The President of the US has been impeached

[fcgamer | 4,729]

21 hours ago, Estil said:

Wow, there's actually a pro-Trump person here?  I'm impressed. 

I live in Taiwan. Trump has definitely helped Taiwan and it's relationship with the USA more than any other USA president has, since 1979 or whatever the date was.

Yeah, Trump isn't presidential in the way he acts. Yeah, he's an ass. Sure, he's corrupt. But what about the rest of the lot? They're just as corrupt, and also a bunch of wankers too. At least Trump is doing things.

[Estil | 1,265]

 

3 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

No thanks. There's plenty of people out there who wanted to go to a better university, or for more schooling, who didn't due to not being able to afford it. Those who were in that position and went ahead with it anyways should have made a wiser decision at the time. If we start forgiving student debt, we are just slapping those in the face who made sacrifices and wiser choices, and rewarding those who didn't.

I can see where you're coming from, to a point...but I honestly do find the idea of some (key word) sort of student loan forgiveness program appealing.  Now to what extent it should and/or can be done, well that's a whole 'nother story.  As I mentioned earlier I feel very fortunate to have gone to my state's flagship university without too much student loan debt but I know not everyone (especially in the old days) was nearly as lucky.

[Estil | 1,265]

2 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

I live in Taiwan. Trump has definitely helped Taiwan and it's relationship with the USA more than any other USA president has, since 1979 or whatever the date was.

Yeah, Trump isn't presidential in the way he acts. Yeah, he's an ass. Sure, he's corrupt. But what about the rest of the lot? They're just as corrupt, and also a bunch of wankers too. At least Trump is doing things.

I just hope for your sake it never has to come to any kind of military help.  I don't understand why mainland China can't just let you guys be.

At least Trump is a fighter...I'll take that over how McCain in 2008 sometimes came off like a weak muzzled dog any day.

[fcgamer | 4,729]

I remember back when the trade war with China first started happening, this real dinky town about twenty minutes from @OptOut started receiving tons of orders for socks , hahaha.

 

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

CoffeewithMrSaturn already said it, but I just have to reiterate that it is just so disheartening to see people in this thread say "enjoy the ride" and "laugh at it" when so many bad things are happening to so many people as a result of this president. But I guess if it's out of sight, it's out of mind, right? 

As for the Bush Vs Trump argument, Bush is still worse. Thousands of Americans killed to make his oil buddies rich is too atrocious. I still have hope that Trump's influence and long term effects can be reversed. But what W did is already done unfortunately. 

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

23 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

I live in Taiwan. Trump has definitely helped Taiwan and it's relationship with the USA more than any other USA president has, since 1979 or whatever the date was.

Yeah, Trump isn't presidential in the way he acts. Yeah, he's an ass. Sure, he's corrupt. But what about the rest of the lot? They're just as corrupt, and also a bunch of wankers too. At least Trump is doing things.

I understand your take here. His actions and policies have personally benefited you. It makes sense to enjoy that. 

Other people have not benefited from his actions and policies. As a matter of fact other people on the planet have been greatly hurt by them. 

So my question is, how do you weigh it? Do you not care about those other people? Or do you care, but not as much as you care about yourself and your own best interests?

I'm not trying to be snarky. It just seems like a really selfish take on things and I'm honestly interested in your opinion on it.

[fcgamer | 4,729]

1 minute ago, CodysGameRoom said:

I understand your take here. His actions and policies have personally benefited you. It makes sense to enjoy that. 

Other people have not benefited from his actions and policies. As a matter of fact other people on the planet have been greatly hurt by them. 

So my question is, how do you weigh it? Do you not care about those other people? Or do you care, but not as much as you care about yourself and your own best interests?

I'm not trying to be snarky. It just seems like a really selfish take on things and I'm honestly interested in your opinion on it.

You ask many questions, but I think you should self-reflect and ask yourself these very same questions, and then post your answers.

