Liberal tactics: From twisting the truth to doxing

[The spartan]

Yeah, I knew I was going to read something like that.
There were exactly zero violent protests against Obama when he was elected into office, and there are numerous here.

Are you serious pulling a "Don't use your liberal academic mind tricks on me!" here? This isn't some kind of convoluted BS, you are literally viewing two events that were different and proudly announcing "I know exactly why this happened!" This is some blunt force confirmation bias here.

As Euripides said, "The language of truth is simple".

So, please, spare me the pathetic excuses (i.e. large variety of explanations).

Yeah, the "I know the truth when I sees it!" does little to raise confidence. Unconvincing, to the say the least.

[Heathen Hammer]

Hahahaha

Yes, it is the media's fault Trump lies. Wanna go over a couple?


Not true in the slightest.

Prove the opposite?

Not true, it actually had a low year.

Again, will need to see some statistics on that one.

The Obama administration mentioned the hacking a month before the election took place. Want to keep playing?

Mentioned how and in what context?

He lies, man, I don't know what to tell you. If you think it is all just part of one big media conspiracy, well, that's sad.

None of the examples you provided prove your point.

You keep saying that like it has a point. Yes, he won with one the most pathetic showing of popular votes in US election history. You aren't contradicting what I am saying.

Irrelevant. Trump won the elections fair and square.
Moving on.

Right, people you consider political opponents and people you feel like you get to define. That is creepy.

No, people that choose to attacks other people and destroy others property. Not my fault its your comrades who do that.

What a sad grab at a non-existent point. I don't know why you mentioned violence, there is plenty of right-wing extremist violence. But, to the original point; if you have stats, post them. If you don't, don't waste my time by saying I should take your word that any anecdote is "widespread".

Again, will need to see some statistics that would prove that.

[ioannis76]

Are you serious pulling a "Don't use your liberal academic mind tricks on me!" here? This isn't some kind of convoluted BS, you are literally viewing two events that were different and proudly announcing "I know exactly why this happened!" This is some blunt force confirmation bias here.

How are they different? We are talking about presidential election results in both cases. In one case there were NO violent events, in the other case there were many.
Are you seriously going to pull the "Dude, you' re a ing white male" here?
The simple fact is that if there were no violent protests during the Obama election, and there were violent protests during the Trump election, then the group supporting Hillary has quite a few members who will violently protest when things don't go their way, which is quite consistent with being a crybully a sore loser and a spoiled special snowflake brat used to having everything their way, which is characteristic of many said supporters.
It doesn't take a major in Womun Studies and a PhD in Microaggressions and the Sexism of Air Conditioners to understand that.
But please, do explain away by means of the "extremely large variety of explanations that can be used to explain that phenomenon".

Yeah, the "I know the truth when I sees it!" does little to raise confidence. Unconvincing, to the say the least.

If it smells like and it looks like , it probably is .

[The spartan]

Prove the opposite?

It is kinda silly you think you can demand proof for a baseless claim. In normal people land, the person making the claim has to provide proof of his claim, not demand proof that his claim is false. But, numbers from the Refugee Processing Center show that we have indeed let in Christian refugees from Syria.

Again, will need to see some statistics on that one.

It was the third lowest year since 1990.

Mentioned how and in what context?

He had a White House press conference. Dude, they talked about it in the final presidential debate, I am pretty sure that was before the election.

None of the examples you provided prove your point.

My point was that Trump communicates false information intentionally, otherwise known as a lie. Then, I gave you an examples of him saying things that he knew weren't true. Seems pretty cut and dry.

Irrelevant. Trump won the elections fair and square.
Moving on.

Ok, let me know when you take your fingers out of your ears and stop saying "LALALALALALALALA".

No, people that choose to attacks other people and destroy others property. Not my fault its your comrades who do that.

My comrades? I am no anarchist. Nor do I approve of property destruction.

Again, will need to see some statistics that would prove that.

Stats that there is 'plenty' of right-wing extremist violence? Well there was the Charleston Church Shooting in 2015 and the abortion clinic shooting in which cop (and two civilians) were killed. That is plenty enough for me, but you are clearly just using this as a red herring so as to not justify your own claims.

[conon394]

There were exactly zero violent protests against Obama when he was elected into office, and there are numerous here.

Thanks for that since exactly zero makes providing a contra list fairly easy I really need just exactly one but since I found a few...

