Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 113

On March 17 2019 00:45 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On March 16 2019 21:01 Stroggoz wrote: honestly, i'm not sure hitting them with an egg is a good idea. I'm sure the senator wants that to happen because it gives him more publicity and attention. He gets to whine for a couple years about how the left are violent and wont listen to reason, ect. You're making a joke right? He can't say that "the left is violent" when he was caught on tape punching a 17 year old over a harmless egg (it only hurt his ego)......... He already had plenty of publicity: he was on the news at that moment. He's already someone you can't ignore; he's a Senator who spews hateful crap, which makes headlines and money. You say this as if suddenly the guy now has a bunch of opportunities to go on talk shows and talk about how victimized he is due to the egg.... jesus christ, that isn't happening. It would be some Black Mirror shit.

he gets more coverage when ppl react to what he says. He is on the media for the same thing-which is the same problem, but this just adds to it. People shouldn't be inviting him onto the media or reacting to him because he's just an idiot. It's best to just ignore him. It is similar to what Chomsky was saying in that video before that Baal linked.

that hilary clinton reaction is the typical empty crap we have got from most politicians around the world including our own.

On March 16 2019 19:19 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On March 16 2019 06:02 Santafairy wrote: i think it's worth moving on for the sake of reconciliation as her public life is over anyway Trump, the great uniter.   the prosecution had agreements with clinton's lawyers about what evidence they could see, you know? so when you say durr investigations around trump get actual results unlike investigations around squeaky clean democrats, it's not because the objective personification of justice investigated them both fairly, I mean it's right there in the link DOJ told the FBI not to investigate What prosecution? She was never charged, there was no court case. WTF do you mean DOJ told the FBI not to investigate. The FBI did investigate. From wiki:   On July 5, 2016, FBI Director Comey announced in a statement he read to press and television reporters at FBI headquarters in Washington, DC, that the FBI had completed its investigation and was referring it to the State Department with the recommendation 'that no charges are appropriate in this case.' I mean if your line is 'its all just a cover up', I get it. Your posts aren't worth responding to, but at least I get it. But it seems as if you don't have enough base information to even put your conspiracy theories out in a coherent fashion.   NMcNasty Monday: the russians are attacking our democracy, they hack the elections and interfere and do cyberattacks and try to support their own agenda which is trump NMcNasty Tuesday: so what's the big deal of the secretary of state putting classified information in a server in her basement The situation is akin to a burglar complaining to police that someone left their doors unlocked.

I don't know what this burglar thing is about, what she did was a mistake from the standpoint of both transparency and security

if you don't read the testimony I linked and just want to shitpost about muh conspiracy theories then OKIEDOKIE

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-...clinton-foundation-emails-strzok-says

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2019/03/13/l...-charge-hillary-clinton-no-collusion/

On March 17 2019 02:14 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On March 17 2019 00:45 Loco wrote:   On March 16 2019 21:01 Stroggoz wrote: honestly, i'm not sure hitting them with an egg is a good idea. I'm sure the senator wants that to happen because it gives him more publicity and attention. He gets to whine for a couple years about how the left are violent and wont listen to reason, ect. You're making a joke right? He can't say that "the left is violent" when he was caught on tape punching a 17 year old over a harmless egg (it only hurt his ego)......... He already had plenty of publicity: he was on the news at that moment. He's already someone you can't ignore; he's a Senator who spews hateful crap, which makes headlines and money. You say this as if suddenly the guy now has a bunch of opportunities to go on talk shows and talk about how victimized he is due to the egg.... jesus christ, that isn't happening. It would be some Black Mirror shit. he gets more coverage when ppl react to what he says. He is on the media for the same thing-which is the same problem, but this just adds to it. People shouldn't be inviting him onto the media or reacting to him because he's just an idiot. It's best to just ignore him. It is similar to what Chomsky was saying in that video before that Baal linked. that hilary clinton reaction is the typical empty crap we have got from most politicians around the world including our own.

He's not just an idiot. He's a Senator who has power to shape policy.

