What's new

US Politics

Trump was just being Trump, lying with a straight face.

Let me make the long story short.

First that image was posted on June 15, 2016 by a well-known racist (@FishBoneHead1) on Twitter , the twitter has banned the scumbag now.

Then on June 22, 2016 the same image was posted on a racist forum.

And then the same image was posted on Trumps twitter account.

Now does that tell you something, think about it?

I agree. Trump is a liar.

Trump the mad man? It is Hilary that is pro war, not Trump. She was in favors of Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Lybia, ect.

She has threatened to "obliterate" Iran and go to war over cyber attacks, she basically said she would attack Russia and China. Now factor in her strange behavior such as literally barking like a dog and rolling here eyes and bobbling her head back and fourth as if she is heavily drugged on PCP.

Who is the real man man? You feel safer with a sociopathic warmonger who is heavily drugged up and suffering from dementia?

I agree. Clinton is a liar...and a warmonger.

This is why I'm not going to vote for either of them even though one of them is going to be POTUS. I'm voting third-party. Please don't tell me I'm wasting my vote. Anybody who is voting for one of these two knuckleheads is wasting their vote.
 
like I said, every single one of your points has been discussed and debunked, go back some pages and read through.
Don't waste time on the troll. Put him on your ignore list like i did.

Genius, are you blind, the link is right there you damn just need to open your freaking eyes and see. The reason he is not visiting Israel is because he was snubbed and criticized by Netanyahu for his travel ban on Muslims, now imagine that even Netanyahu could not digest his BS. Trump as usual is lying when he says “I’m not traditional”, if Netanyahu had not criticized him, the lying hypocrite would have no problem visiting Israel in December 2015.

Taliban’s are supporting Hillary, really? :rolleyes:
The link you posted wasn't for the Natenyahu incident.

And secondly, Natanyahu hating Trump is another good reason for supporting Trump.
 
Editorial
Hillary Clinton would make a sober, smart and pragmatic president. Donald Trump would be a catastrophe.

la-1474589450-snap-photo.jpg



By The Times Editorial Board
Sep 23, 2016

American voters have a clear choice on Nov. 8. We can elect an experienced, thoughtful and deeply knowledgeable public servant or a thin-skinned demagogue who is unqualified and unsuited to be president.

Donald J. Trump, a billionaire businessman and television personality, is the latter. He has never held elected office and has shown himself temperamentally unfit to do so. He has run a divisive, belligerent, dishonest campaign, repeatedly aligning himself with racists, strongmen and thugs while maligning or dismissing large segments of the American public. Electing Trump could be catastrophic for the nation.

By contrast, Hillary Clinton is one of the best prepared candidates to seek the presidency in many years. As a first lady, a Democratic senator from New York and secretary of State in President Obama’s first term, she immersed herself in the details of government, which is why her positions on the issues today are infinitely better thought-out than those of her opponent.

She stands for rational, comprehensive immigration reform and an improvement rather than an abandonment of the Affordable Care Act. She supports abortion rights, wants to raise the federal minimum wage to $12 an hour, hopes to reform the sentencing laws that have overcrowded American prisons, would repair the Voting Rights Act and help students to leave college without enormous debt. Abroad she would strengthen America’s traditional alliances, continue the Obama administration’s efforts to “degrade and ultimately defeat” Islamic State and negotiate with potential adversaries such as Russia and China in a way that balances realism and the protection of American interests. Unlike Trump, Clinton accepts the prevailing science on climate change and considers the issue to be “the defining challenge of our time.”

Perhaps her greatest strength is her pragmatism — her ability to build consensus and solve problems. As president, she would be flexible enough and experienced enough to cut across party lines and work productively with her political opponents. As first lady, she worked with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) to create the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides healthcare coverage to more than 8 million children. As a senator, she was instrumental in persuading a Republican president to deliver billions of dollars in aid to New York after September 11. As secretary of State, she led the charge to persuade nations around the world to impose the tough sanctions on Iran that led to the landmark nuclear agreement, and she negotiated a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas.


