he's a white male, voted for Hillary. she's a black woman, voted for Trump.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Ok then, which publications who have covered these topics at all, would you accept news from?

I mean, I am not going to find articles from within the echo chamber of the right, so you are going to have to give me the name of a non partisan news wire you trust, so I cannot be accused of some agenda behind saying what I am saying.

So what's it going to be.

Oh, and by the way, I am expecting you to actually provide a name, not dodge the question or post another "you Brits just don't understand" comment. I understand far more about your country than most of your countrymen do, and a damn sight more than many of its politicians, so stow that, and give me a name.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: alphabetaone

Ok then, which publications who have covered these topics at all, would you accept news from?

I mean, I am not going to find articles from within the echo chamber of the right, so you are going to have to give me the name of a non partisan news wire you trust, so I cannot be accused of some agenda behind saying what I am saying.

So what's it going to be.

Oh, and by the way, I am expecting you to actually provide a name, not dodge the question or post another "you Brits just don't understand" comment. I understand far more about your country than most of your countrymen do, and a damn sight more than many of its politicians, so stow that, and give me a name.

You're going to have to forgive me if I call BS on your thinly veiled attempt at sarcastic non-speak rhetoric. Additionally, I doubt highly you know more about our own political process than "most of our countrymen do" much less a "damn sight more than many of its politicians".

The onus is on you to find publications that show equal amounts of bias as you are making the claims....so find the sources, leave BBC and Daily mail out of the equation and I will let you know upon furnishing those sources if I find them credible or not.

Papa Bless.

a reply to: alphabetaone

No.

You give me names, I will give you sources. I am not wasting my time, hunting down umpteen publications only for you to turn round and poo poo the lot of them on some Trumped up (see what I did there?) pretext!

Give me a name.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: alphabetaone

No.

You give me names, I will give you sources. I am not wasting my time, hunting down umpteen publications only for you to turn round and poo poo the lot of them on some Trumped up (see what I did there?) pretext!

Give me a name.

Nope. Youre making the claim, the burden lies in your playfield. *I* am not wasting *MY* time in helping you to prove that you don't know what youre talking about.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Just look?

Maybe here?

Or even this?

Oh, let me guess, these are all paid Hillary supporters right?

I guess this guy from our very own ATS is a paid Hillary supporter too?

I don't think the blacks understand that a lot of people have been waiting a while to take out the trash. So keep it up and give us this excuse we're waiting for, see how that goes for you.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TrueBrit

Either he did or did not say that he wanted Muslims registered.

He did not say. Again, you've been feeding on nothing but misrepresentation and contextomy, and the result is misinformation, misguided anger, and irrational fear.

He did not give a definitive answer. One might say he was evasive. I for one do not appreciate someone who is trying to become my president being evasive regarding fascist agendas. I agree with truebrit, corporate and government need to stop circle jerking if we are to prioritize humanity over profit.

originally posted by: Tsubaki
a reply to: alphabetaone

Just look?

Maybe here?

Or even this?

Oh, let me guess, these are all paid Hillary supporters right?

I guess this guy from our very own ATS is a paid Hillary supporter too?

I don't think the blacks understand that a lot of people have been waiting a while to take out the trash. So keep it up and give us this excuse we're waiting for, see how that goes for you.

Nope. Sorry, imnot going to let you strawman it for him. I too, can find ISOLATED incidents of racial violence across the USA every year for the past 200 years.

He said "metric ass ton" of ramped up racially motivated violence... I want proof of that...about a spreadsheet showing historical values is about all I would accept there.

He said "Muslims need to be registered".... Prove that ALL AMERICAN citizens do NOT need to be registered, then inform Social Security, the Health Department and the Census Bureau they are now unemployed.

He said LGBT Rights are going to be destroyed to which I retorted with my belief that they simply have the right to EXIST, as do we all....


These are things I want proof on....nothing less will suffice.

a reply to: TzarChasm

He did not give a definitive answer. One might say he was evasive. I for one do not appreciate someone who is trying to become my president being evasive regarding fascist agendas. I agree with truebrit, corporate and government need to stop circle jerking if we are to prioritize humanity over profit.

It was a loaded question, and Trump was nothing but forthcoming with his answer. "Prioritizing humanity" is a feel-good cop-out when it comes to the complex issue of terrorism and national security.

a reply to: alphabetaone

a reply to: alphabetaone

Ok. Here's an article which does a run down of some of the unconstitutional positions Mr Trump has taken, including but not limited to issues regarding freedom of speech and religious freedoms.

www.politico.com...

Here's a little something from the ACLU.

action.aclu.org...

Getting newspaper feeds to load on my ancient, steam driven iPad is proving a chore, so I have cut straight to the meat and potatoes of the issue, and so here are two links showing the unconstitutional positions of Mr Trump, and detailing attacks he wants to make on those areas of the constitution.

Now, on the subject of the crime figures for the last 24 hours, expecting a graph after a mere 24 hours or so is hilariously childish, since there is as far as I know, no way to actually have a real time finger on the pulse of a particular crime statistic, and I simply have not got the tools or the mathematical capacity to pull one out of the data myself. If you cannot accept the bloodied face of this homosexual, or the swastika sprayed on that place of business, or the social media reports (which are the ONLY thing one can get hold of quickly, everything else taking time to actually get through the system into an official statistic) detailing people being held at gun point while being called an n word, told they are lucky that lead is more expensive than it used to be, and to wait till January, then you are keeping yourself in a very pleasant little echo chamber aren't you.

I do hope that move makes you feel better, but it is not the real world you are living in. You are living, if you ignore this stuff, in a world where the truth is irrelevant, and only YOUR rights matter.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It's not even a matter of prioritising humanity.

It's about how seriously you take your liberty. If you deserve it, you would rather die than live without it yourself, or have anyone else lose it without having broken a law to justify their loss. You trade your liberty away for any reason, ESPECIALLY for mere physical security, and that is the moment that you lose all claim to be either safe or free, and the fact that I even have to explain that, hundreds of years after it became accepted good sense, is bloody appalling.

a reply to: TrueBrit

It's not even a matter of prioritising humanity.

It's about how seriously you take your liberty. If you deserve it, you would rather die than live without it yourself, or have anyone else lose it without having broken a law to justify their loss. You trade your liberty away for any reason, ESPECIALLY for mere physical security, and that is the moment that you lose all claim to be either safe or free, and the fact that I even have to explain that, hundreds of years after it became accepted good sense, is bloody appalling.

You have explained nothing, and have simply repeated platitudinous maxims disguised as "good sense". No one is trading liberty, only defending it.

originally posted by: TrueBrit

Now, on the subject of the crime figures for the last 24 hours, expecting a graph after a mere 24 hours or so is hilariously childish, since there is as far as I know, no way to actually have a real time finger on the pulse of a particular crime statistic,

Hilariously childish? You made a statement, that I assumed you could back up. That there was in fact "a metric # ton" elevated racially motivated violence. It's hilariously childish for me to ask you to back that up with figures? You cant get to whatever magical historical database that you first used to arrive at that conclusion and present those numbers to me? You cant research years and election cycles going back in time such that they provide a decent control group statistically to forward your position?

Ok, then I'm hilariously childish if defending fact over fiction is the delineating criteria for defining it.


As far as your inability to "have your finger on the pulse of criminal activity, let me help ya out, Uniform.....look up uniform and see if that helps ya out...not that I want to necessarily be predisposed to actually giving you a helping hand in this instance.


