Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)

  On 9/16/2016 at 6:26 PM, Deer said:

 

  On 9/16/2016 at 2:48 AM, Nebraska said:

 

  On 9/16/2016 at 2:16 AM, Deer said:

why can't just one of these cunts running for president come out as an atheist

i don't know if i care about a presidential candidate's religion or lack thereof. there's still a massive portion of the country that's religious that also makes things rather complicated to simply ignore the issue (or at least imo).

 

tbh, if someone is religious (or not) i'd rather they keep that to themselves.

Okay have fun having Christian weirdos telling u how to live ur life

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

  On 9/16/2016 at 6:06 PM, caze said:

Assange released another batch of Clinton emails the other day, they had absolutely nothing of note in them, I think he's ran out of damaging material.

 

if the election was held today Clinton would win. Trump has had a good couple of weeks, but he hasn't even managed to get back to his highest polling period of the campaign, just after the RNC. I think since then a lot of people have made up their mind on him, the undecideds are a lot fewer now, and he's probably reached the limit of his support.

Thank God Assange is a totally ethical un-biased journalist with no conflicts of interest who's just looking out for our freedom

2016 American presidential election (brought to you by RT)

  On 9/16/2016 at 6:50 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 9/16/2016 at 6:06 PM, caze said:

Assange released another batch of Clinton emails the other day, they had absolutely nothing of note in them, I think he's ran out of damaging material.

 

if the election was held today Clinton would win. Trump has had a good couple of weeks, but he hasn't even managed to get back to his highest polling period of the campaign, just after the RNC. I think since then a lot of people have made up their mind on him, the undecideds are a lot fewer now, and he's probably reached the limit of his support.

Thank God Assange is a totally ethical un-biased journalist with no conflicts of interest who's just looking out for our freedom

 

2016 American presidential election (brought to you by RT)

 

What interests are you talking about? I am interested.

He was on Putin's payroll at one point

Source? I'm putting his current shilling for Trump and Putin down as pro-bono shilling due to simple bitterness for the State Department and Obama in general.

Source? He had a show on RT (media funded by the Russian gov't)

Now, I'm not saying that he is a covert Putin shill

I'm saying he has a clear conflict of interest that should at least be kept in mind

Douglas Murray (who I usually find reasonable even when I don't agree with him) lays out the case pretty well here:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UDnt_CYDiuE

yeah I like Murray, though disagree with him on a lot of stuff, especially immigration.

neocon subforum pls

http://www.trumptendo.com/

  On 9/16/2016 at 10:14 PM, Alcofribas said:

neocon subforum pls

Again, these folks are conspicuously quiet when it comes to (e.g) the high mortality rate of Russian journalists, especially considering how much they like to talk about the mistreatment of journalists. (If you criticize Assange/Snowden/Greenwald people tend to assume you're anti-whistleblower or defending the U.S. Gov't or engaging in "Cold War rhetoric" or whatever)

Is Murray the twit who thinks England is no longer a Christian nation or am I thinking of some other daft fool?

Probably, yeah

He holds some absolutely dumb ideas/beliefs, but for a lot of things he's very insightful where few others are

Murray is a self-described neo-con and director of a neo-con think tank which also includes such luminaries as oliver kamm, richard perle and william kristol. it's not as though there isn't a robust and voluminous criticism of bro-conservative ideology extant in both scholarly and journalistic forms. they are by and large a disgraced group whose ideology has provided an underpinning for some of the most repulsive acts of western powers for decades now.

I'm glad you and caze don't agree with murray on absolutely everything I suppose. I for one find him to be a repulsive mandarin who often lends ideological support to the more shameful sides of ruling class endeavors.

bonus points for his pathetic arguments against the very existence of islamophobia (particularly repulsive in light of this week's news), arguing against greenwald that Boris Johnson has proved that the snowden leaks taught terrorists how to commit attacks like in paris and for his think tanks super deluxe smear campaign against noam chomsky. a most impressive résumé.

edit: lol @ "bro-conservative" autocorrect. thanks Obama.

After reading that, I am appalled that a certain mod here keeps using his face as avatar.

Yeah I certainly don't agree with DM on everything (not even most things)

Humans seem to have a "the messenger is an asshole, therefor the message must be wrong" heuristic that is probably usually useful, but hard to overcome...all the "motivated reasoning" findings suggest that we are slow to agree with "out-group" opinions and quicker to agree with "in-group" ones, regardless of merit (even if it's an identical opinion)

I mean, I kinda feel like a lefty in a world where 'the left' has lost the (classical liberalism) plot, so occasionally I see people on 'the right' making more sense about a certain subject

Alco, just a question (maybe a stupid one):

Can you imagine agreeing with a person even though you dislike the person, his/her biography and rest of his/her opinions?

Stupid example: Adolf Hitler says in a heated mathematical debate that "10 + 27 = 37"

Would you be able to publicly admit that you agree with Adolf Hitler on that?

  On 9/16/2016 at 11:27 PM, Alcofribas said:

Murray is a self-described neo-con and director of a neo-con think tank which also includes such luminaries as oliver kamm, richard perle and william kristol. it's not as though there isn't a robust and voluminous criticism of bro-conservative ideology extant in both scholarly and journalistic forms. they are by and large a disgraced group whose ideology has provided an underpinning for some of the most repulsive acts of western powers for decades now.

 

I'm glad you and caze don't agree with murray on absolutely everything I suppose. I for one find him to be a repulsive mandarin who often lends ideological support to the more shameful sides of ruling class endeavors.

 

bonus points for his pathetic arguments against the very existence of islamophobia (particularly repulsive in light of this week's news), arguing against greenwald that Boris Johnson has proved that the snowden leaks taught terrorists how to commit attacks like in paris and for his think tanks super deluxe smear campaign against noam chomsky. a most impressive résumé.

 

edit: lol @ "bro-conservative" autocorrect. thanks Obama.

his arguments against the existence of Islamophobia are far from pathetic, in fact they're entirely accurate. he quite clearly doesn't try and put forward the case that there doesn't exist any racism/bigotry towards muslims, simply that there really is very little irrational fear of islam amongst the usual suspects in the public sphere who are most frequently being accused of it, and that there is quite a lot of justified fear of certain forms of islam (of which he is acutely aware as a gay man). fundamentally 'Islamophobia' was an invention of Islamists as a means for fostering useful idiocy amongst western leftists, and it's been incredibly successful sadly.

also, while he does call himself a neoconservative, his definition is quite a bit different from the american version, just as British conservatism in general is different from the American kind I suppose. but still, that's another area where I disagree with him, as I have little time for any kind of conservatism.

  On 9/16/2016 at 5:42 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

The polls will shift a lot after the debates I think. Hard to call anything until then, but Trump actually has to win Ohio to win the election most likely and he doesn't have a lot of support there. We will see.

the polls are historically tied at this point in an election year. same for last several elections. they'll likely change several times before the election

Yeah, everything I've heard from people who study this shit (okay, mostly just fivethirtyeight...) say that really it's the long term trend that points most towards the winner. And the long term trend has been Clinton. Of course, anything could happen, especially this election cycle.

such as

  On 9/17/2016 at 1:28 AM, auxien said:

really it's the long term trend that points most towards the winner.

  On 9/17/2016 at 7:32 AM, phling said:

such as

 

that shit was disappointing. jimmy falon plays soft ball.  it's a shame and it normalizes trump's bigotry and racism and ridiculousness. 

it's not like Fallon's show is supposed to have any sort of political spine, it's pablum for the masses. (which means Trump, or any other political candidate for that matter, should never have been on it in the first place.)

fallon is, always has been, always will be.. a massive gimboid.