The alt-right

[WISD0MTREE]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/25/politics/alt-right-explained-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/

 

So, today, Hillary Clinton is going to address and ''blast'' the alt-right because we're literally Hitler.

 

She's stupid. How can she not realize that all that is going to do is give the alt-right movement legitimacy?

I saw that move somewhere before... 

 

[LordRahl2]

RT (and AJ) are both propaganda outlets so people know they're soft on certain issues. However on other issues they tend to be quite good as they have no special interests involved in the matter. For example if other news sources are reporting on say, the "moderate rebels of democracy", RT is reporting more on the reality of the matter. Even propaganda outlets can be truthful if you know what they can and can't be truthful on.

 

 

 

It's a perfectly valid answer. UKIP were in a similar position you could say in that they got a large amount of coverage, but it was made virtually all negative to try and push the anti-Brexit message.

Cool enough on rt. I avoid pure propaganda. Even blind squirels find nuts - yet I would not go to them for nut collection.

 

No. Auto answering blah blah MSM is garbage. So the question remains.

[Rozalia]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/25/politics/alt-right-explained-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/

 

So, today, Hillary Clinton is going to address and ''blast'' the alt-right because we're literally Hitler.

 

She's stupid. How can she not realize that all that is going to do is give the alt-right movement legitimacy?

 

I was wondering why it was such an interest to LordRahl2. Saw her speech, someone shouted Pepe to much hilarity. The Alt-Right will be thanking Clinton for bringing them to prominence and trying to establish Trump as belonging to it. Trump will be the first Alt-Right President now.

 

Cool enough on rt. I avoid pure propaganda. Even blind squirels find nuts - yet I would not go to them for nut collection.

 

No. Auto answering blah blah MSM is garbage. So the question remains.

 

It isn't however pure propaganda, at the very least no more than any other mainstream outlet. They all have their matters they will not be honest about, you merely need to know what those are.

 

Yeah, the anti-establishment candidate struggles with the mainstream media, gosh it's so hard to work out why. Corbyn is anti-establishment too and as far from Trump as you can get it in both politics and how he carries himself. The British mainstream media is united against him and during Labour's elections I was left wondering if he or Trump was the most badly treated. In the end he won overwhelmingly thereby crushing the media's attempts. Trump will also overcome them.

[Clarke]

So your main news source comes from the utubers or somewhere else?

I watch all news sources, aside from maybe AJ as that is just ridiculous, you know its basically 100% pure BS. 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/23/munich-shooting-german-iranian-gunman-targeted-children-outside/

 

Are you serious? The McDonalds attacker was not only far-right and inspired by Breivik (it was the fifth anniversary ffs) he deliberately targeted muslim teenagers. How you crazies can re-interpret that as him being a fundamentalist Iranian I don't know. Literally the only reason you'd think that is because he is brown skinned.

 

 

 

 

Populism is populism, it has strains of all ideologies, poorly processed and understood.

 

Btw the quote in your annoying sig uses "it's" when it should be "its".

 

 

This thread is now hilariously off-topic

 

 

Also, yes the Mcdonalds attack was a right-wing extremist.

I don't know, I find this hilarious calling someone who most likely supported the left a right wing extremist. 

To say he deliberately targeted Muslim teenagers paints an ignorant picture without any context since as I read this story he targeted people from Turkish descendant because of how he was treated by Turks in his youth, being inspired to kill people by someone else doesn't make you believe in what they believe, he could have simple recognized a competent efficient killer who did maximum damage, ultimately he didn't kill as many. As far as I can see there is nothing to suggest far right in the way you mean trying to associate it with people of European descendant. 

Are all Muslims who kill Muslims in Muslim countries now far right? Are Muslims who are inspired by Hitler in dealing with the Jews believe the same, well probably on that and I recall Muslims helped Hitler with the Holocaust. 

 

The main issue is Islam predominately votes left, a Muslim voting right is almost like a black person voting against affirmative action. Sure its the right thing to do but it doesn't necessarily benefit by making things more equal and fair. 

It would be like saying a regressive is far right because they killed a bunch of people who were also regressive.

Is the person who tried to kill Trump now on the right because he tried to kill him with a gun?

