1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: Today at 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.

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: Today at 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.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 17, 2025, 04:26:38 PM »

That's not the reason Trump gave for why Rosie O'Donnell should be stripped of citizenship. Stop making things up.

He said she "is not in the best interests of our great country" and that "she is a Threat to Humanity".
Far as I can see he didn't elaborate on either of those claims.
So what does any of that mean? What has she actually done which would make him say that?
The only thing I can actually see she's done, apart from emigrate because she can't stand to be in a country in which he's president, is be an outspoken critic of him.
And he is notoriously and embarrassingly thin skinned. So if he's not talking about her criticism of him then what is he talking about?

If you can't see the way he goes after critics of him as dangerous and "dictatory" then you are beyond help.

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.

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

Fox - Rosie O'Donnel Under Fire for Promoting Trump Killing Game

Here she is openly bribing Congressional representatives:

Forbes - Has Rosie O'Donnell Tweeted Her Way Into Bribery Charges?

"After comedian Rosie O'Donnell offered $2 million to two Republican senators to vote against the GOP tax bill on Twitter, conservatives across the Internet began calling for formal charges of bribery against her.

O'Donnell's tweet was directed at Maine Senator Susan Collins and Arizona Senator Jeff Flake, who both ultimately voted for the tax bill. She reiterated the cash offer in several other tweets."

This last one alone, bribing politicians, is something that deserves a revocation of citizenship and deportation and expulsion from the country. She is also likely guilty of violating campaign finance laws. There is a pattern of attempting to tamper with the politicial process.

She said that she fled to Ireland because of Trump and the evil republicans stripping away the rights of citizens. In reality, she was afraid of being prosecuted for her crimes.

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 16, 2025, 12:20:30 AM »

Being granted a license isn't a guarantee that you get to keep the license regardless of how you conduct yourself. Being granted a certificate of land ownership isn't a guarantee that you get to keep the land forever, regardless of how you conduct your finances or eminent domain considerations. There are a hundred examples where designations are not permanent.

I don't think there's any controversy there. Yes, of course there are situations where citizenship can and should be revoked.
But someone being an outspoken criticism of the leader of a country isn't one of them. You're supposed to be a democracy in which people have free speech.
Removing people who criticise the administration is a bit...dictatory.
Come on, dude, you surely see there are dangers here. Although all that said it doesn't sound like Trump actually has unilateral power to do this, so there are some checks and balances.

That's not the reason Trump gave for why Rosie O'Donnell should be stripped of citizenship. Stop making things up.

The keyword is that someone is granted citenship.

Citizenship is a right granted by the constitution, therefore only the constitution can revoke citizenship.  Please show me where the constitution outlines the process for revoking citizenship.

The Constitution doesn't say whether it can be taken away or not. Anything not in the Constitution is for the government to decide. It also doesn't say that Citizenship is a right, like the right to free speech and the right to bare arms. If it were a right it would have been explicitly described that way with the other rights. Instead, it merely outlines who qualifies for citizenship.

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 14, 2025, 03:22:22 PM »

That's unfortunate for pretty much everyone. But yes, a largely stupid population voted for a stupid thing for stupid reasons. The fact you think that's a good thing is...odd.
I mean, Trump is pretty funny. But if you think that someone being voted in to power because they're funny is a good thing then you're part of the problem.

Humor is used for multiple puropses beyond the sake of humor. I gave an example of the Kim Jong Un summit and how humor was used to gain the upper hand. Trump's use of humor has won him multiple debates, in final striking blows against his opponents, showing that he is the smartest and most dymanic candiate for the job.

I've read the Constitution. It's not that long. It says who gets citizenship. It doesn't say that anyone specifically has a right to keep their citizenship, or that it can't be stripped away from them. There is nothing about "must be kept" or "must be maintained". This would go to the Supreme Court.

Actually, it has gone before the Supreme Court in the birthright citizenship case. You know, Trump’s challenge to the 14th amendment.

While you’re reading the Constitution, please point out where revoking citizenship is a power granted to the president in particular or the executive branch in general.

Here is Google AI's interpretation of the 1898 case:

"The landmark Supreme Court case regarding birthright citizenship is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, decided in 1898. This case affirmed that the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause grants automatic citizenship to anyone born within the United States, regardless of their parents' citizenship status. "

The keyword is that someone is granted citenship. Being granted a license isn't a guarantee that you get to keep the license regardless of how you conduct yourself. Being granted a certificate of land ownership isn't a guarantee that you get to keep the land forever, regardless of how you conduct your finances or eminent domain considerations. There are a hundred examples where designations are not permanent.

Further, a US Citizen can choose to give up their US Citizenship, proving that citizenship isn't absolute. If it were absolute you would not be able to give it up.

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 14, 2025, 03:00:34 PM »

I've read the Constitution. It's not that long. It says who gets citizenship. It doesn't say that anyone specifically has a right to keep their citizenship, or that it can't be stripped away from them. There is nothing about "must be kept" or "must be maintained". This would go to the Supreme Court.

