President Trump

Good argument. Anyway, This came from me quoting a book from Ann Coulter and you saying she’s irrelevant because of a comment that she made that was pretty truthful that you disagreed with. I’m all for a cordial debate, I think @Deinen & you & many others that disagree with me are pretty damn smart people. Just because we disagree doesn’t mean we’re stupid or dumb. I may think your opinion is stupid but I don’t think y’all in general are stupid people nor do I think I’m stupid. I just want the facts on the line, prove me wrong on this. Show me the “facts”. The “facts” you believe.

 

Fair enough. As someone else pointed out, Africa isn’t a country. You might have heard of the “Middle East”? I believe a thing or two has been happening there recently. The people around there were probably the first ones to “make something” of the “country”.

What do you mean with “make something” out of it? If you mean stuff like “oh, make buildings and a society” then that’s wrong too, because places like Mapungubwe exist, which I believe was one of the first societies in SA.

 

As someone not living in USA, half of the news I hear calls him a spawn of satan, and the other praises the very ground he stands on.

So I guess just about average?

 

Donald is doing very well! Better than Abraham Lincoln! #MAGA

 

131 pages later and this is still going, sheesh.

Please remember to be respectful and concede or support an opposing point rather than simply stating opinions. Also be sure to read the rules for the debates section to try to retain a constructive environment for discussion. Thanks!

 

And here I thought it doesn't get much worse than flat earthers. Nope, a guy who thinks the Dutch people - out of everyone - were the first to "make something in Africa" (and who thinks that Africa is a country). You can't just make this stuff up.

Ever heard of Ancient Egypt? Pharaohs and pyramids? They 'kinda' did make something in Africa.

Sahelian kingdoms? Desert nomads who DID have a culture long before any colonists arrived there many, many decades and centuries afterwards.

Roman Empire... no? Nothing? Well, don't take my word for it, but they also did "make something in Africa" a long time ago. Might want to brush off the elementary school history books. Oh wait...

Today it's all lies, I forgot.

I wonder how are you even capable of debating something as complicated as one man's presidency if you can't get the most basic of facts straight. Instead, you take the word of your "3 independent relatives" for it.

EDIT: Just in case you decide to backtrack once again and go back to strictly speaking about South Africa; here's some night time reading for you:
Early history of South Africa - Wikipedia
If that's not enough, go buy yourself a carbon dating kit, fly to SA and probe some things. You might be surprised. But hey... that's science, probably too wild of a topic.

 

Don't let him get away with Changing the goal posts @Dockson @Refugeebaker . Originally he was saying that the Dutch were the first people to be in SA, he had numerous opportunities to clarify: only now is he changing the goal posts to it being about "who made something" in Africa first.

 

Okay, if you read his previous posts he clearly demonstrates the knowledge that Africa isn't a country. What you are making fun of is a typing error.

 

1. I am sure he can defend himself (as shown by the 130+ pages long thread)
2. Where exactly did he "demonstrate" that knowledge? Deinen brought SA up, Marlin kept talking about Africa in general, only mentioning it's a country once.
3. This is besides the point, stop nit picking at parts of a long post ignoring the rest.

I can't take a person seriously, who claims this:

And backs it up by this:

When he is arguing about a common knowledge fact taught in all parts of the world. When there are dozens of scientific papers about the topic open for the public. Etc.

Imagine me claiming the Moon was actually purple from the back side because my mom, cousin and a random guy on the street told me so. Even though there's more than enough evidence and ACTUAL science out there to prove me wrong.

 

wow this is sad

i hope this is a joke or are you actually that dumb to think that conservatives can't walk around without getting attacked this is sad

also before people start arguing with me posting statistics, yes more conservatives get attacked but that doesn't mean you can't leave your house lol

 

False: right wing terrorism is a way bigger meme than left wing terrorism


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...murders-in-terrorist-attacks-on-u-s-soil/amp/

 

Ah, that's just what I heard from other people in this thread lol.

 

I suppose the Dutch were the first in Africa as well then.

