American Politics: Becoming Pro-Russia?

[MisterDom]

This might be a bit late, but regardless...

Russia has been a controversial state throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, extending to even today. There's been a lot of panic within the country with their illegal interference in the election, but that's not the main discussion topic I wish to address, though SHOULD be addressed. That's a huge deal. I'll bring it up in this post, but that's only a detail in the big picture.

Though technically the Cold War is over, I feel like it is almost universally accepted that we are in a SECOND Cold War. Putin and Russia has been aggressive to the "Near-Abroad" states with its strong irredentist views (best example being the Crimean annexation), and Putin's control of the Russian media is that of a dictator. Russia has increasingly been becoming its former Soviet-self and it has been a danger to democracies all over the world.

And yet, President-Elect Donald Trump has expressed multiple times his liking toward Putin and Russia. We see it in his Secretary of State pick and his ties to Russia and Putin's own obsession with getting Trump elected. His once (I assume) previously hawkish supporters like this new idea, and of course everyone is going to want tensions to die down, but this is potentially, almost certainly, a very dangerous path.

Geopolitically, our nations are the complete opposite. For example, in the Syrian Civil War Russia backs a dictator who is also a criminal of international human rights law. This is most obviously demonstrated with his brutal direct use of Russian Air Force against the rebels in Aleppo to help Assad, which has caused the city to fall. We continue to back the rebels because they stand for regime change in Syria.

Russia is best buds with Iran, the majority Shi'ite Muslim state. We're buds with Saudi Arabia, a majority Sunni Muslim state. Conflicts between these two Middle Eastern powers are present within their influence in places such as Yemen, which is also currently in a civil war.

Russia is somewhat buds with North Korea, the place you would make up if you were really high, but then look at the internet and find out it's a very real and very dangerous place. We're buds with South Korea, which is a normal prospering democracy, and is all nice and dandy other than a recent impeachment of their president.

May I continue?

Russia nowadays is supportive of dictatorship and is power-hungry themselves. They are ANTI-Democracy and ANTI-West. Do you think they really really just reeeaaally wanted tension to die down and interfere with the election by helping Trump, or wanted a buffoon who obviously doesn't know what he's talking about and doesn't know any history of our current foreign policy, therefore giving him the advantage for the next 4 years? Trump has already pissed off China in his transition, and he literally wanted to get rid of NATO for a reason that's true, yes, but not a legit enough reason imo to significantly weaken one of the most powerful shackles to Russian dominance.

And back to the Middle East, how are we supposed to be friends with Russia without being friends with Iran? Do we forget about Israel and Saudi Arabia? Setting up democracy elsewhere? What about China's aggression in the South China Sea which Russia supports? Do we forget about Japan?

It arises a big number of problems, and being "friends" isn't exactly so straightforward. It's good to lessen tensions, but to be submissive to Russian aggression is completely the wrong way to go. The current sanctions on Russia are there for a reason.

I have a whole web of questions for Trump supporters currently, but for now, why do some of you think being friends with Russia is a good thing?

 

[Dilan Omer]

This might be a bit late, but regardless...

Russia has been a controversial state throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, extending to even today. There's been a lot of panic within the country with their illegal interference in the election, but that's not the main discussion topic I wish to address, though SHOULD be addressed. That's a huge deal. I'll bring it up in this post, but that's only a detail in the big picture.

Though technically the Cold War is over, I feel like it is almost universally accepted that we are in a SECOND Cold War. Putin and Russia has been aggressive to the "Near-Abroad" states with its strong irredentist views (best example being the Crimean annexation), and Putin's control of the Russian media is that of a dictator. Russia has increasingly been becoming its former Soviet-self and it has been a danger to democracies all over the world.

And yet, President-Elect Donald Trump has expressed multiple times his liking toward Putin and Russia. We see it in his Secretary of State pick and his ties to Russia and Putin's own obsession with getting Trump elected. His once (I assume) previously hawkish supporters like this new idea, and of course everyone is going to want tensions to die down, but this is potentially, almost certainly, a very dangerous path.

Geopolitically, our nations are the complete opposite. For example, in the Syrian Civil War Russia backs a dictator who is also a criminal of international human rights law. This is most obviously demonstrated with his brutal direct use of Russian Air Force against the rebels in Aleppo to help Assad, which has caused the city to fall. We continue to back the rebels because they stand for regime change in Syria.

Russia is best buds with Iran, the majority Shi'ite Muslim state. We're buds with Saudi Arabia, a majority Sunni Muslim state. Conflicts between these two Middle Eastern powers are present within their influence in places such as Yemen, which is also currently in a civil war.

Russia is somewhat buds with North Korea, the place you would make up if you were really high, but then look at the internet and find out it's a very real and very dangerous place. We're buds with South Korea, which is a normal prospering democracy, and is all nice and dandy other than a recent impeachment of their president.

May I continue?

Russia nowadays is supportive of dictatorship and is power-hungry themselves. They are ANTI-Democracy and ANTI-West. Do you think they really really just reeeaaally wanted tension to die down and interfere with the election by helping Trump, or wanted a buffoon who obviously doesn't know what he's talking about and doesn't know any history of our current foreign policy, therefore giving him the advantage for the next 4 years? Trump has already pissed off China in his transition, and he literally wanted to get rid of NATO for a reason that's true, yes, but not a legit enough reason imo to significantly weaken one of the most powerful shackles to Russian dominance.

And back to the Middle East, how are we supposed to be friends with Russia without being friends with Iran? Do we forget about Israel and Saudi Arabia? Setting up democracy elsewhere? What about China's aggression in the South China Sea which Russia supports? Do we forget about Japan?

It arises a big number of problems, and being "friends" isn't exactly so straightforward. It's good to lessen tensions, but to be submissive to Russian aggression is completely the wrong way to go. The current sanctions on Russia are there for a reason.

I have a whole web of questions for Trump supporters currently, but for now, why do some of you think being friends with Russia is a good thing?

Your view of Russia is pretty insanse

What kind of propoganda do you digest? Russia and China buddies? Russia and NK allies? Where the **** do you get your information.

China and Russia havent been buds since Mao and Stalin had beef.

 

[MisterDom]

Your view of Russia is pretty insanse

What kind of propoganda do you digest? Russia and China buddies? Russia and NK allies? Where the **** do you get your information.

China and Russia havent been buds since Mao and Stalin had beef.

I think you need to update yourself on some of this stuff. Russia and China currently have a military alliance and, of course, are good trading and business partners, which is why they're able to survive with increased international sanctions. Mao actually didn't like the Soviet leaders after Stalin, but Chinese and Russian relations have increased after the fall of the USSR.

Russia has increased relations with North Korea as well and has paid off a lot of their debt for some business deals. They're one of the few countries that has interacted with North Korea on a couple of occasions.

So why should we be Pro-Russia again? You didn't explain why...

 

[lady_sky skipper]

Valdimir Putin is a known human rights violator, and tried to hack the 2016 election. (Although I don't know if it actually succeeded.) If Putin is removed from power and Russia gets a better leader then it would be okay to be pro-Russia but not right now.

 

[bboss]

Valdimir Putin is a known human rights violator, and tried to hack the 2016 election

Granted. Putin has violated human rights, and this is horrible, but I haven't heard any concrete proof that he tried to hack the election. Something that many people may not know is that Buzzfeed started the rumour that Russia hacked the election. So you'll certainly excuse me if I don't believe the media when it claims Russia hacked the election.

 

[MisterDom]

Granted. Putin has violated human rights, and this is horrible, but I haven't heard any concrete proof that he tried to hack the election. Something that many people may not know is that Buzzfeed started the rumour that Russia hacked the election. So you'll certainly excuse me if I don't believe the media when it claims Russia hacked the election.

I mean, you have several intelligence agencies like the CIA and FBI that confirmed it as well: that both the DNC and RNC were hacked. Putin might've ordered the operation himself, and the Russians leaked the info trying to expose the DNC to WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks admitted themselves a lot of their content was given by Russian intelligence.

There's also a reason that a competitive dictator-like opponent to the United States might try to influence an election. Whether you agree with Trump's policy or not, the undeniable fact was that Clinton was far more experienced and clever when it came to governing. If he, Putin, wanted to lead and compete with the United States, it would be much easier to do so against or with an inexperienced and new underdog that didn't know a ton about government, policy, or very specific history, and/or manipulate him if the dossier proves true.

