*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[OngBonga]

He's also full of shit. It's illegal to carry a knife in public without good reason. A court is certainly going to accept a chef going to work as a "good reason", therefore the chef won't even be arrested. The conversation with the cop might go something like...

Cop - "Do you have anything in your possession that I should know about?"
Chef - "Yes sir, I have this fine collection of knives."
Cop - "Why do you have them in public?"
Chef - "I'm going to stab up a mosque. Haha just kidding, I'm a chef on my way to work, hence my fucking uniform. Do you have good reason to carry around that taser?"
Cop - "Don't try to be clever with me."
Chef - "Sorry sir. Can I go please? I'm running late."

The cop might insist on checking out the guy's story, but he's not going to get arrested, and certainly not charged with an offence.

[oskar]

Yo Ong, I herd u like conspiracies. This was yesterday's headline:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffre...-ring?ref=home

Today Epstein is dead. He had a failed suicide attempt a couple of weeks ago, but somehow wasn't on suicide watch. It looks like the prosecution dies with him since nobody else is formally charged.

[OngBonga]

Funnily enough, yesterday it emerged that Prince Andrew was implicated in court papers from 2015 in a case relating to Epstein. I wonder who else is glad he's dead?

Obviously he didn't kill himself. Whoever these "powerful men" are, they got to him.

[Jack Sawyer]

Mmmm something's rotten in Denmark

Why would a billionaire pedo kill himself? They can throw the book at him, and at the end of the day everyone knows all he'd get is a wrist slap, maybe 2 years in fancy prison, and pay like $100M in "fines".

Wasn't he the one who already had like only sleeping in jail, and gets let out like 16 hours a day to "work"? Why, oh why, would he take his own life?

This goes deeper IMO. How many would fall with him? Hmmmmmmmm

[OngBonga]

How many would fall with him? Hmmmmmmmm

"Who" is the more pressing question.

[boost]

If a mission statement is enough for you to trust that someone is not going to misuse WMD's, that's a lower bar than what I envision.

[EDIT] Perhaps a bit of morning snark in there. A mission statement of why someone wants the WMD and some statement of the intent of ownership and intended usage should certainly be a part of the licensing and whatnot.[/EDIT]


The answer to "why" is the presumption of innocence coupled with equality in treatment of all humans under human laws.

You're letting your silly axioms force you into absurd positions. No one has or will ever have a reason to individually own a nuclear weapon. Even if you want to argue some crazy edge case, I'll simply point out that it'd be such an edge case that the regime necessary to train, evaluate, and regulate individuals' ownership of nuclear weapons would be so wasteful that it simply makes more sense to just not allow it.

I'm afraid that if we can't get passed this, we're stuck at a standstill.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah something a bit funny about that whole Epstein 'suicide' thing. I heard he was still on suicide watch, but not sure if that can stop someone who's determined to off themselves. It wouldn't surprise me if he was taken out.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You're letting your silly axioms force you into absurd positions. No one has or will ever have a reason to individually own a nuclear weapon. Even if you want to argue some crazy edge case, I'll simply point out that it'd be such an edge case that the regime necessary to train, evaluate, and regulate individuals' ownership of nuclear weapons would be so wasteful that it simply makes more sense to just not allow it.

I envision that expense falling on the owner. I.e. the cost of all the background is billed to the owner.

I'm afraid that if we can't get passed this, we're stuck at a standstill.

If you understand my position, then we're at the goal.
Of course we're at a standstill when we've gotten to the point.

I'm not claiming I'm right; I'm sharing my opinions.
I'm not trying to change your mind; I'm explaining my mind.

[oskar]

...only the best people.

[oskar]

I'm not saying this is a coverup, but if you wanted people to believe this was a cover up you'd hire the 85 year old pathologist who is known for investigating the JFK and MLK assassinations.

Is it at all possible that "Michael Baden" is the "Alan Smithee" among pathologists?

[OngBonga]

Of course it's a cover up.

Anyone who actually believes this guy killed himself is an idiot.

[Poopadoop]

Smile! It's an orphan!

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/09/p...aso/index.html

[oskar]

Of course it's a cover up.

Anyone who actually believes this guy killed himself is an idiot.

I think all the "conspiracies going wild!" articles are embarrassing. Most likely person in the world to be assassinated commits suicide... connect the dots. It's two dots.

I hope the resulting investigation doesn't waste it's time on how he died... there's no chance we'll find out. The body might already be cremated and anyone working in the prison where he died, in the DOJ and in the justice department when they let him walk the first time will have the common sense to shut up if they don't want to die of mysterious causes.

[OngBonga]

So... does anyone know who won the Oklahoma lottery the day after Epstein went to jail in 2008?

[oskar]

I believe that one has been debunked. Not that it's unlikely that millionaires win lotteries. There's a russian who won it a dozen times. You just buy all the tickets you can get when the ROI turns positive which apparently happens sometimes with lotteries.

