Right Wing Grifters

Junkyard Tom

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

I believe the term used is soy-boys

Yeah along with other lexicon-of-idiots terms that have bubbled up through the alt-right sewer, such as:

'Virtue signalling',
'cuck',
'beta/alpha'
'cultural marxism'
'feminazis'
'SJW's'
'Libtard'
'snowflake'

Is 'living rent free inside your head' the latest up-and-coming alt-right term? I've noticed it pop up on boards in the last couple of months.

20Cent

Die Linke wrote: »

You seem to have hundreds of posts on here about the 'alt right' and antifa....do you not think it a bit sad you spend so much time fighting battles that exist only in your mind?

Are you going to contribute an opinion or even an idea to the thread?

Tasfasdf

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Yeah along with other lexicon-of-idiots terms that have bubbled up through the alt-right sewer, such as:

'Virtue signalling',
'cuck',
'beta/alpha'
'cultural marxism'
'feminazis'
'SJW's'
'Libtard'
'snowflake'

Is 'living rent free inside your head' the latest up-and-coming alt-right term? I've noticed it pop up on boards in the last couple of months.

OK boomer

Jesus effing Christ

Bellbottoms wrote: »

What claptrap, much dodgier. Nonsense. If anything she was probably the most qualified person to ever run for the office.

How exactly is HRC dodgier the Donald Trump?

For me she's always been very very close to trump in terms being rotten to her very core, but id say her 2016 loss has blackened her wretched sole even beyond him now.
In that Howard stern interview mentioned above, yet again she tries to pass the blame onto Sanders.
Bernie Sanders flew around the country and did 39 rallies for hillary Clinton in 2016, thats the fact of the matter!
does anyone actually believe she'd do a single rally for him.
She was all praise for Sanders efforts in the months leading up to the general election, but shortly after the defeat while she was by-the-way walking in the woods, her staff and propagandist were hard at work writing articles blaming everyone and anyone. And the same people who mock those who watch fox news propagandist lap this **** up.

What did she do for Obama ? When did she get out of the race in 08? (her and obama are on the same team, have the same doners)


Haven't watched it, but i see she's been on Graham Norton. I wounder did he ask her about her vote for the Iraq war? It's disgusting, that these monsters are allowed on tv and say whatever it is they wanna say, and no mentions of the bucket loads of misery and blood she's poured all over the world.

You hear it said "she's hawkish " so flippant as if it was a thing of nothing, someone of her power being "hawkish".

Igotadose

Igotadose wrote: »

2 seconds of google show that she called Trump. I found articles as far back as the day after the election stating same.

So, exactly where did you find this common criticism at the time? A reliable news source like Infowars or Breitbart?

Nope. You're correct. It was a mistake in my part. She did indeed congratulate him.

They're not rational. You mildly praise GWB, who started the second Iraq war and escalated Afghanistan. The former, using false premises. But, oh, HRC was a worse warmonger. Not rational at all.

Where did I praise GWB?

And where did I call HRC a warmonger? I said she would have caused a war with Russia or China by now. My opinion is that she would have been more inept than Trump, been swayed by various lobbies, and pushed the envelope too far.

She's a Washington swamp-creature. She would have made an infinitely better President than the current WH occupant.

Perhaps. I don't think so though.

Apologies. I missed the 'otherwise' bit. We can argue separately if someone voting for Trump is otherwise sensible, that'd be best done on the perma-Trump threads, this one is about right-wing grifters of which Trump is an outstanding example.

You missed the sentence, and picked out the words.

This is a thread bashing anyone even remotely associated (by the perception of the posters) to the right .

Please. relatively? Convicted and barred from running a charity. Perhaps you have different views of altar boys. Exactly what convictions has HRC had? Again, more appropriate for a perma-Trump thread. Feel free to start a 'left wing' grifters thread. I think in Ireland that'd get a lot of activity

Relatively, in comparison to the other upper US politicians who are incredibly corrupt.

As for starting a 'left wing' grifters thread, nope. But then I don't see HRC as being on the left. She's on the side of certain lobbies, and whoever finances her agenda.

Says the guy who thinks GWB was less warlike than HRC. Or whatever you meant. Cop on already, you're just foxbottering.

Says the guy who repeatedly changes, or "reads between the lines" on what I've posted. I didn't say GWB was less warlike than HRC.

But, lets leave it at that. You've won. I've little interest in trading punches with you on this topic.

