Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

More Evidence Trump Doesn't Want to be Prez

Bennett91
Posts: 4,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 6:24:32 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
Trump has been turning away intelligence briefings "Vice President-elect Mike Pence, by contrast, has set aside time for intelligence briefings almost every day since the election, officials said." Looks like Pence will be the real politician behind the scenes while Trump is a figurehead.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

This along with Trumps desire to spend more time in his pent house rather than the white house - and dealing with Indian business men after being elected shows that being a president is not his priority.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 6:40:09 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 6:24:32 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
Trump has been turning away intelligence briefings "Vice President-elect Mike Pence, by contrast, has set aside time for intelligence briefings almost every day since the election, officials said." Looks like Pence will be the real politician behind the scenes while Trump is a figurehead.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

This along with Trumps desire to spend more time in his pent house rather than the white house - and dealing with Indian business men after being elected shows that being a president is not his priority.

(washington post)
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 7:35:55 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 7:17:23 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
Looks like no one can refute whats going on. Not surprised.

Refute the Wapo?

Impossibru!
Bennett91
Posts: 4,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 9:11:05 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 8:18:14 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/24/2016 6:40:09 AM, triangle.128k wrote:


(washington post)

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

wow great sh!t post completely irrelevant to my post! Grade A stuff from parakeet right here. Don't worry folks, by this sh!t logic if a source has been wrong before it must be wrong about EVERYTHING for ALL TIME. I wonder how many valid sources bird sh!t for brains trusts?
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 9:28:37 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
I read the article in its entirety. While the author definitely has a particular slant, the sources he quotes are very non-committal: some indicate he is missing a golden opportunity while others indicate his actions are not at all unprecedented by ten outlining predecessors timeline of when they started participating daily.

Seems like more of those who are predisposed to be anti Trump will grasp anything to affirm or, more succinctly: trump derangement syndrome succeeds Obama derangement syndrome succeeds bush derangement syndrome succeeds clinton derangement syndrome....
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 9:32:23 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 9:11:05 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 8:18:14 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/24/2016 6:40:09 AM, triangle.128k wrote:


(washington post)

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

wow great sh!t post completely irrelevant to my post! Grade A stuff from parakeet right here. Don't worry folks, by this sh!t logic if a source has been wrong before it must be wrong about EVERYTHING for ALL TIME. I wonder how many valid sources bird sh!t for brains trusts?

I guess it really is impossibru!
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 9:35:22 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 9:11:05 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 8:18:14 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/24/2016 6:40:09 AM, triangle.128k wrote:


(washington post)

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

wow great sh!t post completely irrelevant to my post! Grade A stuff from parakeet right here. Don't worry folks, by this sh!t logic if a source has been wrong before it must be wrong about EVERYTHING for ALL TIME. I wonder how many valid sources bird sh!t for brains trusts?

Well, you and the Washington post have been wrong in just about every prediction that you've made this election. And seeing as the WaPo is speculating in the same manner that it has on Trump's cabinet picks (about which, *ahem*, they've been wrong on just about every count), I'm not going to put much stock in this.

'But others have interpreted Trump"s limited engagement with his briefing team as an additional sign of indifference from a president-elect who has no meaningful experience on national security issues and was dismissive of U.S. intelligence agencies" capabilities and findings during the campaign.'

So, to translate this: we have no direct proof on this matter, so we're going to speculate. Ignore the fact that our speculations have been proven wrong time and time again and accept our baseless prognostication as the gospel truth. There's also no possibility whatsoever that our owner, the third richest man in the world, influences how we report. The string of hilariously inaccurate 'predictions' that we've made, all of which seem tailored to damage Trump, are just a long chain of unrelated coincidences. Pay no attention to our rapidly crumbling prestige.

I hear they have adverts for beachfront condos in Idaho on the next page; you ought to enter for a drawing.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Bennett91
Posts: 4,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 10:08:24 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 9:35:22 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/24/2016 9:11:05 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 8:18:14 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/24/2016 6:40:09 AM, triangle.128k wrote:


(washington post)

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

wow great sh!t post completely irrelevant to my post! Grade A stuff from parakeet right here. Don't worry folks, by this sh!t logic if a source has been wrong before it must be wrong about EVERYTHING for ALL TIME. I wonder how many valid sources bird sh!t for brains trusts?

Well, you and the Washington post have been wrong in just about every prediction that you've made this election. And seeing as the WaPo is speculating in the same manner that it has on Trump's cabinet picks (about which, *ahem*, they've been wrong on just about every count), I'm not going to put much stock in this.

I only made one prediction about this election, so it's not that impressive of a track record. Most people, even Trump supporters thought Hillary was going to win. No one could have predicted the extreme amount of apathy that would be shown on election day.

As for cabinet picks how could hey be wrong when they've just been reporting on potential picks and they keep changing?

'But others have interpreted Trump"s limited engagement with his briefing team as an additional sign of indifference from a president-elect who has no meaningful experience on national security issues and was dismissive of U.S. intelligence agencies" capabilities and findings during the campaign.'

And this is suppose to reflect positively on Trump?

So, to translate this: we have no direct proof on this matter, so we're going to speculate. Ignore the fact that our speculations have been proven wrong time and time again and accept our baseless prognostication as the gospel truth. There's also no possibility whatsoever that our owner, the third richest man in the world, influences how we report. The string of hilariously inaccurate 'predictions' that we've made, all of which seem tailored to damage Trump, are just a long chain of unrelated coincidences. Pay no attention to our rapidly crumbling prestige.

I'll pose the question to you as I did parakeet. Which sources do you trust that don't have a record of any kind of being wrong?

I hear they have adverts for beachfront condos in Idaho on the next page; you ought to enter for a drawing.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 7:07:47 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 10:08:24 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 9:35:22 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/24/2016 9:11:05 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 8:18:14 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/24/2016 6:40:09 AM, triangle.128k wrote:


(washington post)

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

wow great sh!t post completely irrelevant to my post! Grade A stuff from parakeet right here. Don't worry folks, by this sh!t logic if a source has been wrong before it must be wrong about EVERYTHING for ALL TIME. I wonder how many valid sources bird sh!t for brains trusts?

Well, you and the Washington post have been wrong in just about every prediction that you've made this election. And seeing as the WaPo is speculating in the same manner that it has on Trump's cabinet picks (about which, *ahem*, they've been wrong on just about every count), I'm not going to put much stock in this.

I only made one prediction about this election, so it's not that impressive of a track record. Most people, even Trump supporters thought Hillary was going to win.

Most Trump supporters were unsure.

No one could have predicted the extreme amount of apathy that would be shown on election day.

