Feds: Man threatened to kill CNN employees - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;53075037]Trump is absolutely at fault here, if he wasn't constantly pushing his 'fake news' bullshit this would have never happened.[/QUOTE] Ehh, I think that might be a bit of a stretch. Unstable people are still going to be unstable, most likely he would have just stuck to treatening mosques instead of the news. So this particular threat maybe but I doubt he wouldn't be threatening somewhere.

[QUOTE=Rhenae;53075115]Ehh, I think that might be a bit of a stretch. Unstable people are still going to be unstable, most likely he would have just stuck to treatening mosques instead of the news. So this particular threat maybe but I doubt he wouldn't be threatening somewhere.[/QUOTE] I think Trump has increased xenophobia towards Muslims tbh [QUOTE=sgman91;53075023]Did I say they were equivalent? No, I did not. My point is that strong criticism doesn't equate to incitement of violence. I don't like Trump's attacks. They're childish, but that doesn't somehow make them incitement to violence.[/QUOTE] I feel like comparing the two without qualifying that "hey I don't believe these events are really equal in any way" in the post itself is just gonna invite people to accuse you false equivalence.

Our president calling our media "enemies of the American people" clearly is one element that inflames these type of crazies.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;53075029][URL]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jul/05/sarah-huckabee-sanders/has-donald-trump-never-promoted-or-encouraged-viol/[/URL] maybe thats because he's incited and encouraged it more than enough times :thinking: edit: I should clarify that while his statements might not meet the legal threshold as mandated in the Brandenburg v. Ohio case, but it [i]does[/i] show that he at least favors violence.[/QUOTE] To play devil's advocate, while he does favor violence in these examples, they're all in the context of the situation at hand and someone starting it first. "I don't start fights but I'll finish them" is the line of reasoning I see in the examples provided. And in some of the more extreme examples, its comparable to punching a bully. Also, I don't get why people are upset about Trump calling the media "fake news" It's rather widely known that pretty much all media outlets skew everything to fit their goals. For example they pretty much all ass-blasted trump, and put Hilary Clinton on a pedestal. Trump simply just ass-blasted them back with the "fake news" thing and primarily tweeting everything he said so it'd be harder for them to take it out of context. Either way, some people will do things like this regardless of the circumstances or the Presidency. If you can find one example of a President where someone didn't get angry or do something crazy I'd be interested.

[QUOTE=Stiffy360;53076856]To play devil's advocate, while he does favor violence in these examples, they're all in the context of the situation at hand and someone starting it first. "I don't start fights but I'll finish them" is the line of reasoning I see in the examples provided. And in some of the more extreme examples, its comparable to punching a bully. Also, I don't get why people are upset about Trump calling the media "fake news" It's rather widely known that pretty much all media outlets skew everything to fit their goals. For example they pretty much all ass-blasted trump, and put Hilary Clinton on a pedestal. Trump simply just ass-blasted them back with the "fake news" thing and primarily tweeting everything he said so it'd be harder for them to take it out of context. Either way, some people will do things like this regardless of the circumstances or the Presidency. If you can find one example of a President where someone didn't get angry or do something crazy I'd be interested.[/QUOTE] Stop trying to normalize this shit. There's a clear distinction when you compare the way our current president acts and what he says to previous presidents. He clearly thrives on propaganda, fear mongering, and scapegoating. People are upset about Trump calling the entire media fake news is because he's delegitimizing every source of news besides the one he believes in, the one that skews things to make his side always right and confirm his biases. You don't see a problem with this? You don't think it's reasonable to believe that impressionable citizens will take his words to heart and try to act upon it? It's a slippery slope that's happening before our very eyes. This is [i]not[/i] normal and shouldn't be treated as "business as usual"

[QUOTE=Stiffy360;53076856] Also, I don't get why people are upset about Trump calling the media "fake news" It's rather widely known that pretty much all media outlets skew everything to fit their goals. For example they pretty much all ass-blasted trump, and put Hilary Clinton on a pedestal. Trump simply just ass-blasted them back with the "fake news" thing and primarily tweeting everything he said so it'd be harder for them to take it out of context.[/QUOTE] Because the president is attacking the free press? you're selling the label fake news really short, trump doesn't think cnn skews coverage, he thinks everything they report on is a straight up lie. this shit is having an effect on the [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/28/libya-slave-trade-cnn-report-trump-fake-news"]world[/URL] [editline]23rd January 2018[/editline] People seem to have the problem distinguishing bias and factual reporting. You can say CNN is biased if you want, I don't see stuff from the same perspective that you do. But calling something CNN fake is bullshit.

