Are Republicans Preparing to Militarize?

[Michael]

*snrk* ah, the caboose of the crazy train has arrived I see

The only ones gutting things are the GOP - but I guess even when they start coming for you, y'all will be all to happy since it "stuck it to the liberals".

What a fucking pathetic lot you are, unable or unwilling to see the truth even as the rats pillage your nests and sell you out. Oh well.

I don't disagree that the GOP is full of complete Statist nutters. They're not very different from the DNC. Given the scientific evidence suggests people who self-identify as liberal are more likely to be sociopaths, I'd take my chances with the conservatives.

The Left's Trump derangement syndrome would make his winning a second term, if anything, good for the lolz.
Let's hope it happens, shall we

 

[pjdude1219]

I don't disagree that the GOP is full of complete Statist nutters. They're not very different from the DNC. Given the scientific evidence suggests people who self-identify as liberal are more likely to be sociopaths, I'd take my chances with the conservatives.

The Left's Trump derangement syndrome would make his winning a second term, if anything, good for the lolz.
Let's hope it happens, shall we

actually they found its libertarians like your self who are most likely to be sociopaths. secondly i'd be loathe to trust whats essentially a tabloid. thirdly the the correction goes against most other published work from what i've read. so this article is an outliar but than you again it doesn't surprise me that you attach your self to an outlier to support your thuggish ideology and attack everyone who disagrees with you.

 

[joepistole]

#cowardice | #WhatTheyVotedFor​

​

Yeah, but in the meantime, this potent cocktail of antisocial tendency and crippling ignorance doesn't really bode well for anyone.

And in a way, well, aren't we helping these irredeemable abettors do their job? I don't recall how many times I actually came right out and said that it seemed conservatives really, really wanted an armed revolt but couldn't bring themselves to do it, because, you know, they're patriots and all that, so they spent a lot of time trying to imagine ways to revolt while bawling they had no choice. I don't know, a few times, at least.

And now that they're in power, it would seem conservatives are still looking for an excuse.

Given that consideration, we need not wonder why our conservative neighbors would rather talk about anything else under the sun. Even Russia.

How is this conservative cowardice news?

This right wing cult of perpetual victimhood is central to right wing identity. It fuels their passions and clouds their minds.

They control all branches of government yet they remain victims. Victimhood has become integral to conservatism. Just as Nazis believed they were victims of Jewish conspiracy, so called conservatives believe they are victims of liberal conspiracies, e.g. Pizzagate.

 

[Tiassa]

The Left's Trump derangement syndrome would make his winning a second term, if anything, good for the lolz.
Let's hope it happens, shall we

I would simply reiterate↑: This potent cocktail of antisocial tendency and crippling ignorance doesn't really bode well for anyone.

Two aspects that confound, years on:

(1) The lionization of antisocial behavior as some manner of admirable principle

(2) The neurotic mess required to render the lionization of antisocial behavior as the preferable ego defense presentation​

To the other, the fact of ego defense is in some way a hopeful indication, as it strongly suggests some portion of conscience still exists. Still, though, there is looking at a man incapable of escaping his own dishonesty, and there is actually a strange tang of pity mixed in with revulsion; it's one of those human quirks that exists for a reason. To the other, however, we might look upon the man who sees that poor wretch through some strange tint of envy and, you know, really, have no idea how to receive the threat.

 

[billvon]

This is my last post to you, and I am trying to do this for your benefit. Look at what you said, and put yourself in the other guy's shoes: Be honest enough to admit that you are talking down to me. You know nothing about me.

Other than what you post on line. And yes, you could be an intelligent, rational guy who is just posting flamebait for . . . whatever reasons people post such things. But given that the only thing anyone can see of you online are your posts, then that's what I have to respond to.

I want no part of this behavior.

Then why initiate it?

You aren't providing any links to back up what you say either.

And you are providing . . . Internet cartoons.

If you have something more substantive than cartoons and "you are uninformed" "you have a weak position" "less intellect on your part" then by all means post it. Perhaps that's the only way you can relate to people, via such insults. If you want to continue with the cartoons and insults, you will likely be replied to in the same vein. Don't like that? Then don't do that. Pretty simple concept, really.

 

[Michael]

I would simply reiterate↑: This potent cocktail of antisocial tendency and crippling ignorance doesn't really bode well for anyone.

