Nazi bund 'pro american' rally at madison square garderns 2.0

[kittykellykat]

Ahem, ahem lady, your slip rac*st tropes are showing.

Guten Morgen!

I did not understand your little quip here for a full 10 seconds, as nobody has worn a slip as an undergarment since the 1950’s. We all know I don’t even wear pants at my job, so it wouldn’t be a problem regardless.

As for the racism you claim was naughtily peeking out — I can gladly direct you to other threads where it was fully showing according to some other histrionic leftoids, and their moral policing was just as ineffectual on me as yours will be.

Auf Wiedersehen

 

[Bucktee]

Okay?

Would "very fine people on both sides" be more palatable to you?

Feel better now?

What relevance would that have with the subject at hand?

It's been years, perhaps you should listen to the exchange where you pulled that line from instead of the 2 second soundbite lifted from it to promote a false narrative.

And the answer is yes, there were very fine people on both sides.

 

[Anbarandy]

What relevance would that have with the subject at hand?

It's been years, perhaps you should listen to the exchange where you pulled that line from instead of the 2 second soundbite lifted from it to promote a false narrative.

And the answer is yes, there were very fine people on both sides.

Very fine white supremist racists?

Hhhmmmm?

 

[Bucktee]

Very fine white supremist racists?

Hhhmmmm?

Clearly you still haven't watched the clip.

You've been programmed since 2016 and need a hard reset.

You sound like one of the clownish reporters present at the news conference.

Trump: "I'm not talking about the Neo-Nazis or the White Nationalists because they should be condemned totally. I'm talking about people other than the Nazis or Nationalists who were treated badly by the press."

Reporter: "I'm sorry sir, I couldn't understand you. You said that the Neo-Nazis and White Nationalists were being treated unfairly by the press."

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

their moral policing was just as ineffectual on me as yours will be.

You don't say!

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

What relevance would that have with the subject at hand?

It's been years, perhaps you should listen to the exchange where you pulled that line from instead of the 2 second soundbite lifted from it to promote a false narrative.

And the answer is yes, there were very fine people on both sides.

I saw the video in its entirety.
He said "there were very fine people on both sides".
I agree there were bad people on both sides.
But there no good people on the right.
They were neo Nazis (who organized the rally) or people who chose to march with them!
Why does this escape you?

 

[Bucktee]

I saw the video in its entirety.
He said "there were very fine people on both sides".
I agree there were bad people on both sides.
But there no good people on the right.
They were neo Nazis (who organized the rally) or people who chose to march with them!
Why does this escape you?

Protesting the removal of a statue doesn't make you a Nazi.

Organizers had a permit to protest peacefully. Their protest was disrupted by violent fascists.

You either want rule of law and freedom of speech, or you don't.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Protesting the removal of a statue doesn't make you a Nazi.

Chanting Jews will not replace us does.
The organizers were nazis.

 

[shack]

Case & point: Someone else says something and it's brushed aside (or "stepped aside as in Biden's case) because the mere thought of one of his opponents saying something derogatory (or stupid) is completely impossible right?

No. It's obviously not impossible.

However, I think that it's hypocritical to criticize one example of Biden a gaffe (and he's not even running) being glossed over as "he really meant to say" yet never criticize the exact same type of defence for the dozens of ridiculous things trump has said. In this case it's a matter of quantity over quality since the quality is equal on both sides.

 

[shack]

Funny...I thought it was enough that people would jump on Trump for what he says...now they're blaming him for what a comedian says.

In this case, absolutely. The trump team was in complete control of everything that would be said. They knew the comic was going to make that joke. It's undeniable that the trump team, who arranges things on his behalf including his image, shares the bulk of the blame. trump is their boss. He directly hired some of those people. trump shares the blame. As the leader, the buck stops with him.

 

[shack]

I don’t want to be persnickety but you’re actually wrong here RIP. It’s a common error to believe using ‘I’ over ‘me’ is universally correct, so no judgement on my end. Look it up!

When the first person is the subject in a sentence, "I" is universally correct. Example: I like him. He likes me. In the first, the first person is the subject. That's why it is "I". In the latter, the first person is the object, hence "me".

In a sentence:

• The subject is the thing that performs the action of a verb.
• The object is the person, thing, or place that is impacted by, or involved in, the action12345.

Alternatively, you can dismiss what I say because I’m purportedly some shit-for-brains human who thinks Trump is a reasonable person, on the assumption I’ve got no education (lol).

I had no such intention. Your post was non-accusatory or an attack. I treat posters with respect when they post respectfully, as you did.

Btw, just because a person misspells something doesn’t necessarily make what they say untrue or unworthy of consideration. Anyone who cannot see why this is true requires an education. I say this as a person who does not misspell things.

He has a history of mangling the English language. It's not a one-off.

 

[kittykellykat]

When the first person is the subject in a sentence, "I" is universally correct. Example: I like him. He likes me. In the first, the first person is the subject. That's why it is "I". In the latter, the first person is the object, hence "me".

In a sentence:

• The subject is the thing that performs the action of a verb.
• The object is the person, thing, or place that is impacted by, or involved in, the action12345.

I had no such intention. Your post was non-accusatory or an attack. I treat posters with respect when they post respectfully, as you did.

He has a history of mangling the English language. It's not a one-off.

Everyone but shack please scroll past this post. Lol.

90% of people do not write as meticulously as I do. If I were to get angered or critical about it every time I encountered such people, I would be the most insufferable person on the planet. I would never learn anything from anyone. That would be an impoverished life.

