Politics Thread #18: “Oh, What Now?” Edition
Previous Edition: >>414457
Because that is basically what people ask every time Ol’ 45 opens his goddamn mouth.
And because I didn’t want to put this in the OP:
>If North Korea does anything in terms of even thinking about attack of anybody that we love or we represent or our allies or us, they can be very, very nervous. I’ll tell you why. And they should be very nervous. Because things will happen to them like they never thought possible, OK? He’s been pushing the world around for a long time.
— Ol’ 45, all but threatening to use a nuclear weapon on North Korea
>On Tuesday Mr Trump warned North Korea it would be "met with fire and fury like the world has never seen" if it continued to threaten the US.
After what you did to Japan, I doubt it.
they already beat you in one war, don't make it two
>He’s been pushing the world around for a long time.
Russia expelling American diplomats and staff is totally cool, tho.
He is the kind of asshole who would burn a dollar to save a dime.
>I-I didn't even want those diplomats anyway... Y-you're doing us a favour! Haha ha
Sad thing is, at this point, they honestly could just wait.
>Trans people cost 8 mill a year
>Banning them costs almost a billion a year
Trans people really are the new black people. This is what the reublicans would do to everyone else if they were small enough, numbers-wise.
Poll: Is this equally legitimate as a sex change operation?
Side note based on today’s events: Fuck White supremacists and the alt-right.
Not really. Sex reassignment surgery is done primarily as treatment for gender dysphoria. A woman pulling off a 21st century form of blackface does not treat any known medical condition.
I don't like to post in these threads, but I really do hope all the vocal racists in the Republican party royally fucks the party, thus making it go the way of the Whig party and die.
Yep, some part of me wishes Trump pardons Arpaio so that Democrats can ask all Republicans how come their Donald went and did that, and what do they think about it on the record?
That actually would be pretty good, because it would be hard to come out in support of Arpaio right now given the current state of awareness about White Nationalism. It'd be terrible optics right now for most moderate republicans--even amongst most republican voters--to be seen as an apologist for or willing to compromise with white nationalism. The only people who see reaching out to the skinheads right now as a positive thing is skinheads and people who would be skinheads if they weren't so lazy.
Personally I'm just impressed that we're apparently at the "toppling statues of the regime" stage
Instead of having the statues taken down, local politicians should just tell people they can go have a party and tear it down together, provided they don't get rowdy, try to blow the statues the fuck up, endanger themselves or scream anything inciting or violent regarding today's politics.
I dont think the term Person of Colour is any good:
1) It really seems to promote a "us vs. them" mindset. It's basically a term used to emphasise that you aren't white.
2) the acronym honestly makes me think of "Piece of Crap" because people have been abbreviating that long before Person of colour became a think.
3) as a European (British, quarter German), my skin is pinky orange. My skin tone is literally more colourful than many Peoples of Colour.
If it's a term used mainly with people who emphasise individuality, shouldn't they just embrace their natiomality/heratage instead of using a divisive, non-specific umbrella term?
>It really seems to promote a "us vs. them" mindset. It's basically a term used to emphasise that you aren't white.
>as a European
-you get no input on what non-Whites call themselves
>It's basically a term used to emphasise that you aren't white.
Why should the other four major racial groups of America—Black, Latino, Asian, and Native Americans—be called “non-Whites”? We do not refer to White people as “non-Native” or “non-Black”. And like >>415694 said, you really do not deserve any input on how anyone else—including people of color—choose to identify themselves. (Unless we’re talking about an idiot like Rachel Dolezal, in which case you can call them a dumb White asshole.)
I'm pretty sure he's allowed to say whatever he wants to say, unless it goes against the rules of the site. Skin color doesn't play a role in that. Whether you want to listen to what he has to say is your own prerogative, but just because you have a bias against Europeans doesn't mean his opinion is automatically invalid.
>Why should the other four major racial groups of America—Black, Latino, Asian, and Native Americans—be called “non-Whites”?
They shouldn't. Stop putting words in my mouth. I even said I think they should use tgeir nationality/heratage to refer to themselves just like you refered to them.
>you really do not deserve any input on how anyone else—including people of color—choose to identify themselves.
I have an opinion and I think it is valid and justified. They can use the term all they fucking want, it doesn't significantly affect me, but my race doesn't make my disapproval invalid. If I refered to myself repeatedly as "non-black", a black person would definitely deserve to express their opinion; my example title implies their race is undesirable to me. They have every right to be offended.
>I even said I think they should use [their] nationality/heratage to refer to themselves just like you refered to them. […] I have an opinion and I think it is valid and justified.
You are welcome to hold and express your opinion. The rest of us, in turn, are welcome to laugh at, mock, and rip apart your opinion because you think it deserves to be taken seriously.
Oh, and one more thing: “Non-White” is not an implication that being White is “undesirable”, but an implication that Whiteness—that is, being White—is a “default state” and everyone else is “abnormal”. There is no “default” for humanity; we should not, then, centre the identification of other people around an assumed “default” (e.g., “White” and “non-White”).
>are welcome to laugh at, mock, and rip apart your opinion
You sure are, but are yet to do so in a post. All you've ("you" in the plural sense) done is refer to arguments I never used and say my opinion is not deserved due to my race. I wish to point out that racist attitudes are exactly what you don't need right now in America.
>Oh, and one more thing
Good point, I didn't think about it like that before. And I agree especially with the final sentence: that's a point I've tried to make myself. Race isn't binary.
>I didn't think about it like that before.
Of course you didn’t.
Calm down mate. Take a breather. Watch a good cartoon.
>post on FB about the recent demonstration in the US
>both my grandparents fought the nazis
>they never bought a single product from Germany
Wow....... way to miss the point.
Someone showed me a twitter conversation along the lines of:
>User#1 - "There is no reason not to punch a nazi in the head. Good job."
>User#2 - "would it be ok to punch a commie in the head?"
>User#1 - "Probably not. It isn't ok to hurt someone due to their political views"
And while I believe all neo-Nazis could benefit from a swift trauma to the head, such hypocrisy is honestly impressive.
A call for genocide is not a political view.
I know he's a revanchist racist and all, but this seems extra petty.
Well, those idiots are feeling threatened by the upcoming white genocide.
no such thing is happening, stop trying to stir a race war
I have to assume that poster was being sarcastic, because even the idiots in /pol/ know that shit's not going to fly with well-adjusted people.
I don't buy into the race war meme. But, at lest in Europe, a replacement of the native population is underway
Ahhh, yes, folks will surely love that dude who want to harvest young blood for use as an anti-aging remedy.
Well, if you want to remain delusional and only listen to those who are waiting eagerly to tell you "that's right, you're right!", keep at it.
So Europe is finally getting colonised?
I can't deny that it would be poetic justice.
Please present the population numbers that in any way demonstrates the possibility of such.
>children must pay for the sins of SOME of their great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents
Your dad robbed my dad once, so I'll just cut you.
I meant more in an international sense rather than a personal sense. It's like the big bad guy who invaded all the countries finally gets invaded. except really almost everyone was invading everyone, we just happened to win most of the time because of technology fuck yeah.
You're taking me more serious than I intended. I'd be devastated if my homelands were invaded. Two wrongs don't make a right. Yadda yadda. But I couldn't possibly look back and say we (as nations) did nothing ever to earn war against us. If America wasn't so indisputably shitty in recent years, colonist European countries would probably be the most hated in the world, even above the Chinese, NKoreans and Israelites.
Yes, Peter Thiel, bankrupter of Gawker and actual literal vampire.
Lordy, I hope Bannon is really out and this isn't just another Gorkaesque "he's OUT but he's still getting paid and acting as a surrogate for the administration and influencing Trump and no one's sure whether he still has security clearance or not and he's sleeping on the sofa in the Oval Office" not-departure.
>[Nick Xenophon, senator] is the seventh federal politician to fall foul of Section 44 of the constitution, which bans dual nationals.
A bunch of politicians have been revealed this year to have had dual citizenship. Nick was discovered to be a British citizen, and Scott Ludlam (pic related, right-hand side) was revealed to be a New Zealander, but claimed not to know about it since he moved away at a young age.
If Obama was able to run in the last election, would he have beaten Trump?
While the entire mess with Hillary and her emails would not have happened, Obama would have been weighed down by many of the same problems she had to face—specifically, a Southern White American electorate that turned out in droves for Trump, the gerrymandering that favored Republican voters, Republicans lacking the spine to stand against Trump, and the third party nightmare that was Uncle Bernie and Crazy Aunt Jill.
I would consider an Obama victory against Trump as “possible, but unlikely”.
Obama was and is trusted much more by a broader coalition than Trump or Hillary ever were.
I disagree. Hilary's biggest problem was apathy on the left, not high turnout on the right--the nazi vote (I refuse to treat it as anything else at this point) was not really all that unusual in 2016. It's possible Obama would've faced some of that, (because a lot of people were unfairly shitting on what he had accomplished in his two terms, and certainly plenty of people were calling him center-right), but I doubt as much would've stuck. And even with all that, if it hadn't been for the timing of the Comey letter, Hilary would've still probably won.
Nothing the Republicans threw at Obama stuck. They tried, (oh my god, did they try) to make shit stick on him, but the worst they could come up with was "tan suit" "terrorist fist jab" and "coffee salute" bullshit that even the other republicans knew were weak as shit.
If we are assuming Obama could have run for a third term, what they could have hit him on is the fact that we could have had four more years of Obama and everything that went wrong during his presidency. Four more years of the ACA, four more years of wars that the general public neither wants nor likes, and—this is especially important for the Republican base—four more years of a Black man being POTUS.
And while they did try to stick Obama with what they thought would turn into national, bipartisan scandals, it never really worked on the left/liberals/Dems because we all saw through it for what it was: hypocrisy based on race. But the right/conservatives/Republican base ate it up because they perceived Obama doing things like putting his feet on the Oval Office desk as “scandalous” and “disrespectful” only because a Black man did it. The same racist fuckwads who turned out for Trump in our actual 2016 election might turned out in even greater numbers if they knew it was for keeping a Black man out of the White House.
>"Even the president saw it, but in a move that is not a complete surprise, he looked directly at the sun without any glasses. Perhaps the most impressive thing any president has ever done."
It is true that it wasn't a surprise.
One thing. He had to do just one thing right.
Well, Trump decided to go full neocon Re: Afghanistan, because his "America First, let's stop being world police" promises to his voters matter far less than his hard-on for uniforms, killing and things that go boom.
I'd like if people paid more attention to school board elections, despite them being so local that expecting everyone to talk about what's going on in their own district on an internationally visited imageboard sounds like it'd be ridiculously unmanageable. It just seems like the people most directly responsible for school policy ought to get examined more closely, given that there's so much concern about the future of schools when it comes to federal/national level elections.
Not only does this read like the GOP hired an intern to come up with a “cool” reference that could fit into this cringeworthy screed, but even that intern fucked up basic fact-checking.
Also, how dare they use The Legend of Zelda for this kind of shit.
404'd, but the Internet never forgets:
So this is fun:
And by fun I mean horrifying. But it does make it really easy to tell a person's biases just by looking at the words they use.
The alt-right and the "anti-SJW" monstrosities all have a very noticeable way of writing, expressing their emotions and presenting their 'reasoning' ("Someone one Tumblr said something about Halloween costumes, so now I want to vote for old dudes that love zygotes and I claim Jews are indoctrinating us into race-mixing, out of spite").
It's like how you can tell something is off with a moving human that has been rendered by a computer, or the way you can actually hear whether water is room temperature or boiling when poured into a cup.
>But it does make it really easy to tell a person's biases just by looking at the words they use.
Ironically, I feel that statement applies to the article's author very strongly.
>inb4 you assume that I'm right-wing just because I criticise an article you like. I'm centre-left.
>the people most directly responsible for school policy ought to get examined more closely
To wit: http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/school_board_president_says_sex_ed_can_make_kids_gay_attacks_lgbt_activists_plays_religion_card
I wonder what would happen if r/The_Donald and /pol/ were deleted. Would the lack major easy to access site to those sites fracture them? Or would it cause more new initiates to also go underground sooner.
Sooner? They are already going underground. Hell, they expect to have their “public” hidey-holes getting the Internet equivalent of being filled with cement. Killing off T_D or /pol/ would only drive them into near-permanent underground hiding, rather than the occasional visit.
