Crowd celebrating Bastille day was rammed by a truck, killing more than eighty and wounding a hundred and fifty more.
First thread resurrect.
Petition to "Formally recognize Black Lives Matter as a terrorist organization" reaches threshold a month early.
Cleveland Police Given Order to "Stand Down" at RNC
Although the radical left has days of protests planned and has a history of protests, the Cleveland police has issued a stand down order to officers, I can exclusively report.
Remember when thugs from the left attacked Trump supporters at his San Jose rally? The San Jose mayor and police chief claimed it would have been “too dangerous” for officers to do their jobs by defending Trump supporters.
That same “logic” is being applied by Cleveland officials, who have given up on even trying to control the radical left.
If you’re attending the RNC, do not travel alone. Be street smart and travel in groups.
Police will not help you.
[b]Media refuses to report on Putin warning: "West is Provoking World War"
Russia was supposed to have declared BLM a terrorist operation, and banned their sponsor George Soros from the country.
Wrong on both, but kind of more right on the second. Russia banned Soros charities that fund socially destabilizing movements, but so far the government doesn't seem to know BLM exists yet (at least not at the Duma level).
Russia bans two Soros foundations from disbursing grants
It was found that the activity of the Open Society Foundations and the Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation represents a threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation and the security of the state.
More like right on both.
Soros is funding BLM through those "charities", by banning them they basically ban BLM.
Although DeRay Mckesson, a BLM leader, basically lives in houses paid for by Soros so in some ways the funding can't be cut without legitimately calling them what they are and banning them from the country.
wonder if obama will call for stricter regulations of automotive vehicles
i think i said this the last thread
Turkish military exercises constitutional duty and removes Erdrogan for violation of secular clause.
Only surprise is they waited this long.
Secular violation, eh? Hopefully they remember to step down after all these shenanigans. Yeah, right.
this is how turkey stopped being an imperialistic islamic state in the first place, good for them.
eh, small price to pay.
current leader wants to be the next sultan or caliph, he's been quietly ethnically cleansing minorities, funding terrorism, and importing extremist preachers from across the world.
turkey hdi fell ten points when he became prime minister, and another five when he took office as president.
if turkey wants to remain civilized this motherufker needs to go.
Could this be Putiins retribution for the downing of that Russian jet? Erdogan recently apologized to Putin, maybe he saw it coming.
erdogan's plane has landed at ataturk airport
F-16 strafed the airport, but apparently erdogan got away.
currently hes doing a press briefing from a basement somewhere, and the army is storming media buildings trying to find him.
Turkish Parliament just got bombed again, this time it looks like a 1000lb bomb.
Daily reminder Erdogan made it illegal for anyone to insult him or criticize him in any way.
Democracy won't work in the middle east because the middle east is not secular. When the majority of people do what the Imams say, democracy becomes a theocracy.
This is how Iran was made and why the Arab Spring is such a failure.
I can't believe there are people on twitter supporting this asshat. Even if he wins their twitter posts will probably be archived as Erdogan starts purging the military and throwing all opponents into a wood chipper.
Erdogan is surrounded, General Secretary taken hostage.
coup has been predicted as "over" for the past five hours, the military is still in charge of the streets, bridges, airports and now the parliament building.
airforce is solidly anti-erdogan, they're playing a game of whackamole now trying to find him in one of his fifty palaces.
Army still holding Bosphorus bridge. Maybe trying to form Istanbul breakaway republic?
Both of the bridges are still closed. There are also soldiers in all the other cities in Turkey, which media is conveniently leaving out.
Erdogan holds pieces of Ankara, and there's a crowd in Istanbul that hasn't been put down. That's about it for the loyalists.
Turkish Navy siding with coup forces.
A few soldiers on one lane on end of one bridge over the bosphor surrendered, and promptly got killed by the crowds. More surrenders are unlikely...
Icelands biggest volcano may be about to erupt...
The Bosphorus has been blockaded by the navy!
Same tank in picture, pro erdogan forces want soldiers to open tank, soldiers refuse.
f16 over ankara carrying a-t-a loads.
Dudes that surrendered, back when they were still alive.
SkyNews and Turkish media looped that scene like 40 times from different angles. It was hilarious how scared they are.
So far 95% of the military is pro-coup, if even 10% remains disloyal, that's enough firepower to permanently fuck the country.
NTV still showing the 30 second loop, almost half an hour later.
Of course they loop it, why would they show the crowds tearing apart the surrendering soldiers. Kind of precludes further surrenders.
It is looking increasingly likely that 1st Tactical Air Force Command which controls the TuAF in Ankara/Istanbul is supporting the coup
>trying to blm a tank
Big news is all senior command structure of Army is missing: Chief of Staff, Commanders of Land Forces, Air Forces, Navy, Gendarmerie & more!
streetfighting in ankara is pervasive.
Ships leaving dock, possibly to avoid being arrested.
yeah gj surrender to religious mob
dont worry they only throw gays off high places! ur safe!
I smell a reaction image.
coup leaders seem to have chickened out and escaped to greece.
remnants still active, but the majority seems to be surrendering.
surrendering never works well.
Still some fighting on the ground, anti-coup military is wearing red and white armbands so they don't get lynched.
Turkish rebel group takes chief of navy hostage.
Why the hell are people including governments supporting this Daesh-backing, despotic madman Erdogan? He's violating human rights, censoring the media and being a total islamist prick in general.
People are already saying: "but the Nice terrorist wasn't pious. See! It has nothing to do with Islam".
Your good intentions towards us Muslims are only making the problem worse. This is as dangerous as saying it is *everything* to do with Islam. The Crusaders weren't pious. But they had *something* to do with Christianity, right? Right? That something was the desire impious religious peasants had for martyrdom & the religious promise of redemption that Pope Urban II gave them. Now switch out white Christians with brown Muslims and kindly cease with this bigotry of low expectations.
This has *something* to do with Islam.
Instead of aiding extremists who insist Islam today is perfect, perhaps you should aid us beleaguered reformists Muslims who are attempting to address this crisis within Islam against all the odds.
Some #Solidarity, please.
The most useful thing about events like this is it's really easy to tell who is a basic bitch and who isn't, simply by checking out their reaction.
Erdogan just arrested almost 4000 members of the judiciary and all serious opposition politicians.
Turkey Coup predicted 6 months ago by political commentator Sibel Edmonds.
It's ok bro.
Erdogan is banning US jets from using Incirlik Air Base to bomb ISIS. It seems Turkey is moving towards open support of ISIS.
Maybe this is what the coup was supposed to stop?
this is why no one supports this female supremacy movement anymore.
protip: all women have fathers, most have brothers or boyfriends, they aren't going to support your movement if youre going to hurt people they love.
lol hillary mad a pokemon go joke
Pogroms in Turkey are in full swing, kemalist vs islamist.
>have you kids heard of pokemon go
>you should go to the polls
What the fuck?
Meanwhile CNN cuts off reporter for telling truth on Hillary: //youtube.com/watch?v=5my7EJv42PU
Clinton News Network
I'm really glad we supported Erdogan, the democratic leader of Turkey.
It's like most people just forget every single genocide and pogrom was "democratic" ie the majority killing minorities.
Another BLM terrorist just shot up Batton Rouge, killed 3 police officers.
QUICK, ROUND UP EVERYONE WHO HAS EVER USED THE PHRASE AND PUT THEM ALL IN A “HAPPY FUN-TIME CAMP” FOR RE-EDUCATION!
Why are you so defensive about it?
Why are you trying to paint everyone who has ever used the phrase "Black Lives Matter"/has supported the BLM movement as terrorists?
We're not trying to do anything, the BLM movement is painting itself as terrorists.
And yeah if you still support this trash movement after they commit terrorist acts, guess what that makes you.
By that logic, all Muslims are terrorists and all Republicans want to turn America into a Christian theocracy. I mean, if you're going to paint an entire group of people by the actions and beliefs of only the most radical members of that group...
>By that logic, all Muslims are terrorists and all Republicans want to turn America into a Christian theocracy
Correct on both counts.
Your first true statement is mainly true because the governments of Muslim majority countries aren't bothering to fight terrorism or punish those who support terrorism in their own countries, actually punish those moderate Muslims who work AGAINST extremism. By the by, the SJWs are guilty of the same kind of repression of Muslim activists attempting to reform Islam, see >>408271
Your second true statement is true because the GOP is full of theocrats that base their politics on religion. This is why anti-establishment candidates are so popular with conservatives, why conservatives are overrepresented in "no vote" sections during every elections, why conservatives are overrepresented in votes for independent candidates, and why conservatives are working their ass off to change the GOP (tea party etc). The Republican party is a party of theocrats now, not conservatives. Most conservatives want nothing to do with the Republican party because of their obsession with religion and big government.
What's this fetish with the no true scotsman fallacy?
A unitary (not umbrella) ideological group must police its own loose cannons, otherwise the entire group is subject to criticism based on those. If your ideological group fucks up, either leave the group or work your ass off to change it. You don't get to stay in it, stick your head in the sand, and expect the group not to be criticized because you're the one "good" member of it. Hate to invoke godiwins law, but I'm pretty sure the Nazi party had a few people that never wanted to hurt anyone, it doesn't mean you get to say "hurr not all nazis".
The only thing this self-police-or-leave clause doesn't apply to is umbrella terms like "left wing" or "right wing" that have mutually exclusionary ideologies within, or to things people were born with like skin color.
>A unitary (not umbrella) ideological group must police its own loose cannons, otherwise the entire group is subject to criticism based on those.
And if the group doesn't generally have a leader or leadership group? I mean, it's not like all of the world's billion-plus Muslims answer to one or two specific leaders.
Erdogan had a list prepared of all the people that opposed him, so far he's using the excuse of a "coup" to remove all obstacles to complete dictatorial power.
30 provincial governors
47 district governors
103 generals and some admirals.
8777 Interior Ministry staff (incl. police)
I don't think leaders are a point of issue here, it's the ideology. All billion Muslims worship from the same version of the same book in the same language with the same interpretation, which is forced on pain of fatwa (often including death).
At least Christians have the half baked excuse of using different translations, versions or interpretations of the Bible.
>All billion Muslims worship from the same version of the same book in the same language with the same interpretation, which is forced on pain of fatwa (often including death).
All billion-plus Muslims do not follow the Qu’ran down to the letter. I know you're about to break out that "Muslims polled on what they believe" infographic, but you can save it for someone else - if all of the world's Muslims followed their beliefs to the letter on a daily basis, we'd be in the middle of an actual world war with military actions happening within countries that aren’t Muslim theocracies but have sizeable Muslim populations. Last I checked, the American military isn't dronebombing mosques within the United States every hour on the hour, so I don't believe we're at war with all of the world's Muslims.
