[#FakeHate] 'Vote Trump' vandalism, fire at Mississippi church

[Superfluous Man]

I've got an open mind. But I am genuinely puzzled.

So here is my question for Zippy. Could you explain exactly why you started this thread?

I can't answer for Zippy.

But the story does one of two things. Either it reflects poorly on Trump supporters, or it reflects poorly on Hillary supporters. Either way, it's fine by me.

 

[JohnM]

I can't answer for Zippy.

But the story does one of two things. Either it reflects poorly on Trump supporters, or it reflects poorly on Hillary supporters. Either way, it's fine by me.

Of course it could have been a false flag attack by Gary Johnson supporters who knew that it would reflect badly on Trump or Hillary supporters, or both.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Of course it could have been a false flag attack by Gary Johnson supporters who knew that it would reflect badly on Trump or Hillary supporters, or both.

That too would be worthy of dissemination.

 

[JohnM]

That too would be worthy of dissemination.

 

[Valli6]

Or - it might just be a church-connected arsonist looking for an insurance payoff, and they included the political message just to drive suspicion away from themselves.

Seriously, assuming the motive can only be political is rather narrow-minded.

Since the crime does nothing to benefit Trump, I'd guess it was not committed by a Trump-supporter.

 

[JohnM]

Or - it might just be a church-connected arsonist looking for an insurance payoff, and they included the political message just to drive suspicion away from themselves.

Seriously, assuming the motive can only be political is rather narrow-minded.

Since the crime does nothing to benefit Trump, I'd guess it was not committed by a Trump-supporter.

All very true.

Except, of course that not all Trump supporters are particularly rational, and it is certainly within the bounds of possibility that a Trump supporter (or possibly 2 or 3 Trump supporters) committed the crime under the influence of alcohol or some other drug.

 

[Ender]

That answer assumes that the church fire was not a false flag attack.

I don't know whether it was a false flag attack or not. Nor does anyone else here. We probably all have guesses - some may be certain that it was a Trump supporter who did it, some may be certain that it was a false flag attack, but most of us are probably somewhere in between. To me (and what do I know?), it's probably about 50/50.

You would appear to be assuming (sorry if I am wrong) that Zippy thinks it was not false flag. But I don't know that, which is why I am asking Zippy.

You raise the bigger question of "counter balancing" and "showing both sides".

In order to know what the real picture is, I think there are at least four questions that need to be answered - and which I have no answers to:

1) Are attacks by Clinton supporters much more common than attacks by Trump supporters, or is it the other way around, or are they both about equally frequent?

2) Are attacks by Clinton supporters generally different in character to attacks by Trump supporters?

3) Are false flag attacks more common by anti-Trump people or anti-Clinton people - or is there little difference?

4) Does media reporting accurately represent what is happening with regard to these attacks - or does the media give a misleading impression that favors one side?

Personally, I don't think there are "2 sides". I think both candidates are feeding from the same trough.

And, yes, false flags are definitely possible- keeps ignorant voters up in arms.

As far as violence both sides have their moments and both sides can be prevaricators. At the Trump Chicago fiasco, it was actually Trump supporters that started the fighting mess and Clinton supporters were blamed.

I am sure that this is fairly even for both sides.

The Blame Game is YUGE this season.

 

[UWDude]

You tell me.

You are the one trying to feed it to me. How should I take it?

 

[Ender]

You are the one trying to feed it to me. How should I take it?

I try to go by The Five Agreements; the Fifth Agreement is where I stand on this:

THE FIVE AGREEMENTS


BE IMPECCABLE WITH YOUR WORD
Speak with integrity. Say only what you mean. Avoid using the word to speak against yourself or to gossip about others. Use the power of your word in the direction of truth and love.


DON’T TAKE ANYTHING PERSONALLY
Nothing others do is because of you. What others say and do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream. When you are immune to the opinions and actions of others, you won’t be the victim of needless suffering.


DON’T MAKE ASSUMPTIONS
Find the courage to ask questions and to express what you really want. Communicate with others as clearly as you can to avoid misunderstandings, sadness, and drama. With just this one agreement, you can completely transform your life.


ALWAYS DO YOUR BEST
Your best is going to change from moment to moment; it will different when you are healthy as opposed to sick. Under any circumstance, simply do your best, and you will avoid self-judgment, self-abuse, and regret.


BE SKEPTICAL, BUT LEARN TO LISTEN
Don’t believe yourself or anybody else. Use the power of doubt to question everything you hear: Is it really the truth? Listen to the intent behind the words, and you will understand the real message.

 

[Superfluous Man]

Since the crime does nothing to benefit Trump, I'd guess it was not committed by a Trump-supporter.

Yes. This reasoning does work. But the kind of Trump supporter who would do this is not one who would think that through.

 

[RJB]

Since the crime does nothing to benefit Trump, I'd guess it was not committed by a Trump-supporter.

Unless it was done by a very stupid Trump supporter.

 

[UWDude]

I try to go by The Five Agreements; the Fifth Agreement is where I stand on this:
.

been here 9 years, still don't know zippy. Still giving him the benefit of the doubt. Goody for you.

Enjoy your bullspit. Take it with a five pronged fork. Ill pass.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Wrong. Unless the perpetrators are caught there's no way of knowing which side did it.

You have to either be dumb or lying to assume one side is responsible, like you did.

Which is it?

Or, you could watch the undercover investigation where Clinton's team ADMIT to this type of crap. Go watch the Project Veritas videos.

 

[LibertyEagle]

 

[CPUd]

Or, you could watch the undercover investigation where Clinton's team ADMIT to this type of crap. Go watch the Project Veritas videos.

This one is probably correct. Burning churches is not part of the MAGA agenda, it was most likely done by the parishioners for the insurance money, on the orders of the Clinton campaign.

 

[Madison320]

Or, you could watch the undercover investigation where Clinton's team ADMIT to this type of crap. Go watch the Project Veritas videos.

Exactly. I had that in mind when I first responded.

 

[Madison320]

Zippy always posts different POVs to show both sides.

Anyone who is really looking for truth should appreciate this- saves a lot of time and both sides are essential to figuring out what's really going on.

I've never seen Zippy post anything that supports republicans, but I mostly read posts in the Economic section. Over there it's 100% spin to make democrats look good.

Last week there was one entitled "Economy Roars Back! GDP 2.9%!"

 

[TommyJeff]

$20 bucks says it's a liberal that did it, because if history is an indicator I will win $20. And the media always reports it like it's never happened before.

im sure the email or undercover video will be made public in half a decade proving you to be exactly right

 

[CaseyJones]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-Trump%92-burning-of-Mississippi-black-church

 

[UWDude]

Aaaand it was exactly who we thought it was, a member of the church doing a false flag.
More crow for the fools. Shit is obvious by now. No trump supporter would spray paint "vote trump" on the side of the church.