TTY: "This is why Trump is everybody's enemy"

An anonymous person sends the link:

"This is why Trump is everybody's enemy" - true-to-you.net
5 February 2017

"This is why Trump is everybody's enemy"

says Morrissey.

http://bfp.org/new-trump-rule-means-animal-labs-hidden/

 

[RU SERIOUS]

Thank you. Another case of a conservative being asked to "disavow" alleged connections to particular extremist groups while progressives are left unchecked.

Sadiq Khan ought to disavow his connections to Islamic extremists, but of course no one would dare ask him to. In fact, it is perfectly all right for him to instruct us that acts of terror ought to just be accepted. Imagine if a major politician came out and said that acts of terror committed by neo-Nazi groups (I'm half laughing here) ought to just be accepted as part of life in a multi-cultural society? Who thinks that would fly?

Maybe you should rethink that career in public relations. Are you equating neo-Nazi groups with conservatives? There is also a bit of a difference between someone who actually works closely with the leader of the free world and some anonymous twitter troll.
And I have to add that while we agree random loonies should not be treated as statistically important, immediately after writing that you follow with some nonsense about SJW's. By seeing anyone with an opinion to the left of your own as a member of a homogeneous group you allow your own thinking process to go unchecked and become less aware and more ignorant. You hear this term "echo chamber" usually applied to liberals, and I'm not saying it's not a real concern, but it's at least as common on the right to the extent that the President will call established sources "fake news" simply because they report on stories and opinions that oppose him and his policies.

 

[Layne]

Maybe you should rethink that career in public relations. Are you equating neo-Nazi groups with conservatives? There is also a bit of a difference between someone who actually works closely with the leader of the free world and some anonymous twitter troll.
And I have to add that while we agree random loonies should not be treated as statistically important, immediately after writing that you follow with some nonsense about SJW's. By seeing anyone with an opinion to the left of your own as a member of a homogeneous group you allow your own thinking process to go unchecked and become less aware and more ignorant. You hear this term "echo chamber" usually applied to liberals, and I'm not saying it's not a real concern, but it's at least as common on the right to the extent that the President will call established sources "fake news" simply because they report on stories and opinions that oppose him and his policies.

I didn't equate conservatives with neo-Nazis. Try reading more carefully. I think stories like these are a waste of time, but I looked into it since you brought it up. The suggestion that Gorka is a neo-Nazi is no more (probably less) valid than the suggestion that Khan is an Islamic extremist.

I will say that Gorka was asked to disavow his associations and Khan was not. Now, Khan shared a stage with a convicted Islamic terrorist and has a number of other troubling connections. He was not asked to disavow these connections, to my knowledge, and certainly not, I would hazard, by a mainstream medium.

Perhaps neither of them have substantial connections to extremists. My point was that one was asked for a disavowal and the other was not, and this is where the partisan bias lies: conservatives are painted as if their connections are insidious, while liberals with potentially (more) insidious connections are left unchecked, and conservatives are asked to disavow such potential connections while liberals are not.

I didn't equate all leftists with SJWs. SJWs, however, are quick to say things like "all Trump supporters hate black people," something I heard this past week. I will say this: it makes one wonder whether the blacks who voted for Trump hate black people as well, and if so, how this all makes any logical sense.

(And to your last point, as an aside, "established" networks like CNN are predominately fake news. Weapons of mass destruction? Cutting off people when they say something disagreeable? "Is Trump afraid of stairs?" CNN and other "established" networks are and have been for years tools to spread propaganda. Read Adorno and Horkheimer's The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception if you want more background, for it is far too much to explain here in brief. There is plenty more to read as well, if you're interested in broadening your understanding.)

 

[Ted Koppel]

I didn't equate conservatives with neo-Nazis. Try reading more carefully. I think stories like these are a waste of time, but I looked into it since you brought it up. The suggestion that Gorka is a neo-Nazi is no more (probably less) valid than the suggestion that Khan is an Islamic extremist.

I will say that Gorka was asked to disavow his associations and Khan was not. Now, Khan shared a stage with a convicted Islamic terrorist and has a number of other troubling connections. He was not asked to disavow these connections, to my knowledge, and certainly not, I would hazard, by a mainstream medium.

Perhaps neither of them have substantial connections to extremists. My point was that one was asked for a disavowal and the other was not, and this is where the partisan bias lies: conservatives are painted as if their connections are insidious, while liberals with potentially (more) insidious connections are left unchecked, and conservatives are asked to disavow such potential connections while liberals are not.

I didn't equate all leftists with SJWs. SJWs, however, are quick to say things like "all Trump supporters hate black people," something I heard this past week. I will say this: it makes one wonder whether the blacks who voted for Trump hate black people as well, and if so, how this all makes any logical sense.

(And to your last point, as an aside, "established" networks like CNN are predominately fake news. Weapons of mass destruction? Cutting off people when they say something disagreeable? "Is Trump afraid of stairs?" CNN and other "established" networks are and have been for years tools to spread propaganda. Read Adorno and Horkheimer's The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception if you want more background, for it is far too much to explain here in brief. There is plenty more to read as well, if you're interested in broadening your understanding.)

"Shared a stage with" isn't really the same as joining an organization. You're not saying anything specific but I really doubt that you have information that the Mayor of London is an Islamic extremist.

 

[Layne]

"Shared a stage with" isn't really the same as joining an organization. You're not saying anything specific but I really doubt that you have information that the Mayor of London is an Islamic extremist.

I never claimed to. Straight over your head I guess. But if a politician of Irish background told us that IRA attacks are "just a part of life in a big city," I believe that would suffice in defining him, at least, as a terrorist sympathizer.

 

[AztecCamera]

Reckon there's gonna be some trouble at the next Malibu-Zuma personal training power walk session. Reckon me would love to see a fight between Uncle Steve and John Lydon.

The Sex Pistols and Donald Trump have a lot in common, according to Johnny Rotten.

Rotten, whose real name is John Lydon, defended the president against the "left-wing media in America are trying to smear" Trump.

"The Donald. He's a complicated fellow," the rocker said on "Good Morning Britain" Monday. "As one journalist once said to me, is he the political Sex Pistol?"

Rotten, who holds American citizenship, agrees Trump shares the Sex Pistol's anti-establishment qualities.

"There's many, many problems with him as a human being but he’s not [racist] and there just might be a chance something good will come out of that situation because he terrifies politicians," Rotten shared. "This is joy to behold for me. Dare I say, [he could be] a possible friend."

 

[Quando quando quando]

Reckon there's gonna be some trouble at the next Malibu-Zuma personal training power walk session. Reckon me would love to see a fight between Uncle Steve and John Lydon.

The Sex Pistols and Donald Trump have a lot in common, according to Johnny Rotten.

Rotten, whose real name is John Lydon, defended the president against the "left-wing media in America are trying to smear" Trump.

"The Donald. He's a complicated fellow," the rocker said on "Good Morning Britain" Monday. "As one journalist once said to me, is he the political Sex Pistol?"

Rotten, who holds American citizenship, agrees Trump shares the Sex Pistol's anti-establishment qualities.

"There's many, many problems with him as a human being but he’s not [racist] and there just might be a chance something good will come out of that situation because he terrifies politicians," Rotten shared. "This is joy to behold for me. Dare I say, [he could be] a possible friend."

"Non-racist" traitors of the working class.
Both.

 

[Ted Koppel]

I never claimed to. Straight over your head I guess. But if a politician of Irish background told us that IRA attacks are "just a part of life in a big city," I believe that would suffice in defining him, at least, as a terrorist sympathizer.

What are you claiming? If you can't state it directly without using hypotheticals then maybe it is over my head. Maybe it only exists in your own mind. I don't know because you won't say what you're actually alleging. You want to make this conversation about the Mayor of London which might be tangential but is still relevant enough. So what exactly are you saying?

 

[U WOT M8]

"Non-racist" traitors of the working class.
Both.

I'm not happy about John Lydon calling Trump a possible friend but that's very different than making some statement of support for his policies. Calling Lydon a traitor to the working class? I don't think so.
What I get from his Trump statement is more of a philosophy where "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
He seems to see Trump as upsetting to the political establishment and the mass media, and those are solid points which explain much of Trump's appeal in my opinion. Trump's personal problems, ethical issues, and willingness to appeal to and encourage hatred against targeted groups; these are the issues I'd have to hear more about and I'd hope Lydon wouldn't fall back on "all politicians are criminals so why hold Trump to a higher standard," as so many of his supporters do.

 

[caramel sea salt]

What are you claiming? If you can't state it directly without using hypotheticals then maybe it is over my head. Maybe it only exists in your own mind. I don't know because you won't say what you're actually alleging. You want to make this conversation about the Mayor of London which might be tangential but is still relevant enough. So what exactly are you saying?

He is saying, very clearly, that Conservatives are asked to "disavow" alleged connections to particular extremist groups while progressives are left unchecked, citing Sadiq Khan as an example (for the latter). You’re welcome, Judge Judy / Dr Phil / Ted Koeppel / advice animals. (Is this an example of your great rhetoric which you win debates with?)

Now, Sadiq Khan was asked about his connections to terrorist organisations. To the point of obsession. Londoners apparently found that he didn’t sympathise with extremism and that his past encounters (it is hard to imagine a successful, liberal Muslim politician who, as he advanced from his neighbourhood to the national stage, never crossed paths with extremists) didn’t affect his suitability to be mayor. Londoners elected him because he had a better campaign, was the better candidate and - this is where Derek17 is sort of of right - he isn’t a Tory.

 

[Judge Judy]

He is saying, very clearly, that Conservatives are asked to "disavow" alleged connections to particular extremist groups while progressives are left unchecked, citing Sadiq Khan as an example (for the latter). You’re welcome, Judge Judy / Dr Phil / Ted Koeppel / advice animals. (Is this an example of your great rhetoric which you win debates with?)

Now, Sadiq Khan was asked about his connections to terrorist organisations. To the point of obsession. Londoners apparently found that he didn’t sympathise with extremism and that his past encounters (it is hard to imagine a successful, liberal Muslim politician who, as he advanced from his neighbourhood to the national stage, never crossed paths with extremists) didn’t affect his suitability to be mayor. Londoners elected him because he had a better campaign, was the better candidate and - this is where Derek17 is sort of of right - he isn’t a Tory.

Haha! That must have stung when I told you Derek17 was better at rhetoric than you are if you're still bringing it up weeks later. The truth is that he is though so I'd prefer if he answered the question himself. For all of your ability to see things "very clearly" it seems you missed the point. I want to know exactly what charge he is making about Sadiq Khan. He "shared the stage with extremists" and wasn't asked to disavow them. But then he said that he wasn't saying the Mayor of London is an Islami extremist. He wants to imply it but when I asked if that's what he means he said it's over my head and started talking about the IRA. He's still more coherent than you are but he's "very clearly" playing games with words so I want to know what exactly he is saying about Sadiq Khan. Thanks for trying but once again you leave me disappointed.

 

[caramel sea salt]

LMAO

 

[Sad Clown]

LMAO