[OngBonga]

It could be a coincidence that the day after Epstein went to jail with a sweet deal, a trust with the same name as his trust won the Oklahoma lottery (and were very secretive about it).

It could also be a coincidence that the cameras malfunctioned when a man on suicide watch who knows a lot about the crimes of powerful people "commits suicide".

[OngBonga]

On occasion, there's a positive ROI on a lottery (rollovers), but it's impractical to actually realise it. How do you buy millions of lottery tickets?

[OngBonga]

Odds of winning the Euro lottery are 1 in 139,838,160, but each ticket costs £2.50, so you'll need a jackpot of around £350m to get a +ROI, and you'll need to buy 140 million tickets to guarantee a profit.

Actually that's not quite right, there's tons of smaller prizes that add up. That said, it's a HUGE amount of work to sort the winning tickets from the losing ones, and to cash them in. It could take six months to find the winning ticket, and that's how long you've got to claim the prize.

Totally impractical. If a Russian has won it a dozen times, I'd call bullshit and say he cheated. No idea what the odds and prizes are for Russia's lottery, but it's just not happening.

[OngBonga]

Odds of winning Russian lottery - 1 in 8,145,060, and prizes are subject to 13% tax.

Imagine sorting through a million tickets. You'd need to pay a fair few people. Nah, not worth the hassle, especially if you're already filthy rich. Just invest the money, lend it to someone or buy property. It will surely be a better investment.

[oskar]

Stefan Mandel. idk how you'd get reliable sources for a story like that, but he apparently won 14 times. There's no snopes or straight dope article on him surprisingly.

[oskar]

But the Epstein thing... the man is a literal billionaire and nobody knows what he actually did for a living. An oddly timed lottery win isn't my main concern.

[oskar]

Rod Rosenstein's twitter feed over the past couple of weeks is incredibly bizarre. I guess he's angling for a job at the white house, but come on dude... he almost made it out of the Trump administration unscaved and now he wants back in? What's his angle?
https://twitter.com/RodRosenstein/st...998540288?s=20

[MadMojoMonkey]

The lotto thing of buying all possible numbers once the ROI gets high enough has been done multiple times.

I've seen multiple news articles about them, but none recently. I think most US states changed the laws to outlaw the bulk sale of lotto tickets like that.

[OngBonga]

I looked into the guy that Oskar was talking about, and he had an army of people working for him. He's a Romanian mathematician, and raised the money by bringing in investors. Every time he won in Australia, they changed the rules to stop him from doing it again, so he changed his methods to ensure it was legal.

You've got to take your hat off to the guy.

[boost]

I envision that expense falling on the owner. I.e. the cost of all the background is billed to the owner.

I'm skeptical rights can exist that are not reasonably attainable-- but nevermind that, I'll walk back my caveat. I don't think there are any edge cases. Certain powers should only be held by committee.

If you understand my position, then we're at the goal.
Of course we're at a standstill when we've gotten to the point.

I'm not claiming I'm right; I'm sharing my opinions.
I'm not trying to change your mind; I'm explaining my mind.

I like this framework. I don't quite agree that we've reached the goal, but certainly a goal. Often times discussions, especially nowadays, seem to be stuck at some lower level where neither person actually understands the position of the other. I believe the next level is to get at how and why the other person has arrived at their conclusions, as well as how and why you've arrived at your own conclusions.

As I've said, I believe you're operating from flawed axioms. We're kinda working from opposite ends. How I see it, you've arrived at your conclusions through deduction, while I see your axioms as flawed by way of induction. I think axioms which give less than satisfactory conclusions are much more suspect than conclusions which aren't clearly traceable to actionable axioms.

So I guess I'd ask you to either say something about the axioms you're working from and why they're so sacrosanct, or give some practical support of your conclusions that aren't just references back to the axioms they're derived from.

[boost]

I looked into the guy that Oskar was talking about, and he had an army of people working for him. He's a Romanian mathematician, and raised the money by bringing in investors. Every time he won in Australia, they changed the rules to stop him from doing it again, so he changed his methods to ensure it was legal.

You've got to take your hat off to the guy.

When the ROI does turn positive, you actually could get surprising margins that allow you to run a large operation because the jackpot isn't a linear growth. By the time it hits + ROI, the pot can more than double if there are a few roll overs. Sorting the tickets really isn't that big of a deal, as you'd have buyers assigned sequential numbers and process them as such. Also, you don't actually need to buy all the numbers for it to be profitable. Once it's +ROI, just buying one ticket is profitable. Of course, with one ticket at a time, you can't expect to realize your profit in your lifetime, since your opportunities are so limited. But you certainly don't need to purchase all available numbers to expect to realize your profit in a reasonable amount of time. Doing so would be ideal, but it's not an all or bust proposition.

[Poopadoop]

^^This.

The expected value of any given ticket is the same. Buying more tickets raises your overall EV, but even buying one ticket is +EV in these situations.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Certain powers should only be held by committee.

