*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[Poopadoop]

I do agree here. I'm not saying it's ok. I'm simply saying that, by human rights abuse standards, it's pretty minor. Much worse has been happening the last few decades as a result of US policy.

I disagree that unnecessarily causing human suffering is minor. And I also think it's irrelevant to compare the current problem with problems created or exacerbated by others in the past, because that can be used to excuse virtually anything.

Anything but the Holocaust is 'not as bad as the Holocaust'. So?

[OngBonga]

I disagree that unnecessarily causing human suffering is minor.

Human suffering is widespread. I do agree that the treatment of migrants in US camps is "unnecessary". It is indeed a black mark against the Trump administration. But it's perfectly reasonable to compare it to previous human rights abuse, especially recent ones at the hands of Trump's predecessors. If this is the extent of USA's human rights abuse, then it's a vast improvement.

[Poopadoop]

But it's perfectly reasonable to compare it to previous human rights abuse, especially recent ones at the hands of Trump's predecessors.

Actually no it isn't.

If this is the extent of USA's human rights abuse, then it's a vast improvement.

Arguably it isn't, but really it's a moot point. If Germany went and started WWIII but only killed 2 million jews no-one would say 'well, that's an improvement. At least this new guy isn't as bad as Hitler was.'

[OngBonga]

Same is true in the UK, fwiw. France is perfectly safe, so those at Calais wanting to come here are economic migrants who have chosen the UK for economic reasons.

[Poopadoop]

Same is true in the UK, fwiw. France is perfectly safe, so those at Calais wanting to come here are economic migrants who have chosen the UK for economic reasons.

Does this mean France shouldn't have to treat them humanely, or if some of them swam over to Dover that the UK wouldn't have to treat them humanely?

Or is there some other way in which this is relevant to the discussion of human rights abuses at the US border?

Combine harvester?

[Poopadoop]

I wonder if a lawyer would ever argue in court that his client deserves a light sentence because he only raped a single child when he was a Boy Scout leader and the guy who had the job before him actually raped three.

[OngBonga]

I wonder if a lawyer would ever argue in court that his client deserves a light sentence because he only raped a single child when he was a Boy Scout leader and the guy who had the job before him actually raped three.

Oh look, you went back to comparing not providing soap with terrible crimes.

A lawyer would argue that stealing 5 marbles warrants a lower sentence than stealing 10 marbles.

[Poopadoop]

Oh look, you went back to comparing not providing soap with terrible crimes.

Oh look you went back to arguing that an analogy is a direct comparison.

A lawyer would argue that stealing 5 marbles warrants a lower sentence than stealing 10 marbles.

Actually he wouldn't because he's a lawyer and it's not his job to point out the stupidly obvious to a judge. He also wouldn't compare it to stealing 11 marbles, 6 marbles, or 300 billion marbles. He also woudn't say it's not as bad as a human rights abuse because that's also stupidly obvious.

[OngBonga]

Allow me to sum up your position...

1. Human rights abuses at the border are bad and should be stopped.

2. This is analogous to, but not directly comparable to, killing Jews and raping boy scouts

3. Arrgggh, Trump!

Is that about right?

[Poopadoop]

So, in the end I sum up your position as follows:

1. Human rights abuses at the border are bad and should be stopped.

2. Shit could be worse.

3. Arrgggh, immigrants!

Is that about it?

[OngBonga]

So, in the end I sum up your position as follows:

1. Human rights abuses at the border are bad and should be stopped.

2. Shit could be worse.

3. Arrgggh, illegal immigrants!

Is that about it?

FYP

[OngBonga]

If Germany went and started WWIII but only killed 2 million jews

How do you once again compare not giving migrants soap with the killing of Jews?

You're on another planet.

[Poopadoop]

How do you once again compare not giving migrants soap with the killing of Jews?

You're on another planet.

You're conflating presenting an analogy to support a logical argument about degrees of 'badness' with making a direct comparison between the border and the Holocaust.

Here, try this if you're going to get triggered by the Holocaust analogy.

If you steal 5 marbles from your friend, but your dad once stole 10 marbles from his friend, stealing 5 marbles is still wrong.

[OngBonga]

Stealing 5 marbles is not as bad as stealing 10 marbles. Well done, you're getting somewhere. Stealing marbles off your friend is a shitty thing to do. But it's not nearly as shitty as, say, raping his sister.

[OngBonga]

Oh look you went back to arguing that an analogy is a direct comparison.

The point of an analogy is to provide a comparison.

[Poopadoop]

The point of an analogy is to provide a comparison.

An analogy is a comparison on some level, but not a direct comparison. That's why 'analogy' and 'comparison' are separate words with distinct entries in the dictionary.

If I had argued Trump is as bad as Hitler because the southern border is the equivalent to Auschwitz, then 'arrrrgggh!' would have been an appropriate response. I did not say that, however, because it's retarded and I generally don't say things that are blatantly retarded. Generally.

What I said was you don't get excused from a human rights abuse because worse abuses have been committed in the past. That's pretty much the opposite of saying the current situation is comparable to the worst mass crime in human history. So if anything 'arrrghgghg!' to yourself for interpreting my analogy as a direct comparison.

[OngBonga]

An analogy is suppose to draw a reasonable comparison. I wouldn't draw an analogy between having a bonfire and setting fire to a hospital, despite both involving fire.

[Poopadoop]

An analogy is suppose to draw a reasonable comparison.

