(02-02-2017 09:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's less than two weeks in and I have given up any hope that I had that Trump could turn on a switch and start acting presidential, at least when it comes to thinking through his tweets.

Just this morning he started a tiff with Australia over some stupid refugee deal (1,250 asylum seekers would be sent from Australia to the US) and threatened to pull federal funding from Berkley, all because a group of anarchists took advantage of a peaceful protest over a speaker on campus. This was a speaker that the university put a statement out about that supported the right for him to be there as a guest of a club on campus - yet Trump doesn't read enough to realize that and thinks Berkley was the driving force for cancelling the event.

He's not batting .000, but he's fast losing chances to win over any moderates. He needs handlers and fast. As I said before, unqualified for the job.

The film clips from Berkeley are disturbing. I agree that the University isn't to blame, and labeling it a peaceful protest that anarchists took over might have a ring of truth.

But liberals would go ballistic if one guy at a Trump rally threw a punch. This sure looked a lot worse to me.

Interesting article from WaPo re: using big data to measure television media coverage on certain topics.

Might be behind a paywall? Not sure - tends to depend on what browser I'm using.

Anyway, it definitely supports the idea that certain stations give more play to certain stories and use different terminology (e.g., "illegals" vs. "illegal immigration" or "Affordable Care Act" vs. "Obamacare"). Still doesn't really answer the question of "media bias" because there's no objective baseline with which to compare (e.g., How many times a minute should a station mention Hillary's e-mails?), and doesn't quantify the effect "media bias" might have on the political process (for instance, who's actually watching these stations? Is it "swing" voters who might be affected by any "bias," or is it party-line voters who are already devotees of MSNBC or Fox or whatever?).

(02-02-2017 10:13 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 09:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's less than two weeks in and I have given up any hope that I had that Trump could turn on a switch and start acting presidential, at least when it comes to thinking through his tweets.

Just this morning he started a tiff with Australia over some stupid refugee deal (1,250 asylum seekers would be sent from Australia to the US) and threatened to pull federal funding from Berkley, all because a group of anarchists took advantage of a peaceful protest over a speaker on campus. This was a speaker that the university put a statement out about that supported the right for him to be there as a guest of a club on campus - yet Trump doesn't read enough to realize that and thinks Berkley was the driving force for cancelling the event.

He's not batting .000, but he's fast losing chances to win over any moderates. He needs handlers and fast. As I said before, unqualified for the job.

The film clips from Berkeley are disturbing. I agree that the University isn't to blame, and labeling it a peaceful protest that anarchists took over might have a ring of truth.

But liberals would go ballistic if one guy at a Trump rally threw a punch. This sure looked a lot worse to me.

This was way worse than the Trump rallies. The key difference is the anarchists in Oakland are a well known group that has a long history of this. You'll notice that the only people being violent in the videos have their faces covered and are wearing all black.

Same thing happened with the protests during the inauguration. The rioting was all pretty much work of anarchists. Now, during other parts of the campaign it wasn't.

The refugee deal was also a swap. We were sending the same number of refugees from Central America to them. I have no idea why this deal was struck in the first place (considering the Australian refugee camps in Papua New Guinea are complete shitholes), but it seems fair from a high level perspective. I'm sure it will eventually happen.

(02-01-2017 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 02:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 02:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 02:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 02:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Per the article:


This is the first sentence from Spencer's website's article:


And near his last:

I only see a cult leader interpreting things the way he wants to see them. But if Trump is antiJewish, it will show up in the way he treats Israel. I think Netanyahu is hopeful.

Well, remember that Bannon is likely playing a big role. The same guy who has said things like:

Quote:At one, Westland School, Bannon's ex-wife said he "asked the director why there were so many Chanukah books in the library."

Then after the couple toured Willows Community School, she said he "asked me if it bothered me that the school used to be in a Temple. I said no and asked why he asked . . . he did not respond."

Regarding another academy, The Archer School for Girls, the ex-wife claimed Bannon "went on to say the biggest problem he had with Archer is the number of Jews that attend. He said that he doesn't like Jews and that he doesn't like the way they raise their kids to be 'whiney brats' and that he didn't want the girls going to school with Jews."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-ele...ex-n638731

I will wait and see how Trump deals with Israel. That will be the proof of antisemitism or not. I expect it will be a relief after Obama. How some fringe cult leader in God-knows-where takes it is not the definer.