Take a look at the coronavirus going on right now. Taiwan is excluded from WHO, how does that affect the Taiwanese people? Already, Taiwanese cannot fly to Italy or Philippines due to this. Some Taiwanese were bullied in Russia because of the virus. Yet for all intents and purposes, Taiwan is not the same as mainland China, and while China has hundreds or thousands of virus cases and deaths, Taiwan has had maybe 17 cases thus far.

What does this have to do with Trump? Simple. His stances on Taiwan have been helping the island nation as a whole, not just me personally. The situation with China is a large one, and although its not at your doorstep yet, it could easily spiral out of control in a negative way. Trust me, Trump's stance on this I'd also helping you and every other American, whether you know it or not 

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

4 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

You ask many questions, but I think you should self-reflect and ask yourself these very same questions, and then post your answers.

Take a look at the coronavirus going on right now. Taiwan is excluded from WHO, how does that affect the Taiwanese people? Already, Taiwanese cannot fly to Italy or Philippines due to this. Some Taiwanese were bullied in Russia because of the virus. Yet for all intents and purposes, Taiwan is not the same as mainland China, and while China has hundreds or thousands of virus cases and deaths, Taiwan has had maybe 17 cases thus far.

What does this have to do with Trump? Simple. His stances on Taiwan have been helping the island nation as a whole, not just me personally. The situation with China is a large one, and although its not at your doorstep yet, it could easily spiral out of control in a negative way. Trust me, Trump's stance on this I'd also helping you and every other American, whether you know it or not 

You are cherry picking one instance and one example. That's nice but you have to look at the picture as a whole. And Trump is not helping every other American as a whole. And he's greatly hurting people from other nations as well. How is it noble to "help" one nation but hurt another? That's not a good leader. 

You wanted me to ask myself my own questions. I'm not sure the point you are trying to make so I'll do it.

15 minutes ago, CodysGameRoom said:

So my question is, how do you weigh it? Do you not care about those other people? Or do you care, but not as much as you care about yourself and your own best interests?

I greatly care about other people. I have compassion for others. I try to put my own best interests aside and think holistically about society in my daily life and when choosing my ideals, and especially when it comes time to vote. So, there's my answers. I'm still not sure what you were getting at. 

[fcgamer | 4,729]

15 minutes ago, CodysGameRoom said:

You are cherry picking one instance and one example. That's nice but you have to look at the picture as a whole. And Trump is not helping every other American as a whole. And he's greatly hurting people from other nations as well. How is it noble to "help" one nation but hurt another? That's not a good leader. 

You wanted me to ask myself my own questions. I'm not sure the point you are trying to make so I'll do it.

I greatly care about other people. I have compassion for others. I try to put my own best interests aside and think holistically about society in my daily life and when choosing my ideals, and especially when it comes time to vote. So, there's my answers. I'm still not sure what you were getting at. 

Hahaha, need to look at the overall picture bro. For the record, I greatly care about other people. I have compassion for others. I try to put my own best interests aside and think holistically about society in my daily life and when choosing my ideals, and especially when it comes time to vote.

I hope you can do so as well, and look at the big picture when you vote.

[Tabonga | 2,324]

3 hours ago, arch_8ngel said:

Are you going to use that same line of reasoning to say that what we did to Japanese Americans during ww2 were not "concentration camps"?

 

The Nazis had death camps.  Concentration camp is a much more broadly applicable term.

If by "line of reasonng" you mean the fact that the Nazi implemention of their camp system forever changed  whatever meaning  "concentration camp" had  before WWII (the term was first used in Cuba in 1897 and then by the British in the Second Boer War IIRC) then yes.  (Just as the Nazis forever changed the swastika (in a reverse form) from a Eurasian good luck symbol to a symbol for hate.)

The Nazis had an extremely elaborate and large system of camps.  For our purposes there were basically 4 types.

The extermination camps  (or death camps if you prefer) - Birkenau was the largest of these (it was adjacent to Auschwitz (and was actually added after the establishment of Auschwitz) - it is sometimes called Auschwitz II-Birkenau or just Auschwitz II).  The next three largest were Sobibor, Treblinka, and Belzec which were established as part of Einsatz Reinhardt.(Aside from a small prisoner workforce everyone sent here went immediately to the gas chambers).

