President Trump & the USA

[Facecloth]

3 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Trump does something good which if a politician you like did the same you would praise them for it, but you choose to take a cheap shot instead

 

If you watch that video it doesnt sound incoherent at all

He consistently talks in incoherent rambles. You won't like this because its John Oliver and hes a bad, left wing ranter, who just goes after Trump constantly but

 

 

Oh and on a side note Buce reminded me of what you said in the Jacko thread. He has nothing to apologies for.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

14 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

He consistently talks in incoherent rambles. You won't like this because its John Oliver and hes a bad, left wing ranter, who just goes after Trump constantly but

 

 

Oh and on a side note Buce reminded me of what you said in the Jacko thread. He has nothing to apologies for.

I dont mind if you tell everyone. Honestly cant remember what it could possibly be

 

Its weird you choose to insinuate to everyone instead of actually saying it

 

Go on, be my guest..

 

[the fox]

1 hour ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

And still exists today.

 

The other day I was watching a news report about Eastern European workers coming over to work harvesting crops and how Brexit would put an end to it, but farmers would have to pay more to employ British workers. It especially caught me when I saw them all walking along behind the tractor (driven by the hard working farmer) constantly bent over picking crops in it's wake and I thought, this could easily be an 18th century cotton plantation.

 

Of course, these workers have better conditions and are free to leave, but economically they are enslaved.

It's not a million miles away.

Many refer to it as "wage slavery". The immigrants have an almost non-existent leverage. They are overworked and underpaid. I'm not gonna put all the blame on the farmers for exploiting the situation but I can't overlook the horrid work environment. 

 

Almost every country abuses immigrants if they saw an opportunity. That is just part of the the ugly side of human nature. But that should never be an excuse to belittle another human being. Even in my country, many illegal immigrants are worked so badly and paid so purely with no health insurance it's almost unbelievable. Those people ran away from wars and bad environments looking for a better life. They abandoned their country and families to just have a chance. They deserve respect and love. The mere fact that they share the trait of being a fellow human should at least provide a better working environment.

 

 

I get it, most locals don't feel like working in a physically draining environment. But instead of the bosses improving the conditions of the workplace, they abuse immigrant minorities and make it even harder for locals to gather motivation to work there. That is neither a successful business strategy nor a proper way to treat people.

 

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

There are charcoal makers in Brazil that are slaves in every sense: when they begin work, they arrive with nothing, so they have to buy a week's food on credit from the employer. The money they earn is never enough to clear that debt, and they can't leave until it is. Worse still, upon death the debt can be legally transferred to the children of the debtor who are effectively born into slavery. The same practice applies in parts of West Africa too.

So, how is that even different from the classical term of slavery? At least in Trav's example, they are free to leave.

 

They were bought for a week's worth of food supply. Is that all a human life is worth? A week's worth of food?

 

Don't know how those kind of situations aren't covered more by the Media. This is not a modern form of slavery, This is just plain old slavery.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

18 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

He consistently talks in incoherent rambles. You won't like this because its John Oliver and hes a bad, left wing ranter, who just goes after Trump constantly but

 

 

Oh and on a side note Buce reminded me of what you said in the Jacko thread. He has nothing to apologies for.

I like how you ignore the criticism of your initial statement and then attack me personally, again with no actual info

 

How do you guys not see yourselves?

[Facecloth]

4 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

I like how you ignore the criticism of your initial statement and then attack me personally, again with no actual info

 

How do you guys not see yourselves?

Did you not read the first part of my post, and watch the video? Your original reply to me did exactly what you just accused me of.

 

Also your beef is with Buce over the Jacko thing, if he doesn't want to say it then I won't say on his behalf. I needed my memory jogging, and but I'm satisfied with his summary, but its up to him to share. He pmed me, so it wouldn't be fair of me to then share that on the main forum.

Edited 30 June 2019 by Facecloth

[leicsmac]

.....um, it is possible to think that something good happened here due to Trump not being one to follow international norms and that his standard of address, demeanour and conduct do a disservice to the office of the President.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

2 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Did you not read the first part of my post, and watch the video? Your original reply to me did exactly what you just accused me of.

 

Also your beef is with Buce over the Jacko thing, if he doesn't want to say it then I won't say on his behalf. I needed my memory jogging, and but I'm satisfied with his summary, but its up to him to share. He pmed me, so it wouldn't be fair of me to then share that on the main forum.

