Trump speaks out on social media ‘censorship’ Watch

Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#61
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#61
(Original post by z-hog)
Trumpophobes take Trump literally and not seriously enough, the rest do it in reverse. That's the key to understanding Trump.
*trumpskeptics
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#62
Report 1 week ago
#62
(Original post by Napp)
*trumpskeptics
Nah, being skeptical means being open to the possibility that he isn't everything you call him.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#63
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#63
(Original post by z-hog)
Nah, being skeptical means being open to the possibility that he isn't everything you call him.
Apparently that isn’t what skeptic means anymore though.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Jebedee
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#64
Report 1 week ago
#64
(Original post by Napp)
I wouldn’t usually draw a line as opposed to a grey zone where they blend together.
When was the last time he even told the truth? He’s a convicted liar 😂 not to mention he’s been a member of two fascist organisations.
He said that 80% of grooming gangs consist of Pakistani origin men, which according to national statistics, is correct.

He left the EDL for that reason, but I'm not sure what the second organisation is you refer to.
(Original post by DSilva)
He wasn't 'predicting' a white genocide. He wrote a 74 page manifesto pushing a conspiracy theory that it already was happening and he therfore decided to murder Muslims.

It's staggering that you seem to have so much difficulty in understanding how that equates to being far right.
I couldn't find the whole manifesto to read so I can't comment on the content itself. I don't agree the white genocide is happening yet as such because no one is in power that can orchestrate it yet.

Christian genocide though? Absolutely that is already underway.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#65
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#65
(Original post by Jebedee)
He said that 80% of grooming gangs consist of Pakistani origin men, which according to national statistics, is correct.

He left the EDL for that reason, but I'm not sure what the second organisation is you refer to.
Uhuh. Alas, stating a single statistic does not make you honest. Especially given as he usually refers to them as muslim rape gangs.

Pfft he joined the EDL for that reason. Especially given his history with the BNP. Face it, he's a fascist. Always has been and always will be.
I mean say what you want about his political persuasions i couldnt really care less but might give him a modicum of respect if he could actually articulate his views bar half thought out moronic dog whistle comments.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#66
Report 1 week ago
#66
(Original post by Jebedee)
He said that 80% of grooming gangs consist of Pakistani origin men, which according to national statistics, is correct.

He left the EDL for that reason, but I'm not sure what the second organisation is you refer to.

I couldn't find the whole manifesto to read so I can't comment on the content itself. I don't agree the white genocide is happening yet as such because no one is in power that can orchestrate it yet.

Christian genocide though? Absolutely that is already underway.
How can you possibly have difficulty understanding that a white supremacist murdering Muslims is an example of far right terrorism?

It is quite literally the definition of far right. There's an obvious difference in thinking immigration should be controlled (which conservatives do) and murdering people you deem not part of the white race, which is what the fat
far right do.

It is not a difficult concept to understand. Just as it is s not difficult to understand the difference between ordinary Muslims and Jihadis.

Your obcsufation of this, really speaks volumes.

If the debate was whether Tommy Robinson is far right, I would agree that he wasn't. But the debate is whether a white supremacist terrorist is far right, and it's staggering that you have difficulty accepting he was.
Last edited by DSilva; 1 week ago
0
reply
Jebedee
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#67
Report 1 week ago
#67
(Original post by Napp)
Uhuh. Alas, stating a single statistic does not make you honest. Especially given as he usually refers to them as muslim rape gangs.

Pfft he joined the EDL for that reason. Especially given his history with the BNP. Face it, he's a fascist. Always has been and always will be.
I mean say what you want about his political persuasions i couldnt really care less but might give him a modicum of respect if he could actually articulate his views bar half thought out moronic dog whistle comments.
You said you don't know the last time he stated a fact, so I gave you one. How many of those 80% do you think are non muslim Pakistanis exactly? If we go by the demographics of the country then we're talking approximately 1.5%. So is Muslim rape gang inaccurate if it is any less than 100% Muslim? Seems like a strict standard to me.

Now you're just throwing out falsehoods that you know are false because you don't want to get into this. I think he articulates his views just fine. You may not like it because it comes from a working class vernacular but that in itself is classist. The idea that one has to address you in the way you want to be addressed in order for you to consider him human enough to have his words acknowledged, is classist and rotten to the core.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#68
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#68
(Original post by Jebedee)
You said you don't know the last time he stated a fact, so I gave you one. How many of those 80% do you think are non muslim Pakistanis exactly? If we go by the demographics of the country then we're talking approximately 1.5%. So is Muslim rape gang inaccurate if it is any less than 100% Muslim? Seems like a strict standard to me.