There were a few that were both - (you could put Auschwitz and Birkenau in this category if you wish - adminstratively the  2 were separate).  The other large one in this group was Majdenek.

The "regular" (and I use that term very hesitantly ) concentration camps such as the ones I mentioned earlier.  Their primary purpose (which eventually evolved into one of labor exploitation) was not extermination but the death rates were very high due to deliberate neglect, brutal mistreatment and disease.

Work camps (which were often satellites of the concentration camps - conditions could be slighty (very slightly) better or much worse than in the camps themselves).  There was a small group of US soldiers captured during the Battle of the Bulge that wound up in a work camp rather than a POW camp - with horrific results. 

------------------------------------------------------

The Japanese internment camps  in the US held approximately 110,000 - 120,000 people and over the course of three years  had deaths totaling 1862* from diseases - which represents about a 1.5% death rate.   Cite me a Nazi camp from the four groups of any sort that comes close to that death rate. The use (or misuse IMHO) of  "concentration camp" in regards to these comes well after the war (IInRC).  (The Japanese also had civilian interment camps - the conditions there were much harsher - a good work on this is the book "Three Came Home" by Agnes Newton Keith (who was interned in one of them) - there was also a very powerful movie of the same name made in 1950.) 

*There was one Japanese man who was shot by a guard - not sure if that death is part of the 1862 or not.)

 

Edited February 10, 2020 by Wandering Tellurian

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

Have it your way man. I asked a serious question but no worries about trying to legitimately answer it. No one says you have to. I was just curious.

4 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

I hope you can do so as well, and look at the big picture when you vote.

I certainly will. I'll be voting against hate.

[fcgamer | 4,729]

2 minutes ago, CodysGameRoom said:

Have it your way man. I asked a serious question but no worries about trying to legitimately answer it. No one says you have to. I was just curious.

I certainly will. I'll be voting against hate.

Voting against hate? Come on bro, never once did you guys give Trump a chance, spewing all sorts of hate towards him since he became president. I guess that somehow doesn't count though?

You told me earlier I should look at the big picture and not just think of myself and my own benefits, or those of one nation. Let's just take a brief look at the situation.

Trump has brought much closer ties between Taiwan, a democracy, and the USA. Likewise his stance with mainland China has hurt it.

So what? Just look at Hong Kong. Better yet, look at Xingjiang. I personally cannot stand behind such actions, and much prefer to support the free country of Taiwan, over a power such as China that abuses its people via reeducation camps, organ harvesting, censorship, lack of freedom, etc. Stop looking at trendy "problems", and expand your view to look at real issues.

[CodysGameRoom | 2,008]

1 minute ago, fcgamer said:

Come on bro, never once did you guys give Trump a chance, spewing all sorts of hate towards him since he became president. I guess that somehow doesn't count though?

Why would you want to give a known racist/sexist "a chance"? The dude has proven a lack of respect for women/minorities/disabled/etc. This is not someone who deserves "a chance". This is someone who should not be tolerated.

3 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

I personally cannot stand behind such actions, and much prefer to support the free country of Taiwan, over a power such as China that abuses its people via reeducation camps, organ harvesting, censorship, lack of freedom, etc

I don't think a single person in this thread is supporting China or their actions. What is happening there is reprehensible. 

3 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

Stop looking at trendy "problems", and expand your view to look at real issues.

What is happening to people around the world as a result of trumps actions/policies/rhetoric are NOT trendy problems. These are real world issues. Just like yours. 

I challenge you to make a supporting argument for Trump without looking at things that directly affect you (Taiwan, relations with Taiwan/China, etc). You keep going back to that. Look outside of your specific situation.

I am honestly glad some of what he is doing is helping your country. That does not excuse the fact that other things he is doing is hurting others and hurting other people. Taking a good action does not excuse taking a negative one.

[PineappleLawnchair | 88]

23 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

Voting against hate? Come on bro, never once did you guys give Trump a chance, spewing all sorts of hate towards him since he became president. I guess that somehow doesn't count though?

Stop looking at trendy "problems", and expand your view to look at real issues.

