Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread

Maybe Trump should hire you to write slogans, because that's a beautifully succinct and honest summary of the man. Probably should disqualify him from running anything other than his own business though. Empathy Faith. Let's try empathy.If Obama made Christian cake shop owners bake cakes for gay weddings and this is terrible in your eyes.
If Obama makes Christian pharmacists sell the morning after pill, and this is awful.
If Obama asks people to contribute to a common pool for mutual healthcare benefits and some of the healthcare being paid for is contraceptive in nature, and this requires hearings, sessions and hours and hours of analysis on Fox about how immoral it all is....Can you imagine why forcing Jews to cook bacon is a problem?Can you imagine why drowning Jews in pigs blood is more hateful and despicable than drowning them in water?Can you imagine that Catholics dipping their torture instruments in pig's blood and/or menstrual blood before torturing Jews might serve as yet more evidence for their evil character?

Yes, it's terrible in your eyes - exactly as I said. Great. So it's morally OK, in your mind, to put Jews into forced labour camps where they are obligated at gun point to fry bacon for the people who created the labour camps...if the Jews in question had been determined to be 'enemies of the state'?What if ISIS treated it's captives this way? You'd be OK with it?Can you think of any reason why ANYBODY would dip bullets in pigs blood? I can't think of a motivation other than malice and hatred. Is malice and hatred of your enemies a Christian thing?

Indeed, part of my rhetoric strategy was to show how upset Faith gets about minor issues such as cake baking and predicting she would object to forced labour against a person's religious conscience. Unfortunately she seems to think that ignoring a Jew's religious conscience is fine if they are an enemy, with some later references to actions of a State. This is peculiar given Faith's objections about the religious problems of other State actions and laws.Nevertheless, she seems happy to support someone who said we should act more like ISIS or we will be thought of as weak, that our executions should be designed to cause religious outrage throughout the whole world so as to prevent terrorism. It is a little concerning to see Faith, and his supporters, be either fine with this or find it amazing. The veracity of the tale, the historical claims that followed it are one thing, the rambling manner of its delivery another - but the message?"We need to go way beyond simulated drowning because the head choppers are laughing at us for being pussies".I could understand GWB's appeal, to an extent. But Trump, I cannot comprehend. Not unless RWA type theories are onto something strong. Trying to get someone like Faith to at least understand why people are upset by Trump beyond her typical dismissive nonsense of leftist marxist warped brain pcness is my best attempt at the topic. I hope that since the government making laws that affect the religious conscience of individuals is something that Faith feels very strongly about, I thought this the perfect topic for getting Faith to see (though probably not necessarily agree) with an opposing moral stance. Exactly. Where acts such as this have occurred (and I expect they have, even if the specific tale is untrue), they are done out of malice. Out of hatred. They are not actions delivered by State policy. They are individuals deciding to impede the progress of their own duties by taking additional steps simply to say 'fuck you' to people they hate by trying to outrage their religious sentiments.If Obama did it to Christian prisoners, Faith would be telling us all about it - I'm sure. It must be kind of scary when someone saying this kind of nonsense isn't delivering a speech the next day announcing their retirement from the race. True, the issue is that if he only stays at about 1/3 share of the voting it means he's going to be a contender to the end...so the world may have to be biting finger nails for a good while yet. I'm hoping that Trump continues to find people to alienate so that he picks up as few of those voters as possible.What would be fascinating is to see if Trump can say anything which his base finds too far.Building a new Berlin Wall, religious discrimination, wanting the government to tyrannically impose policies that serve no purpose but to outrage many Muslims as a anti-terror strategy, more torture, violating religious sensibilities with glee? Showing a complete ignorance of basic Christianity? Insulting NATO allies. No? Nothing?Decry the Iraq war as a terribly costly decision that was responsible for the destabilizatoin of the Middle East and was based on lies. But not properly torturing the people of Iraq while we were there was a mistake too? I would have thought calling Dubya a liar who cost the lives of Da Troopz for no reason other than to make it all worse and destroy the economy might have gotten more than a few boos. I suppose promising to torture people regardless of the legality of any war is just to sweet a deal to pass up?

