Gonna try to clarify something, but will probably just cause a shit storm, o well:
While political discussion can get hot and heavy--especially in places where the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory thrives like *chans--personal attacks are not allowed. Yeah, sure, call Trump or Clinton or King Edward VII a dick, but only viciously attack the arguments/posts put forth by other posters here, not the posters themselves. Brief examples:
>Your idea is shit and the worst fucking thing I ever heard, how could that even seem like a good idea?
Low quality post, but not a "personal attack".
>You are a monstrous human being and probably the result of inbreeding, that's such a dumb idea
Low quality post and personal attack.
(Attacking me is the exemption from this rule because I am already morbidly depressed and so IDGAF.)
(Also sorry about losing that other new politics thread; I tried to make the top post generic and merge them together and just wound up breaking it.)
Sounds good to me
The Ghostbusters salt is flowing like water, now everyone who criticizes it is an MRA.
>One of the most pathetic male feminists
>gets called MRA
You have to wonder how many of these outlets actually believe in what they're putting out.
Considering the author of that piece used a stock photo for their Medium profile image, I’d say “not very much”.
It needed to be nuked and forgoten, Moose.
Gotta protect those poor, innocent, MRAs.
New GB seems bad.
Trailer getting like 99% dislikes suggests it very strongly.
Nah, a lot of that is just MRA types swarming the thing.
Does seem quite bad even subtracting the angry loser brigade though.
The vid has 32 million views, are you implying there's an MRA organization with that many members? The largest MRA organization is the honey badger brigade, and they have ~100 people.
No it's just a shitty film man, from the scooby doo tier graphics to the shitty script, and they revealed too much of this garbage in the trailer.
MRAs trying to stop women from entering the music industry.
Nobody mentioned any organization as such, and what's more that poster specifically said that said film looks terrible, quite odd that you feel the need to jump in on the defense.
I love how there's all this talk about MRAs, but I have not once, ONCE seen a complaint about the Ghostbusters being female. I've seen complaints about the idea of making them all female for no other reason than to pander to SJWs and ensure that they'll use this in their everlasting fight against white male cis scum, which is a legitimate concern, but never on the sole basis that they're female and should be male.
>I love how there's all this talk about MRAs, but I have not once, ONCE seen a complaint about the Ghostbusters being female.
>Goes on to post a diatribe full of MRA buzz words and railing at boogeymen.
Fantastic counterargument. How do you numales do it?
Are you actually completely incapable of not speaking in your weird, masturbatory terminology, because I have to tell you, it rather undermines your attempts to pretend uninvolved.
Hmm. Still no counterargument to my original point with evidence to refute it. Yup, that's feminist logic right there.
Counterarguments, and indeed debate in general, is really more for those who are, ya know, credible. You're like the anti-climate change person expecting to be taken seriously in a scholarly setting.
And that's really the thing with #GGers, MRAs, whatever label you'd like to apply to them, everyone here knows who they are whether they'll admit it or not: they prattle on and on about how nobody is willing to engage them in this or that argument (which is often not true to start with) but when they are actually engaged they'll never attack the argument: they'll go after semantics, or flat out deny the facts. Because the truth is they aren't part of any kind of legitimate movement, interested in ethical issues of any kind save for as might benefit them opportunistically (back LGBT to attack minorities, back minorities to attack women, back women to attack LGBT, etc, we've seen the behavior in these threads and elsewhere), or willing to debate honestly in any setting. They are interested in one thing and one thing only, and that is to attack anything they see as a thread to the status quo which they believe benefits them. They will deny it until they're blue in the face, and indeed the very next post will probably be such a denial, but at the end of the day, we all know what the score is.
I think it's equally likely that 80% of the thumbs-up on that video are obsessive feminists who believe the like-dislike ratio is a battle against the oppressive clutch of internalised sexism. The other 20% are traffic bought by Columbia Pictures.
>Counterarguments, and indeed debate in general, is really more for those who are, ya know, credible.
Whoever taught you this did you a huge disservice, you poor poor thing.
And that's really the thing with BLM, feminists, whatever label you'd like to apply to them, everyone here knows who they are whether they'll admit it or not: they prattle on and on about how nobody is willing to engage them in this or that argument (which is often not true to start with) but when they are actually engaged they'll never attack the argument: they'll go after semantics, or flat out deny the facts....
And being as everyone knows the score, and nobody is fooled by MRA codewords, denials, etc, the question then becomes "What do /pol/-kun, his little buddy, and Slowpoke hope to accomplish here?" Certainly they are well aware that nobody is fooled by their attempts to, for example, paint #GG as a legitimate movement (one need only look at their dodging of various rebuttals in the last thread's end to see that) or any of/pol/-kun's favorite weirdo YouTubers and charts from orc groups, so what do they imagine they're accomplishing?
Austria dangerously close to reembracing right wing politics, with the scum of the right seeking to use the presidential post as an in for future elections.
Fortunately the Austrian presidency is largely ceremonial, but it's one more worrying upsurge of the uncompromising populism that's gaining traction across the western world. Predictions are that postal votes will nudge Hofer's Green opponent slightly ahead, but it's going to be a nailbiter of a night.
>Fortunately the Austrian presidency is largely ceremonial
Yes it is, but it's a very useful platform for them to be able to broadcast their propaganda from, which allows them an easier road to ACTUAL positions of power.
And being as everyone knows the score, and nobody is fooled by feminist codewords, denials, etc, the question then becomes "What do salon-kun, xir little nonbinary platonic relation, and Stone hope to accomplish here?" Certainly they are well aware that nobody is fooled by their attempts to, for example, paint social justice as a legitimate movement (one need only look at their dodging of various rebuttals in the last thread's end to see that) or any of salon-kun's favorite weirdo YouTubers and charts from orc groups, so what do they imagine they're accomplishing?
lol this is what feminism does to people.
“I know you are, but what am I?” is not a quality rebuttal.
“I know you are, but what am I?” is a quality rebuttal to ad hominem allegations with no evidence or supporting arguments.
So incapable is the MRA of even the most basic intellectual engagement that when confronted, they retreat into their shells, hiding behind fabrications and nonsense like
taken up entirely because they know we're not going to be fooled by any of the garbage breitbart or whatever other no account outlet churns out. They go on and about censorship, but their entire ethos is predicated upon anyone who so much as suggests the imperfections of the status quo need changing. That they create things like NotYourShield a specifically to shield themselves only underlines that the whole affair is predicated upon a base of hypocrisy.
So incapable is the Feminist of even the most basic intellectual engagement that when confronted, they retreat into their shells, hiding behind fabrications and nonsense like
taken up entirely because they know we're not going to be fooled by any of the garbage Feministing or whatever other no account outlet churns out. They go on and about patriarchy, but their entire ethos is predicated upon anyone who so much as suggests that the patriarchy wouldn't give women better healthcare, education or fund feminism if it truly existed. That they create things like KillAllMen specifically to reveal the depths of vitriol they are capable of underlines that the whole affair is predicated upon a base of hypocrisy.
OK this isn't to comment on the situation in any way, but do you remember the Charlotte NC Transgender bathroom law?
Do you remember how some parents were worried that perverts would put on dresses and use the law to spy on their kids?
Turns out the guy who was behind the law, Chad Sevearance-Turner, is convicted of rape of a minor under 16yo..
It's not part of rape culture when a rapist passes a law to let him rape more?
OK how about a founding member of Black Lives Matter pimping out underage girls.
Is that part of rape culture?
>It's not part of rape culture when a rapist passes a law to let him rape more?
Does his case have anything to do with crossdressing to attack a girl in the bathroom? Does this BLM fellow's activities change the fact that black people are killed by police in numbers disproportionate to their population? Or, as I suspect, are you attempting to use tangentially related elements to attack the law and movement themselves?
>Does this BLM fellow's activities change the fact that black people are killed by police in numbers disproportionate to their population?
They are killed in proportion to the criminal element in their population.
Actually slightly less often.
>It's not part of rape culture when a rapist passes a law to let him rape more?
A trans-inclusive non-discrimination ordinance neither decriminalizes rape nor gives a rapist any sort of “justification” for committing a rape.
Yet a city without such an ordinance also allows transgender people to use bathrooms, as long as they've had SRS, any HRT, or even just put effort into their appearance, because no one is going to look twice.
>Little girl says man watched her using bathroom say police
> Sexual predator jailed after claiming to be ‘transgender’ to assault women in shelter
>University of Toronto Dumps Transgender Bathrooms After Peeping Incidents
>Seattle man in women's locker room cites gender rule
>Girl, 8, Choked by Man, 33, In Store's Public Restroom
>Man Dressed as Woman Arrested for Spying Into Mall Bathroom Stall, Police Say
>Man in Drag Caught in Macy's Women’s Restroom Secretly Taping Women
Just like migrant rapes, this seems to be another case of "ignore rape culture if it interferes with our narrative".
It certainly bears a similarity to migrants rapes: that you wouldn't care about these incidents if they didn't let you attack people.
All of the above are still crimes whether transgender people are discriminated against or not, legislation against transgender people isn't going to stop these people from committing said crimes because as you might notice, they don't care about things being illegal.
Quick question: have you stopped to notice who’s committing these crimes?
In any city or state where this issue has become a Full-Scale Thing™, bills and laws (such as HB2) target transgender people. Anti-LGBT legislators in favor of anti-trans bills frame the issue as a “protect the children from predators” issue, which implies that transgender people are sexual predators. (Anti-LGBT activists/legislators did the same thing when supporting bills and laws that targeted gay people.) But the entire gist of their “protect the children” argument never explicitly says “trans people are the problem”—more often than not, their argument goes along the lines of “cisgender men who do awful things are the problem, and they’ll use pro-trans laws as an excuse to commit crimes”.
(Side note: that argument often ignores sex crimes committed against young boys and men, as young girls and women are more often brought up as those who need protecting.)
But what was stopping them from committing their crimes before states started passing pro-trans non-discrimination ordinances? Rhetorical question; the answer is “nothing”. And what about those pro-trans laws excuse sex crimes committed in public restrooms/showers? Again, the answer is “nothing”. A cis man can slap on a wig and a dress, but his committing an act of rape doesn’t suddenly become “not-rape” because he says “I identify as a woman.”
If you have an argument against letting trans people use the restroom that matches their gender identity, you can deliver it without the fearmongering about what cis people might do.
>legislation against transgender people
>which implies that transgender people are sexual predators
It implies sexual predators are taking advantage of poorly written laws.
Having the good intentions to help transgender people is not in itself enough to write legislation. They need to put more thought into the possible ramifications of the law.
Although I doubt >>406915 bothered to put much thought into it whatsoever.
>But what was stopping them from committing their crimes before states started passing pro-trans non-discrimination ordinances?
The fact that people could forcefully eject them, or call the cops to do so. Now they fucking can't and the police are paralyzed. For every case that makes it into the courts there are nine that we never hear of.
>The fact that people could forcefully eject them, or call the cops to do so. Now they fucking can't and the police are paralyzed. For every case that makes it into the courts there are nine that we never hear of.
You're acting like PC culture doesn't force law enforcement to treat minority criminals with kid gloves.
Strawman #2, bonus points for having barely any relationship to the post whatsoever .
Making a handbrake turn back to Austria for a second:
The Green candidate (Van der Bellen) managed to squeak a win with 50.3% of the vote after postals were counted. Incidentally, that makes him the first nationally-elected Green head of state, although I'd be wary of patting oneself on the back after a result this tight. Establishments across the west need to take a long hard look at what's driving people towards these extremes.
>It implies sexual predators are taking advantage of poorly written laws.
It does that, too, but it also tries to make the same sort of implicit “[x] = perverts and sexual predators” connection (where [x] is “trans people”) that anti-LGBT lawmakers used for years to demonize gay people. Trans people remain “socially acceptable” in regards to mockery and derision—and discrimination—so why else wuold all these “bathroom bills” target the activity of trans people, if not to control what they do in such a way as to make them feel unwelcome in the public sphere?
And as for the implication that sexual predators are “taking advantage” of pro-trans laws, I ask you again: What was stopping them from committing their crimes before states started passing pro-trans non-discrimination ordinances?
>The fact that people could forcefully eject them, or call the cops to do so. Now they fucking can't and the police are paralyzed.
