Topic: Has Trump supported Nazis in the past or something?
brie !iFDoautiSM started this discussion 9 years ago #64,994
If he has never supported Nazis or whatever we're calling them, then what is the point in denouncing them?
I don't get why he has to come out and tell you who is good and who is evil. You don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth anyway, so why care?
I don't get why he has to come out and tell you who is good and who is evil. You don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth anyway, so why care?
DasSheeple !XPQqN0U9Ew joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 6 minutes later[^] [v] #805,757
You are trying to put logic behind something that has none.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 7 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #805,758
these are actually some really difficult questions to answer thoughtfully. i mean, this kinda like requires we talk about stuff like philosophy and what is the social construct and what is society and shit like that. it's not that trump is telling you who is good or evil, because first of all good and evil are subjective things. but what he is doing is showing which political viewpoints he supports and which ones he doesn't support. that can have implications on how the social contract is fulfilled on the part of the government, and may have an impact on our responsibilities to that same contract. and even if he's a liar, all we can really do is watch his actions, and the day his words and actions are honestly the same is the day i think we're in really, really big trouble if we haven't made a huge effort to force trump to explain himself in great detail and to show himself for honestly what kind of person he is.
society, civilization, all of this is just a huge invention of some pretty intelligent apes, there is no "good" and there is no "evil," just the things we all can agree on as a society that we find either acceptable or deplorable and we build everything on top of that. that's why it's important to be clear about things, and to press trump to frequently expose himself. if the foundations of our society, things like our moral compass, if those are being altered then there will a fundamental shift in society in general. the implications of this are very, very far reaching.
it's actually pretty important that the president lead the nation and not just shuffle around the white house like someone's demented grandfather ranting about blacks and immigrants.
society, civilization, all of this is just a huge invention of some pretty intelligent apes, there is no "good" and there is no "evil," just the things we all can agree on as a society that we find either acceptable or deplorable and we build everything on top of that. that's why it's important to be clear about things, and to press trump to frequently expose himself. if the foundations of our society, things like our moral compass, if those are being altered then there will a fundamental shift in society in general. the implications of this are very, very far reaching.
it's actually pretty important that the president lead the nation and not just shuffle around the white house like someone's demented grandfather ranting about blacks and immigrants.
Stoic Sam !zQ8ry.WSMk joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #805,759
Exactly! When dealing with topics that inspire a lot of debate like this, it is important to look at it from a cosmological perspective.
How small is a man, and how minute is that area which he inhabits and claims his own!
How small is a man, and how minute is that area which he inhabits and claims his own!
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #805,760
@OP
> I don't get why he has to come out and tell you who is good and who is evil.
Ah, okay, so- the reasoning there is that, as the President of America, he should condemn extremist elements within his country. When his response is ambiguous, it suggests that he does not condemn them. It's not that people are biased against Trump, it's that he did not make this condemnation in a timely or convincing manner. Had he done so, the typically anti-Trump people would have had no problem.
I hope that's clarified things for you! :)
> I don't get why he has to come out and tell you who is good and who is evil.
Ah, okay, so- the reasoning there is that, as the President of America, he should condemn extremist elements within his country. When his response is ambiguous, it suggests that he does not condemn them. It's not that people are biased against Trump, it's that he did not make this condemnation in a timely or convincing manner. Had he done so, the typically anti-Trump people would have had no problem.
I hope that's clarified things for you! :)
brie !iFDoautiSM (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 7 minutes later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #805,762
@previous (E)
Is he seriously supposed to come and denounce someone every time 1 person dies in a car accident?
Obama only came out for the big death tolls, only brought up how evil terrorists are like once every 6 months.
How often do you need Trump to come out and say evil is bad?
Is he seriously supposed to come and denounce someone every time 1 person dies in a car accident?
Obama only came out for the big death tolls, only brought up how evil terrorists are like once every 6 months.
How often do you need Trump to come out and say evil is bad?
