Last edited:
US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
God damn radicals demanding that innocents not be killed. We’ve gotta stop that - it’s not the American way
Noticed he went on the Newsmax channel too.
They've been on multiple channels including NewsNation which is considered fairly middle of the road..
They showed things they recovered from the Tuesday arrests, of which 40% were apparently non-students who had infiltrated the campus.
Were they all carrying the how to do terrorism book? Honestly, these guys are proven liars, so yeah let's all believe the numbers they give us.
Words almost fail me!
40% being non-students might be true. However, saying that they infiltrated the campus without providing any necessary context sounds like propaganda to me.
That tweet was actually deleted, and the NYT journalist subsequently apologized for it in her own way.
Particularly if the numbers undermine your narrative that these were peaceful well intentioned protests. The fact is, most protests get infiltrated by trouble makers at which point their nobility gets greatly reduced by elements with nefarious intentions. This is no different than most other protests.
And why is any of this important when there's a genocide ongoing right now. Gaslighting?
Oh, how I long for the days when the Republican presidential nominee was simply a greedy former private equity guy, or some old warmonger. I really do wonder how the party will shape up after Trump either loses this years elections, finishes a second term, or simply kicks the bucket (fingers crossed).
It's wild, isn't it? McCain was a deeply problematic presidential candidate, not least because he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, but there are still several clips out there of him defending Obama against attacks from his own supporters on campaign events. McCain and Romney were bad in their own way, but Trump would bite your hand off if you offered him "fascist dictator".
Yeah, both held terrible views and would have enacted bad policies, but they still have an element of decency about them. Even George W. Bush was out there calling Islam a religion of peace less than a week after 9/11. But this undercurrent of MAGA craziness has always been there - for whatever reason it just took someone like Trump to really unleash it.
Black President.
Yeah, that’s part of it of course, and Fox News also has a lot to answer for in terms of poisoning the minds of these people. But in a fictional world without Trump, do you think the Republican Party would have gone this far down the rabbit hole? They probably would have nominated Cruz or Rubio in 2016, meaning more of the same.
They needed someone with Trumps bizarre mix of showmanship, bigotry, and business man image to really accelerate the movement.
Trump is the catalyst, but I do think we'd have gotten here eventually. The American right was getting more and more unhinged during Obama. It wouldn't have gotten this bad this soon, mind you. But a reckoning was (and is) coming.
My narrative?
Can you provide proof these protests were infiltrated by bad actors and that the 40% number doesn't refer to what @Idxomer mentioned?
You're the establishment guy here, it falls on you to provide proof of those claims. But I'm the one with a narrative when you're the one blindly believing the side who's been lying about this... "c'mon man".
I know exactly what you mean! I think there are a fair few MAGA types who think that when Trump buggers off (in any of the ways you suggest- I know what I’d like), that they will fill the void with the same rhetoric. Luckily, I think that that’s wrong. Whatever it is that attracts people to Trump seems to be fairly unique to him.
The police chief of the NYPD has given the numbers. So unless you're completely out of ideas and and can only suggest everything the authorities are saying are lies, then the burden of proof is on anyone suggesting otherwise to provide evidence to the contrary.
The party is too far gone to revert back to the Reagan/Bush establishmentarian mold of decades past, so what we're likely to see is a lot of infighting among competing factions until one of them wins out. That's already taking place as we speak between the freedom caucus faction and the old guard, and is likely to continue, eventually settling on a new leader who can bridge the divide between the two. Perhaps a JD Vance or similar millennial generation guy who has cross-faction credibility at the moment.
Sorry but no, you said:
We all know infiltrated has a negative connotation, I hope your goal is not to play some weird semantics game.
40% of infiltrators is a world away of difference from 40% non-students (students from other schools, teachers, former alumni, legal observers, etc.) Infiltrators in the way you and the police are using the term implies nefarious activity.
Please back those numbers up. Where is the proof 40% of people there were infiltrated?
Its supposed to have a negative connotation - because those people weren't supposed to be on a closed University campus. The numbers don't need to be backed up because they have been issued by the NYPD who checked who was or wasn't a student with the University. If the University choose to publish student names, then that's their call.
Ah ok so weird semantics game it is. Professors, former alumni and others related with the school or nearby schools are infiltrators.
Gotcha, you and the cops decided to use a word with a normal meaning of agitators and disruptors (often causing violence) and use it to literally describe a professor or a former student. Clearly no agenda or narrative there.
The University can publish people affiliated with the school if they so choose. The bottom line with these protests and many others like them is that there are people who get involved who often don't have the best interests of those who may be doing it for the right reasons, and whose actions often undercut the legitimacy of the entire protest. Given the amount of questionable items the NYPD showcased, it would appear that this protest was no exception.
You can't back up the 40% number, that's all I wanted to know. It amazes me how someone can so blindfully trust a number thrown into the air by an institution famously known for lying to justify their actions.
Like I said, the burden to prove otherwise is on you not me, given that its been published by the NYPD. If your only argument is that the NYPD are lying then that's not a very credible response to a figure published by the authorities.
You're completely inverting the burden of proof. The accuser needs to back up their claims, it's the basis of any justice system.
You and the police are accusing 40% of those involved of being infiltrated, which is established to be a negative thing.
The basis of the accusation? Nothing, just a number in a chart on social media.
And I am the one who needs to prove they were not infiltrated?
Well the NYPD have published their data, so there's your proof from an official source. They're not likely to give a name by name breakdown of all students and non-students so some dude in Portugal can score points in a web debate. If you have any official information to the contrary then please feel free to share it.
It has been spelled out to you that it's not. You can read.
The NYPD are not claiming that 40 % are infiltrators, you are. You are hiding behind the NYPD numbers to claim something not supported by them.
Can you share that data? I can't find it.
The first link I get on google:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/03/college-gaza-protests-nyu
The word infiltrators is never used. I guess the closest to that is:
It doesn't seem like released data, but just a dude's opinion. And if the evidence is literature found at the campuses, jesus christ, it's even worse than I thought.
But I'm a shit googler, help me out with the data please.
Last edited:
"They were outsiders" is the official quote. People not affiliated with the University coming onto campus to protest (or whatever else they planned to do) is infiltration.
My correction - 40% was NYC wide - 29% is at Columbia. Both very high numbers in either case.
In the video you linked, what was said about the 40 % number was "were not students". In the graphic released by the NYPD, referenced in the now deleted tweet, it says "non-students".
The numbers are sourced from Adams' NPR interview this past week and republished on most websites covering the protest.
His specific quote based on preliminary analysis is that "...,over 40% of those who participated in Columbia and CUNY were not from the school, and they were outsiders".