Pro-trans “bathroom bills” make it illegal for public accomodation businesses and such to discriminate against trans people. Those laws don’t decriminalize rape, sexual assault, or other such crimes; the cops can still arrest people who commit them, regardless of whether the person is actually transgender.
>Having the good intentions to help transgender people is not in itself enough to write legislation. They need to put more thought into the possible ramifications of the law.
If you worry that pro-trans laws will allow cis people to commit sex crimes, ask legislatures to pass laws that target sex offenders, not trans people. A trans person is not a sex criminal by default. And for all the examples of “cis men dressing up like women to commit sex crimes”, I haven’t seen a single example of trans people using non-discrimination laws as justification for committing a sex crime.
I'm sorry but I don't see that. Maybe some people somewhere are making this connection, but I've never seen anyone actually do it, or even imply it slightly. If anyone has said anything about gays it is that the LGBT community has a high rate of abuse, which is true and ties back to them being bullied as kids more often.
The classic anti-LGBT implication is that if a gay person married to a woman and with a family enters public office or the military, and the soviets were to find out hes gay, they could use that to blackmail him because he might not want to be outed to his wife. This was actually a classic soviet tactic and concern, same with gambling debts, which gay marriage solves perfectly.
>why else wuold all these “bathroom bills” target the activity of trans people, if not to control what they do in such a way as to make them feel unwelcome in the public sphere?
I already explained this, the bills are a reaction (often overreaction) to really shitty laws that predators are exploiting, and he police are reluctant to act because they aren't sure what's politically correct. Predators who aren't gay, please dont be bringing this up yet again. When peoples kids are threatened they turn off the part of their brain that is rational, and they go on the offensive.
The rational response would be to write better laws from the outset. Not this bad law, counter-bad law, counter-counter bad law chain if misery and loopholes.
>Pro-trans “bathroom bills” make it illegal for public accomodation businesses and such to discriminate against trans people.
And again if someone has gone through SRS they can't be discriminated against already.
>Maybe some people somewhere are making this connection, but I've never seen anyone actually do it, or even imply it slightly.
Then you haven’t been paying attention hard enough. Prior to the increasing “normalization” of gay people in society (circa the mid-to-late 1990s), anti-gay activists either implictly or explicitly painted gay people as sexual predators (“They want to recruit children into the homosexual lifestyle”) and sex-obsessed deviants who represented a “public health hazard”. They feared the idea that if the evil icky faggots were allowed to become part of public life and society, that acceptance would pave the way for the acceptance and normalization of other sexual deviancies (i.e., pedophilia). By the time Obergefell gave gay people the right to marry, anti-gay activists could only prey on those fears to win political points in highly homophobic areas. They'd lost the fight against keeping gays out of society. So now they’ve turned to the one last major “outgroup” with the political clout to ask for equal treatment under the law—trans people—and started using the same sort of demonizing tactics in a bid to control whether trans people receive the same kind of social acceptance.
>the bills are a reaction (often overreaction) to really shitty laws that predators are exploiting, and the police are reluctant to act because they aren't sure what's politically correct
If a person commits a crime in a public restroom/shower, I seriously doubt the police will refuse to arrest that person because they toss out an “I identify as transgender” excuse. And I don’t see any pattern or trend of pro-trans laws being “exploited” in ways that let criminals commit crimes without punishment.
>The rational response would be to write better laws from the outset.
I’d love to know what you think a “better law” means, in this regard.
>And again if someone has gone through SRS they can't be discriminated against already.
Only in places with pro-trans laws in place can trans people not be discriminated against. There is no federal law barring discrimination of LGBT people in public accomodations, employment, and housing. (Legal arguments advancing the idea of anti-trans discrimination as sex discrimination are only now making their way through the courts, and there’s no telling how those will hold up.)
Or maybe I haven't had my bias glasses on that make me see racism and sexism everywhere.
> implictly or explicitly painted gay people as sexual predators
No, they painted them as having all kinds of problems with abuse, from domestic violence to rape, out of proportion with the straight communities.
These are real problems that need to be addressed, this is why gay community needs more domestic shelters for example. You can't just ignore negative lived experiences because you don't like them.
>If a person commits a crime in a public restroom/shower, I seriously doubt the police will refuse to arrest that person because they toss out an “I identify as transgender” excuse.
It's already happened for other minorities, look up Rotherdam. Also most of the titles showing the pattern here >>406926 have been happening for a long time before it got stopped, read some of the stories.
If it was a dumb rapist who didn't take advantage of PC culture, it would have been stopped on the first attempt, by bystanders even.
>I’d love to know what you think a “better law” means, in this regard.
>Only in places with pro-trans laws in place can trans people not be discriminated against.
Two part response because these are linked.
America already has laws in every state allowing people who have undergone SRS or people who have changed their birth certificate to use the bathroom they want. This is something which doesn't get talked about but which you need to know if you're going to have an opinion on the topic. If this needs to be expanded, it would make sense to expand it to people undergoing HRT, or people who got diagnosed by a psychologist with dysphoria.
If the law is stretched beyond this point and into people merely claiming to be trans, or people who merely put on a pair of pants or dress, the law is going to run smack into reality and break.
I think my favorite part of your current evasion attempt is that your "I'm not transphobic!" defense is an espousing of transmedicalism which is itself transphobic.
New point of discussion: why does the Internet Alt-Right love sealioning so much?
>the belief that transgenderism is a medical condition
What the fuck do you believe, that it's a magical condition?
>they painted them as having all kinds of problems with abuse, from domestic violence to rape, out of proportion with the straight communities
You’re either not looking in the right places or listening to the right people. Or you could be actively ignoring the rhetoric I’m talking about.
The most rabidly anti-LGBT voices—the ones who created anti-gay rhetoric that thrived until gay people became braver about being openly gay and straight people started figuring out that the rhetoric didn’t align with the gay people they knew—crafted the image of gay people as disease-ridden predators because it was far easier to win political points by stoking “think of the children” fears about gay people. A lot of that kind of rhetoric had religious backing, sure. (It still does, too.) But it was crafted with an eye towards secular appeal; the insistence that “the gay agenda” involved “recruiting children into homosexuality”, for example, could be understood without religious fervor backing that fearmongering.
As large swaths of society began to see gay people as people instead of AIDS-ridden child molesters, this rhetoric fell out of favor with all but the most rabid gaybashers. “Moderate” anti-LGBT people turned to a different kind of fearmongering—namely, the idea that gay people having civil rights such as adoption and marriage would lead to polygamists and pedophiles and even zoophiles asking for the same rights. Now that gay people have the right to marry, anti-LGBT people know they’ve lost that specific fight—and the broader fight against society accepting gay people—so they’re turned to stoking similar fears about trans people asking for civil rights protections. If you think that isn’t true, look at the rhetoric coming from anti-trans groups in re: “bathroom bills”.
>These are real problems that need to be addressed, this is why gay community needs more domestic shelters for example. You can't just ignore negative lived experiences because you don't like them.
I’m not ignoring them. But I’m talking about the history of anti-gay rhetoric and how it’s transitioned (no pun intended) into anti-trans rhetoric, not the problems of LGBT people at large. Those problems, however real, have only a marginal impact on the rhetoric I’m discussing.
>most of the titles showing the pattern here have been happening for a long time before it got stopped
Got stopped by what—police arresting the perpetrators? Anti-trans laws won’t stop men from doing that sort of shit any more than pro-trans laws will allow them to do it without fear of punishment. And a series of cherry-picked headlines, which could be from stories that happened months or years apart in disparate places around the country/world, does not equal a pattern of either escalation or crimes going unpunished.
>America already has laws in every state allowing people who have undergone SRS or people who have changed their birth certificate to use the bathroom they want.
Okay, so…does this mean we need “potty police” at every public restroom/shower? Because they’re the ones who would be checking birth certificates to make sure people entered the right restroom. Also: people would need to start carrying their birth certificates around so they can pass the “potty police”. (Before you laugh, know that HB2 passed in my home state without any provisions for how the law was supposed to be enforced, and not even the cops know whether they’re supposed to staff an officer outside public restrooms.)
>If the law is stretched beyond this point and into people merely claiming to be trans, or people who merely put on a pair of pants or dress, the law is going to run smack into reality and break.
No one who supports pro-trans laws has ever suggested that people who either crossdress or merely claim a trans identity should be exempt from the law. Nor has anyone ever suggested that pro-trans laws should decriminalize crimes that take place in public restrooms/showers. But people who support anti-trans laws have no suggestions on how to properly enforce such laws, nor do they seem to care about the experiences of trans people—who are far more likely to be the victims of assault in public restrooms than the perpetrators.
Honestly, I couldn't give less of a shit about trannies and bathrooms.
Just feels like an issue that been inflated to be seem more important than it actually is.
In all honesty, it has—mainly by anti-LGBT activists. Trans people just want to pee in peace.
And then there are the cis, straight ladies who get chased out of bathrooms because their hair is too short or they're not super pretty. I guess collateral damage is fine for people who are defending the honor of pooping in the right poop hole.
Yes, yes, feigning ignorance, stick to the playbook at all costs!
Maybe you're looking in the wrong place and talking to the wrong people. Honestly you'd have to be going to klan rallies to hear this shit... change your friends.
>large swaths of society began to see gay people as
By large swaths do you mean you and your friends? Because no one else does. Seriously google any poll on gay acceptance.
>Because they’re the ones who would be checking birth certificates to make sure people entered the right restroom.
Are you implying there are crotch police checking crotches before people walk into toilets? Generally people will not even challenge someone entering a bathroom as long as they look vaguely like they belong there, even the ugliest hon is less ugly than some women/grannies.
It's a completely self regulating system.
It barely even needs the laws already protecting trans use country-wide, those are only there on the astronomically low chance that the police and courts need to get involved because someone who knew the trans person before their transition wants to deny them toilet rights.
I don't know why I keep responding to you, since every time you post you remind me I should ignore you.
>Honestly you'd have to be going to klan rallies to hear this shit...
or pay even the slightest attention to the news
Like, seriously dude, what is the point of this "god where do you HEAR such things?" act when nobody believes it?
>Why do you have to assign malicious intent just because I don't know something?
Because you very blatantly do and are pretending not to, seriously, this DOESN'T WORK, STOP TRYING.
You're still not posting examples, put some efforts into replies man.
“Do you see animals mating with the same sex? Animals are better because they can distinguish male from female. If men mate with men and women mate with women, they are worse than animals.” — boxer/aspiring politician Manny Pacquaio, from a video published on Filipino television network TV5’s website earlier this year
← the attached image, ganked from http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2016/02/compassionate-bigotry-and-the-future-of-anti-gay-rhetoric.html
https://www.truthwinsout.org/ex-gay-quotes/ — A whole host of quotes from people within the “ex-gay”/“conversion therapy” movement, the first of which is this: “I believe the gay community is a good group of people but with groups like NAMBLA riding on their coattails.”
I found both those links and the Pacquiao quote in less than five minutes through Google.
The hush over the crowd when more than of trump supporters aren't white.
>The hush over the crowd when more than of trump supporters aren't white
And your point is?
"The Afghan Taliban have announced a new leader to replace Mullah Akhtar Mansour who was killed in a US drone strike."
"A section of the embankment of the River Arno in central Florence collapsed on Wednesday morning, sending part of the road and at least 20 parked cars into a newly formed ditch."
"Members of the anti-Islam protest group Pegida in Germany have complained about images of non-white children on Kinder chocolate bar packets."
Also Beijing tries to attack Taiwan's president for being a single lady.
Europe wants to ban non-toxic, non-allergenic flowers because friends of Hitlers liked them.
This is just about the only commercially available flower that people with pollen allergies can take, and it's also recommended for people with pets and small children because the flower is harmless if eaten.
Next on the chopping block - Red Clover, Lilly of the Valley, Lupine, Hibiscus, Hawthorn, Lilac, Edelweiss, the White Rose and the Tudor Rose. Fucking racist flowers.
I really hope Hitler didn't like beer, because I can't do without that man.
>Also Beijing tries to attack Taiwa-
LAUNCH THE MISSILES ITS WAR TIME!
It's funny because Japan is breaking away from USA slowly and building up their military, they just launched a few carriers and stealth jets. Although they're calling the carriers "destroyers" to try to fool people.
Would be fun to see what will happen with the region.
