PDA

View Full Version : CNN Loses Its Shit



Syntactical Disruptorize
5th July 17, 09:19 PM
Trump tweets a link to a parodic video of himself slamming "CNN" to the ground (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/881503147168071680), based on an old appearance in WrestleMania.

The media loses (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/02/business/media/trump-wrestling-video-cnn-twitter.html) its (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/07/02/trump-appears-to-promote-violence-against-cnn-with-tweet/) shit (http://www.npr.org/2017/07/02/535267439/trump-tweets-clip-of-him-bodyslamming-cnn-network-says-do-your-job).

But none more than CNN itself, which ran the original author of the video to ground (http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html):


CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.
Nice, huh? Not at all thuggish, CNN.

And the best part? They probably got the wrong guy. (https://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/how-a-random-gif-from-reddit-probably-ended-up-on-president) Or at least not the proximate source of the video.

This is a whole lot worse than disputes over fake news. This is fucking thuggery.

The next time that piece of shit Phrost puts up a fanciful list of fake news sites (http://www.bullshido.net/list-bs-fake-biased-news-sites/), maybe the pathetic asshole should also list news organizations which commit despicable, possibly criminal (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/05/did-cnn-commit-crime-cruz-suggests-warning-to-reddit-user-poses-legal-problem.html) acts.

MerkinMuffly
6th July 17, 01:50 AM
The far right and left have become hopeless fascists.

Syntactical Disruptorize
6th July 17, 09:13 AM
We have all gone insane. In this specific incident, I believe CNN comes off far worse. In the overall picture, I think when you get far enough left or right, it all meets at the end.

MerkinMuffly
6th July 17, 09:07 PM
We have all gone insane. In this specific incident, I believe CNN comes off far worse. In the overall picture, I think when you get far enough left or right, it all meets at the end.
Strongly agree.

Cullion
7th July 17, 09:52 AM
Does CNN represent the far left? They seem more like smug Clinton-voting just-left-of-centrists to me.

Syntactical Disruptorize
7th July 17, 08:14 PM
Does CNN represent the far left? They seem more like smug Clinton-voting just-left-of-centrists to me.

I think the current situation has polarized absolutely everyone out of recognition. I can't even talk to half the country about how they're being lied to about things Trump did and said, and I can't talk to the other half of the country about the other lies about things Trump did and said. His haters won't hear it, his supporters won't hear it, nobody is hearing any facts. It's all bullshit. Bullshit is King.

Cullion
7th July 17, 09:52 PM
From outside the US, Trump appears to be a nationalistic economic populist with poor impulse control. That can be dangerous but he's not a Nazi or a rapist as cariacatured and some of his ideas are capable of generating substantially increased full-time employment in the US, at least over a 2-5 year timescale.

Steve Bannon is an interesting character. He appears to function at the polymath genius level, but with all kinds of resentment/anger issues he still struggles to control.

Syntactical Disruptorize
7th July 17, 10:48 PM
I'm glad to see a view from outside the asylum.

lant3rn
8th July 17, 12:40 AM
From outside the US, Trump appears to be a nationalistic economic populist with poor impulse control. That can be dangerous but he's not a Nazi or a rapist as cariacatured and some of his ideas are capable of generating substantially increased full-time employment in the US, at least over a 2-5 year timescale.

Steve Bannon is an interesting character. He appears to function at the polymath genius level, but with all kinds of resentment/anger issues he still struggles to control.

Rapist or Racist? it's hard to know what you meant to write because he has been accused of both

Cullion
9th July 17, 08:36 AM
He's a bit xenophobic but he seems to be comfortable socialising with and employing Americans from different ethnic groups. It's extremely unlikely that he would be antisemitic given his daughter's conversion and his welcoming of his jewish son in law into the administration.

He's not a rapist because he's never been convicted of rape.

All of his character flaws are massively amplified by poor impulse control and his apparent inability to grasp that it's not prudent for heads of state to vent on twitter.

That and the fact that the media/washington establishment appear to genuinely hate him.

MerkinMuffly
9th July 17, 02:02 PM
Hitler's not a murderer because he's never been convicted of murder.

lant3rn
9th July 17, 02:06 PM
He's a bit xenophobic but he seems to be comfortable socialising with and employing Americans from different ethnic groups. It's extremely unlikely that he would be antisemitic given his daughter's conversion and his welcoming of his jewish son in law into the administration.

He's not a rapist because he's never been convicted of rape.

All of his character flaws are massively amplified by poor impulse control and his apparent inability to grasp that it's not prudent for heads of state to vent on twitter.

That and the fact that the media/washington establishment appear to genuinely hate him.

Well he takes advice from racist people, shares information from racist sources... If he walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... i'm pretty sure he is.

MerkinMuffly
9th July 17, 02:39 PM
No one becomes a billionaire in real estate by renting to the blacks.

Cullion
9th July 17, 04:31 PM
Well he takes advice from racist people

Who ?

Cullion
9th July 17, 04:33 PM
Hitler's not a murderer because he's never been convicted of murder.

He would have been convicted at Nuremberg if operation paperclip hadn't let him fake his death and slip away to Argentina.

lant3rn
9th July 17, 04:44 PM
Who ?
http://time.com/4577724/donald-trump-deplorable-administration/

MerkinMuffly
9th July 17, 06:52 PM
He would have been a murderer.

Cullion
10th July 17, 01:57 AM
http://time.com/4577724/donald-trump-deplorable-administration/


Let me deconstruct this article for you. I'm going to skip the opinion-piece preamble and address the specific allegations only.


Trump’s new National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, has two huge marks on his record. Let’s start with his fear-stoking repudiation of an entire religion, Islam. Seeking to distance himself from moderate Republicans from as early as a decade ago, Flynn has dangerously lumped millions of people into one radical group.

Dislike of Islam is not racism. Islam is a religion, not a genetic lineage.

The article then goes on to repeat the nonsense about Russia 'hacking' the US election.


Next up is new Jeff Sessions, Trump's pick for Attorney General. An Alabama Senator for two decades running, Sessions was denied federal judgeship by a Senate Judiciary Committee run by Republicans because of racist remarks that have dogged his career. Sessions said he thought the KKK was O.K. until he found out members smoked pot.

That was a single joke of exactly the kind we make all the time on sociocide. He's filed charges against the KKK before.



Sessions first became nationally known for prosecuting three black civil rights workers for voter fraud. The jury did not convict them.
In addition, Sessions opposes not only illegal immigration and a path to citizenship, but also has called for a fadeout of legal immigration as well, including visa programs for workers in science, math and technology.

Prosecuting somebody who eventually is found innocent is not even vaguely evidence that you did so because of their ethnic background. I have no idea why the fact he opposes illegal immigration is cited as evidence of racism.

The final false argument in this article is the accusation that somebody (Bannon) is racist because some of the people who like him are racist.

This is a very, very clumsy and irrational liberal smear piece. That ought to be obvious to anybody with basic critical reading faculties.

MerkinMuffly
10th July 17, 12:41 PM
You're right Cullion, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III couldn't be racist, even though he calls blacks 'niggers'.

lant3rn
10th July 17, 12:42 PM
Let me deconstruct this article for you. I'm going to skip the opinion-piece preamble and address the specific allegations only.



Dislike of Islam is not racism. Islam is a religion, not a genetic lineage.

The article then goes on to repeat the nonsense about Russia 'hacking' the US election.



That was a single joke of exactly the kind we make all the time on sociocide. He's filed charges against the KKK before.



Prosecuting somebody who eventually is found innocent is not even vaguely evidence that you did so because of their ethnic background. I have no idea why the fact he opposes illegal immigration is cited as evidence of racism.

The final false argument in this article is the accusation that somebody (Bannon) is racist because some of the people who like him are racist.

This is a very, very clumsy and irrational liberal smear piece. That ought to be obvious to anybody with basic critical reading faculties.

That's the only article i found that lists them all, and touches on their shaky credentials. It does not do a good job of of objectively relaying the authors criticisms of each.

How about i call them bigots about race, gender, and religion then. There is no smoking gun that any of them are overtly racist.

more about Jeff Sessions record on the kkk
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/sessions-kkk-case/512600/

More about micheal flynn's bigotry on islam
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us/politics/michael-flynn-national-security-adviser-donald-trump.html?_r=0

Now we are at the cream of the crop; Steve Bannon.

The man who says he is not a white nationalist but still says things like “We, the Judeo-Christian West, really have to look at what he's talking about as far as Traditionalism goes — particularly the sense of where it supports the underpinnings of nationalism." While speaking about one his favourite authors; Evola.

He just provides an outlet for them on Breibart news by allowing the company to give a voice to the downtrodden heroes of white social reform. He doesn't support these views, he just enables them.. that's all....

You can read about his journalistic accomplishments as head of Breitbart here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_News

Cullion
10th July 17, 02:33 PM
So they're not racist. Glad we cleared that up. I took it as comedy that you're posting things from 35 years ago about Sessions. I assume you examine Southern Democrats who were in office 35 years ago with the same finetooth comb?

Bannon is an economic nationalist, but there's no mention of race when he uses the phrase 'judeo christian west'.

lant3rn
10th July 17, 03:10 PM
Bannon is an economic nationalist, but there's no mention of race when he uses the phrase 'judeo christian west'.
SO i have an example; is that what picking with a fine tooth comb looks like?

Cullion
10th July 17, 04:27 PM
You don't have an example though.

MerkinMuffly
10th July 17, 04:30 PM
I took it as comedy that you're posting things from 35 years ago about Sessions.


Yes, because southern racists get much more tolerant as they get old and crusty.

lant3rn
10th July 17, 04:36 PM
You don't have an example though.

What do you think he meant by "judeo christian west" in his statement, what group is he referring too?
Why the fuck is he a fan of Evola?

There are plenty examples of all them saying ignorant things about people based on superficial differences.

How about i just say they are all guilty of perpetuating hate speech in some form and leave it at that.

Cullion
10th July 17, 04:39 PM
What do you think he meant by "judeo christian west" in his statement, what group is he referring too?

He means the civilisation we all live in. 'The west'. It has very, very clear judeo-christian underpinnings that effect even the way atheists raised in our culture think.



How about i just say they are all guilty of perpetuating hate speech in some form and leave it at that.

But you define hate speech in a meaningless way.

Cullion
10th July 17, 04:40 PM
Yes, because southern racists get much more tolerant as they get old and crusty.

How do you think the democrats of 35 years ago shape up ?

lant3rn
10th July 17, 04:40 PM
He means the civilisation we all live in. 'The west'. It has very, very clear judeo-christian underpinnings that effect even the way atheists raised in our culture think.



But you define hate speech in a meaningless way.

You're still the same troll you have always been

MerkinMuffly
10th July 17, 04:44 PM
How do you think the democrats of 35 years ago shape up ?If you've ever spent any time in the deep south, you would not ask such a silly question.

Cullion
10th July 17, 04:46 PM
You're still the same troll you have always been

Why don't you explain why you find the term 'The Judeo Christian west' racist?

Cullion
10th July 17, 04:48 PM
If you've ever spent any time in the deep south, you would not ask such a silly question.

I haven't. But I have read about some of the racist things Hilary Clinton's said, and the beliefs and affiliations of a lot of southern democrats from the 80s. I think many of the liberals CNN approves of have said very racist things indeed, but they don't get called on it.

MerkinMuffly
10th July 17, 04:55 PM
I haven't. But I have read about some of the racist things Hilary Clinton's said, and the beliefs and affiliations of a lot of southern democrats from the 80s. I think many of the liberals CNN approves of have said very racist things indeed, but they don't get called on it.

Possible, but this is classic deflection.

Right now, we are discussing this:

"As the US attorney in Mobile, Alabama, Jeff Sessions was talking over a case one day in the 1980s with two fellow prosecutors.It had to do with a young black man who had been kidnapped and brutally murdered by two members of the Ku Klux Klan.
The Klansmen, Henry Hayes and Tiger Knowles, slit the victim's throat and hung his body from a tree.
They carried out the attack in retribution for a jury acquitting a black man in the slaying of a white police officer.
As Sessions learned that some members of the Klan had smoked marijuana on the evening of the slaying, he said aloud that he thought the KKK was: "OK until I found out they smoked pot."
Sessions insists he was joking."

Yeah. That's a real knee-slapper alright.

lant3rn
10th July 17, 05:00 PM
Why don't you explain why you find the term 'The Judeo Christian west' racist?

