Jump to content

Master Trump Thread


LeChat
Message added by LeChat,

Hi, everyone.

 

I'm just helping chime in, here, doing my Admod duty as the cover Admod for the PPS forum of helping make sure members' discussions remain fair and respectful for everyone.

 

As the TOS and PPS forum rules' threads mention, please, remember that members are allowed to disagree, respectfully, without getting into personal, negative judgments or insults about other members.

 

If it helps, they have some tips and/or advice on how to disagree with other members, respectfully.

 

Thank you!

 

LeChat,

Welcome Lounge, Announcements, and Alternate Language moderator

(covering the PPS forum)

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Knight of Cydonia said:

It's not like almost everyone else watching the eclipse today probably took a peek without eclipse glasses on... I'm no Trump fan but I don't get the point of making fun of him for this of all things. There are plenty of pictures of him clearly wearing glasses and he only glanced for a second.

Even I glanced at it without glasses, because I was curious to know if it started yet. Its not going to fry your eyeballs instantly anymore than any other day. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Knight of Cydonia
58 minutes ago, Yato said:

Even I glanced at it without glasses, because I was curious to know if it started yet. Its not going to fry your eyeballs instantly anymore than any other day. 

Yeah when people tell you not to look at the Sun, they mean for extended periods of time. More than 10 seconds is a problem, but a couple seconds isn't going to do any damage. I took a quick glimpse myself out of curiousity to see if I could notice anything different.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a bit distressing

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/14/donald-trump-inauguration-protest-website-search-warrant-dreamhost

 

So according to this, they want ip addresses of the 1.3 million people who visited an anti trump website.

 

The thing it was shared by to me was a petition to protest but I'm kind of scared of signing the petition if they then go looking for IP addresses of people signing petitions against trump

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, iff said:

This is a bit distressing

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/14/donald-trump-inauguration-protest-website-search-warrant-dreamhost

 

So according to this, they want ip addresses of the 1.3 million people who visited an anti trump website.

 

The thing it was shared by to me was a petition to protest but I'm kind of scared of signing the petition if they then go looking for IP addresses of people signing petitions against trump

People track things like IP all the time.

 

Antifa has been using it as well, and since they were labeled as a terrorist organization. It is no surprise that central intelligence would be looking into it. This is in no way "targeting", its once again a misdirection from a media source trying to make everyday things out to be a big deal. Besides, if you got nothing to hide... why worry? /s

 

You literally have no privacy, if you use google. FYI. The government already has a huge profile on you, and what you do, and what you believe. This article is doing nothing but pointing out what has been truth for a long time. It is far worse in the UK, than it is in the USA. But thanks to Obama's NSA expansion, and abuse. So many things have lost its privacy and everything is tracked. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Karacoreable

I hold governments to a higher standard than business/activist groups. Certainly businesses are only out to make money, that's just capitalism, and they couldn't care less about privacy as a result. Governments should be better. I realise they aren't in reality, just saying I think they should be.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis

So Trump just pardoned Arpaio. I suppose racists have to stick together.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis
2 hours ago, CaptainYesterday said:

Would you have stopped calling him a racist if he didn't?

No.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis
2 minutes ago, CaptainYesterday said:

There's hardly any motivation for him to listen to your opinions, then, right?

Me not calling him racist wouldn't suddenly make him start listening to me, you know :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis
2 hours ago, CaptainYesterday said:

No, but it isn't helping, and it isn't getting you anywhere.  

It isn't hindering me either. I base what I say on what I believe - not on whether I think it'll "help" me or not. 

 

2 hours ago, CaptainYesterday said:

Try to see things from his or one of his supporter's eyes.

Not quite sure why I'd want to see things from a racist's eyes, but okay then.

 

2 hours ago, CaptainYesterday said:

No, but it isn't helping, and it isn't getting you anywhere.  

 

In this case, I would say look back to what I assume was your approval of Sally Yates' refusal to listen to orders to enforce Trump's travel ban, for which she was fired.  There you have a person bucking authority to do what she thought was right.  She was labeled as a hero because the media agrees with her reasons for not following orders.

 

Now, I am not 100% caught up on the Arpaio story, but from what I understand, it's a somewhat similar case.  He ignored a judge's orders to stop certain measures he had put in place to catch illegal immigrants, for which he was indicted.  There you also have a person bucking authority to do what he thought was right.  Now, the media would obviously not label him a hero because they disagree with his reasons for not following orders.

There's a fundamental difference between the Yates case and the Arpaio case that you're missing here. Yes, they both bucked authority, but Yates bucked authority in order to resist bigotry. Arpaio bucked authority in order to perpetrate bigotry.

 

2 hours ago, CaptainYesterday said:

Back to Sally Yates.  Imagine that all of that happened at the end of Trump's presidency.  Say in his last few days he fires her, but then he is succeeded by a Democrat who reinstates her.  Would that similarly be presidential overreach?

