Topic: Trump is calling a Gold Star widow a liar
Anonymous A started this discussion 8 years ago #67,479
Nice man there, Meta.
(Edited 35 seconds later.)
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #825,478
he'd pick a fight with someone in a coma if he could
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 8 years ago, 25 seconds later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #825,479
Meta joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 12 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #825,481
We shouldn't even have soldiers in Niger anyway. We need to bring our troops back home.
I'm very disappointed that Trump is continuing the Obama-Bush-Clinton foreign interventionism. We need America First. Getting young Americans killed in Niger doesn't help America. We don't even need their oil anymore with fracking and tar sands.
This is why I'm an isolationist. What did La David Johnson die for? Protecting our freedom and democracy? From Niger? Seriously?!
I'm very disappointed that Trump is continuing the Obama-Bush-Clinton foreign interventionism. We need America First. Getting young Americans killed in Niger doesn't help America. We don't even need their oil anymore with fracking and tar sands.
This is why I'm an isolationist. What did La David Johnson die for? Protecting our freedom and democracy? From Niger? Seriously?!
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #825,482
@previous (Meta)
Fine, but how do you feel about him picking a fight with a Gold Star widow and calling her a liar?
Fine, but how do you feel about him picking a fight with a Gold Star widow and calling her a liar?
Meta replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #825,484
@previous (A)
I wasn't on the call. If you can get me a recording of the call I'll be happy to opine on it, and the statements of both parties.
I wasn't on the call. If you can get me a recording of the call I'll be happy to opine on it, and the statements of both parties.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #825,485
Itt: fake news
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 8 years ago, 4 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #825,487
@825,484 (Meta)
No no no, it does not matter. He is calling her a liar. He should just apologize and comfort her. He is picking a fight with a Gold Star widow! Do you not understand the problem here?
No no no, it does not matter. He is calling her a liar. He should just apologize and comfort her. He is picking a fight with a Gold Star widow! Do you not understand the problem here?
Meta replied with this 8 years ago, 46 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #825,501
@previous (A)
> He is picking a fight with a Gold Star widow! Do you not understand the problem here?
That you're using a Gold Star widow's grief to score cheap political points?
> He is picking a fight with a Gold Star widow! Do you not understand the problem here?
That you're using a Gold Star widow's grief to score cheap political points?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 8 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #825,502
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,511
squeegee joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,513
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 8 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,514
Meta replied with this 8 years ago, 58 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,515
@825,513 (squeegee)
I think it is generally understood when signing up for the army that you might be shot to death in a foreign country.
I think it is generally understood when signing up for the army that you might be shot to death in a foreign country.
Anonymous D replied with this 8 years ago, 8 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,516
@previous (Meta)
THIS..
gold star widow... they're acting like they're Jews and he was was some Jew who was killed and then revived and killed again over and over in 'the holocaust'...which never even happened..
THIS..
gold star widow... they're acting like they're Jews and he was was some Jew who was killed and then revived and killed again over and over in 'the holocaust'...which never even happened..
Meta replied with this 8 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,517
What does disturb me about this is no one is asking why La David Johnson died in Niger. Yes, Hillary Clinton probably would have done a better job on the condolence call (if they could get her to stop coughing long enough). But what did he die for?
No one is asking what the fuck is the US Army doing in Niger? Which is what I thought when I heard the story.
No one is asking what the fuck is the US Army doing in Niger? Which is what I thought when I heard the story.
Anonymous D replied with this 8 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,518
squeegee replied with this 8 years ago, 13 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,520
@825,515 (Meta)i'm talking about you and knowing what you signed up for as a trump supporter. that you're part of the vanguard of constant denial and deflection is no surprise. of course you'd take the widow's word for it if she disagreed with rep wilson and you'd point fingers at the "liberal media" for trying to score political points off a tragedy. of course the widow supports rep wilson's assessment of the phone call as a direct witness of the phone call, so of course you'll be needing a recording and a statement from both parties to even consider it, and of course this too is liberals trying to score political points. it's never just trump fucking up. it's super transparent, bro. deny accusations that can't immediately be proven true, deflect from them unless they're proven false. the fact that this has happened so many times with you leads me to believe that this is just a 100% purposeful attempt of your part to disregard anything that comes across as critical.
next you'll be telling me that you weren't all up in a tizzy over benghazi and that congress not knowing about troops being deployed in africa is nothing to be concerned with. the rumors surrounding "her man's" death and all the secrecy and possible mismanagement that goes right to the top aren't concerning at all. am i right? it was just your standard being shot to death in a foreign country, huh?
(Edited 6 minutes later.)
squeegee double-posted this 8 years ago, 59 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,521
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,522
@previous (squeegee)
Yeah, but Trump probably doesn't know where to find Niger on a map. Trump not knowing something isn't a crazy bet.
I thought the troops were there helping contain Boko Haram. That what most the news I've read made it sound like.
Yeah, but Trump probably doesn't know where to find Niger on a map. Trump not knowing something isn't a crazy bet.
I thought the troops were there helping contain Boko Haram. That what most the news I've read made it sound like.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
squeegee replied with this 8 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,523
@previous (G)i'm sure that the eventual independent commission to investigate Trumpghazi will provide accurate answers that might be difficult to discern until a number of individuals are under oath. we'll see, he could always be impeached before then, but i'm not holding my breath. just praying for his health to decline drastically and suddenly.
edit: i know that's not how jesus works, by the way. i'm not stupid, i've been praying to satan.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
squeegee double-posted this 8 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,524
...but you know, the problem is who's side is satan going to be on. mine or donald trumps? it's when i'm feeling my faith being tested that i turn to jesus to give me the strength to pray to satan to take trump's eternal soul and i get a second wind.(Edited 52 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 8 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,525
@825,523 (squeegee)
> Trump will be impeached soon
Says increasingly nervous idiot for the 7th time this year.
