John Oliver to Trump: Drop Out

originally posted by: mOjOm

So are you saying that since John labeled Trump a Bigot he's then obligated to agree with him or be called a bigot himself??? Or a hypocrite more specifically???

Not to speak for Les, he can do that just fine...


But what DenyArrogance said on page one resonated with me.

Here os an example of bigotry and xenophobia.

Remember that time Trump resaerched Oliver's ancestry and discovered his ancesteral name was actually Herr Zoliverph?

Trump thought it sounded scary and foreign and reminiscent of dark shifty german stereotypes so he insisted on calling Oliver "Zoloverph" from then on.

The gist of it is, that Oliver researched Trump's ancestry, found out her was called Drumpf (as has been used for comical effect on ATS you may have seen) and decided to call him Drumpf since.


Now I get where DA is coming from, because it seems that Oliver has used the stereotype of a "shifty Germanic" to deride Trump.


Which I have to admit, is a little bigoted, ergo hypocritical.


Now we can assume he is doing it for satirical value, but I do get the point made.

a reply to: SentientCentenarian

Works both ways, does it not?

it doesn't. One of the first things you will learn in history is that history doesn't repeat itself. How could it?

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
The gist of it is, that Oliver researched Trump's ancestry, found out her was called Drumpf (as has been used for comical effect on ATS you may have seen) and decided to call him Drumpf since.


Now I get where DA is coming from, because it seems that Oliver has used the stereotype of a "shifty Germanic" to deride Trump.


Which I have to admit, is a little bigoted, ergo hypocritical.


Now we can assume he is doing it for satirical value, but I do get the point made.

He doesn't say anything about the name being German though. Here is the segment where he talks about that and it has to do with Trump himself being hypocritical in saying that John Stewart should be proud of his name. Meanwhile Trump isn't even proud of his real name himself.

a reply to: MrSpad

Yeah, yet she handily beat down Bernie Sanders within their own party...

My original comment stands, this is driven from fear. Gary Johnson would lose this election if he ran unopposed because he's not a libertarian. He's a pro drug progressive, in other words: not electable outside of the under 30 voter base. But hey, they're voting for him and they likely weren't going to vote Republican regardless of the candidate so yay!

We'll see in November. I've made no predictions, only stated observations and voiced support. If Trump wins in November, however, I will absolutely remind you of these regular as clockwork "Trump can't win" prognostications you continue to make, and I will remind you of them time after time after time after time, my friend. Hell, I may ask my wife to needle point them onto a large sheet and send it to the Smithsonian to be proudly displayed in your honor for all to see.

personally, I like jon oliver, sometimes he can even be a tad bit educational..

originally posted by: Jrolla

[snip]

You know, just because someone points out problems with Trump or the Republican Party doesn't mean that they are shilling for Democrats.

So while it may give you a way to dismiss what they say by claiming they're shilling for the other side, it doesn't make it true. It also doesn't mean you're not responsible for choosing your side and the problems within it. If in fact you've chosen that side.

His argument against Trump is quite valid and well explained. Rather than try to falsely claim he's a shill for the Democrats, why not try and oppose what he presents as facts for his argument??? If you can do that then you might have something. But if you can't or wont even try, then you have nothing.

originally posted by: Jrolla
[snip]

Well, I didn't advocate for that actually. But I do know of some valid arguments for it though. It has nothing to do with them being fry cookers either.

I'd say the most solid argument for it though is that the American Worker over all has steadily become more and more efficient at what they do over the years. So we are more productive now than ever. Mostly to do with technology, education and practice.

However, where it used to be that better productivity meant better wages that's no longer the case. Wages have stayed the same for decades now even though Productivity has gone up and profits have gone up as well as the cost of living has gone up. Which means that only the people on top are seeing the reward for all that productivity and higher profits. At the same time the higher cost of living also used to be compensated for and that is no longer happening either.

So that right there is a solid argument for why fry cookers should be paid more. At the same time right on up the scale, everyone else should be paid more too until right before you get to the rich. Because the rich have already been getting richer for decades, not just because of their efforts but from stealing the reward that should have gone to those who also worked for it but go nothing.

So that's one reason. Another reason might be that even cooking fries is still a job and if someone does it full time they should make enough so as to not also qualify for Gov. assistance. Because WTF is the point of working if you're working full time just to be poor?? Hell, you can not work and be poor. That and maybe we'll get better fries too.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Jrolla
[snip]

Well, I didn't advocate for that actually. But I do know of some valid arguments for it though. It has nothing to do with them being fry cookers either.

I'd say the most solid argument for it though is that the American Worker over all has steadily become more and more efficient at what they do over the years. So we are more productive now than ever. Mostly to do with technology, education and practice.

However, where it used to be that better productivity meant better wages that's no longer the case. Wages have stayed the same for decades now even though Productivity has gone up and profits have gone up as well as the cost of living has gone up. Which means that only the people on top are seeing the reward for all that productivity and higher profits. At the same time the higher cost of living also used to be compensated for and that is no longer happening either.

So that right there is a solid argument for why fry cookers should be paid more. At the same time right on up the scale, everyone else should be paid more too until right before you get to the rich. Because the rich have already been getting richer for decades, not just because of their efforts but from stealing the reward that should have gone to those who also worked for it but go nothing.

So that's one reason. Another reason might be that even cooking fries is still a job and if someone does it full time they should make enough so as to not also qualify for Gov. assistance. Because WTF is the point of working if you're working full time just to be poor?? Hell, you can not work and be poor. That and maybe we'll get better fries too.