>It's funny because Japan is breaking away from USA slowly and building up their military
that's not a break from the US, that's doing exactly what the US has encouraged them to do for the last 20 years, it's a break from weakening anti-military internal forces
So Trump won the necessary votes for the republican nomination.
He's also edging closer in the polls.
A few days ago this was all for Hillary, now there's two polls putting him ahead.
She's went from +10 favoring to win, to +1, a ten fold decrease in spread.
If this were sports she'd be the team no one would bet on.
Polls at this stage in the game mean nothing. I mean, literally nothing. They have no predictive power whatsoever. At this point in 1988, Dukakis looked like he was going to win in a landslide.
Yeah I agree even though polls are showing Hillary ahead we just can't take that at face value.
Polls also showed Jeb would win the republican nomination and look how that turned out.
>Yeah I agree even though polls are showing Hillary ahead we just can't take that at face value.
You're really, suspiciously some might even say, fixated on a Trump victory.
It would be the end of America as we know it, might even touch off WWIII.
Why aren't you fixated on this? What possible event in your life could take precedence?
Okay, so vote for Hillary.
she has no personality fam.
That's nice. Trump, Hillary, pick one, or abstain from the political process and forfeit all right to complain.
>Wouldn't these people complain the most, considering they aren't satisfied with either candidate?
Irrelevant to my point.You have two options. If you don't pick one, you have no right to complain if the other wins. So if, in fact, you don't want Trump, you need to vote Hillary.
Complete 180 from reality. If you vote you have no right to complain, because you made your choice. People who don't vote are the only ones with any right to complain.
>If you vote you have no right to complain
You made an effort to choose your preference and the majority didnt agree. You have a right to complain, but no right to dispute.
If you dont support your side, you cant complain when they don't get in, because you are too fucking lazy to sign a piece of paper but apparently still cares who your president is.
That's not how this works, it's not a sports match for fucks sake.
If you voted, that means at least one party represented you, and as you took part in the voting process you can't complain at the outcome because you're partly responsible for the outcome.
If you don't vote, that means you didn't get proper representation, couldn't take part in the voting process, and you have every right to complain.
>too fucking lazy
>option between two tyrants of opposing parties
>its lazy not to choose one of them
You. Are. Mental.
Ok, let's do it your way. You have two choices, either get off this website, or leave this website. If you don't choose either option, you're lazy and have no right to complain about any posts here.
False equivalence and a misrepresentation of how democracy works.
You have two options. Trump, or Hillary. You can pick one, or abstain from the political process entirely. Do you not want Trump to be president? Vote for Hillary. Very simple. NOT voting for Hillary doesn't mean you aren't going to get Hillary, it just means you stood aside and let others decide for you.
>let others decide for you
You're acting like the voters ability to decide has any meaning at all when the choice is between two tyrants. In this case voting is about as significant as having a coin flipped on who gets to rape our ass, regardless of who the vote is for we're getting fucked anyway.
And I'm not going to stop complaining about not having proper democratic representation for fucks sake. Feel free to do your best to take away my right to free speech, but keep in mind that as you've already taken my ballot box, if you take my soap box as well the only thing I'll have left to make my displeasure known is my ammo box.
Happily, the choice is between an idiot and an establishment Democrat.
Nice try to shift the topic though.
How is that a shift in the topic? You are going to be governed by either the idiot or the establishment Democrat, it is your choice to pick or do nothing.
Well actually your losing the electoral process doesn't constitute a loss of your voting rights but it's good that you've dropped all pretense and are just showing your true colors by threatening us I guess.
I for one am shocked that an angry young right winger would threaten others.
>the establishment Democrat
I don't care what their favorite sports team is, how intelligent they are, or what flavor of ice cream they prefer. They are both tyrants, by definition.
Do you think either will repeal patriot act? Or the NFA act? You're almost slimy enough to wriggle out of this one, but I think you'll find the logic is inescapable.
Well firstly it's a statement of fact. Self expression can't be eliminated entirely because humans are by nature expressive, the only thing that can be eliminated is METHODS of expression. And if peaceful methods are gone the only thing left is violence. This isn't extremist or out of the ordinary, anyone who cracks open a history book can tell this has been true since the dawn of civilization, it happens every time tyranny comes around. This is why we don't like tyranny.
Lastly, the only way that's a threat is if someone here intends to take away the right of free speech, so there should be nothing to worry about. Right?
You're almost slimy enough to wriggle out of this one
If you’re so pissed off about “tyranny”, go join a right-wing militia.
>don't care how intelligent they are
really good at this leader selection business huh
>only right wingers care about oppression
And here I thought liberalism was far more concerned with liberty.
I don't care whether a criminal that robs me has a low IQ either, I'm still out of a VCR. Although it goes without saying, if you're worried which of the two evil people holding near absolute power over you is more intelligent, that says something about your intelligence.
You know nobody buys this bit right?
Are you fucking serious right now, holy shit
That webm wasn't exactly directed at you. I just wanted to post it since these threads exhibit some good examples of extremism on both sides, and because it's related to the topic of the thread.
This webm, too, is related to the topic.
>exhibit some good examples of extremism on both side
please point out where in these threads communism got a big push (unless you're talking about Toradora, who hasn't posted in forever)
Just as an aside, I think a major barrier for Hillary is her health.
She's currently incontinent and has problems with blood pressure. There were problems with a blood clot in her brain and a concussion which didn't heal properly. She's taking blood thinners for blood clots which is a dangerous drug (a friend recently died because of this). Also taking a drug for thyroid cancer for some reason. Her full minute of smokers cough interrupting a speech isn't inspiring confidence.
That's nice, I'm not voting for Trump.
good to have another bernie supporter.
Bernie isn’t gettin’ the nomination, bro. I’d vote for him. I’d like him to be the next President. But he ain’t gettin’ the nomination, Hillary is—and I’ll vote for her because I’d rather not see the Republicans get a chance to fuck up the Supreme Court for the next ten-to-thirty years.
Hillary might die before being nominated so....
We can worry about that if it happens. For now, Hillary is the presumptive Democratic Party nominee, and I will vote for her in the general election.
I like to worry about things before they happen, not after.
Your Totally Real Concern regarding Hillary's health in no way changes her delegate count.
And Bernie could drop dead before the convention, too, but I don’t see anyone concern trolling about his age and health.
Because he's not shitting himself on stage and having brain aneurysms ever time he coughs.
(That goes just as much for the claims about Hillary as it does for any similar claims about Bernie.)
I'm seriously disgusted by both Hillary and Trump, so my vote is fucked no matter which way it goes.
I'm literally left without recourse when it comes to who to vote for.
And again I say: even IF your health claims are true, your Totally Real Concern will not change her number of delegates.
>I'm seriously disgusted by both Hillary and Trump, so my vote is fucked no matter which way it goes. I'm literally left without recourse when it comes to who to vote for.
Ah, we're back to this again huh?
This is the issue you need to figure out where you stand on: Who do you want in control of nominating people for the Supreme Court? That is, quite literally, the single most important issue of this election. Forget everything else brought up in the debates and the ads and the mudslinging—the next POTUS will be naming someone to the existing empty spot on SCOTUS (provided Obama’s nomination remains stalled until the end of his term), and there may be as many as three other Justices taking their leave of the court within that President’s term (given their ages). The next POTUS could have the opportunity to name as many as four Justices to the bench, and their appointments will determine the ideological leaning of the court for the next ten-to-thirty years.
So would you rather have a SCOTUS that leans left or right—with all that entails about issues such as worker’s rights, LGBT civil rights, abortion, and other such partisan issues? That is the big issue of this election; if you’re not ready to make a decision on that, you’d do well to get ready.
>So would you rather have a SCOTUS that leans left or right—with all that entails about issues such as worker’s rights, LGBT civil rights, abortion, and other such partisan issues?
He would prefer right, obviously?
lol google either before making a fool of yourself.
>Who do you want in control of nominating people for the Supreme Court?
Yeah this seems to be whizzing right over some heads in this thread, let's hear a ringing endorsement of her ability to nominate SCOTUS: "She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality."
Why the fuck would anyone rational vote for a president to take a steaming dump on the constitution and start WWIII?
>Why the fuck would anyone rational vote for a president to take a steaming dump on the constitution and start WWIII?
I agree, Trump voters are effectively traitors to this country.
Trump is a non issue, I've never met a supporter of this guy. Even the Twitter accounts are all egg accounts or obvious trolls.
The bigger issue is why the hell people like Hillary at all. I constantly ask people in what way is she better than Trump, and all the bottom feeders can come up with is:
1. She's a woman.
2. She's a democrat.
3. She has more funding.
No one here is voting for Trump, although it's really really cute how you think stabbing a strawman is a good riposte to everyone else in this thread!
>Judging by the amount of media attention they got, these were the most important political stories of the week: Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders agreed to debate, but then Trump backed out, leading Sanders supporters to launch the #ChickenTrump hashtag. A report on Hillary Clinton’s emails came out. A poll indicated that the California primary is closer than previously thought. Trump’s delegate total went over 50%. Elizabeth Warren criticized Trump, so he began calling her “Pocahontas”. Sanders demanded that Barney Frank be removed as the chair of the DNC’s platform committee. Trump told a California audience that the state isn’t in a drought and has “plenty of water“. Trump accused Bill Clinton of being a rapist, and brought up the 1990s conspiracy theory that Vince Foster was murdered. President Obama said that the prospect of a Trump presidency had foreign leaders “rattled“, and Trump replied that “When you rattle someone, that’s good.” Clinton charged that Trump had been rooting for the 2008 housing collapse. Pundits told us that the tone of the campaign was only going to get worse from here; Trump and Clinton have record disapproval ratings for presidential nominees, and so the debate will have to focus on making the other one even more unpopular.
>If you are an American who follows political news, you probably heard or read most of these stories, and you may have gotten emotionally involved — excited or worried or angry — about one or more of them. But if at any time you took a step back from the urgent tone of the coverage, you might have wondered what any of it had to do with you, or with the country you live in. The United States has serious issues to think about and serious decisions to make about what kind of country it is or wants to be. This presidential election, and the congressional elections that are also happening this fall, will play an important role in those decisions.
50% OF ONLINE ABUSE TARGETED AT WOMEN IS SENT BY WOMEN
40% OF ONLINE ABUSE TARGETED AT WOMEN IS SENT BY MEN
>I've never met a supporter of this guy.
So you never leave your basement, why are we supposed to care?
You're not, I've told you multiple times to fuck off and stop replying if you don't want to, no one is putting a gun to your head forcing you to reply.
The only reason you're still posting is because you get triggered when people point out your favorite politician is shit. Well she is, deal with it internally, quit whinging.
I voted for Sanders in the primary, but him not winning doesn't mean I intend to back Trump. You however have taken up Trump's banner because he's an emblem of the ignorance you so cherish, and your pretenses to the contrary are paper thin.
Voting for Trump is the electoral equivalent of throwing a tantrum.
>You keep saying this despite multiple times people have said they aren't doing it.
There are two options, you are either voting for one of them or not voting at all. Being as you focus your attacks on Hillary, it stands to reason that you're not voting for her and you aren't an apolitical figure, ergo it is you who are in fact lying.
We've been talking about the third option for awhile now buddy, learn to read.
No, you haven't been, you've been alternating between rejecting the election process altogether (not shocking, as a right winger) and vaguely gesturing to the already effectively neutralized Sanders as a thin moral pretense to what is really just your ongoing anti-Hillary campaign.
You have been told time and again that your affectations aren't fooling anyone. You will continue to be told this, because it continues to be true.
There are other candidates to prefer, or abstain altogether. Bit scary that you think in such black and white terms, must be easy for you to classify a ridiculous number of bystanders as your enemies.
>There are other candidates to prefer,
Prefer yes, vote for, no. The system is designed so 3rd parties are wasted votes and the main candidates are essentially set.
>or abstain altogether.
Which I mentioned, but again, this requires you to be apolitical, which you are not.
Resfuing to vote doesn’t send a message. At all.
Sure it does, but a person has to have a baseline level of intelligence to see it.
"...The patterns, ahhh, the patterns. Liberal bigots are the ones who trouble me most. I distrust the extremes. Scratch a conservative and you find someone who prefers the past over any future. Scratch a liberal and find a closet aristocrat. It's true! Liberal governments always develop into aristocracies. The bureaucracies betray the true intent of people who form such governments. Right from the first the little people who formed the governments which promised to equalize the social burdens found themselves suddenly in the hands of bureaucratic aristocracies. Of course, all bureaucracies follow this pattern, but what a hypocrisy to find this even under a communized banner. Ahhh, well, if patterns teach me anything it's that patterns are repeated...."
