America - The Official Thread

[Dennisch]

Seeing how much of a circus American politics have become, I think it would be great to see more of Hollywood trying to ru(i)n the country.

Here we go!

 

[McLaren]

Hell of a day for the President to forget how to tweet.

Nothing but another **** post from you as if this was Reddit.

Hopefully the staff will enforce you start actually providing more substance & evidence in your posts than just coming in here to drop little jabs towards Trump (that you apparently have to steal from Twitter). But, that'd probably the spell the end of your "contributions" to this thread because actually researching what you post wouldn't allow you to make the inflammatory remarks you do.

We ALL must be united & condemn all that hate stands for. There is no place for this kind of violence in America. Lets come together as one!

What is vital now is a swift restoration of law and order and the protection of innocent lives.

We must remember this truth: No matter our color, creed, religion or political party, we are ALL AMERICANS FIRST.

Condolences to the family of the young woman killed today, and best regards to all of those injured, in Charlottesville, Virginia. So sad!

Probably not. I thought you meant this one.
View attachment 666640

Sad & pathetic people like her claim to fight for injustice whilst posting false information to incite an angry reaction, just as she did with the video of Trump & the boy in the wheelchair.

 

[BobK]

Here we go!

Why not? I'd sooner him than someone like Pelosi.

Yes, I know she's a Congressperson, not a senator. Nevertheless I stand by my opinion.

 

[homeforsummer]

Sad & pathetic people like her claim to fight for injustice whilst posting false information to incite an angry reaction, just as she did with the video of Trump & the boy in the wheelchair.

Rowling was correct at the time - her tweet was around an hour before Trump's first "We must all be united" one.

Accuracy is important if you're to criticise someone's accuracy...

 

[Joey D]

Nothing but another **** post from you as if this was Reddit.

Hopefully the staff will enforce you start actually providing more substance & evidence in your posts than just coming in here to drop little jabs towards Trump (that you apparently have to steal from Twitter). But, that'd probably the spell the end of your "contributions" to this thread because actually researching what you post wouldn't allow you to make the inflammatory remarks you do.


Sad & pathetic people like her claim to fight for injustice whilst posting false information to incite an angry reaction, just as she did with the video of Trump & the boy in the wheelchair.

Ya, I don't get it, Trump does enough actual stupid stuff that there's plenty of real material out there. No need to make anything up or present things in a way that aren't exactly true.

Plus I'm guessing Trump was too busy playing terrible golf to tweet any sooner.

Here we go!

I'm torn on this, he's done a ton of good for the city of Detroit and socially he's kind of hands off. He's also not really racist, despite what many folks like to say about him. His grandparents are black and his father is biracial. He's also not a horrible guy, I've had the chance to meet him before and even parked his convertible Caddy at a grand opening of a water park he built for a city.

On the other hand, he's a slightly less crazy Ted Nugent and attracts voters of the alt-right. I don't think he's for the alt-right, but I don't really want more politicians that give their cause any more leverage. Having Trump is bad enough (not saying he's for the alt-right either).

 

[McLaren]

Rowling was correct at the time - her tweet was around an hour before Trump's first "We must all be united" one.

Accuracy is important if you're to criticise someone's accuracy...

The timestamp on that tweet shows 5:21PM 12 Aug 2017.
The timestamp on first tweet I quoted from Trump shows 10:19AM 12 Aug 2017

Edit* Not that it distracts from the point that she still purposely incites people by posting pictures/videos to paint Trump in a negative light that are anything but. Her tweet is the classic rhetoric, "Well, Trump must support Nazism because he hasn't denounced it". Nevermind the fact she's one of these morons who bitch about Trump using Twitter too much and then makes a swipe at him for not using it.

In other words, she has her stance made and no matter what Trump does, she will attack him for it. Her opinion on the political world is about as meaningful as mine in a gourmet kitchen; it's garbage and always will be.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The timestamp on that tweet shows 5:21PM 12 Aug 2017.
The timestamp on first tweet I quoted from Trump shows 10:19AM 12 Aug 2017

Viewing both in the same timezone puts Trump's an hour(ish) later. 5:21PM vs 6:19PM. Looking at pictures of tweets can be confusing, check the source instead.

