What, like, the NSA in general, or something specific? Give us some meat to chew on, son.
I really do feel kind of bad for our alt-right posters. They've tried so hard to invent every possible form of attack, but none of its sticking, and meanwhile their candidate is basically human Bender from the end of that Futurama what-if: dead, but still makes noise when you poke him.
Fuck off NSA. I know you are listening.
I'm fine with general discussion, but I'll add direction and ask what your thoughts are on Five Eyes' mass global surveillance.
>Are you in one of the Five Eyes, or a different country?
>Would you choose Yes or No to it existing, if you had the choice?
I'm interested to see if you lot prioritise privacy over security, or vice versa.
>I'm interested to see if you lot prioritise privacy over security, or vice versa.
Sort of an inefficient way of asking that then, isn't it? It's entirely possible for someone to value both and just think the NSA is shitty at its purported purpose, for example.
Hey now, that’s not fair to the NSA. They’re not always listening and watching you.
You’re thinking of Facebook.
And Google. And Microsoft.
ESPECIALLY Microsoft, who just pipes your info directly to the NSA.
I mean, it's a fair point: I'm not going to buy a Mac.
>It's entirely possible for someone to value both and just think the NSA is shitty at its purported purpose, for example.
That's a good point.
Facebook is just people giving up their own information. Same with Google, except that Google is much, much harder to avoid, but (in my baseless opinion) are more trustworthy. Microsoft openly resorts to illegal malware solutions to help gather information, and Windows 10 privacy options are proven to be placebo.
Nice pic, I like it.
>Facebook is just people giving up their own information.
Facebook also deploys a notorious amount of cookies to track web browsing activity, even if you don’t actually use Facebook.
Yes, you are right. I forgot about those share-button cookies. (but even so, google will grab even more; even fingerprinting on 4chan via captcha)
The Scottish nationalists wanting to secede just had a bad time, turns out oil is not the magical money machine they thought it was?
Turns out Farage has been toadying up to Trump - cunts of a feather flock together, I guess.
Oh, and a pro-Corbyn member of the Labour Party has been denied full party membership because she posted "I fucking love the Foo Fighters" in a facebook status update.
I wish I was kidding.
Banned for swearing? She should come to Ausland.
Trump ventured out of his cave and found that sunlight doesn't agree with him.
>Barely a week into the job, Donald Trump’s new campaign CEO is already facing harsh scrutiny over a 20-year-old domestic-violence charge and an allegation of voter-registration fraud.
>On Thursday night, the New York Post and other outlets reported that Stephen Bannon was charged with misdemeanor domestic violence, battery, and dissuading a witness in 1996, after an altercation with his then-wife in Santa Monica, California. According to a police report, Bannon’s spouse said he pulled at her neck and wrist. A spokesman told Politico that Bannon was never questioned by police and pleaded not guilty. The charges were dropped around the time that the couple divorced later that year. In divorce proceedings, sheoutlined several vulgarities Bannon allegedly used.
>Early Friday morning, Guardian US added its own bombshell: Bannon and another ex-wife are registered to vote at a vacant house in Florida, a key swing state. That registration could be a violation of election laws, representing voter fraud.
>0:30 - 1:30
Doesn't sound well-thought out. (Not that it's a surprise)
He's very good at not getting cut off though. I can respect that.
>unlabelled 8ch video file
Not today, good sir!
I couldn't be bothered finding another link. It's Hillary Clinton memespewing with edited in maymays.
The scriptwriters and editors did a solid execution of a horrible idea.
Oh weird, the Breitbart guy is an amoral monster!?
Instead of linking the Hottest of Alt-Right YouTube and having it ignored, why not actually confront the allegations.
Because an allegation provided without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Fortunately, this allegation has copious evidence, collected by a generally reputable source (the Guardian).
You, by contrast, have an Alt-Right YouTube video, which holds as much credibility as Alex Fucking Jones.
OK a newspaper that loses $1 million a week since 2009 but yet still manages to survive on "donations" (ie bribes) is a reputable source.
The Guardian is a generally reputable source, yes. I know that ya'll scurried to put that together as quickly as you could when they said nasty things about Papa Breitbart, but that neither denigrates the standing of the Guardian nor makes random Youtube conspiracy theorists reputable.
> Youtube conspiracy theorists
Wait what post are you talking about here?
ABC has removed the interview with Dr. Drew where he voices concerns about Hillarys health.
Unfortunately for them the interview was ripped and uploaded in dozens of places.
Why should we care about what he has to say on this matter, again?
Because it's no longer a "right wing conspirator theory" by "non doctors" when two registered Democrat doctors, one of whom is "the most trusted doctor in the country", voice their concerns.
Or maybe you'll care about it because it violates ethics to delete an interview because the interviewee didn't say the right things.
But I doubt you have principles.
Has Dr. Drew given Hillary any sort of official medical examination? If so, yeah, I’d have a problem with the interview being yanked. If not, I have no problem not giving a shit because his opinion would be reasoned speculation at best and flailing-in-the-dark guessing at worst.
Not mentioned: that Dr. Drew is a daytime tv quack, That his "diagnosis" was derived from his reading a Breitbart article, or that he, Nancy Grace, and a variety of others are being flushed for their dumb psuedo-advice.
Not mentioned: that Dr. Drew is a daytime tv quack, That his "diagnosis" was derived from his reading a Breitbart article, or that he, Nancy Grace, and a variety of others are being flushed for their dumb psuedo-advice.
>It's his educated opinion as a doctor who reviewed her medical record and behavior.
He read a Breitbart article yes. This does not qualify him to give a diagnosis. Doctors don't GIVE diagnoses to those they have not examined themselves.
Aren’t there actually rules against doing that sort of thing?
Yeah because democrats are such avid readers of breitbart. You fucking idiot.
He didn't diagnose her moron, try watching the video before commenting on it.
>Yeah because democrats are such avid readers of breitbart. You fucking idiot.
Oops, looks like SOMEONE hasn't been checking their Alt-Right debate handbook enough!
Um... that's a negative to the Clinton side.
>let me prove breitbart brainwashed dr. drew by showing how hillary is whipping out all stops to silence him
Do you think this makes you look good?
>hillary is whipping out all stops to silence him
Prove the Clinton campaign—or Clinton herself—had anything to do with his show being cancelled. Go on, I’ll wait.
Oh that's adorable, you're playing the conspiracy card (not at all like the Alt-Right, who are definitely dead and you totally aren't part of). Here, let's follow the sources on down.
Now, that article talks about how Drew cited a Breitbart article.
> In January, he made reference on-air to Clinton’s late return to the stage in a debate and cited a Breitbart News story, attributed to a “strong source,” suggesting that it was due to “a flare-up of problems from” a “brain injury.” In fact, she had only visited the restroom.
Because the WP is a real news organization and not a YouTuber, it further directs us back to this:
Drew, after making the comment on air, apologized for it because such a comment based on dubious sources is unprofessional for a medical practitioner and therefore bad for the show. So there goes the "durr unrelated to Breitbart" attempt. Now let's think a little more: TV doctor makes unprofessional remark publicly and then apologizes, presumably having been chastised by the higher ups for bringing bad press. Doctor then does the same thing again months later, and is then flashed. Does this indicate:
A: a grand conspiracy by the Democratic party
B: the brass, already cleaning house with other series, decided to drop an employee who was repeating behavior he'd already been warned for
You'll probably come up with some shit to worm out of this (probably "IT'S BOTH, WAKE UP SHEEPLE"), but that's fine. Stone can waste his breath.
Time Warner supports Hillary:
Guess who owns CNN, where Dr. Drew is employed.
>"Earlier tonight, I mistakenly raised an anonymously sourced report about Hillary Clinton's health. By doing so, I violated HLN and CNN's editorial standards and I was wrong to have mentioned the unsubstantiated report. I regret the error and will make sure, in the future, to apply the rigorous editorial standards we have in place here. I apologize to our viewers and Secretary Clinton for falling short tonight."
Again the fact that he had to apologize shows that Hillary complained about it, and CNN forced him to apologize when he wasn't even in the wrong.
And then WP and CNN just added Breitbart out of fucking nowhere when even the article said it had nothing to do with it. What the fuck is that about?
>WP is a real news organization
The organization that consistently does hit pieces and lies about Trump, and which Trump banned from press meetings for their lies.
When Trump said:
>President Obama s not tough, not smart, or he's got something else in mind. And the something else in mind, you know, people can't believe it.
Washingtonpost translated this to
>Donald Trump Suggests President Obama Was Involved With Orlando Shooting.
And then when people pointed out their Tabloid was showing, they changed it to:
>Donald Trump Seems to Connect President Obama to Orlando Shooting.
Which is weasel wording and just as bad.
This is your real news organization.
>Trump banned from press meetings for their lies.
I think you mean "banned from press meetings because Trump can't handle criticism."
You know your arcane image macros are active impediments to communication, right?
But I mean what do you expect from someone who looks up to Donald Trump, who communicates about as effectively as a box of raisins.
Your fortune: Bad Luck
>President Obama s not tough, not smart, or he's got something else in mind. And the something else in mind, you know, people can't believe it.
>Washingtonpost translated this to Donald Trump Suggests President Obama Was Involved With Orlando Shooting.
Oh wow, WP was always cunty but this is a new low.
Your fortune: Bad Luck
I'm just amazed that that poster is able to make such an assumptive post with a straight face. Even for a troll post, that's humorously low quality (and that is coming from me).
Politics threads should be deleted, its just constant shitposting without any actual discussion going on.
"when people say what i dont like, that's called shitposting" - retard
No retard, shitposting is a very precise term.
That very precisely describes what you do every day.
Say things you don't like? Yeah all the time.
Well just so long as we're clear on things you don't like not being shitposting, how does Trump sinking further and further in the polls make you feel?
>the alt right is controlled by putin
Allright this stupid bitch is just getting silly at this point.
Also stop trying to kill Assange goddamn it.
Initial statement unsourced.
Second statement unrelated to presented article.
Presented article is from The Sun.
An almost template level AR post, congrats.
>Initial statement unsourced.
Wait.... you don't even watch the speeches of your preferred presidential candidate?
I don't obsessively view every single speech to pick out lines and post them on the internet, no.
