Former President Trump Thread

[@Li3n]

No. When the word Genocide was coined it was to describe what the Nazis did to the Jews and the Ottoman Empire did to the Armenians. Pretty much every scholar who studies Genocides is in agreement that this qualifies.

And the word King didn't exist in 300 BC, because there was no english.

But i don't seem to find anything about the Armenian Genocide that would put it in the same bracket as actually running an industrial assembly line of gas chambers and incinerators just to kill certain ethnicities and other groups of people they didn't' like.

Also, why does everyone forget the gypsies, homosexuals and disabled? I mean i guess the slavs at least where usually murdered on the field, so that gets a pass.

Yeah, "he" ended it.

The entire 16 member Policy council unanimously resigned.

Impeached? You can't impeach me, I QUIT!!!!

 

[mikerc]

And the word King didn't exist in 300 BC, because there was no english.

But i don't seem to find anything about the Armenian Genocide that would put it in the same bracket as actually running an industrial assembly line of gas chambers and incinerators just to kill certain ethnicities and other groups of people they didn't' like.

Also, why does everyone forget the gypsies, homosexuals and disabled? I mean i guess the slavs at least where usually murdered on the field, so that gets a pass.



Impeached? You can't impeach me, I QUIT!!!!

Yeah, but when a new word is coined and the people coining it point to a specific event & say "this is an example of what the word means" then it is pretty much the dictionary definition of that word.

As for not being as bad as the Nazis I would point out that most sources put the number of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire prior to the Genocide at 2 million. And the number of deaths at 1.5 million. Many of whom were killed in a forced march without food or water through the Mesopotamian Desert and were shot if they stopped to rest. So yes I think an argument can be made that this is at least comparable to the Nazis. Or failing that, that is possible to be both "not as bad as the Nazis" and "still Genocide".

 

[@Li3n]

Many of whom were killed in a forced march without food or water through the Mesopotamian Desert

Hence the Trail of Tears comparison.

So yes I think an argument can be made that this is at least comparable to the Nazis.

Or failing that, that is possible to be both "not as bad as the Nazis" and "still Genocide".

Wait, did you think i was saying it wasn't a genocide? I'm a brain on a tripod, not an Erdogan fanboy...

And i was talking more about the methodology then the numbers. The Nazis basically ran a assembly line of genocide (and that was because apparently even people who sign up for SS kill squads get PTSD after shooting a lot of people while they're crying etc).

 

[GasBandit]

So do tell, where where those right-leaning moderates in 2012? You know, back when Obama was implementing his SJW / affirmative action agenda?

Voting for Obama because the agenda felt warm and fuzzy, and if you didn't you were a racist, obvs.

Yeah, i'm missing the point of a poll that uses liberal vs. conservative, instead of Dem vs Rep.

Not having an actual liberal party doesn't mean there are no actual liberals around.

Bernie was an independent that ran as a Democrat because there is no other option, not because he wasn't already a leftist.

You're trying to compare apples to oranges. The poll was american, the terms are used in the american context, and the parties are american. When Americans answer a poll that asks them if they consider themselves "liberals or conservatives," they don't think "well, what would a tiresome Romanian who mostly argues semantics instead of substance consider my political stance to be?"

I like how you use that as an example of moderates not voting, as if Bernie Bro where not the most liberal / left wing people in your country. I mean being "extreme" was how everyone that wasn't on his side characterized him.

I mean seriously, if the moderates where for the most leftist candidate while the self described liberals where not would make US politics even more anomalous. "I'm a moderate, give me universal healthcare and socialism pls."

It wasn't that they couldn't vote for him, it was the manner in which he was eliminated that alienated potential voters among the "undecideds."

Heck, if their primary had gone to Bernie instead of Hillary, I'd even feel a little tug myself of an inkling to have voted for him to "stop Trump," despite disagreeing with just about every single one of his positions - and the same can definitely not be said for Hillary. He was a genuine "Mr Smith" who went to Washington, if that reference is not lost on you, and that alone would have made him a preferable alternative to the corrupt incompetent we have now.

 

[Dave]

I only voted for Hillary to try and prevent Trump, not because she was a good candidate.

And I think you meant disagreeing with Bernie, didn't you? Or have we turned you to the light side and away from the dark?

 

[@Li3n]

Voting for Obama because the agenda felt warm and fuzzy, and if you didn't you were a racist, obvs.