Take that in the context of him discussing Evola, a fucking lunatic who also tried to mask his racism while trying to push forward his ass backwards ideas. Championed by fascists the world over.

Syntactical Disruptorize
10th July 17, 08:40 PM
Actually, this discussion started out being about how CNN was persecuting someone who dared to make an animated image that mocked them.

MerkinMuffly
10th July 17, 08:56 PM
That all changed when Cullion put on the trump train conductor hat.

Syntactical Disruptorize
10th July 17, 10:30 PM
That all changed when Cullion put on the trump train conductor hat.

And everyone decided to get on board.

CNN, a powerful media corporation, is so thin skinned that it threatened to out someone who mocked them if he didn't behave as they liked. Why are they getting away with it?

lant3rn
10th July 17, 10:46 PM
And everyone decided to get on board.

CNN, a powerful media corporation, is so thin skinned that it threatened to out someone who mocked them if he didn't behave as they liked. Why are they getting away with it?

They could have just published his name to begin with.. and he would have been held to account for all of his racist shit he posted before Donald tweeted his harmless video... he got off lucky.

MerkinMuffly
10th July 17, 11:35 PM
Trump, a powerful billionaire and leader of the free world, is so thin skinned that he:



10/27/2016 8:30 PM: Trump, asked (https://twitter.com/bad_takes/status/791800702599389184) about the Billy Bush tape, says it was an "illegal act" for NBC to record it, that it was "absolutely" illegal to release the tape, and that "we're going to find out soon enough" whether he will take legal action against NBC. (The Hill (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/303207-trump-lashes-out-over-illegal-tapes))
10/27/2016 11:59 AM: Trump company threat to people, apparently including a 92-year-old widow, responsible for statements made in documentary criticizing a golf course. (The Scotsman (http://www.scotsman.com/regions/aberdeen-north-east/trump-issues-legal-threat-over-new-film-1-4271064))
10/22/2016 12:15 PM: Trump: The media "is trying to poison the minds" of the voters. "Every woman lied when they came forward to hurt my campaign. Total fabrication. The events never happened. Never. All of these liars will be sued after the election is over." (Donald Trump (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzkzNIA_e1c))
10/13/2016 1:24 PM: Trump is "preparing a lawsuit" against the New York Times for "Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html)." Trump hasn't filed a lawsuit. (Donald Trump (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb2sAjxDQcQ&feature=youtu.be))
10/13/2016 12:25 AM: Trump's lawyer threatens the New York Times over an article entitled, "Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html)" Trump hasn't filed a lawsuit. (McKay Coppins (https://twitter.com/mckaycoppins/status/786422653988896768))
10/12/2016: Trump campaign official says the New York Times and "politically-motivated accusers better lawyer up." Trump hasn't filed a lawsuit. (CNN (http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/12/media/new-york-times-donald-trump-lawsuit-threat/index.html))
10/2/2016: Trump's lawyer threatens the New York Times for publishing copies of some of his tax returns (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html). Trump hasn't filed a lawsuit. (Trevor Timm (https://twitter.com/trevortimm/status/782470549268230144))
9/17/2016: Trump suggests he might sue the New York Times for "irresponsible intent." Trump hasn't filed a lawsuit. (Donald J. Trump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/777280259875975169))
7/18/2016: Trump's lawyer threatens Tony Schwartz, co-author of "The Art of the Deal," over statements he made in an interview (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all) with the New Yorker. Trump hasn't filed a lawsuit. (New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trump-threatens-the-ghostwriter-of-the-art-of-the-deal))
5/18/2016: Trump says he "will be bringing more libel suits" against unidentified critics, perhaps even "you folks," the Washington Post reporters interviewing him. Trump hasn't filed any lawsuits. (Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-stat/graphics/politics/trump-archive/docs/donald-trump-interview-with-shawn-boburg-robert-oharrrow-drew-harwell-amy-goldstein-jerry-markon-may-18-2016.pdf))
5/13/2016: Trump threatens Amazon.com and Jeff Bezos, owner of the Washington Post, with tax audits if he becomes president, over Washington Post stories critical of Trump. Trump hasn't been elected and can't direct tax audits -- yet. (Vox (http://www.vox.com/2016/5/13/11669850/donald-trump-threatens-amazon))
4/27/2016: Trump threatens Daily Beast columnist and author of "The Making of Donald Trump (https://www.amazon.com/Making-Donald-Trump-David-Johnston/dp/1612196322)" David Cay Johnston (https://twitter.com/DavidCayJ/status/777928062960795648) for unknown reasons. Trump hasn't filed a lawsuit. (Trevor Timm (http://www.cjr.org/first_person/donald_trump_lawsuit_new_york_times.php))
4/20/2016: Unidentified person, believed to be involved with Trump, threatens an artist over a nude and unflattering painting of Trump. Trump hasn't filed a lawsuit. (Hyperallergetic (http://hyperallergic.com/292436/the-donald-threatens-to-sue-artist-over-her-trump-micropenis-portrait/))
4/12/2016: Trump's lawyer threatens the Associated Press, for reporting (http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/fd844d2a6ed24688886d564a6d837d5a/condo-owners-panama-tell-trump-youre-fired) on a business dispute involving Trump. Trump hasn't filed a lawsuit. (Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/04/12/trump-threatened-to-sue-the-ap-over-panama-condo-story/?utm_term=.78b03a12ff68))
3/27/2016: Trump threatens to sue over getting fewer delegates than Ted Cruz in the Louisiana primary: "Lawsuit coming." A lawsuit was never filed. (Donald J. Trump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/714198237675003904))
2/26/2016: Trump vows to "open up the libel laws" in order to sue the New York Times and Washington Post. (Politico (http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866))
2/16/2016: Trump's lawyers send a letter (https://www.scribd.com/doc/299588264/Trump-Cease-and-Desist-Letter) to Ted Cruz's campaign demanding that they cease airing a television ad quoting Trump (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kbca-7bc374). Trump never filed the lawsuit. (CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/ted-cruz-donald-trump-marco-rubio-south-carolina/index.html))
2/12/2016: Trump threatens to sue Ted Cruz for "negative ads" and not being a "natural born citizen." Trump never filed the lawsuit. (Donald J. Trump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/698231571594276866))
1/18/2016: Trump threatens the Washington Post for covering Trump's failed Taj Majal casino (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/trumps-bad-bet-how-too-much-debt-drove-his-biggest-casino-aground/2016/01/18/f67cedc2-9ac8-11e5-8917-653b65c809eb_story.html?wpisrc=nl_draw). "If you write this one, I’m suing you." Trump hasn't filed a lawsuit. (Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/trumps-bad-bet-how-too-much-debt-drove-his-biggest-casino-aground/2016/01/18/f67cedc2-9ac8-11e5-8917-653b65c809eb_story.html?wpisrc=nl_draw))
12/4/2015: Trump's lawyer threatens a Jeb Bush donor who paid for ads calling Trump a "narcissistic BULLYionaire." Trump never filed a lawsuit. (Miami Herald (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article48446165.html))
11/19/2015: Trump tweets (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/667509177707659264) that if John Kasich "is not truthful in his negative ads I will sue him just for fun!" Trump didn't file a lawsuit. (Donald J. Trump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/667509177707659264))
11/19/2015: Trump's lawyer threatens John Kasich (http://static.politico.com/0d/a4/b0f9a5c645ed8cfaabe594813d12/trump-letter-to-kasich-super-pac.pdf) for advertisements run by a pro-Kasich super PAC. Trump didn't file a lawsuit. (Politico (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/trump-kasich-lawsuit-216094))
10/29/2015: Trump's companies sue a union over flyers claiming that Trump slept in a union-affiliated hotel during a campaign stop. (Las Vegas Sun (https://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/oct/29/trump-lawsuit-aims-to-set-record-straight-on-where/))
9/22/2015: Trump's lawyer threatens (https://www.scribd.com/doc/282503308/Stoptrumpus-Cease-Desist9-22-15) a website selling anti-Trump shirts, StopTrump.us, demanding that its owners confirm that they had "ceased all uses of Mr. Trump's name". Trump never filed a lawsuit. (Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/23/donald-trump-threatens-to-sue-over-stoptrump-us-t-shirts-but-he-doesnt-have-a-case/?utm_term=.fcbfd245ff29))
9/21/2015: Trump's lawyer threatens Club for Growth (http://files.ctctcdn.com/3422b182501/0d8a00e9-5fb1-4cfa-821d-39262fdf3fad.pdf) for a political ad (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OEijvTi0NE) Trump didn't like. Trump never filed the lawsuit. (NJ.com (http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/09/trump_sends_cease_and_desist_letter_over_attack_ad .html))
7/27/2015: Trump's lawyer threatens the Daily Beast for reporting that Trump's ex-wife once used the word "rape" to describe an incident with Trump. Trump never filed the lawsuit. (Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/27/ex-wife-donald-trump-made-feel-violated-during-sex.html))
7/2/2015: Trump's lawyer threatens the National Hispanic Media Coalition for criticizing Trump's "bigoted, racist, anti-Latino rant." Trump never filed the lawsuit. (The Wrap (http://www.thewrap.com/donald-trump-threatens-to-sue-national-hispanic-media-coalition/))
6/30/2015: Trump sues (https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/univision-complaint-trump.pdf) Univision's president for defamation over an Instagram post (http://freebeacon.com/politics/univision-president-likens-donald-trump-to-murderer-dylann-roof/) comparing Trump's appearance to Dylann Roof. The case was settled (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/02/11/trump-univision-settle-beauty-pageant-lawsuit/80238188/). (Deadline.com (hhttps://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/univision-complaint-trump.pdf))
2/29/2014: Trump suggests (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/516603715755986945) he'll sue a Twitter user who tricked him into retweeting a photo of two serial killers. Trump never filed the lawsuit. (Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/09/29/donald-trump-threatens-to-sue-after-hes-tricked-into-re-tweeting-a-photo-of-two-serial-killers/?utm_term=.729be03411f5))
2013: Trump's lawyer threatens satirical newspaper The Onion over article entitled, "When You're Feeling Low, Just Remember I'll Be Dead In About 15 Or 20 Years (http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/when-youre-feeling-low-just-remember-ill-be-dead-i-31008)." Trump never filed the lawsuit. (TODAY (http://www.today.com/news/web-extra-donald-trump-previously-threatened-onion-lawsuit-t92681))
2/19/2013: Trump threatens an internet campaigner who started an online petition calling on Macy's to part ways with Trump. Trump never filed the lawsuit. (Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-may-sue-dump-trump-campaigner-2013-2))
2/4/2013: Trump sues Bill Maher over a joke offer to "donate $5 million to charity if Trump provided a copy of his birth certificate proving that he’s not “spawn of his mother having sex with orangutan.” (Trump dismissed (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/donald-trump-withdraws-bill-maher-432675) the lawsuit.) (The Hollywood Reporter (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/why-donald-trump-is-lose-417806))
1/31/2013: Trump threatens to teach a rapper "a big boy lesson about lawsuits" over a song called "Donald Trump (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74TFS8r_SMI)." Trump never filed the lawsuit. (Donald Trump (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/297087613851017216))
11/9/2012: Trump suggests "somebody" (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266989782687698944) (apparently David Letterman or the Golf Channel) would sue documentary filmmaker Anthony Baxter over a documentary critical of Trump's golf courses. No lawsuit was filed. (International Business Times (http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trump-uses-twitter-target-documentary-filmmaker-who-made-critical-movie-about-one-his-golf))
2012: Trump's lawyers threaten to sue USA Today because columnist Al Neuharth called him a "clown (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-05-31/mitt-romney-donald-trump-fundraiser/55319192/1)." Trump never filed the lawsuit. (USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2016/07/11/trump-bill-maher-and-miss-pennsylvania-ll-sue-you-effect/85877342/))
2012: Trump wins an arbitration award against a Miss USA contestant who posted on Facebook that the pageant was "fraudulent," "trashy," and "rigged." The contestant's father says (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2016/07/11/trump-bill-maher-and-miss-pennsylvania-ll-sue-you-effect/85877342/) she later settled the case and never paid "a penny," but Trump's lawyer says they "recovered funds." Trump's lawyer later bragged (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/31/trump-lawyer-bragged-i-destroyed-a-beauty-queen-s-life.html) that he had "destroy[ed]" her life. (The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/the-lawsuits-of-donald-trump/273819/))
10/26/2011: Trump suggests (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/129231564067442688) he might sue MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell after he questioned Trump's net worth. Trump never filed the lawsuit. (The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/the-lawsuits-of-donald-trump/273819/))
2010: Trump University files a counterclaim (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3007884613426739840&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr) against a woman who filed a class action lawsuit against Trump University, alleging that the woman libeled Trump University by posting comments about it online. After an appeal (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3007884613426739840&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr) over an anti-SLAPP motion, Trump University lost and may owe the woman $800,000 in attorneys' fees. (Media Law Resource Center (http://www.medialaw.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=3470))
12/16/2007: Trump threatens (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-donald-trump-archive-20071216-snap-story.html) the Los Angeles Times over an article about Trump University (http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/12/business/fi-lazarus12). When asked what was "inaccurate and libelous," Trump replied, "You'll find out in court." Trump never filed the lawsuit. (Los Angeles Times (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-donald-trump-archive-20071216-snap-story.html))
12/21/2006: Trump threatens Rosie O'Donnell for saying he went bankrupt (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/21/carly-fiorina/trumps-four-bankruptcies/): "I never went bankrupt, but she said I went bankrupt. So probably I'll sue her because it would be fun. I'd like to take some money out of her fat-ass pockets." Trump never filed the lawsuit. (Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/21/AR2006122100294.html))
2006: Trump sues author Timothy O'Brien for raising questions about Trump's worth. Trump lost, but later said (https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/that-time-trump-sued-over-the-size-of-hiswallet/2016/03/08/785dee3e-e4c2-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html) "I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more. I did it to make his life miserable, which I'm happy about." (Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/that-time-trump-sued-over-the-size-of-hiswallet/2016/03/08/785dee3e-e4c2-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html))
1991: Trump's team issues threats over documentary, "Trump: What's the Deal? (http://trumpthemovie.com/)", deterring broadcasters from airing it. The documentary was later independently released on iTunes. Trump never filed the lawsuit. (USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2016/07/11/trump-bill-maher-and-miss-pennsylvania-ll-sue-you-effect/85877342/))
1990: Trump uses threat of a defamation lawsuit to demand the termination of an analyst who predicted that Trump's Taj Majal casino would fail. He was fired. The Taj Majal failed. (Sun Sentinel (http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1990-04-05/business/9001010240_1_janney-montgomery-scott-marvin-roffman-bad-analyst))
1985: Trump sues the Chicago Tribune and architecture critic Paul Gapp over an illustration of a proposed Trump building Gapp described as "an atrocious, ugly monstrosity." Trump lost. (Trump v. Chicago Tribune (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3564080848777051432&q=paul+gapp&hl=en&as_sdt=6%2C31))
1979: Village Voice reporter Wayne Barrett, for reporting on his relationship with city officials. Trump never filed the lawsuit. (Village Voice (http://www.villagevoice.com/news/how-a-young-donald-trump-forced-his-way-from-avenue-z-to-manhattan-7380462))
12/12/1973: Trump sues (http://apps.frontline.org/clinton-trump-keys-to-their-characters/pdf/trump-fha.pdf) the Justice Department for $100,000,000 because the New York Times had reported on the Justice Department's lawsuit (http://www.nytimes.com/1973/10/16/archives/major-landlord-accused-of-antiblack-bias-in-city-us-accuses-major.html) alleging that Trump's properties had racially discriminated against black people. Trump lost (http://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/FH-NY-0024-0042.pdf).