Still waiting on that source, by the way. In full, not removed from all context by the Alt-Right YouTuber of your choice.
It would also behoove you to link to evidence that the aforementioned death is related to an attempt to kill Assange, since even the utter rag that is the Sun makes no such assertion.
>Again the fact that he had to apologize shows that Hillary complained about it, and CNN forced him to apologize when he wasn't even in the wrong.
>And then WP and CNN just added Breitbart out of fucking nowhere when even the article said it had nothing to do with it. What the fuck is that about?
No, they didn't add it, it's in that article. Here, let me just post the entire MediaMatters article so you can't lie about it. Sans greentext, as I'm lazy.
HLN host Dr. Drew Pinsky has apologized for citing a Breitbart.com report raising questions about Hillary Clinton's health, saying it "violated HLN and CNN's editorial standards and I was wrong to have mentioned the unsubstantiated report."
During the third Democratic presidential debate, Clinton returned to the stage late following a commercial break. According to The New York Times, she had visited the restroom.
But Breitbart News detailed a far more sinister -- and entirely baseless -- theory. Their January 6 report quoted right-wing radio host John Cardillo -- a Dr. Drew contributor -- who said that according to a "strong source," Clinton's absence was due to a "flare up of problems from [a] brain injury," a reference to her hospitalization for a concussion and blood clot she suffered in December 2012. The piece also included conspiracies about Clinton's health from notorious dirty trickster Roger Stone.
During the January 19 edition of his HLN program, Pinsky referenced that report, saying that "an anonymous source told Breitbart.com that, that delay was due to something related to her past brain injury." Later in the program Pinsky hosted Cardillo, who said that he had provided that information and that the story was "predominantly my source." Pinsky later noted that the story "is hearsay. We cannot confirm it."
In a statement posted on HLN's website following the broadcast, Pinsky apologized for raising the report:
"Earlier tonight, I mistakenly raised an anonymously sourced report about Hillary Clinton's health. By doing so, I violated HLN and CNN's editorial standards and I was wrong to have mentioned the unsubstantiated report. I regret the error and will make sure, in the future, to apply the rigorous editorial standards we have in place here. I apologize to our viewers and Secretary Clinton for falling short tonight."
Following initial reports of Clinton's concussion, right-wing media accused Clinton of faking her condition in order to avoid testifying on the attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya. According to her physician, Clinton "had follow-up testing in 2013, which revealed complete resolution of the effects of the concussion," and she is in "excellent physical condition."
Back to me again, here's the link again for those interested in something besides Alt-Right gifs and lies.
As for our filth encrusted friend /pol/-kun, I will as always wish him well, but that he be well back on /pol/ itself, 8ch, or whatever hole he originally crawled out of.
>As for our filth encrusted friend /pol/-kun, I will as always wish him well, but that he be well back on /pol/ itself, 8ch, or whatever hole he originally crawled out of.
One does wonder what brought him here considering how many times he complains about how plus4chan is mostly liberals and "radfems." And regardless of what the mods say, I still don't believe he's multiple people--I think he's sockpuppeting, and probably just posting from two different computers, like work and home. Not because it's impossible that two people could share those ideas, just because their style of speaking and constant creation of misinfographics makes it seem like a single person is doing both.
I fully believe it's two, they just are pulling their arguments, macros, and whatnot from the same source. What isn't cranked out of the general mass is nearly always just from Breitbart or deep within Alex Jones's gaping asshole.
what do you expect from an SJW? their view on a candidate is not based on what the candidate says or does, it's based on third hand information by talking heads. talking head says clinton is good = she's good. doesn't matter if she said or did shitty things.
Back from the UK, here's an article that's really fucking interesting:
"without a shot being fired"
Clinton isn’t an “ideal” candidate. (No such thing exists.) She isn’t even all that good a candidate, either; for fuck’s sake, Barack Obama—someone with far less political experience and political capital than her—managed to trounce her in the 2008 primaries. But Hillary is leagues better, in damn near every respect possible, than the walking teratoma that is Donald Trump. And given how the choices in this election boil down to Clinton, Trump, or basically not voting at all (Jill Stein ain’t winning shit!), Clinton is the only choice worth voting for.
Ok so there's apparently a running thing to label some internet comedian I've never heard of as the perpetrator of every major crime. That's strange, but rather irrelevant to the actual crime of a Britain First supporter murdering an MP being swept under the rug and forgotten about.
Farage is a real piece of work, isn't he?
Well, once all the right-wing papers in the UK realised that they were technically on the same side as a terrorist, they promptly talked about he was a "loner" and "mentally disturbed", then buried the story because DEOMCRACY WON!!!!!1!!111!1111!!!!
Ze Governments keep trying to establish a total control over Ze Internets, and people care only occasionally:
Will Ze Governments keep trying forever, or will they eventually succeed?
Is this another new gender-neutral pronoun or something?
And it's okay that you're not funny, anon. I’m sure there are other things you’re good at.
Would you prefer actual aggression?
>Stop posting political news in the politics thread!!
Yeah, even /pol/-kun generally adds comments to the stuff he posts.
And the thread is far worse for it.
Then don't respond. You're creating your problem.
It's ok it's part of their culture.
Went on a pro-EU rally today - met some lovely people, and we only dealt with a few dickheads (they didn't start much, just called us losers and told us to shut the fuck up). Had a really good turnout, too, despite it raining a lot.
Lol David Bossie, this is the dumbest election since the 60's.
(this might not belong here, but then again it does not belong anywhere else)
Mad that Article 50 isn't actually going to trigger?
Both of these videos are 100% serious:
I'm not British or European and I couldn't care less.
You're just objectively a loser.
Your right wing leakage is showing.
>Both of these videos are 100% serious:
Nobody watches these videos except your buddy and maybe Stone if he's humoring you that day.
Boy, you sure showed me.
Well, I guess must have made a few hundred sock puppet accounts for me and my buddy.
You know full well I was referring to the users of this board. Not that it'll stop you from posting them but hey.
I'm right wing bro, all you had to do was ask.
Hillary just coughed some flesh colored shit into her glass, then drank it to try and hide the fact.
Dude I think she just reproduced.
>she fucking dies
who takes her spot then? I don't America so I don't know how you decide on next president. Just second-in-command takes their spot, or a full re-vote?
If she's elected, the VP-Elect would take the job, so Tim Kaine.
She's not going to die though so
>who takes her spot then?
“Section 3 of the 20th Amendment provides that if the President-elect dies before his term begins, the Vice President-elect becomes President on Inauguration Day and serves for the full term to which the President-elect was elected. The section also provides that if, on Inauguration Day, a president has not been chosen or the President-elect does not qualify for the presidency, the Vice President-elect acts as president until a president is chosen or the President-elect qualifies. Finally, Section 3 allows the Congress to provide by law for cases in which neither a President-elect nor a Vice President-elect is eligible or available to serve.” — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession
(for those of you who don't want to "give them your views", Bill promises his wife will make America great again, circa 2008)
Considering the economic crash that happened right before Obama was elected, at least he and Hillary had a point then.
>for those of you who don't want to "give them your views", Bill promises his wife will make America great again, circa 2008
Recently Bill publicly said that "make America great again" is a racist thing to say.
Hm, I wonder if that statement may have taken on different connotations since then... nah, couldn't be.
I think it's pretty indicative of the sort of echo-chamber they live in that these alt-right posters assume everyone else knows what they're on about when they obliquely reference whatever insignificant little bullshit that's got their panties in a twist today that no one else gives a shit about.
Speaking of, didn't the "left" create the tern "alt-right"? I don't think any political group actually came up with an insult for themselves.
>Speaking of, didn't the "left" create the tern "alt-right"?
>In November 2008, Paul Gottfried addressed the H. L. Mencken Club about what he called "the alternative right". In 2009, two more posts at Taki's Magazine, by Patrick J. Ford and Jack Hunter, further discussed the alternative right. The term's modern usage, however, is most commonly attributed to Richard B. Spencer, president of the National Policy Institute and founder of Alternative Right.
Hm, I wonder if you don't see different connotations to that statement based on who says it... nah, couldn't be. She even threatened to attack Russia recently, whereas Trump gets shit on for being a "warmonger" without saying anything like that.... but I guess that's ok because Hillary said it.
>Patrick J. Ford
>Richard B. Spencer
Fucking who!!!!? I've never heard of any of these people, and I'm supposedly alt-right according to Hillary. Did sjwiki just randomly pick people who used the word "alternative" in front of the word "right"?
Picrelate, the only gottfried I know.
>I've never heard of any of these people, and I'm supposedly alt-right according to Hillary.
Your being ignorant isn't a counterargument.
>and I'm supposedly alt-right according to Hillary
and I'm supposedly alt-right according to Alt-Right-kun I'm objectively left. The term has already become meaningless to me.
>Cutesy spoiler tag
If you're going to pretend to be someone else you have to change your posting habits /pol/-kun.
>I'd have attached a self-made infographic
/pol/-kun doesn't make those, they're passed around
My mistake. I never even look at them.
That aside: just because someone mislabels you as something doesn't mean that doesn't exist. The Alt-Right is a real thing, /pol/-kun and his little buddy being a standard examples of it. It's all logical fallacies and outright deception from that camp, all the time. If some has ever accused you of being in that crowd well, dealing with them breeds a bit of paranoia.
>It's all logical fallacies and outright deception from that camp, all the time
Funny how that applies to every political group ever. THEY are way worse than US!
>just because someone mislabels you as something doesn't mean that doesn't exist.
Naturally (might be mistaking me with other anon who was saying "WHO?"). But it's hard to take the term seriously on plus4 when it seems that only one person ever uses it, and only uses it to mislabel people who disagree with him, even in a non-political context. I realise it's a real term though (mainly because a wiki article exists for it, as silly as that seems)
I'll make it simple for you:
If you support Trump wholeheartedly, rather than as a "Well at least he's a Republican, technically, I guess" you're alt-right.
Yeah, that checks out with wikipedia. Very conservative and nationalist.
Also, if you use the term cuck. Ironically or not. Doesn't matter.
>But it's hard to take the term seriously on plus4 when it seems that only one person ever uses it,
Not the case.
oh look, poke showed up to defend an alt-right feature, what a shock
What game is he playing?