The guy you're trying to pass off as a small-name cult-leader from God-knows-where is not that - he is one of the founders/leaders of the alt-right movement that so fervently supported Trump.

Heck, Richard Spencer is well known enough that him getting punched made national news: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/w...r-punched/

But I understand the desire to minimize who he is.

I don't know who he is, have never heard of him. Kind of presumptive of you to assume I know who he is and to think I WANT to minimize him. I guess you think i am just plotting for a white America. But white supremicists in general are small groups, and i don't follow them.

(02-02-2017 12:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 02:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 02:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 02:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I only see a cult leader interpreting things the way he wants to see them. But if Trump is antiJewish, it will show up in the way he treats Israel. I think Netanyahu is hopeful.

Well, remember that Bannon is likely playing a big role. The same guy who has said things like:

Quote:At one, Westland School, Bannon's ex-wife said he "asked the director why there were so many Chanukah books in the library."

Then after the couple toured Willows Community School, she said he "asked me if it bothered me that the school used to be in a Temple. I said no and asked why he asked . . . he did not respond."

Regarding another academy, The Archer School for Girls, the ex-wife claimed Bannon "went on to say the biggest problem he had with Archer is the number of Jews that attend. He said that he doesn't like Jews and that he doesn't like the way they raise their kids to be 'whiney brats' and that he didn't want the girls going to school with Jews."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-ele...ex-n638731

I will wait and see how Trump deals with Israel. That will be the proof of antisemitism or not. I expect it will be a relief after Obama. How some fringe cult leader in God-knows-where takes it is not the definer.

The guy you're trying to pass off as a small-name cult-leader from God-knows-where is not that - he is one of the founders/leaders of the alt-right movement that so fervently supported Trump.

Heck, Richard Spencer is well known enough that him getting punched made national news: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/w...r-punched/

But I understand the desire to minimize who he is.

I don't know who he is, have never heard of him. Kind of presumptive of you to assume I know who he is and to think I WANT to minimize him. I guess you think i am just plotting for a white America. But white supremicists in general are small groups, and i don't follow them.

OO, you're reaching there with the implications of what I was presuming.

The issue was you calling him some form of cult leader when he has a much wider audience. He is similar to David Duke or Milo Yiannopoulos it terms of name recognition and reach - he is not some Jim Jones type character brain-washing a select group of individuals.

Basically, there has been enough news about him that he now has name recognition, and while you may not recognize who he is, he is not some nobody. There is no issue with you not knowing him, but instead of just stating you hadn't heard of him, you went further and tried to minimize his reach and influence by falsely claiming he was "fringe cult leader in God-knows-where."

I did not think your minimization of Spencer had anything to do with your personal beliefs and ideas, just that it makes sense to minimize the importance of a hate-monger associated with the side of the political spectrum you lean to. The same would be said about someone who said a similar thing about say, Al Sharpton who is a race baiter.

(02-02-2017 12:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 12:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 02:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 02:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Well, remember that Bannon is likely playing a big role. The same guy who has said things like:


http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-ele...ex-n638731

I will wait and see how Trump deals with Israel. That will be the proof of antisemitism or not. I expect it will be a relief after Obama. How some fringe cult leader in God-knows-where takes it is not the definer.

The guy you're trying to pass off as a small-name cult-leader from God-knows-where is not that - he is one of the founders/leaders of the alt-right movement that so fervently supported Trump.

Heck, Richard Spencer is well known enough that him getting punched made national news: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/w...r-punched/

But I understand the desire to minimize who he is.

I don't know who he is, have never heard of him. Kind of presumptive of you to assume I know who he is and to think I WANT to minimize him. I guess you think i am just plotting for a white America. But white supremicists in general are small groups, and i don't follow them.

OO, you're reaching there with the implications of what I was presuming.

The issue was you calling him some form of cult leader when he has a much wider audience. He is similar to David Duke or Milo Yiannopoulos it terms of name recognition and reach - he is not some Jim Jones type character brain-washing a select group of individuals.

Basically, there has been enough news about him that he now has name recognition, and while you may not recognize who he is, he is not some nobody. There is no issue with you not knowing him, but instead of just stating you hadn't heard of him, you went further and tried to minimize his reach and influence by falsely claiming he was "fringe cult leader in God-knows-where."

I did not think your minimization of Spencer had anything to do with your personal beliefs and ideas, just that it makes sense to minimize the importance of a hate-monger associated with the side of the political spectrum you lean to. The same would be said about someone who said a similar thing about say, Al Sharpton who is a race baiter.

