Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 34

On February 04 2017 17:13 Spitfiree wrote: The thing is... those are not liberals, those are idiots. Neither movement would tolerate such actions, but imbeciles gon imbecile

yeah the most surprising about the whole page is Baal using the word "liberals"in the context he does, the alt right are def doing a great job with their propaganda
the "cuck" spewing bots are more effective than it seemed at first

All these protestors are straight up mentally ill.
They have been suppressing their anger all this time while living in poverty and now finally have a channel to blame all their problems on something/someone.

They see the right as elitist and corrupt and whenever there is a political issue their eyes light up with dollar signs and they find any way to stir the pot They say they advocate equality and social justice for all but in reality its just a fascade for the redistribution of wealth and power. Everything always leads back to fcking money and power. When one side has more people will always get jealous/angry and then we fight for 'equality'.

All these social justice warriors are nothing but glorified hippies nowadays that have nothing else to do with their free time.

How else can you justify beating someone else unconscious over a protest when you have no personal ties to that person at all? They are literally blaming the random person in the street for their shortcomings.

On February 04 2017 17:20 uiCk wrote: Not that his tweet makes much sense...

It does make sense though, its a quintessential Trump move. A few dozen protesters, which on the grand scale of things might be a few hundred out of millions, act inexcusably violent and the right attributes their actions to the entirety of the left. That's pretty much standard and to be expected. Trump however, in wishing to stand out from the pack, goes one step further in designing complete fabrications. When he says "paid protesters" he means that literally and his supporters take it literally. This is much in line with dancing muslims, and rapey Mexicans. The president of United States is openly and shamelessly conspiratarding.

On February 04 2017 19:38 NMcNasty wrote: the right attributes their actions to the entirety of the left.

damn that's super unreasonable of the right to do that like that

On February 04 2017 17:16 Liquid`Drone wrote: I honestly think 'anarchists' is a 'less incorrect' word to describe those rioters than 'liberals'.

lol if they are going to ruin my word they also get to ruin yours, they are liberals :D

On February 04 2017 19:38 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On February 04 2017 17:20 uiCk wrote: Not that his tweet makes much sense... It does make sense though, its a quintessential Trump move. A few dozen protesters, which on the grand scale of things might be a few hundred out of millions, act inexcusably violent and the right attributes their actions to the entirety of the left. That's pretty much standard and to be expected. Trump however, in wishing to stand out from the pack, goes one step further in designing complete fabrications. When he says "paid protesters" he means that literally and his supporters take it literally. This is much in line with dancing muslims, and rapey Mexicans. The president of United States is openly and shamelessly conspiratarding.

its not a few hundreds, its a few hundreds that went to berkley, there are many many more in the country and in particularly university campuses are filled with them, fools from the left in the messianic age.

But the real problem here are not ones hitting people most of the liberal media applauded the "punch a Nazi" thing just watch twitter, its full of endorsement from editors from SALON, CNN etc saying that its american duty to punch a Nazi, so yes the left is to blame.

On February 04 2017 18:27 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On February 04 2017 17:13 Spitfiree wrote: The thing is... those are not liberals, those are idiots. Neither movement would tolerate such actions, but imbeciles gon imbecile yeah the most surprising about the whole page is Baal using the word "liberals"in the context he does, the alt right are def doing a great job with their propaganda the "cuck" spewing bots are more effective than it seemed at first

I am calling liberals people who self-identify as liberals pubicly yet you call conservatives alt-right despise them denying so, yeah... I'm the brainwashed one lol.

lol

The left alliance with Islam is the weirdest thing of all, I cant picture more opposing values... united in victimhood.

On February 05 2017 01:17 Baalim wrote: its not a few hundreds, its a few hundreds that went to berkley, there are many many more in the country and in particularly university campuses are filled with them, fools from the left in the messianic age.

1500 protesters or so at Berkley, around 150 were Black Bloc (basically anarchists and a lot of non-students), probably around a couple dozen committing actual violent acts (not spray-painting or tipping over trashcans) and there were only 3 arrests. You can project all day about how many violent-minded protesters there are but the actual number of incidents in the past month have been low.

