Donald Trump Sack Watch

Unique wrote:

M99 wrote:Unique needs to get into his head that you can be an immigrant to a country and still criticize the country. That does not make you ungrateful. If the government does something you disagree with or you don't like its perfectly alright to criticize the country and say you feel ashamed of its actions.

its also perfectly alright for immigrants to fuck off back to where they came if they dont like the country thats taken them in. people leave shit hole countries to move to places like the UK and the USA and then shit on them every chance they get but they never leave because the benifits they get from living there are worth more then any morals they claim to have. i mean as people know ive said before im not a fan of islam so what kind of a hypercritical cnut would i be if i moved to somewhere like dubai.

So go back to where you came from? I don't know why I expected more from you. If you are an immigrant in America and don't agree with Trump's policies you should just leave and not voice any criticism despite freedom of speech being an important part of the Constitution, right?

Like always, this post reeks of someone who is jealous and resentful because of lack of education, skill and wealth to immigrate anywhere.

M99 wrote:

Unique wrote:

M99 wrote:Unique needs to get into his head that you can be an immigrant to a country and still criticize the country. That does not make you ungrateful. If the government does something you disagree with or you don't like its perfectly alright to criticize the country and say you feel ashamed of its actions.

its also perfectly alright for immigrants to fuck off back to where they came if they dont like the country thats taken them in. people leave shit hole countries to move to places like the UK and the USA and then shit on them every chance they get but they never leave because the benifits they get from living there are worth more then any morals they claim to have. i mean as people know ive said before im not a fan of islam so what kind of a hypercritical cnut would i be if i moved to somewhere like dubai.

So go back to where you came from? I don't know why I expected more from you. If you are an immigrant in America and don't agree with Trump's policies you should just leave and not voice any criticism despite freedom of speech being an important part of the Constitution, right?

Like always, this post reeks of someone who is jealous and resentful because of lack of education, skill and wealth to immigrate anywhere.

i think we have seen more from betty than i hate trump though. like the outrage hes showing because of someone he sees as japanese wearing a cap he dont like. calls the man a national disgrace for showing support to his country. and yes go back to where you came from is 100% right. if i leave the UK and move to the USA and i dont like it then im free to fuck off back to britain. but if i hate it there and moan about it but stay for the money im nothing more than a hypercritical sell out.

the next time someone invites me round for dinner when im leaving im going to tell him his house is a shit hole. his wife is a slut. his kids are animals and i expect him to say thanks for coming. i will take your criticism on board and come again next week and stay as long as you like. i mean what kind of cnut would that guy be if he said your not wellcome here anymore.

Unique wrote:the next time someone invites me round for dinner when im leaving im going to tell him his house is a shit hole. his wife is a slut. his kids are animals and i expect him to say thanks for coming. i will take your criticism on board and come again next week and stay as long as you like. i mean what kind of cnut would that guy be if he said your not wellcome here anymore.

Yes because having dinner in someone's house and moving into a country are the exact same things Being a "guest" and being an immigrant is not one and the same thing you melt.

You can criticize the country you have immigrated in and still stay in it, because you are a citizen of that country not a second class or inferior citizen but a citizen, despite people like you feeling otherwise. Get over it.

M99 wrote:

Unique wrote:the next time someone invites me round for dinner when im leaving im going to tell him his house is a shit hole. his wife is a slut. his kids are animals and i expect him to say thanks for coming. i will take your criticism on board and come again next week and stay as long as you like. i mean what kind of cnut would that guy be if he said your not wellcome here anymore.

Yes because having dinner in someone's house and moving into a country are the exact same things Being a "guest" and being an immigrant is not one and the same thing you melt.

You can criticize the country you have immigrated in and still stay in it, because you are a citizen of that country not a second class or inferior citizen but a citizen, despite people like you feeling otherwise. Get over it.

we will have to learn to live with immigrants bad mouthing our country and they will have to learn how to live with the consequences of that. its a bit of give and take from both sides

Consequences of voicing disapproval of a country's practices or government is "go back to where you came from", so the consequence is blatant xenophobia? And stop with this our country bullshit, you never set foot in America and you never will. A legal immigrant in America, its also his country as much as anyone else in the country. There is no "your country" here at all.

