ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

MrCoo1 wrote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/in-the-united-states-right-wing-violence-is-on-the-rise/2018/11/25/61f7f24a-deb4-11e8-85df-7a6b4d25cfbb_story.html

Hmm, that article in the Washington Post mentions the synagogue shooter, yet doesn't mention he was a Trump hater, even though they link to their own story on him, which doesn't mention him as a Trump hater

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM


https://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/10/28/synagogue-shooter-hated-pro-israel-trump-so-media-tied-his-motive-to-migrant-caravan-687844

https://heavy.com/news/2018/10/robert-bowers-politics-trump-republican-democrat/

This is why the Washinton Compost and other intentionally dishonest media outlets are considered fake news.

If you didn't vote for Trump you can't be right wing?
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

"

Like Trump, though, Bowers complained about the caravan of Central American migrants moving through Mexico. On Gab, he wrote that the migrants, who he preferred to call “invaders,” were coming to the U.S. to commit violent acts. He blamed the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) for bringing the “invaders” to “kill our people.”

He might not like Trump or have voted for him, but there is clearly ideological overlap.

Also I've noticed this trend with you where you point out a single point of data as wrong to dismiss the conclusion. :/

"

rojimboo wrote:

Is it just me, or is this alt-right code for "Stay in the closet people!"

I can’t tell if this is a troll, or you actually believe the alt right is a thing.

It used to be a thing, until people started labeling it to things it is not. Now it’s often of a straw man for people to dismiss something.

"

rojimboo wrote:

Ahhh, yes.

Civil wars make much more sense now.

I could be wrong. Are the nazis arming up for a civil war? Is that what you meant? If so, not worried. This is the U.S., not post WW1, starving Germany. They’d be fucked.

Anywho, I’m not saying that you’re saying Scrotie is a nazi; I’m just curious what you mean by alt right.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

rojimboo wrote:

Is it just me, or is this alt-right code for "Stay in the closet people!"

I can’t tell if this is a troll, or you actually believe the alt right is a thing.

It used to be a thing, until people started labeling it to things it is not. Now it’s often of a straw man for people to dismiss something.

"

rojimboo wrote:

Ahhh, yes.

Civil wars make much more sense now.

I could be wrong. Are the nazis arming up for a civil war? Is that what you meant? If so, not worried. This is the U.S., not post WW1, starving Germany. They’d be fucked.

Anywho, I’m not saying that you’re saying Scrotie is a nazi; I’m just curious what you mean by alt right.

It occurs to me, I haven't the faintest notion how many people function in day to day life.

For instance, to quote someone a page or two back regarding something entirely different, then loosely connect it to an off-the-cuff remark to another person's post regarding something entirely different, boggles my mind.

But what do I know? Apparently my feet are hairy and I live under a bridge.

Eh. Middle quote was irrelevant. Meant to rely two pages back, forgot about it, and tossed it in like an asterisk. (Is this what you meant?*)

Fixed it.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

rojimboo wrote:

Is it just me, or is this alt-right code for "Stay in the closet people!"

I can’t tell if this is a troll, or you actually believe the alt right is a thing.

It used to be a thing, until people started labeling it to things it is not. Now it’s often of a straw man for people to dismiss something.

Anywho, I’m not saying that you’re saying Scrotie is a nazi; I’m just curious what you mean by alt right.

I guess what it means is that Breitbart no longer embraces the "alt-right" label. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/379583-breitbart-denies-readership-drop-alt-right-label

So serious question, has Breitbart reduced their pandering to racists? Perhaps to just a dog whistle every now and then or what is the story?

I wouldn’t know. My only exposure to Breitbart has been through that video PSA Sitch did about them lying about Google.

"

rojimboo wrote:

I find it odd you can write a 2000 word essay on what a blogger stating a fact, had for breakfast and about his grades in high school, yet spend only a few words on the main point of Trump's tariffs and their effect.

The data and analysis on what the effects of Trump's tariffs have been isn't fully in.

"

rojimboo wrote:

This is what I like to call selective skepticism.

Selective memory on your part. The main thrust of your initial post was this:

"

rojimboo wrote:

Did you know that all 3 times the Republicans had complete control of government in the last 100 years, Senate, Congress and President, for over 4 years, it has resulted in the greatest financial collapses in the last 100 years?

The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act was mentioned by you in reference to the 1929 depression. It was no more the pain point of your post then the Laffer curve was.

"

rojimboo wrote:

Dems got House. And I don't mean house music.

They got far less of the House and lost more in the Senate then would be expected in a non-presidential election year. If they don't start coming to an agreement with some compromises to Trump, they will be seen as a purely obstructionist party and lose even more voters in 2020.

"

MrCoo1 wrote:

If you didn't vote for Trump you can't be right wing?

The extreme persecution of others through genocide, eugenics or shootings is a left wing thought process. I've elaborated on that extensively several times in numerous threads. It is in fact, one of the two tenets of leftists.

1)Control others
2)Divide them into groups and set them against each other for easier control.

"

Like Trump, though, Bowers complained about the caravan of Central American migrants moving through Mexico. On Gab, he wrote that the migrants, who he preferred to call “invaders,” were coming to the U.S. to commit violent acts. He blamed the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) for bringing the “invaders” to “kill our people.”

"if I’m honest with myself, I must admit that I’m not entirely immune to such nativist sentiments,” Obama wrote. “When I see Mexican flags waved at pro-immigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.”

(from Audacity of Hope)


Like Obama, Bowers resented the immigrants - is that what you were trying to say?

