The narratives about Trump thread.


All those jobs el pequino hefe said he saved at Carrier…

You know, Mao made promises, too.


You think a persons sexuality should determine their politics? Their skin color, their sex or their religion?

Please do use your example, its almost as toxic, illuminating and destructive to the Democrats as describing black conservatives as uncle toms.

Joking aside, lets use a real example, like Alan Dershowitz. A life long Democrat who is now being attacked for being pro Israel (in no small part due to the left embracing Islam), who is a law Professor who thinks a special prosecutor looking for a crime rather than investigating one is wrong, who has a problem with and sees the lack of free speech on campuses a problem and yes they are openly saying they are thinking of switching over to the Republicans.


Out of interest, does it not get tedious grouping people as “the left” and “the right”? I mean sure, it makes sweeping generalisations easier, but everyone doing this must surely realise how pointless it is in having any sort of meaningful debate.

Having written that, I realise meaningful debate is generally not what people are looking for.

If anyone could define them, beyond the level of “people I agree with because they’re hippies/nazis”, or “people I disagree with because they’re hippies/nazis”, there could maybe be a discussion about it.


You are right, in that people are not one thing or the other, it’s the issues that make them lean left or right.

Alan Dershowitz is a good example I think, because he has leaned left his entire life, what issues have changed that would make him consider leaning right, I think is interesting.


Embrace do Islam, nice wording. Wrong, but nice. Could it just be that people on the left have an intellectual curiosity that helps them understand the world around them in a capacity other than “act/react”? Or, have been exposed to Islam enough to understand that while what you see on TV is true, there is way more to it than that. I know where you were going with that, and I also remember your comment about sweeping generalizations. Contradiction much? Christianity is being used to defend Roy Moore’s possible relations with minors. It has also been used to defend anti abortion laws in relation to rape victims. Maybe you accept that someone high in the gov possibly committed treason. Maybe embracing of multiculturalism, minority rights, same sex marriage, transgender rights, hell human rights is wrong and we should all accept ethnic nationalism. Maybe the liberating of Europe is wrong, or at least a waste of lives, since all those ideologies are becoming mainstream now.

Ah, Mr Dershowitz. One of OJ’s dream team. Nice to use an example of a man who at least twice, helped murderers go free. One of them double! A shining example you have chosen. I doubt chief little hands would OK a special investigation. The Fox and Henhouse analogy could be applied there.

I love how college campuses have become the foci of the FoS debate. As if that is the last refuge. The rights using the campus argument just reinforces the lefts claims that the rightists believe FoS means ANY speech ANY where and by ANY means of the choosing of the speaker. Not allowing certain speakers and certain speech in certain places is not censorship, or a violation of FoS, unless you define it as absolute. Read my discussion points above.

Your a mod. Would Milo, eat al be allowed to conduct one of his rather inflammatory speeches free and uncensored on Forumosa, keeping within the guidelines of the site?


Muslim threat to Israel overcomes previous reservations about torture etc., then the enemy of my enemy becomes my friend.
Same as Assange and Greenwald have become opposed to mainstream Democrats and willing to defend the Putin/Trump connection, due to their belief that all bad must emanate from mainstream America. To be opposed to that is to be on the side of good, no matter how anti-gay, misogynist or anti-minority that side is.


What do you think the Putin/Trump connection is? Last I heard they were going after Wilber Ross for investing in a company that does business with another company that used to have Putins son in law as CEO.


Always trying to discredit the source, at least MikeN1 makes an attempt to explain why.

I could see if it were a back and forth, moderating against people calling him names might be warranted.

Perhaps give an example or two of something he has said in his inflammatory speeches that would need censoring on here?


The U.S. Supreme Court is right on the money when it comes to freedom of speech standards. It’s the left that is out of step with judicial standards.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge W. Keith Watkins in Montgomery, Ala., Tuesday barred Auburn (University) from blocking (Richard) Spencer, stating there was no evidence that he advocates violence.
“Discrimination on the basis of message content cannot be tolerated under the First Amendment,” he wrote in the ruling.


