# [POLL] 2020 U.S. Presidential Election



## Lacius (Aug 11, 2020)

With the general election season underway, for whom will/would you vote and why?

For the poll, I listed the presumptive nominees from the four political parties that have ballot access to 270 or more electoral votes and therefore have a technical chance at winning, as of August 11, assuming there isn’t a contingent election.

I recommend taking the iSideWith Quiz to see which candidate's policy positions you are most in alignment with.

It should go without saying, but please remember to keep your discussions civil.


----------



## GhostLatte (Aug 12, 2020)

Definitely Biden.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Aug 12, 2020)

Since there is no option for "no rulers" I'll have to go with Jo Jorgensen.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 12, 2020)

Subtle Demise said:


> Since there is no option for "no rulers" I'll have to go with Jo Jorgensen.


Well, I don't think that's an option on anybody's ballot.


----------



## Viri (Aug 12, 2020)

Trump!


----------



## Goku1992A (Aug 12, 2020)

Trump. 

No I'm not a Trump Supporter but dealing with Trump for 4 years I kinda know what to expect and I can ride it out with another 4 years. Biden I don't really remember him actually doing anything in office as a VP so I'm not too sure if he has enough leadership to run the country. If Covid-19 never happened Trump would have definitely won with flying colors but it looks like Bien would win. I'm all for the Economy getting back stronger again just like it was before the Covid-19 hit. I just feel like Biden is just going to be a puppet and just make silly choices I personally don't feel he would be a good leader. I rather deal with Trump than deal with Biden. 

At the end of the day most Dems say they are for the working man but are they really? Most of them are already millionaires so they wouldn't understand how middle class feels and how they operate. The stimulus checks are a joke because how far can $1200 get you that isn't even half of my semi-monthly paycheck.  I work very hard for the things that I have and I don't look for handouts with that being said I rather deal with Trump because he is already in office versus voting for Biden. At least I can say about Trump he speaks his mind and he isn't going to be a puppet I just seeing Biden being controlled and not making his own decision. 

A man of Joe Biden status has no reason talking to Cardi B about her "input" sheesh!


----------



## CeeDee (Aug 12, 2020)

I'm writing in myself. CeeDee for POTUS 2020.


----------



## notimp (Aug 12, 2020)

Goku1992A said:


> Trump.
> 
> No I'm not a Trump Supporter but dealing with Trump for 4 years I kinda know what to expect and I can ride it out with another 4 years. Biden I don't really remember him actually doing anything in office as a VP so I'm not too sure if he has enough leadership to run the country. If Covid-19 never happened Trump would have definitely won with flying colors but it looks like Bien would win. I'm all for the Economy getting back stronger again just like it was before the Covid-19 hit. I just feel like Biden is just going to be a puppet and just make silly choices I personally don't feel he would be a good leader. I rather deal with Trump than deal with Biden.
> 
> ...


Pretty much every sentence in this is speculative and or wrong. 

'Knowing what you get with someone' is a popular election motive. Even though the sentiment is mostly wrong. (Essentially more of the same, until something happens, and then still more of the same, with Trump, because he didnt realize that something happened, and then more of the same, because he locked the experts away from public view.  And then more of the same - ups, country is in crisis. )

Putting up 'not enough leadership skills' as your main voting motiv is pretty much outright dumb. (Basically something you could say of any person, without ever having thought about them for a minute. And in essence something that favours an authoritarian candidate - in a democratic system.)

Claiming an unprovable negative. (Would have won with high marks, if not for Covid).

Bunch of 'I feel' instead of arguments.

Most democrats are millionairs. (Do you understand how statistics work?) edit: Usually only true for senators, and there on the republican and democratic side alike.

Wants back the world from before a thing happened.

Makes conspiracy theorist assertions (Biden just a puppet (yes and so is Trump, very few exceptions in US history  - you can usually identify the puppets, by being part of the political apparatus for more than 40 years (compromising every day of the week), or by them having absolutely no idea whats going on, and then following financiers, and power elites that guide their behavior. While spending most of their day 'signing decrees' and playing golf  (or watching fox news to catch up..  )).

Blames the 1200 USD stimulus on democrats (republicans made sure you'll get less in the future).

At least Trump speaks his mind. Trump is officially the US president that lied most often. Currently he is making up Corona facts at press conferences again, where any scientific advisers are barred from showing up. The reason why you believe that is, that he is using 'popular language' - 'he speaks like us' - he still lies all day, even when he doest have to, but he speaks like us.
--

Only remaining point - "he was good for the economy", essentially no, he made a free trade deal with india (so now your construction jobs go to mexico and india), he did a few PR stunts where he gave corporations money, to hold production in country a little longer (or bring back some 100 jobs at one facility), he gave tax cuts to the rich, which resulted in wall street having a little boom (stock buybacks), while none of it was felt in main street. (Money basically didnt reach the real world economy. (See wage distribution/development with inflation calculated out, even in income brackets, if you must. Depending on your income bracket - this one could be debated. (Do you make money from stock dividents?))

Also he escalated the trade war with china, which never is great for the economy - but may have been necessary (saying regardless of who you vote for, that you will not change).
-

So essentially you are factually wrong on pretty much every single point.

But the democratic system says, you still get a vote, because you aught to 'feel out' which one of two candidates is good for you. So you get a feeling of being part of an important decision, so you dont revolt.

The key is, if none of your statement actually includes any aspect of an election program - chances are you know nothing about politics, but you can still participate in that system.

edit: src for economic development under Trump:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-45827430


----------



## BeniBel (Aug 12, 2020)

Let's hope Trump will win. Often, it doesn't really matter who wins, as little really changes. But for the first time, I truly fear what will will happen to society should Biden win.

From the moment Trump won in 2016, the democrats have been going more extreme by the day. Society already has come to the point, where making a positive comment about Trump labels you as a racist, and can get you into trouble or fired. That's no longer a democracy. It suprised me how far it even goes. News stationststations twist  newsor makes it up, college professors who manipulate the youth...

For example Covid-19, remember how the world bashed Trump when he restricted travel from Europe back in March. Canada even promoted Europeans were more than welcome there. Not even a month after that, everyone was yelling why Trump didn't close the borders... And there are dozen of events just like that.

The greatest danger in today's society, is extreme left ideology.

However, politics make people blind. You have your preference and magnify all bad of the others, and minimize the errors of those you support. But I think in all objectivity, noone can say Trump has been bad for America.


----------



## GhostLatte (Aug 12, 2020)

BeniBel said:


> Let's hope Trump will win. Often, it doesn't really matter who wins, as little really changes. But for the first time, I truly fear what will will happen to society should Biden win.
> 
> From the moment Trump won in 2016, the democrats have been going more extreme by the day. Society already has come to the point, where making a positive comment about Trump labels you as a racist, and can get you into trouble or fired. That's no longer a democracy. It suprised me how far it even goes. News stationststations twist  newsor makes it up, college professors who manipulate the youth...
> 
> ...


The over 160,000 deaths speak for themselves.


----------



## BeniBel (Aug 12, 2020)

GhostLatte said:


> The over 160,000 deaths speak for themselves.



The US has a population of over 300.000.000 people, so it comes down to 500 deaths/1.000.000 population. For example, Belgium hasdhas that.

Numbers never lie, but you have to put them in the correct context. Are those numbers high? Well yes, but they aren't the worst in the world.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 12, 2020)

Why is Kamala Harris constantly called "black"?
Look up her father:





He is Jamacain, probably similar to Obama (European and Subsaharan African ancestry). If my guess is correct, she would be 25% Subsaharan African. The rest is Caucasian/Indian/Arab. It´s like calling Bruce Lee a European/German.


----------



## GhostLatte (Aug 12, 2020)

BeniBel said:


> The US has a population of over 300.000.000 people, so it comes down to 500 deaths/1.000.000 population. For example, Belgium hasdhas that.
> 
> Numbers never lie, but you have to put them in the correct context. Are those numbers high? Well yes, but they aren't the worst in the world.


If Trump took the virus seriously, they would have have never been this high.


----------



## DBlaze (Aug 12, 2020)

Just out of pure morbid curiosity I would've want to see Kanye actually doing the effort and then win, just to see what kind of shit happens next. Man that would be a show.

Also, thinking a virus can be contained by politics is naive. Trump handles/handled it like an idiot, but wether you like it or not, this was always going to happen because there's too many idiots on the planet.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 12, 2020)

BeniBel said:


> The US has a population of over 300.000.000 people, so it comes down to 500 deaths/1.000.000 population. For example, Belgium hasdhas that.
> 
> Numbers never lie, but you have to put them in the correct context. Are those numbers high? Well yes, but they aren't the worst in the world.


Belgium only has a handful of COVID-19 deaths per day these days (they had 7 yesterday). The United States had 1,500 people die from COVID-19 yesterday. There's no comparing the two responses. Belgium had a federal response, and the United States did not, and it continues to not have one.

With regard to government responses to COVID-19, it is also a mistake to compare deaths/1M population between a country with 12M citizens and a country with 331M citizens. It's numerically analogous to comparing coin flip odds with a trial of two flips and a trial of 50 flips. The two-flip trial could realistically be 100% heads, which does not reflect the actual odds, but the 50-flip trial is likely going to be close to about 25 heads and 25 tails. Here are some fair COVID-19 comparisons:

China, 1.4B pop, 3 deaths/1M pop
India, 1.4B pop, 33 deaths/1M pop
USA, 331M pop, 507 deaths/1M pop
Indonesia, 274M pop, 22 deaths/1M pop
Pakistan, 221M pop, 28 deaths/1M pop
Brazil, 213M pop, 485 deaths/1M pop
Nigeria, 207M pop, 5 deaths/1M pop
The Trump administration has utterly failed, as has the Bolsonaro administration from Brazil. These are also the two leaders who did not take COVID-19 seriously at all.


----------



## digipimp75 (Aug 12, 2020)

Trump 2020.   It is inevitable.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 12, 2020)

digipimp75 said:


> Trump 2020.   It is inevitable.


Is it possible he will win? Yes. Is it inevitable? No. The FiveThirtyEight model, which was just posted, gives Trump a 29% chance of winning. It's significant, but it's not inevitable.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Is it possible he will win? Yes. Is it inevitable? No. The FiveThirtyEight model, which was just posted, gives Trump a 29% chance of winning. It's significant, but it's not inevitable.



And on today's date in 2016, FiveThirtyEight gave Donald Trump a 12.5% chance.

Anyway I won't be voting _for_ anyone.

I'll be voting AGAINST.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 12, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> And on today's date in 2016, FiveThirtyEight gave Donald Trump a 12.5% chance.


I think you and I would agree that Trump's victory in 2016 was not inevitable, and Trump's victory in 2020 is not inevitable. That was my point.

Also, just because Trump won in 2016 doesn't change the fact that he had a 12.5% chance of winning as of August 12, 2016. Improbable things happen all the time. Flipping a coin three times in a row and landing heads all three times is also a 12.5% chance.
Note: Trump's odds were up to 28.6% by election day.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Aug 12, 2020)

NONE. No one in the world! Reason 100 percent is that the corruption is such a problem. Don't trust them. I am not one of them. Voters' ignorance means that many corrupt politicians get to stay in office. Sad!!!!!!


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I think you and I would agree that Trump's victory in 2016 was not inevitable, and Trump's victory in 2020 is not inevitable. That was my point.
> 
> Also, just because Trump won in 2016 doesn't change the fact that he had a 12.5% chance of winning as of August 12, 2016. Improbable things happen all the time. Flipping a coin three times in a row and landing heads all three times is also a 12.5% chance.
> Note: Trump's odds were up to 28.6% by election day.




It wasn't inevitable in 2016, and isn't now. Nothing is certain. But I wouldn't call it a "FACT" that Trump had a 12.5% chance as of August 12, 2016. I would say it is a "FACT" that FiveThirtyEight _thought_ so.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 12, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> It wasn't inevitable in 2016, and isn't now. Nothing is certain. But I wouldn't call it a "FACT" that Trump had a 12.5% chance as of August 12, 2016. I would say it is a "FACT" that FiveThirtyEight _thought_ so.


I agree, but that 12.5% number roughly comported with the evidence available at the time.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 12, 2020)

BeniBel said:


> From the moment Trump won in 2016, the democrats have been going more extreme by the day.


Give me a fucking break.  Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are both center-right.  The Democratic party is controlled opposition.  Only Republicans are allowed to actually go to extremes without consequences.  We saw it when GWB and Dick Cheney lied their way into two separate wars, murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, and walked away without a single charge against them.  If Biden is elected, we'll probably see it again when Trump walks away scot-free with millions of taxpayer dollars in his bank account, US soldiers dead from Russian bounties he did nothing about, and concentration camps full of kids who have been raped/sexually abused by ICE agents.  Not to mention the intentionally/maliciously botched COVID response.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 12, 2020)

BeniBel said:


> The US has a population of over 300.000.000 people, so it comes down to 500 deaths/1.000.000 population. For example, Belgium hasdhas that.
> 
> Numbers never lie, but you have to put them in the correct context. Are those numbers high? Well yes, but they aren't the worst in the world.


Actually, they kind of are. Sure, for the moment our death rates are comparable per million inhabitants, but with your amount of cases still rising daily, it's not going to stay that way (it's like saying that you've lost about as much as your neighbor in a fire, but his house has burnt down while your house - that's twice as big - is still burning).

On top of that (and what @Lacius already mentioned): Belgium is a small but pretty densely populated area. The US certainly has some big metropoles, but when taking everything combined, the population density is ten times less (383 people/km² in Belgium vs 36 people/km² in the US). So...guess who had it relatively easy yet screwed it up?

But ey, we were underprepared (absolutely), and got hit pretty hard for it. But we flattened the curve. But while our current numbers _are_ rising (fuck...7 deaths? It was 1 or 2 a few weeks ago! ) it's in no way comparable to the US.

So...next time you bring numbers, bring some that aren't so easily dismissed, okay? I'm pretty tired of being compared to the USA when our starting circumstances weren't the same to begin with. 



Ahem...on topic: who the fuck are Jo Joregson and Howie Hawkins? And should I be worried that f***ing Kanye West gets more publicity than these guys? 

Oh, right...I'd vote Bernie if it was possible. And Biden by lack of any serious competition on the ACTUAL political left(1) if I was a US citizen.

(1): sure, democrats are "less right" than republicans, but I call left and right based on their programs and ideas, not on where they stand relative to one another.


----------



## orangy57 (Aug 12, 2020)

I'm voting for Biden, but it's a damn shame that the _only_ person Democrats can reasonably vote for is a man who isn't even on the left and shares very few values with his base. It's already the second time where people have had to choose between the lesser of two evils when voting in the election.


----------



## Foupen (Aug 12, 2020)

I don't really care about politics nor am I a US citizen, but if I were American I'd be left-leaning.

I'm an atheist (why so many people still blindly believe in a man made concept that is God)
pro-abortion(honestly wouldn't want to give birth to a baby with a serious handicap like DS, also don't care what the Bible says)
anti-gun(it's obvious guns cause more harm than good. if no one but the police was allowed to have guns the crime rate in the US would be much lower)
pro-universal healthcare (equality of opportunity for people to enjoy the highest possible level of health is good. It works in many countries so why can't in the us. )
Pro-LGBT(it's not like same sex couples getting married negatively affects me so no reason to be against it, unless you're obsessed with what the Bible says)

Also, Republicans think video games make people violent.


----------



## BeniBel (Aug 12, 2020)

Nearly no country handled the corona crisis well, especially not Belgium. But don't forget the second covid outbreak happened shortly after all this insane black life matter protests happened. Prior to that, the situation was pretty much under control. Belgium had under 100 new cases a day, for the US this was under 20.000 and going down fast.

As for the "republicans can get away with anything" claim, it's politics in general. Just take a look at what the Clintons have gotten away with. Biden was also accused of rape, and his son isn't too clean either. And Trump walking away with tax payers their money? Beside the fact that he donates his presidential wage to charity, he already was a billionaire, I don't think he actually needs to get involved in dirty schemes to get some tax money.

But the biggest issue with politics, and society in general, is that we have so much informations available, plenty of which isn't accurate, and we tend to cherry pick those suiting our needs and cause. We aren't open to facts anymore, it's why a lot of discussions tend to heat up and end up in an argument. I would recommend anyone here who is eligible to vote, to do some real research on both candidates. don't believe social media or news on their words. Look up the full video materials for context, and form your own opinion.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 12, 2020)

When I consider which political party I want to give my vote, I conduct this simple thought experiment: if I were to put a Biden bumper sticker on one car, and a Trump bumper sticker on another car, and drive and park both cars around town equally, which car would get vandalized first???

you know the answer.

don’t even try to bring in some bullshit denial or qualification or excuse.

you know the answer.


Conduct that experiment 100 times, 1000 times I don’t care. I’ll bet you my house, both cars, every dollar I have in the bank that the car with the Trump bumper sticker gets keyed, or tires slashed, some other kind of real damage first at least 9 times out of 10.

Now, why would I want to be on the side of such vicious, cowardly, destructive little bastards as would do that?


----------



## chrisrlink (Aug 12, 2020)

I want biden in in office and trump in an orange Jumpsuit rotting in prison and biden would be labeled a pussy if he pardons him


----------



## Lacius (Aug 12, 2020)

BeniBel said:


> Nearly no country handled the corona crisis well, especially not Belgium. But don't forget the second covid outbreak happened shortly after all this insane black life matter protests happened. Prior to that, the situation was pretty much under control. Belgium had under 100 new cases a day, for the US this was under 20.000 and going down fast.
> 
> As for the "republicans can get away with anything" claim, it's politics in general. Just take a look at what the Clintons have gotten away with. Biden was also accused of rape, and his son isn't too clean either. And Trump walking away with tax payers their money? Beside the fact that he donates his presidential wage to charity, he already was a billionaire, I don't think he actually needs to get involved in dirty schemes to get some tax money.
> 
> But the biggest issue with politics, and society in general, is that we have so much informations available, plenty of which isn't accurate, and we tend to cherry pick those suiting our needs and cause. We aren't open to facts anymore, it's why a lot of discussions tend to heat up and end up in an argument. I would recommend anyone here who is eligible to vote, to do some real research on both candidates. don't believe social media or news on their words. Look up the full video materials for context, and form your own opinion.


The objective facts are that COVID-19 cases started increasing dramatically as a direct consequence of Memorial Day physical distance easing without plans addressing testing, contact tracing, masks, etc.

The "all countries handled COVID-19 poorly" argument is, respectfully, utter bullshit. The US is about 4% of the world population, but we are over 25% of COVID-19 cases, and we are about 23% of all deaths. We have a President who never took the virus seriously and never did anything substantive in response to the virus, and the only reason COVID-19 wasn't worse than it was is because of state and local government responses.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Hanafuda said:


> When I consider which political party I want to give my vote, I conduct this simple thought experiment: if I were to put a Biden bumper sticker on one car, and a Trump bumper sticker on another car, and drive and park both cars around town equally, which car would get vandalized first???
> 
> you know the answer.
> 
> ...


I could perform this experiment with a Nazi bumper sticker and a Holocaust survivor charity bumper sticker.

_You know the answer.

Don’t even try to bring in some bullshit denial or qualification or excuse.

You know the answer_, and it's just as meaningful as your example.

I'm also unconvinced that the Trump car would be vandalized first in every area of the country. We've seen Trumpers vandalize BLM material, etc.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> BLM material, etc.



BLM is a domestic terror operation.



Also your comparison of Nazis vs Holocaust survivors to the candidates in this election is absurd _and_ offensive.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 12, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> BLM is a domestic terror operation.


That's not actually true. You probably don't care if I take you seriously or not, but if you want me to take you seriously, you should avoid the unsubstantiated hyperbole.



Hanafuda said:


> Also your comparison of Nazis vs Holocaust survivors to the candidates in this election is absurd _and_ offensive.


My point wasn't to say Trump supporters are like Nazis (that's not my point today, anyway). My point was that your criteria for judging something is absurd, since the vandalism against Nazis vs. a Holocaust survivors charity would require you to support the Nazis, by your own criteria.

Edit: also, in your own words:
_Don’t even try to bring in some bullshit denial or qualification or excuse._


----------



## GhostLatte (Aug 12, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> BLM is a domestic terror operation.
> 
> 
> 
> Also your comparison of Nazis vs Holocaust survivors to the candidates in this election is absurd _and_ offensive.


And what’s the Ku Klux Klan? “Fine people?”


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 12, 2020)

I am voting Vermin Supreme. Biden is literally promising the same shit that got Trump elected, even if he won (which is unlikely,) there's just going to be another Trump-like president to follow him.


----------



## BeniBel (Aug 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I could perform this experiment with a Nazi bumper sticker and a Holocaust survivor charity bumper sticker.
> 
> _You know the answer.
> 
> ...




So Trump = Nazi? Trump voters = Nazi's? Trump took millions of people and gassed them? Honestly, the fact that you even make this comparison shows you're extremely biased, and aren't open to facts. It's not because someone is against illegal immigration, that he's a racist, fascist or anything like that.
Trump was voted into office in a fair and honest way, the way a democracy works. You don't have to like him, but comparing him to someone like Hitler, just because he doesn't support your view on how a society should work, is idiotic, small minded and plain fascism.

The US is a free country, so at the very least someone should be allowed to openly express their support to the president, without having to fear assault or harassment.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 12, 2020)

BeniBel said:


> So Trump = Nazi? Trump voters = Nazi's? Trump took millions of people and gassed them? Honestly, the fact that you even make this comparison shows you're extremely biased, and aren't open to facts. It's not because someone is against illegal immigration, that he's a racist, fascist or anything like that.
> Trump was voted into office in a fair and honest way, the way a democracy works. You don't have to like him, but comparing him to someone like Hitler, just because he doesn't support your view on how a society should work, is idiotic, small minded and plain fascism.
> 
> The US is a free country, so at the very least someone should be allowed to openly express their support to the president, without having to fear assault or harassment.


See my post above addressing that I wasn't calling Trump or Trump supporters Nazis. I was highlighting the absurdity of using vandalism in response to a position as a reason to support that position.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 12, 2020)

GhostLatte said:


> And what’s the Ku Klux Klan? “Fine people?”



The KKK was something 100-120 years ago, when they operated as the militant wing of the Democrat party.

It's nothing but a trailer park of microcephalics now.   They had a "rally" last year in Ohio and 9 people showed up. When was the last time you saw the KKK conduct a _nationwide_ arson and looting spree with 10's of thousands of participants?


----------



## Lacius (Aug 12, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I am voting Vermin Supreme. Biden is literally promising the same shit that got Trump elected, even if he won (which is unlikely,) there's just going to be another Trump-like president to follow him.


I'm honestly surprised to read this. On LGBT issues alone, the candidates are night and day.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> That's not actually true._._



yeah, ok


----------



## GhostLatte (Aug 12, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> The KKK was something 100-120 years ago, when they operated as the militant wing of the Democrat party.
> 
> It's nothing but a trailer park of microcephalics now.   They had a "rally" last year in Ohio and 9 people showed up. When was the last time you saw the KKK conduct a _nationwide_ arson and looting spree with 10's of thousands of participants?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally

Guess they’re just “fine people” like your president said.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 12, 2020)

BeniBel said:


> Nearly no country handled the corona crisis well, especially not Belgium. But don't forget the second covid outbreak happened shortly after all this insane black life matter protests happened. Prior to that, the situation was pretty much under control. Belgium had under 100 new cases a day, for the US this was under 20.000 and going down fast.


Nice conspiracy theory there. A shame it doesn't add up, though. The black lives matter occupation was relatively small here, and just a show of sympathy with the US protesters. There were never mass protests here, and because our politicians knew their job, they weren't antagonized. After a week, two weeks tops, they just stopped protesting. And this was long before a second wave even started emerging, so if I wanted to play devil's advocate, I'd use those statistics to say that we need MORE black lives matter protests to reduce our covid cases. 
No...if you really want to know, our second wave happened because of two reasons:
1) the increase of the "bubble" to 10, 15 and perhaps even more (communication wasn't exactly clear. More importantly, it was to check "on a weekly basis", which meant you could visit 15 different people every week).
2) certain ethnic groups (of Morocans and Turkish origin) taking the rules as suggestions.

The latter is rather controversial (it's barely mentioned in the news in order not to be branded 'racist'). Either way...the second wave simply didn't follow suit with the "mass" black lives matter protests in Belgium (all...two hundred of them (?)  ).

Can't say much on the US in terms of comparing covid-cases with BLM, but your cases were never going down "fast", no matter your definition (fuck...according to Fauci, you're still in your first wave). Oh, and experts also agree that reopening the economy too fast was a factor. Could be that BLM protests were also a factor, but I honestly wouldn't know. And sorry, but I don't trust you on face value on that.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 12, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> When I consider which political party I want to give my vote, I conduct this simple thought experiment: if I were to put a Biden bumper sticker on one car, and a Trump bumper sticker on another car, and drive and park both cars around town equally, which car would get vandalized first???


Firstly, that's the dumbest possible method to decide which candidate is worth voting for, and secondly, it depends entirely on where in the United States you're at.  If you park a Nissan Leaf with a Biden sticker on it at Sturgis right now, it's not just gonna get vandalized, it'll get totaled within five minutes.


----------



## Rail Fighter (Aug 12, 2020)

Crazy Joe almost tying with Trump, lol.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments/


----------



## Lacius (Aug 12, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> The KKK was something 100-120 years ago, when they operated as the militant wing of the Democrat party.


Bringing up Democrats from 100-120 years ago is only convenient for your position if you ignore Realignment, which was caused by the Civil Rights Movement. In other words, with regard to matters of race, yesterday's Democrats are today's Republicans.



Hanafuda said:


> It's nothing but a trailer park of microcephalics now.   They had a "rally" last year in Ohio and 9 people showed up. When was the last time you saw the KKK conduct a _nationwide_ arson and looting spree with 10's of thousands of participants?


White supremacist and right-wing terrorism makes up the vast majority of terrorism in this country, whether or not they identify as KKK.



Hanafuda said:


> yeah, ok


I'm uninterested in anecdotes. BLM is "a decentralized movement advocating for non-violent civil disobedience in protest against incidents of police brutality and all racially motivated violence against Black people." It is, factually, not a domestic terror operation.

My point, which I'll return to, is that vandalism against a position is not a reason to support that position. Regardless of the hyperbolic falsehoods you believe about BLM, if Trumpers are vandalizing BLM material, doesn't that mean, per your criteria, that you must now support BLM and be against Trump?



Rail Fighter said:


> Crazy Joe almost tying with Trump, lol.


The aggregate of national polls shows Biden ahead of Trump by 8.4% as of today.



Rail Fighter said:


> https://www.whitehouse.gov/trump-administration-accomplishments/


This website is drastically out of date (it's from 2018, before Trump's mishandling of the COVID-19 and the economic downturn). Many of the points on the website are also Obama accomplishments, not Trump accomplishments, particular with regard to the points about the economy.


----------



## BeastMode6 (Aug 12, 2020)

Neither. They both suck, like usual.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 12, 2020)

GhostLatte said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally
> 
> Guess they’re just “fine people” like your president said.




Those are just a bunch of internet posers doing cosplay for a day. They thought better of it after they chose to go out for one day of ACTUALLY being a bigot in the real world. When they tried to hold a second "Unite the Right" rally a year later, 10 people showed up.

They don't hold a candle to the menace that was the real KKK circa 1900-1920.

And they don't hold a candle to the menace that IS the current Antifa and BLM riot/arson/thieving spree.


----------



## tofast4u (Aug 12, 2020)

I'm voting for Trump, hopefully we can keep Pennsylvania red.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I'm honestly surprised to read this. On LGBT issues alone, the candidates are night and day.


The issue for me is that Joe is another middle of the road Democrat that really isn't promising to change anything. He's already promised to not defund the police, he promised to not take down the current pieces of Trump's wall, and so many other middles of the road promises. Not to mention his history of creepy touching and sexual assault on women and supporting extremely racist bills. Biden is literally every wrong with the Democrats and continues to make it harder to support him. Although he's obviously better than Trump on LGBT+ issues, that's just one issue and it's hard on me to put that issue aside, but I have to when I look at the bigger picture. Basically, I don't want Trump, Trump is a threat my wellbeing as a trans person, but Biden is literally the worst Democrat they could have gone with. It's harder to see Biden as a "lesser of two evils" when that lesser is barely even by a fraction.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I'm uninterested in anecdotes.



90 straight days of burning, violence, and stealing is not anectdotal anymore. Hiding behind purported mission statements doesn't change the fact you're speaking in defense of a marxist revolutionary force intent on disrupting an election through fear and threat.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 12, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> The issue for me is that Joe is another middle of the road Democrat that really isn't promising to change anything. He's already promised to not defund the police, he promised to not take down the current pieces of Trump's wall, and so many other middles of the road promises. Not to mention his history of creepy touching and sexual assault on women and supporting extremely racist bills. Biden is literally every wrong with the Democrats and continues to make it harder to support him. Although he's obviously better than Trump on LGBT+ issues, that's just one issue and it's hard on me to put that issue aside, but I have to when I look at the bigger picture. Basically, I don't want Trump, Trump is a threat my wellbeing as a trans person, but Biden is literally the worst Democrat they could have gone with. It's harder to see Biden as a "lesser of two evils" when that lesser is barely even by a fraction.


Biden was not my first (or second, or third) choice during the Democratic primaries, but he's significantly different from Trump.

Biden has plans to combat climate change; Trump thinks climate change is a hoax.
Biden wants to increase access to affordable health care (despite not supporting Medicare for All); Trump does not.
Biden wants to preserve and strengthen Social Security; Trump just acted to kill it and wants to make those actions permanent.
Biden wants to protect a woman's right to health care; Trump does not.
Biden supports LGBT rights; Trump does not.
He's not Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or whoever you liked, but he's approximately 80-90% in alignment with more progressive candidates, and he's nowhere close to Trump. Hell, his likely Supreme Court nomination(s) are reason enough alone to vote for Biden.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Hanafuda said:


> 90 straight days of burning, violence, and stealing is not anectdotal anymore. Hiding behind purported mission statements doesn't change the fact you're speaking in defense of a marxist revolutionary force intent on disrupting an election through fear and threat.


BLM has not been causing "90 straight days of burning, violence, and stealing." They're not a terrorist group.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Aug 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Belgium had a federal response, and the United States did not, and it continues to not have one.


With all due respect Lacius, our federal government is neither structured/designed nor built with the ability to enforce such policy on a global level. Even _if_ some federal mandate were issued, a number of states would reject the terms, as is in their right.
Certainly, there are other (many) countries with governments in power that _can_ exercise a global mandate_ and_ enforce it to the _fullest extent_. Yes, that is true. Very true.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 12, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> With all due respect Lacius, our federal government is neither structured/designed nor built with the ability to enforce such policy on a global level. Even _if_ some federal mandate were issued, a number of states would reject the terms, as is in their right.
> Certainly, there are other (many) countries with governments in power that _can_ exercise a global mandate_ and_ enforce it to the _fullest extent_. Yes, that is true. Very true.


The federal government had the authority to institute physical distancing mandates, mask mandates, etc. on a country-wide level. They could have developed testing and contact tracing procedures. They could have done more to lessen the economic fallout. The Trump administration could have also spent the last 3-4 years doing something other than slashing social safety nets and epidemic response teams.

The idea that Trump was powerless to do anything is a myth.


----------



## Rail Fighter (Aug 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Bringing up Democrats from 100-120 years ago is only convenient for your position if you ignore Realignment, which was caused by the Civil Rights Movement. In other words, with regard to matters of race, yesterday's Democrats are today's Republicans.
> 
> 
> White supremacist and right-wing terrorism makes up the vast majority of terrorism in this country, whether or not they identify as KKK.
> ...


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html


----------



## Delerious (Aug 12, 2020)

Writing in Yang.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 12, 2020)

Rail Fighter said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html


Per FiveThirtyEight, Trump had about a 30% chance of winning the 2016 election (coincidentally, FiveThirtyEight's 2020 forecast put out today gives Trump about a 30% chance of winning this year, while acknowledging he would have about a 7% chance of winning if the election were today). 30% is not insignificant; it's greater than the chance of flipping a coin heads twice in a row. Just because he won doesn't mean the odds were wrong.

Also, the link you posted is irrelevant to my post you were responding to.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Delerious said:


> Writing in Yang.


Yang endorsed Joe Biden.


----------



## Delerious (Aug 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Yang endorsed Joe Biden.



Yeah I know. I'm more only doing it because of my apathy toward the mainstream choices and because I like Yang, despite my mixed feelings on UBI. I already know it's either going to be Trump or Biden, but I'm going with my personal choice regardless.


----------



## Ibcap (Aug 12, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> With all due respect Lacius, our federal government is neither structured/designed nor built with the ability to enforce such policy on a global level. Even _if_ some federal mandate were issued, a number of states would reject the terms, as is in their right.
> Certainly, there are other (many) countries with governments in power that _can_ exercise a global mandate_ and_ enforce it to the _fullest extent_. Yes, that is true. Very true.


If Trump had tried to enforce safe policy at the start of the pandemic and particular states had refused to listen we would still be in a much favorable situation. To begin with Trump sets an example for people, especially many of the anti science republicans who are denying the virus is a big deal. When he spent the first month talking about how the virus was the flu and would just go away it reinforced their anti science and anti safety narrative that they can go out and party and dont need masks. 

And on top of that most states would probably have listened to Trump if he pushed for a policy requiring masks and other precautions. Democrats would listen because they have been pro virus safety since the start and republicans would listen because doing otherwise would be going against Trump.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 12, 2020)

Delerious said:


> Yeah I know. I'm more only doing it because of my apathy toward the mainstream choices and because I like Yang, despite my mixed feelings on UBI. I already know it's either going to be Trump or Biden, but I'm going with my personal choice regardless.


Yang and Biden are probably about 80% in alignment on policy, while Yang and Trump are probably about 10% in alignment on policy. Even if you want to look at it like a _lesser of two evils_ situation, the lesser of two evils is still less evil, by definition.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 12, 2020)

People keep forgetting that splitting votes is a thing.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 12, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> People keep forgetting that splitting votes is a thing.


What are you referring to specifically.


----------



## GhostLatte (Aug 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> What are you referring to specifically.


Probably how voting for third party candidates is going to accomplish nothing.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Biden was not my first (or second, or third) choice during the Democratic primaries, but he's significantly different from Trump.
> 
> Biden has plans to combat climate change; Trump thinks climate change is a hoax.
> Biden wants to increase access to affordable health care (despite not supporting Medicare for All); Trump does not.
> ...


I am aware that Biden is better than Trump, there's no denying that. It's more a matter of not wanting to vote for someone who is Biden. Biden is a creep who openly creeps on young girls and women, Biden is a rapist who when asked about the accusations crumbled instantly, Biden has a history of openly supporting extremely racist laws and even choosing a literal cop as a vice president is so concerning. I want to support the ideas around Biden but supporting Biden goes against my own principles. I don't want to continue supporting the "lesser of two evils," that mentality is literally why we are picking between a Blue Racist Rapist and a Red Racist Rapist. It's always worth stressing that I am not a Democrat, I am an actual Leftist, the Dems don't have my support by default.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 13, 2020)

Poor kids can be just as smart and talented as white kids! Remember who said that?


----------



## omgcat (Aug 13, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Poor kids can be just as smart and talented as white kids! Remember who said that?



Hey, at least Biden doesn't pronounce Yosemite as Yo Semite. Biden also doesn't think that the 1918 flu ended WW2.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 13, 2020)

omgcat said:


> Hey, at least Biden doesn't pronounce Yosemite as Yo Semite. Biden also doesn't think that the 1918 flu ended WW2.


“We cannot let this, we’ve never allowed any crisis from the Civil War straight through to the pandemic of 17, all the way around, 16, we have never, never let our democracy sakes second fiddle, way they, we can both have a democracy and ... correct the public health.”


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 13, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> With all due respect Lacius, our federal government is neither structured/designed nor built with the ability to enforce such policy on a global level. Even _if_ some federal mandate were issued, a number of states would reject the terms, as is in their right.
> Certainly, there are other (many) countries with governments in power that _can_ exercise a global mandate_ and_ enforce it to the _fullest extent_. Yes, that is true. Very true.


Erm... Are you saying the USA is in a state of anarchy? More specific : so accustomed to each states doing their own thing that the federal level doesn't hold real power? 

It's a bit strange that Belgium keeps getting mentioned. Yes, we had (and still have) a federal response, but that's less taken for granted than you might think.
See, Belgium is divided in perhaps even more ways than democrats and Republicans. Flanders in the north has a majority of 'right leaning' citizens (unfortunate enough... But even those are more leftist than the US democrats), Wallonia in the south is generally more leftist. Not only do we not live together nor share the same language (Dutch VS French), but we can't even vote for the same political parties. So when we voted in May last year, nobody really expected a government before the summer. Our parties were still bickering on how to get along at the start of 2020. When Corona hit, it could have easily dissolved in both halves doing their own thing (both parts have their own governments, probably akin to us states). Instead we immediately got a temporary government, a prime minister (one I literally never heard of before, and I follow Belgian politics closely) and a bunch of medical experts. Why? Because this was a national crisis, and should be dealt at a national level. And that's only because the EU doesn't have the infrastructure for these kinds of things, or it would've been handled at international level.

So... Also with respect, but Belgium doesn't have a 'government that has a global mandate' Nor does it have 'the power to fully enforce it' (heh... Our current prime Minister doesn't even have the power to adjust taxes. She's just there for the crisis, that's all).

The only real difference that I can see is that we understand we're in this together and that this goes far above political disputes. If our king our prime minister has even THOUGHT of letting each part of the country fend for themselves, we had kicked them out immediately, because they'd be part of the problem rather than the solution.

So please : don't go 'we don't have the infrastructure' on me. The only reason you've got a banana republic mentality is because you all allowed it to happen. And it's not the first time (from what I recall from Katrina, New Orleans didn't got federal help either until way too late)... It's just way worse than the usual disasters.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 13, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> “We cannot let this, we’ve never allowed any crisis from the Civil War straight through to the pandemic of 17, all the way around, 16, we have never, never let our democracy sakes second fiddle, way they, we can both have a democracy and ... correct the public health.”



it's one thing to have to dig up videos and quotes from months/years ago to try to make a candidate look bad, the other is 24/7, 365 gaffs on live tv and twitter. Injecting bleach, claiming "more for the Black community than anybody with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln, whether you like it or not",

"[He's going to] hurt the Bible. Hurt God. He's against God. He's against guns. He's against energy -- our kind of energy."
_-- Trump on Biden_

"We're signing a health care plan within two weeks, a full and complete health care plan..."
_-- Trump, July 17th

"I have, like, a good memory. I'm cognitively there."
-- Trump, on acing a dementia test

I don’t know. I haven’t really been following it too much. I just wish her well, frankly. I’ve met her numerous times over the years, especially since I lived in Palm Beach and I guess they lived in Palm Beach. But I wish her well, whatever it is. I don’t know the situation with Prince Andrew. I just don’t know. I’m not aware of it.

-trump on Ghislaine Maxwell

seriously every fucking day, something stupid comes out of that man's mouth._

_*“I’ll bet you couldn’t. They get very hard, the last five questions.”*
-trump talking about a fucking dementia test_


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 13, 2020)

From where I sit the US president in modern times is mostly a toothless figurehead. They get a few pet projects that do surprisingly little in the end just to say they did and the rest is caught up in general resistance and interest groups to any change from the rest. For all the bluster Trump had going in the results as far as scalps claimed is pretty pitiful so I could not even go for that as a problem solver/shaker upper. At the same time it is not like the other guys never had their chance to do something interesting and... yeah, toothless.

Of the two big parties, which owing to the system in place are the only real choices for the final result. Haven't been particularly paying attention to the polls, mainly as you get the data and then have to figure out how accurate it is (outlier results rarely do much, and even that which are nominally right have all sorts of inaccuracies and odd assumptions when you dig down). I do have to wonder what the Democrats were smoking though, or indeed if their selection process was infiltrated by morons or opposition -- more or less all they had to do was pick some inoffensive 40 something of the more centrist persuasion (the vocal far left would either fall in line or not vote as usual, and while they are small in number it is still something) that polled well and I fail to see how Mr Trump would not be on the defensive or flopping like a fish. Instead... an old man with a dubious past, practically zero charisma, no real speaking/debate skill (or any that was there vanished decades ago), unlikely to sway anybody back that might vary depending on policy and no VP until the last possible minute.

Neither do policies I particularly care for. Both have poor underlying principles of law making from where I sit in terms of things they value and principles they operate with -- free speech seems to be an alien concept to both, neither seem to care about reducing the burden of government on the person at large, legal reform of any practical merit is short in coming, both seem to be about more pointless legislation, freedom of action is troubled in either case. Their grasp of economics of nations (not that Mr Trump is a terribly good businessman, or at least there are many of those I would sooner go in for if I had to invest either in him in general and especially a venture with him) is suspect in both cases, though for different reasons and neither seem to be in for the long term good (be it by choice in chasing the next quarter, especially when other players on the world stage are playing the long game and willing to a burn a lot doing it, or foolishness). International relations... again both would not be my first choice but for different reasons. Their grasp of technology in both counts is pitiful, and their approaches to it (and those playing to it) even worse -- I watched them both try to grill tech companies at various points over the last few years and wondered at times if I had accidentally got the feed from their seemingly non technical PR people doing a fluff piece. The automation snowball is also likely to pick up soon which is going to be even more fun.
Because they will then I will mention infrastructure. Everybody knows someone that hit a pothole, happens all the time. Nobody has done much of anything for years here, even in states with unambiguous control, so I can dismiss that just as easily as it came.


So that Biden guy is likely to be shoved into the corner after a stroke during the victory lap and his VP then come on. I did see her do some long talks on things. Not the worst I have ever seen but nothing special and I would want special -- the US has been coasting on its laurels for too long without doing anything particularly interesting. I don't know what she would do about the various crazies running around tearing things up over imagined sleights, be it crack down or kowtow. Seeing the demands made then if they were acceded to (never likely to be wholesale but basic appeasement does not seem like a great plan either) I would probably come to dislike the technically left wing stuff more (assuming it is real that leaked document of the proposed curriculum in schools is horrific from where I sit, and it would be in line with what is on their websites) where the right wing stuff seems mostly to be biding their time or realising they became toothless as the decades wore on (I still remember religious types trying it on, and they are not entirely removed yet. Not to mention the more right wing fun types are being led around by the nose in having to prove they are not racist rather than ignoring that and actually trying to do something, and I am sure they could get the ATF to throw them a bone, possibly one they took away to give back later, to quieten them down enough). She might do better at international relations, even if she has it in her to maybe actually be a player in it (though frankly I would settle for simply properly funding the diplomatic corps again -- so many missed meetings, conferences and whatever else... if a nation of however many hundred million can't train up 200 odd staff for all the countries, multiply that by say 10 because why not and as many again as support staff so everything gets attended then something is wrong).

That said never voted in my life and don't think I am even registered (certainly have not bothered for any of my bits of paper for the US) so eh.
At this point if it is going to be a fairly evenly split other branches of government (seems likely) then I am more interested in state and local for something to happen, especially those places left to burn. We do also have the potential fun of people leaving the traditionally democrat cities to Texas and the like but carrying on voting like they would have previously.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 13, 2020)

omgcat said:


> it's one thing to have to dig up videos and quotes from months/years ago to try to make a candidate look bad, the other is 24/7, 365 gaffs on live tv and twitter. Injecting bleach, claiming "more for the Black community than anybody with the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln, whether you like it or not",
> 
> "[He's going to] hurt the Bible. Hurt God. He's against God. He's against guns. He's against energy -- our kind of energy."
> _-- Trump on Biden_
> ...





FAST6191 said:


> From where I sit the US president in modern times is mostly a toothless figurehead. They get a few pet projects that do surprisingly little in the end just to say they did and the rest is caught up in general resistance and interest groups to any change from the rest. For all the bluster Trump had going in the results as far as scalps claimed is pretty pitiful so I could not even go for that as a problem solver/shaker upper. At the same time it is not like the other guys never had their chance to do something interesting and... yeah, toothless.
> 
> Of the two big parties, which owing to the system in place are the only real choices for the final result. Haven't been particularly paying attention to the polls, mainly as you get the data and then have to figure out how accurate it is (outlier results rarely do much, and even that which are nominally right have all sorts of inaccuracies and odd assumptions when you dig down). I do have to wonder what the Democrats were smoking though, or indeed if their selection process was infiltrated by morons or opposition -- more or less all they had to do was pick some inoffensive 40 something of the more centrist persuasion (the vocal far left would either fall in line or not vote as usual, and while they are small in number it is still something) that polled well and I fail to see how Mr Trump would not be on the defensive or flopping like a fish. Instead... an old man with a dubious past, practically zero charisma, no real speaking/debate skill (or any that was there vanished decades ago), unlikely to sway anybody back that might vary depending on policy and no VP until the last possible minute.
> 
> ...




really don't want to hear complaints about bad lawmaking coming from the brexiteers. you managed to get a knock-off donald trump that is actually semi-competent because literally no one could be less competent than our current president. you guys got fucked just as hard by the disinfo campaigns as us. the only difference is that your PM almost fucking ate it to covid and now they have to take it somewhat seriously.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 13, 2020)

omgcat said:


> really don't want to hear complaints about bad lawmaking coming from the brexiteers. you managed to get a knock-off donald trump that is actually semi-competent because literally no one could be less competent than our current president.


Am I a brexiteer? I don't recall voting for it (see the part above where I have never voted and these days I am not even registered to), donating to any causes (I would sooner throw the money away than donate to a political party) or advocating for it in any capacity. At very worst on that front some of the rabid anti leaving the EU types might categorise my opposition as not staunch enough (I will stand by that too -- despite legend grade ineptitude in the handling of things hardly a land of milk and honey but at the same time not exactly back in the dark ages either). Moreover one that might be could well have either come to see it as an error (be it in principle or implementation), and beyond that such things don't seem all that relevant when it comes to the ability to assess another situation.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Aug 13, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> Erm... Are you saying the USA is in a state of anarchy? More specific : so accustomed to each states doing their own thing that the federal level doesn't hold real power


Nope, just that states can challenge federal mandates. Apparently I didn't make that clear even though my statement was all of a few sentences.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 14, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I am aware that Biden is better than Trump, there's no denying that. It's more a matter of not wanting to vote for someone who is Biden. Biden is a creep who openly creeps on young girls and women, Biden is a rapist who when asked about the accusations crumbled instantly, Biden has a history of openly supporting extremely racist laws and even choosing a literal cop as a vice president is so concerning. I want to support the ideas around Biden but supporting Biden goes against my own principles. I don't want to continue supporting the "lesser of two evils," that mentality is literally why we are picking between a Blue Racist Rapist and a Red Racist Rapist. It's always worth stressing that I am not a Democrat, I am an actual Leftist, the Dems don't have my support by default.


We're not just voting for Joe Biden. We're voting for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's replacement.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 14, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Why is Kamala Harris constantly called "black"?
> Look up her father:
> 
> 
> ...


She's mostly African while the lower portion is of Indian ancestry.

FYI, Caucasians are from the Caucasus region located in Asia. Europeans are Europeans, period. Stop spouting nonsense.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 14, 2020)

I get the not picking the lesser of two evils thing, but not this late in the game. We just have to keep pushing new people to make it up to this point. Choosing not to vote or effectively not choosing, only risk things getting worse and making it harder to get what you want. In fact, you risk losing what you already had.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 14, 2020)

Lacius said:


> We're not just voting for Joe Biden. We're voting for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's replacement.




You're not even voting for Joe Biden. I mean sure, the DNC is happy to use his name, it's the most electable name they've got, especially with the geriatric liberals who are uncertain about the direction the party is heading. Biden's a name they know from olden years, it hearkens them back to days of Ted Kennedy, Chris Dodd, and Tip O'Neill. But if the DNC actually wins the election, he's dead weight from day 1. They'll have him sworn in, make a nice show of it and all ... then wait a couple months and do a Scalia on him.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 14, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> You're not even voting for Joe Biden.


Unfortunate facts about the Electoral College aside, I am indeed voting for Joe Biden in November.



Hanafuda said:


> But if the DNC actually wins the election, he's dead weight from day 1. They'll have him sworn in, make a nice show of it and all ... then wait a couple months and do a Scalia on him.


This is conspiracy theory nonsense.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 14, 2020)

Lacius said:


> This is conspiracy theory nonsense.



It is my hope you get to remain comfortably sure of that, i.e. that he loses. But if Biden does win the election, then we'll see. Maybe he will serve for a time and willingly step down, but I have little doubt that he would not serve out the term. Age is a real issue for both candidates, one that concerns me as much as policy differences. I want a President Pence no more than I want President Harris.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 14, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> It is my hope you get to remain comfortably sure of that, i.e. that he loses. But if Biden does win the election, then we'll see. Maybe he will serve for a time and willingly step down, but I have little doubt that he would not serve out the term. Age is a real issue for both candidates, one that concerns me as much as policy differences. I want a President Pence no more than I want President Harris.


There's a difference between acknowledging real issues like age and peddling unsubstantiated conspiracy drivel like Biden is going to be murdered if he's elected, or Scalia was murdered.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 14, 2020)

Lacius said:


> There's a difference between acknowledging real issues like age and peddling unsubstantiated conspiracy drivel like Biden is going to be murdered if he's elected, or Scalia was murdered.



I've seen plenty of unsubstantiated conspiracy drivel on this site over the last several years, and in this thread, wrt: the current administration. Only fair to reply in kind.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 14, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> I've seen plenty of unsubstantiated conspiracy drivel on this site over the last several years, and in this thread, wrt: the current administration. Only fair to reply in kind.


Vaguely pointing to other people peddling conspiracy theories isn't an excuse for peddling conspiracy theories. That's like committing a murder and then vaguely pointing to the existence of other murders as an excuse.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 14, 2020)

If you're at the point where the best slogan you can come up with is "vote blue no matter who", you've already lost.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 14, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> If you're at the point where the best slogan you can come up with is "vote blue no matter who", you've already lost.


Given the criminal bafoon who is currently in office, I'd say it was a pretty good slogan during the primary season.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 14, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Given the criminal bafoon who is currently in office, I'd say it was a pretty good slogan during the primary season.


Criminal?


----------



## Lacius (Aug 14, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Criminal?


Criminal, as in he has committed crimes.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 14, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Criminal, as in he has committed crimes.


Like what? Pedophilia?

Wait, no, that was Biden.


----------



## TheCasualties (Aug 14, 2020)

Just want to say DNC really screwed up discounting Sanders so early (for the second time!). Dems would have voted Dem either way, but Sanders supporters might not vote for Biden.

The whole situation is sad. The 2 party system can get fucked.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 14, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Like what? Pedophilia?
> 
> Wait, no, that was Biden.


There is no evidence that Biden is a pedophile, and if your standards of evidence are so low that you accept the claim that he is a pedophile, then are obligated to accept the claim that Trump is a rapist and a pedophile, if you're going to be consistent.

When I refer to Trump as a criminal, I'm talking about the Trump Foundation crimes, Trump University crimes, criminal obstruction of justice, campaign finance violations, etc.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TheCasualties said:


> Just want to say DNC really screwed up discounting Sanders so early (for the second time!). Dems would have voted Dem either way, but Sanders supporters might not vote for Biden.
> 
> The whole situation is sad. The 2 party system can get fucked.


I voted for Sanders in the primary. That being said, some moderates and undecideds are turned off by democratic socialism. Biden probably has the best chance at beating Trump.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 14, 2020)

Lacius said:


> There is no evidence that Biden is a pedophile, and if your standards of evidence are so low that you accept the claim that he is a pedophile, then are obligated to accept the claim that Trump is a rapist and a pedophile, if you're going to be consistent.










Lacius said:


> When I refer to Trump as a criminal, I'm talking about the Trump Foundation crimes, Trump University crimes, criminal obstruction of justice, campaign finance violations, etc.


Oh?


----------



## Lacius (Aug 14, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Oh?


These photos are not evidence that Biden is a pedophile. If they convince you that Biden is a pedophile, then you must also accept claims that Trump is a rapist and a pedophile.

I'm not saying Trump is a rapist or pedophile. I'm making a point about standards of evidence.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 14, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Vaguely pointing to other people peddling conspiracy theories isn't an excuse for peddling conspiracy theories. That's like committing a murder and then vaguely pointing to the existence of other murders as an excuse.



When I see you calling out liberals equally for unsubstantiated bullshit, I'll care what you have to say on the subject. Would be hard for you though, since you're actually a contributor yourself.

"Given the criminal bafoon who is currently in office ... " and other such statements of opinion without fact from you render your protests rather flaccid.

And it's "buffoon" ... at least spell your insults correctly.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 14, 2020)

Lacius said:


> We're not just voting for Joe Biden. We're voting for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's replacement.


Given her record as a prosecutor/SA, assuming she actually gets any power and is not even more of a puppet than the last however many, do you really think her pick is going to be any better?

Edit also re: conspiracies. If the phrase had been Epsteined instead would you have had nearly as much objection?
Mind you I don't see the objection to some silliness in general.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 14, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> When I see you calling out liberals equally for unsubstantiated bullshit, I'll care what you have to say on the subject.



I haven't read every post on this website.
I haven't read every post in this thread.
I'm not responsible for anything anyone else has said.
What anyone else has said or done is irrelevant to whether or not you're espousing unsubstantiated conspiracy nonsense.
I'm opposed to unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, not just unsubstantiated conspiracy theories from people I disagree with politically.
I can't even address your response in any meaningful way, since it's both vague and unsubstantiated. Give me an example of a conspiracy theory I didn't see or ignored, and I might agree with you that it's nonsense.



Hanafuda said:


> Would be hard for you though, since you're actually a contributor yourself.


If you're going to argue that I've promoted conspiracy theories, I'd like you to be specific so I can address them. If you cannot find any examples, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't make up things about me. We were having what I thought was a pleasant conversation up until this point.



Hanafuda said:


> And it's "buffoon" ... at least spell your insults correctly.


There are well known issues with using Gboard/Chrome on Android with the rich text editor turned on, and they actually cause me to make a lot of typos when I'm using my phone instead of my computer, particularly when I make edits to text I've already typed but haven't posted. It apparently bothers you more than it bothers me.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



FAST6191 said:


> Given her record as a prosecutor/SA, assuming she actually gets any power and is not even more of a puppet than the last however many, do you really think her pick is going to be any better?
> 
> Edit also re: conspiracies. If the phrase had been Epsteined instead would you have had nearly as much objection?
> Mind you I don't see the objection to some silliness in general.


I'd love to respond, but I would have to make a lot of assumptions about whom and what you're talking about. Could you be more clear?


----------



## MikaDubbz (Aug 14, 2020)

Biden, just because it seems like he has a soul, and he is the only one besides Trump that has any chance of winning.  Shame that my vote has to be based on such a basic thing that I hope that every person has, but I suppose that's politics.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 14, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I'd love to respond, but I would have to make a lot of assumptions about whom and what you're talking about. Could you be more clear?



Most seem to be operating under the assumption that if Biden wins then he will probably pop his clogs or otherwise be rendered inoperative in fairly short order (age, dementia, legal issues... it really does not matter) and that his VP will then take over, even if not then as she is the law and order legal candidate it is presumed her hand will be guiding the pick of who replaces the various supreme court justices (again operating under the assumption that president does not have puppet somewhere in the title).

If her pick is reflective of her track record as various types of lawyer for the state (of the pool you pick those you admire and think can do it, and one does tend to look into the mirror for these sorts of things) then for all the talk of "lose the supreme court for a generation" this last go around I doubt she would do any better there
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html
https://www.montereyherald.com/2015...s-back-asset-seizure-before-criminal-charges/
This could go on for a while, neither of those exactly being Fox-News/Breitbart type sources either.

Not really the stereotypical 1950s deep south judge archetype (nor for that matter what most would think when you said California state lawyer) but far from someone I would look to so as to guard my rights.

Unless you mean the Epstein thing. In which case a seemingly bad dude with fairly strong ties to the US Democratic party and big supporters thereof was pinched and put in jail, however he then seemed to commit suicide in one of the most convenient suicides in recent history and among a mountain of questionable circumstances. See then the popular meme of Epstein didn't kill himself, a phrase that apparently irked some too. It did however then make it to being a verb for taken out and made to look like a suicide (sometimes also with a sloppily but nobody cares".
My question was then if young Hanafuda had opted for that phrase instead would you have had as strong an objection as you seemingly did. Mind you I would not have said it mattered either way -- silly phrases are fun and not everything need be set in stone history verified phrases.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 14, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> Most seem to be operating under the assumption that if Biden wins then he will probably pop his clogs or otherwise be rendered inoperative in fairly short order (age, dementia, legal issues... it really does not matter) and that his VP will then take over, even if not then as she is the law and order legal candidate it is presumed her hand will be guiding the pick of who replaces the various supreme court justices (again operating under the assumption that president does not have puppet somewhere in the title).
> 
> If her pick is reflective of her track record as various types of lawyer for the state (of the pool you pick those you admire and think can do it, and one does tend to look into the mirror for these sorts of things) then for all the talk of "lose the supreme court for a generation" this last go around I doubt she would do any better there
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html
> ...


I have no concerns with regard to the pool of potential Supreme Court picks Biden or Harris are likely to choose from.

I read your post several times, and I don't know what you're getting at with regard to Epstein, and I don't know how to respond.


----------



## Chrisssj2 (Aug 14, 2020)

I vote for the entire disassemblance of inactual "authority" these forces claim to have. Everyone has their Natural Authority, as sovereign man/woman of flesh and blood here on earth.

Why people feel the need to externalize their power and give it away I don't know.

It's just a form of maffia. That either can be somewhat more benevolent or malevolent.

No matter the case, this is not the way to go about life. This is not the natural order.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 14, 2020)

Biden, cause he can ride a bike and doesn't gloat about how hard a dementia screening test is.


----------



## Viri (Aug 15, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I am aware that Biden is better than Trump, there's no denying that. It's more a matter of not wanting to vote for someone who is Biden. Biden is a creep who openly creeps on young girls and women, Biden is a rapist who when asked about the accusations crumbled instantly, Biden has a history of openly supporting extremely racist laws and even choosing a literal cop as a vice president is so concerning. I want to support the ideas around Biden but supporting Biden goes against my own principles. I don't want to continue supporting the "lesser of two evils," that mentality is literally why we are picking between a Blue Racist Rapist and a Red Racist Rapist. It's always worth stressing that I am not a Democrat, I am an actual Leftist, the Dems don't have my support by default.


Sadly Bernie wasn't as popular as people originally thought. He got completely destroyed by Biden.


----------



## TheCasualties (Aug 15, 2020)

I'm pretty curious how people can feel OK voting for a man who is trying to destroy and privatize the Postal Service. Hell, the guy he put in charge of USPS has a *huge *amount of stock in Fedex and UPS.. It's disgusting.

Do people think this is a good thing somehow?

@Viri, the media and the Dem Party threw Sanders away before it was even over. Using the word "socialism" probably didn't help at all either. For some reason most americans are entirely opposed to universal healthcare like most civilized countries have.  It makes no sense to me.


----------



## Viri (Aug 15, 2020)

> , the media and the Dem Party threw Sanders away before it was even over. Using the word "socialism" probably didn't help at all either. For some reason most americans are entirely opposed to universal healthcare like most civilized countries have.  It makes no sense to me.[



The media and the GOP went on a Crusade against Trump in 2016, even claimed he hired hookers to piss on a bed, yet he overcame it. Why couldn't Bernie?


----------



## TheCasualties (Aug 15, 2020)

Viri said:


> The media and the GOP went on a Crusade against Trump in 2016, even claimed he hired hookers to piss on a bed, yet he overcame it. Why couldn't Bernie?



Idk, maybe because the media kept putting trump on screen. He kept getting eyeballs watching the news, and that's all the media cares about. Whereas they seemingly forgot Bernie existed. They basically said Bernie was a lost cause, as far as I saw. You probably saw more of it than I did. You could probably tell me.  The 2 situations don't really seem the same in my eyes.

Also it might be that Trump lives in the mud, while Bernie has a heart and doesn't like slinging mud. He isn't as "sensational" and thus not 'media worthy'?

It seems to me that the rich and the ones in charge of media were scared of Sanders and his ideals, and thus got thrown under the bus. Trump is a totally different beast that makes the media money anytime he shows his orange face.

But again, you probably know this better than I do. I'd like to hear your thoughts about it. Also curious about your thoughts on the USPS being destroyed. Seems to screw everyone, except Trump and "his" election.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 15, 2020)

Viri said:


> The media and the GOP went on a Crusade against Trump in 2016, even claimed he hired hookers to piss on a bed, yet he overcame it. Why couldn't Bernie?





TheCasualties said:


> Idk, maybe because the media kept putting trump on screen. He kept getting eyeballs watching the news, and that's all the media cares about. Whereas they seemingly forgot Bernie existed. They basically said Bernie was a lost cause, as far as I saw. You probably saw more of it than I did. You could probably tell me.  The 2 situations don't really seem the same in my eyes.
> 
> Also it might be that Trump lives in the mud, while Bernie has a heart and doesn't like slinging mud. He isn't as "sensational" and thus not 'media worthy'?
> 
> ...


Bernie Sanders was the frontrunner to win the Democratic Primary throughout the month of February. He lost as a direct result of the exodus of moderate candidates right before Super Tuesday, whose supporters mostly consolidated behind Biden.

Sanders and Biden were both ahead of Trump in head-to-head polls during that time, and they each had a good shot against Trump. However, Biden had a better chance against Trump. Some numbers:

Trump vs. Biden on February 1, 2020: Biden +5.4%
Trump vs. Sanders on February 1, 2020: Sanders +3.7%
Trump vs. Clinton on February 1, 2016: Clinton +3.5%
Trump vs. Clinton on November 8, 2016: Clinton +2.1% (popular vote)
Today, Biden beats Trump in the polls by +7.7%.


----------



## emigre (Aug 15, 2020)

As a Brit, I hope Biden wins as I am sick of fuck of hearing Trump's tweets and his general bullshit.


----------



## Viri (Aug 15, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Bernie Sanders was the frontrunner to win the Democratic Primary throughout the month of February. He lost as a direct result of the exodus of moderate candidates right before Super Tuesday, whose supporters mostly consolidated behind Biden.


So, you're trying to tell me that voters want a moderate and don't really support all of Bernie's policies? If I paid attention to just Twitter and Reddit, I'd have a way different picture painted.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



emigre said:


> As a Brit, I hope Biden wins as I am sick of fuck of hearing Trump's tweets and his general bullshit.


Get used to it, because you have another 4+ years of it.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 15, 2020)

Notice how the poll has more Trump supporters?


----------



## Lacius (Aug 15, 2020)

Viri said:


> So, you're trying to tell me that voters want a moderate and don't really support all of Bernie's policies? If I paid attention to just Twitter and Reddit, I'd have a way different picture painted.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


I'm telling you that, according to general election polling, Biden does better against Trump than Sanders, but Sanders also beats Trump in a hypothetical matchup. Democratic Party voters also prefer Biden over Sanders, but that can be due in part to the aforementioned polling that shows Biden does better against Trump among the general electorate. In other words, some Democratic primary voters who are most closely in alignment with Sanders/Warren voted for Biden because they want to maximize the chances of defeating Trump.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 15, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Notice how the poll has more Trump supporters?



It's actually flip-flopping between Biden and Trump, depending on when you look at the poll results. At some point in the afternoon yesterday, for example, Biden was up +1 vote.
This is a GBATemp poll, which is small and isn't exactly reflective of US voters. For example, I could do a poll in Alabama, and those results don't say much about the election as a whole.
Based on the 2016 election and 2016 GBATemp poll, members of GBATemp skew about 9.9% in the Republican direction in comparison to US voters (Clinton won the popular vote in the US by +2.1%, and Tempers preferred Trump by +7.8%).
Trump currently leads Biden by only +2.8% (3 votes) among GBATemp voters.
The current 2020 poll results show a swing of 5% in Biden's direction compared to the 2016 poll.
Considering the 5% swing and that GBATemp was skewed about 9.9% in Trump's direction last time in comparison to US voters, anyone who supports Trump should be concerned. That would translate to about +7.1 in favor of Biden amongst US voters (2.8 minus 9.9), which is surprisingly close to the actual polling average right now (Biden +7.7).


----------



## emigre (Aug 15, 2020)

Lacius said:


> It's actually flip-flopping between Biden and Trump, depending on when you look at the poll results. At some point in the afternoon yesterday, for example, Biden was up +1 vote.
> This is a GBATemp poll, which is small and isn't exactly reflective of US voters. For example, I could do a poll in Alabama, and those results don't say much about the election as a whole.
> Based on the 2016 election and 2016 GBATemp poll, members of GBATemp skew about 9.9% in the Republican direction in comparison to US voters (Clinton won the popular vote in the US by +2.1%, and Tempers preferred Trump by +7.8%).
> Trump currently leads Biden by only +2.8% (3 votes) among GBATemp voters.
> ...



I respect your stats game.



Viri said:


> Get used to it, because you have another 4+ years of it.



Do me a favour and vote for Biden. I'm a patriot and I only want to hear stupid shit for my own government. Thanks.


----------



## ccfman2004 (Aug 15, 2020)

While I don't always agree on what Trump does (FCC Chairman for ex).  The Democrats are doing everything they can to undermine any good Trump is trying to do and the media never talks about any good moves Trump does, they only talk about the bad ones.

In 2016 I didn't want Trump but I sure as hell didn't want Hillary as she wanted to overturn several US amendments that gave US citizens certain rights like the right to bare arms. (Australia tried that and it resulted in a rise in crime)

In 2020 I am genuinely terrified of what a Biden America would be.  It's bad enough he picks a corrupt prosecutor who withheld evidence that a death row inmate was innocent and she only produced the evidence because she was forced to and not because she wanted right a wrong.

Before the pandemic America was doing pretty well, unemployment was at a 40 year low, employment was at a 50 year high.  He's trying to lower prescription drugs and stick it to Big Pharma (why is my insulin $2500 for a 75 day supply for ex).  He's trying to go around congress where Democrats keep trying to add non COVID crap into the bill and give money to illegals and the Republicans are not falling for it.  He is trying to convince companies to come back to America and hire Americans.  He made it so my Uncle can go to the nearest hospital (8 miles away) as opposed to the nearest VA hospital (2 hours away).

Some Democrats were caught hiring people and paying them around $15 hour to riot just to make Trump look bad.

It's funny, years ago it was the Republican Party that was bad and the Democrats were the good guys.  Man times have changed.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 15, 2020)

So are we all in agreement to not vote for the white guy?


----------



## TehCupcakes (Aug 15, 2020)

I don't know who I'll vote for. I side most closely with the Republican party but definitely will not be voting for Trump. In 2016 I voted for Evan McMullin, and I would again if he was running. Although on paper I side with Trump on a lot of issues, I think there is more to being president than your policies. I think integrity, honesty, and general morality should be evaluated much higher in how people vote, but apparently America disagrees with me on that. I guess I shouldn't be too surprised... Successful corporations are driven by corrupt, abusive, and questionable leaders; politics isn't all that different.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 15, 2020)

ccfman2004 said:


> While I don't always agree on what Trump does (FCC Chairman for ex).  The Democrats are doing everything they can to undermine any good Trump is trying to do and the media never talks about any good moves Trump does, they only talk about the bad ones.
> 
> In 2016 I didn't want Trump but I sure as hell didn't want Hillary as she wanted to overturn several US amendments that gave US citizens certain rights like the right to bare arms. (Australia tried that and it resulted in a rise in crime)
> 
> ...


Trump inherited a healthy economy from Obama and did nothing to improve it. In fact, Trump's mishandling of COVID-19 made it worse than it had to be.


----------



## Gon Freecss (Aug 15, 2020)

Drain the swamp!


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Aug 15, 2020)

^ your picture has a reference to pizza gate....
that alone tells me the Ben Garrison needs to lay off the cocoa puffs.
also putting goldman sachs people in charge is hardly draining the swamp.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 16, 2020)

ccfman2004 said:


> In 2016 I didn't want Trump but I sure as hell didn't want Hillary as she wanted to overturn several US amendments that gave US citizens certain rights like the right to bare arms.



I always wondered why people thought her unlikeable (seemed like a boring as dirt politician) but now I learn she presumably wanted to ban tshirts, short sleeved shirts and wifebeater vests... what a cunt.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 16, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> but now I learn she presumably wanted to ban tshirts, short sleeved shirts and wifebeater vests... what a cunt.


This isn't true. The worst thing she ever did was Pokemon Go to the Polls.

Edit: I just got the joke.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 16, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Notice how the poll has more Trump supporters?



sampling bias, we exist on a forum that has a high barrier to entry, and is borderline piracy related in the first place.

and by barrier to entry i mean you need to know the forum exists in the first place, and care enough about homebrew and hacking to look it up.




Gon Freecss said:


> Drain the swamp!




imagine thinking there is some large democrat conspiracy. like get 10 liberals in a room and try to get them to agree on ANYTHING. there are huge numbers of varying coalitions in the democratic party that are all pulling for control at any given time. hell most of the democratic party was on the fence and arguing about legalizing gay marriage less than 15 years ago.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 16, 2020)

omgcat said:


> imagine thinking there is some large democrat conspiracy.


There is.




Notice which one mentions race and which doesn't?
Sure, it's not the theoretical conspiracy that you're talking about, but it's a conspiracy. By the way, the one on the right is Cannon Hinnant.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 16, 2020)

omgcat said:


> imagine thinking there is some large democrat conspiracy. like get 10 liberals in a room and try to get them to agree on ANYTHING. there are huge numbers of varying coalitions in the democratic party that are all pulling for control at any given time. hell most of the democratic party was on the fence and arguing about legalizing gay marriage less than 15 years ago.


Watching some amount of Australian politics I do always find the use of liberals in that way amusing.

Anyway is there particularly likely to be all that much agreement among the "I am very much a Christian but I send money to Israel because I want to see the end of the world in my lifetime", the handful of Reagan was wrong and we need to go earlier, the remaining Reagan was right set, the current Trump loving set, the younger conservative types that wonder what the older types were thinking stopping the gays from being married, and probably the least well served of the left-right dichotomy in the libertarians (usually seen doing personal rights, feds get out of my life, states are good, drugs are a personal choice, personal autonomy and definitely no state prescribed morality, a direct contrast to the "the bible should be a guiding force to the government and laws" types in other sets, never mind the porn discussion for those).

I would say the right wing (again ignoring misgivings with that term) of the US politics probably has a greater dose of pragmatism (how much that matters I don't know -- I don't know how many of the "real communism has never been tried" types will stay at home as a protest vote or whatever given the binary choice, though the centrists/those that do change might not care for the appeasements).
Certainly the scale of beliefs encompassed, often with some amount of popularity (you might find an authoritarian royalist somewhere in the US, would be difficult though, no trouble at all finding a Marxist) for current US left wing stuff does mean I would bet higher on the right wing coming to some form of general consensus but I would not operate under the assumption it is in any way stable.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 16, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> There is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Right-wing media seized on Cannon Hinnant's death to discredit Black Lives Matter and suggest a double standard among mainstream outlets, but his family has said it has "nothing to do with race." "

if the right wing media is outraged about the lack of coverage when this happened, why didn't they cover it themselves? they have full control over what they choose to publish.

The events themselves are different, cannon was killed by a neighbor, not some random woman who chose to attack him. Generally when random attacks happen, you would use descriptor words to talk about the attackers and victims. if a fight or attack between known parties happen, less descriptive terms are used as people know who the attackers are.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 16, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> So are we all in agreement to not vote for the white guy?



Just don't vote for the _old_ white guy.





Lacius said:


> Trump inherited a healthy economy from Obama and did nothing to improve it. In fact, Trump's mishandling of COVID-19 made it worse than it had to be.



Did nothing to improve it? uhhh ... yeah sure. That's why the stock market went through the roof, retail sales growth through the roof, minority unemployment dived to record lows, lowest unemployment rate ever for Americans without a HS diploma, child tax credit was doubled, standard deduction was doubled, real GDP growth every quarter. The US economy in Jan 2020 was a juggernaut.

Then Covid-19.

Now, show me where the US has done drastically worse economically than any other Euro/NA nation.

It's the UK economy that has suffered most. Not even close.
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...ely-to-suffer-worst-covid-19-damage-says-oecd
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52991913

The US economy is doing great, at least comparatively with other nations in this epidemic situation. It's a shitshow for everyone, but things haven't gone especially worse here than elsewhere. You're spreading lies and propaganda if you say it is. Like "The Guardian" and other media outlets did a couple weeks ago when they claimed the American economy had shrunk 32.9% in the 2nd quarter while Germany's only shrank 9%. The thing was, that number was "annualized" for the US numbers, meaning they multiplied actual economic downturn by 4, to simulate what the number would be if this went on for a whole year. Germany's 9% downfall was only for the 2nd quarter alone. If you divided the 32.9% annualized stat they used for the USA to represent only the 2nd quarter downturn, we actually had a lesser decline than Germany. Bullshit artists, who call themselves journalists.

The stock market has jumped back to nearly the level it was at before Covid-19, before the lockdowns, before the riots, before all of it. That's what happens in a robust (not fragile) economy.





No, that's not the only yardstick for measuring the economy, but its the main one. The unemployment situation is another, and needs to improve. But I expect it will not, until the Federal government stops giving all the unemployed an extra $600 a week over regular unemployment benefits to stay unemployed. (Lot easier to take part in riots when you don't have to go to work but still have money coming in.) It was a necessary measure at one point, but get the fuck back to work and go the fuck back to school ya pussies. This is what a virus is, this is what it does, this isn't the first time and it won't be the last. Point being, any truly poor handling of this situation in the US occurred due to local authority, i.e. NY, NJ, and every city that allowed and encouraged people to riot and steal like animals while still expecting law-abiding people to follow their lockdown rules.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 16, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Just don't vote for the _old_ white guy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




stock market != economy, the stock market is doing just fine right now in the middle of historic unemployment. most of the jobs gained during trumps administration were gig-economy jobs and Mal-employment. like working 3 jobs to make a living, so we increase our job count by 3, ignoring the fact that the jobs are shit pay, inconsistent hours, and can disappear at any time. you want to improve the economy? give people back the extended unemployment benefits. people buy things and participated in the economy when they have money. austerity does not, and has not worked. if you don't give aid, people don't have money to spend. when people don't spend, companies slow down and don't hire. when companies don't hire, people can't make money. repeat the cycle until everything melts down. you can break that cycle by having good social safety nets, but one party is dead set on killing safety nets.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 16, 2020)

omgcat said:


> stock market != economy, the stock market is doing just fine right now in the middle of historic unemployment. most of the jobs gained during trumps administration were gig-economy jobs and Mal-employment. like working 3 jobs to make a living, so we increase our job count by 3, ignoring the fact that the jobs are shit pay, inconsistent hours, and can disappear at any time.




Read the whole post, slick. People aren't going back to work for a reason.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 16, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Read the whole post, slick. People aren't going back to work for a reason.



yeah, they don't want to die of a virus, and companies are not hiring anyways.

My friend was in the hospital for 2 weeks with the damn thing and he is 33. His boyfriend was in the hospital for 5 weeks and is 41, and now has chronic lung issues 3 months later. This shit kills people and is not a fucking joke. make sure companies can be held liable for unsafe work environments and maaaybe i would be willing to go back to work. on the other hand i take care of my parents and my dad has diabetes and asthma, so i am not willing to get my father fucking killed cause someone wants to jerk off about the stock market line going up.


----------



## Prior22 (Aug 16, 2020)

BeniBel said:


> Let's hope Trump will win. Often, it doesn't really matter who wins, as little really changes. But for the first time, I truly fear what will will happen to society should Biden win.
> 
> From the moment Trump won in 2016, the democrats have been going more extreme by the day. Society already has come to the point, where making a positive comment about Trump labels you as a racist, and can get you into trouble or fired. That's no longer a democracy. It suprised me how far it even goes. News stationststations twist  newsor makes it up, college professors who manipulate the youth...
> 
> ...



Trump dubbed Covid "kung flu" multiple times.  That sort of comment is guaranteed to generate anti-asian sentiment. This garbage is why Trump is deemed racist, and his supporters are deemed tolerant of racism.

Also in terms of supposed extreme left wing ideology look what would happen if Trump wins another term.  He likely replaces RBG on the supreme court.  This makes it more likely abortion access is severely restricted in certain stated, gay discrimination by businesses is easier to get away with and the ACA is repealed.  

PS:  if someone cares about the environment and votes Green Party come November you're an absolute idiot.  And you can quote me on that.  Between the two key parties it should be crystal clear which one cares about environmental regulations and which one puts profits above pollution prevention.  Phuck anyone who doesn't realize that by now.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 16, 2020)

omgcat said:


> yeah, they don't want to die of a virus, and companies are not hiring anyways.
> 
> My friend was in the hospital for 2 weeks with the damn thing and he is 33. His boyfriend was in the hospital for 5 weeks and is 41, and now has chronic lung issues 3 months later. This shit kills people and is not a fucking joke. make sure companies can be held liable for unsafe work environments and maaaybe i would be willing to go back to work. on the other hand i take care of my parents and my dad has diabetes and asthma, so i am not willing to get my father fucking killed cause someone wants to jerk off about the stock market line going up.




You're willing to let people stock the shelves at your grocery store though.

It kills people, just like novel viruses always have. People with preexisting conditions, advanced age, some genetic vulnerability. It sucks, but it's also what's been going on throughout human history. You don't avoid catching it ... you survive it, or not. Remember that whole thing about "flattening the curve?" That doesn't mean we avoid the virus from spreading and somehow stop it before most people get exposed. It just means stretching out the timeline over which everyone gets exposed, cuz everyone IS going to get exposed. Accept it. You'll sleep better.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Prior22 said:


> Trump dubbed Covid "kung flu" multiple times.  That sort of comment is guaranteed to generate anti-asian sentiment. This garbage is why Trump is deemed racist, and his supporters are deemed tolerant of racism.
> 
> .




Did it not come from Asia, and China specifically? For anyone over 45 years old, that's actually a pretty good play on words because there was a very popular TV show back in the 70's called "Kung Fu," and a hit song called, "Kung Fu Fighting," and of course the golden age of Kung Fu movies.

My wife's Asian, hasn't bothered her at all. She's not stupid, she knows this bug was born out of China and TBH most people in Asia are starting to wonder why all this stuff - bird flu, swine flu, Covid-19, starts in China. Hygiene, overcrowding, unsafe food handling? Whatever it is, they need to correct their shit, stop eating rot, and wash their hands more often.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 16, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Just don't vote for the _old_ white guy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First, the economy in 2020, pre-COVID, was good, but it was inherited from the Obama administration. The rate of job growth did not change between when Trump took office and early 2020.

Second, the economy is awful right now, and Trump is to blame. It's quite literally the only thing about the economy he can take credit for.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 16, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> TBH most people in Asia are starting to wonder why all this stuff - bird flu, swine flu, Covid-19, starts in China. Hygiene, overcrowding, unsafe food handling? Whatever it is, they need to correct their shit, stop eating rot, and wash their hands more often.


I'm pretty sure Winnie the Flu actually was made on purpose. The idea was that China would make a deadly virus and a vaccine within a small window of time to show that they were better than us at medicine.

You can tell what happened next.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 16, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> You're willing to let people stock the shelves at your grocery store though.
> 
> It kills people, just like novel viruses always have. People with preexisting conditions, advanced age, some genetic vulnerability. It sucks, but it's also what's been going on throughout human history. You don't avoid catching it ... you survive it, or not. Remember that whole thing about "flattening the curve?" That doesn't mean we avoid the virus from spreading and somehow stop it before most people get exposed. It just means stretching out the timeline over which everyone gets exposed, cuz everyone IS going to get exposed. Accept it. You'll sleep better.
> 
> ...


The 2009 swine flu epidemic originated in North America.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraSUPRA said:


> I'm pretty sure Winnie the Flu actually was made on purpose. The idea was that China would make a deadly virus and a vaccine within a small window of time to show that they were better than us at medicine.
> 
> You can tell what happened next.


There's no evidence COVID-19 was human-made.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 16, 2020)

Lacius said:


> First, the economy in 2020, pre-COVID, was good, but it was inherited from the Obama administration. The rate of job growth did not change between when Trump took office and early 2020.
> 
> Second, the economy is awful right now, and Trump is to blame. It's quite literally the only thing about the economy he can take credit for.




Someone pointed out to me (which I already acknowledged in the post they were replying to, but didn't read) that the stock market != the economy. Well, same for job growth. Unemployment is being oversubsidized right now - there's no incentive for people to go back to work ... why should they when they're getting regular benefits PLUS an extra 600 dollars a week. That's an extra 24,000 dollars a year, in addition to whatever normal unemployment payments they get (which are probably at least that much).. It pays better than a lot of real jobs. My wife's a fulltime teacher's aide in public schools ... $28k a year. Why would someone getting the equivalent of a $48k a year salary to do nothing go back to work?????





Lacius said:


> The 2009 swine flu epidemic originated in North America.
> 
> .



Oh, yeo you're right. Mexico.

But this is _not_ the first funky flu out of China.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 16, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Someone pointed out to me (which I already acknowledged in the post they were replying to, but didn't read) that the stock market != the economy. Well, same for job growth. Unemployment is being oversubsidized right now - there's no incentive for people to go back to work ... why should they when they're getting regular benefits PLUS an extra 600 dollars a week. That's an extra 24,000 dollars a year, in addition to whatever normal unemployment payments they get (which are probably at least that much).. It pays better than a lot of real jobs. My wife's a fulltime teacher's aide in public schools ... $28k a year. Why would someone getting the equivalent of a $48k a year salary to do nothing go back to work?????
> 
> 
> 
> ...


probably because your wife is being severely underpaid for her work, and she is an idiot for getting grifted like that. should have chosen a higher paying profession like STEM, get a different degree, learn to code.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 16, 2020)

omgcat said:


> probably because your wife is being severely underpaid for her work, and she is an idiot for getting grifted like that. should have chosen a higher paying profession like STEM.




Well, you just painted a nice portrait of yourself.

My wife's a naturalized US citizen from a non-English speaking country. Married me at 30yo even though she never had plans to work/live outside her home country. She speaks very good English though, good enough to be employed as an educator in public schools. I'm proud of her. I'm disgusted and done with you. Good night.


----------



## Prior22 (Aug 16, 2020)

-No Mexican paid for border wall
-No repeal of the ACA (despite having Republican control of the House and Senate for two years)
-The deficit increased at a much higher than normal rate prior to the pandemic
-The longest government shutdown in American history, based on wanting budget approval for a border wall Mexico was supposed to pay for.  Ended shutdown without having that money part of the budget.
-GDP growth no greater than the best Obama years

And yet there's still Trump support.  I guess as long as someone says they're pro life, and wont budge on gun control measures, approval among certain people is guaranteed.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 16, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Well, you just painted a nice portrait of yourself.
> 
> My wife's a naturalized US citizen from a non-English speaking country. Married me at 30yo even though she never had plans to work/live outside her home country. She speaks very good English though, good enough to be employed as an educator in public schools. I'm proud of her. I'm disgusted and done with you. Good night.



hey, i'm just pointing out facts, also I'm not the one saying people should go out and kill themselves to magically resurrect the economy. if you guys are struggling you should have saved more for an emergency, or support unemployment/safety nets.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 16, 2020)

omgcat said:


> hey, i'm just pointing out facts, also I'm not the one saying people should go out and kill themselves to magically resurrect the economy. if you guys are struggling you should have saved more for an emergency, or support unemployment/safety nets.




No you called my wife an idiot for doing what she does. Do you want to know why she took that job?? Our youngest child died in 2007, at 23 months old. He had Rett Syndrome. In his short life he was in and out of the Pediatric ICU multiple times, needed to be resuscitated multiple times, was never able to crawl or walk or even roll over. Seizures, choking, and pain was about all he got out of life. My wife sought out the job with the school system so she could work with special needs kids. With severely impaired kids. I guess it was a catharsis she needed. The pay didn't matter, I'm the breadwinner, I encouraged her to do it if she thought it could help her. 


Going back to work does NOT equate to "go out and kill themselves." That's not even close to realistic. Life is risk, friend.

And, FWIW not struggling, thanks. I've been working the whole time. My wife goes back to work this week with the new school year.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 16, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> No you called my wife an idiot for doing what she does. Do you want to know why she took that job?? Our youngest child died in 2007, at 23 months old. He had Rett Syndrome. In his short life he was in and out of the Pediatric ICU multiple times, needed to be resuscitated multiple times, was never able to crawl or walk or even roll over. Seizures, choking, and pain was about all he got out of life. My wife sought out the job with the school system so she could work with special needs kids. With severely impaired kids. I guess it was a catharsis she needed. The pay didn't matter, I'm the breadwinner, I encouraged her to do it if she thought it could help her.
> 
> 
> Going back to work does NOT equate to "go out and kill themselves." That's not even close to realistic. Life is risk, friend.
> ...



hope she stays safe.


----------



## Viri (Aug 17, 2020)

emigre said:


> Do me a favour and vote for Biden. I'm a patriot and I only want to hear stupid shit for my own government. Thanks.


Nope, I live in a swing state, so my vote actually matters.



Lacius said:


> I'm telling you that, according to general election polling, Biden does better against Trump than Sanders, but Sanders also beats Trump in a hypothetical matchup. Democratic Party voters also prefer Biden over Sanders, but that can be due in part to the aforementioned polling that shows Biden does better against Trump among the general electorate. In other words, some Democratic primary voters who are most closely in alignment with Sanders/Warren voted for Biden because they want to maximize the chances of defeating Trump.


So, people Democrat voters want Bernie's policies, but also wanted to vote for a moderate?


----------



## Lacius (Aug 17, 2020)

Viri said:


> Nope, I live in a swing state, so my vote actually matters.
> 
> 
> So, people Democrat voters want Bernie's policies, but also wanted to vote for a moderate?


I'm saying some progressive voters voted for the more moderate candidate on the basis of electability, yes. That's not to say a majority  of progressives did that, and that's not to say a majority of Democratic Primary voters are progressive.


----------



## Skelletonike (Aug 17, 2020)

Trump is fun.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 17, 2020)

Skelletonike said:


> Trump is fun.


From the outside looking in, I'm sure watching the fall of an empire in real-time is quite fun.  COVID-19 really did have the worst possible timing for those of us wanting to keep escape from this hillbilly hellhole open as a backup plan, though.


----------



## notimp (Aug 17, 2020)

That kind of fun. 



> USPS crisis: Pelosi recalls House early to fight postal service election 'sabotage' Speaker says urgent bill to halt postal cuts will be put to House to combat Trump’s ‘threat’ to democracy


src: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ecalls-house-early-to-fight-election-sabotage


----------



## notimp (Aug 17, 2020)

Oh and if you want a neat conspiracy theory around it, look at who is directing Pelosi's moves in the background..

https://www.project-syndicate.org/c...nter-trump-demagoguery-by-eric-posner-2020-08
Eric Posner, who also publishes on Project Syndicate!

Which is financed by....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Syndicate

Oh no!



(Disclaimer: This is me joking entirely, I think I myself have invented this strategy about two and a half years ago for this forum.  )


----------



## scroeffie1984 (Aug 17, 2020)

#SAVETHEKIDS


----------



## IncredulousP (Aug 17, 2020)

Writing in Bernie.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 17, 2020)

IncredulousP said:


> Writing in Bernie.


Bernie Sanders endorsed Joe Biden.


----------



## IncredulousP (Aug 17, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Bernie Sanders endorsed Joe Biden.


Joe is too conservative for me personally.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 17, 2020)

IncredulousP said:


> Joe is too conservative for me personally.


I'd prefer Sanders over Biden, but I also prefer Biden over Trump. Writing in Sanders (or anybody else) means you don't care who wins between Biden and Trump.


----------



## IncredulousP (Aug 17, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I'd prefer Sanders over Biden, but I also prefer Biden over Trump. Writing in Sanders (or anybody else) means you don't care who wins between Biden and Trump.


True. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but if they wanted my vote to count then they shouldn't have axed Bernie.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 17, 2020)

IncredulousP said:


> True. I'm open to being convinced otherwise


To quote a post you recently liked:


Lacius said:


> We're not just voting for Joe Biden. We're voting for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's replacement.


That should be enough for any progressive voter to vote for Biden.



IncredulousP said:


> but if they wanted my vote to count then they shouldn't have axed Bernie.


Who are "they"? Because Biden earned the Democratic nomination because he won a majority of votes from Democratic Primary voters, not because Sanders was "axed."

If your goal is to punish anybody who didn't vote for Sanders in the Democratic Primary by personally not voting for Biden in the general election, then you have to be okay with taking down a lot of innocent people who are going to suffer under another four years of the Trump administration, including many who voted for Sanders in the primary.

Imagine for a second that everyone in the Democratic Party behaved this way. Imagine a world where Sanders won the Democratic Primary, but Biden supports refused to vote for Sanders in the general election, causing Trump to beat Sanders in the general election. That would be pretty dickish.


----------



## IncredulousP (Aug 17, 2020)

Lacius said:


> To quote a post you recently liked:
> 
> That should be enough for any progressive voter to vote for Biden.
> 
> ...


Good points, that is pretty dickish. I'll consider it.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 17, 2020)

I see that after the BLM riots, you guys have went back to voting for a white racist and a cop.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 17, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I see that after the BLM riots, you guys have went back to voting for a white racist and a cop.


Biden isn't a white supremacist. Harris isn't a cop.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 17, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Biden isn't a white supremacist.


What was that thing he said about the poor kids?


Lacius said:


> Harris isn't a cop.


_Former_ cop.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 17, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> What was that thing he said about the poor kids?


_“We should challenge students in these schools. We have this notion that somehow if you’re poor, you cannot do it. Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids, wealthy kids, black kids, Asian kids — no I really mean it, but think how we think about it.”_

Clearly, he was trying to recover from the gaffe of replacing "wealthy kids" with "white kids" in his speech. Given this and his record on civil rights, the claim that Biden is a white supremacist is absurd. If you want to talk about actual white supremacy, we can talk about Trump's policies.



UltraSUPRA said:


> _Former_ cop.


Before she was a U.S. Senator, Kamala Harris was a District Attorney of San Francisco and an Attorney General of California. If you want to call those things "cops," cool.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 17, 2020)

Lacius said:


> If you want to talk about actual white supremacy, we can talk about Trump's policies.


Trump isn't white.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 17, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Trump isn't white.


Unless you're making a joke about his orange skin color, Trump is indeed white.

His race also doesn't matter with regard to his racist policies.


----------



## CORE (Aug 17, 2020)

If you dont vote Biden your not Black.

I like kids bouncing on my lap and rubbing my hairy legs.

No Dates till 30 let me sniff you and have a quick grope.

Joe is awesome


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 17, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Unless you're making a joke about his orange skin color, Trump is indeed white.


Race is determined by skin color. Unless he had something like a massive sunburn when he was young and still hasn't recovered, he's not white.


Lacius said:


> His race also doesn't matter with regard to his racist policies.


So you can be racist regardless of race?


----------



## leon315 (Aug 17, 2020)

BeastMode6 said:


> Neither. They both suck, like usual.


How about Kanye west? xD


----------



## Lacius (Aug 17, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Race is determined by skin color. Unless he had something like a massive sunburn when he was young and still hasn't recovered, he's not white.


All of the bronzer in the world won't change Trump's race. He's white. Orange is not a race. He's of German and Scottish descent.



UltraSUPRA said:


> So you can be racist regardless of race?


Yep.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 17, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Biden isn't a white supremacist. Harris isn't a cop.




Harris was a Prosecuting Attorney, which is the chief law enforcement officer in a legal jurisdiction. Not just a cop, but in charge of all cops.


Biden. no not a white supremacist. More like a white opportunist, who knows how his bread gets buttered, but lets his real opinion slide on occasion:

“poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.”

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man." (about Obama)

"you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking."

“I want you to know that I very much appreciate your help during this week’s Committee meeting in attempting to bring my anti-busing legislation to a vote.”

*

"Don't underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up." - Pres. Barack H. Obama*


----------



## Lacius (Aug 17, 2020)

leon315 said:


> How about Kanye west? xD


You mean the Kanye West campaign that's being propped up by Trump operatives?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 17, 2020)

Lacius said:


> All of the bronzer in the world won't change Trump's race. He's white. Orange is not a race. He's of German and Scottish descent.


I come from Indian descent, but I'm still white.


Lacius said:


> Yep.


So black people can be racist.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 17, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I come from Indian descent, but I'm still white.


I'm not arguing you aren't white. I'm arguing that orange is not a race.



UltraSUPRA said:


> So black people can be racist.


Yep.


----------



## CORE (Aug 17, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I come from Indian descent, but I'm still white.
> 
> So black people can be racist.



Dont disagree your being racist and fascist and bigot and racist and fasscist and bigot and racist and fascist and bigot and...


----------



## Lacius (Aug 17, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Harris was a Prosecuting Attorney, which is the chief law enforcement officer in a legal jurisdiction. Not just a cop, but in charge of all cops.
> 
> 
> Biden. no not a white supremacist. More like a white opportunist, who knows how his bread gets buttered, but lets his real opinion slide on occasion:
> ...


I'm not particularly interested in rehashing gaffes from gaffe-prone Biden. Also, you might want to include the full quotes.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 17, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I'm not particularly interested in rehashing gaffes from gaffe-prone Biden. .




I'm sure you're not LOL.

How 'bout the one today, where he said he has 5 grandchildren. He has 7. 

Did you know he had to repeat third grade?


----------



## Lacius (Aug 17, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> I'm sure you're not LOL.
> 
> How 'bout the one today, where he said he has 5 grandchildren. He has 7.
> 
> Did you know he had to repeat third grade?


Why should anybody care if someone had to repeat the third grade?


----------



## leon315 (Aug 17, 2020)

Lacius said:


> You mean the Kanye West campaign that's being propped up by Trump operatives?


DUNNO, HE races with or against Orange man?


----------



## nero99 (Aug 17, 2020)

If you vote for Biden, you support pedophilia and wish it to be legal!


----------



## Lacius (Aug 17, 2020)

leon315 said:


> DUNNO, HE races with or against Orange man?


The purpose of Kanye's campaign is to pull a small number of swing state votes from people who would have otherwise voted for Biden.



nero99 said:


> If you vote for Biden, you support pedophilia and wish it to be legal!


There is no evidence to support this.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 17, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Why should anybody care if someone had to repeat the third grade?



I'm sure you'd have no interest in that little factoid at all if it were about Trump.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 17, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The purpose of Kanye's campaign is to pull a small number of swing state votes from people who would have otherwise voted for Biden.




There is no evidence to support this.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 17, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> I'm sure you'd have no interest in that little factoid at all if it were about Trump.


That's correct.



Hanafuda said:


> There is no evidence to support this.


Yes, there is.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/202...to-kanye-wests-campaign-have-ties-to-gop.html
https://www.wisn.com/article/kanye-...tures-to-get-him-on-wisconsin-ballot/33515419
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/04/us/politics/kanye-west-president-republicans.html
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news...ing-hand-gop-get-wisconsin-ballot/3296285001/
"The strategy became overt on Tuesday, when Lane Ruhland, a lawyer who has worked for the Trump campaign, delivered ballot signatures to Wisconsin elections officials on behalf of the West campaign."

Kanye also "expressed comfort with the idea of doing damage to the former vice president’s White House chances. 'I’m not denying it; I just told you.'"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/randal...s-indeed-designed-to-hurt-biden/#12e23fd76397


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 18, 2020)

Lacius said:


> That's correct.
> 
> 
> Yes, there is.
> ...




That's mostly speculation, like what happened when Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch on the airport tarmac. There's less evidence there than there is evidence that Biden likes little girls. There are (lots of) actual videos for that.


----------



## Knight of Time (Aug 18, 2020)

Even though I'm Canadian, I am hoping Donald Trump _doesn't _ get re-elected; I have virtually no tolerance for him (I also cannot stand his huge ego).  I just hope his successor (hopefully Joe Biden) will clean up the huge mess he made, as I think Trump has gone too far, especially after he put tariffs on Canadian aluminum (I wasn't happy at all when he did that; it's like he backstabbed Canada).


----------



## Lacius (Aug 18, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> That's mostly speculation, like what happened when Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch on the airport tarmac. There's less evidence there than there is evidence that Biden likes little girls. There are (lots of) actual videos for that.


It's not speculation that the Republicans are using Kanye in the hope of sabotaging Biden. We have evidence.

There is no evidence that Biden "likes little girls" in the way you're suggesting.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 18, 2020)

Knight of Time said:


> especially after he put tariffs on Canadian aluminum (I wasn't happy at all when he did that; it's like he backstabbed Canada).


While I am usually dubious of tariffs (the world tends to do better when free trade is where it is at) do you want to elaborate upon that one. I would tend to reserve phrases like backstabbed in these sorts of things for when someone promised to purchase so much and then went and did the opposite. That said I did miss that one (was probably paying too much attention to Australian Aluminium) so going to have to go look things up here.



Lacius said:


> It's not speculation that the Republicans are using Kanye in the hope of sabotaging Biden. We have evidence.



If the great hope of the nation can't handle a plot lost rapper then... yeah.

Anyway electioneering strategies always amuse me so play on.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 19, 2020)

kanye's campaign is up in smoke anyways since they forged signatures, including Micky mouse and Bernie sanders. he might get away with it since he is a billionaire, but the courts aren't to kind to black men having a manic fit.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 19, 2020)

omgcat said:


> kanye's campaign is up in smoke anyways since they forged signatures, including Micky mouse and Bernie sanders. he might get away with it since he is a billionaire, but the courts aren't to kind to black men having a manic fit.


Presidential nominees using forged votes to get an advantage...where have I heard _that_ one before?


----------



## wonkeytonk (Aug 19, 2020)

In 2016, the gbatemp poll predicted trump. It's official. GBAtemp is the most reliable poll there is.

But seriously, who the hell trusts polls anymore


----------



## TheCasualties (Aug 19, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Presidential nominees using forged votes to get an advantage...where have I heard _that_ one before?


So they remove voters if they didn't vote in the previous election? What kind of crap is that? Shoudn't they actually check if the person is alive instead of assume they are dead and call it a fake vote? 

Sorry, but pretty much everything you've said in this thread seems like a joke made by my 15 yo cousin who's addicted to fortnite and twitter.


----------



## notimp (Aug 19, 2020)

Easy version of the US voting and governing system - you dont have a central body for most governmental decisions.

Meaning, you have a few dozen different voting systems (the 'how to set up' part), and ways you decided to tackle COVID-19 (f.e.).

This means, that the US is very "free", but that also means, that you can have idiots up until the top at quite a few places, because no one especially cares, if that system breaks, since its mostly local anyhow.

For the "political argument" in here this means, that most people posting opinions based on feels act especially stupid, because - whats true for you isnt true for the next guy over. Not just by feels, but literally.

So its the ideal environment to strew doubt and distrust in. As Trump you just vaguely scatter doubt and fear ("there is a danger looming") and everyone fills in different blanks on their own, then goes on the internet and tells others that they themselves are right.

The instances, that actually factor in different systems in different states in the US (MIT f.e.), are telling us there is no higher voting fraud potential if this year voting by mail increases.

And we know, that structurally Trump, likely, is going to use the argument to force cutting off counting votes earlier - because the more mail in ballots get counted, the lower his numbers get (statistically, roughly - republicans believe). For this there needs to be a "public story" of "mail vote could be fraudulent, so we dont want too much of it - especially not, if Trump already declared himself a second time winner."
-

Advanced simple class:

Yes US is stupidly free (also means, that there will be many different approaches to a thing, and then you can pitch them against each other for a winner - meaning, very compatible with the economic system), but there needs to be a corrective, a "hand" that can make things right. In most countries its government actually governing through institutions. ("Making good decisions 'for our country'".)

In the US - at least according to Chomsky (again, I watched many of his talks lately), its a country backed guarantee of creating demand in important branches.

See f.e.:

(He actually named those branches, individually in the past citing examples, but I didnt note down that source and forgot. His point there basically is 'no one would vote for giving all those subsidies to industry knowingly - so this part is something you dont vote on, you just dont tell people, that it is a thing (IT sector coming out of years of public sector funding, military industrialized complex being publically funded, how the financial crisis of 2008 was handled... I'd have to find his full list and examples.. There are quite a few.  )

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



wonkeytonk said:


> But seriously, who the hell trusts polls anymore


Politicians.

To rule the governed..  Or not. 

For the respective ideologies, watch Adam Curtis' _The Power of Nightmares and All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace
_
Short version: Modern politics if not 'ideology driven' (f.e.: populist), is mostly run by polling. The idea is, that you keep yourself an opinion research industry at hand, throughout the year, and you poll public opinion all throughout the year - that you pick popular topics from to say or do something about...  (And also what ('Should I be for or against a thing?').

"Power of nightmares" concept you basically use in recession/depression years, where you cant do much, but have to distract.  Populism, also falls in the same category.

Roughly.

Polling works. If you want to find out the opinion of 'masses'.

Polling doesnt work in cases people dont tell the truth ('i.e. for some reason not saying into a TV camera that you are planning to vote for Trump), or in cases where there are big sudden shifts in mass opinion. But there hardly are.


Polling also doesnt work if you are millennial on a forum wanting to know 'whats best', because you arent taking into account popular being unrelated to best, biases, poll size, ... pollsters do take those things into account, so their 'finger on the pulse' is more reliable.

Their predictions maybe arent, but predictions are hard (you dont know all factors).

Polling very much is an active part of "what do my voters think/what should I say".

edit: Also polling got less accurate the last few years as societies segmented more - but people work on better sampling to combat that. See f.e.:

On the other hand, there IS also a rise in populism.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 19, 2020)

wonkeytonk said:


> In 2016, the gbatemp poll predicted trump. It's official. GBAtemp is the most reliable poll there is.
> 
> But seriously, who the hell trusts polls anymore


Without digging deep into sampling methods, how well they bias things (see the "I am not going to cop to voting conservative" problem) and how well it fits to recent past data (fortunately the US seems to have an election every other week) before ploughing that into the relevant grounds for the system in place then no, with all that then yeah polls can tell you things.

Not really a voting poll, and you can always get more granular*, but if you want a start down the interesting stats and modelling approaches path then
https://hiddentribes.us/about
It serves as a nice jumping off point. More fun than the usual left-right-swing, tempered by how the electoral college works to reduce it to those that matter and maybe a few others if it is not an all or nothing state, and maybe account for those that like politicians but can't be arsed to go vote when the time comes (so young people to varying degrees).

* https://web.archive.org/web/2018080...ns/2016-elections/the-five-types-trump-voters for example.

As mentioned above then yeah politicos do look at them as well and plan/act accordingly. How rational/reflective of actual reality these actions might be varies somewhat. Or if you prefer go look up a political pollster salary and requirements. Get attached to a decent pac or serious bid/region that matters to a serious candidate and that number goes way north.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 19, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Presidential nominees using forged votes to get an advantage...where have I heard _that_ one before?



Forged signatures are different from forged votes.
Forged votes are different from alleged ineligible registrants.


----------



## notimp (Aug 19, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Forged signatures are different from forged votes.
> 
> Forged votes are different from alleged ineligible registrants.


Main point being, that to forge signatures is extremely inefficient. To forge elegible registrants, and then having to 'vote as them' (f.e. with a forged ID, or them having proven to live at one place), is extremely inefficient.

So inefficient, that if you want to manipulate the outcome of an election, you would ignore those options.

Its easier to jigger with other part is the system (ballot stuffing (thats the same logic as 'manipulating voting machines'), manipulating with how and when a winner gets announced (having 'your' TV station announce you as a winner), manipulating the electorate (attack ads, false advertising, FUD, ...).

Doesnt mean that in certain states most of the black people are missing from the voter registries, or there are a high percentage of dead people still listed. BUT.

Black people (f.e.) that dont vote, know that they dont vote. So the argument for where its unfair there is 'behavioral'. ("People are stupid, give them a chance, make it easier for them...")

Dead people that are still in the voter registry dont vote. (Or get mail delivered 'to their name' at the same living address where they formally lived, that you could easily pool for ballot stuffing.)
(edit: Unless you keep lists of your dead people still listed, and then do ballot stuffing, which is masked by there being more dead people in your lists, so 'more votes' wouldnt stand out (but if you 'add votes' couldnt you also throw away a bunch?). But that leaves out the main question: How do you achieve the ballot stuffing? (Thats the hard part.))

So those 'vectors of attack' are weak. Hence no high manipulation risk.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 19, 2020)

wonkeytonk said:


> In 2016, the gbatemp poll predicted trump. It's official. GBAtemp is the most reliable poll there is.
> 
> But seriously, who the hell trusts polls anymore


*Nobody should use the GBATemp poll as an indicator of who is going to win the 2020 election in the United States.*

That being said, if one were to attempt to do that, it should be noted that GBATemp was off by 9.9 points with regard to the 2016 popular vote (GBATemp went for Trump by 7.8 points, and Clinton won by 2.1 points). As of this post, Tempers prefer Biden by 1.4 points. If we add 9.9 points to that, then we should expect Biden to win the 2020 popular vote by 11.3 points. For context, the RealClearPolitics average right now is +7.6 for Biden, and the FiveThirtyEight aggregate right now is +8.4 for Biden.

You be the judge.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 19, 2020)

Lacius said:


> *Nobody should use the GBATemp poll as an indicator of who is going to win the 2020 election in the United States.*


You really seem to be less than keen on sarcasm, silliness, exaggeration, hyperbole and jokes for this topic.

That said I already went on what polls are useful for.

Mind you with poll results like that it, though I may have to pull myself up there for not recognising sarcasm, does rather put some kind of paid to the notion behind the "why are so many gamers liberals in gaming" threads that were all the rage a little while back.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 19, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> You really seem to be less than keen on sarcasm, silliness, exaggeration, hyperbole and jokes for this topic.
> 
> That said I already went on what polls are useful for.
> 
> Mind you with poll results like that it, though I may have to pull myself up there for not recognising sarcasm, does rather put some kind of paid to the notion behind the "why are so many gamers liberals in gaming" threads that were all the rage a little while back.


I typed the bolded part of my post after I typed the rest of it.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 20, 2020)

Lacius said:


> *Nobody should use the GBATemp poll as an indicator of who is going to win the 2020 election in the United States.*
> 
> That being said, if one were to attempt to do that, it should be noted that GBATemp was off by 9.9 points with regard to the 2016 popular vote (GBATemp went for Trump by 7.8 points, and Clinton won by 2.1 points). As of this post, Tempers prefer Biden by 1.4 points. If we add 9.9 points to that, then we should expect Biden to win the 2020 popular vote by 11.3 points. For context, the RealClearPolitics average right now is +7.6 for Biden, and the FiveThirtyEight aggregate right now is +8.4 for Biden.
> 
> You be the judge.




I agree. GBATemp doesn't emulate the electoral college, just a popular tally. And popular vote is meaningless in the Presidential election.

Also just my hunch but I expect GBATemp is also overwhelmingly young vs. the total population, while in the real world older persons tend to vote at a higher rate than young. I'm one of the oldest people still semi-active here afaik, and I'm 53. But there are millions out there decades older than me who vote.




Lacius said:


> As of this post, Tempers prefer Biden by 1.4 points.



I went ahead and fixed that. 50-50 again. I wasn't even going to pick one, but what the hell, more interesting that way.


----------



## x65943 (Aug 20, 2020)

I am extremely disappointed by the lack of Jo Jorgensen voters

JoJo GoGo - also it rhymes with Ho-Oh


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 20, 2020)

x65943 said:


> I am extremely disappointed by the lack of Jo Jorgensen voters
> 
> JoJo GoGo - also it rhymes with Ho-Oh


----------



## x65943 (Aug 20, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


>


TBH this year I think you could use that meme on both major party candidates as well


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 20, 2020)

x65943 said:


> TBH this year I think you could use that meme on both major party candidates as well



Just my opinion, but that's true of every election that's taken place in my lifetime, actually. Last really decent Democrat JFK, last really decent Republican Eisenhower. I'm not saying they were _perfect, _mind you ... just decent and relatively earnest/sincere, as candidates and citizens.


----------



## x65943 (Aug 20, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Just my opinion, but that's true of every election that's taken place in my lifetime, actually. Last really decent Democrat JFK, last really decent Republican Eisenhower. I'm not saying they were _perfect, _mind you ... just decent and relatively earnest/sincere, as candidates and citizens.


I would rather be choosing between Romney and Obama right now


----------



## Xzi (Aug 20, 2020)

x65943 said:


> I would rather be choosing between Romney and Obama right now


Obama already had his two terms though, and was quite a bit more centrist than advertised.  Realistically we could've been staring down an election of Romney (incumbent) vs Sanders right now, and people on both sides would be able to have enthusiasm for their chosen candidate without any of the shame/guilt to accompany it.  

Hell, I would've even voted Romney myself in 2016 if it was Hillary against him.


----------



## IncredulousP (Aug 20, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Hell, I would've even voted Romney myself in 2016 if it was Hillary against him.


Could you enlighten me on the negatives of Hillary?


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 20, 2020)

IncredulousP said:


> Could you enlighten me on the negatives of Hillary?


It is a thing I often wondered about.
I took a look and saw bog standard and utterly unremarkable career politician. Would probably have made for the same in a presidency as well (interesting times we live in so would rather have had a good one but eh, not to mention the potency of the presidential office is debatable).

However the dislike seemed to be both fairly deep rooted and coming from both sides of the aisle and more besides so I went further. Still got back nothing that normally bothers people, or are easily overlooked, in these sorts of discussions.

Being around the block a bit she towed the party line on various would be "progressive" issues, which is to say dragged her feet when it comes to allowing the gays to marry back in the 90s. I would note she is apparently life long and not just for the cameras god squad, methodist in this case and while they are probably the most welcoming of the major sects that does not mean accepting (especially not back in the day).
Likewise she is hardly going to ever be held up as a great proponent of free speech either. Most of that is her opposition to the Citizens United ruling and that in turn becomes a debate. The background though is a film critical of her was financed by a group noted as being in opposition to her and financed accordingly, she attempted to get it shut down by dint of its finance and the courts said "yeah, not doing that and chucked out a law in the process". If that is to be her position then a bit hypocritical at times as well, or see Clinton foundation. Not to mention "too much money in politics" is hardly a hard to sell notion to most normal people, especially not the US left wing, and the right wing is not exactly unconcerned about "undue" influence either... maybe the swing voting centrists are free speech purists.

She is something of a power player. Her camp's treatment of the DNC (others playing along the thing that picks the democratic nominee for president, among other things) to get the nomination was perhaps not the most fair, however I rarely see minor political hardball get people that disliked, and for the most part she did get it.

Her email server thing. She had a private email server which she used to conduct government/public office business, it got hacked and things got deleted rather than archived for posterity. Far from ideal, and cause to investigate and possibly get slapped, but techno clutz in a politico and backchannel comms have rarely bothered people. FBI and state department both said yeah not ideal but have no evidence of mishandling, albeit some of those results only came down in fairly recent times.

Some seemed to take issue with her work as a defence lawyer back in the day. In doing so she represented some fairly reprehensible people. That was it. No claims of misleading courts, professional misconduct or the like, just the whole being a zealous advocate for their client thing that lawyers are, you know, professionally bound to do. Granted I have never had a particular issue with the "how do you defend a guilty person?" thing for lawyering any more than a doctor might have to sew someone back up they dislike, or a train driver gets to transport someone they dislike, but I do recognise it is something some everyday folks have an issue with.

The Benghazi embassy incident. Anyway after Libya went off the rails in 2011 then in 2012 some terrorists attacked the embassy there and ultimately killed the ambassador, and then also attacked a CIA outpost nearby. Later it was found that the places in question had asked for extra security. She was the politico ultimately in charge of the department (secretary of state, the state department then being what does foreign affairs) when it went down so yeah buck stops with her, however any number of investigations in the years since (including by those helmed by the other party, though I will generally note politicians do stick together) have seemingly cleared her of wrongdoing. Likewise yeah the buck stops with a CEO in a company but in say a tech company you would look to failings within research and development, quality control and all the rest as well when a company falls over while also coming for the big boss' scalp.

Several of those major failings as a person and would not be my friend. Never met or seen a politician I would piss on if they were on fire but at the same time I can't get to the point of active dislike, much less to the level some seem to exhibit, in this case.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Aug 20, 2020)

Independent voters are handing their vote to Trump or Biden whether they like it or not, and it goes to whichever of the two they dislike the most. NONE of the independents stand any chance of winning whatsoever. So if you don't want Trump to win you should be voting for Biden and vice versa. Voting independent is a complete waste of a vote. May as well not vote at all because it has the same effect. I'd be interested to know where the 32 (thus far) votes on this poll would go if there were only the two options.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 20, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Independent voters are handing their vote to Trump or Biden whether they like it or not, and it goes to whichever of the two they dislike the most. NONE of the independents stand any chance of winning whatsoever. So if you don't want Trump to win you should be voting for Biden and vice versa. Voting independent is a complete waste of a vote. May as well not vote at all because it has the same effect. I'd be interested to know where the 32 (thus far) votes on this poll would go if there were only the two options.


There is an argument that in doing so they either have a protest vote (more so than spoiling or not voting), or are indicating where they would like the policies to head as a general concept (if you notice a decent chunk say vote libertarian rather than yours and you happen to be going down another path it might either see a shift in direction to try to keep them on side). 

That said throwing away is not entirely invalid either, mind you if it is a single vote does it matter?


----------



## x65943 (Aug 20, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Independent voters are handing their vote to Trump or Biden whether they like it or not, and it goes to whichever of the two they dislike the most. NONE of the independents stand any chance of winning whatsoever. So if you don't want Trump to win you should be voting for Biden and vice versa. Voting independent is a complete waste of a vote. May as well not vote at all because it has the same effect. I'd be interested to know where the 32 (thus far) votes on this poll would go if there were only the two options.


Nah it's not true, you also have to take into account the electoral college and the fact that Trump will win my state no matter what I do.

Throwing my vote onto either pile is like trying to drain the ocean one spoonful at a time.

So in light of the fact my state's votes go to Trump no matter what - I think I am making more difference trying to get my preferred 3rd party candidate to 5% so he can get federal election budget backing next cycle.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 20, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Hell, I would've even voted Romney myself in 2016 if it was Hillary against him.




I would've voted for Cthulhu given those choices, but I appreciate the candor, Xzi.


----------



## ieatpixels (Aug 20, 2020)

That's interesting to see it's actually close.
To me it seems Trump has a better grip over what he's doing, and the Biden campaign focuses a lot on identity politics which I've never been a fan of.


----------



## Rj.MoG (Aug 20, 2020)

ieatpixels said:


> That's interesting to see it's actually close.
> To me it seems Trump has a better grip over what he's doing, and the Biden campaign focuses a lot on identity politics which I've never been a fan of.


A better grip on the 12 boxes of sudafed he keeps in his desk

because he's a functional addict


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 20, 2020)

To be fair, rank choice voting is becoming more popular. Maybe some people are voting their 1st picks.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 21, 2020)

IncredulousP said:


> Could you enlighten me on the negatives of Hillary?


In the hypothetical case of Romney vs Hillary, it's not so much that I hold any grudges against her in particular, but more that they're both corporate-funded, center-right politicians.  So it comes down to a couple factors that give Romney the slight edge: I hate the idea of political family dynasties, and I view him as more "decent" in the sense that Hillary's campaign was vicious to both Obama and Sanders in the primaries.  She also comes off as less genuine and more power-hungry in front of the camera.

Pretty much the same reasons I would've voted McCain over Hillary in 2008, but assuming he still would've picked Palin for VP, that would've edged me back into Clinton's camp.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 21, 2020)

IncredulousP said:


> Could you enlighten me on the negatives of Hillary?


She's a murderer who stole multiple documents from top-secret government computers. She's also a communist.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 21, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> She's a murderer who stole multiple documents from top-secret government computers. She's also a communist.


Yes yes, your uncle works at Nintendo and your dad rides unicorns through the valley of elves.  Back to your land of make-believe now, the adults are having a discussion.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 21, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Yes yes, your uncle works at Nintendo and your dad rides unicorns through the valley of elves.  Back to your land of make-believe now, the adults are having a discussion.


Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 21, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Jeffrey Epstein didn't kill himself.


Well that much is true, the person overseeing the federal prison he was staying at (Bill Barr) allowed him to be murdered at the behest of his master (Donald Trump) so that he couldn't testify against the current president and multiple other obscenely wealthy/powerful individuals.

Still wildly off-topic though.


----------



## Retinal_FAILURE (Aug 21, 2020)

What about Kanye West? Mr. West, Mr. West all by himself, he's so impressed.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 21, 2020)

Retinal_FAILURE said:


> What about Kanye West? Mr. West, Mr. West all by himself, he's so impressed.


I'm surprised the libtards haven't been flocking to him. I mean, they think black people matter more than anyone else.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 21, 2020)

Xzi said:


> So it comes down to a couple factors that give Romney the slight edge: I hate the idea of political family dynasties, and I view him as more "decent" in the sense that Hillary's campaign was vicious to both Obama and Sanders in the primaries.  She also comes off as less genuine and more power-hungry in front of the camera.
> 
> Pretty much the same reasons I would've voted McCain over Hillary in 2008, but assuming he still would've picked Palin for VP, that would've edged me back into Clinton's camp.


I guess the Supreme Court is irrelevant now.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 21, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I guess the Supreme Court is irrelevant now.


Not irrelevant, but between Romney and Hillary, I'd expect either of them to pick from basically the same pool of centrists/constitutional traditionalists.  Obviously a very different situation when you've got someone like Trump teetering on the edge of far-right authoritarianism and just straight-up fascism.


----------



## PityOnU (Aug 21, 2020)

Looking for intelligent political discussion on an internet forum is like diving down a toilet bowl and expecting to come up with a Mars bar, but this is my $0.02 on this election here in the USA:

The education and healthcare system in the United States have become incredibly expensive, unfair, and broken to the point where they have become a massive financial liability for the majority of the population. You can combine this with skyrocketing housing prices in most major metropolitan areas (the places with the most jobs) and constant exposure to increasingly personalized echo chambers created on the majority of social media platforms out there today (to promote user engagement and ad revenue). 

What you end up with is an extremely polarized population that is generally pissed off with the world (hard to be satisfyingly angry with massive faceless corporate entities), feels as though they have been generally wronged, and sees very little hope in their future prospects matching what previous generations had taught them to expect w.r.t. financial stability.

At this point, the most stereotypical examples of the liberal/conservative parties look like:

Conservative - "Other groups of people have gotten better treatment than me by exploiting the system or having things handed to them! I have suffered, so they should suffer, too! We need someone who will hurt them so that we can level the playing field!"

Liberal - "Some groups of people have gotten better treatment than others because the majority mindset is bias against them! We should blame the majority for oppressing the others and punish ourselves so we know what it is like to suffer, levelling the playing field!"

And because most people are pissed off and scared, this is how it goes.

Everyone seems to be missing the point that our goal should be that no one should suffer. Have you experienced shittyness in your life? Feel wronged? Like the world is leaving you behind? Like you are powerless and have no say? Fix it! But not by dragging others down - but by lifting us all up. That's how you actually become the greatest country in the world.


----------



## IncredulousP (Aug 21, 2020)

PityOnU said:


> Looking for intelligent political discussion on an internet forum is like diving down a toilet bowl and expecting to come up with a Mars bar, but this is my $0.02 on this election here in the USA:
> 
> The education and healthcare system in the United States have become incredibly expensive, unfair, and broken to the point where they have become a massive financial liability for the majority of the population. You can combine this with skyrocketing housing prices in most major metropolitan areas (the places with the most jobs) and constant exposure to increasingly personalized echo chambers created on the majority of social media platforms out there today (to promote user engagement and ad revenue).
> 
> ...


You left out that most of the broken parts of the system were from decades of Republican policies tearing the infrastructure down bit by bit while boosting the wealth inequality. But sure, enlightened centrism seems like a comfy way of escaping having to pick a side.



> our goal should be that no one should suffer. Have you experienced shittyness in your life? Feel wronged? Like the world is leaving you behind? Like you are powerless and have no say? Fix it! But not by dragging others down - but by lifting us all up. That's how you actually become the greatest country in the world.


This is the liberal platform. You're only as happy as your neighbors. We're all in this together. We should lift everyone up, not drag classes down for our own benefit.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 21, 2020)




----------



## Seliph (Aug 21, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> She's also a communist.


No.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 21, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


>


----------



## Lacius (Aug 21, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Not irrelevant, but between Romney and Hillary, I'd expect either of them to pick from basically the same pool of centrists/constitutional traditionalists.


I don't agree they would have picked from "basically the same pool." Hillary and Obama, yeah, but not Hillary and Romney.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 21, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


>


Probably photoshopped.  Would be funny if it wasn't, though.

In a recent poll I think something like 58% of Biden supporters said they're more enthusiastic about voting against Trump than they are about voting for Biden.  Whatever gets the job done.  Similarly, 2016's results were more anti-Hillary than they were pro-Trump.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 21, 2020)

Xzi said:


> *Probably photoshopped.  Would be funny if it wasn't, though.*
> 
> In a recent poll I think something like 58% of Biden supporters said they're more enthusiastic about voting against Trump than they are about voting for Biden.  Whatever gets the job done.  Similarly, 2016's results were more anti-Hillary than they were pro-Trump.



Considered that possibility, so I checked it out. Just capped this myself, same three dupes are there.


https://www.youtube.    com/watch?v=Z_2d4EqBNcU





While we're on the subject of the DNC "Convention", I just love how her eyes do the "I've taken waaaaaaaaay too many drugs this year" roll back into her skull for a second after she talks about saving "our values."


----------



## Xzi (Aug 21, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Considered that possibility, so I checked it out. Just capped this myself, same three dupes are there.
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.    com/watch?v=Z_2d4EqBNcU
> View attachment 222273


Lol, I wonder if it was supposed to transition to streams of other people or something and it just glitched out.  Hilarious either way.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 21, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Lol, I wonder if it was supposed to transition to streams of other people or something and it just glitched out.  Hilarious either way.



It remained static on the same people throughout. Major fuckup by someone somewhere along the way.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 21, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> It remained static on the same people throughout. Major fuckup by someone somewhere along the way.


The average age of people in leadership roles for both parties is frankly about twice what it should be.  Trump and Biden both have one foot in the grave, and it's not surprising that their staffers are equally as tech illiterate as they are.


----------



## Joe88 (Aug 21, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Considered that possibility, so I checked it out. Just capped this myself, same three dupes are there.
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.    com/watch?v=Z_2d4EqBNcU
> ...



at least they didnt duplicate it this time but they couldnt even fill up the board


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 21, 2020)

Xzi said:


> The average age of people in leadership roles for both parties is frankly about twice what it should be.  Trump and Biden both have one foot in the grave.




When you're right you're right. 70 probably should be the cap, at least for now. Maybe one day, raise it as average lifespan increases.

On the other hand, though it's never really been an issue (yet), I think 35 is still too young. I say that because I was 35 once. 

All just hypothetical musings ... for when we start our own country, Xzi.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 21, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I'm surprised the libtards haven't been flocking to him. *I mean, they think black people matter more than anyone else.*



You are wrong.
They might say that, some might even have convinced themselves they think that.
Actions say something else entirely, and what they think is some of the most racist stuff I have ever seen (at least assuming you don't buy the "prejudice + power" nonsense, in which case the pink types can then be the saviour of the human race. To think I thought it was just Lily the Pink that was the saviour).


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 21, 2020)

GhostLatte said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally
> 
> Guess they’re just “fine people” like your president said.




Coming back to this because Biden keeps repeating it and it deserves to be labeled as the bullshit it is.

Hey, it's bullshit.


----------



## notimp (Aug 21, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Coming back to this because Biden keeps repeating it and it deserves to be labeled as the bullshit it is.
> 
> Hey, it's bullshit.


But concept of doqwhistling. He played to those stereotypes.  Thats a thing with taboos, you either are pro nazis, or you are against nazis, you aren indifferent, trying to reestablish them, or people who openly and knowingly associate with them, in society.

Thats one of those standard tripup questions that you usually dont see politicians tripping over. But Trump tripped, and then embraced that he did, and then sold his fans a conspiracy narrative, that people were out for him, by misrepresenting, ...

I've seen this question asked maybe 20 times in my lifetime, not once have I seen it answered like Trump.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 21, 2020)

notimp said:


> But concept of doqwhistling. He played to those stereotypes.  Thats a thing with taboos, you either are pro nazis, or you are against nazis, you aren indifferent, trying to reestablish them, or people who openly and knowingly associate with them, in society.
> 
> Thats one of those standard tripup questions that you usually dont see politicians tripping over. But Trump tripped, and then embraced that he did, and then sold his fans a conspiracy narrative, that people were out for him, by misrepresenting, ...
> 
> I've seen this question asked maybe 20 times in my lifetime, not once have I seen it answered like Trump.


"Trump is a Nazi! He's a national socialist because...because he screwed up a question! So he's a NAZI!! This is why we need Joe Biden! This is why--what? Joe is a massive racist? No, no, he just...he just screwed up what he was trying to say! Yeah, yeah, that's...that's what it is! He's nothing like Orange Man, because _he_ screwed up on what he was trying to say, while Sleepy Creepy Uncle Joe...uh...he...he only screwed up what he was trying to say! There's a difference!"


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 21, 2020)

notimp said:


> you either are pro nazis, or you are against nazis



If there are nazis in the USA, or at least people who have the totalitarian insistence on conforming to the party line that the Nazi Party was known for, it is the progressive left. A few racist dumbasses with 65 IQ's walking around with a flag they think means white are better than everyone else are just racist dumbasses, not "Nazis." They are pitiable. The two have no political, ideological continuity.

Perhaps the neo-Nazi types that are organized in Europe really are ideologically Nazis, i.e. Nationalist Socialists. The right wing in the USA is definitely not, not even the fringe. The right wing in the US is actually far, far more tolerant of dissent and open exchange of ideas than the left is. One very obvious thing that shows this is that conservatives don't immediately resort to calling anyone who disagrees with them a "racist" or a "Nazi." That's hate speech, something the left pretends to oppose but in truth they just want to define and control it, dictate when it can be used and whom it can be used against.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 22, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> If there are nazis in the USA, or at least people who have the totalitarian insistence on conforming to the party line that the Nazi Party was known for, it is the progressive left. A few racist dumbasses with 65 IQ's walking around with a flag they think means white are better than everyone else are just racist dumbasses, not "Nazis." They are pitiable. The two have no political, ideological continuity.
> 
> Perhaps the neo-Nazi types that are organized in Europe really are ideologically Nazis, i.e. Nationalist Socialists. The right wing in the USA is definitely not, not even the fringe. The right wing in the US is actually far, far more tolerant of dissent and open exchange of ideas than the left is. One very obvious thing that shows this is that conservatives don't immediately resort to calling anyone who disagrees with them a "racist" or a "Nazi." That's hate speech, something the left pretends to oppose but in truth they just want to define and control it, dictate when it can be used and whom it can be used against.


The idea that Nazis are politically left, not right, is absurd, and it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how left-right politics work.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 22, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The idea that Nazis are politically left, not right, is absurd, and it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how left-right politics work.


The Nazis were an empire, which is, by definition, a big government.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 22, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> The Nazis were an empire, which is, by definition, a big government.


Cool. I'm not sure what that has to do with their far-right ideology.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 22, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Cool. I'm not sure what that has to do with their far-right ideology.


Isn't a large government the basis of any left-wing ideology?


----------



## Lacius (Aug 22, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Isn't a large government the basis of any left-wing ideology?


No. "Big government" is a pejorative, and an argument can be made that modern Republicans are as much in favor of big government as anybody else. The pejorative "big government" is usually a label one assigns to mean "a part of the government I don't like." For example, modern conservatives will call Medicare for All "big government" as a reason why people should oppose it, and modern liberals will call anti-choice policies that restrict access to abortion "big government." It's an arbitrary distinction.


----------



## 8BitWonder (Aug 22, 2020)

Thinking nazi Germany was left-wing because they were an empire is the dumbest thing I've read all month.

I don't like Biden's guts, nor do I agree with all of his policies.
But I'll settle for him if (when) he ends up getting the nomination since my preferred candidate has suspended their campaign.

I just hope that in the next election I won't be settling between two people I dislike again.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 22, 2020)

8BitWonder said:


> I don't like Biden's guts, nor do I agree with all of his policies.
> But I'll settle for him if (when) he ends up getting the nomination since my preferred candidate has suspended their campaign.


The lesser of two evils is still an evil. If you don't like either option, don't vote.


----------



## 8BitWonder (Aug 22, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> The lesser of two evils is still an evil. If you don't like either option, don't vote.


In my eyes there is very much a greater evil between the two.
Not voting will only better their odds, so unfortunately that's not an option.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 22, 2020)

8BitWonder said:


> In my eyes there is very much a greater evil between the two.
> Not voting will only better their odds, so unfortunately that's not an option.


Is Trump really a bad choice, or worse than a pedophile at the very least?


----------



## 8BitWonder (Aug 22, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Is Trump really a bad choice, or worse than a pedophile at the very least?


In my eyes he is a bad choice, his handling of COVID-19 has solidified that for me and his previous three years didn't do him any favors either.

I've yet to see anything conclusive on Biden being a pedophile.
If he ended up being proven one I'd have yet another reason to hate his guts, but I still don't see him doing any more harm than Trump will with four more years.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Aug 22, 2020)

Some of the political threads on here have some decent, thought-provoking discussions. This one is shit.


----------



## Orbiting234 (Aug 22, 2020)

Voting a straight ticket: red, top to bottom.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 22, 2020)

8BitWonder said:


> In my eyes he is a bad choice, his handling of COVID-19 has solidified that for me and his previous three years didn't do him any favors either.


Sweden didn't do jack about the Coronavirus, and look at them.
And do you really think that an old man with dementia who has been in the government for decades is going to do anything with four years of a presidency?


8BitWonder said:


> I've yet to see anything conclusive on Biden being a pedophile.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 22, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> The lesser of two evils is still an evil. If you don't like either option, don't vote.


The lesser of two evils is less evil, by definition.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraSUPRA said:


> Is Trump really a bad choice, or worse than a pedophile at the very least?


Biden is not a pedophile. If your bar for believing Biden is a pedophile is that low, then you must believe Trump is a pedophile. He has much more "evidence" for it than Biden.

If it wasn't clear, I'm not arguing Trump is a pedophile. I'm making a point about inconsistent standards of evidence and special pleading.


----------



## 8BitWonder (Aug 22, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Sweden didn't do jack about the Coronavirus, and look at them.


Good for them, we still have the highest number of cases globally with less than 5% of its population.


UltraSUPRA said:


>


Hey check it out, the Earth is flat.


Edit: Point is, I like to have more than a crusty jpeg to determine if someone's a pedophile.
Preferably an actual investigation or reports.


----------



## Willgheminass (Aug 22, 2020)




----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 22, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Biden is not a pedophile. If your bar for believing Biden is a pedophile is that low, then you must believe Trump is a pedophile. He has much more "evidence" for it than Biden.


So multiple photographs aren't proof?


8BitWonder said:


> Hey check it out, the Earth is flat.
> View attachment 222401


Except the proof that Biden is a pedo isn't photoshopped, as far as I know.


----------



## SAIYAN48 (Aug 22, 2020)

Thankfully, I'm in Canada, where our government isn't too crazy. However, I want Trump gone. He has caused too much shit.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 22, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> So multiple photographs aren't proof?
> 
> Except the proof that Biden is a pedo isn't photoshopped, as far as I know.


Your photographs don't demonstrate, nor do they suggest, pedophilia. A woman using the pseudonym "Katie Johnson" has twice filed a civil lawsuit against Trump and Epstein, accusing them of having sexually abused her when she was 13 years old. Are you now going to believe Trump is a pedophile? If not, how do you explain the inconsistency?


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 22, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The idea that Nazis are politically left, not right, is absurd, and it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how left-right politics work.




Just because the Nationalist Socialists weren't left wing by modern interpretation doesn't mean they were right wing by modern interpretation either. Evaluating their place on a political x/y axis* is difficult because there was no consistency with the Nazis -- policy was at the whim and weirdness of some brilliant but disturbed individuals with severe personality defects. And FWIW I didn't say the Nazis _were_ left wing.  What I did say is that if there's anyone who is operating according to the Nazis' "totalitarian insistence on conforming to the party line" in America today, it's the progressive left. No the progressive left are not Nazis, but they're acting a lot like it. They have set fire and caused hundreds of millions of dollars of destruction to other peoples' property, and claim it is just. They're conducting public (social media) loyalty litmus tests against people by forcing them to say "BLM" or "ACAB" or else be labeled racist and an enemy (which justifies "cancelling" that person), vandalizing and committing violence against any symbol of dissent from their message, thugs in the street bashing windows and looting for "reparations," demonizing one racial group with a claim of unjustly obtained wealth and property ... this is all eerily reminiscent of another time in history. All you lack is an aligned member in charge of the government.



*where one axis is left/right and the other is libertarian/authoritarian.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 22, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Your photographs don't demonstrate, nor do they suggest, pedophilia.


What?


Lacius said:


> A woman using the pseudonym "Katie Johnson" has twice filed a civil lawsuit against Trump and Epstein, accusing them of having sexually abused her when she was 13 years old. Are you now going to believe Trump is a pedophile? If not, how do you explain the inconsistency?


She doesn't have any evidence.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 22, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> She doesn't have any evidence.


That's my point.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 22, 2020)

Lacius said:


> That's my point.


But I have posted evidence for Joe's pedophilia multiple times. Explain _why_ it's not evidence.


----------



## notimp (Aug 22, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Trump is a Nazi! He's a national socialist because...because he screwed up a question! So he's a NAZI!! This is why we need Joe Biden!


Yes thats too shortened down.

Trump banked on being voted by people with racial sentiments, so you openly play with adhering to their believe systems.

I live in a country where we had an opposition politician do that for 20+ years, growing in numbers, and stragely media loved him for it. It produced scandal, that got him magazine covers, that got him a popularity boost.

I also understand the non denial denial and blaming the media for being so biased and unfair - same politician, same tactic, 20 years.

Here, I'm talking about this guy:





None of that behavior was naive.

Neither was the "and I guess there are some good people too" speech after the escalator ride.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Hanafuda said:


> If there are nazis in the USA, or at least people who have the totalitarian insistence on conforming to the party line that the Nazi Party was known for, it is the progressive left.


Its always hardest to see the truths that are right in front of your eyes.

I'm not saying that the US has a massive neo-nazi problem (although looking at why people are demonstrating in your streets, or what Jim Crow laws were...) but if you are a populist leader banking on authoritarian concepts, trying to win over the public with "hints" at racial slander - chances are, that you arent addressing the politicial left.

So if that audience doesnt exist in the US, why does he do it?

But my point was, that at those demonstrations (Charlottesville) you definitively had Neo-Nazis in the streets. Insignias, torches in hand, nazi salutes. And you had 'law abiding citizens in the same crowd, looking at that (and a car driving into people), smiling and clapping', if you as a US president then address that by saying - most people were just having harmless fun - you arent a naive victim of not understanding how media works,

you are a purposeful delinquent in playing into rightwing extremist stereotypes.

Those questions are asked to keep a public impression weither we still shun right wing extremeism or not. They are signal questions, they are always answered the same. You denounce that behavior.

Than along came Trump and excused people that were 'nazi-curious'.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraSUPRA said:


>


Why do politicians kiss kids:
https://www.motherjones.com/media/2012/01/politicians-kissing-babies-brief-history/

UltraSUPRA tried to excuse politician he doesnt like of being a pedo. All 4chan like.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 22, 2020)

notimp said:


> Why do politicians kiss kids:
> https://www.motherjones.com/media/2012/01/politicians-kissing-babies-brief-history/
> 
> UltraSUPRA tried to excuse politician he doesnt like of being a pedo. All 4chan like.


Joe Biden also sniffs their hair and rubs their breasts.
Also, that article only talks about infants.


----------



## notimp (Aug 22, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Just because the Nationalist Socialists weren't left wing by modern interpretation doesn't mean they were right wing by modern interpretation either.


Nazis were and are a populist right wing party, by 'modern' interpretation.

No one in a clear mind would be saying that they were not. Show me that historian. Dont just make up your worldview, using 'what makes me look bad cant exist' models of reality management.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraSUPRA said:


> Joe Biden also sniffs their hair and rubs their breasts.
> Also, that article only talks about infants.


Granted.

But concepts also apply to children in general.

Still probably not a pedo.

(Guy is in politics for what 50 years? Has been vetted at least ten times, to be able to run for high profile political positions. Why does the internet trollign apparatus making square thumbnails know better?)


----------



## omgcat (Aug 22, 2020)

we have the GOP that we have because they are the opposite to the left. when the left does purity tests it pushes the party more left. The opposite happens with the GOP, you have purity tests that push them further right. this wouldn't be a problem except that the USA's overton window was already very right of center. so left wing purity tests lead to people closer to true center while the right has inevitably lead to authoritarianism. regardless of what happened in 2008 we probably would have ended up with some form of Romney care which the ACA is. whether the ACA passed or not, obama getting elected caused the GOP to push itself even further right with the tea party. Now the tea party isn't pure enough, Qanon shit now pushing the overton window directly into fascism. if trump wins, the next step is fascism because the party will purge all "never trumpers" and "deep state operatives" and throw itself off the right side of the political spectrum.


----------



## Coto (Aug 22, 2020)

So Venezuela - China communist trades are dead because of USA ... according to China, ROFL.

China - Venezuela back then in 2018:
https://www.dw.com/en/china-vows-to-help-crisis-hit-venezuela/a-45492164

China - Venezuela 2020:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-oil-china-tankers-exclusive-idUSKCN257235
(notice how China blames USA)

-

Leftist USA government be like: Everything bad occurring to us is due to poor USA management, China will do MUCH better here.
You have no idea what you're wishing for. Whatever nice tales you've got in your heads do not represent what's going to happen with your country. 

But yeah keep posting memes and stupid zero IQ social media replies to feel your contributions have made your country better. That's how it reads from the outside. Because apparently self esteem is the key to define a country's success. (hint: It's CULTURE and HARD WORK)


----------



## notimp (Aug 22, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Just because the Nationalist Socialists weren't left wing by modern interpretation doesn't mean they were right wing by modern interpretation either.


Freaking right wing party in my country (not Greece) recruits political candidates from neo-nazi precursor organsiations (military fun with painball in the woods and 'camaraderie').

Greek nazi party 'Golden Dawn' far right by self definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dawn_(political_party)

But maybe if you just look at it from a certain angle Nazis arent right wing extremists anymore? You are twisting your perception of reality. If you have people in your congregations doing the hitler salute, while organizing torch marches, chances are, that they arent just political independants, who got lost.

edit: Nordic Nazi Movement: "Nordic Resistance Movement"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_Resistance_Movement
Political orientation: Far-right


----------



## Lacius (Aug 22, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> But I have posted evidence for Joe's pedophilia multiple times. Explain _why_ it's not evidence.


They're not evidence of pedophilia because they're not pictures of pedophilia.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 22, 2020)

Kiddie diddler in chief vs I a smart businessman that might secretly yearn for the fifth Reich is boring. Have either released manifestos/campaign promises we can look at yet?


----------



## notimp (Aug 22, 2020)

On the Biden side, just this so far:
https://joebiden.com/racial-economic-equity/#

https://bgrdc.com/biden-breaking-news-july-28-2020/
https://www.courthousenews.com/biden-looks-to-black-voters-with-3-trillion-economic-plan/


edit: See also:
http://www.crfb.org/papers/understanding-joe-bidens-2020-tax-plan







A quintile is just a 1/5th part of something devided through five. In this case people based on income.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 22, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Just because the Nationalist Socialists weren't left wing by modern interpretation doesn't mean they were right wing by modern interpretation either.


They were far-right.



Hanafuda said:


> Evaluating their place on a political x/y axis* is difficult because there was no consistency with the Nazis -- policy was at the whim and weirdness of some brilliant but disturbed individuals with severe personality defects.


They were far-right.



Hanafuda said:


> And FWIW I didn't say the Nazis _were_ left wing.  What I did say is that if there's anyone who is operating according to the Nazis' "totalitarian insistence on conforming to the party line" in America today, it's the progressive left.


Conservatives have "purity tests" too. In addition, the progressive left doesn't have "totalitarian" insistence on conforming to the party line.



Hanafuda said:


> No the progressive left are not Nazis, but they're acting a lot like it.


No, they're not.



Hanafuda said:


> They have set fire and caused hundreds of millions of dollars of destruction to other peoples' property, and claim it is just. They're conducting public (social media) loyalty litmus tests against people by forcing them to say "BLM" or "ACAB" or else be labeled racist and an enemy (which justifies "cancelling" that person), vandalizing and committing violence against any symbol of dissent from their message, thugs in the street bashing windows and looting for "reparations," demonizing one racial group with a claim of unjustly obtained wealth and property ... this is all eerily reminiscent of another time in history. All you lack is an aligned member in charge of the government.


You're not describing anything the progressive left is actually doing.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 22, 2020)

Lacius said:


> In addition, the progressive left doesn't have "totalitarian" insistence on conforming to the party line.





Lacius said:


> You're not describing anything the progressive left is actually doing.




OK the horseshit just got too deep for me to bother. I'm more than willing to debate with a reasonable person, but not someone who is is frank denial of the most obvious and confirmable. You're deluded if you think either of the above statements bear any relation to reality. Bye.


----------



## notimp (Aug 22, 2020)

More discussing arguments, less ad hominem.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 22, 2020)

notimp said:


> More discussing arguments, less ad hominem.




Nothing else to discuss. Water isn't wet and hot is cold, according to Lacius. Besides everyone already knows how they're going to vote, so just go do it.


----------



## notimp (Aug 22, 2020)

Less pathos, more arguments.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 22, 2020)

notimp said:


>


This is why I'd vote for Trump.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 22, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> OK the horseshit just got too deep for me to bother. I'm more than willing to debate with a reasonable person, but not someone who is is frank denial of the most obvious and confirmable. You're deluded if you think either of the above statements bear any relation to reality. Bye.


Let the record show I could have said pretty much the same thing and dropped the conversation when you described Nazis as "not right-wing" or when you said "if there are Nazis, it's the left." I thought it would be a better use of my time to correct the misinformation, rather than scream "horseshit" and run away.

If you want to say I'm "deluded" when I acknowledge that BLM has been largely peaceful, the progressive left doesn't promote vandalism, etc., cool.


----------



## notimp (Aug 22, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> This is why I'd vote for Trump.


You are 15 and not earning anything. Biden is reversing Trump taxcuts and in addition to that lets corporations and people with high income pay more taxes.

As a result (read the entire thing, dont just look at the graphics - otherwise you will never learn a thing and still always have an opinion.  ) economic growth will slow down moderately.

But. The analysis states, that there still is no information on how the tax money gained will be used. The idea is to have this drive economic growth in sectors where it could actually benefit more people than in the current economy. (Where investments dont reach common people.)

If you are rich currently, you usually (statistically most likely) made your money in the tech economy (selling a freaking service lifestyle to the world banking your 30% bakshish fees for nothing, ruining press ecosystems, and in the next ten years putting more middle class educated people out of mid level management jobs), or by having invested in emerging economies. Why do you want to protect those people?

Also, regardless of bar length. The avg. tax increase for even the top 1% of wage earners is only 15%. And that is after a Trump taxcut for those people that was financed by increasing national debt.


edit: That said, 'protect' them on taxexpendature. Politically both Wall Street and the Tech Industry are behind Biden.  Again, paying a little more income tax is nothing for them (in exchange for access..  ).


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 22, 2020)

notimp said:


> You are 15 and not earning anything. Biden is reversing Trump taxcuts and in addition to that lets corporations and people with high income pay more taxes.
> 
> As a result (read the entire thing, dont just look at the graphics - otherwise you will never learn a thing and still always have an opinion.  ) economic growth will slow down moderately.
> 
> ...


What about the poor people who will get offered promotions and turn them down because of taxes?
You should make what you make.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 22, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> What about the poor people who will get offered promotions and turn them down because of taxes?


Do you understand how tax brackets work? This is a serious question.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 22, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Do you understand how tax brackets work? This is a serious question.


Yes, you get taxed more if you have more money. Which you get by working hard and limiting your budget.
We shouldn't encourage people to go broke. This is why the flat tax is the best option.


----------



## notimp (Aug 22, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Yes, you get taxed more if you have more money. Which you get by working hard and limiting your budget.
> We shouldn't encourage people to go broke. This is why the flat tax is the best option.


The top fifth of you country income wise, gets taxed 5% more on average.

You are talking about people not taking promotions because of that and the poor going broke.

Why?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 22, 2020)

notimp said:


> The top fifth of you country income wise, gets taxed 5% more on average.
> 
> You are talking about people not taking promotions because of that and the poor going broke.
> 
> Why?


You get a 2% increase in income but you get taxed an extra 5%. Do you take the promotion?


----------



## Lacius (Aug 22, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Yes, you get taxed more if you have more money. Which you get by working hard and limiting your budget.
> We shouldn't encourage people to go broke. This is why the flat tax is the best option.





UltraSUPRA said:


> You get a 2% increase in income but you get taxed an extra 5%. Do you take the promotion?


No, that's not how tax brackets work. If you make more money, the extra money in the higher tax bracket gets taxed at a higher rate, but the money below that in a lower tax bracket still gets taxed at the lower tax rate. For example, If 0-1,000 is a bracket, and 1,001-2,000 is a bracket, then if I make $1,500, the first 1,000 will be taxed at the first bracket rate, and the other $500 will be taxed at the higher rate.

The idea that people turn down more money to avoid taxes is a myth.


----------



## notimp (Aug 22, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> You get a 2% increase in income but you get taxed an extra 5%. Do you take the promotion?


If you are in the top fifth income bracket and the new job came with more perks, or higher prestige, or higher responsibility, sure. I'd work 12 month in it and then go to my boss and demand a sallery increase, problem solved.

The Idea is, that if you are in the highest income bracket and if you arent tied up in loan paybacks, you have more disposable income than you know what to do with anyhow - so it should not impact your lifestyle.

And reasonably, lets talk about who has what price to pay. Income development in the US as share of GDP isnt great. Economic growth isnt great. Trump taxcuts went into holding some companies in country for a litle longer (not sustainable) and stock paybacks... For sustained economic growth, this did nothing. It widened the difference between rich and poor. It produced more jobs, but in the lowest income sectors in service. (High employment rate amongst black people.) This is not structural investment in your country - this is sustaining a model that has outlived itself.

Now granted, the investment plan of the Biden administration is still outstanding - but you have to do something to tackle that.

And progressive taxes that really only hurt the top fifth of people by income arent even close to the end of the world.

The idea to never touch anyones money earned - regardless how, is just fundamentally unsustainable. The Dow Jones just was rescued, so its not even like those people would bear much risk these days. More and more, they just were lucky. While others were not. And as you have seen, the amount of people that aren't has grown since the 80s. You have to align this through governmental action somehow.

This doesnt have to lead to state businesses, just set up state grants in certain sectors you want developed. Remember how Trump got richer? He borrowed money against driving developmental projects. He had no risk, it was none of his money, and he reaped the benefits (ROI).

Now lets do some of that for the lower income brackets.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 22, 2020)

Lacius said:


> They were far-right.




Tell you what .. we have a long history of discourse and disagreement here, which I respect and don't want to throw away impulsively, so I'll give ya a shot at this. Remember, I did not say the Nazis were left wing. I said they were all over the place politically, reactionary to immediate events and party leaders' whims, too difficult to pin down and ideologically inconsistent. But let's hear it ... tell me how and why the Nationalist Socialists were far right. And I don't mean just posting where some other people said they were --- what policies or actions did the Nazis practice, consistently, that were definitively right wing?


----------



## Lacius (Aug 22, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Tell you what .. we have a long history of discourse and disagreement here, which I respect and don't want to throw away impulsively, so I'll give ya a shot at this. Remember, I did not say the Nazis were left wing. I said they were too difficult to pin down and ideologically inconsistent. But let's hear it ... tell me how and why the Nationalist Socialists were far right. And I don't mean just posting where some other people said they were --- what policies or actions did the Nazis practice, consistently, that were definitively right wing?


You ended the conversation, but here's some homework:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Position_within_the_political_spectrum


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 22, 2020)

Lacius said:


> You ended the conversation, but here's some homework:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Position_within_the_political_spectrum



Well you just posted where someone else said it after all. Huh. As for the content of the article though, it starts by saying most scholars say the Nazis were a far-right group. But then it doesn't back that up. (typical wikipedia) Instead it describes what I said -- a government with many factions, with leanings to both socialist and capitalist interests, not a consistent ideology, no definitely discernible right or left lean. The Nazis did practice the fascist plan for industry, of private ownership with strict government participation and supervision. It's a broken paradigm ripe for cronyism, which worked very well for corrupt members like Goering. They also had this well-known antipathy for the Jews and all the racial theory .... leftists usually point to this first and foremost to explain how the Nazis were far right wing, but don't want to talk about the Soviet Union practicing similar policies and killing even more Ukrainians and Jews than did Hitler, or how the Chinese Communist Party's policies are working an effective genocide on the Uyghers today. Are those Communist governments "far right?"


This is from the article you linked:
When asked in a 27 January 1934 whether he supported the "bourgeois right-wing", Hitler claimed that Nazism was not exclusively for any class and he indicated that it favoured neither the left nor the right, but preserved "pure" elements from both "camps" by stating: "From the camp of bourgeois tradition, it takes national resolve, and from the materialism of the Marxist dogma, living, creative Socialism".

Here's another quote from Hitler:
Addressing his own party, the NSDAP, in Munich in August 1920, he pledged his faith in socialist-racialism: "If we are socialists, then we must definitely be anti-semites - and the opposite, in that case, is Materialism and Mammonism, which we seek to oppose." There was loud applause. Hitler went on: "How, as a socialist, can you not be an anti-semite?"


I think Hitler_ used_ "socialism" when it served his purposes, effectuated controls on industry when it served his purposes, pushed nationalist propaganda when it served his purpose. The Nazis practiced government like a feudal domain, that's why I don't think any political label can be attached to them. The Nazis were fucking Nazis. When I see anyone desperately insisting the Nazi Party was far right, or left, or Socialist, I dismiss it as motivated by a particular contemporary bias.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 22, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Well you just posted where someone else said it after all. Huh. As for the content of the article though, it starts by saying most scholars say the Nazis were a far-right group. But then it doesn't back that up. (typical wikipedia) Instead it describes what I said -- a government with many factions, with leanings to both socialist and capitalist interests, not a consistent ideology, no definitely discernible right or left lean. The Nazis did practice the fascist plan for industry, of private ownership with strict government participation and supervision. It's a broken paradigm ripe for cronyism, which worked very well for corrupt members like Goering. They also had this well-known antipathy for the Jews and all the racial theory .... leftists usually point to this first and foremost to explain how the Nazis were far right wing, but don't want to talk about the Soviet Union practicing similar policies and killing even more Ukrainians and Jews than did Hitler, or how the Chinese Communist Party's policies are working an effective genocide on the Uyghers today. Are those Communist governments "far right?"
> 
> 
> This is from the article you linked:
> ...


You sure do have a lot to say for someone who ended the conversation, but here's some more homework:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Position_in_the_political_spectrum

In summary, Nazis were/are nationalistic and fascist, and these are far-right traits. The fact that Nazism, alt-right, white nationalist, etc. are far-right is not controversial.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 22, 2020)

alt-right ... are far-right is not controversial.
Is that so?

alt-right always seems to be a nebulous term to describe any number of movements, groupings and the like.
Some do seem to be the hardcore "I love my white skin" types (never mind that there are half a hundred flavours of that), others from what I can see tend to be what would have been called South Park republicans 10 years earlier (keep that religious/neoconservative stuff back in the 80s but explore some of these free market and free speech ideals, whether Trump represents that sort of change then most of what I heard from them is not so much but heading vaguely in that direction more than Bush Jr ever did), some appear to be plain old libertarian types, others use it as a snarl word to dismiss people and the original self defined term seems to have been abandoned and/or supplanted by others.


As for Nazis. If we ignore the dislike of blacks, jews, gypsies and the whole Arian thing (a hard thing for some people it seems, and a fairly key component of the idea as a whole) would their policies have been more or less universally favoured by right wing factions today? Many of those would have been a hard sell from where I sit if the right is generally going to heavily favour free enterprise, low levels of nationalisation of industries/services, low government spending, general freedom to do what you will and whatnot (everything within the state, nothing outside the state and all that, which might fit with various takes on communism from those that abandoned the "continuous revolution until the whole world is" in favour of just in my country as well for that matter).
I certainly have my problems with horseshoe theory (generally speaking go extreme in either direction and it all starts looking pretty similar, and they might but the reasoning ends up rather different at key points) and even without that the nazis had some policies that were fundamentally at odds with left wing of the time and today. Some reckon the generally simplified, dare I say reductionist, view of Nazism (or local equivalents thereof) might be what occurs when you push right wing thought as far as it will go and meet practical reality, just like [points to everywhere communism was tried] is when you push left wing thoughts as far as they will go and meet physics, practical reality and human nature, something to explore there but as with most things attempting to be fit on two or maybe three axes on a graph it is prone to oversimplification, even if it poses some interesting simplifications.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 23, 2020)

Who is Giovanni Gentile?


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 23, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> Some do seem to be the hardcore "I love my white skin" types (never mind that there are half a hundred flavours of that)


A strawman and the Lewontin fallacy in one sentence.
Although large parts of the alt-right hate me, I have to point our your misrepresentation. The equation race = skin color does not come from the alt-right but is primarily used to ridicule it.
Furthermore, it does not matter how many shades their are among "blacks". "blacks" do exist. If you agree with this statement, then the same applies to "whites".


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 23, 2020)

not american, but my interests align way more with trump's than biden's. america has a theme of third parties never doing anything, and i would credit that on only being able to vote for one candidate per voter, but only letting you choose one candidate per voter is an issue in many places besides the america


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 23, 2020)

You (and most people) have learnt very little from World War 2.
It does not matter whether Hitler was left- or right-wing [depends on the definition; you are just talking past each other].

What matters is that ideological differences and expansionism can be used to justify war. The USSR and USA have continued along these lines right after Germany´s defeat and it is still very much present in both parties in the US, i.e. in the form of interventionism (and in Russia as well).

If there is World War 3 with billions of deaths, maybe the survivors will suddenly have an epiphany: Live and let live.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 23, 2020)

I know, don't base things on gbatemp polls, but it is still interesting how the poll is shaping so far, versus the 2016 one.


----------



## Lumstar (Aug 23, 2020)

Three wrong turns won't lead the country in a positive direction. The GOP leads the pack in a century of economic catastrophe. Is there any mystery in the Great Depression, 2008 crisis, and mishandling the coronavirus recession each occurring under a republican administration? I think not.

Surely I jest though! Other parties have their own skeletons in the history books. The democrats crossed the line in commanding face coverings without going through fair and just legislative procedures to draft and ratify the measures. Irrespective of any merits of wearing masks, a nanny state is a pebble's erosion from dictatorship. The cliche about trading liberty for security ya know.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 23, 2020)

I'll leave this here.


----------



## Ibcap (Aug 23, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> View attachment 222534
> I'll leave this here.


Thats some next level bad faith arguing, it takes 5 seconds to find out that guy has continuously denounced the KKK and his former involvement with them https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...biden-isnt-kkk-grand-wizard-photo/3183887001/. How are republicans able to let Trump have a pass when hes supported by literal grand wizards and white supremacists like David Duke and refused to disavow them when asked, but Biden should be criticized for holding hands with someone who disavowed the KKK and supported the civil rights act.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 23, 2020)




----------



## Xzi (Aug 23, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Snip


I'm sorry, but you gotta be a whole other level of dumb to be fifteen and form all your political opinions from shitty boomer memes on Facebook.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 23, 2020)

Xzi said:


> I'm sorry, but you gotta be a whole other level of dumb to be fifteen and form all your political opinions from shitty boomer memes on Facebook.


At least I don't trust fake news and quacks.


----------



## Ibcap (Aug 23, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> View attachment 222536 View attachment 222537


https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...can-dream-is-to-be-donald-trump-idUSKBN23G275
As for the joe quote, politico says that an anonymous source claims to have heard obama say that. Thats your hard evidence? This is a joke, stop posting fake shit without even googling it first.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 23, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> At least I don't trust fake news and quacks.


Riiight, you only trust fake news from somebody's 70-year-old inbred uncle with dementia.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 23, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Riiight, you only trust fake news from somebody's 70-year-old inbred uncle with dementia.


Joe Biden?


----------



## Xzi (Aug 23, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Joe Biden?


Nah, none of the trailer park retirees on Facebook have had the slightest bit of success in any field at any point in their lives.  Same road you're on as long as you keep absorbing and regurgitating their mindless drivel.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 23, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Nah, none of the trailer park retirees on Facebook have had the slightest bit of success in any field at any point in their lives.  Same road you're on as long as you keep absorbing and regurgitating their mindless drivel.


It really says something when you're calling someone out for being stupid without refuting anything said.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Ibcap said:


> https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...can-dream-is-to-be-donald-trump-idUSKBN23G275


He still said that either he or his kids were going to become the next Donald Trump.


----------



## Ibcap (Aug 23, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> He still said that either he or his kids were going to become the next Donald Trump.


Source? and something that is reputable please, not "someone once told us that they heard him say it" like the joe biden quote.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 23, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> It really says something when you're calling someone out for being stupid without refuting anything said.


Yeah, it says that what you posted is too fucking dumb to bother refuting or analyzing in any way.  The only appropriate response to match that level of idiocy would be posting a picture of Donald Trump with the fake quote, "boy I wish I was black like Obama so my dick wouldn't be so tiny," and then the bottom text, "yes, he really said that."  I'm not gonna sink to that level though, this isn't Facebook where we compete to determine who Zuckerbot's favorite political meme-posting drone of the month is.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 23, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> A strawman and the Lewontin fallacy in one sentence.
> Although large parts of the alt-right hate me, I have to point our your misrepresentation. The equation race = skin color does not come from the alt-right but is primarily used to ridicule it.
> Furthermore, it does not matter how many shades their are among "blacks". "blacks" do exist. If you agree with this statement, then the same applies to "whites".


What are you blathering on about?
The statement that alt-right = far right was made.
I then said it the term is rather nebulous, self describes very few these days and when it did self describe, or more accurately describe, anybody it was more likely to be a breakaway faction from when the remains of neoconservatives (the born again Christian thing) still governed the mainstream US right, at one point the term South Park republican (as in the morals underpinning the average south park episode/series as a whole planted on top of your basic conservative -- less government interference, religion as a whole less of a useful concept but you do you, free speech is good and should be treasured, who cares if the gays bang one another...) being used but after not everybody watched it and the originators of the term disowned it somewhat then some went with that. Never mind whatever the alt-lite thing is. Also saying nothing of the rather left wing aspect of media somewhat co-opting the term to use as a smear/snarl and deliberately leaving it quite nebulous and ill defined, indeed pointedly resisting giving it any kind of definition when called upon to do so.

As for half a hundred varieties then I take it you have never had a garden variety 60s style KKK member, ultranationalist punk, 40s or current US south take, the I am Christian vs the current sometimes might be traditional/reconstructed European religions (the whole Jesus emphasising peace and harmony thing being rather at odds with accelerationist race war, especially if they actually read the bible at some point rather than just being told what it is in it, you make up "rediscover" some stuff about Wodan and you can say whatever you like), some takes on Anarcho capitalism, Nazbol (though they might not be so common) and tried to get them to agree on anything.
If I mocked such people in that then good. Mind you I suppose that does serve to exclude the Chinese supremacists, Japanese supremacists, Arab supremacists (if you want a scary mob with active support and political clout in a rich country then forget fearing those that normally dress in camo and live behind barbed wire in the middle of nowhere with maybe a spicy red flag in the garage and go see what they want, though I suspect most of those that do actively fear the camo set would probably have to stop two sentences into reading there lest they read something Islamophobic), Indian supremacists (even more funny if you look at the general landscape of India and the subcontinent) and some of the various takes in Africa as well (Hutu vs Tutsi being but one of them). My bad there.
If it helps though then I will allow a substitution for "muh heritage" in that.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 23, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> What are you blathering on about?


White nationalists within the alt-right do not justify their position based on "I love my white skin". This is a misrepresentation by others, i.e. claiming that race equals skin color. They claim they are a racial group.
It seemed as if you questioned the existence of "white people" based on the many different types of "white".
If it is not the case, I apologize, but you might be able to see how your sentence could be misunderstood this way (i.e. what is written in brackets gives more details about the proceeding content, see in the latter example):

_alt-right always seems to be a nebulous term to describe any number of movements, groupings and the like.
Some do seem to be the hardcore "I love my white skin" types (never mind that there are half a hundred flavours of that), others from what I can see tend to be what would have been called South Park republicans 10 years earlier (keep that religious/neoconservative stuff back in the 80s but explore some of these free market and free speech ideals [...])_

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



FAST6191 said:


> As for half a hundred varieties then I take it you have never had a garden variety 60s style KKK member, ultranationalist punk, 40s or current US south take, the I am Christian vs the current sometimes might be traditional/reconstructed European religions (the whole Jesus emphasising peace and harmony thing being rather at odds with accelerationist race war


You are correct that there is a wide variety of what people call the alt-right. One of the few things in common is the rejection of interventionism (see their reaction to Trump striking Syria), which is why I find them interesting [as wars in the Middle East have been very bad for my family].

With regards to Jesus: I claim he was actually a national socialist. I made a thread about it but got no response. You can have a go at it if you like. https://gbatemp.net/threads/jesus-was-a-national-socialist.563751/


----------



## Lacius (Aug 23, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> alt-right ... are far-right is not controversial.
> Is that so?
> 
> alt-right always seems to be a nebulous term to describe any number of movements, groupings and the like.


Yes, far-right movements, groupings, etc.



FAST6191 said:


> (keep that religious/neoconservative stuff back in the 80s but explore some of these free market and free speech ideals, whether Trump represents that sort of change then most of what I heard from them is not so much but heading vaguely in that direction more than Bush Jr ever did)


This kind of Republican doesn't really exist in major U.S. politics anymore, since social conservatives have hijacked the party.

Also, this has nothing to do with my point about Nazis, alt-righters, etc. being far-right by definition.



FAST6191 said:


> As for Nazis. If we ignore the dislike of blacks, jews, gypsies and the whole Arian thing (a hard thing for some people it seems, and a fairly key component of the idea as a whole) would their policies have been more or less universally favoured by right wing factions today? Many of those would have been a hard sell from where I sit if the right is generally going to heavily favour free enterprise, low levels of nationalisation of industries/services, low government spending, general freedom to do what you will and whatnot (everything within the state, nothing outside the state and all that, which might fit with various takes on communism from those that abandoned the "continuous revolution until the whole world is" in favour of just in my country as well for that matter).
> I certainly have my problems with horseshoe theory (generally speaking go extreme in either direction and it all starts looking pretty similar, and they might but the reasoning ends up rather different at key points) and even without that the nazis had some policies that were fundamentally at odds with left wing of the time and today. Some reckon the generally simplified, dare I say reductionist, view of Nazism (or local equivalents thereof) might be what occurs when you push right wing thought as far as it will go and meet practical reality, just like [points to everywhere communism was tried] is when you push left wing thoughts as far as they will go and meet physics, practical reality and human nature, something to explore there but as with most things attempting to be fit on two or maybe three axes on a graph it is prone to oversimplification, even if it poses some interesting simplifications.


I'm not particularly interested in playing "if we ignore their defining characteristics" games. The Nazis were objectively far-right as we define it, whether you like it or not.



KingVamp said:


> I know, don't base things on gbatemp polls, but it is still interesting how the poll is shaping so far, versus the 2016 one.


I agree. As of this post, GBATemp voters have swung 13.3 points towards the Democratic Party since 2016.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 23, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Yes, far-right movements, groupings, etc.
> 
> 
> This kind of Republican doesn't really exist in major U.S. politics anymore, since social conservatives have hijacked the party.
> ...



I would say it was on topic as far as questioning the presumption/assertion that alt-right = far right.

I would say such people still exist, might even form a notable fraction of swing voters/moderates after a fashion.

Once more you make an assertion that alt-right = far right. I am still not convinced that is the case, or if it is then it is an over broad term that serves to miscategorise some.

It is a defining trait for ramifications for actions taken, and one that is probably not repeated. However in terms of policies other than that... oh well you seem to be unwilling to play thought exercise probably just like your aversion to jokes as politico section must be all serious, all the time I guess.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> White nationalists within the alt-right do not justify their position based on "I love my white skin". This is a misrepresentation by others, i.e. claiming that race equals skin color. They claim they are a racial group.
> It seemed as if you questioned the existence of "white people" based on the many different types of "white".
> If it is not the case, I apologize, but you might be able to see how your sentence could be misunderstood this way (i.e. what is written in brackets gives more details about the proceeding content, see in the latter example):
> 
> ...


The line was noting that the "muh heritage types" (even if we restrict to whatever European might mean, even when genetics, language, history and culture makes that rather hilarious if you know any of it, the origins of the term barbarian being a nice start there) have a few dozen different prominent and even more less so takes on the whole matter.
Equally I know it is incorrect as far as they are concerned -- quite a few have a nice "one drop" rule in effect -- you can be "albino has nothing on me" white but turns out your great grandfather was anything but and you are out from some of them. I was not particularly seeking to make a solid assessment as much as use a semi amusing shorthand.

As far as interventionism I saw plenty seeking to turn the middle east into a sheet of glass.

You can make that claim if you want. I don't much care -- religion, much less its invented history, is not a thing that concerns me as far as debating within its frameworks. I was mainly noting with the religion thing that plenty of one time fairly well ranked and respected members of groups took to reading the bible and left when the peace and love stuff was noted, and how many modern ones in turn do some twisted flavour of Asatru and other reconstructed takes on Nordic/German religions to avoid that problem (though they too have the genetics vs social construction debate within that whole sphere, and specifically eschewing a central authority makes that even better).


----------



## Lacius (Aug 23, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> I would say it was on topic as far as questioning the presumption/assertion that alt-right = far right.
> 
> I would say such people still exist, might even form a notable fraction of swing voters/moderates after a fashion.
> 
> ...


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right


> The alt-right, an abbreviation of alternative right, is a loosely connected far-right, white nationalist movement based in the United States. A largely online phenomenon, the alt-right originated in the U.S. during the 2010s, although it has since established a presence in various other countries. The term is ill-defined, having been used in different ways by various self-described "alt-rightists", media commentators, and academics. Groups which have been identified as alt-right also espouse white nationalism, white supremacism, white separatism, right-wing populism, tight immigration restrictions, racism, anti-communism, anti-Zionism, holocaust denial, xenophobia, antisemitism, antifeminism, homophobia, and islamophobia.


----------



## Joe88 (Aug 23, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I agree. As of this post, GBATemp voters have swung 13.3 points towards the Democratic Party since 2016.


Not exactly a scientific way of doing things as you would have to get everybody and only the users who voted in the last poll to vote here, you have underage users (who cant vote in the general election) doing this poll, and users who don't even live in the US also doing this poll.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 23, 2020)

Wikipedia is probably better than conservapedia or modern rationalwiki but not by all that much, and in this case I might draw your attention to the third sentence about it being ill defined and varying between groups.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 23, 2020)

Joe88 said:


> Not exactly a scientific way of doing things as you would have to get everybody and only the users who voted in the last poll to vote here, you have underage users (who cant vote in the general election) doing this poll, and users who don't even live in the US also doing this poll.


I could talk at length about representative sampling, but I'll instead point out that I said earlier the poll results are indicative of pretty much nothing. Regardless, the swing is quite interesting.



FAST6191 said:


> Wikipedia is probably better than conservapedia or modern rationalwiki but not by all that much, and in this case I might draw your attention to the third sentence about it being ill defined and varying between groups.


Wikipedia is the greatest compendium of information on the Earth that I can think of. If you want to argue the alt-right aren't far-right, when they are by definition, great. Go edit Wikipedia and cite some scholarly sources. When the political science and historian professors with email alerts set to that Wikipedia page look at your changes and acknowledge the preponderance of evidence agrees with what you have to say, let me know. Until then, you're screaming into the void "nuh uh" about a topic you, respectfully, don't know much about.

Terms like "alt-right" and "far-right" are descriptive labels. If you're going to argue the former is not an example of the latter, you're using labels that I'm not using, and I'm not particularly interested in having a semantic argument. "Far-right" has a clear definition that's commonly used, and "alt-right" is objectively an example of that definition. Hemming and hawing about there being people on the political right who aren't far-right is irrelevant.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 24, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Wikipedia is the greatest compendium of information on the Earth that I can think of. If you want to argue the alt-right aren't far-right, when they are by definition, great. Go edit Wikipedia and cite some scholarly sources.


This isn´t addressed to me, but he would have to be chosen to a higher position at wikipedia. It does not matter whether your edits are true. The edits must be accepted by the overseers. They accept hit-pieces by mainstream media sources above self-identification, for example. E.g. Jared Taylor: He specifically denies that whites are superior but he is called a white supremacist on wikipedia anyway. Wikipedia even correctly quotes him as saying: "I think Asians are objectively superior to Whites by just about any measure that you can come up with in terms of what are the ingredients for a successful society. This doesn't mean that I want America to become Asian. I think every people has a right to be itself, and this becomes clear whether we're talking about Irian Jaya or Tibet, for that matter"

I.e. wikipedia acknowledges its bias here. 
I agree though that the alt-right is far-right. It started as a rejection of the current polictial landscape, became a Trump hype train and later dissolved into various sub-groups, further to the right of what Republicans are in the US, for example.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 24, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> This isn´t addressed to me, but he would have to be chosen to a higher position at wikipedia. It does not matter whether your edits are true. The edits must be accepted by the overseers. They accept hit-pieces by mainstream media sources above self-identification, for example. E.g. Jared Taylor: He specifically denies that whites are superior but he is called a white supremacist on wikipedia anyway. Wikipedia even correctly quotes him as saying: "I think Asians are objectively superior to Whites by just about any measure that you can come up with in terms of what are the ingredients for a successful society. This doesn't mean that I want America to become Asian. I think every people has a right to be itself, and this becomes clear whether we're talking about Irian Jaya or Tibet, for that matter"
> 
> I.e. wikipedia acknowledges its bias here.
> I agree though that the alt-right is far-right. It started as a rejection of the current polictial landscape, became a Trump hype train and later dissolved into various sub-groups, further to the right of what Republicans are in the US, for example.


Jared Taylor is a white supremacist.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 24, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Jared Taylor is a white supremacist.


I what way? Would you become one if the NYT called you a white spremacist? According to wikipedia, yes.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 24, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I what way? Would you become one if the NYT called you a white spremacist? According to wikipedia, yes.


One is a white supremacist when one holds racist views about white people being superior to other races.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Taylor#Race


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 24, 2020)

Lacius said:


> One is a white supremacist when one holds racist views about white people being superior to other races.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Taylor#Race


Then he is not a white supremacist. The quote I took is exactly from this part of the article. What are you referring to?


----------



## Lacius (Aug 24, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Then he is not a white supremacist. The quote I took is exactly from this part of the article. What are you referring to?


He thinks white people are superior to other races with regard to intelligence, etc. I'm not sure why we are talking about this.

Are you arguing that a white supremacist who believes white people are superior to other races, but not Asians, is not a white supremacist? Believing a race is better than some but not all races doesn't mean one is not a white supremacist.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 24, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Are you arguing that a white supremacist who believes white people are superior to other races, but not Asians, is not a white supremacist? Believing a race is better than some but not all races doesn't mean one is not a white supremacist.


Then he is an East-Asian supremacist with (regards to intelligence).
_
NOUN_
*supremacy*_ (noun)_

_the state or condition of being superior to all others in authority, power, or status._
_(Oxford Dictionaries)
_
According to your logic, he is also an African-American supremacist (as they have a higher average IQ than some other races).


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 24, 2020)

Lacius said:


> He thinks white people are superior to other races with regard to intelligence, etc. I'm not sure why we are talking about this.


There are multiple statistics.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 24, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Then he is an East-Asian supremacist with (regards to intelligence).
> _
> NOUN_
> *supremacy*_ (noun)_
> ...


Let me know when he starts advocating for anything other than white interests and white separation.



UltraSUPRA said:


> There are multiple statistics.


I'm not arguing for any statistics. I'm letting him know what the white supremacist thinks.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 24, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I'm not arguing for any statistics. I'm letting him know what the white supremacist thinks.


The statistics I'm talking about support what that alleged racist is saying.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 24, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Let me know when he starts advocating for anything other than white interests and white separation.


So you acknowledge that wikipedia and you were wrong to call him a white supremacist? If he is about white interests or white separation, call him a white advocate, a white nationalist or white separatist. 
After all, you probably don´t call the black panthers, BLM or politicians "black supremacists", I assume.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 24, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> So you acknowledge that wikipedia and you were wrong to call him a white supremacist? If he is about white interests or white separation, call him a white advocate, a white nationalist or white separatist.
> After all, you probably don´t call the black panthers, BLM or politicians "black supremacists", I assume.


He's a white supremacist. The fact that he thinks Asian people score higher on IQ tests than white people doesn't change that.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraSUPRA said:


> The statistics I'm talking about support what that alleged racist is saying.


What are you talking about?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 24, 2020)

Lacius said:


> What are you talking about?





 
This was last year.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 24, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> View attachment 222638
> This was last year.


If you could actually articulate what it is you're arguing, that'd be great. I'd be happy to tell you why that image isn't evidence for the silly claim that, for example, some races are on average more intelligent than others, but for all I know, you're not arguing that, and I'd be wasting my time.

When you post an image without context, you're not actually making a point that can be disagreed with or agreed with. I'd have to guess what you're trying to say in order to offer any sort of response. You're 15 and American, which means you should be learning about paragraph and essay construction. If you turned in an essay that was made up only of quotes from other people, it wouldn't be much of an essay, and any point you'd be trying to make with those quotes would be anybody's guess.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 24, 2020)

Lacius said:


> If you could actually articulate what it is you're arguing, that'd be great. I'd be happy to tell you why that image isn't evidence for the silly claim that, for example, some races are on average more intelligent than others, but for all I know, you're not arguing that, and I'd be wasting my time.
> 
> When you post an image without context, you're not actually making a point that can be disagreed with or agreed with. I'd have to guess what you're trying to say in order to offer any sort of response. You're 15 and American, which means you should be learning about paragraph and essay construction. If you turned in an essay that was made up only of quotes from other people, it wouldn't be much of an essay, and any point you'd be trying to make with those quotes would be anybody's guess.


The context is already in the image itself. Did you read anything in it?


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 24, 2020)

Lacius said:


> He's a white supremacist. The fact that he thinks Asian people score higher on IQ tests than white people doesn't change that.


I confronted you with logic and you stubbornly keep to your world view. Just be a man and admit it. 
It is also funny that you say "he *thinks* [East] Asian people score higher on IQ tests". 

Joe Biden already pointed to his stance on dictators, i.e. that he is going to confront them. This sounds like war to me. I would much rather support a person who you (erroneously) call white suprecmacist than a warmonger like Trump or Biden.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 24, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> The context is already in the image itself. Did you read anything in it?


Again, I can only assume what your specific point is. I'm not going to have a conversation with myself, so if you want me to respond, you're going to have to actually say your point. I'm not going to spend my time typing a response only for you to say, "That's not what I was saying when I posted that picture." I don't think you want me or anybody else to assume what you mean.

That all being said, you might find what you're looking for in my response post below this one.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I confronted you with logic and you stubbornly keep to your world view. Just be a man and admit it.
> It is also funny that you say "he *thinks* [East] Asian people score higher on IQ tests".


A white supremacist is someone who thinks white people are better than people of other races, which applies to this man. I'm not especially moved by semantic arguments about the literal usage of the word "supremacist." It's about as convincing as when homophobes try to argue they aren't homophobic because they aren't literally afraid of gay people. You can get pedantic and say a white supremacist has to be someone who thinks white people are superior to all other races in all ways, but that's not necessarily how people are using the word.

It's also not a very good argument, since the guy still believes Asians and other non-white races should be minorites in the USA, if not gone entirely, since he believes white people are superior to all other races, his views on IQ results notwithstanding. He is a white supremacist, regardless of how you're using the word.

White supremacists have been using IQ as supposed evidence for their racist beliefs for a very long time, even though an IQ test doesn't tell you how smart a person is. Instead, an IQ test tells you a lot about how good a person is at taking an IQ test, and that usually has a lot to do with socioeconomic status, schooling, sociolinguistic factors, etc., which makes the test biased towards white people. Because of changes to immigration in 1965 that prioritized Asian immigrants of high socioeconomic status, however, IQ tests started to skew towards Asians over whites. At first, the racists didn't know what to say or do, but they eventually decided that they were willing to accept that Asians did better than whites on IQ tests if it meant they still had data to support their supposed intellectual superiority over other minority races. This doesn't mean that racists who want to use IQ data to try and "scientifically prove" their racism aren't white supremacists.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Joe Biden already pointed to his stance on dictators, i.e. that he is going to confront them. This sounds like war to me. I would much rather support a person who you (erroneously) call white suprecmacist than a warmonger like Trump or Biden.


Joe Biden has said he's going to "stand up" to dictators, as opposed to Trump's coddling and idolizing of them.

Are you saying you support Jared Taylor?


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 24, 2020)

Lacius said:


> A white supremacist is someone who thinks white people are better than people of other races, which applies to this man. I'm not especially moved by semantic arguments about the literal usage of the word "supremacist." It's about as convincing as when homophobes try to argue they aren't homophobic because they aren't literally afraid of gay people. You can get pedantic and say a white supremacist has to be someone who thinks white people are superior to all other races in all ways, but that's not necessarily how people are using the word.


Kamala Harris said how great it was to be around black people. Is she a black supremacist? By your logic, yes. I think "blacks" are better at singing, dancing and many different sports. Am I a black supremacist?



Lacius said:


> It's also not a very good argument, since the guy still believes Asians and other non-white races should be minorites in the USA, if not gone entirely, since he believes white people are superior to all other races, his views on IQ results notwithstanding. He is a white supremacist, regardless of how you're using the word.


He thinks America should remain a white majority country. I disagree with him (so no, I don´t support him on this, but he would be a better US president for the Middle East for sure). However, if that makes him a white supremacist, then most countries in the world are filled with xyz supremacists. Turks would want Turkey to remain Turkish etc. Is the Japanese president an East Asian supremacist? I doubt you would call him that. Is Netanyahu (and are most Jews) Jewish supremacist/s? [that´s even more interesting as Palestinians might be more racially Jewish]


----------



## omgcat (Aug 24, 2020)

dude, when the GOP platform is "whatever trump wants" and has spelling errors on their official site.

https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/doc...00.2055661719.1598124638-455285808.1584478680

RESOVLVED

Like get a proof reader for something this important.

also get a moral cause to stand behind already.

"If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power." -President Dwight D. Eisenhower

seriously you think out of the 1000's of people working for the GOP, that someone could think of a reasonable goal for the future. that on top of almost all of trump's campaign managers being arrested for corruption.

Also more than half of the scheduled speakers for the RNC are the presidents family members. it's gonna be "my dad", "my dad", "My husband", "daddy" the whole time.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 24, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Kamala Harris said how great it was to be around black people. Is she a black supremacist?


Do you have a direct quote?

Hypothetically, if she said, "It's great to be around black people," that would not be racism nor racial supremacism. There is no claim that anyone is superior to anyone else.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I think "blacks" are better at singing, dancing and many different sports. Am I a black supremacist?


Stereotypes and overgeneralizations can be racist. What you're describing isn't necessarily supremacism. See below.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> He thinks America should remain a white majority country. I disagree with him (so no, I don´t support him on this


If you do not agree with Jared Taylor, and he's irrelevant to the topic of the 2020 presidential election, then I don't know why we are still talking about him. This guy is gross, and I'm tired of talking about him.

If I remember correctly, your original point was that Wikipedia is not infallible. I agree with you that Wikipedia is not infallible, but Jared Taylor was a bad example, since Jared Taylor is in fact a white supremacist.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> but he would be a better US president for the Middle East for sure).


You're going to have to be more specific about what you mean here, but I highly doubt a racist who only really cares about the interests of white people is going to be very good for the Middle East.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> However, if that makes him a white supremacist, then most countries in the world are filled with xyz supremacists. Turks would want Turkey to remain Turkish etc. Is the Japanese president an East Asian supremacist? I doubt you would call him that. Is Netanyahu (and are most Jews) Jewish supremacist/s? [that´s even more interesting as Palestinians might be more racially Jewish]


Jared Taylor believes white people are superior to black people, Hispanic people, and others. This is white supremacism. He believes the United States should be a white-only (his preference) or white-majority country, since white people are superior to the aforementioned races. This is white supremacism. He believes in decreasing the numbers of what he perceives to be "lower races" through forcible sterilizations on the basis of welfare. This is white supremacism. He believes white people are so superior to black people that white people are the source of civilized society, and he thinks civilization itself disappears if it's left to only black people. This is white supremacism.

If you find an example of somebody else espousing these kinds of beliefs, it's also racial supremacism.


----------



## erikas (Aug 24, 2020)

Not an american, so i can't vote. But if i could, Trump.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 24, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Hypothetically, if she said, "It's great to be around black people," that would not be racism nor racial supremacism. There is no claim that anyone is superior to anyone else.


Thank you, I wanted you to make this clear. If you enjoy the company of any given race, it is not a form of supremacy. So if Jared says he wants to be around white people, that does not make him a white supremacist either.
(Now we both know though what would happen if a white person said this. The media would call this person a white supremacist. And you are perpetuating this inconsistency)

Here is Kamala Harris´ quote:
“I stood in the back, looked around and thought, ‘*This is heaven!*’ Harris recounts in her biography, “The Truths We Hold: An American Journey.” “*There were hundreds of people, and everyone looked like me*.”
https://lite.cnn.com/en/article/h_3899feffb5cc27bc647543934dea6e6c



Lacius said:


> Stereotypes and overgeneralizations can be racist. What you're describing isn't necessarily supremacism. See below.


It is more complicated with regards to music but there is little subjectivity in sports.


Lacius said:


> If you do not agree with Jared Taylor, and he's irrelevant to the topic of the 2020 presidential election, then I don't know why we are still talking about him. This guy is gross, and I'm tired of talking about him.


I can give you many other examples but I doubt you know about them (in different countries).


Lacius said:


> since Jared Taylor is in fact a white supremacist.


We have been through this. Supremacy means number one. You are mistakenly thinking of superiority in a limited setting.



Lacius said:


> You're going to have to be more specific about what you mean here, but I highly doubt a racist who only really cares about the interests of white people is going to be very good for the Middle East.


That is exactly what Middle East needs. I am sick and tired of American supremacists (including you if you are for interventions) fucking up the Middle East.
Obama has called America the only indispensible nation. Do you agree with him? This is actual supremacy.

Since you are tired of talking about Taylor, I won´t go into detail about your representation of him. However, I want a clear answer from you:
If Taylor is a supremacist for wanting to live among white people and his country to remain majority white, then why do you not call Israelis accordingly? 
After all, in Israel there has been actual forced sterilization of certain ethnic groups. [You have misrepresented Taylor. He said if poor mothers (he was not specifically talking about any race) have a right to produce an unlimited amount of babies, does society have an unlimited duty to care for them? Voluntary sterilization in exchange for welfare could be a solution - At least this is my memory of it, I don´t know if you want to open this can of worms]


----------



## Lacius (Aug 24, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> If you enjoy the company of any given race, it is not a form of supremacy. So if Jared says he wants to be around white people, that does not make him a white supremacist either.


The difference is that this man wants to be around white people because he thinks white people are superior to black people and others. His views also don't stop at merely enjoying the company of a particular race.

If someone from an oppressed minority group says they enjoy spending time with other members of that group, that's not to say they dislike spending time with people from the majority group. For example, if a gay person says he enjoys spending time around other gay people, that's not to say there's anything wrong with straight people; it's just a thing that's enjoyable and rare. However, when a member of a majority group with a history of oppression says he likes spending time with members of that group, the implication is usually that he doesn't like spending time with the minority groups.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> (Now we both know though what would happen if a white person said this. The media would call this person a white supremacist. And you are perpetuating this inconsistency)
> 
> Here is Kamala Harris´ quote:
> “I stood in the back, looked around and thought, ‘*This is heaven!*’ Harris recounts in her biography, “The Truths We Hold: An American Journey.” “*There were hundreds of people, and everyone looked like me*.”
> https://lite.cnn.com/en/article/h_3899feffb5cc27bc647543934dea6e6c


She didn't say one race was better than another. She didn't say she preferred being around one race over another. She's describing her feelings with regard to increased access to higher education, regardless of "racial and socioeconomic background."



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> It is more complicated with regards to music but there is little subjectivity in sports.


Stereotypes and overgeneralizations like "black people are better at basketball," for example, are racist. The factors that lead one to believe this kind of overgeneralization have more to do with systemic racism and socioeconomic disparities and little or nothing to do with race and genetics.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I can give you many other examples but I doubt you know about them (in different countries).


You can give me examples of what? Because you're responding to a part of my post where I said a.) Jared Taylor has nothing to do with the 2020 presidential election, and b.) You apparently don't agree with Jared Taylor. Given A and B, there's no reason for us to continue talking about him.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> We have been through this. Supremacy means number one. You are mistakenly thinking of superiority in a limited setting.


When I and the rest of the world are talking about white supremacists and white supremacy, we are talking about people who believe white people are better than other races. A white supremacist who says Race A is better at X than white people is still a white supremacist, particularly when we're talking about tired IQ arguments that are the cornerstone for a lot of white supremacist apologetics.

I'm about as interested in semantic arguments about the term "white supremacist" as I am interested in having semantic arguments about the term "homophobe," and I've probably let this one go on for too long.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> That is exactly what Middle East needs.


Racism, nationalism, and white supremacy are not what the Middle East needs. These beliefs lead to actions that prioritize white Americans over the Middle East, for example, and these beliefs are also indicative of poor logical reasoning skills that are likely to result in other bad decisions unrelated to one's racism.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> That is exactly what Middle East needs. I am sick and tired of American supremacists (including you if you are for interventions) fucking up the Middle East.


I'm not an interventionist.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Obama has called America the only indispensible nation. Do you agree with him? This is actual supremacy.


Do you have a direct quote?



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Since you are tired of talking about Taylor, I won´t go into detail about your representation of him. However, I want a clear answer from you:
> If Taylor is a supremacist for wanting to live among white people and his country to remain majority white, then why do you not call Israelis accordingly?



That's not the extent of Taylor's views.
We're talking about Taylor, not Israel.



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> You have misrepresented Taylor. He said if poor mothers (he was not specifically talking about any race) have a right to produce an unlimited amount of babies, does society have an unlimited duty to care for them? Voluntary sterilization in exchange for welfare could be a solution - At least this is my memory of it, I don´t know if you want to open this can of worms


Taylor is a self-described eugenicist. He alleges a direct link between poverty and genetics, he alleges a direct link between these supposed "poverty genes" and certain minority races, and he advocates for selectively breeding out those poverty genes/races via eugenics, including but not limited to making welfare contingent upon sterilization.

In reality, the need for welfare has to do systemic racism, socioeconomic disparities, inadequate access to healthcare, inadequate access to education, etc. It has little or nothing to do with race and genetics.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 25, 2020)

_"It's time for us, _*for we the people*_, to come together."
_
The Biden campaign has skipped grammar classes as well.


----------



## alevan (Aug 25, 2020)

Definitely Trump.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 25, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> _"It's time for us, _*for we the people*_, to come together."
> _
> The Biden campaign has skipped grammar classes as well.


"We the People" is a reference to the Preamble to the United States Constitution. It's famous in the United States, and schoolchildren are often required to memorize it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text

I'm not sure if your post was satire or not.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 26, 2020)

Lacius said:


> "We the People" is a reference to the Preamble to the United States Constitution. It's famous in the United States, and schoolchildren are often required to memorize it.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
> 
> I'm not sure if your post was satire or not.


It could have been phrased so much better. Example: "It is time that we, the people, come together."


----------



## Lacius (Aug 26, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> It could have been phrased so much better. Example: "It is time that we, the people, come together."


There's nothing wrong with the way it was worded.

Your example also removes emphasis from where it was intended.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 26, 2020)

Lacius said:


> There's nothing wrong with the way it was worded.


So the phrase "it's time for we to come together" is grammatically correct?


----------



## Lacius (Aug 26, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> So the phrase "it's time for we to come together" is grammatically correct?


No, but that's not the phrase that was used.

The use of a stylistic parenthetical phrase for emphasis the way he did is grammatically correct. Not that it automatically makes me correct, but you should know I taught English for several years.

It's not hard to find an actual example of a gaffe, poor grammar, etc. from Biden, but this isn't it. Biden's grammar issues are also nothing when compared to the incoherent nonsense that Trump vomits on a regular basis. Finally, I don't see poor grammar and gaffes as disqualifiers for the office of President. I'd probably vote for a Democratic candidate with twice as many examples of grammar problems as Trump if the candidate's policies were good.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 26, 2020)

Why did Kamala Harris suddenly change the pronunciation of her first name?
It used to be "KAmala". Now it is "KaMAla". Who does that to his/her first name? Is it a campaign strategy?
EDIT: see below


----------



## Lacius (Aug 26, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Why did Kamala Harris suddenly change the pronunciation of her first name?
> It used to be "KAmala". Now it is "KaMAla". Who does that to his/her first name? Is it a campaign strategy?


It is, and always has been, pronounced: comma-la.


----------



## IncredulousP (Aug 26, 2020)

Voting for Biden. Hate Biden but Donald should never have been voted in in the first place.
Still surprises me how many people support such *blatant *corruption and incompetence. Has American Education really sunk so low? Why are my fellow countrymen so easily manipulatable?


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 26, 2020)

Lacius said:


> It is, and always has been, pronounced: comma-la.


I stand corrected. I wrongly assumed the media would care to check. It has always been the first syllable.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 26, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> I stand corrected. I wrongly assumed the media would care to check. It has always been the first syllable.


Most media outlets are checking, pronouncing it correctly, and covering how to pronounce it correctly. Faux news like Fox News are an exception, where asshats like Tucker Carlson are corrected on-air and don't even pretend to care.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Aug 27, 2020)

I am not watching Fox news. I heard the wrong pronunciation at many many other channels.


----------



## notimp (Aug 28, 2020)

Just watching the Trump speech. One detail stood out. 

Trump is using the demands of leftwing protesters (defund the police, give money to communities) to conjure up fear in voters that - and this is a quote - "Biden will defund the police" this will lead to chaos and destruction in america. 

Such a nice example, how a completely ludicrous demand can backfire in intent, and be used against its original purpose, to accuse the presidential candidate of the same party those protesters are closest to politically.


----------



## Pokemon_Tea_Sea_Jee (Aug 28, 2020)

​


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 28, 2020)

The ending of each respective convention says all.

RNC - Large firework display with live music amidst a large crowd at the White House.
DNC - A library with balloons.

You can tell who has more American spirit.


----------



## TheCasualties (Aug 28, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> The ending of each respective convention says all.
> 
> RNC - Large firework display with live music amidst a large crowd at the White House.
> DNC - A library with balloons.
> ...


From what I saw:

RNC - Fear mongering, misinformation, and sucking on Trumps.. ego.
DNC - talks about unity and rational discussion. how to move forward

I'd say unity is more "American spirit" (UNITED states of America?)

PS: it was wild seeing all the Rep's that only 4 years ago were saying Trump was a "know nothing windbag" have gone to praising him because he _is _the Republican Party now. I don't see how they are going to survive after Trump is gone, whenever that is.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 28, 2020)

TheCasualties said:


> From what I saw:
> 
> RNC - Fear mongering, misinformation, and sucking on Trumps.. ego.
> DNC - talks about unity and rational discussion. how to move forward
> ...


Fear mongering and misinformation sounds more like the left's response to the Coronavirus and the police than the right's.


----------



## TheCasualties (Aug 28, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Fear mongering and misinformation sounds more like the left's response to the Coronavirus and the police than the right's.


 did you see _any _of the RNC speeches? It was all about how USA will fail if Biden is elected. "They’ll disarm you, empty the prisons, lock you in your home, and invite MS-13 to live next door" is an actual quote. None of that is actually true.

Meanwhile Trump actually pardons a bank robber. 

Not to mention it's a *crime *to use the White house for campaign purposes. It's called the Hatch Act


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 28, 2020)

TheCasualties said:


> did you see _any _of the RNC speeches? It was all about how USA will fail if Biden is elected. "They’ll disarm you, empty the prisons, lock you in your home, and invite MS-13 to live next door" is an actual quote. None of that is actually true.
> 
> Meanwhile Trump actually pardons a bank robber.


You've been talking about repealing the second amendment, defunding the police, and shutting down the country.


----------



## leon315 (Aug 28, 2020)

JUST CURIOUS, when Russian "presumably interferes" about USA's election was considered RUSSIANGATE or *COSPIRACY, *what about this *Turkish which publicly support Biden?

*
p.s. SOMEHOW i can't incorporate twitch link properly, can any mod fix it for me?


----------



## notimp (Aug 28, 2020)

leon315 said:


> JUST CURIOUS, when Russian "presumably interferes" about USA's election was considered RUSSIANGATE or *COSPIRACY, *what about this *Turkish which publicly support Biden?*


Public support from foreign allies is considered 'normal' and good sport, always. 

In fact, you organize trips and meet and greets, if you have a (perceived as more important) foreign national leader on your calling card, because meeting them in a pre election period gives you 'leadership points' with the locals.

So other way around is generally accepted as well..


----------



## leon315 (Aug 28, 2020)

notimp said:


> Public support from foreign allies is considered 'normal' and good sport, always.
> 
> In fact, you organize trips and meet and greets, if you have a (perceived as more important) foreign national leader on your calling card, because meeting them in a pre election period gives you 'leadership points' with the locals.
> 
> So other way around is generally accepted as well..


*IF BY ANY CHANCE *Russia publicly supported Trump , I'm 100% sure he 's already impeached. I'm sure this is not how things work in considering Turkey/Syria situation.

That Turkish streamer could be a Turkish spy and he's in *COLLUSION WITH BIDEN *in order to interfere USA election.


----------



## magico29 (Aug 28, 2020)

Joe Biden is old as hell, come on guys.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 29, 2020)

magico29 said:


> Joe Biden is old as hell, come on guys.


And he's already been in the government for 47 years while doing _nothing._


----------



## magico29 (Aug 29, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> And he's already been in the government for 47 years while doing _nothing._


Thank you, that's what i said.


----------



## notimp (Aug 29, 2020)

magico29 said:


> Thank you, that's what i said.


But thats just factually wrong.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-biden-senate-record-controversies-20190318-story.html


----------



## magico29 (Aug 29, 2020)

notimp said:


> But thats just factually wrong.
> https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-biden-senate-record-controversies-20190318-story.html


He is too old no matter what, he should be retired 20 years ago.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 29, 2020)

nvm. I'm in too good a mood for this shit.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 29, 2020)

magico29 said:


> He is too old no matter what, he should be retired 20 years ago.


By that logic, Trump should have retired 17 years ago.  Like I'm no fan of Biden, but this is a really dumb line of attack regardless.  Most US presidents have been hella old.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 29, 2020)

Xzi said:


> By that logic, Trump should have retired 17 years ago.  Like I'm no fan of Biden, but this is a really dumb line of attack regardless.  Most US presidents have been hella old.


Yeah, I was gonna point that out, but at the same time I didn't want anyone thinking I was on the wrong side.

Either way, do you really want to vote for somebody who opposed the desegregation of school busses, with a cop for a vice president?


----------



## Itsuki235 (Aug 29, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I recommend taking the iSideWith Quiz to see which candidate's policy positions you are most in alignment with.
> 
> It should go without saying, but please remember to keep your discussions civil.


Interesting quiz thanks for the link. Apparently I am 15-18% Repug, depending upon the issue.

So, voting Biden since I mostly support his policies. I am also expecting him to die to COVID-19 at some point, and having Harris as President would be great.

On a side note, I am also noticing a pattern where a Republican president takes office in an electoral victory where they lost the popular vote (Bush), then they crash the economy. Then a Democrat takes over (Obama), the democrat fixes it.

Then a Republican takes over in an electoral victory where they lost the popular vote again (Trump) and the Rep trashes the economy (again). So now we are at the part where a Dem fixes it again (Biden?), and, If the pattern holds, the next president after this one will be a Republican, and they will crash the economy again, so on the next the next pendulum swing after that, the Dem will fix it again. 

Question: If you care about the economy and jobs, why are you people voting for Republicans?


----------



## MurraySkull (Aug 29, 2020)

Itsuki235 said:


> Interesting quiz thanks for the link. Apparently I am 15-18% Repug, depending upon the issue.
> 
> So, voting Biden since I mostly support his policies. I am also expecting him to die to COVID-19 at some point, and having Harris as President would be great.
> 
> ...


Biden's polices are EVIL and having Harris would be TERRIBLE! Also, dems NEVER fix the economy!


----------



## Itsuki235 (Aug 29, 2020)

MurraySkull said:


> Biden's polices are EVIL and having Harris would be TERRIBLE! Also, dems NEVER fix the economy!


The last presidential cycle and the current one both beg to differ.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 29, 2020)

Itsuki235 said:


> having Harris as President would be great.


She's a cop.


Itsuki235 said:


> Then a Republican takes over in an electoral victory where they lost the popular vote again (Trump) and the Rep trashes the economy (again).


China destroyed our economy. If anything, it was you nimrods keeping Trump from blocking planes to and from from China. That's the reason why we're where we are today.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 29, 2020)

leon315 said:


> JUST CURIOUS, when Russian "presumably interferes" about USA's election was considered RUSSIANGATE or *COSPIRACY, *what about this *Turkish which publicly support Biden?
> 
> *
> p.s. SOMEHOW i can't incorporate twitch link properly, can any mod fix it for me?





huh, i wonder if the problem has something to do with the russians being sanctioned by the USA, but the turks aren't. sure is a head scratcher.


MurraySkull said:


> Biden's polices are EVIL and having Harris would be TERRIBLE! Also, dems NEVER fix the economy!



oh boy evil!

I can't believe Biden would withhold aid and a proper task force because the states being negatively effected or on the other side of the political spectrum!
Damn that Biden taking $44BN from FEMA and the disaster relief fund right before the Texas and Louisiana get the double barrel of hurricanes!

oh wait, that wasn't Biden at all, this is all happening during Trump's administration.



gotta build that wall, with corpses if we can!


----------



## Xzi (Aug 29, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Either way, do you really want to vote for somebody who opposed the desegregation of school busses, with a cop for a vice president?


Not particularly.  As I've said before, Biden and Harris are center-right, while Trump and Pence are far right.  Then again, I never thought I'd see any president, Democrat or Republican, attack the post office of all things in my lifetime.  That, and the fact that I can't be confident there will ever be any more elections should Trump win a second term, is slowly nudging me toward voting Biden.  Not that it really matters, he'll win my state regardless (Colorado).

Voting for the lesser of two evils blows and I'm certainly sick of it, but thanks to the Trump administration's failures in dealing with the coronavirus, moving to a country with an actual democracy and an actual leftist party isn't even an option right now.  So step one is getting some stable leadership to convince the rest of the world that all Americans aren't ignorant, science-denying plague rats.  After that I can weigh my options and possibly abandon ship before this country decides to go full fash.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 29, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Not particularly.  As I've said before, Biden and Harris are center-right, while Trump and Pence are far right.  Then again, I never thought I'd see any president, Democrat or Republican, attack the post office of all things in my lifetime.  That, and the fact that I can't be confident there will ever be any more elections should Trump win a second term, is slowly nudging me toward voting Biden.  Not that it really matters, he'll win my state regardless (Colorado).
> 
> Voting for the lesser of two evils blows and I'm certainly sick of it, but thanks to the Trump administration's failures in dealing with the coronavirus, moving to a country with an actual democracy and an actual leftist party isn't even an option right now.  So step one is getting some stable leadership to convince the rest of the world that all Americans aren't ignorant, science-denying plague rats.  After that I can weigh my options and possibly abandon ship before this country decides to go full fash.


*STOP
BRINGING
UP
THE
CHINA
VIRUS*


Trump _tried_ to close down airlines to and from China. _You_ kept him from doing so.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 29, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> *STOP
> BRINGING
> UP
> THE
> ...


He's the president, I don't have the power to keep him from doing anything.  And banning air travel from China was never going to do much anyway, the virus was already inside our borders by the time he was weighing that option.  The bottom line is that there was no leadership on the federal level when it came to pandemic response.  Trump even inherited a pandemic response team from the Obama administration, and disbanded it practically the moment he took office.  He was apparently hoping the virus would respect state lines so that he could blame everything on Democratic governors.

Gonna be around 200,000 dead before the end of this year.  If I'm being _generous_, 50,000 of those couldn't have possibly been prevented.  That still leaves the blood of over 150,000 dead Americans on Trump's hands.  All he had to do was issue a mask mandate early on and not be in such a rush to reopen everything.  Not only would it have saved lives, but the economy would be doing much better now too.  But I suppose it's too much to ask that Republicans prioritize the long-term health of the nation over short-term corporate profits.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 29, 2020)

Xzi said:


> He's the president, I don't have the power to keep him from doing anything.  And banning air travel from China was never going to do much anyway, the virus was already inside our borders by the time he was weighing that option.  The bottom line is that there was no leadership on the federal level when it came to pandemic response.  Trump even inherited a pandemic response team from the Obama administration, and disbanded it practically the moment he took office.  He was apparently hoping the virus would respect state lines so that he could blame everything on Democratic governors.
> 
> Gonna be around 200,000 dead before the end of this year.  If I'm being _generous_, 50,000 of those couldn't have possibly been prevented.  That still leaves the blood of over 150,000 dead Americans on Trump's hands.  All he had to do was issue a mask mandate early on and not be in such a rush to reopen everything.  Not only would it have saved lives, but the economy would be doing much better now too.  But I suppose it's too much to ask that Republicans prioritize the long-term health of the nation over short-term corporate profits.


Here's the thing: Freedom is far more important than safety. You risk your life by living.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 29, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Here's the thing: Freedom is far more important than safety. You risk your life by living.


Totally asinine response.  There are risks we can measure and control, and then there's the random chaos of the universe which we have no control over.  Coronavirus falls into the former category.  The federal government failed in its most basic duty to protect and serve its citizens, not because it was incapable of doing so, but because it simply chose not to.  Put another way: Trump has just as much disdain for his own supporters as he does for Democrats.


----------



## omgcat (Aug 29, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> *STOP
> BRINGING
> UP
> THE
> ...



"stop bringing up one of the greatest presidential failures in the history of the united states! it's not fair!"

Trump is in for a fucking doozy when he figures out that people can get reinfected with this virus. By systematically dismantling our avenues of tackling the threat, our economy will be in shambles.

we make up less than 5% of the planets population, and have over 20% of the total coronavirus deaths.

our current administration is a god damn joke.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 29, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Totally asinine response.  There are risks we can measure and control, and then there's the random chaos of the universe which we have no control over.  Coronavirus falls into the former category.  The federal government failed in its most basic duty to protect and serve its citizens, not because it was incapable of doing so, but because it simply chose not to.  Put another way: Trump has just as much disdain for his own supporters as he does for Democrats.


Let's think about it this way. Two options.
1. Mandate masks, triggering humanity's natural instinct to get away with things they shouldn't do and causing people to take off their masks at any opportunity they get.
2. Freedom.

Either way, I'm not wearing one. No lives can be saved.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 29, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Let's think about it this way. Two options.
> 1. Mandate masks, triggering humanity's natural instinct to get away with things they shouldn't do and causing people to take off their masks at any opportunity they get.
> 2. Freedom.
> 
> Either way, I'm not wearing one. No lives can be saved.


Frankly I think you're full of it.  If Trump had ordered an extended quarantine followed by a mask mandate, you and 95% of Republicans would've adhered to those rules and regulations.  If there's one thing the party is good at, it's falling in line, especially since it became a cult of personality centered around one individual's every whim.

Hypothetically though, let's say he did these things and you rebelled against them.  Lives would still be saved and the economy would still be in better shape at this point, because A. there'd be nowhere for you to go and nothing for you to do during quarantine, and B. you'd immediately be booted out of any business in any state for refusing to wear a mask.  Without the backing of a major political party, you'd be in a very tiny minority of selfish assclowns.


----------



## Itsuki235 (Aug 29, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> China destroyed our economy. If anything, it was you nimrods keeping Trump from blocking planes to and from from China. That's the reason why we're where we are today.


Actually, how we got here is the deregulation policies that go back to Reagan and his trickle-down economics that focuses on making sure the 0.1% are very very well taken care of such that they profit while the workers do not.  That is why worker's wages rose from the Great Depression up to his presidency and have stagnated ever since.

His deregulation policies, and especially the Republicans pushing for them since, has caused a very predictable effect of destabilizing the economy and culminated in the repeal of FDR's Glass-Steagall Act which was a cornerstone of the New Deal. Repealing that very predictably caused a bubble + crash, and we now know it as the 2008 housing crisis which destroyed an incalculable amount of existing wealth by depriving working families of their homes. The ramifications of this are still being felt. The banks were bailed out, so make sure the 0.01% were taken care of right away, while the treasury secretary slow-walked financial aid for people who now had mortgages with abusive terms, like balloon payments.

After that, Obama passed the Dodd-Frank Act, basically reinstating Glass-Steagall, the Affordable Care Act aka "Obamacare", which among other things, covers people with preexisting conditions, and created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to advocate for consumer rights.

Predictably, Republicans and the Republican President have done their best to undo Dodd-Frank, I guess in order to basically guarantee the subsequent economic downturn in the business cycle would be comparable to the Great Depression? and turned the CFPB into a paper tiger. They have also worked very hard to take away health coverage from millions of Americans, even in the middle of a pandemic, making sure that millions will have to file for bankruptcy and loose all wealth they had built up since 2008. Makes sense no? Kick the working people when they are down. That is the motto of Republicans these days.

Liberals/Leftists pass sane regulation, and social safety net programs, then the conservative right removes them and tries to get the stock market up the highest it will go. while ignoring the fact that the stock market does not represent the majority of Americans. Then on the downturn jobs and wealth get destroyed when it crashes, and now a Democrat (Biden) has to pick up the pieces.

THAT is how we arrived where we are today, not some conspiracy theory about democrats and planes from China. Perhaps you would not fall prey so much conspiratorial thinking if you knew a little bit about history and had reasonable standards of evidence. What are the sayings again? Fool me once, shame on you, but fool me twice, then shame on me, and those who do not know history are bound to repeat it.

How do you know you are not being mislead by the Republicans pushing trickle-down Reaganomics if you don't even understand the practical consequences of such policies on the economy in the long run? We didn't know the consequences in the 80s, but we do now, and that means:



Itsuki235 said:


> Question: If you care about the economy and jobs, why are you people voting for Republicans?



COVID-19 is the best possible thing to have happened to Republicans overall, because now the blame gets shifted from the economic collapse that was inevitable under the deregulation policies, onto some extraneous factor that they don't have to get blamed for causing, despite such a hard crash being inevitable due to them being in power.

If you care about this country, then explain to me what is so patriotic about making sure wealth ends up in the hands of the very few? Why does being an "American" mean you have to create an economic oligarcy? Why should corporations be able to record record profits while the working class wonders if we will make enough to pay the rent or be evicted this month? Why can't being caring about one's country mean to acknowledge one has made a mistake (trickle-down economics) and then work to fix that?

How can you create a better country for everyone if the party you vote for is pushing for policies that are fundamentally about squeezing working people in order to feed more wealth to the 0.1%? That is the goal of the Republican party, and it has been since Reagan.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 29, 2020)

Itsuki235 said:


> Actually, how we got here is the deregulation policies that go back to Reagan and his trickle-down economics that focuses on making sure the 0.1% are very very well taken care of such that they profit while the workers do not.  That is why worker's wages rose from the Great Depression up to his presidency and have stagnated ever since.
> 
> His deregulation policies, and especially the Republicans pushing for them since, has caused a very predictable effect of destabilizing the economy and culminated in the repeal of FDR's Glass-Steagall Act which was a cornerstone of the New Deal. Repealing that very predictably caused a bubble + crash, and we now know it as the 2008 housing crisis which destroyed an incalculable amount of existing wealth by depriving working families of their homes. The ramifications of this are still being felt. Predictably, Bush's administration made sure the banks were bailed out so make sure the 0.01% were taken care of, while slow-walking financial aid for people who now had mortgages with abusive terms, like balloon payments.
> 
> ...


So we should punish the rich for being smart with their money.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 29, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> So we should punish the rich for being smart with their money.


No, we should pay workers in accordance with the value that their labor produces.  At which point it wouldn't be possible to become that rich at all, because nobody "earns" millions or billions of dollars, they siphon it off from the blood, sweat, and tears of other people.


----------



## Itsuki235 (Aug 29, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> So we should punish the rich for being smart with their money.


Here is a sanity check with a reference to the foundation of this country:

When a wealthy person part of the 0.1% dies, should the wealth they accumulated throughout their life be returned to society from whence it came, or should they be allowed to pass on all/most of it to their "inheritors" who are then wealthy enough to not have to work a day in their life? Such persons would then be free to live on the interest the wealth generates and also have enough to contribute financially to political campaigns to ensure they have political power. The coagulation of that wealth would then predictably create an elite "ruling class".

If you voted for Mitt Romney (advocate of total repeal of estate tax) or Trump (edit: who doubled the estate tax maximums), e.g. Republican, then congrats, you voted for "Let them eat cake."


----------



## magico29 (Aug 29, 2020)

Xzi said:


> By that logic, Trump should have retired 17 years ago.  Like I'm no fan of Biden, but this is a really dumb line of attack regardless.  Most US presidents have been hella old.


Hold your horses, i am not attacking nobody, i work ,never got any type of help from government, 22 years working and paying taxes.Get a job and get loss with your coupons pu***. You are a bum , you dont even have 2 dollars to pay patreon.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 29, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Not particularly.  As I've said before, Biden and Harris are center-right, while Trump and Pence are far right.  Then again, I never thought I'd see any president, Democrat or Republican, attack the post office of all things in my lifetime.  That, and the fact that I can't be confident there will ever be any more elections should Trump win a second term, is slowly nudging me toward voting Biden.  Not that it really matters, he'll win my state regardless (Colorado).
> 
> Voting for the lesser of two evils blows and I'm certainly sick of it, but thanks to the Trump administration's failures in dealing with the coronavirus, moving to a country with an actual democracy and an actual leftist party isn't even an option right now.  So step one is getting some stable leadership to convince the rest of the world that all Americans aren't ignorant, science-denying plague rats.  After that I can weigh my options and possibly abandon ship before this country decides to go full fash.


Biden and Harris are not center-right. They can be described as center-left or maybe even left.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 29, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Trump even inherited a pandemic response team from the Obama administration, and disbanded it practically the moment he took office.





https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...-pandemic-response-team-in-2018-idUSKBN21C32M

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/dems-misconstrue-trump-budget-remarks/

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...ities-are-sharing-misleading-post-about-trum/


----------



## Lacius (Aug 29, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...-pandemic-response-team-in-2018-idUSKBN21C32M
> 
> https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/dems-misconstrue-trump-budget-remarks/
> 
> https://www.politifact.com/factchec...ities-are-sharing-misleading-post-about-trum/


Trump, in fact, disbanded the pandemic response team in 2018. Your own links acknowledge this (they take issue with the word "fired").

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-fire-pandemic-team/

Edit: Off topic, but I wanted to point out that Politifact is a joke. They routinely rate true statements as false in order to avoid the appearance of bias.


----------



## Glyptofane (Aug 29, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> nvm. I'm in too good a mood for this shit.


Even if you were in a bad mood, this thread would surely make it worse. 

Although, even through the hoax gaze of the media, this past week has begun to indicate a tipping point among many that is finally starting to favor giving Trump a real shot at pulling through with this thing.


----------



## Drak0rex (Aug 29, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> I want biden in in office and trump in an orange Jumpsuit rotting in prison and biden would be labeled a pussy if he pardons him


----------



## Lacius (Aug 29, 2020)

@Drak0rex Trump has committed crimes. Biden has not.


----------



## Drak0rex (Aug 29, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> So are we all in agreement to not vote for the white guy?


Correct. Orange man all the way. 





--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> @Drak0rex Trump has committed crimes. Biden has not.


You seem so sure of that


----------



## Lacius (Aug 29, 2020)

Drak0rex said:


> You seem so sure of that


We have evidence of Trump's crimes. We don't have any evidence of crimes committed by Biden.


----------



## Drak0rex (Aug 29, 2020)

Lacius said:


> We have evidence of Trump's crimes. We don't have any evidence of crimes committed by Biden.


I'd love to know your sources.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 29, 2020)

Drak0rex said:


> I'd love to know your sources.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump


----------



## Drak0rex (Aug 29, 2020)

Lacius said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump


Your source is a wiki? Well then it must be true.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 29, 2020)

Drak0rex said:


> Your source is a wiki? Well then it must be true.


There are a lot of crimes, and I'm not going to do your homework for you. Wikipedia is an excellent compendium of information with sources provided for you. I suggest perusing it at your leisure. If you disagree with something there, feel free to change the page and provide your sources.

If you arbitrarily don't want to look at the well-organized list I linked to you, I'd recommend starting instead with the Mueller Report, particularly with regard to criminal obstruction of justice.


----------



## Drak0rex (Aug 29, 2020)

Lacius said:


> There are a lot of crimes, and I'm not going to do your homework for you. Wikipedia is an excellent compendium of information with sources provided for you. I suggest perusing it at your leisure. If you disagree with something there, feel free to change the page and provide your sources.
> 
> If you arbitrarily don't want to look at the well-organized list I linked to you, I'd recommend starting instead with the Mueller Report, particularly with regard to criminal obstruction of justice.


Sorry, but as the one making the statement, the burden of proof is on you, not me. Also if you are able to provide a more unbiased source, I may take you more seriously. Unfortunately, I need to get some rest, as I have a job I have to go to, and am unable to find the time to parse through walls of text at the moment.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 29, 2020)

Drak0rex said:


> Sorry, but as the one making the statement, the burden of proof is on you, not me. Also if you are able to provide a more unbiased source, I may take you more seriously. Unfortunately, I need to get some rest, as I have a job I have to go to, and am unable to find the time to parse through walls of text at the moment.



I provided a compendium of information on Trump's alleged crimes, including sources.
Wikipedia is not biased.
I mentioned the Mueller Report as a source.
Wikipedia sounds like the right thing for someone who "doesn't have time to read through walls of text," so here's the summary page on Trump's alleged obstruction of justice in the Mueller Report. It's a lot more concise than the Mueller Report itself.
I'm not sure what else you want from me.


----------



## Drak0rex (Aug 29, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I provided a compendium of information on Trump's alleged crimes, including sources.
> Wikipedia is not biased.
> I mentioned the Mueller Report as a source.
> Wikipedia sounds like the right thing for someone who "doesn't have time to read through walls of text," so here's the summary page on Trump's alleged obstruction of justice in the Mueller Report. It's a lot more concise than the Mueller Report itself.
> I'm not sure what else you want from me.


Yes yes.  You are ever so eager to find information that supports your bias against Trump while proclaiming that Biden has done nothing wrong which couldn't be further from the truth.  *cough*Tara Reed*cough*


----------



## Lacius (Aug 29, 2020)

Drak0rex said:


> Yes yes.  You are ever so eager to find information that supports your bias against Trump while proclaiming that Biden has done nothing wrong which couldn't be further from the truth.  *cough*Tara Reed*cough*


I didn't say "Trump has committed crimes" because of a bias against Trump. I don't like Romney, for example, but I wasn't calling him a criminal in 2012. I said "Trump has committed crimes" because we have evidence that he has committed crimes.

We don't have sufficient evidence to accept any of the Tara Reed allegations, and I'm not going to talk about them. If our standards of evidence are so low that we are going to accept the Tara Reed allegations, then we have to accept at least 25 allegations against Trump in order to be consistent. It sounds like I'm not the one who hasn't checked their biases at the door.

Let me know when you want to discuss Trump's crimes instead of deflecting and attacking my character.


----------



## mehrab2603 (Aug 29, 2020)

Not an American, but as an outsider, I would have really loved to see Bernie be the next POTUS. Seemed like the only guy with the guts to stand up to Israeli shenanigans and be a fair arbitrator in settling the issue. The current efforts are overwhelmingly one-sided.


----------



## nashismo (Aug 29, 2020)

You kow who will win? Evil and deception, that is the one who always win. Fake virus, and the devil's minions will continue to try to destroy the world. 

It sounds crazy? The world is crazier than me.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 29, 2020)

Lacius said:


> We don't have sufficient evidence to accept any of the Tara Reed allegations, and I'm not going to talk about them..




How convenient for you. Believe all women, except you know, _those_ women. Tara Reed has a more credible claim to her accusations than Christine Blasey Ford or any of the other women that jumped out of the woodshed to accuse Kavanaugh, but for some reason Democrats paid all this attention to what _they_ had to say.

And if you don't think the deals for millions of dollars, even over a BILLION dollars in one deal, being funneled through Hunter Biden's investment firm from Ukrainian and Chinese "business contacts" within weeks after Hunter flew to those countries with his dad on Air Force 2 ---- not to mention Hunter's installation on the Board of Directors of Burisma ---- doesn't constitute evidence of criminal corruption, then your sense of smell is dead. Cuz it smells rotten.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 30, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Not particularly.  As I've said before, Biden and Harris are center-right, while Trump and Pence are far right.



While the left right classification has been dubious since the French revolution invented it, subsequent years and adoption by isolated pockets of English speakers making it little better, that seems like a really dubious claim even with that proviso. That or I am going to need a term stronger than far right to describe various historical characters and their actions, none of which were those undertaken by the present el presidente or are anything even vaguely close to, which is rather unfortunate as I thought far right was already the term generally understood as something of a starting point there. Indeed even if I restrict myself to US politics of living memory then he would probably have been considered pretty centrist (and probably fundamentally lacking) by the US right of the 1940s through 1980s. Religion (evangelical types that were all in on Reagan and the Bush dynasty seem to have at best adopted him as the least likely to mess with their concerns rather than push them), guns (the biggest development there is... the supreme court ruling California's size restrictions as not cool?), economic controls (the rich have a few tax breaks, a few less government programs, what little passes for US welfare setups still intact), tax reforms, race relations (mostly the same, which is to say equal barring what California seems to want to do but neither he nor his party has much sway there), abortions (still legal, indeed restrictions attempted seem to have been smacked down), rights for the gays (still all there), evolution in schools (still being taught, "design" still not being science)... looking at his policies in all those, or indeed breaking the left right thing out into how those policies might land in cultural (other than harping on about games early on, before doing basically nothing), economic, and state power (said swamp does not look very drained from where I sit) versions of those then I can't see far right being an accurate categorisation in those. At best him not sending in the feds to truly crack skulls seems like him at some level doing the whole state's rights thing which I suppose is a right wing affair.

That or we get to discuss that overton window lark. In this case you presumably finding yourself so far into the left wing aspect (the workers making proportional to their work's value thing tending to be a phrase associated with such a position) of things that it is much akin to some starving bastard in Africa looking at you or I (I assume neither of us is looking at a home to summer in any time soon, never mind a jet or private boat with helipad) and thinking us rich.

I would likely struggle to mistake him as a left wing politician, be it by historical, present anywhere in the world never mind the US, certainly not anything like far left but to say far right... just seems ridiculously inaccurate.
Now are his policies good? That is a different matter entirely.


----------



## notimp (Aug 30, 2020)

Drak0rex said:


> Yes yes.  You are ever so eager to find information that supports your bias against Trump while proclaiming that Biden has done nothing wrong which couldn't be further from the truth.  *cough*Tara Reed*cough*


The famous, "whatever you said I dont want to deal with, your guy has done something bad too, so I think that levels all of it" gambit.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 30, 2020)

notimp said:


> The famous, "whatever you said I dont want to deal with, your guy has done something bad too, so I think that levels all of it" gambit.


Allegations are essentially the legal form of rumors, though. Even if, supposedly, Tara was a lying dog-faced pony soldier, there is plenty of photographic evidence that Creepy Joe is, indeed, Creepy.


----------



## notimp (Aug 30, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> then I can't see far right being an accurate categorisation in those. At best him not sending in the feds to truly crack skulls seems like him at some level doing the whole state's rights thing which I suppose is a right wing affair.


How does "Trump supporters call for people to 'arm themselves' and hit the streets to 'protect' america from left wing rioters who want to destroy the nation (more or less verbatim GOP speech)" and this resulting in one such supporter living in that alternative reality bubble actually killing protesters on the streets?

That sounds pretty fashist to me.

This argumentation (a little further into the video):


You don't play with fire, and then wash your hands and proclaim you've done nothing.

If you drive polarisation to that point, for literally no reason, other than you wanting to stay in power...



UltraSUPRA said:


> Allegations are essentially the legal form of rumors, though.


True. That doesnt mean you should dismiss them without looking at or thinking about them.


----------



## PizzaBitez (Aug 30, 2020)

I usually vote republican just of personal beliefs. However I don't think trump is what this country needs....


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 30, 2020)

notimp said:


> That sounds pretty fashist to me.


----------



## notimp (Aug 30, 2020)

In addition to the historian in that video, I've heard Joseph Stiglitz mirror that assertion ("The RNC this year was an exercise straight out of the fashist playbook") not 24 hours ago, and Colbert as well.

So this time, its not just internet activists that are saying 'what have you done here'.

But I'm sure those two people killed, and that young persons life ruined is nothing your meme posting cant solve...


You cant just model your entire convention after a fashist prep speech and then accuse the other side of saying something like - "you did that", by exaggerating the argument and defending yourself with 'at least I'm not Hilter'.

Thats not what you were accused of.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 30, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> While the left right classification has been dubious since the French revolution invented it, subsequent years and adoption by isolated pockets of English speakers making it little better, that seems like a really dubious claim even with that proviso. That or I am going to need a term stronger than far right to describe various historical characters and their actions, none of which were those undertaken by the present el presidente or are anything even vaguely close to, which is rather unfortunate as I thought far right was already the term generally understood as something of a starting point there.


Trump scores a solid 12.5 out of 14 points when it comes to the "early warning signs of fascism" as described by the Holocaust Museum and other historical scholars.






The only way he could possibly be any more blatant about where he falls on the political spectrum is if he started using actual nazi symbolism to promote his campaign.  Oh wait.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 30, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Trump scores a solid 12.5 out of 14 points when it comes to the "early warning signs of fascism" as described by the Holocaust Museum and other historical scholars.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Okay, let's go over each point one by one.

1. Nationalism is a good thing.
2. Human rights don't exist.
3. Labeling your group "anti-bad" doesn't instantly make it the hero group.
4. A stronger military keeps innocent people safe.
5. No.
6. I take it the media told you that you should vote for Biden so that Trump stops controlling the media?
7. See 4.
8. No.
9. What?
10. What?
11. No.
12. Arsonists are swarming the big cities.
13. No.
14. Mail-in voting is the real fraud.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 30, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Okay, let's go over each point one by one.


Let's not.  I didn't ask for the opinion of someone who hasn't even finished high school history classes and takes the information presented in alt-right Youtube videos as gospel.  To an extent, I can forgive FAST6191 for not paying much attention to the shit Trump says and does, because he lives overseas.  You, however, would continue lying to yourself and others even if the "dear leader" of cult45 transitioned his concentration camps into death camps tomorrow.


----------



## notimp (Aug 30, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Okay, let's go over each point one by one.
> 
> 1. Nationalism is a good thing.


Nationalism is a trope invented for a purpose. It can be abused. (Like when you do free trade deals with Mexicon and India, and then claim you are still nationalist. (How this works: Companies will export steps in manufacturing to lower wage countries, then reimport those partly manufactured goods, for final assembly in country, maybe. This results in less, and lower qualification jobs in the US. At the same times, goods get cheaper, and might also be sold to India. Which also doesnt benefit the manufacturing base in the US.))


UltraSUPRA said:


> 2. Human rights don't exist.


They do - but US claims extralegal status basically (claims those courts dont have legislative power over stuff done by the US, or hasnt signed agreements). All that stuff is likely to continue (partly because of the US playing protector and hegemon at the same time)


UltraSUPRA said:


> 3. Labeling your group "anti-bad" doesn't instantly make it the hero group.


Same goes for you, so I think we can agree on that.


UltraSUPRA said:


> 4. A stronger military keeps innocent people safe.


Thats a naive world view.


The only programmatic ('this is what I want to change') points you could come up with were:
"Have no Arsonists swarm the city." (Protesters)
"Mail-in Vote is the real fraud, lets not have Mail-in voting"

Lets face it, you've become a fashist.
-

Oh, the Trump is anti-labour rights point has to be illustrated as well. Lets take a Tump campaign ad for that. 


If you get bamboozled by words: Manufacturing will go to india and mexico, or get to an equally low pay level (partly because of deregulation (no social security for those workers, ...)) to compete.

Free trade means international Investor protection programs (if investor invests money in India he/she gets guarantees, that they arent booted before they have recouped investments, or they get compensations) - its not like india would have had high import tariffs on american goods before. That and that standards get aligned, so manufacturers have lower expenses getting products market ready.

In the conventional economic model, this helps everyone, because as products become cheaper, more people can afford it, which profits the manufacturer - and therefore their workforce. But the money doesnt end up in US workforces anymore - its india that gets developed.

What you'd need in developed countries are investments in R&D and new industries, that only would be viable in the US, for one reason or another (and cheap energy is one reason (a republican one, but hey)).

Trump didnt invest in education, companies didn't invest in R&D (for what? Just slash prices, then sell to india.)


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 30, 2020)

It must be terrifyingly scary to live in a world like those some of the people here seem to inhabit.

I look out into the world and see a politically incapable ego driven corporatist set on padding wallet and "legacy", albeit with weak foreign policy heading the US, scarcely any different from the numerically viable alternative. A clown, a puppet, a performer and nothing much more. However as leaders mean little in this setup and instead inertia and some pretty solid fundamentals are in play then stuff is pretty peaceful, quality of life is about as good as it gets for most, business generally trucking along be it big or small (give or take this little pandemic bit, and while tragic things will probably come back in one form or another, though plenty will have been hurt), people generally able to get on in life if they have the skills (which, while expensive compared to some, are still achievable by the poorer in society).
There are problems, but when are there not? Said education is expensive compared to many places and not of such astounding quality that it would seem to merit that, healthcare... yeah it is good but pay to play is tricky to manage, retirement is a lie but then it always was, a few monopolies are making life harder than is ideal but we also seem to be in one of those more interesting periods in history where technology affords rather radical options here.

Nothing remotely like what I would want or want to look up to in a leader. In no way a principled person on some of the things I care about but few really are (principles are hard things to have - I may not care for what you have to say but your right to say it and all that, does not sell with many of the public that prefer what looks nice and feels comfortable). As such that is far from ideal as there are two or three other big powers looking to make major plays over the coming decades (whether China's economy, education and population pyramid issues will cripple them before this belt and road lark is finished I don't know, whether Russia will have the capabilities to do anything once they topple, where India will be in this, where whatever might be described as Europe will end up) and despite the trillions available to play with it is scarcely noticed.
Do I expect the other guy to either outright fix those, or make moves that go into it? Not really, might do better on some things. Many places have had essentially decades of unbroken control and self determination... places that in other parts of the world have resulted in some notable differences but here... nothing or general failures. Granted those firmly in the grip of the other guys don't seem like paradise either.

If instead you look out and see scarcely abated misery, thugs on every corner, the ability to only conform or be smacked down, and the proverbial minutes to midnight clock of full on jackbooted slave state with autocrats that grinds basically everybody into the dust is 23:59 and wavering...




notimp said:


> How does "Trump supporters call for people to 'arm themselves' and hit the streets to 'protect' america from left wing rioters who want to destroy the nation (more or less verbatim GOP speech)" and this resulting in one such supporter living in that alternative reality bubble actually killing protesters on the streets?
> 
> That sounds pretty fashist to me.



Is this that Kyle Rittenhouse guy? I saw the videos. Did not seem like a reality bubble type. Seemed like an otherwise good kid (probably would not be my friend but then again the boy scout type seldom is) in way out of his depth being attacked and the whole "guns are a great leveller" and he had a nice big one (and seemingly some skill in using it -- I don't know if I have his trigger discipline). Some said however there could have been a previous inciting incident prior to the molotov/flaming bag bit (the thrower taking a headshot not so very long later after further pursuing him) so yeah I will have to see what goes there. If the rest of the footage is accurate (it was long form, generally unedited and covered lead up to shots fired and actions taken beyond) then there would have been four corpses should I have been in his shoes, though I would have probably ran faster (certainly not stopped to potentially render aid/have a little look at the headshot guy) and also tried not to be separated from a group in the first place, not to mention I try not to get myself in situations like that to begin with (not that I have any particular objection to the reason he found himself there; I am just not a particularly community minded individual when my arse in on the line, if the foolhardy want to then all them).


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 30, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Let's not.  I didn't ask for the opinion of someone who hasn't even finished high school history classes and takes the information presented in alt-right Youtube videos as gospel.  To an extent, I can forgive FAST6191 for not paying much attention to the shit Trump says and does, because he lives overseas.  You, however, would continue lying to yourself and others even if the "dear leader" of cult45 transitioned his concentration camps into death camps tomorrow. End of quote.


It amazes me how you can think that you have proof that Donald Trump is a fascist when all you have to back it up is further development of the best country in history and a large stretch based on a logo.


----------



## notimp (Aug 30, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> people generally able to get on in life if they have the skills (which, while expensive compared to some, are still achievable by the poorer in society).


Thats not true. Social mobility in the US is half of that in Canada.

'Needed skills' more and more are becoming 'can you get a job from an app' and 'can you provide a service such as bringing package from A to B'.

Those are the low level qualification jobs. (No upward mobility.)

Higher level qualification jobs consist of 'can you help with international trade (part of which is not trade at all, but the same companies outsourcing)', and project management, where you need some additional qualifications to then cut out your marketing and PR department, and finish jobs using temp workers in the gig economy.

Thats the project management part.

Pathways to education in the US? I don't want to start... (Have you signed up for the military yet?)

R&D? What coasting out the smartphone revolution for the next hyped up secondary market (VR and AR?) Something I missed?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraSUPRA said:


> It amazes me how you can think that you have proof that Donald Trump is a fascist when all you have to back it up is further development of the best country in history and a large stretch based on a logo.


The RNC convention setup and speech production followed a fashist playbook. Dont be amazed, be realistic.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 30, 2020)

notimp said:


> Nationalism is a trope invented for a purpose. It can be abused. (Like when you do free trade deals with Mexicon and India, and then claim you are still nationalist. (How this works: Companies will export steps in manufacturing to lower wage countries, then reimport those partly manufactured goods, for final assembly in country, maybe. This results in less, and lower qualification jobs in the US. At the same times, goods get cheaper, and might also be sold to India. Which also doesnt benefit the manufacturing base in the US.))


Nationalism is based on the idea that the country you live in is the best. Which, in the case ofthe US, it is.


notimp said:


> They do - but US claims extralegal status basically (claims those courts dont have legislative power over stuff done by the US, or hasnt signed agreements). All that stuff is likely to continue (partly because of the US playing protector and hegemon at the same time)


No, they don't. Even the right to life for some people is only granted in a few countries.


notimp said:


> Same goes for you, so I think we can agree on that.


Exactly. It's about action, not a name.


notimp said:


> Thats a naive world view.


Without the army, who would stop the destruction of Israel or South Korea?


notimp said:


> Lets face it, you've become a fashist.


Do you know the name "Giovanni Gentile"?


----------



## notimp (Aug 30, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Nationalism is based on the idea that the country you live in is the best. Which, in the case ofthe US, it is.


That may be, but it was invented in europe, as a governing structure for some bavarian valleys.  (Its an -ism)


UltraSUPRA said:


> Without the army, who would stop the destruction of Israel or South Korea?


Granted, but that doesnt mean you always have to raise investment in military. Which btw. to help you isn't expected to continue unter Trump, military spending is expected to flatline.


FAST6191 said:


> Is this that Kyle Rittenhouse guy? I saw the videos. Did not seem like a reality bubble type. Seemed like an otherwise good kid (probably would not be my friend but then again the boy scout type seldom is)


He sat in the first row at Trump speeches. Which meens, you wait in line for hours for that 'privilege'.

I've nothing against the kid either, well accept for against what he did. Probably a good kid, that armed himself with a semi automatic rifle with live ammunition to 'protect' america from protesters, and killed a few...


----------



## Xzi (Aug 30, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> I look out into the world and see a politically incapable ego driven corporatist set on padding wallet and "legacy", albeit with weak foreign policy heading the US, scarcely any different from the numerically viable alternative. A clown, a puppet, a performer and nothing much more.


Oh we certainly agree there, but it's the puppet-master that's of bigger concern to me than the puppet himself in this case, and I think you know very well who I'm talking about without even needing to mention his name.  Nothing puts a smile on his face more than to see the US divided and in complete chaos, on the verge of collapse from democracy into autocracy.  All he needed was a useful idiot in the White House for four years to accomplish precisely that, four more and we'll be over that cliff without question.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Aug 30, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Oh we certainly agree there, but it's the puppet-master that's of bigger concern to me than the puppet himself in this case, and I think you know very well who I'm talking about without even needing to mention his name.  Nothing puts a smile on his face more than to see the US divided and in complete chaos, on the verge of collapse from democracy into autocracy.  All he needed was a useful idiot in the White House for four years to accomplish precisely that, four more and we'll be over that cliff without question.


Biden is also a puppet, though one of a different Asian country. One that has already made moves to destroy our country as a whole through media corruption and medical warfare.


----------



## notimp (Aug 30, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Biden is also a puppet, though one of a different Asian country. One that has already made moves to destroy our country as a whole through media corruption and medical warfare.


UltraSUPRA is bringing Trump election campaign propaganda - that I haven't have the faintest idea what it means yet.



(Videos from the official Trump channel.)

Every developed nation outside the US wants the US to get back on board with UN and Nato commitments. (And therefore would prefer Joe Biden.)

The US/China trade war will probably continue under Biden. US has no incentives not to.

edit: Ivanka Trump produces and sells handbags in China. Something, something not quite 1.5 billion.
https://medium.com/politicalhaze/ch...-shoes-purses-gadgets-and-voting-93fa61389be0


----------



## Xzi (Aug 30, 2020)

notimp said:


> UltraSUPRA is bringing Trump election campaign propaganda - that I haven't have the faintest idea what it means yet.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's a weak attempt at whataboutism, nothing more.  Trump has just as much reverence for Xinnie the Pooh as he does for every other authoritarian leader around the globe, otherwise he would've done something, anything, in support of Hong Kong protests while they were still ongoing.

Every foreign nation with even an ounce of sanity is hoping for a Biden win, as Trump has become infamous for abandoning the US' allies and any international agreements/treaties we've signed.  Literally his only motivation when it comes to foreign policy is continuing to enrich the Trump organization.


----------



## EmanueleBGN (Aug 30, 2020)

Don't forget: _Hillary Clinton is still ahead in the polls_


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 30, 2020)

EmanueleBGN said:


> Don't forget: _Hillary Clinton is still ahead in the polls_


Go look at Nate Silver's Twitter feed for a hearty laugh.

I have no idea why the DNC thinks race riots are important for the lead-up to Presidential elections... but I'm not about to stop them from throwing me in that briar patch.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 30, 2020)

MysticLord said:


> Go look at Nate Silver's Twitter feed for a hearty laugh.
> 
> I have no idea why the DNC thinks race riots are important for the lead-up to Presidential elections... but I'm not about to stop them from throwing me in that briar patch.


Yes of course, the DNC controls all protesters and rioters...certainly no other notable events have happened in recent weeks/months which might've spurred their actions.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 30, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Yes of course, the DNC controls all protesters and rioters...certainly no other notable events have happened in recent weeks/months which might've spurred their actions.


Hence why they only happen every 4 years; and why they happened this year despite police killings of unarmed black men being down this year. The autopsy and video of George Floyd's arrest - and the fact that he was still alive and breathing in the ambulance - indicate that he died primarily of a overdose from a lethal amount of fentanyl. Exacerbating factors include the meth also found in his blood, his coronavirus infection, and clogged arteries.

The DA and Minnesota AG (Keith Ellison, a black power type and the former head of the DNC during the last Presidential election IIRC) had the bodycam footage and could have released it, but they waited until after the riots.

You really should investigate these things before your form an opinion, you are only embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 30, 2020)

MysticLord said:


> Hence why they only happen every 4 years; and why they happened this year despite police killings of unarmed black men being down this year.


Multiple high-profile murders of black men and women happened within the span of a single month, in one of those instances the victim was literally asleep in her bed.  The George Floyd video was just the straw that broke the camel's back, it was incredibly powerful footage.



MysticLord said:


> The autopsy and video of George Floyd's arrest - and the fact that he was still alive and breathing in the ambulance - indicate that he died primarily of a overdose from a lethal amount of fentanyl. Exacerbating factors include the meth also found in his blood, his coronavirus infection, and clogged arteries.


Yeah...grasping at any excuse to justify murder sure isn't gonna help slow down or stop the protesting.



MysticLord said:


> The DA and Minnesota AG (Keith Ellison, a black power type and the former head of the DNC during the last Presidential election IIRC) had the bodycam footage and could have released it, but they waited until after the riots.


All the body cam footage shows is cops stopping citizens (and one off-duty firefighter) from attempting to help Floyd.  Releasing it sooner wouldn't have made any difference, especially if it was released under the pretense that it should make people "calm down."  If anything that would've only sparked more outrage.



MysticLord said:


> You really should investigate these things before your form an opinion, you are only embarrassing yourself.


You should really stop licking boot so much and learn to empathize a little with fellow Americans, or even just fellow human beings.  Authoritarianism never stops at just one group or race.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Aug 30, 2020)

if trump somehow wins again than it proves you muricans really can't think for yourselves


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 30, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Multiple high-profile murders of black men and women happened within the span of a single month, in one of those instances the victim was literally asleep in her bed.  The George Floyd video was just the straw that broke the camel's back, it was incredibly powerful footage.


So you're saying that the footage - which is SOP for police and military, and to my knowledge has never resulted in a death via asphyxiation largely because you would pass out from blood loss several minutes before you die from lack of oxygen, and therefore be totally complaint - was propaganda?

I never said that Breona Taylor's murder was justified (Narrator's Voice: It wasn't justified), and in my opinion the cops are out of control. We can easily solve it by outlawing public employee unions - which I hope happens soon - and removing qualified immunity, civil asset forfeiture, and no-knock warrants. Vigorous prosecution of cops who do unjustifiably murder unarmed people is another good idea.

Adding requirements for height, physical fitness, and MMA training would greatly increase options for the police to forcibly deescalate violent encounters, and would deter people with Napoleon complexes (who are rarely good at physical violence, hence their insecurity) from becoming cops.

Say what you will about an arm bar, but feeling your bones strain against their sockets is wonderfully focusing - though you're focusing on not losing the use of your arm for the next week.

In any case, it's not actually about police violence because if it were, they would provide at least some attention for the far more frequent murders of unarmed white and hispanic men by cops.



Xzi said:


> Yeah...grasping at any excuse to justify murder sure isn't gonna help slow down or stop the protesting.


The burden is on you to prove he was murdered; go refute the autopsy and get back to me. And in the future refrain from putting words in my mouth if you want to be taken seriously

I don't want the "protesting" to stop. It's cratering public support for Joe Biden and the Democrats in general. I want the "protests" - by which I mean the Joe Biden Burn Loot Murder riots - to go on as long as possible, preferably in Democrat-majority cities.

It's not often that you get to watch the opposing party literally burn down their own cities. I hope they keep doing it. Democrats absolutely deserve to suffer for the what they've put this nation through the last 5 years; and ironically they are and should continue to be the source of their suffering.



Xzi said:


> All the body cam footage shows is cops stopping citizens (and one off-duty firefighter) from attempting to help Floyd.  Releasing it sooner wouldn't have made any difference, especially if it was released under the pretense that it should make people "calm down."  If anything that would've only sparked more outrage.


The cops released footage of some guy that shot himself in the head to avoid arrest at a mall. Happened a few days ago. There were riots until they released the footage, after which they were criticized for "insensitivity". While I don't envy the cops their position, they absolutely deserve it.

Given the example above, you are wrong.



Xzi said:


> You should really stop licking boot so much and learn to empathize a little with fellow Americans, or even just fellow human beings.  Authoritarianism never stops at just one group or race.


I'm not the one assaulting people for not parroting my beliefs; it is YOUR people who are.

If you guys are such a threat to the establishment, why aren't your burning down the homes of cops, politicians, high-ranking bureaucrats, major political donors, journalists, and other such elites? It's not rocket science; much of it is a matter of public record, and what isn't could be figured out with judicious use of open source intelligence.

Why are you instead burning down grocery stores - often in BIPOC neighborhoods, and owned/run by BIPOC proprietors? Why are you creating food and pharmacy deserts in BIPOC neighborhoods, when you claim to represent them? Where is the empathy for the people whose livelihoods were annihilated by YOUR "protests"? They don't all have insurance, and insurance policies vary wildly - many don't cover arson and domestic terrorism.

Semi-Related: Why is it that some kid "shot into a crowd" and managed to kill a child molester who prefers 12 year olds, a serial domestic abuser, and wound a convicted felon illegally carrying a firearm? Do you think that being the party of both Capital (nearly every major corporation supports and funds BLM) and the Lumpenproletariat is a great way to appeal to Middle America? Have you actually read Marx?

Why do so many of the BLM crowds look lily-white? It's clear that this is an excuse for white people to get out of the house and strike at those the media tells them are their oppressors.

Given that you and I agree on almost everything, you should meditate on why you have lost the support of people who are ideologically on your side.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 30, 2020)

MysticLord said:


> So you're saying that the footage - which is SOP for police and military


Jesus Christ I certainly hope not.  If it is SOP it's only for police in this country specifically, and only when they have intent to kill.  I've seen plenty of arrests and techniques for detaining a suspect which didn't involve such brutality.



MysticLord said:


> In any case, it's not actually about police violence because if it were, they would provide at least some attention for the far more frequent murders of unarmed white and hispanic men by cops.


There was plenty of attention paid when the cops ran down that elderly white man and left him there with his head bleeding on the sidewalk.  Of course the attention mostly came from BLM ironically, the "all lives matter" folks were nowhere to be found in that case (or any other involving police violence for that matter).



MysticLord said:


> I don't want the "protesting" to stop. It's cratering public support for Joe Biden and the Democrats in general. I want the "protests" - by which I mean the Joe Biden Burn Loot Murder riots - to go on as long as possible, preferably in Democrat-majority cities.


In other words you're hoping and wishing for the cycle of violence to continue, just as Trump is.  You can't have continued protests and riots without continued escalation by police and boot-licking MAGAtards.  Chaos and division, calling cards of the modern Republican party.



MysticLord said:


> Given the example above, you are wrong.


"Given this totally unrelated example from an event totally unrelated to the one we were discussing, you're wrong."  Oookay buddy.  



MysticLord said:


> If you guys are such a threat to the establishment, why aren't your burning down the homes of cops, politicians, high-ranking bureaucrats, major political donors, journalists, and other such elites? It's not rocket science; much of it is a matter of public record, and what isn't could be figured out with judicious use of open source intelligence.
> 
> Why are you instead burning down grocery stores - often in BIPOC neighborhoods, and owned/run by BIPOC proprietors? Why are you creating food and pharmacy deserts in BIPOC neighborhoods, when you claim to represent them? Where is the empathy for the people whose livelihoods were annihilated by YOUR "protests"? They don't all have insurance, and insurance policies vary wildly - many don't cover arson and domestic terrorism.


Again you're pretending like this is all one big coordinated group controlled by a single entity.  The reality is that it's any number of individuals and smaller individual groups with different motives and varying degrees of desperation brought on by a perfect storm of crises.  Crises which the current administration has failed to deal with entirely, or simply chosen to ignore.



MysticLord said:


> Do you think that being the party of both Capital (nearly every major corporation supports and funds BLM) and the Lumpenproletariat is a great way to appeal to Middle America?


"Supports" as in provides lip service toward?  Sure.  "Funds?"  No.  The vast majority of remaining brick and mortar retail and service outlets fund police unions, because the police protect and serve capital (aka property), not people.  And certainly not working class people.



MysticLord said:


> Why do so many of the BLM crowds look lily-white?


Perhaps because white people aren't nearly as monolithic as you'd like us to be?  Perhaps because there are a whole lot of us who see human rights being violated and don't care much for that sort of thing?  Perhaps because we're now coming to realize just how little progress has been made since the Jim Crow era and we aren't happy about it? 



MysticLord said:


> Given that you and I agree on almost everything, you should meditate on why you have lost the support of people who are ideologically on your side.


I don't know what you're smoking, but based on this short conversation alone, we clearly agree on very little.  I'm also not a Democrat and I'm not asking for your support, you're obviously too far gone down the rabbit hole of moral and ethical failings for me to bother attempting rehabilitation now.


----------



## EmanueleBGN (Aug 30, 2020)

> *FBI data show that while 500 black-on-white killings and 229 white-on-black killings were reported in 2015*.
> 2,574 homicides were committed by whites against other whites, and 2,380 by blacks against blacks.


Source


----------



## notimp (Aug 30, 2020)

EmanueleBGN said:


> *FBI data show that while 500 black-on-white killings and 229 white-on-black killings were reported in 2015*.
> 2,574 homicides were committed by whites against other whites, and 2,380 by blacks against blacks.
> 
> Source


You just won "democratic society".

Bringing such a statement without addressing a culture of violence in certain low income regions. (Projects, f.e.) You told them to scramble to get better, right? 

The problem begins at the next step though. Lets say that the main reason for this really was 'being black'. What would you do with that information, and in how many ways would it destroy society?

(Splitting people into two camps they are born into.)

Looking at what you posted, you could also focus in on, that the vast majority of murders were intra-racial, or that while black people only make up 14% of US population, while 'white people' make up 64% murder rates are almost equal.

Looking at those percentages, black on white murders should be 4.5 times higher than white on black murders. But they only are 2 times higher.

Meaning the entire premise, of black people are more aggressive towards white people - is false.

So lets now go into potential causes for the overall higher homicide rate:

Nazis would say 'genetic'.

I would probably say - this is a result of continued structural racial discrimination.
(Dont forget, black people are also 4 times more likely to die from Covid-19: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...es-more-likely-to-die-from-covid-19-ons-finds )

And again, what is the proposed solution? Lock black people away? Move them out of the country?

Don't just post designed memes, show us that you are a real person and you can interact with arguments. 


edit: Why predesigned meme? The same data is available for 2018 and shows roughly the same. But you brought 2015 figures. Why? Because the person that designed that as a political meme for the twitter audience did so in 2015. Probably. 


Also, lets say that you'd have a 4x higher chance of white dudes murdering someone. Looking at overall initial case numbers of lets say 3000 in a population of 330 million, would that make you look at a white dude on the street differently (with fear)? Perspective.

This argument presumably is used to rectify racial profiling within the police force - and it is not proportional.

If you need to have this broken down further, with 3000 black murderers every year, a police officer asking themselves the question 'is this a potential murderer' looking at a black person would be at a chance of 1:14000 for that police office to ask themselves "is this potentially - my - murderer", the chance is almost infinitely lower (probably x1000 or more), because most homicides still happen within a family background (and not every interaction results in a murder). Lets lowball it and say its 1:14000000 - what concrete reactions in society or in the police force do you propose, to remove that amount of fear from a police officer?

Letting them kneel on peoples throats?


----------



## Lacius (Aug 30, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> How convenient for you. Believe all women, except you know, _those_ women. Tara Reed has a more credible claim to her accusations than Christine Blasey Ford or any of the other women that jumped out of the woodshed to accuse Kavanaugh, but for some reason Democrats paid all this attention to what _they_ had to say.
> 
> And if you don't think the deals for millions of dollars, even over a BILLION dollars in one deal, being funneled through Hunter Biden's investment firm from Ukrainian and Chinese "business contacts" within weeks after Hunter flew to those countries with his dad on Air Force 2 ---- not to mention Hunter's installation on the Board of Directors of Burisma ---- doesn't constitute evidence of criminal corruption, then your sense of smell is dead. Cuz it smells rotten.



"Believe women" doesn't mean "believe all women." It's a right-wing strawman, and it's disingenuous.
The purpose of the #MeToo movement is in part about bringing women with similar experiences out of the wood work, hence the hashtag, but that has not happened with Biden. There's only the one.
Christine Blasey Ford isn't the only accuser against Kavanaugh, and the accusations are not the only evidence. I also didn't say that I accept the claim that Kavanaugh did it.
The purpose of my original post was to make a point about inconsistent standards of evidence. If one accepts the claim that Biden did something to one person, then you must accept the claim that Trump did something to 25 women, in order to be consistent.
Why are you bringing up Burisma in this conversation? It's reminiscent of people irrelevantly screaming "but her emails" in response to any criticism of Trump.
The idea that we have evidence of Hunter Biden doing anything illegal or improper with regard to Burisma is a debunked conspiracy theory.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 30, 2020)

Lacius said:


> "Believe women" doesn't mean "believe all women." It's a right-wing strawman, and it's disingenuous.
> The purpose of the #MeToo movement is in part about bringing women with similar experiences out of the wood work, hence the hashtag, but that has not happened with Biden. There's only the one.
> Christine Blasey Ford isn't the only accuser against Kavanaugh, and the accusations are not the only evidence. I also didn't say that I accept the claim that Kavanaugh did it.
> The purpose of my original post was to make a point about inconsistent standards of evidence. If one accepts the claim that Biden did something to one person, then you must accept the claim that Trump did something to 25 women, in order to be consistent.
> ...




Wow. Nice recitation of lib talking points.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/18/opinion/tara-reade-believe-all-women.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...women-bad-slogan-joe-biden-tara-reade/611617/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...3ff590-9314-11ea-9f5e-56d8239bf9ad_story.html

And etc. Of course, that wailing in unison didn't come about until this Spring, when Tara Reade's accusation against Biden started gaining traction. The media diverted all its attention to Covid and covering for Cuomo's corpse piles, and somehow forgot about her. But this band-aid on the damage, by claiming that liberals and feminists didn't actually mean "all" women, is nothing but sophistry.



Let's put that pile of ridiculous stinking denial together with this one from earlier:












Totally isn't happening, people. BLM never hurt a fly. ANTIFA violence is a myth, just ask Jerry Nadler.


----------



## MMX (Aug 30, 2020)

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. 

I'd just not vote and shit on both major candidates


----------



## Lacius (Aug 30, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Wow. Nice recitation of lib talking points.


My thoughts are my own. I did not recite anything. It should not be surprising that a tired strawman is met with criticisms of being a tired strawman.



Hanafuda said:


> Of course, that wailing in unison didn't come about until this Spring, when Tara Reade's accusation against Biden started gaining traction.


I'm not going to talk about Tara Reade's accusations until there's evidence for her claims. I will, however, say the following:

Women should be listened to.
Women should be treated with dignity.
Women should be believed.
That's not to say, and has never been to say, that all accusations should be accepted unskeptically.

Getting back to my point, do you personally believe Reade's accusations? Do you personally believe Trump's approximately 25 accusers? If your answer is "yes" to one and "no" to another, how do you explain the inconsistency? That's my point. Please address it instead of deflecting with strawmen and irrelevancies. Thank you.



Hanafuda said:


> The media diverted all its attention to Covid


Respectfully, this is a pretty absurd comment. I would argue that 186,000 deaths and rising, as well as the change in lifestyle for nearly all Americans, is a more significant story than an unsubstantiated allegation that was already covered before the pandemic. That would be like me asking, "Why is the media covering 9/11 instead of this sexual assault allegation against Trump?" during the time immediately during and after 9/11.



Hanafuda said:


> and covering for Cuomo's corpse piles


Cuomo is not to blame for the failed federal response to COVID-19, which is directly to blame for the deaths in New York. In addition, New York largely has the pandemic under control at this point, despite the failed federal response. The same can't be said for most other states.



Hanafuda said:


> But this band-aid on the damage, by claiming that liberals and feminists didn't actually mean "all" women, is nothing but sophistry.


"Believe women" is not to say, and has never been to say, that all accusations should be accepted unskeptically. If it did mean that, I would disagree. As I said already, this is also completely irrelevant to my main point about inconsistent standards of evidence.



Hanafuda said:


> Let's put that pile of ridiculous stinking denial together with this one from earlier


You hadn't described anything the progressive left was doing.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Aug 30, 2020)

Oh boy...one of _these _threads.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 30, 2020)

stanleyopar2000 said:


> Oh boy...one of _these _threads.


You're welcome.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 30, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Getting back to my point, do you personally believe Reade's accusations? Do you personally believe Trump's approximately 25 accusers? If your answer is "yes" to one and "no" to another, how do you explain the inconsistency? That's my point. Please address it instead of deflecting with strawmen and irrelevancies. Thank you.



Reade left her job on Biden's staff roughly contemporaneous with the incident. She told friends at the time about the assault (unwelcome finger penetration) incident, who now corroborate that. Tara Reade's mother called in to Larry King Live at the time (1993) and alluded to the abuse. In other words, she didn't just show up on the scene as a convenient bludgeon as Kavanaugh's accusers did. 

Does that mean proof? Of course not. Is it enough to merit taking it seriously and investigating? I think so, a lot more than Christine Blasey Ford's murky recollections with no contemporaneous corroboration whatsoever did, but she got Congressional hearings fer fucks sake.

As for Trump, I found it interesting that they all shut up when the election was over and they were no longer useful. FWIW that _is_ a factor I consider worth noting with Tara Reade ... media coverage or not, she hasn't been on the warpath with her accusation for some months. Satisfied with the cash settlement maybe??? (which could apply to some women who've said things about Trump too, I won't deny the possibility)




Lacius said:


> You hadn't described anything the progressive left was doing.



If you're just splitting hairs over "radical" vs. bog-standard "progressive" leftist, it makes no difference to me. Both have the same endgame, just one is willing to let the other do the wet work in the street.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 30, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Reade left her job on Biden's staff roughly contemporaneous with the incident. She told friends at the time about the assault (unwelcome finger penetration) incident, who now corroborate that. Tara Reade's mother called in to Larry King Live at the time (1993) and alluded to the abuse. In other words, she didn't just show up on the scene as a convenient bludgeon as Kavanaugh's accusers did.
> 
> Does that mean proof? Of course not. Is it enough to merit taking it seriously and investigating? I think so, a lot more than Christine Blasey Ford's murky recollections with no contemporaneous corroboration whatsoever did, but she got Congressional hearings fer fucks sake.
> 
> ...



I'd appreciate it if you answered my question directly.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 30, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I'd appreciate it if you answered my question* directly*.



Sure how's this?


----------



## Sizednochi (Aug 30, 2020)

Bladexdsl said:


> if trump somehow wins again than it proves you muricans really can't think for yourselves


Or quite the contrary, the answer depending on your political inclination. 

I, for one, would like Biden to win, because he'd tank the economy so bad by letting China take away everything from the US that the USD would collapse harshly in no time. Meaning of course cheaper imports for me!


----------



## Pokemon_Tea_Sea_Jee (Aug 31, 2020)

nancy pelosi is a waste of air.



> “I wasn’t too happy with some of the assault that I saw made on the Kennedy family,” Pelosi said. Also, “Joe Kennedy represents this party’s future. He will help lead Democrats forward on the defining battles of our time.”


she is a bigger waste of space than joe kennedy.


----------



## O_d-esk (Aug 31, 2020)

alfred einstein


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 31, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Jesus Christ I certainly hope not.  If it is SOP it's only for police in this country specifically, and only when they have intent to kill.  I've seen plenty of arrests and techniques for detaining a suspect which didn't involve such brutality.


Nice anecdotes. Got any evidence?

Brutality is fine so long as it is proportional. Given that Jacob Blake had from what I've read so far sexually assaulted his ex-girlfriend, had a knife, and was getting back into the minivan to do who knows what to the kids in the back, the shooting is probably justified.

That said, had the cops MMA training they could have just broken his arms, sat on him, and beaten him until he complied. It's certainly better than being shot.



Xzi said:


> There was plenty of attention paid when the cops ran down that elderly white man and left him there with his head bleeding on the sidewalk.  Of course the attention mostly came from BLM ironically, the "all lives matter" folks were nowhere to be found in that case (or any other involving police violence for that matter).


I was referring to the murder of Daniel Shaver, but of course no one burned down a city over that so you've never heard of it.

And wasn't that old white guy involved with antifa? What was he doing waving some sort of plastic/metal wand around the police?



Xzi said:


> In other words you're hoping and wishing for the cycle of violence to continue, just as Trump is.  You can't have continued protests and riots without continued escalation by police and boot-licking MAGAtards.  Chaos and division, calling cards of the modern Republican party.


What cycle? The one where Democrats cross state lines - in some cases travel from the other side of the country - to burn down the Democrat cities?

You seem to believe that "opposing violent criminals and sex offenders trying to destroy other people's lives" is equal to "defending our livelihoods so we don't become homeless and our kids don't starve". This distinction matters because we live in a democratic republic, and aside from the consent manufactured by left-wing media in support of the Joe Biden Burn Loot Murder riots you need to persuade people to win elections. This is terrible optics for your side, and you will persuade more people over to Trump's side if you continue to debate in bad faith... assuming you are capable of debating, or acting in good faith, that is.

And no, driving  a caravan of Trump trucks through Portland or Los Angeles isn't violence. Pushing people who block the road and initiate violence by pelting you with trash also isn't violence, it's self-defense. Pepper-spraying and paint-balling people who throw trash at you isn't violence. Failure to obey traffic laws when people are illegally blocking the road is not violence.

Walking up to a Trump supporter who is armed only with pepper spray and shooting him point blank multiple times, execution style, is violence. Chasing a 17 year old boy who put out a dumpster fire you started, and assaulting him in an attempt to disarm him and presumably kill him with his own gun is violence. Beating someone - who legitimately defended himself - with a skateboard is violence. Pretending to surrender so you can shoot someone in the back of the head is violence, and cowardly too.

You will lose because you don't understand the moral element of conflict, which is the most important in the struggle for legitimacy. Providing opportunities for your enemy to martyr you is how you delegitimize the enemy and gain popular support for your cause. Trump caravans are provocations, but not ones that merit violence as a response. That your side is incapable of responding proportionally to provocations indicates that you lack discipline and self-control, and are unfit to rule.

The wise man recognizes bait and does not fall for it.

I'm literally telling you what you need to do to win, but I doubt you have the self-awareness, humility, or emotional stability to listen. I'll be sure to tell you that I told you so, after Trump wins in November.

And why is it Trump's fault when:
1. The media was calling Wu Flu a nothingburger as late as March, reducing support for any unilateral actions he could take?
2. The media criticized Trump for shutting down travel from China during the same time as #1?
3. Trump left it up to the state and local governments to deal with, which makes sense because states like Florida have suffered far less deaths than New York?
4. The governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, was putting infected in nursing homes with elderly people - one of the most vulnerable populations?

Why is it Trump's fault that the Minnesota Attorney General - Keith Ellison, head of the DNC during the 2016 election where the primary was stolen from Sad Bernie and Yass Slay Kween Hillary was crowned - refused to released bodycam and ambulance footage which would have indicated that Floyd's death was probably caused by the lethal amount of fentanyl in his body? Or the part where Floyd mentions that he tested positive for Wu Flu, a disease which reduces the effectiveness of one's cardiovascular system, making it feel like you are out of breath?

In any case, watching Democrats throw a massive temper tantrum and hit themselves while screaming "STAWP HITTING MEEEEEEEEEE!" is both hilarious and persuades the vast majority of sane, non-criminal Americans who actually work for a living that the Democratic party is not capable of governing. Your evasions and deceptions further cement this to casual readers.



Xzi said:


> "Given this totally unrelated example from an event totally unrelated to the one we were discussing, you're wrong."  Oookay buddy.


I'm not trying to persuade you, I'm trying to persuade the audience. Your flippant dismissal of my point only helps me. Thanks.



Xzi said:


> Again you're pretending like this is all one big coordinated group controlled by a single entity.  The reality is that it's any number of individuals and smaller individual groups with different motives and varying degrees of desperation brought on by a perfect storm of crises.  Crises which the current administration has failed to deal with entirely, or simply chosen to ignore.


Cop-mala Harris said that the rioting will continue no matter who is elected. Amazon donated millions to BLM (which is apparently a registered non-profit corporation), and dozens of other major corporations have donated almost as much. Billionaires and millionaires have also donated massive amounts of money.

Why would Wall Street, generally speaking, and multi-national corporations like Amazon (which doesn't need physical retail stores) donate to a group which:
1. Destroys brick-and-mortar retail stores that are their direct competitors?
2. Want to stop a President who is reining in the worst impulses of multi-national corporations: exporting jobs, importing foreign scab workers to undercut Labor's negotiating power, and general destruction of quality of life for normal people?