So a white person whose grandfather immigrated decades ago can criticize the country, a black person whose ancestor was kidnapped as slaves years ago can criticize a country, but someone who moved when he was kid and stayed his whole life there cannot? Nope, they all can because it is their right. No one has inferior rights in this. Denying people their freedom of speech because they are immigrants is not how the country works despite you wanting it to be that way.

M99 wrote:Consequences of voicing disapproval of a country's practices or government is "go back to where you came from", so the consequence is blatant xenophobia? And stop with this our country bullshit, you never set foot in America and you never will. A legal immigrant in America, its also his country as much as anyone else in the country. There is no "your country" here at all.

what you dont think we dont have bull shit like this in my country. we have lots of immigrants in the UK and plenty of them hate it here its not just the USA.

Unique wrote:

M99 wrote:Consequences of voicing disapproval of a country's practices or government is "go back to where you came from", so the consequence is blatant xenophobia? And stop with this our country bullshit, you never set foot in America and you never will. A legal immigrant in America, its also his country as much as anyone else in the country. There is no "your country" here at all.

what you dont think we dont have bull shit like this in my country. we have lots of immigrants in the UK and plenty of them hate it here its not just the USA.

What is this "bullshit" you speak of? Immigrants having the right to express their views? You can criticize Corbyn all you want but an immigrant who lived there for years cannot criticize Boris Johnson or the government, they should just "go back to where they came from" Being an immigrant does not mean you are forbidden to disagree with anything the government does, you have the right to express your views and not expect to be asked to get out of the country.

M99 wrote:Consequences of voicing disapproval of a country's practices or government is "go back to where you came from", so the consequence is blatant xenophobia? And stop with this our country bullshit, you never set foot in America and you never will. A legal immigrant in America, its also his country as much as anyone else in the country. There is no "your country" here at all.

So a white person whose grandfather immigrated decades ago can criticize the country, a black person whose ancestor was kidnapped as slaves years ago can criticize a country, but someone who moved when he was kid and stayed his whole life there cannot? Nope, they all can because it is their right. No one has inferior rights in this. Denying people their freedom of speech because they are immigrants is not how the country works despite you wanting it to be that way.

i didnt say a immigrant cant bad mouth the country that took them in. i said if you hate the country that took you in dont moan about it just fuck off. also if you bad mouth said country and one of the natives takes offence to that and is not very nice to you for saying it so to speak then they would just have to accept that as consequences.

M99 wrote:

Unique wrote:

M99 wrote:Consequences of voicing disapproval of a country's practices or government is "go back to where you came from", so the consequence is blatant xenophobia? And stop with this our country bullshit, you never set foot in America and you never will. A legal immigrant in America, its also his country as much as anyone else in the country. There is no "your country" here at all.

what you dont think we dont have bull shit like this in my country. we have lots of immigrants in the UK and plenty of them hate it here its not just the USA.

What is this "bullshit" you speak of? Immigrants having the right to express their views? You can criticize Corbyn all you want but an immigrant who lived there for years cannot criticize Boris Johnson or the government, they should just "go back to where they came from" Being an immigrant does not mean you are forbidden to disagree with anything the government does, you have the right to express your views and not expect to be asked to get out of the country.

why do you keep saying government or presendent. i think we can all see that betty has more issues with the USA than trump. the guy had a melt down for what he sees as a japanese guy wearing a cap that says make america great again. he called the guy a national disgrace. now if betty saw himself as a true american that loves america then why is he bothered about the guy in the hat.

He's bothered by that hat because the "again" in MAGA implies that the past was better, and Betty is right, if you go back a bit, people who lived through this still being alive, you will find Japanese immigrants being rounded up in fucking Camps.

I'm not going to echo Betty and say "Concentration Camps", because that's something I reserve for the shit show we did, where people came for the sole purpose of murder. At least in America it was "only" unlawful imprisonment, mistreatment, and occasional torture. Which still should be way more of a national disgrace than it is.

