UK condemns Trump’s racist tweets in unprecedented attack against US congresswomen - Page 19 - 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

#15020766
Pants-of-dog wrote:You seem to be mistaken.

You called me “racist” more than once in this thread. I, on the other hand, did not call anyone racist.

You are not calling Trump racist?

Pants-of-dog wrote:So he was incorrect when he claimed they were not from the USA.

And therefore, he could not have been making an intelligent and well researched comparison of crime rates between the USA and other countries.

And therefore, the argument that he was making such an argument instead of a racist Tweet is not supported.

He said "places". He could have been talking about their constituencies or he could have been talking about the nations from which they or their parents migrated. The substantive point is that the ladies in question do not have any solutions and so are being a bit false being so anti-american all the time.

Trump is like that with blowhards, he doesn't want to hear all the blustering, he wants to see results. "Show us what you can do". He said that "come back and show us how to do it".
Last edited by SolarCross on 23 Jul 2019 21:23, edited 1 time in total.
#15020781
noemon wrote:Did SpecialOlympian violate your rights when you called his posts "racist" and demanded they be censored?

No. I did not demand that his posts be censored either. I think people should be able to say whatever they want. If SpecialOlympian thinks exterminating all white people is necessary, he should be free to advance that political point. Your specious arguments regarding Trump's statement are a fine example of you inferring intent or meaning that simply isn't substantiated. Trump did not single out a race of people for the purpose of violating their rights. SpecialOlympian on the other hand expressly stated that he thinks white people should be exterminated. When SpecialOlympian expressed the idea that white people should be exterminated, you found it humorous. Yet, you failed to see the humor in Trump's tweet. Why do you think Trump wasn't using humor while SpecialOlympian was? In the UK, CountDankula was clearly using humor, yet he was prosecuted for making a video suggesting his dog was a Nazi and he was encouraging Nazism in his pet dog.



However, as I said, the UK under Teresa May's aegis has been an unmitigated disaster. What a truly horrible person she is. One more day and we'll finally be rid of that horrible woman on the world stage.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So if Trump “knows” these women are from other countries, he “knows” incorrectly.

That's a good argument. You should make a note of it, because this argument is based on fact.

SolarCross wrote:I am not sure that "crime ridden" would be a completely inaccurate way of describing either Detroit or the Bronx for that matter.

They could be described as "shitholes." I'm sure Detroit is large enough that it may have some nicer areas. The Bronx has been a sketchy scene for quite a long time.

SolarCross wrote:What are those two ladies doing about that anyway?

Well AOC made damn sure Amazon didn't come in and hire 25k people. After all, people should get welfare whether they want to work or not.
#15020791
noemon wrote:There is a very clear attempt made here by people who are positively inclined towards racism intending to dilute the meaning of racism just so they can get away with saying racist things with impunity. This of course is a very transparent attempt that relies on nothing at all but mere repetition and empty assertions. There is not a single argument posted that contradicts the fact that Trump's tweets are racist as per the definition that exists since 1965. This is not a recent definition or a "post-modern definition" or a definition created by "cultural marxists". It is the definition that the US government under Lyndon Johnson adopted in 1965.


How can you make that statement with such confidence , when first off they are not people they anonymous screen personas, and secondly how is it possible to be crystal clear when you have never met the people behind the screen names. There is nothing transparent and clear about your one dimentional judgement.
Last edited by Finfinder on 23 Jul 2019 21:35, edited 1 time in total.
#15020796
SolarCross wrote:You are not calling Trump racist?


If someone were to read my posts carefully, they would note that I never called him racist, and even pointed out that it is irrelevant if he is racist.

He said "places". He could have been talking about their constituencies or he could have been talking about the nations from which they or their parents migrated.


And then he contrasted these places with the USA, which only makes sense if these places are not the USA.

You can simply admit that Trump made an error.

The substantive point is that the ladies in question do not have any solutions and so are being a bit false being so anti-american all the time.

Trump is like that with blowhards, he doesn't want to hear all the blustering, he wants to see results. "Show us what you can do". He said that "come back and show us how to do it".


And now you are moving the goalposts a second time to a third argument about results.

Okay.

Do you have evidence for this?
#15020807
Pants-of-dog wrote:If someone were to read my posts carefully, they would note that I never called him racist, and even pointed out that it is irrelevant if he is racist.

Fine so he is not a racist. Good I am glad we agree on something for once.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And then he contrasted these places with the USA, which only makes sense if these places are not the USA.

You can simply admit that Trump made an error.

I don't recall that contrast being made in the quote.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And now you are moving the goalposts a second time to a third argument about results.

Okay.

Do you have evidence for this?

