Serge Forward
Just enjoyin' my coffee.
I heard it was an ELS "gives a bigger choice, yes" mole.There's a rumour going around that you are an MFI mole. Do you have anything to say in response?
I heard it was an ELS "gives a bigger choice, yes" mole.There's a rumour going around that you are an MFI mole. Do you have anything to say in response?
There's a rumour going around that you are an MFI mole. Do you have anything to say in response?
"Anyone who matters in this great grand plan is male. Obviously."the "alphabet boys" as we call them
I'm not 'triggered' by it. I'm just laughing at you for being so gullible as to to buy into all this ridiculous, right wing conspiracy bullshit. It's gone past embarrassing now. Whatever happened to you?
I feel a bit sorry for Dwyre. But I think he would be best advised to call it a day on this forum. It is a difficult crowd for pro Trump opinions. All the best phildwyer
No, it doesn't mean that. It's a deliberately nebulous term for "enemies within" popularised by the modern US right (and used, in different language, by rubbish imitators like the Tories, who imply any conflict between them and the civil service is "deep state" stuff). It absolutely does not mean the alphabet agencies because of course they want to keep them around, and also there's been decades of propaganda about how those agencies are actually great, particularly appreciated by voters of an authoritarian mindset who are a big Trump bloc.I know a lot of people get triggered by the phrase "deep state," but there's really no need.
It just means the security state--the "alphabet boys" as we call them. The CIA, FBI, NSA, DEA etc. I suppose you believe that they exist?
I know a lot of people get triggered by the phrase "deep state," but there's really no need.
It just means the security state--the "alphabet boys" as we call them. The CIA, FBI, NSA, DEA etc. I suppose you believe that they exist?
"Ignore this thread, Dwyer's taken another dump on the boards"Now that the thread title has been exposed as inaccurate, shouldn't it be changed to something that reflects reality a little better?
Anyone got any suggestions?
But we'll have endless war whoever ends up in the white houseCheers matey, but I'm not pro-Trump. I'm anti-Trump. Can't stand the man, would never vote for him. I just think he's better than "Biden." "Biden" means endless war.
Now that the thread title has been exposed as inaccurate, shouldn't it be changed to something that reflects reality a little better?
Anyone got any suggestions?
No, it doesn't mean that. It's a deliberately nebulous term for "enemies within" popularised by the modern US right (and used, in different language, by rubbish imitators like the Tories, who imply any conflict between them and the civil service is "deep state" stuff). It absolutely does not mean the alphabet agencies because of course they want to keep them around, and also there's been decades of propaganda about how those agencies are actually great, particularly appreciated by voters of an authoritarian mindset who are a big Trump bloc.
Of course it has reference to the alphabet agencies for the benefit of the conspiracy side, but those guys are minor.
Go on, then, I'll bite.Towards the end of Trump's term quite a few liberals were openly calling for a military coup, once they saw that nothing else would work, and they're obviously cooking up some quasi-legal excuse to get him off the ballot this time too.
Because the MSM tells you to hate them. What has Assange done to displease you?
MSM rarely talks about Tucker. Instead we can see his shit on Twitter.
He's a millionaire's son, who has found a career as a contrarian and white nationalist. Not unlike Musk.
Go on, then, I'll bite.
Which liberals were openly calling for a military coup?
And please, no links to Fox.
MSM rarely talks about Tucker. Instead we can see his shit on Twitter.
He's a millionaire's son, who has found a career as a contrarian and white nationalist. Not unlike Musk.
Desperate denials issued by one of their strongest supporters on urbanNeither Carlson nor Musk are "white nationalists," the charge is absurd. It's a reflection of the desperation felt by their political opponents.
Neither Carlson nor Musk are "white nationalists," the charge is absurd. It's a reflection of the desperation felt by their political opponents.
Could you point out the part of that article where they quote the liberals who were openly calling for a coup attempt against Trump? There is a bit where they quote some professor as referring to it as a "possibility" and "a plausible scenario", which I don't think is quite the same as endorsing something, is that what you were thinking of?I remember both the NY Times and the WaPo running editorials hinting that a coup would be preferable to a second Trump term around 2019. Here's a decent account: Remember the Failed Coup Attempt against Trump | National Review
How would you characterise Blake Neff, Andrew Anglin, Peter Brimelow, Jason Kessler, Scott Greer, Ilana Mercer, and Moses Apostaticus/David Hilton?Neither Carlson nor Musk are "white nationalists," the charge is absurd. It's a reflection of the desperation felt by their political opponents.
Could you point out the part of that article where they quote the liberals who were openly calling for a coup attempt against Trump? There is a bit where they quote some professor as referring to it as a "possibility" and "a plausible scenario", which I don't think is quite the same as endorsing something, is that what you were thinking of?
How would you characterise Blake Neff, Andrew Anglin, Peter Brimelow, Jason Kessler, Scott Greer, Ilana Mercer, and Moses Apostaticus/David Hilton?
They = some law school professor?Yes, that is what I meant. They stopped short of saying the word "coup" but it was clear what they meant. It still is. They're still quite willing to use illegal and (I assume if necessary) violent means to keep Trump out of power.
There's at least a few names on there that you really should. Here's a clue: they've all written for the Daily Caller, except for one of them, who's a vocal admirer of Carlson but has never actually been published by him. Have you heard of the Daily Caller or do you need me to hold your hand through that one as well.I've never heard of any of the people you mention here, who are they?
They = some law school professor?
There's at least a few names on there that you really should. Here's a clue: they've all written for the Daily Caller, except for one of them, who's a vocal admirer of Carlson but has never actually been published by him. Have you heard of the Daily Caller or do you need me to hold your hand through that one as well.
I'm confused, before you said:They = the neo-cons. Do you need me to name them for you?
Which is the claim krtek challenged you on. But then it became:Towards the end of Trump's term quite a few liberals were openly calling for a military coup, once they saw that nothing else would work, and they're obviously cooking up some quasi-legal excuse to get him off the ballot this time too.
So was there anyone "openly calling for a military coup" or not? And if there was, who was saying it and where?Yes, that is what I meant. They stopped short of saying the word "coup" but it was clear what they meant. It still is. They're still quite willing to use illegal and (I assume if necessary) violent means to keep Trump out of power.
You're looking for their opinions, and then how you would characterise an outlet that publishes these people, and what relevance that has to the claim that Carlson could be considered a white nationalist, as above.I know what the Daily Caller is, and I'll check out the people you mention. What am I looking for?
Right. OK, in that case, since you have heard of Anglin, who is admittedly the odd one out of that list, why do you think he's so keen on Carlson?ETA: Oh hang on, I do know Anglin, he's a Nazi. Is that your point?
Right. OK, in that case, since you have heard of Anglin, who is admittedly the odd one out of that list, why do you think he's so keen on Carlson?