Thank you for putting things into perspective.

MerkinMuffly
10th July 17, 11:47 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4337980/Trump-s-lawyers-send-cease-desist-letter-girl-17.html

lol

MerkinMuffly
10th July 17, 11:49 PM
And: https://www.thecut.com/2016/12/trumps-harassment-of-an-18-year-old-girl-on-twitter-led-to-death-threats.html

Cullion
11th July 17, 02:13 AM
Possible, but this is classic deflection.

Right now, we are discussing this:

"As the US attorney in Mobile, Alabama, Jeff Sessions was talking over a case one day in the 1980s with two fellow prosecutors.It had to do with a young black man who had been kidnapped and brutally murdered by two members of the Ku Klux Klan.
The Klansmen, Henry Hayes and Tiger Knowles, slit the victim's throat and hung his body from a tree.
They carried out the attack in retribution for a jury acquitting a black man in the slaying of a white police officer.
As Sessions learned that some members of the Klan had smoked marijuana on the evening of the slaying, he said aloud that he thought the KKK was: "OK until I found out they smoked pot."
Sessions insists he was joking."

Yeah. That's a real knee-slapper alright.

Oh absolutely Reese. You never use dark or inappropriate humour. Ever. Sure.

Cullion
11th July 17, 02:16 AM
Take that in the context of him discussing Evola, a fucking lunatic who also tried to mask his racism while trying to push forward his ass backwards ideas. Championed by fascists the world over.

Discussing Evola isn't proof somebody is a racist. Evola wrote books on all kinds of subjects. This is the quote that your clumsy liberal screamsheets are spinning as evidence of racism


When Vladimir Putin, when you really look at some of the underpinnings of some of his beliefs today, a lot of those come from what I call Eurasianism; he’s got an adviser who harkens back to Julius Evola and different writers of the early 20th century who are really the supporters of what’s called the traditionalist movement, which really eventually metastasized into Italian fascism.

This was a response in a question and answer session after a speech he gave at the vatican. It is in no sense an endorsement of Evola's fascist ideas.

You didn't know any of this, but actually lept to accuse racism because The New York Times thinks being widely read is suspicious. The new left-wing anti-intellectualism is depressing to behold.

You are a hysterical leftist whose mind shuts down whenever a media outlet shouts 'racism'. Grow the fuck up.

lant3rn
11th July 17, 04:17 AM
If your going just post snipets like i did then lets put it all into context about what he's saying


When Vladimir Putin, when you really look at some of the underpinnings of some of his beliefs today, a lot of those come from what I call Eurasianism; hes got an adviser who harkens back to Julius Evola and different writers of the early 20th century who are really the supporters of whats called the traditionalist movement, which really eventually metastasized into Italian fascism

One of the reasons is that they believe that at least Putin is standing up for traditional institutions, and he's trying to do it in a form of nationalism and I think that people, particularly in certain countries, want to see the sovereignty for their country, they want to see nationalism for their country. They don't believe in this kind of pan-European Union or they don't believe in the centralized government in the United States. They'd rather see more of a states-based entity that the founders originally set up where freedoms were controlled at the local level.

Im not justifying Vladimir Putin and the kleptocracy that he represents, because he eventually is the state capitalist of kleptocracy. However, we the Judeo-Christian West really have to look at what hes talking about as far as traditionalism goes particularly the sense of where it supports the underpinnings of nationalism and I happen to think that the individual sovereignty of a country is a good thing and a strong thing. I think strong countries and strong nationalist movements in countries make strong neighbors, and that is really the building blocks that built Western Europe and the United States, and I think its what can see us forward.
You know, Putins been quite an interesting character. Hes also very, very, very intelligent. I can see this in the United States where hes playing very strongly to social conservatives about his message about more traditional values, so I think its something that we have to be very much on guard of


.

here is the original buzz feed interview.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world?utm_term=.ysLzePLW3#.tjQXAG6Om

Your ignoring his fucking record at Breitbart news,also

Don't presume to lecture me on my ability to think critically or how i evaluate information, shit stick.

Cullion
11th July 17, 05:46 AM
Which part of 'I’m not justifying Vladimir Putin and the kleptocracy that he represents, because he eventually is the state capitalist of kleptocracy' and 'I can see this in the United States where he’s playing very strongly to social conservatives about his message about more traditional values, so I think it’s something that we have to be very much on guard of'

did you not understand?

This is why your ability to think critically gets made fun of; it's because you're an idiot.

MerkinMuffly
11th July 17, 12:16 PM
Oh absolutely Reese. You never use dark or inappropriate humour. Ever. Sure.

That's what Sociocide is for. If Sessions wants to do standup, he should posses the discretion to find the appropriate venue.

lant3rn
11th July 17, 12:43 PM
Which part of 'I’m not justifying Vladimir Putin and the kleptocracy that he represents, because he eventually is the state capitalist of kleptocracy' and 'I can see this in the United States where he’s playing very strongly to social conservatives about his message about more traditional values, so I think it’s something that we have to be very much on guard of'

did you not understand?

This is why your ability to think critically gets made fun of; it's because you're an idiot.

That's just him backtracking.. "well i really like what he is doing here and how he approaches this and his philosophy here, but i really i sort of condemn what he is doing"

paraphrasing.. and you're still ignoring what he did while in charge of Breitbart.

Cullion
11th July 17, 12:52 PM
Backtracking from what? he starts off criticising Putin and directly calling out his personal aggrandisement, and he finishes by pointing out that the fascist artist/mystic evola is one of the roots of the traditionalist movement that American conservatives must be careful not to be seduced by.

There's no middle part where he says 'You know fascism aside I really dug Evola's exposition of Theravada Buddhism' or anything of that nature.

Essentially, somebody loud and stupid and impassioned said BANNON IS A RACIST and then supported it by saying 'HE ONCE MENTIONED A RACIST'S NAME IN A SPEECH AT THE VATICAN!' in a completely idiotic, content free way. And it worked on you, because you're loud and stupid and impassioned, too.

Cullion
11th July 17, 12:53 PM
That's what Sociocide is for. If Sessions wants to do standup, he should posses the discretion to find the appropriate venue.

I do not for one minute believe that you don't do it at work, and in front of family members, too.

lant3rn
11th July 17, 12:56 PM
How to you praise a man's philosophy by liking it to Evola and saying this USA needs more "traditionalism" and also "nationalism" and not sound like a nut? Those idea's he is praising come from that nut job's(Evolas) philosophy and he is using Putin as an illustration for how they could work in America.

He doesn't like to give interviews, there is not a lot of written dialogue to go through to quote him being a bigot other than hearsay from his ex wife. But i think this interview put's his crazy into pretty good perspective as well what he did at Breitbart.

MerkinMuffly
11th July 17, 01:04 PM
I do not for one minute believe that you don't do it at work, and in front of family members, too.

We aren't noticing your continued deflections. At all.

Do you "not for one minute" believe that Sessions is not a bigot at heart?

Cullion
11th July 17, 01:05 PM
He didn't say any of those things and you aren't quoting from an interview (although you think you are, because you're getting confused by reading a transcript of a Q&A session with a group at the Vatican in Buzzfeed). Can you not fucking read?

lant3rn
11th July 17, 01:18 PM
He didn't say any of those things and you aren't quoting from an interview (although you think you are, because you're getting confused by reading a transcript of a Q&A session with a group at the Vatican in Buzzfeed). Can you not fucking read?

I understand that i'm reading between the lines... and this is just my opinion... you should read the answer to his next question about radical Islam. I think Q and A and interview are the same thing essentially. Your just being interviewed by and audience.

Cullion
11th July 17, 01:56 PM
I understand that i'm reading between the lines... and this is just my opinion...

This isn't reading between the lines, this is believing scattergun accusations of racism by somebody's political opponents that aren't founded in anything that was actually said.



you should read the answer to his next question about radical Islam.

Islam isn't a race. The radical Islam he's referring to is a poisonous idea that makes people who throw homosexuals off roofs and punish women for being raped.

You're aware that Evola saw Guenon as a mentor, btw? Does the fact that Guenon was a muslim convert make Evola an islamophile ?



I think Q and A and interview are the same thing essentially. Your just being interviewed by and audience.

It was part of a talk he gave at the Vatican.

lant3rn
11th July 17, 02:07 PM
This isn't reading between the lines, this is believing scattergun accusations of racism by somebody's political opponents that aren't founded in anything that was actually said.



Islam isn't a race. The radical Islam he's referring to is a poisonous idea that makes people who throw homosexuals off roofs and punish women for being raped.

You're aware that Evola saw Guenon as a mentor, btw? Does the fact that Guenon was a muslim convert make Evola an islamophile ?



It was part of a talk he gave at the Vatican.

Ok fine, what about his record at Breitbart then.. does the shift the organization took under his new management and the articles published while he was in charge shed any light on his bigotry to you?

