What do you Americans make of this Trump derangement syndrome (TDS)?

[Neil]

ie: The excessive need for some folks to go to excessive extreme lengths to dislike, and to voice their dislike, and virtue signal their dislike for Trump?

The level of irrational illogical hatred is bizarre.

If you put aside the medias smearing and look solely has his policies in the US? Surely he's not doing a particularly bad job?

[blind2d]

ie: The excessive need for some folks to go to excessive extreme lengths to dislike, and to voice their dislike, and virtue signal their dislike for Trump?

The level of irrational illogical hatred is bizarre.

If you put aside the medias smearing and look solely has his policies in the US? Surely he's not doing a particularly bad job?

What part of "he's a fascist bigot who preys on women and harms minority groups actively while promoting the worst parts of American culture possible and putting children in concentration camps" do you not understand, Neil?

[EvilNed]

ie: The excessive need for some folks to go to excessive extreme lengths to dislike, and to voice their dislike, and virtue signal their dislike for Trump?

The level of irrational illogical hatred is bizarre.

If you put aside the medias smearing and look solely has his policies in the US? Surely he's not doing a particularly bad job?

I agree. The amount of attention the media gives him is INSANE. I watch Bill Mahr sometimes and Trump is all they ever talk about. And it's been like that for years! Everyone keeps saying "He'll be impeached by the end of this year, bla bla bla" but none of it ever comes to fruition. There's like some kind of group delusion going on that he's the anti-christ or something like that. But people did vote for this guy and to be honest I'm sure quite a lot of people who did are happy with what he's doing. And the economy is booming, which is what a lot of people wanted.

[shootemindehead]

I'm not a Yank, but I agree that sometimes the attention he gets is overwrought, to say the least, especially in an online environment. The US media thrives on his clickbait nature too, but the news media over there isn't for disseminating news. It's for making money, so depending on their "customer base", the slant of the items on offer will have a different flavour. But he doesn't shy away from drawing it to himself either. He's a complete narcissist and loves it. The fact that he, as a bored billionaire, simply decided to run for the highest political office in the land shows that clearly enough. And his bunkum posted daily on Twitter reveals his self obsessive nature to a, frankly, depressing level.

As for "not doing a particularly bad job" - and even if we set aside dodgy tax decisions, filling the swamp instead of "draining it", cosying up to Wall Street instead of "tackling it" and the fact the he's stirring up shit in the Middle East (despite his campaign promises to the contrary) and nearly brought the region to a war footing yet again, all with the nodding agreement from a cabinet full of neocons who fucked the region before - it's hardly what I would call a ringing endorsement.

The economy may be "booming" as Ned put it, at least on the surface anyway. But, no doubt, a deeper analysis would reveal more data on true satisfaction levels. His supporters from the Rustbelt haven't seen any changes. But, in any case, I'd say that has fuck all to with Trump. He's just inherited an up tick period that's pretty global. It would have been "booming" under Clinton too. I wonder, though, will he own the next bust like he claims credit for the current boom? I think we'll all be left waiting for that particular tweet.

[Neil]

What part of "he's a fascist bigot who preys on women and harms minority groups actively while promoting the worst parts of American culture possible and putting children in concentration camps" do you not understand, Neil?

The bit that's primarily concocted and made up by an insanely left wing bias set of activist journalists?

Rhetoric like "concentration camps" is exactly the kind of low brown virtue signalling antics they use! You realise these very processes were under effect by previous presidents, and indeed put in place by previous presidents? And in truth MADE worse by the actions of previous presidents. Look into the figures of illegal immigrants bringing in children, who when tested do not even belong to them. And look at how many families illegally crossing are now kept together instead of split up. And look into how many photos taken of children supposedly separated from families come from Obama's period in office.

And if we move onto the next bit of commonly used rhetoric, "fascist" - You realise Obama spent record amounts year after year refusing to turn over information. Isn't suppressing information more of a fascist act?


While I'm not heralding Trump as a model president, many of his policies actually make real sense and are doing the US a lot of good. Meanwhile the gutter press concoct insane, out of all reason, negative bile about him. Hence "Trump Derangement Syndrome!"

I fully expect him to get re-elected next year, no matter how low the press (or Google) sink...


Note: Even the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan - who's is an idiot like Trump said he was - decide it was a good thing to declare Trump as a fascist as some ridiculous virtue signal!

[blind2d]

The bit that's primarily concocted and made up by an insanely left wing bias set of activist journalists?

Rhetoric like "concentration camps" is exactly the kind of low brown virtue signalling antics they use! You realise these very processes were under effect by previous presidents, and indeed put in place by previous presidents? And in truth MADE worse by the actions of previous presidents. Look into the figures of illegal immigrants bringing in children, who when tested do not even belong to them. And look at how many families illegally crossing are now kept together instead of split up. And look into how many photos taken of children supposedly separated from families come from Obama's period in office.

And if we move onto the next bit of commonly used rhetoric, "fascist" - You realise Obama spent record amounts year after year refusing to turn over information. Isn't suppressing information more of a fascist act?


While I'm not heralding Trump as a model president, many of his policies actually make real sense and are doing the US a lot of good. Meanwhile the gutter press concoct insane, out of all reason, negative bile about him. Hence "Trump Derangement Syndrome!"

I fully expect him to get re-elected next year, no matter how low the press (or Google) sink...


Note: Even the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan - who's is an idiot like Trump said he was - decide it was a good thing to declare Trump as a fascist as some ridiculous virtue signal!

Lots to unpack here, unfortunately. :/ (I expect better from you, Neil)

Firstly, you realize that leftist and liberal are two different things, right? Liberals and even some conservatives hate him just as much as we leftists do (and everyone hates liberals).

Next, "low BROWN"?? Typo or Freudian slip? YOU decide, AMERICA! Vote on your phones now! (And if that was an intentional "joke"/some attempt at baiting me... really?) I won't deny that other Presidents suck: the very nature of the office is to be evil, unless maybe you're just an idiot like Carter. JFK might've been alright, IDK. Anyhow, yeah, 95% of all Presidents at LEAST have committed horrible atrocities during their time in office. I'm not pro-Obama at all, but Trump certainly didn't stop the camps, or ICE ("Build that wall!", remember?), so... how exactly is he not doing bad?

Thirdly, ...seriously? The man who is buddies with David Duke, who has called people on the alt right "fine people", pardoned Apello, buddies with Bannon, patron saint of the alt right, has a copy of Mein Kampf on his bedside table... Obama seems more fascist to you? I've looked up "fascist" in the dictionary and other sources multiple times over the last half a year, and there's like nothing inherently fascist about "suppressing information". (But muh FrEeZe PeAcH!) Fascists LOVE spreading information: usually false: that makes them look good. It's called propaganda, perhaps you've heard of it. Fascists suppress people, minority groups especially, not "information", typically, unless again it doesn't help them.

What is a "model president"? I thought we were against dictators, yeah? I know I am. WHICH policies? Lying about wanting to help LGBTQ+ people, and actively making life harder for people like me in this country? Never mind all this birth control garbage. But I suppose you don't need to worry about that in your ivory tower, right? Like Shootem said, he hasn't actually helped the Rust Belt. We're still poor and struggling here in Ohio. Fuck the billionaires man, if they're going to be making more money, why the fuck should I care? Is there a point when they'll just start handing out more to poor fucks like me? What "good" is he doing my country, by being an absolute slimeball who cons people and doesn't even pay his workers?

If he gets re-elected, we're all pretty fucked. I mean, can you actually prove Trump isn't a fascist, Neil?

[Neil]

If he gets re-elected, we're all pretty fucked. I mean, can you actually prove Trump isn't a fascist, Neil?

Another thing to add to your "fascist" list, along with Obama seemingly censoring more than Trump, you realise on the topic of minority groups and the like, Obama deported more immigrants than Trump is?

Is/was Obama more fascist that Trump? Nope... Just pointing out how outlandish and unfounded such terms are to either individual. Just seems some folks seem compellted to throw the term "fascist" and "nazi" around as if it means something... When typically in the context of the individuals in question it certainly does not. Lefties seems to need to up their ante though.

Why do I have to prove Trump is not a fascist? I'm not the one making a claim so it's for those declaring Trump is a fascist to provide compelling evidence to that effect.

Finally, why would we we be more fucked in the coming four years, that the last four years? Or is, "If he gets re-elected, we're all pretty fucked," just more uping the ante talk?

Personally given the alternatives, I've done a 180 on Trump over the past few years and hope he does get back into office in 2020...

And to underline all this? I have no doubt groups of people under every president can highlight things they are not happy with and policies they believe are negative to them or other. But what I don't understand is this strange brewing mindset - specifically with lefties at the moment - that seems to be getting more and more aggressive, extreme and accusatory, declaration people they do not share some values or opinions with. It's seemingly getting more and more the case that people will be screamed down as "nazi" and "fascist" simply for not having the values seemingly earmarked by lefties as "the socially acceptable ones". And this is even proving to be the behaviour and ethos being demonstrated by silicon valley too now alarmingly. Hence the brewing legal actions against Facebook, Twitter and Google etc.

ps: This is not meant to be an I'm right you're wrong type comment. Simply dumping my views ;)





...and the fact the he's stirring up shit in the Middle East (despite his campaign promises to the contrary) and nearly brought the region to a war footing yet again, all with the nodding agreement from a cabinet full of neocons who fucked the region before - it's hardly what I would call a ringing endorsement..How much military action has the US seen in the past 3-4yrs? Compare that to the years leading up to that?

As for stirring up "shit" in the Middle East? You don't think Iran are mainly behind the current nonsense?

[EvilNed]

It's become a business to deride and mock Trump. The media seems to be able to spin every single story into a negative-Trump story. Many people seem to argue that internet hackers, or trolls, or bots, were responsible for an unusually aggressive and falsified presidential campaign. However I see many similiarities between what happened then and what is happening now.

Mocking Trump is no longer about the truth, it's simply a revenue source at this point.

I'm not saying I'm for or against him. I don't know enough. But I know he's not a fascist. A fascist is openly anti-democratic. People like to call back to the nazis or fascists all to often. You have to remember that the nazis or fascists didn't sieze power in a coup and then revoked personal freedoms - they were openly anti-democratic from the start and never hid their disdain for democracy as an inefficient form of government.

[shootemindehead]

How much military action has the US seen in the past 3-4yrs? Compare that to the years leading up to that?

It's still involved in regions it shouldn't be in, because it has stuck its nose in where it doesn't belong far too often. Just because it hasn't been involved in any shooting wars doesn't let it off. Since the 2000's it has been directly responsible for the fucked up nature of the Middle East, more than any other actor.


As for stirring up "shit" in the Middle East? You don't think Iran are mainly behind the current nonsense?

