Donald Trump speaks to shrunken Atlanta crowd as poll numbers drop

[silverhandorder]

Honestly I said my argument. I think people who are not full of liberal bias will understand what I mean. Have a good day.

 

[moostraks]

I am going to assume you think this was a domestic hate crime. I don't know why else you would jump in to argue. (edit: acptulsa)

I am also going to ignore that first paragraph completely because I have a different view on what happened and I am not interested in rehashing it here.

What I will do is expand on why I think you, CPUd and moostraks are left leaning.

When a terrorist attack happens. The significant part is the terrorist attack and not the fact that the killer hated gays and that the attack happened in a gay club. Even domestic part is not as important as the terrorist part. To draw attention away from the terrorist aspect is to do disservice to your own country and to the people who believe you. This weakens our response to the said attack.

To claim on a liberty forum that this was a domestic hate crime you stand out. The people who use this language are Obama and Hillary and their supporters.

Why is terrorist aspect more significant than domestic or the hate aspects. First and foremost there is no denial that this was a terrorist attack. He pledged loyalty to ISIS, he went to SA on pilgrimage, they found him with Islamic literature, he was talking about Muslim countries being bombed. If you going to kill 49 people you are going to tell the world why you are doing this. You are not going to be politically correct when you are committing atrocities. He has no reason to hide whether he hates gays or not.

I think the gay aspect is a bonus since Islamists also hate gays. So he was getting 2 for 1. Commit a terrorist attack and also kill people you hate the most. Domestic makes it worse than foreign. Foreign you can beef up borders, you can tell foreigners apart and etc. Domestic means it is much harder to prevent it again. edit: So to expand more when Trump hammers at the fact that democrats and you can't say radical Islam and calls him an afghan he does not dispute the domestic part. What he is doing is saying "Look wtf you let in here!"

Srsly? The champions for supposed free speech are now pimping that folks must get in line with the official narrative to push for moah war or they are liberals? Wt ever loving hell? And when in the hell was it my duty to push the official narrative as it pursues war for service to the country? So now I am to be shamed as an enemy of the state for not embracing the proper narrative? Nice liberty there.

Screw you with your left leaning boogeyman. I am an individualist and want to secede from any political associations with said government which thinks it owns me and mine and I will be damn if I will be told who I am by some ignorant propagandist for an authoritarian.

 

[silverhandorder]

Sorry I like that you say the crap that you say. It makes it easy to see you for what you are. Say it away. This is why when I see walls of txt from you and your friends I just glaze over them and don't bother to really reply. It's like the soft version of ignored.

And to pre empt you screaming that I live in a bubble, I used to read what you had to say and others like you. When you start saying something original again maybe I will read again.

For your sake I hope this is how you treat me as well. Because otherwise I don't know how you get anything else done.

 

[moostraks]

Sorry I like that you say the crap that you say. It makes it easy to see you for what you are. Say it away. This is why when I see walls of txt from you and your friends I just glaze over them and don't bother to really reply. It's like the soft version of ignored.

And to pre empt you screaming that I live in a bubble, I used to read what you had to say and others like you. When you start saying something original again maybe I will read again.

For your sake I hope this is how you treat me as well. Because otherwise I don't know how you get anything else done.

You are too cowardly to substantiate your own positions but prefer verbal hit and runs to obfuscate serious discussion. No wonder you support a coward like Trump.

 

[acptulsa]

The establishment did not see his success coming and did not want him, thus they completely ridiculed him at first, dismissed him as a fad in the middle, and has fought like mad to undo his pending nomination at the end. Your response to this spectacular failure of the elite and the media has been to say it was a master plan of theirs to make him the nominee. That is a complete misreading of the entire year, as it paints their errors as an exercise in infallible power to achieve exactly what they wanted. That is deifying the establishment.

The establishment media can read a poll. They can see when they aren't trusted, and they can adjust. They can use reverse psychology. To say the establishment and its lapdog media cannot do that is to underestimate your enemy. That is deifying yourself, and committing a grave error.