An okay game, I guess? The question is whether he is going to do any of the things he promised.
Like somehow persuading Mexico to wall themselves off from USA and not charge the USA for their half of the fence? Fat chance.
Has he given any hint on how he plans to do any of these things? It will be embarrassing if the businessman who built skyscrapers, hotels and casinos can't get a fucking wall done.
>The Alt-Right is a real thing, /pol/-kun and his little buddy being a standard examples of it
Alt right is from tumblr, notice the neo nazi amphibian.
>If it came from the internet, it came from Tumblr.
That came everywhere EXCEPT tumblr.
He wasn't serious about the wall.
It's mostly a meme at this point.
>He wasn't serious about the wall.
So, despite that “wall” proposal all but being the cornerstone of his immigration policy vis-á-vis Mexico from the day his campaign began, he wasn’t serious about it. Despite his saying on multiple occasions that he would somehow make Mexico pay for the wall, he wasn’t serious about it. Y’know, if he “wasn’t serious” about building a Great Wall of America along the Mexican border as part of an overhaul of American immigration policy, why the hell should we take him seriously when he talks about…well, literally anything else?
Trump is le mastur troll. It was a social experiment.
The only way I would believe that—at all—is if he wins the election and immediately abdicates the office to Pence.
If you listen to his supporters, 4D Chess. If you listen to anyone else, he's doing a bad job at playing Tic Tac Toe.
>somehow make Mexico pay for the wall
>somehow persuading Mexico
Never heard of tariffs? Just because Bill Clinton signed NAFTA doesn't mean it's going to be a perpetual agreement.
Also "wall" doesn't mean a literal brick wall, goddamn. Yes there will probably be physical barriers at checkpoints, but the vast majority of the "wall" will be CCTV cameras with fast response teams.
This is the border with the most crossings in the world at 5 million crossings a year, and right now only 200 km of the 3000km border is policed while the remainder is wide open.
2800km wide hole in your defenses, a fucking embarrassment for a country that invests that much in military protection.
>"wall" doesn't mean a literal brick wall, goddamn
Tell that to Trump. And his supporters.
No I'll tell it to you, since you're the only one who seems to think it.
Actually, modern walls around countries exist all the time.
They are simply high fences, not Great Walls of China.
Why does the western civilization suddenly has this raging boner for Islam?
Gee, it's almost as if a peek into the lives of modern Muslims can create an opportunity for non-Muslims to enrich their personal understanding of Muslims and Islamic culture—which, in turn, can help dispel stereotypes about Muslims and allow them to be seen as people instead of sociopolitical boogeymen.
When obnoxious people try like hell to convince you you're obligated to hate something, human nature is to embrace that thing. It's why the cigarette companies fund anti smoking groups.
Why NYT hasn't been doing that amazing humanitarian thing 2, 5, 10 years ago?
>obnoxious people try like hell to convince you you're obligated to hate something, human nature is to embrace that thing
>a peek into the lives of modern Muslims can create an opportunity for non-Muslims to enrich their personal understanding of Muslims and Islamic culture—which, in turn, can help dispel stereotypes about Muslims and allow them to be seen as people instead of sociopolitical boogeymen.
Why is it that you haven't responded in such a way to all the hatred aimed at the West and Europeans in general?
>trying to convince me that I'm obligated to hate europeans
>implying I, a human bean, won't embrace it instead
Also a Westerner living in X is far more oppressed than an X-ian living in the West, where X = any non-western country. That much has always been clear, the oppression card won't work here.
... are you trying to say the ummah is unstained?
Hillary just collapsed on stage lol.
Include source or choke on a dick, faggalo.
1.) Implying that a former Secretary of State is a “retard” or has “seizures” when there is no legitimate evidence backing up either of those conspiracy theories doesn’t help whatever argument you think you have.
2.) The Clinton campaign just announced that Hillary was diagnosed with pneumonia this past Friday.
3.) Hillary Clinton went to a 9/11 memorial dressed in a full pantsuit and a Kevlar vest during a rather warm and sunny day in New York City. Couple the heat with her pneumonia and it’s not really hard to see why she might be stumbling on the way back to her car.
The idea of the dems holding up a dying Hillary and the repubs putting their hopes behind an unpredictable madman is a dark humor I can't help but chuckle at.
wow look at that video of her not collapsing on stage, you sure hammered your own testicles
>You're a faggot, but you raise legitimate evidence.
Do not reply to yourself.
Is pneumonia dying?
If she lived in Bhutan and/or the 1700's, then and only then yes. Also he himself just mentioned this you idiot.
>makes people lose control of their limbs
>there is no legitimate evidence
There's a video bro.... he's right, you're nuts!
It shouldn't even be possible with Cuba tier medical care let alone the care available to an American millionaire, all that's needed to cure it is a $40 bottle of antibiotics.
But there are other considerations... it doesn't fit the symptoms, pneumonia doesn't make people collapse or start having a seizure. Pneumonia can't even last as long as she's been coughing (decades).
On top of not affecting motor control, pneumonia actually affects memory and cognition in older people, thus invalidating her as a sane candidate anyway.
"Pneumonia" is on the dumber end of the spectrum of excuses they could have made.
>But there are other considerations... it doesn't fit the symptoms, pneumonia doesn't make people collapse
No, but it does make people, especially the elderly, weak and susceptible to, for example, high temperatures.
>start having a seizure
>invalidating her as a sane candidate anyway.
You're voting for trump so even if her sanity was in question it shouldn't be an issue for you.
>No, but it does make people, especially the elderly, weak and susceptible to, for example, high temperatures.
And as I pointed out, Hillary was out in a full pantsuit and (most likely) a Kevlar vest, which would have only helped raise her temperature. But hey, why let someone doing what thousands of other people do every day—work sick, that is—get in the way of calling Hillary a concussed retard who probably has the Black Plague? (Exaggeration, yes, but not too far off from the truth of how The Deplorables see Hillary.)
>You're voting for trump so even if her sanity was in question it shouldn't be an issue for you.
His Alzheimer's really is becoming progressively more obvious by the day. Not that shocking, his dad had it too.
The video. Do you think she's rocking to a good tune?
Why do you think she is having a seizure? What signs of a seizure is she showing beyond losing her balance a little while she's walking? And for that matter, what makes your opinion of her health one we should care about?
You seem to be intransigent on the issue so why do you even bother taking part in the discussion? I mean the excuses and evasions you're making are clearly enough for someone who has already decided to put on blinders, but they aren't really convincing for anyone else.
We can clearly see her shaking, swaying and losing control of her legs. I've had heat stroke before, as have many other people, this isn't something that happens, so your pantsuit story won't fly with us. I haven't had pneumonia but no one that did would believe these blatant lies.
>this isn't something that happens
No, that is exactly what happens, especially with old people, and doubly so for old people who've been recently weakened by something, like say, pneumonia.
>I mean the excuses and evasions you're making are clearly enough for someone who has already decided to put on blinders
And this is hilarious coming from someone who strictly reposts Alt-Right shit for Alt-Right shits.
You are not a medical professional, and you do not have access to Hillary Clinton. Those who are and do say she had pneumonia, but since you conveniently dismiss the only authoritative source as untrustworthy, we are left with logical observation. Logic is anathema to your kind I realize, but for those with a grasp on it, that doesn't resemble a seizure, that resembles a sick lady who got overheated.
And you know what, let's go a step further: say she IS having a seizure, so what? We can treat epilepsy and a whole host of other causes of those just fine.
>losing her balance a little
Literally just as ridiculous as calling it a seizure.
>Literally just as ridiculous as calling it a seizure.
Ooh, cursory dismissal of allied point to disguise allegiance while actually focusing on the opposition. It's learning!
If I thought she was actually dying or in otherwise poor health, I'd say so. But I shake, sway, and lose control of my legs on a quasi-regular basis—because of my bum left knee. Until and unless I see her actually collapse on a stage, cough up blood, have an actual seizure that requires her to be carted off in an ambulance, or otherwise show that she isn't in good health, I’ll take it on faith that she’s not coughing up cancer or concussed into retardation like the Alt-Righters here assume.
But let’s say you’re right and Hillary actually is sicker than a victim of the Black Plague. Why should that preclude her from being the President? Dick Cheney had already suffered four heart attacks before he became Vice President—thanks in part to his twenty-year smoking habit, I’m sure—and had a defibrillator implanted into his heart five months after taking office. I never heard anyone argue he wasn’t fit to serve as Vice President. (At least not for health reasons.)
Oh, and it’s not as if Hillary would be the first President (or POTUS candidate) to hide a medical ailment from the press.
My point is
>politician clearly collapses though maintains consciousness
>"IT'S AN ANEURYSM"
>"NO SHE JUST STEPPED OFF THE CURB"
you're both ridiculous and need to get a grip on reality
Hey, Stone, I know I don't really participate in these threads outside the occasional joke. But are you seriously calling all people that disagree with you alt-right? Isn't there a possibility that there are left leaning posters that doesn't like Hillary? Or is this just part of the bs game that goes down in these threads?
I'm centre-left and I think she not physically fit for presidency. But I don't think Trump is mentally fit for presidency. Lucky I'm not American.
>Lucky I'm not American.
It's not that lefties can't dislike Hillary or worry that her health is a real issue. It's that the theories about Hillary being concussed into complete mental retardation or dying of every communicable disease known to man and God come from right wingers, especially Trump's fellow Deplorables in the alt-right.
Shit, it's not as if I think she's a perfect candidate. But she is far more qualified to be POTUS than Trump, and of the two options available in this election, I'll gladly vote for a competent-but-untrustworthy neolib with plenty of political experience over an ego-driven populist demagogue who has never held any kind of political office.
>I think she not physically fit for presidency.
Our most re-elected president was a wheelchair bound polio victim.
They aren't even saying it's pneumonia.
They're saying she has allergy/heatstroke/pneumonia. But she was fine two hours after the collapse.
>appeared on her own about two hours later, wearing sunglasses and telling reporters that she was "feeling great."
It's blatant lying but her fans are already too emotionally invested, admitting they were wrong would be an unacceptable crippling blow for their self esteem.