Sorry to derail the thread with this everyone, but I just got so itchy to say this:

Re. the grammar lesson above, it’s based on somewhat archaic English rules about not using ‘me’ as a subject. It’s true that two subjects are being compared. The problem is if you used these rules by the book, you’d be a very bad or at the very least, eccentric writer.

If you wanted to use this rule in a non-archaic and complete way, you’d say “He is smarter than I am.” Just as we don’t exclaim “It is I!” every time someone asks“who dis?” when you call them, you wouldn’t (well, shouldn’t) say it the OG way.

Using ‘me’ isn’t wrong, even if seen as an object in this case. It’s not “doing” anything in the sentence “He is smarter than me,” so to speak. Think of it as being “acted upon” by the comparison being made. That is why it doesn’t sound funny in contemporary English to say this at all. It’s a bit more casual, to be sure, but I would not call that butchering the English language in any way whatsoever. It is fully appropriate in most contexts except very formal writing.

Proper English (TM) has many implicit rules of usage, and most linguists will say these count for correctness and fluency too. That’s why non-native speakers always sound very formal and stiff. English is a strange mutty language wrt rules in particular.

Anyway I didn’t mean to get autistic about it, but yeah. He definitely wasn’t wrong.

Hope that makes sense!

 

[Skoob]

No. It's obviously not impossible.

However, I think that it's hypocritical to criticize one example of Biden a gaffe (and he's not even running) being glossed over as "he really meant to say" yet never criticize the exact same type of defence for the dozens of ridiculous things trump has said. In this case it's a matter of quantity over quality since the quality is equal on both sides.

Trump is not a silver-tongued career politician.
He uses metaphors, humour and exaggeration to make his points. It's his style. Some interpret that in different ways. Supporters know what he means. Non-supporters only look at the words and then lose their shit.
We should judge him on his policies in office not hang on every word he says.

For example, what specific Trump policies did you support vs not support while he was in office?

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

He uses metaphors, humour and exaggeration to make his points. It's his style. Some interpret that in different ways.

Well, if that wasn't a glib understatement and untruth lol.
Trump users abuse, lies, vitriol, hate and for sure exaggeration to make his points.
He leaves no reason for interpretation.
For example: "They are eating the dogs! They are eating the cats! They are eating the pets!", needs no interpretation.
There are no metaphors in that quote.
There is no humour.
There are however lies and hate.

 

[Skoob]

Well, if that wasn't a glib understatement and untruth lol.
Trump users abuse, lies, vitriol, hate and for sure exaggeration to make his points.
He leaves no reason for interpretation.
For example: "They are eating the dogs! They are eating the cats! They are eating the pets!", needs no interpretation.
There are no metaphors in that quote.
There is no humour.
There are however lies and hate.

Right no metaphors because he was referencing a claim made by a constituent:



Where do the claims come from?

They seemingly originated from a local resident who complained about Haitian immigrants at a Springfield city commission meeting on 27 August.

The man, who said he was a social media influencer, urged the government to "do something", making unsubstantiated claims about supposed crimes they were committing.

He said they were capturing ducks in a local park, slaughtering them and eating them.

Facebook posts on local crime-watch groups started making similar claims, with one supposed resident whose post went viral saying their "daughter's friend" had seen Haitians eating her cat and that local authorities had said they were doing the same with ducks and geese.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Right no metaphors because he was referencing a claim made by a constituent:

He made a statement.
He was not referencing a claim.
He made a statement and when pressed said he saw it on TV.
Even if he was referencing a claim it would fall under the category of lies and hate.
And then there is a thing called common sense.
A person of average intelligence or a person who has some goodness in them would have ignored such claims and not repeated them.

 

[Skoob]

He made a statement.
He was not referencing a claim.
He made a statement and when pressed said he saw it on TV.
Even if he was referencing a claim it would fall under the category of lies and hate.

You think he just made that up without ever hearing about it?
That's what the media implied.

At least he referenced an actual claim made by a constituent.
How do explain Biden saying he was at ground zero the next day but wasn't?
Or Walz being in Tiananmen Square during the riots but he wasn't?

Those are pure lies that have deceptive intentions behind them.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

You think he just made that up without ever hearing about it?
That's what the media implied.

I said that even if it is true that he was just referenced a claim, a person of average intelligence or one with some goodness in him, wouldn't have.

 

[Skoob]

I said that even if it is true that he was just referenced a claim, a person of average intelligence or one with some goodness in him, wouldn't have.

Nice pivot.
You implied he was lying. Now you pivot to "he shouldn't have said that even if it were true". That's funny.

It underscores the bigger issue that the US is facing with illegal immigrants and that's why he said that. Point is he wasn't lying and just making that up as the media portrayed.

The US has a serious problem with immigration. Canada does as well but not as bad as the US.

I think most people are done with the pleasantries of trying to paint a rosier picture than reality.

Trump is trying to protect people. That's the goodness you overlook.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Nice pivot.
You implied he was lying. Now you pivot to "he shouldn't have said that even if it were true". That's funny.

I did not imply he was lying.
I said he was.
Because he was lying.
He made a statement and doubled down on it as fact.
When pressed he said I heard it on TV.
If he had said "I heard on TV that these Haitians were eating pets", that would be repeating someone else's lie.
But he said "They are eating the dogs! They are eating the cats! They are eating the pets!".
That is a lie.
I said that even the example that I gave (which did not happen) is something, a person of average intelligence and someone with an ounce of good in them, wouldn't resort to.