UK condemns Trump’s racist tweets in unprecedented attack against US congresswomen - Page 8 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15019360
BigSteve wrote:I have, ad nauseum.


You are neither the first nor the last person in here who makes empty assertions when they run out of arguments. You have not shown anything at all despite repeated requests.

Feel free to explain why this is wrong:

Trump wrote:Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries...telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back


Congresswomen from other origins telling the United States how government should be run, when that is in fact the job description of the Congressman/woman to tell the US how they believe government is to be run. Trump however does not want these congresswomen telling/speaking/expressing any political opinion, because they have other origins. And that is the very definition of racism, using someone's ethnic/racial/national background as an argument to prevent them from exercising their political or human rights.
#15019362
Just as he wasn't being racist calling another U.S lawmaker 'Pochahontas'. Clue; she isn't white either.

Anti-non white bigots use certain phrases towards non whites because they're racists "Go back to where you came from!" "You're not a real *citizenship*" (meaning on only white people are real citizens of the country in question), "You're kind" "Your lot" "Your people are always" a distinction repeatedly made based on implied ethnicity/citizenship, etc.

Blackjack here a few months age denied in a debate with me, that the use of the n-word is racist towards blacks. YEAH!

I won't bother asking him if a non-white used the phrase 'whitey' or 'white boy' would he consider that anti-white bigotry. OF COURSE HE WOULD!

He and a few other closet Nazis want James Fields released for his conviction of murdering a protester at Charlottesville by running over them with his car! Neo-Nazi material was found in his house and no, no sign of mental difficulties! It was cold blooded murder!
#15019375
Really? He called someone Pocahontas? BWWAHHHAAAAHHAHAHHHAA :lol:

That’s not racist, that’s gold! Where is everyone’s sense of humor ffs :lol:

Edit: did some googling and after seeing Elizabeth Warren I’m now laughing even harder :lol: But if we were going to cast someone as Pocahontas surely that would go to the pretty Cortez lady :)
#15019382
noemon wrote:"Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries...telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back..."


It's a shame that you intentionally choose to be dishonest by not including the entire quote.

Your debating style is one of fabrication and obfuscation.

Hope that works out for ya'...
#15019385
BigSteve wrote:It's a shame that you intentionally choose to be dishonest by not including the entire quote.
Your debating style is one of fabrication and obfuscation.
Hope that works out for ya'...


Intentional dishonesty is constantly accusing your interlocutor with ad-homs without offering a shred of an argument. There is nothing in the rest of the text that alters the meaning of the text I quoted and if you believe there is explain how. I did not quote Trump's rant against their countries of origin because it is not relevant to my argument and I will not repeat his chauvinism against their countries, after all I could hardly care about what he has to say about their countries of origin. The point of focus here is what he has to say about these ladies themselves. And what he is explicitly saying is that these ladies should not be telling how the US should be run because of their origins despite the fact that these ladies are American Congresswomen and their job is to be telling how they think the US should be run.

Your denial and ad-homs are boring. Try harder to be more interesting at least.
#15019389
noemon wrote:Intentional dishonesty is constantly accusing your interlocutor with ad-homs without offering a shred of an argument. There is nothing in the rest of the text that alters the meaning of the text I quoted and if you believe there is explain how. I did not quote Trump's rant against their countries of origin because it is not relevant to my argument and I will not repeat his chauvinism against their countries, after all I could hardly care about what he has to say about their countries of origin. The point of focus here is what he has to say about these ladies themselves. And what he is explicitly saying is that these ladies should not be telling how the US should be run because of their origins despite the fact that these ladies are American Congresswomen and their job is to be telling how they think the US should be run.

Your denial and ad-homs are boring. Try harder to be more interesting at least.


By not including the entire quote, it's taken out of context, which is exactly what you intended...
#15019392
BigSteve wrote:By not including the entire quote, it's taken out of context, which is exactly what you intended...


Despite the fact that I have asked you to explain how that is, you are still unable to do so, clearly because you have no argument other than empty accusations. But since you insist so much:

Trump wrote:So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly ...and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how ....it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!


Aside from the fact that Trump considers these women as separate from the United Stated nation, he is explicitly saying that these women cannot be telling the US how it is to be run due to their origins. Their jobs as Congresswomen however is to do exactly that.
#15019394
noemon wrote:Despite the fact that I have asked you to explain how that is, you are still unable to do so, clearly because you have no argument other than empty accusations. But since you insist so much:



Aside from the fact that Trump considers these women as separate from the United Stated nation, he is explicitly saying that these women cannot be telling the US how it is to be run due to their origins. Their jobs as Congresswomen however is to do exactly that.


Why do you continue?

I thought it was clear that I was through engaging you, because I believe you choose to engage in a dishonest fashion. He is not telling those women that, regardless of how much that little liberal voice inside your head says he did.

And what the fuck is "the United Stated nation"?

:lol: :lol:
#15019395
BigSteve wrote:Why do you continue?
I thought it was clear that I was through engaging you, because I believe you choose to engage in a dishonest fashion. He is not telling those women that, regardless of how much that little liberal voice inside your head says he did.


If you have nothing to say then clearly that is exactly what you should do. Doubling down on your ad-homs merely underlines the utter failure of your reasoning.

And what the fuck is "the United Stated nation"?


