Jump to content
Cove_Sheep

Is Donald Trump's Campaign A Spoof?

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Dave78 said:

I love twitter tbh. 

I have a couple of accounts, one of them being a parody account of a (real) politician in my area. Everyone seems to think it's the actual guy tweeting, despite me clearing putting 'parody account' in the bio. It's followed by numerous Fine Gael politicians, all the way up to minister level. Even the official Fine Gael twitter account follows it FFS. :lol:

You’re not Marc Francois are you? His fake account is bonkers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dave78 said:

I agree with that.

Why the warning?

I watched the clip when you posted it on BitChute. She mentioned the boys were 14/15 years old. Of course some kids will act like dicks, and use bullshit 'excuses' like her wearing all black to be neddish wee pricks. Not sure an incident like that deserves worldwide attention and to be used as ammunition on the online culture war however.

Also interesting that that facebook page would rename itself to appear life-wing. Lots of underhand skulduggery going on these days.

Sorry missed your post in all this bullshit. No idea why the warning. I think they could have easily deleted the links if they objected to the source and left the posts with no need for a warning. They gave no explanation for the warning when I got notified of it (maybe I missed it) and it has been a good while now since I pm'd them asking why. To be fair I have suffered no noticeable penalty. Maybe it was a formality. I also reported my own more recent post asking them to review the warning about an hour or so ago. I am not optimistic they will be changing their minds at this point. The funny thing is I posted this because I found the all black clothing thing emblematic and funny. It seemed to sum up where we are at this point i.e Antifa inspired intellectual mince which is divisory, dangerous and toxic and so, sooooo thick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Dave78 said:

I'd heard the term cultural Marxism before of course, but i only had a vague idea of what it was all about.

Thought i'd better google it, so i did. This article was the first result for my 'what is cultural marxism' search. 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/19/cultural-marxism-a-uniting-theory-for-rightwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim

I know i know thplinth, it's The Guardian, but have a read, i'd be interested in your thoughts.

My thoughts are you will find the opposite of the truth in the Guardian. Consistently. It is one of the worst.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Dave78 said:

I love twitter tbh. 

I have a couple of accounts, one of them being a parody account of a (real) politician in my area. Everyone seems to think it's the actual guy tweeting, despite me clearing putting 'parody account' in the bio. It's followed by numerous Fine Gael politicians, all the way up to minister level. Even the official Fine Gael twitter account follows it FFS. :lol:

I was going to suggest Gemma O'Doherty but I'm not sure how you'd parody that wagon.

Any closer to forming a Governemnt over there or is everyone content to let Varadker deal with all the COVID shit before kicking him out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even after what we all witnessed in 2014 the most depressing thing for me above all else in the aftermath was seeing pretty much everyone on the YES side return to the teat of the MSM. 

If you don't get off that teat you can forget about Independence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, aaid said:

I was going to suggest Gemma O'Doherty but I'm not sure how you'd parody that wagon.

Hah, indeed.

I used to have a lot of time for her actually. She was an important journalist that did great work for the Irish Examiner. Exposed some serious Gardai corruption.

That was before she went down the anti-vaxer/chemtrail/alt-right rabbit hole.

Was told by a journo pal of mine that a severe personal bereavement played a role, but don't quote me on that.

40 minutes ago, aaid said:

Any closer to forming a Governemnt over there or is everyone content to let Varadker deal with all the COVID shit before kicking him out?

Murmurings and briefings that it'll be sorted out this weekend. FG/FF/Greens agreeing a programme for government.

SF locked out of course 🙄

 

As for Varadkar and Covid, he's been elevated to sainthood among the folk i talk to here. Everyone is comparing him to Boris/Trump. Oor Nicola is benefiting from the same comparisons i've no doubt.

I think FG are keen to keep Varadkar in place, but everyone else is restless. The parliament can't pass any bills, it's in stasis.

I expect Me-Hole Martin to be the next Teeshuck (13 years, and i still can't fucking spell the word, so do it phonetically :lol:).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thplinth said:

Sorry missed your post in all this bullshit. No idea why the warning. 

Surely it can't be for linking to BitChute?

I read the comments below the video. Lot's of anti-Jewish shite and N-bombs from alt-right nuggets, but FFS, surely the Mods aren't holding TAMB posters responsible for comments on a video?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dave78 said:

Surely it can't be for linking to BitChute?

