|
Post by Angelo on Dec 5, 2016 2:52:56 GMT -5
China is collapsing. Three of the largest financial collapses in the world in just as many years. Shanghai and Hong Kong are more legit capitalist societies than the US or Canada, and are pressing for the country to go that way. Pro-democracy politicians have now actually taken seat in China recently too! China needs the US multitudes more than the US needs China. China has but one thing we need, REE mines. If the US can strike a good deal with Canada for their new one in Nebraska, then we have no need for China then. One of Trump's selling points was he wasn't going to put up with China's all bark no bite bullshit anymore.
The power players in this world are not who they were for the last few decades. They are the ones that are gonna survive the internal collapses that are happening. Right now that seems to be the US, Canada, UK, Italy, Germany/France both iffy, Australia/NZ, and probably one or two of the new states that'll be formed when China breaks up. China as we know it, Russia, they are done for, they can't remain how they are. Globalization is the future, the funny thing is, it won't come about because of the Democrats/Liberal/Globalist movement, it is gonna come from the Conservatives.
With the EU falling apart, and people saying that kills Globalism, it shows how corrupt or lack of knowledge they have about how things work in reality. The EU has been one of the biggest things holding back globalism because it played restricted favoritism
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 2:56:09 GMT -5
While I don't know a whole lot about the issue, and I'd kind of like to know more, I wouldn't say we should go along with them, but I'd say they'd be a dangerous rival to have so I'd probably assume we are better off not getting in the middle between China and one of their greatest rivals. Also, getting owned in a debate doesn't necessarily mean you can't have an intelligent perspective on what's going on in the world. Maddow isn't a shill because she can't debate. She's a shill because her facts are twisted and shouting them out doesn't make her right. I would guess that a lot of her facts are correct at times. Or at least not more incorrect than lots of other reporters, also those who are right wing. I love how so many conservatives say shit like "don't believe the liberal media!"...hell, there's a sign 2 miles from my house that says that at a gas station obviously owned by right wingers...but somehow they act like the "conservative media" is not something which also tries to spin facts their own way. Whatever. I have to go to bed. Later man.
|
|
|
Post by Fasthands25 on Dec 5, 2016 3:05:45 GMT -5
Mr. Hold I must ask. Was MathisHard your alt?
And also, have you heard the new Darkthrone album? I've heard its a return to form for them and might pick it up.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Dec 5, 2016 3:08:40 GMT -5
Mr. Hold I must ask. Was MathisHard your alt? And also, have you heard the new Darkthrone album? I've heard its a return to form for them and might pick it up. MathIsHard used legit sources, he just had viewpoints that took a very different path than many here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 3:13:48 GMT -5
Mr. Hold I must ask. Was MathisHard your alt? And also, have you heard the new Darkthrone album? I've heard its a return to form for them and might pick it up. No I am definitely not Math Is Hard lol. I've NEVER had an alternate account on weekly. One reason you can believe me is everyone knows I am clueless with computers lol. I'm not sure I'd know how to make an alternate account if I tried. No I haven't heard the new DT album. I'd like to though. I especially love their album F.O.A.D. I love blackened crust and they do it well on that. Do you dig blackened crust or crust punk? There's lots of good bands that do it like Wolvhammer, Dishammer, Disfear, Iskra, Martyrdod, Skitsystem, Stormcrow Lots of good old crust punk and D-beat too like Doom, Aus Rotten, Disrupt, Discharge, etc Blackened grindcore is even better though. I posted a bunch of vids of blackened grind bands like a few months ago but you never said whether or not you liked them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 3:15:08 GMT -5
Mr. Hold I must ask. Was MathisHard your alt? And also, have you heard the new Darkthrone album? I've heard its a return to form for them and might pick it up. MathIsHard used legit sources, he just had viewpoints that took a very different path than many here. Even if I wasn't able to find a direct quote, my SOURCES are fine in terms of publications. Anyone who says The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC are not legit sources...yeah, I don't know what you are talking about. Those are all WAY better sources than Breitbart.
|
|
|
Post by Fasthands25 on Dec 5, 2016 3:17:14 GMT -5
From what I have heard their newest album is basically straight up black metal. Their recent stuff is okay, but I've always loved their black metal stuff so I am happy they are going back to their bread and butter. Them and Bathory are my favourite bands of all time.