But the real problem here are not ones hitting people most of the liberal media applauded the "punch a Nazi" thing just watch twitter, its full of endorsement from editors from SALON, CNN etc saying that its american duty to punch a Nazi, so yes the left is to blame.

An actual Nazi is a little different than a Trump supporter, but I agree that even that case you shouldn't be condoning violence though I would disagree that the majority on the left are.

On February 05 2017 02:29 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On February 05 2017 01:17 Baalim wrote: its not a few hundreds, its a few hundreds that went to berkley, there are many many more in the country and in particularly university campuses are filled with them, fools from the left in the messianic age. 1500 protesters or so at Berkley, around 150 were Black Bloc (basically anarchists and a lot of non-students), probably around a couple dozen committing actual violent acts (not spray-painting or tipping over trashcans) and there were only 3 arrests. You can project all day about how many violent-minded protesters there are but the actual number of incidents in the past month have been low.   But the real problem here are not ones hitting people most of the liberal media applauded the "punch a Nazi" thing just watch twitter, its full of endorsement from editors from SALON, CNN etc saying that its american duty to punch a Nazi, so yes the left is to blame. An actual Nazi is a little different than a Trump supporter, but I agree that even that case you shouldn't be condoning violence though I would disagree that the majority on the left are.

The majority of the media supported the punch a Nazi thing, CNN explicitly did many times for example, and the dangerous thing is that they also call Milo and his supporters Nazis and now they feel entitled to commit violent act crimes.

coming up on week 3 out of 208-416

http://www.newslogue.com/debate/323/CaitlinJohnstone

On February 05 2017 04:04 Santafairy wrote: coming up on week 3 out of 208-416 http://www.newslogue.com/debate/323/CaitlinJohnstone

kind of a refreshing article.

just today a good childhood friend of mine was freaking out on social media because the US defense department or whoever it was reaffirmed that Iran was a 'state exporter of terror' and it means 'Trump is going to start a war with Iran'.

I can't tell if they honestly didn't know that this label has been applied to Iran for decades, or if they just felt they had to signal like this to their in-group because everyone else was doing it.

On February 05 2017 01:19 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On February 04 2017 18:27 lebowski wrote:   On February 04 2017 17:13 Spitfiree wrote: The thing is... those are not liberals, those are idiots. Neither movement would tolerate such actions, but imbeciles gon imbecile yeah the most surprising about the whole page is Baal using the word "liberals"in the context he does, the alt right are def doing a great job with their propaganda the "cuck" spewing bots are more effective than it seemed at first I am calling liberals people who self-identify as liberals pubicly yet you call conservatives alt-right despise them denying so, yeah... I'm the brainwashed one lol.

ok I could be wrong about this, tell me.
Where did you see rioters call themselves "liberals"?

Most people I know who'd riot out of ideology would consider that an insult (try naming an anarcho communist "liberal" for example) and as of yet I know nobody who self identifies as a liberal who thinks rioting is cool.

You think that "liberals" as generalization of stupidity, "cucks" etc aren't trademark phrases from the alt right? The supposed conservatives you mention never used this kind of language in the past.
The phraseology of those I refer to is so identical, their arguments so similar and repeated over and over again - like bots or meme machines- that one can easily put them in the same vague category of "alt right". That is also the loose definition of "alt right" isn't it?
People who reject mainstream/traditional conservatism but belong to the (far) right? So whom did I wrongly call alt right and does he even care?

A few pages back you linked a meme from the alt right guys where they grouped everyone they disliked under the black/red flag, leading them to be the snake that now fights back... So yeah I'm going to go with you being the one that's adopting phraseology that's maliciously vague and misleading and not me. It is just surprising to see you make the same choice of words because I don't think you're brainwashed or whatever you understood out of my previous post

On February 05 2017 04:37 nolan wrote: Show nested quote + On February 05 2017 04:04 Santafairy wrote: coming up on week 3 out of 208-416 http://www.newslogue.com/debate/323/CaitlinJohnstone kind of a refreshing article. just today a good childhood friend of mine was freaking out on social media because the US defense department or whoever it was reaffirmed that Iran was a 'state exporter of terror' and it means 'Trump is going to start a war with Iran'. I can't tell if they honestly didn't know that this label has been applied to Iran for decades, or if they just felt they had to signal like this to their in-group because everyone else was doing it.