 

[Famine]

Probably not. I thought you meant this one.

Nicking stuff from Rowling is just poetic justice though.

 

[LeMansAid]

@MrWaflz55's status update......

A white nationalist (neo-Nazi?) ran over a group of people protesting against them in the US. Somewhere in Virginia IIRC. /humanity...

How often does humanity end and is then reinstated? Every few seconds? If not you're really implying something rather insulting, given the horrific acts that are constantly being perpetrated around the world. It really ended now, and not at the hands of Stalin? Hitler? Pol Pot?

The hyperbole is not productive.

Further......

Whatever their reasons for showing themselves are, I think it's equally dangerous not knowing how many white supremacists there are knocking around.

I don't agree. It would be naive in the extreme to think that we will ever have a free society that does not have a portion of it that hold suspect views, or have fraught persuasions. Of that portion, there will likely always be some "good" ones. They're the paedophiles that don't transgress, the misogynists that outwardly conform to society's egalitarian expectations, the blood-thirsty that refrain from harming others, and the supremacists that "bite their lip".

I'm personally uneasy with the concept of dealing with people that are not upfront with their views - but if an element of racism in society is a given, I'll take the passive rather than active kind.

How about we stop the hysteria, the melodrama, the self-righteousness, and let these dinosaurs quietly move closer to extinction?

 

[novcze]

... and let these dinosaurs quietly move closer to extinction?

except people are not born racist/bigots/etc. so wait for an extinction will be long

 

[photonrider]

except people are not born racist/bigots/etc. so wait for an extinction will be long

The last six words of LeMansAid post was metaphorical.

Neither are people born editors or grammar nazis . . .

Break the programs.
With the age of information upon us we should be able to find common ground to plough towards a successful harvest.
Bottom line? The pursuit of happiness.
What weeds are we looking at?

 

[Quakebass]

Well then all media outlets have cut that out, because I haven't seen any chants of BLM nor did I see tons of black men and women getting run over. Not to say they weren't there but still, even if there were this isn't the right action. None of it shows him being attacked, and it seemed it was some what premeditated.

It was about a minute or two before the car ran through, it was one of the first things they chanted when the streamer crossed paths with the protesters. And you don't necessarily need to be black to be part of/a supporter of BLM. I could link you the full video through PM if that isn't against the AUP.

Also, separate from our conversation - I had a friend on FB share this - someone's telling of events, it seems to be from a pro-Communist and/or Anitfa perspective, but it displays a lot of information and detail that may not make it into stories from larger news outlets, simply due to the generalizations they'll have to make from all the different perspectives from all the people on the ground. It's also a bit interesting that a seemingly pro-Antifa is so willingly talks about the violence carried out by their own side. And the car in the story isn't the same one that plowed through protesters. Censored as much as I could:

"The battle is over and the white nationalists got their :censored:ing asses handed to them.

Here's a relative synopsis of the events.

On Friday night just over a hundred guys showed up to a college campus with Tiki Torches shouting "Blood and Soil" (A Third Reich War Chant) and throwing up Nazi salutes. They were almost instantly surrounded by pissed off college jocks and were forced to leave by the cops.

On the next day the actual rally began. Immediately the police surrounded them to protect them and the Alt Right wanted to look like cool guys so they started rushing the police barricade that was protecting them. It was pretty pathetic and they didn't even cause the pigs to flinch. Richard Spencer tried to punch a cop and ended up ****ing up his fingers on a riot shield instead. I'm being told he's in custody.

It was at this point the only resistance groups that had arrived were Antifascist Action and Black Lives Matter. Due to Virginia laws Antifascist Action was unmasked, but they still came in with massive numbers.

Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice apparently dragged fleeing fascists into alleyways and threw them boot parties. Allegedly one of the Proud Boys (the Proud Boys did not officially endorse the rally) was curbstomped by a SHARP Skin.

Shortly after their arrival the Alt Right were forced to flee the Lee statue and Emancipation Park by BLM and Antifa. Several were hit with glass bottles and bricks. It was at this point the ranks of the fascists began to dissolve into complete disarray.