On my planet, an analogy is used to make a logical point stand out independent of context. In the present discussion, I provided two very different analogies using jews and then marbles to argue about the scale of a crime because I wrongly assumed you would see the logic behind the first one.

If I had anticipated you making the silly assertion that I was offering such a stupid and unfounded direct comparison as one between 6 million dead jews and tens of thousands of shabbily-treated immigrants, I would have presented the marble analogy first.

I wouldn't draw an analogy between having a bonfire and setting fire to a hospital, despite both involving fire.

No, but you could draw an analogy between burning things down and human rights abuses at the US border. You could say in response to your 'but other people have done worse shit' argument, e.g., that burning a house down is a bad thing to do, regardless of the fact that burning a hospital down is worse.

[OngBonga]

4. is analogous to "arrrgggggh Trump!".

[Poopadoop]

4. is analogous to "arrrgggggh Trump!".

Roughly, yes. The re-wording I suppose reflects I'm not so much angry about him as that I view him as a contemptible scab on humankind.

[OngBonga]

Roughly, yes. The re-wording I suppose reflects I'm not so much angry about him as that I view him as a contemptible scab on humankind.

I'm not angry either.

[Poopadoop]

What a lot of people don't get about analogies is that they're not about a general equivalence between the two sets of things being compared. They're a logical framework for highlighting an important aspect of an argument.

A:a is analagous to B:b, but it's also analagous to tree:sapling or adult:child. One is bigger than the other. That doesn't mean making such an analogy is anything like concluding that 'A' is therefore an adult and 'a' is therefore a child.

If you said Holocaust:US border is analogous to A:a, therefore it's not a big deal, I'd say it's a perfectly valid analogy, but that you've drawn a poor conclusion.

[OngBonga]

because I wrongly assumed you would see the logic behind the first one.

No, because you're a lib who likes to use powerful language to overstate your point. I basically was not allowing that.

[Poopadoop]

No, because you're a lib who likes to use powerful language to overstate your point.

That's one interpretation I guess.

I basically was not allowing that.

I'm more inclined to think you wrongly assumed I was deliberately making a direct comparison that made no sense rather than a convenient analogy with the first human rights abuse that came to mind because it seemed like a good way to discredit me.

Further, I'm guessing that the fact it's obvious that such a comparison would be wrong didn't dissuade you from ascribing it to me because you're against 'libs' in general and it struck you as as a good opportunity to take a shot at one.

Either that or you really are just learning today the subtle difference between an analogy and a comparison.

[OngBonga]

That's why 'analogy' and 'comparison' are separate words with distinct entries in the dictionary.

Though I am aware that these two words do mean different things, you're wrong to say that different words always mean different things.

For example, I have used two words recently which mean exactly the same thing... "exaggerate" and "overstate".

[Poopadoop]

you would be wrong to say that different words always mean different things. But you didn't say that, so I'm sorry, I'm just talking shit here.

fyp

[OngBonga]

fyp

You implied they are different words with different meaning simply because they have their own entry in the dictionary.

But you argued it was a poor comparison, not a poor analogy.

It's a poor analogy because it's a poor comparison.

However, it's a perfectly valid one, just as the marble analogy is.

They're both bad analogies.

If this is really a tendency of mine, perhaps you can provide some more examples to support your contention?

I have no intention of reading your 6000+ posts to support such a claim. Referring to the Holocaust when talking about lack of soap is enough evidence for me.

[OngBonga]

...the subtle difference between an analogy and a comparison.

Key word - "subtle".

I'm more inclined to think you wrongly assumed I was deliberately making a direct comparison

Nope. It's obviously not a direct comparison, we both agree on that. So based on that, you should understand why it's a bad analogy. It's more in fitting with your tendency to use language to exaggerate your point.

[Poopadoop]

Key word - "subtle".

Other key word - "difference". It's the combination of "subtle" and "difference" that highlights the distinction is nuanced but real.

Nope. It's obviously not a direct comparison, we both agree on that.

But you argued it was a poor comparison, not a poor analogy.

So based on that, you should understand why it's a bad analogy.

I understand why you want to argue it's a bad analogy. However, it's a perfectly valid one, just as the marble analogy is.

It's more in fitting with your tendency to use language to exaggerate your point.

If this is really a tendency of mine, perhaps you can provide some more examples to support your contention?

[OngBonga]

What do you think an analogy is, apart from a fancy word for comparison?

It's a reasonable comparison. The more reasonable the comparison, the better the analogy.

[Poopadoop]

It's a reasonable comparison. The more reasonable the comparison, the better the analogy.

There's nothing in there about that except the bold.

Also, a logical analogy is not 'better' or 'worse' it's either valid or invalid.


analogy
/əˈnalədʒi/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: analogy; plural noun: analogies

1. a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
"an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"

2. a correspondence or partial similarity.
"the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"

3. a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects.
"works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"

4. Logic
a process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects.
"argument from analogy"



Let me help you connect the dots further here:

reasonable
/ˈriːz(ə)nəb(ə)l/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
adjective: reasonable

1.
having sound judgement; fair and sensible.
"no reasonable person could have objected"


based on good sense.
"it seems a reasonable enough request"
archaic

able to reason logically.
"man is by nature reasonable"

2.
as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate.


