kids to play football as a matter of policy, then I have to question your ability to apply critical thought to the information you absorb.

Source for UN claim of child abuse? What I'm finding is a statement relating to kids in Mexico, not in USA camps. I find UN statements to be a credible source. Am I just bad at googling? What specifically did the UN refer to as child abuse?

Quote:

---

“The thought that any state would seek to deter parents by inflicting such abuse on children is unconscionable. I call on the United States to immediately end the practice of forcible separation of these children,” Zeid said in his final speech to the U.N. Human Rights Council before his term in office ends.

---

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1JE0NA

This was a year and a half ago.

Treating asylum seekers humanely is not a financial issue for the richest country in the world with one of the lowest population densities and a very boring net migration rate. It is policy that they are not to be treated humanely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

If you're telling me you believe that someone somewhere is making a decision to not allow these kids to play football as a matter of policy, then I have to question your ability to apply critical thought to the information you absorb.

---

Quote:

---

The Trump administration said Wednesday that it would begin restricting or canceling education, legal aid and playground recreation for migrant children housed in government shelters as a result of financial constraints created by the “crisis at the border.”

---

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/05/u...-services.html

And ldo UN officials are being stonewalled: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019...P=share_btn_tw

Not an official UN statement, then NY Times and Guardian links.

Maybe I apply too much critical though, idk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Not an official UN statement, then NY Times and Guardian links.

Maybe I apply too much critical though, idk.

---

Oh, don't worry about that!
What part do you doubt and what news source would you find acceptable?

Will you take the actual email from HHS?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/conte...=.6c25b22c1f48

... which was two clicks away from the NYT article btw.

I mean, that email is also missing context, for example the sender, and whether it came from an official email address.

I don't find any MSM news source credible. That's why I was hoping for an official UN statement.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/06/1012382

It's a statement by a UN official. idk how this changes anything anyway. The US has stopped cooperating with the UN over a year ago. Previously there was an element of UN oversight.

Ong, this is not disputed. There are shelters reacting to this, saying they're not happy and they'll use emergency funds to keep these programs going for as long as they can, but this is not something that you can expect to turn out to be an elaborate hoax. This is very much expected after Kristjan Nielson's departure. It is in line with the Trump admins statements on what the child separation is supposed to be about. I'm sure someone would have asked Sarah Huckabee Sanders at a press briefing, but it's the 3rd or 4th month without a press briefing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Got what?

---

The clarification that ong's question wasn't about child separation, but about holding immigrants in facilities that were historically used as internment camps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Do you really think that my assessment on whether or not it is moral to forcibly separate children from their parents with no plan of reuniting them depends on who's doing it?

---

I've made no statements on the subject whatsoever. I was merely clarifying a misunderstanding.
Asking your opinion is the opposite of stipulating your opinion for you.
Quoting from a link to show the context of the question isn't editorializing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Is that really what you think?

---

No. Nothing you've said here has nothing to do with me whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

I really don't get it.

---

This much is clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Is that really it?

---

Still no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

That was supposed to be a gotcha, and I'm supposed to go "oh shit! Obama did it? Well I guess it's ok then!" - ???

---

Nope. It was supposed to clarify that the question and topic are not about family separation at all, but about the location of immigrant holding sites and their historical context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

What the fuck is wrong with you?

---

I'm sure plenty, but nothing you've mentioned here is remotely on topic for either what went down, or for what I opine on any of these subjects.


Are you OK?
You're acting like a real jerk, here.
Don't be a jerk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

I'm sure someone would have asked Sarah Huckabee Sanders at a press briefing, but it's the 3rd or 4th month without a press briefing.

---

They'll have to wait to ask the next best person Trump hires.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRKa5Vq1CLk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYKlHQJkcHk

@Jack... the video kinda stops before getting to the point.

Quote:

---

It's a statement by a UN official.

---

This is not the same as an official UN statement. I'm not trying to be difficult, it's just the opinion of one man does not compare to the official opinion of one of the few respectable bodies in existence.

Quote:

---

Ong, this is not disputed.

---

As mojo points out, I'm disputing whether kids in US camps are being treated like prisoners of war. The whole "separating families" issue is a subjective issue. Either you don't have a problem with adults who attempt to cross borders illegally being treated like criminals, or you do.