 

[lady_sky skipper]

Granted. Putin has violated human rights, and this is horrible, but I haven't heard any concrete proof that he tried to hack the election. Something that many people may not know is that Buzzfeed started the rumour that Russia hacked the election. So you'll certainly excuse me if I don't believe the media when it claims Russia hacked the election.

I myself think we need more proof if the Russian hackers actually swayed the election, so I'm going to wait and see on this.

 

[bboss]

I mean, you have several intelligence agencies like the CIA and FBI that confirmed it as well: that both the DNC and RNC were hacked.

State the sources.

People take everything the media says literally.

The media had no proof of this.

And considering it was started by buzzfeed makes it even fishier. This is why I don't trust the mainstream media.

 

[MisterDom]

State the sources.

People take everything the media says literally.

The media had no proof of this.

And considering it was started by buzzfeed makes it even fishier. This is why I don't trust the mainstream media.

I think an official joint intelligence report by U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is enough proof for me.

Here's the official report:

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

News is news. Buzzfeed isn't always a reliable source, and can often be biased, but there's proof that Russians hacked the DNC and RNC. Also, not all forms of 'mainstream' media are biased, such as The Hill (they literally just say what's going on. If there's an opinion involved, they clearly indicate it as well), and no form of mainstream media is as biased as any form of independent media, whether it be The Young Turks or Alex Jones or Secular Talks or PragerU.

 

[bboss]

I think an official joint intelligence report by U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is enough proof for me.

Here's the official report:

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

News is news. Buzzfeed isn't always a reliable source, and can often be biased, but there's proof that Russians hacked the DNC and RNC. Also, not all forms of 'mainstream' media are biased, such as The Hill (they literally just say what's going on. If there's an opinion involved, they clearly indicate it as well), and no form of mainstream media is as biased as any form of independent media, whether it be The Young Turks or Alex Jones or Secular Talks or PragerU.

Yes, the report clearly states that there was a hack in 2015 and one in Spring 2016. The only problem is it does not mention Russia by name, it literally could have been me and my friend who performed the hack. APT 29 could be me. You never know...

Seriously though, all it says is that there was a hack. It does not state, "Beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is Russia."
A more feasible proposition is that hackers in North Korea or China performed it.

Buzzfeed isn't always a reliable source, and can often be biased

You got that right.

but there's proof that Russians hacked the DNC and RNC

Where is the proof? Definitely not in the report, I read that.

 

[MisterDom]

Yes, the report clearly states that there was a hack in 2015 and one in Spring 2016. The only problem is it does not mention Russia by name, it literally could have been me and my friend who performed the hack. APT 29 could be me. You never know...

Seriously though, all it says is that there was a hack. It does not state, "Beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is Russia."
A more feasible proposition is that hackers in North Korea or China performed it.

---------------------------------------------------------

Line 2 - "This document provides technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence Services (RIS) to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. Government, political, and private sector entities. The U.S. Government is referring to this malicious cyber activity by RIS as GRIZZLY STEPPE."

First paragraph of second page - "The U.S. Government confirms that two different RIS actors participated in the intrusion into a U.S. political party. The first actor group, known as Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) 29, entered into the party’s systems in summer 2015, while the second, known as APT28, entered in spring 2016."

Page three, near the beginning of the page - "In the course of that campaign, APT29 successfully compromised a U.S. political party. At least one targeted individual activated links to malware hosted on operational infrastructure of opened attachments containing malware. APT29 delivered malware to the political party’s systems, established persistence, escalated privileges, enumerated active directory accounts, and exfiltrated email from several accounts through encrypted connections back through operational infrastructure.

In spring 2016, APT28 compromised the same political party, again via targeted spearphishing. This time, the spearphishing email tricked recipients into changing their passwords through a fake webmail domain hosted on APT28 operational infrastructure. Using the harvested credentials, APT28 was able to gain access and steal content, likely leading to the exfiltration of information from multiple senior party members. The U.S. Government assesses that information was leaked to the press and publicly disclosed."

Page 4 also has a list of alternate names.

---------------------------------------------------------

The report does name Russia by name several times. It's not a feasible proposition that China performed the hack because they partly depend on trade with us, and vice versa. They're not going to spoil our "frenemy" relationship quite yet.

North Korea is slightly feasible, but again, the intention of these hacks were to get a certain someone elected. It's not an essential interest of North Korea for any certain someone to get elected.

Meanwhile, Russia DOES benefit from Trump being elected because his political agenda favors Russia, intentionally or not, and with the dossier being true or not. With Trump's stance on NATO, big oil, new promise of removal of their sanctions because of a new friendship, blindness of their aggression because he wants that friendship, and just frankly not being an experienced and strong leader yet to compete with them, Russia gets a lot out of this, and a lot more than if Clinton were elected.

 

[bboss]

Line 2 - "This document provides technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence Services (RIS) to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. Government, political, and private sector entities. The U.S. Government is referring to this malicious cyber activity by RIS as GRIZZLY STEPPE."

First paragraph of second page - "The U.S. Government confirms that two different RIS actors participated in the intrusion into a U.S. political party. The first actor group, known as Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) 29, entered into the party’s systems in summer 2015, while the second, known as APT28, entered in spring 2016."

Page three, near the beginning of the page - "In the course of that campaign, APT29 successfully compromised a U.S. political party. At least one targeted individual activated links to malware hosted on operational infrastructure of opened attachments containing malware. APT29 delivered malware to the political party’s systems, established persistence, escalated privileges, enumerated active directory accounts, and exfiltrated email from several accounts through encrypted connections back through operational infrastructure.

In spring 2016, APT28 compromised the same political party, again via targeted spearphishing. This time, the spearphishing email tricked recipients into changing their passwords through a fake webmail domain hosted on APT28 operational infrastructure. Using the harvested credentials, APT28 was able to gain access and steal content, likely leading to the exfiltration of information from multiple senior party members. The U.S. Government

Of course they don't state their sources for obvious reasons, but there's no reason to believe that it had any effect whatsoever on the U.S. citizen's voting. It does not state what party was hacked. It could be the Republics or Libertarians, we simply don't know.

the intention of these hacks were to get a certain someone elected

How do you know? All that the report states is that the hackers used some clickbait, if you will, to get some information and use it. Right now all I know is that Russia hacked a political party in 2015 and spring 2016, using two separate operatives.

 

[MisterDom]

Of course they don't state their sources for obvious reasons, but there's no reason to believe that it had any effect whatsoever on the U.S. citizen's voting. It does not state what party was hacked. It could be the Republics or Libertarians, we simply don't know.



How do you know? All that the report states is that the hackers used some clickbait, if you will, to get some information and use it. Right now all I know is that Russia hacked a political party in 2015 and spring 2016, using two separate operatives.

Take it like this: a new study in, let's say, nanotechnology, that is completely new and a breakthrough in science, isn't going to source anything. This is because they are the source. They had to conduct research and be active hands on to get their information.

The FBI is similar. They are also bi-partisan most of the time other than a a recent occasion, but favoring Trump in that recent occasion. If they're bi-partisan and have to do their research hands on by going into systems and tracking history, than they don't have to cite anything because they are the source.

I shouldn't have to explain to you that a joint document by a couple of official government institutions, and specifically an investigation institution that need to get evidence themselves, needs to cite something. They wouldn't be able to investigate anything if they had to dig through the internet for papers 2 years old by the Pew Research Center.

The report also says that one of the APTs (my memory don't remember which one but I can quote it if you wish) were able to download the party's leader's emails. Remember an organization that was leaking emails from Clinton and other DNC leaders that admitted a lot of their content was given to them from Russia? WikiLeaks. Do you know one of the few things that Republicans tried to slander Clinton for? Fake accusations of breaking the law with her private email server and trying to make the DNC look corruptible through the most secret of party emails. Of course they were retrieved by these hackers. Use common sense. The FBI, a citable source, also said that both major parties were hacked (want me to cite something to prove it?), but only one was leaked, which was the Democratic Party.

If emails were something that turned off voters from the democrats and Clinton, then this probably had a major impact on their votes, and there were a lot of voters that didn't vote for Clinton because of the email scandal. Just think: if the DNC didn't have leaked info that was apparently enough 'evidence' to trigger the Bernie bros and give them a reason to just maybe excuse Bernie's loss and say the primaries were 100% rigged and the party was more corrupt than ever foreseen, we would've had a more united party to beat Trump. Data shows only a little more than half of Bernie voters voted for Clinton in the general election.

