Donald J. Trump: President of the USA Part II Covfefe

Gingerbeardman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
349
But... The hitman's job would be viewed as unethical by the wider group of folk who aren't hitmen.
Doesn't matter, he'd be fulfilling the hitman's code of conduct perfectly with no complaints by those who engaged hs services.

I'm sure the guests at the Continental Hotel think John Wick is a righteous dude... You and I might prefer to flee the scene when he starts to shoot folk up.
We aren't politicians, and fleeing from a gunman isn't politics.

And unless you're abandoning the idea of living in a secular democracy, I really don't see how you can endorse a politician favouring your (or anyone's) brand of morality.
 

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
11,039
Doesn't matter, he'd be fulfilling the hitman's code of conduct perfectly with no complaints by those who engaged hs services.


We aren't politicians, and fleeing from a gunman isn't politics.

And unless you're abandoning the idea of living in a secular democracy, I really don't see how you can endorse a politician favouring your (or anyone's) brand of morality.
Metaphor. Trumpian politics will attract Trumpists. Everyone else will look for something else...
 

Gingerbeardman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
349
Think of John Wick shooting the place up as tre45on putting kids in cages. Trumpists cheer, and the rest run to the ballot box and vote for Democrats.
This is just more evidence of delusion as far as I am concerned. Obama did the same thing for similar motivations. Both were acting to protect the country in the manner they best understood how. Especially since the people who bemoan Trump's actions are completely incoherent when it comes to explaining what the problem in the first place is.

Do you want illegals running around unchecked in the country never to return for their appointed court date, or do you want to make sure they get detained until the courts can decide what should be done with them?

Like unless you're advocating the abolishment of prisons for people awaiting trial in general, all you're doing is signalling to everyone how much of a triggered little snowflake you are.
 

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
11,039
This is just more evidence of delusion as far as I am concerned. Obama did the same thing for similar motivations. Both were acting to protect the country in the manner they best understood how. Especially since the people who bemoan Trump's actions are completely incoherent when it comes to explaining what the problem in the first place is.

Do you want illegals running around unchecked in the country never to return for their appointed court date, or do you want to make sure they get detained until the courts can decide what should be done with them?

Like unless you're advocating the abolishment of prisons for people awaiting trial in general, all you're doing is signalling to everyone how much of a triggered little snowflake you are.
Do you have a point that isn't whataboutism and fear mongering, or are you on a shot-clock to get a "snowflake" in?
 

Gingerbeardman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
349
Do you have a point that isn't whataboutism and fear mongering, or are you on a shot-clock to get a "snowflake" in?
I said it very clearly. Every single objection to the children in cages thing has been incoherent in my experience. I then described how I generally see the situation.

Feel free to shade in the part that I was missing.

And how it is a whataboutism? You were the one who said they chose to vote dem as a result, but the indication is that the dems are just more of the same?
 

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
11,039
I said it very clearly. Every single objection to the children in cages thing has been incoherent in my experience. I then described how I generally see the situation.

Feel free to shade in the part that I was missing.
As I recall, your solution was headshots to 20 or so of 'em... amirite? So, MbS, Duterte and Putin have to be more your moral and ethical leadership speed then? Trump must be such a disappointment for you.
 

Gingerbeardman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
349
As I recall, your solution was headshots to 20 or so of 'em... amirite? So, MbS, Duterte and Putin have to be more your moral and ethical leadership speed then? Trump must be such a disappointment for you.
Now this is a whataboutism. :ROFL:

You know what, let's actually break this down.

First off, you're misrepresenting me. I never said I was in favour of shooting kids, what I said was is that it was a more effective way of minimising harm to children than keeping thousands of them locked up in cages for potentially years on end. I stand by that statement. What I said I was in favour of was building a wall that prevents people from crossing the border in the first place.

And given further consideration, it would be a relatively trivial matter to lie about having shot anyone, and just put 20 mannequins on pikes that look like children and have the mass media repeat the lie to make everyone believe that this atrocity has happened.

Secondly, any modern nation has 3 branches of government; the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The job of the executive, among other things, is to enforce the law. Unenforceable laws have no legal standing. Thus the executive is ethically obligated to ensure that the laws actually have force. That obligation falls squarely on the shoulders of POTUS.

A border law that anyone can violate with impunity is no law at all.

All of these points are consistent. I have said time and time again that the rule of law is important.

But even if my position was somehow incoherent, that does nothing to detract from my observations regarding the general incoherence of the people decrying Trumpelstiltskin cuz kiddies in cages.
 