Leto Atreides II
>Not voting is not an apolitical decision, it's a more powerful political message than your going along with the system.
Refusal to participate in the democratic process is an abstention from it, one which forfeits any right to complain about political outcomes and will earn you nothing but dismissal.
You keep trying to force this angle, it's not happening.
This is all part of the democratic process, by abstaining I become part of the people capable of voting but that don't vote. When this number increases significantly it becomes a red flag to the parties that they aren't supporting or producing representative candidates.
You keep needing it spelled out for you, and when it's spelled out for you it's completely ignored. Or you call us Trump supporters to help you ignore us. Or you act like like it's a SHOCKING NEW THING that revolts (peaceful or violent) happen when people aren't represented, despite this happening every single time people weren't properly represented since we started writing down history.
>When this number increases significantly it becomes a red flag to the parties
It really doesn't. It just marks you down as ignorable. That is, if you really were abstaining rather than backing Trump.
>it becomes a red flag to the parties that they aren't supporting or producing representative candidates
No…no. You think the parties give a flying mile-high fuck about low voter turnout? Shit, the GOP practically counts on it during midterm elections!
The parties love low voter turn out because they seriously do not give a shit about representing you. Politics is a business and if you don't participate, that doesn't remotely impact their bottom line. It effectively gives them more power to dictate your own life to you.
>When this number increases significantly it becomes a red flag to the parties that they aren't supporting or producing representative candidates.
This has literally never happened. When people don't vote, politicians turn their attention to the people who ARE voting instead.
So, what I've gleaned from this is:
1. You have to vote if you want to talk about how utterly fucked our political system is.
2. You have to vote for one of the big two. Voting third party is meaningless.
3. You better not vote for Trump, motherfucker.
4. Your voting for Trump, aren't you? You piece of shit.
>how utterly fucked our political system is.
if you are american, that is correct
No; pretty much; yes; amen.
This is why I was hesitant to clarify. >>407081 does not violate the rule: calling an entire group of people "motherfucker" is not a personal attack. Furthermore I'm pretty sure that anon was summarizing what they saw in the thread, it's not even necessarily their actual opinion.
>someone you don't like.
I don't like anyone, so if that was the case I'd whip it out all the time.
This thread is filled with such extreme levels of baloney that people might actually think I was serious about the Trump stuff, so I suppose I should clarify.
I do not think someone is a piece of shit or a motherfucker for voting for him, or for anyone else for that matter. I do not think less of people who have opinions that differ from my own.
Yeah fuck off, you might as well not have made that post.
Oh and since it's ok to insult groups and "summarize" what we see:
All of the admins of plus4chan posting in this thread are motherfucking pieces of shit.
This isn't necessarily my opinion by the way.
>This isn't necessarily my opinion by the way.
But if it was you wouldn't be wrong.
>Trump says "my African-American", essentially a politer way of saying "mah nigga"
>meanwhile that mayor Hillary talked to talks about CPT on stage
>Trump says "my African-American", essentially a politer way of saying "mah nigga"
And that wouldn’t be so bad if there wasn’t a history of white Americans using “my nigger” (or variants thereof) to talk about black slaves, so…yeah…
>H-h-hey guys, I'm s-s-still here! You libs can't keep me down!
>Literally my first post in the thread.
Your cheap attempt to return after being so utterly buried is noted, but not believed.
Ok, I'm curious now; who am I?
is he australian too? I've also been accused of being Speedy the drawfag abuser this week. Curse my cultural shitposting heritage.
You're even doing your little spoiler thing, this is just sad.
>Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake said the Republicans cannot win in November with Trump as the party's standard-bearer.
>"Let's face it: meet the old Trump, just like the new Trump," Flake, who has long opposed the billionaire's candidacy, told reporters. "We've got what we've got. That's not somebody who can win the White House."
>"Where there's no talk of a convention challenge or anything else, this might spur it," Flake said of Trump's comments on Judge Gonzalo Curiel.
At least put effort into your flame, mate. This isn't 4chan.
Call me /pol/-kun or something, so that I think you actually still believe in your accusation. If you don't step it up, I'll lose interest.
Fascinating article on the final days of a campaign in denial of its own defeat.
Barring an unprecedented shift in superdelegate allegiances—by his campaign’s own admission, Bernie hasn’t been able to flip a single Clinton-pledged superdelegate over to his side yet—Hillary Clinton will be named the Democratic Party’s next nominee for the office of President of the United States. This will put her in the running to become the first female POTUS in the country’s history; if she wins the seat, she will have done so just shy of a century after the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment secured for all American women the legal right to vote.
And considering that she’ll be running her campaign against the campaign of a racist oompa-loompa with an ever-changing set of political beliefs and policy ideas, shitloads of narcissistic tendencies, and a hair-trigger temper towards anyone that dares to bruise his ego…well…
Here. We. Go.
>And considering that she’ll be running her campaign against the campaign of a racist oompa-loompa with an ever-changing set of political beliefs and policy ideas, shitloads of narcissistic tendencies, and a hair-trigger temper towards anyone that dares to bruise his ego…well…
Trump's campaign is already starting to fall apart.
The illusion of party unity when Trump clinched the Republican nomination has shattered. Trump's off-handed remarks on Gonzalo P. Curiel has divided the Republican party and Paul Ryan's validation of Trump's comments being racist has only made it worse.
Furthermore, Hilary has already gotten underneath Trump's skin by (accurately) pointing out how ill-tempered he is for President of the U.S.
>But after two rallies and a flurry of interviews there's no question Clinton has gotten to Trump in a big way. As she said, he is very thin skinned. (Emphatically denying that you're thin-skinned is not a credible rebuttal.) Given who he is, being denigrated by a strong woman must cut deeply. Underneath the angry talk, he appears befuddled and uncertain about just how to respond. That is mainly because even before her assault he'd maxed out his invective. She was crooked, a liar, untalented, a lightweight, a sexual predator by proxy. How exactly do you escalate from there?
>As Clinton and her team certainly anticipated, hitting him hard as mentally unstable and unfit for the presidency has placed Trump in a sort of Chinese finger puzzle of his own creation. The only mode of response he knows - an escalating and bellicose round of personal attacks with increasingly hyperbolic accusations - only confirms Clinton's diagnosis. The harder he fights the tighter the charge sticks.
I get that Sanders is staying in the race so his movement can influence the party platform at the convention, but I don't believe he has as much leverage as he thinks he has. For all the sound and fury, there isn't much of a tangible difference between his and Clinton's policy positions (they're both to the left of the party overall) which makes the minority report redundant if Clinton's going to adopt his policies anyway, so any demands he makes will likely focus on offices and personnel (frex booting Barney Frank and Dannel Malloy from the convention rules committee, as the article states).
Except what recourse does he have if the DNC gets back to him and says "no"? If he stands firm and forces a vote at the convention, he'll be handily beaten on the first ballot and his movement vanishes into the ether. Withholding his endorsement or going third party would be criminally irresponsible as long as Trump is the opposition, it would earn him an ignoble place in American political history alongside Nader. He may be petty and vindictive, as the article claims, but he's not an idiot, he must realise before long that the most positive and lasting impact he could make is to get on board with Clinton and bring his movement with him, and the sooner the better.
>Withholding his endorsement or going third party would be criminally irresponsible as long as Trump is the opposition, it would earn him an ignoble place in American political history alongside Nader.
So then what you're saying is that Hillary's expectation is that Bernie is obligated to be the bigger man, and she has no responsibility if she doesn't do what she can to prevent it? Because to me it sounds like politics 101 that if you need something from someone, you compromise with them.
Hillary needs Bernie to not run third party because, like you said, he would have the same effect Nader had--the Dems would lose. Hillary has won the nomination but she has not won the general, and she has to decide now whether she is willing to gamble on the belief that Bernie--who wasn't a democrat until this election--is going to fall in line and stick to the Party Agenda.
Bernie, meanwhile, has to gamble on whether he can get concessions from Clinton (despite your statement, their platforms are *not* identical--while they're similar, there are key areas of difference, most especially in the areas of campaign reform, campaign finance law, and socialized medicine) without risking making President Trump a reality. Or whether the risk is worth the reward.
1. A racist rich white candidate that wants to build a barrier and thinks Mexicans are a problem.
2. A racist rich white candidate that wants to build a wall and thinks Mexicans are a problem.
BARRIER vs WALL - 2016 BONANZA!
Better version by a centrist team.
>BOTH CANDIDATES ARE EXACTLY THE SAME
I admit to being a long-distance observing foreigner to this contest, but I still find it baffling that people say this with a straight face.
>Bernie, meanwhile, has to gamble on whether he can get concessions from Clinton (...) without risking making President Trump a reality. Or whether the risk is worth the reward.
I just don't see Sanders throwing America under the bus over campaign finance reform. I realise that he's under no obligation to kowtow to a party he's only obliquely associated with, but while principled obtuseness may be an asset at the state level it's an awful risk taken to the national stage.
It really honestly feels like this election is the equivalent of Alien vs Predator.
>I admit to being a long-distance observing foreigner to this contest, but I still find it baffling that people say this with a straight face.
well you see /pol/-kun here isn't actually doing that: he and his ilk are CLAIMING as such because they want to muddy the water between the two in order to bolster Trump's position, but that doesn't mean they actually believe what they're saying
>I admit to being a long-distance observing foreigner to this contest, but I still find it baffling that people say this with a straight face.
You're implying it's not so common as to be a fucking meme.
>long-distance observing foreigner
Are you a foreigner from some other country, or from Alpha Centauri? This is common shit dude.
It stops being a claim when it's presented with video evidence.
>bolster Trump's position
We're comparing Hillary to Trump to show how bad Hillary is, this means we obviously think Trump is a bad thing. Otherwise the comparison would be complimentary. You fail at basic logic, try again.
>We're comparing Hillary to Trump to show how bad Hillary is
to what political end
If Bernie won the candidacy I was going to start posting in this thread, but it looks like you're doing my job for me anyway. Also, the whole 'we' business seems to be a little excessive, but then I haven't read the last few /pol/itical threads to know if their is a cabal lurking here.
>You're implying it's not so common as to be a fucking meme.
Yes, it was a meme. In past elections. To baldly state that Clinton and Trump are functionally identical in this election is an abject surrender of one's basic empirical faculties.
It's a psychological defence I've witnessed in the pathologically apathetic...I'm sure you've known the type, the ones that constantly insist "they're all the same" because the positive effort to form a concrete political conviction induces some kind of nervous breakdown in them.
Yeah, I’m not enamored with Hillary, but I’d rather vote for the person who won’t turn the Supreme Court into an institution that will turn back the clock on abortion, LGBT civil rights, worker’s rights, minority rights vis-á-vis voting, Obamacare/health care reform, and basically every other major progressive change in this country from the past few decades.
(Besides, state and local elections are far more important in the long run.)
>hillary advising on the deletion of electronic media
>Going for real ends here
okay, what real ends are those, and if they are apolitical, how are they relevant to this thread
>Yes, it was a meme. In past elections. To baldly state that Clinton and Trump are functionally identical in this election is an abject surrender of one's basic empirical faculties.
Clearly he's referring to the end TIMES, as in he intends to usher in the apocalypse by electing President Trump.
I won't disagree with most of that, but health care is fucking broken either way. This bullshit with Obamacare needs to get the fuck out and stay out.
>This bullshit with Obamacare needs to get the fuck out and stay out.
Truly, America's Apartheid.
>health care is fucking broken either way
At least Obama tried to improve the system with the ACA. (Whether he succeeded is up for debate.) A right-wing SCOTUS in conjunction with a right-wing Congress/President combo would try to destroy the ACA; worse, they might actively try to further privatize health care and make the whole system shittier than ever. At least with a left-wing SCOTUS/Congress/President, progressives can keep up the pressure for further reforms. I know Bernie had a few ideas on that front, and if he’d play nice with the DNC, he might actually get the chance to push some of those ideas into the DNC platform (and thus push Hillary into expending some political capital towards making reforms).
>up for debate
It's pretty clear that what we had before was better. There's a reason why coverage provisions are being waived for politicians, this isn't inspiring confidence in the ACA.
