Jump to content
270soft Forum
SirLagsalott

Trump tells AOC, Tlaib, Pressley, Omar to “go back” to the “broken and crime infested places from which they came”

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, SirLagsalott said:

The implication was he was talking about the so-called “Progressive Squad” of those four congresswomen because he specifically mentioned the Pelosi feud - it was with those 4. They also all happen to be ethnic minorities which I assumed was why he targeted them with the “go back to your country” comments. 

In this particular case, I wonder what Trump is up to. Is he trying to get Dems to rally behind people like Omar, because he thinks people like Omar (AOC, and so on) pull the Dems to the left and are poor public representatives of the Dem party? So try to get them in the news as much as possible? Just speculation.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

In this particular case, I wonder what Trump is up to. Is he trying to get Dems to rally behind people like Omar, because he thinks people like Omar (AOC, and so on) pull the Dems to the left and are poor public representatives of the Dem party? So try to get them in the news as much as possible? Just speculation.

I think that’s what he’s attempting to do. A lot of Democrats aren’t completely comfortable with AOC, Omar and the rest of the “squad”, and Trump’s comments led to Democrats rallying around them to defend them. It seems Trump is taking a gamble with losing any potential non-base voters so that he can tie the Democrats to that group despite Pelosi’s efforts. Not sure if this will be a net positive for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant even comment on this.This guy is braindead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is a piece of human garbage, Pelosi's response was horrible too, I'm getting more and more dissatisfied with the whole political system in the United States 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heeeeeere we go again, boys and girls (and whatever the 73 other genders are).

Trump is a racist, blah blah blah, misogyny blah blah blah. Grab-pussy Mexicans rapists good people both sides blah blah blah blah... It's already a known fact that any criticism directed by anyone towards anyone darker than Conan O'Brien is a racist rant. Really, we know that already and we're tired of hearing it. The same people complaining about these statements are the same people who, if President Trump cured cancer, would protest for the rights of the tumors. These ladies have blasted anti-American and anti-Semetic views long enough. Should Trump have said what he said? Is it Presidential? No. Just like the NFL kneeling controversy, I wish he'd be more guarded about what he says, but in the end of the day he's 100% right, and let's not pretend for one microsecond that the media isn't just looking for any noose they can hang Trump on. Meantime, I think I'll order some fries with my nothingburger 🤤

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, servo75 said:

Heeeeeere we go again, boys and girls (and whatever the 73 other genders are).

Trump is a racist, blah blah blah, misogyny blah blah blah. Grab-pussy Mexicans rapists good people both sides blah blah blah blah... It's already a known fact that any criticism directed by anyone towards anyone darker than Conan O'Brien is a racist rant. Really, we know that already and we're tired of hearing it. The same people complaining about these statements are the same people who, if President Trump cured cancer, would protest for the rights of the tumors. These ladies have blasted anti-American and anti-Semetic views long enough. Should Trump have said what he said? Is it Presidential? No. Just like the NFL kneeling controversy, I wish he'd be more guarded about what he says, but in the end of the day he's 100% right, and let's not pretend for one microsecond that the media isn't just looking for any noose they can hang Trump on. Meantime, I think I'll order some fries with my nothingburger 🤤

Who are we, that are "tire of hearing it." And do you mean by "anti-American" as critical of the narrow, specific, and often toxic nostalgic views of the hard nationalistic, right-wing, historical revisionist, uneducated on the outside world and many important facts of things in general (and encouraging that lack of education as "patriotic"), promoting of bad stereotypes, particular socio-political slant of all but the most moderate members of Republican Party of the United States, and "anti-Semitic" as critical of the political and military abuses and impunities, even war crimes, by the State of Israel by it's neighbours (I'm not saying their neighbours are even REMOTELY innocent, either, but the whole situation is COMPLETELY mishandled in a monstrous, and every time foreign intervention for either side is made - including, BOTH the Divest Israel Movement and Trump publicly and flagrantly pissing a new embassy to make a  point - it NEVER helps, and only does harm)? I ask this, because, though I'm not entirely familiar with the full rhetoric of these Congresswomen in question, for some reactionaries (like you've proven to be), the terms "anti-American," and "anti-Semitic" are VERY often used in that strictly, narrowly, politicised, McCarthyist definition, as opposed to anything broadly accurate (the term "anti-Semitic," itself, of which has become ridiculously obsolete, from a practical, not even a fully PC, sense, because in the last few decades, it's often applied to Arabs, or as attitude to taking Arab nations' sides in Arab-Israeli conflicts, which is ridiculous because Arabs, like Jews, are also a Semitic ethnic group, and Arabic, like Hebrew, is a Semitic language, and closer related to Hebrew than any other extantly-spoken language other than Aramaic, which is also a Semitic language - or did anyone know what actually happened to Ishmael after he and his mother were banished into the desert by Abraham to satiate Sarah - he became the "Father of the Bedouins").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ilhan Omar, 2017, after being rescued from that hell-hole Somalia: "In his selective memory, [the writer] forgets to also mention the thousands of Somalis killed by the American forces that day! #NotTodaySatan,"

