**** Elections thread *****

[wufwugy]

If Trump doesn't deliver, Booker, Sanders, or Warren will beat him. If he does well, they will lose to him.

I should add that this was not true for Obama. His coalition was racist and ideological. Trump's coalition is more merit-based than that. His coalition will vanish if he doesn't deliver spectacularly. Obama could have shit on a picture of Abraham Lincoln on national news and probably still won.

[wufwugy]

Carson's words about how to fix urban problems are not looking good. He seems to be banking on there being more jobs for people on welfare to go to and isn't keen on reforming welfare. Hopefully this is just his words not telling the whole story, because that approach will not work. It's all about incentives, and that which would work is reforming welfare so that it's tied to work in such a way that more work results in more betterment and less work results in less betterment. If the Trump administration does not use this approach, it will fail inner city employment situation.

[Poopadoop]

What does Steve Harvey say?

[wufwugy]

He's trying to rebuild his image by befriending Trump now. Didn't say much of substance.

[Poopadoop]

He's trying to rebuild his image by befriending Trump now. Didn't say much of substance.

It's very magnanimous of Trump to indulge him. Most P.E. have better things to do.

[BananaStand]

So this pretty much explains why the Dems are in the shape they are in.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/521035448...#sp=show-clips

[wufwugy]

So this pretty much explains why the Dems are in the shape they are in.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/521035448...#sp=show-clips

Their organizing principle is anti-western-values. I don't know where this comes from or why it exists (but I have a hypothesis). It's a very weird ideology too since it embraces contradictory elements, like it's very pro-Marxism as well as pro-Islamism even though those are each incompatible with the other.

My hypothesis is that this all comes from white guilt. We are brainwashed from the very beginning of our lives by media and schools that whites are to be ashamed of their race due to slavery, and the unintended consequences of this are people trying to tear down white culture no matter how unconnected to slavery (or even race) it is.

[wufwugy]

Their organizing principle is anti-western-values. I don't know where this comes from or why it exists (but I have a hypothesis). It's a very weird ideology too since it embraces contradictory elements, like it's very pro-Marxism as well as pro-Islamism even though those are each incompatible with the other.

My hypothesis is that this all comes from white guilt. We are brainwashed from the very beginning of our lives by media and schools that whites are to be ashamed of their race due to slavery, and the unintended consequences of this are people trying to tear down white culture no matter how unconnected to slavery (or even race) it is.

We're seeing this type of thing in Germany now. They have Holocaust guilt or Nazi guilt or whatever they call it, and it propels them to embrace idiotic social justice that is likely to screw them for the rest of the country's existence. Contrast this to Poland, which has no guilt and instead due to being obliterated so severely by all sides in previous wars, knows the importance of securing national culture. The Visegrad Group is going places these days IMO.

[BananaStand]

Is this fake news? Or is this REALLY the state of race relations in this country.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...QHf?li=BBnb7Kz

So Lewis goes on national TV and basically says "I think Russia had their thumb on the scale, and so Trump's win is not legitimate." Ok. Nevermind how naive and ignorant that is. He's entitled to free speech. So is Trump. And as far as I can tell, Trump's response amounted to "Hey, focus on your own job"

Now we have the new york times using that exchange to publish a racist diatribe against trump.

These two quotes are especially heinous as they imply that Trump's response deliberately chose to ignore a civil rights movement that happened 50 years before Lewis' interview.

Mr. Trump, through Twitter, is giving the world access in real time to his unvarnished thoughts, which Mr. Neal called “raw, unsophisticated, ignorant and uninformed.”

“He doesn’t care that people think the civil rights movement was important,” Mr. Neal said. “He doesn’t feel the need to perform some sort of belief that it is important.”

“they heard what he said about John Lewis, which was tantamount to spitting in our face,” he said. “What you’re telling black people is that all the things John Lewis directly was involved in that resulted in the legislation that we are fighting to maintain and make permanent, you consider nothing.”

Trump made a 140 character response to a direct attack on his presidency, from a sitting member of congress.

And now the NYT publishes 20 paragraphs about how Trump's real message is to dismiss the significance of the civil rights movement??