Two aspects that confound, years on:

(1) The lionization of antisocial behavior as some manner of admirable principle

(2) The neurotic mess required to render the lionization of antisocial behavior as the preferable ego defense presentation​

To the other, the fact of ego defense is in some way a hopeful indication, as it strongly suggests some portion of conscience still exists. Still, though, there is looking at a man incapable of escaping his own dishonesty, and there is actually a strange tang of pity mixed in with revulsion; it's one of those human quirks that exists for a reason. To the other, however, we might look upon the man who sees that poor wretch through some strange tint of envy and, you know, really, have no idea how to receive the threat.

LOL

The Armchair Psychology aside, WaPo: Corrected research paper finds liberals more likely to exhibit behaviors linked to psychoticism, such as authoritarianism. Social liberals the authors concluded, might be genetically hardwired to exhibit psychotic behaviors.

As for me and my lolz regarding you and your Statist beliefs, you may want to get used to it because, with God dead, there's only one religion left to mock: The Authoritarian State. Something you may want to reflect on

Speaking of religion, I would encourage any Christian who found CNN's recent 'News' / Art piece of dipping a mask of Trump into fake blood to be revolting, you should determine who their advertisers are and let them know that if they continue to buy ads on CNN, then you will not be purchasing their products. Ever. The fact is, conservatives spend much more money relative to liberals. Significantly more. Those who are a strong atheist, like me, who still cherish cultural-Christianity, you may want to concider doing likewise.

Hey - that's a little trick the Left came up with and used against PewDiePie, effectively red pilling him.

How fitting!
LOLZ

 

[birch]

I don't disagree that the GOP is full of complete Statist nutters. They're not very different from the DNC. Given the scientific evidence suggests people who self-identify as liberal are more likely to be sociopaths, I'd take my chances with the conservatives.

The Left's Trump derangement syndrome would make his winning a second term, if anything, good for the lolz.
Let's hope it happens, shall we

oh, so you are an idiot. the majority of those in prison are conservatives and religious too. didn't know that?

this is what i find very bizarre about conservatives considering EVERYTHING they claim is the opposite of what they state. it is CONSERVATIVES who are the quintessential sociopaths. sociopath/psychopaths are more self-centered, predatorial, narcissistic, prejudicial, judgemental, and power-seeking. this is because someone who identifies as conservative can be very hypocritically immoral or even amoral. conservatives are the most LIBERAL/MANIPULATIVE when it comes to morality and ethics. conservative is just a 'word'. you have to consider the people who identify as such or why some choose to hide behind such a false label that misidentifies them or misleads others as to what and who they really are.

conservatives think they are pillars of society by hiding their filth and garbage such as maintaining the front of a moral family man while behind the veil creates as well as feeds on the underbelly of society by oppressing and projecting their immorality on others.

my stepfather was the typical conservative republican who was also a preacher, known as a pillar of society and good old-fashioned family values, backbone of america type rhetoric but the real truth was he was a charlatan and a power-mongering psycopath/sociopath with zero ethics. he was actually totally perverted and a pedophiliac/rapist and adulterer. he believed that he should be able to have his clean image and family while having victims for his filth, perversion and darkness he could purge or act out on as well. strangely/weirdly enough, underneath it all he was really a sex, drugs and rock'n'roll type of decadency, lowlife, chaotic, totally immoral type.

Don't be fooled, conservatives are like mobsters with the opposite label in society and given a status they don't deserve. they are responsible for fueling corporate greed, wars, drug cartels, prostitution, human trafficking etc. they want these things to continue so they can dip and dab with one hand while the other feigns some good/charity. REMEMBER CONSERVATIVES ARE INHERENTLY NOT CONSERVATIVE, THEY ARE THE MOST GREEDY, EXPLOITIVE AND MATERIALISTIC. THESE ARE ALL REALLY CONSERVATIVE BACKED AGENDAS AS THEY FEED WHAT THEY REALLY ARE.