Other alt right strongholds were set up only to be destroyed by Black Lives Matter and newly arrived Militia groups like the Oathkeepers and III%ers. At one point Alt Righters abandoned their flags and signs while runnning from a local Virginia militia screaming "REAL AMERICANS KILL NAZIS!" as they waved shotguns angrily at the Nazis.

The police were planning on doing mass arrests of Antifas, but Oathkeeper militia members began to stand side by side with them, so the pigs backed out.

Right at the climax of the fighting Redneck Revolt arrived armed with AK-47's shouldered, with the fire rate set to "So Much For The Tolerant Left". Fear completely overtook the fascists and they all ran in different directions. At one point a Klansman was surrounded by Antifa and Oathkeepers and jumped into his car, running somebody over. His car was pelted with beer bottles and he rear ended what looks like a mailbox and his car was disabled. The police had no choice but to arrest him as they were being recorded.

Antifascist Action has apparently gotten the locations of where the Alt Righters and Klansmen are staying for the night. If they stay and don't leave town, many of them will most likely be killed in the streets by Antifa and pissed off Rednecks now that the police are completely exhausted.

Donald Trump's response was typical liberal bull:censored:. "Violence is wrong, we have to work together."

Many on The Daily Stormer were hoping Trump would congratulate them somehow. They are very likely to be upset now that they've bern cucked by Trump yet again

I have to say that I didn't think we were going to win this one at first, but we did. They got absolutely trashed.
NAZI PUNKS 🤬 OFF."

So it seems there was a massive amount more groups than just Antifa, BLM, white supremacists, and Nazis, and furthermore if this story can be believed there were even groups that traditionally sparred with leftist movements (and even often supported the Alt-Right) that sided with Antifa to chase off the Nazis. I can't imagine what it's like to be there.

 

[polysmut]

Nicking stuff from Rowling is just poetic justice though.

That's the first of her work that I've ever read. I overheard somebody in a pub on Saturday read out the tweet, then saw it repeated here the next day.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

It was about a minute or two before the car ran through, it was one of the first things they chanted when the streamer crossed paths with the protesters. And you don't necessarily need to be black to be part of/a supporter of BLM. I could link you the full video through PM if that isn't against the AUP.

Like I said I've seen it from various news outlets and on youtube as well, I didn't hear that on my first go around. However, even if it was being chanted what does it matter? I also know that you don't have to be black or whatever to support said group, but typically you would see a obvious make up considering the majority of its members.

EDIT: I did see a black lives sign in the video where the car plowed through, so yet again they were there it's not surprising, just curious as to why it matters to you.

Also, separate from our conversation - I had a friend on FB share this - someone's telling of events, it seems to be from a pro-Communist and/or Anitfa perspective, but it displays a lot of information and detail that may not make it into stories from larger news outlets, simply due to the generalizations they'll have to make from all the different perspectives from all the people on the ground. It's also a bit interesting that a seemingly pro-Antifa is so willingly talks about the violence carried out by their own side. And the car in the story isn't the same one that plowed through protesters. Censored as much as I could:



So it seems there was a massive amount more groups than just Antifa, BLM, white supremacists, and Nazis, and furthermore if this story can be believed there were even groups that traditionally sparred with leftist movements (and even often supported the Alt-Right) that sided with Antifa to chase off the Nazis. I can't imagine what it's like to be there.

Reads like an interesting and chaotic impasse in a novel at best, and at worse two destructive sides attacking each other and polarizing the masses. Police and others law enforcement have made no note of it, and why not? This is the stuff media outlets actually thrive on, yet haven't seen such detail yet.

Only reason I find it believable to a degree, is because some of these groups can be seen, claimed to be there, and a state of emergency happened due to the chaotic nature unfolding.

 

[Liquid]

I don't agree. It would be naive in the extreme to think that we will ever have a free society that does not have a portion of it that hold suspect views, or have fraught persuasions. Of that portion, there will likely always be some "good" ones. They're the paedophiles that don't transgress, the misogynists that outwardly conform to society's egalitarian expectations, the blood-thirsty that refrain from harming others, and the supremacists that "bite their lip".

I'm personally uneasy with the concept of dealing with people that are not upfront with their views - but if an element of racism in society is a given, I'll take the passive rather than active kind.

