<Snipped quote by Spoopy Scary>

any so-called centrists wanna correct this while I'm at work? Spoopy, someone is not giving you the whole story. Stay tuned. You're gonna be disgusted.

That's not gonna happen, because so far the only confirmed information is that the DNC handed its control to the Clinton campaign a year before the primary elections and anything more than that is conjecture or conspiracy theory.

Real World internal logic, but you knew that right?

There is nevertheless internal logical consistency. At times, anyway.

aesthetic reasons,

I don't think you know what that means, and anyway the frau along with nazi germany as a whole being Roman Catholic lead is in no way "aesthetic," especially since they don't even then use that for any potential aesthetic use i.e. Roman Catholic symbolism being put around the place.

Not every decision made by someone representing nazis in (fictional) media is an opportunity for a 'gotcha' moment for some online wehraboo to 'refute' it.

damn what will I do with my life now

the game was in no way historically accurate leading up to 'Nazis winning the war'

What? The game very well explains it, with Deathshead finding the caches of magic Jew technology and such and goes on further with the veil and all the trippy universal stuff, it is in fact most likely you who haven't played the game and rather just know what you know via your starter pack memes.

And you're stuck in my thread, arguing with me about the accuracy of fanatsy nazi video games, boy I don't envy you.

Lol, you brought it up. It's pretty ebin to have such levels of doublethink unashamedly.

But hey, you know what I'm going to make an alt-history game where the nazis loved the Jews, and nobody better say nothing 'bout it.

<Snipped quote by mdk>

That's not gonna happen, because so far the only confirmed information is that the DNC handed its control to the Clinton campaign a year before the primary elections and anything more than that is conjecture or conspiracy theory.

Somebody is out-and-out lying to you. But before we get to that: what separates the "conjecture and conspiracy theory" surrounding Clinton, from that surrounding Trump? Why are uncomfirmed suspicions about the one bogus, but unconfirmed suspicions about the other are taken seriously? Think on that.

Anyway.

We know she colluded with Ukrain. We know (because after initially denying any knowledge, she later turned around and defended her role) that she paid foreign intel to produce the Trump dossier, and credited that info instead to a fictional number of intelligence agencies. We know she took cash while approving the Uranium One/Rosatom deal. We know she's got a long history of pay-for-play -- which, incidentally, means that most of the money in the DNC warchest since her newly-revealed 2015 takeover of their finances, came from foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation, from Saudi, Qatar, UAE, Brunei, Kuwait, and heck even Russia.

Oh, and Harvey Weinstein.

So..... ya know. That's the kind of thing that the DNC was getting up to. I'm not saying you have to be happy with the GOP -- but whoever it is that's telling you the DNC was clean is a goddamn filthy liar, and you need to drop them like a bad habit.

So, to begin, let me just put out a disclaimer: I've been a little out of the loop lately, so I might not be right in the end and I'm okay with that. I'm always ready to learn. That being said, some of the sources you have cited aren't credible. There might be inklings of truth in some of them, but if they aren't honest or objective from the get-go, I can't be certain what is true and what is not without in-depth research and that's not the kind of time I want to be spending for a political conversation with a stranger on a roleplaying forum.

• The Medium article you cited has been using coded or outright biased language in order to persuade the reader toward a certain conclusion (e.g. "...we have known about these facts since they emerged from Clapper’s racist face hole on May 8..."), so to save time, I'm gonna outright ignore it. Which might mean I'll miss out on some truth, but for all I know, it could also be all croc... and that's speaking as a liberal about a left-leaning website.
• The Daily Caller, has a history of right-heavy bias and sensationalist headlines, so nope. But hey, kudos to you for being diverse and nonpartisan in your source picking.

