'Murica! (179 Viewers)
- Thread starter Fake Melo
- Start date
- Tags afl_italia's cousins forza trump smocking gun
This absurd nutjob film is trying to be legit and not a parody? 
Its so much easier to actually seriously critique them and go through scandals/corruptions/inconsistencies in tangible and logically academic way instead of this conspiracy scaremongering joke approach.
But then I read the guy making this earlier made a docu where the premise was:
Its so much easier to actually seriously critique them and go through scandals/corruptions/inconsistencies in tangible and logically academic way instead of this conspiracy scaremongering joke approach.
But then I read the guy making this earlier made a docu where the premise was:
This absurd nutjob film is trying to be legit and not a parody?
Its so much easier to actually seriously critique them and go through scandals/corruptions/inconsistencies in tangible and logically academic way instead of this conspiracy scaremongering joke approach.
But then I read the guy making this earlier made a docu where the premise was:
Its so much easier to actually seriously critique them and go through scandals/corruptions/inconsistencies in tangible and logically academic way instead of this conspiracy scaremongering joke approach.
But then I read the guy making this earlier made a docu where the premise was:
What I'm trying to say is that thoughtful critique is only a very small part of politics in the US. And you see that with guys like Hustini or Bjerknes who basically repeat messages they have been told over and over again. It's all very blunt really.
Good (but long) read on history of party systems in US and how they evolved with forms of communication
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/22/did-social-media-produce-the-new-populism
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/02/22/did-social-media-produce-the-new-populism
There's nothing wrong with them as long as you are intelligent enough to realise that documentaries present an opinion.
Goes for everything by the way. The Daily Show for instance can be pretty hilarious, but it's also obvious they have an agenda. Of course it's not 100% right of them to pose as an objectice, neutral source at times, but truth is people should just be smart enough to see through it.
Goes for everything by the way. The Daily Show for instance can be pretty hilarious, but it's also obvious they have an agenda. Of course it's not 100% right of them to pose as an objectice, neutral source at times, but truth is people should just be smart enough to see through it.
What is weird to me is the bluntness of it all. For instance in Belgium papers favor certain politicians too. I mean, all papers are somewhat 'colored'. But it's never that obvious, never that outspoken. Papers wouldn't portray one man as the devil and glorify another. Probably because such an approach would backfire within our culture I suppose.
This absurd nutjob film is trying to be legit and not a parody?
Its so much easier to actually seriously critique them and go through scandals/corruptions/inconsistencies in tangible and logically academic way instead of this conspiracy scaremongering joke approach.
But then I read the guy making this earlier made a docu where the premise was:
Its so much easier to actually seriously critique them and go through scandals/corruptions/inconsistencies in tangible and logically academic way instead of this conspiracy scaremongering joke approach.
But then I read the guy making this earlier made a docu where the premise was:
I can only imagine how that went
But you act like it's the end of the world. Most likely, this is just Trump rhetoric. How is he even going to find the families and kill them? Think about it. And even if it was possible, that's still slightly better than randomly bombing villages with predator drones, like the current President has done.
The premise is that Trump is already a billionaire, so the thought is he couldn't be bought on the way to the office, or once in office. That's a little different than what you said.
Very true.
Yes, I guess I do. What's so offensive about it? I'm also certain you were a supporter of keeping the Syrian refugees out of Europe, so what made you change your mind?
I stopped reading at "listen to John McCain." Anybody who says that is a goddamn retard.
Thank you, and notice how nobody responded to your post. The answer to your question is that the wall is not racist.
The premise is that Trump is already a billionaire, so the thought is he couldn't be bought on the way to the office, or once in office. That's a little different than what you said.
Very true.
Yes, I guess I do. What's so offensive about it? I'm also certain you were a supporter of keeping the Syrian refugees out of Europe, so what made you change your mind?
I stopped reading at "listen to John McCain." Anybody who says that is a goddamn retard.
Thank you, and notice how nobody responded to your post. The answer to your question is that the wall is not racist.
I'm not sure if any country takes free speech to this extreme as US does. Don't forget that the earliest form of political writings in US were pamphlets, and many pamphlets were written to drag people's names through the mud.
Alexander Hamilton, one of the founding fathers, wrote this letter in 1796 about John Adams (2nd president of the US), which became one of the major reasons Adams lost his reelection bid
https://archive.org/details/letterfromalexan00hami2
- - - Updated - - -
I have not known a billionaire who does not like more billions. And if Trump has no moral objection to the concept of buying politicians, I can't see how he ever wants to stop it while he is in office. So the premise is very naive at best.
Alexander Hamilton, one of the founding fathers, wrote this letter in 1796 about John Adams (2nd president of the US), which became one of the major reasons Adams lost his reelection bid
https://archive.org/details/letterfromalexan00hami2
- - - Updated - - -
I have not known a billionaire who does not like more billions. And if Trump has no moral objection to the concept of buying politicians, I can't see how he ever wants to stop it while he is in office. So the premise is very naive at best.
Okay just imagine this scenario: Imagine Obama had said the exact same thing about killing the families of terrorists. What would your reaction have been? Would you have defended him too?
- - - Updated - - -
But this isn't about free speech, or the issue of whether such things should be allowed. It's about how they are apparently effective in actually convincing people, in most other countries this wouldn't be the case, they'd backfire badly.
- - - Updated - - -
True, in a two party system things are most likely always going to be that way (probably the main reason why such a system is is rather flawed), the question I'm asking is how can you look at the two likely candidates and conclude that Trump is the lesser evil?
- - - Updated - - -
But this isn't about free speech, or the issue of whether such things should be allowed. It's about how they are apparently effective in actually convincing people, in most other countries this wouldn't be the case, they'd backfire badly.
- - - Updated - - -
True, in a two party system things are most likely always going to be that way (probably the main reason why such a system is is rather flawed), the question I'm asking is how can you look at the two likely candidates and conclude that Trump is the lesser evil?