How about we stop the hysteria, the melodrama, the self-righteousness, and let these dinosaurs quietly move closer to extinction?

Whether they're non-violent ones or not, I would rather know the sort of people I don't want to associate or do business with than not.

You're a racist? I'm not going to your cafe.
You're a supremacist? I'm not buying you a drink down the pub.
You're a misogynist? You're not welcome in my house.
You're a child sex offender? I don't want to work for your company.

Et cetera, et cetera.

Yes, it's all very "in an ideal world" but the principle remains the same.

 

[Northstar]

Whether they're non-violent ones or not, I would rather know the sort of people I don't want to associate or do business with than not.

You're a racist? I'm not going to your cafe.
You're a supremacist? I'm not buying you a drink down the pub.
You're a misogynist? You're not welcome in my house.

Et cetera, et cetera.

Yes, it's all very "in an ideal world" but the principle remains the same.

I'll just ask, where do you stop? Because everybody has negative traits and the more people you add to your undesirable list, the sooner you'll add yourself.

Personally, so long as they keep it to poker night rants between buddies, I couldn't care less what people I do business with think on the subject of equality.

 

[Liquid]

I'll just ask, where do you stop?

My own arbitrary line.

 

[homeforsummer]

The timestamp on that tweet shows 5:21PM 12 Aug 2017.
The timestamp on first tweet I quoted from Trump shows 10:19AM 12 Aug 2017

Viewing both in the same timezone puts Trump's an hour(ish) later. 5:21PM vs 6:19PM. Looking at pictures of tweets can be confusing, check the source instead.

^ What he said. Like I said, accuracy (in this case checking sources rather than taking information at face value) is important, otherwise we're responsible for propagating the same fake news as everyone else.

However:

Edit* Not that it distracts from the point that she still purposely incites people by posting pictures/videos to paint Trump in a negative light that are anything but. Her tweet is the classic rhetoric, "Well, Trump must support Nazism because he hasn't denounced it". Nevermind the fact she's one of these morons who bitch about Trump using Twitter too much and then makes a swipe at him for not using it.

This I don't entirely disagree with. She does deliberately drum up a fuss, and often it's either a storm in a teacup or not particularly justified - but then I'd also say she rarely goes after targets that don't deserve a bit of ire. The only difference between Rowling and a million other people on Twitter is that she has a larger audience and she's probably more eloquent than most.

In other words, she has her stance made and no matter what Trump does, she will attack him for it. Her opinion on the political world is about as meaningful as mine in a gourmet kitchen; it's garbage and always will be.

Not sure about this however. If Trump wasn't a dangerous, incompetent arse, Rowling and everyone else probably wouldn't have to spend so much time pointing it out. And he's a dangerous, incompetent arse holding probably the most powerful position of office in the world with the ability to affect global events, so while he might not be Rowling's president directly he can indirectly affect just about anyone with his incompetence, which justifies some of her complaints.

Now the flip side to this is that while Trump is doing genuinely cretinous stuff like not denouncing white supremacy, making threats to an emerging nuclear superpower and banning transsexuals from the military, we can probably give him a break for low-level idiocy like being functionally illiterate in delivering speeches or skipping obligatory events like the correspondents' dinner.

In context he's made a lot of generally dumb behaviour fairly unimportant and we probably don't need round-the-clock coverage or widespread outrage about it.

 

[McLaren]

Not sure about this however. If Trump wasn't a dangerous, incompetent arse, Rowling and everyone else probably wouldn't have to spend so much time pointing it out. And he's a dangerous, incompetent arse holding probably the most powerful position of office in the world with the ability to affect global events, so while he might not be Rowling's president directly he can indirectly affect just about anyone with his incompetence, which justifies some of her complaints.

Now the flip side to this is that while Trump is doing genuinely cretinous stuff like not denouncing white supremacy, making threats to an emerging nuclear superpower and banning transsexuals from the military, we can probably give him a break for low-level idiocy like being functionally illiterate in delivering speeches or skipping obligatory events like the correspondents' dinner.

In context he's made a lot of generally dumb behaviour fairly unimportant and we probably don't need round-the-clock coverage or widespread outrage about it.

