Billy86 wrote: » The discomfort amongst the alt right about this is clearly evident, even on boards, as they continue to try to shout 'but but but.... BUT Hillary!' as their go to defense of Trump, over a month after the the election has finished.
FreudianSlippers wrote: » Ok, so they're not into Nazi-ism, just what it stood for on a fundamental basis. What is it that they say about a rose by any other name...
frostyjacks wrote: » Neo-nazism I would say is an ideology closely aligned to the aims of the Third Reich. Alt-rightism would be much broader in scope, more in touch with the problems facing today's society. I wonder if Hilary could go back would she have been so dismissive of it.
frostyjacks wrote: » Has the alt-right been conned? There was always a wariness over Trump from the outset, given the Jewish connections in his family tree. Even post-victory, there's a disclaimer every time he's discussed, "He's not one of us". Defeating Hilary and what she stands for was the goal; getting Trump was a bonus. Don't see how getting what you want is being conned.
Billy86 wrote: » Oh I know, it's kind of telling that their seeming only rebuttal to the mounting evidence that Trump's campaign was one big con is "but but but... BUT HILLARY!" despite the election being finished over a month ago.
Special Circumstances wrote: » So... are trump supporters automatically alt-right? Are those who don't necessarily support him but didn't go out and riot when he won alt-right? Are those who recognise his victory in a democratic vote alt-right? Seems they are regarded as terrible terrible people here, but maybe not quite de facto alt-right?
PopePalpatine wrote: » Ah yes, hot topics such as, "That brown person stole my seat at the front of the bus," "Twitter banned me for spamming gory rape porn at anyone vaguely leftist," and "The cops arrest you instead of joining in when you do a sneak attack on LGBT people."
Mary Louise Piccard said in a 2007 court declaration that Bannon didn't want their twin daughters attending the Archer School for Girls in Los Angeles because many Jewish students were enrolled at the elite institution. "The biggest problem he had with Archer is the number of Jews that attend," Piccard said in her statement signed on June 27, 2007. "He said that he doesn't like the way they raise their kids to be 'whiny brats' and that he didn't want the girls going to school with Jews," Piccard wrote. Stephen Bannon, Trump campaign CEO, allegedly attacked ex-wife "I told him that there are children who are Jewish at (a competing school), and he asked me what the percentage was. I told him that I didn't know because it wasn't an issue for me as I am not raising the girls to be either anti-Semitic or prejudiced against anyone," she wrote. And while checking out yet another school, Bannon asked the director during a sit down why there were “so many Chanukah books in the library.”
Akrasia wrote: » Clinton was a terrible candidate but the Trump supporters have demonised her to such an extent that no matter what Trump does, they'll be able to convince themselves that Hillary would have been worse
Billy86 wrote: » Oh she was, but against Trump that was pretty much a default status for almost anyone running. It's just funny how Trump fans have worked so hard to convince themselves that he is infallible and are so incapable of thinking in anything but complete black and white that they assume anyone who figured Clinton the better candidate must have assumed the same. Not necessarily saying that's the case with the poster I quoted, but was worth pointing out to them that most who were against Trump did absolutely not see Clinton as "the bestest".
Professor Moriarty wrote: » She was better, though. Mind you, that's not exactly high praise.
Billy86 wrote: » Given that almost nobody on the election thread, whether they wanted Trump elected or not, had Clinton down as 'the bestest', then no... that's not it.
Special Circumstances wrote: » I thought alt right was anyone who doesn't believe Hillary is/was the bestest? That's what it seems to have been turned into at least.
TheOven wrote: » Well alt right is just the PC term for neo nazis. You're welcome to point out the differences between the two.
osmiumartist wrote: » Pretty much as I suspected from the start of this thread, and to be honest right from when I first heard the phrase "alt right", it will henceforth be used as a conflationary catch-all signifying little more than "anybody who doesn't agree with me so I can make out they are Nazis".
InTheTrees wrote: » Why do the "alt right" also deny climate change? Whats that about?
Yourself isit wrote: » OK I can remedially explain and link to what is general knowledge. I hate "links please" trolls as it's a way to curtail debate. And of course no link is good enough for the "links please" trolls. And this is a diversion anyway.
Sticking to liberal media. Salon on the media failures in 2003.http://www.salon.com/2007/04/10/media_failure/
CNN being self criticalhttp://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/11/opinion/kurtz-iraq-media-failure/
Huff post on media cheerleaders 2003http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2954774
New York times agrees and is self critical too.http://mobile.nytimes.com/2003/03/22/us/nation-war-media-critics-iraq-war-say-lack-scrutiny-helped-administration-press.html
My apologies to everybody else. Sometimes you have to fees the links trolls.
Yourself isit wrote: » And of course no link is good enough for the "links please" trolls. My apologies to everybody else. Sometimes you have to fees the links trolls.
marienbad wrote: » Perhaps , but that is a completely different conversation .
Junkyard Tom wrote: » Omitting the truth, and avoiding speaking truth to power, is perhaps worse because it's more difficult to prove and is more insidious.
marienbad wrote: » The MSM don't knowingly publish lies.
Yourself isit wrote: » I take it by MSM you mean the US MSM (to move on from that deflection game of course you do) I see though we have we moved goalposts again. The burden of proof is now known culpability. We however can't know if American journalists knew the lies were lies, certainly European journalists were more forensic than the US. We can't see into their souls but they saw the same "proof" as other journalists in other nations. Nevertheless we definitely are talking about fake news. This news was fake. And the mainstream media reported the fake news. It didn't investigate it. It didn't do its job (or rather it did it's war-time job). The first casualty of war. And millions died.
marienbad wrote: » I think you are missing the point . No one is under any illusion how pathetic and useless the MSM can be but they don't knowingly publish stuff which is lies . That is the difference.
Yourself isit wrote: » OK I can remedially explain and link to what is general knowledge. I hate "links please" trolls as it's a way to curtail debate. And of course no link is good enough for the "links please" trolls. And this is a diversion anyway. Sticking to liberal media. Salon on the media failures in 2003.http://www.salon.com/2007/04/10/media_failure/ CNN being self criticalhttp://www.salon.com/2007/04/10/media_failure/ Huff post on media cheerleaders 2003http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2954774 New York times agrees and is self critical too.http://mobile.nytimes.com/2003/03/22/us/nation-war-media-critics-iraq-war-say-lack-scrutiny-helped-administration-press.html There are literally hundreds more. There are literally dozens of books. My apologies to everybody else. Sometimes you have to fees the links trolls.
