Francis is popular because he is the pope, not because of the media.

Absolute nonsense. Nobody had even heard of Francis before he became Pope. He was elected by a small circle of individuals. He became popular after the media hyped him as a good guy who cares about the poor and so on. If he started supporting Trump, the media would destroy him immediately. Where do you think most people get their information about the Pope, hm? Ah right, the mainstream media!

ISIS will not survive regardless of whether or not we invade it. It has only defeated some small rebels groups and a puppet that had a army trained for asymmetric warfare. How would ISIS steamroll Iraq , Iran, Turkey, FSA, Kurdistan, Syria, and Turkey let alone all the countries they want to invade. And no, even if they could consolidate Syria and Iraq, they will not be sending suicide bombers to Europe in droves, especially when you're being pushed on all borders by other countries. Your fearmongering is asinine.

Since you apparently hold a chrystal ball that can tell the future, please tell me who is going to defeat ISIS. Will it be defeated by simply waiting and doing nothing, as you seem to suggest?

The more time goes by, the stronger ISIS' position will become. They don't need to invade anything else, they already have a huge chunk of land. Right now, they are the destination of choice for Muslims all over the world who hate the west and want to kill them. They have already sent hundreds, if not thousands, of undercover terrorists into the US and the EU. Terrorist attacks like the ones in Paris and the one in Brussels and California will undoubtedly continue. Their continued existence will inspire islamist radicals all over the world to create their own caliphate, because nobody is stopping them.

And just because everybody hates them doesn't mean they are going to get defeated. Russia is retreating, the EU is just watching as always, the US just got out of Iraq. If Iran or Saudi Arabia take over, things are not necessarily going to get better. They hate the west just as much as ISIS does.

Absolute nonsense. Nobody had even heard of Francis before he became Pope. He was elected by a small circle of individuals. He became popular after the media hyped him as a good guy who cares about the poor and so on. If he started supporting Trump, the media would destroy him immediately. Where do you think most people get their information about the Pope, hm? Ah right, the mainstream media!

He would be popular among church going Catholics regardless of the media's coverage , since he's the pope and they would hear about him. Where do you think most people would get their information about the pope if the media didn't cover him? Ah right the Catholic Church.

Since you apparently hold a chrystal ball that can tell the future, please tell me who is going to defeat ISIS. Will it be defeated by simply waiting and doing nothing, as you seem to suggest?

Who is going to defeat ISIS? The people ISIS directly attacks, I.E everyone around them. ISIS commanders are offensive in nature and want to expand. They lack any proper organization and lack many things, Jordan, Iraq , Turkey etc all have much better militaries and better resources to draw on.

The more time goes by, the stronger ISIS' position will become. They don't need to invade anything else, they already have a huge chunk of land.

They are already in conflict with practically everyone around them, and the involvement of those countries is steadily growing.

Right now, they are the destination of choice for Muslims all over the world who hate the west and want to kill them. They have already sent hundreds, if not thousands, of undercover terrorists into the US and the EU. Terrorist attacks like the ones in Paris and the one in Brussels and California will undoubtedly continue

The Muslims you are talking about are a small minority and can be stopped quite easily. Also they have thousands of young men and women that are either going to A. Still be terrorists after the collapse of the caliphate B. Become criminals after the collapse of the caliphate C. Become normal after the collapse of the caliphate.

Their continued existence will inspire islamist radicals all over the world to create their own caliphate, because nobody is stopping them.

Everyone around them is doing something to stop them and would up that something by a lot if we left because ISIS would be a bit more dangerous. A caliphate is a country and this caliphate is one that likes expanding, they will not just keep expanding since everyone around them is actively trying to stop them and they have started losing against them because ISIS is quite weaker.

And just because everybody hates them doesn't mean they are going to get defeated. Russia is retreating, the EU is just watching as always, the US just got out of Iraq. If Iran or Saudi Arabia take over, things are not necessarily going to get better. They hate the west just as much as ISIS does.

Russia is stopping its support of the Syrian government because they don't want the Americans to get into a conflict with them. Several EU members are bombing ISIS and though some are against committing their obligation to take in refugees now that there are refugees , there are still many taking people out of harms way. Saudi Arabia trades with the west actively and attacking them would be very unprofitable and would cut a lot of aid from the US. Iran hates the west? When? Hating Israel is a universally popular thing in the Middle East, and Israel has a habit of ethnic cleansing in Palestine and bombing Iran. Europe? They like trading with Europe now and the money that is coming in is great for them. In the late 70s? Yeah you tend to hats people who control your government for their own purposes.

