/baw/ - General Discussion

What are +4's thoughts on NSA?

>>409159

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.

>>409159
Fuck off NSA. I know you are listening.

>>409168
>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.

>>409166

Hey now, that’s not fair to the NSA. They’re not always listening and watching you.

You’re thinking of Facebook.

>>409174
And Google. And Microsoft.

>>409181
I mean, it's a fair point: I'm not going to buy a Mac.

>>409170
>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.

>>409174
>>409175
>>409181
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.

>>409201

>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.

>>409203
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?

>>409228
Scotland has resources?

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.

http://www.nme.com/news/foo-fighters/95988

>>409247
Banned for swearing? She should come to Ausland.

//youtube.com/watch?v=uOUFKZBpFTY
//youtube.com/watch?v=5TsNL3uBw1g

Trump ventured out of his cave and found that sunlight doesn't agree with him.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/26/donald-trump-finally-did-a-non-fox-news-interview-it-didnt-go-very-well/?tid=pm_politics_pop_b


//youtube.com/watch?v=pFBjYARrVXA

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/bannons-bad-news/497612/

>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.

>>409253
>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!

>>409258
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.

>>409255
Oh weird, the Breitbart guy is an amoral monster!?

>>409255
//youtube.com/watch?v=cGtxOiMCFq8

>>409265
Instead of linking the Hottest of Alt-Right YouTube and having it ignored, why not actually confront the allegations.

>>409267
Because an allegation provided without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

>>409268
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.

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.

>>409277
> 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.
http://www.kabc.com/2016/08/16/dr-drew-speaks-out-on-hillarys-health/

Unfortunately for them the interview was ripped and uploaded in dozens of places.
//youtube.com/watch?v=6e3ARRQpyzA

>>409290

Why should we care about what he has to say on this matter, again?

>>409299
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.

>>409301

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.

>>409290
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.

>>409290
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.

>>409302
It's his educated opinion as a doctor who reviewed her medical record and behavior.

>>409303
>>409304
>this much ass pain

>>409310
>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.

>>409313

Aren’t there actually rules against doing that sort of thing?

>>409313
Yeah because democrats are such avid readers of breitbart. You fucking idiot.

>diagnoses
He didn't diagnose her moron, try watching the video before commenting on it.

>>409315
>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!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/08/26/dr-drew-show-canceled-days-after-his-negative-speculation-about-hillary-clintons-health/

>>409318

>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.

>>409318
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:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/01/20/hlns-dr-drew-apologizes-for-raising-unsubstanti/208063
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
Or
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.

>>409320
Time Warner supports Hillary:
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career

Guess who owns CNN, where Dr. Drew is employed.

>>409323
>"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."
>CTRL+F: Breitbart
>0 results

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.

>>409326
>Trump banned from press meetings for their lies.
I think you mean "banned from press meetings because Trump can't handle criticism."

>>409328
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.

>>409326
>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.

Politics threads should be deleted, its just constant shitposting without any actual discussion going on.

>>409334
You forget their purpose.

>>409335

Politics was just a red herring.

>>409334
"when people say what i dont like, that's called shitposting" - retard

No retard, shitposting is a very precise term.

>>409338
That very precisely describes what you do every day.

>>409339
Say things you don't like? Yeah all the time.

>>409340
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?

>>409343
Initial statement unsourced.

Second statement unrelated to presented article.

Presented article is from The Sun.

An almost template level AR post, congrats.

>>409353
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.

>>409326
>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.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/01/20/hlns-dr-drew-apologizes-for-raising-unsubstanti/208063

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.

>>409362
>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.

>>409353
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:

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/thomas-mair-britain-first-protest.html

>>409388
"without a shot being fired"

>>409384

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.

>>409393
>>409388
That's actually Sam Hyde, the orchestrator of the Sandy Hook shooting.

>>409398
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.

>>409393
Farage is a real piece of work, isn't he?
>>409399
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:
//youtube.com/watch?v=MDzwUCsciSc

Will Ze Governments keep trying forever, or will they eventually succeed?

>>409406

>Ze

Is this another new gender-neutral pronoun or something?

>>409407
It's okay if you didn't find it funny.

>>409408

And it's okay that you're not funny, anon. I’m sure there are other things you’re good at.

>>409412
Wow... such passive aggression.

>>409413

Would you prefer actual aggression?

>>409415
Yes. Or nothing.

>>409429
>>409430
Kindly refrain from starting a daily dose of spam. At least attempt to discuss the implications of the polls and why you think they might be relevant to this thread.

If we want to see polls, we aren't headed to +4.

>>409431
>Stop posting political news in the politics thread!!
:?

>>409432
I kind of agree with >>409431 here. This thread is for discussion. Showing the polls is perfectly on-topic, but just posting them without comment is sort of a waste of time. I don't necessarily think it should be FORBIDDEN, I just think it's kind of stupid.

>>409434

Yeah, even /pol/-kun generally adds comments to the stuff he posts.

>>409435
And the thread is far worse for it.

>>409437
Then don't respond. You're creating your problem.

>>409437
What a sissy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/world/europe/britain-polish-man-killed-brexit.html?

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.

>>409465
>Sargon
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

>>409466
Who are you, Anonymous?

>>409477
Mad that Article 50 isn't actually going to trigger?

>>409478
I'm not British or European and I couldn't care less.

You're just objectively a loser.

>>409480
Your right wing leakage is showing.

>>409479
>Both of these videos are 100% serious:
Nobody watches these videos except your buddy and maybe Stone if he's humoring you that day.

>>409485
Well, I guess must have made a few hundred sock puppet accounts for me and my buddy.

>>409491
You know full well I was referring to the users of this board. Not that it'll stop you from posting them but hey.