Obamacare is failing because it's yet another sweeping blanket "improvement" from Washington that doesn't recognize the simple fact that each of the states is different, each of the cities in the states is different, and when you get down to it every citizen is different.
Now a single mother in Detroit is forced to buy the same insurance plan as some millionaire in Hollywood. It makes no rational sense to force such an arrangement and puts an unconscionable level of burden on the poorer sections of the country.
The ONLY way to have a national health care plan is to follow the model of other developed countries, do it state by state (province by province), or even city by city.
>It's pretty clear that what we had before was better.
No, it's not.
Yeah, have to agree with this.
But on the other hand, most of the other points stand. Making it mandatory and punishable is the exact opposite of helping people that can't afford insurance. Instead you force them to pay for something they can't or take a chunk out of their income with nothing to show for it.
It's messed up.
>It's pretty clear that what we had before was better.
Holy fucking shit, no.
The stuff you're talking about is only true in states that refused the medicare expansion because Republican Governors wanted to make poor people suffer to hurt Obama.
By all means: sound the alarm.
>okay, what real ends are those, and if they are apolitical, how are they relevant to this thread
I would still like your answers to these questions.
>Not a single mention of Trump
you realize this actually contradicts you yes
Trump is done to death. Hillary Clinton is more interesting to make fun of at the moment, after all she may become the first F president.
Sorry, I meant to say female but the emale got deleted
>hurrrr herpaderp because i have a bajillion dollars and live in a gated community that means there's no problems in america ddddrrrrrrrrrr.
Yes that's the sentiment you regularly express, what's your point
Congrats, you've provided a metric which means absolutely nothing, because premiums ago up all the time and sure as hell weren't static pre-ACA.
>this hundred billion dollar a year program made things worse or at BEST didn't improve a fucking thing
>that means its a good program
Are you a website designer?
If the status quo would have resulted in a 50% increase in premiums, and instead we get a 10% increase in premiums (don't bother disputing these numbers, they're arbitrary values and irrelevant) that still shows up as an increase to their premiums but it's sure as hell an improvement over the status quo.
You clearly don't understand the first thing about statistics so why don't you leave this to the grown-ups, alright?
Your numbers aren't exactly on the money, but that is exactly the situation that happened with Obamacare. Premiums have continued to increase, but the rate at which they increase has decreased on average, and more people are insured than ever before.
Basically, it’s the equivalent of getting fucked in the ass by the infamous Thor dildo vs getting fucked in the ass by a much smaller dildo: you're still getting fucked, but it hurts a hell of a lot less than it used to.
Except you're guessing and pulling shit out of your ass.
I've shown proof that healthcare costs are higher now.
Now it's your job to prove that it would have been higher without the ACA.
You can't just claim they would have been higher, a claim is not enough to counteract proof.
>I've shown proof that healthcare costs are higher now.
And shown causation for exactly nothing.
Feel free to disprove the correlation.
You don't have to disprove correlation, it's correlation.
>i dont need to argue or provide evidence for anything
>but you have to believe my opinions guys!
Ok then, you clearly aren't worth talking to.
I actually don't have to do shit, since I've already demonstrated that the evidence you provided doesn't prove shit and is worthless.
No, you haven't, so far you've just stated your views over and over. You're like a tourist that tries repeating english slowly and loudly to locals, and it's not working.
If you're unwilling to provide information or even provide arguments, what's the point of talking to you?
>No, you haven't, so far you've just stated your views over and over.
Actually he destroyed the foundation of your entire argument, but like all right wingers you don't operate on logic so you'll never admit that.
Actually you're a lying moron, but because you're a nazi you will never admit that.
>"I wonder what they're talking about in the politics thread."
>most recent posts are two people yelling insults at each other
>"Same as usual then."
Shut up, Aizen, ain't nobody like you, you are the worst villain.
State Department Blocks Release Of Hillary Clinton-Era TPP Emails Until After The Election
Ok now I'm convinced.
If the current administration is pulling this hard for her, enough to misuse the power to classify information, her corruption is clearly too powerful to beat.
And if I can't beat her might as well join her.
yes that's nice, and meanwhile your preferred candidate:
I fail to see what you think is hidden in those links that is remotely comparable to the US government classifying information to protect a presidential candidate merely because that candidate is of the same party.
Also I hope you're going to be 100% ok with this when Trump is president and classifies any information which can hurt the republican nominee after him.
>I hope you're going to be 100% ok with this when Trump is president
good to know you're not pretending anymore
What's the point of this thread again?
God, today is going to be fucking awful in terms of politicians and pandering.
>In a prepared statement, [Trump] argued that his comments had been “misconstrued as a categorical attack against people of Mexican heritage” when actually they were just targeted at Judge Curiel, who apparently had it coming because he didn’t dismiss the Trump U lawsuit.
>To me, that’s like yelling “Nigger!” at a black driver who cuts you off in traffic, and then feeling misunderstood when the blacks in your carpool take offense. You didn’t launch a categorical attack on all blacks, you just used a racial insult against one guy who had it coming because he was in your way. Why can’t they see the difference?
not the same
not the same!
you better believe!
they're not the same!!!!
right wingers are really obsessed with trying to act like there's no difference between the two candidates, as if the public will be fooled
If there's no difference, then I'd have no reason to vote for Trump either.
>I'd have no reason to vote for Trump either
well no valid reason to vote for trump exists in either case
In fairness, there's no reason to vote for Hillary either considering she's going to corrupt her way into office. Our votes aren't worth shit, for or against.
NO DIFFERENCE NO DIFFERENCE TRUMP 2016
The right thing to do:
1. Withhold votes from either candidate, because both are fuckwads.
2. ORGANIZE THE COMMUNITY TO SHOW UP TO VOTE FOR DEMOCRAT CONGRESSMEN!
Congressmen make the laws, laws regarding LGBT, laws regarding minorities, laws regarding gun ownership. They have most of the real power and are much easier to elect. As we've seen with Obama a loaded congress definitely has the power to block a president.
If the congress is loaded with people that are good, it doesn't matter how shitty the president is.
>Withhold votes from either candidate, because both are fuckwads.
That’s not going to work and you know it.
>Withhold votes from either candidate, because both are fuckwads.
You keep trying to work this angle and we keep telling you that you aren't fooling anyone.
Yes you attempted some half assed misdirection, so what?
I can't believe I have to say this but - Think about what you've read.
yes, we've read your many attempts to equate the two candidates and have repeatedly told you that nobody is buying what you're selling
>turn back the clock on abortion
America hasn't gone anywhere on the topic of abortion in forever, it's a frozen issue, no one will touch it politically.
Also, right now it's legal everywhere and partly funded by government, so I don't know exactly how far you want to take it. Mandatory government funded falcon punches?
>LGBT civil rights
TRUMP HAS SPOKEN OUT AGAINST THE ANTI-TRANSGENDER CAROLINA LAW
TRUMP HAS SUPPORTED OBERGEFELL V HODGES, AND ATTACKED ROBERTS FOR DISSENTING
Trump has been consistently pro-LGBT rights, despite disagreeing with it he's always come out in support of their rights. Nice of you to ignore Trumps support of LGBT community while also ignoring Hillarys history of attacking the LGBT community.
~2:25-3:10 doesn't sound like something the evil gnatzee your programmer has brainwashed you with would say. In fact it's better than anything Hillary or Obama have said, so far the democrats are ignoring this as an LGBT issue.
He started off his platform on reducing illegal immigration and increasing legal immigration, on bringing back jobs to help the working class, and fixing broken social services in the inner cities. This was the very starting position of his campaign, can't ignore this.
>increasing legal immigration
He literally said he wanted to stop all muslims from being able to enter the country.
Just checking (I don't pol), is Trump's whole party in support of his policies?
Apart from being your country's national image, the President doesn't hold that much power, do they?
>America hasn't gone anywhere on the topic of abortion in forever
That only holds true if you don’t count things like TRAP laws designed to squeeze abortion providers into going out of business. Oh, and attempts at passing “fetal personhood” bills into law. And also the fact that Trump said on national television that women should be punished for getting abortions (though he walked back on that, as he is wont to do with…well, any sociopolitical belief, idea, or stance that he holds, really).
>it's legal everywhere and partly funded by government
“Legal” does not mean “accessible”. And you’ll have to provide a citation for that “partly funded by government” thing, since Planned Parenthood doesn’t receive compensatory Title X funding for its abortion services.
>TRUMP HAS SUPPORTED OBERGEFELL V HODGES
When asked about the subject of same-sex marriage, he said the matter should be left up to the states. In other words, his statement made him sound as if he believed the patchwork of “this state bans it, this state allows it” laws pertaining to same-sex marriage was a better solution to the issue than Obergefell. And it doesn’t really matter if you think Trump stands in support of the LGBT population. If elected to the office of POTUS, his potential SCOTUS nominations would likely be looking for a chance to roll back LGBT civil rights (including marriage), and a GOP-controlled Congress would be happy to help make that a reality.
>Nice of you to ignore Trumps support of LGBT community while also ignoring Hillarys history of attacking the LGBT community.
I’m well aware of Hillary’s role in the passage of DOMA. I don’t think highly of her for it. But she has since evolved her positions, whether out of genuine soul-searching or political pragmatism, and I don’t think she’ll start looking to roll back LGBT civil rights—one way or another—if she gets into office.
I’ll give him credit for out-and-out saying it was an attack on the LGBT population; it’s more than any of his GOP brethren did in the past few days. That said: he’s using the attack as a way of bolstering his anti-Muslim bona fides and call for further military action against ISIS, even though spreading more Islamophobia and wanting to carry out more bombings will do nothing to stop homegrown assholes (e.g. the American-born, American-raised asshole who shot up Pulse) from carrying out mass shootings and other attacks. His approach also ignores the existence of LGBT Muslims at best (and asks them to choose between being LGBT or being Muslim at the absolute worst).
And I’m aware that Hillary has also called for further action against ISIS in the wake of the Orlando massacre. I’m not a fan of that, either.
>He started off his platform on reducing illegal immigration and increasing legal immigration, on bringing back jobs to help the working class, and fixing broken social services in the inner cities.
His platform started off on rounding up and kicking out every undocumented immigrant in the country (a move that would hurt the American economy, considering how many undocumented immigrants work in this country). He moved to calling for a ban of an entire religious group from the country (which is both a disgusting attack on the billion-or-so Muslims who aren’t terrorists and a direct contradiction of laws that protect people from government-based tests of faith/religion).
He talks about bringing jobs back to the working class but doesn’t say how he plans to do that other than “fuck outsourcing”. His tax plan would lower taxes for the supposed “job creators”, but when have tax breaks for the rich ever led to both an increase in available jobs and a decrease in unemployment numbers? And what kinds of jobs does he want to “bring back”, anyway? Oh, and let’s not forget that he doesn’t support a nationwide raise to the minimum wage (that’s another one of his “let the states decide” issues).
As far as fixing broken social services goes: What does he want to do there—actually make them more effective by giving them larger budgets, or slash them out of existence if they’re not “effective enough” by some arbitrary metric?
>the President doesn't hold that much power, do they
No they hold considerable power, we don't have a parliamentarian system.
Temporarily until ISIS is dealt with, which we've done before. Meanwhile he'd increase immigration from other regions of the world. People from China have been waiting on their green cards for fucking GENERATIONS because of the porous southern border.
Proving my point here, it's a frozen issue.
>“Legal” does not mean “accessible”.
The law can't make something accessible, you're looking for an economic solution here not governmental.
This is what partly funded means. By funding their other services with subsidies, it allows them to provide abortion at lower costs. Even undercutting competitors which is a story for another day.
>And it doesn’t really matter if you think Trump stands in support of the LGBT population.
A) I know he does.
B) You're the one who brought his personal views up.
>I don’t think highly of her for it. But she has since evolved her positions, whether out of genuine soul-searching or political pragmatism, and I don’t think she’ll start looking to roll back LGBT civil rights—one way or another—if she gets into office.
Wow and just earlier in your post you said
>walked back on that, as he is wont to do with…well, any sociopolitical belief, idea, or stance that he holds, really
>I’ll give him credit for out-and-out saying it was an attack on the LGBT population; it’s more than any of his GOP brethren did in the past few days.
Or his Democrat brethren.