MerkinMuffly
11th July 17, 02:21 PM
Islam isn't a race. The radical Islam he's referring to is a poisonous idea that makes people who throw homosexuals off roofs and punish women for being raped.
Are you sure you're not referring to the Old Testament?

Cullion
11th July 17, 03:37 PM
Are you sure you're not referring to the Old Testament?

Same thing. Note: There are whole countries where they still do that stuff. Criticising that and being wary of that isn't racism.

Cullion
11th July 17, 03:38 PM
Ok fine, what about his record at Breitbart then.. does the shift the organization took under his new management and the articles published while he was in charge shed any light on his bigotry to you?

Which particular article that he wrote bothers you ?

lant3rn
11th July 17, 03:59 PM
Same thing. Note: There are whole countries where they still do that stuff. Criticising that and being wary of that isn't racism.


If you look back at the long history of the Judeo-Christian West struggle against Islam, I believe that our forefathers kept their stance, and I think they did the right thing. I think they kept it out of the world, whether it was at Vienna, or Tours, or other places... It bequeathed to use the great institution that is the church of the West.

Here is talking about wars between Christians and Muslims like they are a good thing.
Maybe he wants another Crusade?


And so I think we are in a crisis of the underpinnings of capitalism, and on top of that we're now, I believe, at the beginning stages of a global war against Islamic fascism.

Obviously a sensible person says this. whas it radical islam or just islam, i'm confused now.




But I strongly believe that whatever the causes of the current drive to the caliphate was — and we can debate them, and people can try to deconstruct them — we have to face a very unpleasant fact. And that unpleasant fact is that there is a major war brewing, a war that’s already global. It’s going global in scale, and today’s technology, today’s media, today’s access to weapons of mass destruction, it’s going to lead to a global conflict that I believe has to be confronted today. Every day that we refuse to look at this as what it is, and the scale of it, and really the viciousness of it, will be a day where you will rue that we didn’t act

No war mongering rhetoric at all here.

lant3rn
11th July 17, 04:03 PM
Which particular article that he wrote bothers you ?
He didn't write them, he provides stories like this an outlet.

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08/17/breitbart-news-worst-headlines/212467

MerkinMuffly
12th July 17, 12:04 AM
Saying that the Muzzy sandniggers need to be bombed back to the stone-age isn't racism, and Jews aren't a race either so Hitler wasn't racist.

Cullion
12th July 17, 03:28 PM
Here is talking about wars between Christians and Muslims like they are a good thing.
Maybe he wants another Crusade?

The events he cites are all places in Europe when Christian Knights were fighting to defend it from Muslims, not battles of conquest in the middle east. I think we should all be grateful they won.



Obviously a sensible person says this. whas it radical islam or just islam, i'm confused now.

Let's ignore the majority of nice normal muslims living in the west and just count the countries governed by Islamist regimes that have laws like stoning for adultery, or death for apostasy, or execution for homosexuality. Most of the people in those countries are living under oppression and/or constantly reinforced brainwashing and can't be blamed as individuals. That's still a significant geopolitical block. Just like most Germans in Nazi germany were basically decent people.

It is the regime and the organising ideas of the regime that are the problem, not ordinary-joe.



No war mongering rhetoric at all here.

But it's not actually racist.

Cullion
12th July 17, 03:33 PM
He didn't write them, he provides stories like this an outlet.

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08/17/breitbart-news-worst-headlines/212467

Would you like to pick a story and give a well researched account of why the headline is untrue ? Not just shout because you think it's a priori offensive to think those things, but actually construct an argument.

The reason this isn't going well for you is that you're trying to persuade people by just shouting 'OFFENSIVE' 'RACIST' 'FOUR LEGS GOOD TWO LEGS BAAAD'. You're not debating, you're using crude tactics to try and silence debate.

Cullion
12th July 17, 03:34 PM
Saying that the Muzzy sandniggers need to be bombed back to the stone-age isn't racism, and Jews aren't a race either so Hitler wasn't racist.

Exactly.

lant3rn
12th July 17, 03:38 PM
Would you like to pick a story and give a well researched account of why the headline is untrue ? Not just shout because you think it's a priori offensive to think those things, but actually construct an argument.

The reason this isn't going well for you is that you're trying to persuade people by just shouting 'OFFENSIVE' 'RACIST' 'FOUR LEGS GOOD TWO LEGS BAAAD'. You're not debating, you're using crude tactics to try and silence debate.

That would be more work without any actual reward. I expect people to able to read and understand what that tripe is saying on their own. The defenders of those ideas are never swayed by pointing out the bull shit, they need real world to examples of it negatively effecting their own life to come around.

Cullion
12th July 17, 03:44 PM
That would be more work without much chance of success for a 15w bulb like me

Fin.

Reese, you're up next. First, I'd like you to temp-ban yourself for using the racist epithet 'sandnigger' whilst trying to put it into somebody else's mouth. You are the real racist here. Nope, some shit about how you regularly sleep with asian strippers isn't proof you aren't a racist. Not when you threw 'sandnigger' out there for no good reason.

I would like you to change your avatar to this picture:-

http://www.4pt.su/sites/default/files/main/articles/evola-3_0.jpg

lant3rn
12th July 17, 03:46 PM
Lol, congratulations you win again asshole.

NoBowie
12th July 17, 04:01 PM
Listen folks.

Let's list some things that suck:
Trump
Modern media organizations
Modern Christianity
Islam

If we could pick the order to address these issues to make the biggest change in quality of life for folks around the globe, and we don't pick Islam to tackle first, we aren't being logical.

Do Trump and Christianity do things to marginalize women, LGBT folks, and human rights in general? Hell yes.

Do they do them on a scale and degree that even moderate followers / nations of Islam do? Nope.

If you are going to disagree there, we can't really have a rational discussion.

MerkinMuffly
12th July 17, 04:04 PM
"Saying that the Muzzy sandniggers need to be bombed back to the stone-age isn't racism, and Jews aren't a race either so Hitler wasn't racist."

Exactly.

lol. you walked right into that one and then tried to backtrack.

Consider yourself trolled.

MerkinMuffly
12th July 17, 04:13 PM
Listen folks.

Let's list some things that suck:
Trump
Modern media organizations
Modern Christianity
Islam

If we could pick the order to address these issues to make the biggest change in quality of life for folks around the globe, and we don't pick Islam to tackle first, we aren't being logical.

Do Trump and Christianity do things to marginalize women, LGBT folks, and human rights in general? Hell yes.

Do they do them on a scale and degree that even moderate followers / nations of Islam do? Nope.

If you are going to disagree there, we can't really have a rational discussion.

We live in a world there the right wing propagates terrorism and the left is too impotent to confront it.

It's all hyperbole and no rationality.

While we are making fun of Trump's antics the owners of the country are gearing up to steal the rest of the wealth from the bottom 99%.

Doesn't matter if you lean right or left, because you gettin' raped.

Cullion
12th July 17, 04:18 PM
"Saying that the Muzzy sandniggers need to be bombed back to the stone-age isn't racism, and Jews aren't a race either so Hitler wasn't racist."


lol. you walked right into that one and then tried to backtrack.

Consider yourself trolled.

Putting the word 'nigger' into somebody else's mouth was your brilliant troll? Sad. I hope your wife doesn't see this stuff.

NoBowie
12th July 17, 04:19 PM
A large portion of the left is too worried about safe spaces and pronouns to focus on the important stuff.

The "owners of the country" are from both sides of the political spectrum.

MerkinMuffly
12th July 17, 04:22 PM
A large portion of the left is too worried about safe spaces and pronouns to focus on the important stuff.

The "owners of the country" are from both sides of the political spectrum.

Aside from wedge issues, there is very little difference between the puppet masters of the two parties

lant3rn
12th July 17, 04:23 PM
Putting the word 'nigger' into somebody else's mouth was your brilliant troll? Sad. I hope your wife doesn't see this stuff.

He didn't say anything.. he wrote it.

And then you agreed with the racist context he put it in... WHATS amadder you dontt reade goood or sumthin?( this is me parroting you)

MerkinMuffly
12th July 17, 04:28 PM
Putting the word 'nigger' into somebody else's mouth was your brilliant troll? Sad. I hope your wife doesn't see this stuff.
I merely referenced what I read from Reich wingnuts in hate posts all over these interwebz.
https://www.google.com/#q=bomb+sand+niggers+back+to+the+stone+age+

Have you been sniffing glue or something?

MerkinMuffly
12th July 17, 05:01 PM
The events he cites are all places in Europe when Christian Knights were fighting to defend it from Muslims, not battles of conquest in the middle east. I think we should all be grateful they won.



Let's ignore the majority of nice normal muslims living in the west and just count the countries governed by Islamist regimes that have laws like stoning for adultery, or death for apostasy, or execution for homosexuality. Most of the people in those countries are living under oppression and/or constantly reinforced brainwashing and can't be blamed as individuals. That's still a significant geopolitical block. Just like most Germans in Nazi germany were basically decent people.

It is the regime and the organising ideas of the regime that are the problem, not ordinary-joe.



But it's not actually racist.

Riiight, because the Nazis along with the Christian German populace thinking that Jews were an "inferior race" and should be eliminated isn't actually racism.

Fess up, you have a flight jacket and some Doc Martens in your closet, don't you?

Cullion
13th July 17, 06:35 AM
Riiight, because the Nazis along with the Christian German populace thinking that Jews were an "inferior race" and should be eliminated isn't actually racism.

You just snipped out the quote my final line was responding to, to try and change the meaning of what I said. This forum isn't busy enough for the other small handful of posters not to notice it. Try harder.



Fess up, you have a flight jacket and some Doc Martens in your closet, don't you?

If Lemmy can, why can't I?

MerkinMuffly
13th July 17, 01:43 PM
You just snipped out the quote my final line was responding to, to try and change the meaning of what I said. This forum isn't busy enough for the other small handful of posters not to notice it. Try harder.



If Lemmy can, why can't I?

I knew Lemmy. Lemmy was a friend of mine. Sir, you're no Lemmy.

MerkinMuffly
13th July 17, 01:50 PM
You just snipped out the quote my final line was responding to, to try and change the meaning of what I said. This forum isn't busy enough for the other small handful of posters not to notice it. Try harder.


I didn't snip anything. I quoted your full post.

Cullion
13th July 17, 01:55 PM
But you didn't quote the part of somebody else's post I was replying to.

MerkinMuffly
13th July 17, 01:57 PM
But you didn't quote the part of somebody else's post I was replying to.
Your memory is so short that you want me to cut & paste in the whole discussion?
SMH.

Cullion
13th July 17, 03:34 PM
My memory is fine grandpa.

MerkinMuffly
13th July 17, 06:19 PM
Meow.

Syntactical Disruptorize
14th July 17, 11:52 AM
Your memory is so short that you want me to cut & paste in the whole discussion?
SMH.

If you're playing games with Cullion's head, play on. But the context did matter here, just in case we're having a real discussion.

So, no one else here is worried about CNN abusing its power to blackmail someone who dared to mock it. Kk.

Cullion
14th July 17, 11:57 AM
I expect it. In the UK we don't have freedom of speech protections anything like as robust as you do in the US. For example, our libel laws allow wealthy people to silence embarrassing facts about their private lives, even if they present themselves as totally mainstream, conservative 'family values' people for a living.

You can be arrested for insulting politicians on twitter here, if you step over a very blurry line.

I understand that America's founding principals are supposed to prevent that kind of thing, but I see it as an inevitable stage of any society's lifecycle. We had a bill of rights full of most of the things in your constitution once, too. They don't even teach it in school history classes any more.

It's a slippery continuum, rather than a binary state. I'm not suggesting the UK is a dictatorship like North Korea or the old Soviet Union.

MerkinMuffly
14th July 17, 01:52 PM
One doesn't simple troll Cullion without at least some degree of intellectual dishonesty.
Things have gotten a little boring since we've ran off most of the trolls so I may have slipped back into an old habit.
As far as CNN goes, I don't think any business entity of means should be able to function as a lynch mob.

BTW, Trump has a habit of threatening private citizens and I hope this disease does not become the new normal.

Syntactical Disruptorize
14th July 17, 02:37 PM
One doesn't simple troll Cullion without at least some degree of intellectual dishonesty.
Things have gotten a little boring since we've ran off most of the trolls so I may have slipped back into an old habit.
As far as CNN goes, I don't think any business entity of means should be able to function as a lynch mob.

BTW, Trump has a habit of threatening private citizens and I hope this disease does not become the new normal.

