Trump Tweets from a far Right Fascist organisation then insults the UK Prime Minister

[Gadarene]

No, I mean Americans reject thought crime as a general rule. The UK doesn't, and so you get people being arrested for saying stupid stuff on twitter, for sexism, for teaching their dogs to Heil Hitler as a moronic joke on YouTube, etc.

Lol, that’s cute. I cut my teeth on this debate when it was Christians censoring atheists - in the US.

 

[Rion]

Lol, that’s cute. I cut my teeth on this debate when it was Christians censoring atheists - in the US.

Yeah, I am sure that they have tried on a local level. National level, however, they are protected. People rightly complain about Americans being overly patriotic at times, but point out serious issues with someone else's country and watch the knee jerks fly.

 

[Gadarene]

Yeah, I am sure that they have tried on a local level. National level, however, they are protected.

A lot of the horror stories from here are usually regional police forces too, not national policy. Our problem is we tend to go with spirit of law, which drifts, and the letter of the law is occasionally vague.

Going full populist (never go full populist) isn’t a solution to this, however. Go full constitutionalist, perhaps.

People rightly complain about Americans being overly patriotic at times, but point out serious issues with someone else's country and watch the knee jerks fly.

No duh. Hence why Trump got told by May. Hence why it’s annoyed a lot of British people that he feels the need to meddle in things he doesn’t understand and refuses to be corrected.

Again, if May or some other leader retweeted your Nazi contingent, or let’s say antifa, they’d be opening themselves up for the same sort of criticism. How much whining would there be from Trump fans on that one? America isn’t exceptional in this regard. Fail to grasp the nuances, get called out.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

Ears to hear but never listening. Eyes to see but never understanding.

I explained it ad-nausium. Anyone attempting to make the inference you suggest above is either a complete idiot, utterly blinded by an almost perverse bias on the subject, or being intentionally obtuse.

I'm guessing the latter in most cases here.

No, you made an assertion. You offered no evidence that this is true, and personally, I think you make a ridiculous claim: ie. that somehow when you were young, non-whites were treated better by courts than whites.

Your parents refused to rent to non-whites. That make them racists. You and they have a justification for this behavior, which I think is completely nonsense so you don't have to face truth that they are racists. Now, do you have any evidence for this justification?

 

[Almost there]

No, you made an assertion. You offered no evidence that this is true, and personally, I think you make a ridiculous claim: ie. that somehow when you were young, non-whites were treated better by the courts than whites.

Your parents refused to rent to non-whites. That make them racists. You and they have a justification for this behavior, which I think is completely nonsense so you don't have to face truth that they are racists. Now, do you have any evidence for this justification?

Mkay. Have a nice day!

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

Mkay. Have a nice day!

So you have no evidence to support your claim that courts treated non-whites better than whites when you were young.

Who could have guessed this? Non-whites were treated so much better they are not allowed to drink from same fountain, had to sit at back of bus, had to complete tests just to vote, were segregated and not allowed to go to white schools, but according to you they are treated much better. And you can't find evidence. What a surprise.

 

[Almost there]

So you have no evidence to support your claim that courts treated non-whites better than whites when you were young.

Who could have guessed this? Non-whites were treated so much better they are not allowed to drink from same fountain, had to sit at back of bus, had to complete tests just to vote, were segregated and not allowed to go to white schools, but according to you they are treated much better. And you can't find evidence. What a surprise.

You really need to take trolling lessons from Trump, or at least pay better attention in class. You're doing it wrong.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

You really need to take trolling lessons from Trump, or at least pay better attention in class. You're doing it wrong.

No. I am doing correct.

When someone refuses to rent to non-whites they are being racists. Your parents refused to rent to non-whites. That means they were racists by the definition of racist:

rac·ist
ˈrāsəst/
noun
noun: racist; plural noun: racists
1.
a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

Your parents showed discrimination against non-whites by refusing to rent to them. Why will you not admit they were racists?