>His platform started off on rounding up and kicking out every undocumented immigrant in the country (a move that would hurt the American economy, considering how many undocumented immigrants work in this country).
Double red herring.
Forcing undocumented migrants to get documented, get work visas, get green cards, is not kicking them out. It is not fair to the rest of the country to pay taxes for illegals to get social services, and yet for them to be exempt. Do you think it's fair that despite suffering through a hurricane black people in New Orleans had to pay taxes for the illegals in New Orleans to get housing? I'm not fine with a rich faggot getting out of taxes, or a church or an undocumented migrant, because this is called THEFT.
Also unemployment is 40% so the remainder of your comment is shit. Unemployment was so bad that at one point we didn't even get anyone trying to immigrate illegally.
>He moved to calling for a ban of an entire religious group
Dude we used to ban entire nationalities and races from entering, for example Carter banned all Iranians from entering the country during the hostage crisis. That's way worse than a religion, which is a philosophical choice not something they're born with.
It is not morally wrong or even unusual, it's not an attack on anyone. It's a necessary block while immigration authorities establish the infrastructure needed to deal with potential threats.
>He talks about bringing jobs back to the working class but doesn’t say how he plans to do that other than “fuck outsourcing”.
He gave a detailed plan on a system of tariffs and renegotiated trade deals, you can check out his site for it.
>His tax plan would lower taxes for
The poor and the middle class, you strawmanning piece of shit. He's raising taxes on the rich.
If you are single and earn less than $25,000, or married and jointly earn less than $50,000, you will not owe any income tax.
>doesn’t support a nationwide raise to the minimum wage (that’s another one of his “let the states decide” issues).
Because states are more involved and know the local markets. A minimum wage for Seattle is not the same as a minimum wage for Amarillo.
>As far as fixing broken social services goes: What does he want to do there—actually make them more effective by giving them larger budgets,
I don't think you know the definition of the word effective.
The current system of social services rewards activities, not results. In other words spending a quarter of a million dollars on a feel good rally that no one shows up to is preferable to spending a quarter of a million dollars on feeding the homeless.
The answer is social impact bonds, google this, it has been instituted before and it works far better.
I don't feel like engaging your whole post (which is of course your strategy--throw out a wall of text then whine when the other people in the conversation "Don't engage my entire post." Classic sealioning behavior), but you need only look at the map of abortion providers over the past few years to see that abortion clinics are effectively being shut down by Republican law makers fairly constantly even though the laws don't outright illegalize abortion. Texas is sort of infamous for how their laws are indirectly banning abortion access with laws that they pretend are "for the patient's protection" and just so happen to close down a lot of abortion clinics.
What an odd coincidence, how the people who passed the law don't like a thing and somehow managed to get it reduced with laws they wrote despite their sudden "changes of heart" looking out for the welfare of the recipients. A cynical person would almost think they were being dishonest about their goals in writing the laws in the first place. By which I mean: they were absolutely being dishonest about their goals in writing those laws in the first place. Don't write this off as "attempts" or "should bes." They have intentionally legislated their way around the law and successfully made abortion more difficult to attain for the majority of the population in their jurisdictions in spite of laws that are supposed to prevent that.
Out of curiosity /pol/-kun, what's your gameplan for when Trump loses, will you just be rolling right back to attack internet "SJWs" or do you intend to do a gradual transition, stopping over at claiming electoral fraud first?
>Temporarily until ISIS is dealt with
Because all Muslims are obviously ISIS members waiting to happen.
>it's a frozen issue
Just because you don’t see landmark decisions on the level of Roe v Wade coming from SCOTUS or whatever, that doesn’t make the issue of access to legal abortions a “frozen” one. Lawmakers still look for ways to chip away at Roe v Wade by pushing to criminalize abortions past a certain stage of the pregnancy and using TRAP laws (e.g. “Your clinic must meet these arbitrary standards or else”) to force abortion-providing clinics out of business. This approach isn’t from ten or twenty years ago; this shit is happening right the fuck now. People are still fighting these laws and bills, still fighting to keep abortion clinics open, and still working to make sure any woman who wants a legal abortion can get one. (Also, >>407343 nailed this better than I could, so read their post.)
No, I'm not. Hillary didn’t say “I’m against gays getting married” one day, “I think we should let the states decide” the next day, and “I’m all for gays getting married” the day after that. Her evolution on the subject took years and was inspired by either genuine soul-searching or inevitable political pragmatism. Trump, on the other hand, changes his stances on issues like same-sex marriage on a regular basis. He said in a televised interview that women should be punished for abortions, then walked back that stance the next day. There’s no way to get a read on what policies and positions he truly believes in because his policies and positions seem to change depending on what day of the week it is and what audience he’s talking to.
>Forcing undocumented migrants to get documented, get work visas, get green cards, is not kicking them out.
And yet he’s the one who actually talked about “rounding up” all the undocumented immigrants from Mexico and kicking them back across the border. His own website says “[a]ll criminal aliens must be returned to their home countries”, calls for the defunding of sanctuary cities, and calls for the end of birthright citizenship — https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform — but I see nothing about forcing/helping undocumented immigrants receive the documentation necessary to legally stay in this country.
>Do you think it's fair that despite suffering through a hurricane black people in New Orleans had to pay taxes for the illegals in New Orleans to get housing?
No, I don’t. But if we sent every undocumented immigrant back across the border—assuming we could even find them all, natch—how bad of a hit do you think the economy would take in return? There are more considerations for this issue beyond “protect the borders” and “make them pay taxes”, and a comprehensive immigration plan would account for details such as how much money undocumented immigrants put into the economy and how to help (actual) small businesses afford paying out a living wage to legal citizens while staying in business and offering goods/services at reasonable prices. We need nuance when discussing this issue; the “kicking out the illegals” idea doesn’t offer any.
>That's way worse than a religion, which is a philosophical choice not something they're born with.
Yes, but when Islam is brought up in discussions like these, politicians almost always mean “Middle Easterners”. They can’t out-and-out say “Arabs” or “Iranians” or whatever because then their animus would be laid bare. By saying “Muslims”, they can code their racism and make it more palatable. (It also “helps” anti-LGBT GOP politicians who espouse anti-gay rhetoric. By offering up a “critique” of Islamic anti-LGBT sentiment, they hope to whitewash their own anti-LGBT sentiments—“See? They hate fags more than us!”—and make all Muslims, even the LGBT ones, look like violent barbarians in the process.) Continuing to talk about Muslims as if all one billion-plus of them are in the Middle East, are anti-American, and are just waiting for the opportunity to “kill all the infidels” gives us no room for a nuanced debate on how this country handles immigration from Middle Eastern countries (and how this country seems willing to violate the First Amendment rights of Muslims because of their religion).
>He gave a detailed plan on a system of tariffs and renegotiated trade deals, you can check out his site for it.
Let’s say he finds a way of bringing manufacturing companies/plants back to the United States. How does he plan to help keep those jobs in the hands of actual people, considering how much of an average manufacturing process is automated these days?
Stone I really don't understand why you continue to engage this person as if he is arguing in good faith.
And of course terrorists are all immigrants anyway. Like that foreigner who shot up Orlando....oh, wait, he was a natural born citizen. Okay, well then like that foreigner who shot up Sandy Hook....okay, maybe not. The foreigners who bombed the Boston Marathon? Timothy McVeigh?
Huh, it's almost like terrorism is a complex problem that fearmongering authoritarians try to pretend there are simple solutions to by pointing to "external threats" (i.e. ISIS, Al Qaeda, unnamed inner-city "Thugs," Mexican Drug-Cartels....Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals...) that are easy to demonize rather than try to engage the complex societal problems and toxic cultures that produce our problems and for which there are not, and never are, easy answers. And it's almost like they have been doing that since the dawn of history because angry people respond well to easy answers even though in their hearts they know that those easy answers aren't going to solve their problems because anger and hatred cloud the mind, and doing something, even something counterproductive, salves their egos more than actually making slow progress on difficult problems over long time periods.
TYT saying watch lists are racist, unconstitutional and have plainly innocent people on them:
TYT saying we should use watch lists to restrict access to constitutional rights:
The president is the head of the executive branch. The legislative and judicial branches also exist.
American president has less power than the British prime minister, who heads not only the executive portion, but is also the head of the party that holds the majority in the legislative portion of the government.
Watch-lists suck, but if we're going to have them and restrict flight based on them it doesn't make sense to not restrict gun ownership based on them.
TYT is so far up its own ass it can watch itself swallow, but those positions aren't actually contradictory.
>if we're going to have them
Let's not have them, this isn't a difficult concept. If someone is enough of a threat to end up on a watch list they should already be under active investigation. Or charge them and put them in prison. They aren't even POIs.
Putting someone on a watch list instead of starting an active investigation means we have zero evidence to SUSPECT this person. So if there's no evidence, what prompted their addition to the list? The biased, bigoted opinion of some shadow committee.
It's completely bogus and unethical.
>those positions aren't actually contradictory
I'm going to laugh at how fast you change your tune when Trump wants to put all Muslims and Mexicans on the terrorist watch list and bars entry to America because of ISIS and the Cartel. Or starts talking about stripping constitutional rights of these ethnicities in America.
>Muslims and Mexicans
it's good to know that you're no longer pretending that you don't consider "gun nut" an identity equivalent to these
>I'm going to laugh at how fast you change your tune when Trump wants to put all Muslims and Mexicans on the terrorist watch list and bars entry to America because of ISIS and the Cartel. Or starts talking about stripping constitutional rights of these ethnicities in America.
??? I don't follow your logic here. You're saying that once Trump starts putting people on the terrorist watch list based solely on race and religion, that's going to make people feel that it is contradictory to have that watch list apply as much to gun ownership as it does to flying, even though they didn't feel that before Trump started using it to advance his racist agenda? Like the fact that an already-troublesome (as people have acknowledged) institution suddenly goes from "Kind of prone to abuse by racists" to "actively being abused by a racist" is going to change their feelings on when the institution should be used?
Like the number of non-sequiturs in your logic on basically every issue is starting to make me think you actually *are* Donald Trump. I would say it's kind of a stretch for Donald Trump himself to come onto an imageboard with about ten people on it to argue politics with people with no political clout, but then again he has demonstrated himself to be the kind of petty narcissist who would google his own name and see someone saying that his policies don't work and feel the need to shovel his completely baffling word salad logic into the thread.
Nice try, /pol/-kun, but we know you're the one supporting Trump here.
I know this isn't /n/ news, but a friend of mine just tweeted this.
Jo Cox, Labour MP for Batley and Spen, was murdered by a nationalist loon while meeting with constituents at her surgery this afternoon.
I feel devastated, as a fellow Labour member and as a Brit. To be killed while fulfilling a politician's democratic duty is heartwrenching.
It is incidents like these that show the true colors of the nationalist. We the people have a duty , a duty to form a stone wall that protects decent society from the likes of these madmen.
Nope. This was a Sky News sensationalization. They released a story that an unnamed witness heard him yell Britain First before attacking.
But since the SAME witness they used claimed not to have heard any such thing, and since other witnesses have shown up and said the attacker didn't shout "Britain First", Sky News has quietly removed their claim without apologizing or even explaining why they aired it in the first place.
“No, no. I did not hear that”.
- Hicham Ben Abdallah.
The witness that Sky News claimed heard the shout "Britain First" denied having told them this.
They made it up.
Well yeah obviously /pol/tards need to come up with a go-to cover story, can't have your backwards cause tainted by murdering a sitting elected official in broad daylight.
Shame that the facts are already out on every major media outlet globally so all the lies in the world aren't going to let them cover up their violent nationalism.
What the fuck are you talking about.
Nobody came up with a cover story.
The witness says he was misquoted.
There's a video of him saying it.
Shut down your reality distortion field for a second.
>/pol/tards need to come up with a go-to cover story
Are you suggesting a Muslim shop owner named Ben Abdallah collaborated with internet Neo Nazi shitposting basement dwellers to help out a British nationalist group that doesn't like Muslims? I don't think you're right on this one.
Oh lol, I remember when I was this naive and new, the world seemed so wonderful back then. This kind of extreme left wing progressive you're responding to doesn't care mate. They'll masturbate to lies as readily as truth, as long as either fits their preconceptions. They automatically reject any information that conflicts with their fantasy as well. In fact, what >>407379 just did in rejecting video evidence, by holding his strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary, is the dictionary definition of a delusion.