I would guess the result might be a mix of the Hydra effect and general desegregation.
Gorka is out of the WH, Arpaio is pardoned and transgender recruits are out of the armed forces.
Hey Harvey, aim for the Trump voters.
He just pardoned Arpaio
After ordering the Pentagon to enact the transgender ban
And he's likely going to end DACA
Feels like he's lashing out more than usual.
He will do whatever it takes to make his base stay loyal because he cares only about the people who will make him feel like a success. He is a man-child, a whimpering baby in a three-piece suit who needs constant validation. The grand irony is that he is also playing the role of a father figure to a part of the country’s population that feels like they need such a figure to protect them from the evils of a changing society.
We are all fucked.
Speaking of how fucked we all are:
He's totally hyped to exploit disaster to look "presidential" and make up for tweeting about whatever bullshit they were talking about on DVR'd Fox & Friends while people were dying.
For all the shit Ol’ 45 flung at Obama for not visiting a natural disaster site “soon enough”, Obama knew that his visit would have drained resources that were needed elsewhere. Ol’ 45 wants to visit as soon as he possibly can just to make himself look good, Texas state resources be damned.
I hate him so fucking much.
>republican governor tells people to evacuate three days before it hits, on time so all could be saved
>democrat mayor tells people to stay anyway because the illegals cant be evacuated
>people get flooded out and die as a result of libtardism
>republican president pulls all strings to solve the problem
Wew lad where was your concern for funding when the last president spooged $600 million on a nonfunctioning website that sixteen year old kids in CS classes were making fun of.
“Resources” does not refer specifically to funding alone—it also refers to manpower and preparations for safe routes of travel. Cities affected by the hurricane need everyone possible working to save lives, repair damage, and generally create a sense of normalcy again. A visit from the POTUS draws manpower away from those efforts and toward protecting the president. Ol’ 45 does not comprehend this idea; apparently, neither do you.
Actually, I'm pretty sure they didn't issue a mandatory evacuation order because they didn't want a repeat of the Hurricane Rita evac. Remember, when more than two million people trying to flee the city jammed the highways for over 48 hours? They would've been underwater by now.
Also, it wasn't the Democratic mayor's decision alone, but the Republican county judge's.
Also-also lmao @ Trump "solving the problem," the fuck did he do? Revoking Executive Order 13690? Tweeting about Sherriff Clarke's new book? Doing product placement for his hats?
This would be hilarious if it were not astoundingly sad on numerous levels.
So much fucking hate.
When did the preconception start that harassment and incitement is protected under free speech?
When the Internet made it easy for assholes to harass and incite without their names attached to it.
It's less a preconception and more an ex post facto rationalization for "Why X bad behavior I engaged in was actually correct." They don't think about these things they're doing until after they're called out for being assholes, and then the human mind's self-preservation instincts kick in and they start grasping for a reason why they weren't in the wrong.
It doesn't matter what the law actually says, they just need something to provide psychological scaffolding for their collapsing image of themselves as always being the good guy. To be fair, I'm saying "they," but regardless of the point on the political spectrum one falls, pretty much all humans think this way--not in regards to harassment/incitement specifically (that's on these assholes in particular), but in regards to being called out for being wrong. They do it, you do it, I do it. It's the human condition. That's why it's so important to at least be open to the possibility of being wrong--even if you ultimately decide you're still right, you've got to be willing to entertain the notion that you're wrong or you're giving in to the same human frailties these assholes are.
What can I even fucking say to this?
he's such a whiner
>“There is no racist bone in my father’s body."
Trump has been accused of racism since the 80s. His wife outed him decades ago (she too was pretty openly racist)
>His wife outed him decades ago
Can I have a link to that?
Heres a good article for you
>Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her husband reads a book of Hitler’s collected speeches, My New Order, which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed.
>Ivana told a friend, he clicks his heels and says, “Heil Hitler,” possibly as a family joke.
Also important to remember: He was the target of a 1973 lawsuit alleging a practice of racial discrimination at one of his real estate properties.
gdi North Korea did you really have to do a thermonuke test NOW, I'm not up to more tweets threatening nuclear war on top of Donald pulling out of the South Korea trade agreement for no raisin
When you started harrassing, inciting violence, and engaging in it to completion.
kek when balaclavas and bandanas made it easy for assholes to engage in real world physical violence without their names attached to it.
It would be nice if your stolen political memes were immediately relevant to your post content. Otherwise it just comes off as annoying propaganda.
White hoods did the same thing.
Another day, another reason I want to slap everyone who ever said Hillary and Trump were the same
Praying to The Lord Jesus to give you enough testosterone to link to my post, instead of acting like a passive aggressive femboi.
Thanks for finally admitting antifa is the modern day militant wing of the democratic party, just like the kkk was the yesteryear militant wing of the democratic party...
Agree my brother, its a daym shame when the best president in living history is compared to a vile sadistic criminal murderess. #HIS NAMEWASSETHRICH
>antifa is the modern day militant wing of the democratic party
This would be true only if the DNC actually endorsed or otherwise openly approved of any given AntiFa group. And if AntiFa groups actually aligned with the DNC. Also, do not forget that the Democratic Party of “yesteryear” would eventually become the Republican Party of The Current Year—support from the Klan included.
Well, it is just annoying propaganda.
I'm sorry your life has lead you to becoming what you've become. Society has failed you by allowing you to grow up thinking that acting this way makes you interesting or novel, or that your ideas are actually innovative or helpful for anyone, yourself included.
So even when insulting people you can't think of anything new to say.
I was giving benefit of the doubt at that point.
Calling Ice cops "IceIce" officers is the best descriptor for those fuckers I've ever heard.
Personally, I'm for gay marriage in my country. It doesn't directly affect me, it makes people happy, and it's a step toward more rights and away from religious laws and attitudes.
But why do gay people want to get married? Sure, the word sounds better than "civil union", but is there some legally significant difference between the two statuses?
>is there some legally significant difference between the two statuses?
Find out whether a couple in a civil union has access to the same privileges and rights as a couple in a marriage. If the answer is “no”, well, there you go.
Dang, those uniforms do look cool.
Yeah, depends on the laws where they live. That bit was a silly question on my part.
The Nazis were morally horrible, but they had style. I can't deny that.
>Sure, the word sounds better than "civil union", but is there some legally significant difference between the two statuses?
Aside from the stuff that has already been pointed out, civil unions do not necessarily count for "Next of Kin" rights when determining who's allowed to visit someone in the hospital when unconscious / critical, when determining the custody of children or ownership of property after the death of a partner with no will, are not required to be recognized by life insurance companies when determining beneficiaries or medical insurance companies when determining who can be on who's insurance.
For example, people have lost their kids or their living places before marriage equality was ruled on by the Supreme Court because legally they weren't recognized as spouses of their partners and therefore, for example, little old ladies who had been living with their wives in a house for 30 years get kicked out of their homes by whoever the law decides to give their wife's house to because those family members didn't approve of the marriage or are just greedly little shits, and people have lost their kids because they weren't legally recognized as guardians when losing partners or when divorcing.
Which is what people mean when they say "separate is not equal," but will give more concrete and specific examples for concern trolls.
That is messed up when long term partners are not treated as such. Thanks for explaining.
Snopes.com, that "unbiased" far left bastion of truthfacts against the fakenews, is run by a Los Angeles prostitute and her pimp.
How do you continue to breathe with such a low IQ?
Hillary is the most sour grapes dumb ass, "Bernie treated the election like some kind of popularity contest!"
......Do you just not talk to your husband anymore? Did you not even ask him what he did to win?
If you really want to be fair, both of them fucked up. Bernie fucked up by not doing more to campaign for Hillary after the primaries—and by not doing more to reign in his rabid fanbase—while Hillary fucked up by not moving to the left far enough to please the BernieBros and win their votes. Then again, everyone in the country kinda fucked up by identifying more with individual candidates and less with policies and principles that could withstand one person losing or being embroiled in scandal.
Except for the white supremacists and the Nazis. Those fuckers always vote on ideology.
hillary fucked up by not making sanders VP and instead choosing slimeball Kaine. would have been a landslide
Trump’s DOJ sided with the anti-gay bakers in their SCOTUS case that will determine whether people can refuse service to gay people if “religious freedom” is at stake.
Also not surprising is how the DOJ reasons that anti-gay discrimination is not as bad as racial discrimination: https://twitter.com/ZackFord/status/905917979489173504
>Bernie fucked up by not doing more to campaign for Hillary after the primaries—and by not doing more to reign in his rabid fanbase
Did he do any less for Hillary than Hillary did for Obama?
Clinton fans in 2008 would not have affected the general election in the same way BernieBros (and Stein supporters) did in 2016. She didn’t need to campaign for Obama—he won that election as soon as he won the primaries.
But this gets into the primary issue with re-litigating the 2016 primaries over and over and over and over and over again: THEY BOTH FUCKING LOST. Bernie lost the primaries; Hillary lost the election. Learning from their mistakes matters, but not nearly as much as looking toward 2018 and 2020.
When Hillary lost the primary in 2008 she immediately conceded and campaigned for Obama, and her backers and fundraisers rallied behind him. It took Bernie over a month to even endorse Hillary after the 2016 primary and he didn't stump for her until September, iirc.
Well the question I guess I'm getting to is, what is the level of supplication before one's newly designated monarch that one must do when forced to bend the knee for them not to be considered to be responsible for that monarch's failure?
It's not about "bending the knee to the monarch," it's about being a team player and working to get your party*'s chosen candidate elected and not letting your delegates run with conspiracy theories of a rigged primary and the "Clinton and Trump are the same" narrative you helped foment with your attacks on her and the Democrats.
I canvassed and voted for Bernie in the primaries, and did the same for Hillary in the general.
I never want to hear a peep from either of them ever again. Franken save us. Franken help us.
But Bernie never said she was the same as Trump. In fact he specifically said from the beginning that he refused to run third party because he didn't want to hurt her chances against Trump.
You're blaming him for her incompetence, and for the actions of Clinton supporters--I told you when Bernie conceded and you were so keen on telling Bernie supporters how stupid they were for ever not genuflecting before Hilary that you were going to alienate the left (who made up a good 40% of primary voters) with your holier than thou attitudes, and you still managed to act shocked when the left was apathetic to your campaign in November.
This was your campaign to lose. Bernie was no worse for Clinton than Rubio or Cruz were for Trump. Liberals will just do anything they can to justify their sticking by corparatist politics even when those politics are unpopular--and relying on being seen as the lesser of two evils to get them elected instead of actually engaging the citizens.
>your holier than thou attitudes
oh, the irony
Yeah, ignore the beef of the criticism to evade in whataboutism. You may not be "the same" as conservatives, but you damn sure like to work from the sane playbook.... and serve different but similarly corrupt big businesses. The fact that you serve Disney instead of serving Exxon doesn't make you one of the good guys, it just makes you the bad guy who is less immediately horrific.
You are like a bipedal Facebook minions meme, you perfectly generic puddle of propaganda.
Your "Democrats are the lesser of two evils" bullshit is whataboutism to begin with. That's what I'm talking about when I said that Sanders and his surrogates encouraged this thinking with his attacks on Hillary and the Democratic party in the primary and well into the fall, when he was still grumbling about our elections being determined by "a handful of wealthy people and special interests" (because he can't POSSIBLY have lost by over 3 million votes on his own— you think he'd have done better against those unpopular corporatist policies of Clinton's). Seriously, how are are they beholden to Wall Street/corporations/billionaires? Democrats are for overturning Citizens United, reform and regulation of Wall Street and big pharma, middle class tax relief and progressive tax policies, but they're apparently in the thrall of fucking Disney now because ??? Because they accept corporate donations, they have to do what they want, now? Is that how it works? You know Bernie takes corporate and lobbyist money too, right? Is he in the service of corrupt big business, now?
Clinton, day ONE of her campaign: "I want Citizens United gone, even if it takes a constitutional amendment."
Bernie kids: "Yeah but that's a safe promise for you, evil shit-lady, because it can't happen anyway. Fuck you, you're like Cruella DeVil or something. *posts 'How do you do, fellow kids* meme for the trillionth time*"
Bernie: "I promise single-payer and free college even though Whites/people older than 45 will NEVER allow that to get through congress."