[QUOTE=ThatSwordGuy;53076882]Stop trying to normalize this shit. There's a clear distinction when you compare the way our current president acts and what he says to previous presidents. He clearly thrives on propaganda, fear mongering, and scapegoating. People are upset about Trump calling the entire media fake news is because he's delegitimizing every source of news besides the one he believes in, the one that skews things to make his side always right and confirm his biases. You don't see a problem with this? You don't think it's reasonable to believe that impressionable citizens will take his words to heart and try to act upon it? It's a slippery slope that's happening before our very eyes. This is [i]not[/i] normal and shouldn't be treated as "business as usual"[/QUOTE] Politics is built on propaganda, fear mongering, and scapegoating. It's not at all a good thing. Fake news is a generalization for how a lot of outlets skew information. The funny thing is the media outlets helped spread trump's tweets in the first place trying to sensationalize it. If citizens are easily swayed by rants less than 128 characters then we have a bigger issue than whoever is our President. It is a citizen's RESPONSIBILITY to be informed and make decisions off that. Trump didn't just take over, he was voted in by the people. If Trump wasn't there they'd find a different person with smooth words to elect into office. [QUOTE=Lambeth;53076884]Because the president is attacking the free press? you're selling the label fake news really short, trump doesn't think cnn skews coverage, he think everything they report on is a straight up lie. this shit is having an effect on the [url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/28/libya-slave-trade-cnn-report-trump-fake-news]world[/url] [editline]23rd January 2018[/editline] People seem to have the problem distinguishing bias and factual reporting. You can say CNN is biased if you want, I don't see stuff from the same perspective that you do. But calling something CNN fake is bullshit.[/QUOTE] Fair point, but I would like a source on "he think everything they report on is a straight up lie"

[QUOTE=Stiffy360;53076917]Politics is built on propaganda, fear mongering, and scapegoating. It's not at all a good thing. Fake news is a generalization for how a lot of outlets skew information. The funny thing is the media outlets helped spread trump's tweets in the first place trying to sensationalize it. If citizens are easily swayed by rants less than 128 characters then we have a bigger issue than whoever is our President. It is a citizen's RESPONSIBILITY to be informed and make decisions off that. Trump didn't just take over, he was voted in by the people. If Trump wasn't there they'd find a different person with smooth words to elect into office. Fair point, but I would like a source on "he think everything they report on is a straight up lie"[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.axios.com/everything-trump-has-called-fake-news-1513303959-6603329e-46b5-44ea-b6be-70d0b3bdb0ca.html[/url] you'll note that a majority of the charges involving media outlets involve CNN, and it's well known he's had a problem with them calling him out on his bullshit. I won't deny some of their news has had a slant towards making mountains out of molehills, but the majority of it is verifiable fact. also: [url]https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/axios/[/url] center-left moderate bias with high factual reporting

