*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[TheSpoonald]

you think the quote "....you have to take out their families....." doesn't mean he wants to kill families,

Dude....you should go to the hospital. I think you're having a stroke. No normal functioning brain could say this.

How the fuck are you taking the words "you have to", and somehow contorting them into "I want to". Get a dictionary and look up the word "have". Then look up the word "want". If they have the exact same definition, you have a point. If not, you're having a stroke

Do you really think Trump *WANTS* to kill families? for fun? For racism? To expand the military industrial complex? Seriously, what is your fucking theory on this?? Huh??? Tell me. What exact sentiment do you think is in Trump's mind with regard to this issue?

See, used to be, that we would find a terrorist, they would queue up a drone, and get ready to blow up his house. Then some bleeding heart would come in and say "you can't do that, there are kids inside, and all the muslims will hate us, and the press will say bad things" And then Obama would say "aw fuck you're right, don't kill the terrorist babies!!".

As a result, terrorists operated with impunity as long as they kept little Mohammed and his toy goat nearby. ISIS was allowed to spread throughout the middle east and thousand and thousands and thousands of people are dead. So now, when Trump is presented with the same potential drone strike , and some bleeding heart says "but there are babies inside" Trump says "light 'em up"

That's it. Now you can debate whether or not that's a good policy. But that's not what you're doing. You're taking Trump's position on military policy overseas, and conflating it with a perverted indulgent desire for racist murder. I want to know exactly HOW that thought process works Oskar. Explain to me how you don't get that Trump was talking about collateral damage on drone strikes. It's right there in the context of the quote. Do you really think Trump just wants to kill brown people? Is that really the maximum complexity of thought that your'e able to handle??

I think you cheated on your IQ test.

You think "debunked" is the correct word to describe what you did there? Are you impressed with yourself?

I'm not impressed with myself. I'm woefully disappointed in you.

[TheSpoonald]

I've already countered all your arguments.

"SHUT UP" he explained

[TheSpoonald]

and that regarding him intervening in the military justice system you said you "flat out don't give a fuck"

You keep using the word "intervening" like he did something improper. You know Trump is the chief executive and commander-in-chief, right? You know that running the executive branch, including the military, is exactly his job, right? You know that if something wrong was happening within the executive branch, it is exactly his job to fix it, right?

Also, I don't see why you have a problem with this Navy Seal guy getting a fair trial. Seriously, what is that about? You've already judged this guy guilty and you think he should burn. Fine, that's your opinion, and you're welcome to root for that outcome. But please tell me why this guy should not be allowed to have his 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment constitutional rights while his trial is pending? Explain that to me please??

Oskar.....don't use bullshit inflammatory language to try and make yourself sound smarter. Don't tell me "Trump intervened". I want you to tell me *EXACTLY* what Trump did that offends you. What *specific* act did Trump commit that you believe is improper, unjust, and immoral?

All I see is a man entitled to the presumption of innocence and a fair trial. Trump seems to simply be ensuring that is the case. To my knowledge, he hasn't made any apologies for the guy. He hasn't tried to get him off the hook. He's not pardoning the guy. He hasn't come out and said "this guy is getting railroaded by corrupt democrats".

All Trump has done is ensure a fair trial. Please tell me what is wrong with that. I want to know exactly what you think Trump should have done instead. And I want to know why you think the Navy Seal should be denied the right to simple tenets of justice like the presumption of innocence, and access to an attorney.

Spell it out. Don't just feed me the TYT line of "he interfered to help a baby killer". Be specific. Or quit fucking bitching.

[Poopadoop]

"SHUT UP" he explained

"I have no better arguments" he explained.

[Poopadoop]

You keep using the word "intervening" like he did something improper. You know Trump is the chief executive and commander-in-chief, right? You know that running the executive branch, including the military, is exactly his job, right? You know that if something wrong was happening within the executive branch, it is exactly his job to fix it, right?

Also, I don't see why you have a problem with this Navy Seal guy getting a fair trial. Seriously, what is that about? You've already judged this guy guilty and you think he should burn. Fine, that's your opinion, and you're welcome to root for that outcome. But please tell me why this guy should not be allowed to have his 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment constitutional rights while his trial is pending? Explain that to me please??

Oskar.....don't use bullshit inflammatory language to try and make yourself sound smarter. Don't tell me "Trump intervened". I want you to tell me *EXACTLY* what Trump did that offends you. What *specific* act did Trump commit that you believe is improper, unjust, and immoral?

