2
   

Truth of 2016 president election

 
 
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2017 07:43 pm
Truth of 2016 president election

The core is to help Trump to grab the president power.
The mastermind is the FBI.
Russian is only a scapegoat hired to get the thing done.

Clinton is victim but has been targetted by the FBI

Hillary's email was hacked. She is a victim. Russian (or the FBI) is the thief. But in this election the FBI attacked Clinton all the way to help their candidate Trump to steal the president seat.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 3,634 • Replies: 48

 
Krumple
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2017 08:24 pm
@katsung47,
katsung47 wrote:

Truth of 2016 president election

The core is to help Trump to grab the president power.
The mastermind is the FBI.
Russian is only a scapegoat hired to get the thing done.

Clinton is victim but has been targetted by the FBI

Hillary's email was hacked. She is a victim. Russian (or the FBI) is the thief. But in this election the FBI attacked Clinton all the way to help their candidate Trump to steal the president seat.



Um how about no?

Trump won because the Dems were arrogantly positive they would win. Even Bill Clinton scolded Hillary for not campaigning in states he felt she could have won if she had treated them seriously.

TPP connections lost Clinton favor in the middle states. The people in these towns felt threatened by the TPP deals Clinton was making. Millions if jobs would have been impacted.

Also the extreme left have become annoying with their social justice rhetorics and attack on white privilege. Do you know how annoying it is to call a blue collar white guy who works a 70 hour week job that is shitty and dangerous by some snot nosed collage kid who hasn't worked, priveldged because he's white.

The hacking story is pushed by the left because they don't want to admit to the truth. They are overly arrogant, childish, out of touch with the common hard working American, and corrupt.
maporsche
 
  4  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2017 09:12 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:
Also the extreme left have become annoying with their social justice rhetorics and attack on white privilege. Do you know how annoying it is to call a blue collar white guy who works a 70 hour week job that is shitty and dangerous by some snot nosed collage kid who hasn't worked, priveldged because he's white.


All this tells me is that you don't understand what the term 'white privilege' actually means (and neither, I suppose, does much of white America).

I'm saying this as a middle aged white guy who works 66 hours a week.
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2017 09:16 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

Krumple wrote:
Also the extreme left have become annoying with their social justice rhetorics and attack on white privilege. Do you know how annoying it is to call a blue collar white guy who works a 70 hour week job that is shitty and dangerous by some snot nosed collage kid who hasn't worked, priveldged because he's white.


All this tells me is that you don't understand what the term 'white privilege' actually means (and neither, I suppose, does much of white America).

I'm saying this as a middle aged white guy who works 66 hours a week.


The point isn't how you demand it be understood but instead on how those people percieve the comment. Even if they are misunderstanding the meaning behind white priveldge its about how they interpret it in their own life. Thats why they are annoyed by the statement.
maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2017 09:23 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

maporsche wrote:

Krumple wrote:
Also the extreme left have become annoying with their social justice rhetorics and attack on white privilege. Do you know how annoying it is to call a blue collar white guy who works a 70 hour week job that is shitty and dangerous by some snot nosed collage kid who hasn't worked, priveldged because he's white.


All this tells me is that you don't understand what the term 'white privilege' actually means (and neither, I suppose, does much of white America).

I'm saying this as a middle aged white guy who works 66 hours a week.


The point isn't how you demand it be understood but instead on how those people percieve the comment. Even if they are misunderstanding the meaning behind white priveldge its about how they interpret it in their own life. Thats why they are annoyed by the statement.


"How I demand it?" haha...ok. First, I'm not demanding anything.

Words have actual meanings. Just because you or others don't understand the meanings (likely because they don't want to) doesn't change the meaning of the phrase.

I agree with you that misunderstandings are indeed an issue around the term. I get that ignorance of the meaning can cause annoyance (on both sides, trust me).

I wonder, do you understand the meaning behind the phrase? Could you explain it in a brief fashion? Do you agree that it exists to some degree? To what degree do you think, I wonder?
Krumple
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2017 10:10 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

Krumple wrote:

maporsche wrote:

Krumple wrote:
Also the extreme left have become annoying with their social justice rhetorics and attack on white privilege. Do you know how annoying it is to call a blue collar white guy who works a 70 hour week job that is shitty and dangerous by some snot nosed collage kid who hasn't worked, priveldged because he's white.


All this tells me is that you don't understand what the term 'white privilege' actually means (and neither, I suppose, does much of white America).