Throughout her public career, beginning with her work in the 1970s for the Children’s Defense Fund, Clinton has advocated for women, children, the poor and minorities. She fought for what came to be known as “Hillarycare” 15 years before “Obamacare” became a thing; she has been outspoken in defense of women’s rights around the globe, including in her powerful and influential speech in Beijing in 1995 proclaiming that “women’s rights are human rights.”

Clinton’s long history of advocacy and public service stands in stark contrast to Trump’s record of virtually no leadership at all. He’s famous and wealthy, a TV personality, a showman — but what in his resume suggests he is qualified to lead the country? In the coming weeks, Trump will no doubt try harder to appear presidential, but surely voters won’t forget the long litany of insults, lies, threats and ignorant statements he has made about everyone from Mexicans and Muslims to a disabled reporter to Sen.John McCain, to the family of a dead Muslim-American soldier, to a federal judge, to President Obama.

Trump’s ignorance of the issues is manifest. He has called climate change “a hoax” and vowed to renegotiate the Paris climate accord. Obamacare would be repealed and replaced with “something great.” His signature proposal is to construct a wall along the southern border of the United States — and have Mexico pay the billions of dollars involved. Mexico, unsurprisingly, insists it will not. As for the 11 million immigrants already in the country illegally, they will either be rounded up and deported (though experts say that will cost billions of dollars, disrupt the economy, divide families and require massive violations of civil liberties) or perhaps some will be allowed to remain, living in the shadows.

Trump doesn’t take America’s global alliances seriously, he has cozied up to Russian strongman Vladimir Putin and he has promised to bring back waterboarding “and worse.” His pronouncements, though vague and sometimes contradictory, raise the specter of an iron-fisted leader taking action based on gut impulses — rather than a president seeking common ground among citizens in a politically polarized country.

In the style of earlier demagogues like Huey Long and George Wallace, Trump has aimed his misleading and mean-spirited diatribes at a struggling and frustrated segment of society — apparently touching a chord with voters who have experienced years of stagnant wages, whose jobs are threatened, who feel betrayed by Washington and nostalgic for a more prosperous past. To these voters Trump bashes immigrants and free trade and rails about law and order, promising to make America great again and assuring them that he alone can solve their problems. But those who put their hope in Trump’s politics of resentment and fear are making a terrible mistake.

The more rational wing of the Republican party has been appalled by the direction in which the GOP is moving, and its braver members have spoken up. Mitt Romney called Trump “unfit.” Michael Bloomberg endorsed Clinton. Susan Collins, Lindsey Graham, Meg Whitman and Brent Scowcroft have all declined to support their party’s nominee, as have many others. Fifty national security experts who worked in Republican administrations wrote earlier this year: “Mr. Trump lacks the character, values, and experience to be president. He weakens U.S. moral authority as the leader of the free world. He appears to lack basic knowledge about and belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, and U.S. institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary.”

Some voters who do not like Trump worry that Clinton, too, has serious shortcomings. And of course she does; all politicians do. She has a penchant for secrecy that has caused her significant problems, not least in the investigation of her ill-advised decision to use a private email server for her official communications as secretary of State. It is true that her family foundation took millions of dollars from foreign leaders and overseas business people while she was in Obama’s cabinet, creating the potential for conflicts of interest. She and her husband have spent years among the rich and powerful and have grown at home in that favor-trading world in a way that makes many voters uneasy. This page has criticized her in the past for adjusting her positions to match popular opinion and for being a little too comfortable with the use of military force. And at least on the hustings, she lacks the authentic, let’s-have-a-beer personality that many voters seek in a candidate.

To be a great president, she will have to struggle to overcome her own weaknesses. But compared with Trump’s infirmities as a candidate, her failings are insignificant. It’s absurd — and perilous — to portray this election, as so many are doing, as a choice of the “lesser of two evils” or to suggest that her flaws are in any way on a level with his.