All I see is a man entitled to the presumption of innocence and a fair trial. Trump seems to simply be ensuring that is the case. To my knowledge, he hasn't made any apologies for the guy. He hasn't tried to get him off the hook. He's not pardoning the guy. He hasn't come out and said "this guy is getting railroaded by corrupt democrats".

All Trump has done is ensure a fair trial. Please tell me what is wrong with that. I want to know exactly what you think Trump should have done instead. And I want to know why you think the Navy Seal should be denied the right to simple tenets of justice like the presumption of innocence, and access to an attorney.

.

First, no-one is able to find corroboration of your story that the guy was forced to eat faeces while standing at attention 24 hours a day or whatever you said infringed on his rights.

Second, Trump himself did not say he was intervening in the interests of a fair trial. His stated reasons were very different, and could easily be construed as 'hey let's go easy on this alleged kid-killer, for MAGA reasons'.

So the argument remains: Trump openly stated it was a good idea to kill the families of terrorists, and now is intervening on behalf of a person who allegedly took his statement to its logical conclusion. If you have evidence to the contrary from an independent, unbiased source, please share it with us.

[TheSpoonald]

Second, Trump himself did not say he was intervening in the interests of a fair trial. His stated reasons were very different, and could easily be construed as 'hey let's go easy on this alleged kid-killer, for MAGA reasons'.

What did he say? Tell me *exactly* what he said and why you think it means he is just a sicko racist murderer. Explain to me how it's impossible to consider any more complex level of thought.

[TheSpoonald]

So the argument remains: Trump openly stated it was a good idea to kill the families of terrorists, and now is intervening on behalf of a person who allegedly took his statement to its logical conclusion. If you have evidence to the contrary from an independent, unbiased source, please share it with us.

You don't actually mean this. Fuck off.

[TheSpoonald]

What did he say? Tell me *exactly* what he said and why you think it means he is just a sicko racist murderer. Explain to me how it's impossible to consider any more complex level of thought.

nevermind, you'll just fuck it up.
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-...r-crimes-case/

here is trump's tweet

In honor of his past service to our Country, Navy Seal #EddieGallagher will soon be moved to less restrictive confinement while he awaits his day in court. Process should move quickly! @foxandfriends @RepRalphNorman

Where in there are a you reading "hey let's go easy on this kid for Maga reasons"????

Officials have not responded to questions about what the president’s order means for Gallagher and even the SEAL’s legal team indicated they’re still learning what it all means.

Sounds like the Navy could use you and your awesome powers of translation. America needs you poop!!!!

[Poopadoop]

What did he say? Tell me *exactly* what he said and why you think it means he is just a sicko racist murderer. Explain to me how it's impossible to consider any more complex level of thought.

We all know exactly we he said. Something along the lines of 'terrorists use their families as human shields, so you have to take out their families.' And some other incoherent nonsense which is uninterpretable.

The statement in itself doesn't mean he's racist, but it certainly doesn't help his case. There's plenty of other evidence that he's racist.

[Poopadoop]

Fuck off.

"I have no better arguments" he explained.

[TheSpoonald]

We all know exactly we he said. Something along the lines of 'terrorists use their families as human shields, so you have to take out their families.' And some other incoherent nonsense which is uninterpretable.

wow, you are all over the place huh? I know you're in a later time zone than I am but isn't it still early to be this drunk??

I asked you what Trump tweeted about the Navy Seal guy. You're going back to the already-debunked Oskar-nonsense that says Trump likes to snuff out arab toddlers.

Pay attention

[Poopadoop]

Where in there are a you reading "hey let's go easy on this kid for Maga reasons"????

Where in there are you reading "This guy's rights are being infringed on. This is wrong and I'm stepping in in the interests of a fair trial."

[TheSpoonald]

"I have no better arguments" he explained.

I do, you're just being a stubborn dick hole about it on purpose. I'm not falling for it.

Eat shit

[TheSpoonald]

Where in there are you reading "This guy's rights are being infringed on. This is wrong and I'm stepping in in the interests of a fair trial."

https://www.foxnews.com/us/navy-seal...lawyers-allege

Among the restrictions, his attorneys say:

Requiring him to be in “full uniform of the day at all times between reveille and taps,” and not allowing him to put on civilian clothing “at any time.”
Restricting Gallagher’s movement so his only meal options are “a vending machine and a limited selection of processed food” sold at a convenience store on-site.
Gallagher cannot call or video chat with his wife and children – who are living in Florida – unless he is “in the presence of a command representative or defense attorney.”
Gallagher cannot drive or be driven to his defense team’s offices. He can contact them through a phone outside of his room, but only under the supervision of a command representative or watchstander. Parlatore says this means Gallagher “cannot engage in privileged communication… while a third party is present” and “prohibits him from assisting in the preparation of his own defense.”