 

[Rion]

A lot of the horror stories from here are usually regional police forces too, not national policy. Our problem is we tend to go with spirit of law, which drifts, and the letter of the law is occasionally vague.

Going full populist (never go full populist) isn’t a solution to this, however. Go full constitutionalist, perhaps.



No duh. Hence why Trump got told by May. Hence why it’s annoyed a lot of British people that he feels the need to meddle in things he doesn’t understand and refuses to be corrected.

Again, if May or some other leader retweeted your Nazi contingent, or let’s say antifa, they’d be opening themselves up for the same sort of criticism. How much whining would there be from Trump fans on that one? America isn’t exceptional in this regard. Fail to grasp the nuances, get called out.

A lot of the horror stories from here are usually regional police forces too, not national policy. Our problem is we tend to go with spirit of law, which drifts, and the letter of the law is occasionally vague.

Going full populist (never go full populist) isn’t a solution to this, however. Go full constitutionalist, perhaps.



No duh. Hence why Trump got told by May. Hence why it’s annoyed a lot of British people that he feels the need to meddle in things he doesn’t understand and refuses to be corrected.

Again, if May or some other leader retweeted your Nazi contingent, or let’s say antifa, they’d be opening themselves up for the same sort of criticism. How much whining would there be from Trump fans on that one? America isn’t exceptional in this regard. Fail to grasp the nuances, get called out.

Oh, you can call them out all day long. Just save a little for your party's version of Trump.

Why the Rise of Corbyn's Labour Party Should Worry the West

 

[Gadarene]

Oh, you can call them out all day long. Just save a little for your party's version of Trump.

Why the Rise of Corbyn's Labour Party Should Worry the West

Ha, get in line, if anyone here is going to be trying to convince them he’s our version of Trump it’ll be me

 

[iluvatar5150]

No, they didn't. They just had the appearance of such. Believe it or not, but Trump has been less destructive to the our Constitution than the last two. He is just loud and obnoxious when he does it. I am out of the office today, but I will find my post tomorrow where I highlight it. Keep in mind, I don't care for Trump, but I hold no delusions about the last two because they could dress up their agendas in polite words.

IIRC, your earlier post on this topic was directed to me and, FWIW, I have been meaning to get back to it. But things have been busy around here and posts that take more work than my usual drive-by sniping tend to gets lost in the shuffle.

Regardless... Assuming for the sake of argument that Trump actually has been less destructive than either of those two, do you think his lack of destructiveness is due to his honest honoring of the Constitution or do you think it's primarily due to his general ineptness?

Personally, I'ma go with Door #2. I think Trump would take a dump on all sorts of constitutional provisions given the opportunity and the administrative skill to pull it off.

 

[Rion]

IIRC, your earlier post on this topic was directed to me and, FWIW, I have been meaning to get back to it. But things have been busy around here and posts that take more work than my usual drive-by sniping tend to gets lost in the shuffle.

Regardless... Assuming for the sake of argument that Trump actually has been less destructive than either of those two, do you think his lack of destructiveness is due to his honest honoring of the Constitution or do you think it's primarily due to his general ineptness?

Personally, I'ma go with Door #2. I think Trump would take a dump on all sorts of constitutional provisions given the opportunity and the administrative skill to pull it off.

I think a lot of it has to do with what he cares about/focuses on.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I think a lot of it has to do with what he cares about/focuses on.

It's pretty obvious what he cares about, and more significantly, what he doesn't care about.

Do you think that, if he were more effective and/or less constrained by those around him, he wouldn't hesitate to:

Restrict the ability of NFL players to kneel in protest
Unleash law enforcement to broadly implement stop-and-frisk tactics
More openly/clearly target Muslims in security policies
Allow his subordinates to ignore the emoluments clause

IIRC, you mentioned something about drone strikes in your earlier post, specifically Obama's targeting of an American citizen abroad without due process. AFAIK, Trump hasn't yet taken this step, and about a year ago, Sean Spicer said that the Trump administration wouldn't do that, but given their intent to loosen Obama's restrictions on drone attacks, it doesn't take much imagination to see us returning to that eventually.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Judge a tree by its fruit.

