What's Trump up to now?

[Crni Vuk]

While I have nothing against you two I can also see that this is going nowhere and seems pointless.
Are you two stopping this soon or should I just ignore this thread for a while until someone starts talking about what Trump is doing again?

I think Walp has a point, you can not go and simply generlize BLM and when it happens to you simply declare it's unfair, you can't have it both ways. What ever if you like or don't like BLM - to say this I am not really happy with that movement either - but one HAS to recognize that BLM is a reaction, it didn't just come out because people are happy and everything would be fine.

See, of course not everyone who voted for Trump is racist and of course not every white person is a racist, to even get that idea would be ridiculous, but why is then suddenly alright to make broad statements about BLM? Criticism is one thing, but generalization is silly. Particularly when it's usually missing the point - the message behind BLM for example.

Oh yeah, turns out that whole "we don't wanna do the World Police thing anymore" only lasts as long as nobody hurts the beautiful babies.

Which is very un-republican since everyone knows babies are on their own the moment they are born. A fetus, a fetus has to be protected at all costs! Unless it's a muslim. They are evil.

 

[CaptJ]

Walpknut, no point in discussing with someone who is constantly just hurling invectives around and is a racist. Only one of those is enough to disqualify someone in my view.

In other news, looks like Trump started another war although he said he wouldn't. I guess that's yet another broken promise.

I honestly doubt you ever admit that you wrong about me being Vergil; not because you actually believe it but because, it makes you feel better that you can dismiss people's opinions without actually listening. Go ahead blame both Zionist and Neo-Nazis without understanding the big contradiction. Is this how you make yourself feel better? Telling everyone how much of not a Nazi that you are?

See, of course not everyone who voted for Trump is racist and of course not every white person is a racist, to even get that idea would be ridiculous, but why is then suddenly alright to make broad statements about BLM? Criticism is one thing, but generalization is silly. Particularly when it's usually missing the point - the message behind BLM for example.

Because BLM isn't a race.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Sorry to say it that way, but you really are a bit dense aren't you?

For christ sake, don't act so obtuse you know what the point is. The point is generalization. I never said BLM is a 'race'. Seriously ... this is irritating, stop to ASSUME and actually read and adress the points which are actually there and not projecting something in to it and creating a narrative which doesn't exist.

1. Lynching isn't just racially motivated murder. It is form of mob "justice."
2. The source was unclear with its own examples with the motivation or even the suspect.
3. [X number] Something Something is a great sign of journalism and not at all format for clickbait articles.
4. Zero sources.

You didn't had one.


I'm just waiting for the polarization of politics to slow down and people would acting like they are in the middle of a holy war.

Seriously? Do you really want to discuss semantics here? There are no racist fucktards in the US killing black people? Does it really matter if we call it lynching, hate crime or what ever? Walp wouldn't even have to present you ANY link at all because LOGIC alone says that with 200 milion people you will have some fucked up neo-nazis runing around hunting mexicans, black people or what ever. Murders happen all the time and I am pretty sure some, even if only a very small minority, have racial motivation. Hell it happens even in Germany, where sometimes neo-nazis set homeless people on fire because in their eyes homeless people are parasites to the society.

 

[CaptJ]

Seriously? Do you really want to discuss semantics here?

Yes because it being a lynching means many people were complicit in it. You don't have to hide these things in a systematically racist society.

There are no racist fucktards in the US killing black people?

Of course there is but have to make a distinction between racist individuals and a racist society otherwise the word systematic means nothing.

Does it really matter if we call it lynching, hate crime or what ever?

If you want to make a case that society is racist, yes.

Walp wouldn't even have to present you ANY link at all because LOGIC alone says that with 200 milion people you will have some fucked up neo-nazis runing around hunting mexicans, black people or what ever. Murders happen all the time and I am pretty sure some, even if only a very small minority, have racial motivation.

Can you reasonably expect a society to have no murders? Probably not. However if it is proven that a significant portion of society condones murder, then that might be a problem that can be fixed.

Hell it happens even in Germany, where sometimes neo-nazis set homeless people on fire because in their eyes homeless people are parasites to the society.

Well it is a good thing that Germany has laws against Nazism.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Yes because it being a lynching means many people were complicit in it. You don't have to hide these things in a systematically racist society.

Yes, I remember how the KKK lynched people openly and in public at the Washington monument while handing out business cards with their personal informations.

Of course there is but have to make a distinction between racist individuals and a racist society otherwise the word systematic means nothing.

Are you sure this is what Walp is saying here? You have a very unique skill of only reading what you want to read and missing the point of what someone's trying to say. Because honestly, I don't get this kind of vibe from Walp and I think he's making a distinction here. He just tried, from what I can read, to show you how silly an argument becomes when you turn it around like when a generalisation against BLM is used against white people for example, or if you want Trump supporters of which some definetly are violent as well.

If you want to make a case that society is racist, yes.