Man, i just wouldn't even bother. You'd be better off telling your house to turn into a mansion.

 

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

2 hours ago, fcgamer said:

 

Yeah, Trump isn't presidential in the way he acts. Yeah, he's an ass. Sure, he's corrupt. But what about the rest of the lot? They're just as corrupt, and also a bunch of wankers too. At least Trump is doing things.

There isn't really anyone else in the entire US government that is in as clear of a position to be as corrupt as Trump and his family.

Everyone else at that level may well be just as much of an ass, in some sense, but nobody else at that level as the ability to directly enrich themselves and their family by taking trips at the taxpayer expense to properties that their family organization owns.

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

1 hour ago, Wandering Tellurian said:

If by "line of reasonng" you mean the fact that the Nazi implemention of their camp system forever changed  whatever meaning  "concentration camp" had  before WWII (the term was first used in Cuba in 1897 and then by the British in the Second Boer War IIRC) then yes.  (Just as the Nazis forever changed the swastika (in a reverse form) from a Eurasian good luck symbol to a symbol for hate.)

The Nazis had an extremely elaborate and large system of camps.  For our purposes there were basically 4 types.

The extermination camps  (or death camps if you prefer) - Birkenau was the largest of these (it was adjacent to Auschwitz (and was actually added after the establishment of Auschwitz) - it is sometimes called Auschwitz II-Birkenau or just Auschwitz II).  The next three largest were Sobibor, Treblinka, and Belzec which were established as part of Einsatz Reinhardt.(Aside from a small prisoner workforce everyone sent here went immediately to the gas chambers).

There were a few that were both - (you could put Auschwitz and Birkenau in this category if you wish - adminstratively the  2 were separate).  The other large one in this group was Majdenek.

The "regular" (and I use that term very hesitantly ) concentration camps such as the ones I mentioned earlier.  Their primary purpose (which eventually evolved into one of labor exploitation) was not extermination but the death rates were very high due to deliberate neglect, brutal mistreatment and disease.

Work camps (which were often satellites of the concentration camps - conditions could be slighty (very slightly) better or much worse than in the camps themselves).  There was a small group of US soldiers captured during the Battle of the Bulge that wound up in a work camp rather than a POW camp - with horrific results. 

------------------------------------------------------

The Japanese internment camps  in the US held approximately 110,000 - 120,000 people and over the course of three years  had deaths totaling 1862* from diseases - which represents about a 1.5% death rate.   Cite me a Nazi camp from the four groups of any sort that comes close to that death rate. The use (or misuse IMHO) of  "concentration camp" in regards to these comes well after the war (IInRC).  (The Japanese also had civilian interment camps - the conditions there were much harsher - a good work on this is the book "Three Came Home" by Agnes Newton Keith (who was interned in one of them) - there was also a very powerful movie of the same name made in 1950.) 

*There was one Japanese man who was shot by a guard - not sure if that death is part of the 1862 or not.)

 

If you are trying to downplay the badness of what the USA did to its own citizens with those camps, just because not a lot of them died while imprisoned there, I'm not sure this is a conversation worth having.

While it certainly doesn't meet the Nazi-centric use of the term, it definitely meets the standard definition of the term, to where "internment camp" is just a politically more palatable term for "concentration camp" to try and separate it from that Nazi-centric usage.

 

Just because some other governments did something even worse, does not make what happened here less wrong, and it doesn't change the actual definition of a term.

[Tabonga | 2,324]

2 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

If you are trying to downplay the badness of what the USA did to its own citizens with those camps, just because not a lot of them died while imprisoned there, I'm not sure this is a conversation worth having.

While it certainly doesn't meet the Nazi-centric use of the term, it definitely meets the standard definition of the term, to where "internment camp" is just a politically more palatable term for "concentration camp" to try and separate it from that Nazi-centric usage.

 

Just because some other governments did something even worse, does not make what happened here less wrong, and it doesn't change the actual definition of a term.