So, using the definition of analogy from logic (I'll leave it to you to look up logic and what it means re: arguments, 'cause I don't have all day to teach you for free), which is certainly going beyond any simple comparison, a reasonable analogy would be a logical one. It has nothing to do with appropriateness of scale. A:a is logically just as analagous to tree:sapling as it is to universe: proton.

[OngBonga]

It's interesting you keep saying "direct comparison", as though I've used that phrase.

I haven't. That's you adding that word in to support your flawed argument.

[Poopadoop]

It's interesting you keep saying "direct comparison", as though I've used that phrase.

I haven't. That's you adding that word in to support your flawed argument.

All I've done is point out that my analogy is logically valid using the dictionary definition of a logical analogy. Do you agree with that or not?

[OngBonga]

Great. Now google synonyms of "reasonable" and "analogy", and tell me if "sensible comparison" is a synonym of "reasonable analogy".

[OngBonga]

Trump bad: other recent presidents worse (your argument) is logically analagous to 2 million dead: 6 million dead, and to stealing 5 marbles: stealing 10 marbles, and for that matter, to proton: universe.

Is your avatar actually you? That would make quite a lot of sense.

First, you haven't provided a convincing argument for your premise 'other recent presidents worse'

They are in terms of number of people killed in wars of aggression. If you wish to challenge that argument, go right ahead.

most of which Trump is still involved in afaik.

I've stated that I'm in no position to know what Trump is doing to end such wars. Though, I did cite an article which shows he changed policy towards ISIS within months of taking office, and during his term ISIS have been defeated. Your response was to say it was a "gift to Putin", like that is somehow worse than allowing ISIS to thrive.

I don't think Trump is a good president. I just think he's better than others during my lifetime.

[Poopadoop]

Is your avatar actually you? That would make quite a lot of sense.

Yes, I'm really a dog. Woof.

They are in terms of number of people killed in wars of aggression. If you wish to challenge that argument, go right ahead.

Ok, well we can agree that GWB is way ahead of the field in that respect.

Apart from him, I'm not sure you can say Trump is clearly ahead of or behind any other particular potus in the last 40 years or however old you are.

I've stated that I'm in no position to know what Trump is doing to end such wars. Though, I did cite an article which shows he changed policy towards ISIS within months of taking office, and during his term ISIS have been defeated. Your response was to say it was a "gift to Putin", like that is somehow worse than allowing ISIS to thrive.

I'm not an expert on this topic, but my understanding is that ISIS was on its last legs when he took over. It seems optimistic to give him credit for 'defeating ISIS'. An analogy would be to say he deserves credit for the strenght of the US economy in his first few months of being POTUS. A lot of the groundwork for both was laid before he sat his fat orange ass in the Oval Office.

I don't think Trump is a good president. I just think he's better than others during my lifetime.

Fine.

[OngBonga]

Reagan was involved with less high profile wars with Afghanistan, Angola and Nicaragua.

Trump has the Venezuela crisis harming his foreign policy credibility, but as best I can tell, that hasn't actually turned into a war yet.

[OngBonga]

Apart from him, I'm not sure you can say Trump is clearly ahead of or behind any other particular potus in the last 40 years or however old you are.

Bush Snr has the Gulf War I on his hands, Obama has Syria. Not sure about Reagan, I'm only really thinking about my adult life, since I had no interest in geopolitics as a child.

...but my understanding is that ISIS was on its last legs when he took over.

Yeah, thanks to Russia.

Maybe I am being hasty giving him the credit for defeating them, but cutting their funding and arms was certainly a good move.

[Poopadoop]

Bush Snr has the Gulf War I on his hands,

That wasn't really 'aggressive' was it? SH invaded Kuwait and wouldn't leave. I suppose they could have just left him there, but like once they kicked him out they fucked off again.

Obama has Syria.

Nowhere near on the same scale as IWII though.

Not sure about Reagan, I'm only really thinking about my adult life, since I had no interest in geopolitics as a child.

The only one I remember from Reagan was Grenada, but that was basically just walking in and taking over. There may be others though.

[spoonitnow]

I really enjoy knowing that Hillary Clinton, who is easily the most prolific US politician (let alone woman) to never become president, was beaten by a guy who basically picked up politics because he was fucking bored as a media stunt.

It reminds me of that time that a man won the woman of the year award. We're just better at everything.

[Poopadoop]

I really enjoy knowing that Hillary Clinton, who is easily the most prolific US politician (let alone woman) to never become president, was beaten by a guy who basically picked up politics because he was fucking bored as a media stunt.

It reminds me of that time that a man won the woman of the year award. We're just better at everything.

The funniest thing about her to me was that she was quite possibly the least likeable politican I can ever remember. Her face made me sick and her voice was so seriously grating that it made me want to punch her face. If it was a choice between sitting in a bar with Trump and with her I'd pick Trump every day. Then I'd glass him.

[OngBonga]

I really enjoy knowing that Hillary Clinton, who is easily the most prolific US politician (let alone woman) to never become president, was beaten by a guy who basically picked up politics because he was fucking bored as a media stunt.

It reminds me of that time that a man won the woman of the year award. We're just better at everything.

Didn't Charlie Chaplin enter a Charlie Chaplin Lookalike contest and come third? Or is that an urban myth?

[OngBonga]

That wasn't really 'aggressive' was it? SH invaded Kuwait and wouldn't leave. I suppose they could have just left him there, but like once they kicked him out they fucked off again.

