The alt right - Mod Warning in OP

frostyjacks wrote: »

By that logic, Jimmy Savile was an innocent man.

Correct. Upon investigation, he was subsequently deemed not to be innocent.

frostyjacks wrote: »

By that logic, Jimmy Savile was an innocent man.

And yet when it came to Trump...

frostyjacks wrote:

B0jangles wrote:

As to the Clintons, while Bill's behaviour is absolutely not above reproach, he has not been convicted of anything, nor is he on record boasting about sexually assaulting women or fantasising about dating children.

Nor has Trump been convicted of anything.

FreudianSlippers

Billy86 wrote: »

And yet when it came to Trump...

You know there are no such things as convictions for civil suits?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You know there are no such things as convictions for civil suits?

Was referring to certain people making double standards to fit their narrative. Allegations = proof for one person, allegation = nonsense, nothing to see here when it's another like Trump. It's as big a problem as (and actually the main reason for) the fake news that people spent much of the last year lapping up.

Billy86 wrote: »

Was referring to certain people making double standards to fit their narrative. Allegations = proof for one person, allegation = nonsense, nothing to see here when it's another like Trump. It's as big a problem as (and actually the main reason for) the fake news that people spent much of the last year lapping up.

A case in point: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/20/donald-trump-apprentice-outtakes-tape-tom-arnold

frostyjacks

Billy86 wrote: »

Was referring to certain people making double standards to fit their narrative. Allegations = proof for one person, allegation = nonsense, nothing to see here when it's another like Trump. It's as big a problem as (and actually the main reason for) the fake news that people spent much of the last year lapping up.

Well, for a slew of accusations to be made against Trump in the run-up to the presidential election, on top of the Miss Housecleaning and pussygate tape, was obviously people looking to take advantage of a situation. With Cox, he was virtually unknown at the time. There was nothing really to be gained by making up stuff against him à la the Trump accusers. And why would an innocent man just walk out of his job? Seems strange.

frostyjacks wrote: »

Well, for a slew of accusations to be made against Trump in the run-up to the presidential election, on top of the Miss Housecleaning and pussygate tape, was obviously people looking to take advantage of a situation. With Cox, he was virtually unknown at the time. There was nothing really to be gained by making up stuff against him à la the Trump accusers. And why would an innocent man just walk out of his job? Seems strange.

'pussygate' wasn't an accusation, it was a fact. Just like the accusations that he hasn't published his tax returns, needed bailouts from his billionaire father, believes you should "treat women like sh1t" etc. ad nauseam.

So I go into to your local and announce that you beat your wife.
You leave the pub. Seems strange.

PopePalpatine

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Nobody in the alt-right cares about victims beyond using them for cheap points so let's ditch that pretence please.

Yep, despite all their outrage (whether feigned or sincere) about dark-skinned immigrants gang-raping women in Europe, you'll not hear a peep out of them about their comrades doing the same.

frostyjacks wrote: »

Well, for a slew of accusations to be made against Trump in the run-up to the presidential election, on top of the Miss Housecleaning and pussygate tape, was obviously people looking to take advantage of a situation. With Cox, he was virtually unknown at the time. There was nothing really to be gained by making up stuff against him à la the Trump accusers. And why would an innocent man just walk out of his job? Seems strange.

Your jumping through mental loopholes to apply completely different standards as I mentioned is not remotely surprising, but it does ignore that his ex wife took him to court for rape long, long before he ran for President.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A case in point: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/20/donald-trump-apprentice-outtakes-tape-tom-arnold

Exactly. Now if memory serves, Tom Arnold has a history of not being the most stable or reliable source of information you would hope to find, so I wouldn't put much weight in it myself until actual video evidence emerged. However the Trump fans and alt right that will be doing all they can to pretend this doesn't exist or are complete lies, are the very, very first to dive in headfirst over unfounded allegations about others and to run with them as categoric fact.

It's not really much different to all the claims that Clinton was 'clearly agitating for war with Russia' combined with the double-think of how Trump's interactions with/comments on China are in no way risky at all on that front.

Billy86 wrote: »

Exactly. Now if memory serves, Tom Arnold has a history of not being the most stable or reliable source of information you would hope to find, so I wouldn't put much weight in it myself until actual video evidence emerged. However the Trump fans and alt right that will be doing all they can to pretend this doesn't exist or are complete lies, are the very, very first to dive in headfirst over unfounded allegations about others and to run with them as categoric fact.

It's not really much different to all the claims that Clinton was 'clearly agitating for war with Russia' combined with the double-think of how Trump's interactions with/comments on China are in no way risky at all on that front.

Orwell was an amazingly prescient man.

Mind you, a producer of The Apprentice, Bill Pruitt, backs up Arnold's claims. But they are only accusations.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Chump may well do some good but I expect that to be by chance. People have eyes to see and most people think Chump will be useless at best because of what they see.

Case in point here. A Trump hater just because he is Trump.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Care to elaborate on the contents of the emails you have particular issue with?

I don't understand. I do not have issue with any of the content of email released by the DNC. I do take issue with the hypocrisy of many of the left when it comes to these emails. Assange was a liberal hero back in the day but strangely now is an alt-right hero due to Wikileaks releasing damming emails of Clinton. I suppose its easier to blame Russia.

FA Hayek wrote: »

Case in point here. A Trump hater just because he is Trump.

I don't hate him. But you're logic is sound. I dislike Chump because he is Chump.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I don't hate him. But you're logic is sound. I dislike Chump because he is Chump.