Well, as long as you are trolling, I have no complaint. As a wise man once said, "lulz > brotherhood".

Cullion
14th July 17, 06:33 PM
You mean I was being trolled? By Reese?

This is a new wound. I may have to leave the board.

Syntactical Disruptorize
14th July 17, 08:02 PM
Did Trump threaten any private citizen as President?

Steve
14th July 17, 08:18 PM
I may have to leave the board.

i have been waiting for this day.

MerkinMuffly
14th July 17, 11:44 PM
Did Trump threaten any private citizen as President?

He doesn't need to. All he has to do now is tweet about someone and his minions issue death threats.

Syntactical Disruptorize
15th July 17, 04:50 PM
He doesn't need to. All he has to do now is tweet about someone and his minions issue death threats.

Oh, come now. If you want to compare violent acts by the American Left versus the American Right, that's a conversation we can have, but you may not like the outcome.

Cullion
15th July 17, 07:28 PM
the left has been more violent than the right in the uk since the early 90s

Syntactical Disruptorize
15th July 17, 09:13 PM
the left has been more violent than the right in the uk since the early 90s
As usual, the US lags. Well, there was a bit of bother in the 1960's, but it wasn't until the late '90's in Seattle that our left pumped up the violence again. They haven't stopped since, but have often gotten effective political cover from our shitty media organs. Meanwhile, those organs agonized over the possibility of Tea Party violence, and even invented some when the PTA moms of that movement would not supply it.

Note to the Left: When you pull shit and pull shit and your opponents sit there and take it like gentlemen, eventually you will select for an opponent who won't sit there and won't take it and isn't a gentleman. When you are faced with such an opponent, don't come fucking crying to me.

MerkinMuffly
15th July 17, 10:11 PM
Oh, come now. If you want to compare violent acts by the American Left versus the American Right, that's a conversation we can have, but you may not like the outcome. Let's compare tactics of the last four democratic presidents and the last four republicans.

And by all means, tell me how many people have been killed by left wing extremists in the last 20 years.

Syntactical Disruptorize
15th July 17, 11:07 PM
Let's compare tactics of the last four democratic presidents and the last four republicans.

And by all means, tell me how many people have been killed by left wing extremists in the last 20 years.

Nice goalpost shifting on that last one.

MerkinMuffly
15th July 17, 11:10 PM
Nice goalpost shifting on that last one.I was talking about a sitting president causing death threats. You are the one who started telling me how dangerous the left is. Well, let's count bodies.

NoBowie
16th July 17, 12:09 AM
I was talking about a sitting president causing death threats. You are the one who started telling me how dangerous the left is. Well, let's count bodies.

Do abortions count?

MerkinMuffly
16th July 17, 12:26 AM
Not according to Genesis 2:7.

Syntactical Disruptorize
16th July 17, 12:08 PM
I was talking about a sitting president causing death threats. You are the one who started telling me how dangerous the left is. Well, let's count bodies.

I'd be curious how you draw a direct line of causality between actions of a sitting president and death threats. I'm also curious why you think the only way to count threats is dead bodies. It's not the fault of the right that they're better at aiming.

Syntactical Disruptorize
16th July 17, 12:09 PM
The goalpost shifting and little tricks probably work when you're trolling someone. You do understand that doesn't work as well with me, right?

MerkinMuffly
16th July 17, 12:53 PM
Ditch the rhetoric and tell us, where are your goalposts?
Are you comparing lefties blocking the road and breaking windows with murder?

MerkinMuffly
16th July 17, 01:05 PM
I'd be curious how you draw a direct line of causality between actions of a sitting president and death threats.
It's probably just a coincidence that when the president tweets something negative about someone, death threats follow.


I'm also curious why you think the only way to count threats is dead bodies. It's not the fault of the right that they're better at aiming.
So your argument is that the left is a bigger threat because they are unruly and incompetent?
Ninja, please.

Syntactical Disruptorize
16th July 17, 01:13 PM
If you keep speaking for me and distorting what I did say, I'll leave you to Cullion's mercies.

MerkinMuffly
16th July 17, 03:09 PM
If you keep speaking for me and distorting what I did say, I'll leave you to Cullion's mercies.

Rather than threats of ignoring me, why don't you plead your case. How is the left more dangerous than the right?

lant3rn
16th July 17, 04:08 PM
Rather than threats of ignoring me, why don't you plead your case. How is the left more dangerous than the right?

i want to know why he would he get cullion to fight his battles for him?

MerkinMuffly
16th July 17, 04:14 PM
Chuck does not respond well when he feels insulted.

lant3rn
16th July 17, 04:16 PM
Chuck does not respond well when he feels insulted.
Must be a ninja thing.

Cullion
16th July 17, 05:06 PM
How is the left more dangerous than the right?

The left wants to take more of your rights away, and on the campuses, where the next generation of political leaders are being trained, they are winning.

NoBowie
16th July 17, 07:56 PM
Rather than threats of ignoring me, why don't you plead your case. How is the left more dangerous than the right?
Harrison Bergeron. That's what the uber-lefties want.

MerkinMuffly
16th July 17, 11:05 PM
The right wants to take more of your rights away, and on the campuses, where the next generation of political leaders are being trained, they are losing.

MerkinMuffly
16th July 17, 11:24 PM
Harrison Bergeron. That's what the uber-lefties want.

Oh? What bills have been introduced to accomplish this dystopian nightmare?

NoBowie
17th July 17, 12:31 AM
Evergreen college in WA actually tried to kick whites out for a day. It's madness.

MerkinMuffly
17th July 17, 12:41 AM
Grace University expelled a student for being homosexual.

Cullion
17th July 17, 01:41 PM
Which of your rights do you think the american right wants to take away?

Cullion
17th July 17, 03:35 PM
Grace University expelled a student for being homosexual.

Grace University is a private religious college. If you're not prepared to allow private institutions with clearly advertised beliefs to enforce those beliefs then you don't believe in freedom of association. The left wants to change the law to impose its beliefs on all private spaces as well as the public space.

lant3rn
17th July 17, 04:27 PM
Grace University is a private religious college. If you're not prepared to allow private institutions with clearly advertised beliefs to enforce those beliefs then you don't believe in freedom of association. The left wants to change the law to impose its beliefs on all private spaces as well as the public space.

Yes of course because it's wrong to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, gender and race... and the practise of such should be abolished.

Also Grace university isn't a private club for members only, it receives tax payer money to subsidise what it does and that therefor should prohibit them from discriminating based on sexual orientation.

MerkinMuffly
17th July 17, 11:27 PM
The right wants to change the law to impose its beliefs on all private spaces as well as the public space.

Cullion
18th July 17, 01:56 PM
Yes of course because it's wrong to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation, gender and race... and the practise of such should be abolished.

To do so in the private sphere you have to take away freedom of association and in cases like this you have to restrict freedom of religion.



..it receives tax payer money to subsidise..

That's the only part that needs to end. Ending freedom of religion and freedom of association UNTIL THE WHOLE WORLD ACCEPTS YOU FOR WHO YOU ARE is not only pretty much as obnoxious as the conservatives you're railing against, it's totally counterproductive because it's based on a desperate plea for acceptance that's gotten so shrill and angry it actually makes the people you're looking for acceptance from hate you even more. That's extraordinarily obvious and stupid.

Why on earth would a gay person want to attend a place like Grace University anyway? It's not like there aren't plenty of more prestigious, totally secular universities they could attend.

Cullion
18th July 17, 01:57 PM
The right wants to change the law to impose its beliefs on all private spaces as well as the public space.

No it doesn't.

Syntactical Disruptorize
18th July 17, 02:07 PM
Chuck does not respond well when he feels insulted.
How can I get through to you that I don't like other people speaking for how I think and feel? I just said so.

My poor response is to the combination of the hectoring tone and the subtle shifts in what you say back versus what I say. I'm not mad, just not interested in playing those games.

lant3rn
18th July 17, 09:45 PM
To do so in the private sphere you have to take away freedom of association and in cases like this you have to restrict freedom of religion.



That's the only part that needs to end. Ending freedom of religion and freedom of association UNTIL THE WHOLE WORLD ACCEPTS YOU FOR WHO YOU ARE is not only pretty much as obnoxious as the conservatives you're railing against, it's totally counterproductive because it's based on a desperate plea for acceptance that's gotten so shrill and angry it actually makes the people you're looking for acceptance from hate you even more. That's extraordinarily obvious and stupid.

Why on earth would a gay person want to attend a place like Grace University anyway? It's not like there aren't plenty of more prestigious, totally secular universities they could attend.

What you wrote is all BS, and wrongly characterising what i'm saying... but thanks for arguing about thing's i'm not talking about..

Freedom of Religeon to do what? Shit on gay people.. Sure you can have a religion that thinks it's ok to tell people that gay people are an abomination.. but your not aloud to act upon that and make efforts to ostracise them from society....

You can't have a religeon calling for it's members to murder or subjugate blacks, Jews, or people that dress as elves... also,...that seems obvious right..?

You want freedom of association to accomplish goals like...ostracise gay people? Alright, you come together and talk about all you want but if your aloud to do that why can't you have the freedom to associate with people who want to blow up a building, rob a bank or lynch someone? You can't be planning actions that take away the same freedoms other people have...

There has to be a line somewhere C; where freedom meets a standard of shared morality in a functioning society..

Why would she want to go to that school? I don't know and you don't either...

Maybe it's the closest school to where she lives? .. but it doesn't matter, if your going to take public money you better be fucking open to all the public... that includes gay people.

MerkinMuffly
18th July 17, 11:09 PM
My poor response is to the combination of the hectoring tone and the subtle shifts in what you say back versus what I say. I'm not mad, just not interested in playing those games.

So, you didn't feel disrespected? I didn't say you were mad, I just said you don't respond well, which is true.

MerkinMuffly
18th July 17, 11:10 PM
No it doesn't. Bullshit.

Cullion
19th July 17, 05:10 PM
What you wrote is all BS, and wrongly characterising what i'm saying... but thanks for arguing about thing's i'm not talking about..

Freedom of Religeon to do what?

Practice their religion in a private setting. These religions consider homosexuality a sin. They make not practicing it one of the rules of their private school.



Shit on gay people.. Sure you can have a religion that thinks it's ok to tell people that gay people are an abomination.. but your not aloud to act upon that and make efforts to ostracise them from society...

They're not ostracising them from 'society', they're ostracising them from membership of their particular school.



You can't have a religeon calling for it's members to murder or subjugate blacks, Jews, or people that dress as elves... also,...that seems obvious right..?

If that's true, does that mean you have a right to become a teacher a Jewish school if you don't convert? how about if you convert but then eat bacon sandwiches in front of the kids? should the law prevent them from firing you then?

How about eating beef in front of the kids at a hindu school?



You want freedom of association to accomplish goals like...ostracise gay people? Alright, you come together and talk about all you want but if your aloud to do that why can't you have the freedom to associate with people who want to blow up a building, rob a bank or lynch someone? You can't be planning actions that take away the same freedoms other people have...

You don't have a right to be liked. You don't have a right to have other people be forced to tolerate your company, or forced to employ you in a private educational setting for their subculture when you openly reject its norms. Why would you even want to be there unless it was a passive-aggressive attempt to use the law to try and shut their religion down?.



There has to be a line somewhere C; where freedom meets a standard of shared morality in a functioning society..

Society will function just fine if religious people are allowed to forbid homosexual acts or the eating of bacon sandwiches on private premises. It's not a problem at all. Walk me through the story of the out gay person who had lived their whole life wanting to study to be a baptist fundamentalist preacher and who was fully signed up the the values that entails who just had their dream shattered by not being allowed to study at Grace University.

You won't be able to construct such a story without it being transparently ridiculous.

Why would she want to go to that school? I don't know and you don't either...



Maybe it's the closest school to where she lives? .. but it doesn't matter, if your going to take public money you better be fucking open to all the public... that includes gay people.

As I said before, that's simple. Just stop giving them public money.

NoBowie
19th July 17, 07:02 PM
At Muslim schools, they just throw homosexuals off of buildings. Much less damaging to their psyche than what the evil Christian schools are doing. We should focus on those Christians.

MerkinMuffly
20th July 17, 12:38 AM
At Muslim schools, they just throw homosexuals off of buildings. Much less damaging to their psyche than what the evil Christian schools are doing. We should focus on those Christians. Ino, rite? If the Christians read Leviticus 20 they would know that homos must be put to death.