Name it what ever you want, but the truth is that there are people dieing out there. How much of that has to do with society? I don't know. But you have after all a president that's making people tired from winning ...

Can you reasonably expect a society to have no murders? Probably not. However if it is proven that a significant portion of society condones murder, then that might be a problem that can be fixed.

And that's an argument how? Just because certain crimes ought to be expected, doesn't mean you can't go and improve the situation.

Well it is a good thing that Germany has laws against Nazism.

The point isn't that there are laws, but that ringt wing terrorism is a fact and that it happens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism#United_States
Scholars such as Anthea Butler contended that the word "terrorism" is disproportionately applied by the media in reference to crimes committed by Muslims (and that the word "thug" is similarly used to describe African Americans).[40] Juan Cole argued that the word "terrorism" is avoided by the media in cases involving crimes committed by right-wing, white Americans

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ves-islamist-extremists-report-thinktank-rusi
Thinktank says far-right lone attacks present bigger threat despite media and public focus on violent jihadis

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/12/...ger-threat-america-isis-jihadists-422743.html
Inside a storefront Chinese restaurant in upstate New York, neon light from a multicolored window sign glowed on the face of an extremist plotting mass murder. He had been seeking backing for his attack and, at this small establishment in Scotia, was meeting with a man who had agreed to take part in his scheme to build a radiation device, a weapon of mass destruction that would slowly and painfully kill anyone who walked near it.​

 

[CaptJ]

Yes, I remember how the KKK lynched people openly and in public at the Washington monument while handing out business cards with their personal informations.

Setting a cross on fire wasn't to get rid of the evidence.

He just tried, from what I can read, to show you how silly an argument becomes when you turn it around like when a generalisation against BLM is used against white people for example, or if you want Trump supporters of which some definetly are violent as well.

Because BLM is a movement, not a race or a religion and that logic makes no group accountable for anything.

And that's an argument how? Just because certain crimes ought to be expected, doesn't mean you can't go and improve the situation.

Because those problems can only be completely solved by overstepping your bounds. In the book Childhood's End which had a post-scarcity society, there are some murders and we are still nowhere near a post-scarcity society; and yes, I know about the video about robot labor.

The point isn't that there are laws, but that ringt wing terrorism is a fact and that it happens.

Terrorism is violence done for political reasons. What is your point? There are a lot of communist terrorists where I live as well. Killing an idea isn't easy. Only ideas can truly kill ideas (at least nowadays). What can you do about it? Terrorists watch lists? Because I have no idea how well that works because we literally only see the times that they have failed.

 

[Walpknut]

It's like talking to a ball of rubber bands, isn't it Crni?

 

[Risewild]

I think Walp has a point, you can not go and simply generlize BLM and when it happens to you simply declare it's unfair, you can't have it both ways. What ever if you like or don't like BLM - to say this I am not really happy with that movement either - but one HAS to recognize that BLM is a reaction, it didn't just come out because people are happy and everything would be fine.

See, of course not everyone who voted for Trump is racist and of course not every white person is a racist, to even get that idea would be ridiculous, but why is then suddenly alright to make broad statements about BLM? Criticism is one thing, but generalization is silly. Particularly when it's usually missing the point - the message behind BLM for example.


Which is very un-republican since everyone knows babies are on their own the moment they are born. A fetus, a fetus has to be protected at all costs! Unless it's a muslim. They are evil.

I think you quote the wrong post there or I am very confused now .

 

[Crni Vuk]

Eh I missunderstood your intentions, I mean all this moaning about BLM, it's really getting on my nerves, sorry about that. I mean I see that there is a lot BLM can be critized for. But I often have the feeling people just want a 'scape goat' for everything they see wrong and BLM is a pretty good one for that.

Setting a cross on fire wasn't to get rid of the evidence.

Terrorism my friend, do you know how it works?

Because BLM is a movement, not a race or a religion and that logic makes no group accountable for anything.

What's your point? That a movement can't be subject to gross generalisation and/or oversymplification? I guess it's true all metalfans are just loud, drunk satanworshipers and society would be better without them, right?

Because those problems can only be completely solved by overstepping your bounds. In the book Childhood's End which had a post-scarcity society, there are some murders and we are still nowhere near a post-scarcity society; and yes, I know about the video about robot labor.

I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about ...

Again I can NOT(!) expect a society without crime, racism and other issues, but I can expect from a society to try to IMPROVE on it, the way as how we have IMPROVED over the last at least 70 years after WW2. Or are you one of those people that think 1950s america was best america?

Terrorism is violence done for political reasons. What is your point? There are a lot of communist terrorists where I live as well. Killing an idea isn't easy. Only ideas can truly kill ideas (at least nowadays). What can you do about it? Terrorists watch lists? Because I have no idea how well that works because we literally only see the times that they have failed.