Neither Libertarian Gary Johnson nor Green Party candidate Jill Stein offers a serious alternative to the major-party candidates. Even voters who have questions about Clinton must recognize that neither Stein nor Johnson stands a chance of winning — and that a vote for either is merely one less vote for the only candidate who can defeat Trump. Besides, neither is a better candidate than Clinton; both were interviewed at length by The Times editorial board, and despite certain superficial appeal, neither comes close to matching Clinton’s qualifications, expertise or understanding of the political process.

The election of Hillary Clinton as the first female president of the United States would surely be as exhilarating as it is long overdue, a watershed moment in American history after centuries of discrimination against women. But that’s not the chief reason to vote for her. She deserves America’s support because she is the overwhelmingly better candidate. Against a Romney or a McCain, she would almost certainly be our choice. Against Trump? The question answers itself.

Every presidential race is described as ”defining” and historic.” This time, it’s true. Americans must not sit this election out, but cast their votes for Hillary Clinton over her dangerous Republican opponent, Donald Trump. Link



The link you posted wasn't for the Natenyahu incident.

And secondly, Natanyahu hating Trump is another good reason for supporting Trump.
What’s wrong with you?

Trump 'postpones' Israel trip after Netanyahu criticism

By Tom LoBianco, CNN

Washington (CNN)
Donald Trump said Thursday that he is postponing his trip to Israel, just a day after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned his proposal to ban U.S. travel for all Muslims.

"I have decided to postpone my trip to Israel and to schedule my meeting with @Netanyahu at a later date after I become President of the U.S.," Trump tweeted.

Trump had planned to meet with Netanyahu December 28 in Israel, according to an Israeli government official, but shortly after the meeting was reported, Netanyahu's office condemned Trump's comments about Muslims.

"Prime Minister Netanyahu rejects Donald Trump's recent remarks about Muslims," according to a statement issued by the prime minister's office.

"The State of Israel respects all religions and strictly guarantees the rights of all its citizens. At the same time, Israel is fighting against militant Islam that targets Muslims, Christians and Jews alike and threatens the entire world," the statement said. Read more
 
TED CRUZ ENDORSES TRUMP.

https://www.facebook.com/tedcruzpage/posts/10154476728267464

Ted Cruz
2 hrs ·
This election is unlike any other in our nation’s history. Like many other voters, I have struggled to determine the right course of action in this general election.

In Cleveland, I urged voters, “please, don’t stay home in November. Stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket whom you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.”

After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.

I’ve made this decision for two reasons. First, last year, I promised to support the Republican nominee. And I intend to keep my word.

Second, even though I have had areas of significant disagreement with our nominee, by any measure Hillary Clinton is wholly unacceptable — that’s why I have always been #NeverHillary.

Six key policy differences inform my decision. First, and most important, the Supreme Court. For anyone concerned about the Bill of Rights — free speech, religious liberty, the Second Amendment — the Court hangs in the balance. I have spent my professional career fighting before the Court to defend the Constitution. We are only one justice away from losing our most basic rights, and the next president will appoint as many as four new justices. We know, without a doubt, that every Clinton appointee would be a left-wing ideologue. Trump, in contrast, has promised to appoint justices “in the mold of Scalia.”

For some time, I have been seeking greater specificity on this issue, and today the Trump campaign provided that, releasing a very strong list of potential Supreme Court nominees — including Sen. Mike Lee, who would make an extraordinary justice — and making an explicit commitment to nominate only from that list. This commitment matters, and it provides a serious reason for voters to choose to support Trump.

Second, Obamacare. The failed healthcare law is hurting millions of Americans. If Republicans hold Congress, leadership has committed to passing legislation repealing Obamacare. Clinton, we know beyond a shadow of doubt, would veto that legislation. Trump has said he would sign it.

Third, energy. Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s war on coal and relentless efforts to crush the oil and gas industry. Trump has said he will reduce regulations and allow the blossoming American energy renaissance to create millions of new high-paying jobs.

Fourth, immigration. Clinton would continue and even expand President Obama’s lawless executive amnesty. Trump has promised that he would revoke those illegal executive orders.

Fifth, national security. Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s willful blindness to radical Islamic terrorism. She would continue importing Middle Eastern refugees whom the FBI cannot vet to make sure they are not terrorists. Trump has promised to stop the deluge of unvetted refugees.