Sending in our own soldiers to occupy the area would cause locals to kinda want to fight for what will become of ISIS since American soldiers are usually very belligerent and after the caliphate falls there will be people who want to attack who made it fall too, and if we're involved in that we will get attacked too.

Are you saying he's going to give himself money for invading Iraq?

It can profit.

Sanders gets his votes by spouting nonsense about Black Lives Matter and claiming that whites are all racists (except BLM fanboys). Sanders wants an issues-oriented campaign, but he quietly condones violence against Trump and his supporters, implying that they were asking for it. All the while claiming that he is the only politician who doesn't lie.

Sanders is the extreme opposite of Trump, in many ways. He also panders toward the untaught majority who want change from the norm, but I don't care about charisma or what he does for it, just his stances (as should be in any democracy). However, he's far less controversial, and lies much less than Trump. According to (http://www.politifact.com), 14% Sanders's claims are wrong; 61% Trump's claims are wrong.

If it's so easy to do, then why didn't anybody else do it before Trump?

They did, but not in America. It's a risky move. When the first nuclear bomb was tested in an American desert, some involved were strongly against: they thought such a bomb could be far more wrecking than they intended: the nuclear chain reaction would basically alight the whole atmosphere. Luckily, it was found out later that to force nuclear fusion of nitrogen or oxygen, the bomb needs to reach way higher temperatures.

It didn't burn up the atmosphere, but if you weighed the risks against the goods (the almost none), it's definitely not worth trying.

You need a few boots on the ground to take the oil. ISIS needs to be defeated somehow, and oil will be a compensation for it.

Making few assumptions:
* Petrol is good
* America needs to get more of it, even if it means war
* Mashriq would be slain by this (a new name will do the same); war would be effective

Before talking about any these, first, how can you not say you're not for war? And how can you say that Trump is not going to make America "world police"?

So Clinton says that Americans feel 'betrayed'. Are you naive enough to think that means she will end illegal surveillance? Clinton will do anything to get into power, she's the least likely to care about the American people. She also said that she does not condone what Edward Snowden did. So she's just as bad as Obama and Trump in this respect.

I say again: assuming candidates do what they say they will (otherwise all forecasts fall apart), and even if we weren't assuming it, Trump's got the worst record there, then.

Also, don't tell me that someone is just as bad as someone else. Noone is good, the point is to find the least worst.

He doesn't want to make them more balanced, he says he wants to rid "negativity"

Your assumption. Good Bernie minion.

http://rsf.org/en/news/donald-trump-wants-sue-newspapers-publishing-purposely-negative-stories

"I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money."

Because he took a personal risk by addressing the issues like nobody else. It could have turned out very badly for him. He might have gotten assassinated, he might have gotten branded a racist without getting any popular support.

He's been the most quiet about issues, just keeps talking about the same ones over and over. And yeah, he took a risk, and it might have failed. But he's not getting killed, don't kid yourself. Noone kills an American president, much less a candidate that has like policies to the Republicans (despite what some Republicans say to defame Trump) that is not even shown to win in all scenari (though get close, maybe). And yeah, he is branded a racist, for some pretty good grounds. He even, when asked to denounce the KKK and white supremacists for voting for him, basically took an evasive answer, saying he didn't hear about the KKK supporting him (proven lie), nor white supremacists, and that he doesn't know who they are, and he's just going to wait for more information to make a choice.

Ever heard of Pim Fortuyn or Theo van Gogh? Both were murdered for criticizing the religion of peace. And the Netherlands isn't Tadjikistan either, but it still happens. And people who come to a private event to disrupt and throw stuff at people are not innocent by any stretch of the imagination.

One politic candidate figure killed 14 years ago, and a common murder. Ok, well, Olaf Palme was killed in 1986. He was also pretty controversial and social democrat. The point is, it happens rarely, especially in countries where they have a whole private brigade as bodyguard, like America or Britain.

And people who come to a private event to disrupt and throw stuff at people are not innocent by any stretch of the imagination.

They absolutely are innocent. They broke no laws, they are free to do what they want, even if it irks someone else. If they attack someone, they are not innocent, but it is their freedom to say and protest whatever they wish. And even if you are for this, then you should be all for poltic rightness; it aims to stop criticism of (some) folk.