I agree. I don't think who has what rights should ever fall to a single person.
Once rights have been granted, though, I believe they should apply equally to all.

I like this framework. I don't quite agree that we've reached the goal, but certainly a goal. Often times discussions, especially nowadays, seem to be stuck at some lower level where neither person actually understands the position of the other. I believe the next level is to get at how and why the other person has arrived at their conclusions, as well as how and why you've arrived at your own conclusions.

Well put.

As I've said, I believe you're operating from flawed axioms. We're kinda working from opposite ends. How I see it, you've arrived at your conclusions through deduction, while I see your axioms as flawed by way of induction. I think axioms which give less than satisfactory conclusions are much more suspect than conclusions which aren't clearly traceable to actionable axioms.

Cool.

So I guess I'd ask you to either say something about the axioms you're working from and why they're so sacrosanct, or give some practical support of your conclusions that aren't just references back to the axioms they're derived from.

For the latter, well, you've kinda put me in a corner, because axioms are, by definition, the "unprovable statements we assume to be True" just to start somewhere. I can't give any support for my position that doesn't point back to an unprovable beginning, but that's always true of all logic and all conclusions, so it's not a fault in my position.

To address the former
My primary axiom is "The Presumption of Innocence is among the best ideas humans have ever come up with."

I can't prove that the Presumption of Innocence is a good thing.
Where it's from is hard to tell... ye olde tymes is probably good enough... but as early as the 2nd or 3rd century in Rome. It's also present in Islamic law, but the wikipedia page doesn't really have dates in that paragraph.
My gut says it was a thing long, long before that. Human conflict resolution has to go back as far as humans, and people lie all the time, that's nothing new. Prehistoric people must have had similar ideas that they were using as axioms, 'cause I just made that up and it gives me juicy feels, so it must be true.
*sigh*

Why I hold it sacrosanct is a personal choice. IMO, it is a worse travesty of justice to punish an innocent person than it is to let a guilty person go unpunished. It must be said that in America (where I've always lived), this is the legal precedent in all cases I know of. It must be present as bias in my choice.
I get the feeling that the more popular sentiment in 'Murica these days is to just shoot all criminals and "suspected" criminal is "close enough." That simply can't be justice, IMO.


My Secondary axiom is, "Whatever laws we have should apply equally to all."
Again, I can't prove this is a good idea. It simply strikes me as completely obvious that - if we let one group of people make rules that another group has to follow, but the rule-making group does not - that's a recipe for human oppression.


I have a quiet third axiom that motivates me, but isn't really a part of my argument, and that's "I am deeply skeptical of irrational arguments that favor the curtailing of a vast swath of people's rights." Or maybe that's just a combination of the fist 2 stated emotionally.

[boost]

On axioms: I think you misunderstood me. Axioms may be the prime movers, but they can be evaluated through induction. So while all of our arguments must trace back to axioms (whether we are consciously aware of them or not), induction can help us sort out whether those axioms are actually useful. So if your axiom(s) has led you to X conclusion, what does X look like in the real world? If the scenario you simulate violates some other axiom(s), this conflict must be resolved.

On first glance it appears your moving from axioms to conclusions, outcome preference bias may be sneaking in some induction. Or maybe there are some competing axioms which are running in the background for you that you're not fully aware are there. For example, you aren't arguing for no licensing/regulation/oversight at all, yet all these things clearly fly in the face of a presumption of innocence. Another example would be your interpretation of applying laws equally to all. We all are free to serve in the military, which, whether we serve or not, affords us the right of collective self defense. I'm sure there are a million other paths you can take from your stated axioms, so I'm left wondering why you end up where you do.

A side point that I think might be something to think about regarding your equality of rights argument: the military as a whole, nor any individual soldier has the right to operate war planes, wield nuclear weapons, etc-- it is a privilege granted so that they may carry out their mission. Further, there are many rights that are only granted to a subset of citizens that you (presumably) take no issue with. Congress has a whole host of exclusive rights. But in both of these cases, they are collectively our rights, as both entities wield them in our names.

[MadMojoMonkey]

A presumption of ignorance is totally fine with me, and not in opposition to a presumption of innocence, IMO.

I don't see any restriction of rights in the need for a driver's license. Auto accidents kill a lot of people, too.

I appreciate that we can all sign away our rights to join military, and that so-doing conveys certain subjective benefits, but that's really not an argument that's respectful of an assertion that all people deserve equal rights under the law.

To the final point, I am opposed to Congress getting to say that the groups of citizens which they directly control (the military) can have all the guns, but the group of citizens that they do not control cannot have all the guns.

[boost]

A background check is not a presumption of ignorance.

We have a right of free movement, but that right is curtailed in all sorts of ways. We can't waltz into the pentagon. As for licensing for operating vehicles, I think you're playing a semantic game here. In so much as driving is a right, any limits as to who can drive is a restriction of that right. What sorts of things they can drive are a restriction of that right. To say otherwise without backing it up is a classic wuf hand wave.

