Thereâs actually no point discussing US politics with you as you havenât a clue.
Traditional American values have nothing to do with race you absolute clown, there is no country in the world with fewer barriers to economic success than the US, regardless of background, race included. In fact there are enormous benefits to being a member of minority, in terms of placement in universities, scholarships, etc. Traditional American values involve giving everyone a fair chance regardless of race or ethnicity, and helping minorities where possible. How the fuck do you think Obama went from a relatively poor background to studying at Harvard and becoming US president?
The failed economic policies you refer to are equally due to Democrats and Republicans. The large corporations own all politicians (its the same in Europe by the way).
Europe more prosperous than the US? Youâre having a laugh right? >20% unemployment in southern Europe, 10% in northern Europe.
Sharia law has no legal standing in the UK, pal. I donât know how I can make things any clearer.
Shouting âyou havenât a clueâ and calling me âan absolute clownâ doesnât win a debate, pal.
Writing a lengthy rant in which you completely failed to engage with anything I wrote in the post you quoted is pretty pointless. Itâs not debate. Obviously, neither is this post, but whatâs sauce for the goose and all that.
You have your own, brainwashed views, I have mine. Mine are obviously more in touch with reality, but keep firing ahead by all means with yours if they make you happy.
@anon7035031 probably thinks Hughie McElvanney actually did reverse ballhop the RTE sting operation
Youâre the guy who started the name calling pal, but youâre right there is no point debating with people hopelessly entrenched in extreme political views, left or right.
Read back. Youâre the one that brought âinsaneâ, âlunatic leftyâ and âdeludedâ into the argument. And like a typical US right-winger you fly off the handle like Bill OâReilly and Hannity when you get a bit back.
You havenât once pointed out anything in my political views thatâs extreme, and I somehow doubt youâll be able to do so, although I invite you to do so.
Youâve very well articulated at least one of your own extreme political views, ie. that âthereâs an argument to be made that Islam should be outlawedâ. Not even Trump is advocating that. Imagine that, to be to the right of Donald Trump, and still claiming not to be extreme.
Now thereâs deluded for you.
@The_Most_Infamous called it here weeks ago - The Don is a Clinton plant. This campaign has been pure comedy gold and is possibly the greatest wum of all time.
The GOP can still possibly win next November if the Don is seen off early in the primaries. If he runs as an independent the GOP are goosed.
Clearly you are not well versed in the intricacies of online debating. Specifically the distinction between attacking a post and attacking a poster. There is nothing wrong for example with calling ideas âinsane, lunatic, or deludedâ, it is after all an opinion on ideas. Calling a poster a âbitchâ or a âdopeâ however is name calling and the sign of a beaten docket.
There is nothing extreme about calling for a ban on all hate speech, and being consistent regardless of the source of the hate speech.
Trump has been pure box office. Heâs brought that frisson of excitement to the race in the way that only a candidate who you can genuinely imagine starting starting a World War as President can.
He suggested the possibility, i confirmed it. When irlt emerges i want all credit due, and a nice post award.
Make up your mind.
If you think the GOP can win this election, your even battier than I thought you were.
Youâve contradicted yourself so many times Iâve lost count.
You go on about the US constitution and its right to free speech yet advocate for that to be abolished, and its express provision for freedom of religion to be abolished.
You call Trump a cunt and yet defend him.
You say âthe American dream is over for an ever-increasing percentage of the populationâ, yet lose the plot when I say that European nationsâ policies have provided greater prosperity for their populations.
You say thereâs an argument to ban Islam, then go back on that, then go back the other way again.
You start with the ad hominem attacks and name calling and then moan when you get called a couple back, which at this stage are merely descriptions of the obvious.
You accept your point is extreme, and then call others who argue against it extreme.
You moan about hate speech, but youâre the biggest hate-monger and over-emotional knee-jerk reactionary on this thread by a mile.
You talk about âintricaciesâ and yet are prone to generalisations and ideas which you havenât even begun to consider the implications of.
Your points get blown apart, you fail to defend them, and then you rant on about something else.
Thereâs nothing worse, or better if you need a laugh, than an online debater who vastly overrates their own ability and doesnât know when to stop.
Youâve provided one the best exhibits of such that Iâve ever seen here.
My views are perfectly consistent, itâs your need to brand everyone who disagrees with you as extreme right wing thatâs confusing your reasoning ability. The one who is conflicted is yourself, like most of those on the left at present. The reason is obvious, to win elections the left has to be appeal to every minority and cannot be seen to insult any, regardless of how insane the ideology they have to embrace.