Help me understand this

[wufwugy]

Is this fake news? Or is this REALLY the state of race relations in this country.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...QHf?li=BBnb7Kz

So Lewis goes on national TV and basically says "I think Russia had their thumb on the scale, and so Trump's win is not legitimate." Ok. Nevermind how naive and ignorant that is. He's entitled to free speech. So is Trump. And as far as I can tell, Trump's response amounted to "Hey, focus on your own job"

Now we have the new york times using that exchange to publish a racist diatribe against trump.

These two quotes are especially heinous as they imply that Trump's response deliberately chose to ignore a civil rights movement that happened 50 years before Lewis' interview.





Trump made a 140 character response to a direct attack on his presidency, from a sitting member of congress.

And now the NYT publishes 20 paragraphs about how Trump's real message is to dismiss the significance of the civil rights movement??

Help me understand this

For decades, the media in the US has been about social justice. They are Marxist and during the Cold War were largely pro-communist. The culture of the media has not changed since then, only their strategies. The tool that turns a society from healthy to a Marxist Utopia like communism involves class warfare. The media still uses the bourgeoisie vs proletariat classism, but that hasn't stuck in the US character like it did in Russia. The media doesn't want to use the fascist approach to social justice by way of nationalism because American national character is pro-capitalist, so that wouldn't work. The strategy shift unique to the US media is race. This innovation of classism allows them to dissemble American culture piece by piece since American culture is historically associated with white skin color and slavery was associated with black skin color, yet being "white" or "black" was mostly about culture instead of color, except when it came to slavery (if you want more on this, I can explain. It's fascinating stuff).

This neo-classism of race-baiting at every turn is the tool the media has used to further its Marxism. They've successfully framed white people and mainstream culture as bad, and have convinced any who have any type of issue with a white person or with the mainstream culture that it's *truly* because of racism. This galvanizes the person into the non-white camp, while embracing mainstream culture puts them in the white camp (there are many historical examples of this and contemporary as well). The propaganda is so intense today that black conservatives are considered more white than black (it's merely because they take on a "white" role). Another example is how black urban students get harassed and assaulted when trying to succeed in school due to trying to be "white." Anyways, I'm sidetracking here.

This neo-classism tool of race-baiting has been used successfully to usher in a tremendous amount of Marxist ideals to the society. The welfare state having grown from nothing to the vastness it is now is just one example. The version of social justice the Soviets used couldn't topple the US character, neither could the version of social justice the Nazis used. But this version of racism is doing so successfully. Given that the media is mostly made up of social justice proponents, racism is their agenda.

It should be added that race isn't the only thing they use; it's just the most powerful. They create divisions on gender and sexual orientation (and political Islam) too. The gender related stuff is important since it's all about destruction of the family, the main barrier between here and a Marxist Utopia. I won't get into it more unless you want.

[BananaStand]

I won't get into it more unless you want.

You've already gone beyond the call of duty sir. My plea to "help understand this" was mostly rhetorical.

It seems crazy to me to leap from "Hey, make your district better" to "The civil rights movement was a waste of time". I'm not about to counter that by leaping to conclusions about a mainstream conspiracy towards Marxism.

one of the quotes I referenced was from Al Sharpton. That guy really doesn't care about ushering in a Marxist Utopia. He's just advertising. He's part of a cottage industry that conjures up racial outrage and uses it as a business opportunity. Guys like him, Ben Crump, Keith Ellison, and the Johnny Cochrans of the world are exploiting racial injustice to benefit their own careers and/or get rich.

I guess that explains the NY Times here too. The words "Trump" + "racist" = money.

[wufwugy]

You've already gone beyond the call of duty sir. My plea to "help understand this" was mostly rhetorical.

It seems crazy to me to leap from "Hey, make your district better" to "The civil rights movement was a waste of time". I'm not about to counter that by leaping to conclusions about a mainstream conspiracy towards Marxism.

one of the quotes I referenced was from Al Sharpton. That guy really doesn't care about ushering in a Marxist Utopia. He's just advertising. He's part of a cottage industry that conjures up racial outrage and uses it as a business opportunity. Guys like him, Ben Crump, Keith Ellison, and the Johnny Cochrans of the world are exploiting racial injustice to benefit their own careers and/or get rich.

I guess that explains the NY Times here too. The words "Trump" + "racist" = money.

That's definitely true. It isn't like the agenda is explicit at every corner. Sharpton is in it for the money. The push towards Marxism is explicit in some ways but is mostly descriptive from the outside. Most in the media don't know that what they're doing is social justice and some who do think social justice is good.

