1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by markjo on July 18, 2025, 08:10:25 PM »

No one forced Rosie O'Donnell to do what she did. She, alone, is responsible.

Check me if I’m wrong, but the senators didn’t vote way Rosie O’Donnell wanted, so she never actually a paid bribe.  The worst you could accuse her of is attempted bribery.

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by markjo on July 18, 2025, 08:04:16 PM »

Bribing politicians is unjustifiable. It is a disrespect for the political process and is certainly deserving of a revocation of citizenship. You should lose the privilege of being an American if you engage in criminal corruption such as bribery of officials.

Does anyone else remember Trump holding a special dinner for his Trump coin investors, including a meet and greet for the top buyers?   How is that not begging to be bribed?

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Lord Dave on July 18, 2025, 07:33:24 PM »

You can't say "two wrongs don't make a right" when you refuse to accept that what Trump has said and done is even a "wrong" to begin with. To make your murder analogy work, we'd have to suppose that there's a guy named Joe who killed someone, nothing ever happened to him, and there was a large group of people who outright celebrated the fact that Joe had killed a person and admired just how tough and daring he was for doing it. Then a guy named Bob comes along and kills someone, and the same people celebrating Joe killing a person acted horrified and said, "How dare you kill a person? Murder is never, never, never justified!" and when Bob argued that Joe was celebrated for killing someone, those people stuck their fingers in their ears and shrieked, "Two wrongs don't make a right!" Because that's more or less what you're doing. When Trump behaves like a horrible person, you either look the other way or outright praise him for it. When someone who's opposed to Trump behaves poorly, you become a holier-than-thou pompous scold. Is being a bad person cool and acceptable or not? It's a simple question.

I wouldn't bother.  Tom's reply proves that he either can't see it, or won't say it.

He was 100% on board with bribing people to vote if it was Trump or Elon.  He's 100% onboard with blackmail or threats of/to politicians so long as its Trump doing it.

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Tom Bishop on July 18, 2025, 06:31:22 PM »

To make your murder analogy work, we'd have to suppose that there's a guy named Joe who killed someone, nothing ever happened to him, and there was a large group of people who outright celebrated the fact that Joe had killed a person and admired just how tough and daring he was for doing it. Then a guy named Bob comes along and kills someone, and the same people celebrating Joe killing a person acted horrified and said, "How dare you kill a person? Murder is never, never, never justified!" and when Bob argued that Joe was celebrated for killing someone, those people stuck their fingers in their ears and shrieked, "Two wrongs don't make a right!"

I am sure that if you murder someone in cold blood, there will be someone in existence who is willing to give you a thumbs up or "celebrate" it. However, the presence of those people and their potential hyprocrisy doesn't justify your murder. You, alone, are responsible for the murder that you commit. Provided that they did not force you to do it, it doesn't matter what other people do or don't do. Other people are not you. It's called self responsibility.

When Trump behaves like a horrible person, you either look the other way or outright praise him for it. When someone who's opposed to Trump behaves poorly, you become a holier-than-thou pompous scold. Is being a bad person cool and acceptable or not? It's a simple question.

You are justifying the bribery of politicians with someone else's alleged crimes. Are you arguing that Trump is so corrupt that Rosie O'Donnell was forced to bribe politicians to vote against a GOP tax bill? This would be a laughable argument. No one forced Rosie O'Donnell to do what she did. She, alone, is responsible.

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by honk on July 18, 2025, 05:53:31 PM »

You can't say "two wrongs don't make a right" when you refuse to accept that what Trump has said and done is even a "wrong" to begin with. To make your murder analogy work, we'd have to suppose that there's a guy named Joe who killed someone, nothing ever happened to him, and there was a large group of people who outright celebrated the fact that Joe had killed a person and admired just how tough and daring he was for doing it. Then a guy named Bob comes along and kills someone, and the same people celebrating Joe killing a person acted horrified and said, "How dare you kill a person? Murder is never, never, never justified!" and when Bob argued that Joe was celebrated for killing someone, those people stuck their fingers in their ears and shrieked, "Two wrongs don't make a right!" Because that's more or less what you're doing. When Trump behaves like a horrible person, you either look the other way or outright praise him for it. When someone who's opposed to Trump behaves poorly, you become a holier-than-thou pompous scold. Is being a bad person cool and acceptable or not? It's a simple question.

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Tom Bishop on July 18, 2025, 05:16:13 PM »

I see AATW and Honk defending Rosie O'Donnell's actions by trying to point the finger elsewhere. However inaccurate, the main problem is that two wrongs don't make a right. You can't justify killing a person you met on the street because Hitler killed 6 million. Hitler's actions are irrelevant to yours.

Bribing politicians is unjustifiable. It is a disrespect for the political process and is certainly deserving of a revocation of citizenship. You should lose the privilege of being an American if you engage in criminal corruption such as bribery of officials.

Also, committing crimes as a joke isn't a workable defense.