I said the first video you posted was not incoherent. You ignored that and said he does it all the time

 

Do you not think it strange? Why try to insinuate such a despicable thing but not choose to say why? Its the height of disingenuousness. Its a really reprehensible way to go about things

 

You wouldnt get away with it in a pub or any public place. People would treat it for what it is

[ealingfox]

The risk in his strategy is that if he doesn't end up getting any concrete action out of it all he's really done is give quite a bit of legitimacy to the Kims.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

.....um, it is possible to think that something good happened here due to Trump not being one to follow international norms and that his standard of address, demeanour and conduct do a disservice to the office of the President.

In this particular case i think to ignore the good and focus blandly on a question of style isnt right

[the fox]

So, we are gonna act like Trump wasn't instigating North Korea and threatening to go to war with them? He can't take all the credit for saving the people in a burning building if he was the one who started the fire

[Facecloth]

4 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

I said the first video you posted was not incoherent. You ignored that and said he does it all the time

 

Do you not think it strange? Why try to insinuate such a despicable thing but not choose to say why? Its the height of disingenuousness. Its a really reprehensible way to go about things

 

You wouldnt get away with it in a pub or any public place. People would treat it for what it is

It is incoherent, it's all over the place. Hes saying nothing, just a list of words. Post the whole video I'd you're so sure it makes sense.

 

Buce messaged my privately, so it wouldn't be fair to post it, but as the thread has been deleted I'm sure you'll deny saying those things anyway. 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

4 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

It is incoherent, it's all over the place. Hes saying nothing, just a list of words. Post the whole video I'd you're so sure it makes sense.

 

Buce messaged my privately, so it wouldn't be fair to post it, but as the thread has been deleted I'm sure you'll deny saying those things anyway. 

You are making yourself look really bad here. I dont get the motivation to make the accusation but not say why. 

 

This is a great example of why the censorship.on here can be bad. If that wasnt deleted everyone could see and judge for themselves. As it is you two get to claim all sorts without evidence. If I was what you say now nobody can be sure because there is no evidence

 

If you dont want to go all in on your claim maybe best to shut up about it?

 

Note im the one trying to draw out the details, Buce doesnt want to say, just wants people to believe him. Censorship works well for you two doesnt it?

[Facecloth]

6 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

You are making yourself look really bad here. I dont get the motivation to make the accusation but not say why. 

 

This is a great example of why the censorship.on here can be bad. If that wasnt deleted everyone could see and judge for themselves. As it is you two get to claim all sorts without evidence. If I was what you say now nobody can be sure because there is no evidence

 

If you dont want to go all in on your claim maybe best to shut up about it?

 

Note im the one trying to draw out the details, Buce doesnt want to say, just wants people to believe him. Censorship works well for you two doesnt it?

Ok fine, apologies to Buce.

 

You first claimed that Jacko might be innocent, when people argued against it, you went on to say if Jacko had abused them there was no harm done as they were well compensated and had gone on to marry. And if they didn't like it, why did they keep going back.

 

All pretty pointless because now you'll use censorship to deny ever saying it. I needed my memory jogging as I didn't get involved in the thread much, but I once I was nudged i remembered it. 

Edited 30 June 2019 by Facecloth

[leicsmac]

20 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

In this particular case i think to ignore the good and focus blandly on a question of style isnt right

 

I agree, which is why I mentioned both.

 

FWIW, the policy of this administration having success on this will mean absolutely nothing if they don't change tack on environmental policy, but it is something.

 

18 minutes ago, the fox said:

So, we are gonna act like Trump wasn't instigating North Korea and threatening to go to war with them? He can't take all the credit for saving the people in a burning building if he was the one who started the fire

There is a certain hint of arsonist and firefighter about it all...but IMO the results are what matters and the sooner the 25 million-odd people in North Korea rejoin the rest of the world the better.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

19 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Ok fine, apologies to Buce.

 

You first claimed that Jacko might be innocent, when people argued against it, you went on to say if Jacko had abused them there was no harm done as they were well compensated and had gone on to marry. And if they didn't like it, why did they keep going back.

 

All pretty pointless because now you'll use censorship to deny ever saying it. I needed my memory jogging as I didn't get involved in the thread much, but I once I was nudged i remembered it. 

