President Trump

me neither probably wilk not

 

By changing his argument he conceeded that his old point was false. His argument shifted as he accepted new facts. Changing definitions would be more of a problem if there were a time limit to the debate but there isn't. This isn't about winning either so @Blue_Marlin should not be penalized in any way for changing his mind.

At no point did you state why they were burning houses or murdering, you just said that the fact they did those actions meant they wanted the land. I wasn't arguing that you were wrong, just that you are forgetting to clarify your statements so you don't make what sound like assumptions.

 

be less autistic and consider what I was responding too. We were talking about the settlement of Africa by the Afrikaners, Cooey and Blue seem to be under the impression that the land the Afrikaners were colonizing was largely unpopulated; this is obviously false due to the fact that the Afrikaners fought brutal wars against natives who's land they were taking. If what Cooey and Blue advanced was true they wouldn't have needed to kill any native Africans. We aren't going to start talking in hyper-analytic ideal language lmao.

 

Trump suggests protesting should be illegal

How is this not a fascist idea?

 

I'm saying that there were some places that did not have people. It was impossible for every square mile to be populated. Some places where the Dutch built were the first things that were built there. They fought wars yes, but the population of the natives they fought wasn't very large

 

The size of the population matters less than the legitimacy of their claim on the land. I'll ignore your semantic argument about "every inch" of land being populated.

 

drumpf dun leik lowd nozes

 

I doubt every bit of it was claimed either.

The European conquest of south Africa was totally fair, but I feel you and me going off about takes away from the original theme of the thread.

 

Here are my sources. This thread demands the scrutiny of an academic journal:
'Mob rule' rocks Senate hearing for judge
Judicial Crisis Network Supports Kavanaugh's Supreme Court Nomination

Very nice job on taking his message out of context, Felicia Sonmez. A ban on protesting in a manner which obstructs government processes is not a fascist idea. This is what Donald Trump was remarking about. Donald supports peaceful protest (if he did not, he would be out of office) but when it is taken to this degree, one cannot ignore the consequences of letting it go uncontrolled. The room would have been a zoo if protesters had continued moaning and groaning about Kavanaugh. Not to mention the atrocious behavior of the representatives demanding for more documentation regarding Kavanaugh who has already proved in multiple instances to be a trustworthy individual. More than 60 protesters were arrested yesterday for disorderly conduct.

This is the left of 2018. #walkaway and stay away! But I don't like Donald either.

 

Trump calls on NY Times to turn senior official who wrote critical ‘resistance’ op-ed ‘over to government at once!’

Fascism.

And again, not left. I've voted for more republicans than democrats by quite a margin.

 

Go read a book, it was invasion for economic reasons on large scale coupled with genocidal fascist imperial governments.

 

Imperialism is fair is what I'm saying. Genocide isn't, conquering land is. You fought for it, you lost. Fair.

 

Good to know you have a literal toddlers understanding of ethics.

 

I'm glad we established that.

 

We've also apparently established that all theft, murder, etc is justified if you are challenged to a duel or fight.

 

uh its justified if you make a good play out of it

 

I never said that.

 

I said war.

 

So if I declare war on you, fight you for your land, kill you, and take it, I'm in the clear.