I am not downplaying the treatment that was afforded to Japanese Americans (and it is often overlooked for some reason that small groups of German and Italian Americans were also incarcerated (not in the same camps obviously) during the war).  You are (IMHO) overplaying that (unjust) treatment by treating it on any level of comparison to the German examples - which did  change the understanding of the term whether you care to admit it or not* (unless the Holocaust deniers are succeeding beyond their wildest dreams).  The two are on levels so far removed as to be in totally separate categories.   The US goal was never to exteminate ) either directly or by ill treatment - if either had been the goal far more would have died.

Put it this way - would you rather have been in a camp (of any sort) in Nazi Germany or in a camp (of any sort) in the US during the war?   It is a pretty simple choice as far I can tell.  (Another fun fact that is somehow often downplayed is that that was done under a Democratic administration (which was headed up by one of the 4 greatest presidents (IMHO) in the US's history).)

(And I suspect that the use of concentration camp is a deliberate misuse of the term to conjure up images of the Nazi camps  (despite your  denial that those images exist.)  Somewhat effective propaganda for the ill informed, but excreable misinterpretation of history.

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

22 minutes ago, Wandering Tellurian said:

I am not downplaying the treatment that was afforded to Japanese Americans (and it is often overlooked for some reason that small groups of German and Italian Americans were also incarcerated (not in the same camps obviously) during the war).  You are (IMHO) overplaying that (unjust) treatment by treating it on any level of comparison to the German examples - which did  change the understanding of the term whether you care to admit it or not* (unless the Holocaust deniers are succeeding beyond their wildest dreams).  The two are on levels so far removed as to be in totally separate categories.   The US goal was never to exteminate ) either directly or by ill treatment - if either had been the goal far more would have died.

Put it this way - would you rather have been in a camp (of any sort) in Nazi Germany or in a camp (of any sort) in the US during the war?   It is a pretty simple choice as far I can tell.  (Another fun fact that is somehow often downplayed is that that was done under a Democratic administration (which was headed up by one of the 4 greatest presidents (IMHO) in the US's history).)

(And I suspect that the use of concentration camp is a deliberate misuse of the term to conjure up images of the Nazi camps  (despite your  denial that those images exist.)  Somewhat effective propaganda for the ill informed, but excreable misinterpretation of history.

The Nazis obviously had much more extreme types of concentration camp, ranging from work camps to extermination camps.

The USA put the Japanese (and to a much lesser extent, other groups) in a much less severe type of concentration camp that they chose to call "internment camps" to make them sound like they were "not that bad".

The core term, though, is a fairly broad term for camps where political, ethnic, or other categorized prisoners are placed, generally without any real legal justification for it.

 

It is kind of a disturbing turn that you want to equate this with holocaust denial.

There is a fairly clear distinction in usage and severity between "Nazi concentration camps" and concentration camps, in the generic.

But if you can't ever use the term "concentration camp" again, due to that taint, then you are really just cooking up a new word that essentially means exactly the same thing as the standard definition, because that is what the Japanese "Internment" camps were, and it is, essentially, what is/was going on with family separations at the border. (and "internment camp" isn't quite that term, either, as it is intentionally meant to soften/mask the nature of the terminology where specific groups are being concentrated together)

Edited February 10, 2020 by arch_8ngel

[Tabonga | 2,324]

59 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

The Nazis obviously had much more extreme types of concentration camp, ranging from work camps to extermination camps.

The USA put the Japanese (and to a much lesser extent, other groups) in a much less severe type of concentration camp that they chose to call "internment camps" to make them sound like they were "not that bad".

The core term, though, is a fairly broad term for camps where political, ethnic, or other categorized prisoners are placed, generally without any real legal justification for it.

 

It is kind of a disturbing turn that you want to equate this with holocaust denial.

There is a fairly clear distinction in usage and severity between "Nazi concentration camps" and concentration camps, in the generic.

