MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse
- Thread starter CdnGuy
- Start date
The online forums, known as /pol/ for “politically incorrect,” offer a platform for hate speech where posts are almost always anonymous, making it difficult for law enforcement to identify who is using the sites. Hateful ideologies, including white supremacy, are promoted across the sites and used to incite violence, forming a chain of influence that appears to have led from one mass shooting to the next. When one site is shut down, users swiftly migrate to another.
Mass shooters are revered on the forums, which brim with racist and antigay content. Posts encourage attacks against mosques, synagogues and immigrants. Large numbers of fatalities are celebrated as “high scores.”
When a gunman in West Texas opened fire on Saturday, the forums lit up, with users demanding to know his “kill count” and saying they hoped he was white and his victims Hispanic. The alleged shooter doesn’t appear to have ties to the forums.
The most popular site among extremists, 8chan, has been largely knocked offline in recent weeks after tech-support providers cut off service. ...
Founded in 2013, 8chan gained popularity the following year when 4chan, a similar site with less hate speech and more moderation, cracked down on users who were harassing women who developed and reviewed videogames. 8chan embraced those users.
The site calls itself “the darkest reaches of the internet.” Its home page carries a disclaimer saying that some topic sections, or “boards,” might “have content of an adult or offensive nature,” and only content violating U.S. laws is deleted.
Anonymity is protected. Users are given a random ID number for each discussion, and frequently use jargon alien to outsiders—derisively referred to as “normies.” The stripped-down user interface seems straight out of the 1990s. It contains lists of links to discussion boards on such topics as anime, pornography and videogames.
Unpaid moderators on 8chan’s /pol/ forum promote certain ideologies, according to one researcher of radical online communities who has studied the site for years. One moderator deleted anti-Trump statements, the researcher said, while others argue about whether to support patriotism or white nationalism. Recruiters for the Atomwaffen Division, a neo-Nazi terrorist group, lurk on the site, he said.
A debate billed as a major showdown between competing visions of religious conservatism Thursday night revealed, more than anything, the profound fear that drives the “culture war” on the right: that Christians will face literal extermination at the hands of Democrats if Republicans lose power.
That’s not just a metaphor: One side, represented by a prominent Catholic journalist, warned, in apparent seriousness, of a future in which Christians are thrown to the lions, as in ancient Rome, with Bernie Sanders playing the role of the emperor Nero.
Ahmari, a 34-year-old Iranian immigrant who converted to Catholicism three years ago, has adopted an apocalyptic approach to the culture war against secular liberalism. He wrote in May that “progressives understand that culture war means discrediting their opponents and weakening or destroying their institutions.”
“Conservatives should approach the culture war with a similar realism. Civility and decency are secondary values,” Ahmari wrote, and he wrote in that column that French’s approach was a defeatist’s strategy.
French, a 50-year-old constitutional lawyer, a recipient of the Bronze Star for his military service in Iraq, and a fierce critic of President Trump, has argued that civility and free speech are central values to American flourishing and are in fact a part of Christian duty.
It was an uncommonly frank window into the pronounced fears of religious conservatives that led many to overlook Trump’s personal conduct and his lack of preparation for the presidency, seeking safety behind his pledges to protect them from the left.
Last edited:
How very....authoritarian.
Nearly a week before the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration publicly backed President Trump over its own scientists, a top NOAA official warned its staff against contradicting the president.
In an agencywide directive sent Sept. 1 to National Weather Service personnel, hours after Trump asserted, with no evidence, that Alabama “would most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated,” staff was told to “only stick with official National Hurricane Center forecasts if questions arise from some national level social media posts which hit the news this afternoon.”
They were also told not to “provide any opinion,” according to a copy of the email obtained by The Washington Post.
A NOAA meteorologist who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution said the note, understood internally to be referring to Trump, came after the National Weather Service office in Birmingham contradicted Trump by tweeting Alabama would “NOT see any impacts from the hurricane.”
The Birmingham office sent the tweet after receiving a flurry of phone calls from concerned residents following Trump’s message.
The agency sent a similar message warning scientists and meteorologists not to speak out on Sept. 4, after Trump showed a hurricane map from Aug. 29 modified with a hand-drawn, half-circle in black Sharpie around Alabama.
“This is the first time I’ve felt pressure from above to not say what truly is the forecast,” the meteorologist said. “It’s hard for me to wrap my head around. One of the things we train on is to dispel inaccurate rumors and ultimately that is what was occurring — ultimately what the Alabama office did is provide a forecast with their tweet, that is what they get paid to do.”