Depends which narrative you subscribe to, but I can overlook this one since I was too young at the time to understand what was happening. I might be wrong to assume it was avoidable with a better policy.

Nowhere near on the same scale as IWII though.

Is this a typo? You mean GWII? Syria is utterly destroyed, it's a terrible situation. Obama also has drone attacks in Pakistan that have killed many civilians. He's not getting a clean pass.

[Poopadoop]

Is this a typo? You mean GWII?

Iraq War II.

Syria is utterly destroyed, it's a terrible situation. Obama also has drone attacks in Pakistan that have killed many civilians. He's not getting a clean pass.

Iraq was destroyed too. Afghanistan invaded. And a lot more dead directly due to the US during Bush Jr. than Obama. Miles more I would think.

[OngBonga]

I seem to recall a Chinese port getting fucked. Tianjin? I kinda felt that was an American attack, Rods From God, but that might be my imagination getting carried away.

[OngBonga]

Iraq War II.

Fairly obvious, yet that didn't occur to me! At least I took it as a typo for Gulf War II, ie the same war.

Iraq was destroyed too. Afghanistan invaded. And a lot more dead directly due to the US during Bush Jr. than Obama. Miles more I would think.

Probably right, maybe GWB does have more blood on his hands than Obama. But Trump doesn't have any that I'm aware of. Venezuela is touchy, Iran might happen under his term, but other than a MOAB dropped in Afghanistan (probably as a message to China or North Korea), I can't recall any serious foreign policy issues. That is worthy of note, whether you like the guy or not.

[MadMojoMonkey]

How did I get dragged into this?

The Combine Harvester conversation was to elucidate that "they'll take our jobs" is a thin argument, and indicates a transitional period at most. It doesn't indicate a permanent loss of jobs, as though the number and kind of jobs is a static commodity.

Basically, the CH already took everyone's job. We all have new, different jobs, many of which didn't exist at the time of the CH's introduction.

IDK why you think it's such a sidetrack or non-sequitur. It was a specific example from history of a significant "loss of jobs" that has had only (or at least mostly) positive long-term effects (so far). Once the transitional period passed, we became a far more technologically capable planet.

It's hard to imagine the rise of the computer age or the communication age or whatever you want to call it would be possible on any remotely similar time scale if not for all those "took jobs." It's an argument that there's at least some evidence that a widespread taking of jobs was perhaps one of the best things to happen to humans.

It's not a conclusive argument. It is a historical fact to keep in mind when worrying about the impact of a loss of jobs on an economy. It's not a clear and persistent "bad" to lose jobs.

[Poopadoop]

How did I get dragged into this?

I missed you.

The Combine Harvester conversation was to elucidate that "they'll take our jobs" is a thin argument, and indicates a transitional period at most. It doesn't indicate a permanent loss of jobs, as though the number and kind of jobs is a static commodity.

Basically, the CH already took everyone's job. We all have new, different jobs, many of which didn't exist at the time of the CH's introduction.

IDK why you think it's such a sidetrack or non-sequitur. It was a specific example from history of a significant "loss of jobs" that has had only (or at least mostly) positive long-term effects (so far). Once the transitional period passed, we became a far more technologically capable planet.

It's hard to imagine the rise of the computer age or the communication age or whatever you want to call it would be possible on any remotely similar time scale if not for all those "took jobs." It's an argument that there's at least some evidence that a widespread taking of jobs was perhaps one of the best things to happen to humans.

It's not a conclusive argument. It is a historical fact to keep in mind when worrying about the impact of a loss of jobs on an economy. It's not a clear and persistent "bad" to lose jobs.

That puts everything in context, thanks.

[OngBonga]

Immigration is not bad. I simply want the right kind of immigration.

[OngBonga]

It also has nothing to do with people seeking better economic opportunities in other countries. Poop, you are clearly an economic migrant. You came to the UK because you were offered a job, and you saw it as advantageous to accept it. That's fine. But if you turned up at a port claiming you were fleeing Canada because you feared for your safety, when really you just wanted a better job than what you could get at home, that's not fine.

The reason it's important is because economic migrants don't share the same rights as war migrants. People who claim to be fleeing danger when they are not, they are basically liars and should be very low priority. Just like people who try to enter a country illegally.

I assume you brought up the combine harvester because you feel my anti-immigration stance is because "they're taking our jobs". That's not true. More people working makes for a stronger economy, which breeds new jobs. So I don't have a problem with migrants coming here to work. I have a problem with liars and criminals, and I have a problem with migrants who refuse to integrate, as though our culture is something we should be ashamed of and seek to replace with another culture.

[spoonitnow]

Deport Illegals 2020

[MadMojoMonkey]

Is anyone really saying not to deport illegals?

I understand the problem is determining who's legal and who's not a lot of the time. We've mentioned asylum seekers, but I'm not too informed on the specifics of that topic. What I understand is that it takes time to process an asylum claim and that while people are in that limbo, their conditions are pretty poor. IDK if the families are being separated in these cases.

I mean. If people are obviously trying to sneak in away from an official border checkpoint, then they are criminals and treating them as such is appropriate.

If that treatment is being directed to people coming to checkpoints and seeking asylum, then that's where I get a bit uncomfortable with it. Treating people whom are following the law as though they are not doesn't seem like it's what America stands for.

[Poopadoop]

I mean. If people are obviously trying to sneak in away from an official border checkpoint, then they are criminals and treating them as such is appropriate.

