Posts made by strangeloop

@Dene:

"Should I post my collection of posts that give liberals nightmares?  " is not political debate

You don't get to decide what is and is not political debate.  If a provocative title scares you, that's no one's problem but your own.

@magentas:

@jbo1:

Who said I am white?

You did, with every single word you write.

More blatant racism.  And by the way, I agree with Jbo1, and I'm also not white.  NOT THAT IT SHOULD EVEN MATTER!!!!

Honestly, I just feel the need to speak out.  The level of discourse here is so low, because of people like you playing the identity politics game to suggest that the color of someone's skin has any effect at all on the validity of their words.  Disgusting.

Honestly, the racism you've showed, it makes me physically ill.  It's really disgusting, just like every other form of racism.

@brianboru72:

If the delete and bleaching were really illegal- the Republicans would have had her tossed in jail. How stupid ARE YOU? The fact is she was they had nothing so they couldn't really get her locked up. Simple, and easy to follow.

Comey stated POINT BLANK that yes she did break the law, but that he didn't believe she should be prosecuted.  Not even the liberal media would agree with you here, they'd downplay it and say it's not really a big deal.  But the objective fact is that she did break the law.  You are the one with the alt-facts here.

@brianboru72:

You can both keep spouting those statements but that's all they are. You can keep pushing for it but the FACT is there is NO PROOF. Because if there was, they would haul Obama to the courts so fast it would make all out heads spin.

My last word on all this silliness about Obama and Hillary- why aren't they in jail or being prosecuted if ANY of it has basis in FACT??? Trump is president, the Republicans hold control over all branches of government- so it should be easy for them to take Hillary and Obama to court if there was ANY SHRED of evidence that they are guilty.

Downfall of Obama? I doubt it. I won't hold my breath. I suggest you don't either.  ;D
Remember "Lock her up"? The reason he can't even keep that promise is because even as president he CAN'T prove anything. Sad!  :laugh:

Enough already, stop willfully closing your eyes.  There's a huge amount of evidence, more than enough evidence to back up Trump's claim.

Evidence:

'Former CIA officer Col. Tony Shaffer said the basics of President Trump's claim to have been "wiretapped" are likely true, and that the incident is "worse than Watergate."' (http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/25/tony-shaffer-donald-trump-wiretapping-case-worse-watergate-not-russian)

"Unmasking is not unprecedented, but unmasking for political purposes specifically of Trump transition team members is highly suspect and questionable" (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/31/intelligence-official-who-unmasked-trump-associates-is-very-high-up-source-says.html)

"NSA whistleblower tells Tucker Carlson Trump, Supreme Court, Congress likely spied on" (http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/25/shocking-nsa-whistle-blower-tells-tucker-carlson-trump-supreme-court-congress-likely-spied-on/)

Ron Paul: "Yes, The Feds Are Spying On Donald Trump! Did the Government Spy on Trump? Of Course. It Spies on All of Us!" (https://www.fitsnews.com/2017/03/27/ron-paul-yes-the-feds-are-spying-on-donald-trump/, http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2017/march/27/did-the-government-spy-on-trump-of-course-it-spies-on-all-of-us/)

New York Times OWN headline: "Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump's aides" (http://www.mwilliams.info/images/nyt%20wiretapped.jpg)

Enough already.  Just because the liberal mainstream media keeps repeating the same byline over and over again "NA UH TRUMP wasn't wiretapped!!" doesn't make it true and doesn't sweep the very blatant issue under the rug.  The media is taking his words hyper-literally in order to claim it was a technically a lie, even though the essence of his claim, that he was spied on, is unequivocally true.

As more and more evidence comes out, it's clear Trump and his team were absolutely and unequivocally spied upon by other government agencies.  Stop perpetuating the lie that he wasn't spied on.