>If I thought she was actually dying or in otherwise poor health, I'd say so
But you never will. She could could shoot herself in the head, fall of a building, onto a spear, which then topples into a tank full of sharks with laser beams attached to their head, and you'd still say she's perfectly fit to be president. This is the abundantly clear fact that poster was talking about, you are either detached from reality in which case I feel sorry for you, or you are a shit person deliberately trying to trick people in which case fuck off.
The very fact that you're inventing such ridiculous deflections shows how desperate you are to defend your bulwark. You've gone so far as to compare a physically crippled president with no easy alternative because the wartime situation couldn't handle a change in command, to a presidential candidate with multiple obvious alternatives IN HER OWN PARTY (Kaine or Sanders) in addition to out of party alternatives (Castle, Stein, Johnson or Trump) in a peacetime situation when her health is in any sort of doubt.
Also the article pointing to previous presidents who hid facts from voters doesn't excuse Hillary doing the same wrong thing now either, we've had presidents who nuked civilians, does that make it OK now?
The extremely biased article you posted actually exposes the bullshit of this entire affair:
>But health has suddenly become a preoccupation
multiple previous candidates for other general elections have been questioned on health
>on the campaign trail after Clinton’s wobbly episode Sunday at a 9/11 memorial service in New York City. The Clinton camp initially called it merely a case of overheating.
A blatant lie by a presidential campaign.
>Late in the day, the campaign revealed that, in fact, she had been diagnosed with pneumonia Friday.
Considering they were just finished lying a few hours previous, why should this be at all believable? This is just a more supportable lie, after they had a few hours to think about it.
She's not qualified on the basis that she's a pathological liar to her own supporters and Americans at large, she is constitutionally incapable of telling the truth. Whether or not she's physically or mentally fit is irrelevant considering the number one standard of fitness voters vote on is MORAL.
Yes he is calling all of us Alt Right, because that's the new party insult for all dissenters. BTW previous Bernie voter who got pissed off at DNC and is probably going to vote Jill Stein here, because I'm not going to vote for a decomposing corporate robot. And considering the anti-semitic attacks on Sanders, I'm not voting for DNC either unless someone else is on the ballot and there's some serious restructuring in the party.
>BTW previous Bernie voter who got pissed off at DNC and is probably going to vote Jill Stein here
So you're not voting?
(You're a Trump voter)
>She could could shoot herself in the head […] and you'd still say she's perfectly fit to be president.
No, I wouldn’t. Because she’d either be a corpse, be in a coma, or have massive brain damage (actual massive brain damage, not the retardation that the alt-right thinks she has).
>such ridiculous deflections
If anything, they’re only matching the ridiculousness of the conspiracy theories surrounding Clinton’s health.
>a presidential candidate with multiple obvious alternatives IN HER OWN PARTY (Kaine or Sanders)
Just to note, Sanders isn’t a Democrat unless you get technical about it; he is an independent who changed his party affiliation.
>the article pointing to previous presidents who hid facts from voters doesn't excuse Hillary doing the same wrong thing now either
Okay. If you believe that, why aren’t you wringing your hands about Trump and how he hasn’t released any sort of medical records? That one letter from a quack who still uses Windows XP doesn’t mean anything (almost literally), and if you’re going to jump up Clinton’s ass and perform an amateur colonoscopy every time she sneezes, I’d love to know why you don’t extend the same “courtesy” to Trump. He’s a presidential candidate; hold him to the same standards as Clinton, not to a lower standard because he’s Trump.
And I know you think that’s a deflection, so I’ll address Hillary doing it: This conversation we’re having right now is the exact reason why she didn’t reveal she had pneumonia. I mean, what, does she have to reveal when she gets a yeast infection, or issue a press release every time she takes a pill? How far must she go to make you happy—to make you satisfied with the state of her health and well-being? Or will you only ever complain about her being “standoffish” or “secretive” with a press that is more than willing to tear her down?
Until given evidence otherwise, I don’t see any reason to believe Hillary Clinton is in her dying days. Unless my assumptions about her health are proven wrong, I plan to vote for her come November.
>She's not qualified on the basis that she's a pathological liar to her own supporters and Americans at large, she is constitutionally incapable of telling the truth.
So is pretty much any politician, especially one with her level of experience.
>he is calling all of us Alt Right, because that's the new party insult for all dissenters
I’m not calling you “alt right”. What I’m calling “alt right” are the conspiracy theories about Hillary’s health that have her either standing at death’s door or sitting on the short bus.
>What I’m calling “alt right” are the conspiracy theories about Hillary’s health that have her either standing at death’s door or sitting on the short bus.
By your definition then, the DNC and Hillary campaign is Alt-Right, because the DNC is inventing conspiracy theories about how Putin poisoned Hillarys water for the 9/11 speech, and her campaign is coming up with bullshit like heat stroke.
(I'm actually a Stein voter.)
Your attitude makes no sense, the only way abstain vote would help Trump is if Hillary was losing.
>(I'm actually a Stein voter.)
If you really supported Sanders you'd be doing what he is doing and supporting Hillary. Since you are in fact an Alt-Right dirtbag just telling any story you can to peel off Hillary votes for Trump, this isn't the case.
>not the retardation that the alt-right thinks she has
What about people on the left with the same concerns?
Dr. Drew is a registered democrat and you're lumping him in with the alt right.
You're lumping all of us in with the alt right, simply because we're worried.
>Sanders isn’t a Democrat
Sanders was raped by the DNC, he pretty much has to do what they say or they'll blackmail/exile him. He's not staying onboard because he thinks Hillary is a good choice, or because of party loyalty, it's his only option to enact any kind of political change.
ok that's fair.
new rule: whichever candidate coughs up pieces of their lung and has to be carried into a van has to provide their health records to prove they won't die before nomination.
when trump fills the criteria of showing symptoms, he has to provide records as well.
>Dr. Drew is
a tv quack.
Sanders isn't spreading the Dying Hillary meme. That's what you are doing, because you're Alt-Right. Hope that cleared things up.
Hillary has already been nominated, though.
For anybody who still gives a shit about Britain, it turns out that not only will our Parliament not get a vote on the most significant change in our country, but they're not even going to get any information on how the plan for Brexit is unless the government feel like mentioning some parts.
Every other country we try and make trade deals with are going "Fuck you, we're making deals with the EU, on account of them not being completely retarded".
A series of nation-wide protests against the government doing the completely retarded thing had an almost-complete media blackout, apart from the bit where some dickhead stole Eddie Izzard's hat.
Hate crimes have risen even more, with children being beaten (and in one case, an unborn child was miscarried after some worthless piece of shit beat up a pregnant mother).
tl;dr, I actually am ashamed to be British, and I have good reason to be.
>A liberal TV quack. Stop accusing everyone of being alt right simply because they question hillarys health.
I didn't accuse him of being alt-right. I accused you of being alt-right. Because you are.
>There are methods in place for replacing a nominee if they become ineligible or obviously unelectable.
Seems like Clinton is neither.
>I didn't accuse him of being alt-right
>What I’m calling “alt right” are the conspiracy theories about Hillary’s health
>Seems like Clinton is neither.
Great, now show your confidence in her by being quiet and letting people who care talk about it. Rude.
>I actually am ashamed to be British
So immigrate elsewhere, you're still part of EU and have complete freedom of movement for the time being. Or fight against brexit and prevent it.
If you stay in the country after it brexits, you don't have any right to complain, by simple virtue of it having happened while you were in country to stop it. That's how referendum issues work.
Oh, I've been looking into immigrating for the past month. Trouble is, my family are presuring me to stay (my older brother became a dad recently, so there's the worry that I won't be there for the baby growing up) and honestly, I don't have enough job skills to get a permanent visa anywhere.
As for fighting Brexit, there's not much I can do. I went on one of the aforementioned (and under-reported) protests and wrote to my MP - the former did gain some positive feedback from the people we passed, but my MP just went "Welp, the majority barely won, whatcha gonna do?" and pretended he cared about the rise in hate crimes... if he did, he wouldn't be trying to appease the cunts doing that shit.
The main problem, as I said, is that Parliament have no say in the matter, even though ignoring a parliamentary democracy for a referendum is literally how Hitler got started. Lots of MPs hate the idea of Brexit, but lots of people who voted Leave are going "DO AS WE SAY OR WE'LL RIOT", which does tend to skew decisions a bit. There's a court case next month to try and force a vote in Parliament, but pro-Brexit cunts are going "DEMOCRACY WON SO SHUT UP"
Also, the referendum wasn't even binding. The Conservatives said they'd obey the result no matter what before the vote, but they just seem to ignore everyone saying "Guys, this is retarded, knock it off". They seem to be doing more out of spite than anything else.
>I didn't accuse him of being alt-right
>What I’m calling “alt right” are the conspiracy theories about Hillary’s health
I am not Stone, no matter how much you wish it.
If you enter into a conversation between me and Stone, you have to play by the rules of said conversation. Otherwise keep your snoot out of it. RUDE.
>the rules of said conversation
...the actual fuck?
Funnily, it's this type of thinking that leads to radical religious terrorism. "If i agree with someone about a lot of points, i have to mindlessly obey every single thing they say."
No you fucking idiot. If you were a genuine supporter of Berine Sanders, a part of his political camp, then voting for anyone other than Hillary Clinton is contrary to your theoretical political stances. You can't vote for Trump or Johnson because they're cavemen, and you can't vote for Stein because she's a dead end. If you really are the proper social liberal that Bernie stands for, that's your one practical option.
/pol/-kun isn't a Bernie supporter, he's just doing his usual "vote for anyone but Hillary" routine. It's literally all that he does, because he's trying to peel votes away. You know this, because you are the same. So as you've been told, and will continue to be told, go fuck yourself Slow.
Honestly in my ideal Future Of The US, Clinton gets elected, if it makes you feel any better.
Her and ideally Bill die almost immediately afterwards, but, y'know.
Anyway your first paragraph is still ridiculous because Clinton is almost antithetical to Sanders.
This guy may be a conservative redneck, but he says some of the best stuff nowadays.
>Anyway your first paragraph is still ridiculous because Clinton is almost antithetical to Sanders.