Nearly a week before the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration publicly backed President Trump over its own scientists, a top NOAA official warned its staff against contradicting the president.
In an agencywide directive sent Sept. 1 to National Weather Service personnel, hours after Trump asserted, with no evidence, that Alabama “would most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated,” staff was told to “only stick with official National Hurricane Center forecasts if questions arise from some national level social media posts which hit the news this afternoon.”
They were also told not to “provide any opinion,” according to a copy of the email obtained by The Washington Post.
A NOAA meteorologist who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution said the note, understood internally to be referring to Trump, came after the National Weather Service office in Birmingham contradicted Trump by tweeting Alabama would “NOT see any impacts from the hurricane.”
The Birmingham office sent the tweet after receiving a flurry of phone calls from concerned residents following Trump’s message.
The agency sent a similar message warning scientists and meteorologists not to speak out on Sept. 4, after Trump showed a hurricane map from Aug. 29 modified with a hand-drawn, half-circle in black Sharpie around Alabama.
“This is the first time I’ve felt pressure from above to not say what truly is the forecast,” the meteorologist said. “It’s hard for me to wrap my head around. One of the things we train on is to dispel inaccurate rumors and ultimately that is what was occurring — ultimately what the Alabama office did is provide a forecast with their tweet, that is what they get paid to do.”
Last edited:
For those scratching their heads on this, it isn’t hard. Let’s break down what happened here piece by piece.
First, Trump thought it was a good idea to invite evil Taliban leaders to the US the week of 9/11 in SECRET because he knew it would look TERRIBLE unless he got a deal...
So, as anyone with half a brain could have predicted, the Taliban are (surprise!) evil murderous thugs that killed one of our soldiers and 11 innocent people in advance of the sit down, causing the meeting to blow up in Donald’s face...
Then, to save face and do PR damage control for what surely would have leaked and been a disaster headline for the President around a failed peace talk—he’s now tweeting out this nonsense that it was some brilliant idea of his to cancel the talks...
Who in their right mind wouldn’t cancel the talks now?!? That’s not the question here — and Trump and the GOP politicians who are about to act like it is are playing you for fools when they do.
The reality is, this was a MAJOR blunder by the White House, first and foremost, for inviting the Taliban to US soil in the first place—much less Camp David. They aided and still defend the 9/11 attacks. They are evil and don’t deserve the dignity Trump bestowed on them.
But secondly, it’s an embarrassment for Trump. He thought the Taliban ready to negotiate. He trusted them—and then they killed our soldier and 11 innocent people.
He was wrong—dead wrong—as he has been with Kim & with Putin. He’s terrible at this. Period.
So, don’t let Republicans write this one up as “Oh wow—great decision to cancel those talks, Mr. President! You sure know how to play tough when they kill one of our soldiers! Good goin’!”
That’s pathetic. Have them answer the real question—and if they don’t, vote them out.
Thread by @HeathMayo: "For those scratching their heads on this, it isn’t hard. Let’s break down what happened here piece by piece. First, Trump thought it was a g […]"
First, Trump thought it was a good idea to invite evil Taliban leaders to the US the week of 9/11 in SECRET because he knew it would look TERRIBLE unless he got a deal...
So, as anyone with half a brain could have predicted, the Taliban are (surprise!) evil murderous thugs that killed one of our soldiers and 11 innocent people in advance of the sit down, causing the meeting to blow up in Donald’s face...
Then, to save face and do PR damage control for what surely would have leaked and been a disaster headline for the President around a failed peace talk—he’s now tweeting out this nonsense that it was some brilliant idea of his to cancel the talks...
Who in their right mind wouldn’t cancel the talks now?!? That’s not the question here — and Trump and the GOP politicians who are about to act like it is are playing you for fools when they do.
The reality is, this was a MAJOR blunder by the White House, first and foremost, for inviting the Taliban to US soil in the first place—much less Camp David. They aided and still defend the 9/11 attacks. They are evil and don’t deserve the dignity Trump bestowed on them.
But secondly, it’s an embarrassment for Trump. He thought the Taliban ready to negotiate. He trusted them—and then they killed our soldier and 11 innocent people.
He was wrong—dead wrong—as he has been with Kim & with Putin. He’s terrible at this. Period.
So, don’t let Republicans write this one up as “Oh wow—great decision to cancel those talks, Mr. President! You sure know how to play tough when they kill one of our soldiers! Good goin’!”
That’s pathetic. Have them answer the real question—and if they don’t, vote them out.
Thread by @HeathMayo: "For those scratching their heads on this, it isn’t hard. Let’s break down what happened here piece by piece. First, Trump thought it was a g […]"