[quote=Donald Trump]they (the media) are trying to take away our history and our heritage. You see that.[/quote] [quote]“Your organisation is terrible,” Mr Trump told CNN's Jim Acosta. “You’re attacking us, can you give us a question?” Mr Acosta replied. “Don’t be rude. No, I’m not going to give you a question. You are fake news,” the President said. [/quote] [quote]“So they caught Fake News CNN cold, but what about NBC, CBS & ABC? What about the failing @nytimes & @washingtonpost? They are all Fake News!”[/quote] [quote]The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People! SICK.[/quote] [quote][...] a survey distributed by the president’s team on Thursday [...] urged Trump supporters “to do your part to fight back against the media’s attacks and deceptions.” Survey questions included, “Do you believe that the mainstream media has reported unfairly on our movement?” and “On which issues does the mainstream media do the worst job of representing Republicans? (Select as many that apply.)”[/quote] [quote]“much of the media in Washington, D.C., along with New York, Los Angeles in particular, speaks not for the people, but for the special interests.” “The public doesn’t believe you people anymore,” Mr. Trump added. “Now, maybe I had something to do with that. I don’t know. But they don’t believe you.”[/quote] Yes, he's talking about how the media exaggerates/skews things. He's definitely not saying they're wholly and uniformly evil, say nothing but lies, and are trying to rewrite history and america's heritage. Nope. Look at all of the individual stories he's calling out there. Look at the particular people he thinks are spreading fake news. Look at the reasons he states that they're fake. Oh, wait, he doesn't give any reasons (except 'they're publishing for special interests' and 'they're failing at business' -- and the first he provides no proof of) and he doesn't ever cite any particular person - instead labeling the whole organization, and thus everything they put out, as fake news. Fake, not because of particular lies of distortions of fact, but because 'they simply are: you know it; I know it; we all know it'.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;53076938][url]https://www.axios.com/everything-trump-has-called-fake-news-1513303959-6603329e-46b5-44ea-b6be-70d0b3bdb0ca.html[/url] you'll note that a majority of the charges involving media outlets involve CNN, and it's well known he's had a problem with them calling him out on his bullshit. I won't deny some of their news has had a slant towards making mountains out of molehills, but the majority of it is verifiable fact. also: [url]https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/axios/[/url] center-left moderate bias with high factual reporting[/QUOTE] Fair enough, although I do wonder if the media bias fact check checks for missing/left out information. As that can effect the slant.

[QUOTE=Stiffy360;53076917]Fair point, but I would like a source on "he think everything they report on is a straight up lie"[/QUOTE] [media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/831830548565852160[/media] :why:

[QUOTE=sgman91;53074907]You must be blind if you cannot see the correlation between the democrats branding of cops as oppressors and this man's justification of wanting to commit violence by using BLM words. This ridiculous line of argumentation can apply to almost anything. People taking your criticisms way too far are not your fault.[/QUOTE] I love that conservatives interpreted Democrats saying "police should be held accountable for killing innocent black people" as "POLICE ARE OPPRESSORS"

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53076972][media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/831830548565852160[/media] :why:[/QUOTE] Blind Hatred =/= lie. And I was asking because I was curious as to whether or not it was something specific he said or if it was an outlet sensationalizing it, not because I was trying to poopoo his argument. Zonesylvania already provided a decent answer. [QUOTE=Zonesylvania;53076938][url]https://www.axios.com/everything-trump-has-called-fake-news-1513303959-6603329e-46b5-44ea-b6be-70d0b3bdb0ca.html[/url] you'll note that a majority of the charges involving media outlets involve CNN, and it's well known he's had a problem with them calling him out on his bullshit. I won't deny some of their news has had a slant towards making mountains out of molehills, but the majority of it is verifiable fact. also: [url]https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/axios/[/url] center-left moderate bias with high factual reporting[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Stiffy360;53076991]Blind Hatred =/= lie. [/QUOTE] [IMG]https://i.gyazo.com/d167ab8f3725fd01367a85fa61493c92.png[/IMG] Saying someone is spouting conspiracy theories would equate to calling someone a liar, wouldn't you think? Please don't get caught up with semantics; this is how people with bad intentions get to slip through and spread disinformation and rhetoric. Just cause Donald Trump didn't outright say "CNN tells lies" in that tweet doesn't mean he wasn't implying it. Look further than just words.

[QUOTE=ThatSwordGuy;53076995][IMG]https://i.gyazo.com/d167ab8f3725fd01367a85fa61493c92.png[/IMG] Saying someone is spouting conspiracy theories would equate to calling someone a liar, wouldn't you think? Please don't get caught up with semantics; this is how people with bad intentions get to slip through and spread disinformation and rhetoric. Just cause Donald Trump didn't outright say "CNN tells lies" in that tweet doesn't mean he wasn't implying it. Look further than just words.[/QUOTE] I was just pointing out that in that specific example, he wasn't directly calling them liars. If you looked past those first few words in my post you'd see that I was looking for the greater context of things and mentioned that Zonesylvania had already provided an answer to my question.

Some poetic irony in the fact that he ended up giving CNN a nice little story.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53075023]Did I say they were equivalent? No, I did not. My point is that strong criticism doesn't equate to incitement of violence. I don't like Trump's attacks. They're childish, but that doesn't somehow make them incitement to violence.[/QUOTE] If you cant see how Trumps remarks lead to radical and violent behavior then I honestly dont know how you function in your daily life. Divisive rhetoric spewed forth by those in positions of authority has a clear correlation with increased violent behavior and extremism. The causal link of Trumps comments and increased right wing extremism is so obvious that you must be willingly blinding yourself to it for you to not see it.

[QUOTE=Stiffy360;53077001]I was just pointing out that in that specific example, he wasn't directly calling them liars. If you looked past those first few words in my post you'd see that I was looking for the greater context of things and mentioned that Zonesylvania had already provided an answer to my question.[/QUOTE] The semantic difference between "crazy conspiracy theories" and "liar" is negligible

[QUOTE=srobins;53076976]I love that conservatives interpreted Democrats saying "police should be held accountable for killing innocent black people" as "POLICE ARE OPPRESSORS"[/QUOTE] The vast majority of police shootings are justified, a few are mistakes, very very few are outright murders. But the rhetoric would have you believe the majority are unjustified murders and that police should be punished for any shooting. Now I agree that we should make an effort to reduce mistakes mostly caused by miscommunication (the swatting incident, the police were not in communication with dispatch, and the victim was seemingly confused by police orders, two serious lapses in communication), and reduce the chance of outright killings by having a special prosecutor or a federal agency handle officer indictments (prosecutors work closely with police and thus a conflict of interest may be present). But that doesn't seem to be what people are after, instead they want to get back at law enforcement as a whole for the evil deeds of a few.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;53075007][IMG]http://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.13127115.1487204375!/httpImage/image.png_gen/derivatives/display_960/image.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] this is my absolute favourite donny trumpster tweet. "cnn is unwatchable, fox and friends is great!". every now and then my mates and i will put on cnn or fox news. fox news is the most toxic thing in american media, it is hate spewing, cock sucking bullshit. i encourage everyone outside of america to have a watch some time. you can watch [url=http://video.foxnews.com/v/1241186546001/?#sp=watch-live]here[/url] for free for 10 mins before having to sign up but i guarantee if you tune in for a random 10 mins at any time of the day you will be left speechless and amazed in the sheer stupidity that is allowed to be perpetrated as news. then you can look back at trump and realise just how fucking retarded the cunt is. [editline]24th January 2018[/editline] and also have a look at cnn. it's easy to see how a nutjob like this can be validated when both networks are at war with each other.

[QUOTE=Pat.Lithium;53077159]this is my absolute favourite donny trumpster tweet. "cnn is unwatchable, fox and friends is great!". every now and then my mates and i will put on cnn or fox news. fox news is the most toxic thing in american media, it is hate spewing, cock sucking bullshit. i encourage everyone outside of america to have a watch some time. you can watch [url=http://video.foxnews.com/v/1241186546001/?#sp=watch-live]here[/url] for free for 10 mins before having to sign up but i guarantee if you tune in for a random 10 mins at any time of the day you will be left speechless and amazed in the sheer stupidity that is allowed to be perpetrated as news. then you can look back at trump and realise just how fucking retarded the cunt is. [editline]24th January 2018[/editline] and also have a look at cnn. it's easy to see how a nutjob like this can be validated when both networks are at war with each other.[/QUOTE] It's extremely obvious that donald trump watches fox news way too much [media]https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/955782519374393345[/media] Obama never had this close a relationship with CNN or MSNBC or any other news network.