So SJW-ing worked for Obama, but not for any other democrats (since ur arguing the issue was with that, and not Hillary herself)...

You're trying to compare apples to oranges. The poll was american, the terms are used in the american context, and the parties are american. When Americans answer a poll that asks them if they consider themselves "liberals or conservatives," they don't think "well, what would a tiresome Romanian who mostly argues semantics instead of substance consider my political stance to be?"

I know that as a fanboy it's hard, but not everyone in your country (i hope) see the 2 parties as Liberal and Conservative. Some people do vote 3rd party.

I mean neither Don't Ask, Don't Tell, or the ACA where the liberal options at the time, where they (Dems ran on eliminating the ban, and healthcare for all). They where "compromises", and yet for the ACA only the Dems voted for it anyway, meaning that the actual liberal position was not tenable within the party itself.

You can have a party represent the left without it being actually liberal, if you have a two party system... actually kind of the whole point of having a 2 party system... controlling what the "centre" is.

It wasn't that they couldn't vote for him, it was the manner in which he was eliminated that alienated potential voters among the "undecideds."

Heck, if their primary had gone to Bernie instead of Hillary, I'd even feel a little tug myself of an inkling to have voted for him to "stop Trump," despite agreeing with just about every single one of his positions - and the same can definitely not be said for Hillary. He was a genuine "Mr Smith" who went to Washington, if that reference is not lost on you, and that alone would have made him a preferable alternative to the corrupt incompetent we have now.

So it was all about Bernie being eliminated because black people trusted the Clinton brand more?

Or was it because the DNC clearly had a favourite (so weird how they didn't want the independent that just joined the party for that one election)?

Notice how none of those had anything to do with SJWs? If anything the SJW where more about the Bern then anyone.

 

[Hailey Knight]

ayy lmao

The media is just saying they resigned as another unfair attack on poor little Trump.

 

[GasBandit]

And I think you meant disagreeing with Bernie, didn't you? Or have we turned you to the light side and away from the dark?

Yeah, oops, typo.

So SJW-ing worked for Obama, but not for any other democrats (since ur arguing the issue was with that, and not Hillary herself)...

Not quite. White guilt worked for Obama. Not so much for Hillary - Wall Street's favorite senator didn't have the cred for the struggle AND had the corruption thing working against her. Plus, the SJW tone and intensity changed a lot over the years and grew more repellent to the undecideds.

I know that as a fanboy it's hard, but not everyone in your country (i hope) see the 2 parties as Liberal and Conservative. Some people do vote 3rd party.

I *am* one of those third party voters. I'm a libertarian. And I often grouse about how the republicans aren't actually conservative. But I am not the mainstream. Despite your hopes, the vast majority of Americans-on-the-street just consider there to be a direct correlation between the ideologies and the two major parties.

I mean neither Don't Ask, Don't Tell, or the ACA where the liberal options at the time, where they (Dems ran on eliminating the ban, and healthcare for all). They where "compromises", and yet for the ACA only the Dems voted for it anyway, meaning that the actual liberal position was not tenable within the party itself.

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble parsing this bit here... can you rephrase it? I think you're trying to say that the Dems "moderated" their platform and actions because they didn't think they could actually pull it off, which is true - but it doesn't change the fact that the "actual liberal position" is what they want. The problem is not "within the party itself," but what they think the electorate in general will stomach. Obama himself often said that the ACA was really only meant to be a stepping stone to single-payer, because the American public would never accept socialized medicine in one step. So they had to get there in baby steps. It's the same as how they approach banning guns - they know they don't have the public support to outright ban private firearm ownership (which would require a constitutional amendment, or the repealing of one), so instead they try to chip away at it with bans of specific (if sometimes nebulously defined) weapon groups or features.

 

[Krisken]

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble parsing this bit here... can you rephrase it? I think you're trying to say that the Dems "moderated" their platform and actions because they didn't think they could actually pull it off, which is true - but it doesn't change the fact that the "actual liberal position" is what they want. The problem is not "within the party itself," but what they think the electorate in general will stomach. Obama himself often said that the ACA was really only meant to be a stepping stone to single-payer, because the American public would never accept socialized medicine in one step. So they had to get there in baby steps. It's the same as how they approach banning guns - they know they don't have the public support to outright ban private firearm ownership (which would require a constitutional amendment, or the repealing of one), so instead they try to chip away at it with bans of specific (if sometimes nebulously defined) weapon groups or features.