> Trump will be impeached soon
Says increasingly nervous idiot for the 7th time this year.
squeegee replied with this 8 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,526
@previous (E)you could try using a joke that isn't 5 months old, and you could also try quoting things i actually said
failing that you can just attack your little strawmen i guess. how that trump presidency going anyways? maga yet?
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 8 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,528
@825,501 (Meta)
Jesus christ, Meta. I would’ve thought that you could find it in yourself to disapprove of Trump insulting a widow. I mean, you found it in yourself to dislike his idiotic note at that holocaust museum. So why’s it so hard to think that he said something tactless, isn’t willing to admit it?
@825,520 (squeegee)
It’s frightening what his supporters are willing to ignore and excuse. And with such regularity, too. His presidency is a conga line of controversy, often caused by his own awful personality, but it’s never his fault...
Jesus christ, Meta. I would’ve thought that you could find it in yourself to disapprove of Trump insulting a widow. I mean, you found it in yourself to dislike his idiotic note at that holocaust museum. So why’s it so hard to think that he said something tactless, isn’t willing to admit it?
@825,520 (squeegee)
It’s frightening what his supporters are willing to ignore and excuse. And with such regularity, too. His presidency is a conga line of controversy, often caused by his own awful personality, but it’s never his fault...
Anonymous E replied with this 8 years ago, 11 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,529
@previous (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Bullshit, his presidency is a conga line of controversy because some people are so fucking sore he won they won't shut up about retarded conspiracies like Russian hackers which is still unproven and will never be proven. Assholes jump on every thing he says then blow it up and use it out of context because over a year on they refuse to accept they fucking lost and their Madam President fucking failed to win despite 99% of the media telling everyone she would win. People had enough of these retarded identity politics and pushed back.
Bullshit, his presidency is a conga line of controversy because some people are so fucking sore he won they won't shut up about retarded conspiracies like Russian hackers which is still unproven and will never be proven. Assholes jump on every thing he says then blow it up and use it out of context because over a year on they refuse to accept they fucking lost and their Madam President fucking failed to win despite 99% of the media telling everyone she would win. People had enough of these retarded identity politics and pushed back.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
squeegee replied with this 8 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,530
Anonymous E replied with this 8 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,531
squeegee replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,532
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 16 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,535
DoooOoOoOoOongs
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 2 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,546
@825,520 (squeegee)
This is a Quality Post.
@825,516 (D)
Of course bert doesn’t believe the holocaust happened. omg
This is a Quality Post.
@825,516 (D)
Of course bert doesn’t believe the holocaust happened. omg
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 16 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,547
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 4 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,548
Did Matt already fuck up the name field in this thread I wanna make fun of @OP for being 47 and getting all his political education via buzzfeed.
Meta replied with this 8 years ago, 1 hour later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,578
@825,520 (squeegee)
Rep. Frederica Wilson is biased against Trump. President Trump is biased in favor of Trump. I wouldn't consider either of them a neutral source on this.
@825,528 (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
> Jesus christ, Meta. I would’ve thought that you could find it in yourself to disapprove of Trump insulting a widow.
I don't think he insulted her. I think it's entirely likely he made a gaffe (as he does pretty much every time he talks about anything ever), like stumbling over La David's name but I don't believe he was trying to be hurtful. I'm not a psychologist, but I would imagine someone who's just been told their husband got killed is in a really delicate state and not likely to take that kind of stuff well.
> I mean, you found it in yourself to dislike his idiotic note at that holocaust museum. So why’s it so hard to think that he said something tactless, isn’t willing to admit it?
I got to see the note for myself. If all I had to go on was what other people said the note said I would have been a lot more reluctant.
> It’s frightening what his supporters are willing to ignore and excuse. And with such regularity, too. His presidency is a conga line of controversy, often caused by his own awful personality, but it’s never his fault...
I don't believe Trump was deliberately hurtful on the call. I don't think that's "frightening".
Rep. Frederica Wilson is biased against Trump. President Trump is biased in favor of Trump. I wouldn't consider either of them a neutral source on this.
@825,528 (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
> Jesus christ, Meta. I would’ve thought that you could find it in yourself to disapprove of Trump insulting a widow.
I don't think he insulted her. I think it's entirely likely he made a gaffe (as he does pretty much every time he talks about anything ever), like stumbling over La David's name but I don't believe he was trying to be hurtful. I'm not a psychologist, but I would imagine someone who's just been told their husband got killed is in a really delicate state and not likely to take that kind of stuff well.
> I mean, you found it in yourself to dislike his idiotic note at that holocaust museum. So why’s it so hard to think that he said something tactless, isn’t willing to admit it?
I got to see the note for myself. If all I had to go on was what other people said the note said I would have been a lot more reluctant.
> It’s frightening what his supporters are willing to ignore and excuse. And with such regularity, too. His presidency is a conga line of controversy, often caused by his own awful personality, but it’s never his fault...
I don't believe Trump was deliberately hurtful on the call. I don't think that's "frightening".
Anonymous J replied with this 8 years ago, 12 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,580
@previous (Meta)
A 71-year old man with a family and many professional contacts should know how to deliver condolences at this stage of life.
A 71-year old man with a family and many professional contacts should know how to deliver condolences at this stage of life.
Meta replied with this 8 years ago, 18 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,587
I should add that I wouldn't expect (or even want) a deeply personal call like this to be recorded and broadcast in public.
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 8 years ago, 12 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,588
@825,578 (Meta)
His usual tactlessness isn’t the only thing, it’s his lying afterwards about how they had a great call. He obviously upset a military widow and he can’t admit it or apologise.