I'm tired of playing this game of semantics with you, Patine. Really tired.  Every time I use what might be a debatable but perfectly reasonable word to describe a person or group of people, your sole response is to tell my my definition is wrong. I'm not even going to get into Biblical talk here. I will even agree that the United States has been far too aggressive in the Middle East (though I do NOT believe that's the reason they attack us - chicken before the egg). The Islamic State tries to terrorize us because they hate us, hate our way of life, hate freedom and want to spread their caliphate. We have two choices in this matter. We can go over there and wipe them off the face of the earth, or we can sit here with our "coexist" stickers and wait for them to wipe us out - and believe me, that IS their intent. Now, back to the four horsewomen (and btw that's a play on "four horsemen of the apocalypse", I'm not calling them horses). We have Congresspeople who refuse to fund our border and then complain that they aren't getting enough aid, they go there and lie about women drinking out of toilets for no other reason than to stir up a hornets nest. They're constantly complaining about how horrible America is, and how racist, and how unfair to "black and brown" people. In other words, malcontents.

All of them are citizens. No one can force them to leave. No one WANTS to force them to leave. Though personally I don't think they belong within 100 miles of the Capitol. Trump's comments were along the lines of "If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen." If you don't like this club, why did you join it? They have nothing but complaints about our country and yet they want to import half the third world while ignoring all the Christian refugees, and the homeless vets here in America. It's very clear to many people that they care more about non-Americans than they do about Americans. Those types of people are dangerous to have in the U.S. Congress. They're like everyone's worst-nightmare mother in law. Nothing's ever good enough. All complaints, no solutions. And by the way, they want to turn this country into a Socialist nation, or at least into the same shithole countries (yes I said it) they came from. No thanks. You can't bring there to here without here becoming there. Either immigrate here and try to help make this a better place, or stay where you are. America is a melting pot and they represent a dangerous faction that refuses to melt.

I don't care if I'm the last white male American remaining in the entire country, if everyone else believes in our laws, our Constitution, our heritage and history, and doesn't want to transform our country even farther than it already is from anything recognizable by the Founders.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, servo75 said:

(though I do NOT believe that's the reason they attack us - chicken before the egg). The Islamic State tries to terrorize us because they hate us, hate our way of life, hate freedom and want to spread their caliphate.

I'm amazed at how many Americans STILL believe the myth and lie of the United States as a "no-fault victim" of "Islamist terrorism" - and certainly refusing to believe that they are one of the nations that led to the toxic morphing of militant Islam in it's nature, style, viewpoint, and rhetoric from how it was in the Ottoman, Qajar- and early Pahlavi-Dynasty Iranian, and Colonial Era (and certainly the Medieval era), which were EXTREMELY different - and that an irrational hatred of "American freedom and culture" is to blame instead. This absolutely insulting to the intelligence lie to attempt to absolve the guilt of the U.S. and Western allies, Israel, and the Soviet Union during the Cold War of "stirring the hornet's nest," largely in the name of Neo-Colonial ends, installing monstrous and bloody-handed Pro-Western and Pro-Soviet dictators as proxies in the vile and dirty that was the Cold War, and the securing of oil fields, and committing all manners of atrocities to do it. And, this fallacy of a so-called "exoneration" done through propaganda techniques pioneered by Joseph Goebbels. There can be NO resolution to the tumult and chaos in the Middle East until all concerned are willing to accept their parts of the guilts, and the blood of innocents on their hands and the war criminals in their midst. Then, MAYBE, some productive resolution could start - but knowing human nature in general, something stupid would happen anyways to such a chance up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love how Omar's first act of business was to lessen the punishments on people who run off the join ISIS 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Love how Omar's first act of business was to lessen the punishments on people who run off the join ISIS 