[LordRahl2]

I was wondering why it was such an interest to LordRahl2. Saw her speech, someone shouted Pepe to much hilarity. The Alt-Right will be thanking Clinton for bringing them to prominence and trying to establish Trump as belonging to it. Trump will be the first Alt-Right President now.

 

 

It isn't however pure propaganda, at the very least no more than any other mainstream outlet. They all have their matters they will not be honest about, you merely need to know what those are.

 

Yeah, the anti-establishment candidate struggles with the mainstream media, gosh it's so hard to work out why. Corbyn is anti-establishment too and as far from Trump as you can get it in both politics and how he carries himself. The British mainstream media is united against him and during Labour's elections I was left wondering if he or Trump was the most badly treated. In the end he won overwhelmingly thereby crushing the media's attempts. Trump will also overcome them.

No. It actually is pure Russian propaganda and nothing more. I honestly think this is how your thinking went astray.

 

So . . . why? Since its so easy to figure out.

 

I do not really care about labour's internal squables. For the analogy to work Corbyn would need to be PM anyway.

[Rozalia]

No. It actually is pure Russian propaganda and nothing more. I honestly think this is how your thinking went astray.

 

So . . . why? Since its so easy to figure out.

 

I do not really care about labour's internal squables. For the analogy to work Corbyn would need to be PM anyway.

 

Is the BBC pure British propaganda too? I've seen them report honesty quite a number of times on things they have no reason to lie on unlike western media mainstream sources. All are biased and won't speak against certain issues (RT being Putin naturally), but that doesn't make them "pure propaganda". If thats the criteria then they're all pure propaganda.

 

Trump is already President is he? Both are candidates at their country's top spot (FYI the constant attacks on Corbyn didn't stop when he won Labour's leadership). I do believe you want to discount it as it doesn't allow you to hit Trump on what you want to hit him on. In truth it isn't that Trump is right wing. It ain't that he's anti-illegal immigrant. It ain't that he's anti-political correctness. It ain't that he's abrasive. Corbyn is left wing, loves immigrants of all kinds, is politically correct, and tends to be cordial even in the face of absurd nonsense and hostility. As far as you can get from Trump but he is ultimately treated in the same manner. 

 

The common thread is opposing the mainstream, opposing globalism. Any person who does that will be treated as a madman, a racist (bloody Corbyn of all people they've tried painting as a Anti-Jew monster), and an agent of Russia as the cold war is alive and well according to them (which for those who balk at conspiracy theories is always fun to hear). Same thing happened with Brexit. All those who supported it were apparently madmen, racist, and "doing Putin's will". It didn't work against Corbyn. It didn't work against Brexit. Maybe third time will be the charm, we'll see but I do not believe it will work on Trump.

[LordRahl2]

No the BBC is not a pure propaganda organization.  Your inability to differentiate between the the two is, I think, how your thinking went astray.

The RT is a pure propaganda organization plain and simple unlike the BBC.  Do you need me to define what that means for you as well as what bias is compared to propaganda?  Honestly it should be obvious.

 

You are a bit slow today.

You said Corbyn won therefore Trump will will.  Corbyn won some internal labour thing; Trump won some internal Repub thing.  So they are at the same place, analogy wise.  Again, for your analogy to work Corbyn would need to have won as PM.  Duh.

[Rozalia]

No the BBC is not a pure propaganda organization.  Your inability to differentiate between the the two is, I think, how your thinking went astray.

The RT is a pure propaganda organization plain and simple unlike the BBC.  Do you need me to define what that means for you as well as what bias is compared to propaganda?  Honestly it should be obvious.

 

You are a bit slow today.

You said Corbyn won therefore Trump will will.  Corbyn won some internal labour thing; Trump won some internal Repub thing.  So they are at the same place, analogy wise.  Again, for your analogy to work Corbyn would need to have won as PM.  Duh.

 

So they are pure propaganda on all issues? That right? When Western media is promoting nasty guys as being beacons of freedom and they're (RT) giving something closer to the truth they're being less truthful by doing so? You are a big supporter of all the interventions so I suppose if something goes against the narrative then it's propaganda I guess, I get you.