Even this would be better than how they're being treated now. Are criminals' (even the worst of them like murderers) children taken to overcrowded camps where they are denied proper nutrition (no fruits/veg AT ALL in their rations), denied actual beds (not concrete floors) to sleep on, denied basic hygeine needs like diapers and toothbrushes and baths (so kids are walking around in their own pissed-in pants), and are not subject to adult supervision? Do the teenagers at these child-of-murderers camps get told to look after the toddlers, 'cause no adults have time to do it?

If this is the kids, I'm guessing the adult 'criminals' don't have it much better.

The weirdest thing is how none of this seems to make a dent in Trump's base, any more than openly admitting he'd collude with a foreign power, or what's the number we're up to now (22 is it?) sexual assault allegations against him. I think he was right when he said he could shoot someone in the face and they'd still support him.

What a bunch of fucking mongs.

[OngBonga]

any more than openly admitting he'd collude with a foreign power

This actually does the opposite of hurt him. I mean, they'd ALL collude if it meant getting dirt on their opponents, it's just the vast majority of politicians would lie about it.

sexual assault allegations

I allege you have sexually assaulted me.

You're up to one, you disgusting human being.

That's how easy it is, if you're holding "allegations" against people.

So far, he has one black mark against him as far as I'm concerned, and that's the treatment of migrant detainees. That would possibly be enough to stop me voting for him, if I had the ability to vote in a US election, but that really does depend on who he's up against. If he's up against, say, Hillary Clinton, I'd weigh up the pros and cons and I'd probably decide that a few ill treated migrants is a lesser evil than creating migrants.

[Poopadoop]

This actually does the opposite of hurt him. I mean, they'd ALL collude if it meant getting dirt on their opponents, it's just the vast majority of politicians would lie about it.

Believe it or not, actually they wouldn't all collude. You'd like to think this, but it's very unlikely to be true.

I allege you have sexually assaulted me.

You wish.

You're up to one, you disgusting human being.

"You're the disgusting one making a false allegation."

Note that's different from saying "You're not my type."

That's how easy it is, if you're holding "allegations" against people.

Are you prepared to take your allegation to court? To face a media shitstorm and all kinds of threats? 'Cause that doesn't sound so easy to me.

[OngBonga]

Are you prepared to take your allegation to court? To face a media shitstorm and all kinds of threats? 'Cause that doesn't sound so easy to me.

Depends who's paying me.

[Poopadoop]

Depends who's paying me.

If it's so trivial, why isn't every politician accused of multiple sexual assaults? You'd think that'd be in everyone's playbook.

[OngBonga]

If it's so trivial, why isn't every politician accused of multiple sexual assaults? You'd think that'd be in everyone's playbook.

Because not every politician has an orchestrated hate campaign against him by the entire liberal media.

Do you think an allegation is evidence of guilt? How about 22 allegations against the most hated man on the planet? Seems to me you're just happy to add it to the list.

You know who else has a string of allegation against her? Clue... her. Yet if I start blabbering on about those, I'll get accuse of being a tin hatter. Funny how that works, huh?

[Poopadoop]

Because not every politician has an orchestrated hate campaign against him by the entire liberal media.

Wait, wat? So if someone had publicly accused Obama of butt-raping her, that wouldn't have showed up in the news? Lol, get real.

Joe Biden touches a little girl on her undeveloped chest and Fox News goes apeshit.

Do you think an allegation is evidence of guilt? How about 22 allegations against the most hated man on the planet? Seems to me you're just happy to add it to the list.

Where there's smoke there's usually fire. Seems to me your just happy to assume all 22 women are lying as part of some grand conspiracy.

Look at the guy's own behaviour. Listen to him talk about grabbing women by the pussy. Who the fuck says that?

Look at him being interviewed and saying things about his own daughter. How does that not make you think 'eeewwww!'.

Look at him going backstage at Ms. Universe or whatever that pageant was where the models were all naked. Would you just waltz in there like that? And then brag about it like some 14 year old kid who found a peephole into the girls' shower?

You know who else has a string of allegation against her? Clue... her. Yet if I start blabbering on about those, I'll get accuse of being a tin hatter. Funny how that works, huh?

Always back to Hillary. Please. She's gone to live in the woods. No-one cares about her except people trying to defend Trump the scumbag.

[OngBonga]

I know I like to bang on about Clinton, but this is why I find it really hard to get on the Trump hatewagon. I don't pretend he's a nice guy, nor do I think he's a particularly great President. But the alternative was a far more terrifying prospect. The worst thing about the Trump presidency is the relentless hate that exists in society. Even Bush wasn't hated this much, and that really is saying something. The media campaign against him is remarkable, and very effective in terms of creating division. If that doesn't show who's in control of the media, I don't know what does.

We're almost at the point where if you admit to not hating Trump, you're seen as a bad person. Maybe we are at that point. The irony is, I don't really hate anyone. I don't hate Clinton, I simply think she's a deeply unpleasant person, and I'm glad she didn't win. Do I hate her? No, the only time I even think about her is when I'm talking about Trump. But the hate against Trump has become and obsession in a great many people.

It's the same with Brexit. Admit to voting leave, and you're labelled a cunt by a lot remainers. I don't have a problem with remainers. I just disagree with them. Had they won. I wouldn't hold it against people who voted remain. I'd get on with my life being glad I lived in a democratic country.