Regarding your military argument: the military is a class of people who has (in times without the draft) willingly given up some freedoms and in turn gained others. Drivers are also a class of people who have given up (much smaller) freedoms and in turn gained others. What's the difference?

This wasn't the right of Congress I was referring to. Congress has the right to declare war, to impeach, etc. My point being here, we have a system of elected paternalism, and you seem opposed to it. I'm curious if you're aware of the ramifications of you convictions: essentially the whole system falls apart-- if you are aware, then I'm curious what system you propose replaces the current one.

[MadMojoMonkey]

A background check is not a presumption of ignorance.

Just a heads up that this is the first time you've mentioned a background check.
If we're comparing each other to wuf - as though that's a negative thing ( wuf) - then you moved the goal post.
Really, I don't think it's a good move on our part to talk about other people in this way. Let's just talk about each other.

I was responding to this:
"For example, you aren't arguing for no licensing/regulation/oversight at all, yet all these things clearly fly in the face of a presumption of innocence."

I do think that licensing, regulation and oversight are hinging on a presumption of ignorance, not guilt.

A background check isn't a presumption of ignorance on the person applying for the license. It's a straight up fact that the licensing agency is perfectly ignorant about the applicant aside from the fact that they're an applicant.

What, specifically, the background check entails and the terms of what amounts to a license rejection is a deep, nuanced question that I'm not equiped to care about. So long as there's an agency which is accountable to the public for drawing these lines, I'm OK.

We have a right of free movement, but that right is curtailed in all sorts of ways. We can't waltz into the pentagon. As for licensing for operating vehicles, I think you're playing a semantic game here. In so much as driving is a right, any limits as to who can drive is a restriction of that right. What sorts of things they can drive are a restriction of that right. To say otherwise without backing it up is a classic wuf hand wave.

IDK what you're getting at, here.
I disagree with the underlines portion.
Maybe you should back up what you said and not simply hand wave?

I drive a motorcycle. In addition to the Driver's License tests and associated fees I had to complete to acquire the standard license, I had to pass another, more stringent level of tests and pay more fees. The stakes went up and the licensing requirements went up. That's practical and sensible.
The same applies for long-haul truckers and a Commercial Driver's License. Not only do the tests get harder and the fees get higher, but the consequences of minor traffic violations gets more severe. The laws don't change, but part of the license requirement is that even breaking a minor traffic law can result in revocation of the CDL endorsement.
The stakes are higher and the licensing requirements are higher and the consequences of stepping out of line are higher.
That's all good and proper, IMO.

Regarding your military argument: the military is a class of people who has (in times without the draft) willingly given up some freedoms and in turn gained others. Drivers are also a class of people who have given up (much smaller) freedoms and in turn gained others. What's the difference?

The difference is that joining the military is a life commitment, dictating nearly 100% of your time.
Whereas driving is a personal skill that enables access to a vast swath of public and commercial services, while leaving the driver with full freedom to choose which / whether they want to utilize any of that access.

This wasn't the right of Congress I was referring to. Congress has the right to declare war, to impeach, etc. My point being here, we have a system of elected paternalism, and you seem opposed to it. I'm curious if you're aware of the ramifications of you convictions: essentially the whole system falls apart-- if you are aware, then I'm curious what system you propose replaces the current one.

A central part of my position is that I want a dedicated gov't agency that determines what licensing, regulation, inspection, fees, etc. would be the law.
How is this indicative of what you've just said, here?
The "ramifications" are not based on my position, so I wont address that. Or, could you re-state that in the light that I'm not opposed to elected governance at all?

[jackvance]

But the Epstein thing... the man is a literal billionaire and nobody knows what he actually did for a living. An oddly timed lottery win isn't my main concern.

He was a CIA asset right? Acosta (who had to resign over this) confirmed as much, he was told to back off on the investigation (or indictment) because Epstein was owned by intelligence. So he didn't have a job only a cover.

[oskar]

Pimping out underage girls to wealthy men until you kill yourself in prison sounds like the weakest Bond plot since Octopussy.

When the house investigates, I hope they focus on who it was that told Acosta to back off because Epstein belongs to intelligence, and why.
Maybe I'm too cynical but I think there's about a zero percent chance any billionaire will do time for statutory rape.

[Poopadoop]

So if Trump can't buy Greenland, does this mean Iceland is off the table too?

[BennyLaRue]

Pimping out underage girls to wealthy men until you kill yourself in prison sounds like the weakest Bond plot since Octopussy.

When the house investigates, I hope they focus on who it was that told Acosta to back off because Epstein belongs to intelligence, and why.
Maybe I'm too cynical but I think there's about a zero percent chance any billionaire will do time for statutory rape.

Hey oskar, y u no werewolf?

[boost]

My position is super simple: The El Paso shooter was a 21 year old with a history of mental health problems who was able to purchase an AK47 legally. I am not against people owning AK47's. I understand that it is one of the least likely weapons to kill somebody. But I do think to own one, you should pass background checks that include your mental health history, and it should require training.

