Turn on thread page Beta

If you support Trump, you are destroying our culture watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    She is accusing the Russian government of helping trump.
    Where has trump said he wouldn't accept the result?
    Sigh. Whataboutery once more from you.

    You refuse to actually debate substance and just go 'ah but Hilary'. Pretty pathetic really.
    Trump has not said he will accept the result if he loses despite being asked several times ERGO he will not accept the result if he loses.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    To a lot of people they do not feel that the rule of law benefits them and represents people like Emily Thornberry or Chakrobarty et al.
    You keep saying "These people feel..". That's a weasel word. If you believe something, say so.

    These people may think something, but the fact they believe it doesn't make it true. Something is either true or it's not, and if it's not we should say so; why should we pander to views that are based on urban legends, conspiracy theories, embitterment, &c?

    The vast majority of these people don't even know the term "rule of law", let alone have a view on it.

    But I would be interested to hear; how are you claiming "they" feel that the rule of law "benefits" Thornberry and Chakrabarti and not them?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    i didn't read the whole thing
    Spoiler:
    Show

    sorryyyy

    but yes, i agree with the thread title
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Sigh. Whataboutery once more from you.

    You refuse to actually debate substance and just go 'ah but Hilary'. Pretty pathetic really.
    Trump has not said he will accept the result if he loses despite being asked several times ERGO he will not accept the result if he loses.
    You were the one who brought Hillary into the discussion not me go read your comment where you mention her on 5 different points, sorry for mentioning what you did.

    That's a huge inference is someone who replies no comment to the police guilty of anything they are accused of?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Except he's not the lesser of two evils; he is evil full-stop. Clinton is a pretty conventional politician in the American system, a centrist democrat, won't be that different from President Obama except maybe a bit less feeble in standing up to Russia and ISIS.

    Trump by contrast is a deranged psychopath; an admitted rapist, a man who openly says he will rule as a dictator, who threatens journalists and talks about imprisoning his opponents.

    I'm sorry but anyone who cannot see the salience of those issues just isn't very bright. It's not a coincidence that intelligence and levels of education correlate strongly to likelihood to vote Clinton in this election
    Didn't Hillary talk about sending a drone strike after Julian Assange?(note: It was probably a joke, or hyperbole - Arguments that someone could argue Trump was using as well.)
    http://www.snopes.com/julian-assange-drone-strike/



    And didn't Hillary openly admit that she knew that Saudi Arabia was supporting ISIS, and didn't she accept money from them in the Clinton Foundation?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...-a7397211.html

    And didn't she admit that her public and private stances were very different, that despite campaigning on Wall Street reform, that she wanted Wall Street to decide the reforms?(Which, if you dislike Wall Street, is sort of like asking the fox to decide their access to the henhouse to best protect the chickens

    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927

    (Incidentally, it was Bernie Saunders who first called for her private speeches to Wall Street to be made public, in case someone suggests that the only reason to care about this is if they are a right-wing Hillary hater with no real reason to dislike her).

    So... With those three leaks, we know that she at least joked about assassinating someone she didn't like, knowingly accepted money from organizations that support terrorists and planned to ignore the Occupy Wall Street crowd the moment she got in to office.

    Are those good reasons to dislike her? 'Cause they seem like examples of corruption. As for her supporters, take a look at how they're reacting to suggestions that Susan Sarandon made regarding voting for Jill Stein. They are calling for her head in a very Trump Supporter-esque way.


    I don't like Trump. I don't like Hillary. I agree with Susan Sarandon - Vote for someone you think is ethical and represents you, not what you think is the 'lesser of two evils'.
    ).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I agree. But it is incontrovertible that the whites on the US are going to become a minority in the next twenty years or so. Most of these people are not comfortable with that:
    Isn't it that the sum of all the different minority groups will be greater than the white group. That doesn't mean whites become a minority. They are still the largest single group.

    (Original post by Davij038)
    At his speeches. Which his supporters lap up. It's all an act - just like Boris, or Saint Nigel.
    I think with Trump he is an actual idiot.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    Didn't Hillary talk about sending a drone strike after Julian Assange?(note: It was probably a joke, or hyperbole - Arguments that someone could argue Trump was using as well.)
    http://www.snopes.com/julian-assange-drone-strike/
    A conspiracy website claimed "a source told us Clinton said this". Snopes says it's completely unproven. There's no evidence for it at all.

    We truly are in a post-fact era when even the most laughable conspiracy theories are picked up and repeated; people seem utterly incapable of discriminating fact from fiction, from discriminating credible reporting from something some conspiracy idiot just published on the net. These days it seems the fact it is on the internet is good enough for many people to believe it.

    I'm not going to bother with the rest of your assertions because they're about as substantive as your first one.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Is there anyone who isn't on AlexnderHam's ignore list?

    He/she sure has one trigger happy finger hovering over the big ignore button.
    .
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    You were the one who brought Hillary into the discussion not me go read your comment where you mention her on 5 different points, sorry for mentioning what you did.

    That's a huge inference is someone who replies no comment to the police guilty of anything they are accused of?
    Actually you were the one who brought Hilary into the discussion by going 'its hilary's campaign that has incited violence' to one of my posts in which I made no comment about her.


    Like the uncritical Trump follower you are, you go 'what about hilary' any time anyone mentions anything about Trump.
    Perhaps try responding to a point about trump without changing topic to Hilary for once?

    It's not a huge inference. Trump has refused to say he will accept the election result if he loses. Why is he refusing to say? Because he won't accept it.