[Poopadoop]

Attachment 1119
I asked you what Trump tweeted about the Navy Seal guy.

To be fair, you weren't specific about which tweet you were referring to. Sorry I can't read your mind; try to be clear from now on.

[TheSpoonald]

Where in there are you reading "This guy's rights are being infringed on. This is wrong and I'm stepping in in the interests of a fair trial."

I asked you to back up your claim first. Where are you reading "let's go easy on the kid for maga reasons"?

[Poopadoop]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/navy-seal...lawyers-allege

1. That doesn't answer my question. You're simply drawing an inference as to why Trump intervened.

2. I asked for an independent, UNBIASED source. Try again.

[Poopadoop]

I asked you to back up your claim first. Where are you reading "let's go easy on the kid for maga reasons"?

I laid out the argument for you above. Go back and read it again. Use a dictionary if you need one.

[TheSpoonald]

To be fair, you weren't specific about which tweet you were referring to. Sorry I can't read your mind; try to be clear from now on.

PAY FUCKING ATTENTION

Trump said "you have to take out families" on TV, not on Twitter.

The only way you could be confused about this is if you're stupendously drunk, or your IQ is 70

[TheSpoonald]

I laid out the argument for you above.

No you didn't. Fuck off.

[TheSpoonald]

2. I asked for an independent, UNBIASED source. Try again.

OMG fuck off.

[Poopadoop]

You're right I don't have any better arguments, and now I'm angry that you've pointed it out.

Attachment 1119

fyp

[TheSpoonald]

fyp

I hope you fall down some stairs today

[Poopadoop]

OMG fuck off.

Isn't your standard of belief to see overlap between two equally biased sources on both sides of the political spectrum? By that standard, you've failed your own test.

[Poopadoop]

I hope you fall down some stairs today

That's sweet, thanks.

[Poopadoop]

PAY FUCKING ATTENTION

Trump said "you have to take out families" on TV, not on Twitter.

Attachment 1119

Did he? Oh ok then. He was only racist on TV not on twitter (that time).

[TheSpoonald]

Isn't your standard of belief to see overlap between two equally biased sources on both sides of the political spectrum? By that standard, you've failed your own test.

I trust Fox, and almost any other news source, to accurately quote the Seal's lawyers.

If all you got is "nyahhh Fox News!" go eat a pine cone.

[TheSpoonald]

That's sweet, thanks.

Get AIDS

[Poopadoop]

Get AIDS

Should I do that before or after falling down the stairs? Just want to be clear.

[TheSpoonald]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Poopadoop]

I trust Fox, and almost any other news source, to accurately quote the Seal's lawyers.

If all you got is "nyahhh Fox News!" go eat a pine cone.

So, in your mind:

Fox says it and somebody on the left corroborates it = TRUE
Fox says it and nobody on the left corroborates it = TRUE
CNN says it and somebody on the right corroborates it = TRUE
CNN says it and nobody on the right corroborates it = FALSE

To sum up then, you believe everything Fox says, and only believe what CNN says if Fox also says it.

Yeah, that seems reasonable lol.

[TheSpoonald]

So, in your mind:

Fox says it and somebody on the left corroborates it = TRUE
Fox says it and nobody on the left corroborates it = TRUE
CNN says it and somebody on the right corroborates it = TRUE
CNN says it and nobody on the right corroborates it = FALSE

To sum up then, you believe everything Fox says, and only believe what CNN says if Fox also says it.

Yeah, that seems reasonable lol.

Do you believe Fox misquoted the lawyers? Do you think they read a legal pleading, and then completely misrepresented it in print? Is that what you're saying.

Seriously just fuck off. We were having a conversation about an interesting topic, and as usual you de-rail it when you run out of logic. Instead of continuing the conversation you just say "Nyah your sources suck, so everything you say is probably wrong"

Honestly dude, it's pathetic. I don't know if you're doing this on purpose (lame) or not (hopelessly dumb)

[TheSpoonald]

Just state your position Poop. Quit being a cunt and just spell out what you think??