Slowyourrole

As the thread is about right wing grifters. these two posts highlight common tactics used to push right wing nonsense.

notobtuse wrote: »

Heard of John Cusack. Never heard of the movie. So I looked it up. It’s basically a con artist. Seems to me that Nancy Pelosi, with her impeachment coup, fits that description much better than any right wingers. She claims there has been an abuse of power by President Trump. This is evident by Trump having a phone call with the president of Ukraine in which both spoke frankly about their concerns of election interference and corruption? She is only doing this because the Democrats have a terrible crowd running for election and they know they can’t beat Trump at the polls. So her only recourse is to either remove him from office or hurt him as hard as she can in the eyes of the voters. She's a con artist (grifter) of top caliber... perhaps even treasonous.

The claim that Trump's impeachment is a coup is provably false because 1. The senate are clearly not going to convict. 2.Even if they do, VP Mike Pence takes Trump's position, not Pelosi. 3. By the time Pence takes up the position, he'll have less than a year in office before the next election. So where is the power grab?

Deleted User wrote: »

Agreed. The sheer dishonesty and contempt she has for the average voter, pushed a lot of otherwise sensible people into voting for trump. Besides the fact she's the only candidate to avoid congratulating the opponent that won... That doesn't win her much kudos. She's a paper bag just like Bush Junior was although Bush jnr retained an element of innocence. She's like a jaded hooker whose been playing the same streets too often. Her degrees of corruption just shine ever so brighter each time she turns in the spotlight.

This idea that someone who voted for Trump or is voting Tory in the UK is not responsible for their vote because the left forced them to do it. Often seen in threads involving immigrants too. A person will claim they aren't racist or authoritarian they are just pushed to more extreme positions by "Merkel's open borders" or the "influx of immigrants". Nothi9ng is there fault. None of their reprehensible behavior or words are attributable to them because the left pushed them to it.

MontgomeryClift

nthclare wrote: »

Are you assuming something about Jewish people?

I don't like that tone

Yes, I'm assuming they have a tendency to protect their own tribe. I think this is pretty clear. When they say it, it's a boast. When I say it, it's anti-semitic.

Yiannopoulis is now trying to get cosy with Nick Fuentes' growing "Groyper" movement, and steer it away from what he calls its "purity spiralling" and its criticism of US aid to Israel.

It's almost as if this self-proclaimed Zionist has been sent to infiltrate groups that threaten to steer the US away from Zionism...

notobtuse

Slowyourrole wrote: »

As the thread is about right wing grifters. these two posts highlight common tactics used to push right wing nonsense.


The claim that Trump's impeachment is a coup is provably false because 1. The senate are clearly not going to convict. 2.Even if they do, VP Mike Pence takes Trump's position, not Pelosi. 3. By the time Pence takes up the position, he'll have less than a year in office before the next election. So where is the power grab?

And this is the ploy of those on the Left trying to downplay possibly the greatest threat to our nation's democracy the US has ever seen.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

And this is the ploy of those on the Left trying to downplay possibly the greatest threat to our nation's democracy the US has ever seen.

Yeah the greatest threat to the democracy of the US, all undertaken in a process envisaged by the founding fathers using rules rules established by the GOP.

Slowyourrole

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

Yes, I'm assuming they have a tendency to protect their own tribe. I think this is pretty clear. When they say it, it's a boast. When I say it, it's anti-semitic.

Yet you say it anyway.

notobtuse wrote: »

And this is the ploy of those on the Left trying to downplay possibly the greatest threat to our nation's democracy the US has ever seen.

Yeah, and I'm sure you were clutching your pearls when Clinton was in the dock for getting a blowjob from an intern. The reality is this is a Constitutional process placed in the founding document for the very reason it is being used. The reality is that Trump will be replaced by an equally right wing, possibly more so, vice president. So can you explain where the power grab is and how it is anti democratic?

Igotadose

Another Trump-admin grifter: Seema Verma. Besides spending on image consultants to improve her brand , she tried to hit up the gummint to pay for her lost luggage (including her $5900 Ivanka Trump-branded pendant.) Gummint said nope, not covered, sorry. She wanted $35k, got around $2.3k.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-health-medicare-medicaid-seema-verma-stolen-jewellery-a9238201.html?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=Feed

sabat

Bellbottoms wrote: »

What claptrap, much dodgier. Nonsense. If anything she was probably the most qualified person to ever run for the office.

How exactly is HRC dodgier the Donald Trump?