Evidence:

'Former CIA officer Col. Tony Shaffer said the basics of President Trump's claim to have been "wiretapped" are likely true, and that the incident is "worse than Watergate."' (http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/03/25/tony-shaffer-donald-trump-wiretapping-case-worse-watergate-not-russian)

"Unmasking is not unprecedented, but unmasking for political purposes specifically of Trump transition team members is highly suspect and questionable" (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/31/intelligence-official-who-unmasked-trump-associates-is-very-high-up-source-says.html)

"NSA whistleblower tells Tucker Carlson Trump, Supreme Court, Congress likely spied on" (http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/25/shocking-nsa-whistle-blower-tells-tucker-carlson-trump-supreme-court-congress-likely-spied-on/)

Ron Paul: "Yes, The Feds Are Spying On Donald Trump! Did the Government Spy on Trump? Of Course. It Spies on All of Us!" (https://www.fitsnews.com/2017/03/27/ron-paul-yes-the-feds-are-spying-on-donald-trump/, http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2017/march/27/did-the-government-spy-on-trump-of-course-it-spies-on-all-of-us/)

New York Times OWN headline: "Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump's aides" (http://www.mwilliams.info/images/nyt%20wiretapped.jpg)

Enough already.  Just because the liberal mainstream media keeps repeating the same byline over and over again "NA UH TRUMP wasn't wiretapped!!" doesn't make it true and doesn't sweep the very blatant issue under the rug.  The media is taking his words hyper-literally in order to claim it was a technically a lie, even though the essence of his claim, that he was spied on, is unequivocally true.

@mhorndisk:

It's crazy how you guys are associating anything negative to Trump about Obamacare. Obamacare sucks. It's not insurance, it's a tax, that's why you have to file the mandate on your tax return. It's a terrible socialist program. You don't like walking into a store and having the ability to choose, the sucky phone or the smart phone of your choice? You just want one option? Well in most places, that's what you get, one choice with Obamacare - you don't get the choice, because socialism sucks. It's stupid that you guys don't understand that the bankers are robbing the people, ripping them off, buying up all the world's resources, and creating a global dictatorship that they can distribute how they see fit while keeping all the wealth and instead think so small as though Trump is going to end your ability to have a big gay wedding. This is the reason we need the wall because we don't want the global socialist dictatorship giving us one option - theirs or nothing. Things are bigger than just gay marriage and to think otherwise is insanely ignorant.

Well said!

@brianboru72:

So - to be clear (and not condescending)- Actual serious news reports that Trumpcare failed to pass and replace Obamacare is NEWS and not left propaganda. The OPINION about whether Trumpcare is good or bad for the country- that's where representation, and biases can come into play.

I'm not sure if you realize it, but the fact that you even call it Trumpcare to begin with is leftist propaganda.  Same with "Obamacare" coming from the right, to be fair.  And actually, it would be more accurate to call it Ryancare, but I disgress.

You may think contention with this phrase is nitpicking, and it is, but repetition of engineered diction, prolific use of weasel words, and lies by omission are simple tools that easily craft narratives.  As an example?  Find me a single factual inaccuracy in this article: http://i.imgur.com/CRaBPOx.jpg

I think your football quip is incredibly ironic, given the near complete ownership the democratic party has over the gay community.  There were actually no contentious issue about this election that had anything to do with LGBT issues.  What's also further ironic is juxtaposing the hysterical, even suicidal reactions of many LGBT with the reality that Trump is actually the first president in U.S. history to have no issues whatsoever with gay marriage.  But this is pretty irrelevant, as is your quip that I'm treating politics like a football game.  I think you can see how I can easily throw it right back at you.

You say that I am blindly biased, but up until 1-2 years ago, I saw myself as an ordinary mainstream liberal.  My beliefs were challenged and changed based on what I saw happening.

The mainstream media is absolutely the liberal media, and have their own agenda and bias. No conspiracy needed, only cronyism and bias.  50% of Americans, not 90% have XYZ political ideology.  But 90% of reporters do.  Again, it's about representation.

Secondly, even assuming that climate change has a straightforward answer based on science, the large majority of issues do not have an objective or scientific-based answer.  You want to generalize your belief about climate science having an objective answer to the rest of your political beliefs.  That is malarkey.  What I am getting from this thread is that liberals think their political opinions are objective facts.

That's one of many reason I no longer consider myself liberal.

How do you not see the mirror reality of what you just wrote?

Donald Trump, through the entire campaign and now, actively works to shut down opposing viewpoints. He did a mass purge of employees left over from the Obama era. His Press secretary silences or ignores any questions he does not want to answer. Donald Trump constantly insults everyone, non stop, and you pretend it is liberals who need to work on their delivery?