If they're deliberately not keeping records as a deterrent, yes I agree that's disgusting and amounts to human rights abuse. I would expect the UN to have something official to say about that, in the form of a statement, not a lone guy speaking out. Who knows what motivated that guy? Maybe it was his conscience, maybe it was a shady handshake. Politics is murky business.

Playing football is not a budget concern. It's as cheap as it gets. These kids are obviously supervised round the clock, what difference does it make if they are supervised inside or outside? How much does a football cost, and some goalposts? How much does a basketball and hoops cost? Less than the damage a bunch of bored kids will cause if they are left inside with nothing to do.

It's not a budget concern. If it's happening, if they are not being allowed to engage in activities, then it is nothing more than a punishment.

So, Trump spends 2-3 years screaming 'no collusion!' 'witch hunt!' and the like, and then gets asked a simple question, "would you collude?" and answers "sure i would!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9LVykbGoR8&t=184s

MMM,
Ong asks "were you terrified when Obama did this," which is irrelevant and then you come along and clarify the irrelevant thing, and then you go... well I don't care if it's irrelevant, I'm just here to provide context for this insane attempt at an argument!
Why not just say that it's irrelevant if you understand it to be irrelevant?
Fucking americans, you guys are challenging me not to become a full-on racist more than that one time I worked for jews. Those guys... were not representative of their whole ethnic group... I'm sure. goddamn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

They'll have to wait to ask the next best person Trump hires.

---

I'm on the edge of my seat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

If they're deliberately not keeping records as a deterrent, yes I agree that's disgusting and amounts to human rights abuse. I would expect the UN to have something official to say about that, in the form of a statement, not a lone guy speaking out. Who knows what motivated that guy? Maybe it was his conscience, maybe it was a shady handshake. Politics is murky business.

---

I'm surprised you care so much about the opinion of the UN. UN opinion or not, I'll just come out and say: it is not right to punish a child because their parents crossed a border.

Looks like Trump just announced he'll remove "millions of illegal aliens" Seems like americans didn't buy the false flag oil tanker attack, so if the Iran war isn't happening soon, he'll need to do something drastic to get his base back. Putting millions in concentration camps will do I guess.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...658870274?s=20

This is the most likes he has gotten in a long time. Lookin' good I guess.

Quote:

---

I'm surprised you care so much about the opinion of the UN. UN opinion or not, I'll just come out and say: it is not right to punish a child because their parents crossed a border.

---

Is it right to punish a child if its parent kills another human being? I mean, putting a parent in jail, that's punishing the child. The parent crossed a border ILLEGALLY, as in, acted like a criminal. You seem to be oblivious to this fact.

Quote:

---

Seems like americans didn't buy the false flag oil tanker attack, so if the Iran war isn't happening soon,

---

It seems we do agree on some matters. The Iran thing is quite clearly bullshit. Although it does slightly amuse me that people will call that out for the bullshit it is, while shouting "but Russia".

Also, public opinion isn't really a concern to the powers that be when it comes to foreign policy. If they want a war with Iran, it'll happen. They're saying they'll exceed uranium enrichment within 10 days. I bet they know how many ciggies I smoke every day, too, and precisely when I'll get lung cancer.

Quote:

---

Putting millions in concentration camps will do I guess.

---

Dare I ask, source please? Specifically, "millions" and "concentration camps".

Quote:

---

I'm surprised you care so much about the opinion of the UN.

---

I've got to have faith in something. The UN is a body that represents nearly every nation on the planet. Their remit is to maintain peace and security, and to foster good relations between nations. They don't tend to get involved with bullshit politics, at least not that I'm aware of. If they have something official to say, it's worth a great deal more than anything any politician has to say.

I'm still MAGA as fuck in case anyone was wondering.

I hate to break it to you, but I'm pretty much the most right wing person here now. It's gotta suck for you that you're most closely aligned to the person who annoys you the most.

Although, having said that, didn't mojo get on your tits, too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I hate to break it to you, but I'm pretty much the most right wing person here now. It's gotta suck for you that you're most closely aligned to the person who annoys you the most.

Although, having said that, didn't mojo get on your tits, too?

---

I'm not right-wing.