VivaStPauli wrote:He's bothered by that hat because the "again" in MAGA implies that the past was better, and Betty is right, if you go back a bit, people who lived through this still being alive, you will find Japanese immigrants being rounded up in fucking Camps.

I'm not going to echo Betty and say "Concentration Camps", because that's something I reserve for the shit show we did, where people came for the sole purpose of murder. At least in America it was "only" unlawful imprisonment, mistreatment, and occasional torture. Which still should be way more of a national disgrace than it is.

well the japanese did far worst than put people in camps so if betty is that outraged about the past why not start there. betty is pissed off because he sees that guy as a sell out to japan. he still sees america as the enemy of his japanese people.

I'm pretty sure if Betty was Japanese, Betty would be pretty mad about the Japanese government never owning up to the war crimes of WWII.

M99 wrote:

Unique wrote:

M99 wrote:Consequences of voicing disapproval of a country's practices or government is "go back to where you came from", so the consequence is blatant xenophobia? And stop with this our country bullshit, you never set foot in America and you never will. A legal immigrant in America, its also his country as much as anyone else in the country. There is no "your country" here at all.

what you dont think we dont have bull shit like this in my country. we have lots of immigrants in the UK and plenty of them hate it here its not just the USA.

What is this "bullshit" you speak of? Immigrants having the right to express their views? You can criticize Corbyn all you want but an immigrant who lived there for years cannot criticize Boris Johnson or the government, they should just "go back to where they came from" Being an immigrant does not mean you are forbidden to disagree with anything the government does, you have the right to express your views and not expect to be asked to get out of the country.

its funny you should say that tbh because when i have expressed my views on islam in the past you are the first one to lose your shit and report me to admin. you say people have the right to express there views and not be expected to leave the country yet when in the past i have expressed my views on islam you are the first one to ask for me to get banned from the forum. looks a tad hypercritical tbh.

VivaStPauli wrote:I'm pretty sure if Betty was Japanese, Betty would be pretty mad about the Japanese government never owning up to the war crimes of WWII.

betty is a 2 faced turncoat that switches from american to japanese when ever it suits his argument. last week hes saying he is american and he loves america this week he is saying a japanese man wearing a cap he dont like is a disgrace to his nation.

VivaStPauli wrote:
I'm not going to echo Betty and say "Concentration Camps", because that's something I reserve for the shit show we did, where people came for the sole purpose of murder.

That's plain wrong though.
'Concentration camps' are not singular to Nazi Germany, the US put Japanese Americans into concentration camps, absolutely.
The Kaiserreich put people in concentration camps in Namibia.
Many other example.

What's singular to what we did is the extermination camps. Chelmno, Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor

It's time the word "Vernichtungslager" takes its rightful place in the German discourse, instead of saying "Konzentrationslager" without discerning between Dachau and Auschwitz

Edit: @Unique You have wildly oscillated between rightfully claiming that there's huge problems with Islamic traditions promoting archaic views non-conductive to modern pluralistic societies, and outright racism blanketing all Muslims with racist rhetoric wishing for them to go back to their "homeland" when clearly many of them are UK citizens, so when you send them "back", it'll just be to Weston Super-Mare, not fucking Kabul.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

CBarca wrote:Also on topic for this thread:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upshot/trump-biden-warren-polls.html

Trump's "impending doom" is a myth. He's actually still doing OK in battleground states, which are the important players.

This poll also hurts the idea of Warren's electability, while confirming that Biden does indeed have the advantage there.

Also, although I'm a bit upset with the poll's results (obviously I would hope for larger margins), thank fuck we can take a second to swipe, once again, at the lefts continued harassment of Joe Biden, and the fallacy that the loud segment of the left is the "new face of the Democratic party". It's not. And I say that as someone who generally agrees with most progressive policies that have been espoused by this part of the left.

I just despise how elitist they are, and how much they're willing to ignore the reality that there are a LOT of independents and moderate dems who are not exactly thrilled with where the party is going, or wish for a more moderate Dem.