This is why deleting the thread was such a bad idea because context gets removed.

 

I dont remember saying that but i'll grant it and discuss it as if I did (not denying it)

 

I may have said that as a rhetorical way of questioning the whole narrative of the accusers. There is an argument that the relationship they describe is taken from a fictitious book called Michael Jackson was my lover, and the writer was a member of NAMBLA. The book describes a reciprocal lovers relationship as described in LN and was written by a paedo apologist which wants to claim these kind of relationships as normal and healthy. Some say the narrative of LN was lifted from this book which makes the film itself a justification of the relationships described.

 

The notion that these boys loved what was happening to them is in itself an apology for paedophilia, which is one reason some have criticised the film as bullshit

 

This could be one reason i said it as i was reading takes on LN at the time that said this kind of thing

 

Its possible i said it sarcastically as some sort of joke in response to Buce calling me disturbing for suggesting Jackson may not have done it

 

Again, i dont remember the context fully, but ive done my best to take the accusation seriously, not just denied it

 

Just to be clear, of course i dont defend that kind of relationship, in fact i couldnt watch the second part of the film as the first part was just too gross and i had my fill of the disgusting scenes described

 

No doubt you will claim i am copping out and justifying a remark with a dishonest explanation

 

But at least we've had it out now. I still dont understand why Buce wouldnt say this, unless deep down he knows he was twisting things

 

Btw, regarding that book. The guy who wrote it was successfully sued for writing it and fled the country. LN shares many things with that book, which was written as a narrative about a previous accuser, but the book was obviously bullshit. Scenes such as the wedding to the Safechuck are described in that book apparently identically. 

The writer also claimed to have video evidence which he never produced

 

Edited 30 June 2019 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

[the fox]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

There is a certain hint of arsonist and firefighter about it all...but IMO the results are what matters and the sooner the 25 million-odd people in North Korea rejoin the rest of the world the better.

So, it's just end to the means? The millions of innocent North Koreans were used as hostage. What if there is no agreement? Just nuke Korea? That's not ok. (Just to add, I'm in no way alluding to you thinking that it's OK to just go to war. I don't take you for a person who thinks that way but there are people who do)

 

People want Trump to be applauded for calling-off a strike on Iran because the Irani government shot-down a drone. Did people even took time to ask "what was the drone doing there in the first place?".

[Facecloth]

13 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

This is why deleting the thread was such a bad idea because context gets removed.

 

I dont remember saying that but i'll grant it and discuss it as if I did (not denying it)

 

I may have said that as a rhetorical way of questioning the whole narrative of the accusers. There is an argument that the relationship they describe is taken from a fictitious book called Michael Jackson was my lover, and the writer was a member of NAMBLA. The book describes a reciprocal lovers relationship as described in LN and was written by a paedo apologist which wants to claim these kind of relationships as normal and healthy. Some say the narrative of LN was lifted from this book which makes the film itself a justification of the relationships described.

 

The notion that these boys loved what was happening to them is in itself an apology for paedophilia, which is one reason some have criticised the film as bullshit

 

This could be one reason i said it as i was reading takes on LN at the time that said this kind of thing

 

Its possible i said it sarcastically as some sort of joke in response to Buce calling me disturbing for suggesting Jackson may not have done it

 

Again, i dont remember the context fully, but ive done my best to take the accusation seriously, not just denied it

 

Just to be clear, of course i dont defend that kind of relationship, in fact i couldnt watch the second part of the film as the first part was just too gross and i had my fill of the disgusting scenes described

 

No doubt you will claim i am copping out and justifying a remark with a dishonest explanation

 

But at least we've had it out now. I still dont understand why Buce wouldnt say this, unless deep down he knows he was twisting things

I don't remember a book being mentioned in the original thread, but I do remember a lot of people piling on you when you said all that, so whilst I too don't remember the context, it seems a lot weren't happy with what you said. I also have a vague recollection of the point about the going back being in a stand alone, one line post. As you say though its deleted so I can't be sure.

 

Buce didn't want to interact with you anymore  hence why you're on ignore, so that's why he's not posted it. If he's made that accusations since the day you made the post I'd dare say he has the best recollection of all of us of that context and content of the posts, which is why I think he's almost certainly justified on calling you out on them.