As for cabinet picks how could hey be wrong when they've just been reporting on potential picks and they keep changing?

Because they kept saying 'insider sources have revealed', came up with lists, and then literally posted hundreds of articles claiming, not that Trump's cabinet MIGHT be filled with neocons, but that Trump's cabinet WILL be filled with neocons and establishment Republicans. You can literally scroll back a few pages in the politics forums and find a bunch of people on this site confidently claiming that Trump was going to be following 'politics as usual' and posting these articles in order to mock those people who believed that he was 'draining the swamp'.

'But others have interpreted Trump"s limited engagement with his briefing team as an additional sign of indifference from a president-elect who has no meaningful experience on national security issues and was dismissive of U.S. intelligence agencies" capabilities and findings during the campaign.'

And this is suppose to reflect positively on Trump?

Seriously? Read the first four words. It doesn't reflect positively or negatively on anyone. It doesn't mean anything. They're making it up. 'But others have interpreted' actually means 'someone, somewhere, probably has this opinion'. How is that relevant to anything? It's their way of basically fabricating news and then covering their asses with the most vague attribution possible.

So, to translate this: we have no direct proof on this matter, so we're going to speculate. Ignore the fact that our speculations have been proven wrong time and time again and accept our baseless prognostication as the gospel truth. There's also no possibility whatsoever that our owner, the third richest man in the world, influences how we report. The string of hilariously inaccurate 'predictions' that we've made, all of which seem tailored to damage Trump, are just a long chain of unrelated coincidences. Pay no attention to our rapidly crumbling prestige.

I'll pose the question to you as I did parakeet. Which sources do you trust that don't have a record of any kind of being wrong?

I don't trust any of them. I don't read the news to be spoon-fed opinions about what something means, or predictions of what's going to happen, or sly implications about what a 'good person' thinks about something. I read it to find out what has happened, and to form my own opinion. To that end, I simply read sources with conflicting biases, and where they disagree I investigate original sources. An good example of that would be CNN outright lying about Richard Spencer recently.

I hear they have adverts for beachfront condos in Idaho on the next page; you ought to enter for a drawing.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Bennett91
Posts: 4,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2016 10:55:36 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 7:07:47 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/24/2016 10:08:24 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 9:35:22 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/24/2016 9:11:05 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 8:18:14 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/24/2016 6:40:09 AM, triangle.128k wrote:


(washington post)

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

wow great sh!t post completely irrelevant to my post! Grade A stuff from parakeet right here. Don't worry folks, by this sh!t logic if a source has been wrong before it must be wrong about EVERYTHING for ALL TIME. I wonder how many valid sources bird sh!t for brains trusts?

Well, you and the Washington post have been wrong in just about every prediction that you've made this election. And seeing as the WaPo is speculating in the same manner that it has on Trump's cabinet picks (about which, *ahem*, they've been wrong on just about every count), I'm not going to put much stock in this.

I only made one prediction about this election, so it's not that impressive of a track record. Most people, even Trump supporters thought Hillary was going to win.

Most Trump supporters were unsure.

No one could have predicted the extreme amount of apathy that would be shown on election day.

As for cabinet picks how could hey be wrong when they've just been reporting on potential picks and they keep changing?

Because they kept saying 'insider sources have revealed', came up with lists, and then literally posted hundreds of articles claiming, not that Trump's cabinet MIGHT be filled with neocons, but that Trump's cabinet WILL be filled with neocons and establishment Republicans. You can literally scroll back a few pages in the politics forums and find a bunch of people on this site confidently claiming that Trump was going to be following 'politics as usual' and posting these articles in order to mock those people who believed that he was 'draining the swamp'.

Well is there any evidence he's appointing anyone other than neo cons? All the names that have been floated and all those close to Trump have either been family members, conservatives and lobbyists. I've not heard of any moderates of liberals - if you have I'd like to know.

'But others have interpreted Trump"s limited engagement with his briefing team as an additional sign of indifference from a president-elect who has no meaningful experience on national security issues and was dismissive of U.S. intelligence agencies" capabilities and findings during the campaign.'

And this is suppose to reflect positively on Trump?

Seriously? Read the first four words. It doesn't reflect positively or negatively on anyone. It doesn't mean anything. They're making it up. 'But others have interpreted' actually means 'someone, somewhere, probably has this opinion'. How is that relevant to anything? It's their way of basically fabricating news and then covering their asses with the most vague attribution possible.

So, to translate this: we have no direct proof on this matter, so we're going to speculate. Ignore the fact that our speculations have been proven wrong time and time again and accept our baseless prognostication as the gospel truth. There's also no possibility whatsoever that our owner, the third richest man in the world, influences how we report. The string of hilariously inaccurate 'predictions' that we've made, all of which seem tailored to damage Trump, are just a long chain of unrelated coincidences. Pay no attention to our rapidly crumbling prestige.

I'll pose the question to you as I did parakeet. Which sources do you trust that don't have a record of any kind of being wrong?

I don't trust any of them. I don't read the news to be spoon-fed opinions about what something means, or predictions of what's going to happen, or sly implications about what a 'good person' thinks about something. I read it to find out what has happened, and to form my own opinion. To that end, I simply read sources with conflicting biases, and where they disagree I investigate original sources. An good example of that would be CNN outright lying about Richard Spencer recently.

Richard Spencer the hail Trump guy? What did they say about him that was a lie?

I hear they have adverts for beachfront condos in Idaho on the next page; you ought to enter for a drawing.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 2:56:21 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 10:55:36 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 7:07:47 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/24/2016 10:08:24 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
No one could have predicted the extreme amount of apathy that would be shown on election day.

As for cabinet picks how could hey be wrong when they've just been reporting on potential picks and they keep changing?

Because they kept saying 'insider sources have revealed', came up with lists, and then literally posted hundreds of articles claiming, not that Trump's cabinet MIGHT be filled with neocons, but that Trump's cabinet WILL be filled with neocons and establishment Republicans. You can literally scroll back a few pages in the politics forums and find a bunch of people on this site confidently claiming that Trump was going to be following 'politics as usual' and posting these articles in order to mock those people who believed that he was 'draining the swamp'.

Well is there any evidence he's appointing anyone other than neo cons? All the names that have been floated and all those close to Trump have either been family members, conservatives and lobbyists. I've not heard of any moderates of liberals - if you have I'd like to know.