Should be? Difficult to say. There has been an unprecedent level of commentary made by politicians about US primary candidates. Specifically Trump. This seems appropriate. He is showing that he can't play international politics. Which, as a US President would seem to be important. It is good that many leaders, and senior politicians in Europe are speaking up. Hopefully enough Republican voters will decide that national security is more than torturing Muslims and burying them in pig fat and also involves having a good relationship with NATO et al. Something Trump has failed at spectacularly to demonstrate any skills with at every round of this job interview.Still, his core voters probably don't care that European political leaders are happy to go on public record as saying he is 'ill-informed', 'ignorant', 'racist' and so on. They seem to have happily ignored the fears of the likes of Irene Weiss, holocaust survivor. It seems Hitler was an inoculation for dangerous demagoguery, but it seems that America needs a booster shot.

quote:

---

I’m scared. I don’t like the trend. I don’t like how many people are applauding when they hear these demagogues. It can turn., Irene Weiss

---

But when Obama gives a speech in Germany and the crowd applauds - this is like Hitler. When a charismatic leader blames the countries problems on foreigners and vows to take extreme measures to foreigners to make the fatherland great again....this doesn't register....For us powerless people - we continue to find American politics entertaining. So that's something. Most Europeans can talk about US politics better than vice versa - but even sometimes better than they can about their own politics. I guess what I'm saying is that US politics is reality TV for educated Europeans

Yes he did, from Message 946, addressed to you: *emphasis added*

It has been acknowledged a few times. Most people aren't concerned with 'politician makes up story / rehashes a made up story to drive home a political point' but focussed more on the political point he was driving home. That's what separates the standard lying politicians from Trump.

And yet Trump confidently proclaimed in front of millions of people that this action by Pershing was responsible for ending terrorism in the region for 25 years and therefore we should torture people.Where did that come from? Surely that's the kind of thing that people talk and write about? Where is it?Do you know the actual story?There was a revolution. The people wanted independence from Spain, at first, and then the United States. Decades of intermittent strife followed as the USA was determined to hold to its colony despite the cost in lives. Part of this was selfish, but as Japan started looking like trouble, part of it was trying to protect the island from invasion.In 1911 Pershing wanted to take the people's firearms so as to make his Governorship easier. That's right. He took what you have previously called a tyrant's action in attempting to disarm a populace by force.They shot at the soldiers who came on the orders of the tyrant to take away their guns from them in their homes.His men shot back. His men captured some belligerents. Trump calls them terrorists who did lots of damage. Pershing probably called them rebels whom he said he regarded as his adopted children. They call themselves freedom fighters who were defending their rights. Either way, they were hanged.He regretted people had to die.That's what history records. No general fear of pig's blood executions seems to have been talked about to the extent it would explain any change in violence.Here's what we do know about the situation
-Pershing left the Governorship shortly afterwards, 1913, the last military Governor/Dictator. He believed this was necessary. He was replaced by a Civillian Governor.
-The Jones Law was passed, giving reasonable prospect of an independent Philippines to all parties.
- WWI broke out and the people of the Philippines agreed to stop the fight for independence and fight with the USA.I think these factors explain the subsequent 25 years of Philippine history better than an anecdote - even if its 100% true. I'm surprised this is something this thread is even talking about. It was 1911. He was a military governor a long way from home before global communication networks. He could shoot whoever he wanted, including his subordinates, and at worst he'd lose his job and pension. But as long as he could give a reason, just about any reason, he was probably safe from even that. This is a link to a picture of three executed Moros who said to the dictator 'out of my cold dead hands' - the idea that anybody on this forum entertained the notion that they got anything approaching a trial is laughable. It's possible, of course - but why bother? It was a military dictatorship. What the Governor says is more or less law.The terrible part shouldn't be execution of criminals without a trial - that happened all the time - America still looked like the wild west though it was a little less wild. A frontier military general who has captured people that the right people say defied a military command while under martial law? That's all that's needed to warrant execution.No, it's Trump's argument that we should torture people. Way worse than simulated drowning. Way way worse, I believe he would say. That's the headline. He thinks torture and stamping on your enemies religious sensibilities will end terrorism. It's dangerous lunacy. And the audience went wild!Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Depends what you are thinking it is effective at.It was effective at turning the populace against American military and providing fuel for the revolutionaries fires resulting in repeated uprisings and large loss of life.But I guess maybe people were stealing bread less often or something. Using torture and death to keep the populace in line?Mate, you're talking to a European.

He cheated on Ivana with Marla. Marla claims this, and the witnesses concur Trump would put his arm around her as they walked, they witnessed Marla claimed it at the time it happened and the three of them were tense around one another and there were heated arguments.Also, Ivana claims he made her sign a pre-nup at around the time someone was said to have been blackmailing Trump about releasing evidence of this. After he divorced Ivana, he got Marla pregnant and then married her.

quote:

---

It is since then that history of Italy starts, the real history of Italy, because if before one could think that history of Italy was the more or less complicated result of diplomatic ploys, of intrigues of the government, of passions of minorities, it is only in 1915, with the "bright may" of 1915, that the Italian people bursts on the political scene, casts out the traffickers from the temple, and finally becomes the maker of its own destiny. The conclusion that I am drawing before you, in this sunshiny, hopeful day is this: that today the Italian people and the Fascist Regime are a united, solid entity, unbreakable, formidable, able to challenge, as it challenges, all its enemies and also the passage of time.