Fuckin seeing Maybem in a few months. My buddy knows the people who set up concerts locally here so there is a pretty decent chance I'll be partying with Mayhem after the show.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Dec 5, 2016 3:38:05 GMT -5
MathIsHard used legit sources, he just had viewpoints that took a very different path than many here. Even if I wasn't able to find a direct quote, my SOURCES are fine in terms of publications. Anyone who says The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC are not legit sources...yeah, I don't know what you are talking about. Those are all WAY better sources than Breitbart. None of those are sources. They report from sources, which in this case is Cuckoo for Cocoa Cocoa Puffs Duerte.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 4:30:51 GMT -5
Then what are the actual sources?
The people who said these things or what?
You don't get much more legit than The New York fucking Times.
Cause if those aren't then you can't claim Breitbart is either.
Shit, I should be asleep but I don't have work tomorrow anyways, but this will be my last post tonight.
For me with this story the thing is this:
Yes, in fact we only know that Duerte SAYS these things are what Trump said, not direct quotes from Trump.
But here's how I feel about it and why I believe Trump actually said these things:
Although we actually have a few papers here saying this was what went down, from the Times to CNN to Yahoo sports, in particular The New York Times is and has been since it's beginning one of the most legit news sources not just in America but the entire fucking world.
The New York Times and people who write for it have a reputation for being legit and reporting the truth and they've gained that reputation for a reason.
They are widely respected and people have come to know that if you read story in the Times it's fucking legit and not a joke.
So...
As you guys are putting it, there IS no story here AT ALL, except that Duerte and Trump TALKED, but that's ALL we know (hey how do we even know they talked AT ALL?? I mean do you accept that much??), that we have no clue what was said because we have no direct quotes or a recording right??
I mean as you guys seem to believe, they might not even have talked AT ALL or maybe they talked about their favorite brands of cereal right?? (I was influenced by Jackal's Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs quote lol)...
Maybe they talked about how they like kittens right??
That's what you guys think, that the New York Times would report that these things were said with ZERO evidence that they were right??
I mean the "story" that Duerte and Trump talked on the phone but we have ZERO evidence of what they said is NOT a story at all.
The Times reported on it because their writers obviously STRONGLY believed in the CONTENT of their material, not just that they talked, but that this is what was said between the two of them.
If the writers of The Times REALLY didn't believe Trump said what they say, and only that they simply spoke and Duerte CLAIMED Trump said this, they would never have reported on it at all.
I fully do not believe The New York Times would have written a story amounting to nothing more than "Trump and Duerte talked and Duerte SAYS that Trump said this and that, but have ZERO proof that he said it".
I actually think that IF the writers of The Times had reason to feel that they didn't have solid proof Trump said this shit they'd probably actually say in the article that this was reportedly what was said but we have reason to be skeptical about it...I think they'd have been critical enough to say something along those lines, but they didn't.
And they didn't say it because one of the most legit news sources in the world BELIEVES THIS IS ACTUALLY WHAT TRUMP SAID.
They would never have written the story if they'd didn't fully believe Trump said these things as it would be a non-story and they'd look stupid.
They wrote the story because they believe that the true story is that Trump said he supported Duerte's actions, NOT simply that they talked and Duerte SAYS this is what Trump said, but in all reality we have no reason to believe what he said is true.
So OBVIOUSLY the writers of The New York Times believe that Trump ACTUALLY said these things to Duerte, NOT just that they fucking talked and Duerte CLAIMS this is what was said.
And while yes, these writers are fallible, The New York Times has a pretty impressive history of reporting the truth and they clearly believed that what Duerte says Trump said is actually true, not simply that he CLAIMS he said those things, but that in fact he probably didn't.
So in the end, what you guys are saying is "we don't think the writers of The New York Times, one of the most reputable news sources in the world, actually have any good reason to believe Duerte really said these things, that they just hate Trump and are out to get him, that they are a joke, that their story has ZERO credibility and that the writers who put themselves out their reporting this story are all wrong.
That they had no story at all other than that they talked, and that there's ZERO reason to believe Trump REALLY said what Duerte said he said.
That all you guys really know better than the writers of The New York Times.
Because do ANY of you believe they'd have put the story out if they REALLY didn't think Trump said these things??
I really don't believe they would have.
I mean MAYBE they'd have thought it was just a great story that he MIGHT have said these things, but honestly I think they'd have reported on it with a little more openly honest skepticism than they did instead of reporting it with the CLEAR and strong suggestion that Trump ACTUALLY said these things.
They wrote the story cause they believe Trump said these things and that is their story: not that Duerte CLAIMS they said these things, but that they have ACTUAL reason to believe that Trump said them.
So call me crazy, but I think The New York Times reported on this for a reason, and that the writers are not completely clueless, that they wrote the story because they believe Trump to have actually said these things, and FOR ME, that gives the story some amount of credibility because The Times has a shitload of credibility as a paper.
But you guys clearly think they are just biased idiots who hate Trump and have no basis for clearly stating that they believe this is what he said.
So coming from a source as credible as The Times, I believe they'd have never written the story at all if the only story was that Duerte CLAIMS Trump said these things but they didn't believe he did.
And the fact that the writers of The New York Times clearly ACTUALLY believe Trump said these things, TO ME, that gives the story a lot of actual credibility, and I tend to believe more likely than not, that if The New York Times decided the story was worth reporting on, that there's at least a SIGNIFICANTLY good chance that Trump ACTUALLY said these things.
|
|
|
Post by boboplata on Dec 5, 2016 4:42:20 GMT -5
Times is not the barometer for truth. You are too hang up on "brands" of media. I'm not saying they're lying but I will never take any news source-MSM or alternative-as gospel.
Also:
TOEHOLD! THE NY TIMES AND TRUMP ARE AT ODDS WITH EACH OTHER. THE NY TIMES TRIED TO SAVE FACE FROM ITS SUBSCRIBERS BY ISSUING AN (NON)APOLOGY LETTER TO THEM.
THE NY TIMES IS TRASH!
|
|
|
Post by boboplata on Dec 5, 2016 4:45:58 GMT -5
MathIsHard used legit sources, he just had viewpoints that took a very different path than many here. Even if I wasn't able to find a direct quote, my SOURCES are fine in terms of publications. Anyone who says The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC are not legit sources...yeah, I don't know what you are talking about. Those are all WAY better sources than Breitbart. What makes you say that? After they leaked debate questions to Hillary? Admitted to destroying Trump's image & supporters? How can you say that those agencies that you wrote are fair? At least Breitbart checks their facts. Not the "Landslide victory prediction for Hillary!". Breitbart just tries to balance wave after wave of leftist news coming from Salon, Huffington, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Dec 5, 2016 4:57:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Dec 5, 2016 5:09:51 GMT -5
Well idiot toehold is awl panty twisted over possible praise for Dutuere, who kills drug dealers without a trial, while Odumba and the rest of the liberals praise Fidel fucking Castro.
Oh, and what about Mandela? want to talk about him?
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Dec 5, 2016 5:33:48 GMT -5
Well idiot toehold is awl panty twisted over possible praise for Dutuere, who kills drug dealers without a trial, while Odumba and the rest of the liberals praise Fidel fucking Castro. Oh, and what about Mandela? want to talk about him? I don't remember him defending Castro or Mandela's mass killings....
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on Dec 5, 2016 5:46:31 GMT -5
Well idiot toehold is awl panty twisted over possible praise for Dutuere, who kills drug dealers without a trial, while Odumba and the rest of the liberals praise Fidel fucking Castro. Oh, and what about Mandela? want to talk about him? I don't remember him defending Castro or Mandela's mass killings.... Right. I'll be sure to differentiate between guys who praise Hitler, and the guys who defend death camps.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 8:09:24 GMT -5
This thread is an awesome look at the microcosm that is the American voter. Unfortunately Toehold is the poster child for the uninformed public. The fact that he doesn't even know what a source is, is troubling, but common. The fact that he would take a story and run with it simply because a big brand reported it is troubling, but common.
I don't care about the little liberal vs. conservative pissing match being contested here. I care much more about the naive, uninformed populous. I wouldn't care so much about it, except that they don't know that they are these things, so they try to have a political opinion. That is disconcerting.
Both sides have a whole lot of "my choice of media said xyz so it must be true", when in reality, media all over the place will tell you whatever they want. Reporters have the right to protect their sources....which means they can make shit up willy nilly and then credit it to an unnamed source. And the American public will gobble it up if it falls in line with what they already want to believe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 8:17:09 GMT -5
Jesus Christ, how do you not comprehend this? Duarte is the only source, CNN is just quoting Duarte, CNN hates trump, there is not one shred of fact that trump said any of this. This might be the most hollow argument I have ever been involved in. You have no evidence that trump agrees, likes or respects him... but you have convinced yourself that he is trumps mentor on drug enforcement. How can your vote count the same as mine? Does The New York Times also "hate Trump"?
Um, well, yes indeed Toehold, they do. How stupefyingly naive' of you to ask.
This is where I stopped reading this hilarious thread.
Ya gotta love Toehold; he spouts more alarmist, unfounded slander than any other SJW out there, usually from the hallowed halls of ivory-tower academia.
It's nice to know he's still quite satisfied with how "intelligent" and well-informed he thinks he is. Let's be kind and not inform him otherwise. It seems almost cruel somehow.
It's something to truly marvel at. This is what Garth is talking about when he expounds upon the effectiveness of propaganda. He's right of course....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 8:30:07 GMT -5
And yes, I'm one of the NYTimes subscribers who angrily cancelled my subscription in late October. It's amusing to read that my instincts were correct, when I indeed hoped that thousands of others followed suit.
It's OK to be a liberal newspaper when you restrict it to the editorial page and allow that viewpoint to influence the focus of the articles being written. But what the NYTimes was doing this entire election cycle was straight-up biased reporting to the point of character assassination.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 9:55:20 GMT -5
This thread is hilarious.
I really like the way they operate their trains in Europe. I know Trump does too. He thinks they are doing it right. Does that mean that Trump is going to be able to implement the European system in America? No it doesn't. The DEA will not be given carte blanche to just start offing anyone they think is on drugs, or selling drugs without due process.
The libs are losing their minds. Get your mind back Toehold.
Trump is only going to be the President. He will not:
Make Muslim internment camps. Start killing people who are "on drugs". Start ordering our military to kill civilians associated with terrorists. Respark the "drug war" in any way that tramples state's rights.
Every little chance the media has to put another rock in the shoes of the liberals, the media takes it, and the liberals scream like someone is shooting them despite really, it's just an annoying pebble in your shoe. Stop letting the media put pebbles in your shoes, Toehold.
|
|
|
Post by hammerfaust on Dec 5, 2016 10:02:09 GMT -5
How many people are you guys talking about?
Dutuere, Duerte, Duterte...?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 10:19:37 GMT -5
See what happens when the general public reads huff, salon, slate and politico?
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Dec 5, 2016 10:19:44 GMT -5
toehold:
wikileaks proved to everyone the mainstream media in the US was colluding and exaggerating on a routine basis when it came to Trump. It was proven. Here you are running with a narrative from an unworthy source that is obviously again misleading the reader and spinning it out of context. Dude, seriously? If this is how you form an opinion than you have to understand why you are being criticized. We don't actually know what Trump said and this guy Duterte is intentionally polarizing so he can get his 15 minutes of national exposure.
This is like when jackel makes up a lie and then claims his cousin's friend knows the congressmen's daughters babysitter and spits out x,y,z. It's fabricated/exaggerated without any way to validate.
|
|
|
Post by MMAJim on Dec 5, 2016 11:07:55 GMT -5
Toehold told me that he "agrees that pedophiles should be given a yearly stipend for child porn to keep their urges in check"
Look at that! Direct quote from Toehold!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 11:12:49 GMT -5
Wait, where did toehold say that at? It's as if Jackel made that up...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 12:50:27 GMT -5
Toehold told me that he "agrees that pedophiles should be given a yearly stipend for child porn to keep their urges in check"Look at that! Direct quote from Toehold! Funny, and also an excellent example why there are strict rules in courts of law regarding "hearsay".