LOL, that you are equating two totally separate issues is amazing. How you can take "We'd like to make a stepping stone to universal healthcare" to also mean "We want all your gunz LOL" is fantastic. Thank you for this, I did get a good laugh tonight.

 

[Denbrought]

LOL, that you are equating two totally separate issues is amazing. How you can take "We'd like to make a stepping stone to universal healthcare" to also mean "We want all your gunz LOL" is fantastic. Thank you for this, I did get a good laugh tonight.

In both issues, Democrats have approached them in an 'incremental progress' way ('boiling frog' if you're feeling less charitable). I want universal healthcare and gun control, for the record, but I see the parallels.

 

[GasBandit]

What Den said. It'd take a whole lot of Kool Aid to not be able to taste what's been cooking for decades.

 

[Krisken]

In both issues, Democrats have approached them in an 'incremental progress' way ('boiling frog' if you're feeling less charitable). I want universal healthcare and gun control, for the record, but I see the parallels.

Just because it has similar parallels doesn't mean it isn't conflating the issue. For one thing, Obama didn't say "Banning x type weapon in cities will be the first step to being a gun free nation" or anything like that. In fact, very few people in the US even advocate for such a thing. But what the hell, lets all just go along with the nonsense. You're right, improved healthcare for everyone is absolutely on par with 'lets not let that guy over there who is schizophrenic carry a firearm wherever he wants'.

Next will come the tin foil hats.

 

[GasBandit]

Just because it has similar parallels doesn't mean it isn't conflating the issue. For one thing, Obama didn't say "Banning x type weapon in cities will be the first step to being a gun free nation" or anything like that. In fact, very few people in the US even advocate for such a thing. But what the hell, lets all just go along with the nonsense. You're right, improved healthcare for everyone is absolutely on par with 'lets not let that guy over there who is schizophrenic carry a firearm wherever he wants'.

Next will come the tin foil hats.

... he said, pretending that a week goes by without constant clamoring from the left to ban guns.

 

[Null]

... he said, pretending that a day went by without a mass shooting.

 

[Krisken]

... he said, pretending that a week goes by without constant clamoring from the left to ban guns.

Yeah, that isn't representative of 'the left' any more than these Nazi pricks are of 'the right'. But keep peddling that nonsense if you want. Not sure who is buying it though.

 

[HCGLNS]

I wonder what Mueller did today?

 

[GasBandit]

... he said, pretending that a day went by without a mass shooting.

That sounds like an attempt at justification, not a denial.

Yeah, that isn't representative of 'the left' any more than these Nazi pricks are of 'the right'. But keep peddling that nonsense if you want. Not sure who is buying it though.

CNN sure is.
And the LA Times.
And the millions of liberals who form their opinions entirely based upon what they read on DailyKOS.

There's a lot more mainstream echoing of this sentiment than the Nazi pricks could ever hope for in their wildest dreams.

 

[Krisken]

That sounds like an attempt at justification, not a denial.


CNN sure is.
And the LA Times.
And the millions of liberals who form their opinions entirely based upon what they read on DailyKOS.

There's a lot more mainstream echoing of this sentiment than the Nazi pricks could ever hope for in their wildest dreams.

No, just using your own rules for justification. LOL, Millions of liberals on Daily Kos. Ok, have fun with that.

 

[Dave]

Oh this is AMAZING! There's a gif this guy posted showing how many guns he had at the rally. He's bragging about how they are not non-violent and that people better watch out.

Here's the same guy today after finding out he's got a warrant for his arrest. Pro-tip: The big tough nazi is crying like a little bitch.

 

[GasBandit]

No, just using your own rules for justification. LOL, Millions of liberals on Daily Kos. Ok, have fun with that.

7.8 million uniques in the last 30 days. Though, probably not all of that is from the United States. 7 million, at best.

 

[Null]

Okay, I'll have to give GB that one. I don't support full weapon bans, though I think there should be universal requirements for acquiring weapons - licensing, insurance, instruction, background check.

My point was that it's not like the call for it is coming out of nowhere.

For those not keeping score, here are the mass shootings from the last week via Mass Shooting Tracker. The criteria of a mass shooting is an incident with 4 or more killed or wounded, including the shooter.