Yes, stirring up shit again, in a region it has no business in, by groups that have been responsible for the absolute disaster that was the Iraq war and the terrible fallout that generated. FFS, the likes of John Bolton shouldn't be near any cabinet.

And no, I don't think Iran was behind the current nonsense. They, literally, have absolutely NOTHING to gain. They may have shot down a US spy plane over their airspace, but they're damn right to do so. The US shouldn't be in anyone else's airspace. What would America have done, if the roles were reversed.

[MinionZombie]

I'd wager a fair bit of the 'not doing too bad' bits are either down to inherited legacy (this is often the case when it comes to econmics, with a government inheriting either a good or bad situation) or staffers and civil servants doing what they can to work around Trump's worst impulses and petulant reactions (such is the word from inside the White House).

The man has proven himself to be quite inadequate for the job simply through his own personality, the way he deals with people, his self-obsession, his crassness, his arrogance, how he promises one thing but enacts the total opposite, his poor grasp of economics (e.g. tariffs against China have much more of an impact on Americans than China), and just generally acting like a petulant toddler so often.

Obama gets overly lionised, and the requirements of the job certainly compromised him in certain regards (e.g. increased drone strikes), but I'd much, much, much, much, much prefer to have someone like Obama in the White House. At the very least, Obama has a level head and is the sort of person you can talk to and have a reasoned debate with. Trump, on the other hand, is no such thing. There's a lack of respect for the role of President which oozes from Trump. His posturing over Iran (after he withdrew from that agreement!) smacks more of "Can I start a war and look strong, thereby guaranteeing a second term?" than anything else. The pathological attack on "Obama Care" alone speaks volumes about his nefarious methodology ... and everytime I hear of a Trump supporter learning that "Obama Care" and the Affordable Care Act are the same thing, only to become crestfallen at the risk to their improved medical benefits, I just shake my head wearily.

This all said, it is also true that the media and ardent anti-Trumpers routinely get carried away. Every tiny little thing, from a spelling mistake to a weird walk etc, get picked apart to the nth degree in a way that is unbecoming of everyone involved. But this is all wrapped up in the global drive towards the extreme - the further right the right go, the further left the left go, and soon they're both occupying very similar territory on the political circle: both on the extreme side of things with the calm, collected, reasonable centre ground abandoned to everyone's detriment.

Undoubtedly there is a huge amount of virtue signalling going on, and it has been the case for years now, affecting so many realms of socio-political discourse, and even the far right are getting in on the act (look at the James Gunn situation). One extreme reaction begets another, and nobody is covering themselves in glory. The more the left wrap themselves in utter anti-Trump obsessiveness, the less credible they appear, because reason and measure have been tossed out the window (how many times have we heard that Impeachment is about to happen?), and the more the right wrap themselves in nationalism and fear and anger, the more the reasonable and often unheard majority of people will suffer and go unrepresented.

There is a shocking lack of communication in this day and age, with bids for high office more of a personal dose of self-aggrandisement and power pleasure than any sense of duty or respect for high office (e.g. Trump, or Boris Johnson). Nothing can be discussed without resorting to absolutes and insults and bullshit and bluster ("I'm right, you're wrong" sorta stuff instead of finding common ground folks can agree on before debating the minutiae in a respectable, reasoned, informed manner). This has been proven repeatedly for the right and the left, both of which have been skewing ever more extreme for years now as the trend has gone. We've been dunked into a storm of chaos and obfuscation, while all our problems that need fixing are swept aside with political trolling, virtue signalling, the march to the extremeties of political discourse and leadership, as well as bigger self-inflicted problems (e.g. Brexit - I'm not a great fan of the EU, but I voted remain and believe that making changes and improvements from the inside would have been the best course of action ... I knew that Brexit would just produce years of waffle and strife while much more immediate problems were left unattended to - huh, sure enough!).

So, in short, yes there is a definite problem of media over-obsession and doom-mongering, which is beyond pathetic and actually harms genuine criticism of Trump and no doubt feeds his sense of ego and self-importance (*slow clap*), but at the same time, Trump has proven time and again that he is a poor leader who does not possess the skills or mentality to carry out the job.

[Neil]

The man has proven himself to be quite inadequate for the job simply through his own personality, the way he deals with people, his self-obsession, his crassness, his arrogance, how he promises one thing but enacts the total opposite, his poor grasp of economics (e.g. tariffs against China have much more of an impact on Americans than China), and just generally acting like a petulant toddler so often.
Define "inadequate for the job"? Isn't the job mainly ensuring the US and its people are doing well. And next, the US and its world ties/relationships are doing well?

I'd say, if you look at how "he's then doing the job," compared to the previous few administrations, he's seemingly no less capable, certainly not inadequate, and possibly it could be argued doing rather well in some aspects?

And just today? The first US president in North Korea? Be it show boating or not, surely its better to be talking and engaging with North Korea than not surely? ;)

ps: As regards the EU - "but I voted remain and believe that making changes and improvements from the inside would have been the best course of action" - That was tried (eg: Cameron coming back empty handed with his requests for change & reform), and did not happen, and will not happen. Hence the vote to leave before it implodes a few years taking us financially with it. I agree it would be nice to reform the EU. But that will not happen. Look at it now... Imagine what it will be like in a another 4-5yrs? Best to get out sooner rather than later...

[MinionZombie]

Define "inadequate for the job"? Isn't the job mainly ensuring the US and its people are doing well. And next, the US and its world ties/relationships are doing well?

I'd say, if you look at how "he's then doing the job," compared to the previous few administrations, he's seemingly no less capable, certainly not inadequate, and possibly it could be argued doing rather well in some aspects?

And just today? The first US president in North Korea? Be it show boating or not, surely its better to be talking and engaging with North Korea than not surely? ;)

ps: As regards the EU - "but I voted remain and believe that making changes and improvements from the inside would have been the best course of action" - That was tried (eg: Cameron coming back empty handed with his requests for change & reform), and did not happen, and will not happen. Hence the vote to leave before it implodes a few years taking us financially with it. I agree it would be nice to reform the EU. But that will not happen. Look at it now... Imagine what it will be like in a another 4-5yrs? Best to get out sooner rather than later...

I've already explained why I don't think Trump is adequate for the job.

As for North Korea - far too early to make a judgement, frankly (much like Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize before he'd even got going on his first term). Trump will certainly like the optics and the grand world stage aspect of it, mind, that's for sure.

A leader should lead by example, by making cogent arguments that are well put together to make their case squarely and fairly ... to lead by antagonising the other side(s), to act rashly, to make brash sweeping statements, to put little thought into the impact of grand policies, isn't quality leadership. I simply do not feel that Trump has any kind of grasp on diplomacy, and he certainly doesn't command respect.

From a leader you need a temperate, steady hand on the tiller, and you just don't get that with Trump. Nor will we from Boris Johnson (or Jeremy Corbyn, for that matter).

As for the EU: I also partly blame the EU, which too often shows off its own arrogance or sticks its fingers into business it shouldn't really be getting involved in, for the vote (slim a margin as it was) towards Brexit, but I stand by my previous statement. The scope of it has become too large and as such the problems of any government are exacerbated, but throwing the UK into the great and complex unknown instead of sensibly improving it from the inside wasn't the right move (something which has come about for a multitude of reasons).

[blind2d]

[QUOTE=Neil;324041]Another thing to add to your "fascist" list, along with Obama seemingly censoring more than Trump, you realise on the topic of minority groups and the like, Obama deported more immigrants than Trump is?

Is/was Obama more fascist that Trump? Nope... Just pointing out how outlandish and unfounded such terms are to either individual. Just seems some folks seem compellted to throw the term "fascist" and "nazi" around as if it means something... When typically in the context of the individuals in question it certainly does not. Lefties seems to need to up their ante though.

Why do I have to prove Trump is not a fascist? I'm not the one making a claim so it's for those declaring Trump is a fascist to provide compelling evidence to that effect.

Finally, why would we we be more fucked in the coming four years, that the last four years? Or is, "If he gets re-elected, we're all pretty fucked," just more uping the ante talk?

Personally given the alternatives, I've done a 180 on Trump over the past few years and hope he does get back into office in 2020...

And to underline all this? I have no doubt groups of people under every president can highlight things they are not happy with and policies they believe are negative to them or other. But what I don't understand is this strange brewing mindset - specifically with lefties at the moment - that seems to be getting more and more aggressive, extreme and accusatory, declaration people they do not share some values or opinions with. It's seemingly getting more and more the case that people will be screamed down as "nazi" and "fascist" simply for not having the values seemingly earmarked by lefties as "the socially acceptable ones". And this is even proving to be the behaviour and ethos being demonstrated by silicon valley too now alarmingly. Hence the brewing legal actions against Facebook, Twitter and Google etc.""

Yes, Neil. Everyone knows this. But it's not an argument against. "Oh, this person isn't AS BAD, therefore they're good!" - that's how dumb you sound. And Obama was way kinder to (legal specifically of course, since y'know, authoritarianism is cancer) women and LGBT+ people. Notice you've completely ignored this fact.

But Trump is a bit more fascist than Obama, who again is not a model person either. That's all I want you to agree with me on. Also I gotta wonder who you've been listening to lately, because you're spouting some conservative bullshit, man.

Well it seems to me that you've got a horse in this race (i.e. if you weren't a Trump supporter, you'd probably not be so focused on the guy, and what the media/populace is doing/saying about him). Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you were neutral on Trump, you wouldn't mind anyone calling him ( a person who behaves like a fearmongering would-be dictator with emphasis on national pride and the military/"rule of law") a fascist. Because, again, that's what a fascist is, by definition. Look it up if you don't believe me. I'll wait.

Hmm, I wonder why a planet dying of capitalism's evil would be worse off in a few years rather than at this very moment, hmm... Do you even understand how time works? Like I'm sorry, but you seem again to be cloistered in your little privilege box, casting out judgments on everyone you deem different (or lesser) than yourself. Which is... Not good behavior.

So you've done a 180 on Trump, because....??? Capitalists did a capitalism? Which he had precious little to actually do with? Or are you just a big fan of pointless barriers? For some reason... Is it fear? Do you fear THE OTHER? Are you paranoid people are going to ruin your stuff? Or take it from you? Why?

Okay, so... "acceptable social values"? I mean, I'm not personally okay with people getting killed or harassed or imprisoned just for being themselves and trying to have good lives, without intentionally hurting anyone else. Are you saying sexual harassment (a thing of which Trump is definitely guilty of, but since he's a white man with good lawyers, he's not going to jail for) is okay, Neil? It's fun how you've ignored most of the points I actually brought up and just stuck to your guns... And when I say "fun", I mean "annoying and worrying, as I really want to like you, but if you like a barely-closeted racist (Trump) and misogynist (Trump again), then I'm worried we can't be friends anymore".