Sixth, Internet freedom. Clinton supports Obama’s plan to hand over control of the Internet to an international community of stakeholders, including Russia, China, and Iran. Just this week, Trump came out strongly against that plan, and in support of free speech online.

These are six vital issues where the candidates’ positions present a clear choice for the American people.

If Clinton wins, we know — with 100% certainty — that she would deliver on her left-wing promises, with devastating results for our country.

My conscience tells me I must do whatever I can to stop that.

We also have seen, over the past few weeks and months, a Trump campaign focusing more and more on freedom — including emphasizing school choice and the power of economic growth to lift African-Americans and Hispanics to prosperity.

Finally, after eight years of a lawless Obama administration, targeting and persecuting those disfavored by the administration, fidelity to the rule of law has never been more important.

The Supreme Court will be critical in preserving the rule of law. And, if the next administration fails to honor the Constitution and Bill of Rights, then I hope that Republicans and Democrats will stand united in protecting our fundamental liberties.

Our country is in crisis. Hillary Clinton is manifestly unfit to be president, and her policies would harm millions of Americans. And Donald Trump is the only thing standing in her way.

A year ago, I pledged to endorse the Republican nominee, and I am honoring that commitment. And if you don’t want to see a Hillary Clinton presidency, I encourage you to vote for him.
 


You want to watch something truly funny (and disturbing) without the need for MSM interjection? Watch this:


The look on her face hahaha. I love it. Don't need to be a top tier intelligence agent or mafia guy to read her body language and outright lies without any effort at all.
 
First that image was posted on June 15, 2016 by a well-known racist (@FishBoneHead1) on Twitter , the twitter has banned the scumbag now.

Then on June 22, 2016 the same image was posted on a racist forum.

And then the same image was posted on Trumps twitter account.

Now does that tell you something, think about it?


Yes it does, it tells me Hilary supporters are pathetic and will use the race card at every chance even if it means making things up You people scream, racist...racist....racist! When there is nothing there yet ignore Hilary calling a KKK leader a great man, as well as ignore her immigration policies of the 90s, the same immigration policies that are "racist".

90% of attacks on trump are factitious hysteria. Notice his policies are rarely attacked because you got nothing better from Clinton. I quess when you got nothing you will stoop to new lows by spreading factitious hysteria that only the gullible and terribly misinformation would fall for and by terribly misinformed I mean too stupid or lazy to seek out the truth.


First of all the origin of a lot of famous internet images such as meme are not known so I take your claim with a truck load of salt. Moreover, there is no chance that you know where the image was posted and in the order that the image was posted. It's ludicrous that you even make such a claim.

There are probably millions of social websites in every language, so how do you know the image was not reposted a thousand times on different websites before Trump posted it? :lol: let's assume you are correct with your claim (which you arnt) so does it mean that everyone that posted that image is a racist? Think about it in an objective manner....

Your argument is petty and elementary, if I share the image, according to you I must be racist, even though the image has zero to do with race even if it was supposedly first posted by a racist. By that token everyone that went to Disney land is a racist because Walt Disney was a racist. All children that watch Walt Disney movies must be racist :lol:

Hitler drove a Mercedes, gosh it must mean all Mercedes owners are racist....do you see how stupid your claim is?


Like I said the Hilary supporters are like Wiley mammoths moaning and screaming "racist"! Pepe the frog meme....the "it feels good" meme is now "racist" according to Hilary and her supporters because it was used by Trump :lol: words can't describe the shear desperation.

Funny how Hilary supporters ignor the fact that Hilary called a former KKK leader a "great man" but scream Trump is racist while making fools out of themselves.



You want to watch something truly funny (and disturbing) without the need for MSM interjection? Watch this:


The look on her face hahaha. I love it. Don't need to be a top tier intelligence agent or mafia guy to read her body language and outright lies without any effort at all.


She lies even when there is no reason or anything to gain. Look at her sniper story claim she made after she landed in Bostia then look at the video of what actually happened, I think she also has a case of 'shit for brains' because if you're going to make such a lie atlast do not lie when there is video footage to debunk your claim. She also lied about who she was named after.