Yes, there are some tenets of Islam that are questionable at best, and those deserve criticism. But the same could be said of all religions, including every known variant of Christianity. If you're willing to excuse the failings of Christianity while yelling about "the ragheads" all the live-long day, you're a hypocrite. And by the same token, if you're willing to whine about the BLM movement's villainizing of police while excusing situations like Ferguson (where the police preyed on the poor, largely black population as a way of generating revenue), you're a hypocrite. And it's just the same for the inverse of those situations. I'm willing to admit there are people within the BLM movement who are far too quick to demonize (and call for violence against) police, but I'm also willing to admit that policing in this country needs reforms - and that we also need to instill some changes within society as a whole. We, the general populace, put police into impossible situations where we ask them to police hellish communities - communities created by policies that enforce poverty and segregation, regardless of whether they were meant to do that - and keep that hell from spilling into surrounding areas. We ask them to police with as little bias as possible, then force them into policing cities in a way that victimizes citizens (Ferguson policing was often carried out as a revenue generator). Society in general creates untenable situations, then asks the police to be Perfect Angels as they try to keep a nightmare from spreading. Society has to take part of the blame for creating situations like Ferguson, and until that happens, more Fergusons will be created.
Also, I thought you might like to see this story: http://www.kansascity.com/news/state/kansas/article90247307.html
>All billion-plus Muslims do not follow the Qu’ran down to the letter.
Then it's down to how much of a Muslim a muslim actually is. Those who are less muslim are moderate, those who are more muslim are terrorists. Ergo "muslim" is still a problem.
>we'd be in the middle of an actual world war with military actions happening within countries that aren’t Muslim theocracies but have sizeable Muslim populations.
Um... we are... good job proving his point.
>But the same could be said of all religions, including every known variant of Christianity.
This exact same phrase gets repeated so often I'm starting to wonder if people that use it aren't in fact an extant species of parrots masquerading as humans.
Let me explain this in small bites of information:
There is no buddhist sutra that calls for the murder of unbelievers.
The christian bible does not have a chapter describing how to how to invade and genocide a group of people.
The confucian five classics don't spend any time talking about how to enslave and rape the women of conquered peoples.
No other religion has been spread through as much violence as Islam.
No other religion maintains the level of violent preachings in 2016.
Islam is not comparable to any other religion on the issue of violence.
Islam is bar none the worst religion in the world when it comes to violent preachings, by a HUGE margin.
The second worst religious texts would have to be a tiny portion of Hindu preachings on Shiva, which is basically their equivalent of Satan. And even then it is a distant second to Islam unless the Aghori are counted, a bunch of fucking cannibals.
If a mainstream religion is compared to all other religions, and the closest comparative point are satanic cannibals from another religion, then maybe this first religion has a fucking problem.
>Then it's down to how much of a Muslim a muslim actually is.
So, what, we institute "real Muslim" tests, kill anyone who passes, and forcibly convert anyone who fails to another religion? I know you're itching to criticize Islam every chance you get, but you're not explicitly presenting any solution to "the Muslim problem", and any implied solution calls for either violence or forced religious conversion (which are both troublesome "solutions" in their own right). Do you really believe the world needs to either kill or convert every living Muslim - and if not, what do you propose as a non-violent, non-theocratic solution to "the Muslim problem"?
>you're not explicitly presenting any solution to "the Muslim problem"
Secular government and a reform of the religious system.
The fact that you jumped to genocide as a solution is pretty fucking funny. Are you a Muslim?
No, but you’re proposing a "solution" to a "problem" concerning over a billion people who don't all live in countries like Iran. How do you propose solving "the Muslim problem" in re: American Muslims?
The only problems with Muslims in America are recent immigrants that haven't integrated.
Go past fourth or fifth generation American Muslims and they're the model other Muslims around the world should copy, secular system + reformed religion.
If American Muslims are the worst example you can think of, you need to think harder.
But by your own admission, you believe Islam to be a religion of violence and destruction, and all followers of Islam - all billion-plus Muslims worldwide - believe in the same religious tenets. Why do American Muslims escape the same criticism as Muslims in other countries, Islamic or otherwise? Why do American Muslims not have to face the same scrutiny for their Islamic beliefs as a Muslim living in, say, Britain or Iran? Why are American Muslims somehow now part of "the Muslim problem"?
American muslims aren't a part of the problem because they aren't the ones preventing reform or engaging in violence. Before violent preachings can be addressed first we need to make it POSSIBLE for them to be addressed without the critics being killed. America has that because America is secular.
Muslims in America aren't living in a theocracy that allows the worst of the religion to come forth. Introduce this same secularism across the Muslim world and 90% of the problem will be solved.
>Muslims in America aren't living in a theocracy that allows the worst of the religion to come forth.
Neither are British Muslims, but I don't see you refusing to call them part of "the Muslim problem".
So let me get this straight: despite the earlier assertion that all Muslims around the world believe in the exact same tenets as laid out in the Qu'ran, Muslims who have integrated are somehow no longer a danger, even though they're supposed to believe in the exact same things as Muslims who haven't?
Do you understand the difference between thinking a group of people is a bunch of subhuman kaffirs vs acting on that thought to subjugate and genocide that group of people?
Because the first, while vile, has never hurt anyone ever.
Terrorists still kill very few people annually, its not really a problem.
And by acknowledging them, we increase the chance of them becoming significant.
I agree. We should just close all the ports, halt all in-coming immigration and just ignore all the bad stuff until it goes away.
>Do you understand the difference between thinking a group of people is a bunch of subhuman kaffirs vs acting on that thought to subjugate and genocide that group of people?
Yes. I mean, after all, I think the first thing about most Republican politicians.
Infants prefer toys typed to their gender, says study
It's almost like gender isn't a social construct.
>your entire movement is based on a fucking lie
Statistically, yes, police killed more white people than black people. But if you take into account the percentage of the American population that each of those demographics take up, white people are statistically less likely to face police violence than black people. Context matters more than you think it does.
Cancelled out by the fact that the percentage of those demographics engaging in criminal behavior, interacting with police, and straight up shooting at the police is completely skewed as well. Complete context matters more than digging just deep enough to get the partial context that confirms your bias.
>the percentage of those demographics engaging in criminal behavior, interacting with police, and straight up shooting at the police is completely skewed as well
It's almost as if things like poverty and police brutality and the intersection of those two things (see: Ferguson) might play a role in creating those crime rates, but hey, why let that get in the way of you thinking that black people are just a bunch of wild apes by the very nature of their existence, hmm?
Actually it has nothing to do with race at all, the only consistent track with crime is IQ, which is affected by education.
Blacks in America and Africa just happen to have poorer educational rates.
This is made plain by places in the world like Europe and Japan, where (non-immigrant) black demographics commit the same rate of crime and have the same educational standard as local populations.
>black people are just a bunch of wild apes
Jesus christ you're racist.
Hey, you're the one implying that black people are naturally criminalistic (and naturally dumber than non-blacks), not me. I'm just not using the dogwhistles that you people use to describe your beliefs.
No I'm not dude, that's YOU.
I'm saying they're more criminalistic because of repairable circumstances, you're the one saying they're naturally more criminalistic.
What the fuck is this?!?!?!
>black people are just a bunch of wild apes
Where did this wild apes thing come from, who else in the thread even suggested anything like it.
>I'm just not using the dogwhistles that you people use to describe your beliefs.
You're blatantly racist then.
So a muslims went on a stabbing spree in france because women weren't covered enough, and another went on a hacking (as in axe) spree in germany because he wanted to put fear into the hearts of germans. Both migrants.
That's just fantastic. Lets ignore the ideology that drove them, or the utter lack of borders that let them come here, I'm sure the problem will solve itself eventually when we all convert to Islam and start beating our wives.
>and start beating our wives.
Sounds like your ideal world to me. Not sure what you're mad about.
>live in non-EU country
not britain either
Why would terrorism affect anyones life decisions in the west. When we talk about immigration its about 1mil+ peoples lives and where majority of those lives would be in danger in the originating country. Terrorism kills <200 people a year in the west. If you were to halt all immigration youd doom tens of thousands of people to die or live under oppressive rule.
>I'm saying they're more criminalistic because of repairable circumstances
Where? I don't see you doing anything but trotting out charts about crime rates and low IQs and making sweeping proclamations about criminality and IQ and whatnot. I didn't see you post a goddamned thing about "reparable circumstances". I saw you arguing, regardless of whether you meant to, that black people were naturally criminal, and their naturally lower IQ is the main factor behind that. Now, if you want to argue otherwise, put in the effort to use words and images that actually express the ideas you want to express. But don't get mad when I couch your argument in terms that the KKK would use - especially when you're making arguments that the KKK would use.
>next sentence in his own post tells where
He said the IQ (and crime) is repairable with better education.
You're dumb, you're racist and you suck.
>its about 1mil+ peoples lives and where majority of those lives would be in danger in the originating country.
So ~500,000 genuinely in danger people, and ~500,000 terrorists or free money migrants.
Why would you object to having systems in place to check which is which, making sure the refugees get help instead of the terrorists?
Are you a fucking terrorist mate.
One thing. One. He didn't say anything about poverty, systemic abuse by police and the resulting loss of trust between citizens and police, racist policies like redlining, and any other factor that could - and does - contribute to the creation of crime. "Making black people smarter" isn't the catch-all solution to stopping crime.
BLM attacks UK, the first country ever to ban slavery, and the first country ever to fight on behalf of slaves.
>A police officer was stabbed and four other PCs were injured after a water fight in central London spiralled out of control in the city's worst bout of violence since the 2011 riots.
>At least three members of the public were also injured last night, with reports indicating at least one was stabbed in the chest, as police tried to disperse a huge water fight in Hyde Park during which rioters chanted 'Black Lives Matter'.
>Police say around 4,000 revellers descended on the central London park to soak up the sun yesterday on what was hottest day of the year so far.
>Now, the Metropolitan Police has announced it has launched an investigation into the disorder which was apparently sparked after officers prevented members of the crowd from setting up a sound system.
>Hundreds of people have taken to social media to condemn the youths for using the Black Lives Matter slogan while carrying out mindless acts of violence. Police confirmed the event was not linked to the movement.
>BLM attacks UK
>Hundreds of people have taken to social media to condemn the youths for using the Black Lives Matter slogan while carrying out mindless acts of violence. Police confirmed the event was not linked to the movement.
Just couldn't wait to point out "the nigger terrorist movement", could you?