Bernie kids: "WHY WON'T THE EVIL SHIT-LADY AND THE DNC GET BEHIND THIS AND MAKE IT THEIR CENTRAL ISSUE BSAHDBAHUFBEGIEBYHUAHDUGHUI"
At this point I think the Russian trolls have decided to try to further increase the chaos in the US by playing liberals this time, and continuing to increase the divide between liberals and leftists by being such whiny assholes about losing the election and blaming it on everyone else--as well as getting the liberals to hate counterprotesters on the left worse than they hate the nazis of the alt-right--just to make sure republicans remain in power.
And to think all of this is just bullshit to defang the Magnisky Act so Putin and some other oligarchs can make fuck your mother money off of conspiracy and murder.
Right now, Ted Cruz probably wishes he could claim to have had his Twitter account hacked by Russian bots.
This morning, I was about to post about how I hadn't seen a single 11/9 post, but timezones had a trick up their sleeve.
This is not a joke picture, it's legitimate. I don't know what the fuck they were thinking.
I really hope Kamala runs in 2020 and Feinstein gets replaced ASAP.
I'm praying for Kamala to run. I can't blame DiFi for not backing the bill, though. Shit sounds half-baked (and Bernie's dismissal of the studies that have been done on the costs of single payer isn't reassuring), it's never going to pass this Congress and it's a scrabble just to protect the ACA. I actually worry that coming out in support of it could backfire on them. People always balk at single payer when they realize it means higher taxes, government control over health care, giving up their current plan, etc.
>"We agreed to enshrine the protections of DACA into law quickly, and to work out a package of border security, excluding the wall, that's acceptable to both sides," the two leaders said in a joint statement after their dinner with Mr. Trump on Wednesday evening.
I hope people are realizing what a mistake it would've been to oust Pelosi as the Minority Leader.
I hope you realize what a mistake it would be to believe Ol’ 45 sees Democrats as anything more than a means to an end.
He sees everyone as a means to an end; he's entirely ego. If the end is "Donald does what Chuck and Nancy want to punish Ryan/McConnell and the only lives ruined are Ann Coulter's and r/The_Donald's" then awesome.
That said, I won't be surprised if he reneges, since he contradicts himself on everything (DACA itself being an example) but he's cost himself support either way.
What a crazy world. I understand why he was arresred but the whole thing seems absurd.
The god of rural crackers is at the UN talking about how the US may have to "destroy" North Korea (25 millionsh people).
So good thing mega-hawk Hillary Clinton didn't get to start World War III-IX with Russia or whatever the fuck the generic pasty gulag-filling was telling us.
He cares not how many other people—especially innocent people—die at the hands of the United States military, so long as he kills the one guy who can out-crazy POTUS.
Kim Jong Un doesn't even come close to out crazying Trump. All of his actions are entirely rational.... evil and cynical, but rational.
The entirety of his power is based on having the North Koreans but in to his cult of the personality, and in the threat of the United States. And given the atrocities he and his regime have committed, losing power would almost certainly mean his death. So he must continue to expand nuclear power (because his people have been less to believe it's the only way to prevent America from invading) and is willing to provoke America and other nations because he knows they would be hesitant to go to war with North Korea-- they've got nukes, and they're still technically at war with South Korea which is everyone's friend. And they are close enough to China to cause serious problems for them, which makes China want to cause serious problems for anyone who sets them off.
No, he's not crazy. He's desperate and evil. Trump on the other hand is motivated pretty much entirely by emotion and ego, and is easily the most irrational Head of State on earth.
I don't believe it's really rational to threaten the one nation that has used atomic bombs and also has a crazy leader, but apart from that I agree. Kim is a bit crazy, but it's more desperation than insanity.
Oh yeah, have you lot heard about the Australian same-sex marriage survey yet?
Fuck Australia for putting the civil rights of queer people up for a vote.
Woah, slightly different situation here.
1) This event is not exactly putting it up for a vote. It's an official survey rather than a referendum: the government can ignore the results (but claim they will not). I'm nitpicking here but it's an important detail.
2) It isn't near as massive a civil rights issue like in America, due to our laws regarding de facto relationships. Same-sex couples in a de facto relationship over here have all the major rights and proceedings that married couples have (a sane legal comparison can be found here: https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-legal-benefits-do-married-couples-have-that-de-facto-couples-do-not-83896)
>Fuck Australia for putting [heavily divisive issue] up for a vote.
we are a democracy lol
I think this shouldn't be an issue and that opposition to same sex marriage need to stop being a selfish/religious idiot, but my country is mostly democratic and I appreciate that.
>tfw yes-vote protesters are being bigger pieces of shit and it's not even false flagging
I get that people take this debate to heart and become overly passionate, but they are harming their cause.
>I get that people take this debate to heart
Yes, how utterly unbecoming that some people might get passionate about defending their civil rights. Don't they know that their self defense exhausts me?
People really ought to learn to stop standing up for themselves and just accept that they are in an inferior caste if the majority of the population decides to assign them to it.
>Yes, how utterly unbecoming that some people might get passionate about defending their civil rights. Don't they know that their self defense exhausts me?
This is more 'when you infringe upon the rights of others, you don't deserve the rights you have'. Fuck anyone who walks up to peaceful protesters and yells at them through a megaphone from a metre away.
>This is more 'when you infringe upon the rights of others, you don't deserve the rights you have'. Fuck anyone who walks up to peaceful protesters and yells at them through a megaphone from a metre away.
Yes, fuck peacefully protesting peaceful protests
Awwww diddums, the no-voters that want gay people to pay all the taxes and obey all the laws that straight people do without getting the same rights and treatment in society don't like yes-voter anger.
>when you infringe upon the rights of others, you don't deserve the rights you have
Which civil rights are we talking about here—free speech or marriage?
physical assault and harassment =/= peace
>Which civil rights are we talking about here—free speech or marriage?
Not marriage. Certain people are protesting in non-peaceful ways that infringe the basic rights of others, such as a right to not be harassed. I feel like the individuals that are protesting in unacceptable ways are hurting the image of the group they support. My argument is unrelated to same-sex marriage, that just happens to be the current issue being protested.
There are jerks on both sides, but the jerks on one side seem more numerous and more obnoxious than the jerks on the other side. That kind of behavior can make enemies of apathetic or undecided people, which results in more chance of getting LESS GAY RIGHTS, which royally fucks over those of us who want more gay rights.
At least read my posts if you are going to try and mock me.
Old news, 3 Sep 2017
>Hours after the North's sixth nuclear detonation, an announcer on its official Korean Central Television declared "the hydrogen bomb test was a perfect success".
>[North Korean newsreader] Ri Chun-hee said no radiation was released, nor was there any negative environmental impacts from the test.
That's not how hydrogen bombs work.
>detonating a large weapon
>no negative environmental impacts
But I think most North Koreans might be brainwashed enough to believe it.
I haven't read the report, but this is certainly interesting. In politics thread because it's about national relations and race.
You seem to like coming up with excuses for people to do evil, rather than fighting against the notion that peoole should do evil because a few protesters don't behave the way they want them to.
I went voting for the first time since I moved. It's actually a nice feeling. Makes you feel like a proper citizen of the town.
I don't believe that. Maybe there's been a miscommunication, an assumption or I've made a bad choice of words somewhere.
I think 'no' voters are selfish and making a bad decision. I've made that clear. But, certain 'yes' protesters are behaving in ways that create negative attention, and that may influence more people to vote 'no'. That is not a good thing nor is it a valid excuse for voting a certain way, but I think it's something which may happen, because people may respond to perceived harassment by rebelling and doing the opposite.
Just because I vote one way doesn't mean I should be justifying destructive behavior of people voting the same way as me. They are hurting the people they fight for as well as the people they fight against, and that is not alright. People should not do evil. People making mistakes may cause other people to do evil. People should try not to make those preventable mistakes, so that other people don't do preventable evil.
>It's actually a nice feeling. Makes you feel like a proper citizen of the town.
It sure is. Do you live in an optional-voting area?
Peace can't exist without equality. No matter how orderly they may be in advocating eradication of peace, fascists, racists, bigots and homophobes are automatically not peaceful by virtue of their politics.
I would personally add organized religion to that list.
While many organized religions might advocate inequality, it is not an inherent element of organized religion to be against equality. For example, Buddhism has no advocacy for inequality.
Unless you meant inequality based on the target's religion, in which case, I included that under bigotry, since there's no one-word "ism" to describe discrimination based on the target's faith.
>it is not an inherent element of organized religion to be against equality.
You're right, I did paint with too broad of a brush. I meant the ones that do advocate bigotry of infidels and heretics, such as the three main Abrahamic religions. I actually haven't heard much of Buddhism and other Asian religions in a long time because they rarely make news.
>I actually haven't heard much of Buddhism and other Asian religions in a long time because they rarely make news.
well uh, there's the Rohingya matter
imperialism isn't inherent in Buddhism but Buddhists are as capable of it as anyone else
>imperialism isn't inherent in Buddhism but Buddhists are as
Yeah, I didn't mean Buddhists weren't capable of it, I just meant that the "official doctrine" doesn't single out groups for marginalization the way the more "Popular in Western Countries" religions do.
To put it another way, this wasn't a statement about buddhists[i], it was a statement about [i]Buddhism. There is no grouping of humans which is not going to consist at least 25% of shitheads.
>12:40 PM - 26 Sep 2017 from Vladivostok, Russia
are these 12th dimensional agitprop tactics or did someone fuck up
Pretty much everything that claims to be an antifa "organization" is someone on the alt-right, or perhaps Russia, trying to start shit. An Antifa organization/group makes about as much sense as an Anonymous organization/group. They're not clubs with members, and they don't organize actions. People just decide to act and sometimes other people do it with them.
So yeah, it's probably someone fucking up their attempt to either build an alt-left group from wholecloth to further agitate the situation in the US, or an attempt to assassinate the character of the left.
Love to give up my federal level elected office to spend 9 months being humiliated publicly and being able to do nothing but bureaucratic obstruction until I'm forced to resign over plane tickets
I'm actually surprised he resigned. It seems like there have been so many stories about cabinet officials abusing private flights, I figured he'd use them for cover.
Naturally, Trump's response to Puerto Rico would cause any other nation to simply lynch him or force him out of office, but roughly a third of America's population is now nothing but an unnatural, inhuman fistula of pasty, anti-educated gulag-stuffing that actually gets a kick out of seeing and hearing him act like a pig-cunt towards vulnerable people.
Our store-brand Sunny D president would rather marvel at the rising number of dead brown people and insult aid workers than do anything to help them—even if they are Americans.
There are only two pages of Muhammad porn on Paheal.
Cracked is doing better journalism than the news networks.
2017 has been one very fucked up year.
Not surprising in the slightest.
>Not surprising in the slightest.
Really? I honestly expected there to be more. There's even a well-known game about him having sex.
>Cracked is doing better journalism than the news networks.
Haven't watched the link yet but I believe you, it's not a hard hurdle to leap. Fuck, even this thread could do a better job than some news networks.
That is abhorrent journalism, Stone. I'm on antifa's side, but even still I can see how horrible and deceptively manipulative their video is.
So, they bring up (and use the word 'unfortunately' to criticize) people who make pic related observation, and then proceed to not refute it, but rationalize their generalization by saying "yeah but the [right wing] media are judging groups that way too". I don't know the details of all these groups, or how homogeneous they are in their beliefs and behaviors, but judging a group by the acts of a few is NOT better journalism than the news networks. It is equivalent.
Then at 3:47, they start highlighting extracts that do not actually claim what the reader says they do. Saying "Fuck white supremacists! Fuck neo-Nazis!", "[...] promote free speech" and "[...] fight corruption [...]" in no way imply "completely peaceful, non-racist". Those sets of quotes are unrelated, yet they are presented as evidence. Sure, Gibson may be a fuckhead, but they should be trying to prove that with evidence instead of making their reasonable arguments look like fabricated bullshit. There should be more than enough true evidence with groups like that. It's not a hard group to criticize legitimately.
I can't watch past that part because I have to go to work now but I can watch it later.
>I don't know the details of all these groups, or how homogeneous they are in their beliefs and behaviors, but judging a group by the acts of a few is NOT better journalism than the news networks.