MerkinMuffly
20th July 17, 12:39 AM
.

Cullion
20th July 17, 05:55 AM
Ino, rite? If the Christians read Leviticus 20 they would know that homos must be put to death.

That doesn't apply literally to Christians. Christian morality has to be viewed through the lens of New Testament teaching. Christians can eat ham too, did you notice ?.

MerkinMuffly
20th July 17, 12:12 PM
That doesn't apply literally to Christians. Christian morality has to be viewed through the lens of New Testament teaching. Christians can eat ham too, did you notice ?.
Yes, they eat ham, steal, covet, remarry, abort, work on the Sabbath, have graven images, commit adultery, and don't honor thy father and mother, all after Jesus saying that not one jot or tittle of the law would change or be abolished till all be fulfilled. Christians are going to hell.

Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations. Deuteronomy 7:9
(http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/7.html#9)
Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, always. Deuteronomy 11:1
(http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/11.html#1)
Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations ... an everlasting covenant. 1 Chronicles 16:15 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1chr/16.html#15)

MerkinMuffly
20th July 17, 12:15 PM
http://dl0.creation.com/articles/p078/c07814/salad-bar-for-web.jpg

MerkinMuffly
20th July 17, 12:17 PM
http://www-static.weddingbee.com/pics/190566/what_it_comes_doen_to.jpg (https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=0ahUKEwj1qJSzrpjVAhVDx2MKHcpiCH8QjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fboards.weddingbee.com%2Ftopic%2Fc afeteria-religion%2F&psig=AFQjCNE9rT8G0xdc5cGs0bAZ3gwDUCyeHw&ust=1500657225754788&cad=rjt)

MerkinMuffly
20th July 17, 12:21 PM
Christians wouldn't want to follow the bible that explains that Christ doesn't qualify as Messiah, unless it's just the parts of it that disparage behavior they find personally repellent.

MerkinMuffly
20th July 17, 12:24 PM
http://m5.paperblog.com/i/76/764161/religious-authority-what-i-see-when-i-look-a--L-OF3Qud.jpeg

Cullion
20th July 17, 05:47 PM
Yes, they eat ham, steal, covet, remarry, abort, work on the Sabbath, have graven images, commit adultery, and don't honor thy father and mother, all after Jesus saying that not one jot or tittle of the law would change or be abolished till all be fulfilled. Christians are going to hell.

Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations. Deuteronomy 7:9
(http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/7.html#9)
Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, always. Deuteronomy 11:1
(http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/11.html#1)
Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations ... an everlasting covenant. 1 Chronicles 16:15 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/1chr/16.html#15)

You've mixed together two different things: There's the part where Christian standards really aren't supposed to be the same as Old Testament standards, and the part where they fall short of their own standards. The second part obviously happens because they're human. The first part just seems like a weird blind spot on your part.

MerkinMuffly
20th July 17, 07:54 PM
You've mixed together two different things: There's the part where Christian standards really aren't supposed to be the same as Old Testament standards, and the part where they fall short of their own standards. The second part obviously happens because they're human. The first part just seems like a weird blind spot on your part.
The first part is where they fail their own standards, the second is where they fail God's everlasting covenant.

Cullion
21st July 17, 03:02 PM
The first part is where they fail their own standards, the second is where they fail God's everlasting covenant.

You sound more like a disappointed fundamentalist than an atheist.

Is this anti-Christian rage because Santa Claus let you down?

AAAAAA
21st July 17, 08:31 PM
"Europe" as it is now can't afford to not legitimize an US president, that's why we don't say he's at best a hapless populist who surrounds himself with fascists, racists, white supremacists and ultra-rich weirdos. These are facts. I judge people by their aquaintances and I'm sure you all do too.

Cullion, about "the nonsense about Russia 'hacking' the US election", it depends on how you define "hacking", to paraphrase your words. What can you say about things like this
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/884248485163302912

AAAAAA
21st July 17, 08:42 PM
I think we should all get used to think of "the internet" as the Pravda. One Pravda we willingly and enthusiastically create for ourselves, each one his own.

Cullion
22nd July 17, 07:58 AM
Cullion, about "the nonsense about Russia 'hacking' the US election", it depends on how you define "hacking", to paraphrase your words. What can you say about things like this
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/884248485163302912

One of Trump's kids met a russian who had secret ties with the Russian government. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? Do you really believe that swung the US presidential election? Were you this paranoid about Russians European left wing politicans met before the fall of the soviet union, or did you denounce people who asked about it as McCarthyism?

lant3rn
22nd July 17, 11:30 AM
As I said before, that's simple. Just stop giving them public money.

This is all that matter's and is applicable to what happened at Grace university.
They were taking public money but wanted to be bigoted against a student based on their interpretation of Christianity. Therefor it was wrong...
I have no problem with completely private institutions having the freedom to pick their members as they see fit.

The rest is red hearing and i'm not hungry.

MerkinMuffly
23rd July 17, 06:28 PM
You sound more like a disappointed fundamentalist than an atheist.

Is this anti-Christian rage because Santa Claus let you down? You argue points like old people fuck.

NoBowie
24th July 17, 01:52 AM
You argue points like old people fuck.

Ah, so your missus is pining for a younger man again?

MerkinMuffly
24th July 17, 02:14 AM
No, Cullion is.

AAAAAA
24th July 17, 04:20 PM
One of Trump's kids met a russian who had secret ties with the Russian government. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? Do you really believe that swung the US presidential election? Were you this paranoid about Russians European left wing politicans met before the fall of the soviet union, or did you denounce people who asked about it as McCarthyism?

huge spike in reddit's Trump forum just after the meeting. I expect media manipulation to happen in any case, and Putin and his friends are quite the experts, for career reasons.

Cullion
24th July 17, 08:11 PM
huge spike in reddit's Trump forum just after the meeting

Read this back to yourself a few times.

AAAAAA
27th July 17, 05:44 PM
Read this back to yourself a few times.

Ah come on.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/russian-trolls-hilary-clinton-fake-news-election-democrat-mark-warner-intelligence-committee-a7657641.html

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-twitter-bots-fake-followers-trolls-army-white-house-propaganda-621018

Cullion
27th July 17, 05:54 PM
'1000 people creating fake news'.

What do you think Mark Warner means exactly here?

Do you think 1000 covert agents infiltrated local TV stations and then broadcast false stories to the populace of these states, or do you think Mark Warner heard a rumour that there were Russians trolling forums by posting anti-Clinton stories already broadcast in mainstream media?

What is Mr. Warner's evidence that these trolls were in the employ of the Russian state?

Do you think the US ever uses 'strategic communications' to try and influence elections in other countries?

Look, dude, this story is nonsense. Americans in those states voted for Trump because they care more about somebody trying to reverse the offshoring of all the well-paid blue collar work than they do about crude locker room humour. There's no secret Russian mind-control beam making them reject the oily faux-liberal croney capitalism that Clinton represented.

AAAAAA
29th July 17, 03:30 PM
'1000 people creating fake news'.

What do you think Mark Warner means exactly here?

Do you think 1000 covert agents infiltrated local TV stations and then broadcast false stories to the populace of these states, or do you think Mark Warner heard a rumour that there were Russians trolling forums by posting anti-Clinton stories already broadcast in mainstream media?

What is Mr. Warner's evidence that these trolls were in the employ of the Russian state?

Do you think the US ever uses 'strategic communications' to try and influence elections in other countries?

Look, dude, this story is nonsense. Americans in those states voted for Trump because they care more about somebody trying to reverse the offshoring of all the well-paid blue collar work than they do about crude locker room humour. There's no secret Russian mind-control beam making them reject the oily faux-liberal croney capitalism that Clinton represented.

I'm saying that the Russians have had a spectacular success with their whole operation, and the links that keep surfacing between the god-emperor and them is a political nonsense in this light, not just some detail. Sets a worrying start for a trend.

Cullion
29th July 17, 07:43 PM
I'm saying that the Russians have had a spectacular success with their whole operation, and the links that keep surfacing between the god-emperor and them is a political nonsense in this light, not just some detail. Sets a worrying start for a trend.

This is the most gullible thing I've ever seen you post.

AAAAAA
30th July 17, 04:26 PM
maybe it's because you've drifted more towards the "I won't be fooled by THEM" camp, while I didn't really move.

Cullion
30th July 17, 04:30 PM
maybe it's because you've drifted more towards the "I won't be fooled by THEM" camp, while I didn't really move.

It's because I'm not the kind of idiot who thinks the outcomes of US elections are decided by vaguely-sourced allegations of internet forum trolling by Russian spies. This is an utterly absurd claim.

AAAAAA
30th July 17, 05:50 PM
Never said it was decided by that. A healthy hand perhaps.

Cullion
31st July 17, 05:49 AM
Can you point to evidence for any of the following: -

i) Evidence that Russian forum posters were paid state actors

ii) Evidence that stories cited by said state actors were actually false

iii) Quantified impact on the outcome of the election.

Even if you had evidence of i) or iii) (you don't) if the stories in point ii) were actually true then it would mean that Putin had done God's work.

NoBowie
31st July 17, 09:56 AM
Anyone who believes Russian tampering in news (if it happened) had any significant (like more than 0.1 percent) impact on the American election is a loony.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
31st July 17, 11:10 AM
Yeah Americans are stupid enough to fuck themselves over without the need of a foreign power.

NoBowie
31st July 17, 12:21 PM
Yeah Americans are stupid enough to fuck themselves over without the need of a foreign power.

Exactly. And stubborn as rocks. No talking head on the evil liberal media or some forum is going to tell them what to do.

The only way I see something like this working is in maybe motivating some people who weren't going to vote to vote. I don't ever see it changing someone's mind in any significant manner, they are going to vote how they are going to vote.

AAAAAA
31st July 17, 03:29 PM
Can you point to evidence for any of the following: -

i) Evidence that Russian forum posters were paid state actors

very easy, there's many article on the net
http://www.bbc.com/russian/society/2016/03/160315_smj_trolls_make_haram_video (BBC Russia)
old but good https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html?_r=0
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/world/europe/russia-finland-nato-trolls.html
etc etc. Now all this is surely Western propaganda of course so this first point is moot at start

ii) Evidence that stories cited by said state actors were actually false
see above. What stories?

iii) Quantified impact on the outcome of the election.
sure, how about, hmmm... maybe 0.4%. But it depends where. they ha ve electoral colleges right? It's not just about the raw cardinality of voters.

This all can be a nice help. Or maybe not. Surely Putin is happier with a crazy idiot on the white house than whatever else might have been with Clinton.

NoBowie
31st July 17, 04:58 PM
I guarantee the very vocal and very negative foreign press RE Trump had before the elections affected outcomes to an infinitely larger degree more than this.

I didn't vote for Trump, but foreign opinions sure made me worry about foreign relations if he were elected. (and I was right to be worried)

If I were going to vote for him, it might have changed my mind.

Foreign news is so visible now, even to your average dumb American.

To sum up, this is non-news. Really something only the CIA / NSA should look into and no one else.

Cullion
31st July 17, 06:47 PM
Can you point to evidence for any of the following: -

i) Evidence that Russian forum posters were paid state actors

very easy, there's many article on the net
http://www.bbc.com/russian/society/2016/03/160315_smj_trolls_make_haram_video (BBC Russia)

This article has no connection with any topic discussed in the US presidential campaign or Russian manipulation of US media.



old but good https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html?_r=0

Evidence that the specific stories alleged to have effected the US election were produced by paid state actors. This story has a feeble chain of evidence embedded in it's badly written wall of text. 'I followed some people on facebook I was sure were fake accounts' -> 'I met a russian techie and asked him if they were connected to russia. he said no' -> 'then I met another Russia journalist who said they seemed to post some movies made in the same style as ones he'd seen used in the Russian media'.

iii) What's the basis of your calculation of 0.4%?