To give you credit, the FBI cannot reliably confirm whether these hacks affected the election outcome or not, but it certainly helped Trump, and by what I can safely assume, help him win. It was also a completely illegal provocation from Russia that could've led to a war if we had extremely hawkish leaders. What actually happened was that this action lead to even more sanctions, and even some top Republicans like Senator McCain wanted more than what we imposed.

 

[bboss]

Take it like this: a new study in, let's say, nanotechnology, that is completely new and a breakthrough in science, isn't going to source anything. This is because they are the source. They had to conduct research and be active hands on to get their information.

The FBI is similar. They are also bi-partisan most of the time other than a a recent occasion, but favoring Trump in that recent occasion. If they're bi-partisan and have to do their research hands on by going into systems and tracking history, than they don't have to cite anything because they are the source.

I shouldn't have to explain to you that a joint document by a couple of official government institutions, and specifically an investigation institution that need to get evidence themselves, needs to cite something. They wouldn't be able to investigate anything if they had to dig through the internet for papers 2 years old by the Pew Research Center.

This is true.

Do you know one of the few things that Republicans tried to slander Clinton for? Fake accusations of breaking the law with her private email server and trying to make the DNC look corruptible through the most secret of party emails

I really don't understand. Mrs. Clinton broke the law. How is this a "fake accusation" if it is true? I have personally read the emails. And yep, there's some pretty classified stuff (drone strikes in Iran, etc) on WikiLeaks. So I really don't see that its slander if it's true... just because she's a Clinton doesn't mean she gets a get out of jail free card.

And you want to talk about slander? How about the Democrats calling Trump "Anti-Semitic" (which is ironic because his daughter is Jewish and one of his sons is married to a Jewish woman), or calling Trump and Steve Bannon "White Supremacists" when they have no proof? And you may say, "oh, but Breitbart is white supremacist." The reason that some people have been spreading this is simply because some white supremacists happened to comment on an article that was written by breitbart. That is the perfect opportunity for slander so of course they didn't pass it up.

The FBI, a citable source, also said that both major parties were hacked (want me to cite something to prove it?), but only one was leaked, which was the Democratic Party.

Yes

If emails were something that turned off voters from the democrats and Clinton, then this probably had a major impact on their votes, and there were a lot of voters that didn't vote for Clinton because of the email scandal.

Actually, no it didn't. Because these are facts that got leaked. So yes, it really sucks that all the bad stuff (Poor Bernie having no chance) got out.

"Evidence"? Have you not read any of those emails? It really was rigged against Bernie, that poor guy.

 

[MisterDom]

This is true.



I really don't understand. Mrs. Clinton broke the law. How is this a "fake accusation" if it is true? I have personally read the emails. And yep, there's some pretty classified stuff (drone strikes in Iran, etc) on WikiLeaks. So I really don't see that its slander if it's true... just because she's a Clinton doesn't mean she gets a get out of jail free card.

And you want to talk about slander? How about the Democrats calling Trump "Anti-Semitic" (which is ironic because his daughter is Jewish and one of his sons is married to a Jewish woman), or calling Trump and Steve Bannon "White Supremacists" when they have no proof? And you may say, "oh, but Breitbart is white supremacist." The reason that some people have been spreading this is simply because some white supremacists happened to comment on an article that was written by breitbart. That is the perfect opportunity for slander so of course they didn't pass it up.



Yes



Actually, no it didn't. Because these are facts that got leaked. So yes, it really sucks that all the bad stuff (Poor Bernie having no chance) got out.

"Evidence"? Have you not read any of those emails? It really was rigged against Bernie, that poor guy.

• Report by the Dircetor of National Intelligence: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
• 
  Found on the second to bullet point on the 7th page
  
  "Russia’s intelligence services conducted cyber operations against targets associated with the 2016 US presidential election, including targets associated with both major US political parties."

Now that that's out the way...

Clinton did use a private email server. She also apologized for it. The truth is, that the State Secretaries before her (republican and democrat) also used a private email server. It was also a recommended thing to do at the time.

It seems that it also has great effect because not many, if any, of her emails from her server were ever leaked. Only emails received by other senior party members from Clinton were leaked. And guess what? Out of thousands and thousands of emails, the ones deemed "controversial" were vague and up to interpretation. She was also investigated twice for the email scandals, and found innocent on both occasions. She doesn't have a get-out-jail-free-card; she was never guilty. Don't forget that Comey, a republican that many assume doesn't like Clinton, has his intelligence investigate both times.

Even the one that made people think the primaries were completely rigged against Bernie was vague, up to interpretation, and didn't have a date. For all we know, it could've been near the end of the primaries when Clinton had too big of a lead to lose when the email said "Bernie isn't going to win," or the beginning of the primaries when he was still very behind in the polls. The evidence for the case of the primaries being rigged is very limited and not very powerful. If we're are asking the question whether the primaries were fair, than I will say the process just favored Clinton in general. Everything from the Superdelegates, to the voting times, to voting locations most of the time favored a Clinton voter demographic. You can say the primary wasn't fair, but you can't say it was 100% absolutely definitely and without a shadow of a doubt rigged. If it were completely rigged, Bernie wouldn't have won Michigan where he had an incredible comeback when the votes came in.

And also, if we're talking about slander, I wouldn't focus on Trump's racism or sexism, but rather his inability to lead or know basic history or basic facts in the political world. If I want to say Trump is anti-Semitic, I would have a good case because of his absolutely terrible response to all the anti-semitism that happened last week and this week. It took him about two weeks till he made a somewhat good statement condemning anti-semitism during his speech to congress. He also wouldn't have tweeted "Clinton is the most corruptible candidate in history" on a Jewish star back during the election. It doesn't matter that his daughter marries a Jewish man just so their kids will be Jewish (in Orthodox Judaism, the kids are Jewish only if they're birth mother was Jewish). She probably doesn't even know much about the religion because if she were to legally convert, she wouldn't have rushed the two-year process.

And you want to talk about Bannon? Listen to his podcasts and his stances on immigration and certain people, or his documentaries or planned ones that never got released, like "Jews are the en-ablers of jihad." Breitbart is a platform for the alt-right, whether the editors are part of that movement or not. It does beg the question why there's articles saying "the Confederate flag should be flown as it is a pride symbol of southern heritage."

 

[bboss]

You can say the primary wasn't fair, but you can't say it was 100% absolutely definitely and without a shadow of a doubt rigged

Read the emails on wikileaks so I think I can.

What I am trying to say can be summed up here: (0:00-2:09)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jeOIsle7VDU

 

[bboss]

And you want to talk about Bannon? Listen to his podcasts and his stances on immigration and certain people, or his documentaries or planned ones that never got released, like "Jews are the en-ablers of jihad."

Prove this. I don't believe it for a second.

 

[bboss]

If I want to say Trump is anti-Semitic, I would have a good case because of his absolutely terrible response to all the anti-semitism that happened last week and this week

Wow. Responding to the anti-semitism and saying that "it is terrible that this happened" makes him anti-semetic? I don't think you are dumb, you are obviously intelligent, but clearly you don't understand simple logic. Condemning anti-semitism does not make him anti-semetic.

And you want to talk about Bannon? Listen to his podcasts and his stances on immigration and certain people, or his documentaries or planned ones that never got released, like "Jews are the en-ablers of jihad.

You should have done your research on this one. Literally half of the people on staff at Breitbart are Jewish, which kinda makes this a bit unlikely.

 

[MisterDom]

Wow. Responding to the anti-semitism and saying that "it is terrible that this happened" makes him anti-semetic? I don't think you are dumb, you are obviously intelligent, but clearly you don't understand simple logic. Condemning anti-semitism does not make him anti-semetic.



You should have done your research on this one. Literally half of the people on staff at Breitbart are Jewish, which kinda makes this a bit unlikely.

Sorry, I should've been more clear. There has been a dramatic rise with bomb threats to Jewish Community Centers across the country, whic peaked last week and earlier this week. There has also been two cemeteries vandalized: one in St. Louis and one in Philadelphia. Hundreds of tombstones were destroyed or knocked down on both occasions. Wanna guess the first few responses by Trump specifically regarding these crimes?