Isn't that interesting, everything they are supposedly not? more conservatives are just wolves in sheep's clothing. they are like blasphemers as they are not conservatives or have good values or anything they purport. it's a ruse and a power thing as well as self-flattery/appropriation. of course, he voted republican and for trump. THAT IS WHAT A CONSERVATIVE IS. THEY ARE THE REAL LIBERALS IN THE UNETHICAL SENSE OF THE WORD WHICH IS WHY MOST HIDE BEHIND CONSERVATIVE LABELS.

liberals are more honest and don't hide such things. they are more ethical because they are honest about what they are so therefore less predatorial. they are just live and let live whereas conservatives like to use more masks because it gives them leverage to oppress, gain power over others, be unethical and hurt others.

conservative thinking is so loopy, has so many holes, is so assbackward, is so damn wrong, which seems to be the way they win just by sheer obfuscation of the truth/facts that the opposition has too much work to deal with the mess of their irresponsible, immoral and dirty logic/tactics/actions.

 

[birch]

LOL

The Armchair Psychology aside, WaPo: Corrected research paper finds liberals more likely to exhibit behaviors linked to psychoticism, such as authoritarianism. Social liberals the authors concluded, might be genetically hardwired to exhibit psychotic behaviors.

As for me and my lolz regarding you and your Statist beliefs, you may want to get used to it because, with God dead, there's only one religion left to mock: The Authoritarian State. Something you may want to reflect on

Speaking of religion, I would encourage any Christian who found CNN's recent 'News' / Art piece of dipping a mask of Trump into fake blood to be revolting, you should determine who their advertisers are and let them know that if they continue to buy ads on CNN, then you will not be purchasing their products. Ever. The fact is, conservatives spend much more money relative to liberals. Significantly more. Those who are a strong atheist, like me, who still cherish cultural-Christianity, you may want to concider doing likewise.

Hey - that's a little trick the Left came up with and used against PewDiePie, effectively red pilling him.

How fitting!
LOLZ

they should do a study to find out if conservatives are brain-damaged because their logic certainly is. trump is a typical shallow, vain and immoral conservative republican. he is also a theist but why the hell bother?? where was his religion when he was sexually harassing women and while married? why is he so, so , so overly concerned with looks and sexism directed at women? why is he so concerned with power and money over substance? why is he a lying hypocrite?

i will answer that for you: because he is a damn conservative, that's why. how fitting! lolz

 

[spidergoat]

I think you need to look at the big picture -- we have a nuclear arms race underway for all scenarios with NK's missile prog...

How many generals does it take to fight a nuclear war?

 

[Bells]

It's all a conspiracy huhh? Your extreme leftie is even worse off than I thought, in a world of his own imagining and denial.

*Groaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnn*

Really, this crap again?

I can think for myself.

If your ability to think for yourself matches your ability to read and comprehend what this thread was meant to be about, then I will be the first of many to doubt your ability to think for yourself.

Please explain why CNN severed ties with Donna Brazille (former DNC chairperson).

Because they were uncomfortable with her closeness to Clinton? But didn't Brazile resign regardless? And her connection with the network was suspended when she became interim head of the Democrat Party?

Be honest enough to admit that you are talking down to me.

Let us review the facts, shall we?

Tiassa started a thread, discussing the Republicans indicating that they may resort to using vigilante type groups for security instead of the police forces in various areas.. In other words, they are looking to militarise the party and using private military groups to do it, instead of relying on the police department or even the US military if the need ever arose. You understand how and why this is bad, yes? Now, the OP was quite clear.

You decide to respond with two posts, whining about Obama apparently cutting the military. In short, you attempted to change the subject entirely, and then proceeded to give us several posts of whining about "liberals", etc, and when challenged about your inability to even understand the subject matter of the thread, you then actually asked what the thread was about, in a way to scoff at your innate inability to read and comprehend. Not to mention you decided to be Trump's waterboy in this thread, and thought you were actually on point and logical.. Despite repeated attempts to steer you back on course to discuss the subject matter of this thread, you then proceeded to troll and badly attempt to flame others.

And you whine that people are talking down to you?

It is safe to say that the reaction you are getting in this thread is the inevitable consequence of what happens when people are faced with sheer stupidity and trolling.

You know nothing about me.

Well, we know that you have a reading and comprehension issue. Just as we know that you are a troll (refer to the various images, etc you chose to post when challenged)..

You have no real name, and you are just an internet handle in the virtual world with no accountability, and handing out insults.

Firstly, we don't want to know your real name.

Secondly, everyone who posts here use "internet handles", which is agiven on most of these online platforms.