"People shouldn't be reacting to him" that's like saying people shouldn't be people. People will always react -- we're not cold calculating machines. And the media will give him coverage regardless. At least in this coverage he is being utterly humiliated, which is something that other fascists will remember can happen to them if they are public about their views. It is not something that has emboldened them. The alternative is further normalizing this type of speech as people figure out that there will be no consequences for their hatred even when they have access to a mainstream platform to recruit people. I think shaming these people is clearly not the same thing as giving attention to someone who is wailing about a conspiracy theory.

When Richard Spencer and the alt-right went back to Charlottesville "3.0" at night, unannounced, there was nobody there. A handful of people watched them record themselves saying Jews would not replace them and chanting. It was for the media. And as soon as they released the content themselves, all mainstream media published it, and it became the talk on social media. There is no actual possibility to ignore these people, regardless of what you don't do -- it's wishful thinking.

Something else has come out. Some guy claims he warned the police about this guy and his gun club before, that they were white nationalist nutcases that shouldn't have guns, but the police ignored it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...church-bruce-rifle-club-a8826681.html

On March 17 2019 07:05 Santafairy wrote: if you don't read the testimony I linked and just want to shitpost about muh conspiracy theories then OKIEDOKIE

You didn't link testimony, you linked a Trumpkin Congressman's interpretation of testimony, which is out of context and doesn't make any coherent sense. Your initial interpretation of his tweet was that the DOJ directed an FBI investigation not to occur, but obviously that's incredibly stupid because an investigation did occur. When I point that out, you don't really have a response so you just post some links. What the Trumpkin was actually trying to convey doesn't make any sense either though. Apparently the idea is that DOJ directed the FBI not to 'charge' Clinton, but again, that's incredibly stupid because the FBI doesn't charge anyone, its job is to investigate. This point is explicitly brought up and clarified in later parts of the testimony, but of course small facts like how US agencies actually work doesn't fit the congressman's narrative. The shitshow is debunked here:

The government isn't going to save you NMcNasty. None of you. Neither is Capitalism and it's so called technological advances. Capital doesn't care about people or the Earth.

On March 18 2019 11:36 RiKD wrote: The government isn't going to save you NMcNasty. None of you. Neither is Capitalism and it's so called technological advances. Capital doesn't care about people or the Earth.

Thanks for the tip.

On March 17 2019 19:19 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On March 17 2019 07:05 Santafairy wrote: if you don't read the testimony I linked and just want to shitpost about muh conspiracy theories then OKIEDOKIE You didn't link testimony, you linked a Trumpkin Congressman's interpretation of testimony, which is out of context and doesn't make any coherent sense. Your initial interpretation of his tweet was that the DOJ directed an FBI investigation not to occur, but obviously that's incredibly stupid because an investigation did occur. When I point that out, you don't really have a response so you just post some links. What the Trumpkin was actually trying to convey doesn't make any sense either though. Apparently the idea is that DOJ directed the FBI not to 'charge' Clinton, but again, that's incredibly stupid because the FBI doesn't charge anyone, its job is to investigate. This point is explicitly brought up and clarified in later parts of the testimony, but of course small facts like how US agencies actually work doesn't fit the congressman's narrative. The shitshow is debunked here:

I mean I'm not stopping you from listening to as many hours of testimony as you like, my MSNBC addicted #resistance comrade, but yes quotes are out of context because that's what happens when you quote something

let me hit the key points
-corrupt politician breaches protocol on an unprecedented level, probably with a guilty conscience to hide clinton foundation pay to play mess from transparency knowing she's doing something wrong (HMM WHY DELETE EMAILS? I KNOW! PROTECT THEM FROM DRUMPF'S KGB HACKERS!), at the same time exposing classified information and
-politician/Democratic candidate for president's lawyers setting terms with prosecutors for viewing the evidence of this fiasco
-DOJ of Democratic administration tells FBI they're not considering charging Democratic presidential candidate
-FBI announces not recommending charges despite finding extreme carelessness
yep she's squeaky clean just like OJ simpson. never convicted. what makes someone go to bat for a CLINTON so hard...