I fully agree with this.

I'm a bit confused MMM, are you saying that background checks weren't part of the discussion and that you did not endorse them, or that for some arbitrary reason your stance is off limits because I didn't mention it until I did?

[boost]

Wuf was a full blown hand waver. I'd gladly say it to him if he were around, just as I had said it to him every time he hand waved.

To my mind wuf's hand waving is a trope of the forum. I don't say it with any ill will-- honestly part of saying it is out of nostalgia for that era of FTR. If you've got some ill conceived creed which admonishes any non-glowing comment about a person who isn't present, well, that's your business.

[boost]

I was responding to this:
"For example, you aren't arguing for no licensing/regulation/oversight at all, yet all these things clearly fly in the face of a presumption of innocence."

I do think that licensing, regulation and oversight are hinging on a presumption of ignorance, not guilt.

Please elaborate on this distinction, and how you've come to it. To my eye it's convenient, but not meaningful.

A background check isn't a presumption of ignorance on the person applying for the license. It's a straight up fact that the licensing agency is perfectly ignorant about the applicant aside from the fact that they're an applicant.

What, specifically, the background check entails and the terms of what amounts to a license rejection is a deep, nuanced question that I'm not equiped to care about. So long as there's an agency which is accountable to the public for drawing these lines, I'm OK.

Why is this power ok to vest in a publicly accountable agency, but not the power to draw the line at which weapons can be had by the general public, and which cannot?

IDK what you're getting at, here.
I disagree with the underlines portion.
Maybe you should back up what you said and not simply hand wave?

What I'm getting at is I rights are limited in all sorts of ways for pragmatic purposes. Rights are the gears and their appropriate limiting is the oil for the machine. I feel that you'll call a limit you don't like a violation of a person's right to a presumption of innocence, but when you agree with a limit on a right, you find some other, softer way to refer to it.

I drive a motorcycle. In addition to the Driver's License tests and associated fees I had to complete to acquire the standard license, I had to pass another, more stringent level of tests and pay more fees. The stakes went up and the licensing requirements went up. That's practical and sensible.

Not allowing the general public to have access to military weapons of mass destruction is also practical and sensible.

The same applies for long-haul truckers and a Commercial Driver's License. Not only do the tests get harder and the fees get higher, but the consequences of minor traffic violations gets more severe. The laws don't change, but part of the license requirement is that even breaking a minor traffic law can result in revocation of the CDL endorsement.
The stakes are higher and the licensing requirements are higher and the consequences of stepping out of line are higher.

As it is so for having access to tactical nukes and A1 Abrams battle tanks. You imagine there's some hard line between the sacrifices necessary to be granted the responsibility of a CDL and being granted the responsibility of stewarding our weapons of war. I don't see a hard line. I see a clear continuum.

That's all good and proper, IMO.

The difference is that joining the military is a life commitment, dictating nearly 100% of your time.
Whereas driving is a personal skill that enables access to a vast swath of public and commercial services, while leaving the driver with full freedom to choose which / whether they want to utilize any of that access.

This is not a meaningful difference. The risk of an inadequately trained or mentally unstable person gaining independent control over military weapons justifies the increased difficulty encountered when trying to gain access to said weapons.

A central part of my position is that I want a dedicated gov't agency that determines what licensing, regulation, inspection, fees, etc. would be the law.
How is this indicative of what you've just said, here?
The "ramifications" are not based on my position, so I wont address that. Or, could you re-state that in the light that I'm not opposed to elected governance at all?

My Secondary axiom is, "Whatever laws we have should apply equally to all."

My angle with congress and their rights is that exclusive rights are a necessary part of our society. If you don't care to explain how our government will function without parts of it having exclusive rights, then I'm unsure how you can stand by the claim that the military should not have exclusive rights in the form of access to weapons not available to the general public.

[Jack Sawyer]

[Jack Sawyer]

LOL Regulations

Where is Warren G

[oskar]

Kyle Kulinsky is fantastic. Rogan said Kyle was the one who set up the Bernie interview.
I need to watch him more. He's kind of the Aj Jazeera of youtube politics. Hands down the best reporting, but I end up mostly on Majority Report because Michael Brooks does funny voices.

[oskar]

I'm meh on suppressors. They're legal in a number of european countries. It's nice to go hiking without the soundtrack of deer heads exploding.

[boost]

I'm meh on suppressors. They're legal in a number of european countries. It's nice to go hiking without the soundtrack of deer heads exploding.

Interesting. I never thought of the advantage to non-hunting nature enjoyers. Although, as I ride dirt bikes in the woods, I appreciate the distinctive sound of rifle fire-- that's when I know it pick up the pace!

Is hunting common in Europe? Is it common for hunters to use suppressors? I'm a bit skeptical that it would catch on in the US. Seems like its more likely use would be in an 8chan'ers arsenal who's out to top McVeigh's "high score" (seriously, this is a common trope in mass shooter's manifestos).

