NSFW THE TRUMPOCALYPSE

Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter said:
Aryans, however are a bit like fairies at the bottom of the garden. They don't exist, so I can't see the point in speculating whether the Nazis considered us Brits to be Aryans or Fairy Anns.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but their beliefs in Aryan brotherhood had real consequences, which is why I find them interesting. For example, the deputy Führer, Rudolf Hess, traveled on his own initiative to Scotland in 1941 to negotiate peace. He was obviously arrested, and spent the rest of his life in prison. The other side of the story is of course what these beliefs about Aryans and racial theories meant for the populations not considered Aryan under German occupation. Anyway, I'm way off topic at this point.
 
Peter said:
The Americans and the British were dragged into WW2 with the greatest reluctance. The UK was certainly not prepared for war and the British prime minister did all he could to appease Hitler. Hitler and the Germans wanted war and invaded Poland knowing that the UK would have to respond. The USA joined the war in response to Japanese aggression. What would you expect the Allies to do? Sit there and take all the German bombs on London and other British cities and do nothing? There was not a single British soldier in Germany when the Germans bombed London.
Sometimes it really is a question of kill or be killed. And millions of Brits and Americans (not to mention many other nationalities) were killed before the A bomb was used.
Click to expand...

I am not focused on criticising the UK or the US. My point is that it's easy to criticise the Palestinians for their bombing of civilians. But it's worth reflecting that in our own countries' history we also killed civilians including children when we were under attack or at war. That is all.

I did not criticise the nuking of civilians, and even if I had, that would hardly amount to a criticism of the US joining the war in the first place, so there's no need for you to justify the US joining the war.

I did not criticising the Brits bombing of civilians either in my post, but again, even if I had that would certainly not have amounted to a criticism of the Brits joining the war in general, or implied that the Brits do nothing.

You seem to be trying to argue against me as if I said various things that I didn't say.
 
Last edited:
Jamie in Chile said:
What did I get wrong?
Click to expand...
Jamie, I am not out for an argument with you or anyone else. I am basically sympathetic/agree with the jist of your post. But you wrote:" The US nuked the Japanese even though the Japs had no chance of invading the homeland, and the Brits in WW2 constantly bombed civilians even while there was not a single German soldier in the UK." The phrases "even though" and "even while" mean that what precedes them is not justified or justifiable. That is a pretty strong condemnation of the UK and USA's wartime activities. It is my firm contention that bombing the Germans and the Japs was entirely justified because neither the UK nor the USA had done anything to deserve German and Japanese aggression. I realize that WW2 was not at the heart of your argument but it does nothing to enhance your case if you wrongly criticize the USA and UK of such serious crimes. Getting your facts right is important. It makes a big difference whether a country is the aggressor or the defender in a war. And what you wrote is very insulting to the millions of soldiers who lost their lives fighting for your freedom of speech.
 
Peter said:
Jamie, I am not out for an argument with you or anyone else. I am basically sympathetic/agree with the jist of your post. But you wrote:" The US nuked the Japanese even though the Japs had no chance of invading the homeland, and the Brits in WW2 constantly bombed civilians even while there was not a single German soldier in the UK." The phrases "even though" and "even while" mean that what precedes them is not justified or justifiable. That is a pretty strong condemnation of the UK and USA's wartime activities. It is my firm contention that bombing the Germans and the Japs was entirely justified because neither the UK nor the USA had done anything to deserve German and Japanese aggression. I realize that WW2 was not at the heart of your argument but it does nothing to enhance your case if you wrongly criticize the USA and UK of such serious crimes. Getting your facts right is important. It makes a big difference whether a country is the aggressor or the defender in a war. And what you wrote is very insulting to the millions of soldiers who lost their lives fighting for your freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

Referring to the Japanese as “Japs” is offensive. :rolleyes:
 
Peter I suggest we agree to disagree here on some points especially since we have gone off the topic of the thread and it may not be worth pursuing further since it's tended more towards the argumentative than the informative.
 
