[Closed] Donald! Trump!

Oh look, someone else who doesn’t actually understand what fascism means.

Whilst STW has been taken-off down the rabbit hole of "what is the definition of a fascist" by it's resident trolls, the circus continues:

[url= https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/14/omarosa-manigault-newman-trump-ive-seen-things-that-made-me-uncomfortable ]Ex apprentice "winner" turned Trump aide gets fired and unceremoniously ejected from the white house[/url]

Sounds like she's threatening some sort of expose - hopefully not just a bargaining-chip for a payout.

Also:

[url= https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/14/net-neutrality-fcc-rules-open-internet ]Net neutrality in it's death-throes[/url]

It strikes me that this tread is a miniature version of US public debate at the moment - the narrative is being led by a small minority of loons, who are preventing a meaningful dialogue and consensus by turning-up every now and again and taking a massive runny turd on the carpet. Suddenly the discussion becomes about whether it's OK to defecate on the carpet.

Ah yes, but what [i]kind[/i] of shit? Because Orwell says...

your claims are undermined by my consistent support for direct democracy, which is utterly alien to, and a guard against, both totalitarian and fascist regimes
In fact, I’ve said repeatedly on here that we ought to be more like Switzerland, with a mechanism for the people to demand referenda on both legislation and constitutional issues

[img] [/img]

I find it amazing how all these innocent people, Trump, Moore etc al have so many allegations against them. Haven't mentioned Russia for a few days, Mr Mueller is about due another arrest I imagine.

BTW. What is this killfile people speak of?

I don't know if I'd want to use it yet, but I might have to.

It's not that the likes of ninfan and chewie [i]bother[/i] me per se (I have to have some respect for people for their opinions to mean anything to me), but it's such a waste of time engaging with them and shooting fish in a barrel just becomes boring after a while.

akira - Member

Haven't mentioned Russia for a few days, Mr Mueller is about due another arrest I imagine.

All the shrieking about how biased Mueller and Rosenstein are suggests that too...

What is this killfile people speak of?

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/search/singletrack%20world%20forum

Ninfan does not mean a word he types he just wants a reaction, if we were all tories he would pretend to be Che Guevara for a reaction

I find it amazing how all these innocent people, Trump, Moore etc al have so many allegations against them.

And I find it amazing that their victims response is not to go to the police

I see that one of Trumps alleged victims (claims he grabbed her ass) has named a witness...

Ray Charles 😀

worth a read:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/12/08/the-year-of-the-headless-liberal-chicken/

I find it amazing that their response is not to go to the police

You think the police would do much about an alleged ass grabbing?

I believe some are attempting civil lawsuits, though there was some question whether they are allowed to sue a sitting president. And I'm not sure I'd fancy going up against a billionaire's lawyers, would you?

Also in the case of Moore, it is well beyond the statute of limitations so there [i]is[/i] no legal case for police there.

worth a read:

It really wasn't.

I'll give him a point for the invention of "Hitlerize" though.

I find it amazing that their response is not to go to the police

clearly you've learnt nothing from the Harvey Weinstein expose, or the #metoo campaign.

If high profile confident women are unable to speak out about sexual abuse, what chance do you think a 14YO girl would have against a judge?

You really are an odious little man.

I find it amazing that their response is not to go to the police

Is that what you did after you were sexually abused by a person with power when you were in a poor mental state and felt nobody would believe you or it would have a negative impact on yourself ?

It seems to me that if one spends one's time and energy defending a person who holds vile, ignorant and abusive opinions then that is a fair indicator that you share those opinions yourself.

If this involves an attempt to impose the strictures that would flow from them on the wider population, then that is a matter of dealing with a clear and present danger.

Given your intense defense of Moore's disgusting zealotry showing that you are feeding in the bottom of a particularly slimy inethical pond with him, you should not be surprised that someone has expressed the desire to kick you in the slats.

The wonder of it is that there isn't a queue...

Ninfan's arguments of moral equivalence seems to run like this.

you are liberal.
(some) liberals oppose the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
ergo you must be pro Palestine
Palestinians carry out indiscriminate rocket attacks.
Therefor the logical conclusion is that if you are a liberal, then you would carry out indiscriminate rocket attacks.

Reminds me of the joke about the logical scientist.