It's uncanny how even now you're just repeating verbatim one of her campaign soundbites when anyone with a very general knowledge of US politics knows it to be untrue.
Off the top of my head:
Richard Nixon: Served in WW2 even though he had a religious exemption, lawyer, congressman, senator, 2 term VP including an extended period as acting president when Eisenhower was ill.
GHW Bush: WW2 Pilot, congressman, US ambassador to the UN, head of the CIA, 2 term VP.

As abhorrent as Trump is, there's a dark manipulative amorality to the Clintons that makes them capable of far worse things to get what they want.

RWCNT

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

Yiannopoulis is now trying to get cosy with Nick Fuentes' growing "Groyper" movement, and steer it away from what he calls its "purity spiralling" and its criticism of US aid to Israel.

It's almost as if this self-proclaimed Zionist has been sent to infiltrate groups that threaten to steer the US away from Zionism...

More likely IMO that he'll attempt to latch himself onto any "movement" he thinks is likely to grab some attention for himself - just like he did with Gamergate, the alt-right, Trump's campaign, Carl Benjamin's MEP campaign.

alastair

sabat wrote: »

It's uncanny how even now you're just repeating verbatim one of her campaign soundbites when anyone with a very general knowledge of US politics knows it to be untrue.
Off the top of my head:
Richard Nixon: Served in WW2 even though he had a religious exemption, lawyer, congressman, senator, 2 term VP including an extended period as acting president when Eisenhower was ill.
GHW Bush: WW2 Pilot, congressman, US ambassador to the UN, head of the CIA, 2 term VP.

As abhorrent as Trump is, there's a dark manipulative amorality to the Clintons that makes them capable of far worse things to get what they want.

HRC -
Ivy League education, Yale Law grad
Two-time First Lady, with key role in presidential campaigns and whitehouse policy-making and enactment
Two time Senator for New York
Secretary of State

You could argue that Nixon matched her resume, but she’s more presidential-business experience on her CV than Bush senior had. VP’s generally don’t get the policy input Hilary had.

notobtuse

Slowyourrole wrote: »

Yeah, and I'm sure you were clutching your pearls when Clinton was in the dock for getting a blowjob from an intern. The reality is this is a Constitutional process placed in the founding document for the very reason it is being used. The reality is that Trump will be replaced by an equally right wing, possibly more so, vice president. So can you explain where the power grab is and how it is anti democratic?

Revisionist history I see. Clinton did not get impeached for a BJ. He was impeached for lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. He was also disbarred for the offenses. Back in the day I thought Clinton should have been censured but not impeached. Impeachment should be reserved for the most grievous of offenses.

What we have seen is a soft coup orchestrated by Obama political appointees in the FBI, DOJ and State Department. What we are seeing now by the House Democrats is a witch-hunt and a kangaroo court. Yes, the Democrats who hold the majority of House can impeach Trump for whatever reason they dream up. And it is the job of the Senate to decide on whether Trump is removed from office. But the House Democrats are using impeachment for political purposes… something the Founding Fathers said should absolutely never happen. Their impeachment started with Russia collusion. Then when that was proven untrue it went to obstruction of justice. Then when that fizzled out it became the Ukraine phone call. What will it be next month? And even if the Senate makes impeachment dead in the water upon receiving it, is there any question Democrats will start some new impeachment witch-hunt? Democrats know they have a extremely weak crop of politicians running for president, and their only hope to regain the presidency next year is to either remove Trump from office or hurt him with the impeachment nonsense as to hurt him enough in the eyes of the voters that he will lose the election. Democrats should be ashamed of themselves. The crazy far Left base is now driving the Democrat party. God help up!

20Cent

notobtuse wrote: »

Revisionist history I see. Clinton did not get impeached for a BJ. He was impeached for lying to Congress and obstruction of justice. He was also disbarred for the offenses. Back in the day I thought Clinton should have been censured but not impeached. Impeachment should be reserved for the most grievous of offenses.

What we have seen is a soft coup orchestrated by Obama political appointees in the FBI, DOJ and State Department. What we are seeing now by the House Democrats is a witch-hunt and a kangaroo court. Yes, the Democrats who hold the majority of House can impeach Trump for whatever reason they dream up. And it is the job of the Senate to decide on whether Trump is removed from office. But the House Democrats are using impeachment for political purposes… something the Founding Fathers said should absolutely never happen. Their impeachment started with Russia collusion. Then when that was proven untrue it went to obstruction of justice. Then when that fizzled out it became the Ukraine phone call. What will it be next month? And even if the Senate makes impeachment dead in the water upon receiving it, is there any question Democrats will start some new impeachment witch-hunt? Democrats know they have a extremely weak crop of politicians running for president, and their only hope to regain the presidency next year is to either remove Trump from office or hurt him with the impeachment nonsense as to hurt him enough in the eyes of the voters that he will lose the election. Democrats should be ashamed of themselves. The crazy far Left base is now driving the Democrat party. God help up!

