Gee, this false flag is pretty comprehensive now, and risking killing or injuring a whole lot of people on the perp's own team. Gee whiz, what guts this false flag operation takes. On the serious, I wonder if Flake or Cohen or Omarosa gets one? Woodward? Late-night host? Alec Baldwin?
First, you understand that is a subjective claim? It's also a very broad generalization. Also, I think you have to understand that because there is negative coverage of an individual, it doesn't entail "fake". It can be genuine. An extreme example would be how the press would handle the rise of Adolf Hitler. By no means am I comparing Hitler to Trump. I'm providing an extreme example to establish whether or not you believe there is a threshold where your claim of "90% negative coverage" is warranted. Obviously, there is a threshold where the press, based in merit rather than agenda, have overwhelming negative press coverage. So the debate here is whether the negative press coverage is based in merit. Now, for many, a habitual blatant liar as the POTUS warrants negative press coverage. Second, criticism of the media is not a binary paradigm between "above reproach" and "enemy of the people". You understand this right? You can search through my post history. I've criticized CNN multiple times especially how they lack in nuanced news coverage often and settle with political pundit debates for shear entertainment value. That is a genuine criticism. Third, I want to ask you a question: When Trump makes very hardlined allegations of the media being "the enemy of the people", does he do it out of an altruistic criticism of the press and a genuine concern of our media? Or does he do it from a pure self-interest perspective only labeling critics of him as "enemy of the people"? You understand why I question his motive? If his concern was genuine, wouldn't he not praise obvious propagandists on both sides? Sure, criticize Don Lemon, but what about Sean Hannity or Alex Jones(btw, he explicitly stated that this guy does "very good work"). So when he praises individuals such as Alex Jones, but then complains about "fake news" only when it applies to criticism of him, can you see why people like me see his "enemy of the people"shtick as incredibly self-serving and not from a genuine concern for the American people? So I'll ask the question again. If the founders witnessed our POTUS labeling the press as "enemy of the people" from a self interest motive rather than a genuine criticism of the media, would they be concerned? Oh, and I would appreciate if you answer my previous question about whether Obama was in his right(as in you wouldn't be upset) if he labeled Fox News as the "enemy of the people" when they peddled Birther and secret Muslim stories.
No one was at risk of being killed since the "bombs" were not hooked up to where they could even potentially explode.
It's funny that they continually feel safe enough to take pictures of what is supposedly a dangerous bomb......and these packages keep being delivered despite not going through processing which you can tell by the fact that the stamps are never voided.....Also, none of these have had adequate postage in the first place. None of this adds up.
I agree with your point completely but... this chart is absolutely ridiculous. First of all, it's titled Right-wing terror incidents so presumably it doesn't include anything else. Second, it arbitrarily starts at 1993 and 2017 is partial, neither given an explanation as to why. Third, it states source is 150 "incidents" which is incorrectly creating equivalency that all 150 are equal in impact, influence, depth, etc... Incidents alone isn't enough of a commonality for a graph. Need another data point to weight the 150 incidents. Fourth, 2% anti-muslim and 1% anti-immigrant get a label but 1% other doesn't? Again seems arbitrary and makes no sense. Fifth, the label definitions have no clarification and I'm willing to bet there is some crossover between incidents, i.e. a white supremacist will also be anti-muslim and anti-immigrant, etc... Having said all of that, of course terrorism of any kind is bad. Trying to prove one is "worser" than the other is juvenile. Remember I'm the guy who thinks political rallies are fascist so trust me when I say overall I agree with the point you're trying to make. This chart though is a stupid way to make it imo.
HIllary Waters Biden Booker I could grab more. Deckard, maybe it would be healthier for you if you don't post in this forum. You don't have the emotional maturity for it. A stable person would of just posted 'link what you are referring to' .
It was a terror attack. The purpose was to create terror and fear. Do you not understand that? Receiving something that looks like a bomb is pretty frightening to most people.
For those who are calling it fake bombs, can we volunteer these people to hold these fake bombs in their hands? Can we please send fake bombs to the fake president so he can hold them up with his little hands?
It's a terrorist act, there's no doubt of that, but I wouldn't call it an attack since it is very likely that the bombs were intentionally made so that they could not blow up. I do absolutely think that this was a cynical political plot to convince people to vote a certain way, but I can't call it an "attack" since there was no real potential for harm.
you are very quick to call out waters, biden, booker and hilldog, but i notice you dont criticize trump at all or even acknowledge that he has been constantly advocating violence since he started running for president. why is that?