She even flip flops and then when called out on it she says she has always had the same view, like gay marriage, many times she said she was against it (on camera) and when the movement became popular she was suddenly pro gay marriage but when questioned about her changing her stance she gets angry and claims she was alway pro gay marriage (must be a reptilian that morphed into her body and gave all those interviews about being against gay marriage).

Same with building a wall and strong immigration, in the 1990s she had the same views as Trump but since uneducated shit for brain liberals equate border security with racism she all of the sudden jumps on the bandwagon.
 
Last edited:
Need to get as many leftie liberals against Hillary as possible to sponge away as many votes as possible from the BSA.

Heres one of them:

 
Benghazi witch-hunt!




After years of repeated Republican conspiracy theories that Secretary Hillary Clinton or others ordered the U.S. military to stand down in Benghazi or otherwise prevented a military response that could have saved American lives, Rep. Trey Gowdy, the Chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, finally conceded in an interview on FOX News that the military could not have gotten to Benghazi in time to save the lives of the four Americans killed that night:

“Whether or not they could have gotten there in time, I don’t think there is any issue with respect to that—they couldn’t.”

His admission comes after Democrats released statements from his Chief Counsel earlier this week from closed-door interviews conducted by the Select Committee with Defense Secretary Panetta and his Chief of Staff, Jeremy Bash.

In response, Benghazi Select Committee Ranking Member Elijah E. Cummings, House Armed Services Ranking Member Adam Smith, and House Intelligence Ranking Member Adam Schiff issued the following statements:

“Chairman Gowdy has finally admitted what we have all known for years: the central Republican allegation that the military was told to withhold assets that could have saved lives in Benghazi for political reasons is wrong,” said Ranking Member Cummings. “Based on the Chairman’s admission today, I call on the Select Committee to stop harassing the Pentagon with baseless demands, release the transcripts of our witness interviews, and stop wasting millions of taxpayer dollars dragging out the investigation closer and closer to the election.”

“Now even Chairman Gowdy is agreeing with his Chief Counsel’s statements, which badly undermine the political case the Benghazi Committee has been trying to make against Secretary Clinton,” said Ranking Member Smith. “When are we going to stop interfering with the Defense Department’s operations and spending taxpayer money for this charade?”

“For months, Republicans on the Benghazi Select Committee have suggested that shocking, new details will upend our knowledge of the tragic attack in Benghazi – from gun running, to stand-down orders, to top level interference with the rescue attempt,” said Ranking Member Schiff. “Now, Chairman Gowdy himself has been forced to admit that one of the most pernicious of those theories – that additional military assistance could have gotten there in time to prevent the deaths of those four Americans – has no basis in fact. The Majority, which will not share its draft report with the Minority, must see that its work has already been discredited by its partisan, inconsistent and often incoherent work-product. It should finally bring the committee's work to a close, and end the political charade once and for all.”

la-na-tt-deliverance-from-gowdy-20151023-001.jpg


phony-benghazi-scandal-gop-report.jpg
 
A glimpse of the future, imagine how worse it will be if the madman becomes the President. And that’s why I support Hillary, even with all her shortcomings, she is far better than the madman.



Anti-Muslim attacks up 78%

Rise in violence linked to Donald Trump's rhetoric

Hate crimes against American Muslims have soared to their highest levels since the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to data compiled by researchers, an increase apparently fueled by terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad and by divisive language on the campaign trail. The trend has alarmed hate crime scholars and law-enforcement officials, who have documented hundreds of attacks — including arsons at mosques, assaults, shootings and threats of violence — since the beginning of 2015. While the most current hate crime statistics from the FBI are not expected until November, new data from researchers at California State University found that hate crimes against American Muslims were up 78 percent over the course of 2015. Attacks on those perceived as Arab rose even more sharply. Police and media reports in recent months have indicated a continued flow of attacks, often against victims wearing traditional Muslim garb or seen as Middle Eastern.