I wasn't making any point at all, I was stating facts that right wing terrorism and racialy motivated murders happen. The point we're actually talking about, was that 'lynching' to be called 'lynching' needs to fitt your definition, probably burning crosses infrot of a church with people in white clothes dancing around it. But what ever we define it, the people are dead regardless, you're discussing semantics here. No one said that what we experience today would be as bad like in the deepest corner of the american south of the 1950s.

It's like talking to a ball of rubber bands, isn't it Crni?

If I would say what it's really like talking to him, I would probably deserve a forum bann.

 

[GonZo_626]

Man this thread is going downhill. Lets face it everyone the extremists of both the left and right are bad things. Now back to what trump has done with firing on a Syrian air base. Seems a lot of world leaders are supporting him in this and although Russia has said it is angry about this it also stated that its support of Syria is not unconditional.

 

[BigGuyCIA]

Walpknut, no point in discussing with someone who is constantly just hurling invectives around and is a racist. Only one of those is enough to disqualify someone in my view.

You are the most ignorant person I have ever seen on any forum, by far.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Man this thread is going downhill. Lets face it everyone the extremists of both the left and right are bad things. Now back to what trump has done with firing on a Syrian air base. Seems a lot of world leaders are supporting him in this and although Russia has said it is angry about this it also stated that its support of Syria is not unconditional.

Of course they do, because killing children with gas is very different to bombing them.

Also, bombing is always the appropiate answer to well ... more bombing. THe US shure won't hestiate to use weapons to solve a situation, but when it comes to helping refugees that goes cleary to far I guess.

Curious what Jesus would say to all of this.

 

[BigGuyCIA]

THe US shure won't hestiate to use weapons to solve a situation, but when it comes to helping refugees that goes cleary to far I guess.

The military-industrial complex here is the issue. But, the U.S. government's indifference aside, plenty of U.S. based humanitarian groups work beyond the borders to help the refugees.

I donate regularly to the AGBU's program that's focused on helping Syrian-Armenians get out of the country.

 

[GonZo_626]

Of course they do, because killing children with gas is very different to bombing them.

Also, bombing is always the appropiate answer to well ... more bombing. THe US shure won't hestiate to use weapons to solve a situation, but when it comes to helping refugees that goes cleary to far I guess.

Curious what Jesus would say to all of this.

Hmmm gasing a civilian target and bombing a military base sure seem like different things to me..... I mean one seems like a crime against humanity and the other seems to be a legitimate military target. And maybe the best way to help the refugees would be making sure they don't have to become refugees. But hey with the attitude that the US should not use there military against anyone we would live in a vastly different world. Germany would probably still control France, South Korea would not exist, the UN would not exist, I mean I could go on and yes they don't always do the right thing, but even at there worst they still seem to be doing a better job then most. What's your answer to the situation in the middle east? A sit-in?

 

[Hassknecht]

http://nypost.com/2017/04/07/russian-warship-heads-toward-us-destroyers-after-strike-on-syria/
Well, this is gonna be fun.

 

[GonZo_626]

http://nypost.com/2017/04/07/russian-warship-heads-toward-us-destroyers-after-strike-on-syria/
Well, this is gonna be fun.

Looking it up the ship the Russians are sending is a cruise missile carrying frigate. So a smaller ship then the 2 destroyers the US used, probably just going there to make Assad feel warm and fuzzy.

 

[Walpknut]

Contrar to american's popular belief, a governing force can't just enact a militar attack on another country on flimsy assumptions without major repercutions, maybe they got away with it when they were bombing countries in the middle east with no western allies but Syria is Russia's political ally, and they even advised Trump not to do anything, which he clearly ignored. This is gonna get ugly real fast.

 

[GonZo_626]

Contrar to american's popular belief, a governing force can't just enact a militar attack on another country on flimsy assumptions without major repercutions, maybe they got away with it when they were bombing countries in the middle east with no western allies but Syria is Russia's political ally, and they even advised Trump not to do anything, which he clearly ignored. This is gonna get ugly real fast.

Why? Because the UN told them they couldn't? That is not gonna have major repercussions on US, and Russia will not go to war with the US because its a no win situation for them. They don't have the power to stop the US from doing what it wants unless they use nukes, if they use nukes and somehow successfully wipe the US completely off the map there is nothing they can do to stop all the US subs from wiping them out in turn. If they use their nukes tactically the US will have ever precedent to full on take out Russia even if Trump was not in charge.

 

[Walpknut]

Forgot the US is the world's bully.

Also.


Fun.

Also, the prospect of a war between two countries that powerful isn't just some pew pew pews, I mean if you actually believe Russia is sending a warship to High five the US for attacking their political ally even after being warned not to then I guess the global and long term rammifications of it are not something you pay too much mind to.

 

[MutantScalper]

what world do you live in where people aren't already pissed at trump?

Majority of republican voters still support Trump. That's his 'base'. Democrats and independents are pretty low but suprisingly even some of them still support Trump. The browser info selling thing was pretty universally condemned by all.

It's like talking to a ball of rubber bands, isn't it Crni?

Rubber bands with swastikas on them.