Xzi said:


> "Supports" as in provides lip service toward?  Sure.  "Funds?"  No.  The vast majority of remaining brick and mortar retail and service outlets fund police unions, because the police protect and serve capital (aka property), not people.  And certainly not working class people.


This is a lie.

https://blog.aboutamazon.com/policy...o-organizations-supporting-justice-and-equity


> As part of that effort, Amazon will donate a total of $10 million to organizations that are working to bring about social justice and improve the lives of Black and African Americans. Recipients—selected with the help of Amazon's Black Employee Network (BEN)—include groups focused on combating systemic racism through the legal system as well as those dedicated to expanding educational and economic opportunities for Black communities.
> ...
> 
> 
> Black Lives Matter​



Amazon - the company founded and owned by the richest cis-het white man on Earth - funds and expresses explicit support for BLM.

I find it curious that you ignore the massive amount of uppercase-C Capital  held by banks and multinational corporations - which vehemently oppose labor protections and want open borders so they can permanently destroy the leverage of the working class - while focusing on the tiny, minuscule amount of physical capital owned by small/local businesses.

Given that BLM is - as you stated - about physically destroying the working class (both lower and middle, blue-collar and white-collar), is it any surprise that they support whoever protects them from BLM?



Xzi said:


> Perhaps because white people aren't nearly as monolithic as you'd like us to be?  Perhaps because there are a whole lot of us who see human rights being violated and don't care much for that sort of thing?  Perhaps because we're now coming to realize just how little progress has been made since the Jim Crow era and we aren't happy about it?


Well plenty more black people were killed by the cops in 2017, 2018, and 2019 than in 2020, but then again you weren't cooped up in the house for months in those years either. The simplest explanation is that you're bored and driven insane by lack of IRL social contact (and overexposure to consensus-enforcing social media), though personal pathology is probably a factor too.

From what I've seen of the numerous extremely rough looking antifa and Burn Loot Murder rioters arrested, and from the videos they for some reason choose to put on the internet, they are made up primarily of white trash. Lots of meth-faced criddlers, haggard looking 40-something women with sanpaku eyes, unaesthetic and culturally-appropriated tattoos, too little (from smoking meth) or too much body fat, and hair dyed the color of tropical poisonous frogs.

Given how almost every "martyr" they've canonized was committing a crime, a pedophile/rapist, a wife-beater, or a burgler, we should stop calling them the Black Lives Matter protestors and instead call them the Burn Loot Murder White Trash rioters. That's closer to the truth.



Xzi said:


> I don't know what you're smoking, but based on this short conversation alone, we clearly agree on very little.  I'm also not a Democrat and I'm not asking for your support, you're obviously too far gone down the rabbit hole of moral and ethical failings for me to bother attempting rehabilitation now.


Neoliberals can never resist the temptation to status signal, so predictable.

Well you're clearly voting for Biden, and your politics are indistinguishable for Neoliberalism. If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, then it's probably a duck, no?

One thing I've noticed about Neoliberals is they tend to project. Given that you just accused me of being high, what do you smoke and how often do you do it?


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 31, 2020)

MysticLord said:


> Nice anecdotes. Got any evidence?
> 
> Brutality is fine so long as it is proportional. Given that Jacob Blake had from what I've read so far sexually assaulted his ex-girlfriend, had a knife, and was getting back into the minivan to do who knows what to the kids in the back, the shooting is probably justified.
> 
> ...





Goddamn that was awesome.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 31, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Goddamn that was awesome.
> View attachment 223319


Include me in the screencap.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 1, 2020)

MysticLord said:


> Brutality is fine so long as it is proportional.


If you believe "might makes right" trumps the rule of law, then sure.  I don't.



MysticLord said:


> I was referring to the murder of Daniel Shaver, but of course no one burned down a city over that so you've never heard of it.


Most murders committed by police get little to no publicity, regardless of the victim's race or ethnicity.  This just further proves the point that all Americans should be demanding police reform and/or changes to their funding.



MysticLord said:


> And wasn't that old white guy involved with antifa? What was he doing waving some sort of plastic/metal wand around the police?


No, he was never shown to have any ties to antifa, and it's frankly irrelevant anyway.  You either respect human and constitutional rights, or you don't.  You don't get to pick and choose which groups you believe "deserve" them.  And plastic/metal wand, rofl?  You mean a smartphone?



MysticLord said:


> You seem to believe that "opposing violent criminals and sex offenders trying to destroy other people's lives" is equal to "defending our livelihoods so we don't become homeless and our kids don't starve". This distinction matters because we live in a democratic republic, and aside from the consent manufactured by left-wing media in support of the Joe Biden Burn Loot Murder riots you need to persuade people to win elections. This is terrible optics for your side, and you will persuade more people over to Trump's side if you continue to debate in bad faith... assuming you are capable of debating, or acting in good faith, that is.
> 
> And no, driving a caravan of Trump trucks through Portland or Los Angeles isn't violence. Pushing people who block the road and initiate violence by pelting you with trash also isn't violence, it's self-defense. Pepper-spraying and paint-balling people who throw trash at you isn't violence. Failure to obey traffic laws when people are illegally blocking the road is not violence.
> 
> ...


TLDR version: destruction of property is violence, murder is not violence (unless the victim is someone you agree with politically).  Got it.



MysticLord said:


> I'm not trying to persuade you, I'm trying to persuade the audience. Your flippant dismissal of my point only helps me. Thanks.


In that case, you're insulting the audience's intelligence by attempting to pivot from one topic to the next without backing your original claim, and believing they won't notice.  You might have the attention span of a gnat, but it's unwise to assume the same is true for others.



MysticLord said:


> Amazon - the company founded and owned by the richest cis-het white man on Earth - funds and expresses explicit support for BLM.
> 
> I find it curious that you ignore the massive amount of uppercase-C Capital held by banks and multinational corporations - which vehemently oppose labor protections and want open borders so they can permanently destroy the leverage of the working class - while focusing on the tiny, minuscule amount of physical capital owned by small/local businesses.


Wherever there's conflict, you'll find capitalists funding both sides.  The moderate "Bernie Sanders" solution is to simply tax Amazon and others at a much higher rate, redistributing those taxes through comprehensive social programs.  The far-left solution would be taking the money they give to us, spending it on the rope we use to hang Bezos and other oligarchs, and then redistributing all of their wealth and land.  Personally I'm fine with either of these solutions at this point, but despite wealth inequality in America being worse than France pre-revolution, I still don't believe enough Americans have the fortitude for the latter.

Calling Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot/Lowe's and so many others that fund police unions "small businesses" is complete horse shit though and you know it.



MysticLord said:


> Given that BLM is - as you stated - about physically destroying the working class (both lower and middle, blue-collar and white-collar), is it any surprise that they support whoever protects them from BLM?


I stated no such thing.  I said that the police are in the business of protecting and serving capital, as well as enforcing current racial and class divisions, to the end that the middle class will continue to shrink and eventually go extinct.  From that you somehow interpreted me as saying that BLM was responsible for these things, which is ridiculous.  You can easily find both leftist and far-right agitators among any group of protesters, but you're not going to find BLM or Proud Boys or anyone else claiming those who incite riots as their own.  Bad optics, as you've said.



MysticLord said:


> Well plenty more black people were killed by the cops in 2017, 2018, and 2019 than in 2020, but then again you weren't cooped up in the house for months in those years either. The simplest explanation is that you're bored and driven insane by lack of IRL social contact (and overexposure to consensus-enforcing social media), though personal pathology is probably a factor too.


Police violence and brutality in this country has been out of control for decades, if not centuries, dating all the way back to when their primary purpose was retrieving runaway slaves.  You're not informing me of anything new here, but I do appreciate your assistance in pointing out why mass protests are both necessary and justified.



MysticLord said:


> Given how almost every "martyr" they've canonized was committing a crime, a pedophile/rapist, a wife-beater, or a burgler, we should stop calling them the Black Lives Matter protestors and instead call them the Burn Loot Murder White Trash rioters. That's closer to the truth.


Get it through your fucking head: police should not be killing people no matter what crime they're accused of.  They are not meant to play the role of judge, jury, and executioner.  *Nobody* should have that much power, and especially not the state.



MysticLord said:


> Well you're clearly voting for Biden, and your politics are indistinguishable for Neoliberalism. If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, then it's probably a duck, no?


I've said it multiple times, probably even multiple times in this thread alone: I don't care for either major party's candidate.  I'm most likely to vote for Gloria LaRiva if she shows up on my state's ballot.  Regardless, as somebody who is seriously considering moving out of this country as soon as possible, I'm still in the awkward position of needing to hope for a Biden win.  As long as a reality TV show host is president, other nations will never view us as anything more than unstable and incompetent, even if we miraculously get the pandemic under control by continuing to pretend it doesn't exist.  Thus they'll never lift their travel restrictions either.

And you?  I find it hard to believe you're not entirely in Trump's camp given all your thinly-veiled bigotry and pathetic excuses for justifying murder.  Biden is most certainly a neoliberal, you won't find me arguing against that, but Trump takes that same philosophy, cranks it to eleven, and adds fascism into the mix.  If you claim to have any amount of libertarianism or socialism in your political views, there's no excuse for supporting that type of shit.



MysticLord said:


> Given that you just accused me of being high, what do you smoke and how often do you do it?


Never been a (cigarette) smoker, and I'm not much for drinking either.  Last time I had an active MMJ card was a little over two years ago, and I'd say that's probably my drug of choice.  Been considering getting it renewed lately, since sobriety is hardly all its cracked up to be, and I've never had any issues with addiction anyway.

My preference would be legalizing (or at least decriminalizing) most drugs.  It's just a euphemism though, no need to get butthurt over it.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 1, 2020)

Xzi said:


> If you believe "might makes right" trumps the rule of law, then sure.  I don't.


LMAO how are they supposed to apprehend people if not with force? Are we supposed to send well-intentioned PhDs and Kindergarten teachers to stop someone who is shooting and killing passersby for the $20 in their wallets and purses?

More important, are you willing to live in an area without police, or are you hypocrite?

You don't have  any problem with destroying the rule of law when it suits your purpose - granted your purpose is burning down Democrat controlled cities, which is self-defeating on your end -  so why are you arguing that judicious use of sub-lethal force to catch violent criminals is "against the rule of law"?

You must remember, you need to persuade *NORMAL* people. Outside of your hugbox, this includes:
1. The 60 to 70 million people who voted for Trump.
2. The people who can vote but don't, but would be willing to vote for your side or to vote against my side.
3. The 60 to 70 million people who voted against Trump, most of whom don't want their businesses burned down.

I have no problem with the anyone - homeowners, store clerks, bank tellers, security guards, cops, 17 year old boys protecting businesses - killing those who attempt or actually kill others and destroy their livelihoods. The vast majority of the nation agrees with me. If you want to win, you must meet us halfway.

Or you could do as you're doing in this thread, and construct systems of logic which a priori justify everything you want as legal and good, and everything you do not want as illegal and bad. Surely acting like an even less socially adept left-wing version of Ben Shapiro will win you support. "Surely this time it will be different," you think, "if only those stupid evil hateful Nazi bigots just see how I am right and good and holy that I am."

If your arguments are the best the left can come up with, I don't how my side can't win!



Xzi said:


> Most murders committed by police get little to no publicity, regardless of the victim's race or ethnicity.  This just further proves the point that all Americans should be demanding police reform and/or changes to their funding.


... by burning down businesses, got it.



Xzi said:


> No, he was never shown to have any ties to antifa, and it's frankly irrelevant anyway.  You either respect human and constitutional rights, or you don't.  You don't get to pick and choose which groups you believe "deserve" them.  And plastic/metal wand, rofl?  You mean a smartphone?


The theory I saw was that it was an RFID scanner, but hey I'll concede the point if you concede that people have the right to make/provide goods and services for sale without decades of their lives being wasted because some crackhead smoked the wrong 8ball and died on the way to the hospital.



Xzi said:


> TLDR version: destruction of property is violence, murder is not violence (unless the victim is someone you agree with politically).  Got it.


I don't care what you believe, if you burn my business down you will die and you will absolutely deserve it. My kids don't deserve to starve because you are incapable of emotional self-regulation and you strongly empathize with drug addicts who die as a result of the same.

I don't care what you believe, if you are not using lethal force or harming my livelihood, you don't deserve to die. By the way, if those Trump caravaners bother you so much, why don't you use something other than lethal force or destruction of private property against them? Do you seriously think that "saying mean words" is equivalent to "trying to kill me"? Why don't you just shout them down, get air horns or vuvuzelas or something?

Why are left-wing people so lacking in confidence that they feel they need to shoot someone who disagrees with them? What's wrong with a wrestling match?

You should also consider the implications of right-wing people adopting identity politics in reaction to your demonizing them for wanting to be left alone. Do you want 60-70 million people to unite into one cohesive whole that thinks you are out to exterminate them? Because that's what's gonna happen to you.



Xzi said:


> In that case, you're insulting the audience's intelligence by attempting to pivot from one topic to the next without backing your original claim, and believing they won't notice.  You might have the attention span of a gnat, but it's unwise to assume the same is true for others.


Since you're making this assertion, the onus is on you to prove it. I'm not going to dig through my posts to figure out what offended your sensibilities, so if it bothers you so much state it coherently and I'll respond.



Xzi said:


> Wherever there's conflict, you'll find capitalists funding both sides.  The moderate "Bernie Sanders" solution is to simply tax Amazon and others at a much higher rate, redistributing those taxes through comprehensive social programs.  The far-left solution would be taking the money they give to us, spending it on the rope we use to hang Bezos and other oligarchs, and then redistributing all of their wealth and land.  Personally I'm fine with either of these solutions at this point, but despite wealth inequality in America being worse than France pre-revolution, I still don't believe enough Americans have the fortitude for the latter.


I don't see how giving money to crackheads to buy dope helps anyone. I'd rather we:
1. Close all overseas bases and bring our troops home.
2. Cut the size of the active-duty military to 1% of it's current size, and rearrange the reserves and various guards towards border, coastal, cyber, missile, space, and nuclear/WMD defense.
3. Put at least 300% tariffs on all imports.
4. Dismantle the Department of Education, IRS, CIA, ATF, and some others I can't think of right now.
5. Turn the remaining federal law enforcement agencies into support and logistics agencies for state, county, and local law enforcement and investigation organizations. Do the same for other federal agencies like the Post Office.
6. Ban all corporations and investment banks.
7. Move most federal authority to the states.
8. Ban prisons and replace prison time with corporal punishment. Jails, used to temporarily hold people before and during trial, would remain.
9 . Vigorously punish sedition and subversion with asset seizure, corporal punishment, and exile if they survive that long.
10. Pull an Andrew Jackson on the Fed.
11. Explicitly ban interest on loans, especially compound interest.
12. Allow each state to basically do their own thing, provided they aren't doing something like importing and amnestying millions of immigrants (legal or otherwise) so one party can swamp the other. Californians can pay reparations to black people, Alabama can go full segregation, Utah can establish Mormonism as the state religion and ban the Devil's Lettuce. What someone does 400 miles away from me has nothing to do with me, and if most of the power was in local and state authorities then federal elections wouldn't be winner-take-all existential crises. This is the best option I think, and certainly preferable to dissolution or civil war.
13. Allow non-corporate businesses some degree of limited liability to protect their non-business assets.



Xzi said:


> Calling Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot/Lowe's and so many others that fund police unions "small businesses" is complete horse shit though and you know it.


I have very few problems with people burning down multi-national corporations. My biggest complaint is that they aren't burning down Walmart's supply and logistics centers, and dragging the Walton family behind pickup trucks until they can't be identified as formerly living human beings.




Xzi said:


> I stated no such thing.  I said that the police are in the business of protecting and serving capital, as well as enforcing current racial and class divisions, to the end that the middle class will continue to shrink and eventually go extinct.  From that you somehow interpreted me as saying that BLM was responsible for these things, which is ridiculous.  You can easily find both leftist and far-right agitators among any group of protesters, but you're not going to find BLM or Proud Boys or anyone else claiming those who incite riots as their own.  Bad optics, as you've said.


There's a big difference between Big C Capital and little c capital. The former is multi-millionaires and billionaires, the latter is a guy who just sold his house and boat repair business and hasn't bought another house with the money yet. Failure to distinguish between tiers of wealth that are literally orders of magnitude in difference is one reason why Big C Capital succeeds in it's divide and conquer schemes.

If I sell my house, I'm in the 1%. If I sell my corporation which owns 5000 rental properties all across the USA, I'm in the 0.1%. Big difference.

The other difference is that one can somewhat reasonably aspire towards a middle class existence. Calling anyone who is middle class an oppressive capitalist pig-dog whose family of unruly Kulaks will be liquidated on the Day Of The Revolution won't win you any votes from people who want to be middle class. If you should aspire towards anything, it should be a political ideology that leaves people to their own devices and allows them as much independence (both on an individual and community level) as they want. Different cultures will want different things, so doing this on a state/local level is ideal.

The difference between far left and far right agitators is that the former are incompetent at physical violence, and either get their butts whupped or they try (and occasionally succeed) at deliberately murdering people. Right agitators usually have the sense to only escalate conflict when others do it first. If I could teach them to wear bodycameras and get it on film, they will win - leftist agitators lack the self-control to avoid taking the bait.

Contrast this with white nationalists who murder people because they (the white nationalists) are mentally handicapped - or, looking at white nationalists from the 70s, addicted to drugs and gay sex - and are looking for someone to blame for it, and whose understanding of optics is so deficient that they then brag about it.

BTW the Proud Boys aren't far right, you're thinking of David Duke, Mike Enoch, The Right Stuff, Richard Spencer, the "Traditionalists" "Worker" Party (google "Matt Parrot Heimbach Cuckbox" for more information), and similar white trash nutjobs. Proud Boys - despite their flirtations with the far right - are basically Democrats from circa 1975. Republicans are Democrats from circa 2000. The Alt Right are Democrats from circa the Civil War.



Xzi said:


> Police violence and brutality in this country has been out of control for decades, if not centuries, dating all the way back to when their primary purpose was retrieving runaway slaves.  You're not informing me of anything new here, but I do appreciate your assistance in pointing out why mass protests are both necessary and justified.


What have mass protests accomplished, if not further legitimization of unwarranted police violence?

There is little point in complaining that something is not fair. Fairness is for winners to decide. If you want to implement your policies, if you want to write history, you must win. Illegitimate riots don't lead to wins. Crackheads and criminals are not legitimate martyrs (read up on the history of why Rosa Parks was chosen to not give up her seat if you don't believe me).

You win by calmly doing the dreary, boring work of learning how policy is made, and by making friends. Burning down your neighbors business does not make friends.

Left-wing people have this belief that Reality should match Theory, and they lash out when it doesn't. Abandon what parts of your theory are excessively convoluted and don't conform to the simplest possible explanation of reality, and you will start winning again.



Xzi said:


> Get it through your fucking head: police should not be killing people no matter what crime they're accused of.  They are not meant to play the role of judge, jury, and executioner.  *Nobody* should have that much power, and especially not the state.


Yes, it is best when a mob of white trash goons decides who should live and die. Just as God intended!

Police should be accountable, and they should be held to higher standards than normal people specifically because they are asked to do something which society doesn't allow normal people to do.

And I would be very wary of "community justice" if I were you. We've had "community justice" for as long as we've been human; it's called lynching.



Xzi said:


> I've said it multiple times, probably even multiple times in this thread alone: I don't care for either major party's candidate.  I'm most likely to vote for Gloria LaRiva if she shows up on my state's ballot.  Regardless, as somebody who is seriously considering moving out of this country as soon as possible, I'm still in the awkward position of needing to hope for a Biden win.  As long as a reality TV show host is president, other nations will never view us as anything more than unstable and incompetent, even if *we miraculously get the pandemic under control by continuing to pretend it doesn't exist*.  Thus they'll never lift their travel restrictions either.


Like Sweden did?



Xzi said:


> And you?  I find it hard to believe you're not entirely in Trump's camp given all your thinly-veiled bigotry and pathetic excuses for justifying murder.  Biden is most certainly a neoliberal, you won't find me arguing against that, but Trump takes that same philosophy, cranks it to eleven, and adds fascism into the mix.  If you claim to have any amount of libertarianism or socialism in your political views, there's no excuse for supporting that type of shit.


Productive religiosity, tariffs, nationalism, populism, and especially localism are not neoliberalism. They are antithetical to it. Neoliberalism seeks to turn every identity and relationship of every person into a commodity, which can then be quantified and priced. It is the most destructive force in human history, and must be destroyed if our species will survive.

Regardless of your beliefs about BLM and neoliberalism, BLM is absolutely a neoliberal operation and you should reconsider your support for it even if you support it's planks or platforms.

I wouldn't say I'm a socialist or communist, but I'm definitely some variety of collectivist at least on the scale of family and local community. One can have different beliefs about how society should be organized at different scales. It makes no sense to be collectivist at the global scale because I have little in common with foreigners and putting us all under the same authority guarantees only war and heartache. It's better to leave each other alone.



Xzi said:


> Never been a (cigarette) smoker, and I'm not much for drinking either.  Last time I had an active MMJ card was a little over two years ago, and I'd say that's probably my drug of choice.  Been considering getting it renewed lately, since sobriety is hardly all its cracked up to be, and I've never had any issues with addiction anyway.
> 
> My preference would be legalizing (or at least decriminalizing) most drugs.  It's just a euphemism though, no need to get butthurt over it.


I'd leave it up to states, including enforcement. Some states like weed, they just don't like it legal. I'm not one to judge; let them do what they want (as long as they do it far away from me).


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 1, 2020)

Xzi said:


> To an extent, I can forgive FAST6191 for not paying much attention to the shit Trump says and does, because he lives overseas.  You, however, would continue lying to yourself and others even if the "dear leader" of cult45 transitioned his concentration camps into death camps tomorrow.


I have stayed for many extended periods in the US (months at a time) and consumer a fair bit of news content from people based there, including while he is in office.

There is an old joke along the lines of how do you tell when a politicial is lying? Answer being when their lips are moving.
Every politico I have ever met seems to enjoy the sound of their own voice and generally pushes all the hot air they can. Current el presidente just seems to be a spectacularly good example of it.
To that end probably best just to ignore it/filter it for the occasional nugget of useful information.



MysticLord said:


> Semi-Related: Why is it that some kid "shot into a crowd" and managed to kill a child molester who prefers 12 year olds, a serial domestic abuser, and wound a convicted felon illegally carrying a firearm?


Are any of those particularly material to the case at hand?
Generally speaking one judges a case from the information available to the person at the time, and even if he had known all that none of those appeared to be engaged in such actions at the time either.
In this case pursuing someone after chucking molotovs, attacking someone with a nice metal ended wooden plank (skateboard is not my primary choice for a weapon, even a plausible deniability one, but they are functionally still a metal ended bat with not as great handling and aerodynamics and hurt when rammed into you), reaching for your weapon when armed with their own and plausibly no great reason to do that all seem like far better things to focus on.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 1, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> Are any of those particularly material to the case at hand?
> Generally speaking one judges a case from the information available to the person at the time, and even if he had known all that none of those appeared to be engaged in such actions at the time either.
> In this case pursuing someone after chucking molotovs, attacking someone with a nice metal ended wooden plank (skateboard is not my primary choice for a weapon, even a plausible deniability one, but they are functionally still a metal ended bat with not as great handling and aerodynamics and hurt when rammed into you), reaching for your weapon when armed with their own and plausibly no great reason to do that all seem like far better things to focus on.


It was a bag of something, not molotovs, but the pedophile was probably chasing the kid to disarm him (and maybe shoot him with his own gun) after the kid put out a literal dumpster fire with a fire extinguisher.

I focused on the "shooting into the crowd" thing because:
1. It's an obvious lie the left-wing media was promoting that would be easy to disprove if anyone bases an argument on it.
2. It's a rhetorical device to highlight how many antifa/BLM "protestors" are utter trash.

tl;dr

It's bait.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 1, 2020)

I will go one.
People always seem in a hurry to offer the reassuring platitude that they are all for your right to protest, which they probably and for what it is worth I am OK with that too.

However protesting I am not entirely sure what but we will go with the basic police brutality and racism at state level.

I would say that is much akin to protesting to see the widespread roll out of the country's electrical network. Which is to say protesting about nothing much at all or otherwise solved issues and non contentious things (most people are generally not in favour of police doing the unrestrained skull cracker bit and slapping them if they do).

Discuss.

Furthermore. If we do want to look out and see some coloured folks (save perhaps the oriental fellows) doing worse in society by various metrics why would we assume it is a racism problem as much as a poverty problem? Assuming we care to make their lives better then does it not behove you to tackle the actual problem by the relevant means rather than wasting efforts on something that is not the problem?



MysticLord said:


> I'd rather we:
> 12. Allow each state to basically do their own thing, provided they aren't doing something like importing and amnestying millions of immigrants (legal or otherwise) so one party can swamp the other. Californians can pay reparations to black people, Alabama can go full segregation, Utah can establish Mormonism as the state religion and ban the Devil's Lettuce. What someone does 400 miles away from me has nothing to do with me, and if most of the power was in local and state authorities then federal elections wouldn't be winner-take-all existential crises. This is the best option I think, and certainly preferable to dissolution or civil war.


Isn't that functionally the end of the US at that point? Certainly would be the end of the US constitution, give or take a state continuing on with it.
Why 400 miles? Economies and supply chains of both vital life sustaining goods and things that just make life nice to be in have existed... pretty much since before the written word, or at least the written word was invented to facilitate it.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 1, 2020)

MysticLord said:


> LMAO how are they supposed to apprehend people if not with force?


"Force" =/= brutality.  It's a fine line to tread to be sure, but one that police forces in most developed nations easily manage to avoid overstepping.



MysticLord said:


> More important, are you willing to live in an area without police, or are you hypocrite?


How is this relevant?  Nowhere in my post did I say "abolish the police."  Reduce their funding and limit their duties to responding to scenarios involving violence?  Sure, that makes sense.  We don't need jumpy, armed high school dropouts responding to every call involving drug use or mental illness/mental disability.  They usually only escalate things for the worse.



MysticLord said:


> ... by burning down businesses, got it.


Preferably by protesting peacefully, but the unfortunate reality of the situation is that both Democrat-leaning and Republican-leaning media only pay attention when shit starts burning.  It's negative attention, sure, but it's still attention.



MysticLord said:


> The theory I saw was that it was an RFID scanner, but hey I'll concede the point if you concede that people have the right to make/provide goods and services for sale without decades of their lives being wasted because some crackhead smoked the wrong 8ball and died on the way to the hospital.


I'll not be conceding that point.  If a person dies in police custody or under the knee of a policeman, then the police are to blame and will inevitably have to deal with the fallout from those actions.  If Floyd had died of fentanyl overdose without any police involvement, or outside of police custody, there would have been no protests and no agitators taking advantage of those protests to escalate them into riots.  It's really as simple as that.  All they had to do was treat the _potentially_ fake $20 bill like the minor crime that it was.



MysticLord said:


> I don't care what you believe, if you burn my business down you will die and you will absolutely deserve it.


And that would make you a murderer who deserves life in jail.  In some states you'd even get the death penalty, but IMO life in prison is a worse punishment given the unknown of what happens to us after death.  There are plenty of means of recuperating loss of property even on the off chance that it isn't insured.  Clearly you have some violent tendencies of your own if your immediate reaction is to go from 0 to 100 like this.



MysticLord said:


> Why are left-wing people so lacking in confidence that they feel they need to shoot someone who disagrees with them?


Yeah...there's not a single example of this happening.  People get shot when an armed person feels threatened, and it makes no difference what that armed person's politics are in that moment.



MysticLord said:


> You should also consider the implications of right-wing people adopting identity politics in reaction to your demonizing them for wanting to be left alone.  Do you want 60-70 million people to unite into one cohesive whole that thinks you are out to exterminate them? Because that's what's gonna happen to you.


Lol what?  The right-wing has always been about white identity politics.  What do you think the Southern Strategy is?  And "wanting to be left alone?"  Give me a fucking break.  They're driving from out of city and out of state to harass randoms in Portland right now.  They're already united under one cult of personality, and have been since 2016.  Trump could make it stop any time he wants to, but instead he's only egging these nutjobs on further.



MysticLord said:


> Since you're making this assertion, the onus is on you to prove it. I'm not going to dig through my posts to figure out what offended your sensibilities, so if it bothers you so much state it coherently and I'll respond.


You: "The DA and Minnesota AG (Keith Ellison, a black power type and the former head of the DNC during the last Presidential election IIRC) had the bodycam footage and could have released it, but they waited until after the riots."

Me: "All the body cam footage shows is cops stopping citizens (and one off-duty firefighter) from attempting to help Floyd. Releasing it sooner wouldn't have made any difference, especially if it was released under the pretense that it should make people "calm down." If anything that would've only sparked more outrage."

You: "The cops released footage of some guy that shot himself in the head to avoid arrest at a mall. Happened a few days ago. There were riots until they released the footage, after which they were criticized for "insensitivity". While I don't envy the cops their position, they absolutely deserve it.

Given the example above, you are wrong."

You jumped from talking about the body cam footage in the Floyd case to unrelated body cam footage of a suicide at a mall.  You failed to prove that releasing the Floyd bodycam footage any sooner would've done anything to prevent continued protests or riots.



MysticLord said:


> I don't see how giving money to crackheads to buy dope helps anyone.


You don't see how redistributing the wealth of the richest man on Earth to the working class, homeless, starving, and poorest citizens of America would help anyone?  Seems pretty self-explanatory to me.  Gate-keeping on the basis of drug use is nonsense, as the middle class and ruling class use just as many drugs as anybody else on average.



MysticLord said:


> I'd rather we:
> 1. Close all overseas bases and bring our troops home.
> 2. Cut the size of the active-duty military to 1% of it's current size, and rearrange the reserves and various guards towards border, coastal, cyber, missile, space, and nuclear/WMD defense.
> 3. Put at least 300% tariffs on all imports.
> ...


1. I can agree with that.
2. The cuts I'm down with, but putting all of those resources right back into the military in a different form is counter-intuitive.  Use at least 50% of that funding for social programs and social safety nets, as well as investments back into our working class.
3. A good way to tank our own economy all at once.  The American people pay for tariffs, not foreign nations.  I'd rather we just stop all imports from nations known to utilize slave labor and/or deforestation for industry.
4. One of these things is not like the others.  The Department of Education has the potential to do some good for the people, though I will agree it has often been mismanaged (even under Democrats in some cases).  The rest can definitely go, and don't forget the NSA.  We need one or two intelligence agencies at most, certainly not the 10+ we have now.
5. Sure, the Post Office has to continue serving everybody though, not just law enforcement.  They already have enough privileges that us "normies" don't.
6. Agreed.
7. Eh I'm torn on this one, the anarchist in me likes it, but I'm not sure 50 different small countries is a viable strategy for the long-term.  Even in the short-term a lot of states would immediately collapse without support from the biggest economies such as California, New York, and Texas.
8. I'd rather just abolish or entirely revise the 13th amendment.  If prisoners are going to be made to work, then they should earn minimum wage or better (and minimum wage should be higher than it is now in every state).
9. Nah.  Taking power away from the military and putting it all into the hands of local and state law enforcement is a terrible idea.  They're about as far from infallible as it gets, and we'd be dealing with a lot of first amendment violations as a result of this.
10. Sure, fuck the fed.  Would be a lot of growing pains to deal with, but the effort would be worth it to again have a publicly-owned currency that is actually backed by something of value.
11. Good.
12. See number 7.  I don't think such a solution would necessarily prevent another civil war anyway, but merely delay it a bit.  Some states would immediately become desperate and unite to try to steal from their neighbors, while others would have more of a monopoly on both resources and military power, and be tempted to use it to seize power nationally.
13. Eh, I don't see why not (isn't this already a thing for small business owners?)



MysticLord said:


> I have very few problems with people burning down multi-national corporations. My biggest complaint is that they aren't burning down Walmart's supply and logistics centers, and dragging the Walton family behind pickup trucks until they can't be identified as formerly living human beings.


Well they've done a bang-up job of keeping us divided and flooding minds with propaganda, which is why 30% to 40% of the country is so quick to lick the boot of any billionaire or prevalent corporation.  American culture is nothing but consumerism at this point, which is why burning down an Applebee's is akin to burning down The Louvre Museum in the eyes of many.



MysticLord said:


> If I sell my house, I'm in the 1%. If I sell my corporation which owns 5000 rental properties all across the USA, I'm in the 0.1%. Big difference.


Err what?  Your house is worth _that _much?  You'd need a net worth of several hundred million to make it into the top 1% AFAIK.



MysticLord said:


> The other difference is that one can somewhat reasonably aspire towards a middle class existence. Calling anyone who is middle class an oppressive capitalist pig-dog whose family of unruly Kulaks will be liquidated on the Day Of The Revolution won't win you any votes from people who want to be middle class.


I never called the middle class that.  And aspiring toward it is fine, but the reality is that America's middle class is shrinking and has been for quite some time now.  We aren't going to fix that by ceding more power to the party of corporate tax cuts.



MysticLord said:


> The difference between far left and far right agitators is that the former are incompetent at physical violence, and either get their butts whupped or they try (and occasionally succeed) at deliberately murdering people. Right agitators usually have the sense to only escalate conflict when others do it first. If I could teach them to wear bodycameras and get it on film, they will win - leftist agitators lack the self-control to avoid taking the bait.


I don't think "being good at violence" from the practice they've had beating their wives and getting into bar fights is something worth bragging about necessarily, but okay, sure.  I'll cede that Republicans are more used to conflict than Democrats.  The far right vs the far left (or the NRA vs the SRA) is a different matter, and I'd say that'd be a pretty even fight if not for the fact that the far right no doubt has the greater numbers in this country.



MysticLord said:


> Contrast this with white nationalists who murder people because they (the white nationalists) are mentally handicapped


Still plenty of those around.  Most of the boomers have lead poisoning, and that's how you get "pro-police" bikers.



MysticLord said:


> BTW the Proud Boys aren't far right, you're thinking of David Duke, Mike Enoch, The Right Stuff, Richard Spencer, the "Traditionalists" "Worker" Party (google "Matt Parrot Heimbach Cuckbox" for more information), and similar white trash nutjobs. Proud Boys - despite their flirtations with the far right - are basically Democrats from circa 1975. The Alt Right are Democrats from circa the Civil War.


"Proud Boys," "Patriot Prayer," "Boogaloo Boys," it's all variations on the same shit.  They just don't want to call themselves KKK or neo-nazis any more because of the stigma attached to those labels.  Every time one of their indistinguishable splinter groups gets labeled a terrorist group by intelligence agencies, they pretty much dissolve it and come up with two new ones.



MysticLord said:


> Republicans are Democrats from circa 2000.


Rofl horse shit.  Let me know when Trump puts a serious focus on environmentalism like Al Gore had, instead of opening up tons of national parks land for more oil drilling.



MysticLord said:


> What have mass protests accomplished, if not further legitimization of unwarranted police violence?


Far more than American apathy has accomplished, certainly.  Two states have abolished qualified immunity, several others have put new regulations and/or restrictions on local law enforcement.  The progress is somewhat slow, no doubt about that, but the federal government has pretty much been at a standstill the last four years anyway, so it's not particularly surprising that nothing big is getting accomplished mere months into societal unrest.



MysticLord said:


> Yes, it is best when a mob of white trash goons decides who should live and die. Just as God intended!


I honestly can't tell who you're referring to here.  This description fits the police in a lot of areas, large swaths of right-wing groups, and smaller numbers of left-wing groups.



MysticLord said:


> Police should be accountable, and they should be held to higher standards than normal people specifically because they are asked to do something which society doesn't allow normal people to do.


Well holy shit, some common ground.  Took long enough, but I finally got a reasonable response out of you.



MysticLord said:


> Like Sweden did?


Must be something in the water (or the universal healthcare) there, but no, obviously we have failed miserably at replicating anything like what they've accomplished.  Else we wouldn't have 4% of the world's population and over 25% of its coronavirus infections.



MysticLord said:


> Neoliberalism seeks to turn every identity and relationship of every person into a commodity, which can then be quantified and priced.


Holy shit I've never heard such an accurate and detailed description of Trump's entire personality and worldview before.  Like I said, just crank that to eleven, wherein even his every interaction with a family member is transactional, add in a dash of strongman worship and authoritarian tendencies, and that's everything you need to know about his inner-workings.  Dude has some serious daddy issues too, but that's somewhat irrelevant.



MysticLord said:


> I wouldn't say I'm a socialist or communist, but I'm definitely some variety of collectivist at least on the scale of family and local community. One can have different beliefs about how society should be organized at different scales. It makes no sense to be collectivist at the global scale because I have little in common with foreigners and putting us all under the same authority guarantees only war and heartache. It's better to leave each other alone.


Sure.  Ideally we'd keep to ourselves and never need to worry about global events or politics, but the fact that America has been an imperialist nation for so long and the fact that so many nations look to us first for both leadership and humanitarian aid puts a bit of a damper on that.  It's nigh impossible to do a 180 and suddenly become isolationist at this point in history.


----------



## notimp (Sep 1, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> I would say that is much akin to protesting to see the widespread roll out of the country's electrical network. Which is to say protesting about nothing much at all or otherwise solved issues and non contentious things (most people are generally not in favour of police doing the unrestrained skull cracker bit and slapping them if they do).
> 
> Discuss.


You can still solve the police brutality issue, it still has symbolic value in putting a spotlight on racial injustice, and I think we already speculated very early, that those protests were more than race riots this time around.

(In interviews, you heard people stating that they will never be able to afford to own a house, or a store in the community they were working, ... That line of argument.)


----------



## deficitdisorder (Sep 1, 2020)

Those poll results are surprisingly more even then I would have expected from a gaming forum.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 1, 2020)

There's only one candidate who condones or defends any of the violence being discussed in this thread, and it's not Joe Biden. There's only one candidate who, as president, can be held responsible for any of violence going on in this country right now, and it's not Joe Biden.

It's absurd to say people who don't like the violence happening under Trump should vote for Trump.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 1, 2020)




----------



## GhostLatte (Sep 1, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


>



When will you conservatives stop thinking prageru is a reliable source?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 1, 2020)

GhostLatte said:


> When will you conservatives stop thinking prageru is a reliable source?


Once the libtards stop trusting their golden calves like CNN and MSNBC.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 2, 2020)

Lacius said:


> There's only one candidate who condones or defends any of the violence being discussed in this thread, and it's not Joe Biden. There's only one candidate who, as president, can be held responsible for any of violence going on in this country right now, and it's not Joe Biden.
> 
> It's absurd to say people who don't like the violence happening under Trump should vote for Trump.



Well, there's only two candidates who have been either personally involved, or their campaign staff involved, in bailing out the people committing the violence so they can get out there and re-commit.

You're just trying to distract from the threat implied by Biden.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Well, there's only two candidates who have been either personally involved, or their campaign staff involved, in bailing out the people committing the violence so they can get out there and re-commit.


Please be specific. I'm not going to guess what you're referring to. Biden condemns violence and rioting, as he should.



Hanafuda said:


> You're just trying to distract from the blatant threat implied by Biden.


It can't be very blatant if I'm unaware of it. Are you sure you don't mean Trump? He's condoning or defending some of the violence, the campaign openly admits the violence helps them politically, and this is all occurring under Trump's watch.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 2, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Please be specific. I'm not going to guess what you're referring to. Biden condemns violence and rioting, as he should.


I thought he bailed the rioters out.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I thought he bailed the rioters out.


He did not.


----------



## GhostLatte (Sep 2, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Once the libtards stop trusting their golden calves like CNN and MSNBC.


Like cuckservatives with fox?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 2, 2020)

GhostLatte said:


> Like cuckservatives with fox?


Fox News is the voice of reason amidst a sea of fools.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Fox News is the voice of reason amidst a sea of fools.


No, it's not. It's a right-wing propaganda machine that regularly engages in manipulation and conspiracy theories without even pretending to do journalistic due diligence before airing it.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 2, 2020)

Lacius said:


> No, it's not. It's a right-wing propaganda machine that regularly engages in manipulation and conspiracy theories without even pretending to do journalistic due diligence before airing it.


A necessary evil when the rest of the media is far-left propoganda.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> A necessary evil when the rest of the media is far-left propoganda.


That's absurd. Even if the rest of the media were far-left propaganda (it's not), the solution wouldn't be more propaganda.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 2, 2020)

Lacius said:


> That's absurd. Even if the rest of the media were far-left propaganda (it's not), the solution wouldn't be more propaganda.


So they're not anti-white Marxists who are trying to make Trump seem like the worst president ever?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> So they're not anti-white Marxists who are trying to make Trump seem like the worst president ever?


You are correct.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 2, 2020)

Lacius said:


> You are correct.


I've seen articles upon articles along the lines of "The White Supremacist Origin of Math" or "Trump Denied Power to the Entirety of California". As for the Marxist part, they supported Bernie Sanders before he dropped out.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I've seen articles upon articles along the lines of "The White Supremacist Origin of Math" or "Trump Denied Power to the Entirety of California".


What?



UltraSUPRA said:


> As for the Marxist part, they supported Bernie Sanders before he dropped out.



Who supported Bernie Sanders?
Bernie Sanders isn't a Marxist. He's a democratic-socialist.


----------



## Haymose (Sep 2, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Fox News is the voice of reason amidst a sea of fools.


I prefer not to get involved with political discussion but this is one of the funniest things I’ve read on the internet. Ever. Thank you for the laugh.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 2, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Fox News is the voice of reason amidst a sea of fools.



maybe read the reason fox news was created in the first place. I'll give you a hint, it had to do the the Nixon impeachment.

"A Plan For Putting the GOP on TV News"— is included in a 318-page cache of documents detailing Ailes' work for both the Nixon and George H.W. Bush administrations that we obtained from the Nixon and Bush presidential libraries.

here is a copy if you want to read.

https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/5...e&show_recommendations=false&view_mode=scroll

also:

name this classic album cover


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 2, 2020)

Lacius said:


> He did not.



Members of Biden's campaign staff, who are still members of his campaign staff, did contribute to bailing out arrested rioters (through the Minnesota Freedom Fund).

Kamala Harris has gone on record making statements supporting the MFF, and urging people to contribute to it.


----------



## notimp (Sep 2, 2020)

Quote:
https://gbatemp.net/threads/poll-2020-u-s-presidential-election.571721/page-24#post-9185678

name this classic album cover






Its always Little green bag on K-Billys supersounds of the 70s weekend

Quote:
https://gbatemp.net/threads/about-the-current-riots.566433/page-3#post-9079335

Look at this image,





while listening to the following music tracks:






edit: This one also works somewhat:

name this classic album cover


----------



## Lacius (Sep 2, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Members of Biden's campaign staff, who are still members of his campaign staff, did contribute to bailing out arrested rioters (through the Minnesota Freedom Fund).
> 
> Kamala Harris has gone on record making statements supporting the MFF, and urging people to contribute to it.


They didn't bail out "rioters." We're largely talking about curfew violators, reporters, and other peaceful protesters.

We are also talking about individuals who also work for the Biden campaign, not Biden or the campaign itself.

So, again, there is only one candidate condoning or defending some of the violence taking place, and it's Donald Trump. There's only one candidate who is president of the United States while this violence is going on, and it's Donald Trump. There is only one candidate who is exacerbating the violence in intentionally inflammatory ways, and it's Donald Trump. There is only one campaign that admits violence is good for their election strategy, and it's Donald Trump's campaign.

Trump is trying to scare people into voting him, but he's the one people should be afraid of. I'm tired of people in this thread bringing up recent violence as though it does anything other than demonstrate why people should vote for Joe Biden.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 2, 2020)

Is the violence a federally mandated/controlled/exacerbated thing? Even if I believe it is in response to police doing the keep the black man down routine, kill em if you have to/can get away with it, (general boredom, disillusionment and apathy, as well as maybe kids hopped up on the largely useless news that the US favours, being what I would say being the main driving forces for this one), most of those appear to be city, county or possibly state police (not sure I have seen any state's state police do anything particularly newsworthy, snark very much intended, there but will include them anyway).

Equally has violence ever led to someone not banging the law and order drum getting a boost? Such things have been known for... longer than living memory -- remove security from people and they will seek it, even at the cost of their liberty (there was a phrase about that). At this point I would almost wonder if the mayors, DAs and governors doing the hands off/stand down/feds go home routine are intentionally giving them a boost as an act of protest of their own (at least until it lands on their doorstep). Most places doing the burn and loot routine have plenty of funds for big boy investigations, nailing shot callers, CCTV all over the shop, and could otherwise happily get a contingent of FBI (might even have a field office in the same city) with but a word.


----------



## JGSHEW (Sep 2, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Fox News is the voice of reason amidst a sea of fools.


Last time I was in America, I watched fox news and they spent like 20 minutes making fun of the way a democrat (can't remember who) was eating a sandwich. No joke


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 2, 2020)

On American news I do like the following as a brief overview, they spend a bit longer ragging on fox than they probably had to but if a target presents itself...

lower quality but includes a take on UK if the septics among us feel insecure about not having them bashed as well


It is old but that probably makes it better still. That said I would not trust any US TV news I ever saw to run a high school newspaper.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 3, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> A necessary evil when the rest of the media is far-left propoganda.


Far left.... yeah no.
Most of the people you think is left (bernie, biden) aren't even remotely close, here's a site. If the media was all that left leaning and supportive of the left, they would discuss someone like Hawkins more or sanders. Meanwhile they are discussing biden, which on the "political compass" biden is just a much less extreme trump. Who is extremely high in authoritarian. 
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2020
and due to the fact you think biden is "left" this also reveals where the overtune window of the united states is. Which is somewhere in the lower middle of the upper right quadrant. Which also means things left to the states, are not all that left at all.
meanwhile most of the time fox news is happily praising trump, and has historically have not critiqued him.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 4, 2020)




----------



## Deleted User (Sep 4, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> View attachment 223683


So is trump, he doesn't even speak in single sentences most of the time as they are fragments. Along with his brain glitching out multiple times. Or the fact he had to prove the audience that... he can drink water. since multiple times he glitched and just, couldn't.





UltraSUPRA said:


> View attachment 223683



him and oranges. and this isn't just one case, there is multiple times where he is trying to say a word, and just, can't, and he becomes visibly confused. Neither Trump Biden is healthy. Plain and simple... Unless you factor in physical, which I can easily argue Joe is in better physically speaking.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 4, 2020)

Imagine supporting a president who asked for a military parade, and the specifically asked that no wounded vets be included because they are ugly to look at. That on top of calling John McCain of all people a "Fucking loser". hell he called all dead and injured veterans losers.

https://fox5sandiego.com/news/national-news/report-trump-disparaged-us-war-dead-as-losers-suckers/

That would include my grandfather on my dad's side who was blinded in the battle of the bulge and had to live the rest of his days an "Invalid", and my great uncle on my dad's side who saved 13 people from drowning after the USS Nevada was attacked during Pearl Harbor. He was burned severely by oil on the waters surface that caught fire. I never got to meet family members because they died early of their war injuries. Fucking trash human being.


----------



## TheCasualties (Sep 4, 2020)

Damn, that's a hell no one should experience @omgcat. My Gpa was a frontline medic for Vietnam and he had some horror stories.
___

I was thinking recently, Republicans don't seem republican anymore. All of my dad's friends have switched to independent voters. Both my parents were registered Reps but they switched 2 years ago. 

Most dems don't even seem democratic anymore. It's almost like the 2 parties switched, but stupider. Almost like there shouldn't be a 2 party system, hmmm...


----------



## omgcat (Sep 4, 2020)

TheCasualties said:


> Damn, that's a hell no one should experience @omgcat. My Gpa was a frontline medic for Vietnam and he had some horror stories.
> ___
> 
> I was thinking recently, Republicans don't seem republican anymore. All of my dad's friends have switched to independent voters. Both my parents were registered Reps but they switched 2 years ago.
> ...



the term you're looking for is the overton window. the tea partyists grabbed it and yanked it super far to the right. what you are seeing is that the trumplicans have pushed so far right after the tea partyists, that standard 80's/90's republicans are indistinguishable from democrats. this happens because of the majority of both parties are out of focus with the overton window.

around 2008 we were like this:






and now we are like this:


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 4, 2020)

omgcat said:


> Imagine supporting a president who asked for a military parade, and the specifically asked that no wounded vets be included because they are ugly to look at. That on top of calling John McCain of all people a "Fucking loser". hell he called all dead and injured veterans losers.
> 
> https://fox5sandiego.com/news/national-news/report-trump-disparaged-us-war-dead-as-losers-suckers/
> 
> That would include my grandfather on my dad's side who was blinded in the battle of the bulge and had to live the rest of his days an "Invalid", and my great uncle on my dad's side who saved 13 people from drowning after the USS Nevada was attacked during Pearl Harbor. He was burned severely by oil on the waters surface that caught fire. I never got to meet family members because they died early of their war injuries. Fucking trash human being.




I didn't know what you were talking about so I followed your link. Oh ... it originates with The Atlantic and its "anonymous sources." Ok.


----------



## notimp (Sep 4, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


>


Video, or it didnt happen.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 4, 2020)

notimp said:


> Video, or it didnt happen.




Well, here's the video of him saying that.


I don't think it's a big deal though. He does seem a little more prone to 'brain farts' than he should be, sudden mind blank ..... you know, the thing. C'mon man.

I do think this is a lot more interesting ... in what was supposed to be an interview by the press, i.e. spontaneous answers to not previously disclosed questions, Biden mistakenly reads the title line to a list of talking points off the teleprompter. It was all written and prepared in advance:




And this ... Biden supposedly taking questions from the public, but this woman says, "*I was told to go off this paper ...*" which suggests all the others who didn't mention the paper played along and asked the questions Biden was expecting / rehearsed.



(fwiw she's wrong when she says 'when a medical examiner says it's homicide, that's murder!')


----------



## notimp (Sep 4, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Well, here's the video of him saying that.


thx will watch

edit: He forgot a number.

GIve the guy a break.

Or not, because this one was funny.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 4, 2020)

Biden just said Nikola Tesla was black.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 4, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> I didn't know what you were talking about so I followed your link. Oh ... it originates with The Atlantic and its "anonymous sources." Ok.
> 
> View attachment 223727




or you know, maybe he actually said that shit and it is now being reported by multiple sources.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/...of-trumps-remarks-about-fallen-soldiers-to-ap

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...-reported-trump-comments-on-military-youre-no

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/09/donald-trump-soliders-missing-in-action

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/04/9095...m-report-he-calls-military-losers-and-suckers

no "that's fake news" this time my friend.

here is a link to the president's twitter, of him tweeting and article where he called john McCain a loser:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/622522682245033984

and the one where he says he doesn't like war heroes that "get captured"

https://twitter.com/DrDenaGrayson/status/1301854511045267457


----------



## MaxToTheMax (Sep 4, 2020)

The funniest thread I have read today.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 4, 2020)

MaxToTheMax said:


> The funniest thread I have read today.


funny depressing, or depressing funny?


----------



## omgcat (Sep 4, 2020)

Here's a list of reminders why Trump is a loser.

lying https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...as-made-false-or-misleading-claims-over-days/

unqualified https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13587532/donald-trump-no-experience

draft dodging https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...p-vietnam-war-bone-spur-diagnosis/2420475002/

gold star family disrespecting https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/us/politics/donald-trump-khizr-khan-wife-ghazala.html

POW attacking https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...t-at-mccain-i-like-people-who-werent-captured

US General insulting https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...ch-of-dopes-and-babies-according-to-new-book/

racist https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/trump-racism-comments/588067/

sexist https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50563106

vulgar https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-transcript.html

confirmed sexual assaulting https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-transcript.html

trillion dollars to the rich tax cutting https://budget.house.gov/publicatio...benefits-wealthy-and-large-corporations-while

creeping https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...t-unsettling-comments-a-roundup-a7353876.html

wife cheating with a pornstar after birth of son and paying her off to influence a presidential election https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43334326

teen pageant dressing room invading https://www.politifact.com/wisconsi...tions-about-donald-trump-and-miss-teen-usa-c/

baby and mother separating https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/14/the-weekly/trump-immigration-border-separation-family.html

breast feeding mother shaming https://www.parents.com/baby/all-ab...-trump-called-a-breastfeeding-mom-disgusting/

fat-shaming while being fat http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...pporter-frank-dawson-new-hampshire-rally.html

17 women accusing him of sexual assaulting https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/list-trumps-accusers-allegations-sexual-misconduct/story?id=51956410

accusers are not attractive enough for him to assault https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/10/donald-trump-insults-accusers-ugly

university student defrauding https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-fin...ement-victims-donald-trumps/story?id=54347237

bankrupt casino https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-trump-declared-bankruptcy-four-or-six-times/

kids cancer charity stealing https://www.forbes.com/sites/danale...-kids-cancer-charity-money-into-his-business/

taped detailed accusation of rape of a minor https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/

wife-beating https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/24/documenting-trumps-abuse-of-women

anti-vaxxing https://mobile.twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/449525268529815552?lang=en

Christianity-faking https://www.kentucky.com/opinion/op-ed/article216494035.html

publicist impersonating https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ld-trump-people-magazine-washington/84333614/

tax dodging https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...d-trump-tax-evasion-fred-trump-new-york-times

friends’ wives https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ff-fire-fury-white-house-bannon-a8142011.html

impeached https://time.com/5552679/impeached-presidents/

foreign aid bribing, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49800181

1/3 of the presidency golf https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...sident-trumps-visited-trump-branded-property/

free press assaulting https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...4/donald-trump-twitter-media-enemy-pittsburgh

Hannity coordinating https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emmaloop/sean-hannity-trump-allies-mueller-memos-fox-news

Cambridge Analytica using https://www.wired.com/story/what-did-cambridge-analytica-really-do-for-trumps-campaign/

Ivanka is a “piece of ass” https://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-ivanka-piece-of-ass-howard-stern-229376

loan application asset inflating, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/27/business/donald-trump-buffalo-bills-deutsche-bank.html

foreign influence on our election welcoming https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...es-foreign-interference-2020-campaign/591589/

tax release avoiding https://www.post-gazette.com/news/p...law-ways-means-committee/stories/201904250114

birther conspiracy spreading https://mobile.twitter.com/i/moments/776795610817007616?lang=en

Ukraine ambassador targeting https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lev-pa...nian-ambassador-marie-yovanovitch-2020-01-25/

Russian money taking https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixg...ns-are-so-important-this-week-in-impeachment/

Kurdish ally abandoning https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/...icize-trump-s-decision-abandon-kurds-n1084156

soldier brain injury downplaying https://www.military.com/daily-news...ze-headaches-remark-about-injured-troops.html

full morning “executive time” https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...mp-executive-time-axios-private-schedule-leak

Epstein befriending https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...connected-to-trump-in-his-contacts/ar-AAE8IIi

Putin bowing https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixg...-deference-to-trump-this-week-in-impeachment/

Kim Jong Un praising https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/4...e-with-kim-jong-un-are-shocking-and-appalling

North Korean general saluting https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-salute-north-korean-general-video/701740002/

US intelligence denying https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/30/us/politics/trump-intelligence-agencies.html

tallest building in lower Manhattan after 9/11 boasting https://www.indy100.com/article/tru...tower-height-video-interview-bragging-9100271

congress obstructing https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tr...ry/trump-impeached-house-abuse-power-n1104196

nuclear non-proliferation deal ending https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-calls-nuclear-deal-bashing-misinformation/story?id=68148374

Justice obstructing https://qz.com/1670783/all-the-evidence-of-obstruction-of-justice-in-muellers-report/

unqualified daughter and son-in-law appointing https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/01/donald-trump-ivanka-g20-north-korea-nepotism

healthcare cut targeting https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...e42a56-440c-11e9-aaf8-4512a6fe3439_story.html

pedophile candidate supporting https://www.npr.org/2017/12/04/568274917/removing-any-qualifications-trump-endorses-roy-moore

trump tower Moscow denying https://qz.com/1670783/all-the-evidence-of-obstruction-of-justice-in-muellers-report/

mail-bomber inspiring https://abcnews.go.com/US/mail-bomber-cesar-sayoc-obsessed-trump-fox-news/story?id=64500598

4 out of top 5 largest protests in US history https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protests_in_the_United_States_by_size

green energy stifling https://www.newsweek.com/donald-tru...icism-scientists-trump-dangerous-evil-1371108

clean water regulation destroying https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation...to-remove-protections-against-water-pollution

healthy school lunch ending https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/17/us/politics/michelle-obama-school-nutrition-trump.html

climate change denying https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51213003

congressional and judicial branch attacking https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/politics/judge-curiel-trump-border-wall/index.html

Goldman Sachs appointing https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...dman-sachs-exec-to-senior-administration-role

food stamp removing https://www.cbsnews.com/news/14-states-sue-to-block-the-trump-administrations-food-stamp-cuts/

emissions standards lowering, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html


----------



## MaxToTheMax (Sep 4, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> funny depressing, or depressing funny?


As depressing and funny as watching people argue about politics on a video game forum can be lol


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 4, 2020)

hahaha now his remark on voting twice may land his base in prison (I'm sure at least some of his base is stupid enough to try......which is a felony btw (in pretty much all states) my area is a class 6 (1-5 years in fed prison) he made the comment in NC a class I which is 3-12 months in jail + revocation of voting rights I mean you don't see biden saying the same thing (cause he knows their felonies) and trumps gonna be pissed even more when he realizes a sitting president can't vote in a presidential election (I assume they can if they'r not seeking re-election or on term 2)


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 4, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> hahaha now his remark on voting twice



The President never said vote twice. He suggested making sure that you _one_ vote is actually counted.

If you vote by mail, if you then go to the polls in-person to confirm your vote was already counted, they should be able to confirm that. If not, then your vote was never counted. This ultra-reliable-against-fraud system we're being told to trust will prevent double voting like you're suggesting. Right????


----------



## Lacius (Sep 5, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> The President never said vote twice. He suggested making sure that you _one_ vote is actually counted.
> 
> If you vote by mail, if you then go to the polls in-person to confirm your vote was already counted, they should be able to confirm that. If not, then your vote was never counted. This ultra-reliable-against-fraud system we're being told to trust will prevent double voting like you're suggesting. Right????


Trump literally told people to vote twice. Come on.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 5, 2020)




----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 5, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Trump literally told people to vote twice. Come on.




Even Snopes, which you know damned well isn't objective, agrees with me. And while they say "Mixture" what the answer really says is "False." Because Snopes says "Although Trump's advice would functionally result in some people attempting to cast two ballots, ..." that will only happen if their mailed-in ballot had never been counted. The President even specifically instructed, if they send you a ballot without you asking for it, complete it and mail it in as soon as possible, to make sure they get it and count it. But then, go verify that at the polls.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 5, 2020)

Politicians and business wonks are morons and spout enough nonsense that we can freeze things now and look at words for decades to come. This much we know and thus is somewhat boring.

How about we play sell me on both candidates.
What would make me want to vote for either of them (we will skip the third parties for now, though if we want to get someone to that votes cast = funded then why not).
Better if you in a given reply might seek reasons for both candidates. Even if you might dine upon a bullet sooner than vote for the other guy let's play find a reason to do so. Something they might be stronger in. Something that someone with either a different risk tolerance or approach to society running might seek in someone. If we can then maybe also do an assessment of how likely a given policy is to actually come to pass* -- term limits is a discussion as tried and true as "we need to fix potholes" and nothing ever changes there.

*So the previous guy wanted some kind of taxpayer funded healthcare. Got a watered down piece of meh in the end, and since further gutted (though that was a nice legal/legislative play that did it).
The current guy famously wanted to do one of the biggest civil engineering works in history and build a wall through lots of nice desert across a continent. Something that would likely make the FDR new deal look like a random school's acquisition request for ream of paper in comparison, all for what is likely to be a folly.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 5, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Even Snopes, which you know damned well isn't objective, agrees with me. And while they say "Mixture" what the answer really says is "False." Because Snopes says "Although Trump's advice would functionally result in some people attempting to cast two ballots, ..." that will only happen if their mailed-in ballot had never been counted. The President even specifically instructed, if they send you a ballot without you asking for it, complete it and mail it in as soon as possible, to make sure they get it and count it. But then, go verify that at the polls.
> 
> View attachment 223761


Like I said, he told people to attempt to vote twice.


----------



## MurraySkull (Sep 5, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Like I said, he told people to attempt to vote twice.


No, he didn't!


----------



## RichardTheKing (Sep 5, 2020)

...You know non-Americans could easily tamper with this poll, and there's no way to limit it to American citizens?

I won't be voting here because I'm Australian, and I know jack- about the candidates.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 5, 2020)

MurraySkull said:


> No, he didn't!





> "If it has not been counted, vote -- which is every citizen's right to do -- you go and vote. You press the lever and vote. So if it hasn't been counted, if it doesn't show up, go and vote, and then, if your mail-in ballot arrives after you vote, which it shouldn't but possibly it could perhaps, that ballot will not be used or counted in that your vote has already been cast and tabulated, so this way you're guaranteed to have your vote count," Trump said. "So send it in. And then see and then vote and let's see what happens. You're now assured, though, that your very precious and important vote has been counted."


He's telling people to attempt to vote a second time despite voting by mail. He even says to go ahead and do it if one can.

If one were to follow his advice, that would be a federal crime.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



RichardTheKing said:


> ...You know non-Americans could easily tamper with this poll, and there's no way to limit it to American citizens?
> 
> I won't be voting here because I'm Australian, and I know jack- about the candidates.


Well, the poll isn't for just eligible voters in the United States. It's for Tempers of all nationalities, ages, etc. It's not meant to be indicative of what the United States will do come election day.

If we were to guess what the United States will do on election day based on the poll, remember the 2016 Temper poll was skewed for Trump by 9.9 points compared to the actual election results. Since Biden is winning this poll by 7.9, that would translate to Americans voting for Biden by 17.8 points. That'd be nice, but I don't think that's going to happen.


----------



## RichardTheKing (Sep 5, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Well, the poll isn't for just eligible voters in the United States. It's for Tempers of all nationalities, ages, etc. It's not meant to be indicative of what the United States will do come election day.
> 
> If we were to guess what the United States will do on election day based on the poll, remember the 2016 Temper poll was skewed for Trump by 9.9 points compared to the actual election results. Since Biden is winning this poll by 7.9, that would translate to Americans voting for Biden by 17.8 points. That'd be nice, but I don't think that's going to happen.


Is there a candidate who's advocating for a reduction in religious, cultist power and influence? For an increase in men's reproductive rights, improved education for boys, increased awareness of male suicide rates, homelessness rates, conviction rates and punishment severity? For an increased awareness of male victims of physical and sexual assault, and female culprits of such crimes?

I don't know anything about the current US candidates - heck, I don't know anything about Australian candidates - but the above is what I'd like improved, in _any_ nation.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 5, 2020)

RichardTheKing said:


> Is there a candidate who's advocating for a reduction in religious, cultist power and influence? For an increase in men's reproductive rights, improved education for boys, increased awareness of male suicide rates, homelessness rates, conviction rates and punishment severity? For an increased awareness of male victims of physical and sexual assault, and female culprits of such crimes?
> 
> I don't know anything about the current US candidates - heck, I don't know anything about Australian candidates - but the above is what I'd like improved, in _any_ nation.


An argument can be made that the Republican Party has become a semi-theocratic party since the culture wars when the social conservatives and the Republican Party formed a symbiotic relationship that's now inseparable. The Republicans regularly want to force their religious beliefs down everybody's throats by making the aforementioned beliefs the law. So, you probably wouldn't want to vote for the Republican Party.

As for the second part of your post, you've phrased your concerns, some of them legitimate, in a way that sounds a lot like the often misogynistic men's rights movement, and I don't think either candidate would touch that with a ten-foot pole.


----------



## DarthDub (Sep 5, 2020)

#Trump2020 Why the hell are you guys voting for Sticky Joe? Dude's a pedo/sexual predator, gross.


----------



## RichardTheKing (Sep 5, 2020)

Lacius said:


> An argument can be made that the Republican Party has become a semi-theocratic party since the culture wars when the social conservatives and the Republican Party formed a symbiotic relationship that's now inseparable. The Republicans regularly want to force their religious beliefs down everybody's throats by making the aforementioned beliefs the law. So, you probably wouldn't want to vote for the Republican Party.
> 
> As for the second part of your post, you've phrased your concerns, some of them legitimate, in a way that sounds a lot like the often misogynistic men's rights movement, and I don't think either candidate would touch that with a ten-foot pole.


And what, the women's rights movement isn't also misandristic? Neither that or men's rights movement is pure egalitarianism (since they both cover only one sex out of two), and the causes I would like to see advanced could also be said to fall into that last one...

Thanks for the information, regardless.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 5, 2020)

RichardTheKing said:


> And what, the women's rights movement isn't also misandristic?


That's correct. The women's rights movement is about uplifting women and girls. The men's rights movement is largely a backlash against feminism. They're not the same.

None of this is to say there aren't legitimate issues within the men's rights movement. My problem is with the movement itself.


----------



## choupette (Sep 5, 2020)

I'm not from USA, I suppose I'd vote democrat by default, but if the democrat offered a candidate such as Mr Trump, I'd vote the hell against him.

This man has numerous serious problems, and contrary to what he says poor people, he doesn't do a damn thing for poor people.


----------



## PerfectB (Sep 5, 2020)

I didn't vote in the poll because I've never voted in a presidential election. I've never held much faith in the political process in the US, and throughout my life I've not felt that material conditions have improved for the general populace as a result of our political system. 

That said, I am curious about the general demographics of the community here. I would think it skews younger than me now, but I'm not sure. A few odd things I've noticed are arguments against Trump/GOP framed as if they're not longstanding issues with the GOP (the "culture wars" as we seem to be at a fever pitch, but it isn't really a "new" issue in my mind).

People that seem to support the Democrat party lean heavily on the Obama years.  I don't have anything against Obama, but his leadership was not indicative of other Democrat leaders we've had.

I see that (some) people are informed about our country's history but an idealized version starts to come out. Part of that is psychological, where we tend to remember only the best/worst elements and not the day to day minutiae.  I can definitely see myself the ways Trump is dissatisfying to many, but I see more surprise in that fact with younger people who might not have been very engaged (or remember) the Bush era, Clinton era, etc. 

Sorry for the long post, just looking for some viewpoints. To me, it doesn't seem like much has changed in the political arena--aside from social media bringing out a level of vitriol in the general public that wasn't as noticeable before


----------



## Lacius (Sep 5, 2020)

DarthDub said:


> #Trump2020 Why the hell are you guys voting for Sticky Joe? Dude's a pedo/sexual predator, gross.


If your standards of evidence are low enough that you're going to accept Biden is a sexual predator, then you must also accept that Trump is a sexual predator.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that either one is a sexual predator. I'm making a point about biases causing inconsistent standards of evidence.



PerfectB said:


> I didn't vote in the poll because I've never voted in a presidential election. I've never held much faith in the political process in the US


I vote in every election, but I'm in agreement with you here. For me, it's because the electoral college is indefensibly stupid.



PerfectB said:


> That said, I am curious about the general demographics of the community here. I would think it skews younger than me now, but I'm not sure.


What's also interesting is that Trump won the Temper poll by +7.8 percentage points in 2016, and in 2020, Biden is winning by 7.8 points. That's a swing of 15.6 points.



PerfectB said:


> People that seem to support the Democrat party lean heavily on the Obama years.  I don't have anything against Obama, but his leadership was not indicative of other Democrat leaders we've had.


I agree, but I would argue that (whether one likes it or not) the Obama-Biden years are largely indicative of what a Biden presidency would be like. The difference is Biden now is more to the left of where Obama was when he left office.


----------



## MMX (Sep 5, 2020)

I believe in think-tanks of the elites that plan these things that happen like in portland. FBI, CIA whatever.

It's like they create the problem, then steer people into a reaction and then provide a solution.

but besides that you can argue against each candidate.
How can Trump/Republicans not do anything against the current situation? He says vote for me I'm the candidate for order/justice
How can Democrats not do anything against the current situation? They say vote for me I'm the candidate for equality, their version of justice.

Do you see how artificial this seems? It seems to me that the chaos right now is artificially created.



Lacius said:


> That's correct. The women's rights movement is about uplifting women and girls.



How is degrading women into working units, consumers of products and the extreme sexualization of them such a good rights movement? I'm sure the government loves it as it's 100% utilization of work force / tax income and companies love it for the revenue


----------



## PerfectB (Sep 5, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I vote in every election, but I'm in agreement with you here. For me, it's because the electoral college is indefensibly stupid.
> 
> What's also interesting is that Trump won the Temper poll by +7.8 percentage points in 2016, and in 2020, Biden is winning by 7.8 points. That's a swing of 15.6 points.
> 
> I agree, but I would argue that (whether one likes it or not) the Obama-Biden years are largely indicative of what a Biden presidency would be like. The difference is Biden now is more to the left of where Obama was when he left office.



I do find that interesting about the previous poll here--I don't think I saw it then.  Trump definitely had support in 2016 from people who would not normally go GOP.  I think he scooped up disillusioned Bernie supporters, since both his and Bernie's campaign focused a lot on fighting against "politics as normal".  Some people would overlook his faults due to wanting a change of any sort; anecdotally those people don't seem to feel the same way now.

I wasn't surprised at all that the anti-Hillary contingent was in Trump's camp either.  Hillary certainly had a lot of support, but anti-Clinton sentiment leftover from Bill seems _incredibly_ common among people I know about 8-10+ years older than me.  I'm 31, so I "remember" Bill's second term but wasn't very tuned in because I was young.  Bill is very polarizing to some people.  As you said of the electoral college, there's not much point in voting in my state. It's definitely "safely" red and doesn't have much sway...on the ground though there's more diversity of opinions than one might imagine though.

I agree with you almost fully..I see your point in the Obama comparisons.  I was mentally attributing it to younger people I guess, since they would primarily recall his presidency (and that it wasn't quite as tumultuous as the last four years). 

I'm not sure I'd consider Biden left of Obama though, they're both pretty close center in my opinion.  I'm using left/right by abstracting the political compass to the x-axis definition minus the liberal/authoritarian y-axis though.  I've been more careful about terminology lately just to catch myself from labeling people liberal/conservative (equated with left/right in the US) in the social media world, and catching myself in an echo chamber.  There's a lot of vitriol on some of those platforms lately, so I try to self-maintain my own civility while seeing different opinions haha


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 5, 2020)

Even with Trump, I thought getting rid of the electoral college was hasty... At the beginning, but I haven't seen a convincing argument to keep it.

Biden himself might not be more left, but the party as a whole is.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 5, 2020)

PerfectB said:


> I'm not sure I'd consider Biden left of Obama though, they're both pretty close center in my opinion.  I'm using left/right by abstracting the political compass to the x-axis definition minus the liberal/authoritarian y-axis though.  I've been more careful about terminology lately just to catch myself from labeling people liberal/conservative (equated with left/right in the US) in the social media world, and catching myself in an echo chamber.  There's a lot of vitriol on some of those platforms lately, so I try to self-maintain my own civility while seeing different opinions haha





KingVamp said:


> Even with Trump, I thought getting rid of the electoral college was hasty... At the beginning, but I haven't seen a convincing argument to keep it.
> 
> Biden himself might not be more left, but the party as a whole is.


Biden is the most progressive nominee for president we've ever had.
https://www.politifact.com/factchec...a/joe-bidens-platform-progressive-obama-says/
https://www.vox.com/2019/12/20/2102...-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-barack-obama


----------



## PerfectB (Sep 5, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Biden is the most progressive nominee for president we've ever had.
> https://www.politifact.com/factchec...a/joe-bidens-platform-progressive-obama-says/
> https://www.vox.com/2019/12/20/2102...-bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-barack-obama



I read through the links, and I'll admit that I didn't watch the primary debates so a lot of that was new info to me.

The problem is, as I mentioned before, is my worldview about politics (and I pretty much stay as apolitical as the world will allow me).  I see what Biden says, and I like the ideas of the political left.  I spent pretty much all of my "disposable" income last year, even with insurance, because I had to have a tonsillectomy at age 30 (don't recommend).  But I just don't know if they can get any of that implemented unfortunately.  We'll see, and I hope I'm wrong


----------



## Lacius (Sep 6, 2020)

PerfectB said:


> I read through the links, and I'll admit that I didn't watch the primary debates so a lot of that was new info to me.
> 
> The problem is, as I mentioned before, is my worldview about politics (and I pretty much stay as apolitical as the world will allow me).  I see what Biden says, and I like the ideas of the political left.  I spent pretty much all of my "disposable" income last year, even with insurance, because I had to have a tonsillectomy at age 30 (don't recommend).  But I just don't know if they can get any of that implemented unfortunately.  We'll see, and I hope I'm wrong


A vote for Biden and votes for down-ballot Democratic candidates would increase the odds of having progressive ideas enacted.


----------



## tpax (Sep 6, 2020)

Wow, a pedophile has the most votes on this poll. That's... interesting.


----------



## RichardTheKing (Sep 6, 2020)

Lacius said:


> That's correct. The women's rights movement is about uplifting women and girls. The men's rights movement is largely a backlash against feminism. They're not the same.
> 
> None of this is to say there aren't legitimate issues within the men's rights movement. My problem is with the movement itself.


Not anymore, the women's rights movement isn't. Since all the main issues were fixed in the latter half of the last century, and the first few years of this century, all they've got left to "tackle" are little things, like forcing themselves into things that used to be male-only (e.g. Boy Scouts, men-only groups) and acts of chivalry (men opening doors or pulling out chairs for them). Oh, and monopolising child custody and divorce settlement cases, and ruining male lives through online "#MeToo" witch-hunt postings (completely bypassing the presumption of innocence, the need for actual courts of law to determine guilt, and the requirement of actual evidence - made even worse by how even _anonymous_ accusations are treated as credible as accusations made by named women).

So the women's rights movement is quite misandristic, in my eyes. There's nothing of actual value left for them to "fix"; it needs to be ended peacefully, and the actual discrimination men face needs to be tackled.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 6, 2020)

RichardTheKing said:


> So the women's rights movement is quite misandristic, in my eyes. There's nothing of actual value left for them to "fix"; it needs to be ended peacefully


https://www.insider.com/women-more-expensive-products-2018-8
please go on. If you know, women needing to pay more money for things that men do even if it's for the exact identical thing with a new name slapped on it. then I guess that's equality right?
Right?
This doesn't go any further it can't possibly be a much lar-
https://www.businessinsider.com/gen...-biggest-pay-gap-when-compared-to-white-men-3
huh.... a significant pay difference... that doesn't seem right.
women are equal?
Moving on, I wanted to tackle


RichardTheKing said:


> and the actual discrimination men face needs to be tackled.


Well. no. I don't really think men are discriminated at all. Given historical prescience I don't think that's even a reality. Now should we look into the idea of "man culture" and what is to be "a man" and the nonsense that is masculinity and the dumb ideas that comes from that, now that, I'll discuss. Since really that's just more of a cultural issue in general since everyone expects a guy to be some tough guy who can handle the entire world on his shoulder. Though they aren't actually being indiscriminate by the systems or getting paid less. Which would be easier to figure out if discussing wages wasn't a taboo in the states and we had ya know, unions and workers rights?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Okay now I can tackle what I wanted to tackle


RichardTheKing said:


> ...all they've got left to "tackle" are little things, like forcing themselves into things that used to be male-only (e.g. Boy Scouts, men-only groups) and acts of chivalry (men opening doors or pulling out chairs for them)..


So? what's problematic with that? If a women wants do that, why not? Why is it a supposed to be a "man only" thing?



RichardTheKing said:


> Oh, and monopolising child custody and divorce settlement cases


source?


RichardTheKing said:


> and ruining male lives through online "#MeToo" witch-hunt postings (completely bypassing the presumption of innocence, the need for actual courts of law to determine guilt, and the requirement of actual evidence - made even worse by how even _anonymous_ accusations are treated as credible as accusations made by named women)


Um...WHAT?
hello? they still have to prove it in court. And even then, it's not like males have had the best track record with female individuals. And only recently is that issue starting to come into effect. It doesn't mean that every single man that is accused had misconduct. Infact, I was hit by it. As in, I was accused at one point. However, my peers backed me up, and eventually me and her talked, and I learned why she thought the way she did. (tl;dr I made jokes that made her uncomfortable and I never noticed, 15 year old bad sex jokes) I apologized, and that was the end of it. Right now things are in a heighten sphere, but it's not as severe as you make it sound.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 6, 2020)

RichardTheKing said:


> Not anymore, the women's rights movement isn't. Since all the main issues were fixed in the latter half of the last century, and the first few years of this century, all they've got left to "tackle" are little things, like forcing themselves into things that used to be male-only (e.g. Boy Scouts, men-only groups) and acts of chivalry (men opening doors or pulling out chairs for them). Oh, and monopolising child custody and divorce settlement cases, and ruining male lives through online "#MeToo" witch-hunt postings (completely bypassing the presumption of innocence, the need for actual courts of law to determine guilt, and the requirement of actual evidence - made even worse by how even _anonymous_ accusations are treated as credible as accusations made by named women).
> 
> So the women's rights movement is quite misandristic, in my eyes. There's nothing of actual value left for them to "fix"; it needs to be ended peacefully, and the actual discrimination men face needs to be tackled.


Societal misogyny, sexual assault, domestic violence, getting paid 80% what a man makes, etc. apparently don't exist in your world.

I think the problem is I was too nice when I said you brought up some legitimate issues. The numbers pale in comparison to what women face in society. Saying sexism against women is generally over would be laughable if it weren't sad.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 6, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Societal misogyny, sexual assault, domestic violence, getting paid 80% what a man makes, etc. apparently don't exist in your world.
> 
> I think the problem is I was too nice when I said you brought up some legitimate issues. The numbers pale in comparison to what women face in society. Saying sexism against women is generally over would be laughable if it weren't sad.


This doesn't even count workplace discrimination that is commonly faced by women and rarely faced by men. Women have their positions constantly brought into question and it's not uncommon for people to accuse women in power as the result of pity or "diversity quotas" or beliefs pushing towards the idea that a woman can't hold a position of power. Using the tech field, women constantly face discrimination for peers and outsiders, often constantly questioning a woman's knowledge in their fields. It's pretty common for female programmers to have experienced some form of harassment, stalking, death threats, doxing, and so on. There are countless issues men simply don't face due to them being a man that women deal with on a daily basis.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 6, 2020)

Lacius said:


> getting paid 80% what a man makes,


If women made less than what men made, why would men be in the workforce? It seems more logical that women make less because they don't work as hard.


----------



## RandomUser (Sep 6, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> https://www.insider.com/women-more-expensive-products-2018-8
> please go on. If you know, women needing to pay more money for things that men do even if it's for the exact identical thing with a new name slapped on it. then I guess that's equality right?
> Right?


wait, men pays far more for life insurance and no one is complaining about that.
Also the reverse can be true as well, perhaps not as prevalence but it doesn't mean that it is non existent.


Spoiler












Lacius said:


> getting paid 80% what a man makes


Pretty sure that is illegal.


----------



## PerfectB (Sep 6, 2020)

Lacius said:


> A vote for Biden and votes for down-ballot Democratic candidates would increase the odds of having progressive ideas enacted.



I'm not really sure a vote in the general for Biden would go far in my state, but I am registered. Just never felt like I wanted to go to the polls. I think you're right about down-ballot though, where I can have a better impact, so I'll check into my options there. I'm far from a GOP fan, but I don't always feel that a Democrat candidate is progressive by virtue of affiliation. 

I know that a lot of people defer to lesser-of-two-evils, but if I had to answer for why I don't vote I guess I'd say I'd rather vote for somebody than against their opponent. Depending on the place in life I've been at the time I've either felt like neither candidate was great or I didn't feel very informed on the issues (like being in college and buried in schoolwork, not keeping up on the news, etc)

It's nice to have civil discourse around political thoughts these days, it's more rare than it should be.



RichardTheKing said:


> e.g. Boy Scouts



I'm an eagle scout and I don't really care to add fuel to a fire but...

Girls have been allowed in scouting for quite some time. Venturing Crew has allowed girls, and women can be scoutmasters. Granted, Venturing does not have ranks you achieve (like eagle) that you carry into adulthood. 

I do absolutely think that girls should have access to an organization if they're interested, but I think it would've been a better served as far as outcomes to really overhaul the Girl Scouts organization.

One of the unfortunate things about Scouting is people have a negative connotation sometimes--that the organization holds regressive views. Local troops operate independent of funding by the BSA national org (which is why their bankruptcy doesn't affect local troops), many areas have more than one troop nearby, etc. 

I'm straying off topic so I'll wrap with not judging the program at the local level by the national organization's stances. In all fairness when the BSA itself has made statements it's often following someone publicly making inflammatory remarks wearing their uniforms, there's more nuance to it at times


----------



## omgcat (Sep 6, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> This doesn't even count workplace discrimination that is commonly faced by women and rarely faced by men. Women have their positions constantly brought into question and it's not uncommon for people to accuse women in power as the result of pity or "diversity quotas" or beliefs pushing towards the idea that a woman can't hold a position of power. Using the tech field, women constantly face discrimination for peers and outsiders, often constantly questioning a woman's knowledge in their fields. It's pretty common for female programmers to have experienced some form of harassment, stalking, death threats, doxing, and so on. There are countless issues men simply don't face due to them being a man that women deal with on a daily basis.



the thing I see the most is random guys trying to explain shit to women. I had a classmate who was finishing her PhD in CS and some fucking twit tried to explain her thesis to her. I was SCREAMING in my head. In my undergrad there averaged like 1-3 women per class i took out of 25-40.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraSUPRA said:


> If women made less than what men made, why would men be in the workforce? It seems more logical that women make less because they don't work as hard.



obfuscated salaries are a big reason for this. when no one knows how much other employees are making, they don't know how much they are getting fucked by their employers. It pisses me off that discussing salary ranges is so discouraged in the workplace.


----------



## deficitdisorder (Sep 6, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> If women made less than what men made, why would men be in the workforce? It seems more logical that women make less because they don't work as hard.





Saying its because they simply dont work as hard is disgusting and misogynistic af.That makes no fucking sense when you apply literally any thought to it, Unless your some red pilled incel. If they didnt work as hard why would they have any place in the workplace? 


That 80% figure is across the entire work force and not at the individual job level. Women are less likely to have higher pay jobs.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 6, 2020)

omgcat said:


> the thing I see the most is random guys trying to explain shit to women. I had a classmate who was finishing her PhD in CS and some fucking twit tried to explain her thesis to her. I was SCREAMING in my head. In my undergrad there averaged like 1-3 women per class i took out of 25-40.


Things like that continue to be common in pretty much every field and workplace. Just using my own workplace, I work in sales and just sell cellphones, nothing exciting nor interesting. That being said, it's a pretty regular thing for women (myself included,) to get laughed at when trying to talk about products, get told sexist comments like, "Can I get a man to explain this to me? I think he would actually know what he's doing," and that's just using the least shitty comment. Women in our workforce report large amounts of unwanted sexual advances from customers, sexual harassment from customers, and some have even had to change their store locations due to stalking from customers (I am literally working with a girl who had to go through that.) These are just some of the issues women face in just my job that men either don't report or aren't facing and this isn't even getting into the topic of trans people who work this job. Trust me, I have an entire list of shit I have to deal with that has caused me issues in my job just because I am trans.


----------



## IncredulousP (Sep 6, 2020)

tpax said:


> Wow, a pedophile has the most votes on this poll. That's... interesting.


What? Trump doesn't have the most votes on the poll.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 6, 2020)

tpax said:


> Wow, a pedophile has the most votes on this poll. That's... interesting.


If your standards of evidence are low enough that you're going to accept Biden is a sexual predator, then you must also accept that Trump is a sexual predator.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that either one is a sexual predator. I'm making a point about biases causing inconsistent standards of evidence. In reality, there's virtually no evidence that Biden is a predator.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraSUPRA said:


> If women made less than what men made, why would men be in the workforce? It seems more logical that women make less because they don't work as hard.


Women are getting paid less for working just as hard, if not harder, than comparable men.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



RandomUser said:


> Pretty sure that is illegal.


It is illegal, but it's still happening (a lot). There's more that can be done about it.


----------



## AkumaNoYami (Sep 6, 2020)

Biden 
because Trump is an Idiot .. and he tells only lies .. this guy is a narzist .. 
poor america


----------



## RandomUser (Sep 6, 2020)

Lacius said:


> It is illegal, but it's still happening (a lot). There's more that can be done about it.


Perhaps you are right, however most articles seems to be not consistence in the percentage of the wage gap so it is much harder to believe which articles are right or wrong.
Here is an article about the Gender wage gap that seems to paint a very different picture:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/evange...-myths-about-the-gender-pay-gap/#48744b0646fa
I have read the census data and does seem to support your claim, but not all data is present so cannot weigh come to a conclusion in weather it is correct or not, or the result are skewed in favoritism.
The hourly pay may be easily corrected, however salary is not going to be easy due to whole host of reasons, like why would a company pay an intern or entry level the same amount as someone whom either have years of experience or whom has been working for said company for years.
At any rate though it is possible a lot of jobs maybe going to be automated, and perhaps the wage gap will then be nonexistent.
I'm not saying that the gender wage gap doesn't exist or does exist.
Perhaps I'm just going to have to be neutral on this.


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 6, 2020)

what scares me is that trump will probably not conceed the election if he loses worst comes to worst as what bernie predicted a rebellion will most likely occur thos who don't get killed outright would mostly clog up death rows accross the US (as treason has a manditory death penelty and is one of the few crimes "baked into" the constitution with an outlined punishment but i wonder if that unsaid treaty with canada (because of draft dodgers during nam) canada agreed to deny all assylum cases from the US....but unlike nam this could cause a second civil war which is vastly different then draft dodging i mean what if trump does the unthinkable and orders his supporters to kill all who oppose him?


----------



## Seliph (Sep 6, 2020)

Just waiting for Trump's inevitable military coup tbh.


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 6, 2020)

Seliph said:


> Just waiting for Trump's inevitable military coup tbh.


note above treason in the us is a manditory death sentance he even tries (I'm sure he's that stupid enough to try) a one way ticket to death row and any successor in his or her right mind would not even pull the pardon card NIxon cheated but he never once commited treason and i doubt he would
have about before you say but obama commited treason too I suggest you reread section 3 of our constitution which define treason according to the founders to only two types of conduct:

(1) “levying war” against the United States; or (2) “adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States], giving them aid and comfort.” what each type of treason entails.and some of you may say it falls under the second definition still no the iranian nuclear deal wasn't treason it was to curb the likelyhood of iran developing WMD's he could've santioned and withdrew the deal at any time heck he could've readied the military if wmd's were found and went to war to shut them down (it would've happened since iran did secretly develop wmd's)


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 6, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> what scares me is that trump will probably not conceed the election if he loses worst comes to worst as what bernie predicted a rebellion will most likely occur thos who don't get killed outright would mostly clog up death rows accross the US (as treason has a manditory death penelty and is one of the few crimes "baked into" the constitution with an outlined punishment but i wonder if that unsaid treaty with canada (because of draft dodgers during nam) canada agreed to deny all assylum cases from the US....but unlike nam this could cause a second civil war which is vastly different then draft dodging i mean what if trump does the unthinkable and orders his supporters to kill all who oppose him?


Didn't _you_ try to deny the last election?


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 6, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Didn't _you_ try to deny the last election?


um hilary didn't levy war cause she lost with trrump though it could be in the relm of possibility


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 7, 2020)




----------



## osaka35 (Sep 7, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Well. no. I don't really think men are discriminated at all.


It's not a competition. Just because men are discriminated against doesn't in any way diminish or distract from how crap women are discriminated against. We can fix more than just the one thing at a time. And I get the urge to overcompensate to press the importance, but just dismissing all of the issues men face, or potentially face, just makes you seem like someone who is safe to dismiss and ignore.

But the rest of what you said is true enough.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 7, 2020)

osaka35 said:


> It's not a competition. Just because men are discriminated against doesn't in any way diminish or distract from how crap women are discriminated against. We can fix more than just the one thing at a time. And I get the urge to overcompensate to press the importance, but just dismissing all of the issues men face, or potentially face, just makes you seem like someone who is safe to dismiss and ignore.
> 
> But the rest of what you said is true enough.


It's not a competition, I agree with you on that, that it shouldn't take away from that women are discriminated against. However my point was that historically speaking, and from what I can tell. Men aren't discriminated. (the person I was quoting was arguing that women aren't discriminated, and that men are. and I was trying to argue opposite was true, that women are, men are not. Essentially he was trying to move focus away from female issues. While I was trying to focus on it (that females do have problems and males really don't regarding discrimination). I'm going to assume perhaps I didn't make my argument clear.)


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 7, 2020)

If I was a business owner, and I only had to pay a woman 80% or how much I'd have to pay a man, I would only hire women. It's logical.
Maybe I don't get to have a say in this because of "muh toxin", but I don't care.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 7, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> View attachment 224167


This alleged direct quote has already been debunked.
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/...uote/507-8cd6d683-ff29-4950-8f78-cb99ecf1915e

What does it say that Republican arguments against Biden are, again and again, false?


----------



## osaka35 (Sep 8, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> If I was a business owner, and I only had to pay a woman 80% or how much I'd have to pay a man, I would only hire women. It's logical.
> Maybe I don't get to have a say in this because of "muh toxin", but I don't care.


People tend to justify it through things like "they need more resources, like stalls or heaters, than men. Plus, the risk of pregnancy and leaving far outways the small difference." Had someone argue that once.



monkeyman4412 said:


> It's not a competition, I agree with you on that, that it shouldn't take away from that women are discriminated against. However my point was that historically speaking, and from what I can tell. Men aren't discriminated. (the person I was quoting was arguing that women aren't discriminated, and that men are. and I was trying to argue opposite was true, that women are, men are not. Essentially he was trying to move focus away from female issues. While I was trying to focus on it (that females do have problems and males really don't regarding discrimination). I'm going to assume perhaps I didn't make my argument clear.)


 I'm assuming you mean topics such as rights and liberties, sure. Still a lot of those battles to fight for on women's, people of colour, and lgbtq+ side. 

But perceptual topics, such as gender roles and acceptability of behaviour, oh hell yeah there are loads. More-so for women, but definitely some crucial ones for men. Long-standing ones. The one affects the other, and vice versa, as well.


----------



## AkumaNoYami (Sep 8, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> View attachment 224167


wow .. 1977 the times change 
as a kid you didnt like Brokkoli 
and today you like it 

Change yourself is a hard way 
and its good to see that he can change hisself !


----------



## console (Sep 8, 2020)

I followed Cassandra Peterson (Elvira Mistress of the Dark) what she said. She is powerful boss woman. 

Vote Blue (Biden)!!! 


Biden Offers Government Post To Elvira, Mistress Of The Dark

https://politics.theonion.com/biden-offers-government-post-to-elvira-mistress-of-the-1819578126















I always support Cassandra Peterson.  <3 <3 <3


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 8, 2020)

AkumaNoYami said:


> as a kid you didnt like Brokkoli
> and today you like it


No, I don't.

As for the rest of your post...hmm...interesting...people can change...perhaps people shouldn't look ten years back through your Twitter accounts and call you a racist.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 8, 2020)

I have reasons to believe Biden supporters are scum, even ignoring the riots and the allegations of rape and pedophilia.

First off, somebody on Reddit visited her dad, who was diagnosed with terminal cancer about a year prior. One person responded by saying that he/she downvoted and reported the post because "OP is a Trump supporter".



 

Second off, a woman beat down a child simply because the child had a MAGA sign on his bike.


----------



## bibibiMS (Sep 9, 2020)

In China, my friends really want trump to be re elected, because he is really funny.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 9, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I have reasons to believe Biden supporters are scum



Broad generalization, check
Based on cherry-picked anecdotes, check
Seemingly ignores the things Trump supporters do, check
Ignores that Trump incites violence and elicits bad behavior from his supporters, while Biden does not, check
Also, these were the best anecdotes you could find? Oh no, some fool unrelated to Biden or the Biden campaign downvoted somebody's posts on Reddit. _The utter inhumanity_.



UltraSUPRA said:


> even ignoring the riots


_Riots _have generally been condemned by Biden and his supporters.



UltraSUPRA said:


> ignoring the allegations of rape and pedophilia.


If you're talking about Biden, there's zero evidence of pedophilia, and there's no good evidence of rape. You're also being hypocritical if you say this while simultaneously ignoring Trump's many sexual misconduct allegations, which far outnumber anything Biden has. I recommend coming up with some consistent standards of evidence before getting back to us.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 9, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Seemingly ignores the things Trump supporters do, check
> Ignores that Trump incites violence and elicits bad behavior from his supporters, while Biden does not, check


Huh?


Lacius said:


> _Riots _have generally been condemned by Biden and his supporters.


Kamala Harris donated to the MFF, which bailed out rioters.


Lacius said:


> If you're talking about Biden, there's zero evidence of pedophilia, and there's no good evidence of rape.


I've already shown the photographic evidence multiple times.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 9, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Kamala Harris donated to the MFF, which bailed out rioters.


It didn't bail out _rioters_.



UltraSUPRA said:


> I've already shown the photographic evidence multiple times.


You haven't shown anything that remotely demonstrates what you claim it demonstrates. Do you honestly believe it does?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 9, 2020)

Lacius said:


> It didn't bail out _rioters_.


Right, they bailed out the "mostly peaceful protestors".


Lacius said:


> You haven't shown anything that remotely demonstrates what you claim it demonstrates. Do you honestly believe it does?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 9, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Right, they bailed out the "mostly peaceful protestors".


Peaceful protesters, bystanders, reporters, etc.

Could you point out a photograph that demonstrates _rape_ and/or _pedophilia_? Respectfully, it doesn't sound like you understand what these things are.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 9, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Peaceful protesters, bystanders, reporters, etc.


The "peaceful protestors" weren't actually peaceful.


Lacius said:


> Could you point out a photograph that demonstrates _rape_ and/or _pedophilia_? Respectfully, it doesn't sound like you understand what these things are.


Rape? No.
Pedophilia? Most of them, with one showing Creepy Joe sticking his hand into a baby's crotch.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 9, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> The "peaceful protestors" weren't actually peaceful.


That's a bold and unsubstantiated overgeneralization. Could you give us an example of a rioter who was purportedly bailed out by the MFF?



UltraSUPRA said:


> Rape? No.


Then don't allege that Biden raped anybody. And if you did, in order to be consistent, you'd have to accept that Trump did too.



UltraSUPRA said:


> Pedophilia? Most of them, with one showing Creepy Joe sticking his hand into a baby's crotch.


_Holding a baby_ is not _pedophilia_. Are you even being serious? Like, what do you even stand for at this point?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 9, 2020)

Lacius said:


> That's a bold and unsubstantiated overgeneralization. Could you give us an example of a rioter who was purportedly bailed out by the MFF?


I can't give an example of _anybody_ who was bailed out by the MFF.


Lacius said:


> Then don't allege that Biden raped anybody. And if you did, in order to be consistent, you'd have to accept that Trump did too.


...


Lacius said:


> _Holding a baby_ is not _pedophilia_. Are you even being serious? Like, what do you even stand for at this point?


Even still, he sniffed the hair and rubbed the breasts of multiple young girls in those photos.


----------



## Idrolitina (Sep 9, 2020)

Princess Zelda and Link, the Light of Hyrule


----------



## Lacius (Sep 9, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I can't give an example of _anybody_ who was bailed out by the MFF.


I can, and it took me two minutes of searching. It's amazing what you can accomplish when you seek the truth instead of blindly accepting a claim that supports a politically motivated preconception.



UltraSUPRA said:


> Even still, he sniffed the hair and rubbed the breasts of multiple young girls in those photos.


First, these aren't the things you claimed to be demonstrating with your photos. Second, the photos don't even show what you're describing now.

How can you justify believing Biden is a pedophile based on painfully nothing photos, while ignoring the multitude of sexual misconduct allegations against Trump?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 9, 2020)

Lacius said:


> First, these aren't the things you claimed to be demonstrating with your photos. Second, the photos don't even show what you're describing now.


1. So sniffing hair and rubbing breasts isn't sexual?
2. Top row has both things I mentioned. The second from the left shows him sniffling that hair, and the fourth one has him rubbing those breasts.


----------



## CORE (Sep 9, 2020)

Your not Black if you dont Vote for Biden.
Joe likes kids stroking his hairy legs and his blonde hairs stand up , He likes kids jumping on his lap.

His Words Not Mine.

Joe and Hunter Ukraine Scandal and possible Pelosi Son too.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 9, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> 1. So sniffing hair and rubbing breasts isn't sexual?
> 2. Top row has both things I mentioned. The second from the left shows him sniffling that hair, and the fourth one has him rubbing those breasts.


Your photos don't show what you're claiming they show. Now could you answer my question?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 9, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Your photos don't show what you're claiming they show. Now could you answer my question?


Trump's allegations have no photographic evidence.
Also, did you even see the photographs?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 9, 2020)

CORE said:


> Your not Black if you dont Vote for Biden.
> Joe likes kids stroking his hairy legs and his blonde hairs stand up , He likes kids jumping on his lap.
> 
> His Words Not Mine.
> ...


The first comment is pretty dumb. The second comment is seemingly innocuous. None of this is worse than a lot of what Trump has said.


----------



## Nemix77 (Sep 9, 2020)

I know it's none of my business but we're next door up north. 

IMHO, none on the top candidates are competent. 

So I vote other.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 9, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Trump's allegations have no photographic evidence.



You haven't provided photographic evidence for any pedophilia, etc. At best, you've provided evidence of him being creepy, but that requires a lot of assumptions about what the photos actually show.
There's far more evidence for Trump's sexual misconduct claims than there is for anything you've claimed about Biden.
So, respectfully, your answer isn't satisfactory.


----------



## CORE (Sep 9, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The first comment is pretty dumb. The second comment is seemingly innocuous. None of this is worse than a lot of what Trump has said.



What has Trump done said?

No Blacks apparently around 20 years ago about Construction.
Grab her by the Pussy leaked audio.
He would date his daughter if not related.

Sloppy Daniels Propaganda.
Russian Prostitutes Golden Showers in a Hotel Propaganda.

What has he done lol

Where is your Photographic and Video Evidence that has already been provided to you.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 9, 2020)

Lacius said:


> You haven't provided photographic evidence for any pedophilia, etc. At best, you've provided evidence of him being creepy, but that requires a lot of assumptions about what the photos actually show.


What else could it be?


Lacius said:


> There's far more evidence for Trump's sexual misconduct claims than there is for anything you've claimed about Biden.


I heard it from a friend who
Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from another who heard it from another who heard it from another who heard it from another who heard it from another who heard it from another who heard it from another you've been messing around.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 9, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> What else could it be?


First, there are plenty of explanations for virtually every shitpost meme photos you've posted, and they require a lot fewer assumptions than what you're asserting.

"What else could it be?" doesn't actually demonstrate anything. I could point at a light in the sky and claim it's an alien spacecraft, and "What else could it be?" doesn't do anything to demonstrate my claim, regardless of whether or not you have possible alternative explanations.



UltraSUPRA said:


> I heard it from a friend who
> Heard it from a friend who
> Heard it from another who heard it from another who heard it from another who heard it from another who heard it from another who heard it from another who heard it from another you've been messing around.


This is a mischaractarization of virtually every sexual misconduct claim against Trump.

As I've said numerous times in this thread, I'm not claiming Trump did any of the things he's alleged to have done. I'm making a point about biases and inconsistent standards of evidence.

I've grown tired of these "Biden is a pedophile because there are photos of him making physical contact with other human beings" non-arguments. It's telling that Trumpers have to resort to these non-arguments instead of substance, policy, and issues, particularly when these non-arguments are by definition cherry-picking (since Trump's alleged sexual misconduct is ignored).

Republicans don't really stand for anything anymore. Nothing good, anyway.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 9, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I've grown tired of these "Biden is a pedophile because there are photos of him making physical contact with other human beings" non-arguments.


So it's not sexual to rub breasts.


Lacius said:


> It's telling that Trumpers have to resort to these non-arguments instead of substance, policy, and issues, particularly when these non-arguments are by definition cherry-picking (since Trump's alleged sexual misconduct is ignored).


Well, when the media is against you, you've gotta fight back with what you can find.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 9, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> So it's not sexual to rub breasts.


I don't accept the premise that any of your photos necessarily show any rubbing of breasts, and you shouldn't either. Second, such a photo would not demonstrate your claims of rape or pedophilia. Like I've said numerous times, at best, your pictures might demonstrate creepiness, but that would require more assumptions about the photos than I'm comfortable with, and they don't demonstrate rape or pedophilia. In fact, virtually each photo I looked at for any prolonged period of time that you posted in your mashup seemed either innocuous or plausibly innocuous. I probably could have found creepier photos.



UltraSUPRA said:


> Well, when the media is against you, you've gotta fight back with what you can find.


Regardless of whether or not the media is "against you" (it's not), misinformation and petty destraction are never appropriate responses. Then again, I think you once argued in favor of blatant propaganda being okay, so I shouldn't be surprised.

I think I've entertained the topic of Biden and alleged sexual misconduct more than I've needed to, and I have yet to hear how one can be consistent and promote claims against him but not claims against Trump. I'm more interested in hearing from you or anyone else anything good that the Republican Party stands for anymore.


----------



## CORE (Sep 9, 2020)

SKIP THE PICS HERE IS VIDEOS.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 9, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I'm more interested in hearing from you or anyone else anything good that the Republican Party stands for anymore.


Lower taxes. Smaller government. Fewer illegal aliens. Less poverty. Protection of the first and second amendments.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 9, 2020)

This thread is a trainwreck of delusional people.  All politicians are grade Z, crisis actors that are just pawns of international usury bankers and other scum.  But even though ALL of your choices are puppets, having the people make it well known they will not bow down to any idiot talking about attempting to overthrow the 1st and 2nd amendment makes it that much harder for them to do so.

There's only two types of governments:  ones run by psychopaths who fear the population because they're armed, and ones run by psycopaths who have zero fear of the population because they banned the 2nd amendment and you live in tyranny and they usually murder you.

All the so called "social issues" people are spamming about in this thread are a joke.  The only issues that actually matter are things like getting rid of the central bankers because having a central bank is the #1 tenet of the communist manifesto and living under communism is tyranny.  All the buffoons voting for Bernie don't seem to understand you've already had communism for decades and never even lived under capitalism before (yea, capitalism on the extreme micro level but not macro).

The purpose of communism is not to hand out free $hit to useless eaters.  It's for the central bankers to centralize all wealth and power so they can steal it all just like they did to Russia.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 9, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> This thread is a trainwreck of delusional people.  All politicians are grade Z, crisis actors that are just pawns of international usury bankers and other scum.  But even though ALL of your choices are puppets, having the people make it well known they will not bow down to any idiot talking about attempting to overthrow the 1st and 2nd amendment makes it that much harder for them to do so.
> 
> There's only two types of governments:  ones run by psychopaths who fear the population because they're armed, and ones run by psycopaths who have zero fear of the population because they banned the 2nd amendment and you live in tyranny and they usually murder you.
> 
> ...



the ravings of a man convinced that the red scare from the 1910's is still a thing and that hundreds of thousands of people are conspiring to fuck over the standard person. please take your meds, and mind your media consumption.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 9, 2020)

Nice propaganda you got there.  That criminal usury bankers are here to help you and not screw you over.  Oh, your propaganda is ratcheted even a step higher - that criminal usury bankers don't even exist!  It's pathetic seeing these leftist weirdos who once promoted causes like "Occupy Wall Street" now claiming Goldman Sachs is your friend and here to help.  

Do you see a single one of these lunatics even talking about actual important issues like monetary reform to remove power from these people?  Hell no.  They want monetary reform alright, monetary reform that gives the criminal bankers even more power than they already have under the guise of communism to 'equitably' hand out free stuff to people so they can live in a utopia, which has never happened in the history of communism LOL.

The only thing that comes with communism is tyranny and death, because it's sole purpose is exactly what I said, to centralize all wealth and power so the bankers can steal it all just like they did to Russia and rule over everyone as slaves and kill anyone that doesn't like what they're doing.  They're called "oligarchs" - the people who looted Russia blind. I guess they don't exist either?

I've been trading commodies for years myself so I know more about economic issues than any antifa weirdo posting in this thread.  You can vote for whatever dysfunctional, collectivist economic system you want.  All that does is make the price of my gold and silver go higher.  Metals are my unit of account.  I don't accept antifa dollars or imaginary, valueless timestamps called bitcoins.

The more dysfuctional and SJW apocalyptic-ly stupid of an economic system you vote for, the richer it makes me as everyone piles into assets like metals the government can't manipulate and print out of thin air!  Keep being as dysfunctional and insane as you want SJWs!  You'll eventually make me a zillionaire!


----------



## notimp (Sep 9, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> It's pathetic seeing these leftist weirdos who once promoted causes like "Occupy Wall Street" now claiming Goldman Sachs is your friend and here to help.


Yeah, from what little I've listened to Hedges talking about meeting the Occupy leadership at the time, I sincerely doubt that those are the same people. (Even grown older.)

Whats definitely there though is ample money for NGOs that promote active stagnation of growth, and personal private investment in sustainable and degrowth ventures. Thats were the international left liberal marketing money currently is.

And strangely that also includes subverting the concept of occupy, if it helps to move people into communes in the countryside, spending their money on local investment banks. (Banks that dont deal in stock market assets basically.)

In my experience.


r0achtheunsavory said:


> The only thing that comes with communism is tyranny and death, because it's sole purpose is exactly what I said, to centralize all wealth and power so the bankers can steal it all just like they did to Russia


Nope, you havent understood it.  Russia is an oligopoly, where major industry is in close proximity to state interests, so is banking. Everyone who had become anything better became friends with the Kreml at one point or their chance of retaining anything became pretty slim.

Communism in principal was driven by ideological ideas, that were used to draw up new utopias, which then ended in Stalin and Lenin working on the implementation, which essentially became powerstructures that had nothing to do with the ideals in the beginning. "Communism is..." usually is said by either the US to conjure up an image that doesnt exist, or by russians doing pretty much the same..  This is a discussion that leads pretty much nowhere - because the ideology, ultimately wasn't what did win out, or was implemented. And to say absolutist dictatorial regimes, with a veneer of 'egalitarianism', do you really have to use the word communism? Or do you specifically mean, that people were 'assigned jobs' and worked in 'collective farms' f.e., which usually you dont. For what became of that communism, read Orwells Animal Farm.

Try using the term in relation to chinese political structures, and it becomes a little more interesting.. 

For a still largely useless, but better analysis, watch:


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 9, 2020)

There's no point using words like "oligopoly" because you can just as easily substitute words like kleptocracy and a million other buzz words.  That word has no relation to Russia specifically either because all 1st world nuclear powers are all virtually the same model in that regard - combination of state and economy aka fascism.

The UK is fascist, the US is fascist, Russia is fascist, China is fascist, etc.  Why are they all the same model?  Because reducing state power and control over things like industry just creates a power vacuum where other factions slip in and take over.  Meaning if you delete the state in the US, someone like China will just print money out of thin air and buy up all your ports and everything else.

You can delete a lot of the excessive government and fascist economic micromanagement in places like the US, but you would need to pass laws that foreigners can't own land or industry there, which places like China already do.  Much of the problems in the world and excessive, tyrannical government are due to the fact that a separation of state and money don't exist.  Go back to physical metals as money and international economic warfare between states drops tremendously, and so does intra-nation tyranny and waste.


----------



## notimp (Sep 9, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> There's no point using words like "oligopoly" because you can just as easily substitute words like kleptocracy and a million other buzz words. That word has no relation to Russia specifically either because all 1st world nuclear powers are all virtually the same model in that regard - combination of state and economy aka fascism.


Then dont use fascism either..  In the case of modern day russia its a pretty good descriptor of what happened.

Basically russia opened up its state businesses to the capitalist model at one point but had a close eye on who was doing direct investing or founding what bank, and so on and so forth. This was accompanied by a clamp down on successful ventures that didnt pledge allegiance to the Kreml, and in some struggles some CEOs kind of got removed. In the end a clique of politically loyal oligarchs turned up heads of industry (media was controlled pretty much the same way) - which still was run in a capitalist fashion.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 9, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Lower taxes.


Disproportionately lower taxes for the rich, you mean, which contributes to problems of income inequality that contradict your desire to end or reduce poverty.



UltraSUPRA said:


> Smaller government.


These are meaningless buzzwords. "Big government" is just a term people use when addressing things about the government they don't like, and an argument can be made for Republicans being in favor of big government (e.g. infringing on female reproductive rights, mandating medically unnecessary ultrasounds, etc.).

In other words, "smaller government" typically isn't a policy position by itself. Also, what's inherently wrong with a hypothetical "big government"? If you choose to answer this hypothetical, please be specific about what you mean by "big government."



UltraSUPRA said:


> Fewer illegal aliens.


Democratic policy positions like amnesty or a pathway to citizenship (or increasing access to legal immigration instead of decreasing it) would result in fewer illegal aliens than any Republican policy positions. Walls and child-separation don't really do anything to lessen illegal immigration. The former is a costly measure that accomplishes nothing. The latter is an immoral policy that results in irreparable harm.

Anti-immigration vitriol like what's vomited by Trump's Republican Party also results in an increase in violent crime for everybody, so oops.



UltraSUPRA said:


> Less poverty.


The Democratic Party is the only party offering solutions to income inequality and poverty. The Republicans have only offered up policy ideas that increase income inequality. We can talk about the logistics if you want, but you're probably not going to like where things go. The economics of income inequality are pretty objective and clear-cut.



UltraSUPRA said:


> Protection of the first amendment


It's laughable to think Trump's Republican Party has done anything other than strip away at people's first amendment rights. Only looking at what's been done lately, Trump's Republican Party has attacked the rights of the press, attacked people's right to peacefully protest, and attacked Michael Cohen's right to write a book. And when I say "attacked," I mean people are being threatened with jail time for exercising their constitutional rights under the first amendment. Hah.



UltraSUPRA said:


> Protection of the second amendment



It was only very recently that the Supreme Court mistakenly ruled that the second amendment has anything to do with an individual's right to own guns.
If you're going to argue that a constitutional right to gun ownership supersedes doing anything about gun violence in this country, then an argument can be made that the constitutional right to gun ownership should not exist.
I think you'd agree with me that a hypothetical constitutional right to gun ownership isn't an unrestricted right to gun ownership, similar to how a constitutional right to free speech isn't an unrestricted right to free speech. In other words, a constitutional right to gun ownership doesn't have to conflict with solutions to gun violence in this country.
A person who advocates for a right to responsible gun ownership should probably be in favor of laws that ensure responsible gun ownership (e.g. background checks, etc.). Otherwise, public sentiment is going to move against a right to responsible gun ownership, and that right may be lost.
For these reasons, particularly 2-4, someone who likes gun ownership should never vote for a Republican.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 9, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Disproportionately lower taxes for the rich, you mean, which contributes to problems of income inequality that contradict your desire to end or reduce poverty.


A flat tax is proportionate.


Lacius said:


> These are meaningless buzzwords. "Big government" is just a term people use when addressing things about the government they don't like, and an argument can be made for Republicans being in favor of big government (e.g. infringing on female reproductive rights, mandating medically unnecessary ultrasounds, etc.).
> 
> In other words, "smaller government" typically isn't a policy position by itself. Also, what's inherently wrong with a hypothetical "big government"? If you choose to answer this hypothetical, please be specific about what you mean by "big government."


A pregnant woman in Australia got arrested for posting something on Facebook.


Lacius said:


> Democratic policy positions like amnesty or a pathway to citizenship (or increasing access to legal immigration instead of decreasing it) would result in fewer illegal aliens than any Republican policy positions. Walls and child-separation don't really do anything to lessen illegal immigration. The former is a costly measure that accomplishes nothing. The latter is an immoral policy that results in irreparable harm.
> 
> Anti-immigration vitriol like what's vomited by Trump's Republican Party also results in an increase in violent crime for everybody, so oops.


Lessening the restrictions on immigration will only create more thieves, murderers, and drug dealers.


Lacius said:


> The Democratic Party is the only party offering solutions to income inequality and poverty. The Republicans have only offered up policy ideas that increase income inequality. We can talk about the logistics if you want, but you're probably not going to like where things go. The economics of income inequality are pretty objective and clear-cut.


Liberals are only interested in increasing the poverty line. By cutting government programs, we'll force people to get on their feet, and eventually out of poverty.


Lacius said:


> It's laughable to think Trump's Republican Party has done anything other than strip away at people's first amendment rights. Only looking at what's been done lately, Trump's Republican Party has attacked the rights of the press, attacked people's right to peacefully protest, and attacked Michael Cohen's right to write a book. And when I say "attacked," I mean people are being threatened with jail time for exercising their constitutional rights under the first amendment. Hah.


I didn't hear about the book. For the other two, arson isn't peaceful and Trump has been attacking Facebook and Twitter for shadow-banning conservative pages.


Lacius said:


> It was only very recently that the Supreme Court mistakenly ruled that the second amendment has anything to do with an individual's right to own guns.


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Lacius said:


> If you're going to argue that a constitutional right to gun ownership supersedes doing anything about gun violence in this country, then an argument can be made that the constitutional right to gun ownership should not exist.


The best way to keep a murderer at bay is to arm your people.


Lacius said:


> I think you'd agree with me that a hypothetical constitutional right to gun ownership isn't an unrestricted right to gun ownership, similar to how a constitutional right to free speech isn't an unrestricted right to free speech. In other words, a constitutional right to gun ownership doesn't have to conflict with solutions to gun violence in this country.


Yes, it is. There's a large difference between owning a gun and using it.


Lacius said:


> A person who advocates for a right to responsible gun ownership should probably be in favor of laws that ensure responsible gun ownership (e.g. background checks, etc.). Otherwise, public sentiment is going to move against a right to responsible gun ownership, and that right may be lost.


_Every_ gun law is an infringement.


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 9, 2020)

these MAGA assholes some litterally are willing to commit treason if trump loses hell i will litterally enjoy watching you get slaughtered by the US military for even trying to rebel you may have AR-15's and shit but do you guys have tank's,Military helicopters? no? then any rebellion will be crushed and all the survivors will either get the needle or will live in prison til they die with no porole option which is fine by me


----------



## Lacius (Sep 9, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> A flat tax is proportionate.



A flat tax is not equitable, since 1% of a person's income isn't going to be as valuable to that person as another person's 1% is to them.
To have a usable source of revenue, you would have to over-tax the poor.
If you're content with having a pathetic revenue stream, it's solely because the rich are undertaxed.
These reasons are why most countries don't do a flat tax. Respectfully, it wasn't long ago you demonstrated you didn't understand tax brackets, since you were claiming that people could come out ahead financially by not increasing their pay above a certain amount (this is incorrect).



UltraSUPRA said:


> A pregnant woman in Australia got arrested for posting something on Facebook.


With regard to the conversation topic, why do I care?



UltraSUPRA said:


> Lessening the restrictions on immigration will only create more thieves, murderers, and drug dealers.


There's no evidence for this. In fact, the evidence appears to contradict it. When illegal immigrants are demonized and hunted for deportation without recourse, they tend not to use police services. This creates a breeding ground for violent crime since they're in exploitable population. With access to the legal resources citizens have, for starters, that crime disappears.



UltraSUPRA said:


> Liberals are only interested in increasing the poverty line.


This is hyperbolic nonsense. You might want to lay off the right-wing propaganda.



UltraSUPRA said:


> By cutting government programs, we'll force people to get on their feet, and eventually out of poverty.


We know what things were like in the United States without governmental assistance, and it wasn't even that long ago. We saw the effects of the Great Depression without the social safety net that exists today. Not only is it immoral to promote an end to the social safety net, but it would be economically disastrous. The idea that people are poor because of social safety nets is absurd and completely unsupported by evidence.



UltraSUPRA said:


> I didn't hear about the book.


The Trump Justice Department attempted to make Cohen's early release from prison (due to COVID) contingent upon agreeing to not write a book. When he declined (he actually just didn't have time to agree; he intended to agree), he was sent to prison when he otherwise would not have been. Fortunately, a judge ruled it was unconstitutional to do this. It's an infringement on one's first amendment rights. If Trump is any indication, Republicans generally don't care about the first amendment when it's inconvenient for them.



UltraSUPRA said:


> For the other two, arson isn't peaceful


Nobody's claiming that arson is peaceful. Nobody's talking about arson. I didn't mention arson. Please avoid straw man arguments. Thank you.



UltraSUPRA said:


> and Trump has been attacking Facebook and Twitter for shadow-banning conservative pages.


The idea that conservatives are being shadow banned is a conspiracy theory with no evidence backing it up. Are you arguing that your president habitually wastes time? Because I would agree with you.



UltraSUPRA said:


> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


I'm aware of what the second amendment says, and you're not really contributing anything to the discourse. Do you understand the details of the argument that it doesn't necessarily give individuals a right to own a gun? Are you aware that the idea it does is relatively new? Do you understand that, regardless of whether or not gun ownership is a constitutional right, restrictions like background checks are not unconstitutional and do not violate one's alleged right to own guns? Do you understand it might be in your best interest as someone who wants to be able to own a gun to support gun control measures? Do you understand that certain gun control measures might not infringe on your gun-ownership while making you safer? Do you understand that we're not talking about whether or not there SHOULD be a constitutional right to gun-ownership, and the argument that it gets in the way of reducing gun violence deaths makes it seem like it should not be a right?



UltraSUPRA said:


> The best way to keep a murderer at bay is to arm your people.


The facts disagree with you. There's a correlation between the amount of guns in a society and the amount of gun violence in a society. If your argument is "we should do whatever reduces the murder rate," then you believe guns should be restricted or eliminated.



UltraSUPRA said:


> Yes, it is. There's a large difference between owning a gun and using it.


The idea that we have an unrestricted right to gun-ownership in this country is ridiculous, and even in the Supreme Court decision that incorrectly decided that the constitution grants a right to gun-ownership acknowledges this. You do understand that we have a freedom of speech in this country, but it's not unrestricted,  yes? There are laws against libel, shouting "fire" in a crowded room when there isn't one, etc. A hypothetical right to gun-ownership doesn't mean a person has a right to a weapon of mass destruction, for example. It doesn't mean a violent criminal has a right to gun-ownership, for example.



UltraSUPRA said:


> _Every_ gun law is an infringement.


Are libel laws an infringement on free speech? Are laws against internet piracy an infringement on free speech? Are laws against shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater an infringement on free speech? A right to X isn't necessarily an unrestricted right to X. That includes speech, and that includes guns. The Supreme Court has already ruled on both.


----------



## CORE (Sep 9, 2020)

@chrisrlink 

I think your Confused buddy MAGA are not Treasonous to the Country they Love and Support but overall ok say the Military turns on it's own citizens No more Patriots , Christian , Rightwing bla bla... 

Guess Who is next You wont be screaming Fascist , Racist , Pigs then or you will be shot or imprisoned China is a good example better yet take a look at Melbourne at the moment.

Anyhow GodBless Us All.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 9, 2020)

It's basically Donald J. Trump or Joe Biden and that's it. If I were to say, it's probably DJT who'll be picked again.

The world is slowly getting back to normal so I'll be looking into moving to U.S. as I always planned, although voting whichever country I'm in just feels like a sham. You can vote, but the candidate is likely already decided ahead of time. Politicians.

Isn't democracy great.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 10, 2020)

Lacius said:


> A flat tax is not equitable, since 1% of a person's income isn't going to be as valuable to that person as another person's 1% is to them.
> To have a usable source of revenue, you would have to over-tax the poor.
> If you're content with having a pathetic revenue stream, it's solely because the rich are undertaxed.


If you can't handle a flat tax, you need to stop spending your money on things you don't need and you need to work harder.


Lacius said:


> With regard to the conversation topic, why do I care?


It's an example of a government that's too big.


Lacius said:


> There's no evidence for this. In fact, the evidence appears to contradict it. When illegal immigrants are demonized and hunted for deportation without recourse, they tend not to use police services. This creates a breeding ground for violent crime since they're in exploitable population. With access to the legal resources citizens have, for starters, that crime disappears.


Explain why Mexico has so much crime.


Lacius said:


> We know what things were like in the United States without governmental assistance, and it wasn't even that long ago. We saw the effects of the Great Depression without the social safety net that exists today. Not only is it immoral to promote an end to the social safety net, but it would be economically disastrous. The idea that people are poor because of social safety nets is absurd and completely unsupported by evidence.


The "social safety net" that you're referring to only limits the expansion of the free market by rewarding people who don't work hard enough at the expense of the people who do.


Lacius said:


> Nobody's claiming that arson is peaceful. Nobody's talking about arson. I didn't mention arson. Please avoid straw man arguments. Thank you.


So the protestors aren't committing arson?


Lacius said:


> The idea that conservatives are being shadow banned is a conspiracy theory with no evidence backing it up. Are you arguing that your president habitually wastes time? Because I would agree with you.


Many of my favorite Facebook pages (Common Sense Extremists, Commie Gibberish of the Day, GarbageHuman, and Muh Freedom Memes come to mind) have had their pages throttled or deleted for their conservative views. Heck, my dad got throttled for _liking_ a conservative post.


Lacius said:


> I'm aware of what the second amendment says, and you're not really contributing anything to the discourse. Do you understand the details of the argument that it doesn't necessarily give individuals a right to own a gun? Are you aware that the idea it does is relatively new? Do you understand that, regardless of whether or not gun ownership is a constitutional right, restrictions like background checks are not unconstitutional and do not violate one's alleged right to own guns? Do you understand it might be in your best interest as someone who wants to be able to own a gun to support gun control measures? Do you understand that certain gun control measures might not infringe on your gun-ownership while making you safer? Do you understand that we're not talking about whether or not there SHOULD be a constitutional right to gun-ownership, and the argument that it gets in the way of reducing gun violence deaths makes it seem like it should not be a right?


The right of the people to keep and bear arms *shall not be infringed.*


Lacius said:


> The facts disagree with you. There's a correlation between the amount of guns in a society and the amount of gun violence in a society. If your argument is "we should do whatever reduces the murder rate," then you believe guns should be restricted or eliminated.


Most mass murders of the past few years were in gun-free zones.


Lacius said:


> The idea that we have an unrestricted right to gun-ownership in this country is ridiculous, and even in the Supreme Court decision that incorrectly decided that the constitution grants a right to gun-ownership acknowledges this. You do understand that we have a freedom of speech in this country, but it's not unrestricted,  yes? There are laws against libel, shouting "fire" in a crowded room when there isn't one, etc. A hypothetical right to gun-ownership doesn't mean a person has a right to a weapon of mass destruction, for example.










Lacius said:


> It doesn't mean a violent criminal has a right to gun-ownership, for example.


That we can agree on. Your rights can get taken away _if you commit a crime._


Lacius said:


> Are libel laws an infringement on free speech?


Huh?


Lacius said:


> Are laws against internet piracy an infringement on free speech?


Somewhat.


Lacius said:


> Are laws against shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater an infringement on free speech?


It's ridiculous to think that that would need to be a law. It seems like common sense. At most, the security guards should kick you out for that.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 10, 2020)

Lacius said:


> e.g. infringing on female reproductive rights



There's no such thing as "female reproductive rights".  You're purposely trying to misrepresent the subject of abortion.  Abortion has absolutely ZERO to do with 'women's rights' either.  It's entirely a police and legal issue.  If you live in a civilization controlled by laws, legalizing late term abortion is basically just legalizing the murder of any random person walking down the street.

The leftist brain isn't capable of logic and putting 1+1 together to figure these things out.  Laws have to have equal application between a 70 year old and a child.  Is a baby at nine months, five minutes before it comes out *not* a child?  No leftist moron actually believes that, but they still try to argue points like this they don't even believe themselves.

So the real question is, at what point does the legal system constitute something as a child and consider it defensible by the police like any human adult?  Some people claim it's arbitrary, but the legal system does not allow arbitrary variables, so it has to set a quantifiable number.

The quantifiable number has to err on the side of caution in favor of preventing murder, otherwise you're legalizing murder of everyone, so it obviously can't say 9 months is valid.  Due to being forced to err on the side of caution in preventing murder, there's not really even a valid criticism of banning abortion altogether from people claiming post-moment of fertilization is murder.




Lacius said:


> Anti-immigration vitriol



Do you have the economics understanding of a small child?  Open borders is nothing more than an economic policy of flooding a country with unskilled labor.  This SEVERELY drives down wages of the working class of a country, then even forces more people into colleges driving down wages of white collar workers to boot.  It's a net LOSS for everyone in a country.

Hilariously, the people most affected by imploding wages in America from this phenomenon are likely uneducated, black workers, the people the far left put up on a pedestal claiming it's their life's mission to protect and coddle.  Every single thing about leftism is either a flat out lie or does the exact opposite of what they claim.  Except it's not actually possible to do everything wrong, so you can tell it's all just lies.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 10, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> There's no such thing as "female reproductive rights".  You're purposely trying to misrepresent the subject of abortion.  Abortion has absolutely ZERO to do with 'women's rights' either.  It's entirely a police and legal issue.  If you live in a civilization controlled by laws, legalizing late term abortion is basically just legalizing the murder of any random person walking down the street.
> 
> The leftist brain isn't capable of logic and putting 1+1 together to figure these things out.  Laws have to have equal application between a 70 year old and a child.  Is a baby at nine months, five minutes before it comes out *not* a child?  No leftist moron actually believes that, but they still try to argue points like this they don't even believe themselves.
> 
> ...


I try not to respond to inflammatory posts. If you want to have respectable discourse, come back without hyperbolic statements like "do you have the understanding of a child" or "the leftist brain isn't capable of 1+1." It's usually people on the wrong side of an argument who resort to such things, and it does nothing to help anything.

As a teaser for the conversion we could have had, I recommend looking into the bodily rights argument for a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 10, 2020)

Don't worry about that.  There is nothing to discuss.  There are no negotiations.  Leftism is just these weak and pathetic people who have somehow come under the delusion that they can tell other people how to think, how to act, what they can say, who they can associate with, etc.  In other words, they're by their own definition of the word:  fascists.

The only real law in the world is the law of the jungle.  If you're a rodent in the jungle, you don't get to tell the tiger in the jungle what to do.  And the right has zero intention of abolishing things like the 2nd amendment.  Getting Kamala Harris up there trying to grab guns would be the ultimate emperor with no clothes moment where the entire country laughs at her with 0% compliance.

Nobody is giving up their 1st amendment, 2nd amendment, allowing you to tell anyone what they can think or do, or taking your "mostly peaceful" Bill Gates vaccine.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 10, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Leftism is just these weak and pathetic people who have somehow come under the delusion that they can tell other people how to think, how to act, what they can say, who they can associate with, etc.


I'm not the one arguing what women can't do with their bodies, for starters.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 10, 2020)

1)  There's no such things as "women's rights".  There are only two routes for law.  Either law is applied equally to all, or if you claim women somehow get their own special rights placing them in a different category than men, then the law does not apply equally and you can just as easily say since men and woman are completely different entites, women don't have the right to vote since each group gets different rights.

2)  The child isn't the woman's body.  It's it's own body that falls under the jurisdiction of local or federal law enforcement.  Leftists make arguments that would legalize women being able to murder their 20 year old children.  They literally have attempted that recently trying to legalize post-birth abortions.

Ted Kaczynski was the first person to accurately diagnose what leftism is - a mental disorder based on inferiority complex.  They see themselves as weak and pathetic so can only identify with other groups society deems weak (women), somehow injustly treated (the minority group of the day), the loser of a battle (Native American Indians), potentially discriminated against (LGBTwhatever), etc.

They see a picture of someone resembling any type of strength like Joe Montana and it enrages them because he looks normal and capable of fitting in society while they don't.  They basically just want to burn down civilization because they're dysfunctional and dont fit into it.  This is what happens when humans have no natural selection factors, the amount of dysfunctional and mentally ill increases and they form their own special interest groups to attack the functional.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 10, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> 1)  There's no such things as "women's rights".  There are only two routes for law.  Either law is applied equally to all, or if you claim women somehow get their own special rights placing them in a different category than men, then the law does not apply equally and you can just as easily say since men and woman are completely different entites, women don't have the right to vote since each group gets different rights.
> 
> 2)  The child isn't the woman's body.  It's it's own body that falls under the jurisdiction of local or federal law enforcement.  Leftists make arguments that would legalize women being able to murder their 20 year old children.  They literally have attempted that recently trying to legalize post-birth abortions.
> 
> ...


To call a political ideology a mental disorder merely because it's not yours is pretty disingenuous.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 10, 2020)

Once again, none of this really matters whether you're mentally insane or not.  All that matters is that people will not be giving up their 2nd amendment and not allowing you to practice by your own definition:  "fascism" - telling people how they can think, act, or who they can associate with, so you have no power to play psychopathic control freak over anyone else's life and trying to socially engineer people to do things abhorrent to the natural order.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Sep 10, 2020)

the whataboutism in this thread is hilariously depressing.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a bitch and you're trying to convince people who have their minds made up no matter what is said, done or seen from facts and evidence.

This is basically just echo chambers saying that their side is right and the other is wrong

EDIT: It was only a matter of time before Stonetoss appeared


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 10, 2020)

stanleyopar2000 said:


> The Dunning-Kruger effect is a bitch and you're trying to convince people who have their minds made up no matter what is said, done or seen from facts and evidence.



You ironically Dunning-Krugered yourself.  The phenomenon doesn't really apply to politics because there's a lot of intelligent and evil leftists like the Zionist supremacist, anti-white racist, George Soros, who pushes some agenda claiming it's for one thing, but it's really a lie to try and destroy western, white, Christian-derived civilizations.

If you can take no argument at face value in politics, and everything is an ulterior motive, you can't really apply Dunning Kruger to anything.  Take this Lacius guy's comments.  They're so bad and illogical there's no way he's not just lying his ass off and praying nobody calls him out on it while he tries to push some secret agenda nobody wants...so he lies about it.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Sep 10, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> _.....The phenomenon doesn't really apply to politics..._



EDIT: Yeah. No.  With reasoning like that, It's a waste of my time to continue this conversation with you.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 10, 2020)

Wait till Lacius' leftist brain discovers people of white color are a minority group making up 12% of the world's population.  Since leftists are required to champion the cause of every minority group, leftist code states he will be forced to become a white nationalist.


----------



## TheCasualties (Sep 10, 2020)

stanleyopar2000 said:


> EDIT: Yeah. No.  With reasoning like that, It's a waste of my time to continue this conversation with you.


Yeah, this thread is pretty ridiculous. There's no reason or logic for some people. Just believe whatever supports your own 'beliefs'. Thankfully some of these people aren't even old enough to vote, but it still applies to many adults from what I've seen. 

Open-mindedness and understanding of all sides is important to every single aspect of life (not just dumbass politics). It's a very bad thing to lock yourself to one way of thinking.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 10, 2020)

TheCasualties said:


> There's no reason or logic for some people. Just believe whatever supports your own 'beliefs'. Thankfully some of these people aren't even old enough to vote, but it still applies to many adults from what I've seen.



Nobody is really 'qualified' to vote.  There's plenty of PhD neurosurgeons that don't comprehend simple sociology 101 facts.  Like how human groupings are composed of individual > family > village/tribe > city state based on the same ethnic majority to anchor a common culture, and that every nation without an ethnocentric majority collapses, which is the only reason nations like China and Japan still exists after hundreds, thousands of years.

They can do brain surgery but they can't do intro to sociology 101.  Everyone is a compartmentalized, retard savant.  They preach things like 'diversity', but diversity doesn't exist.  What happens is, the minority group either integrates into the majority and they cease to functionally exist, or the two groups separate or go to war and exterminate one or the other.

Leftist groups today are just fake and controlled opposition puppets for international terrorist, financier criminals like George Soros.  In the earlier days, some of the far left groups like the Black Panthers actually comprehended the stuff I'm talking about, which is why people like Marcus Garvey argued for segregation because he knew the two groups weren't compatible, much like you can't combine White and Chinese people without deleting the majority of one's culture.

In the year 2020, people talking about things like segregation are mislabeled as Klan members or something, when it was the Black Panthers, Malcom X, and People like Marcus Garvey who were lobbying for it.  There are no 'intellectuals' on today's left whether White or Black.  All are just useful idiots, crisis actors, and Soros puppets.

Who better to demonstrate just how much these fraudulent leftists have been hated all through human history:


----------



## TheCasualties (Sep 10, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Nobody is really 'qualified' to vote.  There's plenty of PhD neurosurgeons that don't comprehend simple sociology 101 facts.  Like how human groupings are composed of individual > family > village/tribe > city state based on the same ethnic majority to anchor a common culture, and that every nation without an ethnocentric majority collapses, which is the only reason nations like China and Japan still exists after hundreds, thousands of years.
> 
> They can do brain surgery but they can't do intro to sociology 101.  Everyone is a compartmentalized, retard savant.  They preach things like 'diversity', but diversity doesn't exist.  What happens is, the minority group either integrates into the majority and they cease to functionally exist, or the two groups separate or go to war and exterminate one or the other.
> 
> ...


Wow.. OK..  Not sure how you managed to pull this insanity out of your ass from me saying some people on this site aren't 18 yet..

Republicans aren't even for the Repubic anymore, Dems aren't even democratic. It's all screwed and it will only get worse. Especially so with people believing in stuff like you seem to. Do more research, and make sure it's factual next time.

Side question, Did you join this site just to shit post in these threads? Checked your history and it doesn't look great.

----edit---

If you want to be subversive, check out Madam Blavatski and some other occult (And or true Satanic, do as thou wilt) stuff. That shit is so much more cool than trying to be a hardcore Trumper. Embrace chaos in a TRUE way instead of latching onto a fraudulent orange douche.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 10, 2020)

TheCasualties said:


> Wow.. OK..  Not sure how you managed to pull this insanity out of your ass from me saying some people on this site aren't 18 yet..
> 
> Republicans aren't even for the Repubic anymore, Dems aren't even democratic. It's all screwed and it will only get worse. Especially so with people believing in stuff like you seem to. Do more research, and make sure it's factual next time.
> 
> Side question, Did you join this site just to shit post in these threads? Checked your history and it doesn't look great.



You're from the Netherlands.  That's the problem.  You live in a secluded bubble and don't know how the real world works.  In America, guess who the most leftist people I know are?  People from places like Maine that live in a 99% White area and never interact with ANY other ethnic groups at all.

You're essentially the equivalent of 'that random clueless guy from Maine' trying to lecture someone that's lived in 'diversity' all their lives.  My high school was 60% black.  What % was your Netherlands high school?  Have you ever even seen a Mexican before?  Maybe an Asian like once or twice at the mall?  People from the Netherlands trying to comment on political issues related to sociology is kind of a joke compared to other countries like the US.

Maybe if you lived in one of those war zones in Sweden that's constantly on fire you could provide some type of relevant opinion.


----------



## TheCasualties (Sep 10, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> You're from the Netherlands.  That's the problem.  You live in a secluded bubble and don't know how the real world works.  In America, guess who the most leftist people I know are?  People from places like Maine that live in a 99% White area and never interact with ANY other ethnic groups at all.
> 
> You're essentially the equivalent of 'that random clueless guy from Maine' trying to lecture someone that's lived in 'diversity' all their lives.  My high school was 60% black.  What % was your Netherlands high school?  Have you ever even seen a Mexican before?  Maybe an Asian like once or twice at the mall?  People from the Netherlands trying to give political lectures is kind of a joke.


I lived in the USA for 28 years so don't give me that shit. I left only 2 years ago. Still have tons of friends in the states, including my parents. I probably know the constitution better than you.

(And it's not techinically Netherlands, it's an island partially owned by them. Moved there to sell to the cruise ship tourists. This year sucks lol)

And again, as a friend I'm saying look into Madam Blavatski and Alister Crowly stuff. It's awesome. Not the nazi stuff though. The nazi perverted some of their ideas.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 10, 2020)

TheCasualties said:


> as a friend I'm saying look into Madam Blavatski and Alister Crowly stuff.



If your goal was to make everyone from the Netherlands look insane by telling people it's a good idea to join a scientology cult.


----------



## TheCasualties (Sep 10, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> If your goal was to make everyone from the Netherlands look insane by telling people it's a good idea to join a scientology cult.


Lol so you don't know what Scientology is either.. wow.  Scientology is some stupid shit made by a bad sci-fi writer to make money. Since churches don't get taxed. It was all about money. Do some damn research bro. If you read anything about any of these groups you would know how different they are.

I'm trying to help you open your mind. True occult knowledge is what you discover during an acid/mushroom trip. It knows no political allignment. Also check out some Tibetan Buddhism..

Edit: frankly, you are making Americans look bad. Seems like no one does research or fact checking anymore.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 10, 2020)

I think you just need to go to the doctor to check your testosterone levels.  And that Laxius kid too:


----------



## TheCasualties (Sep 10, 2020)

WTF does that have to do with anything we were talking about? Seems like you are the one needing your mind checked for comprehension. Based on this I'm guessing you are also 15 like the other Trump sucker in this thread. Would love to be proved wrong tho.

Are you trying to say people that don't like trump are ladies? Or that most men are stupid? what is the point of that post?

Still interested in why you joined this site, as I asked in the first post to you


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 10, 2020)

TheCasualties said:


> Still interested in why you joined this site, as I asked in the first post to you



To try and figure out why the themeplaza.eu themes are so bad.  There's literally one million of them and 99.999% are the most cringey, chibi anime stuff imaginable.  #1  I had no idea there was anyone on the planet who didn't find chibi anime repulsive.  #2  It appears this is ground zero for them in the whole universe.


----------



## TheCasualties (Sep 10, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> To try and figure out why the themeplaza.eu themes are so bad.  There's literally one million of them and 99.999% are the most cringey, chibi anime stuff imaginable.  #1  I had no idea there was anyone on the planet who didn't find chibi anime repulsive.  #2  It appears this is ground zero for them in the whole universe.



Ok so you have no response to anything about what we were talking about.. cool.. wtf are you talking about.\

Wake Up and decide things by yourself bro. Don't let others run your life.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 10, 2020)

TheCasualties said:


> cool.. wtf are you talking about.\



My wife's boyfriend just bought me a new 2ds XL a few days ago.  I don't really know how all this works yet.


----------



## Redhorse (Sep 10, 2020)

When I think of past successful presidents I don't think of leaders who engage their mouths before their minds.

 An old Oriental Proverb...
_It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt_, ... seems to apply here. 

I want a president that knows how to temper his comments with thoughts of the repercussions of his words and actions on the country he represents... 

The invention of the net and related media did not remove the responsibility of people for their words/comments, in spite of popular opinion.  

Sign found hanging in a government building: _*Silence is the only successful substitute for brains*_...


----------



## Wavy (Sep 10, 2020)

CeeDee said:


> I'm writing in myself. CeeDee for POTUS 2020.


_*YES*_
And I'm not even in the USA


----------



## RandomUser (Sep 10, 2020)

stanleyopar2000 said:


> The Dunning-Kruger effect is a bitch and you're trying to convince people who have their minds made up no matter what is said, done or seen from facts and evidence.


I think that sounds more like *the backfire effect* then Dunning-Kruger effect. But it possible that you're right.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 10, 2020)

@r0achtheunsavory You're saying I'm intolerant of other people's views, but you're the one calling anyone who disagrees with you mentally ill. Also, if you're going to address me or mention me, have the courtesy to reply to my post or tag me so I can see it.


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 10, 2020)

I vote to close this thread it's super toxic nature is polluting a gaming forum GAMING i saw this coming a mile away so much for a great idea for a political subforum -sarcasm-


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 10, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> I vote to close this thread it's super toxic nature is polluting a gaming forum GAMING i saw this coming a mile away so much for a great idea for a political subforum -sarcasm-


We'll invade the rest of GBAtemp if you remove this subforum.


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 10, 2020)

trust me if i was in an admins shoes I'd ban anyone who tried to "invade" rest of the forum with political post honestly you don't even listen to the other sides argument actually your blind to all the shady shit trump is doing (and don't go on a biden rant HE'S NOT CURRENTLY IN OFFICE)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

therer i did the best thing i could do by blocking you


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 10, 2020)

So Taleweaver and Chrislink have blocked me. I just want everybody else to know that blocking somebody does nothing but prove how fragile you are.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 10, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> I vote to close this thread it's super toxic nature is polluting a gaming forum GAMING i saw this coming a mile away so much for a great idea for a political subforum -sarcasm-


I agree that it's getting toxic. In a short amount of time, I've heard "everyone who disagrees with me is mentally ill" and "you're fragile if you block me." It's almost like nobody read the first post about being civil.


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 10, 2020)

well cots is gone I'll talk to a forum mod see if we can clean house there are two trolls i've seen lurking in political  they don't if rarely contribute to other sections all they do is troll on the political subforum their worse than russians spreading disinformation


----------



## CallmeBerto (Sep 11, 2020)

Chris, please don't ruin my fun.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 11, 2020)

Contrary to claims made in this thread shadow banning and targeting conservatives and their posts on mainstream social media has gone from something victims claimed happened to them to a* verified and confirmed selling point* for alternative social media sites. Unlike the *hoax* that was *“The President is Colluding With Russia”* that was completely bogus, right now there’s plenty of social media sites that regardless of popularity won’t push your content to the top or will completely remove it and ban you for posting things that don’t align with the lefts agenda. Those sites include *ABC News, ArsTechnica, Reddit, FaceBook, Instagram, Tik Tok* and *Twitter*. Even counter culture sites like *gbatemp* have _fallen prey to the social justice warriors_ as you can get your posts here removed or threads deleted/locked for not going along with whatever the alphabet people happen to be pushing on other people this or any given year.

What also *makes me laugh loudly* is the backing of Joe Biden by the left. For *3 years* most of the left were all about “All Old Rich White Men Are All Evil And The Bane Of Society”, yet *throw their moral stance out of the window* the second the hive mind tells them to endorse an old rich white man. Plus the old creep likes to try to _grab preteens breasts and fondles people without their consent_. Proof?!? Watch the videos of him doing so. No, I’m not going to hold your hand, but I’ll give you a clue ... You won’t find the videos hosted on leftist sites and any discussion of them will get you shadow banned (see the first paragraph if you’re dense and forgot already).

For my vote? *I vote Trump* on this unrealistic gauge of who will win the upcoming United States of America Presidential Election in November (2020). I’m virtually voting for him now and will vote for him come time to use my forced mail in ballot, that I will promptly turn into a polling site in person as soon as they open. I refuse to mail it, as there’s too many ways it could end up not being delivered on time, misplaced, lost or stolen along its way to the people who count the votes.

You’re free to disagree with me because we’re currently not living under socialist/communist rule. If that changes you’ll no longer be able to disagree with me, the Government or your peers unless you want to risk public shaming, imprisonment, torture and/or death.

Yes, this is my first post. So if you're going to be petty and go on the attack over some arbitrary number and completely ignore the content of my post please don't even bother to reply.


----------



## notimp (Sep 11, 2020)

Insanity in motion.

And I dont even want to give hugs.

If your entire logic is emotion driven to the point where your day circles around that image with that guy with a fake smile that looked creepy, and anyone supporting the democratic political candidate, by default has to want to normalize pedophilia... finish that sentence on your own.


----------



## CORE (Sep 11, 2020)

@chrisrlink

Russia interfering with Erections again hmm... That explains all the Cuckory but hell CNN agrees so cant argue there.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/25/health/cuckolding-sex-kerner/index.html

Too much Toxic Masculinity for the Left.

But in all seriousness *No Borders No Walls No USA at All* Yeah I can see why TRUMP is the only choice.

Unfortunately we are no better in the UK with a Baboon for a Prime Minister.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 11, 2020)

Democrats flip lids after platform of communism, white genocide, and deleting the constitution fails to attract voters.


----------



## CORE (Sep 11, 2020)

So far the Votes in the Poll are in the Lefts favor in this thread , I wonder how many are real people and not dead pets or people and illegals.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 11, 2020)

All the people here are having a fit because Donald's chances are tanking in front of their eyes. our stable genius of a president thought it would be a great idea to tell bob Woodward, THE BOB WOODWARD in February that covid19 is "worse than the most strenuous flu", and "is transmitted by air" along with a bunch of national secrets in a one on one interview. people here who still follow him after this are a lost cause. almost 200k preventable deaths with knowledge confirmed as early as January/February. like lets tell one of the two men responsible for the reporting of Watergate about all of the illicit and shitty stuff you have done, personally in a 1 on 1 interview, and let him keep the tapes.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 11, 2020)

omgcat said:


> almost 200k preventable deaths with knowledge confirmed as early as January/February.


Stop pretending that we can save anybody.


----------



## player594 (Sep 11, 2020)

I'd vote for the dumbest person on Earth if he wasn't already sitting in office right now. That being said, ANYBODY other than Trump would be better. But I'll go with Biden anyway.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 11, 2020)

It doesn't really matter who you vote for, they're all compromised and blackmailed by these Israeli intelligence groups like Epstein was running and will only do things against your interests and for Israeli interests.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 11, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Stop pretending that we can save anybody.


psychopath much? but yeah sure, lets just tell everyone that the virus isn't a problem and stick our heads in the sand, you seem like as much of a stable genius as our president. lets also withhold air to groups that don't align with our political opinions.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 11, 2020)

omgcat said:


> psychopath much?


The correct term is "nihilist". Unless Sputnik V gets imported or Project Warp Speed succeeds, we're not gonna get a vaccine in time. Only 99.999...% of us will remain at the end of it.


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Sep 11, 2020)

A little unrelated, but if you go ahead and call anyone a communist/fascist in this thread, your opinion and argument means a lot less (at least to me). A large, LARGE, majority of voters do not fall under these categories.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 11, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> The correct term is "nihilist". Unless Sputnik V gets imported or Project Warp Speed succeeds, we're not gonna get a vaccine in time. Only 99.999...% of us will remain at the end of it.



you guys are hurting your own election chances, Biden is taking 65+ age range by double digits now, the republicans have had that voterbase locked down for almost 20 years. when covid19 rips through elderly care facilities and kills 10% of 70+ people, the republicans are hurting their chances severely. they need almost all of the 65+ crowd to stand a chance, and he is pissing away that chance.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 11, 2020)

omgcat said:


> you guys are hurting your own election chances, Biden is taking 65+ age range by double digits now, the republicans have had that voterbase locked down for almost 20 years. when covid19 rips through elderly care facilities and kills 10% of 70+ people, the republicans are hurting their chances severely. they need almost all of the 65+ crowd to stand a chance, and he is pissing away that chance.


Not much of a choice, though, is there? What happened to people risking their own lives for freedom?


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 11, 2020)

Do you actually believe it matters if Kamala Harris wins?  The second she attempts to ban the 2nd amendment and confiscate guns, the entire country will laugh at her and zero people will go along with it.  It will be the ultimate emperor with no clothes moment in the entirity of human history.  

If they attempt to push that course any further, a lot of people will probably end up dying, but it won't be the right that ends up losing.  Nobody acknowledges any authority of these scum and tyrants.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 11, 2020)

but honestly this thread is end of life, so i will be muting people who argue in bad faith, don't use science to back up their claims, or are just plain trolling.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 11, 2020)

omgcat said:


> but honestly this thread is end of life, so i will be muting people who argue in bad faith, don't use science to back up their claims, or are just plain trolling.


So you'll basically be blocking people that you don't agree with.

This is the problem with the modern society.


----------



## AkGBA (Sep 11, 2020)

I've been thinking about it. You need your own country. What if the USA was cut in half. Which half would you choose ?


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 11, 2020)

AkGBA said:


> I've been thinking about it. You need your own country. What if the USA was cut in half. Which half would you choose ?



It already is that way.  The US was created as an anti-federalist system where power resides with the states.  So you're essentially supposed to have 50 somewhat autonomous countries already.  

It's why the voting system is based on electoral college and not popular vote, so you can't have a bunch of demented idiots in New York reproduce like rats and then boss the other 49 states around just because they have a lower population.


----------



## AkGBA (Sep 11, 2020)

I laughed at the "derail Brexit" mention. Do you really think Boris Johnson needs help to derail Brexit ? He's doing a fine job by himself.


----------



## CORE (Sep 11, 2020)

AkGBA said:


> I laughed at the "derail Brexit" mention. Do you really think Boris Johnson needs help to derail Brexit ? He's doing a fine job by himself.



Give him a Banana or two and I think things will be fine.


----------



## AkGBA (Sep 11, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> It already is that way.  The US was created as an anti-federalist system where power resides with the states.  So you're essentially supposed to have 50 somewhat autonomous countries already.
> 
> It's why the voting system is based on electoral college and not popular vote, so you can't have a bunch of demented idiots in New York reproduce like rats and then boss the other 49 states around just because they have a lower population.



You chose a Union. Your Founding Fathers chose a Union.
There is a need of the Union-side law.

But, regarding the dichotomy of American Politics of the last 20 years, maybe it's time to (peacefully) secede ?


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 11, 2020)

Some of the problems of the modern society are bad faith actors and a boat load of misinformation.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 11, 2020)

AkGBA said:


> You chose a Union. Your Founding Fathers chose a Union.
> There is a need of the Union-side law.
> 
> But, regarding the dichotomy of American Politics of the last 20 years, maybe it's time to (peacefully) secede ?


The union exists for the purposes of national defense and trade, the federal government was never meant to be this size and scope, it simply creeped into areas where it had no interest in. It's spilled milk now, but let's not pretend that the union was ever meant to be anything more than a union.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 12, 2020)

The only evidence you need if you want to know who's gonna win is the fact that only one rally is considered a COVID issue.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 12, 2020)

I honestly didn't think Biden would be ahead in this poll by 10.1 percentage points. That's a swing of 17.9 points since 2016.

*Snip!*


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 12, 2020)

A quick reminder that this is a thread about the election, not about the efficacy of face masks. Carry on.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 12, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> A quick reminder that this is a thread about the election, not about the efficacy of face masks. Carry on.


Trump arguably made this election about the efficacy of face masks. My deleted post also commented on the very relevant poll results.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Trump arguably made this election about the efficacy of face masks. My deleted post also commented on the very relevant poll results.


Arguably, and you can have that argument in a more relevant thread. I'll be combing through this thread going forward and cleaning it up from all the COVID nonsense, weird Epstein conspiracy theories and other assorted rubbish - if it looks silly, it's probably not worth discussing. Keep that in mind next time you reply to something that raises an eyebrow.


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 13, 2020)

just looked at all the deleted post my what a mess,anyways by what i've been reading else where biden is picking up steam in key states on the flip side i fear when trump loses all hell's going to break loose we're on the heels of the 2nd civil war this is what trump is banking on fear of rebelion to stay in power regardless if he wins or loses he'll take america by force if need be and that's the very scary reality to come I feel (and hope) the US government has a contigency plan to deal with a tyrinal president


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 13, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> reading else where biden is picking up steam in key states on the flip side i fear when trump loses all hell's going to break loose we're on the heels of the 2nd civil war



Just like the fake 2016 polls that said Hillary had a 99% chance of winning? LOL.  If you don't like Trump, he will probably lose after his 3rd term to Kyle Rittenhouse in 2028 anyway.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 13, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Arguably, and you can have that argument in a more relevant thread. I'll be combing through this thread going forward and cleaning it up from all the COVID nonsense, weird Epstein conspiracy theories and other assorted rubbish - if it looks silly, it's probably not worth discussing. Keep that in mind next time you reply to something that raises an eyebrow.



are we allowed to talk about the Bob Woodward interview recordings and all that entails? cause it covers more than COVID, although that is a big focus. his book is arguably the biggest political storm since Watergate.




chrisrlink said:


> just looked at all the deleted post my what a mess,anyways by what i've been reading else where biden is picking up steam in key states on the flip side i fear when trump loses all hell's going to break loose we're on the heels of the 2nd civil war this is what trump is banking on fear of rebelion to stay in power regardless if he wins or loses he'll take america by force if need be and that's the very scary reality to come I feel (and hope) the US government has a contigency plan to deal with a tyrinal president



second American civil war will be hilarious. you have a bunch of gun nuts on one side, and liberal tech makers with drones, facial recognition, and explosives on the other side. it's just as laughable as 2nd amendment proponents thinking that their guns will protect them from a modern military.


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 13, 2020)

also i can back up my claim as rodger stone wants trump decalring martial law if he looses https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/roger-stone-martial-law-donald-trump-election-001425669.html


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 13, 2020)

I guess you better stop trying to rig the election via new mail-in ballot laws then that bypass even conventional absentee ballot security.  The only way the election will be legitimate at all is if it's voted on completely normally like every other election without mail-in fraud.  

They're sending out ballots for people's cats that have been dead 10 years to vote.  This is the most fraudulent election in the entire history of the US and it's the dims trying to rig it:

https://apnews.com/fbcec393dc652a9ccdb2cc8aacb15895


----------



## omgcat (Sep 13, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> also i can back up my claim as rodger stone wants trump decalring martial law if he looses https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/roger-stone-martial-law-donald-trump-election-001425669.html



saw that as well: https://politicalwire.com/2020/09/12/roger-stone-calls-on-trump-to-seize-total-power/

talking about sending marshals to seize ballots in Nevada.

"Stone argued that “the ballots in Nevada on election night should be seized by federal marshals and taken from the state” because “they are completely corrupted” and falsely said that “we can prove voter fraud in the absentees right now.” He specifically called for Trump to have absentee ballots seized in Clark County, Nevada, an area that leans Democratic. Stone went on to claim that “the votes from Nevada should not be counted; they are already flooded with illegals” and baseless suggested that former Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) should be arrested and that Trump should consider nationalizing Nevada’s state police force."


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 13, 2020)

and trump being who he is will probably try like i said i hope the US Government can deal with a rogue president you know wha? F- skirting my language in fear of the SS because me and those mother fucking agents need a serious chat

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

the are soon gonna protect a dictator and they need to get their priorities straight.....sorry that i'm off my rocker a bit but the fear of reality is seeping in


----------



## omgcat (Sep 13, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> I guess you better stop trying to rig the election via new mail-in ballot laws then that bypass even conventional absentee ballot security.  The only way the election will be legitimate at all is if it's voted on completely normally like every other election without mail-in fraud.
> 
> They're sending out ballots for people's cats that have been dead 10 years to vote.  This is the most fraudulent election in the entire history of the US and it's the dims trying to rig it:
> 
> https://apnews.com/fbcec393dc652a9ccdb2cc8aacb15895



that's a voter registration mailer, not a ballot. try harder, be better.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 13, 2020)

omgcat said:


> that's a voter registration mailer, not a ballot. try harder, be better.


It won't make much of a difference regardless of what they are. If they're sending registrations, they're prepared to accept the ballots.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 13, 2020)

I wonder what these ANTIFA think they actually receive if Biden wins.  It's like when OJ Simpson was found not-guilty, black people were celebrating in the street and Chris Rock was like "What are they happy for? I didn't receieve no OJ prize in the mail."


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 13, 2020)

omgcat said:


> are we allowed to talk about the Bob Woodward interview recordings and all that entails? cause it covers more than COVID, although that is a big focus. his book is arguably the biggest political storm since Watergate.


I'm not against it, it does concern one of the candidates. I wouldn't necessarily call it Watergate-level, but then again, everything is "something-gate" now, so what do I know.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 13, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm not against it, it does concern one of the candidates. I wouldn't necessarily call it Watergate-level, but then again, everything is "something-gate" now, so what do I know.



I mean, Rage was written by one of the two reporters who broke watergate, lending some credence to the severity of the claims.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 13, 2020)

Just got a Joe Biden ad on YouTube.  It's amazing they can't even make propaganda videos of this guy that don't look like ironic parodies.  He's looking around all confused and senile like one of those old people in a Chevy Chase movie while asking demented, millenial ANTIFA members to vote for him for 'change' even though he's been in government for 50 YEARS LOL.

Now that's change you can believe in!  How dumb do people have to be to believe a career politician of 50 years exists for any reason besides being a grade Z crisis actor script reader to recite propaganda for international usury bankers?


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 13, 2020)

omgcat said:


> I mean, Rage was written by one of the two reporters who broke watergate, lending some credence to the severity of the claims.


Appeal to authority fallacy.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 13, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Appeal to authority fallacy.



welp, guess no one ever has any authority cause anyone can just claim "appeal to authority" fallacy. please back up why the authority is not trust worthy when trying to claim the fallacy. i mean, how much proof is enough for people? written statements + audio + video is included with the book. tens to hundreds of people from both sides of the political spectrum corroborating the story. to be clear, you are falling for the "fallacy fallacy" which indicates that you think i have committed a fallacy, and therefor my points would be wrong. however Woodward has been seen as the golden standard for journalism for years, and if you want to claim it as an appeal to authority, i ask which authority. his standards of journalism are the opposite of the SJW trash people bitch about. he takes time to get his details straight, and doesn't commit yellow journalist bullshit.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 13, 2020)

omgcat said:


> welp, guess no one ever has any authority cause anyone can just claim "appeal to authority" fallacy. please back up why the authority is not trust worthy when trying to claim the fallacy. i mean, how much proof is enough for people? written statements + audio + video is included with the book. tens to hundreds of people from both sides of the political spectrum corroborating the story. to be clear, you are falling for the "fallacy fallacy" which indicates that you think i have committed a fallacy, and therefor my points would be wrong. however Woodward has been seen as the golden standard for journalism for years, and if you want to claim it as an appeal to authority, i ask which authority. his standards of journalism are the opposite of the SJW trash people bitch about. he takes time to get his details straight, and doesn't commit yellow journalist bullshit.


The validity of a claim should be based on the facts, not on who presents it. He may very well be a renowned journalist, which shows that his methodology is sound and that he has experience, but it does not lend his actual claims any credence, nor should it.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 13, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> The validity of a claim should be based on the facts, not on who presents it. He may very well be a renowned journalist, which shows that his methodology is sound and that he has experience, but it does not lend his actual claims any credence, nor should it.



yeah, but the audio recordings count as fact. so fact is in his favor. even the president admitted that the audio is real, by claiming that he was aware audio back in February. hell the president asked WHY the audio wasn't released earlier, which makes no sense.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 13, 2020)

omgcat said:


> yeah, but the audio recordings count as fact. so fact is in his favor. even the president admitted that the audio is real, by claiming that he was aware audio back in February. hell the president asked WHY the audio wasn't released earlier, which makes no sense.


You asked a very specific question and I gave you a very specific answer.


----------



## GuyInDogSuit (Sep 13, 2020)

Oh, you know... the same one I pray will return every major election... our lord and savior, Yog-Sothoth.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 13, 2020)

*Snip!*



r0achtheunsavory said:


>


Trump didn't create "millions of new jobs." If anything, he caused millions of jobs to be lost.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 13, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Trump didn't create "millions of new jobs." If anything, he caused millions of jobs to be lost.


China caused millions of lost jobs.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 13, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> China caused millions of lost jobs.


Trump's mishandling of COVID-19 caused it to be worse than it had to be, both epidemiologically and economically.

Even before the pandemic, the rate of job growth was largely unchanged between when Obama left office and just before the pandemic hit.


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 13, 2020)

saddly i'm very concerned the US gov is illprepared to deal with a rogue president which is highly (very highly) likely to occur if trump loses weither the fbi/military has to forcefully move /arrest trump and the firrst family is yet to be unseen just to spare our government from becoming a dictorial state (you guys fear communism trump will bring communism to the US you just insert your foots in your mouth now early and watch the right is more communist/dictorial than the left will ever be i'm sure they want complete control a one party system their spreading fear for what they will do themselves, and yet i wonder if canada will allow refugees from the US (they have a treaty post vietnam that bars this iirc) but i'm sure the PM there is keeping a close eye on this situation and if he cares enough will break that treaty if civil war breaks out and hopefully other countries will send in their millitaries to help aid the actual government to suppress those who betray the US and side with trump


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 14, 2020)

If I have to come in to this thread and clean it up with a grenade one more time, there will be no thread. Stop taking the bait, you all know where the Report button is if you're being attacked. Some holidays were issued today, I have more for those who cannot maintain a certain level of decorum. Reminder - flaming, personal attacks, trolling and thread derailment are all strictly prohibited. Familiarise yourselves with our rules at:

https://gbatemp.net/help/terms


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 14, 2020)

I wander back in after a little while away. My my how amusing that became.

I suppose I will return to the "whatever guy you pick, try to sell me on the other guy" notion. What values might there be out there, some of which could conflict or be a different risk category, that they might espouse, embody or fight for. Understand that and you might also understand how to argue against them as no politician ever embodies them and can usually be seen to actively argue against them. Even if tactical voting is to be the order of the day then something useful can still happen there.



Lilith Valentine said:


> This doesn't even count workplace discrimination that is commonly faced by women and rarely faced by men. Women have their positions constantly brought into question and it's not uncommon for people to accuse women in power as the result of pity or "diversity quotas" or beliefs pushing towards the idea that a woman can't hold a position of power. Using the tech field, women constantly face discrimination for peers and outsiders, often constantly questioning a woman's knowledge in their fields.


I have a degree, post graduate qualifications, research credits, self taught in a few things (albeit related) to similar levels (if I am allowed to point at what I do around here my pieces of paper, which are generally pointless more than a year after you have been working and might not even be necessary to play, are neither in computers nor electronics), project history, any number of references from fairly heavy hitters, am the protégé of several some places would have loved to have known, possess a tool collection/access to machining options that most people even in the fields barely know of with abilities to achieve results (be it mass speed or tolerances or both), ditto my information collection (especially legacy stuff), my little black book alone gets me a foot in the door in places (I call these people and they answer with "how about tomorrow?", others call then however many weeks it is until they can fit it is the response, to say nothing of cost differences), my interventions have saved companies, routinely save them small fortunes and could easily break them as well, have sat in on meetings where if I had say nay would have scuppered deals worth millions and have prevented such meetings from ever happening in the first place, quite often I might be the only one around (and if not then the handful of others might well be in said little black book from earlier, or their little black books in turn) that is not at retirement or retired that knows how a given bit of kit might work... I am not without troubles and if I tried to join the real world at this point it would be laughable (tends to be for tech peeps though if you wander off the beaten track), however at the same time there is a reason I was able to take the "stay in your home citizen" period off and read books without taking a single penny of handout.

I have to prove myself every day/continually, for new clients, when renewing contracts, face doubts and have to sell people on things I have done before and can do trivially. What have you done for me lately, are you up to date on these, can you perform at the level I need, my stuff faces external testing all the time,... I have had people try to explain things I might have written the manual they are quoting at me (I find it quite amusing myself, usually let it play out the same as I let sales morons gather enough rope to hang themselves). I have to occasionally navigate office politics (this video is good stuff if you have not learned to play to people rather than relying on tech/skills/whatever, managers with an axe to grind, those that thought I was there because it felt the previous guy feel big, clueless people seeking to cut costs, results of the Peter Principle in eye burning obviousness (people in a hierarchy tend to rise to their "level of incompetence"), deal with people that would not know a spanner from a socket (never mind give an overview for the 6 types out there in somewhat common rotation) but still think they can go toe to toe with me...

My possession of a beard, broad shoulders, a head at a height that hits doors/lights on a routine basis, shoulders that struggle to fit in a shirt that does not look like a dress and a penis matters little there and that applies to everybody else in the fields as far as I can tell (certainly is a standard I hold others to -- if you are not constantly assessing the abilities, skills and capabilities, current and potential, then you are doing it wrong and I reckon I can even prove that mathematically). It is then an accepted part of playing in a technical field for real, and only gets worse if you are playing in electronics/computers where 5 years out means you are not just useless but actively dangerous (playing nuts and bolts there is at least the notion that whatever I commission today will probably outlive me in some capacity). Resting on your laurels is only done by incompetents and greybeards that know one particular bit of key tech that they can ride into retirement (and possibly a "please come back, this will hopefully fund your retirement over again in its entirety" a few years later).
You are only as good as your last project and last performance assessment is not the whole story (good places will attempt rehabilitation as people are hard to find) but it is most of it.

On the matter of diversity quotas being a problem. Simple solution to that is to get rid of them. If there are no quotas then anybody that is there surely deserves to be, or maybe just played politics but that is a different matter and applies to everybody. Good people are hard to find and if you dismiss someone because they have tits and/or a different amount of of melanin to someone else then you deserve to have your competitors scoop them up to in turn have them run you into the ground.


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 14, 2020)

@Foxi4 nah dude start issuing suspentions they had clearly enough time to clean up their act besides this could be a good opportunity to see if what we discussed is true, anyways I don't think the majority of the US is falling for trump a second time (even though I saw this 10,000 miles away)

I can categorize trump supporters in three groups now

1) the die hard republican who doesn't care if this ship sinks
or
2) the alt right (Neo Nazi,racist etc)
or
3) the wealthy 1%


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 14, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> I wander back in after a little while away. My my how amusing that became.
> 
> I suppose I will return to the "whatever guy you pick, try to sell me on the other guy" notion. What values might there be out there, some of which could conflict or be a different risk category, that they might espouse, embody or fight for. Understand that and you might also understand how to argue against them as no politician ever embodies them and can usually be seen to actively argue against them. Even if tactical voting is to be the order of the day then something useful can still happen there.
> 
> ...


You have no idea just how many times I was explicitly told that I'm "overqualified" for a position by scaredy cat managers with qualifications well below my own.  Water under the bridge now, but I can only assume it's gotten worse, especially with gender and diversity quotas in mind. Who would've thought that after the civil rights movement we'd get to a point in history when you can't get hired for a position because of your gender or the colour of your skin, as if the department needed to have a certain degree of "brown" in it to operate, or as if a vagina magically bestowed otherwise unattainable qualifications. Me, I look at people based on their merits, push the best and brightest forward, regardless of who they are. Dying breed, from what I'm seeing nowadays. Topic for a different thread though, I don't think that's going to change, regardless who wins the election. As far as I'm concerned, private industries should be able to discriminate however they please - it's their employees and they pay their wages. Their loss, more qualified personnel for somebody else who still has their head firmly attached to their neck and hires based on qualifications, not physical characteristics.


chrisrlink said:


> @Foxi4 nah dude start issuing suspentions they had clearly enough time to clean up their act besides this could be a good opportunity to see if what we discussed is true, anyways I don't think the majority of the US is falling for trump a second time (even though I saw this 10,000 miles away)
> 
> I can categorize trump supporters in three groups now
> 
> ...


That's stereotyping, don't you think? I'm none of those three and possibly the biggest Trumpkin around. I personally welcome the idea that different people may have different priorities and a different idea on how the country should be ran, but admittedly I don't expect to receive the same treatment in return - it's a free country.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 14, 2020)

Overqualified is usually code for one of two things from where I sit

1) You will wander off as soon as something better comes along (and if you are truly overqualified that is a distinct possibility and most roles have a boring factor for those that are overqualified... can I do data entry, sure, will my brain dribble out of my ears if I do that for more than a day or two to the point where I jump at a chance to clean toilets, also sure) and leave us in the lurch/having to repeat the hiring process (if it takes time and then some more to get you used to their systems).

2) I fear for my job security and you might take my place (as if I am management material).

I would usually treat 2) as one of those "I am slightly embarrassed it took me this long to figure out this place would be awful to work at but thanks for the confirmation".
There is the lesser spotted "polite way of saying thanks but no thanks, we think you are an arsehole" but it would get much the same thanks for the confirmation.

The good manager then always attempts to hire someone smarter than them and then spends their days either deflecting nonsense from reaching them or otherwise facilitating them doing even more work (be it by attending to problems or scrounging up more of it).

If we are doing the huggy feely bit then concerning the plight of the autistic. I do always remember an open letter of thanks I read from one particular company.
It ran something like
Thank you for not hiring the freaks and weirdos. I might have to provide them with lunch every day, any semblance of a dress code* is an imaginary flight of fantasy at this point, there are all sorts of quirks to manage that I would not have expected from grown adults, I might have to ensure there is a taxi each night, my normal staff have any number of run ins about bizarre things, punctuality is a variable and at the same time a schedule is almost a religion in other places, and talking to clients is almost a role unto itself but I thank you never the less. The problems they solve, the rate the solve them at, and the budget they solve them with means I have made an awful lot of money in a very short space of time. 

*the death of the dress code thanks to tech companies was another interesting series of articles I read a while back. It was some fashion magazines that spearpointed it and it was very odd to watch, even by the standards of my usual amateur anthropology readings of groupings I don't know (granted fashion types usually are weird but that is what you get for being in a cult I guess).

As far as quotas (which I should remind people are law in California https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/17/us/california-boardroom-gender-quota.html and is seeking expansion https://calmatters.org/politics/2020/08/corporate-board-diversity-ca-bill/ , funny that it is only boardrooms and not binmen but oh well) I do wonder if that means I should not hire any more once I reach population parity or whatever lest I deny the opportunity for a competitor (or maybe that is a strategy similar to gobbling up all the recruits and giving them busy work) to achieve such a goal, or do I need an extra in case one loses a game of beat the bus or leaves for greener pastures. Of course I am probably horribly *ist/phobic so I in reality I should be making up for past issues and giving them even more opportunities.


----------



## RandomUser (Sep 14, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> Overqualified is usually code for one of two things from where I sit
> 
> 1) You will wander off as soon as something better comes along (and if you are truly overqualified that is a distinct possibility and most roles have a boring factor for those that are overqualified... can I do data entry, sure, will my brain dribble out of my ears if I do that for more than a day or two to the point where I jump at a chance to clean toilets, also sure) and leave us in the lurch/having to repeat the hiring process (if it takes time and then some more to get you used to their systems).
> 
> 2) I fear for my job security and you might take my place (as if I am management material).


While this could be true, I think @Foxi4 is also correct as well. They use this "Overqualified" code as a scapegoat to not hire people with disabilities. You see, they cannot state the reasons why they didn't get hired because of the the anti discrimination law and perhaps also a law called Americans With Disabilities Act. I believe they use this term in order to hide the true reasoning behind it and also makes it very difficult to prove why they don't want to hire you based on the disability. This will forever be a problem and I really do not have an idea how to solve it rationally. There is an unorthodox method and really wouldn't pass to become a law, it is a law that forces employers to hire people disability or disabilities on the spot regardless of their disability. Yeah, not happening and probably not piratical either.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 14, 2020)

RandomUser said:


> While this could be true, I think @Foxi4 is also correct as well. They use this "Overqualified" code as a scapegoat to not hire people with disabilities. You see, they cannot state the reasons why they didn't get hired because of the the anti discrimination law and perhaps also a law called Americans With Disabilities Act. I believe they use this term in order to hide the true reasoning behind it and also makes it very difficult to prove why they don't want to hire you based on the disability. This will forever be a problem and I really do not have an idea how to solve it rationally. There is an unorthodox method and really wouldn't pass to become a law, it is a law that forces employers to hire people disability or disabilities on the spot regardless of their disability. Yeah, not happening and probably not piratical either.


That sounds like a totalitarian nightmare that makes a bad situation worse. Nobody except the employer should have any say in regards to who they hire and why. You can't fix discrimination with more discrimination, the deciding factor in the hiring process should always be an individual's ability to perform the job. If certain employers choose to be discriminatory and pass up on excellent candidates then that's their loss - their staff will be objectively less qualified than that of the competitor who doesn't discriminate. A contract between an employer and an employee should be entirely between those two parties and its conditions should be based on what they agree is acceptable. The last thing I want is the government dictating what employers can or can't do with their own money by making hiring decisions on their behalf.


----------



## RandomUser (Sep 14, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> That sounds like a totalitarian nightmare that makes a bad situation worse. Nobody except the employer should have any say in regards to who they hire and why. You can't fix discrimination with more discrimination, the deciding factor in the hiring process should always be an individual's ability to perform the job. If certain employers choose to be discriminatory and pass up on excellent candidates then that's their loss - their staff will be objectively less qualified than that of the competitor who doesn't discriminate. A contract between an employer and an employee should be entirely between those two parties and its conditions should be based on what they agree is acceptable. The last thing I want is the government dictating what employers can or can't do with their own money by making hiring decisions on their behalf.


Yes, that would be worst. The employer should have the say so on who to hire and what nots, but I highly doubt it is their money they are dealing with, but with the owner of the company money. The hiring manager does the hiring and as far as I know, they don't own the company, at least the bigger ones. But yes, I think you're correct that it should be the employer decision on who to hire and keeping the contract between the two parties and the conditions it brings should be kept to the two parties and weather or not if it is acceptable or not. Problem is most if not nearly all the company discriminates almost all the time and thus very low employment rates for the disabled. It isn't going to be an easy fix and probably isn't fixable at all and they have no choice but to continue taking handout from the government or taxpayers dime. See, it is a catch 22.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 14, 2020)

RandomUser said:


> Yes, that would be worst. The employer should have the say so on who to hire and what nots, but I highly doubt it is their money they are dealing with, but with the owner of the company money. The hiring manager does the hiring and as far as I know, they don't own the company, at least the bigger ones. But yes, I think you're correct that it should be the employer decision on who to hire and keeping the contract between the two parties and the conditions it brings should be kept to the two parties and weather or not if it is acceptable or not. Problem is most if not nearly all the company discriminates almost all the time and thus very low employment rates for the disabled. It isn't going to be an easy fix and probably isn't fixable at all and they have no choice but to continue taking handout from the government or taxpayers dime. See, it is a catch 22.


Not sure how things look like in your area, but around here certain companies are specifically on the lookout for employees with various degrees of disability. The government incentivise this by offering various rabates and deductibles, which I don't necessarily like, but the point still stands. Turns out honey attracts bees more than vinegar. Failing that, one can always build capital and start their own company - you can be your own boss if you're confident and offer a great product or service. I understand that prejudice can be an obstacle in the job market, but I don't think two wrongs make a right. Strong-arming people into submission only makes them more resentful, not less. I don't think using force is a good way to integrate people with disabilities into the workforce, or combat prejudice against them.


----------



## doogie (Sep 14, 2020)

Goku1992A said:


> Trump.
> 
> No I'm not a Trump Supporter but dealing with Trump for 4 years I kinda know what to expect and I can ride it out with another 4 years. Biden I don't really remember him actually doing anything in office as a VP so I'm not too sure if he has enough leadership to run the country. If Covid-19 never happened Trump would have definitely won with flying colors but it looks like Bien would win. I'm all for the Economy getting back stronger again just like it was before the Covid-19 hit. I just feel like Biden is just going to be a puppet and just make silly choices I personally don't feel he would be a good leader. I rather deal with Trump than deal with Biden.
> 
> ...


Plus there no way Biden will last 4 years so voting for him you really his VP to be president. I also don't think he is thinking for himself he is just doing what his handlers are telling him to do.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> Belgium only has a handful of COVID-19 deaths per day these days (they had 7 yesterday). The United States had 1,500 people die from COVID-19 yesterday. There's no comparing the two responses. Belgium had a federal response, and the United States did not, and it continues to not have one.
> 
> With regard to government responses to COVID-19, it is also a mistake to compare deaths/1M population between a country with 12M citizens and a country with 331M citizens. It's numerically analogous to comparing coin flip odds with a trial of two flips and a trial of 50 flips. The two-flip trial could realistically be 100% heads, which does not reflect the actual odds, but the 50-flip trial is likely going to be close to about 25 heads and 25 tails. Here are some fair COVID-19 comparisons:
> 
> ...


But they count everything now a death by COVID-19. Death by flu just stopped this year how is that?


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 14, 2020)

doogie said:


> Plus there no way Biden will last 4 years so voting for him you really his VP to be president. I also don't think he is thinking for himself he is just doing what his handlers are telling him to do.


This is actually an important point a lot of Democrats seem to be sweeping under the rug - there are legitimate questions in regards to Biden's mental acuity. I too very much doubt that he has the steam in him to pull through 4 years of presidency, let alone 8 if he were to be reelected. The man claimed in earnest to be arrested alongside Nelson Mandela in South Africa, he mixed three distinct war stories into one fictitious account from Afghanistan, he mixed up his own wife and daughter when introducing them on stage, he started off his run by claiming he's running for the Senate and he consistently stutters when in the past he spoke quite eloquently. Let's not even mention his stories about "Corn Pop" or how children liked climbing up his hairy legs. I can see that he's fairly spry and knows how to ride a bicycle, but I'd be more comfortable knowing that he's aware that he's on a bicycle and not inside of a rocket, or whatever else his mind conjures up that day. I can't believe he's even a candidate at all, he keeps embarrassing himself every single time he speaks publicly without a teleprompter, and sometimes even when he's just reading. He gives off an "old man shouting at clouds" vibe that I can't shake, it's a shame that the on-going pandemic put a stop to most public appearances, I'm sure Biden would've continued being a meme mine otherwise. His handlers can conceal his inadequacies quite effectively when he's confined in a basement. A vote for Biden is, in my eyes, a vote for Kamala Harris.


----------



## RandomUser (Sep 14, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Not sure how things look like in your area, but around here certain companies are specifically on the lookout for employees with various degrees of disability. The government incentivise this by offering various rabates and deductibles, which I don't necessarily like, but the point still stands. Turns out honey attracts bees more than vinegar. Failing that, one can always build capital and start their own company - you can be your own boss if you're confident and offer a great product or service. I understand that prejudice can be an obstacle in the job market, but I don't think two wrongs make a right. Strong-arming people into submission only makes them more resentful, not less. I don't think using force is a good way to integrate people with disabilities into the workforce, or combat prejudice against them.


You're absolutely right about people being more resentful and using force. Don't want any of that. Everyone is more focus on racial and gender for diversity hires, but almost none focuses on disabled people, they get left out in the cold. So that means that disabled people are excluded from the diversity quotas. There is little to no incentive from the government for employers to be hiring disabled people, please correct me if I'm wrong. I think most of the barriers are stereotypes and health insurance or health care cost are the issues. Then there is red tape face by the disabled people from the government or employers which would be more cost effective to continue relying on the government for their source of income, even with the ticket to work program in place.
EDIT:
Starting your own business could help, if you have a family member able to help you. Loans are generally out of the question for some disabled people because their qualification are not good due to income limitations. Perhaps if they start out from their homes, assuming they even have a property, because again mortgage is a loan and they can't qualify enough for a livable accommodations. I don't know about rented homes, though. Probably have to get permission from the landlord. eBay on the other hand could help with the business front, but you still need money to pay for bulk cost of the product, assuming they have funds to do so, because they will need to be able to undercut their competitors out their by selling the same product for less then what their competitors are selling there's for. Perhaps eBay or another online business could be a viable option for them, again assuming they have the funds to start.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 14, 2020)

doogie said:


> Plus there no way Biden will last 4 years so voting for him you really his VP to be president. I also don't think he is thinking for himself he is just doing what his handlers are telling him to do.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


No, not everything is "death by COVID."


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 14, 2020)

RandomUser said:


> Yes, that would be worst. The employer should have the say so on who to hire and what nots, but I highly doubt it is their money they are dealing with, but with the owner of the company money. The hiring manager does the hiring and as far as I know, they don't own the company, at least the bigger ones. But yes, I think you're correct that it should be the employer decision on who to hire and keeping the contract between the two parties and the conditions it brings should be kept to the two parties and weather or not if it is acceptable or not. Problem is most if not nearly all the company discriminates almost all the time and thus very low employment rates for the disabled. It isn't going to be an easy fix and probably isn't fixable at all and they have no choice but to continue taking handout from the government or taxpayers dime. See, it is a catch 22.


um i'm disabled but yet with no college experience I'm more than capable to hold a repair job in electronics (I always swear the government pacifies the disabled with the strict wage earning guidelines they impose to those who wish to work hell you cant even save for college without getting thrown under the bus


----------



## omgcat (Sep 15, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> um i'm disabled but yet with no college experience I'm more than capable to hold a repair job in electronics (I always swear the government pacifies the disabled with the strict wage earning guidelines they impose to those who wish to work hell you cant even save for college without getting thrown under the bus



Most colleges will reduce or waive tuition for proven disabilities.


----------



## RandomUser (Sep 15, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> um i'm disabled but yet with no college experience I'm more than capable to hold a repair job in electronics (I always swear the government pacifies the disabled with the strict wage earning guidelines they impose to those who wish to work hell you cant even save for college without getting thrown under the bus


AFAIK holding a job isn't the issue, getting one is. Yes, I agree with that assessment about the government. Even those that get income from the government they are not allowed so save or can save very little amount.
As @omgcat stated disabled people can get free collage education. They're programs out there that get them college education for free. In the process of signing up in a program for my nephew, for either college or trade school education. Something to get signed up for, before he graduate from high school.
I hope this all works out for him and have a very fulfilling life in his future.
If you don't mind my asking, what type of disability do you have, physical or psychological? I understand if you don't feel comfortable answering this question and is a personal one.


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 15, 2020)

@RandomUser oh i've been to one of those "free colleges" even they discriminated against me with denying me their pc repair program utter bullshit should've sued them i even am doing repair assessment's as an "up yours" to that school (and doing pretty good too though no job yet) also getting in to advocacy myself trying to raise awareness on the issues with SSI though i doubt it'll help but still, oh i see you want to know what i have the answer is both actually Cerebral palsy is my physical disability (mild form only affecting my right side) but also am bi polar too


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 15, 2020)

Even the Washington Post is (reluctantly) rooting for Trump.


----------



## notimp (Sep 15, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Even the Washington Post is (reluctantly) rooting for Trump.


_Danielle Pletka is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. (right wing think tank - see: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/secret-foreign-donor-behind-american-enterprise-institute/)_

#whatisanopinionpiece

#userhasnotreachedmedialiteracyyet


----------



## AkGBA (Sep 15, 2020)

It's an opinion piece. Not an editorial choice.


----------



## RandomUser (Sep 15, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> @RandomUser oh i've been to one of those "free colleges" even they discriminated against me with denying me their pc repair program utter bullshit should've sued them i even am doing repair assessment's as an "up yours" to that school (and doing pretty good too though no job yet) also getting in to advocacy myself trying to raise awareness on the issues with SSI though i doubt it'll help but still, oh i see you want to know what i have the answer is both actually Cerebral palsy is my physical disability (mild form only affecting my right side) but also am bi polar too


That's a bummer, that they discriminated against you. It probably wouldn't be worth suing due to the legal fees and what nots.
That is great that you're doing good. Also am glad that you're raising awareness and to bad there isn't much people doing this as well. Usually disabled people is considered undesirable, so I agree with you that it probably won't help but doesn't hurt to keep trying. I must say though this bring newfound respect for those that can live off of SSI, I have a couple of friends whom is on SSI, and couldn't fathom how they can live off the meager income that they get, it really amazes me on how small amount they get and how they can survive on just that much.
My nephew also suffers physically and psychological as well.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 15, 2020)

AkGBA said:


> It's an opinion piece. Not an editorial choice.


Opinion piece or not, it was still published by WP.


----------



## notimp (Sep 15, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Opinion piece or not, it was still published by WP.


Correct. But its the opinion of an employee of a right wing think tank. Dont forget that part.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 15, 2020)

notimp said:


> Correct. But its the opinion of an employee of a right wing think tank. Dont forget that part.


If that was the case, why would WP publish it?


----------



## AkGBA (Sep 15, 2020)

Freedom of speech ?
Open mindness from the newspaper ?

I mean... The WaPo, the NYT publish opinions pieces from both sides everyday.
Is it really the first time you see it ?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 15, 2020)

AkGBA said:


> Freedom of speech ?
> Open mindness from the newspaper ?


Neither of those exist on the left.


----------



## notimp (Sep 15, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> If that was the case, why would WP publish it?


Because non yellow press papers publish 'opinions of the other side' sometimes. To signal editorial independence, or something..  (FOX news doesnt..  ) Those are usually presented as opinion pieces.

Its a thing. Look it up.


----------



## AkGBA (Sep 15, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Neither of those exist on the left.



Stop being so dogmatic.
Of course it does.

But we're talking about a newspaper. The WaPo and the NYT publish for example opinions pieces everyday, from both side of the aisle.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 15, 2020)

AkGBA said:


> Stop being so dogmatic.
> Of course it does.


n


AkGBA said:


> But we're talking about a newspaper. The WaPo and the NYT publish for example opinions pieces everyday, from both side of the aisle.


Examples?


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 15, 2020)

Re disabilities and trouble finding work.

Whether I agree with it or not I don't know but there is a line of thought that says minimum wage can have some fun effects here. I would ask what the minimum wage is around you, and before you go running off to find some link to a department of labour or whatever for your locality/country then know you are wrong... the real answer is zero (as a general rule if you can't find a reason not to hire someone you need better HR and a more nebulous requirements list -- we occasionally expect our office drones to go 3km down into a muddy field sort of thing). You can even control for it if you find a country that has no age tiers and compare it to one with them and seeing the resultant youth unemployment rates.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 15, 2020)

notimp said:


> Because non yellow press papers publish 'opinions of the other side' sometimes. To signal editorial independence, or something..  (FOX news doesnt..  ) Those are usually presented as opinion pieces.
> 
> Its a thing. Look it up.



Fox News isn't a newspaper. MSNBC and CNN are the yangs to their yin. But yeah, WaPo and NYT and WashTimes and ChicagoTrib and LATimes ... they all occasionally publish an opinion piece that runs counter to their usual slant.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 15, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Fox News isn't a newspaper. MSNBC and CNN are the yangs to their yin. But yeah, WaPo and NYT and WashTimes and ChicagoTrib and LATimes ... they all occasionally publish an opinion piece that runs counter to their usual slant.


Let's not forget that often times pieces like this are a smoke screen to cover for their other biases, something you can show if you're ever questioned and say "See? We published an article by one conservative once!" - WaPo is owned by Nash Holdings, which is a holding company established by Jeff Bezos. The LA Times is owned by Nant Capital, which in turn belongs to Patrick Soon-shiong, long-term Democrat donor who dropped fat stacks on the Clinton campaign. The New York Times is owned by the Sulzbergers who have a long-standing relationship with the Clinton's, and Carlos Slim, who had a lot to lose in the event of a Trump presidency. The Chicago Tribune is the only one you mentioned that isn't overtly hostile to Trump, and you shouldn't get used to them since they're being actively dismantled by Alden, like countless papers before them. The majority of the press leans liberal and has clear motivation to portray the administration in an unfavourable light, conservative press is basically non-existent.


----------



## Iamapirate (Sep 15, 2020)

Trump has been the most anti-war president in recent memory. He raises the issue of outsourcing, bad trade and immigration. Despite initial concerns about his principles or lack thereof, he's governed as a conservative, cutting regulation, appointing two conservative justices, cutting taxes and spreading the pro-life message.

These are things that are important to me, so on policy alone I'd vote for him. As detestable as Hillary Clinton was, at least she's sharp and doesn't seem to be on cognitive decline like Biden. It's beyond obvious that the man is in decline and it's baffling he was even nominated in the first place.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 15, 2020)

Iamapirate said:


> Trump has been the most anti-war president in recent memory. He raises the issue of outsourcing, bad trade and immigration. Despite initial concerns about his principles or lack thereof, he's governed as a conservative, cutting regulation, appointing two conservative justices, cutting taxes and spreading the pro-life message.
> 
> These are things that are important to me, so on policy alone I'd vote for him. As detestable as Hillary Clinton was, at least she's sharp and doesn't seem to be on cognitive decline like Biden. It's beyond obvious that the man is in decline and it's baffling he was even nominated in the first place.


I was always baffled by people treating the Presidency as a popularity contest. Trump is a controversial figure and people can argue about his personality until the cows come home, but at the end of the day he's a President that's fulfilled more objectives critical to conservatives than any other since Reagan. I think it is foolish to cast a vote based on any other metric - principles are for winners. You can flaunt them around *after* you win, losers don't have an influence on policy.


----------



## Iamapirate (Sep 15, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I was always baffled by people treating the Presidency as a popularity contest. Trump is a controversial figure and people can argue about his personality until the cows come home, but at the end of the day he's a President that's fulfilled more objectives critical to conservatives than any other since Reagan. I think it is foolish to cast a vote based on any other metric - principles are for winners. You can flaunt them around *after* you win, losers don't have an influence on policy.


I'm amused by so-called "Biden Harris Republicans." I honestly don't know how you could consider yourself a conservative and vote for that ticket.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 15, 2020)

Iamapirate said:


> I'm amused by so-called "Biden Harris Republicans." I honestly don't know how you could consider yourself a conservative and vote for that ticket.


Biden-Harris Republicans effectively don't exist, but those that do are very well-funded and will gladly cut their own nose to spite their face. It's a scam created to sow discord in the party. The Lincoln Project comes to mind, co-founded by John Weaver, a formerly registered Russian asset, now yapping about "collusion". The "Never Trump" movement died when Trump was elected, even staunch "Never Trumpers" like Shapiro understand that. What you see now is plain old election interference, and it's foolish. To be fair though, Republicans love losing and wearing egg on their face, I make a distinction between RINO's who like to talk a lot, but don't do much, and the Trump Party which took over in every way besides the name and is hungry for reform. Up until this point the Republicans were following an appeasement strategy of "you give some, you get some", making otherwise unacceptable concessions to gain a few small wins, if any. Trump changed all that and effectively introduced a third-party by infiltrating them, which he should get credit for. His method has teeth, all the Republicans had to offer were dull dentures.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 15, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> This is actually an important point a lot of Democrats seem to be sweeping under the rug - there are legitimate questions in regards to Biden's mental acuity. I too very much doubt that he has the steam in him to pull through 4 years of presidency, let alone 8 if he were to be reelected. The man claimed in earnest to be arrested alongside Nelson Mandela in South Africa, he mixed three distinct war stories into one fictitious account from Afghanistan, he mixed up his own wife and daughter when introducing them on stage, he started off his run by claiming he's running for the Senate and he consistently stutters when in the past he spoke quite eloquently. Let's not even mention his stories about "Corn Pop" or how children liked climbing up his hairy legs. I can see that he's fairly spry and knows how to ride a bicycle, but I'd be more comfortable knowing that he's aware that he's on a bicycle and not inside of a rocket, or whatever else his mind conjures up that day. I can't believe he's even a candidate at all, he keeps embarrassing himself every single time he speaks publicly without a teleprompter, and sometimes even when he's just reading. He gives off an "old man shouting at clouds" vibe that I can't shake, it's a shame that the on-going pandemic put a stop to most public appearances, I'm sure Biden would've continued being a meme mine otherwise. His handlers can conceal his inadequacies quite effectively when he's confined in a basement. A vote for Biden is, in my eyes, a vote for Kamala Harris.


Okay best I can describe people's thinking is this. Trump is far worse than Biden by a large margin. It doesn't mean people think Biden is good, people just want a worse shitty president since this one is abslutely horrid. it's replacing bullshit with, bullshit with sprinkles. It's still shit, but it's minimally better in taste.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 15, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Okay best I can describe people's thinking is this. Trump is far worse than Biden by a large margin. It doesn't mean people think Biden is good, people just want a worse shitty president since this one is abslutely horrid. it's replacing bullshit with, bullshit with sprinkles. It's still shit, but it's minimally better in taste.



or, to put it another way, we are in a scenario where having NO president would better. is biden amazing? no, but we are taking damage in every conceivable direction every day trump is in office. which is crazy because he has spend almost every 4th day in office golfing. https://trumpgolfcount.com/displayoutings. our alliances are degrading or have been broken, we are not following through on promises made in the past. we have literally betrayed ally forces in a war zone. multiple human rights violations IN PLAIN SIGHT. to reiterate, why would we vote for an incumbent president who has screwed up almost EVERYTHING he has ever done. it is the difference between electing a 0, and electing a -9000.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 15, 2020)

omgcat said:


> (...)which is crazy because he has spend almost every 4th day in office golfing.


The libertarian in me would really want to see him golf 6 days a week, and spend the 7th deregulating or resting before the next golf session.


> our alliances are degrading or have been broken, we are not following through on promises made in the past. we have literally betrayed ally forces in a war zone.


Debatable, given the recent developments in the Middle East. In any case, Trump seems to be the only President in recent history who *hasn't* started a war, so that's a weird complaint.


> multiple human rights violations IN PLAIN SIGHT.


Dispersing a mob with non-lethal, or as the media now calls them, "less lethal" countermeasures is not a violation of human rights.

You sound really emotional over the whole thing, to the point that you'd pick a literal shit sandwich over a president you consider "bad". A quick reminder that Joe Biden co-wrote and implemented the legislation that causes racial tension today and Kamala Harris executed those policies during her term. They're both "cops", that's what you're voting for. It doesn't matter what they say, look at what they've already done first.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 15, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> The libertarian in me would really want to see him golf 6 days a week, and spend the 7th deregulating or resting before the next golf session.
> Debatable, given the recent developments in the Middle East. In any case, Trump seems to be the only President in recent history who *hasn't* started a war, so that's a weird complaint.
> Dispersing a mob with non-lethal, or as the media now calls them, "less lethal" countermeasures is not a violation of human rights.
> 
> You sound really emotional over the whole thing, to the point that you'd pick a literal shit sandwich over a president you consider "bad". A quick reminder that Joe Biden co-wrote and implemented the legislation that causes racial tension today and Kamala Harris executed those policies during her term. They're both "cops", that's what you're voting for. It doesn't matter what they say, look at what they've already done first.



I was referencing deporting people without knowing the country of origin such as DACA children, the killing of an enemy general after setting up a meeting with a 3rd party, forced sterilization of people in ICE custody and others.

while i am trying to stay away from COVID content, having a president who knowingly and actively downplayed the virus, did more harm than not having any president at all. the released recordings have been extremely dismaying in this respect.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 15, 2020)

Pro-life, but rolling back climate protections, constantly trying to take people healthcare away and nearly 200,000 deaths due to the virus over a lie is totally fine.

Only ones that are treating this election as a "popularity contest", are the ones that are still voting and supporting Trump.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 15, 2020)

omgcat said:


> I was referencing deporting people without knowing the country of origin such as DACA children, the killing of an enemy general after setting up a meeting with a 3rd party, forced sterilization of people in ICE custody and others.


So an unsubstantiated allegation and the killing of a terrorist. Alright, no point in discussing either then.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 15, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> So an unsubstantiated allegation and the killing of a terrorist. Alright, no point in discussing either then.


the killing of a terrorist is not the problem, it's using diplomacy to move a target to a location, and killing them. a LITERAL war crime. The Government of Iraq did not grant permission to the U.S. to target a military commander from another country on its soil. especially when the meeting was to propose a peace agreement.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 15, 2020)

omgcat said:


> the killing of a terrorist is not the problem, it's using diplomacy to move a target to a location, and killing them. a LITERAL war crime. The Government of Iraq did not grant permission to the U.S. to target a military commander from another country on its soil. especially when the meeting was to propose a peace agreement.


Okay. Scratch another one off the list as far as I'm concerned, the world is a bit of a better place now.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 15, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Okay. Scratch another one off the list as far as I'm concerned, the world is a bit of a better place now.



guess international law doesn't matter, and no countries should have sovereignty. sounds pretty libertarian to me.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 15, 2020)

omgcat said:


> guess international law doesn't matter, and no countries should have sovereignty. sounds pretty libertarian to me.


Iran is a terrorist regime. You don't "negotiate" with terrorists. The U.S. Intelligence had information on the whereabouts of a critical target and successfully acted upon it, making the world a better place. If you want me to shed tears over him then I'm afraid you're going to have a hard time squeezing them out. Tell the families of LGBT people who were hanged off of cranes in Iran all about how international law prohibits harming their oppressors, maybe they'll listen.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 15, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Iran is a terrorist regime. You don't "negotiate" with terrorists. The U.S. Intelligence had information on the whereabouts of a critical target and successfully acted upon it, making the world a better place. If you want me to shed tears over him then I'm afraid you're going to have a hard time squeezing them out. Tell the families of LGBT people who were hanged off of cranes in Iran all about how international law prohibits harming their oppressors, maybe they'll listen.



The death is not the problem, it was us violating Iraq's sovereignty by killing an Iranian general on their soil. we had a mutual agreement signed in 2008 prohibits the U.S. from launching attacks on other countries from Iraqi territory. Even trump's generals said it was a horrible idea. Also i feel like you are trying to use dead LGBT people as a shield in this instance, unless you actually care about the live LGBT people who are being fucked with in the USA.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 15, 2020)

omgcat said:


> The death is not the problem, it was us violating Iraq's sovereignty by killing an Iranian general on their soil. we had a mutual agreement signed in 2008 prohibits the U.S. from launching attacks on other countries from Iraqi territory. Even trump's generals said it was a horrible idea. Also i feel like you are trying to use dead LGBT people as a shield in this instance, unless you actually care about the live LGBT people who are being fucked with in the USA.


You are trying to use the social construct of "international law" to justify your position, your position being "the U.S. shouldn't have curb-stomped a terrorist on somebody else's lawn", which in my eyes is a minor complaint. I don't see the difference between the two, an appeal is an appeal. Soleimani was a key instrument in the Iranian regime, he orchestrated a number of attacks on American and international troops over the years, and he didn't seem to be bothered by international law or severeignity either. Sure, it would be nice if the American intelligence informed Iraqi intelligence about the operation, but there are several problems here - one, they would risk blowing the whole thing if anyone spilled the beans, two, it would directly implicate Iraq directly which could possibly lead to another war whereas now they can just wash their hands off the whole affair and three, they had to act fast. Once again, as far as I am concerned, justice was done and the Iranian regime got just a little bit weaker. Quite honestly, I much prefer those smaller, covert strikes over full-blown land, sea and air warfare that costs trillions of dollars, causes thousands of deaths and leads to untold collateral damage. Those big, pompous displays serve nobody - not the indigenous population nor the international community. I don't see anyone crying over the general, nor do I see a war going on over it, so there you go. For once the U.S. avoided using drone strikes accidentally aimed at weddings, sounds like a win to me.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 15, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> You are trying to use the social construct of "international law" to justify your position, your position being "the U.S. shouldn't have curb-stomped a terrorist on somebody else's lawn", which in my eyes is a minor complaint. I don't see the difference between the two, an appeal is an appeal. Soleimani was a key instrument in the Iranian regime, he orchestrated a number of attacks on American and international troops over the years, and he didn't seem to be bothered by international law or severeignity either. Sure, it would be nice if the American intelligence informed Iraqi intelligence about the operation, but there are several problems here - one, they would risk blowing the whole thing if anyone spilled the beans, two, it would directly implicate Iraq directly which could possibly lead to another war whereas now they can just wash their hands off the whole affair and three, they had to act fast. Once again, as far as I am concerned, justice was done and the Iranian regime got just a little bit weaker. Quite honestly, I much prefer those smaller, covert strikes over full-blown land, sea and air warfare that costs trillions of dollars, causes thousands of deaths and leads to untold collateral damage. Those big, pompous displays serve nobody - not the indigenous population nor the international community. I don't see anyone crying over the general, nor do I see a war going on over it, so there you go. For once the U.S. avoided using drone strikes accidentally aimed at weddings, sounds like a win to me.



don't complain when someone "curb-stomps" an American on American soil in the future. we can be terrorists in someone else's eyes, which means they are justified right? hell, don't get mad when American dignitaries get smoked in any other country, regardless of treaties or agreements, cause they are just pieces of paper, and international law does not matter.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 15, 2020)

omgcat said:


> don't complain when someone "curb-stomps" an American on American soil in the future. we can be terrorists in someone else's eyes, which means they are justified right? hell, don't get mad when American dignitaries get smoked in any other country, regardless of treaties or agreements, cause they are just pieces of paper, and international law does not matter.


Are you kidding me? I'd sit down and eat popcorn watching half of them get smoked.  See, libertarians, they're not huge fans of the government, they like it real small. That'd make it smaller, for sure. 

Jokes aside, I totally see where you're coming from, but I consider the complaint as small and insignificant in the grand scheme of things, I really do. I see this as no different than Bush eliminating terrorists abroad, Obama eliminating terrorists abroad, or any other president. It's a long-standing tradition at this point, I'm more interested in matters that directly affect people's lives, and in that regard Trump has been pushing things towards my court throughout most of his presidency. He sure did do some dumb-dumbs and I didn't like some of his advisors, but most of the ones I found distasteful are sacked now, so no biggy.

In any case, back to the topic at hand - the election. Biden had an event in Tampa yesterday and what happened was the exact same thing I said always happens when he has to speak off-the-cuff - he talked gibberish.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...he_second_floor_of_the_ladies_department.html

What he actually meant to say was that a former quartermaster would be qualified to work in retail, but it came out... Well, it came out in Biden-speak. He always tops it off with "y'know what I mean?" - no Joe, we don't know what you mean. Nobody knows what you mean on the first go, we have to fire up our deciphering machine first. Guys, at what point does voting for grandpa classify as elderly abuse? Y'all crazy, you can't do this to yourselves.


----------



## Iamapirate (Sep 16, 2020)

I'm curious how many people here actually believe that — if elected — Biden will serve a full term in office.

It's disgusting that they chose his VP not on merit, but on race and gender, as has been openly stated. Not only that, she dropped out of the race before any caucus or primary because she had virtually no support. It's gross that they intend to place Harris as President via Joe Biden's election. I'm sure the people that actually want Joe want Joe and not a blatant bait and switch.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 16, 2020)

Iamapirate said:


> I'm curious how many people here actually believe that — if elected — Biden will serve a full term in office.
> 
> It's disgusting that they chose his VP not on merit, but on race and gender, as has been openly stated. Not only that, she dropped out of the race before any caucus or primary because she had virtually no support. It's gross that they intend to place Harris as President via Joe Biden's election. I'm sure the people that actually want Joe want Joe and not a blatant bait and switch.


It's hilarious that the people who are crying over "democracy dying" in the United States are the same people who have been kicking up a fuss over the results of the election for nigh on 4 years now, tried to depose the duly-elected President in every way they knew how and now want to replace him with an unelected VP using a switcheroo as soon as Biden is "no longer capable of fulfilling his function". It's as if the DNC was ran by Dick Dastardly, the schemes are comical and transparent.


----------



## mammastuffing (Sep 16, 2020)

It's amazing how a character like Trump could become president. Says a lot about the average american I guess.


----------



## Iamapirate (Sep 16, 2020)

mammastuffing said:


> It's amazing how a character like Trump could become president. Says a lot about the average american I guess.


The last time I'd consider a main party nominee to be a person of good character was Reagan in 80 and 84.


----------



## notimp (Sep 16, 2020)

Iamapirate said:


> I'm curious how many people here actually believe that — if elected — Biden will serve a full term in office.
> 
> It's disgusting that they chose his VP not on merit, but on race and gender, as has been openly stated. Not only that, she dropped out of the race before any caucus or primary because she had virtually no support. It's gross that they intend to place Harris as President via Joe Biden's election. I'm sure the people that actually want Joe want Joe and not a blatant bait and switch.


When in US history had that happened? Spinning that SciFi yarn again. And the thing is, you didnt even make it up, you just retold it. So somewhere along the way your selection process on BS stories failed.

Also, here is why you pick them 'more extreme than your views' https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...es-vice-presidents-irrelevant-to-influential/

Edit looked it up, happened eight times, out of 45, so there is a reasonable probability. So now I need a different argument against. How about you seriously tell people who to vote for, based on the principal of 'who of the candidates could die'? No, tell us more, but while you are at it, let me remove myself from the room.

edit: Past 50 years are more in my favor:


> The past 50 years have been especially cruel to vice presidents' campaigns, with George H.W. Bush as the only officeholder to ascend to the presidency. Hubert Humphrey lost to Nixon; Walter Mondale lost to Ronald Reagan; Al Gore lost to George W. Bush.


https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/10/21/9574065/vice-presidents-president-history


----------



## Iamapirate (Sep 16, 2020)

notimp said:


> When in US history had that happened? Spinning that SciFi yarn again. And the thing is, you didnt even make it up, you just retold it. So somewhere along the way your selection process on BS stories failed.
> 
> Also, here is why you pick them 'more extreme than your views' https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...es-vice-presidents-irrelevant-to-influential/
> 
> ...


It's not really science fiction when democrats expect it as well. Biden will be the oldest President ever and is clearly on the way out mentally and perhaps physically. Harris is the replacement.


----------



## notimp (Sep 16, 2020)

Iamapirate said:


> It's not really science fiction when democrats expect it as well. Biden will be the oldest President ever and is clearly on the way out mentally and perhaps physically. Harris is the replacement.


Look, you are conservative and 10/10 risk averse, so you plan through examples of potentiality when people that are now living, die in the next four years. We get it.

Also you have a bubble complex, where society is positively effed, if a progressive candidate, even gets the reign of your country for less than four years. No possibility in your head - that that might mean, that the progressive becomes more of a centrist as a result on the job. You know - like Trump in all things but those that were deemed important for PR.

(You had children separated from their mothers and then institutions structurally forget who their mothers were. You even survived that as a nation.)

You are not 99% of people, and you are bad at arguing. If you marry yourself to a hypothetical of someone dying as your main driver for your voting decision.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 16, 2020)

Weird assumption to make that people wouldn't still be trying to get Trump out, if Kamala Harris was the candidate instead.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 16, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Weird assumption to make that people wouldn't still be trying to get Trump out, if Kamala Harris was the candidate instead.


Harris dropped out of the race two months before the Iowa caucus after receiving a staggering 3% in early polling. Putting forward a nominee that was leading in polls nationally with the explicit intention of replacing them with one nobody wanted is deceptive and unfair to the voter. It's not a "weird assumption", that's what the numbers say.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/us/politics/iowa-poll-warren-biden.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...out-democratic-2020-presidential-race-reports


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 16, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Harris dropped out of the race two months before the Iowa caucus after receiving a staggering 3% in early polling. Putting forward a nominee that was leading in polls nationally with the explicit intention of replacing them with one nobody wanted is deceptive and unfair to the voter. It's not a "weird assumption", that's what the numbers say.
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/01/us/politics/iowa-poll-warren-biden.html
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...out-democratic-2020-presidential-race-reports


I know what happened. That was her vs other democrats. What I doubt, is suddenly everyone would have changed their mind about Trump, if was only her vs Trump.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 16, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> I know what happened. That was her vs other democrats. What I doubt, is suddenly everyone would have changed their mind about Trump, if was only her vs Trump.


What you're basically saying is that the election isn't an election at all, but a referendum on Trump. Again, Harris received 3% of Democrat votes in early polling. They would've preferred Fauxcahontas or the unelectable Sanders over Harris. She's being shoved into their faces when they preferred other candidates, and Biden explicitly stated that he's picking a "black female candidate", so she was chosen because of her sex and color of her skin. Once a party of racism, always a party of racism, it seems.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 16, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> and now want to replace him with an unelected VP using a switcheroo as soon as Biden is "no longer capable of fulfilling his function". It's as if the DNC was ran by Dick Dastardly, the schemes are comical and transparent.


What conspiracy theory nonsense are you going on about? Also, you do know vice presidents are elected, right?



Foxi4 said:


> Harris dropped out of the race two months before the Iowa caucus after receiving a staggering 3% in early polling.


She made it up to as high as 15% after the first debate. In such a crowded field, that was second place at the time.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 16, 2020)

Lacius said:


> What conspiracy theory nonsense are you going on about? Also, you do know vice presidents are elected, right?
> 
> She made it up to as high as 15% after the first debate. In such a crowded field, that was second place at the time.


The way I look at it, people vote for the presidential candidate. The running mate is there to do just that - run with them, serve as an assistant and in the event of an *unexpected* death/incapacitation they can temporarily step in until an actual President is elected. Never in the history of the country was there a situation when people voted for the running mate because they expected the candidate to conk out, now this is a very real possibility. Not conspiracy, merely an observation. Nobody votes for the running mate, they're voting for the candidate.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 16, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> The way I look at it, people vote for the presidential candidate.


The way you look at it is irrelevant. The U.S. Constitution clearly lays out how elections for president and vice president work. To call either of these "unelected" is factually wrong.



Foxi4 said:


> Never in the history of the country was there a situation when people voted for the running mate because they expected the candidate to conk out


This isn't the first time people gave more attention to a running mate because the top of the ticket was old, etc. Sarah Palin, for example, received a lot of scrutiny because of McCain's age.



Foxi4 said:


> now this is a very real possibility.


I think it's totally fair to give extra attention to Harris' capability to be president because of Biden's age.



Foxi4 said:


> Not conspiracy, merely an observation. Nobody votes for the running mate, they're voting for the candidate.


The conspiracy nonsense was that the Democratic Party (or anybody else for that matter) is at all planning a premeditated _switcheroo_.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 16, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The way you look at it is irrelevant. The U.S. Constitution clearly lays out how elections for president and vice president work. To call either of these "unelected" is factually wrong.
> 
> This isn't the first time people gave more attention to a running mate because the top of the ticket was old, etc. Sarah Palin, for example, received a lot of scrutiny because of McCain's age.
> 
> ...


Harris was *picked* by Biden, not elected by the people. When people cast a ballot, they'll be voting for Biden, although technically you are correct - it is the "Biden-Harris" ticket, so fair enough. Given Biden's obvious cognitive decline I consider it premeditated - you can call it a conspiracy if you want, that's still my opinion on the matter. Harris isn't a running mate as much as a wobbling mate, helping Biden tumble his way to the finish line.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 16, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> What you're basically saying is that the election isn't an election at all, but a referendum on Trump.


In a way, it is both.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 16, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Harris was *picked* by Biden, not elected by the people. When people cast a ballot, they'll be voting for Biden, although technically you are correct - it is the "Biden-Harris" ticket, so fair enough. Given Biden's obvious cognitive decline I consider it premeditated - you can call it a conspiracy if you want, that's still my opinion on the matter. Harris isn't a running mate as much as a wobbling mate, helping Biden tumble his way to the finish line.


If Harris becomes VP, it's because she was elected by the people.

And yes, what you're spouting is an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory no better than any kind of "the election has already been decided by guys in suits in a room somewhere" conspiracy theories.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 16, 2020)

Lacius said:


> If Harris becomes VP, it's because she was elected by the people.
> 
> And yes, what you're spouting is an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory no better than any kind of "the election has already been decided by guys in suits in a room somewhere" conspiracy theories.


Unsubstantiated besides all the evidence that's right in front of our eyes, but alright. If you don't think that there's a stark difference between how Obama era Biden spoke and how he speaks now, that's fine. It is my opinion that one would have to be myopic not to see just how much the man has aged, and I also believe that the DNC is well-aware of that. It would be *foolish* not to plan for that eventuality.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 17, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Unsubstantiated besides all the evidence that's right in front of our eyes, but alright. If you don't think that there's a stark difference between how Obama era Biden spoke and how he speaks now, that's fine. It is my opinion that one would have to be myopic not to see just how much the man has aged, and I also believe that the DNC is well-aware of that. It would be *foolish* not to plan for that eventuality.



hey, Trump has had unscheduled visits to an external hospital that focuses on neurological damage. The white house has a medical unit that is capable of handling both emergency and trauma scale scenarios, and has a full compound pharmacy. you don't think the fact that he had to go to a hospital specializing in one of the only things the WHMU can't handle (neurology) is a red flag? Biden was seen riding a bike in the last month, as well as having a much better BMI than trump. I wouldn't be worried about Biden making it through the next 4 years. also anyone who talks about Biden's speech issues like it is an indication of dementia is ignorant of the stutter he has had for years. Biden also never bragged about how hard a dementia test is.

There is some serious projection coming from the GOP on this front.

Here is an article written in 2011 about his stutter, while he was in office: https://people.com/celebrity/joe-biden-opens-up-about-childhood-stuttering-problem/
He also has a page on the stuttering foundation: https://www.stutteringhelp.org/content/joe-biden

also a speech about stuttering he gave in 2010: https://www.nais.org/magazine/indep...den-reveals-childhood-stuttering-at-lab-scho/


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 17, 2020)

omgcat said:


> hey, Trump has had unscheduled visits to an external hospital that focuses on neurological damage. The white house has a medical unit that is capable of handling both emergency and trauma scale scenarios, and has a full compound pharmacy. you don't think the fact that he had to go to a hospital specializing in one of the only things the WHMU can't handle (neurology) is a red flag? Biden was seen riding a bike in the last month, as well as having a much better BMI than trump. I wouldn't be worried about Biden making it through the next 4 years. also anyone who talks about Biden's speech issues like it is an indication of dementia is ignorant of the stutter he has had for years. Biden also never bragged about how hard a dementia test is.
> 
> There is some serious projection coming from the GOP on this front.
> 
> ...


Is it a GOP projection or a Democrat reading problem? Biden has dealt with stuttering *throughout his childhood and into his twenties*, he overcame his speech impediment before anyone participating in this discussion was even alive. Your own links confirm that, particularly the second and third one. Have fun with that selective memory though.

You're putting more kerosene on the fire - thank you for providing us with documentation proving that he had a stuttering problem as a child, overcame it as an adult and has now regressed in his senior years. That's the point everyone's making - that he's mentally declining.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 17, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Is it a GOP projection or a Democrat reading problem? Biden has dealt with stuttering *throughout his childhood and into his twenties*, he overcame his speech impediment before anyone participating in this discussion was even alive. Your own links confirm that, particularly the second and third one. Have fun with that selective memory though.
> 
> You're putting more kerosene on the fire - thank you for providing us with documentation proving that he had a stuttering problem as a child, overcame it as an adult and has now regressed in his senior years. That's the point everyone's making - that he's mentally declining.



You don't permanently overcome a disability like stuttering. it is a life long problem that needs constant management. like anxiety, it can peek through occasionally, and sometimes your coping strategies might not work when you need it.

information about stuttering: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-causes-stuttering-an/

"There is *no known cure for stuttering*, though many treatment approaches have proven successful for helping speakers *reduce the number of disfluencies* in their speech."

It is a little distressing that you are arguing in bad faith as a moderator. you do not even try to back up your claims, and claim someone does not read their own sources.

even a cursory google search would reveal that stuttering and it's outcomes entirely depends on when therapy was obtained, and that there is no sure fire cure for it.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 17, 2020)

omgcat said:


> You don't permanently overcome a disability like stuttering. it is a life long problem that needs constant management. like anxiety, it can peek through occasionally, and sometimes your coping strategies might not work when you need it.
> 
> information about stuttering: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-causes-stuttering-an/
> 
> ...


I can speak from personal experience, yeah no it doesn't go away. I used to stutter every sentence, or more specifically the start of nearly all of them, that was around, from 5-12, around twelve I had some therapy, it helped a lot. but it didn't outright remove it, it just helped reduce the frequency of it.
However I'd imagine that as you age it comes back like a brick. (more specifically, starts coming back around idk 50? 60? not entirely certain when.)


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 17, 2020)

omgcat said:


> You don't permanently overcome a disability like stuttering. it is a life long problem that needs constant management. like anxiety, it can peek through occasionally, and sometimes your coping strategies might not work when you need it.
> 
> information about stuttering: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-causes-stuttering-an/
> 
> ...


It's really a joy arguing with you guys, it's so rare to meet people who are capable of holding two contradictory ideas in their heads simultaneously. Biden himself has explained in the interview you provided that he's managed to find a way to avoid stuttering by changing his cadence. That doesn't mean he was magically cured, but it does mean that his ability to speak has improved dramatically, which was observable throughout his career.

There are so many "bad faith" arguments on the Democrat side that are at odds with reality one is spoiled for choice when it comes to discussions like this. Trump now has "neurological damage", he's also a mastermind behind an international scheme aimed at changing the results of an election - simultaneously a vegetable and a genius. He's a horrible businessman with a proven track record of failure and bankruptcy, he's also somehow making millions via some undisclosed means - he's bad with money, but he's also good with money. He's not charitable at all, besides that time when he gave the entirety of his presidential paycheck to charitable causes - he doesn't donate any of his money, except for the times when he does. Biden is not in the state of mental decline because he knows how to ride a bicycle, an achievement you'd praise a child for, not a grown man that consistently makes up stories that his audience needs to unravel into multiple separate stories before they make sense - he's fit as a fiddle, except the fiddle is out of tune. Trump is a bad president because he golfs 5 days a week, that also makes him physically unfit somehow - he's a fat sportsman.

It's hard to treat conversations like this seriously, it really is. So now, after all is said and done, I'm not allowed to have an opinion because "I'm a moderator". Alright, have it your way, I've said my peace already. Biden invented a coping strategy for his stuttering problem, a strategy which now fails him at an alarming rate, which wasn't the case in the past. That is, by definition, mental regression. He gained, and lost, an ability. I don't need a "cursory google search" to confirm that, I have eyes and ears. You're more than welcome to have a different opinion, but while we're on the subject of coping mechanisms, I think you should have a long look in the mirror before you point that accusatory finger at me - I see a lot of coping going on, and it's not coming from my camp.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 17, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> It's really a joy arguing with you guys, it's so rare to meet people who are capable of holding two contradictory ideas in their heads simultaneously. Biden himself has explained in the interview you provided that he's managed to find a way to avoid stuttering by changing his cadence. That doesn't mean he magically got cured, but it does mean that his ability to speak has improved dramatically, which was observable throughout his career.
> 
> There are so many "bad faith" arguments on the Democrat side that are at odds with reality one is spoiled for choice when it comes to discussions like this. Trump now has "neurological damage", he's also a mastermind behind an international scheme aimed at changing the results of an election - simultaneously a vegetable and a genius. He's a horrible businessman with a proven track record of failure and bankruptcy, he's also somehow making millions via some undisclosed means - he's bad with money, but he's also good with money. He's not charitable at all, besides that time when he gave the entirety of his presidential paycheck to charitable causes - he doesn't donate any of his money, except for the times when he does. Biden is not in the state of mental decline because he knows how to ride a bicycle, an achievement you'd praise a child for, not a grown man that consistently makes up stories that his audience needs to unravel into multiple separate stories before they make sense - he's fit as a fiddle, except the fiddle is out of tune. Trump is a bad president because he golfs 5 days a week, that also makes him physically unfit somehow - he's a fat sportsman.
> 
> It's hard to treat conversations like this seriously, it really is. So now, after all is said and done, I'm not allowed to have an opinion because "I'm a moderator". Alright, have it your way, I've said my peace already. Biden invented a coping strategy for his stuttering problem, a strategy which now fails him at an alarming rate, which wasn't the case in the past. That is, by definition, mental regression. He gained, and lost, an ability. I don't need a "cursory google search" to confirm that, I have eyes and ears. You're more than welcome to have a different opinion, but while we're on the subject of coping mechanisms, I think you should have a long look in the mirror before you point that accusatory finger at me - I see a lot of coping going on, and it's not coming from my camp.



I am tackling arguments on a person to person basis. I am responding to what you post, posting links for my claims, and am trying to make an effort to not wrap you up with your political party. I had hoped you would do the same. as a libertarian, you should hate partisan politics, as all it does is gum up stuff, yet you clump me in with the democrats, and talk about "my side, and your side". just like that other guy flat out calling me a communist, you are painting me with a general brush. by grouping me with a political party, you are trying to use partisan politics to waive away arguments you don't like. if you were actually a libertarian, you wouldn't identify with "a side". claims made by other groups are not my claims. i use my own eyes and ears to determine my beliefs, and seek out the truth on my own.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 17, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> It's really a joy arguing with you guys, it's so rare to meet people who are capable of holding two contradictory ideas in their heads simultaneously. Biden himself has explained in the interview you provided that he's managed to find a way to avoid stuttering by changing his cadence. That doesn't mean he magically got cured, but it does mean that his ability to speak has improved dramatically, which was observable throughout his career.



And his stuttering comeback. I rather take someone who stutters, than someone who can't make a proper sentence or has really long tirades and goes so far off topic it's hard to follow, along with being a liar.


Foxi4 said:


> There are so many "bad faith" arguments on the Democrat side that are at odds with reality one is spoiled for choice when it comes to discussions like this. Trump now has "neurological damage", he's also a mastermind behind an international scheme aimed at changing the results of an election - simultaneously a vegetable and a genius.


Trump is a pathological liar. He's no mastermind. He realizes he is down, he realizes that people don't like him, and his response is not to try to resolve conflicts with people, it's not to try to outreach to people. No his response is to cover it up, and lie. Why did he lie about covid? To cover stocks and try to protect his reelection. He learned of it, and lied to the public. That blew up in his face hard, so his next step, is to tackle the vote. It's not a big brain 300 iq play. If your a criminal, this would come to mind. you see things you can use to your advantage. it doesn't make you smart for seeing them. it's called working in a angle.

It's like saying a left handed person is much smarter than a right handed person in tennis just because the left handed person shots don't match what the right hand person is used to. it's not the case at all, it's just a difference in perspective.



Foxi4 said:


> He's a horrible businessman with a proven track record of failure and bankrupcy, he's also somehow making millions via some undisclosed means - he's bad with money, but he's also good with money.


That's a really horrible argument.  Again, think it this way, if your lived you life as a cheat, you already know the cheat sheet. it doesn't require much thought to use said cheat sheet. A lot of the shit he opened up was close down because it was illegal. He's bad with money, and he's good at getting money illegally or using the power of his presidency to get more cash.





Foxi4 said:


> He's not charitable at all, besides that time when he gave the entirety of his presidential paycheck to charitable causes - he doesn't donate any of his money, except for the times when he does.


yes and? does it change that he is liar and proved that he's only out to cover his ass?
No?
then it doesn't matter



Foxi4 said:


> Biden is not in the state of mental decline because he knows how to ride a bicycle, an achievement you'd praise a child for, not a grown man that consistently makes up stories that his audience needs to unravel into multiple separate stories before they make sense - he's fit as a fiddle, except the fiddle is out of tune. Trump is a bad president because he golfs 5 days a week, that also makes him physically unfit somehow - he's a fat sportsman.


Trump plays golf, the least physically active sport you can play, the guy is also obese. Obesity is generally unhealthy.
Biden is normal bmi, meaning he doesn't deal with the consequences that comes from obesity.


Foxi4 said:


> It's hard to treat conversations like this seriously, it really is. So now, after all is said and done, I'm not allowed to have an opinion because "I'm a moderator". Alright, have it your way, I've said my peace already. Biden invented a coping strategy for his stuttering problem, a strategy which now fails him at an alarming rate, which wasn't the case in the past. That is, by definition, mental regression. He gained, and lost, an ability. I don't need a "cursory google search" to confirm that, I have eyes and ears. You're more than welcome to have a different opinion, but while we're on the subject of coping mechanisms, I think you should have a long look in the mirror before you point that accusatory finger at me - I see a lot of coping going on, and it's not coming from my camp.


What's worse, a regression with speech?
or a regression in ability to create proper sentences or drink fucking water, or have these strange hospital trips, or for some reason, bringing up a mini stroke when no one said he was, and being a liar.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 17, 2020)

omgcat said:


> I am tackling arguments on a person to person basis. I am responding to what you post, posting links for my claims, and am trying to make an effort to not wrap you up with your political party. I had hoped you would do the same. as a libertarian, you should hate partisan politics, as all it does is gum up stuff, yet you clump me in with the democrats, and talk about "my side, and your side". just like that other guy flat out calling me a communist, you are painting me with a general brush. by grouping me with a political party, you are trying to use partisan politics to waive away arguments you don't like. if you were actually a libertarian, you wouldn't identify with "a side".


The only reason why that's the case is because so far you've been parroting typical talking point, and I've heard them all before. My alarm bells are ringing when I hear the same tired arguments, they always seem like a checklist one has to go through. If that's a misattribution then I do apologise. To be perfectly honest I don't like Republicans, at least modern Republicans, and I don't consider Trump to be one. Until five minutes ago, in historical terms, he's been a New York Democrat in the construction industry - I believe he's only switched sides in 2012. To be fair though, he's changed his party affiliation multiple times over the years, so calling him anything is fair game, but that's besides the point.

As a non-American I have no particular attachment to either side of the aisle, I support the side that best forwards my interests, and right now that's Trump. Tomorrow it might be somebody else - who knows? It's most certainly not the Libertarian party, those guys are the definition of "they did not send their best". Very funny though, I like the viral clips, like the naked guy flopping around on stage, or the in-earnest argument in regards to selling hard drugs to minors, or the Nazi Cakes. It's a shame that the party that has the most to offer has the absolute worst representatives.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 17, 2020)

Should I mention the amount of time he also spends golfing than doing his actual job? or the fact he admitted to watching fox news for about 7 hours? Not straight, 4 of them were roughly as he was going to bed, and the other three when he woke up. 
No person on the planet watches the news THAT much. especially if your the goddamn president


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 17, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> And his stuttering comeback. I rather take someone who stutters, than someone who can't make a proper sentence or has really long tirades and goes so far off topic it's hard to follow, along with being a liar.
> 
> Trump is a pathological liar. He's no mastermind. He realizes he is down, he realizes that people don't like him, and his response is not to try to resolve conflicts with people, it's not to try to outreach to people. No his response is to cover it up, and lie. Why did he lie about covid? To cover stocks and try to protect his reelection. He learned of it, and lied to the public. That blew up in his face hard, so his next step, is to tackle the vote. It's not a big brain 300 iq play. If your a criminal, this would come to mind. you see things you can use to your advantage. it doesn't make you smart for seeing them. it's called working in a angle.
> 
> ...


That whole water thing really riles people up, it's just too funny. I should start drinking like that too, just for giggles.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 17, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> That whole water thing really riles people up, it's just too funny. I should start drinking like that too, just for giggles.


and? does it change what I said?
I mean if we just remove that, what are we left with?
A liar who only cares for himself, a man that can't construct proper sentences. Or the reflections he is saying. Such as him telling everyone he doesn't have mini strokes, when nobody asked.
A person who is spending waaay too much time golfing, and tweeting for someone who is supposed to be a leader.
A man who watches fox news for multiple hours in a day.
that person is unfit to be leader.


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 17, 2020)

considering how unpopular he is (which i believe is the truth) he might result to "other means" to keep power shit the US might become the new china


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 17, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> and? does it change what I said?
> I mean if we just remove that, what are we left with?
> A liar who only cares for himself, a man that can't construct proper sentences. Or the reflections he is saying. Such as him telling everyone he doesn't have mini strokes, when nobody asked.
> A person who is spending waaay too much time golfing, and tweeting for someone who is supposed to be a leader.
> ...


I'm not really sure how to respond to that. The fact that you believe he did in fact watch Fox News on loop for a ludicrous amount of time and *wasn't* just saying that as part of his marketing strategy should give you some indication of whether your take is reasonable or not. Trump says a lot of things, he's a showman running a show. What matters is what he's doing while you guys are distracted by the funny way he holds a glass of water. Has it ever crossed your mind that the man does and says outrageous things to divert your attention from what he's really doing?

That’s a rhetorical question. I'm asking it because that's what's happening. Wink wink.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 17, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm not really sure how to respond to that. The fact that you believe he did in fact watch Fox News on loop for a ludicrous amount of time and *wasn't* just saying that as part of his marketing strategy should give you some indication of whether your take is reasonable or not. Trump says a lot of things, he's a showman running a show. What matters is what he's doing while you guys are distracted by the funny way he holds a glass of water. Has it ever crossed your mind that the nan does and says outrageous things to divert your attention from what he's really doing?
> 
> That’s a rhetorical question. I'm asking it because that's what's happening. Wink wink.


again does it change what I said?
it doesn't divert me from the bullshit he's done it's only additive to why he needs to get removed.
and I'm not switching conversations, as you kinda just tried to do that.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 17, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> considering how unpopular he is (which i believe is the truth) he might result to "other means" to keep power shit the US might become the new china


Talk about conspiracy theories. 


monkeyman4412 said:


> again does it change what I said?
> it doesn't divert me from the bullshit he's done it's only additive to why he needs to get removed.
> and I'm not switching conversations, as you kinda just tried to do that.


It doesn't change what you've said, no - it does change the paradigm. If you expect honesty in the world of politics, I don't think you've been paying a whole lot of attention to it until recently. My view isn't popular, and I can understand why, but if I'm sending an agent into the world of conmen and shysters, I want him to be the best crook I can find that forwards my agenda.

In regards to "lying about COVID", I don't remember that happening. I remember him saying that he didn't want to cause a panic, both privately *and* publicly, so I don't quite understand why it came as a surprise when Woodward published his book. Based on the conflicting information he had at his disposal at the time it was the responsible thing to do - stop all travel from the primary affected area _(he got called a racist for that, by the way)_ and keep things slow and steady until the situation is clearer. I *do* remember the WHO saying that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission, I remember the liberal media drumming the _"it's just a flu, bro"_ drum and I remember Nancy Pelosi cruising through San Francisco's Chinatown to show everybody that it's totally safe and nothing's going on. How come all that gets memory holed and Trump, of all people, gets the blame when for all intents and purposes he was the only politician treating this virus seriously _before_ it got bad? A lot of COVID response burden was not up to the fed, it was up to the individual state governments, and we saw exactly how that turned out in New York. Are you going to demand that the governor resigns? Just curious, since we're playing the blame game now, it seems.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 17, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Talk about conspiracy theories.
> It doesn't change what you've said, no - it does change the paradigm. If you expect honesty in the world of politics,I don't think you've been paying a whole lot of attention to it until recently. My view isn't popular, and I can understand why, but if I'm sending an agent into the world of conmen and shysters, I want him to be the best crook I can find that forwards my agenda.


that's incredibly disingenuous. Reason: we are talking the president of the united states, he should be honest to the people at least regarding a pandemic and actually act and do something. which he didn't.



Foxi4 said:


> In regards to "lying about COVID", I don't remember that happening. I remember him saying that he didn't want to cause a panic, both privately *and* publically, so I don't quite understand why it came as a surprise when Woodward published his book


I don't have to discuss the rest because what facts I have to mention cuts it apart, and or is more nonsense from your part.
There was a voice call with Woodward back in February 7th. Which he stated it was "it's more deadly than your strenuous flu's"
He already knew the danger, he also knew it was airborne "it goes, it goes through the air Bob"
Privately he knew and lied, and didn't bother telling anyone. Why? Because he was looking for his behind.
The rest of the people didn't know, they only had the information they could find, and looked to the president, who also lied to them. He had the knowledge, and rather than act on it for the people's sake, he decided not to.
Also the man is often fear mongering, so him claiming he didn't want to cause a panic is absolute bs.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 17, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> that's incredibly disingenuous. Reason: we are talking the president of the united states, he should be honest to the people at least regarding a pandemic and actually act and do something. which he didn't.
> 
> I don't have to discuss the rest because what facts I have to mention cuts it apart.
> There was a voice call with Woodward back in February 7th. Which he stated it was "it's more deadly than your strenuous flu's"
> ...


It's not a clean cut case like you claim it is. People were already brawling over rolls of toilet paper without Trump telling them that the Black Plague is on their doorstep, I don't see how your imagined scenario would've improved the situation. Not only that, the original doomsday scenarios turned out to be gross miscalculations anyway - a quick reminder that the leaked UK estimates claimed that 80% of the population will be infected and 20% will die. I'm not sure how things are looking on your doorstep, but I don't see the dead littering the streets on mine, and the UK didn't exactly have an exemplary response to COVID either. In fact, I'm under lockdown as we speak. As for who knew and who didn't, you have no facts to back up your claim - that's just what you think. Trump didn't find out from his crystal ball, he was obviously informed about COVID's severity by third-parties, so I have zero doubt that the government as a whole knew and took calculated steps in response. Your problem is that Trump didn't tell *you*, and he adequately explained why he didn't prematurely cause a nationwide panic.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 17, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> It's not a clean cut case like you claim it is. People were already brawling over rolls of toilet paper without Trump telling them that the Black Plague is on their doorstep, I don't see how your imagined scenario would've improved the situation. Not only that, the original doomsday scenarios turned out to be gross miscalculations anyway - a quick reminder that the leaked UK estimates claimed that 80% of the population will be infected and 20% will die. I'm not sure how things are looking on your doorstep, but I don't see the dead littering the streets on mine, and the UK didn't exactly have an exemplary response to COVID either. In fact, I'm under lockdown as we speak. As for who knew and who didn't, you have no facts to back up your claim - that's just what you think. Trump didn't find out from his crystal ball, he was obviously informed about COVID's severity by third-parties, so I have zero doubt that the government as a whole knew and took calculated steps in response. Your problem is that Trump didn't tell *you*, and he adequately explained why he didn't prematurely cause a nationwide panic.



He withheld information from states, that information would dictate pandemic plans. hundreds if not thousands of lives could have been saved if the administration had not withheld information, and the pandemic playbook made after 2015 came into play. instead it was thrown out because of partisan politics. The states were told to "acquire their own medical supplies" even though the federal medical stockpile was made for this scenario. we have literal tapes of the president acknowledging that the virus was deadly and easily spreadable, and stating that he "loves to downplay it".

shooting dead 200,000 people on 5th avenue.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 17, 2020)

omgcat said:


> He withheld information from states, that information would dictate pandemic plans. hundreds if not thousands of lives could have been saved if the administration had not withheld information, and the pandemic playbook made after 2015 came into play. instead it was thrown out because of partisan politics. The states were told to "acquire their own medical supplies" even though the federal medical stockpile was made for this scenario. we have literal tapes of the president acknowledging that the virus was deadly and easily spreadable, and stating that he "loves to downplay it".
> 
> shooting dead 200,000 people on 5th avenue.


Once again, you have no evidence that this is the case. All you're working with is Trump saying that he likes downplaying the virus in public so as to not cause a panic, which is perfectly reasonable.

In regards to funding, even the WHO did not declare COVID-19 to be a pandemic until mid-March, I don't see why Trump would've thought any differently in February. He knew that it was airborne, and worse than the flu - I knew that too, but watching Chinese Twitter is not exactly verified intelligence one can base policy on. Once again, an emotional response based on an out-of-context quote.

In regards to the U.S. Strategic National Stockpile, you're telling half-truths. This might come as a bit of a surprise, but it was *never* intended for immediate use in a pandemic. The states were *always* responsible for their pandemic preparation, the stockpile was there in order to provide emergency relief in the event that *local supply runs out*. This has only changed in April under Trump and the stockpile now functions as a stopgap buffer.

It's also worth mentioning that by the time COVID came along the stockpile was gutted, the Obama administration did not make any significant effort to restock it after the 2009 flu epidemic, in case you were wondering why supplies are low. The last president who actually made any pandemic preparations at the stockpile was Bush, in the wake of 9/11, in order to prepare for possible anthrax attacks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_National_Stockpile

It's also a gross exaggeration to say that "Trump killed 200k people", you're implying that if the response was different nobody would've died, which is ludicrous. I very much doubt that the number would be different by a statistically significant margin - the virus hit the most vulnerable populations the hardest, like all viruses do. The situation in care homes was inexcusable to start with, that was a death warrant signed by governors, not by Trump. Deaths in nursing homes alone account for 1/3rd of all COVID deaths - did Trump do that? I don't think so.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/05/09/us/coronavirus-cases-nursing-homes-us.html

The pandemic is a complicated issue that does not boil down to "orange man bad", everybody across the board dropped the ball on this one, in America *and* abroad.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 17, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Once again, you have no evidence that this is the case. All you're working with is Trump saying that he likes downplaying the virus in public so as to not cause a panic, which is perfectly reasonable.



No we are working with voice recordings. None of them are out of context.


Foxi4 said:


> In regards to funding, even the WHO did not declare COVID-19 to be a pandemic until mid-March, I don't see why Trump would've thought any differently in February. He knew that it was airborne, and worse than the flu - I knew that too, but watching Chinese Twitter is not exactly verified intelligence one can base policy on. Once again, an emotional response based on an out-of-context quote.


And did it ever cross your mind once at all that WHO didn't know what Trump knew? Trump could of had a source from any of the thousands of people who collect information for a living.




Foxi4 said:


> In regards to the U.S. Strategic National Stockpile, you're telling half-truths. This might come as a bit of a surprise, but it was *never* intended for immediate use in a pandemic. The states were *always* responsible for their pandemic preparation, the stockpile was there in order to provide emergency relief in the event that *local supply runs out*. This has only changed in April under Trump and the stockpile now functions as a stopgap buffer.
> 
> It's also worth mentioning that by the time COVID came along the stockpile was gutted, the Obama administration did not make any significant effort to restock it after the 2009 flu epidemic, in case you were wondering why supplies are low. The last president who actually made any pandemic preparations at the stockpile was Bush, in the wake of 9/11, in order to prepare for possible anthrax attacks.


Are you seriously blaming this on Obama?
*haha....HAHAAHAAHAAAAHAAAA*
_hysterical laughter_
if Obama did, trump had 3-4 years to fix it as a leader. Are you seriously telling me it's one man's fault who hasn't been in office for almost 4 years now, to fix a problem like that. ARE YOU SERIOUSLY telling me that. That's a joke of a response. I personally don't care for Obama, but holy crap that is one hell of a joke you got there.
"oh mr constructor it wasn't my fault the plans failed, it failed because tommy made them"
"but tommy quit his job four years ago and you were tasked with making a better plan"
"it's Tommy made bad plans, he impacted us"
"and you had.... four years to redo them"
Now on to the rest of this nonsense you spewed out. Hopefully I don't loose my sanity while talking to you again. Manic laughter is not fun.
"The states were *always* responsible for their pandemic preparation"
Hey, hey, y-you want to learn a secret? Come closer, now now, a little closer.
_clears voice_
A president is a leader right?
So, if your the president, are you seriously telling me that it's the states fault for the fact the president is knowingly lying, and also withholding critical information that can save lives. You know
*NOT doing the job of a leader*
he could of spent time getting everyone together to create a solid response. Instead he squatted on the ground and shat until the stock market started plummeting while speaking out of his asshole with pr


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 17, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> No we are working with voice recordings. None of them are out of context.
> 
> And did it ever cross your mind once at all that WHO didn't know what Trump knew? Trump could of had a source from any of the thousands of people who collect information for a living.
> 
> ...


I don't know how many times I have to say that the recordings do not state what you claim they state. There is absolutely nothing on them that suggests Trump or his administration misled any state government. All he says is he "likes to play it down" because he "doesn't want to create a panic", which is precisely the same thing he says publicly, and obviously refers to his own public appearances, not the government response. If you're such an expert on the matter of Woodward's recordings, perhaps you should listen to them. I won't even discuss this point any further with you since you've began repeating yourself. You can interpret what he said however you want, that doesn't bother me - anyone can listen to the two recordings that were released, they're public. I don't feel particularly compelled to argue about something anyone can verify themselves at any time.

In regards to Obama, I don't have to blame him for anything, it is verifiable fact that he hasn't restocked the stockpile in any meaningful way throughout the 8 years of his presidency, which is why much of the equipment was faulty once it was re-opened. Happy to take from it, not so happy to restock it. It's also fact that none of the equipment would've been available to the states if Trump's administration hadn't changed the regulations in April and hadn't put DHHS in control of it, as opposed to the CDC, which they did in 2018. The states had an obligation to maintain their own pandemic response stockpiles, a responsibility they have neglected in order to save money. The stockpile was not designed to sprinkle magical equipment on states that don't care about their citizens because it isn't ran by Oprah - it's only giving away equipment now because Trump's administration made it so. It used to be an emergency backup *only*, it was never meant to be open at all *unless* local supply has ran out. Now it operates as a supplement to local supply, and you have Trump to thank for that.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 17, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't know how many times I have to say that the recordings do not state what you claim they state. There is absolutely nothing on them that suggests Trump or his administration misled any state government. All he says is he "likes to play it down" because he "doesn't want to create a panic", which is precisely the same thing he says publicly, and obviously refers to his own public appearances, not the government response.


Then please explain to me why the response was handled so poorly? If other governors knew how bad it was, then why was it done so poorly? surely many of them would of acted within that month a week later. not a whole month.
That's a pretty fatal flaw in your line of logic. If the governors knew the issue on the seventh. I would imagine a plan would of been enacted sooner, not later.
And if there is no communication there, that we can assume what the governors knew was the same as the public, therefore, yes he did lie.
It's what's between the lines and order of events that tell me yes he did lie.
He knew that information in February 7th. his response team nonsense started in late February 27th, that's nearly two weeks later.. Again, it's pretty heavily implied the governors didn't get the information Trump got. Since the rest of them started acting around Late mid to late march with school shutdowns.
And since you brought up Obama again, does, it matter?
Trump could of, and at anytime with his presidency, do something about that stockpile, he could of created a mandate, or an executive order, or perhaps talk to people about it and create a solution rather than waiting for last possible moment or being unprepared to have it blow up. That's why it's dumb to blame Obama on this. Trump had 4 years to do something. Are you seriously telling me that he couldn't have done nothing within those four years to create some plan to restock?
Because that is essentially what your telling me.
Obama didn't leave the best situation regarding that,
but a good leader knows how to do patch work, rather than having something blow up in their face and blaming the previous person in charge, especially when that position is one of the highest in command.
Further more in 2018 he disbanded the pandemic team. Also Obama did leave a pandemic response plan, a guide book. Which guess what? was ignored.

.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 17, 2020)

I mean, the fact Trump still isn't trying to fix things and in fact, encouraging things to get worse with his rallies.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 17, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't know how many times I have to say that the recordings do not state what you claim they state. There is absolutely nothing on them that suggests Trump or his administration misled any state government. All he says is he "likes to play it down" because he "doesn't want to create a panic", which is precisely the same thing he says publicly, and obviously refers to his own public appearances, not the government response. If you're such an expert on the matter of Woodward's recordings, perhaps you should listen to them. I won't even discuss this point any further with you since you've began repeating yourself. You can interpret what he said however you want, that doesn't bother me - anyone can listen to the two recordings that were released, they're public. I don't feel particularly compelled to argue about something anyone can verify themselves at any time.
> 
> In regards to Obama, I don't have to blame him for anything, it is verifiable fact that he hasn't restocked the stockpile in any meaningful way throughout the 8 years of his presidency, which is why much of the equipment was faulty once it was re-opened. Happy to take from it, not so happy to restock it. It's also fact that none of the equipment would've been available to the states if Trump's administration hadn't changed the regulations in April and hadn't put DHHS in control of it, as opposed to the CDC, which they did in 2018. The states had an obligation to maintain their own pandemic response stockpiles, a responsibility they have neglected in order to save money. The stockpile was not designed to sprinkle magical equipment on states that don't care about their citizens because it isn't ran by Oprah - it's only giving away equipment now because Trump's administration made it so. It used to be an emergency backup *only*, it was never meant to be open at all *unless* local supply has ran out. Now it operates as a supplement to local supply, and you have Trump to thank for that.


The recordings demonstrate that when Trump told us COVID-19 wasn't a big deal, was like the flu, couldn't affect younger people, etc., he was lying. When he told people to go about their business as usual, he knew that would put people in danger.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 17, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The recordings demonstrate that when Trump told us COVID-19 wasn't a big deal, was like the flu, couldn't affect younger people, etc., he was lying. When he told people to go about their business as usual, he knew that would put people in danger.


That's not what he was arguing. If it was, I'd be inclined to agree - he was putting people "in danger" that is roughly equivalent to 5x the flu, based on the tape. I don't even remember how many months into "14 days to flatten the curve" we are at here, but I think I'm all "lockdowned-out", if that makes sense. Since I'm not part of any high risk group and I'm not shielding for anyone, there's nothing I would like more than to get right back to business as usual, but I understand the position of those who aren't as fortunate. The reality of it all is that we can't be "locked down" forever, this state of "increased caution" has to end at some point, and I don't think that point is "when we have a vaccine". Mask-wearing and good personal hygiene are good enough for me for the time being.


----------



## PityOnU (Sep 17, 2020)

Eh.

I mean, honestly, this country is in dire need of some progressive new policies. QoL for the majority of people could be improved significantly just by addressing some very obvious issues (healthcare and education, primarily), so that's where I would lean. But it always seems like the people who would be helped most by the policies (working class) are also the ones who are most strongly against them. So it gets kind of tiring sticking your neck out all the time for people who do not want to be helped.

So, if I were to instead just vote in my own self interest, I would vote Trump. Here is why:

COVID has been handled terribly, and it's predicted the housing market is going to crash once the moratorium on evictions is lifted. But that's actually great for me because my job can be done entirely remotely and I'm actually looking to buy a house. So fuck you all.

No guaranteed healthcare means that a lot of people end up getting slapped with huge hospital bills. But I'm young, healthy, and have great insurance through my job. No new taxes or changes sounds great to me. So fuck you all.

Despite unemployment being super high, the stock market is actually doing really well. I'm heavily invested - more of that please. So fuck you all.

There is currently a ton of civil unrest in the United States, with the two sides are stereotypically composed of economically disadvantaged groups (African Americans and working class conservatives). But that doesn't effect me at all because I live in a wealthy area and am very far removed from it all. Might actually help me some as everyone is distracted from any issues that would cost me money or effort. So fuck you all.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 17, 2020)

PityOnU said:


> Eh.
> 
> I mean, honestly, this country is in dire need of some progressive new policies. QoL for the majority of people could be improved significantly just by addressing some very obvious issues (healthcare and education, primarily), so that's where I would lean. But it always seems like the people who would be helped most by the policies (working class) are also the ones who are most strongly against them. So it gets kind of tiring sticking your neck out all the time for people who do not want to be helped.
> 
> ...


I mean, self-interest is as good a motivation as any, can't fault that line of thinking regardless of whether it's said in all seriousness or in jest. You have to look after number one, nobody else will. I personally think that all of those things can in fact *improve* under Trump, for everyone, not just for those who are well-off, but that's a different discussion.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 17, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> That's not what he was arguing. If it was, I'd be inclined to agree - he was putting people "in danger" that is roughly equivalent to 5x the flu, based on the tape. I don't even remember how many months into "14 days to flatten the curve" we are at here, but I think I'm all "lockdowned-out", if that makes sense. Since I'm not part of any high risk group and I'm not shielding for anyone, there's nothing I would like more than to get right back to business as usual, but I understand the position of those who aren't as fortunate. The reality of it all is that we can't be "locked down" forever, this state of "increased caution" has to end at some point, and I don't think that point is "when we have a vaccine". Mask-wearing and good personal hygiene are good enough for me for the time being.


Trump argued, and continues to argue, that COVID-19 is no big deal, and he knowingly lied about it. He literally said "it's like the flu" in public and said "it's not like the flu" on tape. He literally said "young people can get it" on tape and "young people can't get it" in public. He called it "dangerous" and "deadly" on tape, and he called it "not dangerous" and "not deadly" in public. Respectfully, you're making a fool of yourself. You can argue why he lied, but you can't argue he didn't lie. He admitted it.

Worse, Trump and his administration are now arguing (and promoting with official US policy) that we should just let as many people get infected as possible in order to gain a herd immunity, which would result in millions of deaths.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 18, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> I mean, the fact Trump still isn't trying to fix things and in fact, encouraging things to get worse with his rallies.



If there's nothing wrong with *tens of thousands of people gathering together* to protest and riot there's nothing wrong with *tens of thousands of people gathering* for any other reason. *We're not in the end stages of capitalism*, we're in a period of time where people who hate our country want to *overthrow our current Government* and are trying to blackmail society by stating they are going to riot, loot, burn buildings, attack innocent people and basically break any law they please until they get their way. Attorney General Barr is right to recommend some of the more severe rioters be *arrested for sedition* because they are admittingly wanting to overthrow the Government, rip up the US Constitution and replace it with a very old always proven to fail way of Government that was created by old rich white men.

So again, if it's okay for X group to gather in the tens of thousands for Y reason it's okay for X2 to gather in the tens of thousands for Y2 reasons. However, it's not about peoples safety when it comes to pushing socialism on everyone else, regardless if they want it or not. At that point it's *all about you*, which is sort funny because if socialism does come to pass then* you won't matter anymore*.

Now onto this nonsense that Trump isn't doing anything about the Chinese COVID-19 virus. *What exactly where Nancy and the rest of the House Democrats doing late last year and earlier this year when COVID was starting to spread?* She and the rest of them could care less and were simply *trying to impeach Trump* over trumped up charges while completely ignoring the virus. We've got Nancy on tape stating to go out and don't fear it earlier this year. The Democrats didn't lift a finger and could have cared less about the Chinese COVID 19 virus back when Trump was closing borders, stopping International traffic and putting together teams of people to create policies to deal with the virus. The Democrats called each and every move Trump made "racist" while they sat on their hands and did nothing.

I think the majority of everyone seems to give China a pass on the virus when it's now been proven to have existed in the United States of America before 2020 as *China tried to cover it up *and *lied to the entire world about it*. The head of the snake is China and any local governments mistakes, which there's tons of blame to go around, are just symptoms of the problem ... the problem China created.* It's China's fault*, not your neighbor that simply doesn't want to wear something that might make the problem worse.
*
Trump is not perfect* and anyone that thinks he is perfect is a *complete fool*. He doesn't run the entire Government by himself. Even if he is the defacto to blame person on the top, most of what's gone wrong with the entire situation isn't actually his fault. We had the WHO and CDC lie to the majority of the population when this started and claimed that face masks didn't work so they could horde them and then *come out with contradictory information on a weekly basis*. Do this, don't do that, wait now do that and this, oops, don't do that, hold up, why are you doing this? The CDC and WHO have become a laughing stock of bad advice after bad advice. "Things change fast and we learn more", which is exactly why rushing to judgement is a bad idea to begin with. The contradictory guidelines, advise and policies are a clear example of their ignorance. I don't blame anyone that doesn't want to listen to them any longer.

To end I want to say that I'm not really worried about a virus with a 99.8% survival rate and I think Trump's entire approach could have been a bit more diplomatic, but then I remind myself *I didn't vote for a politician* nor do we need any more career politicians running things. If you missed it I've already posted in this thread claiming* I'm voting for Trump come November *and my mind hasn't changed a single bit.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 18, 2020)

can't wait to see trump in the debates. he will have to debate without a crowd in front of him. he's gonna go nuts.

also things are going to be interesting now that the Pennsylvania supreme court ruled that mail in ballots deadline got extended to 3 days after election day, and that the green party candidate did not follow procedures and cannot be on the ballot.

https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2020/09/17/mail-in-ballots-deadline-extended-pennsylvania/


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 18, 2020)

I hate everyone that's running. I hate them all! They are all horrible options!


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 18, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> If there's nothing wrong with *tens of thousands of people gathering together* to protest and riot there's nothing wrong with *tens of thousands of people gathering* for any other reason. *We're not in the end stages of capitalism*, we're in a period of time where people who hate our country want to *overthrow our current Government* and are trying to blackmail society by stating they are going to riot, loot, burn buildings, attack innocent people and basically break any law they please until they get their way. Attorney General Barr is right to recommend some of the more severe rioters be *arrested for sedition* because they are admittingly wanting to overthrow the Government, rip up the US Constitution and replace it with a very old always proven to fail way of Government that was created by old rich white men.
> 
> So again, if it's okay for X group to gather in the tens of thousands for Y reason it's okay for X2 to gather in the tens of thousands for Y2 reasons. However, it's not about peoples safety when it comes to pushing socialism on everyone else, regardless if they want it or not. At that point it's *all about you*, which is sort funny because if socialism does come to pass then* you won't matter anymore*.




Nothing about this addresses nor excuses Trump and his administration from completely botching this pandemic and still continuing not to follow any safety precautions even for his own rallies. No amount whataboutism or misusing and spamming socialism and communism is going change that. 

No one said anything about socialism. None of the candidates right now, are even socialist. In fact, this isn't even about capitalism. Safety precautions against the virus, isn't anymore socialism than having to use a seat belt. That is, not at all.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 18, 2020)

dwain12435 said:


> I hate everyone that's running. I hate them all! They are all horrible options!



Cool, you don't have to vote if you don't want to.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 18, 2020)

omgcat said:


> Cool, you don't have to vote if you don't want to.


The same goes to anyone who doesn't like Trump or Biden.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 18, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Trump argued, and continues to argue, that COVID-19 is no big deal, and he knowingly lied about it. He literally said "it's like the flu" in public and said "it's not like the flu" on tape. He literally said "young people can get it" on tape and "young people can't get it" in public. He called it "dangerous" and "deadly" on tape, and he called it "not dangerous" and "not deadly" in public. Respectfully, you're making a fool of yourself. You can argue why he lied, but you can't argue he didn't lie. He admitted it.
> 
> Worse, Trump and his administration are now arguing (and promoting with official US policy) that we should just let as many people get infected as possible in order to gain a herd immunity, which would result in millions of deaths.


I don't know what's up with you guys and reading. That is not what he (@monkeyman4412) argued. Monkey argued that Trump mislead state governments by giving them false information, there is no indication of that, and no evidence, that any state or federal official were given incorrect data on the virus deliberately. It's not on the tape. You can rewind it as many times you want, you won't find it there because that is not what was said. Perhaps you should slow down and actually read the post before typing out an angry paragraph that has absolutely nothing to do with what's being talked about.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 18, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't know what's up with you guys and reading. That is not what he (@monkeyman4412) argued. Monkey argued that Trump mislead state governments by giving them false information, there is no indication of that, and no evidence, that any state or federal official were given incorrect data on the virus deliberately. It's not on the tape. You can rewind it as many times you want, you won't find it there because that is not what was said. Perhaps you should slow down and actually read the post before typing out an angry paragraph that has absolutely nothing to do with what's being talked about.


I'm not talking about anything monkeyman said (I didn't even read it). I'm telling you what Trump said.

As for false information, Trump gave *everyone* false information. The Trump CDC continues now to give out false information.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 18, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I'm not talking about anything monkeyman said (I didn't even read it). I'm telling you what Trump said.
> 
> As for false information, Trump gave *everyone* false information. The Trump CDC continues now to give out false information.


Perhaps you should read conversations you inject yourself into. As for CDC reporting "fake" data, you have no evidence of that, you're basing it entirely on the administration taking a more active role in the reporting. All pandemic estimates go through revisions, this is not unusual.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 18, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't know what's up with you guys and reading. That is not what he (@monkeyman4412) argued. Monkey argued that Trump mislead state governments by giving them false information, there is no indication of that, and no evidence, that any state or federal official were given incorrect data on the virus deliberately. It's not on the tape. You can rewind it as many times you want, you won't find it there because that is not what was said. Perhaps you should slow down and actually read the post before typing out an angry paragraph that has absolutely nothing to do with what's being talked about.


Let's do a mini recap since clearly, you spewed talking points and derailed, subtly goal post moving.

you: dems have conflicting views trump is somehow dumb and smart at the same time
me: he's a pathological liar and criminal
you: charity
me: it doesn't matter
You: biden is worse than trump mentally
me: trump is unhealthy, golf is not a sport, and is obese.
you: water thing is funny

me: does it change what I said? he's still a liar, he still spends too much time tweeting and too much fox news
you: your dumb because you believe the too much fox news story, trump playing 3d chess
me: does it change what I said?
you: yes but actually no, pardiam your a fool for believing or wanting honesty in government.
Also you: "I don't remember him lying about COVID I remember him saying he didn't want to cause a panic."
me: Yes we do the tapes and leaders regarding possible pandemic's shouldn't lie


You: it's not a clean cut case
omgcat: He witheld information
you: he was just downplaying the virus and your making a out of context quote
also you: chinese twitter is not verifiable, and regarding funding, WHO did not declare COVID-19 to be a pandemic,
I don't see why Trump would thought differently. Also Obama didn't restock supply
(then a lot of additional nonsense)
I return:
No we do have evidence, again the tapes (essentially agreeing with @omgcat)
I respond to your WHO comment saying Trump may of witheld that information, as WHO may of not known.

I then respond to what is essentially you trying to move blame from trump to obama. And point out that it's stupid that
he couldn't somehow restock in four years
you:"I don't know how many times I have to state that they weren't mislead/lied too by trump"
Me:We can reasonably assume that yes he did since states didn't act for a whole month and a half. from these tapes date"
And even then, he's supposed to be a leader, so he should of gotten a unified response end of story


----------



## Lacius (Sep 18, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Perhaps you should read conversations you inject yourself into. As for CDC reporting "fake" data, you have no evidence of that, you're basing it entirely on the administration taking a more active role in the reporting. All pandemic estimates go through revisions, this is not unusual.


You made false statements about Trump and the tapes. I corrected it. If you have an issue, address it specifically. I intentionally bypassed the conversion you were having to correct specific misinformation.

We know for a fact that Michael Caputo tried to "change, delay, suppress, and retroactively edit scientific reports on COVID-19 by the Centers for Disease Control that were deemed to contradict or undermine what Trump was saying publicly."
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...nterfered-with-cdc-reports-on-covid-19-412809


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 18, 2020)

This woman pretty much says it all. These people just want you dead. pic.twitter.com/ZjTZ0gLJzc— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) September 18, 2020


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 18, 2020)

Lacius said:


> You made false statements about Trump and the tapes. I corrected it. If you have an issue, address it specifically. I intentionally bypassed the conversion you were having to correct specific misinformation.
> 
> We know for a fact that Michael Caputo tried to "change, delay, suppress, and retroactively edit scientific reports on COVID-19 by the Centers for Disease Control that were deemed to contradict or undermine what Trump was saying publicly."
> https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...nterfered-with-cdc-reports-on-covid-19-412809


Nothing I said about the tapes is false, anyone with two ears can listen to said tapes and verify that - in fact, just one will do, so I consider that subject over. All disease estimates are revised over time, you don't know if the new counts are more or less accurate, and have no evidence to support your conspiracy theory.


----------



## rensenware (Sep 18, 2020)

BeniBel said:


> Let's hope Trump will win. Often, it doesn't really matter who wins, as little really changes. But for the first time, I truly fear what will will happen to society should Biden win.
> 
> From the moment Trump won in 2016, the democrats have been going more extreme by the day. Society already has come to the point, where making a positive comment about Trump labels you as a racist, and can get you into trouble or fired. That's no longer a democracy. It suprised me how far it even goes. News stationststations twist  newsor makes it up, college professors who manipulate the youth...
> 
> ...


y'all make biden's platform sound way cooler than it is


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 18, 2020)

jupitteer said:


> y'all make biden's platform sound way cooler than it is


"I'm not Trump and I forgot my message - Dementia-Harris 2020"


----------



## Iamapirate (Sep 18, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> I know what happened. That was her vs other democrats. What I doubt, is suddenly everyone would have changed their mind about Trump, if was only her vs Trump.


Foxi hit on my objection to it. If Harris were the nominee I'm sure many of the Biden supporters would vote for her. What I find objectionable is putting someone more palatable and viable on the ballot only to have him be replaced by a candidate with very little support. That isn't very democratic.


----------



## notimp (Sep 18, 2020)

Your proclamation is still insane - because you insist, that the intention is a bunch of people staring at Biden, until he dies.

I'm also done with a moderator spuring on insane theories here. Can we get Foxi4 replaced in this forum please - or is this part of the russian trolling initiative thats mandatory for this forum?

US politics never centered around 'a guy' or 'a girl', its always about their immediate policy team, their experts and their sponsors.

Dont believe moderator lies, that this is all hidden plot to have Biden die, and then backdoor in another candidate.

Its not. Its an election. Not a cluedo mystery.

And once more - retract Foxis moderation rights in this forum. He has displayed enough instances of horrible judgement this being one of them.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 18, 2020)

notimp said:


> I'm also done with a moderator spuring on insane theories here. Can we get Foxi4 replaced in this forum please - or is this part of the russian trolling initiative thats mandatory for this forum?


You hurt my feelings. #BotLivesMatter


----------



## notimp (Sep 18, 2020)

Pure insanity. Hashtag is another pepeism? I've reported you to the Admin. Your behavior has to stop.

You cant be both acting like an instigating three year old, and hold moderator priviledges to shut down conversation at a place you like.

While regaling in group emotions of having shown the 'nonhumans' on the other side.

You are unfit to be a moderator.

edit: At least in the politics section. Anybody that doesnt agree with your brand of insanity/political view, is at risk of being moderated out of the conversation. This stifles actual arguments here. Your moderator badge hurts actual fact based debate at this point. You are promoting a tone of conversation, that is dismissive of arguments, if they come from the wrong side.

This has a chilling effect.

Which means, if I'm not saying this - risking actually being banned from this forum for pointing out what you do - because I have a strong dislike of authority being abused (the way you are wielding it), other people are far less likely to do so. And you have driven conversation to a level that has nothing to do with actual political debate anymore.

If you want to do that - make your own sock puppet account (if you are allowed to) - and forfit moderator privileges. That badge has an effect on conversation.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 18, 2020)

Seems to me like you have plenty of freedom to express your (negative) opinion of me. Don't worry, there's a full record of all moderation actions taken against you, including the deletion of off-topic spam and double-posting. Every member has a right to ask another moderator or supervisor for a second opinion, and you're welcome to use that right - I'm certainly not going to stop you. Now, I'd suggest that you return to the topic at hand since last I checked, I wasn't running for the office of U.S. President - sadly I'm not eligible, although I'd probably make a good one. For more information please follow the link below:

https://gbatemp.net/help/terms

The section on General Forum Decency is of particular interest to you, it outlines how you should complain and which rule you're breaking at this very moment. I'll wink and nod though, since I am feeling mighty generous today.


----------



## notimp (Sep 18, 2020)

Seems like you are not banning me, yes.

I don't even want you to react to my statements, just think about them.

You just liked a posting of someone saying that they dont like, that a presidential candidate is obviously just supposed to die after the election to backdoor in the vice president.

This is the dialog you are promoting. With moderator badge, merit and all.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 18, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Nothing I said about the tapes is false, anyone with two ears can listen to said tapes and verify that - in fact, just one will do, so I consider that subject over. All disease estimates are revised over time, you don't know if the new counts are more or less accurate, and have no evidence to support your conspiracy theory.


I never mentioned disease counts. I'm talking about Trump's lies. I listed them. Feel free to address which ones aren't lies.

The hyperbolic "anyone with two ears can verify I'm right" comments don't contribute anything to the discourse. They're tantamount to other hyperbolic proclamations of "I'm definitely right," like "anyone with half a brain" or "anyone who isn't mentally ill" agrees with me.

