Donald trump's numbers went up the last time this happened, lets see what happens this time. I think its 2-4%+ for every scenes of thugs causing shit like this. He should keep going to New Mexico, California anywhere he can to grab attention.
A lowlife scum throwing eggs at a woman and then waiving a mexican flag = 80 Million$ of free advertising.
(06-03-2016 12:02 AM)8ball Wrote: Donald trump's numbers went up the last time this happened, lets see what happens this time. I think its 2-4%+ for every scenes of thugs causing shit like this. He should keep going to New Mexico, California anywhere he can to grab attention.
A lowlife scum throwing eggs at a woman and then waiving a mexican flag = 80 Million$ of free advertising.
There's a reason he says he'll keep coming back to California and he thinks he can win it.
He probably knows it's a lost cause, but he wants to bring awareness of Mexican nationalism to the rest of America and the Mexicans attacking Trump supporters does exactly that. The drama created guarantees endless talk and controversy about Trump Trump Trump.
I keep saying Trump is going to swing his votes over from women who resist him... but what is the best way past LMR? Persistence, persistence, persistence. 24/7 media saturation does exactly that.
Contributor at Return of Kings. I got banned from twatter, which is run by little bitches and weaklings. You can follow me on Gab.
Be sure to check out the easiest mining program around, FreedomXMR.
(This post was last modified: 06-03-2016 01:23 AM by Samseau.)
I find it troubling that relatively small crowds of protesters are able to attack much larger crowds of Trump supporters and meet with little resistance from the Trump guys. Questions of how it would play in the media aside, I think it shows to what extent the "silent majority" has been cucked into submission. Imagine going to Mexico city with your band of 300 misfits and starting to beat up individual Mexicans attending a 5000+ rally. Wouldn't end well for you, nor should it.
On the plus side, the Washington Post is at least reporting this without their usual bias. Where they lead, other political papers tend to follow. So this is a good sign in terms of media coverage.
As of early Friday, their headline was: "Ugly, bloody scenes in San Jose as protesters attack Trump supporters outside rally." The story doesn't contain any blame directed at Trump and actually questions why police are reluctant to get involved when protesters were getting violent, intimidating Trump supporters, and even "throwing up gang signs."
It's probably worth it to give them a link for what seems like an honest, factual first-hand account that uses an impressive array of sources. Maybe they'll do more of it.
For those who don't want to click on the news story, which is by Sean Sullivan and Michael E. Miller, it begins:
SAN JOSE, Calif. —Protests outside a Donald Trump rally in downtown San Jose spun out of control Thursday night when some demonstrators attacked the candidate’s supporters.
Protesters jumped on cars, pelted Trump supporters with eggs and water balloons, snatched signs, and stole “Make America Great” hats off supporters’ heads before burning them and snapping selfies with the charred remains.
Several people were caught on camera punching Trump supporters. At least one attacker was arrested, according to CNN, although police did not release much information.
“The San Jose Police Department made a few arrests tonight after the Donald Trump Rally,” police said in a statement. “As of this time, we do not have specific information on the arrests made. There has been no significant property damage reported. One officer was assaulted.”
***
I agree this violence is going to have a backlash effect and move more people move to Trump's side. Few things are more repugnant to Americans than having their viewpoints shut down by force. We used to look down on other countries for that. Now it's come to us.
(Addendum: The WashPost evidently agrees with this. They just ran an editorial titled "Trump Protesters Hurting Their Cause," and it's been syndicated into other papers, like Newsday.)
Holy shit the things happening on the Trump rallies are just unbelievable. You got your hands full over there in the US. Things really getting crazy really fast....
Deus vult!
06-03-2016 05:46 AM
The following 2 users Like Glaucon's post:2 users Like Glaucon's post Sooth, DrCotard
Troll King
Wingman
Posts: 635
Joined: Mar 2014
Reputation: 17
I saw one person over on r/the Donald claim that a teen girl trump supporter was followed after the rally and gang raped. The guy said he would find the link but hasn't posted back yet.
Any of you nimble navigators hear anything about those?
I haven't found anything in my search yet. The front page is r/ the Donald is crawling with links to videos of these terrorists. Fucking crazy, and it will only get crazier.
I think we could potentially end up with an actual civil war with the way things are going. It's one thing to protest and riot, quit another to hunt and assault political opposition.
Women these days think they can shop for a man like they shop for a purse or a pair of shoes. Sorry ladies. It doesn't work that way.
Women are like sandwiches. All men love sandwiches. That's a given. But sandwiches are only good when they're fresh. Nobody wants a day old sandwich. The bread is all soggy and the meat is spoiled.
(06-03-2016 05:46 AM)Glaucon Wrote: Holy shit the things happening on the Trump rallies are just unbelievable. You got your hands full over there in the US. Things really getting crazy really fast....