Bannon - Not a neocon
Sessions - Not a neocon
Carson - Not a neocon

They were predicting Gingrich, Giuliani, and Mnuchin. So far, the only really 'establishment' person who has been chosen is Priebus, as chief of staff, not an actual policy-making prediction. The last thing we need are moderates, and if he does nominate liberals it will probably be specific ones who align with his agenda in some way, like Tulsi Gabbard. He mostly appointed Haley to get rid of her. But, in any case, only accurate prediction was Priebus, and he wasn't even appointed to a position with real authority over policy.

In any case, you're moving the goalposts here. Trump doesn't have to appoint people whom you approve of to make the media completely wrong about their ridiculously confident predictions.

So, to translate this: we have no direct proof on this matter, so we're going to speculate. Ignore the fact that our speculations have been proven wrong time and time again and accept our baseless prognostication as the gospel truth. There's also no possibility whatsoever that our owner, the third richest man in the world, influences how we report. The string of hilariously inaccurate 'predictions' that we've made, all of which seem tailored to damage Trump, are just a long chain of unrelated coincidences. Pay no attention to our rapidly crumbling prestige.

I'll pose the question to you as I did parakeet. Which sources do you trust that don't have a record of any kind of being wrong?

I don't trust any of them. I don't read the news to be spoon-fed opinions about what something means, or predictions of what's going to happen, or sly implications about what a 'good person' thinks about something. I read it to find out what has happened, and to form my own opinion. To that end, I simply read sources with conflicting biases, and where they disagree I investigate original sources. An good example of that would be CNN outright lying about Richard Spencer recently.

Richard Spencer the hail Trump guy? What did they say about him that was a lie?

The 'he said Jews weren't even people' lie. He said nothing that could even vaguely be construed as that. My jaw literally dropped at the brazenness of the lie, and it stayed on the floor as they released special apologies for the 'insensitive' wording of the headline without mentioning that it never happened.

Apologizing for 'normalizing' it:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Transcript of what he ACTUALLY said:

"This was the year when random shitlords on Twitter, anonymous podcast hosts, and dissidents working deep within the Beltway Right proved that they objectively understood politics better than the Republican strategists and the political consultants snarking at us every night on MSNBC, It's not just that they are leftists and cucks. It's not just that many are genuinely stupid. Indeed one wonders if these people are people at all, or instead soulless golem animated by some dark power to repeat whatever talking point John Oliver stated the night before."

Just to crystallize how disingenous they were, this was boiled down to 'Alt-Right Founder Questions If Jews Are People' when he was clearly talking about the news media, and they later apologized not for lying, but for 'legitimizing this hate speech.' They have still not offered a correction, they are still running with the line that this was actually said, they are just saying that they're sorry for reporting on such an 'insensitive' statement. The comments sections on the articles are full of people debating whether or not hateful statements ought to be covered, completely oblivious for the most part of the fact that the statement in question was never even said. It's fvcking Orwellian.

If anyone takes mainstream news at its word at this point, they're either an idiot or willfully ignorant.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Bennett91
Posts: 4,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 3:30:12 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 2:56:21 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/24/2016 10:55:36 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 7:07:47 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/24/2016 10:08:24 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
No one could have predicted the extreme amount of apathy that would be shown on election day.

As for cabinet picks how could hey be wrong when they've just been reporting on potential picks and they keep changing?

Because they kept saying 'insider sources have revealed', came up with lists, and then literally posted hundreds of articles claiming, not that Trump's cabinet MIGHT be filled with neocons, but that Trump's cabinet WILL be filled with neocons and establishment Republicans. You can literally scroll back a few pages in the politics forums and find a bunch of people on this site confidently claiming that Trump was going to be following 'politics as usual' and posting these articles in order to mock those people who believed that he was 'draining the swamp'.

Well is there any evidence he's appointing anyone other than neo cons? All the names that have been floated and all those close to Trump have either been family members, conservatives and lobbyists. I've not heard of any moderates of liberals - if you have I'd like to know.

Bannon - Not a neocon

Bannon is worse than a neocon and is partly responsible for the fake news epidemic.

Sessions - Not a neocon
Carson - Not a neocon

How are they not neocons? They're ideologies line up pretty well with social conservatism and GOP values. Sessions is definitely establishment.

They were predicting Gingrich, Giuliani, and Mnuchin. So far, the only really 'establishment' person who has been chosen is Priebus, as chief of staff, not an actual policy-making prediction. The last thing we need are moderates, and if he does nominate liberals it will probably be specific ones who align with his agenda in some way, like Tulsi Gabbard. He mostly appointed Haley to get rid of her. But, in any case, only accurate prediction was Priebus, and he wasn't even appointed to a position with real authority over policy.

Odds are if those are the only names on the list then one of them is going to be chosen.

In any case, you're moving the goalposts here. Trump doesn't have to appoint people whom you approve of to make the media completely wrong about their ridiculously confident predictions.

I'm not moving the goal post, Trump said he'll drain the swamp. Putting in lobbyists and establishment types is not draining the swamp.

So, to translate this: we have no direct proof on this matter, so we're going to speculate. Ignore the fact that our speculations have been proven wrong time and time again and accept our baseless prognostication as the gospel truth. There's also no possibility whatsoever that our owner, the third richest man in the world, influences how we report. The string of hilariously inaccurate 'predictions' that we've made, all of which seem tailored to damage Trump, are just a long chain of unrelated coincidences. Pay no attention to our rapidly crumbling prestige.

I'll pose the question to you as I did parakeet. Which sources do you trust that don't have a record of any kind of being wrong?

I don't trust any of them. I don't read the news to be spoon-fed opinions about what something means, or predictions of what's going to happen, or sly implications about what a 'good person' thinks about something. I read it to find out what has happened, and to form my own opinion. To that end, I simply read sources with conflicting biases, and where they disagree I investigate original sources. An good example of that would be CNN outright lying about Richard Spencer recently.

Richard Spencer the hail Trump guy? What did they say about him that was a lie?

The 'he said Jews weren't even people' lie. He said nothing that could even vaguely be construed as that. My jaw literally dropped at the brazenness of the lie, and it stayed on the floor as they released special apologies for the 'insensitive' wording of the headline without mentioning that it never happened.

He did question if those in the "lugenpressa" where people. And giving the nazi salutes and blatant white supremacist leanings the guy has it's not a terrible leap to assume jews were considered a part of that given the vast range of anti-semitic conspiracies that exist (peddled by Bannon's Breitbart too). But sure, CNN put words in his mouth.

Just to crystallize how disingenous they were, this was boiled down to 'Alt-Right Founder Questions If Jews Are People' when he was clearly talking about the news media, and they later apologized not for lying, but for 'legitimizing this hate speech.' They have still not offered a correction, they are still running with the line that this was actually said, they are just saying that they're sorry for reporting on such an 'insensitive' statement. The comments sections on the articles are full of people debating whether or not hateful statements ought to be covered, completely oblivious for the most part of the fact that the statement in question was never even said. It's fvcking Orwellian.