You are a sick and twisted individual.
I'm not the one painting the broader BLM movement as a bunch of terrorists. I'm just using the language you wish you could use if you didn't want to be "politically correct".
I don't really see you doing much other than sweeping proclamations, either. if you have specific criteria for the data that you'd like presented to you, then how about actually naming some instead of just goiing "My secret goalposts are actually elsewhere, therefore you're racist."? You've had enough of a chance to.
I'm pretty sure he realises that education and poverty are also linked, since it's not like public school districts don't get a lot of their money from local taxes. As do local police departments, which means impoverished areas often need to call police from elsewhere, creating a sense of alienation.
Personally, I'm thinking a good start for getting better information out these statistics would be to divide by income levels in addition to race, in order to see which is the bigger factor. If not by the income of convicted individuals, then by the medians income level areas where crimes are reported.
>I'm pretty sure he realises that education and poverty are also linked
Then why isn't he saying so? Why isn't he talking about other factors beyond "intelligence"? Why is he only implying that The Geniuses Who Know Better (read: "the smart whites") educating The Woeful Underclass (read: "the dumb niggers") is the true, best, and possibly only solution to Making Black America Great for the First Time? Because I didn't see him presenting anything beyond "educate the blacks" as a catch-all solution to the problem of crime rates within black communities. You could educate everyone in Ferguson to the same level, but that alone wouldn't fix every problem facing Ferguson.
>Then why isn't he saying so?
Why aren't you? Do you actually want to help reach any kind of agreement, or just drag out the argument for more opportunities to feel superior?
>Why is he only implying that The Geniuses Who Know Better (read: "the smart whites") educating The Woeful Underclass (read: "the dumb niggers") is the true, best, and possibly only solution to Making Black America Great for the First Time?
He isn't implying this any more than he's implying what I said, it's just that you're using an excuse to presume the worst of anything he says.
>you're using an excuse to presume the worst of anything he says
Well, when I see someone implying that educating "the blacks" will completely solve "the black crime problem", it's not hard to assume the worst.
>Then why isn't he saying so?
Because it's fucking obvious. And let's face it, even if I listed every single one of a billion reasons why education sucks in the black community, you still wouldn't be satisfied.
No, we'd have to address the unemployment, social mobility, and crime culture problems as well. And even then it wouldn't solve all crime, just bring it to the level of whites and asians.
Fucking hell... Educating any racial group provides a bulwark and protection against criminal behavior in that group. This is isn't a genetics issue, it's an education issue. This education issue just happens to affect a specific group of people because you and people like you prevent everyone else from helping them.
>Educating any racial group provides a bulwark and protection against criminal behavior in that group. This is isn't a genetics issue, it's an education issue. This education issue just happens to affect a specific group of people because you and people like you prevent everyone else from helping them.
"Niggers gonna nigger unless we, The White Saviors of a Good and Decent Society, teach them not to—if we could! But damn it all, government and welfare and affirmative action and the BLM terrorists and political correctness and being judged as 'racist' just keep getting in the way of us saving the poor apes and turning them into respectable people!" If this isn't what you're implying, please, make it much clearer for me.
Jesus fucking christ this guy is unbelievable.
>the same could be said of all religions
This July, 0.3% of terrorist attacks were committed by Christians.
Mostly in Ukraine and mostly having nothing to do with the religion.
Are you brave enough to calculate the percentage of terrorist attacks committed by Muslims?
It's kind of funny coming from a retarded white liberal living in a gated community defending perceived slights against the black community online.
I only heard about, maybe, three of these. I mean, there's probably three per day, but I didn't even hear about the Baghdad Bombings (300+ death toll).
Land mine terrorism? Boiling executions?
I'm not sure what you're trying to do... minimize some terrorist acts?
Do you think you could possibly minimize enough to reach a 50-50% split between Islamic and Christian terrorism?
>Black man interferes with police situation, gets shot for it
If he hadn't inserted himself into the situation, he wouldn't have been shot.
Does it sound like racism to you? Does it sound like the cop tracked this guy down for being black, and shot him?
Black guy was in the middle of the road. That usually gets black guys shot by the cops, right?
They were called to a situation where a suicidal man was holding someone hostage. And yeah they saw the autist holding something in his hand, and they fired at the autist, and hit the black guy.
Remember that thing in the movies where cops are fucking experts with guns and every single one knows not to shoot if a civilian is near the perp? Yeah that's a fucking lie.
Because cops training requirements are 15 bullets shot per year, and the average gun owner goes through 1000 rounds per month.
tl;dr they weren't rolling down the streets, saw a black guy, and shot him because he's black. theres more to the story which can be summarized as police being retarded, not racist.
If anything this is an argument to disband the police and go back to armed citizen policing.
>If anything this is an argument to disband the police and go back to armed citizen policing.
People forget the police are just citizens with guns and a really really strong union.
Any retard can go buy a gun and have the same level of authority as a cop.
btw thats also what blm wants. they just want black people to live in concentration reservations policed by black people.
>Any retard can go buy a gun and have the same level of authority as a cop.
Not the same level of authority.
The gun gives no authority. You can make citizen arrests unarmed. A gun grants power.
Police have extra authority over citizens, such as being able to be granted arrest warrants and shit.
>such as being able to be granted arrest warrants and shit
You realize you yourself can go to a judge and convince him to give you a warrant on someone.
There's nothing in US constitution or legal code about cops being special people, they're literally a mall cop corporation that got out of hand and established itself in every state.
Btw not joking, literal mall cops with too many connections:
^ guys like these unionized and then went on a bunch of strikes to pressure local governments into giving them preferential treatment.
The only cops with real "authority" are sheriffs, and even that is only as a sort of elected town neighborhood watch chairman.
lol wake up to media losing their fucking minds over the Trump speech.
Huffington Post officially the left-wing Drudge Report.
>"how did we lose the people tom"
>"well janine, we didnt listen to them, and someone else did"
Worth a watch, especially for a regressive.
Muslim just killed 10 people in Munich.
The chick lean on the cop girl was hilarious.
Chick lean is no joke.
lol people in the cuckt thread trying to say he was a white supremacist, a neo-nazi.
The whole DNC is just connected elites, selling influence and milking the govt.
They are literally worse than NEETS.
They fly all over the country live it up while selling the country and that is it.
That is it.
There's nothing more to their existance.
I honestly expected at least competence.
Jordan does drugs, asks for "popcorn" delivery guy.
Half his fucking emails are not even about fucking work.
And they put their drug dealers in Excel sheets.
Ship to First Name and Last Name Ship to Company Name Ship to Address One Ship to Address Two Ship to City Name Ship to State Ship to ZIP Code Telephone # (must have a phone #) Tin Size: Tin Design Flavor 1 Flavor 2: if applicable Flavor 3: if applicable Custom Label: Yes or No Gift Message: 150 character limit including spaces (all messages must be the same) Extras (include Empty Bags, Personalized cards,Scoops, Ect.)
Leslie Lewis 1060 5th Ave New York NY 10128 (917) 971-7729 1 Yes
Media is having a mental breakdown over the DNC leaks. Shows how even FOX news has a fucking pro-DNC slant.
Credit to New York Post for not staying silent with the rest.
So far in the first 5000 emails:
1. DNC massiely conspired with media. MSNBC and Washintgon post were outright named. This is a felony.
2. DNC conspired with Ted Cruz against Trump. "Free the delegates" was a DNC coup attempt.
3. The DNC questioned whether Sanders was Jewish enough, and organized massive resistance against him.
4. Hillary pays for supporters online and is a pay for play candidate.
5. DNC has a mole in Obamas staff.
lol Obamas brother Malik just said he's voting for Trump.
People forget Trumps laundry has been aired, he can only go down in the polls by making mistakes in the present. Meanwhile Hilldog has a skeleton army in her closet, she can go down in the polls without making ANY mistakes at that moment, because she has a shitton of mistakes in her past that can come to haunt her.
Remember a few weeks ago RealClearPolitics was saying Hilldog had a 7 point lead compared to Trump?
Trump just closed the lead.
Isn't that literally a type of weed?
>i need a popcorn supplier
lol this is going to trick the police.
>Isn't that literally a type of weed?
Yeah but it's also slang for some types of meth, not sure which he's talking about here. Dems seem like hippies, but anyone wanting to do all-nighters is going to get amphetamines.
>DNC members confirmed for using meth
I don't care for politics, but that would be fucking hilarious
It's the rallies, people just don't understand the atmosphere in these rooms. I went to one in atlanta and there's an indescribable electricity in the room, it's damn near religious.
I see vids of Hillarys speeches and it's all bland junky car salesman tripe. No one in the room has any chemistry with anyone else, everyone is isolated and compartmentalized....
That's a CNN poll? Isn't CNN the Clinton News Network? Literally?
>Isn't CNN the Clinton News Network?
The more you force this, the less impact it has.
I'm not forcing this jackass. I know you weren't born at the time, but people have been calling it that since bill was in office.
Wasserman booed off stage.
Pelosi booed off stage.
Sanders booed off stage.
New DNC chair booed off stage.
Democrats won't vote for Hillary.
But it's the OTHER party that's collapsing folks.
Why not both?
I wouldn't mind it if the USA became a more true-er multi-party state. Coalitions are a little bit silly, but, eh.
I think people should fill out a questionnaire on issues they think are important, adding any they think were left out, and grading them by percentage of how important this issue is to the person
Then politicians do the same.
Then an artificial intelligence adds all the percentage points of voter issues to the politician based on how high he scored that particular issue himself.
Billie puts pro-choice at 75% and war in Turkmenistan at 5%.
Politician A puts pro-choice at 50% and Turkmenistan at 50%.
Politician B puts pro-choice at 60% and Turkmenistan at 40%.
Politician B gets more of Billies vote.
Basically that but people can submit their own issues as well, in fact they're encouraged to.
It's a shame candidates outside the big two parties will never stand a chance, but I guess it would all come down to picking the least worst as usual anyway.
US-backed Nour al-Din al-Zenki behead 11 year old boy.
US saying it will have pause for thought.
Sumerian cuneiform board autists have already analyzed islamic terrorism. Unless moderate muslims act to stop it, by these calculations we'll be entering a state of religious WWIII between the Ummah and the rest of the world by the late 2020 at the earliest.
I think that top trend line is very exaggerated in shape, even disregarding the predicted attack-per-second right now.
DNC employee Seth Rich was set to testify against Hillary Clinton, and was gunned down on July 10th. This has happened before but she might have fucked up this time and left a trail.
Possible links incoming...