I'm pumped man. I've been asking my self "WWTD" (What would Trump do) for months now.
Just landed a deal where I'll make 2 months of wages in 2 weeks. And I'm using my employer and hes getting nothing.
Chaahoo! What a time to be alive!
Had this female on my clipboard so may as well put her here.
I have been telling people this for a while, but yesterday confirmed it enough to share this advice here...
Gentlemen, it is time to invest in ammo. Forget gold coins, forget the rigged stock market bubble, ammo will have multiple purposes and will skyrocket in value if Hillary wins. Much less if it is eventually outlawed.
We can see how dangerous the left is, and we can see the Democrats encourage and even support it. It is time to get prepared to defend ourselves and our loved ones.
Earlier this morning the news site sfgate.com had an article up with the headline "Trump supporters attacked at San Jose rally".
It's now gone from the site and the only article about the San Jose rally I see is one with the headline "Trump at campaign rally in San Jose calls for jailing Clinton".
(06-03-2016 04:21 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote: On the plus side, the Washington Post is at least reporting this without their usual bias. Where they lead, other political papers tend to follow. So this is a good sign in terms of media coverage.
As of early Friday, their headline was: "Ugly, bloody scenes in San Jose as protesters attack Trump supporters outside rally." The story doesn't contain any blame directed at Trump and actually questions why police are reluctant to get involved when protesters were getting violent, intimidating Trump supporters, and even "throwing up gang signs."
It's probably worth it to give them a link for what seems like an honest, factual first-hand account that uses an impressive array of sources. Maybe they'll do more of it.
The imagery could not be more alarming or stark in its implications.
You have gangmembers and thug trash throwing up gang signs waving mexican flags physically assaulting mostly white Trump supporters wearing the nation's colors and with U.S flags.
It's literally a Mexican invasion force attacking people because they don't like the politics of a country in which they live in but detest.
I said before these people would resort to violence eventually. I've seen it before many times in CA. This is just a protest rally.
Now imagine if the illegal floodgates were opened up and they start flipping neighborhoods to their demographics. It will happen on a national scale that you wouldn't believe could happen.
Edit: You know what would create a suitable counter optic that might wake up America from its cultural malaise? Is if a bunch of military veterans showed up in their class A's and directly went up to some of these Mexican flag waving faggots and dared them to use violence. Footage of idiots waving Mexican flags assaulting men in uniform would seal the deal in my opinion.
(This post was last modified: 06-03-2016 06:55 AM by El Chinito loco.)
To those who are interested in the way the media is handling all this, here is an addition to my Washington Post comment (above).
The New York Times covered the same violent San Jose rally. But their headline was "Violence reemerges outside a Donald Trump rally."
Notice anything different? Where the Post came out and said the protesters were violent, the Times simply says the violence "reemerged," so casual readers might think Trump's supporters wreaked havoc. Or maybe even Trump himself caused the trouble.
This is media sleight-of-hand. A lot of thought goes into these headlines. This type of thing isn't an accident.
Below is their lead. Notice how they shaped this story, starting with jarring emotional images. Take note of the word choices (which I highlighted). This is in direct contrast to the matter-of-fact Washington Post report:
By Nick Corasaniti and Jonah Engel Bromwich
SAN JOSE, Calif. — With escalating vitriol, Donald J. Trump unleashed an attack on Hillary Clinton on Thursday in response to her speech earlier in the day criticizing his foreign policy positions.
Speaking at a campaign rally here, he began by calling her speech “pathetic,” dismissing it as a stunt and saying, “It had nothing to do with foreign policy.”
Outside the event, protesters, some brandishing Mexican flags, clashed violently with Trump’s supporters.
That's quite a leap there, isn't it? By juxtaposing those images, they make it seem like Trump caused this mayhem -- when it's doubtful any protesters heard any of it. This isn't reporting. It's storytelling. Had I done this years ago in my old newsroom, the article would have been turned back to me for a rewrite along with a curt "Get your shit together" note from one of the editors.
The bias today in news reporting boggles my mind. It was always there, but it was at least implicit. This is totally in-your-face.
Here is a link to the story as it ran in the Boston Globe, so you don't have to give the Times the Web hit.
Quote:... If a bunch of military veterans showed up in their class A's and directly went up to some of these Mexican flag waving faggots and dared them to use violence. Footage of idiots waving Mexican flags assaulting men in uniform would seal the deal in my opinion.
And posted it to r/the_donald. Anyone have any to add to it?
Thanks.
Women these days think they can shop for a man like they shop for a purse or a pair of shoes. Sorry ladies. It doesn't work that way.
Women are like sandwiches. All men love sandwiches. That's a given. But sandwiches are only good when they're fresh. Nobody wants a day old sandwich. The bread is all soggy and the meat is spoiled.
(06-03-2016 06:53 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote: To those who are interested in the way the media is handling all this, here is an addition to my Washington Post comment (above).
