1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: Today at 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? 

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 17, 2025, 08:18:11 AM »

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.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 16, 2025, 07:01:25 AM »

“Credible”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgl4dl334go

So…he means the stuff he’s not in, right?

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 14, 2025, 03:29:14 PM »

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.

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 14, 2025, 03:03:05 PM »

Unfortunately for your opinion, the people liked Trump's jokes and he was partially voted into a position of power because of it.

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.
I want leaders who are competent, not funny. No bad thing if they're both I guess but Trump clearly isn't. In brief:



You lot don't have a monopoly on stupid of course. We voted for Brexit and Boris Johnson over here. There are growing rumblings that we could vote for Farage. This man, who thinks that our Prime Minister at the time was called "Joris Bohnson", was able to vote and did so. It makes my head spin.

There have been calls that the USA should also deport the far left like many countries throughout history have deported its enemies.

I think you'll find history has a pretty dim view of those countries. And the issue is your cult leader is telling you that these people are the enemies when they're not. But, being cult members, you believe the cult leader. Again, troubling.

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 14, 2025, 02:08:18 PM »

Also, how the fuck can anyone be ok with Trump just deciding American Citizens aren't citizens anymore?

I'm sure our resident cult member will be along any minute to...oh, there he is. As you were.

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 14, 2025, 02:07:46 PM »

Trump is a television star comedian

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

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 09, 2025, 06:59:08 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.

I wouldn't want any of those rapists or sexual assaulters to be president or prime minister either.
I would like leaders with morals and integrity, I guess I'm a little old fashioned that way.

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 09, 2025, 04:59:29 PM »

Plenty of steps taken that were certainly not centrist.

Well, maybe. So give examples of those then.
Banging an intern isn’t one of them.

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 09, 2025, 04:40:07 PM »

I wonder what they’re doing to prepare.
Giving all the local young women rape alarms and pepper spray?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm20xvgmd8yo

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 09, 2025, 02:35:55 PM »

Clintons are "centrist."

What a fucking joke of a take.

Whether they are or not, the weird thing is you seem to be evidencing your position that they aren't by the fact Clinton had an affair with an intern.
"He cant be centrist! He got a blow job in the oval office!".

What the hell are you talking about? How are those two things linked?
Try "He can't be a centrist, he did <insert non-centrist policy he implemented here>"

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 09, 2025, 09:54:47 AM »

No, he's talking about the fact that Trump was found liable for sexual abuse rather than rape. We spent several pages discussing this back when the news first broke. According to Tom, the fact that the jury chose not to find Trump liable for rape is a clear repudiation of Carroll's entire story and proof that Trump is entirely innocent; however, the fact that the same jury found Trump liable for sexusl abuse and defamation when he denied the whole thing even happened means nothing at all.

Ah yes. Schrödinger's Jury. Beyond reproach when they find Trump not guilty, irrelevant when they find him guilty.
Cult members gotta cult member I guess.

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 09, 2025, 06:20:45 AM »

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

Aww, bless. You don’t understand the difference between adjudicated and convicted, do you? Trump is a convicted felon and an adjudicated rapist.

If a jury says someone is not guilty that doesn’t actually mean they’re saying the person didn’t do it. It just means they don’t believe the evidence is good enough to establish beyond reasonable doubt that they did. For good reason there is a high bar for conviction, and rape cases have a notoriously low level of conviction.

But the judge clearly believed Trump did it

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/07/donald-trump-rape-language-e-jean-carroll

That’s the trade off with the high bar for conviction. You don’t want innocent people being locked up but you do end up with a lot of people, like Trump, who are most likely rapists walking free.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 08, 2025, 08:06:45 PM »

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

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 06, 2025, 10:01:14 PM »

I partly agree with Tom

I do too, it's just a weird boast that they're actively enjoying this level of corruption, self-enrichment and cruelty to the poorest and most vulnerable in society.

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 04, 2025, 05:23:09 AM »

Welp, it passes the house without issue.

So Trump got what he wanted.

I'd day good luck America but honestly?  I hope you reap what you sow and if it's bad (it will be), you all suffer and know it's your own fault.

It’ll be fine. It only affects the poor and the vulnerable and fuck those guys, amirite?

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 02, 2025, 08:40:45 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.

His father?  Yes.
But you'd be amazed how far you can get riding on someone else's coat tails.

Indeed

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-final-2016-presidential-debate/fact-check-trumps-claim-that-he-built-his-company-with-1-million-loan/

18

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: July 01, 2025, 06:00:49 PM »

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that whoever bought a copy of The Art Of The Deal should demand a refund?

He didn’t even write it.
Fairly likely he’s never read it.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all

19

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 29, 2025, 07:43:02 AM »

Sounds like obliterate means “cause a few months delay”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c79qeqg89g2o

20

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: June 26, 2025, 06:53:05 AM »

I don't agree with the people giving even grudging credit to Trump over this. Trump clearly said that there was a ceasefire, and Israel and Iran clearly disregarded him and continued their war. The fact that at a later time Israel and Iran really did agree on a ceasefire doesn't somehow ripple back through time and imbue Trump's impotent declaration with retroactive relevance. No, Trump was bullshitting, because he's a thoroughly stupid man and a habitual liar, and he almost certainly played a very limited role (at best) in the actual ceasefire.

I dunno. While I certainly agree that orange man bad, it's not like he announced a ceasefire, then the war continued for another few weeks and then there was a ceasefire. After Trump announced the ceasefire there were some subsequent skirmishes, he yelled at them both and since then the ceasefire has held. Whether it will continue to hold remains to be seen of course. And of course like always he's massively exaggerating how effective everything he does is. But the timing is such that I don't think you can entirely detach the current ceasefire from his actions.
Don't get me wrong, this wasn't some brilliant strategic move from Trump. He operates entirely by gut feel. So if he did get this right it was more luck than judgement. But there are some tentative signs that he might have got it right.