nuttynutskin
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 10,732
Sort of but I think it's premature, that's all.
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-lifts-sanctions-russia-oligarch-084510193.htmlThe sanctions, imposed in April, were designed to punish Russia for its actions including its annexation of the Crimea from the Ukraine, efforts to interfere in the US elections and support for Syria’s government in its civil war.
Advocates for keeping the sanctions argued Mr Deripaska, who has been accused of links to organised crime, retained too much control over the companies.
Lawmakers from both parties also said it was inappropriate to ease the sanctions while special counsel Robert Mueller investigates whether Mr Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign colluded with Moscow.
On Monday, former US ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, described the Trump administration’s decision as a “huge gift to Putin”.
“Lifting of these sanctions was a big win for Putin and Deripaska. And what did we – the American people – get in return? Nothing,” he wrote on Twitter.
Wait? Hating trump also makes you cool and edgy? Awesome!
Seriously though, at this point, if you don't see the problems with Trump, why would anyone bother providing any evidence?
I mean, imagine if someone argued to you that, iunno, the country of Canada doesn't actually exist. It would be pretty tempting to just ignore such people rather than argue with them. If there were any possibility at all that the evidence would change anything, they wouldn't be making the argument to begin with.
Some positions are just so seemingly unjustified, that it immediately feels like a waste of time discussing them. Now I understand that you don't consider this to be one of them, but surely you understand what I'm talking about. Even if for you, this isn't an example of such a position.
To those of us who hold this position, barely a day goes by without trump providing more evidence for us.
And to answer your question, if you are on a forum discussing something, it is generally preferable to provide evidence and logical arguments.
And...you just proved my point. Trump being bad is just so *obvious* that you don't need to explain your position. Anyone who disagrees with you is *automatically* stupid.
Do you realize how smug and arrogant you sound?
Regardless of whether or not you agree with Trump's policies, you do realize that nearly half the voting public voted for him, right? I think it is quite arrogant to automatically assume all these people are stupid and have no legitimate reasons why they voted for him.
And to answer your question, if you are on a forum discussing something, it is generally preferable to provide evidence and logical arguments. That gives people who disagree with you a chance to either change their minds or try to prove you wrong. Otherwise, what is the point of having a discussion (unless, of course, your goal is merely to make yourself feel smart by smugly referring to everyone who disagrees with you as "stupid")?
If you think that supporting Trump is actually as stupid as "believing Canada does not exist," then why are you here discussing the topic? If I were to make a thread asserting that "Canada does not exist" (or that the Earth is flat, or whatever), would you even bother to argue with me or discuss the topic?
If the topic (Trump) is worth discussing, then present a logical argument. If the topic is so *obvious* that it isn't even worth discussing, then why are you here talking about it?
that's demonstrably untrue. there's plenty of reading in this forum where people have provided examples and they've simply been rejected which all (some) trump supporters seem capable of doing....all you guys say about him is "he's a racist!" "he acts like a baby!" "he's a traitor to America!" without providing any examples.
in 1975 he was sued by the civil rights division for racial discrimination against black tenants.
trump never, ever, ever, ever, ever settles lawsuits. he settled the case. the settlement included a requirement that the trump firm institute a series of safeguards to ensure that, in future, apartments be rented without regard to race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
Completely Racist?: Edwidge Danticat on Trump?s ?Shithole Countries? Remark Targeting Africa, Haiti
RUPERT COLVILLE: These are shocking and shameful comments from the president of the United States. I?m sorry, but there?s no other word one can use but ?racist.? You cannot dismiss entire countries and continents as [bleep], whose entire populations, who are not white, are therefore not welcome. ? The positive comment on Norway makes the underlying sentiment very clear. And like the earlier comments made vilifying Mexicans and Muslims, the policy proposals targeting entire groups on grounds of nationality or religion, and the reluctance to clearly condemn the anti-Semitic and racist actions of the white supremacists in Charlottesville, all of these go against the universal values the world has been striving so hard to establish since World War II and the Holocaust.
trump stated that judge curiel was incapable of being impartial because he's 'mexican' (which he's not). that is textbook racism.
judge curiel is a u.s. citizen who was born in indiana.
trump made his comments in an on the record interview with the wsj in june 2016.
even paul ryan described trump's comment as "the textbook definition of a racist comment". it's not often i agree wtih paul ryan...
Wagers on whether Pillsbury_Dope_Boy responds or not?
I don't want to make assumptions but it seems to be the modus operandi for people defending Trump to either backpedal or disappear.
Wagers on whether Pillsbury_Dope_Boy responds or not?
I don't want to make assumptions but it seems to be the modus operandi for people defending Trump to either backpedal or disappear.