You have not produced any reasonable evidence and you're just pulling numbers out of the air. You don't even seem to be able to clearly describe what it is that these Russian trolls actually posted that would've influenced US voters.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
1st August 17, 07:29 AM
Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Feinstein, and members of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today on the Russian government’s attempts to repeal the Magnitsky Act in Washington in 2016, and the enablers who conducted this campaign in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, by not disclosing their roles as agents for foreign interests.Before I get into the actions of the agents who conducted the anti-Magnitsky campaign in Washington for the benefit of the Russian state, let me share a bit of background about Sergei Magnitsky and myself.I am the founder and CEO of Hermitage Capital Management. I grew up in Chicago, but for the last 28 years I’ve lived in Moscow and London, and am now a British citizen. From 1996 to 2005, my firm, Hermitage Capital, was one of the largest investment advisers in Russia with more than $4 billion invested in Russian stocks.Russia has a well-known reputation for corruption; unfortunately, I discovered that it was far worse than many had thought. While working in Moscow I learned that Russian oligarchs stole from shareholders, which included the fund I advised. Consequently, I had an interest in fighting this endemic corruption, so my firm started doing detailed research on exactly how the oligarchs stole the vast amounts of money that they did. When we were finished with our research we would share it with the domestic and international media.

For a time, this naming and shaming campaign worked remarkably well and led to less corruption and increased share prices in the companies we invested in. Why? Because President Vladimir Putin and I shared the same set of enemies. When Putin was first elected in 2000, he found that the oligarchs had misappropriated much of the president’s power as well. They stole power from him while stealing money from my investors. In Russia, your enemy’s enemy is your friend, and even though I’ve never met Putin, he would often step into my battles with the oligarchs and crack down on them.

That all changed in July 2003, when Putin arrested Russia’s biggest oligarch and richest man, Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Putin grabbed Khodorkovsky off his private jet, took him back to Moscow, put him on trial, and allowed television cameras to film Khodorkovsky sitting in a cage right in the middle of the courtroom. That image was extremely powerful, because none of the other oligarchs wanted to be in the same position. After Khodorkovsky’s conviction, the other oligarchs went to Putin and asked him what they needed to do to avoid sitting in the same cage as Khodorkovsky. From what followed, it appeared that Putin’s answer was, “Fifty percent.” He wasn’t saying 50 percent for the Russian government or the presidential administration of Russia, but 50 percent for Vladimir Putin personally. From that moment on, Putin became the biggest oligarch in Russia and the richest man in the world, and my anti-corruption activities would no longer be tolerated.

The results of this change came very quickly. On November 13, 2005, as I was flying into Moscow from a weekend away, I was stopped at Sheremetyevo airport, detained for 15 hours, deported, and declared a threat to national security.

Eighteen months after my expulsion a pair of simultaneous raids took place in Moscow. Over 25 Interior Ministry officials barged into my Moscow office and the office of the American law firm that represented me. The officials seized all the corporate documents connected to the investment holding companies of the funds that I advised. I didn’t know the purpose of these raids so I hired the smartest Russian lawyer I knew, a 35-year-old named Sergei Magnitsky. I asked Sergei to investigate the purpose of the raids and try to stop whatever illegal plans these officials had.Sergei went out and investigated. He came back with the most astounding conclusion of corporate identity theft: The documents seized by the Interior Ministry were used to fraudulently re-register our Russian investment holding companies to a man named Viktor Markelov, a known criminal convicted of manslaughter. After more digging, Sergei discovered that the stolen companies were used by the perpetrators to misappropriate $230 million of taxes that our companies had paid to the Russian government in the previous year.I had always thought Putin was a nationalist. It seemed inconceivable that he would approve of his officials stealing $230 million from the Russian state. Sergei and I were sure that this was a rogue operation and if we just brought it to the attention of the Russian authorities, the “good guys” would get the “bad guys” and that would be the end of the story.

We filed criminal complaints with every law enforcement agency in Russia, and Sergei gave sworn testimony to the Russian State Investigative Committee (Russia’s FBI) about the involvement of officials in this crime.

However, instead of arresting the people who committed the crime, Sergei was arrested. Who took him? The same officials he had testified against. On November 24, 2008, they came to his home, handcuffed him in front of his family, and threw him into pre-trial detention.Sergei’s captors immediately started putting pressure on him to withdraw his testimony. They put him in cells with 14 inmates and eight beds, leaving the lights on 24 hours a day to impose sleep deprivation. They put him in cells with no heat and no windowpanes, and he nearly froze to death. They put him in cells with no toilet, just a hole in the floor and sewage bubbling up. They moved him from cell to cell in the middle of the night without any warning. During his 358 days in detention he was forcibly moved multiple times.They did all of this because they wanted him to withdraw his testimony against the corrupt Interior Ministry officials, and to sign a false statement that he was the one who stole the $230 million—and that he had done so on my instruction.Sergei refused. In spite of the grave pain they inflicted upon him, he would not perjure himself or bear false witness.After six months of this mistreatment, Sergei’s health seriously deteriorated. He developed severe abdominal pains, he lost 40 pounds, and he was diagnosed with pancreatitis and gallstones and prescribed an operation for August 2009. However, the operation never occurred. A week before he was due to have surgery, he was moved to a maximum security prison called Butyrka, which is considered to be one of the harshest prisons in Russia. Most significantly for Sergei, there were no medical facilities there to treat his medical conditions.

At Butyrka, his health completely broke down. He was in agonizing pain. He and his lawyers wrote 20 desperate requests for medical attention, filing them with every branch of the Russian criminal justice system. All of those requests were either ignored or explicitly denied in writing.

After more than three months of untreated pancreatitis and gallstones, Sergei Magnitsky went into critical condition. The Butyrka authorities did not want to have responsibility for him, so they put him in an ambulance and sent him to another prison that had medical facilities. But when he arrived there, instead of putting him in the emergency room, they put him in an isolation cell, chained him to a bed, and eight riot guards came in and beat him with rubber batons.That night he was found dead on the cell floor.Sergei Magnitsky died on November 16, 2009, at the age of 37, leaving a wife and two children.I received the news of his death early the next morning. It was by far the most shocking, heart-breaking, and life-changing news I’ve ever received.Sergei Magnitsky was murdered as my proxy. If Sergei had not been my lawyer, he would still be alive today.That morning I made a vow to Sergei’s memory, to his family, and to myself that I would seek justice and create consequences for the people who murdered him. For the last seven and a half years, I’ve devoted my life to this cause.Even though this case was characterized by injustice all the way through, the circumstances of Sergei’s torture and death were so extreme that I was sure some people would be prosecuted. Unlike other deaths in Russian prisons, which are largely undocumented, Sergei had written everything down. In his 358 days in detention, Sergei wrote over 400 complaints detailing his abuse. In those complaints he described who did what to him, as well as where, how, when, and why. He was able to pass his hand-written complaints to his lawyers, who dutifully filed them with the Russian authorities. Although his complaints were either ignored or rejected, copies of them were retained. As a result, we have the most well-documented case of human rights abuse coming out of Russia in the last 35 years.

When I began the campaign for justice with this evidence, I thought that the Russian authorities would have no choice but to prosecute at least some of the officials involved in Sergei Magnitsky’s torture and murder. It turns out I could not have been more wrong. Instead of prosecuting, the Russian authorities circled the wagons and exonerated everybody involved. They even went so far as to offer promotions and state honors to those most complicit in Sergei’s persecution.

It became obvious that if I was going to get any justice for Sergei Magnitsky, I was going to have to find it outside of Russia.But how does one get justice in the West for a murder that took place in Russia? Criminal justice is based on jurisdiction: One cannot prosecute someone in New York for a murder committed in Moscow. As I thought about it, the murder of Sergei Magnitsky was done to cover up the theft of $230 million from the Russian Treasury. I knew that the people who stole that money wouldn’t keep it in Russia. As easily as they stole the money, it could be stolen from them. These people keep their ill-gotten gains in the West, where property rights and rule of law exist. This led to the idea of freezing their assets and banning their visas here in the West. It would not be true justice but it would be much better than the total impunity they enjoyed.In 2010, I traveled to Washington and told Sergei Magnitsky’s story to Senators Benjamin Cardin and John McCain. They were both shocked and appalled and proposed a new piece of legislation called The Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act. This would freeze assets and ban visas for those who killed Sergei as well as other Russians involved in serious human rights abuse.

Despite the White House’s desire to reset relations with Russia at the time, this case shined a bright light on the criminality and impunity of the Putin regime and persuaded Congress that something needed to be done. In November 2012 the Magnitsky Act passed the House of Representatives by 364 to 43 votes and later the Senate 92 to 4 votes. On December 14, 2012, President Obama signed the Sergei Magnitsky Act into law.

Putin was furious. Looking for ways to retaliate against American interests, he settled on the most sadistic and evil option of all: banning the adoption of Russian orphans by American families.This was particularly heinous because of the effect it had on the orphans. Russia did not allow the adoption of healthy children, just sick ones. In spite of this, American families came with big hearts and open arms, taking in children with HIV, Down syndrome, Spina Bifida and other serious ailments. They brought them to America, nursed them, cared for them and loved them. Since the Russian orphanage system did not have the resources to look after these children, many of those unlucky enough to remain in Russia would die before their 18th birthday. In practical terms, this meant that Vladimir Putin sentenced his own, most vulnerable and sick Russian orphans to death in order to protect corrupt officials in his regime.Why did Vladimir Putin take such a drastic and malicious step?

For two reasons. First, since 2012 it’s emerged that Vladimir Putin was a beneficiary of the stolen $230 million that Sergei Magnitsky exposed. Recent revelations from the Panama Papers have shown that Putin’s closest childhood friend, Sergei Roldugin, a famous cellist, received $2 billion of funds from Russian oligarchs and the Russian state. It’s commonly understood that Mr. Roldugin received this money as an agent of Vladimir Putin. Information from the Panama Papers also links some money from the crime that Sergei Magnitsky discovered and exposed to Sergei Roldugin. Based on the language of the Magnitsky Act, this would make Putin personally subject to Magnitsky sanctions.

This is particularly worrying for Putin, because he is one of the richest men in the world. I estimate that he has accumulated $200 billion of ill-gotten gains from these types of operations over his 17 years in power. He keeps his money in the West and all of his money in the West is potentially exposed to asset freezes and confiscation. Therefore, he has a significant and very personal interest in finding a way to get rid of the Magnitsky sanctions.The second reason why Putin reacted so badly to the passage of the Magnitsky Act is that it destroys the promise of impunity he’s given to all of his corrupt officials.There are approximately ten thousand officials in Russia working for Putin who are given instructions to kill, torture, kidnap, extort money from people, and seize their property. Before the Magnitsky Act, Putin could guarantee them impunity and this system of illegal wealth accumulation worked smoothly. However, after the passage of the Magnitsky Act, Putin’s guarantee disappeared. The Magnitsky Act created real consequences outside of Russia and this created a real problem for Putin and his system of kleptocracy.

For these reasons, Putin has stated publicly that it was among his top foreign policy priorities to repeal the Magnitsky Act and to prevent it from spreading to other countries. Since its passage in 2012, the Putin regime has gone after everybody who has been advocating for the Magnitsky Act.

One of my main partners in this effort was Boris Nemtsov. Boris testified in front of the U.S. Congress, the European Parliament, the Canadian Parliament, and others to make the point that the Magnitsky Act was a “pro-Russian” piece of legislation because it narrowly targeted corrupt officials and not the Russian people. In 2015, Boris Nemtsov was murdered on the bridge in front of the Kremlin.Boris Nemtsov’s protg, Vladimir Kara-Murza, also traveled to law-making bodies around the world to make a similar case. After Alexander Bastrykin, the head of the Russian Investigative Committee, was added to the Magnitsky List in December of 2016, Vladimir was poisoned. He suffered multiple organ failure, went into a coma and barely survived.The lawyer who represented Sergei Magnitsky’s mother, Nikolai Gorokhov, has spent the last six years fighting for justice. This spring, the night before he was due in court to testify about the state cover up of Sergei Magnitsky’s murder, he was thrown off the fourth floor of his apartment building. Thankfully he survived and has carried on in the fight for justice.

I’ve received many death threats from Russia. The most notable one came from Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in 2013. When asked by a group of journalists about the death of Sergei Magnitsky, Medvedev replied, “It’s too bad that Sergei Magnitsky is dead and Bill Browder is still alive and free.” I’ve received numerous other death threats from Russian sources through text messages, emails, and voicemails. U.S. government sources have warned me about a planned Russian rendition against me. These threats were in addition to numerous unsuccessful attempts that the Russian government has made to arrest me using Interpol or other formal legal assistance channels.