Even if this was a simple gaffe with no malice involved, the fact that he’s constantly having incidents like these just reflects very poorly on him. This stuff can’t be the work of an elaborate liberal smear campaign (as some supporters but not necessarily yourself would claim), it’s all his own actions.
And it’s not just the reaction to this that I find frightening, it’s... Well, I could be here all day if I tried to list every disturbing thing that his base is willing to overlook. Suffice to say, it’s a lot.
His usual tactlessness isn’t the only thing, it’s his lying afterwards about how they had a great call. He obviously upset a military widow and he can’t admit it or apologise.
Even if this was a simple gaffe with no malice involved, the fact that he’s constantly having incidents like these just reflects very poorly on him. This stuff can’t be the work of an elaborate liberal smear campaign (as some supporters but not necessarily yourself would claim), it’s all his own actions.
And it’s not just the reaction to this that I find frightening, it’s... Well, I could be here all day if I tried to list every disturbing thing that his base is willing to overlook. Suffice to say, it’s a lot.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 20 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,590
I read like 4 posts in this thread and feel significantly more dumb
Anonymous L replied with this 8 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,592
@825,588 (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
That’s a foolish way of looking at it. Trump is incompetent and constantly creating his own controversy, but in this case the media is just trotting out a black woman for him to bicker with.
You don’t have to follow domestic politics closely to realize the legislator dressed like a cowboy carnival nightmare whore might be more concerned with her appearance than accurately recounting what she overheard.
Also you’re a cuck lol.
That’s a foolish way of looking at it. Trump is incompetent and constantly creating his own controversy, but in this case the media is just trotting out a black woman for him to bicker with.
You don’t have to follow domestic politics closely to realize the legislator dressed like a cowboy carnival nightmare whore might be more concerned with her appearance than accurately recounting what she overheard.
Also you’re a cuck lol.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,593
@825,588 (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
it's also how he's now calling her a liar. it's not just what was said on the call or how he claimed to handle it, it's about him calling her a liar. when george bush got blamed by a mother for her son's death he wept. trumps reaction is to call her a liar and blame other people.
it's also how he's now calling her a liar. it's not just what was said on the call or how he claimed to handle it, it's about him calling her a liar. when george bush got blamed by a mother for her son's death he wept. trumps reaction is to call her a liar and blame other people.
Anonymous L replied with this 8 years ago, 5 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,594
@previous (squeegee)
Shut up squeegee your politics are a half assed caricature of Austin hipsters and your trust fund owes itself entirely to hard working conservative whites I can’t take you seriously unless you’re comparison shopping teslas or whining about being short and inadequate.
Shut up squeegee your politics are a half assed caricature of Austin hipsters and your trust fund owes itself entirely to hard working conservative whites I can’t take you seriously unless you’re comparison shopping teslas or whining about being short and inadequate.
squeegee replied with this 8 years ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,595
@825,592 (L)
the widow is making these claims, as well. if it were just the crazy lady in a hat i'd agree but the widow has told her version of events and i believe her over trump. cause he is a piece of shit liar who has been proven a liar at least 1300 times since he was sworn in. i will take the widow's word over trump's lies every fucking time.
becuase he can't not lie.
the widow is making these claims, as well. if it were just the crazy lady in a hat i'd agree but the widow has told her version of events and i believe her over trump. cause he is a piece of shit liar who has been proven a liar at least 1300 times since he was sworn in. i will take the widow's word over trump's lies every fucking time.
becuase he can't not lie.
Anonymous L replied with this 8 years ago, 50 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,596
squeegee replied with this 8 years ago, 14 seconds later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,597
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 11 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,598
Anonymous J replied with this 8 years ago, 30 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,599
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 8 years ago, 2 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,634
wait a miniute, his first name is La David?
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 2 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,638
What the fuck is a gold star widow? Did her Minichan gold star die?
Anonymous J replied with this 8 years ago, 17 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,648
Anonymous P replied with this 8 years ago, 5 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,653
@previous (J)
"gold star widow" means nothing to me, and news outlets are using it like everyone knows what it means. She has a fucking name, use her name. It makes the whole thing reek of fake news when they create a neologism to refer to one person. "gold star widow" is an living entity now, not just a noun.
"gold star widow" means nothing to me, and news outlets are using it like everyone knows what it means. She has a fucking name, use her name. It makes the whole thing reek of fake news when they create a neologism to refer to one person. "gold star widow" is an living entity now, not just a noun.
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 2 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,654
Anonymous D replied with this 8 years ago, 13 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,658
squeegee replied with this 8 years ago, 42 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,672
@825,653 (P)
you don't know what a gold star family is? the gold star is given to family of soldiers killed in duty. it goes back to the 30s, gold star wives have been a thing for like 80 years. you get it with the folded flag, i do believe, but i may be wrong on the details.
it just means someone in their immediate family was killed on duty.
you don't know what a gold star family is? the gold star is given to family of soldiers killed in duty. it goes back to the 30s, gold star wives have been a thing for like 80 years. you get it with the folded flag, i do believe, but i may be wrong on the details.
it just means someone in their immediate family was killed on duty.