Whereas the original meaning was… what, again?

Everybody’s an absolutist about something. Observe what he is or isn’t absolutist about to discern his true motives.

Me, I’m no absolutist about avoiding giving offense to certain designated victim groups. I’m not one of those fanatics who say “hate speech” is always wrong so shut up you fascist. I’m not absolutist about who gay people should see as their friends or enemies, although I think Milo is wise not to embrace those who threaten to beat him up.

I’m no absolutist about The Donald, either. But that’s straying on topic.


To be fair, that is Alabama. The south has an interesting history regarding race. Its US history, unless the alt-facts crowd changes it.

So now they must be accommodated and given a platform? No one has the right to tell them “not in my house!”? That is kind of what that ruling says. The nazi-right has won.

With the [apparent] embrace of people on this forum, and in the US of nazi ideology and the rise of far-rightist movements in Europe, and the US. Tell my why liberating Europe from said ideologies 70 years ago was NOT a waste of US soldiers.


So are you saying Milo and Spencer make good points? You would agree with some things they say?

I guess that means you can go into a crowded theater and yell “FIRE!” even when there is no fire?

You have the right to speech, but am I required to give you a platform to do so? If I own a publishing company and you send me some screed about 45 being a deity and how Muslims should have to wear crescent patches, am I required to publish it? Would me refusing be a violation of your constitutional rights?


If you were at all familiar with U.S. Supreme Court rulings regarding freedom of speech you’d realize it’s a ruling that says the First Amendment has won.


It is interesting how this is a one-way street. I do not see the Liberty University, or any conservative university giving a platform to the Church of Satan.

If Milo and Spencer were really concerned about their freedoms, why not demand Howard University to give them a shot.


Why not use the whole quote.

Does that mean everyone must give everyone a platform to speak?

And if YOU had any knowledge of the Supreme Court of the United States, you would know that the Court HAS upheld limitations to the first amendment.

In this vein, ad companies were arguing that consumers being allowed to skip over their commercials was a violation of their freedom of speech. They also argued against bans on “cold calling” for the same reason. The Courts have said, “it is not the same thing.”


Did you just accuse people on this forum of embracing nazi ideology?


And I’m familiar with and agree with all those limitations, rather than the cartoonish viewpoints on freedom of speech you ascribe to conservatives. For example, that publicly funded state universities are held to a different standard than private universities regarding providing a platform to opposing points of view.


This kind of thinking, from someone who’s trying to elucidate freedom of speech? :roll:

I think a “national conversation” about the nature and purpose of educational institutions is needed. Should universities receive public funding? Should that funding be contingent on behaving like public institutions? Should citizens have to pay their way, despite public funding? If funding comes from multiple sources, how much say should each party have in how the funding is used? And so on.


The point is the censorious types shouldn’t be allowed to control all the platforms and publishing companies. Because they’ve been trying their damnedest to do just that, and they’ve come a long way.

The intolerant left controls the universities. Beaucoup taxpayer money goes to those places. Unacceptable, and it was a mistake to let it go on so long. Also, Hollywood gets huge tax breaks and still peddles ChiCom propaganda.

We need to stand up and say: censorship? Not with my tax dollars you don’t!

No Pell grants or public scholarships for schools that won’t let conservatives speak. They can keep them off their own private property, but not property funded by tax dollars. That’s not private property. That’s public property. Bought and paid for by taxpayers. Never mind what is says on the deed. Cut the taxpayer money and then see how long their name stays on the title.

The sheer arrogance of thinking that something taxpayers paid for is your private property. We need to disabuse these assholes of that notion. Cut the ingrates off.

(And yes, CNN is all over the place in the airports. Fact. I’ve never seen any other channel in a US airport. Ever.)


Portions of the ruling that are available do not specifically mention the reason as Auburn being a “public institution”, which could spell trouble moving forward. (“have to provide a platform”) and the ruling also, I love this [said ironically] that the police are allowed to enforce a rule that bars protestors from wearing masks. The nazi is given free reign, but the protesters have their hands tied. Freedom? What freedom?