No, TRUMP is antithetical to Sanders. Sanders is a social-democrat, Trump represents white nationalism run wild. Left, Right. That's how it works. Hillary is way closer to the center than Sanders but pretending she's the opposite is idiotic (but you're an idiot so that's not shocking).
>Anyway your first paragraph is still ridiculous because Clinton is almost antithetical to Sanders.
They vote identically 93% of the time.
I thought so too considering it was about religion.
No no, don't use numbers, those scare the slowpoke and forces it to run away.
They took the gun emoji out of the new iOS, it's finally time, Obama has finally started grabbing the guns
>They vote identically 93% of the time.
Not him, but that is a known fact yes.
Clinton is certainly MORE right than Sanders but she is still utterly and firmly a left wing politician. To suggest her as an opposite is just another of Slowpoke's endless lies.
He does say the best stuff, like "I'm not in a wheelchair!" and "GUESS THE MINORITY!"
I haven't kept up with him in the past couple of months due to exams, but the fucking double dip episode is amazing.
He even did gave the whole "I'm not a racist, I am a melting pot of friendship! [...] I happen to have a whole bunch of friends that happen to be black. I happen to have a whole bunch of friends that happen to be hispandex [sic]. I happen to have a whole bunch of friends that happen to be wop, kraut, frog, jap!"
>The 31 times that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders disagreed happened to be on some the biggest issues of the day
So basically they just agree on stuff that doesn't really matter, like the thousands of routine votes that everyone agrees on.
BERNIE DRINKS WATER - HILLARY DOES TOO - VOTE FOR HER!!!
>So basically they just agree on stuff that doesn't really matter
>"HIS LATEST PARANOID FEVER DREAM IS ABOUT MY HEALTH, ALL I CAN SAY DONALD IS... DREAM ON!"
>collapses after 9/11 ceremony
>The 31 times that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders disagreed happened to be on some the biggest issues of the day, including measures on continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an immigration reform bill and bank bailouts during the depths of the Great Recession.
Yes we all read that, now cite what you were asked to cite.
Remember when remainers kept calling everyone conspiracytards for thinking EU would make a unified army?
>Remember when remainers kept calling everyone conspiracytards for thinking EU would make a unified army?
No, because that's not a thing except perhaps in the most uneducated fringe (a fringe mostly occupied by Leavers). The EU has always had a central military, this is just an expansion of it.
He thinks he's moderate guys! Hmmmmeehehehehehehehe!!!!
Is this sufficient citation?
No because none of these actually support your original statement that their only point of agreement are unimportant (and your use of an ancient troll graphic drops the post value dramatically). The NYT article does indeed say that they divide on important issues, but it doesn't say they only agree on unimportant ones (nor do any of the linked articles). What they DO say is that they have a 93% agreement rating, more than enough to torpedo Slowpoke The Subhuman's and your attempt to say they're "opposites."
You know, as if Sanders backing her didn't underline that to begin with.
I never said anything about moderate or radical. I made a statement of fact: the EU has had a military force for ages.
If you were unaware of this, you are uneducated. The current plans are an expansion/centralization of a body that already exists. You can like that or not as is your prerogative, but you can't create blatant falsehoods regarding it.
I didn't start this discussion. If I had I would have said that Hillary and Bernie differ on topics that I prefer Bernie's stance on.
Anybody here actually support Hillary before Bernie lost the nomination? I honestly didn't see the appeal.
>I didn't start this discussion. If I had I would have said that Hillary and Bernie differ on topics that I prefer Bernie's stance on.
Then you can also admit it's irrelevant since Bernie lost and closed ranks behind Hillary with the rest of the left.
I voted for Bernie in the VA primary, lost, and am now backing Hillary. Because while she's not as left as I like, she's way more left than anyone the Republicans have, and especially more than Trump.
Stone and his butt buddy got taken in by the tumblr propaganda.
Literally everyone else only gave Hillary time of day because Bernie is out of the running.
>Literally everyone else only gave Hillary time of day because Bernie is out of the running.
Except of course, the larger number of people who voted for her versus Bernie.
And in actual fact, Stone, did you not vote for Bernie in the primary too?
So actually the only person in this conversation that DIDN'T vote for Bernie would be you, because you voted for Trump.
If I had voted in the primaries, I would’ve voted for Sanders.
But I feel it is relevant and thus why I'm voting for Gary Johnson. Am I throwing my my vote away? Yes, but it would be thrown even I wanted to vote blue.
>But I feel it is relevant and thus why I'm voting for Gary Johnson.
Then it sounds to me like you didn't actually know what any of Bernie's stances on any issues were.
Jesus Christ, 1% of ALL Louisianans are imprisoned, and over 0.5% of America is imprisoned.
Who's the country of convicts now, America? - t. Australia
Kind of weird, this false dichotomy of "if you don't suckle from Clinton's teat, you plead with Trump to drag his sack across your forehead nightly"
I feel like there are probably people who don't quite fit into either of those groups.
Kind of weird how you never acknowledge your stupid shit getting blown up and instead go silent until you can bring up another fallacious point.
>this false dichotomy of "if you don't suckle from Clinton's teat, you plead with Trump to drag his sack across your forehead nightly"
Yeah, well, when there’s a third party candidate that stands a chance of winning an election instead of dividing the electorate in such a way that practically gives the election to one of the two major party candidates, that dichotomy won’t exist. But hey, it’s not like another Nader situation could ever happen…right?
Let's not pretend you have even the faintest desire to actually engage, or take anything i say in good faith. We're both better than that.
>Let's not pretend you have even the faintest desire to actually engage, or take anything i say in good faith. We're both better than that.
Stop acting like you are some kind of god damn victim. You are not taken in good faith because you have given every possible reason to not take you in good faith. You defend abhorrent people with abhorrent views, duck out of any argument you lose, and have repeatedly taken pages out of the generic /pol/-tard argument playbook (especially arguing semantics instead of actual points).
Case in point:
>Hurr, I'm Slowpoke, I'm going to pretend that voting 3rd party is practical/moral because I back righties and want to peel off votes. Bernie was the opposite of Clinton! Don't obey Bernie for bowing to the elective process that's religious extremeism!
>Proof immediately posted Bernie is not even close to Clinton's opposite/the weakness of 3rd parties and ACTUAL opposition of the right is pointed out
>OH NO, BETTER GO RADIO SILENT UNTIL I CAN CHIP AT SOME SIDE POINT (or entirely invented point) FOR AWHILE
>larger number of people who voted for her
>in such a way that practically gives the election to one of the two major party candidates
This is not how voting works. Third party voters simply reduce the voting pool for the two "major" parties, they don't skew it one way or the other.
>This is not how voting works. Third party voters simply reduce the voting pool for the two "major" parties, they don't skew it one way or the other.
You're deliberately disingenuous and an idiot.
Mexico is the 3rd country in the world by number of murders, they have a serious unchecked crime problem, and our border with them might as well not exist. We are also the end goal of a global pipeline for drugs, and pretty much every global organized crime syndicate uses American dollars as a trade basis. No other country in the world has these law enforcement challenges.
That incarceration rate lets us have a top tier standard of living without the moral quandary of capital punishment, or building walls.
So.... if you want to eliminate our high rates of incarceration, you have three options:
1. Reduce our standard of living by allowing more crime to run unchecked.
2. Execute all murderers, rapists and thieves.
3. Start building walls.
Pick one you find least objectionable.
>"if you don't suckle from Clinton's teat, you plead with Trump to drag his sack across your forehead nightly"
THANK YOU FOR THAT IMAGE
>our border with them might as well not exist
You're aware that more more people emigrate to Mexico from the US than the other way around, right?
>our border is porous
>YOU REALIZE 11 MILLION PEOPLE CAME IN ILLEGALLY
>AND 100 THOUSAND WENT BACK ALSO ILLEGALLY IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS
>PEOPLE PASSING THROUGH IT ILLEGALLY MEANS WE HAVE CONTROL OVER OUR BORDERS
This is proving him right... for fucks sake... you MORON.
You believe that 11 Million people came through the Mexican border illegally. Seeing as the Hispanic population of the United States is only 50 million--and that's not just Mexicans, but everyone from a country in the Americas who's not Canadian or from the US--you believe that over 20% of Hispanic people in the US are specifically undocumented Mexican immigrants.
Newsflash, moron, 11 million is the number of illegal immigrants, not the number of people who crossed the Mexican border. It's a number that includes all the Europeans and Canadians and Africans and Asians who came here for work or school and never went home (and who, incidentally, are more likely to be stealing your jobs than Mexicans).
In fact, only a little over half that number--6 million--came over the Mexican border, and many of those were Cuban refugees using Mexico as a halfway point to escape the Castro regime because of the US government's embargo on Cuba. Which is part of why the illegal immigration rate has become a net negative in recent years. Well, that and the fact that the US is becoming more and more of a shithole thanks to conservatives trying to make us into a third world country.
Also, there isn’t some huge crime wave caused by undocumented immigrants. The threat of being deported makes for a hell of a motivator in staying on the straight and narrow—and away from law enforcement’s metaphorical line of sight.
10 million of those 11 cross the Mexican border. Good on you for scoring that nitpick point, you totally proved the border isn't porous.
Say you're a serial rapist and murderer working for the Cartel, which is quite possible, MR STONE. Let's say your Cartel collapses due to attacks from multiple other Cartel. Now you have to run away or get your head cut off and put on a turtle. Do you:
1. Join group of people who cross legally, get criminal background checks, do paperwork, get passports.
2. Join group of people who cross illegally, without any checks or even a list of names.
The percentage of legal immigrants who are criminals is 0. The percentage of illegal immigrants who are criminals is 100%.
Regressives always have such a low level capability, courage, or maybe moral fortitude, to fight a guerrilla force of enemies that hide among innocent people. Protip:
It doesn't matter how innocent the body shields are to the Cartel. In fact the criminals prefer the maximum innocent, because it makes it a better shield against people like you, who cringe at the thought of accidentally hurting someone innocent. Your cringe is their armor. We aren't racist hitlerites for suggesting these people get searched, we're trying to minimize casualties and get the evil sons of bitches separated from the innocent. The good Mexicans can stay.
Also inb4 not understanding how DOJ classifies races.