No, of course that's not presidential overreach. The President of the United States can appoint whoever they want to their Cabinet. Whether previous presidents agree with that decision or not is irrelevant.

 

2 hours ago, CaptainYesterday said:

What about Obama pardoning Chelsea Manning?  Was that overreach?

Well first of all, Obama didn't pardon Manning. I wish he did. He simply commuted her sentence. Second of all, the problem I see here is that you're trying to refute an argument I didn't make. I never claimed that Trump's pardon of Arpaio was "presidential overreach" - perhaps some people have argued that, but I haven't. My argument is simply that it's a morally bankrupt decision. Arpaio was convicted of racial profiling. As sheriff he arrested journalists, failed to investigate over 400 sex crimes, denied medicine to a diabetic inmate (causing her death), and referred to his jail as a "concentration camp". Forgive me for thinking that this isn't the type of person we should be granting clemency to. 

 

2 hours ago, CaptainYesterday said:

The fact of the matter is Trump and people who support him simply have a difference of opinion on what the major issues are. 

Our "difference of opinion" is that I think racism is unacceptable. Trump and his supporters do not.

 

2 hours ago, CaptainYesterday said:

they feel that pardoning Arpaio was correct because he also was justified in ignoring the judge's order.

If you feel that Arpaio was "justified" in ignoring the judge's order to stop racial profiling, you're a racist piece of shit and a downright detestable human being. I'm aware that may not be the most civil thing to say, but I don't think that racists deserve to be treated civilly.

 

(generic you btw, not referring to you personally)

 

2 hours ago, CaptainYesterday said:

You feel that what Arpaio did was wrong, and they feel that what Manning did was wrong.

Stop with this false equivalence between Arpaio and Manning. Manning exposed war crimes. Arpaio engaged in racial profiling. Not comparable at all. Not only that, but Manning actually had to face the consequences for her actions (served seven years in prison, was tortured, attempted twice to commit suicide because of this) whereas Arpaio got off completely scot-free. Not even a day in prison, and his actions were far worse than Manning's. Utterly disgraceful.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis
1 hour ago, CaptainYesterday said:

Clearly you're not willing to engage with people who disagree with you

I engage with people that disagree with me virtually everyday, the vast majority of time civilly. Clearly you don't know much about me (either that or you're just being deliberately disingenuous).

 

1 hour ago, CaptainYesterday said:

Shouting "racist" at anyone who supports Trump, while being unwilling to listen to their opinions (which I have attempted to explain to you as I understand them), will not get you anywhere except deeper into your own echo chamber.

You can accuse me of living in an echo chamber all you want, but the fact of the matter is that I addressed every single one of the points you made, whereas you dismissed virtually all of mine simply because I dared to call Trump's supporters racist. Clearly you don't take your own advice of "try seeing it from the other side's point of view" because if you did you would've actually tried to understand why I feel that Trump and his supporters are racist rather than just pretending that's what I say about everyone I disagree with.

 

P.S.

 

I find this to be rather rich coming from the person that calls virtually everything under the sun misandry.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Terrible Travis
31 minutes ago, CaptainYesterday said:

The point was to get you to not jump to "racist" right off the bat.  It doesn't matter if you addressed all of my points if you still view everything through the "everyone I disagree with is racist" lens.

Saying that Trump supporters are racist ≠ Saying that everyone I disagree with is racist

 

31 minutes ago, CaptainYesterday said:

The things I call misandry are fairly obvious.  Like "kill all men."  If you have a clip of Trump saying "kill all Hispanics," then you might have a point.

Trump literally pardoned someone convicted for racially profiling Latinos. You're grasping at straws here.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Profiling is unavoidable in any law enforcement or security job. Different races also commit different types of crime, more than another race. Which makes profiling part of the job.

 

What profiling is, is essentially noticing patterns in behavior, clothing, physical movement etc. You learn these as you gain more experience in your job. Eventually resulting in being able to spot it anywhere.

 

If specific patterns match a specific race, it's not the fault of an officer. They are doing their job of preemptively noticing crime before it can happen. While I do not doubt there are true racists out there, but I don't thinj they are as common as people assume.

 

It's not inherantly due to race either, but due to criminals dressing and acting a specific way, that anyone who dresses and acts like them will also be targeted. If you wore a suit and tie everywhere, literally no one would ever suspect you of anything.

 

I used to work security, and I had began profiling people. It had nothing to do with race, and it was clothing and behavior 100% of the time, that I would notice. If a group of kids showed up with pants down to their knees and went up to the top floor. 9.9/10 times they went up there to smoke weed while waiting for the bus. If you're a dirty guy, with torn clothes following a woman up the stairs, I'm going to suspect you of begging, or worse, rape. Which I actually prevented once due to this profile. (woman was being harassed by two druggies, while she had her kids)

 

If you are going to prevent crime, you have to catch it before it happens, not afterwards because you were afraid of offending someone.