Still got it backwards. Trump's success is what generated and sustained the coverage, not the reverse. That success was based on capitalizing on the public being fed up with the insiders, and the constant PC caving of milquetoast Republicans. His wealth, plus thirty years of positive celebrity branding, and his ability to consistently generate real news (even if by flap) made him non-dependent on the media, or their approval. By his having shown us the full model for succeeding, we can modify the formula by fielding wealthy-ish liberty candidates with an alpha bent, who have the resolve to fully confront the elite's dogmatic statist framing of issues on government and the cultural war.

If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around, you can't even proves it makes a sound. The people here, myself in particular (I ran a thread in the early going of this campaign in which I summarized the Sunday morning political shows on broadcast television) know full well that they piled coverage on Trump long before any significant number of people were paying any attention to the seventeen candidates, or before any of them emerged as capable of getting more than 1/17th of the vote. So, I know you are wrong about this. First hand.

If an alpha blathers and no one points a camera at him...

You really are not paying attention. The trajectory of Trump's emerging policy on ISIS is about defunding them, not imperialism. Below the surface, as pointed out earlier with the Antiwar.com quotes, Trump appears to be aware that the Obama/Hillary policy was to fund ISIS and other "rebels" in their ongoing quest to remove Assad, and play Sunni radicals against the Shiites in the Mideast. Invading and bombing Syria has been the current Administration's intended goal of conquest, that Trump has opposed.

But Trump hasn't even admitted that ISIS is a U.S. government creation, and his talk (as those of us who actually listen to him, instead of just deifying him know) of cutting off their funding involves preventing them from selling oil. Now. How do we prevent someone who is sitting in an oil field from selling it? Blockade them? Chase them off the oil fields and hold that territory? How is that not imperialism?

Because you say he just wants to cut off their U.S. foreign aid, but everyone else has actually heard him actually say that he wants to cut them off of money from oil sales.

One of Trump's advisers is former DIA head Gen. Michael Snyder, who opposed this very policy of regime change and imperialism. But this gets too complex to fit into a stump speech. So at rallies, he talks about defunding ISIS by taking the oil fields from them, while in office he'll defund ISIS by purging the State Department and Pentagon of the regime changers, and stopping payment on the checks and supplies going to them from the US government. But the policy remains fixed on defunding ISIS, not more Mideast conquest.

You want me to ignore what comes out of Trump's mouth and believe your interpretation of his true intentions, and the evidence you present me with is a certain Gen. Michael Snyder.

The only problem is, I can't find any evidence that there is any such thing as a Gen. Michael Snyder.

 

[alucard13mm]

Honestly I said my argument. I think people who are not full of liberal bias will understand what I mean. Have a good day.

I think if you say something that others dont agree with... you are a trump supporter hehe.

Kinda if you try to argue with someone and they say you are racist to try to discredit or silence you.

Recently there was 2 americans who are recent islamic converts threatening a waitess/resturaunt with threats of gun violence. The husband posted a picture of himself in muslim attire and a rifle on facebook saying hes going to kill some people.

People argue muslims try to kill western people because we bomb their countries. Well, those 2 american converts are not fron countries we are bombing. Hell, i believe the orlando shooter was born in the usa.

How do you explain us born muslims shooting up and blowing up things? Oh? They are treated with suspicion and victimd of racism? Japanese and chinese and many minority groups has been treated poorly, unfairly and victims of racism in the usa. Were there any incidents of japanese or chinese or germand shooting up or blowing things up in the us because they were treated badly?

Usa bombed japan... any japanese or japanede-americand shoot up people in the usa? Usa bombed vietnam... any vietnamese terrorism in usa?

 

[silverhandorder]

I was not aware of american converts to Islam. But I remember there were russian converts to Islam. Point being after they convert to Islam they do unacceptable crimes or try to do these crimes. To have weak people like democrats or people who lean left on this forum to refuse to point out that Islam is a problem only encourages more of this.

If there are people who support Islam and think gays are ok and that terrorist attacks are not acceptable they need to be doing as much fighting as the westerners.

I am not pro war. I don't want people in general to wage war. But peaceful muslims are no different than peaceful democrats and republicans who vote for war. Meaning they are not against the concept of war. Meaning they should be on the front lines at the same rate as democrats and republicans who vote for war. If they are not there it is not a good thing for liberty. Because leftists here will mistaken them to be of the same mind as us. They are not they just cheering for Islamists.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

 

[acptulsa]

I was not aware of american converts to Islam.