>The percentage of illegal immigrants who are criminals is 100%.
Yes, I understand that all undocumented immigrants commit a crime when they come into the country illegally. That doesn’t mean every person who enters the country illegally is a drug lord or a rapist or whatever. Then again, that doesn’t matter to people who think all illegal immigration comes from Mexico and fantasize about kicking out all the undocumented immigrants within an hour of The Giant Oompa-Loompa taking office. Those people don’t care about “letting the good Mexicans stay”.
>when they come into the country illegally.
And proceed not to have drivers licenses, and not to pay taxes for the roads, water supply, medical care, social assistance and education they receive, thus literally thieving from all other Americans.
Especially those that need these services the most (inner cities, the poor etc). If you think illegals aren't criminals or that this isn't detrimental to our society, go FUCK yourself, shitbird.
Wesley Snipes spent 4 years in prison for tax fraud while Al Capone spent 11 years (paroled in 7) for the same, the fuck should illegals get an exemption from our laws?
>all illegal immigration comes from Mexico
Between our two land borders, yeah, pretty much all of it.
>fantasize about kicking out
Completely possible in 2 years with the National Guard doing the job, why do you think Trump plans to expand the NG funding that much? You couldn't even impeach him before he does it, because impeachment process takes almost a year, and his VP would finish the job in year two.
This is assuming he's going for 100% removal, when in reality he's probably going to kick out the tiny portion of troublemakers, and keep the rest. Job could be finished in a few months.
Illegal immigrants, not undocumented. Undocumented implies they passed all the requirements for immigration, and just forgot to file documents. This is bullshit, I doubt all of them come close to our immigration requirements, their documents would be rejected even if they had applied.
>Those people don’t care about “letting the good Mexicans stay”.
Well unlike the guy youre responding to, I am those people, and even I have nothing against letting the ~25% of educated, english speaking Mexicans stay. Apply to them the same standard we apply to all foreign immigrants. Even 50%+ of the uneducated illegals can stay on work visas, if they're hardworking enough and receive english training. Their kids can be citizens in time.
On top of that I would even be fine with allowing every single one of the illegals to stay on four prerequisites. The first is that law enforcement was allowed to deal with the illegal criminals - which Lieberals don't permit. The second is that there were assurances illegals wouldn't vote or abuse our democracy, such as through voter ID - which Lieberals fight all the time. Prerequisite three is that they have no access to medical care or public education without paying out of pocket, another fact that bleeding heart Lieberals won't permit. And last and most important, illegals get told to fuck off when they demand they get public services in spanish, integration in a melting pot is key. I'd give them the roads and running water for free, but you fuckers won't ever allow the four prerequisites to be filled so.... we have to go full-on and remove them.
>Well unlike the guy youre responding to
You are the guy he's responding too.
>You are the guy he's responding too.
Put your trip back on Stone.
>And proceed not to have drivers licenses, and not to pay taxes for the roads, water supply, medical care, social assistance and education they receive, thus literally thieving from all other Americans.
By that logic, we should deport homeless people. And hey, I don’t have a driver’s license (because I don’t drive) and I don’t pay taxes (because I’m unemployed and broke), so why not deport me despite my being a born-and-raised American citizen? I am stealing from every one of the other 300 million Americans, after all.
>[Why] the fuck should illegals get an exemption from our laws?
When did I say they shouldn’t? Go ahead. Show me where I said undocumented immigrants should be exempt from being punished by the American legal system for breaking the law.
>Completely possible in 2 years with the National Guard doing the job
Maybe. But that’d likely require a boost in funding to pay for the increase in National Guard soldiers needed for the operation, which would likely mean a tax raise (but not on the rich, oh Heavens no). The effect a mass deportation scheme would have on the American economy doesn’t appear to have crossed your mind, either. And what will such a scheme do about families who have children born in the United States—will the US deport an entire family, or will it split up the family so that the legal citizens (the children) remain in the country and get pushed into the foster system while their parents get deported?
>This is assuming he's going for 100% removal, when in reality he's probably going to kick out the tiny portion of troublemakers, and keep the rest.
Wouldn’t him softening on that position upset his base and drop his approval rating? I mean, we all know Trump lives for the applause of whatever audience is front of him, so why would he soften his position if it means losing the adoration of his racist voting base?
>Illegal immigrants, not undocumented. Undocumented implies they passed all the requirements for immigration, and just forgot to file documents.
A person isn’t illegal. The immigration is illegal, not the immigrant. Their immigration is undocumented. If you think I’m “virtue signalling” or “being PC”, so be it—I’m glad to have at least a sense of empathy.
>The first is that law enforcement was allowed to deal with the illegal criminals - which Lieberals don't permit.
“Lieberals” is a horrible fucking insult. You can do better than that. I know you can. Look past the obvious; roll around a few options. Test out some better insults. If it’s the first thing that comes to mind, it’s likely not the best thing you can come up with.
And liberals/progressives are more about treating undocumented immigrants with a little empathy and trying to figure out whether deporting them is in everyone’s best interests (and yes, “everyone” includes the immigrants, who are still human beings despite their immigration status). If someone is a career criminal, hell yeah, deport their ass back to where the fuck that asshole came from. But if someone is just trying to make some money and is a generally law-abiding citizen (immigration status aside), maybe the US could consider helping them get their green card (and having them pay back taxes and such) instead of just giving them the boot because they crossed the border illegally.
>illegals wouldn't vote or abuse our democracy, such as through voter ID - which Lieberals fight all the time
Voter ID laws explicitly target poor people and minorities, who are less likely to have the documents necessary to get their voter ID. And cases of in-person voter fraud are so rare that you have a better chance of hitting five numbers on a Powerball drawing than you do of encountering a real case of in-person voter fraud. And even if you could prove the existence of more cases of in-person voter fraud than have been discovered and reported, that kind of fraud is an inefficient (and easily discovered) way to rig an election.
>they have no access to medical care or public education without paying out of pocket, another fact that bleeding heart Lieberals won't permit
Schools, I have no argument for. But medical care? I shouldn’t have to make an argument for not letting people die only because of their immigration status.
>illegals get told to fuck off when they demand they get public services in spanish, integration in a melting pot is key
As someone else pointed out above, not every undocumented immigrant in the US is from Mexico or a Spanish-speaking country. Your statement implies your belief in the idea that they are, so your premise is a bit bullshit from the get-go.
But even so: English is not the country’s legal official language, and Spanish is the most popular second language in the US, so making documents available in both languages—especially in cases where someone is still learning English, but is far more comfortable with Spanish—doesn’t hurt anyone, especially you.
>you fuckers won't ever allow the four prerequisites to be filled
The first of your four prerequisites would likely call for every undocumented immigrant to be kicked out anyway, given the “illegal criminals” phrase and your continued assertion of illegal immigration automatically making every undocumented immigrant a criminal. So why should I take your “four prerequisite” idea seriously when you can twist your logic and your phrasing to justify kicking out every last undocumented immigrant in the country? Why should I accept the premise of your idea?
>we should deport homeless people
Fucking what? Homeless people would pay taxes, if they had income at the moment. Illegals have an average yearly wage of $36,000 and don't pay a dime of tax. Brown people aren't automatically poor and homeless you shitbird.
Not going to bother with the rest because I gotta drive home, but I really hope the remainder of your post has worthwhile arguments, otherwise kys.
As someone who actually worked at ICE and Immigration Services I can tell you that undocumented immigrants do actually pay a significant amount of money into state and federal taxes and programs like social security, but remain unable to draw out those benefits, so they make up what these programs characterize as a "shadow income" that have helped them remain solvent.
Even if I were planning to kill myself, I would do it for a better reason than to please you.
>10 million of those 11 cross the Mexican border.
6 million, as I said in that post, but then again it's astounding you can read at all, so perhaps it's expecting too much to expect you to have reading comprehension or even basic math skills.
>5 million illegal immigrants come across canadian border
No, the better part of 5 million illegal immigrants come across in planes and boats from other continents entirely. You really do need to work on your reading comprehension.
>thus literally thieving from all other Americans.
>Especially those that need these services the most (inner cities, the poor etc)
You're acting like this isn't the primary funding source for Clinton as well.
US just aided an ISIS assault on fortified Syrian soldiers by bombing the fortifications at Deir ez-Zor.
Casualties are unknown (~80) but ISIS is pouring through the hole.
Oh well this all seems on the up and up then. Thank you tovarish, for keeping up abreast of the Yankee's movements.
Back in Europe, the German electorate are being swayed by some far-right dickheads. Also, the Dalai Lama said that the EU is a great idea, and he'd love to see something similar with Tibet and all the other countries under Chinese rule.
Naturally, that last part has led to lots of British people on social media saying that the Dalai Lama is a big dumb stupidhead who should shut up about European politics forever. It's not like there's million of Buddhists across Europe, or anything...
Oh, and four Eastern European countries (Czech Republic, Hungary Poland & Slovakia) have said they'll veto any Brexit deal that doesn't guarantee the rights of their citizens who are living in Britain.
Social media reaction: 50% "Fair enough, they deserve the same rights they've always had - they're just looking out for their own people", 50% "WAAAH EU IS UNFAIR, SEND THEM ALL BACK, WE SHOULD BE RUDE TO PEOPLE WE'RE TRYING TO NEGOTIATE A COMPLICATED AND SENSITIVE TRADE DEAL WITH"
Not even kidding.
Are you fucking retarded it's on every channel.
Stop smoking tumblr it's fucking with your brain.
Current party is CDU, it's third. FDP are centre-right and AfD are right wing.
Cause: CDU clearly doesn't give a fuck about the country.
What is on every channel is that the airstrike accidentally targeted a regime stronghold and inadvertently aided a daesh offensive.
What is on RT is that the US and ISIS are in league to conquer Syria. If you don't want to be shit on, don't post RT.
>airstrike accidentally targeted a regime stronghold and inadvertently aided a daesh offensive
And you're exactly stupid enough to believe this verbatim.
Black voters are turning from Hillary to Donald
>Trump saw a 16.5 percentage-point increase in backing from African-American voters in a Los Angeles Times/University of Southern California tracking poll, up from 3.1 percent on Sept. 10 to 19.6 percent through Friday.