Delusions are one of the defining characteristics of a mental illness. I hate to break this news, but the fact is that these people would be locked up if we hadn't defunded the institutional health care system in exchange for lower cost "community" health care. In other words releasing them into the community, onto the streets or the internet, and hoping that solves the problem.
It's not that this poster won't accept the evidence, he (or she) physically cannot accept it. It has nothing to do with their wishes, they are in the grips of a mental disorder, they are suffering from a disease. Just make sure not to feed their delusion, state that you disagree as lightly as you can, and move on. This won't help the poor sod, but it won't damage him further either.
He could just have an IQ below 80.
Also going through a broken educational system that doesn't tech kids critical thinking has damaged every generation since 1989.
Remember no child left behind?
NCLB was a band aid solution signed when people realized they raised a generation of idiots from 1990 to 2000.
can you, instead of a brief clip, perhaps provide the source of said clip? Like, the complete interview, the news organization that gave it, that kind of thing
>Witness Hicham Ben Abdallah said he saw the attacker kicking Cox and then pull a handgun out of a black bag, shooting her and pulling her by the hair. “He was fiddling with the gun, which looked like it was homemade. It seemed like the bullet was lodged, and then he shouted something and began to fire,” he said. “He fired one shot and then three or four seconds later he fired another one. Bang, bang. And that’s when I saw her on the floor in between the two cars.”
>Graeme Howard, 38, who lives in nearby Bond Street, said the attacker shouted “Britain first”, adding: “I heard the shot and I ran outside and saw some ladies from the cafe running out with towels. There was loads of screaming and shouting and the police officers showed up. He was shouting ‘Britain first’ when he was doing it and being arrested.”
>Another witness, Clarke Rothwell, also told the BBC that Cox’s attacker shouted “Britain first”. He said: “Somebody tried grabbing, wrestling with him, then he was wielding a knife, a hunting knife. He just started lunging at her with a knife, half a dozen times.” He added that people were screaming and running from the area as the gunman started “lunging at everybody with the knife”. A 77-year-old man was also attacked and injured, although not seriously.
Nope, stupid people don't deny what's in front of their face, this is clearly an illness.
>murdered by a nationalist loon
Actually the assailant was Jewish.
He also has a mixed race brother who claims they've always been close, and that Mair had nothing to do with britain first.
This is sounding less and less like what the media wants to pass it off as.
S'right, pretend your defense wasn't just blown to pieces, that'll save your Brexit vote.
As a point of curiosity, have any studies been done on the average politics of shooters / terrorists re: their leanings to the left or right?
Too lazy to grab papers at 4:30 in the morning but basically as a general rule there isn't really a heavier predisposition on either end, extremists of any stripe are equally likely to resort to violence. Hence"extremists." What changes is the political situation of your particular location and who is likely to feel disgruntled about it. In the modern, Western context, Marxism has lost a lot of the pizzaz, so you don't really get leftist extremists so much (there are other factors too of course but keeping this brief). They're around of course, but dwarfed in number by Righties, who face a greater level of rights for all their favorite targets and disdain for themselves than at any prior point in history.
If I had to pick a good Leftist hotspot I'd pick Turkey, the Kurds have a particular strain of socialist leanings mixed in with their nationalist movement and religious views.
Left wing terrorism is the #1 terrorist threat in United States, it's become so common that people don't even report on it, it's just background noise.
The pillars of left wing politics are prioritarianism and collectivism. That people should be seen primarily as members of groups, and that equality should be achieved by helping one group at the expense of the others.
Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Mao are left leaning. They all viewed society in terms of groups (proletariat/burgeois, aryan/jew) and tried to fix society by helping what they viewed as a disadvantaged majority against the profiteering minority by redistributing wealth and power.
The right wing believes the opposite, that individuals matter more than groups, and that some social inequality is inevitable in a free society.
Pretty much all ancient and feudal systems are right wing, as is the western world up until 1989. Individual agency is emphasized to the point of fault, the emergence of social strata was accepted. Feudal systems are examples of low mobility right wing systems where a person had to basically kill to improve their social standing, whereas the Western world is considered an example of high mobility right wing system where capitalism and the exchange of goods is used to change a persons social class.
tl;dr right wing tends not to do terrorism, right wing oppresses through systems
>Hitler, Mussolini are left leaning
HOLY FUCKING SHIT, YOU ARE ACTUALLY TRYING TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF FASCISM, GO DROWN YOURSELF
My favorite part was his source being an ancient Fox News article.
Fascism is a form of socialism, the fasces is a bundle of sticks meant to represent the unity of the workers. Fascism is also based on corporatism which is inherently socialist, the workers literally own the means of production (shares) in the corporation. Fascism is a left wing ideology, as is national socialist german workers party (clue in name). Hitler won the hearts of the working class by promising increased welfare and social services for Germans. Nazis were anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist.
If you actually think fascism is right wing you missed the point of the whole "third way" thing.
>"It remains what we would probably consider the No. 1 domestic terrorism threat, because they have successfully continued to conduct different types of attacks in and around the country," said FBI Special Agent Richard Kolko.
So is the FBI special agent lying? There's another source for Europe as well, is that wrong as well? Provide the right data then.
>FBI estimates place damages from these attacks at well over $100 million. So far, no one has been killed.
Wow, terrorists who go out of their way to avoid killing people. Sounds like a top priority threat to me!
>The right wing believes the opposite, that individuals matter more than groups, and that some social inequality is inevitable in a free society.
More like right wing also sees people primarily as groups, but thing that dominance of one gorup in particular should be achieved by helping one group at the expense of another. Whereas left wing can also be viewed the other way, by saying they value the social mobility of equal opprtunity over group dominance.
>If you actually think fascism is right wing
then you are a literate speaker of the English language.
"Therefore Fascism is opposed to Socialism, which confines the movement of history within the class struggle and ignores the unity of classes established in one economic and moral reality in the State; and analogously it is opposed to class syndicalism." --Benito Mussolini, follower of Marx
"Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxist Socialism."--Adolph Hitler, champion of the proletariat.
"I absolutely insist on protecting private property ... we must encourage private initiative" --also Hitler.
How many families were made destitute and starved on the streets for that? I'm going to take a bullet to the head as a more merciful alternative to PETA terrorists shutting down my trapping business and seeing my daughter whoring herself out for food.
>More like right wing also sees people primarily as groups
You are projecting.
>over group dominance
The left wing supports affirmative action, which is the opposite of equal opportunity, denies social mobility, and entrenches the dominance of the benefited group into law.
Are you suggesting Maoists or Leninists aren't socialist because they oppose some Marxist ideals? Are you suggesting Juche is not socialist because it allows 1% of people to own a property/business if they bribe enough officials?
Fascism is only opposed to socialism because of the Marxist ideals of class struggle. In all other ways they are identical. Most important way they are identical is that they are both collectivist and thus left wing.
Like no seriously, I don't get what you expect to accomplish with such an utterly blatant counterfactual as Fascism Isn't Right Wing. Are you going to next claim you're a rabbit man from the moon? Do you think that's going to distract people from your nationalist buddy murderering a sitting politician? Because newsflash, that's not going away.
It's what I was taught in university, and it does logically bear out.
>Do you think that's going to distract people from your nationalist buddy murderering a sitting politician?
Yeah like you and your Islamic terrorist buddy aren't feasting on the hearts of LGBT people right now.
That's not going away because its going to keep happening over and over and over again.
Hey some of your Muslim pedophile friends just raped a bunch of little girls!
I bet you hope this will go away.
But wait there's more, a Muslim holy man just threatened to rape women's rights advocate on live TV!
Wow you really hope this one will go away, but it won't because this is the standard state for your buddies.
It reminds me when an Afghan PRIME MINISTER threatened to cut off the nose from a reporter.
This one ain't going away either.
I can show your friends all day, and I know you'll never speak out against them. Whereas you have one heavily disputed example that everyone (including me) has spoken out against.
This one's cool.
Turkey, the most progressive Muslim country by far, does not permit listening to music during Ramadan.
On pain of beatings and imprisonment.
>when pressed, immediately collapses into Islamophobia
You're a very boring person /pol/kun.
>phobia being attached to a philosophy
Actually I'm buddhaphobic and nietzschephobic.
Putting aside that "muslim" is most commonly used in Western media as a codeword for "just about anyone from the Middle East" that post actually doesn't imply race at all
He's doing that thing again where he tries to distract from the fact he's part of the actual most evil group in modern society, nationalists.
"Muslim" is most commonly used in the west to talk about followers of the Islamic religion.
And religion is a philosophy on creation and how to live your life. Saying someone is "phobic" for disagreeing with a philosophy is fucking retarded.
What fucking university taught you that? Pat Buchanan's bullshit Liberty College? God damn, you should get a refund on your tuition.
>What fucking university taught you that?
None, being as he's lying.
Meanwhile, while all this bollocks has been going on...
>Thomas Mair gave his name as "Death to traitors, freedom for Britain", when he appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court.
The sound you heard was any trace of ambiguity regarding the motives for this assassination being taken out back and shot in the fucking head.
Meanwhile, while all this bollocks has been going on...
The sound you heard was any trace of ambiguity regarding the motives for this terrorist attack being taken out back and shot in the fucking head, about 50 times.
The registered democrat that shot up a night club had his motives firmly entrenched in the Democratic party's bigotry.
Unconfirmed reports he was heard shouting "Ready For Hillary" as he gunned down his victims.
Do yourself a favor and watch this video.
He's right in that blaming Britain First for this guy is the same as blaming Hillary for Omar, political organizations can't control who joins them. The only reason this blame would make any sense is if Britain First supported him, instead of coming out to distance themselves.
>He's right in that blaming Britain First for this guy
The issue is not, as you are well aware, Britain First the specific organization, but the primitive attitudes they represent. Your ongoing attempts to divert attention using semantics, unrelated issues, and outright lies serve no purpose except to underline what an utterly embarrassing, two-faced snake in the grass you really are.
I mean, not that you'd exactly been secretive about it but one would think you'd at least have more than the sense god gave a goose and keep your fucking filthy mouth shut when one of your lunatic friends offs a sitting politician.
If you can't even identify my argument, how do you know it's helping it or not?
The issue is not, as you are well aware, the Democratic Party the specific organization, but the regressive attitudes they represent. Your ongoing attempts to divert attention using semantics, unrelated issues, and outright lies serve no purpose except to underline what an utterly embarrassing, two-faced snake in the grass you really are.
I mean, not that you'd exactly been secretive about it but one would think you'd at least have more than the sense god gave a goose and keep your fucking filthy mouth shut when one of your lunatic friends offs a bar full of gay people.
You've never made an argument. You've never once done anything except repost /pol/ trash endlessly. Presumably purely for the purpose of annoying people since I can't imagine you actually believe you're fooling anyone here.
>You've never made an argument.
>I can't imagine
I haven't even stated what I want to accomplish, where do you and that filthy fascetious fucktard get off judging something you can't even imagine.
“I know you are but what am I” contrarian shitposting doesn’t help you make a point.
Mirrors help you show what you are.
Mirror arguments help you show just how fucking retarded yours is.
>I haven't even stated what I want to accomplish
No that's what I did when I said you just want to annoy us which, mission accomplished I guess? You're a mild irritant on an image board, congrats I guess.
What's irritating you is your own arguments reversed, padawan. You are irritating yourself.
Exclusive poll: EU support falls after Jo Cox murder
Qriously, a London-based technology start-up that gathers data and intelligence about consumers through mobile phone apps, found that backing among likely voters for Britain's EU membership has dropped to 32% from 40% before her death.
Respondents were asked: "Imagine the EU referendum were held today. Would you vote for the U.K. to remain a member of the European Union, or leave the European Union?" They were given three options: "Remain in the EU," "Leave the EU," or "Don't know."
Qriously found that 52% will vote to leave the bloc in a national referendum on June 23. The figure is unchanged from before the parliamentarian's death. The weakening support for remaining in the EU coincided with a large move toward "Don't know," which leaped to 16% from 9% before Cox's assassination.
It's rude to publicly jerk yourself off friend.
>Trump's promises of vast riches got the GOP into a bind relying on him to fund a general election on his own. But that was all a lie. He's broke or near broke. And the GOP is now facing mid-summer with a campaign that is broke, has no fundraising apparatus, no candidate with big bucks and no field operation. He's done the GOP worse than the most screwed over creditor he ever sharked.