Just for clarity, although likely wonât make any difference in the black and white world you inhabit:
-
I fully support the US constitution and bill of rights, including freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Even in the US however, freedom of speech ends when the line is crossed into advocating imminent violence or violent acts (a distinction I doubt you understand, but read up on some cases that have gone to the Supreme court). No such protection exists in Europe, where many people have been jailed for hate speech not advocating violence. Fundamentalist Islam and in particular Sharia law advocates violence towards others based on religion and gender, specifically non-muslims and women. Advocating for Sharia law is advocating for violence and should in my view be banned (my opinion, the courts get to decide). You cannot separate Islam from Sharia law, they go hand in hand unfortunately. Arguing that many Muslims do not agree with Sharia law is a non starter as their own religious leaders brand them as infidels and deserve the death penalty.
-
Trump is a cunt. I am trying to explain to you and others why he enjoys the popularity he has currently. It has nothing to do with being a racist, and everything to do with anger at both political parties and the economic direction of the country.
-
I didnât lose the plot on European versus US prosperity, just pointed out what an idiotic statement that was. Both the US and Europe are in economic decline for much the same reasons, aging demographics, politicians who have sold out to corporate interests, insane central banking meddling. Much of Europe is in far worse shape than the US however, unemployment is as good an economic metric as any for how well people are doing.
-
You clearly donât know what an ad hominem attack is, again attacking the content of a post is not ad hominem.
-
From the beginning of this discussion I accepted that the concept of banning fundamentalist Islamic ideology, including and especially sharia law, âappearsâ extreme. If the West wants to be consistent in banning hate speech though it isnât (while the US first amendment nominally protects hate speech, it doesnât when it advocates imminent violence against others). The left canât be consistent simply because they need the votes (just as badly as Republicans need the Christian religious right vote, equally fucked up). Strangely enough the left has no problem condemning Christian religious right ideology, but canât condemn the much more extreme Islamic ideology.
You know Iâm right, but cue more ranting about supporting Trump and extreme right wing views.
Of course the GOP can win the election. It comes down to two issues, 1. the state of the economy next November, and 2. the candidate the Republicans run. Trump wonât survive the primaries and wonât run as an independent. Rubio right now is ahead of Clinton in head to head polling. Bush has been a disaster so far, but in a weak economy scenario Rubio or Bush are centrist enough to beat Clinton. The Fed have taken the first steps in their big gamble today, raising interest rates, we will see where that leads.
The economy is obviously the biggest issue, so yes, thatâs up for grabs. The Fed had to do it, given the months of signposting, but itâs a huge gamble. If they had to cut, that would be an admission the economyâs tanked and that would be a disaster. Bush is a beaten docket. Just because Trump says he wonât run as an independent doesnât mean he wonât actually run as an independent. Iâd imagine thereâs a high likelihood he will in which case itâs game over.
If Rubioâs the candidate, heâs the closest to the centre. By that I mean heâs fucking way, way off being a centrist candidate, just slightly less fucking loopy than the rest of them. Lack of experience will count against him, as will the fact that while we and may be engaged to varying extents with the currect circus that is the republican party, there will still be a significant portion of the voting population (at least those who bother their arses to vote) who will have never heard of him. But most of those will have heard of Hillary Clinton. Iâm not sure what polling you;re looking at, but all the polling I see points to the first female president.
Personally, I think itâs all academic, this republican thing is a big sideshow and really completely irrelevant to the country and the world. Itâs become very boring and really doesnât matter any more. None of these circus freaks will ever be president, and thatâs a good thing.
Clinton will win and win well.
NBC/WSJ poll released this week shows Clinton ahead of Trump and Cruz, but behind Rubio. The difference is the Hispanic vote where Rubio obviously would do well.
The real race starts with the primaries, regardless of the circus to date the GOP will eventually settle on the most electable candidate available as they always do, thatâs Rubio or Bush. Everything else is just noise. Cruz is on a bit of a roll, but so was Carson for a while.
You have to remember the US electorate is predominantly center right, Bill Clinton was center right, as was Bush2. I agree Hillary is still the favorite, but a lot can change between now and Nov '16. She has plenty of negatives herself, should the race get close. The consensus (whether right or wrong) is that foreign policy has been extremely weak under Obama, and Hillary is very tied to that perception.
Gas cunt 
The only thing consistent about them is their consistent bigotry and ignorance. In every other respect theyâre a mess.
Amazingly enough, to try and win an election, a candidate or party tries to appeal to a sufficient amount of people to vote for them so that they win that election.