Anonymous P replied with this 8 years ago, 11 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,674
squeegee replied with this 8 years ago, 3 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,729
@previous (P)
that's why it was a big deal when trump was fighting with that muslim gold star family during the election. he's got a problem respecting the families of fallen soldiers, and imo that is a slap in the face to the soldier themselves. trump wants to talk about respecting the troops, fine, he can start by respecting them and their families. this is also why it's hypocritical for him to have a problem with football players taking a knee when he's out there calling the wife of a soldier slain on a trump approved mission a liar. it's disgraceful.
but, what else should we expect from the man who wants to slaughter the innocent families of enemy combatants, or dip bullets in pigs blood to send muslims to hell.
that's why it was a big deal when trump was fighting with that muslim gold star family during the election. he's got a problem respecting the families of fallen soldiers, and imo that is a slap in the face to the soldier themselves. trump wants to talk about respecting the troops, fine, he can start by respecting them and their families. this is also why it's hypocritical for him to have a problem with football players taking a knee when he's out there calling the wife of a soldier slain on a trump approved mission a liar. it's disgraceful.
but, what else should we expect from the man who wants to slaughter the innocent families of enemy combatants, or dip bullets in pigs blood to send muslims to hell.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Meta replied with this 8 years ago, 3 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,768
@825,588 (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
> His usual tactlessness isn’t the only thing, it’s his lying afterwards about how they had a great call. He obviously upset a military widow and he can’t admit it or apologise.
It's quite likely he honestly, 100% thought he said respectful dignified things. As I said before Trump probably made several gaffes, which the widow didn't take very well. Condolence is way outside Trump's skillset and someone - anyone - else should do these calls in future.
> Even if this was a simple gaffe with no malice involved, the fact that he’s constantly having incidents like these just reflects very poorly on him.
I can certainly see that. They way I interpret Trump's frequent gaffes is that there's not a 1:1 mapping between what Trump says and what he means. I know this sounds completely bonkers. To give a concrete example take the Charlottesville thing. He said something like (and I'm paraphrasing here) "there are fine people on both sides" [ie the people for and against removing the statue of Robert E Lee]. Taken literally this was construed to mean "some of the neo-Nazis are fine people". What I think Trump meant was "some people want to remove confederate statues, and some people don't. both sides have good arguments but we shouldn't try to hate and kill each other over it". I admit I do have a substantial pro-Trump bias so take it with a grain of salt. I don't think Trump supports nazism, or David Duke or anything like that.
> This stuff can’t be the work of an elaborate liberal smear campaign (as some supporters but not nece. ssarily yourself would claim), it’s all his own actions.
I certainly don't think there's any big conspiracy where all the media people meet in smoke-filled rooms and plot how they're going to trash Trump this week. I do think the respectable (ie non-Murdoch) media has an anti-Trump bias. But that could just be my pro-Trump bias.
That's not to say the Murdoch media is true and unbiased. They are biased, even moreso, than the mainstream media. Just in the opposite direction. I don't believe in objective media. I think it's all biased in one direction or another.
The media is selling eyeballs to advertisers. So they'll find a niche and do whatever gets clicks. Clicks get ad dollars. Ad dollars make media owners rich. It's no conspiracy, just business.
> And it’s not just the reaction to this that I find frightening, it’s... Well, I could be here all day if I tried to list every disturbing thing that his base is willing to overlook. Suffice to say, it’s a lot.
Besides Russia and the fact he may have Alzheimer's?
> His usual tactlessness isn’t the only thing, it’s his lying afterwards about how they had a great call. He obviously upset a military widow and he can’t admit it or apologise.
It's quite likely he honestly, 100% thought he said respectful dignified things. As I said before Trump probably made several gaffes, which the widow didn't take very well. Condolence is way outside Trump's skillset and someone - anyone - else should do these calls in future.
> Even if this was a simple gaffe with no malice involved, the fact that he’s constantly having incidents like these just reflects very poorly on him.
I can certainly see that. They way I interpret Trump's frequent gaffes is that there's not a 1:1 mapping between what Trump says and what he means. I know this sounds completely bonkers. To give a concrete example take the Charlottesville thing. He said something like (and I'm paraphrasing here) "there are fine people on both sides" [ie the people for and against removing the statue of Robert E Lee]. Taken literally this was construed to mean "some of the neo-Nazis are fine people". What I think Trump meant was "some people want to remove confederate statues, and some people don't. both sides have good arguments but we shouldn't try to hate and kill each other over it". I admit I do have a substantial pro-Trump bias so take it with a grain of salt. I don't think Trump supports nazism, or David Duke or anything like that.
> This stuff can’t be the work of an elaborate liberal smear campaign (as some supporters but not nece. ssarily yourself would claim), it’s all his own actions.
I certainly don't think there's any big conspiracy where all the media people meet in smoke-filled rooms and plot how they're going to trash Trump this week. I do think the respectable (ie non-Murdoch) media has an anti-Trump bias. But that could just be my pro-Trump bias.
That's not to say the Murdoch media is true and unbiased. They are biased, even moreso, than the mainstream media. Just in the opposite direction. I don't believe in objective media. I think it's all biased in one direction or another.
The media is selling eyeballs to advertisers. So they'll find a niche and do whatever gets clicks. Clicks get ad dollars. Ad dollars make media owners rich. It's no conspiracy, just business.
> And it’s not just the reaction to this that I find frightening, it’s... Well, I could be here all day if I tried to list every disturbing thing that his base is willing to overlook. Suffice to say, it’s a lot.
Besides Russia and the fact he may have Alzheimer's?
Meta double-posted this 8 years ago, 18 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,777
Also,
@OP
Why do I support him?
* Foreign policy (America First)
* He's nationalist, not globalist - puts Americans first
Now let's try to make a thread that addresses these.
See the difference? This actually attacks an actual reason why I support Trump. I can't just blow this off with "well he always makes gaffes" or "the librul media lies again FAKE NEWS".
@OP
Topic: Trump is calling a Gold Star widow a liar
Anonymous A started this discussion 22 hours ago #67,479
Nice man there, Meta.
You're going about this completely wrong. If you want me to stop supporting Trump you first need to understand why I support him. Anonymous A started this discussion 22 hours ago #67,479
Nice man there, Meta.
Why do I support him?