So I read this article too, and my takeaway is WTF Michigan? Bernie and Warren are running on essentially the same platform, but if Bernie runs he would win by 2 points and if Warren runs she would lose by 6? I ca only put that down to sexism smh

It's a difficult one to understand.

Idk if Warren has said anything in particular to piss off Michigan or what. But yeah, it definitely seems like sexism to me.

Hapless_Hans wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:
I'm not going to echo Betty and say "Concentration Camps", because that's something I reserve for the shit show we did, where people came for the sole purpose of murder.

That's plain wrong though.
'Concentration camps' are not singular to Nazi Germany, the US put Japanese Americans into concentration camps, absolutely.
The Kaiserreich put people in concentration camps in Namibia.
Many other example.

What's singular to what we did is the extermination camps. Chelmno, Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor

It's time the word "Vernichtungslager" takes its rightful place in the German discourse, instead of saying "Konzentrationslager" without discerning between Dachau and Auschwitz

You're not wrong, I just meant to say that I try to not use the word. Of course it in itself just means a camp, where people are concentrated together, and doesn't explicitly mean they're all being murdered. But when people hear "Concentration Camp" that's the first connection most will make, so I try to avoid the term unless I'm talking about Nazi Vernichtungslager.

Edit: You know what, you're also doubly right and I'll start to say Vernichtungslager, when I mean one. Sounds adequately horrible, and avoids confusion.

CBarca wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

CBarca wrote:Also on topic for this thread:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upshot/trump-biden-warren-polls.html

Trump's "impending doom" is a myth. He's actually still doing OK in battleground states, which are the important players.

This poll also hurts the idea of Warren's electability, while confirming that Biden does indeed have the advantage there.

Also, although I'm a bit upset with the poll's results (obviously I would hope for larger margins), thank fuck we can take a second to swipe, once again, at the lefts continued harassment of Joe Biden, and the fallacy that the loud segment of the left is the "new face of the Democratic party". It's not. And I say that as someone who generally agrees with most progressive policies that have been espoused by this part of the left.

I just despise how elitist they are, and how much they're willing to ignore the reality that there are a LOT of independents and moderate dems who are not exactly thrilled with where the party is going, or wish for a more moderate Dem.

So I read this article too, and my takeaway is WTF Michigan? Bernie and Warren are running on essentially the same platform, but if Bernie runs he would win by 2 points and if Warren runs she would lose by 6? I ca only put that down to sexism smh

It's a difficult one to understand.

Idk if Warren has said anything in particular to piss off Michigan or what. But yeah, it definitely seems like sexism to me.

Sanders is just obviously more appealing to traditional Blue Collar environments, so I wouldn't be surprised by him outpolling Warren in Michigan, or Pennsylvania, even if Warren has policy proposals that could also resonate well with voters there.

VivaStPauli wrote:

Hapless_Hans wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:
I'm not going to echo Betty and say "Concentration Camps", because that's something I reserve for the shit show we did, where people came for the sole purpose of murder.

That's plain wrong though.
'Concentration camps' are not singular to Nazi Germany, the US put Japanese Americans into concentration camps, absolutely.
The Kaiserreich put people in concentration camps in Namibia.
Many other example.

What's singular to what we did is the extermination camps. Chelmno, Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor

It's time the word "Vernichtungslager" takes its rightful place in the German discourse, instead of saying "Konzentrationslager" without discerning between Dachau and Auschwitz

You're not wrong, I just meant to say that I try to not use the word. Of course it in itself just means a camp, where people are concentrated together, and doesn't explicitly mean they're all being murdered. But when people hear "Concentration Camp" that's the first connection most will make, so I try to avoid the term unless I'm talking about Nazi Vernichtungslager.

I understand, but I think this kind of speech etiquette is problematic.
Because to be honest, calling Auschwitz etc a "Konzentrationslager" is an euphemism and factually wrong.
There was no "camp" at the Vernichtungslager sites, at least not for the majority of people transported. The people were not kept there, they were merely processed to be murdered.
In fact, the claim it would be a camp was a ploy to keep the masses of people destined to be gassed or shot from revolting.

The only camp structures were for the small part of the deported who were chosen to work in the extermination process.