Last edited:

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
11,039
Now this is a whataboutism. :ROFL:

You know what, let's actually break this down.

First off, you're misrepresenting me. I never said I was in favour of shooting kids, what I said was is that it was a more effective way of minimising harm to children than keeping thousands of them locked up in cages for potentially years on end. I stand by that statement. What I said I was in favour of was building a wall that prevents people from crossing the border in the first place.

And given further consideration, it would be a relatively trivial matter to lie about having shot anyone, and just put 20 mannequins on pikes that look like children and have the mass media repeat the lie to make everyone believe that this atrocity has happened.

Secondly, any modern nation has 3 branches of government; the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The job of the executive, among other things, is to enforce the law. Unenforceable laws have no legal standing. Thus the executive is ethically obligated to ensure that the laws actually have force. That obligation falls squarely on the shoulders of POTUS.

A border law that anyone can violate with impunity is no law at all.

All of these points are consistent. I have said time and time again that the rule of law is important.

But even if my position was somehow incoherent, that does nothing to detract from my observations regarding the general incoherence of the people decrying Trumpelstiltskin cuz kiddies in cages.
You can twist and turn it any way you like, but your "minimising harm" is *maximising* the specific harm metered out to the recipients of those headshots.

We're derailing here, but the solution is certainly not making martyrs at the border, nor is it their long-term internment...

It's a broader recognition that the human species is inherently migratory. It's an acknowledgement that bad folk sometimes manage power grabs, even in democratic countries, and that those bad folk actively hurt their fellow citizens. It's a recognition that as a people we need to use what influence we have to isolate and make those bad folk pariahs and do what we can for the people being hurt... Jesus, it's having just a drop of, "Be sure to welcome strangers into your home. By doing this, some people have welcomed angels as guests, without even knowing it." blood in you, Christian or no.

Then, the law *has* been ruling.

tre45on wants to change the law to get his rust-belt voter's blood up. He wants their blood up so they put him and his Trumpites back in the WH and the Senate where, surprise surprise, his interests coalesce around personal profit and having a bulwark to protect him while he makes his money grab.

It's all about him.

Finally, my take-away is less "the general incoherence of the people decrying Trumpelstiltskin", and more the discomfort expressed by conservatives, specifically regarding the use of the word "cages" - rather than what those cages are being used for.
It's the discomfort expressed by conservatives, specifically regarding the use of the word "nazi" - rather than nazis driving into protesters or being elected to Congress.
It's the discomfort expressed by conservatives, specifically regarding the use of the word "pedophile" - rather than endorsing one in a Senate race.

You want I should go on..?
 
Last edited:

Gingerbeardman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
349
You can twist and turn it any way you like, but your "minimising harm" is *maximising* the specific harm metered out to the recipients of those headshots.
Yup, kill 20 to save 200 and so forth. Unless you think we are gods, most decisions in life revolve around making trade-offs. It's a question of which trade-off we can best afford.

We're derailing here, but the solution is certainly not making martyrs at the border, nor is it their long-term internment...
I agree. Build the wall, let immigrants come into the country using legal methods.

It's a broader recognition that the human species is inherently migratory. It's an acknowledgement that bad folk sometimes manage power grabs, even in democratic countries, and that those bad folk actively hurt their fellow citizens. It's a recognition that as a people we need to use what influence we have to isolate and make those bad folk pariahs and do what we can for the people being hurt... Jesus, it's having just a drop of, "Be sure to welcome strangers into your home. By doing this, some people have welcomed angels as guests, without even knowing it." blood in you, Christian or no.
This is a moral argument, not an ethical one.

And as a matter of fact, the majority of people jumping over the border are economic opportunists, not genuine asylum seekers. The general expectation of asylum seekers is that they seek asylum in the first country they flee to. So unless they're claiming asylum from the Mexican government, this whole argument appears to be a non-starter.

How many Mexicans apply for asylum because of legitimate concerns, do you think? How many of those applications could be pre-empted by shutting down the illegal drug trade happening across the border?

Then, the law *has* been ruling.
Not if people are able to enter the country illegally, then get arrested and let go and given a court date in order for their case to be decided, and then they never show up to court. This is the second time I am bringing this to your attention.

tre45on wants to change the law to get his rust-belt voter's blood up. He wants their blood up so they put him and his Trumpites back in the WH and the Senate where, surprise surprise, his interests coalesce around personal profit and having a bulwark to protect him while he makes his money grab.
He wants to build a wall to enforce the immigration laws. I have explained how this is ethical behaviour for a US president to undertake. Questioning his moral motivations is puerile.