>a site run by two far left wing people from canada
I love how Snopes just posts the family members testimony without doing anything to "debunk" it. Maybe because it's confirmed that the attackers didn't take his money, or his golden watch, so the entire robbery angle is bullshit. He was shot in the back. What kind of robber waits until someone is walking away to shoot someone?
>Police reported that Rich was conscious and breathing at the time of the shooting. Had he any information about his murder having been a set-up, he likely would have conveyed such to attending officer before he died of his wounds shortly thereafter.
Concious and breathing =/= being able to speak, or even knowing who shot him. It's not like the assassin sat there explaining who hired him right before shooting the guy in the back.
I love how they're trying to slander everyone as "conspiracy theorists" despite the fact that conspiracy theorists have been repeatedly proven correct by leaks. Such as the fact that the DNC was conspiring against a candidate!
Claim: Snopes is a good source for debunking myths.
>conspiracy theorists have been repeatedly proven correct
Conspiracy theorists have almost never been proven correct. LIBOR is one of the only cases in recent history.
The DNC emails weren't evidence of a conspiracy, they were evidence of garden variety corruption.
>>a site run by two far left wing people from canada
What? It's run by a Canadian Citizen and her husband, a man from California who was once registered Republican before becoming Independent.
Independent reviews have always found their articles free of bias on political stories, and noted that the copious citation of sources shows a strong effort to be even-handed.
If you consider Snopes biased, you probably use Conservapedia.
>Conspiracy theorists have almost never been proven correct
Hey remember all those times conspiracy theoriests kept using the phrase "liberal media" and everyone was like 'the media is impartial you conspiracy theory" and then recently we find out the media literally works with the DNC?
Or remember the time the conspiracy theoriests kept claiming the government was watching us, and then the NSA leaks came out proving them right?
>The DNC emails weren't evidence of a conspiracy, they were evidence of garden variety corruption.
Conspiracy generally is corruption... people don't need to "conspire" on legitimate business dealings.
Nice to see the desperate attempt to downplay corruption though, now you personally know exactly how pro-government people in China feel.
Conspiracy is corruption but corruption isn't necessarily conspiracy. A judge sitting on a case in which he is not a neutral third party is corruption, but it's not a conspiracy. A group belittling a candidate in a race they're supposed to be impartial about is corruption, but it's not a conspiracy.
Conspiracies are premeditated acts. They don't crop up just because biased assholes get together and reinforce one another's bias. They crop up because, say, three people team up to take over the Roman Republic.
>A group belittling a candidate in a race they're supposed to be impartial about is corruption, but it's not a conspiracy.
Oh well if it's just a group! Fuck me I thought, oh it's ok guys, it's just a group.
It's not the party he was running for.
Just some group.
JUST A GROUP
It was just a group of people guys.
Don't pay attention to the fact that the chairwoman of the group used to be on the campaign of the person they were not-conspiring for, or that after stepping down because of the not-conspiracy she was immediately hired by the person she was not-conspiring for all along. The emails she used to conspire also weren't indicative of a conspiracy.
Nothing to s-NOTHING TO SEE HERE GUYS!
>three people team up to take over the Roman Republic.
Am I being trolled?
The point is that it has to be *premeditated*, not just basic human idiocy. See for example, I don't believe that you and the other wingnuts who troll this thread are conspiring to make conservatives look like idiots, I believe you're just acting like yourselves and it RESULTS in conservatives looking like idiots. You're a group of people, but you're not intentionally coordinating that attack, you're just letting basic human idiocy make you look like....well, like idiots.
All it takes to eliminate 99% of conspiracy theories is Hanlon's Razor.
Planning it years in advance is not premeditated enough?
And no it doesn't have to be premeditated, you just pulled that criteria from your ass.
So you think it's possible to accidentally conspire with someone.
Not that guy, but I don't think you know what premeditate means.
Well gosh, now you two are conspiring against me.
Corruption is worse than conspiracy. I love how you're fine with the entire party being corrupt as fuck as long as they don't fulfill some definition of conspiracy you have in your head.
I never said it was okay. I said that it doesn't make conspiracy theorists any less ridiculous than they've ever been. Accusing someone of being a lizard person and then finding out they were a spy doesn't validate the person who accused them of being lizard people.
No one accused them of being lizard people. They were accused of fixing the election so Bernie would lose.
Which is fucking true.
No, no it isn't. They definitely were against the man, but if course they were, the NC always have preferred candidates. The RNC did the same thing for your pet hog beast, they were just unsuccessful, and did so for the same reason: Bernie isn't actually a Democrat, he just hopped on board to take advantage.
I think of all of the dumb shit you weirdos try around here, the"But BERNIE" angle is my favorite (besides pretending fascism is left wing or Obama killed Scalia, those are timeless). You are not Sanders supporters. You have never been Sanders supporters. If you WERE Sanders supporters, you'd still be voting Democrat even though he lost because as we all know, he's even further left than Hillary and is against basically everything Trump stands for. THE MAN HIMSELF HAS TOLD YOU TO VOTE FOR HILLARY. Or, more accurately, he's told his supporters to vote for Hillary, because as we've established, you were never in that camp, you just will accept any tactic possible to undermine the left in general and the female candidate specifically, because you're a fucked up, alt right piece of garbage.
>if course they were
This isn't supposed to happen you jackass. And what the fuck is this >>408646
>I never said it was okay.
When you keep making excuses for corruption?
>Bernie isn't actually a Democrat, he just hopped on board to take advantage.
That's fucking hilarious considering he's been a lifelong Democrat politician and community organizer from his fucking teens, whereas Hillary wasn't jack shit until after her husband became president.
Hillary and Bill are the fake Democrats here, this has been exposed and you'll never bury it again.
>blah blah blah accusation blah blah allegation blah blah blah inferring implications blah vote for crony capitalism in human form because you're socialist blah
People questioning DNC falling like flies.
I'm sure it's just pure coincidence.
"Prove the NYPD is racist"
C'mon Stone, let's all be grownups here.
Alright, you can start by not white knighting for your alt right friends every chance you get
Hey, you're the guy who accused me of being alt-right because I thought tumblr should be used for art blogs!
I wasn't bullshitting; I voted Greens this year.
The alt right isn't a thing moron, it's just a meme smokescreen for the true right wing, as opposed to the cucked pretenders to the right wing.
Kind of like the Green party being a smokescreen for anarcho socialism (amirite previous poster?).
>Kind of like the Green party being a smokescreen for anarcho socialism (amirite previous poster?).
Maybe we are talking about different Greens. The Australian ones are just idealistic, ambitious left-wingers. No real hints of anarchy or socialism. Also, Scott Ludlam.
Lots of people here are mad that 4 One Nation members got senate seats. (One Nation is extremely anti-Muslim, anti-Halal-certification, etc., but I'm not going to lie, their other policies are pretty good. I expected them to me more conservative)
(to clarify, I meant left wing as in liberal, rather than communist)
>The alt right isn't a thing moron, it's just a meme smokescreen for the true right wing, as opposed to the cucked pretenders to the right wing.
Man, if that doesn't just sum up alt right delusions as succinctly as possible, I don't know what does.
>One Nation is extremely anti-Muslim, anti-Halal-certification, etc., but I'm not going to lie, their other policies are pretty good.
They might even get the trains to run on time!
I remember one time my bus came on time for once, and no-one was able to catch it because it was too early.
>They might even get the trains to run on time!
That's funny because that's the type of shit current government got voted in on. They'll fix X! They'll make X happen! And we've seen none of that shit so far.
He was making a Mussolini joke you dumbasses.
We know. Tell "him" that the joke has been done to death.
Clintons email server got penetrated by Iranians, and an Iranian nuclear scientist who was feeding us info was executed in Iran because of it.
In addition to funding ISIS this stupid bitch was helping Iran.
I like that you can't even keep your story straight within one post. The idiocy of the Right is truly overwhelming.
I see people claiming hillary is 40 percentage points above trump, who the fuck is doing these polls?
Nobody, you're just full of shit. She's 7-10 points above him on average.
Media polls said Jeb would win, because Jeb was paying them. Then polls said Cruz would win, because RNC was paying them. Now they're saying Hillary will win, because Hillary is paying them. A media poll just tells you who's paying them.
Trump beat all these other people and brought nine million voters to his party, more than doubling it (64%) since Mitts and Mccains failures.
Democrat turnout is 24% down since Obamas election. Hillary literally chasing voters away and polls still claim she's going to landslide this election.
This is where the bullshit starts really seeping through.
Would plus4 disagree with me if I say the entire state of American politics is a joke?
Honestly, what's the point of manipulating polls?
Do people go around saying "I'm going to vote for the winning side?"
>Do people go around saying "I'm going to vote for the winning side?"
Yeah, they’re called third-party voters.
You might have misread my post; I think third-party voters are literally the opposite of the people I'm talking about.
Tell me where I go wrong.
>Third party voters are people who vote for third parties.
>>"The term third party is used in the United States for any and all political parties in the United States other than one of the two major parties (Republican Party and Democratic Party)."
>Third parties are extremely unlikely to win in America, ever.
>Therefore anyone wishing to vote for the side they think will win will never vote for a third party.
What you said, as a refresher
> Do people go around saying "I'm going to vote for the winning side?"
What Stone said, same reason
> Yeah, they’re called third-party voters.
The joke which you are willfully ignoring because you want to get people to vote Independent to help Trump, is that voting for a third part in a Presidential election is identical to not voting at all i.e. simply accepting the winning side.
>The joke which you are willfully ignoring because you want to get people to vote Independent to help Trump
No, I just missed the joke. I don't give a fuck who gets in, as long as they don't nuke my country. Ease up, mate.
Thanks for explaining.
>I don't give a fuck who gets in, as long as they don't nuke my country.
Well neither of them would do that so rest easy.
I apologize for jumping down your throat.
>I apologize for jumping down your throat.
It's all good, I do it all the time.
There’s no need for that sort of shit around here.
So out of curiosity, I actually tracked down Khan's dissertation on Sharia, not that facts should trouble anyone, and the primary thrust of it is that having theological courts is not supported by the founding principles of Islam and that the notion of Sharia itself therefore has no basis.
The particulars are more complex than that obviously but it's there for those actually interested
It's about party unity, people are less likely to get disillusioned and leave if they think everything is fine. If Democrat voters knew how bad things were a bunch of them wouldn't show up to vote.
lol holy shit!
Conversely if a rigged poll shows that Trump can't possibly win, his voters might think he's not electable, and they might not vote.
Although polls have been telling them Trump is unelectable from the start, his supporters don't seem to give a fuck.
They keep doing it though, the Hill just photoshopped a crowd at a Hillary rally. Pic is the shoop.
