Liberals be crazy

It will take a Muslim to fill that mouth.

Right back at you. You got a party to stick too, and you can't criticize the tribe.

You like Halal sausages?

I don't think a comedy skit exaggerated for effect is really evidence of anything. Surely there are better real-world scenarios that could illustrate your point, with the additional advantage of being, you know, real?

yo wat up its my boi cummy jorts! for those of you who dont know i know remybrown in real life and he popped a fat nut when this cute boy he liked made out with him and thats how we came up with this nickname. he makes this weird sound too and says "zoo wee mama" and then he splooges so hard it shoots out of his underwear at like 500 mph. his splooge knocked a predator drone out of the sky one time that was following us because i dont pay my taxes. dudes my fucking hero.

anyway i decided this thread is now for me to post pictures of politicians eating:

keep wearing those jorts proudly over and out

-FakeMcDonalds

A radical Muslim's hatred comes from a book

It really doesn't. All religious texts have to be interpreted, and we tend to see in them whatever we see in ourselves. How many times do Christians swear god would never do X, regardless of the fact that X is in the bible? Or take certain instructions within the bible as the end all be all rule because it's in the bible, while disregarding other instructions within that same book? Answer: all the time. No one gets their morality from a book.

->How many times do Christians swear god would never do X, regardless of the fact that X is in the bible?

All religions suck. Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Trumpism. Every religion should be interpreted 100% literally and discarded because of it.

->All religious texts have to be interpreted, and we tend to see in them whatever we see in ourselves. 

Would you be as generous with Trumpism as Islam? No. You should be equally condescending of both religions.

All religious people don't believe the Leopard will eat their face.

Would you be as generous with Trumpism as Islam? No. You should be equally condescending of both religions.

I don't know enough about Islam to be condescending towards it, and I don't care to learn. Trumpism is a different story. So no.

->I don't know enough about Islam to be condescending towards it, and I don't care to learn. Trumpism is a different story. So no.

Appeal to ignorance.

I know a lot about both religions. I can assure you, Islam is more xenophobic than Trumpism. Trump makes jokes about grabbing women by the pussy (which you can think are crass), and Islam calls for saying a woman's vote is worth 50% of a man's.

American conservatives say marriage is between a man and a woman. Islam throws gays off of buildings for consensual sex.

->yo wat up its my boi cummy jorts! for those of you who dont know i know remybrown in real life and he popped a fat nut when this cute boy he liked made out with him and thats how we came up with this nickname. he makes this weird sound too and says "zoo wee mama" and then he splooges so hard it shoots out of his underwear at like 500 mph. his splooge knocked a predator drone out of the sky one time that was following us because i dont pay my taxes. dudes my fucking hero.

Allegation denied. Everything you said here is false.

I know a lot about both religions. I can assure you, Islam is more xenophobic than Trumpism.

I don't care. Islam-ism isn't running our federal government. It isn't putting American troops into our cities, isn't nabbing up nanies in front of schools to deport them, isn't tanking our economy and raising prices for all of us, isn't using the justice department to go after an enemies list, isn't texting war plans to journalists, etc. When it is, then I'll care.

->Islam-ism isn't running our federal government.

Neither is Hitler. I think we can agree that Hitler is worse than Trump.

->It isn't putting American troops into our cities, isn't nabbing up nanies in front of schools to deport them, isn't tanking our economy and raising prices for all of us, isn't using the justice department to go after an enemies list, isn't texting war plans to journalists, etc.

But it throws gay people off of buildings. If you claim you care less about it because it's foreign, then fine, but then acknowledge that you are having an America first mentality (which is republican).

Neither is Hitler. I think we can agree that Hitler is worse than Trump.

Hitler was never part of this conversation, so nice deflection (not really).

But it throws gay people off of buildings. If you claim you care less about it because it's foreign...

It isn't a question of whether I care about the plight of others, it's a question of whether it commands my attention. Terrible things happen all over the world everyday, one can feel badly about that fact without putting their energy on everything all at once.

but then acknowledge that you are having an America first mentality (which is republican).

America first is a slogan. That is what is republican. The mentality of America first is shared by everyone, it's just that the modern day republican party and it's voters are too stupid to understand how the world works.