Thirdly, there is accountability. Things like reputation, for example, follows you. Not just on this site, but other websites. For example, Billvon may post on other forums and his reputation precedes him. He's known. And people know he is not a hack or a tool. He has a good reputation. We can see him log into another forum and we know he is not going to troll. The same cannot be said for you, however.

Do not forget that we can only go by what you post to gauge your intellect and personality. You might be a very rational and lovely human being. However, that is not reflected in what and how you post.

I want no part of this behavior. You aren't providing any links to back up what you say either.

You want no part of this behaviour?

Let's see.. Oohh and with links!

When you referred to Obama as a "communist traitor" apparently putting his feet on your furniture:

Absolutely every communist regime on the planet did this as soon as they got in power. I am surprised this communist traitor with his feet up on our furniture in the white house hasn't done this until now!

When you decided to question another member's ability to read, which is ironic considering you do not appear to have read or comprehended the OP and the subject of this thread:

You need to improve your reading skills. You realize that isn't my paranoid rant that you just quoted, don't you? I quoted verbatim from General Vallely. It's no sense debating this with a person that can't even read.

When you tried to be a smartarse about what you were discussing, and again, showed that you still did not understand what was being discussed in this thread:

Hmm.... so North Korea isn't even on your radar screen. I thought the military was the topic. Maybe you really meant the Salvation Army? Just what IS the topic then?

When you told another member they were uninformed and somehow in a weak position, when that person was saying that he too thought you were a sockpuppet, then you went about proving that you were indeed a sockpuppet:

You know I'd love to have a cordial conversation with a liberal, where somehow, demeaning my intelligence isn't necessary to increase theirs.

I can't open under my old ID. It is no longer active, and I can no longer open it. However, I would gladly have it re-activated. Do you have any helpful suggestions?

Same thing, when you accused another of being in a weak position, and then inferred things about their intelligence:

You're making a straw man because you are uninformed and you have a weak position... I didn't particularly like Obama, and I don't particularly like Trump either. In hindsight I didn't like Bush, and I don't want another Clinton. Sanders might be ok. What new label will you give rather than making an intelligent point?

When you called someone a "dumbass", and again inferred about their intelligence:

Me too. It's just a straw man tactic. I'm not a facist. Maybe I am to you though. It requires less intellect on your part. You know I would be glad to have a cordial coversation with a liberal, where somehow demeaning my intelligence and character wasn't needed to increase theirs.

ok. You're just a dumb ass that can't open a link I gave.

No sign of intelligence on your part. Have someone read the link for you, since you find yourself incapable.

And all of this was just up to the halfway point of page two! I'd keep going, but really, this is only worth one post and the character limit would entail multiple posts and I honestly cannot be shagged.

So when you say this:

I want no part of this behavior. You aren't providing any links to back up what you say either.

Were you lying? Or did you simply forget what you had written from the get go in this thread? Given that you don't even seem to understand what the subject of the thread is actually meant to be about, one could believe sheer ignorance or stupidity on your part, I suppose. Which would you prefer?

If you think my assessment is wrong (and maybe it could be), then perhaps you should ask someone with a little empathy. I don't see much of it here, but why should I expect any? It's all fake.

You can't even get the subject matter of the thread correctly.. Up to page 4 now. Any empathy you may have encouraged from others had died mid way through page 2, when you went out of your way to troll the thread, despite attempts from others to steer you back to the thread's topic.

 

[iceaura]

The fact is, conservatives spend much more money relative to liberals

Which is one reason why there are so few - and getting fewer - liberal (otherwise known as "reality based") media news sources. Market economics gets rid of the unprofitable. The bubble you guys live in is inflated by return on investment of money.

Not the only reason, of course. It wasn't for profit that Bill Maher got fired, or Keith Olbermann; it wasn't for the draw to the fans that Hugh Hewitt got his regular gig being that weird face saying things nobody can recall exactly; the nasty running MSNBC has pared down his payoff slots and expanded Morning Joe for no reason of ratings. There's ideology at work in the corporate boardroom.

But either motive, the net result for the thread would be: If the Republican Party forms a paramilitary "security", or hires whatever Blackwater is calling itself these days, or something of the sort, who's going to report the event and the implications - and how many Americans will they reach?

 

[Woody1]

No, you can't.

I referred you to any actual lefty - and by that I meant, and said: self-identified, ideologically characterized, card-carrying fellow traveller of the American Left.