Well, I didn't know who he is, who he leads, how many they are, and still don't know where they are from. I really don't consider him associated with my political beliefs, any more than (I assume) you consider Raul Castro associated with your political beliefs.

this is the thought that offends me:
"But I understand the desire to minimize who he is".

because you are generally a good guy, I presumed that it was inadvertent. But now you are doubling down on it.

I don't know the name of the leader of the KKK or Westboro Baptist, so I will have no reason to minimize who they are.

I presume you are equally unaware of the names of some of the far left leaders.

I consider all white supremacists to be fringe and cult. I don't like them being associated with me in any way, nor do I agree with them in any way. Being conservative is not the same as being racist, although I hear that a lot.

I had no ulterior motive in calling him a fringe cult leader. Seems apropos.

Completely bizarre behavior, even for Trump, with Australia.

I would not particularly like President Pence, and would vehemently disagree with him on most things. I think some of his views are outright unhinged. But he would be much much better than Trump.

http://www.vox.com/world/2017/2/2/144835...alia-calls

(02-02-2017 01:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 12:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 12:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 02:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I will wait and see how Trump deals with Israel. That will be the proof of antisemitism or not. I expect it will be a relief after Obama. How some fringe cult leader in God-knows-where takes it is not the definer.

The guy you're trying to pass off as a small-name cult-leader from God-knows-where is not that - he is one of the founders/leaders of the alt-right movement that so fervently supported Trump.

Heck, Richard Spencer is well known enough that him getting punched made national news: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/w...r-punched/

But I understand the desire to minimize who he is.

I don't know who he is, have never heard of him. Kind of presumptive of you to assume I know who he is and to think I WANT to minimize him. I guess you think i am just plotting for a white America. But white supremicists in general are small groups, and i don't follow them.

OO, you're reaching there with the implications of what I was presuming.

The issue was you calling him some form of cult leader when he has a much wider audience. He is similar to David Duke or Milo Yiannopoulos it terms of name recognition and reach - he is not some Jim Jones type character brain-washing a select group of individuals.

Basically, there has been enough news about him that he now has name recognition, and while you may not recognize who he is, he is not some nobody. There is no issue with you not knowing him, but instead of just stating you hadn't heard of him, you went further and tried to minimize his reach and influence by falsely claiming he was "fringe cult leader in God-knows-where."

I did not think your minimization of Spencer had anything to do with your personal beliefs and ideas, just that it makes sense to minimize the importance of a hate-monger associated with the side of the political spectrum you lean to. The same would be said about someone who said a similar thing about say, Al Sharpton who is a race baiter.

Well, I didn't know who he is, who he leads, how many they are, and still don't know where they are from. I really don't consider him associated with my political beliefs, any more than (I assume) you consider Raul Castro associated with your political beliefs.

this is the thought that offends me:
"But I understand the desire to minimize who he is".

because you are generally a good guy, I presumed that it was inadvertent. But now you are doubling down on it.

I don't know the name of the leader of the KKK or Westboro Baptist, so I will have no reason to minimize who they are.

I presume you are equally unaware of the names of some of the far left leaders.

I consider all white supremacists to be fringe and cult. I don't like them being associated with me in any way, nor do I agree with them in any way. Being conservative is not the same as being racist, although I hear that a lot.

I had no ulterior motive in calling him a fringe cult leader. Seems apropos.

OO, again, I think you're misconstruing what I'm saying and perhaps the tone came across harsher than necessary - I didn't really think you had an ulterior motive in the way it seems like you're suggesting. I don't think that your comments about Spencer had any air of racism to them (like I said already).

I understand that you don't like Spencer and his ilk being associated with you in anyway, and that is why I said I understood why you were minimizing who he was - because, in essence, you don't believe he is your type of conservative. And while you don't think he is associated with your political party, the reality is that he has latched himself onto your side of the spectrum and he and those he represents have become not only emboldened since the inauguration of Trump, but they have become a fairly loud voice in politics. Therefore, whether your like it or not, when these alt-right wackos start posting their hateful crap, your side of the political divide has to deal with it unless it is fervently denounced by the party as a whole. And it's especially bad when their ideas/beliefs start oozing their way into Trump's actions, as they are. Heck, just look at what David Duke said:

Quote:‘Everything I’ve been talking about for decades is coming true and the ideas I’ve fought for have won. #winning’

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/david-d...2017-02-01


As I said, it's not different than how fringe liberal groups get lumped into the Dems, even though they rarely represent the mainstream liberal identity.

Or perhaps it is just a semantics issue. I could agree with a characterization of Spencer and the alt-right as a fringe element on the right, but they are no cult. These guys are politically active and are trying to push an agenda of hate and racial superiority into our politics - cult leaders don't get political.

(02-02-2017 10:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 01:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 12:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 12:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The guy you're trying to pass off as a small-name cult-leader from God-knows-where is not that - he is one of the founders/leaders of the alt-right movement that so fervently supported Trump.

Heck, Richard Spencer is well known enough that him getting punched made national news: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/w...r-punched/

But I understand the desire to minimize who he is.

I don't know who he is, have never heard of him. Kind of presumptive of you to assume I know who he is and to think I WANT to minimize him. I guess you think i am just plotting for a white America. But white supremicists in general are small groups, and i don't follow them.

OO, you're reaching there with the implications of what I was presuming.

The issue was you calling him some form of cult leader when he has a much wider audience. He is similar to David Duke or Milo Yiannopoulos it terms of name recognition and reach - he is not some Jim Jones type character brain-washing a select group of individuals.

Basically, there has been enough news about him that he now has name recognition, and while you may not recognize who he is, he is not some nobody. There is no issue with you not knowing him, but instead of just stating you hadn't heard of him, you went further and tried to minimize his reach and influence by falsely claiming he was "fringe cult leader in God-knows-where."

I did not think your minimization of Spencer had anything to do with your personal beliefs and ideas, just that it makes sense to minimize the importance of a hate-monger associated with the side of the political spectrum you lean to. The same would be said about someone who said a similar thing about say, Al Sharpton who is a race baiter.

Well, I didn't know who he is, who he leads, how many they are, and still don't know where they are from. I really don't consider him associated with my political beliefs, any more than (I assume) you consider Raul Castro associated with your political beliefs.

this is the thought that offends me:
"But I understand the desire to minimize who he is".

because you are generally a good guy, I presumed that it was inadvertent. But now you are doubling down on it.

I don't know the name of the leader of the KKK or Westboro Baptist, so I will have no reason to minimize who they are.

I presume you are equally unaware of the names of some of the far left leaders.

I consider all white supremacists to be fringe and cult. I don't like them being associated with me in any way, nor do I agree with them in any way. Being conservative is not the same as being racist, although I hear that a lot.

I had no ulterior motive in calling him a fringe cult leader. Seems apropos.

OO, again, I think you're misconstruing what I'm saying and perhaps the tone came across harsher than necessary - I didn't really think you had an ulterior motive in the way it seems like you're suggesting. I don't think that your comments about Spencer had any air of racism to them (like I said already).

I understand that you don't like Spencer and his ilk being associated with you in anyway, and that is why I said I understood why you were minimizing who he was - because, in essence, you don't believe he is your type of conservative. And while you don't think he is associated with your political party, the reality is that he has latched himself onto your side of the spectrum and he and those he represents have become not only emboldened since the inauguration of Trump, but they have become a fairly loud voice in politics. Therefore, whether your like it or not, when these alt-right wackos start posting their hateful crap, your side of the political divide has to deal with it unless it is fervently denounced by the party as a whole. And it's especially bad when their ideas/beliefs start oozing their way into Trump's actions, as they are. Heck, just look at what David Duke said:

Quote:‘Everything I’ve been talking about for decades is coming true and the ideas I’ve fought for have won. #winning’

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/david-d...2017-02-01


As I said, it's not different than how fringe liberal groups get lumped into the Dems, even though they rarely represent the mainstream liberal identity.

Or perhaps it is just a semantics issue. I could agree with a characterization of Spencer and the alt-right as a fringe element on the right, but they are no cult. These guys are politically active and are trying to push an agenda of hate and racial superiority into our politics - cult leaders don't get political.

OK. I can understand the desire to maximize who he is.

(02-02-2017 10:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 10:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 01:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 12:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 12:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't know who he is, have never heard of him. Kind of presumptive of you to assume I know who he is and to think I WANT to minimize him. I guess you think i am just plotting for a white America. But white supremicists in general are small groups, and i don't follow them.

OO, you're reaching there with the implications of what I was presuming.

The issue was you calling him some form of cult leader when he has a much wider audience. He is similar to David Duke or Milo Yiannopoulos it terms of name recognition and reach - he is not some Jim Jones type character brain-washing a select group of individuals.

Basically, there has been enough news about him that he now has name recognition, and while you may not recognize who he is, he is not some nobody. There is no issue with you not knowing him, but instead of just stating you hadn't heard of him, you went further and tried to minimize his reach and influence by falsely claiming he was "fringe cult leader in God-knows-where."

I did not think your minimization of Spencer had anything to do with your personal beliefs and ideas, just that it makes sense to minimize the importance of a hate-monger associated with the side of the political spectrum you lean to. The same would be said about someone who said a similar thing about say, Al Sharpton who is a race baiter.

Well, I didn't know who he is, who he leads, how many they are, and still don't know where they are from. I really don't consider him associated with my political beliefs, any more than (I assume) you consider Raul Castro associated with your political beliefs.

this is the thought that offends me:
"But I understand the desire to minimize who he is".

because you are generally a good guy, I presumed that it was inadvertent. But now you are doubling down on it.

I don't know the name of the leader of the KKK or Westboro Baptist, so I will have no reason to minimize who they are.

I presume you are equally unaware of the names of some of the far left leaders.

I consider all white supremacists to be fringe and cult. I don't like them being associated with me in any way, nor do I agree with them in any way. Being conservative is not the same as being racist, although I hear that a lot.

I had no ulterior motive in calling him a fringe cult leader. Seems apropos.

OO, again, I think you're misconstruing what I'm saying and perhaps the tone came across harsher than necessary - I didn't really think you had an ulterior motive in the way it seems like you're suggesting. I don't think that your comments about Spencer had any air of racism to them (like I said already).

I understand that you don't like Spencer and his ilk being associated with you in anyway, and that is why I said I understood why you were minimizing who he was - because, in essence, you don't believe he is your type of conservative. And while you don't think he is associated with your political party, the reality is that he has latched himself onto your side of the spectrum and he and those he represents have become not only emboldened since the inauguration of Trump, but they have become a fairly loud voice in politics. Therefore, whether your like it or not, when these alt-right wackos start posting their hateful crap, your side of the political divide has to deal with it unless it is fervently denounced by the party as a whole. And it's especially bad when their ideas/beliefs start oozing their way into Trump's actions, as they are. Heck, just look at what David Duke said:

Quote:‘Everything I’ve been talking about for decades is coming true and the ideas I’ve fought for have won. #winning’

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/david-d...2017-02-01


As I said, it's not different than how fringe liberal groups get lumped into the Dems, even though they rarely represent the mainstream liberal identity.

Or perhaps it is just a semantics issue. I could agree with a characterization of Spencer and the alt-right as a fringe element on the right, but they are no cult. These guys are politically active and are trying to push an agenda of hate and racial superiority into our politics - cult leaders don't get political.

OK. I can understand the desire to maximize who he is.

Tomato, tomato.

I can't believe people have forgotten the Bowling Green Massacre already.

Never forget!

(02-03-2017 11:16 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I can't believe people have forgotten the Bowling Green Massacre already.

Never forget!

Ha!

Luckily Kellanne "Alternative Facts" Conway said that she misspoke, but the damage is done. And for an administration already drowning in criticism over truthfulness, you would think they would want to be getting every little detail right.

Regardless, she again tried to play the woe is us card about the media not covering that story, but it was covered by major media outlets (ex: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2-iraqis-in-...rrorism/). The difference was Obama didn't completely stop all Iraqi immigration so there was not the same outcry.

http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/03/bowling...-massacre/

(02-03-2017 11:16 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I can't believe people have forgotten the Bowling Green Massacre already.

Never forget!

I am shocked and saddened by Frederick Douglass' silence on this grave matter.

(02-03-2017 11:16 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I can't believe people have forgotten the Bowling Green Massacre already.

Never forget!

Also for those denying that it ever happened:

(02-03-2017 12:21 PM)WestGrayStreetOwl Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 11:16 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I can't believe people have forgotten the Bowling Green Massacre already.

Never forget!

Also for those denying that it ever happened:

Bowling Green deniers!

(02-03-2017 12:24 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 12:21 PM)WestGrayStreetOwl Wrote:  

(02-03-2017 11:16 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  I can't believe people have forgotten the Bowling Green Massacre already.

Never forget!

Also for those denying that it ever happened:

Bowling Green deniers!

Please tell me that Bowling Green plays on a grass field. I mean, they have to, right?

(02-02-2017 11:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 10:13 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 09:01 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It's less than two weeks in and I have given up any hope that I had that Trump could turn on a switch and start acting presidential, at least when it comes to thinking through his tweets.

Just this morning he started a tiff with Australia over some stupid refugee deal (1,250 asylum seekers would be sent from Australia to the US) and threatened to pull federal funding from Berkley, all because a group of anarchists took advantage of a peaceful protest over a speaker on campus. This was a speaker that the university put a statement out about that supported the right for him to be there as a guest of a club on campus - yet Trump doesn't read enough to realize that and thinks Berkley was the driving force for cancelling the event.

He's not batting .000, but he's fast losing chances to win over any moderates. He needs handlers and fast. As I said before, unqualified for the job.

The film clips from Berkeley are disturbing. I agree that the University isn't to blame, and labeling it a peaceful protest that anarchists took over might have a ring of truth.

But liberals would go ballistic if one guy at a Trump rally threw a punch. This sure looked a lot worse to me.

This was way worse than the Trump rallies. The key difference is the anarchists in Oakland are a well known group that has a long history of this. You'll notice that the only people being violent in the videos have their faces covered and are wearing all black.

Same thing happened with the protests during the inauguration. The rioting was all pretty much work of anarchists. Now, during other parts of the campaign it wasn't.

OK.

So we can point out that white supremacists seemed to be more likely to support Trump.

And we can point out that destructive anarchists seem more likely to support anti-Trump rallies?

(02-02-2017 12:46 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2017 12:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 03:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 02:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-01-2017 02:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Well, remember that Bannon is likely playing a big role. The same guy who has said things like:


http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-ele...ex-n638731

I will wait and see how Trump deals with Israel. That will be the proof of antisemitism or not. I expect it will be a relief after Obama. How some fringe cult leader in God-knows-where takes it is not the definer.

The guy you're trying to pass off as a small-name cult-leader from God-knows-where is not that - he is one of the founders/leaders of the alt-right movement that so fervently supported Trump.

Heck, Richard Spencer is well known enough that him getting punched made national news: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/w...r-punched/

But I understand the desire to minimize who he is.

I don't know who he is, have never heard of him. Kind of presumptive of you to assume I know who he is and to think I WANT to minimize him. I guess you think i am just plotting for a white America. But white supremicists in general are small groups, and i don't follow them.

OO, you're reaching there with the implications of what I was presuming.

The issue was you calling him some form of cult leader when he has a much wider audience. He is similar to David Duke or Milo Yiannopoulos it terms of name recognition and reach - he is not some Jim Jones type character brain-washing a select group of individuals.

Basically, there has been enough news about him that he now has name recognition, and while you may not recognize who he is, he is not some nobody. There is no issue with you not knowing him, but instead of just stating you hadn't heard of him, you went further and tried to minimize his reach and influence by falsely claiming he was "fringe cult leader in God-knows-where."

I did not think your minimization of Spencer had anything to do with your personal beliefs and ideas, just that it makes sense to minimize the importance of a hate-monger associated with the side of the political spectrum you lean to. The same would be said about someone who said a similar thing about say, Al Sharpton who is a race baiter.

Or minimizing anarchists associating with the protestors of the other side of the political spectrum?

If it's fair to say, I can't control the anarchists who show up when we have our tea and scones (and I think it is).

It's also fair to say that the vast majority of Trump supporters (I am NOT one, just to reiterate, but think demonization on either side is counterproductive) are not white supremacists who have no control over the few who do show up at Trump rallies.

The reason OO and I and most people haven't heard of Spencer, et al, is because the vast majority of Americans (conservative, moderate and liberal) have no knowledge or ties to white supremacist organizations. I understand the fear of that element. But it is an extreme minority. Exposes of the Klan in the last 20 years reveal how small, fragmented and weak the organization is.

I think anarchists are in an extreme minority as well.

I will say this, however small they are, their actions make for disturbing video. Let's talk about violent reactions. Spencer gets punched in face on video (that's the guy, right? - I saw the video), versus fire, destruction of property and rioting.

(02-02-2017 05:02 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Completely bizarre behavior, even for Trump, with Australia.

I would not particularly like President Pence, and would vehemently disagree with him on most things. I think some of his views are outright unhinged. But he would be much much better than Trump.

http://www.vox.com/world/2017/2/2/144835...alia-calls

Hard to argue with that.

I keep hoping for some moderation in tone, and some willingness to listen to advisors (other than yes-men).