The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

Strawman argument, I never supported violent attacks of any kind. Hell in the post you quote I make that quite clear.
I do support peaceful protest. You know, the kind where you peacefully march around a bit, waving signs that read "Nazis are bad" or the like. What you defend as "free speech", at least when the Nazis do it with signs/slogans that read "jews are bad".

You're the one putting peaceful anti nazi protesters in one box with the Nazis themselves, labeling all those protesters as "communists", no matter who they actually were.

Now you're fake news. He denounced it, so did Hillary. Both were endorsed by KKK leaders, btw.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40930831

I found this description in casual reading, to be most effective: "White-Nationalists and ANTIFA, were made for each other."

So yes, if White-Nationalists can ride a rubber ****, then ANTIFA can motorboat the scrotum. Just saying. Totally condemn them both.

I'm sure some people here though are pretty fond of ANTIFA though. Fond in a "what I want to be when I grow up" kind of way.

The description, literally made up by right-wing folk. From the article:

Also:

Wrong. Anti-fascists can be, but this is not inherent to the opposition of fascism.

Hey we're quoting Fox News, that reputable news source!

Also: Neo-Nazis literally left people bleeding in the streets too. Not only did the car leave close to 20 injured, but others were set upon with literal bats. What a surprise, that a Fox News commentator would get established, documented facts wrong.

How strange!

Anyhow, I made a post about the definition of "antifa" earlier in this thread, @thetrophysystem. I fully expect you to ignore these corrections as you ignored that.

I don't have to listen to Antifa supporters and their biased youtube media.

You know, no double-standards, just pre-established standards.

Organizations linked to violence:
-White-Nationalist
-KKK
-BLM
-ISIS
-ANTIFA

All violence, is all violence. You say words, and depending on how well they like them, Antifa is not above batting a skull cracked wide open over it. I repeat, you CAN be assaulted and killed by Antifa over words.

What, you mean that written statement he reluctantly read, then went back to saying the exact same thing before this statement?

It took him two days to even name these groups, and only because of massive backlash. he's had no problem denouncing articles or newspapers on the same day they wrote something about him. Oh and didn't he make a big deal about naming evil? it was a big deal when it was about radical muslims, but it seems that radical white people are perfectly safe from being called terrorists, despite being white terrorists.

Also, "fake news", really?

the irony is that method would be quite successful. If you mean communism as in what marx wrote down I'd take no offense at being called a communist.


But I'm more of a dispossessed (from the book)

who said otherwise? nobody here identifies with antifa. There's an alternate universe between your meaning of antifa and our meaning of the left.

we can hardly feel concerned.

I don't get the impression you got the point. The left and right brain are not uniquely about emotion and reason. One part can be dominantly, say speech, but doesn't have to be uniquely (as is the case with speech).

And i'm not even getting into the part where the brain can reconfigure itself to deal with problems

I pity you.

I've been there. lying to myself. I'd never wanna go back.

it's unsustainable anyways just be aware of that.

Do you want the 3 days ago version?

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us...p-denounces-kkk-and-racism-in-charlottesville

...or the ye olde version during the election?

http://time.com/4554829/trump-campaign-denounces-kkk-newspapers-support/

Either way, take the evidence, and fill a biological cavity with it. Don't call me a liar, I don't play these games with people.

If YOU don't BELIEVE it out of lack of faith, then that's a different problem. I am not arguing about his character and honesty, but it's simply not up for debate whether he has factually denounced these racists organizations. He has. Fact.

The statement may or may not be of questionable faith. The statement was still made, in all of it's existence of being made as a statement. Simply fact.

Apparently, the two political parties have trouble finding ANY candidate with any credibility within even their own party. It'd be nice if somebody accepted that all politicians are crummy and now we're somehow stuck with this one out of all the qualified people who could have run for office.

"i don't have to listen to their biased youtube media"

He says, having linked Sargon earlier in this thread. He says, having defended linking Sargon, repeatedly.