So honestly, I wish German discourse would have the balls to look at the details.

I honestly believe, despite the general feeling that 'we Germans' are being smothered with Holocaust education, most people don't actually have a clue about the details of extermination, else the term Konzentrationslager wouldn't be used in such a sacrosanct and exclusive way.

You've convinced me, at least.

VivaStPauli wrote:

CBarca wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

So I read this article too, and my takeaway is WTF Michigan? Bernie and Warren are running on essentially the same platform, but if Bernie runs he would win by 2 points and if Warren runs she would lose by 6? I ca only put that down to sexism smh

It's a difficult one to understand.

Idk if Warren has said anything in particular to piss off Michigan or what. But yeah, it definitely seems like sexism to me.

Sanders is just obviously more appealing to traditional Blue Collar environments, so I wouldn't be surprised by him outpolling Warren in Michigan, or Pennsylvania, even if Warren has policy proposals that could also resonate well with voters there.

That's true. I've not given the charisma or character of Sanders vs Warren much of a look at, here. That's definitely a big reason for the difference between the two

Warren has always been pretty intellectual, and ever since she's been thinking about running for president, she's obviously tried to "dumb down" her policies for her voters-to-be, which just seems disingenuous with her, hard to put into words, but when she tries to speak from the heart, it just seems fake - and whenever she's tried to imbue her rhetoric with some polemic statements to court non-academic voters it's made me cringe.
Sanders does that far better.

The problem here in MI for Warren is that it's Democrat strongholds, like Detroit and many of the suburbs around it, have large Black populations. And she is not polling well with black voters, who are still a core part of Biden's base due to him being linked to Obama. Sanders isn't doing all that well with them either though.

Temperament-wise, I've seen the spectrum said about Warren. She's too angry, she's too preachy, she's too academic, she's too wonky, she's inauthentic, etc etc.....everyone seems to have an opinion on why she's not the right candidate.

For me, she's thoroughly academic and for blue collar democrats, that translates into something in the realm of a perceived superiority complex because she speaks in a way they do not easily understand. So this turns them off from her. It's what I imagine appealed about Trump in that he spoke in a very simple way. Honestly, it's the dumbest reason to support or oppose a political candidate that I've come across. The very fact that any of these candidates need to dumb anything down is a failure of our education system. The difference between someone like Warren and Obama, who was also very much an academic is that his oratory ability as a candidate was next level whereas Warren just isn't an orator. She can absolutely convey emotion and authenticity, but whereas that came from a place of inspiration with Obama, it comes from a place of anger, frustration and aggression with Warren (and Sanders as well) and that often doesn't translate well to moderates, who prefer a unifying message over a divisive one.

Warren's one true mistake so far in her campaign is not owning up to the cost of her M4A (this is not what we should be focusing on anyway) and it hasn't damaged her too much fortunately. Beyond that, I have zero problems supporting her over Biden. Then again, I'll support pretty much any of the other candidates over Biden at this point.

So we're on Day 2 of the public Impeachment hearings being conducted by the House Intelligence Committee, led by Rep. Adam Schiff (a Democrat). The top ranking Republican on this committee is Devin Nunes.

So far, former Acting Ambassader to Ukraine Bill Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs have both testified that the July 25th call between Trump and Zelenskyy was largely about Trump holding up military aid to Ukraine in exchange for Zelenskyy not only opening an investigation into Joe Biden and his son, but also announcing this investigation publicly. Both testimonies were considered extremely damaging to Trump's version of events. Republicans didn't offer much of a defense, instead focusing on the Bidens and their dealings with Ukrainian company Burisma, which has nothing to do with this impeachment inquiry.

Today, Former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch is now testifying and so far her views on this scandal are perfectly in line with Taylor's and Kent's. Trump basically fired her because he didn't think she was loyal to him due to her reputation for fighting corruption within Ukraine.

Basically, this looks super bad for Trump and the Republicans are really struggling to defend his motives, intent and methods for how he handled that call. All they're doing is deflecting and deriding the witnesses giving testimony while also trying to out the whistle-blower, who really isn't even relevant anymore.