Do you think Trump's policy position is a tough-call that he's made to counteract terrorists propensity to use their families as shields? Or do you think he's a racist killer who just wants to see some arab babies bleed?

Pick a side, show some spine, and have a position. Otherwise, shut the wood chopping accident you call a mouth.

And do the same thing with regard to the Seal. Does the guy deserve a fair trial or not? And what "intervention" do you think Trump made improperly??

[Poopadoop]

Assuming Fox's quote of the lawyer is accurate, and not embellished in any way (a big assumption given who we're talking about here), would not 'fair and balanced' reporting require them to listen to and report the warden's side of the story? What if he denies what the lawyer claimed? Does that change your perceptions? What if he says 'yes he got some rough treatment, but that's because he kept yelling 'witch hunt!' and trying to fight the guards.' Does that change anything?

Also, it's not clear how much information Trump had on this case when he tweeted about it. Knowing him, it's reasonable to assume he, like you, read the Fox report and took it as face value. But yet, if that's true, it's odd his tweet didn't give his rationale as being in the interests of justice and a fair trial. You can interpret that in multiple ways: 1) He's an idiot who can't properly explain his reasoning; 2) He doesn't care about a fair trial but cares about protecting kid-killers; or 3) He cares about a fair trial but for some reason didn't bother to find out the full details of the story before acting.

That Oskar is interpreting this ambiguity in a way that is bad for Trump is perhaps unfair, but you certainly haven't provided any proof that his intentions were purely in the interest of justice (and not its obstruction as seems to be his wont).

[Poopadoop]

Instead of continuing the conversation you just say "Nyah your sources suck, so everything you say is probably wrong"

If your assumptions are based on uncorrobated facts, then yes the rest of your argument is weakened. There's nothing illogical about pointing that out, whether you like it or not.

[TheSpoonald]

would not 'fair and balanced' reporting require them to listen to and report the warden's side of the story?

It's in there. they actually quoted the warden's argument first. Does this mean that you now think Fox is "fair and balanced"?

Also, it's not clear how much information Trump had on this case when he tweeted about it....You can interpret that in multiple ways: 1) He's an idiot who can't properly explain his reasoning;

It's a fucking TWEET. Sorry if it doesn't contain deep legal reasoning.

2) He doesn't care about a fair trial but cares about protecting kid-killers;

How is that a viable interpretation? Please explain how you're getting this.

3) He cares about a fair trial but for some reason didn't bother to find out the full details of the story before acting.

What details would he need? Since you seem to have the full details....what should Trump have done instead?

That Oskar is interpreting this ambiguity in a way that is bad for Trump is perhaps unfair

It's HARDLY ambiguous. He said he's moving the guy to less restrictive confinement. His lawyers have spelled out why they want that. The military has spelled out why they don't. Both sides of this argument are abundantly clear and nowhere on either side has anyone said "There's no problem here because the people that died were brown"

, but you certainly haven't provided any proof that his intentions were purely in the interest of justice

Why does that need to be proven? 30% of the guy's billl of rights is being violated. And I have to prove that someone stopping that from happening has to have pure motives??? You and Oskar are the only ones who seem to think that this is just a show of solidarity with kid-killers. Shouldn't YOU have to provide proof??

[TheSpoonald]

If your assumptions are based on uncorrobated facts, then yes the rest of your argument is weakened. There's nothing illogical about pointing that out, whether you like it or not.

Quotes directly from legal pleadings that are publicly available and can be fact-checked in five seconds are now "uncorroborated"

Seriously....just fuck off.

[Poopadoop]

Do you think Trump's policy position is a tough-call that he's made to counteract terrorists propensity to use their families as shields? Or do you think he's a racist killer who just wants to see some arab babies bleed?

Talk about a poorly framed question lol. Are those the only two options?

I think Trump is racist, yes. I think he doesn't value the lives of POC as much as he values white lives, yes. That is wholly consistent with the idea that it's ok to kill the family of terrorists.

And do the same thing with regard to the Seal. Does the guy deserve a fair trial or not?

Sure he deserves a fair trial. Where did you get the idea I thought he should be lynched?

And what "intervention" do you think Trump made improperly??

As outlined above, I suspect Trump tweeted after seeing the report on FN and taking it at face value. I doubt very much he fully informed himself on the details of the treatment Gallagher was receiving before he expressed his opinion. I doubt he asked the obvious questions such as 'what does the warden say?', which interestingly, doesn't seem to have been thought of by you or Fox either.