 

I don't know the story behind the guy being pardoned. But if he was accused of being racist by racial profiling, then he should be pardoned. They don't tell you on the news that police etc learn to profile in the academy. If they don't profile, they can die.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kelpie said:

He didn't "just" profile them, he let many Latino people die in what he called concentration camps. 

He was only charged with contempt of court... that really isn't a big deal. If he was doing all these horrible things, they would have got him on other things instead of just contempt of court. I don't care what he called them, if at all. Words are not actions. I call my cleaning solution at work "Final solution" because its called "Final inspection" and is a cleaning solution. Doesn't mean I think the Final solution is good. His little outside tent prisons probably looked like Concentration camps, doesn't mean they were. Doesn't mean he treated them badly there either. (Because once again, he would have been charged)

 

From how I understand it, is that he was asked to stop targeting Latino's in his traffic stops...in Arizona... where the population of Latinos make up a good portion. Where illegal activity is very high, along with cartel activity. That is like telling him to stop doing his job. The court was in the wrong for even making that ridiculous order. Judges are not suppose to be activists, and that is what this judge most likely was doing instead of being impartial and enforcing the law. Illegal aliens are breaking the law just by being there. The judge should have told him good job for enforcing the fucking law.

 

Joe also denied all accusations of racism, and probably was not doing anything wrong. There is zero evidence. Also, he was denied his 6th amendment right for trial by jury... which is insanely wrong on the court's part, and a violation of his rights. The claims that he is racist is also false, since he has more employed Hispanic officers than any other department in the state, and has promoted more Hispanic officers to command positions than any other in the state. 

 

I really don't see why there is a fuss over this. It is just CNN doing its witch hunting bullshit again. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump keeps losing supporters.

 

When it comes to illegal immigration, I'm all for deportation. Illegals have been cutting in line, insisting on Spanish everywhere, and most of them have been involved in crime. Then again, I am not singling out Hispanics as illegals. Anyone from any place who came here to stay without government permission to do so is an illegal in my mind, regardless if they're from Mexico or France.

 

But Trump is a racist, hands down. He literally admitted that there were "fine people" on both sides. What kind of rambunctious yahoo would call members of the KKK as "fine"? You don't even need CNN or NBC to see that crap. He said it himself. If you still insist that he isn't racist, take a look at his Twitter. He said racist remarks countless times before.

 

"Fake news" isn't claiming Trump as a racist. It's factually showing it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm waiting for his "beyond diplomacy" action towards North Korea with interest. 

I doubt (hope) it won't involve much more than posturing, and maybe moving PacFltWest nearer to South Korea. Putting an Aegis (or their successor) anti-missile cruiser in the Sea of Japan is practical, and being purely defensive, shouldn't upset China or Russia too much 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
straightouttamordor

The Deep State controls both sides of the coin. No matter who wins they win. George Soros probably paid the bus fare and rent a mob fees for Antifa and the Alt-Right and made sure they could both march at the same time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I KNOW for a fact a person with ADHD, ASD or ANY thing that impairs your judgement in the field of combat makes you a liability in combat.... Your "potential" comrades would be worrying more about your safety instead of doing their job, which is neutralizing threats ANYWHERE they are needed.

 

How do I know? I was planning on enlisting into the Navy in my HS days after I graduated, but the recruiter told me people with disabilities that impair judgement shouldn't serve due to the reasons I stated. He was nice, but the truths the truth.

 

FTR, I HATE the term ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) because it groups people like me, an Aspie, with one of SEVERE autism.... We Aspies are VERY different from that, and grouping us together for convenience is VERY degrading to us with mild autism like me.

 

Anyway, back on track....

 

If you were in a soldier's boots, would you want to neutralize the threat? Or having to look out for someone who CLEARLY isn't capable to fight due to impairment cause by surgery, hormonal therapy, mental distress, and the like which could end up with you NOT just having your life being in constant danger, not only from any outbursts from the mentally distressed or being distracted, but your squad's?

 

Also FYI, the above was the same scenario the recruiter gave me. Hence why I never joined.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Opps... I wasn't paying attention to the page number... Sorry in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Serious question. Whilst seismology of an underground nuclear explosion can be faked, the release of radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere cannot be disguised. Should it be proven that North Korea has detonated an atomic device, combined with their proven capability to launch a missile which can overfly Japan, do we feel that Trump will either call for the United Nations to support military action against them, get the USA to act on their own, or let things be? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2017 at 5:49 PM, Achromatic Kitty said:

FTR, I HATE the term ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) because it groups people like me, an Aspie, with one of SEVERE autism.... We Aspies are VERY different from that, and grouping us together for convenience is VERY degrading to us with mild autism like me.

 

 

Wow.  Degrading?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...