Now you're just throwing out falsehoods that you know are false because you don't want to get into this. I think he articulates his views just fine. You may not like it because it comes from a working class vernacular but that in itself is classist. The idea that one has to address you in the way you want to be addressed in order for you to consider him human enough to have his words acknowledged, is classist and rotten to the core.
I said the truth.
They’re also british ergo british people are all a bunch of rapists. You see what happens when you try linking silly things together?

How exactly is it a falsehood?😂😂 it’s a cast iron fact.
That’s nice.
How exactly is he working class? We’ve all seen his jet setting life style with piles of coke. He’s about as ‘working class’ as my ass.
I’m sorry, am I supposed to care about this dubious allegation?
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Jebedee
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#69
Report 1 week ago
#69
(Original post by Napp)
I said the truth.
They’re also british ergo british people are all a bunch of rapists. You see what happens when you try linking silly things together?

How exactly is it a falsehood?😂😂 it’s a cast iron fact.
That’s nice.
How exactly is he working class? We’ve all seen his jet setting life style with piles of coke. He’s about as ‘working class’ as my ass.
I’m sorry, am I supposed to care about this dubious allegation?
They are British simply for being born here? Not that makes them British citizens only.

It's funny that you think that a person's bank account is what dictates someone's class. If you took away all of Jacob Rees-Moggs wealth, would he then become working class? No of course not, he still holds the same values, talks the same way... Etc. Just like Michael Carroll didn't become upper class just because he won millions on the lottery.
Regardless of his bank account the Queen wouldn't be seen dead sharing a spot of tea and scones with him.

Whether you care or not about the allegation is irrelevant. It is true irregardless of your opinion.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#70
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#70
(Original post by Jebedee)
They are British simply for being born here? Not that makes them British citizens only.
I think you'll find that is what being British is. Unless of course you're saying brown people can't be British ?
It's funny that you think that a person's bank account is what dictates someone's class. If you took away all of Jacob Rees-Moggs wealth, would he then become working class? No of course not, he still holds the same values, talks the same way... Etc. Just like Michael Carroll didn't become upper class just because he won millions on the lottery.
Regardless of his bank account the Queen wouldn't be seen dead sharing a spot of tea and scones with him.
It does tend to have a fairly large impact on it.
Did you just call JRM working class...?
If you're having to resort to comparing nobodies to Her Majesty I think i can rest my case there.
Whether you care or not about the allegation is irrelevant. It is true irregardless of your opinion.
[/quote]
I presume you mean irrespective or regardless? 'irregardless' is not a real word.
But at any rate, stop trying to pass off your limited opinion is fact.
0
reply
Jebedee
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#71
Report 1 week ago
#71
(Original post by Napp)
I think you'll find that is what being British is. Unless of course you're saying brown people can't be British ?

It does tend to have a fairly large impact on it.
Did you just call JRM working class...?
If you're having to resort to comparing nobodies to Her Majesty I think i can rest my case there.
I presume you mean irrespective or regardless? 'irregardless' is not a real word.
But at any rate, stop trying to pass off your limited opinion is fact.[/QUOTE]

You're the one bringing up skin colour, not sure why. Do you think the only thing that separates people is skin colour?

I was using a hypothetical to draw a comparison. Not sure why that confused you by why you don't entertain it and answer the question?

All you're doing is employing diversionary tactics and avoiding answering any questions.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#72
Report 1 week ago
#72
(Original post by Jebedee)
I presume you mean irrespective or regardless? 'irregardless' is not a real word.
But at any rate, stop trying to pass off your limited opinion is fact.
You're the one bringing up skin colour, not sure why. Do you think the only thing that separates people is skin colour?

I was using a hypothetical to draw a comparison. Not sure why that confused you by why you don't entertain it and answer the question?

All you're doing is employing diversionary tactics and avoiding answering any questions.[/QUOTE]

It's quite rich to talk about 'avoiding questions' when you've failed to explain how a white supremacist murdering Muslims wasn't 'far right'.

And that's before we get to your endorsement of far right driven Jo Cox conspiracy theories.
0
reply
Jebedee
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#73
Report 1 week ago
#73
(Original post by DSilva)
You're the one bringing up skin colour, not sure why. Do you think the only thing that separates people is skin colour?

I was using a hypothetical to draw a comparison. Not sure why that confused you by why you don't entertain it and answer the question?

All you're doing is employing diversionary tactics and avoiding answering any questions.
It's quite rich to talk about 'avoiding questions' when you've failed to explain how a white supremacist murdering Muslims wasn't 'far right'.