Mojo's just autistic but has a good heart, so it's more like playing with a dog than anything.

You're right wing by British standards. Although I don't even think I know what right wing means anymore. It used to mean capitalist, not socialist. Now I think they use that term to call people racist.

I like mojo a lot, I just like to take the piss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

You're right wing by British standards. Although I don't even think I know what right wing means anymore. It used to mean capitalist, not socialist. Now I think they use that term to call people racist.

---

You forgot fascist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I like mojo a lot, I just like to take the piss.

---

I like him as much as I can.

Fascism is a weird one. They're both extreme right and extreme left. But even if we say fascism is right wing, that doesn't mean right wing is fascism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Fascism is a weird one. They're both extreme right and extreme left. But even if we say fascism is right wing, that doesn't mean right wing is fascism.

---

That sounds just like something a fascist would say, you fucking racist.

I'm not a racist. I'm a xenophobe I'll have you know.

Since racist no longer means what it did when I was growing up, I'm apparently a racist now.

I think racist used to mean something like "considers ones race to be superior to others", but now it means "opposes unchecked immigration" or "voted to leave the EU". Or even "thinks the Israeli government has undue influence over the foreign policies of other nations", although the latter case is a special kind of racism, the worst kind.

I'm definitely xenophobic though, I mean fuck the Germans.

There isn't an actual racist in this world who would call himself a racist. I know what you're thinking: What about that Boer guy in the Louis Theroux docu about south africa. You mean this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nK65XBpjXI

Not a racist.

It's a useless word when you're trying to have a conversation with racists. Unless you want to trigger them, then it's amazing!

I overheard someone this week saying "They call us fascists, but what about the people who come here and don't even learn the language. They're the fascists!"
Some words are just... We need to scrap them and start over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I think racist used to mean something like "considers ones race to be superior to others", but now it means "opposes unchecked immigration" or "voted to leave the EU". Or even "thinks the Israeli government has undue influence over the foreign policies of other nations", although the latter case is a special kind of racism, the worst kind.

---

Glad to meet a fellow Nazi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Dare I ask, source please? Specifically, "millions" and "concentration camps".

---

Concentration camp is accurate, but loaded. I could say Internment camp which is also loaded. That's kind of the point. I love that AOC came out can called them concentration camps. That is what they are. Death camps start out as concentration camps but not all concentration camps are death camps. It's accurate language and it accurately reflects the amount of concern people should have imo.
As for millions, here's the tweet: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...658870274?s=20

I assume they'll have to hold them. You can't just teleport "millions" of brown people.

An alternative to concentration camps is just shooting people who cross the border illegally as foreign invaders. It solves a lot of the problems of housing people, verifying their identity, verifying that the kids they're bring with them are really their kids, etc., and it provides a strong incentive for the problem to solve itself in the first place by increasing the risk of crossing illegally.

I mean, it'll piss off the Democrats, but what doesn't?

Is Trump really the guy to do it tho? Isn't he literally flying immigrants to sanctuary cities now? So basically open borders?

Sanctuary cities are such a dumb concept, and it would be so easy to stop them from happening. Very easy. Let me tell you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

But is Trump really the guy to do it tho? Isn't he literally flying immigrants to sanctuary cities now? So basically open borders?

---

Trump wouldn't do something that drastic in his first term.

I'll give a non-sarcastic response right after this, but it'll take me a few.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Is Trump really the guy to do it tho?

---

No, he's not. We don't have any politicians who are the person to do it because no one wants to take ultimate responsibility for it.

And I mean, fair enough. No one wants to take responsibility for a bunch of Mexicans getting shot at the border, especially politicians whose livelihoods are based largely on public perception, and I'm not saying that immediately shooting whoever crosses the border is an optimal solution, but it does address a lot of the current problems (at the cost of creating some new ones).

With that said, I don't think that it would be an unreasonable policy as long as adequate efforts were made to secure the border (including a sufficient physical barrier) and sufficient efforts to communicate the risk in attempting to cross were made so that people wouldn't try to cross without being sufficiently informed of the risk.

There are plenty of places in the world where crossing a border gets you legally shot. There are plenty of places in the United States where crossing a border gets you legally shot. People just have some kind of hang-up with it over this one particular border for some reason.