indeed a refreshing tone of an article
which is good for politics, too many people leading situations to the extreme nowadays

Baal, sorry, but you are not right here. Just because you proclaim to be something doesn't mean that you are. I can identify myself as a fish. I'll still drown under water. Liberalism is a movement that follows specific belief system, if you are going against it but still identify yourself as a liberal, that makes you an uneducated idiot, not a liberal. It's the same with radical muslims tbh. They are idiots, not muslims.


Also lol @ hijab thingy, I bet those people don't even know that the hijab was invented in the 70s to oppress women even more

On February 05 2017 16:12 Spitfiree wrote: Baal, sorry, but you are not right here. Just because you proclaim to be something doesn't mean that you are. I can identify myself as a fish. I'll still drown under water. Liberalism is a movement that follows specific belief system, if you are going against it but still identify yourself as a liberal, that makes you an uneducated idiot, not a liberal. It's the same with radical muslims tbh. They are idiots, not muslims. Also lol @ hijab thingy, I bet those people don't even know that the hijab was invented in the 70s to oppress women even more

You are falling for the true scottsman fallacy, radical muslims ARE muslims, you dont get to define who is and who isnt a Muslims, its not a club you dont need a membership, its based upon the interpretation of an ancient ambiguous self-contradictory book, you can say Jihadis arent muslims and Im pretty sure they consider moderate muslims are traitors to the faith too.

And no your analogy of the fish does not work, it is a species, not an ideology.

So you think Antifa doesnts adhere to traditional liberal values, so what, most republicans dont adhere to republican core values but you dont get to chose who is and who isnt in the club, that is the problem with identity politics, turns out not everyone has exactly the same idea yet identifies with a group.

Pretty sure most ISIS recruits know little to nothing of Islam, and are "Muslim" by birth so to speak more so then devoted "Muslims".
As per leaked ISIS docs not that long ago.

On February 07 2017 03:44 uiCk wrote: Pretty sure most ISIS recruits know little to nothing of Islam, and are "Muslim" by birth so to speak more so then devoted "Muslims". As per leaked ISIS docs not that long ago.

This is an oft-repeated claim in major anglo media, and it's a fairly strong example of projection in the sense that it's a narrative people would prefer to believe rather than one based in reality. Also similar to the 'poor marginlized youth' narrative that has no basis in reality (most foreign ISIS fighters are from the middle / upper classes, and the over-representation of trained engineers in Jihadi networks has been written about extensively for the last 2 decades)

ISIS used to award 10k to each proven Hafiz (someone who has mesmerized the entire Quran), they even put out videos of the winners on youtube celebrating it. Those "internal documents" that Independent had also either intentionally or through journalistic incompetence didn't factor in the cultural aspect of Wahabbi Sunni's to always treat your understanding of Islam with extreme humility.

For example, from the infamous AP article:

An AP analysis of thousands of leaked Islamic State documents reveals most of its recruits from its earliest days came with only the most basic knowledge of Islam. A little more than 3,000 of these documents included the recruits' knowledge of Shariah, the system that interprets into law verses from the Quran and "hadith" — the sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad.

According to the documents, which were acquired by the Syrian opposition site Zaman al-Wasl and shared with the AP, 70 percent of recruits were listed as having just "basic" knowledge of Shariah — the lowest possible choice. Around 24 percent were categorized as having an "intermediate" knowledge, with just 5 percent considered advanced students of Islam. Five recruits were listed as having memorized the Quran.

The entire premise of the articles, is that because the majority of Jihadis filing an application to join ISIS didn't label themselves as "advanced" in Quranic knowledge it means they don't know anything about the religion. In reality saying you had advanced knowledge of the Quran is something that is rather taboo to do unless you're a well respected Imam who has gone to specific theology schools.

I'm not saying that the rank and file ISIS member is a graduate of Cairo's top Islamic theology programs, but this idea that they've never read the Quran that is implied by those articles is pure journalistic garbage.