[oskar]

They've only been legal here for a year, but that's the idea: Make hunters less annoying. Honestly it has never bothered me much and I agree: maybe it's good to have a reminder that it's hunting season so you know to postpone your furry gangbang in the glade.

[oskar]

I would really like to understand why the c-span clip creator truncates titles by removing every second word. Why not use an rng? I am unreasonably annoyed by this.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c48140...stupid-you-you

[OngBonga]

Regarding the approaching hurricane in Florida...

A Democratic congressman, Don Beyer of Virginia, told CNN the Republican president was taking notice because "Florida is not an island full of people of colour".

THIS is racism. This is using colour as a political weapon. That anyone should be using such attacks at a time when USA is preparing for what could be a national disaster is quite simply disgusting.

But aaaarrrrrgggghhhh orange man bad.

[oskar]

This was his initial reaction on hurricane Dorian when he learned it was going to hit Puerto Rico:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...105329664?s=20
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...879087104?s=20

Now that it is projected to also hit Florida, he turns his plane around.

And that after the news of the week was that: his administration has released a regulation that allows for indefinite detention of minors, a rule that almost exclusively affects children of color; that they deny flu shots (on top of soap and water) to migrant children in mass detention where already 6 children have died from commutable diseases under his watch. For those that say: it's not a concentration camp because there's no gas chamber: Anne Frank died of typhus.

A Michigan man was deported to Afghanistan where he died last week because he couldn't get insulin - he had never been to Afghanistan in his life, but he was greek born, came to the US at 6 months old. Brown enough for ethnic cleansing!
And they released a new rule that children receiving life saving care can be deported. This is a death sentence. All of this happened in the last week or two.


And you think the people who point that out are the people who use racism as a political weapon?

[Poopadoop]

Regarding the approaching hurricane in Florida...



THIS is racism. This is using colour as a political weapon. That anyone should be using such attacks at a time when USA is preparing for what could be a national disaster is quite simply disgusting.

Wut? When someone calls someone out for being a racist, that's racist? I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of racist.

"This cop called me the N-word and beat me up." says a black man.

"That's disgusting, stop being racist." says Ong.

[OngBonga]

Now that it is projected to also hit Florida, he turns his plane around.

Ok, so he doesn't like the Puerto Rico leader. How is that racism?

a rule that almost exclusively affects children of color

Any law that targets immigrants is going to affect people of colour disproportionately. That's because immigrants tend to be from countries where people tend to be of a different ethnic background. If he's doing it because he hates blacks, then it's racism. If he's doing it because he feels immigration is having a negative affect on the US economy, it's not racism.

I mean, these anti-immigration policies are a lot harsher than I can get behind. But I don't consider it to be racism. The Irish are being targeted too. They tend to be white.

And you think the people who point that out are the people who use racism as a political weapon?

People who suggest he only cares about the hurricane because it is affecting whites, they are being grossly disingenuous. There's a lot of black people in Florida, while 75% of Puerto Rico's population identify as white. So if this is about Puerto Rico, it's not racism.

[OngBonga]

Wut? When someone calls someone out for being a racist, that's racist? I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of racist.

It's racist to use colour as a political weapon.

[OngBonga]

"This cop called me the N-word and beat me up." says a black man.

Another stunning poop analogy.

[oskar]

The repeal of the Flores Act, which would allow them to detain migrant children indefinitely was also responsible for the Trump administration being ordered to provide soap and tooth brushes to minors. They fought that in court in case this was in any way possible to forget. So in trying to repeal the Flores Act, they are also fighting for their right to once again deny soap and tooth brushes to migrant children. What possible argument is there to do this?
What possible argument is there to deport a child with a terminal illness that will die within weeks of being taken off their treatment? A child that has no memory of their "home country"? Can you show me a single white child they're doing this to, because there are hundreds of brown ones this is happening to. Idk how you can be so daft as to call this not racist, but even if he were to also do it if mexicans were white... what changes? It's ok as long as you feel like he would also do this to white kids even though 100% of the kids he's doing that do are dark skinned?

[OngBonga]

I'm not suggesting it's ok, just that I don't believe it's motivated by racism. Anti-immigration is not necessarily racism. This is an effort to stop healthcare tourism, which is a matter of economics and immigration policy. It's happening here too...
https://www.foxnews.com/story/dying-...es-deportation

I can't find anything on Fox relating to the Trump issue. Are you aware of any pro-Trump sources commenting on this?

[OngBonga]

Oops that link related to a story from 2008.

Funny how Gordon Brown wasn't called a racist Nazi and whatnot.

[oskar]

Anti-immigration is not necessarily racism. This is an effort to stop healthcare tourism, which is a matter of economics and immigration policy.