 

No, you're taking something I've said in my latest post to paint my previous one. I said Trump will win in the same manner but that remains to be seen in my last post. The relevant bit in both posts was that the common thread between Trump and Corbyn (and Brexit) is the opposing of the mainstream/globalism. Address the fact they're both savaged in the same manner please instead of constantly trying to discount it as it ain't comfortable. 

 

You have your answer, he ain't mainstream/globalist, and you have an example of someone as far away from him as possible who is savaged in the same manner. Perhaps it might be wrong, perhaps it ain't the case, but considering you thus far haven't dared to even face up to it I do believe I'm on the money and you know it. If you believe it to be wrong then thats fine, but if so then you should have no problem analyzing and saying exactly why it's wrong instead of trying to discount on some minor business. 

[Clarke]

No the BBC is not a pure propaganda organization.  Your inability to differentiate between the the two is, I think, how your thinking went astray.

The RT is a pure propaganda organization plain and simple unlike the BBC.  Do you need me to define what that means for you as well as what bias is compared to propaganda?  Honestly it should be obvious.

Please explain, I will judge the logic and reasoning used. 

[LordRahl2]

No. If Moscow wants a story it gets an rt story. This is a really really simple concept Roz.

 

No riz, I am not. Learn to read or logic or both. You said a=b. I propose that a=a. Again, simple.

 

Your last paragraph is a confusing mass of words and I have to go to work so I will look at it later.

I will judge the logic

Hahahahaha

[Clarke]

No. If Moscow wants a story it gets an rt story. This is a really really simple concept Roz.

 

No riz, I am not. Learn to read or logic or both. You said a=b. I propose that a=a. Again, simple.

 

Your last paragraph is a confusing mass of words and I have to go to work so I will look at it later.

 

Hahahahaha

 

How come every time I ask you to explain your logic you always back down, this is becoming quite the trend. Me thinks you have very bad logic. 

Edited August 26, 2016 by Lightning

[Rozalia]

No. If Moscow wants a story it gets an rt story. This is a really really simple concept Roz.

 

No riz, I am not. Learn to read or logic or both. You said a=b. I propose that a=a. Again, simple.

 

Your last paragraph is a confusing mass of words and I have to go to work so I will look at it later.

 

Hahahahaha

 

If the west wants a story, it gets a story from the mainstream media. Your point? 

 

I'm going to try one more time to be nice and then I'm going to write it off as you being as you would say, "chicken" (I'd go with dishonest myself as you know) to address it directly.

 

Yeah, the anti-establishment candidate struggles with the mainstream media, gosh it's so hard to work out why. Corbyn is anti-establishment too and as far from Trump as you can get it in both politics and how he carries himself. The British mainstream media is united against him and during Labour's elections I was left wondering if he or Trump was the most badly treated.

In truth it isn't that Trump is right wing. It ain't that he's anti-illegal immigrant. It ain't that he's anti-political correctness. It ain't that he's abrasive. Corbyn is left wing, loves immigrants of all kinds, is politically correct, and tends to be cordial even in the face of absurd nonsense and hostility. As far as you can get from Trump but he is ultimately treated in the same manner. 

 

The common thread is opposing the mainstream, opposing globalism. Any person who does that will be treated as a madman, a racist (bloody Corbyn of all people they've tried painting as a Anti-Jew monster), and an agent of Russia as the cold war is alive and well according to them (which for those who balk at conspiracy theories is always fun to hear). Same thing happened with Brexit. All those who supported it were apparently madmen, racist, and "doing Putin's will".

The relevant bit in both posts was that the common thread between Trump and Corbyn (and Brexit) is the opposing of the mainstream/globalism. Address the fact they're both savaged in the same manner please instead of constantly trying to discount it as it ain't comfortable. 

 

You have your answer, he ain't mainstream/globalist, and you have an example of someone as far away from him as possible who is savaged in the same manner. Perhaps it might be wrong, perhaps it ain't the case, but considering you thus far haven't dared to even face up to it I do believe I'm on the money and you know it. If you believe it to be wrong then thats fine, but if so then you should have no problem analyzing and saying exactly why it's wrong instead of trying to discount on some minor business.

Those are the relevant bits. Address that and explain how in both cases it ain't the anti-mainstream/globalism stances. Failure to do so and I'll mark it down as you running away and let it go as you won't ever address it as everybody knows. 