I read the comments below the video. Lot's of anti-Jewish shite and N-bombs from alt-right nuggets, but FFS, surely the Mods aren't holding TAMB posters responsible for comments on a video?

Bitchute is wild. It is a free for all. Totally uncensored.

Occasionally it is the only place you can find something. Until facebook has it. :) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thplinth said:

Bitchute is wild. It is a free for all. Totally uncensored.

 

 

Those were the good old days of the internet. I was one of the first to sign up (i was a massive teenage geek in the 90s and persuaded my Dad to sign up to the first commercial UK provider of internet connections, Demon Internet).

No policing in those days. I remember as a 16 year old looking at a porn usenet group, and unwittingly downloading a naked pic of a girl who must have been 13 or 14 years old doing gymnastics.

Still had a wank.... but i regret it now

 :blink::ph34r::blink::rollsmile:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dave78 said:

Surely it can't be for linking to BitChute?

I read the comments below the video. Lot's of anti-Jewish shite and N-bombs from alt-right nuggets, but FFS, surely the Mods aren't holding TAMB posters responsible for comments on a video?

It’s unclear whether it’s the comments or the website. It’s not the content.

So you could post a nice video of some puppies playing together but if it’s on PornHub it will be deleted. I think 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Tiny Tim said:

It’s unclear whether it’s the comments or the website. It’s not the content.

So you could post a nice video of some puppies playing together but if it’s on PornHub it will be deleted. I think 🙂

Rule 5.  If the MODs deem something to be offensive then it is.   I didn't see this particular post, so I didn't click on the link for obvious reasons.   I've never heard of this website before so I've no idea of the sort of content it provides.   Say I was accessing it from a work PC, is it something tha would potentially get me into trouble?   As you say, PornHub is likely to set the alarm running even if you're looking at a video of kittens playing, although with PornHub there's no doubt a load of embedded content that would be problematic.

In the past people have been suspended or banned for posting links to NSFW sites, as I said, I've never heard of this site, nor did I see the video in question so can't comment on this case but generally speaking, posting links to NSFW sites or content on a public forum like this is pretty anti-social unless you give a big disclaimer and warning in advance.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tiny Tim said:

It’s unclear whether it’s the comments or the website. It’s not the content.

So you could post a nice video of some puppies playing together but if it’s on PornHub it will be deleted. I think 🙂

Bitchute is just like an early youtube. Their market niche to compete against youtube is they don't censor. It is becoming increasingly popular for that reason.

It is a platform, it does not create content, that is down to the people who use it.

So on bitchute it becomes up to you to censor what you watch or don't watch and not someone else... and this particular clip was completely fine as anyone can see above. But it was censored on here nonetheless simply because it was on bitchute. 

So it is not pornhub and the video was just a girl talking and yet it was censored (I think to pander to the board's crybullies).

Edited by thplinth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes sense thanks aaid. I thought the rules had disappeared after an update but I’ll go read them.

Edited by Tiny Tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dave78 said:

Those were the good old days of the internet. I was one of the first to sign up (i was a massive teenage geek in the 90s and persuaded my Dad to sign up to the first commercial UK provider of internet connections, Demon Internet).

No policing in those days. I remember as a 16 year old looking at a porn usenet group, and unwittingly downloading a naked pic of a girl who must have been 13 or 14 years old doing gymnastics.

Still had a wank.... but i regret it now

 :blink::ph34r::blink::rollsmile:

 

:lol: 

But yeah that is exactly what bitchute is like, the early days of the internet.

(I don't think any of this is really about bitchute anyway.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tiny Tim said:

It’s unclear whether it’s the comments or the website. It’s not the content.

So you could post a nice video of some puppies playing together but if it’s on PornHub it will be deleted. I think 🙂

I cant be sure if it is bitchute per se or just because that particular channel on bitchute that copied the clip had offensive content on it. Hopefully just the latter as it seems draconian to ban the whole of bitchute on here. Anyway it does not matter, the facebook link does not come with any baggage that can be exploited to take it down so no real harm done. 

It does amaze me that a video of a girl describing how she was stoned in the street for wearing black clothing becomes about bitchute while what she said happened to her is not even really raising an eyebrow.

We are living in strange times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thplinth said:

White Population 171,493,180

Black Population 33,132,390

Not what you would probably expect right listening to the MSM.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv18.pdf

 

Can you tell me what page in the report linked those numbers are please. This was posted on another forum and despite going through the whole report I couldn't actually find it. It's the reason i said I had it on my bookmarks when we discussed it last week.