I firmly DO believe people who join ISIS and other such groups should be severely and harshly punished (but, within due process of the criminal code - the (un)Patriot Act needs to be abolished - it is an utter aberration of American Constitutional, legal, and ethical ideology), but any American who is, or was, a member of the CIA should be punished equally, as should all political and military leaders who funded and directed them, and all documents seditiously kept secret through "classified for national security purposes," for they, too, match the current definition of a terrorist organization, both abroad and domestically, and, on top of that, every American taxpayer should get a rebate of a dividend of the TOTAL expenditure the U.S. Government has made since WWII on the CIA, and it's predecessor, the OSS, and kept those expenditures secret from the taxpayers and gave ABSOLUTELY no accountability or consultation taxpayers or taxpayer advocacy groups. This rebate, given it's no doubt (but unacceptably) enormous size, could be staggered over a period of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It strikes me that Donald Trump is indeed unaffected by scandals, calling out his vitriolic rhetoric and personal, calling him a "racist," "Fascist," "misogynist," "dictator-admirer," etc. or what have you. I believe there is, however, one surefire to beat Trump at this game - unfortunate, I'm strongly of the belief that modern American society as a whole has become, by cultural nature utterly incapable of it - to starve him of attention. As I've said several times before, it strikes me that the biggest thing that defines Donald Trump - even above being a businessman, or even a U.S. President - is a showman, and that being constantly in the public eye and well-known and quoted, no matter the context or tenor, seems to be FAR more important to him as a driving goal in life than any amount of money, any number of beautiful, younger women he could bed, or any accomplishments or achievements as U.S. President he could make, or any legacy he'd leave behind - ultimately a very vapid and shallow man, but a highly dangerous one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Patine said:

It strikes me that Donald Trump is indeed unaffected by scandals, calling out his vitriolic rhetoric and personal, calling him a "racist," "Fascist," "misogynist," "dictator-admirer," etc. or what have you. I believe there is, however, one surefire to beat Trump at this game - unfortunate, I'm strongly of the belief that modern American society as a whole has become, by cultural nature utterly incapable of it - to starve him of attention. As I've said several times before, it strikes me that the biggest thing that defines Donald Trump - even above being a businessman, or even a U.S. President - is a showman, and that being constantly in the public eye and well-known and quoted, no matter the context or tenor, seems to be FAR more important to him as a driving goal in life than any amount of money, any number of beautiful, younger women he could bed, or any accomplishments or achievements as U.S. President he could make, or any legacy he'd leave behind - ultimately a very vapid and shallow man, but a highly dangerous one.

@vcczar, notably, may find this hypothesis interesting, at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Patine said:

@vcczar, notably, may find this hypothesis interesting, at least.

I generally agree with what you say, and I like this hypothesis. But as I’ve said before, you need to cut down on your use of multiple clauses in a sentence. Readers shouldn’t have to reread a sentence for clarity. In the course of the journey reading it through, I failed to find what your hypothesis was on two attempts. 

This could have been stated simply as, “My hypothesis is that the best strategy is to starve Donald Trump of attention because he seems to be unaffected by scandal.” This would then set up your other comments stringing off of this. 

Sentences need to be digestible. As I’ve said before, even though we’re are friends and mostly share the same political views and ethic and moral values, I skip over any forum users comments when they seem more like a brick of clauses making no attempt at readability. 

I saw this to anyone, if your goal is to convince or be understood, write so that those you wish to convince or inform will read it and perfectly understand it in one reading. If it’s devoid of this, it comes off more as venting or verbal/mental masturbation that isn’t really meant to have an audience. Writing is a partnership or relationship even if you don’t like or respect the person or people on the other end. 

Nevertheless, I like your hypothesis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vcczar said:

I generally agree with what you say, and I like this hypothesis. But as I’ve said before, you need to cut down on your use of multiple clauses in a sentence. Readers shouldn’t have to reread a sentence for clarity. In the course of the journey reading it through, I failed to find what your hypothesis was on two attempts. 

This could have been stated simply as, “My hypothesis is that the best strategy is to starve Donald Trump of attention because he seems to be unaffected by scandal.” This would then set up your other comments stringing off of this. 

Sentences need to be digestible. As I’ve said before, even though we’re are friends and mostly share the same political views and ethic and moral values, I skip over any forum users comments when they seem more like a brick of clauses making no attempt at readability. 