I'm really happy that the Republicans are making their death throes as noisy and undignified as possible.
>The new filing shows the campaign had only $1.3 million in cash on hand at the beginning of this month, in comparison to $42 million on hand for the Hillary campaign.
Hillary has 32 times more money. She needs 167 times the money just to keep up her current level of advertising.
>claims a pac is lying
>doesnt provide alternative source
you realize you could ruin their credibility by disproving them?
go by the earning numbers instead of spending, all of the republican candidates raised more than trump and none of them stood a chance.
hillary, bernie, bush, cruz, rubio, carson, kasich, walker, christie, fiorina, paul, perry, jindal, graham, huckabee, o'malley and santorum have raised more money than trump. only webb, chaffee and gilmore raised less money than trump.
hillary is still stuck in the 90s and doing TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENTS which cost a lot and don't reach hardly fucking anyone. trump is advertising for free on twitter and youtube. the only social media investment clinton is making is spending $1 million on twitter/reddit sock accounts to put down berniebros.
for that matter, sanders has spent 60% more than hillary january-march 2016, and it still didn't make him win.
money =/= victory.
And yet his poll numbers are lower than they've ever been and the continuing trend is downward for him.
you mean like polls said JEB BUSH would win?
polls to to whomever pays the most for them, trump is saving a bundle of money right now by not throwing millions at pollsters.
funny, when polls suggested trump might win you wouldn't shut the fuck up about them
Hillary is putting out a ton of YT adverts. I see them on literally every video I've been watching for like, 3 weeks.
Also the reason nobody bothers to present articles or anything to you is because at this point we are all well aware you're not here for actual debate so nobody wants to bother. You never argue in good faith so why waste the effort?
>yet his poll numbers are lower than they've ever been
The lowest Trumps polls have been is zero, he ran two times tieing Vermin Supreme before he started winning. What are you talking about?
If you mean Clinton vs Trump, Clinton is also down in polls so it evens out. In fact she's only leading by 5 points, whereas she used to lead with 7, so if anything Trump is closing the gap.
>I see them on literally every video I've been watching for like, 3 weeks
Suggestions are based on what your preferences are...
>Suggestions are based on what your preferences are...
Irrelevant. Your assertions were that she was unaware of the internet (false), not advertising on yt/Twitter (false), and that nobody sees tv ads (false).
Thank you, come again when you've got your latest strategic orders from /pol/.
>When we were still looking at the primaries, you idiots were crowing every week about how Trump would win because the polls showed him doing well
Polls started "predicting" Trump doing well after he did well. A long time after he did well. When his number of delegates was DOUBLE that of the nearest competitor, most of the competitors quit, and it became mathematically impossible for anyone to catch up. I wouldn't call that favorable "predictions" you fucking idiots.
Compare to Romney, who was predicted as the winner before he officially started, and nominated as the GOP choice before he even had the full delegate count.
Polls have never mattered! They haven't even mattered when they were saying Trump was winning, because by that time everyone already knew it (including the competitors) and they didn't need a poll to tell them that,meaning the poll was still fucking useless.
>Polls have never mattered!
See this is what we're talking about, you can't have it both ways. You crow on and on about how Trump's victory is forecasted by the polls, now that polls are saying negative things about Trump they suddenly don't matter.
It's almost like you're, I dunno, arguing in bad faith or something. Like you're some kind of.... shithead.
He's also sidestepping the actual poll crowing which he was called out on to talk about polls nobody brought up in the first place.
Again, weird how the /pol/ user is also consistently disingenuous and hides behind semantics and outright lies.
>crow on and on about how Trump's victory is forecasted by the polls
Except his victory wasn't FOREcasted, words mean things. He was clearly winning for months and months before the pollsters finally couldn't deny reality any longer, no matter how many hundreds of millions Jeb paid them.
The ravening wasn't at polls being useful, correct or beneficial.
The magpieing was at polls finally being forced to stop lying.
I bet the polls will predict Hillary is winning until Trump has 2/3rds of the vote because she's going to be pumping all of Soros and Buffets money into them... But after that 66% mark the polls will finally be forced to admit reality, and I will post those polls here to gloat. Not because polls are good, but because polls are shit.
Oh hey you've finally dropped the fiction that you don't support Trump. You continue to dig in your heels and deny the shit you were spewing about polls prior to this, and being a Trump supporter makes you a traitor to this country and all of humanity, but it's a small piece of honesty!
Pretty sure that wasn't me.
>being a Trump supporter makes you a traitor to this country and all of humanity,
Says the cuck.
And there goes your credibility.
yep, here we go, we've devolved from semantics and flipflopping inconsistency into outright nonsequiter nonsense, the fate of all /pol/tards
How is that a non sequiter? You want to burn the country down because of your cuckoldry fetish.
>im going to burn the country down because of my fetish
I didn't know these people were on +4
Now that is a name I have not heard in a long time…
Except that Trump's victories in the primary were actually very much in line with what the polling predicted?
>ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!!
lol hey carl
>mass shooting in German cinema
OH GOD NOT ANOTHER ON-
>gunman dead, no other casualties reported, authorities aren't even sure attacker used a real gun
He'll probably make Dramatica's epic fail list on the High Scores page.
>one death: the shooter
assisted suicide is only a mass shooting if an american is involved
but seriously, that's a great outcome. Good job, Germany.
>police overreacts, shoots drunk man wearing a lone ranger halloween costume, trying to chat up a waitress
>shoots drunk man wearing a lone ranger halloween costume
As they should, that movie was terrible.
wait, is this a real post or a joke? I can't be sure.
Stupid Great Britain, messing up all my cyberpunk predictions.
Good job, idiots.
It's hardly news that conservative nationalists are bankrupting any country that they can manage to get a foothold in.
I don't often say this, but you should read Warren Ellis' twitter.
oh look, the lowest common denominator speaks up
Cheers to you, friend!
cheers to YOU
you worthless sack of dog shit
Whoa there, chum! I know this may not be what you want, but let me just say this:
Happy independence day!
18-24: 75% Remain
25-49: 56% Remain
50-64: 44% Remain
65+: 39% Remain
I am legitimately fascinated by this. I did not think England would ACTUALLY drive itself off a cliff. It's like one of those things where, you know, you dare a friend and say "I bet you can't do X!" and then they go "OH YEAH?" and now we're all driving to the hospital in mom's car. while he's lying in the back, crying, clutching his knee.
Don't absolve those Welsh and Cornish fucks of their part in this.
Good on the Irish and Scots though.
So I woke up this morning and it feels like the Great British Public has kicked me in the bollocks.
I did my best, guys, I'm so so sorry.
>UK voted to leave
>Cameron resigns with Farage looking at the PM spot
>NoBillNoBreak failed miserably producing no new gun control measures
>Obama can't buttfuck the SCOTUS
>the supreme court kills DACA/DAPA
>the driver of the van in the Freddie Gray case is acquitted
I've been having multiple, non-stop orgasms since 4AM and the SJW butthurt on twitter is palpable.
The only thing they won is affirmative-action, which no one cares about because no one in their right mind is going to hire an affirmative action graduate anyway.
I think the EU will get worse now actually, think of what will happen if some smaller country wants to leave. The EU military will get used to crush the "rebellion" and we might start seeing armed quadrotor drones patrolling the streets of every country to suppress the rebel alliance.
You are right in that it is all fake as fuck, Economics in general has alot of bullshit to it.
>So I woke up this morning and it feels like the Great British Public has kicked me in the bollocks.
Is this you?
Don't worry the stocks are heading back up. The Megacorps couldn't even short british stocks for A FEW HOURS and already they're out of money.
China is buying up all this shit the internationalist/Euro megacorps foolishly dumped for CHEAP.
Generally when you dump that fast and that organized, the dump isn't related to the actual economic need to dump. They'd be dumping valuable stocks at lower prices than the market would dictate.
If it's not a tantrum, at best this suggests some attempt to manipulate.
They might have been hoping to scare mom&pop holders into dumping their bonds as well, which would set off a speculative chain reaction, but clearly that's not what happened.
People who aren't having a tantrum will profit greatly from their mistake.
Also Russia and especially India, the whole BRICS really, because they're not dumb.
Though it may take a few generations to complete, I think we might be seeing the first signs of the "western world" economic conglomerate which has existed since WWII finally start to splinter.
Your dedication to making this seem like a good thing is impressive.
Your dedication to being butthurt is impressive. Although it pales in comparison to dumping billions of dollars worth of stocks, that level of butthurt is unchalengeable.
lol the BBC is lying its ass off.
proving more with every passing second that they serve multinational corporations instead of the people.
I do find it amusing that the pro-Brexit posters here use every scapegoat imaginable. Blame the muslim refugees for crime, now blame the international banks and multinational corporations (or "da jews did this!" if you want to get down to /pol/ brass tacks) for doing economic suicide.
But hey, what can you expect from people who go “People in this country have had enough of experts, I’m glad these organizations aren’t on my side.”
Yeah it's kind of like rape victims blaming the rapists. Stupid bitches deserved it for dressing that way.
unshackling them from a corrupt Euro Global Corp Government with growing military ambitions that mutated from a simple Economic Trade Alliance. To be Ireland and Scotland are the fools for not catching wind to the dangerous monster EU has turned into.
Also the influx of immigration over the decades coupled with the methodology of multiculturalism which was a tactic to weaken British Nationalism is what likely lead to the lower turnout in London which threw the vote to Brexit.
So the Liberals own plot was their downfall on this one. Well that and officials and celebrities putting out material wagging their fingers at the Brexit folks saying "now don't you do that."
Also had this media existed two hundred odd years ago I can bet good money they'd have put out the same dialog about a few colonies declaring their independence.
Case in point, here we have Anon that has attempted to reduce complex criminal and economic issues into a simple moral dilemma, with a healthy dollop of emotional imagery. "These are the bad guys, they're not us, they're predators preying on our precious, poor country, a blameless innocent victim!" The solution, therefore, is to "punish" these groups, or purge the undesirables, so that only the good, decent people remain, at which point these issues involving crime and economics will sort themselves out. It's so shockingly dishonest.
>NoBillNoBreak failed miserably producing no new gun control measures
Mainly because the Americans couldn't handle hardship and actually had their sit-in protest catered. Eclairs for lunch... fucking really?
Also their armed bodyguards were standing in the background of every photo as they tried to ban the plebians from owning firearms, clearly showing their hypocrisy.
It's hard for anyone to ally with elitist hypocrites (though not impossible as twitter and this thread show).
Codeword for "i don't understand" bro, there's no shame in being dumb. The facts of the matter are simple to everyone else, in fact they're simple to the majority.
And the point of his >>407570 post is that there's nothing wrong with blaming the perpetrator, and there isn't. You're somehow saying the acted upon is partly to blame for the actors behavior, which is not only logically inconsistent, it's morally wrong.
It's nice to see where your loyalties lie though:
The same people fucking over workers around the world.
The same people who have turned immigration into slavery.
The same people who predicted keeping the pound was going to turn the UK into a banana republic.
This is who you're siding with you filth!
The German conglomerate that owns the company I work at might well sell us up because of the costs of operating outside the single market. This referendum was a real decision with real consequences for actual working people like me, and I don't appreciate being reduced to a square in your buzzword bingo just to satisfy some grand ideological narrative you've concocted inside your head.
>This referendum was a real decision
A non-binding one that Parliament will overturn after the next election, if it makes you feel better.
>This is who you're siding with you filth!
You on the other hand support Farage. In the choice between shady business and The Prince of Lies, I'll take the former , thanks.
>democracy is only right when it works for me!
I'm not taking any kind of side in that statement, I am stating a fact (that it is non-binding) and speculation based on the fact that Parliament is overwhelming in favor of Remain.
>Parliament is overwhelming in favor of Remain
>liberals: west should be punished for capitalist imperialism with vast immigration until it is as poor as the entire third world and we're all equal (except me) *sips starbucks*
>conservatives: my bosses want production costs as low as those in the third world, best way to get them is to import more cheap slave labor
Finally a cause they agree on.
Yes yes you can rant at me all you like but I'm not even a British voter so there's no point turning up the spittle in my direction.
Um that post is not ranting at you, unless you're an MP.
It's absolutely ranting at me, you are attempting to impose your view of parliamentarian functions onto the audience.