It is better journalism when Cracked takes the time to point out how the Nazi-corpse-humping “alt-right” intentionally tries to make themselves look like martyrs and victims while the news networks, newspapers, and other “serious” journalists do the “both sides” thing. It is better journalism when Cracked points out how those swastika-wearing fucksticks intentionally play with both media perceptions and words—specifically because they can, thanks to their not being limited by the same ethics as you or I—to receive a “fair shot” in the media. It is better journalism when Cracked exposes how Tiki-torch-carrying anti-Semites manipulate the media into ignoring the sources and perpetrators of right-wing violence while playing up left-wing violence as wholly unprovoked or somehow worse than right-wing violence.
>Gibson may be a fuckhead, but they should be trying to prove that with evidence
The video points out how he says discrimination against Muslims is neither racism or bigotry. This was after noting how the media portrayed Patriot Prayer as a “non-racist group”, how the group shows up armed with weaponry so they can provoke violence from leftist groups, and how white supremacists keep following him to his rallies. Gee, I wonder if Gibson is a hypocrite who uses the whole “I’m not a racist” declaration to make himself seem like “a reasonable person” in the face of the “intolerant left” that he and his followers keep baiting into violent responses so as to bolster his “reasonable person” image.
A heavily biased political report has low journalist integrity? Shocker.
But all Trump voters knew what Trump was and what he would do. All Trump voters own what the nationalists and fascists do.
If Clinton had been a black bloc member that sympathized with even the worst Antifa members, the right-wing cunts would have a right to complain.
But the extremism, escalation, partisanship and ideological indoctrination is more assymetrical than it's ever been. People wanting both sides to fix this are on the side of republicans and the alt-right.
You simply fucking have to stop whining about Antifa or it's impossible to think you're a good or well-meaning person.
>It is better journalism when [x3]
They might be sending the right message, but they are doing it in a way that makes them look like liars, when that could be avoided. I don't think that's better journalism.
That said, I'm certain those groups are very crafty with their words and say things they don't believe. They would have to be in order to gain whatever media support they may have. They can be lying, racist fuckwits. But a respectable journalist should be calling them out with proof, not just calling them out with rhetoric.
>This was after noting how the media portrayed Patriot Prayer as a "non-racist group"
Except I just explained in my last post that they didn't. Oh, the reader said they did, sure. They made an unsupported claim (that Patriot Prayer was presented as non-racist) and pretended they did support the claim by highlighting irrelevant quotes. They falsely suggested citation. That is unethical. Not worse than right wing violence and the media that tries to justify it, of course, but that's no benchmark to compare oneself to.
>how the group shows up armed with weaponry so they can provoke violence from leftist groups
They explained that fact well.
>Gee, I wonder if Gibson is a hypocrite who uses the whole “I’m not a racist” declaration to make himself seem like “a reasonable person” in the face of the “intolerant left” that he and his followers keep baiting into violent responses so as to bolster his “reasonable person” image.
Yes, exactly. They don't need to resort to unethical journalism to show that!
Because republicans are allowed to live and because progressives only care about telling as many people as possible that voting for either party is uncool, nine million US children are currently without health insurance.
But be super scared of Islam and BLM guys.
>But be super scared of Islam and BLM guys.
And those communists and anarchists!
>because progressives only care about telling as many people as possible that voting for either party is uncool
while this is an easy pit to fall into, it doesn't actually reflect reality:
90% of Bernie primary voters are known to have moved onto Hillary in the general and the capital P Progressive caucus that effectively speaks for the Social Democrat wing is the largest of the house caucuses.
Always remember that a lot of "Bernie supporters" were alt-reichers and Russkies pretending to be Bernouts to support Hillary and foster more anger between Leftists and Liberals.
Another mass shooting. Another “lone wolf” (read: White male) shooter. Another three dozen or so people killed.
And the US will not do anything about guns because our leaders watched the children at Sandy Hook die and decided they were okay with that being the tradeoff for taking money from the NRA/worshipping the Second Amendment.
Reminder that even if your entire family has been whacked in a mass shooting, you're not allowed to even feel upset unless you vote for anti-gun and anti-NRA politicians.
If you have been personally affected by a mass-casualty shooting, you can feel however you want, personal politics be damned. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool.
Anyone who enters into apologia for NRA supporters reaping what they so is the fool
NRA supporters who lost friends or loved ones in the Vegas shooting did not ask for those people to die. An NRA supporter who died in the Vegas shooting did not ask to have their life taken. If you cannot see the difference between disagreeing with a political stance and having the most basic-ass empathy for people regardless of that political stance, you never will.
What do other nations think when this keeps happening in the US?
It's what we expect. It's part of your national identity at this point.
>NRA supporters who lost friends or loved ones in the Vegas shooting did not ask for those people to die.
No that's exactly what they did. Support for the NRA=support for gun murder. The end. If you still insist on supporting them after it has been repeatedly demonstrated to you and the world, you deserve whatever happens to you and your loved ones. In fact, it's objectively better that it happens to you and yours than anyone else, since you are an accomplice.
If you cannot understand that some political stances DEMONSTRATE basic lack of human empathy and hence DESERVE no such empathy themselves, you are the reason why fascists will continue to rule.
No person needs to die because of their political beliefs. Someone murdering another person because of a political disagreement is a bad thing regardless of the political stances of the victim. You have said nothing to change those opinions.
>No person needs to die because of their political beliefs.
Fascists actually do need to die but that's irrelevant because:
>Someone murdering another person because of a political disagreement is a bad thing regardless of the political stances of the victim.
What you're describing here does not accurately reflect the described scenario. This isn't someone being targeted and killed for their beliefs, this is the inevitable consequences of their belief system taking effect. Just like any Trumpet/Republican whose kid lost their insurance yesterday: you voted for the person/people who you were warned, and in fact they told you themselves, would take your kids healthcare away. So no dipshit, you don't get to be mad that your kid is uninsured, cause it's your fucking fault. By the same token, if you oppose gun control, and then cousin BillyBob is shredded by a gun wielding lunatic, too fucking bad, you should have backed gun control.
This. Whenever there is a mass shooting, I cross my fingers the victims voted for politicians owned by the NRA. I don't WANT anyone to be a victim of gun violence, but if we are going to sacrifice Americans on the altar of retarded massacre weapons, then it's at least more fair if the sacrifices actually value massacre weapons.
>mass shooter opens fire at a NRA convention
>Fascists actually do need to die
If they “need” to die, it should be because they pose a direct, immediate, and serious threat to the safety of yourself or others. If you say a Nazi fuckhead “needs” to die only because of an expressed political belief—no matter how awful that belief—you are advocating for the murder of people with whom you disagree. And while I understand the idea of “they’d do it to you if they could”, that idea does not convince me to justify the murder of political extremists as “pre-emptive self-defense”. Richard Spencer is an awful human being whose beliefs deserve every ounce of mockery and spite that they receive; he still does not deserve to die only for what he believes.
>This isn't someone being targeted and killed for their beliefs, this is the inevitable consequences of their belief system taking effect.
That does not convince me that the people who died in Vegas had to die, nor does it make me believe that I should not feel at least base-level sorrow for the people who died or some sympathy for the families of the dead—regardless of the political opinions of either group. An NRA supporter is still a human being even if you believe otherwise.
>if you oppose gun control, and then cousin BillyBob is shredded by a gun wielding lunatic, too fucking bad, you should have backed gun control.
I disagree with people who stand against gun control laws. I abhor how the NRA controls the discussion on gun control. Neither of those stances include a desire to see NRA supporters/executives to die in a mass-casualty shooting. And if it were to happen, I would not take joy in their deaths. I have no reason to celebrate such a thing.
>I don't WANT anyone to be a victim of gun violence, but
That “but”, no matter what follows it, means you do want someone to be a victim of gun violence. (See also: “I’m not a racist, but…”) Next time, just say you want NRA supporters to die in a mass-casualty shooting. I will not respect your opinion, but I will at least respect your honesty.
>mass shooter opens fire at a NRA convention
The initial shots would create so much confusion and fear that more casualties would come from the return fire and resulting collateral damage of “the good guys with guns” than would likely come from “the bad guy with a gun”.
>If they “need” to die, it should be because they pose a direct, immediate, and serious threat to the safety of yourself or others. If you say a Nazi fuckhead “needs” to die only because of an expressed political belief—no matter how awful that belief—you are advocating for the murder of people with whom you disagree. And while I understand the idea of “they’d do it to you if they could”, that idea does not convince me to justify the murder of political extremists as “pre-emptive self-defense”. Richard Spencer is an awful human being whose beliefs deserve every ounce of mockery and spite that they receive; he still does not deserve to die only for what he believes.
Nazis deserve to die by dint of being Nazis. The end. There is no excuse for being a Nazi, and in being a Nazi you should effectively be an outlaw, unprotected by social mores or laws.
>That does not convince me that the people who died in Vegas had to die
Of course they didn't, however, those among them who helped create the situation by supporting the NRA deserve no sympathy if they did.
>I disagree with people who stand against gun control laws. I abhor how the NRA controls the discussion on gun control. Neither of those stances include a desire to see NRA supporters/executives to die in a mass-casualty shooting. And if it were to happen, I would not take joy in their deaths. I have no reason to celebrate such a thing.
That's because you don't really care about this country and will be forever unable to actually put forward what it takes to save it.
>That “but”, no matter what follows it, means you do want someone to be a victim of gun violence.
No, it means that he believes that evil people (which is what you are if you're an NRA supporter) should suffer the consequences of their evil actions, instead of real people.
>The initial shots would create so much confusion and fear that more casualties would come from the return fire and resulting collateral damage of “the good guys with guns” than would likely come from “the bad guy with a gun”.
They'd all be NRA supporters though. Every dead convention goer would be an improvement to America.
>There is no excuse for being a Nazi, and in being a Nazi you should effectively be an outlaw, unprotected by social mores or laws.
I refuse to engage with the rest of your post based on this statement alone.
Why do you love advocates of genocide stone? Hasn't anything about the last 2-3 years sunk in about the falsehood that is the neoliberal idea of absolute tolerance of even intolerance?
I reject the premise that a person must be killed because they hold a specific political belief. Even if that belief is reprehensible and the person holding it would love to make it a reality, that alone does not—and will never—justify murder.
>[people I don't like] actually need to die
>That's because you don't really care about this country and will be forever unable to actually put forward what it takes to save it.
You know, this sounds suspiciously familiar. Like I've heard a group of fanatics with different political beliefs than yours say something exactly like that. Pretty funny.
You anarcho-commie faggots are no better than any other extremist group, and you're going to be ground up, further humiliated, and put in your place like every other.
Hooooooooboy, here we go!
The sandy hook truthers are starting in!
False flag operations, everywhere!
The NRA is forcing random Americans to die every year. The sacrifices to the second amendment should be NRA members and children of NRA members.
If there HAS to be a sacrifice to the retarded second amendment, the sacrifice should consist of gun zealots only. It is only fair.
Tillerson is one of the most surprising players in the administration, being a by all appearances a scum bag choice by every metric he has done nothing but work tirelessly in the pursuit of peace much to his own chagrin as Trump backhands him at every turn.
Neither a belief in the Second Amendment nor support for the NRA justifies the murder of someone who offers that support or holds that belief. If you can justify killing someone over their politics, you will have justified your own murder.
Okay, see you are going for them wishing direct death, they aren't saying that.
They are saying that this situation is a direct result of those political ideologies and in the interest of karma these death should not befall those who oppose these increasingly foolish view.
It's the Spider-man paradox, if you permit a crime you have to deal with the consequence.
If you are going to let a mugger go, you can't blame anyone but yourself when your family gets mugged and someone you love dies as a direct result of your actions.
They aren't wishing for death, they see death as a natural consequence of looking at bullshit like bumper stocks being on the market as a device that has no other function than to kill large amounts of people despite opposing it.
Who do you want to see hurt, an innocent person or an accomplice to a criminal? We don't live in a world where both are going to be unscathed so most rational people say fuck the accomplice, he's an accomplice.
Fair enough on that point, though I would still prefer we work toward a world where both will come out unscathed.
>though I would still prefer we work toward a world where both will come out unscathed.
I'm in with you there amigo.
Okay so why did it take literal days to pry that from you?