Anyway, I sympathize sooo much with the TS that I've got something for him, straight from his ivory-tower world:
|
|
|
Post by Norcalkyle2 on Dec 5, 2016 14:07:02 GMT -5
This thread is an awesome look at the microcosm that is the American voter. Unfortunately Toehold is the poster child for the uninformed public. The fact that he doesn't even know what a source is, is troubling, but common. The fact that he would take a story and run with it simply because a big brand reported it is troubling, but common. Couldn't have said it better myself... there is a huge percentage of our country that can't/won't even question stories like this...yet their vote equals that of an educated person??? This is like Harry Reid saying mitt Romney doesn't pay any yaws, then half the country is convinced that it is true... and then when it comes out that it was a complete lie, those same people can't have their minds changed. Unfortunately I think this way of forming opinions is only going to get worse given the makeup of the current younger generations.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Dec 5, 2016 18:38:28 GMT -5
You see Elizabeth Warren on the Anderson Cooper show Friday? Same shit. How many times can you get the words "bigotry, white supremacy, and racism" out of your mouth in 2 min? Ready . . . GO!!!! It was kind of embarrassing. Get some new material, guys. Good god. Anderson even called her on some of it. It's an Onion article come to life. It's also a big part of the reason they just lost huge swaths of state legislature, congressional, and presidential power across the nation. So, response? Re-hire Pelosi and double-down on -ism and -phobic social justice war drums. I'm gonna mow down an entire family of polar bears in a homicidal hail of machine gun fire the next time i hear someone say xenophobic .
|
|
|
Post by boboplata on Dec 5, 2016 18:55:24 GMT -5
I applaud the herculean efforts of oc and tony to be as polite as possible itt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 21:34:04 GMT -5
Times is not the barometer for truth. You are too hang up on "brands" of media. I'm not saying they're lying but I will never take any news source-MSM or alternative-as gospel. Also: TOEHOLD! THE NY TIMES AND TRUMP ARE AT ODDS WITH EACH OTHER. THE NY TIMES TRIED TO SAVE FACE FROM ITS SUBSCRIBERS BY ISSUING AN (NON)APOLOGY LETTER TO THEM. THE NY TIMES IS TRASH! Bobo, The NY times is one of the most reputable papers in the world. Please expound upon this? Saying something like this slightly lessens my opinion of your opinions...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 21:39:12 GMT -5
You guys are all indoctrinated by Trump. These are MULTIPLE sources saying this went down. Yes, we don't in fact have it PROVEN Trump said all this yet, but multiple sources have reason to believe it's true. I was talking to an older, more educated friend of mine who agrees you are all being idiots here. He pointed out that the Times has to back up it's sources and they can't report just anything they want and agreed this article would never have been posted if it the only news was that they spoke but we have no confirmation what was said. OBVIOUSLY someone else heard the conversation, particularly Duterte's aid who wrote it all down, but you guys have to believe that unless you hear it from TRUMP's OWN MOUTH he didn't say this shit. And he asked me to ask you guys this: IF this ends up not being true, won't Trump deny that it took place?? YES he would right??
So I'll be waiting as I'm sure all you will. He WON'T deny it, because this is what went down, reported also by the TImes and Breitbart.
You guys are poster children for those indoctrinated by a cult leader. Here's a source you'll trust, your beloved Breitbart. www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/12/02/philippines-duterte-donald-trump-exchange-first-phone-conversation/And a video Time Magazine. time.com/4589202/donald-trump-rodrigo-duterte-invite/One thing is for SURE, he HAS invited Duterte to the U.S. both Washington and NY, and IF THE MEETING HAPPENS...it confirms they are on good relations, hence that this convo probably went down as purported.
|
|