Also, calling it Marxism is basically understanding them better than they understand themselves. They don't call themselves SJWs, Marxists, or fascists even though they have the same ideology. They don't call themselves those because they are ignorant. Just like fascism was rebranded from being a sibling of communism to diametrically opposed, many today have rebranded history and inadvertently push towards a return to a Marxist Utopia.

[JKDS]

If the civil rights movement was important, then how can Lewis be described as "all talk, no action?"

Isn't trump minimizing this man's contributions by saying as such? Are you surprised that all of Lewis's accomplishments are brought up in response?

[BananaStand]

If the civil rights movement was important, then how can Lewis be described as "all talk, no action?"

So he has some highlights on his resume, that makes him immune to criticism forever? "all talk, no action" is taken completely out of context. It's part of a larger sentence that clearly references the CURRENT state of his district, which has higher rates of poverty than the national average.

It's not like Trump said "you've never done anything but talk in your life!". Do you not see the difference?

Using your logic, I could say that Hitler was a great leader because the German trains ran on time. Any criticism of him beyond that impugns that accomplishment and is considered a heinous personal attack.

Isn't trump minimizing this man's contributions by saying as such?

Not even close. How does anything Trump said now diminish anything Lewis accomplished decades ago? It's obvious, to anyone who wants to be impartial and see the truth, that Trump did nothing except suggest Lewis mind his own business.

Are you surprised that all of Lewis's accomplishments are brought up in response?

Actually...yeah

Again, using your logic, no one would ever be able to criticize Phil Hellmuth. He can make all the idiotic calls he wants, and run his mouth like jackass. No one can say anything about it cause he's got a shitload of bracelets.

[wufwugy]

If the civil rights movement was important, then how can Lewis be described as "all talk, no action?"

Isn't trump minimizing this man's contributions by saying as such? Are you surprised that all of Lewis's accomplishments are brought up in response?

The wording appears to be a mistake by Trump. In context, he said "all talk, no action" regarding the last several decades when Lewis has been all talk, no action. But those word choices are too easily conflated with Lewis' life in entirety, so adversaries to Trump jump to calling it Trump disparaging a particular time and way in which Lewis was not all talk, no action.

As far as I can tell Trump made a mistake here. It wasn't a mistake of criticizing a man who should be criticized harshly, but in how Trump's words left him open to attacks from the anti-Trump forces. Notice how Trump has backed down. This is likely due in part to him realizing he didn't set this one up as well as he sets up others.

[JKDS]

Btw, happy MLK day. Are you still surprised by the reaction?

[BananaStand]

Btw, happy MLK day. Are you still surprised by the reaction?

This shitstorm started Saturday as far as I can tell. Exactly how long is MLK day?

Also, I was under the impression that the day was set aside to reflect on and celebrate the accomplishments and life's work of the man, and the movement he represented.

I didn't know it was a get out of jail free card that black activist leaders can use to throw temper tantrums without scrutiny.

[JKDS]

So you are surprised then? You seem to be attacking me and going on a rant about who is above scrutiny or whatever. You're missing the point. I'm not suggesting one side is right or wrong.

I'm simply asking why you're surpised. I'm surprised youre surprised. Personally, I'd have bet money that this exact set of events would have occurred when the President Elect describes a guy, who was critical to the civil rights movement, as "all talk" days before MLK day.

Given the millions of people that live here, the state of race relations, the general feeling towards trump, and more, how can you really be surpised by the article you linked?

[BananaStand]

Given the millions of people that live here, the state of race relations, the general feeling towards trump, and more, how can you really be surpised by the article you linked?

Because of the source. If it was some garbage heap like Salon.com, or a desperate-for-attention pundit on MSNBC I wouldnt' be surprised.

But you have a marquee name in journalism trying to navigate a climate where reasonable people are wary of "fake news". And instead of sticking to the facts, they literally INVENTED a multi-page racists hit-piece out of nothing.

[JKDS]

Honestly, the more itellectually interesting question is whether Trump is deliberately baiting these responses.

[BananaStand]

Honestly, the more itellectually interesting question is whether Trump is deliberately baiting these responses.

You'd have to presume that Trump could predict the media would interpret "Fix your district" as "you didn't do shit in the 60's"

Seems like a reach, but maybe not.

[Poopadoop]

C'mon, Trump loves black people. Haven't you seen him hanging out with Don King and Steve Harvey?