We know for a fact from the tapes that Trump said things that he lied about in public at about the same time. I say we know this for a fact because Trump admitted to doing this and said he did it so as not to cause a panic. We can argue about whether or not this was a good decision (it was not, since lying about it contributed and continues to contribute to the disease's spread), but it's simply gaslighting to say "Trump didn't lie." It's also telling that you're propping up something as not a lie instead of talking about something I actually listed as a lie.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> Seems to me like you have plenty of freedom to express your (negative) opinion of me. Don't worry, there's a full record of all moderation actions taken against you, including the deletion of off-topic spam and double-posting. Every member has a right to ask another moderator or supervisor for a second opinion, and you're welcome to use that right - I'm certainly not going to stop you. Now, I'd suggest that you return to the topic at hand since last I checked, I wasn't running for the office of U.S. President - sadly I'm not eligible, although I'd probably make a good one. For more information please follow the link below:
> 
> https://gbatemp.net/help/terms
> 
> The section on General Forum Decency is of particular interest to you, it outlines how you should complain and which rule you're breaking at this very moment. I'll wink and nod though, since I am feeling mighty generous today.


Nothing personal, but it's hypocritical to mass-delete posts in a thread because "our site doesn't deal in conspiracy theories" before spouting conspiracy theories (Biden-Harris conspiracy theories) that are just as nonsensical.

It's one thing to say Harris should receive extra scrutiny because of Biden's age (she should). It's one thing to say Harris has a likelier than average chance of replacing Biden because of his age (she does). It's another thing to say Harris' replacement of Biden is something the DNC or some other group is specifically planning for after the election, and it happening circumstantially is an illusion. If I've misrepresented your conspiracy theory, please correct me, but that's the bullshit we are perceiving you to be hypocritically spewing.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 18, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Nothing personal, but it's hypocritical to mass-delete posts in a thread because "our site doesn't deal in conspiracy theories" before spouting conspiracy theories (Biden-Harris conspiracy theories) that are just as nonsensical.
> 
> It's one thing to say Harris should receive extra scrutiny because of Biden's age (she should). It's one thing to say Harris has a likelier than average chance of replacing Biden because of his age (she does). It's another thing to say Harris' replacement of Biden is something the DNC or some other group is specifically planning for after the election, and it happening circumstantially is an illusion. If I've misrepresented your conspiracy theory, please correct me, but that's the bullshit we are perceiving you to be hypocritically spewing.


In that case let me post a clarification - Harris should receive additional scrutiny due to Biden's age. It's pretty basic risk assessment that was no doubt a subject of discussion during the Democratic convention. I hope you find that response to be satisfactory.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 18, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> In that case let me post a clarification - Harris should receive additional scrutiny due to Biden's age. It's pretty basic risk assessment that was no doubt a subject of discussion during the Democratic convention. I hope you find that response to be satisfactory.


Did we misinterpret your previous statements, are you recanting your previous statements, or neither?


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 18, 2020)

Aw and Foxi4 gets another in the hate thread/pissed someone off seriously enough to call for removal column before I get a single one. Going to have to try harder it seems.

Anyway not really sure what I want to look at for this one. Health of rich elderly pocket liners and legacy chasers of dubious moral character, and possibly intellectual fortitude, and almost certainly without a set of core values/principles, all for a fairly meaningless role in the grand scheme of things. Policies that might not matter, or might be quite scary if somehow put into practice (though between constitution, incompetence of politicos, lack of funding and general things moving at a snail's pace it is unlikely to come to pass).
Panic over viruses, panic over economy (though that might be properly founded and the big results here will likely be decades out -- how many now have no retirement, dubious systems used to elect to begin with, fewer kids, no chance of not being a renter), the utter failure that is modern journalism on basically every front, weird shifts in population (New York and California emptying somewhat and that has knock on effects wherever they might land), bizarre takes on the police and results of that one...


----------



## notimp (Sep 18, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> Anyway not really sure what I want to look at for this one. Health of rich elderly pocket liners and legacy chasers of dubious moral character, and possibly intellectual fortitude, and almost certainly without a set of core values/principles, all for a fairly meaningless role in the grand scheme of things.


Sorry is that a sentence, or are you enjoying the green fairy again?

Poetry class in the middle of an argument? That had nothing to do with
- health of rich elderly pocket liners
- legacy chasers of dubious moral character
- legacy chasers of dubious intellectual fortitude
- people without a set of core values/principles mistreating anyone here in here


This was simply a user - probably out of sheer hatred towards the inkling of the idea, that a women could become president (?), by the presidential candidate dying in the future, or at least playing with that prejudice, mentioning this as their main motivations not to vote for one of the candidates. And a freaking moderator liking that statement.

There is no, absolutely no, indication anywhere, that a career driven Kamala Harris, who is mostly progressive by image, not action - would "ruin" the US in that instance. Which if the statement wasnt misogynistic, would be the only other explanation - tacked on to the idea, no the CHANNELING of a person dying in the next four years should prevent prevent people from

a. voting
b. voting Biden

The entire setup is cruel, crude, a little disturbed, a quite a lot misanthropic, likely propagating a freaking meme, showing no undestanding whatsoever about what the presidency is, or how US politics work, or what voteing is....

So naturally - a moderator here had to like it, and you had to dedicate a poem to it.

Stop it.

edit: Oh, by the way, and after having been called out on it, the response was - no seriously, but its a problem that they appoint one candidate to die. To then get the other one in.

And only after that - the moderator weight in to tell everyone, that no, seriously - this is really a good argument warranting recognition.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 18, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> Aw and Foxi4 gets another in the hate thread/pissed someone off seriously enough to call for removal column before I get a single one. Going to have to try harder it seems.


Baby, I was born this way.


Lacius said:


> Did we misinterpret your previous statements, are you recanting your previous statements, or neither?


I haven't sincerely recanted a statement once in my entire life, never needed to, so pick whichever one pleases you more, really. I know what I meant when I said it - given all the circumstances at hand and the probability involved I think it would be crazy for convention-goers to not consider that as a plausible, or even a likely scenario. It's priced into the package from the get-go, so I suppose it's "planned" in the sense that it is accounted for. If you don't like that phrasing, that's fine, we'll call it "concern in regards to Biden's age" and leave it at that. I don't think it's fair for the voters and I can only hope that people will have this in mind at the ballot box. I can't possibly imagine Biden serving the customary two terms, as most of the presidents in recent years - he'd have to be a one-term guy, if that. That alone makes him an odd candidate to nominate, but then again, I'm not a Democrat, so I may have different priorities.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Sep 18, 2020)

Haha, amazing watching these americans rip each others hearts out. You people are so full of rage and wrath. For the past 20 years you have destroyed other nations. Your darling obama was the biggest war mongerer. Now you finally have someone who has not attacked some other poor country and you can't take it. Your hatred has turned inwards. Good. eat each other, end each other.

Trump is the best thing to happen to the planet in the past 40 years. At least he's kept you vile lot off the rest of our backs.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 18, 2020)

notimp said:


> Sorry is that a sentence, or are you enjoying the green fairy again?
> 
> Poetry class in the middle of an argument? That had nothing to do with
> - health of rich elderly pocket liners
> ...



Normally I considered you someone of at least some capability in debate.
Conjuring up sexism out of nowhere. Throwing random insults around... what happened there?

As far as the sentence, which I did not consider in any way poetic and if it turns out I wrote in Iambic pentameter or something then I will be mortified, I will rephrase. I will also note it was nothing to do with whatever came before. If it was anything it was an attempt to get things somewhere vaguely close to back on topic.

From where I sit anybody that runs for office is either a troll (I did like that republican nominee for police chief the other day), someone seeking to stave off that third death (a man dies three times, once when he is born, once when he dies and lastly when the last person speaks his name), or to line their pockets. To achieve this... moral flexibility is needed and while you might proclaim to hold some kind of position/value/set of baseline ethics such a thing only makes it harder so anybody playing top level tends to get that.
To that end there has never been a politician (and I have met a fair few, seen plenty of others out in the world and read of their actions over the course of hundreds of years, to say nothing of show me the incentives and I will show you the results) that I would piss on where they to catch on fire, saving that they were already too far gone and I could deliver a final insult.

On a vote for Biden is a vote for Harris then makes logical sense to me, and presumably to their puppet masters (and going back further still -- there is a reason).
If I go into business with someone I will see what their wife is like for when the divorce inevitably happens, or they lose a game of beat the bus/age into uselessness, I get to pony up the money to divest them or report to her now being a nominal stakeholder. This seems like no great variation on that theme.

As far as indications. Her record as a lawyer left something to be desired and if that was spun out to the country at large (most people don't look to her base state as a shining beacon, and most lawyers turned politico act like lawyers, medics act like medics, business wonks act like business wonks and career politicos play office politics pretty well), which, if I ignore my general misanthropy and indifference towards politicos, might well make for a fun time. Simplistic perhaps (I would look more towards the the treacle slow pace of things and million things those that care to oppose can do to stymie efforts). 

Likewise if a potential politico has given the nod to various people to take up key roles should they assume office and you don't like their picks you might consider not voting for them, even if they themselves do OK for you.

To that end if you then want to vote tactically or skip it as you are indifferent to the results then more power to you.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 18, 2020)

Iamapirate said:


> Foxi hit on my objection to it. If Harris were the nominee I'm sure many of the Biden supporters would vote for her. What I find objectionable is putting someone more palatable and viable on the ballot only to have him be replaced by a candidate with very little support. That isn't very democratic.


Out of curiosity, if Trump wins, but something happens to him, are you fine with Pence becoming president?


----------



## comput3rus3r (Sep 18, 2020)

Definitely Trump. Nobody wants to live in a communist country.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 18, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Out of curiosity, if Trump wins, but something happens to him, are you fine with Pence becoming president?


Live by the lightning, die by the lightning. I personally wouldn't necessarily be a happy camper as I'm not a huge fan of the old school establishment GOP, but if push comes to shove he's "presidential enough" to pass in a crowd until someone else comes along. The difference here is that when Pence was running alongside Trump, there was no real worry that he'd have to step in, not unless something sudden and tragic happened to Trump. With Biden I don't have the same level of confidence - I may be wrong, but that's the impression I get just by observing his public appearances.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 18, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Nothing about this addresses nor excuses Trump and his administration from completely botching this pandemic and still continuing not to follow any safety precautions even for his own rallies. No amount whataboutism or misusing and spamming socialism and communism is going change that.
> 
> No one said anything about socialism. None of the candidates right now, are even socialist. In fact, this isn't even about capitalism. Safety precautions against the virus, isn't anymore socialism than having to use a seat belt. That is, not at all.



You seemed to have glossed over the entire two paragraphs I typed about how it's okay for tens of thousands to gather together to loot, burn buildings, harm people and riot yet it's not okay for tens of thousands to attend a rally. Protesting and public assembly are both rights we share. Of course protesting is not the same as rioting, but to be fair there's peaceful protesters and the unruly rioters at some of the same events. Nice to see you completely ignore the two paragraphs and try to twist it around on me. You also failed to address how the Democrats/Liberals completely ignored the virus and labeled Trump a racist for dealing with it long before they acknowledged it was a problem. I wouldn't bother replying to me, if you're going to play games I'm not interested in then it would be pointless to do so as I rather not play games with a dishonest person.


----------



## rensenware (Sep 18, 2020)

comput3rus3r said:


> Definitely Trump. Nobody wants to live in a communist country.


if biden's a communist actual left wing people are anarchists wanted by the cia in 35 countries


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 18, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Perhaps you should read conversations you inject yourself into. As for CDC reporting "fake" data, you have no evidence of that, you're basing it entirely on the administration taking a more active role in the reporting. All pandemic estimates go through revisions, this is not unusual.



Isn't it odd how the Liberal left held the CDC up on a pedestal for their research into things unrelated to virus research, such as guns or alphabet people issues, yet turn their back on them as soon as they go along with a few things Trump is saying or doing. The fact is the CDC and Trump don't get along, but I guess since they are singing the same tune as Trump on a few select issues then "orange CDC bad". The Left's logic never ceases to amaze. Possibly if the CDC wasn't spending our money and their resources into addressing issues that have nothing to do with virus research they wouldn't have to lie to the general public about how effective masks are so they could horde them for themselves.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 18, 2020)

jupitteer said:


> if biden's a communist actual left wing people are anarchists wanted by the cia in 35 countries


That's actually a fair point - I wouldn't describe Biden as a "leftist" either. He's a statist, if anything, judging by his career in politics, his crime bill and his current program. He's dressed up to appeal to the base, but I suspect that veneer of progressivism would be lifted pretty quickly if he wins. He's already flip-flopping on fracking, a major issue for environmentally conscious voters. Sometimes he wants to "put an end fracking", other times he sees "no reason to ban it" - his position seems to shift depending on what kind of crowd he's speaking to. Judging by the latest town halls he wants to phase it out gradually between now and 2050, but that's a pretty long game plan that operates on the assumption that multiple future administrations will play along with what he comes up with, so I treat it as an empty promise.


----------



## Iamapirate (Sep 18, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Out of curiosity, if Trump wins, but something happens to him, are you fine with Pence becoming president?


Yes. That's the line of succession. However, It wasn't an open secret in 2016 or 2020 that Trump wouldn't serve a term. I think most people will agree that Biden will not serve out a full term in office, and so the first female president might not have been elected to that office. Not only that, I imagine shed lose re-election.

But right now I think Trump will win re-election, so it doesn't really matter.


----------



## Seliph (Sep 18, 2020)

God I wish Biden was actually a commie....


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 18, 2020)

Seliph said:


> God I wish Biden was actually a commie....


It would certainly make it a single-issue voting election, if nothing else. The second best thing to watching Trump and Sanders duke it out on stage, that would've been a sight to behold. Comedy Central could potentially go bankrupt, everyone would be watching debate re-runs instead for the next 100 years.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Sep 18, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> It would certainly make it a single-issue voting election, if nothing else. The second best thing to watching Trump and Sanders duke it out on stage, that would've been a sight to behold. Comedy Central could potentially go bankrupt, everyone would be watching debate re-runs instead for the next 100 years.


Such a missed opportunity, that would have really brightened these boring 2020 days.
Debates now will be boring as fuck instead, I mean Trump can be stupid funny but Joe Biden is a terrible sidekick, he has the stage charisma of a soulless version of Mark Zuckerberg.

But Bernie... I believe Bernie outtrumps Trump in the stage...
Yeah, a Bernie - Trump debate would have been popcorn material... too bad...


----------



## Seliph (Sep 18, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Trump and Sanders duke it out on stage


I just want to put them alone in a room for like an hour or two with no press or audience and just a single hidden camera and see what happens. I think that'd be fantastic.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 18, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> You seemed to have glossed over the entire two paragraphs I typed about how it's okay for tens of thousands to gather together to loot, burn buildings, harm people and riot yet it's not okay for tens of thousands to attend a rally. Protesting and public assembly are both rights we share. Nice to see you completely ignore the two paragraphs and try to twist it around on me. You also failed to address how the Democrats/Liberals completely ignored the virus and labeled Trump a racist for dealing with it long before they acknowledged it was a problem. I wouldn't bother replying to me, if you're going to play games I'm not interested in then it would be pointless to do so as I rather not play games with a dishonest person.


You are assuming I even support the riots, I don't. Btw, most protesters aren't even rioters. Link I also don't support any crowds that forgo all safety precautions during a pandemic nor do I support anyone who has and still continues to not take this virus seriously. Especially the ones that have the most power in this country right now. Who are in fact actively making things worse.

The only people who are playing games, are the people coming in here with off-topic nonsense and spamming the word socialism and communism any chance they can.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 18, 2020)

sarkwalvein said:


> Such a missed opportunity, that would have really brightened these boring 2020 days.
> Debates now will be boring as fuck instead, I mean Trump can be stupid funny but Joe Biden is a terrible sidekick, he has the stage charisma of a soulless version of Mark Zuckerberg.
> 
> But Bernie... I believe Bernie outtrumps Trump in the stage...
> Yeah, a Bernie - Trump debate would have been popcorn material... too bad...


I don't know if he outtrumps him, but he's great at shouting and shaking his fist. It would be an epic match between Ded Moroz the grump and the zinger-filled Monopoly Man. Maybe one day, in an old folks home - then we can film another sequel to "Grumpy Old Men".


----------



## Lacius (Sep 18, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Baby, I was born this way.
> I haven't sincerely recanted a statement once in my entire life, never needed to, so pick whichever one pleases you more, really. I know what I meant when I said it - given all the circumstances at hand and the probability involved I think it would be crazy for convention-goers to not consider that as a plausible, or even a likely scenario. It's priced into the package from the get-go, so I suppose it's "planned" in the sense that it is accounted for. If you don't like that phrasing, that's fine, we'll call it "concern in regards to Biden's age" and leave it at that. I don't think it's fair for the voters and I can only hope that people will have this in mind at the ballot box. I can't possibly imagine Biden serving the customary two terms, as most of the presidents in recent years - he'd have to be a one-term guy, if that. That alone makes him an odd candidate to nominate, but then again, I'm not a Democrat, so I may have different priorities.


There are three options:

You're hypocritically spewing baseless conspiracy theories about the intentions of the DNC and/or other groups in power if Biden wins, all while deleting similar conspiracy theories. An argument can then be made that you shouldn't be moderating anything and you should resign (I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this argument).
We've misinterpreted your statements, but you are the only one who can tell us what you believe and what you don't believe. For example, if you're merely arguing that there's a high chance Biden won't serve a full term because of his age, but not because of some nefarious plan from higher ups that all but guarantees it, that might be a misinterpretation. It looks to me like #1 is correct.
You were spouting baseless conspiracy theories, but you've realized the error of your ways, specifically with regard to the hypocrisy, and you're not going to spout them anymore. An argument could still be made that you should resign as a moderator, but I probably wouldn't agree in this scenario.
These are the only three options. Your response doesn't have to be long. Just pick a number. I've made this easy.



Foxi4 said:


> I haven't sincerely recanted a statement once in my entire life, never needed to


Then you're patently dishonest, unless you're claiming to be infallible.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 18, 2020)

Lacius said:


> There are three options:
> 
> You're hypocritically spewing baseless conspiracy theories about the intentions of the DNC and/or other groups in power if Biden wins, all while deleting similar conspiracy theories. An argument can then be made that you shouldn't be moderating anything and you should resign (I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this argument).
> We've misinterpreted your statements, but you are the only one who can tell us what you believe and what you don't believe. For example, if you're merely arguing that there's a high chance Biden won't serve a full term because of his age, but not because of some nefarious plan from higher ups that all but guarantees it, that might be a misinterpretation. It looks to me like #1 is correct.
> ...


I like to have an air of mystery surround me at all times.  All jokes aside, there's a bit of a difference between "COVID-19 is a weapon made by space aliens to subdue the population" and "Biden is pretty old and the DNC is aware of it". I'll let you decide which one is a plausible scenario and which one's a conspiracy - I'm not exaggerating either, that's what this thread's been dealing with before it was cleaned up. If you equate the two, you're the one who's dishonest.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 18, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> "COVID-19 is a weapon made by space aliens to subdue the population"


 Wait... did someone actually mention space aliens?


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 18, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Wait... did someone actually mention space aliens?


Not exactly, but I use hyperbole to provide comic relief. Some posts here were... Uhm... "pretty wild". I may not be the most likable and my own opinions can be pretty fringe, but I try to weed out the patently crazy stuff the best I can so you guys can have a discussion.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 18, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Not exactly, but I use exaggeration to provide comic relief. Some posts here were... Uhm... "pretty wild". I may not be the most likable and my own opinions can be pretty fringe, but I try to weed out the patently crazy stuff the best I can so you guys can have a discussion.


I see. Still, seeing how crazy things are getting, I would be only partially surprised if someone did say that and actually meant it.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 18, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I like to have an air of mystery surround me at all times.  All jokes aside, there's a bit of a difference between "COVID-19 is a weapon made by space aliens to subdue the population" and "Biden is pretty old and the DNC is aware of it". I'll let you decide which one is a plausible scenario and which one's a conspiracy - I'm not exaggerating either, that's what this thread's been dealing with before it was cleaned up. If you equate the two, you're the one who's dishonest.


There's a difference between "Biden is pretty old and the DNC is aware of it" and "Biden is pretty old and the DNC is planning to do something about it."


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 18, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> I see. Still, seeing how crazy things are getting, I would be only partially surprised if someone did say that and actually meant it.


Things are definitely more tense than usual, especially with the coronavirus always in the back of everyone's minds. I've read a report the other day that said 1 in 4 young adults between the ages of 18 to 24 have "seriously considered suicide" in the last few months, the figure was shocking to me. A lot of people genuinely believe that life is just not worth living anymore with all the racial tension, lockdowns et cetera. I can only hope that things improve over time, once COVID is a distant memory, the election is over and the rioting comes to an end. Sooner rather than later would be good, too.


Lacius said:


> There's a difference between "Biden is pretty old and the DNC is aware of it" and "Biden is pretty old and the DNC is planning to do something about it."


I think this disagreement boils down to our definitions of "planning". I personally plan for every eventuality I can think of at any given time because I don't like to be caught with my pants down. What you're describing sounds more like "scheming" to me. If you're accusing me of thinking that there's a secret cabal of hood-wearing subterranean lizardmen who have already chosen Kamala Harris as the next president and the whole election is actually a sham then that's not quite right.  With that being said, it's pretty obvious that this Corvette doesn't have a lot of mileage left in it, which probably contributed to Joe picking a much younger candidate who's at no risk of an early decline.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 18, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> You are assuming I even support the riots, I don't. Btw, most protesters aren't even rioters. Link I also don't support any crowds that forgo all safety precautions during a pandemic nor do I support anyone who has and still continues to not take this virus seriously. Especially the ones that have the most power in this country right now. Who are in fact actively making things worse.
> 
> The only people who are playing games, are the people coming in here with off-topic nonsense and spamming the word socialism and communism any chance they can.



Yes, sorry for that assumption. I'm well aware there is a difference between peaceful protesting and rioting, which is why I outlined there is a difference in my last reply. A lot of the people who support the peaceful protesting with tens of thousands of people gathering do so freely, but then condemn Trump supporters for gathering in the tens of thousands. Heck, there's a lot of people on the Left that view the riots as justified. When questioned, they cite that it's a right to protest and important that they do so as it's for a worthy cause. That same logic applies to Trump rallies or any other large gathering as the* right to assembly is an actual right* and the one is* just as important *to others as it may be to you.

*I take COVID seriously* as it's a virus with a *99.8% survival rate* that we now know that *you don't need to be tested unless you're showing symptoms* as most asymptomatic people don't have enough of the virus in them to be contagious. That explains the need to take samples from deep within the nasal passage to accurately gauge if people are infected or not. I also take the yearly flu seriously, take hepatitis seriously, pneumococcal pneumonia and shingles seriously. That's why I'll be willing to get a vaccine for COVID, but *I refuse to over react *as others have. I don't think masks are necessary, but if you own an establishment and require masks that is your right as you own the place and to do business together you should be able to set the rules as you own the place. Luckily we're not under socialist rule so every single person or business owner is free to make up their own mind. I brought up socialism because lots of people on the Left are advocating we tear up the US Constitution and replace our way of government with some old proven to fail time and time again system. The Left's actions are highly tied to that desire so it's more than appropriate to mention.

The seriousness of the virus is way over blown though. I actually agreed with the *Democrats* back when *all they wanted to do was impeach Trump* and were ignoring the virus (I didn't agree with the impeachment though). I didn't agree that Trump was racist for acting to protect us when the Democrats refused to lift a finger, but the entire "don't be afraid to go outdoors" message the Democrats were sending is something I agreed and still agree with. *The virus is serious, but only to a certain extent.* When compared to other things in life it's not that deadly. I've more of a chance getting in a car accident and dying on my way to get tested for COVID 19 then I do of actually getting it and getting sick.

To address Trump's response, I believe that downplaying it was a dishonest move with good intentions. *You don't want a panic so that's the normal way to deal with emergencies*, the same way people do with any major disaster. Sure, it doesn't make it right as a lie is a lie, but it's better than having everyone freak out as that causes more harm then good. I do however dislike the dishonesty coming from the Left that Trump didn't act soon enough. His response starting late last year and when he started to close borders, stop flights, refuse Cruise Ships port of entry and take some CDC and WHO guidelines that actually made sense seriously all the Democrats did was call him "racist". So you can see how now when the Democratic Left claim he didn't act soon enough is simply *untrue*. 

For other responses, it seems Trump is taking the advice of experts, but it's just a shame that these experts change their position on a weekly basis. I know that we learn new things, but *we should wait until we're confident until we make policy or give out guidelines*. You see that what we knew some weeks ago is now proved to be inaccurate, meaning we were wrong. So what makes what we know now not wrong? There's an inherit flaw in the entire process that costs people time, money and in some cases their health or lives. *We should wait until we know enough to issue guidance* on these sorts of things as flip flopping creates nothing but distrust for the institutions that apparently can't make up their minds about certain issues. Of course, the CDC who started off with the "masks don't work" intentional lie didn't help things, nor does that CDC's constant fight with Trump. Lastly, if the *CDC wouldn't have spent years meddling in things that had nothing to do with infectious diseases* maybe we could have reacted better. In the end we're all human and we all make mistakes throughout each and every day so we should probably give on another a break. The real bad guy here is China, it originated in their country and they knew about the virus long before anyone else did and choose to hide it from the World. *China is not good people.*


----------



## Lacius (Sep 18, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Things are definitely more tense than usual, especially with the coronavirus always in the back of everyone's minds. I've read a report the other day that said 1 in 4 young adults between the ages of 18 to 24 have "seriously considered suicide" in the last few months, the figure was shocking to me. A lot of people genuinely believe that life is just not worth living anymore with all the racial tension, lockdowns et cetera. I can only hope that things improve over time, once COVID is a distant memory, the election is over and the rioting comes to an end. Sooner rather than later would be good, too.
> I think this disagreement boils down to our definitions of "planning". I personally plan for every eventuality I can think of at any given time because I don't like to be caught with my pants down. What you're describing sounds more like "scheming" to me. If you're accusing me of thinking that there's a secret cabal of hood-wearing subterranean lizardmen who have already chosen Kamala Harris as the next president and the whole election is actually a sham then that's not quite right.  With that being said, it's pretty obvious that this Corvette doesn't have a lot of mileage left in it, which probably contributed to Joe picking a much younger candidate who's at no risk of an early decline.


It sounds like "scheming" when I describe your conspiracy theory because you literally described it as "scheming." To contrast what you said with the word "scheming" is a lie.


Foxi4 said:


> It's hilarious that the people who are crying over "democracy dying" in the United States are the same people who have been kicking up a fuss over the results of the election for nigh on 4 years now, tried to depose the duly-elected President in every way they knew how and now want to replace him with an unelected VP using a switcheroo as soon as Biden is "no longer capable of fulfilling his function". It's as if the DNC was ran by Dick Dastardly, the schemes are comical and transparent.


I await your recantation. Arguably, we just got one from you.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 18, 2020)

Lacius said:


> It sounds like "scheming" when I describe your conspiracy theory because you literally described it as "scheming." To contrast what you said with the word "scheming" is a lie.
> 
> I await your recantation.


What's there to recant? I described my sentiment precisely, although I used harsher phrasing. As soon as/if Biden is incapable of holding office, there will be a switcheroo for a candidate that, in my eyes, did not receive the support required. Let's roll back the tape where I clarified that:


Foxi4 said:


> The way I look at it, *people vote for the presidential candidate*. The running mate is there to do just that - run with them, serve as an assistant and *in the event of an *unexpected* death/incapacitation* they can temporarily step in until an actual President is elected. Never in the history of the country was there a situation *when people voted for the running mate because they expected the candidate to conk out, now this is a very real possibility*. Not conspiracy, merely an observation. Nobody votes for the running mate, they're voting for the candidate.


It's the *expectation* that makes this situation different from the usual scenario - the fact that we're even having this conversation at all is evidence enough that it's crossed people's minds. You yourself "put more scrutiny on Harris because of Joe Biden's age", and you don't find that objectionable. Seems to me like you're splitting hairs here, but admittedly I may have used phrasing that was too harsh. I'm certainly not going to recant it as it's an opinion I've held throughout this exchange and I maintain it now - Biden is old, I don't expect him to be mentally or physically capable to fulfill his obligations throughout his term and I do believe Harris was the obvious contingency plan. Note that I used the phrase "very real possibility", as opposed to "objective".


----------



## Lacius (Sep 18, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Biden is old, I don't expect him to be mentally or physically capable to fulfil his obligations throughout his term and I do believe Harris was the obvious contingency plan. Note that I used the phrase "very real possibility", as opposed to "objective".


This isn't what you originally spouted as your conspiracy theory, where you claimed the DNC was scheming to replace Biden with Harris after the election, but if you want to delete your original post like you did other people's posts and recant or dilute your original claim, that would at least make you consistent.

Edit: To be clear, if you're merely claiming that Harris as the VP pick was in part because she could replace Biden if he had to step down, I don't disagree with you. That calculation goes into just about every VP pick, regardless of how likely it is to happen. However, that wasn't your original claim, or I wouldn't have held your feet to the embers on this.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 18, 2020)

Lacius said:


> This isn't what you originally spouted as your conspiracy theory, where you claimed the DNC was scheming to replace Biden with Harris after the election, but if you want to delete your original post like you did other people's posts and recant or dilute your original claim, that would at least make you consistent.


Not immediately after the election, I don't believe I claimed that at any stage. What I did say was that Harris was his wobbling mate pushing him to the finish line and that he will be replaced as soon as he is no longer able, which is the explicit function of the VP. My objection springs from the fact that it's plausible in the foreseeable future which significantly changes the election paradigm - I don't find that statement objectionable, and I maintain it as my position.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 18, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Not immediately after the election, I don't believe I claimed that at any stage. What I did say was that Harris was his wobbling mate pushing him to the finish line and that he will be replaced as soon as he is no longer able, which is the explicit function of the VP. My objection springs from the fact that it's plausible in the foreseeable future which significantly changes the election paradigm - I don't find that statement objectionable, and I maintain it as my position.


To be clear, if you're merely claiming that Harris as the VP pick was in part because she could replace Biden if he had to step down, I don't disagree with you. That calculation goes into just about every VP pick, regardless of how likely it is to happen. However, that wasn't your original claim, or I wouldn't have held your feet to the embers on this.

I also never used the word "immediately" with regard to what you claimed would happen after the election, so please don't argue against strawmen when trying to dig yourself out of the hole you dug.

You claimed the DNC was scheming to replace Biden with Harris after the election, but this is a conspiracy theory devoid of any evidence. I'm happy to accept this as your recantation and move on. The conspiratorial post should probably be deleted though.


----------



## Doran754 (Sep 18, 2020)

GBATemp is definitely 95% lefties, the fact the poll is so close is kind of strange. I expect a trump victory anyway.


----------



## ov3rkill (Sep 18, 2020)

I'm not American. But I vote for Trump. This will be an interesting election. Looking forward to your new POTUS. Trump or otherwise.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 18, 2020)

shamzie said:


> GBATemp is definitely 95% lefties, the fact the poll is so close is kind of strange. I expect a trump victory anyway.


Trump won the GBATemp poll in 2016 by 7.8 points. Anyone who supports Trump this time around should be nervous by the 2020 poll results.

The site is definitely not "95% lefties."


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 18, 2020)

Lacius said:


> To be clear, if you're merely claiming that Harris as the VP pick was in part because she could replace Biden if he had to step down, I don't disagree with you. That calculation goes into just about every VP pick, regardless of how likely it is to happen. However, that wasn't your original claim, or I wouldn't have held your feet to the embers on this.
> 
> I also never used the word "immediately" with regard to what you claimed would happen after the election, so please don't argue against strawmen when trying to dig yourself out of the hole you dug.
> 
> You claimed the DNC was scheming to replace Biden with Harris after the election, but this is a conspiracy theory devoid of any evidence. I'm happy to accept this as your recantation and move on. The conspiratorial post should probably be deleted though.


Have it your way. I think the probability of this scenario playing out exactly as I predict it is so high that it may as well be upgraded from contingency plan to intentional decision, or "scheming", if you will - I myself am not a stickler for phrasing. We actually agree on the fact that this is a possibility, we simply have a difference of opinion when it comes to its probability - I treat it basically as a given, you treat it as "likely". The difference between the two is that one puts culpability on the party for pushing a candidate that's not fit for purpose, which is my position, whereas the other indicates foresight - that'd be your position. I won't clarify this any further, I think it's clear enough.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 18, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Have it your way. I think the probability of this scenario playing out exactly as I predict it is so high that it may as well be upgraded from contingency plan to intentional decision, or "scheming", if you will - I myself am not a stickler for phrasing. We actually agree on the fact that this is a possibility, we simply have a difference of opinion when it comes to its probability - I treat it basically as a given, you treat it as "likely". The difference between the two is that one puts culpability on the party for pushing a candidate that's not fit for purpose, which is my position, whereas the other indicates foresight - that'd be your position. I won't clarify this any further, I think it's clear enough.


The claim that the DNC was scheming to replace Biden with Harris after the election is an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. An argument can be made that you're hypocritically deleting other people's conspiracy theories. I haven't even mentioned the hypocrisy of deleting anti-Trump posts on the arbitrary basis of COVID-19 being mentioned, while you yourself are supporting Trump and aren't deleting similar anti-Biden posts. If I were you, I'd resign as a moderator and/or try to remedy the situation.

Oh, and I never said Harris replacing Biden is "likely." Also, as we already established, Harris would not be unelected nor at all illegitimate if she were to replace Biden. She was arguably a good pick, and there would be nothing controversial about her becoming president.


----------



## Joe88 (Sep 18, 2020)

Lacius said:


> This isn't what you originally spouted as your conspiracy theory, where you claimed the DNC was scheming to replace Biden with Harris after the election, but if you want to delete your original post like you did other people's posts and recant or dilute your original claim, that would at least make you consistent.
> 
> Edit: To be clear, if you're merely claiming that Harris as the VP pick was in part because she could replace Biden if he had to step down, I don't disagree with you. That calculation goes into just about every VP pick, regardless of how likely it is to happen. However, that wasn't your original claim, or I wouldn't have held your feet to the embers on this.


Its getting a little harder to deny thats whats going to happen when biden called it "harris biden administration" and harris called it the "harris administration"  at 2 separate events days apart https://nypost.com/2020/09/15/joe-biden-accidentally-refers-to-harris-biden-ticket/amp/

I guess you can pass off the biden one as yet another gaffe on the towering pile already, but harris making that mistake is another thing.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 18, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The claim that the DNC was scheming to replace Biden with Harris after the election is an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. An argument can be made that you're hypocritically deleting other people's conspiracy theories. I haven't even mentioned the hypocrisy of deleting anti-Trump posts on the arbitrary basis of COVID-19 being mentioned, while you yourself are supporting Trump and aren't deleting similar anti-Biden posts. If I were you, I'd resign as a moderator and/or try to remedy the situation.
> 
> Oh, and I never said Harris replacing Biden is "likely." Also, as we already established, Harris would not be unelected nor at all illegitimate if she were to replace Biden. She was arguably a good pick, and there would be nothing controversial about her becoming president.


Patently untrue, I've deleted huge swathes of pro-Trump posts as well, particularly if they were inflammatory - you of all people know this as many were directed at you. You are more than welcome to report any posts that you consider to be conspiratorial in nature - I encouraged notimp to do so and I encourage you to do the same. I'm not particularly worried considering this expectation is prevalent on both sides of the aisle, or at least that's my impression from talking with friends who have diametrically opposite political views. I may be wrong, I'm not infallible, but I wear my heart on my sleeve and my political positions on the chest - I'm most definitely not going to adjust them for your, or anybody else's consumption.


----------



## RandomUser (Sep 18, 2020)

Iamapirate said:


> Yes. That's the line of succession. However, It wasn't an open secret in 2016 or 2020 that Trump wouldn't serve a term. I think most people will agree that Biden will not serve out a full term in office, and so the first female president might not have been elected to that office. Not only that, I imagine shed lose re-election.
> 
> But right now I think Trump will win re-election, so it doesn't really matter.


Sorry to burst your bubble, no female alive is going to be the first president.
Because AFAIK Edith Bolling Galt Wilson was the first female president.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 18, 2020)

Joe88 said:


> Its getting a little harder to deny thats whats going to happen when biden called it "harris biden administration" and harris called it the "harris administration"  at 2 separate events days apart https://nypost.com/2020/09/15/joe-biden-accidentally-refers-to-harris-biden-ticket/amp/
> 
> I guess you can pass off the biden one as yet another gaffe on the towering pile already, but harris making that mistake is another thing.


Nothing about this is evidence for the conspiracy theory @Foxi4 is spouting.



Foxi4 said:


> Patently untrue, I've deleted huge swathes of pro-Trump posts as well, particularly if they were inflammatory - you of all people know this as many were directed at you.


I didn't say you didn't delete pro-Trump posts. Deleting huge swathes of pro-Trump posts changes nothing about the hypocrisy you've demonstrated other times. As I've already mentioned, you've deleted unsubstantiated conspiracy theories in some cases but left your own in other cases. You've also deleted posts related to COVID-19, which is very much relevant to the 2020 presidential election in the United States. An argument can be made that a person with obvious political biases and the aforementioned history of hypocrisy maybe shouldn't be the one making the decision about whether or not COVID-19 should be discussed in a topic about the 2020 presidential election, for example. An argument can be made that you don't have the ability to be impartial.



Foxi4 said:


> You are more than welcome to report any posts that you consider to be conspiratorial in nature - I encouraged notimp to do so and I encourage you to do the same.


This isn't about what I do/don't report. This is about what you do/don't delete.

Edit: In other words, conspiracy theories aren't necessarily against the rules by themselves. You're the one who chose to delete them and say being conspiracy theories is why. If that's the decision you're going to make, you should be consistent. If something isn't explicitly against the rules, my role as a reporter is pretty irrelevant, since I shouldn't necessarily report it.



Foxi4 said:


> I may be wrong, I'm not infallible


In a previous post today, you implied that you might be infallible.



Foxi4 said:


> but I wear my heart on my sleeve and my political positions on the chest - I'm most definitely not going to adjust them for your, or anybody else's consumption.


I'm not asking you to change your heart or your political beliefs. I'm pointing out that, with regard to your actions as a moderator, you should act in a way that's impartial and consistent. You don't appear to have been doing this.


----------



## netovsk (Sep 18, 2020)

I hope you guys elect whoever makes the exchange rates for dollar go down in my country.


----------



## Kurt91 (Sep 18, 2020)

I've been lurking and not really saying anything, but I think there's a minor misunderstanding between Foxi4 and Lacius.

Lacius seems to think that Foxi4 is claiming that the Democrats plan to either actively off Biden shortly after the election so that Harris is 'promoted' to President, or have Biden nearly immediately step down for the same effect.

Foxi4 seems to be stating that while Biden may have a good chance of winning the election, none of the Democrats actually believe that he'll last a full term, and since they want Harris as President, got her to become the potential Vice President. Instead of Harris being the *just-in-case* backup in case anything happens to Biden, they fully expect something to happen and want Harris to be in a position to get the job. Essentially treating VP promotion as an inevitability in this case rather than a backup plan.

There's a major difference between the two scenarios. Even prior to reading the discussion going on, I already had a suspicion that Harris was the 'desired' candidate and that nobody fully expects Biden to last a full term on his own. They want Harris as President for at least the last part of a term, and since she wasn't succeeding with her own presidential campaign, they went with making her the potential VP for Biden's campaign. No, I don't think they're going to force Biden to step down immediately after taking office, nor do I think that he's going to die of un-natural causes, but they're planning under the assumption that he dies or something during his term. My prediction is that if Biden wins and becomes President, something will happen to cause Harris to take that promotion either at the end of the first year or during the second year.

Also, keep in mind how much Obama seemed to age between when he first took office and when his two terms were up. Being President and taking responsibility for running an entire country is no doubt insanely stressful, and that stress can't be good for a person's health.
(Going off the assumption that you consider Trump a terrible president, that's even more reason to agree with me on this point. Imagine the additional stress of cleaning up Trump's mess on top of the usual stress of holding the office.) I honestly cannot see Biden lasting through an entire term if that's going to be the case. Regardless of your political beliefs, I can't imagine not agreeing with this point. If you like Trump, then you already probably don't have a positive outlook on Biden and easily accept this train of thought. If you dislike Trump, then like I said, that just makes my argument even stronger about compounding additional stress and the apparent effect it seems to have on the aging process.


----------



## kevin corms (Sep 19, 2020)

Green party is the only good one, dems will make sure they go nowhere.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 19, 2020)

Information WAS withheld, the governor of New Jersey stated that if he had been aware of the information trump had back in february, he would have shut down much earlier. This could have saved thousands of lives. There was no way that the NJ gov would have had access to the same national intelligence that the president have. so trump downplaying this virus and misleading states has had a huge negative result that likely has lead to peoples deaths.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/09/politics/phil-murphy-coronavirus-trump-woodward-cnntv/index.html

in other news, there is documentation to show that The U.S. Treasury Department “demand[ed] operating control” of the U.S. Postal Service as a condition for approving a $10 billion loan to the agency, new documents reveal, heightening concerns about the extent to which the Trump administration is influencing the nonpartisan USPS.  Mnuchin works directly under trump and tried to take control over the 
USPS. One party is clearly trying to manipulate the postal service, and it is not the democrats.


----------



## Iamapirate (Sep 19, 2020)

RandomUser said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble, no female alive is going to be the first president.
> Because AFAIK Edith Bolling Galt Wilson was the first female president.


She really wasn't though.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 19, 2020)

RBG is dead. Any progressives voting Other wish to change their votes?


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 19, 2020)

Might want to explain that one as not everybody will know what goes there.

RBG = Ruth Bader Ginsburg, long time justice on the US supreme court and nominally aligned with the democrats. Alignment and reality is a tricky thing -- you make it to the supreme court and you are probably pretty good at this law lark so tend to not always keep to the party line, see if nothing else the voting record of Brett Kavanaugh (who Trump appointed), and it is for life/until you choose to retire so are generally above the petty whims of the party even if professional conduct and impartiality in it is not your thing.
In dying she then vacated her position and thus the president gets to appoint another (with some yes/no from other parts of government but it is usually a forgone conclusion).

There are various unofficial codes of conduct on when they can be appointed vis a vis last years in office but they are generally unofficial (Obama faced a similar problem) so eh. If he gets back in though then free reign.

Anyway with this vacancy then the balance of judges on the supreme court will be shifted to the Republican appointed ones, and if he plays the game even vaguely well he will probably find some nice veteran 50 or so year old to go in and at current makeup if they all live to push 80 then that means for the next few decades the US supreme court (something of a big deal*) will be more than half republican appointees (usually heard in a phrase like "lose the supreme court for a generation").

*what they do depends upon your side in an argument most of the time (see supreme court is not supposed to make law type stuff with gay marriage a few years back, even if it was not actually what was done there, and in reality they can also seek out and change quite a bit, or undo previous rulings**). They are however the last court of appeals, they decide a lot of important rulings in interesting legal cases, uncover aspects of law, and their rulings make and break companies, avenues of law and much more besides. At this point in time a lot of the stuff they do is very fiddly and specific (100 odd years back things were still being hammered out so you tend to find rulings from them and don't hear so much about new ones more than a few months after they were delivered).

**one of the big ones people look at is Roe v Wade. The ruling that legalised abortion throughout the US. If the supreme court repeals that then it will be back to state level, which presumably means overnight much of the US south will either ban it or make it incredibly hard to get (even more so than it already is). At the same time Ginsburg was also viewed as one of the bigger anti gun types which means various challenges to that might be easier heard, and her stuff on intellectual property was always an interesting interpretation whenever I read things (often agreed with the majority but the reasoning provided for it differed at times). Indeed most would probably play to the judges themselves and their particular whims and argument styles they like rather than simple who appointed whom, to say nothing of if you are on there for decades then the party that appointed you might look very different by then.

What young Lacius then presumably fears from those voting other is a spoiler effect either in general, at electoral college level, or within states which then feed the electoral college (different states do all sorts of different things here including winner take all for a few of them). I am not sure progressivism (assuming you care to be tarred with such a brush) is inherently tied to voting for the US Democrats, though there is a strong correlation.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 19, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> Might want to explain that one as not everybody will know what goes there.
> 
> RBG = Ruth Bader Ginsburg, long time justice on the US supreme court and nominally aligned with the democrats. Alignment and reality is a tricky thing -- you make it to the supreme court and you are probably pretty good at this law lark so tend to not always keep to the party line, see if nothing else the voting record of Brett Kavanaugh (who Trump appointed), and it is for life/until you choose to retire so are generally above the petty whims of the party even if professional conduct and impartiality in it is not your thing.
> In dying she then vacated her position and thus the president gets to appoint another (with some yes/no from other parts of government but it is usually a forgone conclusion).
> ...


There's nothing stopping the Republicans from appointing RBG's replacement between now and January, other than the electoral consequences that come with hypocrisy. If Biden wins in November, there's an extremely good chance the Republicans will appoint their pick to the Supreme Court before Biden's inauguration.

I know progressives don't all necessarily vote Democratic (although they should). That was my point in calling them out.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 19, 2020)

They'll fill it, McConnell said as much earlier this year, and even earlier in 2019.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ing-supreme-court-vacancies-an-election-year/

His contention during the Obama years was that customarily, if the seat needs to be filled and the Senate is controlled by the opposition party, the seat stays empty. This is not the case here - there's a Republican Senate and a Republican President.

*Edit*: Relevant snippet for those who can't see past the pay wall:


> “The tradition going back to the 1880s has been if a vacancy occurs in a presidential election year, and there is a different party in control of the Senate than the presidency, it is not filled."


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 19, 2020)

I'm sorry to hear about Ruth Ginsburgs passing. Even though I didn't agree with her politics she did seem like a nice lady. I saw commercials for a movie about her some time ago. I think I might watch it to see how her life in politics started. I'm also glad that we'll more than likely see another Republican replace her in the Supreme Court. Modern day Liberal Democrats are very radical compared to Mrs. Ginsburg and they are the last thing we need serving in the most powerful court in the USA. I hope Trump fast tracks whomever he'll nominate for the position. My condolences go out for anyone personally effected by her death and for the pain Liberals must be facing now that they've lost a seat on the Supreme Court that they'll likely not get back.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 19, 2020)

it's a tricky thing, by rushing in a new SC justice, a lot of republican senate seats that are fairly safe might end up in jeopardy because of democrats getting riled up. if the republicans are smart, they won't try to force through a SC justice right now. if they do, and it flips the senate blue, along with a Biden win, Biden could pack the SC up to 13 justices and it would be popular. the smart move would be wait to see if trump wins, then fill the vacancy. if trump does not win, and the appointment is not forced, then the democrats would look extremely bad if they tried to increase the SC justice count past 9.

in summary, if trump and the GOP wait to appoint, at worst they get a moderate SC justice replacing a liberal one, and at best they get a conservative justice.

if they force it through, at best they get a conservative SC justice, and at worst the democrats gain 4 SC justices.

the republicans are painfully aware of how forcing through SC appointments can hurt them, with the fallout of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch appointments. Susan Collins and some others got fucked for that vote.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 19, 2020)

omgcat said:


> it's a tricky thing, by rushing in a new SC justice, a lot of republican senate seats that are fairly safe might end up in jeopardy because of democrats getting riled up. if the republicans are smart, they won't try to force through a SC justice right now. if they do, and it flips the senate blue, along with a Biden win, Biden could pack the SC up to 13 justices and it would be popular. the smart move would be wait to see if trump wins, then fill the vacancy. if trump does not win, and the appointment is not forced, then the democrats would look extremely bad if they tried to increase the SC justice count past 9.
> 
> in summary, if trump and the GOP wait to appoint, at worst they get a moderate SC justice replacing a liberal one, and at best they get a conservative justice.
> 
> ...


It's an extremely risky gamble. On one hand you have a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land at the cost of serious repercussions in an election year, on the other you have an uncertain future, but no uproar. Apparently they will hold a vote, but my crystal ball tells me that the seat won't get the chance to cool down.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 19, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> They'll fill it, McConnel said as much earlier this year, and even earlier in 2019.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ing-supreme-court-vacancies-an-election-year/
> 
> ...




Also distinguishable because in 2016 with the Garland nomination, Obama was a 2nd term lame duck (with an opposing majority in the Senate). Trump may or may not be re-elected, but he is not a lame duck.

I think Trump will nominate someone. He should. He's supposed to. But the chances of confirmation before the election are very very low. Astronomically low. Just more for the right and left to scream at each other about for the next 6 weeks (or more), but in the end the election will determine who fills the seat.

RIP, Justice Ginsburg


----------



## Iamapirate (Sep 19, 2020)

I imagine President Trump will have to go with a woman, since the last time he nominated a man they tried to destroy his life and career with flimsy sexual assault allegations.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 19, 2020)

Iamapirate said:


> I imagine President Trump will have to go with a woman, since the last time he nominated a man they tried to destroy his life and career with flimsy sexual assault allegations.


Stalling tactics, threats of stalling tactics, smears and fun seems to be the way politics is played these days. Pity really but it is what it is.

To that end to that end selecting someone with tits might appease a few that think such things matter (I want someone that knows the law, having tits does not seem to make it so and does not preclude it either) and possibly forestall the "she touched me while I was drunk" (she did it to me by the way, 10 years before I was born) set they will likely turn around and do a "well on this one issue she voted this way" (this way likely being what the constitution says should happen) or "when she was a judge/DA she prosecuted someone harshly who had tits and is therefore not a feminist" (never mind if said person burned down an orphanage and got the same sentence as with the opposite flavour of wobbly bits) or private practice she defended blah who was a bastard (generally thought that is what you did as a defence lawyer but hey).


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 19, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> Stalling tactics, threats of stalling tactics, smears and fun seems to be the way politics is played these days. Pity really but it is what it is.
> 
> To that end to that end selecting someone with tits might appease a few that think such things matter (I want someone that knows the law, having tits does not seem to make it so and does not preclude it either) and possibly forestall the "she touched me while I was drunk" (she did it to me by the way, 10 years before I was born) set they will likely turn around and do a "well on this one issue she voted this way" (this way likely being what the constitution says should happen) or "when she was a judge/DA she prosecuted someone harshly who had tits and is therefore not a feminist" (never mind if said person burned down an orphanage and got the same sentence as with the opposite flavour of wobbly bits) or private practice she defended blah who was a bastard (generally thought that is what you did as a defence lawyer but hey).


Let's not pretend that either side of the aisle is consistent when it comes to charges of sexual assault or rape either. The Republicans caught Clinton in a perjury trap over getting a blowie in the Oval Office, the Democrats trodded out a line of victims to stop Kavanaugh's nomination. I'm old enough to remember Harris saying that "she believes" Biden's "victims" when she was running against him, but has nothing but praise for him now that she's running with him. Nobody cares, this is all about power.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 19, 2020)

Two words we're very likely to hear soon are "unprecedented" and "rushed." Neither will be accurate and those pushing these words will not be sincere.

Historically, many precedents.

As for "rushed", John Paul Stevens went from nominated to confirmed in 19 days. That was in the mid-70's, so not exactly ancient history.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 19, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Two words we're very likely to hear soon are "unprecedented" and "rushed." Neither will be accurate and those pushing these words will not be sincere.
> 
> Historically, many precedents.
> 
> As for "rushed", John Paul Stevens went from nominated to confirmed in 19 days. That was in the mid-70's, so not exactly ancient history.


Honestly, even if history *wasn't* on their side it would be foolish not to seize this opportunity - this nomination will stack the SC in favour of Republicans for years to come, we're talking about a lifetime seat. Trump will be president for 4 more years if he's elected, the SC will affect American policy for decades. If they can score these two birds in 2020 then the game's over.


----------



## callmebob (Sep 19, 2020)

Mitch can try and push his shit through. If the dems take the senate we´ll have 3 or 5 more supreme court members to even out this unjustice.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 19, 2020)

callmebob said:


> Mitch can try and push his shit through. If the dems take the senate we´ll have 3 or 5 more supreme court members to even out this unjustice.


Adding more seats to the SC would, arguably, be more egregious than filling the seat last minute. The law is on their side, the rules are clearly laid out and they have the authority to confirm a new judge.


----------



## callmebob (Sep 19, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Adding more seats to the SC would, arguably, be more egregious than filling the seat last minute. The law is on their side, the rules are clearly laid out and they have the authority to confirm a new judge.



Oh, they will. 2 weeks latest. But when they lose everything November the new congress/pres. will have no other alternative than to add seats to the supreme court. Guess how those new seats will be filled.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 19, 2020)

callmebob said:


> Oh, they will. 2 weeks latest. But when they lose everything November the new congress/pres. will have no other alternative than to add seats to the supreme court. Guess how those new seats will be filled.


What you're basically saying is that the very moment they lose the upper hand they will resort to tyranny in order to get their way in the end - that's not a good look.

_"Elections have consequences. (...) I won."_ - Barack Obama

_"You'll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think."_ - Mitch McConnell

The chickens have come to roost, turns out elections do have consequences, and what goes around comes around. This isn't an injustice, this is just deserts.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 19, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> What you're basically saying is that the very moment they lose the upper hand they will resort to tyranny in order to get their way in the end - that's not a good look.
> 
> _"Elections have consequences. (...) I won."_ - Barack Obama
> 
> ...


Am I the only one who remembered that Obama's appointment was stalled out, and kept vacant until Trump came into office? 
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-blocks-obama-laughs_n_5df32430e4b0deb78b517322
Am I the only one who remembers that?
or have I just gone insane?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 19, 2020)

McConnell's hypocrisy is comparable to court-packing by adding seats. I see very little difference between the two.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 19, 2020)

Lacius said:


> McConnell's hypocrisy is comparable to court-packing by adding seats. I see very little difference between the two.


Yeah I agree, it's also really hard to believe he is going to take some moral high ground here and actually not go add an appointy last second. When the guy ignored another president for 2 years straight. And then when the president switches parties, be all happy to help
(as in a new president who is the party mitch opposes if for whatever reason my wording seems confusing)


----------



## Lacius (Sep 19, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Yeah I agree, it's also really hard to believe he is going to take some moral high ground here and actually not go add an appointy last second. When the guy ignored another president for 2 years straight. And then when the president switches parties, be all happy to help
> (as in a new president who is the party mitch opposes if for whatever reason my wording seems confusing)


If the Republicans push through a justice before the next inauguration, Biden (or whoever the next Democratic president is) should pack the court. I say this as someone who opposes court packing.


----------



## callmebob (Sep 19, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> What you're basically saying is that the very moment they lose the upper hand they will resort to tyranny in order to get their way in the end - that's not a good look.
> 
> _"Elections have consequences. (...) I won."_ - Barack Obama
> 
> ...



I think you may be counting your chickens. As hard as Trump has tried to rig this election, him and his buddies just might be leaving. Him and Baher.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 19, 2020)

Lacius said:


> McConnell's hypocrisy is comparable to court-packing by adding seats. I see very little difference between the two.



Then you're fucking blind.

One is rude. The other is theft.

It may be rude to run up the score in the 9th inning, but the rules allow it.

Changing the law to add more judges is a TAKING OVER of the Supreme Court. It's changing the rules because you don't like the result of the rules. I guess I shouldn't expect anything else from the left.

The Supreme Court has remained static at 9 members for over 150 years. I think that outweighs your perception of "McConnell's hypocrisy." You want to delve into a little more hypocrisy? Check out what Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, RBG herself, and all other left-wing puppets were saying in 2016 about the President's duty to nominate.

It's pretty simple ... the Senate controls this. If the President has the Senate majority on his side, his nomination probably gets in. It's a little tight to say Trump has that majority in this Senate ... too many "secret" Democrats using the (R) ... but if they want to hold a vote, then the vote will be held. The rules allow it.




monkeyman4412 said:


> Am I the only one who remembered that Obama's appointment was stalled out, and kept vacant until Trump came into office?



Yeah that's exactly what happens when the outgoing lame duck President makes a nomination in his last year and the Senate majority is from the other party. It's happened 8 times, confirmation didn't happen 7 times.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 19, 2020)

The law allows Trump to nominate a Supreme Court Judge and for the Senate to vote on whomever Trump nominates. Just because it's an election year doesn't mean Trump, the Senate and Congress stop doing their jobs. The reason the 2016 nomination was delayed is because the of party affiliations, but now you have a President and Senate majority sharing the same party. There's nothing wrong with appointing a new Judge right this moment and I bet those who held up the process in 2016 could care less if some liars and cheaters who just tried to oust the sitting President for simply winning the election in 2016 are crying about it.



Hanafuda said:


> Changing the law to add more judges is a TAKING OVER of the Supreme Court. It's changing the rules because you don't like the result of the rules. I guess I shouldn't expect anything else from the left.



The same thing happened after the 2016 election. They refused to accept the results of rules they agreed to and then tried to change those rules. Then when they failed they played out their plan to impeach the President for any reason regardless of guilt. They are just poor losers. The right thing to do would be to accept you lost, congratulate your opponent and move on/get over it.



			
				callmebob said:
			
		

> I think you may be counting your chickens. As hard as Trump has tried to rig this election, him and his buddies just might be leaving. Him and Baher.



This is a straight out lie. Trump is not trying to rig the election. If you can wait in line at the few grocery stores that were open during the pandemic or go protest you can wait in line to vote. You are also required to show an ID to prove you are old enough to buy beer, liquor or the many other things your ID is required for. To claim that minorities are too stupid to stand in line or obtain an ID to vote is a pretty shitty thing to claim about minorities. To end, if the Liberals and Democrats have no problem with you gathering in tens of thousands to protest then they shouldn't have any problem with a couple hundred people standing in line outside of a polling site.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 19, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Then you're fucking blind.
> 
> One is rude. The other is theft.
> 
> ...



not just rude, but flat out going against RBG's dying wish to not be replaced until after the inauguration. what happened to the party of morals? there is no limit to the number of SC seats, and upping it to 13 might need to happen. if trump puts forward a nominee like Merrick Garland, maybe the dems wouldn't push to pack the court. if it is a hard core conservative, for sure they will.

this will also have senate election ramifications. graham was recorded on video saying he would not vote for a SC justice in 2020 and is in a deadheat for his race. if he votes, his seat is lost.


----------



## callmebob (Sep 19, 2020)

Quoted from callmebob:
I think you may be counting your chickens. As hard as Trump has tried to rig this election, him and his buddies just might be leaving. Him and Baher.

This is a straight out lie. Trump is not trying to rig the election. If you can wait in line at the few grocery stores that were open during the pandemic or go protest you can wait in line to vote. You are also required to show an ID to prove you are old enough to buy beer, liquor or the many other things your ID is required for. To claim that minorities are too stupid to stand in line or obtain an ID to vote is a pretty shitty thing to claim about minorities. To end, if the Liberals and Democrats have no problem with you gathering in tens of thousands to protest then they shouldn't have any problem with a couple hundred people standing in line outside of a polling site.

So why does Trump put in a donater of his to run the USPS who removes mail sorting machines and makes mail boxes disappear? That´s not trying to fix an election? I have a single finger salute to you.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 20, 2020)

omgcat said:


> not just rude, but flat out going against RBG's dying wish to not be replaced until after the inauguration. what happened to the party of morals? there is no limit to the number of SC seats, and upping it to 13 might need to happen. if trump puts forward a nominee like Merrick Garland, maybe the dems wouldn't push to pack the court. if it is a hard core conservative, for sure they will.
> 
> this will also have senate election ramifications. graham was recorded on video saying he would not vote for a SC justice in 2020 and is in a deadheat for his race. if he votes, his seat is lost.



With all due respect to Mrs. Ginsburg, her wishes regarding when and who fills her seat are irrelevant. The Supreme Court works for Americans. It wasn't *her seat, she did not own it, we paid her salary* nor does *she extend any authority after her death* to control who gets it. The Supreme Court Judges work for the *legal citizens* of the *USA*. It's our court and there's no legal problems with the seat being filled next week. If the *Liberals can try to impeach the President of the USA on an election year* then I don't see any problems with something not as near as important like *appointing a Super Court Justice to take place in the same year*.

You also can't tell how the future will play out so possibly *Mr. Graham might not lose his seat* and even if he does he would have gone out with a bang. I'd imagine in a perfect world elected officials would put the people of the USA before their own personal wants. Time will tell. I just hope we get another Conservative in the court as the *legal baby killing, perverted sickness that are gender based* *rulings* and the *infringement of our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights* all *needs to stop* and be reversed.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



callmebob said:


> Quoted from callmebob:
> So why does Trump put in a donater of his to run the USPS who removes mail sorting machines and makes mail boxes disappear? That´s not trying to fix an election? I have a single finger salute to you.



The *USPS has been in a downward spiral for some time* and have removed most of their off site boxes long before Trump took office. I acknowledge *there's politics being played out*, but the entire point is with mail in ballots there's too many uncertainties and chances for things to go wrong (fraud). *No one should have a problem going to the polls* and all USA citizens should have to provide proof they are a citizen before being allowed to register to vote. The purpose of absentee ballots was for people that were serving over seas or were out of the country when voting time comes around to still have their votes counter. They *weren't created to allow anyone who wants to vote to do so without having to prove who they are*. So even if Trump is trying to eliminate mail in voting for normal citizens there's no problem with that as we *shouldn't be allowing it in the first place.* Eliminating mail in voting also wouldn't effect the ability for people to go get an ID, register to vote and show up at the polls.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 20, 2020)

omgcat said:


> not just rude, but flat out going against RBG's dying wish to not be replaced until after the inauguration..



What the fuck does her "dying wish" (which I don't believe that shit, but whatever) have to do with it??? She doesn't get to make that call. The seat isn't hers to bequeath to a like-minded successor. If she wanted to be sure of that, she should've resigned when Obama had the White House.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 20, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> What the fuck does her "dying wish" (which I don't believe that shit, but whatever) have to do with it??? She doesn't get to make that call. The seat isn't hers to bequeath to a like-minded successor. If she wanted to be sure of that, she should've resigned when Obama had the White House.



she never said it should go to a like minded successor, she said she wanted the seat to be filled after the next president was sworn in. whoever that is. also fuck the recently deceased i guess. so much for morals and empathy.

there is no changes in law to take over the supreme court, there is no max court size. it has already been expanded in the past. all that needs to happen, is a president nominates, and the senate confirms.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 20, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Then you're fucking blind.
> 
> One is rude. The other is theft.
> 
> ...


Yes and no.
Supreme court yes did it in the last year., but for a lot of smaller courts no. Mitch got in the way of many nominees for multiple circuits keeping them vacant during his 2nd term. 
and no it wasn't that they were denied, they filibustered


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 20, 2020)

h





monkeyman4412 said:


> Yes and no.
> Supreme court yes did it in the last year., but for a lot of smaller courts no. Mitch got in the way of many nominees for multiple circuits keeping them vacant during his 2nd term.
> and no it wasn't that they were denied, they filibustered



Filibuster's gone. If you don't know why, look it up. It's a funny story.



omgcat said:


> there is no changes in law to take over the supreme court, there is no max court size. it has already been expanded in the past. all that needs to happen, is a president nominates, and the senate confirms.




uhhhh .... wrong. The size of the Court is set by act of Congress, i.e. legislation. It was last changed in 1869. In 1837 during Andrew Jackson's administration, it was set to 9. In 1863, in the middle of the Civil War, it was increased to 10. In 1869, Congress returned the number of Justices to 9. One for each federal judicial circuit. Except for 6 years during the 1860's, it has been at 9 for over 180 years.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 20, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> h
> 
> Filibuster's gone. If you don't know why, look it up. It's a funny story.
> 
> ...



The founders never set the number of justices because the original idea was that the court expanded as the number of states and population did. But we’ve been at 9 baring a few bits for 150 years now. so if congress chooses to expand it, that's what happens.

a couple things that could happen:


The Senate has a spending bill coming up and spending bills take precedence over other matters. 


The House could insert a provision into the spending bill that prohibits the Senate from considering judicial appointments within 90 days of a federal election.


Senate precedents are binding. Democrats could sue on the grounds that McConnell established a precedent by delaying the Merrick Garland hearing. They might not win the case but it would delay the nomination process until after inauguration.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 20, 2020)

omgcat said:


> so if congress chooses to expand it, that's what happens.




Yes, that's what I said too. Your post above said, "all that needs to happen, is a president nominates, and the senate confirms" which sounds like Trump could nominate a dozen every Monday, woohoo. But yeah the Constitution doesn't set the size of the Court but there is Federal law that does. Very, very old Federal law.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Sep 20, 2020)

Morals?

What morals? She did wanted her death to be politicide but only in her way. If Trump was smart he'd fill that seat ASAP and then kneecap as much power of the SCOTUS as possible.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 20, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Then you're fucking blind.
> 
> One is rude. The other is theft.
> 
> ...


Both are legal, but both are immoral. They're only theft in a metaphorical sense. If Republicans are going to be unapologetically hypocritical though, the Democrats should pack the court.

Again, this is coming from someone who generally thinks court-packing is an awful idea.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 20, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Then you're fucking blind.
> 
> One is rude. The other is theft.
> 
> ...


That's the most accurate description of the situation I've heard do far. It's nothing short of "we don't like the final score, so let's change the rules and give ourselves more players". In more civilised times that's how you'd start a civil war. McConnell can be as "hypocritical" as he wants, he's still following the same historical precedent he pointed out in the past. That, and his proclamation happened *before* the Democrats tried to turn an innocent man into a rapist on national television just because they didn't want a Trump-appointed justice on the court. Sorry, the gloves are off. Mitch should be running back and forth the Senate at 5000 miles per hour with paperwork in his hands, glowing red eyes and blood in his mouth to get this done.


----------



## Iamapirate (Sep 20, 2020)

callmebob said:


> Mitch can try and push his shit through. If the dems take the senate we´ll have 3 or 5 more supreme court members to even out this unjustice.


What's unjust about it exactly


----------



## x65943 (Sep 20, 2020)

Iamapirate said:


> What's unjust about it exactly


The double standard with Obama's nominee vs Trump's


----------



## Iamapirate (Sep 20, 2020)

x65943 said:


> The double standard with Obama's nominee vs Trump's


Okay but who cares? That was four years ago and this is now. The former also has nothing to do with Trump. As President it falls to him to nominate someone. You can complain about double standards but that doesn't make it unjust.


----------



## deficitdisorder (Sep 20, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> he's still following the same historical precedent he pointed out in the past. That, and his proclamation happened *before* the Democrats tried to turn an innocent man into a rapist on national television just because they didn't want a Trump-appointed justice on the court.



1. Not sure why you felt the need to put quotation marks around hypocritical. Its pretty straught forward. He said he would do one thing and now hr is going back on that word hiding behind some justification he added well after the fact. 

Trump and the GOP are well within every legal right to do so but it sure is hypocritical af to say we should never make a SC appointment in an election year only to immediately do that exact thing when its in their favor. 

2. That's awfully generous way to describe the Brent Kavvanaugh proceedings. Kavannaugh being a trump appointee had little to down the outrage as they didn't pull out they same shenanigans for the Neil Gorsuch nominee.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 20, 2020)

deficitdisorder said:


> 1. Not sure why you felt the need to put quotation marks around hypocritical. Its pretty straught forward. He said he would do one thing and now hr is going back on that word hiding behind some justification he added well after the fact.
> 
> Trump and the GOP are well within every legal right to do so but it sure is hypocritical af to say we should never make a SC appointment in an election year only to immediately do that exact thing when its in their favor.
> 
> 2. That's awfully generous way to describe the Brent Kavvanaugh proceedings. Kavannaugh being a trump appointee had little to down the outrage as they didn't pull out they same shenanigans for the Neil Gorsuch nominee.


Mitch McConnel specifically described his objection in the article I linked earlier, I will quote it again:


> “The tradition going back to the 1880s has been if a vacancy occurs in a presidential election year, and there is a different party in control of the Senate than the presidency, it is not filled."



This was said in May 2019, long before Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away, so you can't claim you didn't know what his position was. The situation right now is very different - you have a Republican President and a Republican Senate. Based on the quote above nothing stands in the way of confirming a new justice. Some will consider that a 180, others won't - as far as I'm concerned, if both sides are playing games then I expect my players to "play to win".

In regards to Kavanaugh, in my opinion the "shenanigans" were pulled out of the toy box because the liberal advantage in the SC was rapidly vanishing. They wanted to nip the problem in the bud, so to speak. By fraudulently riding the #MeToo movement they were hoping they could delay the appointment until "desirable" results of the Mueller investigation were published and Trump was removed from office. Thankfully they failed on both fronts. That’s my personal view based on what happened, it's entirely possible that I'm wrong and both the Mueller investigation and the Kavanaugh hearings were done in earnest and for the good of the country, I just have a hard time believing that.


----------



## notimp (Sep 20, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> This was said in May 2019, long before Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away, so you can't claim you didn't know what his position was. The situation right now is very different - you have a Republican President and a Republican Senate. Based on the quote above nothing stands in the way of confirming a new justice. Some will consider that a 180, others won't - as far as I'm concerned, if both sides are playing games then I expect my players to "play to win".


What a wonderful description of the end of democracy proper. 

Its not just that, its that afair the minimum time to vet and confirm a new supreme court justice so far was edit 50 days (WIth an average of above 90.) Now we gonna press to move it to under 40, to get significant republican influence over supreme court decisions in the next 30 years. Before the next election. Which gives us a supreme court, that will, be - in essence rightwing in all decisions.

Against the (PR but still) dying wish of the justice that just died.

Your only outs really - are to look away and claim that this didnt just happen, or do what you did - and insist, that this is not your political structure, this is just a "game" meant to be played hard.

Never mind the 'i like this person to b president' idiocy that most people mistake for politics in this forum, this is an issue with a checks and balances system that will be set up for 30, 40 years - and now cant be changed for that time - coming down to we can make that court hung, and always decide in favor of conservative ideals.

And people voting can do nothing about it.

This is hugely problematic, and makes me glad that I dont live in the US after all.. 

edit: Even the flipping spin machine already started. Because this has the potential to take away womens right to choose, Trump has to be told to do the following:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg death: Trump to nominate woman to fill Supreme Court seat
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54216710

Which as far as I remember he has never done in his life.

For people not to freak out entirely.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 20, 2020)

notimp said:


> What a wonderful description of the end of democracy proper.
> 
> Its not just that, its that afair the minimum time to vet and confirm a new supreme court justice so far was 70 days. Now we gonna press to move it to under 40, to get significant republican influence over supreme court decisions in the next 30 years. Before the next election. Which gives us a supreme court, that will, be - in essence rightwing in all decisions.
> 
> ...


First of all, it is the epitome of democracy to allow a duly elected President to nominate a Supreme Court justice, as per the letter of law. Secondly, the check on the President in this case is the Senate, and as long as Trump doesn't nominate a house plant, I doubt that they will object. The appointment is a matter of how qualified the nominee is, not who nominated them or when. Thirdly, just because a justice was nominated by a Republican President does not mean that said justice will rule in favour of conservative ideals 100% of the time - Justice Roberts and Justice Gorsuch proved as much in the recent ruling regarding LGBT workplace discrimination by siding with the liberal judges. The political landscape isn't black and white, there's a spectrum of opinions on both sides of the aisle. People's political views aren't carved with a cookie cutter, they evolve as a result of one's life experience.


> edit: Even the flipping spin machine already started. Because this has the potential to take away womens right to choose, Trump has to be told to do the following:
> 
> Ruth Bader Ginsburg death: Trump to nominate woman to fill Supreme Court seat
> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54216710
> ...


You remember wrong. Trump listed Amy Coney Barret, Joan Larsen, Barbara Lagoa, Bridget Bade, Allison Eid, Martha Pacold, Sarah Pitlyk, Britt Grant and more. Not that it matters whether the replacement is a woman or not, it is inherently sexist to assume that being a woman automatically bestows a nominee with some otherwise unattainable wisdom. Sex, gender or sexual orientation should not be a relevant qualifier - they *just* ruled on that. The candidate who gets appointed should be chosen based on their merits.

Edit: Current list of candidates, for those interested:

https://www.npr.org/sections/death-...umps-list-of-potential-supreme-court-nominees


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 20, 2020)

notimp said:


> Its not just that, its that afair the minimum time to vet and confirm a new supreme court justice so far was edit 50 days (WIth an average of above 90.) Now we gonna press to move it to under 40


From a practical standpoint then
a) she was at death's door for years now (not to mention being 80+ generally is effectively that). Even news has long lists of people with prebaked obituaries and articles updated and ready to go possibly before the body is released to a funeral parlour.
and b) it is the kind of role you probably want to have a backup for, and generally have a limited pool to pick from at the best of times; the shortlists tend to be those already in high courts which is not the biggest number in the world, even more so if you factor age and health into the matter (more again if they have to have tits, more melanin or some other pointless factor, albeit one that tends to reduce things considerably more than that). Depending upon how you want to play it then you might even share that list (being considered or nominated is generally an honour) with your political opponents or they could have a pretty good guess or at best a bit of redundancy.
Similarly does being current space year 2020 where any random police officer can pull up my arrest record possibly across the nation, maybe even internationally, on the side of the road play into things? I can similarly look up the voting records of any politician and probably any ruling the judge ever made (albeit I might have subscribe to something like lexis nexis for that one, though with donations in the millions and a fund probably way over that I am sure they can spring for that one for their researchers). If you have to trawl, possibly incomplete, paper archives and libraries, send a sanctified dude on a horse set up in person background interviews and whatnot then yeah time is real factor. If they were... actually baseline competent then all those nice keyword, dissent classifications (think all those stats that sports generate. Possibly backed up by analysis of each decision made by a legal type similar to research vetting, being as they are mostly drawn from serious big boy courts that is probably already available without you paying anybody) and phrasing measuring computer fun (positive, negative, word choice and the actually fun stuff that computers tell me nowadays) would be constantly running ready to spit up to date things out in a second, possibly including a nice list of things to press them on and dubious or debatable decisions (or some cheap points scoring).

https://xkcd.com/1122/ also seems relevant at this point.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 20, 2020)

Iamapirate said:


> Okay but who cares? That was four years ago and this is now. The former also has nothing to do with Trump. As President it falls to him to nominate someone. You can complain about double standards but that doesn't make it unjust.



And if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. (In other words, there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around, for everyone.)

In 2106 the Democrats and even RBG were all adamant that the President nominates and the Senate votes on confirmation in the event of a vacancy on the Court, no matter when it happens (including during election years). Historically that's true, but when the Senate majority is not of the same party as the President, the nominee doesn't make it. Because they only get in with the consent of the Senate. If the Senate doesn't want to cooperate/approve anyone the President names, they just don't. 



notimp said:


> And people voting can do nothing about it.



The people voting did do something about it. They elected a Republican Senate majority, so conservative judges would be appointed.

If Ruth Bader Ginsburg wanted to be sure of an ideologically similar replacement, she should've retired when Obama was President.

I don't really expect a new Justice will be confirmed before the election. It _could_ happen ... John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Conner, and RBG herself all went from nomination to confirmation in less time. But I don't think it will happen. But this situation is all RBG's doing ...  the rage on the left at the Republicans for getting this opportunity is misplaced.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 20, 2020)

Apparently Nancy Pelosi does not rule out a second impeachment inquiry explicitly to delay the nomination:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...trump-delay-supreme-court-battle-b507574.html

You know, in case you were wondering if they were going to use underhanded tricks. I quote:


> “We have a responsibility, we take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" - Nancy Pelosi



For those unfamiliar with the Constitution, that's the founding document which specifies that Trump should nominate a Justice and the Senate should confirm them.


> "(...) and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint (...) judges of the Supreme Court" - the Constitution


They're not defending that part, stop seeing things.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 20, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Apparently Nancy Pelosi does not rule out a second impeachment inquiry explicitly to delay the nomination:
> 
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...trump-delay-supreme-court-battle-b507574.html


There was a possibility Trump would be impeached a second time, with or without RBG's death.



Foxi4 said:


> For those unfamiliar with the Constitution, that's the founding document which specifies that Trump should nominate a Justice and the Senate should confirm them.
> 
> They're not defending that part, stop seeing things.


The Republicans are the ones who decided in 2016 that part of the Constitution didn't matter.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 20, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The Republicans are the ones who decided in 2016 that part of the Constitution didn't matter.


Which part of "with the advice and consent of the Senate" needs to be explained? Obama did not have the Senate's consent, it wasn't unconstitutional.


----------



## callmebob (Sep 20, 2020)

@Foxi4 It´s funny that "Fox" is part of your name. It fits wonderfully.

Your flag says Poland. Is that your nationality or just your location, because your English is perfect.

You may be brainwashed from to much Fox, but you´re not plain stupid.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 20, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Which part of "with the advice and consent of the Senate" needs to be explained? Obama did not have the Senate's consent, it wasn't unconstitutional.


It was arguably unconstitutional when McConnell didn't bring Garland's nomination to the Senate.

You were also arguing the Constitution "specifies that [the President] should nominate a Justice and the Senate should confirm them," with the hypocrisy of what the Republicans did in 2016 apparently lost on you.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 20, 2020)

Lacius said:


> It was arguably unconstitutional when McConnell didn't bring Garland's nomination to the Senate.
> 
> You were also arguing the Constitution "specifies that [the President] should nominate a Justice and the Senate should confirm them," with the hypocrisy of what the Republicans did in 2016 apparently lost on you.


They should confirm the Justice if the President had the Senate's consent in the first place and if the selection was made with the Senate's advice. Don't worry, nothing is "lost" on me.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 20, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> They should confirm the Justice if the President had the Senate's consent in the first place and if the selection was made with the Senate's advice. Don't worry, nothing is "lost" on me.


It clearly is. The argument in 2016 was that the Senate shouldn't even take up a nomination in a presidential election year, with the sole reason being it was an election year.

The Senate didn't have a chance to vote yes or no on Obama's nominee. One man chose not to bring it to the Senate.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 20, 2020)

Lacius said:


> It clearly is. The argument in 2016 was that the Senate shouldn't even take up a nomination in a presidential election year, with the sole reason being it was an election year.


See above. I've already quoted the justification twice, you'll have to argue with Mitch, not me.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 20, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> See above. I've already quoted the justification twice, you'll have to argue with Mitch, not me.


Which Mitch? Because he's hypocritically moving the goalposts, depending on who is president.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 20, 2020)

callmebob said:


> @Foxi4 It´s funny that "Fox" is part of your name. It fits wonderfully.
> 
> Your flag says Poland. Is that your nationality or just your location, because your English is perfect.
> 
> You may be brainwashed from to much Fox, but you´re not plain stupid.


I don't watch Fox. In fact, I don't watch television, period. I leave the idiot box to people who can't form their own opinions, so they just acquire other people's views by osmosis.

I'm Polish, but I don't reside in my country of origin - I live in the UK, hence you see a lot of links to UK sites from me. Thank you for the compliment, it's always nice to be complimented on your use of a second language.


----------



## callmebob (Sep 20, 2020)

@Foxi4 Off topic, that explains the English a bit, how long have you lived there, your whole life?

On topic, If you´re Polish living in the U.K., why so concerned with U.S. politics? Particularly with supreme court members?


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 20, 2020)

callmebob said:


> @Foxi4 Off topic, that explains the English a bit, how long have you lived there, your whole life.
> 
> On topic, If you´re Polish living in the U.K., why so concerned with U.S. politics? Particularly with supreme court members?


That's a good question. I've lived here for around 5-6 years - I don't keep count, home is where your heart is. The English is probably better explained by the fact that I have a degree in English Philology and Computer Science, it was a nice course that combined the best of both worlds, the humanities and the sciences. It was a nightmare to keep up with all the work, but it made me a well-rounded person. American history, literature and civics were my bread and butter for a good portion of my life, so I'm "quite familiar" with the subject matter.

As for the interest in American news, international politics and culture are downstream from the United States and the global economy lives by the pulse of the dollar. I'm surprised *more* people aren't interested in these matters, especially considering the fact that what happens across the pond affects all of us, without exaggeration. Not only that, I consider the United States to be the most amazing political experiment in history - it's a very unique construct built on great tenants. The emphasis on individual freedoms appeals to me.

We're straying off-topic though, I feel like I'm getting interviewed.


----------



## callmebob (Sep 20, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> That's a good question. I've lived here for around 5-6 years - I don't keep count, home is where your heart is. The English is probably better explained by the fact that I have a degree in English Philology and Computer Science, it was a nice course that combined the best of both worlds, the humanities and the sciences. It was a nightmare to keep up with all the work, but it made me a well-rounded person. American history, literature and civics were my bread and butter for a good portion of my life, so I'm "quite familiar" with the subject matter.
> 
> As for the interest in American news, international politics and culture are downstream from the United States and the global economy lives by the pulse of the dollar. I'm surprised *more* people aren't interested in these matters, especially considering the fact that what happens across the pond affects all of us, without exaggeration. Not only that, I consider the United States to be the most amazing political experiment in history - it's a very unique construct built on great tenants. The emphasis on individual freedoms appeals to me.
> 
> We're straying off-topic though, I feel like I'm getting interviewed.



Sorry, yes getting off topic, and not an interview. I think the experiment is over though, should Trump win, the Reps keep the senate and take the supreme court on top of it. Game over, give Putin the keys to the white house.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 20, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Apparently Nancy Pelosi does not rule out a second impeachment inquiry explicitly to delay the nomination:
> 
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...trump-delay-supreme-court-battle-b507574.html
> 
> ...



It doesn't surprise me that the Democrats would try to impeach the President again for no valid reason. The first impeachment attempt was done purely due to their unwillingness to accept the 2016 election results and they were scheming even before Trump took office to figure out a way to impeach him. Impeach without guilt is what my circle of friends called it. Now they want to use impeachment again like it's some normal tool so Trump doesn't do his job and appoint a new Supreme Court Justice. It makes me sick to think they can just use impeachment as a tool when it was originally created to only be used in rare and extreme circumstances. It wasn't made to be used each time you simply don't like something the other side has done or might do. Hey, at least if Biden wins we can start the impeachment process before he takes office, you know, since there's precedent for that. Might as well start the impeachment process on Harris too. Kill two birds with one stone?


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 20, 2020)

callmebob said:


> Sorry, yes getting off topic, and not an interview. I think the experiment is over though, should Trump win, the Reps keep the senate and take the supreme court on top of it. Game over, give Putin the keys to the white house.


This will come as a shock, but I acknowledge that Putin and the Kremlin are friendly towards the Trump administration, however my reasoning as to why is not a collusion fairy that so far nobody's managed to find despite years of searching. The reason why it would be beneficial to Putin to have Trump re-elected is because Trump's focused on the home turf and will not be in the way of Russia's possible expansion into areas they've recently "liberated" - he's not a war hawk. Not only that, Trump is extremely hostile to the Chinese government, a direct economic competitor. He's also "unpredictable" compared to the usual politician since he plays by a completely different book, so there is some potential that he will cause chaos in various international organisations like NATO and the WHO, which I'm all for anyway. Putin is less interested in "weakening the position of the United States" than he is in completing strategic objectives the Middle East and Eastern Europe. As far as interference is concerned, Russia is a goliath on clay legs - it's an enormous country with the economic output smaller than that of Texas. Anyone worrying about Russia is under the same spell as people who were worried about the Red Scare many decades ago.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 20, 2020)

callmebob said:


> Sorry, yes getting off topic, and not an interview. I think the experiment is over though, should Trump win, the Reps keep the senate and take the supreme court on top of it. Game over, give Putin the keys to the white house.



The *American way of life was never "an experiment"*. That's *wording* the *Liberals created* to *undermine its legitimacy*. Even in the amidst an ending global pandemic America is functioning just fine right now. There's is however an element that's working to overthrow the Government, which entails people who are lighting wild fires out west to push a false narrative about global warming and rioting, looting, arson, murders and general unrest in once great cities that Democrats have run into the ground. There's also foreign powers who are indeed our enemies who would like to divide us to sow discord and then there's the rich international globalists that would also like to see our county in ruin.

There's a lot at play right now, but *Capitalism is still the best option on the board* right now and *the American way of life was never and is not an "experiment"*. We have always been a country that fights for itself, but in the recent years we've been getting the shit end of deals with rest of the world. It is indeed the USA vs everyone else as it always has been. I'm glad we have someone like Trump in office that's fighting for our country and way of life and doesn't want to tear and down and replace it with something far worse. If we can manage retain Trump as President, get the majority in Congress and keep the majority in the Senate I hope normal as-is politics ends and we get to fixing all of the problems the Liberals have been introducing into our country. I really hope Biden doesn't win as the only places things are getting bad are the places run by Democrats and Liberals. We don't need any more of their failing leadership.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 20, 2020)

Lacius said:


> It was arguably unconstitutional when McConnell didn't bring Garland's nomination to the Senate.
> 
> You were also arguing the Constitution "specifies that [the President] should nominate a Justice and the Senate should confirm them," with the hypocrisy of what the Republicans did in 2016 apparently lost on you.



It was "arguably"

You can argue till you're blue in the face. If it goes to the Senate and dies on the vine, you don't have the Senate's consent.


----------



## callmebob (Sep 20, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> This will come as a shock, but I acknowledge that Putin and the Kremlin are friendly towards the Trump administration, however my reasoning as to why is not a collusion fairy that so far nobody's managed to find despite years of searching. The reason why it would be beneficial to Putin to have Trump re-elected is because Trump's focused on the home turf and will not be in the way of Russia's possible expansion into areas they've recently "liberated" - he's not a war hawk. Not only that, Trump is extremely hostile to the Chinese government, a direct economic competitor. He's also "unpredictable" compared to the usual politician since he plays by a completely different book, so there is some potential that he will cause chaos in various international organisations like NATO and the WHO, which I'm all for anyway. Putin is less interested in "weakening the position of the United States" than he is in completing strategic objectives the Middle East and Eastern Europe. As far as interference is concerned, Russia is a goliath on clay legs - it's an enormous country with the economic output smaller than that of Texas. Anyone worrying about Russia is under the same spell as people who were worried about the Red Scare many decades ago.



I´m surprised that you, being Polish aren´t concerned about Putin. To think that he will be satisfied with the Ukraine and Belarus is a leap. I´m living in Germany and I´m not happy about Trump pulling out the troops here.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 20, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> The *American way of life was never "an experiment"*. That's *wording* the *Liberals created* to *undermine its legitimacy*. Even in the amidst an ending global pandemic America is functioning just fine right now. There's is however an element that's working to overthrow the Government, which entails people who are lighting wild fires out west to push a false narrative about global warming and rioting, looting, arson, murders and general unrest in once great cities that Democrats have run into the ground. There's also foreign powers who are indeed our enemies who would like to divide us to sow discord and then there's the rich international globalists that would also like to see our county in ruin.
> 
> There's a lot at play right now, but *Capitalism is still the best option on the board* right now and *the American way of life was never and is not an "experiment"*. We have always been a country that fights for itself, but in the recent years we've been getting the shit end of deals with rest of the world. It is indeed the USA vs everyone else as it always has been. I'm glad we have someone like Trump in office that's fighting for our country and way of life and doesn't want to tear and down and replace it with something far worse. If we can manage retain Trump as President, get the majority in Congress and keep the majority in the Senate I hope normal as-is politics ends and we get to fixing all of the problems the Liberals have been introducing into our country. I really hope Biden doesn't win as the only places things are getting bad are the places run by Democrats and Liberals. We don't need any more of their failing leadership.


I hate to be that guy, but "the great American experiment" refers to "a bunch of people from wildly different walks of life who left their homes due to religious persecution, government tyranny or simply poverty, sailed across the ocean, found a new life on an uncharted continent and established a country with no lords or kings". The fact that the U.S. exists, became a superpower and the benchmark of success in many facets of modern life is proof positive that it was an experiment at trying something different, and it was wildly successful. It's not a disparaging term, it's praise. In terms of statistical probability the United States shouldn't even exist, and yet here we are - that alone is an achievement.


callmebob said:


> I´m surprised that you, being Polish aren´t concerned about Putin. To think that he will be satisfied with the Ukraine and Belarus is a leap. I´m living in Germany and I´m not happy about Trump pulling out the troops here.


You have to balance your priorities. I'm not happy with Putin and the Kremlin *existing*, however I do not expect the U.S. to be the world's policeman. If Russia continues its expansion, at some point it will have to be curbed, but that's more of a concern to Russia's immediate neighbours than it is to the U.S. - one hand washes the other, if you expect the U.S. to sacrifice their American boys for the sake of your security, you'd better give them something good in return because that's not their responsibility, it's yours.


----------



## callmebob (Sep 20, 2020)

You´re right. Let Putin take all of Eastern Europe, including Poland. Win for both Trump and Putin!!


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 20, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I hate to be that guy, but "the great American experiment" refers to "a bunch of people from wildly different walks of life who left their homes due to religious persecution, government tyranny or simply poverty, sailed across the ocean, found a new life on an uncharted continent and established a country with no lords or kings". The fact that the U.S. exists, became a superpower and the benchmark of success in many facets of modern life is proof positive that it was an experiment at trying something different, and it was wildly successful. It's not a disparaging term, it's praise. In terms of statistical probability the United States shouldn't even exist, and yet here we are - that alone is an achievement.



No apologies needed. I've only seen the words "American Experiment" used in a *negative connotation*, for the reasons I outlined in the post you replied to. It's good to hear* there's a more proper explanation that's positive* floating around out there.



Foxi4 said:


> See above. I've already quoted the justification twice, you'll have to argue with Mitch, not me.



*Liberals like to play word games.* They'll pick out a few words in a statement and ignore the context or other parts of the statement to craft something that was never implied nor said. It's *very dishonest* as it's straight up fabricating what someone said or meant. *Lying is not a positive character trait.* When you quote something or are referring to something someone said you don't get to pick and choose only the stuff you want to manipulate and then twist it up into something that the person never said. If @Lacius would read the entire statement and interpret in its entirety and not just pick out a few words that he wants to see and ignore the rest it's plain and simple to see the intent, context and reasoning behind the entire quote. Once you're being honest about what you're interpreting it's easy to see you're correct on this one and Lacius is incorrect.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



callmebob said:


> You´re right. Let Putin take all of Eastern Europe, including Poland. Win for both Trump and Putin!!



That entire Putin colluded with Trump has been so played out and has been proven time and time again not to be true. I'm not sure if you're just joking or if you seriously believe that the USA President is a Russian Agent.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 20, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> It was "arguably"
> 
> You can argue till you're blue in the face. If it goes to the Senate and dies on the vine, you don't have the Senate's consent.


The problems are:

Garland never got to go to the Senate
Garland was blocked from going to the Senate on the sole basis that it was an election year.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



gregory-samba said:


> No apologies needed. I've only seen the words "American Experiment" used in a *negative connotation*, for the reasons I outlined in the post you replied to. It's good to hear* there's a more proper explanation that's positive* floating around out there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not wrong that Mcconnell is a hypocrite. The Senate either takes up appointments in an election year or it doesn't. I don't really care which the standard is as long as there's a standard.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 20, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> It was "arguably"
> 
> You can argue till you're blue in the face. If it goes to the Senate and dies on the vine, you don't have the Senate's consent.





Basically what Lacius is saying, since sometimes you just have to spell it out.
In 2016 Mitch said blocked garland, his reason: "it's an election year" guy didn't even get a hearing.
now, it's 2020, we have a similar situation, a justice needs to be replaced, Mitch now for some reason, doesn't follow his "election year" reason, and desires to let Trump have his/her justice.
Essentially double standard, you either let a president's choice get a hearing and the process for becoming a justice, or you stop them because it's an election year, it can't be both.


----------



## callmebob (Sep 20, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> That entire Putin colluded with Trump has been so played out and has been proven time and time again not to be true. I'm not sure if you're just joking or if you seriously believe that the USA President is a Russian Agent.



1st. That has definitely NOT been proven untrue. 2nd. Putin undoubtedly has something on Trump, and it´s not just some pee-pee tapes. Trump is just a treacherous tool. Do we need to start with his lying about the Coronavirus?


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 20, 2020)

callmebob said:


> 1st. That has definitely NOT been proven untrue. 2nd. Putin undoubtedly has something on Trump, and it´s not just some pee-pee tapes. Trump is just a treacherous tool. Do we need to start with his lying about the Coronavirus?


Nah, think we should start with his friendly ties to Russia? Or what about the fact we know Russia did indeed, interfere with the 2016 election, and he decided to do nothing about it? Or what about stopping in mail in voting.
This list could go on, but point is, Trump is no good/I agree with you.


----------



## Doran754 (Sep 20, 2020)

callmebob said:


> 1st. That has definitely NOT been proven untrue. 2nd. Putin undoubtedly has something on Trump, and it´s not just some pee-pee tapes. Trump is just a treacherous tool. Do we need to start with his lying about the Coronavirus?



How do you manage to get out of the bed in the mornings, crying about Putin for 4 straight years my god. Give it a rest, I hate to break it to you, you're just not that important. Russia doesn't care about you. But speaking on foreign countries. Why aren't you bothered about China interfering in American sport and politics. You don't seem to care that China has basically taken over every country around it. Does China not suit your victim narrative, will the story change after November if Trump wins again or will it be another 4 years of this incessant bullshit. Just want a heads up




Lacius said:


> I'm not wrong that Mcconnell is a hypocrite. The Senate either takes up appointments in an election year or it doesn't. I don't really care which the standard is as long as there's a standard.



Yes you are. Obama was a lame duck, and didn't control the senate. I'm sure you're very aware its a different set of circumstances now and that Republicans control the senate and have a republican president in place. That hasn't stopped you whinging even though you know you're wrong.

As a non american It's easy for me to see why your country will probably never recover, especially after November. Because of people like you who refuse to play by the rules, cry when you lose and attempt to change the rules. Were governed by consent but It's been months and months of riots and years of crying.




monkeyman4412 said:


> Nah, think we should start with his friendly ties to Russia? Or what about the fact we know Russia did indeed, interfere with the 2016 election, and he decided to do nothing about it? Or what about stopping in mail in voting.
> This list could go on, but point is, Trump is no good/I agree with you.



Or how about the fact Obama flew over to the UK and interfered in the UK brexit referendum. "It'S oKaY wHeN wE dO iT"

I sit eagerly awaiting your condemnation of your then president blatantly interfering in another countries vote, telling us how to vote.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 20, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Basically what Lacius is saying, since sometimes you just have to spell it out.
> In 2016 Mitch said blocked garland, his reason: "it's an election year" guy didn't even get a hearing.
> now, it's 2020, we have a similar situation, a justice needs to be replaced, Mitch now for some reason, doesn't follow his "election year" reason, and desires to let Trump have his/her justice.
> Essentially double standard, you either let a president's choice get a hearing and the process for becoming a justice, or you stop them because it's an election year, it can't be both.



Mitch gave a specific set of circumstances regarding the appointment in an election year. You're conveniently excluding criteria that was outlined in his statements. You don't get to pick and choose what verbage you want to include. You either quote the man on what he said or you're simply making shit up out of thin air.



callmebob said:


> 1st. That has definitely NOT been proven untrue. 2nd. Putin undoubtedly has something on Trump, and it´s not just some pee-pee tapes. Trump is just a treacherous tool. Do we need to start with his lying about the Coronavirus?



I'm sorry you're too dense to initially or still believe in that nonsense. I'd cite logic, but that would apparently be a waste of time.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 20, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Yes you are. Obama was a lame duck, and didn't control the senate. I'm sure you're very aware its a different set of circumstances now and that Republicans control the senate and have a republican president in place. That hasn't stopped you whinging even though you know you're wrong.


What backwards logic am I actually reading? Holy shit.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii
article 2 section 2
"The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."
as a reminder, Obama's pick, never got a hearing. Now does this matter? Well there is a rule in the senate that says they will not have any hearings until the next president is elected if in a election year.
However, Mitch, decided to go against that rule, and said that he would push a vote.
That is not how this is supposed to work.
Again, double standard.


----------



## Doran754 (Sep 20, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> What backwards logic am I actually reading? Holy shit.
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii
> article 2 section 2
> "The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."
> ...



Why didn't they get a hearing? Because democrats didn't control the Senate. Why is trumps pick going to be confirmed? Because they control the senate. You're boring, cry more.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 20, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> What backwards logic am I actually reading? Holy shit.
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii
> article 2 section 2
> "The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."
> ...



Both circumstances are not the same and the criteria Mitch set out doesn't even apply to this unique situation. 

Though I understand, the situation is quite simple.

*Liberals don't want Trump to appoint a Judge and Conservatives want him to appoint one. *

That's all it boils down to. No amount of selective cherry picking things that don't apply or simply don't exist or didn't happen by the dishonest Liberal Democrats will change this situation. Trump is the President and the Republicans are the majority in the Senate. They'll do as they please and hopefully in this certain situation get a Judge in there as soon as possible. The last thing we need is more Democrats deciding on important matters.


----------



## callmebob (Sep 20, 2020)

shamzie said:


> How do you manage to get out of the bed in the mornings, crying about Putin for 4 straight years my god. Give it a rest, I hate to break it to you, you're just not that important. Russia doesn't care about you. But speaking on foreign countries. Why aren't you bothered about China interfering in American sport and politics. You don't seem to care that China has basically taken over every country around it. Does China not suit your victim narrative, will the story change after November if Trump wins again or will it be another 4 years of this incessant bullshit. Just want a heads up.



If Russia doesn´t give a shit, why do they keep trying to influence our elections? Also China doesn´t own Trump, Russia does.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 20, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Obama was a lame duck


Obama wasn't a lame duck yet.



shamzie said:


> and didn't control the senate.


So what? Control of the Senate was irrelevant to the argument the Republicans were making in 2016, and it should be irrelevant.


----------



## Doran754 (Sep 20, 2020)

callmebob said:


> If Russia doesn´t give a shit, why do they keep trying to influence our elections? Also China doesn´t own Trump, Russia does.



Completely ignored the fact a sitting US president openly interfered in another countries election. Of course you do lmao.



Lacius said:


> Obama wasn't a lame duck yet.
> 
> 
> So what? Control of the Senate was irrelevant to the argument the Republicans were making in 2016, and it should be irrelevant.



Stop being facetious. Its completely relevant. If dems controlled the senate we wouldn't be having this conversation. And you'd still be making the same arguments in January after the election because greg is right, it doesn't matter who or why you're making the arguments you are. You'd be upset and try and stop any conservative judge anyway.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 20, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Both circumstances are not the same and the criteria Mitch set out doesn't even apply to this unique situation.
> 
> Though I understand, the situation is quite simple.
> 
> ...


The only dishonesty I've seen so far is McConnell's hypocrisy.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 20, 2020)

Regardless of anyone's position on Russia, the largest threat to the free world right now is China, plain and simple. According to the UN they control 28% of global manufacturing output, which includes 80% of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) used to manufacture essential drugs in America. You would think that the possibility of being cut off from your supply of life-saving medicine on a whim of a communist tyrant would be considered an existential threat to national security, especially in times of a pandemic, but apparently this is fine and not worth reporting on. This situation was largely caused by years of policy that gutted the manufacturing prowess of the western world - the Chinese were willing to do the same job for less, with no regard to the health and safety of the workers, and this is the result. Beijing is laughing all the way to the bank while you guys are chasing Russian fairies, at this stage the conversation is moot. 2016 is irrelevant, we have a new election - make sure this one is watertight. One way to do it would be to not introduce new avenues to affect the result. But alas, what do I know? I'm just looking at the numbers.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 20, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Completely ignored the fact a sitting US president openly interfered in another countries election. Of course you do lmao.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop being facetious. Its completely relevant. If dems controlled the senate we wouldn't be having this conversation. And you'd still be making the same arguments in January after the election because greg is right, it doesn't matter who or why you're making the arguments you are. You'd be upset and try and stop any conservative judge anyway.


You're right that we wouldn't be having this conversation if Democrats controlled the Senate, but that doesn't make party control of the Senate at all relevant to the standards allegedly set in place for if a Supreme Court appointment occurs in an election year. It also doesn't mean it should be relevant.

The Republican standard was "no," but now it's "yes." The reason? They're willing to be hypocritical to get what they want, which is as many conservative seats as possible. McConnell's reasoning in 2016 had nothing to do with which party controls the Senate, nor should it. Also, please remember that McConnell said that if Hillary won in 2016, the seat would potentially be kept open indefinitely (until either the Senate went Democratic or the presidency went Republican). Are those the new standards? Because that's what it sounds like.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 20, 2020)




----------



## Deleted User (Sep 20, 2020)

holy crap mother of word salad from many of you.


shamzie said:


> Completely ignored the fact a sitting US president openly interfered in another countries election. Of course you do lmao.
> 
> 
> 
> Stop being facetious. Its completely relevant. If dems controlled the senate we wouldn't be having this conversation. And you'd still be making the same arguments in January after the election because greg is right, it doesn't matter who or why you're making the arguments you are. You'd be upset and try and stop any conservative judge anyway.


Not so, if this was vice versa, and the biden rule was properly applied (back in 1992)

1. there's a part of the quote in the "biden rule" that Republicans are intentionally leaving out. the quote that is being used to defend the original block (back in 2016) is as follows
"It is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed,”
there is a teeeny tiny part that is missing from this quote but has massive impacts
* 'if the president consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justice Kennedy and Justice Souter*,'
What does this mean? This means that Garland was supposed to at LEAST get a hearing. The senate did not do that all.
So okay, if the senate didn't do that? So who gives?
Well, that would mean Garland was supposed to get at least a hearing. As I previously stated, that didn't happen. Which basically means, Republicans are playing favorites. They tried to claim using the biden rule back in 2016. Which, the catch was they didn't speak or work with the president of that time to at least provide a hearing. But NOW it's okay because the president is a republican. Simply put, that's a double standard and a half. that's putting party over people.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 20, 2020)

Lacius said:


> You're right that we wouldn't be having this conversation if Democrats controlled the Senate, but that doesn't make party control of the Senate at all relevant to the standards allegedly set in place for if a Supreme Court appointment occurs in an election year. It also doesn't mean it should be relevant.
> 
> The Republican standard was "no," but now it's "yes." The reason? They're willing to be hypocritical to get what they want, which is as many conservative seats as possible. McConnell's reasoning in 2016 had nothing to do with which party controls the Senate, nor should it. Also, please remember that McConnell said that if Hillary won in 2016, the seat would potentially be kept open indefinitely (until either the Senate went Democratic or the presidency went Republican). Are those the new standards? Because that's what it sounds like.



Even if you exclude the unique circumstances surround each appointment I believe that being a hypocrite is okay if it means that a new Conservative Judge is appointed to the Supreme Court. There's far worse things than being a hypocrite, like breaking the law, starting wild fires, looting, murdering, lying, arson, trying to use Impeachment as an unjustified tool during an election year or voting for these fools who have been running great cities into the ground for decades. I can deal with Mitch being a hypocrite, if that's what was taking place, but @Foxi4 already provided you with a quote that set out the specifics and you just choose to selectively use what makes you sound correct from the quote and ignore the rest. That's a personal flaw, but your willing blindness doesn't change what he said, what he meant, why he said it and what took place back then compared to what's happening now. Though, this topic is boring. Democrats will fight against an appointment and will say anything and do anything regardless of truthfulness to stop it while Republicans will try their best to get a new Judge onto the bench. The lies your side comes up with have no bearing on the situation. It's not like you can lie and cheat your way around the rules.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 20, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Or how about the fact Obama flew over to the UK and interfered in the UK brexit referendum. "It'S oKaY wHeN wE dO iT"
> 
> I sit eagerly awaiting your condemnation of your then president blatantly interfering in another countries vote, telling us how to vote.


Well, let's see here one was a president pushing for a country not to go through a policy, however said country still had a choice.
Meanwhile hacking into a election and changing votes, or pouring money into a election as a foreign country is far more direct of election tampering. One was a policy, the other was tampering with a presidential election.
Please, you tell me which is worse?


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 20, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Republicans are playing favorites



Good! We don't need another judge that supports identity politics or murdering the unborn. They can play favorites until the sun burns out.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 20, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Even if you exclude the unique circumstances surround each appointment I believe that being a hypocrite is okay if it means that a new Conservative Judge is appointed to the Supreme Court. There's far worse things than being a hypocrite, like breaking the law, starting wild fires, looting, murdering, lying, arson, trying to use Impeachment as an unjustified tool during an election year or voting for these fools who have been running great cities into the ground for decades. I can deal with Mitch being a hypocrite, if that's what was taking place, but @Foxi4 already provided you with a quote that set out the specifics and you just choose to selectively use what makes you sound correct from the quote and ignore the rest. That's a personal flaw, but your willing blindness doesn't change what he said, what he meant, why he said it and what took place back then compared to what's happening now. Though, this topic is boring. Democrats will fight against an appointment and will say anything and do anything regardless of truthfulness to stop it while Republicans will try their best to get a new Judge onto the bench. The lies your side comes up with have no bearing on the situation. It's not like you can lie and cheat your way around the rules.


To be fair to @Lacius, this is a clarification McConnel provided in 2019, meaning after everything was said and done, but also long before the current debacle. Either way, if the issue was never brought up in front of the Senate then there was no Senate consent. Even if it was brought up before the Senate, it wouldn't pass either way. All of this is hypothetical coulda shoulda woulda, at the end of the day the GOP will take what they can get if the opportunity arises - the reelection is uncertain, the seat is surefire. They could do it tomorrow if they really wanted to, there's nothing stopping them.


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 20, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Good! We don't need another judge that supports identity politics or murdering the unborn. They can play favorites until the sun burns out.


you should ponder this is it murder if the mother's life is in danger? if you say yes that your as hypocrical as all of you lot maybe worse


----------



## Lacius (Sep 20, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> To be fair to @Lacius, this is a clarification McConnel provided in 2019, meaning after everything was said and done, but also long before the current debacle. Either way, if the issue was never brought up in front of the Senate then there was no Senate consent. Even if it was brought up before the Senate, it wouldn't pass either way. All of this is hypothetical coulda shoulda woulda, at the end of the day the GOP will take what they can get if the opportunity arises - the reelection is uncertain, the seat is surefire. They could do it tomorrow if they really wanted to, there's nothing stopping them.


If they voted on Garland and it didn't pass, that sucks but it's fair (excluding issues with Senate composition being unrepresentative of the population). Elections have consequences. One man stating he's not even going to let anybody vote on him for a single reason (it's an election year) and then contradicting that when it's convenient is hypocrisy, plain and simple. If that's what happens, the Democrats should pack the court. It wouldn't be moral, but it wouldn't be any worse than what McConnell is trying to get away with.

And, as I said earlier, it was arguably unconstitutional for McConnell not to take up the Garland nomination, even if it was going to fail.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 20, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> you should ponder this is it murder if the mother's life is in danger? if you say yes that your as hypocrical as all of you lot maybe worse



wrong thread?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 20, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I believe that being a hypocrite is okay if it means that a new Conservative Judge is appointed to the Supreme Court.


That's what many Republicans are thinking but not saying. Thank you for being honest.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 20, 2020)

Lacius said:


> If they voted on Garland and it didn't pass, that sucks but it's fair (excluding issues with Senate composition being unrepresentative of the population). Elections have consequences. One man stating he's not even going to let anybody vote on him for a single reason (it's an election year) and then contradicting that when it's convenient is hypocrisy, plain and simple. If that's what happens, the Democrats should pack the court. It wouldn't be moral, but it wouldn't be any worse than what McConnell is trying to get away with.



Too bad your side nuked the 60 vote requirement to confirm judicial nominees.

Too bad Ginsburg didn't retire before 2106.

Too bad.

I guess my feeling about this is summed up in this excerpt I picked up from another site.

"*The only real principle in play now — and since 2002 — is power, on both sides of the aisle. Democrats blockaded George W. Bush’s nominees because they could, and then Republicans did the same to Obama’s for the same reason. Democrats changed the rules in 2013 to stack the court because they could, and Republicans did the same in 2017 for the same reason. They left Merrick Garland twisting in the wind for the same reason — because they could. And so they did, all of them, over the years.*"


----------



## Lacius (Sep 20, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Good! We don't need another judge that supports identity politics or murdering the unborn. They can play favorites until the sun burns out.


A woman has (and should have) a right to control her body. In addition, abortion isn't murder, since it's not a person.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 20, 2020)

hey, i'm willing to let trump get that SC seat if it burns his chances at the presidency, and guarantees dems the senate. at that point the dems could impeach Kavanaugh, and add 2 more justices. no one on the GOP side care about hypocrisy or using underhanded tactics anyways, so why not.

people here have their minds made up about who they are going to vote for. other people don't. Also this would turn the presidential race from "oh gosh i'm not a fan of these two candidates" to "oh Jesus fuck the impartiality SC is in danger". Honestly it happening now will energize the fuck out of the semi-sleepy democrats and unlikely young voters.

people care a whole lot about the supreme court, and women care about having representation on the highest court in the land. if trump shoves through someone who has a stance against abortion, it's game over for him and a GOP senate majority, as that is a boiling point issue.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Sep 20, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Good! We don't need another judge that supports identity politics or murdering the unborn. They can play favorites until the sun burns out.



Always the baby murdering card. RepubliCONS, pretending they care about you... until birth. Then they don't give a fuck what happens to anyone.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 20, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Too bad your side nuked the 60 vote requirement to confirm judicial nominees.
> 
> Too bad Ginsburg didn't retire before 2106.
> 
> Too bad.


The filibuster was always stupid, even if its removal has been inconvenient at times. Talking filibusters are fine though.

Yes, it's too bad Ginsburg didn't retire when we were screaming she should.

None of this changes the blatant hypocrisy on display by the Republicans, and Democrats should still pack the court if Trump gets a third appointment. He should only get two in a fair world (unfairness of the electoral college aside), and court packing would even the playing field in an unfair world.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 20, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The filibuster was always stupid, even if its removal has been inconvenient at times. Talking filibusters are fine though.
> 
> Yes, it's too bad Ginsburg didn't retire when we were screaming she should.
> 
> None of this changes the blatant hypocrisy on display by the Republicans, and Democrats should still pack the court if Trump gets a third appointment. He should only get two in a fair world (unfairness of the electoral college aside), and court packing would even the playing field in an unfair world.




You don't want fair. You want the rules changed until you get what you want.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 20, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> You don't want fair. You want the rules changed until you get what you want.


That's incorrect.

In addition, McConnell is the one arbitrarily changing the rules to get what he wants. Nice try.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 20, 2020)

Lacius said:


> If they voted on Garland and it didn't pass, that sucks but it's fair (excluding issues with Senate composition being unrepresentative of the population). Elections have consequences. One man stating he's not even going to let anybody vote on him for a single reason (it's an election year) and then contradicting that when it's convenient is hypocrisy, plain and simple. If that's what happens, the Democrats should pack the court. It wouldn't be moral, but it wouldn't be any worse than what McConnell is trying to get away with.
> 
> And, as I said earlier, it was arguably unconstitutional for McConnell not to take up the Garland nomination, even if it was going to fail.


Sounds like a perfect case for the new SC to ponder, I wonder how Justice Amy Coney Barret is going to rule on it. All jokes aside, it sounds like you don't have a standard either if you're willing to respond in a way you know is immoral. We can only hope it won't come to that, I personally find "packing the court" to be a far more egregious move - at least McConnel's following the playbook, you want to rewrite it in your favour. Applying this logic to any other position of importance reveals just how outrageous it is. Let's have 3 Presidents, 5 Attorney Generals and 10 Supreme Court Justices. Hell, sky's the limit, let's have a 100, it's all good because "McConnel was a meanie". It's vindictive and silly, not to mention transparent. Everybody knows it's all about stacking odds in favour of certain outcomes. If it's partisan, there's no shame in that. If it's vengeance then it's petty. Either one is a bad look.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 20, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Sounds like a perfect case for the new SC to ponder, I wonder how Justice Amy Coney Barret is going to rule on it. All jokes aside, it sounds like you don't have a standard either if you're willing to respond in a way you know is immoral. We can only hope it won't come to that, I personally find "packing the court" to be a far more egregious move - at least McConnel's following the playbook, you want to rewrite it in your favour. Applying this logic to any other position of importance reveals just how outrageous it is. Let's have 3 Presidents, 5 Attorney Generals and 10 Supreme Court Justices. Hell, sky's the limit, let's have a 100, it's all good because "McConnel was a meanie". It's vindictive and silly, not to mention transparent. Everybody knows it's all about stacking odds in favour of certain outcomes. If it's partisan, there's no shame in that. If it's vengeance then it's petty. Either one is a bad look.


I'm not rewriting a playbook anymore than McConnell is. The difference is I'm not being a hypocrite.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 20, 2020)

Re Russia and China.

Both have a very dubious track record internally on rights and externally on international fun and games.
China has some serious problems in the mid term -- the legacy of the one child policy will likely hit hard before too terribly long, wages and houses are getting to be tricky to afford, local tax schemes are harder and harder (local tax is not a thing so land rights are mostly it and in many places land is scarce), internal make work projects and infrastructure only do so much, I doubt we will see too much in the way of human rights takeup there but one can dream (though if someone pushes the social credit score bit too hard then maybe) and being the world's factory is getting harder (environmental regs and increasing wages, even more so if workers are scare because there literally are none, a lot of stuff already happens to be starting up in small Asian countries because China is too expensive). If they manage the belt and road bit, own most of Africa, own resource extraction in South America, own key assets in Europe and Australia (and probably the US too), isolate India (arguably their biggest rival in neighbouring politics) and continue to play the handful of middle east states like a fiddle then that is a nice position to be in, one that can weather a storm better than they can if that storm happened now.
Russia on the other hand is playing the long game. Get a few more degrees in the world and Russia gains a few ports that it presently lacks, a nice chunk of farmland and possibly an arctic sea passage (or will make a nice nuclear icebreaker fleet) which means Suez and Panama are immediately not as big a player as they are used to being and world trade changes if not overnight then however many weeks it takes for the boats to get there (by similar token Canada would also get a northwest passage become a viable thing). If China is then on its knees, India was caught napping and the US disappears up its own arse/into infighting then it is Russia's time to shine. Taking your eye off Russia then is the same short sightedness that we normally laugh at politicians for. Russia has its own problems (corruption is an art form there, population is similarly troubled (look up the laws on getting a vasectomy there) and all the rest that makes Russia a place most are unlikely to go set up shop looking for a nice life.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 20, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I'm not rewriting a playbook anymore than McConnell is. The difference is I'm not being a hypocrite.


If you say that packing the court is immoral and simultaneously support packing the court as means of revenge, you're a hypocrite by definition, you're just open about it. You would condemn anyone doing it, but you want your team to do it because you've manufactured a justification for yourself. You know it's wrong, but you want it done because you feel slighted.


> Hypocrite, noun. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.



I don't have a problem with that, mind - play to win. I support playing to win. Just own it.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 20, 2020)

Lacius said:


> That's incorrect.
> 
> In addition, McConnell is the one arbitrarily changing the rules to get what he wants. Nice try.



No it's exactly correct. It's how the left plays ball. They couldn't get their judicial nominees confirmed during Obama's first term, so they changed the rules. Now it bites them in the ass, just like McConnell said it would. Reactionary, kneejerk, immature. RBG passes away, hardly a surprise, and leftists are all over twitter the same night threatening to 'burn it all the fuck down' if the President and the Senate do what the law allows them to do. AOC says "let this radicalize you!" Reactionary, kneejerk, immature.

Garland didn't get hearings in 2016 because the Republicans in the Senate had the majority and could stop it. If they were displeased with Mitch for his handling of that situation, they could've voted him out as Majority Leader. But they didn't.

If Democrats hadn't changed the rules for judicial confirmations, this would all be moot. They enabled this moment. Thanks.

And FWIW, McConnell made no rules. There is no McConnell rule. There is no Biden rule.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 20, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> If you say that packing the court is immoral and simultaneously support packing the court as means of revenge, you're a hypocrite by definition, you're just open about it. You would condemn anyone doing it, but you want your team to do it because you've manufactured a justification for yourself. You know it's wrong, but you want it done because you feel slighted.
> 
> 
> I don't have a problem with that, mind - play to win. I support playing to win. Just own it.


You're confusing a desire for fairness with "revenge." It's not revenge. If Republicans are going to hypocritically take Supreme Court seats that don't belong to them, Democrats should do the same to even the playing field. Respectfully, "not rolling over and taking it" is not a difficult concept to grasp. What McConnell is doing also arguably justifies the court packing.

When I say court packing is immoral, I mean without considering the actions of the Republicans.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Hanafuda said:


> No it's exactly correct. It's how the left plays ball. They couldn't get their judicial nominees confirmed during Obama's first term, so they changed the rules. Now it bites them in the ass, just like McConnell said it would. Reactionary, kneejerk, immature. RBG passes away, hardly a surprise, and leftists are all over twitter the same night threatening to 'burn it all the fuck down' if the President and the Senate do what the law allows them to do. AOC says "let this radicalize you!" Reactionary, kneejerk, immature.
> 
> Garland didn't get hearings in 2016 because the Republicans in the Senate had the majority and could stop it. If they were displeased with Mitch for his handling of that situation, they could've voted him out as Majority Leader. But they didn't.
> 
> ...


Obama's nominees couldn't get confirmed because the Republicans were filibustering them for no reason other than "we don't want Democrats to appoint judges, despite having a Democratic president and Senate." As I already said, the non-talking filibuster is stupid.

Garland didn't get a hearing because, according to McConnell, "we don't confirm nominations in an election year," although he's hypocritically singing a new tune now that the reasoning no longer benefits his side. In addition, not holding hearings at all was arguably unconstitutional. They had every right to vote "no" though.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 20, 2020)

Lacius said:


> You're confusing a desire for fairness with "revenge." It's not revenge. If Republicans are going to hypocritically take Supreme Court seats that don't belong to them, Democrats should do the same to even the playing field. Respectfully, "not rolling over and taking it" is not a difficult concept to grasp. What McConnell is doing also arguably justifies the court packing.
> 
> When I say court packing is immoral, I mean without considering the actions of the Republicans.


That's the nature of justification. If my neighbour shoots my dog, I don't get to shoot his wife. It's either moral or immoral - you don't get to pick and choose what's right or wrong depending on how you feel that day. If you want to do something you would normally consider immoral because of the actions of a third party, that's the definition of revenge.


> Revenge, noun. an act or instance of retaliating in order to get even.



You seemed to be a stickler for phrasing earlier, but now you are very flexible with it. It's okay to call it vengeance for McConnel's actions, I don't judge, I just think it's funny you feel morally justified to break your own, self-imposed code.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 20, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Garland didn't get a hearing because, according to McConnell, "we don't confirm nominations in an election year," .




This is where you're wrong. Garland didn't get a hearing because Senate Republicans had the majority and didn't want to waste their time with it when he wasn't getting confirmed anyway. 

See: Ostensible justification.

See: Politics.

Both sides play that game all day, every day.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 20, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> That's the nature of justification. If my neighbour shoots my dog, I don't get to shoot his wife. It's either moral or immoral - you don't get to pick and choose what's right or wrong depending on how you feel that day. If you want to do something you would normally consider immoral because of the actions of a third party, that's the definition of revenge.
> 
> Revenge, noun. an act or instance of retaliating in order to get even.
> 
> You seemed to be a stickler for phrasing earlier, but now you are very flexible with it. It's okay to call it vengeance for McConnel's actions, I don't judge, I just think it's funny you feel morally justified to break your own, self-imposed code.


It's about retribution, not revenge.

If a neighbor shoots my dog, I don't get to shoot his dog. That'd be revenge. If a neighbor shoots my dog, he should face lawful consequences, and I should be compensated the value of that dog. That's retribution.

If Senate Republicans are going to use hypocritical and weasley tactics to get three court appointments instead of two, the Democrats should use whatever lawful methods they have to push the Supreme Court to left. The Republicans are doing the same thing to push it to the right. Are you saying the Democrats should roll over?

Are you saying I shouldn't seek the value of my dead dog or press charges against my neighbor?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Hanafuda said:


> This is where you're wrong. Garland didn't get a hearing because Senate Republicans had the majority and didn't want to waste their time with it when he wasn't getting confirmed anyway.
> 
> See: Ostensible justification.
> 
> ...


That's not what happened. See the 2016 comments by McConnell, Graham, etc. It was because they arbitrarily made up a standard where nominations don't get taken up in an election year. They can't change their mind now without being hypocritical.

They could have taken up the nomination and voted no. They didn't because there was a good chance the nomination would be successful.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 20, 2020)

Lacius said:


> It's about retribution, not revenge.
> 
> If a neighbor shoots my dog, I don't get to shoot his dog. That'd be revenge. If a neighbor shoots my dog, he should face lawful consequences, and I should be compensated the value of that dog. That's retribution.
> 
> ...


I don't care what the Democrats do, I was simply pointing out an inconsistency in your position. Quick clarification - it would be Democrats using weasly, hypocritical tactics to stack the court in their favour because Republicans used weasly, hypocritical tactics to stack it in theirs. Don't put them on a pedestal of moral superiority when they have none, it would be equivalent exchange - you yourself considered both moves immoral a few pages back. Either it's tit for tat or it's not. I won't grill you on it though, it just puts a smile on my face.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 20, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't care what the Democrats do, I was simply pointing out an inconsistency in your position. Quick clarification - it would be Democrats using weasly, hypocritical tactics to stack the court in their favour because Republicans used weasly and hypocritical tactics to stack it in theirs. Don't put them on a pedestal of moral superiority when they have none, it would be equivalent exchange - you yourself considered both moves immoral a few pages back. Either it's tit for tat or it's not. I won't grill you on it though, it just puts a smile on my face.


I haven't said anything inconsistent.

If Democrats were to pack the court, it would be justified by the actions of the Republicans. If Republicans arbitrarily change the rules to benefit them, the Democrats get to as well. Also, regardless of the actions of the Republicans, it wouldn't be hypocritical.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 21, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I haven't said anything inconsistent.
> 
> If Democrats were to pack the court, it would be justified by the actions of the Republicans. If Republicans arbitrarily change the rules to benefit them, the Democrats get to as well. Also, regardless of the actions of the Republicans, it wouldn't be hypocritical.


I guess neither one of us is good at recanting. I can respect that.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 21, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I haven't said anything inconsistent.
> 
> If Democrats were to pack the court, it would be justified by the actions of the Republicans. If Republicans arbitrarily change the rules to benefit them, the Democrats get to as well. Also, regardless of the actions of the Republicans, it wouldn't be hypocritical.


I'm just gonna post this meme again.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 21, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I guess neither one of us is good at recanting. I can respect that.


I'm perfectly good at recanting. I just don't have to do it very often.

Jokes aside, just so we are clear, I don't like court packing. I stand by it. I also don't like people being arrested. However, in response to the actions of others, these things can be justified.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraSUPRA said:


> I'm just gonna post this meme again.
> View attachment 225593


I'm trying to find the part of your post that's relevant. I don't think anybody is arguing supreme court justices should only be replaced under the guidelines in their deathbed wishes.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 21, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I'm perfectly good at recanting. I just don't have to do it very often.
> 
> Jokes aside, just so we are clear, I don't like court packing. I stand by it. I also don't like people being arrested. However, in response to the actions of others, these things can be justified.


Oh, I know you have a justification. I also know you consider the method of retaliation, or as you call it, retribution, to be immoral. Like I said, play to win - I wouldn't expect anything less. I just prefer to be a villain openly - it's much more fun this way, IMO.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 21, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I'm trying to find the part of your post that's relevant. I don't think anybody is arguing supreme court justices should only be replaced under the guidelines in their deathbed wishes.


Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn't getting replaced. She's dead. There is an empty seat that needs to be filled.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 21, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh, I know you have a justification. I also know you consider the method of retaliation, or as you call it, retribution, to be immoral. Like I said, play to win - I wouldn't expect anything less. I just prefer to be a villain openly - it's much more fun this way, IMO.


As justified retribution, I don't consider court packing immoral. 

Murder is immoral, but as an act of self defense, it's not. I'm not inconsistent if the circumstances are different.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraSUPRA said:


> Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn't getting replaced. She's dead. There is an empty seat that needs to be filled.


So I guess you were in favor of the Senate taking up Obama's nomination in 2016? Scalia was dead. There was an empty seat that needed to be filled.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 21, 2020)

Lacius said:


> So I guess you were in favor of the Senate taking up Obama's nomination in 2016? Scalia was dead. There was an empty seat that needed to be filled.


I wasn't into politics back then.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 21, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I wasn't into politics back then.


Careful. McConnell might use that excuse next.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 21, 2020)

Lacius said:


> As justified retribution, I don't consider court packing immoral.
> 
> Murder is immoral, but as an act of self defense, it's not. I'm not inconsistent if the circumstances are different.


Well, that's not quite right, is it? Murder is the act of an unlawful and premeditated killing, killing someone in self-defense is lawful and not premeditated. Now, it would be different if, say, someone murdered your son, so you murded theirs in kind. Both actions would be immoral, regardless of who started the feud. Remember, we're talking about an exchange of equivalent weasly actions. But that's enough semantic arguments for one night.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 21, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Well, that's not quite right, is it? Murder is the act of an unlawful and premeditated killing, killing someone in self-defense is lawful and not premeditated. Now, it would be different if, say, someone murdered your son, so you murded theirs in kind. Both actions would be immoral, regardless of who started the feud. Remember, we're talking about an exchange of equivalent weasly actions. But that's enough semantic arguments for one night.


I was using an example of when an action can be unjustified vs. when an action can be justified. Hypocritically changing the rules back and for with regard to when the Senate takes up a court nomination is unjustified. Court packing in response to an unjustified taking of a court seat is an act of retribution and is justified.

Stealing $100 is unjustified. Being lawfully awarded $100 as an act of retribution after being robbed of $100 is justified.

If Democrats had court packed before 2016, it would have been unjustified.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 21, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I was using an example of when an action can be unjustified vs. when an action can be justified. Hypocritically changing the rules back and for with regard to when the Senate takes up a court nomination is unjustified. Court packing in response to an unjustified taking of a court seat is an act of retribution and is justified.
> 
> Stealing $100 is unjustified. Being lawfully awarded $100 as an act of retribution after being robbed of $100 is justified.
> 
> If Democrats had court packed before 2016, it would have been unjustified.


That's a lot of provisos, especially if the party awarding the justified retribution and the injured party is one and the same. Don't worry, I know what you mean, I'm just pulling your leg.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 21, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> That's a lot of provisos, especially if the party awarding the justified retribution and the injured party is one and the same. Don't worry, I know what you mean, I'm just pulling your leg.


I admit there's a problem with the injured party being the judge/jury, but I'm still arguing court packing would be justified.

Frankly, I'm more interested in an end to the Electoral College and the Senate becoming a representative body than I am interested in Supreme Court retribution.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 21, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I admit there's a problem with the injured party being the judge/jury, but I'm still arguing court packing would be justified.
> 
> Frankly, I'm more interested in an end to the Electoral College and the Senate becoming a representative body than I am interested in Supreme Court retribution.


Can't say that I share the sentiment, I think the electoral college is essential for keeping the union of states fair and balanced in terms of power dynamics, although I am aware of your preference of the popular vote. An argument for another time, no doubt.


----------



## x65943 (Sep 21, 2020)

I would rather we keep electoral college, but make each state's EVs proportional. 

I ran this simulation before and Bush would have still won 2000, but Trump would have lost 2016.

I just don't like where no matter what I vote my vote goes to simple majority winner of my state.


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 21, 2020)

omgcat said:


> wrong thread?


I quoted Greggory on his pro life stance 2 post above mineand before i put a pro life/choice debate to bed why are you Christans shoving the god damn bible down everyone's throats you shun the thought of a Muslim or even the jewish doing the exact same thing with their books and another thing why should a man decide what a woman can do with her body until they grow a vayjay they shouldn't


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 21, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> I quoted Greggory on his pro life stance 2 post above mineand before i put a pro life/choice debate to bed why are you Christans shoving the god damn bible down everyone's throats you shun the thought of a Muslim or even the jewish doing the exact same thing with their books and another thing why should a man decide what a woman can do with her body until they grow a vayjay they shouldn't


I don't think having any sort of religious motivation is a pre-requisite for having a pro-life stance. In fact, using scripture to support that kind of stance detracts from it. There are perfectly acceptable scientific arguments for why it should be restricted to a very specific, narrow set of cases. I believe the mantra goes like this: "legal, safe and rare".


----------



## omgcat (Sep 21, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> I quoted Greggory on his pro life stance 2 post above mineand before i put a pro life/choice debate to bed why are you Christans shoving the god damn bible down everyone's throats you shun the thought of a Muslim or even the jewish doing the exact same thing with their books and another thing why should a man decide what a woman can do with her body until they grow a vayjay they shouldn't



ah my bad, missed some posts. oh, i had greg muted. that's why.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 21, 2020)

x65943 said:


> I would rather we keep electoral college, but make each state's EVs proportional.
> 
> I ran this simulation before and Bush would have still won 2000, but Trump would have lost 2016.
> 
> I just don't like where no matter what I vote my vote goes to simple majority winner of my state.


If Bush would have won in 2000, despite receiving fewer votes, it's still a flawed system. We can save that conversation for another day though.

I will say we can probably all agree that how states allocate electoral votes should be consistent (I'm talking to you Nebraska and Maine).

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> I don't think having any sort of religious motivation is a pre-requisite for having a pro-life stance. In fact, using scripture to support that kind of stance detracts from it. There are perfectly acceptable scientific arguments for why it should be restricted to a very specific, narrow set of cases. I believe the mantra goes like this: "legal, safe and rare".


Anti-choice arguments are, generally, contingent upon specific religious beliefs that a soul begins at conception. I personally haven't heard a secular argument against access to legal abortion.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 21, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Can't say that I share the sentiment, I think the electoral college is essential for keeping the union of states fair and balanced in terms of power dynamics, although I am aware of your preference of the popular vote. An argument for another time, no doubt.



i'm ok with the electoral college staying, as long as the house is adjusted to match demographics. as it stands now, the house is supposed to match the power of population, while the senate balances that out by having all states have equal power. the framers pegged reps at 30,000 per rep, and planned for the house to grow as the populations grew. as of now, the united states has 1 rep for every 200,000 people. the house was capped at 435 in 1911, back when our population was 1/3 of what it is now. this dilutes the power of more populous states, breaking the system that the constitutional framers had in mind. this cedes most of the power to much less populated states, thus leading to tyranny of the minority. A couple ways to fix this would be to increase the number of reps to 593 as we could host the house of rep online, or remove the electoral college to even the power out. otherwise we might as well throw out our democracy all together, since it doesn't matter, as the will of the whole population is being ignored.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 21, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Anti-choice arguments are, generally, contingent upon specific religious beliefs that a soul begins at conception. I personally haven't heard a secular argument against access to legal abortion.


The issue of abortion sits at the intersection of biology, philosophy and ethics - if it was as simple as "God said so" versus "I don't believe in God", we wouldn't have a whole field of bioethics. The discussion is entirely off-topic, but since you've never heard of that kind of stance before, I'll give you a quick, rough rundown.

Let's make a safe assumption that we value life, and as per the generally accepted medical standard we want to do no harm, or least harm. I think that's pretty universal and generally unobjectionable.

With that groundwork laid out we have to define whether we're dealing with one life or multiple lives. At conception the DNA of the mother and the father recombines into a new, unique strain of DNA. It is different than that of the father or the mother. It is also growing via rapid cell division, so it is exhibiting the characteristics of a living organism. The DNA is, undoubtedly, human in origin, so we are talking about a separate human entity at an early stage of development - this is separate from the discussion regarding personhood, more on that later.

Now that we've assessed that life is valuable and that the fertilised egg is a form of human life, we have to tackle viability. A fertilised egg, by itself, is not viable - it is not uncommon for women to expel a fertilised egg as it has failed to nest and as such cannot develop any further. With or without our intervention this life is destined to die. With that in mind, the earliest point of viability we can possibly consider would be the moment the egg is nested and pregnancy proper has begun. That's the point when the fertilised zygote had undergone cell division, progressed past the blastula stage and is beginning to form a fetus. That kind of human life is viable - at that point, if uninterrupted, the new life will continue to exist as long as it is provided nutrients. It cannot gather nutrients independently, but neither does a person in a coma and we don't consider those patients to be non-human, so we can scratch that objection.

Next we have the problem of sentience. An often-mentioned objection is that a fetus lacks personhood because it is not sentient. This, in my opinion, is an oversimplification of the matter. Sentience does not grant personhood - if it did, you could reasonably argue that a person in a coma, or someone who is merely asleep, temporarily lost their personhood as they are not conscious and they're not responding to external stimuli, thus they're not exhibiting signs of sentience - that's obviously ridiculous. Personhood is a subject of vigorous debate, there is no universal agreement on what grants it other than "our moral standard at any given time" which is relative. It can be easily argued that if it is in fact sentience that grants it then a fetus has as much right to achieve it as a person in a coma has a right to regain it. This is especially relevant to fetuses that have already developed a brain and show signs of a functioning nervous system.

There's also the problem of bodily autonomy. We have already arrived at the conclusion that a fetus consists of cells that are unique in nature, it is a separate entity from the mother on a cellular level. Depending on the stage of development, there may be multiple organs in the fetus that are separate also, maybe even the brain, which leads to the aforementioned troubling issues in regards to consciousness and sentience. As such, it isn't so much a decision in regards to one's own body, but rather in regards to another body that is temporarily connected to the mother. This shifts the paradigm quite a bit. It is akin to a situation where conjoined twins share vital organs - although they are joined together without mutual consent, separating them would undoubtedly be considered as killing one of them. Naturally they may come to an agreement and wish to be separated regardless, but a fetus lacks this ability, more on that later. Point being, one twin cannot choose to remove the other against their will - that would be murder.

We've established a couple of things - we are dealing with a life form, that life form is human in origin and unique, it is separate from the mother rather than an integral part of the mother's body, depending on the stage of development it may or may not be sentient. We've also established that the fetus cannot consent to being removed - cases where an individual cannot give consent due to their age, disability or a variety of other factors are accounted for in law. It is not beyond the pale to think that the government can step in to protect those who cannot protect themselves - in fact, it does so all the time. As such, the government wouldn't be legislating what a woman can or can't do with her uterus - we're not interested in that from this perspective. Rather, the government's interest would be what she can or can't do to the human life inside of said uterus, which didn't choose to be inside of it anyway and is there either as a direct consequence of the mother's actions *or* as a result of rape. We can consider the former as a matter of personal responsibility, we cannot permit the latter due to lack of consent.

With that we end up with a logical framework for what would be justifiable - abortion permissable in the case of non-viable fetuses (pre-nesting, observable disability or damage of the fetus), in the case of protecting the mother's life (life being paramount, if the fetus directly endangers the host, it must necessarily be terminated or they both die) and rape (lack of consent). In other cases, protection of human life being of utmost importance, you could argue that the fetus requires some form of legal protection up until it can be separated from the mother without killing it, which is admittedly a burden and inconvenience for the mother, but is consistent with our findings. Perhaps pending some negotiation we could arrive at a mutually acceptable cut-off period that minimises loss of life.

In regards to protecting the mother's life I would even go as far as to say that mothers who are seriously suicidal due to their unwanted pregnancy could fall into the permissable category as mental health is as important as physical health. If the possibility of suicide is verifiably high, it is more ethical to save one rather than lose both.

No bible thumping in this train of thought, just a logical progression. Naturally this is very broad, it's a huge topic and I don't expect you to agree with any of it, but it might be a new perspective you haven't seen before. If there is ever a thread specifically about this then maybe we'll argue about the finer points. For now let's limit ourselves to the election, I hope you enjoyed the mental exercise.


----------



## RandomUser (Sep 21, 2020)

Lacius said:


> It's about retribution, not revenge.
> 
> If a neighbor shoots my dog, I don't get to shoot his dog. That'd be revenge. If a neighbor shoots my dog, he should face lawful consequences, and I should be compensated the value of that dog. That's retribution.


Not unless your dog is on your neighbor's property, then that is on you, and therefor forfeit the right to retribution for failure to keep your dog contained. Also the neighbor won't face consequences because of this. Then again I guess it depends on the state.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 21, 2020)

RandomUser said:


> Not unless your dog is on your neighbor's property, then that is on you, and therefor forfeit the right to retribution for failure to keep your dog contained. Also the neighbor won't face consequences because of this. Then again I guess it depends on the state.


Uh, sure, but that wasn't exactly the point.


----------



## x65943 (Sep 21, 2020)

Lacius said:


> If Bush would have won in 2000, despite receiving fewer votes, it's still a flawed system. We can save that conversation for another day though.
> 
> I will say we can probably all agree that how states allocate electoral votes should be consistent (I'm talking to you Nebraska and Maine).
> 
> ...


I think calling it flawed is subjective. Depends on your goal. 

In any case proportional EV is very close to popular vote and would be a good compromise. Would still give smaller states a say but without having to jump over the giant hurdle of constitutional amendment. 

The interstate compact is another interesting option that I would take over our current system.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 21, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> The issue of abortion sits at the intersection of biology, philosophy and ethics - if it was as simple as "God said so" versus "I don't believe in God", we wouldn't have a whole field of bioethics. The discussion is entirely off-topic, but since you've never heard of that kind of stance before, I'll give you a quick, rough rundown.
> 
> Let's make a safe assumption that we value life, and as per the generally accepted medical standard we want to do no harm, or least harm. I think that's pretty universal and generally unobjectionable.
> 
> ...


Forgive my short response, since I'm on my phone, but I take issue with your paragraph on sentience. We value sentience, and that's the primary characteristic of what we would call personhood. Anything else would be irrelevant or contingent upon a religious belief in the soul. That's the problem. You can't get to "abortion is murder" when talking about an embryo that hasn't even developed a brain yet, for example, without the aforementioned religious belief.

As for your paragraph on bodily autonomy, you haven't quite solved the problem. Conjoined twins are born that way, and there's no reason why one should at the expense of the other. In other words, neither twin has a claim to bodily autonomy when, without a proper separation, they both have equal claim to the body. In the case of a pregnancy, the woman has a right to bodily autonomy. In the same way one can't be forced by law to donate an organ to someone, even a sentient being, one cannot be forced by law to share one's body.


----------



## x65943 (Sep 21, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Forgive my short response, since I'm on my phone, but I take issue with your paragraph on sentience. We value sentience, and that's the primary characteristic of what we would call personhood. Anything else would be irrelevant or contingent upon a religious belief in the soul. That's the problem. You can't get to "abortion is murder" when talking about an embryo that hasn't even developed a brain yet, for example, without the aforementioned religious belief.
> 
> As for your paragraph on bodily autonomy, you haven't quite solved the problem. Conjoined twins are born that way, and there's no reason why one should at the expense of the other. In other words, neither twin has a claim to bodily autonomy when, without a proper separation, they both have equal claim to the body. In the case of a pregnancy, the woman has a right to bodily autonomy. In the same way one can't be forced by law to donate an organ to someone, even a sentient being, one cannot be forced by law to share one's body.


What are your thoughts on people getting a heftier sentence for killing a pregnant woman? Is that warranted?

And is it warranted to be charged with a greater crime for assault that results in miscarriage vs assault that doesn't?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 21, 2020)

x65943 said:


> I think calling it flawed is subjective. Depends on your goal.
> 
> In any case proportional EV is very close to popular vote and would be a good compromise. Would still give smaller states a say but without having to jump over the giant hurdle of constitutional amendment.
> 
> The interstate compact is another interesting option that I would take over our current system.


My goal is for the president to be democratically elected. My goal is for everybody's vote to count. What's your goal?

Proportional EV distribution is better than what we have, but the whole EC system should just be eliminated.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



x65943 said:


> What are your thoughts on people getting a heftier sentence for killing a pregnant woman? Is that warranted?
> 
> And is it warranted to be charged with a greater crime for assault that results in miscarriage vs assault that doesn't?


A pregnancy isn't nothing, so I agree with these things. A right to bodily autonomy goes both ways. A woman cannot and should not be forced to carry a pregnancy, and she cannot and should not be forced to terminate a pregnancy.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 21, 2020)

x65943 said:


> What are your thoughts on people getting a heftier sentence for killing a pregnant woman? Is that warranted?
> 
> And is it warranted to be charged with a greater crime for assault that results in miscarriage vs assault that doesn't?



it's a heftier sentence because the child counts as property/an extension of the body. this has historical precedence in law and in the bible. It is the same as cutting off a persons limb, dismemberment carries heavier sentences. for particular jurisdictions, the death of a pregnant woman counts as a double homicide, which is interesting. in the end though, the murderer took away the woman's ability to choose to give birth, and her total autonomy.

killing someone is a crime, killing AND dismembering someone carries heavier penalties. in my opinion the murder of a pregnant woman counts as murder and dismemberment, but i wouldn't go as far as calling it double homicide.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 21, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Forgive my short response, since I'm on my phone, but I take issue with your paragraph on sentience. We value sentience, and that's the primary characteristic of what we would call personhood. Anything else would be irrelevant or contingent upon a religious belief in the soul. That's the problem. You can't get to "abortion is murder" when talking about an embryo that hasn't even developed a brain yet, for example, without the aforementioned religious belief.
> 
> As for your paragraph on bodily autonomy, you haven't quite solved the problem. Conjoined twins are born that way, and there's no reason why one should at the expense of the other. In other words, neither twin has a claim to bodily autonomy when, without a proper separation, they both have equal claim to the body. In the case of a pregnancy, the woman has a right to bodily autonomy. In the same way one can't be forced by law to donate an organ to someone, even a sentient being, one cannot be forced by law to share one's body.


If sentience is your defining characteristic then there is a point when a fetus becomes sentient, it doesn't gain that ability upon exiting the vagina, it already has it. Vaginas are great, but they are not magical. Regardless, the argument revolved around the value of human life, as opposed to sentience - both are acceptable, but presence of life is not contingent on verifiability of personhood. Again, vigorously debated subject.

In regards to bodily autonomy, the mother has as much right to her own bodily autonomy as the fetus does to its own, at least in this framework. Moreover, the conjoined twin argument stands - the fetus was very much "born that way", it didn't ask to come into existence. In fact, in a gross majority of cases the mother was a consenting and active participant in creating it, be it intentionally or unintentionally, so you could argue that between the two, the mother carries more blame for the situation.

In regards to expelling said fetus, to use a humorous analogy, it is permissable to evict a tenant who doesn't pay rent, unless there's a raging fire outside of your house that will kill the tenant - I'm pretty sure they lack the ability to breathe fire and it would be more ethical to wait until it is safe outside and evicting your tenant doesn't equate to killing them. Sure, it's your house, but you're still pushing another human into a blaze. If there are legal circumstances wherein it is illegal to evict a tenant, I find it hard to justify removing all limitations in regards to "evicting" a fetus, regardless of the "ownership" of the uterus. Sex has consequences, much like elections.

Topic for another time, glad that you took the time to read it. I apologise if it's slapped together, I am also on my phone.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 21, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> If sentience is your defining characteristic then there is a point when a fetus becomes sentient, it doesn't gain that ability upon exiting the vagina, it already has it. Vaginas are great, but they are not magical. Regardless, the argument revolved around the value of human life, as opposed to sentience - both are acceptable, but presence of life is not contingent on verifiability of personhood. Again, vigorously debated subject.
> 
> In regards to bodily autonomy, the mother has as much right to her own bodily autonomy as the fetus does to its own, at least in this framework. Moreover, the conjoined twin argument stands - the fetus was very much "born that way", it didn't ask to come into existence. In fact, in a gross majority of cases the mother was a consenting and active participant in creating it, be it intentionally or unintentionally, so you could argue that between the two, the mother carries more blame for the situation.
> 
> ...


I'm unaware of a time when a fetus becomes sentient. For much of the time, it doesn't even have a brain. We treat birth as a "magical" time because that's the separation between the baby and the mother (i.e. when the baby becomes bodily autonomous). The time at which a fetus can become autonomous can be the difference between an abortion and a birth. To summarize, birth has nothing to do with sentience.

While a fetus is not a person (without believing in a soul), it also doesn't matter when taking into account a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

You say a fetus has a right to its bodily autonomy, and it would if it had any. The problem is it doesn't have any.


----------



## x65943 (Sep 21, 2020)

Lacius said:


> My goal is for the president to be democratically elected. My goal is for everybody's vote to count. What's your goal?
> 
> Proportional EV distribution is better than what we have, but the whole EC system should just be eliminated.
> 
> ...


In proportional EV everyone's vote would count with a slight emphasis on rural states that would otherwise be looked over. Although in the end it would be a pretty small effect so not sure whether it's really worthwhile.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 21, 2020)

x65943 said:


> In proportional EV everyone's vote would count with a slight emphasis on rural states that would otherwise be looked over. Although in the end it would be a pretty small effect so not sure whether it's really worthwhile.


No, not everyone's vote would count in proportional EV. With direct voting, rural states aren't looked over. Everyone's vote counts equally.


----------



## x65943 (Sep 21, 2020)

Lacius said:


> No, not everyone's vote would count in proportional EV. With direct voting, rural states aren't looked over. Everyone's vote counts equally.


They all wouldn't count exactly the same, but they would all count


----------



## Lacius (Sep 21, 2020)

x65943 said:


> They all wouldn't count exactly the same, but they would all count


An EV proportional system would, through rounding, delete a lot of people's votes. Nearly 500,000 votes in 2000, for example.


----------



## x65943 (Sep 21, 2020)

Lacius said:


> An EV proportional system would, through rounding, delete a lot of people's votes. Nearly 500,000 votes in 2000, for example.


It doesn't delete your vote in the state contest - I think that alone would go a long way to increasing voter turnout

I know I would be a lot more enthusiastic knowing my vote doesn't go to Donald Trump in my state no matter what I do


----------



## Iamapirate (Sep 21, 2020)

callmebob said:


> Sorry, yes getting off topic, and not an interview. I think the experiment is over though, should Trump win, the Reps keep the senate and take the supreme court on top of it. Game over, give Putin the keys to the white house.



muh PuTiN is a cope for the people that still cannot accept that Trump won in 2016


----------



## Lacius (Sep 21, 2020)

x65943 said:


> It doesn't delete your vote in the state contest - I think that alone would go a long way to increasing voter turnout


Since state popular vote totals would be rounded to meet a state's electoral votes, some people's votes are going to be deleted.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 21, 2020)

For terminating unborn life, I found it repulsive that anyone would defend such an action. I highly doubt the 51,000 unborn children that are slaughtered per month in the USA are all done "legally, safe and with rarity". I also highly doubt a large percentage were done to simply save the mother as most are done because the mother, father or both simply don't want the child. It really ticks me off that the Liberal news media values some microorganisms in Venus's clouds more than they do valid human being or what it to shortly become a full fledged human being.

I also don't believe in abandoning the child once it's born. While it's not my responsibility to pay or raise other peoples kids, it solely lies on the biological female and male that brought the human being into this world. I would want the child to be raised by a biological women and male, the same two that created it and they should be responsible enough to provide housing, food, clothing, medical care and anything else the child needs (not wants, NEEDS). The child should then be provided with a proper education, minus the indoctrination crap and be allowed to choose for himself of what he or she wants to be when they grow up (as in there's no socialism/communism where the child has no choice or say in the matter).

I don't believe the child should have to grow up in an orphanage or go hungry because the two people who created it are lousy pieces of shit. I'm also sorry I turned this thread into an abortion related discussion. I just meant to highlight the evilness coming from the Left with a couple of extreme examples of what some of them stand for, support, overlook and/or allow to take place.

Back on topic (for me at least):

I don't think we should get rid of the electoral college, but I find what @omgcat proposal of increasing the number of representatives logical and interesting. Of course, the number of representatives should be proportional to the number of legal USA citizens (not illegals).

Finally, the entire deal between Trump filling a vacant seat is not even comparable to an extremely radical thing like adding 3 more Judges to the Supreme Court. There's a stark difference between the two, regardless of how hypocritical either side is being. I wouldn't agree with Trump adding 3 more after whomever he nominates takes the bench. There is a vacant seat and it does need to be filled, and even though @Lacius is glad I admit I could care less if the Conservatives are being hypocritical in a hypothetical situation they currently are not as there was and still is certain criteria that is different between back in 2016 and now in 2020.


----------



## vincentx77 (Sep 21, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I'm unaware of a time when a fetus becomes sentient. For much of the time, it doesn't even have a brain. We treat birth as a "magical" time because that's the separation between the baby and the mother (i.e. when the baby becomes bodily autonomous). The time at which a fetus can become autonomous can be the difference between an abortion and a birth. To summarize, birth has nothing to do with sentience.
> 
> While a fetus is not a person (without believing in a soul), it also doesn't matter when taking into account a woman's right to bodily autonomy.
> 
> You say a fetus has a right to its bodily autonomy, and it would if it had any. The problem is it doesn't have any.



Look, I'm pro-choice, but a fetus does start to develop sentience as it's brain and central nervous system begins to form, which happens at the beginning of the 2nd trimester (month 4). It does have a brain for at least half of the length of an average pregnancy. It's not fully developed, but if you want to get technical I'm not sure the human brain becomes fully developed until around 25 years of age.

Clearly, it's best if abortions are performed before the second trimester for multiple reason (less trauma for patient getting abortion, etc). These are all things that psychology has taught us. Regardless of any of this, I still don't want to tell someone else what they can or can't do with their own body. No matter how much some people don't want to hear it, that baby is functionally a parasitic organism until it's born. If someone generally feels like that can't cope with the pregnancy, their choice should be respected. If we stop doing this, it will just result in back alley clinics (butchers) like we used to have before it was legal. More people will die if abortion is made illegal.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 21, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I'm unaware of a time when a fetus becomes sentient. For much of the time, it doesn't even have a brain. We treat birth as a "magical" time because that's the separation between the baby and the mother (i.e. when the baby becomes bodily autonomous). The time at which a fetus can become autonomous can be the difference between an abortion and a birth. To summarize, birth has nothing to do with sentience.
> 
> While a fetus is not a person (without believing in a soul), it also doesn't matter when taking into account a woman's right to bodily autonomy.
> 
> You say a fetus has a right to its bodily autonomy, and it would if it had any. The problem is it doesn't have any.


A fetus shows first signs of brain development is the 3rd-4th week, by the 5th week it has distinguishable sections and by the 6th you can measure first electrical activity - they grow pretty fast.

Considering physical birth as the moment a fetus becomes a person with their own distinct right to bodily autonomy, i.e. the magical vagina theory, is wholly inconsistent with science. I do not believe that there is a meaningful difference between killing a baby 5 minutes before it is "born" versus 5 minutes after, and by the way, neither do you, because that would be colossaly stupid, on top of morally repugnant.

Bodily autonomy does not refer to how autonomous the baby becomes in regards to the mother - it doesn't become fully autonomous until it can fend for itself, but we're not aborting 5 year olds. The term refers to the right to retain your bodily integrity, self-govern and self-determine. You have rights in regards to your body, not another's body, and if the two intersect then we have a problem. I'm sorry to all the mothers temporarily inconvenienced by poor life choices. Once again, perhaps we can come up with a cut-off point that minimises loss and/or suffering of sentient human life, but "5 minutes before birth" ain't it, chief.

I fully understand that you can reason yourself into a position like this based on personal principles or beliefs. That's perfectly acceptable, but if your view on the matter is fundamentalist, don't present it as anything else. I hope you're aware that your position is just as unscientific as magic holy book hocus pocus. In fact, in this scenario, magical hocus pocus appears to be closer to the truth, if only by accident.

If you want to be this nihilistic, I can just as easily say that you and I are in fact mere clumps of cells with meat-calculators inside our skulls that create the illusion of personhood to make us feel good and grant us imaginary rights when in reality we're only reacting to stimuli - that's perfectly plausible and makes the entire discussion of who is or is not a person completely moot.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Sep 21, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> 1) the die hard republican who doesn't care if this ship sinks
> or
> 2) the alt right (Neo Nazi,racist etc)
> or
> 3) the wealthy 1%


You forgot a certain group which wishes war with Iran.


----------



## notimp (Sep 21, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> A fetus shows first signs of brain development is the 3rd-4th week, by the 5th week it has distinguishable sections and by the 6th you can measure first electrical activity - they grow pretty fast.
> 
> Considering physical birth as the moment a fetus becomes a person with their own distinct right to bodily autonomy, i.e. the magical vagina theory, is wholly inconsistent with science. I do not believe that there is a meaningful difference between killing a baby 5 minutes before it is "born" versus 5 minutes after, and by the way, neither do you, because that would be colossaly stupid, on top of morally repugnant.
> 
> ...


The crackpot theories promoting moderater discovered he can use the word 'science' as a magical property noun.

You cant be all that dumb to not have gotten the gist of this conversation after the 15th thread, where someone cried in effing world pain 'listn to moi' anger, that someone should stop killing them babies.

The argument is multi layered - but all in all means, that people who have serious emotional problems when thinking of other peoples babies will never get what they want - which is a male patriarchy state more or less.

Also eff you for trying.
-

Here is the argument layed out.

- Women will do abortions. Women will go through extraordinary lengths not to have a thing develop within them, if they dont want it. So you have to find a remedy for that. Because they are killing themselves as well at extended rates if you make it illegal. (Internal bleedings, ....) But at this point all the freaking nutters cheer, because eff those women, they were 'sinners'. What a fun concept.

- If you make it illegal, the practice doesnt go away, it only gets limited to 'folks with money' who will do it anyways (higher 'cost for the family' if you are also monitoring reputation)

- You have to give women a sensible timeframe for when abortion is allowed, that includes 'I was unsure if I was pregnant for two months' and then some buffer (to contemplate the decision), because otherwise you are really showing emotional cruelty and hicking up the despair factor. Which probably would increase the wish to get an abortion anyhow.

- Abortions are needed as a fallback for when contraception doesnt work, other wise you are literally guilt tripping women into being more abstinent 'in case something goes wrong'. You especially need them, because women in the workforce (productivity increase ('best brains' across genders)) are mandatory for your societies to function, since the invention of the pill. Basically, if you turn it back, you'll crash the economy.

- On a philosophical level, showing 'humanity' needs a human counterpart, a fetus is not human, if it hasnt developed all needed facilities for being human (self realization, abstract thinking...) the fetus is not able to live independently, which makes the 'magic vagina' (resign your moderator position, do it today) position actually viable, because you are not 'saving' their live without significantly impacting the life and the independence to decide, of their host. Legislating into 'that' (sovereignty over your body) is highly problematic. But we still do it, in the last trimester.

- A baby, once born is not able to live independently. Which means all you have to do to 'get rid of it', is to do nothing. If you want to create more pathologic outcomes, where women will first bind themselfs into tight cloths, and then abandon their babies, without caring for them, youd ban abortion. Which would lead to them actually becoming murderers in societies eyes. So although you'd probably reduce occurrences, you'd increase pathological outcomes.

- For that not to happen too often, nature baked in an emotion for 'child schemata' if something looks like a baby - it becomes 'cute' and you get lovey dovey about it, thats the thing that makes you care. For some people this emotion is so overbearing, that they want to regulate into other peoples bodies, just so they can save lovey dovey babies.

- Even plants feel 'pain' (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...onic-scream-stems-cut-water-short-supply.html (yellow press)), although its certainly a different kind, as they lack 'brain functionality'. But as a reaction to stimulus, it serves a function.

- Thought experiment. If someone didn't know what life is, conceptually, how cruel would it be to take it away. Lets say, they feel pain, and everything - how cruel would it be to take it away. Not how illegal, how cruel.

- The real mindfuck is how on earth you end up with the notion that all life is sacred. Its even in the sentence, sacred. Whatever the law uses as justification for 'killing somone should be illegal' never uses a concept of sacred, and there are exceptions (f.e. self defense, survival, ...).
--

So in the end, you end up with a concept that, in essence you will never be able to end in practice. You might reduce casecount, but doing so would severely increase harm for the remaining people. Pretending, that you'd end the practice, would seriously harm womens standing in life societally (Once they become pregnant - they now have ONE societal duty, so if you want a career, you better dont.). And you would destroy your societies ability to function as well economically (Productivity decrease (more women falling out of the workplace at inopportune times, women having more children in general, ...).)

Children not dying early (women having more children), also is a man made issue to some extent, because we should be pretty good by now to prevent early childhood mortality. The better we get there, the more children a mother statistically has over her lifetime. Think about all the babies! So much babies zafed! So at some point, you are simply over optimizing from a societal standpoint.  And if your only solution to all this is chastity - go eff yourself? (Humans acting against natural urges, kind of never was a model for success. Look at your priests. (Practice there ensures, that the church attains more wealth over time, and serves as a reminder to your sheepish flock, that chastity is possible! In the olden days you basically did this, to not have vendattas, and blood fudes all over the place.))

And on top of that, there is pretty much an overpopulation issue we are dealing with, if you are looking at this world wide.

Or simply said, if you are stuck on the emotional feedback level of 'baby cute, must save baby' - you can pretty much be a moron for the rest of your life - society will accept that in this case, but you havent understood the first thing about anything. Seriously.

Bigger picture: You will never get what you want. People will play with your emotions politically, but you will NEVER get what you want.

Which btw - is what? Save all the babies?

In the US currently you have 1.46 abortions for every 100 people. Is that too much? What would be a 'better figure'?


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Sep 21, 2020)

notimp said:


> And if your only solution to all this is chastity - go eff yourself? (Humans acting against natural urges, kind of never was a model for success. Look at your priests.


First of all, the British of the 19th century were comparatively very chaste and extremely successful. The priest example is a bad one because chastity is naturally more of a thing for women. Men have a biological interest to spread their seed and women have a biological interest to vet their sexual partners so that they don´t end up raising the children alone.
Also, the priest example is bad for other reasons.
Chastity does not mean not having sex. It means you think before you have a "one-night stand". It means a woman needs to know her body (e.g. when she cannot get pregnant). If this is too much to ask, then you have a serious issue with balancing goods (not killing millions of unborn children vs a bit less degeneracy in society).
Btw it might be against the rules of the forum to constantly say "eff you" to somebody, you a-hole (see how that does not make it much better?)


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 21, 2020)

You seem to have completely missed the point of the mental exercise, @notimp. The point, in case it wasn't obvious, was to get a reading on the moral compass of a randomly selected liberal-minded individual, in this case @Lacius.

Throughout the exchange we've established that packing the court would be immoral, *unless* it is done in revenge (and I am going to call it revenge because that's what it is - means for the injured party to receive compensation which it, in consultation with nobody, considers to be just, issued by itself to itself as the sole judge and jury, which is just a wordy way of saying "get even"), however killing an unborn child 5 minutes before it is born (and at that stage it is a child, I defy you to prove otherwise) is not immoral based solely on the fact that in a purely mechanical sense it is connected to the mother's body and she has autonomy over it, something you would have a hard time finding support for and a position extremely few medical doctors would consider acceptable. In fact, if we take what was said to the ridiculous extreme, it should be permissible to twist the unwanted child's neck as long as it is still technically connected to the mother with an umbilical cord, although I *very much doubt* that he believes that.

As for the ultimate goal of the exercise, it is to illustrate that the reason why there can never be any peace or agreement between the two parties is because of fringe, extreme positions like this that toss aside any semblence of reason or common sense in favour of towing the party line. I often do this myself, but I don't advertise myself as an impartial arbiter of truth who always follows objective precepts of science and reason - many liberals do just that to minimise dissenting opinions.

Nice word salad though. By the way, I was never against sensible time frames and extenuating circumstances - I started the exchange with "legal, safe and rare", and I maintain that position.


----------



## battlecatsahead (Sep 21, 2020)

Lacius said:


> With the general election season underway, for whom will/would you vote and why?
> 
> For the poll, I listed the presumptive nominees from the four political parties that have ballot access to 270 or more electoral votes and therefore have a technical chance at winning, as of August 11, assuming there isn’t a contingent election.
> 
> ...


i dont live in the us, and i know next to nothing on politics, but i read that joe biden wants to do some pretty good stuff, so if i were in the us, well i would probably vote for him


----------



## MurraySkull (Sep 21, 2020)

battlecatsahead said:


> i dont live in the us, and i know next to nothing on politics, but i read that joe biden wants to do some pretty good stuff, so if i were in the us, well i would probably vote for him


No, for Trump, as Biden only wants to do evil stuff.


----------



## battlecatsahead (Sep 21, 2020)

MurraySkull said:


> No, for Trump, as Biden only wants to do evil stuff.


Okay


----------



## notimp (Sep 21, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> First of all, the British of the 19th century were comparatively very chaste and extremely successful.


Haha, I actually loled.

Sure, why not explain that part as well.  The economics manual doesnt say 'have less children, be more productive' its what globalization dictates. It also comes as a result of (relatively) free trade.

The more people you include in a 'trade network' the more benefit for everyone (because you'll need resources from another country, or expertise, or specialities, or parts, ... trade, this allows for specialization, which also boosts productivity), but at the same time, if you have more people in your trade network, that also means, more job prospects, probably willing to work for less, somewhere within that network. So relative worth of your own economy is constantly shrinking, in comparison to 'works cheaper' economy - if you dont innovate. The goal of that innovation is to create something that gives you a competitive edge, that can be quantified. The first thing you come accross, when you are doing cost calculations for goods produced, that anyone else can produce as well - is, how do I increase productivity to remain competitive.

Having women in the workforce, kind of was a pretty obvious answer to that. Relative incomes usually kind of halved with it - (today you need both parents working to sustain a family - usually), but life quality (as measured by GDP  ) increased. Meaning you got fancier goods for your work.


Now you just suggested, to replace that with a colonial effort where you move into other countries, take away their means of production, take away all their profits, and all independent investments, because that could serve the same purpose, allowing women to finally stay home in front of the stove again.

Wow. You have the intellect of a....

Small detail, why that kind of will not work anymore:

- Africans have smartphones and see, how the british are living
- If third world countries dont develop sustainable infrastructures (and remeber, I hate that stuff being pushed currently) in the next, lets say 50-100 years. They will be left in the stonages. When oil runs out. Investment interests in those areas will tank. World economy will shrink - significantly. (British empire came with logging and cole 'exploits', the likes of which arent available on thise planet anymore. (Entire Nations being 'deforested'..  )
So currently, the name of the game is, to pump money into developing economies, so they can get to a place where dealing with them in the future makes sense at all. Bigger picture..  Trump style isolationist tactics will work for maybe one generation, then you get an energy problem, and trade costs explode.

So regardless how you are looking at it - in the future, you'll maybe see decreased productivity again, but as always - its the transition thats not fun. And you can bet, that that wont be women resigning their independance willingly once more.. 

So to have your 'great society of the british back when they ruled the world' you are talking about seriously impacting how your current society works. And by impacting I mean loose gains.

So not only do you have half of the society against your position by default. You also have the entirety of your society against your point, that actually understands, what this would mean for the economy.

Which by the way is, why conservatives in the US 'entertain the notion' for people that can be 'emotionally convinced, that something is right'. Because its basically a cheap way to get influence. But then your pussy grabbing president still has to instill a women as a supreme judge in a hung supreme court, to make sure the conservative party doesnt suffer the retalliation from half of society, and the people that want to make money..  (As the notions may come up, that maybe with that power over the supreme court (elected for 40 years (!)) we now could revoke womens right to choose.)

Again - for everyone entertaining the emotional argument, this is an unwinnable fight. Moving that aspect back would basically destroy society in more ways than one. But, but, my emotion and my moral certainty.

Yes, have fun with that, now that you know a little of a bigger picture.. 

edit: Why is chastity = to 'male patriarchy' (real sense, not SJW), because consequences for man are lower. Them cheating the system is more likely, them getting over consequences with deny, deny is more likely... Sure baby - I'm all for chastity too.. 

Companies will know that, companies will prefer hiring men, and so on and so forth...


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 21, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I personally haven't heard a secular argument against access to legal abortion.


In all the cases I have seen of it then it is pretty flawed but as you asked there are a few, in addition to things that Foxi4 might be pondering.
"we need more people to fuel our factories/retirement bills and abortion denies us a chance at having them/having them sooner".
The factories bit was actively tried in a few communist states, many still have lingering effects for both sexes (again see the regs regarding getting a vasectomy in Russia -- you have to be quite old or have had several already, compared to elsewhere where you might have to have a look around to find a willing medic but could legally get it done at 18, possibly even on insurance, and plenty have them done in their 20s and consider it a sound financial investment -- https://nypost.com/2017/05/27/hampt...-vasectomies-so-golddiggers-cant-trap-them/4/ ). It did not have a great effect as a net result (unwanted pregnancies tend to make for unwanted children raised in sub optimal environments...).
The latter one I have seen more recently as people look at birth rates being rather below replacement and have banked on there always being more people (more natives being more better for a lot of things, and immigration only works for so long before you exhaust the supplies of quality people and start getting less return on investment, to say nothing of other effects). Why someone else's shit tier financial planning, possibly put in place before I was even born, and unwillingness to react to market conditions (communists, advocate of modern monetary theory, Keynesian, Chicago, Austrian, classical... whatever your position in economics as a whole is then all agree that paying attention to the market, supply & demand, and reacting accordingly is a good plan), means I am supposed to raise a crotch goblin I don't know, not to mention it is debatable that it would even produce more instruments of wealth creation/extraction, but it is still an argument.
Abortion might mostly kick the can down the road but that also means grandparents are then less available (30+30+5 to 7 looking after them= bloody old and decrepit compared to 24+24 + the same, not to mention if we are all supposed to be retiring at 70 or whatever then there is also that) and thus the burden of care shifts either onto the parents, or more likely the state (is the condition of state education a particularly nurturing one that produces well rounded individuals ready to face life, or something that pulls that off coming in cheap?). One also ponders having a career break at 30 when you are probably nicely trained up and bringing in the big money for companies, and having to come back in 5 or so years or only going part time, or not having a break and instead starting reasonably fresh at that time in your mid-late 20s and being to be a good little worker drone (you have 2.3 extra mouths to feed after all). Said drone might possibly be better able to afford a fancy retirement (female poverty rates in retirement is fairly well studied, break to have kids tending to be a big predictor of it) or have your kids get settled in their lives before you get dementia and shuffled into a care home they get to pay for or otherwise geographically restrict them.
I don't know that I have heard it yet but the elements are all out there. Childlessness in women often has some unpleasant psychological effects (fairly well studied, and if nothing else one does not pay the silly money sums for invitro fertilisation and take the massive risks of later life pregnancy (or kick more money to a surrogate), or go through the utter arse ache that is adoption, without a serious underlying drive, one that we can witness in many other animals). Functionally then firing up the womb vacuum might deny them the opportunity to have a kid and in some ways be functionally akin to chopping off an arm because of a condition that says that limb is bad, wind in the issue of biological fertility clocks and issues of older women finding a man ("where are all the good men gone", marriage rates and characteristics thereof, the fun and games of 30 and 40 something divorcees and them finding a new partner...) to that one and it gets even more fun.
There are various places that are more willing to do trade if it is off the table. Most of those having nothing to trade but we are collecting reasons, and who knows what they will dig up tomorrow. On the other hand if one of those is your neighbour and they are doing a roaring trade in taking care of your women as they do a nice day trip just across the border to the womb vacuum and cheap booze shop then it comes back into play.

That would then appear to be several things covering sociological, societal financial, personal financial, international trade, psychological, medical, developmental and similar such reasons, none featuring "because some charlatan in a dress told me in a magic book, written after the fact within a time where industrial farming was not a thing and translated dozens of times since, which I never read yet believe contains truths that it was wrong". How many would stand up in face of no duty to carry a parasite, health reasons, financial reasons, lack sentience in the parasite and all the rest is a different matter, though if we are going to play in societies that are less about the individual and more about the society as a whole (and I don't know that there has ever been a true libertarian state, certainly no big ones) then restrictions and compromises do creep in. Equally is does not have to be restrictions -- too much stick and not enough carrot is a bad plan when you want people do do things.

I imagine it will get even more fun in the future too (the effects widespread of the pill are still being studied after all) when some kind of hypno learning, artificial wombs (already viable for complex mammals and being funded), genetic engineering (see CRISPR), life extension (while above my maths on decrepit ages was more offhand and aimed at being amusing I do note that 50-60 today is not what I saw 30 years ago in the same age range and that is without anything radical happening) and a male pill contraceptive (already in human trials) but I guess we might never see that if whatever the result of this election there will be a hot civil war in the US that kills us all.


----------



## notimp (Sep 21, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> (already viable for complex mammals and being funded)


But still rejected (in human cloning terms) by ethical standards worldwide. (Public sphere.)

That stuff also kind of important. (If you are talking potential impact on societies at scale.)


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 21, 2020)

notimp said:


> But still rejected (in human cloning terms) by ethical standards worldwide. (Public sphere.)
> 
> That stuff also kind of important. (If you are talking potential impact on societies at scale.)



What does cloning have to do with anything here?

I have not seen any great push back against artificial womb technology as a general concept. Few morons that don't like giving up being the arbiters of childbirth (many of said same even decrying the male pill being a thing or vasectomies, or the not disclosing of such things, in some cases) and a few fans of sci fi that read too many army/super spy grown in a vat novels (I think I saw an episode of NCIS during its golden seasons that had something similar once, though in this case it was IVF had a twin siphoned off rather than destroyed, so pretty mainstream).
Even if there was I imagine they would just do the "it helps this baby grow to viability when its mother died in a car crash, I mean it is not even hard and we have the technology so logically not doing something..." followed by "oh look they can get a cancer treatment and not have to lose the baby" and then "well getting pregnant at 40 is horribly risky for you and the would be baby, and expensive for the insurance company, try a vat" (said 40 year old, or her husband, maybe being some high powered type and then maybe having a word in the ear of the medical regs places to push it through), next up injury or disease renders one infertile, speaking of injury and disease if pluripotent stem cells have not been cracked by this point then probably get some nice vat grown foetuses to harvest cells from to fight cancer or whatever like they already do with women today (except here you could plausibly have 60 go on at once and select the best one), might be a fight or two as a heroin addict gets a foetus extraction and the laws get resolved there, if men have not had the virtual equivalent of a surrogate or jizz filled turkey baster at one of the previous steps that will also appear there, risk wise 30 is not all that much better than 40 and I am sure some company will want an additional several months of work from their freshly trained up whatever so will pay for that one if it is not already cheap, and at this point we are off to the races.

If there is no real pushback beyond the nutbar "it is a woman's sacred right" set then as soon as it is on par with general pregnancy risks (which are considerable, even more so at age or certain body types) we are probably off to the races, maybe with a financial and lifestyle hurdle not unlike adoption.

Some rogue state or company will probably fancy a few truly deniable operatives that look like the natives (I don't imagine China has too many Icelandic looking people ready to go through the years of immersion deniable covert ops training) or serious big boy infiltrators somewhere along the way. Differences in states will probably be a thing too and then some tourist lines if some other state does not care for it (will genetically be their child, I was pregnant when I left 6 months ago, just did not show yet). That and some states will seek some replacements to bump their population up a bit should rates continue to even remain steady (rub one out and suck out an egg, 9 months from now you will have a new child and 6000 doubloons tax refund to help raise it) .


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 21, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> What does cloning have to do with anything here?
> 
> I have not seen any great push back against artificial womb technology as a general concept. Few morons that don't like giving up being the arbiters of childbirth (many of said same even decrying the male pill being a thing or vasectomies, or the not disclosing of such things, in some cases) and a few fans of sci fi that read too many army/super spy grown in a vat novels (I think I saw an episode of NCIS during its golden seasons that had something similar once, though in this case it was IVF had a twin siphoned off rather than destroyed, so pretty mainstream).
> Even if there was I imagine they would just do the "it helps this baby grow to viability when its mother died in a car crash, I mean it is not even hard and we have the technology so logically not doing something..." followed by "oh look they can get a cancer treatment and not have to lose the baby" and then "well getting pregnant at 40 is horribly risky for you and the would be baby, and expensive for the insurance company, try a vat" (said 40 year old, or her husband, maybe being some high powered type and then maybe having a word in the ear of the medical regs places to push it through), next up injury or disease renders one infertile, speaking of injury and disease if pluripotent stem cells have not been cracked by this point then probably get some nice vat grown foetuses to harvest cells from to fight cancer or whatever like they already do with women today (except here you could plausibly have 60 go on at once and select the best one), might be a fight or two as a heroin addict gets a foetus extraction and the laws get resolved there, if men have not had the virtual equivalent of a surrogate or jizz filled turkey baster at one of the previous steps that will also appear there, risk wise 30 is not all that much better than 40 and I am sure some company will want an additional several months of work from their freshly trained up whatever so will pay for that one if it is not already cheap, and at this point we are off to the races.
> ...


A theoretical artificial womb automatically resolves the abortion debate - nobody is particularly interested in women's uteri, they're not very visually appealing organs to begin with. Most men are interested in other female organs, but I humorously digress. I'm not sure how such a transplant would work, I imagine it would be rather invasive, unless we're talking about some distopian Demolition Man scenario where actual person-to-person sex is an option people don't even consider, favouring cleaner and more clinical means. That's all within the realm of fantasy though, so sadly, we have to deal with the cards we're dealt with. All we can do that is unobjectionably good is to promote responsible intercourse and the use of contraceptives - chastity is great and all if that's people's jam, it's certainly not mine. Other than that, sensible limits in terms of the stage of development of the fetus, as measured by trimesters, seems like a mutually satisfactory solution for both camps. What those limits should be is not up to us or legislators, they should be based on the advice of medical professionals and bioethicists. But that's a crazy nut job take (and the current legal standard), so I'll refrain from further comments and focus on the election going forward.


----------



## notimp (Sep 21, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> I have not seen any great push back against artificial womb technology as a general concept.


Sorry, yes - cloning was the subject of our previous exchange about that.. 

Societies pushback against artificial insemination and carrying out your child in an artificial womb? Sure you have seen that.. a little bit of a mix between 'Values, religions, social norms, fking is fun and cost.'. 

Women would be brandmarked as uncaring/bad mothers probably..  (And natural births would be seen as 'luxury' if that scales, which first needs a society I cant even imagine yet.  ) Lets say I forsee, that this business will have an image problem.. 

edit: Forgot "prior art".


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 21, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> A theoretical artificial womb automatically resolves the abortion debate - nobody is particularly interested in women's uteri, they're not a very visually appealing organ to begin with. Most men are interested in other female organs, but I humorously digress. I'm not sure how such a transplant would work, I imagine it would be rather invasive, unless we're talking about some distopian Demolition Man scenario where actual person-to-person sex is an option people don't even consider, favouring cleaner and more clinical means. That's all within the realm of fantasy though, so sadly, we have to deal with the cards we're dealt with. All we can do that is unobjectionably good is to promote responsible intercourse and the use of contraceptives - chastity is great and all if that's people's jam, it's certainly not mine. Other than that, sensible limits in terms of the stage of development of the fetus, as measured by trimesters, seems like a mutually satisfactory solution for both camps. What those limits should be is not up to us or legislators, they should be based on the advice of medical professionals and bioethicists. But that's a crazy nut job take (and the current legal standard), so I'll refrain from further comments and focus on the election going forward.



If transplant is as cheap and easy as abortion, and you can financially cut yourself off from the results (one can hope but also looking around at the things like the sperm donor responsible rulings I am wary).
It would also not obviate the detection of serious illnesses and quality of life debate.

Invasiveness.




 

Other informative internet videos show me that the holes already used for abortion surgeries can fit things that size (possibly even literally those items in the picture but we will stick with simple girth for now) or otherwise be easily expanded to have even a decent safety margin if hitting the sides is an issue or you want some encapsulation. At anything like the timelines most abortions take place on then look within size tolerances.

If somehow full placenta can not be harvested and attached in time then establish a connection with the umbilical (possibly a simplified can exist like this for a while a la transplants) and then reattach (maybe with the full complement of long term/growth* requirements if they were skipped earlier). Also we have seen it with complex life (sheep in most cases you will read) already.

*I am curious there actually. Development wise the simplistic biology textbook notes that humans might otherwise carry their young for way north of 9 months (growth, bone fusion, joints, neural development milestones...). Would any additional time in have benefits that might outweigh the first year or so of development?

As far as "unobjectionably" goes I take it you have not been paying much attention to the abstinence only stuff in the US. My least favourite one as a fallout of that such things being "girls should not get HPV vaccinated because it will encourage them to have sex", though stats on condoms (which of course they do not teach which makes the worst case that much more likely to happen) is also an ever fun one. Likewise while the Roman Catholic church is wavering a bit on living together before marriage that is still a hard sell for many within it.



notimp said:


> Sorry, yes - cloning was the subject on our previous exchange about that..
> 
> Societies pushback against artificial insemination and carrying out your child in an artificial womb? Sure you have seen that.. a little bit of a mix between 'Values, religions, social norms, fking is fun and cost.'.
> 
> Women would be brandmarked as uncaring/bad mothers probably..  Lets say I forsee, that this business will have an image problem..


I don't doubt they won't have the easiest ride and will have to play some PR.
However said PR is not very hard when you are helping people have a career, infertile couples, people receive life saving treatment, people start a family where pregnancy is risky for the host or the parasite (or has become it during it), in some places in the world then have a larger family, older women to have such things, possibly some gays to have a baby, the ability to grow cells to save someone (harder to sell there to some but to others... again we already have people get pregnant to harvest organs, cells and whatnot).
Every one of those is either sympathetic or rich enough to help push it through.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 21, 2020)

notimp said:


> Sorry, yes - cloning was the subject of our previous exchange about that..
> 
> Societies pushback against artificial insemination and carrying out your child in an artificial womb? Sure you have seen that.. a little bit of a mix between 'Values, religions, social norms, fking is fun and cost.'.
> 
> ...


For once we think alike - I too dislike the concept of replacing the real deal with blinking lights, for purely selfish reasons. In fact, I mentioned Demolition Man myself, what a great film!


----------



## notimp (Sep 21, 2020)

Nice, here is your dessert: Cultural politics being used by the right as a distraction to maintain a public interest debate about - largely decided and superfluous issues:



Courts being used as 'have to do nothing' cards for political actors, in return meaning they become HEAVILY politicized. Then make it so you leave the same ones in place for 40 years without any electoral influence, and flipping feed the populous with absolute nonsense discussions, while anything important happens (trade deals, income disparity widening, wars ...).

Thats pretty much the meme that hits closest to reality right now.

Dont want to hurt people that have campaigned for 20 years to save them babies, but - at one point, grow up, would you? (Spoken to anyone that might read this.)


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 21, 2020)

If you don't want babies, don't have sex.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 21, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> You forgot a certain group which wishes war with Iran.



Which group is that? 

For Decades the *Liberals* and *Democrats* *cried about our troops fighting in wars or being stuck for long durations in other countries*, yet the minute we get an *anti-war President like Trump* they attack him each time he orders troops to come home. I've yet seen them attack him for not starting any new wars, but based on their history of *automatically being the polar opposite in opinion to anything Trump does* I wouldn't put it past him. I'm referring to wanting to *"cancel" the Nobel Peace Prize due* to Trump being nominated or bashing Trump for *working for free* as he is donating his entire Presidential salary to worthy causes. Basically, if it benefits Trump or if Trump has an opinion on something you can expect without fail for the Liberal Democrats to have the polar opposite opinion/views/reaction and that's regardless of what their views or self proclaimed value system used to be.

*Iran is a communist country and by their own admission our enemies. *They seek to produce nuclear weapons and frequently threaten to harm the USA and its allies. Hell, they threaten other countries that aren't our allies. If anyone wants confrontation it's Iran and even though Trump has responded to their threats by basically saying "Don't you fucking dare" he hasn't gone out of his way to start a war. We aren't a weak country and shouldn't bow down to others especially when they are threatening us, but I don't see this current administration going out of its way to attack first.


----------



## notimp (Sep 21, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Which group is that?
> 
> For Decades the *Liberals* and *Democrats* *cried about our troops fighting in wars or being stuck for long durations in other countries*, yet the minute we get an *anti-war President like Trump* they attack him each time he orders troops to come home. I've yet seen them attack him for not starting any new wars, but based on their history of *automatically being the polar opposite in opinion to anything Trump does* I wouldn't put it past him. I'm referring to wanting to *"cancel" the Nobel Peace Prize due* to Trump being nominated or bashing Trump for *working for free* as he is donating his entire Presidential salary to worthy causes. Basically, if it benefits Trump or if Trump has an opinion on something you can expect without fail for the Liberal Democrats to have the polar opposite opinion/views/reaction and that's regardless of what their views or self proclaimed value system used to be.
> 
> *Iran is a communist country and by their own admission our enemies. *They seek to produce nuclear weapons and frequently threaten to harm the USA and its allies. Hell, they threaten other countries that aren't our allies. If anyone wants confrontation it's Iran and even though Trump has responded to their threats by basically saying "Don't you fucking dare" he hasn't gone out of his way to start a war. We aren't a weak country and shouldn't bow down to others especially when they are threatening us, but I don't see this current administration going out of its way to attack first.


Beware of people that make terms like Liberals and Democrats FAT to denounce them better.

They are lying to you on other things as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Iran (The communist party in Iran is banned. Following the previous communist party in Iran, which was also banned.)

If you know nothing - the idea is, that in any open discussion you get laughed out of the room (or applauded, if the room is more polite). Otherwise why hold open debates.


edit: Also this to counter your other point:


----------



## Seliph (Sep 21, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> If you don't want babies, don't have sex.


"If you don't want to get hit by a car don't cross the street"


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 21, 2020)

Seliph said:


> "If you don't want to get hit by a car don't cross the street"


They're just _soooo_ similar.


----------



## notimp (Sep 21, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> They're just _soooo_ similar.


Accidents happen.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 21, 2020)

notimp said:


> Accidents happen.


"accidental sex"


----------



## notimp (Sep 21, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> "accidental sex"


Accidental baby. When contraceptives fail, or the women forgot to take the pill f.e.

The argument is fully layed out on the previous page, you just had to read it.

Abortion is not the first choice, nor the second or third, for any responsible human being, but you need it as a contingency - or you are at the 'telling women to stay abstinent, just in case contraception fails' stages again. Chastity.

Also never forget, this is the 2020 presidential election thread.

You are tpromoting, voting for Trump, because of that baby killing issue that was decided on in the sixties. Regardless of RBG's replacement being voted in prior to the next term, juuuuust in case.

Other popular reasons include voting for Trump because of child molesters (actual argument brought in this thread), and terrorists. Or nonexisting communists.

Finish this sentence - you know the US has seized being a functioning democracy, when...


----------



## Seliph (Sep 21, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> "accidental sex"


Accidental pregnancy. Much like you don't HAVE to cross the street, you also don't HAVE to have sex. But everyone does both of those things anyway unless they're a loser because doing otherwise is impractical or just boring. Because of this fact, it makes much more sense to try to mitigate or prevent accidental pregnancy rather than promote abstinence just as it would make much more sense to mitigate or prevent traffic accidents rather than tell people not to cross the street. People will have sex and they will cross the street despite the risks no matter what you say.

Just like condoms are a contraceptive for sexual reproduction, traffic lights are a "contraceptive" for traffic accidents. Do they always work? No, but they're much better solutions than just saying "don't do the thing".


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 21, 2020)

Seliph said:


> Accidental pregnancy. Much like you don't HAVE to cross the street, you also don't HAVE to have sex. But everyone does both of those things anyway unless they're a loser because doing otherwise is impractical or just boring.


"Not having sex is impractical."


----------



## Seliph (Sep 21, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> "Not having sex is impractical."


1. You're just obviously just trying to divert the discussion from my main point.
2. I said *OR BORING *ya dummy. It's literally in what you quoted.
3. The definition of impractical is "(of an object or course of action) not adapted for use or action; not sensible or realistic." It is not sensible or realistic to expect most people to not have sex. Most people have sex, that's just a fact of life. You're trying to rebut my point from a semantical perspective which is already a fallacy in itself and you can't even do that right lol.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 21, 2020)

Seliph said:


> The definition of impractical is "(of an object or course of action) not adapted for use or action; not sensible or realistic." It is not sensible or realistic to expect someone to not have sex. Most people have sex, that's just a fact of life. You're trying to rebut my point from a semantical perspective and you can't even do that right lol.


The fact that you're saying this on a gaming forum shows how ignorant you are.


----------



## Seliph (Sep 21, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> The fact that you're saying this on a gaming forum shows how ignorant you are.


What leap of logic led you to that conclusion?

You've still failed to address my argument anyways so I'm assuming you agree with me.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 21, 2020)

Seliph said:


> What leap of logic led you to that conclusion?


Stereotypical nerd virginity.


----------



## Seliph (Sep 21, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Stereotypical nerd virginity.


The tiny population of one gaming forum is in no way congruent to the population of the Earth. Just because proportionally more people on this site don't have sex according to your assumption doesn't mean the majority of people on Earth don't as well. There's apparently 444875 members on this website? Accounting for the fact that a lot of those accounts are probably bots or inactive, that's still only about 5% of the world's population, and would probably be much less once you factor in bots and throwaway accounts and inactive accounts.

So my statement is still true, and more people have sex than you'd think anyways, including people on this forum.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 21, 2020)

Seliph said:


> The tiny population of one gaming forum is in no way congruent to the population of the Earth. Just because proportionally more people on this site don't have sex according to your assumption doesn't mean the majority of people on Earth don't as well. There's apparently 444875 members on this website? Accounting for the fact that a lot of those accounts are probably bots or inactive, that's still only about 5% of the world's population, and would probably be much less once you factor in bots and throwaway accounts and inactive accounts.
> 
> So my statement is still true, and more people have sex than you'd think anyways, including people on this forum.


So GBAtemp is the only forum with nerds and virgins.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 21, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> For terminating unborn life, I found it repulsive that anyone would defend such an action. I highly doubt the 51,000 unborn children that are slaughtered per month in the USA are all done "legally, safe and with rarity". I also highly doubt a large percentage were done to simply save the mother as most are done because the mother, father or both simply don't want the child. It really ticks me off that the Liberal news media values some microorganisms in Venus's clouds more than they do valid human being or what it to shortly become a full fledged human being.



They're fetuses, not children.
Fetuses aren't people.
Even if fetuses were people, that wouldn't negate a woman's right to bodily autonomy. In other words, she can't be forced to carry a pregnancy anymore than you can be forced to donate an organ.



gregory-samba said:


> I also don't believe in abandoning the child once it's born. While it's not my responsibility to pay or raise other peoples kids, it solely lies on the biological female and male that brought the human being into this world. I would want the child to be raised by a biological women and male, the same two that created it and they should be responsible enough to provide housing, food, clothing, medical care and anything else the child needs (not wants, NEEDS). The child should then be provided with a proper education, minus the indoctrination crap and be allowed to choose for himself of what he or she wants to be when they grow up (as in there's no socialism/communism where the child has no choice or say in the matter).


I imagine the point somebody was trying to make was that conservatives don't seem to care much about life after it's born. They want to defund social programs, they don't seem to care about people having access to affordable health care, etc.



gregory-samba said:


> I don't think we should get rid of the electoral college, but I find what @omgcat proposal of increasing the number of representatives logical and interesting. Of course, the number of representatives should be proportional to the number of legal USA citizens (not illegals).


There's no reason why a person who doesn't get the most votes should be elected president. Conservatives like the Electoral College because it gives them an advantage. Other than that one reason, it's pretty difficult to defend.



gregory-samba said:


> Finally, the entire deal between Trump filling a vacant seat is not even comparable to an extremely radical thing like adding 3 more Judges to the Supreme Court. There's a stark difference between the two, regardless of how hypocritical either side is being. I wouldn't agree with Trump adding 3 more after whomever he nominates takes the bench. There is a vacant seat and it does need to be filled, and even though @Lacius is glad I admit I could care less if the Conservatives are being hypocritical in a hypothetical situation they currently are not as there was and still is certain criteria that is different between back in 2016 and now in 2020.


It wouldn't be radical nor hypocritical to pack the court in response to a Republican power grab based in hypocrisy.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



vincentx77 said:


> Look, I'm pro-choice, but a fetus does start to develop sentience as it's brain and central nervous system begins to form, which happens at the beginning of the 2nd trimester (month 4). It does have a brain for at least half of the length of an average pregnancy. It's not fully developed, but if you want to get technical I'm not sure the human brain becomes fully developed until around 25 years of age.


Beginning to form a brain and central nervous system does not make sentience. It also doesn't matter if a fetus were sentient (it's not).


----------



## Seliph (Sep 21, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> So GBAtemp is the only forum with nerds and virgins.


Yes, that is EXACTLY the original point I was making.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 21, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> A fetus shows first signs of brain development is the 3rd-4th week, by the 5th week it has distinguishable sections and by the 6th you can measure first electrical activity - they grow pretty fast.


Signs of brain development isnt' sentience.



Foxi4 said:


> Considering physical birth as the moment a fetus becomes a person with their own distinct right to bodily autonomy, i.e. the magical vagina theory, is wholly inconsistent with science.


A fetus develops bodily autonomy before birth. Until a fetus can survive without being attached to another body, it doesn't have bodily autonomy, and it has no rights with regard to bodily autonomy.



Foxi4 said:


> I fully understand that you can reason yourself into a position like this based on personal principles or beliefs. That's perfectly acceptable, but if your view on the matter is fundamentalist, don't present it as anything else. I hope you're aware that your position is just as unscientific as magic holy book hocus pocus. In fact, in this scenario, magical hocus pocus appears to be closer to the truth, if only by accident.


It's disingenuous to compare my consistent reasoning to a faith-based position. The thing that's valuable is sentience. That's what I value, and that's likely what you value too. If we have a brain-dead human, that person has as much personhood as a dead person, even if the rest of the body is alive. If we have a sufficiently advanced AI that has sentience/sapience, that AI has personhood, even without a human body or human DNA. A fetus doesn't have sentience. An embryo or fetus often doesn't even have a brain. They are not people by any secular measure.

I was enjoying our conversation, but do not compare my beliefs to faith-based religious beliefs again.



Foxi4 said:


> If you want to be this nihilistic, I can just as easily say that you and I are in fact mere clumps of cells with meat-calculators inside our skulls that create the illusion of personhood to make us feel good and grant us imaginary rights when in reality we're only reacting to stimuli - that's perfectly plausible and makes the entire discussion of who is or is not a person completely moot.


We have concepts of personhood and legal rights out of necessity, since we are people living in and sharing a world. Nihilistic points of view about whether or not sentience, personhood, etc. matter are irrelevant to the conversation.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 21, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> "Not having sex is impractical."


It is for many people.

It is a bonding and stress relieving activity for many people, one that they have an incredibly high drive to perform and achieve, denying people the opportunity for it is well documented to lead to all sorts of odd and unpleasant outcomes (prisons, catholic priests, military deployments, oil rigs, ships at sea and more besides all yielding good data stretching back hundreds of years).

To that end it is then unreasonable to expect a population of people not to have sex, both in practical terms (if in your ideal fantasy world people only had sex to have a baby and were otherwise asexual or whatever then OK, the real world, which we do have to make rules and systems to work in, is a rather different affair) and from an ethical sense in something you might request.

Also on
"If you don't want babies, don't have sex."
But if you do have sex and end up pregnant we can seemingly quite easily sort that out. If you don't want cavities on your teeth then don't eat too many sweeties and brush your teeth. Someone fails in that and if I am playing dentist and tell them to do one and live with the consequences then that would be a horrible breach of ethics -- we have all the tools to happily fix the problem, and abilities to pretty easily do so, why not sort the problem for someone?
Equally sex can occur between those of the same sex (basically 0 risk in that one) and in infertile people (maybe not 0 as there are some oddities but super low -- basically no chance a 60 year old will get pregnant, and if I had a vasectomy then also on the low side).


----------



## Lacius (Sep 21, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> You seem to have completely missed the point of the mental exercise, @notimp. The point, in case it wasn't obvious, was to get a reading on the moral compass of a randomly selected liberal-minded individual, in this case @Lacius.
> 
> Throughout the exchange we've established that packing the court would be immoral, *unless* it is done in revenge (and I am going to call it revenge because that's what it is - means for the injured party to receive compensation which it, in consultation with nobody, considers to be just, issued by itself to itself as the sole judge and jury, which is just a wordy way of saying "get even"), however killing an unborn child 5 minutes before it is born (and at that stage it is a child, I defy you to prove otherwise) is not immoral based solely on the fact that in a purely mechanical sense it is connected to the mother's body and she has autonomy over it, something you would have a hard time finding support for and a position extremely few medical doctors would consider acceptable. In fact, if we take what was said to the ridiculous extreme, it should be permissible to twist the unwanted child's neck as long as it is still technically connected to the mother with an umbilical cord, although I *very much doubt* that he believes that.
> 
> ...


If you're going to misrepresent my positions in such a disingenuous manner, even after I've explained to you how those representations are mistaken, I'm going to block you. For example, I've already explained the difference between revenge and justice. I'm not repeating myself anymore.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 21, 2020)

Lacius said:


> There's no reason why a person who doesn't get the most votes should be elected president. Conservatives like the Electoral College because it gives them an advantage. Other than that one reason, it's pretty difficult to defend.



I hear that a lot, but I don't have any Conservative friends that don't care about other people once they are born. Those socialist programs you mentioned are an unnecessary burdens on the rest of society. If the two people who conceived the child would feed, cloth, house and basically be parents we wouldn't have to bail out the more shitty ones that simply just refuse to take care of their children. If more time was spent in shaming bad parents or taking away their toys and forcing them to take care of their kids instead of just looking the other way and throwing cash at the problem we would be better off as a society. 

Look at Ruth Ginsburg. She was battling cancer, but I didn't see any Liberals offering to take care of her when she was sick or pay her bills. Of course, some still cared about her and her situation, but it wasn't their responsibility. Same thing with illegal immigrants. You don't see many Liberals taking them into their houses, feeding, clothing and providing their medical care. They simply want other people to pay for that, but won't lift a finger themselves. 

People's kids aren't other peoples responsibility. Good parents would stick together and raise the children. Bad parents, well, they refuse to feed, cloth, house or take care of the children they created and that are their responsibility. I know that budding socialists want to be in some commune style where the community raises the kid, but that's a horrible idea and since we're not under socialist rule it would be awful for the children to refuse to do your job as a parent.

Conservatives do care and it's dishonest to claim otherwise. It's just not our job to be the parents due to the real parents refusing to do their job.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 21, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> In all the cases I have seen of it then it is pretty flawed but as you asked there are a few, in addition to things that Foxi4 might be pondering.
> "we need more people to fuel our factories/retirement bills and abortion denies us a chance at having them/having them sooner".
> The factories bit was actively tried in a few communist states, many still have lingering effects for both sexes (again see the regs regarding getting a vasectomy in Russia -- you have to be quite old or have had several already, compared to elsewhere where you might have to have a look around to find a willing medic but could legally get it done at 18, possibly even on insurance, and plenty have them done in their 20s and consider it a sound financial investment -- https://nypost.com/2017/05/27/hampt...-vasectomies-so-golddiggers-cant-trap-them/4/ ). It did not have a great effect as a net result (unwanted pregnancies tend to make for unwanted children raised in sub optimal environments...).
> The latter one I have seen more recently as people look at birth rates being rather below replacement and have banked on there always being more people (more natives being more better for a lot of things, and immigration only works for so long before you exhaust the supplies of quality people and start getting less return on investment, to say nothing of other effects). Why someone else's shit tier financial planning, possibly put in place before I was even born, and unwillingness to react to market conditions (communists, advocate of modern monetary theory, Keynesian, Chicago, Austrian, classical... whatever your position in economics as a whole is then all agree that paying attention to the market, supply & demand, and reacting accordingly is a good plan), means I am supposed to raise a crotch goblin I don't know, not to mention it is debatable that it would even produce more instruments of wealth creation/extraction, but it is still an argument.
> ...


I'm short on time, so I only read parts of your post. My apologies. That being said, although they're bad arguments, this is the first time in this thread I've heard secular arguments against abortion.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 21, 2020)

Lacius said:


> If you're going to misrepresent my positions in such a disingenuous manner, even after I've explained to you how those representations are mistaken, I'm going to block you. For example, I've already explained the difference between revenge and justice. I'm not repeating myself anymore.


It's what I've gathered from your explanation, I don't see a reason to be upset. I interpret it as vengeance based on what you've said. I am aware that you denied it, but in my book it still classifies as just that. Your only excuse is that you feel justified - all people who seek vengeance feel justified in their actions, so nothing is different here. As for the baby business, which frankly is getting a bit boring, you said that a fetus becomes a person "at birth". From that I've gleamed that it is not a person before it exits the womb, and becomes a person as soon as it does. If it's more nuanced than that and you have some kind of time frame in mind then our positions aren't that much different - I too believe that abortion, if performed relatively early, isn't as big of a deal as a late-term one. Legal, safe and rare, and whatnot - that used to be the standard.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 21, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> It's what I've gathered from your explanation, I don't see a reason to be upset. I interpret it as vengeance based on what you've said. I am aware that you denied it, but in my book it still classifies as just that. Your only excuse is that you feel justified - all people who seek vengeance feel justified in their actions, so nothing is different here.


Respectfully, I see no point in continuing our conversation when you're going to ignore much of what I've said. I've already explained in great detail how justice is not the same thing as vengeance, and I used examples. You're either refusing to see the point or cannot see the point. Either way, I'm uninterested in continuing a conversation with someone who cannot/will not see the point.

I'm short of time these days, and I don't have the patience to go in circles I used to have.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 21, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Respectfully, I see no point in continuing our conversation when you're going to ignore much of what I've said. I've already explained in great detail how justice is not the same thing as vengeance, and I used examples. You're either refusing to see the point or cannot see the point. Either way, I'm uninterested in continuing a conversation with someone who cannot/will not see the point.
> 
> I'm short of time these days, and I don't have the patience to go in circles I used to have.


That's fine. I didn't exactly mean it as an attack, I simply have a different point of view on this matter. Once again, I'm not going to criticise you for playing to win, I just consider the stance rather inconsistent if your perception of right and wrong directly correlates to how slighted you feel. Call it "two wrongs don't make a right", if you will.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 21, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I hear that a lot, but I don't have any Conservative friends that don't care about other people once they are born. Those socialist programs you mentioned are an unnecessary burdens on the rest of society.


In other words, you're fine with burdening society in order to make sure as many pregnancies are carried to term as possible, despite a violation of a woman's right to bodily autonomy, but you don't' want to burden society in order to make sure people have their basic needs met. Got it.



gregory-samba said:


> If the two people who conceived the child would feed, cloth, house and basically be parents we wouldn't have to bail out the more shitty ones that simply just refuse to take care of their children. If more time was spent in shaming bad parents or taking away their toys and forcing them to take care of their kids instead of just looking the other way and throwing cash at the problem we would be better off as a society.


Many people don't have the resources to provide for their children. You seem to be making an argument that, in favor of reducing social programs, parents should be able to terminate pregnancies.



gregory-samba said:


> Look at Ruth Ginsburg. She was battling cancer, but I didn't see any Liberals offering to take care of her when she was sick or pay her bills. Of course, some still cared about her and her situation, but it wasn't their responsibility.


RBG had family, money, and health care. If she didn't, society shouldn't have let her die on the street without medical treatment.



gregory-samba said:


> Same thing with illegal immigrants. You don't see many Liberals taking them into their houses, feeding, clothing and providing their medical care. They simply want other people to pay for that, but won't lift a finger themselves.


There's a long history of American liberals and progressives taking refugees into their homes.



gregory-samba said:


> They simply want other people to pay for that, but won't lift a finger themselves.


Liberals/progressives are taxpayers too.



gregory-samba said:


> People's kids aren't other peoples responsibility.


Are you arguing a society should turn a blind eye to suffering children because they "aren't theirs"? If so, that's the point. All children should, at the very least, have their basic needs met. If society has to step in with social programs, so be it. With the problem of income inequality as bad as it is (thanks, Republicans), the need for social programs is only getting worse.



gregory-samba said:


> I know that budding socialists want to be in some commune style where the community raises the kid, but that's a horrible idea and since we're not under socialist rule it would be awful for the children to refuse to do your job as a parent.


This isn't what Democrats are arguing for.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> That's fine. I didn't exactly mean it as an offense, I simply have a different point of view on this matter. Once again, I'm not going to criticise you for playing to win, I just consider the stance rather inconsistent if your perception of right and wrong directly correlates to how slighted you feel. Call it "two wrongs don't make a right", if you will.


It's one thing to have a difference of opinion. That's going to happen a lot, and lots of things aren't 100% clear or black and white. It's another thing to make a point about something that does appear to be cut and dry (e.g. vengeance vs. justice), and you're refusing to accept the facts of the situation. Whether or not I'm right about it, I have to draw a line in the sand until this most basic of litmus tests is passed. Otherwise, I'm wasting my time. Like, did you honestly ignore my examples?

In other words, if the other party can't even agree 2+2=4, conversation about anything else are futile. The 2+2 example is also about objective truth, not obvious truth, so don't take offense.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 21, 2020)

Lacius said:


> That being said, although they're bad arguments


I don't know that they necessarily are bad.

Most are bad reasons to restrict things wholesale if we are going to go with the present medical ethics and legal takes (the whole compelled to carry, medical exceptions, financial reasons, sentience/senescence/suffering and all that) which provide the basis for it. However if you are deciding upon things to include in your pre event counselling plan (mandating such things is a tricky one but some never the less do, and given the incidence rates of various fun psychological effects resulting from it* is not entirely unjustifiable, and it is presumably an event many would talk over with such a person should they have otherwise engaged their services), life coaching, your tax breaks/government handouts**, your disincentives, your healthcare budgets and trade policy (or hospital policy -- many US hospitals avoid such procedures and not because they are unprofitable in and of themselves) in some instances.

*I am curious to see the differences between places where people make a big deal of it and places where it is as boring and banal as a sorting a toothache, both in access to services and any ethical worries.

**not entirely unrelated (others playing along there is a whole series of these). It presumably cost a non trivial sum to make these so they want an outcome and I doubt it is some kind of reverse psychology ploy


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 21, 2020)

Lacius said:


> It's one thing to have a difference of opinion. That's going to happen a lot, and lots of things aren't 100% clear or black and white. It's another thing to make a point about something that does appear to be cut and dry (e.g. vengeance vs. justice), and you're refusing to accept the facts of the situation. Whether or not I'm right about it, I have to draw a line in the sand until this most basic of litmus tests is passed. Otherwise, I'm wasting my time. Like, did you honestly ignore my examples?
> 
> In other words, if the other party can't even agree 2+2=4, conversation about anything else are futile. The 2+2 example is also about objective truth, not obvious truth, so don't take offense.


I saw your examples and thought that they have no merit. Justice is metted by an impartial third-party, retribution does not work along the lines of eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth - that's from the book you're not a fan of. Since we're talking examples, if someone parks in the parking space you normally use (which is legal, if a bit annoying) despite the fact that they said you shouldn't do that to theirs last year for some reason, it is demonstrably petty to get planning permission, paint two or three parking spaces over the original ones and ask your friends and family to fill them at all times of day. You're entitled to do it if your city council gave you permission, it's totally legal and above board, but it's still a dick move, and you're doing it to spite your neighbour. That is how I see it. I understand that you have justification, I understand that you were wronged, but your actions have made a bad situation worse. If Democrats don't want that seat filled, they're welcome to deploy all legal means to prevent it from happening, but if they instead allow it to be filled and add extra seats later to tip the balance, that's not a positive outcome - that's just two scummy things happening one after the other. I hope that clarifies my position a bit.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 21, 2020)

Lacius said:


> In other words, you're fine with burdening society in order to make sure as many pregnancies are carried to term as possible, despite a violation of a woman's right to bodily autonomy, but you don't' want to burden society in order to make sure people have their basic needs met. Got it.



That's you just putting words into my mouth. I already explained that the parents need to step up and take responsibility for the life they created. It's also just not the women's body involved. You have the child you created and the biological father involved too. The rest of your replies (except your last) don't require a followup as you started off with not being able to understand that people need to be responsible for their own actions.



			
				Lacius said:
			
		

> This isn't what Democrats are arguing for.



Actually, a large part of the BLM movement is advocating for just that. It was on their official web page for months.

EDIT: Actually, I will reply to your comments about Ruth Ginsburg. You mentioned how she didn't need public assistance because she was a responsible citizen. If we encouraged people to be responsible citizens like Mrs. Gingsburg was instead of advocating laziness and taking money from responsible people to simply hand out to the irresponsible then there would be less children suffering. After all, it's the shitty parents faults that they kids aren't being fed, given a proper education, clothed properly, housed and have two parents in the household. That's not my fault. That's their fault and I'm not responsible for their actions and mistakes.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 21, 2020)

Back to the supreme court lark. Talk of changing a count to effect a different balance, stacking courts is great fun, didn't know (though still somewhat questioning whether) any of the big US political parties even still had it in them to do such brinkmanship.

Is there a particularly compelling reason why the election year... tradition is there? Is it just a tradition for the sake of a tradition for reasons long since obviated (both by life extension and effectively instant communications; we are nearing 100 years since the telegraph which should be more than enough to count there, and dude on a horse is not so bad when all is said and done).

Assuming we even think it a problem to not have a balance of picks (one would hope a judge of that quality is above some measure of party politics, and is more about the law) why not do something like term limits (can still give a good 10 years + active cases and dodge problems of simple elections and presumably also shifting party -- no party is anything like static in their general beliefs, wishes, actions and core setups*), and as much as I loathe the two party system (though it is more or a less a mathematical inevitability with most simplistic voting systems) and the idea of enshrining it in law even more so if we are playing to it then do we want some kind of balancing feature so nobody can take control as it were?

*do we even need to look at all the various shifts such things undergo over the course of a few decades on average? If nothing else for most of my life in the US it has been the republicans that were the enemies of free speech, today (barring the whole flag burning nonsense the other week and the banning games hearings within the current president's term) that seems to be the opposite while I see Democrats do the whole Citizen's united bit and angling somewhat for hate speech codes (indeed enacting something like it in places they nominally control like higher education), though I suppose they are also to thank for the PMRC.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 21, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> Back to the supreme court lark. Talk of changing a count to effect a different balance, stacking courts is great fun, didn't know (though still somewhat questioning whether) any of the big US political parties even still had it in them to do such brinkmanship.
> 
> Is there a particularly compelling reason why the election year... tradition is there? Is it just a tradition for the sake of a tradition for reasons long since obviated (both by life extension and effectively instant communications; we are nearing 100 years since the telegraph which should be more than enough to count there, and dude on a horse is not so bad when all is said and done).
> 
> ...


A short recap of the story is as follows:

The boys see a new kind of candy in the store, so they chip in change to buy a bag, but little Mitch says "no, you guys can't have this candy because I only get lunch money after my parents come home. You have to wait until they're back and then we'll go buy it, that's how we've always done it". The boys reluctantly oblige since Mitch refuses to let them into the store. The parents come home at last, give Mitch a dollar and he buys a different bag of candy that the boys didn't want, ignoring their suggestion entirely.

Some time passes and this time Mitch has some lunch money, but the boys don't. The boys are angry - "wait a minute Mitch, last time you said that we can't have candy until our parents come back home and give us lunch money, that's not fair!", but Mitch just flips them off, says "yeah, but last time I didn't have money, and now I do", and he just buys the bag.

The boys are frustrated, so they go to their parents and say that due to an unforseen downturn in the candy market they need double or triple the money to buy more bags than Mitch has. This is of course in the spirit of fairness, not to flex on Mitch, sitting there with his bag of candy, chewing slowly with a frown on his face. His parents aren't going to give him more lunch money, he's a bad boy.

This is unironically what's happening, except it's grown-ups doing it. Grown-ass adults.

To be fair though, they're not entirely wrong. Black licorice is not candy, it's a punishment.


----------



## vincentx77 (Sep 22, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Beginning to form a brain and central nervous system does not make sentience. It also doesn't matter if a fetus were sentient (it's not).



As I have said before, I am Pro-Choice, but you're just flat-out wrong here. Saying a fetus isn't sentient doesn't make it true. While the brain begins the majority of it's development starting in the 2nd trimester, by the end of that period, the fetus can recognize both of it's parents' voices. It can remember and be soothed by songs sung to it by either parent. There is research to back this up. If that does not meet the criteria for sentience, then PETA shouldn't be allowed to exist, as many of the animals they try to protect will never be as developed.

Even after saying this, though, I do not want to put restrictions on what decisions a woman can make for her health care. These are difficult decisions she needs to make for herself, and mental health is just as important as any other consideration when you're talking about something with the gravity of beginning or ending new life.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 22, 2020)

vincentx77 said:


> As I have said before, I am Pro-Choice, but you're just flat-out wrong here. Saying a fetus isn't sentient doesn't make it true. While the brain begins the majority of it's development starting in the 2nd trimester, by the end of that period, the fetus can recognize both of it's parents' voices. It can remember and be soothed by songs sung to it by either parent. There is research to back this up. If that does not meet the criteria for sentience, then PETA shouldn't be allowed to exist, as many of the animals they try to protect will never be as developed.
> 
> Even after saying this, though, I do not want to put restrictions on what decisions a woman can make for her health care. These are difficult decisions she needs to make for herself, and mental health is just as important as any other consideration when you're talking about something with the gravity of beginning or ending new life.


At least you're aware. There's certainly a point in early development where the brain changes from a random assortment of neurons into a more complete organ capable of reacting to stimuli and performing its cognitive function. The problem with fetal sentience is that fetuses are effectively "asleep" inside the womb - the conditions inside, particularly oxygen pressure, keep them sedated until the time for birth is nigh and they wake up, with very short breaks in their "sleep" every now and then (around 5% of the total).

Scientists believe that the experience of suddenly receiving intense stimuli to all senses is extremely traumatic and stressful, this is coupled with what they call childhood or infantile amnesia around the age of 3. As a result, people don't have memories before the age of 3, it's not because any child younger than 3, or a fetus at an advanced stage of development, are not sentient. The brain is a tricky matter, I was trying to explain just how quickly it develops, but what can you do.

Around the 16th week the fetus can respond to low frequency noise and around the 19th it develops a defensive pain response by flinching, however those are unconscious reflexes rather than conscious processing. I'd still consider harming a fetus that can process pain to be objectionable, but it's a different kind of experience. Conscious experience of pain can be pinpointed to around the 29th week and sound processing begins at the 26th when the respective neural pathways are developed - that's when the fetus "starts listening", so to speak.

In terms of viability of such a fetus, one just has to glance at premature birth survival rates to get a picture of how things shake up. Children born earlier than the 22nd week of pregnancy have effectively a zero percent survival rate, and the rate climbs rapidly from that point forward. At 34 weeks the baby is equivalent to a child carried to term.

Since the general consensus is that we value sentient human life (I'll make that concession, that's fair), the cut-off point should be somewhere in the neighbourhood of the lower value, as even a 10% chance of saving a person (viable, therefore a person, according to what was discussed) is worth taking. In Great Britain that cut-off is 24 weeks of gestation, which is fair in my opinion. In those late-term cases I would advocate for inducing premature birth as soon as the odds of survival are acceptable to lift the burden of carrying the baby to term off the mother, unless she's amenable to carry it once informed about the state of her pregnancy.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2020)

vincentx77 said:


> As I have said before, I am Pro-Choice, but you're just flat-out wrong here. Saying a fetus isn't sentient doesn't make it true. While the brain begins the majority of it's development starting in the 2nd trimester, by the end of that period, the fetus can recognize both of it's parents' voices. It can remember and be soothed by songs sung to it by either parent. There is research to back this up. If that does not meet the criteria for sentience, then PETA shouldn't be allowed to exist, as many of the animals they try to protect will never be as developed.
> 
> Even after saying this, though, I do not want to put restrictions on what decisions a woman can make for her health care. These are difficult decisions she needs to make for herself, and mental health is just as important as any other consideration when you're talking about something with the gravity of beginning or ending new life.


I'm unaware of any evidence that a fetus gains sentience at any point before it gains bodily autonomy.

In fairness to you and everyone else, sentience is a tricky subject to talk about. For example, is response to stimuli evidence of sentience? I would say not necessarily. I'm willing to say a fetus might be sentient in the very late stages of development, but my point was never meant to be that sentience doesn't exist at all before birth. I also don't consider birth to be a magical transformation from fetus to baby (I consider gaining bodily autonomy to be that definitional line).

The problem for people who are anti-choice is they often argue that a brainless embryo in early development should have the same rights as a baby, for example. This position is untenable from a secular perspective, which was my original point. There are no (good) secular arguments against a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.

It also wouldn't matter if a fetus were sentient (it's not), since a woman has a right to bodily autonomy regardless.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 22, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I'm unaware of any evidence that a fetus gains sentience at any point before it gains bodily autonomy.
> 
> In fairness to you and everyone else, sentience is a tricky subject to talk about. For example, is response to stimuli evidence of sentience? I would say not necessarily. I'm willing to say a fetus might be sentient in the very late stages of development, but my point was never meant to be that sentience doesn't exist at all before birth. I also don't consider birth to be a magical transformation from fetus to baby (I consider gaining bodily autonomy to be that definitional line).
> 
> ...


Out of plain curiosity, if we assume for 5 minutes that it is, what's the difference between that and death sentences? In both cases you are killing for convinience, with a degree of justification, at least from my point of view. Why support one, but (presumably) not the other? Is it because a prisoner with a life sentence has an infinitesimal chance of being retried with new evidence that may prove their innocence, or that they may be released early for some unspecified reason? Genuinely curious.


----------



## choupette (Sep 22, 2020)

Trump supporters really scares me, because this man has made too may contradictions and lies and he is an extremist who falls short on his promises. As I said earlier in this thread, it's really not about political side. As an example, I don't think I'd vote for the Republican Party, I could vote for a man like him. That's decency and dignity, and that's what Mr Trump lacks.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 22, 2020)

choupette said:


> Trump supporters really scares me, because this man has made too may contradictions and lies and he is an extremist who falls short on his promises. As I said earlier in this thread, it's really not about political side. As an example, I don't think I'd vote for the Republican Party, I could vote for a man like him. That's decency and dignity, and that's what Mr Trump lacks.


Quick question, was Arnie full of dignity when he was screwing his maid, or Brigett Nielsen, or the multitude of other mistresses he had over the years and won't name? I'm asking since you've mentioned decency. Not saying that Trump is a paragon of virtue, but he also doesn't shine a virtue signal out of his window - we know he grabs women by the... front. Nothing against Arnie, he's a nice and affable guy, but out of all the Republicans you picked a weird one to contrast against Trump.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 22, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Out of plain curiosity, if we assume for 5 minutes that it is, what's the difference between that and death sentences? In both cases you are killing for convinience, with a degree of justification, at least from my point of view. Why support one, but (presumably) not the other? Is it because a prisoner with a life sentence has an infinitesimal chance of being retried with new evidence that may prove their innocence, or that they may be released early for some unspecified reason? Genuinely curious.


My stance is pretty simple. I would support it, if it wasn't for two things.
1. Why trust the government? We can all agree the (united states) government is not exactly good, and no I am not just talking this administration, previous included. I would not want them to have that kind of power.
2. Because of the government is not exactly good and money speaks louder than facts, this can result in people who should of not died dying, people who had genuine innocents. 
If we lived in a perfect world, where that nonsense didn't happen, where the government wasn't corrupt and in favor of money interests, I would reconsider.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 22, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> My stance is pretty simple. I would support it, if it wasn't for two things.
> 1. Why trust the government? We can all agree the (united states) government is not exactly good, and no I am not just talking this administration, previous included. I would not want them to have that kind of power.
> 2. Because of the government is not exactly good and money speaks louder than facts, this can result in people who should of not died dying, people who had genuine innocents.
> If we lived in a perfect world, where that nonsense didn't happen, where the government wasn't corrupt and in favor of money interests, I would reconsider.


That's a very reasonable and sort of libertarian response, I did not expect that. Not only you're right, that's also a pretty compelling argument to me. My only issue is the cost of keeping a felon alive for, potentially, decades on end. Of course all the armchair economists will now jump out of the woodwork to tell me that "actually, the death penalty is more expensive because of all the associated legal costs", but I have a feeling that even I could make some cuts here and there to make it entirely affordable, within the range of the cost of electricity, pun intended. I personally support it, but only in instances where guilt can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, like when someone is caught red-handed or when there's a clear recording of the event, a piece of evidence that objectively, can't be argued with. Still, I like your response - I also don't trust the government because it sucks at everything it does and everything it touches turns to dust. I don't think it's necessarily about money, it's more a matter of the government being a "pointing-guns-at-people machine" by design, that's its stated purpose. It's why I'd like to see it distance itself from anything it has no business doing, but that's a different subject. Sadly, the government only grows, it never shrinks, at least in my experience.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 22, 2020)

"Affects virtually nobody."
​


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 22, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> "Affects virtually nobody."


The population of the US is around 328 million, not sure of the exact number, I'd have to check the census. You're at 6.88 million cases and 200 thousand deaths, give or take. That's 2% of the population infected, out of which 2.9% have died and the remaining 97.1% either recovered or is still in medical care. That means the deaths account for 0.06% of the population. All things considered there are certainly things that affect larger swathes of the population - in December 2019 the unemployment rate in the U.S. was sitting at 3.5%, right now due to all the lockdowns it's at 8.4%, so it's more than doubled. In other words, more people lost their jobs, as in the means by which they support themselves and their families, than have caught the virus, let alone died from it. You can make the argument that people have been affected by lockdown unemployment more than they have by the virus, although it'd be a tough sell.

He's also right when he says that the elderly and people with pre-existing conditions comprise the bulk of patients affected by COVID, especially in terms of death. This is consistent with all statistical data regarding the virus. That doesn't mean you can't catch it if you're young and spry, but odds are you'll be alright if you do.



I personally err on the side of caution, I wear my mask and avoid large gatherings, but overall I don't feel threatened by it, and I don't think anyone in similar circumstances should. Don't tempt fate and be an idiot, but don't panic over it either.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 22, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> My stance is pretty simple. I would support it, if it wasn't for two things.
> 1. Why trust the government? We can all agree the (united states) government is not exactly good, and no I am not just talking this administration, previous included. I would not want them to have that kind of power.
> 2. Because of the government is not exactly good and money speaks louder than facts, this can result in people who should of not died dying, people who had genuine innocents.
> If we lived in a perfect world, where that nonsense didn't happen, where the government wasn't corrupt and in favor of money interests, I would reconsider.



"You can't trust the Government" is exactly why I'm against adopting socialism. If you think that giving the Government almost complete control over every single person is somehow going to magically make the corruption disappear you're on crack. The Government is obsessed with power and that has never not been the case nor will it ever not be the case. I support anyone that wants to get laws rescinded or make the Government smaller. We don't need any new laws, regulations or taxes. Socialism is just a bad idea because it creates much more of those and gives these untrustworthy assholes complete control over everything and everyone. Some people need to wake up and realize that we're never going to live in a perfect world.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> The population of the US is around 328 million, not sure of the exact number, I'd have to check the census. You're at 6.88 million cases and 200 thousand deaths, give or take. That's 2% of the population infected, out of which 2.9% have died and the remaining 97.1% either recovered or is still in medical care. That means the deaths account for 0.06% of the population. All things considered there are certainly things that affect larger swathes of the population - in December 2019 the unemployment rate in the U.S. was sitting at 3.5%, right now due to all the lockdowns it's at 8.4%, so it's more than doubled. In other words, more people lost their jobs, meaning the means by which they support themselves and their families, than have caught the virus, let alone died from it. You can make the argument that people have been affected by lockdown unemployment more than they have by the virus, although it'd be a tough sell.
> 
> He's also right when he says that the elderly and people with pre-existing conditions comprise the bulk of patients affected by COVID, especially in terms of death. This is consistent with all statistical data regarding the virus. That doesn't mean you can't catch it if you're young and spry, but odds are you'll be alright if you do.



The virus does indeed kill people, but not that many. Our reaction was an over reaction. The fallout from shutting down the economy over something that's not even that deadly is far worse than the virus itself. There's other things that kill way more people per year and we don't shut down over them.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 22, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> The virus does indeed kill people, but not that many. Our reaction was an over reaction. The fallout from shutting down the economy over something that's not even that deadly is far worse than the virus itself. There's other things that kill way more people per year and we don't shut down over them.


The problem with that is that it's talking about the matter in a purely statistical fashion and in absolute numbers, in reality we are dealing with human lives, people's loved ones. We're not necessarily shutting down for ourselves, we're shutting down for the benefit of people in vulnerable, immunocompromised groups who will catch it from us if we don't. It's a lose-lose no matter how you look at it, people would've died regardless of what was done. Any pondering on whether it would be more or less, or sooner or later, is a thought experiment with zero controls - coulda shoulda woulda. There are countries that did everything right and are in a bad shape, there are countries that did almost nothing and are doing great. Battling the virus by being responsible, maintaining high standards of hygiene etc. is something the society has to do, it's not something the government can mandate and enforce unless they put a police officer on every street corner and force people to follow the guidelines China-style, which is totalitarian, antithetical to any concept of freedom or independence and wholly unacceptable in the western world, regardless of circumstances.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 22, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> The problem with that is that it's talking about the matter in a purely statistical fashion, in reality we are dealing with human lives, people's loved ones. We're not necessarily shutting down for ourselves, we're shutting down for the benefit of people in vulnerable, immunocompromised groups who will catch it from us if we don't. It's a lose-lose no matter how you look at it, people would've died regardless of what was done. Any pondering on whether it would be more or less, or sooner or later, is a thought experiment with zero controls - coulda shoulda woulda. There are countries that did everything right and are in a bad shape, there are countries that did almost nothing and are doing great. Battling the virus by being responsible, maintain high standards of hygiene etc. is something the society has to do, it's not something the government can mandate and execute unless they put a police officer on every street corner and execute the guidelines China-style which is totalitarian, antithetical to any concept of freedom or independence and wholly unacceptable in the western world, regardless of circumstances.



Nice insight, but I don't think shutting down helped at all. We simply delayed in inevitable. I also don't blame the players that were forced to play the game for failure (Other Countries Leaders, Including Trump). I blame the creators of the game (China).

Edit: I also agree it's pointless to say "we should have done X", but it would be helpful to say "We're not going to shut down again, because we did X and X didn't work".


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 22, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> The population of the US is around 328 million, not sure of the exact number, I'd have to check the census. You're at 6.88 million cases and 200 thousand deaths, give or take. That's 2% of the population infected, out of which 2.9% have died and the remaining 97.1% either recovered or is still in medical care. That means the deaths account for 0.06% of the population. All things considered there are certainly things that affect larger swathes of the population - in December 2019 the unemployment rate in the U.S. was sitting at 3.5%, right now due to all the lockdowns it's at 8.4%, so it's more than doubled. In other words, more people lost their jobs, as in the means by which they support themselves and their families, than have caught the virus, let alone died from it. You can make the argument that people have been affected by lockdown unemployment more than they have by the virus, although it'd be a tough sell.
> 
> He's also right when he says that the elderly and people with pre-existing conditions comprise the bulk of patients affected by COVID, especially in terms of death. This is consistent with all statistical data regarding the virus. That doesn't mean you can't catch it if you're young and spry, but odds are you'll be alright if you do.


Putting aside the downplaying of 200,000 deaths, what he said in that video is literally the opposite what he said on those tapes.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 22, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Putting aside the downplaying of 200,000 deaths, what he said in that video is literally the opposite what he said on those tapes.


Those tapes are also old. They're also not recorded during a rally. The whole "secrecy" angle is still a hard sell for me, Trump obviously knew he was talking with a journalist and it was on record, likely to be released. It's far more likely that he flip-flopped based on new data or campaign advice. It's not like he hasn't in the past, he flip-flops all the time and says a bunch of stuff that's obviously just meat for the base.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Out of plain curiosity, if we assume for 5 minutes that it is, what's the difference between that and death sentences? In both cases you are killing for convinience, with a degree of justification, at least from my point of view. Why support one, but (presumably) not the other? Is it because a prisoner with a life sentence has an infinitesimal chance of being retried with new evidence that may prove their innocence, or that they may be released early for some unspecified reason? Genuinely curious.


A stranger is about to die, and the only way he can survive is if he gets a kidney donation from a perfect match. You are the only match. Should you give it to him? It'd be morally righteous, but it's not immoral to say "no," and it's not murder to say "no." What would be immoral is for a government to violate your right to bodily autonomy and forcibly remove your kidney to save the stranger.

The only flaw with this analogy is the stranger is sentient, has a sense of self, etc. The fetus does not.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 22, 2020)

Lacius said:


> A stranger is about to die, and the only way he can survive is if he gets a kidney donation from a perfect match. You are the only match. Should you give it to him? It'd be morally righteous, but it's not immoral to say "no," and it's not murder to say "no." What would be immoral is for a government to violate your right to bodily autonomy and forcibly remove your kidney to save the stranger.
> 
> The only flaw with this analogy is the stranger is sentient, has a sense of self, etc. The fetus does not.


That's not the only flaw. By taking away my kidney for a perfect stranger you are depriving me of something - a kidney. That's my kidney, I have it now, and I am missing it afterwards. It's far more accurate to say that I discover that, unknowingly, I had a hobo living in my attic for a few months, and it's the dead of winter. I can kick the hobo out into the snow where he will surely die, or I can let the hobo live there for a few months until the winter passes and he can leave. Not only did I save a life, my only loss was the loss of time. That's an imperfect analogy as well since it doesn't account for the trauma of giving birth, but it's better than pretending that I've incurred any kind of loss in terms of my body parts.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> That's not the only flaw. By taking away my kidney for a perfect stranger you are depriving me of something - a kidney. That's my kidney, I have it now, and I am missing it afterwards. It's far more accurate to say that I discover that, unknowingly, I had a hobo living in my attic for a few months, and it's the dead of winter. I can kick the hobo out into the snow where he will surely die, or I can let the hobo live there for a few months until the winter passes and he can leave. Not only did I save a life, my only loss was the loss of time. That's an imperfect analogy as well since it doesn't account for the trauma of giving birth, but it's better than pretending that I've incurred any kind of loss in terms of my body parts.


I suggest you learn how human pregnancy works.

Edit: Forgive the snark, but I don't have much patience left for you.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 22, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I suggest you learn how human pregnancy works.


I'm well-aware of how pregnancy works, I'm not sure you do. I can assure you that your uterus doesn't get removed along with the baby, the woman is still perfectly capable of getting pregnant again. Meaning, she hasn't "lost a kidney" as you suggested.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm well-aware of how pregnancy works, I'm not sure you do. I can assure you that your uterus doesn't get removed along with the baby, the woman is still perfectly capable of getting pregnant again. Meaning, she hasn't "lost a kidney" as you suggested.


I'm not arguing pregnancy necessarily results in the loss of organs, and I don't feel like arguing against your strawman arguments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_physiological_changes_in_pregnancy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death

Oh, and:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy


----------



## notimp (Sep 22, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> You're at 6.88 million cases and 200 thousand deaths, give or take. That's 2% of the population infected, out of which 2.9% have died and the remaining 97.1% either recovered or is still in medical care


Actually deathrate in western democracies with hospitals not being overrun is around 0.375% so if 2.9% of US people died, real infection rate is around 4-8 times higher than the one you noted (confirmed infections). 

And its good that its that way, because growth is the problem, and you really dont want to talk about the issue in 'well only 3% of citizens died' terms. So you're lucky that mortality rate is actually around 0.375% with hospitals being able to take the influx.

And again, in about february of next year you will reach more covid deaths than US deaths in the second world war. And this will go on for 2 more years, probably.

Also - its a 'close to exponentially' spreading disease so 'its only 2%' can become a raging epidemic in two weeks (if people stop following all measures) - moreso, because the US doesnt control/monitor clusters. Because you just have too many people infected to follow up on most of their contacts for the week prior to them becoming contagious..

That said, to a far lesser extent in more thinly populated areas of the country.

edit:

Here Mr moderator, learn something new today: https://www.businessinsider.com/us-...-real-scale-estimates-charts-2020-7?r=DE&IR=T


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 22, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I'm not arguing pregnancy necessarily results in the loss of organs, and I don't feel like arguing against your strawman arguments.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_physiological_changes_in_pregnancy
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death
> 
> ...


God forbid grown adults face mild consequences of irresponsible decisions. Again, there's an agreed upon cut-off point, we're not taking about a blanket ban here, so don't colour the discussion to look like we are. We're talking about a failure to use (or accidental misuse/faulty batch) contraception, followed by not using a morning after pill, followed by not seeing a reproductive specialist in regards to the unwanted pregnancy for weeks on end, until the fetus develops to such an advanced stage that it would be viable even outside of the mother's body (which is right about the time of the current legal cut-off, by the way). That's a lot of boo-boos one after the other.

Your patience isn't really my concern, you are under no obligation to answer queries or provide additional justification. I simply said that your position is based on your own personal perception of what's "right", not on science. Since you refuse to accept, or even consider, any widely available evidence (scientific evidence, not religious or crackpot evidence) in regards to early brain development or sentience as you do not ascribe value to it (after claiming that you did) and instead focus on the bodily autonomy of the mother (all the while denying even the concept of the fetus having bodily autonomy of its own, or even personhood for that matter) I kind of have no other choice *but* to interpret that as a dogmatic belief.

You can take offense to that if you wish, I don't mind one way or the other. If you, in earnest, believe that the fetus has no rights up until the point it exits the vagina, which is what you seemingly suggested, then I have to disagree wholeheartedly and there can be no "explaining" that, it's flat-out wrong. If you do not believe that, you haven't made that position clear, the goalpost keeps moving from "sentient" to "autonomous" to "separated from the mother", or at least that's what I've gathered so far. At this point I don't know what you think, which is odd because the more you explain it the less I gleam from it.

By the way, the woman's body suffers the same changes after abortion as it would after a miscarriage, or even a full-blown pregnancy if it's late term. We're talking nausea, milk leakage, pain and bleeding, mood swings, sore breasts, the lot. Check what constitutes post-abortion care before posting irrelevant data.


notimp said:


> Actually deathrate in western democracies with hospitals not being overrun is around 0.375% so if 2.9% of US people died, real infection rate is around 4-8 times higher.
> 
> And again, in about february of this year you will reach more covid deaths than US deaths in the second world war. And this will go on for 2 more years, probably.
> 
> Also - its a 'close to exponentially' spreading disease so 'its only 2%' can become a raging epidemic in two weeks (if people stop following all measures) - moreso, because the US doesnt control/monitor clusters. Because you just have too many people infected to follow up.


Math is not your strong point, is it? Run those numbers again, I'm sure you'll figure out where you've made a mistake.

Edit: You know what? Nevermind, I'll do it for you. A death rate is a rate of deaths per 100000. The 2.9% figure is case fatality, as in how many people out of the infected group have died due to the virus. 2.9% of Americans didn't "die from covid", that'd be 9 million people, you'd be tripping over dead bodies. You're comparing two numbers that are wildly different. Let's have a look at case mortality in those European countries of yours, just so that we're comparing apples to apples, courtesy of John Hopkins:

United States of America - 2.9%, as I calculated, confirmed by John Hopkins
United Kingdom - 10.4%
Italy - 11.9%
France - 6.9%
Ireland - 5.4%
Spain - 4.9%
Netherlands - 6.3%
Switzerland - 4.1%
Germany - 3.4%
Hungary - 3.6%
Finland - 3.8%


https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

Are there any other European counties you'd like us to look at? Because it's not looking so great thus far. I must've picked the less-developed ones, I guess.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> God forbid grown adults face mild consequences of irresponsible decisions. Again, there's an agreed upon cut-off point, we're not taking about a blanket ban here, so don't colour the discussion to look like we are. We're talking about a failure to use (or accidental misuse/faulty batch) contraception, followed by not using a morning after pill, followed by not seeing a reproductive specialist in regards to the unwanted pregnancy for weeks on end, until the fetus develops to such an advanced stage that it would be viable even outside of the mother's body (which is right about the time of the current legal cut-off, by the way). That's a lot of boo-boos one after the other.
> 
> Your patience isn't really my concern, you are under no obligation to answer queries or provide additional justification. I simply said that your position is based on your own personal perception of what's "right", not on science. Since you refuse to accept, or even consider, any widely available evidence (scientific evidence, not religious or crackpot evidence) in regards to early brain development or sentience as you do not ascribe value to it (after claiming that you did) and instead focus on the bodily autonomy of the mother (all the while denying even the concept of the fetus having bodily autonomy of its own, or even personhood for that matter) I kind of have no other choice *but* to interpret that as a dogmatic belief.
> 
> ...


We can continue the conversation when you've conceded that kidney-removal is analogous to pregnancy.

I don't know what my breaking point was yesterday, but you broke me. Respectfully, I've realized the conversation with you is futile, and I'm not going to waste my time.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 22, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> "You can't trust the Government" is exactly why I'm against adopting socialism. If you think that giving the Government almost complete control over every single person is somehow going to magically make the corruption disappear you're on crack. The Government is obsessed with power and that has never not been the case nor will it ever not be the case. I support anyone that wants to get laws rescinded or make the Government smaller. We don't need any new laws, regulations or taxes. Socialism is just a bad idea because it creates much more of those and gives these untrustworthy assholes complete control over everything and everyone. Some people need to wake up and realize that we're never going to live in a perfect world.


Ummm, sorry to burst your bubble. Socialism doesn't do that, it doesn't enable complete government control. Now someone is bound to call me double standard here, but I'm fine with socialist ideas for the united states, as it would help the smaller less wealthier individual who doesn't run a mega conglomerate business.And technically some of those policies from socialism would help cap capitalism from going completely out of hand (which right now it definitely is)
So... Why would I say socialism and regulation is fine (when I say socialism, I mean socialist policies, health care being one of them), and not the death sentence?
simple
severity. The death sentence can be HELL of abused, someone you don't like? just kill them, create some fake charge, and then kill them. This can be political motivated, grude motivated, and have faaaar too much impact.
However socialist polices have pretty much a net 0 if for whatever reason, get's so botched that it's worthless.
say that it's botched, and makes the rich for some reason get free health care.
they already practically do, it doesn't change the status quo. Tbh the government isn't corrupt because it''s the government, it's corrupt because rich people have more say than the poor. That is a statistical fact in the united states, your vote or your communication with your senator or house representative or local official, has a lot less power than that of a man who can higher a couple hundred to do his bidding, and lobby for him.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 22, 2020)

Lacius said:


> We can continue the conversation when you've conceded that kidney-removal is analogous to pregnancy.
> 
> I don't know what my breaking point was yesterday, but you broke me. Respectfully, I've realized the conversation with you is futile, and I'm not going to waste my time.


I'm not going to do that because it's not. In fact, if you consider the fetus to be a part of the woman's body for some undisclosed reason (it's not), abortion is *more* analogous to kidney removal as it is the removal of a body part that, according to you, belongs to the mother. Now, admittedly, it is a removal by request of the mother, however you will have a hard time finding a clinic that will remove your kidney because that's your fancy, and put it into medical waste. That's not a thing, I'm afraid.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm not going to do that because it's not. In fact, if you consider the fetus to be a part of the woman's body for some undisclosed reason (it's not), abortion is *more* analogous to kidney removal as it is the removal of a body part that, according to you, belongs to the mother. Now, admittedly, it is a removal by request of the mother, however you will have a hard time finding a clinic that will remove your kidney because that's your fancy, and put it into medical waste. That's not a thing, I'm afraid.


If you cannot admit that pregnancy comes with unwanted changes to one's body and has a mortality risk, like kidney removal, then our conversation is over.

I should have made the decision to hold your feet to the fire on these sorts of basic issues a long time ago. It would have saved me a lot of time.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 22, 2020)

Lacius said:


> If you cannot admit that pregnancy comes with unwanted changes to one's body and has a mortality risk, like kidney removal, then our conversation is over.


That's like saying that if I won't admit that a cake is a pie because both are made out of flour, "the conversation is over". One has nothing to do with the other, one being true is not contingent on the other also being true. Kidney removal *and* pregnancy lead to changes in one's body and carry a mortality risk, but they are not analogous. The two scenarios you've presented do not share a sufficient degree of similarity to be considered analogous, in short, bad analogy. Abortion also carries a mortality risk and causes changes to one's body, but you're not going to touch that because it is inconvenient.


----------



## notimp (Sep 22, 2020)

Jesus, not only has the moderator found the magical use of the word science, now he also discovered circular logic.

Now he never has to loose in an argument anymore. No matter how nonsensical their sentences become.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 22, 2020)

notimp said:


> Jesus, not only has the moderator found the magical use of the word science, now he also discovered circular logic.
> 
> Now he never has to loose in an argument anymore. No matter how nonsensical their sentences become.


I'm sorry that your numbers didn't work out like you wanted them to.


----------



## notimp (Sep 22, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm sorry that your numbers didn't work out like you wanted them to.


Kidney removal and pregnancy lead to changes in ones body, not pregnancy leads to changes in ones body and therefore kidney removal - is faulty logic. The to negate one in favor of the other part.

Both can be true. Im not interested in the content of the argument here, I'm interested in how you could make that logic jump.

And with it rectify, that obviously only one of those versions could be true.

Because it makes no sense. Its bravado reaching its ceiling, featuring circular logic.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 22, 2020)

notimp said:


> Kidney removal and pregnancy lead to changes in ones body, not pregnancy leads to changes in ones body and therefore kidney removal - is faulty logic.
> 
> Both can be true. Im not interested in the content of the argument here, I'm interested in how you could make that logic jump.
> 
> ...


I don't have a Rosetta stone so sometimes it's hard for me to decipher what you mean. I will do my best to answer your query in a more clear manner:

Pregnancy = changes to one's body
Kidney removal = changes to one's body
Pregnancy =/= Kidney removal

Does this help?


----------



## notimp (Sep 22, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Pregnancy =/= Kidney removal


False statement.


> n women with moderate to severe kidney disease (stages 3-5), the risk of complications is much greater. For some women, the risk to mother and child is high enough that they should consider avoiding pregnancy.


https://www.kidney.org/atoz/content/pregnancy

Not in most cases, but your logic, that only one statement can be true at the same time is faulty.
-

You basically said, your argument cant be true, because my argument thats different to yours, but mostly unrelated, is.

Thats a way to win every discussion, although applying faulty logic. Maybe if you say it louder, it will work.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't have a Rosetta stone so sometimes it's hard for me to decipher what you mean. I will do my best to answer your query in a more clear manner:
> 
> Pregnancy = changes to one's body
> Kidney removal = changes to one's body
> ...


I did not argue Pregnancy = Kidney removal. Learn what an analogy is, and try to figure out what the point of my analogy was. If you can tell me what the point of my analogy was, whether or not you agree with it, we can continue our conversation.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 22, 2020)

notimp said:


> False statement.
> 
> https://www.kidney.org/atoz/content/pregnancy


Your memory is not very good either, in addition to being bad at math.


Foxi4 said:


> With that we end up with a logical framework for what would be justifiable - abortion permissable in the case of non-viable fetuses (pre-nesting, observable disability or damage of the fetus), *in the case of protecting the mother's life (life being paramount, if the fetus directly endangers the host, it must necessarily be terminated or they both die)* and rape (lack of consent).


I'm pretty sure that *kidney failure* endangers the mother's life. Once again, you hold the ball and trip over your laces at the final yard. Nevermind the fact that we're discussing the applicability of an analogy, not *a literal kidney*. You're a hoot, y'know that? In addition to the reasons listed above I have also agreed to a reasonable time frame which allows for abortion up until the fetus is advanced enough to start showing forms of cognitive function. This is consistent with abortion law in developed countries and is generally around the 24th week of pregnancy.


Lacius said:


> I did not argue Pregnancy = Kidney removal. Learn what an analogy is, and try to figure out what the point of my analogy was. If you can tell me what the point of my analogy was, whether or not you agree with it, we can continue our conversation.


I know you didn't mean it that way, but I don't think he does. I maintain that the analogy is poor - in the case of forced kidney removal you lose a vital organ permanently, in the case of unwanted pregnancy you face potential health consequences which you will *also* face after abortion because the fetus doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists inside a woman's body which has already undergone much of the changes, its hormonal balance has changed and, for all intents and purposes, as far as the body is concerned, a "miscarriage" has occurred. You bringing up a "bodily loss" in the case of abortion is irrelevant on the basis that the loss occurs regardless of whether the pregnancy is carried to term or not. If your objection is that in both cases the government forces a person to undergo a procedure that has consequences to their health (in the care of kidney removal *definitely*, in the case of pregnancy *maybe*) on behalf of another party, it's a flimsy argument - the government does that all the time.



> Serious complications are really rare, but can happen. These include:
> 
> the abortion doesn’t work and the pregnancy doesn’t end
> some of the pregnancy tissue is left in your uterus
> ...


Of course these complications are fairly rare, as the source states, but they exist - surely we can agree on that.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 22, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Tbh the government isn't corrupt because it''s the government, it's corrupt because rich people have more say than the poor. That is a statistical fact in the united states, your vote or your communication with your senator or house representative or local official, has a lot less power than that of a man who can higher a couple hundred to do his bidding, and lobby for him.



Incorrect. The Government has bad people that do bad things because that's built in every one of us. You can't rid the entire human race of its nature, but the more power ie - the larger or more control you give other people the less control you'll have and that makes for a miserable society. You were on to something by stating "in a perfect" would, as one will never exist. If we move over to socialism do you think the crooked power hungry politicians of today's time are just going to step aside and then 100% perfect people are going to replace all of them? Nope. You'll simply be giving the corrupt assholes of today more power to be even more corrupt. Socialism always fails because it's not designed with human nature in mind. It's designed for mindless drones.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 22, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Your memory is not very good either, in addition to being bad at math.
> I'm pretty sure that *kidney failure* endangers the mother's life. Once again, you hold the ball and trip over your laces at the final yard. Nevermind the fact that we're discussing the applicability of an analogy, not *a literal kidney*. You're a hoot, y'know that? In addition to the reasons listed above I have also agreed to a reasonable time frame which allows for abortion up until the fetus is advanced enough to start showing forms of cognitive function. This is consistent with abortion law in developed countries and is generally around the 24th week of pregnancy.
> I know you didn't mean it that way, but I don't think he does. I maintain that the analogy is poor - in the case of forced kidney removal you lose a vital organ permanently, in the case of unwanted pregnancy you face potential health consequences which you will *also* face after abortion because the fetus doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists inside a woman's body which has already undergone much of the changes, its hormonal balance has changed and, for all intents and purposes, as far as the body is concerned, a "miscarriage" has occurred. You bringing up a "bodily loss" in the case of abortion is irrelevant on the basis that the loss occurs regardless of whether the pregnancy is carried to term or not.
> 
> ...


Forcing a kidney removal is forcing an invasive procedure. A pregnancy is also invasive. Both can lead to complications and even death. Do you understand now how it's a good analogy?

The idea that an abortion comes with the same (or worse) problems as pregnancy is a myth. The earlier the abortion, the less invasive it is. The longer the pregnancy, the more invasive it is.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 22, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Forcing a kidney removal is forcing an invasive procedure. A pregnancy is also invasive. Both can lead to complications and even death. Do you understand now how it's a good analogy?
> 
> The idea that an abortion comes with the same (or worse) problems as pregnancy is a myth. The earlier the abortion, the less invasive it is. The longer the pregnancy, the more invasive it is.



Regardless of how you compare it to other things terminating a human life form is still murder. Just thought I'd remind you of that.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 22, 2020)

Well, that's interesting that I was quoted saying something I didn't. lol Anyway, just going to point out that the Nordic Countries seem have made a good balance with their social programs.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 22, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Forcing a kidney removal is forcing an invasive procedure. A pregnancy is also invasive. Both can lead to complications and even death. Do you understand now how it's a good analogy?
> 
> The idea that an abortion comes with the same (or worse) problems as pregnancy is a myth. The earlier the abortion, the less invasive it is. The longer the pregnancy, the more invasive it is.


I fully understood that as your point and consider it flimsy, see above. The analogy is inapplicable for the reasons I've already mentioned.

It is also untrue that the government "forces a woman into pregnancy", the woman is already pregnant, and has been for a while. In your analogy you are equating a malicious action (forcibly removing an organ) to inaction (not aborting the pregnancy). The justification for this refusal is "first, do no harm". Unless there is a legitimate medical reason for having the abortion (confirmed risk to life/health) or a legal reason (rape, for instance), there is no obligation to perform one because, and this is a radical notion so hold on to your seat, the woman isn't sick - she's pregnant. It's not a disease.

I believe giving the woman +/- 24 weeks for a safe and legal abortion, nearly 6 months, when the fetus is nowhere near the level of brain development necessary to be considered cognisant, is mighty generous and fair. You're 3 months off your stated goal of 9 months, which is frankly distasteful. Would induced labour be a satisfactory middle ground or have you cemented yourself into the ground and refuse to budge? Because if you're not open to new ideas, the discussion is kinda pointless, the point is to exchange ideas.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 22, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Regardless of how you compare it to other things terminating a human life form is still murder. Just thought I'd remind you of that.


Is it a human life form? Depending upon the age range is it not an unthinking, unfeeling ball of cells that can not suffer.

Equally as was mentioned earlier murder is an unjustified killing, usually premeditated (lack of premeditation, usually then meaning accident or negligence, tending to fall under manslaughter). Self defence, euthanasia in some places, war, executions and any number of fun philosophical puzzles (start with the loaded train going to crash and kill everybody on the track and you have a switch to move it to a line where just one person it) also go there.
If the law says it is OK (and it does, has stood the test of time and has been ruled on by the highest courts in most lands) then surely it is justified, or at least not murder. Not unlike trespass is being on someone's land uninvited but in various countries you either have public footpaths that make an exemption for that, or have rules that say as long as you are not being a nuisance then you have the right to roam (Finland I believe has that).


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 22, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> Is it a human life form? Depending upon the age range is it not an unthinking, unfeeling ball of cells that can not suffer.
> 
> Equally as was mentioned earlier murder is an unjustified killing, usually premeditated (lack of premeditation, usually then meaning accident or negligence, tending to fall under manslaughter). Self defence, euthanasia in some places, war, executions and any number of fun philosophical puzzles (start with the loaded train going to crash and kill everybody on the track and you have a switch to move it to a line where just one person it) also go there.
> If the law says it is OK (and it does, has stood the test of time and has been ruled on by the highest courts in most lands) then surely it is justified, or at least not murder. Not unlike trespass is being on someone's land uninvited but in various countries you either have public footpaths that make an exemption for that, or have rules that say as long as you are not being a nuisance then you have the right to roam (Finland I believe has that).


If the law says it's okay to kill your neighbour when they're playing their music too loud, that *technically* wouldn't be murder and it would probably improve society quite a bit, but I don't think my suggestion would fly in parliament.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 22, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> If the law says it's okay to kill your neighbour when they're playing their music too loud, that *technically* wouldn't be murder and it would probably improve society quite a bit, but I don't think my suggestion would fly in parliament.


Laws being arbitrary and not even the baseline for morals (barring aspects of military law, which few are subject to, you can cheat on your girlfriend all you like and the law can not say a thing about it*, still not a moral act). Though in your loud speakers bit it would probably fall outside baseline acceptable tenets of law making.

*assuming you don't live in some hellhole that has common law marriage and accidentally fall into that of course


Equally 
"Unless there is a legitimate medical reason for having the abortion (confirmed risk to life/health) or a legal reason (rape, for instance)"

I would consider a financial drain, health drain, mental drain and social drain to be a compelling enough reason. Such things also being well within established medical criteria, or considered in the failures of various medical systems/approaches to payment (have some gallstones causing serious pain, well you can pay so we will go today, same but can't pay, sorry mate no threat to life so elective or come back in 10 months after this list is up sort of thing).


----------



## player594 (Sep 22, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Arguably, and you can have that argument in a more relevant thread. I'll be combing through this thread going forward and cleaning it up from all the COVID nonsense, weird Epstein conspiracy theories and other assorted rubbish - if it looks silly, it's probably not worth discussing. Keep that in mind next time you reply to something that raises an eyebrow.


Censorship is a Trump move.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 22, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> "Unless there is a legitimate medical reason for having the abortion (confirmed risk to life/health) or a legal reason (rape, for instance)"
> 
> I would consider a financial drain, health drain, mental drain and social drain to be a compelling enough reason. Such things also being well within established medical criteria, or considered in the failures of various medical systems/approaches to payment (have some gallstones causing serious pain, well you can pay so we will go today, same but can't pay, sorry mate no threat to life so elective or come back in 10 months after this list is up sort of thing).


I would, by far, prefer the "brand-spanking new" baby to be adopted by a hopeful couple. Infertility rates are on the rise, 1 in 7 couples in the UK are either unable to have a child, or have huge problems trying, for a variety of health reasons. Naturally this "lowers demand" for non-newborns (the younger the child the more desirable being the unwritten rule, judging by statistics), but if I can only fix one problem at a time, it would probably be "not killing fetuses with developed brains that are capable of cognitive function". I'll even cede the "clump of cells" argument in regards to fetuses that are at earlier stages and can't experience a thing yet, saving some is better than saving none.

I cannot fathom how abortion of a viable fetus can be considered permissable without any extenuating circumstances when that same fetus has a good chance of survival in the event of premature birth (at 24 weeks it's 60%). It makes zero sense to me - if that same child, at that same stage of development, has better-than-not chances of survival outside of the womb and you instead opt to abort it, that's just not right. I won't hazard calling it "killing a baby" lest I offend someone, but it does quack like a duck.

If there's a fire and someone tells me there's a 6 in 10 chance I'll survive jumping out of the window *or* they can mercy kill me before I burn along with the building, I like my odds with the jump.


player594 said:


> Censorship is a Trump move.


Our terms of service prohibit trolling, harassment or otherwise inflammatory content. I think calling someone the p-word that has to do with touching children in ways the law frowns upon, the word that doesn't look very good on search engines, is pretty inflammatory. You're more than welcome to post various conspiracy theories somewhere else, preferably on your own site - as a private website we have no obligation to host them. I will continue enforcing that as that's my interpretation of the rules. If it is an incorrect interpretation I am sure one of my immediate superiors will correct me on that - so far they haven't.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 23, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Our terms of service prohibit trolling, harassment or otherwise inflammatory content. I think calling someone the p-word that has to do with touching children in ways the law frowns upon, the word that doesn't look very good on search engines, is pretty inflammatory. You're more than welcome to post various conspiracy theories somewhere else, preferably on your own site - as a private website we have no obligation to host them. I will continue enforcing that as that's my interpretation of the rules. If it is an incorrect interpretation I am sure one of my immediate superiors will correct me on that - so far they haven't.



I've actually seen undoctored video of Biden fondling young girls or generally trying to touch people in spots they don't like, which most are met by the kids or female adults shoving his hands away from their private spots. I'm not sure what it is you deleted that @player594 posted, but if it was about Biden touching people in no-no spots then it wasn't fake. You can easily locate the videos online. Just don't try to search or talk about them on Liberal hot spots as you won't find them and will get banned for bringing them up. The left has censored them as they shine a bad light on Biden, but I think people should be aware that the possible next President did these sorts of things and there's ample video evidence of it taking place.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 23, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I've actually seen undoctored video of Biden fondling young girls or generally trying to touch people in spots they don't like, which most are met by the kids or female adults shoving his hands away from their private spots. I'm not sure what it is you deleted that @player594 posted, but if it was about Biden touching people in no-no spots then it wasn't fake. You can easily locate the videos online. Just don't try to search or talk about them on Liberal hot spots as you won't find them and will get banned for bringing them up. The left has censored them as they shine a bad light on Biden, but I think people should be aware that the possible next President of the USA likes to fondle kids.


I have also seen such photos and videos, but there is no evidence that Joe Biden is a p-phile, he simply puts himself in weird situations that seem thoroughly creepy. He's very keen on touching and putting his face way too close, but I have no way of knowing if that is done maliciously or if he's just weird like that. I don't like Biden, but I won't allow smears against him or his supporters. I try to be impartial, this has been discussed before. I've consulted the higher ups for clarification in regards to such content, but I have a feeling that my hunch is correct.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 23, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> I would consider a financial drain, health drain, mental drain and social drain to be a compelling enough reason.



Irresponsibility doesn't justify murder, especially when you're murdering a helpless unborn child. I refuse to condone such savagery.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> I have also seen such photos and videos, but there is no evidence that Joe Biden is a p-phile, he simply puts himself in weird situations that seem thoroughly creepy. He's very keen on touching and putting his face way too close, but I have no way of knowing if that is done maliciously or if he's just weird like that. I don't like Biden, but I won't allow smears against him or his supporters. I try to be impartial, this has been discussed before. I've consulted the higher ups for clarification in regards to such content, but I have a feeling that my hunch is correct.



Fair enough. I've had old relatives that liked you kiss you on the mouth or tickle the shit out of you. It doesn't make them a p*do, just touchy grabby in a weird way. I've not seen any evidence that Biden is a p*do. That must be the "p" word you're referring to. I thought it was p***y.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 23, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Irresponsibility doesn't justify murder, especially when you're murdering a helpless unborn child. I refuse to condone such savagery.


Didn't we already cover that one not a few posts before?
But we can go again. What makes firing up the womb vacuum (or maybe popping a pill -- there are some good ones these days) murder where I can rub one out ten times a day (or have sex and go into a condom) and as long as do it in the privacy of my own shed then nobody realistically gets to say anything?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 23, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Irresponsibility doesn't justify murder, especially when you're murdering a helpless unborn child. I refuse to condone such savagery.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Fetuses aren't children.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 23, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> Didn't we already cover that one not a few posts before?
> But we can go again. What makes firing up the womb vacuum (or maybe popping a pill -- there are some good ones these days) murder where I can rub one out ten times a day (or have sex and go into a condom) and as long as do it in the privacy of my own shed then nobody realistically gets to say anything?


Your sperm is not a distinct and unique strain of DNA, it's half of it. It also doesn't have a brain capable of thought, which is measurable with modern medical and scientific techniques. We have the technology to make that assessment, it's just an unpleasant subject that has implications on women's rights, so it's not often discussed. To put it crudely, you are your brain. You can chop off limbs and remove organs all day, and as long as you still supply nutrients and oxygen to your brain, you exist. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that a developed fetal brain also has cognitive ability - in fact, it's been vigorously tested.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 23, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Fetuses aren't children.



You don't believe they are, but that's not what a large part of the rest of the population thinks, including myself. There's also no debate to be had as you're not going to convince me otherwise, which is why I've avoided most of the discussion about justifications and particulars. I view anyone that supports, condones, enables or looks the other way when innocent babies are ripped from their mother's womb to be on par with the worse of the worse that exists in this world. Just saying ...


----------



## Lacius (Sep 23, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> You don't believe they are, but that's not what a large part of the rest of the population thinks, including myself. There's also no debate to be had as you're not going to convince me otherwise, which is why I've avoided most of the discussion about justifications and particulars. I view anyone that supports, condones, enables or looks the other way when innocent babies are ripped from their mother's womb to be on par with the worse of the worse that exists in this world. Just saying ...


You can argue they have a soul, etc. (they don't), but they objectively aren't children, by definition.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 23, 2020)

It is distinct and unique (certainly can be traced according), but I take your meaning.
Equally brain capable of thought seems to be heading towards a similar line to what some were arguing above. I would however place reasonable money on the broken record above having serious issues with possibly even the morning after setup and almost certainly 1 millisecond after implantation.



> You don't believe they are, but that's not what a large part of the rest of the population thinks, including myself.


I wonder how large "large" actually is. Though I am not sure how useful numbers are in this case (plenty of instances of the population at large maybe calling for something that is against baseline acceptable standards for law making).


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 23, 2020)

I never thought I would ever long to talk about Biden again. I don't think continuing the abortion discussion has any point, nobody is going to budge - just my 2 cents. Let's put Greg at pro-life, me in the middle with very specific provisos and Lacius at pro-choice and we have a full spectrum of opinions covered.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 23, 2020)

Has anything actually interesting happened in the last few days vis a vis new policy announcements, speeches, visits, debates, unearthed info (or opportunistically released info if we are not being naive), a poll/expected results metric we might actually consider as being in some way useful, internal party politics (neither are exactly all on the same page, and courting others risks annoying others/existing targets still) or situations that might warrant them giving a reaction to (or notable in the absence thereof)?

For something so close there seems to be a whole lot of nothing happening. If your candidate is a dementia addled old man you probably want to keep things purely scripted so I understand that there, however they still have some other talking heads with name recognition they can use to bang a drum (assuming that is not cultural appropriation nowadays).

Or might it be that we are seeing something like an election with a reasonable timeframe rather than a whole year (or in some regards right after the previous one, or maybe just right after the midterms)?


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 23, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> Has anything actually interesting happened in the last few days vis a vis new policy announcements, speeches, visits, debates, unearthed info (or opportunistically released info if we are not being naive), a poll/expected results metric we might actually consider as being in some way useful, internal party politics (neither are exactly all on the same page, and courting others risks annoying others/existing targets still) or situations that might warrant them giving a reaction to (or notable in the absence thereof)?
> 
> For something so close there seems to be a whole lot of nothing happening. If your candidate is a dementia addled old man you probably want to keep things purely scripted so I understand that there.
> 
> Or might it be that we are seeing something like an election with a reasonable timeframe rather than a whole year (or in some regards right after the previous one, or maybe just right after the midterms)?


Speaking of keeping things scripted...

https://nypost.com/2020/09/21/biden-mistakenly-says-millions-have-died-from-covid-19-in-us/

I hope 200 million people don't die each time Joe speaks to a crowd.


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 23, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Well, that's interesting that I was quoted saying something I didn't. lol Anyway, just going to point out that the Nordic Countries seem have made a good balance with their social programs.


I think his brain must of wanted to include you too with what I said.
For what reason?
idk.


----------



## choupette (Sep 23, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Quick question, was Arnie full of dignity when he was screwing his maid, or Brigett Nielsen, or the multitude of other mistresses he had over the years and won't name? I'm asking since you've mentioned decency. Not saying that Trump is a paragon of virtue, but he also doesn't shine a virtue signal out of his window - we know he grabs women by the... front. Nothing against Arnie, he's a nice and affable guy, but out of all the Republicans you picked a weird one to contrast against Trump.



"Not saying that Trump is a paragon of virtue" => That's The Euphemism of all euphemisms. Arnold sure did all that, Trump did it and more. Man, he even address strippers on twitter. The POTUS. Could you have imagined that, I don't know, 5 years ago ?

Did he build his wall ? Are poor people living better ? Do you feel like he is a smart guy when you listen to him ?

All these questions are rethorical, but, really, I'd like to step back and understand, What really makes you want to vote for him ?


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 23, 2020)

choupette said:


> "Not saying that Trump is a paragon of virtue" => That's The Euphemism of all euphemisms. Arnold sure did all that, Trump did it and more. Man, he even address strippers on twitter. The POTUS. Could you have imagined that, I don't know, 5 years ago ?


5? 30 years ago we had a President who screwed his female staff in the oval office and put his cigar inside their lady parts, let's not pretend that the Presidency carries any form of moral superiority with it, or ever has. Trust me, I can imagine that, and a variety of far worse things happening in the world of politics. As for why I'd vote Trump, he's most certainly delivered on what I expected from him, to a degree that I find satisfactory, especially considering the fact that a good portion of his plans are sadly blockaded in the House or by liberal judges until they become less effective than they would've been originally. For the record, I actually kinda liked Bill Clinton as a president - he was fiscally responsible and was the only president in recent history who *didn't* baloon the deficit up, but that's besides the point.

Looks like someone finally reminded Romney that kicking the ball into your own goal isn't a good idea if you want to win, he's finally doing the right thing.


Took him long enough to remember how he was smeared during his campaign.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 23, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I actually kinda liked Bill Clinton as a president - he was fiscally responsible and was the only president in recent history who *didn't* baloon the deficit up, but that's besides the point.




That was more Gingrich's doing than something Clinton wanted. What he _did_ understand though is when you can't beat em, join em.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 23, 2020)

choupette said:


> All these questions are rethorical, but, really, I'd like to step back and understand, What really makes you want to vote for him ?



Trump has taken up values and made decisions on issues that are important to me. A lot of what he's done, including the WIP wall that is going up actually help our country while the left's policies and views don't help at all. Feel free to move to a Liberal controlled city to see how their methods worked out for them. I also voted for Trump because Hilliary is a nasty bitch that supports socialism. Socialism has no place in modern society. I also voted for him because he was willing to make hard choices that don't benefit him, but simply benefit society. Trump is willing to take the hate from the Democrats and put America first. He's also not a career politician and gives his entire Presidential salary away. I'm also going to vote again for him again due to the fact the Democratic party still stands for bad things. If they ever get back to any semblance of normality and goodness then I might vote for them, but their views on things are so twisted and fake that I can't and won't vote for them.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 23, 2020)

On the subject of dying wishes, I wonder if the Democrats are going to follow their own advice and respect RBG's opinion on court packing.



> "Nine seems to be a good number. It's been that way for a long time," she said, adding, "I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court." - Ruth Bader Ginsburg



https://www.npr.org/2019/07/24/744633713/justice-ginsburg-i-am-very-much-alive

Pretty relevant since the Democrat camp seems really interested in past statements, plus they worship the woman.


----------



## Doran754 (Sep 24, 2020)

It was uneccessary to say fetuses aren't children but somehow it's always one side of the argument getting censored. Imagine my shock.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 24, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> because Hilliary is a nasty bitch that supports socialism.


 No, please go on. How does Hillary supports socialism?


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 24, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> No, please go on. How does Hillary supports socialism?