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Lord Dave on July 18, 2025, 02:35:28 PM »

I'm again struck by the blatant contradiction of Trump fans who insist they admire him for being a cool bad boy who says what he wants and does what he wants, a master troll who stomps all over the delicate feelings of the whiny bleeding-heart "feels>reals" types and sends them scurrying for cover, only for them, whenever it's convenient, to reinvent him as a deeply pious and upstanding family man who stands against the godless immorality of people like the Clintons and Hollywood liberals, as well as a fearless defender of children against the predatory LGBT community. Which is it, guys? Do you embrace Trump's amorality or not? You can't sneer "lol, fuck your feelings" at people who rightly criticize Trump for making misogynistic or racist attacks and then turn around and say, "My goodness, I am offended by Rosie O'Donnell promoting a Flash game where you kill the president. This is deeply immoral! Think of the children!" It's one or the other. You can be all in on 4chan-style amorality and deliberate offensiveness, or you can claim the high ground and insist you're standing up for Christian values and decency, but you can't do both.

Ummm... Those ARE Christian values.
Proclaiming yourself to be holy and morally right while slaughtering innocents.  Thats about as Christian as you get.

I mean, maybe not but what Jesus taught, but very Christian.

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by honk on July 18, 2025, 01:44:57 PM »

I'm again struck by the blatant contradiction of Trump fans who insist they admire him for being a cool bad boy who says what he wants and does what he wants, a master troll who stomps all over the delicate feelings of the whiny bleeding-heart "feels>reals" types and sends them scurrying for cover, only for them, whenever it's convenient, to reinvent him as a deeply pious and upstanding family man who stands against the godless immorality of people like the Clintons and Hollywood liberals, as well as a fearless defender of children against the predatory LGBT community. Which is it, guys? Do you embrace Trump's amorality or not? You can't sneer "lol, fuck your feelings" at people who rightly criticize Trump for making misogynistic or racist attacks and then turn around and say, "My goodness, I am offended by Rosie O'Donnell promoting a Flash game where you kill the president. This is deeply immoral! Think of the children!" It's one or the other. You can be all in on 4chan-style amorality and deliberate offensiveness, or you can claim the high ground and insist you're standing up for Christian values and decency, but you can't do both.

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by AATW on July 18, 2025, 08:44:08 AM »

Rosie O'Donnell is a public personality has made her positions quite clear. She believes in all of the radical positions of the far left and is intolerant under the guise of tolerance. She has two trans children and is a bad person.

lol. You MAGA cult are funny.
O'Donnell is a BAD PERSON because she doesn't believe what you believe.
But the convicted felon, the bloke who thinks it's ok to "grab 'em by the pussy", boasts about walking in to Miss Teen USA dressing rooms, talks about how he'd like to bang his daughter, has had numerous affairs, paid off a porn star, is an adjudicated rapist.
Yep. That's sounds like a GOOD PERSON. That's the guy we want running the country.
You lot are silly 

Here she is promoting a game which humorizes killing a politician

And here you are explaining why she has the right to do so

America is generous in its free speech. Speech related to advocating illegal actions is in general legal. The Supreme Court ruled that the speech related to advocating illegal actions is only illegal if the speech is part of a specific criminal conspiracy. You can indeed call for burning everything down, or death to the infidels or almost anything you want. The limitations only start when you start planning out a specific murder to occur at a specific time with your comrades.

D'oh! Logical consistency is overrated, amirite?

Here she is openly bribing Congressional representatives

Sorry to hear that you don't understand humour. The two people she made the fairly clear jokey offer to didn't vote the way she asked anyway. Was she ever charged for this let alone convicted?

Meanwhile, in MAGA world some bribery which actually did happen:

Speaking at a rally Sunday night, Musk said "we just want judges to be judges", before handing out two $1m (£750,000) cheques to voters who had signed a petition to stop "activist" judges.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd7v3jj5xy9o

D'oh! Logical consistency is overrated, amirite?

This last one alone, bribing politicians, is something that deserves a revocation of citizenship and deportation and expulsion from the country.

That's a nice opinion. Shame it has no basis in law or the constitution.

Once again you show yourself to judge actions entirely depending on whether it's your cult leader or one of his minions doing it, or someone you don't like. Logical consistency is overrated, amirite? 

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by garygreen on July 17, 2025, 06:28:58 PM »

She believes in all of the radical positions of the far left

this is protected by the first amendment.

and is intolerant.

this is protected by the first amendment.

She has two trans children

this is protected by the fourteenth amendment.

and is a bad person.

this is protected by a bunch of amendments.

Here she is promoting a game which humorizes killing a politician:

this is protected by the first amendment.

Here she is openly bribing Congressional representatives:

if so, then her due process is protected by the fifth and fourteenth amendments.

This last one alone, bribing politicians, is something that deserves a revocation of citizenship and deportation and expulsion from the country.

that's not how due process works.

given your dangerously unamerican attitudes and clear contempt for the constitution, you should probably be deported. thankfully, the first amendment guarantees your right to be as unamerican as you want to be.