And this is the actual rally.
Considering how different the staging looks from >>408889, I’d say it’s more a matter of them posting a photo from a different event than it is “photoshopping”. In fact, that is exactly what happened, since the photo seen in The Hill’s tweet comes from an event in NYC after Hillary won New York’s primary. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/photo-galleries/2016/04/20/photos-hillary-clinton-holds-rally-after-new-york-primary-victory/
A little misleading/dishonest? Maybe. But it is far from “photoshopping”, since the photo is a legitimate one.
>A little misleading/dishonest? Maybe.
lol, kind of like someone stabbing you only a little bit.
>since the photo is a legitimate one.
Nope even that photo suffers from angle cancer. 99% of the people are behind and in front of her, and the camera angle is only catching them. Hall fucking empty to the sides.
>kind of like someone stabbing you only a little bit
It’s not even like that. My guess is that The Hill’s social media person didn’t have a photo from that particular Florida event to use (as it was either live or getting ready to go live at the time of the tweet), and they needed an image for the tweet, so they grabbed a photo from an old Hillary event and used it for the tweet. Like I said: maybe a little misleading, but not exactly ZOMG THE MEDIA WANTS HILLARY TO WIN SO BAD THAT IT'S PHOTOSHOPPING HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE INTO IMAGES.
>even that photo suffers from angle cancer
So? That makes it a carefully staged photo, not a photo manipulated—or “shopped”, as the vernacular goes—after the fact. If you have proof that the photo was manipulated after the photographer took said picture, I’d love to see that proof.
>If you have proof that the photo was manipulated after the photographer took said picture, I’d love to see that proof.
Noise comparison algorithm.
I'd like your apology now please.
You’ll have to explain what that is—and show off more convincing evidence besides—before I do that. And if that one photo is ’shopped, how do you explain photos from the same photoset having similarly-sized crowds and similar staging? (Aside from “every photo was shopped!”, I mean.)
Disgruntled worker claiming to have access to Hillary's records. Twitter @HillsMedRecords
Get them while they're hot!
Look closer. See the waving arm just behind the held-up cellphone? Yes, the teleprompter stand or whatever that is makes the image look shopped, but it's really not that hard to see the waving arm there - and how it lines up with the hand just above the "half-face" and just beneath the bar on that teleprompter stand.
If it isn't a photoshop, I shouldn't be able to see the dudes wrist below the watch. You've been shown two kinds of evidence, if you want a third please go to the nearest glory hole and put your fingers through it when someone walks into the other stall.
Explains why she has a trained neurologist following her around with a hypospray at combat ready status.
>If it isn't a photoshop, I shouldn't be able to see the dudes wrist below the watch.
The guy’s wrist is connected to his hand, not his watch. And his wrist is above the watch. And if you look carefully at all the other various things behind that teleprompter stand, only that face stands out as looking ’shopped, since everything else—the face of the black person at the bottom, the fingers on the hand holding that cell phone, and the raised arm blocking the “half face”—all look fine. If you want to convince me that’s a ’shop, you really will need to try harder.
>If you want to convince me that’s a ’shop, you really will need to try harder.
From reading the last few posts..... plainly all the evidence in the world can't convince you anything even slightly negative about the Hillary campaign.
If you saw her eating a babys you'd be like "well if the baby was already dead, I don't see anything wrong with it, some cultures practice cannibalism after all".
And if it was proven she also killed the baby you'd be like "well some insects eat their young it's natural, #ready4hilldog".
tl;dr you're a fairly pathetic individual.
>all the evidence in the world can't convince you anything even slightly negative about the Hillary campaign
You claimed an image was photoshopped, then showed me something I can tell is an illusion of perception and said it was proof of ’shopping. I’d be more than willing to admit the photo is a ’shop if I thought you’d shown me any clear evidence of that. But all you’ve shown me is a zoomed-in, JPEG-artifact-riddled portion of a larger photo—which itself was likely a much larger photo dimensions-wise before it was scaled down for the web and inflicted with JPEG artifacts—and that doesn’t prove anything to me.
Orlando Shooter's Father Attends Hillary Clinton Rally
Is.... is she going to be using this guy to attack Trump?
At this point, all she really has to do is sit back and let Trump attack himself. “Never interfere when the enemy is making a mistake” and all that.
But yeah, I wouldn’t be surprised if she (and the Democrats) try to use that guy as a way of attacking Trump—and the GOP’s horrible record on LGBT issues.
Oh wait shit I misread that headline, I thought it was the father of one of the victims. Hooooooooly shit, my bad. IN THAT CASE: I don’t see the Clinton campaign using him as any sort of “attack partner”.
Hillary just tried to off Assange.
Crooked Hillary at it again.
COUGHING FIT, PANTS OF SHIT!
EVERY TIME SHE TELLS A LIE, SHIT RUNS DOWN HER INNER THIGH!
PEE PEE, POO POO, SHE WON'T MAKE IT TO THE LOO!
BY BANE, KEK AND TRUMP, LIVE ON AIR SHE'LL TAKE A DUMP!
COUGHING SHITS, PANTS DONT FIT!
I WILL NOT MISS, THIS BAG OF PISS!
WHEN HER PANTS TURN BROWN, SHE'LL SHIT UP THE WHOLE TOWN!
Prove she has actual medical issues that would make her unfit to serve as POTUS.
(Also, isn’t she younger than Trump?)
Holy fucking shit, pick related. He scaled this freehand at 2 AM while wearing a backpack.
If he wasn't caught Assange would have died in his sleep of natural causes with a pillow over his head, or committed suicide by shooting himself six times in the back of the head.
>Prove she has actual medical issues
Wait I have to break the law? WTF? Not how it works. The onus is on her because she's the one running for president, and her medical records can't be legally accessed by anyone else. Same as McCain and Romney, she has to provide her full health history.
>Wait I have to break the law? WTF? Not how it works.
Well, isn’t that what the person who shared what are supposed to be Hillary’s “ZOMG SHE’S DYING” medical records did? Did they not break the law in regards to doctor/patient confidentiality and the consensual release of medical records?
>Hillary just tried to off Assange.
Literally no evidence points to this. In fact no evidence even suggests that this guy was after Assange, or indeed anyone at all.
A man tried to get in the embassy. That's the story.
Shh. Let him have this one.
If you have any evidence that it isn't, by all means, please share.
No, no, I completely agree with you, no sarcasm, no joke, it's a coincidence.
I'm still waiting for the evidence, any moment you'd like to share it.
Evidence of what?
A conspiracy to keep the Clintons in positions of political power via a series of “murders” carried out across a decade (possibly more!) that have somehow helped the Clintons avoid the kind of legal entanglements that would derail their careers. Y’know, that. I mean, it’s not like such a conspiracy wouldn’t be hard to crack, given how it has to involve dozens of people (including LEOs, the feds, prison guards, and probably a few regular jackoffs).
But I'm repeatedly saying that conspiracy doesn't exist, Hillary is simply an innocent victim of a series of coincidences.
Well Stone, you've given him ample chances, time to start deleting his posts for trolling.
The last time I did that, The Powers That Be told me to knock it off. I listen to them, not to you.
Or you could report the posts like a normal person.
>waaaaah that guy doesnt agree with me
>DELETE HIS POSTS SO I DONT HAVE TO SEE THEM
just close your eyes bro, you dont have to read my posts.
Femanon here. I personally love the shitstorm that starts every time some poor faggot makes one of these anti women or feminist threads. Gives me a chance to see just how upset I’ve made everyone and chuckle a bit. You think jokes about kitchens or showing tits bother me? It just goes to show how much power any random female holds over you, they can pull your complete attention away from a topic just by having a vagoo.
Sure, you’ll act tough and cynical here, but we all know it’s just a desperate overcompensation for how much of a doormat you are IRL. If you decide to lash out and act a bit sexist now and then, I can’t really complain.
After all, we do pretty much run the show.
Men rely on us, work for us, spend money on us, and buy us houses and cars and clothes, sign prenups that we can turn around and cash in when we feel like ditching them for a younger, cuter piece of ass.
Got a kid with a girl? Don’t fool yourself, it’s HER kid, not yours. Piss her off and she’ll take it and leave your ass, and you can pay her a nice chunk of child support for the rest of your life.
Yep, this is the power we hold over you. So you go ahead and make your rape jokes, really. I still know that when you see me on the streets you’ll be watching, getting hard, and probably crying a tear or two because you know you’ll always be a forever alone faggot.
Interesting tactic /pol/-kun, though rather transparent.
Hillary opened a jar of pickles to prove she's healthy, but the jar safety seal didn't pop, meaning it was pre opened. If she's so crooked she can't even tell the truth on tiny stuff like this, imagine her lies as POTUS.
And she made the broken brain face again.
Isn’t Donald Trump older than Hillary? He could have some form of dementia, which would explain his odd speaking style and his inability to stay focused on one subject for more than a handful of minutes at a time.
See, I can make shit up about Trump’s health based on pointless bullshit, too.
Trump isn't taking off every 3 days for a full week in the middle of a campaign. Or half an hour long toilet breaks in the middle of a speech. He does press conferences continuously whereas Hillary hasn't had a conference in 263 days, almost a year. Trump doesn't seem to have balance problems... doesn't have to be tied to a stool to stand up. Nor does he have an agent follow him around with a hypospray of an anti seizure medication. And while we're on medication, why the fuck is Hillary taking modafnil if she's healthy? Are you insinuating she got ahold of it illegally and without a prescription...
Why, it’s almost as if Hillary isn’t a twenty-year-old woman doing Crossfit every day. Imagine that.
>but but trump!
I always knew you were CTR, never expected you to blatantly show yourself like this though.
Trump being worse than Hillary in literally every category is fairly relevant in an election where they are the only real candidates.
A lot of people are practically convinced that Trump forged his medical letter from his doctor, seeing as it says the sorts of things Trump would and sounds like it was written by someone who has never practiced medicine. "All tests came back positive" and "The healthiest person to ever run for president" are just not things that real doctors would say.
I have no idea what the fuck that even is. And if I were a paid political activist, why the fuck would I be hanging out on an imageboard site that gets less traffic than fucking MySpace?
Forged? Nah. Dictated? That I can believe.
>A lot of people are practically convinced
CTR isn't that many people man, you can pay for media to release stories all you want.
Trump bringing the bants.
"Hillary Clinton is a bigot who sees people of color only as votes, not as human beings worthy of a better future"
Reminder: This is the guy who all but said “I’ll save black people from themselves”—in front of nearly all-white audiences, no less!—and proposed kicking every Muslim (i.e., every Arab person) out of the country.