The girl in the NYT article is on private insurance. Also brilliant fucking planning on healthcare tourism to come to the US as a toddler, go to school, work, pay for private insurance... that is some next level gaming of the system.
A lot of these deportations are people who came to the US before they could form memories. How can you justify deporting them to a country they have no recollection of? And once again: where are all the white immigrants they're doing this to?

[OngBonga]

Fair points. I will say though that the white immigrants who this might be happening to won't interest the anti-Trump media since it can't be portrayed as racism. That said, if a dying kid is sent back to Ireland, the UK or Canada, it's not nearly as much of a death sentence, since all these nations have excellent healthcare.

[OngBonga]

To be clear, I'm not justifying it. I'm arguing it's not racism.

[oskar]

Oops that link related to a story from 2008.

Funny how Gordon Brown wasn't called a racist Nazi and whatnot.

Was it a deliberate policy to deport people who received life saving treatment? Because that's what the Trump administration is doing. Previously people who were receiving life saving treatment were allowed to stay. Why are they even looking to deport someone who has no memory of any other country, has no criminal record, is working and is receiving medical care paid for by private insurance?

What makes her undesirable? I have a pretty good idea, but I'd like to hear your alternative theory.

[OngBonga]

What makes her undesirable? I have a pretty good idea, but I'd like to hear your alternative theory.

I'm assuming she has no legal right to be in USA, but has simply been there as an illegal alien since she arrived. In which case, the motivation is the deter illegal immigrants from staying in USA. I'll further assume that previous administrations have turned a blind eye to illegals, but this administration is not.

This is not policy that I would vote for. I might have anti-immigrant views, but they tend to be directed at those who subscribe to oppressive religions, those that refuse to integrate, or those who commit serious crimes. And I wouldn't kick a seriously ill Muslim out of the UK if I had the power to, whatever their circumstances, because I'm not heartless. With that said, USA has every right to deport illegal immigrants. If they are deporting legal US citizens, then that is very probably a breach of international law and they should be held to account.

[oskar]

Saying they "have every right to" means nothing. Obviously if you make the laws you have every right. The question is: is it humane? Is it smart? What position do you want to have in the world? Do you want to be an isolationist ethnostate that has very limited trade partners?

Have you considered that it's possibly not smart economically to treat people from neighbouring countries inhumanely, especially if they're your biggest trading partner, net migration from that country is negative and the migrants that do come from that country are a massive net positive for the economy and commit crime at a lower rate than natural born citizens? What is the point then of torturing and killing these people simply for crossing a border?

It is not economical, in fact I'd be surprised if it isn't disastrous for the economy. It has nothing to do with crime. It's not because of religion, not that that wouldn't be a bullshit reason, but the vast majority of mexicans are christians.

Everything makes sense if you look at Trumps trajectory from refusing to rent apartments to black people, to purchasing an op-ed against the central park five, and afaik to this day defending his actions saying "they must have done something," Insisting that Obama is a nigerian muslim and therefore an illegitimate president, signing a "muslim ban" for no other reason than to ban people based on faith... all the way to concentration camps for brown babies.

You can either jump through hoops to say correlation is not causation for every single one of those, or you can accept that he's a fat racist retard who's so incredibly dumb that he can barely speak his own language.

[oskar]

I'm assuming she has no legal right to be in USA, but has simply been there as an illegal alien since she arrived.

This particular girl never was an illegal alien. You can read the story. I wouldn't care if she was, but in this case I think you'd have a pretty tough time calling this anything but ethnic cleansing.

[OngBonga]

Saying they "have every right to" means nothing.

Ok, try "legally entitled". And it's not about making laws, I'm talking about international law here.

is it humane?

Not really.

Is it smart?

I can't imagine so, it'll cost him votes.

Do you want to be an isolationist ethnostate that has very limited trade partners?

I don't think this will happen. America controls the global economy because the dollar is the de facto petrocurrency and the USA will do whatever it takes to keep it that way, including enforcing regime change in disobedient states.

Have you considered that it's possibly not smart economically to treat people from neighbouring countries inhumanely

See above. There isn't a single nation in the world that will emerge the victor in an economic war with USA. You can hurt USA by refusing to trade with them, but they'll hurt you more.

and the migrants that do come from that country are a massive net positive for the economy and commit crime at a lower rate than natural born citizens?

This is debatable, and neither of us are well placed to judge the merits of this argument.

What is the point then of torturing and killing these people simply for crossing a border?

idk, I'm not the one making such decision.

It is not economical, in fact I'd be surprised if it isn't disastrous for the economy.

Well that depends. If it reduces the state's welfare costs while simultaneously freeing up jobs for American citizens, then it will be a boost for the economy. I don't know if that's what will happen, but you don't know it's not what will happen either.

It has nothing to do with crime.

That depends if you consider being an illegal immigrant as a "crime".

It's not because of religion, not that that wouldn't be a bullshit reason, but the vast majority of mexicans are christians.

Obviously religion ins't a motive when it comes to Mexicans, but you acknowledge it's a motive with regards to some immigrants in your next comment...