I have no problem with anyone pointing out his flaws. It's purposely using false information/media to do so. She loses credibility with each post that blows up her in face. At some point, continuing to do such things to make your voice heard, you end up being part of the problem, and eventually, no one wants to hear your opinion once you gain a reputation of twisting information to suite your stance.

Beyond banning transsexuals, the other 2 are nothing more than hypocrisy by people. God forbid you remind someone of the past things a President did:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...e-shield-to-guard-against-nuclear-attack-fro/

President Barack Obama delivered a stern warning to North Korea on Tuesday, reminding its “erratic” and “irresponsible” leader that America’s nuclear arsenal could “destroy” his country.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/13/world/clinton-s-warning-irks-north-korea.html

On his weekend visit to South Korea, President Clinton warned that if North Korea developed and used an atomic weapon, "we would quickly and overwhelmingly retaliate."

"It would mean the end of their country as they know it," he said. 'Rash Act' by U.S.

And there's plenty out there wondering why Obama never denounced BLM, from defending it at the funeral for the 5 fallen Dallas officers to saying it's been, "really effective in bringing attention to problems". Why has no one denounced Antifa? Why is the right painted as white supremacist-loving people who are violent after this 1 man, yet the backlash over a Democrat supporter shooting a Republican congressman not met with the same ilk?

Because it's fun to pile this all on Trump, and act like rampant racism is something that just cropped over the last 6 months. Trump's team already denounced White Supremacists during his election as well, but of course, the sheep who watch MSM wouldn't know that, either.

Washington (CNN)The official newspaper of the Ku Klux Klan expressed its support for Republican nominee Donald Trump on the front page of its current issue, a move the Trump campaign quickly denounced.

The front page of "The Crusader" had a banner that said "Make America Great Again" with an article dedicated to a defense of Trump's campaign slogan.
Trump's campaign quickly denounced the support from the newspaper, calling the publication "repulsive."

"Mr. Trump and the campaign denounces hate in any form. This publication is repulsive and their views do not represent the tens of millions of Americans who are uniting behind our campaign," the Trump campaign said in a statement to CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/01/politics/donald-trump-kkk-crusader-support/index.html

This isn't directed at you, btw. More so venting some frustration over how things are portrayed by the media as 1-sided or whatever fits their agenda at a given time.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I have no problem with anyone pointing out his flaws. It's purposely using false information/media to do so. She loses credibility with each post that blows up her in face.

As already pointed out it was your timing that was wrong - she tweeted before Trump.

God forbid you remind someone of the past things a President did:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...e-shield-to-guard-against-nuclear-attack-fro/

The quote is thus:

We could, obviously, destroy North Korea with our arsenals, but aside from the humanitarian costs of that, they are right next door to our vital ally, South Korea.

Pardon me if I note a difference between a statement referencing humanitarian disaster and Trump's "fire and fury", "locked and loaded" rhetoric.

Because it's fun to pile this all on Trump, and act like rampant racism is something that just cropped over the last 6 months. Trump's team already denounced White Supremacists during his election as well, but of course, the sheep who watch MSM wouldn't know that, either.

Trump is responsible for his words on the issue. It wasn't until today's teleprompted and prepared statement that he explicitly issued the condemnation that people expect from the President of the United States.

You can blame MSM as if you have some real inside track on events but, in my opinion, you're simply presenting the same one-sided sort of debate that you condemn.

...venting some frustration over how things are portrayed by the media as 1-sided or whatever fits their agenda at a given time.

See?

 

[Joey D]

Looks like Trump officially denounced the violence. I get that his team issued a statement earlier, but it does seem weird that it took him two days to do so.

 

[UKMikey]

Looks like Trump officially denounced the violence. I get that his team issued a statement earlier, but it does seem weird that it took him two days to do so.

The cynical observer in me can't help but wonder whether he has to run everything by Steve Bannon first.

 

[LeMansAid]

Whether they're non-violent ones or not, I would rather know the sort of people I don't want to associate or do business with than not.

You're a racist? I'm not going to your cafe.
You're a supremacist? I'm not buying you a drink down the pub.
You're a misogynist? You're not welcome in my house.
You're a child sex offender? I don't want to work for your company.