>all but said
lol, you all but said youre a retard
> proposed kicking every Muslim (i.e., every Arab person) out of the country.
I'd like to see a [citation] on Trump saying he'll exile Muslim-American citizens.
>you all but said youre a retard
No, I didn’t. You can imply I’m retarded, but that’s more an exaggerated opinion of my intelligence than a statement of medical fact.
And how is what I said incorrect? Trump’s statements on black people have all been examples of the cynical pessimism that infects every aspect of his campaign. He has painted a picture of black people all living in poverty-stricken hellholes that only Trump can save them from, and he has done so in front of largely white audiences. Whether he means to or not (and I’d bet on the former), he is using the stereotypes and paranoia of the alt-right to make the most condescending appeal towards black voters that I can think of.
>I'd like to see a [citation] on Trump saying he'll exile Muslim-American citizens.
He never said he’d do it to those within the country (my bad), but his campaign did say, at one point, that the “Muslim ban” would apply to American citizens travelling abroad. (Trump, in a formal statement from his campaign, urged a “total and complete shutdown” of all federal processes allowing followers of Islam into the country until elected leaders can “figure out what is going on.” Asked by The Hill whether that would include American Muslims currently abroad, Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks replied over email: “Mr. Trump says, ‘everyone.’ ” — http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/262348-trump-calls-for-shutdown-of-muslims-entering-us) Granted, Trump rescinded that notion in a later interview (During a Tuesday morning interview with ABC's "Good Morning America," however, Trump clarified that American Muslims would still be able to travel freely under his plan. "If a person is a Muslim and goes overseas and come back, they can come back. They are a citizen, that is different," Trump said. — same link as above), but he has never fully rescinded the idea of banning Muslims from entering the country, and he has never explicitly said he wouldn’t kick out any Muslims already in the country.
>Why is this an important fact to bring up every time?
Because Trump’s speeches about wanting to help black people are more about painting black people as helpless savages who can only be saved by Trump. The image he has painted of black people living in apocalyptic war zones riddled with crime and poverty is meant to enthuse his alt-right voting base—the people who actually believe all black people are living in apocalyptic war zones and need White Saviors to show them the way out—while sounding like he actually wants to reach out towards black communities and offer them help.
If Trump actually talked to black people, he might have a better sense of their concerns and what they want from the next POTUS. But he and his campaign have actively avoided campaigning in largely black communities and talking to black leaders; he even skipped out on the NAACP’s national convention, which even Mitt Romney visited during his 2012 campaign. He was reported to have started his outreach in “Milwaukee”, but he actually spoke in Washington County, Wisconsin—which is 96 percent white. Trump isn’t talking to black people; Trump is talking to white people about black people so white people will think he gives a shit about black people. That he does it in ways that mirror the racist imagery of blacks being poor criminal savages who need White Saviors only makes things worse for him in regards to his “outreach”.
It's more sinister than that. His speeches "to black people" that try to paint him as compassionate (but come off as patronizing) are there to reassure white people who are on the fence that they don't have to openly support racism to vote for him. He doesn't care about the black vote--his campaign already knows, whether or not he does, that he's going to get a statistically insignificant portion of the black vote no matter what he does. These speeches aren't to win black votes, they're to win the votes of white people who are ashamed to vote for Trump because of how openly racist he is, and who are willing to overlook how he's still being racist if he puts a token(ha) effort into disavowing that.
>Trump’s speeches about wanting to help black people are more about painting black people as helpless savages who can only be saved by Trump.
Where are you getting this bullshit from?
>If Trump actually talked to black people, he might have a better sense of their concerns
Like when he talked to black people and found out they didn't like the Clinton Crime Law which puts black men in jail disproportionately?
You don't know the first thing about Trump.
Man, these Alt-Right macros are crossing into outright self-parody.
Donald Trump also took out full-page ads in newspapers wherein he called for the execution of the Central Park Five—who were all proven innocent of the crimes that landed them in prison.
The alt right is actually pro Hillary. They like the Clinton plan to incarcerate blacks and turn them into slaves.
So? Can you blame him for being overzealous in the PREVENTION OF RAPE!?
Meanwhile Hillary helped a child rapist and giggled about freeing him to rape again. Oh and she regularly threatens to assault the rape victims of Bill if they speak up about their experience.
So you're just banging on your keyboard and posting the results now huh?
1996 Hillary Clinton ≠ 2016 Hillary Clinton
>Can you blame him for being overzealous in the PREVENTION OF RAPE!?
When he refuses to apologize for the ads even after the Central Park Five were freed—he wrote an op-ed in which he said NYC settling a lawsuit with the Five “doesn’t mean innocence”—yes, I can blame him for refusing to accept the fact that he was wrong about the Five. When his position on policing remains practically the same now as it did when he first bought the ads—“stronger” policing with a focus on stopping crime at any and all costs—yes, I can blame him for wanting to institute a police state. He doesn’t want to prevent crime; he wants a police force to go around bashing in people’s heads until “the streets are safe”, even if the heads being bashed in are those of people who have committed either no crime or petty crimes. Considering the “broken windows” policing style combined with the controversial “stop-and-frisk” program (things Trump probably loved), who the hell do you think would be the most noticeable victims of police brutality in New York City, let alone America?
>Hillary helped a child rapist
As much as it might pain you or I to admit it, a child molester is still a person, and people have rights in this country. Hillary Clinton defended the rights of that man in court. That doesn’t make her someone who condones child molestation or pedophilia. It makes her a lawyer willing to do her job to the best of her ability, even if—especially if—it means defending the right of a child-molesting rat bastard to have a fair trial. Or would you prefer that we suspend the rights of criminals who commit certain crimes so we don’t have to worry about things like fair trials and habeas corpus and the principle of “innocent until proven guilty”?
Oh, and don’t act as if Hillary took the case for shits and giggles; she was obliged by a court request to defend the man. (And he did plead guilty, albeit to a lesser charge.)
>giggled about freeing him to rape again
Show me where this happened so I can see the context of this so-called “giggle”. I want to determine whether it was a laugh of joy at having “won” what she later called a “terrible case” or a laugh of awkwardness at having to discuss a case she most likely hates dredging up because of people like you.
>she regularly threatens to assault the rape victims of Bill if they speak up about their experience
>that fucking anon who says "alt-right" in every post.
Perhaps consider not BEING alt-right in every post
Well you've only talked to me once (in SYM, not /pol/) and I explained that I was left.
Real talk: what does alt-right even mean?
Yes, yes, denial and feigned ignorance, la dee da.
I'm not even involved in these discussions and it's irritating to see, especially since it leaks into other places.
Just freaking hell.
Usually I'm the same. I just happened to feel like joining the threads again until it gets too unbearable.
I didn't know Trump was in Zoolander 1. I didn't really know much about him before the presidential campaign (Ausfag) so it's interesting to see him pop up occasionally.
I don't know if it's just me, but I can't go two threads without being falsely accused of something. Apparently I'm Speedy, I'm misogynistic, I'm a troll and I'm "alt-right" (which, according to that wiki page, is literally opposite to what I stand for).
>1996 Hillary Clinton ≠ 2016 Hillary Clinton
>a child molester is still a person
No it isn't, and neither are people who protect it. This is one of the main reasons I'm voting Trump by the way, so you bringing up his hardline stance on rape as a NEGATIVE is just hilarious.
>No it isn't, and neither are people who protect it.
Per the law, yes, yes they are.
The Alt-Right only cares about the law when it's convenient for them. Much like how they'll defend minority/LGBT/women's rights when it allows them to attack one of the other two, the law for them is something to attack or defend as best currently suits their propaganda needs.
>And as I explained before, I'm not alt-right, since I don't support Hillary.
Question: who is this lie for? Like, do you actually think anyone hear is going to buy "Hillary is the Alt-Right candidate?" I mean, I'm sure given a bit you'll have some cute little macro making that argument, but given as nobody believes those (because they're nearly always lying), what's to gain? Is this like that time you tried to pretend Fascism was left wing?
If you’re still the exact same person you were twenty years ago, you’re free to do the Implied Facepalm.
It sounds more like she’s laughing at the general craziness of specific situations (the prosecution sending back the underwear with a hole in it, the judge asking her to leave the courtroom) or how the case affected her in hindsight (never trusting polygraphs after that case). The only time she appears to be laughing about how she “got him off” on a lesser charge is when she laughs at a dumb joke between defense lawyers, and that comes off as a “Holy shit I can’t believe I said that” laugh to me. I didn’t hear one laugh that suggests she enjoyed working on that case or that she was happy—ecstatic, even!—about getting the guy “time served”.
If you thought that video would make me a rabid Clinton hater, you were sorely mistaken.
>No it isn't, and neither are people who protect it.
The laws in this country were written with the intent of protecting every citizen (depending on the definition of “citizen” at a given time), and laws regarding the justice system were written with the intent of protecting all people accused of crimes from unfair trials. The subgroup of laws dealing with criminal proceedings give defendants rights that are meant to “balance” the playing field between prosecution and defense—habeas corpus, the right to a speedy trial, the right to face an accuser—and prevent one side from having an unfair advantage in court.
A defense lawyer’s job entails two things: Protecting those rights from an overzealous justice system looking for someone to put away for a crime, and offering a defense as to why their client is not guilty of a certain charge. (Any lawyer will tell you that “innocent” and “not guilty” are not the same thing.) Defense lawyers often represent the worst possible clients (murderers, rapists, child molesters) because the rights of those clients require more protection; it would be easy to violate their rights and justify it by pointing to the crimes they're accused of committing.
The average person may not like the idea that a child-raping shitbag deserves the same legal protections as everyone else, but our legal system sees that child-raping shitbag as a person, not as the next victim of a lynch mob.
>his hardline stance on rape
When has he ever expressed any intent to strengthen laws regarding rape (e.g., removing the statute of limitations on rape charges)? When has he ever expressed any sort of solidarity or empathy for rape victims? His ads about the Central Park Five weren’t about doing either of those things; they were about bringing back the death penalty so the state could execute the five black men arrested for and wrongly convicted of a crime—and about giving the police more power to bust heads without any sort of accountability (something he still believes in, judging by all his “law and order” talk).
>I'm not alt-right, since I don't support Hillary.
That’s cute, what you’re trying to do there. But it won’t work. For starters, Trump is the one with a direct link to Breitbart.
Wait just a moment, what part is eluding your mental power? The fact that she hates black people, or the fact that alt-right does as well? Speak and I'll offer succor.
We are aware you hate black people, yes, hence why you and your Alt-Right buddies are voting Trump.