The mirror shows me that conservative speakers, not liberal speakers are shutdown by riots on college campuses, or in same cases just flat out no-platformed.  The mirror shows me that conservatives, not liberals are actively censored from social media platforms by unaccountable and unelected technocrats.  The mirror shows me that Trump or his supporters do not go out in the streets with shovels and baseball bats beating people unconscious while the police stand idly by doing nothing to stop it.  The mirror shows me that liberals, not conservatives rioted in the streets after the election, smashing windows, cars and settting shit on fire.

So yes, I believe that it's the left that has become increasingly authoritarian, not the right.

By telling everyone that a whopping 96% of all journalists are liberal- you expect people to just dismiss the reporting because of that? If in fact it's even true (which it's not).

The claim is true - I even provided a source.  Not exactly 96% (which was just the number I recalled off the top of my head), but well over 90% of the people reporting on Trump vote democrat, and large percentages of them donate to democratic super-pacs.

You would like to claim that journalists are liberal, because liberal ideology is more "correct".  Even if you believe this to be true, the subsequent condescension (c.f., staged moon-landings) is unnecessary and you've got to know that this kind of elitist, condescending attitude is one major reason people rebelled against the establishment, right?

You could be correct in every single one of your espoused political beliefs, but if you actively work to shut down the opposing viewpoints  without addressing their concerns through insults, or as more and more common, physical violence, people won't listen to you.  You need to work on your delivery.  Furthermore, the mainstream media has been caught in so many disgusting lies and falsehoods; ignoring these issues and pretending that the media is an unbiased conveyance of facts and logic does your argument no service.

Besides all this, you've missed the point -

Liberals like to talk a lot about representation, but half this country is conservative, and they are not represented in the media.  If you're talking to someone who isn't liberal, you cannot expect them to possibly believe that Trump would get a fair shake by the media elite, when the large majority of them are ideologically opposed and biased.  Just seriously try to put yourself in their shoes for just one moment.  If all the media were conservative, would you be inclined to listen and believe?

So then, if conservatives won't listen to the media, who will they listen to?  Well for starters, they'll listen to people who've made personal sacrifices to get where they are.  People like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange who are beyond reproach and have not once been caught in a lie or journalistic failing.  For example: https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/844611686682181632

Right or wrong, if a spy agency – via any method -- intercepts, copies, or otherwise reviews your communications, they have spied on you.

Reporter asks if Nunes feels that the IC was spying on Trump/team.

Nunes: "It all depends on one's definition of spying."

And just like that, a Single tweet by someone with proven integrity carries more weight than all of the mainstream liberal media combined.

Here's the source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/8/republicans-media-bias-claims-boosted-by-scarcity-/

"More than 90 percent of D.C. journalists vote Democratic, with an even higher number giving to Democrats or liberal-leaning political action committees, the author said."

@brianboru72:

Hahaha! Okay you want sources- let's talk sources. You think it's CNN? Here are just some of the sources- and none of them are CNN.
Read something other than alt-news and be better informed. Your ignorance is showing and really getting sad.

All of these organizations are lock-step in the mainstream narrative.  You don't actually have any diversity of sources.  All of your sources come from the liberal mainstream media and all of them show the same exact agenda and bias.

Some crazy figure like 96% of all journalists are liberal, and all of these journalists represent the mainstream side of the coin.  Conservatives make up about half this country, yet are barely even represented.  Why do you expect to able to see the other side of the coin from any news organization when there is a vast under-representation of conservative viewpoints in the mainstream media?

@YoungGun:

If it's not patriarchy, then what?  Give an alternative explanation at least.

Here are several points to consider:

1. I think we can all agree that women, in the past, were very much oppressed.  Certainly at least up until the women's suffrage movement, at least.

2. Since that point, there have only been 16 presidents, not 45.  If you want to say that 0 in 45 isn't just bad luck, nobody would disagree with that point, technically, because of point 1.  However not having one female president in 16 clearly isn't as meaningful.

3. You seem genuinely interested in gaining the opposite perspective, but the alternative explanation is actually kind of obvious.  Don't you think it's strange that you seemed as if you weren't able to even mentally consider it?

There are more men on both extremes, dumber and smarter, of the normal distribution.  It directly follows that there are proportionately more highly qualified men than women in certain tasks and abilities.

Women and men have different pre-dispositions for different majors, and thus different careers and jobs.

**Unequal outcome does not logically follow from unequal opportunity, and NEVER has. **