The other posts were phrased in a way where they at least implied that murdering people over their political beliefs would be justified if even one of their beliefs were “bad”. If you want other people to pick up on the actual meaning of your posts, make the meaning as clear as possible.
Because you weren't listening to each other.
Also possible. I admit to being a bit bull-headed when I have a strong personal opinion about subjects such as this one.
Oh, insomnia—what you do to my sleep schedule, you make up for in neverending brain activity. Which leads me to a question related to the recent discussion in this thread: If a person votes for a politican who supports the NRA, but cast their vote for any other reason(s) besides the Second Amendment (e.g., abortion, economy, emails), is that voter’s death “deserved” if they die from gun violence?
No, because you can support a politician while opposing their views on given subjects by writing them letters or otherwise contacting them. In fact you are SUPPOSED to do that.
Anyone who votes for any of those reasons is by definition a delusional R-bot who believes Republican Reality and is thus in all likelihood pro-NRA.
HERE WE GO
Trump is pushing for investigations of the media.
He is going to launch a pre-emptive military strike against North Korea, isn't he.
I'm pretty sure he's just trying to sound tough and whip up the pundits.
If he's referring to something specific in the future and not just blustering, it might be decertifying the Iran deal or something to do with Afghanistan.
I think he's going to tear up the deal with Iran because Netanyahu commanded it. That will also make the Kremlin happy since the uncertainty and fear of war could drive up oil prices.
Will probably coincide with Tillerson being replaced with Pompeo.
Punching bag Richard Spencer and a group of white supremacist pissants did another torchlit march in Charlottesville.
Thanks for emboldening them, Ol’ 45.
The less people treat Drumpf as some sort of king with power over all, the better. You are not helping.
White supremacists currently believe, to at least some degree, that the current sitting president of the United States of America has sympathy for them. Ol’ 45 even made a point of saying there were “good people” on “both sides” of the first Charlottesville brouhaha—you know, the one where a White supremacist committed an ISIS-style attack on counter-protestors and killed someone in the process.
Trump may not be a godking, but his words and his actions still have consequences. By weakly condemning White supremacists until after being prodded to deliver a much more stern condemnation that was obviously not his idea, he has led White supremacists to believe the highest seat of power in the United States has their backs. If I have caused some kind of harm by pointing this out, by all means, show me what I have done.
Which is why weakling Liberals like you need to stop crying every time a Nazi gets a bat to the face
I do not wish to cause harm in the name of politics. I will do my best to not cause harm outside of defense of self or others. That said: Watching a Nazi fuck like Richard Spencer get alt-highfived always puts a smile on my face.
In “Trump is not the only slimeball in the White House” news: Mike Pence visited the Colts/49ers game today. He walked out after several San Francisco players—and zero Indianapolis players—knelt during the national anthem. Of course, he made sure to get a good picture of himself and his wife standing with their hands over their hearts during the anthem. Which was immediately turned into the header image for @VP on Twitter because of course it was. And to top this shit sunday off with a shitty slice of orange, Ol’ 45 took credit for asking Pence to leave if any players knelt during the anthem.
Pence at least made the fact that this was a staged political stunt even more obvious: Before his walkout, he posted to @VP a photo of himself and Mother—sorry, himself and his wife at a Colts game that was taken three years ago. How do we know this? He posted the photo on the account he used while he was governor of Indiana. And that photo of him standing for the anthem today had him in a full business suit, whereas the photo of him and his wife enjoying a game had him in casual, Colts-centric clothing.
Fuck performative patriots like Mike Pence. If Trump falls, I hope Pence goes with him.
When someone buys 30+ guns in a month I think that should maybe get you flagged.
Why you buy more guns than you could hold, is beyond me. But I would like some names, please.
Fear—either of government agents, “bad guys”, people of other ethnicities, or a combination thereof. The NRA does whatever it can to stoke those fears because every time a shooting like Las Vegas or Newtown or Orlando or San Bernadino happens, gun sales shoot up—often on both “sides”—and the companies represented by the NRA receive a boost in both profits and stock prices.
Only terrorism against gun owners, the NRA, gun manufacturers and NRA's slaves in congress can reduce gun deaths, perversely enough. Nothing else. Not a single other solution exists.
He's not wrong. It doesn't necessarily mean terrorism should be committed against those people, just that those people only give a shit about issues like this when it affects them. So yeah, the only way anything is going to happen is if the majority of them have self serving reasons to do something. They don't give a shit about anyone else.
He is wrong. It's certainly an effective way, but not the only way to reduce gun deaths.
but then they will want guns to protect them from terrorists!
From a leftist to every police officer and soldier:
If you are angry at black people who don't want to stand during the special song because they are upset some police officers can torture and kill black Americans without repercussions, I don't care if you die in the line of duty.
Did he…did he literally just threaten to censor news outlets he does not like?
I read the twiiiiiiiiit and understood it as "it's about time to charge NBC for deliberate misinformation and libel" (which are actual crimes by the way), but it is understandable you took it as "the evil literally Hitler dictator wants to establish his white patriarchal dictatorship", since you are so afraid of him already.
Also, this guy needs to learn to stop posting.
>it's about time to charge NBC for deliberate misinformation and libel
Except he did not say he wanted to sue the network/its news wing for defamation—he asked when, not if, it would be appropriate to silence that outlet as a whole by revoking over-the-air broadcast licenses. That is not just a threat to NBC, but to the press as a whole: “Stop saying things I don’t like or I’ll shut you down.” Not only is that a sure-ass sign of a fascist, it is just on the line of being a violation of the First Amendment.
Challenge the license, not revoke the license. Sure, your interpretation deserves to exist, but it is not objective.
That the sitting president of the United States would dare to threaten even that over news reports that he does not like—he has not proven that they are “fake”, after all—should frighten the living fuck out of you, regardless of who is sitting in the Oval Office.
This cannot be interpreted any other way: Donald Trump, the sitting president of the United States, is directly attacking the First Amendment.
oh so like he's been doing from campaign day 1
Yes, but now he (thinks he) has the power to turn those fantasies into a reality.
I mean, the first nine words of that tweet are right on. The next nine words are un-American, fascist and revolting. It sounds like a legitimate historical propaganda statement.
For what it's worth, he's doing a good job of exciting people into going against their best interests.
>This cannot be interpreted any other way
and you dare to talk about the first amendment... fucking pathetic fascist trash.
How would you interpret the sitting president of the United States saying news outlets that he considers “biased” should have their broadcast licenses revoked by the federal government?
looking at this thread and thinking about how it was a HUGE SCANDAL that healthcare.gov crashed sometimes
I like how Drumpf is solely blamed for things that without a doubt large groups of people (he may or may not be a part of) are actually responsible for. Guess too many people grew up on Disney movies.
He is the sitting president of the United States. No matter how much you—or he—would like to believe otherwise, he has to take responsibility for the actions of his administration. He chose to put those people in their current positions, after all.
Gosh that's beautiful, if only people had had such a nuanced view of an administration's actions when Obama was president
We also have plenty evidence of policy decisions being made simply to soothe Trump's ego. Like JCPOA.
If anything, his two most recent decisions (decertifying the Iran nuclear deal and cutting off ACA subsidy payments) are less about his ego and more about taking as many potshots at Obama as possible. Why, it is almost as if Trump—a man raised by a White supremacist, a man whose administration is overwhelmingly White and male, a man who said there were good people “on both sides” of the Charlottesville riots, a man who has routinely denigrated people of color as “criminal” or “lazy”—is at least sympathetic to the idea that the first Black POTUS was a bad thing regardless of Obama’s politics.
Raising healthcare premiums for the old snakecunts that elected him is one of the nicest things Trump has done, but I feel for the affected that voted Clinton.
I bet you think Trump voters deserve to have someone kill them via gunshot to the throat and get off scot-free.
I think it's more like when the teacher tells the dumbest, mouthiest kid to come up and teach the class.
You get to enjoy how upset with him all his dumb friends who thought it was a good idea become.
I admit to feeling a little schadenfreude—who wouldn’t?—but taking perverse delight in the suffering of others for any reason strikes me as a bit sociopathic.
As you've been told multiple times by multiple people:
The Republicans are killing people. Are, not will or might. Thus, bodies being inevitable, it is appropriate that those responsible make up the bulk of the casualties.
You could at least try to sound a little less celebratory about your opinion. Suffering is still suffering, regardless of whom it happens to and what you think of them.
It would be easier if when the shoe was on the other foot they had not been so vicious about it, you are trying to look out for your family because a con artist is tricking them and your country...they tell you to go fuck yourself, this con artist is a wonderful man.
Even though they are your family you just treat them how they treated you. Roll your window up as you drive by them dressed in a barrel. They were so fucking horny to live in the 1930's, let them really taste it.
>You could at least try to sound a little less celebratory about your opinion.
I am not who you were talking to, I simply share the sentiment in large part.
>Suffering is still suffering, regardless of whom it happens to and what you think of them.
Indeed, and these people are the cause of their own suffering, which they gleefully inflicted on the rest of the world. They deserve whatever happens that them.
>less about his ego and more about taking as many potshots at Obama as possible
That's still about ego, though. Narcissists designate a nemesis and work to destroy them as part of their way of proving to themselves that they're better than that person, because that person makes them feel insecure about their own accomplishments. Of course, the other side of that is that no matter what the narcissist accomplishes in regards to "destroying" their nemesis, they're still never going to feel better about themselves because ultimately narcissism is about outwardly overcompensating for internal self-loathing. And true validation can never come from external sources--Trump is never going to work on his own internal issues, so he's never going to be anything but miserable and needy.
>Trump is never going to work on his own internal issues
This would imply that Trump even acknowledges that he has internal issues. The man probably thinks himself a demigod.
Is that some t e c h n o d e m o c r a c y I smell?
You know what you have to do.
>Trump threatens our national security by refusing to stand up to Russia and engaging in brinkmanship with North Korea.
So he should refuse to stand up to North Korea and engage in brinksmanship with Russia?
I agree he's a destructive cunt, but that is an odd argument.
Leader of the Opposition in the Parliament of Australia
If anything, he should stop trying to look for an excuse for nuclear war. That does not preclude standing up to both North Korea and Russia. It does, however, mean he has to stop being a daft cunt, so…yeah…
I thought you posted a roman salute photo. But you didn't.
Guess I think too lowly of you, +/pol/.
>Guess I think too lowly of you, +/pol/.
How the hell is it our fault that my opposition leader is trying to be cool?
I did say "trying".
HWNDU Season 6: France Edition
Here is a summary of of the first HWNDU CTF: //youtube.com/watch?v=PeXEWsobJRE
Trump is now arguing with a grieving widow who he is calling a lair.
>first nuclear weapons used in war: '45
>first president since to threaten nuclear war: POTUS 45
Donald Trump was an inside job
If Kim hurts Japan, will he get killed to death by weeaboos?
I like the days where Trump attacks GOP Senators instead of war widows or the IC or Puerto Ricans or KJU, they're relaxing.
He has now attacked reporters while hosting a Halloween party for the children of several reporters.
He can't even comprehend how his words and actions affect other (for want of a better word, in his case) adults, and you expect him to be able to think how they affect children?
No, not really. I doubt that he can comprehend how his words and actions affect even himself.
Buckle up, cause it begins.
I'm trying not to get too excited, but I'm a little excited. No wonder Fox has been revving up those "Killary colluded with Russia to sell the uraniums and frame Trump" stories.
It would have been very undemocratic, un-American and probably would have resulted in assassination, but theoretically could Obama have jailed or exiled Trump before he became President?
Nice frog. Also slightly excited here.
Roger Stone Jr. and Sebastian Gorka are losing their fucking minds so things are looking up.
>It would have been very undemocratic, un-American and probably would have resulted in assassination, but theoretically could Obama have jailed or exiled Trump before he became President?
Damn near anything is possible in theory. (To wit: In theory, I could get laid next week.) Obama could not have done anything without solid legal backing, though. Suspecting someone of doing something—or being able to prove someone is a sociopathic manchild with delusions of grandeur—would not have been enough.
>It would have been very undemocratic, un-American
Nothing is more un-American and Un-democratic than a Republican.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Now now, you know that is not fair. A Nazi is most likely a conservative, but a conservative is not necessarily a Nazi.