And a bunch of the other articles either don't relate to or support the theory of foreign involvement in her 2016 campaign (or her 2008 campaign, as far as I can tell). Like those donations to the Clinton Foundation which were outside of the nation's election periods can't possibly have any strong link to either campaign - and it doesn't matter in this case that she took and kept money by a sexual offender, and that's speaking as a survivor myself. By no means am I defending Clinton as an ethical person or her Foundation as an ethical organization, but those sources don't support your claim of foreign involvement in this last election season.

The best article you've given is the one by The Hill where the Clinton campaign apparently colluded with Ukraine officials. The Hill being a good, solid source. My only problem is that there are few other sources with the same credibility supporting the same story without bias, so I have to be open to the possibility that it may not be true or that I am not getting all of the information about Ukraine's involvement.

In the case where I'm wrong, I stand corrected and thank you for bringing that information to my attention. But otherwise, there is a lot of misleading information in your case which leads me to wonder if you have your own bias in simply wanting to see Clinton fail.

Like I said, I have no love for the former Secretary of State or the DNC. And yes, Clinton carries with her a metric SHIT-TON of baggage that looks very damning and can easily lead someone to some conclusions... but among it, there simply isn't enough hard proof of foreign involvement in her 2016 campaign for me to settle on a definitive conclusion.

The Daily Caller, has a history of right-heavy bias and sensationalist headlines, so nope. But hey, kudos to you for being diverse and nonpartisan in your source picking.

Excuse me? With Overton window shift to suit your own horrible definition, maybe, but otherwise you're wrong. At most it's economically slightly right, but stop going with "they disagree so haha it don't count!"

So, to begin, let me just put out a disclaimer: I've been a little out of the loop lately, so I might not be right in the end and I'm okay with that. I'm always ready to learn. That being said, some of the sources you have cited aren't credible. There might be inklings of truth in some of them, but if they aren't honest or objective from the get-go, I can't be certain what is true and what is not without in-depth research and that's not the kind of time I want to be spending for a political conversation with a stranger on a roleplaying forum.

• The Medium article you cited has been using coded or outright biased language in order to persuade the reader toward a certain conclusion (e.g. "...we have known about these facts since they emerged from Clapper’s racist face hole on May 8..."), so to save time, I'm gonna outright ignore it. Which might mean I'll miss out on some truth, but for all I know, it could also be all croc... and that's speaking as a liberal about a left-leaning website.
• The Daily Caller, has a history of right-heavy bias and sensationalist headlines, so nope. But hey, kudos to you for being diverse and nonpartisan in your source picking.

And a bunch of the other articles either don't relate to or support the theory of foreign involvement in her 2016 campaign (or her 2008 campaign, as far as I can tell). Like those donations to the Clinton Foundation which were outside of the nation's election periods can't possibly have any strong link to either campaign - and it doesn't matter in this case that she took and kept money by a sexual offender, and that's speaking as a survivor myself. By no means am I defending Clinton as an ethical person or her Foundation as an ethical organization, but those sources don't support your claim of foreign involvement in this last election season.

The best article you've given is the one by The Hill where the Clinton campaign apparently colluded with Ukraine officials. The Hill being a good, solid source. My only problem is that there are few other sources with the same credibility supporting the same story without bias, so I have to be open to the possibility that it may not be true or that I am not getting all of the information about Ukraine's involvement.

In the case where I'm wrong, I stand corrected and thank you for bringing that information to my attention. But otherwise, there is a lot of misleading information in your case which leads me to wonder if you have your own bias in simply wanting to see Clinton fail.

Like I said, I have no love for the former Secretary of State or the DNC. And yes, Clinton carries with her a metric SHIT-TON of baggage that looks very damning and can easily lead someone to some conclusions... but among it, there simply isn't enough hard proof of foreign involvement in her 2016 campaign for me to settle on a definitive conclusion.

Let's apply that same standard to the Trump campaign. What's your definitive conclusion there?

Remember, Manafort, the Trump guy they're needling for foreign involvement, is currently indicted for activities he undertook on behalf of the Ukraine, during his time with Podesta Group -- Podesta, as in Hillary's campaign manager.