[wufwugy]

He certainly likes them more than Obama ever did.

[wufwugy]

Honestly, the more itellectually interesting question is whether Trump is deliberately baiting these responses.

I don't think he is. I think he genuinely wants better race relations and better inner cities. He gets smeared at every corner as somebody trying to undermine those through faux dog whistles and such.

[wufwugy]

Honestly, the more itellectually interesting question is whether Trump is deliberately baiting these responses.

Or maybe I'm totally wrong and this was a tactic to get eyes on him and this:

[BananaStand]

Or maybe I'm totally wrong and this was a tactic to get eyes on him and this:

They'll skewer him for that too. See, he's doing it all wrong.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/16...s-radical.html

[wufwugy]

If we're being intellectually honest here, I think the interpretation is that Trump was attacked by a person making a very stupid claim (Trump is illegitimate), then he responded by attacking the awful performance of his attacker on a very important issue of inner cities, and then his attacker (and most of the media) straw manned and claimed Trump was attacking Civil Rights.

That's what we would get if we had an honest media.

[wufwugy]

Oh they've already perverted his legacy. If he was alive today, he would be an Uncle Tom no different than people like Sowell or Sheriff David Clarke.

[BananaStand]

Oh they've already perverted his legacy. If he was alive today, he would be an Uncle Tom no different than people like Sowell or Sheriff David Clarke.

If he were alive today, he'd be nobody. In 2017, if the media discovers (or the FBI leaks) the fact that you're an unapologetic chronic adulterer.....you're toast.

Being black didn't help Tiger Woods, it wouldn't help a modern day MLK.

[OngBonga]

http://www.infowars.com/report-cnnbu...-inauguration/

There's rumour that they have Trump saying nigger on tape. And calling his son a retard.

What gets me with this report is that there seems to be concern about getting sued... why would that happen if it's genuine?

[BananaStand]

What gets me with this report is that there seems to be concern about getting sued... why would that happen if it's genuine?

I can think of at least two reasons.
1) There most certainly are contractual obligations between producers of the Apprentice and Trump. I'm sure the quality of the show depends on being able to have cameras everywhere, on all the time. It would follow then, that part of the compromise includes controlling any embarrassing or controversial content. Mark Burnett and his people (the ones who own the alleged tape), are still making the Apprentice, and have a vested interest in maintaining it as a going concern. Regardless of the credibility of any lawsuit, it's sure to tie up time and resources that could conceivably end the show. Why kill a golden goose just to hurt a guy who's already won anyway.

2) The article states that the infamous "n word" quote occurs off-camera. In legal speak, that means it didn't happen at all. So publishing this is really straddling the line between gossip and slander.

[BananaStand]

There doesn't seem to be much more to this story other than the rantings of Tom Arnold. And if I recall, those are old news. Like, before the election, old news. If we were going to see it, we would have seen it already.

[OngBonga]

Yeah that's a reasonable analysis, cheers.

If it happened "off camera", or in other words hasn't been recorded, then it's bollocks and will have no impact on Trump. If he has been caught saying nigger, well he'd better hope the context isn't racist. Good luck with that.

[BananaStand]

Another reason you might not see this video is that the Dems are simply 'conserving ammo' until 2020. No sense in emptying the clip now.

[Savy]

Another reason you might not see this video is that the Dems are simply 'conserving ammo' until 2020. No sense in emptying the clip now.

Since when do political parties have that much control on when anything leaks?

[BananaStand]

Since when do political parties have that much control on when anything leaks?

Since always

The MSM rounded up 8 different women who claim that Trump groped them. These alleged incidents took place over the course of years, but all 8 women came forward on the same day

[OngBonga]

Yeah I mean no doubt this footage is years old. When was he on the Apprentice?

[wufwugy]

If it was true it would have leaked before the election day. Consider that this is coming on the heels of Trump blasting how badly the new Apprentice is doing. Consider also that the story aligns with adversaries' absolute favorite myth about Trump: that he hates black people. Too nose scratchy.

[OngBonga]

The fact it's come from Infowars, a pro-Trump source, is the reason I haven't just dismissed it outright.

[wufwugy]

I guess that's true, but I'll be honest that I categorize InfoWars as fake news just as well as the MSM. They report on so much unverified shit that doesn't turn out to be true. That's what CNN and Buzzfeed just did.

[JKDS]

I remember hearing about it years ago.