This thread is about Trump sharing ethnocentric lies from modern-day Nazis. I know rotten fruit when I see it.

 

[Rion]

It's pretty obvious what he cares about, and more significantly, what he doesn't care about.

I mean that if he doesn't care about it, he pretty much ignores it, leaving it be.

Restrict the ability of NFL players to kneel in protest
Unleash law enforcement to broadly implement stop-and-frisk tactics
More openly/clearly target Muslims in security policies
Allow his subordinates to ignore the emoluments clause

You should probably stop reading Salon.

IIRC, you mentioned something about drone strikes in your earlier post, specifically Obama's targeting of an American citizen abroad without due process. AFAIK, Trump hasn't yet taken this step, and about a year ago, Sean Spicer said that the Trump administration wouldn't do that, but given their intent to loosen Obama's restrictions on drone attacks, it doesn't take much imagination to see us returning to that eventually.

Not exactly. He just gave the program to the CIA, so if they ever target Americans, we'll probably never know about it. The amount of deaths from drone strikes has apparently surged under Trump, but since it is being perpetrated by the CIA, and the left has decided that the CIA are the good guys now, no one mentions it.

 

[Gadarene]

It's pretty obvious what he cares about, and more significantly, what he doesn't care about.

Do you think that, if he were more effective and/or less constrained by those around him, he wouldn't hesitate to:

Restrict the ability of NFL players to kneel in protest
Unleash law enforcement to broadly implement stop-and-frisk tactics
More openly/clearly target Muslims in security policies
Allow his subordinates to ignore the emoluments clause

And this is before we get on to what he would like to do to the press.

IIRC, you mentioned something about drone strikes in your earlier post, specifically Obama's targeting of an American citizen abroad without due process. AFAIK, Trump hasn't yet taken this step, and about a year ago, Sean Spicer said that the Trump administration wouldn't do that, but given their intent to loosen Obama's restrictions on drone attacks, it doesn't take much imagination to see us returning to that eventually.

Given his populist tendencies, cue some rhetoric about “not ‘real’ Americans” when that does eventually happen.

 

[Gadarene]

Not exactly. He just gave the program to the CIA, so if they ever target Americans, we'll probably never know about it. The amount of deaths from drone strikes has apparently surged under Trump, but since it is being perpetrated by the CIA, and the left has decided that the CIA are the good guys now, no one mentions it.

I’m happy to blame Trump for handing it over to them if you want?

 

[Rion]

I’m happy to blame Trump for handing it over to them if you want?

Oh, I blame him as well. It's just that the stupidity of the media over here is ignoring something this bad because they 'like' the CIA now annoys me.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Oh, I blame him as well. It's just that the stupidity of the media over here is ignoring something this bad because they 'like' the CIA now annoys me.

Hey, something on which we agree. I was kind of blindsided by this whole flip-flop on the CIA and the "Deep State", too. A few years ago when W & Co were using the CIA to waterboard Al Qaeda, the right thought these guys were heroes and the left thought they were monsters who couldn't find a legit terrorist if one hit them in the face with a suicide belt. But now that Trump doesn't trust the CIA and the spooks are leaking transcripts to the press, everything's backwards.

 

[Gadarene]

Hey, something on which we agree. I was kind of blindsided by this whole flip-flop on the CIA and the "Deep State", too. A few years ago when W & Co were using the CIA to waterboard Al Qaeda, the right thought these guys were heroes and the left thought they were monsters who couldn't find a legit terrorist if one hit them in the face with a suicide belt. But now that Trump doesn't trust the CIA and the spooks are leaking transcripts to the press, everything's backwards.

I don’t see why people wouldn’t be interested in bringing this up seeing as Trump signed off on it, not least because he hates the intelligence services and whined about interventionism. It’s hypocritical as well as continuing what Obama did (and given his ego on that one, you’d think he’d stop droning people if only because Obama did it plenty).

Perhaps Trump is too much of a lolcow to focus on literally every screw-up he makes?