The New York Times covered the same violent San Jose rally. But their headline was "Violence reemerges outside a Donald Trump rally."
Notice anything different? Where the Post came out and said the protesters were violent, the Times simply says the violence "reemerged," so casual readers might think Trump's supporters wreaked havoc. Or maybe even Trump himself caused the trouble.
This is media sleight-of-hand. A lot of thought goes into these headlines. This type of thing isn't an accident.
Below is their lead. Notice how they shaped this story, starting with jarring emotional images. Take note of the word choices (which I highlighted). This is in direct contrast to the matter-of-fact Washington Post report:
By Nick Corasaniti and Jonah Engel Bromwich
SAN JOSE, Calif. — With escalating vitriol, Donald J. Trump unleashed an attack on Hillary Clinton on Thursday in response to her speech earlier in the day criticizing his foreign policy positions.
Speaking at a campaign rally here, he began by calling her speech “pathetic,” dismissing it as a stunt and saying, “It had nothing to do with foreign policy.”
Outside the event, protesters, some brandishing Mexican flags, clashed violently with Trump’s supporters.
That's quite a leap there, isn't it? By juxtaposing those images, they make it seem like Trump caused this mayhem -- when it's doubtful any protesters heard any of it. This isn't reporting. It's storytelling. Had I done this years ago in my old newsroom, the article would have been turned back to me for a rewrite along with a curt "Get your shit together" note from one of the editors.
The bias today in news reporting boggles my mind. It was always there, but it was at least implicit. This is totally in-your-face.
Here is a link to the story as it ran in the Boston Globe, so you don't have to give the Times the Web hit.
Yes, violence "emerged" at the Trump rally, as if it appeared randomly from a cloud of mist. The use of the passive voice is definitely intentional. It's a trick to conceal the identity of the aggressive parties who initiated violence. You see the same thing in pretty much every article on violence committed by members of the protected classes, most egregiously in coverage of black violence in cities like Detroit and Baltimore.
And then we see the protestors "clashing violently" with Trump supporters. The image here is of a pitched battle, as if there was some agreement between the two sides for a little fisticuffs. It provides the reader a false equivocation: both sides wanted a fight, so they fought. The reality of peaceful Trump supporters being violently assaulted by Mexican thugs (who are literally waving Mexican flags as a battle standard) is entirely swept under the rug.
The exact opposite technique is employed endlessly in those rare cases where white men are responsible for committing (not necessarily even initiating!) violence against a minority. The reader is reminded explicitly, over and over, that the white man attacked the minority, who is invariably portrayed as defenseless, meek, a good person, etc... (The media coverage of the Mike Brown shooting and subsequent black riots were one of the all-time great examples of this rank distortion).
"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.” - Romans 8:18
Is any of this stuff playing on TV in the States? Checked CNN.com and it's completely buried in the sidebar as a small headline named "Protesters target Trump in California" which is not exactly designed to elicit interest or clicks compared to what is really going on.
06-03-2016 08:29 AM
Isaac Jordan
Wingman
Posts: 786
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation: 95
(06-02-2016 08:32 PM)wi30 Wrote: Thanks Isaac Jordan, that thread has great info.
But the site wont accept my identity after I submit my correct name, birth date, and address. It wants me to scan and upload a government issued ID. Seems sketchy.
Should I actually scan and forward my driver's license or use other avenues?
That's strange... I live in the States and I was good to go after putting in my name/birth date/address. I even signed up using my mom's info so I could double down in a few markets, no problem. Just used her name and email but my personal credit card.
I trust the site, they paid out promptly after I won a bunch of the primary markets and my friends that I've referred haven't had any trouble either. If you're really worried about it, maybe try getting a friend or relative to sign up and see if you can go through them.
06-03-2016 08:50 AM
The following 2 users Like Isaac Jordan's post:2 users Like Isaac Jordan's post El Chinito loco, wi30
Home
RooshV.com
Search (Via Forum)
Member List
![[-]](images/collapse.gif)
The following 2 users Like Matrixdude's post:
![[Image: DTF---DONALD-TRUMP-FOREVER-T-Shirts.png]](https://image.spreadshirtmedia.com/image-server/v1/products/1010585706/views/1,width=378,height=378,appearanceId=1,version=1457815712/DTF---DONALD-TRUMP-FOREVER-T-Shirts.png)
![[Image: DTF---DONALD-TRUMP-FOREVER-T-Shirts.png]](https://image.spreadshirtmedia.com/image-server/v1/products/1010585690/views/1,width=378,height=378,appearanceId=71,version=1457815684/DTF---DONALD-TRUMP-FOREVER-T-Shirts.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media.giphy.com/media/3oEduPBvhUbuJ7iKBi/giphy.gif)
![[Image: eim8oKs.gif]](http://i.imgur.com/eim8oKs.gif)