How about we start with the fact she studied under a Marxist Community Organizer in Chicago called Saul Alinsky (nice write up/primer here). She even did her college pro-communism thesis on him, in fact, 97 pages long. And of course, she had secret service agents go put it under lock and key so it wouldn't hurt her or her husband back when he was running for President. Hillary Clinton also endorses Joe Biden for President and all of the 2020 Presidential Candidates held debates where passing socialistic policies were their main promises to their potential voter base. Sarcasm, socialism, and stupidity are her native languages.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 24, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> How about we start with the fact she studied under a Marxist Community Organizer in Chicago called Saul Alinsky (nice write up/primer here). She even did her college pro-communism thesis on him, in fact, 97 pages long. And of course, she had secret service agents go put it under lock and key so it wouldn't hurt her or her husband back when he was running for President.


Well, I don't want to derail the thread on rather that site and that information is trustworthy or not. So I'll just say, if she is some kind of "secret communist/socialist", she is bad at being one.



gregory-samba said:


> Hillary Clinton also endorses Joe Biden for President and all of the 2020 Presidential Candidates held debates where passing socialistic policies were their main promises to their potential voter base. Sarcasm, socialism, and stupidity are her native languages.


By "socialistic" policies, I guess you mean stuff like universal healthcare? You mean polities that other counties have and are better on without turning into communistic or socialistic countries?


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 24, 2020)

shamzie said:


> It was uneccessary to say fetuses aren't children but somehow it's always one side of the argument getting censored. Imagine my shock.


We have a good few trans members on the board, we have zero members who are fetuses. It wasn't necessarily a bad argument, I understand where you were going with it, but the condition is not classified like that anymore. Whether the change in classification was a matter of new evidence or new cultural norms is not an estimation I can make, I just enforce the rules. Please be respectful of people's identity and orientation, it costs you nothing. That, and I think we've moved on from the subject at this stage. Permanently. Nobody's learning anything new and nobody's budging, plus it has nothing to do with the election, so let's make an effort to stay on-topic.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 24, 2020)

@notimp, if you think that you're bulletproof right now on the basis of some actions made against me, you're going to be very disappointed. If I see you flaming one more time, you won't get another chance to do so. You're not moderating this forum - I am. Remember that.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Sep 24, 2020)

Shouldn´t the judicial branch be above party politics? (see supreme court members)


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 24, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Shouldn´t the judicial branch be above party politics? (see supreme court members)


In theory, Supreme Court justices should be above any form of party politics and completely unbiased. One of the measures deployed to ensure that they are impartial is the fact that they have lifetime terms, meaning they don't have to appease anyone to stay on the court - they *are* the court, in perpetuity. In practice, Republican judges tend to be more conservative and Democrat judges tend to be more liberal, as far as values are concerned. It's also the battle between "textualism" (law as it is written and when it was written) and "living document" ("spirit" of the law, meaning evolving over time etc.), so it's not just the values of the nominees that are different, it's the way they treat the law and interpret it that's different.


----------



## notimp (Sep 24, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> @notimp, if you think that you're bulletproof right now on the basis of some actions made against me, you're going to be very disappointed. If I see you flaming one more time, you won't get another chance to do so. You're not moderating this forum - I am. Remember that.


Reported as a threat.

Reasoning: It is entirely impossible to partisipate in this forum if you have the threat of a moderator banning you at your next 'flaming' instance hanging over your head, if this moderator is posting political aggitation postings one after the other - having to face no consequences.

I stand up against you and against people wanting to flood this thread with 'Babykiller' messaging, as you don't - but this will not end well.

You are unfit to moderate this forum, and I have no interest to.


There is no political discussion possible in this forum, because all that people want to exchange are insults, that are tied to not liking the right public persona. I intentionally didn't mention anyone personally, but the statement, that people are posting Trump talking points, the day after one of his speeches in here - versbetum, is a fact. And I'm not talking about the ones where it would make sense to discuss them, but the ones that are pure spin.

And 'Babykilling' is not something american people will decide on in the next election.

If I cant say anything like this - then maybe just the usual -- *When injustice becomes* law, *resistance becomes* duty.

Because otherwise, this forum becomes spreading aggitation messaging against a perceived political opponent, and not reacting to factual arguments at all. And you contributed to this state of affairs personally.

The amount of times you posted 'gotcha' style postings against democrats in this forum in the past week is not insignificant. If you cant be impartial, if you dont do anything against people spreading highly emotional political falsehoods, if you promote attack language instead of discussion, all I like in regards to this forum goes down the drain.

And thanks for raising my warning level. Noted.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 24, 2020)

notimp said:


> Reported as a threat.
> 
> Reasoning: It is entirely possible to partisipate in this forum if you have the threat of a moderator banning you at your next 'flaming' instance hanging over your head, if this moderator is posting political aggitation postings one after the other - having to face no consequences.


It's not a threat, it's a fair warning. All you've done for the last couple of pages is call people names, ranging between the bog standard "idiot" to more creative ones like "effing human louse". I'm not going to let you do that. If you're unable to continue the discussion respectfully and within the confines of our rules, as well as simple rules of common decency, guess what? You won't be having it at all. Nobody, not people who disagree with you and not even people who agree with you want to read your abuse. Clean your act up, you're not above the rules, they apply to everyone.


----------



## notimp (Sep 24, 2020)

This is the factual basis we now have to deal with 'Babykillers! vote correct this fall!" PR messaging for:


> The bottom line is Democrats are still grappling with how to respond to McConnell’s controversial moves to shift the court to the right using whatever power he has. And even amid talk on the left of expanding the Supreme Court should they take power in November, it’s not clear the party is prepared to respond with explosive counter-measures.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Meanwhile, most Republican senators have quickly fallen in line behind an unnamed nominee, vowing to complete the confirmation as soon as possible. Many are simply shrugging off their own words from the past about allowing voters to decide election-year confirmations, eager to shift the court further to the right.


src: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/24/illegitimate-nominationdemocrats-snub-trumps-pick-420712

So not only dont the US people get to decide on the issue in any vote, the move to have the supreme court hung directly results in this in the future becoming more of an issue of institutional lobbying. And not only for four years, but potentially for fourty.

Not only havent you seen 'you shouldnt talk to the nominee, we should shun her from day one' messaging anywhere in this forum (thats the radical left position).

Now we have to take the insult, to listen to 'vote republican this fall - because you dont want Babykilling' PR spin in here until the end of the election season.

Not only is there no reason, or urgency that would make it understandable to have to hear it currently - in fact this is political activism that could last for the next 40 years, thanks to the supreme court positions being filled this year.

No, now I'm under serious risk of getting banned for openly confronting, and insisting that non of that is ok, to do in the 2020 election thread.

And that simply taking on party talking points, and fighting for them to be established with all your heart in here against an imagined 'opponent' is wrong as well. No you CANT say that. Think of all the people that would complain about flaming.

People were only combating identity politics in here for the past five pages, moderator included (that person said this, but no that person said that, and now this person finally got back in line and said this publically?) - and then people go out and vote on that basis?

gbatemp - the only forum, you get banned from for holding middle of the road positions and insisting that people spin trolling cant take over threads just on numbers alone.

Next I have to mount a reputational defense, why I'm pro choice, while having people make the new normal, that there is an ongoing democratic conspiracy in place, causing that we dont call people that go through with abortions KILLERS? And that fetus is not an ancient greek term at all, but invented by them babykillers?

Is there an end to this?



Why is the outcome of ALL of this - 'no, seriously, you cant call people idiot, when they are wrong three times in a row, still aggitational and confronting in attitude, and preaching in messaging, then get reputation pushed by the partial moderator - and then resort to try to get you banned - just for good measure?'

The word idiot was what was too much in here?

This only ever ends one way.

I'm getting BANNED for being sick of all this within the next week, and the alt right fraction in here rejoicing that they finally have no one in here that questions their mode of operation. Only on gbatemp.


----------



## Doran754 (Sep 24, 2020)

notimp said:


> I'm getting BANNED for being sick of all this within the next week, and the alt right fraction in here rejoicing that they finally have no one in here that questions their mode of operation. Only on gbatemp.



I wouldn't say im "Alt-right" but i definitely lean to the right and i just yesterday had my post removed. The post i was replying to was from a big time lefty like yourself. His post is still up, mine isn't. What are you even talking about? Theres a massive left wing bias on this forum. Stop making out like you're such a victim. You're not, you just like to make yourself out to be one. I made my complaint about my post being removed and censored (something which has never happened to you, despite how much of a victim you like to portray yourself out to be) and i read the moderators retort too it. I'd have preferred my post to stay but I understand the reasons it wasn't, It's not hard for you to do the same. 

If you get banned, it's not because of some alt right faction rejoicing in having you removed, (if you hadn't noticed it's the right that are for free speech not censorship, thats your game) It's because of your own actions. Look in the mirror buddy.


----------



## notimp (Sep 24, 2020)

shamzie said:


> I wouldn't say im "Alt-right" but i definitely lean to the right and i just yesterday had my post removed. The post i was replying to was from a big time lefty like yourself. His post is still up, mine isn't. What are you even talking about? Theres a massive left wing bias on this forum. Stop making out like you're such a victim. You're not, you just like to make yourself out to be one. I made my complaint about my post being removed and censored (something which has never happened to you, despite how much of a victim you like to portray yourself out to be) and i read the moderators retort too it. I'd have preferred my post to stay but I understand the reasons it wasn't, It's not hard for you to do the same.
> 
> If you get banned, it's not because of some alt right faction rejoicing in having you removed, (if you hadn't noticed it's the right that are for free speech not censorship, thats your game) It's because of your own actions. Look in the mirror buddy.


Sorry - we have people in another thread currently actively saying - dont worry, I believe what the president was saying, and I checked that he was saying it, so dont you worry - and all people of the other political fraction are full of shit.

Without this being moderated at all.


You have a person on his personal crusade against Babykillers destroying conversation by interjecting higly emotional outrage bait, in the thrid thread in a row. Always bare of any argument. Ignoring any exchange of argument you tried to have with them.

Whitout this being moderated at all.


You have people bickering in this thread citing quotes of that pundit, or the other, only fighting over, when they fall back into party line, and oh - should they have said that? But that of course is very important information you all have to know before casting your vote. Spread by the moderator himself.


I'm sorry that your posting got moderated away, but that doest weigh out how absolutely impossible it has become to have any discussions in here at all.

I received three warning points today, at once, without ANY JUSTIFICATION GIVEN, right after I absolutely denounced a powerplay from a moderater that warned me 'that I should not feel invincible', which I reported as a threat.  Warning points arrived after that.

You tell me if thats all proper, because one of your threads was deleted.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 24, 2020)

shamzie said:


> I wouldn't say im "Alt-right" but i definitely lean to the right and i just yesterday had my post removed. The post i was replying to was from a big time lefty like yourself. His post is still up, mine isn't. What are you even talking about? Theres a massive left wing bias on this forum. Stop making out like you're such a victim. You're not, you just like to make yourself out to be one. I made my complaint about my post being removed and censored (something which has never happened to you, despite how much of a victim you like to portray yourself out to be) and i read the moderators retort too it. I'd have preferred my post to stay but I understand the reasons it wasn't, It's not hard for you to do the same.
> 
> If you get banned, it's not because of some alt right faction rejoicing in having you removed, (if you hadn't noticed it's the right that are for free speech not censorship, thats your game) It's because of your own actions. Look in the mirror buddy.



There's an unwritten rule that applies to this and most other places that are full of Liberals. It is .... *"Though must comply with the beliefs of Liberal gender politics and dissent is a bannable offense". *It's really just best not to even bring up the issue if you views differ from the majority here. Agreeing with the dogma will get you praise and disagreement will get your posts deleted.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 24, 2020)

notimp said:


> I received three warning points today, at once, without ANY JUSTIFICATION GIVEN


You mean the justification that you obviously read, since you called it a "threat" in front of everyone here? As in, publicly? The one you quoted yourself?



Follow the rules. Stop calling people names. If you keep breaking the rules, it's at your own peril. Also, it was two, not three, just for the record.


----------



## Issac (Sep 24, 2020)

notimp said:


> I received three warning points today, at once, without ANY JUSTIFICATION GIVEN, right after I absolutely denounced a powerplay from a moderater that warned me 'that I should not feel invincible', which I reported as a threat.  Warning points arrived after that.


*False*. You received TWO warning points today, WITH justification given. You got your warning points as your post was removed at 4:35 PM my time. You reported his post at 5:20 PM my time, 45 minutes after you got the warning points.

You aren't being silenced, even though it seems like you do like to play martyr sometimes. Considering how often you have gotten reported, it's a miracle you haven't been banned yet to be honest.
No, why your posts are deleted, is because you are flaming and harassing people. You call people names. That's against the rules of the forum in general, and the politics section in particular.

Please read this quote from the site administrator, from a stickied post in this section:


Costello said:


> *1) This forum is dedicated to discussion regarding world news, current events, and politics - local or international. Please stay civil and respectful to each other.*
> 
> *2) Everyone is entitled to an opinion, whether or not you think it's wrong.*
> *If you disagree with someone, please use logic and rational arguments to contradict them.*
> ...


We have right wing mods, we have left wing mods. We have LGBTQ+ mods, we have whites and non-whites. We are not biased in any direction. You can express your opinions, you can discuss, you can argue.... but do it without calling people names. It's not that difficult.

Another point: complaining against mod decisions in public is against the rules, even though we're pretty lenient on that part because transparency is a good thing sometimes. And this is also why I am involved now. You have an issue with @Foxi4 and since he doesn't want to be "opponent" AND judge he asked me to step in. And rest assured that he and I do not share political views. He is a competent moderator though, and I have read a fair bit of what's been going on. He has been in the right with his decisions to delete some of your posts - since they were filled with flaming.

Also, his verbal warning that if you continue to flame people, that you'll possibly get banned is just a warning from a moderator. It's not a threat. Again, please feel free to present your opinions, your viewpoints, your arguments. Just do it without name calling, slander, harassment or flaming.

If you think it's unfair that someone else's posts that break the rules aren't removed: report those posts. There's a chance they've just slipped under a moderator's radar. Just be aware that something that you might see as rule breaking, might not be in another person's eyes, that's also a possibility. (For example: you see Foxi4's warning as a threat, where it's in no way is a threat).

Anyway. This is something that generally would be taken up in private, but I find it fitting to write this here even though it's way off topic. I write this as a Supervisor putting down the foot. Also, it's a reminder to everyone reading here to stay civil, to report offending posts, and that we aren't biased in any direction.


----------



## leon315 (Sep 24, 2020)

just saw this video on youtube, i laughed to fucken hard XD but then* i realize it's all true, then i laughed even more xDDDDD
p.s. @Foxi4 i got little, just little pissed about my last msg got censored, the transition from political fights to SEX was smooth as F.! 
*
_*Why make wars when you can make love?*_
*-Pope of Vatican City (i swear to god he said that!)*


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 24, 2020)

leon315 said:


> just saw this video on youtube, i laughed to fucken hard XD but then* i realize it's all true, then i laughed even more xDDDDD
> p.s. @Foxi4 i got little, just little pissed about my last msg got censored, the transition from political fights to SEX was smooth as F.!
> *
> _*Why make wars when you can make love?*_
> *-Pope of Vatican City (i swear to god he said that!)*


It was pretty funny, to be sure, but we already have one EOF.


----------



## leon315 (Sep 24, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> It was pretty funny, to be sure, but we already have one EOF.


btw what is EOF? End of Fighting?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Sep 24, 2020)

leon315 said:


>



This video is pretty funny, I won't deny that, but it's largely false.


----------



## leon315 (Sep 24, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> This video is pretty funny, I won't deny that, but it's largely false.


somehow, i smell of MAGA supporter....


----------



## Doran754 (Sep 24, 2020)

So getting back to the politics, this happened today.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 24, 2020)

shamzie said:


> So getting back to the politics, this happened today.View attachment 226016


Not exactly the best source to quote, but it seems that the DOJ is currently investigating this case, no doubt we'll hear more about it soon.

A similar situation was just discovered in Wisconsin where three trays of ballots and mail were found in a ditch.

https://www.fox6now.com/news/wiscon...trays-of-mail-absentee-ballots-found-in-ditch


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 24, 2020)

shamzie said:


> So getting back to the politics, this happened today.View attachment 226016





Foxi4 said:


> Not exactly the best source to quote, but it seems that the DOJ is currently investigating this case, no doubt we'll hear more about it soon.
> 
> A similar situation was just discovered in Wisconsin where three tray of ballots and mail were found under a bridge:
> https://www.fox6now.com/news/wiscon...trays-of-mail-absentee-ballots-found-in-ditch



TDS runs deep so I'm not surprised some people suffering from it would risk their jobs and jail time to make sure people who vote for Trump votes suddenly "vanish". I'm not sure why people think mail in voting is secure as your ballot has way too many chances to vanish then it does if you personally go to the polling center and turn it in. I'm also not sure why people think that minorities are too stupid to obtain an ID or wait in line to vote. If you can go wait in line at Target or Walmart to buy goods you can wait in line to vote. Voting is much, much more important then spending some of that $1,200 check you got.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 25, 2020)

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/24/9166...nce-theyre-investigating-discarded-pa-ballots

the total number of ballots in question is 9. 2 were resealed, all of them were related to the military. on an interesting note, it seems rules were broken about how the investigation was handled, as who was voted for was improperly released.

"Because the U.S. attorney's office offered so few details about the situation in Luzerne County, Thornburgh said he's concerned voters might conclude the situation is much worse than it actually is and wrongly conclude there could be wider problems, based on an anecdotal example.

"You have to be on the lookout for breakdowns in the system, but we have to be careful not to extrapolate from single-digit incidents to more systemic problems," he said."

with all the fuckery the trump campaign is doing, it wouldn't be too out of the imagination that someone grabbed a handful of ballots, tampered with them, and then is trying to discredit the election. especially when the PA supreme court ruled that mail in ballots get extra time for delivery, and the GOP is pissed. Smells like a false flag to me.


----------



## notimp (Sep 25, 2020)

Issac said:


> *False*. You received TWO warning points today, WITH justification given. You got your warning points as your post was removed at 4:35 PM my time. You reported his post at 5:20 PM my time, 45 minutes after you got the warning points.
> 
> You aren't being silenced, even


To this moment, I have no idea which post of mine was removed, with what argumentation given. None.

None of this was communicated. I was given a public threat, not an explanation for moderating action.

The moderating efforts in here are partial, this forum is intentionally allowed to run amock, I'm threatend  publically to be banned, if I dont stop flaming against people trying to normalize calling women babykillers, ...

None of this is a joke.

And thats after receiving mixed messages on being banned or not.


You have lost control at this point. Get a grip on things, and get the moderator to a state, where he doesnt post cynical vitreal, and likes insane debunked comments, just for the 'flair' in here.

Next confrontation with him, and I'm banned.

And looking at the state of thing in here, its a question of when, not if.


----------



## notimp (Sep 25, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Looks like someone finally reminded Romney that kicking the ball into your own goal isn't a good idea if you want to win, he's finally doing the right thing.
> View attachment 225870
> Took him long enough to remember how he was smeared during his campaign.


Speaking of things scripted:


Void of zero content, just identity politics for no reason, mixed in with "so happy that you broke down, and went back in line", which apparently is a very popular stance in this forum as well.

Those "ideas" transported in here by people often are unaltered PR lines, straight out of speeches or scripts with no extra thought added, that are supposed to win an argument, simply by 'look how many folks are saying that'. It can be the most enraging BS position possible, it literally can be a guy breaking down on his public position by party pressures -- you are sure to find a moderator in here that brings you that as a happy story of redemption.

Its sickening. Disgusting, Revolting.

Wielding power just to shut up dissenting voices.

But then, how did the posting in question start?



> 5? 30 years ago we had a President who screwed his female staff in the oval office and put his cigar inside their lady parts, let's not pretend that the Presidency carries any form of moral superiority with it, or ever has. Trust me,


Oh, a consentual sexual relationship? How equally morally disgusting. I guess everything is fine then. Keep breaking down people then.

Until they become mere husks of their former selfs, only fit to reiterate the party line on TV or twitter. Come on Mr. moderator, why not promote more of that?


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 25, 2020)

notimp said:


> To this moment, I have no idea which post of mine was removed, with what argumentation given. None.
> 
> None of this was communicated. I was given a public threat, not an explanation for moderating action.


Gee willikers, that sounds like a real Scooby mystery! Let's uncover it together.

So, according to you, you've received no notification of your warning and no indication which post it might be referring to. How exciting!




If only there was some kind of way I could inform you in *private* about your infraction to make you aware of the content in question.



Some way to *message* you and tell you which rule you've broken and which posts have been removed or modified...



...something I could invite a higher instance to in the event the action is questioned. I wish we had that system in place.

You can stop nailing yourself to the cross now, we can see that you're using a Fisher Price tool set. The jig is up, you got caught lying. Are you one of those guys who thinks that as long as they don't accept a ticket from the officer, they didn't get a ticket? Because I'm afraid that's not a real thing.

If you're trying to trick @Issac into thinking that you're getting bullied, you're going to have a hard time. In addition to being of excellent moral character, I'm also willing to wager a $100 right now that he's the smartest person in the room, and I'll win that bet anytime.

I don't know what to do with you at this stage so I'm just going to ignore your attempts at crucifying yourself. If you continue breaking the rules, you will continue seeing consequences of your actions. I took the liberty of inviting @Issac into every exchange we've had within the last week, for the purposes of transparency. I wanted him to know everything that has transpired in order to ensure a fair and just judgement, and that's exactly the kind of judgement he made.

Since you are fond of Latin, _"Ignorantia juris non excusat"_. You should check your inbox a little more often, might save you future headaches and a fair bit of embarrassment.

I won't address this issue anymore, I consider the case closed. Ball's in your court, be respectful to other users, regardless of whether or not their opinions align with yours.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 25, 2020)

Right. Now, on with actual developments in politics, no more drama.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/25/...ats-bill-supreme-court-term-limits/index.html

House Democrats are in the process of introducing a bill that sets SCOTUS term limits to 18 years. Right now SCOTUS justices have lifetime appointments in order to ensure that they are not beholden to any political party and their opinion cannot be swayed with political pressure. Under the constitution congress can set the number of seats on the SCOTUS, but not the term limits, so this proposal may require amending the constitution - it's up in the air right now depending on how you interpret "senior justice". It's obviously a reaction to the recent RBG-related news. Any opinions on the matter? Who's for, who's against?


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 25, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Any opinions on the matter? Who's for, who's against?



Most Supreme Court decisions are unanimous, or near it. It's only on the very high profile social policy decisions that it seems the justices' ideological leanings influence the outcome, but they're human beings too so not surprising. Term limits for Supreme Court Justices will mean they'll just be politicians like all the rest. Lifetime appointment isn't a perfect solution, but it's the best one.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 25, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Most Supreme Court decisions are unanimous, or near it. It's only on the very high profile social policy stuff that the decisions that it seems the justices' ideological leanings influence the outcome, but they're human beings too so not surprising. Term limits for Supreme Court Justices will mean they'll just be politicians like all the rest. Lifetime appointment isn't a perfect solution, but it's the best one.


I tend to agree. I would like to think that the SCOTUS justices are not beholden to any political party, concerning themselves with the constitution only. They should be impartial arbiters of how the text is to be interpreted, and if their term limits are to be set to 18 years, that changes the dynamics quite significantly. I would like to see some more robust limitations in regards to their ability to perform the job though - if they're on death's door or their mental faculties are affected, perhaps it's time to retire. I don't think we should put a number to that, rather it should be judged on a case by case basis and on the advice of medical professionals. I call my benchmark "the driving test" - if I wouldn't want someone at a very advanced age to drive, I also wouldn't want them to steer national policy for decades to come. We definitely don't want a justice to stay in the seat to the very last second, that's just cruel.


----------



## Iamapirate (Sep 25, 2020)

I'm not too bothered about lifetime appointments since Justices are vetted by the President before nomination and then vetted by Congress. If I'm understanding it correctly, the reason for lifetime appointments is to keep them objective and not acting in political self-interest for purpose for re-election.

I do however support term limits on Congress.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 25, 2020)

So the Liberal Left doesn't like something Trump might do and a knee jerk reaction wants to change the rules of the game? How surprising.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 25, 2020)

Iamapirate said:


> I'm not too bothered about lifetime appointments since Justices are vetted by the President before nomination and then vetted by Congress. If I'm understanding it correctly, the reason for lifetime appointments is to keep them objective and not acting in political self-interest for purpose for re-election.
> 
> I do however support term limits on Congress.



they are vetted by just the senate, so half of congress. I'm not quite in favor of supreme court term limits, but i am highly in favor of increased transparency regarding the health and financial dealings of supreme court justices. If you get a lifetime appointment, your right to privacy should be waived, in case corruption occurs after vetting. adding the house to the vetting process would also solve some problems.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 25, 2020)

It seems the sexist and racist Trump, who hires black, latinos and married an immigrant has decided to nominate a women for the Supreme Court. I wonder how the Left will attack this, him or her? I'll give it a few hours for the attacks to start.

*Amy Coney Barrett 'to be picked by Trump for Supreme Court'*

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54303942


----------



## Chrisssj2 (Sep 26, 2020)

Giving your power away to fake authority. Sigh. Slaves.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 26, 2020)

Chrisssj2 said:


> Giving your power away to fake authority. Sigh. Slaves.


That's a fair argument, if we lived in a perfect world where everyone followed the law as it is written. Sadly, this is not the case, so law only exists if there are entities that 1) legislate, 2) execute and 3) adjudicate. That's how you end up with three branches of government. Without arbiters of the law there would be no end to conflict as everyone would have their own interpretation of what is and is not permissable.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 26, 2020)

Media reports all saying it's ACB for SCOTUS. AceyBee!!!

Can't say I know much about her. I know the left is all worked over her because of Roe v Wade, but that decision will never be reversed. It's as safe as Brown v Bd of Education. 

She's a Catholic. It'll be interesting to see if Democrat Senators say that's disqualifying. Joe Biden also claims to be a devout Catholic.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 26, 2020)

Re life vs term limits.

I am not opposed to a one and done affair of considerable length (20 years/your retirement/your death), maybe pensioning out (though I imagine anybody that made it that far is not exactly hurting and could probably do better for a single speaking engagement or lecture series than you or I will earn in a decade). Would not necessarily preclude public office either afterwards. Such a thing should be a reasonable balance between putting you above party politics (though I am curious how much there already is and might be under shorter) and the "while I still function" of lifetime.

Might suck to get the nod in your mid-late 40s but also eh. Plenty of others do worse.


----------



## Iamapirate (Sep 26, 2020)

The attacks of Amy Barrett are nothing new. They started preemptively before Kavanagh was picked, and they started back up when she was the clear frontrunner this time around. Her crime is being religious, of course.

If Democrats want to throw tantrums and screech that Roe v Wade will be overturned, why don't Republicans nominate people that will do that? It seems Democrat appointments almost always deliver for their side, but Republican voters have a hard time getting good senators, let alone justices.


----------



## chrisrlink (Sep 26, 2020)

I bet my money that if a trump loss occurs one of two things will happen (maybe both)
1) will declare martial law to remain in power and or 2 will do a Tropico/Archie Sonic and do a military coup what i worry more than the justice he appoints will allow him a get out of jail free card it doesn't pertain to republicans HE KNOWS one out his goose is cooked nothing can protect his financial records once out his only way  of avoiding prison is to stuff the scotus with as many right wing lunatics as possiable my biggest fear besides roe v wade is if they go even further barring abortion in a life or death situation (meaning the mothers life) (then again lots of lawsuits against the justices will occur (and possiable charges of neglegent homocide and debenching (even though they serve for life i doubt their immune to charges unlike the potus


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 26, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> I bet my money that if a trump loss occurs one of two things will happen (maybe both)
> 1) will declare martial law to remain in power and or 2 will do a Tropico/Archie Sonic and do a military coup what i worry more than the justice he appoints will allow him a get out of jail free card it doesn't pertain to republicans HE KNOWS one out his goose is cooked nothing can protect his financial records once out his only way  of avoiding prison is to stuff the scotus with as many right wing lunatics as possiable my biggest fear besides roe v wade is if they go even further barring abortion in a life or death situation (meaning the mothers life) (then again lots of lawsuits against the justices will occur (and possiable charges of neglegent homocide and debenching (even though they serve for life i doubt their immune to charges unlike the potus



I doubt Trump will refuse to leave office if he loses fairly. Plus, if there was something wrong with his taxes the IRS would have already found out because they have his tax records. Trump has already turned in his taxes to the only group in the Government that needs to see them - the IRS.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 26, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I doubt Trump will refuse to leave office if he loses fairly. Plus, if there was something wrong with his taxes the IRS would have already found out because they have his tax records. Trump has already turned in his taxes to the only group in the Government that needs to see them - the IRS.


The question isn't whether or not there's something wrong with his taxes. The question is whether or not his taxes are evidence of other crimes.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 26, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The question isn't whether or not there's something wrong with his taxes. The question is whether or not his taxes are evidence of other crimes.



It's only the job of the IRS to look over peoples taxes. If there was some glaring abnormality they probably would have caught it already. I for one wouldn't want to hand over my taxes to random strangers that have a record of attacking you just because they lost an election. The only reason Congress wants his taxes is to try to find a way to fuck him over. It doesn't make much sense to then just hand them over to a group of clowns who've already set a precedent that you can impeach a President based on the fact you can't deal with the fact you lost an election. Even regardless if he did something wrong or not. Yeah, I wouldn't hand over shit. The only Government agency he legally has to hand them over to is the IRS and he already did that.


----------



## JeepX87 (Sep 26, 2020)

I'm not Biden nor Trump supporters but as moderate, I'm not fan of polarization in US political system as right went far and left went far.

For me, I want both sides - liberals and conservatives to be happy so I do feel that state rights need to be extended and less demand on federal government. Many people in California and Alabama don't share the same views.

I'm not interested to bash at any politicians and they have different philosophies so no need to bash at Trump or Biden supporters either.


----------



## deficitdisorder (Sep 26, 2020)

Just have to understand why a lot of us don't have him at his word.

He has a shady financial history. How he defrauded his foundation charity and cant legally operate another one or the  mountain of lawsuits for unpaid contract work. There are other clear conflicts of interest between Trump as president and his businesses but he wouldn't place them in a blind trust to avoid those issues.

He says he has nothing to hide but he is breaking from a 40 year tradition and hiding his tax returns regardless.

Orange Sus as the Among Us kids say


EDIT*Mistaken regarding parts of the charity discussion. Feel free to shame me.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 26, 2020)

deficitdisorder said:


> Just have to understand why a lot of us don't have him at his word.
> 
> He has a shady financial history. How he defrauded his foundation charity and cant legally operate another one or the  mountain of lawsuits for unpaid contract work. There are other clear conflicts of interest between Trump as president and his businesses but he wouldnt place them in a blind trust to avoid those issues.
> 
> ...



He's not hiding anything. The IRS has them and if there were issues they'd deal with them. It would be stupid for him to hand over something that will be used against him as a weapon to attack him with regardless if he's guilty or not. If that's the case, how about you send me your returns? I'll look through them to see if there's anything I can notify the authorities over. If I can't find anything I'll just make something up as I'll be calling the police on you regardless. So how about it? Want to DM me a url of your scanned or digital tax returns?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



JeepX87 said:


> I'm not Biden nor Trump supporters but as moderate, I'm not fan of polarization in US political system as right went far and left went far.
> 
> For me, I want both sides - liberals and conservatives to be happy so I do feel that state rights need to be extended and less demand on federal government. Many people in California and Alabama don't share the same views.
> 
> I'm not interested to bash at any politicians and they have different philosophies so no need to bash at Trump or Biden supporters either.



It's fine if you don't bash Biden, but if you don't bash Trump then one of those polarized groups you mentioned will attack and outcast you.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 26, 2020)

deficitdisorder said:


> He has a shady financial history. How he defrauded his foundation charity and cant legally operate another one (...)


Do you mean the "cancer charity"? That's a made-up story. Neither Trump nor anyone in his immediate family have been barred from operating charities. Initially that was one of AG Underwood's demands, but it's not in the settlement. It is not unusual to "trump-up" (ha!) charges if the intention is to sign a deal and reduce them from the start.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-steal-kids-cancer-charity/



> mountain of lawsuits for unpaid contract work


Nearly every corporation operates like that, they don't pay their financial commitments until they absolutely have to. You show me one that wasn't sued for allegedly unpaid contracts/bills and I will show you a unicorn.

As far as his tax records are concerned, that's his money and I don't care, I just wanted to drop in and say that disinformation exists on both sides of the aisle. He's not "barred from charity work", he didn't "steal from children with cancer", he's also not the Grinch.


Lacius said:


> The question isn't whether or not there's something wrong with his taxes. The question is whether or not his taxes are evidence of other crimes.


"If you're innocent then you have nothing to fear and nothing to hide" is an inherently totalitarian point of view, if that's where you're going with this. This is an investigation in search of a crime, that violates basic rights to privacy. There's an argument to be made that as President he should release them willingly as his right to privacy is waived due to his position, but despite tradition, that is not a legal requirement as of right now.


----------



## deficitdisorder (Sep 26, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Do you mean the "cancer charity"? That's a made-up story. Neither Trump nor anyone in his immediate family have been barred from operating charities. Initially that was one of AG Underwood's demands, but it's not in the settlement. It is not unusual to "trump-up" (ha!) charges if the intention is to sign a deal and reduce them from the start.
> 
> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-steal-kids-cancer-charity/



I never mentioned stealing from children charities story so not sure why you brought that up. I was referencing the 2 million misappropriation fraud that ended with the Trump Foundation charity being dissolved. You appear to be right as I misremembering the barring from operating future charities part. I will edit those previous posts in shame.

https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/201...ed-2-million-illegally-using-trump-foundation



> Nearly every corporation operates like that, they don't pay their financial commitments until they absolutely have to. You show me one that wasn't sued for allegedly unpaid contracts/bills and I will show you a unicorn.



Its not about paying late it's about the myriad of cases where he didn't pay at all which meant he had to be sued.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 26, 2020)

deficitdisorder said:


> I never mentioned stealing from children charities story so not sure why you brought that up. I was referencing the 2 million misappropriation fraud that ended with the Trump Foundation charity being dissolved. You appear to be right as I misremembering the barring from operating future charities part. I will edit those previous posts in shame.
> 
> https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/201...ed-2-million-illegally-using-trump-foundation
> 
> ...


Yes and yes on both. The Snopes article is all about the dissolution of the foundation, same case. Obviously he was sued for unpaid contracts too, I was merely saying that it's not at all unusual.

I mentioned the "stealing from children with cancer" bit because it's a very popular meme right now when, in reality, it never happened. I thought it was worth mentioning here also.


----------



## deficitdisorder (Sep 26, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Yes and yes on both. The Snopes article is all about the dissolution of the foundation, same case. Obviously he was sued for unpaid contracts too, I was merely saying that it's not at all unusual.



Please just continue to casually dismiss the President's history of effectively stealing from its citizens on a regular basis. Here I was under the illusion the most powerful man in the world should be held to a higher standard.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 26, 2020)

deficitdisorder said:


> Please just continue to casually dismiss the President's history of effectively stealing from its citizens on a regular basis. Here I was under the illusion the most powerful man in the world should be held to a higher standard.


You get used to it once you realise that taxation is theft.  Jokes aside, point taken, but that's precisely what court is for - resolving financial disputes.


----------



## notimp (Sep 26, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Gee willikers, that sounds like a real Scooby mystery! Let's uncover it together.
> 
> So, according to you, you've received no notification of your warning and no indication which post it might be referring to. How exciting!
> 
> ...


F*ck with someone else.

I've received PN that went as follows.







Inpropriate behavior, no I'm not banning you LOL, inapropriate language, then a public threat 'dont think you are immune - I will ban you', followed by no ban, but two warning points.

On top of this this was after you PERSONALLY interjected on several arguments in here with an absolute irrational stance, indicating to people in here, that banking on BS murder/death theories in relation to who to vote for is OK, you even liked this, that switching the default to spinning women who have abortions as BABYKILLERS was ok, and me turning this back using the word "idiot" was the problem here.

That was what I received two warning points for, as far as I can make out. Only on gbatemp.

The ON TOP OF THAT, you followed that up with a freaking posting, that celebrated the republican party ideologically BREAKING one of its members to get back on partly line - so now they could display unity.

YOU EVEN RIDICULED THAT PERSON.

On the first behavioral fallout, I went straight to admins, begging them for you to be removed from this forum, because you actively destroyed any opportunity to have a rational debate in this thread, supported people that were out to SHUT DOWN and divert communication in here, to BABYKILLERS, it all is connected, or Biden is only the nominee, so he can die, and be replaced by Kamala Harris with personal likes.

And then went haywire on double meaning in your messaging towards what you would do to me and when. I had no certainty regarding anything. You were high on a power trip, flipping one way or the other by the minute.

Luckily - I went to other moderating stuff, before this had happened. (See screenshot.)
--

ON TOP OF THIS - the two warning points appeared OUT OF NO WHERE, and without any indication given as to why - in that instance (screenshot is of my latest message history).

I got informed by ANOTHER MODERATOR, that 'a thread in question' probably the one taking a stance against baby killing being the normal way to talk about things, and the greek word fetus being a 'deception' in the freaking election 2020 thread, was deleted - which I had no idea it had been, afterwards.

But was informed about me getting warning points IN A PUBLIC POSTING, sporting A TREAT, against me getting banned, with you gloating like a baby with a spoon full of honey in his hand.
--


Your behavior was outreageos.

The way this was handled is pittyful.

The outcome according to the 'dont flame' rule, according to the admin was 'just'.  But all the behavior that lead to it, you sanctified, or got away with.

And then the public threat on top of it. While flipping between 'love you', 'hate you with a passion' in your messaging, and then taking moderating action, in arguably exactly the wrong way.

None of that is resolved.

Lets make it public.


The cherry on top was that you promoted 'falling in party line' behavior, by gloating over and making fun of a politician, that probably was bullied and preassured - just because that was the party line thing to do.

In the 2020 election thread.

And the thing you were most concerned about was telling be, that I shouldt take a moral stance, because and I quote "you are not the moderator here".


----------



## Issac (Sep 26, 2020)

notimp said:


> F*ck with someone else.
> 
> Only on gbatemp.



We have timestamps, we've been transparent, you know exactly why you've been warned, why messages have been removed. 

Stop playing the martyr, stop believing that your opinion is some magical thing that must be silenced, you're fram from alone woth your political opinion.

But if GBAtemp is so bad, and combined with your incredible inability to follow the simplest rules (don't call other people names) - well, maybe you should be banned from this section all together? How about that?


----------



## notimp (Sep 26, 2020)

Issac said:


> We have timestamps, we've been transparent, you know exactly why you've been warned, why messages have been removed.


I maintain, I dont. If you look at the screenshot you see, that I've stopped reading PNs from a certain moderator, while I was in an open dispute with him, that I had escalated to other moderators at that point.

Dont call me a liar.

If the issue here comes out to me not realizing the warning points earlier, because I intentionally ignored all of those moderators messages, after I reported them and their behavior in here. Then thats the issue.

Also - your moderating behavior and decision making is highly questionable, and only followed the path of least resistance. You completely ignored the behavior that person showed in here, as far as I can tell.

You made my usage of the word 'idiot' the main focus, and the main issue, as far as you were concerned.

You had a moderator actively engaged in making this a populist contraption of lies, and featuring issues, that have nothing to do with americans decisions to vote - and then go to town on the person that moved to not let we have to vote because of BABYKILLERS, and we have to vote, because BIDEN IS SUPPOSED TO DIE TO BE REPLACED, stand in here as the promoted ground level of normalcy of debate.

At that point that was what was promoted as the baseline of discussion we were supposed to have in here.

The moderator was actively destroying  critical debate in here.

And I'm not at least interested in timestamps, at this point. You can puzzle together your rectification, for why this meant you had to punish me all the way till you reached catharsis, but your actions here were wrong.

Also, once more dont call me a liar.


----------



## Chrisssj2 (Sep 26, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> That's a fair argument, if we lived in a perfect world where everyone followed the law as it is written. Sadly, this is not the case, so law only exists if there are entities that 1) legislate, 2) execute and 3) adjudicate. That's how you end up with three branches of government. Without arbiters of the law there would be no end to conflict as everyone would have their own interpretation of what is and is not permissable.



No. You are already into slave mentality!!!  We need not need this to keep us "Safe" it has never keeped us safe that is an illusion. Only create wars, sivision, poverty/scarcity. We don't need laws. Only now perhaps to a degree because we became so reliant on it. We need to be educated and moral as humans. If you can't trust your citizen humans with that, how are you gonna trust a selected few with that.

Your premise as to there "would be no end to conflict' is flawed and based on inactuality. While like I said it is true, if we completely remove the standing structures it would become a mess. It does not mean it is the Natural way of living.  Understand the nature of life and concioussness and you will see your Natural Authority. And the monstrosity religion we call "authority" we have created, which is a FAKE illusion based authority. So ultimately when done right it would be THE END of conflict to a great degree as we know. (not totality ofcourse) It is the other way around my friend. This is the answer many people fail to see. Instead keep on doing the same thing that has proven not to work and create pain and suffering.

Humans arbitrarily deciding what is moral in one border and what is not in the next. That is an incorrect definition of being moral.
VIOLENCE is immoral no matter what border or what law that goes against this, anything that takes your freedom away and that seeks to destroy. Oh hey -----> GOVERNMENT.

Everyone having their own interpertation of what is and is not permissible is HOW LIFE IS MENT TO BE and ACTUALLY is. Though there is a nature principle people can understand/discover/ be educated upon. A self governing principle build in to life if you will. That doesn't self destroy as we do now.
Some of this nature principle actually survives into "written law' but it has been grocely distorted since Natural Lore became written law.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 26, 2020)

notimp said:


> I maintain, I dont. If you look at the screenshot you see, that I've stopped reading PNs from a certain moderator, while I was in an open dispute with him, that I had escalated to other moderators at that point.
> 
> Dont call me a liar.
> 
> ...


You're actively destroying debate in here by spilling spaghetti all over the thread. "I don't know what I was warned for because I didn't open the PM" must be the single funniest excuse I have ever heard in my entire career.


----------



## Issac (Sep 26, 2020)

notimp said:


> Dont call me a liar.
> Also, once more dont call me a liar.


I have not once called you a liar.



notimp said:


> *If the issue here comes out to me not realizing the warning points earlier, because I intentionally ignored all of those moderators messages, after I reported them and their behavior in here. Then thats the issue.
> *Also -* your moderating behavior and decision making is highly questionable*, and only followed the path of least resistance. You completely ignored the behavior that person showed in here, as far as I can tell.
> *You made my usage of* the word 'idiot' the main focus*, and the main issue, as far as you were concerned.
> *And *I'm not at least interested in timestamps*, at this point. You can puzzle together your rectification, for why this meant you had to punish me all the way till you reached catharsis,* but your actions here were wrong.*


*Claiming that you have not been told why you were warned, causing a fuzz and crying about unfair moderation... when the reason you are unaware is because you have not read the AUTOMATIC PM you get when getting warned... Well that just tells everyone here something 

*How come my moderating behaviour and decision making is questionable? I think most people would disagree in general. And in this particular case, what have I done that is questionable? Please tell me which moderating behaviour and which decision that is questionable? As far as I know, I've looked at facts, and explained why you were warned and had some messages removed.

*It was not just the word "idiot" and you know that. But yes. the main focus here IS that you aren't arguing your opinion, you are calling people names, flaming people and just being rude. Try arguing your opinions without calling people names, and you'll see that the posts WON'T be removed. It's extremely simple. You seem very angry that someone might use the term babykillers, so shoot down that person's use of that word with proper arguments. And if you think that term is so highly offensive, why not report that post instead? You won't win any arguments just by throwing a tantrum.

*If you aren't interested in timestamps, then why are you saying that you were warned AFTER a certain post and after it was reported, when the truth in the matter is that it was way before. The timestamps shows the order of things. If you are trying to paint a picture that you are being treated a certain way because of some reasons you yourself made up, then the timestamps are very simple to look at.
And again, my actions here are wrong? What actions? Writing a reply here? I do believe that a supervisor is allowed to reply on the forum 

Also:


notimp said:


> Luckily - I went to other moderating stuff, before this had happened. (See screenshot.)


Again, look at the timestamps in your own screenshot. 
The unread explanation of your warning was on THURSDAY. The message you sent to the site admin was "Yesterday" which is FRIDAY. You did not contact the other moderating staff before this had happened. You did it afterwards. 
The reason it is lower in the list is because it's read by you, while the unread ones stay at the top. LOL


----------



## Lacius (Sep 26, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> It's only the job of the IRS to look over peoples taxes. If there was some glaring abnormality they probably would have caught it already.


The IRS does not look for, for example, evidence of bank fraud in one's taxes. They only care about your taxes and tax law. If the IRS were to look for evidence of bank fraud (they don't), they wouldn't find anything because they're missing half the evidence (e.g. statements made to the bank that contradict the tax returns, etc.).

It takes a criminal investigation to uncover evidence of bank fraud, and tax returns provided by the IRS can (and often are) used as evidence in conjunction with other evidence.

The House has a constitutional obligation to investigate alleged crimes by the president, and the president has allegedly committed bank fraud, among other crimes. I haven't heard a single compelling reason why the House should not get Trump's taxes.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 26, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The IRS does not look for, for example, evidence of bank fraud in one's taxes. They only care about your taxes and tax law. If the IRS were to look for evidence of bank fraud (they don't), they wouldn't find anything because they're missing half the evidence (e.g. statements made to the bank that contradict the tax returns, etc.).
> 
> It takes a criminal investigation to uncover evidence of bank fraud, and tax returns provided by the IRS can (and often are) used as evidence in conjunction with other evidence.
> 
> The House has a constitutional obligation to investigate alleged crimes by the president, and the president has allegedly committed bank fraud, among other crimes. I haven't heard a single compelling reason why the House should not get Trump's taxes.



What alleged crimes are those? If the police had evidence of a crime then a legal subpoena could be granted by a Judge to get Trump's tax records. Here's the thing, there's no evidence of wrong doing at this point in time. What's taking place is the Liberals want Trump's tax records to comb through them to try to find something to fuck Trump over with. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. You don't get to say "we're going to go fuck this person over regardless of guilt" and then magically get access to their personal information to do so. There's privacy laws and like I've stated like 3 times now, Trump already handed over his tax records ... to the IRS.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 26, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> What alleged crimes are those?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump



gregory-samba said:


> If the police had evidence of a crime then a legal subpoena could be granted by a Judge to get Trump's tax records.


The Trump administration defied those subpoenaed, and they sued to block others. Have you been paying attention?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_returns_of_Donald_Trump



gregory-samba said:


> Here's the thing, there's no evidence of wrong doing at this point in time.


We have evidence that Trump has committed crimes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump

I recommend looking at Trump's criminal obstruction of justice in the Mueller Report first. With regard to tax returns, I recommend starting with the hush-money payments.



gregory-samba said:


> What's taking place is the Liberals want Trump's tax records to comb through them to try to find something to fuck Trump over with. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. You don't get to say "we're going to go fuck this person over regardless of guilt" and then magically get access to their personal information to do so. There's privacy laws and like I've stated like 3 times now, Trump already handed over his tax records ... to the IRS.


That's not what's happening.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 26, 2020)

Lacius said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump
> 
> 
> The Trump administration defied those subpoenaed, and they sued to block others. Have you been paying attention?
> ...



I'll look over those pages, but *at first glace this stuck out*.



> Separately, the House Oversight Committee issued a subpoena to Trump's accounting firm for tax records and other records, as part of the committee's investigation into (1) whether Trump "may have engaged in illegal conduct before and during his tenure in office";



I'll translate that for you; *witch hunt*. 

They've got no evidence he did anything illegal regarding his taxes, they just want his tax records to try to fuck him over.

As per that other page, it seems most of his legal matters *were simply lawsuits* and *not criminal cases *and out of those *most have been settled or ruled on*. The only open matter (at first glace) is *Congress's witch hunt*. The page also starts with mentioning that being successful comes with being sued a lot so most of that entire page, the stuff Trump was sued for, is normal day to day business for rich people. Though, this statement made me chuckle a little bit. *"Barr said that the special counsel found did not find that Trump colluded with Russia."*


----------



## Lacius (Sep 26, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I'll look over those pages, but *at first glace this stuck out*.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The House Oversight Committee issued a subpoena after Cohen's testimony, dude.

Edit: Also, Barr is a hack whose statements abotu the report contradict the report.


----------



## notimp (Sep 26, 2020)

Issac said:


> Again, look at the timestamps in your own screenshot.
> The unread explanation of your warning was on THURSDAY. The message you sent to the site admin was "Yesterday" which is FRIDAY. You did not contact the other moderating staff before this had happened. You did it afterwards.
> The reason it is lower in the list is because it's read by you, while the unread ones stay at the top. LOL


Yesderday referred to the last interaction with the admin, first message sent in that conversation thread was on september 18. This is indicated by the position of the PNs, which you could have known.


History of events went as followed, you propagated basically hatespeech and conspiracy theories in here that were meant to blow up this thread with a bunch high emotion nonsense. You fostered an atmosphere where this was not only fine, but liked. And supported by you - in the moderator role.

You added to that, by personally dropping in stories, that an entire party now speaking with one voice, was a wonderful thing, and ridiculed the person diverting from that opinion, for having another stance for too long.

I was in direct communitcation with the admin of this forum to get you removed as a moderator from this sub since September 18.

Then the provocation from people started, both of which we had discussions with on their factual points, calmly and in full length ("Biden is just supposed to die, to backdoor in another candidate", and "this election is about BABYKILLERS") which both of them entirely ignored, instead they started to spread emotional vitreal, and more conspiracy theories, which you personally liked on one occasion and supported in general.

You layed out the groundrules - for 'this is ok'.

As I started pushback, which included highly emotional language, trying not to let a person wanting to make this thread about babykillers and the conspiracy of babies being called fetuses, in utero - intercept any other discussion in here.

Then the warning point disamination for calling them an idiot started.-
-

I'll not classify your last post as an outright lie, the way the supermoderator qualified not reading PNs the SECOND they are sent, because his truth lies in datasets and timetables, that have nothing to do with how events were perceived in real time - because maybe you were mistaken.

But what transpired here was, that you got away with murder, and I have two warning points, for sticking up and doing arguably the right thing.

You argued, that you wanted to protect people from being called idiot, and now have your thread back to the point where people are bashing their heads in following seeded identity politics.

And now you are trying to flip the public image towards  me being the issue.

Try your best - dont use lies.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 26, 2020)

deficitdisorder said:


> He has a shady financial history..




Not as shady as Biden's. And at least Trump was private sector until 4 yrs ago. Biden's been grifting on his status as an elected federal official for over 40 years. 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...brother-hedge-fund-money-2020-campaign-227407


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 26, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The House Oversight Committee issued a subpoena after Cohen's testimony, dude.
> 
> Edit: Also, Barr is a hack whose statements abotu the report contradict the report.



The page doesn't say Congress issued the subpoena due to the situation with Cohen as Congress issued it for the other 4 reasons. I don't know enough about Cohen's hush payments as that situation never interested me so they could have been a motivating factor for Congresses subpoena, but you'd think then it would be listed under the reasons Congress issued to subpoena. Though, the separate entity, who are the leadership of New York are also seeking his records and it does mention the payments for the non-disclosure agreement. The timeline is a mess and I'm not sure if the cases in Congress and New York are related.

I'm also not too concerned about a list of lawsuits when none of the stuff that I read were criminal in nature plus the page starts off saying that basically lawsuits are normal if you're a successful business person. So the entire page is a list of normal boring lawsuits against Trump. I'm sure I'd have opinions about each one, but since you can sue anyone for anything I'd probably have a hard time believing he's guilty of everything he's been sued for. Civil matters don't interest me much.

I also see Trump used his legal options to thus far deny Congress access to his records, which he should do as they simply want to dig through his taxes to try to find something to fuck him over with. Since this is the same Congress that decided to impeach before he was even sworn in and regardless of guilt I'd say denying them access to personal information is the smart thing to do.

Though, from what I read about his taxes alone it still seems like a witch hunt to me. The civil stuff is normal, claims the page, so that stuff doesn't bother me either.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 26, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> The page doesn't say Congress issued the subpoena due to the situation with Cohen as Congress issued it for the other 4 reasons. I don't know enough about Cohen's hush payments as that situation never interested me so they could have been a motivating factor for Congresses subpoena, but you'd think then it would be listed under the reasons Congress issued to subpoena. Though, the separate entity, who are the leadership of New York are also seeking his records and it does mention the payments for the non-disclosure agreement. The timeline is a mess and I'm not sure if the cases in Congress and New York are related.
> 
> I'm also not too concerned about a list of lawsuits when none of the stuff that I read were criminal in nature plus the page starts off saying that basically lawsuits are normal if you're a successful business person. So the entire page is a list of normal boring lawsuits against Trump. I'm sure I'd have opinions about each one, but since you can sue anyone for anything I'd probably have a hard time believing he's guilty of everything he's been sued for. Civil matters don't interest me much.
> 
> ...


It's demonstrably not a witch hunt. I suggest you reread my posts.

There are also plenty of criminal acts on the page I sent you, not just business lawsuits. Many of the business lawsuits are also about criminal behavior.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 26, 2020)

Lacius said:


> It's demonstrably not a witch hunt. I suggest you reread my posts.
> 
> There are also plenty of criminal acts on the page I sent you, not just business lawsuits. Many of the business lawsuits are also about criminal behavior.



Can you point one out to me where Trump was charged with a criminal offense?


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 26, 2020)

notimp said:


> Yesderday referred to the last interaction with the admin, first message sent in that conversation thread was on september 18. This is indicated by the position of the PNs, which you could have known.
> 
> 
> History of events went as followed, you propagated basically hatespeech and conspiracy theories in here that were meant to blow up this thread with a bunch high emotion nonsense. You fostered an atmosphere where this was not only fine, but liked. And supported by you - in the moderator role.
> ...


You're not even talking to the right person.

I'm not going to waste the Supervisor's time wrangling you around. This is what you received two warning points for:


Spoiler







I'll be removing this post once "Prince notimp" graces me with his attention, since reading PM's is hard. Like I told you in the "threat" - you are not a moderator, I am. You do not decide who has to leave, I do. You don't get to flame or abuse other users, regardless of how you feel about what they post, period. Don't like a post you see? Report it. It's really that easy.

As I said in the PM, you will not get warned, suspended or banned for getting a second opinion (or third, or fourth at this point) from another member of staff. If that wasn't the case, you'd be gone by now. You absolutely will get warned, and potentially suspended or banned, for content that goes against our rules.

This post was queued for deletion for days, I informed you about the reasons why it was getting deleted publicly right before it went in the trash, and repeated the reasons in the PM which you "didn't read". Report my posts all day if that's what makes you happy, I don't care, that's not the reason why you were warned. You *know* the reason why you were warned, it was explained to you repeatedly.

The End.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 26, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Can you point one out to me where Trump was charged with a criminal offense?


Trump has committed plenty of crimes without having yet been charged. He's currently being investigated for having committed numerous crimes. He also should have been charged for criminal obstruction of justice per the Mueller Report, but Barr blocked it.

If you want crimes he's been charged with, there are plenty on the list that you said you read. Trump University and the Trump Foundation come to mind off the top of my head.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 27, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Trump has committed plenty of crimes without having yet been charged. He's currently being investigated for having committed numerous crimes. He also should have been charged for criminal obstruction of justice per the Mueller Report, but Barr blocked it.
> 
> If you want crimes he's been charged with, there are plenty on the list that you said you read. Trump University and the Trump Foundation come to mind off the top of my head.



I read most of the page and didn't find Trump being charged with a crime. He's only accused of them in numerous lawsuits and accusing someone of crimes in a civil suite doesn't mean they've been charged with criminal offenses. Even if he was charged with an actual criminal offense, which I haven't seen on the Wiki, was he convicted of the crimes and sentenced or did a Judge or Jury clear him of the charges? I'm not trying to play dumb, but I don't see on that site where he was actually arrested or charged criminally with a crime. I only see people claiming he broke the law in lawsuits.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 27, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I read most of the page and didn't find Trump being charged with a crime. He's only accused of them in numerous lawsuits and accusing someone of crimes in a civil suite doesn't mean they've been charged with criminal offenses. Even if he was charged with an actual criminal offense, which I haven't seen on the Wiki, was he convicted of the crimes and sentenced or did a Judge or Jury clear him of the charges? I'm not trying to play dumb, but I don't see on that site where he was actually arrested or charged criminally with a crime. I only see people claiming he broke the law in lawsuits.


Nobody said he was arrested. You can break the law and be charged without indictment, arrest, etc. If I'm caught breaking the law when speeding, for example, I'm not going to get indicted. I'm going to pay a fine.

The Trump Foundation and Trump University are examples where Trump objectively and definitively broke the law, and he's was found to have broken the law. He's being investigated for other crimes. And, although he wasn't indicted, he did commit criminal obstruction of justice according to the Mueller Report.

If you read the Wikipedia page, you'll see he likely committed tax fraud, bank fraud, campaign finance violations, fraud related to the inauguration fund, and many more.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 27, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Nobody said he was arrested. You can break the law and be charged without indictment, arrest, etc. If I'm caught breaking the law when speeding, for example, I'm not going to get indicted. I'm going to pay a fine.
> 
> The Trump Foundation and Trump University are examples where Trump objectively and definitively broke the law, and he's was found to have broken the law. He's being investigated for other crimes. And, although he wasn't indicted, he did commit criminal obstruction of justice according to the Mueller Report.
> 
> If you read the Wikipedia page, you'll see he likely committed tax fraud, bank fraud, campaign finance violations, fraud related to the inauguration fund, and many more.


The less talked about fact is that he is still violating The Foreign Emoluments Clause by continuing to benefit from his company and using his power as president to expand his brand into countries like China. This is still an ongoing legal battle.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 27, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> The less talked about fact is that he is still violating The Foreign Emoluments Clause by continuing to benefit from his company and using his power as president to expand his brand into countries like China. This is still an ongoing legal battle.


I had to say "etc" and "many more" because there's just so much.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 27, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Nobody said he was arrested. You can break the law and be charged without indictment, arrest, etc. If I'm caught breaking the law when speeding, for example, I'm not going to get indicted. I'm going to pay a fine.
> 
> The Trump Foundation and Trump University are examples where Trump objectively and definitively broke the law, and he's was found to have broken the law. He's being investigated for other crimes. And, although he wasn't indicted, he did commit criminal obstruction of justice according to the Mueller Report.
> 
> If you read the Wikipedia page, you'll see he likely committed tax fraud, bank fraud, campaign finance violations, fraud related to the inauguration fund, and many more.



So he's not been arrested or charged criminally? He's not been found guilty of a criminal offense and had to face sentencing in a criminal court?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 27, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> So he's not been arrested or charged criminally? He's not been found guilty of a criminal offense and had to face sentencing in a criminal court?


The Trump Foundation and Trump University have been found to have committed crimes, yes. Trump is also under investigation for numerous crimes. The evidence is also clear that Trump is guilty of other crimes, despite Barr the political hack not charging him and lying about the Mueller Report.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 27, 2020)

I'm afraid that @Lacius is correct, @gregory-samba. Investigations like this require access to confidential documents which necessitate a warrant to obtain before any guilt can be established. As such, they are often conducted based on a suspicion of committing a crime, or based on a suspicious audit/official filings. There's a procedure in place for obtaining such warrants too. With that said, @gregory-samba isn't entirely incorrect - there is a possibility that such an investigation could be conducted based on the "fruits of a poisonous tree" as they say, which is why we have various oversight committees to ensure that they are conducted correctly. I imagine it would be within the purview of Congress to request such records, although I myself am not particularly interested in Trump's tax filings. You have to be fair and balanced - if Trump is purposefully making things difficult, acknowledge that.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 27, 2020)

Dude, stop deleting everyone's posts.  I was not "calling anyone names."  I simply stand by Ted Kaczynski's research into what "liberalism" actually is.  Ted Kaczynski is no idiot.  He was a math genius and has been cited by plenty of left and right wingers.  His statement is that liberalism is a disorder based on inferiority complex.

You can read about it here.  Pretty much every intelligent person on the planet has read his stuff before from college professors to anyone else:

Industrial Society and Its Future:
http://editions-hache.com/essais/pdf/kaczynski2.pdf


----------



## deficitdisorder (Sep 27, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Dude, stop deleting everyone's posts.  I was not "calling anyone names."  I simply stand by Ted Kaczynski's research into what "liberalism" actually is.  Ted Kaczynski is no idiot.  He was a math genius and has been cited by plenty of left and right wingers.  His statement is that liberalism is a disorder based on inferiority complex.
> 
> You can read about it here.  Pretty much every intelligent person on the planet has read his stuff before from college professors to anyone else:
> 
> ...



I don't think relying on the domestic terrorist known as the unibomber is the most solid of foundations for political discussion.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 27, 2020)

There's no such thing as 'invalid' political players.  Whoever is on the chess board creating some type of cause and effect is going to do so whether you approve of their existence or not.  Both ANTIFA and Ted Kaczynski have been labeled terrorists as well as the founding fathers of the US.

It's up to the random lifeforms roaming the surface of the planet to determine if any of these groups have any type of point to what they say.  It's typically the group that has no point at all with none of their arguments standing up to any type of debate that want to censor every other group.

Usually revolving around scams like "anything I don't like is a conspiracy theory" or "anyone who disagrees with me is racist."  I don't think the words "conspiracy theory" were very popular until US government intelligence agencies started spamming the phrase to try and discredit anyone who questioned JFK's death.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 27, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The Trump Foundation and Trump University have been found to have committed crimes, yes. Trump is also under investigation for numerous crimes. The evidence is also clear that Trump is guilty of other crimes, despite Barr the political hack not charging him and lying about the Mueller Report.



You've failed once again to answer my question. I'm wondering *if Trump was ever charged with any criminal offenses*? Criminal is a law term as there's two types of crimes you can be charged with, which are *civil* or *criminal*. I've read over the page twice and *all I see are civil cases*, mostly lawsuits, which the* authors of the Wiki admits are just day to day business in rich people world*. I'm not interested in what or other people think he's done as I don't need to play arm chair lawyer. If he's committed and actual criminal offense and charged with a criminal crime other than just these civil matters is my question and what I'd like to know. Then to expand on that I'd like to know if he was proven guilty by a Jury of his peers or a presiding Judge. What you think he's guilty of is a far cry from what he's actually been found guilty of.

I understand there is a need to gather evidence @Foxi4, but after the way Congress has treated our President I approve of him not just handing over anything they want or playing nice. If they had accused Trump of something specific and not so broad and had enough evidence other than the tax records, but needed the tax records due to the other evidence they had I'd see how they could be important. As it stands right now, other than some normal day to day business in rich people world, I don't see a direct case that would hang on something that would be in the tax returns.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 27, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> You've failed once again to answer my question. I'm wondering *if Trump was ever charged with any criminal offenses*? Criminal is a law term as there's two types of crimes you can be charged with, which are *civil* or *criminal*. I've read over the page twice and *all I see are civil cases*, mostly lawsuits, which the* authors of the Wiki admits are just day to day business in rich people world*. I'm not interested in what or other people think he's done as I don't need to play arm chair lawyer. If he's committed and actual criminal offense and charged with a criminal crime other than just these civil matters is my question and what I'd like to know. Then to expand on that I'd like to know if he was proven guilty by a Jury of his peers or a presiding Judge. What you think he's guilty of is a far cry from what he's actually been found guilty of.
> 
> I understand there is a need to gather evidence @Foxi4, but after the way Congress has treated our President I approve of him not just handing over anything they want or playing nice. If they had accused Trump of something specific and not so broad and had enough evidence other than the tax records, but needed the tax records due to the other evidence they had I'd see how they could be important. As it stands right now, other than some normal day to day business in rich people world, I don't see a direct case that would hang on something that would be in the tax returns.


The Trump Foundation and Trump University were charged criminally. Please read before posting.


----------



## VartioArtel (Sep 27, 2020)

IncredulousP said:


> Voting for Biden. Hate Biden but Donald should never have been voted in in the first place.
> Still surprises me how many people support such *blatant *corruption and incompetence. Has American Education really sunk so low? Why are my fellow countrymen so easily manipulatable?



Implying the Democratic nominees aren't corrupt?

Kamala Harris is a known corrupt District Attorney, she was very prone to hiding evidence that would exonerate defendants and would only yield them when under threat of Federal Law.
(See:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...5df094-392b-11e9-a06c-3ec8ed509d15_story.html
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article233375207.html
https://nypost.com/2020/08/12/inside-kamala-harris-polarizing-record-as-a-prosecutor/
Etc Etc )

Biden has more than ample history (including family) with Foreign Governments, especially his son Biden (sound familiar? Same with Trump). Then there's the fact that Biden was directly contacting the FBI to provide them reasons to keep/convict General Flynn.
(See:
https://www.ajc.com/news/list-names...mp-ally-michael-flynn/FAGs2cw3Q3eqk8rKXX6E0H/
 *Heavily suggest btw*
)

Has his 'constituents' handed questions specifically to ask him (which proves that he is basically just answering questions he already has the answer to)
(see:

 - Same scenario, bigger clip showing more before the talk started)

Also: Biden is so close to reaching a point where he'd actually mistake a painting of Abraham Lincoln as his wife. Biden himself is barely on the table and it's clear Kamala's "Harris Administration with Joe Biden as president" is alluding how unhealthy he is.
(Do I NEED to go out of the way for this one?)

I am not saying Trump is clean cause he's also dirty as all sin, it comes down to the actions of the parties, the political movements they're endorsing, and who they're promoting OUTSIDE the election. And that's barely any better.

I trust in our government to not let him get a third term regardless who's in charge.
I don't trust in the left not pushing to remove all law enforcement the best they can if Biden wins.

Any damage Trump does is temporary, he's not changing laws as much as stretching them and that can be resolved and undone - and odds are he'll meet his come-uppance someday for this absurdity. What I'm terrified of is the left changing laws that are inherently damaging to the safety, security, or well being of any and all peoples, and then it never getting undone amidst the fustercluck that will be future administrations.

Also there's an undeniable fact: in these 4 years Trump's been brokering peace deals with the middle east ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Accords ) and the Koreas ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Treaty_on_Korean_Peninsula ).  (Whether you agree with the details or not - there is a decrease in hostilities).

I will never say Trump is a good president, but I trust Kamala and Biden just as much. So for me it comes down to the parties positions. And I will *Never* unsee CNN's "FIERY BUT PEACEFUL PROTESTS" ( https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/888/709/785.jpg ) in my mind's eye as the single most damning, braindead statement I will ever see in my life. It was when I saw them attempting to dissuade people from the idea that there were ACTUAL RIOTS going on that I flat out decided I could not trust the left.

And to this day, the left will never address the riots for what they are. They'll focus on the 'peaceful' members who stood there and let it happen. Or the 'hate crimes' inflicted on a criminal like Blake *who was trying to kidnap children* after assaulting one woman and sexual assaulting another. Or how the riots ruined one of their own group's gas station ( Owner of a black owned gas station who also protested with BLM goes nuclear after her gas station got mega ultra fucked by #BlackLivesMatter.Irony. pic.twitter.com/Sd5yk05kUm— ✡️Memology 101✡️ (@NewsM101) September 6, 2020
 ). Or how Breonna Taylor (victim as she wasn't the one who shot) was actively part of a Drug Ring (  ).

While the right are full of disinformation, I don't see nearly as much gross negligence of facts about *violent incidents especially involving criminals*. The Proud boys for example got violent last night at Delta Park with a few people. But there's also a case that shows there's more to this - possibly false flags in the group or extremists that the left were picking out (hey, if the left can claim that it was mostly peaceful, so can the right): Not sure why this part of the tweet didn’t thread. FYI this incident occurred hours ago and I tried to tweet it. The tweets failed but seem to have gone through as I finished my livestream. https://t.co/YATk5v0Ki8— Ford Fischer (@FordFischer) September 26, 2020
 .

Why not vote independent? That might as well be a non-vote, let's not lie to ourselves. This country supports a two-party system thanks to media abuse and bias. And if you attempt to go anywhere in between, they BOTH decry you as the other side and you're not going to be picked by EITHER side. Voting independent is as good as not voting. We're sadly stuck in a country where you need to vote between the lesser of two evils. And right now? At least in my opinion? The Democrats look a whole lot worse to me.

(Edit: Inb4 "You watch too much Fox". I *actively* avoid Fox, and only learned of the CNN stupidity (which I also avoid CNN!) because of freakin' twitter!)


----------



## notimp (Sep 27, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> Implying the Democratic nominees aren't corrupt?
> 
> Kamala Harris is a known corrupt District Attorney, she was very prone to hiding evidence that would exonerate defendants and would only yield them when under threat of Federal Law.


Trolling. (Thats not even what corruption means.)

You are stirring the pot.

You are destroying conversation.

You are eliminating nuance.

You are promoting hate speech.

No one in here cares, the moderator is with you.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



VartioArtel said:


> Why not vote independent?


Because depending on the state you are in that is a vote that doesnt count towards the actual race.

In a real democracy all of that is ok, and fine, because the other side has an equal problem with loosing votes to independents.

But in the US currently the system is gamed in a way where Republicans have more engagement, because they use single issue topics like 'BABYKILLERS', or 'THEY ARE STEALING THE ELECTION FROM MY FATHER', that pulls more engagement, than what the democrats are able to produce.

So if you are a moderate, and you decide not to vote for one of the likely presidential candidate, as of now - and only in swing states, you are putting Trump into a better position.

This is acknowledged by the republican party. Voting suppression strategies were enacted even before Trump.
(You made election topics single issue, highly emotional, not about the economy, if you just messed it up, ... )

And they are enacted by Trump, watch him tell republican voters once in a while, that mail in voting is ok (they will try to suppress it being counted, but its a tough thing for him to tell republicans who are older and have voted by mail for a while, that thats no good, so he has to claim both things at once). Its real fun. 

That then spirals into beauties like this one: https://www.vox.com/2020/9/12/21434...eople-to-vote-twice-even-though-thats-a-crime


----------



## VartioArtel (Sep 27, 2020)

notimp said:


> Trolling.
> 
> You are stirring the pot.
> 
> ...



You spent your whole first post attacking me. Then you claim the moderator's with me. You know why they'd be with me? Your entire first half of your post was flaming, trolling, and harassment, all in one. Not because I share the same political ideology - if any - with them. But because you are ignoring the rules of the board in an attempt to throw buzz words in an attempt to stick something to me, anything, in order to discredit me rather than my argument

Your general behavior is atrocious in a realm of debate. You do not explain anything and provide counter arguments, you spent the entire first post just attacking. The most you did was edit in details that weren't in the above to give a weak argument. Corruption is the essence of using one's office in a way they shouldn't. Withholding evidence is a form of corruption. It prevents the system from working correctly. The very system that requires the individuals to follow the rules in order for its smooth operation. And actions, influences, etc, that do not allow the system to work as it should is the essence of corruption.

I won't even bother addressing the 2nd post as you're literally answering a rhetorical question that I myself posed, and answered.


----------



## notimp (Sep 27, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> You spent your whole first post attacking me. Then you claim the moderator's with me. You know why they'd be with me? Your entire first half of your post was flaming, trolling, and harassment, all in one. Not because I share the same political ideology - if any - with them. But because you are ignoring the rules of the board in an attempt to throw buzz words in an attempt to stick something to me, anything, in order to discredit me rather than my argument
> 
> Your general behavior is atrocious in a realm of debate. You do not explain anything and provide counter arguments, you spent the entire first post just attacking. The most you did was edit in details that weren't in the above to give a weak argument. Corruption is the essence of using one's office in a way they shouldn't. Withholding evidence is a form of corruption. It prevents the system from working correctly. The very system that requires the individuals to follow the rules in order for its smooth operation. And actions, influences, etc, that do not allow the system to work as it should is the essence of corruption.
> 
> I won't even bother addressing the 2nd post as you're literally answering a rhetorical question that I myself posed, and answered.


Just a general notion. (On the moderators biases.)

If you want to make a point, make it distinct. If you've found something thats worth looking into with Harris, then bring that forward as a point.

Withholding information in a trial on behalf of your client is not corruption. If you want a real good notion about the difference between law and justice, watch the 3 hour C-SPAN video in the RBG successor thread. The entire hearing circles around that question, and what you do in edge cases. (And how to influence law, once you get the chance to, and what you would do in that instance - all in subtext.  ) (Then you can read the pdf from the new designated supreme court judge which talks about those instances as well.)

Dont start a claim with 'as we all know, all democrats are corrupt as well'. Thats just an insult, and a claim that has to be false on face value.

From the videos you posted, one seems to be an outrage peddler, that fake emotions into camera, and then you have the video from the girl standing at a townhall saying that she doesnt want to stick to just a scripted message. I dont like that one bit. But we had an entire townhall in here where people were proud to say scripted messages into the FOX camera (with no smoking gun video, but people bending over backwards to thank the president to have them, when he holds court...  ), so that kind of is what it is as well.. (The general issue here is, that if you ask your audience for questions, and collect them, then preselect and approve them, you get everything you could want to direct a townhall format anyhow. If you stick to easy to understand questions of a general, or topical nature (you decide on topics), that are current, so your audience might be interested in.)

The girl wanted to say more than that (her question probably was edited), and then she did.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 27, 2020)

Dude, what is your malfunction?  Spamming "if you don't agree with me you're racist and it's hate speech" is not a valid thing.  The entire world watched SJWs pull this scam tactic for the last 10 years in a row to the point where calling someone racist is now basically a compliment that means someone who isn't taking George Soros money to lie to try and destroy the country on purpose.


----------



## VartioArtel (Sep 27, 2020)

notimp said:


> Just a general notion. On the moderators biases.



Or your own bias. "Because the staff enforce the rules against my hostile comments and behavior, they're clearly biased."

Follow the rules, and they'd leave you alone.



> If you want to make a point, make it distinct. If you've found something thats worth looking into with Harris, then bring that forward as a point.



I provided links on the manner.



> Withholding information in a trial on behalf of your client is not corruption.



It was evidence that would exonerate the defendant. And as the Attorney General, it is against the law to withhold evidence obtained in investigations.



> If you want a real good notion about the difference between law and justice, watch the 3 hour C-SPAN video in the RBG thread. The entire hearing circles around that question, and what you do in edge cases. (Then you can read the pdf from the new designated supreme court judge which describes those as well.)



I am not that interested in the RBG incident. All I know is this: one of her greatest sayings is Rational minds can disagree. But you already prove you don't believe in her, by automatically launching into your verbal assault on me.



> Dont start a claim with 'as we all know, *all* democrats are corrupt as well'. Thats just an insult, and a claim that has to be false on face value.





> Implying *the Democratic nominees* aren't corrupt?


See, this is exactly what I meant about gaslighting. You aren't EVEN subtle. You're STRAIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF US trying to put words in my mouth to make people hate me with NO PROOF.

And in case you pull an edit:
https://i.imgur.com/LoxM0Hh.png - Your post

https://i.imgur.com/UP6fQBa.png
https://i.imgur.com/HOI3TEY.png - My post. It's been *2* hours and a half since I last editted, so you can't even claim I've editted it on you.



> From the videos you posted, one seems to be an outrage peddler


Which? Viva Frei? He's a Canadian Lawyer.
The Biden Videos? News groups.
Memology? Does that matter as much as the subject in it?
Nate the Lawyer? Do you *really* want to go down that?
How about Ford Fischer, who the Proud Boys leader acknowledges as a neutral/independant?

You only know how to attack, you don't know how to debate. You don't provide facts, you don't even reference to any sources. You spew insults and comments and expect us to believe you and if we don't we're, in your own words:



> You are promoting hate speech.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 27, 2020)

Who would have thought a career criminal politician that's been in Washington 50 years overseeing the entire destruction of America would say such a thing!


----------



## notimp (Sep 27, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> It was evidence that would exonerate the defendant. And as the Attorney General, it is against the law to withhold evidence obtained in investigations.


Good, than thats a plausible case. 

All I have currently is a video from a youtuber that talks at 2x speed, and inserts videoclips from movies (emotional gafs), do you have more than that? 

edit: Dont need it, google provides. 

Although the first hits it provides are conservative attackblogs? (And no, I'm not logged in..  So shadowprofiles, or nothing..  )
https://www.google.com/search?q=harris+withholding+information


This is the issue you are so concerned about:



> Consider her record as San Francisco’s district attorney from 2004 to 2011. Ms. Harris was criticized in 2010 for withholding information about a police laboratory technician who had been accused of “intentionally sabotaging” her work and stealing drugs from the lab. After a memo surfaced showing that Ms. Harris’s deputies knew about the technician’s wrongdoing and recent conviction, but failed to alert defense lawyers, a judge condemned Ms. Harris’s indifference to the systemic violation of the defendants’ constitutional rights.
> 
> Ms. Harris contested the ruling by arguing that the judge, whose husband was a defense attorney and had spoken publicly about the importance of disclosing evidence, had a conflict of interest. Ms. Harris lost. More than 600 cases handled by the corrupt technician were dismissed.



https://web.archive.org/web/2020030...7/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html

Which leads to what? An account of not immaculate moral standing? Whats the horrible issue here that made you call all democrats corrupt?

Also, that still isnt corruption on Harris' part.

edit: Accusations were, that that would have been structural, not a one time issue. Implied, so she could get more convictions, to climb the political carreer ladder faster as the attorney general. But the actual case concerned one account of withholding the information, that that technician was recently convicted.


----------



## VartioArtel (Sep 27, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Who would have thought a career criminal politician that's been in Washington 50 years overseeing the entire destruction of America would say such a thing!


Love how he ignores you btw.


----------



## notimp (Sep 27, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Who would have thought a career criminal politician that's been in Washington 50 years overseeing the entire destruction of America would say such a thing!



Out of context:


> In early March 2020, readers asked Snopes to verify a quote in 1977 in which Biden, then a U.S. senator representing Delaware, allegedly expressed fear that desegregation, if not done in an “orderly” way, could result in his children growing up in “a racial jungle with tensions having built so high that it is going to explode at some point.”


snopes then verified it as a correct attribution
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-racial-jungle-quote/

The laps to say 'jungle' in that instance was a no go. Even back then. But the intention was not to demean black people.

I mean, you can troll this thread all day, but if the only things you bring are obvious spin and lies, its easy to confront them.. 

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

On the youtubers case of 'gross misconduct within the FBI?' the issue here is, that you dont just sue one of the big agencies, then have them pay a fine, or replace people there, based on an open court decision.

If you have misconduct there, its usually dealt with through internal reviews, or a political process in which the people having the political oversight over those agencies make apparent (or not) what the issue is, and then its supposed to get fixed internally, with them following up.

You dont sue the FBI to convict it of wrongdoing to then dissolve it to found another one..  As a result you have those pro forma hearings where judges close to the intelligence community judge on cases in a very favourable manner. All of that is expected. The question here is, was the issue allowed to surface publicly in which case - there is not much more you can ask for, this should activate internal review and accountability procedures.

There is also the term "it would unsettle the public" in which case all of that goes through secret hearings and courts, in which case you hear nothing, because - "national interest".

None of that is shocking, or criminal corruption, ... Thats just 'dealing with extralegal agencies' (they arent bound by law (in a sense within their own statutes they can break the law), but by political control)

Thats not 'total corruption' as the youtube title suggested. The youtuber even knows that, which is why he puts a "?" after "total corruption", the title is just for the clicks.

And yes this might include scare tactics, or public smear campaigns by the respective agencies.

The BIGGER issue here is, that the youtuber derives and projects pleasure out of constructing the following argument. There are text messages from two FBI agents, that monitored and prosecuted the - quote youtuber: "National Hero Michael Flynn", while they made personal comments on text message, that they hated Trump.

Defense used this to construct "procedual error", to delegitimize the prosecution. Its the same as in the Harris case - procedual error (although knowingly condoned in that case), so the accused got free.

Those are not "big cases of moral corruption", those are people believing in a case getting stood up by procedural errors.

You cant get a FBI prosecutor that "has no political orientation" at will. And "forgeting" to mention, that the technician was convicted of destroying evidence in another case, doesnt make the defendent innocent all of a sudden, it just gets them free, because of neglect and malice in regard to procedure.

Those are offenses that warrant for the actual perpetrators to be reprimanded, and thats about all.

Those are not even criminal offenses, or anything close to it.

So how on earth, you, or that youtuber could arrive at large scale systemic corruption, is beyond me. 

Have you ever worked with humans?

And yes, for an attorney general the stakes in outcome (it could have exonerated someone) are higher, but that doesnt mean that people seize to be human.

If you set the bar for 'who can be a vice presidential candidate' that high, you've never seen house of cards..


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 27, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The Trump Foundation and Trump University were charged criminally. Please read before posting.



*You've failed once again* to provide me any information related to Donald Trump personally being charged and found guilty of a criminal offense. You've listed two examples that only contain *civil matters*, matters that were dismissed and matters that had to do with companies he owned run by people that worked for him. I'm just going to stop asking because apparently you for whatever reasons are failing to provide me with a clear answer. You're not guilty unless a Jury or Judge finds you guilty of a criminal offense. I'm not sure why you're unable to differentiate between *civil* and *criminal* cases either. I'd just like to know if that's happened to Trump, because speculation of guilt or charges that got dropped/dismissed don't equate to bring *charged and convicted of a criminal offense*.

*Civil Cases vs. Criminal Cases: Key Differences*
 --- https://litigation.findlaw.com/filing-a-lawsuit/civil-cases-vs-criminal-cases-key-differences.html

So, what are the *criminal* charges that Trump was arrested/charged/Indicted and found guilty for?


----------



## Lacius (Sep 27, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> *You've failed once again* to provide me any information related to Donald Trump personally being charged and found guilty of a criminal offense. You've listed two examples that only contain *civil matters*, matters that were dismissed and matters that had to do with companies he owned run by people that worked for him. I'm just going to stop asking because apparently you for whatever reasons are failing to provide me with a clear answer. You're not guilty unless a Jury or Judge finds you guilty of a criminal offense. I'm not sure why you're unable to differentiate between *civil* and *criminal* cases either. I'd just like to know if that's happened to Trump, because speculation of guilt or charges that got dropped/dismissed don't equate to bring *charged and convicted of a criminal offense*.
> 
> *Civil Cases vs. Criminal Cases: Key Differences*
> --- https://litigation.findlaw.com/filing-a-lawsuit/civil-cases-vs-criminal-cases-key-differences.html
> ...


You should check your own link with regard to who brings forward criminal cases and then check to see who brought forward the cases against Trump University and the Trump Foundation.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 27, 2020)

Lacius said:


> You should check your own link with regard to who brings forward criminal cases and then check to see who brought forward the cases against Trump University and the Trump Foundation.



"criminal law and civil law are different" ... I give up. You can't provide any evidence so I'm not going to budge on my statement that Trump is not a convicted criminal. He's lost some lawsuits, but lawsuits are a civil matter and they can be brought on by the same people that prosecute criminal matters.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 27, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> "criminal law and civil law are different" ... I give up. You can't provide any evidence so I'm not going to budge on my statement that Trump is not a convicted criminal. He's lost some lawsuits, but lawsuits are a civil matter and they can be brought on by the same people that prosecute criminal matters.


You're the one arguing these cases are civil cases when they objectively and demonstrably are not.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 27, 2020)

Lacius said:


> You're the one arguing these cases are civil cases when they objectively and demonstrably are not.



Please provide proof or don't reply to me again regarding this issue.

ALL CIVIL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Trump_Foundation
ALL CIVIL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump
ALL CIVIL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_University

Any sort of criminal investigation was dropped on all of those pages. I can't find a single ounce of evidence that Trump himself was charged and found guilty of a criminal offense.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 27, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Please provide proof or don't reply to me again regarding this issue.





> In 2013, in a lawsuit filed by *New York attorney general* Eric Schneiderman, Trump was accused of defrauding more than 5,000 people of $40 million for the opportunity to learn Trump's real estate investment techniques in a for-profit training program, Trump University, which operated from 2005 to 2011.





> The office of *New York State attorney general* Eric Schneiderman investigated the foundation "to make sure it's complying with the laws governing charities in New York." The Trump Foundation was in fact found to have committed fraud and misappropriated funds, and was ordered to be shut down.





> Criminal Cases
> 
> A person accused of a crime is generally charged in a formal accusation called an indictment (for felonies or serious crimes) or information (for misdemeanors). The government, on behalf of the people of the United States, prosecutes the case through the United States Attorney's Office if the person is charged with a federal crime. *A state's attorney's office (often called a "District Attorney") prosecutes state crimes.*



So, a few quick points:

These are examples of Trump being found to have committed crimes.
These are not civil matters.
There are examples of crimes we know Trump has committed (e.g. criminal obstruction of justice in the Mueller Report) that he was never charged for.
There are examples of crimes we know Trump is being investigated for (e.g. hush money payments, bank fraud, etc.).
Points 1-3 don't matter with regard to the larger conversation topic. The argument was about whether or not Trump should have to surrender his tax returns. Whether or not Trump has been charged with other crimes in the past is irrelevant to whether or not he is being investigated for crimes now.
In an act of desperation, you're shamelessly moving the goalposts and distracting from the real topic. You went from "There's no evidence Trump is being investigated for crimes" to "There's no evidence Trump committed crimes" to "There's no evidence Trump was ever found to have committed past crimes." And each time you moved the goalposts, you were still wrong.
I'm losing my patience for conversations with conservatives, to be honest. They will argue until they're blue in the face for whichever side is the conservative side, regardless of the facts, because I guess abortion is baby murder? I don't know.

Conservatives are enabling real harm to occur, and all because


----------



## notimp (Sep 27, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> *You've failed once again* to provide me any information related to Donald Trump personally being charged and found guilty of a criminal offense.


Trump doesnt sign building contracts personally.

You found a company, then you make it a limited accountability vehicle (get a few partners, get outside investment), then you do all of the contracts through them, then you have no personal liability.

Its an open secret, that Trump (the company) - regularly - dint pay contractors, in insolvency cases, but didnt tell them that they wouldnt be payed and had them start and finish work. Or that his 'Trump university' was a fraud set up as a ponzi scheme. (But he "didnt run that", he just provided the naming rights, ...)

Then on top of that you have legal arrangements, where both parties agree that they settle outside of court, which carry less risk and are cheaper for both parties in most cases.

Trump personally didn't do anything since he was born. It was always the estate which managed various companies.


> Although *Trump* has never filed for personal *bankruptcy*, hotels and casino businesses of his have declared *bankruptcy* six times between 1991 and 2009 due to its inability to meet required payments and to re-negotiate debt with banks, owners of stock and bonds and various small businesses


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_career_of_Donald_Trump

That comes with being an ultra rich real estate heir. 

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



gregory-samba said:


> Any sort of criminal investigation was dropped on all of those pages.


Yes, settlements outside of the court. Doesnt make you innocent, just means, there is no plaintiff left in the end.

edit: Read up on Roger Stones business philosophy in that regard..  edit: Here: The golden rule: Deny everything:


But thats not even anything that special. Plausible deniability as a concept wasnt invented by Stone..


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 28, 2020)

Welp, it seems that The New York Times might have gotten there hands on Trump's tax returns for the past 20 some years. They claim he's lost a lot of money and not paid very much in form of income tax, which makes sense for 2016-2020 because he's been giving his entire paycheck away to good causes. It also claims Trump didn't pay taxes for some years and that's due to tax law. There's also a recent IRS Audit, so if the information is correct Trump hasn't done anything sketchy regarding his taxes. Oh, and there's no hidden hush money from Russia (like the damned President of the USA would be a Russian agent, LOL). It also contains nothing illegal.

Once again, the Liberal Left made a mountain out of a mole hill and were completely wrong. That's if the tax records the New York Times obtained are correct. Trump claims they aren't, which makes sense because he doesn't have access to them to verify so they could be fabricated or not accurate/correct.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 28, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> It also contains nothing illegal.
> .



Trump's taxes apparently contain nothing illegal, but someone at the IRS and someone at the NYT participated in something illegal.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 28, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Trump's taxes apparently contain nothing illegal, but someone at the IRS and someone at the NYT participated in something illegal.



That's if an IRS employee leaked confidential information. Though, who else would have had access to the apparently non-incriminating data?


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 28, 2020)

Every politician in Washington is crooked except a miniscule number of people like Ron Paul.  These leftists actually think anyone cares about Trump tax returns when every single person in Washington is a criminal thief?

The only issue that actually matters is that modern day leftism is nothing more than a South African-style, white genocide movement spearheaded by an anti-white racist, international terrorist, Jewish man named George Soros.  Inb4 some leftist lies and tries to claim it's possible for White people to be racist but it's not possible for others to be racist against Whites.


----------



## AkGBA (Sep 28, 2020)

Wow that escalated quickly.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 28, 2020)

AkGBA said:


> Wow that escalated quickly.



Absolutely nothing 'escalated', this is what's been going on for years.

"Saul Alinsky" wrote the leftist playbook strategy, meaning their stated goal is always accuse your opponent of what you're actually doing yourself.  So this entire time of leftists spamming the word "racism!", they were actually promoting things like a South African-style, White genocide movement themselves.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 28, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Absolutely nothing 'escalated', this is what's been going on for years.
> 
> "Saul Alinsky" wrote the leftist playbook strategy, meaning their stated goal is always accuse your opponent of what you're actually doing yourself.  So this entire time of leftists spamming the word "racism!", they were actually promoting things like a South African-style, White genocide movement themselves.



I'm not sure I believe in white genocide, but anyone can be racist. Just because you're black doesn't mean you can't be racist against whites.

*Snip*


----------



## notimp (Sep 28, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> Follow the rules, and they'd leave you alone.


Thats wrong. The moderator in question liked insane conspiracies in this thread, and seeded vitreal, where he publically laughed about people being preassured onto party lines.

I tried to confront that, then I was punished for 'language used'.

Issue being, you cant try to bring this forum back to critical discussion, when its a moderator trolling you.



VartioArtel said:


> I provided links on the manner.


You provided three videos on three unrelated cases, misrepresented one of them, and then made a generalization, that "democrats are all corrupt too", dont you see. At least in the form of material you provided.

One of the videos had a youtuber talk 2x speed about a legal matter, and the interjecting terms, like "the national hero from the Trump administration, that was unjustifiedly under investigation by the FBI - Its all a great conspiracy, because that judge took that paper, and then obivously returned it to that other judge, and then..:" -- with the entire video being unparsable, partisan, intercut with emotional gaffs from hollywood movies, an you referring to the title "Democrates corrupt?" But ignored the questionmark, that was set there so the title would not have been a straight out lie.

Because nothing in the video tries lays out an act of corruption, its just conjecture, and leaving emotionally loaded words at the right spot. Then doing a bunch of *wink wink, nudge nudge*. To have the intended meaning build in your head. Thats not factual, thats not proof.

And then two unrelated videos proving 'something', but again, certainly not corruption like you claimed.

Thats not arguing.

What Bidens son did, is unrelated to Biden himself being corrupt, but thats a distinction thats alien to you. (Ivanka Trump received kickbacks in the form of trademark licenses for her fashion brands in China. F.e. I dont see you mentioning her.)

I didnt mean to gasslight you, but you posted a video with a title "all democrats corrupt?", and this is what I focused on.

Then you brought three examples that showed no corruption at all. And shouted, why arent you recognizing those? One of which was Biden answering a question at a townhall, that had nothing to do with corruption, or even inapropriate behavior on their part whatsoever.

You just threw dirt to see, what would stick.

You posted a video that was unparsable, borderline crazy, and tried to garner views with the insinuation that all democrats are corrupt. I honestly dont know what to do with that. 'But you provided links.'


----------



## notimp (Sep 28, 2020)

Here is your outrageously corrupt FBI agent, investigating the national hero from the Trump team writing a book, btw:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/peter-strzok-book-compromised-trump/


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 29, 2020)

notimp said:


> tried to garner views with the insinuation that all democrats are corrupt.



Fake news.  Everyone in both parties are corrupt except Ron Paul & Rand Paul.  Dennis Kucinich had to retire because he was the only non-criminal in the entire democrat party.


----------



## Methanoid (Sep 29, 2020)

It might be fun to compare this poll to the results.... I suspect the 3rd parties will be non existent in the real thing


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Sep 29, 2020)

Methanoid said:


> It might be fun to compare this poll to the results.... I suspect the 3rd parties will be non existent in the real thing



This website isn't very representative of the real world.  Wouldn't be surprised if some rogue mod was rigging it either.  On all the financial sites and stuff that run these polls, Trump has like 90% of the vote. 

On the street in my neighborhood, there were ZERO politcial signs in 2016.  This year there's one, yes, ONE Biden sign and.....8 Trump signs.


----------



## notimp (Oct 1, 2020)

> Facebook bans US ads that claim widespread voting fraud ahead of election
> 
> Facebook has stepped up measures to tackle misinformation on its platforms by banning political ads that seek to delegitimize the US election. The new rules come after President Trump cast doubt over mail-in ballots.


https://www.dw.com/en/facebook-bans...ead-voting-fraud-ahead-of-election/a-55113285


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 1, 2020)

notimp said:


> https://www.dw.com/en/facebook-bans...ead-voting-fraud-ahead-of-election/a-55113285


"Eh? Ballot fraud is an issue with mail? Nonsense! We have the fake news media backing up the practice!
What? Proof of forgery? BANNED!!"


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> "Eh? Ballot fraud is an issue with mail? Nonsense! We have the fake news media backing up the practice!
> What? Proof of forgery? BANNED!!"


more so lack of proof of wide spread fraud is the reason it got banned.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 1, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> more so lack of proof of wide spread fraud is the reason it got banned.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 1, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> View attachment 226719


My general rule is to not reply to your memes, since they required literally no thought on your part (I've asked you in the past to articulate the thought behind one or two memes, and you couldn't do it), but a few points:

Some of these headlines have been debunked
Some of these headlines were Republican voter fraud
Some of these headlines have nothing to do with the mail
None of these headlines demonstrate widespread voter fraud
If I were you, I'd edit my post to remove the image, because it's embarrassing.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> View attachment 226719


In agreement with @Lacius
Also I never said "fraud never happens"
I stated the claims of widespread fraud has a lack of proof


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 1, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> In agreement with @Lacius
> Also I never said "fraud never happens"
> I stated the claims of widespread fraud has a lack of proof


Just you wait.


Lacius said:


> My general rule is to not reply to your memes, since they required literally no thought on your part (I've asked you in the past to articulate the thought behind one or two memes, and you couldn't do it), but a few points:
> 
> Some of these headlines have been debunked
> Some of these headlines were Republican voter fraud
> ...


1. Proof?
2. And?
3. Which?
4. Yes, they do.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 1, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> 1. Proof?


The military ballots addressed in the top-right image were a mistake caused by a temp not knowing some ballots would arrive without an official envelope mark, so a literal handful were discarded. There was no fraud.



UltraSUPRA said:


> 2. And?


The point of the meme is that it's Democratic voter fraud. Like I said before, posting the meme apparently required no thought on your part.



UltraSUPRA said:


> 3. Which?


The bottom-right headline has nothing to do with the mail. Posting the meme required no thought on your part.



UltraSUPRA said:


> 4. Yes, they do.


Do you know what widespread voter fraud is?


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Just you wait.
> 
> 1. Proof?
> 2. And?
> ...


the joke never ends. so here we go
1.first article (democrat Michigan sectary)
it's a misprint of the vice president, it has Jemmy Cohen as trump's running mate. This doesn't really effect votes, as Trump is still on the ballot.
2. story eric eggers
it's written by beritbart.... oh no
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_News
far-right news and also opinion and commentary...
yeah should I just throw that out just because of that?
Oh, you mean I need to put more effort? _sigh_
Okay so it says "Government Accountability Institute Research Director Eric Eggers, author of Fraud: How the Left Plans to Steal the Next Election, says the city of Detroit, Michigan has at least 30,000 more _registered voters_ on their voter rolls than citizens even eligible to vote." in this article
Okay, what is this "government accountability institute"
it's IT'S
a think tank.... Which means this isn't even official. So some rando on the internet that has money is *stating* that left is out to steal the election.Yup.
worthless
next article.
3. fbi launch investigation
reading the article, 9 ballots were thrown in the trash. 7 of which were recovered.
The title is misleading implying that it's widespread, rather than being a local small case. If it was anything close to 70+ then we could really be concerned. even then, the ballots that were thrown out, most of them recovered.
moving on.
4.mail carrier
doesn't matter either, because the fraud was caught. And even then it doesn't help your case. because it was a republican changing democrat votes.
moving on.
5.city council... voter fraud charge
again doesn't matter because it was caught.
6.michgian rejection
catch 22, it was more attempts at fraud failing.
those 842 votes were from people that were dead. this is part of Michigan voter verification
so that didn't matter either, moving on
7. democrats paid Pennsylvania election officials
catchy headline, problem, one guy. Not even the entire state of Pennsylvania. It was a former judge, who was adding votes for democrat candidates in *judicial races*
so it doesn't effect the main election
also from Breitbart again. 



There is one last one, but it's from facebook, and I rather not reach that dumbsterfire. I just debunked all of them leaving one off my list doesn't do anything.
So there isn't any widespread voter fraud. the only thing close and that's distant, is the Michigan situation. However that's why systems exist to verify a vote. And clearly it's working.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 1, 2020)




----------



## omgcat (Oct 1, 2020)

so yesterday, the federal judge in Montana ruled that there has been no evidence of mass voter fraud, and that vote by mail will continue in the state. https://apnews.com/article/election...al-elections-10fb2c649ad871273e54ac80ea5d443b

on the other hand the republicans are going nuts, and are limiting DROP OFF BOXES in Texas to ONE PER COUNTY. some of these counties are as big as 1700 square miles, or 4402.98 square Km. these counties also hold up to over 2 million voters. this is probably against the law, because a judge ruled that it was too close to the elections to change how they would be held.

One party wants to make it so everyone can vote, the other does nothing but voter suppression. My best guess is that the republicans are scared shitless of a potential landslide victory.

so far Biden has gained a moderate poll bump from the debates, while trump has held static. this is bad news for trump, as he has less and less time to recover the closer we get to election day.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> This website isn't very representative of the real world.  Wouldn't be surprised if some rogue mod was rigging it either.  On all the financial sites and stuff that run these polls, Trump has like 90% of the vote.
> 
> On the street in my neighborhood, there were ZERO politcial signs in 2016.  This year there's one, yes, ONE Biden sign and.....8 Trump signs.



Nah I'm for Trump but this site is just more liberal than conservative. They also voted for Biden winning the debate, laughable.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 2, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> Nah I'm for Trump but this site is just more liberal than conservative. They also voted for Biden winning the debate, laughable.



hey, that tends to happen when more people are liberal than conservative.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 2, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> Nah I'm for Trump but this site is just more liberal than conservative. They also voted for Biden winning the debate, laughable.


Americans are more liberal than conservative on virtually every issue. Americans also thought Biden won the debate, 60-28.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 2, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Americans are more liberal than conservative on virtually every issue. Americans also thought Biden won the debate, 60-28.


To be fair, it's CNN viewers participating in their Instant Poll who thought he won the debate, that's not a figure representative of the entire nation. According to C-Span it was the other way around. None of these numbers are representative, so I wouldn't draw conclusions based on them.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 2, 2020)

It is funny that 4 years ago, people would be calling this a right wing site based on the result.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 2, 2020)

Welp, looks like Trump and the first lady have the COVID. This will probably put a dent in the scheduled debates, but due to the survival rate I highly doubt Trump is going to get very ill let alone die.

Tonight, @FLOTUS and I tested positive for COVID-19. We will begin our quarantine and recovery process immediately. We will get through this TOGETHER!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 2, 2020

https://abcnews.go.com/US/president-trump-lady-test-positive-covid-19/story?id=73380448
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-first-lady-test-positive-covid-19-n1241769
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54381848
https://news.sky.com/story/donald-trump-and-wife-melania-test-positive-for-coronavirus-12087447
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pr...er-top-aide-is-infected-he-tells-sean-hannity


----------



## SG854 (Oct 2, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Welp, looks like Trump and the first lady have the COVID. This will probably put a dent in the scheduled debates, but due to the survival rate I highly doubt Trump is going to get very ill let alone die.
> 
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1311892190680014849
> https://abcnews.go.com/US/president-trump-lady-test-positive-covid-19/story?id=73380448
> ...


Sleep Well Mr. President. You'll need your rest for the upcoming challenges ahead. Remember, believe in yourself and you can accomplish anything in life. Positive Energy sent your way.


----------



## Viri (Oct 2, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> It is funny that 4 years ago, people would be calling this a right wing site based on the result.


No they wouldn't, the poll was meaningless in 2016, and it's meaningless in 2020.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 2, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> It is funny that 4 years ago, people would be calling this a right wing site based on the result.



The 2016 poll of Trump vs Hillary on this site even has a Tempy/Trump mashup graphic.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 2, 2020)

Now that Trump has contracted COVID19... will there be a new candidate if he dies during the election process? If so, will the mail voting start fresh?
Obviously we should wish him well (and it is possible he won´t have symptoms), just wondering...


----------



## emigre (Oct 2, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Welp, looks like Trump and the first lady have the COVID. This will probably put a dent in the scheduled debates, but due to the survival rate I highly doubt Trump is going to get very ill let alone die.
> 
> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1311892190680014849
> https://abcnews.go.com/US/president-trump-lady-test-positive-covid-19/story?id=73380448
> ...



The man is 74 and seemingly leads a lifestyle that's isn't particularly healthy. He's at risk, his age alone puts him in the at risk category. Bojo nearly died from covid due to him living an unhealthy lifestyle despite being in his fifties.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 2, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Now that Trump has contracted COVID19... will there be a new candidate if he dies during the election process? If so, will the mail voting start fresh?
> Obviously we should wish him well (and it is possible he won´t have symptoms), just wondering...



Mike Pence will take over and more than likely be the candidate for the 2020 election. However, it's very unlikely Trump is going to die. The COVID survival rate is 99.8% and most people that get it don't even get that sick. He's also has the best medical care in the World.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



emigre said:


> The man is 74 and seemingly leads a lifestyle that's isn't particularly healthy. He's at risk, his age alone puts him in the at risk category. Bojo nearly died from covid due to him living an unhealthy lifestyle despite being in his fifties.



While he does fit into two higher risk categories the odds are he won't even get a fever.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 2, 2020)

I honestly think Trump will make it out of this.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 2, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> I honestly think Trump will make it out of this.



Most people do. The odds are in his favor.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 2, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Americans are more liberal than conservative on virtually every issue. Americans also thought Biden won the debate, 60-28.



How have you not been banned for literally every single one of your posts being a lie?  Not just a minor smudging of facts, but the stuff you type is 100% polar opposite of reality in just about every case.  2016 election results by precinct.  Marxists should probably pray there's no civil war in America:


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 2, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> How have you not been banned for literally every single one of your posts being a lie?  Not just a minor smudging of facts, but the stuff you type is 100% polar opposite of reality in just about every case.  2016 election results by precinct.  Marxists should probably pray there's no civil war in America:


The problem with this image, as @Lacius will undoubtedly point out, is that the blue splotches are more densely populated when compared to the red sea in-between. It's hard to make a solid and accurate estimate, but in terms of raw numbers it's really 50/50, give or take a few percent depending on the administration in power and other factors. Things is, the United States, as the name implies, is a union of states, so we cannot allow a situation wherein a handful of blue states steer policy in a direction that is directly against the interests of the majority of "Middle America". There are already checks and balances for that, including the Electoral College.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 2, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> How have you not been banned for literally every single one of your posts being a lie?  Not just a minor smudging of facts, but the stuff you type is 100% polar opposite of reality in just about every case.  2016 election results by precinct.  Marxists should probably pray there's no civil war in America:


None of my posts have been lies. The map you posted is little more than a map of land, not people. I think most people know that.

Attached is a cartogram from the 2012 election that demonstrates this. Areas with higher population increase in size. Areas with lower population decrease in size. The more red, the more Republican. The more blue, the more Democratic. The more purple, the more evenly split.




When you poll Americans, on virtually every issue, there's a majority support for the Democratic side. Another way we know the country is center-left? In my entire life (I'm 30), I have not once seen a non-incumbent Republican win the popular vote in a presidential election. I've seen Democrats do it four times.

If you count incumbents and non-incumbents, I've seen Republicans do it 1 time and Democrats do it 6 times.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 2, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> How have you not been banned for literally every single one of your posts being a lie?  Not just a minor smudging of facts, but the stuff you type is 100% polar opposite of reality in just about every case.  2016 election results by precinct.  Marxists should probably pray there's no civil war in America:





Foxi4 said:


> The problem with this image, as @Lacius will undoubtedly point out, is that the blue splotches are more densely populated when compared to the red sea in-between. It's hard to make a solid and accurate estimate, but in terms of raw numbers it's really 50/50, give or take a few percent depending on the administration in power and other factors. Things is, the United States, as the name implies, is a union of states, so we cannot allow a situation wherein a handful of blue states steer policy in a direction that is directly against the interests of the majority of "Middle America". There are already checks and balances for that, including the Electoral College.





Lacius said:


> None of my posts have been lies. The map you posted is little more than a map of land, not people. I think most people know that.
> 
> Attached is a cartogram from the 2012 election that demonstrates this. Areas with higher population increase in size. Areas with lower population decrease in size. The more red, the more Republican. The more blue, the more Democratic. The more purple, the more evenly split.
> 
> ...



The problem with all of this is the fact there's a lot of people that don't vote that either lean left, right or center. I wonder if you actually took into account the entire population as opposed to those who only voted how your maps would look.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 2, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> *To be fair, it's CNN viewers participating in their Instant Poll who thought he won the debate, that's not a figure representative of the entire nation.* According to C-Span it was the other way around. None of these numbers are representative, so I wouldn't draw conclusions based on them.


CNN's poll was definitely less reliable than some of the others with a higher margin of error.  However, that's not the only polling data that declared Biden the winner of the debate, which I delved into further detail in this post:

https://gbatemp.net/threads/who-won-the-first-presidential-debate.574711/page-10#post-9219009

If you can find any other polls from reputable pollsters, please be sure to share them to help underscore your counter-argument.  The same goes for Biden supporters, as the data becomes more reliable the more we have available.


----------



## rick191 (Oct 2, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Now that Trump has contracted COVID19... will there be a new candidate if he dies during the election process? If so, will the mail voting start fresh?
> Obviously we should wish him well (and it is possible he won´t have symptoms), just wondering...


He won't die when you consider how low the death rate is, and when he does beat this virus he will come out and say he only had mild symptoms and it will get him many more votes which will result in him winning the election.
MAGA.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 2, 2020)

Welp, trump fits into 3 high risk categories for covid, obese, elderly, and low income.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 2, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> CNN's poll was definitely less reliable than some of the others with a higher margin of error.  However, that's not the only polling data that declared Biden the winner of the debate, which I delved into further detail in this post:
> 
> https://gbatemp.net/threads/who-won-the-first-presidential-debate.574711/page-10#post-9219009
> 
> If you can find any other polls from reputable pollsters, please be sure to share them to help underscore your counter-argument.  The same goes for Biden supporters, as the data becomes more reliable the more we have available.



This poll from Latin channel 'Telemundo' suggests Trump easily won. 




 

I'd like to congratulate the cesspit that is leftytemp not jumping with joy (as of yet) at the news. I'm sure the rabid ones will out themselves soon. As for polls, they're useless. Most are fake, people lie. People tend to say one thing, because they like to jump on the bandwagon and be sheep, then when they're alone in their polling booth they vote for what they really think.

That's the problem with massive liberal bubbles like this site, you tend to believe you're in the right because you see people agreeing with you unaware it's not a real representation of what people think. Of course people will agree with you when you're screaming in their face, threatening to set their building on fire etc etc. So yeah, polls are useless.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 2, 2020)

I'm guessing that the non-voters are either purple too, if they had to chose, or neither.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 2, 2020)

shamzie said:


> This poll from Latin channel 'Telemundo' suggests Trump easily won.
> 
> View attachment 226821
> 
> ...



Your poll results also paints a picture that Latino's favor Trump over the Left, which is the case I've come to find in my local community. Latino's (including Mexicans) are hard working and value family and since the Left doesn't value those things I find that the people that came here legally and prospered favor Capitalism over Socialism. That's especially true for those who had to flee from their originating countries that adopted non-capitalistic systems of Government, especially socialism. The majority of Latinos that are in the country are legal citizens and I do find they mostly support Trump. They are insulted by the fake narrative that he's "racist" as the Left's own labeling and name calling only comes back to bite them in their own asses.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 2, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> The problem with all of this is the fact there's a lot of people that don't vote that either lean left, right or center. I wonder if you actually took into account the entire population as opposed to those who only voted how your maps would look.


That's why I brought up issue polls, not just elections and election polls.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



omgcat said:


> Welp, trump fits into 3 high risk categories for covid, obese, elderly, and low income.


This made me laugh because of how true it is. Thank you.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 2, 2020)

shamzie said:


> I'd like to congratulate the cesspit that is leftytemp



You can always count on the left to endlessly spam you with fringe issues that you have no interest in discussing.  With the amount of posts referencing things like transgenderism on this forum, you would think over half the US population is transgender instead of less than 1%.

I find sports boring to watch so I already half to ignore like 1/2 of the right wing when people there talk, then with these leftwing people it's even worse with fringe issues that only affect 1% of the population or less always as the topic of discussion.  In order for leftists to understand how annoying they are I should just go into every thread on the forum and randomly talk about bass fishing for no reason.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 2, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> You can always count on the left to endlessly spam you with fringe issues that you have no interest in discussing.  With the amount of posts referencing things like transgenderism on this forum, you would think over half the US population is transgender instead of less than 1%.
> 
> I find sports boring to watch so I already half to ignore like 1/2 of the right wing when people there talk, then with these leftwing people it's even worse with fringe issues that only affect 1% of the population or less always as the topic of discussion.  In order for leftists to understand how annoying they are I should just go into every thread on the forum and randomly talk about bass fishing for no reason.



Hey now, minorities and their issues are important as long as you can use them to cause division and spread your lies. They are good to use as political pawns. Could care less about their causes or problems, wouldn't ever lend them a hand, but using them to push an agenda is the way to go!

_(Pretending to be Liberal)_


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 3, 2020)

The lib population will likely be shrinking a lot soon since they're the only ones who will take the shot:

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/m...d-vaccine-non-compliance-should-incur-penalty






*Will probably just be a slow kill eugenics vaccine like the SV40 cancer causing viruses in the Polio vaccine that millions of boomers took.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 3, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> The problem with all of this is the fact there's a lot of people that don't vote that either lean left, right or center. I wonder if you actually took into account the entire population as opposed to those who only voted how your maps would look.


I am always curious about political demographics and what they might be, and categorisations thereof. The hidden tribes thing in particular being a fascinating one but the general socially conservative, fiscally conservative, breakdowns of interests within parties (pure maths dictates that a voting system like the US has will trend towards two parties as edge case politics become unprofitable so you align with those most close to you).

That said on the assertion that those that don't vote... the onus would presumably be on you to demonstrate either tactical voting, social conformist voting, non voting due to them being black pilled or whatever term we are using there. You might also want to consider what number of present republican voters might be fairweather friends if either the religious stuff somehow managed to reassert itself as a dominant force within the republicans, and/or if the US left stopped pandering to the weirdos decrying everything as racist (except when we are being racist, or would be had we not changed the definition).


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 3, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> or if the US left stopped pandering to the weirdos decrying everything as racist



That will happen as soon as enough people laugh in their face anytime they try to do it.  All it really is is the standard spoiled child tantrum strategy - throwing a fit trying to make a scene pretending it will help get your way.  Or the female bimbo strategy of getting pulled over by the cops for speeding and fake crying to try and get out of it.

Once the entirety of society laughs in these people's faces when they do this, their 10 year old child behavior will have no effect and probably stop.  This is why calling people "racist" or "natzee" is basically a compliment now.  It just means not childish or mentally unstable:


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 3, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> The lib population will likely be shrinking a lot soon since they're the only ones who will take the shot:
> 
> https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/m...d-vaccine-non-compliance-should-incur-penalty
> 
> *Will probably just be a slow kill eugenics vaccine like the SV40 cancer causing viruses in the Polio vaccine that millions of boomers took.



I'm not scared of vaccines and will get a COVID-19 one as soon as they are proved to be safe, but I also support anyone that doesn't want to put something in their body they don't want to. As of the laws in the USA now if someone injects you with a drug without your permission, regardless of who they are, you can press assault charges. That entire law would have to become null and void for mandatory vaccinations. So if you don't want a shot you should be able to decline getting one.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 3, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I'm not scared of vaccines and will get a COVID-19 one as soon as they are proved to be safe, but I also support anyone that doesn't want to put something in their body they don't want to. As of the laws in the USA now if someone injects you with a drug without your permission, regardless of who they are, you can press assault charges. That entire law would have to become null and void for mandatory vaccinations. So if you don't want a shot you should be able to decline getting one.



You're post is correct but I wouldn't be surprised if Biden gets in there they may not be able to physically force you down to take the vaccine but they can back you into a wall by other tactics. They could say you're not allowed to leave your house without the vaccine (and that would take some scary tracking system) all jobs require the vaccine etc...


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 3, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I'm not scared of vaccines and will get a COVID-19 one as soon as they are proved to be safe, but I also support anyone that doesn't want to put something in their body they don't want to. As of the laws in the USA now if someone injects you with a drug without your permission, regardless of who they are, you can press assault charges. That entire law would have to become null and void for mandatory vaccinations. So if you don't want a shot you should be able to decline getting one.



I won't be getting a vaccine for a virus with a 0.06% death rate, however i will hope my mother, uncle nan etc do and anybody i know who's old.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 3, 2020)

shamzie said:


> I won't be getting a vaccine for a virus with a 0.06% death rate, however i will hope my mother, uncle nan etc do and anybody i know who's old.


By getting a vaccine, you help protect those who are susceptible.

Vaccines are not 100% effective. Let's say, for example, the COVID vaccine is 70% effective in preventing transmission. If you don't get the vaccine but your mother does, that's a 30% chance she will get it if you come into contact with her and you have it. If you both get the vaccine, there's only a 9% chance of you giving it to her (30% you get it from someone and 30% you give it to her if you do).

Get the vaccine. It could save one or more lives. Also, the death rate is more like 1% overall.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 3, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Get the vaccine. It could save one or more lives.


And possibly end your own.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 3, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> And possibly end your own.


Vaccines are safe and rigorously tested.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 3, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Vaccines are safe and rigorously tested.


Unless they're rushed.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 3, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Unless they're rushed.


Yeah, if a vaccine were released by, say, election day, that would probably be rushed. That's not what's going to happen.

So I am guessing you don't support Trump since he's wanting and claiming he's going to rush a vaccine?

It should also be pointed out here that there are three choices: social distance and/or shutdown the country, let COVID kill millions of people, or get the vast majority of people to get the vaccine.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 3, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Yeah, if a vaccine were released by, say, election day, that would probably be rushed. That's not what's going to happen.
> 
> So I am guessing you don't support Trump since he's wanting and claiming he's going to rush a vaccine?


I want the vaccine to be put ASAP, yes, but I'm not gonna take it until years down the line. I just don't want to wear a mask ever again.


Lacius said:


> It should also be pointed out here that there are three choices: social distance and/or shutdown the country, let COVID kill millions of people, or get the vast majority of people to get the vaccine.


You phrased option #2 to make the idea of freedom above all else sound bad.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 3, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I want the vaccine to be put ASAP, yes, but I'm not gonna take it until years down the line. I just don't want to wear a mask ever again.
> 
> You phrased option #2 to make the idea of freedom above all else sound bad.


If you don't want to wear a mask, you should be fighting hard for a safe vaccine, and you should take it as soon as a well-tested vaccine is released to the public. Anything else, and your actions increase the amount of time you need to wear masks, etc.

If we don't social distance, etc., and we don't have a vaccine the vast majority of people have taken, then millions of people will likely die. I'm not trying to intentionally make anything, freedom or otherwise, sound bad.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 3, 2020)

Lacius said:


> If you don't want to wear a mask, you should be fighting hard for a safe vaccine, and you should take it as soon as a well-tested vaccine is released to the public. Anything else, and your actions increase the amount of time you need to wear masks, etc.
> 
> If we don't social distance, etc., and we don't have a vaccine the vast majority of people have taken, then millions of people will likely die. I'm not trying to intentionally make anything, freedom or otherwise, sound bad.


I said freedom _above all else._ I don't want to wear a mask, take a rushed vaccine, or stay indoors. That should be my choice. I am not a doctor; your health is not my responsibility.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 3, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I said freedom _above all else._ I don't want to wear a mask, take a rushed vaccine, or stay indoors. That should be my choice. I am not a doctor; your health is not my responsibility.



HOLY SHIT
I'm sorry but I'm honestly done. I really am.
most of you guys have nothing meaningful to say AT ALL.
So what's next?  I should have the *freedom* to go commit homicide? because that's practically what your doing if you don't.
ah you know what *Freedom above all else* time to go 100 mph in a car and drive past stop lights. No it only effects me. despite the dead person I car crashed into by ignoring a red light.
1. wear a mask
2. try to stay locked-down, if you can't do that, at least do 1.
seriously, all you guys screaming about "oh the liberals are out to take our *freedom*" need to can it, it's not reality.  You have freedom of thought, you have most freedoms to act. And that act part is because we have laws, we have a society. there is a unspoken contract within a society that I seriously cannot believe I have to explain. Which is basically to try to at least take care of your peers. You don't need to be friends with them, you don't need to like them. But, I'm pretty sure they would be happy not to contract a damn virus that has long term effects. Which means ffs just please, wear a goddamn mask. Your freedoms boundaries end when they violate anothers. And spreading a virus, counts.

here have a video explaining why masks are more effective than you think.
oh wait your going to say something fucking retarded
"duuur. masks are political. my body my choice I will choose freedom above all else Liberal out take freedoms dur dur"
I'm sorry, but I'm honestly done with this retardation of a nation. Why the HELL will we not listen to fucking science... it's right there, it's explained, masks help. and if your/our leaders are also stupid. (which some of are) then it's up to you to fucking lead.
Just for fuck sake, STOP SPREADING THE DAMN VIRUS.
seriously it's fucking mutating because it found a habitable place to fucking spread and it's god damn insane.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 3, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I said freedom _above all else._ I don't want to wear a mask, take a rushed vaccine, or stay indoors. That should be my choice. I am not a doctor; your health is not my responsibility.


Your actions don't just affect your own health. A person's freedoms end where another's begin.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 3, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Your actions don't just affect your own health. A person's freedoms end where another's begin.


You're acting like not wearing a mask is essentially murder.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 3, 2020)

I like how people are trying to paint this "all democrats/liberals are evil" narrative, when they can't even be bothered to wear a mask to protect other people.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 3, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> You're acting like not wearing a mask is essentially murder.


because not wearing a mask can result in someone dying.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 3, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> You're acting like not wearing a mask is essentially murder.


Not wearing a mask is negligent and demonstrates a fundamental disregard for human life.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 3, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Not wearing a mask is negligent and demonstrates a fundamental disregard for human life.


Masks are painful and mandating them demonstrates a fundamental disregard for human morale.


monkeyman4412 said:


> because not wearing a mask can result in someone dying.


The keyword is "can".


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 3, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Masks are painful and mandating them demonstrates a fundamental disregard for human morale.
> 
> The keyword is "can".


_hello good sir, would you like a cup of water that has a touch of poison that may or may not kill you and if it doesn't, also having the chance to leave you with long term illnesses _


I'm loosing my sanity right now. How about we don't play with chance or at least reduce chance. That would be great!
Oh wait it violates my freedoms and my morale nah I'll pass and go ahead and let people die and spread this disease,* because I'm a chad* and wearing a mask is going to show that I'm a* beta cuck*, *just like wearing a condom*


She has a chance of getting pregnant, but that won't matter, I'll just play with *chance*
hopefully perhaps through this insane rant that it might just make clear how insane your damn argument is. Oh but there is the chance, it can. it will be okay. let's just gamble with probability


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 3, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> _hello good sir, would you like a cup of water that has a touch of poison that may or may not kill you and if it doesn't, also having the chance to leave you with long term illnesses_


Let me check what else is on the menu...okay...facial torture...uh...never-ending isolation...Seems like the water is the most bearable option.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 3, 2020)

This is a ridiculous argument, should I also get a flu jab every year because elderly people are susceptible to catching it and falling ill, or should maybe those who are susceptible get the jab instead.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 3, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Masks are painful and mandating them demonstrates a fundamental disregard for human morale.
> 
> The keyword is "can".


If they're painful, you're wearing them wrong. They should be mandated in public spaces. Again, your freedom to not wear a mask stops where my freedom to not unnecessarily increase my risk of COVID exposure begins.

My freedom to walk around nude stops where your freedom to not see me nude begins. You're either for no mask mandates and public nudity, or you're for neither. Pick.

This analogy is only poor in that one is life and death, and the other is modesty.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 3, 2020)

Lacius said:


> If they're painful, you're wearing them wrong. They should be mandated in public spaces. Again, your freedom to not wear a mask stops where my freedom to not unnecessarily increase my risk of COVID exposure begins.


The problem is that I have a big head and zits on my chin.


Lacius said:


> My freedom to walk around nude stops where your freedom to not see me nude begins. You're either for no mask mandates and public nudity, or you're for neither. Pick.


Clothing has been a natural instinct ever since Eve ate the apple.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 3, 2020)

*intense cackling in insanity*


shamzie said:


> This is a ridiculous argument, should I also get a flu jab every year because elderly people are susceptible to catching it and falling ill, or should maybe those who are susceptible get the jab instead.


Ah yes, let's not help stop the spread of disease* long live measles*
that is the point of a vaccine, it's to prevent people from getting it and preventing it from spreading



UltraSUPRA said:


> The problem is that I have a big head and zits on my chin.
> 
> Clothing has been a natural instinct ever since Eve ate the apple.



*hahahahaaa
hahahahahahahhahaahaha*
Yup I've lost it. I've completely lost it entirely.
I have acne on my face, bad acney. There is a reason I haven't updated my icon in 4 years.  Second off, I'm on the spectrum. And wearing a mask is not fun, it's a little harder to breath, but it's manageable, I'm not dying for air, I can still breath. But the fact I can suck it up, and fucking wear it just to protect my peers, and you REFUSE to do so, just shows your being a whinny ass brat. great that you have a big head. Guess what? masks stretch.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 3, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> The problem is that I have a big head and zits on my chin.
> 
> Clothing has been a natural instinct ever since Eve ate the apple.


Get a bigger mask.

Adam and Eve didn't actually exist.

Putting up with, or even embracing, minor inconveniences in order to help others and/or save lives has been a natural instinct since the beginning of modern humans.

If you don't like my clothes analogy, pick something else. Your freedom to drive 50 mph over the speed limit stops at my freedom to not be unnecessarily hit by a speeding motorist with zits on his chin.


----------



## IncredulousP (Oct 3, 2020)

Guys I don't wanna wear a mask. I heard it makes you gay.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 3, 2020)

Guys I don't want to wear a mask, I heard it makes you cheat on your wife.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 3, 2020)

IncredulousP said:


> Guys I don't wanna wear a mask. I heard it makes you gay.


Then more people should wear masks.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 3, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Then more people should wear masks.


but then everyone would be gay, no children to exist.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 3, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Adam and Eve didn't actually exist.





Lacius said:


> (If they make you gay) Then more people should wear masks.


So. You're an atheist.

The argument is over.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 3, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> but then everyone would be gay, no children to exist.


Like I said, more people should wear masks.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 3, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> So. You're an atheist.
> 
> The argument is over.


So what's wrong with atheists?
Please enlighten me


----------



## Lacius (Oct 3, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> So. You're an atheist.
> 
> The argument is over.


Well, first of all, my atheism has nothing to do with the broader discussion, and it doesn't make me right or wrong about anything else.

Second, there is no evidence that Adam and Eve ever existed, and there is evidence they did not exist. But, that's getting off topic. Perhaps you should make a religious topic. That should go well.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 3, 2020)

Lacius said:


> If they're painful, you're wearing them wrong. They should be mandated in public spaces. Again, your freedom to not wear a mask stops where my freedom to not unnecessarily increase my risk of COVID exposure begins.
> 
> My freedom to walk around nude stops where your freedom to not see me nude begins. You're either for no mask mandates and public nudity, or you're for neither. Pick.
> 
> This analogy is only poor in that one is life and death, and the other is modesty.


Do you drive your car at 20mph everywhere? Is every socket in your house RCD/GFI protected? Are your shoes steel toed? Do you not leave the house other than for absolutely essential purposes? When out and about do you carry a first aid kit, indeed do you have say high end medic training in paramedic/emergency medicine? If you have guests what means of testing food you are sharing with them do you employ?

There are many things that can be done to mitigate and lessen risk. The question becomes is the hassle/cost of doing it worth the results?


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 3, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> Do you drive your car at 20mph everywhere? Is every socket in your house RCD/GFI protected? Are your shoes steel toed? Do you not leave the house other than for absolutely essential purposes? When out and about do you carry a first aid kit, indeed do you have say high end medic training in paramedic/emergency medicine? If you have guests what means of testing food you are sharing with them do you employ?
> 
> There are many things that can be done to mitigate and lessen risk. The question becomes is the hassle/cost of doing it worth the results?


looking at other countries who handled it better, i would say yes it is worth doing. There isn't even a question there. Masks are proven to work.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 3, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> Do you drive your car at 20mph everywhere? Is every socket in your house RCD/GFI protected? Are your shoes steel toed? Do you not leave the house other than for absolutely essential purposes? When out and about do you carry a first aid kit, indeed do you have say high end medic training in paramedic/emergency medicine? If you have guests what means of testing food you are sharing with them do you employ?
> 
> There are many things that can be done to mitigate and lessen risk. The question becomes is the hassle/cost of doing it worth the results?


You are correct. There's a calculated risk. I don't carry a first aid kit everywhere, for example.

Given the infectious nature and the death rate of COVID-19, and the low physical and emotional cost of wearing a mask, masks should be mandatory in public until we have a good number of people who have taken the vaccine.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 3, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> looking at other countries who handled it better, i would say yes it is worth doing. There isn't even a question there. Masks are proven to work.


Is mask use (or indeed effective mask use) the deciding factor in those instances?

From where I sit there are costs to them (discomfort, financial cost, annoyances like glasses steaming up, inability to lib read, inability to see faces, people presuming a mask is a safety device and taking unnecessary risks, additional contact transmission vector) and there are perks (wear one of suitable material properly, though both of those are something of a big ask* if I go around the shop and my experiences training people in their use is anything to go by, and the asymptomatic but infectious people (however many that might be, itself a debatable number) might well marginally reduce rates of transmission (though marginal is a factor in an exponential equation) in this and maybe some other airborne things (the general flu seems down in Australia, would love to see data on sales of cough medicine too). It is not a panacea though so I am back to questioning things.

*one does typically consider the effective compliance rate vs the ideal case in any medical regime, be it condoms, birth control, antibiotics, transplants, dietary advice and the like.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 3, 2020)

The measles vaccine is proven to work and measles had a  case-*fatality rate* of approximately 15%, covid is nowhere near this and no covid vaccines exists. When it does it wont be proven to work for a long time. I assume all masks advocates are correctly disposing of their infected masks in hazardous waste bins, right??

At the end of the day you can't get around the fact that if masks and gloves work, and you wear them, then you have nothing to worry about. Saying "wElL, wHaT aBoUt ThE sPrEaD" what about it? People are aware of the risks! If they choose to potentially infect themselves then so be it, it wont affect you because you have a mask on! Don't fain some sort of moral responsibility like you actually care about other peoples well beings, thats just bs whataboutery, you care about control and having people do what you want.

Free thinking non sheep here, sorry.



jk im not sorry


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 3, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Your actions don't just affect your own health. A person's freedoms end where another's begin.





Lacius said:


> Not wearing a mask is negligent and demonstrates a fundamental disregard for human life.



Funny how that logic applies to the virus situation, but not the murdering of unborn human life situation.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 3, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Funny how that logic applies to the virus situation, but not the murdering of unborn human life situation.



Abortion is not murder.
A fetus is not a person.
Regardless, the forced continuation of a pregnancy is a violation of a woman's right to bodily autonomy, whether or not a fetus is a person.
Not wearing a mask in a public space during a pandemic is a violation of everybody else's bodily rights. There is no inconsistency.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 3, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Abortion is not murder.
> A fetus is not a person.
> Regardless, the forced continuation of a pregnancy is a violation of a woman's right to bodily autonomy, whether or not a fetus is a person.
> Not wearing a mask in a public space during a pandemic is a violation of everybody else's bodily rights. There is no inconsistency.



Yeah, I've heard it all, but I don't really care what fetus/unborn child/baby killers have to say to try to justify the murder. I'm also not going to debate abortion in this thread. I just hope the new Supreme Court nominee is put on the bench and gets rid of Roe Vs Wade as soon as possible. My point was pointing out your logical fallacy. I have no problem wearing a mask, but I support anyone that doesn't want to wear one and I also support any businesses requiring one to enter their premises. I don't however support country, state or local city mandates to wear them. It should be up to each business whether or not they will require you to wear a mask or not. I'm also not concerned if I get the Chinese Wuhan Coronavirus and think shutting down the country was a mistake.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 3, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Yeah, I've heard it all, but I don't really care what fetus/unborn child/baby killers have to say to try to justify the murder. I'm also not going to debate abortion in this thread. I just hope the new Supreme Court nominee is put on the bench and gets rid of Roe Vs Wade as soon as possible. My point was pointing out your logical fallacy. I have no problem wearing a mask, but I support anyone that doesn't want to wear one and I also support any businesses requiring one to enter their premises. I don't however support country, state or local city mandates to wear them. It should be up to each business whether or not they will require you to wear a mask or not. I'm also not concerned if I get the Chinese Wuhan Coronavirus and think shutting down the country was a mistake.


If you are going to tell me I have committed a logical fallacy, please tell me where, and please tell me the name of the logical fallacy. Otherwise, you're just talking out of your ass.

Edit: It's also pretty absurd to call it the China Virus or the Wuhan Virus, when it's really the American Virus or the Trump Virus.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 3, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Edit: It's also pretty absurd to call it the China Virus or the Wuhan Virus, when it's really the American Virus or the Trump Virus.


Where did it come from?


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 3, 2020)

Lacius said:


> If you are going to tell me I have committed a logical fallacy, please tell me where, and please tell me the name of the logical fallacy. Otherwise, you're just talking out of your ass.
> 
> Edit: It's also pretty absurd to call it the China Virus or the Wuhan Virus, when it's really the American Virus or the Trump Virus.



I lose all respect for your arguments when you make statements like this. I'm lying, i had no respect for your arguments to begin with.

But yes, the president of the United States is responsible for a virus that started in China, was allowed to spread throughout china unchecked, and the world, for months before the CCP finally admitted the problem and initiated a lockdown. There's loads of videos of Chinese doctors complaining back in January about the virus and it being kept under wraps.

Also the president is responsible for the state Italy got itself in too, way before any outbreaks occured in the USA. It's all his fault. 

Honestly it makes me wonder how people like you manage to get dressed in the mornings, your arguments are always backwards, talking pure shit for the sake of it.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 3, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Where did it come from?


Which country has 4,634 deaths, and which has 214,089 deaths? Which country has 85,434 total cases, and which has 7,592,336 total cases?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 3, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Which country has 4,634 deaths, and which has 214,089 deaths? Which country has 85,434 total cases, and which has 7,592,336 total cases?


But where did it come from?


----------



## Lacius (Oct 3, 2020)

shamzie said:


> I lose all respect for your arguments when you make statements like this. I'm lying, i had no respect for your arguments to begin with.
> 
> But yes, the president of the United States is responsible for a virus that started in China, was allowed to spread throughout china unchecked, and the world, for months before the CCP finally admitted the problem and initiated a lockdown. There's loads of videos of Chinese doctors complaining back in January about the virus and it being kept under wraps.
> 
> ...


There was no federal response to COVID-19. The President downplayed the virus, social distancing, mask-wearing, etc. for far too long. The COVID-19 response was an utter disaster. Because of all this, the USA is and shall always be the COVID-19 capital of the world.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 3, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Which country has 4,634 deaths, and which has 214,089 deaths? Which country has 85,434 total cases, and which has 7,592,336 total cases?



Which country is an open democracy full of free press and which is a communist shithole filled with propaganda. You've no idea how many people caught it and died in China. None. And since when were viruses named after how many people died from it in a certain country, pure utter bollox from you as usual.



Lacius said:


> There was no federal response to COVID-19. The President downplayed the virus, social distancing, mask-wearing, etc. for far too long. The COVID-19 response was an utter disaster. Because of all thing, the USA is and shall always be the COVID-19 capital of the world.



Yes whether right or wrong he downplayed the virus, maybe because it has a 0.06% death rate, or maybe because he's ineffective at his job, or maybe he didn't want to scare the general population. Nobody knows why, they're all reasonable arguments to make. I suspect if he didn't downplay it and made a massive deal about it you'd be complaining about that too, because that's what you do.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 3, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> But where did it come from?


Does it matter?


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 3, 2020)

Don't even bother replying to this leftist child named Lacius.  Everyone and their mom knows everything in the media is a lie and the media is the #1 enemy of the American people.  Everything he types is basically word for word propaganda straight from Brian Stelter's mouth.  He's incapable of doing anything but parroting government lies and propaganda.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 3, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Which country is an open democracy full of free press and which is a communist shithole filled with propaganda. You've no idea how many people caught it and died in China. None. And since when were viruses named after how many people died from it in a certain country, pure utter bollox from you as usual.


The Spanish Flu would like a word with you.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 3, 2020)

despite what people here feel, Biden got a huge boost from this shitshow. he got a 2 point bump in PA, and a 3 point bump in Florida. Voters are looking at policies and what people have been calling for. for example, trump and republicans complaining about masks, and then subsequently showing up as a super spreader event is making people doubt the anti-mask policies. when one side says "wear a mask, it will protect you and others", and they are 


 the ones to not be in the group to test positive, people are going to look at the others like they are retarded.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 3, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The Spanish Flu would like a word with you.



Ah yes, the Spanish flu, that virus that originated in Spain. Thanks for backing up exactly why It's called the China virus.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 3, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Ah yes, the Spanish flu, that virus that originated in Spain. Thanks for backing up exactly why It's called the China virus.


I suggest you educate yourself on the Spanish Flu.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 3, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I suggest you educate yourself on the Spanish Flu.



Alright, the exact source is unknown, but it's believed to have originated in the Iberian Peninsula. Either way, can you say the same for covid? It clearly originated in China.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 3, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Alright, the exact source is unknown, but it's believed to have originated in the Iberian Peninsula. Either way, can you say the same for covid? It clearly originated in China.


Do you know why we call it the Spanish Flu?


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 3, 2020)

omgcat said:


> despite what people here feel, Biden got a huge boost from this shitshow. he got a 9 point bump in PA



Fake.  Just like when they said Hillary Clinton had a 99% chance of winning 2016.  They put out fake numbers then try to illegally rig the real world votes to that number afterwards.  They couldn't steal the 2016 election because the gap was too large.  

This election the same scum (globalist bankers, the MIC, the CIA, Mossad-Epstein blackmail rings) backing the left claim they'll contest the election and won't accept the results no matter what even if Trump wins, so civil war here we come.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 3, 2020)

Do you know why we call it the China Virus? We can go round in circles. You've ignored every other point i made.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 3, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Fake.  Just like when they said Hillary Clinton had a 99% chance of winning 2016.  They put out fake numbers then try to illegally rig the real world votes to that number afterwards.  They couldn't steal the 2016 election because the gap was too large.
> 
> This election the same scum (globalist bankers, the MIC, the CIA, Mossad-Epstein blackmail rings) backing the left claim they'll contest the election and won't accept the results no matter what even if Trump wins, so civil war here we come.


Anyone who said Clinton had a 99% chance of winning was a fool. It was more like 70%.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



shamzie said:


> Do you know why we call it the China Virus? We can go round in circles. You've ignored every other point i made.


We call it the Spanish Flu because, at the time, Spain was thought to have had the most cases and deaths, despite the virus not originating there. There's some more cool history as to why this was and why Spain probably didn't have the most deaths, but you're apparently uninterested.

You argued that we don't name diseases after where the most deaths occur, but that's objectively untrue. When I tried to point out your mistake, you ignored my points. Please do not hypocritically say I am the one ignoring points. If you concede that diseases can and do get named for where they hit worst, we can continue this conversation, and you can, respectfully, look a lot less like a hypocritical fool.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 3, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Anyone who said Clinton had a 99% chance of winning was a fool. It was more like 70%.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



just more sealioning, don't worry about it.

Also since trump is older than 65, his chances of dying to Covid-19 is about 1 in 15, with his chances of needing long term care at around 60%. hell look at Boris Johnson, sure he didn't die, but he is nowhere near back to normal, and it has been more than 6 months. Trump is 18 years older than Boris, same or worse weight category, same sex, ect. the need for supplemental oxygen yesterday is kind of a bad sign. the longer trump stays sick, the lower his chances of getting re-elected are, as people don't want to vote for a sick president.

for people throwing around IFR numbers, remember those are calculated for standard age (18-29), people who are 65yo+ have a 220x chance of dying compared to 18-29. so that .006 is now 1.2%, if someone has more than 2 co-morbidity (BMI greater than 30, BMI greater than 40, asthma, hypertension; [BMI levels are subsequent morbidities, you count both if you fill both]) you multiply that number further by 4.5x so 1.2 now becomes 5.4. and finally if you are male, you are twice as likely to die from covid as females, so the 5.4 is doubles to 10.8%.

a 10.8% chance of flat out dying is not good for trump, and these risk factors drastically increase his risk of needing long term care such as extended ventilation, or constant supplemental oxygen even after the virus has been cleared.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 3, 2020)

The COVID19 strains of virii infecting the global population right now originated in China, specifically in Wuhan, which is the capitol of the Hubei Province. Unless you can go back in time and stop it from spreading I'm going to call it the Chinese Wuhan Conoravirus, as that is an accurate name for it. It originated in Wuhan, China and is a Coronavirus. I'm not sure why calling it by the name everyone used for months is somehow racist. I don't know the race of everyone that lives in Wuhan nor do I care, because I'm not referring to a certain race, but a location on our planet.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 3, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> The COVID19 strains of virii infecting the global population right now originated in China, specifically in Wuhan, which is the capitol of the Hubei Province. Unless you can go back in time and stop it from spreading I'm going to call it the Chinese Wuhan Conoravirus, as that is an accurate name for it. It originated in Wuhan, China and is a Coronavirus. I'm not sure why calling it by the name everyone used for months is somehow racist. I don't know the race of everyone that lives in Wuhan nor do I care, because I'm not referring to a certain race, but a location on our planet.


You're free to call it that, and it's correct it very likely originated there, but it's a bit hypocritical to call it the China Virus when the USA mismanaged it far worse than China ever did. See the numbers in my previous post. It's an American Virus. The amount of deaths and cases was our creation.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 3, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> The COVID19 strains of virii infecting the global population right now originated in China, specifically in Wuhan, which is the capitol of the Hubei Province. Unless you can go back in time and stop it from spreading I'm going to call it the Chinese Wuhan Conoravirus, as that is an accurate name for it. It originated in Wuhan, China and is a Coronavirus. I'm not sure why calling it by the name everyone used for months is somehow racist. I don't know the race of everyone that lives in Wuhan nor do I care, because I'm not referring to a certain race, but a location on our planet.


BUT DAS ZEENAFFFOHPEX!!


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Oct 3, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Fake.  Just like when they said Hillary Clinton had a 99% chance of winning 2016.  They put out fake numbers then try to illegally rig the real world votes to that number afterwards.  They couldn't steal the 2016 election because the gap was too large.



Seems like you need an education regarding popular vote vs electoral. 3 million more people voted for Hillary. Trump lost the vote of the American people, bigly.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 3, 2020)

omgcat said:


> just more sealioning, don't worry about it.
> 
> Also since trump is older than 65, his chances of dying to Covid-19 is about 1 in 15, with his chances of needing long term care at around 60%. hell look at Boris Johnson, sure he didn't die, but he is nowhere near back to normal, and it has been more than 6 months. Trump is 18 years older than Boris, same or worse weight category, same sex, ect. the need for supplemental oxygen yesterday is kind of a bad sign. the longer trump stays sick, the lower his chances of getting re-elected are, as people don't want to vote for a sick president.



If Trump becomes incapacitated Vice President Mike Pence will become the acting President of the USA. I also believe that with no runner up Pence would probably be on the ballot instead of Trump if Trump happens to become to ill to function correctly or dies. Pence seems like a nice guy who values his faith and loves his family. He's also a very hard worker. I'll definitely vote for him if he turns up to be the 2020 candidate for President. Let's just hope Trump doesn't become too ill, but it's a real possibility.



omgcat said:


> despite what people here feel, Biden got a huge boost from this shitshow. he got a 2 point bump in PA, and a 3 point bump in Florida. Voters are looking at policies and what people have been calling for. for example, trump and republicans complaining about masks, and then subsequently showing up as a super spreader event is making people doubt the anti-mask policies. when one side says "wear a mask, it will protect you and others", and they are the ones to not be in the group to test positive, people are going to look at the others like they are retarded.



Polling only gives a general look at a specific group of people. Polling the entire USA is too complicated a matter and most voters don't even participate in political debate or ever get close to voting in polls about politics. The poll could be accurate, but it's most likely not. It's just too bad most people voting for Joe Biden have been under the hypnotic lies of the main stream media for too long. I wish people could just be honest, it would really cut down on the bullshit.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 3, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Seems like you need an education regarding popular vote vs electoral. 3 million more people voted for Hillary. Trump lost the vote of the American people, bigly.



It's not even true.  They tried to rig it for Hillary but couldn't get enough battleground states rigged so they still lost even with massive rigging due to electoral college.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 3, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Seems like you need an education regarding popular vote vs electoral. 3 million more people voted for Hillary. Trump lost the vote of the American people, bigly.



3 million people is piss compared to the 330,000,000 people in the USA. 3 million is not a large margin out of 330,000,000 by any means.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 3, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> It's not even true.  They tried to rig it for Hillary but couldn't get enough battleground states rigged so they still lost even with massive rigging due to electoral college.


There is zero evidence of this.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



gregory-samba said:


> 3 million people is piss compared to the 330,000,000 people in the USA. 3 million is not a large margin out of 330,000,000 by any means.


A candidate who wins the election by nearly 3 million votes should win the election. Anything else is a flawed system. The Electoral College is a joke. The Republicans only disagree because it benefits them.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 3, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The Electoral College is a joke. The Republicans only disagree because it benefits them.


We disagree because without the Electoral College, every election would be determined by only three states.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 3, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> We disagree because without the Electoral College, every election would be determined by only three states.


It's actually because of the Electoral College that the decision comes down to a few swing states. Without it, every vote would count. Please get your facts straight.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 3, 2020)

Lacius said:


> A candidate who wins the election by nearly 3 million votes should win the election. Anything else is a flawed system. The Electoral College is a joke. The Republicans only disagree because it benefits them.



Get your Brian Stelter government disinfo and propaganda off the forum.  All getting rid of the electoral college does is make it a million times easier to commit voter fraud.  With the electoral college, to rig the vote you have to infilitrate numerous states and rig them all.  Without it, you just rig one big state and claim 100% of people living in NY voted Hillary.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 3, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Get your Brian Stelter government disinfo and propaganda off the forum.  All getting rid of the electoral college does is make it a million times easier to commit voter fraud.  With the electoral college, to rig the vote you have to infilitrate numerous states and rig them all.  Without it, you just rig one big state and claim 100% of people living in NY voted Hillary.


The only potential widespread fraud I can come up with is contingent upon the Electoral College, where the Trump campaign hypothetically gets something like the Pennsylvania legislature to throw out the votes of the people on their state and pledge their delegates to Trump instead. Please get your facts straight.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 3, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> We disagree because without the Electoral College, every election would be determined by only three states.



Yeah we don't need California New York + all the illegals there deciding every election. Dems would love that of course.

What I think we really need and I think even most Dems would agree. Just split into two countries. We're too different and don't want any part of one another.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> The only potential widespread fraud I can come up with is contingent upon the Electoral College, where the Trump campaign hypothetically gets something like the Pennsylvania legislature to throw out the votes of the people on their state and pledge their delegates to Trump instead. Please get your facts straight.



Yeah there's absolutely no one selling their mail in vote right now. You're heads not in the sand at all.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 3, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> Yeah we don't need California New York + all the illegals there deciding every election. Dems would love that of course.
> 
> What I think we really need and I think even most Dems would agree. Just split into two countries. We're too different and don't want any part of one another.
> 
> ...



you don't need us deciding all the elections, but you sure do need our sweet sweet federal tax dollars. honestly CA and NY should stop sending in federal taxes if trump wins the election, we didn't receive any federal aid for our fires, and NY didn't receive aid for their Covid-19 outbreak, so all the red states shouldn't get our handouts.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 3, 2020)

omgcat said:


> you don't need us deciding all the elections, but you sure do need our sweet sweet federal tax dollars. honestly CA and NY should stop sending in federal taxes if trump wins the election, we didn't receive any federal aid for our fires, and NY didn't receive aid for their Covid-19 outbreak, so all the red states shouldn't get our handouts.



When you're right you're right. California and New York should just leave the United States. (which is what happens when you don't pay any federal taxes) Please do.

Both are cesspools.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 3, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> When you're right you're right. California and New York should just leave the United States. (which is what happens when you don't pay any federal taxes) Please do.
> 
> Both are cesspools.



hell yeah, cesspools that contribute to 22% of the USA's GDP.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 3, 2020)

omgcat said:


> hell yeah, cesspools that contribute to 22% of the USA's GDP.



We'd manage without you somehow. Dems would be completely out of power. The country would thrive actually.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 3, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> We'd manage without you somehow. Dems would be completely out of power. The country would thrive actually.



you'd be losing your largest tech sectors, and an extremely large percent of your food production, but sure sounds smart.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 3, 2020)

omgcat said:


> you'd be losing your largest tech sectors, and an extremely large percent of your food production, but sure sounds smart.



We'd be fine.

But you're not going anywhere unfortunately.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 3, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> We'd be fine.
> 
> But you're not going anywhere unfortunately.



yeah we're not going anywhere, cause the deep south would collapse and die without us.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 3, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> We disagree because without the Electoral College, every election would be determined by only three states.



The electoral college was never a problem for the Liberals until their candidate lost.

When Clinton and Obama won there was no complaining about the electoral college.

I wonder what the Liberals reaction would be if in November Trump wins the popular vote, but loses the electoral college votes?


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 3, 2020)

omgcat said:


> yeah we're not going anywhere, cause the deep south would collapse and die without us.



Keep telling yourself that.

There actually would still be 48 states. Not all of them in the South.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

It's funny how Texas has no state income tax and second biggest population but has no debt. While New York charges the highest taxes in the country, and is drowning in it. Neither California or New York could survive as a seperate country so yeah you're not going anywhere.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 3, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> Keep telling yourself that.
> 
> There actually would still be 48 states. Not all of them in the South.
> 
> ...




you don't understand, CA contributes more to the GDP of the USA than the lowest 25 states COMBINED. if we leave, or stop participating with the rest of the USA, you guys are fucked. full stop.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 3, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> Yeah we don't need California New York + all the illegals there deciding every election. Dems would love that of course.
> 
> What I think we really need and I think even most Dems would agree. Just split into two countries. We're too different and don't want any part of one another.


The Democratic voters in New York and California combined make up approximately 10% of the total electorate in the United States. There is also no evidence that any significant number of illegal immigrants are voting in US elections.

You know what is absurd? In the Electoral College, it is entirely possible for a candidate in 2016 to have gotten less than 27% of the vote and still won the Electoral College, and that's not even talking about faithless electors, meddling state legislatures hypothetically throwing out the votes of their citizens, etc. The Electoral College is a joke.



gregory-samba said:


> The electoral college was never a problem for the Liberals until their candidate lost.
> 
> When Clinton and Obama won there was no complaining about the electoral college.
> 
> I wonder what the Liberals reaction would be if in November Trump wins the popular vote, but loses the electoral college votes?


The Electoral College has always been a problem. There have been bipartisan efforts to try to get rid of it for a very long time. I suggest you educate yourself.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2020)

omgcat said:


> you don't understand, CA contributes more to the GDP of the USA than the lowest 25 states COMBINED. if we leave, or stop participating with the rest of the USA, you guys are fucked. full stop.



Fake news, because you're leaving out the part where you receive Federal money. Just because the U.S. Government has decided not to fix your own personal problem of forest fires doesn't mean you're not getting ANY money. This post is not biased it says you'd do ok without United States too.

California is 14% of US GDP and 12% of the population. On average Californians are about 17% more productive than the US average. California provides the US with 13.3% of its taxes— roughly 11% more per capita than the US average. It receives about $350B in Federal spending for $400B in Federal taxes *so the US would lose about $50B in tax revenue per year. *Losing California would be a serious loss but the United States is still pretty large without California. The US would do okay and California would do fine as well— probably better.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 4, 2020)

California should lay a tariff on food being sent to states with a negative federal tax input. something like 25-40%. southern states would immediately collapse.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2020)

omgcat said:


> California should lay a tariff on food being sent to states with a negative federal tax input. something like 25-40%. southern states would immediately collapse.



Please do, we'd cut you off in a second. It's not like you're the only freaking state with food Jesus christ. Your state doesn't make up the farming community much.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> Fake news, because you're leaving out the part where you receive Federal money. Just because the U.S. Government has decided not to fix your own personal problem of forest fires doesn't mean you're not getting ANY money. This post is not biased it says you'd do ok without United States too.
> 
> California is 14% of US GDP and 12% of the population. On average Californians are about 17% more productive than the US average. California provides the US with 13.3% of its taxes— roughly 11% more per capita than the US average. It receives about $350B in Federal spending for $400B in Federal taxes *so the US would lose about $50B in tax revenue per year. *Losing California would be a serious loss but the United States is still pretty large without California. The US would do okay and California would do fine as well— probably better.





omgcat said:


> California should lay a tariff on food being sent to states with a negative federal tax input. something like 25-40%. southern states would immediately collapse.


Or we could just make every vote equal.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 4, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> Fake news, because you're leaving out the part where you receive Federal money. Just because the U.S. Government has decided not to fix your own personal problem of forest fires doesn't mean you're not getting ANY money. This post is not biased it says you'd do ok without United States too.
> 
> California is 14% of US GDP and 12% of the population. On average Californians are about 17% more productive than the US average. California provides the US with 13.3% of its taxes— roughly 11% more per capita than the US average. It receives about $350B in Federal spending for $400B in Federal taxes *so the US would lose about $50B in tax revenue per year. *Losing California would be a serious loss but the United States is still pretty large without California. The US would do okay and California would do fine as well— probably better.



It's also one of the first states to legalize addictive drugs, stop cops from arresting people if they steal property worth less than $900.00 USD, has a very serious homeless drug addict problem and is about to decriminalize having sex with children. If this is "progress" the progressives are talking about then no thanks, I don't want any. Allowing them to hang themselves would probably be the best option here, but since they are part of the USA we simply have to put up with their sins and wickedness, unfortunately.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2020)

I would love to see what happens. Who would be more likely to survive New York who can't stay out of debt despite charging the highest taxes or the United States. California is a little more respectable I give them that they might do ok. But New York would be bankrupt as a country in 6 months.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> It's also one of the first states to legalize addictive drugs, stop cops from arresting people if they steal property worth less than $900.00 USD, has a very serious homeless drug addict problem and is about to decriminalize having sex with children. If this is "progress" the progressives are talking about then no thanks, I don't want any. Allowing them to hang themselves would probably be the best option here, but since they are part of the USA we simply have to put up with their sins and wickedness, unfortunately.


Half these things aren't true.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Half these things aren't true.



Even if half of those are true that's pretty damning.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> Even if half of those are true that's pretty damning.


Which ones are both a.) true, and b.) damning?


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Which ones are both a.) true, and b.) damning?



They're all damning, you said half of them aren't true. That still leaves several things that are damning. Are you proud of any of those?

Are you going back on what you said you said half aren't true which means half are true. Or do you realize what you said?


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> They're all damning, you said half of them aren't true. That still leaves several things that are damning. Are you proud of any of those?
> 
> Are you going back on what you said you said half aren't true which means half are true. Or do you realize what you said?


I asked a question. I don't want to argue for/against something if we can/can't agree if it's a.) true, and b.) damning.

For example, why should I waste my time if we agree something is untrue? Why would I waste my time if we agree something is bad?


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I asked a question. I don't want to argue for/against something if we can't agree if it's a.) true, and b.) damning.



I already both answered your question and used your own post against you. Every single thing he said was damning. You said half of them aren't true. By simple math and logic that means half are true. So whichever ones you want to pick that aren't true it still leaves several true that make the state look bad. Again I asked you a question too, are you proud of any of the options he said about California? If so which ones? If none, then you agree they're all damning.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 4, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Half these things aren't true.



Legalized pot = yes
Decriminalized Theft under $950 = yes
Homeless drug addict problem = yes
Sex with kids = soon (tm)


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> I already both answered your question and used your own post against you. Every single thing he said was damning. You said half of them aren't true. By simple math and logic that means half are true. So whichever ones you want to pick that aren't true it still leaves several true that make the state look bad. Again I asked you a question too, are you proud of any of the options he said about California? If so which ones? If none, then you agree they're all damning.


If you are saying each one is damning, then I'm waiting on which ones are true.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2020)

Lacius said:


> If you are saying each one is damning, then I'm waiting on which ones are true.



Why do you need my response you're the one who said half are not true thus you said half are true. Do you not know that half = 50%. When you said half are not true that means you're saying half were true. Plus he just responded with the answer of some of the ones that are true.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> Why do you need my response you're the one who said half are not true thus you said half are true. Do you not know that half = 50%. When you said half are not true that means you're saying half were true. Plus he just responded with the answer of some of the ones that are true.


I'm not going to have a conversation with myself. That's why. Again, I'm not going to argue against X if we both agree X is untrue.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I'm not going to have a conversation with myself. That's why.



Are you ok? Are you on acid? You're not having a conversation with yourself there are others here having a conversation with you. You said half were not true, yet you won't say which is which yet you want me to for some reason. And then you claim you'd having a conversation with yourself if you answered. No it's called clarifying your own post.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 4, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> Why do you need my response you're the one who said half are not true thus you said half are true. Do you not know that half = 50%. When you said half are not true that means you're saying half were true. Plus he just responded with the answer of some of the ones that are true.



They are all true, see the links I posted to each (above).


----------



## VartioArtel (Oct 4, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I'm not going to have a conversation with myself. That's why.


You have your answer though 3 posts BEFORE this one I'm quoting. With evidence.

Also I'll add one to the barrel:

California has a rather infamous problem with public pooping, resulting in the infamous POOP PATROL:
https://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-poop-patrol-employees-make-184000-a-year-2018-8
https://time.com/5368610/san-francisco-poop-patrol-problem/
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea...-laughing-matter-SF-forming-Poop-13153517.php

I've seen many jokes about Florida, but California is really running hard on trying to be #1 in everything, especially being a national joke.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> You have your answer though 3 posts BEFORE this one I'm quoting. With evidence.
> 
> Also I'll add one to the barrel:
> 
> ...



When I called it a cesspool I meant it as a joke. I guess it's not a joke.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 4, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> California and New York should just leave the United States.



Sodom and Gomorrah being expelled from the US would be great.  Both would collapse and then you could bring in the bulldozers a year or two later and pave over the thing and re-zone it for some other type of use.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> Are you ok? Are you on acid? You're not having a conversation with yourself there are others here having a conversation with you. You said half were not true, yet you won't say which is which yet you want me to for some reason. And then you claim you'd having a conversation with yourself if you answered. No it's called clarifying your own post.


If you want to have a conversation about a particular issue, please address the one(s) you believe are true. I'm not going to waste my time explaining why something is untrue when we both already agree it's untrue, for example. I want your point of view. That's how discourse works. A simple "I don't know which ones are true and untrue" would suffice.



VartioArtel said:


> You have your answer though 3 posts BEFORE this one I'm quoting. With evidence.


Please understand people sometimes post something before seeing things posted right before it. Please also understand that those are two completely different people. I was addressing one, not the other. The question I asked was not answered by the person I was asking.



gregory-samba said:


> Legalized pot = yes
> Decriminalized Theft under $950 = yes
> Homeless drug addict problem = yes
> Sex with kids = soon (tm)



Legalized pot is good.
The decriminalization you're referring to is a recategorization of some felonies to misdemeanors.
SB 145 does nothing to legalize sex with kids.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Sodom and Gomorrah being expelled from the US would be great.  Both would collapse and then you could bring in the bulldozers a year or two later and pave over the thing and re-zone it for some other type of use.



We'd have to make more borders though and have a whole new illegals problem.


----------



## VartioArtel (Oct 4, 2020)

Lacius said:


> *Please understand people sometimes post something before seeing things posted right before it.* Please also understand that those are two completely different people. I was addressing one, not the other. The question I asked was not answered by the person I was asking.


https://i.imgur.com/eyEsTQP.png

*What in the f$&^ are you smoking that makes you this big a liar?*

You made TWO replies after that, and BEFORE he OR I even reminded you. YOU are tunnel visioning like a child, that or you're doing your damnedest to ignore any and all logic. You are not taking ANYTHING seriously, [sarcasm]and I do adore how you fail to address the Poop Patrol argument I brought to the table. Why you must be the wisest man on earth to not address damning things.[/sarcasm]


I'ma inb4 and post this before Lacius has a chance to reply to my Poop Patrol statement, I'm going to guess what he's going to say, and respond in advance with:

"California wouldn't have poop problems if the homeless rate
wasn't the literal worst in the country. I wonder why?
https://www.usich.gov/tools-for-action/map/#fn[]=1400&fn[]=2800&fn[]=6200&fn[]=10000&fn[]=13200

Ooh, ooh, wait, I know, maybe it's the #1 highest taxed state in the country?
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/highest-taxed-states

Maybe it's also the fact California, like New York, are SUPER DENSELY POPULATED zones wherein the general costs of living, purchasing a house, etc, are *absofuckinglutely absurdly high*: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/most-expensive-states-to-live-in

Honestly, I said it before and I'll say it again - California's a joke. I would hazard to guess the only reason EITHER state are still afloat at all's the absurd taxes, and the people who just don't know how bad they really have it.

I follow a New York Computer Repairman named Louis Rossman on Youtube, and there's companies there that have been shut down since before C-19, and even now they are trying to sell these locations for the SAME PRICE AS BEFORE COVID, and usually at an absurd, gouging level of price. I wouldn't doubt California's ANY different.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> https://i.imgur.com/eyEsTQP.png
> 
> *What in the f$&^ are you smoking that makes you this big a liar?*
> 
> You made TWO replies after that, and BEFORE he OR I even reminded you. YOU are tunnel visioning like a child, that or you're doing your damnedest to ignore any and all logic. You are not taking ANYTHING seriously, [sarcasm]and I do adore how you fail to address the Poop Patrol argument I brought to the table. Why you must be the wisest man on earth to not address damning things.[/sarcasm]



I didn't see the post until just before I responded to it. Things get hectic when I'm having active conversations with 3 or more people. I posted a response, got one very quickly after, then responded to it before responding to the one you're referencing.
It doesn't matter when I saw a post or when I responded to it.
I was talking to somebody else.



VartioArtel said:


> I'ma inb4 and post this before Lacius has a chance to reply to my Poop Patrol statement, I'm going to guess what he's going to say, and respond in advance with:
> 
> "California wouldn't have poop problems if the homeless rate
> wasn't the literal worst in the country. I wonder why?
> ...


I wasn't planning on responding to it.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2020)

So. I think everyone agrees Trump is bad and Joe Biden is bad?
Yeah?
Okay cool, now vote with your conscious. If you're voting for Trump, your a moron. Seriously, if your voting for him for his policies. Your lost.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> So. I think everyone agrees Trump is bad and Joe Biden is bad?
> Yeah?
> Okay cool, now vote with your conscious. If your voting for Trump, your a moron. Seriously, if your voting for him for his policies. Your lost.


The lesser of two evils is less evil, by definition.

Also, I don't think Biden is bad. He was just far from my top choice.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The lesser of two evils is less evil, by definition.
> 
> Also, I don't think Biden is bad. He was just far from my top choice.


Biden is still bad, he's just not as Trump. Nothing is going to really change, but he'll at least stabilize a few issues. But that's how I see it.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> So. I think everyone agrees Trump is bad and Joe Biden is bad?
> Yeah?
> Okay cool, now vote with your conscious. If your voting for Trump, your a moron. Seriously, if your voting for him for his policies. Your lost.



I wouldn't correct you, but since you're calling others morons in the post I have to.

It's YOU'RE.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> I wouldn't correct you, but since you're calling others morons in the post I have to.
> 
> It's YOU'RE.


acknowledged, still by policy, you're a moron if you pick Trump. You have history to figure out if he really is for you.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Biden is still bad, he's just not as Trump. Nothing is going to really change, but he'll at least stabilize a few issues. But that's how I see it.


He's *definitely* not perfect, but why is he bad?


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2020)

I guess... I'll have to go through life being a moran.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I have a feeling Biden will not be calling the shots and if he is it won't last. The plan for the Dems is Kamala Harris or even someone else like Palosi. They knew Harris was not from this country and she wouldn't have a chance of winning anyway. If Biden wins he'll be the puppet President.


----------



## VartioArtel (Oct 4, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I didn't see the post until just before I responded to it. Things get hectic when I'm having active conversations with 3+ people.
> It doesn't matter when I saw a post or when I responded to it.
> I was talking to somebody else.
> 
> I wasn't planning on responding to it.



3 minutes between your two replies. You clearly are VERY attentive or you wouldn't be answering that quickly.




monkeyman4412 said:


> So. I think everyone agrees Trump is bad and Joe Biden is bad?
> Yeah?
> Okay cool, now vote with your conscious. If your voting for Trump, your a moron. Seriously, if your voting for him for his policies. Your lost.



I am voting for morality.

---

Trump's a fucking stooge.

Biden's potentially minutes away from mistaking a painting of Abe Lincoln as his wife.

I don't hear shit about Trump's VP tbh.

Kamala Harris meanwhile has a history of corruption as a leading District Attorney, hiding evidence - intentionally or not - that could exonerate defendants to push for guilty verdicts. This isn't excluding the fact the cat jumped out of the bag with the "Harris Administration, with Joe Biden as President" setting off Warning Sirens even in my Democratic heavy mother.

---

What about the parties?

Let's see. Republicans have corruption, check.
Democrats have corruption, check.

---

What about their constituents and supporting media?

Well the worst thing to come out of Right Wingers recently is the Proud Boys, which culminates in the biggest baddest thing they've done of late is the Kenosha Kid, who is likely to be exonerated of murder in the first degree on terms of self defense.

Meanwhile the worst things out of the left?






Y'know, I understand. Media companies will lie to us to push their favored political party's Agenda. But the moment you got media companies so desperate to save their party's skin, and the groups that support that party, that they are claiming arson, rioting, murder, etc, are 'mostly peaceful'? Yeah, I lost all trust in the Democratic leaning side. (Edit: I won't even GO IN DEPTH about 9/10ths of these Riots being over CRIMINALS, 7/10ths of them being over criminals who were actively committing a crime, or how NONE OF THEM are actually over innocents who got hurt like the kid who got shot riding in front of his neighbor's house on his bike)

I am again not saying the Republicans don't lie, but they tend to lie by omission, not bold faced lie to your face like this (because no Arson could ever be held in a peaceful manner - there's clear intent to destroy). And I am not saying there aren't PEACEFUL protestors, although one could argue guilt by association as they don't even try to capture the rioters. Calling a Riot a Protest is like calling a Self Defense a Murder (yes, small segway into the Kenosha Kid/Rittenhouse incident). While it's technically right to call it a murder, it's disingenuous not to admit what they actually did has a VERY specific name.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2020)

Lacius said:


> He's *definitely* not perfect, but why is he bad?


Well the states is already in a bad position as is. Minimum wage still hasn't gone up when production is insanely high. He's likely not going to resolve the Health care system, aka, cut companies out and start having universal health care. We pay the most, yet we get the worst care compared to our 1st world country peers. I'm not entirely certain if he is going to help resolve the systemic racism or do much about it. I don't see him reversing changes Trump did, maybe climate change, but there was overall a LOT of damage trump has done. I'm not saying he's the worst possible pick. He'll definitely stabilize things a bit, against what we have now, absolute chaos. But it won't create real change.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



VartioArtel said:


> 3 minutes between your two replies. You clearly are VERY attentive or you wouldn't be answering that quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Destroying isn't violence, hurting people is, most people that are protesting are avoiding harm to others. they are fucking buildings up. But it seems to me they are avoiding casualties. Because if they were causing massive casualties, pretty sure it would be noticed. 
Personally I'm not voting democrat, nor republican. Say I'm throwing out my vote, but I have to vote with my conscious on this one. So green party it is.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2020)

Unfortunately for Dems he's not dead.

https://publish.twitter.com/?query=...Trump/status/1312525833505058816&widget=Tweet


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> 3 minutes between your two replies. You clearly are VERY attentive or you wouldn't be answering that quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


also as a sidenote proudboys are essentially 2020 KKK. once you look into it, it's a lot of racist rhetoric and dog whistles


----------



## IncredulousP (Oct 4, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Say I'm throwing out my vote, but I have to vote with my conscious on this one. So green party it is.


I, too, like to waste my vote on the Green party. But Trump needs to gtfo, so unfortunately I'm voting Dem.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2020)

IncredulousP said:


> I, too, like to waste my vote on the Green party. But Trump needs to gtfo, so unfortunately I'm voting Dem.


fair choice, hence why I don't call people voting for Joe idiots. I can understand wanting some general stability, instead of rampant insanity like right now under the current president.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> fair choice, hence why I don't call people voting for Joe idiots. I can understand wanting some general stability, instead of rampant insanity like right now under the current president.



Small minded thinking but it's ok. Joe says he is the Democratic party but even knows that is utter bullshit. Joe will not be running the country if he wins President.

People calling for riots = stability in your mind, ok.

BTW the question was asked "what is so bad about Joe" how about video after video of him groping little girls in white house shoots? I already know the reply "he wasn't doing anything" blah blah blah.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> Small minded thinking but it's ok. Joe says he is the Democratic party but even knows that is utter bullshit. Joe will not be running the country if he wins President.
> 
> People calling for riots = stability in your mind, ok.


take your pick. A man inciting the modern KKK and endorsing them.
Or a man that doesn't and occasionally doesn't know where the hell is.
Because your taking option number 1 with Trump. He said live, telling the proud boys to stand by. Rather than denouncing them when he got the chance. You side with Trump, you side with the modern KKK.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2020)

I posted a whole list of racist things Biden has done and said over the years, it may have been this thread or another I don't remember but I can post them again. Dems don't listen to reason though so it's kinda pointless.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> I posted a whole list of racist things Biden has done and said over the years, it may have been this thread or another I don't remember but I can post them again. Dems don't listen to reason though so it's kinda pointless.


Your telling me, you would take 4 more years of Trump. Who already has multiple sexual assault allegations lied to your face about a pandemic for multiple months, who followed through none of the promises he made, made the richer richer and the poorer poorer. And with one tweet tank the economy? You would take that? Again, if you don't like Joe Biden. Good, I don't give two shits. Just ffs don't vote for Trump. 
I personally, am not voting for Joe Biden if you look above


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Your telling me, you would take 4 more years of Trump. Who already has multiple sexual assault allegations lied to your face about a pandemic for multiple months, who followed through none of the promises he made, made the richer richer and the poorer poorer. And with one tweet tank the economy? You would take that? Again, if you don't like Joe Biden. Good, I don't give two shits. Just ffs don't vote for Trump.



You're believing fake news. But I'm just worn out it's nearly impossible to change someone's mind when it comes to this stuff and it's not my job.

I could point to the Democrat women who accused Biden of sexual assault while she was in his cabinet would it matter?


----------



## VartioArtel (Oct 4, 2020)

> Destroying isn't violence, hurting people is, most people that are protesting are avoiding harm to others. they are fucking buildings up.







"Damage" "something" are the two keywords to take here. So yes, destroying buildings is, by definition, violence. By law, it constitutes violence, and would be enforced as such if ever taken to a court of law.



> But it seems to me they are avoiding casualties. Because if they were causing massive casualties, pretty sure it would be noticed.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53491223
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/us/seattle-protests-CHOP-CHAZ-autonomous-zone.html
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/cr...chaz/281-48392a9e-d760-42f3-9469-c99466ed7a9f

This is just in Portland early after George Floyd when the CHAZ was a thing. I went off the easiest to find. I could go harder, if I so needed.

It really isn't hard to find murders during the early days especially of the Floyd based riots. Hell: here's TWO right after Blake was shot for attempted assault and kidnapping:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53917170





monkeyman4412 said:


> Well the states is already in a bad position as is. Minimum wage still hasn't gone up when production is insanely high. He's likely not going to resolve the Health care system, aka, cut companies out and start having universal health care. We pay the most, yet we get the worst care compared to our 1st world country peers. I'm not entirely certain if he is going to help resolve the systemic racism or do much about it. I don't see him reversing changes Trump did, maybe climate change, but there was overall a LOT of damage trump has done. I'm not saying he's the worst possible pick. He'll definitely stabilize things a bit, against what we have now, absolute chaos. But it won't create real change.


I STILL can not, for the life of me, see this 'systemic racism'.

The term itself implies the system itself, the government, is racist. *Not that they can be utilized in a racist fashion.*

I have a mental exercise I use to help people understand my view.

Take a piece of paper. It is your "system" to convey text. But it can only work when things are drawn on it - this is how the system works. Ergo the system (government) is the paper. And you are the person using the system (the individual policemen, court officials, etc)

Write a statement that's racist on the paper. Is the paper suddenly racist? no.
Are you the racist in this example? Yes. YOU made the pen/cil do the work, and made the paper convey a racist message.

Any laws that ARE racist should be removed, without a doubt. But anyone claiming the law itself is inherently racist, that the system itself is racist needs to realize this strawman argument is going to find maybe a small handful of laws out of however many thousands have been made, if they exist at all.

The issue ultimately comes down to racist individuals using the law in a racist manner. Not the law itself being racist. And it bugs me to no end people constantly claiming "systemic racism" when the VERY CONCEPT of it has yet to be proven beyond Jim Crow laws - which have been UNDONE for DECADES now. There definitely are vestiges of racist laws, but they do not make the system as a whole racist.



> [Trump,] Who already has multiple sexual assault allegations lied to your face about a pandemic for multiple months, who followed through none of the promises he made, made the richer richer and the poorer poorer.



Allegations, none have been proven. I'm still myself waiting for any hard evidence of any of this happening. Most of the time these cases seem incredulous or out of nowhere.

Trump lied about a pandemic, but there IS reason to have REASONABLE CAUSE to *think*, believe it or not, that Trump did so to prevent a panic.

Also *about him following through NONE of his promises*?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37982000
He's only completely failed *3*. He's completed/suceeded at a vast majority.

Also, I can't even comment on the Rich/Poor thing, I ain't that familiar with economy to comment on it.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> 3 minutes between your two replies. You clearly are VERY attentive or you wouldn't be answering that quickly.


I am attentive. I was paying attention to what I was typing. Also, as I said before, it doesn't matter. That post you're claming I was ignoring wasn't the person I was asking a question to.

This topic should be dropped, as it's off-topic.



VartioArtel said:


> Trump's a fucking stooge.


You'll get no disagreement from me.



VartioArtel said:


> Biden's potentially minutes away from mistaking a painting of Abe Lincoln as his wife.


There's no evidence for this kind of hyperbolic statement.



VartioArtel said:


> I don't hear shit about Trump's VP tbh.


Pence is a stooge. The only thing he was famous for before becoming a vice presidential candidate was making it legal for specifically gay people to be refused business/service, and then having to backtrack for no reason other than the boycotts that negatively affected his state.



VartioArtel said:


> Kamala Harris meanwhile has a history of corruption as a leading District Attorney, hiding evidence - intentionally or not - that could exonerate defendants to push for guilty verdicts. This isn't excluding the fact the cat jumped out of the bag with the "Harris Administration, with Joe Biden as President" setting off Warning Sirens even in my Democratic heavy mother.


The San Francisco Police Department was responsible for running the crime lab we're talking about, not Harris’ district attorney office. This issue was put to bed long ago.

I'm also unimpressed with small gaffs like "Harris Administration," particularly after a year of running for president.



VartioArtel said:


> What about the parties?
> 
> Let's see. Republicans have corruption, check.
> Democrats have corruption, check.


Both parties have corruption, but it would be inaccurate to say they are equally corrupt. The corruption in the Democratic party pales in comparison to the corruption in the Republican party.



VartioArtel said:


> What about their constituents and supporting media?
> 
> Well the worst thing to come out of Right Wingers recently is the Proud Boys, which culminates in the biggest baddest thing they've done of late is the Kenosha Kid, who is likely to be exonerated of murder in the first degree on terms of self defense.
> 
> Meanwhile the worst things out of the left?


Nobody on the left is condoning violence or destruction of property, and BLM has been largely peaceful. Trump and the Republicans coddle white supremacists. White domestic terrorism is the biggest terrorist threat in this country, and Trump and the Republicans won't address it.



VartioArtel said:


> Y'know, I understand. Media companies will lie to us to push their favored political party's Agenda. But the moment you got media companies so desperate to save their party's skin, and the groups that support that party, that they are claiming arson, rioting, murder, etc, are 'mostly peaceful'? Yeah, I lost all trust in the Democratic leaning side. (Edit: I won't even GO IN DEPTH about 9/10ths of these Riots being over CRIMINALS, 7/10ths of them being over criminals who were actively committing a crime, or how NONE OF THEM are actually over innocents who got hurt like the kid who got shot riding in front of his neighbor's house on his bike)
> 
> I am again not saying the Republicans don't lie, but they tend to lie by omission, not bold faced lie to your face like this (because no Arson could ever be held in a peaceful manner - there's clear intent to destroy). And I am not saying there aren't PEACEFUL protestors, although one could argue guilt by association as they don't even try to capture the rioters. Calling a Riot a Protest is like calling a Self Defense a Murder (yes, small segway into the Kenosha Kid/Rittenhouse incident). While it's technically right to call it a murder, it's disingenuous not to admit what they actually did has a VERY specific name.


Nobody on the left is condoning violence or destruction of property, and BLM has been largely peaceful.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



monkeyman4412 said:


> Well the states is already in a bad position as is. Minimum wage still hasn't gone up when production is insanely high. He's likely not going to resolve the Health care system, aka, cut companies out and start having universal health care. We pay the most, yet we get the worst care compared to our 1st world country peers. I'm not entirely certain if he is going to help resolve the systemic racism or do much about it. I don't see him reversing changes Trump did, maybe climate change, but there was overall a LOT of damage trump has done. I'm not saying he's the worst possible pick. He'll definitely stabilize things a bit, against what we have now, absolute chaos. But it won't create real change.


The minimum wage will likely go up under a Biden administration. Yeah, he doesn't support Medicare for All, but his solutions aren't bad otherwise, and there's a public option. I can't think of anything progressives are supporting with regard to BLM that Biden isn't supporting.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



ForgotWhoIam said:


> I posted a whole list of racist things Biden has done and said over the years, it may have been this thread or another I don't remember but I can post them again. Dems don't listen to reason though so it's kinda pointless.


If you could do me a favor: Please pick the single thing that is most demonstrative of Biden's alleged racism. It can be something he said or did. Make sure it's the best thing. Then, instead of dealing with a scattershot approach to trying to paint Biden as racist with little thought from you and a lot of thought from myself and others, we can have an equal conversation about what should be the most demonstrable thing. If that falls apart, then there's probably nothing. Does that sound fair?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



IncredulousP said:


> I, too, like to waste my vote on the Green party. But Trump needs to gtfo, so unfortunately I'm voting Dem.


My hero.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 4, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Legalized pot is good.


I was all for criminalizing drugs, until I saw how bad things got. A bunch of people in jail for just having drugs, black markets and ironically pushing people to worse drugs. At least decriminalization would lessen the burden on jails. Not sure if I'm for legalizing all or just some drugs, but either way, they can be tax directly for healthcare. As for cannnabis specifically, doesn't seem to be any worse than what we have now.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 4, 2020)

This is not my conversation, but I feel like I have to chip in.


Lacius said:


> BLM has been largely peaceful.


Most Coronavirus cases were not fatal.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> This is not my conversation, but I feel like I have to chip in.
> 
> Most Coronavirus cases were not fatal.


I agree with you. What is your point?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 4, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I agree with you. What is your point?


If you say that BLM isn't a big deal because most "protests" were "peaceful", then you must also admit that the Coronavirus isn't a big deal because most people who get it are asymptomatic.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> If you say that BLM isn't a big deal because most "protests" were "peaceful", then you must also admit that the Coronavirus isn't a big deal because most people who get it are asymptomatic.


BLM as an organization is peaceful. COVID-19 is a mindless force of nature that attempts to infect everybody and kills approximately 1% of people who are infected overall. There's no comparison.

That's like arguing any organization with a single bad actor is a bad organization.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 4, 2020)

Lacius said:


> BLM as an organization is peaceful. COVID-19 is a mindless force of nature that attempts to infect everybody and kills approximately 1% of people who are infected overall. There's no comparison.
> 
> That's like arguing any organization with a single bad actor is a bad organization.


BLM and ANTIFA are terrorist organizations made up of subhuman scum who have no problems burning down buildings and throwing molotov cocktails at innocent bystanders.
In comparison, the Coronavirus is a mild inconvenience.


----------



## VartioArtel (Oct 4, 2020)

Gonna focus on the key things here:


Lacius said:


> Both parties have corruption, but it would be inaccurate to say they are equally corrupt. The corruption in the Democratic party pales in comparison to the corruption in the Republican party.



You're right, the Democrats have Super Delegates, further dwindling the voting of the people from whoever the individual views as best to a VERY specific pool that THEY choose from, rather than letting people outright pick whoever they feel would be right. Yes, they've 'stepped back', but they still VERY much exist.

This isn't even including the standard fair corruption of our system just HAVING political parties means, or the support of such parties, as they narrow opinions to who the parties choose for us, and the media supports that, and 3rd+ parties have been shoved off because of big money as a result.




> Nobody on the left is condoning violence or destruction of property, and BLM has been largely peaceful. Trump and the Republicans coddle white supremacists. White domestic terrorism is the biggest terrorist threat in this country, and Trump and the Republicans won't address it.



https://www.npr.org/2020/09/27/9175...urder-after-driving-into-pro-trump-protesters
-Done by a BLM Group Leader.

https://nypost.com/2020/08/30/blm-activists-celebrated-as-trump-supporter-killed-devine/

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/07/black-lives-matter-hypocrisy-cheering-violence/ 
-2016 but it checks out sir.

https://nypost.com/2020/09/24/blm-removes-website-language-blasting-nuclear-family-structure/
-Oh the juice on this one

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ar-iranian-phrase-death-to-america-goes-viral
-"Death to America" you say?

Want me to keep going? The Far left Coddle Black Supremacists and Terrorists too in the form of Antifa.

Like oh THIS little shithead:
https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/20...re-set-inside-justice-center-in-late-may.html

Here's a racist one (like it or not):
“You lil’ white cracker”BLM-antifa rioters gathered outside the Penumbra Kelly police building in SE Portland tonight after the debate. They shut down the roads again. #PortlandRiots #antifa https://t.co/NTQCqqvgcG— Andy Ngô 🏳️‍🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) September 30, 2020


Here's a fun one from the recent Proud Boys Rally that a BLM/Antifa put up there:






They also like attacking News Reporters:
Local Skyline News Facebook group reporter Chad Nesbitt has been taken out by ambulance. He was surrounded by protesters and filming before he went down. @WLOS_13— Caitlyn Penter (@caitlyn_penter) September 24, 2020


Hilarious but related since it stars Seattle:
Seattle pays ex-pimp $150,000 to offer 'alternatives to policing' https://t.co/Xn5rzZ5QMZ pic.twitter.com/1PXD880NNq— New York Post (@nypost) September 22, 2020


Still trying to find others but you get the point. There's a cubic fuckton if you look.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 4, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> "Damage" "something" are the two keywords to take here. So yes, destroying buildings is, by definition, violence. By law, it constitutes violence, and would be enforced as such if ever taken to a court of law.
> 
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53491223
> ...



But, but .... silence is violence! White milk is racist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> BLM and ANTIFA are terrorist organizations made up of subhuman scum who have no problems burning down buildings and throwing molotov cocktails at innocent bystanders.
> In comparison, the Coronavirus is a mild inconvenience.



BLM is not a terrorist organization, nor is Antifa. This kind of hyperbolic nonsense is dangerous.
Which one has killed over 200,000 Americans again?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 4, 2020)

Lacius said:


> BLM is not a terrorist organization, nor is Antifa. This kind of hyperbolic nonsense is dangerous.
> Which one has killed over 200,000 Americans again?


BLM and ANTIFA _are_ terrorist organizations and in addition, they are, ironically, the very thing that they oppose.
Also, which one kills younger people without underlying sicknesses?


----------



## Lacius (Oct 4, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> Gonna focus on the key things here:
> 
> 
> You're right, the Democrats have Super Delegates, further dwindling the voting of the people from whoever the individual views as best to a VERY specific pool that THEY choose from, rather than letting people outright pick whoever they feel would be right. Yes, they've 'stepped back', but they still VERY much exist.
> ...



Superdelegates are stupid.
There has never been a nomination where the superdelegates usurped the will of the voters.
Superdelegates don't exist anymore, unless a candidate doesn't get a majority of delegates.
So, while stupid, they're not exactly evidence of corruption.

I'm not so keen on wading through your scattershot approach to disparaging BLM (you've included sources about asking people for alternatives to police that do nothing to demonstrate your claim the BLM is violent?), so I'll let you pick what you think is the best one, and we can talk about that.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraSUPRA said:


> BLM and ANTIFA _are_ terrorist organizations


Please provide a source demonstrating that either of these organizations has been labeled a terrorist organization, particularly BLM.



UltraSUPRA said:


> Also, which one kills younger people without underlying sicknesses?



You didn't answer my question.
The answer to this question isn't particularly relevant to my point.
The answer is COVID-19, albeit it's rare.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 4, 2020)

I mean, most blm and antifa people aren't in an "organization" at all, right?


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 4, 2020)

Lacius, there are tons of BLM videos of whole streets having shut stores as wide as the eye can see (with wooden barricades!), random people being attacked on the street, people having their property invaded and/or attacked, people being killed and murdered. Many of the videos only exist on liveleak or bitchute though.

If only a fraction of this had been done in the name of "Proud Boys" (or any other right-wing organization) you´d have no problem to call the organization terrorists.

I repeat what I had said earlier: Most Nazis did not murder people, most Islamists are peaceful. That says nothing about whether something is dangerous. If you join the proud boys after they (hypothetically) put cities on fire, then you can´t act innocent and call them "mostly peaceful".

You are rational on COVID19 but very irrational on this question. That said, I think Biden will actually do more to restore peace than Trump. Biden´s administration will avoid denouncing BLM or Antifa (see debate) but will use more force to stop the looting and violence.


----------



## VartioArtel (Oct 4, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> If only a fraction of this had been done in the name of "Proud Boys" (or any other right-wing organization) you´d have no problem to call the organization terrorists.



Notice how interested he was in actually LOOKING through my links, but god forbid I bet he'd be humping them if they mentioned KKK, Proud Boys, Trump, or his sister.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 4, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Lacius, there are tons of BLM videos of whole streets having shut stores as wide as the eye can see (with wooden barricades!), random people being attacked on the street, people having their property invaded and/or attacked, people being killed and murdered. Many of the videos only exist on liveleak or bitchute though.
> 
> If only a fraction of this had been done in the name of "Proud Boys" (or any other right-wing organization) you´d have no problem to call the organization terrorists.
> 
> ...



Biden is definitively not going to denounce BLM and there's little chance he'll use force to quell the rioting. His reaction to it will be the same as you see from local officials in these liberal hell holes that are being set on fire. What's their reaction? Do nothing to prevent the violence and destruction then beg the rest of the country for money to fix the damage they let happen. I highly doubt Biden has the balls to make the hard decision to go in and arrest every single one of these domestic terrorists.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



VartioArtel said:


> Notice how interested he was in actually LOOKING through my links, but god forbid I bet he'd be humping them if they mentioned KKK, Proud Boys, Trump, or his sister.



The KKK were and still are a Democrat organization. I mean, the Demonrats started the KKK to harass and intimidate black voters and Republicans and stop them from voting. There also was no ridiculous party switch". I'm not sure why you're mixing it in with far right groups? Maybe you're thinking about Neo Nazi's as those are far right.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 4, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> because not wearing a mask can result in someone dying.



I think knowingly passing AIDs to someone is a lot more akin to murder than not wearing a mask to Kroger, but California reduced that to a misdemeanor and I'll bet they hardly enforce it. But who cares? We don't need police anyway. That's what I learned from the smart people.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 4, 2020)

As far as I can tell the Proud Boys aren´t even white supremacists (at least if the former member Gavin McInnes is an indication; who I can´t stand btw). I was just using them as an example.


----------



## VartioArtel (Oct 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Biden is definitively not going to denounce BLM and there's little chance he'll use force to quell the rioting. His reaction to it will be the same as you see from local officials in these liberal hell holes that are being set on fire. What's their reaction? Do nothing to prevent the violence and destruction then beg the rest of the country for money to fix the damage they let happen. I highly doubt Biden has the balls to make the hard decision to go in and arrest every single one of these domestic terrorists.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Oh I don't care if KKK are left or right, they're still ultimately a bad force. I'm just saying he'd chomp at the bait if the links I gave were about them.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2020)

VartioArtel said:


> Oh I don't care if KKK are left or right, they're still ultimately a bad force. I'm just saying he'd chomp at the bait if the links I gave were about them.


https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html
between 1860's and 1936, the two swapped.
in other words, people who say, didn't like slavery, became the democratic party. While the ones that did, became part of the republican party.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/kkk-founded
1869 is when the KKK showed up.
Given that the KKK was extremely racist and didn't like blacks, it's easy to assume that they more closely align with the modern day republican party since if the "democratic party" politics before 1860 (which is the modern day republican party) was for slavery. Then disdain for black individuals would be strong among the red states. This doesn't mean all Republican's are racist. However KKK members are more likely to agree with right point of views versus left ones.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> As far as I can tell the Proud Boys aren´t even white supremacists (at least if the former member Gavin McInnes is an indication; who I can´t stand btw). I was just using them as an example.


Laughs in a google search


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 4, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html
> between 1860's and 1936, the two swapped.
> in other words, people who say, didn't like slavery, became the democratic party. While the ones that did, became part of the republican party.
> https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/kkk-founded
> ...



There was no "party swap". Not every single Republican in the USA suddenly decided to turn into racists like the Democrats were. The Republicans formed their party in part to end slavery and fought a Civil War to free slaves from Democrats. Just because a handful of Democrat senators decided to give up their racism and become Republicans doesn't mean the hundreds of millions of members suddenly "switched sides". That's a really stupid thing to believe. 

The KKK was also started by the Democrats and a Democrat KKK leader was in the Senate up until a few years ago. There's tons of material that covers why the KKK started and it started mainly due to the Democrats not wanting Republicans or black people to vote. "Free State Of Jones" and "Lincoln" are historically accurate movies. The Democrats were the racist ones and they still are. Educated people who happen to be non-White see right through their deception. That's not to say there isn't racism coming from people on the right. It's just more common for the party of racism to be racist.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> There was no "party swap". Not every single Republican in the USA suddenly decided to turn into racists like the Democrats were. The Republicans formed their party in part to end slavery and fought a Civil War to free slaves from Democrats. Just because a handful of Democrat senators decided to give up their racism and become Republicans doesn't mean the hundreds of millions of members suddenly "switched sides". That's a really stupid thing to believe.
> 
> The KKK was also started by the Democrats and a Democrat KKK leader was in the Senate up until a few years ago. There's tons of material that covers why the KKK started and it started mainly due to the Democrats not wanting Republicans or black people to vote. "Free State Of Jones" and "Lincoln" are historically accurate movies. The Democrats were the racist ones and they still are. Educated people who happen to be non-White see right through their deception. That's not to say there isn't racism coming from people on the right. It's just more common for the party of racism to be racist.


Cool story but give me your source. You provide a lot of talking points with nothing to back it up. I played my hand. Show yours.


----------



## RandomUser (Oct 4, 2020)

I'd like to post these up:




and the last video which is a very interesting video:

Basically the lady is saying there is no systematic racism for people of color, no white privileges, etc.
I do not know if any of these videos are truthful or not.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 4, 2020)

this line of logic always gets me, "the democrats were the racists! they fought for slavery in the civil war" to which i respond, "let us take down our confederate statues if they were made by democrats".


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 4, 2020)

omgcat said:


> this line of logic always gets me, "the democrats were the racists! they fought for slavery in the civil war" to which i respond, "let us take down our confederate statues if they were made by democrats".


Those statues represent an important part of history.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 4, 2020)

RandomUser said:


> I'd like to post these up:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





>claims BLM is marxist movement
>literally cites PragerU, Heritage Foundation, and Sky news

>*ISHYGDDT*

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraSUPRA said:


> Those statues represent an important part of history.



yeah, but supposedly they are democrat made, so we can take them down if we want.

also:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-for-rightwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim

literal rightwing conspiracy/propoganda


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 4, 2020)

omgcat said:


> yeah, but supposedly they are democrat made, so we can take them down if we want.


It doesn't matter what political party, I'm not for scrubbing out important parts of history.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> It doesn't matter what political party, I'm not for scrubbing out important parts of history.


why is it important when it's a symbol of oppression for black Americans? the statues being taken down are confederate statues. You know, the ones who wanted to keep black people slaves. If it was statues of people who saved the slaves or helped them, then yeah I would consider that important.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 4, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> why is it important when it's a symbol of oppression for black Americans?


1. The black people that weren't slaves owned them.
2. Most slaves were imported from Africa, where they were still...slaves, and also owned by blacks.
3. I said important, not happy.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 4, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> why is it important when it's a symbol of oppression for black Americans? the statues being taken down are confederate statues. You know, the ones who wanted to keep black people slaves. If it was statues of people who saved the slaves or helped them, then yeah I would consider that important.



not only that, but it took until fucking 2020 for them to remove a LITERAL SLAVE AUCTION BLOCK from downtown Fredericksburg in Virginia. 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/08/us/fredericksburg-slave-auction-block-removal-trnd/index.html

like, imagine being black and seeing the spot where your people were sold just casually sitting there every day.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 4, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Laughs in a google search
> View attachment 227062


I judge people by what they say, not what others say about them.
I will not call you gay unless you tell me you are or I see you in bed with men.

The proud boys - if their former "leader" is an indication of what the group is about - are American nationalists (not white nationalists), somewhere between a Bush era "Murica" group and Trump followers. If they are white supremacists because they prefer western civilization, then large parts of the world are white supremacists (in fact I might be a small minority on this board who is not).


----------



## RandomUser (Oct 4, 2020)

omgcat said:


> >claims BLM is marxist movement
> >literally cites PragerU, Heritage Foundation, and Sky news
> 
> >*ISHYGDDT*


Found this https://fee.org/articles/is-black-lives-matter-marxist-no-and-yes/
It seems to correlate to what one of the video is saying. But who knows if it is fact or not? I may not understand what this has to do with Democrat or Republican and what they are saying about both of them is either true, false, or half truth. I do not know. People will have to decide for themselves what to make of the info, perhaps a whole lot of nothing or a whole lot of something.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 4, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Cool story but give me your source. You provide a lot of talking points with nothing to back it up. I played my hand. Show yours.



Source = Ability to read through Democrats lies and common sense. You should try it sometime. Do you actually believe that after starting a party to end slavery and fighting a war that tens of millions of Republicans suddenly said "fuck it, we hate Blacks now" and both parties "switched places"? You're pretty gullible if you believe that nonsense.


----------



## notimp (Oct 4, 2020)

RandomUser said:


> Found this https://fee.org/articles/is-black-lives-matter-marxist-no-and-yes/
> It seems to correlate to what one of the video is saying. But who knows if it is fact or not? I may not understand what this has to do with Democrat or Republican and what they are saying about both of them is either true, false, or half truth. I do not know. People will have to decide for themselves what to make of the info, perhaps a whole lot of nothing or a whole lot of something.


Politifact is actually pretty clear in its analysis:
https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/jul/21/black-lives-matter-marxist-movement/

The issue here is, if you just brand a movement 'marxist' - which republican ideologs do, you do that to discredit intention, bases on mostly structural misinformation in the general public, stemming from PR, again - on the left, and on the right.

Marxist to most people you are coining the message for is an ideologic term they'd think of synonymous with 'communist', which it is not. Then comes the followup, so what is it then? And the answers you could give would be 'its an ideological spectrum', or a viewpoint, or an historical ideology, or ...

If you cant discuss the meaning of those terms in action, but rather use them to come up with the as group identifications, your agenda is not 'lets have a discussion'. 

Marxist can be anything from - capitalism needs co-regulation to, people should seize means of production and capital. 'Trained marxist' could be 'guy thats a little on the fringes of society, finding solace in a group of similarly a little off kiltered folks' (which is largely where political change comes from), and in the mind of another person its 'a communist kabal trying to destroy democracy'.

If discussion about those terms or ideas never becomes part of the public sphere (which is what media is needed for), everyone makes up their own explanation, and as we all know, they currently could be pretty extreme and devided.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 4, 2020)

RandomUser said:


> Found this https://fee.org/articles/is-black-lives-matter-marxist-no-and-yes/
> It seems to correlate to what one of the video is saying. But who knows if it is fact or not? I may not understand what this has to do with Democrat or Republican and what they are saying about both of them is either true, false, or half truth. I do not know. People will have to decide for themselves what to make of the info, perhaps a whole lot of nothing or a whole lot of something.



BLM is made up of various elements such as Antifa and Liberals that want to rip up our Constitution and replace it with socialism. You also have BLM funneling donations into the DNC. Then there's just some normal members that think they are doing the right thing. It's a mixture of sorts.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



omgcat said:


> >claims BLM is marxist movement
> >literally cites PragerU, Heritage Foundation, and Sky news
> 
> >*ISHYGDDT*
> ...



Killing the messenger is a lame tactic. Just because you don't like the source doesn't mean the information is invalid.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraSUPRA said:


> 1. The black people that weren't slaves owned them.
> 2. Most slaves were imported from Africa, where they were still...slaves, and also owned by blacks.
> 3. I said important, not happy.



Erasing history is stupid because anyone that actually studies history knows that we're doomed to repeat it if we don't learn from it. Sure, the lesson may be tough to listen to and it might not make you happy, but life isn't all peaches and roses. The Liberal left really wants to erase the fact that the Democrats fought a war to keep their slaves and started the KKK to harass blacks and the Republicans who were on the other side of that war from voting. They don't want people to get wind of the fact they're still just as racist now as they were then.


----------



## notimp (Oct 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Source = Ability to read through Democrats lies and common sense.


You havent gotten it. Subjectivity, and personal believes, are not a virtue - when trying to educate others. 

You get closer to 'some version of the truth' if different sides can dissect an argument, and bring interpretations about logic errors, or issues, or different interpretations. For that an argument has to be usually pretty concise, and preferably written down.

If someone is saying, no - man you dont understand, its my godlike ability to filter through democrats lies, and it only makes sense in my head, and thats fine that way... Ehm, you dont make that person your king.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 4, 2020)

notimp said:


> You havent gotten it. Subjectivity, and personal believes, are not a virtue - when trying to educate others.
> 
> You get closer to 'some version of the truth' if different sides can dissect an argument, and bring interpretations about logic errors, or issues, or different interpretations. For that an argument has to be usually pretty concise, and preferably written down.
> 
> If someone is saying, no - man you dont understand, its my godlike ability to filter through democrats lies, and it only makes sense in my head, and thats fine that way... Ehm, you dont make that person your king.



Nah, it's easy to figure out that tens of millions of people who millions just fought in a war to end slavery didn't simply decide "well, we fought the war and now we want to switch sides and own slaves and be racist". Common sense man. Plus, if you read history via sources other then manipulated modern web shit there's no mention of this way too convenient "party swap". It's just another one of the Left's fabrications used to justify their racism and bigotry.


----------



## notimp (Oct 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Erasing history is stupid because anyone that actually studies history knows that we're doomed to repeat it if we don't learn from it.


Everyone studying history knows, that people almost never learn from history, but that societies nevertheless get more advanced over time.

F.e.
'Disturbing' lack of Holocaust knowledge in US
https://www.dw.com/en/us-holocaust-knowledge-jews/a-54955649


----------



## leon315 (Oct 4, 2020)

shamzie said:


> So getting back to the politics, this happened today.View attachment 226016


Aren't votes secret? then how did they know the votes are for Trump? XRAY?


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 4, 2020)

notimp said:


> Everyone studying history knows, that people almost never learn from history, but that societies nevertheless get more advanced over time.
> 
> F.e.
> 'Disturbing' lack of Holocaust knowledge in US
> https://www.dw.com/en/us-holocaust-knowledge-jews/a-54955649



I agree there's a lot of stupid people in this world, especially regarding who Hitler was and what he did, but that's got nothing to do with the Liberals lie of a "party swap". The people who actually study history learn from it. The ones that are trying to erase it are the ones you need to be careful around.


----------



## notimp (Oct 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Nah, it's easy to figure out that tens of millions of people who millions just fought in a war to end slavery didn't simply decide "well, we fought the war and now we want to switch sides and own slaves and be racist". Common sense man. Plus, if you read history via sources other then manipulated modern web shit there's no mention of this way too convenient "party swap". It's just another one of the Left's fabrications used to justify their racism and bigotry.


Language - 'Its pretty easy to see whose manipulated, and who is slaves, and that it dint just end, because people changed their minds, and fabrications and lies, and bigotry and...' is entirely useless.

If you have your mind made up on a position, the idea is to convince other people by bringing an argument that is void of most emotional filler terms. You use a different language, to signal to other people, that you actually are capable of a rational argument, and actually have something, beyond an 'emotional notion' of something.

All that you have been able to show as of now is, that you can absolutely HATE and BERATE an entire half of your society (mainstream), and will use every loaded word you can think of to prevent rational discussion on anything.

You are pretty much the antichrist of critical debate. If you cant say shit, biggottry, lies, and manipulation - in a sentence, you have nothing. 

And talking about stupid people... "Just knowing" that you have the truth and hiding behind attack language against, almost half of society, I'd also consider 'stupid behavior'.

Furthermore - its not at all easy to spot manipulation. As its often subtle, and even part of everyday communication. Where you draw the lines often is interpretation. More than that - one of the first things you should learn, when you are researching those subjects is, that you yourself are not immune. And the people who think that they are, are usually the most ideologically 'malleable'.

Or simply put - advertising and PR work. Otherwise people would not spend money on it. And both advertising and PR work, by selling you 'emotional truths'. Something that makes you feel good, or feel that you lack something, or feel that you are a better person, when you have something... But in essence, emotion.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 4, 2020)

leon315 said:


> Aren't votes secret? then how did they know the votes are for Trump? XRAY?



The ballots aren't that secure and in some states you can tell if it's a Republican or Democrat ballot without the need to open it. I'd assume if you found a bunch of ballots all you'd need to do is open a few to know for sure. Voter fraud was bound to happen as there's too many people in the loop with mail in voting. Is it widespread? I'm not sure. Voter fraud exists. It's a real thing.


----------



## notimp (Oct 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> The ballots aren't that secure and in some states you can tell if it's a Republican or Democrat ballot without the need to open it. I'd assume if you found a bunch of ballots all you'd need to do is open a few to know for sure.


The idea is, that you cant find out by looking at the envelope, thats what makes it pseudonymous. The idea then is, that inside that envelope you have another envelope, that has no personal details on it whatsoever, which makes that one anonymous. (If you dont track attribution (the connection between the two).)

Opening 'some envelopes' - 'when you find them' would likely lead to mixed results, and invalidating them. And then?  You dont know anything more.

If you are playing with statistics, in a system that is set up to prevent voter fraud (which mail voting is), the idea is - that you manipulate 'big leavers' like -- democrats are more likely to vote per mail, lets demonize all voting per mail.

Its not good at all to 'manipulate 1000s of votes as one guy and then...' the system set up pretty much prevents that (you check if outer envelope is entitled to vote, and if they signed on a seal telling you that they werent preassured, and the seal is valid), and than one guy having an opportunity to open envelops doesnt scale.

Its far easier to simply manipulate, by telling your side - voting via mail is fraudulent, better dont do it. Then get increased in person votes, relatively, for your side, during a pandemic, and then to question legitimacy of mail votes, slowing down delivery, and cutting them off from being counted at a certain point. Pulling the bigger leavers (if you can get away with it) makes much more sense, than 'having a guy, at every place'.

Because voting systems are literally set up, so that people look at other peoples hands, to see what they are doing. Vice versa. You check me, I check you. Thats hard to break by "having a guy".

Electronic voter fraud f.e. is possible, because you have far too few people being able to 'look at code' and 'verifying 'trusted computing environments'' to understand process. In those cases "having a guy" would be a way to pull it off.

But in the case of mail envelopes, people know what 'counting those' means, and what they are supposed to do. And the way they are set up (two envelopes within each other, one to check if its 'you the person' thats voting, and that you did that without being pressured, the other one to ensure 'anonymity' before counting), is enough to prevent "having a guy" at a voting center somewhere. If both camps are watching over the other 'process'.

As a result 'structural voting fraud' (someone trying to game that system on that low of a level) has never been seen/effective in the US, says the head of your FBI.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Oct 4, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> It's not even true.  They tried to rig it for Hillary but couldn't get enough battleground states rigged so they still lost even with massive rigging due to electoral college.



Proof?



gregory-samba said:


> 3 million people is piss compared to the 330,000,000 people in the USA. 3 million is not a large margin out of 330,000,000 by any means.



So what you've just said in so many ways is that while 3 million voted for Hillary, more voted for Trump. Your comparison is severely flawed.



UltraSUPRA said:


> We disagree because without the Electoral College, every election would be determined by only three states.



Except even Trump said the Electoral should be done away with......... until he won because of it.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 4, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Except even Trump said the Electoral should be done away with......... until he won because of it.


He also used to be a Democrat.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 4, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> So what you've just said in so many ways is that while 3 million voted for Hillary, more voted for Trump. Your comparison is severely flawed.



I'm not denying Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million, but when you compare that number to the USA population it's only 0.01%. It's not a large margin. The thing is, we have the electoral college to make sure every state is represented. Imagine if only the large Liberal cities determined the direction for everyone else. The entire country would be full of perverted drug addicts and all our cities would be burning. Yeah, not thanks. Every state needs representation and the wicked Liberals need to stay where they are and hopefully kill each other. They do eat their own you know.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraSUPRA said:


> He also used to be a Democrat.



^^ This.

Trump is so effective because he understands the mindset of Democrats. Like most people who start off Democrat, yet are successful because they work hard, they eventually become Republicans because they realize the Democrats don't value hard work or success. They only want to take money away from successful people and give it to bums. Trump came around and that's a good thing. He understands the Liberal mindset and how to control them due to the fact he was one before. He has the advantage.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> He also used to be a Democrat.



3 times, that's what I've said for a long time now if he was a Democrat right now he'd be a rockstar. Dems would love him the media would love him, there'd be no impeachments. Funny how that works.  In before Democrat denies this but it's the truth.


----------



## notimp (Oct 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Trump is so effective because he understands the mindset of Democrats. Like most people who start off Democrat, yet are successful because they work hard, they eventually become Republicans because they realize the Democrats don't value hard work or success.


Like most people that end up successful, people tend to want to rectify their success ('why was I successful and the others are not?'), because its societally frowned upon to say - well, it must be because I'm so inherently great, they end up at "well it must have been, because I worked so hard". (They usually dont have another explanation.  )

If they are especially successful (or just rich, in Trumps case..  ), they even get most of the people they meet to agree with everything they say - and because thats so 'disassociating' (you have few people that understand life like you do), they even get more into trying to tell others how they 'shaped life according to their values'. And that you can be successful too, if you just do what they did. 

While 'being driven' plays a key part in becoming successful, not everyone does.

What do we do with the people that dont? Do we still tell them stories about, if you just try hard enough, eventually you will make it? Everyone forges their own luck.

If you want to form that to even more of an extreme, look up the _personal_ story of Ayn Rand.
--

On the other hand, I myself have become more 'conservative' over the years, because I see, that part of what liberal means these days, is searching for anything you think you can rebel against, and then going for it, no efforts spared. And the way I knew life, back when I was young, has taught me, that parts of that, never can be right. So now I cant muster up idealism. But when I was young, I was the same. 

Btw: Your story on success - is kind of a needed self fulfilling prophecy. So for once, its actually good, that you are telling it.  People should at least try.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 4, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> 3 times, that's what I've said for a long time now if he was a Democrat right now he'd be a rockstar. Dems would love him the media would love him, there'd be no impeachments. Funny how that works.  In before Democrat denies this but it's the truth.



They'd love him and prop him up until he becomes useless for them and then they'd turn on him an attack him. Sorta how the Liberals who used to like him have done. Liberals will simply use you until you can't be exploited any longer and then will turn on you in a quick second. They are not trustworthy people and the entire motive is about control as free will isn't compatible with their mindset.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Oct 4, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> He also used to be a Democrat.



And? He also gave high praises to Pelosi and said Bush should have been impeached. What exactly is your point? That it's okay for him to do and say the things he does because he USED to be a Democrat? He also had a long since deleted Tweet that said someone shoot him is he ever runs for president. "Used to" is not an excuse for current actions.



gregory-samba said:


> I'm not denying Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million, but when you compare that number to the USA population it's only 0.01%. It's not a large margin. The thing is, we have the electoral college to make sure every state is represented. Imagine if only the large Liberal cities determined the direction for everyone else. The entire country would be full of perverted drug addicts and all our cities would be burning. Yeah, not thanks. Every state needs representation and the wicked Liberals need to stay where they are and hopefully kill each other. They do eat their own you know.
> 
> Trump is so effective because he understands the mindset of Democrats. Like most people who start off Democrat, yet are successful because they work hard, they eventually become Republicans because they realize the Democrats don't value hard work or success. They only want to take money away from successful people and give it to bums. Trump came around and that's a good thing. He understands the Liberal mindset and how to control them due to the fact he was one before. He has the advantage.



Congrats. You won my Pure Stupidity of the Day award, and it's not even noon here yet.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 4, 2020)

The guy wouldn't have even made it pass the Democratic primary. Why do you think he switched in the first place?


----------



## notimp (Oct 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> They'd love him and prop him up until he becomes useless for them and then they'd turn on him an attack him. Sorta how the Liberals who used to like him have done. Liberals will simply use you until you can't be exploited any longer and then will turn on you in a quick second. They are not trustworthy people and the entire motive is about control as free will isn't compatible with their mindset.


Once more - you are segmenting society into maybe four groups. Then pronouncing one 'no good, untrusworthy, exploiters that are against free will.

That in itself doesnt work. If thats your view of society - its too simplistic. Take two of those options away and you are actually at - 'women are, man are' or other 'obviously common sense rules' like that.

Furthermore - politically if you are against 'many people being thrown away and exploited' you show tendencies of being a socialist. But those you also hate with a passion.

And liberals, originally -- before they mainly became free market liberals, were all about being 'unrestricted' (most degrees of freedom possible). With free market liberals (neoliberals), this became 'the freedom to do exactly whats 'best for the market', and with SJWs this became - the freedom to do exactly as we tell you, because you are impeaching on the freedoms of others, we like better.

The lesson to learn here is not that -- only my fraction (the one I retrated to) is the only one thats 'moral' and everyone else is fit to hate - the lesson to learn here is, that all those movements, all of them, are driven by drive and ambition, and in the end have no fixed values.

This even gets to the point, where you have the liberal left currently believing, that freedom of speech (which isnt constitutional btw), maybe not the best thing ever, because it leads to more populism. Which, just a few decades ago -- would have been the anithesis of liberal.

In some aspects todays left became anti enlightenment in values (for an easy example see attacks on Pinker), and todays right became 'cool, because they were the ones that were edgy and anti (some) behavioral taboos. People for a while forgot, that conservative means, establishment corporate man until the grave.. 

Its this in principal:

(Interview from 2016)

"Doing occupy wallstreet, because you want to be a manager of a status quo.." 

But again, if your spite for certain fractions becomes so big, that you dont even realize, that liberals in essence should be standing up for personal freedom - and now to you they are all about control. And for social democratic values, you look at rightwing conservatives.

You have literally flipped the original meaning of those positions.

And then discussion is impossible. Because according to you black is white, and up is down. Obviously, so hate.

And even though in the liberal case you have a point, its impossible to get anywhere with you, when you are just throwing hatred at other factions.

None of your critique is poignient or constructive. You are destroying debate - so the champion you have chosen 'can win' because you just know hes your champion, and the champion says 'more of the same, because thats something you can count on'. Thats stupid.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Source = Ability to read through Democrats lies and common sense. You should try it sometime. Do you actually believe that after starting a party to end slavery and fighting a war that tens of millions of Republicans suddenly said "fuck it, we hate Blacks now" and both parties "switched places"? You're pretty gullible if you believe that nonsense.


congratulations, your officially no longer worth my time. No source, no entry. I'm not dealing with people's personal opinions anymore. I gave you a source to backup my points, and you had nothing to refute them. Therefore the lack of an attempt to refute is clear to me I am correct. And you got pushed into a corner.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 5, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> congratulations, your officially no longer worth my time. No source, no entry. I'm not dealing with people's personal opinions anymore. I gave you a source to backup my points, and you had nothing to refute them. Therefore the lack of an attempt to refute is clear to me I am correct. And you got pushed into a corner.



That's fine. I don't really like people who lack common sense and the ability to think independently.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 5, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> That's fine. I don't really like people who lack common sense and the ability to think independently.


are we thinking independently or are we thinking with stupidity, because the latter seems the option your taking. You gave nothing to refute my source, therefore by omission, that's proof that you know you can't back it up.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 5, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> are we thinking independently or are we thinking with stupidity, because the latter seems the option your taking. You gave nothing to refute my source, therefore by omission, that's proof that you know you can't back it up.



Your source simply states that every single republican switched positions on issues with democrats, which is not true. If you look at history and the positions the Republicans have taken you may notice some differences between now and back when they fought a war against the Democrats to end slavery of black people, but them being racist against blacks isn't one of those issues. Republicans views have simply evolved to deal with the times and the majority are still hard working God fearing citizens who value family and reject perversions. To claim that tens of millions of people suddenly took up the values of the side they fought against is asinine.

Your source also never claims they switched to being racists after fighting a war against racists, though simply says both parties switched on most issues, which if you study both parties is not true. The "party switch" was invented as a way to justify racism and turn the subject off of the Democrats. It's a blatant fabrication meant to be used as a distraction, a way to deflect the truth that the Democrats are inherently racist. That's easy to see as Democrats don't have solid values and lying is perfectly fine by them. The Democrats are the party of racism. Nothing more, nothing less. I can't help you don't know how to do your own homework, but I'm not your babysitter and sure as hell aren't going to hold your hand.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 5, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Your source simply states that every single republican switched positions on issues with democrats, which is not true. If you look at history and the positions the Republicans have taken you may notice some differences between now and back when they fought a war against the Democrats to end slavery of black people, but them being racist against blacks isn't one of those issues. Republicans views have simply evolved to deal with the times and the majority are still hard working God fearing citizens who value family and reject perversions. To claim that tens of millions of people suddenly took up the values of the side they fought against is asinine.
> 
> Your source also never claims they switched to being racists after fighting a war against racists, though simply says both parties switched on most issues, which if you study both parties is not true. The "party switch" was invented as a way to justify racism and turn the subject off of the Democrats. It's a blatant fabrication meant to be used as a distraction, a way to deflect the truth that the Democrats are inherently racist. That's easy to see as Democrats don't have solid values and lying is perfectly fine by them. The Democrats are the party of racism. Nothing more, nothing less. I can't help you don't know how to do your own homework, but I'm not your babysitter and sure as hell aren't going to hold your hand.



You've probably seen it in the Trump is in the hospital thread. They totally lost all credibility as if they had any in the first place. We were talking about fake news they questioned it and I clearly proved my point with links. Not only would they refuse to read them they had nothing but the same thing over and over one said it then the other "what do you think is the most egegious lie they told" When I said I would not be accomadating their request they just repeated it in every post for 2 pages. They had no answer to the proof that CNN is fake news so they went completely childish. (well the one you're talking to is basically a child) Not even a little bit surprising they have zero substance they don't want to read and they just repeat the same thing because they had nothing else. Even by their very low standards it was bad. It's not a surprise anyone who actually believes CNN is real news isn't very smart to begin with.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 5, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> You've probably seen it in the Trump is in the hospital thread. They totally lost all credibility as if they had any in the first place. We were talking about fake news they questioned it and I clearly proved my point with links. Not only would they refuse to read them they had nothing but the same thing over and over one said it then the other "what do you think is the most egegious lie they told" When I said I would not be accomadating their request they just repeated it in every post for 2 pages. They had no answer to the proof that CNN is fake news so they went completely childish. (well the one you're talking to is basically a child) Not even a little bit surprising they have zero substance they don't want to read and they just repeat the same thing because they had nothing else. Even by their very low standards it was bad. It's not a surprise anyone who actually believes CNN is real news isn't very smart to begin with.


If you're going to talk about me, you should tag me.

The BBC story you linked to discussed a retraction and resignations, so I don't know what the problem is.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 5, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> You've probably seen it in the Trump is in the hospital thread. They totally lost all credibility as if they had any in the first place. We were talking about fake news they questioned it and I clearly proved my point with links. Not only would they refuse to read them they had nothing but the same thing over and over one said it then the other "what do you think is the most egegious lie they told" When I said I would not be accomadating their request they just repeated it in every post for 2 pages. They had no answer to the proof that CNN is fake news so they went completely childish. (well the one you're talking to is basically a child) Not even a little bit surprising they have zero substance they don't want to read and they just repeat the same thing because they had nothing else. Even by their very low standards it was bad. It's not a surprise anyone who actually believes CNN is real news isn't very smart to begin with.


one source was from a right wing provocateur, with a article that is not from a news channel but right wing advocacy group. And the second was a bcc article that also ended up disproving your own point about "CNN and other media" being fake news. Lacius brought up a point, and I decided to hard press it. What was it? What was the most egregious lie they made. And you couldn't point to it.


gregory-samba said:


> Your source simply states that every single republican switched positions on issues with democrats, which is not true. If you look at history and the positions the Republicans have taken you may notice some differences between now and back when they fought a war against the Democrats to end slavery of black people, but them being racist against blacks isn't one of those issues. Republicans views have simply evolved to deal with the times and the majority are still hard working God fearing citizens who value family and reject perversions. To claim that tens of millions of people suddenly took up the values of the side they fought against is asinine.
> 
> Your source also never claims they switched to being racists after fighting a war against racists, though simply says both parties switched on most issues, which if you study both parties is not true. The "party switch" was invented as a way to justify racism and turn the subject off of the Democrats. It's a blatant fabrication meant to be used as a distraction, a way to deflect the truth that the Democrats are inherently racist. That's easy to see as Democrats don't have solid values and lying is perfectly fine by them. The Democrats are the party of racism. Nothing more, nothing less. I can't help you don't know how to do your own homework, but I'm not your babysitter and sure as hell aren't going to hold your hand.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Someone wasn't doing their homework, please again tell me that racism isn't in the republican ball park. Provide a source while your at it. Because history is against you on this one.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 5, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> You've probably seen it in the Trump is in the hospital thread. They totally lost all credibility as if they had any in the first place. We were talking about fake news they questioned it and I clearly proved my point with links. Not only would they refuse to read them they had nothing but the same thing over and over one said it then the other "what do you think is the most egegious lie they told" When I said I would not be accomadating their request they just repeated it in every post for 2 pages. They had no answer to the proof that CNN is fake news so they went completely childish. (well the one you're talking to is basically a child) Not even a little bit surprising they have zero substance they don't want to read and they just repeat the same thing because they had nothing else. Even by their very low standards it was bad. It's not a surprise anyone who actually believes CNN is real news isn't very smart to begin with.



They simply are ignorant and are programmed to refuse to learn anything that may conflict with what their leaders tell them to think. I'm smart enough to know that sources that may contain fake information still might have a bit of truth in them and even though I may not agree with the way CNN leans, they do sometimes have informative articles. I look at it this way. It's like not liking your science teacher then claiming all the material they present to you is fake and you're not going to read it because you don't like the person presenting it to you. Liberals are programmed not to take in information logically, but resort to taking it in emotionally. Their leaders know if they label things racist or far-right that it will automatically be ignored and tossed to the side. It's designed that way. I just happen to know how to call out bullshit when I see it.

CNN runs with Liberal lies all of the time. They selectively take bits and pieces of what Trump says and then presents it in a way that makes him look bad, but it's never what Trump said or meant. It's completely taken out of context. It's basically lies. Fabricated news. Like the claiming Trump said to "drink bleach" or the entire "go back to your country" deal. Both are complete and utter lies, but the Left will defend them because that's the way they've been programmed. Same deal with climate change, they think that carbon is the only cause of global warming and completely ignore things that influence the climate that we have no control over. The truth doesn't play well with them. 

Part of it is that some things in life are just hard to deal with and Liberals aren't able to deal with hard truths. The entire "party swap" thing was created as a distraction because what if the Liberals had to realize and acknowledge how racist the Democrats were back then and still are to this day. Some of the Liberals are actually quite intelligent, those are the ones that act as leaders. They know damned well they are liars, but they don't care because they're going by a playbook on how to obtain money and power. Then there's the sheep that simply follow them because they have no common sense and unfortunately can't think for themselves.

So I feel you. It's simply a waste of time to debate with people that refuse or simply can't take in information they may not like.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 5, 2020)

It was like they read some trolls book on how to handle someone on the internet when you're backed into a corner. Keep repeating the same senseless question that you know is only meant to discredit your opponents argument if your opponent were to give in and answer it. When your opponent doesn't back down or give in to your request, say your opponent is uncomfortable even though it's you that's uncomfortable.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 5, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> It was like they read some trolls book on how to handle someone on the internet when you're backed into a corner. Keep repeating the same senseless question that you know is only meant to discredit your opponents argument if your opponent were to give in and answer it. When your opponent doesn't back down or give in to your request, say your opponent is uncomfortable even though it's you that's uncomfortable.



Possibly, there are "playbooks" of ways for Liberals to handle various things being told to them. They literally need instruction manuals on how to reply to other people. Of course, then there's the smart ones that write the play books. They know they are deceitful, but that's okay because it gives them power. It's the same mindset you find with who modded their Switch and pirate games yet harp on Xecuter for using someone else's code without their permission. Both they and Xecuter are pirates. They aren't any better than Xecuter. I give that example because the pirates know they're breaking the law, but they act like they are the good guys while bashing someone else for doing the same thing they are doing. So my point is that they are lying to themselves and people with enough IQ know they are and see right through their bullshit.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



monkeyman4412 said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
> Someone wasn't doing their homework, please again tell me that racism isn't in the republican ball park. Provide a source while your at it. Because history is against you on this one.



So some Republican's decided to get some votes by appealing to the racist Democrats. Not only does that prove that recently Democrats are still racists, but also validates what I said. The entire Republican party didn't "switch sides" on race or many other issues. Appealing to a bunch of racists for votes doesn't mean the entire party swapped platforms. It's not good, but like I already mentioned there are racists on both sides of the isle. I never claimed otherwise, it's just the Democrats are the party of racism. They fought a war to keep their slaves and lost. After that they formed the KKK and recently were behind the Jim Crowe laws. They to this day still try to paint minorities and people of color as inferior to white people. Claiming colored people are too stupid to obtain ID and show up to the polls and vote is racist as fuck. 

I'm also done with this subject. You need to read some history books and not the recent ones that rewrite history, but actual informative ones that don't hold back on what happened back then. Once you get educated on how the Democrats used to act you'll see their behavior hasn't changed. Though, knowing Liberals, reading anything that goes against whatever the fuck they switched to believe this month is not something they are willing to do.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 5, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Possibly, there are "playbooks" of ways for Liberals to handle various things being told to them. They literally need instruction manuals on how to reply to other people. Of course, then there's the smart ones that write the play books. They know they are deceitful, but that's okay because it gives them power. It's the same mindset you find with who modded their Switch and pirate games yet harp on Xecuter for using someone else's code without their permission. Both they and Xecuter are pirates. They aren't any better than Xecuter. I give that example because the pirates know they're breaking the law, but they act like they are the good guys while bashing someone else for doing the same thing they are doing. So my point is that they are lying to themselves and people with enough IQ know they are and see right through their bullshit.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


not, paying attention to time frames.
between 1860's and 1936, the two swapped.
Southern strategy started in 1950. This would mean the southern strategy would be the modern day republican's ball park.
https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html
party switch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
southern Strategy
and no it wasn't one or two republicans. it was a electoral Strategy aka the republican party agreed on it.
I think you need to start reading some history. I've proven my points, prove yours, back it up.
provide a source. Also no it wasn't "appealing to racist democrats"
That would be more accurate to "appealing to racist republicans"
history is not on your side.


----------



## RandomUser (Oct 5, 2020)

notimp said:


> Politifact is actually pretty clear in its analysis:
> https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/jul/21/black-lives-matter-marxist-movement/
> 
> The issue here is, if you just brand a movement 'marxist' - which republican ideologs do, you do that to discredit intention, bases on mostly structural misinformation in the general public, stemming from PR, again - on the left, and on the right.
> ...



From that link, and from my understanding pretty much confirms, the link I provided is correct about it being a Marxist. The link you provided they try to downplay it even if the founder admitted being a Marxist. Weather or not Marxism is either good thing or bad thing, keep in mind that their ideal most likely will not come to fruition, they be talking about taking down capitalism, which I do not seeing it being successful, at least not in the near future. Having a classless society will most likely not happen either.

Even without all of that: I do not like the idea of one race being superior then the others, I think all people of races should be equal. It appears that the movement is focusing on just one race and do not seem to care for the others. If a Caucasian is beat up or killed by a cop
*cricket sounds* and African American, all heck breaks loose.

Most up to date link I could find https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

A while ago, I came to a realization that it is nearly impossible to change people mind about anything, so I am just merely posting some findings and let the people decide on what to do with them. They do not have to believe it or they can, it their choice.

Thank you for your write up, it has been informative.



gregory-samba said:


> BLM is made up of various elements such as Antifa and Liberals that want to rip up our Constitution and replace it with socialism. You also have BLM funneling donations into the DNC. Then there's just some normal members that think they are doing the right thing. It's a mixture of sorts.


Oh wow, I didn't realize this, and that explains why BLM is tied into the Democrat. Thank you for making it much clearer for me, especially the composition of BLM. I appreciate it.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 5, 2020)

Shit flinging is boring. It is also largely unproductive -- more flies with honey and all that.

All news organisations need a kick up the arse or kick in the dick. If any one of them went pop tomorrow then nothing of value would be lost. Their general incompetence and lack of objectivity should be clear to anybody (as a general rule if you know something well how well do they report on it, now figure that it is as bad for anything -- we all probably know games so go see what any given place claims about such a thing). Despite what some might have your believe then muck raking is a thing journalists do and have done for a long time but most seem horrible at it these days, which is a pity. What caused this varies but many have become far too bloated for their shrinking income streams, and have far more agile competitors, and have invited partisan agenda pushing actors into their midst instead of going with objectivity (some value can still be found there and long may a given journalist have had their field of interest but still).
This is not to say you can't extract some value but what might have sort of been a passive affair one day (read it, watch it, listen to it... and you might learn something) has been replaced with an active affair and you have to go compare and contrast, seek primary sources, understand statistics yourself, beware of linguistic trickery, understand logic and ethics of any number of parties and so forth. I would always have encouraged active analysis but these days it is a necessity.

Anyway once more I invite you to try to sell me on both candidates (maths means a third party is basically pointless to contemplate on the national scale but if you live in a place where your vote is mathematically meaningless you might still see some benefit). What values might they espouse, what policies might they have, what policies might they enact that will have the opposite effect of what they claim, what problems might they seek to undo, what problems might they have caused in the past that I should be wary of, what are their longer term outlooks?
Even if you think the other guy might as well be akin to sending the place down the toilet for you/your kids is there something they do that is of merit? What ethical, pragmatic or similar basis do you use to arrive at those conclusions (there are many options for such things)

Is a claim of there is more to unite them than there is to divide them an accurate one? If not then why.


----------



## TheCasualties (Oct 5, 2020)

^^ Honestly I'd probably have an easier time selling you on the Green or People's party candidates. Too bad they have no chance, ever.. But that's a whole 'nother rant. 

The 2 main dudes both have issues but one of them has consistently f**kd over the lower class.. 

Just like South Park said years ago, it's between a douche and a turd sandwitch, yet again. A little less-so than last election I'd guess. 

PS: Hadn't watched south park in years but saw the Pandemic Special. That was pretty fun. "Chin Diaper" is my new favorite thing to call people out on.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 5, 2020)

Yeah, seems par for the course. Fucking up people around him is basically trump's MO at this point.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 5, 2020)

https://twitter.com/robsmithonline/status/1313198125402722305?s=21


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 5, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> https://twitter.com/robsmithonline/status/1313198125402722305?s=21



If this is the great hope for black people, I feel sorry for black people.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 5, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> https://twitter.com/robsmithonline/status/1313198125402722305?s=21





ForgotWhoIam said:


> If this is the great hope for black people, I feel sorry for black people.



I don't think what Joe said was negative. He was just pointing out the nice lady who was stocking the shelves was black and it wasn't said in a derogatory manner. I'd probably have to hear what he said before and after that statement, but from the sounds of it he wasn't being racist.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 5, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I don't think what Joe said was negative. He was just pointing out the nice lady who was stocking the shelves was black and it wasn't said in a derogatory manner. I'd probably have to hear what he said before and after that statement, but from the sounds of it he wasn't being racist.



You're making it sound like he was talking about one black lady. He said black WOMEN. Unless the part that was missed was him talking about a specific group of black women who stalked the shelves for him personally there is no wrong way to take it. He's done this many times when he talks about black people say things that just make you scratch your head. He told black people if they don't vote for him they're not black.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 5, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> You're making it sound like he was talking about one black lady. He said black WOMEN. Unless the part that was missed was him talking about a specific group of black women who stalked the shelves for him personally there is no wrong way to take it. He's done this many times when he talks about black people say things that just make you scratch your head. He told black people if they don't vote for him they're not black.



I'm not sure how much experience you may have with people Joe's age (or older), but the way he's carrying himself in relations to talking to or talking about black people is just how old people are. Unless he is directly insulting someone over their skin color I wouldn't let it bother you. Him saying "You ain't black unless you vote for me", is just Joe's way of addressing black people. I actually saw that conversation and he wasn't trying to be racist. Old people just go back communicating differently from the young folk, esp Joe's generation.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 5, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I'm not sure how much experience you may have with people Joe's age (or older), but the way he's carrying himself in relations to talking to or talking about black people is just how old people are. Unless he is directly insulting someone over their skin color I wouldn't let it bother you. Him saying "You ain't black unless you vote for me", is just Joe's way of addressing black people. I actually saw that conversation and he wasn't trying to be racist. Old people just go back communicating differently from the young folk, esp Joe's generation.



Defend him if you want, no one below the tweet was defending him. I do not agree with you and don't assume I've never dealt with people his age. I've never dealt with anyone his age that talks like he does. My grandma is 91 years old.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 5, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> Defend him if you want, no one below the tweet was defending him. I do not agree with you and don't assume I've never dealt with people his age. I've never dealt with anyone his age that talks like he does. My grandma is 91 years old.



I've had the displeasure of dealing with actual racist old people and Joe is far from it. I'm not defending Joe either. I'm sure as hell not going to vote for him or his kind, but it's not good go about labeling someone a racist when they aren't being racist. That's what the Democrats and Liberals do. I have no desire to be like them.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 5, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I've had the displeasure of dealing with actual racist old people and Joe is far from it. I'm not defending Joe either. I'm sure as hell not going to vote for him or his kind, but it's not good go about labeling someone a racist when they aren't being racist. That's what the Democrats and Liberals do. I have no desire to be like them.



I never said the words Joe Biden is a racist, you did. I said he makes comments that make you scratch your head. You're making a lot of assumptions and jumping to conclusions to defend him.

There are black people leaving the Democratic party, not like a majority of them but some are waking up to them. Comments like this will not help his cause. I'm pretty sure he also made a comment about black people not being too smart as well.

I don't think he's an actual racist like a KKK member. But I do think he thinks he has some authority over all Democrats and black people that he can tell them what to do. He is wrong.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 5, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I don't think what Joe said was negative. He was just pointing out the nice lady who was stocking the shelves was black and it wasn't said in a derogatory manner. I'd probably have to hear what he said before and after that statement, but from the sounds of it he wasn't being racist.



If Biden weren't already known to have said such things as "Poor kids are just as smart as white kids" and "you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent" and describing Barack Obama as, "the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy" .......... then maybe I'd be willing to give him that benefit of a doubt.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 5, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> If Biden weren't already known to have said such things as "Poor kids are just as smart as white kids" and "you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent" and describing Barack Obama as, "the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy" .......... then maybe I'd be willing to give him that benefit of a doubt.



If he did say those things then there's some truth in what he said. Aren't you like in your 50's? You should know how older people approach race greatly differs from the current batch of 20 some years olds. You can have a different approach and still not be a racist you know. Joe's generation had a lot more black, brown and white people that were racist against each other. That's just how they grew up. Not saying that makes it right, but I understand where they are coming from and Biden doesn't strike me like people I know that are dead straight racist fucks.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 5, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> If he did say those things then there's some truth in what he said. Aren't you like in your 50's? You should know how older people approach race greatly differs from the current batch of 20 some years olds. You can have a different approach and still not be a racist you know. Joe's generation had a lot more black, brown and white people that were racist against each other. That's just how they grew up. Not saying that makes it right, but I understand where they are coming from and Biden doesn't strike me like people I know that are dead straight racist fucks.



All I know is we were all getting along and able to party together and joke around at each others' expense without hard feelings a lot better in the 70's and 80's than now.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 5, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> All I know is we were all getting along and able to party together and joke around at each others' expense without hard feelings a lot better in the 70's and 80's than now.



Yeah, back then people had a sense of humor.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 6, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I'm not defending Joe either.



I understood that. I know where you fall on most of this, and I appreciate that you look at that statement from Biden and do give him that benefit of a doubt.

Now, just for the sake of argument, ask yourself this ... what would the liberal side of this board, the media talking heads on CNNMSNBCCBSABCNBCCNNPBS, spokespersons for BLM, etc. all be saying right now if it had been President Trump who had uttered the exact same words? "the reason I was able to stay sequestered in my home is because some black woman was able to stack the grocery shelf." Would they be giving him the benefit of a doubt as you did today for Biden??? i.e. Rationalizing about how people of his generation have a different vocabulary without ill intent and their verbatim statements can't be judged against a modern litmus test, etc.  Of course not.

And by the way, did you notice? Twitter has banished the video.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 6, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> I understood that. I know where you fall on most of this, and I appreciate that you look at that statement from Biden and do give him that benefit of a doubt.
> 
> Now, just for the sake of argument, ask yourself this ... what would the liberal side of this board, the media talking heads on CNNMSNBCCBSABCNBCCNNPBS, spokespersons for BLM, etc. all be saying right now if it had been President Trump who had uttered the exact same words? "the reason I was able to stay sequestered in my home is because some black woman was able to stack the grocery shelf." Would they be giving him the benefit of a doubt as you did today for Biden??? i.e. Rationalizing about how people of his generation have a different vocabulary without ill intent and their verbatim statements can't be judged against a modern litmus test, etc.  Of course not.
> 
> And by the way, did you notice? Twitter has banished the video.



If the circumstances were Trump said exactly what Biden said then yes the Liberals would attack him and call him a racist. The thing is Liberals are going to attack Trump no matter what he does. He's done a lot of good things in the last 4 years and even things you would think no one in their right mind would attack others for he gets attacked for. An example would be how he gives his entire $400,000.00 a year salary away to charity and recently when he gave a quarter of that to disabled veterans Liberals attacked him. 

There's also things like when he said to the newbs in Congress to go back to their home countries and fix the problems there and then come back and tell us all how you did it. He got called a racist for that, but race had nothing to do with what he said. Of course it doesn't help that the Liberals only choose a part of that statement and used it out of context to fabricate a false narrative. Liberals simply call anything they disagree with "racist". It has nothing to do with ones actual race/ethnicity/skin color.

Just because I don't care for Liberals or Joe Biden it wouldn't be good for me to simply act like the TDS sufferers do and attack Biden regardless of guilt. I have no reason to make things up or lie to anyone. If I were to carry on like the Liberals do, but simply be on the other side of things I'd be just like them and that's not something I strive for. I try to avoid the Liberal thought processes all together. Lying, thievery, cheating, adultery, etc ... I'm just not that sort of person.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 7, 2020)

https://twitter.com/tvnewshq/status/1313600344044306437?s=21

This is exactly why you can't trust the media and polls. They had people up claiming to be undecided or independent voters who have or was always going to vote for biden.


----------



## AkGBA (Oct 8, 2020)

So. Except for the fly, what's your stance on the VP debate ?


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 8, 2020)

The latest polling numbers as of 10-08-2020:

- Nationally, Biden's up 9.8 points
- In Arizona, Biden's up 4.3 points
- In Michigan, Biden's up 7.8 points
- In Wisconsin, Biden's up 7.0 points
- In Pennsylvania, Biden's up 7.0 points
- In Ohio, Biden's up 0.8 points (a tossup)
- In North Carolina, Biden's up 2.6 points (tossup)
- In Georgia, Biden's up 1.1 points (tossup)
- In Florida, Biden's up 4.7 points

As of today, there's no probable scenario where Trump can win the election without winning at least 5 of the above states including Florida.  If he loses Florida, he will lose the election, period.

Citation:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/

Also, Trump supporters attempting to kidnap Michigan's Gov'na _probably_ isn't going to help Trump's polling deficit.  Perhaps they didn't get the memo: "Stand back and stand by."

Citation:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/michigan-gretchen-whitmer-plot-abduct-kill-assassinate


----------



## omgcat (Oct 8, 2020)

Trump pussied out of the second debate. His re-election chances are torpedoed. All he had to do was do a zoom debate, and agree to not yell over the other candidate.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 8, 2020)

AkGBA said:


> So. Except for the fly, what's your stance on the VP debate ?



I think Pence did a great job of getting Harris to yet again flip flop on a few things.  To make statements that are outright false based on past and recent statements from both her and Biden.  I also really enjoyed how well Pence pointed out the hypocrisy in election acceptance.   The democrats still have not accepted the 2016 results.  Democrats project a lot it would seem.  Harris rubs people the wrong way from what feedback has been stated from people on the fence.  Not surprised, if you are going to lie so much you have to learn to me more of a pleasant person about it like other typical politicians.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 8, 2020)

From what I can tell, all that VP debate did was push some women voters away from the republican party due to all the interruptions.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 8, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> From what I can tell, all that VP debate did was push some women voters away from the republican party due to all the interruptions.


Pence barely got to talk!


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 8, 2020)

AkGBA said:


> So. Except for the fly, what's your stance on the VP debate ?




Kamala Harris lied about Lincoln not nominating a Justice with 27 days left before the election. It wasn't, as she said, "because Honest Abe said it's not the right thing to do." It was because the Senate wasn't in session. Lincoln nominated someone the first day the Senate reconvened, i.e. at the earliest opportunity. And before the election he even bargained with several candidates, dangling the nomination as an enticement to get them to campaign for his re-election.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 8, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Pence barely got to talk!



Pence spent 36:27 speaking, while Harris spent 36:24 speaking. the difference is less than 5 seconds, which is MANY times shorter than the time Pence spent interrupting her.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 8, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Kamala Harris lied about Lincoln not nominating a Justice with 27 days left before the election. It wasn't, as she said, "because Honest Abe said it's not the right thing to do." It was because the Senate wasn't in session. Lincoln nominated someone the first day the Senate reconvened, i.e. at the earliest opportunity. And before the election he even bargained with several candidates, dangling the nomination as an enticement to get them to campaign for his re-election.



Lincoln said he wouldn't nominate anyone because he was “waiting to receive expressions of public opinion from the country."
Lincoln didn't nominate anyone until after the election.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 8, 2020)

what was shocking to me, was the sheer amount of overlap between Pence's talking points and McSally's talking points. like they just read from the same script or something.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 8, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Pence barely got to talk!


Pence got slightly more speaking time.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 8, 2020)

I enjoyed the Vice President's debate. There was barely any talking over each other and each candidate was able to talk about policies as opposed to the first Presidential Debate where both Biden and Trump simply talked shit about each other the entire time.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 9, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I enjoyed the Vice President's debate. There was barely any talking over each other and each candidate was able to talk about policies as opposed to the first Presidential Debate where both Biden and Trump simply talked shit about each other the entire time.


Trump was the one who couldn't help but interrupt every five seconds.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 9, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Trump was the one who couldn't help but interrupt every five seconds.



They *both* kept interrupting each other. I was not impressed with *either* of them.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 9, 2020)

Trump once again did a 180 and is now calling for a broad stimulus bill, after calling for no more negotiations.

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/trump-urges-congress-to-pass-stimulus-after-halting-negotiations/

To quote someone more informed than me:

"I don’t see how there could be a plan. But I don’t think it’s the drugs.

He’s done this before. Remember when he proudly took ownership of a government shut-down? Then crawled back to the negotiation table a couple weeks later and conceded on every point?

He’s terrible at this shit, and always has been because he’s pathologically unable to not be. He’s comically easily manipulated because he can’t think past immediate gratification. He’s literally unable to take a small strategic loss in order to win later.

He makes bad decisions because it makes him feel powerful in the moment and that’s all that matters to him. It’s all he can do.

He doesn’t like being in a position where he has no leverage (ie: “you have to pass something here or you’ll lose whatever small chance you have of re-election,”) so he makes the one “power move” he thinks he has: Blowing everything up.

Then he tries to put it back together and he eats shit. This happens every time.

Last time this happened, the democrats offered like 15 billion for a border wall (EDIT: it was actually 25 billion!) in exchange for DACA being protected. Everyone was on board. Trump said “no deal” at the last minute—not enough for the wall and he didn’t want to concede on DACA.

Fast forward a bit: Trump caves. Then the Supreme Court protects DACA, and Trump gets nothing for his wall, but does take a hit in terms of popularity. Spent all his chips on an obvious bluff, then lost everything for no reason.

He’s just not good at this shit.

It’s the kind of tactics that work on like a zoning board in Queens, but not at the level he’s playing in."


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 9, 2020)

omgcat said:


> Trump once again did a 180 and is now calling for a broad stimulus bill, after calling for no more negotiations.
> 
> https://www.cbsnews.com/video/trump-urges-congress-to-pass-stimulus-after-halting-negotiations/
> 
> ...



*ROFL.*

Heh, Liberals outraged because the Leftist news sites told them to be upset over something Trump tweeted. After almost 4 years you'd think they'd catch on ... Nope ...

So I'll translate @omgcat statements for everyone else.
*
"Orange man bad, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah".*

_There, easier to interpret._


----------



## Lacius (Oct 9, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> They *both* kept interrupting each other. I was not impressed with *either* of them.


Trump interruptions: 71
Biden interruptions: 22

And Biden's interruptions started long after Trump made it the precedent and he decided he wasn't going to be walked over. Please.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 9, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> *ROFL.*
> 
> Heh, Liberals outraged because the Leftist news sites told them to be upset over something Trump tweeted. After almost 4 years you'd think they'd catch on ... Nope ...
> 
> ...



got it, so the gop says
"*Smart man* *bad*, *blah, blah, blah, blah, blah"*


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 9, 2020)

The 1st presidential debate was pretty chaotic.

Biden started the interrupting first, so he kind of opened himself up to that.  It set the precedent.

And Biden had the opening statement, LOL.. Trump kept his mouth shut.  I can see why Trump would get aggressive after that.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 9, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Lincoln said he wouldn't nominate anyone because he was “waiting to receive expressions of public opinion from the country."
> Lincoln didn't nominate anyone until after the election.




3. Kamala Harris made up her Lincoln quote, and story. It was untrue.


If Lincoln was "waiting to receive expressions of public opinion," he only meant correspondence by mail from interested persons, not the result of the election. Burlingame made that very clear. (news stories are leaving that part out though.)


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 9, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> The 1st presidential debate was pretty chaotic.
> 
> Biden started the interrupting first, so he kind of opened himself up to that. * It set the precedent.*
> 
> And Biden had the opening statement, LOL.. Trump kept his mouth shut.  I can see why Trump would get aggressive after that.



You're posturing on incredibly flimsy ground here:

*How Many Times Did Trump Interrupt Clinton In The First Debate?*
https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...in-the-first-debate-depends-on-how-you-count/


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 9, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Trump interruptions: 71
> Biden interruptions: 22
> 
> And Biden's interruptions started long after Trump made it the precedent and he decided he wasn't going to be walked over. Please.



I'll put your comment in perspective.

David Kids Molested: 71
Richard Kids Molested: 22

Both are guilty it doesn't matter "Who did it more".

The entire debate was full of both Trump and Biden talking shit about each other. Barely any policy talk was done and that's all I really cared about.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 9, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I'll put your comment in perspective.
> 
> David Kids Molested: 71
> Richard Kids Molested: 22
> ...



that went from 0 -100 real quick. the level of false equivalency is mind boggling. interrupting someone is not the same as raping kids, and the fact that you think they are similar really speaks volumes about you,


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 9, 2020)

omgcat said:


> that went from 0 -100 real quick. the level of false equivalency is mind boggling.



Nah, it's not. Both of them were interrupting each other. It takes two to tango. They are both guilty.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 9, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Nah, it's not. Both of them were interrupting each other. It takes two to tango. They are both guilty.



so you really think rape and interrupting are the same thing? that's gonna be a yikes from me.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 9, 2020)

omgcat said:


> so you really think rape and interrupting are the same thing? that's gonna be a yikes from me.



No they are both very different, but my focus wasn't the act, it was just putting it into perspective. Both of them should have let the other one speak and not interrupt each other when it was the other persons turn. Both are guilty.


----------



## IncredulousP (Oct 9, 2020)

omgcat said:


> so you really think rape and interrupting are the same thing? that's gonna be a yikes from me.


They're practically the same thing.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 9, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> You're posturing on incredibly flimsy ground here:
> 
> *How Many Times Did Trump Interrupt Clinton In The First Debate?*
> https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...in-the-first-debate-depends-on-how-you-count/



Stating the truth is posturing?

LOL


----------



## omgcat (Oct 9, 2020)

all in all, the behavior of the president and the vice president is incredibly off putting for seniors, and no republican has ever won an election without a majority hold on the senior voting block. there has been a 20pt swing in senior voters because they are scared that the president is throwing them under the bus by not protecting them from a disease that predominantly effects them. on top of that, the president and vice president have been showing TERRIBLE manners and decorum, and that has swayed older voters who remember what real debates looked like in the past. The vice president has swung female voters, especially boomers, away from the republican party with the disrespect to the two females on stage. It is not looking good fro trump.

If Biden wins both PA and WI, he can win the electoral college without needing AZ, FL, OH, MI, NC.

There is an 85% chance as of now that Biden wins PA, and an 84% chance that Biden wins WI, meaning he has about 71.4% chance of sweeping both.

it's not too hard to see why trump is shitting his depends right now.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 9, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Stating the truth is posturing?
> 
> LOL


You claimed Biden "set the precedent" by interrupting Trump first.  You then went on to claim this flimsy "precedent" as the reason why Trump interrupted him over 3x as often.

I countered both points with evidence dating back to the first Presidential debate in 2016, where it was Trump who "set the precedent" by interrupting Hillary throughout the night, which you conveniently ignored.  Trump went on to interrupt Hillary in all 3 debates, including looming behind her with the sniffles in the second debate, while interrupting her with the "nasty woman" insult in the third.







Citations:

First debate 2016: https://time.com/4509790/donald-trump-debate-interruptions/
Second debate 2016: https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/second-presidential-debate-election-2016/
Third debate 2016: https://time.com/4538271/donald-trump-nasty-woman-interruption-presidential-debate/


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 9, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> You claimed Biden "set the precedent" by interrupting Trump first.  You then went on to claim this flimsy "precedent" as the reason why Trump interrupted him over 3x as often.
> 
> /



LOL, really reaching there.

We are speaking about the 1st debate, so you post links to something that occurred in 2016.  

Yeah that disproves what occurred that night.

Funny before I brought that up it was never mentioned at all by any of you arguing Trump is bad he did it more.

Fact of the matter is Biden started it.  You can post all the links you want trying to justify it, but he did.

You can see with your own eyes that night.  Trump did not start it, Biden did.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 9, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> LOL, really reaching there.
> 
> We are speaking about the 1st debate, so you post links to something that occurred in 2016.
> 
> ...



It doesn't really mattered who started it as they both are complicit.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 9, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> It doesn't really mattered who started it as they both are complicit.



I think it does to some degree and is worth mentioning in the context of person X is worse then person Y because they did A more.

They were both in the mud, after Biden pulled him down into it first.

That is how it played out.  I don't think it matters at that point that Trump threw more mud at Biden.

They both did a bad job in the end with that.  But posting what lead to that is not incorrect.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 9, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> LOL, really reaching there.
> 
> We are speaking about the 1st debate, so you post links to something that occurred in 2016.
> 
> ...


Claiming Trump only interrupted Biden because Biden interrupted him first is a disingenuous and flawed argument, as that statement falsely assumes that Trump won't interrupt his opponent if not interrupted first.

Case in point:

In 2016, Trump had already set the "precedent" that he'll interrupt his opponent more regardless of who interrupts first.  He interrupted Clinton first, he interrupted her more often, and he was responsible for the first 5-6 interruptions in their first two debates:

- In the first debate, Trump interrupted Clinton 5 times before her first interruption.
- In the second debate, Trump interrupted Clinton 6 times before her first interruption.
- In the third debate, Trump interrupted Clinton 1 time before her first interruption.

You speak of "precedent," yet you conveniently ignore "precedents" when they don't fit into your pretzel logic.

Citations (every interruption documented):

First debate (2016): https://time.com/4509790/donald-trump-debate-interruptions/
Second debate (2016): https://time.com/4524739/debate-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/
Third debate (2016): https://time.com/4538271/donald-trump-nasty-woman-interruption-presidential-debate/


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 9, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Claiming Trump only interrupted Biden because Biden interrupted him first is a disingenuous and flawed argument, as that statement falsely assumes that Trump won't interrupt his opponent if not interrupted first.
> 
> Case in point:
> 
> ...



Again, it does not change the facts of what actually occurred.

The moment Biden started it, it was on the table that night.

You can post all the links to whatever you want, I can also try and pollute the argument by posting related links to Biden's past behavior. (Which I won't do)

It changes nothing about what actually happened that night.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 9, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Again, it does not change the facts of what actually occurred.
> 
> The moment Biden started it, it was on the table that night.
> 
> ...


Since you're doubling down on points that I've already refuted, they don't require further attention from me.  I'm not going anywhere, so if you have something worthwhile to add I'll be here.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 9, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Since you're doubling down on points that I've already refuted, they don't require further attention from me.  I'm not going anywhere, so if you have something worthwhile to add I'll be here.



Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

What I said occurred that night, did.

Biden had the first 2 minutes, and Trump did not interrupt him and kept his mouth shut. FACT

I said that Biden was first to start interrupting.  FACT

It is my OPINION that by Biden starting that, it was an open invitation at that point.  And set the standard.  

You can speculate all you want but I am going based on what actually occurred there in that room that night.  Saying someone did something in the past does not mean anything or refute anything I said above. 

Here is my original post again:



> The 1st presidential debate was pretty chaotic.
> 
> Biden started the interrupting first, so he kind of opened himself up to that. It set the precedent.
> 
> And Biden had the opening statement, LOL.. Trump kept his mouth shut. I can see why Trump would get aggressive after that.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 9, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
> 
> What I said occurred that night, did.
> 
> ...


All points already refuted.  As gregory astutely pointed out, who interrupted who first is completely irrelevant.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

A brief aggregate polling update for 10-09-2020:

- Biden's lead has entered double digit territory for the first time, checking in at *+10.1* *points*.  A challenger leading an incumbent by this much so late in the election cycle may be unprecedented.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 9, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> All points already refuted.  As gregory astutely pointed out, who interrupted who first is completely irrelevant.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



As I have said numerous times what is fact, you have been unable to prove wrong. 

Telling me something is irrelevant is not refuting either.  That is called an opinion. Too funny.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 9, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> - Biden's lead has entered double digit territory for the first time, checking in at *+10.1* *points*.  A challenger leading an incumbent by this much so late in the election cycle may be unprecedented.
> 
> https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/



It'll be a sad day if Biden wins as perverted people, illegal aliens, drug addicts and criminals will be allowed to run rampant in the country while collecting welfare meant for disabled or old people. The entire raising taxes to pay for the Green Deal will also not help. We'll also have what has happened to the Liberal cities happen the to entire country as it will get run down into the ground and cease to work correctly. The results will be very, very dark times. I hope to God Biden doesn't win.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 9, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> It'll be a sad day if Biden wins as perverted people, illegal aliens, drug addicts and criminals will be allowed to run rampant in the country while collecting welfare meant for disabled or old people. The entire raising taxes to pay for the Green Deal will also not help. The results will be very dark times. I hope to God Biden doesn't win.



They were almost all wrong in 2016 and people now are even more so not interested in sharing their opinions openly.

Did you see how telemundo deleted their poll after the VP debate.  (Which Trump won based on Telemundo responses last time)

I find it more interesting that they deleted it.





I think this election is going to get very interesting.

Both sides are energized, and with all the screw ups they keep having with mail in voting that should fuel the fire in my opinion.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 9, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> It'll be a sad day if Biden wins as perverted people, illegal aliens, drug addicts and criminals will be allowed to run rampant in the country while collecting welfare meant for disabled or old people. The entire raising taxes to pay for the Green Deal will also not help. We'll also have what has happened to the Liberal cities happen the to entire country as it will get run down into the ground and cease to work correctly. The results will be very, very dark times. I hope to God Biden doesn't win.



There's an 85% chance Biden is going to win the electoral college. If the polls are right, Biden is going to win the popular vote by a larger margin than Obama beat McCain by, and that was a blowout.
Who do you mean by _perverted people_?
Why shouldn't we offer illegal immigrants, particularly those who were brought here as children, a pathway to citizenship?
Doesn't it make more sense to treat drug addiction rather than prosecute it?
I don't know why you say criminals will be allowed to run rampant, since crime will still be illegal, by definition.
Shouldn't welfare be available for the poor and anybody else who needs it?
Why won't raising taxes on the rich to pay for the Green New Deal help? Shouldn't we be doing what he can to mitigate global warming and climate change? It's arguably the most important issue.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



crimpshrine said:


> They were almost all wrong in 2016 and people now are even more so not interested in sharing their opinions openly.
> 
> Did you see how telemundo deleted their poll after the VP debate.  (Which Trump won based on Telemundo responses last time)
> 
> ...


The polls were mostly accurate in 2016. Just because Clinton had an approximately 70% chance of winning and lost doesn't mean she didn't have a 70% chance of winning.

Edit: Also, Twitter polls are useless.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 9, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> It'll be a sad day if Biden wins as perverted people, illegal aliens, drug addicts and criminals will be allowed to run rampant in the country while collecting welfare meant for disabled or old people. The entire raising taxes to pay for the Green Deal will also not help. The results will be very dark times. I hope to God Biden doesn't win.


Think of the bright side, a Trump victory would be yuuuge for you.  It would be the biggest October turnaround in election history.  It would represent a validation of Trump's personality and policies.  MAGA would be here to stay.  Low odds, but still a possibility for you.  A lot can happen in three weeks.

Regarding the economy, Biden's plan is considered superior to Trump's by Moody's, Oxford Economics, and Goldman Sachs:

*Oxford, Moody's: Biden's Economic Plan Would Create More Jobs, Growth Versus Trump's*
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/oxf...ate-more-jobs-growth-versus-trumps-2020-09-29

*Biden ‘blue wave’ would boost economy, says Goldman Sachs chief economist*
https://fortune.com/2020/10/05/bide...oldman-sachs-predictions-blue-wave-democrats/

So, even if you can't stand Biden's liberal social policies, I wouldn't lose sleep over his economic plan.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 9, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> It'll be a sad day if Biden wins as perverted people, illegal aliens, drug addicts and criminals will be allowed to run rampant in the country while collecting welfare meant for disabled or old people. The entire raising taxes to pay for the Green Deal will also not help. The results will be very dark times. I hope to God Biden doesn't win.


Source?
We already went over this. and it drives me insane.
illegal aliens don't get benefits. Please, explain to me how they would obtain it.
Second, explain to me what you mean by drug addicts and criminals to run rampant. Last time I checked that's already happening with Donald trump jr and his bloodshot eyes and him acting like he's on cocaine. And that's just one example.
It's already hell of fucking dark times. We have police brutality. A climate crisis we have to fix in about less than 8 years. A fucking pandemic that has gone out of control due to Trump constantly downplaying. And no it's not the states damn faults. If you want to get something done you unite, instead trump was constantly downplaying and then called it a hoax, and politicized the whole thing.
And ontop of that, him constantly downplaying it, makes you, the morons of this country, decide to follow his word, and not what the actual scientists think. And then now cases are exploding because multiple red states decided to re open schools. So now there is a generation of people who is going to have permanent damage for the rest of their life since some fucking moron of a president decided that people should die for the economy.

I'm so sick and tired of this shit. "what about hydroxychloroquine" I remembered one of you asking after trump got covid. After many months of us stating that it doesn't work. And then I pointed out, that trump wasn't on it for his covid treatment. Proving my point they know it doesn't fucking work. And then no response to my point.


We have extreme inequality issues, by race and by class. The richer are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, minimum wage has not gone up even though production has gone up nearly 200% so it's not keeping up for the modern day.
Black people have seen no improvement in equality issues, and now there is even studies showing we have lost money due to the racism in America.
And your telling me we aren't already in dark times? look the hell around yourself. We have one man who is crooked to living shit, who lies to protect his ass in office, money federal money being siphon into his businesses.   And the other who can't remember shit. Meanwhile calling the one who can't remember shit a fucking communist, when they aren't even left at all compared to the real social political scale.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 9, 2020)

Lacius said:


> There's an 85% chance Biden is going to win the electoral college. If the polls are right, Biden is going to win the popular vote by a larger margin than Obama beat McCain by, and that was a blowout.
> Who do you mean by _perverted people_?
> Why shouldn't we offer illegal immigrants, particularly those who were brought here as children, a pathway to citizenship?
> Doesn't it make more sense to treat drug addiction rather than prosecute it?
> ...



And that is why I specifically said I found it more interesting that they deleted it.  

Will be interesting to see if your claims come anywhere close to reality.  I am betting they won't.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 9, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Source?
> We already went over this. and it drives me insane.
> illegal aliens don't get benefits. Please, explain to me how they would obtain it.
> Second, explain to me what you mean by drug addicts and criminals to run rampant. Last time I checked that's already happening with Donald trump jr and his bloodshot eyes and him acting like he's on cocaine. And that's just one example.
> ...


You're right. The fact that Trump is running rampant means that at least one criminal is already running rampant.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



crimpshrine said:


> And that is why I specifically said I found it more interesting that they deleted it.
> 
> Will be interesting to see if your claims come anywhere close to reality.  I am betting they won't.


I haven't said anything that isn't backed up by evidence.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 9, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> And that is why I specifically said I found it more interesting that they deleted it.
> 
> Will be interesting to see if your claims come anywhere close to reality.  I am betting they won't.



maybe putting all your stock into a manipulable twitter poll is a bit disingenuous. Twitter doesn't have the ability to make sure voters of that poll are only telemundo subscribers. so when they figured out it was brigaded by maga heads they deleted it, as the poll lost its meaning.

fivethirtyeight's 2016 presidential stats had Hillary winning the popular vote at 99+%, which she did, but her winning the electoral college at 70%, which she lost. roll a 10 sided die, if it is 4 or higher she wins, 3 or lower she loses. that's how stats work. so far Biden has an 85% chance of winning the electoral college, so roll a 20 sided die 4 or higher Biden wins, 3 or lower, trump wins. same deal as last time, just better odds for Biden.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 9, 2020)

omgcat said:


> maybe putting all your stock into a manipulable twitter poll is a bit disingenuous. Twitter doesn't have the ability to make sure voters of that poll are only telemundo subscribers. so when they figured out it was brigaded by maga heads they deleted it, as the poll lost its meaning.



Or it does not match what they want, guessing can go both ways.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 9, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> They were almost all wrong in 2016 and* people now are even more so not interested in sharing their opinions openly*.


Are you alleging Biden's up 10.1 points in aggregate polling because people aren't sharing their opinions openly?  If so, please elaborate.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 9, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Are you alleging Biden's up 10.1 points in aggregate polling because people aren't sharing their opinions openly?  If so, please elaborate.



Polls were wrong in 2016, we will see soon if they were wrong again.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 9, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Polls were wrong in 2016, we will see soon if they were wrong again.


they were correct regarding popular vote,  Hillary did win the popular vote. But no one accounted for the fact we have an electoral collage. Which means it's possible to have the popular vote, and not get elected.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 9, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> they were correct regarding popular vote,  Hillary did win the popular vote. But no one accounted for the fact we have an electoral collage. Which means it's possible to have the popular vote, and not get elected.



I just checked, in Mid October 2016 CBS released a poll showing Clinton leading Trump by 14 points nationally.

Did she win 14% more of the popular vote?  I counted she got 2.09 % more in the popular vote.

What #'s are you going off of and who do you mean by they?


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 9, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Polls were wrong in 2016, we will see soon if they were wrong again.


How about answering my question.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 9, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> How about answering my question.



I am not playing word games with you, you tried that earlier.

I will leave it with what I said.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 9, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I just checked, in Mid October 2016 CBS released a poll showing Clinton leading Trump by 14 points nationally.
> 
> Did she win 14% more of the popular vote?  I counted she got 2.09 % more in the popular vote.
> 
> What #'s are you going off of and who do you mean by they?



mid-October was before the James Comey incident, which made the race a lot tighter than it should have been. by violating the hatch act, James Comey effectively steered all late voters to trump for what ended up being nothing at all.





one big thing that most people are not taking into consideration is the incumbent effect. it is so much harder to run a platform for change when you were the administration in control for the last 3+ years. the trump administration had control of government, the house, and the senate for like 1.8 years, and didn't do jack shit to make things better. no healthcare reform, we're all still waiting for infrastructure week, and the wall was never build, even with full control of both the house and the senate for all of 2017. where is trumps healthcare plan? it was supposed to be revealed months ago.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 9, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I just checked, in Mid October 2016 CBS released a poll showing Clinton leading Trump by 14 points nationally.
> 
> Did she win 14% more of the popular vote?
> 
> What #'s are you going off of and who do you mean by they?


https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2...linton-holds-four-point-national-lead-n678611
Let's comprehend why we went from a 14 point lead. to a four point lead. to then winning the popular vote by only 2.1%
First off, people disliked Hilary a lot. So as things narrowed up, her lead quickly eroded.  Then we had another thing that happened, the 2016 debate. Which, with trump taking the anti establishment view helped him a lot. Since many people felt frustrated, and he claimed he would drain the swamp. (which he never did)
So that lead then dropped down to 4 points. (combined with what @omgcat stated about James Comey)
Now because only 50% of American's voted. combined with the electoral collage likely degrading some of the turnout. That is how Trump won 2016. Most polls didn't really consider the fact that we have a electoral collage. Not by popular vote.
Now will it happened again?
No. Trump fucked up bad. He's pulling advertising out of multiple places, he is the establishment. People are still pissed, we have covid and BLM going on. And he hasn't done anything that helps calm it. He just stated he won't be having any more talks of stimulus. Until he is reelected.
In other words, trump could of won. But at this point he severely lost.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



crimpshrine said:


> I am not playing word games with you, you tried that earlier.
> 
> I will leave it with what I said.


I too would like to know your answer.
"Are you alleging Biden's up 10.1 points in aggregate polling because people aren't sharing their opinions openly? If so, please elaborate."
answer the question. I am actually curious.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 9, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> He just stated he won't be having any more talks of stimulus.



he already flip floped on that and is now asking for a broad stimulus bill. the dude is having a manic crisis cause of the drugs he's taking. the Dexa regimen is 10 days.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 9, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2...linton-holds-four-point-national-lead-n678611
> Let's comprehend why we went from a 14 point lead. to a four point lead. to then winning the popular vote by only 2.1%
> First off, people disliked Hilary a lot. So as things narrowed up, her lead quickly eroded.  Then we had another thing that happened, the 2016 debate. Which, with trump taking the anti establishment view helped him a lot. Since many people felt frustrated, and he claimed he would drain the swamp. (which he never did)
> So that lead then dropped down to 4 points. (combined with what @omgcat stated about James Comey)
> ...



I will leave it at what I said.  I think it is pretty clear.

Your response to me was me responding to you saying:



> they were correct regarding popular vote, Hillary did win the popular vote. But no one accounted for the fact we have an electoral collage. Which means it's possible to have the popular vote, and not get elected.



What are you referring to them being correct on? Because if you are saying it was from the polling #'s from this time in 2016, they were not even close from what I can see.

Since we don't know what the polling will be before election, because it is in the future, not making sense of your orginal point where you said they were correct with polls matching the popular vote. 

And me commenting originally on how I don't believe the polls, if we correlate that to this time in 2016, it seems to me there could be just as much of a chance of things not reflecting what occurs this election year.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



omgcat said:


> mid-October was before the James Comey incident, which made the race a lot tighter than it should have been. by violating the hatch act, James Comey effectively steered all late voters to trump for what ended up being nothing at all.
> View attachment 227857
> 
> one big thing that most people are not taking into consideration is the incumbent effect. it is so much harder to run a platform for change when you were the administration in control for the last 3+ years. the trump administration had control of government, the house, and the senate for like 1.8 years, and didn't do jack shit to make things better. no healthcare reform, we're all still waiting for infrastructure week, and the wall was never build, even with full control of both the house and the senate for all of 2017. where is trumps healthcare plan? it was supposed to be revealed months ago.



I can only talk from my own families perspective.  And what I have seen and how it has impact us, I do not feel that he did not do jack shit.  

Trump has a long lists of accomplishments and for you to say he has done jack shit sound like another person with TDS.  If you are unwilling to see any positives from him as an accomplishment does that not mean you are not being objective?


----------



## Lacius (Oct 9, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I will leave it at what I said.  I think it is pretty clear.
> 
> Your response to me was me responding to you saying:
> 
> ...


In your opinion, what's Trump's single biggest accomplishment?


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 9, 2020)

Lacius said:


> In your opinion, what's Trump's single biggest accomplishment?



First Step Act of 2018 I think is a good one.

And ironically Biden who is running against him I think is responsible for one of the worst accomplishments.  The Crime Bill.

There are others that come to mind.   If I had to say that benefited me personally I would say another.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 9, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> First Step Act of 2018 I think is a good one.
> 
> And ironically Biden who is running against him I think is responsible for one of the worst accomplishments.  The Crime Bill.
> 
> There are others that come to mind.   If I had to say that benefited me personally I would say another.


Sure, but the act was bipartisan and would have been signed by any president, and Trump was originally against it before having to be convinced to sign it. The only opposition to the bill came from the political right, which makes this as an accomplishment an argument for electing Democrats, not Republicans.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 9, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I am not playing word games with you, you tried that earlier.
> 
> I will leave it with what I said.


But you didn't answer my question and still haven't.  Here's our quote sequence, for posterity:


crimpshrine said:


> They were almost all wrong in 2016 and *people now are even more so not interested in sharing their opinions openly*.





LumInvader said:


> Are you alleging Biden's up 10.1 points in aggregate polling because people aren't sharing their opinions openly?  If so, please elaborate.





crimpshrine said:


> Polls were wrong in 2016, we will see soon if they were wrong again.


Rather than answer my question, you regurgitated the first half of your original statement, which I underscored for you. Please, tell us more about these people not interested in sharing their opinions openly.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 9, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> But you didn't answer my question and still haven't.  Here's our quote sequence, for posterity:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than answer my question, you regurgitated the first half of your original statement, which I underscored for you. Please, tell us more about these people not interested in sharing their opinions openly.


If the media considered your entire ideology as fascist, whether it was true or not, would you say that it was your ideology?


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 9, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Sure, but the act was bipartisan and would have been signed by any president, and Trump was originally against it before having to be convinced to sign it. The only opposition to the bill came from the political right, which makes this as an accomplishment an argument for electing Democrats, not Republicans.



LOL, you all seem to have the same tactic.  But it does not matter.  Because X.  And based on what I know, I don't think your analysis of how that played out is accurate.  Or changes the fact that it is a Trump accomplishment no matter how you try and devalue it.

I was going to also post what has personally benefited me and my family but it's not worth it.  Kind of like omgcat saying he has done jack shit, it's obvious there are those of you so blinded with TDS and have never gotten over the 2016 election.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 10, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> LOL, you all seem to have the same tactic.  But it does not matter.  Because X.  And based on what I know, I don't think your analysis of how that played out is accurate.  Or changes the fact that it is a Trump accomplishment no matter how you try and devalue it.
> 
> I was going to also post what has personally benefited me and my family but it's not worth it.  Kind of like omgcat saying he has done jack shit, it's obvious there are those of you so blinded with TDS and have never gotten over the 2016 election.


I didn't say it wasn't an accomplishment. I'm suggesting it's not much of a biggest accomplishment.

If you don't mind, how has your family benefited?


----------



## tabzer (Oct 10, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Well, I don't think that's an option on anybody's ballot.


I vote for myself all the time.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 10, 2020)

tabzer said:


> I vote for myself all the time.


That's not a vote that counts for anything.


----------



## Xalusc (Oct 10, 2020)

I'm not a US citizen, but if I were, I'd vote Howie. Trump and Biden can both go eat shit.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 10, 2020)

Xalusc said:


> I'm not a US citizen, but if I were, I'd vote Howie. Trump and Biden can both go eat shit.


Howie cannot win.


----------



## tabzer (Oct 10, 2020)

Lacius said:


> That's not a vote that counts for anything.


Just don't tell _me_ that.  I wouldn't agree with you anyway.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 10, 2020)

tabzer said:


> Just don't tell _me_ that.  I wouldn't agree with you anyway.


I'm sorry. I was mistaken. Your vote for yourself totally counts for something. Even if you were somehow able to get enough votes to win, you're totally eligible as a registered write-in candidate. Please forgive me.


----------



## tabzer (Oct 10, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I'm sorry. I was mistaken. Your vote for yourself totally counts for something. Even if you were somehow able to get enough votes to win, you're totally eligible as a registered write-in candidate. Please forgive me.



If nobody voted for people they didn't like (or trust), I could win.

The world (America) is just not ready for me.  It's okay.  I'm patient.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 10, 2020)

tabzer said:


> If nobody voted for people they didn't like (or trust), I could win.
> 
> The world (America) is just not ready for me.  It's okay.  I'm patient.


What's your platform?


----------



## tabzer (Oct 10, 2020)

Lacius said:


> What's your platform?



Futility.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 10, 2020)

tabzer said:


> Futility


You're running about as passionately as somebody with a platform of futility.


----------



## tabzer (Oct 10, 2020)

Lacius said:


> You're running about as passionately as somebody with a platform of futility.


The world could use less passion in politics, and more passion in self-responsibility.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 10, 2020)

tabzer said:


> The world could use less passion in politics, and more passion in self-responsibility.


MORE passion? Flip flopper.


----------



## Xalusc (Oct 10, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Howie cannot win.


The alternative would be not voting. Mr. No Vote can't win either, so...


----------



## Lacius (Oct 10, 2020)

Xalusc said:


> The alternative would be not voting. Mr. No Vote can't win either, so...


So if you actually have no preference between Trump and Biden, you'd be better off not voting.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 10, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> If the media considered your entire ideology as fascist, whether it was true or not, would you say that you agreed with it?


No.  Do you believe that unsubstantiated theories from the left should be treated as gospel if enough people believe them?


----------



## omgcat (Oct 10, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> If the media considered your entire ideology as fascist, whether it was true or not, would you say that it was your ideology?



yes, if my ideology fit the hallmarks of fascism.

1. Powerful and continuing nationalism
2. Disdain for human rights
3. Identification of enemies as a unifying cause
4. Rampant sexism
5. Controlled mass media
6. Obsession with national security
7. Religion and government intertwined
8. Corporate power protected
9. Labor power suppressed
10. Disdain for intellectual and the arts
11. Obsession with crime and punishment
12. Rampant cronyism and corruption
13. Disdain for Intellectuals and the arts
14. Fraudulent elections


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 10, 2020)

omgcat said:


> yes, if my ideology fit the hallmarks of fascism.
> 
> 1. Powerful and continuing nationalism
> 2. Disdain for human rights
> ...


1. That's a good thing.
2. Human rights don't exist.
3. Like ANTIFA? Who use their hatred of right-wingers as a unifying cause?
4. Modern feminism is sexist.
5. CNN, MSNBC, Huffington, NYT, WaPo, Atlantic...
6. That's a good thing.
7. When?
8. When?
9. The harder you work, the richer you are.
10. That explains why we've had to change our education system so much and add nonsensical filler like common core.
11. Kamala Harris is a cop.
12. Of what? Our education system? Mainstream media? Hollywood?
13. You posted the same point twice, nimrod.
14. Always trust the USPS to throw away the ballots that you don't want!


----------



## omgcat (Oct 10, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> 1. That's a good thing.
> 2. Human rights don't exist.
> 3. Like ANTIFA? Who use their hatred of right-wingers as a unifying cause?
> 4. Modern feminism is sexist.
> ...



yup, sounds like fascism to me. you just decided to check mark all the boxes on your own. smart move.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 10, 2020)

omgcat said:


> yup, sounds like fascism to me. you just decided to check mark all the boxes on your own. smart move.


Did you read what I posted past the first two things?


----------



## omgcat (Oct 10, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Did you read what I posted past the first two things?



yeah, and it's all laughable. like get a room with 100 people in it and say that shit with a straight face and see how far you get.

"working harder means you get richer" tell that to people working 3 jobs to get by.

also i keep hearing about this mystical ANTIFA, but no one can point to a leader, or any sort of manifesto. sounds like a boogeyman to me.

on the other hand we have the people who attempted to kidnap the MI governor, who had a manifesto.







maybe people here can see a common element among these people.

fuck anybody who doesn't call these shitheads domestic terrorists.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 10, 2020)

omgcat said:


> yeah, and it's all laughable. like get a room with 100 people in it and say that shit with a straight face and see how far you get.
> 
> "working harder means you get richer" tell that to people working 3 jobs to get by.
> 
> ...






None of those dumb fucks could even spell manifesto if they tried.

ANTIFA has been around since the 1930's. It's organized, but decentralized. And everyone knows what they're about.




Check this out, pretty funny really. Hindenburg, I mean Biden, takes his mask down so he can cough in his hand. Glorious.
You can't make this up.Joe Biden just removed his mask to cough in his hand.Talk about unsanitary! pic.twitter.com/4rwJvHA3LS— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) October 9, 2020


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 10, 2020)

Lacius said:
			
		

> 1. There's an 85% chance Biden is going to win the electoral college. If the polls are right, Biden is going to win the popular vote by a larger margin than Obama beat McCain by, and that was a blowout.



As I already stated that would be unfortunate.



> 2. Who do you mean by perverted people?



Anyone that supports identity politics.



> 3. Why shouldn't we offer illegal immigrants, particularly those who were brought here as children, a pathway to citizenship?



The children are adults who smuggled them into the country responsibility and anyone in the country illegally needs to be deported.



> 4. Doesn't it make more sense to treat drug addiction rather than prosecute it?



That depends on the type of drug and the mental state of the user. I believe if they are harming themselves by taking deadly drugs they should be put into a mental institution.



> 5. I don't know why you say criminals will be allowed to run rampant, since crime will still be illegal, by definition.



The Liberals want to get rid of private prisons and bail. That will make it more of a slap on the wrist for criminals who will not stop breaking the law. The revolving door will just spin around faster allowing the criminals to be on our streets.



> 6. Shouldn't welfare be available for the poor and anybody else who needs it?



People that cannot work due to disability or people who are older and have already worked their entire lives are the only two groups that should be able to live off of welfare. For anyone that is having a hard time some assistance should be available while they go get a job. If you’re one drugs, don’t want to work, are in the country illegal or simply want to leech off the government you should not be given any sort of benefits.



> 7. Why won't raising taxes on the rich to pay for the Green New Deal help? Shouldn't we be doing what he can to mitigate global warming and climate change? It's arguably the most important issue.



Climate change or whatever the hell you’re calling it this decade is also caused by things we simply cannot control. Sure, it’s good not to pollute the environment, but if you think we can control the global climate you’re grasping at air. Making the current government bigger and giving them more control over our lives won’t result in our quality of life getting any better.


----------



## RandomUser (Oct 10, 2020)

omgcat said:


> so you really think rape and interrupting are the same thing? that's gonna be a yikes from me.


Boy, you sure purposely took that out of context.
Why are people such a hypocrite?


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 10, 2020)

omgcat said:


> yeah, and it's all laughable. like get a room with 100 people in it and say that shit with a straight face and see how far you get.
> 
> "working harder means you get richer" tell that to people working 3 jobs to get by.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 10, 2020)

omgcat said:


> maybe people here can see a common element among these people.




A common element ... let's see ...

At least one of these guys is a Trump-hating anarchist. 

One other has taken part in BLM protests, because he was angry about police causing the death of George Floyd.

A 3rd one goes online to oppose racism and calls government the enemy.



 


 


 


 


 



https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...81751a-0a65-11eb-9be6-cf25fb429f1a_story.html



> One of alleged plotters, 23-year-old Daniel Harris, attended a Black Lives Matter protest in June, telling the Oakland County Times he was upset about the killing of George Floyd and police violence.





Yes, I'm starting to see some loose common ground with these guys. They all hate the government, the law, and authority. 

What I'm not seeing as common ground is that they are the boogie man 'white supremacists,' or that they're 'right wing', or that they've been inspired in any way by any Republicans including Trump. One of them explicitly calls Trump a tyrant and the enemy.

Nice try though.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 11, 2020)

fivethirtyeight's probability forecast currently has Biden winning the Electoral College by a nearly 2-1 margin (344-194).  Trump still trails Biden by over 10 points in aggregate polling.

They also have give the Democrats a 68% chance to take over the Senate.

With only 3 weeks left to go, can the Republicans turn things around?

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/senate/


----------



## Lacius (Oct 11, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> If the election were held today, fivethirtyeight's probability forecast has Biden winning the Electoral College by a nearly 2-1 margin (344-194).  Trump still trails Biden by over 10 points in aggregate polling.
> 
> They also have give the Democrats a 68% chance to take over the Senate.
> 
> ...


This isn't entirely correct. The projection is, on average, Biden will win approximately 344 electoral votes on November 3, but that's not "if the election were held today." There's still a level of uncertainty the model takes into account when coming up with those numbers. If the election were held today, the projected electoral votes won could be higher than that.

Put another way, the model currently gives Biden an 85% chance of winning the election November 3, but most of that uncertainty comes from the election being several weeks away. If the election were held today, the model would give Biden about a 95% chance of winning (that would be the old "now cast" projection that oddly doesn't exist anymore). I only know because he said it in his most recent podcast.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 11, 2020)

Lacius said:


> This isn't entirely correct. The projection is, on average, Biden will win approximately 344 electoral votes on November 3, but that's not "if the election were held today." There's still a level of uncertainty the model takes into account when coming up with those numbers.
> 
> Put another way, the model currently gives Biden an 85% chance of winning the election November 3, but most of that uncertainty comes from the election being several weeks away. If the election were held today, the model would give Biden about a 95% chance of winning (that would be the old "now cast" projection that oddly doesn't exist anymore). I only know because he said it in his most recent podcast.


Nicely done, Lacius. 

I was actually prepared to point that out in the event someone challenged me why Biden is leading Trump by 10 points on one page, but only 8 points on the other.  Biden's win probability is currently at 85%, but if the election were held tomorrow -- quoting myself here -- that probability would shoot up to roughly 99% since Biden's aggregate polling is over 10 points.  It's only at 85% due to the uncertainty that you mentioned.
Chance of a Biden Electoral college win if he wins the popular vote by X points:0-1 points: just 6%!1-2 points: 22%2-3 points: 46%3-4 points: 74%4-5 points: 89%5-6 points: 98%6-7 points: 99%— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) September 2, 2020


----------



## Lacius (Oct 11, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Nicely done, Lacius.
> 
> I was actually prepared to point that out in the event someone challenged me why Biden is leading Trump by 10 points on one page, but only 8 points on the other.  Biden's win probability is currently at 85%, but if the election were held tomorrow -- quoting myself here -- that probability would shoot up to roughly 99% since Biden's aggregate polling is over 10 points.  It's only at 85% due to the uncertainty that you mentioned.
> https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1301190941110341632


Yeah, that's mostly right. If Biden actually gets +10 in the popular vote, then he's got an over 99% chance of having won the electoral college. Since the election is three weeks out though, we don't actually know how he's going to do. He's polling at +10 now, but the model predicts he will only get about +8 on November 3. He loses about -1.3 for the uncertainty of it being about three weeks away, and he loses about -0.7 due to fundamentals (economy pre-COVID, etc.), possible polling error, etc. The longer he keeps that +10 in the polls between now and the election, the higher his predicted popular vote margin will become, and the higher his odds.

Given the election isn't until November 3, Biden's chances of winning the electoral college are about 85%. 10% of that uncertainty comes from the time between now and the election. The other 5% uncertainty comes from possible polling error, the possibility of winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college, fundamentals, etc.
If the election were held today, Biden's chances of winning the electoral college are about 95%. That 5% uncertainty comes from possible polling error, the possibility of winning the popular vote but losing the electoral college, fundamentals, etc.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 11, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> A common element ... let's see ...
> 
> At least one of these guys is a Trump-hating anarchist.
> 
> ...



you're citing something from a single source, about a single person in a group of 11+. that one guy might have been an off the shelf anarchist, but from what has been released, at least 5 of them are involved with the boogaloo movement, with a bunch of them espousing alt-right rhetoric.

*"Caserta’s activity on YouTube further suggests his worldview: He subscribed to Project Veritas, an outlet known for pushing right-wing disinformation, and the channel run by Ben Shapiro, also considered by some experts to be a gateway to online radicalization, among others*. *Caserta’s Facebook likes included one for the page “Michigan Revolution,” whose profile photo shows a man dressed in Revolutionary War–era clothi*ng and holding an* assault rifle paired with the text “NEW AMERICAN REVOLUTION.”*

https://www.motherjones.com/politic...ernor-celebrated-violent-far-right-extremism/

*“Several of the men charged (with conspiring to kidnap Whitmer) have histories of anti-government organizing, as well as interest in countering what they saw as an ‘uprising’ against President Donald Trump, according to their online profiles and comments.”
*
*https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/whitmer-conspiracy-allegations-tied-boogaloo-movement-n1242670*

more information is needed, but when you have a bunch of guys in a group called the "wolverine watchmen", i don't think they're gonna be a bunch of "antifa" members.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 11, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> A common element ... let's see ...
> 
> At least one of these guys is a Trump-hating anarchist.
> 
> ...


I think the only thing that matters is Trump's responses to all this were the same talking points the alleged kidnappers were spouting.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 11, 2020)

Unlikely to happen this election, but I find it interesting that Texas seems to becoming a swing state.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 11, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Unlikely to happen this election, but I find it interesting that Texas seems to becoming a swing state.


Blame the Californians.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 11, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Unlikely to happen this election, but I find it interesting that Texas seems to becoming a swing state.


You're right it's unlikely this year, but it should be noted that the unlikely odds of Biden winning Texas in 2020 are about the same as Trump's unlikely odds of winning the electoral college in 2016.

Trump is only ahead by about +1.7 in Texas right now.



UltraSUPRA said:


> Blame the Californians.


What are you blathering on about now?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 11, 2020)

Lacius said:


> What are you blathering on about now?


The people moving from California to Texas and taking their politics with them.

I don't live in Texas, but I've heard that happening.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 11, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> The people moving from California to Texas and taking their politics with them.
> 
> I don't live in Texas, but I've heard that happening.


The change in Texas' politics is due to multiple factors, but the primary factor is likely Texas' increase in its Latinx population.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 11, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The change in Texas' politics is due to multiple factors, but the primary factor is likely Texas' increase in its Latino population.


Most of whom are likely illegal immigrants.


----------



## Glyptofane (Oct 11, 2020)

omgcat said:


> maybe people here can see a common element among these people.


Looks like a bunch of dumb, poor guys who were ensnared in an FBI entrapment scheme.

"The arrests were part of a planned effort in concert with state authorities, and not in response to any imminent urgent or dangerous development, the source said."

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/08/politics/fbi-plot-michigan-governor-gretchen-whitmer/index.html


----------



## Lacius (Oct 11, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Most of whom are likely illegal immigrants.



About 40% of Texas is Latinx
The illegal immigrant population in Texas might be around 5%
Illegal immigrants cannot legally vote for president
Do you even bother to fact-check your posts?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 11, 2020)

Lacius said:


> About 40% of Texas is Latino


Oh.


Lacius said:


> The illegal immigrant population in Texas might be around 5%


Texas is a border state.


Lacius said:


> Illegal immigrants cannot legally vote for president


That won't stop them.


Lacius said:


> Do you even bother to fact-check your posts?


You can't trust fact-checking websites.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 11, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Oh.
> 
> Texas is a border state.
> 
> ...



explain to me how illegal immigrants "just vote". like what does that look like.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 11, 2020)

omgcat said:


> explain to me how illegal immigrants "just vote". like what does that look like.


Knowing if doesn't mean knowing how.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 11, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Knowing if doesn't mean knowing how.



casting a vote, when you do not have a SSN, government ID, or standard registration is literally impossible. plus do you think people who would risk their lives to get here in the first place, would walk right into a secure voting facility, and out themselves in front of cameras and people?

like if you are not registered to vote, you HAVE TO use a provisional ballot. provisional ballots are all hand checked for fraud. let's say lacius's estimate is correct at 5%, and for sake of argument that all 5% are of voting age, that would be .05*29,000,000=1,450,000. so nearly 1.5 million people would need to cast provisional ballots, of which all are manually checked, and none of them are found to be fraudulent. that is batshit insane.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 11, 2020)

omgcat said:


> casting a vote, when you do not have a SSN, government ID, or standard registration is literally impossible. plus do you think people who would risk their lives to get here in the first place, would walk right into a secure voting facility, and out themselves in front of cameras and people?
> 
> like if you are not registered to vote, you HAVE TO use a provisional ballot. provisional ballots are all hand checked for fraud. let's say lacius's estimate is correct at 5%, and for sake of argument that all 5% are of voting age, that would be .05*29,000,000=1,450,000. so nearly 1.5 million people would need to cast provisional ballots, of which all are manually checked, and none of them are found to be fraudulent. that is batshit insane.


https://www.foxnews.com/media/illegal-immigrants-voting-election-integrity
It's an example from California, but an example nonetheless.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 11, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/media/illegal-immigrants-voting-election-integrity
> It's an example from California, but an example nonetheless.



>doesn't believe in fact checking
>cites fox news

show me any instance of actual voter fraud that had enough impact to effect an election.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 11, 2020)

Military funds for the wall, that Mexico was meant to pay for, has been blocked.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 11, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Military funds for the wall, that Mexico was meant to pay for, has been blocked.



yup one more campaign promise failed, as per the usual. like he had the presidency, the house, AND the senate for a whole years and failed to get the wall funded.


----------



## Brecert (Oct 11, 2020)

I really hope my vote means something this election.
Still, whatever happens it feels like there's likely going to be some kind of event afterwards.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 11, 2020)

Brecert said:


> I really hope my vote means something this election.
> Still, whatever happens it feels like there's likely going to be some kind of event afterwards.



The event will be celebrating victory or accepting defeat. Hopefully unlike the 2016 election the side that loses needs to accept the loss and move on. Unless that is you want to start the impeachment of Biden, which would be okay because the Liberals started plotting to impeach Trump as soon as he won the RNC nomination.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 11, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> The event will be celebrating victory or accepting defeat. Hopefully unlike the 2016 election the side that loses needs to accept the loss and move on. Unless that is you want to start the impeachment of Biden, which would be okay because the Liberals started plotting to impeach Trump as soon as he won the RNC nomination.



good luck with that, the GOP would need to flip more than 20 house seats in hard-left leaning area's, while also defending 25 seats. the likely outcome is either the current status quo stays, or Dems pick up seats in the house. The GOP isn't even trying to spend money on house races this years, as they are desperately trying to hold on to the senate, as well as the presidency.






https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/house/


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 11, 2020)

https://townhall.com/columnists/way...oll-alert-proof-biden-is-not-winning-n2577814

*Fake-Poll Alert: Proof Biden Is Not Winning*

Folks, understand this: What polls say doesn't matter. What people say to pollsters doesn't matter. What matters is only the votes of people in a few key battleground states, in particular Florida and the Midwestern states of Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. My fans tell me these states are 100 percent Trump country. In small towns and outer suburbs, you can't find any support for Biden.

It's 2016 squared. After what Trump has done for the U.S. economy and manufacturing jobs and to win the trade war with China, he is a hero. People may not tell that to pollsters, but Trump is "the king of the Midwest."

The media quotes nonstop any poll that shows Trump losing by double digits. But I never heard a word about the Democracy Institute Sunday Express poll from this week that showed Trump beating Biden 46% to 45% and winning almost all battleground states by a healthy margin. That poll didn't over sample Democrats by a mile (as most other polls do) and polled only likely voters. Likely voters in battleground states are all that matter.

Or the Poll Watch poll released this week that shows Trump winning nationally, in battleground states and in the Electoral College. Trump dominates on the two issues that matter to most Americans: the economy and law and order.

Or have you heard that in the RealClearPolitics battleground average, Trump is slightly ahead of where he was at this time in 2016 (on his way to a victory over Hillary Clinton)?

Most importantly, a new Gallup poll reports 56% of Americans say they are better off now under Trump than they were four years ago under then-President Barack Obama and then-Vice President Joe Biden. Every expert knows what clinches elections -- "It's the economy, stupid." A solid majority of Americans feel better off today than four years ago, despite COVID-19. You think they're voting for Biden? By the way, that 56% is the highest number in the history of Gallup asking, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" Ronald Reagan got 44% in the Gallup poll and won the election in a landslide. Trump is at 56%.

If Americans aren't yet convinced Trump is great for the economy, on Oct. 29, five days before the election, the third-quarter gross domestic product will be released. The Atlanta Fed estimates it will be 34.6% economic growth, the highest in the history of America -- since 1776.

Still not convinced? Since primaries were born in 1912, no incumbent has ever lost the general election after receiving 75% or more of the votes from their party in the primaries. Trump received 94% of all cast in the 2020 Republican primaries.

One more factor: Because of fear of COVID-19, Team Biden has hardly knocked on any doors in America. But Trump volunteers have knocked on over 20 million doors in battleground states. Twelve million to zero. You don't think that changes things on Election Day?


----------



## Lacius (Oct 11, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> https://townhall.com/columnists/way...oll-alert-proof-biden-is-not-winning-n2577814
> 
> *Fake-Poll Alert: Proof Biden Is Not Winning*
> 
> ...


The national polls were mostly accurate in 2016. On this day in 2020, Biden is winning by +10.3 nationally according to an aggregate of the national polls. On this day in 2016, Clinton was winning by +5.7 nationally (she will end up "winning" by +2.1, which was largely reflected by the aggregate of November polls). In a few battleground states in 2016, the polls were wrong. If you assume the battleground polls we have today are as wrong as they were in 2016 (to Trump's benefit), Biden still wins in a landslide. That's also a bold assumption, since the polls could be wrong to Biden's benefit.

Biden has an 86% chance of winning the election (he has about a 94% chance of winning the popular vote), and if the election were held today, he'd have about a 96% chance of winning the election (he would have a >99% chance of winning the popular vote).

That all being said, a lot can happen between now and the election, and people need to get out and vote for Joe Biden. If Biden has an 86% chance of winning, that means Trump has a 14% chance of winning. That's more likely than flipping a coin three times in a row and landing heads all three times.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 11, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The national polls were mostly accurate in 2016. On this day in 2020, Biden is winning by +10.3 nationally according to an aggregate of the national polls. On this day in 2016, Clinton was winning by +5.7 nationally (she will end up "winning" by +2.1, which was largely reflected by the aggregate of November polls). In a few battleground states in 2016, the polls were wrong. If you assume the battleground polls we have today are as wrong as they were in 2016 (to Trump's benefit), Biden still wins in a landslide. That's also a bold assumption, since the polls could be wrong to Biden's benefit.
> 
> Biden has an 86% chance of winning the election (he has about a 94% chance of winning the popular vote), and if the election were held today, he'd have about a 96% chance of winning the election (he would have a >99% chance of winning the popular vote).
> 
> That all being said, a lot can happen between now and the election, and people need to get out and vote for Joe Biden. If Biden has an 86% chance of winning, that means Trump has a 14% chance of winning. That's more likely than flipping a coin three times in a row and landing heads all three times.



Well we will soon see. I do agree a lot can happen between now and the election.  I personally see Trump's support growing more between now and then.   

Biden saying things like voters not deserving to know his stance on court packing is not going to help on the fence voters push them towards him.  And I bet he does more of this between now and then.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 11, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Well we will soon see. I do agree a lot can happen between now and the election.  I personally see Trump's support growing more between now and then.
> 
> Biden saying things like voters not deserving to know his stance on court packing is not going to help on the fence voters push them towards him.  And I bet he does more of this between now and then.


Polls seem to show that the average American doesn't really care about court-packing. The only people who seem to care are solidly Democratic or solidly Republican. While a lot can happen between now and the election, it's going to take a lot for Trump to have decent chance at winning come election day.

It should also be noted that "court-packing" is an arbitrary term used when it's convenient for a given talking point. For example, it isn't court-packing to the Republican Party when they try to eliminate three seats from the D.C. Circuit, steal one Supreme Court seat, and hypocritically try to ram through another, but it is court-packing when the Democrats hypothetically want to use another legally available option in response to the Republicans' actions.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 11, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Polls seem to show that the average American doesn't really care about court-packing. The only people who seem to care are solidly Democratic or solidly Republican. While a lot can happen between now and the election, it's going to take a lot for Trump to have decent chance at winning come election day.
> 
> It should also be noted that "court-packing" is an arbitrary term used when it's convenient for a given talking point. For example, it isn't court-packing to the Republican Party when they try to eliminate three seats from the D.C. Circuit, steal one Supreme Court seat, and hypocritically try to ram through another, but it is court-packing when the Democrats hypothetically want to use another legally available option in response to the Republicans' actions.



Court packing in the reference I am speaking of is specific to the supreme court. 

Basically anything over 9 judges.  

And trying to associate a quick confirmation as "packing the court" in my opinion is just another misrepresentation of reality from anyone that would claim that.  And another attempt by CERTAIN democrats (most are not crazy enough to suggest that it would seem) to try and spin things against Trumps constitutional right to replace RBG.  I think most reasonable people understand that he has the right to do it, and is doing it.

Anything that comes after that from democrats screeching about it, does not look good for them. (For someone on the fence)

Threats to pack the supreme court, and then Biden making really rude comments to the citizen (Voters do not deserve to know his stance) do not make people on the fence want to come more towards him.  That is almost comical to me.  Just imagine if Trump used those exact words.

I believe that statement alone is going to hurt him quite a bit.

I think it matters more than you believe.  You are not on the fence.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 11, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Court packing in the reference I am speaking of is specific to the supreme court.
> 
> Basically anything over 9 judges.
> 
> ...


My point was that defining court-packing as "anything over 9 judges" is arbitrary. The Republicans have done plenty of things that can be called court-packing.

If Trump has a constitutional right to replace RBG, then Obama had a constitutional right to replace Scalia. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 11, 2020)

Lacius said:


> My point was that defining court-packing as "anything over 9 judges" is arbitrary. The Republicans have done plenty of things that can be called court-packing.
> 
> If Trump has a constitutional right to replace RBG, then Obama had a constitutional right to replace Scalia. You can't have your cake and eat it too.



Both sides play the game.  Using an example from another time does not make Trumps right any less of a right now.  He is not doing anything illegal. 

If the senate had a democrat majority Trump would not be successful.  I don't get your logic.

And the democrats have been playing "dirty" this whole term.  They reap what they sowed.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 11, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Both sides play the game.  Using an example from another time does not make Trumps right any less of a right now.  He is not doing anything illegal.


Adding more seats to the court isn't illegal, so if that's your rationale, what's the problem?


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 11, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Adding more seats to the court isn't illegal, so if that's your rationale, what's the problem?



Liberals are going to be wishing Biden felt you like you do, and not insult the American people.

I think 9 is a good # and I don't really want to debate my reasoning behind it.  It's really not the point.  I think this is going to harm Biden, not help him with middle of the road people.   I think to say oh it really does not matter, is crazy.

Again, imagine if Trump had said what Biden said.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 11, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Liberals are going to be wishing Biden felt you like you do, and not insult the American people.
> 
> I think 9 is a good # and I don't really want to debate my reasoning behind it.  It's really not the point.  I think this is going to harm Biden, not help him with middle of the road people.   I think to say oh it really does not matter, is crazy.
> 
> Again, imagine if Trump had said what Biden said.


If Republicans are going to, for example, change the number of seats on the D.C. Circuit, deny Democratic presidents Supreme Court appointments under rules that they themselves aren't going to follow, etc., then there is nothing wrong with the Democrats adding seats to the Supreme Court. The Republicans are the ones who decided the rules are arbitrary. The Republicans didn't break any laws (not even bringing up the Garland appointment might have been unconstitutional), and the Democrats wouldn't be breaking any laws either.

As an aside, it also has the added benefit of making each life term appointment to the Supreme Court less consequential.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 11, 2020)

I just saw this quote from Biden from yesterday.  Now I understand why I have seen at least 1 democrat kind of make the same claim.

This is just crazy if you ask me.



> “The only court packing going on right now is going on with Republicans… It's not constitutional what they’re doing,” Biden told reporters on Saturday.



This kind of rhetoric will push people to stick with what they know that works. (Those on the fence)  And under Trump, people were happy with the last 4 years.  I know I was, and I think I mentioned before.  I did not even vote for him in 2016. LOL.


----------



## Shulk95 (Oct 11, 2020)

I haven't logged into my account here in about a year I think, also i usually avoid the gaming communities political discussions because they tend to be very liberal.......... but i gotta drop my personal opinion by, giving some insight to the feeling the Lord Jesus Christ is giving me personally........ I believe this election is gonna be a huge victory for God!... Donald Trump is doing things that very much so seem organized by our almighty God, i fully believe with all my heart that bible prophecy is fulfilling itself in our faces!  Work he's done in the middle east is very interesting and something people should really pay attention to! I don't think God is done with Donald Trump yet either! The best is yet to come and I'm so thankful that Trump is bringing GOD back to America. I'm gonna continue praying for Trump!   God please give him 4 more years.....  Trump 2020 <3


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 11, 2020)

...
...
...
...
...
...
...
I'm I the only one who just read what shulk said and thought
"What is this, the crusade? bringing back the holy land? this isn't dangerous thinking at all to treat a political figure like a god."


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 11, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> https://townhall.com/columnists/way...oll-alert-proof-biden-is-not-winning-n2577814
> 
> *Fake-Poll Alert: Proof Biden Is Not Winning*
> 
> ...


Strawman argument.

A right-wing extremist website cites a pollster nobody's ever heard of claiming it's single poll as "PROOF" that aggregate polling is incorrect.  Also notable is how the author failed to account for far more reputable conservative pollsters, such as Fox News, that has Biden up a combined 9.5 points over their TWO most recent polls.

He discounts pollster data, yet has no issues counting on the feedback from his biased fans, proclaiming, "my fans tell me these [battleground] states are 100 percent Trump country."

That's some really funky doo-doo logic right there.  Sounds like an article you'd write, crimpshine.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 11, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I just saw this quote from Biden from yesterday.  Now I understand why I have seen at least 1 democrat kind of make the same claim.
> 
> This is just crazy if you ask me.
> 
> ...


The whole "Democratic presidents don't get to nominate replacements to fill Supreme Court vacancies" thing is arguably unconstitutional.



Shulk95 said:


> I haven't logged into my account here in about a year I think, also i usually avoid the gaming communities political discussions because they tend to be very liberal.......... but i gotta drop my personal opinion by, giving some insight to the feeling the Lord Jesus Christ is giving me personally........ I believe this election is gonna be a huge victory for God!... Donald Trump is doing things that very much so seem organized by our almighty God, i fully believe with all my heart that bible prophecy is fulfilling itself in our faces!  Work he's done in the middle east is very interesting and something people should really pay attention to! I don't think God is done with Donald Trump yet either! The best is yet to come and I'm so thankful that Trump is bringing GOD back to America. I'm gonna continue praying for Trump!   God please give him 4 more years.....  Trump 2020 <3


Trump is the antithesis of just about anything good one might point to in the Bible.


----------



## mehrab2603 (Oct 11, 2020)

Shulk95 said:


> I haven't logged into my account here in about a year I think, also i usually avoid the gaming communities political discussions because they tend to be very liberal.......... but i gotta drop my personal opinion by, giving some insight to the feeling the Lord Jesus Christ is giving me personally........ I believe this election is gonna be a huge victory for God!... Donald Trump is doing things that very much so seem organized by our almighty God, i fully believe with all my heart that bible prophecy is fulfilling itself in our faces!  Work he's done in the middle east is very interesting and something people should really pay attention to! I don't think God is done with Donald Trump yet either! The best is yet to come and I'm so thankful that Trump is bringing GOD back to America. I'm gonna continue praying for Trump!   God please give him 4 more years.....  Trump 2020 <3


Is this sarcasm? God couldn't find anyone better than one of the most morally deplorable persons to do his bidding?


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 11, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Strawman argument.
> 
> A right-wing extremist website cites a pollster nobody's ever heard of claiming it's single poll as "PROOF" that aggregate polling is incorrect.  Also notable is how the author failed to account for far more reputable conservative pollsters, such as Fox News, that has Biden up a combined 9.5 points over their TWO most recent polls.
> 
> ...



We shall see LimInvader.  Won't be long now.  I see you just picked what you claim you can refute, but left the rest. (not that it would matter)

I am optimistic.  And Biden/Harris is continuing to help my optimism.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 11, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> We shall see LimInvader.  Won't be long now.  I see you just picked what you claim you can refute, but left the rest. (not that it would matter)
> 
> I am optimistic.  And Biden/Harris is continuing to help my optimism.



the fun thing is that in this race Jo Jorgensen is doing to trump Jill stein did to Hillary. as the libertarian candidate, Jo is pulling away voters from trump to her 3 to 1 compared to Biden. without the libertarian candidate sucking up embarrassed conservatives, trump would be doing much better. in some states, Jorgensen is pulling as much as 3% from Trump and 1% from Biden, that is enough to kill a candidates chances.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 11, 2020)

Lacius said:


> My point was that defining court-packing as "anything over 9 judges" is arbitrary.



174 of the last 180 years at 9 justices is a helluva lot of precedent. The fact that they went back to 9, after a 6 year increase to 10, and that it has stayed at 9 for 150 years is even more weight against change. 




> The Republicans have done plenty of things that can be called court-packing.



No, court-packing has always been a Democrat cry-baby dream for getting what they want when they end up on the losing end of elections. The last President to think he'd give it a try was FDR.




> If Trump has a constitutional right to replace RBG, then Obama had a constitutional right to replace Scalia. You can't have your cake and eat it too.



No President has a constitutional right to do anything but nominate judicial candidates when there is a vacancy. The Senate is the gatekeeper to entry to the Federal bench, and Obama did not have the consent of the Senate. Trump *probably* does for Barrett's confirmation.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 11, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> No President has a constitutional right to do anything but nominate judicial candidates when there is a vacancy. The Senate is the gatekeeper to entry to the Federal bench, and Obama did not have the consent of the Senate. Trump *probably* does for Barrett's confirmation.



correct, and if dems win the senate, and Biden nominates judicial candidates, the senate can confirm them, even if it makes the number exceed 9, there is no law binding the USC to 9 justices. there are no problems because the senate and presidency are doing there job right?


----------



## Lacius (Oct 11, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> 174 of the last 180 years at 9 justices is a helluva lot of precedent. The fact that they went back to 9, after a 6 year increase to 10, and that it has stayed at 9 for 150 years is even more weight against change.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Republicans have violated plenty of precedents regarding courts, and they're also arbitrarily changing the rules to fit their desires. If that's the new precedent, Democrats should do the same. Look at my posts above for the details. You're not going to win this one.

Regarding constitutionality, the Senate is to take up a nominee in the event of a vacancy and nomination. That doesn't mean they have to vote in favor of the nominee, but the Senate didn't have a chance to give their consent or not, and that was arguably unconstitutional.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 11, 2020)

omgcat said:


> the fun thing is that in this race Jo Jorgensen is doing to trump Jill stein did to Hillary. as the libertarian candidate, Jo is pulling away voters from trump to her 3 to 1 compared to Biden. without the libertarian candidate sucking up embarrassed conservatives, trump would be doing much better. in some states, Jorgensen is pulling as much as 3% from Trump and 1% from Biden, that is enough to kill a candidates chances.



It goes both ways though.  The poll this thread is attached to is an example of that. All the others might have been biden voters if not for the fact that he is not desirable by many.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 11, 2020)

omgcat said:


> correct, and if dems win the senate, and Biden nominates judicial candidates, the senate can confirm them, even if it makes the number exceed 9, there is no law binding the USC to 9 justices. there are no problems because the senate and presidency are doing there job right?


There is nothing in the constitution limiting the number of justices to 9. It's statute law. Congress can increase the number.

If the argument is that the Republicans are okay because what they're doing is legal, then they should feel the same way about court packing.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



crimpshrine said:


> It goes both ways though.  The poll this thread is attached to is an example of that. All the others might have been biden voters if not for the fact that he is not desirable by many.


Biden is polling at about +4.5 in Florida. This endorsement might help Trump, but there's a good chance this isn't the kind of shakeup he needs. It should also be noted that there's a 16% chance Florida will be the tipping point. While high, that means there is an 84% chance the tipping point will be a state other than Florida, and there a lot of electoral college maps where Biden loses Florida but wins the election. There aren't many maps where Trump loses Florida but wins the election.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 11, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> It goes both ways though.  The poll this thread is attached to is an example of that. All the others might have been biden voters if not for the fact that he is not desirable by many.



you're right, and we can quantify that. as i said, libertarianism does not appeal as much to Dems as it does to the GOP, and as of now we are seeing Jo pull away 3 voters from trump for every 1 voter from Biden. the green party would be more likely to pull Dem voters, but they did not make it onto the ballots this year in enough states to make a difference at all.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 11, 2020)

omgcat said:


> you're right, and we can quantify that. as i said, libertarianism does not appeal as much to Dems as it does to the GOP, and as of now we are seeing Jo pull away 3 voters from trump for every 1 voter from Biden. the green party would be more likely to pull Dem voters, but they did not make it onto the ballots this year in enough states to make a difference at all.


Crucially, Howie Hawkins isn't on the ballot in Pennsylvania nor Wisconsin.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 11, 2020)

Lacius said:


> There is nothing in the constitution limiting the number of justices to 9. It's statute law. Congress can increase the number.
> 
> If the argument is that the Republicans are okay because what they're doing is legal, then they should feel the same way about court packing.



I don't have any problems with supreme court packing in the sense that if they can get them approved within the rules.  I could even go as far as to say it was never the intent to have that many justices, but if they are not breaking any rules, then I have to accept it.  I don't want that, and many others don't want that either.  And that is why the dems keep threatening it I believe.  But what Trump is doing now is perfectly legal and if the dems are threatening to do something that historically is not wanted, it is another indicator they don't ultimately want what is better.  It is just more of their tantrum. 

What is wrong and I think it will bite them in the ass is Biden and his choice of words.

No one would stand for it if Trump said these words when asked his position on a matter:



> No, they don’t deserve to know.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 11, 2020)

Just going to put this here.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 11, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I don't have any problems with supreme court packing in the sense that if they can get them approved within the rules.  I could even go as far as to say it was never the intent to have that many justices, but if they are not breaking any rules, then I have to accept it.  I don't want that, and many others don't want that either.  And that is why the dems keep threatening it I believe.  But what Trump is doing now is perfectly legal and if the dems are threatening to do something that historically is not wanted, it is another indicator they don't ultimately want what is better.  It is just more of their tantrum.
> 
> What is wrong and I think it will bite them in the ass is Biden and his choice of words.
> 
> No one would stand for it if Trump said these words when asked his position on a matter:


Court packing is legal. It is no more against the rules than arbitrarily deciding nominees don't get to go through the confirmation process when it's a Democratic president, and then changing the rules to allow it when a Republican is president.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 11, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Court packing is legal. It is no more against the rules than arbitrarily deciding nominees don't get to go through the confirmation process when it's a Democratic president, and then changing the rules to allow it when a Republican is president.



I never said it was not legal.

Not following.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 11, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I never said it was not legal.
> 
> Not following.


Then, respectfully, you need to do a better job making your point. Because, it looked to me like you were contrasting court-packing with what Trump and the Republicans are doing on the basis that the latter isn't against the rules, it's legal, etc.

If anyone is going to argue it's fine the Republicans, for example, change the number of D.C. Circuit judges, change the rules about when a vacancy can be filled to suit them, etc., then you have to agree court-packing is fine in order to be consistent.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Then, respectfully, you need to do a better job making your point. Because, it looked to me like you were contrasting court-packing with what Trump and the Republicans are doing on the basis that the latter isn't against the rules, it's legal, etc.
> 
> If anyone is going to argue it's fine the Republicans, for example, change the number of D.C. Circuit judges, change the rules about when a vacancy can be filled to suit them, etc., then you have to agree court-packing is fine in order to be consistent.



My first sentence I used that you responded to was:



> *I don't have any problems with supreme court packing in the sense that if they can get them approved within the rules.*



I even then said:



> I could even go as far as to say it was never the intent to have that many justices, but if they are not breaking any rules, then I have to accept it.




Seems pretty clear to me, LOL.

You seem to have that typical trait I see with many liberals in blaming others for your created problems.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 12, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> My first sentence I used that you responded to was:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I saw all that. So, what's the problem then? Because, respectfully, it sounds now like you're arguing for the sake of arguing.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 12, 2020)

If the courts do expand, expanding it to an even number seems kind of strange anyway. Unless they want to increase the chance for ties.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 12, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> If the courts do expand, expanding it to an even number seems kind of strange anyway. Unless they want to increase the chance for ties.


I agree that an odd number is best, although there's already a mechanism built in to deal with ties.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I saw all that. So, what's the problem then? Because, respectfully, it sounds now like you're arguing for the sake of arguing.



You told me I need to do a better job making my point.

In response to something you getting wrong,  LOL.

Me calling you on your lack of attention to detail is not arguing.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 12, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> You told me I need to do a better job making my point.
> 
> In response to something you getting wrong,  LOL.
> 
> Me calling you on your lack of attention to detail is not arguing.


You never answered my question. You seemed to suggest something is bothering you about court-packing, but you haven't told me what it is. Or are you okay with it? If it's the latter, we can drop it.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 12, 2020)

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/09/9222...nd-iowa-are-back-on-as-trumps-standing-slides

*A deeper look at the ad spending in each state*
Here's a state-by-state breakdown in order of where the campaigns are spending the most. The list is in order of the amount spent overall, and the totals include the outside groups supporting each candidate and/or opposing his opponent. Data include TV ad spending from Sept. 27 through the week of Nov. 1.

(Note from Lum: The candidate spending the most is listed at the top)

*Florida: $112.5 million*
Biden and allies: $70 million ($18.5 million from campaign)
Trump and allies: $42.5 million ($25 million from campaign)

*Pennsylvania: $68.3 million*
Biden and allies: $45.7 million (13.6 million from campaign)
Trump and allies: $22.6 million ($9.6 million from campaign)

*Michigan: $43.7 million*
Biden and allies: $36.5 million ($10.7 million from campaign)
Trump and allies: $7.2 million ($7 million from campaign)

*North Carolina: $36.9 million*
Trump and allies: $20.8 million ($11 million from campaign)
Biden and allies: $16.1 million ($13.7 million from campaign)

*Arizona: $31.7 million*
Biden and allies: $22.2 million ($12.2 million from campaign)
Trump and allies: $9.5 million ($6.3 million from campaign)

*Wisconsin: $29.8 million*
Biden and allies: $20.4 million ($7.6 million from campaign)
Trump and allies: $9.4 million ($3.4 million from campaign)

*Minnesota: $16.2 million*
Biden and allies: $9.5 million ($3.5 million from campaign)
Trump and allies: $6.7 million (all from campaign)

*Nevada: $15.7 million*
Biden and allies: $12.2 million ($2.7 million from campaign)
Trump and allies: $3.5 million (all from campaign)

*Ohio: $13.1 million*
Trump and allies: $7.9 million (all from campaign)
Biden and allies: $5.2 million (all from campaign)

*Georgia: $10.4 million*
Trump and allies: $5.9 million ($1.5 million from campaign)
Biden and allies: $4.5 million ($4.3 million from campaign)

*Iowa: $8 million*
Trump and allies: $5.5 million ($2.7 million from campaign)
Biden and allies: $2.5 million (all from campaign)

*Texas: $6.7 million*
Biden and allies: $6.7 million ($6.6 million from campaign)
Trump and allies: $29,000 ($27,000 from campaign)

*New Hampshire: $5.1 million*
Trump and allies: $2.8 million (all from campaign)
Biden and allies: $2.3 million ($2.2 million from campaign)


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> You never answered my question. You seemed to suggest something is bothering you about court-packing, but you haven't told me what it is. Or are you okay with it? If it's the latter, we can drop it.



It's funny how your side thinks it's perfectly fine to cheat or change the game if you don't win. Though, your side has no faith or morals, so it's not surprising either.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 12, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> It's funny how your side thinks it's perfectly fine to cheat or change the game if you don't win. Though, your side has no faith or morals, so it's not surprising either.


First, the personal attacks do nothing helpful.

Second, you can only call it "cheating or changing" the game if you are admitting that what the Republicans have done is cheat or change the game.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 12, 2020)

Interesting reaction from the audience.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> You never answered my question. You seemed to suggest something is bothering you about court-packing, but you haven't told me what it is. Or are you okay with it? If it's the latter, we can drop it.



Seriously?

We literally just went back and forth (where you told me to do a better job at making my point)

I re-posted (and will do it yet again) what I said that you claimed I was not making my point clearly on:




> I don't have any problems with supreme court packing in the sense that if they can get them approved within the rules.
> I could even go as far as to say it was never the intent to have that many justices, but if they are not breaking any rules, then I have to accept it.




Me saying I would have to accept it, means I don't like it.  But I understand, if they can accomplish it based on the rules/process it is legimate.

I also believe that the more Biden doubles down on his not wanting to tell the voting public his intentions it will hurt him.

Especially when he is asked, please tell us the voters want to know.   He says "That voters don't deserve to know".

Which you have avoided commenting at all about in any of this I believe.

Do you think it is OK for Biden to talk like that to the people?  Who have every right to know how he stands on an issue that may or may not matter to them?

To me it shows the double standards that many liberals have.  Could you imagine how much everyone's panties would be in a bunch if Trump had used that response if it was thought he was going to do that, and was being asked that publicly?

I guarantee it matters more for someone still on the fence.  Someone like you probably just ignores it.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> First, the personal attacks do nothing helpful.
> 
> Second, you can only call it "cheating or changing" the game if you are admitting that what the Republicans have done is cheat or change the game.



There was no personal attack. I'm not sure why you tried to deflect and turn the situation around on me, but you're the side that wants to change the rules of the game because you're losing. You'd make a really shitty chess player as you'd be losing and try to change the rules and you would get kicked out of the professional league for being a moron.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 12, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Seriously?
> 
> We literally just went back and forth (where you told me to do a better job at making my point)
> 
> ...


You say you don't like the idea of court packing but that you would have to accept it if it happened. Does that mean you also don't like what the Republicans have done with regard to the courts?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



gregory-samba said:


> There was no personal attack. I'm not sure why you tried to deflect and turn the situation around on me, but you're the side that wants to change the rules of the game because you're losing. You'd make a really shitty chess player as you'd be losing and try to change the rules and you would get kicked out of the professional league for being a moron.


Saying a person, or side, doesn't have faith or morals is a personal attack if I've ever seen one.

As I've said before, the Republicans are the ones who have made the rules arbitrary by changing them when it suits them.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Saying a person, or side, doesn't have faith or morals is a personal attack if I've ever seen one.
> 
> As I've said before, the Republicans are the ones who have made the rules arbitrary by changing them when it suits them.



Liberals change their moral stance on things on the drop of a dime to suit whatever situation they may be in. They are liars and morals aren't something you just get to change when you feel like it. Morals are hard core beliefs you have and if you change yours to suit whatever the current nonsense the Liberal media is telling you to lie about then you have no morals to speak of. The lack of faith is also very relevant and your side constantly attacks people of faith. Neither of those things were a personal attack against you, just facts. If you're hurt by the truth then that's your problem. The truth is you're poor losers, you still haven't been able to get over your loss in 2016 and keep trying to manipulate and change the rules to suit your situation. It's very dishonest, but your side is full of liars so again, not surprising, just sad.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 12, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Liberals change their moral stance on things on the drop of a dime to suit whatever situation they may be in. They are liars and morals aren't something you just get to change when you feel like it. Morals are hard core beliefs you have and if you change yours to suit whatever the current nonsense the Liberal media is telling you to lie about then you have no morals to speak of. The lack of faith is also very relevant and your side constantly attacks people of faith. Neither of those things were a personal attack against you, just facts. If you're hurt by the truth then that's your problem. The truth is you're poor losers, you still haven't been able to get over your loss in 2016 and keep trying to manipulate and change the rules to suit your situation. It's very dishonest, but your side is full of liars so again, not surprising, just sad.



Whether you realize it or not, these are more personal attacks.
You're making very broad generalizations, which usually is not a very good idea if your goal is to be correct and/or not make baseless personal attacks.
I'm unaware of an example when liberals "changed their moral stances." It sounds like you're alluding to something significant here, but you might also be making stuff up. It's hard to tell. My guess is it's the latter.
I don't speak for all liberals, but I don't see any value in religious faith. Anything good one can get from religious faith can be obtained through secular means, without the surrender of skepticism and critical thinking. That being said, I respect everybody's right to believe and practice whatever religion they want. I have nothing against religious people.
I'm unaware of any time liberals, broadly speaking, have ever attacked people of faith. Most of the hate for people of faith seems to come from the right (disdain for Muslims, etc.).
Saying you believe something to be the truth doesn't make it any less of a personal attack.
I accepted that Donald Trump won the election on election night. That doesn't mean I can't be upset about it. He's an awful president, there were a lot of election shenanigans (hacked emails, Russia, Comey, etc.), the electoral college is a nightmare of idiocy, etc. There's nothing about this that makes one a sore loser.
Not to say people in the Democratic Party don't ever lie, but to get back on topic, I believe the Republican Party is the one with numerous senators who said they wouldn't take up a nominee to fill a vacancy in the Supreme Court in 2020, but now they've changed their minds. I think I found the liars.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> You say you don't like the idea of court packing but that you would have to accept it if it happened. Does that mean you also don't like what the Republicans have done with regard to the courts?
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



I have already engaged that portion of my original post with you ad nauseam that you chose to respond to.  Even though you could not keep it straight.

Any one of you 3 or 4 seem to jump at the chance to comment on something you think you can spin towards making sense in your mind.

On Friday Joe Biden said: *Voters don't deserve to know* when pressed by DiMattei who said Well sir don't the voters deserve to know?

How would you feel if Trump responded with the same under the same circumstances?  The lack of a response seems hypocritical.

I think this is similar to the "If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black" comment he made previously.

It will again push more people on the fence towards Trump.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 12, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I have already engaged that portion of my original post with you ad nauseam that you chose to respond to.  Even though you could not keep it straight.
> 
> Any one of you 3 or 4 seem to jump at the chance to comment on something you think you can spin towards making sense.
> 
> ...


I'd like to narrow down your position on court packing before addressing Joe Biden's views.

Do you agree court packing is no different than, for example, changing the rules about when the Senate takes up nominations to the Supreme Court? If yes, cool. If not, on what basis?


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I'd like to narrow down your position on court packing before addressing Joe Biden's views.
> 
> Do you agree court packing is no different than, for example, changing the rules about when the Senate takes up nominations to the Supreme Court? If yes, cool. If not, on what basis?



I am not going to help you mentally masturbate any longer.  I am not here for your amusement/pleasure.  You are something else.  

Hope you are more considerate to others in real life.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 12, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I am not going to help you mentally masturbate any longer.  I am not here for your amusement/pleasure.  You are something else.
> 
> Hope you are more considerate to others in real life.


I'm sorry if I offended you in any way. That's your prerogative. I was just trying to get an answer to a question that I don't think you ever answered. You said you don't like the idea of court packing, but you never said why, and you also never said if you liked what the Republicans have done with the Supreme Court.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 12, 2020)

Does Florida concern any Republicans here?

- Trump currently trails Biden by 4.5 points in Florida.
- Biden is outspending Trump there in ad purchases, $70M to $42.5M.
- Trump has no realistic path to the White House without Florida.

It's not as if the Trump campaign doesn't take Florida seriously, as they're spending more there than anywhere else.  Yet, they're still being outspent by the Democrats by 64%.  With only three weeks left to go, it's hard to see how spending significantly less is going to move the needle.


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 12, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Does Florida concern any Republicans here?
> 
> - Trump currently trails Biden by 4.5 points in Florida.
> - Biden is outspending Trump there in ad purchases, $70M to $42.5M.
> ...


It was the same story in 2016, they dont follow public polling, they have their own private internal polling that they make decisions on what and where to spend money.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 12, 2020)

Joe88 said:


> It was the same story in 2016, they dont follow public polling, they have their own private internal polling that they make decisions on what and where to spend money.


In 2016, Trump wasn't down 10.4 points overall (per fivethirtyeight), nor was he down 4.5 points in Florida.  In the final polling he only trailed Hillary 3.6% overall and 0.7% in Florida.

No amount of internal polling is going to fix that large of a deficit.  Spending more in Florida might help, though.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 12, 2020)

I think Trump will take Florida in the end.  

Things like this don't help Biden in Florida. 

https://www.oann.com/president-trump-receives-endorsement-from-fla-police-chiefs-association/

*President Trump receives endorsement from Fla. Police Chiefs Association*

The Florida Police Chiefs Association offered its first ever presidential endorsement to President Trump this week.

It's not reported on by much of liberal media, but local media in Florida have been reporting it.

And we now have Biden helping increase those odds.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 12, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I think Trump will take Florida in the end.
> 
> Things like this don't help Biden in Florida.
> 
> ...


Trump's been campaigning as the law and order candidate for months.  We all know this because Trump's told us so.  So how do you explain how Florida, which was once a close race back in March, is now heavily favoring Biden?  How does such a thing happen to the law and order candidate?  Perhaps there's another issue people are worried about in 2020?  Any idea what this mysterious issue could be, crimp?


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 12, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Trump's been campaigning as the law and order candidate for months.  We all know this because Trump's told us so.  So how do you explain how Florida, which was once a close race back in March, is now heavily favoring Biden?  How does such a thing happen to the law and order candidate?  Perhaps there's another issue people are worried about in 2020?  Any idea what this mysterious issue could be, crimp?



Liberal media does not report on these types of things because it goes against their desires. 

I don't think it is that close in Florida.

Or PA for that matter.  The governor of PA is helping that too.  Their unemployment is higher than the national average.  The governor there is doing things like trying to hold back money to cities for not following his Covid-19 restrictions.  Democrats are tired of it.   I would bet in PA you will have people that are democrats for life voting for Trump this year.


https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...st-latinos-trump-caravan-south-florida-video/

*Miami PD Estimates More Than 30,000 Cars Participated in Anti-Communist, Latinos For Trump Caravan in South Florida*


They did the same thing for Biden and only a few dozen cars participated.

I know you think that the polls are right, but I don't think they are and we will soon see.


----------



## Cachuchin1 (Oct 12, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Liberal media does not report on these types of things because it goes against their desires.
> 
> I don't think it is that close in Florida.
> 
> ...




I don't think amount of cars is also a good way to measure how many people will vote for him. not representative at least.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 12, 2020)

Cachuchin1 said:


> I don't think amount of cars is also a good way to measure how many people will vote for him. not representative at least.



Not saying it is, just indicates enthusiasm.  Trump seems to have it, even with those that have been constantly told he is a racist. Which is considerably higher across the US for Trump which seems to be constant.

Another indicator I believe which is correlated in PA from articles I have read is first time gun registrations.   I think enough democrats in PA have had it with their governor.  And will be voting republican this year.

First time gun registrations have been up across the board in many states the last several months.  I don't think any of these things on their own is a guarantee, they are just indicators.  That are not based on asking people questions. (polls)


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 12, 2020)

The essence of leftism (and this thread) in general is soy men, women, lesbians, and transgenders pretending they can tell actual men what to think and how to act.  Never in the history of humans in the last 50,000 years has this been an actual thing, and it's not going to be a thing anytime in the future.

You see, the human species are not spiders and humans utilize this thing called patriarchy.  They do not use soytriarchy, matriarchy, lesbianarchy, or transgenderarchy.  It's like when Frank tried to kill Tony Montana and tried to blame it on the Diaz brothers.  He told Frank:  You don't give the orders, Frank.  The only thing that gives orders in this world is balls.

None of these anti-white racist and misandrist groups even know they're being propped up solely as useful idiots to try and destabilize and destroy western civilizations.  It's much more difficult for the international, globalist, usury bankers and corporations to exploit and enslave a strong nation than a weak soytriarchy.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 12, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> The essence of leftism (and this thread) in general is soy men, women, lesbians, and transgenders pretending they can tell actual men what to think and how to act.  Never in the history of humans in the last 50,000 years has this been an actual thing, and it's not going to be a thing anytime in the future.
> 
> You see, the human species are not spiders and humans utilize this thing called patriarchy.  They do not use soytriarchy, matriarchy, lesbianarchy, or transgenderarchy.  It's like when Frank tried to kill Tony Montana and tried to blame it on the Diaz brothers.  He told Frank:  You don't give the orders, Frank.  The only thing that gives orders in this world is balls.
> 
> None of these anti-white racist and misandrist groups even know they're being propped up solely as useful idiots to try and destabilize and destroy western civilizations.  It's much more difficult for the international, globalist, usury bankers and corporations to exploit and enslave a strong nation than a weak soytriarchy.


You left out homoarchy on your offensive list.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 12, 2020)

How upsetting is it to know your life is a lie and it's just international usury bankers trying to prop you up to destroy western civilization on purpose because it's far easier for them to steal and enslave people that way?


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 12, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> *Liberal media does not report on these types of things because it goes against their desires.*
> 
> I don't think it is that close in Florida.
> 
> ...


Foxnews.com has purposely ignored the 2020 economic forecasts from Moody's, Goldman Sachs, and Oxford Economics because they all predict Biden's economy would create more jobs with a higher GDP.  Fox doesn't want potential Trump voters having access to this information, so they filter it out.  They're doing exactly what you're accusing the left of doing.  Where's the outrage?

Take Moody's for example.  Back in 2016, their forecast favored Hillary's economy over Trump's.  MSM reported it; Fox News did not.  Ditto for 2020.  However, if Moody's says something positive about Trump, Fox News is all over it like white-on-rice:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/moodys-election-model-trump-wins-2020

You're OK with this?  Even though this Moody's 2019 outlook was poor for Democrats, CNN.com still ran the story on their front page:

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics...ediction-election-trump-landslide-qmb-vpx.cnn
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/17/politics/trump-moodys-analytics-2020-election-model/index.html

Also, that article you linked was published by an unreliable right-wing extremist website.  You keep reminding us about your issues regarding MSM bias, yet you willingly trawl the armpit of the internet for your news?


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 12, 2020)

The scene outside the United Auto Workers Local 15 union hall in Toledo, OH as Joe Biden’s motorcade arrives.

The scene outside the United Auto Workers Local 15 union hall in Toledo, OH as Joe Biden’s motorcade arrives.Biden will deliver remarks on the importance of his “Build Back Better” plan to revitalize the American auto industry. pic.twitter.com/jXCsl1jv3x— Allie Raffa (@AllieRaffa) October 12, 2020


Looks like all Trump supporters.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 12, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Foxnews.com has purposely ignored the 2020 economic forecasts from Moody's, Goldman Sachs, and Oxford Economics because they all predict Biden's economy would create more jobs with a higher GDP.  Fox doesn't want potential Trump voters having access to this information, so they filter it out.  They're doing exactly what you're accusing the left of doing.  Where's the outrage?
> 
> Take Moody's for example.  Back in 2016, their forecast favored Hillary's economy over Trump's.  MSM reported it; Fox News did not.  Ditto for 2020.  However, if Moody's says something positive about Trump, Fox News is all over it like white-on-rice:
> 
> ...



Enthusiasm for Biden is almost non-existent.   You can see the videos for the anti-communist Latinos for Trump caravan that occurred.  

Can't say the same for Biden.  

And as for news organizations and their bias, LOL. 

Just today CNN skipped much live footage of the ACB hearing, can't have the people seeing anything they don't have the chance to cut out anything they don't want people to see.

If you are trying to argue CNN is more objective overall than Fox. Too funny.    

Did CNN report on how Biden said that voters don't deserve to know his stance on court packing?  Can't seem to find that.


----------



## TheCasketMan (Oct 12, 2020)

This election will be a landslide WIN for . . . TRUMP.  You heard it here first folks!  Get those REEEEEEEEEEEEs ready!!!


----------



## Osakasan (Oct 12, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> The essence of leftism (and this thread) in general is soy men, women, lesbians, and transgenders pretending they can tell actual men what to think and how to act.  Never in the history of humans in the last 50,000 years has this been an actual thing, and it's not going to be a thing anytime in the future.
> 
> You see, the human species are not spiders and humans utilize this thing called patriarchy.  They do not use soytriarchy, matriarchy, lesbianarchy, or transgenderarchy.  It's like when Frank tried to kill Tony Montana and tried to blame it on the Diaz brothers.  He told Frank:  You don't give the orders, Frank.  The only thing that gives orders in this world is balls.
> 
> None of these anti-white racist and misandrist groups even know they're being propped up solely as useful idiots to try and destabilize and destroy western civilizations.  It's much more difficult for the international, globalist, usury bankers and corporations to exploit and enslave a strong nation than a weak soytriarchy.



Oh god the fragile masculinity, oh my fucking god.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 12, 2020)

1 hour ago in Toledo Ohio.

"I'm running as a proud Democrat for the Senate"

LOL


----------



## Lacius (Oct 12, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Enthusiasm for Biden is almost non-existent.   You can see the videos for the anti-communist Latinos for Trump caravan that occurred.
> 
> Can't say the same for Biden.
> 
> ...


There's plenty of enthusiasm for Biden.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



crimpshrine said:


> "I'm running as a proud Democrat for the Senate"
> 
> LOL



Trump says stupider things and far more frequently. Also, who cares about an obvious gaff from someone who has run for Senate far more than he has run for president?


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 12, 2020)

I guess this is part of the reason Joe could not keep it together today when he said he was running for the senate.  

Is Joe talking to like 5 people?


Dozens of Trump supporters were loudly chanting a mix of “Four more years,” “Trump” and “USA” throughout the event, growing louder anytime @JoeBiden mentioned the president. pic.twitter.com/7M0iZWdmRf— Marianna Sotomayor (@MariannaReports) October 12, 2020


----------



## omgcat (Oct 12, 2020)

oh no, Biden might lose OHIO! what will he do? oh wait, let's ignore Biden's massive lead in MI, NV, PA, WI, and slight leads in AZ, FL, and NC. once again, all Biden needs to win the EC is WI, and PA. if he gets both of those, it becomes impossible for trump to win. Ohio is a coin flip right now, but unnecessary for a EC victory. the 50 point lead with younger voters is also insane, especially since most of them are out of school and have no jobs because of the shitty COVID response and want to vote to show their rage. the projected younger voter rate is double that of 2016, going from 13% to a projected 26+%. trump is fucked if students actually go and vote. on top of that Trump shit the bed with women voters, which is a necessary voting block for victory.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Oct 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> There's plenty of enthusiasm for Biden.




--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



omgcat said:


> oh no, Biden might lose OHIO! what will he do? oh wait, let's ignore Biden's massive lead in MI, NV, PA, WI, and slight leads in AZ, FL, and NC. once again, all Biden needs to win the EC is WI, and PA. if he gets both of those, it becomes impossible for trump to win. Ohio is a coin flip right now, but unnecessary for a EC victory. the 50 point lead with younger voters is also insane, especially since most of them are out of school and have no jobs because of the shitty COVID response and want to vote to show their rage. the projected younger voter rate is double that of 2016, going from 13% to a projected 26+%. trump is fucked if students actually go and vote. on top of that Trump shit the bed with women voters, which is a necessary voting block for victory.


I know, I know, but _enthusiasm!? _Thanks for a couple laughs guys, its been a rough day.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 12, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> 
> I know, I know, but _enthusiasm!? _Thanks for a couple laughs guys, its been a rough day.



yeah, kind of hard to show your enthusiasm when the other side runs around with guns out and cheers for summary executions of peaceful protestors, commits domestic terrorism, and has senators saying shit like *"If you are a young, African American, an immigrant, you can go anywhere in this State. You just need to be conservative, not liberal."*


----------



## Lacius (Oct 12, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> 
> I know, I know, but _enthusiasm!? _Thanks for a couple laughs guys, its been a rough day.


You might want to check the enthusiasm numbers instead of accepting something as true merely because it feels true. In addition to looking less foolish, you'd be more informed for doing so.

In the latest ABC/Washington Post poll, when asked _Would you say you are very enthusiastic about supporting Biden, somewhat enthusiastic, not so enthusiastic or not enthusiastic at all_, the results were:

52% say very enthusiastic
34% say somewhat enthusiastic
That's an 86% net enthusiasm, which is pretty good.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 12, 2020)

I guess this is what you get when you let Joe go past 10:00 AM.

Forgot which state he was in. (Tweeted that he was in Pennsylvania when he was actually in Ohio)
Forgot Mitt Romney's name and instead referred to him as "a Mormon."
Forgot which office he was running for.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Oct 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> foolish


"My party good, your party bad"
That's _foolish _Lacius, but its a game you play.


Lacius said:


> enthusiasm numbers


I really don't give a shit. I'm actually voting Biden just so we can reduce presidential seat to a single term. Would _love _to implement the grand solution of voting term limits to all seats of government, but you motherfuckers are preventing that from ever happening.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 12, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I guess this what you get when you let Joe go past 10:00 AM.
> 
> Forgot which state he was in. (Tweeted that he was in Pennsylvania when he was actually in Ohio)
> Forgot Mitt Romney's name and instead referred to him as "a Mormon."
> Forgot which office he was running for.


Could you link to the Tweet please?

You don't have any evidence he forgot Mitt Romney's name.

If you listen to the whole speech, a.) You can see Biden knew he was running for president, and b.) You can see which words were mixed up.


> “And, America, we can do anything that we need to do if we can do it together. Nothing can stop us. You know, we have to come together.
> 
> “That’s why I’m running – I’m running as a proud Democrat for the Senate.
> 
> ...


He clearly meant to say I "ran" as a proud Democrat for Senate. As I said before, Trump says much stupider nonsense, and Trump does it far more frequently. Biden's speech here also wasn't that big of a gaffe. It's not much of a reason to vote for or against somebody, especially given Biden's opponent.



0x3000027E said:


> "My party good, your party bad"
> That's _foolish _Lacius, but its a game you play.


That is foolish. It's a good thing I never said that.



0x3000027E said:


> I really don't give a shit.


People who care more about what feels true than what is true typically don't give a shit.



0x3000027E said:


> Would _love _to implement the grand solution of voting term limits to all seats of government, but you motherfuckers are preventing that from ever happening.


Term limits only really make a lot of sense at the executive level.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 12, 2020)

Well, afaik, the House Democrats are at least trying to add term limits to the Supreme Court.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 12, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Well, afaik, the House Democrats are at least trying to add term limits to the supreme court.


Interestingly, adding members to the Supreme Court would solve a lot of the problems with the Supreme Court. Justices wouldn't feel compelled to stay on the court their whole lives, several appointments by one president wouldn't dramatically alter the composition of the court for a lifetime, etc.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Oct 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Term limits only really make a lot of sense at the executive level.


noooo....Sighhhh...if only I could change your (and the population's) mind. We would be in a much better place.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Could you link to the Tweet please?
> 
> You don't have any evidence he forgot Mitt Romney's name.
> 
> ...



Find it yourself.  All 3 things he did today, no matter how you justify it, it does not change the facts.

Actually I still do have the Romney one.

Joe Biden is having a normal one, completely forgetting Mitt Romney's name."I got in trouble when we were running against that senator who was a Mormon, the governor."https://t.co/5afX0gv6tb— The First (@TheFirstonTV) October 12, 2020


----------



## Lacius (Oct 12, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> noooo....Sighhhh...if only I could change your (and the population's) mind. We would be in a much better place.


It kind of helps when lawmakers know how to make laws. That's why the legislative branch typically doesn't have term limits.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



crimpshrine said:


> Find it yourself.  All 3 things he did today, no matter how you justify it, it does not change the facts.
> 
> Actually I still do have the Romney one.
> 
> https://twitter.com/i/status/1315694292309028864



You don't know that Biden forgot Mitt Romney's name.
If Biden did forget Mitt Romney's name, who cares? It's not a big gaffe, and there are figuratively 1,000 Trump absurdities for each one of Biden's gaffes.
I'd also like to see the Tweet before I accept it as true. Without seeing the Tweet, I can speculate that Biden didn't post it himself (many politicians don't run their own Twitter accounts, and their posts aren't necessarily them unless the Tweets are signed).


----------



## omgcat (Oct 12, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Find it yourself.  All 3 things he did today, no matter how you justify it, it does not change the facts.
> 
> Actually I still do have the Romney one.
> 
> https://twitter.com/i/status/1315694292309028864



doesn't change the fact that Biden makes mistakes in about 1 in 13 speeches, while Trump spews bullshit non-stop 24/7. at least Biden speaks at above a 5th grade level. granted speaking at a 5th grade level might appeal more to Trump's base.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 12, 2020)

omgcat said:


> doesn't change the fact that Biden makes mistakes in about 1 in 13 speeches, while Trump spews bullshit non-stop 24/7. at least Biden speaks at above a 5th grade level. granted speaking at a 5th grade level might appeal more to Trump's base.



I love how you guys double down on it.  

Biden is barely keeping it together mentally at any given time.  Most people can see that.   And that is why they limit him so much.

It's all about handling him.

I think it is another reason he will lose.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 12, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I love how you guys double down on it.
> 
> Biden is barely keeping it together mentally at any given time.  Most people can see that.   And that is why they limit him so much.
> 
> ...


Trump is the one who is barely keeping it together mentally at any given time.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 12, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I love how you guys double down on it.
> 
> Biden is barely keeping it together mentally at any given time.  Most people can see that.   And that is why they limit him so much.
> 
> ...



seems like you never actually pay attention to any of his great speeches, cause you're to busy trying to discredit him. if you could point to a single speech by trump that has garnered applause from a majority of people, I'd like to see it.

 for that matter, in his 4 years I'm not sure trump has given a speech that would pass 8th grade English standards.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 12, 2020)

omgcat said:


> seems like you never actually pay attention to any of his great speeches, cause you're to busy trying to discredit him. if you could point to a single speech by trump that has garnered applause from a majority of people, I'd like to see it.



Are you talking about speeches where he reads verbatim what is on the teleprompter text?

End Quote.

LOL, yeah right.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 12, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Are you talking about speeches where he reads verbatim what is on the teleprompter text?
> 
> End Quote.
> 
> LOL, yeah right.



imagine having a presidential candidate that can't even give a good speech with a teleprompter.

All sorts of politicians have been using teleprompters/written cards for years. GWB used written cards, Obama used a teleprompter, Reagan used written cards. Almost all presidential speeches are planned, and people use cards and teleprompters.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 12, 2020)

omgcat said:


> imagine having a presidential candidate that can't even give a good speech with a teleprompter.



Or a presidential candidate that won't answer questions voters want to know, and believes they do not deserve to know.

On Friday:

Ross DiMattei asked after pressing him on if he will pack the supreme court if elected: “Well sir, don’t the voters deserve to know—“ 

*Biden: “No, they don’t deserve” to know. *

That is real Biden, with no scripts or text to follow.

We all know what he said when asked if he had taken a cognitive test previously.   As bad as the media is with Trump that is not something people are worried about. 

The fact that you guys sit here and attempt to make it out to be nothing is hilarious and shows your lack of awareness.

And it will only get worse! Can't wait to see what he says next.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 12, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Or a presidential candidate that won't answer questions voters want to know, and believes they do not deserve to know.
> 
> On Friday:
> 
> ...



he doesn't have to actually say what they are going to do. they will pack the court, and it will be a popular choice. more than 60% of voters don't think the USC seat should be filled until after inauguration day. it would be unpopular if republicans were actually the majority of voters.

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ays-supreme-court-vacancy-should-be-filled-by

an unpopular president doing unpopular things might not get re-elected, what a shocker.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 12, 2020)

omgcat said:


> he doesn't have to actually say what they are going to do. they will pack the court, and it will be a popular choice. more than 60% of voters don't think the USC seat should be filled until after inauguration day. it would be unpopular if republicans were actually the majority of voters.
> 
> https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ays-supreme-court-vacancy-should-be-filled-by
> 
> an unpopular president doing unpopular things might not get re-elected, what a shocker.



If Trump responded in the same way you would scream to the sky.   

What mental gymnastics some of you do to justify your feelings.  Trump has every legal right to move the confirmation forward.  And is.

You could post a link to a poll saying 100% of people feel he should wait, it does not change his constitutional right.  To do what he is doing.  And he has the senate behind him, so it will likely happen.  That is how government can work when things align properly.

Are you guys really this dense?

But you are cool with Biden telling potential voters "People do not deserve" to know what his intentions are regarding packing the supreme court.  LOL  I don't think others are, and will help Trump more.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 12, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Trump has every legal right to move the confirmation forward.


And the Democrats have every legal right to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> And the Democrats have every legal right to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court.



You responding to other posts (quoting my post) again thinking it's me? 

Not my point.

LOL


----------



## Lacius (Oct 12, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> You responding to other posts again thinking it's me?
> 
> LOL


Uh, it's very clearly your post I responded to.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Uh, it's very clearly your post I responded to.



I edited my post, I meant are you crossing wires or something.

Because that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

I am starting to get you Lacius, you just move on when defeated.  You attempt to pivot to something else.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 12, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I edited my post, I meant are you crossing wires or something.
> 
> Because that has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
> 
> I am starting to get you Lacius, you just move on when defeated.  You attempt to pivot to something else.


What are you talking about? What did I move on from?

You are the one who keeps talking about court-packing like it's a bad thing, but you keep bringing up Trump's appointment like it's a good thing.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> What are you talking about? What did I move on from?
> 
> You are the one who keeps talking about court-packing like it's a bad thing, but you keep bringing up Trump's appointment like it's a good thing.



Seriously?

This is ALL I said about packing the supreme court in my post you responded to:



> But you are cool with Biden telling potential voters "People do not deserve" to know what his intentions are regarding packing the supreme court.



Biden told a reporter that people do not deserve to know his intentions regarding if he will pack the supreme court or not.

The reporter asked the question because that MIGHT matter to potential voters.

It is not about me having an issue with packing the supreme court, it is the fact that Biden said people DO NOT DESERVE to know.

Again, it is about Biden saying people do not deserve to know his intentions. 

I think you pulled this shit last night and said I need to do a better job at explaining myself.  I think you need to read a little slower or something.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 12, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Seriously?
> 
> This is ALL I said about packing the supreme court in my post you responded to:
> 
> ...


If you have nothing against court-packing, why does it matter to you?


----------



## omgcat (Oct 12, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> The reporter asked the question because that MIGHT matter to potential voters.



oh are we going to expect people talk about things voters might care about? how about who did the president infect, what is his current covid status? when was his last negative test before the original debate? what medications is he taking? if he is supposedly done with medications and is fine, why did he still have a hand IV bandage within the last 48 hours? Why didn't he take hydroxy when he was 100% sure it was the corona killer? i'm sure me and other voters would love to have some questions answered.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> If you have nothing against court-packing, why does it matter to you?



Why do you care if it matters to me?


----------



## Lacius (Oct 12, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Why do you care if it matters to me?


I'm trying to figure out why you're ranting about something you claim to be okay with.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I'm trying to figure out why you're ranting about something you claim to be okay with.



it's the only talking points the republicans have right now. they are freaking out because they can't lie cheat and steal fast enough to win this election.

standard BS, "polls don't matter, unless it says good stuff about trump"

"you're not hearing the silent majority, even though Trumpers are close to vegans in self-identification"

"Joe biden blinked his left eye before his right eye, he must have ALS!"

"oh it's not ok for you guys to bring up the fly that sat on pence's head for 2 whole minutes, that's just rude!"


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 12, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I'm trying to figure out why you're ranting about something you claim to be okay with.



The only thing I feel I am ranting about is trying to explain a simple premise to you.  Which you still don't get.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 13, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> The only thing I feel I am ranting about is trying to explain a simple premise to you.  Which you still don't get.



we get it, you have a double standard.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 13, 2020)

omgcat said:


> we get it, you have a double standard.



I think you get even less than Lacius.  At least I think he does understand how our government works from what I can see.  Unlike you.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 13, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I think you get even less than Lacius.  At least I think he does understand how our government works from what I can see.  Unlike you.



I do understand how government works, for the democrats to even be able to confirm a justice, they would need 50+ votes, by that logic, they would also have the votes needed to pass a new version of the judicial act. the chances of the democrats winning the senate is 67+%, the chances of keeping the house is 96%, and as of today the chances of Biden winning the election is around 86%. so by standard statistics, the chances of all 3 events happening is .86*.67*.96 = 55.3%. If trump and the current senate appoint ACB, adding justices up to 15 becomes a popular idea.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 13, 2020)

omgcat said:


> I do understand how government works, for the democrats to even be able to confirm a justice, they would need 50+ votes, by that logic, they would also have the votes needed to pass a new version of the judicial act. the chances of the democrats winning the senate is 67+%, the chances of keeping the house is 96%, and as of today the chances of Biden winning the election is around 86%. so by standard statistics, the chances of all 3 events happening is .86*.67*.96 = 55.3%. If trump and the current senate appoint ACB, adding justices up to 15 becomes a popular idea.



I apologize then, I got the impression you did not understand the process.  My bad.

As for your estimates, I don't agree.  

And I did not read your other response till now.



> oh are we going to expect people talk about things voters might care about? how about who did the president infect, what is his current covid status? when was his last negative test before the original debate? what medications is he taking? if he is supposedly done with medications and is fine, why did he still have a hand IV bandage within the last 48 hours? Why didn't he take hydroxy when he was 100% sure it was the corona killer? i'm sure me and other voters would love to have some questions answered.



I like that you are trying to associate Covid/Trump talk surrounding the president to packing the supreme court and Biden saying voters do not deserve to know.   Apples and oranges.

The proof is out there and continues to come in that HCQ use when started early works and is also safe.  You just don't want to believe it because Trump said it was good at some point.  And our US FDA totally screwed up.  No one else around the world is finding the results our FDA stopped it for.    The politicization of that alone might have lead to many people dying that did not need to.  All because of TDS.

It has to be started right away.  Not when people are in stage 2 of the progression of Covid walking into the hospital because they can't get better and the virus has already done much damage.

And if they did not have something better, they probably would have used it.  This is not 5 months ago, and obviously based on variables we do not know they chose what they thought the best treatment was at his point in time.  He had a team.  If HCQ offered statistically a higher chance of helping over what they used obviously they would have gone with that. 

I don't think it matters when Trump gives answers to people like you.  Kind of like the, will you denounce white supremacy bit.  He does it anywhere from 25-50 times in multiple media formats over many years, but they keep asking the same question.  And then claim he has never done it, over and over again.

Imagine if he said, you don't deserve to know.  When asked that question.


----------



## gizmomelb (Oct 13, 2020)

BeniBel said:


> The greatest danger in today's society, is extreme RIGHT ideology.



fixed it for you, hopefully it's already been fixed multiple times though.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 13, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Enthusiasm for Biden is almost non-existent.   You can see the videos for the anti-communist Latinos for Trump caravan that occurred.
> 
> Can't say the same for Biden.
> 
> ...


If Trump's campaign is so exciting, then why is he lagging so far behind in fundraising and polling?  Ask Bernie Sanders how far excitement gets you without public support.  And do you honestly expect us to believe that you visit right-wing extremist websites for their unbiased reporting?  Your crusade against media bias isn't fooling anyone.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 13, 2020)

omgcat said:


> it's the only talking points the republicans have right now. they are freaking out because they can't lie cheat and steal fast enough to win this election.
> 
> *standard BS, "polls don't matter, unless it says good stuff about trump"*
> 
> ...


Imagine this scenario:

You were recently hired as an internal pollster for the Trump campaign.  You didn't sleep all night as you were putting the finishing touches on your poll sampling methodology.  You run the poll.  The result of the poll shows Trump trailing Biden by 10 points_!!!_

wat do?


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 13, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> If Trump's campaign is so exciting, then why is he lagging so far behind in fundraising and polling?  Ask Bernie Sanders how far excitement gets you without public support.  And do you honestly expect us to believe that you visit right-wing extremist websites for their unbiased reporting?  Your crusade against media bias isn't fooling anyone.



I don't believe polls are accurate on this, and we will see soon who is right.  

As for money Trump is not bringing in peanuts.  So any difference does not mean anything without deeper inspection of the data.  There are plenty of organizations that don't want Trump as president.  That does not necessarily mean enthusiasm in Joe, it could just be as simple as not Trump.

Wherever Biden goes no one really seems to care.  Biden handlers chose someone who did very terrible in the primaries who thinks her running mate sexually assaulted women, who also basically asked questions indicating he was a racist, but prefaced it with I don't think you are a racist.  What a winning combo there.  We will see what it truly translates to soon.

I am not trying to fool anyone, I call them like I see them.  I think you are fooling yourself.  You actually find someone like Biden and Harris a good team to run this country?  I don't think Biden could handle running a lemonade stand by himself.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 13, 2020)

Had to laugh at this.  



> WASHINGTON, D.C.—According to anonymous sources, local liberal man Penn Millikers proposed to his girlfriend but has refused to reveal his position on adultery until after the wedding is over.
> 
> The staunch Democrat said he wants the woman to marry him but won't reveal his position on adultery until the marriage is finalized.
> 
> ...


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 13, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> *I don't believe polls are accurate on this, and we will see soon who is right.*


You don't believe in poll accuracy, yet you believed that a single freaking poll from an unknown source was proof that thousands of polls from reputable sources were wrong and then linked us to an article that built a strawman out of it.


crimpshrine said:


> *As for money Trump is not bringing in peanuts.*  So any difference does not mean anything without deeper inspection of the data.  There are plenty of organizations that don't want Trump as president.  That does not necessarily mean enthusiasm in Joe, it could just be as simple as not Trump.
> 
> *Wherever Biden goes no one really seems to care.*


The Trump campaign raised only 58% of Biden's haul in August.  Wherever Biden goes people care enough to donate money in *record numbers *-- shattering fundraising records in back to back months:

Biden campaign hauls in record $364M in August
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-record-august-fundraising-convention

AP sources: Biden shatters fundraising records in September
https://apnews.com/article/election...tions-courts-396ce01a5545cc64b70575f523b93dd9


crimpshrine said:


> *I am not trying to fool anyone, I call them like I see them. * I think you are fooling yourself.  You actually find someone like Biden and Harris a good team to run this country?  I don't think Biden could handle running a lemonade stand by himself.


Anyone concerned with media bias isn't going to frequent the extremist websites you keep linking us to.  Those websites are literally the rogues' gallery of nutter journalism.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 13, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> You don't believe in poll accuracy, yet you believed that a single freaking poll from an unknown source was proof that thousands of polls from reputable sources were wrong and then linked us to an article that built a strawman out of it.
> 
> The Trump campaign raised only 58% of Biden's haul in August.  Wherever Biden goes people care enough to donate money in *record numbers *-- shattering fundraising records in back to back months:
> 
> ...



LOL Trump only raised 58% of Biden's haul in August.  So what?  They still had a lot of money come in.  58% of a lot is not a little.

It's not peanuts, and I would argue there are greater forces at play here and you think it indicates enthusiasm for Biden.  That is the best the dems could come up with?  A guy who has now 2 times stated in the last 8 months he is running for senate and often has no clue where is at.  Before the 1st debate often ended his day of activities at 9:00 in the morning. (hmm)  Often gets figures wrong, didn't he say half of America died from Covid awhile back? (200 Million back at the end of September)  And in June he said 120 million dead from Covid-19.

So am I surprised they think they need to REALLY pump this guy full of money? NO LOL he needs it more than anyone if you ask me.

The liberal media coddles the guy for fear he will say the next extremely racist or offensive thing.  Almost 0 pressure on anything.

Not even sure why you care what I think since you know you are so right.  We will soon see how accurate you were.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 13, 2020)

LOL, Biden does not do well off teleprompter does he?  I hope they continue to let him speak freely.


Joe Biden was quick to dismiss voters who say they are better off now than they were in 2016.

A recent Gallup poll taken Sept. 14-28 made headlines after it revealed that 56 percent of voters said they were better off now than they were four years ago. Just 32 percent of them said they were worse off.

During an interview with Cincinnati's WKRC Local 12 on Monday, reporter Kyle Inskeep cited the Gallup poll and asked the Democratic nominee, "Why should people who feel that they're better off today under a Trump administration vote for you?"

"Well if they think that, they probably shouldn't," Biden responded.

"They think- 54 percent of the American people believe they're better off economically today than they were under our administration? Well, their memory is not very good, quite frankly," Biden told Inskeep.


So I guess that makes it 4 for today.

Forgot which state he was in. (Tweeted that he was in Pennsylvania when he was actually in Ohio)
Forgot Mitt Romney's name and instead referred to him as "a Mormon."
Forgot which office he was running for.
Lost 2% of a figure 15 seconds after it is told to him, and then tells the reporter the peoples memory is not very good.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 13, 2020)

The Liberal Media run polls are polling Liberals so of course Biden is showing an advantage. The entire media complex is almost all left wing so that explains that. If the non-Internet posting people who have jobs and value life all show up the results could be very different. Let's hope so as if Biden wins he's going to move us closer to the end times.


----------



## BeniBel (Oct 13, 2020)

gizmomelb said:


> fixed it for you, hopefully it's already been fixed multiple times though.



Please don't twist my words.

Name one good example of where extreme right is active and a real threat to Western society. Chances are, you don't even know the definition of it, and see Trump as extreme right.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 13, 2020)

BeniBel said:


> Please don't twist my words.
> 
> Name one good example of where extreme right is active and a real threat to Western society. Chances are, you don't even know the definition of it, and see Trump as extreme right.



Indeed. "Far Right" is just another word for racist or phobic. It doesn't actually apply to the real far right, but only signals Liberals to close their eyes and mind when they hear it. Kinda sad.


----------



## BeniBel (Oct 13, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Indeed. "Far Right" is just another word for racist or phobic. It doesn't actually apply to the real far right, but only signals Liberals to close their eyes and mind when they hear it. Kinda sad.



Same about the word racist. I believe it was in the 50s, that people of color weren't allowed in diners, or had to sit in a seperate corner. They got beaten up because they weren't white. They were raped and killed in their own houses... That's racism, that's far right.

Not allowing immigrants to illegaly enter the country, while there are legal methods to do so, is not racism. We have borders for a reason. Civilization has been around for a few thousand years, yet, not one first world country has open borders. Why is that? Because open borders don't work.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 13, 2020)

BeniBel said:


> Please don't twist my words.
> 
> Name one good example of where extreme right is active and a real threat to Western society. Chances are, you don't even know the definition of it, and see Trump as extreme right.


the current GOP.
Well let's define extreme right then or in other words "alt-right." not even going to use it's euphemism everyone has grown accustom to using. Racism, xenophobic, fascism. Ultra nationalism, and classism, and authoritarianism.
Oh and for scale, let's look at political compass, to learn why I don't like Biden. this also gives a chance to look at the stunted political spectrum the states has and start thinking a little more dynamically here with politics. Since saying left or right is incredibly inadequate




here's our current candidates we have
Anyone noticing something?
No?



okay perhaps this image might just make it clear.
Anyone seeing the issue?
Is it that we consider sanders as "too left" when he barely squeaks by and that biden is somehow left when he isn't even in the center of the fucking authoritarian right quadrant?
Also notice trump is muuuuch higher in authoritarian than everyone else... Oh wait you want other people to compare?



hmmmm. Hitler is pretty high up in authoritarianism.
And trump is too. That definitely can't be because you know, Trump being a racist, and saying that fucking concentration camps are okay when he met with the north Korean leader? (it's in bolton's book)
It also can't be that Hitler had his own base of people he would rile up, or state that jews are out to take your jobs. _almost as if trump saying they are out to take your jobs or somehow illegally vote... that's a hmmm_
Or perhaps you know with Trump saying that he wish he could kill the press or arrest them _totally not similar to hitler's first concentration camps were for people who spoke ill of him or people that were against his political views_
do you see the connections yet? 
. Or trump stating that he wants a third term... just like how hilter bent the democracy that was left in Germany through just a couple of new laws that gave all power to him
Or what about trump telling people to be poll watchers illegally? You know, rile people up or get them spooked
Or how about the texas leader, deciding to reduce all mail in ballot boxes to one in each county. When that is already known it's going to disproportionately effect democrat voters if you reduce it to one. Since some of these gerrymandered counties are so big that box could be more than an hour a way.
_as if they want to idk, try to rig the election just maaaaaybe_


----------



## seany1990 (Oct 13, 2020)

Bringing up Trump's authoritarian nature to his cult isn't a good argument.
They want him to be king


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 13, 2020)

seany1990 said:


> Bringing up Trump's authoritarian nature to his cult isn't a good argument.
> They want him to be king


I play with fire on a daily basis, might as well.


----------



## IncredulousP (Oct 13, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> the current GOP.
> Well let's define extreme right then or in other words "alt-right." not even going to use it's euphemism everyone has grown accustom to using. Racism, xenophobic, fascism. Ultra nationalism, and classism, and authoritarianism.
> Oh and for scale, let's look at political compass, to learn why I don't like Biden. this also gives a chance to look at the stunted political spectrum the states has and start thinking a little more dynamically here with politics. Since saying left or right is incredibly inadequate
> View attachment 229003
> ...


Where do these graphs come from? Who made them and what is the justification for where everyone lies?


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 13, 2020)

Looks like he does not know how long Trump has been president.  Or about the twenty-second amendment.

Biden: "Ohio and Florida are two critically important states that are very close that Trump won significantly the last two times."


----------



## 0x3000027E (Oct 13, 2020)

Lacius said:


> It kind of helps when lawmakers know how to make laws


The idea behind term limits (among other things beyond the scope of this conversation) _is to require lawmakers to live under the same laws they impose_. It is a beautiful concept, I wish I could get you on board.

Secondly, the idea that "lawmaking" is some esoteric line of work, that the population could just not handle is just a lie. It's a lie the populace has bought for well over a thousand years, and the lie has kept a history of kings, dictators, parliaments in power to the detriment of that very populace.
Your mistake here is that you have really granted to much credit to any congress, as if it is made up with a series of ultra-intelligent individuals who are philosophers and hard-working at heart. The best and the brightest among us.
In reality, we have a series of individuals that spend 90% of their 'job' self-promoting, accruing bloated administrations, mastering hand-shakes with the lobbyists, expensive dinners for fundraising events, all while most of them struggle to empathize with the very public they are supposed to represent. It's a _shame_ you endow these people with so much credit and admiration! It's a shame you believe that you or I or anyone could not comprehend how to say 'yay or nay' as it relates to a law and how it will impact our lives! It's a shame!

We must treat government as a _public service _not a _career_!


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 13, 2020)

IncredulousP said:


> Where do these graphs come from? Who made them and what is the justification for where everyone lies?


https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2020
for the first 2 color images
the last non colored one
https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2
The creator of it isn't entirely clear. As you can't really find out. Outside of them being most likely some way based in the UK. Which due to this does make some people criticizes it's validity. However if that were to be the case (if it was trying to make some skew) given how accurately everything is generally placed. It's hard to really argue that there could be a skew.


----------



## BeniBel (Oct 13, 2020)

Source checking and context is everything.

Bolton really isn't a reliable source, given he didn't leave in the best of circumstances. Your ex probably won't shower you with roses either.

Those graphs also don't really show a lot of evidence to back up their claims. "We analyzed this and that" doesn't really count, unless you give an indepth details of how and who made it.

As for the 3th term, he also said he was entitled to a 4th turn and more. Info you would have known, if you actually saw the clip unbiased and saw he was clearly joking.

And comparing Trump to Hitler in any way, is a hit in the face of those who lived through the second World War. Trump is against illegal immigration, way different from killing millions of people, not just jews.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 13, 2020)

BeniBel said:


> Source checking and context is everything.
> 
> Bolton really isn't a reliable source, given he didn't leave in the best of circumstances. Your ex probably won't shower you with roses either.
> 
> ...


ah yes he must of joking just like how he asked if you could inject lysol into the body and that was a joke. What is the count of people he claims he doesn't know but hired, again in the white house? And how many of them have either been arrested or fired?


----------



## Lacius (Oct 13, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> The idea behind term limits (among other things beyond the scope of this conversation) _is to require lawmakers to live under the same laws they impose_. It is a beautiful concept, I wish I could get you on board.
> 
> Secondly, the idea that "lawmaking" is some esoteric line of work, that the population could just not handle is just a lie. It's a lie the populace has bought for well over a thousand years, and the lie has kept a history of kings, dictators, parliaments in power to the detriment of that very populace.
> Your mistake here is that you have really granted to much credit to any congress, as if it is made up with a series of ultra-intelligent individuals who are philosophers and hard-working at heart. The best and the brightest among us.
> ...


Lawmaking is fundamentally different from exercising executive power like signing bills into law. Also, despite what some Republicans might argue, lawmakers are subject to the law. Nobody is above the law.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 13, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> *The Liberal Media run polls are polling Liberals so of course Biden is showing an advantage.* The entire media complex is almost all left wing so that explains that. If the non-Internet posting people who have jobs and value life all show up the results could be very different. Let's hope so as if Biden wins he's going to move us closer to the end times.


Another derpy conspiracy theory.

Care to explain the results from pollsters that aren't liberal?  

*Fox News has Biden up +9.5 points* across their 2 most recent polls.  The right leaning *The Wallstreet Journal has Biden up +14.*  What about politically neutral organizations such as Pew Research, who has Biden up +10?  Or the politically neutral Morning Consult, which has Biden up +8?

What about the most accurate pollsters over the past four years?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-pollsters-to-trust-in-2018/

Quinnipiac University has Biden at +10.
Yougov has Biden at +8.
SurveyUSA has Biden at +10.
Rasmussen, Trump's favorite pollster, has Biden at +12.

Trump's tweeted in support of Rasmussen over 20 times, including this tweet where *he confirms the pollster's accuracy:*
New Poll: The Rasmussen Poll, one of the most accurate in predicting the 2016 Election, has just announced that “Trump” numbers have recently gone up by four points, to 50%. Thank you to the vicious young Socialist Congresswomen. America will never buy your act!  #MAGA2020— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 17, 2019


----------



## BeniBel (Oct 13, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> ah yes he must of joking just like how he asked if you could inject lysol into the body and that was a joke. What is the count of people he claims he doesn't know but hired, again in the white house? And how many of them have either been arrested or fired?



Again context. He asked the doctor that was with him on stage, if that was a posibility, because it was discussed before. Offcourse, media jumped on it and twisted the words in a way that he recommended people injecting themselves with bleach.

If you want to argue your point of view, please get some decend well researched points. Right now, you come of very uninformed.

But in the end, it doesn't matter. You have your view, I have mine, and neither will change. All I can advice anyone, is to have a critical mind and research things you hear.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Oct 13, 2020)

Lacius said:


> despite what some Republicans might argue


Republicans? I'm not quite sure how that fits into our discussion, you've lost me there.


Lacius said:


> lawmakers are subject to the law


This is our fundamental disagreement then. I have plenty of examples of how it is violated, but I'm sure you will be able to conjure up some examples on your own if you give it some thought. Adieu!


----------



## Lacius (Oct 13, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> Republicans? I'm not quite sure how that fits into our discussion, you've lost me there.
> 
> This is our fundamental disagreement then. I have plenty of examples of how it is violated, but I'm sure you will be able to conjure up some examples on your own if you give it some thought. Adieu!


How are lawmakers above the law?


----------



## 0x3000027E (Oct 13, 2020)

Lacius said:


> How are lawmakers above the law?


Enough that it warranted much discussion on a so-called '28th amendment' to prevent it. The examples you find in relation to the so-called amendment are direct, (however should not be minimized). OSHA, FOIA, are a couple of _direct_ exemptions; not quite as interesting, I agree, but there are certainly hidden consequences that result. US history is riddled with such exemptions, but please spare me the time to research (these are simple to find and again, only the direct examples).

I instead advise you to let your imagination seek out some _indirect_ examples that are a bit more unique and not quite as obvious  Clear your mind from the idea that the politicians are our ethical and moral superiors, and I'm sure these indirect examples will come to you in time.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 13, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> Enough that it warranted much discussion on a 28th amendment to prevent it. The examples you find in relation to the amendment are direct, (however should not be minimized). OSHA, FOIA, are a couple of _direct_ exemptions; not quite as interesting, I agree, but there are certainly hidden consequences that result. US history is riddled with such exemptions, but please spare me the time to research (these are simple to find and again, only the direct examples).
> 
> I instead advise you to let your imagination seek out some _indirect_ examples that are a bit more unique and not quite as obvious  Clear your mind from the idea that the politicians are our ethical and moral superiors, and I'm sure these indirect examples will come to you in time.


Do you have any present examples of lawmakers being above the law?


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 13, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Another derpy conspiracy theory.
> 
> Care to explain the results from pollsters that aren't liberal?
> 
> ...



Then hopefully the people that were participating in these polls were mostly Liberal and the Conservatives that are planning on voting didn't have time to vote in online polls because they have jobs and lives that are more important then mindless internet browsing.



BeniBel said:


> Again context. He asked the doctor that was with him on stage, if that was a posibility, because it was discussed before. Offcourse, media jumped on it and twisted the words in a way that he recommended people injecting themselves with bleach.
> 
> If you want to argue your point of view, please get some decend well researched points. Right now, you come of very uninformed.
> 
> But in the end, it doesn't matter. You have your view, I have mine, and neither will change. All I can advice anyone, is to have a critical mind and research things you hear.



*Trump *never said to inject or ingest bleach. *Trump *also never said that the virus was a hoax. Both of these are lies. There's also daily news on the Liberal media sites that claim Trump has said something or is going do do something. A lot of those things are straight out lies. It's sad that you have to go research the source for these fake news posts, but once you do and watch the video of Trump talking in context with the rest of the conversation and situation you clearly see the Left is full of shit.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 13, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Then hopefully the people that were participating in these polls were mostly Liberal and the Conservatives that are planning on voting didn't have time to vote in online polls because they have jobs and lives that are more important then mindless internet browsing.
> 
> 
> 
> *Trump *never said to inject or ingest bleach. *Trump *also never said that the virus was a hoax. Both of these are lies. There's also daily news on the Liberal media sites that claim Trump has said something or is going do do something. A lot of those things are straight out lies. It's sad that you have to go research the source for these fake news posts, but once you do and watch the video of Trump talking in context with the rest of the conversation and situation you clearly see the Left is full of shit.


Snopes disagrees with you:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-disinfectants-covid-19/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-coronavirus-rally-remark/


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 13, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Snopes disagrees with you:
> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-disinfectants-covid-19/
> 
> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-coronavirus-rally-remark/


Snopes? You're citing Snopes?


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 13, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Snopes disagrees with you:
> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-disinfectants-covid-19/
> 
> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-coronavirus-rally-remark/



That's fine, they are full of shit though. I watched the press conference of when Trump sarcastically made the mention of disinfectants and he clarified his position with reason after the confusion set in. He never said to "drink bleach". Those two words never ever came of out his mouth.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 13, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Snopes? You're citing Snopes?





gregory-samba said:


> That's fine, they are full of shit though. I watched the press conference of when Trump sarcastically made the mention of disinfectants and he clarified his position with reason after the confusion set in. He never said to "drink bleach". Those two words never ever came of out his mouth.


It's apparent neither of you clicked the links and took the time to read the articles.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 13, 2020)

Lacius said:


> It's apparent neither of you clicked the links and took the time to read the articles.



I had already read them earlier when I was searching for opinions on what Trump said. They touch on the fact that Trump didn't know what he was talking about and he simply asked the question if injecting disinfectants would be possible. It was a dumb question, but he never instructed anyone to ingest or inject disinfectants let alone "drink bleach". Those two things are lies.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 13, 2020)

Lacius said:


> It's apparent neither of you clicked the links and took the time to read the articles.


Why would I? It's clear that anything that they say will be heavily biased towards the left.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 13, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Snopes? You're citing Snopes?



His links still don't show any proof that Trump said people should ingest or inject chemicals, including bleach. They state he asked a question if it would be possible and then the next day clarified he never instructed anyone to drink bleach. Trump saying to "drink bleach" never happened.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraSUPRA said:


> Why would I? It's clear that anything that they say will be heavily biased towards the left.



You should still read links that lean to the Left. It's smart to know what your opposition is thinking and in this case there's no proof Trump said to people to inject or ingest anything. He simply asked if it were possible and then directed people to discuss issues with their doctors. He never said "hey go drink bleach".


----------



## IncredulousP (Oct 13, 2020)

Lacius said:


> It's apparent neither of you clicked the links and took the time to read the articles.


People don't need facts and logic when they're slaves to their feelings.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 13, 2020)

IncredulousP said:


> People don't need facts and logic when they're slaves to their feelings.



The Left not only is driven by pure emotion, but they will dismiss any of the facts or logic when it counteracts their beliefs. So I'm not sure why you're pointing out what the Left does when you usually up-vote comments made by the Left.

Have you ever tried asking a Liberal to say something positive about Trump or give examples of stuff Trump has done that they agree with? Surely, you've seen how the Left suffers from TDS as anything Trump said and does the Liberals take the opposite position and criticize and bastardize him over them. That's far from logical and let alone reasonable. Pure emotion at play, no logic.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 13, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Quinnipiac University has Biden at +10.
> Yougov has Biden at +8.
> SurveyUSA has Biden at +10.
> Rasmussen, Trump's favorite pollster, has Biden at +12.




Can't speak as to the others, but as a for instance ... that Rasmussen poll reached their conclusion of Biden +12 using a projection that only 76% of voting Republicans would vote for Trump. Maybe that number is correct, but it seems sketchy to me. Trump got 94% of Republican votes in the Primary.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 14, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Can't speak as to the others, but as a for instance ... that Rasmussen poll reached their conclusion of Biden +12 using a projection that only 76% of voting Republicans would vote for Trump. Maybe that number is correct, but it seems sketchy to me. Trump got 94% of Republican votes in the Primary.



There wasn't a viable alternative candidate in the republican primaries. Also the primaries ended March 17, well before the covid cluster fuck ended up in full swing. Quite a large number of republicans are pissed at the lack of pandemic aid, easily enough to peel away 20%. The president actually catching covid, proved that it existed and was not a "hoax" which also disillusioned some republican voters.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 14, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> His links still don't show any proof that Trump said people should ingest or inject chemicals, including bleach. They state he asked a question if it would be possible and then the next day clarified he never instructed anyone to drink bleach. Trump saying to "drink bleach" never happened.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...





> THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.


Here, Trump said disinfectant "knocks [the COVID-19 infection] out in a minute," it "gets in the lungs," and it does "a tremendous number on the lungs" when injected into the body.

There were thousands of extra calls to Poison Control as a result of these comments.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Hanafuda said:


> Trump got 94% of Republican votes in the Primary.


How an incumbent does in the primary election is hardly an indicator of how they're going to do in the general election.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



gregory-samba said:


> The Left not only is driven by pure emotion, but they will dismiss any of the facts or logic when it counteracts their beliefs. So I'm not sure why you're pointing out what the Left does when you usually up-vote comments made by the Left.


These kinds of bold generalizations do nothing but demonstrate that you're more interested in what feels true vs. what's actually true.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 14, 2020)

If that quote is accurate, reads like "try injecting bleach with your doctor(s)" to me. Being unclear with such a subject is bad on its own. Afaik, he didn't even defend himself besides saying it was "sarcasm".


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 14, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Can't speak as to the others, but as a for instance ... that Rasmussen poll reached their conclusion of Biden +12 using a projection that only 76% of voting Republicans would vote for Trump. Maybe that number is correct, but it seems sketchy to me. Trump got 94% of Republican votes in the Primary.


I agree that 76% figure does seem lower than expected, but it was a fairly large 2,500 person survey with a margin of error of only +/- 2%.  Thus, if you told me you thought the result was 2 points too high, I would not have a problem with that.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 14, 2020)

GS says: *Trump *never said to inject or ingest bleach.

Someone links to Snopes (LOL!) where the fact check is NOT against bleach but against DISINFECTANTS.

Someone needs to fact check snopes fact checks. 

1st thing that does NOT support that claim.  He NEVER said anything about bleach in reference to injecting anything. (or consuming for that matter)

The definition of a disinfectant is: a chemical liquid that destroys bacteria.

Using the term disinfectant does NOT indicate what disinfectant is being discussed in being used.  Could it be a special medical disinfectant designed specifically for this purpose?  That he is thinking could be possible? I have no idea, but the context he is talking in, is not cleaning your freaking house.

And 2nd.  Trump NEVER said to inject it, he asked a question.

Funny how the actual transcripts I could find used a period instead of a question mark, but it clearly is a question.  I will underline and put in bold the transcript.

THE PRESIDENT:  Right.  And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute.  One minute.  *And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning.*  Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs.  So it would be interesting to check that.  So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with.  But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.

And if anyone is going to try and say this is obviously associated with what he said a minute or so earlier when he did reference BLEACH, it can't be.  Because in that context he said bleach can kill the virus in 5 minutes. NOT 1 minute like he referred to in whatever disinfectant he had in mind at that time.

Here is that text:

We’re also testing disinfectants readily available.  We’ve tested bleach, we’ve tested isopropyl alcohol on the virus, specifically in saliva or in respiratory fluids.  And I can tell you that *bleach will kill the virus in five minutes*; isopropyl alcohol will kill the virus in 30 seconds

But hey guys here is a snopes link that proves he said to inject bleach.  Which happens to include some sarcastic tweets to in it about people saying, dude did the president just say to inject bleach?  Real objective there.

The snopes article even leaves the question mark out of the sentence.  LOL

What snopes lists:

*And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning.*

*What it should be listed as:*
*
And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?*


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 14, 2020)

How is saying inject disinfectant any better? If he was talking about something special/specific or his claim about being "sarcastic" is to be believed, again, it comes back down to him being unclear. Misled a lot of people.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 14, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> How is saying inject disinfectant any better? If he was talking about something special/specific or his claim about being "sarcastic" is to be believed, again, it comes back down to him being unclear. Misled a lot of people.



He did not say to inject anything.

Can you tell me where he said to inject disinfectant?

He asked a question.



> And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?



Trump is obviously not a medical professional.  It's like anything else people try to twist that comes out of Trump.  I think another indicator of TDS.  I never actually bothered looking into this before today, I figured like everything else it was bullshit.  If the media pushes, it it likely is when it comes to Trump.

So in 5 minutes of looking at the snopes article and looking at the transcripts it is clear it is total BS.  If you watch the video of him (which I did that also) it is clear he is asking a question coupled with his limited understanding of things.  None of what he says is a statement, that it can be done.  I think some of you are just crazy.  Trump asking questions with his limited knowledge is just him asking potentially dumb questions.  He never actually clarified what he meant by "disinfectant"  we know it is not bleach, because he did not say bleach and the time to kill the virus with whatever disinfectant he was thinking about was only 1 minute.

Meanwhile the guy running against him says shit indicating he losing his mind and you are all cool with that.  Some of you talk about double standards.  LOL.  Media twists the truth about Trump to the point it does not represent what he did and then many run with it and keep repeating it.  Even though it is not correct.

Kind of like the Trump won't denounce white supremacy BS.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 14, 2020)

Also just this one fact check alone indicates to me that snopes it totally biased and cannot be trusted.  It can't be fact checked as True because he never suggested anything, he asked a question.

And the fact that their example text they include quoting the president, uses a period instead of a question mark when it is clearly a question further proves that point.

What Snopes lists for this fact check is:



> U.S. President Donald Trump suggested during a White House briefing that injecting disinfectants could treat COVID-19.



And they list that as TRUE.

I think what this shows us, is certain people, including those that are running snopes, likely have TDS.  Actually I looked closer now at the text Snopes included, they got ALL OTHER punctuation correct in the quotes.  They even used hyphens, colens, commas, proper apostrophes, etc.. properly.  This was obviously on purpose.  Shameful.

I thought it was they see what they want to see, but it is purposefully deceitful.

They then link within this "Fact Check" to twitter as example of what confusion this has caused, where a bunch of morons say they won't inject household cleaners. 

Maybe their fact check should have actually listed the FACTS.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 14, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Also just this one fact check alone indicates to me that snopes it totally biased and cannot be trusted.  It can't be fact checked as True because he never suggested anything, he asked a question.
> 
> And the fact that their example text they include quoting the president, uses a period instead of a question mark when it is clearly a question further proves that point.
> 
> ...


Trump literally suggested that injecting disinfectant worked.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



crimpshrine said:


> He did not say to inject anything.
> 
> Can you tell me where he said to inject disinfectant?
> 
> ...


He suggested that it worked.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 14, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Trump literally suggested that injecting disinfectant worked.



Lacius, you have already shown you can't read.  This proves it again.

So you are at the point of lying to support your argument?



> And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?



That is not a suggestion.  That is question.  That is exactly what Trump asked.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 14, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Lacius, you have already shown you can't read.  This proves it again.
> 
> So you are at the point of lying to support your argument?
> 
> ...





> Right. *And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute.* One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. *Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. *So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.


Hyperbolic statements saying I can't read don't help you to seem right. In fact, inflammatory trolly statements like that are usually used by those on the wrong side of an argument.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 14, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Hyperbolic statements saying I can't read don't help you to seem right. In fact, inflammatory trolly statements like that are usually used by those on the wrong side of an argument.



You don't like being called out for lying? Or me making observations?  That seem to be accurate.

It's not inflammatory.  I am making observations based on repeated behavior from you.

This has happened before with you, and I have witnessed it with others you try and debate with.

I don't get why you would openly lie about something that is plain as day. 

You said he suggested, and so did snopes.

A question is not a suggestion.

And again I am going to say, you obviously CANNOT READ.

Re-read what you posted like 10 times.

There is no statement there in relationship to the injection.  It is a question missing a question mark.



> Right. *And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute.* One minute. *And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning.* *Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. *So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 14, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> You don't like being called out for lying? Or me making observations?  That seem to be accurate.
> 
> It's not inflammatory.  I am making observations based on repeated behavior from you.
> 
> ...


To say I cannot read is clearly an inflammatory hyperbolic statement, unless you're trying to say I literally cannot read. If that's the case, you're being foolish.

As for Trump, he said "Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs." He suggested it works. That wasn't a question. He thinks it works, and he's asking how it could be done because, according to him, it works.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 14, 2020)

Lacius said:


> To say I cannot read is clearly an inflammatory hyperbolic statement, unless you're trying to say I literally cannot read. If that's the case, you're being foolish.
> 
> As for Trump, he said "Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs." He suggested it works. That wasn't a question. He thinks it works, and he's asking how it could be done because, according to him, it works.



Now you are pivoting.  

The original discussion centered around you saying Trump did suggest to inject disinfectant into veins.  You even linked to Snope's, LOL.

You are wrong.   And Snopes is also.

He asked if there is a way, and we have no idea what type of disinfectant he was even referring to because he never clarified that.


So no suggestions of injecting bleach.
And no suggestions of injecting a disinfectant.  He did ask, but that is a question and not a suggestion.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 14, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Now you are pivoting.
> 
> The original discussion centered around you saying Trump did suggest to inject disinfectant into veins.  You even linked to Snope's, LOL.
> 
> ...


He said it works. The claim was "U.S. President Donald Trump suggested during a White House briefing that injecting disinfectants could treat COVID-19." So, the claim is true.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 14, 2020)

Lacius said:


> He said it works. The claim was "U.S. President Donald Trump suggested during a White House briefing that injecting disinfectants could treat COVID-19." So, the claim is true.



Anything involving trump

That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, it is not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.  <-- crimpshire is here
And if I did, you deserved it.

i would say he didn't mean it, except the guy has no fucking clue about anything medical. also his son is just as bad.

Eric Trump falsely calls president's coronavirus treatment a vaccine

Trump does not understand that there shouldn't be "sarcasm" in speeches involving medical treatments. people are gullible and will get themselves killed doing stupid bullshit.

another example is Trump and co. spouting BS about hydroxyChloroquinine and a couple nearly killed themselves taking something that sounded like it.

People on this forum were RAVING about how hydroxy is some miracle cure that can treat and prevent covid, yet the president who said he was taking it as a prophylactic still got covid.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 14, 2020)

omgcat said:


> Anything involving trump
> 
> That didn't happen.
> And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
> ...



LOL, I like how when you are pressed on your "claims" you just stop responding.

And Lacius, just ignores truth even when in front of his face,  then pivots to the next thing when proven wrong on what he started with.

Like you OMG with HCQ crap, nothing of substance. Same thing as orange man bad, just with HCQ because Trumps said it was good at one point.  

You guys are so obsessed with disagreeing with the president you ignore reality.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 14, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> LOL, I like how when you are pressed on your "claims" you just stop responding.
> 
> And Lacius, just ignores truth even when in front of his face,  then pivots to the next thing when proven wrong on what he started with.
> 
> ...



you're claiming trump was sarcastic with his comments, well he seemingly always is, because he can't be wrong apparently.

also the HCQ shit was 14 pages of nonsense if you remember. link here if you forgot

source of trump saying he was taking hydroxy

it's a pretty consistent trend, one side says "don't do that it's stupid" and the other side does it anyways. that's why one political party is involved with a massive super spreader event and the other isn't. one side listens to science, facts, and logic, and the other doesn't.

we are heading towards a second resurgence with places like OKC already out of hospital beds.

because of shit like "*The health executive told council members that additional pressure was exerted by patient transfers from rural areas where people wearing masks "are laughed at," according to The Oklahoman.*"

having a president who regularly flouts and muzzles scientists is fucking us mercilessly.

we are already running into our first instances of harsh reinfections, where people are getting infected a second time, and having a worse reaction than the first.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 14, 2020)

omgcat said:


> you're claiming trump was sarcastic with his comments, well he seemingly always is, because he can't be wrong apparently.
> 
> also the HCQ shit was 14 pages of nonsense if you remember. link here if you forgot
> 
> ...


Science is a remnant of the past, replaced with political bull****.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 14, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Science is a remnant of the past, replaced with political bull****.


Now. Let's ask.
Who taught you to call it bullshit?


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 14, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Here, Trump said disinfectant "knocks [the COVID-19 infection] out in a minute," it "gets in the lungs," and it does "a tremendous number on the lungs" when injected into the body.
> 
> There were thousands of extra calls to Poison Control as a result of these comments.
> 
> ...



Trump spoke about the role he thought disinfectants could play in tackling an infection caused by the virus during a now infamous April 23 briefing. But he didn’t say people should drink bleach. He also never told anyone else to ingest or otherwise inject disinfectants. He then continues to state that you should check with medical doctors about treatment. I'm not sure why it's so hard for you to follow a couple of links and read something, so here's his full comments:

“*A question* that probably some of you are thinking of if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposedly we hit the body with a tremendous, whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light, and I think you said that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. (To Bryan) And I think you said you’re going to test that, too. Sounds interesting, right?”

He continued.

“And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning, because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me. So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful.”

Later, Trump clarified his comments after a reporter asked Bryan whether disinfectants could actually be injected into COVID-19 patients.

“It wouldn’t be through injections, almost a cleaning and sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t work, but it certainly has a big effect if it’s on a stationary object.”

Trump did not explicitly recommend ingesting a disinfectant like bleach. Nevertheless, his remarks led some companies and state agencies to issue warnings about ingesting disinfectants. The maker of Lysol said in a statement that “under no circumstance” should its products be used in the human body.

If somehow you got that you should be ingesting disinfectants or drinking bleach out of this you're pretty fucking stupid. A question, which he asked isn't directions to ingest anything. It's a damned question.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



KingVamp said:


> If that quote is accurate, reads like "try injecting bleach with your doctor(s)" to me. Being unclear with such a subject is bad on its own. Afaik, he didn't even defend himself besides saying it was "sarcasm".



You're comprehension abilities are lacking then. He never said to drink bleach. Can't fix stupid.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



KingVamp said:


> How is saying inject disinfectant any better? If he was talking about something special/specific or his claim about being "sarcastic" is to be believed, again, it comes back down to him being unclear. Misled a lot of people.



Again, he never said to "drink bleach" or even suggested people go treat themselves with disinfectants.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> To say I cannot read is clearly an inflammatory hyperbolic statement, unless you're trying to say I literally cannot read. If that's the case, you're being foolish.



I think you're right, that you can't read for shit. You're able to take in the words, but can't take the context or meaning. Your comprehension skills suck.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



crimpshrine said:


> LOL, I like how when you are pressed on your "claims" you just stop responding.
> 
> And Lacius, just ignores truth even when in front of his face,  then pivots to the next thing when proven wrong on what he started with.
> 
> ...



I find that Liberals on this board will never admit they're wrong. That's a major character flaw. Their own fact checking pages they linked to don't even claim Trump said to drink bleach or directly suggested anyone take disinfectants without involving a doctor. I think they're just fucking stupid or trying to act stupid to play off the fact their own pages and the fact checks I listed claim Trump never said to ingest bleach ... So what is it? Ignorance or trying to weasel out of having to admit they're wrong?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 14, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Now. Let's ask.
> Who taught you to call it bullshit?


The people claiming that life starts at birth rather than conception, digging giant holes in the ground will save the environment, and slapping a piece of paper onto your mouth will rid the world of all germs.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 14, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I find that Liberals on this board will never admit they're wrong. That's a major character flaw. Their own fact checking pages they linked to don't even claim Trump said to drink bleach or directly suggested anyone take disinfectants without involving a doctor. I think they're just fucking stupid or trying to act stupid to play off the fact their own pages and the fact checks I listed claim Trump never said to ingest bleach ... So what is it? Ignorance or trying to weasel out of having to admit they're wrong?



Yeah I guess I get that now.

I said earlier I had never looked into this Trump told me to inject bleach stuff I heard about in the past because I figured like 80% of everything said bad about Trump it was just another media spin.  Yep.  Taking like 5 minutes to read the transcripts then found the youtube video to see what he said in relationship to those around him.

And that snopes is disgraceful. Looks like a thinly disguised propaganda piece for the left.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraSUPRA said:


> The people claiming that life starts at birth rather than conception, digging giant holes in the ground will save the environment, and slapping a piece of paper onto your mouth will rid the world of all germs.



Hey Ultra, if you don't mind me asking, you are young aren't you?  I thought I remember seeing you say in another post you were.. like you were under 20 if I remember correctly.  Or maybe even younger.

I only ask because I think I was really surprised. To see someone so young actually question stuff, my experience in dealing with the young has been most people tend to line up with the rest.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 14, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Hey Ultra, if you don't mind me asking, you are young aren't you?  I thought I remember seeing you say in another post you were.. like you were under 20 if I remember correctly.  Or maybe even younger.
> 
> I only ask because I think I was really surprised. To see someone so young actually question stuff, my experience in dealing with the young has been most people tend to line up with the rest.


I'm fifteen.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 14, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Yeah I guess I get that now.
> 
> I said earlier I had never looked into this Trump told me to inject bleach stuff I heard about in the past because I figured like 80% of everything said bad about Trump it was just another media spin.  Yep.  Taking like 5 minutes to read the transcripts then found the youtube video to see what he said in relationship to those around him.
> 
> And that snopes is disgraceful. Looks like a thinly disguised propaganda piece for the left.



Even the snopes links don't have any evidence Trump said to ingest anything. I believe at this point they are just trolling because almost every single page I come across states the same thing. However, if you just watch the video of his speech you get the entire situation handed to you and he never said to ingest disinfectants. You don't need a page to tell you what he said, just watch and listen. If you can't figure it out after that you're just dumb. They just be trolololo. No one can be that stupid.

*Fake News: Trump Didn't Tell People to Inject Bleach or Lysol Into Their Veins to Fight Coronavirus*

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politi...into-their-veins-to-fight-coronavirus-n385980

*On COVID-19, Donald Trump said that “maybe if you drank bleach you may be okay.”  No, Trump didn’t tell Americans infected with the coronavirus to drink bleach*

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...mp-didnt-tell-americans-infected-coronavirus/

*Fact-check: Did Trump tell people to drink bleach to kill the coronavirus?*

https://www.statesman.com/news/2020...ll-people-to-drink-bleach-to-kill-coronavirus

*FACT CHECK: No, Trump Did Not Tell People To ‘Inject Themselves With Disinfectant’ Or ‘Drink Bleach’*

https://www.dailywire.com/news/fact...-themselves-with-disinfectant-or-drink-bleach


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 14, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> LOL, I like how when you are pressed on your "claims" you just stop responding.
> 
> And Lacius, just ignores truth even when in front of his face,  then pivots to the next thing when proven wrong on what he started with.
> 
> ...


You do realize we don't live on this form? Along with gbatemp eventually no longer giving notifications on forms you respond to after a certain amount of time?
Regardless.
 What damn truths? The conservative activist ones that want to genuinely sell you a story? The most reputable news source called 4chan? (if you can't tell, extreme sarcasm here. Both of them are complete dumpster fires)
Oh remember that bbc article. the one that you linked that supposedly proved me wrong about the media out to create "fake news" (think it was regarding CNN.)
When the story you linked, was article talking about how CNN fired three of their writers because the information put down was wrong? 
Which... idk, kinda proves the exact opposite line of thinking given the amount of scruitiy trump tries putting on "the media" on a daily basis?
Oh and then all the countless "reputable" sources you linked me, like websites I've never even heard of. Or writers/journalists who I can't look up, or lacking a lot of information. Or has ties to [negative thing here]
that ends up severely discrediting them.

Also let's not forget how you switched threads, SWITCHED THREADS to complain about my ass and "liberals", and trying to pretend like you won the argument to your rant buddy Gregory
Also perhaps I should mention. I'm not a liberal. You should of long picked that up considering my stance against Biden. I can see why people choose Biden, and by far Trump is objectively worse than Biden. But to me Biden is still pretty bad.
But that's beyond the point. You reject "the media" yet consume it yourself. And rather than consuming anything of substance within said "media", you look for shit that will continue to push your own confirmation bias. And when people finally corner you, you go throw out word vomit to defend your leader. Throwing countless baseless ad hominem, right after the next usually.




UltraSUPRA said:


> The people claiming that life starts at birth rather than conception, digging giant holes in the ground will save the environment, and slapping a piece of paper onto your mouth will rid the world of all germs.


Wow. that is genuinely incredible. I didn't know surgeons slapped paper onto their faces. I also didn't know that somehow removed all germs in the entire world. It's almost as if your saying something hyperbolic and almost perhaps untrue. I also didn't know that we dig giant holes. I guess they must remain giant holes yes? (I have no idea what you mean by giant holes but I'll play along.)


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 14, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I'm fifteen.



yeah LOL then it was you I was thinking of.

If you are being serious then wow.

I don't meet many young people of your age that take such a realistic view of the world and things going on.  We all learn as we move forward in life but I think you have a head start more than most  young kids these days.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 14, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> yeah LOL then it was you I was thinking of.
> 
> If you are being serious then wow.
> 
> I don't meet many young people of your age that take such a realistic view of the world and things going on.  We all learn as we move forward in life but I think you have a head start more than most  young kids these days.


A realistic views being surgeon's put a piece of paper on their face/mouth?
think that's maaaaaybe a stretch. Just a little.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 14, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> A realistic views being surgeon's put a piece of paper on their face/mouth?
> think that's maaaaaybe a stretch. Just a little.


Paper masks.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 14, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> You do realize we don't live on this form? Along with gbatemp eventually no longer giving notifications on forms you respond to after a certain amount of time?
> Regardless.
> What damn truths? The conservative activist ones that want to genuinely sell you a story? The most reputable news source called 4chan? (if you can't tell, extreme sarcasm here. Both of them are complete dumpster fires)
> Oh remember that bbc article. the one that you linked that supposedly proved me wrong about the media out to create "fake news" (think it was regarding CNN.)
> ...



I wasn't talking/refering to you monkeyman with what you responded to.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 14, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Can't fix stupid.


You might be right, one of the reasons why we need to get Trump and his followers out of the White House.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 14, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> yeah LOL then it was you I was thinking of.
> 
> If you are being serious then wow.
> 
> I don't meet many young people of your age that take such a realistic view of the world and things going on.  We all learn as we move forward in life but I think you have a head start more than most  young kids these days.



*He *probably has both his *mom and dad still in the house* and either *has a job and goes to school* or just *goes to school*. His parents probably *provide food and shelter *for him. He's also most likely more responsible than the other kids so *he doesn't do drugs*. His insight shows he is stuck in reality as opposed to *some delusional fantasy*. Hopefully *he also has faith* as without it in this life you'll turn to stone and rot away.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 14, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> A realistic views being surgeon's put a piece of paper on their face/mouth?
> think that's maaaaaybe a stretch. Just a little.



I have to get to bed soon so I am not going to be able to dredge up all the articles.  The CDC references numerous studies that show surgical masks (and they are talking about the ones that are actually certified - unlike ones most people get) offer no extra protection from influenza.  They have results from numerous studies on it over 15 years.

And we already know how small in size the Covid-19 particles can get, which is smaller than influenza given that it can stay airborne for multiple hours in right conditions.  And has already been confirmed to be more transmissible.

Sure people have created nice looking videos that say if the masks are 50% effective and everyone is wearing one, then boom you have made a difference, etc.. (I know I am generalizing that)

The #'s they are choosing are guesses, with the size of the particles we are talking about, with breathing they will just go right through and come in to a mask.  N95 masks are the only ones that can effectively stop (and they still are not 100%) particles that small.

Will they stop snot? yeah but most spreading of this is by asymptomatic people.

And we don't even know yet (not that I have seen yet at least) what the infectious dose of covid-19 is, they just say it is low.

That being said I still wear a mask when I go inside places because it is a rule where I live and I don't care to make others feel uncomfortable.  It's about as helpful as a lucky coin though I would estimate.

But the previous science of it all would suggest surgeon masks are pretty much worthless for something like this.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 14, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I have to get to bed soon so I am not going to be able to dredge up all the articles.  The CDC references numerous studies that show surgical masks (and they are talking about the ones that are actually certified - unlike ones most people get) offer no extra protection from influenza.  They have results from numerous studies on it over 15 years.
> 
> And we already know how small in size the Covid-19 particles can get, which is smaller than influenza given that it can stay airborne for multiple hours in right conditions.  And has already been confirmed to be more transmissible.
> 
> ...


meanwhile
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/diy-cloth-face-coverings.html
yeah good job. Good debunk here. Want to keep going in circles?
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html
Why would they be wearing masks. I can also point to more than a couple of studies... Oh wait
you don't want to read them. I forgot. You also rather remain in your own world. I must of forgot.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



crimpshrine said:


> OK give me a minute.  You think I am lying?
> 
> LOL


https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hea.../coronavirus-face-masks-what-you-need-to-know
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2
I wouldn't say your intentionally lying. I would call you more misinformed.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 14, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> meanwhile
> https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/diy-cloth-face-coverings.html
> yeah good job. Good debunk here. Want to keep going in circles?
> https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html



OK give me a minute.  You think I am lying?

LOL

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; _I_2 = 30%, p = 0.25) (Figure 2).


Dude you are as bad as the rest of them I guess.

The first article you linked to says:

Your mask may protect them. Their mask may protect you.

Do you know what may means?

It does not mean will.

LOL

And the 2nd article says the same.

Masks may help prevent people who have COVID-19 from spreading the virus to others.

They already have data on their own website showing it does NOT help with influenza.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 14, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> OK give me a minute.  You think I am lying?
> 
> LOL



The thing about simple cloth coverings including surgical masks is that the covid particles may be really small, but they always cling to other particles that are much larger. That's why simple cloth coverings and surgical masks help to some extent. Yes, they don't filter out 100% and are loose fitting on the face, but they are better than nothing at all. Do your CDC studies just study the flu virus particles by themselves? If so that may be why you see that they aren't great for the flu, but better for covid, again due to the small particles that always cling to larger ones.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 14, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> The thing about simple cloth coverings including surgical masks is that the covid particles may be really small, but they always cling to other particles that are much larger. That's why simple cloth coverings and surgical masks help to some extent. Yes, they don't filter out 100% and are loose fitting on the face, but they are better than nothing at all. Do your CDC studies just study the flu virus particles by themselves? If so that may be why you see that they aren't great for the flu, but better for covid, again due to the small particles that always cling to larger ones.


I would go a step further (and thank god it seems like you get it)
Since here's the thing. and I already stated this before I think the 3rd time now. Masks pull double duty. And some surgical masks have some smaller filters that have a better chance at catching covid/flu/viral either during inhale or exhale than just cloth based.  The odds of blocking it are higher. at face value on it's own yes a mask on it's own won't drastically drop the rate of spread. But it's when two people wear masks. That's when magic starts happening (not really. figure of speech. making it clear now just in case.)  Say a (surgical) mask is 25% effective. Which is not horrible, but anything would be better than not wearing a mask. Well. if everyone were to be a mask. It wouldn't be 25%. it would be 50%
Why? Say a particle of flu or covid throughthe mask. crossing that 25% threshold. It now has to cross that threshold a second time, for the other person. meaning it has to go deal with that 25% chance a second time. Now consider this


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 14, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> The thing about simple cloth coverings including surgical masks is that the covid particles may be really small, but they always cling to other particles that are much larger. That's why simple cloth coverings and surgical masks help to some extent. Yes, they don't filter out 100% and are loose fitting on the face, but they are better than nothing at all. Do your CDC studies just study the flu virus particles by themselves? If so that may be why you see that they aren't great for the flu, but better for covid, again due to the small particles that always cling to larger ones.




The problem I have is that everything I have read about covid is a guesstimate with surgical masks.  And I get someone wanting to do something rather than nothing even if it is not helping.

I don't recall off the top of my head what the  size was for the covid-19 particles need to be to float but I believe it was 5 nanometers to float.   Which a healthy younger person who is asymptomatic those would just go right through a surgical mask and they would be blasting them out with just breathing.  A surgical mask is not going to stop those, and even N95 masks from what I read quickly lose their ability to stop things that size the more they are exposed to the elements.

The N95 masks are actually really good at catching particles that small for a period of time.

I was under the impression that cloth masks were even less effective than surgical masks for small particles.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 14, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> The problem I have is that everything I have read about covid is a guesstimate with surgical masks.  And I get someone wanting to do something rather than nothing even if it is not helping.
> 
> I don't recall off the top of my head what the  size was for the covid-19 particles need to be to float but I believe it was 5 nanometers to float.   Which a healthy younger person who is asymptomatic those would just go right through a surgical mask and they would be blasting them out with just breathing.  A surgical mask is not going to stop those, and even N95 masks from what I read quickly lose their ability to stop things that size the more they are exposed to the elements.
> 
> ...


read what I stated above, I condensed that video I sent, explaining why masks are better than you think.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 14, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> I would go a step further (and thank god it seems like you get it)
> Since here's the thing. and I already stated this before I think the 3rd time now. Masks pull double duty. And some surgical masks have some smaller filters that have a better chance at catching covid/flu/viral either during inhale or exhale than just cloth based. Flu is similar. The odds of blocking it are higher. at face value on it's own yes a mask on it's own won't drastically drop the rate of spread. But it's when two people wear masks. That's when magic starts happening (not really. figure of speech. making it clear now just in case.)  Say a (surgical) mask is 25% effective. Which is not horrible, but anything would be better. Well. if everyone were to be a mask. It wouldn't be 25%. it would be 50%
> Why? Say a particle of flu or covid throughthe mask. crossing that 25% threshold. It now has to cross that threshold a second time, for the other person. meaning it has to go deal with that 25% chance a second time.



The problem monkeman is you are pulling the effective rate of a surgical masks out of the air.

Show me one single article by scientists that rate a surgical mask at 25% for blocking Covid-19 sized particles please.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 14, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> The problem I have is that everything I have read about covid is a guesstimate with surgical masks.  And I get someone wanting to do something rather than nothing even if it is not helping.
> 
> I don't recall off the top of my head what the  size was for the covid-19 particles need to be to float but I believe it was 5 nanometers to float.   Which a healthy younger person who is asymptomatic those would just go right through a surgical mask and they would be blasting them out with just breathing.  A surgical mask is not going to stop those, and even N95 masks from what I read quickly lose their ability to stop things that size the more they are exposed to the elements.
> 
> ...



only very small amounts of breathed particles come out as 5nm or smaller, unless you are yelling. the point is not to stop all particles, it's to slam the particles into a wall (the inside of the mask) so that they do not travel as far as if there wasn't a wall. most of the material coming out of your mouth is rather large (spittle for example) that gets smaller as it evaporates moving through the air(how you get most sub 10nm droplets). you are shrinking your viral range by wearing a mask.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/4...s-heres-science-behind-how-face-masks-prevent

"*One category of evidence comes from laboratory studies of respiratory droplets and the ability of various masks to block them. An experiment using high-speed video found that hundreds of droplets ranging from 20 to 500 micrometers were generated when saying a simple phrase, but that nearly all these droplets were blocked when the mouth was covered by a damp washcloth. Another study of people who had influenza or the common cold found that wearing a surgical mask significantly reduced the amount of these respiratory viruses emitted in droplets and aerosols.*"
*
A recent study published in Health Affairs, for example, compared the COVID-19 growth rate before and after mask mandates in 15 states and the District of Columbia. It found that mask mandates led to a slowdown in daily COVID-19 growth rate, which became more apparent over time. The first five days after a mandate, the daily growth rate slowed by 0.9 percentage-points compared to the five days prior to the mandate; at three weeks, the daily growth rate had slowed by 2 percentage-points.

*
Another study* looked at coronavirus deaths across 198 countries and found that those with cultural norms or government policies favoring mask-wearing had lower death rates.


Two compelling case reports also suggest that masks can prevent transmission in high-risk scenarios, said Chin-Hong and Rutherford. In one case, a man flew from China to Toronto and subsequently tested positive for COVID-19. He had a dry cough and wore a mask on the flight, and all 25 people closest to him on the flight tested negative for COVID-19. In another case, in late May, two hair stylists in Missouri had close contact with 140 clients while sick with COVID-19. Everyone wore a mask and none of the clients tested positive.

*
Trust science, facts, and logic plz


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 14, 2020)

omgcat said:


> only very small amounts of breathed particles come out as 5nm or smaller, unless you are yelling. the point is not to stop all particles, it's to slam the particles into a wall (the inside of the mask) so that they do not travel as far as if there wasn't a wall. most of the material coming out of your mouth is rather large (spittle for example) that gets smaller as it evaporates moving through the air(how you get most sub 10nm dropslets). you are shrinking your viral range by wearing a mask.



Even if we go up to non floating particles a surgeons mask is not going to stop 120-140 nanometer sized particles either.

The problem I have and I am hung up on is that they don't even know what the viral dose level is required to be infected by covid-19, and unless you show me a science analysis they did on a asymptomatic person on the younger side where they captured their breath with with and without a mask on, (and did an analysis) any estimate to effectiveness of a surgical mask is just a guess at this point.

That and the fact that there are numerous scientific studies that show surgical masks do not prevent the spread of influenza.  That seems like a more realistic gauge if you don't have solid data to back up the claims with covid-19 and surgical masks.

Again I wear a mask and my family does, this is not political for me in any way.  I just just do not see the data to suggest it helps.  And I have said this before, at least 80% of the people I see at the store the act of them wearing these surgical masks or cloth masks is likely leading to them actually getting covid-19 if it is present on their shopping carts, etc. Touching their faces from adjusting before they have had a chance to clean their hands properly.    Probably most of the guessed effective rates of these masks go out the window when you start to include all the other  variables involved.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 14, 2020)

omgcat said:


> Two compelling case reports also suggest that masks can prevent transmission in high-risk scenarios, said Chin-Hong and Rutherford. In one case, a man flew from China to Toronto and subsequently tested positive for COVID-19. He had a dry cough and wore a mask on the flight, and all 25 people closest to him on the flight tested negative for COVID-19. In another case, in late May, two hair stylists in Missouri had close contact with 140 clients while sick with COVID-19. Everyone wore a mask and none of the clients tested positive.



I don't have time to read over every thing you listed got to get to bed.

Posting an article about some guy flying from China to Toronto does not prove how effective a surgical mask is.  What was his age? It has been proven that often older people who are positive are not effective at spreading covid-19 compared to a younger person.  Meaning if the guy was not producing virus to spread, he did not even need to wear a mask.

Same with the hair dressers.

Again what it comes down to and should be quantifiable. Is to find a test subject who has covid-19 who is asymptomatic and is actively shedding the virus.  Collect their breath with mask on, with mask off a bunch of times with a fresh mask each time.  Then determine how effective the mask was at blocking their output of Covid-19.

The same could be done with a cloth mask too for comparison. 

If I remember correctly around 85% of reported USA covid cases people claim they were wearing their masks properly on the CDC website, I can find the stats later.


----------



## MaxToTheMax (Oct 14, 2020)

89 pages of people responding to political bait. Fun.


----------



## gizmomelb (Oct 14, 2020)

BeniBel said:


> Please don't twist my words.
> 
> Name one good example of where extreme right is active and a real threat to Western society. Chances are, you don't even know the definition of it, and see Trump as extreme right.



they were squashed.. but Italy, Germany, Japan were all fascist countries and a threat to the West.

Trump definitely has America headed towards Fascism.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 14, 2020)

@gregory-samba @crimpshrine @UltraSUPRA Donald Trump claimed disinfectant in the body, particularly in the lungs, was an effective way to kill COVID-19. If you are arguing this is untrue, you are objectively mistaken. I did not bring up anything about ingestion, etc.

If you are going to argue he didn't actually do this, then I suggest you look at Trump's later comments when he admitted he had done this but was being sarcastic. So, the argument he didn't do this doubly falls apart.

In other words, you can't simultaneously argue he didn't say it and that he said it but was being sarcastic. They're contradictory.



UltraSUPRA said:


> The people claiming that life starts at birth rather than conception, digging giant holes in the ground will save the environment, and slapping a piece of paper onto your mouth will rid the world of all germs.


There is no science in the world that supports the idea that there's any meaningful difference with regard to personhood when we are talking about five seconds before conception and five seconds after conception.

I don't know what you're referring to with regard to giant holes on the ground.

Nobody is arguing that masks will "get rid of all germs." That's a disingenuous strawman, and it shows you don't care about the facts of what's being proposed.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 14, 2020)

So I wonder if this is why Joe's handlers cut his day at 9:00 AM again.  Can you imagine what we would gotten sound bite wise from Biden today? LOL

*Trump campaign blasts Biden over new Hunter Biden-Ukraine story, claims it shows he ‘lied’*

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-campaign-biden-hunters-business-deal-story

So what is the FBI for anyhow?  It could seem to outsiders to be a tool for the dems.

Wonder if the liberal press will actually start asking poor Joe some tough questions finally.


----

And social media rushes to help Biden.

Wish they applied the same level of integrity when it came to our active president.  What a joke.  Kind of like the anonymous source claiming Trump said X about military people.  When you had what like 15 real people saying it was BS.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/technol...bution-of-hunter-biden-story-in-new-york-post

*Facebook reducing distribution of Hunter Biden story in New York Post*


----------



## gizmomelb (Oct 14, 2020)

MaxToTheMax said:


> 89 pages of people responding to political bait. Fun.



it should be well known by now that groups of GBAtempers are massed baiters.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 14, 2020)

*Giuliani's lawyer says he has hard drive with Hunter Biden texts, emails, videos of 'compromising positions'*

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hu...xts-emails-videos-very-compromising-positions

Among the deluge of documents allegedly obtained by Giuliani and Costello: sexually explicit photographs and footage of Hunter Biden, as well as email correspondence dating back to May 2014 that seemingly demonstrated how the son introduced his father – then the vice president – to a Ukrainian businessman and Burisma adviser despite a cloud of ethical concerns.

The email appeared to counter claims by Joe Biden, who has maintained that he has "never spoken to (his) son about (his) overseas business dealings

CNN and NYTimes are fast at work determining what can be spun here I bet.  Will be interesting to see if they will report anything at all.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 14, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> *Giuliani's lawyer says he has hard drive with Hunter Biden texts, emails, videos of 'compromising positions'*
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hu...xts-emails-videos-very-compromising-positions
> 
> ...


Let us know when there's actual evidence of anything.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 14, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Let us know when there's actual evidence of anything.



This will be my last response regarding anything to you lacius, you pivot on anything debated with you when you are shown to be wrong/inaccurate etc..  And you don't read things in response. No real point in talking with you.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 14, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> This will be my last response regarding anything to you lacius, you pivot on anything debated with you when you are shown to be wrong/inaccurate etc..  And you don't read things in response. No real point in talking with you.



person;1I have hard evidence that person3 has done something wrong.
Person2:Can I see the evidence?
Person1:No, but I will talk about it
Person2:... But you stated you have hard evidence
person1: you don't need to see the evidence, just take my word for it
person2:....

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

That's essentially what it boils down to and what Lacius is getting at. You can pretend or act that you have hard evidence. But here from what I'm able to find, they just talk about it. Without like, actually showing it. They provide claims without nothing to back it up.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 14, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> This will be my last response regarding anything to you lacius, you pivot on anything debated with you when you are shown to be wrong/inaccurate etc..  And you don't read things in response. No real point in talking with you.


I've never pivoted. You haven't shown me to be wrong or inaccurate. I read things before I respond. Did you see in your article that we have no reason yet to think this hard drive exists? That's why I told you to let us know when something is released. I'm sorry my standards of evidence are higher than yours.

If you don't want to respond to me, that's fine, but unless you block me, I'm probably going to continue to correct inaccuracies in your posts when I see them.

If you would like to continue having conversation, I would like you to provide the single most egregious inaccuracy or lie that I have stated. Just one, but make it the best one.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 14, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> person;1I have hard evidence that person3 has done something wrong.
> Person2:Can I see the evidence?
> Person1:No, but I will talk about it
> Person2:... But you stated you have hard evidence
> ...



I think you miss the point, the devil is in the details as they say.   And we already have confirmation from a lawyer he has the hard drive.  This is not some anonymous source.

As I stated above, with this new bombshell being released.  Already you have places like Facebook limiting the spread of it.

Was trump offered  the same level of integrity when (was it the NY times, don't recall now) released that news story about Trump disparaging troops? Based on an anonymous source?

CNN reported on it right away, even fox did.

And meanwhile you clearly have liberal media giving Biden pampered treatment.  You have to be blind to not see this.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 14, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I think you miss the point, the devil is in the details as they say.   And we already have confirmation from a lawyer he has the hard drive.  This is not some anonymous source.
> 
> As I stated above, with this new bombshell being released.  Already you have places like Facebook limiting the spread of it.
> 
> ...


Reporting that someone says someone has a hard drive doesn't say anything about the truthfulness of the claims about what's allegedly on the hard drive. Come back when we know more.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 14, 2020)

I know the liberals probably are OK with stuff like this, but imagine if it was you being censored.

https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/1316411842315587585?s=20

I don't use facebook, was unaware they even monitor and block links to information in PM's.

And I see Biden's campaign released something saying it never happened.

Their exact words were:

Bates added: "Moreover, we have reviewed Joe Biden's official schedules from the time and no meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place."

The question I have will they let him near any media in the coming days, and will anyone have the balls to ask the questions to Joe.  My guess is no, they gave him an out without making it worse when the details are released.

His campaign saying they "reviewed" Biden's schedule at that time and that no meeting as alleged occurred, does not mean it did not.  It means someone outside of Biden is claiming it did not based on a piece of paper.

Trump still gets grilled and told he disparaged troops based on an anonymous source that was repeated by social media and news everywhere.  While around 20 people if I remember correctly said they were there and it never happened.


----------



## Joom (Oct 14, 2020)

Anyone voting for Trump is either delusional or a white supremacist. The Republican party has become a fascist death cult that has shown absolute disregard for human life and the well-being of the American populous as a whole. It totally baffles me that our society here has become so insanely brainwashed into thinking that Trump is gonna do anything good for this country when he's doing everything in his power to fuck them. It's like Stockholm syndrome or something. Climate change has the west coast on fire, and the east coast is getting pummeled by hurricanes. In the middle, there's mass rioting and protesting because the American people are deemed unfit to have equal justice. People are losing their homes and everything else because of the pandemic, and he now has over 200,000 deaths on his hands. Yeah, he sure did make America great by sowing hate and fear in literally every citizen.


crimpshrine said:


> I know the liberals probably are OK with stuff like this, but imagine if it was you being censored.
> 
> https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/1316411842315587585?s=20
> 
> I don't use facebook, was unaware they even monitor and block links to information in PM's.


They're a privately owned company. They're allowed to do anything they want. The FCC doesn't have any control over them, so equating this to a dropped phone call is really grasping for straws. I don't get why conservatives don't understand how the law and Constitution work when they're all about sucking the cock of the government. Facebook isn't the government, so boohooing about censorship is just expressing what big, crybaby snowflakes conservatives really are.

Edit: I just noticed this was Tim Pool. You know he's a batshit insane liar, right?


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 14, 2020)

Joom said:


> Anyone voting for Trump is either delusional or a white supremacist. The Republican party has become a fascist death cult that has shown absolute disregard for human life and the well-being of the American populous as a whole. It totally baffles me that our society here has become so insanely brainwashed into thinking that Trump is gonna do anything good for this country when he's doing everything in his power to fuck them. It's like Stockholm syndrome or something. Climate change has the west coast on fire, and the east coast is getting pummeled by hurricanes. In the middle, there's mass rioting and protesting because the American people are deemed unfit to have equal justice. Yeah, he sure did make America great by sowing hate and fear in literally every citizen.
> 
> They're a privately owned company. They're allowed to do anything they want. The FCC doesn't have any control over them, so equating this to a dropped phone call is really grasping for straws. I don't get why conservatives don't understand how the law and Constitution work when they're all about sucking the cock of the government. Facebook isn't the government, so boohooing about censorship is just expressing what big, crybaby snowflakes conservatives really are.
> 
> Edit: I just noticed this was Tim Pool. You know he's a batshit insane liar, right?



Everyone is free to their own opinions.  I don't agree at all with you.  And your claims to me just make you look petty and ignorant.  

You seem to be projecting the behavior of many US liberals.

For those to ignore the dems double standards and liberal censorship that occurs frequently is a heavy indicator of your blindness.


----------



## Joom (Oct 14, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Everyone is free to their own opinions.  I don't agree at all with you.  And your claims to me just make you look petty and ignorant.
> 
> You seem to be projecting the behavior of many US liberals.
> 
> For those to ignore the dems double standards and liberal censorship that occurs frequently is a heavy indicator of your blindness.


Uh, written law isn't opinion. Nothing I posted is opinion. So yeah, you belong in that delusional category. Oh, and you can be progressive without being a liberal, but I know you wouldn't know that because you have absolutely no grasp on any of this.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 14, 2020)

Joom said:


> Uh, written law isn't opinion. Nothing I posted is opinion. So yeah, you belong in that delusional category. Oh, and you can be progressive without being a liberal, but I know you wouldn't know that because you have absolutely no grasp on any of this.



LOL.



> Anyone voting for Trump is either delusional or a white supremacist.



That is called an opinion.  Seriously?

Not even going to bother with the rest.


----------



## Joom (Oct 14, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> That is called an opinion. Seriously?
> 
> Not even going to bother with the rest.


Oh, so I offended you and then you didn't even bother to read the rest. I fail to understand how that's an opinion when it's rather objective that Trump supporters are willfully ignorant and moronic, and/or a white supremacist. This isn't a matter of opinion when even you yourself are exuding this behavior. Enjoy having your head buried in the sand as you're shovel fed lies.

Also, I should make it clear that I don't want Biden as my president. He's going to keep this country as stagnant as ever. He's a right leaning centrist running on the Democratic ticket. Woohoo. But I'd much rather have him than Trump as I get the feeling he wouldn't actively work to keep the country divided and dying just so billionaires can thrive on the aftermath.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 14, 2020)

Joom said:


> Oh, so I offended you and then you didn't even bother to read the rest. I fail to understand how that's an opinion when it's rather objective that Trump supporters are willfully ignorant and moronic. This isn't a matter of opinion when even you yourself are exuding this behavior. Enjoy having your head buried in the sand as you're shovel fed lies.
> 
> Also, I should make it clear that I don't want Biden as my president. He's going to keep this country as stagnant as ever. He's a right leaning centrist running on the Democratic ticket. Woohoo. But I'd much rather have him than Trump as I get the feeling he wouldn't actively work to keep the country divided and dying.



You literally said in my last response in your second sentence:



> Nothing I posted is opinion.



So I am the only one being held to reality?  

And when I point out the fact that you started with a very derogatory statement that is an opinion,  you just say but you did not read everything else I had to say.

You think you sound objective, and you have ANYTHING worth reading?  

It's hard to take someone serious that makes it seem like they want to have a discussion when they are acting like you right out of the gate.

It's just orange man bad as far as I can see.  And projection.


----------



## Joom (Oct 14, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> So I am the only one being held to reality?


When you think the government should start policing privately owned internet entities, I think you kinda need to be brought back to reality.


crimpshrine said:


> And when I point out the fact that you started with a very derogatory statement that is an opinion, you just say but you did not read everything else I had to say.


Derogatory in what way? By saying Trump supporters are delusional and racist? Prove me wrong. Seriously. Because I can't think of a single reason to vote for the guy unless you're one of the two or both. Are you so insecure that all you see is people projecting when it is in fact you who is projecting? I don't even understand how I'm projecting, so you're just kinda proving my point further that Trump supporters are delusional.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 14, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> You literally said in my last response in your second sentence:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You should seriously stop replying to "joom"

Anyone who starts a reply with " if you vote for Trump you're a White supremacist" is clearly racist scum themselves and not worth the time of day. The best way to deal with bottom feeding scummy cunts like him, who openly blanket millions upon millions of voters as being white supremacists is too starve them of the oxygen they require to spout their complete and utter bullshit to begin with. This person will never change, they'll always be race baiting scum with a warped world view. Leave them to revel in their scummy opinions.


----------



## Joom (Oct 14, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Anyone who starts a reply with " if you vote for Trump you're a White supremacist" is clearly racist scum themselves and not worth the time of day.


Excuse me? How the fuck did you even come to that conclusion? How the fuck am I race baiting? Jesus fuck, the copium levels coming from you are insane. Yeah, I'm scum because I want the race baiting coming from the president to stop. Hoo boy, you people are so backwards thinking.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 14, 2020)

Joom said:


> Excuse me? How the fuck did you even come to that conclusion? How the fuck am I race baiting? Jesus fuck, the copium levels coming from you are insane. Yeah, I'm scum because I want the race baiting coming from the president to stop. Hoo boy, you people are so backwards thinking.


Are you one of those braindead douchebags who claim that all white people are racist?


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 14, 2020)

Joom said:


> Excuse me? How the fuck did you even come to that conclusion? How the fuck am I race baiting? Jesus fuck, the copium levels coming from you are insane.



Your first sentence was too label millions of Trump supporters as being White supremacists, despite the fact you know there's loads of Black, Latino Indian Trump supporters etc. You're race baiting scum, your opinions are worthless. I pity your warped world view, this will be the last interaction I have with you, unfortunately your opinions are becoming all too mainstream on the left, It's turning into the race baiting democratic party.

Anyway, you're definitely racist, you wouldn't start a sentence off in that way otherwise and I don't care to change your scummy opinions. Pathetic.


----------



## Joom (Oct 14, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Are you one of those braindead douchebags who claim that all white people are racist?


No? I love how when you call people out for being racist they're like "NUH UH, YOU ARE TEH WACIST", I'm quite obviously only talking about Trump supporters here, too. Take note that nobody here has tried to prove me otherwise, and instead just expressed extreme butthurt because they have to perform mental gymnastics in order to cope with being called what they are. Let's also disregard the fact that there was an *OR* in my first post. Y'know, let's conveniently leave that out.


shamzie said:


> Your first sentence was too label millions of Trump Supporters as being White supremacists, despite the fact you know there's loads of Black, Latino Indian trump supporters etc. Y


They're all Uncle Toms, too. You don't have to be white to be a white supremacist, and to think otherwise makes you the racist. The leader of the proud boys is an Afro-Cuban, but he's a total Uncle Tom who can't stand to see his own reflection. How you think this is race baiting is just astounding and absurd, too. Should I have used "fascist" instead? Because that fits as well.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 14, 2020)

Joom said:


> No? I love how when you call people out for being racist they're like "NUH UH, YOU ARE TEH WACIST", I'm quite obviously only talking about Trump supporters here, too. Take note that nobody here has tried to prove me otherwise, and instead just expressed extreme butthurt because they have to perform mental gymnastics in order to cope with being called what they are. Let's also disregard the fact that there was an *OR* in my first post. Y'know, let's conveniently leave that out.
> 
> They're all Uncle Toms, too. You don't have to be white to be a white supremacist, and to think otherwise makes you the racist. The leader of the proud boys is an Afro-Cuban, but he's a total Uncle Tom who can't stand to see his own reflection. How you think this is race baiting is just astounding and absurd, too.


Trump has denounced white supremacy hundreds of times.


Joom said:


> Should I have used "fascist" instead? Because that fits as well.


Have you ever heard of Giovanni Gentile?


----------



## Joom (Oct 14, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Trump has denounced white supremacy hundreds of times.


Really? Because last I heard he told them to stand back and stand by, then went on to call protesters domestic terrorists who need to be stopped while literal right-wing, domestic terrorists were plotting to kidnap the governor of Michigan. Any time he's asked to denounce white supremacy, he mumbles a couple words about how racism is bad, then goes on to call the people standing against racism to be the enemy and that they have to be dealt with. Y'know, signaling to these white supremacists to go out and shoot people. He went on national television to call the Charlottesville supremacists "good people" after they killed a counter-protester. He doesn't denounce it because he knows that without the racists, he'd have, if any, hardly any support. Race is just a fraction of why this man doesn't need to continue on as president, though. Climate change and other human rights come to mind as well.


UltraSUPRA said:


> Have you ever heard of Giovanni Gentile?


No.


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 14, 2020)

also you didn't read jooms first reason because all republicans are  delusional (well the other 99% middle class and poorer are at least) let me ask you this have you seen your 2019 taxes and compare them to 2015 when Obama was in office i can with a 99% certainty believe your taxes you pay out from the obama admin to the trump admin at least doubled if not tripled (and if your in the wealthy 1% why are you even here at this site?), point is the middle class are like pesents to the republicans and are dumb tools to just get them elected.


----------



## Joom (Oct 14, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> your taxes you pay out from the obama admin to the trump admin at least doubled if not tripled


This is true. I certainly never owed more money than I was awarded under Obama. I still owe nearly $2k to the government from 2019. But hey, I've been out of work since March and barely able to stay alive because of the piss poor job Trump has done with the pandemic. Maybe he'll disappear another couple billion to bail out Wall Street while the rest of the country becomes homeless and starves.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 14, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Everyone is free to their own opinions.  I don't agree at all with you.  And your claims to me just make you look petty and ignorant.
> 
> You seem to be projecting the behavior of many US liberals.
> 
> For those to ignore the dems double standards and liberal censorship that occurs frequently is a heavy indicator of your blindness.


For the record, you don't get to say a person's claims make him look petty and ignorant when, in the same post, you say those claims are the behavior of many US liberals. I think you just demonstrated you're the one with double standards.


----------



## Joom (Oct 14, 2020)

Lacius said:


> For the record, you don't get to say a person's claims make him look petty and ignorant when, in the same post, you say those claims are the behavior of many US liberals. I think you just demonstrated you're the one with double standards.


It's called copium. It's a hardcore drug conservatives huff when they have to stand in front of a mirror and face the reality that their dear leader is a monster, and by proxy making them monsters.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 14, 2020)

This is a Big Tech information coup. This is digital civil war. 

I, an editor at The New York Post, one of the nation’s largest papers by circulation, can’t post one of our own stories that details corruption by a major-party presidential candidate, Biden.


https://twitter.com/SohrabAhmari/status/1316446749729398790?s=20


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 14, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Let us know when there's actual evidence of anything.



You mean like the screenshots of the actual emails, photos of Hunter Biden with a crack pipe in his mouth, and the subpoena the FBI served to seize the Biden laptop that the NYPost published today?


----------



## Joom (Oct 14, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> The New York Post


A right leaning trash rag that spreads misinformation and conservative opeds. Yeah, because stopping the spread of misinformation in order to wrongfully dissuade voters is a bad thing. Again, though, this is a privately owned company. It has nothing to do with the government. They're allowed to moderate their platform however they want. Nobody's rights are being stepped on.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Hanafuda said:


> You mean like the screenshots of the actual emails, photos of Hunter Biden with a crack pipe in his mouth, and the subpoena the FBI served to seize the Biden laptop that the NYPost published today?


And? Why is smoking crack a bad thing? I mean, Trump was best buddies with a human trafficking pedophile who he had murdered in a jail cell. So, I really don't get why people are on a moral crusade over some crack.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 14, 2020)

Joom said:


> They're all Uncle Toms, too. You don't have to be white to be a white supremacist, and to think otherwise makes you the racist. The leader of the proud boys is an Afro-Cuban, but he's a total Uncle Tom who can't stand to see his own reflection. How you think this is race baiting is just astounding and absurd, too. Should I have used "fascist" instead? Because that fits as well.



And there it is. Vote for Biden, or you ain't black!


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 14, 2020)

But the Atlanta publishing an article on Trump based on anonymous source that claimed he said bad things about our troops, is cool.   And at the same time dozens of named people there, said it never happened.

Yep, not surprised at the hypocrisy.

I bet you won't hear Biden state it never happened. (Again)

His campaign would only say it's not true because it was not listed on his schedule for that day.  LOL


----------



## Joom (Oct 14, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> And there is is. Vote for Biden, or you ain't black!


It was a reference to The Breakfast Club, who originally made the joke. He's just a doddering old man with the comedic sense of, well, a doddering old man.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 14, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I bet you won't hear Biden state it never happened.



Listen Fat, it ... the ... who said that?! Nobody ever said that. That was totally debunked. It the ... you know, C'mon man.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 14, 2020)

Joom said:


> It was a reference to The Breakfast Club, who originally made the joke. He's just a doddering old man with the comedic sense of, well, a doddering old man.


I don't know what happened to 'racism isn't a joke, but okay.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 14, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> You mean like the screenshots of the actual emails, photos of Hunter Biden with a crack pipe in his mouth, and the subpoena the FBI served to seize the Biden laptop that the NYPost published today?


There's no evidence this story is accurate. There has been zero authentication. Until then, it's a nonstory.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



crimpshrine said:


> But the Atlanta publishing an article on Trump based on anonymous source that claimed he said bad things about our troops, is cool.   And at the same time dozens of named people there, said it never happened.
> 
> Yep, not surprised at the hypocrisy.
> 
> ...


The source is only anonymous to us, not those who posted the story. They authenticated the story.


----------



## Joom (Oct 14, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I don't know what happened to 'racism isn't a joke, but okay.


Man, it's such a damning thing to reference a joke made by a black podcast. But hey, when you make claims that we should kick the rapist Mexicans out and that we should send nuclear missiles into hurricanes to stop them, people can give that a pass.

I sincerely wish that the American people will one day realize that the two party system is a joke that works entirely against their self-interest. I wish they'd stop treating politics like it's a football game, and that "MUH TEAM" is infallible. Because of this, the two parties use stupid societal problems and identity politics to keep us divided while they're all in a backroom together shaking hands and smoking cigars as they count the billions of dollars that they swindle out of us. Again, I don't like Biden. I'd much prefer someone that's actually progressive and could maybe bring us forward as a whole, but people here fear that because they gobble up whatever is fed to them by the ones who are making too much money off them to allow that to happen.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 14, 2020)

IT workers at Facebook and Twitter are NOT going to like the next week LOL.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1316457329592881152?s=20


----------



## Lacius (Oct 14, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> IT workers at Facebook and Twitter are NOT going to like the next week LOL.
> 
> https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1316457329592881152?s=20
> 
> View attachment 229242


Come back when there's evidence for anything.


----------



## Joom (Oct 14, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> IT workers at Facebook and Twitter are NOT going to like the next week LOL.
> 
> https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1316457329592881152?s=20
> 
> View attachment 229242


It's almost like they don't want the deliberate dissemination of misinformation and hoaxes on their platforms. It's almost like that's in their TOS. And that's all this is; an absolute hoax. But hey, you keep that tinfoil on tight. It'll protect you from the libcucks.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 14, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> And there it is. Vote for Biden, or you ain't black!



Just call him a racist scumbag and be on your way, lifes easier that way.




crimpshrine said:


> IT workers at Facebook and Twitter are NOT going to like the next week LOL.
> 
> https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1316457329592881152?s=20
> 
> View attachment 229242



The same people that will be defending this, with their "huhhh so what disinformation hoaxes TeRmS aNd CoNdItIoNs etc are the same people that bathed themselves in the Russia hoax for the last 4 years, they're complete hypocrites. They didn't say a word about Twitter and Facebook not censoring all that disinformation and hoax bullshit because it suited their political agenda.


----------



## Joom (Oct 14, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Just call him a racist scumbag and be on your way, lifes easier that way.


Yeah, life is easier when you stick your fingers in your ears and make up your own fantasy world to live in. Finally, something we can agree on. You sound like a lunatic. Like, I'm actually laughing now because of your absurdity. "You're racist because you don't believe the Nordic white male is the uber species!" Get out of here you Nazi apologist, hahahaha!


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 14, 2020)

Is this still about the Republican led investigation that found nothing on Biden, but in fact found evidence against Rick Perry instead?


----------



## Joom (Oct 14, 2020)

shamzie said:


> The same people that will be defending this, with their "huhhh so what disinformation hoaxes TeRmS aNd CoNdItIoNs etc are the same people that bathed themselves in the Russia hoax for the last 4 years, they're complete hypocrites. They didn't say a word about Twitter and Facebook not censoring all that disinformation and hoax bullshit because it suited them political agenda.


Except that wasn't a hoax and the impeachment was legit. But you believe whatever fantasy narrative you want. Also, something that's hilarious to me is that these tech companies usually want a republican president because they make more money by paying less in taxes, and you mandy-pandy conservatives don't realize this. There's not a political agenda being pushed, you snowflake. Sorry that Trump has been demonstrably terrible time and time again, and conspiracy theories and hoaxes are bad for business.



KingVamp said:


> Is this still about the Republican led investigation that found nothing on Biden, but in fact found evidence against Rick Perry instead?


Yes, because Trump supporters are getting incredibly desperate now. A republican can get on TV or some garbage rag like NY Post and make any false claim they want, and these people will believe it because they want so badly for this weird narrative they've created to be true, and for reality to not be. It's sad and completely delusional. I'm seriously convinced these people have a mental disorder. Y'know, the republicans coined "Trump derangement syndrome" as a derogative toward people who are against Trump, but I think it really applies more to his constituency. Like, they're crazier than a shithouse rat. It's ridiculous. They make me think of an abused spouse who has come to believe that they deserve the beatings.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 14, 2020)

Joom said:


> Man, it's such a damning thing to reference a joke made by a black podcast. But hey, when you make claims that we should kick the rapist Mexicans out and that we should send nuclear missiles into hurricanes to stop them, people can give that a pass.
> 
> I sincerely wish that the American people will one day realize that the two party system is a joke that works entirely against their self-interest. I wish they'd stop treating politics like it's a football game, and that "MUH TEAM" is infallible. Because of this, the two parties use stupid societal problems and identity politics to keep us divided while they're all in a backroom together shaking hands and smoking cigars as they count the billions of dollars that they swindle out of us. Again, I don't like Biden. I'd much prefer someone that's actually progressive and could maybe bring us forward as a whole, but people here fear that because they gobble up whatever is fed to them by the ones who are making too much money off them to allow that to happen.




until ranked choice voting is allowed in all elections, the two party system is a fundamental part of first past the post. it is mathematically impossible to have a 3+ party system in FPTP.


----------



## Joom (Oct 14, 2020)

omgcat said:


> until ranked choice voting is allowed in all elections, the two party system is a fundamental part of first past the post. it is mathematically impossible to have a 3+ party system in FPTP.


Yeah, that's why I'm calling for the dismantling and reconstruction of our system from the ground up. It desperately needs it.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 14, 2020)

Joom said:


> Yeah, that's why I'm calling for the dismantling and reconstruction of our system from the ground up. It desperately needs it.



well we don't have to tear the whole thing down, states can use RCV if it is voted for by their constituents. for example Maine is already using RCV this election.


----------



## Joom (Oct 14, 2020)

omgcat said:


> well we don't have to tear the whole thing down, states can use RCV if it is voted for by their constituents. for example Maine is already using RCV this election.


It's a step forward. I know I probably won't see any significant change within my lifetime. I think if the electoral college were done away with, I could be satisfied for the time being. That doesn't change the fact that capitalism is more important than human life in our democracy, though, and at the end of the day, the dollar is all that means anything to politicians. It's why they had to get rid of Bernie. He was talking some dangerous talk that our corporate overlords didn't like. Our system is designed to keep the poor poor, and the rich rich.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 14, 2020)

Joom said:


> It's a step forward. I know I probably won't see any significant change within my lifetime. I think if the electoral college were done away with, I could be satisfied for the time being. That doesn't change the fact that capitalism is more important than human life in our democracy, though, and at the end of the day, the dollar is all that means anything to politicians. It's why they had to get rid of Bernie. He was talking some dangerous talk that our corporate overlords didn't like. Our system is designed to keep the poor poor, and the rich rich.




the other way to fix the system is add RCV from the bottom up. you get better candidates at all levels if yous start local and work your way up.


----------



## Joom (Oct 14, 2020)

omgcat said:


> the other way to fix the system is add RCV from the bottom up. you get better candidates at all levels if yous start local and work your way up.


You're right. Local politics influence the federal. The issue is that voters don't educate themselves on candidate policy, though, and they just give their vote to the party that they support. It's even worse in small towns where favoritism runs rampant. This is what I meant by people thinking the party they support is infallible, and for whatever reason, they think if you don't support one you inherently support the other and that somehow speaks about your character just because. It's exactly like a sports game, except people don't seem to realize that the person they vote for has the power to control their livelihood.

Also, I'm just gonna leave this here.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 15, 2020)

so i finally took the time to read into the hunter Biden stuff and that's a lot of red flags.

https://www.businessinsider.com/new...-disinformation-2020-10?utm_source=reddit.com

some highlights

The Post's report said that an unidentified computer-repair-shop owner discovered the emails and other compromising material about Hunter Biden after an unidentified person dropped off a water-damaged laptop last year to be repaired but never picked it up.


The repair shop owner was later identified as John Paul Mac Isaac, an avid Trump supporter who told several reporters who tracked him down that Trump's impeachment was a "sham." Isaac also did not have a clear grasp on the timeline of events that he initially described to the Post.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 15, 2020)

*The New York Post inadvertently identified the original source of its dubious Hunter Biden story*
https://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-post-may-have-identified-hunter-biden-source-2020-10

The New York Post inadvertently revealed details identifying the original source of a dubious story it published Wednesday about a "smoking-gun email" between Hunter Biden and a Ukrainian official while he was on the board of the natural-gas company Burisma Holdings.
Two photos published in the story seem to point to a specific Mac repair shop in the Trolley Square neighborhood of Wilmington, Delaware, owned by a man named John Paul Mac Isaac.
In an interview with several reporters who tracked him down, Isaac confirmed he was the source of the story but couldn't get his facts straight when describing his recollection of events outlined in the Post's story, The Daily Beast reported.
The article contained a number of red flags that raised questions about its authenticity and sourcing as soon as it was published, and it gained little traction among more reputable outlets.

*An explosive New York Post story that's sending Trumpworld into a frenzy is riddled with holes and red flags*
https://www.businessinsider.com/new...den-giuliani-red-flags-disinformation-2020-10

Trumpworld flew into a frenzy on Wednesday after the New York Post published a report purporting to show a "smoking-gun email" featuring Hunter Biden communicating with a Ukrainian official about meeting with his father, Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential nominee.
The Post's story had several red flags and holes that raise questions about its authenticity. The most glaring questions are whether the emails described in the story are legitimate, how they were uncovered, and how the Post obtained them.
The Post's report said that an unidentified computer-repair-shop owner discovered the emails and other compromising material about Hunter Biden after an unidentified person dropped off a water-damaged laptop last year to be repaired but never picked it up.
The repair shop owner was later identified as John Paul Mac Isaac, an avid Trump supporter who told several reporters who tracked him down that Trump's impeachment was a "sham." Isaac also did not have a clear grasp on the timeline of events that he initially described to the Post.
The Post said it learned of the emails' existence last month through Steve Bannon, the former White House chief strategist, and obtained them through Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer.
Both men have routinely pushed conspiracy theories about the Biden campaign's ties to Ukraine, and Giuliani met last year with a Ukrainian official who was sanctioned in September and accused of acting as a Russian agent.
In all, one expert said, the way the story was published appears to showcase "a standard tactic in disinformation operations."


----------



## Joom (Oct 15, 2020)

Yup, it's a hoax. When people like Tim Pool and The Quartering are screaming about sensationalism such as this, it's usually a safe bet it's bullshit.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 15, 2020)

omgcat said:


> so i finally took the time to read into the hunter Biden stuff and that's a lot of red flags.
> 
> https://www.businessinsider.com/new...-disinformation-2020-10?utm_source=reddit.com
> 
> ...


You beat me to the punch by 60 seconds!  Hmph!


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 15, 2020)

Sure, and that is why his campaign was only willing to go as far as to say it was not on his schedule.  So it is untrue.

Nothing from Biden directly.  

Damage control mode activated.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 15, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> You beat me to the punch by 60 seconds!  Hmph!



gotem


----------



## Joom (Oct 15, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Sure, and that is why his campaign was only willing to go as far as to say it was not on his schedule.  So it is untrue.
> 
> Nothing from Biden directly.
> 
> Damage control mode activated.


Oh man, even when proven that your bombshell is a total lie, you keep that copium just a'flowin', huh? Yeah, Biden really needs to bother wasting his time addressing conspiracies. We know Trump does it, and even legitimizes them as a means to sow fear and distrust of his opposition, but I don't think Biden is that desperate yet. How hilariously ironic that "fake news" is going to be Trump's demise.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Oct 15, 2020)

Joom said:


> Yeah, that's why I'm calling for the dismantling and reconstruction of our system from the ground up. It desperately needs it.


Though no need to 'dismantle' the system; Use your vote to turn the seats! Remove all incumbants, and encourage others to use their vote to do the same.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 15, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Just call him a racist scumbag and be on your way, lifes easier that way.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




oh yeah, that hoax that was confirmed by the senate select intelligence committee.


Hanafuda said:


> And there it is. Vote for Biden, or you ain't black!



well there would be black trump supporters if they were real...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...accounts-for-posing-as-black-trump-supporters

on another note, Trump's "please like me" plea to suburban women voters was Jeb "please clap" tier.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...burban-women-at-rally-will-you-please-like-me


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 15, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Sure, and that is why his campaign was only willing to go as far as to say it was not on his schedule.  So it is untrue.
> 
> Nothing from Biden directly.
> 
> Damage control mode activated.


Giuliani's been sitting on it for awhile, apparently.  The entire point of an October surprise is to erode the opposition's polling and overall support in the final stretch.  The information itself doesn't have to be true; it just has to be effective.  In today's partisan climate, this story may not be run on MSM unless key parts of the story are authenticated.  Do you believe it can have much of an impact if MSM ignores it?


----------



## Joom (Oct 15, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> Though no need to 'dismantle' the system; Use your vote to turn the seats! Remove all incumbants, and encourage others to use their vote to do the same.


I just like to spew revolutionist rhetoric from time to time. I'd love it so much to see a massive overthrow because the US citizens finally came to the realization that anyone working in government is an employee to the people, not the other way around. But hey, this country was founded on protest and revolution, so who knows? This year especially has taught me to expect the unexpected.

In other news, democrats just took a larger lead for the senate and Georgia is starting to look bluer. I sincerely hope 2016 was a hard lesson for those who decided not to vote because it looked like the scale was in their favor. Now isn't the time to get complacent because polls are predicting a blowout. Whether it be in person or by mail, we all need to vote this time around to ensure we don't have another four years of hardship and turmoil. And if you have any love for democracy, and feel that your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should be upheld, vote. America is only 300 243 years old. We're too young to let it fall.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 15, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Giuliani's been sitting on it for awhile, apparently.  The entire point of an October surprise is to erode the opposition's polling and overall support in the final stretch.  The information itself doesn't have to be true; it just has to be effective.  In today's partisan climate, this story may not be run on MSM unless key parts of the story are authenticated.  Do you believe it can have much of an impact if MSM ignores it?



Again if you have nothing to hide you would answer it definitively.  This whole scandal and Biden is not new by any means.  This is not some far fetched conspiracy, his kid was a drug addict, he made a lot of money in a position in a foreign country he had no business doing   He obviously knows that he has made claims in the past that would directly contradict what this information now tells people.

That is exactly why his campaign responded the way they did with the exact words they chose.  I can only imagine how many times they went over that before releasing it today.



> Bates added: "Moreover, we have reviewed Joe Biden's official schedules from the time and no meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place."



They said nothing about Biden vehemently denying this.  They would not even commit to putting it out here as being in Joe's own words.  They said we checked his calendar and we don't  see any secret meeting listed, so you guys are wrong.  Joe was not involved 1 bit in the response saying this is untrue.


https://twitter.com/TheJordanRachel/status/1316442453596164101?s=20


----------



## Joom (Oct 15, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Again if you have nothing to hide you would answer it definitively.


Uh huh...These double standards of yours, I swear.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-supreme-court-tax-returns-emergency-request/


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 15, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Again if you have nothing to hide you would answer it definitively.  This whole scandal and Biden is not new by any means.  This is not some far fetched conspiracy, his kid was a drug addict, he made a lot of money in a position in a foreign country he had no business doing   He obviously knows that he has made claims in the past that would directly contradict what this information now tells people.
> 
> That is exactly why his campaign responded the way they did with the exact words they chose.  I can only imagine how many times they went over that before releasing it today.
> 
> ...


Two points:

You missed the point of my post and didn't bother to answer what I thought was a non-combative softball question.  You've complained recently about how others are responding to your posts, so I tried to have a discussion with you without the typical butting of heads.

You treat these allegations as fact in absence of proof and full disclosure.  Because they're undisclosed and unverified, I treat them exactly as such.  I don't automatically believe in something just because it may be politically appealing to me.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 15, 2020)

Lacius said:


> @gregory-samba @crimpshrine @UltraSUPRA Donald Trump claimed disinfectant in the body, particularly in the lungs, was an effective way to kill COVID-19. If you are arguing this is untrue, you are objectively mistaken. I did not bring up anything about ingestion, etc.
> 
> If you are going to argue he didn't actually do this, then I suggest you look at Trump's later comments when he admitted he had done this but was being sarcastic. So, the argument he didn't do this doubly falls apart.
> 
> In other words, you can't simultaneously argue he didn't say it and that he said it but was being sarcastic. They're contradictory.



Good we're getting somewhere. You now admit Trump never said to ingest disinfectants, so I hope you also realize that he never said to "drink bleach". Trump stated a question regarding what he had heard from experts about disinfectants and UV light and how they can kill the virus. Trump never told anyone to use disinfectants themselves. Trump explicitly said to talk to your doctor about it, but later blew off his lack of knowledge on the issue as being sarcastic. I believe at the time when Trump brought it up he was simply going on what he had heard and was in no position to offer expert advice and that's okay because his statement was a question and not directions to drink bleach.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



monkeyman4412 said:


> person;1I have hard evidence that person3 has done something wrong.
> Person2:Can I see the evidence?
> Person1:No, but I will talk about it
> Person2:... But you stated you have hard evidence
> ...



Wow, that sounds oddly familiar. Let me think ... oh yeah, the impeachment case where the only evidence is what some people overheard and assumed was said. LOL. If you're going to go in this direction with this issue then I think it would now be time to admit the impeachment was a farse too.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



gizmomelb said:


> they were squashed.. but Italy, Germany, Japan were all fascist countries and a threat to the West.
> 
> Trump definitely has America headed towards Fascism.



Maybe you should look up the origins of fascism. It's a system created by communists/socialists. You don't look too smart labeling something the right with ideology from the left.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 15, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Good we're getting somewhere. You now admit Trump never said to ingest disinfectants, so I hope you also realize that he never said to "drink bleach". Trump stated a question regarding what he had heard from experts about disinfectants and UV light and how they can kill the virus. Trump never told anyone to use disinfectants themselves. Trump explicitly said to talk to your doctor about it, but later blew off his lack of knowledge on the issue as being sarcastic. I believe at the time when Trump brought it up he was simply going on what he had heard and was in no position to offer expert advice and that's okay because his statement was a question and not directions to drink bleach.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Donald Trump claimed disinfectant in the body, particularly in the lungs, was an effective way to kill COVID-19. I never mentioned anything else.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



gregory-samba said:


> Maybe you should look up the origins of fascism. It's a system created by communists/socialists. You don't look too smart labeling something the right with ideology from the left.


Fascism is, objectively and demonstrably, a far-right ideology. Posting a cherry-picked video from a right-wing convicted felon who agrees with your preconceived notions on the subject of fascism that fly in the face of virtually every academic knowledgeable about fascism doesn't do anything to change that.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 15, 2020)

Joom said:


> Uh huh...These double standards of yours, I swear.
> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-supreme-court-tax-returns-emergency-request/



if they didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.

this administration has a terrible record of making claims and it being fucking nothing.

like:

*Republicans Said Obama Admin ‘Unmasking’ Story Was ‘Worse Than Watergate.’ The DOJ Didn’t Bother Issuing a Public Report on Prosecutor’s Findings.*

*or*

*Trump campaign fails to show evidence of vote-by-mail fraud, filing reveals*

*or*

*The time where trump said he would declassify all the russiagate documents, but didn't actually do it.*


----------



## Joom (Oct 15, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I hope you also realize that he never said to "drink bleach".


Maybe not, but he did tell people that it was safe to eat aquarium cleaner and two people died because of it. So there's that...Also, fascism is antithetical to socialism. I don't think you know what you're talking about. But hey, this is what fascists do; spin up any narrative possible that puts themselves in a positive light. Everyone ignore the little man behind the curtain, he's not real.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 15, 2020)

He is arguing the word choice and semantics of "drink/inject bleach", but even with using what he literally said, it doesn't sound good and what he said only caused confusion.


----------



## Joom (Oct 15, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> He is arguing the word choice and semantics of "drink/inject bleach", but even with using what he literally said, it doesn't sound good and what he said only caused confusion.


It doesn't help that a large portion of his constituency are anti-vaxxers, woowoo snake oil pushers, and faith healers. This is why I called them a death cult. They literally show no regard for human life, and actively peddle misinformation just to push a narrative. I mean hell, the capitol is a disease pit because of Republicans getting COVID and refusing to quarantine or even wear a mask. They're just like lemmings.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 15, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Good we're getting somewhere. You now admit Trump never said to ingest disinfectants, so I hope you also realize that he never said to "drink bleach". Trump stated a question regarding what he had heard from experts about disinfectants and UV light and how they can kill the virus. Trump never told anyone to use disinfectants themselves. Trump explicitly said to talk to your doctor about it, but later blew off his lack of knowledge on the issue as being sarcastic. I believe at the time when Trump brought it up he was simply going on what he had heard and was in no position to offer expert advice and that's okay because his statement was a question and not directions to drink bleach.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


sorry but you might want to go learn more than general history. Hitler was anti-communist
How do we know this? Hitler's book
"_Mein Kampf_,"
He hated communism. And mostly the book/autobiography was him ranting. He wrote it while in prison before he became the dictator we know in general world history.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Also regarding impeachment case. It wasn't 1 person that testified wasn't it? And it wasn't just 1 that said trump was misusing funding for Ukraine as a quid pro quo.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Oh and then all of them who testified against him, were fired afterwords. And or arrested for crimes involving the scandal.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 15, 2020)

Joom said:


> Maybe not, but he did tell people that it was safe to eat aquarium cleaner and two people died because of it. So there's that...Also, fascism is antithetical to socialism. I don't think you know what you're talking about. But hey, this is what fascists do; spin up any narrative possible that puts themselves in a positive light. Everyone ignore the little man behind the curtain, he's not real.



Trump also never told that couple in Arizona to eat fish cleaner. They took a drug with a similar name to another drug. It's not Trump's fault people are stupid. If you drink drain cleaner instead of vodka it's not the persons fault who said they like to drink vodka that you drank draino instead. There's fucking dumb people in the world and hopefully if they lived after ingesting disinfectants, bleach or fish tank cleaner they realized how fucking dumb their choices were. It's not Trump's fault there's literally idiots everywhere. Trump never said to ingest bleach or any disinfectant nor told anyone to ingest fish tank cleaner. Some people are just stupid.

I also don't know what you and @Lacius are on about. The two links I shared that dig into the origins of Fascism might be posted on a site you both dislike, but that doesn't mean the material isn't sound. It's not the only site that digs into the origins of fascism. I suggest you watch the video and research some of the topics used in the video. The main person responsible for creating fascism studied under the creators of socialism.





(source: http://thedailyjournalist.com/thethinker/fascism-is-far-left-not-far-right-on-political-spectrum )​
*I also bet both of you suffer from TDS. So I'm asking both of you this question: Is there anything Trump or the Trump administration has done in the last 4 years that you agree with? *

I'll go first:

"The two biggest things Trump has done that I agree with is giving his entire $400,000.00 Presidential Salary away to charitable causes and making it so we can go to a store and legally purchase Hemp Extract (CBD and Terpenes)."

Your turn ...


----------



## Lacius (Oct 15, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Trump also never told that couple in Arizona to eat fish cleaner. They took a drug with a similar name to another drug. It's not Trump's fault people are stupid. If you drink drain cleaner instead of vodka it's not the persons fault who said they like to drink vodka that you drank draino instead. There's fucking dumb people in the world and hopefully if they lived after ingesting disinfectants, bleach or fish tank cleaner they realized how fucking dumb their choices were. It's not Trump's fault there's literally idiots everywhere. Trump never said to ingest bleach or any disinfectant nor told anyone to ingest fish tank cleaner. Some people are just stupid.
> 
> I also don't know what you and @lacuis are on about. The two links I shared that dig into the origins of Fascism might be posted on a site you both dislike, but that doesn't mean the material isn't sound. It's not the only site that digs into the origins of fascism. I suggest you watch the video and research some of the topics used in the video. The main person responsible for creating fascism studied under the creators of socialism.
> 
> ...


Educate yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Position_in_the_political_spectrum


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 15, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Educate yourself.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism



I'm educated enough to know that wiki link is full of leftist propaganda. 

You didn't answer my question about Trump.

*Is there anything Trump or the Trump administration has done in the last 4 years that you agree with? *


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 15, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Trump also never told that couple in Arizona to eat fish cleaner. They took a drug with a similar name to another drug. It's not Trump's fault people are stupid. If you drink drain cleaner instead of vodka it's not the persons fault who said they like to drink vodka that you drank draino instead. There's fucking dumb people in the world and hopefully if they lived after ingesting disinfectants, bleach or fish tank cleaner they realized how fucking dumb their choices were. It's not Trump's fault there's literally idiots everywhere. Trump never said to ingest bleach or any disinfectant nor told anyone to ingest fish tank cleaner. Some people are just stupid.
> 
> I also don't know what you and @Lacius are on about. The two links I shared that dig into the origins of Fascism might be posted on a site you both dislike, but that doesn't mean the material isn't sound. It's not the only site that digs into the origins of fascism. I suggest you watch the video and research some of the topics used in the video. The main person responsible for creating fascism studied under the creators of socialism.
> 
> ...


Oh... Oh @gregory-samba
OH GREGORY SAMBA!
SOMEONE HAS BEEN DRINKING THE KOOL AID
IS THIS IT? THE COTS MOMENT!?
I'm so excited, because I see you drinking lots of the cool aid.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 15, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I'm educated enough to know that wiki link is full of leftist propaganda.


If you disagree with what the Wikipedia page has to say on fascism, change it and cite your scholarly sources. The professors with email alerts set to that page will go in and check to see if they agree with your findings and the findings of your sources. Until that happens, you need to understand that the rest of the world sees you as objectively wrong about fascism. Do you even know what it means to be politically left or right? If you did, you would see it's laughable to consider fascism on the left side of the political spectrum.

I hope you also understand that if you yell "leftist propaganda" to anything that contradicts your views, regardless of the facts, you will forever keep yourself in ignorance. It's intellectually dishonest. It's like screaming "fake news" at anything you don't like.



gregory-samba said:


> *Is there anything Trump or the Trump administration has done in the last 4 years that you agree with? *


Yes, but anything the Trump administration has done that I like pales in comparison to the things he has done that I don't like. I like almost zero things the Trump administration has done.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 15, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Oh... Oh @gregory-samba
> OH GREGORY SAMBA!
> SOMEONE HAS BEEN DRINKING THE KOOL AID
> IS THIS IT? THE COTS MOMENT!?
> I'm so excited, because I see you drinking lots of the cool aid.



*Okay, I'm not sure what most of that comment means, but I'll ask you too. Is there anything Trump or the Trump administration has done in the last 4 years that you agree with? *


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 15, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I'm educated enough to know that wiki link is full of leftist propaganda.
> 
> You didn't answer my question about Trump.
> 
> *Is there anything Trump or the Trump administration has done in the last 4 years that you agree with? *








Good KOOL aid drinking right here. I didn't know that libertarian was some how more conservative than conservative.
Also, I reallllly like how he says
*Tyranny*
on the left side and
*liberty*



GLOBALISM RETURNS OOOOOOH BOOOOOOIIY COTS MOMENT KOOL AID DRINK RIIIIGHT HERE


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 15, 2020)

Lacius said:


> If you disagree with what the Wikipedia page has to say on fascism, change it and cite your scholarly sources. The professors with email alerts set to that page will go in and check to see if they agree with your findings and the findings of your sources. Until that happens, you need to understand that the rest of the world sees you as objectively wrong about fascism. Do you even know what it means to be politically left or right? If you did, you would see it's laughable to consider fascism on the left side of the political spectrum.
> 
> I hope you also understand that if you yell "leftist propaganda" to anything that contradicts your views, regardless of the facts, you will forever keep yourself in ignorance. It's intellectually dishonest. It's like screaming "fake news" at anything you don't like.
> 
> ...



Okay, I'll take some time to read over the Wikipedia page, but I just know from experience with other current hot button issues that they are highly slanted to the left and trying to introduce anything that goes against the lefts agenda is either deleted or never approved. I however am not blind to the truth and don't discredit the information because I haven't read it yet. I have no problem reading material on pages that I find don't align to my views, that's something your side is good at.

As per the question about Trump. What exactly has he or his administration done in the last 4 years that you agree with? I'd like to know the policy/polices, executive order, etc ... you agree with.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 15, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> *Okay, I'm not sure what most of that comment means, but I'll ask you too. Is there anything Trump or the Trump administration has done in the last 4 years that you agree with? *


You friend, have made a terrible mistake. Let's go look where  the idea of globalism comes from
_just letting you know it comes from a conspiracy  theorist_


----------



## Joom (Oct 15, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I also bet both of you suffer from TDS


LOL, there it is. I was just talking about this a few pages back about how it's more applicable to conservatives. I mean look at you. You're pretty deranged. 


gregory-samba said:


> I'm educated enough to know that wiki link is full of leftist propaganda.


The tinfoil is strong with this one. Just say what you really mean; that it's the oogy boogy Jews. And yeah, it kinda is Trump's fault people blindly follow his advice. He gets on TV and makes medical claims without being a doctor or medical scientist. People don't question him because they're delusional enough to take his word as gospel. I was a little off, but it doesn't change the fact that he made spurious medical claims on national television and his moronic followers thought aquarium cleaner was the same thing. 


gregory-samba said:


> s there anything Trump or the Trump administration has done in the last 4 years that you agree with?


No, not at all. I can't believe that CBD, something that was already legal before Trump, is a selling point for you. The man's a saint I guess. It's still up to a state's discretion to allow the sale of it, and it's still banned in 3. So, whatever he did, it was nothing for actual reform. Making a donation also isn't good policy. It's not policy at all. I don't give a rats ass about what Trump has done to boost his ego and cult of personality, it's not policy. What little policy he does has done fuck all for the country because he's more focused on being some great performer in the spotlight. This is what fascists do; they get up on stage, do a little jig, and fellate the audience so that they rally behind them. Never once will you hear them discuss policy.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 15, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> AND IT'S WRITTEN BY G EDWARD GRIFFIN!
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin
> 
> 
> ...



This is the last time I spoke about Kool aid being real. The mere fact the man mentioned "globalism" is going to be a fun time

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

there used to be a conservative named cots. He was banned for reasons. But, before he got banned, he linked some deep red Kool aid. And right here, your little "news" friend just brought globalism up. I already know where this is going to go, and it's going to be a great time.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 15, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> You friend, have made a terrible mistake. Let's go look where  the idea of globalism comes from
> _just letting you know it comes from a conspiracy  theorist_



There's lots of global organizations that want a one world government. I'm not sure why that's confusing for you. They were introducing the idea to us as kids in school and there's lots of agencies, deals, accords that goal is a one world government. It's funny how the left has to attack everything the right says, which is why I'll ask you the question again.

*Is there anything Trump or the Trump administration has done in the last 4 years that you agree with? 
*
Then I have a second question. 

*You believe globalism is some myth, but if it were real would you want to keep the current way where there's countries each with their own government or would you want a one world government?*


----------



## Joom (Oct 15, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> This is the last time I spoke about Kool aid being real. The mere fact the man mentioned "globalism" is going to be a fun time
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> there used to be a conservative named cots. He was banned for reasons. But, before he got banned, he linked some deep red Kool aid. And right here, your little "news" friend just brought globalism up. I already know where this is going to go, and it's going to be a great time.


I'm just waiting for him to start preaching about how ethnostates would be a good thing.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 15, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> *There's lots of global organizations that want a one world government. *I'm not sure why that's confusing for you. They were introducing the idea to us as kids in school and there's lots of agencies, deals, accords that goal is a one world government. It's funny how the left has to attack everything the right says, which is why I'll ask you the question again.
> 
> *Is there anything Trump or the Trump administration has done in the last 4 years that you agree with?
> *
> ...


*HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*
the KOOL AID ISSS REAL!!


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 15, 2020)

Joom said:


> LOL, there it is. I was just talking about this a few pages back about how it's more applicable to conservatives. I mean look at you. You're pretty deranged.
> 
> The tinfoil is strong with this one. Just say what you really mean; that it's the oogy boogy Jews. And yeah, it kinda is Trump's fault people blindly follow his advice. He gets on TV and makes medical claims without being a doctor or medical scientist. People don't question him because they're delusional enough to take his word as gospel. I was a little off, but it doesn't change the fact that he made spurious medical claims on national television and his moronic followers thought aquarium cleaner was the same thing.
> 
> No, not at all. I can't believe that CBD, something that was already legal before Trump, is a selling point for you. The man's a saint I guess. It's still up to a state's discretion to allow the sale of it, and it's still banned in 3. So, whatever he did, it was nothing for actual reform. Making a donation also isn't good policy. It's not policy at all. I don't give a rats ass about what Trump has done to boost his ego and cult of personality, it's not policy. What little policy he does has done fuck all for the country because he's more focused on being some great performer in the spotlight. This is what fascists do; they get up on stage, do a little jig, and fellate the audience so that they rally behind them. Never once will you hear them discuss policy.



Ah, so you can't list one single thing. You've tested positive for TDS. I'm going to simply ignore what you have to say for now one, there's no point debating with stupid.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



monkeyman4412 said:


> *HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA*
> the KOOL AID ISSS REAL!!



Can't answer the questions?


----------



## Joom (Oct 15, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Ah, so you can't list one single thing. You've tested positive for TDS.


Because there's not a single thing that I like, I'm deranged. Welp, I concede. Big Brain McGee here just won. The thing is, I don't have to lie to myself to make myself believe he's a good president. That's more in line of what TDS actually is. And there's no debate to be had. You're wrong. Period. Why are all of you so damn fragile?


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 15, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Ah, so you can't list one single thing. You've tested positive for TDS. I'm going to simply ignore what you have to say for now one, there's no point debating with stupid.


And you tested positive for deep conspiracies!





definitely doesn't sound like:



and it's written by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin
this guy lmmaaaaao!
It all makes sense why you wear such a big tinfoil hat now!
I don't even need to answer it, you're comedic.



This is so funny I can't even take you seriously!



ALL CREDIT DOWN THE DRAIN!!!!


LINKING AN ARTICLE THAT TALKS ABOUT GLOBALISM! This is beautiful, I can't believe I get to talk about how you conspiracy theorists SLURRP that kool aid!


----------



## Joom (Oct 15, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> LINKING AN ARTICLE THAT TALKS ABOUT GLOBALISM! This is beautiful, I can't believe I get to talk about how you conspiracy theorist SLURRP that kool aid!


It could be worse. He could be posting QAnon rhetoric and how Satan and the democrats are in cahoots with Hollywood and the Jews to sex traffic children.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 15, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Okay, I'll take some time to read over the Wikipedia page, but I just know from experience with other current hot button issues that they are highly slanted to the left and trying to introduce anything that goes against the lefts agenda is either deleted or never approved. I however am not blind to the truth and don't discredit the information because I haven't read it yet. I have no problem reading material on pages that I find don't align to my views, that's something your side is good at.


Wikipedia is not slanted to the left. If you are perceiving it as slanted to the left, it's because the facts contradict your preconceived notions. Wikipedia doesn't deal with political opinion. It deals with facts, and it doesn't take sides. Wikipedia is the greatest compendium of information that exists on this planet. I too have had to change my views because the facts were not what I thought they were. That's called intellectual honesty.

I have no interest in talking about anything positive about Trump, because it's like focusing on the nice dashboard bobblehead in an otherwise smoldering garbage heap of a used car someone's trying to pawn off on me.


----------



## Joom (Oct 15, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Wikipedia is not slanted to the left. If you are perceiving it as slanted to the left, it's because the facts contradict your preconceived notions.


Just remember, he's not the crazy one. It's ~eeeeveryyyooonnne eeeelsse~.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 15, 2020)

@Lacius - Wikipedia's hot topics have a history of being controlled by a select few moderators that lean the to left. Good luck on getting anything that contradicts their gospel past them as they are highly bias against conservative causes. Most of the hot topic pages can't even be edited by outside sources so good luck getting the truth added to them.

@monkeyman4412 @Joom 

As I predicted all 3 of you can't or refuse to answer a simple question, which shows exactly what type of people you all are. I've got no motivation to discuss anything further with people that are so biased they can't list one positive thing Trump has done during his 4 years. Your kind sickens me, I'll pray for you tonight, but I'm done discussing anything with you 3 so your replies will fall of deaf ears.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 15, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> @Lacius - Wikipedia's hot topics have a history of being controlled by a select few moderators that lean the to left. Good luck on getting anything that contradicts their gospel past them as they are highly bias against conservative causes. Most of the hot topic pages can't even be edited by outside sources so good luck getting the truth added to them.
> 
> @monkeyman4412 @Joom
> 
> As I predicted all 3 of you can't or refuse to answer a simple question, which shows exactly what type of people you all are. I've got no motivation to discuss anything further with people that are so biased they can't list one positive thing Trump has done during his 4 years. Your kind sickens me, I'll pray for you tonight, but I'm done discussing anything with you 3 so your replies will fall of deaf ears.


why should I listen to you when your article you linked deals with a known conspiracy theorist/theory? And then repeat it's rhetoric



You lost your credibility entirely through that one article. You're Knee deep in kool aid.


----------



## Joom (Oct 15, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> As I predicted all 3 of you can't or refuse to answer a simple question, which shows exactly what type of people you all are.


Not a fascist? I already knew that. I did give an answer. Sorry I can't think of a single positive thing to say about a man who has 200,000 deaths on his hands due to sheer incompetence. He even allowed himself to get infected. That alone kinda says he's unfit for the job. And like I said, the two things you mentioned speak nothing about his presidency. Propaganda isn't policy. If you can't name any policy you actually agree with, you have no reason to support him other than for his fascist ideology, thus making you a fascist.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 15, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> @Lacius - Wikipedia's hot topics have a history of being controlled by a select few moderators that lean the to left. Good luck on getting anything that contradicts their gospel past them as they are highly bias against conservative causes. Most of the hot topic pages can't even be edited by outside sources so good luck getting the truth added to them.
> 
> @monkeyman4412 @Joom
> 
> As I predicted all 3 of you can't or refuse to answer a simple question, which shows exactly what type of people you all are. I've got no motivation to discuss anything further with people that are so biased they can't list one positive thing Trump has done during his 4 years. Your kind sickens me, I'll pray for you tonight, but I'm done discussing anything with you 3 so your replies will fall of deaf ears.


Wikipedia does not have moderators.

Having me acknowledge something Trump did I approve of is irrelevant to any point I've made in this thread (or in my life), so I see no point in doing so. It's my prerogative to talk about the things I want to talk about and not talk about the things I don't want to talk about. Please don't act like my disinterest in acknowledging one good thing out of a billion bad things, hypothetically, is some sort of gotcha.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 15, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> *Is there anything Trump or the Trump administration has done in the last 4 years that you agree with?
> *
> 
> 
> *You believe globalism is some myth, but if it were real would you want to keep the current way where there's countries each with their own government or would you want a one world government?*



1. I have a friend who works in debt and bankruptcy collections and his business is booming, Trump's handling of the economy has been good for him.

2. There is not a chance in hell that all countries switch to a single world government, it's nonsense.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 15, 2020)

omgcat said:


> 1. I have a friend who works in debt and bankruptcy collections and his business is booming, Trump's handling of the economy has been good for him.
> 
> 2. There is not a chance in hell that all countries switch to a single world government, it's nonsense.


A sufficiently powerful AI or alien invading force could result in a single world government.


----------



## Joom (Oct 15, 2020)

Lacius said:


> A sufficiently powerful AI or alien invading force could result in a single world government.


I'm partial to the idea of a benevolent AI overlord. Imagine a world where war would never be a thing because the ruling entity doesn't believe in a religion nor does it ever need money. I think something other than humans would have to introduce it to the earth, though, because you know humans are gonna find a way to do shady shit with it to have an advantage over others and we just end up in 1984.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 15, 2020)

Lacius said:


> A sufficiently powerful AI or alien invading force could result in a single world government.


*Trump Acknowledges UFOs, Threatens Aliens With Military Action*
https://www.popularmechanics.com/mi...trump-acknowledges-ufos-and-threatens-aliens/

President Donald Trump, when asked about a new Pentagon task force for studying UFOs, replied that he would look into it—and then began boasting about the power of the U.S. military. Some observers saw this as Trump touting his funding of the Department of Defense, while others saw it as a threat to extraterrestrial beings.


----------



## Joom (Oct 15, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> *Trump Acknowledges UFOs, Threatens Aliens With Military Action*
> https://www.popularmechanics.com/mi...trump-acknowledges-ufos-and-threatens-aliens/
> 
> President Donald Trump, when asked about a new Pentagon task force for studying UFOs, replied that he would look into it—and then began boasting about the power of the U.S. military. Some observers saw this as Trump touting his funding of the Department of Defense, while others saw it as a threat to extraterrestrial beings.


Oh man, I hate you. You just made me think of the one thing Trump has done that I like; the establishment of the motherfucking space force. We're gonna conquer the galaxy.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 15, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> *Is there anything Trump or the Trump administration has done in the last 4 years that you agree with? *


Passed the First Step Act.

Out of curiosity, name one good thing that the left has done.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 15, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Passed the First Step Act.
> 
> Out of curiosity, name one good thing that the left has done.


(you stole my answer. I guess there wasn't much).


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 15, 2020)

Joom said:


> Oh man, I hate you. You just made me think of the one thing Trump has done that I like; the establishment of the motherfucking space force. We're gonna conquer the galaxy.


How's the Space Force logo look, Joom?  Remind you of anything?







--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



KingVamp said:


> Passed the First Step Act.


Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act


----------



## Joom (Oct 15, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Out of curiosity, name one good thing that the left has done.


I can't really give a positive answer here, either. The thing is that most democrats aren't leftists, they're moderates. Biden is Mr. Moderate himself, and that's why I never wanted him. Obama really didn't do anything, either. Guantanamo is still open, the affordable care act was just a mandate to have private insurance, and he wreaked havoc on the Middle East with drones. I like that he started pardoning people of non-violent crimes, but Trump has done this as well just as a means to virtue signal. Obama was also the one who started caging up migrant children, even though you never heard about it. Trump and his heinous immigration policies have just put the act in the spotlight. Do I think that's gonna end under Biden and Copmala? Nope. But they're a step in a better direction.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



LumInvader said:


> How's the Space Force logo look, Joom? Remind you of anything?


Lol, yeah. I think there was nearly a lawsuit over trademark because of that.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 15, 2020)

Somebody did something ...






I voted 2020! Now time to personally hand my ballot over to an election official.


----------



## Joom (Oct 15, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Somebody did something ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Neat. Glad I'm not a liberal. You can claim victory over them all you want. But it's rather ironic that you would dislike liberals considering liberalism is nothing but the belief that free thoughts and ideas should exist out in the open. Aren't you conservatives all about "muh freedom of speech"? Kinda antithetical to your belief system to dislike liberals since that's the only thing they're about.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 15, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Passed the First Step Act.
> 
> Out of curiosity, name one good thing that the left has done.



If you mean the previous President then that's easy ... universal health care.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



LumInvader said:


> How's the Space Force logo look, Joom?  Remind you of anything?



I think if Gene Roddenberry were alive today he would be thrilled that the USA chose to design a logo that resembles his creation. It's the US Space Force and not "Trump's Space Force". Can't help haters gonna hate, but the agency is here to stay.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 15, 2020)

Joom said:


> Obama was also the one who started caging up migrant children, even though you never heard about it.


Everything else aside, he also didn't let them stay there for more than 72 hours and didn't purposely split up families. Nor have I read or heard about any other controversies at the border, like the ones happening under Trump.


----------



## Joom (Oct 15, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> If you mean the previous President then that's easy ... universal health care.


I'm almost convinced you're trolling at this point. Nobody in the US believes Obamacare was universal healthcare. You can't even call it that when it was a mandate to buy private insurance. That's not how universal healthcare works. Also, the affordable care act was a republican policy that they tried pushing through in the Bush administration, but the dems shot it down. It wasn't until they lost the senate that it got sent through.


gregory-samba said:


> It's the US Space Force and not "Trump's Space Force". Can't help haters gonna hate, but the agency is here to stay.


Nobody called it that, but glad you still felt it necessary to make that point.



KingVamp said:


> Everything else aside, he also didn't let them stay there for more than 72 hours and didn't purposely split up families


You are right there, but it still didn't really do anything to deter illegal immigration. That said, neither has The Wall™, and that's just been another major drain on the taxpayers. Yeah, let's spend a couple million to paint it black. That'll prevent the wind from blowing over our sheet metal fence! There's also the fact that they're forcing women to receive hysterectomies in these detainment centers, effectively making them sterile. They're also forcing the prisoners to breathe in toxic cleaning solutions that makes them bleed out their orifices. I wonder what other leader out there committed mass sterilization and euthanasia on an ethnic group...hmm...


----------



## omgcat (Oct 15, 2020)

like i said earlier, trump failed to secure funding and construction for the wall even with control of all of congress, and the presidency.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 15, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I think if Gene Roddenberry were alive today he would be thrilled that the USA chose to design a logo that resembles his creation. It's the US Space Force and not "Trump's Space Force". Can't help haters gonna hate, but the agency is here to stay.


Perhaps Gene Roddenberry would be even more thrilled *had they asked for permission first* instead of blatantly ripping off the Starfleet Academy.

I had Space Force scribbled down on my list of Trump accomplishments btw, so do not confuse my poking fun with a policy difference.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 15, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Perhaps Gene Roddenberry would be even more thrilled *had they asked for permission first* instead of blatantly ripping off the Starfleet Academy.
> 
> I had Space Force scribbled down on my list of Trump accomplishments btw, so do not confuse my poking fun with a policy difference.



It doesn't look like they ripped it off to me, but more of took it as inspiration for the final design. I also wouldn't see why anyone would complain about basing a design of a real life Space Force off of the fictional Star Fleet logo. Wait, it's got Trump involved, so of course there's going to be opposition. Trump could claim water is good to drink and almost half of the population of the USA would stop drinking water. The TDS runs deep. Though I'm glad you shared something that you view that Trump did that was positive. Some people can't admit such things due to the hatred flowing in their veins.


----------



## Joom (Oct 15, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Trump did that was positive


Like we needed a space force. Also, I more hate his supporters than Trump himself. He wouldn't get away with a lot of his shit if they weren't bootlicking mouthbreathers who had a single individual thought in their brain. But they all have this sheep-like, hivemind mentality who are opposed to thinking for themselves.You call a movement for peace and prosperity hatred, while the man you support is all about genocide and making sure systemic oppression is here to stay. Right. Anyway, your Mel Gibson avatar is fitting. You're as big a Looney Toon as he is.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 15, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> It doesn't look like they ripped it off to me, but more of took it as inspiration for the final design. I also wouldn't see why anyone would complain about basing a design of a real life Space Force off of the fictional Star Fleet logo. *Wait, it's got Trump involved, so of course there's going to be opposition. Trump could claim water is good to drink and almost half of the population of the USA would stop drinking water. The TDS runs deep.*


Make no mistake, the insignia, flight path around the insignia, text border, three distinct star sizes, and the largest star appearing in the top left quadrant were *clearly lifted* from the Starfleet design.  Whether we frame it as "inspiration for the final design" or "ripped off" -- a copycat is still a copycat. 

You also wrongly assumed that I was against the Space Force, which indicates questionable judgement on your part.  I'd also appreciate it if you'd keep your childish personal attacks to yourself.  You do realize that the Starfleet photo was intended as a joke, correct?  Your bitter responses seem totally random and you say I'm the one with TDS?  

In my defense, I'm an Independent, which means I actively choose which candidate I support.  Gregory-samba, you have no concept of what that's like because your candidate is automatically chosen for you.  So don't tell me about my biases until you get yours fixed first.


----------



## ciaomao (Oct 15, 2020)

BeniBel said:


> The US has a population of over 300.000.000 people, so it comes down to 500 deaths/1.000.000 population. For example, Belgium hasdhas that.
> 
> Numbers never lie, but you have to put them in the correct context. Are those numbers high? Well yes, but they aren't the worst in the world.



IMHO you shouldn't measure yourself against the countries with the highest rates. It is advisable to compare with those who show low numbers. 

The US has 328M people. Divided by 216903 who died because Corona is ~661 deaths per 1M people.
Belgiums rate is 901, Brasil has 758, USA 661, France 493, Germany 117. 

But also interesting is how quick it distrubutes:


----------



## Lacius (Oct 15, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Somebody did something ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The person on the wrong side is often the one doing the name-calling.

Posting a picture of a completed ballot is illegal in some states.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



gregory-samba said:


> If you mean the previous President then that's easy ... universal health care.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


You're a Trump supporter who likes Obamacare?


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 15, 2020)

I wonder what is going to happen with Biden now?

Are they going to shut things down at 9:00 AM every day now and only play prerecorded and virtual things for him moving forward?

They obviously don't want anyone asking him to confirm he has been caught in another lie.  Which would force him to either double down and make things worse for if/when more things are released. Or what I believe is more the case, they are afraid at what he will say if he becomes unhinged or starts to loose focus on key items, and he comes of as crazy/losing his mind - which occurs easily.

Neither Biden or his son Hunter have has said these emails are not real, neither have said that the meeting did not occur.

The furthest they will go is to allow someone on behalf of Biden claim it was not on his schedule that day.  They won't go any further than that.

It's about as damning as an admission at this point for Biden and his son given what has been shared so far, as can be.

I can't wait to see what is coming next.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 15, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Make no mistake, the insignia, flight path around the insignia, text border, three distinct star sizes, and the largest star appearing in the top left quadrant were *clearly lifted* from the Starfleet design.  Whether we frame it as "inspiration for the final design" or "ripped off" -- a copycat is still a copycat.
> 
> You also wrongly assumed that I was against the Space Force, which indicates questionable judgement on your part.  I'd also appreciate it if you'd keep your childish personal attacks to yourself.  You do realize that the Starfleet photo was intended as a joke, correct?  Your bitter responses seem totally random and you say I'm the one with TDS?
> 
> In my defense, I'm an Independent, which means I actively choose which candidate I support.  Gregory-samba, you have no concept of what that's like because your candidate is automatically chosen for you.  So don't tell me about my biases until you get yours fixed first.



You're mistaken in the fact that I'm accusing you of having TDS. It was a general statement to indicate that anything Trump is for the Liberals are against. It wasn't also meant as an attack as realizing certain people suffer from TDS is more of an observation. However, your dislike of the logo did seem to indicate you weren't in agreement with the similarities, which is odd because you claim to approve of the Space Force in general. I don't think they ripped anything off from Star Trek and I'm sure if Gene Roddenberry were alive today he'd not only approve of it, but feel grateful as he was a real patriot and wouldn't side with the Liberals on this issue.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



crimpshrine said:


> I wonder what is going to happen with Biden now?
> 
> Are they going to shut things down at 9:00 AM every day now and only play prerecorded and virtual things for him moving forward?
> 
> ...



What emails? Is it about Biden's *quid pro quo* in official Government negotiations (Burisma) to get his son a job? If that's the case Biden already *admitted guilt to that on live TV*. Biden braged about the quid pro quo in an interview that surface during the hoax Impeachment trial of Trump.

EDIT: I'm all for starting the impeachment of Biden as soon as he wins. It's now precedent to impeach a President because your side can't deal with the fact they lost. If you think I'm being sarcastic I'm not. We should start a campaign to impeach Biden the second he wins. I'm already creating promotional material for a local non-profit that is moving in that direction. Hopefully we can impeach the crook the second he takes office. Hey, there's precedent now, nothing wrong with it, right? Impeachment as a political tool is now the norm.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 15, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> You're mistaken in the fact that I'm accusing you of having TDS. It was a general statement to indicate that anything Trump is for the Liberals are against. It wasn't also meant as an attack as realizing certain people suffer from TDS is more of an observation. However, your dislike of the logo did seem to indicate you weren't in agreement with the similarities, which is odd because you claim to approve of the Space Force in general. I don't think they ripped anything off from Star Trek and I'm sure if Gene Roddenberry were alive today he'd not only approve of it, but feel grateful as he was a real patriot and wouldn't side with the Liberals on this issue.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



GS, there is one specific email that was uncovered that proves Biden lied in the past about this.  I can find the details later. - Also don't lose hope, wasn't Hilary also considerably out raising Trump in 2016 with money?  I don't think it means anything.


--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Wonder if this means more things are coming soon.

https://twitter.com/ChanelRion/status/1316737387943395328?s=20


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 15, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> zGS, there is one specific email that was uncovered that proves Biden lied in the past about this.  I can find the details later. - Also don't lose hope, wasn't Hilary also considerably out raising Trump in 2016 with money?  I don't think it means anything.



I haven't lost hope for the USA, but I've lost hope on these forums. Gbatemp is full of liberal idiots and the only thing liberals know how to do is take and destroy. It's sort of suiting that a liberal population would hover around a page dedicated to stealing Nintendo games. The thing is if these liberals get into power they will destroy the USA as every town will turn into a cesspool of drugs, crime, pollution and perversion just like San Francisco. Their model is one of failure and hopefully they don't get into power, but if they do expect Chicago level crime to overtake the entire country. 

This will be my last post. It's not healthy to keep visiting a page that is full of people trying to make you feel like shit and only want to take from others who work hard and participate in perversions. So I'm out. Peace.


----------



## AkGBA (Oct 15, 2020)

I disagree with you with a lot of subjects. 
But it's healthy to leave when it starts to affect you that much.
Take care.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 15, 2020)

So conservatives are going ape shit over what seems like a fake email  and a supposed pulled of a hard drive.
First red flag within this story (which seemed to originated from NY post)
Was the computer was just "dropped off" with no pay or anything... and it took until now, when it was claimed that it was dropped off in 2019? that doesn't make sense. Trump would be all over it, why is the story just breaking now?
But it was recovered without pay?
Also can we just take a moment at the email?
I'm not aware of any ukrainian people who just put "[email protected]" at the end
It's almost if this was perhaps made up. Google doesn't require you to put your location at the end. If they did, well, my email would have United States at the end.
Another questionable aspect is the "recording"
Computers don't just save recordings when ever. You have to tell it to record... Which is kinda like as if, the recording is made up. Especially given that it's only talked about, when you know. You could of posted the video of the damning evidence? rather than speaking about it?





I've worked in computer repair. The only time you make a copy of a hard drive, is at the very beginning of the recovery process to make sure if any mistakes occur on the main drive, it gets fixed. But after the device is fixed. you then end up deleting the backup of the drive and start working on another computer. So the idea the guy made a backup there and then? When he should of done it before the process? And even then still questionable that he is holding this copy illegally, and then the fact that the video evidence has yet to surface combined with the email feeling like one of those oldest scam tricks in the book.
This entire thing is beyond questionable


----------



## Joom (Oct 15, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Posting a picture of a completed ballot is illegal in some states.


I was thinking it was illegal to take a camera into the polls, but I couldn't remember. Also, I can't believe you smooth brained dunces are still hung up on this hoax. It's moved from being funny to just sad. I mean, you're not gonna convince anyone here otherwise, either, so regurgitating bullshit propaganda just to stroke yourselves isn't doing anything for your cause.



gregory-samba said:


> This will be my last post. It's not healthy to keep visiting a page that is full of people trying to make you feel like shit and only want to take from others who work hard and participate in perversions.


You mean what you've been doing this entire time? Go start you a Trazodone regiment, buddy. I hear it greatly helps one ween themselves off of copium.  I'm also still having a hard time understanding why you think liberals are the only people on the left. Your ignorance is just mind blowing. You indeed have drank entirely too much kool-aid. So yes, please recede to wherever you dwell so you can keep living in fear of the liberals and Jews like the cockroach you are. Like I said, you conservatives are such fragile snowflakes. You can sling shit but you sure can't take it.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 15, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I haven't lost hope for the USA, but I've lost hope on these forums. Gbatemp is full of liberal idiots and the only thing liberals know how to do is take and destroy. It's sort of suiting that a liberal population would hover around a page dedicated to stealing Nintendo games. The thing is if these liberals get into power they will destroy the USA as every town will turn into a cesspool of drugs, crime, pollution and perversion just like San Francisco. Their model is one of failure and hopefully they don't get into power, but if they do expect Chicago level crime to overtake the entire country.
> 
> This will be my last post. It's not healthy to keep visiting a page that is full of people trying to make you feel like shit and only want to take from others who work hard and participate in perversions. So I'm out. Peace.



Yeah GS, I would say don't take it so personally.    I would also say don't go.

As you probably see and realize there are very few of us on either side that care to comment or get involved in debating things like this on this forum.  I believe the majority here don't care enough to debate it.  But I bet many lurk and do read these threads.   So there is a chance someone (from either side) will see a point that they had not considered previously.  

I usually lurk.

I agree that there is a chance they could destroy this country but that is only if they have control at a house/senate level.  There are still checks and balances until that changes.

Polls and dollars generated do not directly equate to end result.  2016 is an example of that.

And it's not done until it is done.  It's getting interesting now 

I am actually now seeing a heck of a lot more discussion surrounding how big tech is complicit in certain things.   This whole hunter biden laptop hard drive has painted a very clear double standard with both certain liberal media outlets ignorning, and social media censoring.  That even people that don't pay attention to this kind of stuff are now talking about.

I think it will all work itself out in the end.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



monkeyman4412 said:


> So conservatives are going ape shit over what seems like a fake email  and a supposed pulled of a hard drive.
> First red flag within this story (which seemed to originated from NY post)
> Was the computer was just "dropped off" with no pay or anything... and it took until now, when it was claimed that it was dropped off in 2019? that doesn't make sense. Trump would be all over it, why is the story just breaking now?
> But it was recovered without pay?
> ...



A bunch (and we have not even seen the rest) of real pictures of Hunter Biden that no one else has have come to light, along with emails (again more that we have not seen yet) and you want to think they are fake?

So the pics are real, but the emails are not?  I am curious what is left that is coming next.

LOL

And coupled with the fact that neither Joe or Hunter will deny this, and his campaign will ONLY commit to claiming it was not on his schedule so it did not happen.

This is not some far fetched conspiracy, and we can see what the peoples reactions are.   I get other what ifs, but removing those for what it is, there are a few things that Joe/Hunter could do to help stop this, which they are NOT doing.

I also think this brings up other valid point that plenty of people are discussing right now.   There are numerous things that are blasted by the media as being true and social media for Trump that are wrong and no one steps in to stop those on either platforms.

Social media should not be censoring things like  this.


----------



## Joom (Oct 15, 2020)

If something is fake, it's fake. Occam's razor tends apply more often than not. When the writing is blatantly on the wall before you, there isn't always a hidden message behind it from the boogeyman. What gets me more is that you who align to the right seem to have this fear fetish. You all choose to live in so much fear that it controls you and impedes your ability to think rationally and critically. And hypothetically, if it is true, who the hell cares about someone smoking crack? He's not running for president. Our current president is performing so many crimes against humanity for everyone to see, and yet that's somehow fine. Why do you think I called Trump supporters white supremacists? If you weren't one, you'd find his actions against minorities abhorrent and deserving of being penalized by the law. You'd say "yeah, this guy is bad for our society as a whole", but instead you're all cowards who can't say what you really think; "YEAH, WE HATE BROWN PEOPLE, TOO". There's no room for you in this day and age, and unfortunately for you, the people on the left are the majority. Conservatism is going to die. If you don't like it, you can always get out. I know you like saying that to the other side. We all know you don't have the stones to do that, though, so just spread them butt cheeks for us because we're about settle in and get comfortable.


----------



## notimp (Oct 15, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> So conservatives are going ape shit over what seems like a fake email  and a supposed pulled of a hard drive.
> First red flag within this story (which seemed to originated from NY post)
> Was the computer was just "dropped off" with no pay or anything... and it took until now, when it was claimed that it was dropped off in 2019? that doesn't make sense. Trump would be all over it, why is the story just breaking now?
> But it was recovered without pay?
> ...


No seems plausible. Store owner alerted FBI, FBI took laptop in December, store owner of course made a copy once he snooped on content, then went to - edit Guliani. Timing is because of the elections.

Stupidity happens.

Also the doxed Hunter Bidens private email

Rebuttlle on the democratic side also is telling: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bi...port-suggesting-then-vp-met-with-burisma-exec


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 15, 2020)

Joom said:


> I was thinking it was illegal to take a camera into the polls, but I couldn't remember. Also, I can't believe you smooth brained dunces are still hung up on this hoax. It's moved from being funny to just sad. I mean, you're not gonna convince anyone here otherwise, either, so regurgitating bullshit propaganda just to stroke yourselves isn't doing anything for your cause.
> 
> 
> You mean what you've been doing this entire time? Go start you a Trazodone regiment, buddy. I hear it greatly helps one ween themselves off of copium.  I'm also still having a hard time understanding why you think liberals are the only people on the left. Your ignorance is just mind blowing. You indeed have drank entirely too much kool-aid. So yes, please recede to wherever you dwell so you can keep living in fear of the liberals and Jews like the cockroach you are. Like I said, you conservatives are such fragile snowflakes. You can sling shit but you sure can't take it.


not to mention it takes a damn warrant by the fbi/police to seize evidence or it cant be used in any legal proceedings 4th amendment also if the guy truely did this he's done something illegal himself not only is it unlawful entry into a computer system at that point but also blackmail


----------



## Joom (Oct 15, 2020)

notimp said:


> once he snooped on content


Which is illegal. There was a lawsuit against Apple recently because there were store employees stealing photos off of customers' iPhones brought in for repair and putting them on the internet. They'd also note the owner's phone number so they could spam them with nudes and other forms of harassment. As a repair shop owner, you're not allowed to dig through somebody's personal property just because they never returned for it. I'm quite convinced the whole story is a lie, though, considering said shop owner is a far-right conspiracy theorist who has made his boner for Trump very public. This whole thing just reeks of confirmation bias.


----------



## notimp (Oct 15, 2020)

Joom said:


> Which is illegal. There was a lawsuit against Apple recently because there were store employees stealing photos off of customers' iPhones brought in for repair and putting them on the internet. They'd also note the owner's phone number so they could spam them with nudes and other forms of harassment. As a repair shop owner, you're not allowed to dig through somebody's personal property just because they never returned for it. I'm quite convinced the whole story is a lie, though, considering said shop owner is a far-right conspiracy theorist who has made his boner for Trump very public. This whole thing just reeks of confirmation bias.


Yes, but the story is bigger. National interest - almost...  Store owner is not necessarily a journalist, neither is Giuliani, so legaly - you could sue, but that would keep the story in the media for longer, so you dont sue. 

Main point imho is though, that 'brokering access to a politician' is not a crime. Its what lobbyists do all day. Children of 'figures of importance' get invented jobs all the time, as part of corporations corruption efforts (Siemens famously had an entire department for that.. ). Somewhere in the corrupt politicians thread there should be an internal statement of afair deutsche bank on 'how to conquer/enter a foreign market'. And those methods definitely are in there.

But - this doesnt prove corruption on Bidens part. Just, maybe, Insincerity to 'guard' his sons image.
This also is a smear campaign, because they released 'drugged up Hunter had fuckvideo on laptop', which as a non yellow press paper you dont do (not of relevance to the bigger story).
And the entire BS about 'in the end it turns out that Russia was them' in the latest Trump speech is still insanity. Ukraine is not Russia. Biden acted on behalf of Western interests in the Ukraine.
And this is not related to China, which Trump also said it definitely was.. 

Idiocy galore.


----------



## Joom (Oct 15, 2020)

notimp said:


> Yes, but the story is bigger. National interest - almost...  Store owner is not necessarily a journalist, neither is Giuliani, so legaly - you could sue, but that would keep the story in the media for longer, so you dont sue.


But who would sue in the first place? The laptop doesn't belong to the Bidens. Supposedly whoever dropped it off was anonymous, which is another red flag. Like, any asshole with enough time and know how can forge emails and spoof their originating location provided the domain chosen doesn't use DKIM keys. Say this site doesn't use them. I can easily use PHP to send an email with an @gbatemp.net address without ever being registered on the server. Malware operators do this all the time to send spam and phishing emails. Photoshop also exists, and we already know that that's used to create false imagery to sell ideas and products. In all honesty, this just feels like a repeat of 2016 and Hillary's emails. They weren't successful there, so might as well try it again since they literally can't find anything else that could make Biden look worse than Trump. This is propaganda, and nothing more.


----------



## notimp (Oct 15, 2020)

Joom said:


> But who would sue in the first place? The laptop doesn't belong to the Bidens. Supposedly whoever dropped it off was anonymous, which is another red flag.


Story goes, that it belongs to Hunter Biden, who the repair was billed to:
https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/

(See page two of court docs - referencing the receipt.)

Of course it could be made up - but it had nice incriminating detail (about the stickers on the laptop), and it would be a grave risk to make something like this up. You then could definitely sue the newspaper for liable.  Which on a story like this, would potentially ruin them. Will see what happens after the election... 

Smearing someone with those kinds of allegations, and 'we have a sex video with you, drugged up' in it, you kinda - only do, when you have - something. Of course at this level of play, the sex video could have been provided by a third party, the emails could still be forged - and then you better not sue, because the public will talk about your sex video for the duration of the lawsuit..


----------



## Joom (Oct 15, 2020)

Yeah, it's definitely slanderous. But like I said, even if this is true, how does this even compare to the monstrosities the Trump administration has committed? He knew Russians were paying Middle Eastern combatants to take out hits on US soldiers and didn't even warn them. He knew COVID was going to be a massive problem, still hasn't enacted a national plan to combat it, and has lied and downplayed it the entire way while the population of the country loses everything and dies. ICE is sterilizing and euthanizing imprisoned immigrants. He also used ICE to body snatch protesters in Portland. The middle class has now joined the lower class thanks to massive tax increases. People with pre-existing conditions can't be covered by insurance. He suggested we start nuking hurricanes to stop them. He went on TV to say COVID's no big deal after he paid $0 for his treatment (which included using aborted fetal tissue, but boy he sure hates abortion), all the while hundreds of thousands have died from it. When the lockdowns began, the citizens got a measly $1,200 while the airlines and Wall Street received billions, which did absolutely nothing to prevent them from tanking. I'm sorry, but Trump is the definition of evil, and this isn't an exaggeration or "ORANGE MAN BAD DURRR". And this "fuck you, I got mine" mentality that exists within our society has got to go away if we ever plan to survive in something other than squalor.


----------



## notimp (Oct 15, 2020)

Stickers on the laptop is a great detail, btw. - if anyone has a photo of Hunter Biden working on his laptop in that timeframe, denying ownership publicly would be very hard.  Of course sticker could have been aquired elsewhere, same with a photo of Hunters laptop at the time, same with Hunters sex tape... But how you make the public believe that is a different question. 

Circumstancial evidence is just too juicy.  Bidens Campaign does good not to push back. 

Is it worse than what Trump did? If thats all thats surfacing, no.  What Hunter allegedly did wasnt even a crime (apart from the drug use  ). Biden probably didnt lie under oath either...  So its a non story. Smear campaign. But oh so juicy.. 

Bigger question is 'abuse of power' in the ukraine persecutor case? But details probably are confidential, and that would be more interesting for the Ukraine than for the US. US very likely doesnt care to release them at all..

Relations with the leadership of Ukraine still very good, just remember, they smeared them with a billion USD credit line..


----------



## Joom (Oct 15, 2020)

Well, sensationalism drives most people's thoughts because they're too 1-dimensional to go "hold up, maybe I should question this and who it's coming from". You create a sensational headline and you can push any agenda you want.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 15, 2020)




----------



## notimp (Oct 15, 2020)

Yeah, message above is fake - but concerns are real. 



Twitter and facebook have to state what made them do it publicly. In a just world.

(Potential reasong f.e. would be - "We were briefed by the FBI, that the laptop contained photos from Hunters hacked icloud account, together with a sex video, that russia made  to compromise Hunter (honeytrap), and fake emails, put on a laptop that was then leaked publicly with the intent to distort...) or something like this..  then they get a get out of jail free card.  )

Also you rightwing professional trolls are killing me, not even when the law is on your side, cant you refrain from making bullshit up, to underline your points.

You never can stick to just the truth, can you?


----------



## Joom (Oct 15, 2020)

shamzie said:


> View attachment 229366


MAYMAYS LOL XD

Also, with you being British, why do you care? You have your own version of Trump who's just as big a failure.



notimp said:


> Yeah, message above is fake - but concerns are real.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh fuck me, Saagar's another fear mongering liar like Tim Pool. Don't take anything he says seriously. And I dunno why I keep having to explain this, but social media companies are privately owned. They can do anything they want with their platform. Find another that'll allow hoaxes and conspiracies if you don't like their terms of service.


----------



## notimp (Oct 15, 2020)

Ne - hes on the agent provocateur channel, hes hit some quite hard truths, then forgot about them two days later, because he had another provocative thing to promote. 

And hes right on this. Twitter and Facebook overstepped boundaries here. Either you are 'just a safe haven', or you are a journalistic outlet - and if you actively censor articles, as 'misinformation' - you better give a reasoning why.

Whats missing is the reasoning.


----------



## Joom (Oct 15, 2020)

notimp said:


> Ne - hes on the agent provocateur channel, hes hit some quite hard truths, then forgot about them two days later, because he had another provocative thing to promote.




If you find time. It's kinda long.


----------



## notimp (Oct 15, 2020)

The high wizard of the white nights of the democratic knights of the rose, is trying to tell me what? That Saagar is an agent provokateur? Yes I said so. 

Any video that begins with 'senate commitee proves that russiagate was real', is buthurt, that his democratic talking points are sometimes made up as well. 

As I said on the issue - sure it was real, but it was intentionally overplayed, and anyone who really, really felt it, because this was russia messing with the american electoral system, also didnt tell the whole story. Which is - if establishment interests cant guard against foreign influence on a sitting president, ... They are so much more relevant than a hand reaching into the state from russia, spending 350k on facebook PR, found by counting ads bought with rubel...

If you are inthe 'DNC is gospel' party - you've been just as brainwashed... If you are butthurt, that this talking point didnt lead to Trumps impeachment - even now, you havent understood the first thing about why those impeachment hearings were held (outcome always was clear, even a year prior).

So your better off, listening to some of that Saagar guys talking points - just understand, that ackording to them, everything is a scandal - because they've time to fill in a broadcast show - but at least they are talking about some of the finer points that you'll never hear on lets say MSNBC..  Agent provocateur channel.


----------



## Joom (Oct 15, 2020)

notimp said:


> f you are inthe 'DNC is gospel' party - you've been just as brainwashed


Hardly. People who are actually on the left despise the DNC. Like I said previously, I'm not a liberal and I don't like Biden, and the fact that the DNC chose him just by virtue of being Obama's VP is a joke. I don't like either party and would much prefer to see them both done away with. But once again, I'm left voting for the lesser of two evils, and people on the left are really sick and tired of doing so. Biden is a right leaning moderate. To think he's on the left means you're severely misinformed.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 15, 2020)

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/c-...admits-he-lied-about-his-twitter-being-hacked






All over this that he lied about that he meant to send privately:

"@Scaramucci should I respond to trump," Scully wrote in the now-deleted tweet. 

So the 2nd debate would have been Trump against the moderator and Biden again.

What BS.


----------



## notimp (Oct 15, 2020)

Joom said:


> Hardly. People who are actually on the left despise the DNC. Like I said previously, I'm not a liberal and I don't like Biden, and the fact that the DNC chose him just by virtue of being Obama's VP is a joke. I don't like either party and would much prefer to see them both done away with. But once again, I'm left voting for the lesser of two evils, and people on the left are really sick and tired of doing so. Biden is a right leaning moderate, To think he's on the left means you're severely misinformed.



My point was - someone that has to act 'flustered' and 'miffed' because that Saagar TV show pundit, DARED to compare russiagate with the "postal scandal". ('Postal scandal is this years russiagate.' Which btw. I agree is a silly comparison.), is still so miffed on the 'russiagate was ultimately treated like a rumor' 'issue' -- that they refuse to see, that yes, most of how it was played was indeed 'rumoresque' (Russia basically took over the US by now - I hear *snark*) - even though the thing really took place.

I have a personal petpeeve with liberals that all of a sudden, in the middle of Germany, or neighboring countries got all flustered and scared 'what to do russia could hack my countries elections with facebook influence posts, also!' - just because the DNC said so.

Well and the FBI (?) did the usual thing of stating something without showing proof 'DNC hacked by the russians', so every liberal medium in the west of course copied the opinion as fact, word for word.

Stuff like that has me miffed. (Attribution of online hacks, or hacking tools is _hard_.) Other than that. No Putin fan. 

edit The game russia is playing is not 'we take over america'. The game russia is playing is, usually low financing (at least initially), high risk, lets influence international relations that its a sh*t show, so we can invade neighboring countries to 'stabilize'. That worked out pretty well. But for some reason some people, usually close to the DNC still want history rewritten, that russia basically stole their elections, and republicans had impeachment over that stoped in the senate.

And thats never the whole honest truth..  (It imho pretty much negates everything else, and perpetuates the 'we werent responsibe for a lost election, russia was' myth.)

Trump is much more likely to be payed off by the Mercers, or the Military industrial complex, for his entire domestic policy, and their changes in arms race policies, than by freaking russia. Hes also more likely able to monetize those connections than to act based on an outstanding loan, potentially backed by russian banks. If anything its a 'you look away' arrangement. Wheres that part of the russiagate was real, story? The part that would make every american instantly uninterested. (We dont care about the rest of the world.)


----------



## omgcat (Oct 15, 2020)

shamzie said:


> View attachment 229366



more like "you're a fucking retard plz stop"

do people not realize this is the same shit that got trump impeached in the first place?
"*metadata on the PDF files purporting to show Hunter Biden’s emails published by the Post suggest they were created on a Mac laptop on September 29 and October 10, 2019—around the same time Giuliani’s Ukrainian associates who helped him dig up dirt on the Bidens, Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas, were arrested and charged with breaking campaign finance laws. The timing of the creation of those PDF files—several months after Biden allegedly dropped off his laptop at the PC repair store in April 2019—raises questions about how and when Giuliani came into possession of the purported emails.*"

if you guys aren't keeping track, Igor and Lev both worked with Guilliani and owned a company called "*Fraud Guarantee*".
*
Giuliani told Reuters that Fraud Guarantee paid him half a million dollars for consulting and legal advice. And Parnas says he and Giuliani also worked closely in Ukraine.
*
*https://www.npr.org/2019/10/23/771849041/how-a-complicated-web-connects-2-soviet-born-businessmen-with-the-impeachment-in*


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Oct 15, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I haven't lost hope for the USA, but I've lost hope on these forums. Gbatemp is full of liberal idiots and the only thing liberals know how to do is take and destroy. It's sort of suiting that a liberal population would hover around a page dedicated to stealing Nintendo games. The thing is if these liberals get into power they will destroy the USA as every town will turn into a cesspool of drugs, crime, pollution and perversion just like San Francisco. Their model is one of failure and hopefully they don't get into power, but if they do expect Chicago level crime to overtake the entire country.
> 
> This will be my last post. It's not healthy to keep visiting a page that is full of people trying to make you feel like shit and only want to take from others who work hard and participate in perversions. So I'm out. Peace.



Hypocrite much? One by one I'm blocking all of the severely mentally handicapped Trumptards. Buh bye now.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 15, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Hypocrite much? One by one I'm blocking all of the severely mentally handicapped Trumptards. Buh bye now.



The jerk calling people names can't read.  Too funny.  He said it was his last post.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 15, 2020)

*Anti-Biden Disinformation Decried by Disinfo Experts, Social-Media Giants; A Trump-tied newspaper floats dubious accusations. Will others bite?*
https://www.defenseone.com/technolo...formation-experts-social-media-giants/169270/

Notable quotes:


> On Wednesday, cybersecurity professionals, disinformation experts, and lawmakers urged journalists to be careful in their coverage of a “bombshell” _New York Post_ story aimed at Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden.
> 
> The _Post _story claims that newly discovered emails show — in the face of widely available evidence to the contrary — that Hunter Biden helped persuade his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to push Ukraine to fire prosecutor Viktor Shokin for anti-corruption efforts. In fact, Biden sought Shokin’s firing because the Ukrainian was blocking anti-corruption efforts.





> The provenance of the emails themselves is, to put it mildly, dubious. The _Post_ story states that they come from a water-damaged laptop that was “dropped off at a repair shop in Biden’s home state of Delaware in April 2019, according to the store’s owner.” The owner made a copy of the hard drive, turned the computer over to the FBI, but then inexplicably gave copies of his client’s files to Robert Costello, a lawyer for Rudy Giuliani, former New York City mayor-turned-Trump booster. The owner of the laptop never returned to retrieve it, according to the _Post. _





> Even if that remarkable series of events were true and the emails were real, they only suggest that Joe Biden may have agreed to meet one of Hunter Biden’s business partners. They don’t reveal actual wrongdoing.





> The _Post_ story also omits key details, including that Giuliani has acknowledged working closely with Andriy Derkach, a Kremlin ally sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury for pushing disinformation intended to sway the 2020 election. It omits that the gas company in question was recently attacked by the same Russian, state-backed hacking team that stole emails from the Democratic National Committee in 2016. It does not mention recent intelligence community assessments that Russia is still attempting to influence the U.S. presidential election to the benefit of Donald Trump.





> Disinformation watchers on Wednesday were quick to point out the deeply problematic nature of the story and urge journalists and news outlets to be careful in how they covered it.
> 
> Peter Singer, a strategist at New America and the co-author of _LikeWar: The Weaponization of Social Media__,_ a book about disinformation, tweeted: “as I read stories like this, it makes me reflect on what some in media (especially on security beat) have learned from 1) the experience of being an unintentional player in info ops and 2) the perils of #bothsides equivalence.”





> Kyle Cheney, a congressional reporter for _Politico_, tweeted, “The 'smoking gun' email in the NY Post story — even if it is authentic, given the massive red flags — doesn't actually say what the story says it does.”
> 
> |Again, stipulating that the suspect email is real, there's literally nothing in it that says Joe Biden met with a Burisma adviser.
> |
> ...





> Marc Ambinder, a security expert in residence with the University of Southern California Annenberg School, pointed out that that chain of events had all the hallmarks of a Russian disinformation operation.
> 
> |- mysterious circumstances (which gin up conspiratorial thinking)
> |- deniability (witnesses can’t remember key facts about the chain of custody of the information)
> ...





> John Scott-Railton with the University of Toronto's Citizen Lab project highlighted a thread on the subject by cybersecurity researcher Thomas Rid, author of _Active Measures: The Secret History of Disinformation And Political Warfare__._  “Every journalist should read this thread: Critical advice on vetting of questionable stories that involve emails,” said Railton.
> 
> Rid’s thread picks apart the story and urges “journalists considering writing about this toxic story: don't—unless you can independently verify more details. And even if you can verify something, acknowledge the possibility of disinformation up-front, especially against the backdrop of 2016. Not doing so is bad practice.”
> 
> ...



Website's bias rating: Neutral:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/defense-one/
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/defense-one-media-bias


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Oct 15, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> The jerk calling people names can't read.  Too funny.  He said it was his last post.



Another deplorable hypocrite. You just called me a name. See how that works? Also, I can read just fine. Do I need to tell you how many times I've seen someone say it was their last post here? Bye bye. You won a spot on my complete dotard block list.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 15, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> *Anti-Biden Disinformation Decried by Disinfo Experts, Social-Media Giants; A Trump-tied newspaper floats dubious accusations. Will others bite?*
> https://www.defenseone.com/technolo...formation-experts-social-media-giants/169270/
> 
> Notable quotes:
> ...



I have to LOL at the gymnastics here.


If is is untrue all Biden has to do is make a direct statement indicating in very specific words it is.

It's very simple.  So simple it's not even funny.

Kind of like the same thing people time after time have been asking from Trump on white supremacy.

Having his campaign state that it is untrue because it was not on his calendar for that day looks pretty bad.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



D34DL1N3R said:


> Another deplorable hypocrite. You just called me a name. See how that works? Also, I can read just fine. Do I need to tell you how many times I've seen someone say it was their last post here? Bye bye. You won a spot on my complete dotard block list.



All of your messages I have seen from you is you calling someone something I believe.

Like I care.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Oct 15, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> If is is untrue all Biden has to do is make a direct statement indicating in very specific words it is.


Not his burden of proof though, dear sir.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 16, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> Not his burden of proof though, dear sir.



It becomes even more so when his campaign makes it clear they will not go as far as to deny the information is invalid or inaccurate.   JUST that it did not happen, it was not on his calendar.

Especially since everything on the hard drive lines up with time line and what you would expect from both of them.

Do you think all the photos of Hunter Biden (which have never been seen before) are deep fakes?

No matter what is found people like you will say, but this, or but that.   I would not expect anything less.  But not everyone is like you, and it is getting a lot of attention.

(and when I say people like you, I mean people that will justify or deny there is any validity to this)

From multiple angles.  I am sure we are nowhere near done with this yet.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 16, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> Not his burden of proof though, dear sir.


Bingo.

With unverified documents and no smoking gun, Biden's best move for now is to dismiss the story and move on.  This is the very reason why we're seeing so much focus on what Biden said or hasn't said, because in absence of actual proof, accusers are left with no choice but to twist Biden's response and use it against him. 

With Biden leading nationally by over 10 points and with only 2.5 weeks until election day, accusers are desperately puffing this story up in the hopes it erodes Biden support.  That's precisely the reason why this story was released and when it was released.


----------



## gizmomelb (Oct 16, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Maybe you should look up the origins of fascism. It's a system created by communists/socialists. You don't look too smart labeling something the right with ideology from the left.



And you don't look too smart without knowing the deeper meaning and history - I guess watching the short video that echoed your wanted opinions was enough 'research' for you.

Maybe your fake news site should also look up the origins of Fascism - yes it originated in Italy by the working class socialists, but it was twisted and adopted RIGHT WING political ideals of exclusion and violence to victimise and abolish the bourgeois middle class (same in Germany).  Simply put it's just like the message in George Orwell's book Animal Farm was corrupted from a socialist "All animals are equal" to a fascsist "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".

 As Mussolini himself put it, “Fascism denies that the majority, through the mere fact of being a majority, can rule human societies… [Fascism] affirms the irremediable, fruitful and beneficent inequality of men, who can not be leveled by… universal suffrage.” ie: it is the antithesis of democracy and social equality (socialism).


I'll put it in bold and capitalise it since SO MANY FUCKING PEOPLE HAVE NO IDEA OF THE *DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM*.

Both *socialism *and* communism* place great value on creating a more equal society and removal of class privilege. The main *difference* is that *socialism* is compatible with democracy and liberty, whereas *Communism* involves creating an 'equal society' through an authoritarian state, which denies basic liberties.


Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion

Fascist philosophies vary by application (Germany's (and to an extent so was Japan's) was racism, Italy's was class based), but remain distinct by one theoretical commonality: all traditionally fall into the far-right sector of any politcal spectrum, catalyzed by afflicted class identities over conventional social inequities.

So yes, Trump's MAGA and Proud Boy militia supporters are a direct example of Fascism on the rise in America.  Trump wants to make America Great (so did Mussolini and Hitler).  Mussolini wanted the trains to run on time in Italy and executed train drivers if the trains were late.  What does Trump want in regards to healthcare, minimal wages and employee safety (EHS / OHS) and who has he decided is  expedient in order to keep the wheels of capitalism and business turning?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



gregory-samba said:


> I also don't know what you and @Lacius are on about. The two links I shared that dig into the origins of Fascism might be posted on a site you both dislike, but that doesn't mean the material isn't sound. It's not the only site that digs into the origins of fascism. I suggest you watch the video and research some of the topics used in the video. The main person responsible for creating fascism studied under the creators of socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You don't get it do you?   The graphic above and the scale they use is reversed.. so that conveniently the arrow towards communism and fascism points left.

As for your not going to the wiki 'because it's full of leftist propaganda", the sources you're citing are DIRECTLY full of right wing propaganda being twisted to show the light they want.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 16, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/c-...admits-he-lied-about-his-twitter-being-hacked
> 
> View attachment 229376
> 
> ...




What a TURD of a human being this guy is. Blatantly biased, conflict of interest in even moderating the debate in the first place due to past association with Biden, caught in unethical communications revealing derision for the President, then lies about it when exposed.

I thought it was a mistake but maybe this dueling town halls thing is a better idea. Just have to watch out for the media pulling their "undecided voter" trick. (LINK)


----------



## notimp (Oct 16, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> *Anti-Biden Disinformation Decried by Disinfo Experts, Social-Media Giants; A Trump-tied newspaper floats dubious accusations. Will others bite?*
> https://www.defenseone.com/technolo...formation-experts-social-media-giants/169270/
> 
> Notable quotes:
> ...


The evidence regarding to the contrary is none. That the case lay dormant doesnt prove, that there werent interests to get it killed. That there were voices angered about the prosecutors inaction on Burisma, doesnt prove that he later did not push to investigate. The key proposal, that the case lay dormant at the time Biden intervened, could be produced by prior interventions by the US - nothing here is proof. On the other hand, nothing here is obviously false either.

It would seem odd, that Biden actually bragged about something that could so easily incriminate him of wrongdoing though. At the same time it would seem odd, that Biden had the prosecutor fired, because - as the Radio Liberty (of course..  ) article states 'he didnt investigate his sons workplace fast enough'.

On the radio liberty front: US probably has interests to not have this story framed as a personal vendetta, because it would implicate the US as having been part of 'shady deals' (get him fired, or you wont get the credit line). The argument, that the US would only do such a thing, to 'fight corruption' is none (thats not the case). That said - that doesnt mean that Biden obviously didnt do it to 'fight corruption' its just story vs story at this point.  With a release that late in the reelection campaign, it doesnt spell 'people seeking the truth' though.. 


All other notions that you bring in the posting are circumstantial. People saying 'this has the smell of something thats probably a disinformation campaign'.

While I agree (newspaper used, smear campaign components, no actual crime commited, story doesnt say what Trump campaign says it says (meeting could never have taken place).., this doesnt disprove the parts of the claims, that need disproving. 

So if 'it smells fishy' is your defense against a smear campaign - fine, but it doesnt automatically render the parts of the story that are brought forward as proof of alleged wrongdoing - wrong. 

So censoring the story on part of facebook and twitter is still - a political action. It seems.


----------



## notimp (Oct 16, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> What a TURD of a human being this guy is. Blatantly biased, conflict of interest in even moderating the debate in the first place due to past association with Biden, caught in unethical communications revealing derision for the President, then lies about it when exposed.


Thats not the story.



> "For several weeks, I was subjected to relentless criticism on social media and in conservative news outlets regarding my role as moderator for the second presidential debate, including attacks aimed directly at my family," Scully wrote. "This culminated on Thursday, October 8th when I heard President Trump go on national television twice and falsely attack me by name. Out of frustration, I sent a brief tweet addressed to Anthony Scaramucci. The next morning when I saw that this tweet had created a controversy, I falsely claimed that my Twitter account had been hacked."



Story is that of insane pressures against his person, then inconsiderate action, then wrongdoing - trying to save his personal career, then his network suspending him.

Of course republicans would kick such a person more - for failures commited in the future, that didnt take place. Republicans are the party of people that kick others, when they are down.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 16, 2020)

Wow the town halls were bad tonight for different reasons.

George Stephanopoulos did not push back at all with Biden on anything.    Never asking what Biden would do differently to prevent the # they keep saying over and over again on Covid-19 deaths.  So much more of that kind of crap.  

And of course Biden is never asked about the newly released information that neither he or his campaign has denied as being legitimate.   Ever since that info has been released he has been hiding or doing virtual events where he does not have to face potential questions regarding this.  

And you know when it finally happens, he is just going to say it was debunked already.  Come on man, that was debunked.

I can't see any way you will get him saying on record that any of the information obtained is illegitimate or fake.

Savannah Guthrie was basically debating trump in-between questions.

All these blatent double standards, hard to ignore.


----------



## notimp (Oct 16, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> George Stephanopoulos did not push back at all with Biden on anything. Never asking what Biden would do differently to prevent the # they keep saying over and over again on Covid-19 deaths. So much more of that kind of crap.
> 
> And of course Biden is never asked about the newly released information that neither he or his campaign has denied as being legitimate. Ever since that info has been released he has been hiding or doing virtual events where he does not have to face potential questions regarding this.


Hey, never thought I would say this, but if true (didnt watch them yet), thats fair criticism. 

Although the second one doesnt mean 'corrupt media' per se. That whole complex currently is a sh*tshow, and was very likely made public to be a sh*tshow. So media refusing to play it up is fair. But - the entire notion that this is a disinformation op - is not based on factual arguments, just circumstancial ones - largely created by spin. 

'Censoring it' wouldnt be my first idea, if I were running an independent media outlet. 

To be fair though, the story really isnt about Biden, its about Bidens son. There is no proof of Bidens wrongdoing.

Now the question becomes, do you believe the american people could differentiate that?  To which the answer is no. To which everyone  on the ultra right responds with 'fake media, not telling you the TRUTHtm'... 
Showing restraint here (not reporting), isnt wrong. (As a journalistic outlet you are at danger of being used for campaign PR purposes mainly.)

Censorship (what twitter and facebook are engaged in) is. At least if you arent absolutely certain, that that story is bull - which currently, you cant be. So your actions are political, and they are partial. They might still not be wrong though. (History will tell.  )


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 16, 2020)

notimp said:


> Thats not the story.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Boo fuckin hoo. He was accused of being biased, based on the obvious conflict of interest he had in moderating the debate in the first place. Then he proved the accusations correct in an unforced error. I'm glad C-SPAN did the right thing. He has tainted the credibility of Presidential debates almost as badly as Donna Brazile, and that's saying something.


----------



## notimp (Oct 16, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Boo fuckin hoo. He was accused of being biased, based on the obvious conflict of interest he had in moderating the debate in the first place. Then he proved the accusations correct in an unforced error. I'm glad C-SPAN did the right thing. He has tainted the credibility of Presidential debates almost as badly as Donna Brazile, and that's saying something.


Kicking a person when he is down.

The one thing all republicans love to agree on is a marvelous game to play. Because the highest sin you can commit as a republican is to stand against the unified party opinion. Republicans strongTM; because we speak with one voice.

Thats corruption you can trust in. #therealheardbehavior  #stampede #goodsoldier


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 16, 2020)

notimp said:


> Kicking a person when he is down.




Calling a proven liar a liar.

Oh by the way, Joe Biden's been proven a liar recently too. And corrupt to the eyeballs. But Twitter will ban you if you mention it.


----------



## Vovajka (Oct 16, 2020)

Is anyone here that voted for Trump in 2016, is going to vote for Biden?


----------



## Lacius (Oct 16, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Calling a proven liar a liar.
> 
> Oh by the way, Joe Biden's been proven a liar recently too. And corrupt to the eyeballs. But Twitter will ban you if you mention it.


Twitter doesn't ban people for claiming someone lied.

All politicians lie or are wrong. The difference is Biden does it 1 time for everytime Trump does it a thousand times (hyperbolically, of course).


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 16, 2020)

notimp said:


> Hey, never thought I would say this, but if true (didnt watch them yet), thats fair criticism.
> 
> Although the second one doesnt mean 'corrupt media' per se. That whole complex currently is a sh*tshow, and was very likely made public to be a sh*tshow. So media refusing to play it up is fair. But - the entire notion that this is a disinformation op - is not based on factual arguments, just circumstancial ones - largely created by spin.



Since  I don't work in those circles I don't have first handle knowledge of what is really going on.  But something is going on, have no idea what it is, but something is.  0 questions about the information bombshell. 

Watch them both if you care and see what you think.

In my opinion if I were to rate the level at which each moderator took initiative to get answers out of each person I would say:

(1 being lowest - 10 being highest)

George Stephanopoulos - Biden - 2.5
Savannah Guthrie - Trump - 8.0




> Censoring it' wouldnt be my first idea, if I were running an independent media outlet.
> 
> To be fair though, the story really isnt about Biden, its about Bidens son. There is no proof of Bidens wrongdoing.



But there is, at least one of the emails that were present on that hard drive was direct evidence that Joe met with someone from Burisma in April of 2015 which goes directly against against what Biden said before about that he had never spoken to his son Hunter about his overseas business dealings. 

The email is this guy thanking Hunter for the meeting with him and his dad.  And asking for another meeting with his dad.

So it confirms there was a quid pro quo and he was doing it for his son who was getting paid and from other emails found, Biden takes a cut of his kids money they get.  Which is also gathered from the emails.  There are other emails that have been released showing money he was getting from China too. 

It's bad in my opinion.  Especially when the President was impeached for far less.




> Now the question becomes, do you believe the american people could differentiate that?  To which the answer is no. To which everyone  on the ultra right responds with 'fake media, not telling you the TRUTHtm'...
> Showing restraint here (not reporting), isnt wrong. (As a journalistic outlet you are at danger of being used for campaign PR purposes mainly.)
> 
> Censorship (what twitter and facebook are engaged in) is. At least if you arent absolutely certain, that that story is bull - which currently, you cant be. So your actions are political, and they are partial. They might still not be wrong though. (History will tell.  )




I agree that the common American person understands little of what is going on with this specifically.    But it does not take much to make people believe someone is shifty and they are hiding something.  And the censoring of certain social media outlets of this information coupled with all the attention that has brought is likely making common people look.  For example Hunter Biden was like 2nd place from what I could see in top google searches for Wed October 14th.  You don't want this kind of negative attention.

My opinion is they should all be held to the same standards.  In the USA what information people have access to should not be censored or influenced by one party.


----------



## Joom (Oct 16, 2020)

In case anyone is still confused about whether or not the left supports Biden, this is the general consensus of pretty much all of us.



An empty suit centrist who is too bought by the corporations to actually make any changes in this country. But we all kinda agree that he's not a delusional fuckwit like Trump who wants to see everyone dead who opposes him. And once you Trump supporters stop being useful idiots to him, you become just as expendable as us. He doesn't care about you or your life. If he did he would have done something to help you during this pandemic. He doesn't care if you and your family become homeless. He doesn't care if you choke to death from a disease he could have prevented. Please, I implore you all to pull your heads out of your asses to save your own lives, because this is no longer a Democrats vs Republicans issue. This isn't a God damned football game, so stop treating it as if actual human lives, including your own, aren't on the line.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 16, 2020)

One other thing I just read is that 20 minute after the news break, Hunter Bidens lawyer called the computer repair shop and sent an email asking if he could have the hard drive back.  And they say they have that email.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 16, 2020)

Trump was very stupid to do his town hall side by side. the difference in the disposition of the candidates is striking. a lot of people are not happy with how trump acted going into the meeting and during it.

as for all the hunter nonsense, if these emails existed before April of 2019, why were the PDF's created in October of 2019?

Like these people are so inept, they have no idea that digital forensics are a things, let alone how to not make themselves look retarded. it's like that word document the trump administration purported as proof, but they forgot to turn off the changes history.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...convert-a-word-doc-to-pdf-helped-prosecutors/

hopefully some of you guys can unslope your forehead enough to realize you're being duped.

on top of that, this shit doesn't work when people know it's gong to happen.

*White House was warned Giuliani was target of Russian intelligence operation to feed misinformation to Trump*


----------



## Joom (Oct 16, 2020)

omgcat said:


> Like these people are so inept, they have no idea that digital forensics are a things, let alone how to not make themselves look retarded. it's like that word document the trump administration purported as proof, but they forgot to turn off the changes history.


The sad thing is that Trump isn't even a good fascist. At least Hitler was an actually intelligent man. The fact that Trump has such a mass following of dipshits just speaks about how stupid the American people are. It honestly feels like we're living in the movie Idiocracy, and we're just a couple of years away from Taco Bell running the country and the water supply being replaced with a knockoff, government approved Gatorade.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 16, 2020)

Joom said:


> The sad thing is that Trump isn't even a good fascist. At least Hitler was an actually intelligent man. The fact that Trump has such a mass following of dipshits just speaks about how stupid the American people are. It honestly feels like we're living in the movie Idiocracy, and we're just a couple of years away from Taco Bell running the country and the water supply being replaced with a knockoff, government approved Gatorade.



that happens when there is a concerted effort to push anti-intellectualism and de-fund education.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 16, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> But there is, *(ALLEGEDLY) at least one of the emails that were present on that hard drive was direct evidence that Joe met with someone from Burisma* in April of 2015 which goes directly against against what Biden said before about that he had never spoken to his son Hunter about his overseas business dealings.
> 
> The email is this guy *(ALLEGEDLY)* thanking Hunter for the meeting with him and his dad.  And* (ALLEGEDLY)* asking for another meeting with his dad.
> 
> ...


Except it's not direct evidence unless they've been independently verified as authentic, which they have not.  Portraying them as authentic before they've been proven as such is dishonest.


----------



## Joom (Oct 16, 2020)

omgcat said:


> that happens when there is a concerted effort to push anti-intellectualism and de-fund education.




Also, note how not a single Trump supporter here hasn't said anything about how they aren't actually a white supremacist or a fascist. It's all been "YEAH BUT THIS SCANDAL WITH THE CRACK PIPE", and how I'm the scumbag racist for calling them out on it.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 16, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Except it's not direct evidence unless they've been independently verified as authentic, which they have not.  Portraying them as authentic before they've been proven as such is dishonest.



But writing an article like the Atlantic did based on however many anonymous sources is OK and meanwhile you have 20+ real named people who claim the allegations being made are untrue, but that is allowed to be broadcast and still being used as truth by liberals to this day.

The campaign has not one time said this information on t he hard drive is not true or inaccurate.  

Joe Biden has never said the information on the hard drive is not true or inaccurate.

Hunter Biden has never said the information on the hard drive is not true or inaccurate.

They have had well over 36 hours at this point to make that designation.  The furthest they would go was through a 3rd party say that it can't be true because the one email in question (the meeting in April) could not have occurred because Biden's calendar says he was busy.  

And it will only get worse if the laptop in the possession of the FBI someone has not managed to destroy or lose by now.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 16, 2020)

So just so I follow this story: Hunter Biden, who lives in Los Angeles, decides to fly 3000 miles across country, to drop off 3 MacBook Pros at a repair shop run by a blind guy who charges the insanely low price of $85. Hunter gets off the plane and drunk drives to the repair shop (Ignoring all the repair shops in LA). He drops them off, signs a contract for repair and then disappears, never to be seen again by the repair man. The repair shop owner recovers and reads Hunter's *private* emails, a few of which mention a possible meeting with his dad and is so alarmed, he contacts the FBI.

The FBI arranges to pick up the hard drives, but the computer repair shop owner takes a totally normal step of copying them. Once he realizes the FBI isn't doing anything with them, he calls up Rudy Giulliani some how and hands them the contents of these drives.

That Rudy sits on them for months, then chooses to release them 3 weeks before the election. The mainstream media asks to independently verify their validity but said ex-Mayor does what all people trying to prove facts do and ignores these requests.

Is this how stupid we are now? No one who does data recovery would read through thousands of personal emails, even if the computer is abandoned. You'd just wipe the drives clean and sell the computers used. If these emails were as alarming as it's being pushed, Giuliani wouldn't have sat on them for months.


And if Giuliani wanted to prove their validity, he'd turn them over to forensic experts.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 16, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> But writing an article like the Atlantic did based on however many anonymous sources is OK and meanwhile you have 20+ real named people who claim the allegations being made are untrue, but that is allowed to be broadcast and still being used as truth by liberals to this day.
> 
> The campaign has not one time said this information on t he hard drive is not true or inaccurate.
> 
> ...


My response to you was about YOU treating this information as fact.  It is not fact.  Neither the laptop or the emails have been independently verified for authenticity.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 16, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> But writing an article like the Atlantic did based on however many anonymous sources is OK and meanwhile you have 20+ real named people who claim the allegations being made are untrue, but that is allowed to be broadcast and still being used as truth by liberals to this day.



you mean the time trump talked shit about the military members? just like how he blamed the gold star families for getting him sick?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-gold-star-event-experts-disagree/5936784002/

on one side you have a story that is batshit and doesn't make sense in 10 different ways, and on the other you have a story where everyone agrees that it's something trump would do.


----------



## notimp (Oct 16, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> But there is, at least one of the emails that were present on that hard drive was direct evidence that Joe met with someone from Burisma in April of 2015 which goes directly against against what Biden said before about that he had never spoken to his son Hunter about his overseas business dealings.


Which would be equal to 'lying to the public', with a motive of "we dont know why", could even be to protect the public standing of his son. Also, meeting with someone is not a crime yet. Neither is lying to the public on a 'personal matter'. What doesnt come out of the mails is a 'proof' of conflict of interest, that would have hurt the US in any way - or potentially could have. Great sensationalist concepts (even with sexvideo!), not much substance.  And the authenticity of the mails is in question (hard to prove, either way. Not impossible. journalists are trying (Cross reference with Bidens official meeting calendar that day, ...)

edit: Also, if you were a journalist - and you would be confronted with a whistleblower that said the exact same thing 'the laptop allegedly said', you'd probably not bring it as a story, because you cant prove 'source integrity'. I.e. does the source 'know what they are talking about'? I.e. do they understand (because of their niche education level, because of their position within the company they are whistleblowing on, ...) what they are talking about?

I have laptop, with strange stuff on it! I promise I got it from Hunter! Doesnt really qualify...  So you should be highly suspicious...  Which is probably why Giuliani had to go to a yellow press outlet to get the story published.


That facebook and twitter are censoring here is the bigger story imho.  Because even with good intentions (high probability this is just PR), taking direct influence on how stories propagate by 'turning a nub on the algorithm - for that particular one' - is basically destroying democracy.

Speaking in Alan Moore allegories (who is a crazy mad man, btw..  but with the right upbringing..  ):



> We are told to remember the idea, not the man, because a man can fail. He can be caught, he can be killed and forgotten, but 400 years later, an idea can still change the world.


Except when it obviously cant, because you control the system over which ideas propagate. 

and



> Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?


To which the answer is - we all do, execept we cant if there is open media censorship in democracy. 

Social media might still do it with the best intentions (we know what propagates in our systems, and its the most sensationalistic BS), but that they are doing it in this case (implied: and not in others,but even that they can do it in general) - is an issue.

Because you dont have a second facebook/twitter around (that would come even close in reach) - when you need them. And you cant easily found them.


----------



## Joom (Oct 16, 2020)

*THIS JUST IN, LEAKED PHOTO FROM ANONYMOUS EMAIL PROVES TRUMP IS OBESE FUCK WHO USES BODY DOUBLE. 100% REAL 2020!
*
Scientists say he's one KFC bucket away from throwing off the planet's rotational axis!
*




*
See, I can make up corny sensational bullshit too.


----------



## notimp (Oct 16, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> One other thing I just read is that 20 minute after the news break, Hunter Bidens lawyer called the computer repair shop and sent an email asking if he could have the hard drive back.  And they say they have that email.


I also would want to know what allegedly infringing information im dealing with...  If there is other stuff scheduled to be released. Regardless of if the laptop is mine or not...

Also, its hard to deny - that it isnt, when they have my sextape and personal photos.  So they've got something of mine - Its still disputed what exactly though.. 

So can I have the incriminating material to see? 

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Now I really have flashbacks to last election.. 


> *Feds examining whether alleged Hunter Biden emails are linked to a foreign intel operation*
> One email, which has not been confirmed to be authentic, suggested a meeting between Joe Biden and a rep from a Ukraine firm that once paid his son Hunter.


says  MSNBC. They also say that the bureau has declined to comment. 

First - so no Hillary 2. Good. Second, what the heck is this headline then? The reporters opinion? 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/na...nter-biden-emails-are-linked-foreign-n1243620

edit: WSJs opinion piece that slams Biden, and provides some detail:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hunter-biden-business-11602803121 

edit: Not behind a paywall when accessed from google:
https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Hunter+Biden+Business


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 16, 2020)

omgcat said:


> So just so I follow this story: Hunter Biden, who lives in Los Angeles, decides to fly 3000 miles across country, to drop off 3 MacBook Pros at a repair shop run by a blind guy who charges the insanely low price of $85. Hunter gets off the plane and drunk drives to the repair shop (Ignoring all the repair shops in LA). He drops them off, signs a contract for repair and then disappears, never to be seen again by the repair man. The repair shop owner recovers and reads Hunter's *private* emails, a few of which mention a possible meeting with his dad and is so alarmed, he contacts the FBI.
> 
> The FBI arranges to pick up the hard drives, but the computer repair shop owner takes a totally normal step of copying them. Once he realizes the FBI isn't doing anything with them, he calls up Rudy Giulliani some how and hands them the contents of these drives.
> 
> ...



You are attempting to discredit the possibility of what is out there already that we can see.   I don't believe anything you have listed makes any difference to what we have now.

And on top of it, simply all they have to do is come forward and say this data is not real.

They cannot do this because it is not, do you believe these pictures are fake?

And has been reported Hunter Biden's lawyer called and emailed the store 20 minutes after the story aired asking for the hard drive back for his client.  This again if true would indicate it is his.  I am no lawyer but I would assume that alone since his lawyer represents him, it would be an admission of something.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



LumInvader said:


> My response to you was about YOU treating this information as fact.  It is not fact.  Neither the laptop or the emails have been independently verified for authenticity.



The campaign has not one time said this information on the hard drive is not true or inaccurate.

Joe Biden has never said the information on the hard drive is not true or inaccurate.

Hunter Biden has never said the information on the hard drive is not true or inaccurate.

They have had well over 36 hours at this point to make that designation. The furthest they would go was through a 3rd party say that it can't be true because the one email in question (the meeting in April) could not have occurred because Biden's calendar says he was busy

*That is all FACT.*


----------



## notimp (Oct 16, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> The campaign has not one time said this information on the hard drive is not true or inaccurate.
> 
> Joe Biden has never said the information on the hard drive is not true or inaccurate.
> 
> ...


Furthermore, he stated - yet if they do so - they'd legitimize the story, which is not at all about Joe Bidens behavior (in a legal sense, or in a worried about serious conflicts of interest sense (in all this Joe Biden, still represented western interests in the Ukraine conflict - which is largely non disputed), and would clog up the decision pipes of people with highly emotional content and rumors - with 18 days left until the election.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 16, 2020)

notimp said:


> I also would want to know what allegedly infringing information im dealing with...  If there is other stuff scheduled to be released. Regardless of if the laptop is mine or not...
> 
> Also, its hard to deny - that it isnt, when they have my sextape and personal photos.  So they've got something of mine - Its still disputed what exactly though..
> 
> ...




We will see what comes in the days ahead.  As I listed above, the FBI supposedly has the original macbook as evidence.  It has likely been destroyed or lost by now.  Will be interesting to see what comes of that.  Because obviously if it is still available and unaltered and matches the drive data we already have then it is further confirmation.

I believe even if that is the case, there will be apologists that will justify it all though.  

I don't care about that though, because even now if any of you believe this does nothing to Biden you will be mistaken.  On Wed the 2nd most googled item was hunter biden.  When social media decided to censor this when they have done nothing for numerous other things on much less with Trump they created the Streisand effect which caused normal people to want to know what the heck is going on.

This coupled with the joke of town halls last night do nothing to help Joe.  It all only helps Trump.

The liberal media is heavily biased and people even normal people can see it.

I finished watching all of the town halls from last night and I would have to update my review from before:

(1 being lowest - 10 being highest)

George Stephanopoulos - Biden - 1.5
Savannah Guthrie - Trump - 8.0

If you are a common person who is on the fence still and you were to watch both, coupled with other events there is no way this whole mess is not good for Trump.  Also the supreme court nomination,  you guy have no idea how petty and crazed liberals seem right now from the common person do you?  

That is why liberal media like CNN avoid showing that side of things.  Like the hearings.  They don't want their users to know how unreasonable democrats come off as.


----------



## notimp (Oct 16, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> We will see what comes in the days ahead. As I listed above, the FBI supposedly has the original macbook as evidence. It has likely been destroyed or lost by now. Will be interesting to see what comes of that. Because obviously if it is still available and unaltered and matches the drive data we already have then it is further confirmation.


Why would they destroy it? Pack it away in a warehouse. No?  I'll predict that nothing will come of it, in the next 20 days - because the FBI doesnt want a Hillary 2 case - where they were accused of having influenced the elections, by announcing, that they are looking into Hillarys emails - with little to no results.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 16, 2020)

notimp said:


> Furthermore, he stated - yet if they do so - they'd legitimize the story, which is not at all about Joe Bidens behavior (in a legal sense, or in a worried about serious conflicts of interest sense (in all this Joe Biden, still represented western interests in the Ukraine conflict - which is largely non disputed), and would clog up the decision pipes of people with highly emotional content an rumors - with 18 days left until the election.



Again the emails directly prove something occurred that Joe said never happened.  That he had no knowledge or dealings with his sons business over there.

Not only did he have knowledge, but he assisted in his sons business dealings WHILE vice president of this country.   He is on video bragging about with holding 1 Billion dollars to Ukraine unless they fired the prosecutor.  

This ties it all together.

And there is more! LOL It has been stated that Hunter indicated his dad always takes half their cut in any money they make.  Hunter also had deals with China, and I am sure we will learn about more.

This really brings to light the TDS in many people I believe.

If you have no issues with what Biden or his kid do with these countries then you should not care about Trump who they went after on flimsy words that never amounted to anything.  Yeah he was impeached by the house (democrats who still had not gotten over 2016) but you could plainly see when it never made it past the senate, they ripped everything apart the 1st day.


----------



## notimp (Oct 16, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Again the emails directly prove something occurred that Joe said never happened. That he had no knowledge or dealings with his sons business over there.


Yes, and you never lie in your life? Question remains, how 'serious' is that lie? If its just 'saving face' over a possible 'indisgression', the smoke currently is bigger than the fire.. 

And by legitimizing it (saying the email is real) > more smoke.

Biden campaign is doing the right thing - because they dont have media pressure, and social media - basically did them a favor. Of the 'lets not have this blow up 18 days before the election' kind.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 16, 2020)

notimp said:


> Yes, and you never lie in your life? Question remains, how 'serious' is that lie? If its just 'saving face' over a possible 'indisgression', the smoke currently is bigger than the fire..
> 
> And by legitimizing it (saying the email is real) > more smoke.
> 
> Biden campaign is doing the right thing - because they dont have media pressure, and social media - basically did them a favor. Of the 'lets not have this blow up 18 days before the election' kind.



Look, I get it.  You would legitimize anything they did.

Others won't.  And this is now out there.

I think this that I posted previously summarizes things nicely.


----------



## notimp (Oct 16, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Look, I get it.  You would legitimize anything they did.
> 
> Others won't.  And this is now out there.
> 
> ...


No - Trump campaign did meet with russian intelligence agents. No allegedly. 

Here is the deal in a best case scenario of completely invented, russian 'counter' intelligence is the bomb, and running the entire US media circuit by now.

We has hacked the DNC email, we has hacked the Burisma communication system (which allegedly they did). We got a prostitute (/honey trap) into Hunter Bidens room and filmed it. We smeared the Ukraine prosecutor to not do anything in the case connected to Hunter Biden. We also smeared people to raise public awareness, that this is outrage, the prosecutor is doing nothing in the case of Hunter Bidens company. We put together laptop with hacked information, and two fake email, and sex video - and leak laptop to "trusty laptop repair shop" (whose owner cant remember if he contacted the FBI, or the FBI contacted him  ), we made sure our good friend Rudi got wind of it. Now we lean back and laugh at democracy destroying itself 18 days before the election. 

Those are entirely made up, but potential issues you are running into. 

So you ask yourself the important questions. Is this new information REALLY incriminating Joe Biden to an extend, where it would be needed for the public to know - here and now. No? Well lets let this play out (largely in the online rumor mill) 20 days from now - but not earlier.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 16, 2020)

notimp said:


> No - Trump campaign did meet with russian intelligence agents. No allegedly.
> 
> Here is the deal in a best case scenario of completely invented, russian 'counter' intelligence is the bomb, and running the entire US media circuit by now.
> 
> ...



I have no idea what is going to happen in the days to come, but I think regardless of where this ends up it has not helped Biden at this point and I am glad for that.  

I am glad that the media and big tech social medias attempt to censor this has back fired.  And it is not a Trump thing for me for that.  I think ALL should be treated the same, this is America and for platforms that large I don't believe they should be censoring anything from ANYONE.  At least in America.

I know that probably sounds crazy to some, but this is America, it should be up to the people to decide what they want to believe or not believe.  It has always been that way from a freedom of speech perspective.  I also believe all drugs should be legal, if that tells you anything.  I believe in America too many liberties over time have been taken away from citizens. Way too many.

I don't know what is to come but there is a good chance it will only get more interesting.


----------



## Joom (Oct 16, 2020)

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/landing/2020-trump-vs-dem-poll

Lol, wow..."Who do you want; god emperor Donald Trump, or some stinky, dumbass democrat who loves Mexicans?" The fascism is too strong, man. And you know this site is only meant for the geriatrics who don't actually keep up with anything beyond Fox News.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 16, 2020)

Joom said:


> https://www.donaldjtrump.com/landing/2020-trump-vs-dem-poll
> 
> Lol, wow..."Who do you want; god emperor Donald Trump, or some stinky, dumbass democrat who loves Mexicans?" The fascism is too strong, man.


poll is completely disgusting. it's not even a poll,it's so blatantly lop sided that if this was asked as a scientific study (or contextualized as such) , the poll would immediately be thrown out and the person would be fired and any credit would go down the drain.
For those who somehow can't imagine how it could be recontexutalized. Here's how:
Do you you want to drink:
The worlds worst Lemon juice
or
apple juice


----------



## Joom (Oct 16, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> poll is completely disgusting. it's not even a poll,it's so blatantly lop sided that if this was asked as a scientific study (or contextualized as such) , the poll would immediately be thrown out and the person would be fired and any credit would go down the drain.
> For those who somehow can't imagine how it could be recontexutalized. Here's how:
> Do you you want to drink:
> The worlds worst Lemon juice
> ...


That's the thing; Republicans don't give a fuck about actual democracy, and they want to keep it a three ring circus in absolute perpetuity. I dunno who watched the Town Halls, but yet again, Trump couldn't answer a single question and just pivoted to how it's all the democrats' fault for the state of the country. "We're the best, and we're gonna do good things, because we're good and the best at doing good." Oh my fucking God...


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 17, 2020)

Of course he won't answer anything about it.    Does not want to incriminate himself further.



https://twitter.com/BoKnowsNews/status/1317275294194085888?s=20





And we have verification on this China related email now from one of the parties that Joe Biden profited from too now.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-china-email-source-verifies

*Source on alleged Hunter Biden email chain verifies message about Chinese investment firm*

One of the people on an explosive email thread allegedly involving Hunter Biden has corroborated the veracity of the messages, which appear to outline a payout for former Vice President Joe Biden as part of a deal with a Chinese energy firm.

One email, dated May 13, 2017, and obtained by Fox News, includes a discussion of “remuneration packages” for six people in a business deal with a Chinese energy firm. The email appeared to identify Hunter Biden as “Chair / Vice Chair depending on agreement with CEFC,” in an apparent reference to now-bankrupt CEFC China Energy Co.

The email includes a note that “Hunter has some office expectations he will elaborate.” A proposed equity split references “20” for “H” and “10 held by H for the big guy?” with no further details. *Fox News spoke to one of the people who was copied on the email, who confirmed its authenticity.

*


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 17, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> The campaign has not one time said this information on the hard drive is not true or inaccurate.
> 
> Joe Biden has never said the information on the hard drive is not true or inaccurate.
> 
> ...


In other words, you can't prove that the laptop and emails are authentic, or that Joe Biden met with the Burisma adviser.  Obviously, this is impossible for you.  The only facts that matter won't be known until after the investigation is complete.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



crimpshrine said:


> Of course he won't answer anything about it.    Does not want to incriminate himself further.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_If_ this turns out to be true, that would confirm at least one of the emails.  The others, particularly the one confirming the alleged meeting, would still need to be authenticated.  Some may be real; others could be forgeries.

However, you've been claiming this story to be true with no proof from the get go -- which is the wrong take no matter how the story unfolds in the future.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 17, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> In other words, you can't prove that the laptop and emails are authentic, or that Joe Biden met with the Burisma adviser.  Obviously, this is impossible for you.  The only facts that matter won't be known until after the investigation is complete.



There has already been a person on one of the emails that has confirmed it is real and they received the email in question.

Joe Biden will not say the data in question is invalid.
Hunter Biden will not say the data in question is invalid.
Joe's Campaign will not say the data in question is not valid.

It was reported that Hunter Biden's attorney had contacted the computer shop demanding the hard drive back for his client.

The pictures are real, the emails are already being proven (see above) to be real.

Not hard to see where this is going.  And it is not done yet.


----------



## Joom (Oct 17, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Of course he won't answer anything about it.    Does not want to incriminate himself further.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dude, you are obsessed with this on an unhealthy level. If you want Trump to win so badly, why don't you go ahead and wrap your lips around an exhaust pipe? Because he doesn't care if you live. He doesn't care if the earth succumbs to irreparable climate damage. I just don't understand why you sacrifice your own humanity for someone that doesn't give a shit about you. Like, what has you convinced that Trump has your best interest in mind? Unless of course your interest lies in hating the LGBTQ scene and ethnic peoples, but your irrational hatred of these people isn't going to matter when you die by the hands of the Trump administration. I actually have sympathy for you and people like you, because you all bought the lie through fear and hate of your fellow man.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 17, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> There has already been a person on one of the emails that has confirmed it is real and they received the email in question.
> 
> Joe Biden will not say the data in question is invalid.
> Hunter Biden will not say the data in question is invalid.
> ...


Are the pictures real or are they deep fakes?  What irrefutable proof do you have that they're real?  I will wait.

You've treated this story as fact in absence of verifiable proof from the very start.  While the rest of us await verification, you already had your mind made up.  This story is politically appealing to you, which you already admitted.


----------



## Joom (Oct 17, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Are the pictures real or are they deep fakes? What irrefutable proof do you have that they're real? I will wait.


He won't be able to produce anything except Tweets. I wouldn't wait too long. This is how conspiracy theorists operate. You wanna know what helps? Read any conspiracy theorist's posts in Dale Gribble's voice. Really takes the sting out of the fact that there are actually people who believe these things. Really ironic when the opposition actually calls out fake news and they can't handle it.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 17, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Are the pictures real or are they deep fakes?  What irrefutable proof do you have that they're real?  I will wait.
> 
> You've treated this story as fact in absence of verifiable proof from the very start.  While the rest of us await verification, you already had your mind made up.  This story is politically appealing to you, which you already admitted.



I have already posted facts that would indicate the data is real.  I will post the next ones that come in further confirming.  I am sure that there will be more.  My understanding is that people are already contacting others in numerous other emails that people were CC'ed on.  And all the emails have not even been released yet.

Even if Biden said it was true you would have some off the wall justification why you believe it makes it OK.  Likely tied to orange man bad.

Joe avoiding answering for the 1st time tonight is awesome.   And he is going to get increasingly more angry.   That's when he says his best things.  Like when his racism kicks in and gets disparaging to people.

 It's only going to get better from here.

I can't wait to see what happens at the next debate too.  

And Biden deserves everything he is about to get.  As VP he abused his position.  He is actually guilty of what they impeached Trump over.   Where Trump was not, the dems narrative was ripped apart the 1st day in senate.

These democrats are so dirty its not even funny.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 17, 2020)

For someone who seems to know so much about the radical left, it is pretty interesting that Trump keeps saying "I don't know", when ask to condemn a specific group, like the Q.


----------



## Joom (Oct 17, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> For someone who seems to know so much about the radical left, it is pretty interesting that Trump keeps saying "I don't know", when ask to condemn a specific group, like the Q.


It's almost like he's a liar and fear monger trying to capitalize on people's ignorance. There's a word for that. I believe it's "grifter". By the way, the "far left" doesn't exist in the US as a group that could influence anything. Y'know, communists, socialists, tankies...we're the fringe groups. But the far right like the Nazis sure do seem to have an influence.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 17, 2020)

Joom said:


> He won't be able to produce anything except Tweets. I wouldn't wait too long. This is how conspiracy theorists operate. You wanna know what helps? Read any conspiracy theorist's posts in Dale Gribble's voice. Really takes the sting out of the fact that there are actually people who believe these things.


Joom, I don't believe crimpshrine understands the meaning of the word conjecture.

Regarding those who believe in conspiracy theories, there's a life skill that most intelligent humans have and that's to question everything around them.  A conspiracy theorist also asks questions, but fails to question the conspiracy theory itself.  This may be due to having inferior deductive reasoning skills compared to a human of higher intelligence, or that the conspiracy theory itself satisfies a preconceived bias.  For example, a religious person showing a form of bias against a scientific explanation because the field of science also questions key points of his or her religious beliefs.  Thus, a conspiracy theory alternative to a scientific explanation would suffice in it's place as truth-seeking isn't the only motivation.


----------



## Joom (Oct 17, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Joom, I don't believe crimpshrine understands the meaning of the word conjecture.
> 
> Regarding those who believe in conspiracy theories, there's a life skill that most intelligent humans have and that's to question everything around them.  A conspiracy theorist also asks questions, but fails to question the conspiracy theory itself.  This may be due to having inferior deductive reasoning skills compared to a human of higher intelligence, or that the conspiracy theory itself satisfies a preconceived bias.  For example, a religious person showing a form of bias against a scientific explanation because the field of science also questions key points of his or her religious beliefs.  Thus, a conspiracy theory alternative to a scientific explanation would suffice in it's place as truth-seeking isn't the only motivation.


I'm fully aware. My dad was an Alex Jones fanatic before he killed himself, and my mom has become a QAnon lunatic, which has pretty much broken any relationship we once had. I've lost family because of this crap, and that's why I'm in this thread with so much vitriol. These Trump supporters don't seem to understand how dangerous this entire rhetoric is, and it just blows the back of my skull out.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 17, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Are the pictures real or are they deep fakes?




C'mon man.


----------



## Joom (Oct 17, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> C'mon man.


Yeah, because Photoshop doesn't exist. "C'mon man".


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 17, 2020)

This is supposedly the email Hunters attorney sent later that day.

After calling him supposedly 20 minutes after the story broke and asking for the hard drive back for his client.

This is to the store owner that took Hunter Bidens equipment in for repair.







This guy is a partner at this Firm and the last I could find he was representing Hunter.

https://medium.com/@george.mesires/...nter-biden-dated-october-13-2019-d80bc11087ab


----------



## Joom (Oct 17, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> This is supposedly the email Hunters attorney sent later that day.
> 
> After calling him supposedly 20 minutes after the story broke and asking for the hard drive back for his client.
> 
> ...


Email headers. please. That's the only thing that would confirm this. As someone who works in infosec, that's the first place we look.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 17, 2020)

I find all this amusing, when there is nothing to be found like with Trump you guys are all up in arms.

This is the real deal, and you are oblivious to it.

LOL


----------



## Joom (Oct 17, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I find all this amusing, when there is nothing to be found like with Trump you guys are all up in arms.


Do you not watch TV or something? Nothing has to be dug up on Trump. He puts it all out there for everyone to see because he's a moron. You also never answered my question about why you even support him. You also keep acting like this is a bombshell, and continue obsessing over it as if it's gonna destroy Biden. It's so sad...


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 17, 2020)

https://twitter.com/BernardKerik/status/1317269312172949506?s=20


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 17, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I have already posted facts that would indicate the data is real.  I will post the next ones that come in further confirming.  I am sure that there will be more.  My understanding is that people are already contacting others in numerous other emails that people were CC'ed on.  And all the emails have not even been released yet.
> 
> Even if Biden said it was true you would have some off the wall justification why you believe it makes it OK.  Likely tied to orange man bad.
> 
> ...


Indeed, you have no proof.  So facts pertinent to this story are whatever TF you decide them to be.  Got it.


Hanafuda said:


> C'mon man.


----------



## Joom (Oct 17, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> https://twitter.com/BernardKerik/status/1317269312172949506?s=20
> 
> View attachment 229543


Recycling this.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 17, 2020)

Joom said:


> Yeah, because Photoshop doesn't exist. "C'mon man".




Have you actually _seen_ the photos that were released??? Really inspected them? 1) they're obviously not shops, 2) if they wanted to generate fake but damning photos, they wouldn't be showing us photos of Hunter Biden with his rotted teeth honed down for caps and then the after photo with the caps installed, a shirtless selfie in front of the mirror, sitting on his bed, etc. The photos themselves, excepting the crackpipe photo, aren't damning. They're intended to show the opposition that they really have what they say they have., and 3) it's funny as hell to see you guys bashing @crimpshrine for being a 'conspiracy theorist' for posting about this with one breath, and then in the next breath suggest the whole thing is a gigantic elaborate fabrication including that the photographs are some high-level deepfakes. Who're the conspiracy theorists again?

I take no position on the authenticity of the emails. Not my job to authenticate and I'm not going to assume. But the photos ... if those were really fakes we'd know that already.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 17, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Indeed, you have no proof.  So facts pertinent to this story are whatever TF you decide them to be.  Got it.




You just don't like facts Lum, I forgot that about you.

Again these are ALL facts.  And Joe Biden had the chance today to comment and of course he chose not to.  All he had to say was that the data in question is not real, it is not his sons communication or pictures or his hard drive.
*
There has already been a person on one of the emails in this trove of data that has confirmed they received the original message in question and is real.

Joe Biden will not say the data in question is invalid.

Hunter Biden will not say the data in question is invalid.

Joe's Campaign will not say the data in question is not valid.

Hunter Biden's attorney contacted the computer shop demanding the hard drive back for his client.*

And I guarantee there will be more facts to add as this continues.


----------



## Joom (Oct 17, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> 1) they're obviously not shops


Neither are magazine covers, and yet, they're shoops.


Hanafuda said:


> 2) if they wanted to generate fake but damning photos, they wouldn't be showing us photos of Hunter Biden with his rotted teeth


Yes they would, because they have nothing else that compares to the monstrosities of the Trump administration.


Hanafuda said:


> 3) it's funny as hell to see you guys bashing @crimpshrine for being a 'conspiracy theorist' for posting about this with one breath,


It's because he's producing absolutely no proof and nothing but tweets. But hey. the National Inquirer has photos of Bigfoot's wedding, so I guess those are real, too.



crimpshrine said:


> You just don't like facts Lum


These aren't facts, they're conspiracies.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 17, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> https://twitter.com/BernardKerik/status/1317269312172949506?s=20
> 
> View attachment 229543


"Reviewing" the HDD =/= having it independently verified. 

A proper investigation would require warrants and a forensic science team to verify the authenticity of the video, photos, and emails.  Please explain how a former police officer has the authority to issue a warrant so the forensic team can do their jobs?


----------



## Joom (Oct 17, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> "Reviewing" the HDD =/= having it independently verified.
> 
> A proper investigation would require warrants and a forensic science team to verify the authenticity of the video, photos, and emails.  Please explain how a former police officer has the authority to issue a warrant so the forensic team can do their jobs?


See what I mean? For supporters of the "law and order" president, they sure don't understand how the law works. And again, I'm someone who works in infosec. Digital forensics is my life's work. And what I see here is nothing but blatant horse shit.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 17, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> You just don't like facts Lum, I forgot that about you.


This:


> The pictures are real



Is 100% Grade A bullshit.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 17, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> "Reviewing" the HDD =/= having it independently verified.
> 
> A proper investigation would require warrants and a forensic science team to verify the authenticity of the video, photos, and emails.  Please explain how a former police officer has the authority to issue a warrant so the forensic team can do their jobs?



It's happening the way it's happening.    It does NOT change the FACTS I listed above.

And that is the great part of it, neither Biden is going to say the data is invalid.  I mean I guess they could, but it will get much worse for them as other things come to light on this.

Just today we got confirmation at least 1 of the emails they got off that drive is 100% accurate.  They contacted one of the recipients who confirmed they did indeed receive that message. 

There probably will be some additional follow up with the FBI if they still actually have the original laptop undamaged in their possession.  It has already been requested from what I understand.  Odds are it is gone or damaged.  But we will see what happens with that.


----------



## Joom (Oct 17, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> It's happening the way it's happening.    It does NOT change the FACTS I listed above.
> 
> And that is the great part of it, neither Biden is going to say the data is invalid.  I mean I guess they could, but it will get much worse for them as other things come to light on this.
> 
> ...









Jesus tap dancing Christ, you people make me wanna smoke meth just to get on your level.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 17, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> This:
> 
> 
> Is 100% Grade A bullshit.



LOL, I would not trust your judgement with pretty much anything from what I have seen.

You think this is some grand conspiracy against Biden.

But there has ALREADY been confirmation from at least 1 person on one of the damning emails that yes, I did receive that message.  That is a pretty big indicator that it's all real.

And NONE of them will say it's fake or not Hunter's data.

And odds are it will only get worse for them as the days move forward.  Going to guess whatever you are saying now is going to look even more foolish as this moves forward.


----------



## Joom (Oct 17, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> You think this is some grand conspiracy against Biden.


No, we think it's a desperate, sad grasp at straws. You're the one who thinks it's a grand conspiracy.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 17, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> It's happening the way it's happening.    It does NOT change the FACTS I listed above.
> 
> And that is the great part of it, neither Biden is going to say the data is invalid.  I mean I guess they could, but it will get much worse for them as other things come to light on this.
> 
> ...


The "FACTS" you listed are speculative at best.  They prove nothing.  There are no facts without an independent forensics team.  You straight up lied about the photos then proceeded to dance around my challenges like a man with his feet on fire.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 17, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> The "FACTS" you listed are speculative at best.  They prove nothing.  There are no facts without an independent forensics team.  You straight up lied about the photos then proceeded to dance around my challenges like a man with his feet on fire.



Lied about what photos?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Like I said, you don't like facts Lum.  Everything I listed as fact is, if it is not, list each item I said as fact and debunk it.  

LOL good luck with that.


----------



## Joom (Oct 17, 2020)

I'm still wondering why he won't reply to me. I guess he blocked me when I called out Trump supporters for being racists and that British retard who has no business in US politics told him to do so. He sure is a free thinking, rational individual what with his ability to think what others tell him to think.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 17, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> LOL, I would not trust your judgement with pretty much anything from what I have seen.
> 
> You think this is some grand conspiracy against Biden.
> 
> ...


Except I'm firmly embedded in the "wait for an independent investigation" camp, which* will always play out better *than someone who jumps to conclusions, lies, and then refuses to acknowledge said lie when challenged.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 17, 2020)

Here I will make it easy to quote.

If these are not fact, please debunk each of these:

*1. There has already been a person on one of the emails in this trove of data that has confirmed they received the original message in question and is real.

2. Joe Biden will not say the data in question is invalid.

3. Hunter Biden will not say the data in question is invalid.

4. Joe's Campaign will not say the data in question is not valid.

5. Hunter Biden's attorney contacted the computer shop demanding the hard drive back for his client.*


----------



## Joom (Oct 17, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Here I will make it easy to quote.
> 
> If these are not fact, please debunk each of these:
> 
> ...


And yet, again, even if any of this is true, means fuck all to Biden's victory. It pales in comparison to what Trump has done. We don't care. I can't express this enough.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 17, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> *Lied about what photos?
> 
> I have no idea what you are talking about.*
> 
> ...





crimpshrine said:


> *The pictures are real*, the emails are already being proven (see above) to be real.
> 
> Not hard to see where this is going.  And it is not done yet.


----------



## Joom (Oct 17, 2020)

LumInvader said:


>


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 17, 2020)

The pictures ARE real.

So you doing the response yet to debunk my facts?  Waiting on that.


----------



## Joom (Oct 17, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> The pictures ARE real.
> 
> So you doing the response yet to debunk my facts?  Waiting on that.


The burden of proof isn't on him. You're the one making the claims, you smooth brained dunce.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 17, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Here I will make it easy to quote.
> 
> If these are not fact, please debunk each of these:
> 
> ...


You forgot:

6. The pictures are real.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 17, 2020)

Not following Lum,

That is NOT what I listed when I said these are the current FACTS.

Which we have been arguing about the last page.

This is the post you responded to a page back:



> You just don't like facts Lum, I forgot that about you.
> 
> Again these are ALL facts. And Joe Biden had the chance today to comment and of course he chose not to. All he had to say was that the data in question is not real, it is not his sons communication or pictures or his hard drive.
> *
> ...




THAT IS WHAT I POSTED.   I said nothing about the photo's.

That does not mean I don't care about them, what I listed CANNOT be disputed it is FACT.

So again, debunk any of what I have listed (because you said it was speculation and not fact)



*1. There has already been a person on one of the emails in this trove of data that has confirmed they received the original message in question and is real.

2. Joe Biden will not say the data in question is invalid.

3. Hunter Biden will not say the data in question is invalid.

4. Joe's Campaign will not say the data in question is not valid.

5. Hunter Biden's attorney contacted the computer shop demanding the hard drive back for his client.*


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 17, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> The pictures ARE real.
> 
> So you doing the response yet to debunk my facts?  Waiting on that.


All of your "facts" are speculative.  They don't prove that Biden met with anyone.  They don't disprove forgeries.  Claiming "the pictures ARE real" is conjecture at this point.  Claiming that they're not conjecture is a bold-faced lie.  

Sans forensic evidence, you don't have a leg to stand on regarding the authenticity of the pictures in question.  You will have to wait for the real facts *just like the rest of us*.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 17, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> All of your "facts" are speculative.  They don't prove that Biden met with anyone.  They don't disprove forgeries.  Claiming "the pictures ARE real" is conjecture at this point.  Claiming that they're not conjecture is a bold-faced lie.
> 
> Sans forensic evidence, you don't have a leg to stand on regarding the authenticity of the pictures in question.  You will have to wait for the real facts *just like the rest of us*.



LOL knew you could not do it.

Whatever you say.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 17, 2020)

it's gonna be wild watching all the crazy people spiral out of control heading towards the election. Trump knows he's fucked, he has started talking about fleeing the country if he loses. sounds like totally ordinary talk from an innocent man. on top of that, he confirmed he owed money during his town hall, and apparently he owes almost 1 billion dollars. so much for being a good businessman. to top all this off, trump got blown out in terms of ratings during the dueling town halls, which is hilarious because he put himself in such an incredibly shitty position. He has fucked himself so hard, Georgia of all places is a coin toss.

Trumpers better get some naloxone in case they OD from copium.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 17, 2020)

omgcat said:


> it's gonna be wild watching all the crazy people spiral out of control heading towards the election. Trump knows he's fucked, he has started talking about fleeing the country if he loses. sounds like totally ordinary talk from an innocent man. on top of that, he confirmed he owed money during his town hall, and apparently he owes almost 1 billion dollars. so much for being a good businessman. to top all this off, trump got blown out in terms of ratings during the dueling town halls, which is hilarious because he put himself in such an incredibly shitty position.



LOL again total lack of observation of DETAILS.

Not even going to bother with all of them got to get to bed.  Will talk about the town hall though 

Look at what time Trump's town hall started and ended (1 hour)
Look at what time Biden's town hall started and ended (1.5 hour)

Of course Biden would have more when people who are done with Trump switch over to Biden's.  I did and most who like to see both sides would do that.

And guess what, that does NOT include people streaming.  This is 2020 now you know.  The article you linked to is JUST broadcast.  And as I said above, most people when done with Trump would have switched to Biden after the hour.  So it's easy to misinterpret the data, its not an apples to apples comparison.

I checked the stream counts during town halls when BOTH were running and Trump was CRUSHING Biden by like 500-600K at one point.

I saw some calculation someone did somewhere don't recall now where it was but when you add TV and streaming Trump was a few hundred thousand ahead in  total while BOTH were going.


Got to push the narrative right?


----------



## omgcat (Oct 17, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> LOL again total lack of observation of DETAILS.
> 
> Not even going to bother with all of them got to get to bed.  Will talk about the town hall though
> 
> ...



uhuh, not paying attention to details.

"*Joe Biden's town hall on ABC averaged 14.1 million viewers on Thursday night, easily surpassing the Nielsen ratings for President Trump's town hall on NBC.
That alone was a result virtually no one in the TV business expected. And that's not even the most surprising part.
The Trump town hall was simulcast by two of NBC's cable channels, MSNBC and CNBC, but even when those channels are included in the total, Biden -- on only one network -- still prevailed.
The Trump town hall averaged 10.9 million viewers on the NBC broadcast network. On MSNBC, Trump reached 1.8 million viewers, and on CNBC, about 720,000 viewers. So Trump's gross audience across the three channels was 13.5 million, still fewer than Biden's audience on ABC alone.
The final totals were provided by Nielsen on Friday evening. Earlier, preliminary data showed slightly smaller audiences for both the NBC and ABC telecasts.*"

to the point of streams and viewer count on streamed media:

"*After the Nielsen ratings for the town halls came out Friday, Miller retweeted a Trump fan who tried to combine TV and YouTube data to portray Trump as the true victor. But that's apples and oranges again, since a minute or two of on-demand YouTube viewership is not comparable to 60 minutes of TV viewership.*"

and before you go on an anti-cnn rant

these other news sources are claiming the same:

one

two

three

four

five

six

seven

eight (news source from host of trump event)

nine

ten


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 17, 2020)

omgcat said:


> uhuh, not paying attention to details.
> 
> "*Joe Biden's town hall on ABC averaged 14.1 million viewers on Thursday night, easily surpassing the Nielsen ratings for President Trump's town hall on NBC.
> That alone was a result virtually no one in the TV business expected. And that's not even the most surprising part.
> ...



Where in the above does it subtract the TRUMP town hall viewers from Biden's total that after the 1 hour of Trump switched to watch the rest of Biden?  Are you saying that the #'s above for Biden do NOT include people who were done with Trump and switched to Biden then to watch the last 30 minutes?



> to the point of streams and viewer count on streamed media:
> 
> "*After the Nielsen ratings for the town halls came out Friday, Miller retweeted a Trump fan who tried to combine TV and YouTube data to portray Trump as the true victor. But that's apples and oranges again, since a minute or two of on-demand YouTube viewership is not comparable to 60 minutes of TV viewership.*"




Of course they are going to say that.  I checked multiple times.  Trump crushed Biden on streaming from what I saw multiple times over 30 minutes I checked.


----------



## Joom (Oct 17, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> LOL again total lack of observation of DETAILS.


Finding deeper meaning in things that aren't there. I knew it. This is why I made my point about Occam's Razor. Again, sometimes whatever is right in front of you is the actual truth. Sometimes it isn't necessary to look deeper. I hope you at least get that red phosphorous, and not that trash shake'n'bake.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 17, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> LOL knew you could not do it.
> 
> Whatever you say.





> con·jec·ture
> 
> noun:
> 
> ...



If these allegations turn out to be true, I will go from my current position of *waiting-for-forensics* to *acknowledgement*.
If these allegations turn out to be true, crimpshrine will go from his current position of* facts-already-there* to *but-facts-were-already-there*.

I can definitely live with that.  It's never a good idea to jump to conclusions based on speculative evidence during an investigation involving forensics that's still pending.

But, what if the allegations turn out NOT to be true?  Those who claim facts-already-there lose all credibility.


----------



## Joom (Oct 17, 2020)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Can we stop arguing this already and just ignore this turd? We all know he's wrong, and there's no changing his mind. Come election day, he's gonna recede back to the moss covered, slug infested rock that he calls home. He's not worth our time anymore.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 17, 2020)

Yeah I don't know about


LumInvader said:


> If these allegations turn out to be true, I will go from my current position of *waiting-for-forensics* to *acknowledgement*.
> If these allegations turn out to be true, crimpshrine will go from his current position of* facts-already-there* to *but-facts-were-already-there*.
> 
> I can definitely live with that.  It's never a good idea to jump to conclusions based on speculative evidence during an investigation involving forensics that's still pending.
> ...



The only reason I continued with any  of these responses was because I stated facts, and  you responded that I was speculating.

Nothing I listed as fact was speculation. 

And then when I asked you to debunk each fact you could not.   You did not even attempt to illustrate how each item was speculation.


----------



## Joom (Oct 17, 2020)

Don't reply, @LumInvader. You're just feeding the troll at this point. Let him fizzle out like he deserves.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 17, 2020)

Joom said:


> Don't reply, @LumInvader. You're just feeding the troll at this point. Let him fizzle out like he deserves.


I'm surprised you guys lasted this long.


----------



## Joom (Oct 17, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> I'm surprised you guys lasted this long.


Passion burns hot when it comes to politics. I'm even kicking myself, but I blame my desire to change minds. I have empathy, and want to see the best out of every person, but I still haven't learned the lesson that some people can't be saved.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 17, 2020)

Joom said:


> Don't reply, @LumInvader. You're just feeding the troll at this point. Let him fizzle out like he deserves.




--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



KingVamp said:


> I'm surprised you guys lasted this long.


This pandemic has increased my boredom 10 fold.  Whereas before I'd only occasionally dabble in debates as a mental exercise, now I find myself entrenched in uncivilized debates about politics on a gaming website.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 17, 2020)

Switching gears for a little, what do you guys think of DC and Puerto Rico statehood?


----------



## Lacius (Oct 17, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Switching gears for a little, what do you guys think of DC and Puerto Rico statehood?


If they want statehood, they should get statehood.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 17, 2020)

Glad to see you're enjoying your circle jerk of republican bad democrat good, its sweet when racist scum find other racist scum to jerk off with. Fun fact, Proud boys has more black members than Antifa.

Oh my bad, according to Joom and Biden they're just uncle tom's who aint really black coz they aint voting Biden.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 17, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Glad to see you're enjoying your circle jerk of republican bad democrat good, its sweet when racist scum find other racist scum to jerk off with. Fun fact, Proud boys has more black members than Antifa.
> 
> Oh my bad, according to Joom and Biden they're just uncle tom's who aint really black coz they aint voting Biden.





> The Proud Boys are a far-right and neo-fascist male-only organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada. While the group officially rejects racism, several members have been affiliated with white supremacy and the Proud Boys have been described by United States intelligence organisations as "a dangerous white supremacist group".


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys

This is a hate group that wears clothing to associate itself with skinheads, orchestrates neo-Confederate rallies, helped organize the Unite the Right rally, and is *violently* opposed to Black Lives Matter. In fact, their main brand is arguably violence.


----------



## Joom (Oct 17, 2020)

Excuse me? This guy is allowed to ad hom all over the thread but I get my message removed? Yeah, alright. Don't give these people confirmation, 'temp mods. You're only giving them fuel.



KingVamp said:


> Switching gears for a little, what do you guys think of DC and Puerto Rico statehood?


I will repost what I said about this. I think both are deserving of statehood. It's really messed up that Peurto Rico can't vote in our elections, but they have to abide by US laws. It's also messed up that the citizens of DC can't get representation since they don't have a governor. So yes, give them statehood.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 17, 2020)

Joom said:


> Excuse me? This guy is allowed to ad hom all over the thread but I get my message removed? Yeah, alright. Don't give these people confirmation, 'temp mods. You're only giving them fuel.
> 
> 
> I will repost what I said about this. I think both are deserving of statehood. It's really messed up that Peurto Rico can't vote in our elections, but they have to abide by US laws. It's also messed up that the citizens of DC can't get representation since they don't have a governor. So yes, give them statehood.


same


----------



## Joom (Oct 17, 2020)

Lacius said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys
> 
> This is a hate group that wears clothing to associate itself with skinheads, orchestrates neo-Confederate rallies, helped organize the Unite the Right rally, and is *violently* opposed to Black Lives Matter. In fact, their main brand is arguably violence.


B-b-b-but, the leader is half Black and Cuban! There's no possible way they could be white supremacists because they have a self-loathing token at the head! It's so funny when racists get their feelings hurt for being called racist and it's all they can talk about for three days, and then they project their butthurt by going "NO U".

Oh, I forgot. One of the founding members, Gavin McInnes, thinks men shouldn't play video games and instead should go out and build a table. So anyone here who supports these guys is an embarrassment to their proud cause, and they're not men in their eyes.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 17, 2020)

Joom said:


> Excuse me? This guy is allowed to ad hom all over the thread but I get my message removed? Yeah, alright. Don't give these people confirmation, 'temp mods. You're only giving them fuel.



Imagine talking about being ad hominem when you're opening position was everyone who disagrees with me is racist. Your post was probably removed because of your blatant racism. "They vote differently to me, LOL those self hating black people, how dare they think for themselves! They should be enslaved on the democratic plantation forever" What a muppet.




Lacius said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys
> 
> This is a hate group that wears clothing to associate itself with skinheads, orchestrates neo-Confederate rallies, helped organize the Unite the Right rally, and is *violently* opposed to Black Lives Matter. In fact, their main brand is arguably violence.



Just because all the lefty sheep come in and back you up by liking your comment doesn't mean you're right. Antifa is literally a terrorist organisation as prescribed by the US gov. They've been rioting and looting for like 100 days, they've been murdering people in Denver and other states but you've got the gall to act like the proud boys are the bad people, once again, it has more black members than Antifa. Must really fuck with your lefty ideals.

I bet this hurts you too the core too. A strong independent black immigrant woman supporting Trump, your worst nightmare.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 17, 2020)

Well, if they want it, hopefully everything will line up for them to get it. Superficially, it would be cool to see statehood happening in my lifetime.


----------



## Joom (Oct 17, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Imagine talking about being ad hominem when you're opening position was everyone who disagrees with me is racist. What a muppet.


That's not what was said, but you go right ahead and keep being disingenuous. And thanks for proving my point by posting a video with a token in the camera shot. They gotta have 'em so they don't seem racist. My dude, you're delusional if you think otherwise. My point was never that you can't be black and support Trump, my point was that they're all tokens used as propaganda. Any time Trump is on camera, they have a minority behind him just so his constituency can go "SEE, WE'RE NOT RACIST". And go ahead and watch Jesse Lee Peterson or someone similar, and try to tell me they're not Uncle Toms. All they ever talk about is how Trump is amazing, the white man can do no bad, and black people are nothing but garbage and everything bad that has ever happened to them is their own fault. JLP has even gone so far as to say that slavery was a good thing.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 17, 2020)

Joom said:


> That's not what was said, but you go right ahead and keep being disingenuous. And thanks for proving my point by posting a video with a token in the camera shot. They gotta have 'em so they don't seem racist. My dude, you're delusional if you think otherwise. My point was never that you can't be black and support Trump, my point was that they're all tokens used as propaganda. Any time Trump is on camera, they have a minority behind him just so his constituency can go "SEE, WE'RE NOT RACIST". And go ahead and watch Jesse Lee Peterson or someone similar they're not Uncle Toms. All they ever talk about is how Trump is amazing, the white man can do no bad, and black people are nothing but garbage and everything bad that has ever happened to them is their own fault. JLP has even gone so far as to say that slavery was a good thing.



"Thanks for proving my point with the token black person LOL she can't possibly think differently than me because shes black and stupid and needs me to tell her how to think LOL she should just be grateful to the democrats forever LOL" shut up racist.


----------



## Joom (Oct 17, 2020)

shamzie said:


> "Thanks for proving my point with the token black person LOL she can't possibly think differently than me because shes black and stupid and needs me to tell her how to think LOL she should just be grateful to the democrats forever LOL" shut up racist.


Fuck me, dude. I'm done with you. I said none of this anywhere, you disingenuous turd. And I loooove that you still think that I support the democrats. I'm a socialist, not a democrat. The democratic party will never be representative of me until they start moving more to the left and enacting ideas and beliefs that I follow. But people like you only see the world in black and white, and the concept of nuance falls flat on your smooth brains.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 17, 2020)

Joom said:


> Fuck me, dude. I'm done with you. I said none of this anywhere, you disingenuous turd. And I loooove that you still think that I support the democrats. I'm a socialist, not a democrat. The democratic party will never be representative of me until they start moving more to the left and enacting ideas and beliefs that I follow. But people like you only see the world in black and white, and the concept of nuance falls flat on your smooth brains.



You dismissed her whole opinion because shes Black, you called her the token Black, implying she can't possibly think for herself and shes just a republican prop, you wouldn't have said it if it was a White person, you're a racist. Glad to see you're done, go hang around the other racists.


----------



## Joom (Oct 17, 2020)

shamzie said:


> You dismissed her whole opinion because shes Black, you called her the token Black, implying she can't possibly think for herself and shes just a republican prop, you wouldn't have said it if it was a White person, you're a racist. Glad to see you're done, go hang around the other racists.


Learn how propaganda works. And of course I wouldn't have said that about a white person because white people aren't the minority in this country. In order to be a token, you kinda have to be a minority. Yes, the republicans love it when black people come out in support because they can just use them as a means to say "we don't really hate brown people, see?" You're even turning this woman into a token yourself by saying the exact same thing. You're the racist, my friend, not me. But you keep up these mental gymnastics. I hope they help you sleep well at night as you cope with the fact that you're a racist.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 17, 2020)

I can't figure out which flag I like better. Link Link


----------



## Joom (Oct 17, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> I can't figure out which flag I like better. Link Link


I kinda like the second one. It's fresh and new, and seems representative of how the US is a melting pot of all walks of life with the sphere there looking like the earth.


----------



## x65943 (Oct 17, 2020)

Let's not forget Guam, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands. Puerto Rico and DC aren't the only territories without proper representation.

People are averse to doing this because of the fact that tiny populations would get 2 senators.

I think the solution is to ditch the senate and create a unicameral congress with equal representation by population and not arbitrary boundaries.


----------



## Joom (Oct 17, 2020)

x65943 said:


> I think the solution is to ditch the senate and create a unicameral congress with equal representation by population and not arbitrary boundaries.


Yes, finally, someone else who shares this belief. And you're right, these territories get even less representation. I don't understand why we haven't made all of them part of the Union yet if they're all under the rule of US law.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 17, 2020)

x65943 said:


> Let's not forget Guam, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands. Puerto Rico and DC aren't the only territories without proper representation.


True, but there's a good chance PR and DC want to become states. I have no idea about the other places.


----------



## Joom (Oct 17, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> True, but there's a good chance PR and DC want to become states. I have no idea about the other places.


I don't understand why they wouldn't. They have to follow our laws and pay taxes to the US government. No taxation without representation was a cornerstone of this country's establishment.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 17, 2020)

New email drops today from Hunters hard drive.

Here is one of them, will be interesting to see who else confirms these are legitimate.  We have 1 so far.

This guy is with BuzzFeed still.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 17, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> New email drops today from Hunters hard drive.
> 
> Here is one of them, will be interesting to see who else confirms these are legitimate.  We have 1 so far.
> 
> ...


Now I know there is definitely  something wrong with it.
Think anyone who looks hard enough would notice.
The dates don't make any sense or the sender and receiver


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 17, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Now I know there is definitely  something wrong with it.
> Think anyone who looks hard enough would notice.
> The dates don't make any sense or the sender and receiver



What do you mean? Your email client shows you the time based on your timezone usually.  Not following.

This was a forwarded message.  It started with Max going to 2 people from the looks of it, and Kendra forwarded it to Hunter (who received it)

Although now that I think about it, with this particular message it would not verify as much because Max can only confirm it went to Lucas and Laura.  But if he does that, it does lend some level of it being real to begin with.

We have no idea how Kendra got it, when it was forwarded to her she could have just copied and pasted the forwarded message part. (when she sent this particular message to Hunter)


----------



## Joom (Oct 17, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> This guy is with BuzzFeed still.


You might find it interesting that the originating domain doesn't use DKIM keys for domain validation (neither domains have it actually), meaning anyone can use PHP and sendmail to spoof it. That's another huge, red flag. Any self respecting network admin obtains DKIM before ever putting a mail server out for production. Without seeing the header of the email itself to validate the originating IP, this proves nothing.

https://mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx?action=dkim:ovp.eop.gov:test&run=toolpage
https://mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx?action=dkim:rosemontseneca.com:test&run=toolpage

Here's a site explaining it more.

https://dylan.tweney.com/2017/10/25/how-to-fake-an-email-from-almost-anyone-in-under-5-minutes/


----------



## RandomUser (Oct 17, 2020)

This threads for some reason reminds me of the movie called "*The First Purge*", a prequel to "*The Purge*".
Where everyone is tired of both party failing them and they voted in a new party called NFFA.



KingVamp said:


> I can't figure out which flag I like better. Link Link


The first one seems to be keeping most of the designs original to the current existing design.
They both look good but the second one seems to be a rippoff off of a different country flag to some degree, like Japan's.
Tough call.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 17, 2020)

These Russian deepfakes are getting pretty good.

WTF IS GOING ON HERE?pic.twitter.com/NUQ4aWUdZ6— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) October 17, 2020


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 17, 2020)

I bet several here strongly disagree with Biden's campaign recent announcement.

I personally think Trump has a better chance this year then in 2016.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bi...cency-in-memo-donald-trump-can-still-win-this









My addition:

I would bet internal polling has been impacted by the bombshell.

Does not help when people in the middle add up all of these things, the town halls.  It does not take a rocket scientist to begin to think, "maybe I am being manipulated".  Media trust levels are not at  high levels by any means.  And when they witness censorship, completely different standards for town halls and how each person is treated.  Trump could even earn sympathy as funny as that might sound.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 17, 2020)

Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/thebradfordfile/status/1317511494280642562


----------



## PiracyForTheMasses (Oct 17, 2020)

Let us take a look at the democratic party & their history. KKK founded by DEMOCRATS. Democratic party are member & supporters of the KKK. Robert C Byrd was a democrat, he was a member of the KKK, once he was no longer a member he still supported them. Biden use to openly support the KKK, segregation etc. Biden use to take full credit for the crime bill that led to mass incarceration of African Americans. He really has not done anything positive for America during his whole entire political career, the same can be said about Sanders. Biden not answering the question about packing the court is admittance that he plans to pack the court. Joe Biden is a corrupt politician, no doubt about that, but the majority of career politicians are corrupt. Some of you say Trump lies more than any other President, false. Career politicians lie more. We are still being lied to by the Obama admin about numerous things, the investigation into Trump & dealings with Ukraine specifically. We are probably still being lied to about numerous things from past administrations from decades ago, but that is just one mans assumption. Securing the southern border got Trump a lot of hate. Every president before Trump spent millions securing the southern border but yet Trump is bad for doing it. There use to be this thing called operation wetback. Operation wetback was a joint operation between USA and Mexico. USA allowed Mexicans to come to America to work & in exchange Mexico helped secure our southern border. Thanks to Trump we have Mexico securing our southern border again. Trade war with China is great for America in the long run. Does anyone remember when America use to make electronics? There use to be this thing called the DUMPING ACT. The Dumping Act prevented Chinese made products from being sold in America for less than what American made products were being sold for. This encouraged American citizens to buy American made products. America is to dependent on other countries.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 17, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Imagine talking about being ad hominem when you're opening position was everyone who disagrees with me is racist. Your post was probably removed because of your blatant racism. "They vote differently to me, LOL those self hating black people, how dare they think for themselves! They should be enslaved on the democratic plantation forever" What a muppet.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Antifa has not been labeled a terrorist organization. Of all the terrorism incidents in the US since 1994, there has not been a single murder attributed to Antifa.

Also, I'm not sure why you keep saying there are more black members of the Proud Boys than Antifa. 1. You don't know that, and 2. It wouldn't matter one bit.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 17, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Antifa has not been labeled a terrorist organization. Of all the terrorism incidents in the US since 1994, there has not been a single murder attributed to Antifa.
> 
> Also, I'm not sure why you keep saying there are more black members of the Proud Boys than Antifa. 1. You don't know that, and 2. It wouldn't matter one bit.



My bad, all that looting and murdering was done by 'an idea'


----------



## Lacius (Oct 17, 2020)

shamzie said:


> My bad, all that looting and murdering was done by 'an idea'





> There have been multiple efforts to discredit antifa groups via hoaxes on social media, many of them false flag attacks originating from alt-right and 4chan users posing as antifa backers on Twitter. Some hoaxes have been picked up and reported as fact by right-leaning media. During the George Floyd protests in May and June 2020, the Trump administration blamed antifa for orchestrating the mass protests. Analysis of federal arrests did not find links to antifa.
> 
> There have been repeated calls by the Trump administration to designate antifa as a terrorist organization, a move that academics, legal experts and others argue would both exceed the authority of the presidency and violate the First Amendment. Several analyses, reports and studies concluded that antifa is not a domestic or major terrorism risk and ranked far-right extremism and white supremacy as the top risk. A June 2020 study of 893 terrorism incidents in the United States since 1994 found no murder that was specifically attributed to anti-fascists or antifa while 329 deaths were attributed to right-wing perpetrators.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 17, 2020)

Lacius said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)


The Proud Boys are just an idea.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 17, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> The Proud Boys are just an idea.





> The Proud Boys are a far-right and neo-fascist male-only organization that promotes and engages in political violence in the United States and Canada. While the group officially rejects racism, several members have been affiliated with white supremacy and the Proud Boys have been described by United States intelligence organisations as "a dangerous white supremacist group".


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 17, 2020)

Lacius said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys


BLM is a black-supremacist neo-Marxist terrorist organization.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 17, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> BLM is a black-supremacist neo-Marxist terrorist organization.





> Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a decentralized political and social movement advocating for non-violent civil disobedience in protest against incidents of police brutality and all racially motivated violence against black people. The broader movement and its related organizations typically advocate against police violence towards black people as well as for various other policy changes considered to be related to black liberation.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter

Y'all need to educate yourselves. I'm tired of doing it.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 17, 2020)

Joom said:


> See what I mean? For supporters of the "law and order" president, they sure don't understand how the law works. And again, I'm someone who works in infosec. Digital forensics is my life's work. And what I see here is nothing but blatant horse shit.



as someone who is a professional in the computer science industry, I agree, all of this shit is amazingly laughable. i'm still trying to find out who is verifying the emails. supposedly it is someone involved in the chain. oh wait, there isn't a named source. guess anonymous sources are OK to use.

If we can trust the anonymous source for these emails, we can also trust the anonymous source that said trump called the military members losers and suckers.

the number of false emergencies being manufactured by the right is crazy. does anyone remember the migrant caravan that was supposed to terrorize America? what ever happened to that? same with the BLM members supposedly burning down everything in sight? oh thats right, it's bullshit.

*This summer’s Black Lives Matter protesters were overwhelmingly peaceful, our research finds – "In short, our data suggest that 96.3 percent of events involved no property damage or police injuries, and in 97.7 percent of events, no injuries were reported among participants, bystanders or police."*


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 17, 2020)

omgcat said:


> as someone who is a professional in the computer science industry, I agree, all of this shit is amazingly laughable. i'm still trying to find out who is verifying the emails. supposedly it is someone involved in the chain. oh wait, there isn't a named source. guess anonymous sources are OK to use.
> 
> If we can trust the anonymous source for these emails, we can also trust the anonymous source that said trump called the military members losers and suckers.
> 
> ...


99+% of COVID patients survive.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 18, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> 99+% of COVID patients survive.


219,000 Americans are dead. Don't be disingenuous.


----------



## Joom (Oct 18, 2020)

Lacius said:


> 219,000 Americans are dead. Don't be disingenuous.


If his age is correct, he's probably one of these neo-con kiddies who gets on TikTok and shouts the N word to show how edgy he is. Either that, or he's just another troll like the rest. Regardless, I don't expect a 15 year old, suburban kid to have a grasp on any of this.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 18, 2020)

Joom said:


> If his age is correct, he's probably one of these neo-con kiddies who gets on TikTok and shouts the N word to show how edgy he is. Either that, or he's just another troll like the rest. Regardless, I don't expect a 15 year old, suburban kid to have a grasp on any of this.



I hope he gets his act together before the real world punches him in the face. 99% sounds good, but that's still 3500000 dead once everyone in america gets it, and that very well could be him, his parents, his siblings, his cousins, his grand parents, aunts/uncles, ect. you're rolling the fucking dice, and risking potentially your whole family.


----------



## Joom (Oct 18, 2020)

omgcat said:


> I hope he gets his act together before the real world punches him in the face. 99% sounds good, but that's still 3500000 dead once everyone in america gets it, and that very well could be him, his parents, his siblings, his cousins, his grand parents, aunts/uncles, ect. you're rolling the fucking dice, and risking potentially your whole family.


I don't think they'll ever care. They think since Trump can get high out of his mind on steroids and babble incoherently about how young and strong he is on national TV, they'll receive the exact same experimental cocktail he did. And if a family member dies, they'll blame it on a pre-existing condition. It's like if they shoot someone, and they blame their bleeding out and death on having an untreated bullet hole, not because they shot them.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 18, 2020)

omgcat said:


> I hope he gets his act together before the real world punches him in the face. 99% sounds good, but that's still 3500000 dead once everyone in america gets it, and that very well could be him, his parents, his siblings, his cousins, his grand parents, aunts/uncles, ect. you're rolling the fucking dice, and risking potentially your whole family.


_but muh freedoms! The LeFtIsTs out to take our freedoms and oppressing us with masks and science._


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 18, 2020)

Gbatemp is so funny. Both the right and left people just seem to come out of the woodwork, somehow one after the other.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 18, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Gbatemp is so funny. Both the right and left people just seem to come out of the woodwork, somehow one after the other.



there aren't any "middle" people left since 2012. at this point the name of the game is voter turnout and voter suppression. the right does everything they can to suppress the vote and make people apathetic, because if they don't they would never win another election.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 18, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> _but muh freedoms! The LeFtIsTs out to take our freedoms and oppressing us with masks and science._


Next they say driver licenses are oppressing them. Oh wait. 
​





omgcat said:


> there aren't any "middle" people left since 2012.


I wouldn't say that. This isn't a jab or anything, but I doubt most left leaning people here are calling themselves socialist.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 18, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Next they say driver licenses are oppressing them. Oh wait.
> ​
> 
> 
> ...




what i mean by no one in the "middle" is that everyone knows who they are voting for by now, there are like 1000 people in the USA that are undecided. there is this huge focus on grabbing these mythical undecided voters, that the campaigns flat out forget about enthusiasm measurements. this is what has been killing the left, a concerted effort by the right to drive up voter apathy, on top of efforts to prevent people from voting. so instead of driving up enthusiasm, the democratic party spends millions on trying to capture less than 1% of the voter base, when they could win just by increasing voter turn out by 15%.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 18, 2020)

omgcat said:


> as someone who is a professional in the computer science industry, I agree, all of this shit is amazingly laughable. i'm still trying to find out who is verifying the emails. supposedly it is someone involved in the chain. oh wait, there isn't a named source. guess anonymous sources are OK to use.
> 
> If we can trust the anonymous source for these emails, we can also trust the anonymous source that said trump called the military members losers and suckers.
> 
> ...



First, as a common person outside what they have already done. (Reached out to another that was one of the recipients on a multi recipient message) you cannot truly verify the validity of these email messages out side of the fact that they totally match up time line wise and contain a lot of personal emails that match up to people and personalities and other outside events that reflect reality.

To suggest they are fake is just a feeling/guess.  None of us have access to the messages in their original form on that hard drive.  I don't believe it is normal to provide details at that low of a level in situations like this.

They have already confirmed that on at least one very damning email it is legitimate because of  confirmation from another party on that email.  That is good enough to indicate there is something here, and there likely will be further confirmation from others in the days to come.

2nd.

Every single one of those email messages should have all of its metadata associated with it.

Which will contain all the message headers (x-headers)

Rudy Giuliani is a seasoned attorney.  The moment he had that hard drive he would have had experts confirm the validity of the data before moving forward.  They would have checked the meta data on each of these messages to confirm everything looked legitimate.

x-headers for each and every email will show it's path from who sent it, in many cases systems that processed the message along its way and the path it took to get to Hunter Biden.

You can pretty much guarantee all of that has been verified, the experts would look at the different providers mail servers that relayed the messages on their way to Hunter, confirmed times/dates in these x-headers all looked legitimate.

If you believe that Rudy got this hard drive and has done no follow up with experts with all of the data on it before moving forward then you don't know how attorneys work.

This is the real deal, and the the democrats are only going to make it worse on themselves pushing some fake Russian narrative on this.

For example, take the 1 single most incriminating email where a lunch is arranged after a meeting with Joe and Hunters Ukrainian associates.  If from the x-headers it can be shown that email servers abc.gmail.com with IP xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx processed that email from the sender on xxx date and time, and it was sent to abd.gmail.com with IP xxx.xxx.xxx on xxx date and time and then was sent to hosta.hotmail.com with IP xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx on xxx date and time which was sent to hostb.hotmail.com with IP xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx date and time before being delivered to Hunter Biden. (Everything I listed is an example, I don't recall the mail providers involved with this particular message)

If this were to turn into an investigation.  They can file a discovery subpoena to both Microsoft and Google to confirm if they have logs on their end correlating these messages going through their MTA's on those dates and times from the servers I listed above in my example, and even if they don't have the logs any more they can confirm that all the servers were accurate based on name/IP etc..  If anything matches up, boom.  That's all it takes.

Summary.

Anyone saying these emails are not real is only guessing and has no real way to dispute the validity without the original in their hands.  And if you think Rudy Giuliani as a long time attorney has not had all of this verified as much as can be, then you just don't get how this stuff works.

And we already have 1 party confirming the validity of one of the damning emails.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 18, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> And we already have 1 party confirming the validity of one of the damning emails.



who is this person? also, you wouldn't be looking at x-headers for to/from information based on the SMTP protocol. standard message headers contain all that info already,  x-headers track information about what happens to mail by the user or experimental features, not how it got there. if you need a refresher, or in my opinion a chance to look at it for the first time, you can see the headers and their protocols here. another thing to watch out for is that SMTP header manipulation is easy, like known for 20+ years easy. I'm not quite sure you are informed enough to talk about this stuff in a technical capacity.https://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/message-headers.xhtml


----------



## Lacius (Oct 18, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> First, as a common person outside what they have already done. (Reached out to another that was one of the recipients on a multi recipient message) you cannot truly verify the validity of these email messages out side of the fact that they totally match up time line wise and contain a lot of personal emails that match up to people and personalities and other outside events that reflect reality.
> 
> To suggest they are fake is just a feeling/guess.  None of us have access to the messages in their original form on that hard drive.  I don't believe it is normal to provide details at that low of a level in situations like this.
> 
> ...



The FBI warned in 2019 that Rudy Giuliani "was being used to feed Russian misinformation."
We know the Russians' method of operations in 2017 in France was to hack emails, leak emails, but scatter fake emails in the real hacked emails to make them seem legitimate.
We know Burisma emails were hacked by Russia in January.
We know that the emails being discussed in this misinformation campaign likely in part came from the Burisma hack.
We know US intelligence analysts feared Russia would dump hacked and forged Burisma emails targeting Biden as an October surprise.
We know the FBI is investigating if recently published emails are tied to Russian disinformation effort targeting Biden.
This is a fake story. Stop pretending there is any evidence to the contrary, and stop pretending there isn't evidence that it's a fake story. You're peddling conspiracy theories and Russian misinformation.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 18, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The FBI warned in 2019 that Rudy Giuliani "was being used to feed Russian misinformation."
> We know the Russians' method of operations in 2017 in France was to hack emails, leak emails, but scatter fake emails in the real hacked emails to make them seem legitimate.
> We know Burisma emails were hacked by Russia in January.
> We know that the emails being discussed in this misinformation campaign likely in part came from the Burisma hack.
> ...



not only that, he's trying to technobabble people who actually work with computers for a living.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 18, 2020)

omgcat said:


> not only that, he's trying to technobabble people who actually work with computers for a living.


And not only that, but Trump was told all of this before we knew it, and he's knowingly peddling Russian disinformation anyway. It's arguably treasonous.


----------



## GhostLatte (Oct 18, 2020)

PiracyForTheMasses said:


> Let us take a look at the democratic party & their history. KKK founded by DEMOCRATS. Democratic party are member & supporters of the KKK. Robert C Byrd was a democrat, he was a member of the KKK, once he was no longer a member he still supported them. Biden use to openly support the KKK, segregation etc. Biden use to take full credit for the crime bill that led to mass incarceration of African Americans. He really has not done anything positive for America during his whole entire political career, the same can be said about Sanders. Biden not answering the question about packing the court is admittance that he plans to pack the court. Joe Biden is a corrupt politician, no doubt about that, but the majority of career politicians are corrupt. Some of you say Trump lies more than any other President, false. Career politicians lie more. We are still being lied to by the Obama admin about numerous things, the investigation into Trump & dealings with Ukraine specifically. We are probably still being lied to about numerous things from past administrations from decades ago, but that is just one mans assumption. Securing the southern border got Trump a lot of hate. Every president before Trump spent millions securing the southern border but yet Trump is bad for doing it. There use to be this thing called operation wetback. Operation wetback was a joint operation between USA and Mexico. USA allowed Mexicans to come to America to work & in exchange Mexico helped secure our southern border. Thanks to Trump we have Mexico securing our southern border again. Trade war with China is great for America in the long run. Does anyone remember when America use to make electronics? There use to be this thing called the DUMPING ACT. The Dumping Act prevented Chinese made products from being sold in America for less than what American made products were being sold for. This encouraged American citizens to buy American made products. America is to dependent on other countries.


The parties switched in case you forgot.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 18, 2020)

PiracyForTheMasses said:


> Let us take a look at the democratic party & their history. KKK founded by DEMOCRATS. Democratic party are member & supporters of the KKK. Robert C Byrd was a democrat, he was a member of the KKK, once he was no longer a member he still supported them. Biden use to openly support the KKK, segregation etc. Biden use to take full credit for the crime bill that led to mass incarceration of African Americans. He really has not done anything positive for America during his whole entire political career, the same can be said about Sanders. Biden not answering the question about packing the court is admittance that he plans to pack the court. Joe Biden is a corrupt politician, no doubt about that, but the majority of career politicians are corrupt. Some of you say Trump lies more than any other President, false. Career politicians lie more. We are still being lied to by the Obama admin about numerous things, the investigation into Trump & dealings with Ukraine specifically. We are probably still being lied to about numerous things from past administrations from decades ago, but that is just one mans assumption. Securing the southern border got Trump a lot of hate. Every president before Trump spent millions securing the southern border but yet Trump is bad for doing it. There use to be this thing called operation wetback. Operation wetback was a joint operation between USA and Mexico. USA allowed Mexicans to come to America to work & in exchange Mexico helped secure our southern border. Thanks to Trump we have Mexico securing our southern border again. Trade war with China is great for America in the long run. Does anyone remember when America use to make electronics? There use to be this thing called the DUMPING ACT. The Dumping Act prevented Chinese made products from being sold in America for less than what American made products were being sold for. This encouraged American citizens to buy American made products. America is to dependent on other countries.


Learn some history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_switching_in_the_United_States

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_realignment_in_the_United_States


----------



## omgcat (Oct 18, 2020)

the most interesting thing i have seen is that the republicans published messages of hunter coming to his dad for help, saddened by his drug addiction, and all Joe cared about was that he was safe. if they think that is bad, they are insane. the opioid epidemic has ravaged the united states, especially the Midwest for a while now. So many families are going to see that message, and understand the humanity that Joe Biden has. humanizing your competition is a bad move, especially if you have a history of throwing people under the bus.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 18, 2020)

omgcat said:


> who is this person? also, you wouldn't be looking at x-headers for to/from information based on the SMTP protocol. standard message headers contain all that info already,  x-headers track information about what happens to mail by the user or experimental features, not how it got there. if you need a refresher, or in my opinion a chance to look at it for the first time, you can see the headers and their protocols here. another thing to watch out for is that SMTP header manipulation is easy, like known for 20+ years easy. I'm not quite sure you are informed enough to talk about this stuff in a technical capacity.



LOL, what are you a level 1 tech or something?  I know exactly how this stuff works.  Have for a pretty long time.

You sound like someone trying to act like you know what you are talking about. LOL.

SMTP is the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol. 

It is the conduit that is used to move messages around the Internet (and on local networks for organizations)

When 1 mail gateway sends a message to another it uses SMTP to do this. 

Every email message contains meta data as I listed above.  These are message headers/ x-headers.  In these headers there are details related to the message exchange that took place along the way (via SMTP) and also x-headers added by systems that process these messages, spam fighting processes, security products, etc..

As I said above in my original message all of these messages would contain the details of how they got  to Hunter.  Which would all be verified before they made the determination they were likely legitimate.  This same metadata can be used to correlate the transfer of the message on the other side in their logs on their mail servers during the legal discovery process.

It's very simple if you understand.  For you to say "I work in the IT field" does not mean squat.  Without the raw messages in your hand you cannot get visibility into this data.

And again I will restate, a seasoned attorney the FIRST thing they would do when getting something like this hard drive is get a 3rd party to look into the details that will be available for each and every one of these emails.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 18, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> LOL, what are you a level 1 tech or something?  I know exactly how this stuff works.  Have for a pretty long time.
> 
> You sound like someone trying to act like you know what you are talking about. LOL.
> 
> ...



so who is the person verifying the information? still waiting on a name.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 18, 2020)

Wow, I just saw this email from Hunters dump.

While it is not related to Joe, it is interesting nevertheless.

Why the heck is Steve Clemons (A Journalist) providing this guidance?  WOW!


----------



## omgcat (Oct 18, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Wow, I just saw this email from Hunters dump.
> 
> While it is not related to Joe, it is interesting nevertheless.
> 
> ...



link to the dump?


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 18, 2020)

omgcat said:


> so who is the person verifying the information? still waiting on a name.



I already posted the link to it pages back I think yesterday.  They announced it on Thursday I think.

Find it yourself.  And seriously, you are in no way or shape suitable to make any judgements on if these emails are fake or not.  And posting links to some other people who ALSO don't have the raw messages claiming it is fake is even worse.

And the fact you don't know how the process works at a legal level before it would get to this point is telling.

You think he just got that hard drive and has released the info in it? If it was someone like you or I, yeah maybe.  But not a seasoned lawyer.  I guarantee there have been MULTIPLE people that have already went over all the underlying details related to these emails before they told him they looked legitimate.

Edit:

Actually I misread what you said, I thought you were asking about one of the recipients on one of the 1 emails that they confirmed so far.

You can find the emails yourself. I am not posting any links to those.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 18, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I already posted the link to it pages back I think yesterday.  They announced it on Thursday I think.
> 
> Find it yourself.  And seriously, you are in no way or shape suitable to make any judgements on if these emails are fake or not.  And posting links to some other people who ALSO don't have the raw messages claiming it is fake is even worse.
> 
> ...



still trying to hunt the email dump down, but seriously you claim someone has verified the emails, who are they?


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 18, 2020)

omgcat said:


> still trying to hunt the email dump down, but seriously you claim someone has verified the emails, who are they?



I have no idea, I have no way of knowing that.

But I know how attorneys work.  It's pretty universal.

An attorney like Rudy has very little technical understanding.

Do you think he is the one that hooked up that drive to get the data off of it? No, my mom would probably be as good at doing that as Rudy.

But Rudy understands you can't just make claims without being able to back them up. (when it gets to the point of  charging someone with something) Especially at levels like this.  

Attorneys usually rely on 3rd parties, they normally have people that do this kind of stuff for them.  So whoever this 3rd party is they would have dumped all the data for them and would have been asked to verify the likely validity of the data.   This is where deeper analysis would come into play.

Like if someone provided me with the RAW dump of all those emails.  I think in a couple days I would be able to determine the likely  authenticity  of the emails just based on all the headers I could extract from each message. 

If you have ever watched attorneys do their work in court they are very methodical.  But what gets them to that point of being so organized with documented proof and examples and everything else is from 90% of everyone else involved extracting details and doing work etc.

An attorney like Rudy is kind like the film director for a case. In a way I guess you could say.  Not sure if that is the best analogy.  But Rudy knows what he wants to determine but does not have the skills to do that with everything.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 18, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I have no idea, I have no way of knowing that.
> 
> But I know how attorneys work.  It's pretty universal.
> 
> ...




until names come out verifying the info, it's bunk. no one has access to the actual files and no one is stepping forward to confirm this as real. all i could find is fox news stating an anonymous source verified the info. but we all know how you feel about anonymous sources.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 18, 2020)

omgcat said:


> until names come out verifying the info, it's bunk. no one has access to the actual files and no one is stepping forward to confirm this as real. all i could find is fox news stating an anonymous source verified the info. but we all know how you feel about anonymous sources.



From your understanding I could see how you would think that.

But I guarantee those initial check boxes and analysis have been done.  That brought it to the point it got to so far.

And AGAIN, we already have confirmation on one of the damning China based emails one of the recipients confirmed the message obtained from this they also got.  So a 3rd party outside of Hunter has confirmed at least one of the damning emails.

What is funny to me, is those with TDS the double standards are amazing at what point you feel like the burden of proof has been met.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 18, 2020)

we'll see how this develops. with 16 days left until election day, and massive early voting, I'm not sure how much this news would even change the outcome of the election. considering giulliani had this info for months, he really shit the bed on choosing when to release it.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 18, 2020)

omgcat said:


> we'll see how this develops. with 16 days left until election day, and massive early voting, I'm not sure how much this news would even change the outcome of the election. considering giulliani had this info for months, he really shit the bed on choosing when to release it.



I think it is already having an impact. 

I know it is only anecdotal, my MOM knew about this.  She mentioned it to me on Friday evening I think it was when I was talking to her.  I think the Streisand Effect occurred the moment Social media started trying to censor this.

But yeah we won't know for certain till later about where this will go, what more is coming, what impact it had ,etc..


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 18, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I personally think Trump has a better chance this year then in 2016.


Trump's Covid-19 response is a huge selling point and should really help him.

*Nearly 218,000 Covid-19 deaths in the US through 10-17-20*
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesinlast7days

*The Trump campaign reportedly ordered venue workers to remove thousands of social distancing labels ahead of his Tulsa rally*
https://www.businessinsider.com/tru...ocial-distancing-labels-at-tulsa-rally-2020-6



*Former GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain, who attended Tulsa rally, dies of COVID-19*
https://apnews.com/article/herman-c...020-oklahoma-8173fe14f7cf7095ced3b55fdc65581e

*Fauci: 'We had a superspreader event in the White House'*
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/520409-fauci-we-had-a-superspreader-event-in-the-white-house

*Trump, stricken by COVID-19, flown to military hospital*
https://apnews.com/article/virus-ou...ichael-pence-f6ba3a16ab9b74b161a3a7211248e97e

*Trump's aggregate polling reached a new low on Saturday, now trails Biden by 10.7 points*
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/


----------



## omgcat (Oct 18, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Trump's Covid-19 response is a huge selling point and should really help him.
> 
> *Nearly 218,000 Covid-19 deaths in the US through 10-17-20*
> https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesinlast7days
> ...





it really fucks me up that herman cain's twitter account is tweeting after he died. like let dead people lie.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 18, 2020)

omgcat said:


> it really fucks me up that herman cain's twitter account is tweeting after he died. like let dead people lie.


Yikes, I didn't know that.  I agree.


----------



## Joom (Oct 18, 2020)

So, anyone gonna talk about how the police are now acting as hitmen for the right, and the fact that Trump is praising their actions? Cause y'know, that's how our justice system works.



Also, about Biden talking about complacency; I said the same thing a few pages back. The only thing that will allow Trump to win is if we don't go out and vote. We can't look at current polls and think it's going to be a blowout, because that's what happened in 2016. Register to vote online if you haven't done so already. Hurry, though, as it takes 10 - 14 business days for your county to process your request.

Edit: The FBI is now performing an investigation into the laptop hoax. I love how Giuliani won't allow any other publications except tabloids to see the material. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...er-biden-data-trump-ally-giuliani/3661895001/


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 18, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Trump's Covid-19 response is a huge selling point and should really help him.
> 
> *Nearly 218,000 Covid-19 deaths in the US through 10-17-20*
> https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesinlast7days
> ...




Yeah and that death count  would be lower if governors made better choices.  You are another one with TDS and disingenuous.  

This is Lum with TDS in two different timelines:

The USA does well and low death count:  Trump did not do shit, we only did this well because of the governors actions of each state guys!  Trump has no control over the states, this proves it!

Our timeline: It's all Trumps fault, the feds did NOTHING at all guys, really.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 18, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Yeah and that death count  would be lower if governors made better choices.  You are another one with TDS and disingenuous.
> 
> This is Lum with TDS in two different timelines:
> 
> ...


The only reason we are talking about governors' choices is because there was effectively no federal response.

Worse, the response from Trump was "it's not a big deal," "don't shutdown," "reopen as early as possible," and "don't wear masks."


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 18, 2020)

Should we at all be surprised?  You know the moment the bombshell dropped Joe was calling Anna.  If I remember correctly Facebook was first to start censoring.

Anna Makanju is the Facebook executive in charge of “election integrity on the platform”; and guess what her job was before that position… “Previously, she was the special policy adviser for Europe and Eurasia to former US Vice President Joe Biden”.






https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/expert/anna-makanju/

Surprised this is still up on her BIO at this point in time.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 18, 2020)

Joe is going back into hiding.   
BREAKING: Joe Biden will not be seen until Thursday night,

@edokeefe
says

https://twitter.com/TrumpJew/status/1317844920036696065?s=20

Wonder if he will even wind up debating Thursday.

And in all likelihood more will be discovered between now and Thursday.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 18, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Joe is going back into hiding.
> BREAKING: Joe Biden will not be seen until Thursday night,
> 
> @edokeefe
> ...


You're demonstrably peddling conspiracy theories and Russian misinformation.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 18, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The only reason we are talking about governors' choices is because there was effectively no federal response.
> 
> Worse, the response from Trump was "it's not a big deal," "don't shutdown," "reopen as early as possible," and "don't wear masks."


Tenth amendment.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 18, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Tenth amendment.


Trump's failings included, but weren't limited to, downplaying the virus, lying about the virus, doing nothing to hasten testing in the early stages, doing nothing to increase the availability of medical supplies, etc. Don't act like there was any sort of constitutional barrier to doing these things, because there wasn't. Trump's response was to pretend the virus didn't exist.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/...rus-actions-and-failures-timeline-and-themes/

Educate yourself. Shouting "Tenth amendment" like it's at all relevant makes you sound like a fool.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 18, 2020)

https://arizonadailyindependent.com...pQx08Z9nRSWBqYv-9eEOkiZW-TNSS6z1j8uTxJPn9uxLo

*Voters Hold Parades For Trump And Biden In Shows Of Support*

On Saturday, President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden voters held parades in dueling shows of support.


Maricopa County Recorder Adrian Fontes arranged for a mariachi band to serenade a parade of 6 voters as they drop off their ballots at an early voting center.

Nicole Pastuer, spokesperson for the Biden campaign, said of the parade in a tweet that she had “never seen people so excited—so proud and emotional—to vote.”


----------



## Lacius (Oct 18, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> https://arizonadailyindependent.com...pQx08Z9nRSWBqYv-9eEOkiZW-TNSS6z1j8uTxJPn9uxLo
> 
> *Voters Hold Parades For Trump And Biden In Shows Of Support*
> 
> ...


Meanwhile, it looks like Biden is ahead in Arizona by 3.9 points.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 18, 2020)

While the tabloid smear campaign will likely peel some undecideds away, the skyrocketing October Covid-19 numbers are *peeling voters right back to Biden*.  Trump is, after all, the face of the anti-mask movement, which we've seen time and again at his mask-less rallies and at the recent mask-less Rose Garden superspreader event.

*Biden Holds Wide Leads on Coronavirus, Unifying the Country*
https://www.pewresearch.org/politic...de-leads-on-coronavirus-unifying-the-country/

*AP-NORC poll: Americans critical of Trump handling of virus*
https://apnews.com/article/election...cs-elections-6e638bcaaebe4b5e83721440203b7511

Biden's aggregate polling was only up around +3 points at the end of February.  Can anyone fathom a guess how it spiked all the way to +10.6 in October?


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 18, 2020)

Well, I just voted for Trump.

JK. Voted for Biden.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 18, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> While the tabloid smear campaign will likely peel some undecideds away, the skyrocketing October Covid-19 numbers are *peeling voters right back to Biden*.  Trump is, after all, the face of the anti-mask movement, which we've seen time and again at his mask-less rallies and at the recent mask-less Rose Garden superspreader event.
> 
> *Biden Holds Wide Leads on Coronavirus, Unifying the Country*
> https://www.pewresearch.org/politic...de-leads-on-coronavirus-unifying-the-country/
> ...


It seems like people hate freedom.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 18, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> It seems like people hate freedom.


Seems like you like people dying then, if that's your guess why the polling went down for trump


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 18, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Seems like you like people dying then, if that's your guess why the polling went down for trump


Their sacrifices will not be in vain. No cost is too great for freedom. Lose it and you'll never get it back.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 18, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> It seems like people hate freedom.


Most people hate wearing masks, it's just that they hate Covid-19 superspreaders more.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 18, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Most people hate wearing masks, it's just that they hate Covid-19 superspreaders more.


Nothing is more important than freedom, except for God.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 18, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Nothing is more important than freedom, except for God.


You mean like the freedom to go shopping without encountering mask-less Karens bunched up together during a pandemic.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 18, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> You mean like the freedom to go shopping without encountering mask-less Karens bunched up together during a pandemic.


I mean the freedom to go shopping unmasked without faceless sheep throwing things at you and yelling at the top of their lungs. If you're scared, you can stay home. If you're not scared, you shouldn't have to wear a mattress on your face.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 18, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Their sacrifices will not be in vain. No cost is too great for freedom. Lose it and you'll never get it back.


So, I guess you just break all the laws then?

Lawlessness and anarchy!


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 18, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> *I mean the freedom to go shopping unmasked* without faceless sheep throwing things at you and yelling at the top of their lungs. If you're scared, you can stay home. If you're not scared, you shouldn't have to wear a mattress on your face.


The freedom to ignore science while endangering others (social distancing, climate change, anti-vax).  This is why your candidate is getting pummeled in the polls.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

*8 Karens and Kens who threw huge tantrums instead of putting on masks*
https://mashable.com/article/karen-no-mask-videos-tantrums-coronavirus/


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 18, 2020)

Eight major polls from October so far:

10/6 poll- Fairleigh Dickinson University: Trump down by 10 points
10/9 poll- Atlantic / PRRI: Trump down by 11 points
10/10 poll- NBC / Wall Street Journal: Trump down by 14 points
10/14 poll- Boston Globe / SurveyUSA: Trump down by 10 points
10/17 poll- Monmouth University: Trump down by 12 points
10/17 poll- CBS: Trump down by 9 points
10/17 poll- Bloomberg: Trump down by 9 points
10/19 poll- Brookings Institute / PRRI: Trump down by 15 points


Actually those were from 2016.

It's not over till it's over.

I don't believe polls represent reality but wonder why Biden is in the process of crashing, nothing to do with the fact he is a crook and has been exposed?







And I don't generally hear people complaining in different states about covid and Trump,  it is their governors they usually complain about.   Since that is who set the rules and plans.   

When many governors in states during April/May had daily covid-19 broadcasts talking about what they were doing it was not Trump on their local TV in some cases daily, it was the governors.

You think NY folks who have had family members die who were in homes are irate about Trump?  LOL It's Coumo all the way that they blame.

Also more lies from Biden at the town hall:

https://freebeacon.com/2020-election/pro-trump-union-blasts-biden-for-lying-about-endorsement/

*Pro-Trump Union Blasts Biden for Lying About Endorsement*
*Pa. Boilermakers Trustee: 'Nobody from his staff—nobody—has ever spoken with us'*


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 18, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> So, I guess you just break all the laws then?
> 
> Lawlessness and anarchy!


"Above all else" has a nicer ring than "except for murder, theft, and assault".


LumInvader said:


> The freedom to ignore science while endangering others (social distancing, climate change, anti-vax).  This is why your candidate is getting pummeled in the polls.


You're talking about the same bull**** """science""" that claims that fetuses aren't people and a man can become a woman. Do you really think I'd trust something like that?


LumInvader said:


> *8 Karens and Kens who threw huge tantrums instead of putting on masks*
> https://mashable.com/article/karen-no-mask-videos-tantrums-coronavirus/


What about the sheeple throwing tantrums when someone at a restaurant gets up for two minutes to go to the bathroom without a mask on? Does COVID only spread at a specific level?


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 18, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> "Above all else" has a nicer ring than "except for murder, theft, and assault".
> 
> *You're talking about the same bull**** """science""" that claims that fetuses aren't people and a man can become a woman. Do you really think I'd trust something like that?*
> 
> What about the sheeple throwing tantrums when someone at a restaurant gets up for two minutes to go to the bathroom without a mask on? Does COVID only spread at a specific level?


I just tricked you into admitting you're anti-science.  Nice one.  See you in November.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 18, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Eight major polls from October so far:
> 
> 10/6 poll- Fairleigh Dickinson University: Trump down by 10 points
> 10/9 poll- Atlantic / PRRI: Trump down by 11 points
> ...


You are 100% right that it's not over until it's over. Anything can happen. Anyone who doesn't realize that didn't pay attention in 2016. That being said, Clinton was ahead by 6.6 points nationally, and a lot of swing states were very close. This year, Biden is ahead by 10.6 nationally, and the swing states aren't as close. If the state polls are as wrong this year as they were in 2016 (in Trump's direction), Biden would still win the electoral college in a landslide. I'd much rather it be 2020 than 2016.

*Above polling numbers are 10/18/16 and 10/18/20.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 18, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Nothing is more important than freedom, except for God.


You don't seem to understand that progressives value freedom, probably more than conservatives do. Your mistake, as I've said to you before, is that a person's freedoms end where another person's begins. Mask mandates are one of the best ways to mitigate a pandemic. Your freedom to not wear a mask ends where my freedom to not catch COVID-19 from you begins. I've used several analogies in the past that you seem to accept, but you never rationalized your disdain for mask mandates. You haven't realized yet that you're arbitrarily ignoring the freedoms of others in favor of your own. Conservatives often have issues with experiencing empathy for others.

Similarly, your religious rights end where another person's religious rights begin. Outlawing abortion on the basis of your religious beliefs, for example, is analogous to outlawing pork because some people have the religious belief that it's not kosher. This is a secular country with secular laws. Also, while I respect anybody's right to have whatever religious beliefs they want, there isn't actually any logically sound reason to think a god exists.

It is also worth noting here that nobody who has exclusively voted Republican has ever voted for a pro-life candidate. Republicans like to talk about how much they hate abortion, but their solution is to outlaw it. We know that doesn't stop women from getting abortions. What does reduce abortion are sex education, access to contraception, access to healthcare, etc. Republicans are generally against all of these things, and that's not even getting into the fact that "pro-life" Republicans are for the death penalty, anti-social programs that save lives, anti affordable access to healthcare, etc. If you want to vote for an actually pro-life candidate, vote for Joe Biden and the Democrats.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 18, 2020)

welp, Covid is rearing it's ugly head again. the states didn't do a good job at getting a hold of the numbers and we are surging in 48 states. 22 of the 50 states have broken new case highs today.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 18, 2020)

Lacius said:


> You don't seem to understand that progressives value freedom, probably more than conservatives do. Your mistake, as I've said to you before, is that a person's freedoms end where another person's begins. Mask mandates are one of the best ways to mitigate a pandemic. Your freedom to not wear a mask ends where my freedom to not catch COVID-19 from you begins. I've used several analogies in the past that you seem to accept, but you never rationalized your disdain for mask mandates. You haven't realized yet that you're arbitrarily ignoring the freedoms of others in favor of your own. Conservatives often have issues with experiencing empathy for others.


If you give up your freedoms, you don't get them back. How many times do I have to say this?


Lacius said:


> Similarly, your religious rights end where another person's religious rights begin. Outlawing abortion on the basis of your religious beliefs, for example, is analogous to outlawing pork because some people have the religious belief that it's not kosher. This is a secular country with secular laws.


Abortion isn't about religion. It's about life. COVID deaths can't be prevented. Abortions can.


Lacius said:


> Also, while I respect anybody's right to have whatever religious beliefs they want, there isn't actually any logically sound reason to think a god exists.


For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
1 Corinthians 1:21‭-‬25 NIV


Lacius said:


> It is also worth noting here that nobody who has exclusively voted Republican has ever voted for a pro-life candidate. Republicans like to talk about how much they hate abortion, but their solution is to outlaw it. We know that doesn't stop women from getting abortions. What does reduce abortion are sex education, access to contraception, access to healthcare, etc. Republicans are generally against all of these things, and that's not even getting into the fact that "pro-life" Republicans are for the death penalty, anti-social programs that save lives, anti affordable access to healthcare, etc. If you want to vote for an actually pro-life candidate, vote for Joe Biden and the Democrats.


The same logic applies to guns.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 18, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> If you give up your freedoms, you don't get them back. How many times do I have to say this?
> 
> Abortion isn't about religion. It's about life. COVID deaths can't be prevented. Abortions can.
> 
> ...


Mask mandates aren't permanent. Shutdowns, mask mandates, etc. have come and gone, depending on the area. So, this kind of tired soapbox hyperbole about losing freedoms forever isn't especially convincing.

The anti-abortion argument is purely religious. The idea that personhood/the soul begin at conception is inherently religious. Also, COVID deaths can be prevented. The idea that COVID infections and the accompanying deaths can't be prevented is dangerous conspiracy theory nonsense. Masks work. Social distancing works. Hand washing and sanitizing work.

Not to sound offensive, but Bible verses aren't convincing in the absence of any evidence that the Bible is true. It would be like me quoting Harry Potter books when asked for evidence that Voldemort exists.

Could you explain how the same logic applies to guns? Because it sounds like you didn't understand the argument, if that's what you think. Please be specific. There are a lot of things you could be trying to say, but I'm not going argue against what I think you might be saying when you might not be actually saying it.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 18, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Eight major polls from October so far:
> 
> 10/6 poll- Fairleigh Dickinson University: Trump down by 10 points
> 10/9 poll- Atlantic / PRRI: Trump down by 11 points
> ...



Upon further inspection, the aggregate polling data show's Biden's lead has been *far more* robust than Clinton's was:












July 30th 2016: Clinton was up +0.8 points.
July 30th 2020: Biden was up +8.3 points. (+7.5 points over Clinton)


August 15th 2016: Clinton was up +8.6 points.
August 15th 2020: Biden was up +8.5 points. (-0.1 below Clinton)


September 26th 2016: Clinton was up +1.5 points.
September 26th 2020: Biden was up +7.3 points. (+5.8 over Clinton)


October 18th 2016: Clinton was up +7.0 points.
October 18th 2020: Biden is up +10.6 points. (+3.6 over Clinton)


November 7th 2016 (Final polls): Clinton was up +3.6 points.
November 8th 2016 (Election): Clinton wins popular vote by +2.1 points.

Clinton's polling sagged down to the +1 to +3 points range every 1-2 months during the 2016 election.  Every time Clinton's numbers went up, they'd fall right back down.  Biden's numbers have shown *no sag at all*.  The last time Biden's lead dropped below +6 was when it dropped down to +5.9 back on June 3rd.  That was 4.5 months ago.  The last time it dropped below +5 points was all the way back in April -- *6 months ago! *


----------



## omgcat (Oct 18, 2020)

i went on /pol/ last night to try to hunt down the supposed email dump and couldn't find it. what i did find however was a bunch of tards arguing about how California is flipping red for sure this year.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Oct 18, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I mean the freedom to go shopping unmasked without faceless sheep throwing things at you and yelling at the top of their lungs. If you're scared, you can stay home. If you're not scared, you shouldn't have to wear a mattress on your face.



How did I ever forget to add you to my Trumper block list? I'm on that just as soon as I finish this post.

I was tested for Covid on Friday and I am supposed to have results tomorrow. I won't go into the long story about how/when/why I MAY have gotten it, but the chances due to circumstances are far greater than not. I do have plenty of the symptoms and feel like shit. If you're not scared, care to come over and give me a big sloppy kiss or let me cough in your face? Yeah... that's what I thought. Buh-bye now.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 18, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> How did I ever forget to add you to my Trumper block list? I'm on that just as soon as I finish this post.
> 
> I was tested for Covid on Friday and I am supposed to have results tomorrow. I won't go into the long story about how/when/why I MAY have gotten it, but the chances due to circumstances are far greater than not. I do have plenty of the symptoms and feel like shit. If you're not scared, care to come over and give me a big sloppy kiss or let me cough in your face? Yeah... that's what I thought. Buh-bye now.



spit in his mouth.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Oct 18, 2020)

omgcat said:


> spit in his mouth.



I hope he brings crimpshrine, gregory-samba, Hanafuda, mrjoshuaco, tabzer, and anyone else I forgot with him.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 18, 2020)

omgcat said:


> spit in his mouth.





D34DL1N3R said:


> I hope he brings crimpshrine, gregory-samba, Hanafuda, mrjoshuaco, tabzer, and anyone else I forgot with him.


You can add me to the list. It's not because I'm fearless of COVID. I'm just probably as depraved as everybody on that list thinks we progressives are.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 18, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> I hope he brings crimpshrine, gregory-samba, Hanafuda, mrjoshuaco, tabzer, and anyone else I forgot with him.



Some of you really are the bottom of the barrel type of people.  

Fortunately it is VERY few in the grand scheme of things.

I still have to laugh while Lum is busy posting poll #'s remember even Bidens campaign manager Jen Dillon said yesterday:





Too bad they don't have you Lum on their team, then they would be doing better


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 18, 2020)

Wandered back in here after some time away for no particular reason.

Still seems all politicians aren't worth being pissed on should they catch fire. Whoever wins nothing particularly good or bad will likely happen (too much inertia and distributed power with many and varied interests) almost regardless of what you think good or bad is, especially if that definitional line is anything like a popular one (the 5 extremes in any given direction or axis probably think bad/not far enough and thus bad is the only outcome there).

I do like stats and systems though and these things provide some nice ones to ponder.

Oh well. Hopefully it will all be over soon without people having to remember to double tap.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 18, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Some of you really are the bottom of the barrel type of people.
> 
> Fortunately it is VERY few in the grand scheme of things.
> 
> ...


Regardless of how the election turns out, one has to admit the Biden campaign is doing extremely well right now.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 18, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I still have to laugh while Lum is busy posting poll #'s remember *even Bidens campaign manager Jen Dillon said yesterday*:
> 
> View attachment 229747
> 
> Too bad they don't have you Lum on their team, then they would be doing better


A campaign manager's job is to encourage his or her base to vote -- to discourage the complacency that occurs with massive +10.6 point poll leads.  Well done, Jen Dillon.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 18, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Regardless of how the election turns out, one has to admit the Biden campaign is doing extremely well right now.


How would I measure such a thing?

Polls (and what ones at that*), merchandise sales (be it silly hats or signs to put in the front 
garden), betting patterns, early votes, TV ratings, internet video ratings, online engagement (do we look at twitter followers?)?

*itself a massive thing where you contemplate voters on the day (if no young people vote and you collect data from young people does it skew vs only collecting from those that went out and voted in the last however many), shy voters, questions asked.

Some of those might seem silly but at the same time some of those are money where their mouth is aka revealed preference.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 18, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> How would I measure such a thing?
> 
> Polls (and what ones at that*), merchandise sales (be it silly hats or signs to put in the front
> garden), betting patterns, early votes, TV ratings, internet video ratings, online engagement (do we look at twitter followers?)?
> ...


Since the first debate, Biden's polling numbers have been soaring. If the election were today, Biden would likely do better than Obama in 2008.


----------



## Cylent1 (Oct 18, 2020)

Here is who I wouldn't vote for and that is rightful opinion!


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 19, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> A campaign manager's job is to encourage his or her base to vote -- to discourage the complacency that occurs with massive +10.6 point poll leads.  Well done, Jen Dillon.



When I post facts, you say I am speculating.

You are the one who continues to speculate when faced with facts.   





Oh that's just because of XXX.  

She has never said this previously that I could find, and she says it a few days after the bombshell.

Nahh not related at all.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 19, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> When I post facts, you say I am speculating.
> 
> You are the one who continues to speculate when faced with facts.
> 
> ...


You're trying to pass off speculation as facts, lol.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 19, 2020)

https://www.zerohedge.com/political...r-biden-emails-says-multiple-stories-multiple





Can't wait to see what is next.


Also I am surprised they missed a person when they were creating this news story.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/social-media-backlash-facebook-twitter-hunter-biden







> The move prompted fresh criticism on social media over the Biden transition team’s hiring of top Facebook executive Jessica Hertz, which reportedly came days after the 2020 Democrat’s campaign penned a letter to the social media giant urging them to censor President Trump’s posts.
> 
> Twitter’s suppression of the Hunter Biden revelations also came days after the company’s director of public policy, Carlos Monje, reportedly left his post to work for the Biden transition team.
> 
> Joe Concha, a media reporter for The Hill, underscored the timing of the events on Twitter Sunday after a user observed that the New York Post is “still locked out of its Twitter account for publishing a story that made Joe Biden look bad.”



Nothing at all about Anna Makanju, who is the Facebook executive who was a policy adviser for the Ukraine under Biden when he was VP.

And at Facebook she leads the election integrity effort.  Yeah right LOL.

Imagine if Trump's former people went to work for big tech and were censoring Trump related news.  The liberals would claim this was 1940 and Trump was Hitler.   It would be funny if it were not so true.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 19, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> When I post facts, you say I am speculating.
> 
> You are the one who continues to speculate when faced with facts.
> 
> ...


Notice how crimpshrine conveniently left out the part where Jen Dillon said, “_*We cannot become complacent* because the very searing truth is that Donald Trump can still win this race, and every indication we have shows that this thing is going to come down to the wire._”

Citation:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...ters-not-to-get-complacent-campaign-like-were

Obviously, that part was left out on purpose because it didn't fit within the framework of crimpshine's logical fallacy (i.e. campaign manager suggests race is closer than polling suggests = aggregate polling should be discounted).

This is why context* always matters*.  The Democrats have been campaigning on the complacency theme for months:

*Democrats warn voters: Don't get complacent *
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/520418-democrats-warn-voters-dont-get-complacent


> "*I think we're putting that fear [of another upset loss] to good use*, and we're being constructive in the way we're approaching the election," said Guy Cecil, the chairman of Priorities USA, the largest Democratic super PAC supporting Biden's campaign. "Am I optimistic? Yes. But I do continue to have serious concerns and we need to continue to run through the finish line."



'nuff said.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 19, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Notice how crimpshrine conveniently left out the part where Jen Dillon said, “_*We cannot become complacent* because the very searing truth is that Donald Trump can still win this race, and every indication we have shows that this thing is going to come down to the wire._”
> 
> *Biden camp urges supporters to 'campaign like we're trailing'*
> https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...ters-not-to-get-complacent-campaign-like-were
> ...



She said:





May not be accurate means it might not be right, are you really that blind?

And BTW I posted the article pages back the other day with a link.

It does not matter what else she said because she said they many not be accurate.

Which was MY POINT.  If you go back to where this started I was pointing out that even Biden's team does not believe the polls.

The FACT here is that Biden's campaign manager said that the polling showing Biden ahead may not be accurate.

You then start to debate some other aspect which does NOT refute the fact I listed.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 19, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> https://www.zerohedge.com/political...r-biden-emails-says-multiple-stories-multiple
> 
> View attachment 229766
> 
> ...


Great. Come back when there's a real story.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



crimpshrine said:


> She said:
> 
> View attachment 229770
> 
> ...


What was said about polls possibly being inaccurate is a non-story.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 19, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> She said:
> 
> View attachment 229770
> 
> ...


First off, that's *not* what Jen Dillon said.  That quote belongs to Fox News ya freakin' knucklehead, from the below article:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bi...cency-in-memo-donald-trump-can-still-win-this


> Dillon cautioned that polling showing Biden ahead may not be accurate.
> 
> “[E]ven the best polling can be wrong and that variables like turnout mean that in a number of critical swing states we are fundamentally tied," Dillon wrote.



The above article was in reference to the released memo, where Jen also stated the following:


> “*We cannot become complacent* because the very searing truth is that Donald Trump can still win this race, and every indication we have shows that this thing is going to come down to the wire.”



crimpshrine shouldn't accuse others of blindless when he's misquoting people left and right, while disengenuously leaving out key parts that don't fit within the framework of his logical fallacy.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 19, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> First off, that's *not* what Jen Dillon said.  That quote belongs to Fox News ya freakin' knucklehead, from the below article:
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bi...cency-in-memo-donald-trump-can-still-win-this
> 
> ...



LOL, you re-reinforced what I have been saying.

“*We also know that even the best polling can be wrong*, and that variables like turnout mean that in a number of critical states we are functionally tied — and that we need to campaign like we’re trailing.”

Which even with Foxes editorial adjustments, still  means the SAME EXACT THING.

If they are wrong, they are obviously NOT accurate.

The FACT I stated is still correct.

The campaign manager said that the polls could be wrong.  Which AGAIN has been my point since this started with you.

You tired of going in circles yet?


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Oct 19, 2020)

jesus fucking christ the posts i've been reading here is worthy of moving this thread to the goddamn EOF.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 19, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> LOL, you re-reinforced what I have been saying.
> 
> “*We also know that even the best polling can be wrong*, and that variables like turnout mean that in a number of critical states we are functionally tied — and that we need to campaign like we’re trailing.”
> 
> ...


Who cares? We all know the polls can be wrong. We all know it isn't over until it's over. The questions are how likely is it the polls are wrong, and how wrong? The way things are going, it doesn't appear likely the polls are wrong. Biden is ahead by over 10 points, and the polls have been uncharacteristically consistent for many months (not counting the surge for Biden after the first debate).


----------



## omgcat (Oct 19, 2020)

sure, polls can be wrong, but the sheer number of them indicating Biden is up +5 or more would have this be the greatest polling error of all time.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



crimpshrine said:


> https://www.zerohedge.com/political...r-biden-emails-says-multiple-stories-multiple
> 
> View attachment 229766
> 
> ...



oh shit THE Steve Bannon!? you mean troll harnessing, cheat using, wow gold farming, build the wall fraudster Steve Bannon?

pack it in boys, the dems are getting blown out for sure!

I mean, with the power of a recently divorced alcoholic ex-mayor of new York city and a washed up fraudster like bannon joining forces, i'm sure they would never try to deceive Americans!


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 19, 2020)

I would still be more interested in the quality of the polls rather than a number (questions asked, anonymous nature, means of contact, active or passive, timing, persons surveyed). Or if nothing else "so many news sites are reporting on a concept. They can't all be wrong.". Very little I have ever seen here would have me take any poll at face value and not want to drill down further to see what, if anything, might be extracted. Also then get to figure out how to ply the data back into the system if a simple popular vote or some other obvious setup is not employed and there are a bunch of variables there (plus other mayoral, governor, house and senate stuff that may allow things to happen easier or delay things in other cases).

Also not like polling errors don't have a long and proud history in US elections going back decades now.

I am also curious what situation results when a race like this is so close run (assuming it is). What policies get made to attract people around the place that might be centrist/swing, what rough edges get filed down if they are doing the lesser of evils approach, what internal machinations need to be kept in place to do things to prevent more extreme candidates from displacing or doing the spoiler effect bit.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 19, 2020)

omgcat said:


> sure, polls can be wrong, but the sheer number of them indicating Biden is up +5 or more would have this be the greatest polling error of all time.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Laugh all you want but it does not matter.  The information so far from the drive has been very damning and confirmed by multiple people.  If the data is legitimate, it does not matter who it came from.  It was really good last week and likely is going to keep getting better.

On wed the 2nd most googled item was Hunter Biden so it is getting people engaged and looking into this.  To the point that Biden won't talk to anyone and his campaign manager is saying polls might not be right.  If you don't believe that is a true sign of guilt then your logic is pretty poor.  (The not talking part, polls obviously not)

A few of you are really good at denying what is right in front of your face.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 19, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Laugh all you want but it does not matter.  The information so far from the drive has been very damning and confirmed by multiple people.  If the data is legitimate, it does not matter who it came from.  It was really good last week and likely is going to keep getting better.
> 
> On wed the 2nd most googled item was Hunter Biden so it is getting people engaged and looking into this.  To the point that Biden won't talk to anyone and his campaign manager is saying polls might not be right.  If you don't believe that is a true sign of guilt then your logic is pretty poor.  (The not talking part, polls obviously not)
> 
> A few of you are really good at denying what is right in front of your face.


Have you not read any of my posts on the ridiculous chain of custody? The Russian disinformation?


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Oct 19, 2020)

Cylent1 said:


> Here is who I wouldn't vote for and that is rightful opinion!



Your rightful opinion, yes. But are you okay with everything Trump says and does? If so, you're nothing but a hypocrite. Edit: Also, Joe is on the ballot. Not his son.


----------



## IncredulousP (Oct 19, 2020)

My question is, since there are demonstrably those devoid of reason and logic still defending trash using fallacy and emotion, being used as mindless pawns, how do we deal with them from now on? They are still unfortunately able to vote every 4 years, their ignorance and harm aren't going away. And their opinions are sadly treated as if respectable and legitimate, both in this country and online, in great numbers. Are fascism and ignorance simply the default state of humanity? Has man truly not evolved beyond his primal, animalistic roots?

Y'all make me sad.
All I see is fallacy after misinformation after emotional rhetoric being constantly and civilly debunked, and yet such a large portion of people still support such drivel. What is so clearly, objectively, wrong.
You can be left, right, liberal, conservative, anarchist, communist, but in no way, shape, form, and for no reason, is Trump good for anything other than bolstering the tip top of society at the expense of the rest of the human race.
It's beyond obvious. It's constantly shown. It's in front of your face. How can you call yourself homosapien if you can't reason? You are no more than animal, thrashing about with primal disgust, slave to your emotions and easily leashed by the upper eschelon, who don't care about you at all. You are actively shooting yourselves in the foot, legs, and face yet fight your hardest to defend what you don't even comprehend. Your own persona is built on nothing but lies and hatred, festering inside your hearts and minds, blinding you to even the simplest truths.
What mirror will make you realize what fools you are?


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Oct 19, 2020)

IncredulousP said:


> My question is,...



Post of the year right there. I'd like it 1,000x if I could.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 19, 2020)

IncredulousP said:


> My question is, since there are demonstrably those devoid of reason and logic still defending trash using fallacy and emotion, being used as mindless pawns, how do we deal with them from now on? They are still unfortunately able to vote every 4 years, their ignorance and harm aren't going away. And their opinions are sadly treated as if respectable and legitimate, both in this country and online, in great numbers. Are fascism and ignorance simply the default state of humanity? Has man truly not evolved beyond his primal, animalistic roots?
> 
> Y'all make me sad.
> All I see is fallacy after misinformation after emotional rhetoric being constantly and civilly debunked, and yet such a large portion of people still support such drivel. What is so clearly, objectively, wrong.
> ...



we're not really in any position to help them. they would need to seek professional counseling on their own.

these video's are pretty great at explaining the alt-right tactics and recruitment strategies.



i've been noticing a lot of this BS on this forum in the form of allowing terms like "holocough".

another great video is this one, specifically part 2:


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 19, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> LOL, you re-reinforced what I have been saying.
> 
> “*We also know that even the best polling can be wrong*, and that variables like turnout mean that in a number of critical states we are functionally tied — and that we need to campaign like we’re trailing.”
> 
> ...


Several problems.  First, Biden's campaign manager never said "the [polls] are wrong."  She said that they "CAN BE WRONG."  

Citation:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bi...cency-in-memo-donald-trump-can-still-win-this

She did not say that they were inaccurate beyond the standard margin of error.  She was also referring to* state polling*, which has a larger aggregate sampling error than national polling.  Biden's +10 point national polling lead would have to drop considerably by election day for the margin of error to become a concern.  Hence, her complacency comment.

Your "point" is no different today than from one week ago when you linked us to a strawman argument with the headline: *Fake-Poll Alert: Proof Biden Is Not Winning*, which I refuted [here].  Your primary goal is to invalidate national polling data because it shows Biden with a 10 point lead.  Today you cited betting odds as evidence Biden's "campaign is crashing."  If the shoe were on the other foot, I have no doubt you'd be using national polls to illustrate Trump's support over Biden, as you've demonstrated that you'll go to whatever shameful length necessary to support your "FACTS."


----------



## Jonna (Oct 19, 2020)

Why was this topic recommended to me on GBATemp?

also lol i'm contributing to rigging the poll with my vote despite being Canadian


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 19, 2020)

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/the-pollster-who-thinks-trump-is-ahead/

*The Pollster Who Thinks Trump Is Ahead*

Not the whole article. But I personally believe very valid points and I am sure a few of you would never consider.



> If you are a firm believer only in polling averages, this isn’t particularly meaningful, but if you are familiar with Trafalgar’s successes in 2016, when (unlike other pollsters) it had Trump leading in Michigan and Pennsylvania and, in 2018, Ron DeSantis winning his gubernatorial race, it is notable. Regardless, it’s worth knowing why one pollster is departing from nearly everyone else.
> 
> Much of Trafalgar’s approach focuses on accounting for the so-called social-desirability bias. As Cahaly puts it, that’s when a respondent gives you “an answer that is designed to make the person asking the question be less judgmental of the person who answers it.” Cahaly notes that this phenomenon showed up as long ago as the 1980s, in the so-called Bradley effect, when the African-American mayor of Los Angeles, Tom Bradley, underperformed his polling in a gubernatorial race. It has been a hallmark of the Trump era and is one reason other pollsters missed the impending victory of Ron DeSantis over Andrew Gillum in the 2018 Florida gubernatorial race.
> 
> ...



Whether you believe it or not I think a large percent believe people on the left are intolerant and crazy.  Anyone in the middle does not want to be associated with those that riot and say racist things to others of color because they don't agree with them.  Get canceled because you are related to someone that said something the mob does not like.  Freak out  and say you are a racist when you say you do believe that all lives matter.  Etc, I could go on and on.

And I believe there are MANY that are in the middle of the road that fall into this.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 19, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Several problems.  First, Biden's campaign manager never said "the [polls] are wrong."  She said that they "CAN BE WRONG."
> 
> Citation:
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bi...cency-in-memo-donald-trump-can-still-win-this
> ...



I am not going to go in circles anymore with you on this Luma, you were wrong. 


Here is the original post you started responding to:






“*We also know that even the best polling can be wrong*, and that variables like turnout mean that in a number of critical states we are functionally tied — and that we need to campaign like we’re trailing.”

What I quoted from the Fox article is represented clearly in the actual text she sent in her memo right above this.

You adding other stuff into the equation changes nothing about my point I was making that started you on this.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 19, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/10/the-pollster-who-thinks-trump-is-ahead/
> 
> *The Pollster Who Thinks Trump Is Ahead*
> 
> ...


If you're going to cherry pick polls, I'm gonna go with the *highest ranked pollster* in 2016: Monmouth University, which carries an* A+ rating* at fivethirtyeight.com (Trafalgar Group has a *C-*).

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-pollsters-to-trust-in-2018/

According to Monmouth University:

Biden +3 in North Carolina
Biden +12 in Pennsylvania
Biden +6 in Arizona
There is *no probable scenario* where Trump wins without winning all 3 states:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 19, 2020)

wow 108 pages


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 19, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> If you're going to cherry pick polls, I'm gonna go with the *highest ranked pollster* in 2016: Monmouth University, which carries an* A+ rating* at fivethirtyeight.com (Trafalgar Group has a *C-*).
> 
> https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
> https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-pollsters-to-trust-in-2018/
> ...



I think you are missing the point of that post I made.

1. Trafalgar’s successes in 2016 in predicting.
2. Reasons behind their thought process.

I don't care about all the other polls.  And we will soon see how accurate those polls really were.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 19, 2020)

To anyone saying that you can get your freedoms back: https://www.deseret.com/u-s-world/2...navirus-back-to-normal-bias-pandemic-covid-19


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 19, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> To anyone saying that you can get your freedoms back: https://www.deseret.com/u-s-world/2...navirus-back-to-normal-bias-pandemic-covid-19



the voice of doom has spoken


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 19, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I think you are missing the point of that post I made.
> 
> 1. Trafalgar’s successes in 2016 in predicting.
> 2. Reasons behind their thought process.
> ...


What about Monmouth University?  They were more accurate than Trafalgar in "predicting" in 2016.  Don't write them off just because they have Trump trailing far behind Biden.  Don't be such a picky cherry picker!


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 19, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> What about Monmouth University?  They were more accurate than Trafalgar in "predicting" in 2016.  Don't write them off just because they have Trump trailing far behind Biden.  Don't be such a picky cherry picker!



I am not specifically trying to be.  I thought that article I posted is pretty specific on item #2 I listed above.  I personally believe it is a major factor this election year.

As I said previously we will soon see how accurate everyone was.  Not long now.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraSUPRA said:


> To anyone saying that you can get your freedoms back: https://www.deseret.com/u-s-world/2...navirus-back-to-normal-bias-pandemic-covid-19



Your article made me think of a quote I read from Governor Gretchen Whitmer of MI today.

Supposedly from Sunday’s broadcast of NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

She continued, “The Trump virus response is the worst in the globe. In the world, it’s the worst. 8 million people have been — have contracted COVID-19, 220,000 dead. We’ve got people in food pantry lines who never would have imagined that they would be there. And no light on the horizon because our numbers keep going up. This is a grave, serious moment for all of us. I*f you’re tired of lockdowns or tired of wearing masks or you wish you were in church this morning or watching college football or your kids were in-person instruction, it’s time for change in this country. That’s why we’ve got to elect Joe Biden*.”


I had to laugh at that one.  She is a moron.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 19, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I am not specifically trying to be.  I thought that article I posted is pretty specific on item #2 I listed above.  I personally believe it is a major factor this election year.
> 
> As I said previously we will soon see how accurate everyone was.  Not long now.
> 
> ...



except she's not. if people wore the damn masks, and followed instructions, we'd be in the same boat as NZ, you know, no cases. not 20+% of deaths with 5% of the population.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 19, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I am not specifically trying to be.  I thought that article I posted is pretty specific on item #2 I listed above.  I personally believe it is a major factor this election year.
> 
> As I said previously we will soon see how accurate everyone was.  Not long now.


Trafalgar's polls lean right historically.  I would posit that much of their success in the 2016 General Election is a byproduct of that.  Trafalgar picks conservative; Conservative wins election.  Their methodology hasn't granted them an accuracy advantage over other pollsters -- they've called only 75% of their races correctly across 48 polls, which is below average.  Seems like an outlier to me.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 19, 2020)

Jonna said:


> Why was this topic recommended to me on GBATemp?
> 
> also lol i'm contributing to rigging the poll with my vote despite being Canadian


The poll is for everybody, not just Americans who are eligible to vote.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraSUPRA said:


> To anyone saying that you can get your freedoms back: https://www.deseret.com/u-s-world/2...navirus-back-to-normal-bias-pandemic-covid-19


This article is about the pandemic, not about the loss of freedoms. Do you even read the articles to which you link? The article is also talking about the near future, not forever.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 19, 2020)

View attachment 229785


omgcat said:


> except she's not. if people wore the damn masks, and followed instructions, we'd be in the same boat as NZ, you know, no cases. not 20+% of deaths with 5% of the population.



I am sure the fact that New Zealand is1 country surrounded by water, and the USA is 50 states, with no travel restrictions that were enforced between each state with separate rules and restrictions set by each governor of each state, has nothing at all to do with this.  In a sense the USA is like 50 countries all huddled together with no border control.  With a virus this transmissible it's not unreasonable for it to spread and continue to spread.





I think you missed the point of my post anyhow.  She is a moron because she made this statement:



> I*f you’re tired of lockdowns or tired of wearing masks or you wish you were in church this morning or watching college football or your kids were in-person instruction, it’s time for change in this country. That’s why we’ve got to elect Joe Biden*.”



If you elect Joe, there will be no more lockdowns, no more masks, school will get back to normal, and everything else.  Don't be too obvious with you attempt to influence the voters.  She is responsible for her state and being in the top 10 for death counts and trying to pull that shit is stupid.   LOL

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ra...op-emails-not-russian-disinformation-campaign





Schiff is an idiot and has no business telling the US people his opinions as fact.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 19, 2020)

What BS.





https://thenationalpulse.com/news/p...cy-focus-following-hunter-biden-laptop-leaks/





If Biden makes it, you know Trump will press him on it regardless.  LOL


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 19, 2020)

Polls are fun but it seems we have results in for a lot of postal votes. If you want to play extrapolation figuring out what percentage of votes are in and what that might mean if it plays out accordingly (usually have more democrats doing this than republicans so straight multiplication is not advised, however many places have enough that you can figure out the relevant multiplication).
https://targetearly.targetsmart.com/
Has all sorts of cool info with regards to age, sex and whatever else as well if you want to go that way.

Some fairly tight races in a lot of places, including swing states.



omgcat said:


> i've been noticing a lot of this BS on this forum in the form of allowing terms like "holocough"


I don't understand the great objection there.
It is a silly slang name for a phenomenon. Such things get coined for just about everything, certainly anything that reaches the cultural zeitgeist. Can make understanding harder if a shared lexicon/dictionary is not had but with context its meaning is fairly plain.

Edit


omgcat said:


> except she's not. if people wore the damn masks, and followed instructions, we'd be in the same boat as NZ, you know, no cases. not 20+% of deaths with 5% of the population.



Is that a reasonable expectation? Compliance with medical orders is a factor in the calculation of such things. I don't rate most people's ability to both obtain and use such things properly.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 19, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> View attachment 229785
> 
> 
> I am sure the fact that New Zealand is1 country surrounded by water, and the USA is 50 states, with no travel restrictions that were enforced between each state with separate rules and restrictions set by each governor of each state, has nothing at all to do with this.  In a sense the USA is like 50 countries all huddled together with no border control.  With a virus this transmissible it's not unreasonable for it to spread and continue to spread.
> ...


Ratcliffe is a conspiracy theorist and a partisan hack. His first nomination was withdrawn by Trump due to a myriad of controversies. Please don't act like anything this man says matters with regard to whether or not this made-up story about Hunter Biden is Russian disinformation.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



crimpshrine said:


> What BS.
> 
> View attachment 229834
> 
> ...


There was no change to the topics. Also, this article you linked to is laughably biased, implying causal connections where there is evidence of none, calling the commission partisan when it's not, etc.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Oct 19, 2020)

I've came to read the logical comments that I'm able to see and have forgot to log in a couple of times, thus seeing a couple posts from the dotard clan. This entire thing being spewed about freedoms being taken away is a bunch of pure stupidity. No ones freedoms are being taken away. You Trumpbillies are STILL free to do anything and everything you wish to do. Freedom doesn't mean zero consequence. Period. Fact. For example, you're free to murder anyone you wish. That doesn't mean you are free from consequence for acting on that freedom. Try to keep up, yeah?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 19, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> I've came to read the logical comments that I'm able to see and have forgot to log in a couple of times, thus seeing a couple posts from the dotard clan. This entire thing being spewed about freedoms being taken away is a bunch of pure stupidity. No ones freedoms are being taken away. You Trumpbillies are STILL free to do anything and everything you wish to do. Period. Fact.


Without a mask on?


----------



## RandomUser (Oct 19, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Also, while I respect anybody's right to have whatever religious beliefs they want, there isn't actually any logically sound reason to think a god exists.


Wait, are you saying that you don't exist? 
I remembered a post you made back in 2019.


----------



## IncredulousP (Oct 19, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> I've came to read the logical comments that I'm able to see and have forgot to log in a couple of times, thus seeing a couple posts from the dotard clan. This entire thing being spewed about freedoms being taken away is a bunch of pure stupidity. No ones freedoms are being taken away. You Trumpbillies are STILL free to do anything and everything you wish to do. Freedom doesn't mean zero consequence. Period. Fact. For example, you're free to murder anyone you wish. That doesn't mean you are free from consequence for acting on that freedom. Try to keep up, yeah?


Like I've said before, arguing that wearing masks takes your freedom away is like arguing that wearing seat belts takes your freedom away. And I don't see anybody arguing against wearing a seat belt.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 19, 2020)

I think this is a good representation of general sentiment among many that will be voting for Trump this year.  I would argue many democrats even.

I know there are a few that would disagree, but out of curiosity those that can even bring them selves to watch do you really think he is off on his interpretations of the democrat party now?  From my anecdotal viewpoint, he hits the nail on the head with most people I know.

I did not vote for Trump in 2016, and never imagined I would one day be enthusiastically voting for the guy.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 19, 2020)

RandomUser said:


> Wait, are you saying that you don't exist?
> I remembered a post you made back in 2019.


Sorry, but I don't know what post you're referring to. Contrary to popular belief apparently, I am not a deity.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 19, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I think this is a good representation of general sentiment among many that will be voting for Trump this year.  I would argue many democrats even.
> 
> I know there are a few that would disagree, but out of curiosity those that can even bring them selves to watch do you really think he is off on his interpretations of the democrat party now?  From my anecdotal viewpoint, he hits the nail on the head with most people I know.
> 
> I did not vote for Trump in 2016, and never imagined I would one day be enthusiastically voting for the guy.



The numbers are pretty clear that people are generally flipping from right to left, not from left to right, relative to 2016. This is especially true among women and in the suburbs. The enthusiasm for the left is also much stronger now than it was in 2016. The voter who voted for Clinton who is now voting for Trump is practically legendary due to its rarity. People who stayed home in 2016 who don't plan on staying home in 2020 are also generally voting for Biden.

As for the video, this is Ben Shaprio. He is an extreme conservation who has spouted ideas that are racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, anti-semitic, etc. He is not representative of the average American by far, and it's no surprise he supports Trump in 2020.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



IncredulousP said:


> Like I've said before, arguing that wearing masks takes your freedom away is like arguing that wearing seat belts takes your freedom away. And I don't see anybody arguing against wearing a seat belt.


I've brought up seatbelts before with @UltraSUPRA. He hasn't been able to rationalize having no problem with one while simultaneously calling the other a literal end to freedom as we know it.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 19, 2020)

Another Black White supremacist! When will it end ?!?!


----------



## Lacius (Oct 19, 2020)

shamzie said:


> View attachment 229927
> 
> Another Black White supremacist! When will it end ?!?!


One can support Trump without being a white supremacist.

He has already stated that he wants low top tax rates, and that's why. It's unsurprising a rich person would want to pay low taxes. It's why a lot of rich people vote for Trump.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 19, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The enthusiasm for the left is also much stronger now than it was in 2020


Is 2020 finally over?


----------



## Lacius (Oct 19, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Is 2020 finally over?


What are years?


----------



## RandomUser (Oct 19, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Sorry, but I don't know what post you're referring to. Contrary to popular belief apparently, I am not a deity.


Never thought of you as a deity, and the question was a joke question and not a real one, hence the emoji icon.
The post I was referring to is this one. It was a very popular thread at the time. That post and the one on this thread was an opportunity to poke some fun, inject some humor into this thread.
Also another post by another user.
Don't take it seriously.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 19, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> It is a silly slang name for a phenomenon. Such things get coined for just about everything, certainly anything that reaches the cultural zeitgeist. Can make understanding harder if a shared lexicon/dictionary is not had but with context its meaning is fairly plain.



my problem is that the name both implies a Jewish origin for the virus and can also imply that both the virus and the holocaust do not exist or are fake. As i mentioned in another thread, it is a known anti-Semitic term and threat. That is why i have problems with it.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 19, 2020)

omgcat said:


> my problem is that the name both implies a Jewish origin for the virus and can also imply that both the virus and the holocaust do not exist or are fake. As i mentioned in another thread, it is a known anti-Semitic term and threat. That is why i have problems with it.


So if you choose to read random things into words you too can get them struck off for no reason by claiming some kind of offence.

Fantastic.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 20, 2020)

Here's a new poll that was conducted *after* the hacked laptop allegations:

*Yahoo News/YouGov poll: The tide turns against Trump as Biden surges to his largest-ever lead among likely voters (+11)*
https://news.yahoo.com/yahoo-news-y...tever-lead-among-likely-voters-175644323.html


> *The survey, which was conducted from Oct. 16 to 18,* shows that a majority of likely voters (51 percent) now say they are voting for the Democratic nominee, while just 40 percent say they are voting for Trump. *Biden’s lead, which is identical among registered voters, has grown by 3 points* since last week's Yahoo News/YouGov poll.



There's this also!

*Poll: Biden Takes Double-Digit Lead Over Trump (+11)*
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/15/923946468/poll-biden-takes-double-digit-lead-over-trump


> Notably, *Biden is leading in this survey with white voters 51% to 47%.* *That is extraordinary.* *Trump won white voters in 2016 by 20 points.* Biden's 51% among white voters is the highest for a Democrat dating back to Jimmy Carter in 1976, when the U.S. was far less racially diverse.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 20, 2020)

Biden is currently beating Trump in national polls by about 10.7 points on average. This is the highest he has ever been against Trump. For some context:

Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1 points
Obama beat Romney by 3.9 points
Obama beat McCain by 7.2 points


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 20, 2020)

*Mics will be cut for portions of final presidential debate after commission adopts new rules*
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ut-off-under-new-rules-commission/3713658001/


> The Commission on Presidential Debates announced Monday it plans to mute the microphones of Trump and Biden as the other gives two-minute opening statements at the beginning of each of six debate topics during the 90-minute second and final debate in Nashville at Belmont University.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 20, 2020)

They are actually burning ballot boxes.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 20, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> What BS.
> 
> View attachment 229834
> 
> ...



thenationalpulse.com

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/national-pulse-media-bias
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-national-pulse/

Verdict: EXTREMELY BIASED.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 20, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> thenationalpulse.com
> 
> https://www.allsides.com/news-source/national-pulse-media-bias
> https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-national-pulse/
> ...


@crimpshrine Also, moderators choose the question topics, not the commission. Your article source can't even be bothered to do basic research.


----------



## wartutor (Oct 20, 2020)

omgcat said:


> my problem is that the name both implies a Jewish origin for the virus and can also imply that both the virus and the holocaust do not exist or are fake. As i mentioned in another thread, it is a known anti-Semitic term and threat. That is why i have problems with it.


You might as well give up that debate here. These people are not a bit rational. Now the jewish people are the only ones that have a full right to be disgusted by this whole blm movement. What happened to their people was horrific (not saying slavery wasnt) and there are still people that directly had it happen to them still alive. Yet dont tell anyone jewish lives matter u may get beaten or shot.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 20, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> thenationalpulse.com
> 
> https://www.allsides.com/news-source/national-pulse-media-bias
> https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-national-pulse/
> ...



So what are you saying then? 

It's untrue?

Has to come from CNN or NPR or NYTimes for you to believe it?


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 20, 2020)

IncredulousP said:


> Like I've said before, arguing that wearing masks takes your freedom away is like arguing that wearing seat belts takes your freedom away. And I don't see anybody arguing against wearing a seat belt.


Seat belt saves lives. Masks don't. Masks may save a small percentage of help but the majority of the people don't wear the masks correctly, they don't wear the right kind of mask and the loudest roosters who advocate for masks do what?.. Look at Fauci who was photographed without a mask on some baseball game sitting close to 2 other people. Look at Nancy who thinks everyone should stay at home but she gets to go do her hair. Look at Biden who puts down the mask to cough... and then puts it back on with the same hand he just coughed into.
Masks don't save lives, that's all there is to it. And the ones who politicize masks are actually the media and the democrats. I've seen countless bullying, intimidation of people who don't wear the mask - these are the very same "open-minded people" who put rainbows on their Twitter accounts and claim to believe in science. "Believing in science" does not mean you get to bully people on social media and the Internet because they don't believe that the masks work.
Same thing as BLM, really. Look at the statistics, look at the autopsy reports, look at the evidence. And even if there was this mythical "constitutional racial injustice"... nobody can show any proof of it. All you have to say is "say her name" - say the name of who? Of this "nice person" posing on camera with guns and a thug next to her? Don't do drugs, don't break the law and you'll be fine. She chose the opposite and paid for it. Look up the photos of Breanna Taylor and her boyfriend - very fine people posing on camera with guns. Look up the crime history of Floyd and the videos that show him dropping the drugs on the ground while lying to the cops about feeling bad. Look up the cop body-cam footage. There's no evidence of any of the "racism". The only evidence there is are the people who openly try to inject white guilt, "whiteness" (imagine someone even using the word "blackness" to describe blacks) and push this anti-white propaganda, "boycot white corporations" like BLM used to say.


And you know what else I can show you? A woman who was being intimidated into raising her fist for BLM, the very same way Nazis intimidated people before the war. Countless rap "performers" who sing about nothing but "ho*s", drugs and crime. Sickos who riot with disgusting rap-music on speakers while fighting police in Portland. Sickos who burn streets, cars and public property over a dead drug-addict who was high even during the arrest, who lied and resisted the mentioned arrest. Sickos who are afraid of statues and boxes of cereal.  Where are these "white supremacists" at? Because I sure as hell don't see any of them fighting back against any of it. The best thing media could find was that teen guy... and even his case is crystal clear - self-defense against violent mob who tried to kill him.
Lastly, I find it ironic that it's okay to force white people to condemn white supremacists all the time, even though there's an actual hate group which was active not today and not even this year - antifa existed and caused chaos before this started. BLM was promoting their hateful marxist ideology way before any of it started, they couldn't hold a damn rally before 2020 and were seen as a joke. And what now? The media said "go" and you're going?

You support violent anarchy over the President who constantly condemned any form of hate group, including the white supremacists.

Oh, and if the last event with Twitter suppressing free speech isn't enough to make you see what is the evil - nothing will. Shame.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 20, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> So what are you saying then?
> 
> It's untrue?
> 
> Has to come from CNN or NPR or NYTimes for you to believe it?


Just continuing to point out all the extremist websites you link us to.  I'd do the same if a liberal were doing it, but you're really the only one here who believes sharing extremist links is a good idea.

I don't read CNN or NYTimes, btw.  Weak argument.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 20, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Just continuing to point out all the extremist websites you link us to.  I'd do the same if a liberal were doing it, but you're really the only one here who believes sharing extremist links is a good idea.
> 
> I don't read CNN or NYTimes, btw.  Weak argument.



Truth is truth.

What was stated was true.

And it's not an argument. Me saying that. LOL

You and words.


----------



## IncredulousP (Oct 20, 2020)

Nesssuuu said:


> Masks don't.


Masks save lives.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 20, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Truth is truth.
> 
> What was stated was true.
> 
> ...





Lacius said:


> @crimpshrine Also, moderators choose the question topics, not the commission. Your article source can't even be bothered to do basic research.


How many times have I linked articles to CNN\NYTimes?  How many times have you linked articles to right-wing extremist websites?

The answers may surprise you.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 20, 2020)

Pointing out a website is biased based on some other websites grading does not change the facts listed in what I posted.

You responding with what you did left me wondering what is your point?  You don't agree?

So I asked if you believed it was untrue.  Because regardless of where it came from the information was true from what I found.

The last question I ended it with was not an argument.  

And you saying I link to things in right-wing extremist websites changes nothing.  What I posted is true.

You have a weird way of thinking from my point of view.  Let me point something out with Crimpshrine not over what he posted (because it is true) but where it came from.  

I was not posting something offensive/vulgar or extreme.  And it was not untrue.

You seem to get hung up in semantics very easily.  Or you feel compelled to respond with something that really is irrelevant given the circumstances, like the post I made that you pointed out that came from some site you claim is right-wing extremist.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 20, 2020)

I wonder how this is going to go? 

Curious what Biden is going to be coached to say or do.

Or what the moderator will do, just mute Trump the moment he goes there?


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 20, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Pointing out a website is biased based on some other websites grading does not change the facts listed in what I posted.
> 
> You responding with what you did left me wondering what is your point?  You don't agree?
> 
> ...


Unsurprisingly, you can't answer my question and you've danced around Lacius' rebuttal two times now.  We each offered a separate critique and you haven't sufficiently answered either of us.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 20, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Unsurprisingly, you can't answer my question and you've danced around Lacius' rebuttal two times now.  We each offered a separate critique and you haven't sufficiently answered either of us.



I don't see anything from lacius, I put him on ignore a awhile back.  And I am about to do the same with you.  You make no sense.  

Like debating with you on facts while you claim it is speculation and then you speculate constantly as fact.

I post a news item that was true.

You respond back with something irrelevant to that.   

So I ask you if you believe it is untrue, and you are like no it's about where it came from.

Seriously? LOL

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I did not see this one today.

Seriously, that was the question they asked him? 

Wow.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 20, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I don't see anything from lacius, I put him on ignore a awhile back.  And I am about to do the same with you.  You make no sense.
> 
> Like debating with you on facts while you claim it is speculation and then you speculate constantly as fact.
> 
> ...


From Lacius: 





> @crimpshrine Also, moderators choose the question topics, not the commission. Your article source can't even be bothered to do basic research.


Is this true?

*How Negative News Distorts Our Thinking*
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...01909/how-negative-news-distorts-our-thinking

Free your mind, crimpshrine.


----------



## LeyendaV (Oct 20, 2020)

As someone who's not from the US and doesn't have a big idea about the actual, current social train of thought, the fact that Biden has such a big vote intention is because he's actually seen as an alternative? Or it's simply because there's a ton of people that just don't wanna see Trump on the White House anymore?


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 20, 2020)

The credibility of a website is based on the content it provides.  The credibility of an internet poster is based on the content *they provide*.  Simply put, repeatedly linking to extremist propaganda websites shows a pattern of extreme bias and poor judgement.

*thenationalpulse.com*:







> *QUESTIONABLE SOURCE*
> A questionable source exhibits _one or more_ of the following: extreme bias,* consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information*, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the _deliberate attempt_ to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category _may_ be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list _are not_ considered _fake news_ unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 20, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> From Lacius: Is this true?
> 
> *How Negative News Distorts Our Thinking*
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...01909/how-negative-news-distorts-our-thinking
> ...



Thanks,  I already know about that.  And I believe I am introspective enough to realize when I am going off on negative emotion.   I am not trying to feed myself negative information to re-enforce my thoughts. 

What I think is totally ironic is exactly what you posted is likely what helps feed your mentality in my opinion.  You think that article ONLY applies to others?

Kind of like my post you responded to, to begin with.  You had no issues with the TRUTH but where it came from. 

I am not hung up on labels usually.  I will read information from anywhere.  Although I have to admit I do avoid certain liberal news sources these days when it is clear they are avoiding showing the truth that is an instant turn off.   

I am not going to go into deeper detail but I have said several times now I did not vote for Trump in 2016 because I thought he would be a bad president.  He has been a great president in my opinion.  Does he have a great personality?  No, but that is not a requirement for me. 

75% of the media it would seem to me gaslights people with TDS.  And takes advantage of negative news to fuel the TDS.

Why do you think there are so many walkaway stories.  From what I have seen it usually starts with the Trump makes fun of physically challenged reporter smear that opens the door to them realizing they are being played.

Anyhow I did not post any of the above to debate further on any of the points I made.   Just sharing thoughts.  Anything written as a question is rhetorical.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 20, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Thanks,  I already know about that.  And I believe I am introspective enough to realize when I am going off on negative emotion.   I am not trying to feed myself negative information to re-enforce my thoughts.
> 
> What I think is totally ironic is exactly what you posted is likely what helps feed your mentality in my opinion.  You think that article ONLY applies to others?
> 
> ...


holy hell, how much more footwork are you going to put in? You just dodged both @LumInvader and @Lacius points. I've been taking a break from the forms just because there is only so much retard and seeing others drink kool aid I can handle.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 20, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Thanks,  I already know about that.  And I believe I am introspective enough to realize when I am going off on negative emotion.   I am not trying to feed myself negative information to re-enforce my thoughts.
> 
> What I think is totally ironic is exactly what you posted is likely what helps feed your mentality in my opinion.  You think that article ONLY applies to others?
> 
> ...


Fine, you claim it's the truth, but you never responded to Lacius's rebuttal that challenged the veracity of that website's claim.  You may have him on ignore, but he's still here offering rebuttals.  Arguing his point with me doesn't change my position regarding extremist websites.  Watching you fall victim to extremist propaganda is a much bigger issue to me.


----------



## Xexyz (Oct 20, 2020)

imagine being a trump supporter xd


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 20, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Fine, you claim it's the truth, but you never responded to Lacius's rebuttal that challenged the veracity of that website's claim.  You may have him on ignore, but he's still here offering rebuttals.  Arguing his point with me doesn't change my position regarding extremist websites.  Watching you fall victim to extremist propaganda is a much bigger issue to me.



Lacius's memory and yours since you seem to work as a team,  is about at good as his reading skills it would seem.  My last response to him was me telling him I would not be responding to him again.   On his claims that Snopes confirmed Trump said to drink or inject bleach.  Both were wrong, Lacius and Snopes.  And like anything when you guys are faced with reality, you just pivot and shift to some other thing instead of admitting what was originally stated, "yeah that is not right".  

The Snopes article does what many of you do, misrepresent things.  And try to pass it off as some type of validation for whatever you are trying to push at that moment.

Kind of like our interaction that started yesterday night after me posting an article earlier talking about how the debate commission changed the debate topics 11th hour after the damning information had been released on Biden.

I say



> So what are you saying then?
> 
> It's untrue?
> 
> Has to come from CNN or NPR or NYTimes for you to believe it?



And you say:



> Just continuing to point out all the extremist websites you link us to. I'd do the same if a liberal were doing it, but you're really the only one here who believes sharing extremist links is a good idea.
> 
> I don't read CNN or NYTimes, btw. Weak argument.



I asked you a VERY specific question.  IS IT UNTRUE?

And you answer with something completely irrelevant.  What I said was not untrue, but instead you try to diminish the truth with some other point.  A truth is a truth.  I did not link to someone saying anything extreme.  And you say "Watching you fall victim to extremist propaganda is a much bigger issue to me"  There was nothing extremist in any way shape or form in what I linked to.

When I read that article, I looked it up and sure enough the last 2 presidential elections the last debate ALWAYS included foreign policy.  So when the Trump campaign pointed out that what the debate commission did (remove foreign policy from the last debate at the last minute) When they originally said it would be there.  A topic that is historically included, immediately after Biden is caught, that is BS.  And I think again shows again a major bias towards the handling of Joe Biden.   Another indicator of major double standards certain people have.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 20, 2020)

Woke up this morning and decided to do the usual rounds of the internet.
So various articles, channels, tweets and whatever pondering things as they tend to do.

Today we saw various calls from people that would nominally be on the left to deTrump the party and/or nation if he should fail to be elected (and presumably +4 years if he does), occasionally dipping into similar rhetoric to when various totalitarian parties fall from power.

This is interesting. I have been to the US during his presidency. Seemed like business as usual (and I have been going there for years with plenty of friends living there, visiting a fair few places within it at that) really rather than some totalitarian hellscape so I find it dubious if those are indeed trying to claim that there does need half a population deprogramming. Probably a good reason to not pay attention to Twitter or take it seriously.
I could be wrong though. Maybe things are truly awful with everybody more or less only scraping by, hoping the watchful eye of the jackboot does not descend upon their neck.

The party stuff has me more curious though. Generally it is noted most political parties have a fairly big shakeup every few decades and whatever else might be said Mr Trump was the focal point for something of a shift here in the party (the whole religious thing that characterised more or less Reagan onwards, and that saw me find them incredibly distasteful during that, has become massively downplayed). There are those still under the old regime the apparently actually have a conviction (or might it be brainwashing?) and do still yearn for the previous efforts. Some call these the never trumpers, though there is also the sizeable libertarian faction too that probably wants to be considered.
Anyway is this Trump lark then an odd blip in business as usual or representing a sea change in the way the major US right wing party operates? Will it see a restructure after this to push all the Trump types (while appointments in his administration seem to be hired and fired quicker than  the time I was tasked with writing simple English there are those that will stick around because inertia). Might it be the end of the party and something else gets to reformed in its wake?


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 20, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Lacius's memory and yours since you seem to work as a team,  is about at good as his reading skills it would seem.  My last response to him was me telling him I would not be responding to him again.   On his claims that Snopes confirmed Trump said to drink or inject bleach.  Both were wrong, Lacius and Snopes.  And like anything when you guys are faced with reality, you just pivot and shift to some other thing instead of admitting what was originally stated, "yeah that is not right".
> 
> The Snopes article does what many of you do, misrepresent things.  And try to pass it off as some type of validation for whatever you are trying to push at that moment.
> 
> ...





> *Relevance fallacy*
> 
> The fallacies of relevance are a broad class of informal fallacies, generically represented by missing the point: presenting an argument, which may be sound, *but fails to address the issue in question.*
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy


1. The story was posted on an extremist propaganda website.
2. But the link to the story is true.
3. Therefore, the story wasn't posted to an extremist propaganda website.

This is a logical fallacy.  

I never made an argument that the story was true or untrue.  Lacius did.  Your failure to counter his rebuttal suggests that the story itself isn't true, which means you haven't satisfied either point 1 or 2.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 20, 2020)

Doesn't hold the mainstream left's views on topics like thinking men are women and caring what flavour of ice cream Joe Biden got = extremist propaganda site.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 20, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> 1. The story was posted on an extremist propaganda website.
> 2. But the link to the story is true.
> 3. Therefore, the story wasn't posted to an extremist propaganda website.
> 
> ...



Again, truth is truth.

You trying to twist things does not change that fact. LOL.

My point still stands.

Here we go again with Lum getting hung up on facts.  He/she tries to wiggle around it, but it is there.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 20, 2020)

*Democrats Don’t Need To Win Georgia, Iowa, Ohio Or Texas — But They Could *
https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...in-georgia-iowa-ohio-or-texas-but-they-could/


> Biden doesn’t _need_ to carry these states — he can win a comfortable Electoral College victory without carrying them. Trump does need them, however — but he_ also _needs bluer states like Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to win reelection. Similarly, Democrats can win a Senate majority without carrying any of the four Senate seats up for grabs in these states (none in Ohio but two in Georgia).


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 20, 2020)

It's over in Europe but still relevant.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Oct 20, 2020)

Nesssuuu said:


> Seat belt saves lives. Masks don't. Masks may save a small percentage of help but the majority of the people don't wear the masks correctly, they don't wear the right kind of mask and the loudest roosters who advocate for masks do what?.. Look at Fauci who was photographed without a mask on some baseball game sitting close to 2 other people. Look at Nancy who thinks everyone should stay at home but she gets to go do her hair. Look at Biden who puts down the mask to cough... and then puts it back on with the same hand he just coughed into.
> Masks don't save lives, that's all there is to it. And the ones who politicize masks are actually the media and the democrats. I've seen countless bullying, intimidation of people who don't wear the mask - these are the very same "open-minded people" who put rainbows on their Twitter accounts and claim to believe in science. "Believing in science" does not mean you get to bully people on social media and the Internet because they don't believe that the masks work.
> Same thing as BLM, really. Look at the statistics, look at the autopsy reports, look at the evidence. And even if there was this mythical "constitutional racial injustice"... nobody can show any proof of it. All you have to say is "say her name" - say the name of who? Of this "nice person" posing on camera with guns and a thug next to her? Don't do drugs, don't break the law and you'll be fine. She chose the opposite and paid for it. Look up the photos of Breanna Taylor and her boyfriend - very fine people posing on camera with guns. Look up the crime history of Floyd and the videos that show him dropping the drugs on the ground while lying to the cops about feeling bad. Look up the cop body-cam footage. There's no evidence of any of the "racism". The only evidence there is are the people who openly try to inject white guilt, "whiteness" (imagine someone even using the word "blackness" to describe blacks) and push this anti-white propaganda, "boycot white corporations" like BLM used to say.
> 
> ...



While I do actually agree with you on several points, there was just enough stupidity to earn you a spot on my ignore list. Another deplorable hypocrite.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 20, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> While I do actually agree with you on several points, there was just enough stupidity to earn you a spot on my ignore list. Another deplorable hypocrite.



add me as well, enjoy your lefty echo chamber dumbass.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 20, 2020)

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-campaign-ad-michigan-tech-ceo-struggling-bar-owner







There is just so much wrong with this.  The "struggling bar owner" (co-owner) is actually a wealthy tech investor who is a Biden contributor.

And in the ad blames the President  ultimately, not the governor that set restrictions!

Is this ad not a great representation of the democrat party right now?  Its got something wrong with it in everything about it.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Oct 20, 2020)

shamzie said:


> add me as well, enjoy your lefty echo chamber dumbass.



Will do, dotard. Thanks for the tip.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 20, 2020)

Block lists?
Next you will not be inviting people to your birthday party.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 20, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Will do, dotard. Thanks for the tip.



Dotard, imagine quoting a maniacal totalitarian murderer and acting like you're clever. Anyway like I said, enjoy your boring echo chamber.

Are we meant to be bothered some faceless nobody who can't make a good point, shuts down the conversation by blocking us  that's straight out of the lefty playbook. Looking forward to you dying your hair blue and screaming in the streets on the 4th of November.

Here's a list of everybody who gives a fuck you've blocked them:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

lol pathetic.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 20, 2020)

Lacius said:


> @crimpshrine Also, moderators choose the question topics, not the commission. Your article source can't even be bothered to do basic research.



For shits 'n' giggles I decided to fact check this, Lacius.  Here's what I found straight from the horse's mouth:


> *Kristen Welker, *moderator of the Oct. 22, 2020 presidential debate*, has selected the topics for that debate.*
> 
> Subject to possible changes because of news developments, the topics are as follows, not necessarily to be brought up in this order:
> 
> ...



Kristen Welker set the topics for the third debate, *not the Presidential Debate Commission!*  Likewise, Chris Wallace selected the topics for the first debate:


> *Chris Wallace, *moderator of the first 2020 presidential debate,* has selected the topics for that debate.*
> 
> Subject to possible changes because of news developments, the topics for the September 29 debate are as follows, not necessarily to be brought up in this order:
> The Trump and Biden Records, The Supreme Court, Covid-19, The Economy, Race and Violence in our Cities, & The Integrity of the Election.
> ...



In conclusion, you were correct.  Jason Miller and thenationalpulse's claims of last minute question manipulation from the nonpartisan Presidential Debate Commission is pants on fire false.


crimpshrine said:


> Again, truth is truth.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Oct 20, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> Block lists?
> Next you will not be inviting people to your birthday party.



Yup. Just like in the real world, I don't care much for engaging in conversation with complete morons. Bye, little fella.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 20, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> For shits 'n' giggles I decided to fact check this, Lacius.  Here's what I found straight from the horse's mouth:
> 
> 
> Kristen Welker set the topics for the third debate, *not the Presidential Debate Commission!*  Likewise, Chris Wallace selected the topics for the first debate:
> ...



Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien said in the letter that the campaigns had already agreed foreign policy would be the focus of the third debate.

So then show me a link where she announced, or the commission announced the topics before October 14th.

Not following what you mean by I was correct.

Changed the date to reflect the date the bombshell came out.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 21, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien said in the letter that the campaigns had already agreed foreign policy would be the focus of the third debate.
> 
> So then show me a link where she announced, or the commission announced the topics before October 14th.
> 
> ...


Now you're back to pedaling conspiracy theories.  The moderator has final say, period.

NOT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN
NOT THE BIDEN CAMPAIGN
NOT THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES COMMISSION

The @#$%^ moderator.  Can't you read?

Again, taken straight from the third debate's homepage:


> Belmont University is hosting the third and final presidential debate of the 2020 election cycle on October 22, 2020 from 8-9:30 p.m. Central. The debate, which will be moderated NBC "Weekend Today" co-anchor Kristen Welker, will be divided into six segments on major *topics to be selected by the moderator* and announced at least one week before the debate.
> 
> Citation: https://belmontdebate2020.com/about/


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 21, 2020)

https://twitter.com/realmarkkennedy/status/1318319214063685635?s=21

Check all these Black Donald Trump supporters.

Or as @Joom would call them, race traitors, uncle toms black white supremacists too stupid to know what they're voting for.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 21, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Now you're back to pedaling conspiracy theories.  The moderator has final say, period.
> 
> NOT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN
> NOT THE BIDEN CAMPAIGN
> ...



I am NOT backpedaling on anything.

The point of my original post was that foreign policy was removed from the last debate.  And I posted an article reflecting that.  And there are many other sources with the same article saying the same thing.

I don't care what it says, regardless of WHO picked the questions if you can't post a link to what they were before the 14th.  They could have been changed after the bombshell dropped.  So not sure how this proves anything.

Also foreign policy has been part of the final debate for previous presidential elections.


Edit:

I have looked and I cannot find anywhere the debate commission saying this was untrue.

With all the information I have looked at some of which was released AFTER I made my post.

It is he said, she said at this point.

Trumps campaign said they had an arrangement which was made through the debate commission.

Bidens said no such arrangement existed. And that the moderator chooses the questions.

I don't see anything from the debate commission saying either side is right.  Just because the website says the moderator picks the questions does not mean it was not changed after the fact.  A link to something showing the current topics before the bombshell would prove that.

As stated in Bill Stepien's letter:

As is the long-standing custom, and as had been promised by the Commission on Presidential debates, we had expected that foreign policy would be the central focus of the October 22 debate.  We urge you to re-calibrate the topics and return to subjects which had already been confirmed.

He said 2 times it was agreed on with the Commission on Presidential Debates.

So I assume you can provide a link (I can't find one) where the Commission says that is not the case?

All I can find is Biden's Campaign saying it is not true.  Which that is not by any means proof of it.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 21, 2020)

Rudy G has just said Hunter Biden's laptop has been handed over to the FBI as it contains photos of underage children. Of course I'm sure this is all just a massive hoax and part of some Russian disinformation.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 21, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Of course I'm sure this is all just a massive hoax and part of some Russian disinformation.


That's where all of the evidence points, yes. Come back when there's a real story.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 21, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Rudy G has just said Hunter Biden's laptop has been handed over to the FBI as it contains photos of underage children. Of course I'm sure this is all just a massive hoax and part of some Russian disinformation.




Looks like the data itself was handed over to police if this is accurate.





And according to the audio I heard Hunter was discussing in emails or text messages (not sure which) with someone about him face-timing naked with a 14 year old girl.

 Rudy said the text messages reflect the pictures.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 21, 2020)

Lacius said:


> That's where all of the evidence points, yes. Come back when there's a real story.



Show me the evidence that its a massive Russian hoax, not surprised you aint bothered about the possible future President's son being a nonce.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 21, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Show me the evidence that its a massive Russian hoax, not surprised you aint bothered about the possible future President's son being a nonce.





Lacius said:


> The FBI warned in 2019 that Rudy Giuliani "was being used to feed Russian misinformation."
> We know the Russians' method of operations in 2017 in France was to hack emails, leak emails, but scatter fake emails in the real hacked emails to make them seem legitimate.
> We know Burisma emails were hacked by Russia in January.
> We know that the emails being discussed in this misinformation campaign likely in part came from the Burisma hack.
> ...


The chain of custody regarding this supposed evidence is also laughable. Also, we know the New York Post reporters had reservations, since this story was pretty shitty.

If this part of the story were true (it's not), it also has nothing to do with Joe Biden.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 21, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The chain of custody regarding this supposed evidence is also laughable. Also, we know the New York Post reporters had reservations, since this story was pretty shitty.
> 
> If this part of the story were true (it's not), it also has nothing to do with Joe Biden.



Those darn Russians


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 21, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Those darn Russians



Yeah, you saw Adam Schiff had the nerve to say all of this was part a smear campaign?

But then he is told by DNI John Ratcliffe:


----------



## Lacius (Oct 21, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Yeah, you saw Adam Schiff had the nerve to say all of this was part a smear campaign?
> 
> But then he is told by DNI John Ratcliffe:
> 
> View attachment 230262


I already responded to this. Too bad I'm on your ignore list.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



shamzie said:


> Those darn Russians


That is correct.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 21, 2020)

So it is the laptop they picked up however long ago.

Which the hard drive in it, SHOULD match the hard drive that computer shop owner had that Rudy has.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/so...s-possession-of-purported-hunter-biden-laptop





It sounds like 2 separate new things going on at the same time.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 21, 2020)

I don't think it even matters that the whole thing could be a hoax, what bothers people is the fact that it's another instance of "rules for me, but not for thee". I vaguely remember a time when a dossier of dubious origin partially funded by the DNC and filled to the brim with completely made up disinformation was used to obtain fraudulent warrants and launch a massive investigation that resulted in effectively nothing at all, but now that the shoe is on the other foot everyone's expected to look the other way. If the Democrats were contacted by an "anonymous source" claiming to have one of Trump's laptops and willing to share its salacious contents, it would be on the front page of every single newspaper including Koi Ponds Illustrated. In fact, the majority of recent Trump stories seem to be coming from anonymous sources, including his leaked tax returns, making any of the claims impossible to verify. Liberals have set the bar for what is and is not a story, so if they expect people to care about their nothing burgers, this whopper isn't going away until they eat it too.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 21, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I am NOT backpedaling on anything.
> 
> *The point of my original post was that foreign policy was removed from the last debate*.


When you state something then change your position, it's backpedaling.  You claimed repeatedly that the "information I posted was true," as quoted below:


crimpshrine said:


> *Truth is truth.*
> 
> *What was stated was true.*





crimpshrine said:


> *Again, truth is truth.*
> 
> You trying to twist things *does not change that fact*. LOL.
> 
> *My point still stands.*





crimpshrine said:


> So I asked if you believed it was untrue.  Because regardless of where it came from *the information was true* from what I found.
> And you saying I link to things in right-wing extremist websites changes nothing.  *What I posted is true.*
> Let me point something out with Crimpshrine not over what he posted *(because it is true)* but where it came from.
> I was not posting something offensive/vulgar or extreme.  *And it was not untrue.*





crimpshrine said:


> *I post a news item* *that was true*.


Except the information you posted wasn't true.  Now you're claiming your original point was "that foreign policy was removed from the last debate," but I have you quoted multiple times above claiming that the information was completely true.  That's a definite backpedal.

Both of your sources cooked up a conspiracy theory that the nonpartisan Presidential Debate Commission changed the topics to aid Biden, but this isn't true since the NBC moderator is the one who chooses the topics.  Proof was submitted [here] and [here].

This is why I've insisted that you question everything you read, especially content from extremists.  They are heavily biased and dishonest.  There's a reason why they worded it the way they did and it was not by accident.


----------



## Iamapirate (Oct 21, 2020)

There's more evidence that the Biden laptop is authentic and incriminating than there is for "russian collusion".

Russia is just an easy political scapegoat. Story you don't like? It's Russia! Nobody is above the law? What a joke. I doubt anyone would see justice for this if Trump is in office. They definitely won't if Biden is elected.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 21, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't think it even matters that the whole thing could he a hoax, what bothers people is the fact that it's another instance of "rules for me, but not for thee". I vaguely remember a time when a dossier of dubious origin partially funded by the DNC and filled to the brim with completely made up disinformation was used to obtain fraudulent warrants and launch a massive investigation that resulted in effectively nothing at all, but now that the shoe is on the other foot everyone's expected to look the other way. If the Democrats were contacted by an "anonymous source" claiming to have one of Trump's laptops and willing to share its salacious contents, it would be on the front page of every single newspaper including Koi Ponds Illustrated. In fact, the majority of recent Trump stories seem to be coming from anonymous sources, including his leaked tax returns, making any of the claims impossible to verify. Liberals have set the bar for what is and is not a story, so if they expect people to care about their nothing burgers, this whopper isn't going away until they eat it too.



This might well be something to ponder.

Journalism in general constantly gets to skirt the line between interest of the public and of the public interest, the difference being if you filmed someone of some vague note taking a dump you would probably get viewers but it would say nothing of substance. Said same smoking crack might be a different matter, even more so if they were purportedly against it.

"but muh privacy" would then mean nothing gets done, save perhaps propaganda, so it is a rather permeable shield.
Some combine this with undue damage.
Some, this includes the law in many places, combine it further with notions of public figures and harm to reputation (a particularly amusing case in the US recently wherein a former baseball type was deemed to have such a horrible reputation that it was impossible to impugn it).

We have seen any number of leaks over the years, some containing some rather incredible info (the cheat on your spouse website thing being a fun one for a lot of people if we need abstract because politics is too hard to divorce ourselves from feelings for). To say nothing of the wikileaks question.

We have seen any number of evidence of dubious quality. Might we be allowed to determine such things for ourselves or do we have to wait for word from on high?

A lot of these are quite hard questions without obvious answers.

I do however find double standards and censorship rather troubling. Some do attempt to balance it with interference, though whether you have to tolerate that or not (we are all big boys after all) does become a question.
Maybe we can get some internet to actually do a nice distributed theme again rather than just constantly inventing a worse version of email and guest books.

"set the bar for what is"
One of the hard questions is do you roll in the mud or hold yourself to higher standards? Eye for eye creating the one eyed king and all that. Whether in this case it would be akin to rolling in the mud is then a discussion to have.

I would note though that much like freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences for that speech then freedom of association does not mean freedom from consequences from those associations. Far lesser roles are troubled by this, and one's cronies are also subject to review.
Having a screwup for a kid is one thing, possibly quite likely if you are doing the career politico bit (because throw money at it absentee parenting combined with unearned wealth for the second generation ends so well so often), but should they be a patsy, a stooge or a confidant then that is quite another.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 21, 2020)

so the whole Hunter Biden thing seems to be an attempt to get in front of a bunch of financial impropriety.

for example

trying to distract from his Chinese business dealings

"The Chinese account is controlled by Trump International Hotels Management L.L.C., which the tax records show paid $188,561 in taxes in China while pursuing licensing deals there from 2013 to 2015."

last i checked $188,000 > $750

*"In 2017, the company reported an unusually large spike in revenue — some $17.5 million, more than the previous five years’ combined. It was accompanied by a $15.1 million withdrawal by Mr. Trump from the company’s capital account."


Alan Garten, a lawyer for the Trump Org., would not identify the bank in China where the account is held.

Until last year, China's biggest state-controlled bank rented three floors in Trump Tower, a lucrative lease that drew accusations of a conflict of interest.
*
using the presidency to profit off of foreign countries, where have i heard that before? isn't that supposed to be terrible?

on top of that, the trump campaign has been struggling for cash because they blew more than $1 billion on Private Jets, Trump Properties, and Don Jr.’s Book

Trump has pulled ads in multiple key states because his campaign is running out of funds...

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

My favorite part of the hunter biden story is that he somehow passed out after smoking meth. like that's a god damn super power.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 21, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> When you state something then change your position, it's backpedaling.  You claimed repeatedly that the "information I posted was true," as quoted below:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You have proven nothing is untrue.  The original post you responded to was that they pulled the foreign policy topic from the final debate.

Here is the actual letter that was sent to the commission on presidential debates regarding that:

https://twitter.com/BillStepien/status/1318269143884435456?s=20

I don't see a link showing the final debate topics before last Wed.

And I don't see any link to the Commission on Residential Debates saying it is untrue either.

You have a funny way of "getting me" LOL

And the fact that Bidens campaign said it was untrue make it likely more true.   Since they have no issues covering for Biden and his corruption ties uncovered this past week.  That would be small potatoes in comparison.  And of course they would pull the foreign policy topic from the debate.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I read that the Biden campaign faced quick backlash and had to pull the fake AD the started airing.

About the Michigan struggling bar owner that was forced to close or is almost done, but was actually a rich tech investor Biden donor.

Funny thing is any business owner that saw that add would probably be pushed towards Trump because they know it was their governors policies that hurt (or helped) their businesses.  And of course people finding out it is just propaganda is even worse.

And what is even funnier is the guy who says he is voting for Biden he has literally no reason for it.  Like how he believes it would be different. No real plan.   LOL.  Great ad.

Ad is still here if anyone wants to see it:

https://twitter.com/DJones1067/status/1317979887295254528?s=20


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 21, 2020)

IncredulousP said:


> Masks save lives.


I disagree


----------



## IncredulousP (Oct 21, 2020)

RyuShinobi500 said:


> I disagree


You are objectively wrong. It is not opinion.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 21, 2020)

IncredulousP said:


> You are objectively wrong. It is not opinion.


Several articles state otherwise


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 21, 2020)

https://twitter.com/LaurenWitzkeDE/status/1318735174851563520?s=20

Supposedly it was then handed over from the police to the DE Attorney General, and then to the FBI.

So now the FBI has the original laptop they picked back up in 2019, and I assume a hard drive that everyone keeps referring to as a laptop.

Now it makes sense why the news going around recently was that the FBI person who picked the laptop up back in 2019 was working on child pornography and abduction cases.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 21, 2020)




----------



## Deleted User (Oct 21, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> View attachment 230273





I can play the same game... and this is a newer post. This post was made 17 hours ago. yours was made 18 hours ago. as of the time of writing this.
So...
I wonder who's right?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Oh and regarding the New york post. The guy who wrote the article , didn't even want his name on it, since the information was already sketchy. And multiple people stated that the article seemed incorrect. So... If even they internally where questioning it, you likely should too.


----------



## leon315 (Oct 21, 2020)

JUST CURIOUS, why Russians want one more term Trump as USA's president? 
I have a theory but i wish to see tempers' opinions 1st)


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 21, 2020)

leon315 said:


> JUST CURIOUS, why Russians want one more term Trump as USA's president?
> I have a theory but i wish to see tempers' opinions 1st)


Because Trump is inadequate. It's not even all that hard to understand. With trump as president, the United States effectively has a garbage leader who cannot handle foreign policy. I mean the whole trade war with china, is a complete and utter joke. The states bled more money than china did over it, and we are still bleeding. And that's just one reason. There is many. Another reason why would be due to lack of leadership. Trump isn't a leader, he's good at riling up his base. But even some of his own base has pushed away from him. And so due to the fact he isn't much of a leader. If push comes to shove, Trump is just going to make this worse.
An example of his lack of leadership is the pandemic response.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 21, 2020)

Secret Service Travel Records Confirm Hunter Biden Trips Detailed In Emails.

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sit... (Hunter Biden Travel Records Follow-Up) .pdf

One part from PDF:


----------



## leon315 (Oct 21, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Because Trump is inadequate. It's not even all that hard to understand. With trump as president, the United States effectively has a garbage leader who cannot handle foreign policy. I mean the whole trade war with china, is a complete and utter joke. The states bled more money than china did over it, and we are still bleeding. And that's just one reason. There is many. Another reason why would be due to lack of leadership. Trump isn't a leader, he's good at riling up his base. But even some of his own base has pushed away from him. And so due to the fact he isn't much of a leader. If push comes to shove, Trump is just going to make this worse.
> An example of his lack of leadership is the pandemic response.


Yep just as I thought, judging from the most recent survey, Trump is 5% behind Biden, is that means Russian will do whatever they can to maintain the Orange man in power? This means *COLLUSION*!

Another Funny thing is from some of Chinese presses, Chinese hate Trump so much and wish he got replaced ASAP by someone more adequate, guess Trade war is a sword of double edge which also caused some significant damage to China too?

This is certainly completely opposite to what Russian's goal.

WHERE'S MY POPCORN?! *This live shit show *is more interesting day after day lol.!


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 21, 2020)

im so glad polling places arn't being targets of alt right violence that was my main fear that neo nazi's would litterally shoot up polling locations to cripple voting and instill fear


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 21, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> View attachment 230327
> I can play the same game... and this is a newer post. This post was made 17 hours ago. yours was made 18 hours ago. as of the time of writing this.
> So...
> I wonder who's right?
> ...




*CURRENT DNI John Ratcliffe confirmed this is NOT connected to Russian disinformation effort.  That there is no intelligence to support any claims of that nature.  So 50 former intelligence officers commenting on a gut feeling is just a guess.*

*Signatures have been compared from the form at the computer place.*

*People on the email chains have confirmed they received the same message as in the evidence of his drive.*

*Secret service has confirmed that travel plans match places and times traveled listed in the emails. *

*Neither Joe, Hunter, or his campaign have said the data is invalid.  Or that it is NOT his data/laptop.*


Amazing how in comparison people will hang trump out to dry on anonymous sources even when you have real people saying they were there and it never happened.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Oct 21, 2020)

RyuShinobi500 said:


> I disagree



Complete garbage statistics. Do you even realize how many different scenarios are unaccounted for? Just for starters, there's nothing saying how many pro-mask people wearing masks, were infected by anti-mask people who had COVID. The masks are more to prevent a person that already has it from spreading it, not the other way around. That's why both masks AND social distancing are important.



chrisrlink said:


> im so glad polling places arn't being targets of alt right violence that was my main fear that neo nazi's would litterally shoot up polling locations to cripple voting and instill fear



Close enough. Just like the rest of the asshats. Completely unwilling and unable to follow simple rules. Voter intimidation much? Glad he's being disciplined. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article246576948.html


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 21, 2020)

Garbage leader who can't handle foreign policy. He's been nominated for the nobel peace prize (not that it means much after Obama dropped thousands of bombs and still got nominated)

First US president to not start any new wars. Brought peace in the middle east, dismantled ISIS. You're just straight up lying and your garbage opinion is worthless. Treat your TDS and come back with a worthy opinion.

"Trump beats cancer" @monkeyman4412 "Trump attacks another helpless foreign body"

It's so damn boring reading the straight out lies you put out, depicting them as fact. I highly doubt Isreal thinks hes a garbage leader. Who cares about peace though when theres looting and murdering to be done.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 21, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> I wonder who's right?
> .



It's not a question, at least where the two Major Garrett tweets are concerned, of "who's right." He's reporting news. He reports that the Director of National Intelligence, the CIA, and the FBI all concur this is not "Russian disinformation." Then he reports that 50 people who used to be employees of one  intelligence agency or another say it has "all the classic earmarks", even though they're not in the game anymore and don't have access. But they said it, so he reported it. (Besides, which is the more definitive statement?)


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 21, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> You have proven nothing is untrue. The original post you responded to was that they pulled the foreign policy topic from the final debate.
> 
> Here is the actual letter that was sent to the commission on presidential debates regarding that:
> 
> ...


That letter is a conspiracy theory allegation with *no corroborating evidence* from the moderator, the Biden camp, Presidential Debates Commission, or elsewhere.  The conspiracy alleges that the nonpartisan debates commission rejected the moderator's right to choose the topics, but then gave them back to the moderator at the last moment in an effort to hurt Trump.  Yeah, right. 

You've repeatedly claimed that an alternate set of debate topics exist, but you allege that because I can't find them that it must be true?  Similarly, you've alleged that Biden's campaign denying the conspiracy theory "made it likely more true."

Great!  Now we can add *backwards reasoning* to your long list of fallacies and conspiracy theory peddling.  The onus isn't on me to find your imaginary debate topics list; I've already corroborated Lacius' argument that the "moderators choose the questions."  Chris Wallace chose the topics for the first debate and Kirsten Welker chose the topics for the third debate.  These are established facts.  Wild allegations involving conspiracy against one of the candidates with no corroborating evidence does not a fact make.

Case closed.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 21, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> That letter is a conspiracy theory allegation with *no corroborating evidence* from the moderator, the Biden camp, Presidential Debates Commission, or elsewhere.  The conspiracy alleges that the nonpartisan debates commission rejected the moderator's right to choose the topics, but then gave them back to the moderator at the last moment in an effort to hurt Trump.  Yeah, right.
> 
> You've repeatedly claimed that an alternate set of debate topics exist, but you allege that because I can't find them that it must be true?  Similarly, you've alleged that Biden's campaign denying the conspiracy theory "made it likely more true."
> 
> ...



You can close whatever case you want, you think  I care what you believe?

I know what is real.

And that is:

I don't see any announcment showing the final debate topics before last Wed.

And I don't see any release from Commission on Residential Debates saying it is untrue either. (What Trumps campaign has come out against) 

And given all the lies and adjustments for poor old Joe, it fits within everything else.  Also it fits within past history for the last debate.

You can ignore reality, I don't care Lum.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 21, 2020)

Are all the demented leftists in this thread excited for the civil war?  In the front yard of every house I've driven by with a truck in the driveway there's a Trump sign.  If the only people who fought on the right side (get it, the right side?) were truck owners, they would demolish the left with ease....and that's only like 1/10th the population of Trump voters LOL.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 21, 2020)

I heard there was more coming, even bigger than what has been uncovered/revealed so far.








So where does that leave us at this point:  (focusing more on the Joe related stuff, obviously Hunter has his own issues with the pictures and text/emails that were turned over to the FBI allegedly showing him exposing himself to underage girls)

*CURRENT DNI John Ratcliffe confirmed this is NOT connected to Russian disinformation effort. That there is no intelligence to support any claims of that nature.  No matter what arm chair intelligence officers claim. *

*Signatures have been compared from the form at the computer place.  And they match enough to suggest/indicate it was Hunter who signed.*

*Hunter Biden's Attorney has attempted to retrieve the hard drive from the computer store owner. *

*People on the email chains have confirmed they received the same message as in the evidence of his drive.*

*Secret service has confirmed that travel plans match places and times traveled listed in the emails. *

*Neither Joe, Hunter, or his campaign have said the data is invalid. Or that it is NOT his data/laptop.
*


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 22, 2020)

This is the way intelligence agencies like the FBI have worked from day one, through blackmail.  Every other nation is running similar operations with the Mossad and it's Epstein blackmail rings being the most obvious example. 

Why do you think in US presidential elections like the one Ron Paul ran in every single candidate on stage except Ron Paul mentioned absolutely nothing about America once and just talked about what they're going to do for Israel the entire time?  

Why do you think the US fights wars in the Middle East for decades that do absolutely nothing to benefit America and only benefit Israel causing tons of Americans to die and the US to financially implode?  Because they're all scumbag puppets placed there by the CFR and blackmailed by Epstein and his Zionist, dual-citizen spy ring.

Now it's wide out in the open that the Bidens sold out the entire country for a few tens of millions making them puppets to the foreign nation of China in the process.  Same deal.  All of these people are enemy traitors committing treason.  Anyone remember what the penalty for treason is?


----------



## omgcat (Oct 22, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Now it's wide out in the open that the Bidens sold out the entire country for a few tens of millions making them puppets to the foreign nation of China in the process.  Same deal.  All of these people are enemy traitors committing treason.  Anyone remember what the penalty for treason is?







so trump is a traitor that also deserves the punishment that goes with it?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...china-bank-account-nearly-200000-taxes-report

people get their panties in a twist about some mythical hunter biden nonsense when we have actual proof of nepotism with OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT.

like remember ivanka's trademark requests that were fast-tracked because of the presidents position, as well as the now known secret chinese bank accounts?

but, in the end, average voters don't care about the Hunter Biden nonsense because trump has lied so many times in the past, people straight up don't trust him or anything related to him.

republicans are killing their own chances at re-election because trump is focusing 100% on his opponent instead of laying out ANY policy. where is the health plan? what ever happened to infrastructure week?


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 22, 2020)

Stupid post.  Anyone that's a billionaire has bank accounts all over the world.  Trump having a Chinese bank account means nothing unless you have some type of evidence the money are bribes from China - which just about nobody believes China is bribing Trump, especially with his foreign policy.

So your story is the laughable plot that Trump has some of his own money in a foreign bank account?  WOOPTY DOO.  As for Trump not paying taxes, it's called....drumroll....a writeoff for previous losses in real estate which any adult (aka not you) utilizes to avoid losing further money.

Nothing but constant lies and BS from you people.  The only real corruption that's obvious involving Trump is his constant worshipping of Israel and trying to focus US foreign policy entirely around this useless nation that means absolutely nothing to America indicating he might be blackmailed by the Mossad in some manner.

Or AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee being the most powerful lobby in Washington (why is a foreign nation the most powerful lobby in America?  Sounds a little suspicious, doesn't it?) causes all US politicians to be nothing more than puppets to a foreign nation.  Why is it that you leftists do NOT discuss REAL topics like this at all?


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 22, 2020)

"Brought peace in the middle east, dismantled ISIS"

That remains to be seen. There have been peaceful periods before but they are still primed for a lot more -- Egypt vs Sudan will probably go do something if the whole dam thing keeps up, Iran still probably gets to implode at some point, most lines on the map still reflect nothing like geography or tribal lands, Pakistan (and various other Stans) have some serious internal strife brewing, Saudi is slowly become less of a totalitarian nightmare but still a nightmare and there will probably be something interesting between the remaining hardline types and the marginally more modernised types, Turkey will probably make a move or two and you still have the Kurds caught up in the middle of all that, Syria also is not finished and Iraq is a stalemate at best.
Still some decent efforts I guess, more than I expected. Any kind of lasting peace... probably not in our lifetimes.

As far as ISIS was that not fit to implode anyway? A distributed hardline religious movement that failed to make any real gains on land... yeah.



chrisrlink said:


> im so glad polling places arn't being targets of alt right violence that was my main fear that neo nazi's would litterally shoot up polling locations to cripple voting and instill fear


If by alt right you mean far right (there are differences) then have they done anything of note in years? There are like 5 of them and they don't do anything.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 22, 2020)

omgcat said:


> where is the health plan?



The health plan is that communism and socialism are nothing more than banker schemes to centralize all wealth and power so they can steal it all then murder everyone like the Bolsheviks killed 20+ million Whites and Christians in Russia.  So your "health plan" is go get a job then you can go to a doctor instead of pretending anyone wants to be a part of your murder dystopia.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 22, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> The health plan is that communism and socialism are nothing more than banker schemes to centralize all wealth and power so they can steal it all then murder everyone like the Bolsheviks killed 20+ million Whites and Christians in Russia.  So your "health plan" is go get a job then you can go to a doctor instead of pretending anyone wants to be a part of your murder dystopia.


For the record, this isn't a health plan.


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 22, 2020)

hate biting my tongue cause the SS i cant wait to crack trump prison jokes once he's out


----------



## raphamotta (Oct 22, 2020)

@Lacius I got the quiz and here my results. I'm not from US so whsts this women's equality party?


----------



## Lacius (Oct 22, 2020)

raphamotta said:


> @Lacius I got the quiz and here my results. I'm not from US so whsts this women's equality party?
> View attachment 230372


IMO, ignore anything that isn't Democratic, Republican, or Libertarian.


----------



## raphamotta (Oct 22, 2020)

Lacius said:


> IMO, ignore anything that isn't Democratic, Republican, or Libertarian.


OK.. But you put Green party in the poll


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 22, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> This is the way intelligence agencies like the FBI have worked from day one, through blackmail.  Every other nation is running similar operations with the Mossad and it's Epstein blackmail rings being the most obvious example.
> 
> Why do you think in US presidential elections like the one Ron Paul ran in every single candidate on stage except Ron Paul mentioned absolutely nothing about America once and just talked about what they're going to do for Israel the entire time?
> 
> ...




I wondered if the reason the FBI that picked Hunters laptop up in 2019 had not said anything yet, was for future leverage/blackmail.  

That or I  figured it got destroyed.  We still don't know if the data is accessible on the drive in the laptop, so that is still a possibility.

The computer guy from that store obviously ruined that option at this point if it was the case.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 22, 2020)

raphamotta said:


> OK.. But you put Green party in the poll


I included the Green party because they had ballot access to 270+ at the time. The most popular political parties in their respective political niches are the Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 22, 2020)

*New Yahoo News/YouGov poll: Half of Trump supporters believe QAnon's imaginary claims*
https://news.yahoo.com/new-yahoo-ne...lieve-q-anons-imaginary-claims-124025042.html


----------



## omgcat (Oct 22, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> *New Yahoo News/YouGov poll: Half of Trump supporters believe QAnon's imaginary claims*
> https://news.yahoo.com/new-yahoo-ne...lieve-q-anons-imaginary-claims-124025042.html



-snip- i read the numbers wrong, don't mind me.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Oct 22, 2020)

Just when I thought people couldn't get any more stupid than what I've already seen, along comes r0achtheunsavory.

In other news, anyone else looking forward to the new Borat movie tomorrow?


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 22, 2020)

What is the point in this? It has been my experience that no matter how well your argument is put together, you cannot change peoples political views so why try?


----------



## Lacius (Oct 22, 2020)

RyuShinobi500 said:


> What is the point in this? It has been my experience that no matter how well your argument is put together, you cannot change peoples political views so why try?


People change their political views all the time. Do I expect to change the mind of anybody who has posted in this thread? Not at all. Do I expect to change the minds of some people who agree with some of the conservatives but only lurk because of shame or doubt? Yes, and that's why I correct misinformation whenever I see it. In other words, my responses are not for anybody I'm responding to.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 22, 2020)

Lacius said:


> People change their political views all the time. Do I expect to change the mind of anybody who has posted in this thread? Not at all. Do I expect to change the minds of some people who agree with some of the conservatives but only lurk because of shame or doubt? Yes, and that's why I correct misinformation whenever I see it. In other words, my responses are not for anybody I'm responding to.



Well said


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 22, 2020)

Lacius said:


> misinformation



There's definitely some misinformation alright.  Look at this disgusting pig demon (Mossad ran out of normal looking people to try and blackmail to be disinformation propaganda spammers):


----------



## Lacius (Oct 22, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> There's definitely some misinformation alright.  Look at this disgusting pig demon (Mossad ran out of normal looking people to try and blackmail to be disinformation propaganda spammers):


What are you even talking about?


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 22, 2020)

Sorry. I totally forgot you were Brian Stelter.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 22, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Sorry. I totally forgot you were Brian Stelter.


Calling people "pig demons" and then saying I'm somebody I've never heard of aren't exactly substantive points.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 22, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> *New Yahoo News/YouGov poll: Half of Trump supporters believe QAnon's imaginary claims*
> https://news.yahoo.com/new-yahoo-ne...lieve-q-anons-imaginary-claims-124025042.html


Fortunately, it is only half of them and a fraction of voters overall. Unfortunately, they are going to be the hardest to reach and people are voting for Trump for other bad or misguided reasons. 



Lacius said:


> People change their political views all the time. Do I expect to change the mind of anybody who has posted in this thread? Not at all. Do I expect to change the minds of some people who agree with some of the conservatives but only lurk because of shame or doubt? Yes, and that's why I correct misinformation whenever I see it. In other words, my responses are not for anybody I'm responding to.


We seen how dangerous misinformation and conspiracy theories can be, so I appreciate anyone that's truly trying to stop the spread.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 22, 2020)

And another stream of leftist garbage spam that has nothing to do with anything.  Why don't you leftists address actual government problems like the fact that the most powerful lobby in washington is AIPAC?  

On what planet does it make sense that a foreign, rogue, terrorist nation is the #1 most powerful lobby of our country?  You make up lies saying Russia is "interfering" in the election, when in reality, the only thing going on is Israel doing it right out in the open.  Why do you REFUSE to criticize Israel openly interfering in the US elections?


----------



## wartutor (Oct 22, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Fortunately, it is only half of them and a fraction of voters overall. *Unfortunately, they are going to be the hardest to reach and people are voting for Trump for other bad or misguided reasons*.
> 
> 
> We seen how dangerous misinformation and conspiracy theories can be, so I appreciate anyone that's truly trying to stop the spread.


This right here is whats wrong with america....people vote for who they want and instantly its because there misguided or because of other bad reason. Maybe because a cop wore a mask that had a trump ad on it... fucking get over yourself people have the right to vote how they want without being judged or looked down on by people like you and your party. Make shit up on one side and lie about the other. Thats politics 101 and you all eat it up.



r0achtheunsavory said:


> And another stream of leftist garbage spam that has nothing to do with anything.  Why don't you leftists address actual government problems like the fact that the most powerful lobby in washington is AIPAC?
> 
> On what planet does it make sense that a foreign, rogue, terrorist nation is the #1 most powerful lobby of our country?  You make up lies saying Russia is "interfering" in the election, when in reality, the only thing going on is Israel doing it right out in the open.  Why do you REFUSE to criticize Israel openly interfering in the US elections?



Because it benefits them at the moment


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 22, 2020)

wartutor said:


> have the right to vote how they want without being judged


They are voting for a person that has no business leading anything, let alone the USA. I'm definitely going to judge them.


----------



## wartutor (Oct 22, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> They are voting for a person that has no business leading anything, let alone the USA. I'm definitely going to judge them.


See made my point for me. None of your damn business who they vote for. And truth be told biden isnt some high and mighty saint but just keep placing him higher and higher on your pedestal hes old and when he falls it will be a death sentence at that age. Jesus fuckin tap dancing christ on a stick your side is so fucked up in the head.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 22, 2020)

wartutor said:


> See made my point for me. None of your damn business who they vote for. And truth be told biden isnt some high and mighty saint but just keep placing him higher and higher on your pedestal hes old and when he falls it will be a death sentence at that age. Jesus fuckin tap dancing christ on a stick your side is so fucked up in the head.


I never put Biden on a pedestal. Probably most people voting for him, know he isn't perfect. Doesn't mean we can't recognize that he is much better than what we have now. Meanwhile, some on "your side", is probably literally worshiping Trump.


----------



## vincentx77 (Oct 22, 2020)

wartutor said:


> See made my point for me. None of your damn business who they vote for. And truth be told biden isnt some high and mighty saint but just keep placing him higher and higher on your pedestal hes old and when he falls it will be a death sentence at that age. Jesus fuckin tap dancing christ on a stick your side is so fucked up in the head.



Except they kind of make it everyone's business when they wear a MAGA cap, MAGA face mask (lol... probably not, but), put a Trump bumper sticker on their car, have political lawn ornaments, or just generally have a neon sign that says "I'm Trumptarded" sticking out of their ass. Considering the damage he's done and is continuing to do to civil rights and health care, and the unprecedented level of corruption in his administration, if someone tells me in all these ways that they support him, you're goddamn right I'm going to judge them.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 22, 2020)

Think I'll take a pass on the bolsheviks attempting to ban free speech and ban the 2nd amendment while promoting white genocide.  Even if you're some anti-white racist, the garbage the left spews are such obvious lies you need to be a complete idiot to believe them. 

Like claiming getting rid of the police somehow helps minorities.  Guess what happens when you get rid of the police?  Every single business in the area either closes or moves and the area completely implodes into a wasteland of no jobs, no grocery stores, no nothing.

It's beyond belief how stupid the idiot children pushing this garbage are.


----------



## wartutor (Oct 22, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> I never put Biden on a pedestal. Probably most people voting for him, know he isn't perfect. Doesn't mean we can't recognize that he is much better than what we have now. Meanwhile, some on "your side", is probably literally worshiping Trump.


I have said this before and will again i am in no way a trump supporter. I am a supporter in freedom and all things this country use to stand for. Now i do hope trump wins just so i can watch all you whinny ass little cry babys burn your own towns down and bitch about how everything is his fault. I remember when trump didnt want to shut down the economy yet your side made him. Now theres commercials about how trump ruined the economy and biden would of did it differently wtf ever dont you see how fucking stupid that sounds.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 22, 2020)

*Lawyers at firm used by Trump donate $90,000 to Biden, $50 to president*
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2752H1


> Lawyers at Jones Day, which has earned millions as outside counsel to U.S. President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign, have donated nearly $90,000 to the campaign committee of Trump’s Democratic rival Joe Biden. Contributions to the Trump campaign by Jones Day lawyers totaled just $50, records show.
> 
> *Jones Day has earned over $4.5 million since 2019 as outside counsel to the Trump campaign*, FEC records show. Dave Petrou, a spokesman for Jones Day, did not respond to request for comment.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 22, 2020)

Oh no! Biden is now the preferred candidate of both too weak to exist soy men AND crooked lawyers!


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 22, 2020)

So I've had a week or so to shrug off the bullying I've gotten in this and other threads on this site. Not much has happened during that time regarding the 2020 Presidential Election. It seems some damning files have been found on a laptop that Hunter Biden owned, though I'm not sure why there's confusion over the quid pro quo between Joe Biden and Ukraine. If you have a short memory you might need to be reminded of the fact that Joe Biden did an interview on TV bragging about how he used his political position and power to negotiate a job for his son Hunter. I'm not sure why everyone has forgotten about this now as there's no doubt that Joe was guilty of quid pro quo, he freaking bragged about it.

I also see the Liberals are trying to downplay or distract from the circumstances as you have some of them saying the documents are fabricated by Russians then morons like Adam Schiff who claim they were not fabricated by Russians, but by China. With all the great renegotiating of trade deals that Trump has been doing that are actually helping the USA as opposed to the old ones that existed that allowed for us to get bad deals I don't see why anyone would think China is behind the laptop as China is no fan of Trump. China isn't trying to help Trump stay in power as that's one of the last things they'd want to do. I also see the normal "Russian did it" dribble, but there's no proof of that and the FBI and other agencies have also found no proof of that. Not that it matters, Biden is on TV admitting to his crimes.

So other than the emails that outline to events of the already known quid pro quo I don't see any other major developments have taken place since I voted. I also see that no one on the Left was able to answer my previous questions regarding them listing at least 1 thing Trump has done that they agree with and also see that MonkeyDude or whatever didn't answer my question regarding if he would support a global government. I guess I'll never see anyone with TDS say anything good about Trump ...

At any rate the early voting has started in many States so if you would like to see things change in a direction you desire it would probably be a good idea to go vote. So I'll just leave this image to remind people of what they should be doing.





--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



wartutor said:


> This right here is whats wrong with america....people vote for who they want and instantly its because there misguided or because of other bad reason. Maybe because a cop wore a mask that had a trump ad on it... fucking get over yourself people have the right to vote how they want without being judged or looked down on by people like you and your party. Make shit up on one side and lie about the other. Thats politics 101 and you all eat it up.



Don't worry as I voted for who I wanted to vote for. I don't take directions from anyone or any organization. I vote for who I think is best for the job. No straight ticket here, but if I wanted to I'd vote a straight ticket regardless of what anyone else tells me to do. I'm also not going to tell you who to vote for or think less of you for voting for who you want to vote for. That would be pretty immature and childish.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 22, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Oh no! Biden is now the preferred candidate of both too weak to exist soy men AND crooked lawyers!


Biden clearly needs to improve his outreach to the coveted *insecure edgelord* demographic.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 22, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> I never put Biden on a pedestal. Probably most people voting for him, know he isn't perfect. Doesn't mean we can't recognize that he is much better than what we have now.



Sell me on him over Trump then.

From where I sit they are both self serving and corrupt through and through, though that is bog standard politician (nice is better but predictable you can work with). I waver for each between whether they are more concerned with legacy (those that would not be surprising to see have their ticker go pop tomorrow seem to have that as a problem) or lining pockets. Neither are great at economics, neither will do much for science, neither have done much in the way of military reform, I don't particularly trust either to guard rights (speech, weapons, police/law... all have a demonstrably mediocre at best track record and fundamental misunderstandings at worst) and neither do much in the way of foreign relations at at fairly pivotal time in world history. Even by the piss weak standards of US presidential power (even if I were to believe Mr Trump was a tyrant the results he achieved are utterly awful compared to where we see big boy tyranny in the middle east, Africa and other historical accounts) both will be sock puppets for various interests.

There are slightly different flavours of each failing for both from what I see but flip a coin and essentially the same result.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 22, 2020)

Did you see Biden's tweet yesterday?

LOL








I am hearing now that states where governors are instating lockdowns again because of hotspots, businesses are ignoring them.  Because they can't financially take it anymore.  Illinois being one of them.  Illinois/Wisconsin/Michigan cases are spiking heavy and the democrat governors are not helping things.

Maybe if they wear 2 surgeons masks instead of 1 that will be the solution.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 22, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Think I'll take a pass on the *bolsheviks *attempting to ban free speech and ban the 2nd amendment while promoting white genocide.


AH *YES* I didn't know democrats support communism!
Oh wait... No, they don't. And nor do they really support any social programs. I don't count joe as very left. most American politics for the left is more center right than actually truly left.
Also, where are you getting the ban on free speech?
Like yeah, you can say things. But it doesn't mean you don't have consequences. If I yell fire in a building, and there is no fire. You think that's going to just be let go? No, people are going to be rightfully pissed.
Third, wtf are you talking about regarding banning the second amendment. They can't do that. Banning a specific arm type, doesn't remove your ability to use arms now does it? I don't see why people need military grade weapons in their homes if it's supposed to be for self defense.
Also promoting white genocide?
What world you live in?





r0achtheunsavory said:


> Even if you're some anti-white racist, the garbage the left spews are such obvious lies you need to be a complete idiot to believe them.


And you spewing your obvious lies gives everyone a reason not to listen to you. Seriously, I must ask what world you live in? Is it trumps world?
Those that are republican, tend to be more fear reactive. it's why most republican advertising is base on fear. Perhaps you should get that checked to make sure your not being emotionally exploited.




r0achtheunsavory said:


> Like claiming getting rid of the police somehow helps minorities.  Guess what happens when you get rid of the police?  Every single business in the area either closes or moves and the area completely implodes into a wasteland of no jobs, no grocery stores, no nothing.


Defund the police is both accurate and wrong at the same time. Whoever made that term, poorly choose their words.
What it actually means is just less funding. And allocating that funding to other professionals. You don't need a cop to deal with a person who is mentally unstable and without a weapon. That job should go to a mental health expert. Not a cop who doesn't know how to handle the situation. Also cops have way more unneeded fatalities. They should not be killing people. It also should be asked why do they have access to military grade equipment if they are supposed to protect people. Your only supposed to use needed force. Not more than what is required. So rather than have police solve everything, even stuff that isn't crime related. Dulling out the responsibilities to other roles so they are less strained, and more focused on doing what they do best. Catching actual criminals.



r0achtheunsavory said:


> It's beyond belief how stupid the idiot children pushing this garbage are.


And I don't understand your logic. Your clearly letting yourself get manipulated.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 22, 2020)

*How much has the nypost.com story impacted national polling?*

Per fivethirtyeight.com:

October 14th: *Biden's up +10.3 points* (The day nypost.com published laptop allegations.)
October 22nd: *Biden's up +9.8 points* (Today, the date for the final debate.)

- That's a net loss of -0.5 points over the 8 day period since the story broke.
- That's only an average of +.06 points gained per day for Trump.
- With only 12 days left, Trump still needs to shave off another *full 6-7 points* to have a 50-50 chance at winning.
- Trump shaved +3.8 points off Hillary's lead over the final 12 days of the 2016 election.
- However, shaving +3.8 off Biden's current +9.8 point lead would still give Biden a commanding +6.0 lead.
Chance of a Biden Electoral college win if he wins the popular vote by X points:0-1 points: just 6%!1-2 points: 22%2-3 points: 46%3-4 points: 74%4-5 points: 89%5-6 points: 98%6-7 points: 99%— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) September 2, 2020


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 22, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> *How much has the nypost.com story impacted national polling?*
> 
> Per fivethirtyeight.com:
> 
> ...



I doubt that ages well.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 22, 2020)

I am surprised it took someone this long to do this.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 23, 2020)

wartutor said:


> I have said this before and will again i am in no way a trump supporter. I am a supporter in freedom and all things this country use to stand for. Now i do hope trump wins just so i can watch all you whinny ass little cry babys burn your own towns down and bitch about how everything is his fault.


I'm not a Trump supporter, I just happen to repeat the same kind of talking points as one.

Ah yes, having people's lives and the climate destroyed even more so, to "own the libs". 




wartutor said:


> I remember when trump didnt want to shut down the economy yet your side made him. Now theres commercials about how trump ruined the economy and biden would of did it differently wtf ever dont you see how fucking stupid that sounds.


Funny, the way I remember it, is Trump trying to open the economy up without any safety precautions and even encouraging people not to follow safety guidelines that got over 200k people killed. Meanwhile praising healthcare that saved him, yet trying to take it from everyone else.   



FAST6191 said:


> Sell me on him over Trump then.
> 
> From where I sit they are both self serving and corrupt through and through, though that is bog standard politician (nice is better but predictable you can work with). I waver for each between whether they are more concerned with legacy (those that would not be surprising to see have their ticker go pop tomorrow seem to have that as a problem) or lining pockets. Neither are great at economics, neither will do much for science, neither have done much in the way of military reform, I don't particularly trust either to guard rights (speech, weapons, police/law... all have a demonstrably mediocre at best track record and fundamental misunderstandings at worst) and neither do much in the way of foreign relations at at fairly pivotal time in world history. Even by the piss weak standards of US presidential power (even if I were to believe Mr Trump was a tyrant the results he achieved are utterly awful compared to where we see big boy tyranny in the middle east, Africa and other historical accounts) both will be sock puppets for various interests.
> 
> There are slightly different flavours of each failing for both from what I see but flip a coin and essentially the same result.


Idk what to tell you. Just on the climate, healthcare and people's rights alone, shows you this isn't a "both sides" thing.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 23, 2020)

Rudy's face when borat wrecks him.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

businesses would have been better able to survive if standard citizens had cash on hand to spend. But we have gone since may with a bill in the house to extend the $600 per week, but the senate has refused to bring it up for a vote. so now people are whining about companies shuttering when no one has money to spend without a stimulus. which side is activly preventing stimulus talks? oh yeah that's right, the republicans.


----------



## wartutor (Oct 23, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Funny, the way I remember it, is Trump trying to open the economy up without any safety precautions and even encouraging people not to follow safety guidelines that got over 200k people killed. Meanwhile praising healthcare that saved him, yet trying to take it from everyone else.


Yet another person that wants to blame trump for everything. there is absolutely no way of knowing if more or less people would of died if things were done differently. Hell if the country would of stayed open maybe 300k people would of died but we would have heard immunity by now. Instead 200k have died and possibly another 200k or more will die. Yet even if that could be proved somehow you would blame trump. Btw there has been a problem with the climate, healthcare in america has always sucked and inequality has always been there but lets blame trump for all that 2. 


omgcat said:


> Rudy's face when borat wrecks him.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> businesses would have been better able to survive if standard citizens had cash on hand to spend. But we have gone since may with a bill in the house to extend the $600 per week, but the senate has refused to bring it up for a vote. so now people are whining about companies shuttering when no one has money to spend without a stimulus. which side is activly preventing stimulus talks? oh yeah that's right, the republicans.


No u want money go out and get a god damn job. There are plenty of people hiring quit asking for free money. First thing they should do is round all these people rioting and looting up. Make sure they not only loose any benefits they currently have but make them ineligible to ever receive any ever again.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 23, 2020)

wartutor said:


> Yet another person that wants to blame trump for everything. there is absolutely no way of knowing if more or less people would of died if things were done differently. Hell if the country would of stayed open maybe 300k people would of died but we would have heard immunity by now. Instead 200k have died and possibly another 200k or more will die. Yet even if that could be proved somehow you would blame trump. Btw there has been a problem with the climate, healthcare in america has always sucked and inequality has always been there but lets blame trump for all that 2.
> 
> No u want money go out and get a god damn job. There are plenty of people hiring quit asking for free money. First thing they should do is round all these people rioting and looting up. Make sure they not only loose any benefits they currently have but make them ineligible to ever receive any ever again.



so, people are unemployed, businesses fired them because of an economic slowdown. where are they going to get jobs? businesses cannot hire, because people have no money to spend. when people have money to spend, businesses can hire more people to meet that demand, the opposite holds true, when people have less on hand cash, businesses slash workers. the solution is stimulus, austerity doesn't do a fucking thing. we learned this during the last major recession, ask Europe how austerity turned out.


----------



## wartutor (Oct 23, 2020)

omgcat said:


> so, people are unemployed, businesses fired them because of an economic slowdown. where are they going to get jobs? businesses cannot hire, because people have no money to spend. when people have money to spend, businesses can hire more people to meet that demand, the opposite holds true, when people have less on hand cash, businesses slash workers. the solution is stimulus, austerity doesn't do a fucking thing. we learned this during the last major recession, ask Europe how austerity turned out.


Then they live off the regular amount given for unemployment. Just because most people currently laid off is middle/upper class doesnt mean we should make new rules up (just for them) and (just this time). Its plenty enough $ when joe shmoe looses his job. You keep giving an extra $600 a week to alot of people that never make that amount any way they will never go back to work. If all else fails get a fucking job at mcdonalds their hiring. Oh wait the employee working there is essential and makes half that a week if he/she is lucky. Maybe they should get that extra money for working durring all this instead of you ungrateful shits sitting on your ass at home.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 23, 2020)

wartutor said:


> Then they live off the regular amount given for unemployment. Just because most people currently laid off is middle/upper class doesnt mean we should make new rules up (just for them) and (just this time). Its plenty enough $ when joe shmoe looses his job. You keep giving an extra $600 a week to alot of people that never make that amount any way they will never go back to work. If all else fails get a fucking job at mcdonalds their hiring.



so these people just hold on to this extra $600? no buying cool things like tv's, streaming services, extra food? too bad you have no idea how reality works with the economy.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume...ents-in-the-time-of-the-covid-19-pandemic.htm

*Key findings*

Of all respondents to the HPS in week 7, 84 percent reported that they received or they expect to receive a stimulus payment.


Of those who received or expected to receive a payment, the largest percentage indicated that they would use the stimulus payment to mostly pay for expenses.


Of those who received or expected to receive a stimulus check, 66 percent reported using at least a portion of it for food.


Compared with other generational groups, Generation X was slightly more likely to use the stimulus for expenses (74 percent of respondents in this group). The Silent generation reported that they were more likely to save the stimulus payment (25 percent) than were respondents born in other generations.3


Respondents most frequently reported using “regular” income (i.e., their usual sources of income) to meet their spending needs (e.g. food, shelter, utilities, household items, paying off debt, etc.) “in the past 7 days” (70 percent), followed by the stimulus payment (26 percent).


Of the 48 percent of respondents reporting a loss of income since March 13, the majority (81 percent) reported using their stimulus payment mostly for expenses, as opposed to paying off debt or adding to savings, as might be expected. The resources they used to meet their spending needs were more diverse than those not reporting a loss of income.


Of respondents who reported not working for pay, 55 percent cited one of the following reasons for why they were not working: because they were sick themselves or a member of their household was sick, they were caring for someone else, they experienced a job loss or drop in hours worked, or they were concerned with getting COVID-19. These respondents were more likely to use the stimulus payment to meet expenses compared to the 45 percent of respondents who cited not working because they were retired or did not want to work.


----------



## wartutor (Oct 23, 2020)

omgcat said:


> so these people just hold on to this extra $600? no buying cool things like tv's, streaming services, extra food? too bad you have no idea how reality works with the economy.


I know exactly how it works. YOU WANT MONEY YOU FUCKING WORK FOR IT. That cashier you yelled at for not having any toilet paper a few months ago is a single mom making a whopping $200 to $300 a week working as an essential worker while your unessential ass wants an extra $600 to sit on your ass. Who pays for that the essential TAX PAYING WORKER. How about giving it to the people working for a fucking living instead of to the unemployed. Let the unessential just fuck off.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 23, 2020)

wartutor said:


> I know exactly how it works. YOU WANT MONEY YOU FUCKING WORK FOR IT. That cashier you yelled at for not having any toilet paper a few months ago is a single mom making a whopping $200 to $300 a week working as an essential worker while your unessential ass wants an extra $600 to sit on your ass. Who pays for that the essential TAX PAYING WORKER. How about giving it to the people working for a fucking living instead of to the unemployed. Let the unessential just fuck off.



sure, tell that to families who are struggling to make rent, or pay for food. you know, people like my wife who were tax paying workers before they got laid off. no wonder the republicans are getting smashed. also news flash, not everyone is able to work retail or front line jobs. we have at risk people in our house. and for the record, my family has never once purposefully put front line workers at risk by not wearing a mask or yelling at them. treat them with the respect they deserve, push for a higher minimum wage, and stimulus for families.


----------



## wartutor (Oct 23, 2020)

omgcat said:


> sure, tell that to families who are struggling to make rent, or pay for food. you know, people like my wife who were tax paying workers before they got laid off. no wonder the republicans are getting smashed.


Your wife doing all the working in the family? How is she any better than the single moms out there only making $300 a week working in the gas stations and grocery stores. Wtf makes you think you deserve more money than someone working for a living. Take the usual unemployment amount and fuck off. dont like it move to another country


----------



## omgcat (Oct 23, 2020)

wartutor said:


> Your wife doing all the working in the family? How is she any better than the single moms out there only making $300 a week working in the gas stations and grocery stores. Wtf makes you think you deserve more money than someone working for a living. Take the usual unemployment amount and fuck off. dont like it move to another country



I'm still employed, paying for her masters program while the economy is fucked. you are actively making this country worse.


----------



## wartutor (Oct 23, 2020)

omgcat said:


> I'm still employed, paying for her masters program while the economy is fucked. you are actively making this country worse.


Im working as an essential employee. Fuck your working too so your wife definatly shouldnt be getting any extra $ for unemployment. If you cant live off just your income then your living above your means.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 23, 2020)

wartutor said:


> Im working as an essential employee. Fuck your working too so your wife definatly shouldnt be getting any extra $ for unemployment. If you cant live off just your income then your living above your means.



she paid into unemployment insurance, same as you and me bud. she is getting out what she put in. if you don't know how unemployment works in the first place, maybe you shouldn't talk.


----------



## wartutor (Oct 23, 2020)

Oh quit fucking making excuses telling me why you think you deserve extra money. She paid into unemployment and should only get the regular amount back. There never should of been $600 a week extra. Now until you can give a valid reason as to why your wife should get extra money while you are still working and the regular essential worker doesnt make that much in a single week keep your god damn mouth shut. Fuckin stupid liberals


----------



## omgcat (Oct 23, 2020)

wartutor said:


> Oh quit fucking making excuses telling me why you think you deserve extra money. She paid into unemployment and should only get the regular amount back. There never should of been $600 a week extra. Now until you can give a valid reason as to why your wife should get extra money while you are still working and the regular essential worker doesnt make that much in a single week keep your god damn mouth shut. Fuckin stupid liberals



because we spend that money to keep the economy from completely dying? it's a good thing you work a front line job instead of something important, cause you'd fuck us right up. you shouldn't be attacking people who are trying to help people in your position. Most small businesses did not receive any money from the PPP, so our extra $600/week keeps these local shops alive. sucks that you don't care about anyone else but yourself.


----------



## wartutor (Oct 23, 2020)

omgcat said:


> because we spend that money to keep the economy from completely dying? it's a good thing you work a front line job instead of something important, cause you'd fuck us right up. you shouldn't be attacking people who are trying to help people in your position. Most small businesses did not receive any money from the PPP, so our extra $600/week keeps these local shops alive. sucks that you don't care about anyone else but yourself.


I dont think giving you fucks sitting at home free money helping. The people making $300 a week working can spend it just as well as you and deserve it more than your free loading ass. Go suck a hard liberal one if you think your more deserving than the people that actually have to work through it making less. Who the fuck do u think you are worthless piece of shit begging for more money GO GET A FUCKING JOB AT MCDONALDS OR YOUR LOCAL GROCERY STORE THEY ARE HIRING. And quit begging for money


----------



## omgcat (Oct 23, 2020)

wartutor said:


> I dont think giving you fucks sitting at home free money helping. The people making $300 a week working can spend it just as well as you and deserve it more than your free loading ass. Go suck a hard liberal one if you think your more deserving than the people that actually have to work through it making less. Who the fuck do u think you are worthless piece of shit begging for more money GO GET A FUCKING JOB AT MCDONALDS OR YOUR LOCAL GROCERY STORE THEY ARE HIRING. And quit begging for money



If you could read, you would have seen that i still have a job. I'm "working my ass of" just like you. my wife would work, except that we have at risk people living with us. Luckily software engineering is a job that can WFH, but professional at home care for children with disabilities is not something my wife can still do without putting herself, myself, and my parents( specifically my 68yo, diabetic father) at risk. I mean, it must be nice to not have a family or friends to worry about. Maybe get educated and start working as a high skilled laborer.


----------



## wartutor (Oct 23, 2020)

omgcat said:


> If you could read, would have seen that i still have a job. I'm "working my ass of" just like you. my wife would work, except that we have at risk people living with us. Luckily software engineering is a job that can WFH, but professional at home care for children with disabilities is not something my wife can still do without putting herself, myself, and my parents( specifically my 68yo, diabetic father) at risk. I mean, it must be nice to not have a family or friends to worry about.


I have a family actally i have an at risk mother that still GOES TO WORK AND WORKS EVERY FUCKING DAY DURRING THIS WHOLE ORDEAL. If she catches it it will probably kill her. Only difference is she knows the world keeps fucking turning even when you dont wake up in the morning. Shit happens but she isnt goin to be afraid to live and coop herself up in the house all fucking day. Besides if your working as software a engineer your making well over most essential people that work their ass off make, yet you still sit here and argue that your family deserves it more than the single mother pulling $300 ringing up your families steaks and lobster. Just keep begging for money and talking about how bad you have it. Poor you maybe should start you a go fund me page jesus fucking christ


----------



## omgcat (Oct 23, 2020)

if you're pulling in $7.50/hr, you should be pushing for a higher minimum wage. I feel that 7.25/hr is fucking ridiculous at this point. why are you pissed at the people who want to help you? doesn't make sense.


----------



## notimp (Oct 23, 2020)

wartutor said:


> GO GET A FUCKING JOB AT MCDONALDS OR YOUR LOCAL GROCERY STORE THEY ARE HIRING. And quit begging for money


I think thats the official slogan for outsourcing all skilled labor to china. 
Take your service industry jobs and shut up. 

Make me a burger.

Oh, you can pack a bag so good, while being at high risk of a covid infection as local supermarket staff, not getting additional risk payment.

Lets all work from home, says the software engineer that designs automation, that will cost more high skilled (non creative) jobs, 8 years from now, then all the folks can become food delivery drivers.  Oh, and you can write the most marvelous app to manage those, without a chance for them ever to become unionized, because in front of the law, they are self imployed. By app.

Much the same way, as employers expect you to finance your home office on your own. 

Oh hey, I hear Wallmart is hiring.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...many-employees-still-earn-below-poverty-line/


----------



## omgcat (Oct 23, 2020)

notimp said:


> I think thats the official slogan for outsourcing all skilled labor to china.
> Take your service industry jobs and shut up.
> 
> Make me a burger.
> ...



I make shit look good/function nice, not automation. some of us don't work for companies as shitty as google and FB.


----------



## wartutor (Oct 23, 2020)

omgcat said:


> if you're pulling in $7.50/hr, you should be pushing for a higher minimum wage. I feel that 7.25/hr is fucking ridiculous at this point. why are you pissed at the people who want to help you? doesn't make sense.


Im not mad at you just saying give to the workers instead of the unemployed. Hell you shouldnt have a problem with that you would get the extra money being a worker instead of your wife.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 23, 2020)

wartutor said:


> Yet another person that wants to blame trump for everything. there is absolutely no way of knowing if more or less people would of died if things were done differently. Hell if the country would of stayed open maybe 300k people would of died but we would have heard immunity by now. Instead 200k have died and possibly another 200k or more will die. Yet even if that could be proved somehow you would blame trump.


Yeah, it is a shame we wouldn't know how many people could still be alive today, if he cared even a little bit about actually protecting people from this virus. 




wartutor said:


> Btw there has been a problem with the climate, healthcare in america has always sucked and inequality has always been there but lets blame trump for all that 2.


And the "solution" isn't to make things worse, like he is.


----------



## wartutor (Oct 23, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Yeah, it is a shame we wouldn't know how many people could still be alive today, if he cared even a little bit about actually protecting people from this virus.
> 
> 
> 
> And the "solution" isn't to make things worse, like he is.


Overall we could of had less deaths if we left the country open and gained herd immunity instead of slowing the infection rate down and making it to where people can catch it a second and third time. We shut down the economy like the experts said, we slowed the curve like they said, and still 200k+ people dead and more dying by the day. HE DID WHAT THEY SAID INSTEAD OF STAYING OPEN. And somehow in your dumb ass head it gets twisted around and you blame him. There is a high chance that their would of been less overall deaths if we were allowed to "rip the bandaid off" and gain herd immunity instead of just infecting and re-infecting people slowly. It is a virus and has to just work its coarse, if you slow it like we did instead of letting it just work its way out it will never be over. Trump was told by you liberal fucks to close down for 2 weeks, Then a month, now its been damn near 9 months. Now we see a surge in numbers again and i see people blaming trump. It cant be because schools opened back up and little germ factories are running around spreading it everywhere....no thats trumps fault too. If the sunset was a bad thing you all would find some damn way to blame him for that. Jesus christ think for yourself for once. God damn


----------



## omgcat (Oct 23, 2020)

wartutor said:


> Im not mad at you just saying give to the workers instead of the unemployed. Hell you shouldnt have a problem with that you would get the extra money being a worker instead of your wife.



It did piss me off that frontline workers got thrown under the bus. If the current administration didn't pump $4+ trillion into the stock market, we could have given EVERYONE the $600/week.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 23, 2020)

Did anyone watch the debate last night? I missed it and wanted to know what happened.


----------



## wartutor (Oct 23, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Did anyone watch the debate last night? I missed it and wanted to know what happened.


I heard it was a shit show. Also heard biden looked like a dumb ass when asked about his sons shit too. Dont know yet as i was at work when it started and have yet to get off and watch it.

Edit...love the answer given when asked about his son and the possible illegal dealing....just redirect and blame trump. Typical democrat deny and blame trump....shit i just woke up and my beds soaked...trump must of snuck in here while i was sleeping and pissed in my bed. All trumps fault


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 23, 2020)

wartutor said:


> Overall we could of had less deaths if we left the country open and gained herd immunity instead of slowing the infection rate down and making it to where people can catch it a second and third time. We shut down the economy like the experts said, we slowed the curve like they said, and still 200k+ people dead and more dying by the day. HE DID WHAT THEY SAID INSTEAD OF STAYING OPEN. And somehow in your dumb ass head it gets twisted around and you blame him. There is a high chance that their would of been less overall deaths if we were allowed to "rip the bandaid off" and gain herd immunity instead of just infecting and re-infecting people slowly. It is a virus and has to just work its coarse, if you slow it like we did instead of letting it just work its way out it will never be over. Trump was told by you liberal fucks to close down for 2 weeks, Then a month, now its been damn near 9 months. Now we see a surge in numbers again and i see people blaming trump. It cant be because schools opened back up and little germ factories are running around spreading it everywhere....no thats trumps fault too. If the sunset was a bad thing you all would find some damn way to blame him for that. Jesus christ think for yourself for once. God damn



Trump not only acted early when the Democrats and Liberals only cared about impeaching him and called him a racist for dealing with it when they weren't doing jack shit, but he took the advice of the CDC and other health experts and allowed each States Government to deal with it as they wanted. That included allowing them to "shut down". I don't see how it's Trump fault when each States government made the rules for their residents. If anything one would think the person who responded early to it when the other people didn't care about it would get some sort of pat on the back, but nope, TDS all the way. It seems like it's impossible for anyone suffering from TDS to think clearly. If you want to blame someone blame the people who made the policies, ie - your local state governments.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 23, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Yeah, it is a shame we wouldn't know how many people could still be alive today, if he cared even a little bit about actually protecting people from this virus.



I'd imagine more people would have died if Trump wouldn't have closed the borders and started the entire "flatten the curve" deal and then gave control over each State's response to their local governments. The entire time he was doing these things the Liberals were simply ignoring the virus and calling him a racist for reacting when they weren't doing jack shit. Trump then allowed the "flatten the curve" deal to go from the promised 2 weeks to the now 9 months and also signed off on various stimulus packages that gave the people who lost their jobs much needed assistance and put $1,200.00 in most tax paying US citizens pocket.

Yeah, Trump didn't do enough. Right. So where's the outrage directed towards the people who refused to act when he did?


----------



## Lacius (Oct 23, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I'd imagine more people would have died if Trump wouldn't have closed the borders and started the entire "flatten the curve" deal and then gave control over each State's response to their local governments. The entire time he was doing these things the Liberals were simply ignoring the virus and calling him a racist for reacting when they weren't doing jack shit. Trump then allowed the "flatten the curve" deal to go from the promised 2 weeks to the now 9 months and also signed off on various stimulus packages that gave the people who lost their jobs much needed assistance and put $1,200.00 in most tax paying US citizens pocket.
> 
> Yeah, Trump didn't do enough. Right. So where's the outrage directed towards the people who refused to act when he did?


Trump did not start the "flatten the curve deal." He was largely against the actions meant to flatten the curve (shutdowns, social distancing, etc.).


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 23, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Trump did not start the "flatten the curve deal." He was largely against the actions meant to flatten the curve (shutdowns, social distancing, etc.).



Nope, you're wrong. Trump took the advice of the CDC and let the states shut down their economies. Yes, he was hesitant, but he allowed each state to deal with it as they saw fit. That begs to question though. The Trump administration started reacting to the virus in late December so where does that leave your liberal buddies that were ignoring the threat and calling him nasty names for dealing with it. Surely, their lack of response warrants some sort of negative reaction or do they get a pass because they are on your side?

EDIT: Here's some information on what the Federal Government was doing under Trump to combat the virus. Note that most of what took place during Dec 2019 - Feburary 2020 was not supported by Democrats as you can recall their labeling and use of name calling against Trump and his administration. You also might want to have some words with some of your Democrat leaders as they praised Trump for his response to the virus - that is, after they finally admitted it was a serious problem that needed to be dealt with.

https://www.defense.gov/Explore/Spotlight/Coronavirus/DOD-Response-Timeline/
https://www.usa.gov/coronavirus
https://www.fema.gov/news-release/20200726/covid-19-emergency-declaration
https://www.gao.gov/reports/GAO-20-708/
https://datalab.usaspending.gov/federal-covid-funding/


----------



## wartutor (Oct 23, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Nope, you're wrong. Trump took the advice of the CDC and let the states shut down their economies. Yes, he was hesitant, but he allowed each state to deal with it as they saw fit. That begs to question though. The Trump administration started reacting to the virus in late December so where does that leave your liberal buddies that were ignoring the threat and calling him nasty names for dealing with it. Surely, their lack of response warrants some sort of negative reaction or do they get a pass because they are on your side?
> 
> EDIT: Here's some information on what the Federal Government was doing under Trump to combat the virus. Note that most of what took place during Dec 2019 - Feburary 2020 was not supported by Democrats as you can recall their labeling and use of name calling against Trump and his administration. You also might want to have some words with some of your Democrat leaders as they praised Trump for his response to the virus - that is, after they finally admitted it was a serious problem that needed to be dealt with.
> 
> ...


None of that exists and its all trumps fault. The sooner you realize that the sooner you are right and can be on there side. Trump also marched through towns and burned local businesses. All of antfla "protests" were peaceful and police are bad.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 23, 2020)

wartutor said:


> None of that exists and its all trumps fault. The sooner you realize that the sooner you are right and can be on there side. Trump also marched through towns and burned local businesses. All of antfla "protests" were peaceful and police are bad.



The Liberals wanted death and destruction as it was part of their game plan to cause unrest, burn, loot and murder. The economy was going so well they needed something to go wrong so they could stick it to the man and they did and didn't care anyones personal lives or property got all fucked up. The plan was to destabilize the country and then put their man up and claim he can "fix" things, when the entire time they're the ones who was making sure shit was fucked up. Hey, at this very moment they are promising more lawlessness if Trump wins in less than 2 weeks. Who's the bad guys, again?


----------



## Lacius (Oct 23, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Nope, you're wrong. Trump took the advice of the CDC and let the states shut down their economies. Yes, he was hesitant, but he allowed each state to deal with it as they saw fit. That begs to question though. The Trump administration started reacting to the virus in late December so where does that leave your liberal buddies that were ignoring the threat and calling him nasty names for dealing with it. Surely, their lack of response warrants some sort of negative reaction or do they get a pass because they are on your side?
> 
> EDIT: Here's some information on what the Federal Government was doing under Trump to combat the virus. Note that most of what took place during Dec 2019 - Feburary 2020 was not supported by Democrats as you can recall their labeling and use of name calling against Trump and his administration. You also might want to have some words with some of your Democrat leaders as they praised Trump for his response to the virus - that is, after they finally admitted it was a serious problem that needed to be dealt with.
> 
> ...


Trump's initial failures include, but aren't limited to:

Effectively ending the pandemic response team a year or two before the pandemic hit
Downplaying risks by saying publicly that COVID-19 was not a big deal and nobody should be worried <-- We know that this alone contributed and continues to contribute to increased infection rates
The lack of a federal response to address a lack of testing
The lack of a federal response to address a lack of PPE
A lack of a federal response to address social distancing
Encouraging states and municipalities to reopen too quickly
Encouraging states and municipalities not to shutdown at all
A failure to address needed financial stimulus aside from the initial round
Continuing to this day to peddle misinformation about masks, suggesting they cause one to be more likely to catch COVID-19
Suggesting disinfectant in the lungs can be an effective treatment against COVID-19
Continuing to this day to hold super spreader rallies with no social distancing and few masks, inside and outside
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_administration_communication_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._federal_government_response_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump#COVID-19_pandemic

You either need to: a.) Do some research, or b.) Stop gaslighting people. 223,000 Americans have died from COVID-19, which is drastically higher than most other countries, including countries with comparable populations, population densities, cultures, etc. The reason is because Donald Trump utterly failed in his handling of the pandemic.

I'm going to give you some homework:

Please read through the entire Wikipedia articles above. Let me know if you have any questions.
Please research when Trump said the United States was "open for business" in response to states and municipalities shutting down  against Trump's wishes. Spoiler alert: The date is much sooner than anybody who cared about flattening the curve could reasonably state.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 23, 2020)

Like that is surprising.  


The debate last night was good.  Even with the moderator still favoring old Joe it was much better than the 1st.

Trump did well. I would say he totally won.

And for anyone on the fence still. Biden said enough and directly lied about enough to push them towards Trump in my opinion.

One thing specifically he again doubled down on his fracking stance.

Joe Biden: (19:57)
I never said I oppose fracking.




And there was this part:

Joe Biden: (23:12)
By the way, I have a transition from the oil industry, yes.
Donald Trump: (23:15)
Oh, that’s a big statement.
Joe Biden: (23:15)
I will transition. It is a big statement.
Joe Biden: (23:18)
Because I would stop.

And this was good for a laugh:

Joe Biden: (16:15)
We had a good relationship with Hitler before he, in fact, invaded Europe,


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 23, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Trump's initial failures include, but aren't limited to:
> 
> Effectively ending the pandemic response team a year or two before the pandemic hit
> Downplaying risks by saying publicly that COVID-19 was not a big deal and nobody should be worried <-- We know that this alone contributed and continues to contribute to increased infection rates
> ...



My sources *outweigh yours* as I provided Government entities with real data including dates on which action was taken and you provide links to a Liberal run blog masquerading as an encyclopedia. You also still didn't answer my question regarding the lack of outrage related to the Liberals refusal to act when Trump was tackling the virus. I'll repeat myself; The Trump administration started reacting to the virus in late December so where does that leave your liberal buddies that were ignoring the threat and calling him nasty names for dealing with it. Surely, their lack of response warrants some sort of negative reaction or do they get a pass because they are on your side?


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 23, 2020)

wartutor said:


> There is a high chance that their would of been less overall deaths if we were allowed to "rip the bandaid off" and gain herd immunity instead of just infecting and re-infecting people slowly. It is a virus and has to just work its coarse, if you slow it like we did instead of letting it just work its way out it will never be over.


A "high chance" based on what? We don't even have a vaccine, let alone know how effective the first ones will be. You are just basically saying, "let people die" as a solution. Needlessly gambling with people's lives.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 23, 2020)




----------



## LumInvader (Oct 23, 2020)

*Who Won The Last Presidential Debate?*
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-biden-final-debate-poll/







> "We partnered with Ipsos to once again check in with the same group of people before and after the debate using Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel."
> 
> On the whole, debate watchers were more impressed with both Biden and Trump’s performance than they were in the first debate: 76 percent thought the debate was “somewhat good” or “very good.” The share who thought Trump’s performance was “somewhat good” or “very good” jumped from one-third in the last debate to a little over half in this debate. Biden got higher marks, too, up from 60 percent to 69 percent.
> 
> There was less change in viewers’ assessments of their policies, though. Forty-four percent thought Trump’s policy answers were good, compared to 60 percent for Biden — although both of those ratings are a few percentage points higher than in the first debate.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 23, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> View attachment 230659



Thank you for sharing the truth! More people need to be more aware of the fact that their State's Government was responsible for the restrictions and mishaps as Trump allowed them to directly manage their states as they saw fit. We need more of this sort of awareness shared as opposed to constantly linking to a blog masquerading as an encyclopedia that's goal isn't to inform people of the truth, but to blind them to it by bad mouthing the President.


----------



## PiracyForTheMasses (Oct 23, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Trump's initial failures include, but aren't limited to:
> 
> Effectively ending the pandemic response team a year or two before the pandemic hit
> Downplaying risks by saying publicly that COVID-19 was not a big deal and nobody should be worried <-- We know that this alone contributed and continues to contribute to increased infection rates
> ...


Your lack of an education is not an excuse for your ignorance. Down playing risk, hmm, could it be because the EXPERTS were feeding him misinformation? They were even going on tv feeding the American people misinformation. Hell, World Health Organization lied to every single person on the planet except CCP. Fauci lied to the American people, yet for whatever reason people still think that jokester is credible. Complain about Trumps handling of the virus when the facts are, each and every individual state is responsible for their handling of the virus. You are to uneducated to understand that though. State & local leaders failed to lead in a time when their states needed a leader. Complain about closing down the country and reopening. You can NOT close down a country because of a virus. I know your simple mind can not comprehend that. Your logic is, if a vaccine is not created within 2 years, we should all be locked up in our houses like prisoners until that day. Sorry buddy, that does not fly in America. A virus can not be eradicated without a vaccine. Locking everyone up in their houses is not going to do anything positive for America. Stimulus relief, who are the ones that are ALWAYS holding it up? The democrats. The democrats want to use that relief to push their idiotic agenda. If the democrats really cared about you, your kids, your parents, your family, they would want you to have that money. Instead they go the political route. Cold months are coming up, Americans need that money, democrats do not give a damn. You & people like you are so damn soft & lack common sense. You are like addicts that blame big pharma for becoming addicted to opiates even though its been known for centuries that opiates are addictive, you were informed. Instead you decided that being ignorant and placing blame else where was the better idea.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 23, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> *Who Won The Last Presidential Debate?*
> https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-biden-final-debate-poll/



It's a debate so no one "won" anything. Both candidates were given the opportunity to discuss policy. Though I do wonder who is the main audience for fivethirtyeight.com. I bet if I look into it it'll be mostly Liberal. I'll go look at their other polls to find out if they present major bias or not.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 23, 2020)

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/

Nine new polls added today and Biden's lead is unchanged at +9.8. 

Trump had arguably his best Presidential debate performance last night, but needs to shave a half point off each day just to have a 50-50 shot at winning on Nov. 3rd.  He's only gained +0.1 over the last two days.  Republican leaning IBD/TIPP (+4.5) has been submitting new polls every day, so that helps.  Another daily pollster, USC Dornsfire, which was one of the rare few that called Trump's victory in 2016, has Biden way out in front at +11.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 23, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/
> 
> Nine new polls added today and Biden's lead is unchanged at +9.8.
> 
> Trump had arguably his best Presidential debate performance last night, but needs to shave a half point off each day just to have a 50-50 shot at winning on Nov. 3rd.  He's only gained +0.1 over the last two days.  Republican leaning IBD/TIPP (+4.5) has been submitting new polls every day, so that helps.  Another daily pollster, USC Dornsfire, which was one of the rare few that called Trump's victory in 2016, has Biden way out in front at +11.



The site doing the polls has a history of Liberal bias.

https://teapartymainstreet.blogspot.com/2016/06/massive-liberal-bias-in-presidential.html


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 23, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> It's a debate so no one "won" anything. Both candidates were given the opportunity to discuss policy. Though I do wonder who is the main audience for fivethirtyeight.com. *I bet if I look into it it'll be mostly Liberal.* I'll go look at their other polls to find out if they present major bias or not.


Ipsos conducted the poll, not fivethirtyeight.  Ipsos is a fairly unbiased pollster with only a +0.4 Democratic lean.  Your issues with the poll are* with the result* that shows Biden comfortably ahead, not with the pollster or the website it partnered with.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 23, 2020)

Well, we got gay people trying to take the words "Proud Boys" back and now people are calling them Poor Boys.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 23, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Ipsos conducted the poll, not fivethirtyeight.  Ipsos is a fairly unbiased pollster with only a +0.4 Democratic lean.  Your issues with the poll are* with the result* that shows Biden comfortably ahead, not with the pollster or the website it partnered with.



My issues aren't with the results as I've learned to not trust polls all together, but the page I linked to specifically called out bias with Ipsos. If you don't like the page due to it's content you can simple search for "ipsos poll bias" to get other results dealing with the same poll.

I do want Trump to win again, but unlike the Liberals who still refuse to call him their President I will gladly call whomever wins Nov 3 the President of the United States. To extend on that, I'll respect the person regardless of who it turns out to be and support them because just like the 2016 candidate that won they deserve our respect.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 23, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> My issues aren't with the results as I've learned to not trust polls all together, but the page I linked to specifically called out bias with Ipsos. If you don't like the page due to it's content you can simple search for "ipsos poll bias" to get other results dealing with the same poll.
> 
> I do want Trump to win again, but unlike the Liberals who still refuse to call him their President I will gladly call whomever wins Nov 3 the President of the United States. To extend on that, I'll respect the person regardless of who it turns out to be and support them because just like the 2016 candidate that won they deserve our respect.



I don't think any of the #'s posted here are going to age well as far as polls go related to the Trump vs Biden.

We will see how well these polls did very soon.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 23, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I don't think any of the #'s posted here are going to age well as far as polls go related to the Trump vs Biden.
> 
> We will see how well these polls did very soon.



Considering most of social media, entertainment sites and news syndications are Liberal owned I have to question how these polls that are based on users of those sites really represent the majority of Americans. Most responsible American's with jobs and families don't have time to sit around and take polls. So that leads me to believe it's the worthless jobless freeloaders taking these polls and that would fit in with the type of people that are liberal in the USA.


----------



## ut2k4master (Oct 23, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Most responsible American's with jobs and families don't have time to sit around and take polls. So that leads me to believe it's the worthless jobless freeloaders taking these polls and that would fit in with the type of people that are liberal in the USA.


guess youre counting yourself in the worthless, jobless freeloaders group too since you hang around here so much


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 23, 2020)

ut2k4master said:


> guess youre counting yourself in the worthless, jobless freeloaders group too since you hang around here so much



Possibly, but how would you explain the at home job I have? That might prove to be a bit tricky.


----------



## smf (Oct 23, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I do want Trump to win again, but unlike the Liberals who still refuse to call him their President I will gladly call whomever wins Nov 3 the President of the United States.



Who denies that he is the president of the united states?

His critics rightly call him a liar, cheat, sexual predator etc but none have said he isn't president.

Trump said he wouldn't accept the result though & it's pretty likely that he won't.
For that very reason, you should not vote for him to see what he does.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 23, 2020)

smf said:


> Who denies that he is the president of the united states?
> 
> His critics rightly call him a liar, cheat, sexual predator etc but none have said he isn't president.
> 
> ...



Trump said he _*wouldn't accept an illegitimate election*_ and that was in response to Biden forming a 600+ lawyer team with the sole intention on litigating the election results if Biden looses - simply because he lost. I can understand why Trump would be a bit apprehensive considering Biden has 600 lawyers ready to fight regardless if there's any fraud or not simply because Biden already refuses to accept the results.

There's also many people all over social media that claim Trump isn't their president. Then you have the bunch of Liberals that didn't even give him a chance and decided to impeach him regardless if he's guilty of anything just because they refused to accept the election results before he even took office. Their refusal to accept the results is what also motivated the multi-million dollar witch hunt that was the Russian collusion that turned out to be a waste of everyone's time. So you have various groups of people that decided not to accept the results.


----------



## scroeffie1984 (Oct 23, 2020)

3 hard drives or maybe even more soon ! #SAVETHEKIDS


----------



## Lacius (Oct 23, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> My sources *outweigh yours* as I provided Government entities with real data including dates on which action was taken and you provide links to a Liberal run blog masquerading as an encyclopedia. You also still didn't answer my question regarding the lack of outrage related to the Liberals refusal to act when Trump was tackling the virus. I'll repeat myself; The Trump administration started reacting to the virus in late December so where does that leave your liberal buddies that were ignoring the threat and calling him nasty names for dealing with it. Surely, their lack of response warrants some sort of negative reaction or do they get a pass because they are on your side?


Wikipedia, factually, is not a "liberal run blog."

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



PiracyForTheMasses said:


> Your lack of an education is not an excuse for your ignorance. Down playing risk, hmm, could it be because the EXPERTS were feeding him misinformation? They were even going on tv feeding the American people misinformation. Hell, World Health Organization lied to every single person on the planet except CCP. Fauci lied to the American people, yet for whatever reason people still think that jokester is credible. Complain about Trumps handling of the virus when the facts are, each and every individual state is responsible for their handling of the virus. You are to uneducated to understand that though. State & local leaders failed to lead in a time when their states needed a leader. Complain about closing down the country and reopening. You can NOT close down a country because of a virus. I know your simple mind can not comprehend that. Your logic is, if a vaccine is not created within 2 years, we should all be locked up in our houses like prisoners until that day. Sorry buddy, that does not fly in America. A virus can not be eradicated without a vaccine. Locking everyone up in their houses is not going to do anything positive for America. Stimulus relief, who are the ones that are ALWAYS holding it up? The democrats. The democrats want to use that relief to push their idiotic agenda. If the democrats really cared about you, your kids, your parents, your family, they would want you to have that money. Instead they go the political route. Cold months are coming up, Americans need that money, democrats do not give a damn. You & people like you are so damn soft & lack common sense. You are like addicts that blame big pharma for becoming addicted to opiates even though its been known for centuries that opiates are addictive, you were informed. Instead you decided that being ignorant and placing blame else where was the better idea.


WHO didn't lie. Fauci didn't lie. Trump wasn't fed misinformation. Trump fed (and continues to feed) Americans misinformation. Lies, strawmen, and insults aren't going to change the facts.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 23, 2020)

It is rather curious that the Commission on Presidential Debates excluded the topic. And oh yeah as of today add Sudan to the list of M.E. Arab countries normalizing ties with Israel.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Oct 23, 2020)

I'm voting socialist


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 23, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Wikipedia, factually, is not a "liberal run blog."



That's odd, because only a handful of people control the most popular "public" wiki pages and have them under lock and key. If you're additions don't jive with the Liberal agenda they are discarded. Additionally, those three links you gave to me had a purpose and it wasn't to educate the public on reality. They were made to mislead the public by attacking Trump whereas my links to the various Government entities that have dealt with and are dealing with the virus directly are factual and contain many dates and times of when Trump acted. That was while the Democrats and Liberals refused to act and called him a racist and xenophobe for acting. 

I do often wonder how many less people would have died if the Democrats didn't fight against Trump's actions to curb the spread of covid-19. I guess we'll never know, but that leads me back to my question that you've still refused to answer ...

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Hanafuda said:


> It is rather curious that the Commission on Presidential Debates excluded the topic. And oh yeah as of today add Sudan to the list of M.E. Arab countries normalizing ties with Israel.



You're not going to get a liberal to acknowledge Trump has done a lot of good as that doesn't fit into their pre-programmed cases of terminal TDS. Of course, saying anything positive about Trump will get you attacked by mindless minions so I believe it's fear or being rejected that also motivates TDS sufferers. Imagine needing to belong to a bunch of lying, thieving, murdering arsonist scum. I don't want to belong to a group of people actively fighting to destroy the country. I love my country.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 23, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> That's odd, because only a handful of people control the most popular "public" wiki pages and have them under lock and key. If you're additions don't jive with the Liberal agenda they are discarded. Additionally, those three links you gave to me had a purpose and it wasn't to educate the public on reality. They were made to mislead the public by attacking Trump whereas my links to the various Government entities that have dealt with and are dealing with the virus directly are factual and contain many dates and times of when Trump acted. That was while the Democrats and Liberals refused to act and called him a racist and xenophobe for acting.
> 
> I do often wonder how many less people would have died if the Democrats didn't fight against Trump's actions to curb the spread of covid-19. I guess we'll never know, but that leads me back to my question that you've still refused to answer ...


I don't think you know how Wikipedia works. Pages generally aren't under "lock and key," and if additions are rejected, it's because they didn't comport with the facts as we know them (or they're improperly cited).

I suggest you look again at the list of Trump's COVID-19 failings I posted earlier today.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 23, 2020)

Whole lotta love said:


> I'm voting socialist



Cool, i feel like being a lazy bitch anyway. I'll come to live with you and eat all your food while you're at work.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 23, 2020)

If you're posting a poll, just keep in mind that some Trump supporters (like my dad) would never in a million years say it. You don't know who's on the other side of that phone. It could be Antifa, and they could burn your house down.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 23, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> If you're posting a poll, just keep in mind that some Trump supporters (like my dad) would never in a million years say it. You don't know who's on the other side of that phone. It could be Antifa, and they could burn your house down.



I've gotten political polling calls at least 30-40 times since June. I hung up on every one of them.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 23, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> If you're posting a poll, just keep in mind that some Trump supporters (like my dad) would never in a million years say it. You don't know who's on the other side of that phone. It could be Antifa, and they could burn your house down.



I think the crazier the left get the more inaccurate polling would get specific to polls regarding Trump vs Biden.

Outside of other potential issues with their polling methods.

Bradley effect basically.  And it was present in 2016, I can only imagine it could be even greater now given the climate of how intolerant the left has become.

People have watched how people that publicly support Trump are treated for years now.  And it has only gotten worse.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I personally think this one question in the recent Gallup poll likely inadvertently removes some of the bradley effect away from the question.





I believe the 56% percent that believe they are better off now than 4 years ago are likely going to be voting for Trump now, or at least again.  I (and my family) are in the now camp.

It's not a direct, who is better Trump or Biden question.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 23, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> My issues aren't with the results as I've learned to not trust polls all together,* but the page I linked to* specifically called out bias with Ipsos. If you don't like the page due to it's content you can simple search for "ipsos poll bias" to get other results dealing with the same poll.
> 
> I do want Trump to win again, but unlike the Liberals who still refuse to call him their President I will gladly call whomever wins Nov 3 the President of the United States. To extend on that, I'll respect the person regardless of who it turns out to be and support them because just like the 2016 candidate that won they deserve our respect.


At the top of the page you linked to, the blogger concocted an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that communists are running the polls with the help of liberal activists and RINO Republicans.  You tell me that you have issues with polls, but you have no such issues regarding extremist conspiracy theory blogs or their use to attack said polls.

I already told you that Ipsos' Democractic lean is only +0.4, which is fairly moderate and nowhere near as biased as claimed by the blog you linked me to.

Also at the top of that page, the blogger made an argument that "There's nobody monitoring the accuracy of the polls fed to the public," which *may* have been true back in 2016, but is *pants on fire false* today:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

Ipsos carries a B- rating btw, which is slightly above average.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 23, 2020)

scroeffie1984 said:


> 3 hard drives or maybe even more soon ! #SAVETHEKIDS



soon better be real soon. every day they delay the release of this "new shocking evidence", votes already go out in the mail.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 23, 2020)

This 2016 Democrat Trump hater just voted for Trump.  pic.twitter.com/e6siUS8SjF— Kambree (@KamVTV) October 23, 2020


I am sure that there are plenty of these type of people too.

Certain liberals like to downplay the laptop but it is making a difference.  Even for those that were NOT on the fence.

I highly doubt the laptop situation has made anyone switch from Trump over to Biden.





Reminder:

*CURRENT DNI John Ratcliffe confirmed this is NOT connected to Russian disinformation effort. That there is no intelligence to support any claims of that nature. No matter what arm chair intelligence officers claim. *

*Signatures have been compared from the form at the computer place. And they match enough to suggest/indicate it was Hunter who signed.*

*Hunter Biden's Attorney has attempted to retrieve the hard drive from the computer store owner. *

*People on the email chains have confirmed they received the same message as in the evidence of his drive.*

*Secret service has confirmed that travel plans match places and times traveled listed in the emails. *

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10-20 CEG RHJ to Secret Service (Hunter Biden Travel Records Follow-Up) .pdf

*Neither Joe, Hunter, or his campaign have said the data is invalid. Or that it is NOT his data/laptop.*


----------



## Lacius (Oct 23, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> https://twitter.com/i/status/1319736790778077185
> 
> I am sure that there are plenty of these type of people too.
> 
> ...


Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence. Polls are more indicative of how an election will go.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 23, 2020)

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/po...ies-polls-again-in-2020-my-profession-is-done









Weren't there people here posting even higher leads?  I don't pay attention to the poll #'s so I might be wrong.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 23, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> View attachment 230667
> 
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/po...ies-polls-again-in-2020-my-profession-is-done
> 
> ...


The national polls in 2016 showed Clinton at +3.9, and she won the popular vote by +2.1. So, the national polls were off by 1.8 in Trump's direction. (11 days from the election, the polls showed Clinton at +5.5, and her poll numbers were beginning to fall largely because of the Comey Letter).

The national polls in 2020 show Biden currently at +9.8. If the national polls hold at 9.8 after 11 days and end up being off by 1.8 in Trump's direction (they are just as likely to be off by 1.8 in Biden's direction), then Biden would still win the popular vote by +8.0, and he would very likely win the Electoral College. Obama won in 2012 by +3.9, and Obama won in 2008 by +7.2.

*All polling aggregates from FiveThirtyEight. Other aggregates like RealClearPolitics showed/show similar numbers.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 23, 2020)

It makes sense why the google searches are going up now because certain news agency's refuse to cover this.

I bet many who watched the debates were like WTF is Trump talking about and started searching. 

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1319647465495289856?s=20

https://www.foxnews.com/media/c-span-caller-leaning-trump-biden-hunter-biden-story


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 23, 2020)

Speaking of polling bias...


> *Siena College* shows Biden ahead in Iowa, Georgia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Arizona, & Florida.
> *Marist College* shows Biden ahead in Wisconsin & Michigan; +12 Nationally.
> *Zogby* shows Biden ahead in Florida.
> *HarrisX *shows Biden ahead in Michigan & Pennsylvania.
> ...



These are 6 of the most active *conservative leaning pollsters*.  The above results are from their most recent state polls.  If these polling scenarios play out, Trump will fall short of 270 electoral votes, according to fivethirtyeight's probability map:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

- Trump can't reach 270 without Florida.
- Trump can't reach 270 without Ohio.
- Trump can't reach 270 without both Wisconsin & Michigan or Pennsylvania.
- Trump can't reach 270 without one of either Michigan or Pennsylvania.
- Trump has <1% probability of reaching 270 down 12 points nationally.

According to the other most active conservative pollster, Trump does possess a rather small probability of winning:


> *IBD/TIPP* shows Biden ahead in Pennsylvania; +4.5 Nationally.


- Trump doesn't require Pennsylvania to win, but will require huge upset wins in both Wisconsin & Michigan to reach 270.
- A 4.5 point national polling deficit grants Trump an 11% probability of reaching 270.


----------



## GhostLatte (Oct 23, 2020)

Everybody is talking about Hunter Biden but what about Trump's kids


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 24, 2020)

GhostLatte said:


> Everybody is talking about Hunter Biden but what about Trump's kids




Couldn't care less about Hunter Biden. It's that his father is "the big guy" who's running the operation and gets a 10% take on the deals and half of his people's 'salary.' 

Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when u are face to face, I know u know that but they are paranoid.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 24, 2020)

GhostLatte said:


> Everybody is talking about Hunter Biden but what about Trump's kids


?


----------



## Lacius (Oct 24, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> ?


Trump's children are a prime example of what nepotism looks like. In addition, these are people who were forced to attend training on how not to defraud charitable foundations, since they were found to have done just that.


----------



## GhostLatte (Oct 24, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> ?


Can't forget Trump's bank account oversees either


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 24, 2020)

Three more post-debate polls:
#NEW Poll On Who won tonight's debate?@YouGovAmerica:Biden 54% (+19)Trump 35%@CNN:Biden 53% (+14)Trump 39%@DataProgress:Biden 52% (+11)Trump 41%— Political Polls (@PpollingNumbers) October 23, 2020


----------



## Whole lotta love (Oct 24, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Cool, i feel like being a lazy bitch anyway. I'll come to live with you and eat all your food while you're at work.



This is one of the best arguments against capitalism. The ruling class doesn't need to work because they live off of the hard work generated by the working class.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 24, 2020)

LOL 220 Million dead due to covid-19 according to Kamala.

Guess Joe is rubbing off on her.

https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1319660009945468930?s=20


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 24, 2020)

Whole lotta love said:


> This is one of the best arguments against capitalism. The ruling class doesn't need to work because they live off of the hard work generated by the working class.



You're a socialist, I was clearly joking.

Like you'd ever be at work.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 24, 2020)

Whole lotta love said:


> This is one of the best arguments against capitalism. The ruling class doesn't need to work because they live off of the hard work generated by the working class.


What "ruling class"?


----------



## Prior22 (Oct 24, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> LOL 220 Million dead due to covid-19 according to Kamala.
> 
> Guess Joe is rubbing off on her.
> 
> ...



LOL.......who's gonna pay for the border wall?  MEXICO.

Three years later there's the longest government shutdown in US history because Trump wanted border wall money in the budget.  And after all that time negotiating with Pelosi he didn't get it that money allocated.

So you promise something no person in there right mind thought was possible, and then you put the government out of commission for a month to fulfill that promise.  And after all that time you still don't make good on the promise.

Art of the Deal, indeed.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Hanafuda said:


> Couldn't care less about Hunter Biden. It's that his father is "the big guy" who's running the operation and gets a 10% take on the deals and half of his people's 'salary.'
> 
> Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when u are face to face, I know u know that but they are paranoid.





Hanafuda said:


> Couldn't care less about Hunter Biden. It's that his father is "the big guy" who's running the operation and gets a 10% take on the deals and half of his people's 'salary.'
> 
> Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when u are face to face, I know u know that but they are paranoid.



Having the secret service stay at Trump owned Hotels when on the job.  Do you see no problem with that? Don't sit here and lecture me or anyone else on corruption with bullshit like that occurring. 

The American tax payer is footing the bill for hotel bills and that money is going straight to the Trump family.  

And I still want to see those tax returns.  You're a god damn moron, or conservative (same thing of course), if you think after four years those tax returns are still under audit.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 24, 2020)

Prior22 said:


> Having the secret service stay at Trump owned Hotels when on the job.  Do you see no problem with that? Don't sit here and lecture me or anyone else on corruption with bullshit like that occurring.
> 
> The American tax payer is footing the bill for hotel bills and that money is going straight to the Trump family.
> .




So when President Trump and his family travel, they can only stay in hotels owned by competitor companies? The Secret Service is going to stay wherever the President and his family go, whether it's Trump or Obama, Bush or Biden. And the taxpayers pay for this, always have. I can't find a good reason to blame Trump for wanting to stay at his own properties, and the OIG didn't either. And if someone uses a room, that's costs money, simple as that. People who work in those hotels need to be paid for what they do. It's business, not a charity. The Supreme Court just threw out the Democrats' 'emoluments' lawsuit about it, so it's a dead issue unless you just enjoy seething.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 24, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> So when President Trump and his family travel, they can only stay in hotels owned by competitor companies? The Secret Service is going to stay wherever the President and his family go, whether it's Trump or Obama, Bush or Biden. And the taxpayers pay for this, always have. I can't find a good reason to blame Trump for wanting to stay at his own properties, and the OIG didn't either. And if someone uses a room, that's costs money, simple as that. People who work in those hotels need to be paid for what they do. It's business, not a charity. The Supreme Court just threw out the Democrats' 'emoluments' lawsuit about it, so it's a dead issue unless you just enjoy seething.



none of this would have been a problem if he divested his interests like every other president has done, and is required by the constitution.

there are a bunch of emolument clause lawsuits working their way through the courts.

Honestly presidents should not be allowed to own stock, or companies while in office. this has been the general idea all the way until trump got into office. he has since used the presidency to enrich himself/pay off debts owed using his status as president. but republicans only care about "the big man" when it's not their own big man.

no one gives a fuck about this hunter Biden bullshit when the president has stuffed the WH with so much nepotism, it's almost impossible to remember it all. like imagine if Obama's children were 15 years older and they all were given positions as WH staff. the GOP would fucking explode.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 24, 2020)

omgcat said:


> none of this would have been a problem if he divested his interests like every other president has done, and is required by the constitution.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 24, 2020)

on top of all that, *Fox News is reporting that they cannot connect Joe Biden to this scandal.*

gonna be a yikes from me.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 24, 2020)

omgcat said:


> on top of all that, *Fox News is reporting that they cannot connect Joe Biden to this scandal.*
> 
> gonna be a yikes from me.


"Fox News?  I have no idea who this person is.  Never met him."


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 24, 2020)

omgcat said:


> none of this would have been a problem if he divested his interests like every other president has done, and is required by the constitution.
> .




Regarding "divesting his interests," i.e. selling off & out of all business interests, show me where that's required.

(art. I, § 9, cl. 8): “[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

(art. II, § 1, cl. 7): “The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.”

“No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.”


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 24, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> At the top of the page you linked to, the blogger concocted an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that communists are running the polls with the help of liberal activists and RINO Republicans.  You tell me that you have issues with polls, but you have no such issues regarding extremist conspiracy theory blogs or their use to attack said polls.
> 
> I already told you that Ipsos' Democractic lean is only +0.4, which is fairly moderate and nowhere near as biased as claimed by the blog you linked me to.
> 
> ...



There's more pages covering the same story. I already stated you may not like the source of the news, but while the source is sketchy the article is sound.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> I don't think you know how Wikipedia works. Pages generally aren't under "lock and key," and if additions are rejected, it's because they didn't comport with the facts as we know them (or they're improperly cited).
> 
> I suggest you look again at the list of Trump's COVID-19 failings I posted earlier today.



The fact that there's entire pages dedicated to bashing the President's response is proof enough that the wikipedia is slanted towards the left. You still didn't answer my question. It seems admitting that the Left didn't respond at all and made light of the subject and bashed Trump when he responded has no bearing on your judgement. It's a shame you're so infected with TDS you can't think normally.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraSUPRA said:


> What "ruling class"?



There's a % of the population that rules over the rest of us. They are above the rich 1% and basically included the Government employees who make the rules we have to live by. They make the laws, but then don't play by the same rules the rest of us have to follow. Congress, State Officials and even the USA President fall into this small % of people. I am however glad someone on the Left is admitting they exist and claiming they do usually gets the Left to respond in about the same way they react to informing them there's other natural causes of global warming that we just can't control or that all you need to do to lose weight is watch what you eat and exercise.

The ruling class isn't inherit to capitalism like the OP claimed, but present in monarchies, communist states and places that adopt socialism. The thing is the ruling class is pretty small under capitalism while if we were under socialism the ruling class would be much, much larger. So I'm not sure why the OP brings up something that would be thousands times worse under the system he wants to live under. Why anyone would want the Government to make their daily decision is beyond me ...


----------



## Lacius (Oct 24, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> There's more pages covering the same story. I already stated you may not like the source of the news, but while the source is sketchy the article is sound.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


There are no articles "dedicated to bashing the President's response," and it isn't true "the Left didn't respond at all" to COVID-19.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 24, 2020)

Lacius said:


> There are no articles "dedicated to bashing the President's response," and it isn't true "the Left didn't respond at all" to COVID-19.



Wrong on both counts.

The Left's original response was to fight Trump who had formed a task force and closed borders, sourced in my accurate links of history. Biden actually called him xenophobic for reacting early while dismissing the virus as a threat. The Liberals and Democrats in Congress only reaction to the virus in Late December, January and early Feburary was to ignore it in favor of their hoax impeachment of Trump. Even in February Nancy Pelosi downplayed the threat and leftists were decrying the actions of Trump and others who tried to contain the risk by cutting it off at the source. *You can keep on lying to yourself and others*, but luckily we have the Internet and *people remember the inaction of the Liberals and their hypocrisy of claiming Trump didn't act soon enough* when *they're the ones who didn't react!*

As per your claims that Wikipedia doesn't bash Trump two of the links you provided do nothing, but distort and ignore facts while attacking Trump. They are both slanted to the left and their main purpose is not to inform the public of actual history, but to distort the truth and do so by including numerous unwarranted attacks against Trump including the ones on his main "entry" on their bias site. If you attempt to create an account on Wikipedia and edit a Wiki related to politics, be it gender politics or politics in general your contributions will not be approved by the few select few who control the editing powers on most of the political content if it doesn't go along with the Liberal agenda. Wikipedia has a long history of political bias, so they may be a good source to research chicken eggs or the early history of Nintendo their politics offerings are distorting the truth.

So to end, you still didn't answer my question. You simply questioned the validity of my question with your statement while avoiding answering it as the truth is that the Liberals and Democrats didn't act and then blamed Trump for not acting soon enough while they didn't do jack shit during the time Trump was acting.

It's factual that the Democrats and Liberals refused to act and simply attacked Trump for acting early on so I'll ask one last time before I come to the conclusion that you're nothing, but a liberal shill in denial that doesn't deserve my attention. You do realize if your side would have not ignored the threat and helped Trump that many more lives would have possibly been saved? Where's your negative reaction to your side doing nothing, but fighting Trump who was trying to save lives? Please this time don't try to distort the facts to avoid answering a direction question by trying to modify the question.

So here is my question for the last time; The Trump administration started reacting to the virus in late December so where does that leave your liberal buddies that were ignoring the threat and calling him nasty names for dealing with it. Surely, their lack of response warrants some sort of negative reaction or do they get a pass because they are on your side?


----------



## Lacius (Oct 24, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Wrong on both counts.
> 
> The Left's original response was to fight Trump who had formed a task force and closed borders, sourced in my accurate links of history. Biden actually called him xenophobic for reacting early while dismissing the virus as a threat. The Liberals and Democrats in Congress only reaction to the virus in Late December, January and early Feburary was to ignore it in favor of their hoax impeachment of Trump. Even in February Nancy Pelosi downplayed the threat and leftists were decrying the actions of Trump and others who tried to contain the risk by cutting it off at the source. *You can keep on lying to yourself and others*, but luckily we have the Internet and *people remember the inaction of the Liberals and their hypocrisy of claiming Trump didn't act soon enough* when *they're the ones who didn't react!*
> 
> ...



I posted a list of Trump's COVID-19 failures. I suggest you read it.
Trump's travel restrictions, at best, were too little too late. With regard to Europe, they were probably completely inconsequential due to the late timing. Alone, travel restrictions are not enough to contain a pandemic. There was a lot more that needed to be done that was not done. Please see my list of Trump failures for details. If you want evidence that Trump's travel restrictions were largely inconsequential, I refer you to the number of cases and deaths in the United States.
Democratic concerns were similar to Point #2 of my post. In addition, saying Democrats didn't do enough at the federal level is silly when Republicans are the ones who control the Presidency and Senate.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 24, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I posted a list of Trump's COVID-19 failures. I suggest you read it.
> Trump's travel restrictions, at best, were too little too late. With regard to Europe, they were probably completely inconsequential due to the late timing. Alone, travel restrictions are not enough to contain a pandemic. There was a lot more that needed to be done that was not done. Please see my list of Trump failures for details. If you want evidence that Trump's travel restrictions were largely inconsequential, I refer you to the number of cases and deaths in the United States.
> Democratic concerns were similar to Point #2 of my post. In addition, saying Democrats didn't do enough at the federal level is silly when Republicans are the ones who control the Presidency and Senate.



So you once again deflect away from having to answer my question by denying the Democrats didn't act when they did not act. I do understand though as having to admit the Liberals and Democrats did nothing except try to impeach Trump and called him names would paint a picture of the truth, which is Trump acted months before they did and that would undermine your constant attacks on Trump over the Chinese Wuhan Corona Virus. If you had to admit your side refused to act and just talked shit about Trump then that would undermine any attacks from your side against Trump's response to the Chinese virus and well, we can't have that. Fuck the truth right? It turns out you're a liberal shill that doesn't deserve my attention after all.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 24, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> So you once again deflect away from having to answer my question by denying the Democrats didn't act when they did not act. I do understand though as having to admit the Liberals and Democrats did nothing except try to impeach Trump and called him names would paint a picture of the truth, which is Trump acted months before they did and that would undermine your constant attacks on Trump over the Chinese Wuhan Corona Virus. If you had to admit your side refused to act and just talked shit about Trump then that would undermine any attacks from your side against Trump's response to the Chinese virus and well, we can't have that. Fuck the truth right? It turns out you're a liberal shill that doesn't deserve my attention after all.


First, name-calling does nothing to contribute to positive discourse. If there's a reason why someone might not deserve someone else's attention, it's that.

Second, the impeachment of Donald Trump took place before COVID-19 was a known pandemic. Before March, it was a WHO Public Health Emergency of International Concern, which is a broad category. Swine flu and Ebola were WHO Public Health Emergencies of International Concern, and they pale in comparison to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in the USA. Trump was briefed on the possibility of COVID-19 becoming a pandemic in roughly January and February, and yet the federal response was a failure. Even worse than the federal response was Trump's failed communications on the topic of COVID-19. At best, he downplayed the severity and encouraged Americans to go about their daily lives as usual. At worst, he communicated misinformation about the virus that contributed to its spread.

If you want to continue this conversation, please do not say "Democrats didn't act" without providing a specific and succinct example. Democrats were not in power at the federal level. Democrats only control the House, and they House has been very good about passing bills related to COVID-19. In fact, there are desperately needed bills passed by the House that the Republicans in the Senate and the President have no interest in taking up.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 24, 2020)

Lacius said:


> First, name-calling does nothing to contribute to positive discourse. If there's a reason why someone might not deserve someone else's attention, it's that.
> 
> Second, the impeachment of Donald Trump took place before COVID-19 was a known pandemic. Before March, it was a WHO Public Health Emergency of International Concern, which is a broad category. Swine flu and Ebola were WHO Public Health Emergencies of International Concern, and they pale in comparison to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in the USA. Trump was briefed on the possibility if COVID-19 becoming a pandemic in roughly January and February, and yet the federal response was a failure. Even worse than the federal response was Trump's failed communications on the topic of COVID-19. At best, he downplayed the severity and encouraged Americans to go about their daily lives as usual. At worst, he communicated misinformation about the virus that contributed to its spread.
> 
> If you want to continue this conversation, please do not say "Democrats didn't act" without providing a specific and succinct example. Democrats were not in power at the federal level. Democrats only control the House, and they House has been very good about passing bills related to COVID-19. In fact, there are desperately needed bills passed by the House that the Republicans in the Senate and the President have no interest in taking up.



The house only acted after the impeachment. You may not like Trump's response, but at least he had a response. All the Liberals did was shaming and name calling. My timeline from the .gov sites linked in my previous posts outline all Trump and the federal government under his direction did. Their response started in January. You may not like the response, but at least there was one from them. Now you have Liberals claiming Trump did X wrong or didn't act "soon enough", but that just generates laughter from Conservatives because we know that's a lie. The fact your side did nothing undermines anything you may have to say bad about Trump's response and that is exactly why you won't condemn your side for not acting. Also, a "political shill" is not name calling, it's an accurate politically correct term for what you are.

EDIT: "The truth will set you free" -> https://www.defense.gov/Explore/Spotlight/Coronavirus/DOD-Response-Timeline/


----------



## Lacius (Oct 24, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> The house only acted after the impeachment.


What should the House have done before March? They're one half of one branch of government with zero executive powers. In other words, nothing on the early part of the timeline you've posted is anything the House had the power to do. As I said before, please provide a specific and succinct example where Democrats failed to respond.



gregory-samba said:


> You may not like Trump's response, but at least he had a response. All the Liberals did was shaming and name calling. My timeline from the .gov sites linked in my previous posts outline all Trump and the federal government under his direction did. Their response started in January. You may not like the response, but at least there was one from them. Now you have Liberals claiming Trump did X wrong or didn't act "soon enough", but that just generates laughter from Conservatives because we know that's a lie. The fact your side did nothing undermines anything you may have to say bad about Trump's response and that is exactly why you won't condemn your side for not acting. Also, a "political shill" is not name calling, it's an accurate politically correct term for what you are.
> 
> EDIT: "The truth will set you free" -> https://www.defense.gov/Explore/Spotlight/Coronavirus/DOD-Response-Timeline/


To use a metaphor, responding to the pandemic with your dick in your hands is technically a response, but it's not a good response. If your argument that Trump's "response" was technically a response, great, but it's not especially swaying.

I have very few issues with the timeline you've provided. The problem is the failures I've listed are still true. I recommend you re-read them.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 24, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> There's more pages covering the same story. I already stated you may not like the source of the news, but while the source is sketchy *the article is sound.*


The article is sound in what way exactly?  The author extrapolated scant evidence to reach a false conclusion without applying the same methodology to other pollsters of varying biases, including those with a Republican lean.  How do we know that the poll in question wasn't an outlier?  Why should we assume that Republican pollsters don't do the same thing?  And wtf should I trust a website (americanthinker.com) that peddles QAnon conspiracy theories?


> *QAnon:The Media's Latest Obsession*
> https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/10/qanonthe_medias_latest_obsession.html



That website's filled with conspiracy theories.  Even the motivation behind their Ipsos attacks is based on a bonkers conspiracy theory regarding Ipsos, the AP, and the French Government:


> It is increasingly clear that *IPSOS, a French polling company with close ties to the French leadership is producing polls for AP designed solely to allow them to run editorials in the guise of news stories.* The samplings are widely out of line; the questions off the mark, and the results not surprisingly advance a Democrat point of view obviously shared by AP.
> 
> https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2006/01/ipsos_factless_comments.html


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 24, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> The article is sound in what way exactly?  The author extrapolated scant evidence to reach a false conclusion without applying the same methodology to other pollsters of varying biases, including those with a Republican lean.  How do we know that the poll in question wasn't an outlier?  Why should we assume that Republican pollsters don't do the same thing?  And wtf should I trust a website (americanthinker.com) that peddles QAnon conspiracy theories?
> 
> 
> That website's filled with conspiracy theories.  Even the motivation behind their Ipsos attacks is based on a bonkers conspiracy theory regarding Ipsos, the AP, and the French Government:



Again, you don't like the source, so go load up DuckDuckgo and search for "ipsos bias 2016 election" and pick the same content covered by like 20 other sites.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> What should the House have done before March? They're one half of one branch of government with zero executive powers. In other words, nothing on the early part of the timeline you've posted is anything the House had the power to do. As I said before, please provide a specific and succinct example where Democrats failed to respond.
> 
> 
> To use a metaphor, responding to the pandemic with your dick in your hands is technically a response, but it's not a good response. If your argument that Trump's "response" was technically a response, great, but it's not especially swaying.
> ...



You've got an uphill battle trying to make any Conservative question Trump's early response when your side didn't do jack shit, but bitch and moan.

"Trump and your side did X!!! WAAA REEEE!!!" ...

"Yeah, well your side didn't even actually do a damned thing, so where does that leave you"?

You see, because your sides lack of response anything you have to say about the other sides is null and void. At least you should admit your side fucked up, realize you need to change and change, but nope, same old lie after lie after lie.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 24, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Again, you don't like the source, so go load up DuckDuckgo and search for "ipsos bias 2016 election" and pick the same content covered by like 20 other sites.


Why don't you make your case instead?  That's usually how these things work.  You're the one claiming Ipsos is unfairly biased, not me or DuckDuckGo.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 24, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> You've got an uphill battle trying to make any Conservative question Trump's early response when your side didn't do jack shit, but bitch and moan.
> 
> "Trump and your side did X!!! WAAA REEEE!!!" ...
> 
> ...


As I stated earlier, if you want to continue this conversation, please do not say "Democrats didn't act" or "Democrats fucked up" without providing a specific and succinct example. It has been several posts, and you don't seem able to do that.

Democrats were not in power at the federal level, so the literally disastrous federal response is Trump's fault, and there were Democratic responses at the state and municipal levels. When you take into account population density, the areas with Democratic responses have generally been doing better than areas with Republican responses. Metaphorically, Democrats have been shouting (and continue to shout) from the mountaintops about what Trump should be doing. It's Trump who is failing to act. Please see my list of Trump COVID-19 failures for details. I also find it interesting that you don't seem to have any problems with anything specific on that list.

Off-topic post merge:

@LumInvader @gregory-samba In case they haven't been posted, I recommend looking at the pollster rankings from FiveThirtyEight:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

In addition, nobody should ever focus on single polls. If you do that, you will make the polls say whatever you want. You should only look at the aggregates.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 24, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Why don't you make your case instead?  That's usually how these things work.  You're the one claiming Ipsos is unfairly biased, not me or DuckDuckGo.



I'm not going to hold your hand. I started off claiming you probably won't like the source then have told you now 3 times to go read up on the same subject matter on the many other sites covering the same story because you probably will attack the source. The same subject matter can be found with that search term. I made my case when I first linked to it and that's all I need to do. Your refusal to believe it because it's hosted on X isn't a valid reason to dismiss the article especially since the subject matter is also hosted on Y, A and B-Z. So you can either go learn or not, my original claim stays - ipsos has a left leaning bias.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 24, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I'm not going to hold your hand. I started off claiming you probably won't like the source then have told you now 3 times to go read up on the same subject matter on the many other sites covering the same story because you probably will attack the source. The same subject matter can be found with that search term. I made my case when I first linked to it and that's all I need to do. Your refusal to believe it because it's hosted on X isn't a valid reason to dismiss the article especially since the subject matter is also hosted on Y, A and B-Z. So you can either go learn or not, my original claim stays - ipsos has a left leaning bias.


According to the FiveThirtyEight pollster ratings, Ipsos has a mean bias of about +0.4 in the Democratic direction, which isn't that bad. They give Ipsos a grade of B- for various reasons.

Edit: We can discuss if the polling bias translates to other biases, of course. That's up for debate.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 24, 2020)

Lacius said:


> As I stated earlier, if you want to continue this conversation, please do not say "Democrats didn't act" or "Democrats fucked up" without providing a specific and succinct example. It has been several posts, and you don't seem able to do that.
> 
> Democrats were not in power at the federal level, so the literally disastrous federal response is Trump's fault, and there were Democratic responses at the state and municipal levels. When you take into account population density, the areas with Democratic responses have generally been doing better than areas with Republican responses. Metaphorically, Democrats have been shouting (and continue to shout) from the mountaintops about what Trump should be doing. It's Trump who is failing to act. Please see my list of Trump COVID-19 failures for details. I also find it interesting that you don't seem to have any problems with anything specific on that list.
> 
> ...



You still don't get it. I already showed you what Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi were doing during the first few months of the virus and they represent the majority of their members as their members were doing exactly the same thing, which was inaction. You can bitch and moan and scream on the mountaintops all you want that you don't like Trump's response, but he at least had a response. Seeings as your side refused to respond early and only criticized Trump for doing so you've got no leg to stand on when attacking him over his response. If you didn't like it you should have done better or at least done something. 

I fully realize errors were made, but there's a gap of no errors from your side for months because you side wasn't doing jack shit between December to early February. Trump was responding, why didn't your leadership respond? You realize many more lives could have been saved if your leadership didn't simply just down play the virus and talk shit about Trump. Anyway, you're a shill and I'm going to live up to my previous promise. You're not worth the electricity I use to access this website with. Good bye and good riddance.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 24, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> You still don't get it. I already showed you what Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi were doing during the first few months of the virus and they represent the majority of their members as their members were doing exactly the same thing, which was inaction. You can bitch and moan and scream on the mountaintops all you want that you don't like Trump's response, but he at least had a response. Seeings as your side refused to respond early and only criticized Trump for doing so you've got no leg to stand on when attacking him over his response. If you didn't like it you should have done better or at least done something.
> 
> I fully realize errors were made, but there's a gap of no errors from your side for months because you side wasn't doing jack shit between December to early February. Trump was responding, why didn't your leadership respond? You realize many more lives could have been saved if your leadership didn't simply just down play the virus and talk shit about Trump. Anyway, you're a shill and I'm going to live up to my previous promise. You're not worth the electricity I use to access this website with. Good bye and good riddance.


You don't seem to understand that Joe Biden currently does not serve in any office, lol. He hasn't been Vice President since 2017. He did not have the authority to do anything.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 24, 2020)

Wonder how many votes this will translate to in the Muslim communities for Trump?






https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-he-says-muslims-abandon-biden-back-president

https://www.wnd.com/2020/10/nearly-...ringButtons&ff_campaign=websitesharingbuttons






Joe will pander to ANYONE and act like he cares.  I am guessing many who have ever dealt with a car salesman knows this type of personality and pretty much whatever Joe says, screams deception and insincerity.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 24, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Wonder how many votes this will translate to in the Muslim communities for Trump?
> 
> View attachment 230812
> 
> ...


The majority of Muslim Americans plan to vote for Joe Biden.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 24, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I'm not going to hold your hand. I started off claiming you probably won't like the source then have told you now 3 times to go read up on the same subject matter on the many other sites covering the same story because you probably will attack the source. The same subject matter can be found with that search term. I made my case when I first linked to it and that's all I need to do. Your refusal to believe it because it's hosted on X isn't a valid reason to dismiss the article especially since the subject matter is also hosted on Y, A and B-Z. So you can either go learn or not, *my original claim stays - ipsos has a left leaning bias.*


It's true that the websites you cite as sources usually bite the big one, but I would never use that as a cop out.  In fact, I already addressed the flaws in your article two posts ago, here:


> The article is sound in what way exactly? The author extrapolated scant evidence to reach a false conclusion without applying the same methodology to other pollsters of varying biases, including those with a Republican lean. How do we know that the poll in question wasn't an outlier? Why should we assume that Republican pollsters don't do the same thing?


You chose *not to respond.* 

You've failed to establish why a one poll "study" serves as proof that Ipsos is unfairly biased. A one poll micro-sample is quite literally *the smallest sample size in the history of the universe* and that's what you're hanging your hat on?  The study I cited included* 66 polls* from Ipsos that measured it's polling bias as well as from hundreds of other pollsters.  And finally, you've failed to establish why your micro-sample supersedes a 66 poll study from fivethirtyeight that concludes Ipsos isn't unfairly biased at all.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 24, 2020)

https://twitter.com/maajidnawaz/status/1320053989879283713?s=21

The racism on the left is so digsuting, usually by White liberals. Unfortunately It's not surprising anymore though.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 24, 2020)

https://twitter.com/TVNewsHQ/status/1320051813790437377?s=20





Moments after saying he wants to work together with everyone, Biden calls a group of protesters “chumps”

Does Biden EVER say anything he truly means?  Keep talking Joe.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 24, 2020)

shamzie said:


> https://twitter.com/maajidnawaz/status/1320053989879283713?s=21
> 
> The racism on the left is so digsuting, usually by White liberals. Unfortunately It's not surprising anymore though.


What one idiot says is irrelevant. Instead, pay attention to the racist policy positions on the right, as well as the dog whistle support for racist groups on the right.



crimpshrine said:


> https://twitter.com/TVNewsHQ/status/1320051813790437377?s=20
> 
> View attachment 230845
> 
> ...


He said he wants to work together with everyone, including those chumps. It was literally the same sentence.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 24, 2020)

shamzie said:


> https://twitter.com/maajidnawaz/status/1320053989879283713?s=21
> 
> The racism on the left is so digsuting, usually by White liberals. Unfortunately It's not surprising anymore though.


Liberals aren't part of the Left and tend to be far more in line with Centrism and moderate Right. Even if Liberals borrow a lot from the Left, they still tend to stay in the Center overall.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 24, 2020)




----------



## smf (Oct 24, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Trump said he _*wouldn't accept an illegitimate election*_ and that was in response to Biden forming a 600+ lawyer team with the sole intention on litigating the election results if Biden looses - simply because he lost.



No, he has deployed the laywers to find how Trump is cheating *before* the election.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alison...-trump-cant-steal-this-election/#697f55b41e00

If this is worrying to Trump then you have to wonder what he is trying to hide.

Trump thinks that if he loses that it proves it's illegitimate, he has prepared the ground by constantly saying that mail in ballots are fraudulent. Even though he votes by mail in.

The explanation for why people want to believe Trump I heard recently is that because you know deep down how crooked Trump really is that you've had to suspend that and admitting it now would make you feel so bad.

The result will come down to how many of his supporters in the last election can face admitting they were wrong and how much illegal activity Trump is involved in. He has proven how dishonest and how much illegal activity he is prepared to go into, that I doubt he can cope with being honest this time.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Oct 24, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> What "ruling class"?



The capitalists and their friends in the democratic and republican parties.



shamzie said:


> You're a socialist, I was clearly joking.
> 
> Like you'd ever be at work.



I'm actually pretty good at capitalism! Let me know if you need any web design work done


----------



## omgcat (Oct 24, 2020)

Whole lotta love said:


> The capitalists and their friends in the democratic and republican parties.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm actually pretty good at capitalism! Let me know if you need any web design work done



Isn't it weird that these people keep calling others socialists and claim they don't work, but not only do they work, but they work high skill / high education jobs.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 24, 2020)

omgcat said:


> Isn't it weird that these people keep calling others socialists and claim they don't work, but not only do they work, but they work high skill / high education jobs.


Almost like "get a job" isn't an answer to everything. Especially since there's a possible future where most jobs, as we know it, will just be automated away anyway.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 24, 2020)

Whole lotta love said:


> The capitalists and their friends in the democratic and republican parties.


Hard-working individuals that do more than sit at a desk and drag pretty pictures on a file will inevitably be more successful than web designers.


Whole lotta love said:


> I'm actually pretty good at capitalism! Let me know if you need any web design work done


If you're so good at it, why do you want to change it?


omgcat said:


> Isn't it weird that these people keep calling others socialists and claim they don't work, but not only do they work, but they work high skill / high education jobs.


It's almost like not all jobs are equal and simply having an education doesn't open every door imaginable. Benefitting the poor at the expense of the rich will only increase poverty levels. If you want to be rich, work harder and don't splurge.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Oct 24, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Hard-working individuals that do more than sit at a desk and drag pretty pictures on a file will inevitably be more successful than web designers.



I don't think you really believe that wealth is a function of hard work. My clients pay me about $50/hour for my work, give or take. Jeff Bezos makes about 13.4 million dollars per hour. He may very well work harder than me (though I'm not sure how one measures something as amorphous as "hard work"), maybe twice as hard as me. Do you honestly believe he works 268,000 times harder than me?



> If you're so good at it, why do you want to change it?


Because capitalism an inefficient and undemocratic system. I believe that people should have democratic control of all aspects of their life, including where they work. Adding profit into what would be pretty straight-forward social relations like growing food and building housing causes a lot of issues like food scarcity and homelessness. I think housing, food, and medicine can be produced and distributed without profit being involved and it would be much more efficient to do so.




> It's almost like not all jobs are equal and simply having an education doesn't open every door imaginable. *Benefitting the poor at the expense of the rich will only increase poverty levels.* If you want to be rich, work harder and don't splurge.


Do you have any evidence to backup this claim? Generally, wealth redistribution programs under capitalism reduce poverty because poverty by definition is a function of wealth inequality. For example, Housing First is more effective and cheaper than traditional carceral methods of addressing chronic homelessness.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 24, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Hard-working individuals that do more than sit at a desk and drag pretty pictures on a file will inevitably be more successful than web designers.


You do know that desk work can be hard work, right? Who are you, a fifteen year-old, to disparage a broad swath of careers?

And if you're measuring success, desk work can be more successful.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 24, 2020)

Whole lotta love said:


> I don't think you really believe that wealth is a function of hard work. My clients pay me about $50/hour for my work, give or take. Jeff Bezos makes about 13.4 million dollars per hour. He may very well work harder than me (though I'm not sure how one measures something as amorphous as "hard work"), maybe twice as hard as me. Do you honestly believe he works 268,000 times harder than me?


How long has Jeff Bezos had to build up his reputation as a web designer?


Whole lotta love said:


> Because capitalism an inefficient and undemocratic system. I believe that people should have democratic control of all aspects of their life, including where they work.


You do have control over where you work. You know how much you'll make before you get the job.


Whole lotta love said:


> Adding profit into what would be pretty straight-forward social relations like growing food and building housing causes a lot of issues like food scarcity and homelessness. I think housing, food, and medicine can be produced and distributed without profit being involved and it would be much more efficient to do so.


Weaponry is a human right. I demand a tank, and I want you to pay for it and its ammunition.


Whole lotta love said:


> Do you have any evidence to backup this claim? Generally, wealth redistribution programs under capitalism reduce poverty because poverty by definition is a function of wealth inequality. For example, Housing First is more effective and cheaper than traditional carceral methods of addressing chronic homelessness.


How well off are people on welfare?


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 25, 2020)

Did you guys see the sex tapes/pic/videos dropped by some Chinese group saying they will be continuing to release stuff every hour?  So far they have released 3 things today from what I can see.

This group claims Joe is 100% controlled by the CCP.

I won't post any links but I could find it by googling "gnews org hunter"


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 25, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Did you guys see the sex tapes/pic/videos dropped by some Chinese group saying they will be continuing to release stuff every hour?  So far they have released 3 things today from what I can see.
> 
> This group claims Joe is 100% controlled by the CCP.
> 
> I won't post any links but I could find it by googling "gnews org hunter"


Not going to even bother with the website or article. it's clearly trash.
Tl;Dr
no about me page (it redirects to a policy page)
there isn't a single author of the article, or articles.doesn't list who made it, just the editors
No sources, or sources that link to themselves
No reputation since this is the first I've ever heard of them, and many haven't either
the company who owns it, is based in the USA, even though they definitely try to paint the image as if it is from china, given the Chinese text. I also can't figure out the founder since it's going under a possible alias. Which only makes  it more sketchy.
Oh and said company is for profit. so...
I'll take your statement with a extreme grain of salt. burden of proof is on you to actually give me something worth my time.
If your going to state it's true. tell me why I shouldn't take it super sketch. Don't pull circular reasoning either.
I rather not have to go through a constant circle of arguments with you.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 25, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Not going to even bother with the website or article. it's clearly trash.
> Tl;Dr
> no about me page (it redirects to a policy page)
> there isn't a single author of the article, or articles.doesn't list who made it, just the editors
> ...



That's where the information is dropping from my understanding and I believe being hosted at the moment.   That's all I know.  I don't see anywhere me making the argument about anything related to where this info is being published.  

Not sure what you are going on about.. 

I am actually more interested in the information, because from everything I have seen so far it looks legitimate.

You can but this, but that all you want.   Does not matter to me, it was not my point.



> This video shows only the tip of the iceberg of what is important in the Chinese Communist Party’s Blue-Gold-Yellow (BGY) program. They take advantage of all those Western politicians, celebrities, and their families who are greedy for Chinese wealth, and threaten them by getting hold of and recording their sex and drug videos, forcing them to sell out their countries and people, and even their own national security in order to cooperate with the Chinese Communist Party’s world domination.
> 
> U.S. presidential candidate Joe Biden is 100% controlled by the Chinese Communist Party as one of the most successful political instances of the BGY program. He is also a target of the CCP’s 3F plan, which aims to “fall, fail, and fell,” to weaken, destroy and kill America!



You making some peanut gallery comments on the validity of where the info is being published and or hosted does nothing to diminish the content itself that has been released so far.  So in your brain, they could have Hunter engaging in a lewd act with underage Chinese girls, but because the whois info on the domain that is sharing it does not line up, it's fake, or likely fake.  Not worth considering.

It will be interesting to see what else they release.  Can you imagine you guys if they had this kind of stuff on Trump.  It's amazing to me how far gone some of you are.


----------



## TheZander (Oct 25, 2020)

I've been following this thread closely since it's inception because I have been lost of who to vote for this election and GBATemp host some of the smartest people and figured they'd hash out the best proponent for president.

Do you believe you'll have a consensus come November 3? Also how possible would it be to make duplicates of a main-in ballot and envelope and randomize any serialization and try and get a couple more? Would that be considered illegal? Do they actually count the write-ins?


----------



## omgcat (Oct 25, 2020)

TheZander said:


> I've been following this thread closely since it's inception because I have been lost of who to vote for this election and GBATemp host some of the smartest people and figured they'd hash out the best proponent for president.
> 
> Do you believe you'll have a consensus come November 3? Also how possible would it be to make duplicates of a main-in ballot and envelope and randomize any serialization and try and get a couple more? Would that be considered illegal? Do they actually count the write-ins?



all mail in ballots have a unique ID which trips a flag if it shows up multiple times. you are able to track your vote using these ID's to make sure it gets counted. many states have been mail in voting for over a decade at this point. courts all over the USA are ruling that trump's claims about mail in voter fraud have no merit. The winner will not be called on election night, nor has it ever officially been called on election night. multiple states have extended time to receive mail in ballots, and those need to be counted.


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 25, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Did you guys see the sex tapes/pic/videos dropped by some Chinese group saying they will be continuing to release stuff every hour?  So far they have released 3 things today from what I can see.
> 
> This group claims Joe is 100% controlled by the CCP.
> 
> I won't post any links but I could find it by googling "gnews org hunter"


ever heard of deep fake porn? basicly it could be anyone and with some video editing know how can edit the video


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 25, 2020)

https://www.facebook.com/106867847808025/posts/142452204249589/


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 25, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> ever heard of deep fake porn? basicly it could be anyone and with some video editing know how can edit the video



Yeah I don't know.  This is Hunter Biden.

I get that it could have been a possibility on its own.  Like if one video was leaked or a couple pictures.  There is more to it though I believe.

Like the stuff the Chinese are currently releasing if we did not have the laptop.  But the laptop drive that came from his computer, that seems like a completely different situation.  And if you give any credence to that, then everything else fits within reason with Hunter.  That dude is really messed up, and it looks like his whole family knew and it sounds like he even potentially abused a minor in the family.

The DNI John Ratcliffe confirmed this laptop is not connected to any Russian intelligence.

They have compared Hunters signature on the form from the computer to previous drivers license samples.

People on email chains from that hard drive confirmed they received those messages.

Secret Service confirmed that travel plans match places and times traveled in the emails from that hard drive.
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10-20 CEG RHJ to Secret Service (Hunter Biden Travel Records Follow-Up) .pdf

OAN confirmed yesterday that they first hand saw photos with a female Biden relative at 14 was in pictures that were inappropriate with Hunter.  The OAN reporter even speaks of seeing troubling text messages regarding Hunters presence with this minor and his dad Joe.  Joe just seems to ignore it from what she said.




You all know, if ANY of this type of thing was going on with ANY of us, we would already be in jail.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraSUPRA said:


> https://www.facebook.com/106867847808025/posts/142452204249589/



That is F'n hilarious.

"We have put together I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American Politics" - Joe Biden

And did you catch before he made that statement he said they did it for Obama too.


Here Youtube:


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 25, 2020)

just read Oaan repetitively distributes fake news and is extreme right leaning if it was neutral i'd believe it more let alone many of their stories are full of holes and full of distorted truth some stories are probably pulled out of the editors ass

https://www.newsguardtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/oann.pdf
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/one-america-news-network/


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 25, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> just read Oaan repetitively distributes fake news and is extreme right leaning if it was neutral i'd believe it more let alone many of their stories are full of holes and full of distorted truth some stories are probably pulled out of the editors ass
> 
> https://www.newsguardtech.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/oann.pdf
> https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/one-america-news-network/



I don't think it matters who delivers the message in this case.  (Don't shoot the messenger)  I don't get that argument about who is delivering the message.  I understand one could be biased like I notice with liberal media that avoid reporting on news or only show a portion of a clip to install a certain feeling in someone without full context.

But in this case it is pretty cut and dry.  And a pattern with Hunter was started a long time ago, this all fits in line and as I said previously contents of the drive (email) have already been confirmed to be real by 3rd parties.  

There have been multiple parties that have seen the hard drive that have said there is bad stuff on it.  Both in relationship to Joe and Hunter and their family in regards to some of what is shown in the pictures.

There is a pattern with Hunter that is not political in any way shape or form.

When you have someone publicly saying they saw what was on that hard drive and it is bad and it includes potentially multiple minors.  Bad enough to enquire with the police, to write it off as political noise, seems dangerous.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 25, 2020)

https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1320167022718783489?s=20

I did not think it was legal to campaign near a polling place.

I am guessing it varies by state.  

Funny though it could back fire on her, most in line did not clap or acknowledge her with glee when she was ending that.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 25, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1320167022718783489?s=20
> 
> I did not think it was legal to campaign near a polling place.
> 
> ...



it's not near a polling station if the line is 1/2mi long


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 25, 2020)

omgcat said:


> it's not near a polling station if the line is 1/2mi long



It does not work that way, at least in Ohio,  I found the law after I posted that, it does not matter how long the line is.  Just that you are 10 feet from anyone in line.



(1) Loiter, congregate, or engage in any kind of election campaigning within the area between the polling place and the small flags of the United States placed on the thoroughfares and walkways leading to the polling place, and if the line of electors waiting to vote extends beyond those small flags, within ten feet of any elector in that line;


----------



## omgcat (Oct 25, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> It does not work that way, at least in Ohio,  I found the law after I posted that, it does not matter how long the line is.  Just that you are 10 feet from anyone in line.
> 
> 
> 
> (1) Loiter, congregate, or engage in any kind of election campaigning within the area between the polling place and the small flags of the United States placed on the thoroughfares and walkways leading to the polling place, and if the line of electors waiting to vote extends beyond those small flags, within ten feet of any elector in that line;



well she is clearly 10ft away from the line and not telling people who to vote for, so according to the laws she's all clear.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 25, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> That's where the information is dropping from my understanding and I believe being hosted at the moment.   That's all I know. .


okay... so far so good


crimpshrine said:


> I don't see anywhere me making the argument about anything related to where this info is being published.
> 
> Not sure what you are going on about..
> 
> ...



WAT
hold on. I just need to state again
What the actual fuck?


crimpshrine said:


> I don't see anywhere me making the argument about anything related to where this info is being published.


the jump in logic is so massive, I can barely fathom.

for starters you stated


crimpshrine said:


> that's where the information is dropping from my understanding and I believe being hosted at the moment.   That's all I know



I pointed out that the site you stated to look up, where this info is dropping from, is super sketch. And you took that as me talking about publishers? WAT?
How did we get to publishers? Do you even understand what I said?
moving on to my next point


crimpshrine said:


> I am actually more interested in the information, because from everything I have seen so far it looks legitimate."


Again, this comes back to my point that the site looks non-legit. It doesn't matter if it LOOKS legit. Because it means jack squat if you can't CONFIRM that it's legit. Something as sketchy as this, has a very low chance of actually being true. Yeah 4chan can have something real, but 99% of the time, if someone states they are going to leak something, or xx thing. it never happens. Unless your rolling on that 1% 
And with what I just stated, with it being owned by a company in the US, that's trying to pass off as something in China, given the Chinese text, by the fact it has no reputation/ no one has heard of the website, AND the fact that you can't even check who MADE THE ARTICLE or who owns the site. That's a massive red flag. You should always be able to know those things. If they claim they are news, and you don't get that, there is some massive issues ongoing.
I must ask what makes you believe the articles on that site, and also the site in general is reputable?
what is your standard of evidence?


----------



## wartutor (Oct 25, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1320167022718783489?s=20
> 
> I did not think it was legal to campaign near a polling place.
> 
> ...


Links already dead. Maybe next time post a pic of the tweet as they like to delete things to sensor now.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 25, 2020)

omgcat said:


> well she is clearly 10ft away from the line and not telling people who to vote for, so according to the laws she's all clear.



Yeah I never said I knew it was wrong.

I do know that you pulling things out of your butt and saying it's OK because of X, is not right.  Like you started out by doing.

Here is the complete law, having the actual candidate for VP speaking near the electors could be considered election campaigning. And I don't believe it is 100% of what she said.




> * 3501.35 No loitering or congregating near polling places.*
> 
> 
> (A) During an election and the counting of the ballots, no person shall do any of the following:
> ...



--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



wartutor said:


> Links already dead. Maybe next time post a pic of the tweet as they like to delete things to sensor now.



It's still working for me.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



monkeyman4412 said:


> okay... so far so good
> 
> 
> WAT
> ...



Debating with some of you is a fools errand.

In my opinion instead of tackling the point, you look for some other thing you can talk about to diminish the evidence.

There has been even more dropped as of now, coupled with everything on the drive, there is a clear pattern with Hunter.

As I said to someone else:



> But in this case it is pretty cut and dry. And a pattern with Hunter was started a long time ago, this all fits in line and as I said previously contents of the drive (email) have already been confirmed to be real by 3rd parties.
> 
> There have been multiple parties that have seen the hard drive that have said there is bad stuff on it. Both in relationship to Joe and Hunter and their family in regards to some of what is shown in the pictures.



Trying to debate with me about where the information is being hosted, is stupid.  It does not change anything about the media that has dropped so far.

So lets get back to what I started which I have yet to see you actually comment on.

Are you suggesting NONE of this is real?  That all of this data that has been released on Hunter are "deep fakes"??

There have been multiple photos and at least 1 video dropped so far.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 25, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Debating with some of you is a fools errand.


Yeah a fools errand because you rather spew your bs without question, regardless of accuracy or being factual, while hiding under the guise of someone who cares about fact, but then links to 4chan or other websites who are more than likely not factual. And I (I don't know entirely about my peers here) pop your bubble so severely, that you throw in the towel, and try moving to the next conversation.
You dislike or even hate us because we keep correcting your bullshit, we question your sources, we question your points, we provide counter points, and then often or not, just like now, you threw in the towel, and claimed it's a fools errand, you go and leave to the next talking point, since you can't make up a proper rebuttable.
My point still stands,
the site, for where the information is supposedly coming from,
doesn't state who owns it
doesn't let you see the author(s)
is somewhere located in the US, despite supposedly being Chinese.
That is sketchy, no matter how you look at it.
You've yet to rebut this issue. Because of these issue if I need to spell it out,
makes that site non-creditable. And so therefore whatever is put on it, is put into question.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 25, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Yeah a fools errand because you rather spew your bs without question, regardless of accuracy or being factual, while hiding under the guise of someone who cares about fact, but then links to 4chan or other websites who are more than likely not factual. And I (I don't know entirely about my peers here) pop your bubble so severely, that you throw in the towel, and try moving to the next conversation.
> You dislike or even hate us because we keep correcting your bullshit, we question your sources, we question your points, we provide counter points, and then often or not, just like now, you threw in the towel, and claimed it's a fools errand, you go and leave to the next talking point, since you can't make up a proper rebuttable.
> My point still stands,
> the site, for where the information is supposedly coming from,
> ...



I have yet to see you even talk about the original point of my message.  

You just attempt to redirect to avoid the point.  

You won't say they are invalid or fake.  You just want to say where they are being hosted you have problems with and debate that.  

It's like the typical response 2 or 3 of you do here.   

Evidence A is displayed.

Oh that came from some "fill in the blank" website, so it means nothing.

But dude, what about the evidence? nahh I don't want to talk about that, I will just keep pointing out where it came from as an argument.  And keep bringing that up.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 25, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> It's true that the websites you cite as sources usually bite the big one, but I would never use that as a cop out.  In fact, I already addressed the flaws in your article two posts ago, here:
> 
> You chose *not to respond.*
> 
> You've failed to establish why a one poll "study" serves as proof that Ipsos is unfairly biased. A one poll micro-sample is quite literally *the smallest sample size in the history of the universe* and that's what you're hanging your hat on?  The study I cited included* 66 polls* from Ipsos that measured it's polling bias as well as from hundreds of other pollsters.  And finally, you've failed to establish why your micro-sample supersedes a 66 poll study from fivethirtyeight that concludes Ipsos isn't unfairly biased at all.



Look, I was just pointing out there's like 20+ pages features articles about how ipsos has a Liberal bias regarding the 2016 election polls they did. Whether it's true or not is beyond my ability to prove one way or the other, but I was just pointing it out.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 25, 2020)

Reminder:

*CURRENT DNI John Ratcliffe confirmed the hunter biden laptop is NOT connected to Russian disinformation effort. That there is no intelligence to support any claims of that nature. No matter what arm chair intelligence officers claim.*

*Signatures have been compared from the form at the computer place. And they match enough to suggest/indicate it was Hunter who signed.*

*Hunter Biden's Attorney has attempted to retrieve the hard drive from the computer store owner.*

*People on the email chains have confirmed they received the same message as in the evidence of his drive.*

*Secret service has confirmed that travel plans match places and times traveled listed in the emails.*

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10-20 CEG RHJ to Secret Service (Hunter Biden Travel Records Follow-Up) .pdf

*Neither Joe, Hunter, or his campaign have said the data is invalid. Or that it is NOT his data/laptop.*​
Various people have stated they have seen the pictures/texts on this hard drive.   And outside of the emails that confirm Joe lied, there are pictures and texts to suggest Hunter was doing things with children on this laptop that were inappropriate and that even Joe Biden knew about his sons problems with not just drugs but things that included minors based on text messages and Joe's responses in this evidence.

OAN has seen the pictures and commented on video about them and Rudy Giuliani has seen the pictures and commented on them on video, and has said they were turned over to the Delaware State Police.  OAN confirmed there are multiple minors in these pictures, they were only able to identify one of them, a Biden relative. 

The NY Post who also has a copy of the hard drive reported originally that the laptop had a vast trove of sexual videos and images too.

Some Chinese group in the last 24 hours has started dropping videos and pictures of Hunter Biden saying that the Chinese government has this and much more on the Biden family.

There is obviously a pattern here and it started long before the last few weeks ago.  Some of you can ignore reality and choose to say, but what about where the data is being hosted or even worse who is reporting it.  LOL.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 25, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Reminder:
> 
> *CURRENT DNI John Ratcliffe confirmed the hunter biden laptop is NOT connected to Russian disinformation effort. That there is no intelligence to support any claims of that nature. No matter what arm chair intelligence officers claim.*
> 
> ...



Heh, I wonder how the Ukrainians would have reacted if they knew Hunter Biden was a crackhead when Joe Biden forced quid pro quo on them to get him a job. I wonder how bad he fucked it up too.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 25, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I have yet to see you even talk about the original point of my message.


Original point you made:




crimpshrine said:


> Did you guys see the sex tapes/pic/videos dropped by some Chinese group saying they will be continuing to release stuff every hour?  So far they have released 3 things today from what I can see.
> I won't post any links but I could find it by googling "gnews org hunter"


my post:



monkeyman4412 said:


> Not going to even bother with the website or article. it's clearly trash.
> Tl;Dr
> no about me page (it redirects to a policy page)
> there isn't a single author of the article, or articles.doesn't list who made it, just the editors
> ...



tl;dr
My point boils down to:
gnews.org is not trustworthy.
your response


crimpshrine said:


> That's where the information is dropping from my understanding and I believe being hosted at the moment.   That's all I know.  I don't see anywhere me making the argument about anything related to where this info is being published.
> 
> Not sure what you are going on about..
> 
> ...


In bold is the part that I take issue with. Since I already stated/made the point the site is not trustworthy. I then ask for you to prove that it is. You fail to provide proof. ad nauseam
So again, your ignoring my counter point. Because you cannot refute it.
That being:
the website is sketchy, therefore the information on it is not factual given that I cannot see the author of the article, and/or know who owns the website. Therefore the whole sex tape thing is questionable/ in question of being real/Skeptical of it being real
 also, there is no images of it, or videos included. Rather just talked about again.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 25, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Heh, I wonder how the Ukrainians would have reacted if they knew Hunter Biden was a crackhead when Joe Biden forced quid pro quo on them to get him a job. I wonder how bad he fucked it up too.



Yeah I can only imagine what he did.  To be fair he was just a figurehead to collect a paycheck for himself and his dad.  If you ran a big business and were forced to pay someone to be on the books.  And they are supposed to do the accounting (with 0 experience) for your business, you probably would tell them to do anything but actually work on your books.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



monkeyman4412 said:


> Original point you made:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




"everything I have seen so far it looks legitimate."

Means the media.  That is what the Chinese started dropping less than 24 hours ago.

So this is what the 4th time of me making my point?  I keep pointing out my original post is about what the Chinese government has on the Biden's.

And again you are back to who is hosting the data.

The data seems to line up in pattern with what we already know from the laptop that has been confirmed to be legitimate.

So do you also believe the laptop data is invalid even with all the corroboration that has occurred at this point, related to it?


----------



## Chrisssj2 (Oct 25, 2020)

Look at these humans vote for their slave overlords... Sigh.. Are we doomed?


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 25, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> "everything I have seen so far it looks legitimate."
> 
> Means the media.  That is what the Chinese started dropping less than 24 hours ago.


Let me go use your own quote against you_. _Since you just contradicted yourself
"that's where the information is dropping from my understanding and I believe being hosted at the moment"
referring to gnews.
Not referring to Chinese.(gnews is hosted in the USA. you would of found that out if you payed attention to my earlier post)
It's like me saying that the German government has started investigated (some thing x). In a random website.
Does not mean it's true. If this is the only source stating it, then again, I question, it.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 25, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Let me go use your own quote against you_. _Since you just contradicted yourself
> "that's where the information is dropping from my understanding and I believe being hosted at the moment"
> referring to gnews.
> Not referring to Chinese.(gnews is hosted in the USA. you would of found that out if you payed attention to my earlier post)
> ...



Don't follow at all, I was saying it looked to me like it is only being hosted on that website. (available for download, similar to youtube for example)

And again you seem to want to debate the semantics rather that what I keep telling you over and over again.

The video's and pictures.  They fit the pattern and the makeup of the Biden family that has been established based on other corroborated proof from the laptop.

For you to try to counter the newest released information (videos + pics) by the Chinese as invalid because of where it was hosted is just crazy in my opinion.

That is fine to question it, I question things too. I get that.  But whoever is hosting the data and delivering it, is no different then youtube in this situation and all I see you doing is questioning the party hosting the data. I don't believe I have seen you actually question the information they released.  Like anything was photoshopped, fake video, etc..

And AGAIN, this data that was released all fits within the pattern based on the corroborated proof the laptop data is real.  This is not out of left field.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 25, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Don't follow at all, I was saying it looked to me like it is only being hosted on that website. (available for download, similar to youtube for example)
> 
> And again you seem to want to debate the semantics rather that what I keep telling you over and over again.
> 
> ...



I'm not going anywhere near videos with kids in them, but it is really close to election and deep fakes do exist. I wouldn't trust some random group of hackers especially considering the Chinese would not benefit if Trump wins again. If any of these things on his laptop are real and in the hands of the authorities then eventually down the road there will be some sort of action taken. For now I'd advise to stay far away from anything being leaked or what have you.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 25, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I'm not going anywhere near videos with kids in them, but it is really close to election and deep fakes do exist. I wouldn't trust some random group of hackers especially considering the Chinese would not benefit if Trump wins again. If any of these things on his laptop are real and in the hands of the authorities then eventually down the road there will be some sort of action taken. For now I'd advise to stay far away from anything being leaked or what have you.



None of the videos (or pictures) released in the last 24 hours from the Chinese have kids in them GS.  Any reference I have made to Hunter and kids has been from the data on the laptop that has been confirmed by a few people so far, and was turned over to the authorities.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 25, 2020)

Saw the videos out of curiosity, I wish I hadn't. They're real, it's just Hunter Biden doing crack and weird sex stuff with (most likely) prostitutes. They're not "deep fakes" - if they are, they're remarkably good, but I doubt that very much. "I don't trust the source, therefore the evidence is fake" line of rebuttal isn't great when the veracity of the claims can be verified with your own eyeballs, you just choose not to do so.

All of the sex stuff is irrelevant and a distraction from the real meat of the leaked information. People should focus more on the suspicious dealings within the Biden family and not on the sex life of a crackhead whom we know was a crackhead all along. Hunter Biden rubs off some of his bad smell on Joe, but is by far not the most important part of the leaks, rather he's tabloid fodder.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 25, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Saw the videos out of curiosity, I wish I hadn't. They're not fake, it's just Hunter Biden doing crack and weird sex stuff with (most likely) prostitutes. They're not deep fakes - if they are, they're remarkably good, but I doubt that very much. "I don't trust the source, therefore the evidence is fake" line of rebuttal isn't great when the veracity of the claims can be verified with your own eyeballs, you just choose not to do so.
> 
> All of the sex stuff is irrelevant and a distraction from the real meat of the leaked information. People should focus more on the suspicious dealings within the Biden family and not on the sex life of a crackhead whom we know was a crackhead all along. Hunter Biden rubs off some of his bad smell on Joe, but is by far not the most important part of the leaks, rather he's tabloid fodder.


Actually, I do still question it. originally when I made my post, the video was not out, when I went to the site.
But I do have an issue with it now that I seen it.
if this is supposedly from that laptop
Why is the quality so low?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

If in the new york post it as a macobook pro (which they stated it was) that webcam is abnormally low quality. Even if it was the 2014-2017 model. It's quality would not be that low. Nor would it be 4:3


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 25, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Actually, I do still question it. originally when I made my post, the video was not out, when I went to the site.
> But I do have an issue with it now that I seen it.
> if this is supposedly from that laptop
> Why is the quality so low?
> ...


In all fairness, it's videos made by a crackhead. They're also stored on the drive, not necessarily filmed with the webcam. Either way I'm not interested in the content of the video - as I've said, it's a distraction intended to evoke shock and divert your attention from far more important matters since sex sells.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 25, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Saw the videos out of curiosity, I wish I hadn't. They're real, it's just Hunter Biden doing crack and weird sex stuff with (most likely) prostitutes. They're not "deep fakes" - if they are, they're remarkably good, but I doubt that very much. "I don't trust the source, therefore the evidence is fake" line of rebuttal isn't great when the veracity of the claims can be verified with your own eyeballs, you just choose not to do so.
> 
> All of the sex stuff is irrelevant and a distraction from the real meat of the leaked information. People should focus more on the suspicious dealings within the Biden family and not on the sex life of a crackhead whom we know was a crackhead all along. Hunter Biden rubs off some of his bad smell on Joe, but is by far not the most important part of the leaks, rather he's tabloid fodder.



Foxi4,  I agree they look legitimate.  And I also agree this newest stuff is tabloid fodder level stuff so far.  At the time I posted they started releasing information it was not finished yet.  (Still not sure if it is yet)

I think it helps further re-enforce at least 2 things for me.

1.   It's not just Hunter that lead to the world discovering this damning information that shows he father Joe profited while a VP to    this  country.   The Chinese government already have a lot on Joes kid, and likely have more that what we have seen so far.  Could they not?  No way to know but Joe could be in a compromising position from the Chinese government.

2. It helps re-enforce the poor judgement and behavior of Hunter, which based on the corroborated data on the laptop hard drive Joe besides being guilty of taking advantage of his power while VP to profit, likely condoned illegal activity with minors with his knowledge.

I believe all of the above strongly indicate this guy should not even have the opportunity at a chance to be the president.

And the fact that mainstream media at least at the moment has stopped pushing this is troubling to me.

Imagine if half of the above was occurring right now with Trump.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 25, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> In all fairness, it's videos made by a crackhead. Either way I'm not interested in the content of the video - as I've said, it's a distraction intended to evoke shock and divert your attention from far more important matters since sex sells.


No it actually does matter. Here's the story. That video is supposedly from the laptop, that also contained the video and those emails. Therefore, the video does have some importance. I'm not interested in it either, however, there is significant issues with this story. going as far back as 2011 that camera would be hd. I highly doubt that someone like him wouldn't have purchased a newer model. (it would have to date to 2009ish) We already know how avid apple people are. If this is truly that computer, this video, that supposedly came from that hardrive, should NOT be as low quality as it is. This would suggest this video came from another computer, not the New York Post's mac book pro they spoke of. Which would also mean the documents/emails would still be in the air. 
Unless you


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 25, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> No it actually does matter. Here's the story. That video is supposedly from the laptop, that also contained the video. Therefore, the video does have some importance. I'm not interested in it either, however, there is significant issues with this story. going as far back as 2011 that camera would be hd. I highly doubt that someone like him wouldn't have purchased a newer model. We already know how avid apple people are. If this is truly that computer, this video, that supposedly came from that hardrive, should NOT be as low quality as it is.


"Someone like him" also probably wouldn't leave his computer, full of compromising information, in a laptop repair shop and forget about it - he's the son of a Senator/former VP. What he should've done is take a hammer to it, throw the remains into an incinerator and forget it ever existed, and yet here we are. You're trying to inject reason into the actions of a crackhead, and I'm saying that not on the basis of the videos, but a pattern of confirmed past behaviour. He's always had a drug problem, we already knew that, and crackheads do crackhead things. I don't need to perform mental gymnastics to refute that, I accept it for what it is. Rather than focusing on verifying the videos, which I don't care about, I'm more interested in verifying the damning documentation that comes along with them.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 25, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> "Someone like him" also probably wouldn't leave his computer, full of compromising information, in a laptop repair shop and forget about it. What he should've done is take a hammer to it, throw the remains into an incinerator and forget it ever existed, and yet here we are. You're trying to inject reason into a behaviour pattern of a crackhead, and I'm saying that not on the basis of the videos, but a pattern of confirmed past behaviour. He's always had a drug problem, we already knew that, and crackheads do crackhead things. I don't need to perform mental gymnastics to refute that, I accept it for what it is. Rather than focusing on verifying the videos, which I don't care about, I'm more interested in verifying the damming documentation that comes along with them.


Okay then, my point was being, that *if *the video is true comes from that laptop, the documents would as well
Thankfully it doesn't change my vote, still voting green party.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 25, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Actually, I do still question it. originally when I made my post, the video was not out, when I went to the site.
> But I do have an issue with it now that I seen it.
> if this is supposedly from that laptop
> Why is the quality so low?
> ...



You question it because It's not Trump, if it was you'd be rabid, throffing at the mouth, screeching about what scum he is. I'm certain you didn't question any Russia stuff, any Trump gets peed on at hotels by prostitute stuff, but this, this is a step too far. lol.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 25, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Okay then, my point was being, that *if *the video is true, the documents would as well
> Thankfully it doesn't change my vote, still voting green party.


I respect that, it's better than voting blue. I don't think the videos being real automatically means that the documents are as well - one thing does not prove another, they could still very well be a plant. You grab a piece of evidence that's undoubtedly true, sprinkle a bunch of lies and forgeries around it and you have a great disinformation bomb. In any case, you guys can debate on how good the level of quality should've been in the videos that are out there and can be viewed while the rest of us continue to wait for the "Trump piss tape" that we're still yet to see after nearly 4 years - I remember when that was a headline everyone was going crazy over, despite no actual video ever seeing the light of day. I'm sure the Russians are still hiding it.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 25, 2020)

Hey check out this video of Hunter Biden getting a footjob from a prostitute while smoking crack, and cellphone photos of him with his (hard) dick prominently displayed in narcissistic selfies and hardcore shots with drugs in use, cutting lines of cocaine with Malia Obama's JPMorgan credit card!! This stuff was all collected by the Chinese Communist Party as potential Kompromat against the Biden family! We are assured by the anti-CCP leakers there is much more. It's a national security risk. It should, at the very least, merit a serious investigation and security risk assessment by Federal authorities, right?!???


----------



## omgcat (Oct 25, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Hey check out this video of Hunter Biden getting a footjob from a prostitute while smoking crack, and cellphone photos of him with his (hard) dick prominently displayed in narcissistic selfies and hardcore shots with drugs in use, cutting lines of cocaine with Malia Obama's JPMorgan credit card!! This stuff was all collected by the Chinese Communist Party as potential Kompromat against the Biden family! We are assured by the anti-CCP leakers there is much more. It's a national security risk. It should, at the very least, merit a serious investigation and security risk assessment by Federal authorities, right?!???
> 
> 
> View attachment 230989



all semblance of security risk checking went out the window when trump forced the government to give Jared Kushner a TOP and SCI clearance which he was clearly disqualified from getting. on top of that the First Lady used a private email in the white house. Also on top of that Ivanka trump used a private email account to do government business, and Jared Kushner, the guy who should have been disqualified to have his clearances, is also using a private email account. you guys are bullshitting about "national security risks" when the biggest one has been the president for almost 4 years. like remember the time trump tweeted that photo of a highly classified satellite, which was then discovered by amateur astronomers using the photo?

Biden is running for president, not hunter, and nobody cares about the laptop nonsense, it is being pushed by known grifters, and the trump family themselves have done worse shit in broad daylight.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 25, 2020)

omgcat said:


> nobody cares about the laptop nonsense




It doesn't go away just because you say "whataboutwhataboutwhatabout"


----------



## omgcat (Oct 25, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> It doesn't go away just because you say "whataboutwhataboutwhatabout"



it doesn't go anywhere in the mainstream if it's bullshit.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 25, 2020)

omgcat said:


> it doesn't go anywhere in the mainstream if it's bullshit.



No, it doesn't go anywhere in the mainstream because they don't want to know. They've been invited ... crickets.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 25, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> No, it doesn't go anywhere in the mainstream because they don't want to know. They've been invited ... crickets.
> 
> View attachment 231007
> View attachment 231008
> View attachment 231009



or hear me out, they don't want to waste their time on bullshit. If there was anything of substance, some medium sized company would pick it up, and then the rest would follow. sucks that the trumposphere is filled with con-men and grifters, if it wasn't maybe someone would pay attention to them again. Posobiac is a known troll/ alt-right nutbag, no one wants to meet him.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 25, 2020)

*GOP lawmaker: Republican appeals to QAnon supporters show "we've lost our way"*
https://www.axios.com/qanon-trump-republican-supporters-6926fdd7-2c4a-414b-a4bd-c0cd4e8654b6.html


> *What he's saying: *"So I might as well just piss everybody off, Chuck. So I think if we're doing this, if we're looking at the spread of misinformation as part of something just to pander to a certain subset of voters, I think we've lost our way," Riggleman said on "Meet the Press" after being asked about the message the endorsement of Greene [a QAnon supporter] sends.


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 25, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I don't think it matters who delivers the message in this case.  (Don't shoot the messenger)  I don't get that argument about who is delivering the message.  I understand one could be biased like I notice with liberal media that avoid reporting on news or only show a portion of a clip to install a certain feeling in someone without full context.
> 
> But in this case it is pretty cut and dry.  And a pattern with Hunter was started a long time ago, this all fits in line and as I said previously contents of the drive (email) have already been confirmed to be real by 3rd parties.
> 
> ...


funny not even fox news which is right leaning hasn't reported on it (I checked not even a peep) so unless you can find a reputable right leaning news i'll call it BS


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 25, 2020)

Couldn't have anything to do with his exposed corruption.  Or having to constantly walk back what he says to one group that differs from another.  Or meeting tons of Trump supporters basically everywhere he goes.  Has to be disheartening..

Both Joe and hunter Biden laptop continue to be searched on all search engines.  So it is not going away.  Regardless of media ignoring it for now. 

Have to say the Trump enthusiasm is crazy.  Seems like considerably more than in 2016 this time around.

And then meanwhile in liberal strongholds when the Trump supporters do come out to show support you get the intolerance and violence we all know so well.   I live in a pretty liberal area that had a large show of support for Trump a week or so ago.  It was funny to read some of liberals post on local message boards like it was the coming of the end.   Why are people allowed to do this in public?! And what their kids witnessed. 

I can't wait to see how inaccurate the polls were this time around.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 25, 2020)

*A terrifying guide to all the alleged QAnon supporters running for election in 2020*
https://www.indy100.com/article/qanon-us-election-congress-candidates-trump-lauren-boebert-9680366


> *More than 70 people* who ran in their district's primaries have been accused of supporting QAnon in some way, *the vast majority of them Trump supporters*.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 25, 2020)

ROFL. Trying to make rational explanations for a crack heads actions. You realize these are the type of people that will get high then drink windshield wiper fluid because they mistook it for a bottle of wine.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 25, 2020)




----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 26, 2020)




----------



## omgcat (Oct 26, 2020)

shamzie said:


> View attachment 229927
> 
> Another Black White supremacist! When will it end ?!?!



welp that didn't take long...

*50 Cent says 'Fu*k Donald Trump' in apparent retraction of endorsement*


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 26, 2020)

omgcat said:


> welp that didn't take long...
> 
> *50 Cent says 'Fu*k Donald Trump' in apparent retraction of endorsement*


I guarantee you that he wanted to stay black.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 26, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I guarantee you that he wanted to stay black.



Maybe he realized he can just say whatever they want him to say and vote with his wallet. 

She did offer to put out for his Biden vote.



> “So I haven’t heard back from him yet, but I am willing to, you know, seal the deal in more ways than one if he changes his mind and publicly denounces Donald Trump. I might be willing to go for another spin… if you know what I’m talking about,” she added with a grin.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 26, 2020)

Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/i/status/1320531772032110593

4 more years of George.  LOL

His wife tried so hard not to flinch.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 26, 2020)

*Early vote total exceeds 2016; GOP chips at Dems’ advantage*
https://apnews.com/article/election...da-elections-509ad83f6d40e08fb715da44548f62e0


> On Oct. 15, Democrats registrants cast 51% of all ballots reported, compared with 25% from Republicans. On Sunday, Democrats had a slightly smaller lead, 51% to 31%.
> 
> “At some point, Republicans have to vote,” said Michael McDonald, a University of Florida political scientist who tracks early voting on ElectProject.org. “You can’t force everyone through a vote center on Election Day. Are you going to expect all those Republicans to stand in line for eight hours?”


----------



## Rail Fighter (Oct 26, 2020)




----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 26, 2020)

For all the 0 IQ people in the thread that don't understand the US government is mostly a giant, criminal uni-party and Biden is their preferred puppet speaker for this criminal enterprise, here is what Biden is actually talking about when he and several other deep state speakers have made the threat of "dark winter":

https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/events-archive/2001_dark-winter/

This phrase is not a one-off.  It's been parotted all over the major news networks before Biden used it in his speech himself.  It's a threat that if the criminal "deep state" gets kicked out they will try to cause chaos to regain control.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 26, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> For all the 0 IQ people in the thread that don't understand the US government is mostly a giant, criminal uni-party and Biden is their preferred puppet speaker for this criminal enterprise, here is what Biden is actually talking about when he and several other deep state speakers have made the threat of "dark winter":
> 
> https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/events-archive/2001_dark-winter/
> 
> This phrase is not a one-off.  It's been parotted all over the major news networks before Biden used it in his speech himself.  It's a threat that if the criminal "deep state" gets kicked out they will try to cause chaos to regain control.


Calling people who disagree with you politically "0 IQ people" is petty hyperbolic nonsense that does nothing to contribute to positive discourse, and it makes people less likely to take you seriously.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 26, 2020)

I guess you haven't figured out yet that nobody has any interest in your constant spam of lies.  There's only six corporations that run the entire media and all are nothing but disinformation and propaganda outlets for the banks, CIA, and other criminal enterprises. 

And what do we have in this thread?  Some guy named "Lacius" who does absolutely nothing but parrot propaganda from the TV.  Does someone pay you to spam the forum with this nonsense?  It's not actually possible anyone believes the garbage from the television in the year 2020, but you sit here and parrot it word for word every single day pretending it's true.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 26, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> I guess you haven't figured out yet that nobody has any interest in your constant spam of lies.  There's only six corporations that run the entire media and all are nothing but disinformation and propaganda outlets for the banks, CIA, and other criminal enterprises.
> 
> And what do we have in this thread?  Some guy named "Lacius" who does absolutely nothing but parrot propaganda from the TV.  Does someone pay you to spam the forum with this nonsense?  It's not actually possible anyone believes the garbage from the television in the year 2020, but you sit here and parrot it word for word every single day pretending it's true.


I'm only getting paid by the lizard people. They've instructed me to make sure people like you don't get too close to the truth. The chemtrails take care of pretty much everyone else.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 26, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> I guess you haven't figured out yet that nobody has any interest in your constant spam of lies.  There's only six corporations that run the entire media and all are nothing but disinformation and propaganda outlets for the banks, CIA, and other criminal enterprises.
> 
> And what do we have in this thread?  Some guy named "Lacius" who does absolutely nothing but parrot propaganda from the TV.  Does someone pay you to spam the forum with this nonsense?  It's not actually possible anyone believes the garbage from the television in the year 2020, but you sit here and parrot it word for word every single day pretending it's true.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 26, 2020)

That's the funny part that shows you how there's zero validity to anything the left says.  They're like "Hey, bros.  We be communists n socialisms n sheeit up in here yo", then spend the rest of the day parroting disinformation from the six evil "capitalist" corporations that control the media.

Everything from them is either fraud, outright lies, or complete nonsense.  Like how they're constantly spamming that everyone who disagrees with them is a Natzee and how all Natzees must be destroyed, while their political party is run by billionaire Zionists like Soros.  Zionism is identical to Nazism just benefitting a different 'master race' group.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 26, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> That's the funny part that shows you how there's zero validity to anything the left says.  They're like "Hey, bros.  We be communists n socialisms n sheeit up in here yo", then spend the rest of the day parroting disinformation from the six evil "capitalist" corporations that control the media.


Lacius comes on here to discuss politics and debate the points he disagrees with.  If you two entered into a debate competition, I'd put my money on him and *wouldn't think twice about it*.  I wouldn't feel comfortable putting my money on someone who's best and only move is to personally attack his opponent.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 26, 2020)

Another nonsense, political hack post.  All you do is spam like for every deranged leftist post you see on the forum and then have the nerve to pretend to be an unbiased, outside observer LOL.  Yea, yea, it's difficult for people to not interject their own personal bias into analyzing something, but you people are the epitome of lying, biased, purposesly dishonest, leftist propagandists.

Your Marxist 'cause' comes first and things like facts and truth come last.  There was some guy the other day talking about how the truth is abhorrent to the left and it's not a value they embrace whatsoever.  I think everyone on the planet has seen that to be the case now. 

Even with the more innocuous, arguably less destructive, but still destructive lies the left pushes like there being 68 genders or whatever (completely fake and arbitrary number based on nothing), the only real goal is to try and push the idea facts and objective reality don't exist so reality can just be whatever nonsensical jibberish you make up.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 26, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Another nonsense, political hack post.  All you do is spam like for every deranged leftist post you see on the forum and then have the nerve to pretend to be an unbiased, outside observer LOL.  Yea, yea, it's difficult for people to not interject their own personal bias into analyzing something, but you people are the epitome of lying, biased, purposesly dishonest, leftist propagandists.
> 
> Your Marxist 'cause' comes first and things like facts and truth come last.  There was some guy the other day talking about how the truth is abhorrent to the left and it's not a value they embrace whatsoever.  I think everyone on the planet has seen that to be the case now.
> 
> Even with the more innocuous, arguably less destructive, but still destructive lies the left pushes like there being 68 genders or whatever (completely fake and arbitrary number based on nothing), the only real goal is to try and push the idea facts and objective reality don't exist so reality can just be whatever nonsensical jibberish you make up.




where is this "Marxist agenda" I'm supposed to be following again? like where do you get your material? you need professional help. you're spiraling into craziness and can't see up from down anymore. you're being manipulated into seeing invisible socialist and communists all around you. how can you stand to be that angry and afraid all the time? please get some help.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 26, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Another nonsense, political hack post.  All you do is spam like for every deranged leftist post you see on the forum and then have the nerve to pretend to be an unbiased, outside observer LOL.  Yea, yea, it's difficult for people to not interject their own personal bias into analyzing something, but you people are the epitome of lying, biased, purposesly dishonest, leftist propagandists.
> 
> *Your Marxist 'cause' *comes first and things like facts and truth come last.  There was some guy the other day talking about how the truth is abhorrent to the left and it's not a value they embrace whatsoever.  I think everyone on the planet has seen that to be the case now.
> 
> Even with the more innocuous, arguably less destructive, but still destructive lies the left pushes like there being 68 genders or whatever (completely fake and arbitrary number based on nothing), the only real goal is to try and push the idea facts and objective reality don't exist so reality can just be whatever nonsensical jibberish you make up.


Nice *association fallacy*.


> Lum Invader is a Biden supporter.
> Biden supporters can be marxists.
> Therefore, Lum Invader is a marxist.


I'm a capitalist, *not* a marxist.  Your reliance on stereotypes is sloppy; a byproduct of your reliance on Ad Hominum attacks in place of logic.  This is precisely why Lacius would run circles around you in a moderated debate.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 26, 2020)

It's not possible for you people to be this clueless.  That's why this nonsense you're typing has to be just flat out lies.  The leftist zerg in the year 2020 is not pushing "capitalism".  It's pushing socialism and 'reparations'.  If you don't believe in that stuff, you have no place in that zerg.

You're trying to mislead people pretending you can be a cultural Marxist SJW and economic capitalist at the same time.  Your cultural Marxist social ideology revolves entirely around censorship, propaganda, authoritarianism, and fighting against freedoms like freedom of association.

Economic socialism is a virtually required and natural byproduct of cultural Marxism due to trying to artificially engineer equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity.  There's always going to be lazy or stupid people so you can never engineer equality of outcome without dragging the rest of civilization down to their level.  Which exemplifies the meme of socialism being ensuring misery for all then claiming that's fair.

But the biggest crime in your bad judgement is the failure to ask the question of just why the left is constantly pushing things like socialism and UBI nonstop right now.  These ideas did NOT originate at a 'grass roots' level.  The ideas are handed down to the left from up high from the evil corporations and Soros billionaires while the mindless automatons repeat the slogans as puppets, just like anything else the left does because it's mostly inhabitated by physically and mentally frail and weak people who can only feel strong in some type of collective and not by themselves.

You would have to understand economics to understand what's going on, which virtually nobody in the left does.  All debt based, fractional reserve, fiat currencies collapse.  The goal of the establishment, the billionaires, and the evil bankers is to bootstrap a new digital only slavery system and integrate people into it before this one collapses.  They can do that through things like UBI and then can just turn off any dissidents bank account at will. 

If they fail to trick people into their new digital slavery system, everyone just goes back to physical metals when this system blows up, but they're psychopaths and want control and slavery over everyone on earth.  Their plans are right out in the open.  The first person of any significance to really expose it was ironically a Sephardic Jewish movie producer named Aaron Russo around the year 2006.

A lot of leftists don't like Alex Jones, but his interview of Aaron Russo is probably the best one.  Aaron Russo is mostly a Jewish liberal so pretending what he says is 'right wing propaganda' would be total nonsense.  He's in pictures with these evil bankers like the Rockefellers and Rothschilds too, so he did actually know them:



Without understanding the mind of the evil usury bankers through people like Aaron Russo blowing the whistle on them, it's impossible for leftists to understand just how dangerous all centralized, top-down, authoritarian systems of control are, which is ALL the left pushes.  

Anyone that understands the agenda of these bankers, "globalists", whatever you want to call them, would be pushing for shrinking government and removing all these centralized systems of control instead of expanding authoritarinism like the left wants.  They're basically lobbying for their own slavery.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 26, 2020)




----------



## Osakasan (Oct 26, 2020)

I just laugh histerically when any american speaks about marxism

Bitch, what for you is marxism, here in europe is basic human rights that only gets questioned by the farthest right there is, and with that i mean, in my country the only party that speaks about marxism is a literal fascist, pro-nazi party.

Your ideas, and the ideas of your beloved cheeto in chief, align with literal nazis'

The joke writes itself.


----------



## IncredulousP (Oct 26, 2020)

Osakasan said:


> Bitch, what for you is marxism, here in europe is basic human rights that only gets questioned by the farthest right there is,


Yeah, it sucks being American :/


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 26, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Like how they're constantly spamming that everyone who disagrees with them is a Natzee and how all Natzees must be destroyed, while their political party is run by billionaire Zionists like Soros.  Zionism is identical to Nazism just benefitting a different 'master race' group.


Like how you keep calling everyone that disagrees with you and doesn't want unfettered capitalism, Marxist, yet is somehow OK with how Trump got his healthcare.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 26, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> View attachment 231197


Forgive my lack of patience, but the House passed additional COVID-19 relief in May. The Republicans are the ones refusing to act, you idiot.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 26, 2020)

WATCH: As Biden starts to stumble with a question about court-packing his staff immediately starts escorting the camera out of the event. pic.twitter.com/8KLXiz3GAD— Francis Brennan (@FrancisBrennan) October 26, 2020


View attachment 231211


While the weekend at Biden's was in humor, his handlers seem to be living it.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 26, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> https://twitter.com/i/status/1320814970817433601
> 
> View attachment 231211
> 
> ...


Biden has already answered the question about court-packing. He wants to form a bipartisan court commission to study ways that would effectively fix the Supreme Court. He has reservations about court-packing, but he hasn't ruled it out if the commission determines it would be an effective fix. It's not hard to understand.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 26, 2020)

There is no "Biden thinks this or that", you lying scammer.  Everyone but the dumbest of fools knows everything on the TV is fake propaganda and lies and that every politician is just a grade Z actor/puppet.  We all know Biden is nothing but a useless puppet reading a script and is not 'leading' or 'thinking' anything.  

The only real question is if Trump is a puppet for the same criminal uni-party playing out his role in this fake WWF wrestling act too.  Since the six corporations that control the entire media run by the criminal banks and criminal corporations aren't very excited with the prospects of Trump winning, there's a bit of evidence that he's at least not a 100% owned puppet.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 26, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> There is no "Biden thinks this or that", you lying scammer.  Everyone but the dumbest of fools knows everything on the TV is fake propaganda and lies and that every politician is just a grade Z actor/puppet.  We all know Biden is nothing but a useless puppet reading a script and is not 'leading' or 'thinking' anything.
> 
> The only real question is if Trump is a puppet for the same criminal uni-party playing out his role in this fake WWF wrestling act too.  Since the six corporations that control the entire media run by the criminal banks and criminal corporations aren't very excited with the prospects of Trump winning, there's a bit of evidence that he's at least not a 100% owned puppet.


Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If I wanted to stoop to your level, I could just copy/paste your post, but switch the names "Biden" and "Trump."


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 26, 2020)

I still need some kind of explanation on how come the Supreme Court was totally fine since the day it was founded in 1789 and now, 231 years later, it's "broken". In all this time its size was only changed *6* times and never exceeded 10 justices. The last President who tried to pack it was FDR all the way back in 1937, and we know how that turned out - it stuck to 9. The precedent was set in 1869 and the only reason why the matter is being discussed at all is because Trump fulfilled his Constitutional duty and nominated a justice. God forbid we don't have a left-leaning SCOTUS majority reinterpreting the Constitution as they see fit instead of applying it as it is written, we can't have that, time to blow it up. Keep it at 9, take your lumps. The idea of packing the court has very little support, it would be entirely self-serving and against the will of "We the People".


----------



## omgcat (Oct 26, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I still need some kind of explanation on how come the Supreme Court was totally fine since the day it was founded in 1789 and now, 231 years later, it's "broken". In all this time its size was only changed *6* times and never exceeded 10 justices. The last President who tried to pack it was FDR all the way back in 1937, and we know how that turned out - it stuck to 9. The precedent was set in 1869 and the only reason why the matter is being discussed at all is because Trump fulfilled his Constitutional duty and nominated a justice. God forbid we don't have a left-leaning SCOTUS majority reinterpreting the Constitution as they see fit instead of applying it as it is written, we can't have that, time to blow it up. Keep it at 9, take your lumps. The idea of packing the court has very little support, it would be entirely self-serving and against the will of "We the People".



the constitution does not limit the supreme court, so changes can be made. the court is supposed to be non-partisan, and if it becomes so, it needs to be re-balanced. If the political will to increase the court is there, it will happen.


----------



## Driving_duck (Oct 26, 2020)

I don't know. Trump is pretty dumb on his handling of a lot of things, but calling biden better then trump is actually not true.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 27, 2020)

Driving_duck said:


> I don't know. Trump is pretty dumb on his handling of a lot of things, but calling biden better then trump is actually not true.


Biden is better than Trump by just about any objective metric I'm aware of.


----------



## Driving_duck (Oct 27, 2020)

Eh, your opinion, my opinion.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 27, 2020)

Driving_duck said:


> Eh, your opinion, my opinion.


I'm talking about objective measures, not opinions.


----------



## Driving_duck (Oct 27, 2020)

Oof, ya right, i just be like that just i don't get slaughtered by trump surrporters. I vote biden all of the way.


----------



## g00s3y (Oct 27, 2020)

Trump is a fucking idiot, and so is anyone who supports him.

The mental gymnastics people do to justify bullshit... amazing.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 27, 2020)

Driving_duck said:


> Oof, ya right, i just be like that just i don't get slaughtered by trump surrporters. I vote biden all of the way.


Trump supporters are far from anything to be afraid of.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 27, 2020)

So, the senate speed runs a SCJ nomination, then immediately closes up til after the election without working on COVID aid. Seems legit.


----------



## biggj (Oct 27, 2020)

It's funny how you Americans think that one pile of shit is better than another pile of shit. Biden is no better than trump. Although you will get fucked over more with biden because the media and everyone else other than fox news won't hold him accountable. At least with Trump, every stupid thing he does will be scrutinized, with Biden it won't be. Don't get me wrong, you're fucked either way...you just won't see it coming Biden is the only difference and you will be told its acceptable what he does by everyone.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 27, 2020)

biggj said:


> It's funny how you Americans think that one pile of shit is better than another pile of shit. Biden is no better than trump. Although you will get fucked over more with biden because the media and everyone else other than fox news won't hold him accountable. At least with Trump, every stupid thing he does will be scrutinized, with Biden it won't be. Don't get me wrong, you're fucked either way...you just won't see it coming Biden is the only difference and you will be told its acceptable what he does by everyone.


This kind of lazy thinking that neither is better than the other is as wrong as it is dangerous. The differences between Trump and Biden are stark.

The ironic thing is that the "they're both awful politicians" school of thought is a line the Trump campaign is trying to sell to people who would never vote for Trump so they don't vote for Biden.


----------



## IncredulousP (Oct 27, 2020)

Honestly I have no hope for USA. I think the right have pushed things past the tipping point. Education is terrible, social media and news outlets manipulate fools on a large scale, rights are being taken away, poverty is increasing, medical treatment is both terrible and costly on the country (ironically a socialist healthcare system would be cheaper for all), terrorism by the right is becoming more frequent, corrupt police state is growing, and considerable portions of the population think basic human rights and general improvements are somehow proponents of fascism, ironically supporting what actually does lead to fascism.
I'm looking to move out of this shit hole country of morons if covid ever lifts, which isn't going to be any time soon because these conservative morons don't believe in or even have the capacity to understand the most basic of science and human decency.
I respect political ideals other than my own, with exception of conservatism. Conservatism, fascism, is the worst thing to have risen from humanity. It lacks empathy, instead feeding off self-interest and primal instinct. It is the antithesis of evolution. It is a festering cancer that degrades every society is spreads to. It lies, manipulates, and muddles the facts, exploiting all of humanity's weaknesses, in order to move power to an extremely small portion of the population to the dismay of the majority. It is tyranny of the minority. Those that support it are either malicious and greedy, or simply fools. And I'm not sure which one is more dangerous.
The worst part is that fascism is in plain sight. Yet conservatives still flock to it, like moths to a flame. Supporting a machine that is against their self interests.


----------



## Soulsilve2010 (Oct 27, 2020)

I had really wanted to vote for Bernie Sanders and was considering Andrew Yang but now there's no telling who'll win this for sure...


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 27, 2020)

omgcat said:


> the constitution does not limit the supreme court, so changes can be made. the court is supposed to be non-partisan, and if it becomes so, it needs to be re-balanced. If the political will to increase the court is there, it will happen.


The SCOTUS is an apolitical body, they get lifetime tenure specifically to ensure that exerting political pressure on them is not a huge concern. It's nonsensical to talk about partisanship when none of the justices are beholden to any political party. Last time a party *did exert political pressure* on the SCOTUS was under FDR, *it was the *Democrats*, and it was *with the threat of court-packing*, for the purposes of pushing through the New Deal without having to worry about the Supreme Court putting some of its provisions into question. Everybody can see what's happening here - some people may have short memories, I don't.

Say it how it is - you don't like the fact that the court is split in favour of conservative values for the first time in decades, rather than in favour of progressive ones. That much is true, but it's not a matter of partisanship - justices are split on ideological grounds, not by party alignment. I wouldn't even say that the court is split to an extent that warrants concern either since Justice Roberts has proven to be a wild card. It's 5-4 at best now that Barret replaced Ginsburg.

The actual reason why this is a problem for the Democratic party is that they've gotten mighty comfortable with using the SCOTUS to enshrine "rights" that are not at all enshrined by the Constitution, as opposed to using the far more difficult path of amending the Constitution as necessary. Liberal-leaning judges tend to treat it as a "living document" and adhere to the "spirit of the law" or some such nonsense, conservative ones tend to be textualists who are only concerned by what is and what is not written. There's already a system in place that enables changes to the Constitution and the SCOTUS should've never been used to bypass it.

If the Democrats want to claim that the court became partisan, they will have to show some examples of cases where such partisanship was evident - Barret was only just confirmed and they're already talking about it like it's a done deal with zero evidence. As for the legality of the move, of course Congress can do it - I've outlined that it has in the past, on multiple occasions. I was saying that there are no signs that the court "needs fixing" and that such a move has no support amongst the citizens - it's 100% political and, ironically, partisan to do so. The Democratic party doesn't like the result of the game, so they're going to change the rules - same modus operandi as usual. They won't be answering for their actions to a tribunal, but they will be answering to the American people. I certainly hope they won't make that mistake. Last time they were warned that they'll regret acting recklessly with American institutions "sooner than they think", and I think McConnel proved that he was correct in his estimation.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 27, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> The SCOTUS is an apolitical body, they get lifetime tenure specifically to ensure that exerting political pressure on them is not a huge concern. It's nonsensical to talk about partisanship when none of the justices are beholden to any political party. Last time a party *did exert political pressure* on the SCOTUS was under FDR, *it was the *Democrats*, and it was *with the threat of court-packing*, for the purposes of pushing through the New Deal without having to worry about the Supreme Court putting some of its provisions into question. Everybody can see what's happening here - some people may have short memories, I don't.
> 
> Say it how it is - you don't like the fact that the court is split in favour of conservative values for the first time in decades, rather than in favour of progressive ones. That much is true, but it's not a matter of partisanship - justices are split on ideological grounds, not by party alignment. I wouldn't even say that the court is split to an extent that warrants concern either since Justice Roberts has proven to be a wild card. It's 5-4 at best now that Barret replaced Ginsburg.
> 
> ...



The republicans have stepped over a line, it is now politically acceptable to re-balance the court, more than 60% of Americans wanted the senate to wait until after inauguration day to appoint another SCJ. Unlike with FDR, it is now a popular opinion that the court should be re-balanced due to the bad faith the GOP has shown. for it to be possible a few things would need to happen, like the dems taking the senate and the presidency which isn't a guarantee, but don't conflate the two scenarios, things are vastly different now. You're flattening 150 years of complex political maneuvering, this is not an apples to apples comparison. people's support of re-balancing the court was based on DJT not appointing a SCJ until after January 20th, but that didn't happen, so people are ok with the re-balance.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 27, 2020)

omgcat said:


> The republicans have stepped over a line, it is now politically acceptable to re-balance the court, more than 60% of Americans wanted the senate to wait until after inauguration day to appoint another SCJ. Unlike with FDR, it is now a popular opinion that the court should be re-balanced due to the bad faith the GOP has shown. for it to be possible a few things would need to happen, like the dems taking the senate and the presidency which isn't a guarantee, but don't conflate the two scenario's things are vastly different now. You're flattening 150 years of complex political maneuvering, this is not an apples to apples comparison.


Show me evidence of that. The latest polling I've seen showed that 54% of respondents were against packing the court, 32% were for it and the remainder had no opinion, IIRC. It's not rebalancing the court, this is another Democrat trick - changing the language used so that an egregious action seems more palatable. It's stacking it in their favour - we have a term for that and it's court packing. That's what it means, that's what it always meant.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 27, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> It's not possible for you people to be this clueless.  That's why this nonsense you're typing has to be just flat out lies.  The leftist zerg in the year 2020 is not pushing "capitalism".  It's pushing socialism and 'reparations'.  If you don't believe in that stuff, you have no place in that zerg.
> 
> You're trying to mislead people pretending you can be a cultural Marxist SJW and economic capitalist at the same time.  Your cultural Marxist social ideology revolves entirely around censorship, propaganda, authoritarianism, and fighting against freedoms like freedom of association.
> 
> ...



Note r0achtheunsavory's repeated references of "you," "your," "them," and "they" in a continuation of his *debunked association fallacy*, which underscores my original point.


> Person A is a Biden supporter.
> Biden supporters can be marxists.
> Therefore, Person A is a marxist.



According to the above* association fallacy*, the below link contains a list of trained marxists:

*List of Republicans who oppose the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...e_the_Donald_Trump_2020_presidential_campaign


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 27, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Show me evidence of that. The latest polling I've seen showed that 54% of respondents were against packing the court



Not even worth replying to those people.  They're probably bots because all they do is spam copy and paste garbage propaganda from the television.  Everyone knows everything on TV is fake and a lie, but they keep pushing the scam pretending it has any validity like nobody knows what they're doing.

They're spamming literal CIA propaganda from the TV while pretending to be 'anti-establishment'.  These people are so braindead it's painful to even watch.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 27, 2020)

Osakasan said:


> I just laugh histerically when any american speaks about marxism
> 
> Bitch, what for you is marxism, here in europe is basic human rights


Human rights don't exist.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 27, 2020)

The entire foundation of so called "human rights" was people recognizing rights "granted to them via God".  But the left is mostly composed of godless sodomites, devil worshippers, and other lunatics, so them talking about human rights and trying to twist the definition into something to fit their narrative is a laughable joke.

If you push the narrative that there is no God and society and western civilization in general are not founded upon things like the ten commandments and all that stuff, then basically anything goes, there are no rights, and the government can basically just murder you for fun if they want, or put you in a Roman colosseum with lions.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 27, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Not even worth replying to those people.  They're probably bots because all they do is spam copy and paste garbage propaganda from the television.  Everyone knows everything on TV is fake and a lie, but they keep pushing the scam pretending it has any validity like nobody knows what they're doing.
> 
> They're spamming literal CIA propaganda from the TV while pretending to be 'anti-establishment'.  *These people are so braindead it's painful to even watch.  *



Says the guy who uses the Unibomber and Alex Jones as reference material:


r0achtheunsavory said:


> A lot of leftists don't like *Alex Jones*, but his *interview of Aaron Russo is probably the best one*.





r0achtheunsavory said:


> Dude, stop deleting everyone's posts.  I was not "calling anyone names." * I simply stand by Ted Kaczynski's research* into what "liberalism" actually is.  Ted Kaczynski is no idiot.  He was a math genius and has been cited by plenty of left and right wingers.  His statement is that liberalism is a disorder based on inferiority complex.
> 
> You can read about it here.  Pretty much every intelligent person on the planet has read his stuff before from college professors to anyone else:
> 
> ...


Says the guy who claims election fraud:


r0achtheunsavory said:


> I guess you better stop trying to rig the election via new mail-in ballot laws then that bypass even conventional absentee ballot security.  The only way the election will be legitimate at all is if it's voted on completely normally like every other election without mail-in fraud.
> 
> They're sending out ballots for people's cats that have been dead 10 years to vote. * This is the most fraudulent election in the entire history of the US* and it's the dims trying to rig it:
> 
> https://apnews.com/fbcec393dc652a9ccdb2cc8aacb15895


Says the guy who claims Epstein's island was an Israeli government operation:


r0achtheunsavory said:


> It doesn't really matter who you vote for, *they're all compromised and blackmailed by these Israeli intelligence groups like Epstein was running* and will only do things against your interests and for Israeli interests.


'nuff said.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 27, 2020)

Epstein and Ghislane Maxwell are Israeli Mossad agents.  Nobody even disputes it.  It's not required for fake propaganda outlets like CNN to "fact check" objective reality for something to be true.  Ghislaine Maxwell's father Robert Maxwell was also an uncontested Israeli spy.

He was out on a boat and wound up dead.  They claim he "must have just fallen off the boat and drowned", but 99% chance somebody whacked him, as is the case for any spy that winds up dying under some type of mysterious circumcstance.  Just like Epstein seems to have vanished from the face of the earth under a similar, bogus story.

This is how government works.  Instead of Israeli building a bunch of tanks and airplanes to defend their Zionazi, rogue terror state, they just spend 1/100th the money sending spies to the US to blackmail US politicians into supporting infinite wars in the Middle East that do absolutely nothing to serve American interests.


----------



## wartutor (Oct 27, 2020)

omgcat said:


> The republicans have stepped over a line, it is now politically acceptable to re-balance the court, more than 60% of Americans wanted the senate to wait until after inauguration day to appoint another SCJ. Unlike with FDR, it is now a popular opinion that the court should be re-balanced due to the bad faith the GOP has shown. for it to be possible a few things would need to happen, like the dems taking the senate and the presidency which isn't a guarantee, but don't conflate the two scenarios, things are vastly different now. You're flattening 150 years of complex political maneuvering, this is not an apples to apples comparison. people's support of re-balancing the court was based on DJT not appointing a SCJ until after January 20th, but that didn't happen, so people are ok with the re-balance.


Wtf do they get their percentages at. I dont ever remember being asked nor do i know anyone that has been asked. Asking a group of 100 people that is of 90% democrat dont make up 60% of the entire population quit trying to speak for everyone with "fake news/poles"


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 27, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Epstein and Ghislane Maxwell are Israeli Mossad agents.  Nobody even disputes it. It's not required for fake propaganda outlets like CNN to* "fact check" objective reality* for something to be true.  Ghislaine Maxwell's father Robert Maxwell was also an uncontested Israeli spy.
> 
> He was out on a boat and wound up dead.  They claim he "must have just fallen off the boat and drowned", but 99% chance somebody whacked him, as is the case for any spy that winds up dying under some type of mysterious circumcstance.


Is MSM wrong to fact check QAnon?


----------



## Master X (Oct 27, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Not even worth replying to those people.  They're probably bots because all they do is spam copy and paste garbage propaganda from the television.



Gotta love the hilarity of someone claiming that people are spammy bots, when the vast majority of their own posts are in this very topic.
Not just that, but this topic is also the home of your earliest posts.

You join a gaming forum and spend pretty much all your time in the topic about politics. Are you paid by the post, or did you somehow get banned from The Donald or Free Republic?


----------



## Osakasan (Oct 27, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> The entire foundation of so called "human rights" was people recognizing rights "granted to them via God".  But the left is mostly composed of godless sodomites, devil worshippers, and other lunatics, so them talking about human rights and trying to twist the definition into something to fit their narrative is a laughable joke.
> 
> If you push the narrative that there is no God and society and western civilization in general are not founded upon things like the ten commandments and all that stuff, then basically anything goes, there are no rights, and the government can basically just murder you for fun if they want, or put you in a Roman colosseum with lions.



This is a parody account

It has to be.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 27, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Human rights don't exist.


He's also full of shit, not a single country in Europe is Marxist. Some have socialised health service. That's about the extent of it. Gets so tiresome replying to their lies.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 27, 2020)

IncredulousP said:


> Honestly I have no hope for USA. I think the right have pushed things past the tipping point. Education is terrible, social media and news outlets manipulate fools on a large scale, rights are being taken away, poverty is increasing, medical treatment is both terrible and costly on the country (ironically a socialist healthcare system would be cheaper for all), terrorism by the right is becoming more frequent, corrupt police state is growing, and considerable portions of the population think basic human rights and general improvements are somehow proponents of fascism, ironically supporting what actually does lead to fascism.
> I'm looking to move out of this shit hole country of morons if covid ever lifts, which isn't going to be any time soon because these conservative morons don't believe in or even have the capacity to understand the most basic of science and human decency.
> I respect political ideals other than my own, with exception of conservatism. Conservatism, fascism, is the worst thing to have risen from humanity. It lacks empathy, instead feeding off self-interest and primal instinct. It is the antithesis of evolution. It is a festering cancer that degrades every society is spreads to. It lies, manipulates, and muddles the facts, exploiting all of humanity's weaknesses, in order to move power to an extremely small portion of the population to the dismay of the majority. It is tyranny of the minority. Those that support it are either malicious and greedy, or simply fools. And I'm not sure which one is more dangerous.
> The worst part is that fascism is in plain sight. Yet conservatives still flock to it, like moths to a flame. Supporting a machine that is against their self interests.



Due to the rights provided to you in the USA, which are the same rights you wish to get rid of you're allowed to talk bad about the country and its leaders and are free to leave. If the Democrats get their way no one will be able to disagree with them without facing harsh punishment and your freedom to travel will be taken away. So if you do want to get out of the country I advise you get out while you still can. No one here is going to miss you anyway so don't let that door hit your ass on the way out.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I came across this infographic and thought I'd share it. It does question the Democrats claims and puts things into perspective regarding the new Supreme Court Justice. Democrats aren't on the side of liberty and freedom and are conniving, lying, manipulating scum.


----------



## ut2k4master (Oct 27, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> *image*


so instead of disproving any of the democrats points the image is just pure whataboutism. guess that didnt go as well as youve planned, lol


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 27, 2020)

ut2k4master said:


> so instead of disproving any of the democrats points the image is just pure whataboutism. guess that didnt go as well as youve planned, lol



What didn't go as planned? I pointed out how the Democrats are the ones dividing the country and I wasn't replying to rebuke anyone's statements. Are you stoned, drunk or do your comprehension skills suck that badly? There's no "what about ism", there's simply "look at why these people are scum".


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 27, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I came across this infographic and thought I'd share it. It does question the Democrats claims and puts things into perspective regarding the new Supreme Court Justice. Democrats aren't on the side of liberty and freedom and are conniving, lying, manipulating scum.


* boycotting isn't the same as not showing up, unless they were tasked with stuff. This part is grasping for straws.
(FFS, man. "democrats not showing up at an inauguration" is an argument a 12-year old should have outgrown)
* fake news. The washington post REPORTED that campaigns against Trump were launched (source). They didn't declare shit. And even if you swap words, the answer is still "yes, absolutely. Because he insisted "on maintaining ownership of his luxury hotel and golf course business while in office" "
* Trump again. This was when he divided congress to the point that republicans in congress literally allowed blatant corruption
* once again: Trump. It's your authorities who had all the evidence that Russia collided in the 2016 elections, but Trump blatantly dismissed it.

Yeah...think for yourselve, indeed. Did you even bother to factcheck any of that, or did you just copy-pasted that picture from a random guy with a Russian accent?


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 27, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> * boycotting isn't the same as not showing up, unless they were tasked with stuff. This part is grasping for straws.
> (FFS, man. "democrats not showing up at an inauguration" is an argument a 12-year old should have outgrown)
> * fake news. The washington post REPORTED that campaigns against Trump were launched (source). They didn't declare shit. And even if you swap words, the answer is still "yes, absolutely. Because he insisted "on maintaining ownership of his luxury hotel and golf course business while in office" "
> * Trump again. This was when he divided congress to the point that republicans in congress literally allowed blatant corruption
> ...



I've got no need to fact check the claims because I was around to witness the validity of all of them after they happened.


----------



## Rail Fighter (Oct 27, 2020)




----------



## omgcat (Oct 28, 2020)

on the more factual side of things, fivethrityeight put out some info about what effect the last debate had on the race so far. spoilers: not much. positive numbers for Biden, negative numbers for trump. so -9 means trump leads by 9%.
collecting the 37 polls from around 10/22 to now.







October surprises generally don't have a huge effect (2016 being the exception), and we can see that reflected here.

with an aggregate lead of 9.1%, Biden would need to drop 1% per day or more, every day from today, until Nov 3rd to be within the margin of error. well, actually it needs to be more than that because people are voting day by day instead of all on the 3rd.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 28, 2020)

Omgcat, I can't agree with you no longer. Polls don't exist, they are a hoax.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 28, 2020)

The media and democrats that attempt to hide and provide cover for this stuff for Joe and his family are despicable.  

can I change my vote is still trending on all search engines.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1321245932890001411?s=20


----------



## omgcat (Oct 28, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Omgcat, I can't agree with you no longer. Polls don't exist, they are a hoax.



;_;

god i don't understand why women don't like trump, i mean he says he's sending their husbands back to work.

Same with the senior voters, his daughter says the coronavirus is over, and obviously she is such a great scientist that the white house can quote her in an official capacity. why would seniors be worried? it's not like the virus is spiking all over the country in the largest numbers so far, especially in rural areas.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 28, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> The media and democrats that attempt to hide and provide cover for this stuff for Joe and his family are despicable.
> 
> can I change my vote is still trending on all search engines.
> 
> ...




If the laptop mess is actually real, Giulliani waited WAAAAY to long to release that shit. people are so done with politics they don't want to dig through pages of stuff to find basically nothing. if they had something as simple as "$750", they could have made a difference. if i was gonna try to sway the election in the same way, i would have started releasing stuff around 9/14, enough time for it to build up steam and be easily consumed, while also understanding that people are going to vote early this election. sucks when people are incompetent.


----------



## wartutor (Oct 28, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Due to the rights provided to you in the USA, which are the same rights you wish to get rid of you're allowed to talk bad about the country and its leaders and are free to leave. If the Democrats get their way no one will be able to disagree with them without facing harsh punishment and your freedom to travel will be taken away. So if you do want to get out of the country I advise you get out while you still can. No one here is going to miss you anyway so don't let that door hit your ass on the way out.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> I came across this infographic and thought I'd share it. It does question the Democrats claims and puts things into perspective regarding the new Supreme Court Justice. Democrats aren't on the side of liberty and freedom and are conniving, lying, manipulating scum.


I just cant wait for russia to cast their vote this year and shut all these democrats up. Well until the next impeachment hearings.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 28, 2020)

omgcat said:


> If the laptop mess is actually real, Giulliani waited WAAAAY to long to release that shit. people are so done with politics they don't want to dig through pages of stuff to find basically nothing. if they had something as simple as "$750", they could have made a difference. if i was gonna try to sway the election in the same way, i would have started releasing stuff around 9/14, enough time for it to build up steam and be easily consumed, while also understanding that people are going to vote early this election. sucks when people are incompetent.



Many people are far from done, and I believe many have buyers remorse that voted early.   All search engine trending seems to indicate that.   Average people started looking into the laptop data/details after the last debate.  All search engine trending reflects that also.  Those are likely common people I would guess.  And then having people like Adam Schiff making comments on things he has NO business commenting on as truth coupled with much of liberal media is a disservice to this country.

I believe this is what the pollsters will blame the inaccurate polling on when Trump is re-elected.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 28, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Many people are far from done, and I believe many have buyers remorse that voted early.   All search engine trending seems to indicate that.   Average people started looking into the laptop data/details after the last debate.  All search engine trending reflects that also.  Those are likely common people I would guess.  And then having people like Adam Schiff making comments on things he has NO business commenting on as truth coupled with much of liberal media is a disservice to this country.
> 
> I believe this is what the pollsters will blame the inaccurate polling on when Trump is re-elected.



you know buyers remorse cuts both ways right? it could just as likely be people who early voted for trump and then watched him make an ass of himself in 2 debates and a 60 minutes episode.


----------



## wartutor (Oct 28, 2020)

omgcat said:


> If the laptop mess is actually real, Giulliani waited WAAAAY to long to release that shit. people are so done with politics they don't want to dig through pages of stuff to find basically nothing. if they had something as simple as "$750", they could have made a difference. if i was gonna try to sway the election in the same way, i would have started releasing stuff around 9/14, enough time for it to build up steam and be easily consumed, while also understanding that people are going to vote early this election. sucks when people are incompetent.


From the looks of it Giulliani waited to get him into office so he can be impeached and his vp can become pres. Only reason to wait this late.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 28, 2020)

wartutor said:


> From the looks of it Giulliani waited to get him into office so he can be impeached and his vp can become pres. Only reason to wait this late.



i thought the GOP hated Harris more than Biden, I mean if Harris did become president, she gets to pick her own VP, so I'm not sure why they would bother. Like imagine they kick out Biden, then get Warren or Bernie or Buttigeg as VP instead.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 28, 2020)

omgcat said:


> you know buyers remorse cuts both ways right? it could just as likely be people who early voted for trump and then watched him make an ass of himself in 2 debates and a 60 minutes episode.



LOL,

Not at all likely in my opinion.

And I am sure Biden will win PA with what he said that night.

I do not believe it is a coincidence that on 10/22/20 "joe biden laptop" started trending on all search engines.

And then moving forward from that point, can I change my vote started trending and started to GROW much larger in frequency.

I can follow signs and all signs point to it being democrats.  Most people in general don't like things being hidden from them or feeling like they are being hoodwinked.  And if they are just average people who don't have TDS, that can be quite a shock.

First you had social media censoring this whole thing which totally blew up in their faces.. LOL  Then you have democrats bald face lying and saying its Russia Russia Russia again.  Then when it got to the debates, average joe's (lol) got a glimpse at what is being spoken of and those types of people started searching it out.  And when you have someone like this guy Tony Bobulinski who is putting himself out there for the average person to see how corrupt they are and everything else.  People will straight up believe EVERYTHING then. 

And certain news organizations basically ignoring this or parroting the russia aspect all over again is not helping them.

Guess who started trending in search engines today?  Tony Bobulinski


----------



## omgcat (Oct 28, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> LOL,
> 
> Not at all likely in my opinion.
> 
> ...



or people could be worried that COVID is fucking the USA, even in rural area's. for example:






this is a chart made from today. the entire rust belt is getting fucked by covid, it's no longer a "hoax" to people in rural areas like it was in March/April. Hospitals are being overrun, and people who have sick loved ones are pissed at the president for saying this thing is "contained"

here are three charts showing covid cases in rural areas at different times this year. 







remember, rural voters over-all have more health complications, less health coverage, and less savings than non-rural people. perhaps people are pissed that the president is angling to kill ACA and remove protections for pre-existing conditions.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 28, 2020)

omgcat said:


> or people could be worried that COVID is fucking the USA, even in rural area's. for example:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah I don't think it is that.

I would put money on my logic.  It all lines up.

And I don't see anyone saying Trump caused their loved one to die, outside the same democrats that lie through their teeth and democrats that hold up aid. 

Where I am everyone blames the governor, not Trump.  There are also ones ignoring any orders because they CAN'T AFFORD to live being shut down again.  Neither side is blaming Trump that I can see.

Maybe they just need to wear 2 or 3 surgeons masks.  I guess 1 was not cutting it.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 28, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Yeah I don't think it is that.
> 
> I would put money on my logic.  It all lines up.
> 
> ...



democrats that hold up aid? you mean the democrats that run the senate and decided to push through a SCJ and then immediately close the senate til after the election? those democrats? that's right, mitch isn't a democrat, and he had no intentions of extending aid at all after the first stimulus. he said so himself, hell he even told the president to stop working with the dems in the house cause it wasn't going to happen.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 28, 2020)

omgcat said:


> democrats that hold up aid? you mean the democrats that run the senate and decided to push through a SCJ and then immediately close the senate til after the election? those democrats?



Dude, they could have put through a 700 billion dollar package 2 months ago that focused on the PEOPLE, the schools, and small business.  Dems wanted nothing to do with it.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 28, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Dude, they could have put through a 700 billion dollar package 2 months ago that focused on the PEOPLE, the schools, and small business.  Dems wanted nothing to do with it.


you mean the 700 billion stimulus package that would scrap the payroll tax and fuck up social security and still claw back that money after a year? i wonder why the dems didn't like that bill, can't quite put my finger on it. oh yeah, the GOP senators had zero intentions of negotiating anything other than liability protections for companies and more loans for companies. that's why it never went anywhere. maybe the democrats realized that PPP loans won't stop people from missing rent and food, and giving companies the ability to put their employees at risk is retarded too. but yeah, please tell me which side actually wants to help the average voter.

but yeah, people are worried about covid when hospitals are overflowing and situations like this are popping up everywhere:


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 28, 2020)

omgcat said:


> you mean the 700 billion stimulus package that would scrap the payroll tax and fuck up social security and still claw back that money after a year? i wonder why the dems didn't like that bill, can't quite put my finger on it. oh yeah, the GOP senators had zero intentions of negotiating anything other than liability protections for companies and more loans for companies. that's why it never went anywhere.



LOL the payroll tax was a separate thing, not part of what I was referring to.  

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presiden...-obligations-light-ongoing-covid-19-disaster/

Trump did that because again the dems wanted so much shit in the package and it was going nowhere, I don't even remember now what their package was, 2.5 Trillion, 3?  I can't even remember.  

Even the dems had enough of Nancy Pelosi and her BS.  You can live in your reality where everything is Trumps fault but many are not buying it anymore.  

And we will soon see how accurate the polls were.  I am guessing again, not accurate.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 28, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Even the dems had enough of Nancy Pelosi and her BS.



The Heroes act was passed in the house back in may with almost full support (
207 Yea 14 Nay 12 Absent 90+% support from present members and 1 republican)
) from the Dems, it has been waiting for a vote in the senate for months. if the bill never had a chance, why won't mitch bring it up for a vote? which dems have had enough of pelosi?

some things the bill would do:


provides FY2020 emergency supplemental appropriations to federal agencies;
provides payments and other assistance to state, local, tribal, and territorial governments;
*provides additional direct payments of up to $1,200 per individual;*
*expands paid sick days, family and medical leave, unemployment compensation, nutrition and food assistance programs, housing assistance, and payments to farmers;*
modifies and expands the Paycheck Protection Program, which provides loans and grants to small businesses and nonprofit organizations;
*establishes a fund to award grants for employers to provide pandemic premium pay for essential workers;*
expands several tax credits and deductions;
provides funding and establishes requirements for COVID-19 testing and contact tracing;
*eliminates cost-sharing for COVID-19 treatments;*
*extends and expands the moratorium on certain evictions and foreclosures; and
*
*requires employers to develop and implement infectious disease exposure control plans.*

but yeah, tell me how much republicans actually care about normal people when they won't publically vote on this bill.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



crimpshrine said:


> Dude, they could have put through a 700 billion dollar package 2 months ago that focused on the PEOPLE, the schools, and small business.  Dems wanted nothing to do with it.



i'm still curious which bill you were referring to that was 700Bn that actually would help people?


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 28, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I've got no need to fact check the claims because I was around to witness the validity of all of them after they happened.


... But you apparently weren't there to witness what lead up to those moments. Still: thanks for your honesty.


----------



## wartutor (Oct 28, 2020)

omgcat said:


> or people could be worried that COVID is fucking the USA, even in rural area's. for example:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is laughable. Most half educated citizens knew this would happen as soon as schools started back up and has nothing to do with democrats or republicans. Now they could of slowed the spread down if they kept sports and academic functions closed but hey people are not that smart...so maybe they didnt know that opening schools would cause that, fuck its a paradox. Damn its trumps fault again.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 28, 2020)

wartutor said:


> This is laughable. Most half educated citizens knew this would happen as soon as schools started back up and has nothing to do with democrats or republicans. Now they could of slowed the spread down if they kept sports and academic functions closed but hey people are not that smart...so maybe they didnt know that opening schools would cause that, fuck its a paradox. Damn its trumps fault again.



hey, our president is saying that covid is over, nothing to worry about now.

seriously:

*White House lists ending Covid-19 pandemic as an accomplishment despite cases spiking to record levels*


----------



## wartutor (Oct 28, 2020)

omgcat said:


> hey, our president is saying that covid is over, nothing to worry about now.
> 
> seriously:
> 
> *White House lists ending Covid-19 pandemic as an accomplishment despite cases spiking to record levels*


The great work the Trump Administration is doing to end the pandemic is a top priority and worthy of highlighting," she said in an email.

The internal report that the news release was describing did not say that the Covid-19 pandemic is over. It merely touted the administration's various actions to fight it.

"Since the start of the pandemic, the Administration has taken several actions to engage scientists in academia, industry, and government to understand and defeat this disease," the report says.

It later states that the administration's vaccine initiative "Operation Warp Speed, public-private partnerships, and other decisive actions taken by the Trump Administration have provided American scientists, engineers, and healthcare professionals with the knowledge, tools, and technologies needed to understand and defeat this 'invisible enemy.' "


Quoted straight from your source how about read and understand what you are quoting.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 28, 2020)

It's an endemic, not a pandemic.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 28, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> It's an endemic, not a pandemic.



an endemic would be like ebola contained widely in one country, a pandemic is many countries. COVID has infected nearly every country on the planet.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



wartutor said:


> The great work the Trump Administration is doing to end the pandemic is a top priority and worthy of highlighting," she said in an email.
> 
> The internal report that the news release was describing did not say that the Covid-19 pandemic is over. It merely touted the administration's various actions to fight it.
> 
> ...



except the news release sent out from the white house highlighted "ENDING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC" specifically. you have to go pages into the report to get the clarification. saying one thing, then when asked about the false statement, they say it means another thing. it's bullshit. Trump himself said that covid was "turning the corner" and then shit got way worse. more than 500,000 people tested positive this week.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 28, 2020)

omgcat said:


> an endemic would be like ebola contained widely in one country, a pandemic is many countries. COVID has infected nearly every country on the planet.


https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/what-is-an-endemic-virus


----------



## omgcat (Oct 28, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> https://www.health.com/condition/infectious-diseases/coronavirus/what-is-an-endemic-virus



local->endemic->epidemic->pandemic ->(treatments/containment) -> endemic

that article is stating that once the virus is contained globally, it probably won't go away completely, it will spike in countries every now and then.

in other fun covid news, apparently covid can induce an autoimmune disorder, which would explain the "long haulers" that are still sick months after contracting the virus.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.21.20216192v1


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 28, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> It's an endemic, not a pandemic.


The Spanish Flu pandemic lasted for more than 2 years (February 1918 – April 1920) while spreading across the globe in 4 waves.  As of today, the Covid-19 pandemic has been spreading in the US for roughly 9 months and is only now entering it's 2nd wave.

Additionally, the vast majority of Covid-19 stories published in the past week that mention the word endemic warn that it *may* become endemic, but that it's not yet categorized as such.  When or if the medical community starts referring to it as an endemic you will know it.

Covid-19 + endemic stories published in the past week:

https://www.google.com/search?q=endemic+covid-19&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:w&sa

Covid-19 + endemic stories published in the past month:

https://www.google.com/search?q=endemic+covid-19&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:m&sa


----------



## wartutor (Oct 28, 2020)

omgcat said:


> except the news release sent out from the white house highlighted "ENDING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC" specifically. you have to go pages into the report to get the clarification. saying one thing, then when asked about the false statement, they say it means another thing. it's bullshit. Trump himself said that covid was "turning the corner" and then shit got way worse. more than 500,000 people tested positive this week.


 Dont quote semantics when your "eye catching" Fake new report title mis-quotes what is said in the document to invoke anger and  spread misinformation to try and make trumps party look bad in the eye of the uneducated. Just like you tried to do reposting that fake news garbage packaged towards people that wouldnt actually read it, then try arguing your point afterwards. Thats all democrats do is post "FAKE SHIT" and content taken out of txt "injecting bleach anyone" to try and anger the masses against him BECAUSE THEY DONT HAVE ANYTHING REAL TO SCREAM.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 28, 2020)

wartutor said:


> Dont quote semantics when your "eye catching" Fake new report title mis-quotes what is said in the document to invoke anger and  spread misinformation to try and make trumps party look bad in the eye of the uneducated. Just like you tried to do reposting that fake news garbage packaged towards people that wouldnt actually read it, then try arguing your point afterwards. Thats all democrats do is post "FAKE SHIT" and content taken out of txt "injecting bleach anyone" to try and anger the masses against him BECAUSE THEY DONT HAVE ANYTHING REAL TO SCREAM.



it's not an eye catching title, that shit is literally in the bullet points presented. to get the truth you need to go pages into the report.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...fice-pandemic-ended-covid-cases-b1387794.html

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump...-the-trump-white-houses-we-ended-covid-report

https://thehill.com/policy/healthca...ce-says-trump-ended-covid-pandemic-as-us-hits

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/...dministration-says-it-ended-the-pandemic.html

it's the same shit as "we brought our health plan" and it's a 300 page book of bullshit.


----------



## wartutor (Oct 28, 2020)

omgcat said:


> it's not an eye catching title, that shit is literally in the bullet points presented. to get the truth you need to go pages into the report.


And some fake news channel deemed it ok to "make it look like they said it out of content" in order to full the ignorant even after they read pages into it in order to spread FALSE information "fake news" because they didnt have anything real to report...well that they are allowed to report on. (Bidens laptop is a no go. For some odd reason its not news worthy even though a large % of people are trying to ask google because the news has FAILED to deliver the NEWS.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 28, 2020)

wartutor said:


> And some fake news channel deemed it ok to "make it look like they said it out of content" in order to full the ignorant even after they read pages into it in order to spread FALSE information "fake news" because they didnt have anything real to report...well that they are allowed to report on. (Bidens laptop is a no go. For some odd reason its not news worthy even though a large % of people are trying to ask google because the news has FAILED to deliver the NEWS.



which sources are fake news and why? what counts as a "non-fake news source"?


----------



## wartutor (Oct 28, 2020)

omgcat said:


> which sources are fake news and why? what counts as a "non-fake news source"?


Anyone using a misleading title in order to generate clicks/viewers like the one u just posted equals "fake news." Now i do give your last source credit in saying half way through the artical what was realy said in the document but most would of read the title and instantly be like "oh no they didnt just say that its not over hell theres a million new cases a day bla bla bla. Just like u said when u posted the p.o.s article.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 28, 2020)

wartutor said:


> Anyone using a misleading title in order to generate clicks/viewers like the one u just posted equals "fake news." Now i do give your last source credit in saying half way through the artical what was realy said in the document but most would of read the title and instantly be like "oh no they didnt just say that its not over hell theres a million new cases a day bla bla bla. Just like u said when u posted the p.o.s article.



except the white house literally sent out a memo saying "the coronavirus pandemic is over", but said the opposite in the attached report.

*"The record was broken Tuesday, even as the Trump administration announced what it called its first-term scientific accomplishments, in a press release that included “ENDING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC” written in bold, capital letters."
*
you can't "fake news" away shit that happens in real life.


----------



## wartutor (Oct 28, 2020)

omgcat said:


> except the white house literally sent out a memo saying "the coronavirus pandemic is over", but said the opposite in the attached report.
> 
> *"The record was broken Tuesday, even as the Trump administration announced what it called its first-term scientific accomplishments, in a press release that included “ENDING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC” written in bold, capital letters."
> *
> you can't "fake news" away shit that happens in real life.


Again only reporting certain things in the captions and taking things out of content to try to mis-inform people. But i see your one of those that gobbles everything news says instead of thinking for yourself and im waisting my time replying to you, so unless your goin to pay me $100 an hour im not goin to hold your hand and talk you through it taking baby steps so you understand basic deception. Keep living in your world i will live in mine.


Edit here the actual file for you to see it doesnt say what u state in the title.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 28, 2020)

The virus being deadly is fake news. It's time for everyone to get out and get back to work. Who cares what it's classified as by a bunch of morons as the facts are if you get the damned thing you're probably not even going to know about it without a test let alone get sick or even get remotely close to dying.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 28, 2020)

omgcat said:


> The Heroes act was passed in the house back in may with almost full support (
> 207 Yea 14 Nay 12 Absent 90+% support from present members and 1 republican)
> ) from the Dems, it has been waiting for a vote in the senate for months. if the bill never had a chance, why won't mitch bring it up for a vote? which dems have had enough of pelosi?
> 
> ...



List the ENTIRE contents of the bill.  And the total cost.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 28, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> List the ENTIRE contents of the bill.  And the total cost.



Before Trump came along the normal practice for Congress was to pack all sorts of unrelated things into their spending bills. The last proposed bill for the Chinese Wuhan Corona Virus contained all sorts of provisions for things unrelated to the virus and like most American's Trump didn't like that. 

Trump is an outsider that doesn't like the bullshit like most of the general population. He's forcing Congress the change their ways and they don't like that as they can't get all sorts of pork added to their bills anymore.

I support him because no one needs trillions of debt added onto the US economy for things completely unrelated to the virus in a bill that's supposed to be about relief due to the overreaction to a virus that's not even that serious.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 28, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Before Trump came along the normal practice for Congress was to pack all sorts of unrelated things into their spending bills. The last proposed bill for the Chinese Wuhan Corona Virus contained all sorts of provisions for things unrelated to the virus and like most American's Trump didn't like that.
> 
> Trump is an outsider that doesn't like the bullshit like most of the general population. He's forcing Congress the change their ways and they don't like that as they can't get all sorts of pork added to their bills anymore.
> 
> I support him because no one needs trillions of debt added onto the US economy for things completely unrelated to the virus in a bill that's supposed to be about relief due to the overreaction to a virus that's not even that serious.



I agree GS.

That's why I asked them to include the entire bill.  The ones who are democrat apologists here just focus on only the things they believe support whatever their current crazy argument is.

The republicans wanted to give the people money, shore up the schools and small business months ago.  The dems (Pelosi mostly) Would not have accepted anything unless it included all their extra BS.

If the dems really cared about getting aid to the people they had MANY chances, they blew them all.  They could have attempted to take up their other BS at another time.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 28, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I agree GS.
> 
> That's why I asked them to include the entire bill.  The ones who are democrat apologists here just focus on only the things they believe support whatever their current crazy argument is.
> 
> ...



Well, the be fair it does take two the tango. Both Pelosi and Trump share the blame of not being able to work together, but Pelosi is solely to blame for trying to add unrelated bullshit to the spending bill. Trump is doing the right thing, but they both share some level of blame.


----------



## GCS (Oct 28, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> The virus being deadly is fake news. It's time for everyone to get out and get back to work. Who cares what it's classified as by a bunch of morons as the facts are if you get the damned thing you're probably not even going to know about it without a test let alone get sick or even get remotely close to dying.


Yeah, then let's go out everybody, who cares about the virus right? Corona only has a 2% chance to kill after all...  To prove that it's stupid to stay at home, let's calculate what would be the death people count (approx.) in the US if we did go out:

- Let's say 60% of the US population got the virus and then a cure has found.
- US has a population of 328.2 million (2019, according to Google)
- Approx. 2% chance to die because of the virus.
In the end, *ONLY 4 Million People* die! Why we didn't think about this in the first place? It's GENIUS.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 28, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Well, the be fair it does take two the tango. Both Pelosi and Trump share the blame of not being able to work together, but Pelosi is solely to blame for trying to add unrelated bullshit to the spending bill. Trump is doing the right thing, but they both share some level of blame.



I agree it does take two to tango.  And the direct relationship between Pelosi and Trump is/was non existent.

After she ripped up his state of the union speech it was pretty clear TDS guides her choices.

I can't blame certain republicans for speaking out and pushing back, every time the pork was uncovered in the dem versions.

The dems knew what was required to get this (is it 4th?) stimulus across Trumps desk.  They could have accomplished this over 2 months ago.  If they truly wanted to get something into the hands of people that needed it at that point in time, they could have got that taken care of and then started to work on a 5th one.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 28, 2020)

https://www.foxnews.com/media/lapdog-press-blacks-out-explosive-tony-bobulinski-claims






Tony Bobulinski continues to trend on all search engines.



Again for those that missed it.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 28, 2020)

GCS said:


> Yeah, then let's go out everybody, who cares about the virus right? Corona only has a 2% chance to kill after all...  To prove that it's stupid to stay at home, let's calculate what would be the death people count (approx.) in the US if we did go out:
> 
> - Let's say 60% of the US population got the virus and then a cure has found.
> - US has a population of 328.2 million (2019, according to Google)
> ...



Those are just estimates as the death rate has greatly been reduced because most people recover from treatment or don't even get sick to begin with. There's plenty of things in life with a greater death risk, yet people drive around in cars or smoke substances with no worries about the future. So yes, it was a mistake to shut down and it's a mistake to keep hiding from something that's not even that deadly.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



crimpshrine said:


> I agree it does take two to tango.  And the direct relationship between Pelosi and Trump is/was non existent.
> 
> After she ripped up his state of the union speech it was pretty clear TDS guides her choices.
> 
> ...



Since Liberals are pretty stupid and don't even mind the "pork" added to the bills I'm pretty sure Pelosi has stalled the negotiations to make Trump look bad because it's election time. Those fucks in Congress have their jobs and are used to slipping shit by on the American public so they lose nothing personally from putting off giving much needed money to the citizens that have been basically forced to not work or are too scared to leave their houses. I'm sure if Trump had the ability to put together a spending plan then one would already have passed, but since it's Congress job to be the American piggy bank we're stuck waiting for them to give up their bullshit tactics they used in the past and start working with the President on this issue. Though, the thing is, they don't want to give up their ability to throw unrelated things into spending bills as they are creatures that don't want to leave their swamp.


----------



## GCS (Oct 28, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Those are just estimates as the death rate has greatly been reduced because most people recover from treatment or don't even get sick to begin with. There's plenty of things in life with a greater death risk, yet people drive around in cars or smoke substances with no worries about the future. So yes, it was a mistake to shut down and it's a mistake to keep hiding from something that's not even that deadly.


No,  these aren't just "estimates", these are facts that have been declared by the US Government. I even calculated with a lower death ratio (the normal one was 4%). There is no such thing as "that deadly" every human life matters. And yes there can be more deadly things out there, but this doesn't mean that we shouldn't take any precautions. As an example, you just said that people are driving cars but they are taking precautions like putting on their safety belts.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 28, 2020)

GCS said:


> No,  these aren't just "estimates", these are facts that have been declared by the US Government. I even calculated with a lower death ratio (the normal one was 4%). There is no such thing as "that deadly" every human life matters. And yes there can be more deadly things out there, but this doesn't mean that we shouldn't take any precautions. As an example, you just said that people are driving cars but they are taking precautions like putting on their safety belts.



The virus isn't ever going to go away. It's with us now like every other virus is. It's stupid to keep hiding from something that's most likely not going to kill you. Lastly, yes, your 4 million death figure is just an estimate as you nor the Government can tell the future.

EDIT: By the way, the survival rate is 99.8% across the board. Your 4% figure it sorta off.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 28, 2020)

funny but it's not


----------



## GCS (Oct 28, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> The virus isn't ever going to go away. It's with us now like every other virus is. It's stupid to keep hiding from something that's most likely not going to kill you. Lastly, yes, you 4 million death figure is just an estimate as you nor the Government can tell the future.


You can't deny the fact that vaccine projects are getting better day by day and most probably there will be a vaccine found in 2021 (and the vaccine may already have been found in Russia.), and until that moment we should do as much as we can to decrease the possible death count. Yes, I can't tell the future but you don't see the big picture: *There will be deaths*, maybe lower than I found or maybe even higher than I found.

EDIT: I just saw your edit, yes you were right, the normal number was lower than 4%


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 28, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> View attachment 231570
> 
> funny but it's not



It's just sad that the main stream media won't barely even cover the peace deals or get close to mentioning the Biden scandals. What's even worse is their portrayal of the violent deadly riots and looting as some sort of peaceful unrest. The main stream media is so fucking slanted and really needs to be held accountable for their lies. What about the Supreme Court Justice? All they focus on is what the Democrats want to do to get revenge over something they had no control over and that's what pissed them off the most. Liberals aren't remotely happy unless they are intruding into other peoples lives and telling them what they can or cannot think or do. What a bunch of pathetic pieces of shit.


----------



## notimp (Oct 28, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> It's just sad that the main stream media won't barely even cover the peace deals or get close to mentioning the Biden scandals. What's even worse is their portrayal of the violent deadly riots and looting as some sort of peaceful unrest. The main stream media is so fucking slanted and really needs to be held accountable for their lies. What about the Supreme Court Justice? All they focus on is what the Democrats want to do to get revenge over something they had no control over and that's what pissed them off the most. Liberals aren't remotely happy unless they are intruding into other peoples lives and telling them what they can or cannot think or do. What a bunch of pathetic pieces of shit.


I've personally told you five times, that the 'peace deals' are largely military financial contracts to link together two former conflict partners in the region in the interest of economic and security interests.

Its literally facilitating the strongarm move of squashing all legitimate interests, that people in the west tried to support for two centuries. "Ignoring that" in the interest of 'a greater good fifty years from now ' (hey, at least the region might be stable), is about all an informed public can stomach.

If you want your glory parade on letting israels colonialist policies literaly destroy the westbank, and turkey whiping out the curds, and Iran figuratively being economically choked into submission - its VERY HARD to give you that, considering how people have been informed, that all those where legitimate interests, valued ethnic groups, and so on - in the past.

So just because you now replicate ultra right wing TALKING POINTS about Kushner having been the best deal maker ever. (Bullshit, Saudi Arabia just lost influence in the region and now could be pressured into taking the US backed sweetheart deal option, to loose that influence long term. In favor of not loosing even more influence) It doesnt mean its real (the Kushner glorification thing). And it doesnt mean that people wouldnt laugh in your face, once you try.

For once, stop picking up Q-Anon and infowars talking points.

And making it the fault of all media - that this is how it panned out.

For gods sake, the Propaganda surrounding this was flipping horrible to watch. Like a toddler got access to the means, and methods, but entirely lacked taste, and or public support:


edit: Basically this:
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/2...-military-pacts-signed-with-malicious-intent/

Didnt vet the source. But facts like 'palestinians werent invited to their own 'peace talks'' are a little hard to hide.

Just imagine how easy it is to get you as a cheerleader on other issues, if you miss stuff like that. I basically could make you demand anything, as long as I write it on an alt right blog somewhere.

edit: The reason why its not talked more openly about as a glorification play is, that not more people start going - *huh* whatdoyaknow, media told me all that crap that turned out not to be important at all. Turns out in the end you just go with US interests and the biggest moneyed interests in the region, and snuff out the rest.

Well - under a Trump administration. (Or probably ANY administration, that didnt mind being 'hawkish' on issues, right after a few successful military coups. Because those interests "winning" was not a surprise to anyone who'd bank on US interests being the decinding factor in the region. (At least by proxy.))


----------



## notimp (Oct 28, 2020)

@gregory-samba 

Here - watch this:


I think there is much 'truth' in there. And its controversial.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 28, 2020)

wartutor said:


> Again only reporting certain things in the captions and taking things out of content to try to mis-inform people. But i see your one of those that gobbles everything news says instead of thinking for yourself and im waisting my time replying to you, so unless your goin to pay me $100 an hour im not goin to hold your hand and talk you through it taking baby steps so you understand basic deception. Keep living in your world i will live in mine.
> 
> 
> Edit here the actual file for you to see it doesnt say what u state in the title.



are you actually retarded?
read what you posted. to help you're reading comprehension i have circled the words in red and underlined them.






omgcat said:


> *"The record was broken Tuesday, even as the Trump administration announced what it called its first-term scientific accomplishments, in a press release that included “ENDING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC” written in bold, capital letters."*


----------



## Whole lotta love (Oct 28, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> How long has Jeff Bezos had to build up his reputation as a web designer?


I don't understand your point. Jeff Bezos is not a web designer.



> You do have control over where you work. You know how much you'll make before you get the job.


No, I mean workers having democratic control over their workplaces. Deciding how things run, how much everyone gets paid, who will hold management positions (if anything).



> Weaponry is a human right. I demand a tank, and I want you to pay for it and its ammunition.


What?



> How well off are people on welfare?


What kind of welfare? Is there a specific program you're referring to, or do you mean anyone who receives any sort of benefit from any government?


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 28, 2020)

I like how we're at the stage of delusion where the Trump administration, the first administration that didn't start any wars or large-scale, long-term military conflicts since Jimmy Carter's, is "hawkish". And no, I don't count blowing up terrorist figureheads as "war", I call it "taking out the trash". For once an American president hasn't started any fights that future administrations would be forced to clean up - in fact, much of the forces have been withdrawn from areas where they have no business being, but let's call him a warlord anyway because it's an election cycle. The myopia is palpable.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Oct 28, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I like how we're at the stage of delusion where the Trump administration, the first administration that didn't start any wars or large-scale, long-term military conflicts since Jimmy Carter's, is "hawkish". And no, I don't count blowing up terrorist figureheads as "war", I call it "taking out the trash". For once an American president hasn't started any fights that future administrations would be forced to clean up - in fact, much of the forces have been withdrawn from areas where they have no business being, but let's call him a warlord anyway because it's an election cycle. The myopia is palpable.



If you don't think engaging in warfare with enemies labelled "terrorist" by the US military apparatus is "war" then George W. Bush, George H. Bush, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama weren't "hawkish" either.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 28, 2020)

Whole lotta love said:


> No, I mean workers having democratic control over their workplaces. Deciding how things run, how much everyone gets paid, who will hold management positions (if anything).


One little issue with that line of thinking. It's not your money. Your workplace and everything in it belongs to the business owner and it's the responsibility of the owner to run it, either towards success or into the ground. When you put three people in a room and two of them decide in a democratic vote that they're going to take the third's money, we call that a mugging. The idea that workers should have *any* control over hiring or wages is tantamount to supporting theft, plain and simple. When you're hired, you sign a contract which obligates you to fulfil its terms for an agreed upon wage. If you think you don't earn enough, renegotiate by asking for a raise. You'll very quickly find out if you're underpaid or if you've overvalued your contribution to the business. You can also choose to quit.



Whole lotta love said:


> If you don't think engaging in warfare with enemies labelled "terrorist" by the US military apparatus is "war" then George W. Bush, George H. Bush, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama weren't "hawkish" either.


Dropping a bomb on one guy is very different than a land, sea and air invasion of a foreign state and toppling its government for giggles.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 28, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> One little issue with that line of thinking. It's not your money. Your workplace and everything in it belongs to the business owner and it's the responsibility of the owner to run it, either towards success or into the ground. When you put three people in a room and two of them decide in a democratic vote that they're going to take the third's money, we call that a mugging. The idea that workers should have *any* control over hiring or wages is tantamount to supporting theft, plain and simple. When you're hired, you sign a contract which obligate you to fulfil its terms for an agreed upon wage. If you think you don't earn enough, renegotiate by asking for a raise. You'll very quickly find out if you're underpaid or if you've overvalued your contribution to the business. You can also choose to quit.



ROFL. Like if you're flipping hamburgers you get to dictate to the leadership how they will operate their business.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Oct 28, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> One little issue with that line of thinking. It's not your money. Your workplace and everything in it belongs to the business owner and it's the responsibility of the owner to run it, either towards success or into the ground. When you put three people in a room and two of them decide in a democratic vote that they're going to take the third's money, we call that a mugging. The idea that workers should have *any* control over hiring or wages is tantamount to supporting theft, plain and simple. When you're hired, you sign a contract which obligate you to fulfil its terms for an agreed upon wage. If you think you don't earn enough, renegotiate by asking for a raise. You'll very quickly find out if you're underpaid or if you've overvalued your contribution to the business. You can also choose to quit.



I disagree with that framing. I believe that profit is theft. If my boss pays me $15/hour and makes $30/hour from my labor, I consider that theft because they are stealing value from my labor.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 28, 2020)

Whole lotta love said:


> I disagree with that framing. I believe that profit is theft. If my boss pays me $15/hour and makes $30/hour from my labor, I consider that theft because they are stealing value from my labor.



You're thinking is damaged then. If you want to run your own business then go make one, but if you're working for someone else it's not your place to tell them how to run their business as that would likely get you fired then you'd be making $0.00 per hour.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 28, 2020)

Whole lotta love said:


> I disagree with that framing. I believe that profit is theft. If my boss pays me $15/hour and makes $30/hour from my labor, I consider that theft because they are stealing value from my labor.


Profit is the single solitary motive to engage in any business activity ever and it has lifted the majority of world's population from poverty. This is an undeniable fact.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 28, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Profit is the single solitary motive to engage in any business activity ever and it has lifted the majority of world's population from poverty. This is an undeniable fact.



money makes people less poor, what logic.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Oct 28, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> You're thinking is damaged then. If you want to run your own business then go make one, but if you're working for someone else it's not your place to tell them how to run their business as that would likely get you fired then you'd be making $0.00 per hour.




I'm not really interested in what demands workers ought to be allowed to make. A socialist system that does not operate on profit and instead produces to meet the needs of the community would be more efficient than one designed for people to get rich (ie hoard resources and power).



Foxi4 said:


> Profit is the single solitary motive to engage in any business activity ever and it has lifted the majority of world's population from poverty. This is an undeniable fact.



Capitalism is the cause of that poverty in the first place. There are a lot of issues with how the World Bank calculates poverty worldwide (largely because they don't really adjust for inflation) but you might be interested to know the vast majority of those people being lifted out of "poverty" (as defined by the World Bank) is due to China industrializing under the Chinese Communist Party.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 28, 2020)

omgcat said:


> money makes people less poor, what logic.


That's correct.

https://fee.org/articles/extreme-poverty-rates-plummet-under-capitalism/



Whole lotta love said:


> Capitalism is the cause of that poverty in the first place. There are a lot of issues with how the World Bank calculates poverty worldwide (largely because they don't really adjust for inflation) but you might be interested to know the vast majority of those people being lifted out of "poverty" (as defined by the World Bank) is due to China industrializing under the Chinese Communist Party.


Complete and utter nonsense based on all available data. The opposite is true.

Capitalist principles have enabled an unprecedented decrease in poverty rates. The global rate of extreme poverty decreased by 50% just between 1990 and 2013. Communism on the other hand killed around a 100 million people within 100 years of its prominence because, as it turns out, people don't necessarily want to share and you need an aparathus of violence and repression to take from them by force.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 28, 2020)

Whole lotta love said:


> I'm not really interested in what demands workers ought to be allowed to make. A socialist system that does not operate on profit and instead produces to meet the needs of the community would be more efficient than one designed for people to get rich (ie hoard resources and power).



Well, we don't live under a socialist system and you're also wrong. If you give the Government the power to dictate every move you make you'll have even less freedom to demand the place you work at do things for you that you don't deserve. Do you really think that you can change basic human nature and somehow replace the current Government with 100% honest people? LOL, boy, you're in for a reckoning.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 28, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Well, we don't live under a socialist system and you're also wrong. If you give the Government the power to dictate every move you make you'll have even less freedom to demand the place you work at do things for you that you don't deserve. Do you really think that you can change basic human nature and somehow replace the current Government with 100% honest people? LOL, boy, you're in for a reckoning.


It's easy to feed people when you kill half of them, take everything they had and feed the other half with what you reaped. One small problem - at some point you run out of villages to pillage. The single solitary reason why China is doing well right now is because *it adopted capitalist principles* in terms of business while maintaining the oppressive regime in power. They learned from U.S.S.R's failings which prevented the country from disintegrating. Giants on clay legs.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Oct 28, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> That's correct.
> 
> https://fee.org/articles/extreme-poverty-rates-plummet-under-capitalism/
> 
> ...



Then why did "communism" lift most of the people out of poverty in the 20th century?



gregory-samba said:


> Well, we don't live under a socialist system and you're also wrong. If you give the Government the power to dictate every move you make you'll have even less freedom to demand the place you work at do things for you that you don't deserve. Do you really think that you can change basic human nature and somehow replace the current Government with 100% honest people? LOL, boy, you're in for a reckoning.



Yes, we don't live under a socialist system and I think we should, which is why I voted for a socialist.

Right now businesses and the government have incredibly strong control over our lives. I live in the US which is a surveillance state because of the gross expansion of the surveillance state after 9/11 alongside the unregulated growth of big tech. Google and Apple have tremendous control over what people say and track people's every move. They work hand in fist with federal agencies to monitor and repress individuals who step out of line of what is acceptable political thought and action.

A libertarian socialist structure similar to what is in practice in Rojava, Cherán, and EZLN controlled areas of Chiapas would drastically improve the quality of life of the working class here by giving power directly to the people and tearing down the authoritarian structures of the US Government and big business. Libertarian socialism avoids the pitfalls of previous socialist projects by decentralizing power.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 28, 2020)

Whole lotta love said:


> Then why did "communism" lift most of the people out of poverty in the 20th century?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good luck trying to fire the entire current Government and replace them with perfect people. Never gonna happen.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Oct 28, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Good luck trying to fire the entire current Government and replace them with perfect people. Never gonna happen.


I agree that's not feasible which is why I'm not arguing for that. Please don't strawman me.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 28, 2020)

Whole lotta love said:


> I agree that's not feasible which is why I'm not arguing for that. Please don't strawman me.



Lives in America, complains about capitalism. Like It's impossible for you to get on a plane and move to Venezuela or Cuba. 
Why dont you move to one of them countries? If I hated the system I lived under in my country I'd get out, and yet ... you don't. Curious eh.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 28, 2020)

Whole lotta love said:


> I agree that's not feasible which is why I'm not arguing for that. Please don't strawman me.



Not a strawman at all. If you want a perfect system of government you'll have to remove the current one - completely, as it's full of dishonest people who do bad things and those types would ruin any attempt at socialism.

Think  about it. Do you ever lie, cheat, steal, curse, sleep around? I'm sure you've done at least one of those things in your lifetime and you and every single other person would have to stop all of those behaviors and a lot more to even come close to being able to have a socialist system that would function.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 28, 2020)

Whole lotta love said:


> Then why did "communism" lift most of the people out of poverty in the 20th century?


It didn't.

The process of industrialisation under the Chinese Communist Party you're referring to, aka "The Great Leap Forward" caused wide-spread famine due to poor agricultural policy, killing around 55 million people through starvation, not to mention the lives lost through systematic murder of political dissidents. The country didn't get any better until they "stopped leaping" and started trading with the Western powers. What saved China was capitalism, and U.S. policy that advocated mutually beneficial trade with them, as opposed to spending them out of existence like they did with the Soviets.


> The exact number of famine deaths is difficult to determine, and estimates range from upwards of 30 million, to 55 million people. Because of the uncertainties involved in estimating famine deaths caused by the Great Leap Forward or any famine, it is difficult to compare the severity of different famines. However, if a low estimate of 30 million deaths is accepted, the Great Leap Forward was the deadliest famine in the history of China and in the history of the world.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward

This is a familiar tune since the same thing happened in Ukraine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Sounds like a great plan, sign me up. For the record, I'm *from* a post-Soviet country, I was born before the Berlin Wall fell, so the false song you're singing here isn't going to work. The policies you espouse have failed everywhere they were tried and resulted in genocide every single time. It's not "going to work this time", it doesn't work.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 28, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> It didn't.
> 
> The process of industrialisation under the Chinese Communist Party you're referring to, aka "The Great Leap Forward" caused wide-spread famine due to poor agricultural policy, killing around 55 million people through starvation, not to mention the lives lost through systematic murder of political dissidents. The country didn't get any better until they "stopped leaping" and started trading with the Western powers.
> 
> ...



I do often wonder why the party that hates old white rich men want socialism as a form of Government. That's their solution? Elect an old rich white man to implement a system made by old rich white men that only benefits the leaders of that system and gives the Government complete control over them taking away any freedoms they had before hand. Seems to sort of counter their value system. Why the USA school system keeps producing these types I'll never know.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Oct 28, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Lives in America, complains about capitalism. Like It's impossible for you to get on a plane and move to Venezuela or Cuba.
> Why dont you move to one of them countries? If I hated the system I lived under in my country I'd get out, and yet ... you don't. Curious eh.



This is such a weird argument. Do you believe that everyone who wants to change something about the US government should move away?
All my friends and family are here.



gregory-samba said:


> Not a strawman at all. If you want a perfect system of government you'll have to remove the current one - completely, as it's full of dishonest people who do bad things and those types would ruin any attempt at socialism.
> 
> Think  about it. Do you ever lie, cheat, steal, curse, sleep around? I'm sure you've done at least one of those things in your lifetime and you and every single other person would have to stop all of those behaviors and a lot more to even come close to being able to have a socialist system that would function.



I'm not calling for an ideal system, I'm calling for a better system.



Foxi4 said:


> It didn't.
> 
> The process of industrialisation under the Chinese Communist Party you're referring to, aka "The Great Leap Forward" caused wide-spread famine due to poor agricultural policy, killing around 55 million people through starvation and even more through systematic murder of political dissidents. The country didn't get any better until they "stopped leaping" and started trading with the Western powers.



The World Bank statistic you referenced about people being lifted out of poverty is largely because of China. Do you want to walk that back? Do you disagree with World Bank?



> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward
> 
> This is a familiar tune since the same thing happened in Ukraine:
> 
> ...



Yes these were horrendous tragedies and point to the pitfalls of strongly centralized state socialism.

If you consider famines and massacres being proof of an economic system being untenable you must really hate capitalism then:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_famine_of_1928

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_famine_of_1942

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes


----------



## scroeffie1984 (Oct 28, 2020)

#SAVETHEKIDS


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 28, 2020)

Whole lotta love said:


> The World Bank statistic you referenced about people being lifted out of poverty is largely because of China. Do you want to walk that back? Do you disagree with World Bank?


I'm adding context to it. It's hard to be poor when you're dead.


> Yes these were horrendous tragedies and point to the pitfalls of strongly centralized state socialism.
> 
> If you consider famines and massacres being proof of an economic system being untenable you must really hate capitalism then:
> 
> ...


The Bengal famine was caused by the wartime effort and colonialism, not capitalism. I de facto put all the Chinese famines in the bin as well - communists starving is nothing new. The Irish Potato Famine was a natural disaster - capitalism didn't cause it. U.S. war crimes are a nebulous term that means nothing in isolation, I can easily reply with "U.S.S.R. war crimes".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes

Hey, remember when the communists rounded up the Polish intelligencia and clergy, shot everyone in the head and put them in a hole in the ground in the middle of a forest? We remember.

It's funny when you think about it - people from all over the world fought and died to escape or destroy the system you are willingly lining up to participate in.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Oct 28, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm adding context to it. It's hard to be poor when you're dead.
> The Bengal famine was caused by the wartime effort and colonialism, not capitalism. I de facto put all the Chinese famines in the bin as well - communists starving is nothing new. The Irish Potato Famine was a natural disaster - capitalism didn't cause it. U.S. war crimes are a nebulous term that means nothing in isolation, I can easily reply with "U.S.S.R. war crimes".
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes
> ...



British Colonialism was 100% a capitalist endeavor.... Why do you think they setup all those colonies and used their resources to maintain? It made money.

Saying the Bengal Famine was okay because of the war is the exact same argument Stalinists make to brush off the Holodomor. Neo-Nazis make this argument to justify many of the deaths in German concentration camps as well. In all these instances it is completely ahistorical.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 28, 2020)

Whole lotta love said:


> British Colonialism was 100% a capitalist endeavor.... Why do you think they setup all those colonies and used their resources to maintain? It made money.
> 
> Saying the Bengal Famine was okay because of the war is the exact same argument Stalinists make to brush off the Holodomor. Neo-Nazis make this argument to justify many of the deaths in German concentration camps as well. In all these instances it is completely ahistorical.


Thankfully you're still young, you'll grow wiser with age. Hopefully sooner rather than later.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Oct 28, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Thankfully you're still young, you'll grow wiser with age. Hopefully sooner rather than later.


This not an argument.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 28, 2020)

Whole lotta love said:


> This not an argument.



Nope, just facts of life.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Oct 28, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Nope, just facts of life.



Ah yes, there are no old socialists. Just a simple fact of life.


----------



## IncredulousP (Oct 28, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Thankfully you're still young, you'll grow wiser with age. Hopefully sooner rather than later.


What a lazy, desperate cheap shot from someone that knows they have no counter to an argument. Just accept that not only could you be wrong, but that you would be more wise to accept it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 28, 2020)

Whole lotta love said:


> This not an argument.


I don't need an argument. If you argued that the Earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around it, I wouldn't waste much time taking to you either - life experience will eventually do the job. Or it won't, no skin off my back, I won't lose any sleep over it. You can idolise totalitarian regimes to your heart's content - it's a free country. Chances are you'll grow out of it once you have something to lose - changing the stakes tends to change one's worldview.

China exists and thrives thanks to its adoption of capitalist principles, I don't even have to prove that - you know this to be demonstrably true because you typed out your responses on a device that, in all likelyhood, was manufactured in a Chinese factory and purchased via the capitalist system of exchange of goods and services. A device that wouldn't exist otherwise, mind you - no iPhones coming out of Cuba last I checked. This isn't even a debate worth having. Before adopting those principles the people of China were struggling to share a grain of rice - right now the country is prosperous, for the most part. The boom in Chinese economy can be easily traced back to their rejection of central planning in 1978, aka the "Opening of China" and the birth of what they call "socialist market economy" and what everybody else understands as "capitalism with an asterisk".


> Starting in 1970, the economy entered into a period of stagnation, and after the death of Mao Zedong, the Communist Party leadership turned to market-oriented reforms to salvage the failing economy. (...)The Communist Party authorities carried out the market reforms in two stages. The first stage, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, involved the de-collectivization of agriculture, the opening up of the country to foreign investment, and permission for entrepreneurs to start businesses. (...) The second stage of reform, in the late 1980s and 1990s, involved the privatization and contracting out of much state-owned industry. The 1985 lifting of price controls was a major reform, and protectionist policies and regulations soon followed, although state monopolies in sectors such as banking and petroleum remained. In 2001, China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO). The private sector grew remarkably, accounting for as much as 70 percent of China's gross domestic product by 2005. From 1978 until 2013, unprecedented growth occurred, with the economy increasing by 9.5% a year.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform

It seems to me, a casual observer, that the more China "de-Mao'd" itself the higher the rate of growth it was experiencing. Who would've thunk.


IncredulousP said:


> What a lazy, desperate cheap shot from someone that knows they have no counter to an argument. Just accept that not only could you be wrong, but that you would be more wise to accept it.


I don't have to prove self-evident truths. If he claims that black is white and white is black, the onus is on him to prove it. Historical record proves him wrong, if he doesn't accept that then he's in denial and I'm not his therapist - I charge for that, I'm not giving it away for free. See? Capitalism joke.


Whole lotta love said:


> Ah yes, there are no old socialists. Just a simple fact of life.


Chomsky is not exactly "a socialist", he's an anarcho-syndicalist. There's a bit of a difference there, in the sense that socialists want to use the long arm of the government to redistribute goods whereas anarcho-syndicalists, or "libertarian socialists" (an oxymoron if I've ever seen one) despise the state and stress liberty, community and freedom of association. He's as far from what you could describe as "a communist" as humanly possible.


> In his 1973 book _For Reasons of State_, Chomsky argues that instead of a capitalist system in which people are "wage slaves" or an authoritarian system in which decisions are made by a centralized committee, a society could function with no paid labor. He argues that a nation's populace should be free to pursue jobs of their choosing. People will be free to do as they like, and the work they voluntarily choose will be both "rewarding in itself" and "socially useful." Society would be run under a system of peaceful anarchism, with no state or other authoritarian institutions. Work that was fundamentally distasteful to all, if any existed, would be distributed equally among everyone.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Noam_Chomsky#Views_on_socialism_and_communism

That's not socialism, that's a hippie commune and the rejection of currency-based trading.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 28, 2020)




----------



## Deleted User (Oct 28, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> View attachment 231601


Wow... Graphs with % are very telling! Buuut... the numbers aren't on those graphs, and there is no comparison of the united states....
Almost as if you just looked for a image that supported your view. And proceeded to post it without question

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Also I'm going to bring up something since I am here. I find it fascinating that Trump is pulling out ads out of Florida when he is essentially at a statistical tie to put his ads else where.
I must ask, if he is somehow this supposed million air. And he raised a lot of money... Where did all that cash go?


----------



## notimp (Oct 28, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> The virus isn't ever going to go away. It's with us now like every other virus is. It's stupid to keep hiding from something that's most likely not going to kill you. Lastly, yes, your 4 million death figure is just an estimate as you nor the Government can tell the future.
> 
> EDIT: By the way, the survival rate is 99.8% across the board. Your 4% figure it sorta off.


You've heard the response to this ten times already. Its not just if its there or not, its the rate of infection that becomes an issue.

Moron.

When you have heard the answer to that issue of yours ten times, and you still refuse to pick it up, something is way off.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraSUPRA said:


>


Flipping Propaganda memes.

Sweden has a population density of

25.4 inhabitants per km2

Germany has one of

240 inhabitants per km2

New York City has one of
10.000 inhabitants per km2


ALL of what you will hear once the vaccinations start, ALL of it is, that you should take them, when you are asked to, because people are trying to cut corridors into spreadvectors. You can think of it like a forest fire. where you cut lains to stop the spread. Now think of what the situation would be if there were 10x fewer trees in the forest. On the same surface area. Everything would be easier, wouldnt it?

Both of you spread so much disinformation in this forum - its flipping unreal.

Not a single word that comes out of your mouths is normal. The moxy alone to post a meme that mocks the other political side of wanting to do what every f*cking country in the world - except for sweden did. The balls to make a virus that political, to the point, where you and you alone would F*CKING say, that people should act on this according to party lines.... Effing. unreal.

Also what a f*cking statistic is 'increase in covid deaths over the last two weeks'? You manipulating phoney? Are we doing cherry picked sampling again?

edit: Oh sh*t, jackpot. You are doing cherry picked sampling. what an ahole you are.

Infection rate in sweden as of today: Still looks near exponential to me.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 29, 2020)




----------



## omgcat (Oct 29, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Wow... Graphs with % are very telling! Buuut... the numbers aren't on those graphs, and there is no comparison of the united states....
> Almost as if you just looked for a image that supported your view. And proceeded to post it without question
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> ...




private jets, his son's book, and a crap load of filet o' fish and hamberders.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 29, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Also I'm going to bring up something since I am here. I find it fascinating that Trump is pulling out ads out of Florida when he is essentially at a statistical tie to put his ads else where.



not accurate, but not your fault cuz the lefty side of the internet went wild with that yesterday. The ads are still running and will continue to run in Florida, but paid by the RNC not the Trump campaign, which is diverting funding to other battleground states. In other words, there was a story there, just not the one that got reported.


----------



## rsx (Oct 29, 2020)

Even though he disgusts me and I do not like him, I still voted for Trump. Not because of him, but because he's been filling the ninth circuit and scotus with people who have some sensibility. They'll be there long after he's out of office. And the idea of the Harris Administration is filled with uncertainty and doubt, being that she was part of the police state for most of her life and put away a long list of innocent people who were later exonerated. If Biden wins, their plan is to put him out to pasture and let Harris take over. The guy is obviously showing signs of dementia and has a perverted infatuation with underage girls, more specifically smelling their hair and groping their shoulders. Granted, what Trump said about women four years ago was appalling, but we're talking about children here, that's where I draw the line. They're off-limits, no exceptions. 

Plus, Trump is already here and we already know what to expect if he has another four years. This has been the worst year in the history of ever and there's an old saying: A bird in hand is worth two in the bush. It's better to hold onto what we already have, rather than roll the dice and risk it for something better. The things we already have are better than the things we hope to get.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 29, 2020)

rsx said:


> Even though he disgusts me and I do not like him, I still voted for Trump. Not because of him, but because he's been filling the ninth circuit and scotus with people who have some sensibility. They'll be there long after he's out of office. And the idea of the Harris Administration is filled with uncertainty and doubt, being that she was part of the police state for most of her life and put away a long list of innocent people who were later exonerated. If Biden wins, their plan is to put him out to pasture and let Harris take over. The guy is obviously showing signs of dementia and has a perverted infatuation with underage girls, more specifically smelling their hair and groping their shoulders. Granted, what Trump said about women four years ago was appalling, but we're talking about children here, that's where I draw the line. They're off-limits, no exceptions.
> 
> Plus, Trump is already here and we already know what to expect if he has another four years. This has been the worst year in the history of ever and there's an old saying: A bird in hand is worth two in the bush. It's better to hold onto what we already have, rather than roll the dice and risk it for something better. The things we already have are better than the things we hope to get.


sensibility....
What is your definition of sensibility... When... the person that was just put on the SCOTUS... doesn't even know the last freedom given in the first amendment...

Also I don't find it very sensible for one color to get their picked ignored for 10 months until the color swaps and then put in the new colors pick. And then try justifying that to let the people choose. to only then 4 years later go back on that, and rush their nomination.


Also are we not going to forget to mention that one person actually wants to deal with the pandemic while the other refuses to really acknowledge it and do something?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 29, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> sensibility....
> What is your definition of sensibility... When... the person that was just put on the SCOTUS... doesn't even know the last freedom given in the first amendment...


The right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances?


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 29, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> The right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances?


yup. 



rsx said:


> Even though he disgusts me and I do not like him, I still voted for Trump. Not because of him, but because he's been filling the ninth circuit and scotus with people who have some sensibility. They'll be there long after he's out of office. And the idea of the Harris Administration is filled with uncertainty and doubt, being that she was part of the police state for most of her life and put away a long list of innocent people who were later exonerated. If Biden wins, their plan is to put him out to pasture and let Harris take over. The guy is obviously showing signs of dementia and has a perverted infatuation with underage girls, more specifically smelling their hair and groping their shoulders. Granted, what Trump said about women four years ago was appalling, but we're talking about children here, that's where I draw the line. They're off-limits, no exceptions.
> 
> Plus, Trump is already here and we already know what to expect if he has another four years. This has been the worst year in the history of ever and there's an old saying: A bird in hand is worth two in the bush. It's better to hold onto what we already have, rather than roll the dice and risk it for something better. The things we already have are better than the things we hope to get.


Back to my point, if you still want to vote right-wing. Vote for the librarian party. Trump is just going to cause a even bigger fire than he already caused.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 29, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Also I don't find it very sensible for one color to get their picked ignored for 10 months until the color swaps and then put in the new colors pick. And then try justifying that to let the people choose. to only then 4 years later go back on that, and rush their nomination.


That's the choice of the senate.


monkeyman4412 said:


> Also are we not going to forget to mention that one person actually wants to deal with the pandemic while the other refuses to really acknowledge it and do something?


Yes, one of them wants to lock down the country and mandate the injection of rushed vaccines that could potentially be more harmful than the virus itself...and the other "downplayed" the virus by recovering.


monkeyman4412 said:


> yup.


How, exactly?


monkeyman4412 said:


> Back to my point, if you still want to vote right-wing. Vote for the librarian party. Trump is just going to cause a even bigger fire than he already caused.


I'd be as likely to vote for Jo as I would for Joe. I can't vote, but if I could, Trump is the only good option.


----------



## wartutor (Oct 29, 2020)

omgcat said:


> are you actually retarded?
> read what you posted. to help you're reading comprehension i have circled the words in red and underlined them.View attachment 231590


Again you fucking retard picking and choosing words out of context and publishing a fake news story. Just like i described god damn dumb ass even did it himself. Go back a couple words from what you undderlined and it Completely says "TO UNDERSTAND, (NOTE THE COMMA) TREAT, (AGAIN COMMA), AND (SEE THE FUCKING AND HERE) CURE THE DESEASE. can you fucking read or does your dumb ass brain just pick and choose what it sees


----------



## omgcat (Oct 29, 2020)

wartutor said:


> Again you fucking retard picking and choosing words out of context and publishing a fake news story. Just like i described god damn dumb ass even did it himself. Go back a couple words from what you undderlined and it Completely says "TO UNDERSTAND, (NOTE THE COMMA) TREAT, (AGAIN COMMA), AND (SEE THE FUCKING AND HERE) CURE THE DESEASE. can you fucking read or does your dumb ass brain just pick and choose what it sees



does it, or does it not state *“ENDING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC”* as the title of the accomplishment? maybe they should have listed something more factual like "STARTED TACKLING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC" instead of using phrases that indicate that the pandemic is over?

or maybe we should list the actual things done by the administration such as *"MUZZLED SCIENTISTS*" or *"PASS A EO THAT LET'S ME FIRE ANYONE WE COULD WHO SAY THINGS ARE BAD"*.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 29, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> That's the choice of the senate.


So you'll be fine with the democrats if they take the senate filling up the supreme court then to even the numbers? I mean if it's that's the choice of the senate, then it's the choice of the senate right?


UltraSUPRA said:


> Yes, one of them wants to lock down the country and mandate the injection of rushed vaccines that could potentially be more harmful than the virus itself...and the other "downplayed" the virus by recovering.


https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/us-daily-positive
Yes while one of them doesn't even want to acknowledge a pandemic is happening until last second when he realized it was hurting his election chances. Refuses to listen to science. Refused to wear a mask. And he got covid. And then had to  get a treatment, that, by the way, is likely so expensive that if any of us got covid we wouldn't be able to pay for it. For him to only then state there is nothing to fear about it...
Who also btw, wasn't treated with your magical cure hydroxychloroquine, it's funny how he stopped promoting it. Almost as if it was a load of bs.




UltraSUPRA said:


> How, exactly?


she was asked a question about what is in the first amendment. if your being put on the supreme court, you should AT LEAAAST know what is in the first amendment as someone who could decide the final rule of the law.





UltraSUPRA said:


> I'd be as likely to vote for Jo as I would for Joe. I can't vote, but if I could, Trump is the only good option.


What polices and what has he done that makes you want to vote for him?


----------



## Whole lotta love (Oct 29, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't need an argument. If you argued that the Earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around it, I wouldn't waste much time taking to you either - life experience will eventually do the job. Or it won't, no skin off my back, I won't lose any sleep over it. You can idolise totalitarian regimes to your heart's content - it's a free country. Chances are you'll grow out of it once you have something to lose - changing the stakes tends to change one's worldview.



Why do you continue to engage with me and my arguments if you view my positions as akin to flat eartherism?



> China exists and thrives thanks to its adoption of capitalist principles, I don't even have to prove that - you know this to be demonstrably true because you typed out your responses on a device that, in all likelyhood, was manufactured in a Chinese factory and purchased via the capitalist system of exchange of goods and services. A device that wouldn't exist otherwise, mind you - no iPhones coming out of Cuba last I checked. This isn't even a debate worth having. Before adopting those principles the people of China were struggling to share a grain of rice - right now the country is prosperous, for the most part. The boom in Chinese economy can be easily traced back to their rejection of central planning in 1978, aka the "Opening of China" and the birth of what they call "socialist market economy" and what everybody else understands as "capitalism with an asterisk".
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform
> ...



Yes, the Chinese Communist Party liberalized it's economy under Deng, stripping many workers of protections and healthcare. The Tiananmen Square protests were largely organized by socialists against these capitalist measures. I don't consider contemporary China to be a socialist state as they continually repress workplace organizing and socialist organizing, much like the United States does. They are one more example of the failures of state socialism to liberate the working class from capitalist production.



> I don't have to prove self-evident truths. If he claims that black is white and white is black, the onus is on him to prove it. Historical record proves him wrong, if he doesn't accept that then he's in denial and I'm not his therapist - I charge for that, I'm not giving it away for free. See? Capitalism joke.


I have no interest in "self-evident truths". For many people, the earth being flat is a "self-evident truth". This is just another useless term like "common sense". What is common sense to one person is not to another based on their experiences and education.



> Chomsky is not exactly "a socialist", he's an anarcho-syndicalist. There's a bit of a difference there, in the sense that socialists want to use the long arm of the government to redistribute goods whereas anarcho-syndicalists, or "libertarian socialists" (an oxymoron if I've ever seen one) despise the state and stress liberty, community and freedom of association. He's as far from what you could describe as "a communist" as humanly possible.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Noam_Chomsky#Views_on_socialism_and_communism
> 
> That's not socialism, that's a hippie commune and the rejection of currency-based trading.



I have never heard Chomsky identify himself as an anarcho-syndicalist but I have heard him identify himself as a libertarian socialist, which is only relevant because if your lack of understanding of left politics. Anarcho-syndicalism is a form a socialism that many people (myself included) consider to be a much "truer" or more direct form of achieving socialism as it attempts to directly take democratic control over the means of production.

You can learn about libertarian socialism from Chomsky here.


I can also provide more resources if you would like to learn more about the differences between various leftist tendencies like Marxist-Leninism, Trotskyism, Black Anarchism, Left Communism, etc. because it sounds like you're not very well read in the area if you think anarcho-syndicalism is not socialism or that libertarian socialism, a term coined by French anti-state socialists, is an oxymoron.

Oxford provides a pretty good definition of socialism:





Statist leftist ideologies like Marxist-Leninism and anti-state ones like anarcho-syndicalism are all trying to achieve the goal of community control over the means off production (as opposed to control by a small group of business owners).

Anarcho-syndicalism or libertarian socialism, which are a little different but have a lot of overlap are both interested in redistributing wealth, they just don't want a state to do it for a variety of reasons, which I would be happy to educate you on if you like.

But I guess if you want to side with Stalinists and argue that Chomsky isn't a _real _socialist, here's an older marxist who self-identifies as a communist. Old socialists exist, believe it or not...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavoj_Žižek


----------



## wartutor (Oct 29, 2020)

omgcat said:


> does it, or does it not state *“ENDING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC”* as the title of the accomplishment? maybe they should have listed something more factual like "STARTED TACKLING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC" instead of using phrases that indicate that the pandemic is over?
> 
> or maybe we should list the actual things done by the administration such as *"MUZZLED SCIENTISTS*" or *"PASS A EO THAT LET'S ME FIRE ANYONE WE COULD WHO SAY THINGS ARE BAD"*.


Yes i can admit it should of been worded better but to pick and choose content from the paragraph to make a headline that does nothing but spread mis-information seams to be the way of the "fake news" media here of late. And democrats like yourself "that cant think for themselves (or have nothing worthy to blame the other side for) run with these "news stories" spreading the slander. Like a damn tabloid paper.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



monkeyman4412 said:


> Yes while one of them doesn't even want to acknowledge a pandemic is happening until last second when he realized it was hurting his election chances. Refuses to listen to science. *Refused to wear a mask*. And he got covid. And then had to  get a treatment, that, by the way, is likely so expensive that if any of us got covid we wouldn't be able to pay for it. For him to only then state there is nothing to fear about it...


He got covid after he started wearing the mask btw. Also your magical joe has been getting free healthcare for years now on the tax payers dime (and yes care you and me couldnt afford) so exactly how tf is that in anyway relevant.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 29, 2020)

wartutor said:


> He got covid after he started wearing the mask btw. Also your magical joe has been getting free healthcare for years now on the tax payers dime (and yes care you and me couldnt afford)


... _slight_ _manic laughter_
She shouldn't become pregnant!
I put the condom on after we had sex.
this is essentially your logic right now. It takes about two weeks for signs of covid to show up.
There was MORE than plenty of time for him to catch covid. as he was not wearing a mask.
Meanwhile Biden hasn't shown signs. And he has consistently worn a mask



wartutor said:


> so exactly how tf is that in anyway relevant.


oh so... you just kinda... forgot my point... or I just didn't make it clear somehow so I'll just state it again.
Trump stated covid is nothing to worry about after getting a treatment neither of us could afford. Essentially pointing out that he really doesn't care for the American people. Meanwhile at least Joe has been trying to lead by example through wearing a mask, and recommending it. While Trump has been actively downplaying it.
My point being regarding the pandemic and getting back to a real normalcy, Biden or just any candidate from the other parties other than Trump would be better.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 29, 2020)

Whole lotta love said:


> Why do you continue to engage with me and my arguments if you view my positions as akin to flat eartherism?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You're right. I shouldn't indulge you with further arguments since your position is akin to flat earthism. You're definitely well-read on the subject - so well-read that you were unaware of Chomsky's political alignment despite the fact that he states it plainly in one of his most famous works. He's a self-described anarcho-syndicalist, it's not a news flash. Anarcho-syndicalism is less a form of socialism and more a form of anarchism, but that's besides the point. The point, unless it flew over your head, is that it is impossible to achieve the lofty goals of socialism without establishing an aparathus of violence in order to enforce its tenants of goodie-goodie sharing, and once you've done that, you have an oppressive totalitarian state on your hands. Every single experiment of this kind has ended in exactly the same way, and repeating the same actions with the expectation of different results is the definition of insanity. I'm afraid that you have nothing to teach me that I don't already know - Chomsky's dream state is so ridiculous and untenable that it's no wonder he doesn't bring it up much anymore, focusing on criticising systems that do work instead. Let's not forget that we're talking about the man who praised Vietnam's implementation of socialism - the same implementation that gave birth to its proxy, the Viet Cong. Remember Viet Cong? As I said, I'm not particularly worried by your current beliefs. As people grow up, they gradually stop believing in certain things - the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, santa and socialism, in that order. You'll get there eventually.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 29, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> You're right. I shouldn't indulge you with further arguments since your position is akin to flat earthism. You're definitely well-read on the subject - so well-read that you were unaware of Chomsky's political alignment despite the fact that he states it plainly in one of his most famous works. He's a self-described anarcho-syndicalist, it's not a news flash. Anarcho-syndicalism is less a form of socialism and more a form of anarchism, but that's besides the point. The point, unless it flew over your head, is that it is impossible to achieve the lofty goals of socialism without establishing an aparathus of violence in order to enforce its tenants of goodie-goodie sharing, and once you've done that, you have an oppressive totalitarian state on your hands. Every single experiment of this kind has ended in exactly the same way, and repeating the same actions with the expectation of different results is the definition of insanity. I'm afraid that you have nothing to teach me that I don't already know - Chomsky's dream state is so ridiculous and untenable that it's no wonder he doesn't bring it up much anymore, focusing on criticising systems that do work instead. Let's not forget that we're talking about the man who praised Vietnam's implementation of socialism - the same implementation that gave birth to its proxy, the Viet Cong. Remember Viet Cong? As I said, I'm not particularly worried by your current beliefs. As people grow up, they gradually stop believing in certain things - the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, santa and socialism, in that order. You'll get there eventually.


Eeeeehhhh.... Seems to me doc like you conflate things... a lot of things actually. I'm not going to bother arguing with you. My only point being that your conflating a lot of things, and I wouldn't really put socialism into the same category as religious holidays, or things of tradition.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Oct 29, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> You're right. I shouldn't indulge you with further arguments since your position is akin to flat earthism. You're definitely well-read on the subject - so well-read that you were unaware of Chomsky's political alignment despite the fact that *he states it plainly in one of his most famous works*. He's a self-described anarcho-syndicalist, it's not a news flash. Anarcho-syndicalism is less a form of socialism and more a form of anarchism, but that's besides the point. *The point, unless it flew over your head, is that it is impossible to achieve the lofty goals of socialism without establishing an aparathus of violence in order to enforce its tenants of goodie-goodie sharing*, and once you've done that, you have an oppressive totalitarian state on your hands. Every single experiment of this kind has ended in exactly the same way, and repeating the same actions with the expectation of different results is the definition of insanity. I'm afraid that you have nothing to teach me that I don't already know - Chomsky's dream state is so ridiculous and untenable that it's no wonder he doesn't bring it up much anymore, focusing on criticising systems that do work instead. Let's not forget that we're talking about the man who praised Vietnam's implementation of socialism - the same implementation that gave birth to its proxy, the Viet Cong. Remember Viet Cong? As I said, I'm not particularly worried by your current beliefs. As people grow up, they gradually stop believing in certain things - the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, santa and socialism, in that order. You'll get there eventually.



Where does he describe himself as an anarcho-syndicalist? From what I understand he transitioned from identifying as an anarcho-syndicalist to libertarian socialist, but like I said, the distinction is pretty minor as they are both forms of anti-state socialism that try to redistribute capitalist wealth to the working class. I'm not a very big fan of Chomsky though and haven't read all of his writing.

I have never argued that socialism or libertarian socialism does not require violence. Please don't strawman me.
All politics is violent. What happens when you shoplift from a store under capitalism? Representatives from the state come with guns to exert the state's will upon you and will enact violence upon you if you don't comply. By your definition, that makes the US and any other state with a police force "oppressive" and "totalitarian".


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 29, 2020)

Whole lotta love said:


> I have never argued that socialism or libertarian socialism does not require violence. Please don't strawman me.
> All politics is violent.


...and that's where you lose me, and just about any reasonable reader. The core tenant of capitalisms is free, consensual and voluntary exchange of goods, services and labour. This is precisely why it is incompatible with colonialism, along with a myriad of other things it's consistently blamed for that it has nothing to do with. We can have a more reasonable discussion about crony capitalism, which most reasonable people oppose, but the moment you propose using force to put your lofty ideals into practice is the moment when you cross from a system that is liberal to a system that is totalitarian. Your shoplifting example doesn't work since in that scenario you are the aggressor - you have seized inventory that doesn't belong to you and the state has dispatched enforcers to protect the rights of the injured party - the owner of the property. Good. You're the one who initiated the hostilities, not the state.

Libertarian socialists and anarcho-syndicalists alike advocate for a peaceful society where the ploretariat chooses to work together voluntarily, both are focusing on individualism. The general idea is that the work one wants to do is rewarding in and out of itself, eliminating the need for the wage system, and by extension, "wage slavery". They hope to achieve those goals through unionisation. This philosophy is incompatible with the use of force, or a centralised aparathus of force, as that removes the element of voluntary consent.

Utopias are nice thought experiments, but it doesn't take much to make them crumble once you put them into practice. In the absence of incentives you need *someone* to do the jobs nobody else wants to do (or force them onto the "undesirables", which is how it usually works out), you need *someone* to enforce the rules and you need *some* kind of system to deal with dissent - if you don't have a structure like this, you create a power vacuum which is quickly filled by "a man with a plan" and their cohorts. We've seen this happen countless times now.

Capitalism solves this problem by offering a monetary incentive for labour, it's working and so far it's the best thing we've come up with. We can talk some more about libertarian socialism once we have replicators spitting out an infinite amount of resources all day Star Trek-style - until we get to that stage, it's a complete pipe dream that's not only untenable, it's counterproductive.

On the bright side I'm happy to hear that you're not an avid Chomsky reader - I had to suffer through his brain farts long enough. He's a brilliant and world-renowned linguist, but his political hot takes aren't always the best. He should probably stick to what he's good at - linguistic theory.

All that is an aside though, the conversation is getting pretty circular and we're straying further and further away from the 2020 election, which is what this thread is about.


----------



## wartutor (Oct 29, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> ... _slight_ _manic laughter_
> She shouldn't become pregnant!
> I put the condom on after we had sex.
> this is essentially your logic right now. It takes about two weeks for signs of covid to show up.
> ...


Your opinion just like its your opinion that masks prevent the spread of the virus. Many people that wear them still catch it and thats not even going into the whole "people dont change them every interaction they have so instead of preventing the spread they actually spread it more by carrying it around on their mask infecting everyone they come into contact with afterwards." Not to mention you touch your mask constantly having to adjust it. Expecially if you wear glasses making it easier for you to catch it. Buy yeah masks save lives...yeah believe what you want. And leave me to mine. Truth be told this virus is just that a fucking virus. Quit living in fear and just get over yourself with a .02% mortality rate your more likely to die in a house explosion in your sleep but whatever. (Btw that was an overexageration no need to try and call me on the explosion percent lol)


----------



## Whole lotta love (Oct 29, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> ...and that's where you lose me, and just about any reasonable reader. The core tenant of capitalisms is free, consensual and voluntary exchange of goods, services and labour. This is precisely why it is incompatible with colonialism, along with a myriad of other things it's consistently blamed for that it has nothing to do with. We can have a more reasonable discussion about crony capitalism, which most reasonable people oppose, but the moment you propose using force to put your lofty ideals into practice is the moment when you cross from a system that is liberal to a system that is totalitarian. Your shoplifting example doesn't work since in that scenario you are the aggressor - you have seized inventory that doesn't belong to you and the state has dispatched enforcers to protect the rights of the injured party - the owner of the property. Good. You're the one who initiated the hostilities, not the state.



If imperialism and coercion are incompatible with capitalism, I can't think of any existing capitalist societies. All of the major powers considered by the vast majority of the world are out of the question.



> Libertarian socialists and anarcho-syndicalists alike advocate for a peaceful society where the ploretariat chooses to work together voluntarily, both are focusing on individualism. The general idea is that the work one wants to do is rewarding in and out of itself, eliminating the need for the wage system, and by extension, "wage slavery". They hope to achieve those goals through unionisation. *This philosophy is incompatible with the use of force*, or a centralised aparathus of force, as that removes the element of voluntary consent.



Can you cite a source for any of your claims, but particularly this?
Malatesta wrote often about the need for militias, as did many other anarchist and left-communist thinkers of the 20th century. The CNT-FAI fought the Spanish fascists and then the Soviets. The YPG is currently fighting ISIS and the Turkish fascists. Pacifist anarchism is definitely a thing, but it has held very little influence on libertarian socialism and anarcho-syndicalism. I don't know of any anarcho-syndicalist or libertarian socialist organization that held or holds a pacifist line.

Capitalists almost always have to be forced to give up their property and resources.



> Utopias are nice thought experiments, but it doesn't take much to make them crumble once you put them into practice. In the absence of incentives you need *someone* to do the jobs nobody else wants to do (or force them onto the "undesirables", which is how it usually works out), you need *someone* to enforce the rules and you need *some* kind of system to deal with dissent - if you don't have a structure like this, you create a power vacuum which is quickly filled by "a man with a plan" and their cohorts. We've seen this happen countless times now.
> 
> Capitalism solves this problem by offering a monetary incentive for labour, it's working and so far it's the best thing we've come up with. We can talk some more about libertarian socialism once we have replicators spitting out an infinite amount of resources all day Star Trek-style - until we get to that stage, it's a complete pipe dream that's not only untenable, it's counterproductive.


There are currently existing libertarian socialist societies right now and capitalism is still quite young. In my opinion, capitalism is a foolishly idealistic ideology which has never existed on any sort of scale without state authority.
We have managed to concoct a system that destroys 30-40% of the food it produces (in the US) while 10.5 million households are food insecure. Marx was right, the issue is artificial scarcity and it is not utopian to push for better redistribution of resources.

I guess you don't consider the US to be capitalist though because we steal resources from other nations and peoples.

Could you please answer my question about where Chomsky identifies as an AnSyn?


----------



## omgcat (Oct 29, 2020)

dude this shit is funny as fuck. weeks in, the whole laptop story is unraveling in all directions, and Tucker Carlson "lost" the super important actually real information by "mailing it to himself". when asked what the content of the missing information is "he can't recall". please tell me people don't fall for this shit.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 29, 2020)

Whole lotta love said:


> If imperialism and coercion are incompatible with capitalism, I can't think of any existing capitalist societies. All of the major powers considered by the vast majority of the world are out of the question.


Capitalism is strictly an economic system, it concerns voluntary trade between private individuals. Anything short of that is an abberation. Joe & Shmoe Co. are not going to war in Iraq to seize oil, they're just selling gizmos to people who want to buy them at Joe & Shmoe's Wacky Emporium Ltd. - I would be cautious in blaming capitalism for the failures of any given state. Conversely, socialism is *also* an economic system, but in contrast, it requires and consequently creates a state aparathus since, as we've discussed, its implementation necessitates the use of force, at least that's my take on how it usually turns out in practice. You are free to offer your goods and services without charge under capitalism, you are not free to pursue the profit motive under socialism - by definition, the former is inherently more liberal than the latter, in economic terms.


> Can you cite a source for any of your claims, but particularly this? Malatesta wrote often about the need for militias, as did most other anarchist thinkers of the 20th century. The CNT-FAI fought the Spanish fascists and then the Soviets. The YPG is currently fighting ISIS and the Turkish fascists. Pacifist anarchism is definitely a thing, but it has held very little influence on libertarian socialism and anarcho-syndicalism. I don't know of any anarcho-syndicalist or libertarian socialist organization that held a pacifist line.


It's in the name, but I'll elaborate. Libertarian socialists and anarcho-syndicalists are anti-authoritarian and anti-state. If you have no state and no centralised body responsible for military action, going to war in an organised fashion becomes a bit of a pickle. You raise an interesting point regarding militias, I suppose that is a form of occupation that one might willingly choose, however I can also see the potential for those devolving into tribalist factions in the event of internal conflict. They're also probably more interested in external threats rather than keeping the peace internally - the "anarcho" bit isn't there for giggles, they've rejected the state, after all. Putting that aside for a moment, here's a short quote:


> The role of anarcho-syndicalist networks and unions is *not to try and recruit every worker*, but to *advocate and organise mass meetings* of all workers involved in each struggle so that the workers involved retain control. Within these mass meetings *anarcho-syndicalists argue for the principles of solidarity, direct action and self-organisation.*
> 
> In this way anarcho-syndicalism is *completely different to trade unionism*, which seeks to represent our economic interests, and the so-called ‘workers parties’ which seek to represent our political interests. Instead, *anarcho-syndicalism unites the political and the economic and opposes representation in favour of self-organisation.*


https://libcom.org/library/what-anarcho-syndicalism

This pretty strictly adheres to Rocker's idea of what it should be.


> The organisation of Anarcho-Syndicalism is based on the principles of Federalism, on *free combination from below upward*, putting the *right of self-determination* of every member *above everything else* and recognising *only the organic agreement of all* on the basis of *like interests and common convictions*.


https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/rudolf-rocker-anarchosyndicalism

Considering the fact that Rocker is one of the most prominent anarchist writers associated with the movement I assume he knows what he's talking about. Both quotes have something important in common - voluntary participation. While militias can combat external and internal threats, which is again a good point, they reject coercion as it is incompatible with their idea of unionisation, which is what I meant. They will happily fight against an external threat, like a foreign invasion, or an internal threat, like a fascist dictatorship, however in terms of day-to-day operation they seem to emphasise advocacy rather than use of force. I hope that clarification is satisfactory. I don't consider self-defense (against invasion or persecution) as something the state necessarily needs to be involved in, it's a basic right.


> Capitalists almost always have to be forced to give up their property and resources.


Capitalists are willingly putting their resources up for sale - they don't want their own products, they made them in the first place with the intention of selling them to you. They want money, and you are welcome to voluntarily engage in commerce with them. That's a consensual exchange, and sort of the whole point of the system. You don't *have* to shop in store X, you can go to store Y, nobody's forcing you to do anything. By seizing property that does not belong to you, you've engaged in an activity that caused harm to the injured party, and under a capitalist economy that damage is measurable - it's equivalent to the cost of the item stolen. Under a system that rejects currency damages would be rather nebulous and hard to assess, but of course, this is a lesson we've learned nearly 5000 years ago as we minted the first coin in Mesopotamia and replaced trading commodities in favour of a uniform currency. It's funny how regressive some of these ideologies are when you say that out loud, it's a bit like rejecting the wheel.


> There are currently existing libertarian socialist societies right now and capitalism is still quite young. In my opinion, capitalism is a foolishly idealistic ideology which has never existed on any sort of scale without state authority. We have managed to concoct a system that destroys 30-40% of the food it produces (in the US) while 10.5 million households are food insecure. Marx was right, the issue is artificial scarcity and it is not utopian to push for better redistribution of resources.


Existing in name only, but I'll bite. Marx was right to die in poverty and disease, that's about the only worthwhile thing he's done after years of mooching off of his wealthy donors. It's a shame that not all food we produce ends up in the hands of customers - some is discarded due to its low quality, much of it is destroyed once it reaches its Best Before or Use By dates. The inability to redistribute it to food banks is a failure of the state, not of capitalism - I assure you that a capitalist would most certainly dispose of it in a more pragmatic manner since food disposal is rather expensive, but in the absence of an incentive to do so there is no point in undercutting your own market. You raise an interesting point - why is food so expensive that it becomes unaffordable? Could it be that farm subsidies keep farmers who have no business planting certain crops afloat despite lack of demand, thus creating an unnecessary surplus of goods that must be stockpiled by the state or destroyed in an effort to fix prices? Y'know, something that the free market would self-regulate otherwise, forcing those farmers to re-spec and produce something else? Oh my, did socialism just artificially inflate food prices? Maybe we should stop doing that.


> I guess you don't consider the US to be capitalist though because we steal resources from other nations and peoples.


Who's "we"? "We" don't go to war, the state goes to war, "we" go to work.


> Could you please answer my question about where Chomsky identifies as an AnSyn?


I already have, so I disregarded the question. This conclusion can be gathered from a cursory reading of For Reasons of State, which I already quoted, but he's more direct in an interview with Peter Jay titled "The Relevance of Anarcho-syndicalism" where he calls himself a "fellow traveller [of anarcho-syndicalism]". I mean, that's what the interview's about, hard to interpret it in any other way.

https://chomsky.info/19760725/

In 2005 he released a book called On Anarchism, a collection of essays and interviews, which is basically him espousing anarcho-syndicalist ideals from front to back. In said book he calls libertarian socialism the "logical conclusion of liberalism" and anarchism an "inherently socialist philosophy" - it's pretty clean-cut.

https://books.google.com/books/about/On_Anarchism.html?id=sDomngEACAAJ

This has been a fun distraction, but as I've mentioned earlier, we should probably return to the subject at hand. If you have any further questions you can reach out to me privately, although I think I covered my point of view adequately - I don't have much to add.


----------



## notimp (Oct 29, 2020)

Whole lotta love said:


> Where does he describe himself as an anarcho-syndicalist? From what I understand he transitioned from identifying as an anarcho-syndicalist to libertarian socialist, but like I said, the distinction is pretty minor as they are both forms of anti-state socialism that try to redistribute capitalist wealth to the working class. I'm not a very big fan of Chomsky though and haven't read all of his writing.


Bwahahaha!

Here is a list of social democratic countries in the world (all of which redistribute wealth to some extend),
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

which for some reason doesnt include the following countries in europe.






So more than two thirds of the countries in the world have social democrats in government.

Yet none of them would call themselves anarcho syndicalist. Or anything with anarchy in the title. 

But thank you for not asking.


----------



## wartutor (Oct 29, 2020)

omgcat said:


> dude this shit is funny as fuck. weeks in, the whole laptop story is unraveling in all directions, and Tucker Carlson "lost" the super important actually real information by "mailing it to himself". when asked what the content of the missing information is "he can't recall". please tell me people don't fall for this shit.


What artical did you read as i see nothing stating him "not recalling" and having a shipping company advise you that your envelope was opened and the contents stolen should make you question the other side more unless your one of those people that drink that kool aid ...wait...shit your tongue is dyed red damn it.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Oct 29, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Capitalism is strictly an economic system, it concerns voluntary trade between private individuals. Anything short of that is an abberation. Joe & Shmoe Co. are not going to war in Iraq to seize oil, they're just selling gizmos to people who want to buy them at Joe & Shmoe's Wacky Emporium Ltd. - I would be cautious in blaming capitalism for the failures of any given state. Conversely, socialism is *also* an economic system, but in contrast, it requires and consequently creates a state aparathus since, as we've discussed, its implementation necessitates the use of force, at least that's my take on how it usually turns out in practice. You are free to offer your goods and services without charge under capitalism, you are not free to pursue the profit motive under socialism - by definition, the former is inherently more liberal than the latter, in economic terms.


Are there any examples of stateless capitalism existing on any sort of scale?

This is a very niche definition of capitalism that seems to contradict your previous arguments about Chinese state capitalism lifting people out of poverty. I'm having trouble understanding where the capitalism starts and ends in your definition. I don't think I've ever engaged in a transaction in the US without the influence of state authority.

If the US government develops a technology like internet, then private companies sell that technology is that capitalism? The funding came from coercing individuals to pay taxes with the threat of violence. Further, the state regulates many aspects of the transaction. To me it sounds like that isn't capitalism by your definition.

Maybe a black market drug deal? But what if the heroin was brought over on a military plane from Afghanistan? Then that can't be capitalism because imperialism is involved. If it's some homegrown stuff, the legal status and weight of law enforcement are defining large parts of the transaction, from where it's taking place to the quality of the drug.



> It's in the name, but I'll elaborate. Libertarian socialists and anarcho-syndicalists are anti-authoritarian and anti-state. If you have no state and no centralised body responsible for military action, going to war in an organised fashion becomes a bit of a pickle. You raise an interesting point regarding militias, I suppose that is a form of occupation that one might willingly choose, however I can also see the potential for those devolving into tribalist factions in the event of internal conflict. They're also probably more interested in external threats rather than keeping the peace internally - the "anarcho" bit isn't there for giggles, they've rejected the state, after all. Putting that aside for a moment, here's a short quote:
> 
> https://libcom.org/library/what-anarcho-syndicalism
> 
> ...


Yes, I am a libertarian socialist, I understand what voluntary association is. However,
 you argued that anarcho-syndicalists reject violence outright, which Rocker disagrees with in this very quote. What do you think he means when he says "direct action"?
Again, to circle back to the begining of this, anarcho-syndicalism is about workers seizing the means of production themselves, without the Leninist vanguard party or state apparatus. For example, the Spanish revolution was by no means peaceful and is certainly socialism by any textbook definition of socialism.



> Existing in name only, but I'll bite. Marx was right to die in poverty and disease, that's about the only worthwhile thing he's done after years of mooching off of his wealthy donors. It's a shame that not all food we produce ends up in the hands of customers - some is discarded due to its low quality, much of it is destroyed once it reaches its Best Before or Use By dates. The inability to redistribute it to food banks is a failure of the state, not of capitalism - I assure you that a capitalist would most certainly dispose of it in a more pragmatic manner since food disposal is rather expensive, but in the absence of an incentive to do so there is no point in undercutting your own market. You raise an interesting point - why is food so expensive that it becomes unaffordable? Could it be that farm subsidies keep farmers who have no business planting certain crops afloat despite lack of demand, thus creating an unnecessary surplus of goods that must be stockpiled by the state or destroyed in an effort to fix prices? Y'know, something that the free market would self-regulate otherwise, forcing those farmers to re-spec and produce something else? Oh my, did socialism just artificially inflate food prices? Maybe we should stop doing that.


Much of the food waste in the US is from stores that intentionally over stock shelves because it improves conversions in the stores. It often makes more money to waste food than to distribute it efficiently.

According to your definition, this whole arrangement isn't capitalism though, right? Since state authority is mandating sell by dates?


> I already have, so I disregarded the question. This conclusion can be gathered from a cursory reading of For Reasons of State, which I already quoted, but he's more direct in an interview with Peter Jay titled "The Relevance of Anarcho-syndicalism" where he calls himself a "fellow traveller [of anarcho-syndicalism]". I mean, that's what the interview's about, hard to interpret it in any other way.
> 
> https://chomsky.info/19760725/
> 
> ...


 thank you. I was not doubting you, I wanted to know where to look. I must have missed where you mentioned this previously.

Why are you insistent that he's not a socialist when you can pull quotes out of him saying that he is?
In this last quote he made the same exact argument I did in explaining that he is a socialist and you pushed back on it.

It feels like you're arguing for the sake of arguing and don't have a consistent position you're arguing from because several of your arguments have contradicted each other.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Oct 29, 2020)

notimp said:


> Bwahahaha!
> 
> Here is a list of social democratic countries in the world (all of which redistribute wealth to some extend),
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states
> ...


I'm confused, what's your point?


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 29, 2020)

Whole lotta love said:


> Are there any examples of stateless capitalism existing on any sort of scale?
> 
> This is a very niche definition of capitalism that seems to contradict your previous arguments about Chinese state capitalism lifting people out of poverty. I'm having trouble understanding where the capitalism starts and ends.
> 
> ...


I'm calling him what he calls himself because I like specificity. Calling him a socialist muddles the water - he is, and always has been, in strong opposition to any form of Leninist, Stalinist or Marxist form of governance, or in fact against any kind of governance at all in his early writings. Chomsky's heart is strictly on the side of anarchism with the only organising factor being unionisation. It's a bit like saying that he likes ice cream - I'm sure that he does, but anchovy is probably not his first choice. Not only that, in his imagined state the focus isn't so much on "redistribution of wealth" as it is on communal sharing - that's not what immediately springs to mind when you say "socialism", particularly not in the 20th century context, which is what we were discussing. It's an anarchist ice cream cone with a socialist sprinkle, not the other way around, and I think that distinction is important.

My definition of capitalism, or in fact the actual definition of capitalism, since that's what it is, is wholly consistent with the China argument. They continue to exist under a communist regime (political establishment), but have implemented capitalist principles into their market (economic model). There are no "capitalist countries" per se because capitalism is not a political system - there are countries that adhere to the economic principles of capitalism to a larger or smaller degree. Capitalism, in a nutshell, is an economic system based on private ownership wherein private enterprises operate for profit via voluntary exchange. The goal is capital accumulation, the establishment of competitive markets, the recognition of private property and property rights, a uniform price system and a wage system. Various countries have different takes and different implementations since the definition is, as you say, pretty broad.

On peaceful versus violent, I believe that I clarified that sufficiently. "Direct action" can only be directed against various flavours of boogeymen - once you run out of boogeymen to murder or re-educate, the aim is to assemble peacefully. Of course you never really run out of boogeymen, you just designate new ones since they're necessary for the system to operate, but that's practice, we're talking theory. That is what I gather from the writings on the subject, but then again, as a firm opponent of socialism of all flavours I also don't expect internal consistency from an inherently logically inconsistent belief system. You don't have to poke holes in it, it's a sieve in its original form already. On the bright side I'm also of the opinion that the state sucks at everything and anything it touches turns to dust - my flavour of libertarianism just happens to be on the opposite side of the political spectrum, so that's nice, we have one thing in common.

Now, Biden vs. Trump, if you will. I think we've gone on long enough.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Oct 29, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm calling him what he calls himself because I like specificity. Calling him a socialist muddles the water - he is, and always has been, in strong opposition to any form of Leninist, Stalinist or Marxist form of governance - Chomsky's heart is strictly on the side of anarchy with the only organising factor being unions. It's a bit like saying that he likes ice cream - I'm sure that he does, but anchiovie is probably not his first choice. Not only that, in his imagined state the focus isn't so much on "redistribution of wealth" as it is on communal sharing - that's not what immediately springs to mind when you say "socialism", particularly not in the 20th century context, which is what we were discussing.


Your insistence that libertarian socialism has very little to do with socialism is what is muddying the waters. The "socialism" bit isn't just an accident. It's deeply rooted in Marxism, as are most social anarchist and anti-state communist movements. Individualist anarchism, post-left anarchism, and insurrectionary anarchism have a lot less influence from Marx, but I know Chomsky doesn't think highly of those tendencies.

Social Anarchists in the early 20th century often cited Marx and argued that the goal of communism (a stateless and classless society) could only be realized by prefiguring those societal relations as directly as possible under current conditions. The ABCs of Anarchism does this well, as does Murray Bookchin, who is largely responsible for popularizing the term "libertarian socialism".
https://social-ecology.org/wp/2016/09/bookchin-marx-r-kotlas/
You can't have worker control of the means of production without Marx.



> My definition of capitalism, or in fact the actual definition of capitalism, since that's what it is, is wholly consistent with the China argument. They continue to exist under a communist regime (political establishment), but have implemented capitalist principles into their market (economic model). *There are no "capitalist countries" per se because capitalism is not a political system - there are countries that adhere to the economic principles of capitalism to a larger or smaller degree. *Capitalism, in a nutshell, is an economic system based on private ownership wherein private enterprises operate for profit via voluntary exchange. The goal is capital accumulation by all participants, the establishment of competitive markets, the recognition of private property and property rights, a uniform price system and a wage system. Various countries have different takes sbd different implementations since the definition is, as you say, pretty broad.



This sounds like a difference without a distinction. I think when most people say "America is a capitalist country" they mean that the United States adheres to capitalist principals.



> On peaceful versus violent, I believe that I clarified that sufficiently.


Well I'm still very much confused because you have yet to acknowledge that libertarian socialism is a redistributive ideology that does not prohibit direct action as a means of class war after saying it's non-violent.

To me, it sounds like you think libertarian socialism is much more similar to right libertarianism than it is.



> "Direct action" can only be directed against various flavours of boogeymen - once you run out of boogeymen to murder or re-educate, the aim is to assemble peacefully. That is what I gather from the writings on the subject, but then again, as a firm opponent of socialism of all flavours I also don't expect internal consistency from an inherently logically inconsistent belief system. You don't have to poke holes in it, it's a sieve in its original form already. On the bright side I'm also of the opinion that the state sucks at everything and anything it touches turns to dust - my flavour of libertarianism just happens to be on the opposite side of the political spectrum, so that's nice, we have one thing in common.


How do you feel about direct action against socialists and socialist states?



> Now, Biden vs. Trump, if you will. I think we've gone on long enough.



I'm not very interested in Biden vs Trump. They're both despicable and I disagree with their platforms almost wholesale, which is why I'm not voting for them.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 29, 2020)

Whole lotta love said:


> I'm not very interested in Biden vs Trump. They're both despicable and I disagree with their platforms almost wholesale, which is why I'm not voting for them.


Sounds like you ended up in the wrong thread then!  Unless you happened to be here for Sanders back when there were "these 12 ways he can still win the nomination", although I somehow doubt that. We'll have to save our conversation for another time, I have a nasty habit of getting into these long tirades and derailing political threads - a habit that I'm trying to break.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Oct 29, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Sounds like you ended up in the wrong thread then!  Unless you happened to be here for Sanders back when there were "these 12 ways he can still win the nomination", although I somehow doubt that. We'll have to save our conversation for another time, I have a nasty habit of getting into these long tirades and derailing political threads - a habit that I'm trying to break.



The thread is about who we're voting for. I voted for Howie Hawkins who is running on a socialist platform. I'm throwing my vote away no matter how I swing it so might as well fill in the bubble for the guy who says he wants to defund the military and police 

Lol I remember those articles from HA Goodman. I think he's grifting for Trump supporters now.
Don't think I'd consider Bernie a socialist though. Maybe in his heart of hearts.



Your conversations might not derail so much if you engaged in discussion in better faith.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 29, 2020)

Whole lotta love said:


> Your conversations might not derail so much if you engaged in discussion in better faith.


I'm afraid that I only believe in two things - money and taxes. I only like one of those.


----------



## notimp (Oct 29, 2020)

Whole lotta love said:


> I'm confused, what's your point?


You dont know what you are talking about.

You: "Anarcho syndicalism is the same as libertarian socialism, because both are somehow about distribution of wealth."
Me: Wtf?
You: I dont know what you mean.
Me: You dont know what you are talking about.


----------



## MetoMeto (Oct 29, 2020)

Preferably, please Americans, vote for someone who will not enforce their will on tho the entire
world in an attempt to exploit and Americanize it...or bomb it if it's possible.

Other than that...whoever is elected is elected.

But seriously, Americans should think about other nations when electing, not just their own home, since
it has influence globally not just in US. 
But no pressure!


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 29, 2020)

MetoMeto said:


> Preferably, please Americans, vote for someone who will not enforce their will on tho the entire
> world in an attempt to exploit and Americanize it...or bomb it if it's possible



Is there someone that won't do that? Indeed has there been anyone in living memory that won't do that?

Exploit your geography, exploit your population and their industry, and technologies that stem from it, in an attempt to gain more wealth and more power.

It has been this way for... all of recorded human history.

Going full closed doors self sufficient isolationist is probably a reason to not let someone into power. Doing that, especially if you are the US, then means the others that won't be doing that will come knocking on your door in a few decades when they have consolidated power elsewhere and you have not kept up.

If someone wants to tell them to get lost with the awful IP laws (I mean who really thinks software patents are a good idea, and their approach to copyright... ew), sub par food standards, awful medical setups and the rest then I am OK with that but that is a different matter.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Oct 29, 2020)

i bet joe doesn't get in because his old. the same way trump got in the first place because murica didn't want a woman president


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 29, 2020)

Bladexdsl said:


> i bet joe doesn't get in because his old. the same way trump got in the first place because murica didn't want a woman president



I don't think Hilliary lost because she was a women. She lost because she's a corrupt Liberal moron.


----------



## notimp (Oct 29, 2020)

Corrupt, liberal and intellectually challenged (well lets see, partner in a law firm, first female senator of New York...) and what are the charges for corrupt again?

Running a foundation? (Foundations do lobbying work - so thats the corruption?)


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 29, 2020)

notimp said:


> Corrupt, liberal and intellectually challenged (well lets see, partner in a law firm, first female senator from New York...) and what are the charges for corrupt again?
> 
> Running a foundation? (Foundations do lobbying work - so thats the corruption?)



Anyone that goes around hating old rich white men then advocates for an old ass always proven to fail way of Government created by old rich white men is a moron in my book.


----------



## notimp (Oct 29, 2020)

That scientific, ey?


----------



## Whole lotta love (Oct 29, 2020)

notimp said:


> You dont know what you are talking about.
> 
> You: "Anarcho syndicalism is the same as libertarian socialism, because both are somehow about distribution of wealth."
> Me: Wtf?
> ...



If you think my definitions of libertarian socialism and anarcho-syndicalism are incorrect, please correct me. I don't know what social democracy has to do with that though.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 29, 2020)

Anything *ism is bad, that includes whatever flavor of socialism you're peddling.


----------



## notimp (Oct 29, 2020)

Whole lotta love said:


> If you think my definitions of libertarian socialism and anarcho-syndicalism are incorrect, please correct me. I don't know what social democracy has to do with that though.


Democratic socialism is a subform of libertarian socialism, little vindictive backpedling, word picking piece of 'not wanting to learn a thing'. Might be why in the graphic I posted they were used interchangeably?

Its not my job to educate you on your mistakes, just to point out what an absolute moronic statement you made in making this "basically the same, as an anarchic form of politicy/politics".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism


edit: Oh, turns out we both are wrong. 

*Libertarian socialism*,[1] also referred to as *anarcho-socialism*,[2][3] *anarchist socialism*,[4] *free socialism*,[5] *stateless socialism*,[6] *socialist anarchism*[7] and *socialist libertarianism*,[8] is an anti-authoritarian, anti-statist and libertarian[9][10]political philosophy within the socialist movement which rejects the state socialistconception of socialism as a statist form where the state retains centralized control of the economy.[11]

So your statement that "where does Chomsky refer to himself als an anarcho socialist, I thought he was an advocate of libertarian socialism" was tautological. (You absolutely didnt know what you were talking about.)

But it also turns out that Libertarian socialism has not that much in common with democratic socialism.


----------



## MetoMeto (Oct 29, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I don't think Hilliary lost because she was a women. She lost because she's a corrupt Liberal moron.


There is still hope for America.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 29, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Anything *ism is bad, that includes whatever flavor of socialism you're peddling.


Among the Rasta there is a phrase "isms cause schisms".

I am now imagining you with a typical Rasta appearance and demeanour.
Quite amusing.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 29, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Anything *ism is bad, that includes whatever flavor of socialism you're peddling.



So all isms are bad? Guess that includes capitalism, patriotism, nationalism as well right?


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 29, 2020)

omgcat said:


> So all isms are bad? Guess that includes capitalism, patriotism, nationalism as well right?


If taken to extremes where it becomes an overriding ideology then I would go with yes.


----------



## notimp (Oct 29, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> If taken to extremes where it becomes an overriding ideology then I would go with yes.


Not an issue these days. (Anywhere in western culture - except for maybe, well who is aiding and USING (for political purposes) gun nuts, and save the babies nuts and...  )

Usually attributed to religious extremism these days.

So in your specific case: False argument.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 29, 2020)

notimp said:


> Not an issue these days. (Anywhere in western culture - except for maybe, well who is aiding and USING (for political purposes) gun nuts, and save the babies nuts and...  )
> 
> Usually attributed to religious extremism these days.
> 
> So in your specific case: False argument.


I don't know that you particularly get to isolate it to just western cultures (whatever those might be/if that is even a particularly useful categorisation here).

There are anarcho capitalists out there. Find them quite disturbing and lacking in an awful lot of fundamentals (the policing problem being a good start there).
Those that pursue share price or profit or some similar metric above all else are also far from pleasant -- I like it when people do fun things, research for the sake of research, make pleasant things despite costing a bit more and generally spruce the place up.

Hyper patriotism. The sorts of people that would claim their country can do no wrong. Seen it in a lot of places in the world. Not my idea of a good time.

Ultra nationalism. Few of them around everywhere. Mostly a slight spin on patriotism except either want to take over the world or go full hermit.


----------



## notimp (Oct 29, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> I don't know that you particularly get to isolate it to just western cultures (whatever those might be/if that is even a particularly useful categorisation here).


Because of the lack of 'big political ideas' ("post democracy" concept). "Isms" basically dont matter over 'convention' (and maybe 'iterative' change) very much in western cultures these days.

And especially not in the electoral politics cycle.

But also my frame of reference is mostly 'western cultures' so - maybe thats why this is my - well, frame of reference.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 29, 2020)

omgcat said:


> So all isms are bad?



Nihilism's ok I guess. I really don't care it doesn't matter.


----------



## notimp (Oct 29, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Nihilism's ok I guess. I really don't care it doesn't matter.


*hrhr*


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 30, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> *Anything *ism is bad*, that includes whatever flavor of socialism you're peddling.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism


----------



## Lacius (Oct 30, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism


I was thinking the same thing.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 30, 2020)

Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/i/status/1321922639892516866

The difference was amazing between Trump and Biden today in Florida.   

Does Bill Clinton have dementia also like Joe?

Looks like he was in the crowd. 







Can I change my vote is still trending on all search engines, not nearly as active as before but still is.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 30, 2020)

*State polling with 5 days to go*

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/

*Close Races*
*
Arizona: Biden +2.7
Florida: Biden +2.2
Georgia: Biden +1.6
Iowa: Biden +0.4
North Carolina: Biden +2.0
Ohio: Trump +0.1*
*Pennsylvania: Biden +5.1*
*Texas: Trump +1.3*
*Maine, District 2: Biden +2.7*

*Not So Close Races*

*Michigan: Biden +8.1*
*Minnesota: Biden +8.0*
*Nebraska, District 2: Biden +6.3*
*Wisconsin: Biden +8.4*

If Biden wins each of the states listed under the Not So Close category, winning any one of the following states will enable him to reach 270:

*Arizona
Florida
Georgia
North Carolina
Ohio*
*Pennsylvania*
*Texas*

For Trump, that means he will need to win every-single-one of the above states to reach 270.

Misc. info:

Extremely conservative pollster Harris Poll has *Biden up +3.0 in Florida*.
Extremely conservative pollster Harris Poll has *Biden up +5.0 in Pennsylvania*.
Moderately conservative pollster Siena College has* Biden up +3.0 in North Carolina*.
Moderately liberal pollster Quinnipac University has *Biden up +5.0 in Ohio*.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 30, 2020)

What's up with Oregon?  

Claire Poche, a senior health adviser for the Oregon Health Authority, made a somber video announcement in Portland this month. pic.twitter.com/BVVjSTttvY— Andy Ngô 🏳️‍🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) October 29, 2020


----------



## omgcat (Oct 30, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> https://twitter.com/i/status/1321922639892516866
> 
> The difference was amazing between Trump and Biden today in Florida.
> 
> ...



where in that photo is Clinton? another thing i don't understand is how can Joe Biden have severe dementia, while also doing a high precision, in-depth and difficult to hide conspiracy?


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 30, 2020)

Welp, Biden's son caught in videos with naked 14 year old girls on his laptop (supposedly his own niece), while his father is caught red-handed selling out America to China for personal gain - not even big personal gain, but just a few million of personal gain in order to destroy an entire country.

There's no way anyone is going to allow the Bidens to walk into the White House being that compromised even if they rig the vote - which would be required since literally zero people show up to Biden rallies while tens of thousands show up to Trump ones so Biden is obviously not winning and the polls are fake just like 2016.  Looks like another four years of orange Hitler it is.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 30, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Welp, Biden's son caught in videos with naked 14 year old girls on his laptop (supposedly his own niece), while his father is caught red-handed selling out America to China for personal gain - not even big personal gain, but just a few million of personal gain in order to destroy an entire country.
> 
> There's no way anyone is going to allow the Bidens to walk into the White House being that compromised even if they rig the vote - which would be required since literally zero people show up to Biden rallies while tens of thousands show up to Trump ones so Biden is obviously not winning and the polls are fake just like 2016.  Looks like another four years of orange Hitler it is.




no one's gonna report on it because it's not real.

*"One month before a purported leak of files from Hunter Biden's laptop, a fake "intelligence" document about him went viral on the right-wing internet, asserting an elaborate conspiracy theory involving former Vice President Joe Biden's son and business in China.*

*The document, a 64-page composition that was later disseminated by close associates of President Donald Trump, appears to be the work of a fake "intelligence firm" called Typhoon Investigations, according to researchers and public documents.*

*The author of the document, a self-identified Swiss security analyst named Martin Aspen, is a fabricated identity, according to analysis by disinformation researchers, who also concluded that Aspen's profile picture was created with an artificial intelligence face generator. The intelligence firm that Aspen lists as his previous employer said that no one by that name had ever worked for the company and that no one by that name lives in Switzerland, according to public records and social media searches.*

*One of the original posters of the document, a blogger and professor named Christopher Balding, took credit for writing parts of it when asked about it and said Aspen does not exist.*

*Despite the document's questionable authorship and anonymous sourcing, its claims that Hunter Biden has a problematic connection to the Communist Party of China have been used by people who oppose the Chinese government, as well as by far-right influencers, to baselessly accuse candidate Joe Biden of being beholden to the Chinese government."*

you can "fake news" all you want, but people people who aren't neck deep in Trumpworld don't give one shit.
if you need to go to specific places to find the information, the average voter won't bother.

on top of all that, it's hard to make people care about illegal dealings with china when trump had a hidden chinese bank account, and paid them more taxes than the USA.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 30, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Welp, Biden's son caught in videos with naked 14 year old girls on his laptop (supposedly his own niece), while his father is caught red-handed selling out America to China for personal gain - not even big personal gain, but just a few million of personal gain in order to destroy an entire country.
> 
> There's no way anyone is going to allow the Bidens to walk into the White House being that compromised even if they rig the vote - which would be required since literally zero people show up to Biden rallies while tens of thousands show up to Trump ones so Biden is obviously not winning and the polls are fake just like 2016.  Looks like another four years of orange Hitler it is.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 30, 2020)

omgcat said:


> it's not real.



Yea, because Joe Biden's son being in pictures and videos smoking crack is obviously not going to make him conducive to participating in other outrageous activities.  Both Biden and his son are already nailed to the wall for selling out America for personal gain with money trails and everything to prove it.

As for his son's other activities, betting a an actual crackhead would not do some morally objectionable things with underage girls is hilarious.  He has a literal crackpipe in his mouth AHAHAHA.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 30, 2020)

LumInvader said:


>



i believe the proper term is "Ken" for male karen's


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 30, 2020)

This word "Karen" you use is basically a racial slur for white women.  As a white person, I suppose I should be offended, but nobody gives a shit - even white men - because white women are the #1 most entitled cunts to ever walk the face of the planet in 10,000 years.

The only annoying part is that minority groups attempt to associate white males with this phenomenon when it's almost entirely a modern female problem of overvaluing their self worth.  This over-valuation doesn't really occur so badly in homogeneous European populations.

The problem is highest manifested with open borders immigration into a European country.  All the illegals and 3rd worlders coming in are all seemingly going solely after these white Euro women as first choice and ignoring their own kind, which just creates an economic imbalance of too many men and too few women, which makes the Euro woman feel like they're more important than they really are.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 30, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> This word "Karen" you use is basically a racial slur for white women, but nobody gives a shit - even white men - because white women are the #1 most entitled cunts to ever walk the face of the planet in 10,000 years.  *The only annoying part is that minority groups attempt to associate white males with this phenomenon when it's mostly entirely a modern female problem.*


Mostly/entirely.  Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 30, 2020)

Can't leave out random rich fraternity people that make up 0.0001% of the population before some leftist brings it up.  But that male selection is vastly smaller in number to the entitled female population.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 30, 2020)

omgcat said:


> i believe the proper term is "Ken" for male karen's



Why am I not surprised at all that either of you would use racist terms for white people.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 30, 2020)

I find it astonishing that anti-white, leftist, racist members of a modern white genocide movement would use racist terms against white people.  This Soros guy who is the CEO of the left is probably the #1 most anti-white racist to ever walk the face of the planet and they're all like huh?  George Soros?  Never heard of him.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 30, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Why am I not surprised at all that either of you would use racist terms for white people.



racists how? if you think karen is a racist term, i don't know what to say.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 30, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Can't leave out random rich fraternity people that make up 0.0001% of the population before some leftist brings it up.  But that male selection is vastly smaller in number to the entitled female population.


I was hoping you'd answer this question I asked you the other day:


LumInvader said:


> Is MSM wrong to fact check QAnon?


In other words, do you consider QAnon "objective reality?"  Is fact checking QAnon "fake propaganda?"


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 30, 2020)

https://dailycaller.com/2020/10/29/cybersecurity-expert-authenticates-hunter-biden-burisma-email/





As I mentioned many pages back.  Someone would be looking at the emails to confirm metadata/headers.

I am sure like I said previously that Rudy as a lawyer would have already had this confirmation from someone before moving forward.  Now it has been confirmed from an outside 3rd party.

Someone has looked at all the meta data/headers to at least one of the most damning emails and confirmed it is 100% real.



> The DCNF provided Robert Graham, the founder of the cybersecurity firm Errata Security, with a copy of the email and its metadata for forensic analysis.
> 
> Graham, who has been cited as a cybersecurity expert in The Washington Post, the Associated Press, Wired, Engadget and other news and technology outlets, told the DCNF that he used a cryptographic signature found in the email’s metadata to validate that Vadym Pozharsky, an advisor to Burisma’s board of directors, emailed Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015.



So that is 2 separate damning emails from the trove of data that have been confirmed as authentic.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 30, 2020)

Ted Kaczynski is the first person to accurately diagnose leftism as a mental disorder based on inferiority complex.  This means the weak and pathetic non-Chads who got thrown into dumpsters in high school (usually by their own race) develop an inner hatred of their own kind and develop this delusion in their brain that something is wrong with their own and that other races are somehow more logical or compassionate.

It's a total delusion and 100% wrong.  "Bullying" is inherent in all these mammal organisms, even cats and dogs.  Cats and dogs beat the shit out of each other.  It's just part of the natural selection process.  Hating your own kind and promoting their destruction is still anti-white racism even if you're white and suffer from this disorder called leftism.


----------



## wartutor (Oct 30, 2020)

omgcat said:


> no one's gonna report on it because it's not real.
> 
> *"One month before a purported leak of files from Hunter Biden's laptop, a fake "intelligence" document about him went viral on the right-wing internet, asserting an elaborate conspiracy theory involving former Vice President Joe Biden's son and business in China.*
> 
> ...


I dont know what you think this fake document has to do with his real laptop but if you want to turn off the lights and blow the elephant under the blue blanket for a little crack your in the right room. Dismissing one because of the other isnt how shit works...unless your democrat and its not about trump.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 30, 2020)

omgcat said:


> racists how? if you think karen is a racist term, i don't know what to say.







A pejorative term for someone who is white, would be racist.

Seems pretty self explanatory to me.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 30, 2020)

Ted Kaczynski is the first person to accurately diagnose leftism as a mental disorder based on inferiority complex.  This means the weak and pathetic non-Chads who got thrown into dumpsters in high school (usually by their own race) develop an inner hatred of their own kind and develop this delusion in their brain that something is wrong with their own and that other races are somehow more logical or compassionate.

It's a total delusion and 100% wrong.  "Bullying" is inherent in all these mammal organisms, even cats and dogs.  Cats and dogs beat the shit out of each other.  It's just part of the natural selection process and other groups will do it identically or worse than your own group.  Hating your own kind and promoting their destruction is still anti-white racism even if you're white and suffer from this disorder called leftism.

Modern leftism is essentially the beta male hoping he can give the Chad a black eye 20 years later when he was too cowardly to do it the first time.  And that 'black eye' basically means endorsing genocide of his entire country as long as he gets Chad in the process.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 30, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> View attachment 231834
> 
> A pejorative term for someone who is white, would be racist.
> 
> Seems pretty self explanatory to me.



up for debate, seems more like a sexist term to me, because someone can be a Karen regardless of their race.

also, it's such a Karen thing to do to think that Karen is more a racial term than a sexist one.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 30, 2020)

Nobody calls black or Mexican women "Karens".  Everyone knows it's a white racial slur.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 30, 2020)

omgcat said:


> up for debate, seems more like a sexist term to me, because someone can be a Karen regardless of their race.



I find it funny that something so obvious is lost on you.

It is another telling side that your not very objective in your views.


----------



## GhostLatte (Oct 30, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> View attachment 231834
> 
> A pejorative term for someone who is white, would be racist.
> 
> Seems pretty self explanatory to me.





r0achtheunsavory said:


> Nobody calls black or Mexican women "Karens".  Everyone knows it's a white racial slur.


You two are ironically being Karens right now.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 30, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Ted Kaczynski is the first person to accurately diagnose leftism as a mental disorder based on inferiority complex.  This means the weak and pathetic non-Chads who got thrown into dumpsters in high school (usually by their own race) develop an inner hatred of their own kind and develop this delusion in their brain that something is wrong with their own and that other races are somehow more logical or compassionate.
> 
> It's a total delusion and 100% wrong.  "Bullying" is inherent in all these mammal organisms, even cats and dogs.  Cats and dogs beat the shit out of each other.  It's just part of the natural selection process and other groups will do it identically or worse than your own group.  Hating your own kind and promoting their destruction is still anti-white racism even if you're white and suffer from this disorder called leftism.
> 
> Modern leftism is essentially the beta male hoping he can give the Chad a black eye 20 years later when he was too cowardly to do it the first time.  And that 'black eye' basically means endorsing genocide of his entire country as long as he gets Chad in the process.



maaaybe we shouldn't take the unibomber's words a gospel my dude.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



GhostLatte said:


> You two are ironically being Karens right now.


right?

like i'm getting lectured somehow by people who non-ironically use words like "chad" and cite the unibomber as an excellent source of information.

some people in here are dangerously radicalized, or are heading there.

like they can't comprehend that someone can call a non-white person a "Karen". they probably also think no one has ever said "OK boomer" to a millennial or gen x/z person.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 30, 2020)

omgcat said:


> up for debate, seems more like a sexist term to me, because someone can be a Karen regardless of their race.
> 
> also, it's such a Karen thing to do to think that Karen is more a racial term than a sexist one.
> 
> View attachment 231836


What I never quite understood is how the people who refuse masks and value freedom are labeled Karens rather than the sheep who want them mandated.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 30, 2020)

GhostLatte said:


> You two are ironically being Karens right now.



LOL, you are not even using the term correctly.

And I even posted the definition. Too funny..

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraSUPRA said:


> What I never quite understood is how the people who refuse masks and value freedom are labeled Karens rather than the sheep who want them mandated.



Actually, that is a very good point.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 30, 2020)

omgcat said:


> some people in here are dangerously radicalized



Are you 12 years old?  I sound like any male that walked the planet from the year 10,000 BC to 2010 or so.  You are the outlier soy weirdo that does not sound like precedent for anything called man.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 30, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> What I never quite understood is how the people who refuse masks and value freedom are labeled Karens rather than the sheep who want them mandated.



i'll use crimp's image for this one.






sorry that reading isn't your strong suit.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 30, 2020)

omgcat said:


> i'll use crimp's image for this one.
> 
> View attachment 231839
> 
> sorry that reading isn't your strong suit.


I support vaccines. Just not when they're rushed.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 30, 2020)

If soy weirdos like your vaccines, you can keep your vaccines:


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 30, 2020)

omgcat said:


> i'll use crimp's image for this one.
> 
> View attachment 231839
> 
> sorry that reading isn't your strong suit.



So you are equating believing that a surgeons mask will not keep 10-100 micron sized particles from leaving or entering a surgeons mask as being equivalent to being anti-vax?

Apples and oranges omgcat.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 30, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> So you are equating believing that a surgeons mask will not keep 10-100 micron sized particles from leaving or entering a surgeons mask as being equivalent to being anti-vax?
> 
> Apples and oranges omgcat.



if you can muster the ability to read, you can take a look at this.

masks work, to a very high degree.

other countries with mask mandates, and good adherence are doing OK right now.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 30, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I was thinking the same thing.


Didn't even cross my mind. Probably because people were debating capitalism at the time.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 30, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> If soy weirdos like your vaccines, you can keep your vaccines:



so 36 deaths after 9.4 million vaccinations?

that's a 99.999617% survival rate, and no direct links have been made to the vaccines themselves.

if you think a 99% chance to survive COVID is good enough, then 99.999617% should fine as well right?

to put that in easier to understand terms,

1/100 will die to covid, 3/587500 will die from a flu shot (adverse effects, or other cause)


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 30, 2020)

omgcat said:


> so 36 deaths after 9.4 million vaccinations?
> 
> that's a 99.999617% survival rate, and no direct links have been made to the vaccines themselves.
> 
> if you think a 99% chance to survive COVID is good enough, then 99.999617% should fine as well right?


The difference is you've been talking about mandating the vaccines. We're not trying to force COVID onto you - if you're afraid, you have the option to stay home.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 30, 2020)

omgcat said:


> if you can muster the ability to read, you can take a look at this.
> 
> masks work, to a very high degree.



That does not prove they work.

And my point before was your comparison was not equivalent to being anti-vax.

Johnson county:





Masks don't make a difference, even for Johnson county.  I don't think your document actually matches the #'s that are publicly available.  I did not look that close.

And I looked at grant county they listed as no mask mandate, they are doing better right now than Johnson county in cases per 100K.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 30, 2020)

If vaccines are safe, how are people dying from them?  Woops!  Looks like they aren't safe!  And what type of moron would take a potentially deadly, or potentially permanent side effects shot for the flu, which you probably won't even catch, and even if you did, would overwhelmingly live through anyway.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 30, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> If vaccines are safe, how are people dying from them?  Woops!  Looks like they aren't safe!  And what type of moron would take a potentially deadly, or potentially permanent side effects shot for the flu, which you probably won't even catch, and even if you did, would overwhelmingly live through anyway.



so you don't take any medicine at all? the chances of death per vaccine are waaaaaaaaaaaay lower than chances of death from an allergic reaction to Advil or dextromethorphan. I mean, why would you trust modern medicine at all, it's all fake man.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 30, 2020)

My state is mask mandated, our #'s have really shot up.  I think making people think they work is not helping, they are not being as careful.  Indoors with poor air circulation if you are around an asymptomatic person long enough.  You are getting it.  I think some people believe they work and let their guard down. (If you are one who is trying to avoid getting it)

As far as a vaccine goes, after I see the risk level.  My family would get it.  We normally get the flu shots.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 30, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> As far as a vaccine goes, after I see the risk level.  My family would get it.  We normally get the flu shots.



I got bit by a dog a few years ago and took a tetanus (TDAP) shot.  I had heard people say vaccines were dangerous before but didn't really pay much attention.  After taking that shot, it gave me a headache and lack of ability to focus to read for a day or two.

Turns out the TDAP vaccine is the most dangerous one and can have side effects such as "brain swelling", which can cause brain damage.  I didn't vaccinate myself retarded, but you can easily tell that stuff causes damage after taking the most dangerous ones and there's no way in hell I'm ever taking one again.

I would say the damage caused by the TDAP vaccine is at least equivalent to going on a Hunter Biden weekend spree of smoking crack and meth for days on end and staying awake for a week.  That's without even taking into account all the random cancer causing crap they probably spike them with to try and reduce population.

For random soy idiots that claim otherwise, the Polio vaccine that boomers took is well documented containing SV40 cancer causing viruses that killed tons of boomers over the long term.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 30, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> I find it astonishing that anti-white, leftist, racist members of a modern white genocide movement would use racist terms against white people.  This Soros guy who is the CEO of the left is probably the #1 most anti-white racist to ever walk the face of the planet and they're all like huh?  George Soros?  Never heard of him.


Pseudo-intellectualism, confirmation bias, association fallacies, bigotry, and conspiracy theory peddling.  This is why nobody takes r0achtheunsavory seriously.  

He uses the *association fallacy* to label Biden supporters marxists, anti-white.  However, this fallacy conveniently ignores independents and conservatives who are voting against Trump due to key policy differences.  

He uses *confirmation bias* when arguing that polls are fake, that Trump's crowds are large while Biden's are not, which "proves" Trump's going to win on Nov 3rd.  Biden broke fundraising records in August and September, which he doesn't bother mentioning as this doesn't confirm his bias.  Polling margin of error also goes ignored, as 2016 wins in Michigan and Wisconsin are highly unlikely to be be repeated in 2020.  

He uses stereotypes such as "soy men, " "communists," "marxists," and "anti-white," which all fall under the definition of racism and *bigotry*.  

He routinely peddles unsubstantiated\debunked *conspiracy theories*, such as the laptop conspiracy, which has already been widely debunked, including by Fox News and WSJ.

These are *not *the arguments an intellectual would make.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 30, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> I got bit by a dog a few years ago and took a tetanus (TDAP) shot.  I had heard people say vaccines were dangerous before but didn't really pay much attention.  After taking that shot, it gave me a headache and lack of ability to focus to read for a day or two.
> 
> Turns out the TDAP vaccine is the most dangerous one and can have side effects such as "brain swelling", which can cause brain damage.  I didn't vaccinate myself retarded, but you can easily tell that stuff causes damage after taking the most dangerous ones and there's no way in hell I'm ever taking one again.
> 
> I would say the damage caused by the TDAP vaccine is at least equivalent to going on a Hunter Biden weekend spree of smoking crack and meth for days on end and staying awake for a week.  That's without even taking into account all the random cancer causing crap they probably spike them with to try and reduce population.



Actually now that you mention it, I was working in my attic like 6 years ago.  I had got punctured by a roofing nail that was stuck through the roof.  And it was a bit rusty.

So thinking I was doing the right think I went to the doctor because I think the last time I had gotten that shot, I think it is the one you are referring to, I was a teenager.  The doctor said yeah it's not worth taking a chance.  And I remember feeling like complete shit for several days after getting it maybe even a week after, my lymph nodes in my neck were really swollen.

I think I even called the doctor and they said, yeah that can happen with the tetanus shot, and from what you say your side effects are not that bad. LOL.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 30, 2020)

oh, Tucker Carlson says it's time to leave hunter Biden alone now.

Interesting how this happens less than a few hours after NBC News reported that a 64-page dossier alleging a complex conspiracy involving Hunter Biden and China was actually authored by a fake persona. *"The fake document, which had been floating around the far-right web for a month before the New York Post published a controversial article echoing those conspiracy theories, was eventually disseminated by close associates of the president."
*
once again, gonna be a yikes from me.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



crimpshrine said:


> Actually now that you mention it, I was working in my attic like 6 years ago.  I had got punctured by a roofing nail that was stuck through the roof.  And it was a bit rusty.
> 
> So thinking I was doing the right think I went to the doctor because I think the last time I had gotten that shot, I think it is the one you are referring to, I was a teenager.  The doctor said yeah it's not worth taking a chance.  And I remember feeling like complete shit for several days after getting it maybe even a week after, my lymph nodes in my neck were really swollen.
> 
> I think I even called the doctor and they said, yeah that can happen with the tetanus shot, and from what you say your side effects are not that bad. LOL.




let me tell ya, lockjaw is nothing to fuck with. sore lymph nodes is nothing compared to the progressive locking up of your body until death or permanent artificial respiration. there is no cure to lockjaw, it can only be managed at its current progression.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 30, 2020)

You forgot to mention that the Tetanus vaccine is bundled with the whooping cough (the more dangerous part) on purpose because nobody would take the highly dangerous one otherwise.  As if preventing whooping cough is actually a government priority while letting in millions of illegal immigrants per year with tuberculosis.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 30, 2020)

omgcat said:


> oh, Tucker Carlson says it's time to leave hunter Biden alone now.
> 
> Interesting how this happens less than a few hours after NBC News reported that a 64-page dossier alleging a complex conspiracy involving Hunter Biden and China was actually authored by a fake persona. *"The fake document, which had been floating around the far-right web for a month before the New York Post published a controversial article echoing those conspiracy theories, was eventually disseminated by close associates of the president."
> *
> once again, gonna be a yikes from me.






> “awful lot of documents” about Hunter Biden recently but has “not aired” many of them, insisting he has tried to stick to material involving his business dealings that could relate to his father.
> 
> “There are a lot of documents about Hunter Biden’s personal life that we haven’t brought to you and we are not going to and we will tell you why,” he said, noting the obvious reason that Hunter is not running for president.



So anything tied to Joe is what he wants to focus on.  Which we already have 2 damning pieces of evidence that have been verified at this point.

Hunter is a freaking mess, we can all see that.

Although the likely abuse that Joe knew about that his son was doing which has also been shown in text messages, is something Joe should answer to also.

Any of us under the same circumstances would be in trouble I believe.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



r0achtheunsavory said:


> You forgot to mention that the Tetanus vaccine is bundled with the whooping cough (the more dangerous part) on purpose because nobody would take the highly dangerous one otherwise.  As if preventing whooping cough is actually a government priority while letting in millions of illegal immigrants per year with tuberculosis.



Really?  I did not know that.  I don't recall now if they told me when I got my tetanus shot later in life again that was the case.

Lock jaw does not sound good.  I just remember thinking after I got that, I would just really be careful after 10 years with things, that I don't think I want to get another one of those shots again.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 30, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> So anything tied to Joe is what he wants to focus on.  Which we already have 2 damning pieces of evidence that have been verified at this point.
> 
> Hunter is a freaking mess, we can all see that.
> 
> ...



his family drug problem seems par for the course when you consider the opioid epidemic that fucked the Midwest in the last 10 years. A lot of families are probably relating to him having a family member with a drug/alcohol problem.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



crimpshrine said:


> So anything tied to Joe is what he wants to focus on.  Which we already have 2 damning pieces of evidence that have been verified at this point.
> 
> Hunter is a freaking mess, we can all see that.
> 
> ...



if it was the booster, it was the TD vaccine, not Tdap. I had to get the TD shot as well as a few others before my trip to Japan. wasn't bad at all, only had a sore arm for a day.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 30, 2020)

omgcat said:


> the opioid epidemic



Wonder if that has anything to do with the US military guarding the poppy fields in Afghanistan? (Bush, Obama, Biden, Clintons all part of the same criminal group).


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 30, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> All I see is "blah blah blah".  We are not interested in your soy crap and white genocide movement.  Babbling on for hours thinking you can fool anyone like some type of deceitful and nagging woman isn't working on anybody.
> 
> The only consensus mechanism that overrides all others in the real world is force.  Your lying and deceit is both powerless and useless because you don't have the force to invoke your tyranny of trying to ban free speech and the 2nd amendment.  Goodbye.


What I find fascinating is watching this bully call people names left and right, but immediately curls into the fetal position playing the victim after I challenge him on his BS.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 30, 2020)

omgcat said:


> his family drug problem seems par for the course when you consider the opioid epidemic that fucked the Midwest in the last 10 years. A lot of families are probably relating to him having a family member with a drug/alcohol problem.



Yeah I don't know about that though.  I have known plenty of good people in my lifetime that have had issues with drugs.  I think Hunter is a BAD person.  Inside and out.  Drugs is just one of his problems a minor one in the grand scheme.  I don't look at him and empathize with him.  I would find it hard to believe others do.  If you are a pedophile douche bag who uses people and addicted to drugs, maybe.

I believe all drugs should be legal.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 30, 2020)

omgcat said:


> his family drug problem seems par for the course when you consider the opioid epidemic that fucked the Midwest in the last 10 years. A lot of families are probably relating to him having a family member with a drug/alcohol problem.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



I don't believe it was a booster.  But heck I don't recall all the details now.  Just remember thinking I was not going to get it again.  First time I ever had an issue with a shot before.  Sore arms I am fine with, that is normal.  I felt like complete shit like I was sick like having the flu if I recall correctly with no fever.  I might have even had aches all over.   Enough that I called the doctors office, and I think they said it gets worse the older you get when you get it again.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 30, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> What I find fascinating is watching this bully call people names left and right, but immediately curls into the fetal position playing the victim after I challenge him on his BS.



the dude's an incel, he even uses all of the incel terminology. sucks when you try to have a discussion about the presidential election and one side simultaneously claims to be "educated, logical, and informed" and then throws away and cited sources claiming they're fake science, and pushes crazy labels on people. he's claimed I'm a communist before which is nuts, because i get to decide what i believe not him.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



r0achtheunsavory said:


> I don't think you understand the other part of the Kaczynski diagnosis of 'liberalism' is "oversocialized".  Women are better at linguistics than men because linguistics is mostly just a means to an end of acquiring resources through manipulation and deceit of other people.
> 
> Men, on the other hand, are better at being resource gatherers and don't require said activities of constantly spamming blah blah blah at people to try an deceive or manipulate others.  The males that do it are dysfunctional or abnormal.  Soy men.  Leftism.   Why is leftism in general entirely pro-female, anti-male?  You have the answer.



sounds a lot like "why won't women sleep with me!" to me.


----------



## Master X (Oct 30, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> I don't think you understand the other part of the Kaczynski diagnosis of 'liberalism' is "oversocialized".  Women are better at linguistics than men because linguistics is mostly just a means to an end of acquiring resources through manipulation and deceit of other people.
> 
> Men, on the other hand, are better at being resource gatherers and don't require said activities of constantly spamming blah blah blah at people to try an deceive or manipulate others so their linguistics score is always lower since they can just go out and do things or accomplish things through force.
> 
> A man has no need to partake in your game of deceit and manipulation.  Why is liberalism as a whole entirely anti-male, pro-female?  Because it's a bunch of dysfunctional soy men with female brains using bitchy female strategy of doing everything in life.



So, uh... just how many of your posts are in this ONE topic? Seriously, if we're going to be making claims off of 'constantly spamming blah blah blah' then you're pretty much a case study for a dysfunctional soy male.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 30, 2020)

More Alinksy tactic projection - accuse the other side of what you are.  Leftists have no defense against things like survival of the fittest existing and know damn well they're the bottom of the barrel in that regard.  Trying to argue their way out of it just infuriates them.  Pretending their ideas have any merit when it's subsidizing reverse evolution.

They have a Trump rally and everyone looks like a normal, working class person.  Look at an ANTIFA lineup and it's all mutants high on crack:


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 30, 2020)

omgcat said:


> the dude's an incel, he even uses all of the incel terminology. sucks when you try to have a discussion about the presidential election and one side simultaneously claims to be "educated, logical, and informed" and then throws away and cited sources claiming they're fake science, *and pushes crazy labels on people.* he's claimed I'm a communist before which is nuts, because i get to decide what i believe not him.


True.  We also learned today that he's an anti-vaxxer.  So it only makes sense for him to place crazy labels on people, which serves as a counterbalance to the crazy labels he places on himself.


Master X said:


> So, uh... just how many of your posts are in this ONE topic? Seriously, if we're going to be making claims off of 'constantly spamming blah blah blah' then you're pretty much a case study for a dysfunctional soy male.


Well put, Master X.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 30, 2020)

This guy is like the Chad of Antifas.  The only one that looks remotely normal - like an ugly version of Kurt Cobain - except for the outrageously stupid face tattoos like he's some type stoneage tribesman living in the jungle.  

He could have potentially been a non-dysfunctional human, but alas, this is the product of all single mother households. He smoked so much crack that he roasted his brain and joined the anti-white, Marxist group Black Lives Matter, even though the black on white violent crime rate is 10x higher than vice versa so there shouldn't even be a BLM and should be a WLM instead:


----------



## omgcat (Oct 30, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> More Alinksy tactic projection - accuse the other side of what you are.  Leftists have no defense against things like survival of the fittest existing and know damn well they're the bottom of the barrel in that regard.  Trying to argue their way out of it just infuriates them.  Pretending their ideas have any merit when it's subsidizing reverse evolution.
> 
> They have a Trump rally and everyone looks like a normal, working class person.  Look at an ANTIFA lineup and it's all mutants high on crack:



i guarantee you the people in that photo have had more sex than you. survival of the fittest only applies if you actually reproduce my friend.

i mean, imagine believing that basic human functions like communication is stuff only women should do.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Oct 30, 2020)

notimp said:


> Democratic socialism is a subform of libertarian socialism, little vindictive backpedling, word picking piece of 'not wanting to learn a thing'. Might be why in the graphic I posted they were used interchangeably?
> 
> Its not my job to educate you on your mistakes, just to point out what an absolute moronic statement you made in making this "basically the same, as an anarchic form of politicy/politics".
> 
> ...



I am beyond confused.

Libertarian socialism is an anti-state socialist tendency. Democratic socialism is a statist socialist tendency that attempts to replace capitalism overtime with gradual reforms. While both tendencies are hoping for the same general outcome (replacing capitalism with something more equitable and democratic), they are incompatible with each other because Libertarian Socialism rejects state authority while Democratic Socialism attempts to wield state authority to achieve its ends.
Are you making this argument because Wikipedia erroneously places Democratic Socialism in a category with Libertarian Socialism?

Libertarian Socialism isn't a "subform" of Democratic Socialism. Both are different tendencies or schools of thought under the wider umbrella of Socialism, alongside Left Communism, Maoism, Marxist-Leninism, Marcyism, etc.

But I don't even know why you're talking about Democratic Socialism. My discussion with Foxi never mentioned Democratic Socialism. Further, your original post mentions Social Democracy, which is a capitalist system that incorporates Socialistic programs like universal healthcare and free public transportation to mitigate some of capitalism's negative outcomes. Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism aren't the same thing.

Here's a decent summary from Moneyless Society of the differences between Libertarian Socialism, Democratic Socialism, and Social Democracy:

"Libertarian Socialism seeks to eliminate legislatures completely whereas Democratic Socialism retains a limited form of government in power."

"Social Democracy refers to a socioeconomic and political ideology that favors social and economic interventions for promoting social justice principles within a capitalist-oriented economy and liberal democratic polity."

"Social democracy still retains capitalist markets, which are an absolute no-no for libertarian socialists. While social democracy prioritizes the welfare of the people above all and is not opposed to the use of capitalism to achieve these objectives, libertarian socialism prioritizes power to the people above all and is completely opposed to the concentration of power and resources in the hands of the capitalists on all fronts. "



> So your statement that "where does Chomsky refer to himself als an anarcho socialist, I thought he was an advocate of libertarian socialism" was tautological. (You absolutely didnt know what you were talking about.)



This is not true. Anarcho-Syndicalism is a form of Libertarian Socialism that attempts to build a socialist society through specific forms of militant labor struggle. Most people on the left consider Libertarian Socialism to encompass a broader range of anti-state socialist tendencies, including, but not limited to Anarcho-Syndicalism. There are many other types of anti-state socialist tendencies that differ from Anarcho-Syndicalism that still fall under the umbrella of Libertarian Socialism, such as Autonomous Marxism, Anarcho-Communism, Communalism.

This is not a tautology because there are distinctions between Anarcho-Syndicalism and Libertarian Socialism. A drop of water is different from a cup of water, despite them both being water.

I was curious about Chomsky because Anarcho-Syndicalism is kind of a dated term these days in the US and I had never heard Chomsky identify himself as such. I had heard him identify himself as a Libertarian Socialist several times but Foxi corrected my error.

As an aside, it is pretty frustrating to be told as a Libertarian Socialist what I do and don't believe by someone that just opened up the Wikipedia page for something I've studied and put into practice for years.


----------



## notimp (Oct 30, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> All I see is "blah blah blah".  We are not interested in your soy crap and white genocide movement.  Babbling on for hours thinking you can fool anyone like some type of deceitful and nagging woman isn't working on anybody.
> 
> The only consensus mechanism that overrides all others in the real world is force.  Your lying and deceit is both powerless and useless because you don't have the force to invoke your tyranny of trying to ban free speech and the 2nd amendment.  Goodbye.


Finally..  Soros world conspiracy peddling is populist lowballing used by despots in hungary (https://theintercept.com/2018/04/07...ys-election-smear-non-candidate-george-soros/) and - oh wait....

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/2020-election-misinformation-distortions
https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-49584157
https://theconversation.com/how-don...pegoat-george-soros-to-win-re-election-140146

No, nevermind, not at all brainwashed individual.. 

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Whole lotta love said:


> Democratic socialism is a statist socialist tendency that attempts to replace capitalism overtime


Jesus.

Democratic socialism is what 2/3 of the world runs on, which is entirely compatible with free market capitalism.

Basics.

But I agree that the Wikipedia article is written with an emphasis on more extreme currents within the movement, for no reason, wonder how that happened...



> While having socialism as a long-term goal,[27] some democratic socialists who follow social democracy are more concerned to curb capitalism's excesses and supportive of progressive reforms to humanise it in the present day.[28]


Thats basically what most have settled into.

Up until "the displacement of keynsianism" according to said Wikipedia page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism#Overlap_with_social_democracy which reads like it was written by a 14 year old activist..


----------



## Whole lotta love (Oct 30, 2020)

notimp said:


> Jesus.
> 
> Democratic socialism is what 2/3 of the world runs on, which is entirely compatible with free market capitalism.
> 
> Basics.



Again, you're confusing Social Democracy (which is in place in many parts of the world) with Democratic Socialism, which is an anti-capitalist tendency.

Since you won't read the articles I share I'll give you a screenshot of an article titled "Democratic Socialism Isn’t Social Democracy" published in Jacobin, the most popular Democratic Socialist magazine currently in print.






I would also quite like to hear your responses to my other arguments since you seem very knowledgeable about anti-capitalist theory.


----------



## notimp (Oct 30, 2020)

Whole lotta love said:


> Again, you're confusing Social Democracy (which is in place in many parts of the world) with Democratic Socialism, which is an anti-capitalist tendency.


Yeah, I'm not sure to what extent though. The idea, that democratic socialism is this 'more radical current' that developed, once keynsianism was booted, and that now has the goal of 'ending capitalism'' is quite new to me.  As in, sure I've seen those arguments around me from time to time, but no one takes them quite seriously.

So I'm not sure if we should go full judean peoples front vs. peoples front of judea quite yet.


I'll read the jacobin article though, thanks.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Oct 30, 2020)

notimp said:


> Yeah, I'm not sure to what extent though. The idea, that democratic socialism is this 'more radical current' that developed, once keynsianism was booted, and that now has the goal of 'ending capitalism'' is quite new to me.  As in, sure I've seen those arguments around me from time to time, but no one quite takes them seriously.
> 
> So I'm not sure if we should go full judean peoples front vs. peoples front of judea quite yet.
> 
> ...




You really should join the anarcho-syndicalist commune


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 30, 2020)

You people are high on your own supply making 5000 arbitrary, meaningless, nonsensical labels of government and economics that don't even exist in the real world.  All you need to know is barter is the main form of human interaction in trade and the further you abstract from barter, the bigger a scam it is.  

Since humans practice specialization of labor, trading a non-perishable, physical commodity resource is the closest thing to barter without being barter itself, and so the noble metals (gold, silver, somewhat copper) were utilized.  The purpose of money is to transfer value from the present to the future, so the unit of account has to be an actual resource in order to guarantee the value isn't zero for the next guy.

Aristotle was right and Plato was a liar and statist shill who claimed imaginary widgets could be money.  It works until it doesn't, then it implodes and everyone dies.


----------



## notimp (Oct 30, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> You people are high on your own supply making 5000 arbitrary, meaningless, nonsensical labels of government and economics that don't even exist in the real world.  All you need to know is barter is the main form of human interaction in trade and the further you abstract from barter, the bigger a scam it is.
> 
> Since humans practice specialization of labor, trading a non-perishable, physical commodity resource is the closest thing to barter without being barter itself, and so the noble metals (gold, silver, somewhat copper) were utilized.  The purpose of money is to transfer value from the present to the future, so the unit of account has to be an actual resource in order to guarantee the value isn't zero for the next guy.
> 
> Aristotle was right and Plato was a liar and statist shill who claimed imaginary widgets could be money.  It works until it doesn't, then it implodes and everyone dies.


Death cult? 

Take it a little easier. Reports of the end of the world are over exaggerated.  As always.

Cant deny that we are living in interesting times though.  (Several powershifts ongoing.)


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 30, 2020)

If by end of the world you mean complexity theory likely predicts cyclical dark ages, then sure.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Oct 30, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> You people are high on your own supply making 5000 arbitrary, meaningless, nonsensical labels of government and economics that don't even exist in the real world.  All you need to know is barter is the main form of human interaction in trade and the further you abstract from barter, the bigger a scam it is.



I'll trade you 5 chickens for 1 month of 100mb internet. Take it or leave it pal. I have plenty of people I can trade with for their international infrastructure.


----------



## notimp (Oct 30, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> If by end of the world you mean complexity theory likely predicts cyclical dark ages, then sure.


Cyclical dark ages. You crack me up. 

How do we define dark ages? All books burned? No one allowed into the castle walls anymore? ....


----------



## Whole lotta love (Oct 30, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> I find it astonishing that anti-white, leftist, racist members of a modern *white genocide* movement would use racist terms against white people.  This Soros guy who is the CEO of the left is probably the #1 most anti-white racist to ever walk the face of the planet and they're all like huh?  George Soros?  Never heard of him.



Whomst among us is surprised that the guy promoting a white supremacist conspiracy theory that considers racial diversity to be anti-white  "genocide" also believes the world is run by an evil Jewish man?

I bet you feel your buddy Adolf has been treated unfairly by history, too.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 30, 2020)

Whole lotta love said:


> Whomst among us is surprised that the guy promoting a white supremacist conspiracy theory that considers racial diversity to be anti-white  "genocide" also believes the world is run by an evil Jewish man?
> 
> I bet you feel your buddy Adolf has been treated unfairly by history, too.



finally swallowed "the jewish question" pill.

like i said, dangerously radicalized.


----------



## notimp (Oct 30, 2020)

omgcat said:


> finally swallowed "the jewish question" pill.
> 
> like i said, dangerously radicalized.


Just radicalized. 

Oh, and btw. if you've ever seen or read something of Project Syndicate in here, that I've posted, Soros (amongst others) funds that.

Its just, that you better know what you are critizising - instead of going with the flow of one particular filter bubble and ending up at 'the jewish world conspiracy'.  Basics.

The funny thing is - even Alex Jones gets 'reintegrated' these days - to some extent:


Hes just a man on a mission, having misunderstood a bunch of stuff, and believing in alien conspiracies of the cold war aera, and numerology...  Maybe he is slightly more dangerous, because of the numbers of followers he can conjure up, but he is so misunderstood....  (slight sarcasm..  )


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 30, 2020)

Whole lotta love said:


> Again, you're confusing Social Democracy (which is in place in many parts of the world) with Democratic Socialism, which is an anti-capitalist tendency.


notimp's Life of Brian scene summarized this disagreement perfectly.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 30, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> You people are high on your own supply making 5000 arbitrary, meaningless, nonsensical labels of government and economics that don't even exist in the real world.  All you need to know is barter is the main form of human interaction in trade and the further you abstract from barter, the bigger a scam it is.
> 
> Since humans practice specialization of labor, trading a non-perishable, physical commodity resource is the closest thing to barter without being barter itself, and so the noble metals (gold, silver, somewhat copper) were utilized.  The purpose of money is to transfer value from the present to the future, so the unit of account has to be an actual resource in order to guarantee the value isn't zero for the next guy.



Curious.
You go on about barter being the purest form but immediately abstract it to monetary systems, which are anything but barter. As a general principle it is not a bad plan -- you not only have to have chickens to trade but also want my cord of cut wood, aka double coincidence of wants, not to mention going the other way and no way is one chicken worth my felled tree and I can only eat so many chickens. I should also note gold, silver and whatnot are only valuable because shiny and someone said so -- can't eat it, can't make a sword with it, can't fashion a shelter from it, even today if the price went to that of say steel there is precious little I can do with it that can't be done better by similarly priced...

As for the labels. Some do exist (the democratic socialism bit that was under discussion has several people in fairly high office, and quite a few lower ones, right now in the US, some even survived reelection. Whether it forms either a viable form of governance or the dominant one anywhere is a different matter) and also can exist within the frameworks most people use to describe political approaches to the world. You also have to get right into the weeds and find mutually incompatible (see something like anarcho monarchist, that is to say the king forms a state to prevent emergence of the state) before you struggle to find those seriously advocating for it with some measure of backing.


----------



## MetoMeto (Oct 30, 2020)

https://www.southparkstudios.com/vi...k-my-opponent-is-a-liar-and-cannot-be-trusted

https://www.southparkstudios.com/video-clips/ac1zdg/south-park-the-next-president

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
I'm seeing Joe Biden is liked here on GBAtemp judging by the votes.
Isn't Joe Biden a Globalist?


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 30, 2020)

https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnn-m...ip-historic-gdp-growth-amid-economic-recovery






These networks believe they are helping Biden by trying to censor and hide news. 

But as we saw with Joe Biden and them avoiding reporting on proof of his corruption.  People hear about it one way or another.  And will just go  else-ware to find out more.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 30, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> View attachment 231834
> 
> A pejorative term for someone who is white, would be racist.
> 
> Seems pretty self explanatory to me.



I do believe that the anti-label people are now labeling people that have a common set of reactions or beliefs as “Karen’s”. It is indeed a slur, but I don’t see it being used solely against White people. I however tend to ignore insults coming from children especially the labels they’re giving everyone after years of claiming labels were the root of all evil. There’s also that “Ok Boomer” insult that I completely ignore. If you are slandering someone and those slanders are based on their race and that includes white people then you are indeed being racist against white people. Maybe since I just ignore dumb insults I haven’t seen it being used in that fashion?



r0achtheunsavory said:


> If soy weirdos like your vaccines, you can keep your vaccines:



Vaccines are relatively safe and have a very low death rate. You’re more likely to just get some flu like symptoms for a few days if you do have a bad reaction. You can die from drinking water too, but the chances are so low it’s worth the risk to consume it. Nothing in this life is 100% safe, but just like the death rate from the Chinese Wuhan Coronovirus you’re most likely not even going to get sick let alone die from vaccines.



omgcat said:


> so 36 deaths after 9.4 million vaccinations?
> 
> that's a 99.999617% survival rate, and no direct links have been made to the vaccines themselves.
> 
> ...



It’s funny how you now claim something with a 99.9% survival rate is okay, but something with a 99.8% survival rate warrants we wear masks, social distance, stay indoors, don’t work and keep shops and businesses closed. More people die from car accidents and obesity, but I don’t see anyone jumping to ban cars or educate people on how to take care of themselves and watch what they eat. Hypocrite much?



crimpshrine said:


> Yeah I don't know about that though.  I have known plenty of good people in my lifetime that have had issues with drugs.  I think Hunter is a BAD person.  Inside and out.  Drugs is just one of his problems a minor one in the grand scheme.  I don't look at him and empathize with him.  I would find it hard to believe others do.  If you are a pedophile douche bag who uses people and addicted to drugs, maybe.
> 
> I believe all drugs should be legal.



Since there’s stupid people like Hunter Biden who consumes drugs with random substances in them I don’t think legalizing deadly drugs would have the outcome you hope for.



Whole lotta love said:


> I am beyond confused.
> Libertarian socialism is an anti-state socialist tendency. Democratic socialism is a statist socialist tendency that attempts to replace capitalism overtime with gradual reforms. While both tendencies are hoping for the same general outcome (replacing capitalism with something more equitable and democratic), they are incompatible with each other because Libertarian Socialism rejects state authority while Democratic Socialism attempts to wield state authority to achieve its ends.



Any form of socialism is bad. I don’t understand why you all keep trying to implement old systems created by old rich white men that have always failed. It’s 2020, shouldn’t you be trying to come up with something new to replace capitalism with. Why do you have to keep falling back on something that’s proven to not work?



MetoMeto said:


> I'm seeing Joe Biden is liked here on GBAtemp judging by the votes. Isn't Joe Biden a Globalist?



The Liberals on this site refuse to acknowledge there’s a globalist agenda floating about. It’s like the WHO, United Nations, World Bank don’t even exist. We were even educated in grade school about the possibilities of a one world government. The funny thing is even if there’s no globalist agenda you can’t even get a straight answer out of anyone here if they would support one if one did exist.

For the record since I am a citizen of the USA I believe that the USA should come first, which is why I like how Trump ripped apart NAFTA and renegotiated our trade relationship with China and is trying to bring manufacturing back to the States. For years we’ve been on the wrong end of deals and that includes being in Globalist organizations like the WHO. I don’t think a global government is feasible because there’s other countries like China and Russia that are just not interested in one. However, there is a globalist agenda … it’s very real.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 30, 2020)

BIDEN: “I’ll lead an effective strategy to mobilize trunalimunumaprzure.” pic.twitter.com/TAkj7bJndN— Eddie Zipperer (@EddieZipperer) October 30, 2020



Joe Biden: “I’ll lead an effective strategy to mobilize trunalimunumaprzure.”


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 30, 2020)

omgcat said:


> no one's gonna report on it because it's not real.
> 
> *"One month before a purported leak of files from Hunter Biden's laptop, a fake "intelligence" document about him went viral on the right-wing internet, asserting an elaborate conspiracy theory involving former Vice President Joe Biden's son and business in China.*
> 
> ...




This has nothing to do with the email evidence from Hunter’s laptop or Bobulinski’s firsthand account of the Biden family pay-to-play racket. I read news from blogs and websites leaning both left and right and never saw this "64 page dossier" business mentioned anywhere before NBC ran this story.






As for the emails on Hunter's laptop, the DailyCaller hired a cybersecurity expert previously used by the Washington Post, Engadget, AP, and Wired ... he says the email is authentic based on DKIM signature. 

https://dailycaller.com/2020/10/29/cybersecurity-expert-authenticates-hunter-biden-burisma-email/


----------



## notimp (Oct 30, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> This has nothing to do with the email evidence from Hunter’s laptop or Bobulinski’s firsthand account of the Biden family pay-to-play racket. I read news from blogs and websites leaning both left and right and never saw this "64 page dossier" business mentioned anywhere before NBC ran this story.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Glen Greenwald resigned from the Intercept over similar concerns:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/29/media/glenn-greenwald-quits-the-intercept/index.html

One can decide for themselves, if this is 'reality management'. Imho its not out of the question to hold this opinion.

edit: changed link


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 30, 2020)

https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-campaign-accuses-nbc-news-running-interference-hunter-biden















https://twitter.com/TimMurtaugh/status/1322034747523084289?s=20


----------



## notimp (Oct 30, 2020)

Greenwald article:
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/article-on-joe-and-hunter-biden-censored


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 31, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-campaign-accuses-nbc-news-running-interference-hunter-biden
> 
> View attachment 231996
> 
> ...




 
definitely no conflict of interest here... not at all.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 31, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> View attachment 232021
> definitely no conflict of interest here... not at all.



Truth is truth.  How is it a conflict of interest calling out a major news outlet for muddying the waters on a real issue.   These are the same organizations that print "news" on Trump based on anonymous sources even when you have real people saying it's not true.

And wow, the title of the new story was not enough to tell you who was saying it?

*"Trump campaign accuses NBC News"*

NBC's article has nothing to do with what has been discovered from the hard drive of Hunter Biden.

CURRENT DNI John Ratcliffe confirmed the Hunter Biden laptop is NOT connected to Russian disinformation effort. That there is no intelligence to support any claims of that nature. No matter what arm chair intelligence officers claim.

Signatures have been compared from the form at the computer place. And they match enough to suggest/indicate it was Hunter who signed.

Hunter Biden's Attorney has attempted to retrieve the hard drive from the computer store owner.

People on the email chains have confirmed they received the same message as in the evidence of his drive.

Tony Bobulinski who was one of the recipients has confirmed he was a recipient of one of the emails from the laptop hard drive.  He has also come forward with his text messages and given an interview making his case.

Secret service has confirmed that travel plans match places and times traveled listed in the emails.

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10-20 CEG RHJ to Secret Service (Hunter Biden Travel Records Follow-Up) .pdf

The smoking gun email from the hard drive was confirmed by a 3rd party forensic analysis to be authentic.

https://dailycaller.com/2020/10/29/cybersecurity-expert-authenticates-hunter-biden-burisma-email/

Neither Joe, Hunter, or his campaign have said the data is invalid. Or that it is NOT his data/laptop*.*


----------



## omgcat (Oct 31, 2020)

woo, 100k+ new cases of COVID19 today, i didn't think we'd break that line anywhere near this fast. shit's gonna get real grim real fast. at this point, every time you clock ticks, a new person is infected. in other news, a florida polling place has been closed due to a COVID outbreak, this could have consequences for the election if polling places shutter during election day due to poll workers being sick.


----------



## notimp (Oct 31, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> View attachment 232021
> definitely no conflict of interest here... not at all.


The Greenwald piece is thorough, read it.  And it also features a former director of communications. Now at facebook.

The point that strikes me as most irksome, is how easily the 'russia' narrative was picked up, without any indication at all. Also has some new (to me) information about Bidens insistence to replace the chief prosecutor in the ukraine, and with whom he was replaced.

There is something there (probably not enough for direct personal accusations, but at least to raise the question) - and I have to say the Biden campaign got a pass on this by almost all media outlets.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 31, 2020)

omgcat said:


> woo, 100k+ new cases of COVID19 today, i didn't think we'd break that line anywhere near this fast.


How many deaths, though?


----------



## chrisrlink (Oct 31, 2020)

as much as i hate this cest pool of a thread i definitly (if biden wins) want to take jabs at you conservitives by posting trump in prison memes also when trump gets out they better arrest him cause he's too much of a security threat (especially if he flees to russia after losing pretty sure he wont give a f**k if he loses not caring for american lives after starting ww3


----------



## notimp (Oct 31, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> How many deaths, though?


US infection rate hasnt gone 'that exponential' - yet. But its on its way. Deaths should be lagging up to 4 weeks.

As always, you can look them up here: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us

edit: Also, dont forget its not only about deaths but also about hospitalization rate/hospital capacity.

edit: US is still fine in regards to hospitalization rate, but the issue still is - how is growth.  If it remains near exponential for a while, that changes quickly. 



> Rates for COVID-19 hospitalization are also rising in the United States, which is now well into its third spike in cases. Compared to late September, 41 states and Puerto Rico have more hospitalized patients now, and 22 of the states have experienced increases of more than 50%, the _Washington Post_ reported.
> 
> Both hospitalizations and deaths, which typically lag increases in cases, are among the markers showing that the surge in COVID-19 cases isn't just due to increased testing. The US average deaths per day are up 10% over the past 2 weeks, from 721 to 794, according to an Associated Press analysis of Johns Hopkins data. It also found that new cases are on the rise in 47 states, with deaths increasing in 34.


https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/10/surges-europe-us-push-exponential-covid-19-rise


----------



## omgcat (Oct 31, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> How many deaths, though?



1k/day, but remember, deaths lag by 3 weeks.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 31, 2020)

On an average day, nearly 8,000 people die from all causes in the United States. Non issue, unless you can use a joke of a pandemic that has a 99.6% survival rate to your gain politically of course.


----------



## notimp (Oct 31, 2020)

shamzie said:


> On an average day, nearly 8,000 people die from all causes in the United States. Non issue, unless you can use a joke of a pandemic that has a 99.6% survival rate to your gain politically of course.


Wait up to 4 weeks. Also, hospitalization rates will be a bigger issue, eventually. (From a states perspective.)


----------



## omgcat (Oct 31, 2020)

shamzie said:


> On an average day, nearly 8,000 people die from all causes in the United States. Non issue, unless you can use a joke of a pandemic that has a 99.6% survival rate to your gain politically of course.



sure 99.6% survival rate, but what about the longhaulers? you don't need to have a severe case to end up as a longhauler, and that shit is crippling. even if only .4% die, a much larger percent will have long term damage that slows down our economy for decades potentially. even then .4% of the whole US population is 1,400,000 deaths.

also if covid is 1k/day and the rest of ALL CAUSES is 8k/day covid is 1/(1+8) = 1/9 = 11.11% of all daily deaths. that's kind of high, and the daily deaths are on the rise.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 31, 2020)

shamzie said:


> On an average day, nearly 8,000 people die from all causes in the United States. *Non issue,* unless you can use a joke of a pandemic that has a 99.6% survival rate to your gain politically of course.


----------



## wartutor (Oct 31, 2020)

omgcat said:


> sure 99.6% survival rate, but what about the longhaulers? you don't need to have a severe case to end up as a longhauler, and that shit is crippling. even if only .4% die, a much larger percent will have long term damage that slows down our economy for decades potentially. even then .4% of the whole US population is 1,400,000 deaths.
> 
> also if covid is 1k/day and the rest of ALL CAUSES is 8k/day covid is 1/(1+8) = 1/9 = 11.11% of all daily deaths. that's kind of high, and the daily deaths are on the rise.


Numbers make it look bad but its a virus its going to do what it does. You cant stay locked up in your house forever. And with the amount of stupid people that wouldnt take the vaccine today if there was one, its not going to get any better. Might as well bite the bullet and get to living before it kills you anyways



LumInvader said:


>


Yeah yeah standing on coffins how original. At least there from a virus that you cant control instead of some stupid pointless war like most other presidents. I love how dumb people are still blaming trump for something that is a NATURAL part of life


----------



## omgcat (Oct 31, 2020)

wartutor said:


> Numbers make it look bad but its a virus its going to do what it does.



sorry that facts and real life suck. proper stimulus given to the people instead of wallstreet would changed this outcome. the republicans bitch about giving 3Tn for the heroes act, when we gave over 4tn in quantitative easing to wallstreet.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 31, 2020)

The great part is that it doesn't even matter who wins.  Everyone knows - even the left - that Biden is a criminal puppet, and Kamala is the #1 most disliked democrat that exists.  The second these scum try to rig the supreme court to ban the 2nd amendment, everyone will laugh right in their face.  There will be zero compliance for anything they say, and it will be the ultimate emperor with no clothes moment in the whole of human history.

So the left is not going to be able to do jack shit.  The most likely outcome from their tyranny (as puppets for Soros and the global government crowd), would be them going after the 2nd amendment or rigging the courts, then both the governors and local sheriffs everywhere would ALL refuse to enforce their crimes, and you'd probably have a repeat of the civil war with not one, but numerous states seceding.


----------



## wartutor (Oct 31, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> The great part is that it doesn't even matter who wins.  Everyone knows - even the left - that Biden is a criminal puppet, and Kamala is the #1 most disliked democrat that exists.  The second these scum try to rig the supreme court to ban the 2nd amendment, everyone will laugh right in their face.  There will be zero compliance for anything they say, and it will be the ultimate emperor with no clothes moment in the whole of human history.
> 
> So the left is not going to be able to do jack shit.  The most likely outcome from their tyranny (as puppets for Soros and the global government crowd), would be them going after the 2nd amendment or rigging the courts, then both the governors and local sheriffs everywhere would ALL refuse to enforce their crimes, and you'd probably have a repeat of the civil war with not one, but numerous states seceding.


And no matter who wins antifa will burn your city down. If trump wins they will scream voter fraud and if biden wins it will be out of celibration


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 31, 2020)

wartutor said:


> Numbers make it look bad but its a virus its going to do what it does. You cant stay locked up in your house forever. And with the amount of stupid people that wouldnt take the vaccine today if there was one, its not going to get any better. Might as well bite the bullet and get to living before it kills you anyways
> 
> 
> Yeah yeah standing on coffins how original.* At least there from a virus that you cant control* instead of some stupid pointless war like most other presidents. I love how dumb people are still blaming trump for something that is a NATURAL part of life


Uh, no.  This is *patently false:*

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/social-distancing.html

Attacking my intelligence doesn't change the fact that you're a card carrying member of the anti-science right, which* says more* about your intelligence -- or lack thereof -- than it does mine.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 31, 2020)

Lol, another leftist scammer spamming the word "science", like virtually everything in science isn't disputed.  I hear there were these people called the Nazis who had TONS of really smart scientists.  Since you insist on the world being run as a tyrannical technocracy, why aren't you calling these guys up?  They're huge fans of your authoritarian ideas, and they have TONS of scientific advice to share with you.


----------



## wartutor (Oct 31, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Uh, no.  This is *patently false:*
> 
> https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/social-distancing.html
> 
> Attacking my intelligence doesn't change the fact that you're a card carrying member of the anti-science right, which* says more* about your intelligence -- or lack thereof -- than it does mine.


Despite masks and social distancing the virus is spreading to new heights. Numbers went up yesterday over 100k new cases. Masks and social distancing is doing a good fucking job of stopping it. As you say numbers dont lie.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 31, 2020)

Who would be stupid enough to do what the government says after they release an artificial, gain of function, weaponized cold virus to try and divert blame for economic collapse so the usury bankers don't hang in the streets while also attempting to use the fake debacle to try and shoehorn people into their new cashless slavery system?

They can take their martial law aka lockdown and masks and shove them up their ass.  Nobody is going along with any of this shit and the world will go back to physical metals as money again instead of their Chinese social credit score monetary system.


----------



## wartutor (Oct 31, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Who would be stupid enough to do what the government says after they release an artificial, gain of function, weaponized cold virus to try and divert blame for economic collapse so the usury bankers don't hang in the streets while also attempting to use the fake debacle to try and shoehorn people into their new cashless slavery system?
> 
> They can take their martial law aka lockdown and masks and shove them up their ass.  Nobody is going along with any of this shit and the world will go back to physical metals as money again instead of their Chinese social credit score monetary system.


Damn roach we take 3 steps forward and you fall a mile backwards. You are so far right your damn near standing on the left side . I dont know what flavor kool aid your dipping into


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 31, 2020)

wartutor said:


> You are so far right your damn near standing on the left side .


Imagine believing in horseshoe theory.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 31, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> *Lol, another leftist scammer spamming the word "science", like virtually everything in science isn't disputed.*  I hear there were these people called the Nazis who had TONS of really smart scientists.  Since you insist on the world being run as a tyrannical technocracy, why aren't you calling these guys up?  They have TONS of scientific advice to share with you.


Predictably, you've provided *no reasonable counterargument* against social distancing as a means to reduce Covid-19's rate of infection.  This isn't just a science issue -- it's a common sense issue, which is why it's important to underscore this disingenuously flawed reasoning.

The mark of intelligence is one's ability to separate emotion from analysis.  Your pattern is to discuss each topic in a vindictive emotional manner, via ad hominum attacks and association fallacies, and thus many of your positions have an inherently weak foundation (i.e. anti-science gibberish vs. social distancing strategy).  This is why you resort to personal attacks in nearly every one of your posts, because your full intention is to provoke an emotional response from your opponent in an attempt to distract them away from analysis.

*COVID-19 study links strict social distancing to much lower chance of infection:*


> They found, for example, that those reporting frequent public transport use were more than four times as likely to report a history of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, while *those who reported practicing strict outdoor social distancing were just a tenth as likely to report ever being SARS-CoV-2 positive.*


*Efforts to prevent COVID-19 led to global decline in flu:*


> Results showed that the percentage of respiratory *specimens that tested positive for influenza dropped from more than 20% to 2.3%*



*COVID-19 gains lost after social distancing measures relaxed:*


> According to the study, they used segmented linear regression to estimate the extent to which social distancing relaxation affected epidemic control, as indicated by the time-varying, state-specific effective reproduction number (Rt).  The study demonstrated that in the 8 weeks before social distancing relaxation, mean Rt declined by 0.012 units per day.  *After relaxation of social distancing, Rt reversed course and began increasing by 0.007 units per day.*



*Model: US could see another 200K COVID-19 deaths by 2021:*


> The University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) currently projects more than 375,000 total U.S. deaths from COVID-19 by Dec. 31. However, a model that “assumes that the gradual easing of social distancing mandates continues” shows* the number of deaths could surpass 437,000 by the end of the year.*



*COVID-19 pandemic-related lockdown: response time is more important than its strictness:*


> *Countries that enforced a very strict lockdown could have obtained similar mortality figures with less stringent mobility restrictions as long as social distancing is initiated as early as possible* after the first incidents are recorded. As a direct consequence, the socioeconomic damage of a strict lockdown could have been less severe.



*For vampire bats, social distancing while sick comes naturally:*


> In the wild, vampire bats -- which are highly social animals -- *keep their distance when they're sick or living with sick groupmates.* And it can be expected that they reduce the spread of disease as a result.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 31, 2020)

wartutor said:


> Despite masks and social distancing the virus is spreading to new heights. Numbers went up yesterday over 100k new cases. Masks and social distancing is doing a good fucking job of stopping it. As you say numbers dont lie.


How many masks?  How much social distancing?  vs. what amount exactly so we can measure impact?  What you're attempting to argue is *completely unscientific* and makes absolutely no sense at all.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 31, 2020)

Nobody cares about your Covid lies.  Everyone and their mom knows it was released on purpose to try and fulfill a specific agenda.  The standard provide problem, wait for reaction, then unveil pre-packaged solution.

Only a complete moron would comply.  Want to not get screwed over?  Just do the 100% exact opposite of anything Bill Gates and Soros say.  Or Biden, but he's not actually giving anyone orders, he's just a grade Z actor puppet reciting the lines. 

Whether it was created in a lab, or simply harvested and kept in a lab then released on purpose doesn't matter.  Same thing in the end.  The original top researchers in India who blew the whistle claimed it was artificially made. They just worded it in a manner of plausible deniability for what they're implying:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871v1


----------



## omgcat (Oct 31, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Nobody cares about your Covid lies.  Everyone and their mom knows it was released on purpose to try and fulfill a specific agenda.  The standard provide problem, wait for reaction, then unveil pre-packaged solution.
> 
> Only a complete moron would comply.  Want to not get screwed over?  Just do the 100% exact opposite of anything Bill Gates and Soros say.  Or Biden, but he's not actually giving anyone orders, he's just a grade Z actor puppet reciting the lines.
> 
> ...



you posted a link to an article that has not been peer-reviewed, and has been withdrawn. It was also published in January...


----------



## notimp (Oct 31, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Nobody cares about your Covid lies. Everyone and their mom knows it was released on purpose to try and fulfill a specific agenda.


Ah the good old, the entire world has to live with the thought that this was a strategic weapon of war, that we now have to live with for the next 10 years, while no one is investigating it, and while no one has delivered proof or the 'specific agenda', but its important that you think about it that way for the next 10 years, dont you see? - game.

You dont know how humans work, do you?

So even if the boogey man story would be true, what do you propose we do? Hate the chinese? Who suffer from it themselves? Send in the CIA to investigate in a foreign country? Have more TV shows 'Hate the chinese, funhour', so the public can exercise their demons? To feel better?

Thats the main fallacy of all conspiracy 'cults', we know something no one else does. Dont you see? Its huge! Its important! By knowing you are important! Tell your neighbors, youve read it on the interthewebs! 

In the meantime NSA surveils the entire world, and no one cares.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 31, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> Nobody cares about your *Covid lies.* *Everyone and their mom knows it's an artificial, gain of function virus that was released on purpose to try and fulfill a specific agenda. * The standard provide problem, wait for reaction, then unveil pre-packaged solution.
> 
> Only a complete moron would comply.  Want to not get screwed over? * Just do the 100% exact opposite of anything Bill Gates and Soros say.  Or Biden, but he's not actually giving anyone orders, he's just a grade Z actor puppet reciting the lines.*


https://www.addictioncenter.com/drugs/conspiracy-theory-addiction/


> What is Conspiracy Theory Addiction?  A conspiracy theory can be defined *as the belief that a secret, but influential organization or individual is responsible for a circumstance or event.* People often think that these beliefs are rare or sometimes absurd, but research shows they may be more common than we thought. A study found that about 50% of Americans believe in at least one conspiracy theory.





> Conspiracy theories come in all forms, *but most theories involve political and social events.* Some examples include the belief that certain celebrities are immortal vampires, and controversial topics *such as the belief that a small group of people are planning to overthrow the government.*


----------



## wartutor (Oct 31, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> How many masks?  How much social distancing?  vs. what amount exactly so we can measure impact?  What you're attempting to argue is *completely unscientific* and makes absolutely no sense at all.


Yeah but your trying to argue a perfect case senario in which everything can be mesured in exact numbers and perfect patterns which cant be kept by biological creatures (aka humans) in an uncontrolled environment. You cant control nature when you do 9 times out of 10 you make it worse.


----------



## notimp (Oct 31, 2020)

@LumInvader:


> Conspiracy theories come in all forms, *but most theories involve political and social events.* Some examples include the belief that certain celebrities are immortal vampires, and controversial topics *such as the belief that a small group of people are planning to overthrow the government.*


Well, let me tell you, the head of the UN telling NGOs, they have to become their new vanguard, they have to influence their own governments in spreading their message and securing pledges as well as to influence legislation for climate neutrality 2050, funding for this has been secured - doesnt help.



But its a little different if you are on your own personal crusade to traumatize more people on the net using unproven theories supported by pretty much nothing, just to feel important.

As far as I know most conspiracy theories surrounding the origins of Covid19 bank on, that the story of how it originated in a population of wild bats isnt airtight, which it isnt. Now what?

Hate on the chinese for the next 10 years based on the rest of a theory you cobbled together in your mind?

Have everyone think about this every day for the rest of their lives? For "truths sake"! (Its someones truth, certainly... )

Or resign to the fact, that people at some point will not care at all, and telling them would have little purpose whatsoever? You arent even 'saving your own society' here, by 'disseminating' this truth. (Which strictly speaking isnt a factual truth, but hey, lets go with it for a while..) So all you are adding to is fear, uncertainty and doubt. Against a self protection mechanism in most humans, that would have them ignore such a story at all costs possible. Humans are very good at that stuff.

So whats the crusade for? So more people hate the chinese? Whats your best case scenario here in terms of outcome?


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 31, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Conspiracy theories



Once again, endless spam doing nothing but parroting the television pretending the news isn't government propaganda and lies.  But the lie is the natural tongue of leftist scum, so why would it suprise anyone?

Pretending CNN - or any of the six evil corporations that control the entire mass media are factual information sources - is equivalent to telling people the earth is flat.  You are incapable of thought.  You're a sheep that runs to the TV then runs back here and spams whatever you saw.


----------



## notimp (Oct 31, 2020)

Uh, numberology! 

Read my posting. I have the better angle on why what you are doing is entirely useless and in vain.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 31, 2020)




----------



## notimp (Oct 31, 2020)

You are just a better human being. You and your marketing accessory. 

Basically, too good for this world.

Some day - people will thank you for it.

Have I gotten the sentiment right? 

Point is, they wont.

You are basically crying, wolf, wolf! Well, radioactive super mutant werwolf! To be specific..  Think a little about it.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 31, 2020)

Seeing as how the powers that be that controlled Hillary-puppet wanted a nuclear exchange with Russia (the Zionists are always trying to destroy Russia ever since they murdered Nikolai II for not allowing them to establish a 5th column to enslave the country), you better hope the less reckless, less stupid, and less genocidal Trump regime stays in for your own safety.

They want one world government and one world usury slavery system currency and will try to murder anyone who stands in the way and wants their own sovereignty.  Even under Trump these organizations are still gearing up for biological warfare with Russia that would inevitably lead to M.A.D and the death of pretty much everyone:


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 31, 2020)

wartutor said:


> Yeah but your trying to argue a *perfect case senario* in which *everything can be mesured in exact numbers* and *perfect patterns *which cant be kept by biological creatures (aka humans) in an uncontrolled environment. You cant control nature when you do 9 times out of 10 you make it worse.