>Trumpkin
this is embarrassing, how old are you

On March 18 2019 17:16 Santafairy wrote: let me hit the key points

No, those weren't the key points, these are old points from several years ago that you're retreating to after your 'Obama ordered FBI not to charge' conspiritarding got blown apart.

-corrupt politician breaches protocol on an unprecedented level, probably with a guilty conscience to hide clinton foundation pay to play mess from transparency knowing she's doing something wrong (HMM WHY DELETE EMAILS? I KNOW! PROTECT THEM FROM DRUMPF'S KGB HACKERS!), at the same time exposing classified information

'probably with a guilty conscience' obviously enough evidence to LOCK HER UP!

-politician/Democratic candidate for president's lawyers setting terms with prosecutors for viewing the evidence of this fiasco

I thought she deleted all the evidence? Why is it so important that Clinton negotiate that certain emails not be seen if she can just delete those emails if she wants to?

-DOJ of Democratic administration tells FBI they're not considering charging Democratic presidential candidate

Nicely done, you actually worded your scandal in a passable manner, not that its meaning is accurate.

what makes someone go to bat for a CLINTON so hard...

Not even going to bat for Clinton. I've said before she's awful and corrupt. She admitted herself hosting her own server was a mistake. I'm just laughing at you for how easily the bullshit you're posting is debunked.

On March 18 2019 18:48 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + what makes someone go to bat for a CLINTON so hard... Not even going to bat for Clinton. I've said before she's awful and corrupt. She admitted herself hosting her own server was a mistake. I'm just laughing at you for how easily the bullshit you're posting is debunked.

-corrupt politician breaches protocol on an unprecedented level, probably with a guilty conscience to hide clinton foundation pay to play mess from transparency knowing she's doing something wrong (HMM WHY DELETE EMAILS? I KNOW! PROTECT THEM FROM DRUMPF'S KGB HACKERS!), at the same time exposing classified information

'probably with a guilty conscience' obviously enough evidence to LOCK HER UP![/quote]
-she's awful
-she's corrupt
-she admitted to a mistake
-I'm laughing at you
yeah I've sure got egg on my face now

On March 18 2019 18:48 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + -politician/Democratic candidate for president's lawyers setting terms with prosecutors for viewing the evidence of this fiasco I thought she deleted all the evidence? Why is it so important that Clinton negotiate that certain emails not be seen if she can just delete those emails if she wants to?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-...clinton-foundation-emails-strzok-says

I already sourced this, if you don't have the capacity to click a single link and read an article then uninstall your browser and throw your computer into a river

On March 19 2019 16:06 Santafairy wrote: I already sourced this, if you don't have the capacity to click a single link and read an article then uninstall your browser and throw your computer into a river

Source what?? Its very clear from my question that I'm not disputing any factual claims in those links even though its Fox News. YOU need to your read your own links and more importantly try to understand them so we don't have another mishap where you think an investigation that actually took place was prevented. You'll see that the FBI obtaining emails wasn't even part of a warrant, which of course wouldn't even really be possible to get since a crime has not even been committed in theory. Clinton willfully turned over her emails and negotiated (lol at fox news for using scare quotes there) that ones unrelated to security not be seen (Clinton foundation). That's your big deep state conspiracy. That's what you're putting up as a match to Trump's cronies actually pleading guilty and being imprisoned. Post some more stuff though and pretend it vindicates you.

Jesus.... "it's logical to me!"

On March 16 2019 16:25 Loco wrote: You don't profess the ideology of preferring to punch people than passively waiting until you have to fight them with guns and tanks, because you don't look at things historically, and you don't care about things that are systemic with your Margaret Thatcher bumper-sticker philosophy, "there is no society, only individuals". Acts of violence are just individual actions to you, so what could you have to fight against?