[shootemindehead]

Define "inadequate for the job"? Isn't the job mainly ensuring the US and its people are doing well. And next, the US and its world ties/relationships are doing well?

I don't want to try and jump in on Mini's contribution here (he's well able to yap for himself :D ), but who's "doing well"? The Rustbelt people Trump targeted with false promises haven't seen their lot change. There are still huge swathes of folk that have to work two or more jobs to simply make their modest ends meet. People are still ending up on the streets because they cannot afford their health bills etc <- take a trip to San Francisco and talk to the street people there about that one. Meanwhile uber billionaires get handy tax breaks on the likes of jet fuel etc. Companies that rake in obscene money each year still end up paying no taxes at all due to loopholes that remain open and could easily be closed if the political will was there.

You know, there's something very wrong about a system that lets billionaires off of paying taxes, but screws Joe Bloggs the janitor to the wall if he steps out of line.

I can guarantee you that their are multitudes of Americans who would say that they are NOT doing well.

On the "world ties/relationships" front, I don't know how anyone with eyes and ears could suggest that Trump has been a good ambassador for his country. The leaders of other nations may pay lip service to him and afford him the pleasantries of his office. But, I'd wager that every one of them is still bemused at how he got to his position and sniggers behind his back in some capacity or another.

The fact of the matter is, though, that while Trump has been treated cordially when abroad, he has done little to actually strengthen any ties between his nation and others. Because I don't think he cares all that much about such things. He's that not that diplomatically minded to be of such care. His sabre rattling in the Middle East shows clearly that he's not bothered about international relations in the slightest. Absolutely no country wants tensions over there to be escalated, especially in Europe where they've been forced to deal with the ISIS fallout from the Iraq invasion over the last x amount of years. Nobody wants more wars over there, outside of the neocons (who are STILL in the White House) and some in Israel.


ps: As regards the EU - "but I voted remain and believe that making changes and improvements from the inside would have been the best course of action" - That was tried (eg: Cameron coming back empty handed with his requests for change & reform), and did not happen, and will not happen. Hence the vote to leave before it implodes a few years taking us financially with it. I agree it would be nice to reform the EU. But that will not happen. Look at it now... Imagine what it will be like in a another 4-5yrs? Best to get out sooner rather than later...

Get out to what though Neil? That's the problem. I find it remarkable that Britain wanted to leave - outside of the anti-immigration crowd anyway (but they won't get what they're looking for outside of the EU either ;) ) - as Britain of all the countries involved had the BEST package in the EU. I could understand if Italy left or Greece. But Britain never even signed up to the Euro. They could also pick and choose many of the EU directives they wished to follow too. They weren't really in the EU, in the way that other member states were tied in. But leaving the market, which nearly everyone is opposed to, has the possibility to be disastrous for your country, which will be left adrift and at the mercy of the US, who's already eyeing up your NHS and TTIP will be back on the table no doubt. These will be part of the "deals" on offer to a possibly floundering Britain and if the likes of Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson :rolleyes: is at the head of the negotiation table, I can't see him putting up too much opposition to any so called deals that America will furnish. Their idea of a deal will be what's best for America and Britain can take it or leave it.

The EU has loads of problems, no doubt and I'm not a fan. The fact that my country and one other are the only ones that put referenda to the people regarding EU treaties is a major worry and should be to everyone. However, the future outside of it for Britain isn't one of automatic sunlit uplands, despite what the likes of Nigel Farage would have you believe. Plus, I wholly distrust the characters that are pro-Brexit - Johnson, Farage, Mogg et al - as they have nothing to fear if the whole game of chance goes belly up. Their millions will insulate them from any negative situations, if and when they happen. Everyone without such cushions will find things much harder indeed. And it is a game of chance, make no mistake, as there is NOBODY involved that has produced any data or proposals on what will happen when you do eventually leave. It's remarkable, and depressing, that Britain has spent the last few years tinkering with slight alterations to a silly deal and bickering with each other, when that time should have been spent on producing realistic projections on what Britain will do, once leaving becomes a reality.






Anyway, I'm out of this. As I said, I'm not a Yank so the question's not directed at me. I'd like to know what the other US contributors (besides B2D) think on the issue though.

[EvilNed]

Well it seems to me that you've got a horse in this race (i.e. if you weren't a Trump supporter, you'd probably not be so focused on the guy, and what the media/populace is doing/saying about him). Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you were neutral on Trump, you wouldn't mind anyone calling him ( a person who behaves like a fearmongering would-be dictator with emphasis on national pride and the military/"rule of law") a fascist. Because, again, that's what a fascist is, by definition. Look it up if you don't believe me. I'll wait.

That's not at all what a fascist is. And only fascists should be called fascists, because otherwise you look like you don't know what you're talking about. If Trump is a fascist, then we need a new word to call the fascists - because there's quite clearly people who are worse than Trump. Anyone who values a healthy and adult debate would refrain from calling anyone who's not a fascist a fascist. There are real fascists out there.

Also, both Obama and Bush Jr. were fearmongering. All US presidents to date have put emphasis on national pride, and most (except maybe Jimmy carter) has put emphasis on the military. As for would-be dictatorial behavior... I've not seen anything of the like from Trump.

[JDP]

In addition to some of the things that have been pointed out, Trump is also one of the sloppiest liars ever. It almost (but not quite) stopped being funny and amusing after so many times this guy has been caught in flagrante delicto lying through his teeth: "I have never met this person!", "I have never said that!", "I have never been there!", etc., only for proof to the contrary to easily come to the surface shortly after he tells the lie. Sometimes he himself even openly contradicts his very own lies. It seems like he has a hard time trying to keep up with all of them. It is true that other politicians also lie, but: 1- not as often, 2- not as blatantly, & 3- not as sloppily.

[blind2d]

That's not at all what a fascist is. And only fascists should be called fascists, because otherwise you look like you don't know what you're talking about. If Trump is a fascist, then we need a new word to call the fascists - because there's quite clearly people who are worse than Trump. Anyone who values a healthy and adult debate would refrain from calling anyone who's not a fascist a fascist. There are real fascists out there.

Also, both Obama and Bush Jr. were fearmongering. All US presidents to date have put emphasis on national pride, and most (except maybe Jimmy carter) has put emphasis on the military. As for would-be dictatorial behavior... I've not seen anything of the like from Trump.

...Okay, then what is a fascist, Ned? I agree that they are bad and real, and even that maybe somewhere there are people out there even worse than Trump, sure. ...Also this isn't a debate, it's a discussion. Not sure why you would use that word. But yeah, who do you consider to be the "real fascists", Ned?

Yes. Again, that's part of the gig. But he wanted a military parade in the capital... Like a dictator would have. And he's clearly narcissistic, like a dictator. And he thinks that nothing the President does should be illegal, right? So when you say you've not seen anything like that... is that what you're talking about?

[EvilNed]

...Okay, then what is a fascist, Ned? I agree that they are bad and real, and even that maybe somewhere there are people out there even worse than Trump, sure. ...Also this isn't a debate, it's a discussion. Not sure why you would use that word. But yeah, who do you consider to be the "real fascists", Ned?

Yes. Again, that's part of the gig. But he wanted a military parade in the capital... Like a dictator would have. And he's clearly narcissistic, like a dictator. And he thinks that nothing the President does should be illegal, right? So when you say you've not seen anything like that... is that what you're talking about?

Debate, discussion - whichever you prefer. They're the same thing in my mind.

Trump is no less a narcisist than Justin Trudeau - he's just a lot more blunt about it. But almost every single photograph you've seen of Justin Trudeau has been cleverly staged and vetted in order to present an image of a laid back, succesful and handsome prime minister. Yet nobody ever slams him for it, despite him perhaps being even more of a populist than Trump is - just on different agendas.

As for fascism, that's quite simple. Fascism is an ideology built around the clear rejection of democracy. It is a belief that individuals should exist to serve the state, and not the other way around. It's pretty much the opposite of what Trump wants.
Most countries hold military parades in their capitals, I don't see how that is in any way a sign of being a dictator? The French hold one every single year in Paris on Bastille day...

[ProfessorChaos]

i generally frequent this forum to discuss the works of the late great mr. romero and living-dead related entertainment and despise politics and the extreme divisions they cause among society, so it took a minute to convince myself to weigh in here....but here it goes.

donald trump, in my opinion, is a loud-mouthed narcissist who was born on third base and acts like he hit a triple. can't stand him, didn't vote for him (didn't vote for mrs. clinton either, she's no better in my opinion), and think he's not doing much to bridge the divide going on in my country at all...

..but at the same time, he's no hitler, the detention centers in the southwest for people voluntarily crossing our border are not even close to concentration camps, and all the people who live for claiming victimhood in our country have it better than they probably would in any other country at any point in history.

trump derangement syndrome is real and quite pitiful in my opinion. the level of fear-mongering and apocalyptic-prophesy by the left is comical.

and in case anyone is butthurt and wants to start nit-picking and quoting my every word and counter-arguing every point, please don't waste your time. i'm too busy these days with work and family to sit around and talk circles about this shit.

just wanted to throw my $.02 in, have a nice day.:D

[blind2d]

Debate, discussion - whichever you prefer. They're the same thing in my mind.

Trump is no less a narcisist than Justin Trudeau - he's just a lot more blunt about it. But almost every single photograph you've seen of Justin Trudeau has been cleverly staged and vetted in order to present an image of a laid back, succesful and handsome prime minister. Yet nobody ever slams him for it, despite him perhaps being even more of a populist than Trump is - just on different agendas.

As for fascism, that's quite simple. Fascism is an ideology built around the clear rejection of democracy. It is a belief that individuals should exist to serve the state, and not the other way around. It's pretty much the opposite of what Trump wants.
Most countries hold military parades in their capitals, I don't see how that is in any way a sign of being a dictator? The French hold one every single year in Paris on Bastille day...

... So a conversation is the same thing as an argument to you? That's... odd, to say the least.

What is this, fallacy of comparison? Do I like Trudeau? Not in the least. Stop getting off topic.

Oh right, the dictionary says... No wait, the dictionary is way more on my side than yours here. :/ Funny that. Are you confusing fascism with a dictatorship? The Romans had their oligarchy, y'know. Still fascist rule. Right, Trump doesn't want people to serve the state, he wants them to serve HIM. How is that any better? And thanks for ignoring all the points I've made that you can't think of a come-back for, I guess. Still waiting to hear from Neil as well.

[EvilNed]

... So a conversation is the same thing as an argument to you? That's... odd, to say the least.


Never said that, but this seems like a very important point for you to make. Whatever makes you feel happy.