You seem more upset about the inaccurate spin (when it's pretty clear they could paint the guy as a nazi w/o bringing up jews) more than the actual bigoted words the guy said. He did say the US was a white country for white people and received nazi salutes.

If anyone takes mainstream news at its word at this point, they're either an idiot or willfully ignorant.

Using multiple sources is necessary, but very rarely will one find a source that's totally accurate or w/o interpretation of events.
Kynikos
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 3:53:21 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 3:30:12 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
Bannon is worse than a neocon
Not really.

and is partly responsible for the fake news epidemic.
No epidemic. It's called "business as usual" for journalists.

He did question if those in the "lugenpressa" where people.
And? Do you even know what "lugenpresse" means?
It's hard to take this brand of lowkey outrage seriously, coming from the guy who just condemned "the fake news epidemic". But talking about said "the lying press" as if it's synonymous with Jews - now that's anti-Semitism.

given the vast range of anti-semitic conspiracies that exist (peddled by Bannon's Breitbart too).
Name one.

But sure, CNN put words in his mouth.
Note that the truth of Skep's observation hasn't even been challenged. All we get is, "well, you can construe it so as to assume he probably meant Jews too".
Perussi
Posts: 760
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 4:00:10 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 6:24:32 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
Trump has been turning away intelligence briefings "Vice President-elect Mike Pence, by contrast, has set aside time for intelligence briefings almost every day since the election, officials said." Looks like Pence will be the real politician behind the scenes while Trump is a figurehead.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

This along with Trumps desire to spend more time in his pent house rather than the white house - and dealing with Indian business men after being elected shows that being a president is not his priority.

Well there Ben, if he didn't want to be president, WHY IN THE HECK DID HE RUN?!?! DUH?
Forum Record: 6/0

Funny Quotes:

"i worship satan and allahu akbar and hispanic muslims i am an illigal immigrant"
-communist_snake-

"What fuking dates are you talking about child. the and ridiculous and stay out of mummies drugs, you're fuked."
-I'll keep this anonymous...-

"fuk off bog, no one even reads your crap, what price is you hooker now?"
-same dude as above....-
Perussi
Posts: 760
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 4:01:54 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 9:35:22 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/24/2016 9:11:05 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/24/2016 8:18:14 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/24/2016 6:40:09 AM, triangle.128k wrote:


(washington post)

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

wow great sh!t post completely irrelevant to my post! Grade A stuff from parakeet right here. Don't worry folks, by this sh!t logic if a source has been wrong before it must be wrong about EVERYTHING for ALL TIME. I wonder how many valid sources bird sh!t for brains trusts?

Well, you and the Washington post have been wrong in just about every prediction that you've made this election. And seeing as the WaPo is speculating in the same manner that it has on Trump's cabinet picks (about which, *ahem*, they've been wrong on just about every count), I'm not going to put much stock in this.

'But others have interpreted Trump"s limited engagement with his briefing team as an additional sign of indifference from a president-elect who has no meaningful experience on national security issues and was dismissive of U.S. intelligence agencies" capabilities and findings during the campaign.'

So, to translate this: we have no direct proof on this matter, so we're going to speculate. Ignore the fact that our speculations have been proven wrong time and time again and accept our baseless prognostication as the gospel truth. There's also no possibility whatsoever that our owner, the third richest man in the world, influences how we report. The string of hilariously inaccurate 'predictions' that we've made, all of which seem tailored to damage Trump, are just a long chain of unrelated coincidences. Pay no attention to our rapidly crumbling prestige.

I hear they have adverts for beachfront condos in Idaho on the next page; you ought to enter for a drawing.

This sounds so much like someone i know. XD

(you aren't them)
Forum Record: 6/0

Funny Quotes:

"i worship satan and allahu akbar and hispanic muslims i am an illigal immigrant"
-communist_snake-

"What fuking dates are you talking about child. the and ridiculous and stay out of mummies drugs, you're fuked."
-I'll keep this anonymous...-

"fuk off bog, no one even reads your crap, what price is you hooker now?"
-same dude as above....-
Bennett91
Posts: 4,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 4:22:46 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 3:53:21 AM, Kynikos wrote:
At 11/25/2016 3:30:12 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
Bannon is worse than a neocon
Not really.

and is partly responsible for the fake news epidemic.
No epidemic. It's called "business as usual" for journalists.

"Note that the truth of my observation hasn't even been challenged."

He did question if those in the "lugenpressa" where people.
And? Do you even know what "lugenpresse" means?
It's hard to take this brand of lowkey outrage seriously, coming from the guy who just condemned "the fake news epidemic". But talking about said "the lying press" as if it's synonymous with Jews - now that's anti-Semitism.

I love it when people point out anti-semtic tropes are being used they are the ones being accused of antisemitism. Don't be stupid, it's a common accusation from neo-nazis and anti-semites that jews run the media. Try to argue those guys throwing out nazis salutes are clear headed to know that it's BS.

given the vast range of anti-semitic conspiracies that exist (peddled by Bannon's Breitbart too).
Name one.

Here's a bunch of headlines http://forward.com...

That evil "globalist puppet master" Soros plays well with anti-semites. http://www.breitbart.com...

A little history lesson on Breitbart:

"As Cassino explains it, Breitbart, who died in 2012, relentlessly pursued the argument that "the left is the enemy, but Jews on the left are worse because they are traitors" who are "selling out Israel."

"After Breitbart"s death, Cassino says, Bannon realized that the site was attracting a huge readership by "posting what amount to anti-Semitic headlines," attacking American Jews deemed to be "not sufficiently pro-Israel." Those pieces, Cassino notes, frequently went viral in part because they struck a chord with readers who came to them through links posted on message boards like 4chan. "By any website metric, if you"re getting that engagement," Cassino says, editors are inclined to "do more of that."

"That Breitbart"s right-wing Jewish writers were willing to use anti-Semitic tropes to attack their left-wing Jewish enemies as "self-hating" enemies of Israel was mirrored by the tacit assent from Trump"s Jewish supporters, and son-in-law, to Bannon"s use of such tactics in the presidential campaign."

https://theintercept.com...

But sure, CNN put words in his mouth.
Note that the truth of Skep's observation hasn't even been challenged. All we get is, "well, you can construe it so as to assume he probably meant Jews too".