Not a Democrat. Not a Wikipedia article. Not a randomly selected NYT columnist. An actual lefty. If you don't know any - and I suspect that may be the case - I can refer you to a list of bloggers and so forth, but gathering information like that is probably out of your range; much better if you find one on your own.

So a lefty is a died in the wool moon-bat.

I watched it happen. It was kind of fascinating how they couldn't keep that guy off their screen. They broadcast his speeches - and replayed them. They broadcast his interviews - and then replayed them. They broadcast his rallies, sometimes in their entirety. When he wasn't on their screen, they were talking about him - always with a "both sides" approach that never included an actual hard nosed leftwing critic of his campaign or the Republican Party.

I also watched it happen. We don't have a television of course. I got rid of that brainwashing machine over 5 years ago. When I say "watch" I mean watching the CNN clips on the CNN Facebook site. Trump was continually criticized, and Hillary praised. I was in the undecided category and my daughter was a hardcore Bernie supporter. CNN was always covering for Hillary and criticizing Trump -- like when she fell at the 911 ceremony -- she wasn't sick, no no no. In reality she had the walking pneumonia, and spit it back in her glass at her Ohio speech the week before. She even had a gurney set-up waiting for her at the back. The press wouldn't touch that one. Here's a picture of her spitting green goo back into her water glass at the Ohio rally -- no press coverage of course. It's pretty obvious to anyone that she had pneumonia -- but not a peep from the press no no no. She's the picture of health. They even told us so -repeatedly -- the liars.

At one point Trump was a little late to a rally, and CNN broadcast many minutes of prime time live footage of an empty podium on a stage in a hall in North Dakota. I haven't seen that kind of sycophancy even in sports - baseball rain delays even in the World Series cut away to some kind of show or moving image of some kind. It would have been humiliating, if they'd had any self respect left.

oh yeah, how can I forget all the long faces at CNN on election night, and the deligitimizing of his election with an empty inaugeration. Well actually it was just average attendance if you use a little mathematic ability -- an area that liberals are weak in. As a degreed engineer, I counted the number of porta-potties required to do the event. I don't trust photographers that well you know. But one thing we all know for certain -- people have to pee and poop, and somebody has to plan for it. I bet you never had that thought cross your art-wired brain before. At the end of the day the Trump inaugeration was just average, and no where near the size of Obama's. Trump's press-secretary sure made a fool of himself when he said otherwise.

And actually paying attention like that saves me from depending on what one of their worthless talking heads says they "think", as you apparently do - without the slightest sign of embarrassment. You apparently think that's evidence, or something.

Actually you and I can watch the very same video and come to a different conclusion about reality.

And all of this is by the way - the question is whether the Republican Party is actually going to - as threatened - form some kind of paramilitary Party security force. No word on what color the shirts are going to be. If you recall - you don't, because people like Naomi Klein barely exist in your bubble - that was one of the half dozen predicted bad signs to watch for, indicating that Trump was going to do this, that the country had lost its grip and the era of Constitutional democracy was coming to an end.

So: thoughts?

Well we aren't a true constitutional democracy to start with -- where you have a tyranny by the voting majority. That was the reason for the electoral college. Likewise the democratic party isn't really a democracy as my daughter and I became painfully aware when all the super-delegates were going for Hillary and leaving Bernie. Get rid of those unelected cronies and I might go from independent to democrat because I don't like the republican party either.

 

[Woody1]

No, I prefer not to waste my breath on brainwashed fools such as yourself that cannot be bothered with facts and figures nor logic and reason. I am sorry you are so indoctrinated, but cest la vie, such is life I guess."

I think the same of you, and I have a small favor to ask that should be a win-win solution for both of us: Please allow me to view your profile so I can put you on my ignore list. Thank you.

 

[Woody1]

@ Bells said

Tiassa started a thread, discussing the Republicans indicating that they may resort to using vigilante type groups for security instead of the police forces in various areas.. In other words, they are looking to militarise the party and using private military groups to do it, instead of relying on the police department or even the US military if the need ever arose. You understand how and why this is bad, yes? Now, the OP was quite clear."