I'm saying this as a middle aged white guy who works 66 hours a week.


The point isn't how you demand it be understood but instead on how those people percieve the comment. Even if they are misunderstanding the meaning behind white priveldge its about how they interpret it in their own life. Thats why they are annoyed by the statement.


"How I demand it?" haha...ok. First, I'm not demanding anything.

Words have actual meanings. Just because you or others don't understand the meanings (likely because they don't want to) doesn't change the meaning of the phrase.

I agree with you that misunderstandings are indeed an issue around the term. I get that ignorance of the meaning can cause annoyance (on both sides, trust me).

I wonder, do you understand the meaning behind the phrase? Could you explain it in a brief fashion? Do you agree that it exists to some degree? To what degree do you think, I wonder?


Essentially the statement suggests that whites are treated better because they are white. If you were to place two people in the same scenario, one being white and the other not, the situation result would favor the white over the non-white.

So any case, police stops, job interviews, bank loans, housing, etc. Any situation favors whites over non- white.

Its a generalization, its not 100% true. Therefore it's racist to say there is white priveldge.

All it is, is an attack on whites. When there is a problem you blame the ethnic race for your problems. Rather than admitting that people are not equal and never will be. Some people will always need to work harder, try more and get turned down more often than someone else. They just want to say this is because the white man said no, why I can't be a billionaire.
RABEL222
 
  3  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2017 10:48 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
Essentially the statement suggests that whites are treated better because they are white.


Essentially this statement is quite true.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Jan, 2017 10:49 pm
https://qz.com/886652/the-fbis-rigorous-ethics-bar-it-from-commenting-on-investigations-into-anyone-not-named-hillary-clinton/
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2017 02:36 am
@Krumple,
Very, very good point.
roger
 
  3  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2017 03:06 am
@Lash,
Yabutt, why is it racist to say so, as she stated?
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2017 03:39 am
@roger,
I don't agree with that statement, but Krumple's assertion that blue-collar and, I guess, other whites who don't accept the term 'white privilege' as it is intended chafe mightily against this and other confounding PC rules our society seemed to enact without their understanding or approval.

This was a tide that lifted the Trumpster pretty high.
old europe
 
  4  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2017 05:23 am
@Lash,
Presumably, there was also a significant percentage of whites who didn't accept desegregation and who chafed mightily against this and other concepts our society seemed to enact without that specific group's understanding or approval.
PUNKEY
 
  -4  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2017 08:16 am
@old europe,
'significant percentage of whites who didn't accept desegregation . . ."

Where in god's name do you get this kind of information?

For a "significant percentage" of people - including minorities - it was an ECONOMIC issue.
Lash
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2017 08:48 am
@old europe,
Yes. What's your point?
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  3  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2017 09:18 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

maporsche wrote:

Krumple wrote:

maporsche wrote:

Krumple wrote:
Also the extreme left have become annoying with their social justice rhetorics and attack on white privilege. Do you know how annoying it is to call a blue collar white guy who works a 70 hour week job that is shitty and dangerous by some snot nosed collage kid who hasn't worked, priveldged because he's white.


All this tells me is that you don't understand what the term 'white privilege' actually means (and neither, I suppose, does much of white America).

I'm saying this as a middle aged white guy who works 66 hours a week.


The point isn't how you demand it be understood but instead on how those people percieve the comment. Even if they are misunderstanding the meaning behind white priveldge its about how they interpret it in their own life. Thats why they are annoyed by the statement.


"How I demand it?" haha...ok. First, I'm not demanding anything.

Words have actual meanings. Just because you or others don't understand the meanings (likely because they don't want to) doesn't change the meaning of the phrase.

I agree with you that misunderstandings are indeed an issue around the term. I get that ignorance of the meaning can cause annoyance (on both sides, trust me).

I wonder, do you understand the meaning behind the phrase? Could you explain it in a brief fashion? Do you agree that it exists to some degree? To what degree do you think, I wonder?


Essentially the statement suggests that whites are treated better because they are white. If you were to place two people in the same scenario, one being white and the other not, the situation result would favor the white over the non-white.

So any case, police stops, job interviews, bank loans, housing, etc. Any situation favors whites over non- white.

Its a generalization, its not 100% true. Therefore it's racist to say there is white priveldge.

All it is, is an attack on whites. When there is a problem you blame the ethnic race for your problems. Rather than admitting that people are not equal and never will be. Some people will always need to work harder, try more and get turned down more often than someone else. They just want to say this is because the white man said no, why I can't be a billionaire.