Take Ukraine as a perfect example. Trumpers think we're just sending money to Ukraine because we're good hearted people trying to help them out. No, we're sending them arms (mostly made in the US which means that money is actually being pumped into American businesses) so that they can fight Russia themselves thereby depleating Russia's military resources and erode Putin's support, all without sacrificing a single American life. All of this, whatever your opinion about it, is being done in furtherance of the US's security interests. That's what an America first mentality actually looks like.

The same is true of US AID, we weren't sending these places or money just to be nice, we were doing it because it enhances the US's soft power around the globe, which in turn helps us tremendously to advance our agenda and keep us in control of world events.

But when you are too ignorant to understand any of this, it just looks like we're a charity for the world. Trump's America first slogan is nothing more than the capitalization of American stupidity and ignorance. There is a reason the more educated you are the more likely you are to vote against him, and it sure as hell ain't because republicans are the party of the working class.

->Hitler was never part of this conversation, so nice deflection (not really).

Purpose being that it's irrelevant if a leader is foreign of domestic.

-> The mentality of America first is shared by everyone

Not among those that want to fund Ukraine (or Israel).

->No, we're sending them arms (mostly made in the US which means that money is actually being pumped into American businesses) so that they can fight Russia themselves thereby depleating Russia's military resources and erode Putin's support, all without sacrificing a single American life.

Sending them arms means paying military contractors with American tax dollars for a foreign war (which is not America first). Whether the sacrifice is money or life, us helping Ukraine with our tax dollars even if American companies benefit is not America first.

->The same is true of US AID, we weren't sending these places or money just to be nice, we were doing it because it enhances the US's soft power around the globe, which in turn helps us tremendously to advance our agenda and keep us in control of world events.

That is a good point, but that money goes to help poor people; military money goes to help war factories (Ukraine included, just like Israel).

->There is a reason the more educated you are the more likely you are to vote against him, and it sure as hell ain't because republicans are the party of the working class.

I thought college grads were more likely to vote against Trump because they had student debt and the Dems talk about free college (which appeals to a lot of students). The GOP is not pro working class at all.

Sending them arms means paying military contractors with American tax dollars for a foreign war (which is not America first). Whether the sacrifice is money or life, us helping Ukraine with our tax dollars even if American companies benefit is not America first.

Except it is, for the reasons I just explained, with real words that I wrote and posted above. Would you like me to repeat them, or would you like to just respond to them?

I'm going to attempt to steelman your argument:

1. Ukraine is bringing down Russia for us and us sending them weapons helps accomplish this.

Assuming this is your argument, then the assumption is that Russia is bad for America (which I think is like saying Gaza is bad for America).

We shouldn't fund Ukraine or Israel. Russia's GDP is about the same as TX's; that's not a credible threat to the US.

You really don't seem to understand anything about world affairs.

Russia is essentially a gangster state that threatens world order. Putin has made his desire to try and restore the Soviet union clear, and they hold enough nuclear weapons to wipe us off the face of the earth (even though retaliatory strikes would assure mutual destruction). So keeping him preoccupied with this one country is good for us, it keeps him too busy to spread his aggressions to other countries, especially NATO allies which would drag us into a literal world war.

Also just as importantly, Putin is a brutal dictator whose wish, like any brutal dictator, is to see democracies across the globe fail. Why? Because when his people look across the pond and see a society where people have actual rights it turns out they want them too. People like Putin can't have that because any threat against his power is a literal threat against his survival, which is also what makes him so dangerous. If he's going down there would be no cost in bringing the rest of the world down with him.

So no, this is nothing like Gaza, and it's a remarkable display of ignorance to put the two into the same category when it comes to our safety and the stability of our democracy.

->So keeping him preoccupied with this one country is good for us, it keeps him too busy to spread his aggressions to other countries, especially NATO allies which would drag us into a literal world war.

It's implausible that Putin won't attack any NATO country (which is why when Sweeden and Finland joined, I agreed with it).

-> Putin has made his desire to try and restore the Soviet union clear

How is that bad for America? We are in NATO (and so is a lot of the former USSR that Putin can't touch).

->People like Putin can't have that because any threat against his power is a literal threat against his survival, which is also what makes him so dangerous.

So then maybe what would be a decent idea is anyone in Russia that hates Putin the US can ship to the US (if these individuals agree to be sent to the US). Less people -> less power for Putin.

->Russia is essentially a gangster state that threatens world order. 

A gangster is what the leader of Country A will call the leader of country B if the leader of country A wants the people of country A to hate the leader of country B. And I'm sure that Putin has done many horrible things. But our leaders don't exactly have shit that tastes like marshmallows either.