Your quotes just proved that he had good reason to call for people to get knocked out. The media is always taking Trump quotes out of context, trying to paint him as a violent maniac and Bernie fanboys as innocent 'protesters'.

Trump frankly owes loads to the media. The American media (and he does likes it) show him as a radic bloke who(thinks he)'s all alone against corruption. Participating in the debate, asking the most frains to him, allowing him to do controversial things like skip out a debate, this is controversy that he loves. Anyhow, out of context? No, not at all. They could be taken out of context. Anyhow, show me how it's out of context?

Furthermore, what I say or anyone else says, that gives 0% grounds to hurt anybody. 0%. Such thinking that it's ok to hurt someone if they say something you believe is mean, biased, or stupid, this is the same thinking 'Freedom to Forget' laws use to gaol folk, and it's frankly a restriction on free speech, of which there should be 0 of.

Why not? Any politician could forget their issues after election, and many do.

This is not what I was asking. Why would Trump be special about this?

Why would he even run if he doesn't have any reason to be in office?

What do you mean, 'reason'? Every American president in the last, oh, 80 years, have been selfish authoritarian warmongerers. His 'reason' is that he gets to adjust some laws, probably most importantly to him and friends, probably corporate taxes and superprogressive taxes, get some bribes, embezzle, do all that good stuff like it's been done.

I'm not talking about traditional media. I'm talking about social media. Anybody can produce content on social media, at the very least in their own blogs. How do you prevent all blogs from being viewed unless you implement Iran-like censorship (not going to happen, not even with Bernie).

Sanders as policy is against spying, he seems the least likely out of the candidates. But anyhow, what makes Trump a supporter of internet and blogging, and what's to say that it doesn't become the new mainstream (and yeah, technically everyone can self-publish, but there's hassle, money, and popularity involved, same as real life).

Trump is not going to close down the internet, and no candidate is even able to do it.

Hopefully.

You're interpreting too much. But keep misinterpreting what I say like a good Bernie minion.

Ok, tell me why you did put the disclaimer? Why don't you curb it, Goebbels.

Edited 3/25/2016 06:17:02

Btw do I notice a change in your views over the last year? Last time I checked you were a commie nationalist homophobe. Nowadays you seem to be a red-green commie multiculturalist. Perhaps pro-gay as well? Or am I just imagining it?

Communist:

I think there's value to left and right, it's an ultimate frain of what's better: competition or cooperation. Competition drives innovation, it gives more freedoms, and better rewards folk on merit using an addictive exponentially growing income based on income inequality, and also lets you choose what you want for yourself, instead of wasting your money for what others may or may not want. Minimum wage, "worker rights", throw these out the window, these stifle job making and freedoms, both to the worker and the hirer. If you want to work at an awful job, that's your choice.

Cooperation means that businesses have to spend less time worrying about sabotaging each other and advertising and spend that money, it is for community instead of everyone for oneself, and it makes sure that everyone is well-off, and in some ways is more a meritocracy: everyone who wants to go to higher school can; and instead of spending money for food, it's spent on internet access. Random events like an expensive surgery won't suck up all the money you've worked for and more. Minimum wage and "worker rights": while minimum wage may make less jobs in the short run, in the long run, the worker has more money, money to spend on business, which then gets more money to spend on workers. And both these make sure that noone has to risk their life and make sure that all jobs are significantly better off than no jobs.

I am very right, though am for ridding minimum wage, free higher schools, worker rights, but I definitely see the good things of the left and why folk like it.

Nationalist:

No, never here. Informed (as I lived there) devil's advocate, maybe.

Homophobe:

Yes, but I have different opinions that most other homophobes. I think it's not my choice nor law to stop two folk from agreeing to do something to each other that's disgusting. I believe in letting the faith's high council or leader choose whether to allow gay marriage within their marriages, and certainly do not believe that some atheist principles do as if they own the faith. Frankly, I go beyond that, I allow the faith's high council or leader to choose whether to ban any kind of marriage within their shrines, whether it be based on *faith of the person* (seriously, I say this as an atheist, but atheists should not be able to get married; no faith would allow this), ethnicity, or weight. But I believe, for those left out in faith marriages, that they get in apatheist civil unions that would economically count the same as a marriage, allowed for any consenting denizens. In short, I'm in between, but probably closer to for-gay marriage than against.