>The fact that she hates black people
Show me anything she has said within the past four years that indicates the kind of hatred of black people that would make Breitbarters shed their pants and jack off like there’s no tomorrow, and I might believe you.
Clinton directly attacks Trump for his reliance on the Alt-Right.
(Skip to 34:30 for the speech)
>lol and yet the alt-right is with Hillary
They aren't, actually.
Yep they are, they regularly donate to her campaign.
“For the KKK, Clinton is our choice,” said Will Quigg, California Grand Dragon for the Loyal White Knights, Vocativ reported.
Here she is kissing Robert Byrd, the ambassador of the KKK, and her opinion on him: //youtube.com/watch?v=ryweuBVJMEA
Lol the WT, why not just cite The Sun while you're at it
Or: "Colored people are like weeds and should be exterminated, but we don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population", a quote by Margaret Sanger to which Hillary responds with "I admire Margaret Sanger enormously."
The Clintons CREATED the school to prison pipeline for African Americans!
Well I will grant, that's a pretty hilarious picture. It's about all I'll give you, but I will give it to you.
It's not about what you give, it's about what I take. And every time I prove you wrong, I'm taking your credibility bro... not that you had much to start with.
You haven't proven a single thing since you invaded this site though. All you do is repost carefully managed macros, tabloid articles, and random youtubers.
I've proven Hillary supports the KKK and the genocide/oppression of African Americans.
Feel free to try and debunk those quotes of hers if you want, but she speaks for herself on this.
For the Aussie who expressed confusion on what the Alt-Right are:
>shitposters from /pol/ are alt right
>go to /pol/
>"how do you guys feel about the alt right"
Media in charge of understanding subculture.
Shhh, it's okay Eron, no more tears
WTF does a failed company have to do with this? You're losing your grip on reality.
That's right, deny everything friend, these blue pills will never know...
Fuck off, the alt right are the Cruz and Jeb crowd, they fucking lost months ago and you're still bringing them up.
>I've proven Hillary supports the KKK and the genocide/oppression of African Americans.
No. No, you haven’t. You’ve proven that Hillary signed an anti-crime bill twenty years ago and held a high opinion of a man who said this in 2005 in regards to his time in the Klan: “I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened.” The former is a bit more troubling than the latter, considering the whole “super predators” comment (which she has apologized for), but neither is rock-solid proof that Hillary is the kind of racist that would make any of the numerous branches of the KKK elect her as their Grand Witch. You can flail your arms and accuse her of “super racism” and reach back twenty years into the past for evidence, but you won’t convince me that she is part of the Alt Right Cult without something other than the crime bill and her opinion of a man who publicly disavowed the Klan.
Really? Supposedly they're the Hillary crowd, attracted by her racism. Oh, but they aren't racists, that's just Hillary's lies spread through the media. The media which falsely paints Trump as racist, merely because the entirety of his rhetoric is racist. But there's nothing wrong with racism because blacks really do commit all those crimes, BLM is their terrorist engine! Except black people don't really do that, Hillary just wants you to think they do because she's racist. Also they don't really have a higher arrest/conviction/etc rating, that's just Hillary's media attacking the humble officer. Except they DO have such, because Hillary orchestrated that they would 20 years ago!
THE TRUTH ABOUT PICKLE JARS THAT BIG MEDIA DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW
>she falls into a coma every three days
If you’re going to make shit up about her health, at least make it sound plausible.
>they're the Hillary crowd, attracted by her racism
Yep, jumped ship after Cruz sunk, they even tried to form an independent Renegade party but that didn't work.
>but they aren't racists
They are. They're the open racists on the Hillary side, which Hillary has to keep on the down low.
>merely because the entirety of his rhetoric is racist
List a part of Trumps policy you consider to be racist, and I'll tell you why you're retarded and it's not racist.
>there's nothing wrong with racism because blacks really do commit all those crimes
Wait what? No those are statistics, and stats don't justify racism. Just like a majority of men commit crimes, yet this doesn't justify sexism.
>Hillary just wants you to think they do because she's racist.
No she's the one using statistics to justify her racism, which is wrong.
>BLM is their terrorist engine
BLM =/= black people you retard, most black people oppose it.
BLM is the terrorist arm of Hillarys campaign funded by George Soros, you will NOT smear a whole race with their actions.
>Except black people don't really do that
BLACK PEOPLE =/= THE FUCKING BLACK LIVES MATTER MOVEMENT
WOMEN =/= FEMINISM
WHITE PEOPLE =/= THE KKK
EAST ASIANS =/= GODDAMN NINJAS
YOU FUCKING MORON
The first correct thing you've said.
>BLM is the terrorist arm of Hillarys campaign
That's right, pretend not to recognize the many positions you've cynically taken over these threads, wave that infected dick around so everyone can see it.
Sorry she "goes on a break" every few days.
>Really? Supposedly they're the Hillary crowd, attracted by her racism. Oh, but they aren't racists, that's just Hillary's lies spread through the media. The media which falsely paints Trump as racist, merely because the entirety of his rhetoric is racist. But there's nothing wrong with racism because blacks really do commit all those crimes, BLM is their terrorist engine! Except black people don't really do that, Hillary just wants you to think they do because she's racist. Also they don't really have a higher arrest/conviction/etc rating, that's just Hillary's media attacking the humble officer. Except they DO have such, because Hillary orchestrated that they would 20 years ago!
>she "goes on a break" every few days
And what, might I ask, is wrong with someone taking the occasional break from what is most likely an exhausting schedule of travel and public appearances?
>why shouldnt usain bolt take a coffee break in the middle of a race
Um... it's a race.
She routinely falls behind on current events to the point where she's responding to old as fuck news as though it just happened.
Hillary is seriously out of touch because of her little mental "breaks".
>Um... it's a race.
It’s a marathon, not a sprint.
>She routinely falls behind on current events to the point where she's responding to old as fuck news as though it just happened.
She's talking about the alt-right in August 2016. She thinks fucking imageboards are alt-right.
Yes, and? The Alt Right Cult exists right now; it didn’t disband six months ago with an agreement to make Hillary look a fool.
>The Alt Right Cult exists right now
In the same way as disco exists right now.
>She's talking about the alt-right in August 2016. She thinks fucking imageboards are alt-right.
Yes and yes. Glad we're clear that she's talking about current issues and understands the festering ooze they crawl from.
lol you dumb cunt I don't give a fuck, go shadowbox and waste your time.
>I don't give a fuck
You sure seem to.
I've said it before and will keep saying it: this act is for nobody. There are 6 people in this thread, and they all know the score. I don't know why you can't just admit things normally, unless you're paranoid Stone, myself, or another anon are going to cap it and spread THE TRUE CONFESSIONS OF THE ALT-RIGHT MOVEMENT across the web or some shit. Protip: when Presidential candidates are discussing it, your cover is already kind of blown mate.
Nope. You can deny facts to suit your needs, but your denials don’t alter reality. The alt right exists, it is ecstatic about the attention it is receiving from the mainstream media, and—this is the fun part—it is an actual existential threat to the Republican Party.
Hillary isn’t trying to defeat Donald Trump by linking him to the ARC. Most polls have her winning anyway, so linking him to a bunch of racist, sexist, democracy-hating shitheads doesn't matter in that regard. No, Hillary’s strategy in doing this is to force Republicans who aren’t complete assholes into asking themselves whether they want to be associated with a political party that endorses Trump (and, by extension, this fringe group of white supremacists that he has helped bring into the mainstream). She is essentially asking Republicans to repudiate just about everything the Republican party has stood for since the days of Nixon and the creation of the Southern Strategy, and all so they can avoid being linked to the toxic combination of Trump and the alt right. A refusal to do so would equal an implicit endorsement of Trump, the alt right, and everything those noxious motherfuckers stand for—and if the Republicans thought they were fucked before Trump, just wait until they have to deal with being a party full of out-in-the-open bigots.
> it is ecstatic about the attention it is receiving from the mainstream media
Yeah because it's a dead movement desperately trying to stay relevant, and HILLARY IS HELPING THEM you moron!
Protip: Trump is pulling more Democrats than Hillary is Republicans. Her strategy failed literally before it began.
Besides Alt Right are traitors to conservatives, so you can have their 20,000 strong movement.
>it's a dead movement desperately trying to stay relevant
And guess who helped with that relevance? The guy who said he’d build a wall at the Mexican border, keep Muslims from coming into the country, and asked black people what they have to lose by voting for him. Trump is the face of the alt right, and every time the Republican party refuses to repudiate the words of its chosen candidate—refuses to call out his racism, his sexism, his mocking of disabled people, his pandering to scared white voters by painting black neighborhoods as war zones and black people as poverty-stricken human garbage who need White Saviors, and his belief that America is a shithole country that only he can save—the alt right grows emboldened. Like a virus, it seeps deeper into the lifeblood of the Republican party, becoming more visible as the party refuses to innoculate itself against a more blatant kind of racism than it has practiced in the past fifty years. And it will not stop until either the Republican party has become the party of out-in-the-open racism or the party says “no more” and decides that its continued survival as a political party is more important than putting a Republican in the Oval Office.
>There are 6 people in this thread, and they all know the score.
Yeah we know you don't know what you're talking about.
Yes you two Alt-Right folks have your feigned ignorance bit, I know, I'm just trying to tell you, you can let go. You don't need the deception. You can come out and just admit your base hatred. We ALREADY judge you for that hatred, hiding it (badly) has no purpose.
>We ALREADY judge you for that hatred, hiding it (badly) has no purpose.
Your problem is with labels, you're judging us for something we haven't done, but what other people may or may not have done. That's what social justice is all about, right? You get to feel high and mighty by labeling everyone who doesn't agree with you as Cyborg Hitler, because without this ridiculous situation you wouldn't have the courage of your convictions to stand up for yourself.
You know absolutely nothing about us but what is written in these threads, and I've certainly never written anything bigoted, hateful or racist.
>Your problem is with labels
No, our problem is with you being shitty people who do shitty things. Turns out, that's also the general public's problem with you. And now that the lid's blown off and the numbers are dropping, you're trying desperately to say the movement is small, or that it is a Hillary thing, or whatever desperate tactic you think might make the situation you created stop collapsing on you.
That part is pretty hilarious actually.
As an outside observer, you're ALL shitty people who do shitty things. Right and left are equally awful.
Last time I checked, the vast majority of the left isn’t trying to curtail the rights of LGBT people and the Democrats don’t have anti-LGBT language in their national platform, so there’s one big hole in your “both sides are the same” argument.
Not the same, just equally awful.
Both sides present are extremists.