Your understanding of the phrase is good enough; there are other pieces to it as well but they're more annoyances than they are things that actual cause a disadvantage (to whatever degree).

There are studies, many many of them, that provide evidence that "police stops, job interviews, bank loans, housing, etc. Any situation favors whites over non- white" is true. It's not at all racist to point to these studies and say that white people, because of the color of their skin, are treated differently than black people. These studies even show that black people show preference to white people.

It's not an attack on whites. Not at all. It's a PLEA for white people to understand that there are things inherent about being a black person in America that a white person does not experience, for example, when it comes to policing. It's a plea to keep things like Affirmative Action in place because there are actual statistical preferences in hiring/admission given to white people in college applications and in job interviews.

Not all people are equal, this is a fact. But when you have literally identical resumes submitted for employment applications, and one person is named Tanner and the other is named Ebony and there is statistical evidence that Tanner's resume (again identical to Ebony's) is selected for an interview more frequently, then maybe there is something going on even if at only an unconscious level.
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2017 09:24 am
@old europe,
You could be nibbling around a couple of points with your statement. It's definitely relevant to the discussion, but not sure exactly what you intend.
maporsche
 
  4  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2017 09:25 am
@PUNKEY,
PUNKEY wrote:

'significant percentage of whites who didn't accept desegregation . . ."

Where in god's name do you get this kind of information?

For a "significant percentage" of people - including minorities - it was an ECONOMIC issue.


Wait...you DON'T think that a significant percentage of white people were against desegregation back in the 50's? National Guard troops were used at times to prevent black people from going to white schools. You really need a history lesson.

http://www.civilrights.org/resources/civilrights101/desegregation.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

You know there were cameras back then right?



https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/5e/1d/81/5e1d81e176a4a17dc6a2e0dc743aa111.jpghttps://southernspaces.org/sites/default/files/images/2009/egerton-010-communists.jpghttp://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/embedded_full/public/2015/01/16/0115mlk07.jpg?itok=M2bqVqif
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2017 09:30 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

You could be nibbling around a couple of points with your statement. It's definitely relevant to the discussion, but not sure exactly what you intend.


I could be wrong but I gather that he's saying something along the lines of 'the tide is rolling in and despite white people's objection to it, and even despite some sandbags they've thrown up to block it, the water will keep on coming.'

Fact is, the younger you are, the more likely you are to accept that black people are still being treated like 2nd class citizens in a lot of different ways. People born in the 40's and 50's are unlikely to change their minds at this point. As they die off, the country will become more liberal in many regards. It already has.
katsung47
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2017 03:59 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
Trump won because the Dems were arrogantly positive they would win. Even Bill Clinton scolded Hillary for not campaigning in states he felt she could have won if she had treated them seriously.


Bill Clinton: Hillary 'couldn't prevail' against FBI and Russia hacking
By NOLAN D. MCCASKILL 12/19/16

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/bill-clinton-hillary-loss-fbi-russia-232822

terror power rules the US. All are silent when the traitor was revealed to collaborate with foreign power.

Quote:
The hacking story is pushed by the left because they don't want to admit to the truth. They are overly arrogant, childish, out of touch with the common hard working American, and corrupt.


FBI Agrees with CIA Assessment That Russia Wanted to Help Trump
by KEN DILANIAN and PETE DEC 16 2016,

Two U.S. intelligence officials have confirmed to NBC News that FBI Director James Comey and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper agree with a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the presidency.

The officials said electing Trump was only part of what Russia was trying to accomplish. The larger goal, they said, was to undermine confidence in American democracy.

"Mostly they wanted to build uncertainty and challenge faith in the American election system," said one official. The FBI's view has been that Russia's main goal was causing mischief, said the official. That Russia also supported Trump was "one part" of the FBI assessment.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-agrees-cia-assessment-russia-wanted-help-trump-n697066
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2017 04:17 pm
@maporsche,
Funny how you question me on my understanding as if I have no idea what talking about. The thing is, I'm not only right about my understanding but I'm right about it being racist to say white priveldge.

Its IS an attack an many people want to find a way to punish whites for being white. Its racist to the core. Its blaming someone else for their problems.

Its why Hillary did not win. Middle America don't want to be blamed for others problems when all the do is work their asses off in shitty and dangerous jobs for durt pay.

Until the Dems realize this, Trump might get a second term.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Truth of 2016 president election
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/18/2019 at 03:35:14