Oh right, the dictionary says... No wait, the dictionary is way more on my side than yours here. :/ Funny that. Are you confusing fascism with a dictatorship? The Romans had their oligarchy, y'know. Still fascist rule. Right, Trump doesn't want people to serve the state, he wants them to serve HIM. How is that any better? And thanks for ignoring all the points I've made that you can't think of a come-back for, I guess. Still waiting to hear from Neil as well.

No, I'm not confusing fascism with a dictatorship. I simply pointed out in all the ways you cannot equate Trump with a fascists, because he's simply... not a fascist. I already explained to you what a fascist is - it is a pretty well defined political ideology, you know. You keep pointing out that "Trump acts like a dictator, thus he is a fascist" but you don't seem to be able to point out any one thing that Trump does that other democratic world leaders do not. It seems to me that you've made up your mind about this, but don't have the arguments to support your case.

[blind2d]

Never said that, but this seems like a very important point for you to make. Whatever makes you feel happy.



No, I'm not confusing fascism with a dictatorship. I simply pointed out in all the ways you cannot equate Trump with a fascists, because he's simply... not a fascist. I already explained to you what a fascist is - it is a pretty well defined political ideology, you know. You keep pointing out that "Trump acts like a dictator, thus he is a fascist" but you don't seem to be able to point out any one thing that Trump does that other democratic world leaders do not. It seems to me that you've made up your mind about this, but don't have the arguments to support your case.

Believe what you want, I suppose. You're clearly not willing to actually listen to me about this. What WERE you trying to say about a discussion being the same as a debate then, Ned? Is a debate not an argument? Is a discussion different from a conversation? Do you even use the same English dictionary as the rest of the world? No offense meant, but it seems like our entire conflict is based on definitions of terms, and not the original point which is that Trump is terrible. I'm pretty sure you would agree with me on that much at least, yeah Ned? Asking you straight out here. Again, no, your definition of "fascist" does not actually match one I could find anywhere. From whence does it come then? Trump lies more than anyone else, at the very very least. I am not going through the list of thousands of terrible things that the man has done with you, as they're all public.

[EvilNed]

Believe what you want, I suppose. You're clearly not willing to actually listen to me about this. What WERE you trying to say about a discussion being the same as a debate then, Ned? Is a debate not an argument? Is a discussion different from a conversation? Do you even use the same English dictionary as the rest of the world? No offense meant, but it seems like our entire conflict is based on definitions of terms, and not the original point which is that Trump is terrible. I'm pretty sure you would agree with me on that much at least, yeah Ned? Asking you straight out here. Again, no, your definition of "fascist" does not actually match one I could find anywhere. From whence does it come then? Trump lies more than anyone else, at the very very least. I am not going through the list of thousands of terrible things that the man has done with you, as they're all public.

You do know the origin of the word, term and ideology of fascism, right?
If not, then it's got quite an interesting history attached to it. Fascism, as a political ideology, arose in Italy in the early 20th century. It was spearheaded by political leader Benito Mussolini, who later came to be the dictator of Italy. The doctrine of fascism, written by Mussolini, can be read here:
http://www.sjsu.edu/people/cynthia.rostankowski/courses/HUM2BS14/s0/The-Doctrine-of-Fascism.pdf

After having read that, and studying the fascist leaders of history, they have one thing incommon. One is the open disdain and rejection of democracy - something Trump does not. The other is the belief that the people should serve the state, Trump does not. You could argue that Trump's economic policies have some similarities with fascism - but if he does then so does every other US president ever. It is, after all, an economic right wing model.

Also, I don't believe Trump lies more than anyone else.
To quote myself, from the last post:


It seems to me that you've made up your mind about this, but don't have the arguments to support your case.

Come to think of it, you may be suffering from "Trump derangement syndrome" ;)

[Neil]

...the detention centers in the southwest for people voluntarily crossing our border are not even close to concentration camps, and all the people who live for claiming victimhood in our country have it better than they probably would in any other country at any point in history.When you want some hard truth, you better talk to a man with a God damn eye patch! :)

wqTzMIIti84



trump derangement syndrome is real and quite pitiful in my opinion. the level of fear-mongering and apocalyptic-prophesy by the left is comical.
We have it here in the UK too! When Trump visited the UK a few weeks back, some folks came to support his arrival, but it didn't take long for the left to enter full Trump Derangement mode!

Look at how this poor guy is labelled "nazi scum" and "fascist" before then being assaulted. Look at the wild hatred on their faces, simply because someone dares to not share their opinion! "Nazi scum off our street...Nazi scum off our street...Nazi scum off our street..." simply for daring to support Trump in London!

v_12Z8VS3wM

[blind2d]

You do know the origin of the word, term and ideology of fascism, right?
If not, then it's got quite an interesting history attached to it. Fascism, as a political ideology, arose in Italy in the early 20th century. It was spearheaded by political leader Benito Mussolini, who later came to be the dictator of Italy. The doctrine of fascism, written by Mussolini, can be read here:
http://www.sjsu.edu/people/cynthia.rostankowski/courses/HUM2BS14/s0/The-Doctrine-of-Fascism.pdf

After having read that, and studying the fascist leaders of history, they have one thing incommon. One is the open disdain and rejection of democracy - something Trump does not. The other is the belief that the people should serve the state, Trump does not. You could argue that Trump's economic policies have some similarities with fascism - but if he does then so does every other US president ever. It is, after all, an economic right wing model.

Also, I don't believe Trump lies more than anyone else.
To quote myself, from the last post:



Come to think of it, you may be suffering from "Trump derangement syndrome" ;)

Snopes would disagree with you when it come to Trump's lying habits, or am I thinking politifact? Either one. But I'll admit Trump isn't the ultimate evil: Capitalism is. But it is how we got Trump, so they're very connected. And must I repeat myself that all US Presidents have been pretty terrible? It's a shitty government model overall, not even a true democracy, not even close. Where's your source that Trump "believes in democracy"? He won by electoral college (an oligarchical system if ever there was one). If he really valued or cared about democracy, he would have conceded to Hillary (may she rot in hell). Perhaps Trump is too stupid to be a good fascist, IDK. He's clearly just fumbling his way through life. And again, Trump is very pro-military and police... That is to say, people serving the state. Do you have a horse in this race, Ned?

- - - Updated - - -


When you want some hard truth, you better talk to a man with a God damn eye patch! :)

wqTzMIIti84



We have it here in the UK too! When Trump visited the UK a few weeks back, some folks came to support his arrival, but it didn't take long for the left to enter full Trump Derangement mode!

Look at how this poor guy is labelled "nazi scum" and "fascist" before then being assaulted. Look at the wild hatred on their faces, simply because someone dares to not share their opinion! "Nazi scum off our street...Nazi scum off our street...Nazi scum off our street..." simply for daring to support Trump in London!

v_12Z8VS3wM

You realize that supporting evil men makes you evil, right Neil? This isn't a complicated issue. Do you... want to be wrong and bad, Neil? Do you really?

[Neil]

You realize that supporting evil men makes you evil, right Neil? This isn't a complicated issue. Do you... want to be wrong and bad, Neil? Do you really?

So, you've now added "evil men" to a list of other similar emotive/loaded terms such as "concentration camp", "nazi" and "fascist". It risks simply sounding (being) emotive, opposed to reasoned? It risks display a choice based on feelings instead of considered facts. Ultimately, it risks being very virtue signally IMHO!

I mean suggesting choices are simply "wrong" and "bad"? If only the world was that simple in matters like this...

But I would say, it is a worrying trend - hence this very thread - that simply demonising someone, makes decision making a lot easier... And if the individual is demonsided enough, no doubt makes you feel good too knowing you then must be "right" and "good".

[EvilNed]

Snopes would disagree with you when it come to Trump's lying habits, or am I thinking politifact? Either one. But I'll admit Trump isn't the ultimate evil: Capitalism is. But it is how we got Trump, so they're very connected. And must I repeat myself that all US Presidents have been pretty terrible? It's a shitty government model overall, not even a true democracy, not even close. Where's your source that Trump "believes in democracy"? He won by electoral college (an oligarchical system if ever there was one). If he really valued or cared about democracy, he would have conceded to Hillary (may she rot in hell). Perhaps Trump is too stupid to be a good fascist, IDK. He's clearly just fumbling his way through life. And again, Trump is very pro-military and police... That is to say, people serving the state. Do you have a horse in this race, Ned?


I can't find anything on either snopes or politifact that states "Trump lies more than other people" - so you're going to help me there. But I doubt they did a relative check on how many times he lied compared to other people - often times you don't know when a person is lying so how would you know who was the bigger liar? Trump is just a bad liar.

As for the democracy discussion, that's an entirely different debate that I'm not really going into here. But the US is a form of democracy. It is a representative democracy - as almost every single democracy on this planet is. There are pro's and con's with it, but Trump got elected because he got the most electoral votes. That's how democracy works in this country. You may disagree with it, but you can't hold it against Trump.

As for being pro-police and military; Yes. Again. Almost US presidents have been. That's something typical of US presidents, not fascists.
I'm struggling here to figure out what exactly your definition of a fascist here, because if a fascist is not a believer in a fascistic ideology - then what is it?

[blind2d]

So, you've now added "evil men" to a list of other similar emotive/loaded terms such as "concentration camp", "nazi" and "fascist". It risks simply sounding (being) emotive, opposed to reasoned? It risks display a choice based on feelings instead of considered facts. Ultimately, it risks being very virtue signally IMHO!

I mean suggesting choices are simply "wrong" and "bad"? If only the world was that simple in matters like this...

But I would say, it is a worrying trend - hence this very thread - that simply demonising someone, makes decision making a lot easier... And if the individual is demonsided enough, no doubt makes you feel good too knowing you then must be "right" and "good".

To cast aside all emotion for the sake of logic and facts... well it kills what makes us human, IMO. Are you yourself not virtue signalling for calling out virtue signalling in others? I have considered the facts (unlike Trump and his kind, who ignore the truth and make up their own reality to justify heinous acts), and I have also decided to allow myself to emotionally respond to something that honestly should affect everyone's emotions to at least some level. Do you feel nothing if I bring up the term "holocaust"?

I don't think the world is simple, but I know that without a sense of right and wrong, we will only be worse off. Do you disagree?

It's a worrying trend that you seem to think that people can't be bad on an individual level, for some reason. Is that really how you feel? Should we stop calling anything and/or everything 'bad' or 'good', Neil?

- - - Updated - - -


I can't find anything on either snopes or politifact that states "Trump lies more than other people" - so you're going to help me there. But I doubt they did a relative check on how many times he lied compared to other people - often times you don't know when a person is lying so how would you know who was the bigger liar? Trump is just a bad liar.