Some scholars believe that the violent backlash against American Muslims is driven not only by the string of terrorist attacks in Europe and the United States that began early last year, but also by the political vitriol from candidates like Donald Trump, who has called for a ban on immigration by Muslims and a national registry of Muslims in the United States. "We're seeing these stereotypes and derogative statements become part of the political discourse," said Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at the San Bernardino campus. "The bottom line is we're talking about a significant increase in these types of hate crimes." He said the frequency of anti-Muslim violence appeared to have increased immediately after some of Trump's most incendiary comments.

The latest major episode of anti-Muslim violence came last weekend, when an arsonist on a motorcycle started a fire that engulfed the Islamic Center of Fort Pierce, Fla., where Omar Mateen — the gunman in the June massacre at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando — had sometimes prayed.

Police, who called the attack a tragedy for the community, arrested a man who had criticized Islam in social media postings. The arson, along with an earlier assault on a congregant outside the mosque and other episodes there, have left worshippers scared, said Mohammed Malik, 43, a businessman who has attended the mosque for nearly a decade. "There is a lot of negative rhetoric," he said. "The negative rhetoric is causing the hate, and in turn the hate is causing the violent acts." The new study from Levin's nonpartisan group, based on official police reports in 20 states, estimated that there were about 260 hate crimes against Muslims nationwide in 2015. That was the most since the record 481 documented hate crimes against Muslims in 2001, when the Sept. 11 attacks set off waves of crimes targeting Muslims and Middle Easterners, Levin said. The huge increase last year was also the biggest annual rise since 2001, he said. The rise came even as hate crimes against almost all other groups — including blacks, Hispanics, Jews, gays and whites — either declined or increased only slightly, his study found. One exception was hate crimes against transgender people, which rose about 40 percent. An advance copy of the study was provided to The New York Times.

The statistics almost certainly understate the extent of the problem, researchers say, because victims are often reluctant to report attacks for fear of inflaming community tensions, and because it is sometimes difficult for investigators to establish that religious, ethnic or racial hatred was a cause. In the killing last year of three Muslim students in Chapel Hill, N.C., for instance, authorities did not bring hate crime charges against a neighbor who is charged with murdering them, despite calls from Muslims who said there were religious overtones to the violence. Police said that a parking dispute, not bigotry, may have led to the killings.

Sometimes, the evidence is more clear-cut. "I hate ISLAM!" a former Marine named Ted Hakey Jr. wrote to a friend on Facebook after November's terrorist attacks in Paris. Hours later, in a drunken rampage, he fired a high-powered rifle four times into the mosque next door to his Connecticut home. Link


@Arsalan @anon45 @Anubis @Desertfalcon @F-22Raptor @gambit @LA se Karachi @Moonlight @Mugwop @saadee @Syed.Ali.Haider @Taygibay @XenoEnsi-14
 
A glimpse of the future, imagine how worse it will be if the madman becomes the President. And that’s why I support Hillary, even with all her shortcomings, she is far better than the madman.



Anti-Muslim attacks up 78%

Rise in violence linked to Donald Trump's rhetoric

Hate crimes against American Muslims have soared to their highest levels since the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to data compiled by researchers, an increase apparently fueled by terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad and by divisive language on the campaign trail. The trend has alarmed hate crime scholars and law-enforcement officials, who have documented hundreds of attacks — including arsons at mosques, assaults, shootings and threats of violence — since the beginning of 2015. While the most current hate crime statistics from the FBI are not expected until November, new data from researchers at California State University found that hate crimes against American Muslims were up 78 percent over the course of 2015. Attacks on those perceived as Arab rose even more sharply. Police and media reports in recent months have indicated a continued flow of attacks, often against victims wearing traditional Muslim garb or seen as Middle Eastern.

Some scholars believe that the violent backlash against American Muslims is driven not only by the string of terrorist attacks in Europe and the United States that began early last year, but also by the political vitriol from candidates like Donald Trump, who has called for a ban on immigration by Muslims and a national registry of Muslims in the United States. "We're seeing these stereotypes and derogative statements become part of the political discourse," said Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at the San Bernardino campus. "The bottom line is we're talking about a significant increase in these types of hate crimes." He said the frequency of anti-Muslim violence appeared to have increased immediately after some of Trump's most incendiary comments.