 

Anyway let's not derail a second thread, we've both said our side, people can try and remember it how they want.

Edited 30 June 2019 by Facecloth

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, the fox said:

So, it's just end to the means? The millions of innocent North Koreans were used as hostage. What if there is no agreement? Just nuke Korea? That's not ok. (Just to add, I'm in no way alluding to you thinking that it's OK to just go to war. I don't take you for a person who thinks that way but there are people who do)

 

People want Trump to be applauded for calling-off a strike on Iran because the Irani government shot-down a drone. Did people even took time to ask "what was the drone doing there in the first place?".

If there's no agreement then Trump bears at least most of the blame for it failing.

 

War is absolutely the worst case scenario and you're absolutely right in that there are those in the administration (Bolton and Pompeo being two) that are perfectly fine with the idea because it is good for business and (probably) because they're so inadequate they can't get hard except from thoughts of projecting power over people like that.

 

However, though gestures like this can mostly be smoke and mirrors, if there is even a faint hope that they're a start of a process which ends in NK opening up to the world, then it's worth it.

[Facecloth]

@AlloverthefloorYesNdidi, I'm still waiting for the full Trump video where he doesn't sound like a rambling fool.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

3 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

I don't remember a book being mentioned in the original thread, but I do remember a lot of people piling on you when you said all that, so whilst I too don't remember the context, it seems a lot weren't happy with what you said. I also have a vague recollection of the point about the going back being in a stand alone, one line post. As you say though its deleted so I can't be sure.

 

Buce didn't want to interact with you anymore  hence why you're on ignore, so that's why he's not posted it. If he's made that accusations since the day you made the post I'd dare say he has the best recollection of all of us of that context and content of the posts, which is why I think he's almost certainly justified on calling you out on them.

 

Anyway let's not derail a second thread, we've both said our side, people can try and remember it how they want.

Fair enough. I know that i didnt mention the book before. Im justifying what may have been behind such a comment

 

As ive said, im arguing granting what you have said and it may have been a standalone comment that was a sarcy reponse to Buce saying "disturbing". That kind of sarcy response is something i can see myself doing so im not denying i made such a standalone statement.

 

If that thread hadnt been closed people could have hashed it out, if there was a will, and actual opinions might have been seen, rather than just the will to denounce someone as something or other

 

As you say, no need to derail the thread. As i tried to say on the initial thread to avoid the contentious bitching, it would be better for people to watch Rageagolic's yt videos for insight into the idea of Jackson being innocent case

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

7 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

@AlloverthefloorYesNdidi, I'm still waiting for the full Trump video where he doesn't sound like a rambling fool.

I only commented on the video you posted. You said that was incoherent. I didnt find it to be. Havent seen the whole video. Was only remarking i didnt find that clip incoherent and you had said that it was

[the fox]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

War is absolutely the worst case scenario and you're absolutely right in that there are those in the administration (Bolton and Pompeo being two) that are perfectly fine with the idea because it is good for business and (probably) because they're so inadequate they can't get hard except from thoughts of projecting power over people like that.

They want war because it's good for business and will make them money. But what bothers me is the many innocent young men who were brainwashed by the Media to fight wars that aren't their own. Those who will be sent to the front lines have no past grudges with the innocent members of the other party. Why should they die for the egos of old men with full stomachs and deep pockets? Pencil pushers aren't the ones in the front lines. It's the Guy's knee-deep in dept and a head full of propaganda forced on them by the media who will have their dead bodies (or what was left of them) in a casket because they were fighting people that they shouldn't be fighting. Don't drape a flag on their caskets, don't brand them as heroes, Just let them be.

[Facecloth]

4 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

I only commented on the video you posted. You said that was incoherent. I didnt find it to be. Havent seen the whole video. Was only remarking i didnt find that clip incoherent and you had said that it was

It really was. Something happened, that thing happened and now we get along. I mean its not a rambling as the one in the other video I posted, but he clearly has trouble articulating what he wants to say.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

3 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

It really was. Something happened, that thing happened and now we get along. I mean its not a rambling as the one in the other video I posted, but he clearly has trouble articulating what he wants to say.

I can see why the simplicity of his language isnt appealing to some, but it made sense enough to me

 

He was simply celebrating a coming together with an isolated country that no president before him has achieved. For me thats the story here

[urban.spaceman]