As for the democracy discussion, that's an entirely different debate that I'm not really going into here. But the US is a form of democracy. It is a representative democracy - as almost every single democracy on this planet is. There are pro's and con's with it, but Trump got elected because he got the most electoral votes. That's how democracy works in this country. You may disagree with it, but you can't hold it against Trump.

As for being pro-police and military; Yes. Again. Almost US presidents have been. That's something typical of US presidents, not fascists.
I'm struggling here to figure out what exactly your definition of a fascist here, because if a fascist is not a believer in a fascistic ideology - then what is it?

Again, why do you continue to feel the urge to defend this piece of human garbage? Trump is a terrible liar... and a terrible individual.

"I'm not really going into here"... *continues* <- You just did that, Ned. I CAN hold it against Trump, because he's an adult who can make his own choices. Or are you saying no one should take personal responsibility for anything? I fail to see the pros, but please elaborate on those if you wish. The USA is a democratic republic, at the very least. NOT a democracy, though we sure do f*cking love that word, huh?

And yes, again, stop diverting in the same way there. I'm holding him accountable for his own actions, as again an independent adult. Should I not? ...I also kind of fail to see the difference between presidents and fascists, so you may have to help me there. Isn't a fascist someone who behaves in a fascist manner?

[Moon Knight]

Politics. Never ends well.

:annoyed:

[EvilNed]

Again, why do you continue to feel the urge to defend this piece of human garbage? Trump is a terrible liar... and a terrible individual.

"I'm not really going into here"... *continues* <- You just did that, Ned. I CAN hold it against Trump, because he's an adult who can make his own choices. Or are you saying no one should take personal responsibility for anything? I fail to see the pros, but please elaborate on those if you wish. The USA is a democratic republic, at the very least. NOT a democracy, though we sure do f*cking love that word, huh?

And yes, again, stop diverting in the same way there. I'm holding him accountable for his own actions, as again an independent adult. Should I not? ...I also kind of fail to see the difference between presidents and fascists, so you may have to help me there. Isn't a fascist someone who behaves in a fascist manner?

No, I did not get into the philosophical, ethical or political reasons for why one form of democracy is better or worse than another. That's an entirely different debate. Trump won the US presidential election, so thus he was elected president. I don't even understand what there is to hold against Trump. Your energy would probably be put to better use to try to overhaul the democractic principles of this country, rather than to let one single person - who in this case hasn't acted out of line in any single way - take the blame for something that was simply keeping with the rules of democracy.

You seem to have a very difficult time defining what a fascist manner is, as you keep shying away from the question. But should you wish to define it, I'm all ears. But until then I can't take the argument seriously.

[bassman]

Politics. Never ends well.

:annoyed:

https://www.themoviescene.co.uk/reviews/_img/1326-3.jpg

Politics, man. They creep me out.

[Moon Knight]

https://www.themoviescene.co.uk/reviews/_img/1326-3.jpg

Politics, man. They creep me out.

Perfect. Haha.

[EvilNed]

Politics. Never ends well.

:annoyed:

I don't know, I think healthy discussion is needed. I wouldn't want to be a person who is so determined in my beliefs that I outright dismiss any and all arguments that disagree with mine. That kind of thinking is dangerous. It means I think I'm better than almost everyone else. That's obviously not the case.

[Neil]

To cast aside all emotion for the sake of logic and facts... well it kills what makes us human, IMO. Are you yourself not virtue signalling for calling out virtue signalling in others? I have considered the facts (unlike Trump and his kind, who ignore the truth and make up their own reality to justify heinous acts), and I have also decided to allow myself to emotionally respond to something that honestly should affect everyone's emotions to at least some level. Do you feel nothing if I bring up the term "holocaust"?

I don't think the world is simple, but I know that without a sense of right and wrong, we will only be worse off. Do you disagree?

It's a worrying trend that you seem to think that people can't be bad on an individual level, for some reason. Is that really how you feel? Should we stop calling anything and/or everything 'bad' or 'good', Neil?
Let's approach it from another angle?

If terms such as "concentration camp" are used to criticise/describe border detention centres, then what term should then be used to honestly and realistically describe the likes of Auschwitz?

If terms such as "fascist" or "Nazi Scum" are used for Trump (or Trump supports) then what term should then be used to honestly and realistically describe the likes of Hitler?


Making decision based on "emotion," risks not considering facts properly... Using emotive "loaded" rhetoric risks making unfair accusations... ie: "concentration camp" and "fascist" are being lazily used to leverage emotion and not facts.

- - - Updated - - -


Politics. Never ends well.

:annoyed:

Just like most Stephen King books!

[EvilNed]

Well, technically, Auschwitz was an extermination camp... So we do actually have a word for that. ;)

[shootemindehead]

https://www.themoviescene.co.uk/reviews/_img/1326-3.jpg

Politics, man. They creep me out.


:lol:

Somebody get that man a pint.

- - - Updated - - -


Well, technically, Auschwitz was an extermination camp... So we do actually have a word for that. ;)

Actually, Auschwitz was built as a normal konzentrationslager and it's official designation was never changed.

;)

- - - Updated - - -


If terms such as "concentration camp" are used to criticise/describe border detention centres, then what term should then be used to honestly and realistically describe the likes of Auschwitz?

The term "concentration camp" is a British one and was first used during the Boer war.

There are many different types of "concentration camp". It doesn't have to mean the likes of Auschwitz.

[JDP]

The term "concentration camp" is a British one and was first used during the Boer war.

There are many different types of "concentration camp". It doesn't have to mean the likes of Auschwitz.

Indeed. If we use "official" dictionary definitions, a concentration camp is "a place where large numbers of people (such as prisoners of war, political prisoners, refugees, or the members of an ethnic or religious minority) are detained or confined under armed guard". The definition, therefore, is very flexible and accommodates many types of such camps, not just the "Nazi-style" ones, which is what the majority of people nowadays assume when they hear the term "concentration camp". In fact, the United States itself also had "concentration camps" during WW2. Thousands of Italian, German and Japanese Americans were put in such places during the war (their only "crime" being their ethnic/national origin), though they are labelled as "internment camps" so that people don't associate them with the much dreaded and little understood "concentration camp" label. But the fact is that they too fall under the general definition of "concentration camp".

[Neil]

Indeed. If we use "official" dictionary definitions, a concentration camp is "a place where large numbers of people (such as prisoners of war, political prisoners, refugees, or the members of an ethnic or religious minority) are detained or confined under armed guard". The definition, therefore, is very flexible and accommodates many types of such camps, not just the "Nazi-style" ones, which is what the majority of people nowadays assume when they hear the term "concentration camp". In fact, the United States itself also had "concentration camps" during WW2. Thousands of Italian, German and Japanese Americans were put in such places during the war (their only "crime" being their ethnic/national origin), though they are labelled as "internment camps" so that people don't associate them with the much dreaded and little understood "concentration camp" label. But the fact is that they too fall under the general definition of "concentration camp".

Dictionary aside, when the left use the term concentration camp for a Border Detention Centre, I think we all know the "emotion" we're supposed to infer from it, and the image it's supposed to conjure up ;)

They're going for quite the literal comparison...

[shootemindehead]

Dictionary aside, when the left use the term concentration camp for a Border Detention Centre, I think we all know the "emotion" we're supposed to infer from it, and the image it's supposed to conjure up ;)

They're going for quite the literal comparison...

The right are just as guilty of using emotive terms when they want to.

FFS, Ann Widdecombe was banging on about slavery in a rant about the EU a little while ago. Someone who gets paid handsomely by the EU, a club Britain willingly joined, using "slavery" in a silly speech about Brexit.

[Neil]

The right are just as guilty of using emotive terms when they want to.

FFS, Ann Widdecombe was banging on about slavery in a rant about the EU a little while ago. Someone who gets paid handsomely by the EU, a club Britain willingly joined, using "slavery" in a silly speech about Brexit.

Yeh... Agreed OTT BUT it was a great speech wasn't it :) Heart felt and to the point, even if somewhat clunky in its analogies :)

Farage's face was classic! He was pi$$ing himself!

ps: We didn't exactly agree to join what it is now ;)

[EvilNed]

The right are just as guilty of using emotive terms when they want to.

FFS, Ann Widdecombe was banging on about slavery in a rant about the EU a little while ago. Someone who gets paid handsomely by the EU, a club Britain willingly joined, using "slavery" in a silly speech about Brexit.

I'll agree there. Ben Shapiro uses the word "communist" when talking about Bill de Blasio - and honestly seems to believe that the term is fitting.

[shootemindehead]

Yeh... Agreed OTT BUT it was a great speech wasn't it

No Neil. It was embarrassing. I'm all for Brexiteers stating their cases for leaving, but bullshit like Widdecombe's gibberish is unneeded, to say the least.

- - - Updated - - -


I'll agree there. Ben Shapiro uses the word "communist" when talking about Bill de Blasio - and honestly seems to believe that the term is fitting.

I couldn't care less what Ben Shapiro says about anything at all, to be honest. He's a clickbait fraudster of the lowest kind.

[blind2d]

I don't even understand what there is to hold against Trump.


You seem to have a very difficult time defining what a fascist manner is, as you keep shying away from the question. But should you wish to define it, I'm all ears. But until then I can't take the argument seriously.

...Then you haven't been paying attention.

I am not shying away. I'm referring you to the dictionary. Which is the authority on definitions of words, if I'm right about that. Now, if what you're asking for is my personal definition, then I would call a fascist thusly: anyone who is a provable bigot, who believes in the rule of violent oppression above all else, who believes they are more right than anyone else, who doesn't care who gets hurt as long as they get their way. Sound like Trump yet? Oh, you also have to be a nationalist; something Trump is proud to call himself. Again, you don't seem to be paying attention.

- - - Updated - - -


Let's approach it from another angle?

If terms such as "concentration camp" are used to criticise/describe border detention centres, then what term should then be used to honestly and realistically describe the likes of Auschwitz?

If terms such as "fascist" or "Nazi Scum" are used for Trump (or Trump supports) then what term should then be used to honestly and realistically describe the likes of Hitler?


Making decision based on "emotion," risks not considering facts properly... Using emotive "loaded" rhetoric risks making unfair accusations... ie: "concentration camp" and "fascist" are being lazily used to leverage emotion and not facts.