Society has become very divided, almost to the point you have to choose a side. Well I'm not choosing the side that is obsessively hateful and resentful. I'm certainly not choosing a side that doesn't respect democracy.

Our future generations will look back on people of this age and think we were mentally ill.

[Poopadoop]

I know I like to bang on about Clinton, but this is why I find it really hard to get on the Trump hatewagon. I don't pretend he's a nice guy, nor do I think he's a particularly great President. But the alternative was a far more terrifying prospect. The worst thing about the Trump presidency is the relentless hate that exists in society. Even Bush wasn't hated this much, and that really is saying something. The media campaign against him is remarkable, and very effective in terms of creating division. If that doesn't show who's in control of the media, I don't know what does.

We're almost at the point where if you admit to not hating Trump, you're seen as a bad person. Maybe we are at that point. The irony is, I don't really hate anyone. I don't hate Clinton, I simply think she's a deeply unpleasant person, and I'm glad she didn't win. Do I hate her? No, the only time I even think about her is when I'm talking about Trump. But the hate against Trump has become and obsession in a great many people.

It's the same with Brexit. Admit to voting leave, and you're labelled a cunt by a lot remainers. I don't have a problem with remainers. I just disagree with them. Had they won. I wouldn't hold it against people who voted remain. I'd get on with my life being glad I lived in a democratic country.

Society has become very divided, almost to the point you have to choose a side. Well I'm not choosing the side that is obsessively hateful and resentful. I'm certainly not choosing a side that doesn't respect democracy.

Our future generations will look back on people of this age and think we were mentally ill.

You're ascribing hate to everyone on the other side who doesn't agree with you. What is this based on? A few people on the internet calling you a cunt?

Do you not think there are people on your side calling everyone on the other side a cunt too? And people on the other side saying 'see how much they hate us?'

Some people are cunts. They're the ones doing the hating. And they exist on both sides. But most people are actually fairly reasonable, even if they don't agree with you or me or whoever.

This is the problem with social media. It gives what I think is an unrealistic impression that everyone is really divided and triggered, but that's only because the triggered people are the ones making the most noise. There's a lot of people quietly sitting there going 'wtf is this spaztard's problem?' when they see someone on their side losing their shit and being abusive.

As for Trump, I don't even hate him, as I've said before. I don't think he's really evil so much as just selfish. I also think he's a conman retard unlicked cub. If anything I kind of feel sorry for him, because I think he's pretty much entirely clueless about what he's doing and is just trying to grope his way along and hope no-one notices how useless he is. And I feel even more sorry for the people who think he's some kind of gift from God sent to save the USA from whatever they think it's in danger from.

[Poopadoop]

Here's some more MAGA for y'all.

Pregnant woman gets in an argument with guy in store. He shoots her in the stomach. Unborn baby dies.

Guess who's getting charged with manslaughter.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8976946.html

[OngBonga]

Here's some more MAGA for y'all.

Pregnant woman gets in an argument with guy in store. He shoots her in the stomach. Unborn baby dies.

Guess who's getting charged with manslaughter.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8976946.html

Fucking Alabama. Also, can't read story, paywalled because adblock.

[spoonitnow]

Here's some more MAGA for y'all.

Pregnant woman gets in an argument with guy in store. He shoots her in the stomach. Unborn baby dies.

Guess who's getting charged with manslaughter.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8976946.html

Purely from a legal perspective and describing what happened instead of judging it (or its legality) as right or wrong:

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the recent laws passed in Alabama or really with the fact that she was pregnant. In the United States, if you commit a felony that leads to someone dying, you're generally charged with manslaughter or murder as a result. From what I can tell, she started the altercation, and the victim shot her in self-defense. There is no duty to retreat in Alabama, and you have the right to use deadly force if you have reasonable cause to believe unlawful physical force is about to be used on you, which can explain why the victim was not charged with anything (which is the case from what I've read about it).

My point is that this has nothing to do with MAGA, and the same laws she was charged by were in place before Trump was even in office.

My personal perspective:

I have no sympathy for someone who gets shot because they attacked someone else. It's a tragedy that the child died, and unless there's a lot that has been misrepresented in the handful of articles I've read about the situation I believe she has full responsibility for this.

[OngBonga]

You're ascribing hate to everyone on the other side who doesn't agree with you. What is this based on? A few people on the internet calling you a cunt?

Not at all. Just those who are obsessed.

What is this based on?

Observation. Here's a tip for you... go to Twitter, check trump's feed, and read the replies. Tell me these people are not obsessed.

Do you not think there are people on your side calling everyone on the other side a cunt too?

For sure there are, but it's not nearly as numerous. We're talking orders of magnitude here. Go back to Twitter and check out Clinton's feed. How many people are hating on her? Compare that to Trump.

Some people are cunts. They're the ones doing the hating.

No. Oskar isn't a cunt, but he's hating. He's Austrian and has no reason to be so passionately and emotionally invested in.
American politics. But he is.

And they exist on both sides.

Cunts do, but haters... orders of magnitude.

But most people are actually fairly reasonable

I do not think the word "reasonable" is a fair word to describe the state of society today.

This is the problem with social media.

Social media definitely has done a great deal of harm. When so many people are united in hate, it makes hate feel like it's normal and ok.

It gives what I think is an unrealistic impression that everyone is really divided and triggered

People are divided. Very much so. I think the word triggered is very much overused, it's a shit attempt to slap people down, just like the word snowflake.

but that's only because the triggered people are the ones making the most noise.