Seeing how they are actual white supremacists it's not hard to think they're not fan of of folks that fall outside that group. Or should we assume that those hails and nazi salutes were meant to mean something else?
Bennett91
Posts: 4,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 4:25:58 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 4:00:10 AM, Perussi wrote:
At 11/24/2016 6:24:32 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
Trump has been turning away intelligence briefings "Vice President-elect Mike Pence, by contrast, has set aside time for intelligence briefings almost every day since the election, officials said." Looks like Pence will be the real politician behind the scenes while Trump is a figurehead.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

This along with Trumps desire to spend more time in his pent house rather than the white house - and dealing with Indian business men after being elected shows that being a president is not his priority.

Well there Ben, if he didn't want to be president, WHY IN THE HECK DID HE RUN?!?! DUH?

Same reason any business man does anything, money. This isn't the first time I've posted evidence about this. http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 4:31:00 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/24/2016 7:07:47 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

I'll pose the question to you as I did parakeet. Which sources do you trust that don't have a record of any kind of being wrong?

I don't trust any of them. I don't read the news to be spoon-fed opinions about what something means, or predictions of what's going to happen, or sly implications about what a 'good person' thinks about something. I read it to find out what has happened, and to form my own opinion. To that end, I simply read sources with conflicting biases, and where they disagree I investigate original sources. An good example of that would be CNN outright lying about Richard Spencer recently.

I wonder how the WAPO would have covered this guy as he rose to power..
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Nevermind, that's too easy a prediction :D
Kynikos
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 5:07:04 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 4:22:46 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/25/2016 3:53:21 AM, Kynikos wrote:
At 11/25/2016 3:30:12 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
Bannon is worse than a neocon
Not really.

and is partly responsible for the fake news epidemic.
No epidemic. It's called "business as usual" for journalists.

"Note that the truth of my observation hasn't even been challenged."
It's not an observation. It's your judgement of a cabinet member, which had nothing to do with the point made in OP (beyond contradicting it), and I don't care about.

I love it when people point out anti-semtic tropes are being used they are the ones being accused of antisemitism.
So criticism of the media = "anti-Semitic trope"?
And people wonder how "there can be such a thing" as anti-Semites "in 2016". With queasy little "rebukes" like this, quelle surprise.

Don't be stupid, it's a common accusation from neo-nazis and anti-semites that jews run the media.
So? There is only one media mogul who happens to be a gentile; Murdoch. Before him, Kluge.

Spencer just called them liars. It has nothing to do with whether Jews run the media or not.

Here's a bunch of headlines
Try reading past them next time.

That evil "globalist puppet master" Soros plays well with anti-semites. http://www.breitbart.com...
"It's sorta reminiscent of some anti-semitic memes, so it can be construed to agree with them (therefore it's false?)"

You can can contest:
1. That Soros is a puppetmaster
2. That Soros is a globalist

But you're not doing either. Are Soros's suspicious activities above observation because they would seemingly confirm some of the anti-semites' fears?

A little history lesson on Breitbart:

"As Cassino explains it, Breitbart, who died in 2012, relentlessly pursued the argument that "the left is the enemy, but Jews on the left are worse because they are traitors" who are "selling out Israel."
So the pro-israeli Jew Breitbart was clearly an anti-semite? Sure.

The quote isn't even from him. It's from someone trying very, very hard to make him look anti-Semitic. (A stupid idea on its face, but good enough for Bennett?)

"After Breitbart"s death, Cassino says, Bannon realized that the site was attracting a huge readership by "posting what amount to anti-Semitic headlines," attacking American Jews deemed to be "not sufficiently pro-Israel." Those pieces, Cassino notes, frequently went viral in part because they struck a chord with readers who came to them through links posted on message boards like 4chan. "By any website metric, if you"re getting that engagement," Cassino says, editors are inclined to "do more of that."

"That Breitbart"s right-wing Jewish writers were willing to use anti-Semitic tropes to attack their left-wing Jewish enemies as "self-hating" enemies of Israel was mirrored by the tacit assent from Trump"s Jewish supporters, and son-in-law, to Bannon"s use of such tactics in the presidential campaign."
There's nothing anti-Semitic about criticizing Jews for not supporting Israel. Cassino contributes nothing but fourth-rate sophistry.

https://theintercept.com...
Lol, did you even read beyond the url? Are you just nervously nabbing links from google now? These aren't even conspiracy theories.

"Pro-Israel articles" !!!! Get the fainting couch.
Kynikos
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 5:09:46 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 4:25:58 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
Same reason any business man does anything, money. This isn't the first time I've posted evidence about this. http://www.debate.org...

Yeah, I'm sure that must be. That's the ticket.

Trump dug up half a billion dollars to use on a campaign so he can relish on the 400k/y salary. Brilliant.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 5:14:26 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 5:09:46 AM, Kynikos wrote:
At 11/25/2016 4:25:58 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
Same reason any business man does anything, money. This isn't the first time I've posted evidence about this. http://www.debate.org...

Yeah, I'm sure that must be. That's the ticket.

Trump dug up half a billion dollars to use on a campaign so he can relish on the 400k/y salary. Brilliant.

Don't forget the divesting and blind trusting and all the other legal crap that comes with winning a public office...lol! The political system actually is very poorly designed for people that make money LEGALLY.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 5:18:20 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 3:30:12 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/25/2016 2:56:21 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/24/2016 10:55:36 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

Well is there any evidence he's appointing anyone other than neo cons? All the names that have been floated and all those close to Trump have either been family members, conservatives and lobbyists. I've not heard of any moderates of liberals - if you have I'd like to know.

Bannon - Not a neocon

Bannon is worse than a neocon and is partly responsible for the fake news epidemic.

Lol, you mean the 'fake news' epidemic that's been going on for decades? What exactly do you think the media is selling? It certainly isn't news, it's you.

Sessions - Not a neocon
Carson - Not a neocon

How are they not neocons? They're ideologies line up pretty well with social conservatism and GOP values. Sessions is definitely establishment.

Neocon references a specific worldview, with specific doctrines. Carson doesn't fit those positions at all. Sessions has a few things in common with them (Iraq war), but he definitely stands apart far enough to be considered not a part. His vociferous opposition to immigration certainly separates him out.

They were predicting Gingrich, Giuliani, and Mnuchin. So far, the only really 'establishment' person who has been chosen is Priebus, as chief of staff, not an actual policy-making prediction. The last thing we need are moderates, and if he does nominate liberals it will probably be specific ones who align with his agenda in some way, like Tulsi Gabbard. He mostly appointed Haley to get rid of her. But, in any case, only accurate prediction was Priebus, and he wasn't even appointed to a position with real authority over policy.

Odds are if those are the only names on the list then one of them is going to be chosen.