---

The Establishment is advantaged by promoting the idea that First Past the Post type elections are awesome:

This is also the Christian agenda, it's built into the religion from the outset. Given how much influence Christianity had on the formation of Islam, it's hardly surprising to see it went the same way. It had proven a successful way to spread a religion already, after all. So when people do it for Christians, is that Politically Correct too?What is it when Muslim commits a crime and they get lambasted as a terrorist or as someone who committed the crime because of their religion even when that's not been established?Do you remember hearing about how the Jews had problems in Europe and Soviet states? Do you remember how it started? It started with people blaming the Jews for increasingly absurd things. Things ramped up and violence and murder erupted.This is not an exceptional thing. It happens all the time. A minority group is scapegoated, and individual members of that group are subsequently targeted for criminal acts.So while there is plenty to criticize in Islam, one has to be careful not to fuel the fires of hatred that humanity loves so much.We see you take any example of a Christian suffering as 'persecution'. Are they denying healthcare to a vulnerable person and they get fired? Persecution. Are they denying service to someone from historically reviled group and they got sued? Persecution. Are they told their government can't be seen to endorse their religious perspective? Persecution.It's strange that you seem so willing to persecute the Muslims in similar ways. They want a place of worship? They get protested and called terrorists. They want Halal options available when they go shopping? They're trying to take over the country. It looks like a double standard. I'm as happy for Muslims to exist in my country and babysit my family as I am for a Christian to do so. I think both religions are wrong and potentially lead to dangerous mindsets. Did you know that the culture in Indonesia is different than in Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia? Did you know that there isn't a singular Muslim culture any more than there is a Christian one? I have criticized Islam without being called racist or an Islamophobe. Maybe its how you choose to do it.Are you painting all Muslims with a broad brush? Are you trying to drum up fear of all Muslims by insinuating they are ticking time bombs who would kill your sister as soon as look at her? Are you trying to argue that it's your understanding of their religion that matters and that since you interpret it as being dangerous, all Muslims should be considered dangerous? Are you arguing that people who have never claimed to be Muslim are still Muslim because of some familial connection and that therefore they are probably liars and shouldn't be trusted? Are you saying all Muslims are liars in any case, so we can't believe anything they try to assure us of, even if they seem great people?Because that's the kind of talk that is Islamophobic and sometimes it can be racist too. Well let's be realistic. You can say immigration should be restricted, but it depends on your specific arguments doesn't it?Arguing that we have a housing problem so we should restrict immigration, might be reasonable.
Arguing that our economy would do better in the long term if we found ways to fill skill gaps domestically rather than from abroad, might be reasonable.Saying 'We should kick out all Muslims from the country' is obviously Islamophobic.Thinking that illegal immigration is the problem we should be focussed on, rather than say, healthcare or military spending or how money circulates in the economy is usually the hallmark of a xenophobe or racist.See the difference? Actually 'victims' of crimes by Muslims do say this.
And it could be construed as Islamophobic to have the subtle presumption of 'at the moment' in insinuating that we will all be victimized by terrible Islamic crimes eventually. None of the Abrahamic faiths are. Many Muslims are intolerant. But you'll find it directed at you more often because you are you so you get to experience every example of it.You see, normally the 'warnings' about Islam are filled with hysterical bullshit and sound much like the same hysterical bullshit racists have whipped up against their ethnic enemies for centuries. There are more people in the USA that have these dangerous notions about the 'dangers' of Islam than there are Muslims in the USA. So yeah - you are going to see them being described as 'intolerant' quite a lot. It's difficult to provide refuge and tighten immigration against the Islamic threat.I find it funny that you think you know Islam better than Muslims yet you continuously get Shia and Sunni concepts mixed up regardless of how many times you are corrected.

---

I agree with you that some people are just not smart enough or educated enough to have a reasonable discussion about Islam. Sooner or later they retreat to familiar soundbites such as 'political correctness' or 'Islamophobia'.But let's get something's clear here:By reinforcing that Islam is intrinsically bad at its core, you are simply making the prospect of changing Islamic culture more difficult.Those people that argued that mixed race marriages were bad because of the contents of the Bible? They were making cultural change more difficult.Personally, I would like to see the triumph of liberal Islam. An Islam that is tolerant of other perspectives, universally emancipates women and so on. If nobody recognizes liberal Islam as being truly Islamic then we're dooming ourselves to more misery. We're basically acting as ISIS recruiters and we outnumber them hugely so that would be a huge boon for them.I would rather see the liberal 21st Century Western Christianity over the 15th Century Western one. Indeed even over some of the modern day African ones. The same goes for Islam.We have influence with Muslims here, let's try and steer them to liberal Islam and let's not keep telling them that the ultraconservative Wahhabism is the only real Islam.

Message 106
Message 215
Message 1478How much mileage do you plan on getting out of that 70s reference exactly?