The fact that a tweet is not the same as 'intervening' is a fair point. I don't know what he's done since then, if he's followed up his words with action. But his tweet is interesting inasmuch as it's wholly consistent with the idea that he considers the lives of POC less important than those of white.

[Poopadoop]

Quotes directly from legal pleadings that are publicly available and can be fact-checked in five seconds are now "uncorroborated"

Seriously....just fuck off.

Then find the legal proceedings and show them to us. Do you seriously expect us to believe Fox is incapable of 'accidentally' inserting a 'fact' or two there?

Take the five seconds to corroborate your source.

[TheSpoonald]

As outlined above, I suspect Trump tweeted after seeing the report on FN and taking it at face value.

The FN report that I linked came out AFTER Trump tweeted.

[TheSpoonald]

I think Trump is racist, yes. I think he doesn't value the lives of POC as much as he values white lives, yes. That is wholly consistent with the idea that it's ok to kill the family of terrorists.

Is screaming your racism on national TV consistent with the conclusion that he's a closet racist?

[TheSpoonald]

You really should be embarassed to be commenting this strongly on something you clearly know nothing about.

The fact that a tweet is not the same as 'intervening' is a fair point.

Finally some sense. But I already know this. Go tell Oskar.

I don't know what he's done since then,

Are you paying attention?? He hasn't done anything since then. He just tweeted about what he had already done, which is order the guy to be moved to less restrictive confinement.

if he's followed up his words with action.

He acted first.

But his tweet is interesting inasmuch as it's wholly consistent with the idea that he considers the lives of POC less important than those of white.

This is the most intellectually vapid thing you've said in a very long time. And that's saying something.

[oskar]

Can you name me a living white person who you would consider a racist?

[Poopadoop]

It's in there. they actually quoted the warden's argument first.

Well, last actually. And they gave it much less space than the big list of grievances from G's lawyer that they listed. The implication to a simple person might be that the warden's reasoning is less well -founded because it's shorter.

“In line with determinations previously made by both the Internal Reviewing Officer and the Military Judge, I find the stipulations of restriction are required to prevent attempts by SOC Gallagher to intimidate witnesses and obstruct justice,”

It's a fucking TWEET. Sorry if it doesn't contain deep legal reasoning.

Who said it should? But it stated his motivations one way, and you are interpreting them another way.

How is that a viable interpretation? Please explain how you're getting this.

See above. Trump has a history of racist views, and now is jumping in to defend an alleged POC child-killer.

What details would he need? Since you seem to have the full details....what should Trump have done instead?

Made it clear he was interested in a fair trial, rather than defending the alleged child killer's because of his 'past service'.

nowhere on either side has anyone said "There's no problem here because the people that died were brown"

lol, as if they're going to say that.

Why does that need to be proven? 30% of the guy's billl of rights is being violated. And I have to prove that someone stopping that from happening has to have pure motives??? You and Oskar are the only ones who seem to think that this is just a show of solidarity with kid-killers. Shouldn't YOU have to provide proof??

Wait, aren't you the one always speaking up for due process? We don't know the facts of his treatment whether it was abusing his rights or not until it goes to court. Right?

So why are you leaping to the conclusion that Gallagher's lawyers are right and the warden is wrong?

More importantly, why is Trump leaping to that same conclusion?

[Poopadoop]

The FN report that I linked came out AFTER Trump tweeted.

So what information do you believe Trump had? He's not exactly known for fully informing himself.

[Poopadoop]

This is the most intellectually vapid thing you've said in a very long time. And that's saying something.

Actually, saying ^^ is intellectually vapid.

Ironic isn't it?

[Poopadoop]

He acted first.

We know from recent history that his orders aren't always followed. I'm interested in whether he followed up on his orders to ensure they were followed, or if he 'changed his mind' again.

[TheSpoonald]

Can you name me a living white person who you would consider a racist?

You're proving Gavin McInniss' point.

The supply of white supremacists doesn't even come close to meeting the demand.

[oskar]

Can you name one?

[oskar]

If you think there are none, you can just say that too. That's fine.

[TheSpoonald]

Can you name me a living white person who you would consider a racist?

I thought you didn't like loaded questions. How are you defining "racist"?

Do I count simply because I believe Charles' Murray's data? Or because I simply believe that Islam is wholly incompatible with the West? Or because I want to build a wall?