I am not moving any goalposts. The evidence is in the quote, he said "come back and show us how to do it".
#15020814
SolarCross wrote:Fine so he is not a racist. Good I am glad we agree on something for once.


I did not say that either.

I don't recall that contrast being made in the quote.


Yes, you do.

You previously argued that it was a comparison of crime rates in the two countries.

I am not moving any goalposts. The evidence is in the quote, he said "come back and show us how to do it".


So instead of Trump incorrectly and unintelligently claiming they come from other crime ridden countries, you are now claiming that he incorrectly and unintelligently is claiming they come from other crime ridden countries and need to go there and then come back with proven results.

Got it.
#15020815
Finfinder wrote:How can you make that statement with such confidence , when first off they are not people they anonymous screen personas, and secondly how is it possible to be crystal clear when you have never met the people behind the screen names. There is nothing transparent and clear about your one dimentional judgement.


The words written speak for themselves. Is there an actual counter-argument here somewhere?

blackjack21 wrote:Trump's statement are a fine example of you inferring intent or meaning that simply isn't substantiated. Trump did not single out a race of people for the purpose of violating their rights. SpecialOlympian on the other hand expressly stated that he thinks white people should be exterminated.


SpecialOlympian was satirising the logic that white nationalists use against Muslims. He intent was not to exterminate his own race. Trump's intent however is to terrorise these congresswomen. Are you feeling terrorised by the satire because you did request it to be censored but somehow you consider this not racist even though its explicit intent is to terrorise alien Congresswomen because of their ethnic-identity. You are confusing fake with reality. Worst type of confusion.
#15020821
noemon wrote:The words written speak for themselves. Is there an actual counter-argument here somewhere?.


I thought you were making a judgment I missed where it was an argument. However I think my post speaks for itself as a counter-argument, and if my opinion makes people think about the credibility of your post, than I have achieved my goal. Is there a rule I'm unaware of that there has to be a counter argument to the standard of POFO and is there instructions with specifications?
#15020829
Finfinder wrote:I thought you were making a judgment I missed where it was an argument. However I think my post speaks for itself as a counter-argument, and if my opinion makes people think about the credibility of your post, than I have achieved my goal. Is there a rule I'm unaware of that there has to be a counter argument to the standard of POFO and is there instructions with specifications?


But you have not said anything to the point of the argument. So your counter-argument is non-existant, it may exist solely in your imagination but even there it's probably still sketchy.

noemon wrote:There is not a single argument posted that contradicts the fact that Trump's tweets are racist as per the definition that exists since 1965. This is not a recent definition or a "post-modern definition" or a definition created by "cultural marxists". It is the definition that the US government under Lyndon Johnson adopted in 1965.
#15020831
noemon wrote:But you have not said anything to the point of the argument. So your counter-argument is non-existant, it may exist solely in your imagination but even there it's probably still sketchy.


Your little pot shot aside....... That's your opinion that's cool, my opinion is you haven't made an argument you made a judgment I'm OK with that. Furthermore I can steal your post and apply the same logic to your answers. Admin Edit: Cut
#15020833
Finfinder wrote:Your little pot shot aside....... That's your opinion that's cool, my opinion is you haven't made an argument you made a judgment I'm OK with that. Furthermore I can steal your post and apply the same logic to your answers.


In your imagination you can be a unicorn. But without demonstrating it's just empty words.
#15020844
noemon wrote:In your imagination you can be a unicorn. But without demonstrating it's just empty words.



In your imagination and emotional bias you can lose site of the fact that many people read this forum and it's not a personal conversation between me and you its show we are putting on for many faceless people to read and judge for themselves. If you think you are a hundred percent in agreement with the world and my words have no merrit maybe you should think about buying a saddle for your unicorn. Its probaly that its it's also escaped you that there is probably at least 6 topics right now with the central theme of calling people racist without merit. Maybe some of those facelesspeople I talk about are coming here because there not going to take that shit anymore. Its why the left has no clue why Trump got elected and its going to get him a second term.

Admin Edit: Rule 16 Violation
#15020846
noemon wrote:SpecialOlympian was satirising the logic that white nationalists use against Muslims. He intent was not to exterminate his own race. Trump's intent however is to terrorise these congresswomen.

That's ridiculous. People aren't calling for the extermination of all Muslims, so there is nothing for SpecialOlympian to satirize there. Trump, by contrast, is satirizing the extreme left wing views of "progressive" Congresswomen and noting how places such as Palestine and Somalia are utterly fucked principally because of their left wing/socialist politics rendering them failed states. That's also why Trump said in his State of the Union that the US would never be a socialist country. None of these women were terrorized. They were all right back in his face the next day, which is not the mark of someone terrorized or someone who has had their right to speak their mind terminated. So that argument is rubbish. In fact, Trump's entire goal was to get them to speak out against him so that he could illustrate to the country how radical they are. His entire intent was to get them to not shut up. In fact, it has been Nancy Pelosi that has been trying to shut them up.

noemon wrote:Are you feeling terrorised by the satire because you did request it to be censored

No. I didn't. In fact, SpecialOlympian trolled and I said that I thought it was fine, like I did just above.