Moll Flanders said:
Why Alabamians Should Vote For Roy Moore For Senate :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting something that takes us out of our echo chamber. Yesterday I held my nose and deliberately went on the Daily Mail, the Telegraph and Fox News just to see if I have missed anything in my somewhat left wing views of the whole Israel/Palestine situation. I even momentarily thought about going on Breitbart.

However increasingly as much as I try to feed myself right wing views I can't seem to swallow them, or they just make me feel sick. I really I am trying to jump out of the echo chamber, but increasingly I can't help but feel that right wing views are just selfish, wrong or immoral at least in some cases. In the US, the left/right debate at times feels like a sensible/stupid debate or And yet, many of them feel the same way about us.

Anyway, to your article. I think there are quite a few things wrong with it. The excuse that "dating teenagers" has a "long history" and has "some merit if one wants to raise a large family" is a poor argument on a number of levels, for instance.

His argument that voting for Doug Jones is bad because he supports abortion (well right to choose) even after 20 weeks and that would lead to more evil than Roy Moore is a bit better.

His argument that Roy Moore's sins are in the past, but Doug Jones abortion position is now, wasn't completely useless either.

I predict Republican voters will have a quite a lot reduced turnout,and hence a low overall voter turnout, and that Roy Moore will lose lots of votes for this reason, but the Democrats vote numbers (in an absolute sense, not as a %) will be only slightly higher than previous such elections.
 
Jamie in Chile said:
Anyway, to your article. I think there are quite a few things wrong with it. The excuse that "dating teenagers" has a "long history" and has "some merit if one wants to raise a large family" is a poor argument on a number of levels, for instance.
Click to expand...

Yeah, thanks for that. I posted it with a roll eyes afterwards as I actually thought it had a lot of good points.:rolleyes:
 
My personal opinion: Let's be frank ... although I - like most here - have no sympathy at all for child molesters, I think that what Roy Moore is currently being criticised for is by far not as bad as the politics he stands for and wants to enact.

Let's face it, we're basically grasping at straws here to keep a bigoted, homophobic monster who has publicly said he thinks the last time America was great was under slavery and without women being able to vote (and who has suggested those two amendments should be revoked), out of a position of power in which he could do even worse.

I don't think there is a big threat from him today to molest teenagers or anybody else, but there is a huge threat of him creating and supporting policies that harm millions.

Anyway, we will see shortly how that turns out ... :fp:
 
I think the reason the Republicans are standing behind Moore is so they can get a Republican in that seat. They know as soon as he gets in, there will be an ethics investigation and he'll be out, then they can put in the person they really want, while claiming they are the family values party and take credit for Moore's removal. And trump's groupies will eat it up.
 
Calliegirl said:
I think the reason the Republicans are standing behind Moore is so they can get a Republican in that seat. They know as soon as he gets in, there will be an ethics investigation and he'll be out, then they can put in the person they really want, while claiming they are the family values party and take credit for Moore's removal. And trump's groupies will eat it up.
Click to expand...

Actually, if Roy Moore manages to keep his Senate seat, the Republicans will be fine with that. They’ll have another right wing anti LGBT, anti-female, racist and xenophobic male Christian helping them make laws affecting the whole country.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/940339848577200128

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today’s cartoon, by David Sipress:

dc121117.jpg


“Thank goodness we finally have an Administration that speaks for those of us who don’t care what happens to the planet in a hundred years because we’ll be dead.”
 
Last edited:
I cannot express how vile Roy Moore is on so many levels. I keep hoping there will be some threshold at which people will come to their senses and finally say "enough is enough," but I fear that threshold is out of reach right now. I am trying my best not to let this get me down, but I am so disgusted. I was listening to NPR, which had a story about the race and they were interviewing two Alabama voters, both of whom supported and voted for Moore. How anyone with a conscience can vote for what that evil man stands for is beyond me. I had to turn down the volume because I just couldn't listen to their inane reasons for supporting him.
 
There was a UK joke of the year comp and only two of them made me laugh.:rofl:

4. Kim Jong Un will play Santa this year in the South's annual pantomime. He said he fancied a Korea change.

5. Why did Donald Trump continuously decorate the Christmas tree? Because people kept saying "moron" to him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom