But, but, Drumpf is the one inciting violence!
Strong arguments from a weak source.
I agree. But still look forward to their response. Can't wait to see if this is going look like this:Don't shoot the messenger.
Typical infowars approach.
Completely one sided on protester violence versus trump supporter violence (no mention of the two prosecuted cases).
Failing to acknowledge the things Trump has said to provoke such hatred, and the things he said encouraging violence between his supporters and the protesters (aside from the one "punch aggitators in the face" line). He's not the most disliked candidate by a long shot just because of unfavourable press.
Completely ignoring the fact that being provocative is the way Trump has gotten so much media attention. Criticising the very media attention which has almost entirely formed the basis of his campaign.
Bringing up the secret service detail as if that's unusual for a candidate.
If you watch the fox interview in context, it's clear the Breitbart reporter wasn't talking just about getting grabbed as the "worst thing aside from her Father's death", but the attention she'd gotten, the work drama etc.
Essentially they are conflating random joking tweets, hecklers and stage rushes with assassination attempts.
Oh... and infowars criticising someone for cooking up a "major conspiracy"? Hah!
Infowars has a long history of claims about assassination. None of which have ever had any merit.
John Oliver is just the cockney accented attack poodle of the Democratic party at this point. He's not even 1/10th as funny as Stephen Colbert.Why have we imported a virulent anti-American Briton, that hack John Oliver, to insult us from our televisions when instead we could have had brought in an intelligent, no-nonsense fellow like the one who made this video?
What do you expect from infowars?
No need to be rude bro. I was hoping we could be friends.Typical ignorant regressive response.
Ignore the content, parrot other's responses discrediting the source.
Typical infowars approach.
Completely one sided on protester violence versus trump supporter violence (no mention of the two prosecuted cases).
Failing to acknowledge the things Trump has said to provoke such hatred, and the things he said encouraging violence between his supporters and the protesters (aside from the one "punch aggitators in the face" line). He's not the most disliked candidate by a long shot just because of unfavourable press.
Completely ignoring the fact that being provocative is the way Trump has gotten so much media attention. Criticising the very media attention which has almost entirely formed the basis of his campaign.
Bringing up the secret service detail as if that's unusual for a candidate.
If you watch the fox interview in context, it's clear the Breitbart reporter wasn't talking just about getting grabbed as the "worst thing aside from her Father's death", but the attention she'd gotten, the work drama etc.
Essentially they are conflating random joking tweets, hecklers and stage rushes with assassination attempts.
Oh... and infowars criticising someone for cooking up a "major conspiracy"? Hah!
Infowars has a long history of claims about assassination. None of which have ever had any merit.
Stop being so regressive and ignorant! You oppressive parrot!I can scarcely believe that the crazy bastards at infowars could put out bullshit capable of seducing any of the intelligent, high-minded, thoughtful people on Sherdog. This entire thread must be a false flag.
Hmmm.
The speaker posted several tweets from average people speaking about assassinating Trump openly from 1 day - Mar. 13th/16.
I didn't place any blame, I was referring to their dishonestly making it seem like she was saying the grab itself was the worst thing that had happened to her outside her father's death.And who brought the drama, press to that woman protestor's life?! Ridiculous placement of blame, Ruprecht.
...and? He's deliberately courting it. It's how he gets coverage.I live in the real world. In the real world the negative media Trump gets is easily 100 to 1.
No, I don't discredit sources simply because I disagree with them. I point out people posting shit sources, without fact checking them or establishing bias. You on the other hand will post something from a shit source, simply because you agree with it. Guess which of those actions actually displays bias?And you, tpically attacking/discrediting a source that you don't agree with. At least you're consistent.
Further, why do you comment so much on Tump from the most Muslim-populate area of the world (SE Asia)? Does his illegal alien stance throw a crimp in your retirement plans?