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 14, 2025, 02:27:20 PM »

Trump is a television star comedian

Correct. I'm glad we agree that he shouldn't be in any position of power.

Unfortunately for your opinion, the people liked Trump's jokes and he was partially voted into a position of power because of it. Trump has an uncanny ability to troll his opposition to his benefit, such as making weight comments about Kim Jong Un during an official summit. He put himself into a position of power, dominating the discussions.

In this case, however, I suspect it is more than a joke. At the moment a deporation movement is increasing in momentum across the United States against illegal aliens. There have been calls that the USA should also deport the far left like many countries throughout history have deported its enemies. Rosie O'Donnell has already self-deported herself to Ireland, so stripping her citizenship is a lower bar, which could be suitable for a test case to create a precedent that the Executive can do this.

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 14, 2025, 02:05:17 PM »

Trump is either making a joke, or he is using Rosie O'Donnell as testing for stripping the far left of citizenship. Either is okay with me.

Trump is a television star comedian, and has made a similar level of jokes during his campaign and as president. Such comments are expected from a comedian. This can be easily brushed off without consequence.

On the other hand, there is a compelling argument to be made that the far left should be stripped of citizenship and deported. They are promoting unamerican values, such as calls to defund the police and allowing illegal aliens to flood the country during the Biden reign unimpeded. Their other values seem to be close to pro-crime and pro-degeneracy as it can get. Democrats even hate themselves for being affiliated with the far left to the point of distancing themselves and claiming that they are not Democrats, despite voting for Democrat candidates during election time.

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 09, 2025, 06:10:12 PM »

It is rather odd that AATW is worried about Trump but has never made mention of the increasing reports of rape and sexual assaults in his country as result of immigration, instead claiming that migrants have done good for his country.

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 09, 2025, 03:21:20 AM »

The jury actually ruled that he didn't rape anyone.

Is someone who has an affair logically more or less likely to cut taxes? To pursue foreign intervention? To support gay marriage? It doesn't really make sense.

Remember who you’re talking to.
I’ve literally no idea what Action is talking about. Clinton had an affair with an intern and therefore he’s left wing seems to be the implication.

It’s a “if she floats then she’s made of wood and therefore a witch” level of logic.

Trump has had multiple affairs. He’s been adjudicated to be a rapist. So what does that make him? Is that more or less left wing than Clinton? Just utter nonsense

Please stop lying. The jury ruled that he didn't rape E. Jean Caroll, and the leftists here were in shambles over it.

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 08, 2025, 07:22:56 PM »

So you went with the 'This was intentional and Trump is playing 4D chess' but with alot of maybe.

But since both Trump and Pam said they have the evidence, it's clear they were lying.  You wouldn't say you have something then say you don't as a honeypot for the people on the list.

I couldn't find a direct promise by Trump to release the sex trafficking client list. I found this from 2024:

https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-world/trump-teases-releasing-epstein-client-list-if-elected-id-certainly-take-a-look-at-it-bill-clinton-jeffrey-prince-andrew-rfk-jr-island-plane-stephen-hawking-donald-election-2024-sex-trafficking

“It’s just very strange for a lot of people that the list of clients that went to the island has not been made public,” Fridman said.

“Yeah, it’s very interesting, isn’t it?” Trump said.

“So if you’re able to, you’ll ---” Fridman began.

“Yeah, I’d certainly take a look at it,” Trump said.

Since Trump had access to everything as President, his specific wording matters. Trump doesn't say that he there is a specific client list of people who rented children from Epstein through sex trafficking that the government is withholding. There is list of people who went to the island that is being withheld. We already have a lot of those names who went to the island, which are hundreds of celebrities and rich people.

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 08, 2025, 12:17:35 PM »

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2m879neljo

Curious how Tom will spin this.
Official story?
Democrat edits?
Hillary Clinton?

Or will they finally start to question if Trump, who was president at the time, had a hand in it...

This has been happening for almost two decades now. Epstein was convicted for sex trafficking 19 years ago, and since then his list of associates was continually threatened to be released, but then somehow not released. At this point we can only hope that the wealthy clients are being snatched under seal in a massive honeypot of self incrimination.

It is suspect to me how a man who didn't even have a company website obtained hundreds of millions of dollars, giving credence to the claims that he was part of an covert operation designed to gather blackmail against the rich and powerful. If true, the system will never allow the details of this to be fully known and expose itself, no matter who is President.

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 06, 2025, 07:22:08 PM »

It is Democrats who are extremely dissatisfied with their party, not Republicans. This is why you guys claim "I'm not really a Democrat" or "I'm not really a liberal" and claim some kind of moderate stance despite your leftist values and voting history. In contrast, Republicans and conservatives are generally satisfied with their labels and don't put distance between their party and themselves in this way.