I saw this to anyone, if your goal is to convince or be understood, write so that those you wish to convince or inform will read it and perfectly understand it in one reading. If it’s devoid of this, it comes off more as venting or verbal/mental masturbation that isn’t really meant to have an audience. Writing is a partnership or relationship even if you don’t like or respect the person or people on the other end. 

Nevertheless, I like your hypothesis. 

Yes, I do notice you don't give this advice to servo75, who also writes long, drawn-out, continuous bricks of text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

Yes, I do notice you don't give this advice to servo75, who also writes long, drawn-out, continuous bricks of text.

That’s because I don’t have any intention to read what he has to say 98% of the time. You at least say things of value. He’s just noise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, vcczar said:

That’s because I don’t have any intention to read what he has to say 98% of the time. You at least say things of value. He’s just noise. 

Though understand, I greatly appreciate the advice. I think, I just often end up making my posts in the state of writing some authors call the "raw state," that then often needs several editor revisions and redoings afterward. Some famous authors admit to atrociously unreadable first drafts of their famous works. But I will endeavour to work on it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Patine said:

Though understand, I greatly appreciate the advice. I think, I just often end up making my posts in the state of writing some authors call the "raw state," that then often needs several editor revisions and redoings afterward. Some famous authors admit to atrociously unreadable first drafts of their famous works. But I will endeavour to work on it. :)

My first drafts are usually pretty bad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Patine said:

Yes, I do notice you don't give this advice to servo75, who also writes long, drawn-out, continuous bricks of text.

The only difference is that mine are based on logic, rather than acerbic rants, but okay...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Patine said:

It strikes me that Donald Trump is indeed unaffected by scandals, calling out his vitriolic rhetoric and personal, calling him a "racist," "Fascist," "misogynist," "dictator-admirer," etc. or what have you. I believe there is, however, one surefire to beat Trump at this game - unfortunate, I'm strongly of the belief that modern American society as a whole has become, by cultural nature utterly incapable of it - to starve him of attention. As I've said several times before, it strikes me that the biggest thing that defines Donald Trump - even above being a businessman, or even a U.S. President - is a showman, and that being constantly in the public eye and well-known and quoted, no matter the context or tenor, seems to be FAR more important to him as a driving goal in life than any amount of money, any number of beautiful, younger women he could bed, or any accomplishments or achievements as U.S. President he could make, or any legacy he'd leave behind - ultimately a very vapid and shallow man, but a highly dangerous one.

Everything you just said, other than the obvious fact that he has an ego, something myself and 60 million other people were well aware of when we voted for him, is pure speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, servo75 said:

Everything you just said, other than the obvious fact that he has an ego, something myself and 60 million other people were well aware of when we voted for him, is pure speculation.

Yes, and notice I used words like "I'm strongly of the belief that" and "it strikes me that," etc. And, don't flatter yourself too much. Your posts are not nearly the solid blocks of logic and lacking acerbic ranting that you just congratulated yourself on - but self-criticism and recognizing one's own limits and weaknesses is a very rare gift in this world, so you (and often I) are firmly in the vast majority there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2019 at 9:51 PM, admin_270 said:

In this particular case, I wonder what Trump is up to. Is he trying to get Dems to rally behind people like Omar, because he thinks people like Omar (AOC, and so on) pull the Dems to the left and are poor public representatives of the Dem party? So try to get them in the news as much as possible? Just speculation.

 

 

For Trump's thoughts, neither I nor anyone else has any business reading his mind on things like this. He does what he does for whatever reason. Should he have said those things? Probably not. But make no mistake, the four horsewomen are indeed VERY good public representatives of the Democrat Party. I watched the same debates everyone else did. When ten out of ten hands go up saying that money earned by U.S. citizens should be used to provide free medical coverage for people whose very existence in our country is a criminal act, the Democrats have officially become the Party of the Illegal Alien. When a party refuses to provide money for the border, causing the border patrol to be overwhelmed and then has the nerve to complain about the conditions, when they themselves could solve our asylum mess in 15 minutes, go on record trying to erase our borders while offering free everything to the world and make us a socialist state, tearing down our Constitutional fabric, deliberately trying to overwhelm not only our border, but our welfare state itself, Demonizing ICE, the Border Patrol, and all the brave men and women trying to keep us safe as Nazis and racists. What true red-blooded American says such nonsense? They have made themselves enemies of our country. Yes, you heard me correct. I'm 100% right on this, don't even try to argue with me. Personally I hope they keep all of this up, they're making the Dems look more unpopular and just adding states to Trump's landslide. This is not Republican vs. Democrat anymore, this is good vs. evil. The gloves are coming off...