Thatâs why the Republicansâ Southern Strategy no longer works - they appeal overwhelmingly to white Christians and that target is no longer big enough to win a Presidential election due to changes in the ethnic make up of the USA. Itâs you and your ilk who are 30 years out of date in their understanding.
You talk about conflicted views, weighing up issues and coming to a considered view on an issue as if itâs a bad thing, because your own views are so utterly simple. Your view is to want to ban a religion you donât like even though that would discriminate against the overwhelming majority of law abiding citizens of that religion.
In the previous paragraph, you call my views conflicted. Now youâre calling them black and white. Youâre contradicting yourself yet again.
You say you fully support the US Constitution. Yet in the next breath you write that Europe has jailed people for hate speech not advocating violence.
Youâve already stated that you support banning all hate speech, ie. youâre much closer to the European position against what you think the US Constitutionâs position is.
Yet again, thatâs a total contradiction.
Hereâs a Supreme Court case where it was held that prosecution of a white boy for placing a burning cross on the lawn of a black family was unconstitutional because it violated the boyâs free speech rights under the US constitution.
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), involved the juvenile court proceeding of a white 14-year-old who burned a cross on the front lawn of the only black family in a St. Paul, Minn., neighborhood. Burning a cross is a very hateful thing to do: it is one of the symbols of the Ku Klux Klan, an organization that has spread hatred and harm throughout this country. The burning cross clearly demonstrated to this family that at least this youth did not welcome them in the neighborhood. The family brought charges, and the boy was prosecuted under a Minnesota criminal law that made it illegal to place, on public or private property, a burning cross, swastika, or other symbol likely to arouse âanger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender.â The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the Minnesota law was unconstitutional because it violated the youthâs First Amendment free speech rights.
âYou fully support the US Constitutionâ.
This is the same US Constitution that in 1977 upheld the right of Nazis to march in a majority Jewish area.
âWith that caveat, the overwhelming understanding is that âhate speechâ is constitutionally protected in the United States,â said Michael Herz, co-director of the Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy at Cardozo Law. âIndeed, that protection makes this country different from most other countries in the world.â
When you say you have âfull supportâ for the US constitution, it merely sounds like it was something you heard somebody say on the television and youâd thought youâd look profound by repeating it. You just look like a simpleton by doing so, given that youâve proved you know sod all about it.
Sharia law, even the most abhorrent parts of it, is in no way excluded from the rights of the US Constitutionâs First Amendment. It does not in and of itself constitute âfighting wordsâ.
âFighting wordsâ is the exception to the First Amendment you clearly have in mind. This does not deal with hate speech. It deals with threats. And itâs rarely enforced. Only the other night Donald Trump made a clear threat when he said that innocent civilians who happened to be family members of ISIS members were legitimate targets to be bombed. But I guess thatâs alright if they donât live in the US.
You talk about Islam in the most broad brush terms imaginable, effectively tarring all Muslims with having an ISIS ideology. That to my mind is hate speech.
You finish off by talking about âreligious leadersâ. Islam is a highly decentralised and divided religion with no globally recognised religious leaders.
One could fairly surmise from what youâve written that youâre of the opinion that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is the universally recognised leader of the religion to whom all Muslims must pledge allegiance.
I donât need the reasons for Trumpâs popularity explained to me, especially by somebody who so clearly doesnât understand them themselves.
âNothing to do with being racistâ.
Your comprehension ability still hasnât improved, I see.
Can I sell you a used car, by any chance?
22 European countries rank ahead of the USA on the inequality-adjusted human development index ranking.
Youâve already mentioned how people in the US âare angry at what is happening to the countryâ.
But yet you call the Obama health care plan, which for all its faults is a clear step in the in the right direction in terms of providing health care cover to more people, âmoronicâ.
Ad feminem would clearly be more appropriate for any name calling of you.
âYou know Iâm rightâ. Lovely channelling of Barry Goldwater there.
Again, you admit your views are extreme. But I thought you werenât extreme?
You now say the Christian religious right is âequally fucked upâ as extreme Islamic ideology. Yet youâre not calling for a ban on Christianity.
Then in the next sentence you go and contradict yourself yet again.
Itâs gas how you chop and change between sometimes only referring to âextremeâ Islamic ideology (perhaps in an embarrassed attempt to appear less extreme yourself), and other times lumping every Muslim in the world together as an extremist (that veil keeps slipping - veil, Muslims, how ironic).
Neither am I calling for a ban on Christianity, by the way. Thereâs my consistency again, Iâm not calling for a ban on either Christianity or Islam.
You equate the two, and call for a ban on one.
Consistency, eh?
Go team Trump !