Elon still has some credence as a leftist leader. His right wing antics are generally being characterized as a crazy phase of life and excuses are already being made for him. In time he will be forgiven by the left.

Recall that he already attempted to divide the Democrats  when he first switched over with numerous tweets of direct reason and convincing. His goal with this new party and the manufactured division is clearly to divide the Democrats in a more subtle way, claiming to be a moderate alternative.

Again, it is the Democrats who have been calling for a moderate alternative to their party, not the Republicans, showing us the truth on what this really is.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 02, 2025, 04:13:43 AM »

It's fairly absurd by any measure to claim that a billionaire is not a good businessman. Even the claim that he received a jumpstart through millions from his father just means that both Trump and his father are good business men.

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 27, 2025, 05:15:45 PM »

From the above PBS article:

The Israeli military also confirmed it struck roads around Iran’s Fordo enrichment facility to obstruct access to the site.

They took out the roads to prevent emergency responders from trying to help people who may have been trapped or dying in the rubble. This is reprehensible, and likely a war crime. Attacking the survivors of a bombing is distinctly different than the bombing of the infrastructure itself.

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 24, 2025, 05:26:25 AM »

ITT:

https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1937296693583839639

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 19, 2025, 09:38:37 PM »

I do have criticisms about Trump...

You do?  Would you care to share some of them?

I've criticized that in Trump's first term his policies were weak and he held back, giving leftists many chances and too much leeway. Now that the gloves have come off in his second term Trump is doing what should have been done years ago, and the people love him for it.

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1935774344732361207

18

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 15, 2025, 04:26:26 PM »

Past experience of your posts after every misspeak by Biden tells me different. Or, at the very least, if someone else had brought it up you’d have piled on. That isn’t speculation, there’s a clear pattern in your posting.
Any slight misstep from the people you like and it’s defend and deny. If it’s someone on the other side then it’s all out attack.

I’m not particularly defending Biden, he clearly was mentally unfit for office. But Trump is unfit for office too - in a different way - but because he is your guy the mental backflips you will do to find no fault in him and defend everything he says and does are ridiculous. It’s intellectually dishonest. You must at some level acknowledge that Trump is human and therefore fallible. And yet I don’t recall ever seeing you criticise or condemn anything he says or does. And it’s that which makes you appear like a cult member who is so far gone they can find no fault in their glorious leader. And that’s what makes any honest conversation with you impossible.

This is a terrible argument. You come to us with a constant stream of lies and partisan smears, and are wondering why I never agree with you. I never agree with you because all of your content comes from partisan journalists with a long history of smearing conservatives in the most dishonest ways possible. Your information comes from a single, mud throwing side. If you came up with your own unique arguments, or posted the conservative criticisms, I would have much more respect for them.

I do have criticisms about Trump, but they are entirely unrelated to everything you post. You post the most low brow, alarmist content and think that it's good as any other.

Ultimately, this is a psychological problem. Your over-emotional liberal nature keeps you and your journalists from operating within reason. A great many liberals operate in an emotional, childish manner, like the man in the below video.

https://twitter.com/iAnonPatriot/status/1934242985518260588

19

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 15, 2025, 03:53:27 PM »

And how do you think Tom would have interpreted it had Biden said it?

I probably wouldn't have commented. After watching the video or reading the transcript anyone can see that argument that Trump thinks that Putin was in WWII is weak.

I'm not sure why you are still attempting to put Joe Biden on an even level though. Joe Biden's reelection candidacy was rejected by his own party because he was mentally unfit for president. It was an embarrassment.

20

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 14, 2025, 02:48:15 PM »

So... "Trump fought in WW2 and was very helpful in securing it." - is something you'd understand as USA?  Because typically we'd use the leader of the nation at that time, not currently.

Also, Trump seems to not understand that 80+ years have gone by and governments change, nor the whole cold war propaganda that he literally lived through.

Trump says to World Leader 2 "We lost half a million soldiers in WWII". World Leader 2 then says to someone else, referring to that conversation: "He lost half a million soldiers in WWII" and "He fought with us in WWII" Both of the later two sentences make perfect sense to consider Trump as the USA in this instance, considering that Trump is describing the USA as "we". Especially if during the conversation World Leader 2 clarified that "and he did fight, the US fought" to convey that "he" means the US.

I am certain that everyone here understands this and that you guys are continuing with this liberal tactic of "playing dumb" to make an argument.

He'll understand it whatever way his cult leader tells him to.
Imagine being an "independent thinker" and having such a slavish devotion to a narcissist's whims.
I like to think Tom is just trolling but I have a feeling he really is this much of a sheep.

Independent thinking isn't blindly posting the partisan rubbish you find on the internet. Your entire narrative is almost completely rubbish, and this exemplifies it. If you had watched the video before posting it you would have found that there was a whole lot of context in the "..." that your sources were lying to you about, but you accepted uncritically. You basically took a lie and posted it here, spreading lies to us directly.