[BananaStand]

I remember hearing about it years ago.

I kinda remember I did too. If I'm being totally honest, I believe this tape exists, and I believe it contains everything they say it does. Trump dodged a bullet by saying it off-camera. That's all. At the same time though, I really don't care at this point. Trump has said plenty of stuff that *should* have been his undoing, and it wasn't. Unless he says something treason-ish, it's water under the bridge now.

In 2017, the N word is radioactive. If you reached adulthood, say, before 1975, then you probably remember a time when it wasn't. So I actually do give Trump a little latitude here.

My grandfather said the N word ALL THE TIME. He didn't hate black people. He never showed me anything that says he values anyone less because of their skin color. It was just a word to him. I mean, he grew up, went to war, survived, and when he got back stateside, he found that pro baseball was still entirely white. So if he held on to some old-school vocabulary, that's not exactly troubling.

It's more troubling in Trump's case considering his responsibilities and position at the time, but I'm not losing sleep over it.

Sometimes I sing this song alone in my car. Disqualified!

Life tip: train yourself to substitute the word "fella". Eliminate the chance of any slip-ups at parties.

[OngBonga]

You're like that cunt of a kid at school that liked everything before it was cool, aren't you?

[OngBonga]

If Trump said that ^ to someone, he'd probably get accused of a hate crime.

[wufwugy]

I've said far worse than Trump has. I've friends who think Trump has said too horrible things for them to support him who have also said far worse.

When it comes to politics, people sit on their brains.

[JKDS]

If an American Citizen has said horrible things, then its ok for the President of the United States to say bad things.

[wufwugy]

Shitposting goes over there.


It's about a sense of proportion. Most people of real substance have said things that would "disqualify" them from public office.

Sometimes I sing this song alone in my car. Disqualified!

[Poopadoop]

Depends on context as far as 'n' word goes. But calling your autistic son a retard (if that's what he did) is pretty awful regardless of context.

[Poopadoop]

oooooooh, interesting...

[JKDS]

Shitposting goes over there.


It's about a sense of proportion. Most people of real substance have said things that would "disqualify" them from public office.

Sometimes I sing this song alone in my car. Disqualified!

If the average American has said horrible things, then it's OK for the President of the United States to say bad things.

Should we really be setting the bar that low?

[OngBonga]

The Prez should be the most perfect human being on the planet. I hope he never says "shit" when he discovers there's no bog roll.

[BananaStand]

If the average American has said horrible things, then it's OK for the President of the United States to say bad things.

Should we really be setting the bar that low?

C'mon man. Aren't you being just a little bit glib?

Trump claimed that "Bill Clinton said worse to me on the golf course" in response to his Access Hollywood 'hot mic' comments. I definitely believe him. It's not much of a leap considering the non-presidential behaviors Clinton committed while in office.

JFK was a notorious adulterer. FDR died while boffing his mistress. And I'm almost sure that at least 3/4 of our past presidents have used the N word at some point in their life.

I think you have an unrealistic expectation of where the "bar" should be.

It would be nice if our President were some sinless angel incapable of fault, but that's not realistic. The GOP ran such a guy in 2012 and the media turned him into woman-opressing homophobic hater of the poor.

It doesn't' matter what gets said....someone will consider it to be "horrible".

[JKDS]

C'mon man. Aren't you being just a little bit glib?

Trump claimed that "Bill Clinton said worse to me on the golf course" in response to his Access Hollywood 'hot mic' comments. I definitely believe him. It's not much of a leap considering the non-presidential behaviors Clinton committed while in office.

JFK was a notorious adulterer. FDR died while boffing his mistress. And I'm almost sure that at least 3/4 of our past presidents have used the N word at some point in their life.

I think you have an unrealistic expectation of where the "bar" should be.

It would be nice if our President were some sinless angel incapable of fault, but that's not realistic. The GOP ran such a guy in 2012 and the media turned him into woman-opressing homophobic hater of the poor.

It doesn't' matter what gets said....someone will consider it to be "horrible".

If prior presidents have said bad things, it's ok for future presidents to say bad things?

[BananaStand]

If prior presidents have said bad things, it's ok for future presidents to say bad things?

You're just trolling now. Who is this person you think should be president who has never said anything controversial, offensive, or opinionated? Are you saying only a sinless angel can be president and everyone else is disqualified?