Just a Nazi supporter
Or as it is also known, a Nazi
Ditto Hannity. But Stone's breakdown is especially amazing because he was nutbar to begin with.
Aaaaand he got suspended from Twitter. Took long enough; he's been sending crazy threats to people and for ages.
So Twitter will ban him for that, but won’t ban Ol’ 45 for trying to start Global Thermonuclear War for real.
>twitter bans Trump
They're both powerful entities. Would he be able to shut them down?
Probably not? Theoretically, if our pussy-grabbing president violates the rules of the platform, his personal account could be banned, and Twitter could leave him have no recourse into getting that specific account back. Then again, I cannot think of a single platform such as Twitter that has ever booted an elected government official from said platform. I do not know if any caselaw even exists that would cover this situation.
Twitter may not have a legal obligation to let him access that platform, but I have no idea if that would or could extend only to his personal account. That said: If he were to try shutting Twitter down for (theoretically) banning his personal account, it could be considered an attempt by a government official to infringe upon Twitter's First Amendment rights of association and expression. The potential legal ramifications of Twitter banning Trump’s personal account—including any issues involved with archiving what should damn well be considered official communication from a sitting US president—could be what is keeping Twitter management from giving the boot to Ol’ 45.
33 % in Gallup, the trans servicemember ban got stopped by the court, Manafort and Gates are in the clutches of the FBI and Papodopolous has been working with Mueller for a good while already in order to save his ass.
The behavior towards Clinton is to me one of the biggest reasons America needs to try and come to grips with how much it just hates women by default.
6 dead in New York from a truck attack, is being treated as a terrorist incident (clearly was one).
I think you meant to post this in a news thread or something.
>@jaketapper to Senator Warren: "Do you agree with the notion that it was rigged?"
>Senator Warren: "Yes."
>tfw you watch the DNC fall apart in your lifetime
I still don't understand HOW it was supposedly rigged
like this financing agreement they're making sound so scurrilous was public knowledge last year and Bernie signed one too
SUPER RAD that people are still going on about this shit the day Paul Ryan rolls out his "fuck veterans and people who adopt" tax plan too.
And I don’t understand why it is such a huge deal only for the Democrats when Republicans have most likely done the exact same thing in years past.
I also don’t understand how cutting the corporate tax rate will somehow entice rich motherfuckers to spend more money on the workers who made those motherfuckers rich.
Hope the book sales are worth it, Donna.
>And I don’t understand why it is such a huge deal only for the Democrats when Republicans have most likely done the exact same thing in years past.
Whataboutism is not a good look on anyone, Stone. Saying "The other side does it too" doesn't solve the problem of the DNC intentionally ignoring the wants and needs of its constituents in favor of money.
Most rational people understand that they're the lesser of two evils, but that doesn't mean it should be above criticism when it makes conscious efforts to corrupt democracy.
tbh this just kind of underlines how terrible DWS was as a leader, as if we needed more evidence of that
The RNC on the other hand has *already* fallen apart, seeing as it's predominantly made up of people who believe their party's current "leader" is an incompetent idiot corrupted by foreign interests who they only publicly support because they see an opportunity to maybe slip some supremely unpopular legislation through under the radar while people are too busy paying attention to the idiot in chief picking fights with war widows and celebrities.
>conscious efforts to corrupt democracy
What were those, exactly?
Oh, god. If this is because she confused the 2015 agreement with the 2016 one post-primary this is even stupider.
Providing Hilary (and not the other candidates) with debate questions ahead of time, tying DNC financials to Hilary campaign financials before the primaries even started, things like that. Tl;dr: actually read Brazille's admissions if you're actually interested and not just trying to spread FUD to quiet dissent.
None of this was illegal, but it was clearly done to ensure that the will of democratic voters not interfere with the more profitable options who had already invested tons of money-- and placed key staff who were sympathetic to one candidate over any other-- before other options could ever get the chance to develop to their actual potential.
I'm surprised how controversial saying this still is to liberals when it's clear that the decisions made by the end and the Hilary campaign resulted in a loss to one of the least popular candidates in history. Were you somehow under the impresson that the dnc had not failed you with the way they bungled this election?
>I'm surprised how controversial saying this still is to liberals when it's clear that the decisions made by the end and the Hilary campaign resulted in a loss to one of the least popular candidates in history.
The second most popular, actually.
Like I'm not defending Liberals/ the DNC but let's not accept Nazi counterfactuals either.
Gonna say that as shitty as DB is, "Walk the Talk Bern" with a bunch of Donut emojis is less reliable still.
>The second most popular, actually.
Trump was widely disliked by the majority of the Republican party--far more Republicans voted for him while holding their nose to avoid a democrat in office than actually liked him. He couldn't even manage to get more votes than Hilary, despite winning the election. He's never had the support of more than about 30% of the US population, and was deeply disliked by everyone else. It was enough to edge out the other Republican candidates in the primary, but he is unquestionably one of the least popular candidates in history.
Trump was in no way the second most popular candidate in history and to suggest he was is so absurd and misinformed it could have come from the Trump's own mouth.
Oh wait I'm sorry, I totally misread what you were saying, I thought you were repeating that Hillary was one of the least popular candidates (she is of course, number two after Obama). My bad!
Ah, my apologies then. It's so common to run into Trump supporters who genuinely believe he's incredibly popular that I just assumed you were saying he was the second most popular candidate in history. It might seem a little extreme to think anyone would say that, but I think he genuinely has said that the only candidate to do better than him was George Washington at one point.
I don't see how this supports Brazile's claims at all. It just sounds like HFA didn't want the DNC mismanaging the money they gave (fair) and the deal applied to the general election.
Saying "fair" to the idea that money should grant influence reveals your capitalist bias and showed off exactly the issue that leftists have with liberals and their corparatist apologistm.
More lack of counterarguments, please.
Maybe if your argument made sense. Did you even read the article, or the JFA itself? What does "corparatist apologistm" (please, please learn to spell "corporatist" already) have to do with this? HFA had pre-approved two candidates for comms director the DNC still had final say on, and everything else applied to the general. This is a far cry from "rigging the nomination process" and the caveats in the agreement contradict Brazile's claims that Clinton controlled everything. And Bernie entered his own JFA, but chose not to use it (I'd love to see the text of it, though, since supposedly both 2015 JFAs were the same). And the money Clinton raised DID go to the DNC and states (https://www.opensecrets.org/jfc/summary.php?id=C00586537).
You specifically said that it is "fair" for a donor to direct the person they donate to because they should "have a right to decide how their money gets used." That means you intrinsically believe that money buying influence is fair. That's what is meant by corporate apologism. It means that you fully believe that the contribution of money means that it is far for the donor to have more say in the election process than voters. It is inherently anti-democratic and the fact that you don't realize that is why I say you have a heavy capitalist bias. But if it makes you feel any better, I don't think you're being disingenuous here like I do with the right-wingers--I think you legitimately can't even conceive of a world in which the rich aren't given more say than the poor, or where every person's vote counts equally. You have bought the indoctrination into the mindset of late-capitalism 100% and can't even see the faulty assumptions you're making, rather than ignoring them for political capital.
Also, just real classy move on the spell check thing. You can always tell you're arguing with someone who has worthwhile contributions to make to a conversation when they try to call you out on a typo or (god forbid!) misspelling.
No, that is specifically not what I said. That's you making up some bullshit. The reason I said that it's fair for the the Clinton campaign to have a say in how the DNC used the money that they raised through the JFA is because the DNC apparently had issues managing resources if they needed to be rescued from insolvency. (If you still don't get it, I was making fun of them.)
More saliently, there is the fact that the money is raised for the general election, so of fucking course they'd have a say in how it's used! That is literally what the DNC does; they coordinate campaign spending when the nominee is chosen. The DNC doesn't HAVE a say in the election process because primaries are controlled by the states.
Also, get a grip. I pointed it out because you used the same misspelling in another, earlier, just as obnoxious and patronizing argument.
This whole affray just shows why the Bernie side lost and would have lost a general election as well - they are simply too lazy and emotional on top of their belief in conjuring up what they want in one fell swoop without laying the groundwork, spending money or organizing. That's the entire reason the DNC has been forced to go to the centre - the White working-class voters are seduced by racism, xenophobia, Christianity, homophobia, misogyny or other diseases, and the ones that are worked up don't want to vote or invest in something as conformist as a political party.
Yeah who could forget all that famed centrist groundwork and organization that led the Dems to lose record setting ground on literally every level and branch of government.
All of that can be blamed on excitable people who decided Obama was a disappointment because he didn't give them socialist healthcare, closed Gitmo and ended all military activity including drone strikes. The young Whites got all fucked-up on zealotry and delusions and then decided to sit home in 2010 because they thought you're only supposed to vote for politicians that align your chakra and make you feel all spiritual and historic on the inside, and that was that.
Americans hate voting. Young Americans have to be threatened with death to vote. The wrinkled vermin that want to do as much damage as possible to the world before they die vote all the time.
This time the mass shooting was in a church in Texas so hopefully this time the victims were cultists of the GOP, which in turn is enslaved by the NRA.
>>416298 and >>416053 , >>416054 , >>416055
Pic related are the comments on an Australian new site reporting the incident.
It's undoubtedly a horrific thing that someone has committed mass murder of the innocent, but I feel nothing. I am numb, just as I am to airstrikes in the Middle East. Mass shootings in the USA are normalised.
Yeah, a few weeks ago, some whackjob shot 600 people and left more than four dozen of them dead. Now we act like that happened years ago. In a couple of weeks, this latest shooting will be “ancient” news because another shooting will have taken its place as the news of the day—and that shooting will eventually suffer the same fate.
Mass-casualty shootings have become so routine that after the initial shock, anyone not directly affected by those shootings just goes about their day. Hell, the initial shock may even just be a few seconds of thinking “really, another one?” because this is expected in our country now. And no one who has the power to help change this situation wants to help change this situation; change means work and sacrifice, and it is always easier to just let people die.
Man, even Gowdy can't with this guy.
I read bits and pieces of that on Twitter yesterday.
If I did not know any better, I would swear that those transcripts were actually a script for an absurdist comedy.
People are already trying to downplay Northam's win ("it's a blue state anyway cuck" etc.) but Dems went ham in VA.
>Americans hate voting. Young Americans have to be threatened with death to vote. The wrinkled vermin that want to do as much damage as possible to the world before they die vote all the time.
Well at least it gives you an excuse to loudly proclaim why you're better than most people like this.
DSA guy, unsupported by the main Dem party, unseated the Republican Whip.
Translady journalist/metal band member took out the bathroom bill author.
This owns owns owns
Fuck Roy Moore, fuck anyone who defends his “relationships” with teenage girls, and fuck the culture that enabled him by labelling the predatory practice of adult men coercing teenage girls into dating/having sex as “courtship”.
Fox finds a way
Now they can move on from the "ACTUALLY it's ephebophilia" defense
on the other hand
even Fox isn't able to keep people on message reliably about this
>A daycare center employee, Eric Higdon, raped a 12-year old child. He was found guilty under a sodomy statute specific to minors by all members of the 9-judge panel supreme court in Alabama. Actually, make that all 9 members except one. […] [Judge Roy] Moore stated there was “no evidence in this case of an implied threat of serious physical injury.”
Valid opinion, but then again, I just interpret that as evidence that mass media journalism needs to stop being shit.
Google is a search engine. 4chan is a shithole. The former should not be treating the latter like a journalistic outlet, nor should you be expecting Google to do the job of journalists.
>nor should you be expecting Google to do the job of journalists.
I am not. I am expecting journalists to not expect Google to do the job of journalists.
Journalists should expect Google to have at least a semblance of ethics and stop listing 4chan as a source of breaking news during times of national crisis. Google/Google News listing /pol/ as a source of information during, say, an “active shooter” event does neither journalists nor Google any favors.
Are they still leaks if you're just asking for documents with permission to publish them?
Now that's an interesting piece of social engineering.
Finally, something that we can all agree on.
So supposedly Twitter has the power to spot people who browse popular white supremacist websites based on their cookie history, and supposedly going on 4Chan (due to its connections with /pol/) is one of the things that can get you permanently banned from Twitter unless you browse 4Chan incognito.