[QUOTE]Your cast is about to get gunned down in a matter of hours[/QUOTE] What cast is he talking about here? Just the normal CNN crew or...?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53077020]The semantic difference between "crazy conspiracy theories" and "liar" is negligible[/QUOTE] If we really want to go on a rabbit trail, Conspiracy Theory can mean a couple of things here. 1. If you take it word for word, it's simply a theory that there is a collusion between powers. 2. Since it's been sensationalized and butchered, it can be seen as people who suspect collusions are "nutcases drawing ridiculous conclusions from data" 3. Another sensationalized way to put it is flat-out "making stuff up" or "lying" I'm inclined to believe Trump meant the second. If you look at the tweets in Zonesylvania's posts, in many cases of heavy bias he cites a specific example and calling them out on it under the blanket banner of "fake news". And even if it wasn't made up it could be overly sensationalized, with "pick and choose your evidence" Here's a quote from CNN to illustrate this example of "not lying, but skewing evidence to fit their bias." [URL="https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/23/politics/melania-trump-donald-trump-anniversary/index.html"]"She posted that the past year had been filled with "many wonderful moments," but she did not mention the President by name."[/URL] Talking about Melania Trump. It might not be wrong factually, but it clearly skews evidence to make Trump look bad. The reason I think this way is due to this tweet here. [url]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/872064426568036353[/url] If we look at all of the outlets specified here, many of them highly slandered trump in his campaign and still slander him today. Due to this, Trump is quite fond of social media, since he could say his side directly to the people. [url]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/875690204564258816[/url] Trump has a distaste for the media outlets and particularly CNN due to the way they sensationalize their articles to slander trump. He's simply pointing out with the term, "fake news", "Hey if you want the real story on me I can say it myself" Anyways, if we go back to the main topic, You can even see how this article picks and chooses evidence to support their bias against trump. "In response to our story, a number of CNN anchors and reporters responded on social media, expressing concerns that the unfounded accusations of "Fake News" are leading to threats of violence by the unstable." [URL="https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://WGCL.images.worldnow.com/library/6143497e-23f8-4ea3-9ea3-1faa7c4d27b8.pdf"]If you read the criminal complaint[/URL] He says "fake news" only once in the documented phone calls. (He makes 22 total calls 4 of which are listed, but not the others so there could be more to it.) While trump does push a buzzword for his own sake, the guy was clearly unstable in the first place. If it wasn't Trump, he would have chose another role model with his ideals.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53074947]Demonstrating a flaw in an argument by showing that you aren't applying it consistently isn't whataboutism. I swear, that's the new hip word that people don't actually understand. It's thrown around every time people want to make inconsistent arguments and not defend them.[/QUOTE] [I]That's[/I] "demonstrating a flaw in an argument?" You're making such blatantly false equivalences. There is no "centrist" view here, there is no "well the democrats also..." here. These are people who have listened to Trump, and are spouting his own words. They are hearing his words "fake news" and thinking "Yeah I should do something about it. [B]FAKE NEWS![/B]" BLM isn't listening to any democratic politician for their inspiration, or hearing any bias, or reusing any language. They're just watching what happens in the world.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53075023]Did I say they were equivalent? No, I did not. My point is that strong criticism doesn't equate to incitement of violence.[/QUOTE] He unironically called the 'fake media' the 'enemy of the American people' and retweeted a gif of himself personally tackling and beating a CNN icon, a month after Greg Gianforte had actually bodyslammed and beat a reporter for real. There's many many examples of Trump making provocative statements that, taken as a whole, absolutely could incite his crazier supporters to become violent, which is what many has predicted from the beginning. This is not surprising. And when you consider who he is, what position he is in, and how often he has used inciting rhetoric, it shouldn't be surprising to you either. [QUOTE=sgman91;53074947]Demonstrating a flaw in an argument by showing that you aren't applying it consistently isn't whataboutism. I swear, that's the new hip word that people don't actually understand. It's thrown around every time people want to make inconsistent arguments and not defend them.[/QUOTE] It is, actually, whataboutism. It's amazing how people can continue to think this is good reasoning. Let me show you. Let's say you are correct and BLM/Democrats incited violence against cops. What does that mean for BLM/Democrats? Sounds like an obvious problem that should be dealt with somehow! What does it mean for Trump inciting violence? Literally nothing, since the situation surrounding him is still exactly the same. Best case scenario, you pointed out one poster's hypocrisy. Worst case scenario is you derailed the thread into a discussion about whether or not BLM/Democrats incited violence. If you are right, then wow, there are other people in the world than Trump also inciting violence, what a surprise!