Two builders are seated either side of a table in a rough pub when a well-dressed man enters, orders a beer and sits on a stool at the bar.
The two builders start to speculate about the occupation of the suit.
Chris: 'I reckon he's an accountant. '
James: ‘No way - he's a stockbroker. '
Chris: ‘He's no stockbroker. A stockbroker wouldn't come in here. '
The argument repeats itself for some time until the volume of beer gets the better of Chris and he makes for the toilet. On entering the toilet, he sees that the suit is standing at a urinal. Curiosity and the several beers get the better of the builder.
Chris: ' 'Scuse me... no offence meant, but me and my mate were wondering what you do for a living.'
Suit: ‘No offence taken. I'm a logical scientist by profession. '
Chris: 'Yeah, so what's that then. '
Suit: 'I'll try to explain by example. Do you have a goldfish at home?'
Chris: 'Er... mmm... well yeah, I do as it happens. '
Suit: 'Well, it's logical to assume that you keep it in a bowl or in a pond. Which is it?'
Chris: 'It's in a pond'
Suit: 'Well then, it's logical to suppose that you have a large garden then?'
Chris: 'As it happens, yes I have got a big garden.'
Suit: 'Well then, it's logical to assume that in this town if you have a large garden then you have a large house?'
Chris: ‘As it happens I've got a five-bedroom house... built it myself.'
Suit: 'well, given that you've built a five-bedroom house it is logical to assume that you haven't built it just for yourself and that you're probably married.'
Chris: 'Yes, I am married. I live with my wife and three children.'
Suit: 'Well then, it's logical to assume that you are sexually active with your wife on a regular basis.'
Chris: 'Yep! Four nights a week. '
Suit: 'Well then, it is logical to suggest that you do not masturbate very often?'
Chris: ‘Me? Never!'
Suit: 'Well, there you are, that's logical science at work.'
Chris: 'How's that then?'
Suit: 'From finding out that you had a goldfish. I've told you about the size of the garden you have, the size of house, your family and your sex life. '
Chris: 'I, see. That's pretty impressive... thanks mate.'
Both leave the toilet and Chris returns to his mate.
James: 'I see the suit was in there. Did you ask him what he does?'
Chris: 'Yep! He's a logical scientist.'
James: 'What's that then?'
Chris: 'I'll try to explain. Do you have a goldfish?'
James: 'Nope. '
Chris: 'Well then, you're a ****er.'

^^^^^^^^^

😆

Yes - basically confirmation bias expressed and used as a debating tool.

It's the major way fake news works - find a very small technicality on which to question a far broader topic. It might be as a result of something that is actually inaccurate, but doesn't materially affect the overall point. It might be spelling or grammar. If they're really struggling it will be over the intended meaning versus a vaguely possible alternative meaning. Anything, anything to find a way 'in'. Then from that point they try to make that extremely immaterial flaw back out into a notion of generalised inaccuracy in the hope that enough people will skim-read it, form the desired conclusion and disseminate the notion of inaccuracy further.

It is how Clinton managed to get the learned participants at the hearing debating the technical definition of the word 'is'.

In another sense it is like the celebrity drink-drive lawyers who conjure up umpteen different (highly improbable yet just possible) scenarios as to how the celebrity gave a high reading on a breath test - until everyone just gives up.

It is not particularly clever - but it is effective when people are either not paying full attention or are thick or are willing participant due to their own attitudes.

It is also a classic wind-up technique - and maybe there's the real point. 🙄

The question you need to ask is why now? Surely if he had done something bad he would need to be out of politics long time ago.

@woppit

Given your intense defense of Moore's disgusting zealotry showing that you are feeding in the bottom of a particularly slimy inethical pond with him,

Cite

It's the major way fake news works - find a very small technicality on which to question a far broader topic.

Like that the Russians bought some Facebook ads, or that a Trump representative met with the Russians (after the election) or maybe even like the fact that trump had business dealings in Russia in the past?

😆

he is winding people up for a reaction
There is no need for deep analysis he does not believe what he says. He is not a hate filled fascist he just pretends for the rise

you are free to draw your own psychological profile of a person who would do this

Me or Donald ? 😆

See

Ninfan's [s]arguments[/s] whataboutery of moral equivalence seems to run like this.

FIFY

Ninfan - this is how you do it, fella:

But never mind the ins and outs of salbutamol. The question on everyone’s lips is what does Cath Wiggins think?

The Telegraph(link is external) reports that a hastily-deleted post on her Facebook page from Wednesday was subsequently put out on Twitter by a third party.

Alongside a photo of Froome, she wrote: “I am going to be sick. Nothing in the news. If I was given to conspiracy theory I’d allege they’d thrown my boy under the bus on purpose to cover for this slithering reptile.”

Then:

In a Facebook post last night, she apologised for her lamentable firefighting skills: “Sorry everyone for my emotional comments and insults. Too much stress got the better of me. Heat of the moment thing and certainly not my intent to fan the flames.”

Get the accusation and mud slinging 'out there', then back away from it and watch it spread and become 'fact' if enough people disseminate it.

Russia influencing the US presidential election and possibly still having influence over the President is a technicality? That's a stretch even for your half arsed logic.

Junkyard - lazarus

he is winding people up for a reaction
There is no need for deep analysis he does not believe what he says. He is not a hate filled fascist he just pretends for the rise

you are free to draw your own psychological profile of a person who would do this

Posted 1 hour ago #

Don't worry, I'd got him pretty well figured out from the off!