To those against gay marriage: Ok, fair enough, but you better not be hypocritic on this. Are you against tattoos and skin piercings, too? They're also disgusting things that physically scar a man. What about Warlight? Nerd addicting game, promotes antisocial weirdos who can't talk. Maybe we should ban almost all video games and fiction books altogether for doing this. And board games. Ban chess. Also, ban throwing up, that's disgusting, since it's a natural happening (gayness is not uncommonly found in nature) that happens semi-involuntarily like gayness (just don't do upon your impulse; for throw-up, close your mouth), although it is known that it can be faked like gayness.

To those for gay marriage: Ok, fair enough, but you better not be hypocritic on this. You better be for necrosexual, transexual, bisexual, genderfluid, trisexual, kilosexual, asexual, sexless, polygamic, minotaur, and penis marriage, since all these other even more weird things also are natural and can have the same arguments applied from for-gay marriage to them.

Green-red:

Not left, but definitely for legalising all drugs. It's not my choice what one folk does to oneself.

Multiculturalist:

I doubt most who've talked with me about this would agree. I don't think I'm for multiculturalism, either. I want to rid arbitrary geographically and politically influenced social barriers between mankind like cultures. I don't see why when a tongue or culture dies, that it is a sad happening, in my opinion, it's great, one less barrier to communication cut. This needs to happen more often. Now, I'm definitely not for forced assimilation, and many ways of how assimilation has been practised was anti human rights.

He would be popular among church going Catholics regardless of the media's coverage , since he's the pope and they would hear about him. Where do you think most people would get their information about the pope if the media didn't cover him? Ah right the Catholic Church.

Ok, I'm trying to follow that logic without it sounding retarded. So, Pope Francis gets elected. Next Sunday, every Catholic goes to church, without exception. The priests are told to hold a sermon saying the following: "Do not support Donald Trump... He is a false prophet... Build bridges instead of walls... Do not vote for Donald Trump..."

No, I can't. It just sounds retarded.

Who is going to defeat ISIS? The people ISIS directly attacks, I.E everyone around them.

Wow, EVERYONE is going to defeat ISIS. Belgium will defeat ISIS. Japan will defeat ISIS. Iraq will defeat ISIS. Thanks for the info.

The Muslims you are talking about are a small minority and can be stopped quite easily.

I see. So that's why there are areas in Paris, Berlin, Malmö etc that the police cannot even enter because of Muslim violence. It's just a small group of radicals that can easily be controlled. You clearly know what you are talking about. Please enlighten us more about Islam, as you seem to be an expert on it.

Russia is stopping its support of the Syrian government because they don't want the Americans to get into a conflict with them.

Yes! The Russians are just acting in the best interest of the US. Couldn't have put it better!

Iran hates the west? When?

Iran calls the US the great Satan. But who knows, maybe it's just an act of love.

Sending in our own soldiers to occupy the area would cause locals to kinda want to fight for what will become of ISIS

I'm sure many of the local 'moderate Muslims' quietly support ISIS. But that doesn't really make your case that west-hating, radical Muslims are an insignificant minority, does it?

I see. So that's why there are areas in Paris, Berlin, Malmö etc that the police cannot even enter because of Muslim violence. It's just a small group of radicals that can easily be controlled. You clearly know what you are talking about. Please enlighten us more about Islam, as you seem to be an expert on it.

Totally false. The idea that there's areas in Paris that the police can't enter is Foxnews bullshit, it has been proven to be false, and don't take it from the media, but from me. I'm french and those things don't exist. Berlin and Malmö situations must be the same.

About Islam, you're again totally being stupid about it. You think it's a problematic religion, when it is not. Did you know that since 9/11, Christian terrorists killed more then Muslim ones in the US? Of course not, you're an alienated american.

TL;DR

Debating on a game forum doesn't mean shit.

Edited 3/25/2016 15:17:43

According to (http://www.politifact.com), 14% Sanders's claims are wrong; 61% Trump's claims are wrong.

Checked the site. A many of Trump's statements have a grain of truth, but are hyperbolic. He does it to mobilize people, which is a good thing, but it downgrades his truth-o-meter values. For example, Trump says real unemployment is 26%. Politfact says it's 10% or at most 15%. Still a lot higher than official figures of 5%.