First, when asked about combatting anti-semitism in the country during two press conferences on two consecutive days (the first being a joint conference with Prime Minister Netanyahu), he dodged the question and talked about his electoral college win, also lying how much he won by. This at first is understandable--he might've been completely unprepared to tackle that question, though it's still something that he shouldn't have dodged. The next day, a Jewish journalist asks something similar. This time, Trump cut him off, ordered him to sit down, and rambled on how he's the least anti-Semitic person anyone has ever met, and viciously attacked the journalist by saying it was a completely unfair question, even though the journalist agreed that he didn't believe he was anti-Semitic and was just wondering plans to tackle hate crime, specifically anti-Semitic hate crime in that question.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.vox....ery-vandalism-antisemitism-bomb-threats-trump

When asked about the cemetary vandalism and who might be responsible, he said "sometimes the reverse may be true." It implies that Jews are doing this to themselves to blame his supporters or anti-semites.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...-semitic-threats-and-vandalism-official-says/

Does this prove Trumo is anti-Semitic? Of course not. However, his responses to all these issues have been incredibly weak and uninterested in the problem, which implies that at the least, he doesn't really care. The only time he really condemned the spike in hate crimes was scripted in his speech, probably influenced by advisors to clean up the mess. We all know what happens when he gets off-script...

Also, you should've done your research on Brietbart. Most Jewish editors on the cite were hired before Bannon started running the site, and the late Andrew Brietbart still owned it. Back then it was also a conservative rather than an anti-establishment extremely far-right mess with people without conservative views and were extremely outlandish like Milo Yiannopoulos. Many Jewish editors, including the notorious Ben Shapiro, offered comments on Bannon that seemed to imply that they were not necessarily the happiest with him being the new owner. Bannon has also praised the alt-right movement, and has extremely far right and outlandish views that put him in this group of the alt-right.

Bannon's views (second half is the important stuff but I recommend watching this whole video. Only about 5 mins): https://youtu.be/cYhnnN1eLxM

History of Brietbart (scroll down to 'Evolution of Brietbart'): https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/what-is-breitbart-news-steve-bannon

Bannon - "Jews are the enablers of jihad": https://www.thejc.com/news/world/st...n-jewish-community-enablers-of-jihad-1.431995

Ben Shapiro on Steve Bannon (I really recommend reading this whole article): http://www.dailywire.com/news/8441/i-know-trumps-new-campaign-chairman-steve-bannon-ben-shapiro

Read the emails on wikileaks so I think I can.

What I am trying to say can be summed up here: (0:00-2:09)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jeOIsle7VDU

This video actually proves my point. Most of what they say is not regarding the email scandal, and is/or hypocritical of previous ad current administrations. A lot of government officials including Pence and Trump have private email servers or twitter accounts or phones that can be just as easily hackable and are just as reckless as Clinton's private email server. They don't quote a single leaked email, but say the Democrats created their corruption themselves. She brings up a point with the speeches, saying that she was being paid for a quid pro quo. There is as much evidence to support that theory as opposite theories. Look at this other video by Vox, a pretty good news organization dedicated to explaining policy and slandering people equally:

https://youtu.be/0W2J6MtVR8M

 

[bboss]

Also, you should've done your research on Brietbart. Most Jewish editors on the cite were hired before Bannon started running the site, and the late Andrew Brietbart still owned it. Back then it was also a conservative rather than an anti-establishment extremely far-right mess with people without conservative views and were extremely outlandish like Milo Yiannopoulos. Many Jewish editors, including the notorious Ben Shapiro, offered comments on Bannon that seemed to imply that they were not necessarily the happiest with him being the new owner. Bannon has also praised the alt-right movement, and has extremely far right and outlandish views that put him in this group of the alt-right.

lol... you should have done your research. It's not like those Jewish staffers were automatically fired when Bannon came on, and last time I checked, Milo is Senior Editor and Ben is still Editor-At-Large.

 

[bboss]

This video actually proves my point. Most of what they say is not regarding the email scandal, and is/or hypocritical of previous ad current administrations. A lot of government officials including Pence and Trump have private email servers or twitter accounts or phones that can be just as easily hackable and are just as reckless as Clinton's private email server.

Sure, they have private email servers. But they don't keep classified information about dronestrikes in Iraq (check WikiLeaks if you don't believe me). That's the difference, what Clinton had on her server was illegal, whether it was uncovered or not. She was SecState for decades; she should know better.

 

[bboss]

"Jews are the en-ablers of jihad."

I hate it when people take stuff out of context. What he actually said was that US Jews were the "unwilling enablers of jihad." And you know what? Think about it. It's true. I'm sure you've heard once or twice Muhammed's last words in Bukhari, Vol. 1, #427: "May Allah curse the Jews and the Christians, for they put the places of worship at the graves of the prophets."
This is what jihad is about; it is about killing (or converting, occasionally) Jews / Christians / kafirs (infidels) (non-Muslims). So obviously Jews are the unwilling enablers of jihad, but it's not their fault, it is Islam's fault, waaay back to the 7th century, when Muhammed started it all. So one, it was taken completely out of context, and two, it is completely misunderstood.

 

[MisterDom]

lol... you should have done your research. It's not like those Jewish staffers were automatically fired when Bannon came on, and last time I checked, Milo is Senior Editor and Ben is still Editor-At-Large.

This proves my point? The Jews were fired after Bannon came on; Ben isn't Editor-At-Large because he quit like two years ago and runs his own show called The Daily Wire now. Guess why he quit. It's not that hard to guess.

Milo is always labeling himself as Jewish to combat the left's identity politics, and though it's an effective strategy, he can only say he's gay to do so. He took up the cross and reads the Bible: there isn't a single smell of Jew on him. He's not wearing both the cross and the star round his neck if you haven't noticed, and he talks more about the Bible on radio shows rather than the Torah.

Sure, they have private email servers. But they don't keep classified information about dronestrikes in Iraq (check WikiLeaks if you don't believe me). That's the difference, what Clinton had on her server was illegal, whether it was uncovered or not. She was SecState for decades; she should know better.

Trump is the president of the most powerful nation of the world. He also has access to more secrets than the Secretary of State, and can and usually gets the same info as the Secretary of State when it comes to important and often classified foreign affairs. He also has other classified info from other departments, if there is any. He is also using a private Android phone along with the email, and proper protocol says to use nothing more advanced than a blackberry for government and personal life, and I'm pretty sure that protocol hasn't changed.

Mike Pence shouldn't necessarily have classified information, but back when his email 'scandal' surfaced a few months ago, he was vigorously trying to hide this 'scandal' from his constituents, which is fishy, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Also, Clinton was Secretary of State for four years. I don't know where you got the decades thing.

I hate it when people take stuff out of context. What he actually said was that US Jews were the "unwilling enablers of jihad." And you know what? Think about it. It's true. I'm sure you've heard once or twice Muhammed's last words in Bukhari, Vol. 1, #427: "May Allah curse the Jews and the Christians, for they put the places of worship at the graves of the prophets."
This is what jihad is about; it is about killing (or converting, occasionally) Jews / Christians / kafirs (infidels) (non-Muslims). So obviously Jews are the unwilling enablers of jihad, but it's not their fault, it is Islam's fault, waaay back to the 7th century, when Muhammed started it all. So one, it was taken completely out of context, and two, it is completely misunderstood.

It wasn't taken that much out of context. His actual specific title was "Enablers Among Us," which scripted to highlight many communities and specifically the Jewish Community. I've searched a little more to see if you were right but so far I didn't find anything. If I do, I'll edit this paragraph out.

Do you know a lot about Judaism? Or even just the history? The Jewish people have been subject to persecution for thousands of years. They're not the ones using jihad. They're also not a universalizing religion which is the reason there's only 14 million Jews on the planet and not over a billion. Have Jews not been completely innocent? Of course: they've clashed with the Greeks/Macedonians and the Romans (all these incidents were revolts) and committed very minor atrocities for self-defense during the crusades, but nothing near the atrocities committed by Muslims and especially not the Christians. Other instances of intense religious war or persecution have led to some of this as well, but there's a reason why Jews are always seen as conquered or being slain throughout history and have their own diaspora.

I believe you really butchered the interpretation of the quote to 'prove' that all the Judaic religions use jihad. There has never once been a war when Jews tried to spread Islam. Duh. There's never even been a war to expand Judaism and convert others. That's a powerful record for an extremely old religion. I believe the quote means 'they put too much attention to the prophets rather than G-d themself' (ex. Jesus is worshipped and is as important as G-d in Christianity). There's no solid part of the quote that implies Christians or Jews use jihad or even their own jihad in the quote. Worshipping prophets is a big no-no in many religions including Islam. There's a reason Mohammed is seen as an important historical figure rather than a worshipped figure.