I think I get it... so muslims collectivly are actually co-responsible for the actions of suicide bombers, and if I look thing historically it's not only justified but my moral duty to punch them so I dont have to fight them with guns and tanks later.... punch a muslim with Loco's seal of approval.

You have so much in common with the people you despise lol.

Now I think that when you threaten people with genocide, you've crossed the line, and your attempts to actualize this goal should be resisted in every possible way. I encourage people to take actions that are non-violent first, but if it comes to be violent, I understand it and I'm not going to lecture people

Don't they also call their theory "the great replacement" also white genocide, I guess this dude in NZ thought it justified taking violent action too.

and they should be giving ISIS a platform to express their God-given commands to kill non-believers for the benefits of all of us? Marketplace of ideas and all. What would Margaret Thatcher say?

Abrahamic religions teach that non-believers burn in hell, I'm fine with them spreading their hateful ignorant ideology just like Nazis as long as they dont directly call for violence or to commit a crime, indeed the marketplace of ideas, I dont want people to walk away from abrahamic religions even if it would be a great step forward for mankind, I want them to leave them because they see the flaws in their ideas no matter how long it takes.

Indeed, the marketplace of ideas.

Speaking of proportionate response, here's a Nazi Senator and his supporters' response to being harmlessly egged today. It's almost like these people just pretend to be civilized human beings, pretend to care about free speech and peaceful...

So just like you who pretend to care about freedom of speech and civility, except that you are really all for censorship and violence.

+ Show Spoiler +

Yeah...

Kate Moss is definitely not saving the world.



What kind of world do we live in that an Abrams or a Trump can be a Real human being?

The Abrams thing is even worse because you can tell he's really kind of nervous about the questions but then he "finds his groove" and he thinks he's killing it. He's been bullshitting and lying so long about Really heinous shit that he's just some undead mutation of a human being. Trump is just a buffoon as far as I can tell. Growing up under daddy's care and his natural, exceptional narcissism has produced quite the clown. Coldplay sings about how we live in a beautiful world but man from those press conferences we live in a dystopian world. We do live in a beautiful world but so many people ruin it. I want to be a fairy in Fern Gully or one of the aliens in Avatar before the humans get there. How much better off would we be if we murdered everyone in a suit and a haircut? Yes, I am talking about genocide. The right loves to point fingers. It's just a provocative question is all. Or, what if all the filet mignon and expensive wine in the world was poisoned for 1 month?

Just more of the same false equivalence fallacy and appeal to hypocrisy fallacy... yawn. You need to find a tutor to help you work on your learning disability (disabilities?) Baal.

"Appeal to hypocrisy fallacy."

I think you debated too much on the internet Loco.

On March 20 2019 18:27 Loco wrote: Just more of the same false equivalence fallacy and appeal to hypocrisy fallacy... yawn. You need to find a tutor to help you work on your learning disability (disabilities?) Baal.

RiKD just talked about killing everybody in a suit and to poison expensive food, that is exactly as if a nazi talked about killing homeless people and poisoning food in soup-kitchens.

You talk about the grop being responsible for the actions of the individual, and that this justifies the pre-emptive use of violence against people you percieve as being part of this group that you see as threats... and the christchurch shooter held muslims accountable for the actions of suicide bombers and he used pre-emptive violence against them since he saw them as threats for his group.

These are not false equivalencies, these are clear cut equivalencies, unsurprisingly the hard left plays the same game than the hard right, violent identitarian politics.

It's levity man. The left tells me not to say those things because the right is the right and reactionary. People can say it's a double standard but the difference is I don't actually have any plan to kill Abrams and Trump or anybody for that matter. The Nazi's and right-wingers do have actual plans to kill a lot of people and we see it happen all of the time. And, of course, the right likes to bring up Stalinism and bullshit like that.

Give me a break.

Stalinism was a criminal betrayal of the Revolution and of Marxist ideals. Just so my point is clear.



I wore a suit to make this post because that's what the occasion called for.........

The Christchurch Mosque was a known terrorist sleeper cell that has been known to radicalize people.