The haters make the most noise. And there's a lot of noise. Triggered people don't necessarily shout. If I was genuinely triggered, I'd stop talking about whatever is triggering me and do something else.

As for Trump, I don't even hate him, as I've said before.

Fair enough, but I genuinely think you're in the minority when it comes to libs.

I don't think he's really evil so much as just selfish.

Is that really a problem? Every politician is selfish, it takes a special kind of person to want to rule over others. They might say they got into it because they want to make the world a better place, but that's in their image.

I also think he's a conman retard unlicked cub.

Conman? Probably. I don't care. Again, most politicians are corrupt in some way or another.

trying to grope his way along

I like how you slip the grope word in here.

And I feel even more sorry for the people who think he's some kind of gift from God sent to save the USA from whatever they think it's in danger from.

That'll be Clinton, or more to the point, the Dems and the entire liberal establishment.

[Poopadoop]

Go back to Twitter and check out Clinton's feed. How many people are hating on her? Compare that to Trump.

You really seem obsessed with Clinton, which is even stranger than being obsessed with Trump as she's not even remotely as important or powerful as he is.

No. Oskar isn't a cunt, but he's hating. He's Austrian and has no reason to be so passionately and emotionally invested in.
American politics. But he is.

He's only passionate about what he thinks are stupid fucked up things going on. I don't think that's unusual or obsessive.

I do not think the word "reasonable" is a fair word to describe the state of society today.

As opposed to when?

You need a control group where you can sample social media discourse from another era. Such a sample doesn't exist.

Social media definitely has done a great deal of harm. When so many people are united in hate, it makes hate feel like it's normal and ok.

I hope I'm not being ignorant here, but maybe you should get out and talk to more people irl. Very few people are actually raging lunatics irl, or even turn into raging lunatics once they get on social media.

Triggered people don't necessarily shout. If I was genuinely triggered, I'd stop talking about whatever is triggering me and do something else.

That seems to be the opposite of what most triggered people do. Or maybe I misunderstand what 'triggered' means.

Fair enough, but I genuinely think you're in the minority when it comes to libs.

Maybe that's sampling bias. I know a lot of reasonable people on both sides. They just don't get involved in shitstorms on twitter or w/e.

Is that really a problem? Every politician is selfish,

Every person is selfish. But some are prepared to sacrifice their own good for the greater good.

An example of this was Nixon. Once he was busted, he bowed out more or less gracefully. Even if he lost a fair election, Trump would never leave with good grace. He would have to be dragged from the WH like a 2 year old kid being dragged to a bath. Claw marks on the door frames lol.

I like how you slip the grope word in here.

Oh right because I need to subliminally allude to what I just stated explicitly with examples.

Damn, you're paranoid sometimes. Lay off the spliffs man.

That'll be Clinton, or more to the point, the Dems and the entire liberal establishment.

Probably to some people. But I think the Dems gave up on trying to get the Bible thumper vote a while ago.

[OngBonga]

You really seem obsessed with Clinton, which is even stranger than being obsessed with Trump as she's not even remotely as important or powerful as he is.

Here's a fun game for you. I know you won't play, but let's still go there.

Go through my posts and note how many times I've said "Clinton". The go through yours and see how many times you've said "Trump" or "Captain Retard". Let me know the results.

This is a cheap shot and it's wide of the mark. You obviously didn't absorb what I said just a few hours ago. The ONLY time I even think about Clinton is when I'm talking about why I don't hate Trump. If I were obsessed, it would consume my life.

He's only passionate about what he thinks are stupid fucked up things going on. I don't think that's unusual or obsessive.

Trump gets special treatment. I've said it before, there's much worse going on in the world. If he was passionate about the fucked up things in the world, migrants not getting soap would be low down on his list of priorities. So no, not buying this. In my opinion, oskar is consumed by the liberal media and is programmed to be outraged whenever the word "Trump" is even mentioned.

As opposed to when?

I remember when we could respect other people's political opinions. The mass mental illness of society happened during my adult life.

Very few people are actually raging lunatics irl,

It's more subtle than "raging lunatics". But things have definitely changed. Politics consumes people a great deal more now than it used to.

That seems to be the opposite of what most triggered people do. Or maybe I misunderstand what 'triggered' means.

I think it means different things to different people. I take is to mean "angered" or "upset", something along those lines. A poker analogy may be in order here... "tilted". What's the best thing to do if you're tilted? Stop playing poker.

Even if he lost a fair election, Trump would never leave with good grace.

This is highly speculative, and not only that, massively ironic, since his opponents can't accept he won in good grace.

Damn, you're paranoid sometimes. Lay off the spliffs man.

Another cheap shot. And FYI, I haven't smoked in a few weeks. Not through choice, sadly food and rent is more important.

Probably to some people. But I think the Dems gave up on trying to get the Bible thumper vote a while ago.

Indeed, they have a different strategy. Import voters.

[Poopadoop]

This is a cheap shot and it's wide of the mark. You obviously didn't absorb what I said just a few hours ago. The ONLY time I even think about Clinton is when I'm talking about why I don't hate Trump. If I were obsessed, it would consume my life.

Lol, it's just funny that's all.

It's like someone complaining about some retired footballer who they never liked after some present footballer scores an own goal.

Trump gets special treatment. I've said it before, there's much worse going on in the world. If he was passionate about the fucked up things in the world, migrants not getting soap would be low down on his list of priorities.

