Jewish con artist under investigation for collusion

[someoneyouknow]

It seems every day the con artist family finds new and exciting ways to show their corruption. Between the con artist himself publicly asking a foreign government to commit espionage on a U.S. citizen, and his demented offspring meeting with a Russian agent who supposedly had information on his father's political opponent but failing to inform the FBI of the contact, we thought the family which fails together had reached the pinnacle of corruption.

Now comes word the Jewish member of the con artist family has most likely deliberately and willfully colluded with a foreign government to sway a U.S. election. The issue revolves around the digital portion of the con artist's campaign whereby the Jew gave information to Russian cyber operatives to plant fake news reports in areas where his opponent was weak.

However, the issue is not as simple as giving the information, but the coordination between the Russians and the campaign. To wit, in the con artist's dimwitted offspring's attempt to prove nothing illegal was going on (which has led directly to proof something illegal was going on), he had this to say about the coordination in one of his emails:

"'If it's what you say, I love it especially later in the summer."​

In other words, knowing the information was to be given to a foreign government, and it was to be used at specified times in the campaign, that leads directly to COLLUSION.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-investigators-probing-trump-digital-campaign-operation-run-by-kushner/

 

[TheWhiteBull]

My only question for you is why you felt the need to call him the Jew.

 

[someoneyouknow]

My only question for you is why you felt the need to call him the Jew.

Is he not?

 

[Adre]

My only question for you is why you felt the need to call him the Jew.

Because it's a fact?

 

[Hypoxia]

These trolls need not be fed.

 

[ChloeTzang]

My only question for you is why you felt the need to call him the Jew.

Left wing anti-semitism takes very little to show up. Kind of like left wing racism. Always there.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Left wing anti-semitism takes very little to show up. Kind of like left wing racism. Always there.

You mean always there like how certain races have "some genetic propensity towards violence?"

https://media.giphy.com/media/r3pPxiPD9NVxS/giphy.gif

oops, that doozy didn't come from the post of a left winger! My bad, C-Tza! As you wuz!

 

[TheWhiteBull]

You mean always there like how certain races have "some genetic propensity towards violence?"

But would you disagree that some races have a cultural predisposition to violence?

 

[phrodeau]

But would you disagree that some races have a cultural predisposition to violence?

Races? Besides the human race?

 

[TheWhiteBull]

Races? Besides the human race?

Nope. Using race in the commonly understood way here. To ignore genetic and cultural variety is just as stupid as hating someone because of it.

 

[phrodeau]

Nope. Using race in the commonly understood way here. To ignore genetic and cultural variety is just as stupid as hating someone because of it.

OK, please enlighten me how a single race is in any way confined to a single culture.

 

[badbabysitter]

But would you disagree that some races have a cultural predisposition to violence?

Like Europeans?

Because we will bomb the shit out of entire cities, death camps, whole sale slaughter of indigenous people, two world wars.. we are fucking crazy

 

[magicalmoments]

But would you disagree that some races have a cultural predisposition to violence?

For example, people of western European extraction.

 

[ChloeTzang]

For example, people of western European extraction.

Nope. Humans are violent, period. Some human groups have a genetic propensity to violence - the warrior gene. Some are lactose tolerant. Some cannot handle alcohol. Some have higher average IQs than others. Some are genetically predisposed to certain diseases. Some are better at sprinting. Some at swimming. There's a huge range of genetic factors in play and saying genes don't matter is fallacious. Misinterpreting the evidence is also fallacious.

There's a marked difference between random criminal iolence (prevalent in black North American communities) and organized violence, something at which People of European extraction excel. Again, partly IQ, partly cultural. Infinitely complex but when all is said and done, for whatever reason, those Anglo- Saxon- Germanic-Scandinavian genes seem to be the best at organized violence.

 

[JackLuis]

Nope. Humans are violent, period. Some human groups have a genetic propensity to violence - the warrior gene. Some are lactose tolerant. Some cannot handle alcohol. Some have higher average IQs than others. Some are genetically predisposed to certain diseases. Some are better at sprinting. Some at swimming. There's a huge range of genetic factors in play and saying genes don't matter is fallacious. Misinterpreting the evidence is also fallacious.

There's a marked difference between random criminal iolence (prevalent in black North American communities) and organized violence, something at which People of European extraction excel. Again, partly IQ, partly cultural. Infinitely complex but when all is said and done, for whatever reason, those Anglo- Saxon- Germanic-Scandinavian genes seem to be the best at organized violence.

Tell that to Nanking or Manila.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Tell that to Nanking or Manila.

Not quite as organized as ww2. Although my Vietnamese ancestors are pretty damn good at it. Chinese? Japanese? Korean? I think Europeans have excelled at mass violence on an industrial scale. We're all good at individual violence, it's part of our genetic makeup as a species.

 

[colddiesel]

There's a marked difference between random criminal iolence (prevalent in black North American communities) and organized violence, something at which People of European extraction excel. Again, partly IQ, partly cultural. Infinitely complex but when all is said and done, for whatever reason, those Anglo- Saxon- Germanic-Scandinavian genes seem to be the best at organized violence.

Miss Chloe. 3 of the top 4 wars in History for losses were Asian.

1 The Taiping Rebellion.
2 The Three Kingdoms war.
3 The Mongol Invasions.

Chinese civil war only 8 million dead so not important.

A few personalities. Various Khans, Genghis, Kublai, Hulagu: Mao and Chiang: Pol Pot and just about every other emperor ever.

Your generalization doesn't stack up in my opinion - as a sweet old peace loving Scotsman with a fair bit of combat time in 18 army years!

 

[ChloeTzang]

Miss Chloe. 3 of the top 4 wars in History for losses were Asian.