First column: # mass shooting for the year.
Second column: date
Third column: where
Fourth Column: killed
Fifth Column: wounded
Sixth Column: identity of shooter (if made public)
283 08/14/2017 Los Angeles (Hollywood), CA 2 2
Unknown

282 08/13/2017 Sacramento, CA 0 4
Unknown

281 08/13/2017 Suffolk, VA 0 4
Unknown

280 08/13/2017 Philadelphia (Mantua), PA 0 5
Unknown

279 08/13/2017 San Jose, CA 0 5
Unknown

278 08/12/2017 St. Louis Co., MO 1 3
Unknown

277 08/08/2017 Chicago (Bronzeville), IL 1 6
Unknown

 

[GasBandit]

Okay, I'll have to give GB that one. I don't support full weapon bans, though I think there should be universal requirements for acquiring weapons - licensing, insurance, instruction, background check.

My point was that it's not like the call for it is coming out of nowhere.

That is indeed correct. Those who espouse it definitely do not pull the opinion out of nowhere.

Though, as always, I still think the criteria for calling something a "mass" shooting is really low. If 4 people walk down a street throwing bricks into store windows, is it a mass riot?

 

[Dei]

That is indeed correct. Those who espouse it definitely do not pull the opinion out of nowhere.

Though, as always, I still think the criteria for calling something a "mass" shooting is really low. If 4 people walk down a street throwing bricks into store windows, is it a mass riot?

I don't think it matters how many people it is. That feels like a strawman argument.

 

[Null]

Well, Gas, the number isn't any different from the FBI definition, only that the FBI statistics only count mass shooting that are 4 or more people killed, not counting the shooter. The number of wounded is not considered.

So if a mass shooting happens, and 10 people are shot but none die, is it a mass shooting? By mass shooting tracker standards, yes, by FBI standards, no.

 

[GasBandit]

I don't think it matters how many people it is. That feels like a strawman argument.

It matters because it sets the narrative tone for discussion of the incident and the issues. It allows the argument to be made that a "mass shooting" happens every day, which is specifically meant to conjure up images of actual mass shootings like Columbine, Sandy Hook, or the Aurora movie theater shootings. It's specifically formulated to cause an automatic appeal to emotion in the mind of everyone who hears it, without actually utilizing the fallacy out loud.[DOUBLEPOST=1502929561,1502929428][/DOUBLEPOST]

Well, Gas, the number isn't any different from the FBI definition, only that the FBI statistics only count mass shooting that are 4 or more people killed, not counting the shooter. The number of wounded is not considered.

So if a mass shooting happens, and 10 people are shot but none die, is it a mass shooting? By mass shooting tracker standards, yes, by FBI standards, no.

Trying to pin down exactly what number makes it "massive" is tricky and subjective, I'll give you that.

 

[DarkAudit]

It matters because it sets the narrative tone for discussion of the incident and the issues. It allows the argument to be made that a "mass shooting" happens every day, which is specifically meant to conjure up images of actual mass shootings like Columbine, Sandy Hook, or the Aurora movie theater shootings. It's specifically formulated to cause an automatic appeal to emotion in the mind of everyone who hears it, without actually utilizing the fallacy out loud.

And we've already got a thread where we've debated the definition to death and back and back and back.

 

[GasBandit]

And we've already got a thread where we've debated the definition to death and back and back and back.

This is true. We kinda veered off the topic here.

 

[DarkAudit]

This is true. We kinda veered off the topic here.

I'm busy with redhead anime boobies, so...

(insert "take this thread to luton" macro here)

 

[mikerc]

This is true. We kinda veered off the topic here.

Hi. Welcome to Halforums.

 

[PatrThom]

Trying to pin down exactly what number makes it "massive" is tricky and subjective, I'll give you that.

Yes, that's the Sorites paradox at work.

--Patrick

 

[Gared]

And today, when asked about Trump's comments and Charlottesville, Pence had to say... "I stand with the President." So no, this shocking reveal of his complete and utter lack of integrity and the fact that he identifies as a member of the alt-right is not going to be some magical panacea to make the GOP stop supporting Trump.

 

[Krisken]

7.8 million uniques in the last 30 days. Though, probably not all of that is from the United States. 7 million, at best.

That seems pretty crazy. I admit to being surprised by that. However, I don't think having 7 million unique views equates to millions saying to ban all guns.

 

[Frank]

Literally. One. Thing.

 

[PatrThom]

Literally. One. Thing.

...lose the toupée?

--Patrick

 

[Hailey Knight]