Or did you mean that his frustration with people illegally crossing the border was like Hillary Clinton's?:

“I am adamantly against illegal immigrants,” Senator Clinton said on the John Grambling radio show in Feb. 2003.

“Come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties,” Clinton continued. “Stand in the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx. You’re going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to get yard work, and construction work, and domestic work.”

“Certainly we’ve got to do more at our borders,” she said, adding that, “people have to stop employing illegal immigrants.”

“A country that cannot control its borders is failing at one of its fundamental obligations,” Hillary Clinton told the New York Daily News in April 2006.

"

MrCoo1 wrote:

He might not like Trump or have voted for him, but there is clearly ideological overlap.

He might not like Obama or Hillary or have voted for them, but there is clearly ideological overlap.

"

MrCoo1 wrote:

Also I've noticed this trend with you where you point out a single point of data as wrong to dismiss the conclusion. :/

Wrong assumption - I am pointing out intentional dishonesty by the source. Their conclusion is laughable. Their source for information is biased and faulty. Among domestic US Terrorism, the source doesn't list the June 12, 2016 Pulse Nightclub shooting in which 49 people were killed for instance, nor the 2015 San Bernadino shooting in which 14 people were killed.

That was with their filters opened for all incidents,

Totally worthless WaPo article.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

I guess what it means is that Breitbart no longer embraces the "alt-right" label. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/379583-breitbart-denies-readership-drop-alt-right-label

So serious question, has Breitbart reduced their pandering to racists? Perhaps to just a dog whistle every now and then or what is the story?

I wouldn’t know. My only exposure to Breitbart has been through that video PSA Sitch did about them lying about Google.

I can help there. Breitbart's relationship with racists, both now and years ago, has been complicated, but a decent rule of thumb is is: Breitbart writers tend to be pro-Israel, denounce antisemitism, and embrace the MLK "I have a dream" concept of anti-racism, while a small but significant — and unmoderated — group of users of Breitbart's comment section tend towards antisemitism and/or white supremacy. As a result, Breitbart articles have a far different tone from Breitbart comments — the comments are always far more right-wing and radical.

I think part of the reason why the white-supremacist dogwhistle conspiracy theory was developed was in an attempt to explain this strange juxtaposition of MAGA populism and fringe edgelordery. It must be a bizarre experience for the small group of prominent conservative Jewish journalists at Breitbart to post another article on how good Trump is for supporting Israel, or how Candace Owens and Kanye West are doing good work growing the black conservative community, and still have these kinds of people strong in their audience. It doesn't seem strange that Breitbart might not censor its comment sections on principle, given its stances against Internet censorship by the likes of Twitter and Facebook, but I think at least some click-to-reveal offensive content warnings for the worst comments would be a good idea, if not more. It seems that some action along those lines is the only means by which they'd rid themselves of that comment-section infestation.

It's worth noting, however, that this began early in the Trump campaign — and to some extent, even before that — when the "alt-right" label was more broadly defined. Prior to Trump, Breitbart could be said to be cognizant of the reality that previous iterations of mainstream conservativism were no longer effective, but not cognizant of what particular form an electorally successful conservativism would take on (in this timeline, Trump populism, aka shit Ann Coulter has been saying, printing and best-selling for years). During that time, before Trump's brand of Republicanism won its current (vast) majority share of the conservative community, conservative ideas contrary to the established neocon and evangelocon orthodoxy were alternative right — or alt-right for short. As such, many who were Trumpian(ish) before it was cool — then-Breitbart editor (and gay Jew) Milo Yiannopoulos and YouTube occultist Tarl "Styxhexenhammer" Warwick, for instance — embraced the alt-right label. However, as Trumpian Republicanism won over the mainstream, to include previously never-Trump or Trump-apathetic Republican establishment politicians, it could no longer could be truly considered alternative, and was from then on hindered rather than helped by a loose alliance with fringe right-wing ideologies — and thus, Breitbart and Milo and Styx all publicly rejected the label, effectively canceling their membership.

But I digress. The point is that, before it fully embraced Trumpian Republicanism, Breitbart was site for right-wing hipsters who believed Fox was doing it wrong by playing it too safe. Under those conditions, Breitbart's audience was a diverse heterogeneous mix of several fringe right-wing ideologies, all prone to unorthodox and "offensive" thoughts but of which anti-Semitic white-identitarianism was but one of several competing groups. Now, Breitbart's core audience is Trump supporters, but the fringe racists still exist as a relic from The Before Time.

Since this, plus the persecution of politically incorrect ideas in today's Internet climate, adequately explains how Breitbart's infestation got there and why it hasn't left, I reject the dogwhistle conspiracy theory. Ultimately, the best solution would be the properly liberal one: allow journalists who have extreme and, frankly speaking, batshit insane leanings towards anti-Semitic white-identitarianism to express those views professionally, to the small but rabid audience that already exists, without the fear that discovery would lead to either themselves or their employer quickly being out of a job. Then the Breitbart comment trolls would have some place better to go to get their regurgitated opinions wrapped up like news. But we all know that shit ain't happening anytime soon — they'd all get doxxed and domain-deregistered so fast it'd make your head spin — so Breitbart should pick up the fucking banhammer already and start swinging.

Oh, and Breitbart is biased AF in a pro-Trump manner. But bias is what sells these days. It's regurgitated rewrapped opinions presented as fact absolutely everywhere.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

.

WOW. That was a serious treat! I'm going to have to read it for a third time tomorrow to make sure that I've absorbed it all. I had no clue that I was even asking such an interesting question. :-)

Thank you! Much appreciated.