They named specific positions which have since been filled by other people. And I have little faith that this list even exists, or was any sort of final draft.

In any case, you're moving the goalposts here. Trump doesn't have to appoint people whom you approve of to make the media completely wrong about their ridiculously confident predictions.

I'm not moving the goal post, Trump said he'll drain the swamp. Putting in lobbyists and establishment types is not draining the swamp.

Which he hasn't done. How is Ben Carson a lobbyist or establishment type? Why is he specifically courting anti-establishment democrats (Tulsi Gabbard, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders)?

Richard Spencer the hail Trump guy? What did they say about him that was a lie?

The 'he said Jews weren't even people' lie. He said nothing that could even vaguely be construed as that. My jaw literally dropped at the brazenness of the lie, and it stayed on the floor as they released special apologies for the 'insensitive' wording of the headline without mentioning that it never happened.

He did question if those in the "lugenpressa" where people.
Is 'lying press' synonymous with 'jews', in your view?

And giving the nazi salutes and blatant white supremacist leanings the guy has it's not a terrible leap to assume jews were considered a part of that given the vast range of anti-semitic conspiracies that exist
You know what they say about 'assume'ing.

(peddled by Bannon's Breitbart too).
Example?

But sure, CNN put words in his mouth.

Just to crystallize how disingenous they were, this was boiled down to 'Alt-Right Founder Questions If Jews Are People' when he was clearly talking about the news media, and they later apologized not for lying, but for 'legitimizing this hate speech.' They have still not offered a correction, they are still running with the line that this was actually said, they are just saying that they're sorry for reporting on such an 'insensitive' statement. The comments sections on the articles are full of people debating whether or not hateful statements ought to be covered, completely oblivious for the most part of the fact that the statement in question was never even said. It's fvcking Orwellian.

You seem more upset about the inaccurate spin (when it's pretty clear they could paint the guy as a nazi w/o bringing up jews) more than the actual bigoted words the guy said. He did say the US was a white country for white people and received nazi salutes.

So there are a few kooks on the alt right? I'm well aware of that. The Nazi-pagan Hitler revivalist segment is pretty small; that's why only a few people in that room threw a salute. One of them was a crazy washed up porn star, the other ones were probably being tongue-in-cheek. People like that have existed for years. The fact that our press is basically Pravda at this point is far more alarming.

On a side note, do you think that Spencer is the 'leader' of the alt right? Because that's literally a joke. As in, it's something that people on the alt right made up, and then laughed at the media for picking up because they seem incapable of grasping the concept of a leaderless movement.

If anyone takes mainstream news at its word at this point, they're either an idiot or willfully ignorant.

Using multiple sources is necessary, but very rarely will one find a source that's totally accurate or w/o interpretation of events.

That attitude is pretty rare nowadays.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 5:24:25 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 4:31:00 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/24/2016 7:07:47 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

I'll pose the question to you as I did parakeet. Which sources do you trust that don't have a record of any kind of being wrong?

I don't trust any of them. I don't read the news to be spoon-fed opinions about what something means, or predictions of what's going to happen, or sly implications about what a 'good person' thinks about something. I read it to find out what has happened, and to form my own opinion. To that end, I simply read sources with conflicting biases, and where they disagree I investigate original sources. An good example of that would be CNN outright lying about Richard Spencer recently.

I wonder how the WAPO would have covered this guy as he rose to power..
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Nevermind, that's too easy a prediction :D

Just the conquering of Babylon would have elicited cries of LITERALLY HITLER.

That misogynist got what was coming to him, in the end, though.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 5:24:59 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 5:24:25 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/25/2016 4:31:00 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/24/2016 7:07:47 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

I'll pose the question to you as I did parakeet. Which sources do you trust that don't have a record of any kind of being wrong?

I don't trust any of them. I don't read the news to be spoon-fed opinions about what something means, or predictions of what's going to happen, or sly implications about what a 'good person' thinks about something. I read it to find out what has happened, and to form my own opinion. To that end, I simply read sources with conflicting biases, and where they disagree I investigate original sources. An good example of that would be CNN outright lying about Richard Spencer recently.

I wonder how the WAPO would have covered this guy as he rose to power..
https://en.wikipedia.org...

Nevermind, that's too easy a prediction :D

Just the conquering of Babylon would have elicited cries of LITERALLY HITLER.

That misogynist got what was coming to him, in the end, though.

lol!
Bennett91
Posts: 4,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 5:30:28 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 5:07:04 AM, Kynikos wrote:
At 11/25/2016 4:22:46 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/25/2016 3:53:21 AM, Kynikos wrote:
At 11/25/2016 3:30:12 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
Bannon is worse than a neocon
Not really.

and is partly responsible for the fake news epidemic.
No epidemic. It's called "business as usual" for journalists.

"Note that the truth of my observation hasn't even been challenged."
It's not an observation. It's your judgement of a cabinet member, which had nothing to do with the point made in OP (beyond contradicting it), and I don't care about.

Had you not deleted it I was accusing Breitbart itself as a media organization of contributing to fake news pool. To which you did not contest. It doesn't contradict the OP by the way.

I love it when people point out anti-semtic tropes are being used they are the ones being accused of antisemitism.
So criticism of the media = "anti-Semitic trope"?

Using anti Semite tropes to criticize the media is. Luggenpressa was a term used by the nazis to criticize critical media.

And people wonder how "there can be such a thing" as anti-Semites "in 2016". With queasy little "rebukes" like this, quelle surprise.

lol take your faux intellectualism else where please, it's neither impressive nor intimidating.

Don't be stupid, it's a common accusation from neo-nazis and anti-semites that jews run the media.
So? There is only one media mogul who happens to be a gentile; Murdoch. Before him, Kluge.

... I should have added more, my mistake for thinking you could understand what was being said. The accusation isn't just that jews run the media, it's that they run it for nefarious Zionist purposes to control the world.

Spencer just called them liars. It has nothing to do with whether Jews run the media or not.

He called them "souless golems animated by some dark dark power". Then he goes on to talk about what it means to be white.

Here's a bunch of headlines
Try reading past them next time.

Headlines are what attract readers, many of which are open anti-semites drawn to said headlines.

That evil "globalist puppet master" Soros plays well with anti-semites. http://www.breitbart.com...
"It's sorta reminiscent of some anti-semitic memes, so it can be construed to agree with them (therefore it's false?)"

You asked for one, I provided it. Treating soros like some demagogue controlling world affairs goes in line with anti-semitic tropes. Again given the huge anti Semitic readership this isn't a surprise they frame it as such.