You keep mentioning soap, and not food, bedding, separation from parents, lack of diapers for babies; all as if they just forgot to give them soap one day and that's the limit of the clusterfuck.

Try not to discount this thing; it's an outrage to anyone with a soul, no matter who is potus. Oskar's no different.

In my opinion, oskar is consumed by the liberal media and is programmed to be outraged whenever the word "Trump" is even mentioned.

Yeah, that's a really arrogant thing to say, as if he is incapable of autnomous thought. Maybe he gets outraged more than the average person would be, but he's at least on the right side of the argument. Not just saying 'yeah that's bad, but something something Hillary'.

I remember when we could respect other people's political opinions. The mass mental illness of society happened during my adult life.

Maybe you're just exposed to people whose views differ from your own more now than you were before. Before social media, did you spend time mostly talking to your chosen friends (who presumably tend to share your world view) or did you go out to different parts of the world and engage with different people?

It's more subtle than "raging lunatics". But things have definitely changed. Politics consumes people a great deal more now than it used to.

It's hard to ignore certain things.

This is highly speculative, and not only that, massively ironic, since his opponents can't accept he won in good grace.

Really? Has anyone taken a shot at him, or tried to impeach him yet? I must have missed that.

Another cheap shot.

You basically accused me of trying to subtly propagandize you or some shit. If you can give a cheap shot, you should be able to take one in return.

Indeed, they have a different strategy. Import voters.

Probably, yep.

[Poopadoop]

Police initially charged Ebony Jemison, 23, with manslaughter but the charge was dismissed when a grand jury failed to indict her.

The shooter (i'm assuming that's who this other person was) was charged first, grand jury hung, then they charged the mother.

[spoonitnow]

The shooter (i'm assuming that's who this other person was) was charged first, grand jury hung, then they charged the mother.

Yeah I misspoke and meant indicted. The grand jury wasn't hung (in the sense that it's used in the US), but rather they refused to bring her to trial because they determined it to have been in self defense.

In a number of states in the US in situations of shooting someone in self-defense, you're often charged initially before there's a pre-trial hearing to determine if the situation fell under the state's self-defense laws, etc.

Edit: Fixed a comma.

[MadMojoMonkey]

As I understand it, being charged with a crime is an Executive branch action. It is a precursor to starting the Judicial branch's process of determining whether a crime was committed.
Being charged with a crime is not necessarily indicative of being guilty of said crime.

IDK if it's just Hollywood, but in the case of non-criminal offenses it seems like there may be a difference between filing charges against someone and pressing charges against someone. I think it's that anyone can file charges, but only the DA can choose whether or not to press those in court.

[OngBonga]

It's like someone complaining about some retired footballer who they never liked after some present footballer scores an own goal.

You really are the king of analogies.

You keep mentioning soap, and not food, bedding, separation from parents, lack of diapers for babies; all as if they just forgot to give them soap one day and that's the limit of the clusterfuck.

Fair enough. I shouldn't play down the seriousness of it.

Try not to discount this thing; it's an outrage to anyone with a soul, no matter who is potus. Oskar's no different.

If a soul is a thing, then even Hitler had a soul.

Yeah, that's a really arrogant thing to say, as if he is incapable of autnomous thought.

Arrogance is an exaggerated sense of one's importance. I don't think I'm even remotely important. I am the polar opposite of arrogant. Find a better word.

Maybe he gets outraged more than the average person would be, but he's at least on the right side of the argument.

We all think we're on the right side.

Not just saying 'yeah that's bad, but something something Hillary'.

Yeah that's bad, but something something at least he's not starting wars.

Maybe you're just exposed to people whose views differ from your own more now than you were before.

This isn't unique to me.

(who presumably tend to share your world view)

My friends have their own views. I recently had a civilised discussion on facebook about Brexit with a friend. He's a staunch remainer. It surprised me how civilised a discussion it was. Obviously I'm glad it was civilised because I don't want to fall out with irl friends over politics.

It's hard to ignore certain things.

Perhaps, but it's unhealthy to obsess about a politician, especially one from another country. And one who was democratically put into office.

Really? Has anyone taken a shot at him, or tried to impeach him yet? I must have missed that.

Haven't they been trying to find reasons to impeach him since he took office? And I've seen a lot of people state they would like to see him assassinated. And these same people think he's evil. Irony.

You basically accused me of trying to subtly propagandize you or some shit. If you can give a cheap shot, you should be able to take one in return.

I don't care if you want to take cheap shots. I'll just point it out when you do it, because it shows your argument is weak.

Probably, yep.

Do you not think this is exploiting people at the expense of national interest? I don't understand how you can agree here and not have a problem with it.

[Poopadoop]

Do you not think this is exploiting people at the expense of national interest? I don't understand how you can agree here and not have a problem with it.

I said 'Probably, yep'. Not 'Probably, yep, and I think it's fine to do that.'

[OngBonga]

I said 'Probably, yep'. Not 'Probably, yep, and I think it's fine to do that.'

Interesting. So why do you oppose Trump's anti-immigration policy? I understand why you oppose him treating migrants like shit, that doesn't need explaining.

[spoonitnow]

Interesting. So why do you oppose Trump's anti-immigration policy? I understand why you oppose him treating migrants like shit, that doesn't need explaining.

This may be surprising, but I am against Trump's work on immigration with regards to the southern border.