>Meanwhile, the same poll showed Clinton’s support among that group plummeting from 90.4 percent on Sept. 10 to 71.4 percent.
>Clinton’s nearly 20-point crash began Sunday, said Dan Schnur of USC. Sunday was the day Clinton was recorded collapsing while entering a Secret Service van at a 9/11 event.
>For the week, the poll found a 6-point rise for Trump. The Republican is now at 47.2 percent of the vote to Clinton’s 41.2 percent.
Obama on damage control
>Obama: Would be 'personal insult' to legacy if black voters don't back Clinton
>Barack Obama says any black person voting for Trump would be a ‘personal insult’ in extraordinary speech
>Obama Says It Will Be ‘Insult’ If Black Voters Don’t Turn Out
Da Comrade, continue the posting barrage, the decadent west shall soon know the glory of Mother Russia
>And you're exactly stupid enough to believe this verbatim.
That the US military fucked up? Yeah, it's very easy to believe, we've done it countless times and will do it countless more. It's a thing that large organizations, military ones especially, do. It's pretty hilarious that your response to "lolRT" is "check the other networks!" and then when someone points to what those other networks are saying you go "LOL YOU CAN'T TRUST THOSE NETWORKS!" Meanwhile you are regurgitating the notoriously unreliable mouthpiece of Vladimir Putin (which, by the way, is a real bad way to disabuse people of the notion that you aren't playing footsies with him).
>It's pretty hilarious that your response
The guy who posted the article isn't me.
>"LOL YOU CAN'T TRUST THOSE NETWORKS!"
You can't trust any media network, when you grow up you'll have to learn to think for yourself. Not even RT is saying what really happened, partly because they haven't a clue, and partly because they simply can't.
>The guy who posted the article isn't me.
There are, at best, two of you, and you post the exact same trash so even if it isn't you (which in this case I doubt) it's just your buddy drawing from the same well so the criticism is applicable all the same. Don't post RT.
I mean preferably don't post at all, but even your loss in November isn't going to shut you the fuck up so no hope of that.
>Don't post RT.
Don't post wp, hp, nyt, cnn, msnbc, npr, rfr...
RT is the official media arm of the Russian government, whereas all those other media outlets operate independently of the American government. But you go on thinking they're all the exact same.
RT admit their ties to Russian government themselves, this isn't a secret they kept and someone had to hack them to find it out, it's an out and out truth. They admit this so you can take their bias into account when reading their articles.
Every single media source I listed there (and many many more) have tighter relationships with American government than RT has with the Russian government, and yet they don't disclose this connection. People have to hack them to prove it. American media still doesn't admit ties to government, despite it being proven. And so, morons like you, and chucklefuckstick up there, can't take their bias into account, and you squeeze under their anus and gobble up their shit straight from the source.
And this is why most people who have even two brain cells to rub together (you're exempted from this group) are trusting the American media less and less, completely ignoring anything they have to say, or immediately assuming the opposite.
>They admit this so you can take their bias into account when reading their articles.
Or just not read their articles, since they have no value and are like reading a dictatorship sponsored version of The Enquirer.
>people who have even two brain cells to rub together (you're exempted from this group)
BRB, killing myself over the complete emotional devastation caused by this 100% epic burn that no one will be able to outdo in any way whatsoever.
>Every single media source I listed there (and many many more) have tighter relationships with American government than RT has with the Russian government
This is actually objectively not true since you can't have a tighter relationship with a thing than being the thing. If you're going to try this, at least go for the BBC angle.
What leads you to think western media isn't run by the government?
I softballed you that BBC line and you couldn't even catch it? Man, you guys are terrible at this.
BBC is funded by the people on a tax basis. And although it is biased, and it does produce propaganda, it isn't directly controlled by the government. British media is actually a lot better off than American, they're very honest about their biases. I'd rather have that honesty than some manipulative attempt to present themselves as neutral.
For example I know RT is based. I know USA isn't literally in league with ISIS. But RT gves crucial factual information, such as the fact that a pair of F-16s and A-10s did the bombing runs. Which suggests this wasn't a one off "accident" like a drone strike from high altitude. The A-10s re low-altitude planes designed for visual identification (eyeballs on target) so they certainly got close enough to see the targets, and would have known they were Syrian regulars.
tl;dr while America isn't directly in league with ISIS, America does want Syria to remain destabilized and will act to prevent any attempt at stabilization, be it by "accidental" bomb strikes or by having some anti tank missiles fall of the back of the truck in ISIS territory
>it isn't directly controlled by the government
Some guy right in Hillary's face: HILLARY FOR PRISON
Hillary: LET'S MAKE IT HAPPEN
I almost feel sorry for her
You're really becoming quite pathetic with this stuff son.
Yeah Anon, let's make it happen already, if you can that is.
Well, not at present (the BBC has got a royal charter saying that it's got to be independent) but the Government have introduced a lot of cuts and are exerting a lot of pressure, so they have bended a few times in the Tories' favour now and then. Even so, you've got shows like Have I Got News For You and Question Time, so it's not like it's completely in the power of the government... yet.
Don't watch the entire thing, just skip to 1:08:13 for a hearty laugh.
>milo related thumbnail
Can't trick me anonymous!
I'm tricking no one. Just watch the joke part at the timestamp I mentioned, and after 1 minute stop watching.
Not giving views to your creepy right wing YouTube channel.
You deserve it.
If US media stopped falsely attributing civilian attacks to ISIS, how long would it take them to die?
Hell, when was the last time they actually did anything?
Well Corbyn's won so the death of Labour is official now. Good job everyone, now we can look forward to a Tory one party state with a SNP opposition.
ISIS has a significant presence on the net, and is involved in propaganda aimed at turning people into terrorists from that position. So when a muslim is turned into a terrorist by some presence on the web, or watches beheadings videos, the easiest and most popular blame target is ISIS.
During the 2010s people blamed Al Qaeda for everything in the same way.
Truth is that independent groups people don't hear about contain a lot of recruitment potential, both off the net and on, and that's not even counting the thousands of mosques worldwide which host a hate preacher or two.
For the last time, Corbyn has brought more people to Labour than any leader. Yes, Owen Smith said a lot of things that sounded good, but that's what Blairite dickheads like him do: talk big, then turn Labour into a bunch of bitch-ass Diet Tory pussies.
The NEC pulled every dirty trick they could think of, including weaseling their way into banning about 130,000 people from voting on the off chance that they might vote for Corbyn. Denying somebody their vote because they might vote thee way you don't want is exactly what the Brexiteers are accusing the left of doing, and all the NEC could do was prove them right. I almost joined the Labour Party, but I knew some cunt would just trawl through my facebook feed and find somme bulshit reason to ban me after I forked out £25
The "Corbyn is unelectable" meme has been the work of a concerted effort in the mainstream press. Don't believe me? Here, have an academic study proving I'm right: https://www.lse.ac.uk/[email protected]/research/pdf/JeremyCorbyn/Cobyn-Report-FINAL.pdf
Latest mass shooter has been identified. I covered up the name so as not to get doxxing banned.
Corbyn is the only chance the Labor party has in regaining control over government in the next 20 years. Your extremist replacements would shitcan the liberal party and turn it into a Liberal Democrat tier party.
Just stop crying about your clique being the insane minority, you'll never gain actual power because no one agrees with you.
>Your extremist replacements
What the fuck are you talking about, Corbyn IS the extremist, are you even British?
Did you even read the pdf? The closest he gets to being extremist is saying we need to get rid of Trident, and even that's pretty sensible when you realise how much money we waste on that load of shit.
Extremist in the sense that he is far and away the furthest to the left anyone of actual note can be called. He goes to sleep each night dreaming of the UK being reduced to the state it was in the 70's.
I have no idea what
>Just stop crying about your clique being the insane minority, you'll never gain actual power because no one agrees with you.
is on about, but judging by his hot screenshot use he's probably a Righty that thinks that Corbyn is a Centrist holding back the "SJW agenda" or something.
>anyone of actual note
And who the fuck is that... Tim Farron? Glenda Jackson? Labour's been pushing people away with its Diet Tory act for years (which has pushed them towards groups like UKIP), and now they've got somebody in charge who actually has the support of the people in spite of a smear campaign that's pretty amazing in scope, even for the British press. Labour needs to be more than "not as bad as The Conservatives", and there's a chance for that now.
this thread is in need of logical thought
These threads are bizarro /pol/, and just as terrible.
>far and away the furthest to the left
On the traditional scale? Yes.
On your imaginary triggly privilege ladder? No.
Your problem is that Corbyns brand of leftism actually works, is HISTORICALLY proven to work, and your brand is so weak on performance that no one sane can ignore it. In fact your retards are the #1 reason the right is seeing a revival in UK.
Well that was a rather demonstrative showing of Trump being a 5 year old.
Both sides lost.
Also, Trump better actually prepare for the next one.
>Both sides lost.
Hillary spent the entire time kicking him in the balls.
The only possible defense you could make is the early protectionism fight and even then that's just his typical, utterly hollow "I'll keep the jobs here, I really will!" nonsense.
>both sides lost
Well I wondered how /pol/-kun and friends would go on damage control after that. Guess that answers that question.
Do you ever get bored of the "lying about Slowpoke" shtick? Like have you ever been like "ugh, I'm really not feeling it today, but I've gotta keep up the image" ?
I'm either voting Johnson or writing in Sanders, btw.
>I'm either voting Johnson or writing in Sanders, btw.
"I'm not evil, merely hopelessly stupid" is a bad defense.
Just drop the name when posting in these threads. Posters here won't tolerate different opinions, nor will they forget you ever having blasphemed.
Then, as a totally real left wing poster, you'll be happy to elaborate on your "both sides" position.
Well, as someone who thinks that Trump is a delusional fuckwit and that Hillary is a bad liar with a pathetic le ebin meme woman campaign, it should come as no surprise that I felt Trump and Hillary both portrayed their weaknesses, rather than their strengths, through their attempts to discredit each other. Almost a "crabs in a bucket" mentality, so to speak. Trump shouting "wrong!" during Hillary's turn exemplified his general immature and brickheaded nature, while Hillary having to make those accusations in the first place makes her out to be a destructive, diversionary character.
