"Currants Bw..."

[Niall_Quinn]

I never said he was an extremist, but he is right wing.

FFS. Talk about a snake.

You tie him into the extremists and advise us it "tells us something about him", and now he's not an extremist because the argument has developed. And the joke is, he's not even right wing. Look back at his record. He's centre in the main but with some left wing bias on certain issues, and some right-wing bias on others. A pick and mix philosophy to suit himself, so to speak, and nothing wrong with that actually.

You're just wrong all the time Letters.

[Cripps]

I don't think Trump is a KKK sympathiser

I think by defending far-right protesters like he did a couple of months ago and also saying there were 'very fine people' on the alt-right, he is.

[Cripps]

The question of whether Trump is racist or not is largely irrelevant. If the guy thought he could have won an election with Social Justice warriors as his base, he’d have run on that platform.

He doesn’t have any particular political leaning other than what benefits him.

I don't really agree. That would be a valid argument if, once he was in power, you saw a change in his stance but that hasn't happened. He seems to really believe the stuff he was spouting before the election and is in bed with people like Breitbart and Fox, that's where he seems to get his information from.

For once I agree with Letters.

[Niall_Quinn]

Also:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-concerns.html

And there you have it. Letters' great theory comes down to one sentence from the non-entity David Duke, who even the KKK called a charlatan, and this other nobody in his tiny hotel room who runs around in a sheet causing precisely zero political impact. Proof beyond doubt that Trump is a right wing hate extremist who isn't an extremist or, WTF is he actually trying to say?

I'll translate. If some inbred gimp from some trailer park supports Trump then that makes Trump a right wing hate figure. A simple and childish smear pushed by the legacy media and swallowed whole by Letters who can't be bothered to get educated.

And why is Letter's homework so thin, lacking context and carefully edited to avoid the inconvenient bits that had to be spoonfed to him because that's all the lazy sod can manage? Because Letters isn't interested in the reality around him at all, he's only interested in propping up his own extraordinarily sanitised and limited world view that has been provided free of charge (and effort) by the mainstream media. Apart from Fox because they are bad for some reason he doesn't mention.

Could you make this any more obvious?

[Niall_Quinn]

I think by defending far-right protesters like he did a couple of months ago and also saying there were 'very fine people' on the alt-right, he is.

The actual alt-right has seen its numbers swell a thousandfold simply by the legacy media labelling everything that's not left wing as alt-right. It has become a meaningless term that is just as likely to rope in a steelworker trying to feed his family as a neo-Nazi boot boy.

[Cripps]

The actual alt-right has seen its numbers swell a thousandfold simply by the legacy media labelling everything that's not left wing as alt-right. It has become a meaningless term that is just as likely to rope in a steelworker trying to feed his family as a neo-Nazi boot boy.

No I'm on about the people that walked the streets of Charlottesville with torches, replicating the KKK.

[Niall_Quinn]

I think by defending far-right protesters like he did a couple of months ago and also saying there were 'very fine people' on the alt-right, he is.

Btw, three of the leaders and organisers of those white supremacists had tangible links to the DNC. There's a huge difference between the scumbags on both the left and the right who lead these so-called movements and the hapless fools who tag along for 1,001 different reasons.

Of course no affiliation is the best political affiliation of all, but the majority still don't see it that way. For some reason.

[Letters]

FFS. Talk about a snake.

You tie him into the extremists and advise us it "tells us something about him", and now he's not an extremist because the argument has developed.

*sigh*
This is really not that complicated. Have a sit down and I'll try to explain.
I don't think Trump is a signed up KKK member, I don't regard him as an extremist.
BUT the KKK, who are extremists, have made noises endorsing Trump. I have given you a couple of links about that - your quote back from Wiki includes a bit about David Duke urging his listeners to vote for Trump.

So yes, if extremists start endorsing a certain candidate in an election then, whether that candidate endorses them or not, it does kinda imply something about that candidate's views.
If ISIS were endorsing a certain candidate in a US election then it doesn't mean the candidate is an Islamic extremist or terrorist, but it does mean that ISIS think their aims are better achieved with that candidate in power.
And I think that would imply something about that candidate and what they stand for.

To put this in terms you may understand, if the Arsenal board finally sack Wenger (I know, but let's pretend) and they identified a new manager. Given what the Arsenal board are interested in, if you know nothing else about that manager wouldn't the fact the Arsenal board is endorsing them worry you?

[Cripps]

Btw, three of the leaders and organisers of those white supremacists had tangible links to the DNC. There's a huge difference between the scumbags on both the left and the right who lead these so-called movements and the hapless fools who tag along for 1,001 different reasons.

Of course no affiliation is the best political affiliation of all, but the majority still don't see it that way. For some reason.

Why can I see NQ starting his own party

Niallgel Farage

The leader of the alt-alt-right

[Niall_Quinn]

*sigh*
This is really not that complicated. Have a sit down and I'll try to explain.
I don't think Trump is a signed up KKK member, I don't regard him as an extremist.
BUT the KKK, who are extremists, have made noises endorsing Trump. I have given you a couple of links about that - your quote back from Wiki includes a bit about David Duke urging his listeners to vote for Trump.

So yes, if extremists start endorsing a certain candidate in an election then, whether that candidate endorses them or not, it does kinda imply something about that candidate's views.
If ISIS were endorsing a certain candidate in a US election then it doesn't mean the candidate is an Islamic extremist or terrorist, but it does mean that ISIS think their aims are better achieved with that candidate in power.
And I think that would imply something about that candidate and what they stand for.

To put this in terms you may understand, if the Arsenal board finally sack Wenger (I know, but let's pretend) and they identified a new manager. Given what the Arsenal board are interested in, if you know nothing else about that manager wouldn't the fact the Arsenal board is endorsing them worry you?

Not even a good attempt at extracting yourself from your own nonsense. I already explained how the real right wing hate groups view Trump. But you ignored that and rushed off to find another landmine to jump on, offering up David Duke as your well researched evidence. That you still cling to him is hilarious, despite the fact you could have scanned Wikipedia for his real views on Trump. But even Wikipedia was beyond you. Once informed, you ignored all that out, dishonest as you are, and instead honed in on the only sentence you had left you try to piece together your shattered argument. In a straight race between Trump and Clinton David Duke suggests the right wing votes for Trump? Shocking! I wonder what that says about Trump then? Absolutely nothing is the correct answer, beyond the obvious - right wingers vote the right wing ticket and left wingers vote the left wing ticket. An amazing insight, to be sure, but one I could have figured out for myself thanks. Your real aim, of course, was to tarnish by association. An association Trump can't even control. There are so many things Trump could be legitimately criticised for, but instead you pick a meaningless left wing talking point and smear tactic and run with that. Either because you are proudly uninformed and so rely entirely on legacy media for your viewpoint, or because you are critically dishonest. Or both.