Gee, dude, how did you live in America all these years and miss Mohammed Ali?

But I remember there were russian converts to Islam. Point being after they convert to Islam they do unacceptable crimes or try to do these crimes. To have weak people like democrats or people who lean left on this forum to refuse to point out that Islam is a problem only encourages more of this.

If there are people who support Islam and think gays are ok and that terrorist attacks are not acceptable they need to be doing as much fighting as the westerners.

They pop up on television all the time and point out all the Koran verses that denounce and decry violence. Do you just tune them out?

I am not pro war. I don't want people in general to wage war. But peaceful muslims are no different than peaceful democrats and republicans who vote for war. Meaning they are not against the concept of war. Meaning they should be on the front lines at the same rate as democrats and republicans who vote for war. If they are not there it is not a good thing for liberty. Because leftists here will mistaken them to be of the same mind as us. They are not they just cheering for Islamists.

Active duty members of the armed forces are not required to disclose their religion. Nonetheless, and despite the fact that many of their brothers in arms are inclined not to trust Muslims, one quarter of one percent admit to being Muslim.

I don't think that's half bad, myself.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

You want me to ignore what comes out of Trump's mouth and believe your interpretation of his true intentions, and the evidence you present me with is a certain Gen. Michael Snyder.

The only problem is, I can't find any evidence that there is any such thing as a Gen. Michael Snyder.

My bad, his name is Michael Flynn, and here's the evidence, from the current Raimondo column:

The Washington Post, in its mission to debunk every word that comes out of Trump’s mouth, ran an article by Glenn Kessler minimizing the DIA document, claiming that it was really nothing important and that we should all just move along because there’s nothing to see there. He cited all the usual Washington insiders to back up his thesis, but there was one glaring omission: Gen. Michael Flynn, who headed up the DIA when the document was produced and who was forced out by the interventionists in the administration...Gen. Flynn, by the way, is an official advisor to Trump, and is often mentioned as a possible pick for Vice President.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/06/16/something-going-worse-thought/

 

[Ender]

I am going to assume you think this was a domestic hate crime. I don't know why else you would jump in to argue. (edit: acptulsa)

I am also going to ignore that first paragraph completely because I have a different view on what happened and I am not interested in rehashing it here.

What I will do is expand on why I think you, CPUd and moostraks are left leaning.

When a terrorist attack happens. The significant part is the terrorist attack and not the fact that the killer hated gays and that the attack happened in a gay club. Even domestic part is not as important as the terrorist part. To draw attention away from the terrorist aspect is to do disservice to your own country and to the people who believe you. This weakens our response to the said attack.

To claim on a liberty forum that this was a domestic hate crime you stand out. The people who use this language are Obama and Hillary and their supporters.

Why is terrorist aspect more significant than domestic or the hate aspects. First and foremost there is no denial that this was a terrorist attack. He pledged loyalty to ISIS, he went to SA on pilgrimage, they found him with Islamic literature, he was talking about Muslim countries being bombed. If you going to kill 49 people you are going to tell the world why you are doing this. You are not going to be politically correct when you are committing atrocities. He has no reason to hide whether he hates gays or not.

I think the gay aspect is a bonus since Islamists also hate gays. So he was getting 2 for 1. Commit a terrorist attack and also kill people you hate the most. Domestic makes it worse than foreign. Foreign you can beef up borders, you can tell foreigners apart and etc. Domestic means it is much harder to prevent it again. edit: So to expand more when Trump hammers at the fact that democrats and you can't say radical Islam and calls him an afghan he does not dispute the domestic part. What he is doing is saying "Look wtf you let in here!"

I know this doesn't follow your paradigm but here's a video of 200 Muslims praying for the dead in Orlando.



How many Muslims do you personally know? There are many different sects in the Islam religion- just like in Christianity. There have been a few tubes posted of Christians praising the slaughter of the gays in Atlanta. Does that mean all Christians hate gays? Hell, no.

Also- there is too much baloney on this whole shooting thing. Looks like, at the very least, that the guy was set up and/or on meds.

 

[silverhandorder]

This is one event of many that happened. But nice of you to drag your conspiracies in at every opportunity.

Praying means zero. Are prayers going to stop attacks? Are prayers going to put troops into the army?