I guess I'm not understanding your questions, Neil. We call a bigot a bigot. We call a violent nationalist (nazi) a nazi. Often the two overlap. Again, to throw emotion out the window entirely... Is unrealistic to say the very least. Now, what facts do you know about Trump, Neil? That he is a bigot, and a nationalist, yes? Or am I wrong about that evaluation of the man? Is it a fact Neil that there are people, including children, that the US government is holding as captives in overcrowded detention centers? ...Is this entirely dissimilar from the concentration camps of nazi Germany? True, they're not being systematically executed (yet), but it's worryingly close. Unless worrying about other people is just too emotional for Neil, Captain of Facts and No Emotions. :/

[ProfessorChaos]

i really really really hate to jump back into this, but i've heard enough bullshit from blind that i can't help myself. i don't claim to be nor do i want to be a flag humping far-right idiot, but to me the democrats have gone so far off course to what really matters to this country... my views are probably enough for you to break out your giant generalizing paintbrush and label me as a nazi/bigot/racist/homophobe/xenophobe/cis-gender piece of white trash (or whatever term you like to demonize those who don't follow your worldviews), and if that's the case then go fuck yourself but here it goes:

how do you know for a fact that trump has a copy of mein kampf on his nightstand as you claim? again, i'm no fan of the man, so i'm not defending him, but what you wrote sounds like total hysterical bullshit to me....and now on to my main beef, concerning patriotism and the like: what the fuck is wrong with being a nationalist? since you're so concerned with dictionary definitions (except when you are more concerned with feelings rather than facts, that is) i'm seeing it as someone who has pride in their country and thinks that their country should be able to determine what is best for itself, and not be subject to ruling by some outside entities. and how is what our current president is doing any more violent in that regard than any of his predecessors?

i really think that your holier-than-thou democrats are in great danger of losing the next round of elections because of how far to the left they are going. i really don't think that the majority of america is interested in opening the borders and providing free healthcare for anybody who wants to come here, giving people money to stay at home and do nothing, or erasing our fucking hard-fought history just because some people may be offended by what it took to get to where we are today. our history in this country is far from flawless, but what country can claim that they are a perfect utopia with an impeccable record? we've still got a lot of work to do, but you can't honestly say that the majority of the citizens here have it worse now that trump is in office. if the exact same shit was going on and the only difference was that hillary clinton was the commander-in-chief, i really doubt there'd be nearly as much pissing and moaning and doomsday-alarming going on at all.

sorry for the rant, and please don't get your panties in a bunch, it's just that i think you are very delusional in many ways and are living in an imaginary world that really doesn't exist. there probably never will be a utopia, and the left seems hell-bent on completely destroying our country and culture with all of their lofty aspirations to achieve it that are probably never going to come true. do you seriously believe that if the ridiculous green new deal bullshit was to come to fruition that the rest of the world would just fall in line as well and we could save the planet from the climate apocalypse they are predicting in 12 years? and there are tons of people right here who are legit citizens who need help....why the hell should we just take in every person in the world and take care of all their needs? have you ever heard of the lifeboat analogy? there's only room for so many...and i do agree there is an offensive amount of income inequality and disparity going on, but there are plenty of people who we should be helping before we go and try to save the entire fucking world.

edit: i really don't want to go tit-for-tat and go on about all this shit till the next round of elections, but i've got a pretty strong sense of pride and served my country in the armed forces and honestly believe that it's a great place with an inherently flawed, but still redeemable story...and i can only sit by for so long while people constantly bitch and bad-mouth it and what's happening with it these days. sincere apologies to anyone i've offended or angered. different strokes for different folks, i suppose.

[EvilNed]

...Then you haven't been paying attention.

I am not shying away. I'm referring you to the dictionary. Which is the authority on definitions of words, if I'm right about that. Now, if what you're asking for is my personal definition, then I would call a fascist thusly: anyone who is a provable bigot, who believes in the rule of violent oppression above all else, who believes they are more right than anyone else, who doesn't care who gets hurt as long as they get their way. Sound like Trump yet? Oh, you also have to be a nationalist; something Trump is proud to call himself. Again, you don't seem to be paying attention.


You're going to have to be a lot more specific in here because it appears as if all you're doing is dodging questions. First off, you seem to be shifting the goal post here and including everything you disagree with Trump on to allow you to hold him to a higher standard than any other US president in history when it comes to "winning the election" - which is just unfair and I can't take that seriously.

Second, I have read the dictionary definition of a fascist - which you refer to but never quote. So here it is:

a person who believes in or sympathizes with fascism.
(often initial capital letter) a member of a fascist movement or party.
a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.

So here we go, he's obviously not a sympathizer of fascism.
He's not a member of any fascist movement.
He's not dictatorial.

So that leaves "A person with extreme right-wing views". That's a very broad concept - but even if we go by the assumed GAL TAN (that is; speaking only of social issues) scale here Trump isn't very far to the right. If he's an extreme right-wing, then what do we call the nazis? I'd wish for you to come from a place of open mind here and try to be open to the decades of political debate that's preceeded this. Fascist has become a buzzword for closeminded left wing liberal arts students in the latest years. A derogative term applied to anything to the right of the political center. Just like when Ben Shapiro calls Bill de Blasio a communist, I can't take anyone seriously who calls Trump a fascist.

- - - Updated - - -



I couldn't care less what Ben Shapiro says about anything at all, to be honest. He's a clickbait fraudster of the lowest kind.

To be clear:
He's an idiot.

[blind2d]

i really really really hate to jump back into this, but i've heard enough bullshit from blind that i can't help myself. i don't claim to be nor do i want to be a flag humping far-right idiot, but to me the democrats have gone so far off course to what really matters to this country... my views are probably enough for you to break out your giant generalizing paintbrush and label me as a nazi/bigot/racist/homophobe/xenophobe/cis-gender piece of white trash (or whatever term you like to demonize those who don't follow your worldviews), and if that's the case then go fuck yourself but here it goes:

how do you know for a fact that trump has a copy of mein kampf on his nightstand as you claim? again, i'm no fan of the man, so i'm not defending him, but what you wrote sounds like total hysterical bullshit to me....and now on to my main beef, concerning patriotism and the like: what the fuck is wrong with being a nationalist? since you're so concerned with dictionary definitions (except when you are more concerned with feelings rather than facts, that is) i'm seeing it as someone who has pride in their country and thinks that their country should be able to determine what is best for itself, and not be subject to ruling by some outside entities. and how is what our current president is doing any more violent in that regard than any of his predecessors?

i really think that your holier-than-thou democrats are in great danger of losing the next round of elections because of how far to the left they are going. i really don't think that the majority of america is interested in opening the borders and providing free healthcare for anybody who wants to come here, giving people money to stay at home and do nothing, or erasing our fucking hard-fought history just because some people may be offended by what it took to get to where we are today. our history in this country is far from flawless, but what country can claim that they are a perfect utopia with an impeccable record? we've still got a lot of work to do, but you can't honestly say that the majority of the citizens here have it worse now that trump is in office. if the exact same shit was going on and the only difference was that hillary clinton was the commander-in-chief, i really doubt there'd be nearly as much pissing and moaning and doomsday-alarming going on at all.

sorry for the rant, and please don't get your panties in a bunch, it's just that i think you are very delusional in many ways and are living in an imaginary world that really doesn't exist. there probably never will be a utopia, and the left seems hell-bent on completely destroying our country and culture with all of their lofty aspirations to achieve it that are probably never going to come true. do you seriously believe that if the ridiculous green new deal bullshit was to come to fruition that the rest of the world would just fall in line as well and we could save the planet from the climate apocalypse they are predicting in 12 years? and there are tons of people right here who are legit citizens who need help....why the hell should we just take in every person in the world and take care of all their needs? have you ever heard of the lifeboat analogy? there's only room for so many...and i do agree there is an offensive amount of income inequality and disparity going on, but there are plenty of people who we should be helping before we go and try to save the entire fucking world.

edit: i really don't want to go tit-for-tat and go on about all this shit till the next round of elections, but i've got a pretty strong sense of pride and served my country in the armed forces and honestly believe that it's a great place with an inherently flawed, but still redeemable story...and i can only sit by for so long while people constantly bitch and bad-mouth it and what's happening with it these days. sincere apologies to anyone i've offended or angered. different strokes for different folks, i suppose.

What bullshit is that, exactly? You'll have to be more specific. Fuck the Dems. I'm not one. I don't condone their behavior the vast majority of the time. But that's a different issue. ...For someone named "Professor Chaos" you sure don't seem to understand anarchy one bit. :/ Also, looking real secure there in your position going on the offensive. *rolls eyes* That's not the point. News sources have made this claim. If they're lying, that's on them.

What's good about this country in particular? Why take pride in the place of your birth: something completely outside of your control? You didn't invent this place yourself, Prof, so why take ownership and pride in it? Also, it was founded on genocide and slavery, so... There's that. So, why do you think that a) a country is some sort of conscious entity(?) and b) why are you so afraid of "globalism"? How would it possibly be any worse than what we're doing now? The thing with Trump is that he's okay with fascists and white nationalists and the KKK. Obama certainly wasn't, and W was too stupid to be for anything, presumably. But whatever, I know I'm talking to a wall.

Who's going left? Do you even have a real concept of what that would look like? Why shouldn't we eliminate borders and provide universal health care? I'm not in favor of money as a concept, no. No one ever "does nothing", no matter if they're under the oppressive yoke of capitalist masters or not. Also, no one is interested in "erasing history", no matter how much the right-wing media wants to call it that to smear us. This nation has a past, but that doesn't mean we have to have a statue for every famous fucking slave-owner, now does it? No one's burning down museums or history books. Do I look like I'm interested in the majority? I'm interested in literally everyone. Why would you settle for less? Lack of ambition, or lack of compassion? Hmm, no, I would bitch about Hillary. She's terrible. Bernie should have won. Lesser of all evils, but still lesser.

How am I delusional? You say this without any specific citations. A country and culture are two different things. Abolish all nations and borders. Because honestly, why not? They're just there to cause violence. Better to try for an impossible dream than to accept one's miserable existence and embrace mediocre ambivalence, I say. I mean no, any change now would probably be too little too late for this planet, concerning all the damage capitalists have done to it in the past century or more and moving on into the foreseeable future. But again, we could at least try. ...The whole world isn't asking to be saved by the USA, so where's that delusion coming from? Isn't every human a legit human? Or are some more equal than others? Humans take care of each other; it's what we're made to do. It's how our species survives. Build another lifeboat then. Or equally distribute life preservers. Something. Seems like a poor analogy that no, I'm not familiar with. ...If we evenly distributed the wealth and resources of the planet, then everyone would probably have enough.

Why, again, do you have pride in a country you didn't choose (presumably) or make yourself? Wouldn't your devotions be better served with a different focus? Say, unprejudiced humanitarian efforts? I know I myself often commit the sin of apathy (most cardinal of sins!), yet I at least know enough to not support a nation that excels in oppressing the downtrodden and disadvantaged above all. Is Trump helping to redeem this nation in the eyes of the rest of the world? Is he really? So, don't take the criticism of a country you just so happen to circumstantially have an emotional connection to so personally, maybe. I'm not going to invade your home and burn your flag, man. Chill out.