And before someone pulls out the "applying for asylum" card, you can apply for asylum without coming to the US border.

Yeah, and you could start shooting people who you catch speeding too. Would be an effective way to enforce the speed limit.

Stop talking shit.

Quote:

---

Concentration camp is accurate

---

By your logic, it seems prisons are concentration camps.

Quote:

---

millions

---

Right, so your source is a Trump tweet. Is that even worth debating?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Yeah, and you could start shooting people who you catch speeding too. Would be an effective way to enforce the speed limit.

Stop talking shit.

---

Charming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

By your logic, it seems prisons are concentration camps.

---

Just throwing this out there, but concentration camps aren't inherently bad.

Quote:

---

Just throwing this out there, but concentration camps aren't inherently bad.

---

I take issue with that term simply because of the historical context it comes with. Nobody is getting gassed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I take issue with that term simply because of the historical context it comes with. Nobody is getting gassed.

---

Yet.

Gassing people is inherently bad.

If you think they're people, it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Gassing people is inherently bad.

---

Nah. It's just a tool like any other tool that can be used for good or bad purposes.

Example: The mass gassing (group discount) of people who want to die because they're slowly suffering to death.

I think you'd get along fine with MMM these days.

I think my broader question is: is Trump the guy to do anything? What has he been successful at as president?

Quote:

---

What has he been successful at as president?

---

Triggering precious little lambs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Triggering precious little lambs.

---

yeah, cause it takes a lot of skill to both be president and to have your greatest achievement as president being a knob on social media.

Well, he's only responsible for like one drone strike that killed just 40 or so children. Obama did much better. Elliot Abrams still hasn't made anything happen in Venezuela. That guy covered up a rape-genocide... in context what they're doing now is really low on the trigger scale.
Iran could be triggering, but holy shit that really didn't take off the way they wanted. He's been trying to manufacture a war with Iran since literally day 1. Still nothing. If this concentration camp thing falls flat, I don't even think anyone will be really triggered, they'll just vote the fat fuck out and move on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

yeah, cause it takes a lot of skill to both be president and to have your greatest achievement as president being a knob on social media.

---

I'll only ever be one of those, no matter how hard I try. Fair play to the man.

The lambs I refer to are everyone who passionately hates him, which is a fuck ton of people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

I think you'd get along fine with MMM these days.

I think my broader question is: is Trump the guy to do anything? What has he been successful at as president?

---

Owning liberals and https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-adm...complishments/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

Triggering precious little lambs.

---

I love it. I'd say it's better than putting them in gas chambers because they have to suffer longer, but someone would probably get triggered and say I hate Israel or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

The lambs I refer to are everyone who passionately hates him, which is a fuck ton of people.

---

Love Trumps hate.

I saw recent footage of people being asked what "pride" means to them. Love, acceptance, blah blah blah. Then they were asked what they think of Trump. "Fuck Trump" was the common reply.

Wonderful stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OngBonga

I saw recent footage of people being asked what "pride" means to them. Love, acceptance, blah blah blah. Then they were asked what they think of Trump. "Fuck Trump" was the common reply.

Wonderful stuff.

---

I've been telling people happy white pride month, happy straight pride month, etc. just to watch them lose their shit. Pride month is such a gold mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

I've been telling people happy white pride month, happy straight pride month, etc. just to watch them lose their shit. Pride month is such a gold mine.

---

That happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

and https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-adm...complishments/

---

lol

Surely you don't think I've stopped trolling for entertainment. The politics (aka far-left politics) and TwoXChromosomes sub-reddits are my current favorites places to do so. They are downright rabid and get triggered over anything. I love it.

Quote:

---

The politics (aka far-left politics) ... sub-reddits

---

It's the only place you can do it. All conservatives communities are well guarded safe-spaces where you get the boot the second there's a hint you're not toeing the line.

I've been posing this challenge to everyone here who thinks Trump is a mentally abled person: Can you give me an example of Trump saying something you think is smart?

Slight problem: What you think is trolling, I think is retardation. To get around that: can you give me an example of Trump saying something smart that is distinguishable from something a retard would say. Like for example if he says 'The US has the cleanest climates there are' - that might be genius trolling, but it's indistinguishable from something a retard would say; whereas something like: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." is something a retard would not say.