Some of the Politfact claims are simply untrue. They use a number of newspaper headlines to prove that illegal immigration didn't become a bigger talking point since Trump candidacy. It's a weak argument and obviously untrue.

They did, but not in America. It's a risky move.

Exactly, it's a risky move. Why would Trump risk so much for a topic he allegedly doesn't really care about?

Before talking about any these, first, how can you not say you're not for war? And how can you say that Trump is not going to make America "world police"?

I am not 'for war' or 'against war'. At the moment, ISIS is becoming too dangerous to exist. If the Russians kill it, fine. But it needs to be taken out. Maybe install another secular dictator, but Muslim radicalism clearly needs to be stopped. Responding to immediate threats to safety doesn't mean world police. Attacking Saddam, who was not a threat, was an act of a world police.

I say again: assuming candidates do what they say they will (otherwise all forecasts fall apart), and even if we weren't assuming it, Trump's got the worst record there, then.

Also, don't tell me that someone is just as bad as someone else. Noone is good, the point is to find the least worst.

I already admitted that Trump's stance on mass surveillance is horrible. If you want to find the best or least bad, you have to look elsewhere, because all the candidates are just as bad regarding the NSA.

http://rsf.org/en/news/donald-trump-wants-sue-newspapers-publishing-purposely-negative-stories

You have to be careful how you change the law, but I can absolutely understand Trump's view. The media has questioned his disavowal of the KKK, which was supposedly not energetic enough, but they never make such stories about Bernie and Hillary not condemning BLM. The media brands Trump and his supporters as violent maniacs as they respond to 'protester' violence, but they never tell the other side of the story. These professional thugs hit Trump supporters, police officers, block ambulances and so on. The end result of this one-sidedness is that people see Trump as a monster, and these violent protesters as freedom fighters. People don't get a balanced picture. It's very hard to prove malice in such cases, but it's clearly there.

But he's not getting killed, don't kid yourself.

You are obviously minimizing the issue. Not just Pim Fortuyn, Theo van Gogh, Olof Palme, but also Kennedy was assaassinated. There was an assassination attempt against Reagan. It's total nonsense to say that it couldn't happen, especially against a controversial candidate like Trump. The reason why more US presidents haven't been killed is because the security is good and aggressive enough. This is exactly why 'protesters' throwing tomatoes should be knocked out.

And yeah, he is branded a racist, for some pretty good grounds.

In that case, the media should also brand Hillary and Bernie racists, as neither of them condemn BLM.

They absolutely are innocent. They broke no laws, they are free to do what they want, even if it irks someone else. If they attack someone, they are not innocent, but it is their freedom to say and protest whatever they wish. And even if you are for this, then you should be all for poltic rightness; it aims to stop criticism of (some) folk.

Throwing a tomato or hitting someone has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Nor is shouting so loud that others cannot speak in the spirit of freedom of speech. And them entering Trump's private event may not be illegal, but they certainly have no business there.

If Trump opponents want to voice their oppositon, they can do it somewhere else. They don't need to disrupt his rallies.

The American media (and he does likes it) show him as a radic bloke

The media tries to display Trump as a racist and a misogynist and an overall radical guy. They are trying to get his ratings down. It is true that Trump knows how to play the media and get his ratings up, but that doesn't mean the media have tried to help him. They tried to destroy him.

Anyhow, show me how it's out of context?

The context the media is conveying is that BLM are oppressed by racism and have a legitimate cause to protest, more legitimate than the KKK or Westboro Baptist Church for example. The media doesn't show footage of these thugs hitting the police, blocking ambulances, shooting with guns etc. It is very different to hit someone who hits the police and blocks ambulances than someone who simply enters a room and shows a sign. A very different context.

Another example. The media makes a big deal about Trump wanting to kill free speech because he wants to change the libel laws. How much do you hear, however, about this:
http://www.wired.com/2013/10/obama-nixon-media-war/
Obama's efforts to control the media are worst since Nixon. Why isn't this frontpage news everyday, like Trump's libel laws are? It's dishonest and misleading.

and what's to say that it doesn't become the new mainstream (and yeah, technically everyone can self-publish, but there's hassle, money, and popularity involved, same as real life).

Because people have a choice. Nobody can prohibit you from starting a blog, but people can deny you the right to open a TV channel in many countries. Plus, you need an expensvie TV studio, you need to broadcast a minimum amount of stuff etc. All this hassle goes away with your personal blog.