- - - Updated - - -


You're going to have to be a lot more specific in here because it appears as if all you're doing is dodging questions. First off, you seem to be shifting the goal post here and including everything you disagree with Trump on to allow you to hold him to a higher standard than any other US president in history when it comes to "winning the election" - which is just unfair and I can't take that seriously.

Second, I have read the dictionary definition of a fascist - which you refer to but never quote. So here it is:

a person who believes in or sympathizes with fascism.
(often initial capital letter) a member of a fascist movement or party.
a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views.

So here we go, he's obviously not a sympathizer of fascism.
He's not a member of any fascist movement.
He's not dictatorial.

So that leaves "A person with extreme right-wing views". That's a very broad concept - but even if we go by the assumed GAL TAN (that is; speaking only of social issues) scale here Trump isn't very far to the right. If he's an extreme right-wing, then what do we call the nazis? I'd wish for you to come from a place of open mind here and try to be open to the decades of political debate that's preceeded this. Fascist has become a buzzword for closeminded left wing liberal arts students in the latest years. A derogative term applied to anything to the right of the political center. Just like when Ben Shapiro calls Bill de Blasio a communist, I can't take anyone seriously who calls Trump a fascist.

And all you're doing is stonewalling. Two can play at that game. A standstill here? Sure, I don't mind one. Don't forget, Bush II didn't win his first election either. So I hold that against him as well. Are we just presuming that Trump has no free will or individual autonomy? He could have conceded the win to Clinton, who had the popular vote, but he did not, so great is his ego. To ignore this is folly.

Not a sympathizer of fascism? ...Arguable, yet he is an adamant proponent of nationalism and imperialism, which... is... less bad, somehow? Not sure how you came to that conclusion. I mean if we're honest, capitalism is just fascism lite in a lot of ways, yeah? ...Trump, who puts his name on all his businesses and buildings, who loves signing things even if he doesn't know what they are, who tends to decree things that he actually doesn't have the power to act on... Sure, he's not dictatorial, okay (never mind that he's best friends with Putin, a clear dictator).

Perhaps he isn't a "far-right extremist", but he certainly hasn't shown yet any resistance against those who clearly are. Bedfellows, and whatnot. Again, you seem to be defending Trump, a demonstrable piece of human garbage, just like Hillary, et. al. Fair enough, I'll try to keep an open mind. Name three good things Trump has done while in office, that positively impact the lives of the disadvantaged in society. I'll wait. And if it please you, I'll just leave Trump as a dangerous and contemptible asshole, and not use the words you're triggered by. Sorry about that.

[Neil]

OMG! What have I done! :)

I have no issue with heated debates, and indeed I'm knee deep in this one too! But just a reminder to keep things civil, and TBH, as long as things stay contained in this thread, and fairly reasonable, I don't have a problem...

THAT SAID... I think it would be wise if I close this thread down at the end of the weekend just to ensure disagreements come to an end.

ps: Trump 2020! :)




No Neil. It was embarrassing. I'm all for Brexiteers stating their cases for leaving, but bullshit like Widdecombe's gibberish is unneeded, to say the least.
I enjoyed it... Especially given the actual context of the nonsense going on at the EU at that moment which they were complaining about :)

[shootemindehead]

To be clear:
He's an idiot.

Oh, I don't think he's an idiot. I think he's a liar. A liar who's managed to monetise clickbait outrage politics that appeals to the nouveau right. Those edgy kids who think being a "conservative" is the new cool (despite being blissfully ignorant of what real conservatism actually is). His appeal is largely contained to 20 something American YouTubers, thankfully. But, it's lamentable that he garners such a following in the first place.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt for a while, but his mask continually slipped. Now I just think he's a fraud who's making money of the gullible and the outraged.

[JDP]

ps: Trump 2020! :)

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8SjaaGs4aIg/maxresdefault.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DE6vXkYUQAAzD1g.jpg

:)

[Neil]

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8SjaaGs4aIg/maxresdefault.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DE6vXkYUQAAzD1g.jpg

:)

RbM2F-cfN0A

[ProfessorChaos]

For someone named "Professor Chaos" you sure don't seem to understand anarchy one bit. :/ Also, looking real secure there in your position going on the offensive. *rolls eyes*

the name is a south park reference. i wasn't trying to really go on the offensive, but rather be defensive of a place i call home and am proud to be from while keeping it civil and not getting myself banned from these forums that i really like, but since you asked for it:


How am I delusional? You say this without any specific citations.

https://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?t=24056&highlight=

you were born with a penis and think you are a female. clearly your sense of reality is pretty fucked and it's hard to take much of anything you say seriously.

i'm done with this conversation. we obviously don't see eye-to-eye on a lot of things and it's not worth the time or energy to me.

[blind2d]

the name is a south park reference. i wasn't trying to really go on the offensive, but rather be defensive of a place i call home and am proud to be from while keeping it civil and not getting myself banned from these forums that i really like, but since you asked for it:



https://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?t=24056&highlight=

you were born with a penis and think you are a female. clearly your sense of reality is pretty fucked and it's hard to take much of anything you say seriously.

i'm done with this conversation. we obviously don't see eye-to-eye on a lot of things and it's not worth the time or energy to me.

Ah, so you're waving the white flag, AND being a transphobe to boot. Clearly the mature response to my many reasonable points. *eye rolling continues in earnest* Since when are these forums about South Park? Also, transphobia isn't very punk rock, so perhaps you should change your profile image, lest you give folks the wrong impression. Let me ask you this... What exactly is it that makes someone a man or a woman? Have you never heard of intersex people, the hijra of India, or two-spirit people native to North America? Trans people have been around for literally thousands of years. Maybe keep up with the times. Also I would like to point out that you're the first one to go "below the belt", so to speak. :/ Life must be tough for a bigot like you, eh? I hope Neil doesn't condone this last post, otherwise I might actually have to leave this place for good, regardless of my fondness and history. Seriously, you could've told me you hated me sooner. Would've saved time.

- - - Updated - - -


OMG! What have I done! :)

I have no issue with heated debates, and indeed I'm knee deep in this one too! But just a reminder to keep things civil, and TBH, as long as things stay contained in this thread, and fairly reasonable, I don't have a problem...

THAT SAID... I think it would be wise if I close this thread down at the end of the weekend just to ensure disagreements come to an end.

ps: Trump 2020! :)




I enjoyed it... Especially given the actual context of the nonsense going on at the EU at that moment which they were complaining about :)

I mean, if you really didn't want my opinion Neil, you shouldn't have asked for it. Turns out some of us are very opinionated. *shrugs*

[ProfessorChaos]

i didn't realize that we had to have usernames specifically tied to george romero films....does that go for signatures as well or should i put some my little pony shit up too? i'm not waving a white flag, just trying to not get kicked out of this place by walking away from this shit before it becomes a toxic nuclear wasteland.

and my life is great, thanks for your concern. good luck with yours.

[JDP]

RbM2F-cfN0A

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cirviz6WYAEFrRy.jpg

https://s.abcnews.com/images/Business/abc_donald_trump_made_in_china_products_dm_110428_ wmain.jpg

https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5b58939a200000de02378247.jpeg?ops=scalefit_970_nou pscale

https://s4.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20180725&t=2&i=1287024994&w=780&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&sq=&r=2018-07-25T193007Z_31101_MRPRC149A0B5820_RTRMADP_0_USA-TRADE-CHINA-FLAGS

https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/5b6dafa02be4ab1c2f8b48d0-750-563.jpg

[MinionZombie]

This thread's getting carried away and folks aren't covering themselves in much glory. :(

Prof - I'm not the sort of person to tell another how to think, but I will say that blind's sexuality has nothing to do with this topic, so it was inappropriate to bring that into the discussion. I would appreciate it if you apologised to blind2d.

Ned - I know you like to really jab into topics with other members sometimes, but please try to act with a bit more cordiality. As we have seen many times over the years at HPOTD, heated debates about politics to trivial movie discussions can very easily slip into the personal.

Blind - if you always take the position of "I'm right, you're wrong", chances are that's going to throw up defenses rather than open up a discussion, and ultimately you're gonna have a bad time.

Please, everyone, act civil towards one another, resist the urge to sling mud, listen to what each other has to say, and debate with respect and clarity.

Thank you.

[blind2d]

This thread's getting carried away and folks aren't covering themselves in much glory. :(

Prof - I'm not the sort of person to tell another how to think, but I will say that blind's sexuality has nothing to do with this topic, so it was inappropriate to bring that into the discussion. I would appreciate it if you apologised to blind2d.

Ned - I know you like to really jab into topics with other members sometimes, but please try to act with a bit more cordiality. As we have seen many times over the years at HPOTD, heated debates about politics to trivial movie discussions can very easily slip into the personal.

Blind - if you always take the position of "I'm right, you're wrong", chances are that's going to throw up defenses rather than open up a discussion, and ultimately you're gonna have a bad time.

Please, everyone, act civil towards one another, resist the urge to sling mud, listen to what each other has to say, and debate with respect and clarity.

Thank you.

Thank you Minion. I do apologize for having such an unwavering stance, or at least coming across as perhaps unduly self-righteous. I do realize I'm flawed just like everyone else, and could in fact be wrong. As for 'glory'... IDK what that is, but I don't want to lose friends (though I think the Prof ship has sailed). Regardless, gender identity is not the same thing as sexuality, but thank you for trying, comrade.

[MinionZombie]

Thank you Minion. I do apologize for having such an unwavering stance, or at least coming across as perhaps unduly self-righteous. I do realize I'm flawed just like everyone else, and could in fact be wrong. As for 'glory'... IDK what that is, but I don't want to lose friends (though I think the Prof ship has sailed). Regardless, gender identity is not the same thing as sexuality, but thank you for trying, comrade.

1) The phrase "to cover oneself in glory" (I'm assuming you've not heard the phrase before) is to be 'successful or impressive', so the inverse of covering oneself in glory is, well, this thread. :lol:

2) Aye, fair catch. Much like sex and gender are two different things, sexuality and gender are also two different things.

With so much terminology and nuance in today's age, and even when checking, re-checking, re-re-checking, re-re-re-checking (and so on) what I type (not specific to this type of stuff, mind, as I've always sought to make myself understood as best as possible because I despise being misunderstood, or worse still, misrepresented - I've literally spent 25 minutes drafting this post), it's easy to exchange terms. Moreso when distracted with stress over some fucking bullshit nonsense (that's totally disconnected from HPOTD forum life), the sort of crap normal people can handle just fine, but which has me fretting for an entire damn month in advance.