The Russian government has also used its resources and assets to try to repeal the Magnitsky Act. One of the most shocking attempts took place in the spring and summer of last year when a group of Russians went on a lobbying campaign in Washington to try to repeal the Magnitsky Act by changing the narrative of what had happened to Sergei. According to them, Sergei wasn’t murdered and he wasn’t a whistle-blower, and the Magnitsky Act was based on a false set of facts. They used this story to try to have Sergei’s name taken off of the Global Magnitsky Act that passed in December 2016. They were unsuccessful.Who was this group of Russians acting on behalf of the Russian state? Two men named Pyotr and Denis Katsyv, a woman named Natalia Veselnitskaya, and a large group of American lobbyists, all of whom are described below.

Pyotr Katsyv, father to Denis Katsyv, is a senior Russian government official and well-placed member of the Putin regime; Denis Katsyv was caught by U.S. law enforcement using proceeds from the crime that Sergei Magnitsky uncovered to purchase high-end Manhattan real estate (the case recently settled with the Katsyv’s paying $6 million to the U.S. government). Natalia Veselnitskaya was their lawyer.

In addition to working on the Katsyv’ s money laundering defense, Ms. Veselnitskaya also headed the aforementioned lobbying campaign to repeal the Magnitsky Act. She hired a number of lobbyists, public relations executives, lawyers, and investigators to assist her in this task.Her first step was to set up a fake NGO that would ostensibly promote Russian adoptions, although it quickly became clear that the NGO’s sole purpose was to repeal the Magnitsky Act. This NGO was called the Human Rights Accountability Global Initiative Foundation (HRAGI). It was registered as a corporation in Delaware with two employees on February 18, 2016. HRAGI was used to pay Washington lobbyists and other agents for the anti-Magnitsky campaign. (HRAGI now seems to be defunct, with taxes due.)Through HRAGI, Rinat Akhmetshin, a former Soviet intelligence officer naturalised as an American citizen, was hired to lead the Magnitsky repeal effort. Mr. Akhmetshin has been involved in a number of similar campaigns where he’s been accused of various unethical and potentially illegal actions like computer hacking.

Veselnitskaya also instructed U.S. law firm Baker Hostetler and their Washington, D.C.-based partner Marc Cymrot to lobby members of Congress to support an amendment taking Sergei Magnitsky’s name off the Global Magnitsky Act. Mr. Cymrot was in contact with Paul Behrends, a congressional staffer on the House Foreign Affairs Committee at the time, as part of the anti-Magnitsky lobbying campaign.

Veselnitskaya, through Baker Hostetler, hired Glenn Simpson of the firm Fusion GPS to conduct a smear campaign against me and Sergei Magnitsky in advance of congressional hearings on the Global Magnitsky Act. He contacted a number of major newspapers and other publications to spread false information that Sergei Magnitsky was not murdered, was not a whistle-blower, and was instead a criminal. They also spread false information that my presentations to lawmakers around the world were untrue.As part of Veselnitskaya’s lobbying, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, Chris Cooper of the Potomac Group, was hired to organize the Washington, D.C.-based premiere of a fake documentary about Sergei Magnitsky and myself. This was one the best examples of Putin’s propaganda.They hired Howard Schweitzer of Cozzen O’Connor Public Strategies and former Congressman Ronald Dellums to lobby members of Congress on Capitol Hill to repeal the Magnitsky Act and to remove Sergei’s name from the Global Magnitsky bill.On June 13, 2016, they funded a major event at the Newseum to show their fake documentary, inviting representatives of Congress and the State Department to attend.While they were conducting these operations in Washington, D.C., at no time did they indicate that they were acting on behalf of Russian government interests, nor did they file disclosures under the Foreign Agent Registration Act.United States law is very explicit that those acting on behalf of foreign governments and their interests must register under FARA so that there is transparency about their interests and their motives.Since none of these people registered, my firm wrote to the Department of Justice in July 2016 and presented the facts.I hope that my story will help you understand the methods of Russian operatives in Washington and how they use U.S. enablers to achieve major foreign policy goals without disclosing those interests. I also hope that this story and others like it may lead to a change in the FARA enforcement regime in the future.Thank you.

Cullion
1st August 17, 07:51 AM
That's a long, interesting story about an allegation made by a single witness, concerning things that are alleged to have set in motion before Trump even decided to run.

This whole stupid meme is the product of out of touch wealthy liberals refusing to accept that they lost an election and diving off into paranoid conspiracy theories rather than take a long, hard look at themselves in a genuine effort to understand why the working class basically can't stand them any more.

The parallels with Brexit didn't end with the election result, obviously.

NoBowie
1st August 17, 07:52 AM
Resolve, is that you? (posted in response to Fauxtor post vomit which was subsequently removed)

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
1st August 17, 08:12 AM
That's a long, interesting story about an allegation made by a single witness, concerning things that are alleged to have set in motion before Trump even decided to run.

This whole stupid meme is the product of out of touch wealthy liberals refusing to accept that they lost an election and diving off into paranoid conspiracy theories rather than take a long, hard look at themselves in a genuine effort to understand why the working class basically can't stand them any more.

The parallels with Brexit didn't end with the election result, obviously.

Sure if you are genuinely that niave.

Cullion
1st August 17, 08:49 AM
Do you really believe that the Clinton campaign didn't have contact with foreign officials?

This whole story is silly in the extreme. You need to focus on why the people that the centre-left insist they represent actually hate them.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
1st August 17, 09:02 AM
Do you really believe that the Clinton campaign didn't have contact with foreign officials?

No


This whole story is silly in the extreme. You need to focus on why the people that the centre-left insist they represent actually hate them.

I'll put my focus where I like thanks.

Its niave IMO to believe that Putin doesn't want certain US interests/policies curtailed & that he wont do anything possible to achieve that, including attempting to infiltate the US election or other political processes. Rather than trying to deflect the investigation with claims of "the otherside is just crying foul" some people are taking it seriously. I dont see the problem with that.

Cullion
1st August 17, 09:15 AM
Where is the big investigation of contacts between US political campaigns and China, Saudi Arabia or Israel ?

This is a circus show from people can't accept that their policies are not popular with the working class.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
1st August 17, 09:49 AM
Where is the big investigation of contacts between US political campaigns and China, Saudi Arabia or Israel?

Agreed they should be investigated as well


This is a circus show from people can't accept that their policies are not popular with some of the working class.

ftfy

Cullion
1st August 17, 10:29 AM
Change some to 'most of'.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
1st August 17, 11:03 AM
Is that a fact or something you'd like to believe?

NoBowie
1st August 17, 11:08 AM
Much more of a fact than Russian tampering in news / forums made a significant / alarming difference in the U.S. elections.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
1st August 17, 11:25 AM
Not what I asked NoB

NoBowie
1st August 17, 11:51 AM
As far as 'working class' goes, mostly'rich' people vote. Democrat or Republican.

27 percent of American households have incomes under $30,000.

By comparison, 20 percent of Clinton voters did, as did 18 percent of Sanders supporters. 12 percent (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/) of Trump voters have incomes below $30,000.

Working class doesn't have to mean poor though. There are lots of blue collar workers which would be included in that group that are making 6 figures.

The fucking New York Times said Trump won because of 'working class whites' (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/why-trump-won-working-class-whites.html) .

That right there is enough of a counterpoint to your little quibble.

We should be yelling about horrible staff choices and foreign policy decisions, not Russia. Let the intelligence agencies investigate. That's it.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
1st August 17, 12:09 PM
As far as 'working class' goes, mostly'rich' people vote. Democrat or Republican.

27 percent of American households have incomes under $30,000.

By comparison, 20 percent of Clinton voters did, as did 18 percent of Sanders supporters. 12 percent (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/) of Trump voters have incomes below $30,000.

From your link in the above post..


As compared with most Americans, Trump’s voters are better off. The median household income of a Trump voter so far in the primaries is about $72,000, based on estimates derived from exit polls and Census Bureau data. That’s lower than the $91,000 median for Kasich voters. But it’s well above the national median household income of about $56,000. It’s also higher than the median income for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders supporters, which is around $61,000 for both.
.............
Only 12 percent of Trump voters have incomes below $30,000; when you also consider that Clinton has more votes than Trump overall, that means about twice as many low-income voters have cast a ballot for Clinton than for Trump so far this year.


So err yeah that doesnt support the assumption.



The fucking New York Times said Trump won because of 'working class whites' (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/why-trump-won-working-class-whites.html) .

That's a better rebuttal but still doesn't support the notion that the majority of the workng class are Trump voters just that more than usual voted for him. The popular vote was very close after all. If the majority of the working class voted for Trump I would expect a much higher margin of victory.


That right there is enough of a counterpoint to your little quibble.

Wasn't making a counter point, I was asking for clarification.


We should be yelling about horrible staff choices and foreign policy decisions, not Russia. Let the intelligence agencies investigate. That's it.

We can do that too.

AAAAAA
1st August 17, 02:25 PM
This article has no connection with any topic discussed in the US presidential campaign or Russian manipulation of US media.



Evidence that the specific stories alleged to have effected the US election were produced by paid state actors. This story has a feeble chain of evidence embedded in it's badly written wall of text. 'I followed some people on facebook I was sure were fake accounts' -> 'I met a russian techie and asked him if they were connected to russia. he said no' -> 'then I met another Russia journalist who said they seemed to post some movies made in the same style as ones he'd seen used in the Russian media'.

iii) What's the basis of your calculation of 0.4%?

You have not produced any reasonable evidence and you're just pulling numbers out of the air. You don't even seem to be able to clearly describe what it is that these Russian trolls actually posted that would've influenced US voters.

So you think it's a fabrication, or that it's something that everyone did all the times, no difference except they were liked by the press? or more careful? Different world pre-internet?

NoBowie
1st August 17, 02:57 PM
Also, fuck the working class as far as politics go. I don't care which person they are supporting. That doesn't tell me which way I should lean. The fact that there are still so many unions in America lets me know many of the members of the working class are grade A twats.

What is the candidates stances on the various important issues?

That is what matters.

Cullion
1st August 17, 06:23 PM
it's something that everyone did all the times, no difference except they were liked by the press?

This plus cognitive dissonance on the part of the 'centrist' axis of upper middle class globalists who have taken over the centre-left political parties and made them hopelessly out of touch with those party's traditional bases. They refuse to look inwards and acknowledge that almost nothing about their key political goals are socially or economically appealing to a marginally employed blue collar worker with little financial capital and deep roots in a particular town or region.

Cullion
1st August 17, 06:24 PM
Is that a fact or something you'd like to believe?

Fact in the US and in the UK.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
2nd August 17, 04:53 AM
Really? I ask because the figures I've seen so far, as far as Brexit is concenred, point towards an aging Conservative voter base being the deciding factor in the referendum.

lant3rn
2nd August 17, 05:20 AM
Really? I ask because the figures I've seen so far, as far as Brexit is concenred, point towards an aging Conservative voter base being the deciding factor in the referendum.
That makes two of us.

Cullion
3rd August 17, 01:59 PM
Really? I ask because the figures I've seen so far, as far as Brexit is concenred, point towards an aging Conservative voter base being the deciding factor in the referendum.

Not in what are normally Labour strongholds of Wales and Northern England. Brexit voting skews older, but it doesn't skew Conservative in the same way. Tory strongholds in the affluent southeast tended to vote Remain. At the last general election, the biggest surprise was how many UKIP voters in the midlands and the North seem to have gone back to voting Labour.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
4th August 17, 08:03 AM
YouGov disagrees with you. (https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted/)

Cullion
4th August 17, 11:41 AM
YouGov disagrees with you. (https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted/)

The map of Brexit referendum election results, and 2017 general election results where UKIP vote declined and Labour votes increased agree with me.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
4th August 17, 11:46 AM
I heard that the map is seeing other people behind your back

Cullion
4th August 17, 11:51 AM
If you love somebody, set them free.

As long as I get what I need.

Dr. Socially Liberal Fiscally Conservative Vermin
4th August 17, 01:30 PM
U MONSTER!

NoBowie
13th February 18, 04:27 PM
I miss Chuck.

ser Friendly
2nd June 18, 09:40 AM
How can I get through to you that I don't like other people speaking for how I think and feel? I just said so.

My poor response is to the combination of the hectoring tone and the subtle shifts in what you say back versus what I say. I'm not mad, just not interested in playing those games.

I think what chuck is trying to say is that he feels sad that everyone is being mean to him