I know there are a lot of people who are accused of being racists, that aren't. I know those people vastly outnumber the people that actually are racists.

If you want actual names....I really don't have one for you. I'm inclined to say Richard Spencer, but the truth is I don't know that much about him. I know the media says he's racist. And I know he's got enough charisma to fill a thimble. And I know that the sum total of his supporters couldn't fill a Best Western function room. And as far as I know, he's the most prominent white supremacist in America right now. So forgive me if I'm just not shitting my pants about racism. It's obviously not that big a problem.

More names? Is David Duke alive? I mean, the KKK is still a thing right? There's what...nine or so people left? So I guess they still count. I'm sure there are some biker gangs in Alabama flying confederate flags (which actually stands for several different non-racist things).

Dylan Roof is a living racist. Is he a threat though? I think we've heard the last of him. It's not like he was able to find anyone to help him commit those murders. It's not like there were throngs of protesters outside Police HQ chanting "Free Dylan!!"

I really don't know what you're getting at Oskar. We obviously have much different definitions of the word "racist". So I don't see what this discussion accomplishes.

Now I've humored you, and I would like the same in return. Can you answer my questions now?

Like, do you admit now that Trump's statements about killing terrorists families was in regards to his policy position on changing military rules of engagement and not some pornographic desire to murder brown babies?

Does Eddie Gallagher deserve a fair trial? What "intervention" has Trump made that you object to? How exactly are you concluding that A) Eddie Gallagher is guilty and B) Trump condones and excuses what he did.

[TheSpoonald]

Well, last actually. And they gave it much less space than the big list of grievances from G's lawyer that they listed. The implication to a simple person might be that the warden's reasoning is less well -founded because it's shorter.

You're right, I had the order backwards. They mention the warden first in another article I was looking at. But nevertheless, the other side of the argument is clearly and thoroughly stated. Immediately following the passage that I quoted with the bulleted list of grievances, there are THREE FULL PARAGRAPHS dedicated to the opposing argument.

In a letter sent to another one of Gallagher’s attorneys last week regarding the dispute over the pre-trial conditions, Rosenbloom stated he “issued those orders under the authority provided in me.”

“I have a reasonable belief: offenses triable by court-martial have been committed; SOC Gallagher committed the offenses; and the restraint ordered is required by the circumstances.

“In line with determinations previously made by both the Internal Reviewing Officer and the Military Judge, I find the stipulations of restriction are required to prevent attempts by SOC Gallagher to intimidate witnesses and obstruct justice,” Rosenbloom added in the letter, also obtained by Fox News.

You can even get a ruler, and measure it on the screen. Both sides got nearly an equal number of inches (those are like better versions of centimeters)

I really don't care what you think the "implication to a simple person" would be. I'm sorry you're a simple person. That must be shitty.

[TheSpoonald]

We know from recent history that his orders aren't always followed. I'm interested in whether he followed up on his orders to ensure they were followed, or if he 'changed his mind' again.

Intellectually vapid

Navy captains don't ignore orders from the CIC

[TheSpoonald]

So what information do you believe Trump had? He's not exactly known for fully informing himself.

Intellectually vapid


Are you really asking me how the commander in chief stays informed of military affairs? Really?

[oskar]

I ask you to name one so I can understand your definition of racism and how it doesn't apply to Trump.
In the same post you say it's not a big problem, but you do count Dylan Roof. I assume you'd probably say the California synagogue shooter and the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter were racists as well. White supremacists were responsible for every single domestic terror attack in the US in 2018 and 2019 so far. How can you say it's not a threat? You do consider islam a threat right? Why is islam a threat when they have killed zero while white supremacists are at over 50 - only counting terror attacks.

Like, do you admit now that Trump's statements about killing terrorists families was in regards to his policy position on changing military rules of engagement and not some pornographic desire to murder brown babies?

Absolutely not. He was initially came out with that statement when asked about torture in interrogation, and he said there should be more torture and you should kill their families because "they don't care about their own lives." He has defended this statement many times, but initially it was about killing their families for interrogation, which of course is retarded, but I think president Trump is a mentally retarded person, so no surprises there for me. The Fox news clip was the 2nd or 3rd time he publicly defended this. Also notice how Fox moves on immediately with the next question instead of asking even a single follow-up to the guy who just said "kill their families" 3 times in one sentence.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I think he doesn't value the lives of POC as much as he values white lives, yes. That is wholly consistent with the idea that it's ok to kill the family of terrorists.