I also offered racial segregation as an alternative to genocide. The irony is that liberals pushed racial integration beyond de-segregation, and today's left is pushing for racial segregation under the rubric of "safe spaces."
#15020854
Finfinder wrote:Its probaly that its it's also escaped you that there is probably at least 6 topics right now with the central theme of calling people racist without merit.


What seems to have escaped you is that the President enabling the act of terrorising congresswomen[people] based on their ethnic-origins is something that cannot be excused as not-racist. This is right at the core of racism, it cannot be explained as simply unfortunate, its intent to blatantly attack their ethnic-origins and undermine their loyalty to their country while casting them aside as alien entities is at the heart of racism.

blackjack21 wrote: That's ridiculous. People aren't calling for the extermination of all Muslims, so there is nothing for SpecialOlympian to satirize there.


Not ridiculous at all and such people have done that in here numerous times.

blackjack21 wrote:No. I didn't. In fact, SpecialOlympian trolled and I said that I thought it was fine, like I did just above.


No, you said that after you had already reported it for deletion and had received the negative, in fact that was your protestation for nor getting it censored.
#15020920
noemon wrote:What seems to have escaped you is that the President enabling the act of terrorising congresswomen[people] based on their ethnic-origins is something that cannot be excused as not-racist.

Escaped notice? Maybe people are just focusing on some of your words and ignoring the others. :lol: :D

noemon wrote:This is right at the core of racism, it cannot be explained as simply unfortunate, its intent to blatantly attack their ethnic-origins and undermine their loyalty to their country while casting them aside as alien entities is at the heart of racism.

See? We could play this game all day. :roll:

Not to worry though noemon. We can all misconstrue virtually everything you say too. We don't even have to misquote you.

Admin Edit: Rule 16
#15020927
noemon wrote:What seems to have escaped you is that the President enabling the act of terrorising congresswomen


Oh for fuck's sake, spare us the drama.

Terrorising?

This is the same reason people now laugh off accusations of racism. You say it too much nand people stop giving a fuck. It's not "terrorising" and suggesting it is, well, that's just stupid...
#15020940
Trump's tweet is intended to terrorise these Congresswomen by casting them aside as alien entities separate from the American nation due to their ethnic-origins. His tweets have led to this mob chanting "send her back". It has led to a police officer threatening AOC with a round. And one can only imagine how many death threats these ladies have received since then. And all because they are allegedly "alien foreigners" who should not be doing their job in Congress because they are aliens who need to go back.



At the same time we have certain people here crying and whining that racism is being used lightly despite all the evident terrorism against these women while at the same time these same people are calling these Congresswomen "racist" for criticising the US-Israel special relationship. :lol: Hypocrisy levels have crossed the red line. These very same people having been quoted in this community having made same or worse statements regarding the influence of pro-Israeli lobbies in the US. And these same people have attempted to censor others in here for posting satire because they felt the "anti-white racist terror" of a white guy. Poor victims. :lol:

At least blackjack21 openly admits that all he has left is to attempt to poorly misconstrue what people say.
#15020946
SolarCross wrote:I remember the days when terrorism was setting off explosives in a public place. Now apparently it is being less than perfectly adoring of the Democrat Party in a public place. How times change! I guess that is progress for you.


Said the guy who called the British Leader of the opposition a terrorist, for merely existing, just a couple of days ago.

While this is apparently a mere display of non-adoration:



As I said earlier hypocrisy has crossed the red-line.
#15020952
noemon wrote:Said the guy who called the British Leader of the opposition a terrorist, for merely existing, just a couple of days ago.

While this is apparently a mere display of non-adoration:



As I said earlier hypocrisy has crossed the red-line.


So I implied that Corbyn was a marxist. And elsewhere I said that marxism was all about inciting violence / terrorism. And you put the two together, fine.

The latter statement about marxism is 100% correct both in their rhetoric and in actual historical practice. As for the former statement Corbyn does have a bit of a marxist whiff about him and all the overt marxists here love him and why would they do that if he wasn't? He is best buddies with a bunch of overt terrorists too. But sure maybe he isn't, time will tell.
  • 1
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 25

December 6, Friday For two days Federals operat[…]

You’re a total savage Ter :lol:

Yes, I do find it ironic that the same people who[…]

The founders weren't afraid of Ukraine. They we[…]