 

[bboss]

Do you know a lot about Judaism? Or even just the history? The Jewish people have been subject to persecution for thousands of years. They're not the ones using jihad.

Of course, and this is horrible that they have been persecuted this way.

Of course: they've clashed with the Greeks/Macedonians and the Romans

...and the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar. One of their larger conflicts.

here has never once been a war when Jews tried to spread Islam.

Obviously. I am insulted that you even thought that I was trying to say that Jews are spreading Jihad; Judaism is a peaceful religion.

I believe you really butchered the interpretation of the quote to 'prove' that all the Judaic religions use jihad.

what are you talking about., if you are trying to accuse me of believing that jews use jihad than you are completely wrong, obviously they don't, as I said, Judaism is a religion of peace and Islam is not.

 

[MisterDom]

Of course, and this is horrible that they have been persecuted this way.



...and the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar. One of their larger conflicts.


Obviously. I am insulted that you even thought that I was trying to say that Jews are spreading Jihad; Judaism is a peaceful religion.



what are you talking about., if you are trying to accuse me of believing that jews use jihad than you are completely wrong, obviously they don't, as I said, Judaism is a religion of peace and Islam is not.

You literally said Jews were the unwilling enablers of jihad trying to defend Bannon's quote. Your words; not mine.

Drop it: Bannon is an anti-semite and has praised the alt-right. That's a fact. Back to Russia.

 

[bboss]

You literally said Jews were the unwilling enablers of jihad trying to defend Bannon's quote. Your words; not mine.

Drop it: Bannon is an anti-semite and has praised the alt-right. That's a fact. Back to Russia.

Sure he's praised the altright. He's not an anti-semite however, you'll have to do better than that. Saying that they are "unwilling enablers of jihad" is not the same as saying "they are the enablers of jihad." But of course the Left feels it's okay to take things out of context if we can label someone anti-semetic.

 

[MisterDom]

Sure he's praised the altright. He's not an anti-semite however, you'll have to do better than that. Saying that they are "unwilling enablers of jihad" is not the same as saying "they are the enablers of jihad." But of course the Left feels it's okay to take things out of context if we can label someone anti-semetic.

And of course the Right can't listen to reason or anything else other than propaganda and conspiracy and insult others when they know they're wrong... I believe I made it pretty clear Bannon is anti-Semitic, just as I made it clear Russia hacked and likely influenced the election. Most people if not all in the alt-right are anti-Semitic if you haven't noticed. The only reason you don't think he's anti-Semitic is because you're not listening to cited facts.

1) He didn't say Jews were the unwilling enablers of jihad. Ever (I researched it too). That's what you're saying to defend his quote. If that wasn't true you would've proved it with a reliable source since you've been demanding me to do so. It wasn't taken much out of its original context. I already proved that. The planned documentary film 'Enablers Among Us' was scripted to include and highlight the Jewish community. Making Jews the unwilling enablers doesn't make it any less anti-Semitic. It makes it worse by saying this negative and dangerous action is involuntary. I'm not putting a link because I already proved all of this. With a real source too. Not some ****ty radio show host.

2) Quote from Bannon's wife while under oath. Most people don't lie under oath (unless you're named Jeff Sessions): 'he didn't want our daughters going to school because he doesn't like how Jews are raised to be whiny spoiled brats.' I don't know if you know this, but labeling a whole group of people is racist, and labeling Jews is anti-Semitic.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.the...ceo-stephen-bannon-denies-antisemitic-remarks

3) More Jews have been leaving Brietbart since Bannon took over the website. You said that yourself and I'll assume you have accurate enough sources to prove that to yourself. What used to be a conservative news site became a far-right mess associated with people like Milo Yiannopoulos (he's not Jewish... already debunked that myth without objection. He also resigned). People like Ben Shapiro left the site recently because of Bannon. The only jew I can still reliably confirm is an author at Brietbart is Horowitz, who feeds into conspiracies that the Jewish elite rules the world and that the Jewish media is untrustworthy and so on. There's others too, but the only reason they're on the site are because they're extremely pro-Israel and/or very anti-Islam (that's why Shapiro stayed). The other Jews previously on the site left.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-me...elds-ben-shapiro-resign-from-breitbart-220709

4) Brietbart is a platform for the alt-right (admitted it yourself and proven by myself), and is openly pro-nazi, or at least the followers for which the site has been a platform for are, and Bannon has praised it to be that way. I'm gonna give you a short little history lesson: nazis don't like Jews. They killed them. Committed the most well-documented genocide in history. If the Holocaust happened today, 3/7 of the Jewish population would be gone. Almost half.

http://www.alternet.org/right-wing/breitbarts-comment-sections-reflects-white-supremacist-language

Just think for a moment and put those things together. He's anti-Semitic. From the consistent comments, to the consistent actions, to his consistent crazy outlandish beliefs, you can put the pieces together. I can't believe I have to recap only some of the things that prove this. Wanna talk about his racism? You'll lose that arguement too.

I still can't believe this fool is on National Security Council and advising the president. Do you think the Muslim/Travel/Refugee ban (which Bannon really helped engineer) isn't passing because every federal judge is just so very extremely liberal? It's because of crazies like him that make these orders not only unconstitutional but also illegal according to the Geneva Conventions, U.N. Human Rights Laws, and domestic immigration laws to appease his obscure hate for Islam.

 

[bboss]

4) Brietbart is a platform for the alt-right (admitted it yourself and proven by myself), and is openly pro-nazi

Come on MisterDom... pro-nazi? Your claims are getting ridiculous.

And of course the Right can't listen to reason or anything else other than propaganda and conspiracy and insult others when they know they're wrong

Ok then.

If that wasn't true you would've proved it with a reliable source since you've been demanding me to do so

Actually just Google "Jews are the enablers of Jihad Bannon" and you'll see what I mean.

illegal according to the Geneva Conventions, U.N. Human Rights Laws,

Explain to me how an executive order is illegal.

Wanna talk about his racism? You'll lose that arguement too.

I would love too. I have never heard him called a racist so I'd like to her your views on this.

unless you're named Jeff Sessions):

How did Jeff Sessions lie?

he's not Jewish... already debunked that myth without objection.

Actually you didn't, he is Jewish.

 

[MisterDom]

Come on MisterDom... pro-nazi? Your claims are getting ridiculous.


Ok then.



Actually just Google "Jews are the enablers of Jihad Bannon" and you'll see what I mean.



Explain to me how an executive order is illegal.



I would love too. I have never heard him called a racist so I'd like to her your views on this.



How did Jeff Sessions lie?



Actually you didn't, he is Jewish.

I'm gonna respond to each point in order.

1) Bannon has praised his Brietbart being a platform of the alt-right. You agreed to that. He also praised the white-supremacist commenters on the articles (that was something that made Ben Shapiro leave the site). Bannon has embraced this comment section, which consists of pro-nazi far-right memelords, and has articles about the 'Jewish global elite' that feed into some of the most anti-Semitic views. I mean, seriously, did you even read the article I gave you above?

2) I was insulting the right the same way you insulted the left, and we're both right. The left does try to find excuses to say someone is racist or anti-Semitic and the right doesn't listen to facts and only to conspiracy or some obscure logic. They're both true honestly.

3) I found one source out of many saying unwitting under your google search, which basically means the same thing as unwilling. True. But is doesn't deny the anti-Semitism behind it--the documentary was supposed to explain 'dangerous' advocacy groups among America for the ever dangerous and evil Islam, including intelligence agencies, the media, and left universities and colleges. The author didn't use unwitting to describe that it isn't their fault like you did. Using your interpretation of Mohammed's last words making Jews unwilling enablers, Christianity is an unwilling enabler too, which defeats the whole arguement.