 

Just waitin' for all those juicy hate-filled libtard responses BRING IT ON, gimme your best. That quote in my profile is there for a reason. I really don't care what you think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, servo75 said:

For Trump's thoughts, neither I nor anyone else has any business reading his mind on things like this. He does what he does for whatever reason.

This sounds like a cult mentality. And a definite cult of personal is observable around Donald Trump, quite blatantly, and that is NEVER good for governance or leadership AT ALL. Also, pragmatically analysing the motives and viewpoints of a head-of-state is just good sense, not something to be avoided or discouraged, if the good the nation is held paramount (which it should ALWAYS be above the leader).

16 minutes ago, servo75 said:

whose very existence in our country is a criminal act, the Democrats have officially become the Party of the Illegal Alien.

Donald Trump (and Mitt Romney, who campaigned on illegal immigration too in 2012, though not as vigorously) employ underpaid, illegally-employed, unreported illegal immigrants in their personal business interests on American soil, and so do many of their friends in big business. I guess that gives both parties, by recent leadership at the Presidential or Presidential-Candidate, the same title earned.

16 minutes ago, servo75 said:

Just waitin' for all those juicy hate-filled libtard responses...

I'm actually not purely a liberal, and don't I hold any bigotries or hatred, but given your extremely limited view of the political spectrum (which I have often commented and encouraged to read and transcend, and which is displayed openly in your posts) and the bad, and mostly debunked and obsolete stereotypes you hold, also as clearly evident in your posts, I must, to you, by default and limited, stifling view of the world - again, judging by your posts - not possibly be able to be anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

This sounds like a cult mentality. And a definite cult of personal is observable around Donald Trump, quite blatantly, and that is NEVER good for governance or leadership AT ALL. Also, pragmatically analysing the motives and viewpoints of a head-of-state is just good sense, not something to be avoided or discouraged, if the good the nation is held paramount (which it should ALWAYS be above the leader).

Donald Trump (and Mitt Romney, who campaigned on illegal immigration too in 2012, though not as vigorously) employ underpaid, illegally-employed, unreported illegal immigrants in their personal business interests on American soil, and so do many of their friends in big business. I guess that gives both parties, by recent leadership at the Presidential or Presidential-Candidate, the same title earned.

I'm actually not purely a liberal, and don't I hold any bigotries or hatred, but given your extremely limited view of the political spectrum (which I have often commented and encouraged to read and transcend, and which is displayed openly in your posts) and the bad, and mostly debunked and obsolete stereotypes you hold, also as clearly evident in your posts, I must, to you, by default and limited, stifling view of the world - again, judging by your posts - not possibly be able to be anything else.

Mistype corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Patine said:

This sounds like a cult mentality. And a definite cult of personal is observable around Donald Trump, quite blatantly, and that is NEVER good for governance or leadership AT ALL. Also, pragmatically analysing the motives and viewpoints of a head-of-state is just good sense, not something to be avoided or discouraged, if the good the nation is held paramount (which it should ALWAYS be above the leader).

Donald Trump (and Mitt Romney, who campaigned on illegal immigration too in 2012, though not as vigorously) employ underpaid, illegally-employed, unreported illegal immigrants in their personal business interests on American soil, and so do many of their friends in big business. I guess that gives both parties, by recent leadership at the Presidential or Presidential-Candidate, the same title earned.

I'm actually not purely a liberal, and don't I hold any bigotries or hatred, but given your extremely limited view of the political spectrum (which I have often commented and encouraged to read and transcend, and which is displayed openly in your posts) and the bad, and mostly debunked and obsolete stereotypes you hold, also as clearly evident in your posts, I must, to you, by default and limited, stifling view of the world - again, judging by your posts - not possibly be able to be anything else.

My post was not directed personally at you. Absolutely there are Republicans who hire cheap illegal labor, I make no excuses for them whatsoever. But when we look at everything on balance, it's my opinion that the reason Republicans aren't tougher on immigration is that they either benefit from it themselves or, more likely, they're too scared that the media will call them bad words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...