Et cetera, et cetera.

Yes, it's all very "in an ideal world" but the principle remains the same.

Based on the information available in your list........ 1) Thought crime, 2) Thought crime, 3) Thought crime, 4) Crime.

There is no shame to be felt by someone that is a hardwired paedophile. A black person that has had only negative experiences of white people - profiled, beaten, verbally abused, constantly pushed down and held back - I'd hesitate to not give them the same sort of grace. If that person is inwardly racist towards white people, but does nothing outwardly to show it, I say "kudos", not "shame on you". That person may have a huge struggle going on inside them, trying to extricate themselves from the prejudice they've come to harbour. Your figurative X-ray machine though will show that they are indeed a racist, and it follows, not worthy of your patronage at their cafe. You don't see the problem with condemning thought crime in such a way?

 

[TetsuKobura]

Not entirely sure if this was mentioned yet, but my old university did a good thing by preventing potential violence from coming to College Station.
http://today.tamu.edu/2017/08/14/texas-am-cancels-911-event-reservation/
For the record, I hate both the alt-right and Antifa, but they had the right to assemble and protest in Virginia. Unfortunately the extremes from both sides don't understand violence isn't written in the Constitution, which unfortunately led to the events that took place.

 

[05XR8]

I recall a Republican shooting another Republican.... in the face...

 

[Quakebass]

Like I said I've seen it from various news outlets and on youtube as well, I didn't hear that on my first go around. However, even if it was being chanted what does it matter? I also know that you don't have to be black or whatever to support said group, but typically you would see a obvious make up considering the majority of its members.

EDIT: I did see a black lives sign in the video where the car plowed through, so yet again they were there it's not surprising, just curious as to why it matters to you.

In the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter at all, it was really just my curiosity. I was trying to see if any sort of motive or connections could be pieced together from all the footage (since that was pretty much all that was available at the time), like if there was interaction between the attacker and protest group prior to the incident - part of understanding that is knowing what group is what. Considering that it was BLM, that was one of the more likely groups of the many in the chaos to be a target of a racially charged attack, but it also could've been a specific group-vs.-group conflict, or a much wider left-vs.-right conflict. Based on more recent reports it sounds like it was the third option, and the guy was just trying to mow down anyone on the opposing side of the alt-right.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

In the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter at all, it was really just my curiosity. I was trying to see if any sort of motive or connections could be pieced together from all the footage (since that was pretty much all that was available at the time), like if there was interaction between the attacker and protest group prior to the incident - part of understanding that is knowing what group is what. Considering that it was BLM, that was one of the more likely groups of the many in the chaos to be a target of a racially charged attack, but it also could've been a specific group-vs.-group conflict, or a much wider left-vs.-right conflict. Based on more recent reports it sounds like it was the third option, and the guy was just trying to mow down anyone on the opposing side of the alt-right.

Well that's why I said what I did, and had doubts it had anything to do with who was who, other than simply being a group of protesters against those of the alt-right/white nationalist/neo-nazi gathering. That seemed to be the motive, as you put it simply "much wider left vs. right", or fringe left vs fringe right coming to a peak with a vehicle being used as a weapon. My point as you sum it up in the end was it was some loser, who took matters into his own hands and did an unjustifiable act because people disagreed with his sides ideals. Which is ironic considering that some of the major people used a platform on that side of the argument, take issue with the growing PC elements and denounced Berkeley riots (which were wrong hence fringe). Yet here they are infighting violence against an anti-protest group and a member doing one of the most deadly acts. From the information we have so far.

 

[homeforsummer]

This isn't directed at you, btw. More so venting some frustration over how things are portrayed by the media as 1-sided or whatever fits their agenda at a given time.

No problem - I didn't take it as a dig at me. @TenEightyOne has already responded better than I could, but I do agree with his closing statement - I dip in and out of this thread so I don't see how everyone posts all the time, but you're expressing frustration at a media that's no less one-sided than the comments you've made yourself.

The tweet further up was a great example of this - your initial tirade was based on something that wasn't actually true, preferring to believe that someone you were (rightly) frustrated with was in the wrong rather than investigating whether that was the case. Whatever the tone of Rowling's tweet - and I agree, she does overdo it sometimes - that particular tweet was entirely accurate when she tweeted it.