Fair enough. Now I have a question for you about sanctuary cities and their police forces. You understand that a sheriff can decide what laws to enforce don't you? It isn't decided by the voting population or by the rule of law. A little bit of reasoning ability says organized crime could buy them off. Nobody told me that, indoctrinated me, brainwashed me, yadda yadda... What do you recommend to change that? Maybe you are happy with leaving it just like it is. PS I haven't been following any of the talking heads on this. I do my own analysis.

 

[Woody1]

How many generals does it take to fight a nuclear war?

One, unless the rules change. It is my understanding that it takes a president and a general to launch a nuclear attack, and a lot of expensive hardware. On the other hand, a cold war requires a large military staff. I would prefer no war, but a cold war is better than a nuke war IMHO. Maybe you disagree.. By the way spider, I'm on the government handout system too. I'm retired.

I grew up during the Cuban missile crisis in a major city on the east coast. I'll never forget the bomb drills at my elementary school.

 

[Woody1]

oh, so you are an idiot. the majority of those in prison are conservatives and religious too. didn't know that?

I think you need a reality check Birch. Of course, an opening remark about intelligence is standard fare for a liberal that needs more. (Don't give away the secret). Now my question:

Why do liberals want them out of jail so badly? So they can vote for conservative candidates?

The fact is most people coming out of jail don't like the rule of law. It isn't hard to figure the rest. I know this will be a challenge for your worldview though, by reading the rest of your musings.

 

[Woody1]

At one point Trump was a little late to a rally, and CNN broadcast many minutes of prime time live footage of an empty podium on a stage in a hall in North Dakota. I haven't seen that kind of sycophancy even in sports - baseball rain delays even in the World Series cut away to some kind of show or moving image of some kind. It would have been humiliating, if they'd had any self respect left.

Hillary could do no wrong, and the major networks were against Trump. Watch the mike cuts, and see for yourself:

 

[iceaura]

So a lefty is a died in the wool moon-bat.

Otherwise known as the reality-based community. And you don't know a single one - not even a blogger or writer or the like. That explains how you got the notion that CNN was leftwing media - people in sensory deprivation tanks hallucinate.
Would you like a few recommendations?

Hillary could do no wrong, and the major networks were against Trump. Watch the mike cuts, and see for yourself:

Why do you guys post these silly wingnut edited videos?

But one thing we all know for certain -- people have to pee and poop, and somebody has to plan for it. I bet you never had that thought cross your art-wired brain before.

One of the reasons I don't post a profile is my enjoyment of the wingnut guessing. Always wrong. Always. Because faced with choosing between reality and the bubble, the indicated facts or your mouth, you guys will back your mouth every time.

A simple amusement, thanks.

Counting the porta-potties only works if the event planners were competent.

I also watched it happen. We don't have a television of course. I got rid of that brainwashing machine over 5 years ago. When I say "watch" I mean watching the CNN clips on the CNN Facebook site. Trump was continually criticized, and Hillary praised.

So you missed it, and missed the point. Ok.

Trump got more unedited, live, prime time major media air than every other candidate from both parties combined - and CNN was possibly the most biased of major media outlets.

Without that, Trump had no campaign - he had no organization, no political support on the ground, no phone banks, not even any Party support until he won the nomination. He had no political base other than his TV audience. He'd never run for anything. He lost his home State, County, and Ward; he lost his workplace State, County, and Ward. The people who knew him outside of TV and staged rally voted for somebody else. His entire campaign was on TV and Twitter and Bannon's internet influence - along with a kick-ass computer setup for voter identification, I forget the name of the guy who ran it but it was excellent. The Twitter feed he provided (he hired a couple of people to generate tweets, btw), but the air time was handed to him gratis by the major TV stations, especially CNN.

Sanders got about as many primary votes as Trump, was in just as unexpected and newsworthy a race, had a similar appeal as an independent, and was the only candidate of either Party to hold serious leftwing positions or receive leftwing approval and enthusiastic backing - he got 1/23 the air time of Trump overall, and even less on CNN. So no, CNN was and is very far from being a leftwing news outlet. CNN was a major asset and abettor of Trump, and currently backs the Republican Party in its "bothsides" narrative and characterization of Trump as not a real Republican.

And so CNN cannot be counted on to cover the creation of a paramilitary wing by the Republican Party. They'll bothsides it - probably George Soros hired bodyguards one time, or Obama had Blackwater doing something somewhere.