* Foreign policy (America First)
* He's nationalist, not globalist - puts Americans first
Now let's try to make a thread that addresses these.
Topic: Trump got an American soldier killed in Niger for NO REASON
Anonymous A started this discussion 22 hours ago #67,479
Nice America First there, Meta.
Anonymous A started this discussion 22 hours ago #67,479
Nice America First there, Meta.
See the difference? This actually attacks an actual reason why I support Trump. I can't just blow this off with "well he always makes gaffes" or "the librul media lies again FAKE NEWS".
(Edited 26 seconds later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 1 hour later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #825,787
@previous (Meta)
I don't get how anyone could support "America First", that term is loaded with Lindbergh et. al's anti-Semitic, fascism supporting baggage. David Sanger at the NYTimes kind of taking a dig at trump characterized Trump's rhetoric as "America First" in an interview and Trump, either ignorant of or not opposed to its dirty history said he liked it and has continued using it ever since, even Republicans are using it now which is INSANE to me. I'm just waiting for them to break out the old chestnut "Stand up for America". I'm surprised they haven't done that already to be quite honest.
I don't get how anyone could support "America First", that term is loaded with Lindbergh et. al's anti-Semitic, fascism supporting baggage. David Sanger at the NYTimes kind of taking a dig at trump characterized Trump's rhetoric as "America First" in an interview and Trump, either ignorant of or not opposed to its dirty history said he liked it and has continued using it ever since, even Republicans are using it now which is INSANE to me. I'm just waiting for them to break out the old chestnut "Stand up for America". I'm surprised they haven't done that already to be quite honest.
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 44 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #825,789
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I dont see how "America first" is anti semitic when we are so closely intertwined with Israel.
I dont see how "America first" is anti semitic when we are so closely intertwined with Israel.
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 8 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #825,792
NEW WORLD ORDER
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 8 years ago, 32 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #825,806
@825,789 (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
That doesnt make any sense to me. A phrase has an antisemitic history even if the current person using it isn't anti-israel.
That doesnt make any sense to me. A phrase has an antisemitic history even if the current person using it isn't anti-israel.
Anonymous J replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #825,809
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 8 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #825,813
Anonymous M replied with this 8 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #825,814
@825,592 (L)
> That’s a foolish way of looking at it. Trump is incompetent and constantly creating his own controversy, but in this case the media is just trotting out a black woman for him to bicker with.
>
> You don’t have to follow domestic politics closely to realize the legislator dressed like a cowboy carnival nightmare whore might be more concerned with her appearance than accurately recounting what she overheard.
>
> Also you’re a cuck lol.
@825,594 (L)
> Shut up squeegee your politics are a half assed caricature of Austin hipsters and your trust fund owes itself entirely to hard working conservative whites I can’t take you seriously unless you’re comparison shopping teslas or whining about being short and inadequate.
who is this doof
> That’s a foolish way of looking at it. Trump is incompetent and constantly creating his own controversy, but in this case the media is just trotting out a black woman for him to bicker with.
>
> You don’t have to follow domestic politics closely to realize the legislator dressed like a cowboy carnival nightmare whore might be more concerned with her appearance than accurately recounting what she overheard.
>
> Also you’re a cuck lol.
@825,594 (L)
> Shut up squeegee your politics are a half assed caricature of Austin hipsters and your trust fund owes itself entirely to hard working conservative whites I can’t take you seriously unless you’re comparison shopping teslas or whining about being short and inadequate.
who is this doof
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 8 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #825,818
@825,813 (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
I didn't say it was. My main concern isnt that Trump is going to implement the Holocaust 2.0 tomorrow, it's that his rhetoric campaign and governing fuels the rise of neo Nazis and other white supremacist groups because he is explicitly speaking their language.
I didn't say it was. My main concern isnt that Trump is going to implement the Holocaust 2.0 tomorrow, it's that his rhetoric campaign and governing fuels the rise of neo Nazis and other white supremacist groups because he is explicitly speaking their language.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU double-posted this 8 years ago, 14 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #825,819
Anonymous M replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #825,820
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #825,821
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 8 years ago, 46 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #825,822
@825,818 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I guess I'm willing to allow some questionable language as its balanced out by extensive funding to our Jewish allies. I care more about actions than words.
I guess I'm willing to allow some questionable language as its balanced out by extensive funding to our Jewish allies. I care more about actions than words.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 8 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #825,823
@previous (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
No amount of money thrown at Israel means a damn thing if far right antisemtism becomes politically viable in America. Not that I even care too much about how much money we give Israel anyway. I don't tally up the amount of money I think each candidate would give to Israel and vote based on who has the higher number. I care about the long term viability of being a Jew who is able to live a peaceful life in the US over Israel getting $XX billion in funding or whatever.
No amount of money thrown at Israel means a damn thing if far right antisemtism becomes politically viable in America. Not that I even care too much about how much money we give Israel anyway. I don't tally up the amount of money I think each candidate would give to Israel and vote based on who has the higher number. I care about the long term viability of being a Jew who is able to live a peaceful life in the US over Israel getting $XX billion in funding or whatever.
squeegee replied with this 8 years ago, 39 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #825,828
Anonymous G replied with this 8 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #825,834
@previous (squeegee)
It smells like Becky, doesn't it? Maybe drunk Becky? The attention to capitalization and punctuation stands out right?
It smells like Becky, doesn't it? Maybe drunk Becky? The attention to capitalization and punctuation stands out right?
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 8 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #825,842
@825,821 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I think it’s the NZ troll, man... Or at least somebody else on the IRC. Their IRC presence would explain how you have friendly reactions to him despite his far-right schtick.