Ok, tell me why you did put the disclaimer? Why don't you curb it, Goebbels.

The same disclaimer can be put with anybody. Obama, for instance. He already has a proven track record of censoring the mainstream media. Harder to do with the social media, however.

Totally false. The idea that there's areas in Paris that the police can't enter is Foxnews bullshit, it has been proven to be false, and don't take it from the media, but from me. I'm french and those things don't exist. Berlin and Malmö situations must be the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-go_area#Belgium
Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Sweden. All have no-go zones because of Muslim immigrants. In France, they just term it 'sensitive urban zones' because hinting at Muslims would be racist (even though Islam isn't a race). But don't let inconvenient facts get in the way of your beliefs.

I trust the New York Times, Le Figaro, and various police departments more than your word. Either you are extremely naive or a liar.

About Islam, you're again totally being stupid about it. You think it's a problematic religion, when it is not. Did you know that since 9/11, Christian terrorists killed more then Muslim ones in the US? Of course not, you're an alienated american.

Since you don't understand maths, let me help you: 2% of US population committed less terrorist attacks than 70% in total. Those 2% still committed more per capita. Now don't tell me that maths is a Fox News plot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfLf6tO7vSA

Se your no-go zones in paris proved wrong by french people. If you don't like this guy speaking in english because he's a "liberal prick", go to the french version of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-tTHmrsXB8.

I've read that you accept the idea that everything trump says it's false because it raises awareness. That's totally stupid and just proves that trump supporters will accept any bullshit he says. But no problem, I'll pray for your brains.

Since you don't understand maths, let me help you: 2% of US population committed less terrorist attacks than 70% in total. Those 2% still committed more per capita. Now don't tell me that maths is a Fox News plot.

That's hardly a statistics problem my point here, but the fact that christian terrorism isn't really covered by the media, while muslim are, and thus even though the first ones kill more.

The BLM group has not lynched any whites has it? They don't state that blacks are racially superior, do they? Also , which countries will defeat ISIS? Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Kurdistan, etc. Right now Syria is retaking land from ISIS, as is Iraq. You want a ground invasion which will pull us into a lengthy and unnecessary guerilla war when it's clear that ISIS is being defeated already.

Se your no-go zones in paris proved wrong by french people.

So a French TV show with an agenda goes to these areas to seek proof for what they wanted to hear. Why didn't they interview the police, especially the ones with experience of violence? Ah, but that would have invalidated their narrative.

I've read that you accept the idea that everything trump says it's false because it raises awareness. That's totally stupid and just proves that trump supporters will accept any bullshit he says. But no problem, I'll pray for your brains.

So you read 'between the lines', ie found what you wanted to find. Sadly, you criticize Trump for bending the truth, but you do the exact same thing you blame Trump for.

What I actually said was that it's OK if he uses hyperbolic language. It's still true that the government is making unemployment statistics look much better than they actually are. If it takes hyperbolic language to draw attention to that, then so be it.

That's hardly a statistics problem my point here, but the fact that christian terrorism isn't really covered by the media, while muslim are, and thus even though the first ones kill more.

Fine, if you want to change the subject, go ahead. I understand that maths can be difficult.

Let me tell you a secret: Islamic terrorism is more prevalent in Islamic countries than Christian terrorism. Why isn't anybody talking about this!?

The BLM group has not lynched any whites has it?

BLM just recently hospitalized KKK members that were staging a legal, previously announced protest. While I strongly dislike the KKK, that doesn't mean BLM can go and maim or kill them for holding stupid views.

They don't state that blacks are racially superior, do they?

Their rhetoric is different from the KKK but their goal is the same: racial supremacy. While the KKK talks about white superiority, BLM talks about retribution and racism to justify the same ends.

So a French TV show with an agenda goes to these areas to seek proof for what they wanted to hear. Why didn't they interview the police, especially the ones with experience of violence? Ah, but that would have invalidated their narrative.

What part of FRENCH PEOPLE, didn't you read? It's people that live in your dangerous no-go zones that say it's bullshit. That French TV is btw a satiric thing, they make jokes of the right and the left, the joke on this day was America and FoxNews.

So you read 'between the lines', ie found what you wanted to find. Sadly, you criticize Trump for bending the truth, but you do the exact same thing you blame Trump for.

Trump isn't saying the truth. And I haven't said anything false, those no-go zones don't exist, it's american right wing propaganda, sadly you can't see it. It's not ok to use hyperbolic languages lol, it's just creating false statements.