->So no, this is nothing like Gaza, and it's a remarkable display of ignorance to put the two into the same category when it comes to our safety and the stability of our democracy.

I'm sure Putin is a very big threat to Ukraine, but he won't touch any NATO country unless there are nukes (which means Russia dies as well). Nobody wants MAD, not even Putin.

It's implausible that Putin [would] attack any NATO country

Fixed ( I'm assuming that's what you meant).

No, it's not implausible at all. In fact Putin has all but declared that one of the NATO countries (Poland if I'm not mistaken) is his next target. This also follows given his desire to restore the Soviet union because that would be the natural next step. So the only question is, does he really have the restraint? Nothing about him would assure us of this so I don't know why you seem so confident.

How is that bad for America?

Empowering a nation who wants to see us burn... The question answers itself.

So then maybe what would be a decent idea is anyone in Russia that hates Putin the US can ship to the US (if these individuals agree to be sent to the US). Less people -> less power for Putin.

This is just a fundamentally unserious response.

A gangster is what the leader of Country A will call the leader of country B if the leader of country A wants the people of country A to hate the leader of country B.

Are you seriously disputing that Putin runs his government like a gangster?

And I'm sure that Putin has done many horrible things. But our leaders don't exactly have shit that tastes like marshmallows either.

This is an absurd false equivalence, no response warranted.

->No, it's not implausible at all. In fact Putin has all but declared that one of the NATO countries (Poland if I'm not mistaken) is his next target. 

I think he's bluffing. If he invaded Poland, then Russia is going to get destroyed! Keep Poland in NATO.

->This is just a fundamentally unserious response.

What's wrong with it? It's more immigration.

->Empowering a nation who wants to see us burn.

They won't burn us unless there are nukes, but then it's mutual and independent of if Russia annexes Ukraine or not.

->Are you seriously disputing that Putin runs his government like a gangster?

No, but I'm saying every head of state runs their government like a gangster. Putin and Trump are honest gangsters. Carney tries to do a big show. He will say that Canada is better than America in every way and will cite life expectency, but he leaves out that for every $1 an American earns, a Canadian earns 70 cents.

Carney, Trump, Putin; all gangsters; but at least Trump and Putin are honest gangsters.

I think he's bluffing.

What you think is irrelevant. Responsible governance means assessing and weighing risks appropriately. This isn't a risk one can just shrug off.

No, but I'm saying every head of state runs their government like a gangster.

This is just stupid. You are ignoring the very real and very serious differences between people like Putin and other democratically elected world leaders. Putin literally murders anyone who opposes him all so he can illegally hold onto power. There's no equivalence there.

It's just such just lazy conspiratorial nonsense and is one of the oldest propaganda tricks in the book. Convince people that the other guy is just as bad, and then you get away with everything.

This is why Trump is behind, he only has a real estate background.

Shrug off is going into the woods thinking there is no chance that you will see a bear. But his threat here would be akin to walking in the woods with bear mace to protect yourself. Bear mace and NATO are both insurance.

No idea what this has to do with anything we discussed

He doesn't have too; he can hire someone to go into the election board room and give him 90% of the vote even if he only gets 45%.

And why do you think they listen to him?

Every leader does this

I can't take you seriously when you say such a stupid thing.

Bu5 he accurately described Putin and Potus.

Not sure I'm understanding. Are you co-signing into the idea that every leader murders journalists or engages in comparable behavior?

NATO is America's protection against Russia

It's not protection against a Russian nuclear strike, it's only a deterrence, and one I just explained might not be enough in the event of the fallout from Russian aggression against a NATO Aly, which was the whole point.

And as a side note, it's kind of hard to rely on the strength of NATO as a defense of what Trump is doing given how badly Trump has weakened NATO. I am sure you see something wrong then with Trump's handling there, right?

Because politics is for show. Why hasn't the world united into one nation by now? It's because...

This has nothing to do with the question. You asserted that Putin tells his election officials to report false numbers that make him the winner. I asked why do you think they do that, as in what is their motivation for going along with this. Do you have a serious answer?

All right wing opinions are stupid to you, so I'm proud to have said a stupid thing by your logic; it's called being someone who isn't in the democrat religion.

No, I called it stupid because it genuinely is.

You said "every leader does this", as in fakes their election numbers to secure victory. Prove that claim or admit it's a stupid claim.