 

(on a phone, gotta quote the whole thing)
1. Yea, but I'm on this debate thread too.
2. He referred to the country of South Africa, therefore demonstrating "Africa" is not a country.
3. While there were Africans there first, large parts of south Africa were not at all, or very lightly populated. You can in fact colonize a region that doesn't have people in it.

Not defending his statement that Dutch were the first people there, but they were the first to SETTLE many areas.
Edit: Spelling

 

Why would the afrikaners have to murder people and burn their homes if they didn't care about the land the afrikaners were settled on? also source your claim with relevant historical authorities please.

 

I'm simply comparing the population to other parts of Africa (i.e. The Kongo or Abyssinia) to which it was relatively low.

 

First off, please cite sources with specific evidence. None of the rest of us want to spend 5-10 minutes verifying your arguments. I bolded some of the text that needs evidence.

1. Illegal immigrants
According to this deconstruction of the FAIR study (the study that estimated the cost of illegal immigrants to be $119 billion a year), "Merely using the actual numbers in a correct way reduces FAIR’s estimates fiscal cost of illegal immigrants from $116 billion to $3.3 to $15.6 billion" ( FAIR’s “Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration” Study Is Fatally Flawed ). This means that government spending on immigrants is much less impact than @Blue_Marlin 's original post supposed. If you're looking to cut costs, look at what costs more: illegal immigrants ($3.3-15.6 billion) or building a wall ($25 billion according to @Blue_Marlin, Border Wall Could Cost 3 Times Estimates, Senate Democrats’ Report Says says $21-70 billion). According to the yearly costs, a wall doesn't seem like a good idea and illegal immigrants don't appear to be doing much tax dollar "theft".

2. Planned Parenthood

Abortion definitely is a tricky subject and can be better discussed in a different debate thread and has little grounding here since the money given to Planned Parenthood is to be used for family planning which, according to US law, "None of the funds appropriated under this subchapter shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning" (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOD...2009-title42-chap6A-subchapVIII-sec300a-6.pdf ). Simply, Planned Parenthood could be giving abortions but it must be from donation money.

As another note, Planned Parenthood should not be expected to work like the NRA since Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization while the NRA is a for-profit organization with the goals of increasing business for gun manufacturers.

3. Sanctuary Cities

Seeing as sanctuary cities are just normal cities that have current policies to not go out of their way to detain illegal immigrants and instead mostly ignore illegal immigrants, there shouldn't be a major extra cost to them. I'd need evidence because as far as I can tell, "sanctuary cities" should be cheaper to run since less money would be spent on holding illegal immigrants past the required times and police can spend less time on finding immigrants and more time on stopping other crimes.

Lots of people are missing the argument against this claim: deciding claim based off of what someone will do with a property morally allows theft. If you've seen the end of "Guardians of the Galaxy" you might remember the argument between Rocket and one of the safety officers. The argument made by Rocket is that he ought to be allowed to steal anything that he wants if he wants it more than the owner of that object. In the movie it may have appeared clear.

@Blue_Marlin 's argument is about the same. It states that someone deserves any land if they will do more with it. According to this argument, European countries had an obligation to colonize because colonizing made each land more efficiently add to the European economy. The problem with this argument is that it allows theft (at least of land) based on usefulness.

Agreed, sheesh.

@Blue_Marlin changing "goal posts" is what I believe to be a good thing. You earlier stated that no radical ideas have ever been changed through a sensible debate but @Blue_Marlin accepting a new definition when presented by facts shows a degree of thought. I agree that @Blue_Marlin is generally quite stubborn, especially when it comes to US politics, so I think a success like this should be celebrated, not vilified.

@MeepLord27 , don't get sloppy. As someone who consistently reminds us of this fact, correlation does not mean causation. The motives for murder and arson do not have to be connected to land, even if they were in this case.

 

Moving goal posts is a sinister rhetorical tactic and not a change of opinions lmao. At no point did blue concede any point.

when the colonial dutch first settled African land they had to evict tribes using violence; this isn't a historically debated topic. It follows that if you used violence to get people off land, there were people on that land.

 

Bet y’all anything trump wilk flame at the dems today since the Supreme Court conformation was moved

 

I don't think he wilk