Insisting that Obama is a nigerian muslim and therefore an illegitimate president, signing a "muslim ban" for no other reason than to ban people based on faith... all the way to concentration camps for brown babies.

The fact they are "brown" is not the point. In the opinion of the state, they are not American, that is the point.

You can either jump through hoops to say correlation is not causation for every single one of those, or you can accept that he's a fat racist retard who's so incredibly dumb that he can barely speak his own language.

I mean, this is just way too simplistic. This is politics, whatever the motivation it will be viewed as politically advantageous by the powers that be. I'm not pretending to understand the motives, but I'm not going to default to "racist fat twat". Perhaps I'm wrong.

This particular girl never was an illegal alien. You can read the story. I wouldn't care if she was, but in this case I think you'd have a pretty tough time calling this anything but ethnic cleansing.

That's extremely powerful language. That's worse than simple dumbass racism. I don't believe for a minute that's what's happening. What enthnicity is being cleansed? Brown people in general? USA is home to many of the most successful black people in the world. Do you think that is going to change if Trump remains in charge?

[oskar]

Of course it won't happen. Nothing Trump is trying to do will happen on a larger scale. The only reason republicans aren't on board with the 25th at this point is that he started out so fucking stupid that acute dementia hardly moves the needle on his mental ability. He'll get aggressively voted out in 2020 leaving the next democratic president to clean up the mess. It's just pointless cruelty. He's destroying trade relations, he's destroying diplomatic relations and he makes the US look like a clown parade on the international stage.

The employment argument doesn't work at all. America has near 100% employment. They should be looking to create positive net migration from an economic standpoint. Illegals are not a drain on welfare, it's the opposite. If they are illegally employed, they pay into a system they cannot take out of. That is a bad thing. The Trump admin strategy to solve this is to round up factory workers while letting their children come home to empty houses, while there are zero consequences for the people who hire illegals, like the Trump org.

You show me ICE tearing a white family apart, or a white illegal immigrant being deported to certain death, and I'll change my language.

[Poopadoop]

It's racist to use colour as a political weapon.

Again, no it isn't. If your political opponent is clearly being racist and you point it out, that does not make you a racist, even in the most tinfoil hat of lands.

[Poopadoop]

Do you want to be an isolationist ethnostate that has very limited trade partners?

Wait, you do realize this is Ong you're talking to right?

[OngBonga]

Again, no it isn't. If your political opponent is clearly being racist and you point it out, that does not make you a racist, even in the most tinfoil hat of lands.

Well this is why I mocked your analogy. Your example was a case of clear cut racism. There's no debate there. I was referring to the hurricane when you replied, so are you suggesting that Trump bleating about Puerto Rico is the same as throwing the N-word about? Explain to me how Trump's interest in a hurricane heading to Florida is "clearly being racist".

[OngBonga]

You show me ICE tearing a white family apart, or a white illegal immigrant being deported to certain death, and I'll change my language.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0714/10...tation-family/

[oskar]

If he eventually does get deported, you're up to 1.

[oskar]

Well this is why I mocked your analogy. Your example was a case of clear cut racism. There's no debate there. I was referring to the hurricane when you replied, so are you suggesting that Trump bleating about Puerto Rico is the same as throwing the N-word about? Explain to me how Trump's interest in a hurricane heading to Florida is "clearly being racist".

Let's just drop that word. Spoon was arguing in favor of white separatism, but he doesn't think he's a racist. It's not a useful word.
He's lying about the amount of aid they have received. He's making it sound like Puerto Rico is to blame for getting hit by a hurricane... but once it turns out it'll hit Florida, things are getting super serious.

https://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch...da-67894853746

Here's Chris Matthews making the exact same observation... as everyone else.
Do you have autism Ong? I think you might have some autism.

[oskar]

https://psychcentral.com/quizzes/autism-quiz/

[Poopadoop]

Well this is why I mocked your analogy. Your example was a case of clear cut racism. There's no debate there. I was referring to the hurricane when you replied, so are you suggesting that Trump bleating about Puerto Rico is the same as throwing the N-word about? Explain to me how Trump's interest in a hurricane heading to Florida is "clearly being racist".

Oskar already read you the laundry list of reasons to think Trump is racist. If you don't want to infer from that to the obvious conclusion, that's up to you. On the balance of probabilities I'd say it's >90% that Trump is racist, maybe >95%. There's a lot of racist people out there who don't say the n-word in public in front of the whole world, but if you pay attention to their behaviour you can still spot the pattern.

Just out of curiosity, what % would you give to Trump being racist?

[oskar]

Isn't it more of a spectrum? Like Ong's autism?

[Poopadoop]

Isn't it more of a spectrum? Like Ong's autism?

Possibly, but I think once you cross the boundary from thinking people are different because of the colour of their skin to treating them like they're different for that same reason, I think you go from being 'ignorant' to being 'racist'.

[oskar]

fair enough.
fwiw, according to psychcentral.com, I only have "likely autism"