I can't see the numbers or how they were arrived at by reading the report, the last person who posted it elsewhere couldn't show me so hoping you could.

This is from the report

"The victim-to-population ratio varied by race. The percentage of violent incidents involving white (66%) or black (11%) victims was similar to the population percentages of white (62%) or black (12%) persons. About 14% of violent incidents involved Hispanic victims, which was about four-fifths (0.8 times) the representation of Hispanics in the population (17%). Similarly, a smaller percentage of violent incidents involved Asian victims (4%) than the representation of Asians in the population (6%)."

Based on victims’ perceptions of the offenders, the offender-to-population ratio shows that the percentage of violent incidents involving black offenders (22%) was 1.8 times the percentage of black persons (12%) in the population. In contrast, the percentage of violent incidents involving white (50%) or Hispanic (14%)offenders was about four-fifths (0.8 times) the percentage of whites (62%) or Hispanics (17%) in the population, and the percentage involving Asian offenders (2.5%) was about two-fifths (0.4 times) the percentage of Asians in the population (6%). The percentage of violent incidents involving offenders of other races (Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, American Indians and Alaska Natives, and persons of two or more races) was 3.8 times the percentage of those races in the population.

Edited by phart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, phart said:

Can you tell me what page in the report linked those numbers are please.

I dont think Larry has his sums quite correct but they are not far away. The guy who replies below him has the correct numbers. edit: or it could be Larry is looking at a smaller data set excluding murders.

You can derive all these numbers from the report with a calculator in about one minute flat. The test begins now!
Edited by thplinth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, thplinth said:

I dont think Larry has his sums quite correct but they are not far away. The guy who replies below him has the correct numbers. edit: or it could be Larry is looking at a smaller data set excluding murders.

You can derive all these numbers from the report with a calculator in about one minute flat. The test begins now!

The percentages though 90 and 10. I'm not understand those. All what's been done is take total victims of whites and take 15% of that (as the report states 15% of crimes against whites are doe by blacks) what's the significance? Stats have to be harmonised the calculator stuff we all learned as children, how to interpet stats properly is tertiary education though.

Also it's police stats this is general population, the police stats have already been demonstrated here and it's 2.5-3 times more likely.

Also as the report states below. What is your implication the media should be running stories that state "victim to population ratio between black and whites are similiar to population percentage between black and whites?

The victim-to-population ratio varied by race. The percentage of violent incidents involving white (66%) or black (11%) victims was similar to the population percentages of white (62%) or black (12%) persons.

Edited by phart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the US Bureau of Justice Statistics latest published report. It is no wonder you are such an ignorant moron carrying around so many prejudices about people based on the colour of their skin or age or whatever untarnished bigoted garbage goes through your tiny mind in any given moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, phart said:

The percentages though 90 and 10. I'm not understand those. All that's been done is take total victims of whites and take 15% of that (as the report states) what's the significance? Stats have to be harmonised the calculator stuff is we all learned as children, how to interpet stats properly is tertiary education though.

Also as the report states below. What is your implication the media should be running stories that state "victim to population ratio between black and whites are similiar to population percentage between black and whites?

The victim-to-population ratio varied by race. The percentage of violent incidents involving white (66%) or black (11%) victims was similar to the population percentages of white (62%) or black (12%) persons.

If you cant work it out it is not my problem. It is quite easy really. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vanderark14 said:

Early start for the ENGURLAND ENGURLAND ENGURLAND mob in london today

Top trolling

 

Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, thplinth said:

If you cant work it out it is not my problem. It is quite easy really. 

That's the thing i can work it out, it's you who can't.

Remember I spent years in tertiary education studying various branches of mathmatics as part of a Physics degree. Then taught maths and physics. You're the one being duped cause your maths is shite. So less of the bluffing you can work it out but i'll just try and put the onus on the other guy as a rhetorical trick cause i'm swimming way out my depth here"

It's even stated in black and white in the report. S what's the actua statistical significance of those number? Where does the percentages come from and what's their significance? Copy and pasting from twitter is really your ceiling in this debate? No original thought?

The victim-to-population ratio varied by race. The percentage of violent incidents involving white (66%) or black (11%) victims was similar to the population percentages of white (62%) or black (12%) persons

Edited by phart
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...