    Please, just climb out of his backside.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Isn't it that the sum of all the different minority groups will be greater than the white group. That doesn't mean whites become a minority. They are still the largest group.
    Also, what's this obsession with race? Does the "white race" have some kind of entitlement to be a majority in America? If we operate on those rules then surely the Red Man, the native Americans, are the ones with that 'majority right'?

    Race is irrelevant; what is relevant is culture. I have no issue with people of whatever race coming to the UK if they absorb the dominant culture, our political norms and values, the traditions I mentioned in the OP. That is what is important, not what colour someone's skin is.

    President Obama is not white, is he not an American too? He's more American, more in touch with the cultural and political norms of the Anglo-American civilisation, than Trump will ever be
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Ah! I understand. You have no real arguments, you're simply attempting to shout down anyone who disagrees with you.

    I have provided evidence. Wikileaks is not a conspiracy website. You are simply choosing to ignore it.

    I wish you a good day and hope you understand that you will reach exactly 0 people with this. Your arguments simply fall apart with any logical push and you resort to ad hominem name calling.

    Best of luck in... Whatever it is this thread was meant to do.

    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    A conspiracy website claimed "a source told us Clinton said this". Snopes says it's completely unproven. There's no evidence for it at all.

    We truly are in a post-fact era when even the most laughable conspiracy theories are picked up and repeated; people seem utterly incapable of discriminating fact from fiction, from discriminating credible reporting from something some conspiracy idiot just published on the net. These days it seems the fact it is on the internet is good enough for many people to believe it.

    I'm not going to bother with the rest of your assertions because they're about as substantive as your first one.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    You keep saying "These people feel..". That's a weasel word. If you believe something, say so.

    These people may think something, but the fact they believe it doesn't make it true. Something is either true or it's not, and if it's not we should say so; why should we pander to views that are based on urban legends, conspiracy theories, embitterment, &c?

    The vast majority of these people don't even know the term "rule of law", let alone have a view on it.

    But I would be interested to hear; how are you claiming "they" feel that the rule of law "benefits" Thornberry and Chakrabarti and not them?
    ???

    I believe that these people who are voting Trump feel that way. I am attempting to explain why they are justified in believing to an extend what they do.

    Again it's exactly the same with the brexit vote. Virtually none of the Leavers could say what EU laws were ruining their lives but that didn't stop them from feeling very strongly on the issue.

    Steve Hilton pretty much nails it here:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...president.html
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    Ah! I understand. You have no real arguments, you're simply attempting to shout down anyone who disagrees with you.
    How is it not an argument to point out that your own link confirms the exact opposite of what you just claimed it did? Anyway I'm not interested in conspiracy crap.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Actually you were the one who brought Hilary into the discussion by going 'its hilary's campaign that has incited violence' to one of my posts in which I made no comment about her.


    Like the uncritical Trump follower you are, you go 'what about hilary' any time anyone mentions anything about Trump.
    Perhaps try responding to a point about trump without changing topic to Hilary for once?

    It's not a huge inference. Trump has refused to say he will accept the election result if he loses. Why is he refusing to say? Because he won't accept it.

    Please, just climb out of his backside.
    You said trump incites violence despite evidence that Hillary is the one who pays people to do it, I commented on the origin of the violence and it isn't trump he is the victim of the Hillary campaigns violence.

    It is impossible to discuss the violence at the trump rallies without talking about the cause which has been shown as Hillary's campaign.

    So if someone interviewed by police just says no comment are they guilty?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    How is it not an argument to point out that your own link confirms the exact opposite of what you just claimed it did? Anyway I'm not interested in conspiracy crap.
    Another ad hominem! That's cool. What's your favourite cookie flavor?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Is there anyone who isn't on AlexnderHam's ignore list?

    He/she sure has one trigger happy finger hovering over the big ignore button.
    .
    You weren't up until now, an obvious oversight. I'm not on TSR to please other people, and life's too short to spend it talking with people who are embittered, conspiracy-obsessed, anti-semitic etc etc.

    Anyway, obviously you have some bee in your bonnet over something and it's incredibly tiresome so go join the basket of deplorables (iirc there was some anti-semitic thing with you but I can't be bothered to go back and look; you've made the decision for me).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatOldGuy)
    X
    Are you still trying to avoid the fact that the link you posted confirmed the exact opposite of the conspiracy theory you were claiming? Anyway, this is boring. Bye.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not American and frankly I don't care about who wins. But isn't Hillary corrupt asf and her and Bill have been linked to several deaths over the decades. Isn't a guy who's not corrupt a better option than a person who is corrupt lol ?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Also, what's this obsession with race? Does the "white race" have some kind of entitlement to be a majority in America? If we operate on those rules then surely the Red Man, the native Americans, are the ones with that 'majority right'?

    Race is irrelevant; what is relevant is culture. I have no issue with people of whatever race coming to the UK if they absorb the dominant culture, our political norms and values, the traditions I mentioned in the OP. That is what is important, not what colour someone's skin is.

    President Obama is not white, is he not an American too? He's more American, more in touch with the cultural and political norms of the Anglo-American civilisation, than Trump will ever be
    I thought I was on your ignore list? :hide:

    What the heck are you having a go at me for? I just stated a fact. Whites are soon(or are already, I can't remember) going to be dwarfed by the sum of all the minority groups. I read it in a New Scientists not long ago. I didn't draw any conclusions.

    You are clearly of below average intelligence.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Isn't it that the sum of all the different minority groups will be greater than the white group. That doesn't mean whites become a minority. They are still the largest single group.

    That would still be unacceptable to people bothered by that sort of thing. I mean, Japan is terrified of it and they have far less minorities.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,287

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.