1 The Taiping Rebellion.
2 The Three Kingdoms war.
3 The Mongol Invasions.

Chinese civil war only 8 million dead so not important.

A few personalities. Various Khans, Genghis, Kublai, Hulagu: Mao and Chiang: Pol Pot and just about every other emperor ever.

Your generalization doesn't stack up in my opinion - as a sweet old peace loving Scotsman with a fair bit of combat time in 18 army years!

Ok, I'll give you the Mongols. But the Taiping rebellion? A lot of deaths but it was just a mess and it was European mercaneries like "Chinese Gordon" that won that one. I'd kind of distinguish between losses and outcomes.

The Three Mingdoms War? I had to look that one up but now I have it. Messy, lots of deaths indeed, esp for the period. 56m people down to 16m cannot have been good. But not that organized. My Chinese history is a bit hit and miss. Self- read on that one. Kansas high schools weren't big on Chinese history.

Pol pot was just slaughter. Mao? Won the civil war, biggest mass murderer in history but couldn't have won a full on war against the US. I'm no military expert so I'll kind of defer on that one but the British and US armed forces are still the best around. Imho. And if we go back a century, Europeans didn't rule the world for no reason.

And China pretty much got colonized, not the other way round. The Boxer Rebellion kind of showed who ruled.

And hey, isn't this thread so much more interesting than the trump bashing nonsense?

 

[TheWhiteBull]

OK, please enlighten me how a single race is in any way confined to a single culture.

Race is commonly understood and defined as a group of people sharing common ancestry and culture. See my poll/thread about race.

Like Europeans?

Because we will bomb the shit out of entire cities, death camps, whole sale slaughter of indigenous people, two world wars.. we are fucking crazy

For example, people of western European extraction.

Look at you guys rushing to assume I wasn't including white people in my assessment. I agree with Chloe that Europeans/Euroamericans are one of the groups (not race because theres more than one in there) more disposed to warring against others. Thats because cultures can also have a glorification or disregard for different types of violence.

Also, way to go lumping all Europeans together. Would you count the Finns as warmongering lunatics? Or how about the Gypsies, who are not white but still European? Maybe the Basque, whose radical nationalists caused possibly 1,000 deaths during a 50 year conflict after nearly two millenia of being a minority in their home countries?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

But would you disagree that some races have a cultural predisposition to violence?

Nope. Humans are violent, period. Some human groups have a genetic propensity to violence - the warrior gene. Some are lactose tolerant. Some cannot handle alcohol. Some have higher average IQs than others. Some are genetically predisposed to certain diseases. Some are better at sprinting. Some at swimming. There's a huge range of genetic factors in play and saying genes don't matter is fallacious. Misinterpreting the evidence is also fallacious.

There's a marked difference between random criminal iolence (prevalent in black North American communities) and organized violence, something at which People of European extraction excel. Again, partly IQ, partly cultural. Infinitely complex but when all is said and done, for whatever reason, those Anglo- Saxon- Germanic-Scandinavian genes seem to be the best at organized violence.

When you have imbalances, disharmony and inequity in society, then people act up and get hot. Got zilch to do with race or genetics.

Just because someone is allergic to shellfish due to their unfortunate genetic lottery spin doesn't mean they're gonna flip out and start shivving people when someone takes them on a surprise date to Red Lobster and the kitchen only has surf and no turf.

And this "organized violence" rhetorical crap trying to make it sound like it's more neat or clean or respectable or something...that's how the hegemony you were born under indoctrinates you. Every military on the planet since Day One when the apes stood is "organized violence." Whether it's flesh or robotic, all anyone from anywhere ever needs to wipe the table clean to score points for their side is superior numbers or a bigger gun.

 

[TheWhiteBull]

When you have imbalances, disharmony and inequity in society, then people act up and get hot. Got zilch to do with race or genetics.

Just because someone is allergic to shellfish due to their unfortunate genetic lottery spin doesn't mean they're gonna flip out and start shivving people when someone takes them on a surprise date to Red Lobster and the kitchen only has surf and no turf.

And this "organized violence" rhetorical crap trying to make it sound like it's more neat or clean or respectable or something...that's how the hegemony you were born under indoctrinates you. Every military on the planet since Day One when the apes stood is "organized violence." Whether it's flesh or robotic, all anyone from anywhere ever needs to wipe the table clean to score points for their side is superior numbers or a bigger gun.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2933872/

There are several biological factors actually that can predispose but not doom individuals to violence actually. I don't give them much serious thought because although it is possible that such gene variants, such as the MAOA-L mentioned here, could be present at different rates in different populations I don't think a serious survey would conclude that there was any significant difference in rates.

Ergo, my question. Which asked you about cultural tendencies towards violence. You say it has nothing to do with race but still mentioned it in the context of genetics whereas I am asking about culture. I.e. honor killings are not okay in the West. It is important to discuss the difference between organized and individual violence because the strategies for dealing with each will differ just as it would differ if you were to substitute the word crime for violence. I certainly don't think using the word "organized" makes it sound any nicer, in fact it sounds worse.

 

[phrodeau]

There is no way to apply genetic science to race, because there aren't any separate races. You may use to word to mean people of a common culture, but that isn't the definition of the term. The word you're scratching for is "ethnicity."

 

[TheWhiteBull]

There is no way to apply genetic science to race, because there aren't any separate races. You may use to word to mean people of a common culture, but that isn't the definition of the term. The word you're scratching for is "ethnicity."

As I mentioned in the other thread, that would indeed be a more accurate way of referring to it, but we don't live in a world that always uses accurate terms. I.e. Latinos that shout "La Raza" instead of "El Etnico". So as long as race is commonly understood to mean people that share ancestry/phenotype/culture, I will use it in that manner as well. Besides, saying there's no such thing as race, just a "human race", lends itself to quips such as there being nor racism if there's no race right?