ETA: As far as your sources, they seem perfectly legitimate. However, about the only thing that I find murky and perhaps questionable, is his policy on holding the Press as a libel party because he may think they have acted in malice (just for monetary gain, presumably). Now this reeks of personal gain and doesn't stand by the age old law of having to prove malice or malicious intent to hold the press accountable thus being awarded with damages. This I will admit comes close to infringing upon the 1st amendment right, yet how it is actually implemented IF it becomes implemented is another story - and lets face it, you don't call for a civil war because you think the press is full of S__t, you fight any change through normal channels.....as far as the rest, I still see no proof.

a reply to: TrueBrit

his VP has been telling anyone who will listen that using the fully Republican senate, congress and every other bloody thing, they are going to overturn a bunch of protections that people have fought long and hard for, destroy LGBT rights,

Greetings.

I'm a 28 yo gay male living in the United States. I voted for Trump.

Can you please point me to where VP Elect Pence said he was going to overturn protections for LGBT rights?

Because I think I missed that.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Wow.

Well, all I can say to the fact that you cannot see more than one potential constitutional failure in Donald Trumps entire platform, is that you cannot see phosgene gas either. Apparently it smells like freshly cut grass. But just because you cannot see it, will not stop it stripping out your lungs, liquifying them in your chest cavity, and pretty much killing you dead.

The fact is that your failure to correctly understand the constitution does not mean that his platform is anything less than the largest impending assault on that document to ever be publicly announced prior to its enactment.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: alphabetaone

Wow.

Well, all I can say to the fact that you cannot see more than one potential constitutional failure in Donald Trumps entire platform, is that you cannot see phosgene gas either. Apparently it smells like freshly cut grass. But just because you cannot see it, will not stop it stripping out your lungs, liquifying them in your chest cavity, and pretty much killing you dead.

The fact is that your failure to correctly understand the constitution does not mean that his platform is anything less than the largest impending assault on that document to ever be publicly announced prior to its enactment.

Nope. That's not what youre saying at all. Youre saying that because I asked you prove your point, and you have thus far failed miserably to even come close means you should denigrate me by assuming I cant comprehend a document(s) that I actually have a decent working knowledge of.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Explain yourself then oh wise one.

Precisely how is Trumps aim of abusing law to attack freedom of the press constitutional?

How is his desire to see Muslims potentially prevented from moving around, the closure of mosques or any of his policies regarding that issue constitutional?

Go ahead and tell me, because having read the thing repeatedly, I honestly cannot see how in the hell anyone thinks this bull crap can fly.

a reply to: TrueBrit

K.

Now answer my question.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: alphabetaone

Explain yourself then oh wise one.

Precisely how is Trumps aim of abusing law to attack freedom of the press constitutional?

How is his desire to see Muslims potentially prevented from moving around, the closure of mosques or any of his policies regarding that issue constitutional?

Go ahead and tell me, because having read the thing repeatedly, I honestly cannot see how in the hell anyone thinks this bull crap can fly.

You just want to sensationalize everything you read....and you're basing your rebuttal (in this case of Islamic Mosques) on a single element within the US Constitution....that being the religious aspect, which at the beginning of the article is what is called into question. Islam however is 2 distinct practices those being Religious Islam and Political Islam...there does not exist one without the other. But in the US there is (for good reason) separation of Church and State, or religion and Government. Trump (and, clearly America as a majority) does not want the violent Political Islam to affect the safety of US citizens while full well knowing that the mostly peaceful Religious Islam is going to suffer as well by the actions of the Political faction.

So you tell me, if in your neighborhood, you knew of a radical Mosque making plans to bomb the Underground, would you be sticking to your convictions so boldly? Or would you call to have them shutdown to prevent it? Then ask me again how "this crap can fly".

As far as the First Amendment, he hasn't called on abusing law (more of your sensationalism) to target the press, I'm sure he has every intention AND is bound by congress to follow proper channels. He wont be able to affect any changes to free speech and we all know that...the President's arms don't reach that high by design.


LOL @ preventing Muslims from moving around, where do you people come from...

A Muslim woman in Louisiana who told police she was attacked with a metal object and robbed of her headscarf and wallet by two men wearing Donald Trump clothing just hours after Trump was elected president admitted to police today that she made it up, Lafayette police told ABC News.

abcnews.go.com...