Is this people jumping to conclusions? Because there are a lot of boards that aren't /pol/ and just imagedumps and conversation places, a lot of other news sites know this (CBM and other movie sites report "leaks" from /co/ all the time) and Twitter is so fucking lazy that I don't think much will come out of it except for the most extreme cases.
>Is this people jumping to conclusions?
I believe and hope so. That seems destructive and blanket as fuck. I'm sure they realise the magnitude of how many 4chan users they have on their site excluding political posters.
>Is this people jumping to conclusions?
Probably. I still browse /co/ on a quasi-regular basis (probably gonna be a bit more regular after this place goes dark), and I have yet to suffer any ill effects for it. On Twitter, I mean. (They dinged me with a shadowban a while back, but that was for cussing at a Verified Account™.) Then again, I have Do Not Track enabled and the Disconnect extension installed, so maybe that stops them from finding out?
It's more likely that the rumor was started by people who are too lacking in self-awareness to realize how obvious it is that they're white supremacists and/or trolls, and inventing a "big brother" conspiracy to explain things they don't understand like basic human social intelligence.
This guy who tweetstorms under every presidential proclamation is so crazy.
What's happening in the Senate right now is the kind of horror show you'd expect to to view from afar in a corrupt Second World parliament or something
both parties are the same tho
>You have the right to speak your mind, but you do not have the right to make people listen. The owners and operators of a privately-owned/privately-run platform have the right to say “we don’t do [x] here”. If you keep doing [x], they have the right to boot you from that platform. Their right of association can and should be upheld. You have yet to say why it should not.
Weren't you the one who was famous for posting furry porn on 4chan, that site that specifically says not to post furry?
I was booted from that platform multiple times for doing so. But I never whined about how 4chan has no right to censor me because I posted Minerva Mink /34/.
>if you run a public forum, then you should moderate it objectively
How would you define “objective” in this case?
I'm not who you responded to, but I assume mostly just keeping personal beliefs separate from your moderation decisions. Like how you mostly didn't delete posts simply because they had reprehensible moral beliefs. That is objective moderation.
Much like how journalism will always come with bias built into the system—someone has to decide what information gets published, after all—forum moderation will always have some form of bias guiding it. No one can leave all of their beliefs at the door when they try to moderate a forum of any kind.
Besides, most people like to think “objective” means “both sides”, in which case a forum could be accused of “bias” for not allowing the “other side” of a given subject or argument—e.g., not allowing people who approve of 30-year-old men trying to date/fuck teenage girls have their say about Roy Moore’s (alleged) behavior. If a forum operator does not want those types of assholes on their forum, the operator should have every right to ban those assholes. It is their forum, and no one has the right to a captive audience.
How does he sleep at night?
Rhetorical question, I know it's in a pile of Koch money.
You assume he sleeps at night instead of trowling the streets of DC looking for a fresh neck to bite.
Get off your horse.
If you want to make a secret clubhouse discord, fine. You can't call it the "Plus4Chan" discord if your going to run it like an asshole who bans people for having different opinions, and then act indignant when someone calls you out for your bullshit. That discord is nothing more than a personal room for Rodyle and people like you and Tiki. Run your dumb shit the way you want, but don't pretend it's something it's not.
>You can't call it the "Plus4Chan" discord
Unless and until someone with authority over the plus4chan name and logo says otherwise, your assertion is incorrect. (Sidebar: Nothing entitles you to use any privately owned/operated platform that you neither own nor operate. You do not have the right to a captive audience. Go start your own Discord server if you feel that salty about it.)
Way to miss my point entirely, but not surprising coming from someone as dense as you. Do I have to spell it out for you? Let me make myself clear, and try to look at my post holistically instead of focusing on only six words in it.
You can make your own discord. You can call it Plus4Chan. You can run that shitty little discord in whatever way you want. These options are technically open to you. However, when you run that discord like a jackass in a way that is not reflective of the imageboard you're naming your discord after, people will call you out on it. When you defend your bad practices with flippant comments and the absolute dog-shit arguments you've given, you will be further called for being a mong. If at that point you somehow don't truly understand why you are receiving criticism for you behavior, you're being intentionally retarded or have very low moral standards.
This. He is able to do it (we can reasonably assume no-one will sue you for the use of a trademark) but that doesn't make him any less of a cunt for creating the impression that it is an official affiliation.
You of all people should be able to respect a moral argument, Stone.
>when you run that discord like a jackass in a way that is not reflective of the imageboard you're naming your discord after, people will call you out on it.
And we get to call you an ass for trying to force a change in the rules of the Discord so you can have a captive audience. Whether the association is “official” does not matter in the end—this is ultimately about one person and their belief that they are owed access to a plus4 Discord where they can be as pro-Trump as they want. If you want that Discord, pull up your own bootstraps and make it yourself.
Again, you somehow manage to make even more of an idiot out of yourself and still miss what I'm saying while throwing implications around. Do you bother to try to understand what other people say to you?
I'm not trying to force a change in the rules of your gay little club, I'm saying you're gay little club isn't what you claim it to be. There's one fucking rule on this site, if you even remember it, and it was essentially "Don't be a dick about things." There were a few more specific, smaller rules under that, but mostly they amounted to the same thing and were only stated for people too thick to get the first one. That discord, which is being called Plus4Chan and is being advertised in the OP of the thread announcing the death of this place, is not adhering to those standards. It's run by a dick who bans people who he disagrees with on polarizing issues. You, Rodyle and Tiki deserve to be called out for the enormous hypocrites you are.
Again, you want your own discord so you can talk to each other, endlessly agreeing with whatever Rodyle or any other admin says there and avoiding debate on certain topics for fear of banishment, fine. Go at it. When you call it Plus4Chan, when it's advertised on Plus4Chan as a "refugee server," you're going to get shit on when it's anything but that.
>this is ultimately about one person
Already wrong. You can verify this yourself.
I personally don't care about the politics. I care about the legacy of the site we care about and have been volunteering for.
>I'm not trying to force a change in the rules of your gay little club
That is exactly what you are doing. You hope that by “calling out” me, Rodyle, etc., you can make the admins change their mind about unbanning that one person who got the boot. If you succeed, you will have changed the rules of the Discord so that said person cannot be booted for anything less than a full-blown Discord TOS violation.
>There's one fucking rule on this site, if you even remember it, and it was essentially "Don't be a dick about things."
I would consider that more of a philosophy than a rule, given that “being a dick” can mean whatever the person saying it wants it to mean. And that philosophy never prevented /pol/-kun from being a blight upon the Politics threads.
>That discord, which is being called Plus4Chan and is being advertised in the OP of the thread announcing the death of this place, is not adhering to those standards.
According to your standards, you mean.
>It's run by a dick who bans people who he disagrees with on polarizing issues.
You can both disagree with someone’s political stances and avoid bringing ultranationalist bullshit into the matter. Besides, the Discord can be run any way the admins wish. If’n you don’t like how they run it, pull up your bootstraps and make your own.
It's been cool seeing Mig, Moe, fucking GRADAMIT, Nurse (actually one of our admins), etc again!
You're a fucking magician at spewing shit. Again, I'm calling you and your butt buddies out for what you're doing. If that causes you to maybe take a second to think about the consequences of your actions, thereby leading to a change to how you administrate your gay little club, that's ultimately your decision. Pretend to be on the morally correct side of this matter all you want, I'm going to continue to point out how up your own ass you are.
>I would consider that more of a philosophy than a rule, given that “being a dick” can mean whatever the person saying it wants it to mean. And that philosophy never prevented /pol/-kun from being a blight upon the Politics threads.
Way to state the fucking obvious, you sped. There's a truth to the idea that the rule can be interpreted in many ways, but there's also a clear intent in it that you conveniently ignore when it suits you. Bringing up your /pol/-kun boogeyman doesn't add to your argument in any way.
>According to your standards, you mean.
Master debater here, folks. Way to make a non-point. Yes, my standards, you dip. Someone in this hellhole has to bother to try to have some. They tend to lead to better communities, especially when those communities are made so that people can talk to each other.
>You can both disagree with someone’s political stances and avoid bringing ultranationalist bullshit into the matter. Besides, the Discord can be run any way the admins wish.
>I can't prove him wrong, so I'm just going to ban him, then act like what I did was right
>I'm incapable of engaging in debate, so I'm going to stiffen the ability to discuss certain issues that I disagree with
You are absolute weasels and an outright cowards, all three of you.
>You're a fucking magician at spewing shit.
I am still not as good at it as THE AMAZING RANDO!, though.
>There's a truth to the idea that the rule can be interpreted in many ways, but there's also a clear intent in it that you conveniently ignore when it suits you.
Therein lies the problem with a loose philosophy as a guiding rule for moderation: It can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. Spelling out exact rules that leave as little room for misinterpretation as possible does the opposite. “Do not post CP, threats of violence, and racist slurs” is a far better guide for moderation than “don’t be a dick”.
>Master debater here, folks.
Well, no one has ever accused me of being a cunning linguist, so…
>Yes, my standards, you dip.
Unless you own or operate plus4chan, your standards are not the same standards that govern plus4chan. Neither are mine. Learn to live with it.
>They tend to lead to better communities, especially when those communities are made so that people can talk to each other.
When someone posts a video from someone like Sargon of Akkad for any reason other than mockery, why would—or should—we want to talk with them as if their ideas have any merit?
>You are absolute weasels and an outright cowards, all three of you.
Do something about it.
>why would—or should—we want to talk with them as if their ideas have any merit?
That is just selfish. Yeah yeah, private group, but you should be ashamed to have that attitude when running a community claiming to be a continuation of this site.
>a whole post saying absolutely nothing, and a stupid joke
>Therein lies the problem with a loose philosophy as a guiding rule for moderation: It can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. Spelling out exact rules that leave as little room for misinterpretation as possible does the opposite. “Do not post CP, threats of violence, and racist slurs” is a far better guide for moderation than “don’t be a dick”.
No shit, sherlock. You see, the wonderful thing about that kind of flexible rule is that it leaves itself to be figured out by the community it governs. If that community wants to thrive, it works out the best way to interpret and enforce that rule, which generally leads to not banning someone because they post a fucking youtube video that you don't like. Even if you go by the specified rules you listed, he didn't deserve to be banned.
>Unless you own or operate plus4chan, your standards are not the same standards that govern plus4chan. Neither are mine. Learn to live with it.
Again, no shit. I'm not going on the discord, and I have no plans to go there if the moderation is based on some cunt's personal bias.
>When someone posts a video from someone like Sargon of Akkad for any reason other than mockery, why would—or should—we want to talk with them as if their ideas have any merit?
You do it to prove it wrong. If you ban someone for something like that, you're just showing that you are inept at proving your point. If you can't do that, the only thing left to think is that you are wrong, but refuse to face it. Move past your bias of a person, and attack their arguments. That's how you make a better community and a better society.
>Do something about it.
I am. I'm calling you out. You have yet to refute anything I have claimed, and I sincerely doubt you, or anyone else, will be able to solid argument against me. I do believe, however, that you will give up at some point and claim I'm not worth arguing with, and then ride off on your high horse.
>the wonderful thing about that kind of flexible rule is that it leaves itself to be figured out by the community it governs. If that community wants to thrive, it works out the best way to interpret and enforce that rule, which generally leads to not banning someone because they post a fucking youtube video that you don't like.
It also leads to someone posting videos from assholes like SoA, then going “THE PEOPLE WHO THINK I’M A DICK ARE THE REAL DICKS” to subvert the entire philosophy. and keep themselves from getting banned. It gives that person a captive audience. Admins cannot and should not have their hands tied by a philosophical rule that can be turned against them by people acting in bad faith.
>Even if you go by the specified rules you listed, he didn't deserve to be banned.
Not an admin, not my call.
>I'm not going on the discord, and I have no plans to go there if the moderation is based on some cunt's personal bias.
Then quit your goddamn whining.
>You do it to prove it wrong.
Why should we accept the premise of their arguments as worthy of debate or consideration when their premise is faulty from the outset or will be used to argue in bad faith?
>I am. I'm calling you out.
You call that “doing something”? To me? You can bitch and whine and moan about me and my words and deeds, but if you think that alone will change me, you really have not known me long enough to know that you are wasting your time and energy. If you really want to “do something” to me that will change who I am and what I do, buy a gun, then put it to my head.