 

[Ender]

This is one event of many that happened. But nice of you to drag your conspiracies in at every opportunity.

Praying means zero. Are prayers going to stop attacks? Are prayers going to put troops into the army?

LOL- Presume much? I don't drag my conspiracies in at every opportunity.

It just shows you have no argument- belittle and deflect the conversation instead of having decent dialog- that is always the way of someone who is BSing.

Yes, prayer helps; even if you are an atheist, a form of prayer helps bring people together. Sorry, it doesn't conform to your Muslim hate.

 

[acptulsa]

The same Michael Flynn who was, as late as 2010, denying that the anthrax incident was entirely engineered by people within the U.S. government?

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/08/...-intel-iconoclast-departs-dia-with-a-warning/

And you have faith in this sabre-rattler because of Justin Raimondo?

And you call people leftists based on what they read and what language they use, then quote antiwar.com?

 

[silverhandorder]

LOL- Presume much? I don't drag my conspiracies in at every opportunity.

It just shows you have no argument- belittle and deflect the conversation instead of having decent dialog- that is always the way of someone who is BSing.

Yes, prayer helps; even if you are an atheist, a form of prayer helps bring people together. Sorry, it doesn't conform to your Muslim hate.

I don't hate muslims. I just don't delude my self like you on what you are facing.

Prayer is a small contribution vs stopping the terrorist before he starts. Peaceful muslims should be as much invested into the terror war as peaceful republicans and peaceful democrats. In an ideal world all three would be anti war.

 

[RJ Liberty]

Srsly? The champions for supposed free speech are now pimping that folks must get in line with the official narrative to push for moah war or they are liberals? Wt ever loving hell? And when in the hell was it my duty to push the official narrative as it pursues war for service to the country? So now I am to be shamed as an enemy of the state for not embracing the proper narrative? Nice liberty there.

Screw you with your left leaning boogeyman. I am an individualist and want to secede from any political associations with said government which thinks it owns me and mine and I will be damn if I will be told who I am by some ignorant propagandist for an authoritarian.

^^^Comment of the week.

Never understood how RPF folks could support the war-hawks Hillary or Trump.

But to have a long-time RPF member calling for more "troops in the army", and praising the fact that Trump's advisors include Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, who was in charge of Camp Nama when those torturing atrocities were committed... I'm almost speechless.

 

[acptulsa]

Prayer is a small contribution vs stopping the terrorist before he starts. Peaceful muslims should be as much invested into the terror war as peaceful republicans and peaceful democrats. In an ideal world all three would be anti war.

Well, let's see. Peaceful Muslims are being used as human shields and dying alongside CIA-funded ISIS terrorists, while you're playing keyboard warrior in the air conditioning.

More invested in the terror war. Check. What should they do next?

and praising the fact that Trump's advisors include Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, who was in charge of Camp Nama when those torturing atrocities were committed... I'm almost speechless.

Amazing, isn't it? Flynn talks about physically interrogating people, then Raimondo wonders how he got fired...

 

[RJ Liberty]

Amazing, isn't it? Flynn talks about physically interrogating people, then Raimondo wonders how he got fired...

Yeah, well, not so much "amazing" as "ridiculous", but yes. Of course, Justin Raimondo, in that article, does make an excellent point about the Blowback that happened on Michael Flynn's watch.

Ron Paul for years told us of the dangers of Blowback. We keep experiencing blowback, over and over, and the voters never wisen up. "Let's vote for Trump! His official campaign advisor is a general, so we'll be protected from radical Islam!"

 

[Ender]

I don't hate muslims. I just don't delude my self like you on what you are facing.

Prayer is a small contribution vs stopping the terrorist before he starts. Peaceful muslims should be as much invested into the terror war as peaceful republicans and peaceful democrats. In an ideal world all three would be anti war.

Well of course- I agree.

However, until we get a firm understanding that the WoT was started by a "Christian" nation to extract oil from evil "terrorists", we will not be able to get on the correct path to peace.

 

[Ender]

^^^Comment of the week.

Never understood how RPF folks could support the war-hawks Hillary or Trump.

But to have a long-time RPF member calling for more "troops in the army", and praising the fact that Trump's advisors include Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, who was in charge of Camp Nama when those torturing atrocities were committed... I'm almost speechless.

Agree.

It's like "what planet am I on?"