All in all, I'm curious as to why there is not a mass exodus of Americans throughout this whole campaign.
So, which of the two would you prefer in the White House? Because it comes down to Trump or Clinton, no matter how much you want it to be otherwise. (Those chucklefucks Stein and Johnson only have a chance to win the election if Trump, Pence, Clinton, Kaine, and Sanders all drop dead tomorrow.)
Clinton is less likely to start an unnecessary international conflict (well, outside of Middle East, that is). I think she'd make for a much better diplomat.
I'm Ausfag, so tbh I'm not considering their domestic policies much. Neither of them plan on attempting internet censorship, right? /pco/ is already illegal over here, and if it becomes so in the host country, Moose may be unlazy enough to delete it next September 2nd.
To the best of my knowledge, Clinton has no plans to censor the Internet in the vein of Russia or China. Only God knows Trump’s position on the matter.
This is just fucking sad.
Doesn't help that Stein looks a lot like Clinton in the picture.
She also “debated herself” (seriously) either before or during the actual debate. She is a rare breed of dumbass.
>I'm either voting Johnson or writing in Sanders, btw.
So you're saying "I'm fine with whatever those of you who are actually voting choose."
That's pretty pathetic... the Green Party politicians in my country are pretty cool, getting arrested for disrupting fracking and all kinds of neat shit. I mean, sure their non-environmental policies are just cribbed from more popular parties, but you gotta love 'em for trying.
The ones here are very idealistic. This year 9 got into Senate (>10% of senate) but only 1 got into House of Reps (<1% of HoR).
Also, Scott Ludlam.
>Well, as someone who thinks that Trump is a delusional fuckwit and that Hillary is a bad liar with a pathetic le ebin meme woman campaign, it should come as no surprise that I felt Trump and Hillary both portrayed their weaknesses, rather than their strengths, through their attempts to discredit each other. Almost a "crabs in a bucket" mentality, so to speak. Trump shouting "wrong!" during Hillary's turn exemplified his general immature and brickheaded nature, while Hillary having to make those accusations in the first place makes her out to be a destructive, diversionary character.
This is like 90% actual liberals I've talked to.
Maybe a third of them are voting democrat but only out of party loyalty, they all hate Hillarys guts.
Remainder are abstaining or voting third party because they feel Hillary will destroy the Democratic party if elected. And honestly there's no argument against that, since she's already started by destroying DNC.
>Clinton is less likely to start an unnecessary international conflict
What the fuck are you basing this on? Of the two people on stage, she's the only one who started two wars and supported another two.
Unless you're redefining "necessary international conflict" as "wars hillary starts", then yeah you're correct.
>Maybe a third of them are voting democrat but only out of party loyalty, they all hate Hillarys guts.
>Remainder are abstaining or voting third party because they feel Hillary will destroy the Democratic party if elected.
So which echo chamber do you get your information from? /pol/ or /r/thedonald/?
Cops finally let you out of the drunk tank eh /pol/-kun?
I have a job.
Maybe you should get one too, you dirty piece of shit hippie.
Literally at mine.
Look I know you're made your boy has spent the week setting your whole campaign on fire, but don't blame us for that.
>shitposting on the internet
Unless you work at CTR, in which case good job.
This is required viewing, if you don't watch it you get an F
Just you wait until you find out what "F" stands for...
oh a 3 1/2 hour alt-right youtube video, sign me the fuck up
>random geeks, nerds, programmers radio show from san francisco
tfw sjw-kun has a very low iq.
whatever you post is pretty reliably your crew's garbage, and since I'm not going to watch a 3 1/2 hour yt video that you almost assuredly only like because it jerks you off in some manner, I can only assume this to be the case here to
and here's your usual reminder to fuck off:
Oh, nerds? Well why didn't you say so! No one ever heard of a nerd being a fucking alt-right neckbeard!
Trump's week in review (a significant part of the list is compiled by a ThinkProgress editor and I'm sure /pol/-kun has a nice fresh infographic that will make it all go away):
1. Decisively lost the Presidential debate, being crushed by 30-40 points on all proper polls on the matter.
2. This caused him to collapse completely in all major election polls (save for LA Times, so I'm sure /pol/-kun will say all the others were rigged).
3. Spent a significant part of the week saying scientific polling was unreliable.
4. Had a really bizarre obsession with Alicia Machado
5. Was revealed to have been in Playboy softcore at one point AND to have forced a spouse to pose for playboy for a fee he negotiated.
6. Claimed during the debate he was too classy to bring up Bill Clinton's affairs, which he has spent the week since doing.
7. Claimed in a call to the NYT on Bill Clinton's affairs that he himself had never had an affair (This is not the case).
8. Went around screaming that various persons attached to Hillary investigations etc had pleaded the 5th and should be ashamed for doing so. Aside from this being an enshrined constitutional right, it's one he made use of 97 times to avoid admitting to the aforementioned affairs that he falsely insists he hasn't had.
9. During the debate, he bragged that he was able to avoid any taxes, implying that people who paid taxes weren't smart. Once again, many millions of people watched said debate. Since this, the NYT has been sent his taxes by a leak within Trump Tower and hooooo boyyyy
10. Had the deranged rant about denying that he supported Iraq by referring to a fictional conversation with Sean Hannity.
11. USA Today and the WSJ, which traditionally refuse to weigh in on elections, came out and declared him a threat to the nation.
12. The Arizona Republic, for the first time in its 100someodd years of existence, supported Hillary as their first Democrat ever.
13. Claimed Google was in a conspiracy to suppress negative news about Clinton.
14. Said that Holt did a great job moderating the debate, and has since spent the week saying Holt rigged the debate for Hillary (a debate he continues to insist that he actually won anyway).
15. Threatened to boycott the 2nd and 3rd debates.
16. Newsweek revealed he'd violated the embargo on Cuba, which his campaign manager then inadvertently confirmed on national tv.
17. Attempted to appeal to young women with an ad telling them their most important job was being mothers.
18. Demanded Obama not pardon Hillary, who has not been convicted, or indeed charged, with any crime for which she would need a pardon.
19. Had the Washington Post reveal that the Trump Foundation was not actually legally allowed to be soliciting funds.
20. Claimed Merkel was the foreign leader he most admired after a campaign of repeatedly attacking her.
21. Told a New Hampshire tv outlet that he was very proud of promoting birther shit.
22. Was endorsed by David Fucking Duke.
23. Had trump golfing employees reveal that he wanted to fire women who weren't pretty enough.
24. Forbes reported an 800$ million dollar loss for him last year.
This thread is filled with ignorant people.
Can someone put the favicon on this post and make it into a banner
I would, but our banners haven't been added for a while.
I didn't even post it tard.
Also don't comment on shit you didn't read or watch.
God only knows your opinion is ignorant even if you DO read and watch the topic material, but if you don't... it's just completely worthless.
>God only knows your opinion is ignorant even if you DO read and watch the topic material,
Makes one wonder why you are continuing to have these discussions if you've already decided everyone else is incurably ignorant.
Oh, wait, I forgot--you're a troll.
But...... everyone in this thread is a troll.
Who knows nothing about what's actually happening.
Even if you think this man is Hitler 2.0, even if he IS, this is still a very correct thing to say.
Shared by /pol/, 23 year old news:
Just wondering how you justify the narcissistic belief that your opinion matters ON A TOPIC YOU DIDNT EVEN GET INFORMED ON.
According to unnamed source.
Yeah that's a thing you have to do as a journalist, protect your sources.
Progressives are hilarious.
Funny thing is, Pepe’s creator is pro-Hillary.
You really have nothing, do you? Not surprising as the walls crash down around you I guess.
It really is insane that we're talking about pepe in major election news but that's what we've been brought down to by the right.
An artist can retain no power over their creation in the internet era, for better or worse.
Also shows how informed she is about Internet Culture™.
I mean, I though the whole Pepe thing was as low as it could go in 2015 when it (ironically) became mainstream. But it keeps getting worse.
>walls crash down around you
The wall isn't even built yet. And when it is, trust me, it will stay up.
Yeah except if you can't use a source, you don't fucking mention it in the article, you use a different piece of evidence.
Mentioning "undisclosed" sources is equivalent to going "my imaginary friend said it".
>And when it is, trust me, it will stay up.
not him, but why trust you?
tbh the wall Trump is talking up will not get build.
>Mentioning "undisclosed" sources is equivalent to going "my imaginary friend said it".
Not really. Even if it did, a name doesn't actually fix that, since can do something like just make up a conversation with say, Sean Hannity, whether you name him or not.
>Mentioning "undisclosed" sources is equivalent to going "my imaginary friend said it".
So when Trump mentions undisclosed sources in tweets like https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/232572505238433794 and https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/232571801216118785 and https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/232923697009278976 and https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/232573681736503298 and https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/411566591654916096 and https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/749350193095667713 (not to mention his “many people say” phrasing, as shown at https://twitter.com/ditzkoff/status/762810827896487936), that’s supposed to be reliable and believable?
The name is important because then you can follow up by asking the named source to confirm it. And if the story is wrong, the named source gets the flack, not the media establishment that's asking you to trust it.
This is why over half of Americans don't even trust the media anymore, so many "unnamed sources" turned out to be wrong, and the media is to blame for not vetting or even naming the sources.
You're talking about Matt Furie, who created the comic that the meme is based on, but that's like saying some ad company made advice dog because they took the stock photo of the dog. In fact the frog was originally making fun of Furie's weird book and the pants on head retardation found within.
The meme’s real creator is an anonymous user on a German imageboard (although I think he's Finnish by birth). Polandball as well comes from that site. Feel comes from the same site by a Polish user like six years ago, the one every normie calls "cancer face" for some reason. But these retards think memes come from reddit, 4chan and 9gag so who gives a shit.
Protip: 90% of internet memes come from ylilauta.
>that’s supposed to be reliable and believable?
No it's not... what the fuck.
Trump isn't a journalist or a media establishment, he's just some asshole.
>Trump isn't a journalist or a media establishment, he's just some asshole.
Who you want to elect as president and whose word you treat as Gospel.
Did you not read the post you replied to? It's pretty clear that anon thinks Trump is an asshole, and will probably not vote for him.
You've been repeatedly told that smokescreening won't work.