Freehaven by the way isn't even a mod on it, while Moose is, so it's hilarious that you're raving at the former.
>It also leads to someone posting videos from assholes like SoA, then going “THE PEOPLE WHO THINK I’M A DICK ARE THE REAL DICKS” to subvert the entire philosophy. and keep themselves from getting banned. It gives that person a captive audience. Admins cannot and should not have their hands tied by a philosophical rule that can be turned against them by people acting in bad faith.
Of fuck off. If you're so afraid of exposing people to different ideas, it just lends to the perception that they might be right. You want to know how to stop a Nazi from subverting a person? Put them in the limelight. Put them front and center. Let them speak their piece, give them the right to propose their ideas. When their done, you come up and rip their ideas to pieces to the crowd listening, and you do it with logic and reason. That's how you win. Not from fucking hiding and coddling a group of people because they might possibly agree with it, but from trusting them to come to a sensible conclusion.
>Not an admin, not my call.
No, but you're really going out of your way to defend it. You want to avoid responsibility for what you've said? Leave.
>Then quit your goddamn whining.
Call it what you want, you deflecting shit.
>Why should we accept the premise of their arguments as worthy of debate or consideration when their premise is faulty from the outset or will be used to argue in bad faith?
If their premise is faulty, if they are arguing in bad faith, then it would be extremely easy to prove them wrong. You are incapable of doing that.
>You call that “doing something”? To me? You can bitch and whine and moan about me and my words and deeds, but if you think that alone will change me, you really have not known me long enough to know that you are wasting your time and energy. If you really want to “do something” to me that will change who I am and what I do, buy a gun, then put it to my head.
Get over yourself. This isn't just about you, you narcissistic moron. When there is a moral wrong being committed, you fucking fight it appropriately. When someone is purporting an injustice as a virtuous or innocent act, you challenge it. You may not see this as "doing something," but that's merely a difference in moral standards.
I'm not going to change you. That was never my intention. You're an extremely contemptible creature if you think I'm doing this for your sake.
>If you're so afraid of exposing people to different ideas, it just lends to the perception that they might be right.
Or because their ideas are based on faulty premises. If someone believes gay people should not have any civil rights whatsoever, any idea that springs forth from such a belief is not worth debating. Debating such ideas means the person arguing for the faulty premise has already won—because debating their ideas gives them legitimacy.
>That's how you win. Not from fucking hiding and coddling a group of people because they might possibly agree with it, but from trusting them to come to a sensible conclusion.
Tell that to Fox News. See how well that goes for you.
>No, but you're really going out of your way to defend it.
>When there is a moral wrong being committed, you fucking fight it appropriately.
You are whining about a fucking Discord channel being run in a way you dislike, not the fucking awful tax bill that is going through Congress. Grow a sense of scale.
>You're an extremely contemptible creature if you think I'm doing this for your sake.
Judging by how you are going directly after my throat instead of addressing someone who matters…well, I hope you can see how I got the impression that you were making this all about me.
>Or because their ideas are based on faulty premises. If someone believes gay people should not have any civil rights whatsoever, any idea that springs forth from such a belief is not worth debating. Debating such ideas means the person arguing for the faulty premise has already won—because debating their ideas gives them legitimacy.
What an ass-backwards mentality. You're so terrified of losing an argument that you deny the ability for the argument to even happen. What do you think happens when you drive something away instead of debating it? Do you believe that it will just disappear? No. It goes underground. It finds ways to be spoken. It festers and it grows, unchallenged, and with self-righteous fury. You demonize someone and deny them the ability to make their point, then they stop trying to fight it, and eventually accept that you think whatever it is you think of them. Then they stop trying to argue. When it gets to that point, the only thing people think they can do is turn to force.
Debating doesn't legitimize an idea. It exposes it to refutation.
So I'm pointing how you're wrong when you do that.
>You are whining about a fucking Discord channel being run in a way you dislike, not the fucking awful tax bill that is going through Congress. Grow a sense of scale.
I'm not deluding myself into thinking this will cause change on a major scale. Maybe one anon might come to agree with me, and that's all. Maybe no one will. The point still stands. When someone says something utterly reprehensible and espouses it as correct, you call them out. Aside from that, engaging in these kind of arguments makes me better at dealing with them.
>Judging by how you are going directly after my throat instead of addressing someone who matters…well, I hope you can see how I got the impression that you were making this all about me.
Who "matters?" Rodyle is only capable of making small meaningless comments and deflecting with sarcastic bullshit. Tiki isn't here. No one else is saying what you're saying, at least not in this thread.
You got into this with me. You put put your little trip on and said what you said, bringing your whole history into it. I know who you are, I know how you argue, and I'm not going to hold back on person like you, because that doesn't work on you. That said, to clarify, this isn't about you, it's about what you're saying. If you weren't saying it, I wouldn't be arguing with you.
Never said Stone was a mod. Didn't think he was before. Doesn't really surprise me that Moose is, though. Complacency tends to lead to abiding some particularly vitriolic individuals.
Wow look at all this "politics"--someone whining because he went to a secret clubhouse and acted an ass and wasn't immediately given blowjobs for it, and a bunch of people arguing with him about whether or not it was moral to not blow him for being an asshole to them.
>You're so terrified of losing an argument that you deny the ability for the argument to even happen.
Go back to when I talked about the belief that gay people deserve civil rights. Why should I accept a debate where the central premise is “the civil rights of gay people should be up for debate”?
>You demonize someone and deny them the ability to make their point, then they stop trying to fight it, and eventually accept that you think whatever it is you think of them.
If being called a Nazi turns someone into a Nazi, they did not need convincing—they needed an excuse.
>Debating doesn't legitimize an idea. It exposes it to refutation.
It also exposes the idea to normalization. White supremacists have leapt upon the creeping normalization of White nationalist ideals in the past decade to pull the Overton Window in their direction. We are seeing Nazis and White supremacists march in the streets without hiding their faces. How much of their “White ethnostate”, “superior race”, “peaceful ethnic cleansing” bullshit must we debate—and how much of it can we debate without dragging those ideas into the realm of acceptable political discourse?
That is why I talked about rejecting the faulty premises of debates such as “do gay people deserve civil rights”: Because some ideas, some beliefs, are so goddamned heinous that they do not deserve the benefit of being considered “debatable”.
>I'm pointing how you're wrong when you do that.
Again: So what?
>When someone says something utterly reprehensible and espouses it as correct, you call them out.
I do not consider my opinions to be “correct” unless I say so. Anything I have deemed “correct” or “incorrect” is based on fact, not opinion—and the fact of this matter is, no one, least of all you, has a right to a captive audience. The law says as much. You also have no right to tell the Discord server admins how to run their server. You have no rights here. You can have the privilege of being part of that Discord, which means following the rules set down by the admins, or you can ignore us all until the heat death of the goddamned universe. Make your choice.
>No one else is saying what you're saying, at least not in this thread.
Nor should they have to. Me? I am only in this because I have literally nothing else going on in my life. (Like I said: I don’t matter.)
>this isn't about you, it's about what you're saying. If you weren't saying it, I wouldn't be arguing with you.
…which means that this is about me. And hey, if you wanna go for my fucking throat like you seem to be itching to do, go right the fuck ahead. I am feeling a surprising amount of self-loathing tonight; maybe you might make it worse. GIVE ME THE DEEP HURTING!
You're really trying to worm you way out of this, huh? This argument doesn't matter because it's not on a big enough scale for you. It doesn't matter because you don't matter. It doesn't matter because nothing matters unless it's a big thing. The small battles aren't worth raging.
If you really feel that way, then I would think the appropriate action for you to take is to shut the fuck up and walk away from this.
>Go back to when I talked about the belief that gay people deserve civil rights. Why should I accept a debate where the central premise is “the civil rights of gay people should be up for debate”?
If the topic is so reprehensible to you, don't you think you'd easily strike it down? I don't know how many times I have to say this: you avoid these things because you are not capable of winning the argument, not because you're trying to do the right thing.
>If being called a Nazi turns someone into a Nazi, they did not need convincing—they needed an excuse.
What an excellent excuse to avoid debate. That also seems to make it very easy to dehumanize people. That's a swell way to lead a society into a totalitarian regime.
>How much of their “White ethnostate”, “superior race”, “peaceful ethnic cleansing” bullshit must we debate—and how much of it can we debate without dragging those ideas into the realm of acceptable political discourse?
All of it? Enough of it to prove them wrong? Your whole line of reasoning seems to come down to the fact that you don't trust people, and you think you know what's best.
>I do not consider my opinions to be “correct” unless I say so. Anything I have deemed “correct” or “incorrect” is based on fact, not opinion—and the fact of this matter is, no one, least of all you, has a right to a captive audience. The law says as much. You also have no right to tell the Discord server admins how to run their server. You have no rights here. You can have the privilege of being part of that Discord, which means following the rules set down by the admins, or you can ignore us all until the heat death of the goddamned universe. Make your choice.
Pretty sure I do have some rights here, like the right to call you out on your bullshit. Which is what I've been doing. It's what this whole thing is about. If I don't have that right, I'm going to do it anyway.
>…which means that this is about me.
No. Are you being intentionally stupid?
>And hey, if you wanna go for my fucking throat like you seem to be itching to do, go right the fuck ahead. I am feeling a surprising amount of self-loathing tonight; maybe you might make it worse. GIVE ME THE DEEP HURTING!
Whoop whoop, here comes the pity party! Stone's resorted to his tactic of self-deprecation so he can dodge the argument, what a shocker! Go take a nap or something, you whiny turd. Come back when you're not so quick to act like an angsty stick in the mud.
The correct answer is "fascist". In the bin you go.
>This argument doesn't matter because it's not on a big enough scale for you.
In six months, this argument will matter less than my last bowel movement. This whole thing is a nice distraction from my existential dread and all, but it will ultimately mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.
>The small battles aren't worth raging.
This is not a “battle”. It is an Internet slap fight between two shitty people who have nothing else to do with their time and energy but bitch about a fucking Discord server.
>shut the fuck up
Pay me or kill me.
>If the topic is so reprehensible to you, don't you think you'd easily strike it down?
I should not have to argue that gay people deserve civil rights. Accepting the premise of the argument means I have accepted the possibility that the argument could be correct. You cannot tell me, in 100% seriousness, that the civil rights of gay people should ever be put to a debate. It would be no different than refusing to accept a racist’s argument that Black people were better off as slaves. No person in their right mind could, would, or should ever argue that such an argument can ever be correct.
>What an excellent excuse to avoid debate. That also seems to make it very easy to dehumanize people.
Not really. Someone who expresses racist/White supremacist sentiments in a wholly serious way is already on the path to becoming a full-blown White supremacist. If my shunning them and refusing to accept an invitation to their “debates” about the humanity of Black people means they feel “dehumanized”, that is their problem. If that racist is shunned by a community at large for their views, they have a choice: reflection of self or doubling down by playing the victim. (“I didn’t choose to become a Nazi, they made me one by calling me a Nazi!”)
If someone with existing Nazi-esque beliefs says they became a Nazi because someone called them a name, they have used that name-calling as an excuse. They could have just as easily reflected on their racist beliefs and whether they were wrong to hold those beliefs. I bear no responsibility towards educating a racist.
>Your whole line of reasoning seems to come down to the fact that you don't trust people
Why should I trust a racist prick to debate me in good faith?
>Pretty sure I do have some rights here, like the right to call you out on your bullshit.
Oh, you certainly can. And you are doing a lengthy job of it. But neither you nor I have the right to use this board for such an insignificant pissing match. If the admins want us gone, they can boot us at any time. They do not even need to explain or justify their actions, at least not to us.
Using this site is a privilege, not a right. Using any kind of service like this, be it Twitter, Discord, or whatever, is a privilege afforded to you by the owners and operators of that site. Neither of us can turn that privilege into a right.
>Are you being intentionally stupid?
…I want to say…“no”?
>Go take a nap or something, you whiny turd.
Fuck you, pay me.
>TFW you don't argue in good faith but desperately want other people to treat you like you do.
This is the best post in this thread.
>Twister posted in the Politics thread by name
>telling other countries how to run their society
ah the good old "sweden changed the legal definition of rape to be much broader and therefore has 'more' than most countries but I'm not going to explain that part" move
Sweet home Albama