Is your "evidence" that Trump is a racist any stronger than FTR's evidence that you're a racist?
'Cause it really sounds like you just said terrorist means non-white.

Did you actually say that?
IDK... maybe... prob not... it's certainly a viable interpretation of that quote.
Maybe you just assume Trump is a racist who thinks that.

If he doesn't assume "terrorist" meant "non-white," then the racism is gone.

If you assume racism, you see it. If not, you don't.

[oskar]

4200 upvotes on a conspiracy theory that requires you to have no reading comprehension to believe:

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/...biased_agenda/

[TheSpoonald]

I ask you to name one so I can understand your definition of racism and how it doesn't apply to Trump.

Good. Do you understand now?

In the same post you say it's not a big problem, but you do count Dylan Roof.

DR was one guy with zero support. Forgive me if I'm not freaking out about a crime wave.

I assume you'd probably say the California synagogue shooter and the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter were racists as well.

Sure, I guess so, for convenience I guess it's alright. If you want to be precise, I have a bit of a hard time classifying "jewish" as a race. But I guess the sentiment is close enough.

White supremacists were responsible for every single domestic terror attack in the US in 2018 and 2019 so far.

For a country that's 250 years old, why is a sample size of 14 months significant? Will you drop this argument if some muslims bomb cinco de mayo next weekend? You know if you add up the body count of all of those domestic terror attacks in the US in 2018 and 2019 it's still only a fraction of the number of dead "easter worshipers" who were not killed by white supremacists. It's pretty easy to make an argument when you presume to arbitrarily confine stats to certain regions or time periods.

Did you know that NOAA has data from ship hulls that tells them ocean temperatures over time, and that it shows 15 full years with no change at all? You still believe in climate change right?

See how that works, lol

How can you say it's not a threat? You do consider islam a threat right?

What? When did I use the word "threat"? I used the word "incompatible"

Why is islam a threat when they have killed zero

Zero??? Did you really just type that? Do me a favor and google the phrase "easter worshipers"

while white supremacists are at over 50 - only counting terror attacks.

And?

He was initially came out with that statement when asked about torture in interrogation, and he said there should be more torture and you should kill their families because "they don't care about their own lives."

citation needed

[oskar]

Is your "evidence" that Trump is a racist any stronger than FTR's evidence that you're a racist?

https://youtu.be/HoVNLcXSQLw

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...386539008?s=20

[TheSpoonald]

If that's your evidence that Trump is racist, you're deranged.

You know, ten years ago, that could have been a DNC ad. But then in 2015 they changed their mind because ORANGE MAN BAD

[oskar]

You seem to know know the meaning of the word domestic. Make domestic your word of the day. It's a good word to know.

[oskar]

It could not have been a DNC ad, because no network would air it. Fox News refused to air it because it was too racist for Fox News.

[TheSpoonald]

You seem to know know the meaning of the word domestic. Make domestic your word of the day. It's a good word to know.

I fully understand what you meant.

My argument is not supported by fact unless I arbitrarily restrict the stats in a way that makes me sound right.

[TheSpoonald]

It could not have been a DNC ad, because no network would air it. Fox News refused to air it because it was too racist for Fox News.

No, it was too "racist" (your word not mine) for FN's advertisers. Not the same thing.

FN had plenty of outrage to display for Mr. Bracamontes.

Do you remember when the Dems were all about building a wall? Or did you just erase that from memory because ORANGE MAN BAD

[oskar]

A wall isn't racist. Saying you need a wall because immigrants murder is. Illegal immigrants murder at a much lower rate than citizens. So making an ad that makes it look like you need to stop immigrants because of murder is racist. In fact if you'd let more illegal immigrants in you'd have less murder statistically.

A wall or barrier in the right places makes sense. A wall in the middle of the desert is retarded.

[TheSpoonald]

ZOMG, Trump protected the constitutional rights of someone accused of doing something bad to a brown person.
So logically, that means Trump is a vehement racist who is solely committed to the supremacy of the aryan race.

Meanwhile in this Saturday's NYT........

[oskar]

I don't arbitrarily restrict the stats. We're talking about the US. I didn't include the christchurch shooter either. I'm being consistent.

[oskar]

Mocking the authoritarian leader of a colonial apartheid state is not necessarily anti-semitic unless he's being attacked for being jewish. Since I don't get the cartoon at all, I can't make a judgement.