That people actually believe the above demonstrates the ability of these grifters to get people to believe anything.

notobtuse

20Cent wrote: »

That people actually believe the above demonstrates the ability of these grifters to get people to believe anything.

I see you can't handle the truth.

20Cent

Some fella shouting and disrupting the impeachement hearings. Arrested and removed. An "inforwars" "journalist".

Some of his top content:

https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/905611123394793472

Total grifter.

WrenBoy

20Cent wrote: »

Some fella shouting and disrupting the impeachement hearings. Arrested and removed. An "inforwars" "journalist".

Some of his top content:

https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/status/905611123394793472

Total grifter.

Im pretty sure I've seen the video where that guy in the blue t-shirt comes back to him later and apologises and says he was upset and said things that were untrue.

I'll have a look when i get a chance

20Cent

WrenBoy wrote: »

Im pretty sure I've seen the video where that guy in the blue t-shirt comes back to him later and apologises and says he was upset and said things that were untrue.

I'll have a look when i get a chance

Isn't it more about what he says to the girl.
Calls her young man, misgendering people seems to be very funny to these folks. Walk around with your camera annoying and insulting people. Eventually one will get annoyed, post it on social media as so much for the tolerant left or even better antifa attack me. Open a patreon and let the money roll in. Dozens of these grifters about.

WrenBoy

20Cent wrote: »

Isn't it more about what he says to the girl.
Calls her young man, misgendering people seems to be very funny to these folks. Walk around with your camera annoying and insulting people. Eventually one will get annoyed, post it on social media as so much for the tolerant left or even better antifa attack me. Open a patreon and let the money roll in. Dozens of these grifters about.

Maybe he thought it was a young boy.

marieholmfan

Jimmy Dore is maybe a bit of a left wing grifter. I'm sure he is sincere but part of the deal is that he realised that he wasn't really funny enough to sell out shows as a pure comedian and now as a comedian commenting on current news he does sell out medium sized locations in America a couple of times a week.

20Cent

marieholmfan wrote: »

Jimmy Dore is maybe a bit of a left wing grifter. I'm sure he is sincere but part of the deal is that he realised that he wasn't really funny enough to sell out shows as a pure comedian and now as a comedian commenting on current news he does sell out medium sized locations in America a couple of times a week.

Throw up a video then.

TwoMonthsOff

WrenBoy wrote: »

Maybe he thought it was a young boy.

It is a young boy.

WrenBoy

TwoMonthsOff wrote: »

It is a young boy.

So theres no issue, but 20's still mad at them for some reason.. I dunno anymore.

20Cent

WrenBoy wrote: »

So theres no issue, but 20's still mad at them for some reason.. I dunno anymore.

It's a girl she even replies to the tweet above.
He's also wearing an enjoy nationalism t shirt.
Only the right wing make money this way.

WrenBoy

20Cent wrote: »

It's a girl she even replies to the tweet above.
He's also wearing an enjoy nationalism t shirt.
Only the right wing make money this way.

I've seen a few of his videos on Youtube, I haven't watched other Info Wars content. He's a journalist for a website/ WebShow albeit a controversial one, Goes to a rally/ event mistake a young girl for a boy, this makes him some sort of transphobic criminal ?
Enjoy Nationalism T-shirt - So ? he supports his country (America) over other countries, as do I (Ireland) How do these things make him someone who should be vilified ? Besides the fact he has differing political opinions to you ?

Slowyourrole

20Cent wrote: »

It's a girl she even replies to the tweet above.
He's also wearing an enjoy nationalism t shirt.
Only the right wing make money this way.

To the right wing, harassing kids is grand unless you dare mention the name of Trump's son.

WrenBoy

Slowyourrole wrote: »

To the right wing, harassing kids is grand unless you dare mention the name of Trump's son.

How is this harassing kids?, the same nonsense could be thrown at the other side who assault grandmothers with walkers..

ohnonotgmail

WrenBoy wrote: »

Maybe he thought it was a young boy.

TwoMonthsOff wrote: »

It is a young boy.

WrenBoy wrote: »

So theres no issue, but 20's still mad at them for some reason.. I dunno anymore.

Odd how you just uncritically accepted what was said as fact. Was it because you wanted it to be true?