Anonymous E replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #805,764
@previous (brie !iFDoautiSM)
It's not every day that a woman is murdered by a neo-nazi, brie! And why, with his mastery of Twitter, a condemnation would take mere seconds to make!
I trust this has settled the issue for you. :)
It's not every day that a woman is murdered by a neo-nazi, brie! And why, with his mastery of Twitter, a condemnation would take mere seconds to make!
I trust this has settled the issue for you. :)
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #805,766
@805,762 (brie !iFDoautiSM)
> Is he seriously supposed to come and denounce someone every time 1 person dies in a car accident?
well no, brie, but he should denounce the ones that are terror attacks or murders. not "accidents," but terrorist murders, i mean yeah. it's his duty, brie.
> Obama only came out for the big death tolls, only brought up how evil terrorists are like once every 6 months.
uh, he spoke about it more frequently than that, and certainly every single time he was asked. he never embraced it though.
> How often do you need Trump to come out and say evil is bad?
every time he's presented with evil he should denounce and reject it, not defend and embrace it. brie.
> Is he seriously supposed to come and denounce someone every time 1 person dies in a car accident?
well no, brie, but he should denounce the ones that are terror attacks or murders. not "accidents," but terrorist murders, i mean yeah. it's his duty, brie.
> Obama only came out for the big death tolls, only brought up how evil terrorists are like once every 6 months.
uh, he spoke about it more frequently than that, and certainly every single time he was asked. he never embraced it though.
> How often do you need Trump to come out and say evil is bad?
every time he's presented with evil he should denounce and reject it, not defend and embrace it. brie.
(Edited 22 seconds later.)
brie !iFDoautiSM (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 4 minutes later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #805,767
@previous (C)
Maybe I missed the three seconds of the news cycle devoted to explanation and only saw the twenty hours of outrage.
Maybe I missed the three seconds of the news cycle devoted to explanation and only saw the twenty hours of outrage.
(Edited 26 seconds later.)
brie !iFDoautiSM (OP) double-posted this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #805,768
Maybe you all should start putting two and two together to look for the real answer.
You say the man can barely read, so maybe it just took him two days to get through all the reports on his desk.
You say the man can barely read, so maybe it just took him two days to get through all the reports on his desk.
brie !iFDoautiSM (OP) triple-posted this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #805,770
@805,766 (C)
Also you seem to answering part of the Original Post by saying that he did in fact support Nazis. In which case it is acceptable to expect him to denounce them. Without the prior support it would make no sense.
Also you seem to answering part of the Original Post by saying that he did in fact support Nazis. In which case it is acceptable to expect him to denounce them. Without the prior support it would make no sense.
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #805,771
@805,768 (brie !iFDoautiSM)
why would we speculate and imagine a scenario in which trump might've not been a piece of shit when we can just look at his words and actions and judge for ourselves. i'm really ot understanding people's need to want to use their imaginations and make-believe to imagine imaginary excuses for trump. i mean, maybe he's 2 children in a man suit just trying to sneak into a movie and things got really out of hand?
i mean c'mon. why can't we just look at the man and his words and actions and judge him accordingly?
why would we speculate and imagine a scenario in which trump might've not been a piece of shit when we can just look at his words and actions and judge for ourselves. i'm really ot understanding people's need to want to use their imaginations and make-believe to imagine imaginary excuses for trump. i mean, maybe he's 2 children in a man suit just trying to sneak into a movie and things got really out of hand?
i mean c'mon. why can't we just look at the man and his words and actions and judge him accordingly?
Meta joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #805,773
@805,766 (C)
> every time he's presented with evil he should denounce and reject it, not defend and embrace it. brie.
Given how much evil there is in the world, wouldn't he have to spend 99% of his time denouncing? What's the denunciation threshold? How big does an incident have to be to require a presidential denunciation? According to the FBI statistics, there were there were 5,818 hate crimes in 2015. If he had to denounce every one, he'd have to make 16 denunciations a day, every day.