@825,768 (Meta)
So, in short, you do think that the guy often messes up when it comes to speakibg with the public. I don’t think this is always innocent mistakes as you suggest, I suspect a lot of it is intended to rally his base. But for sake of argument, even if it is simple mistakes, I still think it’s quite a big problem that you’re kind of glossing over. When a nation’s leader is constantly sowing controversy with their people, it doesn’t create a harmonious country. Ideally, the leader should be unifier (or at least try to be).
> I do think the respectable (ie non-Murdoch) media has an anti-Trump bias.
That’s not an absolute thing. The Daily Mail is owned by Murdoch, but I’ve seen a few anti-Trump headlines on them. I guess that’s them knowing their audience, since Trump is very unpopular over here.
@825,777 (Meta)
Out of curiosity, how successful do you think he’s been in those goals so far?
I think it’s the NZ troll, man... Or at least somebody else on the IRC. Their IRC presence would explain how you have friendly reactions to him despite his far-right schtick.
@825,768 (Meta)
So, in short, you do think that the guy often messes up when it comes to speakibg with the public. I don’t think this is always innocent mistakes as you suggest, I suspect a lot of it is intended to rally his base. But for sake of argument, even if it is simple mistakes, I still think it’s quite a big problem that you’re kind of glossing over. When a nation’s leader is constantly sowing controversy with their people, it doesn’t create a harmonious country. Ideally, the leader should be unifier (or at least try to be).
> I do think the respectable (ie non-Murdoch) media has an anti-Trump bias.
That’s not an absolute thing. The Daily Mail is owned by Murdoch, but I’ve seen a few anti-Trump headlines on them. I guess that’s them knowing their audience, since Trump is very unpopular over here.
@825,777 (Meta)
Out of curiosity, how successful do you think he’s been in those goals so far?
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 8 years ago, 7 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #825,905
@825,823 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I think that Hews are able to live peaceful lives in America and are in fact, disproportionately wealthy and educated compared to the general populace. I dont see that changing anytime soon. Also I think that funding to Israel does indicate a respect for Jewish people.
I think that Hews are able to live peaceful lives in America and are in fact, disproportionately wealthy and educated compared to the general populace. I dont see that changing anytime soon. Also I think that funding to Israel does indicate a respect for Jewish people.
Anonymous M replied with this 8 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #825,924
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 8 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #825,931
@825,905 (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
Jews generally outperform the nonjewish population, which is a problem because we are perennial outsiders. When things go to shit everyone looks for a scapegoat and minorities who get rich at the expense of the "true" native population are the first to meet the guillotine. The Israel thing is complex but we don't do it because we love Jews. We do it for strategic reasons and also because the current political Christian theology requires Jews to be in Israel in order for Christ to come back. We are pawns in a religious game and that is inherently unsustainable. We are going to get sacrificed at some point, it's just a matter of time.
Jews generally outperform the nonjewish population, which is a problem because we are perennial outsiders. When things go to shit everyone looks for a scapegoat and minorities who get rich at the expense of the "true" native population are the first to meet the guillotine. The Israel thing is complex but we don't do it because we love Jews. We do it for strategic reasons and also because the current political Christian theology requires Jews to be in Israel in order for Christ to come back. We are pawns in a religious game and that is inherently unsustainable. We are going to get sacrificed at some point, it's just a matter of time.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU double-posted this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #825,933
@825,924 (M)
I can't tell you if you're right or not, sorry. Mod rules demand I protect our anon users' privacy. Thanks.
I can't tell you if you're right or not, sorry. Mod rules demand I protect our anon users' privacy. Thanks.
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 8 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #825,935
@825,924 (M)
That would neatly explain FAke anon’s fondness for him. However, Timber Niggæ seemed to take a progressive stance on most issues when he namefagged, so this far-right schtick would be unlike him. Unless he is the type whom constantly enjoys ruses like that.
That would neatly explain FAke anon’s fondness for him. However, Timber Niggæ seemed to take a progressive stance on most issues when he namefagged, so this far-right schtick would be unlike him. Unless he is the type whom constantly enjoys ruses like that.
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx double-posted this 8 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #825,937
@825,933 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
...And this is the only guess you’ve responded to. I think you may have just cracked the case, Anonymous M!
...And this is the only guess you’ve responded to. I think you may have just cracked the case, Anonymous M!
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 8 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #825,939
@previous (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
No he was the one i replied to initially. I never asked the rest of you for your input.
No he was the one i replied to initially. I never asked the rest of you for your input.
Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 8 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #825,945
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Are you having a giggle? We’ve bloody well solved your riddle, lad.
Are you having a giggle? We’ve bloody well solved your riddle, lad.
Anonymous J replied with this 8 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #825,949
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 8 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #825,952
@825,945 (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Using words that only exist in jolly old England doesn't make you right. Thanks.
Using words that only exist in jolly old England doesn't make you right. Thanks.
Anonymous M replied with this 8 years ago, 39 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #825,954
@825,933 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> I can't tell you if you're right or not, sorry. Mod rules demand I protect our anon users' privacy. Thanks.
well you're the one who had me guess anyway so WHO CARES
> I can't tell you if you're right or not, sorry. Mod rules demand I protect our anon users' privacy. Thanks.
well you're the one who had me guess anyway so WHO CARES
Meta replied with this 8 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #826,003
@825,842 (Killer Lettuce? !!iNo3FkiZx)
> So, in short, you do think that the guy often messes up when it comes to speakibg with the public.
Absolutely. Here's some The 37 Fatal Gaffes That Didn’t Kill Donald Trump http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-biggest-fatal-gaffes-mistakes-offensive-214289 Some on the list aren't "gaffes" (for example, he really did mean to insult Carly Fiorina). But if you look, they're everywhere.
> I don’t think this is always innocent mistakes as you suggest, I suspect a lot of it is intended to rally his base.