And who decides what's "bad"? Trump told Rep Lewis to do his job, and the NY Times went on a two page rant about how Trump doesn't care about civil rights. They crucified Mitt Romney. Even Arianna Grande, a flash in the pan entertainer who's opinion matters 0%, is getting a mountain of dog shit right now because she gave herself a pat on the back.

This country is ADDICTED to outrage. If you open your mouth at all, you automatically piss off at least 20% percent of the world.

Should our president be a mute?

It's nice that you've thought up this ideal little dream utopia where all of our leaders and public figures only say things that are neutral. But that world only exists in your mind. Here on earth...everyone's resume has blemishes.

[wufwugy]

If the average American has said horrible things, then it's OK for the President of the United States to say bad things.

Should we really be setting the bar that low?

I don't mean to suggest that the President shouldn't guard what he says. On the contrary, it is more important that he says the right thing than any other person on the planet.

What I'm asking for is to understand things people, regardless of who they are, have said be taken into the context of that which is normal. If I were to run for President, I would make Trump look like the Pope in comparison just by things I have said on this forum alone. I would look like a monster in comparison, and yet I am not a monster and virtually everybody can relate.

It is wrong for the President to say the wrong thing, but digging up something in the President's past should be viewed as virtually meaningless. I view people getting upset about things Presidents have said in the past as cognitive dissonance about their own lives.

Do you see what I'm saying or can I explain it better?

[JKDS]

I don't mean to suggest that the President shouldn't guard what he says. On the contrary, it is more important that he says the right thing than any other person on the planet.

What I'm asking for is to understand things people, regardless of who they are, have said be taken into the context of that which is normal. If I were to run for President, I would make Trump look like the Pope in comparison just by things I have said on this forum alone. I would look like a monster in comparison, and yet I am not a monster and virtually everybody can relate.

It is wrong for the President to say the wrong thing, but digging up something in the President's past should be viewed as virtually meaningless. I view people getting upset about things Presidents have said in the past as cognitive dissonance about their own lives.

Do you see what I'm saying or can I explain it better?

I think statements can provide insight into someone's character. I also think the context of statements can be politicized. But I don't think presidents should get a free pass on everything they've ever said, and I don't think it's stupid to care about that.

I think it's OK for your friends to not like trump because they perceive him as being too offensive. I don't think it's dumb for them to want a president who is more careful about what he says. A president with a microphone can quell a riot. Or start a war. What he says does matter.

[wufwugy]

I think statements can provide insight into someone's character. I also think the context of statements can be politicized. But I don't think presidents should get a free pass on everything they've ever said, and I don't think it's stupid to care about that.

I think it's OK for your friends to not like trump because they perceive him as being too offensive. I don't think it's dumb for them to want a president who is more careful about what he says. A president with a microphone can quell a riot. Or start a war. What he says does matter.

I don't disagree. Here's an example of the kind of thing I'm referring to: a friend was upset about Trump having told Howard Stern in 2005 that it's hard for a woman to be a 10 if very flat-chested. She thought that was demeaning to women. I pointed out to her that she has said (and I have said) much more demeaning things about women, and she, well, more or less acknowledged so, and that was that.

I've seen this kind of thing a lot. It's like when somebody is famous, they're thought of as special to such a degree that they are assumed to not have led a more or less normal life up to that point.

[BananaStand]

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/01/1...otests-manning

Changed from being anit-trump, to being pro-trump....about 30 minutes ago.

Staunchly in support of Peyton Manning

Desperate for the Roswell documents.

And the sad part is, The Washington Times, and I guess some other news outlets, reported on this guy as if he was 100% legit.

Tucker cracks me up

[wufwugy]

This Ben Swann fella seems to be a real gangster.

[wufwugy]

BREAKING: Ben Swann commits suicide by three shots to the back of the head.

[wufwugy]

BTW he ain't joking about that dude's instagram. Although it's not proof and I can't prove pizzagate, I entered into the "I personally believe it" realm back when I checked out his instagram. If you didn't even have pedophilia on the mind and you saw the pics he has, you'd be "is this dude a pedo?"

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]

Six years ago. Dude died at very young age. Pizzagate confirmed.

[wufwugy]

^^That example is not demeaning btw. But that's beside the point. The pussy grabbing statement isn't demeaning either.