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;53077101]The vast majority of police shootings are justified, a few are mistakes, very very few are outright murders. But the rhetoric would have you believe the majority are unjustified murders and that police should be punished for any shooting. Now I agree that we should make an effort to reduce mistakes mostly caused by miscommunication (the swatting incident, the police were not in communication with dispatch, and the victim was seemingly confused by police orders, two serious lapses in communication), and reduce the chance of outright killings by having a special prosecutor or a federal agency handle officer indictments (prosecutors work closely with police and thus a conflict of interest may be present). But that doesn't seem to be what people are after, instead they want to get back at law enforcement as a whole for the evil deeds of a few.[/QUOTE] There are some people, no doubt, who think all police are evil oppressors and all killings are pure murder. But most of the rhetoric I saw coming from "officials" rather than angry BLM people on Facebook was pretty reasonable, basically amounting to "this shooting is a travesty and the police need to be held accountable". I don't personally remember major Democrats saying that police are oppressors.

[QUOTE=joshuadim;53074936]Because BLM has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion here. It's whataboutism at work here. (BUT WHAT ABOUT BLM?? as if that has anything to do with this)[/QUOTE] You know, calling something whataboutism isn't an argument if you're not using it to point out the fallaciousness of saying someone's hypocrisy makes their claim false or inversely justifies your position. Instead, it's just a a fancy way of arbitrary narrowing the scope of the discussion with some bonus points because of its historical association with Russia, a name we commonly hear now. Otherwise, it's perfectly legitimate to ask 'what about?' if we're trying to achieve a consensus on a broader topic, like here with the nature of political violence. If you preclude that you're obviously just desiring a farcical kind of discussion befitting an echo chamber by appealing to 'we're talking about x on the table here, not y', just so the outrage culture isn't stonewalled by being bogged down in the trenches of debate. By the way, for all of its criticism communist whataboutery was massively effective. It colored Soviet-supported anti-colonial movements, sat heavy in the minds of liberals and pushed us towards legal equality, and even today everyone center-left and over will immediately ask a conservative 'freedom for who? property owning white family men?' For example, it's a perfectly legitimate use of whataboutery to contextually suggest here that views given institutional legitimacy which propose that you live under a system that oppresses you based on your skin color, suggests prevalent ideas are the 'logic of oppression' and democratic institutions abide by such, and that you are one piece of an racial, gendered, class-based intersection whose movement is the undoing of an unjust system, [i]may[/i] end up pushing people to violence. We can draw these parallels because polarization is witnessed on both sides of the political aisle. It's not enough to just blame Trump for today's instability, he's probably more the fruit of it than anything which makes sense considering trust in media was plummeting well before 2016. So yes, what about BLM? Are we supposed to ignore the left wing terrorism of the 1970s that far eclipses today's right wing and is associated with black power movements? It didn't stop leftists from talking about white supremacy, indeed nothing about 20th century leftism has stopped young people and some academics from rehashing a fundamentally more radical form of the New Left (because this is many decades after legal equality, so the topic is now equity). So why should conservatives suddenly stop talking about the left wing bias of many journalists and the divorced nature of corporate mass media in light of this? Hell the answer to that usually more whataboutery, what about Fox News? Maybe we can just settle on the idea that there is ideology on both sides that maybe doesn't enable, but is certainly inseparable from a violent and radical conclusion of the ideas, and then discuss these qualms people have with systems that fuel either side. We do that with Islamic terrorism so I don't see the issue.

Conscript have you ever considered how radical your own obsession with fighting a very specific group of "extremists" is?

[QUOTE=Conscript;53078145][all of that][/QUOTE] Yes! You are correct! What you are saying about BLM is correct! Let's never forget about left wing terrorism! But also, meanwhile, in this thread, we could talk about Feds: Man threatened to kill CNN employees, and how Trump's rhetoric has obviously influenced people like this man.

[QUOTE=joshuadim;53074951]You brought up a topic that has nothing to do with the conversation that has now (successfully) derailed the conversation from the original topic. That's... Uh... whataboutism [editline]23rd January 2018[/editline] Trump brands CNN as "fake news" Guy wants to commit a massacre because they're "fake news" It's really easy to see the influence on the man.[/QUOTE] BLM brands cops as murderous pigs. Guy actually goes out and MURDERS cops. But of course, no correlation whatsoever right? That's a [I]double standard[/I].