 

[Woody1]

Otherwise known as the reality-based community. And you don't know a single one - not even a blogger or writer or the like. That explains how you got the notion that CNN was leftwing media - people in sensory deprivation tanks hallucinate.
Would you like a few recommendations?

I would recommend your stereotype individual should stay out of engineering so they don't kill someone. Personally, I try not to stereotype people. We covered stereotypes in my second semester of college English. Stereotypes can be an intellectual cop-out. It can be a sign of intellectual weakness, so I try to proceed carefully, though I admit, the stereotype shoe fits on some people. I try to remember that we are all unique individuals rather than falling into the trap of racism -- which is stereotypical.

Why do you guys post these silly wingnut edited videos?

Because an opinion is not a fact no matter how much somebody insists while they provide no real evidence of their own. Regarding the video, I try to filter the content. It's for the purpose of discrediting CNN of course. Now with that known let us proceed. The video clips look like real life situations. Now take the example of the black man interviewed at Duke University. Q: Why did the mike cut-out when he offered a compromise on racism? A: Because the media wants racial strife to sell their broadcasting, and the black interviewee did not fit the narrative of disenfranchised blacks. Notice how a female black anchor cuts in and makes sure the viewing audience knows this "truth". Ergo, Trump is the racist in this election. That's my observation, but maybe yours is entirely different.

One of the reasons I don't post a profile is my enjoyment of the wingnut guessing. Within five posts of a disagreement with a thug I'll get some post like that one, inevitably - it's the only way the thug pack knows how to approach an issue. And always wrong. Always. Not even the stuff that is indicated, with clues. Because faced with choosing between reality and your mouth, you guys will back your mouth every time.

I didn't graduate at the top of my engineering class because of poor listening skills, but do continue thinking you have me all figured out. That's my hidden surprise tactic, and has worked very well for me, to winnow out the overconfident know-it-all types.

A simple amusement, thanks.

Counting the porta-potties only works if the event planners were competent.

They are. Have you ever seen the toilets backing up at half-time at a football game, a colosseum event, etc.? Civil engineers know their shit (pun intended). After a porta potty event is over, the deficant material must be disposed of, and can be measured then. I got my data on that too. Bottom line: the Trump inauguration was just average, though the media tried to make it look small, and Trump's press secretary made a fool of himself when he said it was the largest crowd ever. The press wants to delegitimize the election. That seems obvious to me, though you might disagree.

So you missed it, and missed the point. Ok.

No, not really. I think we agree that CNN is not a good source of factual information. You got there your way, and I got there my way.

Trump got more unedited, live, prime time major media air than every other candidate from both parties combined - and CNN was possibly the most biased of major media outlets.

much to CNN's chagrin I'm sure. Did you see them crying on election night? Did they look happy to you?

Without that, Trump had no campaign - he had no organization, no political support on the ground, no phone banks, not even any Party support until he won the nomination. He had no political base other than his TV audience. He'd never run for anything. He lost his home State, County, and Ward; he lost his workplace State, County, and Ward. The people who knew him outside of TV and staged rally voted for somebody else. His entire campaign was on TV and Twitter and Bannon's internet influence - along with a kick-ass computer setup for voter identification, I forget the name of the guy who ran it but it was excellent. The Twitter feed he provided (he hired a couple of people to generate tweets, btw), but the air time was handed to him gratis by the major TV stations, especially CNN.

Yep, they fell into their own trap as I see it. Mohammed Ali figured it out a long time ago. He'd say things that ticked people off just so they'd come to the fight, then he walked to the bank with their money. It worked every time.

Sanders got about as many primary votes as Trump, was in just as unexpected and newsworthy a race, had a similar appeal as an independent, and was the only candidate of either Party to hold serious leftwing positions or receive leftwing approval and enthusiastic backing - he got 1/23 the air time of Trump overall, and even less on CNN. So no, CNN was and is very far from being a leftwing news outlet. CNN was a major asset and abettor of Trump, and currently backs the Republican Party in its "bothsides" narrative and characterization of Trump as not a real Republican.

Was CNN a top contributor to Hillary's campaign or not? Well I think I would agree with this woman's independent assessment of the election, because it was the same thing I saw, and I have the same interest in unbiased reporting that she says she has. I might just sign her petition: https://www.change.org/p/cnn-dear-cnn-disclose-that-you-are-a-top-10-donator-of-hillary-clinton

And so CNN cannot be counted on to cover the creation of a paramilitary wing by the Republican Party.