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-h...t-barack-obama
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...d-to-discredit

or yep no violence during ACA town halls either

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpo...turned-to-rage

The language of truth is simple

Says the man standing at the head of foreign mercenary invading his own country... and also mind you per-defending his not so simple case for his actions (if you were an Athenian you might even call it sophism), but whatever. Do you even know the larger scene of the play the line comes from? If not you really should not use a quote from it. Although maybe you do since most people would have tagged it from Seneca.

As Euripides said

Well really wrote but whatever. Funny quoting somebody who would say Hillary won (given context here).

[ioannis76]

LOL, what sort of ravings are these?

Thanks for that since exactly zero makes providing a contra list fairly easy I really need just exactly one but since I found a few...

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-h...t-barack-obama
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...d-to-discredit

The two links you provided are two different links for the same story, or rather fairy tale. The ridiculous spleen center, an extreme-left site of fake news. Some guy was allegedly attacked somewhere (no photos, no police report no nothing), and someone else wrote "white power" on staff memos. Really?!?!?! And that (if it even happened, because other than spleen center's rubbish there seems to be no evidence whatsoever) is the same as all the riots, all the attacks, all the property destruction that took place now. SERIOUSLY?

As for the rest, man, I would advise you to read some history. LOL, Euripides stood at the head of an army invading his own country?!?!?!

Good God!

[conon394]

Ammusing...

As for the rest, man, I would advise you to read some history.

... um, er, advise, since by that you prove you very much have not (read some history or at least not Euripides) else you would have understood my statement.

But allow me to digress, you do realize Euripides was an Athenian play-writer - no?

And seeing as I gave you a hint, you might then consider that your are quoting a line from a play not something the man said. You might infer my reference was that in context of the play your quote is in fact a profound bit of sophism - not a statement of the author. [Aside - Eteocles' statement about simple things is a verbal smokescreen for the real simple fact - that of his naked threat of force not of saying simple things, the simple thing is implied]. Finally you might than infer that I was very much not suggesting Euripides was leading an army.

The two links you provided are two different links for the same story, or rather fairy tale. The ridiculous spleen center, an extreme-left site of fake news. Some guy was allegedly attacked somewhere (no photos, no police report no nothing), and someone else wrote "white power" on staff memos. Really?!?!?! And that (if it even happened, because other than spleen center's rubbish there seems to be no evidence whatsoever) is the same as all the riots, all the attacks, all the property destruction that took place now. SERIOUSLY?

You skipped the 3rd link.

"The ridiculous spleen center" - nice childish name calling.

"an extreme-left site of fake news." I suppose you mean the SPLC, but that does not apply to the The Hill

http://www.allsides.com/news-source/hill

Center Biased (to slight right).

But of course they are biased too correct.

OK how about

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/nyregion/12hate.html

But wait I am sure the NYT just made that up.

[ioannis76]

Evripides was a contemporary of the sophists, and this statement is a statement against the elaborate and intricate arguments that the sophists of his era used in order to support their claims. His plays are didactic in nature.
The elaborate sophistries are unfortunatelly used to this day, and to even greater effect mainly by the liberal media. The effect is greater simply because there is no "other side" as this other side is routinely silenced (ie not even allowed to go on the air). I can show you a recent example of this, if you like, but you have already done so by means of your post:

You skipped the 3rd link.

The third link shows people legally protesting against some of Obama's actions. In which third link video do we see said protesters breaking shop windows, burning cars and attacking people? That's right, in none.
But I would like to note one more thing about the third link:
I was particularly moved by the father protesting about the life of his son in the first video. In which perverse universe is this moving and peaceful protest about specific issues concerning the life of a young man to be "equalised" with stoned idiots breaking shop windows, burning cars and attacking people screaming incoherent slogans about "nazeeeees"?
What sort of person would even think about comparing the two?

[Heathen Hammer]

It is kinda silly you think you can demand proof for a baseless claim. In normal people land, the person making the claim has to provide proof of his claim, not demand proof that his claim is false. But, numbers from the Refugee Processing Center show that we have indeed let in Christian refugees from Syria.

Overwhelming majority of "refugees" weren't Christians thou.

It was the third lowest year since 1990.

Was he referring to year or the month?

He had a White House press conference. Dude, they talked about it in the final presidential debate, I am pretty sure that was before the election.

Um, so? The whole "hacking" thing was a non-issue form the beginning. DNC leaks came from, well, DNC. the whole "russia hacked Hillary to get trump to win" thing has no connection to reality.

My point was that Trump communicates false information intentionally, otherwise known as a lie. Then, I gave you an examples of him saying things that he knew weren't true. Seems pretty cut and dry.

So far most of your examples are either entirely false claims or simply quotes taken out of context.

Ok, let me know when you take your fingers out of your ears and stop saying "LALALALALALALALA".

based on America's electoral system, Trump won fair and square. You don't have an argument here.

My comrades? I am no anarchist. Nor do I approve of property destruction.

Again, don't see an argument here. Yes, I approve of state using lawful violense against people who harm other people and their property.

Stats that there is 'plenty' of right-wing extremist violence? Well there was the Charleston Church Shooting in 2015 and the abortion clinic shooting in which cop (and two civilians) were killed. That is plenty enough for me, but you are clearly just using this as a red herring so as to not justify your own claims.

> Complains about making conclusions based on a limited number of individual cases
> makes a conclusion based on literally two cases
My sides have illegally crossed the border.

[The spartan]

Overwhelming majority of "refugees" weren't Christians thou.

Cool, that wasn't what he said. It wasn't even really close to what he said.

Was he referring to year or the month?

He wasn't referring to any real numbers, that was the point. Also, you are trying to argue he wasn't lying by way of doublespeak, you should reanalyze your position.

Um, so?

I will take this as an admission to his lying.

The whole "hacking" thing was a non-issue form the beginning. DNC leaks came from, well, DNC. the whole "russia hacked Hillary to get trump to win" thing has no connection to reality.

I wasn't discussing the extent of Russia's hacking influencing the election, that is a different topic, I was discussing our president rampantly lying. Don't try to red herring this.

So far most of your examples are either entirely false claims or simply quotes taken out of context.

I don't think any were false claims, and I am guessing you have no idea about the context he was saying these things in, so you are just pandering to your own ignorance. Regardless, those statements were false in and of themselves. When he says he had the "largest electoral college win since Reagan", there is not much context to be had there. It is simply false.

based on America's electoral system, Trump won fair and square. You don't have an argument here.

If my argument had been "Trump didn't win the election" you would have a point. I didn't. My argument was he shouldn't claim mandates (or really boast about how overwhelming his election was) if he lost the populate vote.

Again, don't see an argument here. Yes, I approve of state using lawful violense against people who harm other people and their property.

Well the point here was: don't insinuate I affiliate with anarchists and rioters when I never indicated I was an anarchist or spoke in approval of property destruction.

> Complains about making conclusions based on a limited number of individual cases
> makes a conclusion based on literally two cases
My sides have illegally crossed the border.

Excuse me, what conclusion? You said there was essentially no right-wing violence and I said there was. Then, I posted evidence that there was, and you say I am making a conclusion about some non-existent generalization about right-wingers? I didn't say the majority of right-wing participates in violence or make a generalization; I simply said there is right-wing violence. Stop making strawmen.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I don't think any of these tactics are remotely just the prerogative of liberal groups. Again it appears Trump recently made up some kind of terrorist attack in Sweden.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7588021.html

http://metro.co.uk/2017/02/19/donald...rants-6458185/

'Would you believe it'...well...no...Donald, because it didn't happen. Sweden (as i found from another thread), has demanded officially an explanation from Trump:
http://www.politicususa.com/2017/02/...k-remarks.html

Its interesting too as it seems to be in some ways a culmination of what several of his advisors have been doing in fabricating events purely to legitimize their position and/or to create an atmosphere of fear to disparage any and all opposition and appear as the 'only' answer. This latter part also means they don't even care theoretically about being called out (which they have each time) because its the perception that's important not the truth. Its incredibly weird on many levels.

So in this context, i think we can say their is a LOT and i mean a LOT of stupidity going on from all groups within the political spectrum...the difference here i think is that Trump's 'side' adn the right-wing are the mainstream 'official' one. In a similar vein we in the UK have Theresa May whose been mimicking Trump (as he seems to get away with it), attempting to label the opposition as being filled with 'alternate facts' (this was in PMQ's where Corbyn had literally read word for word a text one of her MP's had mistakenly sent to a Labour MP denoting a very corrupt deal around the Tory constituencies in Sussex (i.e. her own) over preventing an embarrassing referendum defeat by giving them a preferential deal over other local authorities which has not been offered wholesale- corruption and favourtism gone wild). The right-wing are certainly as guilty as any and all others.

Though its important to remember the sheer variety of groups under such a banner as 'liberal' or 'Right-wing', so by no means are we talking blanket usage here. Its something that seems to be fast forgotten currently, its all 'liberals are snowflakes' or 'Conservatives are cucks', 'Left-wingers are day-dreamers' 'Right-wingers are uneducated'. All of which are absolutely stupid.

