Like Tree40Likes

RIP @realdonaldtrump

Closed Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
  1. #21

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    29,771

    The real Donald Trump

    Name:  136654925_10159492638510639_1052442861542225472_o.jpg
Views: 177
Size:  35.9 KB

    mrgoodkat and shri like this.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    3,988

    US news (MSNBC) said another attack on capital planned


  3. #23

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,707
    Quote Originally Posted by JAherbert:
    US news (MSNBC) said another attack on capital planned
    not just the Capitol
    anarchy
    https://www.gunandgame.com/threads/j...pitols.214113/

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    2,128

    I like that one: If Trump is charged, convicted and goes to prison, he'll be awfully lonely since he pardoned all his friends.


  5. #25

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,186
    Quote Originally Posted by dynamco:
    One of the posts say

    "I'll likely go depending on weather"
    LOL
    shri likes this.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,452

    You know it's bad when even the ACLU sides with Trump. Maybe they'll be banned for hate speech next.

    https://www.newsweek.com/aclu-counse...ension-1560248

    And somebody who is all too familiar with censorship:

    https://twitter.com/navalny/status/1347969772177264644

    Last edited by shri; 11-01-2021 at 07:35 AM.
    timonoj likes this.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    θ–„ζ‰Άζž—
    Posts
    47,971

    Add this to the winners get to rewrite history file

    Campaign is cut off from credit card processing.. does not matter even if your in-laws are investors...


    https://www.axios.com/payment-proces...2b9a26d08.html

    And the PGA is also cutting off his golf courses.

    “We find ourselves in a political situation not of our making,” Seth Waugh, the CEO of the PGA of America, told AP. “We’re fiduciaries for our members, for the game, for our mission and for our brand. And how do we best protect that? Our feeling was given the tragic events of Wednesday that we could no longer hold it at Bedminster. The damage could have been irreparable. The only real course of action was to leave.”
    https://www.afr.com/world/north-amer...0210110-p56t18
    Last edited by shri; 11-01-2021 at 11:23 AM.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    11,884
    Quote Originally Posted by Aramis:
    Not that I am sad that Trump won't be trolling on Twitter anymore but I disagree with banning him. I think it's fine to suspend his account temporarily and remove tweets that are too incendiary but I can't agree with the idea of silencing a major political figure because some dislike him. That's not what democracies do, that's stuff straight out of the CCP playbook.

    People are outraged that pro democracy figures are silenced and arrested here but want the US to do exactly that to republicans because they disagree with their position and claim they are inciting violence(which is pretty well exactly what Lam says here). By all means, arrest those who broke laws but going after politicians because we don't like what they say? Nope
    Standard response to this (also standard) argument:

    In 1945, philosopher Karl Popper attributed the paradox to Plato's defense of "benevolent despotism" and defined it in The Open Society and Its Enemies.[1]

    Less well known [than other paradoxes Popper discusses] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.


    Emphasis mine... things have clearly moved well into the bolded area.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance



    It'll be interesting to see if right wing money goes to setting up offshore services for hate speech, similar the the [x]chan servers.
    AsianXpat0, Sage, shri and 3 others like this.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    11,884

    double post because I hit "quote" instead of "edit post"


  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    7,463
    Quote Originally Posted by jgl:
    Standard response to this (also standard) argument:

    In 1945, philosopher Karl Popper attributed the paradox to Plato's defense of "benevolent despotism" and defined it in The Open Society and Its Enemies.[1]

    Less well known [than other paradoxes Popper discusses] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.


    Emphasis mine... things have clearly moved well into the bolded area.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance



    It'll be interesting to see if right wing money goes to setting up offshore services for hate speech, similar the the [x]chan servers.
    Or in more plain terms, it's common sense.