"not alt-right". Sure

@thetrophysystem
I'm beyond shoving your face in the evidence. if I mention lying to yourself that's because that's where we're at.

there's no other way to put it.

You know just as well as I do that trump had a previous statement before the staff-dictated correction you just brought up and another one one after that both go against it.

yet you cherry pick around it anyways

So, say we go by dates and numbers. the pro-nazi/KKK trump proposition wins out.

And if we go by sheer number of statements you know what's going to win out as well.

latest to-date.

freestyle vs teleprompter.

whatever metric you pick it's a lost cause.

but really is it even a proposition that holds?:

panning one statement from one man vs another one from the same man. "if the quantities even out then it's neutral derp!"
WTF even?



you gotta work the spaghetti out yourself just as detectives and a judge would to sort out the truth in a crime.

"Oh one tells one story and the other another? WOE! Woe be us! Nothing can be done we must assume nothing happened and let them walk free!"

common now what possible excuse are you labeling his statements with? an accident? banter?

and he meant that statement which was out of his vocabulary and grammar range? are you kidding me? even you don't believe that

get as far as you can stomach into this video it's very interesting :
2:30 to 5:20 is all you need

bare bants, bruv

bit of a cheeky swagger like

How so? I got one dated Nov 2nd 2016. Where in the actual **** are your cited sources dating back further? Bonus points if you can find collaboration from before all this hipster lets-gangbang-trump bullshit of the election year. Like, what was Trump doing in 1997 that pisses you off so badly for instance?

I'm not cherry picking. Most media is pissed he divided the blame between someone other than the white-nationalist, and honestly a lot of people still support the notion of dividing that blame toward the bastards in Antifa. They're heavily anti-freedom and political-suppression based, and when it boils down to it, the unbiased crowd doesn't put up with that ****.

When the nation of average joes hates you nearly as much as they do racist nazis, you need to take a cold hard look in a mirror and ask yourself why.

Unpopular opinion: During future "peaceful protests", police snipers with video-capture scopes, should be provided with ample rubber bullets, and be allowed to hose down any individual on first violent action in a protest, with the video footage as evidence of why they dumped the ammo onto them.

I fk'n bet antifa and white-nationalists would keep their level-headed demeanor if that were the case. It'd only take one example of a baseball bat wielding dipshit getting covered in lumpy sores, to knock that **** clean the fk off.

hey I tried. now it's just a matter of time. tick tock tick tock. worked last couple of times it ain't gonna let me down again.

One side rammed a car into a crowd of protesters, killing one and injuring at least 20. the other did not. it's not that hard.

Being against Nazis makes you anti-freedom. Apparently.

You know, @thetrophysystem, the gigantic neon flashing ideological sign above your post is reaaaaaaally evident when you spend more time ranting about BLM and antifa more than you do actual Neo-Nazis. You keep making them sound milder than they are by lumping them with regular white supremacists too.

btw there's still no evidence as to antifa whatsoever. there's still no denying trump is quoting breitbart when he says (the erroneous statement that) the left didn't have a manifestation permit.

there's still no evidence anywhere of another violent "side".

but really is it even a proposition that holds?:

panning one statement from one man vs another one from the same man. "if the quantities even out then it's neutral derp!"
WTF even?



you gotta work the spaghetti out yourself just as detectives and a judge would to sort out the truth in a crime.

"Oh one tells one story and the other another? WOE! Woe be us! Nothing can be done we must assume nothing happened and let them walk free!"

common now what possible excuse are you labeling his statements with? an accident? banter?

and he meant that statement which was out of his vocabulary and grammar range? are you kidding me? even you don't believe that

get as far as you can stomach into this video it's very interesting :
2:30 to 5:20 is all you need

trying to help you get more than halfway through my posts

a bit of fun in twitter. Trump is apparently in full freudian slip mode :