>>409484
>leakage
I'm right wing bro, all you had to do was ask.

>>409506
I think she's dying.

got bored again huh guys?

>>409507>>409506>>409505
SHES HEALTHIER THAN YOU FATASS!!!

>>409510
>vote hillary
>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?

>>409512
If she's elected, the VP-Elect would take the job, so Tim Kaine.

She's not going to die though so

>>409512

>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

//youtube.com/watch?v=3rj5uVCA2sg

LOL

(for those of you who don't want to "give them your views", Bill promises his wife will make America great again, circa 2008)

>>409517

Considering the economic crash that happened right before Obama was elected, at least he and Hillary had a point then.

>>409517
>for those of you who don't want to "give them your views", Bill promises his wife will make America great again, circa 2008
And?

>>409520
>and
Recently Bill publicly said that "make America great again" is a racist thing to say.

>>409522
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.

>>409525
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.

>>409526
>Speaking of, didn't the "left" create the tern "alt-right"?
No.
>In November 2008, Paul Gottfried addressed the H. L. Mencken Club about what he called "the alternative right".[13] In 2009, two more posts at Taki's Magazine, by Patrick J. Ford and Jack Hunter, further discussed the alternative right.[14] 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.[6][15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right#Etymology

>>409523
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.

>>409533
>Paul Gottfried
>Patrick J. Ford
>Jack Hunter
>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"?

>>409536
>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.

>>409536
>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.

>>409539
>Cutesy spoiler tag
If you're going to pretend to be someone else you have to change your posting habits /pol/-kun.

>>409538
>YOURE IN LEAGUE WITH GUSTAF ROLFSSON!
>wait who
>IGNORANCE IS NO DEFENSE RAPIST!
Fuck off.

>>409539
I'm center left according to political compasses, and I've even been called "/pol/" once.

>>409543
>and I've even been called "/pol/" once.
I got called /pol/-kun just now.

>>409541
If I were /pol/-kun, I'd have attached a self-made infographic. Guess again.

>>409544
>I'd have attached a self-made infographic
/pol/-kun doesn't make those, they're passed around

>>409545
My mistake. I never even look at them.

>>409546
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.

>>409547
>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!

>>409547
>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)

>>409549
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.

>>409550
Yeah, that checks out with wikipedia. Very conservative and nationalist.

>>409550
Also, if you use the term cuck. Ironically or not. Doesn't matter.

>>409549
>But it's hard to take the term seriously on plus4 when it seems that only one person ever uses it,
Not the case.

>>409552
Didn't you just use it?
;)

>>409554
oh look, poke showed up to defend an alt-right feature, what a shock

Watching a Trump livestream.

Feels weird.

>>409553
see
>>409555

>>409557
What game is he playing?

>>409558
That's not a refutation of anything.

>>409559
An okay game, I guess? The question is whether he is going to do any of the things he promised.

>>409562
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.

>>409564
>If it came from the internet, it came from Tumblr.
>pepe
That came everywhere EXCEPT tumblr.

>>409563
He wasn't serious about the wall.

It's mostly a meme at this point.

>>409567

>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?

>>409568
Trump is le mastur troll. It was a social experiment.

>>409570

The only way I would believe that—at all—is if he wins the election and immediately abdicates the office to Pence.

>>409559
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.

>>409568
>somehow make Mexico pay for the wall
>>409563
>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.

>>409575

>"wall" doesn't mean a literal brick wall, goddamn

Tell that to Trump. And his supporters.

>>409576
No I'll tell it to you, since you're the only one who seems to think it.

Really? Y'all are trying to walk back the wall now?

>>409576
Actually, modern walls around countries exist all the time.

They are simply high fences, not Great Walls of China.

>>409580
*does have
Fucking grammar.........

>>409580

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.

>>409580
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.

>>409582
Why NYT hasn't been doing that amazing humanitarian thing 2, 5, 10 years ago?

>>409582
>>409583
>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.
Interesting take.

Why is it that you haven't responded in such a way to all the hatred aimed at the West and Europeans in general?

ex.
//youtube.com/watch?v=pI_Kpwwd1kE
//youtube.com/watch?v=N2P2qiINSng
//youtube.com/watch?v=TUenl14NSHE

The poor, oppressed European

>>409586
>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.

The innocent, unstained West

>>409588
... are you trying to say the ummah is unstained?

Such a poor, misunderstood creature, the white man

>>409595
>Source: Infowars.com

>>409596

She didn’t “collapse on stage” like >>409595 suggested, but she did leave a 9/11 memorial early due to feeling “overheated”. Right wingers just seem to think heatstroke isn’t a thing, for some reason.

>>409595
Include source or choke on a dick, faggalo.

>>409599

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.

>>409601

>dying Hillary

[citation needed]

>>409599
wow look at that video of her not collapsing on stage, you sure hammered your own testicles

>>409599
You're a faggot, but you raise legitimate evidence.

>>409600
>2.) The Clinton campaign just announced that Hillary was diagnosed with pneumonia this past Friday.
Ever seen "Wag The Dog"?

>>409607
>You're a faggot, but you raise legitimate evidence.
Do not reply to yourself.

>>409609
If she lived in Bhutan and/or the 1700's, then and only then yes. Also he himself just mentioned this you idiot.

>>409600
>pneumonia
>makes people lose control of their limbs
>there is no legitimate evidence
There's a video bro.... he's right, you're nuts!

>>409609
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.

>>409615
>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
Citation Needed
>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.

>>409616

>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.)

>>409616
>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.

>>409621

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?

>>409617
>>409622
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.

>>409623
>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.

>>409622
>losing her balance a little
Literally just as ridiculous as calling it a seizure.