3) I trust you're not being condescending/whatever when you say "but thank you for trying, comrade" - it's impossible to sense intonation through text on a screen. :)

[Neil]

I mean, if you really didn't want my opinion Neil, you shouldn't have asked for it. Turns out some of us are very opinionated. *shrugs*
Read my comment (made to everyone in the thread alike)...

Now read your response...

I have to ask, why did you feel the need to play a victim? The comment clearly wasn't about you? The comment clearly wasn't aimed (specifically) at you? It wasn't pro or anti Trump for example in anyway?

Do you not find it questionable that your immediate reaction to a general comment, aimed at no one in particular, is to take it personally? Why? And TBH, it even seems to then include a small dig at me? Again when the comment is aimed at no one in particular, about nothing in particular other than asking (all) folks just to "keep things real"...?




This thread's getting carried away and folks aren't covering themselves in much glory. :(Agreed... Hence why it'll be closing in a day or two...

[EvilNed]

And all you're doing is stonewalling. Two can play at that game. A standstill here? Sure, I don't mind one. Don't forget, Bush II didn't win his first election either. So I hold that against him as well. Are we just presuming that Trump has no free will or individual autonomy? He could have conceded the win to Clinton, who had the popular vote, but he did not, so great is his ego. To ignore this is folly.

Not a sympathizer of fascism? ...Arguable, yet he is an adamant proponent of nationalism and imperialism, which... is... less bad, somehow? Not sure how you came to that conclusion. I mean if we're honest, capitalism is just fascism lite in a lot of ways, yeah? ...Trump, who puts his name on all his businesses and buildings, who loves signing things even if he doesn't know what they are, who tends to decree things that he actually doesn't have the power to act on... Sure, he's not dictatorial, okay (never mind that he's best friends with Putin, a clear dictator).

Perhaps he isn't a "far-right extremist", but he certainly hasn't shown yet any resistance against those who clearly are. Bedfellows, and whatnot. Again, you seem to be defending Trump, a demonstrable piece of human garbage, just like Hillary, et. al. Fair enough, I'll try to keep an open mind. Name three good things Trump has done while in office, that positively impact the lives of the disadvantaged in society. I'll wait. And if it please you, I'll just leave Trump as a dangerous and contemptible asshole, and not use the words you're triggered by. Sorry about that.


Don't shift the goalpost. I was simply pointing out that Trump won the US election - fair and square. I'm not going to make this into a debate about the electoral system.

Also, Imperialist is another label which I don't think you understand what it means. Imperialism means projecting your own culture onto others through (often) violent means. Trump has demonstrantly been the least imperialist president in the last thirty years.

I've already pointed out why he's not a fascist. You've been unable to define a fascist, and you concede that he's none of the things that define a fascist. Yet you still call him a fascist. I believe my work here is done, because you're basically admitting that you are wrong - while still pushing the agenda.

Also, I'm not defending Trump. I'm simply pointing out all your false claims. If you want to critique Donald Trump, then do it properly and people will listen. But all you're doing is just making stuff up - kinda like he is.

- - - Updated - - -



Ned - I know you like to really jab into topics with other members sometimes, but please try to act with a bit more cordiality. As we have seen many times over the years at HPOTD, heated debates about politics to trivial movie discussions can very easily slip into the personal.


I haven't called anyone any names, except Ben Shapiro, so honestly I can't really say I understand what you're referring too. If you want me to change anything about how I express myself you're going to have to be more specific - in which case I'd be willing to comply.

[blind2d]

Read my comment (made to everyone in the thread alike)...

Now read your response...

I have to ask, why did you feel the need to play a victim? The comment clearly wasn't about you? The comment clearly wasn't aimed (specifically) at you? It wasn't pro or anti Trump for example in anyway?

Do you not find it questionable that your immediate reaction to a general comment, aimed at no one in particular, is to take it personally? Why? And TBH, it even seems to then include a small dig at me? Again when the comment is aimed at no one in particular, about nothing in particular other than asking (all) folks just to "keep things real"...?
.

Didn't realize I was playing a victim. Thanks for pointing that out, I'll try not to in the future. Moving on, I... Wasn't trying to make this all about me? But you seem suspiciously pro-Trump in a lot of ways, Neil, you have to admit. Which... Is bad, to say the least. Also, I mentioned you specifically because you started this thread, Neil. And it was your comment I was responding to. Neil. Which is your name. Neil.

- - - Updated - - -


1) The phrase "to cover oneself in glory" (I'm assuming you've not heard the phrase before) is to be 'successful or impressive', so the inverse of covering oneself in glory is, well, this thread. :lol:

2) Aye, fair catch. Much like sex and gender are two different things, sexuality and gender are also two different things.

With so much terminology and nuance in today's age, and even when checking, re-checking, re-re-checking, re-re-re-checking (and so on) what I type (not specific to this type of stuff, mind, as I've always sought to make myself understood as best as possible because I despise being misunderstood, or worse still, misrepresented - I've literally spent 25 minutes drafting this post), it's easy to exchange terms. Moreso when distracted with stress over some fucking bullshit nonsense (that's totally disconnected from HPOTD forum life), the sort of crap normal people can handle just fine, but which has me fretting for an entire damn month in advance.

3) I trust you're not being condescending/whatever when you say "but thank you for trying, comrade" - it's impossible to sense intonation through text on a screen. :)

1) I'm not familiar with that one, no. Sorry. Though, why should I care for personal glory? I suppose that's a philosophical question for another time, however.

2) I see. And believe it or not, I understand, yes. Don't fear: you're not alone.

3) Oh no, I was not trying to be condescending, I'm sorry. Honestly I do respect you, though it may not always come across how I intend it. I do hope we're friends, after all.

- - - Updated - - -


Don't shift the goalpost. I was simply pointing out that Trump won the US election - fair and square. I'm not going to make this into a debate about the electoral system.

Also, Imperialist is another label which I don't think you understand what it means. Imperialism means projecting your own culture onto others through (often) violent means. Trump has demonstrantly been the least imperialist president in the last thirty years.

I've already pointed out why he's not a fascist. You've been unable to define a fascist, and you concede that he's none of the things that define a fascist. Yet you still call him a fascist. I believe my work here is done, because you're basically admitting that you are wrong - while still pushing the agenda.

Also, I'm not defending Trump. I'm simply pointing out all your false claims. If you want to critique Donald Trump, then do it properly and people will listen. But all you're doing is just making stuff up - kinda like he is..

Alright, maybe you don't understand what "shifting the goal posts" means? Or maybe I don't... Sorry. Yes, Trump won the electoral vote. Which is not a democratic system. So, if he wishes to represent a democracy, then in theory he would personally hold more regard for the popular vote, than the electoral college. Yet he did not. For he has no honor, nor high ideals. But perhaps this is mere spurious mud-slinging, baseless and biased. But yes, let us not get side-tracked.

I'm curious how you don't find Trump to be very imperialist. Would you care to elaborate?

...Why should I do something for you that the dictionary has already done? I call him one because he has friends who are. He does not ostracize these men (and it's mostly men, isn't it?), nor does he lambast their detestable beliefs publicly, as a moral person might do. For this, I damn him. As would, I imagine, most who have standards and regard for others.

...Continuing on from that, why should my false claims about a demonstrable racist and evil man in general (since there are plenty of just as bad if not worse proven facts about the man I've not even brought up yet... many in fact) be of any concern to you? Am I a trusted news media source? What power do I personally have to influence public opinion, beyond my handful of facebook friends and other virtual strangers online? "Do it properly"? Fine, I'll throw a milkshake on him, shall I? Get murdered by the secret service. Sounds great. What did I personally make up out of thin air? I can't think of anything. Please again, if you wish, elaborate and I can address this concern.

[Moon Knight]

These types of threads brings out the worse in everyone. Best it gets shit canned sooner rather than later.

[EvilNed]

Alright, maybe you don't understand what "shifting the goal posts" means? Or maybe I don't... Sorry. Yes, Trump won the electoral vote. Which is not a democratic system. So, if he wishes to represent a democracy, then in theory he would personally hold more regard for the popular vote, than the electoral college. Yet he did not. For he has no honor, nor high ideals. But perhaps this is mere spurious mud-slinging, baseless and biased. But yes, let us not get side-tracked.

I'm curious how you don't find Trump to be very imperialist. Would you care to elaborate?

...Why should I do something for you that the dictionary has already done? I call him one because he has friends who are. He does not ostracize these men (and it's mostly men, isn't it?), nor does he lambast their detestable beliefs publicly, as a moral person might do. For this, I damn him. As would, I imagine, most who have standards and regard for others.

...Continuing on from that, why should my false claims about a demonstrable racist and evil man in general (since there are plenty of just as bad if not worse proven facts about the man I've not even brought up yet... many in fact) be of any concern to you? Am I a trusted news media source? What power do I personally have to influence public opinion, beyond my handful of facebook friends and other virtual strangers online? "Do it properly"? Fine, I'll throw a milkshake on him, shall I? Get murdered by the secret service. Sounds great. What did I personally make up out of thin air? I can't think of anything. Please again, if you wish, elaborate and I can address this concern.

You are incorrect. The electoral vote is a democratic system. Representative democracy is also a form of democracy.

Re: Imperialism
Trump is an anti-interventionist. That term stands in opposition to imperialism.

You can slander Trump all you want. But you have to expect your arguments to be met with counter-arguments. My motives are irrelevant, I simply want an accurate and civil debate. If you label someone a fascist and imperialist, you have better be prepared to explain why.

[blind2d]

You are incorrect. The electoral vote is a democratic system. Representative democracy is also a form of democracy.

Re: Imperialism
Trump is an anti-interventionist. That term stands in opposition to imperialism.

You can slander Trump all you want. But you have to expect your arguments to be met with counter-arguments. My motives are irrelevant, I simply want an accurate and civil debate. If you label someone a fascist and imperialist, you have better be prepared to explain why.

...So, an oligarchy is to you, democracy as well then? ...May I ask why? Do you not trust the popular vote? Regardless, like many things in my country's government, the electoral college needs to be abolished. We don't own slaves anymore, after all... Or do we?

.........What? You're going to have to go into much greater detail here for me to understand what you mean, I'm afraid. How many troops has he pulled out of the Middle East, for example? Is he not attempting to intervene in the DPRK, etc.?

And I will. Because he's horrible. I don't, because again, these are demonstrable facts about the individual in question. Unless you believe Breitbart or some shit. ...You are taking action, yet your motives are irrelevant? How can that possibly be? Is this centrist fence-sitting bullshit? Or just a convenient out for you, so that you don't have to self-crit, or take personal responsibility for anything? ...Again, this isn't a debate, so, not sure why you want to frame it as one. And I have explained why, as have all the major news outlets, and pretty much everyone else I know online. So, many people more qualified than me, basically. fdsfds