It's all about him.
You're making it all about him, but this isn't just an American issue, this is a hot-button issue all over Europe, too.

Finally, my take-away is less "the general incoherence of the people decrying Trumpelstiltskin", and more the discomfort expressed by conservatives, specifically regarding the use of the word "cages" - rather than what those cages are being used for.
I'm 100% deplorable, baby. I'm not going to start speaking nicely just for the benefit of your sensitive ears. The world is a harsh place.

The idea of kiddies in cages seems to me like a propaganda effort set in place by people who don't actually have a rational argument to justify their point of view. It's nothing but an emotional guilt trip. So far as I know, Trump actually did try to improve the incarceration conditions for kids held because their caretakers/parents hopped over the border.

It's the discomfort expressed by conservatives, specifically regarding the use of the word "nazi" - rather than nazis driving into protesters or being elected to Congress.
Well, if you call me a nazi I'm just going to laugh in your face and basically dismiss everything you have to say after that.

It's the discomfort expressed by conservatives, specifically regarding the use of the word "pedophile" - rather than endorsing one in a Senate race.

You want I should on..?
Yeah, this is a great way to show how your position on the border is coherent. :sneaky:
 
Last edited:

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
40,002
Like you address my evidence and call it red herrings? It's hilarious that you think I should offer you any respect or courtesy of a response when you don't bother doing the same.

And I didn't lie. You are the one being dishonest and conflating issues. So, carry on as you were.
You said "So OD is unbecoming by turning my argument into an argument for all immigrants, when I am clearly talking about illegal immigration?" I never did this, which is why I very specifically asked you where I did since it's what you're claiming. It's a lie.

Emjay said:
No point. You ask pointed questions, and they get ignored. Post evidence and it gets labelled as red herrings, post academic studies and they get ignored. Then he makes demands to boot. OD does not discuss anything in good faith, and he likes to turn things into a moral discussion while he virtue signals. He cannot see that things are not so clearly black and white. C'est la vie.
Here it is. What did you mean by "all the illegal immigrant love", Emjay?

Notice the difference. I was responding to actual posts you made, not things I just make up like you do.
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
40,002
Lets look at the criminal convictions that Mueller has secured:

George Papadopoulos: Pled guilty to lying to the FBI, no evidence of underlying crimes with regard to collusion.

Paul Manafort: Pled guilty to counts related to work for Ukrainian politicians and tax issues.

Rick Gates: Pled guilty to a false statements charge and to conspiracy related to work with Ukrainian politicians.

Some Russian nationals: Indicted on conspiracy charges related to interference with the 2016 election, but with no actual relation to the Trump campaign.

Alex van der Zwaan: Pled guilty to making false statements to the FBI about contacts with Gates.

Michael Cohen: Pled guilty to tax and bank charges, as well as campaign finance violations, as well as lying to Congress about Trump business in Russia.

As for Flynn, he was charged with lying to the FBI in Jan 2017, about two conversations he had in late 2016 with Russian ambassador Sergey I. Kislyak. The conversations came after the election but before President Trump had taken office. Mueller is trying to secure a conviction for this using the Logan Act, which is arguably unconstitutional.
And at no point do you stop to think why exactly all these people would lie to federal investigators? Even after seeing that others get caught for it?

Remember, their plea agreements (where they plead guilty to lesser charges) are predicated on agreeing to cooperate with the investigation. Meaning there are other things they don't get charged with. Like Flynn literally working for the Turkish government while being National Security Advisor.

And I'm not sure how you can claim it has nothing to do with Russia? Cohen's role is directly tied to Russia. As is Roger Stone/Jerome Corsi/Julian Assange, who provide the link between Trump and WikiLeaks, which laundered the DNC emails that the GRU stole. There's already evidence of foreknowledge of the emails by them, and of contact between Trump Jr. and Assange/Stone.

Also notable that Trump surrounded himself with criminals, and more come out every week, and you don't bat an eye.

Ya that's so speculative though, the fact is, none of us know whats going on because the investigation doesn't leak unless it wants to. Criminal for Trump has four possibilities, lying under oath, conspiracy, campaign donation violations or some sort of past fraud with taxes or whatever.
Possibly also witness tampering, obstruction of justice...
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
40,002
Top