You can can contest:
1. That Soros is a puppetmaster
2. That Soros is a globalist

But you're not doing either. Are Soros's suspicious activities above observation because they would seemingly confirm some of the anti-semites' fears?

They are only suspicious through the lens of antisemites who believe he has an evil world controlling agenda.

A little history lesson on Breitbart:

"As Cassino explains it, Breitbart, who died in 2012, relentlessly pursued the argument that "the left is the enemy, but Jews on the left are worse because they are traitors" who are "selling out Israel."
So the pro-israeli Jew Breitbart was clearly an anti-semite? Sure.

The quote isn't even from him. It's from someone trying very, very hard to make him look anti-Semitic. (A stupid idea on its face, but good enough for Bennett?)

You can can contest.

"After Breitbart"s death, Cassino says, Bannon realized that the site was attracting a huge readership by "posting what amount to anti-Semitic headlines," attacking American Jews deemed to be "not sufficiently pro-Israel." Those pieces, Cassino notes, frequently went viral in part because they struck a chord with readers who came to them through links posted on message boards like 4chan. "By any website metric, if you"re getting that engagement," Cassino says, editors are inclined to "do more of that."

"That Breitbart"s right-wing Jewish writers were willing to use anti-Semitic tropes to attack their left-wing Jewish enemies as "self-hating" enemies of Israel was mirrored by the tacit assent from Trump"s Jewish supporters, and son-in-law, to Bannon"s use of such tactics in the presidential campaign."
There's nothing anti-Semitic about criticizing Jews for not supporting Israel. Cassino contributes nothing but fourth-rate sophistry.

https://theintercept.com...
Lol, did you even read beyond the url? Are you just nervously nabbing links from google now? These aren't even conspiracy theories.

Did I ever say it was a conspiracy theory? I must have read beyong the URL if I pulled a friggen block quote from it.

"Pro-Israel articles" !!!! Get the fainting couch.

Yea of coursed you'd miss the point of how jews defaming other jews for not being jewish enough is a form of anti semitism.

Trump dug up half a billion dollars to use on a campaign so he can relish on the 400k/y salary. Brilliant.

Trump used campaign finances to pay his own companies. Also if you think it's just about the salary you really are as dumb as I think you are.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2016 5:53:29 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 5:18:20 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/25/2016 3:30:12 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/25/2016 2:56:21 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/24/2016 10:55:36 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

Well is there any evidence he's appointing anyone other than neo cons? All the names that have been floated and all those close to Trump have either been family members, conservatives and lobbyists. I've not heard of any moderates of liberals - if you have I'd like to know.

Bannon - Not a neocon

Bannon is worse than a neocon and is partly responsible for the fake news epidemic.

Lol, you mean the 'fake news' epidemic that's been going on for decades? What exactly do you think the media is selling? It certainly isn't news, it's you.

If thats the case then doesn't that make all news, from left to right, and those who consume one or the other utterly misinformed? I would site some sources that show conservatives are more likely to consume false news and their sources are more likely to peddle it but at this point it seems futile.

Sessions - Not a neocon
Carson - Not a neocon

How are they not neocons? They're ideologies line up pretty well with social conservatism and GOP values. Sessions is definitely establishment.

Neocon references a specific worldview, with specific doctrines. Carson doesn't fit those positions at all. Sessions has a few things in common with them (Iraq war), but he definitely stands apart far enough to be considered not a part. His vociferous opposition to immigration certainly separates him out.

And what exactly is that world view? I've heard the term tossed around so much but it hardly seems different than what Reagan or Bush jr would believe. Carson has so few positions besides evangelicalism and typical 'small government' conservatism I don't think it'd be easy to classify him. But Carson is an exception to the rule. We still have the possibility of other insiders, billionaires and lobbyists being close to Trump.

They were predicting Gingrich, Giuliani, and Mnuchin. So far, the only really 'establishment' person who has been chosen is Priebus, as chief of staff, not an actual policy-making prediction. The last thing we need are moderates, and if he does nominate liberals it will probably be specific ones who align with his agenda in some way, like Tulsi Gabbard. He mostly appointed Haley to get rid of her. But, in any case, only accurate prediction was Priebus, and he wasn't even appointed to a position with real authority over policy.

Odds are if those are the only names on the list then one of them is going to be chosen.

They named specific positions which have since been filled by other people. And I have little faith that this list even exists, or was any sort of final draft.

In any case, you're moving the goalposts here. Trump doesn't have to appoint people whom you approve of to make the media completely wrong about their ridiculously confident predictions.

I'm not moving the goal post, Trump said he'll drain the swamp. Putting in lobbyists and establishment types is not draining the swamp.

Which he hasn't done. How is Ben Carson a lobbyist or establishment type? Why is he specifically courting anti-establishment democrats (Tulsi Gabbard, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders)?

He's not courting Warren or Sanders, both have said they'd openly oppose him.

Richard Spencer the hail Trump guy? What did they say about him that was a lie?

The 'he said Jews weren't even people' lie. He said nothing that could even vaguely be construed as that. My jaw literally dropped at the brazenness of the lie, and it stayed on the floor as they released special apologies for the 'insensitive' wording of the headline without mentioning that it never happened.

He did question if those in the "lugenpressa" where people.
Is 'lying press' synonymous with 'jews', in your view?

It was implied when the nazi's used it.

And giving the nazi salutes and blatant white supremacist leanings the guy has it's not a terrible leap to assume jews were considered a part of that given the vast range of anti-semitic conspiracies that exist
You know what they say about 'assume'ing.

(peddled by Bannon's Breitbart too).
Example?

You'll have to review my convo with kyosko.

But sure, CNN put words in his mouth.

Just to crystallize how disingenous they were, this was boiled down to 'Alt-Right Founder Questions If Jews Are People' when he was clearly talking about the news media, and they later apologized not for lying, but for 'legitimizing this hate speech.' They have still not offered a correction, they are still running with the line that this was actually said, they are just saying that they're sorry for reporting on such an 'insensitive' statement. The comments sections on the articles are full of people debating whether or not hateful statements ought to be covered, completely oblivious for the most part of the fact that the statement in question was never even said. It's fvcking Orwellian.

You seem more upset about the inaccurate spin (when it's pretty clear they could paint the guy as a nazi w/o bringing up jews) more than the actual bigoted words the guy said. He did say the US was a white country for white people and received nazi salutes.

So there are a few kooks on the alt right? I'm well aware of that. The Nazi-pagan Hitler revivalist segment is pretty small; that's why only a few people in that room threw a salute. One of them was a crazy washed up porn star, the other ones were probably being tongue-in-cheek. People like that have existed for years. The fact that our press is basically Pravda at this point is far more alarming.