We both agree that CNN is biased.

 

[Bells]

Fair enough. Now I have a question for you about sanctuary cities and their police forces.

Which has what to do with the OP? Did you read the opening post at all?

What do Republicans suggesting they may use militia groups for security instead of police officers for public events, have to do with sanctuary cities and their police forces?

You understand that a sheriff can decide what laws to enforce don't you?

You mean sheriff's and police officers often use discretion? Yes, that is quite obvious.

It isn't decided by the voting population or by the rule of law. A little bit of reasoning ability says organized crime could buy them off.

Don't Americans vote for their sheriff's and police chiefs? Who then set the tone for how their respective departments are run and managed?

Nobody told me that, indoctrinated me, brainwashed me, yadda yadda...

And yet, you have been told multiple times to please stop changing the subject, and you are still to actually make any argument whatsoever on the subject matter of the thread.

What do you recommend to change that?

Change what?

Your inability to stay on topic?

Umm.. ban you from the thread? Issue you with an infraction for trolling?

Maybe you are happy with leaving it just like it is.

Considering that I am having to ask you again, to stick to the topic, what do you think the answer to that question happens to be?

Tell me, Woody1, what do you think about Republicans having the militia serve as security for public events instead of police officers or actual security guards who have training to work at such events?

Take for example, their suggestion that they could use the militia group Oath Keepers as security for public events:

The Oath Keepers are described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as “one of the largest radical antigovernment groups in the US”, recruiting current and former military and law enforcement personnel. They have recently appeared at rallies from Berkeley, California, to Boston, standing with activists from the far right, activists holding what were once fringe positions who have recently risen to national prominence.

The Three Percenters are described by Political Research Associates as “a paramilitary group that pledges armed resistance against attempts to restrict private gun ownership”. They were a highly visible presence in Burns, Oregon, before and during the occupation of the Malheur wildlife refuge by rightwing militia early in 2016.

[...]

The main reason Buchal gave for his attraction to the militia groups was the cancellation of the Avenue of the Roses Parade, an annual Portland community event scheduled for 29 April, after organisers received an anonymously emailed threat of disruption.

The anonymous message claimed “Trump supporters and 3% militia” were encouraging people to “bring hateful rhetoric” to East Portland. “Two hundred or more people”, the email said, would “rush into the middle and drag and push those people out”.

When the parade was called off, Buchal issued a statement in which he bemoaned a “criminal conspiracy to commit crimes of riot” and a letter to Mayor Wheeler in which he lamented “rising lawlessness” in Portland.

In response to the cancellation, a local far-right organizer, Joey Gibson, organized a “free speech rally” – the event at which Christian, the suspect in Friday’s double murder, was filmed throwing fascist salutes and yelling racial epithets, and where he approached antifascist counter-protesters armed with a baseball bat.
​

Do you think groups who partake in activities that point towards overthrowing the Government, should be working as "security" for Republican public events instead of ooohh, I don't know, police officers? Especially in light of one right wing person who murdered 2 people because they stood up for two young women who appeared to be Muslim on a train? And given the fact that their killer started screaming about how he was a patriot in court today and pretty much parroted what these groups often go on and on about?

In a chilling first court appearance on Tuesday, Portland stabbing suspect Jeremy Christian yelled about free speech and patriotism and called for more deaths.

“Free speech or die, Portland!” Christian, 35, yelled as he walked into his arraignment hearing, local NBC outlet KGW reported. “You got no safe place. This is America. Get out if you don’t like free speech!”

Christian is accused of stabbing three men ― Ricky John Best and Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche, who died from their injuries, and Micah David-Cole Fletcher, who is expected to survive ― after they tried to stop Christian from harassing two young women on a train in Portland, Oregon, because the women appeared to be Muslim.

“Death to the enemies of America. Leave this country if you hate our freedom. Death to Antifa!” he yelled in court Tuesday, referring to antifascism. “You call it terrorism, I call it patriotism. You hear me? Die.”​

PS I haven't been following any of the talking heads on this. I do my own analysis.

How about you do your own analysis on the actual subject matter of this thread. If you refuse to discuss the topic of the thread and continue to ramble on about everything but, you will face moderation. This is your final warning.