One makes more when one has more responsibility. A fry cook no. Live with your parents, join the military or save your money and take night classes. I do not care. Not my job to make sure someone is happy and warm inside. Life is tough. You pay your dues and earn your dues. Federal Government was not set up to work that way. The Federal Government is only there for safety and security. Not to make sure one has everything they need. This is getting really effin stupid.If you want that stuff you are in the wrong country. I'm not paying for your s***. Pay your own way.

originally posted by: Urantia1111
ETA better yet, have Trump on and see how that goes...

Trump claims he has been asked onto the show several times but always declines.

John Oliver said that's news to him because he doesn't have guests on his show.

a reply to: mOjOm

So are you saying that since John labeled Trump a Bigot he's then obligated to agree with him or be called a bigot himself??? Or a hypocrite more specifically???

Haven't you seen the new study by Conservapedia that states liberals are hypocritical intolerant bigots for not tolerating intolerance.

It's really very simple, if I rebuke an individual for say making a racist or misogynistic joke or comment what I'm really doing is being hypocritical by not accepting their racist or misogynistic views.
Hence me being intolerant.

Because yes they're the exact same thing.& these people actually expect us to take them seriously.

K~

a reply to: LifeMode

maybe the gov't should make it mandatory that every able body person getting assistance, even those employed but just not earning enough, has to perform a job search every week, just like what is required with unemployment. they can stop searching when they find they no longer need the assistance. and the employers can just put up with their employees taking time off for interviews and other inconveniences of having a workforce that is constantly searching for a higher paying job then?

ya see, it shouldn't be the taxpayer's job to ensure that mcdonalds has a workforce that is housed, fed, provided with medical car, and freed of their responsibility to their children either. if you don't feel you should have to pay more for that big mac or whatever, and the business feels that they shouldn't have to pay more to keep them healthy, then why should the taxpayer who doesn't even visit a mcdonalds pay extra taxes so that they can have healthy, happy employees providing you with that service?

originally posted by: LifeMode

One makes more when one has more responsibility. A fry cook no. Live with your parents, join the military or save your money and take night classes. I do not care. Not my job to make sure someone is happy and warm inside. Life is tough. You pay your dues and earn your dues. Federal Government was not set up to work that way. The Federal Government is only there for safety and security. Not to make sure one has everything they need. This is getting really effin stupid.If you want that stuff you are in the wrong country. I'm not paying for your s***. Pay your own way.

First of all you don't pay sh*t for me so you can take your superior attitude and shove it. I work for a living and have never taken a dime I haven't earned. I don't take from the Government either.

Aside from that, I don't give a damn what you're opinion is on the subject either. You're opinion is just your opinion and it means nothing to anyone else. What does matter are facts and you have provided none. I on the other hand did provide some facts and a reasonable argument too. So you can either address those facts and that argument or sit silently and cry about having to pay for others all by yourself. Because I don't care what you're problems are. What does interest me are well thought out arguments that deal with facts that can be shown, that's it. Save your opinions about how you want the world to operate for your benefit for your mommy or your girlfriend.

Present an argument based on data, figures, facts, etc. or not, but don't give me your worthless sh*tty opinion about what you personally think because I don't care and neither does anyone else. It's either a real structured argument or nothing.

a reply to: LifeMode

Responsibility and wages have nothing to do with each other. If they did, plumbers would be the highest paid profession followed by the congressmen who keep the laws functional and customer facing positions like cashiers which form the public opinion of a business would make more than the managers that hide in an office.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
"steeped in racial bigotry"

Evidence please.

I am not sure all the evidence and videos would fit.

Is that a serious question?

Do you need to go look up what 'steeped in' means in a dictionary?

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
a reply to: reldra

Please cite any evidence of the alleged racial bigotry.

Keep in mind islam is NOT A RACE.

Fortune- is Trump a Racist?

“ 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 tell you something else. I think that’s guy’s lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks.”

Not True:

When a black woman asked to rent an apartment in a Brooklyn complex managed by Donald Trump’s real estate company, she said she was told that nothing was available. A short time later, a white woman who made the same request was invited to choose between two available apartments.

The two would-be renters on that July 1972 day were actually undercover “testers” for a ­government-sanctioned investigation to determine whether Trump Management Inc. discriminated against minorities seeking housing at properties across Brooklyn and Queens.

Federal investigators also gathered evidence. Trump employees had secretly marked the applications of minorities with codes, such as “No. 9” and “C” for “colored,” according to government interview accounts filed in federal court. The employees allegedly directed blacks and Puerto Ricans away from buildings with mostly white tenants, and steered them toward properties that had many minorities, the government filings alleged.

In October 1973, the Justice Department filed a civil rights case that accused the Trump firm, whose complexes contained 14,000 apartments, of violating the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

The case, one of the biggest federal housing discrimination suits to be brought during that time, put a spotlight on the family empire led by its 27-year-old president, Donald Trump, and his father, Fred Trump, the chairman, who had begun building houses and apartments in the 1930s. The younger Trump demonstrated the brash, combative style that would make him famous, holding forth at a news conference in a Manhattan hotel to decry the government’s arguments as “such outrageous lies.” He would also say that the company wanted to avoid renting apartments to welfare recipients of any color but never discriminated based on race.

Just another conservative lie while also trying to blame Democrats for something they have nothing to do with.

With that being said, I'm not accusing Trump of being racist. I don't think he is racist. I think he feels he's superior to everyone and you're either with him or he calls you a loser. I don't think he gives a damn about what others think regardless of their color of skin. He just wants them to agree with what he thinks. As long as you do that you're on his side. But if you don't then you're his enemy. Plain and simple.