The number that are open is small. But I imagine there are many sympathizers. Just like when racist imagery flared and quickly circulated in tea party circles, the sentiment although not publicly expressed may still be wide spread.

On a side note, do you think that Spencer is the 'leader' of the alt right? Because that's literally a joke. As in, it's something that people on the alt right made up, and then laughed at the media for picking up because they seem incapable of grasping the concept of a leaderless movement.

Leader? No. But influential? Probably. From my knowledge Breitbart, Milo Yiannoplous and formerly Ben Shapiro where the stars of the alt right. Let's not pretend it's leaderless, there are popular voices articulating the ideas and directing actions. If you want to depict the left as being mindless drones lead about by false news lets not pretend the right is any more immune.

If anyone takes mainstream news at its word at this point, they're either an idiot or willfully ignorant.

Using multiple sources is necessary, but very rarely will one find a source that's totally accurate or w/o interpretation of events.

That attitude is pretty rare nowadays.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2016 3:04:59 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/25/2016 5:53:29 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/25/2016 5:18:20 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/25/2016 3:30:12 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/25/2016 2:56:21 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 11/24/2016 10:55:36 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

Well is there any evidence he's appointing anyone other than neo cons? All the names that have been floated and all those close to Trump have either been family members, conservatives and lobbyists. I've not heard of any moderates of liberals - if you have I'd like to know.

Bannon - Not a neocon

Bannon is worse than a neocon and is partly responsible for the fake news epidemic.

Lol, you mean the 'fake news' epidemic that's been going on for decades? What exactly do you think the media is selling? It certainly isn't news, it's you.

If thats the case then doesn't that make all news, from left to right, and those who consume one or the other utterly misinformed? I would site some sources that show conservatives are more likely to consume false news and their sources are more likely to peddle it but at this point it seems futile.

Our news model is entirely fvcked across the board, is my point, and the whole 'fake news' is an attempt to justify censorship on social media.

Sessions - Not a neocon
Carson - Not a neocon

How are they not neocons? They're ideologies line up pretty well with social conservatism and GOP values. Sessions is definitely establishment.

Neocon references a specific worldview, with specific doctrines. Carson doesn't fit those positions at all. Sessions has a few things in common with them (Iraq war), but he definitely stands apart far enough to be considered not a part. His vociferous opposition to immigration certainly separates him out.

And what exactly is that world view? I've heard the term tossed around so much but it hardly seems different than what Reagan or Bush jr would believe. Carson has so few positions besides evangelicalism and typical 'small government' conservatism I don't think it'd be easy to classify him. But Carson is an exception to the rule. We still have the possibility of other insiders, billionaires and lobbyists being close to Trump.

Interventionist foreign policy based on the idea of suppression to maintain hegemony, corporatist domestic policy, elitism, and a thin veneer of saccharine piety to help that bitter pill go down.

In any case, you're moving the goalposts here. Trump doesn't have to appoint people whom you approve of to make the media completely wrong about their ridiculously confident predictions.

I'm not moving the goal post, Trump said he'll drain the swamp. Putting in lobbyists and establishment types is not draining the swamp.

Which he hasn't done. How is Ben Carson a lobbyist or establishment type? Why is he specifically courting anti-establishment democrats (Tulsi Gabbard, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders)?

He's not courting Warren or Sanders, both have said they'd openly oppose him.

They've both said that they will oppose those parts of his agenda which they disagree with, but work with him on infrastructure and union causes.

Richard Spencer the hail Trump guy? What did they say about him that was a lie?

The 'he said Jews weren't even people' lie. He said nothing that could even vaguely be construed as that. My jaw literally dropped at the brazenness of the lie, and it stayed on the floor as they released special apologies for the 'insensitive' wording of the headline without mentioning that it never happened.

He did question if those in the "lugenpressa" where people.
Is 'lying press' synonymous with 'jews', in your view?

It was implied when the nazi's used it.

No it wasn't. The term was meant to refer to all critical press, not just the Jewish press.

And giving the nazi salutes and blatant white supremacist leanings the guy has it's not a terrible leap to assume jews were considered a part of that given the vast range of anti-semitic conspiracies that exist
You know what they say about 'assume'ing.

(peddled by Bannon's Breitbart too).
Example?

You'll have to review my convo with kyosko.

Yeah, you didn't really produce anything.

But sure, CNN put words in his mouth.

Just to crystallize how disingenous they were, this was boiled down to 'Alt-Right Founder Questions If Jews Are People' when he was clearly talking about the news media, and they later apologized not for lying, but for 'legitimizing this hate speech.' They have still not offered a correction, they are still running with the line that this was actually said, they are just saying that they're sorry for reporting on such an 'insensitive' statement. The comments sections on the articles are full of people debating whether or not hateful statements ought to be covered, completely oblivious for the most part of the fact that the statement in question was never even said. It's fvcking Orwellian.

You seem more upset about the inaccurate spin (when it's pretty clear they could paint the guy as a nazi w/o bringing up jews) more than the actual bigoted words the guy said. He did say the US was a white country for white people and received nazi salutes.

So there are a few kooks on the alt right? I'm well aware of that. The Nazi-pagan Hitler revivalist segment is pretty small; that's why only a few people in that room threw a salute. One of them was a crazy washed up porn star, the other ones were probably being tongue-in-cheek. People like that have existed for years. The fact that our press is basically Pravda at this point is far more alarming.

The number that are open is small. But I imagine there are many sympathizers. Just like when racist imagery flared and quickly circulated in tea party circles, the sentiment although not publicly expressed may still be wide spread.

Key word. That salute actually caused a lot of controversy on the alt right. A lot of them don't like nazis, some of them are ambivalent, and others are fans.

On a side note, do you think that Spencer is the 'leader' of the alt right? Because that's literally a joke. As in, it's something that people on the alt right made up, and then laughed at the media for picking up because they seem incapable of grasping the concept of a leaderless movement.

Leader? No. But influential? Probably. From my knowledge Breitbart, Milo Yiannoplous and formerly Ben Shapiro where the stars of the alt right.

Okay. Okay. That is completely, 100% the opposite of the truth. The alt right overwhelmingly hates both of those people. A few people might barely tolerate them, but they are overwhelming reviled.

Let's not pretend it's leaderless, there are popular voices articulating the ideas and directing actions. If you want to depict the left as being mindless drones lead about by false news lets not pretend the right is any more immune.

There are many loosely influential leaders, but they certainly don't take orders from anyone, and the movement is in constant flux. Parts of the right are certainly dronish, but the number of people who follow orders is much lower in the alt right. They're sort of like a 'herding cats' analogy brought to life.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -