Actually, I made no contact with the mods regarding you or anybody else.
Evidently, the mods must have contacted you. LOLOLOLOL
Nazi bund 'pro american' rally at madison square garderns 2.0
- Thread starter dirtydaveiii
- Start date
Evidently, the mods must have contacted you. LOLOLOLOL
I am not focussed on grammar. I am pointing out how someone who mangles the English language so regularly, is obviously poorly educated and as such, his points should not be taken with any gravitas.
I see. Okay, uh so…
Anyone under TPS is legally in the country and calling these migrants illegal is wrong, sure.
But they are “protected” in virtue of having a safer place to stay than Haiti. How much more compassion is required when giving people asylum this way? This isn’t enough?
It’s not part of the “protections” that all other people have to like them, or have unbiased feelings for them, or even any additional compassion for their plights. They just have to respect they are legally living there and interact with them with reasonable mutual respect.
Trump isn’t under any legal or moral obligation to ensure these things for the Haitians because TPS
. Nobody is under any obligation to defend their vulnerability, or any of the above things. Their move away from Haiti is the protection.I want to emphasize don’t even mean this just in a legal way. I mean it as a moral principle: nobody has to like anyone else or have a good opinion of them. Or compassion, or a protective impulse for them. It’s nice if you do. Sometimes it could be offensive to whoever you choose to pity. But you’re talking as if the President can make people change their privately held beliefs/feelings about something…?
W8 is it because you actually think Hitler’s charisma was what convinced everyone to hate Jews, and Trump is similar?
Do you worry that White Supremacists and Neonazis of Ohio are going to emerge from their quiet hiding on the grounds of protecting their Fascist and Aryan Cat & Dogs from being consumed by the Haitians, and start doing public lynchings in the streets?
Is this is a possible outcome of Trump’s careless comments about eating pets?
Wow
Damn
Do you think Dave Chapelle could be in danger in Ohio bc he is black, and should we hide him under our floor boards to ensure his safety like Anne Frank
What if Jussie Smollett was telling the truth the whole time
(lol im going to go bye)
Last edited:
I didn't read beyond this point as I got the gist of what you are trying to say.
But this is not about what you feel for Haitians.
You dont have to like Haitians.
You dont have to feel sorry for them.
But you can surely, not lie about them, or unfairly demonize them for something they did not do. Right?
We can agree that we shouldn't do that much whether or not there are consequences, right?
Why would you then defend someone who did?
Would you say he is smarter than me is or he is smarter than me am?
No. He is smarter than I (am). It is consistent. If the first person is the subject, then it is always "I". Trust me. I've never lied to you before, have I?
We agree on that, but that does not necessarily make him a better candidate.
His style is to lie every time he speaks.
trump supporters interpret his words to whitewash what he's actually saying.
His policies are disastrous.
I did not support separating families at the border.
I did not support giving tax breaks to the wealthy.
I did not support trying to repeal Obamacare.
I do not support his massive tariff policies.
I support the concept of reducing illegal immigration.
No, I would not say that. Why are you asking this question?
I never disagreed that the first subject is always ‘I’(or ‘she’ or ‘he’). Me never said that!
I did not say that ‘me’ ought to be followed by a verb like a subject or used as a subject. You seem to be on a different planet than me am?
I said the opposite… ‘Me’, being an object, is what makes it acceptable to use in modern English when comparing two persons.
I even gave you a heuristic to figure out why, and said to view the comparison (from the preposition, ‘than’) as the “acting upon” like a verb. It makes semantic sense for an object too, because there is one thing that is being more/less of some property than some another thing that isn’t acting. I can be clearer.
1. In these examples, the three is not “threeing” or doing anything, but being older is the “act upon” the object of three, and this is interchangeable with me.
“He is older than three.”
“He is older than me.”
[emphasis on objects, sounds perfectly normal]
2. Now compare to the more archaic fashion of having two subjects, that you are insisting is the only correct way — without usual verbs following the secondary subject:
“He is older than she.”
“He is older than I.”
[emphasis on subjects, note the oddness]
3. Now add the verbs:
“He is older than she is.”
“He is older than I am.”
[emphasis on verbs, now it’s normal again right? But still formal.]
4. Okay now switch them back to modern grammar with objects:
“He is older than her.”
“He is older than me.”
[emphasis on objects, now it’s normal again, right? Just casual.]
Get it?
Every one of these sentences is grammatically correct in English.
Would you argue they were all wrong except the ones you prefer in (2)? Hopefully not
bc I’ve written a text book entry here. Lol.I have no issue if you want to follow rules of English that will make you sound stiff, formal, and like you live in a different century. The double subject thing sounds like affectation, not education. It’s very inappropriate in many formal contexts.
we can let this go now, thx… it’s gay
Last edited:
He is older than she (is).
He is older than I (am)
He should have fact checked it but he didn't. Doesn't mean he lied. If he would have fact checked it beforehand and then said it that would be a lie.
You seem to have a problem with understanding this simple concept.
Again, you have no proof of what was known beforehand, you are just stuck on your biased narrative.
Considering the outcome of the election, doesn't look like anyone cared about that anyway.
You're going to have a long 4 years if you don't change your attitude and get off the Democrat bully train.
You call it "whataboutism"...I call it providing you with the same examples which your cognitive bias ignores when making claims and attacking others.
One might call that hypocrisy. Don't blame me for showing you.
Trump supporters look beyond typical politician nice-speak and would rather hear the truth than be fooled by nice words and fantasy statements.
Last I checked, it was Obama who had kids in cages.
You may want to review the article below in the NY Times about 100 Trump fact-checked accomplishments. Put your bias aside for a moment and look at the list.
Re tax breaks I draw your attention to #78-80
78. President Trump’s historic tax cut legislation included new Opportunity Zone Incentives to promote investment in low-income communities across the country.
79. 8,764 communities across the country have been designated as Opportunity Zones.
80. Opportunity Zones are expected to spur $100 billion in long-term private capital investment in economically distressed communities across the country.
Obamacare was a disaster. Everyone knows that. He wanted to make it better.
His tariff policies were less imposing that Biden. His proposed tariffs are to be used a temporary deterrents for things like getting China/Mexico to control drugs from entering the US,
Read this, it's an honest assessment of his accomplishments. I think you'll be surprised.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/11/opinion/fact-check-trump.html
I stated a fact that Trump lied.
You tried to justify it by saying "What about Tim Walz...".
That is whataboutism.