> every time he's presented with evil he should denounce and reject it, not defend and embrace it. brie.
Given how much evil there is in the world, wouldn't he have to spend 99% of his time denouncing? What's the denunciation threshold? How big does an incident have to be to require a presidential denunciation? According to the FBI statistics, there were there were 5,818 hate crimes in 2015. If he had to denounce every one, he'd have to make 16 denunciations a day, every day.
brie !iFDoautiSM (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #805,774
@previous (Meta)
> 16 denunciations
That is about how many times Obama came out to denounce an American terrorist attack in his entire presidency.
> 16 denunciations
That is about how many times Obama came out to denounce an American terrorist attack in his entire presidency.
(Edited 42 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 50 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #805,775
@805,770 (brie !iFDoautiSM)
you don't have to be part of a group to denounce a group, first of all, and the president is already expected to denounce hate groups and violent rhetoric. the fact that he didn't for so long was notable because it's like the easiest part of his job, and yes it is part of his job. it's not like people are expecting him to apologize for them, that's not what denouncing them means. trump doesn't have to have been part of the group to be expected to denounce the actions of the group. and yes he Is expected to denounce things like domestic attacks and murder, especially when the country looks to him for leadership.
people didn't expect trump to denounce nazis because he used to be one, but because it is his job to. i think you're misunderstanding why he's expected to denounce anything in the first place. it's his job, and expected duty.
i think most people are just super confused that he flunked such an easy test, one that every other president seemed to pass over, and over, and over again. trump couldn't even look presidential for a single day.
you don't have to be part of a group to denounce a group, first of all, and the president is already expected to denounce hate groups and violent rhetoric. the fact that he didn't for so long was notable because it's like the easiest part of his job, and yes it is part of his job. it's not like people are expecting him to apologize for them, that's not what denouncing them means. trump doesn't have to have been part of the group to be expected to denounce the actions of the group. and yes he Is expected to denounce things like domestic attacks and murder, especially when the country looks to him for leadership.
people didn't expect trump to denounce nazis because he used to be one, but because it is his job to. i think you're misunderstanding why he's expected to denounce anything in the first place. it's his job, and expected duty.
i think most people are just super confused that he flunked such an easy test, one that every other president seemed to pass over, and over, and over again. trump couldn't even look presidential for a single day.
brie !iFDoautiSM (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #805,776
@previous (C)
Denounce, Verb, to publicly declare evil or to inform against. It's the opposite of 'Support'.
Who didn't already fucking know that nazis are evil? Who needed to be informed?
Denounce, Verb, to publicly declare evil or to inform against. It's the opposite of 'Support'.
Who didn't already fucking know that nazis are evil? Who needed to be informed?
Meta replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 55 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #805,777
@805,774 (brie !iFDoautiSM)
There weren't any American terrorist attacks during Obama's presidency because Obama didn't use divisive hateful rhetoric.
There weren't any American terrorist attacks during Obama's presidency because Obama didn't use divisive hateful rhetoric.
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #805,778
@805,773 (Meta)
it's not his job to denounce every evil in the world, but it is his job to denounce and reject every evil he is presented with. same as you are asked to do by your own conscience, meta. you don't wander the earth looking for evil to verbally condemn, do you? nope, but you manage to lead a moral life and defend you beliefs when presented with situations where you can present your opinion or have an impact, right? is it asking too much of the president to lead his life in a good and moral way and to reject the kinds of evils that we as a society have deemed deplorable?
no, meta, it is not. but the fact that you have to erect the straw man that people are asking trump to wander the earth looking for evils to denounce are doing nothing but making a mockery of the values our society has held dead for generations.
it's not his job to denounce every evil in the world, but it is his job to denounce and reject every evil he is presented with. same as you are asked to do by your own conscience, meta. you don't wander the earth looking for evil to verbally condemn, do you? nope, but you manage to lead a moral life and defend you beliefs when presented with situations where you can present your opinion or have an impact, right? is it asking too much of the president to lead his life in a good and moral way and to reject the kinds of evils that we as a society have deemed deplorable?