Take this for example:
> But for sake of argument, even if it is simple mistakes, I still think it’s quite a big problem that you’re kind of glossing over.
I've even said he shouldn't do these condolence calls because he's not very good at it.
> When a nation’s leader is constantly sowing controversy with their people, it doesn’t create a harmonious country. Ideally, the leader should be unifier (or at least try to be).
I don't think he can be a unifier because he won the election on a technicality. A lot of people (quite understandably so) see him as illegitimate. Millions of people see him as Hitler 2.0 Combine that with how sure the polling people were that Hillary would win and it's not pretty.
> > I do think the respectable (ie non-Murdoch) media has an anti-Trump bias.
> That’s not an absolute thing. The Daily Mail is owned by Murdoch, but I’ve seen a few anti-Trump headlines on them. I guess that’s them knowing their audience, since Trump is very unpopular over here.
I imagine it would be different in a foreign country. Fox News here was, IIRC, not in favor of Trump before he won the primary. Now of course they are.
>
> Out of curiosity, how successful do you think he’s been in those goals so far?
Nothing has actually changed. Every single point he campaigned on has either been dropped entirely or watered down to insignificance. If you went into a coma on November 9th and woke up today you'd be hard pressed to find anything that actually changed.
> So, in short, you do think that the guy often messes up when it comes to speakibg with the public.
Absolutely. Here's some The 37 Fatal Gaffes That Didn’t Kill Donald Trump http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/trump-biggest-fatal-gaffes-mistakes-offensive-214289 Some on the list aren't "gaffes" (for example, he really did mean to insult Carly Fiorina). But if you look, they're everywhere.
> I don’t think this is always innocent mistakes as you suggest, I suspect a lot of it is intended to rally his base.
Take this for example:
14. “Two Corinthians, right? Two Corinthians 3:17, that’s the whole ballgame. Where the spirit of the Lord—right?—is, there is liberty!” February 18, 2016, speech at Liberty University, citing the book of the Bible that Christians call “Second Corinthians.”
This to an overwhelmingly white conservative Christian audience which is pretty close to his base. Certainly not a group he would offend on purpose.> But for sake of argument, even if it is simple mistakes, I still think it’s quite a big problem that you’re kind of glossing over.
I've even said he shouldn't do these condolence calls because he's not very good at it.
> When a nation’s leader is constantly sowing controversy with their people, it doesn’t create a harmonious country. Ideally, the leader should be unifier (or at least try to be).
I don't think he can be a unifier because he won the election on a technicality. A lot of people (quite understandably so) see him as illegitimate. Millions of people see him as Hitler 2.0 Combine that with how sure the polling people were that Hillary would win and it's not pretty.
> > I do think the respectable (ie non-Murdoch) media has an anti-Trump bias.
> That’s not an absolute thing. The Daily Mail is owned by Murdoch, but I’ve seen a few anti-Trump headlines on them. I guess that’s them knowing their audience, since Trump is very unpopular over here.
I imagine it would be different in a foreign country. Fox News here was, IIRC, not in favor of Trump before he won the primary. Now of course they are.
>
> Out of curiosity, how successful do you think he’s been in those goals so far?
Nothing has actually changed. Every single point he campaigned on has either been dropped entirely or watered down to insignificance. If you went into a coma on November 9th and woke up today you'd be hard pressed to find anything that actually changed.
Meta double-posted this 8 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #826,004
@825,787 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> I don't get how anyone could support "America First", that term is loaded with Lindbergh et. al's anti-Semitic, fascism supporting baggage. David Sanger at the NYTimes kind of taking a dig at trump characterized Trump's rhetoric as "America First" in an interview and Trump, either ignorant of or not opposed to its dirty history said he liked it and has continued using it ever since, even Republicans are using it now which is INSANE to me. I'm just waiting for them to break out the old chestnut "Stand up for America". I'm surprised they haven't done that already to be quite honest.
A prominent anti-Semite was isolationist. Therefore isolationism is anti-Semitic. I don't see why Lindbergh should permanently taint isolationism any more than he tainted aviation. You might as well say public smoking bans and national highway systems are tainted now because Hitler supported them.
Believing America's interests should come first is not in any way anti-Semitic.
> I don't get how anyone could support "America First", that term is loaded with Lindbergh et. al's anti-Semitic, fascism supporting baggage. David Sanger at the NYTimes kind of taking a dig at trump characterized Trump's rhetoric as "America First" in an interview and Trump, either ignorant of or not opposed to its dirty history said he liked it and has continued using it ever since, even Republicans are using it now which is INSANE to me. I'm just waiting for them to break out the old chestnut "Stand up for America". I'm surprised they haven't done that already to be quite honest.
A prominent anti-Semite was isolationist. Therefore isolationism is anti-Semitic. I don't see why Lindbergh should permanently taint isolationism any more than he tainted aviation. You might as well say public smoking bans and national highway systems are tainted now because Hitler supported them.
Believing America's interests should come first is not in any way anti-Semitic.
Anonymous T joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 36 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #826,013
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 8 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #826,025
@825,931 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
You think another Holocaust is going to happen when most of the most rich and powerful people in America are Jewish?
You think another Holocaust is going to happen when most of the most rich and powerful people in America are Jewish?
Meta replied with this 8 years ago, 26 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #826,037
@825,931 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> We are pawns in a religious game and that is inherently unsustainable. We are going to get sacrificed at some point, it's just a matter of time.
I don't see why it can't go on forever. The Christians have been waiting 2000-odd years for Christ to come back. What's another few centuries? By then things will have settled and also we'll all be dead by then anyway.
> We are pawns in a religious game and that is inherently unsustainable. We are going to get sacrificed at some point, it's just a matter of time.