[TheSpoonald]

A wall isn't racist. Saying you need a wall because immigrants murder is. Illegal immigrants murder at a much lower rate than citizens.

This is wrong. Again, you're conflating two talking points. Stop watching CNN. It's true there is less crime per capita among immigrant populations compared to native born US populations. That's it. You don't get to insert any additional words into that sentence. End of talking point.

Do you have any data that shows the frequency of criminal activity among illegal immigrant populations compared to native born populations? Do you have that data? Because it kinda pads your crime stats if you include a few million people who waited in line at the border, and went through the immigration process legally. We already know those are law abiding people. The wall isn't meant for them.

Before you go on a goose chase, you should know that the data you would actually need is difficult to come by. Many states dont' ask the immigration status of criminals. In many states, it's illegal to do so. However, the federal government does keep stats.

https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/f...16/Table09.pdf
US Citizens are responsible for only 58% of crime. Does that sound proportional to their population??????

So making an ad that makes it look like you need to stop immigrants because of murder is racist.

Uh, no it isn't.

In fact if you'd let more illegal immigrants in you'd have less murder statistically.

Provably false

The Justice Department keeps data on federal crimes committed by immigrants in the country illegally — and an analysis from the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that undocumented immigrants made up a disproportionate share of federal inmates sentenced for nonimmigration crimes in 2016.

[TheSpoonald]

Mocking the authoritarian leader of a colonial apartheid state is not necessarily anti-semitic unless he's being attacked for being jewish. Since I don't get the cartoon at all, I can't make a judgement.

That thing he's holding is a selfie-stick. I'm not sure I get the joke either. I also don't think the cartoon is racist. But I didn't think the Serena Williams cartoon was racist either. So at least I can claim consistency.

This one though is definitely racist
https://twitter.com/kishkushkay/stat...90507714113538

[TheSpoonald]

A wall or barrier in the right places makes sense. A wall in the middle of the desert is retarded.

Are you absolutely sure that no human trafficking or drug smuggling occurs there? You are positive that open desert is not a vulnerability at all, and has no potential to be a vulnerability in the future. You're sure of that?

[Poopadoop]

Intellectually vapid

Navy captains don't ignore orders from the CIC

You sure? Everyone else seems to when the CIC in question is Captain Retard.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Are you absolutely sure that no human trafficking or drug smuggling occurs there? You are positive that open desert is not a vulnerability at all, and has no potential to be a vulnerability in the future. You're sure of that?

That seems like a really low bar to set for the cost involved.
How else might the money be spent to address the same concerns?
Is a wall our best option?

[oskar]

Are you absolutely sure that no human trafficking or drug smuggling occurs there? You are positive that open desert is not a vulnerability at all, and has no potential to be a vulnerability in the future. You're sure of that?

This is something you'd have to ask the DEA, and they'll tell you that most drugs come through ports of entry. So you'd stop some drugs, but spending the money on better checks at ports of entry would be vastly superior solutions.

This is wrong. Again, you're conflating two talking points. Stop watching CNN. It's true there is less crime per capita among immigrant populations compared to native born US populations. That's it. You don't get to insert any additional words into that sentence. End of talking point.

Do you have any data that shows the frequency of criminal activity among illegal immigrant populations compared to native born populations? Do you have that data? Because it kinda pads your crime stats if you include a few million people who waited in line at the border, and went through the immigration process legally. We already know those are law abiding people. The wall isn't meant for them.

What do you think is wrong?
You're shifting goal posts. Trumps ad clearly implies that illegal immigrants murder americans and that is why you need a wall. No word about crime or economy.

[Poopadoop]

Is your "evidence" that Trump is a racist any stronger than FTR's evidence that you're a racist?
'Cause it really sounds like you just said terrorist means non-white.

Did you actually say that?
IDK... maybe... prob not... it's certainly a viable interpretation of that quote.
Maybe you just assume Trump is a racist who thinks that.

If he doesn't assume "terrorist" meant "non-white," then the racism is gone.

If you assume racism, you see it. If not, you don't.

You've missed the subtlely of my statement there.

I said in effect 'it's not disproving the notion that he's a racist'. Not the same as saying 'it proves he's a racist'.

And when he was talking about killing the families of 'terrorists' the conversation was about ISIS, who are undoubtedly almost exclusively POC. He has not suggested a similar treatment for the families of, say, right-wing terrorists in America. You can contest whether that's because they're American or whether it's because they're white I guess, as opposed to ISIS which are neither.