no, meta, it is not. but the fact that you have to erect the straw man that people are asking trump to wander the earth looking for evils to denounce are doing nothing but making a mockery of the values our society has held dead for generations.
brie !iFDoautiSM (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 15 seconds later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #805,779
Anonymous C replied with this 9 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #805,780
@805,776 (brie !iFDoautiSM)> Who didn't already fucking know that nazis are evil? Who needed to be informed?
Donald "there were good people on both sides" trump, apparently.
Anonymous E replied with this 9 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #805,781
@805,776 (brie !iFDoautiSM)
So then, what are your thoughts on his denouncing the terror attacks in Spain? Should he have stayed quiet? I mean, everybody already knows that terrorists are evil!
So then, what are your thoughts on his denouncing the terror attacks in Spain? Should he have stayed quiet? I mean, everybody already knows that terrorists are evil!
brie !iFDoautiSM (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #805,782
@previous (E)
I think two days is a perfectly reasonable amount to time for someone to become informed on the events. Maybe he shouldn't say anything next time until he has read the reports.
I think two days is a perfectly reasonable amount to time for someone to become informed on the events. Maybe he shouldn't say anything next time until he has read the reports.
Anonymous E replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #805,783
@previous (brie !iFDoautiSM)
So you're thinking he should've waited about two days to say anything about the Spain attacks? Just so he had the full picture?
So you're thinking he should've waited about two days to say anything about the Spain attacks? Just so he had the full picture?
brie !iFDoautiSM (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #805,784
@previous (E)
Two days is fine.
It took a lot longer than that to hear the presidents thoughts in the past and things were fine then.
Two days is fine.
It took a lot longer than that to hear the presidents thoughts in the past and things were fine then.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #805,804
@805,757 (DasSheeple !XPQqN0U9Ew)
> You are trying to put logic behind something that has none.
you are a moon landing hoax guy
> You are trying to put logic behind something that has none.
you are a moon landing hoax guy
The Witch Doctor !6W1Zpe4MCM joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 1 second later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #805,805
Because he is the damn President. He wanted the damn job, so he had better act like it.
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #805,807
@805,773 (Meta)
> > every time he's presented with evil he should denounce and reject it, not defend and embrace it. brie.
> Given how much evil there is in the world, wouldn't he have to spend 99% of his time denouncing? What's the denunciation threshold? How big does an incident have to be to require a presidential denunciation? According to the FBI statistics, there were there were 5,818 hate crimes in 2015. If he had to denounce every one, he'd have to make 16 denunciations a day, every day.
what's with all the facetious crap from you lately
> > every time he's presented with evil he should denounce and reject it, not defend and embrace it. brie.
> Given how much evil there is in the world, wouldn't he have to spend 99% of his time denouncing? What's the denunciation threshold? How big does an incident have to be to require a presidential denunciation? According to the FBI statistics, there were there were 5,818 hate crimes in 2015. If he had to denounce every one, he'd have to make 16 denunciations a day, every day.
what's with all the facetious crap from you lately
Sheila LaBoof double-posted this 9 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #805,808
@805,784 (brie !iFDoautiSM)
> Two days is fine.
>
> It took a lot longer than that to hear the presidents thoughts in the past and things were fine then.
it was the part where when he did first do a remark about the incident, all he mentioned was "from all sides" or something like that, like he was clueless or worse, that's why people were flapping their fuckin lips about him
fuck pay attention
> Two days is fine.
>
> It took a lot longer than that to hear the presidents thoughts in the past and things were fine then.
it was the part where when he did first do a remark about the incident, all he mentioned was "from all sides" or something like that, like he was clueless or worse, that's why people were flapping their fuckin lips about him
fuck pay attention