[BananaStand]

And honestly, stop with the Pizzagate stuff folks. It's not real. It's been exposed exhaustively as a hoax. Continuing to beat that drum just makes you sound crazy, and therefore diminishes the gravity of everything else you say.

[OngBonga]

And honestly, stop with the Pizzagate stuff folks. It's not real. It's been exposed exhaustively as a hoax. Continuing to beat that drum just makes you sound crazy, and therefore diminishes the gravity of everything else you say.

Who exposed it as a hoax? The New York Times?

On December 10, 2016, The New York Times published an article that analyzed the claims that the theory proposed.[2] They emphasized that:

The theory claimed "cheese pizza" was code for "child pornography," since the term had been used in this context previously on the website 4Chan. This was extrapolated to other mentions of food in non-political emails. However, as the Times pointed out, the "Podesta brothers were famous in Washington circles for their Italian cooking and big salon and fund-raising dinners, often cooked by their mother."
Theorists linked the conspiracy to Comet Ping Pong, through similarities between company logos and symbols related to Satanism and pedophilia. However, The Times noted that striking similarities may also be found in the logos of a number of unrelated companies, such as AOL, Time Warner, and MSN.
A photograph was circulated purporting to show President Barack Obama playing ping pong with a child inside Comet Ping Pong. The original picture hangs framed in the White House, where it was taken.
Theorists claimed an underground network beneath Comet Ping Pong; however, the restaurant in-fact has no basement, and the picture used to support this claim was taken from another facility.
Theorists claimed to have a picture of restaurant owner Alefantis wearing a t-shirt endorsing pedophilia. However, the image was of another person entirely, and the shirt, which read "I [heart symbol] L’Enfant," was actually a reference to the L’Enfant Cafe-Bar in DC, whose owner was pictured in the image, and which itself was named after Pierre Charles L'Enfant, designer of much of the layout of Washington, DC.
Theorists claimed John and Tony Podesta kidnapped Madeleine McCann using police sketches which were, in fact, two sketches of the same suspect taken from the descriptions of two eye witnesses. Furthermore, the claim that the brothers were in Portugal at the time of the kidnapping was sourced only to Victurus Libertas, notable for, among other things, suggesting that the queen of England is a reptilian alien.

(pizzagate wikipedia page)

That isn't a debunking. Am I missing something? This is merely a counter-argument which happens to be exactly as strong as the argument it counters... both lack evidence, both rely on the reader to have faith in the sincerity of the author.

Like, the reference to the Podestas and little Madeline... they point out that the efits were actually of one man, who wasn't necessarily a suspect... well that doesn't prove it wasn't either of the Podestas, it's also odd because the two efits do not look like the same man. But whatever, it's a description, not a photo, so maybe it is the same man, and maybe it has nothing to do with Podesta... but that is merely a hypothesis, not a conclusion.

The Podestas have links to the region of Portugal in question so it's not an unreasonable line of enquiry. It doesn't seem legally proper for a website of the stature of Wikipedia to insist that the connection has no basis, especially if investigations are ongoing or if the case remains unsolved. It would have the potential to compromise any future trial. Imagine if either or both of the Podestas were formally accused of involvement and he/they stood trial... imagine then if one of the jurors decided to look at the "pizzagate" wikipedia page. They could conclude that the case on Podesta has already been disproven based on evidence that is not properly presented.

Maybe pizzagate is a hoax. I haven't yet seen anything that confirms it as such though. On the contrary, the fact that it is being presented as debunked, and given I have not seen a satisfactory debunking, means I am more suspicious than I was before I googled "pizzagate debunking".

[BananaStand]

Who exposed it as a hoax?

Pretty much every journalistic establishment in the world that is even slightly reputable believes that it's nonsense.

The New York Times?

Among many many others. There was also the vigilante who took up the cause and found squadooche.

(pizzagate wikipedia page)

That isn't a debunking. Am I missing something?

Evidence. A victim. A witness. Facts.

This is merely a counter-argument which happens to be exactly as strong as the argument it counters...

'Exactly as strong?' I don't even know what to say to that. One side says "the guy wore pro-pedophile t shirt". The other side says "no, it's shirt from that cafe...over there". The fact that the cafe exists, and sells that T shirt, kinda makes the latter side's argument a little stronger.

both lack evidence, both rely on the reader to have faith in the sincerity of the author.

The burden of evidence is on the accuser. And in this case, the author you're placing faith in...also believes the Queen is a lizard.