Ok mister "outside observer" please point to some specific policy, obstruction of policy, or ideological point the left in this thread have put forward that is just as abhorrent as the shit spewed by the Alt-Righters here.
Let’s tackle that idea by discussing marriage. (No, I don’t want to marry you.) The right is generally opposed to the idea of letting same-sex couples be married; this has died down a bit since Obergefell, but even a “softened” version of that opposition is still part of the RNC’s national platform. The left is generally supportive of same-sex marriage existing alongside opposite-sex marriage. Now, you might think those are the two extremes of the argument: marriage for straights only or marriage for straights and gays.
But the left’s actual position isn’t extreme. The left’s extreme on this spectrum would be the complete 100% opposite of the right’s position—that is, the idea of marriage as exclusive to same-sex couples. Show me any kind of serious support for that specific extreme on the left, and I will concede the “both sides are extremists” argument.
>The right is generally opposed to the idea of letting same-sex couples be married
The problem is in the word "letting", the government should not have the power of DENYING or PERMITTING a marriage, this is not a proper function of government. The only thing the right disagrees with is giving government the power to do these things, and even to force other people to congratulate you on your stupid fucking marriage instead of telling you to fuck off.
>Show me any kind of serious support for that specific extreme on the left, and I will concede the “both sides are extremists” argument.
Like how Liberals think it's evil to vet immigrants for allegiance to Sharia, which CRIMINALIZES gay people and urges the death penalty, ergo anyone sane could only conclude the left wants to criminalize gay people.
Man you couldn't maintain that "outside observer" act for long.
>The problem is in the word "letting", the government should not have the power of DENYING or PERMITTING a marriage, this is not a proper function of government.
You’re free to make that argument, but if you take government out of the institution of marriage at this point, you’d have to deal with everything that government does for said institution—and how it would affect people who don’t worship under any given religion but want to get “officially” married nonetheless. I can’t think of any serious politician who wants to choose that hill as the one their career dies on.
>force other people to congratulate you on your stupid fucking marriage instead of telling you to fuck off
Is this in reference to the fact that public-facing, general-public-serving businesses can’t discriminate against gay people in areas with LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination ordinances, or is this in reference to the incorrect belief that the government can somehow defy the First Amendment and force churches/clergy to sanctify, condone, or otherwise approve of a same-sex marriage?
>Liberals think it's evil to vet immigrants for allegiance to Sharia
It isn't “evil” to vet immigrants for ties to terrorism, criminal acts, or anything indicating that letting them into the country would pose a severe threat to the safety and security of American citizens. But practicing Islam shouldn’t be a definitive barrier to entry, regardless of whether one believes in Sharia law—if it were, we’d have to take seriously every person in the United States who believes the Bible/the laws of Christianity should be the one true law of the land.
And if you think Sharia law is an actual existential threat to the existence of the United States, I would ask you to prove how. (Especially since there hasn’t been any credible attempt by any lawmaker in any city, county, or state in the Union to “overrule” the laws of the land with Sharia law. Not that it could happen anyway; the First Amendment would automatically forbid any level of government in the US from establishing Islam as an official religion.)
>The problem is in the word "letting", the government should not have the power of DENYING or PERMITTING a marriage, this is not a proper function of government. The only thing the right disagrees with is giving government the power to do these things, and even to force other people to congratulate you on your stupid fucking marriage instead of telling you to fuck off.
The reason the government has that power is because of the effect it has on taxation and government benefits. The government can't stop you from calling a person your wife or husband, or of throwing a party / holding a religious joining ritual, or calling it a marriage. They can stop you from filing taxes as a couple, and they can refuse to guarantee that insurance companies must respect your union. And that's where the issue really comes in. No, marriage in and of itself may not be a matter for government intervention, but the joining of assets and property that comes with marriage is certainly a matter of law and regulation.
Doesn't agree with you. Liberals are ~25% of the population, but you're a subset of THAT considering feminists are ~18% of the population in America. And what proportion of feminists actually agree with your radfem bullshit? If you truly aired ALL of your retarded opinions you'd be lucky to have 10% of the population stand with you.
>Both sides present are extremists.
Except I don't call him a racist or a bigot, I just call him stupid and his ideas trash.
If you can't tell the difference between these two statements you might not be as near the center as you think.
>Liberals are ~25% of the population
>you're a subset of THAT considering feminists are ~18% of the population in America
>If you truly aired ALL of your retarded opinions you'd be lucky to have 10% of the population stand with you.
>Except I don't call him a racist or a bigot, I just call him stupid and his ideas trash.
> radfem bullshit? If you truly aired ALL of your retarded opinions you'd be lucky to have 10% of the population stand with you.
Using a different set of insults doesn't make them not insults. Also don't talk to yourself (although there are two of you according to the staff so I suppose it could be the other one).
>Doesn't agree with you.
Sometimes I'm shocked at how uninformed you people are on basic issues of YOUR OWN camp.
>although there are two of you according to the staff
You're spying on my fucking IP? What the fuck is wrong with you?
>You're spying on my fucking IP?
The mods and admins can see your IP. Did you think they banned people based on username or some shit?
Yes we've seen you post those about 80 times, usually whenever you feel cornered by arguments and points you don't want to deal with.
This is hilarious:
Can you kindly fuck off and stop using it because someone is whipping your ass in an argument? Any comment on the polls mate.
>Can you kindly fuck off and stop using it
Stone didn't bring it up
>someone is whipping your ass in an argument
Argument crushing point you have ignored (because you aren't here to argue, just repost the false constructions of others to be a nuisance):
>Any comment on the polls mate.
These "benefits" are early 1900s attempts to boost population growth by making marriage more appealing. It has no fucking reason to exist at this moment.
Common law marriage existed (and still exists) for a reason, any people living together romantically on a long term basis, referring to themselves by the same last name in public, are considered married under common law (ie the law of the united states).
In fact there have been cases of people having to provide alimony and marital asset splits despite never having married in a church or signed a piece of paper saying they were married in a city hall.
Stone is the only one with access to IP in this thread, and we all know you're his rectal wart so you know what he knows.
Stop creeping on people blowing you the fuck out in arguments, it makes you look even worse than you are (which is an impressive achievement).
>Stone is the only one with access to IP in this thread, and we all know you're his rectal wart so you know what he knows.
Dude none of us have forgotten the other mod laughing you weirdos attempting to report abuse off and outing you in the process. I have never spoken to stone outside threads. Stop trying to avoid arguments just because your Alt-Right buddies haven't given you the necessary template to counter them.
>Dude none of us have forgotten the other mod laughing you weirdos
the mod was laughing at you specifically, your reporting of everything /pol/kun said and his reporting of you was the humorous part of that screencap. it wasnt that long ago for you to start twisting the facts, and you cant be this fucking self-unaware.
The reporter was /pol/-kun himself (aka you and your friend)
lol make sure the thread isnt on the front page before deciding to lie about it.
Yes, two. There are two of you Alt-Right freaks, collectively labeled /pol/-kun because you post the same shit. I realize you're functionally illiterate, but don't assume the same of others.
>And if you think Sharia law is an actual existential threat to the existence of the United States, I would ask you to prove how.
Additionally the city council of Dearborn, Michigan voted 4-3 to became the first US city to officially implement all aspects of Sharia Law. This is with 30% Muslim residents. We see the same thing happening in other locations at those Muslim concentrations. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=708_1470922102
Why do you rabidly attack a cake maker, but refuse to attack someone who wants to execute gay people?
>Stop trying to avoid arguments
Proves the statement:
>Liberals are ~25% of the population, but you're a subset of THAT considering feminists are ~18% of the population in America.
And demolishes your shitty argumentum ad populum attempt.
So two right wing people reported each other? Then why are you complaining :^)
The red highlight is you, the green, blue and white highlight is /pol/kun and someone else. Probably me.
Nothing. It demolishes nothing, and proves only exactly what the study says: X number of people identify as Y. By contrast, the election polls show Trump's collapse, and the rejection of your ideology with him.
You'll spin some shit to avoid this (the Alt-Right is dead/imaginary/Hillary etc), but no matter your lies, the truth remains: you're going to lose.
>Stone is the only one with access to IP in this thread
Actually? No, I’m not. That is to say, I don’t have access to IP addresses on this site. Even in my limited role as janitor, all I see on the “Reports” panel is a user ID. And I don’t even check that shit because, as janitor, the thing I do more than any other is clean up actual spam when it shows up. I just went to the Reports panel for probably the first time since I was given janitorial powers to make sure I couldn’t see IPs; I wasn’t even sure that I would be able to access it.
>the city council of Dearborn, Michigan voted 4-3 to became the first US city to officially implement all aspects of Sharia Law
>Why do you rabidly attack a cake maker
I don’t “rabidly attack” “cake makers”. If anything, I “attack” people who refuse to follow the law by treating gay people as second-class citizens. If a baker works in a business that serves the general public, and his business is open in an area with an LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination ordinance, he cannot discriminate against a gay person on the basis of that person’s sexual orientation. That means the baker must offer the same service to a gay person that they would to a straight person—the same menu, the same prices, et cetera—even if the baker thinks gay people are diseased perverts whose existence will somehow unravel the universe. He made that compromise when he opened his business to the general public. If he doesn’t want to deal with that compromise, he can either make his business a private affair or close his business. But he doesn’t get to decide who is part of the general public that his business purports to serve.
>but refuse to attack someone who wants to execute gay people?
I loathe anti-LGBT violence. I loathe hearing about some poor soul who commits suicide because they were bullied into believing they had no other choice. Anti-LGBT violence sucks, and it should be denounced and decried in every possible way.
But my saying “countries shouldn’t execute people for being gay” isn’t going to change dick in those countries. (Pragmatically, the easier fight to win is the fight within the United States.)
And here’s the thing about desire, aka “wants”: Unless someone makes a deliberate and intentional threat against LGBT people, how should we treat people who express vague ideas about wanting to see LGBT people dead? Plenty of whackjobs in the US who identify as Christians have expressed desires to see LGBT people wiped out, through acts of either God or man. Some of those whackjobs have even expressed a desire to see the US criminalize (and possibly execute people for) homosexuality. What should the authorities do about those people? And what makes them any different than Muslims who, while not acting on their desires, also want to see LGBT people harmed or killed for daring to be LGBT?
Which cover less than half of the "general population"?
>I don't understand how polls, or indeed science, work.
>I am doubling down on my bullshit because I still don't understand how polling, or indeed science, works.
>Only 40% of the general population vote
And yet more than 40% whine about whoever is in power.
>I still don't know that neither or no-reply poll results are erased, or added to candidates based on the polling bodys discretion.