Oh that is fine, people are free to hate whomever they want. Its just you freely admit to leaving your brain at the door when critically analysing anything he/she/they do. The emotional ape-like primitive response will also be the primary reaction.

marienbad

FA Hayek wrote: »

Oh that is fine, people are free to hate whomever they want. Its just you freely admit to leaving your brain at the door when critically analysing anything he/she/they do. The emotional ape-like primitive response will also be the primary reaction.

''The emotional ape-like primitive response will also be the primary reaction''

Would your reaction to that post be an example of this ?

oscarBravo

FA Hayek wrote: »

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I don't hate him.

Oh that is fine, people are free to hate whomever they want.

I can't help but notice a tendency from a certain group of posters to simply pretend that the person they're replying to said something completely different from what they actually said.

It's a strange form of discussion: argumentum-ad-makin-stuff-up.

Is this the new Trumpian reality? "I can't think of any logical argument against what you said, so I'm just going to pretend you said something else and argue against that instead?"

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can't help but notice a tendency from a certain group of posters to simply pretend that the person they're replying to said something completely different from what they actually said.

It's a strange form of discussion: argumentum-ad-makin-stuff-up.

Is this the new Trumpian reality? "I can't think of any logical argument against what you said, so I'm just going to pretend you said something else and argue against that instead?"

It is very VERY telling that you take issue with this and not the fact that a poster freely admits to leaving his critical faculties at the door when it comes to a debate on the virtues or otherwise on the president elect.

Why? Because people like yourself has spent the last year demonising him and any of his followers and voters, so you cannot and will not ever entertain the possibility that it will not be the nightmare worse case scenario you have put so much effort in perpetuating.

The Nile is not only a river in Egypt.

marienbad

FA Hayek wrote: »

It is very VERY telling that you take issue with this and not the fact that a poster freely admits to leaving his critical faculties at the door when it comes to a debate on the virtues or otherwise on the president elect.

Why? Because people like yourself has spent the last year demonising him and any of his followers and voters, so you cannot and will not ever entertain the possibility that it will not be the nightmare worse case scenario you have put so much effort in perpetuating.

The Nile is not only a river in Egypt.

And you are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing .

frostyjacks

So in the name of diversity, King's College London have removed an image of the former Archbishop of Canterbury, because he holds traditional Christian views on marriage.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4056430/King-s-College-London-removes-photo-former-Archbishop-Canterbury-wall-fame-amid-student-anger-views-gay-marriage.html

Isn't this the opposite of diversity? They seem to want us all to believe in a single, uniform set of ideas and ostracise anybody that thinks different.

20Cent

Can I ask are Trump supporters disappointed that he is dropping all his policies already or are ye ok with that?

ancapailldorcha

frostyjacks wrote: »

So in the name of diversity, King's College London have removed an image of the former Archbishop of Canterbury, because he holds traditional Christian views on marriage.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4056430/King-s-College-London-removes-photo-former-Archbishop-Canterbury-wall-fame-amid-student-anger-views-gay-marriage.html

Isn't this the opposite of diversity? They seem to want us all to believe in a single, uniform set of ideas and ostracise anybody that thinks different.

King's College should be free to do whatever it wants. There's a name for a belief system that demands that others conform to your worldview.

Widdershins

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Allegations but no prosecution and conviction? So he is an innocent man.

If you say so. As I said-he doesn't have a good reputation. It was hardly improved by 'quietly' leaving the organisation in the wake of multiple accusations against him.

I certainly won't be heeding any moral preaching of his.

Widdershins

Billy86 wrote: »

Was referring to certain people making double standards to fit their narrative. Allegations = proof for one person, allegation = nonsense, nothing to see here when it's another like Trump. It's as big a problem as (and actually the main reason for) the fake news that people spent much of the last year lapping up.

Allegations are not proof. They don't enhance the reputation, that's all.

As I'm sure you'd agree in 'Trump's' case

FA Hayek wrote: »

It is very VERY telling that you take issue with this and not the fact that a poster freely admits to leaving his critical faculties at the door when it comes to a debate on the virtues or otherwise on the president elect.

Why? Because people like yourself has spent the last year demonising him and any of his followers and voters, so you cannot and will not ever entertain the possibility that it will not be the nightmare worse case scenario you have put so much effort in perpetuating.

The Nile is not only a river in Egypt.

I'll ask you the same question then that I keep asking Trujmp fans because so few are willing to in any way answer on it - what do you want to see from his presidency? What barometers are you setting towards it being a success or not? Would you like to see tighter border controls - and if so, how and in relations to which people specifically? Would you like all illegal immigrants deported, only those with criminal records or very few at all, and would you like to see it done immediately? Do you want taxes on the upper class increased, decreased or left as if, the middle or the working classes? How about corporate tax also? Do you want the 'swamp gutted' and corporate/Wall Street influence removed from politics? Are employment figures a huge point of importance to you, or average wage, or even take home wage? Would you like to see the US remove itself from international affairs, and if so does that include China and the middle east or is it more just related to Russia? Would you like to see welfare reduced or left as is, and if reduced - in what areas (pensions and health care?)? Are there any specific reforms you would like to see, any societal issues you most strongly feel should be addressed and how so?

What specifically do you want to see from the Trump presidency?

Widdershins wrote: »

Allegations are not proof. They don't enhance the reputation, that's all.

As I'm sure you'd agree in 'Trump's' case

So we're in agreement. Now if you could kindly pass that message along to frostyjacks whose post comparing Jo Cox' widower to Jimmy Saville over allegations without proof that you thanked, that would be wonderful. Cheers.