4) Have you been following the news? At all? Trump's executive order banning people from 7 and then 6 countries is illegal, and they've been shut down by multiple federal judges twice. They have the authority to do this because there always is a check on every branch of power, even in something so outrageous and invincible like an executive order. The first ban clearly violated the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution because Christian Refugees were accepted from all these countries, but not Muslims, which also contradicted the whole arguement of "it's not a Muslim ban because they're not specifically targeting muslims, only countries." That little bit of the order made it completely illegal. It also cancelled current visas and was put immediately into effect, inconveniencing people traveling to america the minute the order was signed. This immediate and very strange cancel of people violated domestic immigration law. The U.S. also has an obligation to accept refugees according to the Geneva Conventions and U.N. Human Rights Laws. There was no way it was going to pass. It was also a very idiotic move to include Iraq, our biggest ally to defeat ISIS right now, and a divisive move between the 'West' and Islam that only heightens tension and gives more ammo for propaganda to recruit members for ISIS and other groups. The second ban didn't include Iraq, didn't cancel visas, and didn't allow Christian refugees either. But we still have an obligation to take refugees, and as we all know, this ban is still targeting Muslim countries (so by many judges' interpretation, muslims), a violation of the first amendment, so it was shut down last night the day before the ban took effect.

5) Bannon, the guy who praised the alt-right and lets it thrive within the comments of Brietbart articles, who is obviously also anti-semitic and undeniably a hater of Islam, is not racist? The alt-right is mainly white supremacy, the epitome of racism. He is frequently accused of being a white nationalist and having white nationalist views (friends and foes alike), from his work in Brietbart to his documentaries, and if you're praising the alt-right, you're a white nationalist. White nationalism is being proud to be white and believing the group of people who are white are better than other people, which is the very definition of racism.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/5dc3ef76-aa95-11e6-ba7d-76378e4fef24

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/steve-bannon-white-house-white-nationalist-colleagues-books-donald-trump-chief-strategy-nsc-a7567336.html?amp

6) Again, proof you're not following the news. The Trump-Russia scandal has escalated to something extremely damaging and into something way worse than when I started this thread. Only one of these scandals is needed to possibly impeach Trump, since they all at least have to do with him or his campaign. The 4th scandal within this Russia scandal had to do with Jeff Sessions. Jeff Sessions said under oath that he had no contact with Russian officials during the campaign. Well, two different calls was intercepted between him and the Russian ambassador to the U.S. (which is why Trump thought Obama wire tapped his tower), which means he lied while under oath. Btw, Former President Bill Clinton was impeached but not removed from office for lying under oath (not the sex scandal, common misconception). It's a crime. This fueled more effort to investigate Trump and Russia (something that is likely happening this very moment), and Sessions, the attorney general of the United States, had to recuse himself from any investigation happening or was happening whatsoever to abide under ethics rules. When this scandal within the huge Russia scandal surfaced, there was a good chance he was going to resign like how ex-national security-advisor Mike Flynn did earlier when he negotiated major U.S. foreign policy with the Russians (he said he didn't and lied to the trump campaign themselves, or the whole campaign lied) while he was a private citizen, and even now there's a good chance Sessions might have to resign if the investigation reveals some dirty stuff. Here's a beautiful chart outlining the scandal as of about two weeks ago (got it from Vox):

7) Milo Yiannopoulos says he's Jewish so he can combat the Left's 'identity politics,' which as I said before, is an effective strategy, especially if you don't give a **** about actual policy in politics. And like I said earlier, he can say he's gay to do this, but he can't say he's Jewish. He wears a cross and not the star. He cites and recommends the Bible and to live by it (he's never once spoken about the Torah, which is more accurate because it was the original without mistranslations from the Romans and more consistent to reality). He doesn't follow any Jewish tradition. A lot of his views contradict Judaism. He even said while defending pedophilia (the thing that made him resign from breitbart and cancel his book deal and cancel his speech at the CPAC) that he was ***** by a priest when he was in his adolescence. Do you think some priest just broke into his house conveniently while he was home alone and he couldn't defend himself? He would've had to go to a church. There's no evidence that he's Jewish, he only says he is because some of his family is. Using that logic, Hitler was Jewish because his grandparents were Jewish. It doesn't work. If he was ever Jewish, he definitely converted at a young age.

So! Bannon is anti-Semitic and racist. Got it. Russia scandal is bad and even more complicated than the graph provided. Understand? Milo isn't Jewish. Duh. Executive orders have been getting shut down by federal judges. Consistently. Insult the left, I insult the right. That's how I play.

 

[wedl!!]

bboss, you do grasp the concept that morality isn't objective and that people, especially politicians, don't say things at face value, right?

 

[bboss]

2) I was insulting the right the same way you insulted the left, and we're both right. The left does try to find excuses to say someone is racist or anti-Semitic and the right doesn't listen to facts and only to conspiracy or some obscure logic. They're both true honestly.

I think we can agree on this.

bboss, you do grasp the concept that morality isn't objective and that people, especially politicians, don't say things at face value, right?

Absolutely.

4) Have you been following the news? At all? Trump's executive order banning people from 7 and then 6 countries is illegal, and they've been shut down by multiple federal judges twice

The judges deemed the ban unconstitutional.

The first ban clearly violated the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution because Christian Refugees were accepted from all these countries, but not Muslims, which also contradicted the whole arguement of "it's not a Muslim ban because they're not specifically targeting muslims, only countries.

There's a reason for this. Christians don't kill girls just because they are r@ped. Which would you rather have in your country, someone who helps other people or someone who believes in honour killings, FGM, etc?

The second ban didn't include Iraq, didn't cancel visas, and didn't allow Christian refugees either.

I think this can make sense because terrorists could just say, "I'm a Christian" to get into the country.

e 4th scandal within this Russia scandal had to do with Jeff Sessions. Jeff Sessions said under oath that he had no contact with Russian officials during the campaign.

Actually Sessions didn't lie, he simply didn't remember, which is normal for men of his age, to not remember every single meeting with a diplomat he ever had.

6) Again, proof you're not following the news.

I watch CBS every night, probably the same station you do.

He cites and recommends the Bible

"I could care less whether you meet me up there," Milo once said in an interview.

which is more accurate because it was the original without mistranslations from the Romans and more consistent to reality)

Don't really know where you are getting this, the Bible was not "mistranslated" in the transition from Hebrew to Latin or Latin to English in the 1600s. Romans didn't really mistranslate the Bible, lots of people say that but it simply isn't true. (Probably because the Romans were oppressing the Jews in the 1st century B.C.)

Using that logic, Hitler was Jewish because his grandparents were Jewish

in Orthodox Judaism, the kids are Jewish only if they're birth mother was Jewish

Actually Hitler wasn't a Jew.

So! Bannon is anti-Semitic and racist

I don't see how he is racist.

 

[MisterDom]

I think we can agree on this.



Absolutely.



The judges deemed the ban unconstitutional.



There's a reason for this. Christians don't kill girls just because they are r@ped. Which would you rather have in your country, someone who helps other people or someone who believes in honour killings, FGM, etc?



I think this can make sense because terrorists could just say, "I'm a Christian" to get into the country.



Actually Sessions didn't lie, he simply didn't remember, which is normal for men of his age, to not remember every single meeting with a diplomat he ever had.



I watch CBS every night, probably the same station you do.



"I could care less whether you meet me up there," Milo once said in an interview.



Don't really know where you are getting this, the Bible was not "mistranslated" in the transition from Hebrew to Latin or Latin to English in the 1600s. Romans didn't really mistranslate the Bible, lots of people say that but it simply isn't true. (Probably because the Romans were oppressing the Jews in the 1st century B.C.)





Actually Hitler wasn't a Jew.



I don't see how he is racist.

I'm gonna respond in order again.

1) Yay

2) Wasn't for me so I ain't gonna respond

3) Yep. That's why it's illegal.

4) It doesn't matter. If it targets another religion over another than it violates the first amendment, the most important amendment that defines the freedom in America. Debating Theology and religion is another talk for another day, at least for the most part.

5) okee dokie

6) that's what he's saying, but it was at least two calls and possibly more, and I don't think he'd forget something so important and part of a heated scandal in Washington. If he is under oath, he should be taking time to remember, and is still a crime to say something not true intentionally or not. Saying he couldn't remember is also an answer he could've given. Most Republicans agreed he lied as well.

7) Start remembering the news then, because a couple times you're jut saying things that are incorrect.

8) Milo probably said that because he's gay. Probably not if he was Jewish. After all, he could easily convert to meet people up there if Judaism is making him skeptical that he's going to hell.

9) There is a couple of mistranslations. A great and harmless example is what we refer to as 'The Red Sea' was originally called in Hebrew something that translates to 'The Sea of Reeds.' It also explains why some of the stories seem unrealistic in the Bible and why some passages differ slightly from the original Hebrew text in the Torah, and why there's characters in text that cannot be proven to exist in the way they're presented, or exist at all.

10) I know Hitler wasn't a Jew. I was saying if we use Milo's logic to say he's Jewish, it also makes Hitler Jewish. If you have distant family that's Jewish, you're not Jewish, as we all know.

11) The alt-right is consists of neo-nazis, members of the Ku Klux Klan, and white supremacist memelords (not limited to, but is mainly these kinds of groups). If you're praising the alt-right, there's no way you can praise the non-white supremacy bit of it. Basically 95-98% of alt-right members are white supremacists. White supremacy is racist obviously. If someone thinks you can praise the alt-right without praising white supremacy, than they're an idiot. Bannon has praised the alt-right. A white nationalist and alt-right figurehead and founder, Richard Spencer, literally advocated for attacks against Jews in Whitefish Montana, which is a good case to say the alt-right is anti-Semitic if you don't take account literally everything else that makes the alt-right anti-Semitic. Again, Bannon has praised the alt-right. Using the Law of Syllogism, we can reliably infer that if Bannon is praising the alt-right, then he is praising anti-semitism and racism. Case closed.

 

[bboss]

Start remembering the news then, because a couple times you're jut saying things that are incorrect.

I watch the news. I don't always agree with the news.

9) There is a couple of mistranslations. A great and harmless example is what we refer to as 'The Red Sea' was originally called in Hebrew something that translates to 'The Sea of Reeds.' It also explains why some of the stories seem unrealistic in the Bible and why some passages differ slightly from the original Hebrew text in the Torah, and why there's characters in text that cannot be proven to exist in the way they're presented, or exist at all.

It's the Bible. It involves God, so obviously some of the stories are gonna be supernatural by human standards.
Most of the characters in the Bible have been proven to exist, even the "unrealistic" ones (Goliath proven by the discovery of Gath's gate, etc, etc)

members of the Ku Klux Klan

I hadn't heard this. I thought that Jeff Sessions brought down the KKK a long ways back by bankrupting them.

White supremacy is racist obviously

Very true.

Basically 95-98% of alt-right members are white supremacists

idk where you got this statistic. There may be less white supremacists, and more white supremacists, but 95-98 is a broad and large number so I'd like you to state your source for this.

 

[MisterDom]

I watch the news. I don't always agree with the news.



It's the Bible. It involves God, so obviously some of the stories are gonna be supernatural by human standards.
Most of the characters in the Bible have been proven to exist, even the "unrealistic" ones (Goliath proven by the discovery of Gath's gate, etc, etc)



I hadn't heard this. I thought that Jeff Sessions brought down the KKK a long ways back by bankrupting them.



Very true.



idk where you got this statistic. There may be less white supremacists, and more white supremacists, but 95-98 is a broad and large number so I'd like you to state your source for this.

News is news. You can't just disagree that The Great War started in 1914. That's a fact. Almost all of news is fact. Contrary to some belief, The Washington Post and New York Times don't consist of bias most of the time, and when they do it's usually because of a misinterpretation of something that gets spread, but that's really rare. There was only one instance in the 2016 election that I remember when this happened, which was when Trump mocked a reporter with a disability, but not the disability itself contrary to popular belief, and now people debate if he did or did not mock the disability. You cannot disagree that laws were or were not considered illegal by the judiciary (though you can disagree with decisions) or that the travel ban wasn't illegal and not in effect for months or that the alt-right consist of members of the KKK, or that the KKK ever died out (which will be my next point in a bit). If you can't acknowledge facts then there can't be reasonable debate.

If we wanna talk about the Bible, you're right that most characters have been proven to exist. Obviously Jesus of Nazareth/Jesus Christ was a real person for example. But he isn't presented the right way as what is historically accurate, partially to translation and partially which version of the Bible is commonly used today and what that's based on. A good harmless example of a mistranslation is that Jesus we probably a stone mason, not a carpenter, and is already presented inaccurately. Different versions of the Bible indicate what Jesus could do (i.e. all on water, turn water into wine, etc.). The very first versions of the New Testament described Jesus has a regular human, and though he was the son of G-d, he didn't possess many supranatural qualities. The first Bible also didn't blame the Jews for Jesus' crucifixion. I think even more inaccuracies have to do with what Bible's were translated and what bibles were written in only the first couple centuries, and possibly before Romans translated it. It's an interesting topic for another time that requires a bit of research.

But onto the alt-right and KKK. I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt in not knowing these facts about these groups. I'm sure if you lived in America you would know the KKK never died. The KKK was strong all the way up to the civil rights movement, and then died down to a political lobby than anything else for awhile. On the way to the Civil Rights movement, they flunctuated on whether they were an active terrorist organization or a dangerous lobbyist through the ages, but were always a threat. The KKK has been in the alt-right movement since the beginning. They're a white supremacy group, and one of the groups that defines that alt-right. Hate crime by white supremacists including the KKK has increased dramatically since the election, obviously having to do with the result (the KKK newspaper and David Duke, the grand wizard, endorsed Trump so they were happy with the outcome). Though the KKK isn't a thing like it used to be, it's still alive and well after the election.

https://www.google.com/amp/nypost.com/2016/06/30/the-ku-klux-klan-is-slowly-rising-again/amp/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-trump-for-president/?utm_term=.0dc7b11bd29c

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2016/year-hate-and-extremism

If the alt-right were to not consist of white supremacy, than that begs the question. What really is the alt-right then? It's not exactly extreme conservatism, nor an opponent of the rise of 'suppression in free speech' associated with Yiannopoulos. It isn't exactly anti-feminist, nor champions of conservative policy and economics. It's anti-Islam for sure, and anti-immigration (legal and illegal), and have nationalistic views. Hmmmmm... doesn't the Klan also share those views? Particularly with immigration? Yep! Its almost like the alt-right, which was created by a white nationalist, Richard Spencer, was made for another white nationalist group like the KKK, or neo-nazis.The alt-white is white supremacy... (and a bunch of memes...)

The 2-5% are the ones who are extremely conservative and almost (but not quite) overlap with white supremacy ideology. The true statistic is probably closer to 0-1%.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/94273282/

 

[bboss]

News is news. You can't just disagree that The Great War started in 1914. That's a fact

The news is the news. Facts are facts.

If we wanna talk about the Bible, you're right that most characters have been proven to exist. Obviously Jesus of Nazareth/Jesus Christ was a real person for example.

Yes.

But he isn't presented the right way as what is historically accurate, partially to translation and partially which version of the Bible is commonly used today and what that's based on

lol... have you ever heard of Josephus? he wrote in the 1st century B.C. He was a Jew himself and verified the miracles that Jesus did in Nazareth and the surrounding areas. He wasn't even a follower of Christ, but he confirmed the miracles.

A good harmless example of a mistranslation is that Jesus we probably a stone mason, not a carpenter, and is already presented inaccurately.

I don't understand. Are you talking about Jesus's father, Joseph, who was a carpenter?

The very first versions of the New Testament described Jesus has a regular human, and though he was the son of G-d, he didn't possess many supranatural qualities.

Not true. The New Testament has always referred to his supernatural powers from the beginning. Look at the very first translations of the New Testament and you'll see that it's true.

I think even more inaccuracies have to do with what Bible's were translated and what bibles were written in only the first couple centuries, and possibly before Romans translated it. It's an interesting topic for another time that requires a bit of research.

???
Again the Romans were the ones oppressing the Jews during this time period. Only scribes from the synagogues translated the Bible during this era.

On the way to the Civil Rights movement, they flunctuated on whether they were an active terrorist organization or a dangerous lobbyist through the ages, but were always a threat.

I think we can agree on this.

he KKK has been in the alt-right movement since the beginning.

Again, have you any proof?

The 2-5% are the ones who are extremely conservative and almost (but not quite) overlap with white supremacy ideology. The true statistic is probably closer to 0-1%.

Are you saying that 0-1% are or aren't white supremacist?

 

[MisterDom]

The news is the news. Facts are facts.



Yes.



lol... have you ever heard of Josephus? he wrote in the 1st century B.C. He was a Jew himself and verified the miracles that Jesus did in Nazareth and the surrounding areas. He wasn't even a follower of Christ, but he confirmed the miracles.



I don't understand. Are you talking about Jesus's father, Joseph, who was a carpenter?



Not true. The New Testament has always referred to his supernatural powers from the beginning. Look at the very first translations of the New Testament and you'll see that it's true.



???
Again the Romans were the ones oppressing the Jews during this time period. Only scribes from the synagogues translated the Bible during this era.



I think we can agree on this.



Again, have you any proof?



Are you saying that 0-1% are or aren't white supremacist?

News is usually always fact when it comes to politics. It is a fact that the FBI director, James Comey, today said that Trump is currently being investigated for ties with Russia. It's a fact that Brexit happened and the Prime Minister will initiate article 50 soon. It's a fact that Somalia is having awful humanitarian problems right be and they're getting lots of help from the international community. It's a fact that the G20 summit meeting this week was alarmed by new isolationist views coming from several countries but focusing on the United States. It's a fact Trump didn't shake Chancellor Merkel's hand when she visited the White House. It's a fact that Secretary Tillerson is making trips to East Asia to talk about what action will be taken concerning North Korea. Most news is fact. The media isn't making this up.

I'm not going to argue Theology soon, but I will say Christ didn't live in the first century B.C., and many records say he was a carpenter, but have been up to debate whether they're accurate. The New Testament as we know it today was very different from when it was first written, and though that version still exists I believe, it isn't the one the Catholic Church adopted and so the Romans.

And btw, the province of Judaea (modern day Israel) was annexed to the Roman Empire in the year 6 AD. Christ was crucified in either 29 or 33 AD. The very first New Testament was probably written around 60-70 AD, and the one Christians use today was probably written around 200-250 AD. There's a good chance that the New Testament was quickly translated to Latin. Christians and Jews were oppressed equally before measures were taken to stop religious tension and eventually Constantine the Great adopted Christianity as the official religion of the empire.

If you know the alt-right well or even read the articles I'm providing to prove my points, you will know the ideologies between the two groups overlap to the point where KKK could've been considered part of the group on day 1. Its like if you invented Ketchup and Mustard and eventually people call them condiments, they both can be referred to in the term. It's like a classification. If you know the alt-right ideology at all you will know that it champions the white identity. Let me correct my statistic of those who identify within this alt-right... 0% of those in the alt-right are not white supremacists. If you agree with it, you're a white supremacist. I tried to think 'maybe they agree with many points they champion like how they're aggressively anti-Islam and aren't racist enough to be part of it' but I was being too compassionate.

I think a great question would be what would we benefit out of a Russian relationship, or if that relationship will help us that much even? People obviously want the threat of war to be smaller, but as long as we have nukes on the planet, we're never going to war, and it's not like our nonexistant friendship has stopped nuke disarming negotiations. We could get more oil, but as clean energy starts booming around the globe, the demand won't be as high, and the United States and Canada have good enough supplies of oil and good enough trade relations with the Middle East and other places already. It's not like Russia is going to buy any more arms from the United States than it is now either. We're not gaining that much. Though U.S. sanctions will decrease slightly (not fully), the rest of the international community still have tough sanctions, and so if Russia wants to take them off they must become less aggressive, less corrupt, less supportive of dictator regimes who want to destroy us and/or our allies, and more diplomatic with the international community. Not just us.

If they're just as aggressive if they become our allies, then who will stop them? The international community might do it, but the Russians were able to invade another country while everyone turned their backs, including the U.S.. It also begs the question... what does Russia want out of this relationship? The answer: a non-hostile U.S. to buffer their territorial expansion most likely.

 

[bboss]

I'm not going to argue Theology soon, but I will say Christ didn't live in the first century B.C., and many records say he was a carpenter, but have been up to debate whether they're accurate. The New Testament as we know it today was very different from when it was first written, and though that version still exists I believe, it isn't the one the Catholic Church adopted and so the Romans.

Actually if you have even read any of Josephus you will know that Jesus lived in the first century BC because Josephus wrote in the first century B.C.

And btw, the province of Judaea (modern day Israel) was annexed to the Roman Empire in the year 6 AD. Christ was crucified in either 29 or 33 AD. The very first New Testament was probably written around 60-70 AD, and the one Christians use today was probably written around 200-250 AD. There's a good chance that the New Testament was quickly translated to Latin. Christians and Jews were oppressed equally before measures were taken to stop religious tension and eventually Constantine the Great adopted Christianity as the official religion of the empire.

Christ was crucified in AD 33, but there are some discrepancies (give or take a few years) over when we actually started counting Anno Domini time; some theorize it was when the wise men visited several years later (hint: it wasn't at his birth, as many assume).

I think a great question would be what would we benefit out of a Russian relationship, or if that relationship will help us that much even?

I think it might be great for the U.S. and Russia to become allies as they would be a huge global power if united as allies, but their objectives would probably not line up. Just look at the expansionist stuff Putin pulled off several years ago in the Ukraine. All the nations that were expansionist (British, Dutch, French, Spanish) stopped doing this many many years ago, but it seems like Russia can pull off whatever they want.
It would be good to see former archenemies united in certain ways. Maybe we could start with signing a non-agression and non-expansion pact, to some degree. That being said, I'd like to see a bit more sturdy and stable relationship between the United States and Russia.

? People obviously want the threat of war to be smaller, but as long as we have nukes on the planet, we're never going to war, and it's not like our nonexistant friendship has stopped nuke disarming negotiations.

This is very true. Our bark is worse than our bite; the threat enough seems to deter world wars from occurring. I believe one of the only reasons that Israel has not been attacked by its neighbouring countries is because of Israel's 290+ nuclear warheads.
What are your thoughts on Canada owning nuclear weapons? I think they should, as they have in the past, and we need then now more than ever. It would give Canada a bit more authority, I believe.

 

[MisterDom]

Actually if you have even read any of Josephus you will know that Jesus lived in the first century BC because Josephus wrote in the first century B.C.



Christ was crucified in AD 33, but there are some discrepancies (give or take a few years) over when we actually started counting Anno Domini time; some theorize it was when the wise men visited several years later (hint: it wasn't at his birth, as many assume).



I think it might be great for the U.S. and Russia to become allies as they would be a huge global power if united as allies, but their objectives would probably not line up. Just look at the expansionist stuff Putin pulled off several years ago in the Ukraine. All the nations that were expansionist (British, Dutch, French, Spanish) stopped doing this many many years ago, but it seems like Russia can pull off whatever they want.
It would be good to see former archenemies united in certain ways. Maybe we could start with signing a non-agression and non-expansion pact, to some degree. That being said, I'd like to see a bit more sturdy and stable relationship between the United States and Russia.



This is very true. Our bark is worse than our bite; the threat enough seems to deter world wars from occurring. I believe one of the only reasons that Israel has not been attacked by its neighbouring countries is because of Israel's 290+ nuclear warheads.
What are your thoughts on Canada owning nuclear weapons? I think they should, as they have in the past, and we need then now more than ever. It would give Canada a bit more authority, I believe.

I do think that if maybe just maybe we were allies, non-aggression and non-expansion and nuclear disarment pacts might fly out sooner and quicker, but I just don't see it happening much faster then it is now. Though the West and Russia have became adversaries yet again, some of this stuff is still progressing, at least everything but the aggression and expansion. It seems also important to note that if we become allies, our interests in international affairs won't change, which is one big reason against an alliance in friendship as of now. I think instead of non-aggression and expansion pacts, we could just strengthen NATO to check Putin's interests until Russia is willing to cooperate in things like that and not wanting to lead and have more authority than anyone else.

Though I'm not a pacifist, I do advocate to the general disarment of nuclear weapons. If more negotiations in disarming nukes cook up only in a future where a friendship is not unlikely, then in the current present, I'm somewhat open to Canada owing a couple nukes since they're part of NATO and a strong military with the same interests as the U.S. It is essential to check Russia's intentions by strengthening, not weakening, NATO. I'm not going to completely advocate for Canada owning nukes, but I suppose I won't flip if they come about owning one.

 

[bboss]

I think instead of non-aggression and expansion pacts, we could just strengthen NATO to check Putin's interests until Russia is willing to cooperate in things like that and not wanting to lead and have more authority than anyone else.

I agree, I feel like NATO / U.N. are powerless against Russia / N.K.
For example, whenever North Korea conducts a missile test, scores of countries in the U.N. denounce it, but nobody does anything. And now we are receiving reports that North Korea has up to 10 nuclear weapons. That's too much for a state run like N.K.
NATO was formed to combat Russia, and I feel it's been doing a pretty poor job of that lately.

It is essential to check Russia's intentions by strengthening, not weakening, NATO

Exactly, and if we have another nuclear power, the chances of this will rise. We had the CRV7 rockets on our fighters before so I don't see why we shouldn't be allowed, the question is will we, and how would the public respond.