If I say now that most christians are terrorists, it's an hyperbole too, it doesn't make the statement true. Arguing that it does it's just being stupid.

Fine, if you want to change the subject, go ahead. I understand that maths can be difficult.

Let me tell you a secret: Islamic terrorism is more prevalent in Islamic countries than Christian terrorism. Why isn't anybody talking about this!?

I'm good with maths, very good actually, and I can't argue that there isn't more prevalence on the subject about statistics behind terrorist attacks. But you fail to see the real point, muslim terrorism is a consequence of western interventionism in the middle east as well as minorities problems in the west. Christians also suffer in the middle east, but they can always run to the West, whereas the opposit isn't true. Btw, blowing yourself up in Saudi Arabia to kill muslims in order to protest against muslim terrorism is just a pointless thing to do, as it's not like Saudi Arabia has colonized and invaded your country many times over the centuries.




Btw, stating that BLM defends racial supremacy, is the same thing as saying feminists defend women supremacy and that the LGBT community defends gay supremacy. It's just conspiracy theories that are very dumb.

Edited 3/25/2016 18:45:51

feminists defend women supremacy

Some actually do though. These are the same feminists that say all women should vote for Hillary Clinton because she has female genetalia.

What part of FRENCH PEOPLE, didn't you read?

Again, your weakness with maths and logic is showing, I'm afraid. Hint: Did they interview THE French people or SOME French people?

If I say now that most christians are terrorists, it's an hyperbole too, it doesn't make the statement true. Arguing that it does it's just being stupid.

There is no point to be made with that hyperbole. Christians and atheists per capita do not have a big problem with gays, equality, human rights etc, it's Muslims that do. It would be a meaningless statement.

muslim terrorism is a consequence of western interventionism in the middle east

This is very important to understand: western meddling in the Middle East has certainly added fuel to the fire, but the fire was there already. Muslims in Germany, France, Britain, and Sweden are quite radical as well, and they didn't have their country invaded. The US doesn't occupy Indonesia either, yet there is a lot of Muslim radicalism.

Btw, stating that BLM defends racial supremacy, is the same thing as saying feminists defend women supremacy and that the LGBT community defends gay supremacy. It's just conspiracy theories that are very dumb.

A lot of feminists do exactly that. They want to #KillAllMen, make women get more pay for the same work, paint all men as rapists (rape culture) and so on. And of course, elect Hillary because vagina. Same goes for a part of the LGBT community, especially the one that has close ties to feminism.

The Lord is contradicting himself all the time, he says he is not biased not watching the media (like Trump) nonetheless he believes in Foxnews bullshit.
I went 2 times in Paris recently, I slept in Paris suburbs visiting my family, I can assure you there is no places in France where the rule of law and police aren't respected.

I also have one cousin working for police in Paris, she knows better than everyone else how the situation is, some suburbs are dangerous nonetheless Police is everywhere and these "no go zones" invented by Foxnews, it's pure sensationalism and such places do not exist.

Almost all news is sensationalism.

Yea, actually this thing was really laughed at in many national televisions.

About feminism, you're wrong The Lord. Feminism stands for equality between men and women, that's the definition of the movement actually. The idea that women are superior to men it's called Misandry, it's often misinterpreted as feminism, but it's not. It's just the same relation of salafism to islamism and Klu Klux Klan to christianism. You fail to see this and say a lot of crap about a movement you clearly know nothing about.

western meddling in the Middle East has certainly added fuel to the fire, but the fire was there already.

Untrue, before 1800 and the start of colonialism by european countries of the region, radical Islam wasn't even close to be as widespread as today. In terms of tolerance, Christianism has been far worse since it's creation then Islamism. #Inquisition #Crusades #NativeAmericanMassacres #ForcedConversions #LotOfOtherThings.


PS: Those feminists that want to elect Hillary to be a president just because she's a women, are stupid too. Her record is terrible on the defense of women rights, and I doubt a Clinton's administration would really help to ease those problems, just like Obama's didn't fixed the racism problem in america.

I would read this article: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/07/anti-semitism-france-hostage-hyper-cacher-kosher-market

It talks about how the growth of anti-Semitism in France is linked directly to the inability of the police and other security agencies to control the growing extremism of Arab and Islamic banlieues.

Edited 3/25/2016 21:02:54