 

How come every time I ask you to explain your logic you always back down, this is becoming quite the trend. Me thinks you have very bad logic. 

 

You're too much of a dum-dum and <insert mocking> to understand his logic is how it usually goes with him. Bad attitude on him, nasty.

[LordRahl2]

How come every time I ask you to explain your logic you always back down, this is becoming quite the trend. Me thinks you have very bad logic.

You wil judge my logic. Hahahhaha. That is still too rich!

[LordRahl2]

 

If the west wants a story, it gets a story from the mainstream media. Your point?

 

I'm going to try one more time to be nice and then I'm going to write it off as you being as you would say, "chicken" (I'd go with dishonest myself as you know) to address it directly.

 

 

 

 

Those are the relevant bits. Address that and explain how in both cases it ain't the anti-mainstream/globalism stances. Failure to do so and I'll mark it down as you running away and let it go as you won't ever address it as everybody knows.

 

 

You're too much of a dum-dum and <insert mocking> to understand his logic is how it usually goes with him. Bad attitude on him, nasty.

Sure I will break it down barney style after work. No problem but really a silly thing to do for a grown man.

[Clarke]

You wil judge my logic. Hahahhaha. That is still too rich!

I only deal in logic, it is my craft. If you can't show your logic to a master of the craft then it is fundamentally flawed. 

[Rozalia]

Sure I will break it down barney style after work. No problem but really a silly thing to do for a grown man.

 

Telling you to address a answer to a question you asked instead is silly for a grown man? I do believe you've gone into this with your own answer ready so why you haven't yet produced it I don't know, but I know you won't brook anything that goes against your own view so for the sake of honesty please also attach your own view on why it is how it is for both Trump & Corbyn. Thank you.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

I only deal in logic, it is my craft. If you can't show your logic to a master of the craft then it is fundamentally flawed. 

 

Oh this is rich. What are your qualifications to be called "a master of logic?"

[Ayayay]

Oh this is rich. What are your qualifications to be called "a master of logic?"

The only qualification that matters

 

Edited August 28, 2016 by Malal

[Clarke]

Oh this is rich. What are your qualifications to be called "a master of logic?"

You simply need to excel at it. 

[Peter Quill]

I watch all news sources, aside from maybe AJ as that is just ridiculous, you know its basically 100% pure BS.

Not as BS as Fox News, TheBlaze, or RT, though.

[Peter Quill]

I'm with Roz, surprising I know.

 

RT is about as much of a propaganda machine as any other state funded news network, including western media like CNN or the BBC. To an extent, a privately funded news network can be even more biased (rupert Murdoch's networks). I know Americans think the Cold War is still on and Putin is the devil and all this other nonsense, but really, RT is a credible source just as any other news network is.

CNN isn't state-funded, and the BBC isn't really a state mouthpiece.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

You simply need to excel at it. 

 

Given that I do pages long mathematical proofs of theorems for my research, I am calling your BS kiddo.

[Rozalia]

CNN isn't state-funded, and the BBC isn't really a state mouthpiece.

 

The point was it doesn't matter if they're state funded or not, they will all have their subjects they won't be unbiased about. As for the BBC it is always biased towards the in power government, you simply think otherwise because they're not propagandizing something you can recognise (I assume you're American). For many years they have helped the Tories out quite a bit in their coverage and with Corbyn leader of Labour at times they've gone into overdrive on covering him badly. Some put this down to people they've got working for them in positions of power (Laura Kuenssberg for one example) and others to them being terrified to anger the government as the government can decide in retaliation to start cutting them to shreds (they are state funded). A good example is the privatisation of the NHS which is not given the coverage it deserves and when given it's always in a nice manner for the Tories, phrased all positive like.

[Clarke]

Given that I do pages long mathematical proofs of theorems for my research, I am calling your BS kiddo.

Emotions are more powerful than logic hence you using emotions rather than logic to solve situations. I think I made it clear regarding emotions as I mentioned it a few times now.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Emotions are more powerful than logic hence you using emotions rather than logic to solve situations. I think I made it clear regarding emotions as I mentioned it a few times now.

 

All your posts invoke in me the most powerful emotions of incredulity and toppest of keks, so you might have a point there.