The latest major episode of anti-Muslim violence came last weekend, when an arsonist on a motorcycle started a fire that engulfed the Islamic Center of Fort Pierce, Fla., where Omar Mateen — the gunman in the June massacre at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando — had sometimes prayed.

Police, who called the attack a tragedy for the community, arrested a man who had criticized Islam in social media postings. The arson, along with an earlier assault on a congregant outside the mosque and other episodes there, have left worshippers scared, said Mohammed Malik, 43, a businessman who has attended the mosque for nearly a decade. "There is a lot of negative rhetoric," he said. "The negative rhetoric is causing the hate, and in turn the hate is causing the violent acts." The new study from Levin's nonpartisan group, based on official police reports in 20 states, estimated that there were about 260 hate crimes against Muslims nationwide in 2015. That was the most since the record 481 documented hate crimes against Muslims in 2001, when the Sept. 11 attacks set off waves of crimes targeting Muslims and Middle Easterners, Levin said. The huge increase last year was also the biggest annual rise since 2001, he said. The rise came even as hate crimes against almost all other groups — including blacks, Hispanics, Jews, gays and whites — either declined or increased only slightly, his study found. One exception was hate crimes against transgender people, which rose about 40 percent. An advance copy of the study was provided to The New York Times.

The statistics almost certainly understate the extent of the problem, researchers say, because victims are often reluctant to report attacks for fear of inflaming community tensions, and because it is sometimes difficult for investigators to establish that religious, ethnic or racial hatred was a cause. In the killing last year of three Muslim students in Chapel Hill, N.C., for instance, authorities did not bring hate crime charges against a neighbor who is charged with murdering them, despite calls from Muslims who said there were religious overtones to the violence. Police said that a parking dispute, not bigotry, may have led to the killings.

Sometimes, the evidence is more clear-cut. "I hate ISLAM!" a former Marine named Ted Hakey Jr. wrote to a friend on Facebook after November's terrorist attacks in Paris. Hours later, in a drunken rampage, he fired a high-powered rifle four times into the mosque next door to his Connecticut home. Link


@Arsalan @anon45 @Anubis @Desertfalcon @F-22Raptor @gambit @LA se Karachi @Moonlight @Mugwop @saadee @Syed.Ali.Haider @Taygibay @XenoEnsi-14

Trump is a bad choice for Muslim living in USA and Hillary is a bad choice for Muslim all around the world. This lady loves wars and she supported wars in past.
Election 2016; people will avoid talking about in future.
 
Last edited:
lmao, love the political cartoons and memes this season, keep posting.





======================================================

speaking of, anyone familiar with memetics ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

The meme, analogous to a gene, was conceived as a "unit of culture" (an idea, belief, pattern of behaviour, etc.) which is "hosted" in the minds of one or more individuals, and which can reproduce itself, thereby jumping from mind to mind. Thus what would otherwise be regarded as one individual influencing another to adopt a belief is seen as an idea-replicator reproducing itself in a new host. As with genetics, particularly under a Dawkinsian interpretation, a meme's success may be due to its contribution to the effectiveness of its host.

A field of study called memetics[5] arose in the 1990s to explore the concepts and transmission of memes in terms of an evolutionary model. Criticism from a variety of fronts has challenged the notion that academic study can examine memes empirically. However, developments in neuroimaging may make empirical study possible.[6] Some commentators in the social sciences question the idea that one can meaningfully categorize culture in terms of discrete units.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics

Memetics is the theory of mental content based on an analogy with Darwinian evolution, originating from the popularization of Richard Dawkins' 1976 book The Selfish Gene.[1] Proponents describe memetics as an approach to evolutionary models of cultural information transfer.

pepe_trump_shh.png



^I find this guy's commentary interesting, he'll be on the 'alt-right'/WN red ice radio program talking memetics, should be interesting.


@Nilgiri
 
Back
Top Bottom