Now, I'm sure that was simply a mistake on your part, but it does quite neatly illustrate the media problem at the moment* which is that people pick something that looks good to them and then run with it - either because they've not investigated further, or because they're actively choosing a side and picking stories that support that side.

"What about denouncing BLM?" is another example - and it isn't a suitable riposte to "What about denouncing white supremacism?", no more than say, picking out womens' rights as a bigger issue than LGBT rights. I think most would agree that plenty of societal issues need addressing, but current events tend to shine a spotlight on particular things, and right now that's white supremacism, not BLM.

And right now, Trump is the man who has the power to change such things. Plenty of British politicians have done stupid stuff in the past but all the attention is very much on Theresa May not :censored:ing up the country, so she's the politician we're giving a hard time over here. I'd not expect it any other way.

* Both sides of the media. Incidentally, I'd have thought most of us here are above derogatory terms like "MSM" and "sheep"? Better arguments can be made without them, I'm sure.

 

[McLaren]

No problem - I didn't take it as a dig at me. @TenEightyOne has already responded better than I could, but I do agree with his closing statement - I dip in and out of this thread so I don't see how everyone posts all the time, but you're expressing frustration at a media that's no less one-sided than the comments you've made yourself.

His posts are not visible to me. Give yourself more credit than however he responded.

The tweet further up was a great example of this - your initial tirade was based on something that wasn't actually true, preferring to believe that someone you were (rightly) frustrated with was in the wrong rather than investigating whether that was the case. Whatever the tone of Rowling's tweet - and I agree, she does overdo it sometimes - that particular tweet was entirely accurate when she tweeted it.

Now, I'm sure that was simply a mistake on your part, but it does quite neatly illustrate the media problem at the moment* which is that people pick something that looks good to them and then run with it - either because they've not investigated further, or because they're actively choosing a side and picking stories that support that side.

I based my argument on the picture provided in this thread by another member that had a time stamp and Trump's tweet.

That tweet was only accurate in the fact she made it before Trump. It doesn't change her message: "Trump doesn't condemn the group therefore he supports them".

You're focused on pointing out I was wrong about who posted first rather my point that she manipulates what she posts to make her political statement. If I took an exert from a review of yours and only showcased your dislikes with the added statement, "H4S believes this car is awful & should not be reviewing cars", have I not falsely attacked your career for no reason than I may not like you?

"What about denouncing BLM?" is another example - and it isn't a suitable riposte to "What about denouncing white supremacism?", no more than say, picking out womens' rights as a bigger issue than LGBT rights. I think most would agree that plenty of societal issues need addressing, but current events tend to shine a spotlight on particular things, and right now that's white supremacism, not BLM.

Except they don't. That's the point you've missed. The media did not attack BLM when it was in the spotlight. The media at one point, edited their frustration from an angry woman telling people to burn down other neighborhoods to an upset relative distraught over a death.

This one sad incident has painted white nationalists as terrorists (due how the attack should be viewed), and shouldn't be allowed to voice any opinion. Last year, multiple BLM protests with destroyed property and people shown saying to kill cops and telling white people you can't cross here, and it was rarely ever met with the same descriptions by the media beyond a report about petition to label BLM a terrorist group.

Two equally awful sides reacted to by the media differently.

And right now, Trump is the man who has the power to change such things. Plenty of British politicians have done stupid stuff in the past but all the attention is very much on Theresa May not :censored:ing up the country, so she's the politician we're giving a hard time over here. I'd not expect it any other way.

And who says he isn't trying be saying both sides have good and bad people? Ah but see people now draw the conclusion, "Trump said Neo Nazis have good people. He supports them!"

It's old seeing such conclusions made.

* Both sides of the media. Incidentally, I'd have thought most of us here are above derogatory terms like "MSM" and "sheep"? Better arguments can be made without them, I'm sure.

The people who lap up the medias every word are sheep, regardless of Fox or CNN.

MSM=Mainstream Media. Not sure how that's derogatory.

 

[DK]

Something tells me Donald won't be tuning into Fox for a while.