No need for a psychological profile really - the Anglo-Saxon lexicon has a few nouns in it that will suffice.

ninfan - Member
@woppit

Given your intense defense of Moore's disgusting zealotry showing that you are feeding in the bottom of a particularly slimy inethical pond with him,
Cite

I do beg your pardon. I should, of course, have said "Trump"...

Getting back on track... Oh dear, it turns out that the lawyer soliciting sexual assault allegations against Trump appears to have been arranging “cash donations” for the victims in return for their testimony

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/365068-exclusive-prominent-lawyer-sought-donor-cash-for-two-trump-accusers

been arranging “cash donations” for the victims in return for their testimony

But that's not what your article actually says though is it?

nickc - Member
been arranging “cash donations” for the victims in return for their testimony
But that's not what your article actually says though is it?

POSTED 47 MINUTES AGO #

And so it goes on.

[img] ?itemid=7189438[/img]

It's normally Trump who pays off people who are suing him isn't it?

[quote=ninfan ]Getting back on track...

Of course, it's what you're best at.

[img] ?itemid=7189438[/img]

GrahamS - Member
I believe he is a journalist, as is explained in the interview.

That wasn't what I asked. I asked, ignoring the allegations, do you support his views??

Are you having convenient difficulty with English again tonight chewkw?

I said I found his VIEWS repugnant. Views that he openly made as part of his campaign and the aftermath.

You know the stuff about Islam being a fake religion that shouldn't get protection by the constitution, about homosexuality being an unspeakable sin on a par with beastiality, and the bits about wanting to eliminate all amendments after the tenth (such as end of slavery and votes for women).

Except of course, "getting back on track" (ie: continuing my little uber-troll comedy routine), doesn't really deal with my point does it, ninfan?

I see. I guess he is just being himself as a journalist ... read whatever you will into that

Jesus just watch the interview - he is Moore's friend. He wrote articles in support of him.

The purpose of voting for Republican is simply to keep Democrats out, simple. His views is his, whether I support or reject his views is entirely my decision. Guess.

That's exactly why I was asking you chewkw.

Are you saying that keeping the Democrats out is [i]so[/i] important to you that you would vote for someone whose views you find repugnant?

Or are you just saying you support those views?

Or are you just saying you support those views?

Do Jeremy Corbyn have to support every aspect of the bollocks he speaks?
Do you support his position on the Single market for example, or party policy? How about nukes? Party policy or Jezza? Or do just hold your nose and vote for whoever stands best chance of beating the torques

Are you saying that keeping the Democrats out so important to you that you would vote for someone whose views you find repugnant?

Or are you just saying you support those views?

For the record, the exit polls showed 9% of the Republican voters polled didn't vote for Moore:

[img] [/img]

-- https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/alabama-exit-polls/

Do keep up chaps, chewy would vote for a monkey wearing a red rosette.

Many people vote for the party not the candidate, people vote tactically against a candidate/party. That’s true in the US and it’s true here. It’s how Macron won so handsomely in France, now look at his popularlty whicn has plummeted - that shows how many people voted tactically.

chewy would vote for a monkey wearing a red rosette.

No no he's explained many times that he believes constant flip flopping is the only way for politics to work so he always votes for which ever party is not in power.

Unless it is the Democrats. 😉

Many people vote for the party not the candidate, people vote tactically against a candidate/party

Yeah of course.

And obviously not everyone can agree with everything a candidate stands for.

But even as a tactical vote I wouldn't vote for someone whose views I found repugnant.
But Chewkw seems to be suggesting that doesn't matter, which is what I am querying.

GrahamS - Member
Jesus just watch the interview - he is Moore's friend. He wrote articles in support of him.

That's exactly why I was asking you chewkw.

Another word I see what I want to see and think what I want to think. Guess again. 😀

Are you saying that keeping the Democrats out is so important to you that you would vote for someone whose views you find repugnant?

Or are you just saying you support those views?

Oh ya, whether I support or reject that candidate is irrelevant. 😆

GrahamS - Member
For the record, the exit polls showed 9% of the Republican voters polled didn't vote for Moore:

aracer - Member
Do keep up chaps, chewy would vote for a monkey wearing a red rosette.

But even as a tactical vote I wouldn't vote for someone whose views I found repugnant.

Whereas taking us into an illegal war in iraq......

Oh look, a squirrel

GrahamS - Member
No no he's explained many times that he believes constant flip flopping is the only way for politics to work so he always votes for which ever party is not in power.

Unless it is the Democrats.

Yes, that's true in many cases.
Fortunately this is the time to keep Democrats out. They need to wait for their flip flopping turn for many terms. Not their time. World has changed. They messed up.

But even as a tactical vote I wouldn't vote for someone whose views I found repugnant.
But Chewkw seems to be suggesting that doesn't matter, which is what I am querying.

You are using that allegations as truth to forward your views?

Unless you can proof that the "allegations" are true, you have just "judged" someone by hearsay. Therefore, in your view "allegations" can now be considered as truth. Where is the line regarding allegations? 😯