Philosophy Now Forum

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Nov 08, 2025 4:03 am

accelafine wrote: ↑Sat Nov 08, 2025 12:39 am

seeds wrote: ↑Sat Nov 08, 2025 12:35 am

However, based on the simple fact that you support and defend Donald J. Trump, who clearly exhibits white nationalist and racist tendencies,...

Could you post a link to where he is 'exhibiting' this? You won't (of course) but I would just like it to be out there that you didn't back up this claim with any evidence.

Trump is usually very careful not to say anything overtly racist, and if he does, he just either denies saying it, or tries to convince you that he didn't mean what it sounded like, or finds some other way of lying and weaseling his way out of the problem.

If you are unfortunate (or dumb) enough to have listened to hundreds (if not thousands) of his comments over the years, his racism becomes apparent through the cumulative effect of constantly hearing him berate Mexicans and other brown skinned people, or through an accumulation of varied ditties such as the following taken from Wikipedia...

Wiki wrote: n his 1991 book Trumped! John O'Donnell quoted Trump as allegedly saying:

• I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys wearing yarmulkes.... Those are the only kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else... Besides that, I've got to tell you something else. I think that the guy's lazy. And it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks.

(Here is a link to the Wiki page that that quote was taken from -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_vi ... f%20Donald)

Again, my claim of him having racist tendencies is derived from a cumulative effect of years of witnessing him involved in sometimes subtle and not so subtle racist-ish comments and actions that have imbued him with a racist "air" or "vibe," so to speak, that exudes from his very being like some kind of disgusting body odor.

I mean, what do you expect coming from a person that you yourself have deemed to be an "ignoramus"? - (of which I whole-heartedly agree with you in that assessment.)
_______

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 6:06 pm I can't wait until the soldiers that have been ordered to protect these politicians disobey their orders...

-Imp

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 7:39 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 6:06 pm I can't wait until the soldiers that have been ordered to protect these politicians disobey their orders...

-Imp

What part of ILLEGAL orders do you not understand? Soldiers are supposed to obey LEGAL orders and disobey ILLEGAL orders. There can, of course, be differences of opinion whether an order legal or not << Thus when MacArther was ordered by Hoover to use troops to disperse the "Bonus Marchers" his aide Eisenhower urged him to disobey (*). Subsequent history of their careers interesting. The very politically ambitious MacArthur never became president but the not politically ambitious Eisenhower got "drafted" for the role. Karma?

* That using troops in a police action against peaceful protesters a violation of Posse Comitatus. The counter argument, of course, well peaceful now but might not remain so (they were, after all, WWI veterans so a POTENTIAL threat if it came to fighting)

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 11:12 pm
so soldiers will have to pass the bar as part of basic now?

I see dead leftists

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 3:43 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 11:12 pm
so soldiers will have to pass the bar as part of basic now?

I see dead leftists

That's CIVIL criminal and civil law. Do you know what the acronyms JAG and UCMJ stand for? Enlisted rank soldiers might not get trained (not part of basic) but it is officers who issue orders and they have at least some training. Remember, an officer might be called up to take part in an UCMJ proceeding.

Or are you upholding the validity of the "Nuremberg Defense" ("I was just following orders"). Or to show not being one sided, remember My Lai and the resulting trial?

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 3:59 pm I like that part of the video where those six credentialed retirees speaking to the grunts, said, "We will have your back."

That's laughable.

It's a PSYOP's, undoubtedly put together by the CIA analyst retiree, to imply that Trump's direction for the military is illegal.

Textbook implicit propaganda. Folks are too sophisticated these days for explicit propaganda. Well, lots of folks.

It's the Left, once again f***ing around with the heads of young people, with unstated consequences.

Trannies, put your dresses back on. You took them off under illegal orders.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 5:19 pm
CIVIL criminal law? tell me about that...

-Imp

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 5:54 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 5:19 pm
CIVIL criminal law? tell me about that...

-Imp

As opposed to MILITARY criminal law. They are not the same.

And stop being silly. We are NOT talking about the the Lt ordering "take that hill" and the squad arguing they want a democratic discussion. I gave a concrete example, didn't I, My Lai. So we are talking about an order "attack that village and kill every man, woman, child, and every animal there". with the initial order being different (from the colonel being something like ""go in there aggressively, close with the enemy and wipe them out for good"). It wasn't the grunts who were put on trial but the officers (particularly Lt Calley.) for morphing the orders (and the result). If you are too young to remember, look it up.

And was reference to the "Nuremberg Defense" beyond your understanding?

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 9:02 pm and the liberal democrats can whine and cry and scream that "evil Nazi fascist" Trump is a baby killer...

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 5:26 pm