As others have pointed out, there are evident issues with your reading and comprehension, if these are clinical issues please let us know so that we know how to deal with you. The "US nation" is something mentioned by Trump in the text quoted. You should actually read it before you make any more.
#15019397
noemon wrote:If you have nothing to say then clearly that is exactly what you should do.


And it's what I did.

But you won't stop talking.

You don't strike me as being the overly needy type but, then again, you seem to have this sick need to engage me in conversation. If there's anything clinical going on here, odds are strong that's it.

You need to accept that, at least on this topic, I'm done with you...
#15019401
Pants-of-dog wrote:For those who claim Trump’s words were not racist, can you explain how?


See, here's the problem: The people who have called the tweets racist have failed to demonstrate how they are. If you say something, it's only valid once you support it with something. You seem to think that it's valid as soon as it comes out of your mouth, and remains so until someone disproves it.

That's silly.

Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation
The logic you're using says that, unless you can prove that to be false, it's true.

Those who think the tweets are racist need to explain how and why. If they can't do that, there's no reason in the world to conclude that they are...
#15019402
BigSteve wrote:See, here's the problem: The people who have called the tweets racist have failed to demonstrate how they are. If you say something, it's only valid once you support it with something. You seem to think that it's valid as soon as it comes out of your mouth, and remains so until someone disproves it.

That's silly.

Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation

The logic you're using says that, unless you can prove that to be false, it's true.

Those who think the tweets are racist need to explain how and why. If they can't do that, there's no reason in the world to conclude that they are...


Obviously, you cannot explain how these comments are not racist.

Does someone else want to try?
#15019403
BigSteve wrote:And it's what I did.
But you won't stop talking.
You don't strike me as being the overly needy type but, then again, you seem to have this sick need to engage me in conversation. If there's anything clinical going on here, odds are strong that's it.
You need to accept that, at least on this topic, I'm done with you...


I understand it is difficult reading my posts and probably painful too but for me persons in here are irrelevant, only the topic at hand matters and as long as you carry on posting in this topic(about me or the topic) I will carry on addressing your nonsense. Once again you are projecting because you are the one talking to me and about me. I am only responding to your accusations and ridiculous ad-homs. I am not sure why you have this sick need to keep talking to me without saying anything on topic but sure knock yourself out. I don't mind.
#15019406
BigSteve wrote:See, here's the problem: The people who have called the tweets racist have failed to demonstrate how they are. If you say something, it's only valid once you support it with something. You seem to think that it's valid as soon as it comes out of your mouth, and remains so until someone disproves it.

That's silly.

Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation
The logic you're using says that, unless you can prove that to be false, it's true.

Those who think the tweets are racist need to explain how and why. If they can't do that, there's no reason in the world to conclude that they are...


I should probably apologize.

Apparently, the concept of a "hypothetical" is lost on certain members of this forum.

No, I do not think pants-of-dog actually sells drugs to children.

The mere thought that I might actually have to explain that is stunning.

Jesus Fucking Christ...
#15019407
Pants-of-dog wrote:Obviously, you cannot explain how these comments are not racist.


It's not incumbent on me to do so. It's incumbent upon the non-thinking libs making that accusation to explain how they are racist...
#15019410
And here is a decent source that shows how these comments are racist, and fits it into a US history context:

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/15/74182758 ... ist-tweets

@BigSteve

Ironically, you are making the same error that you accuse others of, by switching the burden of proof on me after you claimed they were not racist.
#15019413
Pants-of-dog wrote:Ironically, you are making the same error that you accuse others of, by switching the burden of proof on me after you claimed they were not racist.


The accusation that they were racist was made long before I ever said they weren't. Ergo, the person making the accusation needs to support it.

If I say "I like bacon and pancakes", should I have to follow that with "That's not racist"? Of course not.

If something is clearly not something (in this case "racist"), there's no reason to say that's it's not something (in this case "racist").

If you believe the tweets are racist, that's fine. But if you're not going to support that silly accusation, there's not a single reason to believe those accusations are valid and true...
#15019414
BigSteve wrote:I should probably apologize.
Apparently, the concept of a "hypothetical" is lost on certain members of this forum.
No, I do not think pants-of-dog actually sells drugs to children.
The mere thought that I might actually have to explain that is stunning.
Jesus Fucking Christ...


Admin Notes: Your "hypothetical" to make a parallel between Donald Trump being racist and Pants-of-Dog doing other acts implies that the parametres are identical and the parametre here is that Donald Trump has indeed made comments to that effect while the person you used for your "hypothetical" has not made any comments whatsoever for your "hypothetical" to be valid. Your hypothetical thus implies to the unsuspecting users that Pants-of Dog might have at some point or another made comments to that effect and as such tarnish his reputation. So your hypothetical was merely a veiled insult against Pants-of-Dog and as such cannot be permitted to stand or be permitted to be reproduced by others.
#15019416
@BigSteve

Did you not see the evidence I already provided, that explains how it is racist?

Also, many of us have had to deal with racism, and this was one of the racist things that was said to me by an openly racist person.

If you wish to say it is not racist, feel free. But it just makes you look like someone who cannot see racism, either because of lack of knowledge, or deliberately.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 25

September 16, Monday At Lexington, Missouri, Ma[…]

The Popular Vote...

No it doesn't. It works as it was designed. Stop[…]

The Next UK PM everybody...

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1173496164[…]

Al Jazeera is indeed the most proper news source f[…]