[Prodromos]

Where was terrorism mentioned in Trump's comment? It was just "look what Sweden is dealing with."

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Hmm, well, I see no mention of terrorism in Trump's comment.

I think in the context of the whole speech he was talking about 'attacks' from countries which took in immigrants.

"We've got to keep our country safe. You look at what's happening in Germany, you look at what's happening last night in Sweden."

The key being 'last night in Sweden', yet there were no attacks last night in Sweden apparently, confirmed by Sweden. So if its not a fabrication, i'm not sure what it could be honestly. As its clearly a reference to a specific situation or event that happened last night in Sweden.

Its made all the more ironic in a way given that in the same rally the 'main stream media' was attacked for purveying 'false news' (i.e. any stories which disparage Trumps position seemingly).

Its also part of a growing trend of out-right lies, such as the now infamous 'Bowling Green Massacre'. This is rather worrying rhetoric coming from an elected government. I'm sure we're all used to 'spin'- something which also should have long been disparage in politics, but to make outright fabrications to support an agenda, knowing they'll get called up, but not caring as their is instead of providing a convincing truth, all that is relied upon is a 'vocal majority' to unquestioningly buy into it and run with it to maintain support and create the correct atmosphere and response.

It makes me wonder whatever happened to critical thinking, among many far-right and some far-left groups. Again though that might be explained by the drumming up of 'anti-intellectualism' being practiced by many (alas it is mostly right-wing governments, though in this context whose to say left leaning versions would be any different if they did get in- or again is that because of the methods used (quite successfully) by some right-leaning groups in the first place- that's a whole other argument of course) in the 'west'. Or to put it in a far more specific manner 'anti-expertism' evidenced in the UK with the weird tabloid led outcry against the Judges who upheld Parliamentary sovereignty against Theresa May's weird 'I command here' fad. Which could be quite convincingly argued that many front-benchers supported seen with the complete silence of the Tory justice minister to actually do her job and defend the legal system and independence of the judiciary, or even explain how things work. We live currently in a very strange world for many reasons. Those being the most worrying for future aspirations of having any open democracy though.

[Prodromos]

I read that by "last night", he was referring to a TV show that talked about crime in Sweden. I think he misspoke. He supposedly has ADHD or something and gets distracted mid-sentence. He does it all the time.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I read that by "last night", he was referring to a TV show that talked about crime in Sweden. I think he misspoke. He supposedly has ADHD or something and gets distracted mid-sentence. He does it all the time.

If so that's one hell of a gaff and/or purposeful use of vagueness. Surely anyone would qualify with 'crime statistics of' or perhaps phrase it any other way than making it sounds like a direct event in Sweden the night before. If it was a case of misspeaking a cynic would fairly perhaps suggest its a very specific choice for misspeaking considering the impact it would and indeed does particularly in the context of the full speech.

More-so when your closet aides/advisers have a proven tendency to fabricate terrorist attacks for just the same kind of context.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I read that by "last night", he was referring to a TV show that talked about crime in Sweden. I think he misspoke. He supposedly has ADHD or something and gets distracted mid-sentence. He does it all the time.

At best the leader of America can't keep his attention through his own speech, and can't understand the difference between what a guest says on Fox News and a news report, and at worst he's a liar. Since this is the third terrorist attack he has invented, I think he's intentionally lying.

[Love Mountain]

I read that by "last night", he was referring to a TV show that talked about crime in Sweden. I think he misspoke. He supposedly has ADHD or something and gets distracted mid-sentence. He does it all the time.

How many times can one be "misspoken" before Conservatives can admit he's inept at his job?

[removeduser_487563287433]

How many times can one be "misspoken" before Conservatives can admit he's inept at his job?

Let's be specific with our language, unlike these guys who use the word leftists for anything they wish to disparage. Conservatives are well inept Trump is inept, potentially kompromat, and a danger to the short and medium term electoral support. The bureaucracy, the GOP and America's anti-Russia allies are all leaking with the express purpose of bringing down or limiting the danger of Trump's administration.

[ioannis76]

Where was terrorism mentioned in Trump's comment? It was just "look what Sweden is dealing with."

Well, a good video about this is this:

Trump and The Truth about Sweden

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1_viPSD-bY

"They took in large numbers, they are having problems they never thought possible". The narrator comments not on what happened in Sweden that night, but what has been happening the past few decades, ie basically Sweden imports rape.

[Love Mountain]

Ah, pathological defense of everything Trump says or does. You guys really missed your calling as Catholic preachers.