And that's before we get to your endorsement of far right driven Jo Cox conspiracy theories.[/QUOTE]

Why would I explain why something does or does not fit into some arbitrary label, when the label itself is what I have a problem with? Whether it does or does not fit is meaningless unless you have adequately qualified said label, which everyone on this thread appears to be unable or unwilling to do with any degree of certainty.

I'm interested in the truth when it comes to Jo Cox. Whatever the motives of the person investigating may be, I don't feel it is important as long as the content is objective. If you have any specific criticism of it then I'm happy to listen, but I'm guessing if you were willing to take the time to see it, you wouldn't be calling it a conspiracy theory.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#74
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#74
(Original post by Jebedee)
I presume you mean irrespective or regardless? 'irregardless' is not a real word.
But at any rate, stop trying to pass off your limited opinion is fact.
You're the one bringing up skin colour, not sure why. Do you think the only thing that separates people is skin colour?

I was using a hypothetical to draw a comparison. Not sure why that confused you by why you don't entertain it and answer the question?

All you're doing is employing diversionary tactics and avoiding answering any questions.[/QUOTE]
Did you just seriously try and say I was the one bringing it up when it is clear for everyone to see that it was most certainly your inference...
No, thats what you think... you literally just said so when you said people of Asian heritage cant be British. Unless you also think being a Muslim means you cant be British?
Because it was so patently absurd i thought i'd call you out on it.
Oh hello pot, have you met kettle? I have addressed every single one of your points, at least the ones that even just about deserve responding to.
Let me put it this way; You've tried to defend a litany of fascists and 'people' well on their way to being them. You've defended two terrorists because you're trying to somehow deflect people away from your political ideology and to top it off (and to be honest this is the bit which is really irritating) you keep spreading conspiracy theories that are manifestly bunk.

To summarize: Robinson, Farage, Mair are all either far right or actual fascists. This is not so much an opinion as a cast iron fact all you have to do is look at their present and historical comments and associations.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#75
Report 1 week ago
#75
(Original post by Napp)
Thoughts on this rather droll comment from the chimp in chief?

Attachment 814960
I think a law should be passed to make the social media platforms a public space subject to free speech laws as they are the 21st centuries place for debate and the sharing of ideas.

That takes all the moral handwringing out of the situation and leaves it in the hands of the law protecting people’s rights and solving an issue for the companies that run these platforms.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#76
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#76
(Original post by paul514)
I think a law should be passed to make the social media platforms a public space subject to free speech laws as they are the 21st centuries place for debate and the sharing of ideas.

That takes all the moral handwringing out of the situation and leaves it in the hands of the law protecting people’s rights and solving an issue for the companies that run these platforms.
Maybe except there’s a couple of issues that will never be ironed out;
A) what exactly counts as free speech? After all you can have free speech or no free speech... freeish speech is somewhat different
B) these companies are global as opposed to national so what happens when other countries take umbrage on the matter?
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
hansraeder
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#77
Report 1 week ago
#77
HAHAHA chimp in chief. It’s funny because you’re calling him stupid haha lmao lol epic
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#78
Report 1 week ago
#78
(Original post by Napp)
Maybe except there’s a couple of issues that will never be ironed out;
A) what exactly counts as free speech? After all you can have free speech or no free speech... freeish speech is somewhat different
B) these companies are global as opposed to national so what happens when other countries take umbrage on the matter?
You do it based on American free speech and if countries of the more authoritarian type take issue with it they have the choice to ban the platform or accept this is American free speech....

The internet doesn’t belong to individual countries
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#79
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#79
(Original post by paul514)
You do it based on American free speech and if countries of the more authoritarian type take issue with it they have the choice to ban the platform or accept this is American free speech....

The internet doesn’t belong to individual countries
The world will be a very sad place once we start accepting these dubious american standards. Not to mention they allow terrorism under free speech rules (ever wondered why their domestic terrorists are never tried as such?)
The internet also doesn't belong to America so i'm not sure what point you're trying to make there?
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#80
Report 1 week ago
#80
(Original post by Napp)
The world will be a very sad place once we start accepting these dubious american standards. Not to mention they allow terrorism under free speech rules (ever wondered why their domestic terrorists are never tried as such?)
The internet also doesn't belong to America so i'm not sure what point you're trying to make there?
It’s where the companies are founded, based and largely owned its the only viable standard.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Business Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (42)
16.09%
The paper was reasonable (129)
49.43%
Not feeling great about that exam... (58)
22.22%
It was TERRIBLE (32)
12.26%

Watched Threads

View All