EDIT: as an aside, everything I just linked is a matter of record. Some of it, like Uranium One, we're still waiting o more info, but the part of the story we've got on record so far is very damning. You should definitely look into these things on your own time. I haven't even touched the conspiracy theories, credible (Seth Rich) or otherwise (comet ping pong)

I'll get back to you on that. Not sure when, though. It's sleepy time and I will be working all weekend, so I have no promises that I'll even remember! Lol

<Snipped quote>
Excuse me? With Overton window shift to suit your own horrible definition, maybe, but otherwise you're wrong. At most it's economically slightly right, but stop going with "they disagree so haha it don't count!"

????????

I might throw out that the "media fact checkers" of our day and age are now often spectacularly wrong. The most infamous being the "BleachBit" example when they had to specify that it was a program, not literal bleaching, and rated the claim as "false" subsequently; Snopes as a whole going under is just another aspect. Regardless, the Daily Caller is right leaning but is not a deep right source. You can tell from the spread of examples @mdk used it was intentional, something you yourself even commented on.

The link provided even calls their information accuracy "MIXED" and specifically names Politifact and Snopes in the process as the sources for this rating. This tells me, observing the voting roster too, although it makes no mention of that being an influence and says contrary to that, that they view it as "Extreme Right". Quite "reliable" to throw it in the same basket as say Stormfront and Breitbart despite them all being of tremendously varied quality.

As a bonus, they consider Fox News to be one step less extreme than all the other examples I listed.

I might throw out that the "media fact checkers" of our day and age are now often spectacularly wrong. The most infamous being the "BleachBit" example when they had to specify that it was a program, not literal bleaching, and rated the claim as "false" subsequently; Snopes as a whole going under is just another aspect. Regardless, the Daily Caller is right leaning but is not a deep right source. You can tell from the spread of examples @mdk used it was intentional, something you yourself even commented on.

The link provided even calls their information accuracy "MIXED" and specifically names Politifact and Snopes in the process as the sources for this rating. This tells me, observing the voting roster too, although it makes no mention of that being an influence and says contrary to that, that they view it as "Extreme Right". Quite "reliable" to throw it in the same basket as say Stormfront and Breitbart despite them all being of tremendously varied quality.

As a bonus, they consider Fox News to be one step less extreme than all the other examples I listed.

And FWIW I'm not out here to vouch for the sanctity of whatever website. You can google each subject on your own, and select whatever biased source you prefer; alternatively, tell me the outlets you trust, and I'll use them for you.

I'll get back to you on that. Not sure when, though. It's sleepy time and I will be working all weekend, so I have no promises that I'll even remember! Lol

<Snipped quote by Andreyich>
????????

Wow a left-wing website influenced by "votes" has it as right wing, you really are smart to get this wonderful information

No comment of a mass shooting going on at a Texas church here? Nothing on how November 4th was forced to fizzle or Senator Rand Paul being assaulted by violent leftist neighbor, and not even a word of all the Saudi princes who got pinched on corruption charges, to include one who was notorious for taunting President Donald Trump and being the subject of terrorism investigations there? Color me unsurprised.

Regardless, time to focus on what is known in addition to initial information gathered.

The situation that occurred in Sutherland Springs, Texas was a shooter, in all black and tactical equipment, who barged into a church this Sunday some time after eleven in the morning and killed 27 of the congregation. The attacker, identified as David Patrick Kelley was a dishonorably discharged member from the United States Air Force, found guilty of assaulting his wife and his child in court martial, barred from owning or purchasing firearms, demoted to the rank of Airman Basic, and had served a year in confinement.

Currently, the motive is unclear but intelligence gathered suggests it was ideological, potentially political as well; his Facebook had ties to many athiest groups and a few "RESIST" movements as well as the following statement by a group called "TOGETHER WE RISE", which Kelley was a part of:


The weapon used, according to information as it is now, was an AR-15 style Ruger rifle, which had been customized by the attacker (perhaps to more closely resemble the M4 rifle used by the Air Force). However, the active shooter was interrupted and forced to flee - potentially suffering a mortal injury in the process - when a neighbor to the church heard the shooting and retrieved his own rifle and fired upon him. The armed citizen then harassed and forced Kelley to flee by continued shooting.