Like, the reference to the Podestas and little Madeline... they point out that the efits were actually of one man, who wasn't necessarily a suspect... well that doesn't prove it wasn't either of the Podestas,

It doesn't prove it wasn't YOU

it's also odd because the two efits do not look like the same man. But whatever, it's a description, not a photo, so maybe it is the same man, and maybe it has nothing to do with Podesta... but that is merely a hypothesis, not a conclusion.

A hypothesis based on what?

The Podestas have links to the region of Portugal in question so it's not an unreasonable line of enquiry.

Of course it is! Unless you also believe that anyone who was living or visiting Portugal at that time is equally a suspect.

It doesn't seem legally proper for a website of the stature of Wikipedia to insist that the connection has no basis,

I look shit up on Wiki too. Pretty often. It's mostly pretty useful, but it's not all facts. I wouldn't elevate a website that anyone can edit to any kind of "stature".

especially if investigations are ongoing

They aren't.

or if the case remains unsolved.

A case has to be opened first.

It would have the potential to compromise any future trial. Imagine if either or both of the Podestas were formally accused of involvement and he/they stood trial... imagine then if one of the jurors decided to look at the "pizzagate" wikipedia page. They could conclude that the case on Podesta has already been disproven based on evidence that is not properly presented.

Imagine if someone saw OJ fleeing arrest in a white Bronco while threatening to kill himself. They would surely believe he's guilty and undoubtedly convict him as a murder...........oh wait.

Maybe pizzagate is a hoax. I haven't yet seen anything that confirms it as such though. On the contrary, the fact that it is being presented as debunked, and given I have not seen a satisfactory debunking, means I am more suspicious than I was before I googled "pizzagate debunking".

What have you seen that confirms it's not a hoax? Can you point to one credible piece of evidence that isn't steeped in conjecture?

Seriously, what will it take to make you believe that it's not real?

They way you're thinking, until she dies and has an autopsy, the Queen might be a lizard.

[Poopadoop]

Fake news is only fake when it's attacking our side. When it's making the other guy look bad it's very credible.

You're forgetting that banana.

[BananaStand]

Fake news is only fake when it's attacking our side. When it's making the other guy look bad it's very credible.

You're forgetting that banana.

I think I get what you're saying. I'm not sure which is "our side" though. Or who "the other guy" is.

[wufwugy]

Fake news is only fake when it's attacking our side. When it's making the other guy look bad it's very credible.

You're forgetting that banana.

An issue is that the pedo stuff isn't exactly news. Most of those who discuss this stuff don't call themselves journalists and they don't claim to be reporting news but instead ideas.

The way Swann reported it is almost exactly how real news is reported.

[Poopadoop]

... a website of the stature of Wikipedia

Best laugh I had all day, thanks man.

[wufwugy]

And honestly, stop with the Pizzagate stuff folks. It's not real. It's been exposed exhaustively as a hoax. Continuing to beat that drum just makes you sound crazy, and therefore diminishes the gravity of everything else you say.

It hasn't been exposed as a hoax. It hasn't been exposed as anything. It is not public knowledge that it has even been investigated. I'm not saying it should be investigated; perhaps the signs are not distinguishable enough from coincidence that it doesn't warrant an investigation. But the only thing that can be demonstrated to be hoax-y is so-called journalists who claim it is a proven hoax.

Also the pedo stuff I post is partially just for giggles. I find some of these coincidences too weird, but I'm not positive they're not merely coincidences. Weirder things have happened.

[surviva316]

Lol: https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/t...bgl#.jkYJLNly5

[wufwugy]

Lol: https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/t...bgl#.jkYJLNly5

Good. InfoWars sucks. They practice the same faux journalism as CNN and Cuckington Post.

[surviva316]

Good. InfoWars sucks. They practice the same faux journalism as CNN and Cuckington Post.

No actually, Infowars quite demonstrably does NOT practice anywhere near the same standards as CNN and HuffPo. I hate both of those outlets with a deep and undying passion, but that Infowars story is a spectacular absurdity in the world of journalism, and you need to stop equivocating all forms of bad media. Not everything is fake news. Hell, even that Infowars story (as hilariously atrocious as it is) wasn't fake news.

Using accurate words matters. Ever since you've been bit by the "fake news" bug, you've basically been exactly as bad as the SJWs who call everything that is in some way or another potentially offensive to someone non-white "racist."