But if you can't ever use the term "concentration camp" again, due to that taint, then you are really just cooking up a ne thew word that essentially means exactly the same thing as the standard definition, because that is what the Japanese "Internment" camps were, and it is, essentially, what is/was going on with family separations at the border. (and "internment camp" isn't quite that term, either, as it is intentionally meant to soften/mask the nature of the terminology where specific groups are being concentrated together)I s

I am not equating this with holocaust denial - just pointing out the irony in wanting to disassociate the images of concentration camps in the popular mind with the truth - something the deniars certainly want to do. (As an aside I find it more than disturbing that people want to conflate what we are talking about with the Nazi camps. ) 

And the Nazi camps and the US ones weren't just a difference in extremes -they were for any realistic assessment on different planes of existence,

Again - you can't use the term swastika without conjuring references to the Nazis even though the swastika preceded the Nazis in a totally different usage dating back to ancient times.  Same is true with the term concentration camp. The term is misused in regards to the camps (or whatever you want to call them) on the border (or places such as Camp Amache)  simply because it does cast  inaccurate perjorative images.   

One can use the term concentration camp in its proper historical perspective or not ( I am pretty sure this is covered by that pesking freedom  of speech concept that some want to do away with) - but no one should be shocked when they get called on misusing it.  

While not true for the Japanese, I am pretty sure that the people in the camps on the border can be released simply by agreeing to go home.  In how many concentration camps in Cuba, South Africa (Boer Wars)  or Nazi Germany could the prisoners do that?

 

    

 

Edited February 10, 2020 by Wandering Tellurian

[Californication | 1,477]

I used the term correctly, Tellurian. I am sorry you get triggered by it. Maybe you shouldn't defend someone who creates concentration camps.

[Tulpa | 3,516]

The whole concentration camp definition reminds me of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" phrase used so they didn't have to say they tortured people.

It's just another way to convince themselves that their heinous behavior isn't evil. 

[Tabonga | 2,324]

5 minutes ago, Californication said:

I used the term correctly, Tellurian. I am sorry you get triggered by it. Maybe you shouldn't defend someone who creates concentration camps.

No - you didn't - (IMHO of course - same as yours)  - but history is on my side (again IMHO of course)

But I will repeat my earlier questions to you since you seem to have missed them:

 

Any photographs of crematoria on the border?  Satellite industries/camps devoted to utilzing slave labor?  

(Even AOC's infamous fake photo showed no such thing.)

.==============================================================

Who have I defended in this thread that has created concentrarion camps?   Please provide a quote as I somehow missed that - unless dementia has set in.  

[Tabonga | 2,324]

2 hours ago, arch_8ngel said:

 

The core term, though, is a fairly broad term for camps where political, ethnic, or other categorized prisoners are placed, generally without any real legal justification for it.

There is a fairly clear distinction in usage and severity between "Nazi concentration camps" and concentration camps, in the generic.

Oops - looks like someone truncated/cherry picked  the defintion here:

*This is one of several definitions I pulled from the web - most are virtually the same - especially the latter part:

1. a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor or to await mass execution. The term is most strongly associated with the several hundred camps established by the Nazis in Germany and occupied Europe in 1933–45, among the most infamous being Dachau, Belsen, and Auschwitz.

    

   Just an oversight I am sure.

 

 

 

[Californication | 1,477]

37 minutes ago, Wandering Tellurian said:

Oops - looks like someone truncated/cherry picked  the defintion here:

*This is one of several definitions I pulled from the web - most are virtually the same - especially the latter part:

1. a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor or to await mass execution. The term is most strongly associated with the several hundred camps established by the Nazis in Germany and occupied Europe in 1933–45, among the most infamous being Dachau, Belsen, and Auschwitz.

    

   Just an oversight I am sure.

 

 

 

Thank you for proving my point, appreciate it.

[Tabonga | 2,324]

5 minutes ago, Californication said:

Thank you for proving my point, appreciate it.

What part eluded you - was it this?

............ The term is most strongly associated with the several hundred camps established by the Nazis in Germany and occupied Europe in 1933–45, among the most infamous being Dachau, Belsen, and Auschwitz.

 

And you are evading some questions - for your convenience I will repeat them:

 

Any photographs of crematoria on the border?  Satellite industries/camps devoted to utilzing slave labor?  

Who have I defended in this thread that has created concentrarion camps?   Please provide a quote as I somehow missed that - unless dementia has set in.  

 

•