I don't see why it can't go on forever. The Christians have been waiting 2000-odd years for Christ to come back. What's another few centuries? By then things will have settled and also we'll all be dead by then anyway.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 8 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #826,061
@826,004 (Meta)
It's not that nationalism is inherently antisemtic, it's the specific phrase "America First". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee
@826,025 (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
Do I think it's likely to happen tomorrow? No. Lots of jews were wealthy and powerful in Weimar Germany, and that made them safe and secure until it didn't.
@previous (Meta)
Oh, I mean Christians will never stop believing that some dead jew is gonna walk the earth magically again, but the specific theology that requires jews to be in israel could very well change. It used to be the case that Christians were compelled by theology to convert the jews on pain of exile or death. Now they don't. Christians nowadays believe jews need to be in the holy land, but in twenty or fifty years maybe they don't. Particular theological positions change with the times. This current one will live out its life and be replaced by some other ludicrous criteria for an event that couldn't ever possibly happen. When it does maybe it will be less favorable to the jews. Who knows. All I know is when demagoguery rears its head, jews get antsy because eventually the scapegoat will fall on us given enough time.
It's not that nationalism is inherently antisemtic, it's the specific phrase "America First". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee
@826,025 (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
Do I think it's likely to happen tomorrow? No. Lots of jews were wealthy and powerful in Weimar Germany, and that made them safe and secure until it didn't.
@previous (Meta)
Oh, I mean Christians will never stop believing that some dead jew is gonna walk the earth magically again, but the specific theology that requires jews to be in israel could very well change. It used to be the case that Christians were compelled by theology to convert the jews on pain of exile or death. Now they don't. Christians nowadays believe jews need to be in the holy land, but in twenty or fifty years maybe they don't. Particular theological positions change with the times. This current one will live out its life and be replaced by some other ludicrous criteria for an event that couldn't ever possibly happen. When it does maybe it will be less favorable to the jews. Who knows. All I know is when demagoguery rears its head, jews get antsy because eventually the scapegoat will fall on us given enough time.
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 8 years ago, 37 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #826,067
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
But they werent as wealthy and powerful as they are now. Jewish people run almost every media outlet and a make up a disproportionate amount of our entertainers. I really dont think that things are the same as they use to be or will over become that way again.
But they werent as wealthy and powerful as they are now. Jewish people run almost every media outlet and a make up a disproportionate amount of our entertainers. I really dont think that things are the same as they use to be or will over become that way again.
Meta replied with this 8 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #826,079
@826,061 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
What percentage of Jews need to be in the holy land? Is it all or just a majority? I just can't see the Christian Zionists saying "well we got 50.1% of Jews in the holy land and He didn't come back so I guess it's back to the drawing board".
I wonder because from what I can see there's no pressure from Christian Zionists for American Jews to move to Israel. Support Israel 110% but no pressure on American Jews to emigrate. I don't roll in Christian circles though so it could be there but I don't see it.
> Oh, I mean Christians will never stop believing that some dead jew is gonna walk the earth magically again, but the specific theology that requires jews to be in israel could very well change. It used to be the case that Christians were compelled by theology to convert the jews on pain of exile or death. Now they don't. Christians nowadays believe jews need to be in the holy land, but in twenty or fifty years maybe they don't.
What if Christianity itself has no more real power in twenty or fifty years? Where Christian Zionism doesn't matter because Christianity itself doesn't matter?
What percentage of Jews need to be in the holy land? Is it all or just a majority? I just can't see the Christian Zionists saying "well we got 50.1% of Jews in the holy land and He didn't come back so I guess it's back to the drawing board".
I wonder because from what I can see there's no pressure from Christian Zionists for American Jews to move to Israel. Support Israel 110% but no pressure on American Jews to emigrate. I don't roll in Christian circles though so it could be there but I don't see it.
> Oh, I mean Christians will never stop believing that some dead jew is gonna walk the earth magically again, but the specific theology that requires jews to be in israel could very well change. It used to be the case that Christians were compelled by theology to convert the jews on pain of exile or death. Now they don't. Christians nowadays believe jews need to be in the holy land, but in twenty or fifty years maybe they don't.
What if Christianity itself has no more real power in twenty or fifty years? Where Christian Zionism doesn't matter because Christianity itself doesn't matter?
Anonymous J replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #826,081
Anonymous G replied with this 8 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #826,084
@826,079 (Meta)
> What if Christianity itself has no more real power in twenty or fifty years?
Then, we have a party in the streets.
But seriously, you don't need religion to play out-group politics.
> What if Christianity itself has no more real power in twenty or fifty years?
Then, we have a party in the streets.
But seriously, you don't need religion to play out-group politics.
Meta replied with this 8 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #826,085
@826,061 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> It's not that nationalism is inherently antisemtic, it's the specific phrase "America First". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee
I spent a few minutes and I can't think of a better way to fit isolationism on a bumper sticker. If you get all autistic like Ron Paul people tune out. I admit it sucks that America First is associated with Lindbergh but what else can you call it?
I don't like the term "isolationism" because a lot of people confuse it with autarky which is a completely different thing. Make America Switzerland Again?
It's American as apple pie. "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none."
> It's not that nationalism is inherently antisemtic, it's the specific phrase "America First". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee
I spent a few minutes and I can't think of a better way to fit isolationism on a bumper sticker. If you get all autistic like Ron Paul people tune out. I admit it sucks that America First is associated with Lindbergh but what else can you call it?
I don't like the term "isolationism" because a lot of people confuse it with autarky which is a completely different thing. Make America Switzerland Again?
It's American as apple pie. "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none."
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 8 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #826,086
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 8 years ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #826,106
the so-called Holy Land seemed rather curse-ed