Kelley is confirmed dead by law enforcement, but the investigation has escalated further, now into the hands of federal investigation.

No comment of a mass shooting going on at a Texas church here?

Another mass shooting? Is it Tuesday already? 'Merica.

No comment of a mass shooting going on at a Texas church here?

Was waiting for more information to come out.

<Snipped quote by The Harbinger of Ferocity>

Another mass shooting? Is it Tuesday already? 'Merica.

Bravo and well done in ignoring the content of the post to make a "witty" comment about a tragedy because "lulz 'merica". The person in question and their motivation for doing it is the lynchpin issue here.

@The Harbinger of Ferocity
I wouldn't dismiss Penny's comment completely out of hand, as blunt and reductionist as it was. American politically motivated attacks on either side of the spectrum are far more commonly reported than from other western countries I can think of. I would struggle to think of any instances of 'domestic terrorism' in my own country or within Europe, but I could probably name five American instances off the bat. You can put that down to a lot of things.

However, if we can believe the information that has been released so far, it would be hard to draw the conclusion that this instance could have been prevented with tighter gun control.

@ErsatzEmperor

This was not an issue of weapon of choice, a gun, but motives, which were deeply ideological and political. As details are coming out, this mass shooter was an avid atheist supporter who reportedly dehumanized people who held a belief in God and had actual, proven ties to the Radical Left. Of this there is not even a debate, not as with Paddock.

Why are American shootings so politicized and public? Quite simply because there is a continued and ongoing effort to have "tighter gun control". Why was "gun control" not pushed when James Hodgkinson attempted to kill near half of the American Senate? Why is Paddock's attack a subject of "banning bump stocks" when evidence can even suggest he had converted, automatic weapons? Why are we not advocating "tighter truck control" after Sayfullo Saipov used a truck to mowdown a bunch of bicyclists?

There is a narrative here that crops up every time. People want the "feels good" solution of banning guns or having "better laws", but for a nation with as many firearms as it has, the United States has relatively low weapons crime. The real issue is the motive and the people adhering to it. Being dismissive to tragedy and poking fun at it is well worth the condemnation it receives as part of this.

However, if we can believe the information that has been released so far, it would be hard to draw the conclusion that this instance could have been prevented with tighter gun control.

Can I just draw you on the fact that here I stated that I didn't think this could be blamed on gun control. I had said this as often, my colleagues on the left use this as a one-size fits all response to these kinds of attacks, and I wanted to avoid such politicising in wake of an attack of which the information released shows it would have had little to no effect.

And it's certainly correct that politicking after these attack is part of the reason the news continues to circulate but that is true of any country where the news media tends towards sensationalism and laziness.

My focus has been and will continue to be on his motives, which I keep referring to, @ErsatzEmperor. I only mention gun control because that is the major objective of the narrative being pushed and why there is such a "big issue" with it in politics and news. Realistically, the issue never has been the weapons themselves, ever, but the people using them.

The purpose of my emphasizing this is because, without doubt, the first clear and distinct case where radical philosophy was the cause.

<Snipped quote by Penny>

Bravo and well done in ignoring the content of the post to make a "witty" comment about a tragedy because "lulz 'merica". The person in question and their motivation for doing it is the lynchpin issue here.

Going to be frank. Aside from the very few times I discussed with VillageIdiot.

I've literally NEVER seen a political disagreement, on this forum, that didn't have "witty" lulz or ad-hominems attacks.

Isn't that literally what every single conversation that's every occurred politically on this site, period? Let alone this entire thread. And ignoring whoever created this thread, the fact this hasn't been locked and/or nobody has been punished for past or present behavior on here. Is absolutely appalling...