You're shifting your argument.  You originally argued that masks and social distancing weren't helping without any form of measurement to support that statement.  That argument was completely baseless.

Now you're arguing *against scientific method*, which isn't dependent on perfect case scenarios, exact numbers, or perfect patterns to conclude that a hypothesis true or false.  For example, to satisfy your perfect case scenario with exact numbers and perfect patterns, your argument requires that the entire world would need to be tested for Covid-19 to satisfy the example hypothesis that "75% of the human population is infected." * This is patently false*, as extrapolated samples can make the same argument while doing so with far fewer resources and in much less time and without the pin-point accuracy your argument requires.  If there is a flaw in a peer reviewed study, it will usually come to light after further observation.


----------



## r0achtheunsavory (Oct 31, 2020)

More leftist spam trying to obfuscate what's actually going on.  What's going on is you don't get to set the constitution on fire because you release an artifical cold virus on purpose.


----------



## wartutor (Oct 31, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> You're shifting your argument.  You originally argued that masks and social distancing weren't helping without any form of measurement to support that statement.  That argument was completely baseless.
> 
> Now you're arguing *against scientific method*, which isn't dependent on perfect case scenarios, exact numbers, or perfect patterns to conclude that a hypothesis true or false.  For example, to satisfy your perfect case scenario with exact numbers and perfect patterns, your argument requires that the entire world would need to be tested for Covid-19 to satisfy the example hypothesis that "75% of the human population is infected." * This is patently false*, as extrapolated samples can make the same argument while doing so with far fewer resources and in much less time and without the pin-point accuracy your argument requires.  If there is a flaw in a peer reviewed study, it will usually come to light after further observation.


I didnt argue they arnt helping i stated that even with everyone practicing social distancing and wearing masks it still spreads that it dont stop it and that is a fact based on the number of covid cases reported each clock tick


LumInvader said:


> How many masks?  *How much social distancing?  vs. what amount exactly* so we can measure impact?  What you're attempting to argue is *completely unscientific* and makes absolutely no sense at all.



Your the one that asked for exact numbers


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 31, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> More leftist spam trying to obfuscate what's actually going on.  What's going on is you don't get to set the constitution on fire because you release an artifical cold virus on purpose.





r0achtheunsavory said:


> Once again, endless spam doing nothing but parroting the television pretending the news isn't government propaganda and lies.  But the lie is the natural tongue of leftist scum, so why would it suprise anyone?
> 
> Pretending CNN - or any of the six evil corporations that control the entire mass media are factual information sources - *is equivalent to telling people the earth is flat. * You are incapable of thought.  You're a sheep that runs to the TV then runs back here and spams whatever you saw.


How many* 4chan conspiracy theories *has r0achtheunsavory proposed in this thread so far?  5?  10?  15?  And he has the nerve to use* flat earthers *as an example of stupidity?!



Just another shining example of his inability to think critically.


----------



## notimp (Oct 31, 2020)

r0achtheunsavory said:


> More leftist spam trying to obfuscate what's actually going on.  What's going on is you don't get to set the constitution on fire because you release an artifical cold virus on purpose.


World bigger than US constitution.

World 1.2 million Covid deaths, US 200k of those.

US constitution piece of sh*t. From todays perspective, comparing with other constitutions of countries that have been constituted a bit later.

US constitution doesnt even have a "right to vote" in it. Which is why every electoral year you have these voting registration suppression schemes going on. That are totally legal.

But only in the US.

It also didnt have the right to free speech in it, which is kind of necessary, and was patched in later.

Face it, with the words you are throwing around, you learned an explanation scheme of how the world works, thats based on 100 words or less. And for some reason this carried you to 'china is out for our constitution". Which is entirely false.

Learn what an economic war is first. Learn how the US having given out the worlds reserve currency underminded trade flows. Especially in certain ressource markets. Learn how the prerequisite to get USD credit has you dependant on being good with the US to get into certain markets. Learn how the Chinese government pressures low cashflow european states into accepting alipay, so they can exercise all of their business (and f.e. tourism spending) in their native currency, and what effects that has. Learn how much chinese companies are buying up US assets to diversify risk.

Learn what it means, that the US has lost the position as the worlds biggest economy.

CONSTITUTION! Isnt in there anywhere.

PEOPLE OPPRESSING THA TRUTH. Depends on really, really dumb folks believing in the existance of "one truth"TM exactly, and that they learned it from the internet board that addresses dimwhits to radicalize them.

You'll get it. Eventually. None of this is rocket science.

Just dont position yourself in the middle of the market square and shout "the chinese sent the Covid! everybody knows! It eats our constitution!"

You are manipulated based on pseudo religious meanings. Look, you even have your own book of gospels you pray to.

You can get it. Its not that hard.

Truth is, there is no simple truth out there, one could write down in a magazine, or book. That would be never changing, and easy to understand for people who hang out on image boards. Anything you attest as something "didacitively"  - (it is so), in politics and social sciences are proclamations. To be refuted. By better proclamations.

So please, who told your aunt, who told you, why someone in Wuhan made the VIrus to destroy the US constitution?

You trust your aunt, do you?


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 31, 2020)

wartutor said:


> I didnt argue they arnt helping* i stated that even with everyone practicing social distancing and wearing masks it still spreads that it dont stop it* and that is a fact based on the number of covid cases reported each clock tick


You stated that it's "from a virus you cant control."  That was the centerpiece of your rebuttal to the image I posted.  Even if we can't stop the spread entirely, studies have shown that social distancing does grant considerable control over the rate of spread.


> Your the one that asked for exact numbers



I asked "how much."  "How much" can be an exact number, but is usually an observed estimate.  In order to assess whether social distancing is working or not absolutely requires one observed measurement to be compared to another.  One can't just say, "well, people are socially distancing and wearing masks and it's still spreading, so obviously it's not working."


----------



## notimp (Oct 31, 2020)

Here is why you arguably are so preoccupied with CONSTITUTION all day. Its a legal text, thats only to be changed by a 2/3 majority (super majority). So you are basically obsessed shouting all day "THE OTHER SIDE CANT GET 2/3s OF THE VOTE", "SACRILIEGE" with the jist being, that the other side kind of _never_ is getting 2/3s of the vote in the US system.

So you are establishing a truism for the ages. On which you are told, its very important that you keep safeguarding it, or the world will end. So you do - and what do you know, the other side doesnt get a 2/3s majority. Wow. So much... win, greatness, moxy?

Waste of time?

But at least you believe in something. And thats important, that you - believe...


----------



## AkGBA (Oct 31, 2020)

Am I the only one fed up with r0achtheunsavory anti-semitism ?
Should conspiracy theories about jews, zionists, Soros, etc... be reported ?


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 31, 2020)

AkGBA said:


> *Am I the only one fed up with r0achtheunsavory anti-semitism ?*
> Should conspiracy theories about jews, zionists, Soros, etc... be reported ?



No of course youre not the only one, I dont like it either. But Soros is fair game as an individual, not because of who/what he is (ethnically), but because of what he does/where his money goes. (Unless the poster you're speaking of is tying that in with his anti-semitism. I just skip past his posts so I don't know, not gonna bother.)


----------



## wartutor (Oct 31, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> You stated that it's "from a virus you cant control."  That was the centerpiece of your rebuttal to the image I posted.  Even if we can't stop the spread entirely, studies have shown that social distancing does grant considerable control over the rate of spread.
> 
> 
> I asked "how much."  "How much" can be an exact number, but is usually an observed estimate.  In order to assess whether social distancing is working or not absolutely requires one observed measurement to be compared to another.  One can't just say, "well, people are socially distancing and wearing masks and it's still spreading, so obviously it's not working."


And i said 200k plus in one day which is an estimate. U can look at their exact numbers but thats only out of the ones tested so that number is probably close to 300k or more and thats all after social distancing and wearing masks. Highest jump in numbers to date but hey its just numbers lol. I just said that cause of ur pic with all the coffins. I find it funny people blame trump for it when u can see plain as day the virus is goin to do what ever it does.



AkGBA said:


> Am I the only one fed up with r0achtheunsavory anti-semitism ?
> Should conspiracy theories about jews, zionists, Soros, etc... be reported ?


Yeah i just skip over most of his ramblings. I dont know if he is trolling or what but noones that damn stupid...


----------



## Kurt91 (Oct 31, 2020)

On a different note, I've had a question on my mind over the last few days, and figured I'd ask. This is all strictly hypothetical in wanting to know what the procedure would be given the circumstances, don't take this as taking a stance on the issue or anything. I only use Biden for my question because he's the candidate who is not currently President. I'm pretty sure that were the positions reversed, it's just the usual "Vice President replaces President" situation. Anyways...

Let's say that Biden is found to have done something incredibly illegal and is arrested. I'm fairly certain that a criminal in prison is not eligible to run for President. However, early mail-in ballots have already been sent in. What would the procedure be regarding those votes as well as who officially is running for President at that point?

If Biden is no longer eligible to run, does Harris get "promoted" to Democratic candidate in the same way that she would have been promoted from Vice President if anything had happened to Biden after becoming President? Or would the person who originally got second place regarding who was to become the Democratic candidate become the acting candidate running for President? I'm sure that it can't just be something like "There's no opponent, so Trump wins by default" in such a situation.

What happens to the mail-in ballots that have already been filled out and sent in? They voted for Biden specifically, so do they just get counted as just generic Democrat votes and go towards whoever is the new candidate? They might not even like the new candidate enough to want to vote for them, so do they re-cast their votes towards their preference between Trump or the new candidate? We're kind of already down to the wire as far as the deadline goes for voting. How do we determine which people need to re-cast their votes so we don't have people getting to vote twice? Do we extend the deadline, or delay the election so that the new Democratic candidate gets to campaign or debate, or something?


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 31, 2020)

So all that social distancing, mask wearing and shut downs really helped get rid of the Chinese Wuhan Coronavirus. I'm still not sure why something with a 99.8% survival rate is even any issue any longer, but if this was an actually really deadly pandemic we all would have drastically failed and most of us would be dead.

The good news is with more testing and more infections we're learning that most people who get the Chinese Wuhan Corona virus don't even show symptoms and the few that do will most likely recover. Then out of the small minority that do get ill even a smaller minority are hospitalized and then out of that smaller minority only a handful of already really sick or old people die. So it's not really a big deal and is totally comparable to the flu.

The thing I don't understand is why people are still suggesting we shut down again when there's much more deadly things in our lives like obesity, drugs and car accidents that we simply ignore or find acceptable. We don't shut down because of those factors nor do we shut down when hundreds of thousands die from the yearly flu. It does seem it's all about making the Trump administration look bad and to gain more control over the populous. It's just a good thing I've ignored all of the mandates thus far and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.



Kurt91 said:


> On a different note, I've had a question on my mind over the last few days, and figured I'd ask. This is all strictly hypothetical in wanting to know what the procedure would be given the circumstances, don't take this as taking a stance on the issue or anything. I only use Biden for my question because he's the candidate who is not currently President. I'm pretty sure that were the positions reversed, it's just the usual "Vice President replaces President" situation. Anyways...
> 
> Let's say that Biden is found to have done something incredibly illegal and is arrested. I'm fairly certain that a criminal in prison is not eligible to run for President. However, early mail-in ballots have already been sent in. What would the procedure be regarding those votes as well as who officially is running for President at that point?
> 
> ...



I'm not sure how to answer your question, but Biden is is the same position that Trump is in - that is being untouchable and not having to answer to anyone about his actions. Top political figures in the USA basically get untalked about immunity to most of the normal stuff normal people would get put in prison for. There's a reason most of the citizens of the USA call politicians crooked fucks, it's because they are.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 31, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> So all that social distancing, mask wearing and shut downs really helped get rid of the Chinese Wuhan Coronavirus. I'm still not sure why something with a 99.8% survival rate is even any issue any longer, but if this was an actually really deadly pandemic we all would have drastically failed and most of us would be dead.
> 
> The good news is with more testing and more infections we're learning that most people who get the Chinese Wuhan Corona virus don't even show symptoms and the few that do will most likely recover. Then out of the small minority that do get ill even a smaller minority are hospitalized and then out of that smaller minority only a handful of already really sick or old people die. So it's not really a big deal and is totally comparable to the flu.
> 
> ...


COVID-19 is killing about 1,000 Americans a day right now, and rising.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 31, 2020)

>




Joe can't even fantasize about hurting our president without screwing it up.

Look at that tremor or shake at the end.  Maybe it's not dementia but Parkinson's.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 31, 2020)

Kurt91 said:


> On a different note, I've had a question on my mind over the last few days, and figured I'd ask. This is all strictly hypothetical in wanting to know what the procedure would be given the circumstances, don't take this as taking a stance on the issue or anything. I only use Biden for my question because he's the candidate who is not currently President. I'm pretty sure that were the positions reversed, it's just the usual "Vice President replaces President" situation. Anyways...
> 
> Let's say that Biden is found to have done something incredibly illegal and is arrested. I'm fairly certain that a criminal in prison is not eligible to run for President. However, early mail-in ballots have already been sent in. What would the procedure be regarding those votes as well as who officially is running for President at that point?
> 
> ...



First arrested =/= convicted. Innocent unless/until proven guilty and all that. Unless they were arrested (as mentioned extremely unlikely) and pled guilty immediately (why anybody with that kind of money, pool of lawyers and political clout would do such a thing I don't know, would presumably have to be a "you know you are done and your dynasty is over unless you fall on your sword" type deal) the timeframes at this point would be very odd and potentially then running a criminal/federal case against a sitting president which is all kinds of difficult (see also the impeachment lark last time around as a lot of legal discussion was had there).
There was some discussion of what goes if one died or was incapacitated (both being of the age and health condition that keeling over tomorrow is far from the strangest thing to happen in the world) a few weeks back. In those cases yeah switched to VP pick, even those that already went. Some kind of do over/new election would be a nightmare, and likely trouble the constitution. I don't see why you would get a second kick at the cat though -- generally by voting for one it is seen as a tacit endorsement of their second in command.

It is however fairly uncharted territory. There have been some that died soon after taking office but on the campaign trail has not happened yet.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 31, 2020)

holy shit, the number of republican senators running from their debates is crazy.

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a34532783/republicans-afraid-to-debate-senate-races/

also good job with the voter turnout in Texas! 107% of 2016's total turnout before election day. Montana is following at 95+%.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 31, 2020)

Joe Biden: “Barack and I think it’s a right for people to have badakathcare.” pic.twitter.com/UqWELjSAMN— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) October 31, 2020



badakathcare LOL


----------



## PiracyForTheMasses (Oct 31, 2020)

omgcat said:


> holy shit, the number of republican senators running from their debates is crazy.
> 
> https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a34532783/republicans-afraid-to-debate-senate-races/
> 
> also good job with the voter turnout in Texas! 107% of 2016's total turnout before election day. Montana is following at 95+%.


HOLY SHIT, Esquire is NOT a credible source for any type of news. Go over to their news and politics section, what's that? Nothing but hate for Donald Trump. Any news on anything to do with the democrat party? Not at all. Nothing about the Biden laptop. Nothing about Bobulinski. Nothing about Biden straight up lying to the American people about the oil industry etc. Nothing about Biden straight up lying to the American people about things he has said & done in the past. It is nothing more than a bias political democrat agenda pushing website. If you want to be taken serious I would suggest not referring to that website.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 31, 2020)

Imagine how it would have been if we actually had media that asked real questions of Joe and held him to the same standards as others.  He probably would have broken down by now.

Joe Biden tells voters “I don’t need you to get me elected.” pic.twitter.com/kMTqiIx2B4— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) October 31, 2020


----------



## Lacius (Nov 1, 2020)

PiracyForTheMasses said:


> HOLY SHIT, Esquire is NOT a credible source for any type of news. Go over to their news and politics section, what's that? Nothing but hate for Donald Trump. Any news on anything to do with the democrat party? Not at all. Nothing about the Biden laptop. Nothing about Bobulinski. Nothing about Biden straight up lying to the American people about the oil industry etc. Nothing about Biden straight up lying to the American people about things he has said & done in the past. It is nothing more than a bias political democrat agenda pushing website. If you want to be taken serious I would suggest not referring to that website.


Regardless of how you feel about the website, the news is correct. After some Republicans performed quite poorly at their debates, they've been running away from debates like crazy. The Republican Party is becoming a post-policy party, so I'm not surprised.


----------



## omgcat (Nov 1, 2020)

PiracyForTheMasses said:


> HOLY SHIT, Esquire is NOT a credible source for any type of news. Go over to their news and politics section, what's that? Nothing but hate for Donald Trump. Any news on anything to do with the democrat party? Not at all. Nothing about the Biden laptop. Nothing about Bobulinski. Nothing about Biden straight up lying to the American people about the oil industry etc. Nothing about Biden straight up lying to the American people about things he has said & done in the past. It is nothing more than a bias political democrat agenda pushing website. If you want to be taken serious I would suggest not referring to that website.



https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/21/senate-debates-campaign-final-stretch-431018 here ya go buddy, didn't mean to hurt your feelings.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 1, 2020)




----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 1, 2020)

Lacius said:


> COVID-19 is killing about 1,000 Americans a day right now, and rising.




Where are you getting that? I'm looking at CDC here:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

And I'm seeing for the "covid-related" (which is bullshit, but anyway) these numbers:

Week of
Sept 26    3782
Oct 3        3519
Oct 10      3635
Oct 17      2841
Oct 24      1119

More recent weeks are 'provisional' and the end total will probably be a little higher, but still it's looking like a 3500-3600 average recently. And that's twice what you're claiming.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 1, 2020)




----------



## notimp (Nov 1, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


>


Nobody who said this was called a conspiracy theorist by THA MEDIA, as far as I know.

"Dangerous conspiracy theorists" never said, you will need a malaria shot, in order to travel to certain parts of africa - because at least in europe, you needed that for years. As a prerequisite. To travel. Internationally.

Its called "eradicate malaria" by making sure, you dont bring it back with you, when you return.

OMG! SOMTHING IS COMING, THATS ALREADY A THING FOR YEARS! BUT IDIOTS HAVENT HEARD OF!

In further news. The earth is round, and the sun tomorrow will rise in the east. You must be so impressed.

Draw a pyramid on it, shout conspiracy. Forget, that what 80% of US people never leave their own country?

edit: Its 64% not 80%:
https://matadornetwork.com/life/64-americans-never-left-u-s/


ALSO BEWARE OF THE FLIPPING MINDTARDS, THAT HAVE TO POST PROPAGANDA MEMES, AND DONT COMMENT THEM AT ALL, SO YOU KNOW THEIR ONLY INTEREST IS TO SPREAD THAT SHIT AROUND.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Hanafuda said:


> Where are you getting that? I'm looking at CDC here:
> 
> https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm
> 
> ...


https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/

They should list their sources somewhere on the website.

What you say isnt necessarily that conflicting, because the pattern shows, that on some days of the week they dont turn off life support. (Seemingly. Never looked into that.)


----------



## Coto (Nov 1, 2020)

I feel I needed to write this down. Do not make the same mistake Chileans did a week ago. Your life depends on it.

Chile as of 25th October 2020 is a SOCIALIST country, the new constitution agreed and signed by 80% of ignorant Chileans made the citizen sovereignty to cease to exist. We lost our liberty and freedom. ONU (United Nations, Human Rights Watch) + Sao Paulo Forum have the Chilean sovereignty now. There are ways to take them back, but let me tell you how it happened:

Antifa was created in Chile. ONU's Latin American guests including Sebastian Piñera (Chilean President), Michelle Bachelet (ex-Chilean President), Jorge Abbott - Mario Desbordes (The Government of National Defense, with ability to write any law through a Constituent Party), hijacked the older, libertarian constitution and escalated rights to write a new one, added the Chilean stupidity). The last group of people belonged to MIR / FPMR (Frente Patriótico Manuel Rodríguez). UN socialist take over model emerged from terrorism (as you can see in Chile's tanketazo, several republican US and Chileans murdered by such armed group). That group has been renamed and split into several micro socialist communist guerrillas. Coordinadora Arauco Malleco, Frente Amplio, (of which family members of the Chilean Human Rights Watch founders are acting as leaders). Added the Sao Paulo Forum party which takes G2, castro chavist guerrillas, and *on top of that *enforced by UN.

These guerrillas push social issues further into removing the current socio-political model (socialism), until the current socio-political model is destroyed. Then communism takes over and rewrites rules (through a new constitution and / or by force. This is how things have had happened in Argentina, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Chile, Perú (in progress), Bolivia. The entire Latin America has been taken over now, through terrorist Sao Paulo Forum terrorists (like Antifa, but armed and agreed to work silently under the socialist government).

We military are ready when the war starts here in Chile. USA's constitution is at risk right now. Like I said earlier,

Chile's https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanquetazo  made Chile to have a constitution and sovereignty entirely for us citizens.
It was thanks to USA neo capitalist / socialist but with sovereignty tied to their citizens model, where I could develop things and participate in great stuff related to Chile's growth...
development has its roots deeply tied with values and freedom, otherwise there is no development and everything begins to wither.... as you can see in Venezuela, Cuba, China. Rusia due to political issues may not talk about it openly, but they are somewhat getting the same understanding now (at least their citizens), and I can relate to that.

If Biden wins, the last stand in liberty and freedom in the entire world will cease to exist. Since i'm from the Chilean military, ONU has disarmed military, has disarmed our greatly appreciated Carabineros (they are dying everyday, and if they defend themselves the political socialist parties take them over 10+ years in prison), and they are building a communist, popular police (Policía de Investigaciones), of which already has escalated rights to act as military, but they are (about 50%) corrupt and socialist.

So go and support Trump, or your country will be destroyed. I need not to justify anything. I'm stating what happened in my country and how USA was able to help us. And USA needs the same support from their citizens. I hope your understand.

Thank you for your time.


----------



## notimp (Nov 1, 2020)

Coto said:


> I feel I needed to write this down. Do not make the same mistake Chileans did a week ago. Your life depends on it.
> 
> Chile as of 25th October 2020 is a SOCIALIST country, the new constitution agreed and signed by 80% of ignorant Chileans made the citizen sovereignty to cease to exist. We lost our liberty and freedom. ONU (United Nations, Human Rights Watch) + Sao Paulo Forum have the Chilean sovereignty now. There are ways to take them back, but let me tell you how it happened:
> 
> ...





> Chile has voted overwhelmingly in favor of rewriting the country’s constitution to replace guiding principles imposed four decades ago under the military dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet.
> 
> Jubilant pro-reform supporters took to the streets of the capital Santiago and other cities to celebrate on Sunday night after exit polls showed that 78.24% of people had voted to approve a rewrite, while 21.76% rejected the change.



https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/26/chile-vote-scrap-pinochet-constitution

This is one of the rare times, when you actually get a 2/3 majority to change the constitution.

So now previous benefactors of a military dictatorship are like "the dumb peasants messed this up". Why military dictatorship?

Because US foreign policy in the region favored corrupt elite leadership enriching themselves and oppressing the poor, so "less risk of socialism" developing in their backyard.

Also less risk of economic competition developing in their backyard.

Also - very good to exploit natural ressources cheaply, because you dont actually have to pay their market value. You just have to pay off the rich leader class. In a military dictatorship.

edit: Here more detail from the european perspective:
https://www.dw.com/en/chile-votes-t...stitution-early-referendum-results/a-55394621


edit:


> Center-right President Sebastian Pinera pledged the referendum in a bid to quell mass protests that broke out in 2019 against the country's neoliberal economic policies.


Ah, it was a 'please stop revolting' PR measure.

So government messed up, then tried to wrangle back the public sentiment, by giving them something, anything, but the governments head.

vs.

Guy above telling you "Antifa was created, and then..:"


> The country moved from dictatorship to democracy in 1990, and decades of economic growth and democracy followed, with one government peacefully replacing another.
> 
> But that growth did not reach all Chileans.
> 
> Inequality is still deeply entrenched. Chile’s middle class is struggling with high prices, low wages, and a privatized retirement system that leaves many older people in bitter poverty. And a series of corruption and tax-evasion scandals have eroded faith in the country’s political and corporate elite.


src: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/03/world/americas/chile-protests.html

Gini Index says they have become more equal, but slowly.
https://tradingeconomics.com/chile/gini-index-wb-data.html

edit: Gini index, country ranking: https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SI.POV.GINI/rankings



> “It’s not 30 pesos, it’s 30 years.” Our columnist went to Santiago, the Chilean capital, to understand how a small hike in public transportation fares ignited mass protests.
> 
> 
> After weeks of demonstrations, Chile’s president said he would support a new Constitution. But for many, it was too little, too late.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/podcasts/the-daily/chile-protests.html



> Poverty levels have dropped dramatically in the country over the last 20 years, but it remains one of the most unequal nations in the world. Many blame a system that has part-privatised services and utilities.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-54643589

Ah, privatising services and utilities, and then raising prices - until the public revolts. Always a good choice.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 1, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> View attachment 232211


Wow... the joke writes itself.
Well, glad to know you're a fascist. I don't think I'll be discussing anymore with you any time soon, since trying to reason with a fascist is out the window and far out of my expertise.


----------



## AkGBA (Nov 1, 2020)

Hahahahahahahaha. Biden, a socialist.
Nice one.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 1, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Where are you getting that? I'm looking at CDC here:
> 
> https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm
> 
> ...


https://covidtracking.com/data


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 1, 2020)

Lacius said:


> https://covidtracking.com/data




oh, The Atlantic. 

well, you would lol.


----------



## notimp (Nov 1, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> oh, The Atlantic.
> 
> well, you would lol.


You ignored the actual answer, and actively chose to lampoon the answer what you claim is wrong, but isnt.

You are an instigator. For no reason. Just to create conflict.

You probably also actively chose to confront with weekly numbers, where you knew that deaths on two days of the week were well below 1000 but on other days of the week they were above 1000.

Then you ridiculed a person over the weekly average not being 1000 deaths - yet. A measure you introduced. And that pretty much no one uses. (Or how often have you heard in the news what the weekly average of death numbers is?).

Also you actively ignored 'exponential nature', by suggesting that death 'never could be that high', which already is false. And winter is only beginning.

You actively produced confusion, to hide the actual facts.
-

Befiore you did that - you were actually somewhat in the right, because weekly averages are slightly below 1000. But that doesnt mean what you then claimed it means.

(It could never be that high, Atalntic probably made up those values, .... - all those are lies.)


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 1, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Wow... the joke writes itself.
> Well, glad to know you're a fascist. I don't think I'll be discussing anymore with you any time soon, since trying to reason with a fascist is out the window and far out of my expertise.


What? How does any of that apply to me?



I made a thing.


----------



## notimp (Nov 1, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> What? How does any of that apply to me?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ignore him - he is trying to create personal bickering to not have people read, how completely he fed them with bull'shit propaganda. Ignore it, if possible, and let it stand for itself.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 1, 2020)

notimp said:


> You ignored the actual answer, and actively chose to lampoon *the answer what you claim is wrong*, but isnt.
> 
> You are an instigator. For no reason. Just to create conflict.
> 
> blah blah fucking blah blah blah





I didn't make any claims at all.  I just choose to go with CDC statistics, not "The Atlantic." Any "news source" that would publish the flagrant bullshit that rag does on claims of anonymous sources is not one I will rely on. But you can if you like.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 1, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> oh, The Atlantic.
> 
> well, you would lol.


The numbers are correct. It's public reporting by the states.


----------



## notimp (Nov 1, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> I didn't make any claims at all.  I just choose to go with CDC statistics, not "The Atlantic." Any "news source" that would publish the flagrant bullshit that rag does on claims of anonymous sources is not one I will rely on. But you can if you like.


Claims were implicit.  Not explicit. You were right. Average daily death rates arent at 1000 yet. But but individual days are close to that, sometimes even exceeding that.  So its not outrageous to bring it as a news item (especially not looking at growth trends).

So I was with you when you were right.

But I stopped being with you, when you used it to lampoon the Atlantic over which sources they use.  The numbers arent that different to be called into question (as 'entirely made up').


----------



## Coto (Nov 1, 2020)

notimp said:


> Ah, it was a 'please stop revolting' PR measure.
> So government messed up, then tried to wrangle back the public sentiment, by giving them something, anything, but the governments head.



It was the so dreaded millenial brainwash (post 1990). The Chileans (and Europe) have no idea how many decades took Chile to have as little as 5% of Unemployment Rate. (2015)

https://tradingeconomics.com/chile/unemployment-rate

Please set the slide to [MAX]. What you are seeing before 1990 was the socialist retaliation when moving forwards a neo capitalist socio economic model. You can see the unemployment rate was of 13.50% 


The "military dictatorship" in Chile only arranged constitutional laws to move away from socialism (poverty and misery) and it would end in 1990. Chile was then handed over to their social democrat (democRats) government. The chilean communists were humilliated because Chile was the only country where communism failed, and it'd be pointed by everybody. Because of that, the communists here said something like "next time, our revenge won't be through bullets but by voting". 

Also You should look what happened to Chile prior to 1973. You'll see Chile was deemed to be a socialist country, and not "the backyard of USA". It was the misery all socialists tend to skip "for some unknown reason".


----------



## notimp (Nov 1, 2020)

Coto said:


> It was the so dreaded millenial brainwash (post 1990). The Chileans (and Europe) have no idea how many decades took Chile to have as little as 5% of Unemployment Rate. (2015)
> 
> https://tradingeconomics.com/chile/unemployment-rate


I got that you made progress in terms of getting a more equal distribution of income. A revolt under those circumstances isnt all that usual.

But then privatizing utilities, and raising prices up to the point where the public rebells, isnt from the 'free societies rulebook' either. So if thats what conjured up the revolt - some folks are to blame that arent the left. And even less likely ANTIFA, who noone really likes. (Too edgy.)(Except when you have a problem with far right populism.)

The idea that 'a leftist movement just seduced 2/3 of the society' is also not flipping likely, because the left basically everywhere else in the world is facing an existential crisis, Maybe everyone just believed in facebook memes this time around, who knows.  (I'm not intimately familiar with the developments in your country.)

But getting 2/3s of the public against a standing government is no small feat - so regardless of how you frame it, something had to happen at such an infliction point.

This is more than, 'Antifa just took over, and PRed me country'.
-

On the point that socialism means poverty and misery - only if you have the US (or an other big power) antagonizing your development. (Massive sanctions, currency wars, ...) Otherwise, 'socialism' combined with free market principles has been successful in getting countries out of poverty, and setting up necessary checks and ballances. (edit: Often, not always.)

You can think about it this way. The reflex after such a leftwing uprising, is often increased investments in public education, social security (pensions), and healthcare. So you can ask yourself if this is a way for your country to profit, at the current point in time, or if this would result in everyone 'becoming poorer again' as you hinted at. It depends what you make of it. So do you have investments 'pending' where a higher level of education would actually accelerate growth? Are you sufficiently independent from outside interests, that you would be able to strike deals that would leave you with more structural income in return for ressources?

If yes, a left shift isnt the worst.

And to be honest, a 2/3 vote against the reigning government, is very unlikely to be caused by 'just PR'. (You usually need a bunch of people facing a hunger crisis to get those kind of numbers against a standing government...)

On the positive side, hey - maybe you become more independent, more just, less corrupt... Who knows.  At least there is the public enthusiasm to try once more. .)


edit: Slight correction, democratic socialism, with free market capitalism still in place (reigned in, but still als you main economic system). I dont mean 'state managed economy' socialism.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 1, 2020)

Coto said:


> I feel I needed to write this down. Do not make the same mistake Chileans did a week ago. Your life depends on it.
> 
> Chile as of 25th October 2020 is a SOCIALIST country, the new constitution agreed and signed by 80% of ignorant Chileans made the citizen sovereignty to cease to exist. We lost our liberty and freedom. ONU (United Nations, Human Rights Watch) + Sao Paulo Forum have the Chilean sovereignty now. There are ways to take them back, but let me tell you how it happened:
> 
> ...



That's a total buzz kill man. We do have idiots in this country that desire we throw out our individual rights too. They're called liberals and they're stupid as fuck for wanting to do so. Sorry to hear about your Military position and the eventual fate of your country. I'd move if I were you.


----------



## Doran754 (Nov 1, 2020)

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1322999080008642560?s=20

More black people that don't realise that actually they're not Black. Biden will be along to let them know soon, or a white liberal.

This is also a very interesting video. Black trump supporters being silenced by big tech, of course they dont know that they're actually not black. Hopefully Joom will be jogging over to tell them.

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1323019334701080582?s=20


----------



## crimpshrine (Nov 1, 2020)




----------



## Lacius (Nov 1, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> That's a total buzz kill man. We do have idiots in this country that desire we throw out our individual rights too. They're called liberals and they're stupid as fuck for wanting to do so. Sorry to hear about your Military position and the eventual fate of your country. I'd move if I were you.


Name-calling doesn't help your case. Nobody wants to take your rights away. You're thinking of conservatives' war against women's rights, LGBT rights, etc.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 1, 2020)

Why is this body fake campaigning as Kamala Harris?!?










https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...double-palm-beach-polling-place-video-photos/



backup video link (but Twitter is probably even more likely to censor)
https://twitter.com/m1dn7ghtrider/status/1323000259233067008?s=21


----------



## Lacius (Nov 1, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Why is this body fake campaigning as Kamala Harris?!?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What conspiracy theory nonsense is this?


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 1, 2020)

Lacius said:


> What conspiracy theory nonsense is this?



It's fucking bizarre is what it is. I mean, why?!? Someone living a fantasy? I just thought it was amusing and very fucked up. Not alleging any conspiracies, though I would like to know just what the hell is going on there.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 1, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> It's fucking bizarre is what it is. I mean, why?!? Someone living a fantasy? I just thought it was amusing and very fucked up. Not alleging any conspiracies, though I would like to know just what the hell is going on there.



Democrats value deception so I wouldn't put it past them to fake a candidate to get votes.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 1, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Democrats value deception so I wouldn't put it past them to fake a candidate to get votes.


What's your best piece of evidence that Democrats broadly value deception? It's not the Democratic candidate for president (to this day) spouting dangerous lies about COVID-19. It's not the Democratic candidate for president who has publicly lied over 20,000 times.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 1, 2020)

https://twitter.com/wizard_predicts/status/1323024739464630272?s=21


----------



## omgcat (Nov 1, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Democrats value deception so I wouldn't put it past them to fake a candidate to get votes.



sounds so much like republicans to tell us what we "value".


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 1, 2020)

omgcat said:


> sounds so much like republicans to tell us what we "value".



Liberals openly embrace biblical sins.

I just call it like I see it.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 2, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Liberals openly embrace biblical sins.
> 
> I just call it like I see it.


The United States is a secular country.

Edit: and I'm still unaware of anything Democrats embrace that's deceptive.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 2, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The United States is a secular country.


Technically true, but that doesn't stop it from being one nation under God.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> Edit: and I'm still unaware of anything Democrats embrace that's deceptive.


Biden himself admitted to -- nay, bragged about -- mass voter fraud.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 2, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Technically true, but that doesn't stop it from being one nation under God.


Yeah, it does.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraSUPRA said:


> Technically true, but that doesn't stop it from being one nation under God.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


He never did that.


----------



## RyanfromWork (Nov 2, 2020)

russia collusion


----------



## Rail Fighter (Nov 2, 2020)




----------



## notimp (Nov 2, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Democrats value deception so I wouldn't put it past them to fake a candidate to get votes.


Nha... And you never think, that that party could be smart enough to not pull a stunt so strange, it would sabotage themselves?

Go on a local radio show, promote a public speech. Make the speech. Repeat. Thats the name of the game.

The staffer that comes up with 'I have an idea, body doubles!" and gets that greenlit, hasnt been born yet. 

Apart from being entirely stupid and useless, if there is any marketing person in the room, they'll forbid it for the potential to backfire.

Also - I'm strongly considering what the heck I'm doing in a forum like this, if those are the "mystery/intreague" stories you digg up all day.

If something smells like BS, and works as a negative attack action, and is easy to pull, and has the main actors not identified, guess what the chances are of it being.

Also, the 'thats not Camila Harris, thats not Camilla Harris, it doesnt even look like her! Tembre is very matter of fact, and very sure, and forward and louder than whatever the boudydouble says - whose role apprently ended at hugging a guy and then saying thank you. So what do you do next? Walz into a garden party - say thank you and goodbye? Boy this action is thought out. The visit of the vice presidential candidat that doesnt last for two minutes - setup wise, that goes straight into hugging people, and that is acoustically more silent than the OMG Its a fake accusator, that states this matter of factly and still is the most clearly audible person in the video?

Yes, my schools variety troop also had a great idea. We asked Susy to play the mute hugger, and even though she failed to be convincing, we titled the video "outrage, fake kamilla tricks good people" and put it on youtube.

And of course that gets featured on gbatemp.

Lets see if somone factchecks it and I'm correct. 


edit: Oh, Mystery solved:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ight-activist-wins-republican-primary-florida

Facebook shock personallity does it again. Gbatempers willing victims.


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 2, 2020)

I need to address the elephant in the room -no pun intended- but if you know some trump supporters surrounded the biden bus today and trump even applauded it the GOP is weak minded and scared to even convict trump of blaitenly SUPPORTING TERRORISM that said if any of you tempers endorse that kind of behavor i'm pretty sure i'll speak to the mods and if it's the last thing i do here is get those endorsing that behavoor punished i might hate trump president or not i don't wish him dead (as prison seems a better punishment for him anyways)


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 2, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> I need to address the elephant in the room -no pun intended- but if you know some trump supporters surrounded the biden bus today and trump even applauded it the GOP is weak minded and scared to even convict trump of blaitenly SUPPORTING TERRORISM that said if any of you tempers endorse that kind of behavor i'm pretty sure i'll speak to the mods and if it's the last thing i do here is get those endorsing that behavoor punished i might hate trump president or not i don't wish him dead (as prison seems a better punishment for him anyways)




I assume you're talking about the parade of pickup trucks on the interstate? What did they do that makes you think it's "terrorism?" This should be good. And btw don't even bring up the little white Subaru that got pushed back into its lane. The Subaru driver was at fault and trying to force one of the trucks off the highway.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 2, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> I assume you're talking about the parade of pickup trucks on the interstate? What did they do that makes you think it's "terrorism?" This should be good. And btw don't even bring up the little white Subaru that got pushed back into its lane. The Subaru driver was at fault and trying to force one of the trucks off the highway.


No, I believe they are talking about a trump truck ramming into a Biden bus. their goal try to run the bus "off the road"
happened in Texas.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 2, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> No, I believe they are talking about a trump truck ramming into a Biden bus. their goal try to run the bus "off the road"
> happened in Texas.



Video?


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 2, 2020)

There was no one ramming the bus, or trying to run it off the road no matter what left wing media outlets and rando twitter accounts want to claim. A white suv and a black truck with trump flags were engaging in roadrage right behind a biden bus.
Here is the alternate view of the incident. The other one which barely catches it and is constantly off camera.

https://streamable.com/wef3n8

The white SUV is clearly the instigator, switches lanes to the right, black truck pulls in, then white suv tries to go back and cut the truck off when there is not enough room for the white suv, white suv is clearly in the middle of the lane divider and continues to make contact with the truck and kept trying to cut it off, the driver had to have heard that, the black truck is no better though for pushing the suv back though, it could have let him back in the lane.


----------



## wartutor (Nov 2, 2020)

Lacius said:


> What's your best piece of evidence that Democrats broadly value deception? It's not the Democratic candidate for president (to this day) spouting dangerous lies about COVID-19. It's not the Democratic candidate for president who has publicly lied over 20,000 times.


My best piece of evidence is that they are polititions. They all (and i mean both sides here) do nothing but lie and deceive. If you dont know that you have been living under a rock your entire life. You can try to say its not true, just hope your pants dont catch fire in front of your computer.


----------



## Shulk95 (Nov 2, 2020)

monkeyman4412 completely made that up! XD   my gosh kid, stop LYING. In less than 48 hours Donald Trump will win and you and Lacius can speak with therapists about yalls Trump derangement syndrome. I know the thought of Trump really being used by God, being victorious and taking back our country just burns you and Lacius up... scares you.. As we near the end of the age of grace, prophecy is unfolding in our faces quickly... it should scare you. It scares Satan himself. Just as you don't believe, neither does Satan. He believes he has gotten away with EVERYTHING, going all the way back. But come judgement day. He will face the same fate as all who reject our Lord and choose not to repent and accept the gift of salvation. As Christians live for the Lord, your choosing to live for the Devil. But just know everyone left will have to stand before God and admit Jesus is Lord before being cast into the lake of fire, including satan himself. Then they will fall forever, burning, crying, demons biting them for all eternity.... while us who accepted God and lived for him, we will live happily beyond imagination. God has made it SO easy for us. This is the age of grace. Things couldn't of been laid out easier for us. Something that we've all heard our whole lives is "Now is the time of salvation, you never know when God is coming back to get us." But we didn't have much things that we could see for first hand proof that we were approaching the rapture... but things have now changed, now all you have to do is pick up the bible and read. We are witnessing things directly from God's word! Trump is doing things that the bible list in the VERY end of the age of grace. The rapture is extremely close and it would be extremely unwise to ignore these signs... so...  I suggest to you.. and whoever else is lost...  repent now and accept our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ into your life.  I am no preacher, I wasn't called for that role... But i still witness to you now... God is all our God, not just for us Christians.    TRUMP 2020 GOD BLESS US.


----------



## omgcat (Nov 2, 2020)

Shulk95 said:


> monkeyman4412 completely made that up! XD   my gosh kid, stop LYING. In less than 48 hours Donald Trump will win and you and Lacius can speak with therapists about yalls Trump derangement syndrome. I know the thought of Trump really being used by God, being victorious and taking back our country just burns you and Lacius up... scares you.. As we near the end of the age of grace, prophecy is unfolding in our faces quickly... it should scare you. It scares Satan himself. Just as you don't believe, neither does Satan. He believes he has gotten away with EVERYTHING, going all the way back. But come judgement day. He will face the same fate as all who reject our Lord and choose not to repent and accept the gift of salvation. As Christians live for the Lord, your choosing to live for the Devil. But just know everyone left will have to stand before God and admit Jesus is Lord before being cast into the lake of fire, including satan himself. Then they will fall forever, burning, crying, demons biting them for all eternity.... while us who accepted God and lived for him, we will live happily beyond imagination. God has made it SO easy for us. This is the age of grace. Things couldn't of been laid out easier for us. Something that we've all heard our whole lives is "Now is the time of salvation, you never know when God is coming back to get us." But we didn't have much things that we could see for first hand proof that we were approaching the rapture... but things have now changed, now all you have to do is pick up the bible and read. We are witnessing things directly from God's word! Trump is doing things that the bible list in the VERY end of the age of grace. The rapture is extremely close and it would be extremely unwise to ignore these signs... so...  I suggest to you.. and whoever else is lost...  repent now and accept our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ into your life.  I am no preacher, I wasn't called for that role... But i still witness to you now... God is all our God, not just for us Christians.    TRUMP 2020 GOD BLESS US.



>The right wing is the party of logic and facts
>Uses the idea of prophecies in 2020

seems legit, i wonder what happens to the old gods when new ones come in to replace them. we've had religions kicking around for almost 10,000 years, imagine thinking one made 1800 years ago would magically be the real one.


----------



## wartutor (Nov 2, 2020)

Shulk95 said:


> monkeyman4412 completely made that up! XD   my gosh kid, stop LYING. In less than 48 hours Donald Trump will win and you and Lacius can speak with therapists about yalls Trump derangement syndrome. I know the thought of Trump really being used by God, being victorious and taking back our country just burns you and Lacius up... scares you.. As we near the end of the age of grace, prophecy is unfolding in our faces quickly... it should scare you. It scares Satan himself. Just as you don't believe, neither does Satan. He believes he has gotten away with EVERYTHING, going all the way back. But come judgement day. He will face the same fate as all who reject our Lord and choose not to repent and accept the gift of salvation. As Christians live for the Lord, your choosing to live for the Devil. But just know everyone left will have to stand before God and admit Jesus is Lord before being cast into the lake of fire, including satan himself. Then they will fall forever, burning, crying, demons biting them for all eternity.... while us who accepted God and lived for him, we will live happily beyond imagination. God has made it SO easy for us. This is the age of grace. Things couldn't of been laid out easier for us. Something that we've all heard our whole lives is "Now is the time of salvation, you never know when God is coming back to get us." But we didn't have much things that we could see for first hand proof that we were approaching the rapture... but things have now changed, now all you have to do is pick up the bible and read. We are witnessing things directly from God's word! Trump is doing things that the bible list in the VERY end of the age of grace. The rapture is extremely close and it would be extremely unwise to ignore these signs... so...  I suggest to you.. and whoever else is lost...  repent now and accept our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ into your life.  I am no preacher, I wasn't called for that role... But i still witness to you now... God is all our God, not just for us Christians.    TRUMP 2020 GOD BLESS US.


Jesus christ religious nut jobs dont really help trumps side any.

@omgcat he just wants the bible to be true because it gives him the ok to sleep with his sister and makes incest ok


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 2, 2020)

omgcat said:


> >The right wing is the party of logic and facts
> >Uses the idea of prophecies in 2020
> 
> seems legit, i wonder what happens to the old gods when new ones come in to replace them. we've had religions kicking around for almost 10,000 years, imagine thinking one made 1800 years ago would magically be the real one.


While even I have to admit that his post was a bit over-the-top (though I haven't read through Revelation, so who knows), multiple books in the Old Testament talk about the coming of Christ.


----------



## omgcat (Nov 2, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> While even I have to admit that his post was a bit over-the-top (though I haven't read through Revelation, so who knows), multiple books in the Old Testament talk about the coming of Christ.



hey bud, multiple religions already have claim to the end of the world, Christ will have to wait his turn.


----------



## Shulk95 (Nov 2, 2020)

God is why Trump will win on November 3rd.... It's the only reason he is gonna win! God is even using people who don't know him as voters for Trump as well. That's why even LGBTQ is voting for him. This is historical and biblical.. deal with it.. After he wins, I'd love to see yalls reactions! I'll be back November 3rd to say I told you so. Till then, take it easy because I know Trump derangement syndrome makes yall biden supporters and BLM nuts. This is gonna be so much fun laughing at yall!  I'll be back after we win to rub it in.


----------



## AkGBA (Nov 2, 2020)

Trump, a christian... I laughed hard.
What's christian about him ?


----------



## Shulk95 (Nov 2, 2020)

AkGBA said:


> Trump, a christian... I laughed hard.
> What's christian about him ?


I never claimed Trump is a Christian. I said God is using him. Same as how God is using LGBTQ as voters for Trump.. Learn to read my friend.


----------



## omgcat (Nov 2, 2020)

Shulk95 said:


> God is why Trump will win on November 3rd.... It's the only reason he is gonna win! God is even using people who don't know him as voters for Trump as well. That's why even LGBTQ is voting for him. This is historical and biblical.. deal with it.. After he wins, I'd love to see yalls reactions! I'll be back November 3rd to say I told you so. Till then, take it easy because I know Trump derangement syndrome makes yall biden supporters and BLM nuts. This is gonna be so much fun laughing at yall!  I'll be back after we win to rub it in.



gonna have to wait till after the 3rd to make that claim, the earliest the vote can finish counting is like 1-2 weeks out.


----------



## Shulk95 (Nov 2, 2020)

omgcat said:


> gonna have to wait till after the 3rd to make that claim, the earliest the vote can finish counting is like 1-2 weeks out.


LOL you actually think Trump is gonna let the Democratic/Socialist party cheat by saying that a bunch of mail in voters haven't been counted and toss in a bunch of fraudulent ballots?? The democrats have a history of cheating during elections...Seriously? COME ON Trump has shot down all the cheating these dems have tried, including the Russian collusion impeachment crap.  You highly underestimate Trump if you think he isn't aware of the cheating stunt the democrats are gonna try and isn't ready to combat that. If they delay announcing Trumps victory till 1 to 2 weeks after. He won't let the cheating dems get away with it anyways! SO... WHAT NOW?   Lol I'll be back on the day they announce he's won.


----------



## omgcat (Nov 2, 2020)

Shulk95 said:


> LOL you actually think Trump is gonna let the Democratic/Socialist party cheat by saying that a bunch of mail in voters haven't been counted and toss in a bunch of fraudulent ballots?? The democrats have a history of cheating during elections...Seriously? COME ON Trump has shot down all the cheating these dems have tried, including the Russian collusion impeachment crap.  You highly underestimate Trump if you think he isn't aware of the cheating stunt the democrats are gonna try and isn't ready to combat that. If they delay announcing Trumps victory till 1 to 2 weeks after. He won't let the cheating dems get away with it anyways! SO... WHAT NOW?   Lol I'll be back on the day they announce he's won.



wrong, that is not how the fucking USA works. each state has set it's counting procedures. Election winners have NEVER been confirmed on election night. you better hope the republicans win the senate as well, cause a second impeachment/conviction becomes a lot more likely with a Dem controlled senate.


----------



## Smoker1 (Nov 2, 2020)

I love how Trump is holding off on the 2nd Stimulus until after the Election.
If Trump Wins = He will send them out
If Trump Loses = To hell with the People


----------



## Shulk95 (Nov 2, 2020)

omgcat said:


> wrong, that is not how the fucking USA works. each state has set it's counting procedures. Election winners have NEVER been confirmed on election night.


That in no way is a response to what i said... My gosh dude can you not read? or are you just that stupid?   the only thing i can remotely link to what your "trying" to respond to is when i said  "Lol I'll be back on the day they announce he's won." Which isn't even directly talking about election night, but as far as election night goes. Most major networks do declare a winner on election night!  You freaking retard.


----------



## notimp (Nov 2, 2020)

Shulk95 said:


> That in no way is a response to what i said... My gosh dude can you not read? or are you just that stupid?   the only thing i can remotely link to what your "trying" to respond to is when i said  "Lol I'll be back on the day they announce he's won." Which isn't even directly talking about election night, but as far as election night goes. Most major networks do declare a winner on election night!  You freaking retard.


Only if they statistically can. Or they are called FOX news. 

Issue with Covid epidemic is - you've got record number mail votes that quote 'have to reach the counting places either by election day, or a week out (depends on state legislation). So if its close - and there are still mail votes to be counted, its impossible to announce a winner on election night. (Mail votes take longer to count, because you have more verification steps, and opening envelopes steps, that take time and cant be skipped.)

Fox will probably announce a projected winner, but if its within margin of error for projections (a few percent), or closer than the number of expected vote percentages of mail votes to be gained to still be counted, you dont get a winner declared on election night.

In fact, with Gore it was the supreme court that decided the election by telling them to stop recounting at one point.

So for that scenario Trump wants his proud boys standing by in the streets, and wants to 'decide what to do in the moment' and wants his 6-3 majority in the supreme court, and...  edit: And the followup to some of those scenarios is branches of the army coming in and taking over in case he is declared the looser and doesnt leave the office. You have to add that because he has refused on every occasion to say if he would leave peacefully in case of a loss.

Also on mail in voting ballots, no statistically valid 'fraudulent' scheme has been found yet. Thats just made up. In fact Trump told his own voters to commit voting fraud (vote per mail, and the in person again on voting day to ('check if the system is working'), which it still should - but, that out of the mouth of a sitting president...) All voting fraud stories the ultras are dreaming up is one person deciding which vote to discard/invalidate, by the smell of the envelope, or something, so schemes that dont work. And are highly illegal. While suppressing the mail vote (make sure you slow down the postal system, make sure to install legislation, that vote have to reach the poling places on election day and not a day after (install legislation, that the date on the stamp (when it started to be processed) doesnt matter at all), then challenging the outcome, and hoping the supreme court will decide favorably on stopping recounts is all legal. And much more likely to be successful in manipulating the election.

That they work at all is ensured, by the republican campaigns urging their voters to vote in person, and so 'stacking' the backed of votes they can discard, more than proportionally with democratic votes.

Has to do with statistics. (Its easier to manipulate an election pulling the big leavers, than to count on defrauding measures, where there are checks in place where people look at each others hands at all time.)


edit: Dug up some students paper (California Institute of Tech) on why voting results can change after election day:
https://preprints.apsanet.org/engag...ay-the-blue-shift-in-california-elections.pdf


----------



## Blaze163 (Nov 2, 2020)

Being English I'm not all that up on other candidates, no reason to be since I can't vote for any of them. But I know I WOULDN'T vote for Trump. As a father I'm trying to teach my daughter how to respect science and fact and intellect. I refuse to let her be raised in a world run by a man whose IQ is lower than his height in miles. 

Sadly we're not doing much better in the UK, run as we are by Boris Johnson, not so much a man as a barely sentient dog turd in a chemo wig.


----------



## wartutor (Nov 2, 2020)

Smoker1 said:


> I love how Trump is holding off on the 2nd Stimulus until after the Election.
> If Trump Wins = He will send them out
> If Trump Loses = To hell with the People


This right here lmao. Yeah it was trump that said "im ready to give american people money right now, nancy and her democrats couldnt make an agreement with trump and the republicans. You cant just blame one person thats not how it works in the USA you fuck nut. Oh wait thats what the democrats based their whole campain on (blame trump for everything).


----------



## ut2k4master (Nov 2, 2020)

wartutor said:


> This right here lmao. Yeah it was trump that said "im ready to give american people money right now, nancy and her democrats couldnt make an agreement with trump and the republicans. You cant just blame one person thats not how it works in the USA you fuck nut. Oh wait thats what the democrats based their whole campain on (blame trump for everything).


but you can praise only one person when something "good" happens, right? hypocrite


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 2, 2020)

Joe88 said:


> There was no one ramming the bus, or trying to run it off the road no matter what left wing media outlets and rando twitter accounts want to claim. A white suv and a black truck with trump flags were engaging in roadrage right behind a biden bus.
> Here is the alternate view of the incident. The other one which barely catches it and is constantly off camera.
> 
> https://streamable.com/wef3n8
> ...


uuuh... I have a bit of a issue with your video...
Is it just me or did the hood just cut?
pay attention the bottom of the video between 6-8 seconds
the hood suddenly bumps up within a single frame., full screening the video helps see it. the hood in frame jumps up.
I'm not stating it did happen. I'm just stating the evidence your using to my eye seems to be tampered to skip something. It could of been a time skip between that.
then again cars nearby seem fine, then again you can edit that.
tl;dr
there is some visual jank I'm noticing. I don't have a particular stance. Since I've been taking my political break. if anyone noticed my more or so, less activity.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/armed-trump-fans-biden-bus/
according to snoopes
"Vehicles, mostly pickup trucks, flying flags in support of President Donald Trump were driving near a Biden-Harris campaign bus on a highway in Texas. A video showed that at least one truck moved in front of the bus, appearing to slow its speed. A Trump supporter also admitted on Facebook to "slamming" a white SUV that appeared to accompany the campaign bus. The Trump supporters appeared to have organized in an Alamo City Trump Train Facebook Group."


----------



## Acid_Snake (Nov 2, 2020)

Reading through this thread one can come to these conclusions about politics in the US.

The left are extremely contradictory in their views and are unable to see their double standards and conflicting arguments. Examples include:
* They want a better trained police but they also want to defund the police. How the hell are you going to improve police training with less resources? if anything defunding the police will mean they will have to take corners and be even less trained and less qualified, nevermind the fact that you want to take away power from law enforcement in favor of law breakers and criminals just because they die  in shootouts that they start themselves.
* They claim to be in favor of feminism but at the same time burned down cities to protest the death by overdose of a dangerous criminal that pointed a loaded gun to a pregnant lady. Either you defend women or you defend George Floyd, you can't do both unless you are a hypocritical sociopath that just wants to look good first and foremost.
* They want to remove all money from millionaries but they mostly focus on those that actually earned their money through investment and generating value rather than those who stagnate the economy. How are you going to explain billions of dollars disappearing because you stole them from Bezos and gave it to a bunch of ctryrackheads that burned the money on drugs in a week? What are you going to do about the thousands of Amazon workers that will be out of their job? The left is all about protecting the worker class but instead they destroy their source of income and labor.
* You either support LGBT+/feminism or you support Muslims, simple as that. You can't be allied to the pray and the predator at the same time. If you tolerate Muslims you are also tolerating the deadly hatred they have against women and homosexuals, you are literally aproving the killings of this group.

Now as for the right: they are completely unable to see anything wrong in their country and this is extremely dangerous to the development of any country. Here's a few examples:
* They want to give even more power and liberty to rich people that have proven time and time again to have corrupted this country beyond repair. The same rich people that now hold absolute and limitless power, the same people that make rules and laws for the population to follow but not for them who can freely break them to their liking. Most of these millionaires aren't even investors, they aren't creating new riches and jobs, they are leeches and need to be eliminated from this country if we want a bit of economic health. Being filthy rich shoulnd't mean you can have your own island to practice pedophilia, human sacrifices, torture, mutilation and all the crap rich people get away with.
* Having a strong military is important, in war time, but we aren't in war time, what do you need a strong military for? Let me remind you that the very first thing that a dictatorship will always look for is a strong military even in peaceful times so they can keep people under control (Nazi Germany, Stalin USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, Spanish Civil War and many many other examples of this). One day that very same military that you have been blindly giving money to will knock on your door and ask you to give up all your rights and freedom for a chance at not getting executed by a firing squad. Note that I'm not saying you shouldn't have a military and that it shouldn't be strong, what I'm saying is that it needs to be in check and limited proportionally to its power.

And then, regardless of who wins the election absolutely nothing at all changes in this country, and this will be specially true this election where both candidates are widely known for not doing anything at all (4 years of Trump precidency and 8 years of Biden viceprecidency are testimony to how much nothing at all has changed, specially how much voters have been ignored post election).
You guys are literally fighting for absolutely nothing at all, none of the proposed candidates mean any actual change, the system is rigged to keep doing what it has been doing for a while regardless of who's in power.
And the worst thing of all is that you guys are extremely separated and trained to hate each other and fight, keeping you weak and controlable.


----------



## wartutor (Nov 2, 2020)

ut2k4master said:


> but you can praise only one person when something "good" happens, right? hypocrite


I dont praise any of them. I believe the whole god damn federal government needs to be thrown out the window and just leave it to the state to govern themselves. The federal government is all a bunch of crooked, lying, fucked up bunch of shit that needs to change.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 2, 2020)

wartutor said:


> I dont praise any of them. I believe the whole god damn federal government needs to be thrown out the window and just leave it to the state to govern themselves. The federal government is all a bunch of crooked, lying, fucked up bunch of shit that needs to change.


A great idea on paper, but imagine what California would be like without any stronger form of government keeping Cuomo in check.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 2, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> uuuh... I have a bit of a issue with your video...
> Is it just me or did the hood just cut?
> pay attention the bottom of the video between 6-8 seconds
> the hood suddenly bumps up within a single frame., full screening the video helps see it. the hood in frame jumps up.
> ...




Do you have a driver's license????????????

Watch the video Joe posted again. The white Ford Escape changes lanes to the left, taking the second lane from the right. The pickup truck moves up, taking a position directly behind the Biden bus. The Ford Escape then tries to reclaim this position, by dangerously (and illegally) pushing back into the far right lane where the truck already is.

There are two vehicles in this screenshot that are not maintaining a single lane. 1) the Biden bus, and 2) the white Ford Escape. There is no additional lane to the right for the pickup truck to go. As Joe said, the pickup truck could have yielded the position by drifting back and letting the Ford Escape back into the lane, but the Ford Escape is the "aggressor" here in trying to force it.






It's childish behavior all around, but the Ford Escape made it a dangerous situation, and calling it 'terrorism' is stupid.

.


----------



## Doran754 (Nov 2, 2020)

Blaze163 said:


> Being English I'm another lefty loser that can't remember the last time a public vote went my way. Lost two general elections and brexit, and if i was American i'd have lost in 2016 too, damn I wonder why the majority don't agree with my anti-semitism labour ways



Fixed it for you.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 2, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Fixed it for you.


iT's nOt aNtIsEmItIsM iF iT's cOmMuNiSt


----------



## AkGBA (Nov 2, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> A great idea on paper, but imagine what California would be like without any stronger form of government keeping Cuomo in check.



California ? Cuomo ?

What did I miss ?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 2, 2020)

AkGBA said:


> California ? Cuomo ?


Isn't Cuomo the governor of California? Or am I even dumber than I thought?


----------



## AkGBA (Nov 2, 2020)

Seems so.
He's governor of New York state.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 2, 2020)

AkGBA said:


> Seems so.
> He's governor of New York state.


Both are hellholes. Close enough.


----------



## Shulk95 (Nov 2, 2020)

Trump is winning! keep voting fellow Americans that love this country!   The fake media(including Fox News) are gonna keep quoting fake polls because they are trying to discourage people from voting.... BUT..ITS NOT WORKING!!!!   This is a repeat of 2016! but FAR more support behind Trump this time!    GOD BLESS THE USA!                          
TRUMP 2020


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 2, 2020)

Acid_Snake said:


> * They claim to be in favor of feminism but at the same time burned down cities to protest the death by overdose of a dangerous criminal that pointed a loaded gun to a pregnant lady. Either you defend women or you defend George Floyd, you can't do both unless you are a hypocritical sociopath that just wants to look good first and foremost.
> 
> * Having a strong military is important, in war time, but we aren't in war time, what do you need a strong military for?


The military is basically the stand in for what everywhere else views as social programs.
Want healthcare? Oh look military has that.
Want tertiary eduction? Oh look GI bill.
Want pension? That too.

That might be closer to something resembling national service but if you are going for causes of social mobility in the US then the military is a massive component of it. Also soaks up a bit of overproduction on the part of industrial concerns (see the industrial part of military-industrial -- as you don't have Chinese, now Vietnamese, slave labour prices for labour and automation is probably about 10 years out there (50-60 if you could even predict that far following world war 2 and Vietnam).

As far as protesting as the per the example there.
Looking back now then maybe. Was it the information presented at the time? Equally you can be an arsehole but still be wronged -- you can shoot 50 people but stand there at the end with no weapons and hands clear and should the police do the "remember there kids to the head double tap" routine then you still have been wronged. Mob justice and judge jury and executioner type setups are not great.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 2, 2020)

Shulk95 said:


> Trump is winning! keep voting fellow Americans that love this country!   The fake media(including Fox News) are gonna keep quoting fake polls because they are trying to discourage people from voting.... BUT..ITS NOT WORKING!!!!   This is a repeat of 2016! but FAR more support behind Trump this time!    GOD BLESS THE USA!
> TRUMP 2020


Trump and the Republicans are the ones discouraging people from voting.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraSUPRA said:


> Both are hellholes. Close enough.


Calling any state a hellhole is demonstrably and laughably ignorant.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 2, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Calling any state a hellhole is demonstrably and laughably ignorant.


One state banned having a bottle of soda that's too big.
The other has people taking a dump on the street.
Both have sent COVID patients to nursing homes.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 2, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> One state banned having a bottle of soda that's too big.
> The other has people taking a dump on the street.
> Both have sent COVID patients to nursing homes.


No, a state never banned large bottles of soda. I'll respond to you after you fact-check your post and post corrections.


----------



## IncredulousP (Nov 2, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Calling any state a hellhole is demonstrably and laughably ignorant.


I dunno I lived in West Virginia for a few months and that place is a complete shithole.


----------



## Acid_Snake (Nov 2, 2020)

FAST6191 said:


> As far as protesting as the per the example there.
> Looking back now then maybe. Was it the information presented at the time? Equally you can be an arsehole but still be wronged -- you can shoot 50 people but stand there at the end with no weapons and hands clear and should the police do the "remember there kids to the head double tap" routine then you still have been wronged. Mob justice and judge jury and executioner type setups are not great.


The thing is George Floyd was not "with his hands up at the end", he was resisting arrest the whole time and using force himself til the very end.
More than once I have been confronted by the police for smoking weed and drinking alcohol in public, never have I been physically attacked, not even fined. Know why? Because at all times I treated the police with respect and understanding that they were doing their jobs and I tried my best to make it easier on them: I presented them with all the weed I had, I didn't lie to them, I didn't try to run away, I didn't try to fight with them, I just let them do their job and take punishment for my actions (which I didn't because I wasn't doing anything really bad or violent). I have also done martial arts before and let me tell you that if you are being restrained and you can't even breathe you won't have strength to resist. That guy had kept on going trying and going, he didn't show any remorse or intents to take responsibility and kept trying to fuck thing up to the very end.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 2, 2020)

Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/Austin_Zone/status/1323132909767766021


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 2, 2020)

Lacius said:


> No, a state never banned large bottles of soda. I'll respond to you after you fact-check your post and post corrections.


And so I did. Here's what I got right.

New York tried to ban sweet drinks of over 16 ounces back in 2012. (https://www.cnbc.com/id/100532785)

Here's what I got wrong.


It was the city, not the state.
It may or may not have been rejected.


----------



## crimpshrine (Nov 3, 2020)

Happy election day!


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 3, 2020)

Well, it's election day! Many of you have probably noticed the delay in USPS mail this entire year and that's due to this stupid non-deadly Chinese Wuhan Corona Virus. It was bad before election time and now due to the fact people are unrealistically scared to leave their houses there's tens of millions of ballots being mailed in. It sorta sucks that we have some States that have ruled they can accept ballots for 6 days after today so I'm not sure how that will effect the results. I've personally been waiting on something that was mailed two Friday's ago so I'm not that hopeful for speedy results, which really sucks as these same people who are voting have no issues waiting in line at the stores they visit. 

Oh well, it is what it is. Hopefully there's no wide spread voter fraud and hopefully Biden goes back on his word and doesn't contest the election results simply because he lost, which is something he claimed he would do and has already formed a legal team with over 600 lawyers to challenge the election even if there's no proof there's any voter fraud. Premeditated attacks should be no surprise to anyone as the Liberals planned on impeaching Trump before he even took office for no reason other than the fact they lost the election. They are sorry losers so it wouldn't surprise me if Trump wins that Biden will refuse to accept the results. I also hope there's no wide spread cheating so Trump won't have to contest the results either.

Unlike these liberals and conservatives that can't seem to respect the Presidents as of late, if Biden wins I will respect him because he'll be the President of the United States and that's a position that has earned all sorts of respect. I will gladly call whomever wins my President and will wish them the best of luck. I know this is something bias children can't understand, but I was taught in school how to think and wasn't simply instructed what to think. It sucks you kids got a bad education in that regard, but maybe one day you'll grow up and stop being so petty.



Joe88 said:


> There was no one ramming the bus, or trying to run it off the road no matter what left wing media outlets and rando twitter accounts want to claim. A white suv and a black truck with trump flags were engaging in roadrage right behind a biden bus.
> Here is the alternate view of the incident. The other one which barely catches it and is constantly off camera.
> 
> https://streamable.com/wef3n8
> ...



By now you should expect anything the left is reporting to be not even remotely correct. Their tactic is to take something and twist it up into something that happened while bashing Trump and their audience is too stupid to realize they're being manipulated and lied to.



wartutor said:


> My best piece of evidence is that they are polititions. They all (and i mean both sides here) do nothing but lie and deceive. If you dont know that you have been living under a rock your entire life. You can try to say its not true, just hope your pants dont catch fire in front of your computer.



Indeed and this is why I like Trump. Trump isn't playing their silly games because he's not a politician. The economy is doing so well even in these trying times because Trump understands business, though I admit his foreign policy isn't ideal, but then there's the mid east peace deals.



Shulk95 said:


> monkeyman4412 completely made that up! XD   my gosh kid, stop LYING. In less than 48 hours Donald Trump will win and you and Lacius can speak with therapists about yalls Trump derangement syndrome. I know the thought of Trump really being used by God, being victorious and taking back our country just burns you and Lacius up... scares you.. As we near the end of the age of grace, prophecy is unfolding in our faces quickly... it should scare you. It scares Satan himself. Just as you don't believe, neither does Satan. He believes he has gotten away with EVERYTHING, going all the way back. But come judgement day. He will face the same fate as all who reject our Lord and choose not to repent and accept the gift of salvation. As Christians live for the Lord, your choosing to live for the Devil. But just know everyone left will have to stand before God and admit Jesus is Lord before being cast into the lake of fire, including satan himself. Then they will fall forever, burning, crying, demons biting them for all eternity.... while us who accepted God and lived for him, we will live happily beyond imagination. God has made it SO easy for us. This is the age of grace. Things couldn't of been laid out easier for us. Something that we've all heard our whole lives is "Now is the time of salvation, you never know when God is coming back to get us." But we didn't have much things that we could see for first hand proof that we were approaching the rapture... but things have now changed, now all you have to do is pick up the bible and read. We are witnessing things directly from God's word! Trump is doing things that the bible list in the VERY end of the age of grace. The rapture is extremely close and it would be extremely unwise to ignore these signs... so...  I suggest to you.. and whoever else is lost...  repent now and accept our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ into your life.  I am no preacher, I wasn't called for that role... But i still witness to you now... God is all our God, not just for us Christians.    TRUMP 2020 GOD BLESS US.



God bless you. I hope Trump does win again. You're also right about Satan and his disciples. If you haven't accepted God into your heart and live a life of sin you're going to be miserable for the duration of your short time on this earth. The bad part is that these miserable liberals aren't happy unless they are telling other people how to think or what to do and that only provides them with a momentary respite from the way they feel. If you take away the drugs they're consuming they are full of content and jealousy. Liberals embrace the deadly sins so it's no surprise they are miserable beings.



Shulk95 said:


> LOL you actually think Trump is gonna let the Democratic/Socialist party cheat by saying that a bunch of mail in voters haven't been counted and toss in a bunch of fraudulent ballots?? The democrats have a history of cheating during elections...Seriously? COME ON Trump has shot down all the cheating these dems have tried, including the Russian collusion impeachment crap.  You highly underestimate Trump if you think he isn't aware of the cheating stunt the democrats are gonna try and isn't ready to combat that. If they delay announcing Trumps victory till 1 to 2 weeks after. He won't let the cheating dems get away with it anyways! SO... WHAT NOW?   Lol I'll be back on the day they announce he's won.



From what I gather some States are allowing mail in ballots to be counted up to 6 days after today. So I'm not sure we're going to have immediate results of who won tonight. It's pathetic that we're a free country yet most of the citizens are scared to leave their houses and go stand in line at a poll when they can stand in line at a grocery store all over a virus with a  99.8% survival rate.



Smoker1 said:


> I love how Trump is holding off on the 2nd Stimulus until after the Election.
> If Trump Wins = He will send them out
> If Trump Loses = To hell with the People



You probably didn't know this, but Trump changed his position on this matter and also his original position wasn't clearly reported by the leftist media as they twisted not only what Trump said, but what he meant. Trump has been willing to sign a new stimulus bill all of this time including today if the Democrats in Congress will present one that doesn't contain all sorts of shit unrelated to the Chinese Wuhan Corona Virus.



Acid_Snake said:


> Reading through this thread one can come to these conclusions about politics in the US.
> 
> The left are extremely contradictory in their views and are unable to see their double standards and conflicting arguments. Examples include:
> * They want a better trained police but they also want to defund the police. How the hell are you going to improve police training with less resources? if anything defunding the police will mean they will have to take corners and be even less trained and less qualified, nevermind the fact that you want to take away power from law enforcement in favor of law breakers and criminals just because they die  in shootouts that they start themselves.
> ...



You have some valid insights into what's going on over here. I agree with most of what you said and your observations about the Liberal hypocrisy is spot on, but I disagree with your stance on the military as our military isn't policing our citizens. Liberals are mostly too stupid to even realize how hypocritical they are being or they just like to lie and don't care and think that everyone else around them are stupid and they can manipulate they way out of anything. Liberals embrace lies. I also disagree somewhat on your observations about rich people. Rich people provide jobs for the rest of us and without them and their companies there would be no jobs to speak of. I do agree that some of them are basically untouchable and get away with crime, but at least arresting Epstien was a move in the right direction. Rich people should be held accountable for their actions just like any normal citizen is and that also goes for elected officials. You're also right about Biden as he's a normal life time politician that's all talk and no action. I just really hope he doesn't win because he's giving a voice to socialists that want to go backwards and time and ruin our way of life for something that has always failed. Liberals also support Muslims, but have no idea why they are supporting them or know much about the Muslim culture. Maybe the LGBTQ community should provide trips to Muslim countries so they citizens can throw them off of 4 story buildings simply being who they are.



Acid_Snake said:


> The thing is George Floyd was not "with his hands up at the end", he was resisting arrest the whole time and using force himself til the very end.
> More than once I have been confronted by the police for smoking weed and drinking alcohol in public, never have I been physically attacked, not even fined. Know why? Because at all times I treated the police with respect and understanding that they were doing their jobs and I tried my best to make it easier on them: I presented them with all the weed I had, I didn't lie to them, I didn't try to run away, I didn't try to fight with them, I just let them do their job and take punishment for my actions (which I didn't because I wasn't doing anything really bad or violent). I have also done martial arts before and let me tell you that if you are being restrained and you can't even breathe you won't have strength to resist. That guy had kept on going trying and going, he didn't show any remorse or intents to take responsibility and kept trying to fuck thing up to the very end.



The Liberals embrace sins and that includes crime. Liberals don't see anything wrong with doing dangerous drugs, beating women or resisting arrest. They support the lawless and embrace crime. They are not good people so why would it bother them if some women beating drug addicted criminal lives his life the way he does.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

God help us.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/1ClYCcqfd3BL/


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 3, 2020)

A poll watcher in Philly was just wrongfully prevented from entering the polling place#StopTheSteal pic.twitter.com/iJTFtRk0Id— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) November 3, 2020


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 3, 2020)

Shulk95 said:


> monkeyman4412 completely made that up! XD   my gosh kid, stop LYING. In less than 48 hours Donald Trump will win and you and Lacius can speak with therapists about yalls Trump derangement syndrome. I know the thought of Trump really being used by God, being victorious and taking back our country just burns you and Lacius up... scares you.. As we near the end of the age of grace, prophecy is unfolding in our faces quickly... it should scare you. It scares Satan himself. Just as you don't believe, neither does Satan. He believes he has gotten away with EVERYTHING, going all the way back. But come judgement day. He will face the same fate as all who reject our Lord and choose not to repent and accept the gift of salvation. As Christians live for the Lord, your choosing to live for the Devil. But just know everyone left will have to stand before God and admit Jesus is Lord before being cast into the lake of fire, including satan himself. Then they will fall forever, burning, crying, demons biting them for all eternity.... while us who accepted God and lived for him, we will live happily beyond imagination. God has made it SO easy for us. This is the age of grace. Things couldn't of been laid out easier for us. Something that we've all heard our whole lives is "Now is the time of salvation, you never know when God is coming back to get us." But we didn't have much things that we could see for first hand proof that we were approaching the rapture... but things have now changed, now all you have to do is pick up the bible and read. We are witnessing things directly from God's word! Trump is doing things that the bible list in the VERY end of the age of grace. The rapture is extremely close and it would be extremely unwise to ignore these signs... so...  I suggest to you.. and whoever else is lost...  repent now and accept our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ into your life.  I am no preacher, I wasn't called for that role... But i still witness to you now... God is all our God, not just for us Christians.    TRUMP 2020 GOD BLESS US.



Wow. Please seek immediate professional mental health help. You are a danger to yourself and others. You're also an extreme hypocrite and don't know SHIT about the bible. You just really don't. Same as the majority of other "Christians". You twist and turn everything possible to fit your own pathetic wet dreams. Bye now, kiddo.


----------



## LumInvader (Nov 3, 2020)

*Trump Can Still Win, But The Polls Would Have To Be Off By Way More Than In 2016*
https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...ould-have-to-be-off-by-way-more-than-in-2016/






*Numbers Look Good for Joe Biden: Analysis by Scott Rasmussen (Trump's favorite pollster)*
http://politicaliq.com/2020/11/02/numbers-look-good-for-joe-biden-analysis-by-scott-rasmussen/


> In the three midwestern states that shocked the world and put the president over the top in 2016, *my final polls show Biden leading by seven in Michigan, six in Wisconsin, and six in Pennsylvania.* Four years ago, the polls showed much closer races in Michigan and Pennsylvania.
> 
> *In Florida and North Carolina, a pair of must-win states for Trump,* *my latest 2020 numbers show Biden up by four points and one point respectively.* Bluntly, the president cannot be re-elected without winning both of those states.


----------



## Rail Fighter (Nov 3, 2020)




----------



## Deleted User (Nov 3, 2020)

Rail Fighter said:


>



awww yes... fox and friends... real credible
(cough, cough, they are the opinion piece of fox, cough cough cough, the bad part of fox cough cough)


----------



## LumInvader (Nov 3, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> https://twitter.com/willchamberlain/status/1323615834455994373


Why is the poll watcher OK showing the world his name, but made sure to black out the ward location on the certificate?  And why is there a ward location line on a certificate that doesn't limit a poll watcher to a single ward?
Here’s the poll watcher’s certificateIt makes clear that it allows the holder to watch at any polling place in the city pic.twitter.com/0lRgIFekKg— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) November 3, 2020


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 3, 2020)

Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/PublicSafetySME/status/1323595548348293121

And it's not an isolated incident:

Let's recap #VoterIntegrity in #Philadelphia & #Pennsylvania:@PAGOP @PhillyROCTeam @BroadAndLiberty @mikeroman @benshapiro @BernardKerik @johncardillo @BlakemanB @BillStepien @lindakernslaw @JackPosobiec @realDonaldTrump @RealJamesWoods @ChrisStigall @Richzeoli @DomShow1210 pic.twitter.com/Im7iZwpNpQ— A. Benjamin Mannes (@PublicSafetySME) November 3, 2020


--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



LumInvader said:


> Why is the poll watcher OK showing the world his name, but made sure to black out the ward location on the certificate?  And why is there a ward location line on a certificate that doesn't limit a poll watcher to a single ward?
> https://twitter.com/willchamberlain/status/1323616167769055234



Maybe because there are more than one Gary Feldman's in Philly, but only one residing at ____________ and issued a Poll Watching Certificate by ______________ Ward. (The "ward location line" identifies which ward issued the certificate, but doesn't limit where the watcher may observe.)

The Certificate clearly states he is authorized to observe at any polling place in the city.


----------



## LumInvader (Nov 3, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> https://twitter.com/PublicSafetySME/status/1323595548348293121
> 
> And it's not an isolated incident:
> 
> ...


Even if we assume the word "by" is the word that was cut out of the right side of the picture, that doesn't explain why the ward portion is blacked out.  Why hide it?


----------



## 0x3000027E (Nov 3, 2020)

Ah yes, always quite the spectacle on election day.

Let us all pretend that each political party stands for a fundamental/core set of ideology and philosophy. Let us take opposing sides and classify/judge each other on the side they have chosen. Let us get behind an individual we never knew, and pretend they represent the best interest of the populace according to our own "rigid" world view.

If your goal for government is_ true _representation of a populace, let us turn over the government seats! Return the role of government to be a public service, not a career! Strip the away the facade of 'R' and 'D'! Use your vote today to remove the incumbents, and let us begin a new approach that has never been tried.


----------



## LumInvader (Nov 3, 2020)

*Mark Hamill narrates Lincoln Project ad hitting Trump over military ballots*
https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...roject-ad-hitting-trump-over-military-ballots


> “If he gets his way, *many who cast absentee ballots will not have their vote counted*,” Hamill says. *“This will deny thousands of troops serving overseas *of their most sacred right, stripping the men and women in our military the very freedoms they’ve served and sacrificed to defend.”
> 
> “It cannot be allowed to happen,” he adds.





> "I think it's a terrible thing when people or states are allowed to tabulate ballots for a long period of time after the election is over," Trump said. *"I think it's terrible when we can't know the results of an election the night of the election* in a modern-day age of computers."



https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...-prematurely-declare-victory-signals-election


> President Trump on Sunday denied that he would declare premature victory in the election *but signaled that Republicans would mount legal challenges to prevent ballots from being counted after Election Day*.
> 
> "*We're going to go in the night of — as soon as the election is over — we're going in with our lawyers*," Trump said, mentioning the state of Pennsylvania specifically.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 3, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Even if we assume the word "by" is the word that was cut out of the right side of the picture, that doesn't explain why the ward portion is blacked out.  Why hide it?



Because if the name of the poll watcher is known, and the ward that issued the certificate is known, then he could be easily doxxed? That's just a sensible hunch. What difference, at this point, does it make?? He is authorized to observe at any polling place in the city, and got turned away.


----------



## LumInvader (Nov 3, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Because if the name of the poll watcher is known, and the ward that issued the certificate is known, then he could be easily doxxed? That's just a sensible hunch. What difference, at this point, does it make?? He is authorized to observe at any polling place in the city, and got turned away.


Here's an older copy of the same certificate:
Comparing it to an older version of the certificate there's clearly a specific ward written on them. So I think it's safe to say the new ones are the same especially considering the redacted info next to ward. pic.twitter.com/PDvTN56RvJ— Brooker T Peterson (@BrookerTJustice) November 3, 2020

The wording clearly states "appointed as a watcher* IN* the _______ ward," which means the certificates themselves can be assigned to any ward in the city, but only to be used at the ward specified on the ward line.

This also explains why *both* the word "IN" and the ward line were cut\blacked out.  I knew something was up and I was right. 

It doesn't make any sense to issue city-wide poll watchers in the first place, as you'll end up with 50 watchers showing up at one location with 0 at other locations, which is the reason why they're assigned on a ward to ward basis.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 3, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Happy election day!
> 
> View attachment 232510


This is in case there are negative responses to Trump attempting to literally steal the election. Please get your facts straight.



gregory-samba said:


> Well, it's election day! Many of you have probably noticed the delay in USPS mail this entire year and that's due to this stupid non-deadly Chinese Wuhan Corona Virus. It was bad before election time and now due to the fact people are unrealistically scared to leave their houses there's tens of millions of ballots being mailed in. It sorta sucks that we have some States that have ruled they can accept ballots for 6 days after today so I'm not sure how that will effect the results. I've personally been waiting on something that was mailed two Friday's ago so I'm not that hopeful for speedy results, which really sucks as these same people who are voting have no issues waiting in line at the stores they visit.
> 
> Oh well, it is what it is. Hopefully there's no wide spread voter fraud and hopefully Biden goes back on his word and doesn't contest the election results simply because he lost, which is something he claimed he would do and has already formed a legal team with over 600 lawyers to challenge the election even if there's no proof there's any voter fraud. Premeditated attacks should be no surprise to anyone as the Liberals planned on impeaching Trump before he even took office for no reason other than the fact they lost the election. They are sorry losers so it wouldn't surprise me if Trump wins that Biden will refuse to accept the results. I also hope there's no wide spread cheating so Trump won't have to contest the results either.
> 
> ...


Mail has been slow do to a concerted effort by Trump and the Republicans to hinder mail-in voting. Please get your facts straight.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 3, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Here's an older copy of the same certificate:
> https://twitter.com/BrookerTJustice/status/1323658410609369089
> The wording clearly states "appointed as a watcher* IN* the _______ ward," which means the certificates themselves can be assigned to any ward in the city, but only to be used at the ward specified on the ward line.
> 
> ...



Pennsylvania law allows the candidate to appoint two watchers per district/ward, this is how the number of watchers is kept proportional. But where the watchers go is clearly not limited to that district/ward, or the certificate would say so. Instead the certificate explicitly states. in large print at the top, they can observe at any polling place in the city. If you have to depend on an inference to get the meaning you want, you're reaching.


----------



## LumInvader (Nov 3, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Pennsylvania law allows the candidate to appoint two watchers per district/ward, this is how the number of watchers is kept proportional.* But where the watchers go is clearly not limited to that district/ward,* or the certificate would say so. Instead the certificate explicitly states. in large print at the top, they can observe at any polling place in the city. If you have to depend on an inference to get the meaning you want, you're reaching.


If it can be used at *any ward*, then please explain why this line is on the older certificate:


> "appointed as a watcher* IN* the _______ ward"


That line *clearly* states that it can only be used in the appointed ward.  You originally misinterpreted the certificate saying, "issued a Poll Watching Certificate* by* ______________ Ward," here:


> Maybe because there are more than one Gary Feldman's in Philly, but only one residing at ____________ and issued a Poll Watching Certificate by ______________ Ward. (The "ward location line" identifies which ward issued the certificate, but doesn't limit where the watcher may observe.)



If you're appointed as a "watcher *IN* the ______ ward," how in the world does that allow you to visit other wards?  That makes no sense because the certificate* explicitly appoints the watcher to a specific ward*.  

I'll tell you what does make sense though -- cropping the word "IN" out of the picture and blacking out the ward line to dupe people into believing he was unfairly denied access.  I'm still trying to work out whether you fell for it, or if you're complicit in spreading this fake news story.  So far it seems like the latter.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 3, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> *Trump Can Still Win, But The Polls Would Have To Be Off By Way More Than In 2016*
> https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...ould-have-to-be-off-by-way-more-than-in-2016/



Of course Trump could still win and by now we should all realize how unreliable polls are to begin with.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Here's a good overview of why we probably won't have the election results tonight.

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54096399


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 3, 2020)

At this point, I just want Trump to get voted out. I know that won't stop Trump supporters from continuing to be the worst kinds of people but at least they won't have the clown in office anymore.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 3, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> At this point, I just want Trump to get voted out. I know that won't stop Trump supporters from continuing to be the worst kinds of people but at least they won't have the clown in office anymore.



It seems the media's programming worked on you.


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 3, 2020)

It seems the media's


gregory-samba said:


> It seemsT rumps's programming worked on you.


fixed it for you, if you guys can be assholes for the past 2 months....why can't i be one for one day with no reprocussions?


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 3, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> It seems the media's programming worked on you.


Is that really what you believe? That someone who doesn't like Trump and his cult of personality are "programmed by the media?" That it couldn't possibly be some actual other reasons to dislike like Trump and his following?


----------



## blaydes99 (Nov 3, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> At this point, I just want Trump to get voted out. I know that won't stop Trump supporters from continuing to be the worst kinds of people but at least they won't have the clown in office anymore.


Another case of TDS! Almost seems more contagious than covid! Fancy that. It is actually the Biden supporting-rioters that are the "worst kinds of people" as you put it. How many Trump supporters have you seen rioting? Oh, that's right: zero.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lilith Valentine said:


> Is that really what you believe? That someone who doesn't like Trump and his cult of personality are "programmed by the media?" That it couldn't possibly be some actual other reasons to dislike like Trump and his following?


Well yes. When people like you and Biden supporters cite misleading news stories and statistics as facts, you live in a fantasy vacuum. AKA brainwashing. If you were to go out and do any research for yourself, the bias would be much easier to identify. If you even study a little basic marketing ideology you would be able to spot the bias.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 3, 2020)

blaydes99 said:


> Another case of TDS! Almost seems more contagious than covid! Fancy that. It is actually the Biden supporting-rioters that are the "worst kinds of people" as you put it. How many Trump supporters have you seen rioting? Oh, that's right: zero.


I am not a Biden supporter and criticism of Trump is not support for Biden.


blaydes99 said:


> Well yes. When people like you and Biden supporters cite misleading news stories and statistics as facts, you live in a fantasy vacuum. AKA brainwashing. If you were to go out and do any research for yourself, the bias would be much easier to identify. If you even study a little basic marketing ideology you would be able to spot the bias.


Please quote my post where I quoted any headlines or made any kind of comment beyond my dismay of Trump's cult. You will find quite a few where I outright stated that I do not support Biden and I have made my reasons clear for not supporting him. I don't support Trump either, I've already said I voted for Vermin Supreme.


----------



## blaydes99 (Nov 3, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I am not a Biden supporter and criticism of Trump is not support for Biden.
> 
> Please quote my post where I did any of that


Okay, so who else is in a position to "get Trump voted out"??? The Ghostbusters?


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 3, 2020)

blaydes99 said:


> Okay, so who else is in a position to "get Trump" voted out??? The Ghostbusters?


I voted for Vermin Supreme. I already said in this thread that I won't be voting for Biden. That being said, I would still like for you to address my concerns in the previous comment. Please quote where I posted any misleading titles or statistic.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 3, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I am not a Biden supporter and criticism of Trump is not support for Biden.
> 
> Please quote my post where I quoted any headlines or made any kind of comment beyond my dismay of Trump's cult. You will find quite a few where I outright stated that I do not support Biden and I have made my reasons clear for not supporting him. I don't support Trump either, I've already said I voted for Vermin Supreme.


It's a two-person race. To vote for anyone other than Biden or Trump is to say you don't have a preference between the two.


----------



## blaydes99 (Nov 3, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I voted for Vermin Supreme. I already said in this thread that I won't be voting for Biden. That being said, I would still like for you to address my concerns in the previous comment. Please quote where I posted any misleading titles or statistic.


Let's not kid ourselves, as Lacius said it is a two-person race.
But yes, I don't see any misleading titles or statistics that you posted, so I mispoke when I grouped you with that type of practice. Sorry about that! 

On the other hand, I am disappointed to hear you say this "...won't stop Trump supporters from continuing to be the worst kinds of people...". When you make swooping generalizations about millions and millions of people that you've never met before, you will 100% be wrong. Please try to be a little more tolerant! I know decent people who support Trump, and decent people that support Biden. Hating one group or the other right out the gate makes us think you have been "programmed by the media", if that makes sense?


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 3, 2020)

Lacius said:


> It's a two-person race. To vote for anyone other than Biden or Trump is to say you don't have a preference between the two.


I can't support Biden, the dude inappropriately touches women and young girls, there's literally video evidance of him doing this. Trump literally brags about sexually assulting women and has a long history of sexual misconduct. Simply put, picking between them isn't picking the lesser evil for me, they are both creeps and both equally trash in my book. I will literally support anyone else at this point because I am not picking between those two. I really can't keep supporting the "lesser of two evils" mentality, because this is where it's gotten us.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 3, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Is that really what you believe? That someone who doesn't like Trump and his cult of personality are "programmed by the media?" That it couldn't possibly be some actual other reasons to dislike like Trump and his following?



Yes it's what I believe as most people that hate Trump hate him because of the media coverage they've been exposed to. The thing is the Liberal media is just all lies and manipulated information in the form of attacks on Trump. So yes, I believe you're gullible enough to believe them hence your position on Trump. Racist? Homophobic? Transphobic? Xenophobic? Nope, all lies as Trump is none of them. It's just too bad you're too dense to realize you're being lied to.


----------



## blaydes99 (Nov 3, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I can't support Biden, the dude inappropriately touches women and young girls, there's literally video evidance of him doing this. Trump literally brags about sexually assulting women and has a long history of sexual misconduct. Simply put, picking between them isn't picking the lesser evil for me, they are both creeps and both equally trash in my book. I will literally support anyone else at this point because I am not picking between those two. I really can't keep supporting the "lesser of two evils" mentality, because this is where it's gotten us.


I think it is worthy of respect that you stick to what you believe in.

I do think character is very important. For me, this election is also about a lot more than my personal preference and/or like or dislike for the candidates. I've lived in other countries outside the U.S. (including Venezuela) so I've seen first-hand what some of these proposed "socialist" policies can do to a society and a country. Thus, I'm very much NOT in favor of that stuff.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 3, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> I can't support Biden, the dude inappropriately touches women and young girls, there's literally video evidance of him doing this. Trump literally brags about sexually assulting women and has a long history of sexual misconduct. Simply put, picking between them isn't picking the lesser evil for me, they are both creeps and both equally trash in my book. I will literally support anyone else at this point because I am not picking between those two. I really can't keep supporting the "lesser of two evils" mentality, because this is where it's gotten us.



There's no evidence of Biden doing anything super inappropriate.
The two candidates are night and day on policy, temperament, etc.
Biden probably gets you 90% of the way there on just about every issue you likely care about. Trump takes you backwards.
If it were a case of "the lesser of two evils," the lesser of two evils is literally less evil by definition.
People who vote for Trump and people who vote for neither are, to use your words, "equally trash in my book."
"Where it's gotten us" is people not voting for Democratic candidates for the reasons you listed above has gotten us Trump and everything that came with him.
Your selfishness and mindlessly lazy platitudes are causing demonstrably physical harm.


----------



## Joom (Nov 3, 2020)

blaydes99 said:


> When you make swooping generalizations about millions and millions of people that you've never met before, you will 100% be wrong. Please try to be a little more tolerant!


The problem is that the terrible Trump supporters are representative of all his supporters. They're the loudest people, and the rest don't disavow their actions. I've made the argument that to be a Trump supporter one either have to be racist, or fine with racism. They're either white nationalists, or fine with nationalism. Then the rest are just ignorant who don't read policy or anything else, and only support the republican party because it's their "team". But like, unless you're one of the other two things I listed, or a major corporation, the republicans don't care about you, and it makes absolutely no sense to support them.


Lilith Valentine said:


> I can't support Biden, the dude inappropriately touches women and young girls, there's literally video evidance of him doing this. Trump literally brags about sexually assulting women and has a long history of sexual misconduct. Simply put, picking between them isn't picking the lesser evil for me


I mean, it should really boil down to whether or not you want a fascist as your leader, and if you want someone who has your best interest in mind. You're gonna have a hard time finding a politician who hasn't done something morally reprehensible, and you're not gonna get very far if all you pay attention to is surface-level scandals. And I've got bad news for you; you're always "choosing between the lesser evils". It's impossible to avoid. You do it in every day life, and you always will. You know how you get changes you want? You vote for the lesser evil, then bully the shit out of them when they don't deliver. You can't do that under a fascist whose only goal is to destroy our democracy just to save his ego.


----------



## Magnus87 (Nov 3, 2020)

Are you ready? Now everything related to Pizza Gate will disappear


----------



## blaydes99 (Nov 3, 2020)

Joom said:


> The problem is that the terrible Trump supporters are representative of all his supporters. They're the loudest people, and the rest don't disavow their actions. I've made the argument that to be a Trump supporters either have to be racist, or fine with racism. They're either white nationalists, or fine with nationalism. Then the rest are just ignorant who don't read policy or anything else, and only support the republican party because it's their "team". But like, unless you're one of the other two things I listed, or a major corporation, the republicans don't care about you, and it makes absolutely no sense to support them.
> 
> I mean, it should really boil down to whether or not you want a fascist as your leader, and if you want someone who has your best interest in mind. You're gonna have a hard time finding a politician who hasn't done something morally reprehensible, and you're not gonna get very far if all you pay attention to is surface-level scandals.



Huh, so good for you, you've made a lot of stupid arguments! That doesn't really prove anything does it?

You write with a personal bias, which aligns with the common media (and BLM) narrative. And you really made me laugh when you write about Trump supporters. I know tons of Black and Hispanic Trump supporters, I guess you would probably call them racists too! 

Not only are your opinions subjective and close-minded, in my opinion all the rioting, shooting, and racist slogans put up by so called equality groups are the real racists. Maybe you just don't understand: actions against ANY RACE because of their skin (whether white, black, or anything in between) is racist. In other words, BLM in a nutshell.

*Definition of racism:* "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group."

You sound like the kind of person that has already decided that what you think you know is right, even though you don't have all the facts. Then, when presented with the facts, you'd probably still deny them. Just like the people shown in this video:


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 3, 2020)

Lacius said:


> There's no evidence of Biden doing anything super inappropriate.
> The two candidates are night and day on policy, temperament, etc.
> Biden probably gets you 90% of the way there on just about every issue you likely care about. Trump takes you backwards.
> If it were a case of "the lesser of two evils," the lesser of two evils is literally less evil by definition.
> ...


Hi, yeah, I am literally one of those groups of people whose rights have been constantly under threat since Trump took office. I don't need a lecture on why I should support Biden. I am fully aware of how dangerous and horrible Trump is, I literally once had my rights to join the military revoked, had bathroom rights revoked in many states, and countless other horrible shit Trump's presidency was either directly responsible for or his policies allowed to happen. That being said, your first example is just flat wrong. There are plenty of videos to prove that
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=biden+hair+sniffing
It doesn't take much effort to find these videos and all of them depict inappropriate touching of women and young girls. Violating someone's personal space and touching them without their consent is an example of inappropriate touching. I draw the line right there, anyone who does that shit is someone I don't support. That being said, I am just gonna make this my last post on this thread and hopefully keep it that way.


----------



## Joom (Nov 3, 2020)

Magnus87 said:


> Are you ready? Now everything related to Pizza Gate will disappear


Good. That garbage needs to fully die already so organizations who actually work toward stopping human trafficking can stop being hindered by idiotic conspiracy nuts who come from image boards that breed pedophiles.
https://coloradotimesrecorder.com/2...forts-to-stop-actual-human-trafficking/29063/


blaydes99 said:


> Not only are your opinions subjective and close-minded, in my opinion all the rioting, shooting, and racist slogans put up by so called equality groups are the real racists.


Hoo boy, I pity you. You actually buy into Crowder's grift. And thanks for proving my point. Nothing I said was subjective in the slightest, and you're calling people who are protesting racial injustice racists. I just wonder how you people even come to these conclusions. Morality aside, it's not even logical.


blaydes99 said:


> *Definition of racism:* "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group."


Ok? Anything to pointlessly fluff a rebuttal I guess. You're really not proving me wrong here considering this is everything the Trump administration and his constituency are all about.


blaydes99 said:


> You sound like the kind of person that has already decided that what you think you know is right, even though you don't have all the facts


I'll be waiting for said facts. I dunno what you even mean by this, or how a Crowder video is somehow factual, but alrighty.


----------



## USUKDecks (Nov 3, 2020)

I don't like a d!cktatorship, don't like nazi's , hate racism and entitled elitism just as much. Plus trump is an ass clown and nothing good ever comes from a rightwing  dictatorship....ever! never in history....ever! His followers are a cult who think he's benefited them, he hasn't... only the top 5% income earners and corporations but their blind hatred towards non-whites and their overwhelming ignorance makes them believe no matter that he's THE choice and a god. Remember he said he brought back religion, he said only jesus was greater than him and he also told you to drink bleach. Not to mention the other 3 billion retarded idiot things he's said and or done.


----------



## blaydes99 (Nov 3, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Hi, yeah, I am literally one of those groups of people whose rights have been constantly under threat since Trump took office. I don't need a lecture on why I should support Biden. I am fully aware of how dangerous and horrible Trump is, I literally once had my rights to join the military revoked, had bathroom rights revoked in many states, and countless other horrible shit Trump's presidency was either directly responsible for or his policies allowed to happen. That being said, your first example is just flat wrong. There are plenty of videos to prove that
> https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=biden+hair+sniffing
> It doesn't take much effort to find these videos and all of them depict inappropriate touching of women and young girls. Violating someone's personal space and touching them without their consent is an example of inappropriate touching. I draw the line right there, anyone who does that shit is someone I don't support. That being said, I am just gonna make this my last post on this thread and hopefully keep it that way.


And not to mention that Biden seems to sadly be having mental issues too. He has said he is "running for the Senate", running against "George" so-and-so, and the list goes on. You can find 15 and 20 minute compilations on Youtube and elsewhere of all the crazy stuff he's said. The stuff he has said goes beyond simple mistakes that a person would make in public speeches. It kind of looks like early Alzheimer's or something.


----------



## Joom (Nov 3, 2020)

blaydes99 said:


> And not to mention that Biden seems to sadly be having mental issues too.


And Trump isn't? We all know their geriatrics, but for some reason, Trump's supporters actually believe him when get gets on stage and shouts about how young he is and his superior genetics. At least Biden has age as an excuse, but everything Trump encompasses seems beyond delusional.


----------



## blaydes99 (Nov 3, 2020)

Joom said:


> I'll be waiting for said facts. I dunno what you even mean by this, or how a Crowder video is somehow factual, but alrighty.


Haha, what do you mean "facts"? You are clearly not interested in facts, as you demonstrated in your opinions. Maybe try and re-read my claim again, you missed it the first time. I'm comparing you to the people in the video. Get it?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Joom said:


> And Trump isn't? We all know their geriatrics, but for some reason, Trump's supporters actually believe him when get gets on stage and shouts about how young he is and his superior genetics. At least Biden has age as an excuse, but everything Trump encompasses seems beyond delusional.


Oh boy, you really don't get it do you? Trump knows how to troll the media and liberals (and you) and you fall for it every time. That's what makes it so funny to the rest of us.


----------



## Joom (Nov 3, 2020)

blaydes99 said:


> Haha, what do you mean "facts"? You are clearly not interested in facts, as you demonstrated in your opinions. Maybe try and re-read my claim again, you missed it the first time. I'm comparing you to the people in the video. Get it?


You keep saying "opinions", but none of it is an opinion. I know what you're doing. You're just bad at it. Don't claim I need facts when you can't even offer a rebuttal of your own other than by posting the definition of racism.


----------



## blaydes99 (Nov 3, 2020)

Joom said:


> You keep saying "opinions", but none of it is an opinion. I know what you're doing. You're just bad at it. Don't claim I need facts when you can't even offer a rebuttal of your own other than by posting the definition of racism.


Kind of hard to have a conversation with you when you don't know the basic definition of words. Do you know what "opinion" means, or do you think "your opinion" = "facts"?


----------



## Joom (Nov 3, 2020)

blaydes99 said:


> Oh boy, you really don't get it do you? Trump knows how to troll the media and liberals (and you) and you fall for it every time. That's what makes it so funny to the rest of us.


Right. This is why Ben Garrison comics always portray Trump as some jacked dude with a six pack. "HE JUST TROLLIN U LOLOLO". Keep huffing that copium, bud. You're about to need a huge dose of it.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



blaydes99 said:


> Kind of hard to have a conversation with you when you don't know the basic definition of words. Do you know what "opinion" means, or do you think "your opinion" = "facts"?


But you did absolutely nothing to refute my statements other than to say I was wrong without proving how I am. So...deeeerrrrrrp?


----------



## LumInvader (Nov 3, 2020)

blaydes99 said:


> Another case of TDS! Almost seems more contagious than covid! Fancy that. It is actually the Biden supporting-rioters that are the "worst kinds of people" as you put it. How many Trump supporters have you seen rioting? Oh, that's right: zero.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Speaking of bias, I indeed shared multiple confirmation bias articles earlier in this thread to help explain bias to those who keep linking us to right wing extremist propaganda websites.  Needless to say, it didn't help.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 3, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Hi, yeah, I am literally one of those groups of people whose rights have been constantly under threat since Trump took office. I don't need a lecture on why I should support Biden. I am fully aware of how dangerous and horrible Trump is, I literally once had my rights to join the military revoked, had bathroom rights revoked in many states, and countless other horrible shit Trump's presidency was either directly responsible for or his policies allowed to happen. That being said, your first example is just flat wrong. There are plenty of videos to prove that
> https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=biden+hair+sniffing
> It doesn't take much effort to find these videos and all of them depict inappropriate touching of women and young girls. Violating someone's personal space and touching them without their consent is an example of inappropriate touching. I draw the line right there, anyone who does that shit is someone I don't support. That being said, I am just gonna make this my last post on this thread and hopefully keep it that way.


You absolutely need a lecture on why you should vote for Biden. You are literally voting against your own civil rights by not doing so.

Worse, you're selfishly voting against everybody else's civil rights. You're acting like a child.


----------



## Joom (Nov 3, 2020)

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

C'moooon, Texas. I believe we can get it to go blue. Ohio is closing in, too.


----------



## blaydes99 (Nov 3, 2020)

Joom said:


> Right. This is why Ben Garrison comics always portray Trump as some jacked dude with a six pack. "HE JUST TROLLIN U LOLOLO". Keep huffing that copium, bud. You're about to need a huge dose of it.
> 
> But you did absolutely nothing to refute my statements other than to say I was wrong without proving how I am. So...deeeerrrrrrp?


I see... you have no way to compensate for your inadequacies so you decide it is time to launch baseless personal attacks. And what have you accomplished? Nothing constructive. This is why it is difficult to have a constructive conversation with some liberals.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Joom said:


> https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/
> 
> C'moooon, Texas. I believe we can get it to go blue. Ohio is closing in, too.



If you believe in your heart, maybe, just maybe, Biden can defeat Abraham Lincoln in this election!

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> You absolutely need a lecture on why you should vote for Biden. You are literally voting against your own civil rights by not doing so.
> 
> Worse, you're selfishly voting against everybody else's civil rights. You're acting like a child.



RIIIGHTTT, like all the plentiful civil rights we'll have under an immediate 3-month lockdown that Biden has promised! Enough is enough.


----------



## Joom (Nov 3, 2020)

blaydes99 said:


> I see... you have no way to compensate for your inadequacies so you decide it is time to launch baseless personal attacks. And what have you accomplished? Nothing constructive. This is why it is difficult to have a constructive conversation with some liberals.


...wut. Also, I'm not a liberal. I'm a socialist. You can be a leftist and not be a liberal. What inadequacies are you even talking about? What personal attacks? I love it when you challenge a conservative they just have a stroke and shut down.


blaydes99 said:


> If you believe in your heart, maybe, just maybe, Biden can defeat Abraham Lincoln in this election!


Mmmmm, boy, I love the smell of fresh ass hurt. If you dunno how swing states work, you should probably educate yourself. Having Pennsylvania is already good enough, but taking Texas would just be the icing on the cake.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 3, 2020)

blaydes99 said:


> I see... you have no way to compensate for your inadequacies so you decide it is time to launch baseless personal attacks. And what have you accomplished? Nothing constructive. This is why it is difficult to have a constructive conversation with some liberals.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



We won't necessarily have a three-month lockdown if Biden is elected.
We are in the middle of a deadly pandemic, and it's getting worse in part because people aren't social distancing and wearing masks. If a lockdown is what's needed, we should do it.
I suggest you learn what civil rights are.


----------



## Joom (Nov 3, 2020)

blaydes99 said:


> RIIIGHTTT, like all the plentiful civil rights we'll have under an immediate 3-month lockdown that Biden has promised! Enough is enough.


No, we need more dead citizens, right? Because their right to life means less than your imagined right to go outside. Suck it up and maybe care about somebody else's life other than your own. Jesus, you people are all part of a death cult, I swear.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 3, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Hi, yeah, I am literally one of those groups of people whose rights have been constantly under threat since Trump took office. I don't need a lecture on why I should support Biden. I am fully aware of how dangerous and horrible Trump is, I literally once had my rights to join the military revoked, had bathroom rights revoked in many states, and countless other horrible shit Trump's presidency was either directly responsible for or his policies allowed to happen. That being said, your first example is just flat wrong. There are plenty of videos to prove that
> https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=biden+hair+sniffing
> It doesn't take much effort to find these videos and all of them depict inappropriate touching of women and young girls. Violating someone's personal space and touching them without their consent is an example of inappropriate touching. I draw the line right there, anyone who does that shit is someone I don't support. That being said, I am just gonna make this my last post on this thread and hopefully keep it that way.



I also wanted to point out that you claimed Trump assaults people, but he's never been convinced of sexual assault. Are you now rewriting the term "consensual adult sex or sexual activities" as assault? It wouldn't surprise me come from Liberals.

Lastly, Gender Identity politics and anyone that supports them are mentally handicap. Trump has to balance the rights of mentally ill people with the rights of normal Americans and was handed a bunch of rules and laws already on the books. I've not seen Trump act in ill faith against any of the LGBTQ people and again you're simply being told he has by the crooked leftist media.


----------



## blaydes99 (Nov 3, 2020)

Joom said:


> ...wut. Also, I'm not a liberal. I'm a socialist. You can be a leftist and not be a liberal. What inadequacies are you even talking about? What personal attacks? I love it when you challenge a conservative they just have a stroke and shut down.


There you go again, it is hilarious that you don't even know what "liberal" means. And the fact that you are a socialist says a lot. Do you have a job and earn a lot of money and like to give it those around you, or is that you want rich people to give you their money? You support a economic structure that fails every time, and dumb people like you want to try it again?



Joom said:


> Mmmmm, boy, I love the smell of fresh ass


Dude, that is messed up. No wonder you like Biden.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 3, 2020)

USUKDecks said:


> I don't like a d!cktatorship, don't like nazi's , hate racism and entitled elitism just as much. Plus trump is an ass clown and nothing good ever comes from a rightwing  dictatorship....ever! never in history....ever! His followers are a cult who think he's benefited them, he hasn't... only the top 5% income earners and corporations but their blind hatred towards non-whites and their overwhelming ignorance makes them believe no matter that he's THE choice and a god. Remember he said he brought back religion, he said only jesus was greater than him and he also told you to drink bleach. Not to mention the other 3 billion retarded idiot things he's said and or done.



The only blindness here is coming from you as you've also been infected with TDS and drink what the Left is pouring.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 3, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I also wanted to point out that you claimed Trump assaults people, but he's never been convinced of sexual assault. Are you now rewriting the term "consensual adult sex or sexual activities" as assault? It wouldn't surprise me come from Liberals.
> 
> Lastly, Gender Identity politics and anyone that supports them are mentally handicap. Trump has to balance the rights of mentally ill people with the rights of normal Americans and was handed a bunch of rules and laws already on the books. I've not seen Trump act in ill faith against any of the LGBTQ people and again you're simply being told he has by the crooked leftist media.


Are you arguing trans people are mentally ill? It's not entirely clear. Are you also arguing consensual adult sex is fine? Does this mean you are pro-gay rights?


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 3, 2020)

blaydes99 said:


> And not to mention that Biden seems to sadly be having mental issues too. He has said he is "running for the Senate", running against "George" so-and-so, and the list goes on. You can find 15 and 20 minute compilations on Youtube and elsewhere of all the crazy stuff he's said. The stuff he has said goes beyond simple mistakes that a person would make in public speeches. It kind of looks like early Alzheimer's or something.



Sadly this isn't a laughing matter. If we get a President that's in early stages of some sort of mental affliction we're not headed into calm waters.


----------



## LumInvader (Nov 3, 2020)

The personal shit is really starting to pick up around here.  Polls must be closing soon.


----------



## blaydes99 (Nov 3, 2020)

Joom said:


> No, we need more dead citizens, right? Because their right to life means less than your imagined right to go outside. Suck it up and maybe care about somebody else's life other than your own. Jesus, you people are all part of a death cult, I swear.



You think that when people "go outside", then other people just spontaneously just drop dead? How do you expect rich people to go get more money for you to steal if they can't go work for it? DUUURRRRRRR

You are so dumb you don't even realize that your socialist crap won't work if people are locked down.


----------



## Joom (Nov 3, 2020)

blaydes99 said:


> Do you have a job and earn a lot of money and like to give it those around you, or is that you want rich people to give you their money? You support a economic structure that fails every time, and dumb people like you want to try it again?


That's not socialism, but of course you wouldn't know that. Socialism is when workers own the company they work for, and the economy becomes decentralized. It has nothing to do with giving away money.


blaydes99 said:


> Dude, that is messed up. No wonder you like Biden.


*eyeroll* "BAAAWWW, YOU PEWSONAL ATTACKED MEEEEEE!" This is why I called you a stroke victim. You argue like you're having a stroke because you're all over the place and just projecting your anger. Grow up already.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



blaydes99 said:


> You think that when people "go outside", then other people just spontaneously just drop dead? How do you expect rich people to go get more money for you to steal if they can't go work for it? DUUURRRRRRR


You're a drooling moron and I'm done with you. Don't ask for facts and claim someone doesn't have them when you yourself are a braying jackass.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 3, 2020)

blaydes99 said:


> You think that when people "go outside", then other people just spontaneously just drop dead? How do you expect rich people to go get more money for you to steal if they can't go work for it? DUUURRRRRRR
> 
> You are so dumb you don't even realize that your socialist crap won't work if people are locked down.


People are literally dying because of people not wearing masks and not social distancing.


----------



## blaydes99 (Nov 3, 2020)

Joom said:


> That's not socialism, but of course you wouldn't know that. Socialism is when workers own the company they work for, and the economy becomes decentralized. It has nothing to do with giving away money.



Ah man, I haven't had a laugh this good in days. It is just so easy to troll you. You think you are smart and that makes you even dumber. When a worker owns the company they work for, they are called "owners".

And yes, socialism was never about "giving away money", it is about forcibly taking it from those who have it and giving it to those you don't.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> People are literally dying because of people not wearing masks and not social distancing.


People are literally dying because of 1,000 other causes, each and every day. I prefer to focus on the causes that matter, and not the ones that are spun for political power or financial gain.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 3, 2020)

blaydes99 said:


> Ah man, I haven't had a laugh this good in days. It is just so easy to troll you. You think you are smart and that makes you even dumber. When a worker owns the company they work for, they are called "owners".
> 
> And yes, socialism was never about "giving away money", it is about forcibly taking it from those who have it and giving it to those you don't.
> 
> ...


232,000 people are dead in the USA because of COVID-19. It's the third leading cause of death in the USA. Worse, it didn't have to be this way.


----------



## Doran754 (Nov 3, 2020)

Lilith Valentine said:


> Hi, yeah, I am literally one of those groups of people whose rights have been constantly under threat since Trump took office. I don't need a lecture on why I should support Biden. I am fully aware of how dangerous and horrible Trump is, I literally once had my rights to join the military revoked, had bathroom rights revoked in many states, and countless other horrible shit Trump's presidency was either directly responsible for or his policies allowed to happen. That being said, your first example is just flat wrong. There are plenty of videos to prove that
> https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=biden+hair+sniffing
> It doesn't take much effort to find these videos and all of them depict inappropriate touching of women and young girls. Violating someone's personal space and touching them without their consent is an example of inappropriate touching. I draw the line right there, anyone who does that shit is someone I don't support. That being said, I am just gonna make this my last post on this thread and hopefully keep it that way.



Did you notice the difference between blaydes reply and the other guy on the far left who attacked you. One said they understand where you're coming from, the other spent their whole time defending a pedo who sniffs young girls and held you personally responsible for not agreeing with him and called you lazy. I hope you notice the difference between normal people and far left loons.


----------



## blaydes99 (Nov 3, 2020)

Lacius said:


> 232,000 people are dead in the USA because of COVID-19. It's the third leading cause of death in the USA. Worse, it didn't have to be this way.


Ah yes, Covid! A virus so deadly you need a test to find out if you have it!


----------



## Lacius (Nov 3, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Did you notice the difference between blaydes reply and the other guy on the far left who attacked you. One said they understand where you're coming from, the other spent their whole time defending a pedo who sniffs young girls and held you personally responsible for not agreeing with him and called you lazy. I hope you notice the difference between normal people and far left loons.


Joe Biden is not a pedo, and Lilith is 100% responsible for not voting for Biden. The "both sides suck" mantra is also intellectually lazy. I stand by my post.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



blaydes99 said:


> Ah yes, Covid! A virus so deadly you need a test to find out if you have it!


Do you not know how COVID-19 works? Are you denying the numbers? Because you don't seem to have said anything in response to the death tolls.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 3, 2020)

H


----------



## blaydes99 (Nov 3, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Do you not know how COVID-19 works? Are you denying the numbers? Because you don't seem to have said anything in response to the death tolls.



Yes, I think the numbers are wildly incorrect. If you'd like, I can cite the CDC numbers (such as how 95% of all covid deaths are categorized between "having covid and other conditions" vs. "just covid" alone). I also have a friend (college age) who went to get tested, and had to leave before the test was administered. Later that day, he got an email that he tested positive. So obviously there are problems in the reporting. (this has even been reported by the media, if you believe it). Government can also be very inefficient at times so this has certainly also played a factor.

I don't deny that covid is more dangerous for older folks or people with other conditions that may weaken them, and I think they should be the focus, not the whole of society. It should be managed by age group and by susceptibility, not as a broad sweeping global lockdown.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 3, 2020)

blaydes99 said:


> Yes, I think the numbers are wildly incorrect. If you'd like, I can cite the CDC numbers (such as how 95% of all covid deaths are categorized between "having covid and other conditions" vs. "just covid" alone). I also have a friend (college age) who went to get tested, and had to leave before the test was administered. Later that day, he got an email that he tested positive. So boviously there are some problems in the reporting. (this has even been reported by the media, if you believe it).
> 
> I don't deny that covid is more dangerous for older folks or people with other conditions that may weaken them, and I think they should be the focus, not the whole of society. It should be managed by age group and by susceptibility, not as a broad sweeping global lockdown.


I suggest you do some more research before downplaying the pandemic. Anecdotes are not data.

If we're talking about anecdotes, two people in my life have died of COVID-19, and another two were pretty sick.


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 3, 2020)

Sorry to hear that Lacius,even though i try to stay indoors and away from people my mental wellness cannot deal with isolation


----------



## LumInvader (Nov 3, 2020)

SG854 said:


> H


Hi?

Hodor?

Harris for VP?


----------



## Lacius (Nov 3, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> Sorry to hear that Lacius,even though i try to stay indoors and away from people my mental wellness cannot deal with isolation


Physical distancing shouldn't be social distancing. Depending on where you live, the calculated risk of masks, six feet apart, and outdoors is doable. Zooming is obviously acceptable. Do what you can to avoid the mental tolls of isolation.


----------



## mehrab2603 (Nov 3, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Hi?
> 
> Hodor?
> 
> Harris for VP?


----------



## SG854 (Nov 3, 2020)

Joom said:


> That's not socialism, but of course you wouldn't know that. Socialism is when workers own the company they work for, and the economy becomes decentralized. It has nothing to do with giving away money.
> 
> *eyeroll* "BAAAWWW, YOU PEWSONAL ATTACKED MEEEEEE!" This is why I called you a stroke victim. You argue like you're having a stroke because you're all over the place and just projecting your anger. Grow up already.
> 
> ...


EOPS
Employee Share Ownership Plan

You could buy stock if you wanna own part of the company. Limited control of the company but might have some power to vote for board of director members.

But how much of a say should an every day minimum wage worker should have in the company? That's kind of the obligation of being an owner of a company to have a say in all aspects including financial side of things. Should a burger flipper at McDonald's who has no experience economics have a say on how the company should manage the financial side of things? How many buns, meat, ingredients, should be purchased, which locations are financially struggling and how to allocate money resources to improve those locations. And how many locations to open up?

Also what if someone joins a company 20 years after the buisness first started. Should they automatically have ownership of stoves and grills they did work for since they weren't a part of the company when it first started. Or should they work up towards that type of ownership. Proving they are capable of managing the business correctly. Kinda like what we have now a Manager. Different tiers depending on your capabilities you have proven that you can handle. 

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



LumInvader said:


> Hi?
> 
> Hodor?
> 
> Harris for VP?


My internet was acting up


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 4, 2020)

Well, I'm sure people are still stuck in line, but voting is heading to a close.


----------



## LumInvader (Nov 4, 2020)

*Does Allan Lichtman Stand by His “13 Keys” Prediction of a Joe Biden Win?*
https://www.american.edu/cas/news/13-keys-election-prediction.cfm


> Lichtman, AU Distinguished Professor of History, made headlines in 2016 when* he accurately predicted that Donald J. Trump would win the race for the White House*. It was considered an incredible feat, given that all other major election forecasters got it wrong.
> 
> But this time around, Lichtman’s prediction agrees with all of the other models:* he says that Joe Biden will become the next President of the United States*.
> 
> Lichtman bases his predictions on 13 Keys that he developed in collaboration with Vladimir Keilis-Borok, a Russian expert on earthquakes. *Their 13 keys have accurately predicted every US presidential race since 1984.*


----------



## 0x3000027E (Nov 4, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Well, I'm sure people are still stuck in line, but voting is heading to a close.


In NY, as long as you are in line when 9pm strikes, they cannot refuse your right.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 4, 2020)

blaydes99 said:


> Yes, I think the numbers are wildly incorrect. If you'd like, I can cite the CDC numbers (such as how 95% of all covid deaths are categorized between "having covid and other conditions" vs. "just covid" alone). I also have a friend (college age) who went to get tested, and had to leave before the test was administered. Later that day, he got an email that he tested positive. So obviously there are problems in the reporting. (this has even been reported by the media, if you believe it). Government can also be very inefficient at times so this has certainly also played a factor.
> 
> I don't deny that covid is more dangerous for older folks or people with other conditions that may weaken them, and I think they should be the focus, not the whole of society. It should be managed by age group and by susceptibility, not as a broad sweeping global lockdown.



I'm not going to tell you what to do, but I do suggest just letting @Lacius be as after some months of talking with him and seeing what he posts I found him to be a simple political shill. He's got TDS so bad he can't even list 1 accomplishment that Trump has done that he agrees with. Then there's @LumInvader who posts nothing, but links to news coming from the left side of the isle. Both of them are bias, try to hide it, but fail miserably.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



KingVamp said:


> Well, I'm sure people are still stuck in line, but voting is heading to a close.



Cool, thanks for putting up with a simple line to vote. Who are you choosing, Biden or Trump (or someone else)?


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 4, 2020)

I think I'm leaning towards Election Day being an official holiday.


0x3000027E said:


> In NY, as long as you are in line when 9pm strikes, they cannot refuse your right.


I did not know that. I thought everyone would stop the lines at 7. 



gregory-samba said:


> Cool, thanks for putting up with a simple line to vote. Who are you choosing, Biden or Trump (or someone else)?


I wasn't talking about myself. I didn't have to wait in a line. Biden.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 4, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> I think I'm leaning towards Election Day being an official holiday.
> 
> I did not know that. I thought everyone would stop the lines at 7.
> 
> I wasn't talking about myself. I didn't have to wait in a line. Biden.



Ah, I misread what you typed. Glad you voted.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I'm not going to tell you what to do, but I do suggest just letting @Lacius be as after some months of talking with him and seeing what he posts I found him to be a simple political shill. He's got TDS so bad he can't even list 1 accomplishment that Trump has done that he agrees with. Then there's @LumInvader who posts nothing, but links to news coming from the left side of the isle. Both of them are bias, try to hide it, but fail miserably.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Fact check: I listed a Trump accomplishment I liked.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 4, 2020)

I decided to watch ABC News live stream event tonight, it's just unfortunate that most of the reporters and guests are rooting for Biden. Their coverage is very slanted to the left, but this is ABC News who will delete your comments on their stories if they are pro-conservative.

If anyone is interested in their stream it's located below.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 4, 2020)

Trump is winning the national popular vote.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 4, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Trump is winning the national popular vote.



That's cool, but there's still many States that haven't reported results as it's only 5:30pm on the West Coast. Remember though, Trump could win the popular vote and still lose the election. I just hope the early voting numbers that showed Biden winning are all turned around as we're seeing record turn out around the country for the 2020 election. If Biden wins the new normal will be everyone having to pay more taxes and the economy turning to shit. I hope he doesn't win, but we won't know for some time, maybe days or weeks.

Did you vote and if so who did you vote for?


----------



## Lacius (Nov 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> That's cool, but there's still many States that haven't reported results as it's only 5:30pm on the West Coast. Remember though, Trump could win the popular vote and still lose the election. I just hope the early voting numbers that showed Biden winning are all turned around as we're seeing record turn out around the country for the 2020 election. If Biden wins the new normal will be everyone having to pay more taxes and the economy turning to shit. I hope he doesn't win, but we won't know for some time, maybe days or weeks.
> 
> Did you vote and if so who did you vote for?


You're talking to a child. He can't vote.


----------



## Doran754 (Nov 4, 2020)

I'm watching Joe Rogan cover it on youtube. Can't be fucked with the leftmedia all night.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 4, 2020)

Just for the record. That "If Biden wins everyone will pay more taxes" line is complete bullshit. Gregory is one of the biggest political shills on the entire site. Along with SUPRA or whatever that morons name is.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 4, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Just for the record. That "If Biden wins everyone will pay more taxes" line is complete bullshit. Gregory is one of the biggest political shills on the entire site. Along with SUPRA or whatever that morons name is.



That's odd, because he's on video telling everyone their taxes are going to be increased. What do you think what happens when you tax more than 50% of apartment complexes income? The rent goes up. He's also a proponent of the New Green Deal, that will raise the taxes by 4 trillion dollars. So I'm not sure what you're referring to, but Biden is going to raise taxes.

*An Analysis of Vice President Biden’s Economic Agenda:The Long Run Impacts of Its Regulation, Taxes, and Spending*
_TIMOTHY FITZGERALD, KEVIN HASSETT, CODY KALLEN, AND CASEY B. MULLIGAN_

https://www.hoover.org/research/analysis-vice-president-bidens-economic-agenda-long-run-impacts


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> That's odd, because he's on video telling everyone their taxes are going to be increased. What do you think what happens when you tax more than 50% of apartment complexes income? The rent goes up. He's also a proponent of the New Green Deal, that will raise the taxes by 4 trillion dollars. So I'm not sure what you're referring to, but Biden is going to raise taxes.
> 
> *An Analysis of Vice President Biden’s Economic Agenda:The Long Run Impacts of Its Regulation, Taxes, and Spending*
> _TIMOTHY FITZGERALD, KEVIN HASSETT, CODY KALLEN, AND CASEY B. MULLIGAN_
> ...


"B-but they're only being raised for smart people!"


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 4, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> "B-but they're only being raised for smart people!"



What happened in my area when they raised the minimum wage? Prices on mostly everything went up $2 and all of the low profit margin businesses started getting rid of full time employees. What happens when you start taxing those restaurants that make $400,000 or other companies? The cost gets passed onto the consumer. Liberals can't comprehend this until it hits their personal pocket books and by then when they finally wake up it's too late. It makes no sense to pay everyone more and then raise all of the prices ... that makes the raise pointless, but stupid people think they're going to have more money in the end and that's just not the case.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



shamzie said:


> I'm watching Joe Rogan cover it on youtube. Can't be fucked with the leftmedia all night.



I like knowing what the competition is thinking and doing. I know Liberals are programmed to claim things that goes against their agenda are racist or conspiracy theories so they automatically dismiss whatever the subject matter is and completely ignore it, but that's stupid. Understanding the competition is how you're supposed to play things out. In any good game knowing what your opponent is going to do will give you the upper edge. Yes, it's a bunch of Liberal crap and they aren't even hiding the fact they want Trump to lose, but as long as the facts like the numbers are correct I don't mind the bullshit.


----------



## Rail Fighter (Nov 4, 2020)

Is the party around here??


----------



## Lacius (Nov 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> What happened in my area when they raised the minimum wage? Prices on mostly everything went up $2 and all of the low profit margin businesses started getting rid of full time employees. What happens when you start taxing those restaurants that make $400,000 or other companies? The cost gets passed onto the consumer. Liberals can't comprehend this until it hits their personal pocket books and by then when they finally wake up it's too late. It makes no sense to pay everyone more and then raise all of the prices ... that makes the raise pointless, but stupid people think they're going to have more money in the end and that's just not the case.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Fact check:

Increases in the minimum wage don't generally cause price increases.
Biden's 400k tax plan applies to households, not businesses.


----------



## Sizednochi (Nov 4, 2020)

This thread is gonna be really funny tomorrow. Hahahahaha! So much for your polls.

Here's my prediction, @Lacius and @LumInvader will be hiding for a while.

He won Florida by a way bigger margin than in 2016, and is about to win Ohio and North Carolina while being ahead in Michigan and Wisconsin. It's fucking over for Biden. Guess months of grasping at fake polls didn't help you keep your bubble alive.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 4, 2020)

Trump right now is wining the popular vote but loosing the electoral one.


----------



## Sizednochi (Nov 4, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Trump right now is wining the popular vote but loosing the electoral one.


He's still not. 33 million vs 31 million for Biden. But California will probably give Biden the popular vote win with all the illegal voters.

Btw Trump is pulling ahead in Pennsylvania now also. Looks like he'll take the entire rust belt again.

Edit: He flipped Pennsylvania. Looks like this might will be a bigger win than 2016.


----------



## biggj (Nov 4, 2020)

Vegas odds just flipped for Trump.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 4, 2020)

Sizednochi said:


> He's still not. 33 million vs 31 million for Biden. But California will probably give Biden the popular vote win with all the illegal voters.
> 
> Btw Trump is pulling ahead in Pennsylvania now also. Looks like he'll take the entire rust belt again.
> 
> Edit: He flipped Pennsylvania. Looks like this might will be a bigger win than 2016.


source on the illegal voters please


----------



## PiracyForTheMasses (Nov 4, 2020)

Sizednochi said:


> He's still not. 33 million vs 31 million for Biden. But California will probably give Biden the popular vote win with all the illegal voters.
> 
> Btw Trump is pulling ahead in Pennsylvania now also. Looks like he'll take the entire rust belt again.
> 
> Edit: He flipped Pennsylvania. Looks like this might will be a bigger win than 2016.


Don't get your hopes up, mail in ballots are counted last.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 4, 2020)

PiracyForTheMasses said:


> Don't get your hopes up, mail in ballots are counted last.



Indeed. I believe we're going to have to wait for some time until we know who won. It's just sad that we're all scared of an illness with a 99.8% survival rate and that's why we won't know the outcome for possible almost a week. The Government really played the fuck out of a simple illness and the majority of people fell for it.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Indeed. I believe we're going to have to wait for some time until we know who won. It's just sad that we're all scared of an illness with a 99.8% survival rate and that's why we won't know the outcome for possible almost a week. The Government really played the fuck out of a simple illness and the majority of people fell for it.


200 thousand people died and it has concerning long term health effects, how hard is it to just wear a mask and distance


----------



## Rail Fighter (Nov 4, 2020)

Chinese stonks:


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 4, 2020)

jupitteer said:


> 200 thousand people died and it has concerning long term health effects, how hard is it to just wear a mask and distance



Not hard at all, which is another reason why we should not be afraid of it. Wearing masks properly does have health benefits as they can filter out bad air, airborne bacteria, pollution and viruses. I'm not opposed to people wearing masks, but understand if anyone doesn't want to wear one. There's so many other things in life that are deadly, such as car accidents and obesity, but I don't see anyone trying to ban automobiles or help people learn how to exercise and eat properly. I was never scared of the Chinese Wuhan Corona Virus and even less so now as the serious infection and death rates are so low it's a trivial matter. It's just too bad people are still scared of it.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Not hard at all, which is another reason why we should not be afraid of it. Wearing masks properly does have health benefits as they can filter out bad air, airborne bacteria, pollution and viruses. I'm not opposed to people wearing masks, but understand if anyone doesn't want to wear one. There's so many other things in life that are deadly, such as car accidents and obesity, but I don't see anyone trying to ban automobiles or help people learn how to exercise and eat properly. I was never scared of the Chinese Wuhan Corona Virus and even less so now as the serious infection and death rates are so low it's a trivial matter. It's just too bad people are still scared of it.


you just gonna completely sidestep what i said or


----------



## Sizednochi (Nov 4, 2020)

Chinese Yuan is melting, LOOOOOOOOOOOOL


----------



## Doran754 (Nov 4, 2020)

So I don't want to jinx it. This is just one of 6 bets I placed on trump. I've also got $50 on Trump on pokerstars, Bet365 seem to be the most accurate though. The fact they're offering me double to cashout now seems to suggest Trump has more than likely won.


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 4, 2020)

I might as well pay my passport fees and even expedite the shit an extra $60 but doable visa and a plane ticket the fuck out of here of worst comes to worst and trump wins there should be one in my family to survive ww3......trump might not push the red button himself but we have 3 leaders with ichy fingers and one leader who's willing to piss all 3 off


----------



## Doran754 (Nov 4, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> I might as well pay my passport fees and even expedite the shit an extra $60 but doable visa and a plane ticket the fuck out of here of worst comes to worst and trump wins there should be one in my family to survive ww3......trump might not push the red button himself but we have 3 leaders with ichy fingers and one leader who's willing to piss all 3 off



You sound so ridiculous and pathetic. WW3 was never on the agenda, Trump hasn't started any new wars, he's brought more peace than any other president in your life time. You're so deluded, the only people you should fear are those on the left, your comrades who will burn everything down and loot. Take a step back and look at the facts for once. You've survived the last 4 years champ, you made it! you can do another 4.


----------



## Rail Fighter (Nov 4, 2020)

#Ivanka2024


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 4, 2020)

my vision for 2024 if trump wins 2020 he pisses off N. Korea,Iran and Russia (or hatched a deal to for them to threaten the US to prevent removal of him) if that fails to sway the US there will be no inaguration of the 46th just entire cities wiped off the map


----------



## Lacius (Nov 4, 2020)

shamzie said:


> You sound so ridiculous and pathetic. WW3 was never on the agenda, Trump hasn't started any new wars, he's brought more peace than any other president in your life time. You're so deluded, the only people you should fear are those on the left, your comrades who will burn everything down and loot. Take a step back and look at the facts for once. You've survived the last 4 years champ, you made it! you can do another 4.


Fact check: Trump has dropped more bombs and missiles than Obama or Bush in their first terms. He has not "brought more peace than any other president in my lifetime." Trump has ended various disarmament treaties.


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 4, 2020)

then will you believe Nostrdomus? I sure will


----------



## Lacius (Nov 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Not hard at all, which is another reason why we should not be afraid of it. Wearing masks properly does have health benefits as they can filter out bad air, airborne bacteria, pollution and viruses. I'm not opposed to people wearing masks, but understand if anyone doesn't want to wear one. There's so many other things in life that are deadly, such as car accidents and obesity, but I don't see anyone trying to ban automobiles or help people learn how to exercise and eat properly. I was never scared of the Chinese Wuhan Corona Virus and even less so now as the serious infection and death rates are so low it's a trivial matter. It's just too bad people are still scared of it.


Fact check: COVID-19 has killed 230,000 Americans this year, far more than car accidents. We also have laws that mitigate death causes by other motorists (speed limits, etc.). You just made an argument for masks, etc.


----------



## Sizednochi (Nov 4, 2020)

Enjoy your 4 more years ameribros



PiracyForTheMasses said:


> Don't get your hopes up, mail in ballots are counted last.


70% reporting in for PA. 55% to  43% for Trump. It's over :^)


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 4, 2020)

the guy want's to stay in power he's willing to cheat at the 2020 election (by cutting out mail in voting,by fucking with the USPS by using his post master lacky) I bet he's willing to even hold the country hostage in 2024 by using those 2 out of 3 nuclear powers to hold the gun to our head it's a scary thought but well within the relmn of possability


----------



## wartutor (Nov 4, 2020)

Lacius said:


> You absolutely need a lecture on why you should vote for Biden. You are literally voting against your own civil rights by not doing so.
> 
> Worse, you're selfishly voting against everybody else's civil rights. You're acting like a child.


Typical biden supporter. Hey your wrong for voting how you did, let me tell you why your not black, hispanic, white, or human if you dont vote for biden. Jesus man tell @Lilith Valentine they are wrong and why your superior intelect can prove that god so full of shit


----------



## LumInvader (Nov 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I'm not going to tell you what to do, but I do suggest just letting @Lacius be as after some months of talking with him and seeing what he posts I found him to be a simple political shill. He's got TDS so bad he can't even list 1 accomplishment that Trump has done that he agrees with. Then there's @LumInvader who posts nothing, but links to news coming from the left side of the isle. Both of them are bias, try to hide it, but fail miserably.


These personal attacks really don't make much sense.  You've been cited *multiple times *for sharing links to right wing extremist propaganda websites.  Not me.  Not only have you been called out for extreme bias, you've even attempted (unsuccessfully) to defend the use of these websites.

The websites I share tend to alternate between left-center and right-center, which are moderate or least biased.  The websites you share lean toward the propaganda side of the chart shown in the image below:







*Extremely* biased*.*


----------



## Doran754 (Nov 4, 2020)

Incoming white men to tell all these minorities they don’t know what they voted for.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 4, 2020)

Biden has a huge lead. Looks like he's gunna win.


----------



## IncredulousP (Nov 4, 2020)

America, land of the stupid.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 4, 2020)

IncredulousP said:


> America, land of the stupid.


You're cool

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Biden practically won. Congratulations Democrats.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 4, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Biden has a huge lead. Looks like he's gunna win.


It ain't over 'til it's over.


----------



## LumInvader (Nov 4, 2020)

It looks like Trump's going to win and win fairly easily as well.  The polls were off by 2-3 galaxy lengths.  Very surprising result, but conservatives have been saying polls are fake since 2016.  I didn't want to believe them, but they were right.  Kudos to all who said not to trust them.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 4, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Biden has a huge lead. Looks like he's gunna win.





SG854 said:


> Biden practically won. Congratulations Democrats.




Premature. You may be correct, but there are a lot of states left to call and Trump is leading them. Florida and Ohio are pretty much a done deal for Trump but most media outlets aren't calling them. The only real surprise for Biden so far has been Arizona.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 4, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> It ain't over 'til it's over.
> View attachment 232593


Economy went to shit in 2020 under Trump. Economy is always the biggest influence on election.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Hanafuda said:


> Premature. You may be correct, but there are a lot of states left to call and Trump is leading them. Florida and Ohio are pretty much a done deal for Trump but most media outlets aren't calling them. The only real surprise for Biden so far has been Arizona.


If Covid never hit then Trump would've had a chance.


----------



## EmanueleBGN (Nov 4, 2020)

Hilarious the Democrats point of view (not only US but all over the world): "If we don't win, there will be the Apocalypse! Only us have the right to vote, the right to govern! We are for peace and rights, everyone is a human being... but if you don't have our ideas you are a stupid!".
Well, there isn't a "Left" party in the US because no one wants the Socialism or, at least, a return to a regulated finance (that has caused the 2008 crisis). These are the real problems of the Counties.
Democrat and Republican Parties came from the same, old, Republican-Democratic Party - and you really think to have a choice?
Dems, Reps, it doesn't change: US will always be imperialistic, warmonger, capitalistic.
You want peace? Than, prepare the peace: Russia is no more an enemy. But US need to have an enemy, because its economy is based on the war.


----------



## Worldblender (Nov 4, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> It ain't over 'til it's over.
> View attachment 232593


What tracker is this screenshot depicting? It's likely too early to call out for who won. Let's wait a few days, in order to account for all the early votes and mail-in/absentee votes. It may take at least until this weekend for all the states to fully count their votes.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 4, 2020)

Worldblender said:


> What tracker is this screenshot depicting? It's likely too early to call out for who won. Let's wait a few days, in order to account for all the early votes and mail-in/absentee votes. It may take at least until this weekend for all the states to fully count their votes.


Google.


----------



## wartutor (Nov 4, 2020)

#trump2024 for the win


----------



## Chary (Nov 4, 2020)

What a close race this is!


----------



## barronwaffles (Nov 4, 2020)

This is some hilarious shit, love it.


----------



## Doran754 (Nov 4, 2020)

Trump was trending to win WI, MI and PA which would've secured his victory, so they stopped counting the votes. You know for a country always banging on about your freedom, you do some scummy stuff. Imagine stopping vote counts on election day. The steal is on now.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 4, 2020)

Well, looks like one needs two and the other needs 4.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 4, 2020)

seany1990 said:


> Hey, look at me! I'll change this guy's post because he disagrees with me! Echo chambers are the best! Make sure to grab a molotov cocktail and burn the White House to the ground when Trump winds up winning!



--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



KingVamp said:


> Well, looks like one needs two and the other needs 4.


Lo and behold.


----------



## notimp (Nov 4, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Trump was trending to win WI, MI and PA which would've secured his victory, so they stopped counting the votes. You know for a country always banging on about your freedom, you do some scummy stuff. Imagine stopping vote counts on election day. The steal is on now.


Heard the same thing for the pro Trump case (other states probably). Bring sources for legislation that would stop the vote count on election day. Because thats highly unusual.

Only legislation I've heard about  was such, that mail in votes would not be counted if they reached the voting place even the day after the election (no matter what the postal stamp date says).  And even thats problematic enough.

But please digg up sources, I'd want to read them.

Trump calling on the supreme court is that btw. Voting supression. They can and will decide, when to cut off counting.


----------



## seany1990 (Nov 4, 2020)

If Americans want to re-elect their fascist dictator then they have every right to do as a democratic nation. Let's not make up such blatantly pathetic lies though. It's embarrassing to think anybody is going to believe it. Next post should say the sky is purple and see if that lands better


----------



## notimp (Nov 4, 2020)

Sizednochi said:


> Chinese Yuan is melting, LOOOOOOOOOOOOL


Fun with graphs.  (You dont see the 0 point of the y axis.) Thats 1.5% - and the market pricing in risk of a Trump win.  If half of the loss was absorbed by a gain yesterday... chances are thats not that much of a loss.. 

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Final election results probably only a week from now. What fun.  Be civil for that time, folks... 

src: Some experts opinion.  (As its just an opinion, I dont bother finding a source in english, have just read it in my local (german) newspaper.)


----------



## wartutor (Nov 4, 2020)

There afraid to release trumps win because riots will sweep through the streets again.


----------



## RandomUser (Nov 4, 2020)

Lacius said:


> There's no evidence of Biden doing anything super inappropriate.
> The two candidates are night and day on policy, temperament, etc.
> Biden probably gets you 90% of the way there on just about every issue you likely care about. Trump takes you backwards.
> If it were a case of "the lesser of two evils," the lesser of two evils is literally less evil by definition.
> ...





Lacius said:


> You absolutely need a lecture on why you should vote for Biden. You are literally voting against your own civil rights by not doing so.
> 
> Worse, you're selfishly voting against everybody else's civil rights. You're acting like a child.





Lacius said:


> Joe Biden is not a pedo, and Lilith is 100% responsible for not voting for Biden. The "both sides suck" mantra is also intellectually lazy. I stand by my post.


Posts like these are the reasons why some people doesn't take you seriously. If you want people to take you seriously, this is not the way to do it.
I did not expect to see or read this kind of post from you, but there is a first time for everything, I suppose. This is a classic sign of narcissistic personality disorder.


----------



## notimp (Nov 4, 2020)

wartutor said:


> There afraid to release trumps win because riots will sweep through the streets again.


You dont know how statistics work, do you? 

You have a margin of error. If results fall within that (i.e. if they are close), you cant declare a winner. Even if Trump declared himself to be a WinnerTM, but he always does that. Against all reason.. 

If results are outside of margin of error. You can declare a winner, because the amount of uncertainty you still have, concerning remaining votes, doesnt matter.


----------



## wartutor (Nov 4, 2020)

notimp said:


> You dont know how statistics work, do you?
> 
> You have a margin of error. If results fall within that (i.e. if they are close), you cant declare a winner. Even if Trump declared himself to be a WinnerTM, but he always does that. Against all reason..
> 
> If results are outside of margin of error. You can declare a winner, because the amount of uncertainty you still have, concerning remaining votes, doesnt matter.


I got a feeling it dont matter who wins streets will burn. People are stupid and crazy


----------



## notimp (Nov 4, 2020)

wartutor said:


> I got a feeling it dont matter who wins streets will burn. People are stupid and crazy


Military is standing by - I'm sure... :/


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 4, 2020)

notimp said:


> You dont know how statistics work, do you?
> 
> You have a margin of error. If results fall within that (i.e. if they are close), you cant declare a winner. Even if Trump declared himself to be a WinnerTM, but he always does that. Against all reason..
> 
> If results are outside of margin of error. You can declare a winner, because the amount of uncertainty you still have, concerning remaining votes, doesnt matter.


It's not as close as you'd think.


 I'll give you Wisconsin, but that's it.


----------



## notimp (Nov 4, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> It's not as close as you'd think.
> View attachment 232647 I'll give you Wisconsin, but that's it.


If you look at the percentages of the individual states, anything below 4% is 'too close to call early' (just an overall generalization based on how this usually works in my countries elections - but in that regard statistics are pretty much the same all over). Also you have to know vote count percentage (so how much of the vote has been counted).

I'm just inferring 'not that (sufficiently) much', because of the large amounts of mail in votes this time around, which take longer to count. So depending on when states started to count those (some started yesterday/today), you have your answer. (Basically: Final results will take up to a week to emerge.)

If one of the candidates had a bigger lead (percentage wise, in every individual state), you'd have a declared winner sooner. 

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Ups sorry, I missquoted the expert I actually didnt quote.

Final results to probably be expected 'at the end of the week' not 'in a weeks time'. So a few days sooner.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 4, 2020)

Well, if everything holds, he will only need one more state.


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 4, 2020)

was PA called cause biden is at least leading in philly last time i checked by about 75% if thats any indication for the rest of the state


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 4, 2020)

Welp, I slept. Looks like I was right about not having a definitive answer just yet on who won. The polls were indeed off, but that's to be expected because they were mostly run by Liberals. It's now a close race to the finish. Hopefully the mail in ballots can be counted in an orderly fashion.



jupitteer said:


> you just gonna completely sidestep what i said or



Nope, I ignored your "total deaths" because in the grand scheme of things it's not that many people.



LumInvader said:


> These personal attacks really don't make much sense.  You've been cited *multiple times *for sharing links to right wing extremist propaganda websites.  Not me.  Not only have you been called out for extreme bias, you've even attempted (unsuccessfully) to defend the use of these websites.
> 
> The websites I share tend to alternate between left-center and right-center, which are moderate or least biased.  The websites you share lean toward the propaganda side of the chart shown in the image below:
> 
> ...



So, somehow me pointing out you've got major bias is a personal attack, but you then doing the same isn't? Pointing out you only post information from the left wasn't a personal attack it's a fact. If I was personally attacking you I'd call your mother a bitch. You also keep posting links to all sorts of Liberal sources and never post any Conservative ones. That's not fair nor balanced. I admit I'm a conservative, but all my sources aren't conservative pages and just because you don't like my sources and label anything you don't like as "conspiracy theories" doesn't really discredit them. I know that tactic works on your Left learning friends who are dumb as rocks, but it doesn't work on me.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 4, 2020)

seany1990 said:


> If Americans want to re-elect their fascist dictator



Guy might well be a raging incompetent knob in a time when that is hard to afford but fascist dictator? Guy can barely get his own party on side most of the time, the (about 50%) opposition do whatever they like (this despite being massively not unified and otherwise disorganised themselves), various internal states do whatever they like (up to and including utter defiance and disrespect), most of his policies he really really wants, political prisoners seem few and far between (we have not even had a nice witch hunt a la the communist hunts of the 50s) and even that wall nonsense seems largely a bust compared to the grand vision sold.
About as close as you get to the average dictator is his inner circle seems to be cycled out every few months and thrown to the wolves.

If that is the quality of today's fascist dictator then things really were better back in the 50s.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 4, 2020)

seany1990 said:


> If Americans want to re-elect their fascist dictator then they have every right to do as a democratic nation. Let's not make up such blatantly pathetic lies though. It's embarrassing to think anybody is going to believe it. Next post should say the sky is purple and see if that lands better


The sky is purple, or actually violet the closest association to purple. So it's a bluish violet.

Violet color has a shorter wave length and is scattered most by our earths atmosphere, & the color we see is the one that is scattered most. It appears a light pale blue without any violet because of the way the cones in our eyes work which isn't perfect and can't pick up all the wavelengths that exist.

What we perceive and see in this world isn't actually what it looks like in real life. We only see things that way because of our senses which are limited. We only see what our bodies allow us to see. We can't see ultra violet light but some insects can like bees. In actuality the world you see is filtered by our senses. You are seeing a filtered not true viewpoint. The world looks way different then what you are seeing with your bare eyes. You can't see everything that exists in the world.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 4, 2020)

SG854 said:


> The sky is purple, or actually violet the closest association to purple. So it's a bluish violet.
> 
> Violet color has a shorter wave length and is scattered most by our earths atmosphere, & the color we see is the one that is scattered most. It appears a light pale blue without any violet because of the way the cones in our eyes work which isn't perfect and can't pick up all the wavelengths that exist.
> 
> What we perceive and see in this world isn't actually what it looks like in real life. We only see things that way because of our senses which are limited. We only see what our bodies allow us to see. We can't see ultra violet light but some insects can like bees. In actuality the world you see is filtered by our senses. You are seeing a filtered not true viewpoint. The world looks way different then what you are seeing with your bare eyes. You can't see everything that exists in the world.



I see dead people.


----------



## fatherjack (Nov 4, 2020)

I gotta say, the UK media (especially TV) has waaaaaay too much coverage of the US election.
I've been in the states a couple of times during UK elections and didn't know they were even happening!
That being said, UK reporting is very 'slanted' - ultra PC BBC, and Sky only carrying Sky news and CNN agendas.

If the US wants Trump for another term then they will vote him in, and all the civil disruption and burning on the streets will neither change the result or reflect positively on those whose views are in opposition to him, further strengthening the resolve of the average American to vote in this direction.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 4, 2020)

i'm very confident biden now has it with the data we have, as long as he continues to hold on in wisconsin and nevada


----------



## SG854 (Nov 4, 2020)

jupitteer said:


> i'm very confident biden now has it with the data we has, as long as he continues to hold on in wisconsin and nevada


Things changed quick from yesterday. Both those states  Nevada and Wisconsin will only give him 16 electoral votes not enough to win. All the other states look like they are going red. It looks like trump is on track to win at this moment.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 4, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Things changed quick from yesterday. Both those states  Nevada and Wisconsin will only give him 16 electoral votes not enough to win. All the other states look like they are going red. It looks like trump is on track to win at this moment.


no, because biden is extremely likely to still win michigan and could also still win pa because the split between which party goes for mail in ballots or in-person voting was more extreme than predicted


----------



## notimp (Nov 4, 2020)

fatherjack said:


> I gotta say, the UK media (especially TV) has waaaaaay too much coverage of the US election.
> I've been in the states a couple of times during UK elections and didn't know they were even happening!


You presume that this is an equal opportunity thing.  Its not. 

From the trajectory its in, US is retracting from the international stage 'as a large actor', 'as we know it'.

Meaning - they have close to energy independence, they have military supremacy. Thy have poor countries to develop (economic growth for both parties), right at the border. They have countries that want to catch up and overtake economically in the wings (south east asia, india, africa in parts). And they have next to no interest to remain in the middle east, if countries there dont bribe them.

So the name of the game is US retraction from the international stage. And who wins the election - internationally is an indication of how fast that goes.

And yes, UK also is affected, because yes, they have a great 'more equal than the rest of the equals' relationship with the US, but at the same time, US is loosing more and more interest in 'that part of the world'.

So 'US doesnt care about the UK as much' is a funny statement in as much as 'why should they'?


----------



## mehrab2603 (Nov 4, 2020)

Wow what a race! The early voting stuff has made it way more interesting. Looks like Biden will take it, but the republicans will still keep the senate. But oh boy the polls were wrong or what? The way they collect data must be seriously flawed, specially in this age of internet and social media.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 4, 2020)

If things stay as they are, we might already have a winner.


----------



## notimp (Nov 4, 2020)

jupitteer said:


> no, because biden is extremely likely to still win michigan and could also still win pa because the split between which party goes for mail in ballots or in-person voting was more extreme than predicted


Republican base (not the young, not the old, the base, and across all races) showed up in person more strongly than pollsters predicted (high turnout).

(In general, and as a percentage over mail in voting.)

Meaning Trump Junior and Trump "Them BE STEALING ME FATHERS VOTES - malitia up at the polling places" trick worked. While dems 'keep calm and collected' didnt. (What a surprise... *sarcasm*)

Here, Trump is driving the messaging home as we speak - while democrats are having a hard time formulating the story of what happened:
https://techcrunch.com/2020/11/03/trump-tweet-steal-election-vote-by-mail/


----------



## rensenware (Nov 4, 2020)

notimp said:


> Republican base (not the young, not the old, the base, and across all races) showed up in person more strongly than pollsters predicted (high turnout).
> 
> (In general, and as a percentage over mail in voting.)
> 
> ...


it's definitely far closer than it should be, which was my prediction, but it doesn't look good for trump with the data we have at the present


----------



## seany1990 (Nov 4, 2020)

It's just a technicality at this point, it's over

Biden has won


----------



## notimp (Nov 4, 2020)

jupitteer said:


> it's definitely far closer than it should be, which was my prediction, but it doesn't look good for trump with the data we have at the present


Btw, mine as well.  (But I havent given it in here, so it doesnt count.  )


----------



## fatherjack (Nov 4, 2020)

My comments were more aimed at our (UK) media adversely influencing UK citizens than the US coverage.
You're right about the so called 'special relationship' status between us though, the business of government is ...business, and for once the US elected a businessman rather than a career politician.
Trump will do what's right for him, then America, in that order - so it's pretty damning that I reckon a bad day under Trump is slightly better than a good day under Biden / Democrat Govt.

Before you ask, NO! - I don't own a gun, maga cap or southern cross flag


----------



## rensenware (Nov 4, 2020)

getting a little more concerned looking at nevada


----------



## SG854 (Nov 4, 2020)

jupitteer said:


> no, because biden is extremely likely to still win michigan and could also still win pa because the split between which party goes for mail in ballots or in-person voting was more extreme than predicted


Michigan will give him just enough to win. Its a really close race.


----------



## Ericzander (Nov 4, 2020)

The easiest path for Biden to win is by taking Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin and Michigan.

If he also takes Georgia and/or Pennsylvania it'll make it harder for the Republicans to dispute it. 

At this point (meaning it can change--dont call me names) it seems that Arizona and Nevada are in the bag for Biden while Wisconsin and Michigan are still toss-ups. Georgia and Pennsylvania are even less likely to be for Biden but I'll still consider them toss-ups if the mail in votes really do lean as heavily towards Biden as the polls indicate.

I might be eating my shoe, but it seems like North Carolina is going to Trump.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 4, 2020)

jupitteer said:


> getting a little more concerned looking at nevada


Why is it because its mostly red?


----------



## rensenware (Nov 4, 2020)

Ericzander said:


> The easiest path for Biden to win is by taking Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin and Michigan.
> 
> If he also takes Georgia and/or Pennsylvania it'll make it harder for the Republicans to dispute it.
> 
> ...


nevada is not in the bag for biden yet and that scares me

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> Why is it because its mostly red?


because of the live updating data on the source im looking at, its nerve wrackingly close and a lot still hasn't been reported


----------



## osirisjem (Nov 4, 2020)

I wrote in Cyan.


----------



## Ericzander (Nov 4, 2020)

jupitteer said:


> nevada is not in the bag for biden yet and that scares me


To try to ease your stress a tad, all that's left in Nevada is mail in and provisional ballots which may break heavily for Biden. Which is why I said it's in the bag. But you're right, not the the point that Arizona is.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 4, 2020)

jupitteer said:


> nevada is not in the bag for biden yet and that scares me
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Michigan has 16 electoral which is a lot. And Democrats are winning only by %0.3. Its very very close.


----------



## osirisjem (Nov 4, 2020)

America is a democracy in name only.  It is a failed Nation State.  People are just too dumb or greedy.  If you didn't vote, you really are next level dumb.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 4, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Michigan has 16 electoral which is a lot. And Democrats are winning only by %0.3. Its very very close.


And that's enough to win. Almost all the remaining votes that needed to be counted, the last 15%, have all been mail in ballots that are extremely likely to be democratic votes.


----------



## osirisjem (Nov 4, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Michigan has 16 electoral which is a lot. And Democrats are winning only by %0.3. Its very very close.


The trend is all the outstanding votes have more democrat votes.   So Biden will carry

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

@Cyan 

GBATemp needs to run a Get out the Vote campaign next time.  A giveaway of of a 3 Nintendo Switch X Us for those taking a picture with their username on a paper beside their empty ballot (or something to show they went to the polls).


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 4, 2020)

So, if Biden wins, does that make GBAtemp an A+ poll?


----------



## Foupen (Nov 4, 2020)

Non American here (I'd have voted for Biden if I were https://gbatemp.net/threads/poll-2020-u-s-presidential-election.571721/page-2#post-9165880 )






This election was one hell of a roller coaster ride. Betting odds on Smarket favored Biden at first, then Trump, and now Biden again. According to the odds at this point, I think it's safe to say Biden pretty much won the election. In fact, I was pretty confident Biden will win because Allan Lichtman, a historian who accurately predicted the winner of every US election since 1984(including Trump in 2016) predicted Biden's win.

But if Trump somehow wins in the end, I don't know what to believe anymore.


----------



## Ericzander (Nov 4, 2020)

Foupen said:


> In fact, I was pretty confident Biden will win because Allan Lichtman, a historian who accurately predicted the winner of every US election since 1984(including Trump in 2016) predicted Biden's win.


So I agree with your overall point. I think that Biden might have this. That said, Allan Lichtman isn't always right, he's just moved the goalpost to appear that he was. He said that Al Gore would beat George Bush. When that didn't happen he said it was because he was predicting the popular vote, not the electoral college so he did technically get it correct. 

That said, his keys are pretty good. But also subjective.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 4, 2020)

gore did beat bush, he would've won if the supreme court didnt stop the recount


----------



## Ericzander (Nov 4, 2020)

jupitteer said:


> gore did beat bush, he would've won if the supreme court didnt stop the recount


I agree he would have. But it doesn't change the fact that it panned out how it did for better or worse. 

I'm just pointing out that I wouldn't assume Lichtman is always correct.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 4, 2020)

Abolish big cities.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 4, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Abolish big cities.


ever seen a population density map before?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 4, 2020)

jupitteer said:


> ever seen a population density map before?


Abolish big cities.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 4, 2020)

k den


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 4, 2020)

Abolish Trumplicans.


----------



## AkGBA (Nov 4, 2020)

Abolish electoral college ?
Without it, the winner would be clear at this time.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 4, 2020)

Looks like polls were wrong again and Trump is over performing then what was predicted.


----------



## AkGBA (Nov 4, 2020)

I really can't understand how a candidate can be elected without having the majority of votes.
I mean, I _can_ understand _how_.
Just not _why_ people accept it.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 4, 2020)

AkGBA said:


> I really can't understand how a candidate can be elected without having the majority of votes.
> I mean, I _can_ understand _how_.
> Just not _why_ people accept it.


Some people don't accept it. Its a split opinion. I think more people want the popular vote? You would have to take a poll to see the majority opinion on that.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 4, 2020)

Even Trump said the electoral should be done away with because it is unfair.... until he won because of it.


----------



## Ericzander (Nov 4, 2020)

AkGBA said:


> I really can't understand how a candidate can be elected without having the majority of votes.
> I mean, I _can_ understand _how_.
> Just not _why_ people accept it.


I think it should be popular vote. But I can almost guarantee that it never will be, at least until there's a huuuge political shift in this country. It would require a constitutional amendment. And those aren't easy to pass, especially when the political parties and states are this divided on everything.

You'll never be able to get a small state like Wyoming to agree that the electoral college should be abolished.

Edit: For example, I go on reddit and find comments like this immediately:


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 4, 2020)

AkGBA said:


> Abolish electoral college ?
> Without it, the winner would be clear at this time.


If we did it by popular vote, the winner would be decided by just a few big cities.


----------



## AkGBA (Nov 4, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> If we did it by popular vote, the winner would be decided by just a few big cities.



Then what ? What legimity can a candidate with fewer votes have ?
Seriously.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 4, 2020)

AkGBA said:


> Then what ? What legimity can a candidate with fewer votes have ?
> Seriously.


The legitimacy of more than just LA and NYC.


----------



## Ericzander (Nov 4, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> The legitimacy of more than just LA and NYC.


That's disingenuous. They also have Chicago.


Oh and by the way, I don't need to tell you this but land doesn't vote. People do.


----------



## GhostLatte (Nov 4, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Abolish big cities.


Somebody is mad that Trump might get fired.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 4, 2020)

GhostLatte said:


> Somebody is mad that Trump might get fired.


You saw the maps that I posted, right?


----------



## Ericzander (Nov 4, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> You saw the maps that I posted, right?


He did. And did you see that more people in those states voted for Biden than Trump so far?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 4, 2020)

Ericzander said:


> He did. And did you see that more people in those states voted for Biden than Trump?


And yet, the ratio of cyan to pink on the map shows the opposite.

Abolish big cities.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 4, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> And yet, the ratio of cyan to pink on the map shows the opposite.
> 
> Abolish big cities.


candidates dont win based on what color your monkey brain sees flash more on screen


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 4, 2020)

Such an odd thing. Besides the fact that more cities will probably be built, where exactly are people going to move, if cities are abolished?


----------



## osirisjem (Nov 4, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Looks like polls were wrong again and Trump is over performing then what was predicted.


People pretend they aren't voting for Trump, but they do.


----------



## RyanfromWork (Nov 4, 2020)

electoral votes is fucking genius.  (aka created from our Forefathers of this great nation)

Imagine the entire US full of homeless and "sanctuary cities".  Sounds like all the people leaving CA to TX wouldnt have anywhere to run too....

Why the name calling jupitteer?  he has a monkey brain because "what color flash more on screen? da fuk does that even mean?

We cant even hold civil conversation. This is a gaming website tho.


----------



## Delerious (Nov 4, 2020)

What I find somewhat alarming at this point is that we still have Nancy and Mitch in the House and Senate. The Senate looks like it will be staying Red this time around. Do you think Mitch and deficit hawk Republicans will let any sort of stimulus pass? Spoiler alert - they probably won't. Likewise, Nancy will continue to hold things up in congress until things go her way without any real negotiation, which will largely lead to inaction. Between those two people, despite who holds the presidential office, things in the Senate and Congress are likely to remain very much the same.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 4, 2020)

Looks like they are doing a recount.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 4, 2020)

jupitteer said:


> candidates dont win based on what color your monkey brain sees flash more on screen


An entire state shouldn't be decided simply because 50% of the population is contained in two big cities.


----------



## DuoForce (Nov 4, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> If we did it by popular vote, the winner would be decided by just a few big cities.


If we abolished the electoral college voting system we would be ruled by the hiveminded cities like NYC, LA, and Chicago.  Fuck that.  Big cities are full of fucking idiots who shouldn't be voting

And no, I am not a fucking Trump supporter, fyi.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 4, 2020)

DuoForce said:


> If we abolished the electoral college voting system we would be ruled by the hiveminded cities like NYC, LA, and Chicago.  Fuck that.  Big cities are full of fucking idiots who shouldn't be voting
> 
> And no, I am not a fucking Trump supporter, fyi.


go somewhere else if you hate democracy


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 4, 2020)

jupitteer said:


> go somewhere else if you hate democracy


Go somewhere else if you hate Article II, Section I of the Constitution.


----------



## Chary (Nov 4, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Go somewhere else if you hate Article II, Section I of the Constitution.


Just because the Constitution made something law 300 years ago doesn't mean it should still be relevant. 

I'm not saying anything for or against the Electoral College. I'm just saying that pointing to the document and rattling off a direct quote from it doesn't matter much when the circumstances were meant for that era. That's why amendments exist, otherwise, we'd still have slaves and women unable to vote.


----------



## DuoForce (Nov 4, 2020)

Chary said:


> Just because the Constitution made something law 300 years ago doesn't mean it should still be relevant.
> 
> I'm not saying anything for or against the Electoral College. I'm just saying that pointing to the document and rattling off a direct quote from it doesn't matter much when the circumstances were meant for that era. That's why amendments exist, otherwise, we'd still have slaves and women unable to vote.


Who cares how old it is, well, obviously you people do, but the electoral college is in place for a reason.  Take it away, and there is no democracy, just the big cities dictating what laws get passed and who gets elected.  That doesn't sound like democracy to me.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 4, 2020)

DuoForce said:


> Who cares how old it is, well, obviously you people do, but the electoral college is in place for a reason.  Take it away, and there is no democracy, just the big cities dictating what laws get passed and who gets elected.  That doesn't sound like democracy to me.


holy shit we got an education problem


----------



## RyanfromWork (Nov 4, 2020)

I agree with Chary.  Slavery would still be a thing....  Who side was it that started the civil war? It couldn’t have been Lincoln’s side, since he was a republican....

I’m confused how all those people who were against abolishing slavery ended up getting any of their votes.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 4, 2020)

RyanfromWork said:


> I agree with Chary.  Slavery would still be a thing....  Who side was it that started the civil war? It couldn’t have been Lincoln’s side, since he was a republican....
> 
> I’m confused how all those people who were against abolishing slavery ended up getting any of their votes.


the parties flipped during the civil rights era, more specifically southern democrats switched to the republican party as the parties became more socially polarized


----------



## PiracyForTheMasses (Nov 4, 2020)

DuoForce said:


> Who cares how old it is, well, obviously you people do, but the electoral college is in place for a reason.  Take it away, and there is no democracy, just the big cities dictating what laws get passed and who gets elected.  That doesn't sound like democracy to me.


Tell us again how the electoral college brings democracy. Most of you fail to realize that a presidential candidate can win 100% of the popular vote & not win any electoral college votes because there are no laws in place that prevent electoral college votes from going against the people vote.


----------



## Ericzander (Nov 4, 2020)

RyanfromWork said:


> I agree with Chary.  Slavery would still be a thing....  Who side was it that started the civil war? It couldn’t have been Lincoln’s side, since he was a republican....
> 
> I’m confused how all those people who were against abolishing slavery ended up getting any of their votes.


I see you're one of those guys who thinks that the democrats of today are the democrats of the 1800s.

Let's look at something more interesting. The first map is of the United States during the Civil War. The red states are the confederate states. The second map is of the current presidential race as I screenshotted seconds ago. Ope, looks like those confederate states arent full of democrats. Ope, looks like your argument fell apart.

Because the people living in the states that were pro slavery are now by and large conservative states.


----------



## RyanfromWork (Nov 4, 2020)

Parties flipped.  I remember being taught that in school.

Isn’t it interesting how a party represents an idea. Or they align with similar thoughts on topics?

So when people start mixing ideas, why is the entire party “flipped”.  Makes no sense to me. The people who were against abortion and now are pro abortion should they leave their party to go to the other party? 

Its like capitalism suddenly like communist ideas. The communist country’s wouldn’t start calling themselves capitalist.


“ A rose by any other name would smell as sweet“.  A Democrat’s a democrat. A republican is a republican.  

Why did the past find it necessary to call a Democrat a republican and vice verse?

I find that hard to swallow. It’s almost convenient weak excuse.....  please do not take this as anything but a conversation.

 I love hearing opinions. I think psychology of humans is much more interesting than politics.


----------



## Joom (Nov 4, 2020)

RyanfromWork said:


> I agree with Chary.  Slavery would still be a thing....  Who side was it that started the civil war? It couldn’t have been Lincoln’s side, since he was a republican....
> 
> I’m confused how all those people who were against abolishing slavery ended up getting any of their votes.


The republican party was formed during Lincoln's presidency in order to abolish slavery. There was no such thing as republicans or democrats before that. The thing is, though, is that political ideologies shift all the time. When LBJ ended Jim Crow, all the democrats went republican. Racists and nationalists align themselves with whatever party supports their worldview, and the ending of segregation is what turned the south red.


DuoForce said:


> Who cares how old it is, well, obviously you people do, but the electoral college is in place for a reason.  Take it away, and there is no democracy, just the big cities dictating what laws get passed and who gets elected.  That doesn't sound like democracy to me.


You mean if it's taken away, a republican would never win. Please explain how gerrymandering is in any way representative of a democracy.


----------



## RyanfromWork (Nov 4, 2020)

I hope you don’t believe the people and population in the 1800s even remotely come close to today’s census.

I’m not white but I’m born and raised in this nation.

How can the map from 1800 showing the southern states be relatively even remotely close to what is going on in today’s age?

Please keep this civil. I really do not care for anything but facts. I will never slander you. But don’t criticize me if i am not aware of things you are aware of.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Joom... exactly all the democrats went republican. Why did they decide that changing names is best? The name should represent their ideals. Just because a large group of one side changes their mind, so instead of switching sides they switch the meaning behind being a democrat and republican?

Also.... would you want one party to always hold power??


----------



## rensenware (Nov 4, 2020)

RyanfromWork said:


> I hope you don’t believe the people and population in the 1800s even remotely come close to today’s census.
> 
> I’m not white but I’m born and raised in this nation.
> 
> ...


they didnt change names, in the civil rights era the parties became very polarized in social policy whereas before both parties had socially liberal and socially conservative factions so southern democrats (a huge wing of the democratic party and what controlled the entire south) switched to the republican party and socially liberal republicans switched to the democratic party, i can link a good video on it


----------



## notimp (Nov 4, 2020)

Joom said:


> The republican party was formed during Lincoln's presidency in order to abolish slavery.


Bwawahaha:
https://www.quora.com/Other-than-slavery-what-are-the-main-causes-that-led-to-the-American-Civil-War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery

https://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation

edit: Cui bono: 
https://www.theusaonline.com/history/industrialization.htm


----------



## RyanfromWork (Nov 4, 2020)

Could you please? That would clear up a lot of my confusion regarding the “switching”.

Or you can tell me keywords to look up in YouTube if you don’t wanna link. I’m sure I can find it.


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 4, 2020)

I voted for this guy!


----------



## rensenware (Nov 4, 2020)

RyanfromWork said:


> Could you please? That would clear up a lot of my confusion regarding the “switching”.
> 
> Or you can tell me keywords to look up in YouTube if you don’t wanna link. I’m sure I can find it.


----------



## RyanfromWork (Nov 4, 2020)

You rock. Thank you for taking your time out to educate a random internet ganagster.


----------



## Joom (Nov 4, 2020)

notimp said:


> Bwawahaha:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery





> The Republican Party was committed to restricting the growth of slavery, and its victory in the election of 1860 was the trigger for secession acts by Southern states. The debate before 1860 was mainly focused on the Western territories, especially Kansas and the popular sovereignty controversy.


https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/republican-party-founded

Are you agreeing with me, or...? *shrug* Maybe not during his presidency, but that was the purpose of it, and he was the first republican president.


----------



## notimp (Nov 4, 2020)

Joom said:


> https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/republican-party-founded
> 
> Are you agreeing with me, or...? *shrug* Maybe not during his presidency, but that was the purpose of it.





> In Ripon, Wisconsin, former members of the Whig Party meet to establish a new party to oppose the spread of slavery into the western territories.


Thats not the same as abolishing slavery. Not in intend, not in direction, not in effort, not in claim, not in proclamation, not in... 

It basically was a conflict between ongoing industrialists and the landownership-nobility which operated on a conflicting business model. 

Humanitarian efforts were nowhere to be seen during the 'setup' of this conflict. But they make for a good story for the after unification periods.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 4, 2020)

notimp said:


> Thats not the same as abolishing slavery. Not in intend, not in direction, not in effort, not in claim, not in proclamation, not in...
> 
> It basically was a conflict between ongoing industrialists and the landownership-nobility which operated on a conflicting business model.
> 
> Humanitarian efforts were no where to be seen during the 'setup' of this conflict. But they make for a good story for the after unification periods.


the south still believed that slavery was under threat and needed to be protected at all cost to 'preserve their way of life', no matter what lincoln indicated before and during his presidency


----------



## Joom (Nov 4, 2020)

notimp said:


> Thats not the same as abolishing slavery. Not in intend, not in direction, not in effort, not in claim, not in proclamation, not in...
> 
> It basically was a conflict between ongoing industrialists and the landownership-nobility which operated on a conflicting business model.
> 
> Humanitarian efforts were no where to be seen during the 'setup' of this conflict. But they make for a good story for the after unification periods.


I was mostly generalizing as the party's formation eventually led to it. At least over time it became the inherent goal.


----------



## notimp (Nov 4, 2020)

Joom said:


> I was mostly generalizing as the party's formation eventually led to it. At least over time it became the inherent goal.


Yes, after unification, certainly..  (You had black people fighting on the front, you had to give them something. How about something without value to you, that you dont care about? Hey, good luck fellas! Hows that freedom treating you? What segragationist state? Sorry, cant hear you pal, the lines not so good...  )

edit: But then the south went na-ah. And installed a defacto segregationist system, and nobody in an important position seemed to care for another 50+ years. They did that to 'protect' their societies/their way of life. (Protect in quotes for a mountain of reasons. As in - well, powerstruggles and PR BS out of those.)


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 4, 2020)

DuoForce said:


> Who cares how old it is, well, obviously you people do, but the electoral college is in place for a reason.  Take it away, and there is no democracy, just the big cities dictating what laws get passed and who gets elected.  That doesn't sound like democracy to me.


So... please explain to me how say idk. Popular vote wouldn't be democratic. If anything, it could be argued as more democratic than the electoral collage.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

the electoral collage goes against it, it allows minorities of people to be in power. If I recall correctly, back in 2016, Hillary had 3,000,000 more votes than trump. That's a fuck ton of votes to be said f you.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 4, 2020)

mehrab2603 said:


> Wow what a race! The early voting stuff has made it way more interesting. Looks like Biden will take it, but the republicans will still keep the senate. But oh boy the polls were wrong or what? The way they collect data must be seriously flawed, specially in this age of internet and social media.



It's more like the people running the polls are crooked.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> It's more like the people running the polls are crooked.


not really, polls take only account popular vote and attempt to figure out electoral collage. when we get to voting districts and gerrymandering, it's a completely different ball game. for example of what I mean. you can have say, say you have 3 people. With how gerrymandering works. it's possible to make the weight of a single person, (less) equal the same as say 2 people or more. It's completely possible with gerrymandering and the electoral collage to overthrow what people want.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 4, 2020)

DuoForce said:


> Who cares how old it is, well, obviously you people do, but the electoral college is in place for a reason.  Take it away, and there is no democracy, just the big cities dictating what laws get passed and who gets elected.  That doesn't sound like democracy to me.



Just. Wow. Can a person be any more unintelligent? So what you're basically saying is, if it were popular vote, no one outside of big cities would vote. Removing the electoral would not change the amount of, or location of people who vote. Idiot.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 4, 2020)

RyanfromWork said:


> electoral votes is fucking genius.  (aka created from our Forefathers of this great nation)
> 
> Imagine the entire US full of homeless and "sanctuary cities".  Sounds like all the people leaving CA to TX wouldnt have anywhere to run too.....



That's where we're headed if Biden wins. All of the morons who fled California, Detroit or Chicago moved to Conservative towns and started voting for Liberals. They aren't that smart of they'd realize they're voting for the same policies that created the cesspools they fled from.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



DuoForce said:


> If we abolished the electoral college voting system we would be ruled by the hiveminded cities like NYC, LA, and Chicago.  Fuck that.  Big cities are full of fucking idiots who shouldn't be voting
> 
> And no, I am not a fucking Trump supporter, fyi.



I'm pretty sure if Biden wins the Liberals will suddenly have no problem with the electoral college. It's never a problem when their side wins. So you see after 4 years of complaining they change they'll change their stance in a heart beat. Hypocrite much?


----------



## RyanfromWork (Nov 4, 2020)

Hahahaha haha just pure funny comment.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> That's where we're headed if Biden wins. All of the morons who fled California, Detroit or Chicago moved to Conservative towns and started voting for Liberals. They aren't that smart of they'd realize they're voting for the same policies that created the cesspools they fled from.


We are already there hun,
https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog...-30-40-million-people-in-america-are-at-risk/
Biden won't make it, because it's already happened by trump. There is already a lot of people who are about to become homeless because mitch and the gop controlled senate won't agree on a stimulus bill that will help. 
Oh, and if your going to refer to the skinny package, which did nothing for people like you and I, and only bailed out more companies. 
There's a reason that was denied by the house.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 4, 2020)

Delerious said:


> What I find somewhat alarming at this point is that we still have Nancy and Mitch in the House and Senate. The Senate looks like it will be staying Red this time around. Do you think Mitch and deficit hawk Republicans will let any sort of stimulus pass? Spoiler alert - they probably won't. Likewise, Nancy will continue to hold things up in congress until things go her way without any real negotiation, which will largely lead to inaction. Between those two people, despite who holds the presidential office, things in the Senate and Congress are likely to remain very much the same.



Mitch would be willing to allow a stimulus package to go through as long as it doesn't include stuff unrelated to the virus. It's the Democrats in Congress that put all sorts of things that have nothing to do with the virus in their proposed bills.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Mitch would be willing to allow a stimulus package to go through as long as it doesn't include stuff unrelated to the virus. It's the Democrats in Congress that put all sorts of things that have nothing to do with the virus in their proposed bills.


Mitch introduced exactly that (bailing out other businesses) perhaps you should look into it, it no aid to the people.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 4, 2020)

RyanfromWork said:


> I agree with Chary.  Slavery would still be a thing....  Who side was it that started the civil war? It couldn’t have been Lincoln’s side, since he was a republican....
> 
> I’m confused how all those people who were against abolishing slavery ended up getting any of their votes.



The Constitutions allows for amendments like the Bill of Rights. The Document doesn't allow slavery because of amendments so you're argument is invalid. The Constitution is just fine and if you don't like it feel free to move out of the country.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



jupitteer said:


> they didnt change names, in the civil rights era the parties became very polarized in social policy whereas before both parties had socially liberal and socially conservative factions so southern democrats (a huge wing of the democratic party and what controlled the entire south) switched to the republican party and socially liberal republicans switched to the democratic party, i can link a good video on it



The Party Switch is another Liberal lie to deflect from the fact their party fought a war to keep black slaves and started the KKK and created the Jim Crowe Laws. They are racist to the bone and just because a few Democrats in the Government decided they no longer wanted to be Democrats and joined the Republican party doesn't mean millions of people suddenly switched sides. The party switch is just another big liberal lie.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> The Constitutions allows for amendments like the Bill of Rights. The Document doesn't allow slavery because of amendments so you're argument is invalid. The Constitution is just fine and if you don't like it feel free to move out of the country.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


me when i snorted cocaine through every history lesson i've ever had


----------



## Lacius (Nov 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> That's where we're headed if Biden wins. All of the morons who fled California, Detroit or Chicago moved to Conservative towns and started voting for Liberals. They aren't that smart of they'd realize they're voting for the same policies that created the cesspools they fled from.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


You couldn't be more wrong. The Electoral College is a joke, regardless of who wins.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 4, 2020)

jupitteer said:


> me when i snorted cocaine through every history lesson i've ever had



Deadly drugs kill people. I wouldn't suggest using them unless you're okay with dying (see George Floyd).

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



monkeyman4412 said:


> Mitch introduced exactly that (bailing out other businesses) perhaps you should look into it, it no aid to the people.



Bailing out businesses is something that should be done because the Government forced them all to shut down. This is just some of the main things Democrats put into their bill;

– $1 Billion for free cell phones
– $300M for foreign refugees
– $800M for Endowment for the Humanities and Arts
– $100M for NASA
– $25M for cleaning supplies for the Capital Building.
– $25M for additional House of Reps salary.
–A nationwide mandate for ballot harvesting
–An automatic visa extension for all foreign workers
–An expansion of foreign-language ballots
–Same-day voter registration for the 2020 presidential election
–An amnesty for nearly 800,000 DACA illegal aliens

https://gellerreport.com/2020/03/dem-pork-betrayal-corona.html/

EDIT: Here's another page outlining the same issue.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...1120-page-coronavirus-bill-stuffed-with-pork/

(If you don't like the sources then just read the proposed bill, that's included in the sources for your reference ... that's something Liberal CNN or ABC never do)


----------



## rensenware (Nov 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Deadly drugs kill people. I wouldn't suggest using them unless you're okay with dying (see George Floyd).
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


you linked a breitbart article whose sources are contradictory and unreliable upon reading them


----------



## SG854 (Nov 4, 2020)

notimp said:


> Thats not the same as abolishing slavery. Not in intend, not in direction, not in effort, not in claim, not in proclamation, not in...
> 
> It basically was a conflict between ongoing industrialists and the landownership-nobility which operated on a conflicting business model.
> 
> Humanitarian efforts were nowhere to be seen during the 'setup' of this conflict. But they make for a good story for the after unification periods.


The abolitionists went to the Republican party.

People thought abolitionists were crazy because they wanted to end slavery in an instant. This meant trouble for slaves because they had no education and no money and would be harder to integrate into society. Letting them loose in an instant means harder time for them to survive. People that were anti slavery but oppose the abolitionists wanted a much better process to ease the end of slavery finding ways to integrate blacks better.

People that oppose abolitionists didn't mean they were anti slavery. Just like nowadays people that oppose feminists doesn't mean they are anti women or anti women rights. They just don't like how feminist go about things. Just like in the past they didn't like how abolitionists wen't about things and wanted a better way

Lincoln was anti slavery but not an abolitionist is like saying I am not a feminists but support women's rights.

Lincoln at first was against black men voting but his opinion changed over time, that black men who fought in the war earned the right to vote. Which is in line with white men's ability to vote at the time. As a white man you had to earn the right to vote by joining the military.


Slavery was the biggest reason for the split of the Whig Party.


----------



## Seliph (Nov 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Deadly drugs kill people. I wouldn't suggest using them unless you're okay with dying (see George Floyd).
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


cringe


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 4, 2020)

jupitteer said:


> you linked a breitbart article whose sources are contradictory and unreliable upon reading them



That's strange, because their article contains the actual bill in PDF form. You know, so you can verify what they wrote. Heh, talk about programmed avoidance, the Liberals got you good.


----------



## notimp (Nov 4, 2020)

SG854 said:


> People thought abolitionists were crazy because they wanted to end slavery in an instant. This meant trouble for slaves because they had no education and no money and would be harder to integrate into society.


Well, there is a whole history lesson about the cultural and societal embeddedness of the KKK (useful idiots, I guess is a fitting term..  ), I'm sure you will learn some day.  And also one on who they killed first.

Two words. Shock and awe.

Also, while learning about that, learn about the origins of the Black Panther movement as well - and how much was gained in american society a whole 100 years later..


----------



## mehrab2603 (Nov 4, 2020)

Bernie saw it coming from a mile away


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Deadly drugs kill people. I wouldn't suggest using them unless you're okay with dying (see George Floyd).
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/geller-report/









Good source, totally not like, factually wrong most of the time.



so for your throw at abc
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/abc-news/








who should I trust? a less extreme source with higher factual reporting? Or one that is more extreme with less factual reporting.
]

Beritbart also doesn't have a good track record either


----------



## rensenware (Nov 4, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/geller-report/
> 
> 
> 
> ...


dont even try with these morons, anything that doesn't confirm their extremist viewpoint is fake news to them


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 4, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/geller-report/
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you list a liberal page that reviews conservative sites. Why don't you just step out of your bubble for a minute and live on the edge and read the articles I linked to. Once you're done you can then read the actual bill, which is linked to on the second URL I provided (it's actually embedded on the page so you can read it). See, the thing is you're not going to find information about what I'm referring to on a site that's in your small little bubble as no Liberals sites have any issues with Nancy and Co. including all sorts of "pork" in their latest relief bill. You gotta take a chance and live on the wild side. I know your programmers don't allow you to exit your little bubble, but I believe in you! You can do it!

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



jupitteer said:


> dont even try with these morons, anything that doesn't confirm their extremist viewpoint is fake news to them



Is this fake news? I swear your side is as dense as petrified wood.

https://www.scribd.com/document/452911706/Full-text-Nancy-Pelosi-Coronavirus-Stimulus-Bill


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> So you list a liberal page that reviews conservative sites. Why don't you just step out of your bubble for a minute and live on the edge and read the articles I linked to. Once you're done you can then read the actual bill, which is linked to on the second URL I provided (it's actually embedded on the page so you can read it). See, the thing is you're not going to find information about what I'm referring to on a site that's in your small little bubble as no Liberals sites have any issues with Nancy and Co. including all sorts of "pork" in their latest relief bill. You gotta take a chance and live on the wild side. I know your programmers don't allow you to exit your little bubble, but I believe in you! You can do it!


meanwhile it's not the actual site to check those kinds of documents.
also btw, that pdf file, is from charliespiering... who is a brietbart writer.
I can find the real one just give me one moment. As a fyi, you don't check bills by these people. you use congress.gov


----------



## Lacius (Nov 4, 2020)

CNN just called Michigan for Biden. That means Biden has two likely pathways to victory:

Pennsylvania
Nevada and Arizona (Arizona was already called for Biden by Fox News)
He only needs one of those pathways to win. North Carolina and Georgia are also still very much in play.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 4, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> meanwhile it's not the actual site to check those kinds of documents.
> also btw, that pdf file, is from charliespiering... who is a brietbart writer.
> I can find the real one just give me one moment. As a fyi, you don't check bills by these people. you use congress.gov



So the actual 1000+ page bill that came from Congress in PDF format isn't good enough for you because the site that links to it isn't in your approval list? LOL. You really are fucking dumb aren't you. You can't even for one second consider what the other side thinks and hide from what they have to say like it would kill you to visit the pages. Oh well, you're loss. You're ignorance doesn't change the facts or what's in the bill or the circumstances around it.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 4, 2020)

Lacius said:


> CNN just called Michigan for Biden. That means Biden has two likely pathways to victory:
> 
> Pennsylvania
> Nevada and Arizona (Arizona was already called for Biden by Fox News)
> He only needs one of those pathways to win. North Carolina and Georgia are also still very much in play.


Wisconsin is recounting because of illegal votes.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 4, 2020)

So, will the red mirage be our early Christmas present? Not as big as I hoped, but I'll take it, of course.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> So the actual 1000+ page bill that came from Congress in PDF format isn't good enough for you because the site that links to it isn't in your approval list? LOL. You really are fucking dumb aren't you. You can't even for one second consider what the other side thinks and hide from what they have to say like it would kill you to visit the pages. Oh well, you're loss. You're ignorance doesn't change the facts or what's in the bill or the circumstances around it.


There is a problem with your pdf file quite immediately. If this is the supposed bill. Why is the house number missing? all documents made for bills have a number either starting with h or s and then the number itself. This tells what the bill number is. It's blatantly missing on that pdf. I kinda find that pretty sus if you ask me.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 4, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> There is a problem with your pdf file quite immediately. If this is the supposed bill. Why is the house number missing? all documents made for bills have a number either starting with h or s and then the number itself. This tells what the bill number is. It's blatantly missing on that pdf. I kinda find that pretty sus if you ask me.



Lol, so add paranoid to your list of traits. If you don't like the fact it's hosted on a file sharing site then go get it from Congress themselves. It's not "fake" because it's linked to by a page that you're not allowed to visit.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 4, 2020)

removal of that number to me, tells they didn't want someone to fact check it. Or else it would be realized that edits where made.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 4, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Wisconsin is recounting because of illegal votes.


They're counting because it's within the legal margin to where you can request a recount, not because they 'found anything.' The recount will not change the outcome.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 4, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Wisconsin is recounting because of illegal votes.



Doesn't surprise me. In the past most elections you'll have dead people voting and they always vote for Democrats. Just like the Impeachment or the planned stacking of the supreme court liberals have no problem with lying, cheating and stealing. I mean, they are bad people and all as they don't care about fairness or the rules. It's good though that the Wisconsin officials detected the fraud and are recounting. I wonder what side committed the fraud?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



jupitteer said:


> They're counting because it's within the legal margin to where you can request a recount, not because they 'found anything.' The recount will not change the outcome.



Why was the recount requested?


----------



## rensenware (Nov 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Doesn't surprise me. In the past most elections you'll have dead people voting and they always vote for Democrats. Just like the Impeachment or the planned stacking of the supreme court liberals have no problem with lying, cheating and stealing. I mean, they are bad people and all as they don't care about fairness or the rules. It's good though that the Wisconsin officials detected the fraud and are recounting. I wonder what side committed the fraud?
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Because trump is throwing legal challenges literally everywhere.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 4, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Wisconsin is recounting because of illegal votes.


Fact check: Wisconsin is not recounting because of illegal votes. Wisconsin is recounting because the campaigns have the right to ask for a recount when the election results are as close as they were, and the Trump campaign requested a recount. There's no evidence of illegal votes. It should also be noted that a recount is highly unlikely to change the results of Wisconsin, given Biden's margin of victory and historical recounts.

If I were a Trump supporter, I wouldn't have lost hope at this point, but I would definitely be nervous. If you want hope, Wisconsin isn't the place to put it. Trump still has pathways to victory that don't include Wisconsin.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



gregory-samba said:


> Why was the recount requested?


Because Biden's margin of victory was low, and Trump wants to win.


----------



## Ericzander (Nov 4, 2020)

Now Fox News calls Michigan for Biden. So he's at 264. 

So if he hangs on to NV that's game over for Trump. Pennsylvania or Georgia would just be the cherry on top.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 4, 2020)

Ericzander said:


> Now Fox News calls Michigan for Biden. So he's at 264.
> 
> So if he hangs on to NV that's game over for Trump. Pennsylvania or Georgia would just be the cherry on top.


AZ is likely for Biden, but not guaranteed anymore.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 4, 2020)

Linked below is FiveThirtyEight's interactive model for the odds of each state and the odds of a given candidate winning, given the states that have been projected as of this post (Arizona is omitted, since giving it to Biden is controversial, and Fox might have jumped the gun).

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.co...,WY:1,M1:0,N1:1,N2:0,N3:1,WI:0,MI:0,ME:0,M2:1

As you can see, Biden currently has an 87% chance of winning given the results so far.

Here, you can find the interactive model with Arizona given to Biden. His odds then jump to 98%.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.co...,M1:0,N1:1,N2:0,N3:1,WI:0,MI:0,ME:0,M2:1,AZ:0


----------



## Ericzander (Nov 4, 2020)

jupitteer said:


> AZ is likely for Biden, but not guaranteed anymore.


Fair enough. That's true.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Lol, so add paranoid to your list of traits. If you don't like the fact it's hosted on a file sharing site then go get it from Congress themselves. It's not "fake"* because it's linked to by a page that you're not allowed to visit*.


Not allowed to vist eh?
so... for a supposed thing you can't visit, I was able to visit it just fine.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6800/text?q={"search":["heros+act"]}&r=3&s=10#toc-HB3D412DA78394F77885EADDCE739F995
you can thank me later for finding the actual bill. Now if you don't mind, I'll have to go through both bills to see if there is any changes (this will be a looong while). And if there isn't then we have to check if the article representation is factual. Since you can also link to something real and state something totally false.
going to throw a slight roast here. For someone who claims they are all about democracy, you clearly lack the tools your provided within a democracy.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 4, 2020)

jupitteer said:


> Because trump is throwing legal challenges literally everywhere.



I would hope these challenges have a legal basis. I voted for Trump, but unless he can prove widespread fraud and prove it fast he needs to step aside and take the loss (if he loses that is). Trump has spent 4 years fighting people who refused to acknowledged he won in 2016 so it would be pretty fucked up if he wouldn't accept the fact he lost in 2020.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I would hope these challenges have a legal basis. I voted for Trump, but unless he can prove widespread fraud and prove it fast he needs to step aside and take the loss (if he loses that is). Trump has spent 4 years fighting people who refused to acknowledged he won in 2016 so it would be pretty fucked up if he wouldn't accept the fact he lost in 2020.


News flash, they don't. I'd say hedge your disappointment early.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 4, 2020)

jupitteer said:


> News flash, they don't. I'd say hedge your disappointment early.



I don't count my chickens until they hatch so for me, I'm going to wait and see what happens. I don't know about you, but if I could tell the future I'd have won the lottery by now.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I would hope these challenges have a legal basis. I voted for Trump, but unless he can prove widespread fraud and prove it fast he needs to step aside and take the loss (if he loses that is).


Respectfully, it's almost as though you haven't been paying attention the past four years.


----------



## raphamotta (Nov 4, 2020)

Guys, a person who votes for the libertarian party would vote for which other party, Republican or Democrat?


----------



## Lacius (Nov 4, 2020)

raphamotta said:


> Guys, a person who votes for the libertarian party would vote for which other party, Republican or Democrat?


That's complicated, and it depends on which issue(s) are most important to you. If individual liberties are more important to you, maybe the Democratic Party. If economic liberties are more important to you, then maybe the Republican Party.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 4, 2020)

raphamotta said:


> Guys, a person who votes for the libertarian party would vote for which other party, Republican or Democrat?


Depends on if they're a rabid anti-tax libertarian or an everybody else sucks libertarian.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 4, 2020)

Has there ever been a "stop the count" chant with any election?


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 4, 2020)

If Democrats can just get votes this easily, how would Republicans (or any other party) ever win again?


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Nov 4, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> If Democrats can just get votes this easily, how would Republicans (or any other party) ever win again?


This election is closer than you think. I believe that Biden will edge out a win, but MI, WI, PA could easily turn blue. I think AZ is blue for now on though.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 4, 2020)

Big Man Tyrone2 said:


> This election is closer than you think. I believe that Biden will edge out a win, but MI, WI, PA could easily turn blue. I think AZ is blue for now on though.


Not specifically talking about this election. I'm talking about the people that think Democrats can just pull off massive election/voting fraud anytime they want.


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Nov 4, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I would hope these challenges have a legal basis. I voted for Trump, but unless he can prove widespread fraud and prove it fast he needs to step aside and take the loss (if he loses that is). Trump has spent 4 years fighting people who refused to acknowledged he won in 2016 so it would be pretty fucked up if he wouldn't accept the fact he lost in 2020.


The issue is that there isn't any. Republicans tried to claim that there was a surge of 140k votes in Michigan when that was proven to be false and a result of Decision Desk HQ adding an extra 0 to a Michigan county. Biden actually, "lost" 130k votes due to that error.

AZ Sharpie votes are still being counted, just manually.

Nothing really going on in WI or PA, however they probably have just started on mail-in ballots. Georgia as well.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



KingVamp said:


> Not specifically talking about this election. I'm talking about the people that think Democrats can just pull off massive election/voting fraud anytime they want.


Ah, my bad, I misunderstood what you were saying. There is no, "widespread election fraud". Anyone who thinks so is a sore loser.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 4, 2020)

If Trump wins, it was obviously rigged. See how easy that is? You dotards bore me to fucking death.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 4, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> If Trump wins, it was obviously rigged. See how easy that is? You dotards bore me to fucking death.


Do you support the right for illegal immigrants to vote?


----------



## GhostLatte (Nov 4, 2020)

It’s so funny to see Trump supporters “triggered.”


----------



## Lacius (Nov 4, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Do you support the right for illegal immigrants to vote?


Illegal immigrants should not have the right to vote. They should, however, have a pathway to citizenship, after which they will have the right to vote.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



KingVamp said:


> If Democrats can just get votes this easily, how would Republicans (or any other party) ever win again?


The Electoral College is how Republicans will win, whether it's this year or in the future. It's the only way they can win, which should be disheartening for anyone who is a Republican. In my lifetime, a non-incumbent Republican has never won the popular vote for president. Not once.


----------



## omgcat (Nov 4, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> If Democrats can just get votes this easily, how would Republicans (or any other party) ever win again?



the GOP would fade away, but the dems themselves would fracture between progressives and Neolibs. in effect the political spectrum would shift left, closer to in line with the rest of the world.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraSUPRA said:


> Do you support the right for illegal immigrants to vote?



once again, there has been 0 evidence that illegal immigrants vote. zero, after 4 years of trumps "best" lawyers looking up and down the whole USA. They got their shit smacked in court in the last month for making that same claim about mail in ballots but not being able to provide any evidence.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 4, 2020)

omgcat said:


> once again, there has been 0 evidence that illegal immigrants vote. zero, after 4 years of trumps "best" lawyers looking up and down the whole USA. They got their shit smacked in court in the last month for making that same claim about mail in ballots but not being able to provide any evidence.


Wisconsin?


----------



## Deleted member 397813 (Nov 5, 2020)

biden just needs nevada to win the election holy shhhhh


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Nov 5, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Wisconsin?


What about it? WI is recording high levels of voter turnout because of the ability to register on election day. Trumpies are pushing out false info stating that WI's voter turnout is higher than their actual registered voters because of their use of 2018 voter registration data and the negligence of the previously mentioned point.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



CPG said:


> biden just needs nevada to win the election holy shhhhh


Biden will win Nevada. I don't know about Arizona though. Might be another NC/Florida/Ohio where the mail-ins were counted first, and the states appeared to be blue.


----------



## Deleted member 397813 (Nov 5, 2020)

Big Man Tyrone2 said:


> Biden will win Nevada. I don't know about Arizona though. Might be another NC/Florida/Ohio where the mail-ins were counted first, and the states appeared to be blue.


nvm, im dum and don't know how to read


----------



## omgcat (Nov 5, 2020)

Big Man Tyrone2 said:


> What about it? WI is recording high levels of voter turnout because of the ability to register on election day. Trumpies are pushing out false info stating that WI's voter turnout is higher than their actual registered voters because of their use of 2018 voter registration data and the negligence of the previously mentioned point.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



arizona counted election day votes first. the remaining votes are all VBM and  to a smaller degree provisional.


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Nov 5, 2020)

omgcat said:


> arizona counted election day votes first. the remaining votes are all VBM and  to a smaller degree provisional.


Then Biden wins, plain and simple. You got a source on that though?


----------



## omgcat (Nov 5, 2020)

Big Man Tyrone2 said:


> Then Biden wins, plain and simple. You got a source on that though?



https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.azcentral.com/amp/6157997002

248,000 early ballots that arrived on Monday and Tuesday.


160,000 to 180,000 early ballots that were dropped off on Election Day.


18,000 provisional ballots, about 10,000 of which are from Election Day and the remainder from early voting.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Nov 5, 2020)

Lacius said:


> That's complicated, and it depends on which issue(s) are most important to you. If individual liberties are more important to you, maybe the Democratic Party. If economic liberties are more important to you, then maybe the Republican Party.


 You speak of Congress as if it is composed of Sartre and Camus, locked in a great philosophical divide! 
I believe they would rather spend their time campaigning than debating philosophy, good sir!


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Nov 5, 2020)

omgcat said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.azcentral.com/amp/6157997002
> 
> 248,000 early ballots that arrived on Monday and Tuesday.
> 
> ...


There is a chance, however, that those early Monday/Tuesday/Election Day Dropoff Ballots could be majority Trump. Not likely, but possible considering trends within traditionally red states and dropoff ballots.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 5, 2020)

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ce=Twitter&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Nov 5, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ce=Twitter&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons


Is... this supposed to prove anything? A historically Right-Wing publication snips a google sheets/Microsoft Excel doc that could have easily been made in ~3 mins. I mean, shit! They didn't even bother to try filling out any of the cells under the ones shown. 

And, even if there is some election fraud, do you really think they are _that_ sloppy? 


Look: I can do it too!


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 5, 2020)

More hypocrisy from the right. You all want to cry about fraudulent Dem votes? Nothing like a polling station worker flat out TELLING and ALLOWING a Republican to vote twice. Two can play that stupid game.

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/election/article246971357.html

Come back and cry once your side is 100% cleared from the very things you're all so triggered about.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 5, 2020)

Big Man Tyrone2 said:


> The issue is that there isn't any. Republicans tried to claim that there was a surge of 140k votes in Michigan when that was proven to be false and a result of Decision Desk HQ adding an extra 0 to a Michigan county. Biden actually, "lost" 130k votes due to that error.
> 
> AZ Sharpie votes are still being counted, just manually.
> 
> Nothing really going on in WI or PA, however they probably have just started on mail-in ballots. Georgia as well.



I'm glad they sorted the error out then. Though Biden didn't lose anything if he didn't have them in the first place and an error doesn't count.


----------



## Smoker1 (Nov 5, 2020)

Quick Question for those who support Trump, and believe the same thing - How EXACTLY can 1 Person Vote Multiple times????? Or as Giuliani claims, up to 50 TIMES????????????? How exactly can someone do that????????? There is ACTUAL Documented Proof of this, right???????


----------



## biggj (Nov 5, 2020)

I live in China, Biden winning is great news for china and my finances. Kind of sucks for Americans though. I am Canadian and this is great news for Canada too if Biden wins.


----------



## Smoker1 (Nov 5, 2020)

biggj said:


> I live in China, Biden winning is great news for china and my finances. Kind of sucks for Americans though. I am Canadian and this is great news for Canada too if Biden wins.


Yeah, but a ton of Americans hate China for Stealing Jobs. No........it is the Greedy Business Executive wanting to get more Profit who is sending Jobs to China because they are willing to work more, for less.


----------



## omgcat (Nov 5, 2020)

Smoker1 said:


> Yeah, but a ton of Americans hate China for Stealing Jobs. No........it is the Greedy Business Executive wanting to get more Profit who is sending Jobs to China because they are willing to work more, for less.



China isn't getting very many of our jobs anymore, the new hotness is Vietnam or South Africa.


----------



## biggj (Nov 5, 2020)

Smoker1 said:


> Yeah, but a ton of Americans hate China for Stealing Jobs. No........it is the Greedy Business Executive wanting to get more Profit who is sending Jobs to China because they are willing to work more, for less.


That's true. At least Trump seemed to try to stop jobs from leaving and China taking advantage of America. At least in his rhetoric...Joe Biden will let China kill America economically. I live in China, and since Trump took over China has been hit hard even before Covid. During Obama, China was pumping hard.


----------



## IncredulousP (Nov 5, 2020)

omgcat said:


> China isn't getting very many of our jobs anymore, the new hotness is Vietnam or South Africa.


India in the tech sector. I work with sooo many Indians overseas.


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Nov 5, 2020)

omgcat said:


> China isn't getting very many of our jobs anymore, the new hotness is Vietnam or South Africa.


Really, the majority of West/Central/South Africa is going to China. That is not something to be taken lightly, and is much more of an issue compared to China and the US.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 5, 2020)

biggj said:


> That's true. At least Trump seemed to try to stop jobs from leaving and China taking advantage of America. At least in his rhetoric...Joe Biden will let China kill America economically. I live in China, and since Trump took over China has been hit hard even before Covid. During Obama, China was pumping hard.



Yeah, Biden is going to sell us out.

*Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more*

https://www.lyricsfreak.com/t/ten+years+after/id+love+to+change+the+world_20135632.html


----------



## biggj (Nov 5, 2020)

omgcat said:


> China isn't getting very many of our jobs anymore, the new hotness is Vietnam or South Africa.


That's True Vietnam is killing it right now. Although a lot of businesses are owned or run by the Chinese. They basically run Vietnam too. That's really the case in Africa. China basically owns the continent of Africa now.  I think there was no stopping china either way. Trump just seemed to slow it down. Biden will just accelerate it.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 5, 2020)

tightening up in az and ga


----------



## Smoker1 (Nov 5, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Yeah, Biden is going to sell us out.
> 
> *Tax the rich, feed the poor
> Till there are no rich no more*
> ...


That would not work. You Tax the Rich, they will just Raise Prices, Cut Jobs, and Pay Less. The People would still get stuck flipping the Bill.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 5, 2020)

Smoker1 said:


> That would not work. You Tax the Rich, they will just Raise Prices, Cut Jobs, and Pay Less. The People would still get stuck flipping the Bill.


taxing the rich goes with other progressive policies that make this just plain not a thing, this doesn't exist in a vacuum


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 5, 2020)

jupitteer said:


> taxing the rich goes with other progressive policies that make this just plain not a thing, this doesn't exist in a vacuum


Progress is for tech, not economics.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 5, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Progress is for tech, not economics.


no tho


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 5, 2020)

jupitteer said:


> no tho


yes tho


----------



## rensenware (Nov 5, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> yes tho


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Nov 5, 2020)

Expect election results by 1AM tonight.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 5, 2020)

Smoker1 said:


> That would not work. You Tax the Rich, they will just Raise Prices, Cut Jobs, and Pay Less. The People would still get stuck flipping the Bill.



What happened when they raised the minimum wage locally where I live? All of the prices went up and people's hours got cut. In the end the raise in minimum wage was cancelled out by the price increases and people working less hours. So it turns out they had less money in the end compared to before the wage increase. 

I however think Biden will give the money he takes from the rich to the poor as I'm sure he'll sign a few executive orders himself, but like that kick ass song I linked to what happens when the people you're taxing don't have any more money because you took it all? 

What happens then?

I think anyone from Cuba or Venezuela should chime in on this one.


----------



## Smoker1 (Nov 5, 2020)

Also, one way for Rich to get more Money is Automation. Get rid of Workers and have things Automated........like Self-Checkout


----------



## rensenware (Nov 5, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> What happened when they raised the minimum wage locally where I live? All of the prices went up and people's hours got cut. In the end the raise in minimum wage was cancelled out by the price increases and people working less hours. So it turns out they had less money in the end compared to before the wage increase.
> 
> I however think Biden will give the money he takes from the rich to the poor as I'm sure he'll sign a few executive orders himself, but like that kick ass song I linked to what happens when the people you're taxing don't have any more money because you took it all?
> 
> ...


acting like taxing people with billions of dollars a lot will bankrupt them is ignoring the sheer scale of money these people have

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Smoker1 said:


> Also, one way for Rich to get more Money is Automation. Get rid of Workers and have things Automated........like Self-Checkout


you're absolutely right about that but there are solutions, check out andrew yang's policies


----------



## Smoker1 (Nov 5, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> What happened when they raised the minimum wage locally where I live? All of the prices went up and people's hours got cut. In the end the raise in minimum wage was cancelled out by the price increases and people working less hours. So it turns out they had less money in the end compared to before the wage increase.
> 
> I however think Biden will give the money he takes from the rich to the poor as I'm sure he'll sign a few executive orders himself, but like that kick ass song I linked to what happens when the people you're taxing don't have any more money because you took it all?
> 
> ...


Prices will go up regardless. Rent here in Sacramento, CA is around $1100-$2000. But in the Bay Area, it is well over that. Into $3-4000. Yet the Minimum Wage is just $11 an Hour.


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Nov 5, 2020)

jupitteer said:


> acting like taxing people with billions of dollars a lot will bankrupt them is ignoring the sheer scale of money these people have
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


While I do agree with you, net worth does not equal actual money.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 5, 2020)

Big Man Tyrone2 said:


> While I do agree with you, net worth does not equal actual money.


yes, which these proposed wealth taxes account for


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 5, 2020)

SUPRA keeps impressing me with just how incredibly STUPID he (or she) is. What this dumb fuck just basically said is that technological progress has no, or should not have, any bearing on the economy. Also obviously unaware that most technological advances come from the scientific community. Science being something Trumpers don't believe in a whole lot.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 5, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> SUPRA keeps impressing me with just how incredibly STUPID he (or she) is. What this dumb fuck just basically said is that technological progress has no, or should not have, any bearing on the economy. Also obviously unaware that most technological advances come from the scientific community. Science being something Trumpers don't believe in a whole lot.



I voted for Trump and I believe in science. I just happen to know just like fake news there's fake science, basically they completely ignore the scientific progress and then won't give you access to their data to check their results. Lots of the stuff on Wikipedia has been based on these sorts of fake findings and they share similarities with the fake news, such as only reporting what you want to report that helps prove a point, to selectively edit to mislead people, to only present what you agree with other than your actual findings, no source is given and sometimes it's just straight up fabrications based on guess work or wishful thinking and not the scientific process.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Smoker1 said:


> Prices will go up regardless. Rent here in Sacramento, CA is around $1100-$2000. But in the Bay Area, it is well over that. Into $3-4000. Yet the Minimum Wage is just $11 an Hour.



Well, if Trump wins the prices won't go up because he's not about to raise taxes to +50% of people who make $400,000.00 a year or put the country into 4 trillion in debt for some fantasy new green deal. Then the people who are like "prices won't go up" are fucking dumb because what happens to your rent when suddenly the Government takes 50% of their profits away? Rent goes up! That's the same for everything across the board, like food, clothing, medicine, etc ... Biden wants to tax all of the people that provide us jobs, goods and services so of course prices are going to go up!


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Nov 5, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I voted for Trump and I believe in science. I just happen to know just like fake news there's fake science, basically they completely ignore the scientific progress and then won't give you access to their data to check their results. Lots of the stuff on Wikipedia has been based on these sorts of fake findings and they share similarities with the fake news, such as only reporting what you want to report that helps prove a point, to selectively edit to mislead people, to only present what you agree with other than your actual findings, no source is given and sometimes it's just straight up fabrications based on guess work or wishful thinking and not the scientific process.


Such as...? I kinda agree with you, people do not understand the Scientific Process in 2020 and the importance of a peer review. A good example of this is the Vaccine and Autism debate. Social Media only makes this worst, as people do not actually read the articles and pivot to the headline/abstract. If you're referring to Climate Change, however, research has been pointing to the drastic impacts it could have in the next decade or two for a while, and has obviously been peer-reviewed/verified by journal publishers. I wouldn't call it, "Fake Science" though. There is no, "fake science" if you aren't fabricating data, and if you are, it isn't science. It's more, "Misleading Science".


----------



## Lacius (Nov 5, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I voted for Trump and I believe in science. I just happen to know just like fake news there's fake science, basically they completely ignore the scientific progress and then won't give you access to their data to check their results. Lots of the stuff on Wikipedia has been based on these sorts of fake findings and they share similarities with the fake news, such as only reporting what you want to report that helps prove a point, to selectively edit to mislead people, to only present what you agree with other than your actual findings, no source is given and sometimes it's just straight up fabrications based on guess work or wishful thinking and not the scientific process.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Fact check: Trump consistently challenges science, including but not limited to climate change science and COVID-19 science.


----------



## Smoker1 (Nov 5, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I voted for Trump and I believe in science. I just happen to know just like fake news there's fake science, basically they completely ignore the scientific progress and then won't give you access to their data to check their results. Lots of the stuff on Wikipedia has been based on these sorts of fake findings and they share similarities with the fake news, such as only reporting what you want to report that helps prove a point, to selectively edit to mislead people, to only present what you agree with other than your actual findings, no source is given and sometimes it's just straight up fabrications based on guess work or wishful thinking and not the scientific process.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Seriously, how is it in the People's interest to Pay ALL the Taxes??????
Also, Rent goes up every Year, regardless. How can People Pay for things and support the Economy if all their Money is going to Rent?????? Also, are Houses JUST for those who are Wealthy, and can shit Money when needed? Those Prices are in the $450k+


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 5, 2020)

Big Man Tyrone2 said:


> Such as...? I kinda agree with you, people do not understand the Scientific Process in 2020 and the importance of a peer review. A good example of this is the Vaccine and Autism debate. Social Media only makes this worst, as people do not actually read the articles and pivot to the headline/abstract. If you're referring to Climate Change, however, research has been pointing to the drastic impacts it could have in the next decade or two for a while, and has obviously been peer-reviewed/verified by journal publishers. I wouldn't call it, "Fake Science" though. There is no, "fake science" if you aren't fabricating data, and if you are, it isn't science. It's more, "Misleading Science".



"Fake/Misleading/Inaccurate/Wrong" etc ... It's all the same, phoney made up garbage. Pollution does indeed effect the climate, but there's lots of misinformation floating around due to the issues I originally posted. Imagine excluding things like the sun, our rotation around it, solar storms, the moon and volcano's from the climate change debate. All of those things impact the climate and can cause heating, cooling or both. Right now actually the sun's power has lessened and will stay the same for some years which resulted in a 2c temperature decrease for the entire Earth. That's after scientists claimed we're going to see a 2c rise in temperature due to pollution. Sorta funny how nature worked the rise out all by itself.

It's just I don't like the fake stuff, especially the ones that won't give you the data that they used to come to their conclusions. It's like the PDF I linked to earlier, sure it's 1000+ pages, but it's the source for the claims coming from the right wing (as the left completely ignores the expected rise in taxes for everyone). You know a page is honest when they include the sources for their articles in them. However, people are just ignorant and there's nothing I could say or do to change that. I just gotta do the best I can with what I have and that includes not becoming a supporter of socialism and telling people what to do, how to act, what to think and what to say.


----------



## dAVID_ (Nov 5, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> What happened when they raised the minimum wage locally where I live? All of the prices went up and people's hours got cut. In the end the raise in minimum wage was cancelled out by the price increases and people working less hours. So it turns out they had less money in the end compared to before the wage increase.
> 
> I however think Biden will give the money he takes from the rich to the poor as I'm sure he'll sign a few executive orders himself, but like that kick ass song I linked to what happens when the people you're taxing don't have any more money because you took it all?
> 
> ...


The GOP has achieved the amazing feat of convincing its supporters that raising the minimum wage will negatively impact them.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 5, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> "Fake/Misleading/Inaccurate/Wrong" etc ... It's all the same, phoney made up garbage. Pollution does indeed effect the climate, but there's lots of misinformation floating around due to the issues I originally posted. Imagine excluding things like the sun, our rotation around it, solar storms, the moon and volcano's from the climate change debate. All of those things impact the climate and can cause heating, cooling or both. Right now actually the sun's power has lessened and will stay the same for some years which resulted in a 2c temperature decrease for the entire Earth. That's after scientists claimed we're going to see a 2c rise in temperature due to pollution. Sorta funny how nature worked the rise out all by itself.
> 
> It's just I don't like the fake stuff, especially the ones that won't give you the data that they used to come to their conclusions. It's like the PDF I linked to earlier, sure it's 1000+ pages, but it's the source for the claims coming from the right wing (as the left completely ignores the expected rise in taxes for everyone). You know a page is honest when they include the sources for their articles in them. However, people are just ignorant and there's nothing I could say or do to change that. I just gotta do the best I can with what I have and that includes not becoming a supporter of socialism and telling people what to do, how to act, what to think and what to say.


Fact check: Human-caused climate change is real, and we are warming the planet at an unprecedented rate. The predictive models have consistently been spot on.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



dAVID_ said:


> The GOP has achieved the amazing feat of convincing its supporters that raising the minimum wage will negatively impact them.


Republicans voting against their own interests is nothing new.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 5, 2020)

Smoker1 said:


> Seriously, how is it in the People's interest to Pay ALL the Taxes??????
> Also, Rent goes up every Year, regardless. How can People Pay for things and support the Economy if all their Money is going to Rent?????? Also, are Houses JUST for those who are Wealthy, and can shit Money when needed? Those Prices are in the $450k+



Biden is on video promising tax increases and that includes 4 trillion in new debt that he'll use other peoples money to pay off. Sure, rent might go up yearly, but it's not going to increase like it will under Biden if Trump keeps his presidency. You throw on an additional 25-30% of taxes on business owners and those costs trickle down to the consumer. Everything you buy now or the services you use are from people who usually make $400,000 or more so prices are going to go up and go up drastically. The odd thing is that I'm sure once these liberals realize they can't afford nice shoes, a new phone, their daily coffee that they're going to think twice about what they've done to the country. I'm not sure about you, but having everyone be poor isn't my idea of a good time.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



dAVID_ said:


> The GOP has achieved the amazing feat of convincing its supporters that raising the minimum wage will negatively impact them.



Nope, I know it does because I experienced it. The wages went up around $2.00 and all of the prices suddenly went up around $2.00 and workers lost their full time status at their jobs. It's not a fantasy created by the GOP because I witnessed it first hand.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 5, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Biden is on video promising tax increases and that includes 4 trillion in new debt that he'll use other peoples money to pay off. Sure, rent might go up yearly, but it's not going to increase like it will under Biden if Trump keeps his presidency. You throw on an additional 25-30% of taxes on business owners and those costs trickle down to the consumer. Everything you buy now or the services you use are from people who usually make $400,000 or more so prices are going to go up and go up drastically. The odd thing is that I'm sure once these liberals realize they can't afford nice shoes, a new phone, their daily coffee that they're going to think twice about what they've done to the country. I'm not sure about you, but having everyone be poor isn't my idea of a good time.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Fact check: increased tax revenue doesn't result in increased deficits.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 5, 2020)

dAVID_ said:


> The GOP has achieved the amazing feat of convincing its supporters that raising the minimum wage will negatively impact them.


Raising the minimum wage will cause people to get laid off and businesses to close. Even for the people where this doesn't happen, some restaurants will ban tips, ironically meaning that some waiters and waitresses get less money.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 5, 2020)

More affordable houses probably needs to be built, regardless of wages. As for significant inflation, I'm pretty sure that didn't happen with Alaska's oil dividend.


----------



## omgcat (Nov 5, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Raising the minimum wage will cause people to get laid off and businesses to close. Even for the people where this doesn't happen, some restaurants will ban tips, ironically meaning that some waiters and waitresses get less money.



it's gonna be interesting to see how Florida turns out, they passed 15$ min wage. it goes up to 15$ from now til 2026.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 5, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> More affordable houses probably needs to be built, regardless of wages.


Yes, build cheap homes for everyone. Cheap, in every sense of the word. Great idea.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 5, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Raising the minimum wage will cause people to get laid off and businesses to close. Even for the people where this doesn't happen, some restaurants will ban tips, ironically meaning that some waiters and waitresses get less money.


Fact-check: Raising the minimum wage generally doesn't cause people to get laid off, and it doesn't cause businesses to close. In fact, it often leads to new hiring.



UltraSUPRA said:


> Yes, build cheap homes for everyone. Cheap, in every sense of the word. Great idea.


Fact-check: giving homeless homes seems to be one of the most effective and persistent ways to curb homelessness.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 5, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The Electoral College is how Republicans will win, whether it's this year or in the future. It's the only way they can win, which should be disheartening for anyone who is a Republican. In my lifetime, a non-incumbent Republican has never won the popular vote for president. Not once.


Yeah, the popular vote gap is looking to be even larger this time. Honestly, the EC's days seems to be numbered, even if people can't get rid of it directly. 



Lacius said:


> Fact-check: giving homeless homes seems to be one of the most effective and persistent ways to curb homelessness.


Isn't it cheaper (not to mention moral) than just keeping them on the street?


----------



## Shape (Nov 5, 2020)

I voted for the Biden because everyone who keeps cutting me off in traffic has a trump supporter bumper sticker.


----------



## LumInvader (Nov 5, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> So, somehow me pointing out you've got major bias is a personal attack, but you then doing the same isn't? Pointing out you only post information from the left wasn't a personal attack it's a fact. If I was personally attacking you I'd call your mother a bitch. You also keep posting links to all sorts of Liberal sources and never post any Conservative ones. That's not fair nor balanced. I admit I'm a conservative, but all my sources aren't conservative pages and just because you don't like my sources and label anything you don't like as "conspiracy theories" doesn't really discredit them. I know that tactic works on your Left learning friends who are dumb as rocks, but it doesn't work on me.


Look... every person on here knows that I support Biden.  It's no secret.  However, you called me out for major bias by claiming that I "post nothing, but links to news coming from the left side of the isle," which is an *outright lie *and definitely a personal attack.  Sharing links to moderately liberal and conservative websites (foxnews, nasdaq, marketwatch, fortune, forbes, etc.) with highly factual reporting isn't proof of anything other than the fact that I don't read or promote extremist propaganda.  

Perhaps you wouldn't feel the need for these *petty call-out posts* if you had a history of doing the same.


----------



## seany1990 (Nov 5, 2020)

If you work 40 hours per week at any job then you should earn enough to make a living. If businesses close because paying their employees this amount will cause them to foreclose then its not a good business and therefore should close.


----------



## RandomUser (Nov 5, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Raising the minimum wage will cause people to get laid off and businesses to close. Even for the people where this doesn't happen, some restaurants will ban tips, ironically meaning that some waiters and waitresses get less money.


Actually I think the tipping system needs to be done away with. It was/is a scam concocted by some restaurant owner because he or she didn't want to pay the full wages of their servers, so they let their customer do it for them.

A link below about tipping and it seems to be different and adding a racism spin on it.
https://splinternews.com/the-racist-history-of-tipping-1798704699
So which one is correct I do not know, however I think they should be done away with.
Edit:
Another link that seems to support the first link and some occupations as well:
https://time.com/5404475/history-tipping-american-restaurants-civil-war/


----------



## notimp (Nov 5, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> What happened when they raised the minimum wage locally where I live? All of the prices went up and people's hours got cut. In the end the raise in minimum wage was cancelled out by the price increases and people working less hours. So it turns out they had less money in the end compared to before the wage increase.
> 
> I however think Biden will give the money he takes from the rich to the poor as I'm sure he'll sign a few executive orders himself, but like that kick ass song I linked to what happens when the people you're taxing don't have any more money because you took it all?
> 
> ...


You stick to income taxes and percentages, that way money never runs out.. 

Also there is no incentive for 'all the prices to go up. If they do, you dont have a functioning market system anymore, you basically have monopolies that can dictate price structure.

Lets look at this from the perspective of a goods producer that produces a high priced good. His incentive is not to raise prices, but to keep them as low as possible to gain more customers, so they can grow.

Where you'd want to raise prices, if you can, is goods of daily importance. Food, housing prices, ... But if you can, that means that people in that market are colluding, because any competitor in the field could aim for a higher market share, by keeping prices low. Which in the long run is much more valuable (gradual price increases possible on more people).

In my country food prices are a good bit higher than the ones in our neighboring countries, which tends to eat up minimal wage increases eventually. But that money doesnt vanish, but aids local food producers f.e.

What you do in practice is, to raise the minimum wage 'more' to a point where peoples costs of living has no opportunity to eat it up immediately. That way a higher subset of industry benefits.

Gradually this will be eaten away by pricing on necessary items of life (inflation), but what you get out of it is the following:

1. One time effects of a stimulus for local industry
2. Innovation drive (because in order to stay competitive, you have to become better, to still be able to pay wages).

People working less hours makes no sense, because thats either the sign of a 'death spiral' for an industry (we cant pay, we cant produce, we cant sell that much, ...), in which case good bye 'not a viable  business model', or the admission, that they hired workers, just to have them stand around and do nothing. So both arent that likely.

Why you dont do it more often, has to do with trends in the housing markets and trends towards automation, and globalization. Its hard to combat those.

But the idea is not that you let yourself be stuck in a 'no development needed/viable' loop forever.

Because that way you structurally are only increasing the margins of industry owners. Who can elongate production schedules without increasing investment, save up more, and then invest in automation either way. So you only give to the rich if you stick to that model.

Their comeback then is, but do you really want to loose jobs, because at some point we'll invest in more automation, or go out of country.

Their argument is not - well, then we'll become bankrupt. Because that would mean, that their business model is not viable at 'minimum wages' which, if you have to admit would be quite the reputation loss.. 
--

At "people work less hours" as a result of it. This generally means that they work less overtime, because those measures (minimum wage increase) should be coupled with an incentive to hire more people - if you do them today. (So state is expected to get more money through consumption taxes, gives it back to industry - if they are hiring more people (investing in something that produces jobs).

(edit: Actually the opposite trend also would be likely. People work more hours, because less people get hired, IF your industry actually has no 'developmental perspective'. (Costs of new workers rise, if not offset by new incentives given by the state to boost new investments. So you let your actual workers work more - to stay competitive. Which only is a short term solution, because if your competition is hiring, while the state is incentivizing innovation, while you are doing nothing....))

If none of that worked, where you are coming from, what happened more likely was, that you had a very low minimal wage increase that was used to signal 'we've done something', and then to signal 'look it didnt work'. But if done correctly it leads to desired effects.

You can play the 'I dont want for things to change' game all your life, but in the end it just benefits people wanting to 'stretch' their return of investment. (Stretch the investment part, keep the return.)


Wages in the western world stagnating is THE problem of current generations.

To which the response then is, but look at all the cheap TVs you could buy. And the cheap smartphones - which just doubled in price. Because we produced in China, isnt that great? To which the response rightfully to an extent is 'f*ck globailization'.

But actually 'f*ck the distribution of gains in globalization', so 'f*ck the rich'.

(Because globalized workflows lead to better efficiency (specialization possible). When they work.)


Of course that only makes sense, if you believe in economic growth in the future..  (Which in the end you always do. If you are a globalized rich person. You might want to invest in 'lets lower our living standards, yay!' movements to not have to change your businesses for a while longer though.  Which coincides with the green/carbon neutral movement, if we dont form it to be a net 'innovation driver', which - to be honest is freaking hard to do, because you try to replace the 'efficiency' of oil at the same time).


----------



## wartutor (Nov 5, 2020)

This election is a shit show. It only proves that our voting system is broken and need restructured. And trump making an ass of himself. Let them announce a winner before u start legal actions lol.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 5, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Yeah, the popular vote gap is looking to be even larger this time. Honestly, the EC's days seems to be numbered, even if people can't get rid of it directly.


If only that were true. There's a political party in this country that will never let that happen since they benefit from it politically.


----------



## notimp (Nov 5, 2020)

Lacius said:


> If only that were true. There's a political party in this country that will never let that happen since they benefit from it politically.


To which the answer is the following. If democrats only gained the presidency, but not the senate, and not the supreme court - they can argue for the next 4 years, that they really couldnt do much - I mean with the situation of the markets, and the health crisis (which cant necessarily be solved by giving free healthcare on all matters - again, its not wrong to do so, but...), and everything...

So 'merica gets into its third change vote in a row (If we count Obamas second term as change..  ), without actual change happening. 

Thats a mindf*ck. 

But remember, safe the constitution!  (So always keep voting results close..  Between two parties, that on certain aspects - are practically the same and always will be.  )

Do you think Wallstreet cares that this time arround it spent 100mio more on democrates, but usually it does so on republicans?
src: https://www.dw.com/en/wall-street-drops-donald-trump-in-favor-of-joe-biden/a-55420944

Do you think Lindsay Graham cared to do that, at the exact opportune time (2016 but still), and then later never at all?


Starts at 12:48 in


----------



## rensenware (Nov 5, 2020)

notimp said:


> To which the answer is the following. If democrats only gained the presidency, but not the senate, and not the supreme court - they can argue for the next 4 years, that they really couldnt do much - I mean with the situation of the markets, and the health crisis (which cant necessarily be solved by giving free healthcare on all matters - again, its not wrong to do so, but...), and everything...
> 
> So 'merica gets into its third change vote in a row (If we count Obamas second term as change..  ), without actual change happening.
> 
> ...



idk if you have some muscular disorder in your face causing twitching but the winky emotes are really annoying


----------



## notimp (Nov 5, 2020)

jupitteer said:


> idk if you have some muscular disorder in your face causing twitching but the winky emotes are really annoying


Well, actually - I have. Sometimes.

Remember, I'm a cynic.  And can you image one without a facetwitch?


----------



## rensenware (Nov 5, 2020)

notimp said:


> Well, actually - I have. Sometimes.
> 
> Remember, I'm a cynic.  And can you image one without a facetwitch?


i imagine you smelling your own farts


----------



## notimp (Nov 5, 2020)

jupitteer said:


> i imagine you smelling your own farts


Well that was uncalled for.


----------



## notimp (Nov 5, 2020)

Oh, and  btw that there is a 2% and not 6% difference in popular vote is the result of the democratic party following the epistemology, that 'black people and hispanics, will always stick with us, so we can ignore them' which had the republicans outspending  Dems more than 10:1 in both spending and attention in the last few weeks before the election on that demographic.

Democrats instead chose to invest ALL the money they had (and they had much more than the republicans this time around) on 'young educated suburban voters'. A demographic they always had - this time around. And that isnt that large.

Whose decision was that?

Whose decision was it to go with Biden?

Whose decision was it to focus on an election campaign void of any content except for 'I will not kill you - signed Biden'?

Again, you are on track to win by 2% against the worst candidate possible. The one that actually has to contemplate leaving the country, after the potentially failed reelection.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 5, 2020)

Lacius said:


> If only that were true. There's a political party in this country that will never let that happen since they benefit from it politically.


If the majorly of the states agree with the NPVIC, would they have a choice?


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 5, 2020)

I hope you are all happy with Mister Biden and wish you all the Best and good luck.


----------



## notimp (Nov 5, 2020)

And I toast to that notion.  This time without cynicism.


----------



## Rail Fighter (Nov 5, 2020)

alexander1970 said:


> I hope you are all happy with Mister Biden and wish you all the Best and good luck.


----------



## Alexander1970 (Nov 5, 2020)

Rail Fighter said:


>



But the Roac....äähh the People like him.


----------



## djpannda (Nov 5, 2020)




----------



## lordofcombo (Nov 5, 2020)

As a middle eastern SUNIT muslim,we have a very specific take on these elections.
For us there is 2 America: internal America and Foreign America when it comes to policies.
We like the frank boldness of republicans toward us,at least when trump hates us hes honest about it.we knew he dont like us so  were fine with that.But hes the worst toward hiss country;s economy.
As for democarts there is no more hypocrits than them.Both bushes and bitch boy Obama who did the most damage behind a phony smile.But when it comes to the US economy their are the best.we dont like them also for their liberal ethics {gay marriage,against death penaly,pro whatever it is}
So in a nutshell ,trump wins ,we win ,your demise.
Biden wins ,you win,our demise?
it is a paradox for us.
Note: muslim in north africa tend to hate trump ,thats because they hate the middle east and their alliance with US gov.
Last note,simpletons in the US thinks the US election is for them only.Thats a false assumption,
With a new president comes new foreign policies.Third world depends on these elections too.
Only spared peoples are BRICS countries and Europe who frankly are more interested in fightingting each other than unite lol.

* A middle eastern view of US elections*


----------



## PiracyForTheMasses (Nov 5, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Fact-check: Raising the minimum wage generally doesn't cause people to get laid off, and it doesn't cause businesses to close. In fact, it often leads to new hiring.
> 
> 
> Fact-check: giving homeless homes seems to be one of the most effective and persistent ways to curb homelessness.


Fact check, you have obviously never owned or ran a business. Fact check, of course increasing minimum wage increases unemployment, inflation etc. When minimum wage is increased, employers have 1 of 4 options. They can take the loss. They can reduce employment. They can pass the extra cost on to consumers. They can eliminate those positions all together and replace them with technology. Tell us the facts again about how increasing minimum wage leads to new hiring.


----------



## notimp (Nov 5, 2020)

PiracyForTheMasses said:


> Fact check, you have obviously never owned or ran a business. Fact check, of course increasing minimum wage increases unemployment, inflation etc. When minimum wage is increased, employers have 1 of 4 options. They can take the loss. They can reduce employment. They can pass the extra cost on to consumers. They can eliminate those positions all together and replace them with technology. Tell us the facts again about how increasing minimum wage leads to new hiring.


Wrong. If done correctly (we are talking about minimum wage here), the amount is insignificant enough for most employers to not -

- Reduce employment (this just gets them into a downward spiral)
- Pass on extra cost to the costumer (this just prevents them from additional gains as a result of increased leasure spending, as a result of an increased minimum wage (they could gain more customers, even at the expense of their competitors).)
- Invest in automation (this has to be offset, by state incentives into job creation, with the automatically increased money from consumption taxes, otherwise many employers would do just that.)

So the point thats left is "absorb the loss" - but also offset it against other competitors, that are hit by a simillar amount, and state incentives for more investment, and more consumer demand.

So as a result the thing thats happening is, that the companies that can invest into that environment win, as their competitors might not make the cut. So as a result you have increased innovation (every dollar spent in that environment will count significantly more, than spent in other economic environments).

Over time, those effects will be eaten up by inflation. But this is about raising the floor - to provoke investment and innovation.

edit: Here: https://mises.org/library/does-minimum-wage-boost-innovation

Also, because thats the Mises Institute doing the analysis here (ultra freemarket liberals) - yes, you have to make sure that the amount of companies actually not making the cut is somewhat limited. So you cant do it if you dont expect most businessowners to be able to absorb the hit, and invest into it.

But then the issue over the past years was not that rich people were getting too little return on investment. In fact in most economies, the middle class payed for their financial speculation losses, and then they actually profited from the economic crises through increased state spending and specualtion. The main street people did not.

Well accept boomers of course whose main interest by now is, that their stockmarket portfolio does well. (As a generalized notion.) Shortly before they retire.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Nov 5, 2020)

I can't help but enjoy the irony of watching Trump scramble to delegitimize votes in this election after he stole the last one.


----------



## AkGBA (Nov 5, 2020)

lordofcombo said:


> As for democarts there is no more hypocrits than them.Both bushes and bitch boy Obama who did the most damage behind a phony smile.But when it comes to the US economy their are the best.



You are entitled to your opinion.

But please remember both Bush were republicans.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 5, 2020)

lordofcombo said:


> As for democarts there is no more hypocrits than them.Both bushes and bitch boy Obama who did the most damage behind a phony smile.





AkGBA said:


> You are entitled to your opinion.
> 
> But please remember both Bush were republicans.



Yeah, I was gonna say. Someones confused. LOL!


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 5, 2020)

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ingButtons&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



MikaDubbz said:


> I can't help but enjoy the irony of watching Trump scramble to delegitimize votes in this election after he stole the last one.


"rushin' calloojenn"


----------



## MikaDubbz (Nov 5, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> "rushin' calloojenn"



spelling it wrong doesn't make it any less true lol


----------



## notimp (Nov 5, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ingButtons&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Thats Fake News. As far as anyone without just a 'shes seen it!' is proof enough for me mindset is concerned.

So please dear sir, dont post rumors that are actively spread as propaganda.


> A poll watcher filmed highly suspicious activity at a vote-counting center


 is exactly what you get when you tell people, before the voting day, that 'they be stealing your election' and people should come out in squads as 'pole watchers' (which they arent, but fancy being by pronouncing themselves as such) to prevent that from happening, to save your father the president. In a democracy.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Nov 5, 2020)

notimp said:


> Thats Fake News. As fare as anyone without just a 'shes seen it!' is proof enough mindset is concerned.
> 
> So please dear sir, dont post rumors that are actively spread as propaganda.


It doesn't even matter, Biden has 150,000 more votes than Trump in Michigan.  It's been confirmed to be a fake news story (even Fox News has said as much), but even if it were real and 130,000 Biden votes weren't real, he still takes the state by 20,000 votes.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 5, 2020)

MikaDubbz said:


> spelling it wrong doesn't make it any less true lol


I mean it's been proven as a conspiracy made by Hillary Clinton but okay.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Nov 5, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I mean it's been proven as a conspiracy made by Hillary Clinton but okay.


Source on that?  Cuz all the news outlets have confirmed that there absolutely was Russian tinkering in the election, hell we know he was trying to get the Ukraine to interfere with this election, how anyone can believe that didn't happen is insane to me, but okay.


----------



## notimp (Nov 5, 2020)

MikaDubbz said:


> Source on that?  Cuz all the news outlets have confirmed that there absolutely was Russian tinkering in the election, hell we know he was trying to get the Ukraine to interfere with this election, how anyone can believe that didn't happen is insane to me, but okay.


There was absolutely no proof of russian interference on the elections this time around. None


----------



## MikaDubbz (Nov 5, 2020)

notimp said:


> There was absolutely no proof of russian interference on the elections this time around. None.


When even Fox News reports that it happened, then I can't understand how people in his base still deny it.  The most they can do is say, "Well yeah they meddled, but it wasn't to help Trump or anyone specifically."  Yeah, okay.


----------



## notimp (Nov 5, 2020)

MikaDubbz said:


> When even Fox News reports that it happened, then I can't understand how people in his base still deny it.


What you read in most of establishment media, was that they tried to pull off 'mode of operation looks similar to what russians would do' on that Hunter Biden laptop case, as russian interference. This is less than hearsay. Dont believe everything you read, just on face value.

You are constructing an effing case out of partial information snippets, that might not fit together at all.

Yes, the Trump campain did meat with russian intelligence people, the first time arround.
Yes, Trump tried to pressure Ukraine into investigating the Hunter Binen case - publicly - at an opportune time.
Yes, the Hunter Biden laptop story was released at an opportune time and seemed to contain actual informations on "moral wrongdoings" of the Biden family.

None of that is proof of russian interference, you morons.

They pulled up a few 'experts they pull up "when needed"' to put out a story that sounded like the following. "If the russians would interfere, they might do something like that". None of that is prove of involvement.

Thats freaking rumormongering.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Nov 5, 2020)

notimp said:


> What you read in most of establishment media, was that they tried to pull off 'mode of operation looks similar to what russians would do' on that Hunter Biden laptop case, as russian interference. This is less than hearsay. Dont believe everything you read, just on face value.
> 
> You are constructing an effing case out of partial information snippets, that might not fit together at all.


Dude, the findings were that Russia meddled, you can accept that or not, but I've not seen any evidence to suggest that they didn't meddle with the election at all.  Just impassioned people saying that it didn't happen without any real proof against the findings.


----------



## notimp (Nov 5, 2020)

MikaDubbz said:


> Dude, the findings were that Russia meddled, you can accept that or not, but I've not seen any evidence to suggest that they didn't meddle with the election at all.  Just impassioned people saying that it didn't happen without any real proof against the findings.


You are an absolute nitwit.

The first time around, the US intelligence agencies put out stories on "russian hacking" without releasing any proof, or any indication as to what made tham think that. Because attribution of hacking attempts is pretty hard in the business.

That many media outlets took that at face value - is state positive journalism. You say, what your state says. But its not good journalism.

This time around they didnt even have the FBI say as much as "there was russian meddling", this time they put up their own 'experts' (close to party interests) saying that it smelled as such.

No proof. No separation of power in as much as that a journalist came up with that story. Straight propaganda.

Just because many mainstream media outlets brought it, doesnt mean that its factual. If you fail to see that point, you've learned nothing.

And btw. Russia might still have meddled, the point is, that there is no proof. Absolutely none.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Nov 5, 2020)

notimp said:


> You are an absolute moron.
> 
> The first time around, the US intelligence agencies put out stories on "russian hacking" without releasing any proof, or any indication as to what made tham think that. Because attribution of hacking attempts is pretty hard in the business.
> 
> ...



Name calling solves nothing.  The Senate intel panel found there was indeed Russian meddling in that election, that's really all there is to this.  Nothing thus far has been done to prove that intel panel definitively wrong.

Also, you're saying this time around as if I'm suggesting Russia meddled again with this election, not so, I never suggested as much.  We know he wanted Ukraine to help interfere, but I've not seen or heard anything about Russia for this election.


----------



## notimp (Nov 5, 2020)

MikaDubbz said:


> Name calling solves nothing. The Senate intel panel found there was indeed Russian meddling in that election, that's really all there is to this. Nothing thus far has been done to prove that intel panel definitively wrong.


You are confusing elections. This is the second one. Dont conflate them.

The russian meddling that was found in the first one was the following.

Having organized a meeting with the Trump election campaign and people recognized as russian intelligence officials.

Election ads on facebook having been bought for about 300.000 USD worth of adspending. "Found" by counting all the US election ad spending made in russian rubel.

300.000 USD ist no where near enough in facebook ad spending, to shift the US election even by 1%. Even if optimally spent.

And from what we have seen, most of those ads targeted "more cultural dissent" within the US, and were NOT direct election meddling.

And then there was the DNC hack, which was attributed to russia, without any proof, and any information about the process of how that attribution was made. Just trust the FBI and go with it.

I'm not aware of any other attempts of "the russians" to do something this time around, or even during the last elections, other than those.

If you can make up a story about big election meddling with those fragments, please go for it, but thats then made up entirely in your mind. Because nothing in all of that spells out 'significant election meddling' at all.

It mostly spells out "dems needed a scapegoat for why they lost last time arround' and, this time the reflex was to use it again. With even less reported influence. When they needed social media to self censor a New York Post story.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Nov 5, 2020)

notimp said:


> You are confusing elections. This is the second one. Dont conflate them.
> 
> The russian meddling that was found in the first one was the following.
> 
> ...



What the hell are you talking about, look back at what I've been saying: Russia interfered with the first election (2016), and we know he wanted Ukraine to interfere with this election and I've not seen any info on Russia interfering with this election, I haven't mixed anything up, I'm guessing you somehow confused what I've been saying, but read through it again.


----------



## notimp (Nov 5, 2020)

MikaDubbz said:


> What the hell are you talking about, look back at what I've been saying: Russia interfered with the first election (2016), and we know he wanted Ukraine to interfere with this election and I've not seen any info on Russia interfering with this election, I haven't mixed anything up, I'm guessing you somehow confused what I've been saying, but read through it again.


Sorry for the misunderstanding then. We have an agreement on those points.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 5, 2020)

notimp said:


> You are confusing elections. This is the second one. Dont conflate them.
> 
> The russian meddling that was found in the first one was the following.
> 
> ...





MikaDubbz said:


> What the hell are you talking about, look back at what I've been saying: Russia interfered with the first election (2016), and we know he wanted Ukraine to interfere with this election and I've not seen any info on Russia interfering with this election, I haven't mixed anything up, I'm guessing you somehow confused what I've been saying, but read through it again.


I believe what happened is you two misunderstood each other. With notimp thinking that dubs was talking this election, not the previous


----------



## MikaDubbz (Nov 5, 2020)

notimp said:


> Sorry for the misunderstanding then. We have an agreement on those points.


Ahhhhh! I see where the mistake was made, it was indeed my fault, you first said there was no proof of Russian interference in THIS election, yet the whole time I thought we were talking about the last election since I was discussing that meddling of that election with a different user.  I'm so sorry for the misunderstanding


----------



## 1stmoon (Nov 5, 2020)

Muellar's report did not exonerate Trump. Combine that with Trump continuously blocking House subpoenas tells me he isn't as innocent as he claims. Now compare that to Hunter and Hillary who were fully willing to cooperate and give all the information investigators required.


----------



## notimp (Nov 5, 2020)

> “We have not seen, historically, any kind of coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election, whether it’s by mail or otherwise,”


FBI Director Wray tells senators

src: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/24/fbi...voter-fraud-director-wray-tells-senators.html



1stmoon said:


> Muellar's report did not exonerate Trump. Combine that with Trump continuously blocking House subpoenas tells me he isn't as innocent as he claims. Now compare that to Hunter and Hillary who were fully willing to cooperate and give all the information investigators required.


Fine, I'd probably draw the same conclusions. But thats conjecture. Thats not proof. Thats not enough to end up at "russia has manipulated the election".

Everything along those lines - were stories. Exciting and interesting ones. But ultimately not confirmed.


----------



## Joom (Nov 5, 2020)

1stmoon said:


> Now compare that to Hunter and Hillary who were fully willing to cooperate and give all the information investigators required.


The recent Hunter hoax came from a literal disinformation agent that used a fake persona. I don't even understand why he was focused on any way when he isn't the one running for president. It's the most blatant grasp at straws I've ever seen. But yeah...
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/securi...dwork-hunter-biden-conspiracy-deluge-n1245387


notimp said:


> Fine, I'd probably draw the same conclusions. But thats conjecture. Thats not proof. Thats not enough to end up at "russia has manipulated the vote".


AFAIK, the only interference came from those "troll centers". They'd hire people to push conservative propaganda on social media, or sow social division by baiting. This is all I ever heard of that I would consider interference.


----------



## notimp (Nov 5, 2020)

Joom said:


> AFAIK, the only interference came from those "troll centers". They'd hire people to push conservative propaganda on social media, or sow social division by baiting. This is all I ever heard of that could be considered interference.


Yes afaik, that was some of the 300K in ad spending that was traceable, as well as the reason for the deletion of afair actually not that many (but thats not an excuse, depends on how they were linked up) social media accounts.

All of the material I've seen was aimed at producing more outrage and dissent. And its hardly enough to explain what happened at the 2016 elections, especially not under the light of what has happened this time around.

The democratic excuse of 'its not us, it was the russians fault' basically is debased by now.

Yes there was interference. No - from whats prooveable, or even rumored, it was not enough to sway election results significantly. The FBI announcement, that they were investigating Hillary on the other hand...


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 5, 2020)

Looks like Georgia going to flip.


----------



## Joom (Nov 5, 2020)

notimp said:


> The democratic excuse of 'its not us, it was the russians fault' basically is debased by now.


That's the DNC's excuse. The voters just didn't want Hillary. They were largely upset by Bernie getting shot dead in the water. The rest believed the pollsters and thought it was in the bag. so they didn't bother to go out and vote because the consensus was "there's no way Trump can win because he's too ridiculous". I'm sincerely glad this obviously didn't happen a second time. More people voted this time around than in any other election in history. That feels amazing to hear.


KingVamp said:


> Looks like Georgia going to flip.


Yup. I might have been wrong about Texas, but Georgia and Arizona are even better. Oh, Pennsylvania will most likely be going to Biden, too. We might know for sure this evening.


----------



## notimp (Nov 5, 2020)

I'd agree somewhat. But philosphizing why people didnt vote after the current elections high turnout, and similar result... Well. Philosophize about democrats policy positions instead. 

Also - CERTAINLY - philosophize over the "electability" argument, that Biden apparently had in spades and Sanders had not, because from what we see today, he was exactly the wrong candidate to run against Trump.

All power to whatever you can do to stop it from happening. But the results as of now, are divisive as heck. And if the dems dont win the senate, four more years will be basically wasted.

(Well at least its setup for the next election and then... we said with Obama as well...)


----------



## Rail Fighter (Nov 5, 2020)

If there's no frauds, there's nothing to worry about, right?


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 5, 2020)

Joom said:


> The voters just didn't want Hillary.


To be fair, Hillary had the popular vote.


----------



## Joom (Nov 5, 2020)

Rail Fighter said:


> If there's no frauds, there's nothing to worry about, right?



Just keep on coping, my friend. I know, I know, it's rough. Just breeeeathe deep from that bag of cope. Also, it greatly amuses me that so many people outside of the US care this much about Trump. It makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## smf (Nov 5, 2020)

Rail Fighter said:


> If there's no frauds, there's nothing to worry about, right?



As long as you think Trump perma lying to whip up civil unrest, just because he hates losing, is nothing to worry about.

To 47.9% of the voters in the election all the lies coming out of Trump's mouth is true & they will always believe it even if it's been proved false beyond reasonable doubt. He knows this, it's all part of his plan.

He'll be rightfully fired in January, but he won't care about the damage that he has caused in the meantime.

One of his lawsuits has been thrown out by a republican judge, so at least he can't say it's all part of the democrats plan.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 5, 2020)

Another day I wake up to find they are still counting ballots. This mail in voting was a horrible idea because it's not like you're going to catch the Chinese Wuhan Corona Virus from standing outside in a line and even if you do get it you'll most likely not even know it because the majority of the people who get it don't even get sick. I guess we're going to have to wait a few more days to find out who most likely won.



seany1990 said:


> If you work 40 hours per week at any job then you should earn enough to make a living. If businesses close because paying their employees this amount will cause them to foreclose then its not a good business and therefore should close.



Some jobs aren't meant to be jobs you keep for life. Some jobs are meant for teenagers or are seasonal jobs. You're supposed to work minimum wage jobs to earn extra money or save up to use for college. They aren't meant to be the job you end up working for the rest of your life. Minimum wage jobs were never designed for that purpose.



PiracyForTheMasses said:


> Fact check, you have obviously never owned or ran a business. Fact check, of course increasing minimum wage increases unemployment, inflation etc. When minimum wage is increased, employers have 1 of 4 options. They can take the loss. They can reduce employment. They can pass the extra cost on to consumers. They can eliminate those positions all together and replace them with technology. Tell us the facts again about how increasing minimum wage leads to new hiring.



Indeed. Like most things that I have never experienced I questioned the $2 minimum raise increase where I live. We had two different sides telling us two different things would happen. So I sat back and figured I'd find out first hand what would happen. What happened was the business owners decided to offset the increase by doing two things; (1) raise prices on their products and services and (2) get rid of full time positions, thus they didn't have to pay for health insurance or other full time benefits. I went into the situation with an open mind and just figured "you know what, we'll see which side is right" and it turns out that the Conservatives were right and the Liberals were wrong.



MikaDubbz said:


> I can't help but enjoy the irony of watching Trump scramble to delegitimize votes in this election after he stole the last one.



I often question why people still believe the media's Russian Collusion Hoax after all these years, but then there's still Liberals who claim Trump isn't their President. I guess stupid is as stupid does.



MikaDubbz said:


> What the hell are you talking about, look back at what I've been saying: Russia interfered with the first election (2016), and we know he wanted Ukraine to interfere with this election and I've not seen any info on Russia interfering with this election, I haven't mixed anything up, I'm guessing you somehow confused what I've been saying, but read through it again.



Actually, I read some reports of isolated hacking incidents by the both China and Russian this time around. They were in the news a couple of months ago. I tried to dig them up, but failed in searching. Maybe you'll have better luck? Though, the interference isn't as wide spread as in Trump's election. We didn't have Obama ordering spying on Trump this time around nor did we have Hillary hiring ex-spies to fuck with Trump too. Remember, Trump was cleared of any collusion, but Obama and Hillary are guilty as fuck for interfering with the election.



1stmoon said:


> Muellar's report did not exonerate Trump. Combine that with Trump continuously blocking House subpoenas tells me he isn't as innocent as he claims. Now compare that to Hunter and Hillary who were fully willing to cooperate and give all the information investigators required.



Yes it did. Not wanting to cooperate with an investigation or give unfettered access to people that planned to fuck you over even before you took office regardless of guilt isn't a shining gun saying that you're guilty. It just means you're not gullible. There was no Trump and Russia Collusion in the 2016 election and there was no Quid Pro Quo between Trump and the Ukraine President. Both were complete and utter fabrications from the Liberal left. However, Joe Biden is on video bragging he blackmailed the Ukrainians over a deal to make sure his crack head son got a multi-million dollar job that he wasn't even qualified for.


----------



## notimp (Nov 5, 2020)

Rail Fighter said:


> If there's no frauds, there's nothing to worry about, right?



Could be hyperbole. Lets wait and see. 

In the meantime counterbalance with this:

OSCE slams Trump's 'baseless allegations' of US electoral fraud
https://www.dw.com/en/osce-slams-trumps-baseless-allegations-of-us-electoral-fraud/a-55507539


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 5, 2020)

smf said:


> As long as you think Trump perma lying to whip up civil unrest, just because he hates losing, is nothing to worry about.
> 
> To 47.9% of the voters in the election all the lies coming out of Trump's mouth is true & they will always believe it even if it's been proved false beyond reasonable doubt. He knows this, it's all part of his plan.
> 
> ...



With all due respect you and your side cannot tell the future. We are still waiting on the results from some key battlegrounds. Personally I don't think Trump is going to win and I voted for him, but there's still the possibility he might. All you're rattling off is your personal assumptions and desires and those are not "facts" or "reality".


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 5, 2020)

At least we know who was truly the silent majority.


----------



## smf (Nov 5, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Another day I wake up to find they are still counting ballots. This mail in voting was a horrible idea because it's not like you're going to catch the Chinese Wuhan Corona Virus from standing outside in a line and even if you do get it you'll most likely not even know it because the majority of the people who get it don't even get sick. I guess we're going to have to wait a few more days to find out who most likely won.



You could get covid 19 standing outside, I'm sure the minority who die will appreciate your empathy.

It would help if the republicans hadn't introduced rules that delayed the counting of the mail in ballots. blockchain voting would be great, of course there is no way republicans would stand for that.

Calling it chinese virus makes you sound like a xenophobic lunatic, is that your intent?


----------



## notimp (Nov 5, 2020)

Its unlikely that Trump will win at this point (allthough not out of the question). So what are the next steps? 

Trump legally challenged the vote in at least four states, and can leave the process in limbo (recounts, ...) even until after Safe Harbor Day. At which point congress and the supreme court can get involved.

Fun.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 5, 2020)

smf said:


> You could get covid 19 standing outside, I'm sure the minority who die will appreciate your empathy.
> 
> It would help if the republicans hadn't introduced rules that delayed the counting of the mail in ballots. blockchain voting would be great, of course there is no way republicans would stand for that.
> 
> Calling it chinese virus makes you sound like a xenophobic lunatic, is that your intent?



Yes you can get the Chinese Wuhan Corona Virus from someone outside, but the chances drop dramatically from being inside. Plus you're probably not even going to know you have it if you catch it so I'm not sure what the big deal is.

The main stream media called in the Wuhan Virus for 3 months before deciding to rename it to something else. The now named COVID-19 virus started in Wuhan China and China deliberately hid it from the entire world until after it started to spread out of Wuhan and infected the entire globe. So if saying 'fuck China' is xenophobic then put me down for 2.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Nov 5, 2020)

"If you are letting today affect your mental health, because you are so scared that "the other guy" will win... Maybe...just maybe...the Executive Branch [has become] too powerful..." - Todd Hagopian


----------



## notimp (Nov 5, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> "If you are letting today affect your mental health, because you are so scared that "the other guy" will win... Maybe...just maybe...the Executive Branch [has become] too powerful..." - Todd Hagopian


How about 3+ months from now, when the supreme court gets involved in deciding on the outcome? 

When do we have permission to go cray cray?


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 5, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> "If you are letting today affect your mental health, because you are so scared that "the other guy" will win... Maybe...just maybe...the Executive Branch [has become] too powerful..." - Todd Hagopian



Some people, most of them infected with TDS are having bad days because Trump might win again. They are weak and pathetic humans that have been manipulated by our education system and Liberal left. These same people that can't handle reality are the ones that have been dissing out massive shit for 4 years attacking Conservatives and Trump and I'm supposed to give a fuck that they are having a bad day? Nope, I don't care.


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Nov 5, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ingButtons&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Another Gateway Pundit post. C'mon dude. Well, lets look at the article...

Ah, already disproven. https://www.wxyz.com/news/how-a-wxyz-wagon-sparked-false-election-fraud-claims-in-detroit

Not to mention that the, "140k votes for Biden idea" has been disproven time and time again. The woman who posted the video is a #WWG1WGA QANON nut anyways. 

Have you ever considered doing research before you post something?


----------



## Joom (Nov 5, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> This mail in voting was a horrible idea because it's not like you're going to catch the Chinese Wuhan Corona Virus from standing outside in a line and even if you do get it you'll most likely not even know it because the majority of the people who get it don't even get sick.


You're a lunatic. Holy fucking shit, you people are the definition of mentally ill. It's people like you who have this mentality why this shit isn't gone yet. If you'd all suck it up, and stop being pussies about wearing masks and actually give a shit about somebody else's life other than your own, we'd be so much better off. You think the rest of us like wearing masks and living hermit lives? Fuck no. We did it for the greater good, though. 

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



gregory-samba said:


> Some people, most of them infected with TDS are having bad days because Trump might win again.


Nobody thinks this except you delusional degenerates who can't cope with this devastating loss for Trump. Sorry, but he's dead. It's over.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 5, 2020)

I guess if I were to attack and blame Trump and hate on the USA over the corona virus that would be acceptable, but heaven forbid I blame the people who are responsible for it. The left hates America and hates the President and China hates the USA and hates Trump, but somehow I'm wrong for blaming the responsible party? Nope, the Chinese media is telling their citizens we infected them with the virus when it started in their country and they hid it from the world causing a global pandemic. If the virus was actually really deadly and instead of most people surviving most people died we'd be fucked and China would be to blame ... as they are to blame now. I'm not going to be a traitor and attack our President, our country and our Constitution for something a communist country is responsible for.


----------



## Joom (Nov 5, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I guess if I were to attack and blame Trump and hate on the USA over the corona virus that would be acceptable, but heaven forbid I blame the people who are responsible for it.


If you had half a brain, you'd be blaming Trump for not enacting a national plan and leaving it up to the governors just so he doesn't have to take responsibility and can later berate and degrade them for not opening up quick enough. How about you drop your idiotic, illogical xenophobic racism and recognize the man you irrationally ride the cock of failed you and the country he is responsible for. It's not China's fault this happened. If that were the case, every other country on the planet would be doing just as bad as we are, and I'm pretty sure China would have used it to do a lot more damage than what has already been done. 

If anyone else still wants to argue that I'm generalizing when I call Trump supporters racist, or fine with racism, just look at this guy who is currently representative of the rhetoric they all spew.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 5, 2020)

For 4 years, people have been grifting anyone and everyone that doesn't fall in line with Trump. Don't be surprise when those people do the same back.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 5, 2020)

Joom said:


> If you had half a brain, you'd be blaming Trump for not enacting a national plan and leaving it up to the governors just so he doesn't have to take responsibility and can later berate and degrade them for not opening up quick enough.


Fourth, tenth and fourteenth amendments.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 5, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> If the majorly of the states agree with the NPVIC, would they have a choice?


That's probably not going to happen, unfortunately.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 5, 2020)

I was on Stonetoss's Twitter for five seconds and found this.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 5, 2020)

PiracyForTheMasses said:


> Fact check, you have obviously never owned or ran a business. Fact check, of course increasing minimum wage increases unemployment, inflation etc. When minimum wage is increased, employers have 1 of 4 options. They can take the loss. They can reduce employment. They can pass the extra cost on to consumers. They can eliminate those positions all together and replace them with technology. Tell us the facts again about how increasing minimum wage leads to new hiring.


When the minimum wage is increased, lower income earners have more money to spend. When more people are spending money, there's more demand for products and services, which increases business. I suggest you look at the data. There's a reason why the #1 most effective economic stimulus in a recession is food stamps, for example.

Your hypothetical "four options" demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of economics, since employers are already doing whatever is most profitable. Let's take "pass the cost to consumers" option. If a burger costs $1.00, it's probably because that's the market equilibrium price (where the supply and demand curves intersect). Raising the minimum wage is going to cause the business to lose money by requiring them to pay their workers more, but the change in minimum wage is not going to change the supply/demand curves, so the market equilibrium price isn't going to change. In other words, in a situation where a business is going to increase prices in response to an increased minimum wage, the business is actually going to lose more money, and that would be a stupid decision. $1.00 in this situation is already maximally profitable, and increasing to $1.50, for example, would decrease demand enough that the extra $0.50 per burger wouldn't offset the decrease in demand.

The only way an increase in minimum wage is going to affect the market equilibrium price of the burger is by increasing the demand, since lower income earners are going to have more money. If that shifts the market equilibrium to $1.50, that's not because the business is trying to offset costs of the minimum wage; it's because they can get away with charging more because people have more and are willing to spend more.

Take an economics course before trying to fact check the fact checker please.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 5, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> For 4 years, people have been grifting anyone and everyone that doesn't fall in line with Trump. Don't be surprise when those people do the same back.



You're incorrect. It's the Liberals who lie, cheat and steal, burn buildings, loot and riot all over the fact they couldn't accept the results of the 2016 election while defending wife beating drug using criminals that tried to pay bills with illegal fake cash. They also support perverts and illegal aliens. So if it's okay to do the same back then it would be fine if Trump refuses to accept the results of the 2020 election. How do you like those chicken wings?


----------



## Lacius (Nov 5, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I was on Stonetoss's Twitter for five seconds and found this.
> View attachment 232844


What are you even blathering about? 50% of the electorate is responsible for 50% of the votes (when talking about popular vote).

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



gregory-samba said:


> You're incorrect. It's the Liberals who lie, cheat and steal, burn buildings, loot and riot all over the fact they couldn't accept the results of the 2016 election while defending wife beating drug using criminals that tried to pay bills with illegal fake cash. They also support perverts and illegal aliens. So if it's okay to do the same back then it would be fine if Trump refuses to accept the results of the 2020 election. How do you like those chicken wings?


Fact check:

Trump is the only candidate trying to cheat his way to victory.
The actions of some rioters are not reflective of BLM or liberals broadly.
Broadly speaking, there were no riots in response to the results of the 2016 election.
Liberals do not generally defend "wife-beating drug-using criminals who use fake cash."
"Pervert" is a subjective term that you should probably better define, but Trump's the one who openly admits to grabbing women by the pussy, etc.
(Opinion, not fact) Illegal immigrants should have a pathway to citizenship.
Whether or not the Democrats refuse to accept the results of an election (mini fact check: Democrats have accepted the results of past elections), that has no bearing on whether or not it's anti-democratic to refuse to accept the results of the 2020 election.


----------



## SANIC (Nov 5, 2020)

Anything related to StoneToss's twitter is already sketch. I remember reading some of his stuff and others that he posts about and wow, never seen that much "-phobes" in one place


----------



## Taleweaver (Nov 5, 2020)

...I've got a question. I hate to ask because it inevitably leads to partizan responses, but still...

Was Trump at one point actually in the lead? 


Look: because of the time difference, I was half asleep and barely got Biden's "I'm looking positive to this" message, immediately followed by Trump's tweets about Biden stealing the election. Not long followed by Trump trying to steal the election.

...but my local news station assigned the scores based on Associated Press. Biden was up fifty points at that time, though reporters warned that a few large states (among which Florida) would go to Trump (which, admittedly, they did).
And yes, they pointed out that fox calls out state winners a bit sooner than that (e.g. Arizona for Biden). Projections, yes, but fairly reliable ones.

So Trump sort of catched up. As in: no longer a fifty point gap but about ten to twenty points behind. Absolutely closer than polls had predicted, and I'd be lying if Trump didn't have a chance...but from what I can see _he was never ahead. _Yes, during his declaration there were a handful of states that leaned into Trump's camp, but which ones were those that would Trump actually pull over 270?


Since then, it moved to (as of current) 253 for Biden and 214 for Trump, as called out by Associated Press. I get that Trump wants things counted and checked, and he's well within his right to demand so. But demanding to stop counting votes? That's just chickening out. Trump's a participant in the election, not the overseeing committee. So again: file a complaint, demand recounts once they're complete, do whatever you want to do AFTER the votes are counted.


No, I don't buy his claim of corruption for one second. But my opinion's not the point: corruption should be proven and dealt with. Corruption claims have merit, even if they come from a person with zero credibility. But still: claims shouldn't be an excuse to commit corruption. Stopping voting counts is such an act. I don't fucking care if you think you're somehow entiteld to it: you're not.

So...wait until the votes are counted, then file complaints, have it investigated and let that "law & order" thing do its thing. Yeah, in supreme court, if it comes down to that. If they decide that you can be a democracy without counting all votes you might as well install Trump as emperor of the US, because then it doesn't really matter what the deplorables think.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 5, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Whether or not the Democrats refuse to accept the results of an election (mini fact check: Democrats have accepted the results of past elections), that has no bearing on whether or not it's anti-democratic to refuse to accept the results of the 2020 election.


I'm pretty sure he didn't accepted the popular vote, even when he won the election.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 5, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> I'm pretty sure he didn't accept the popular vote, even when he won the election.


You're right; Trump never accepted the results of even the 2016 election when referring to the popular vote.


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Nov 5, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> ...I've got a question. I hate to ask because it inevitably leads to partizan responses, but still...
> 
> Was Trump at one point actually in the lead?
> 
> ...


Other than  earlier in the election where states like Kentucky and Indiana (states which, obviously, will go to Trump) were being called, Trump was never really, "in the lead". 

Trump supporters at the end of election day night saw huge leads in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, and assumed that Trump would win those races despite those states not counting Mail-In/Absentee ballots (which are overwhelmingly Democrat). Now, because of their ignorance, they are claiming voter fraud and are trying to claim that Pennsylvania will go to Trump, despite 
#1 :the gap getting smaller and smaller and 
#2 :Counties like Philly County and other big counties that heavily lean Dem not reporting their mail in ballots at this stage.

It's, imo, safe to say that Biden will win the election. I don't foresee a Trump win in Pennsylvania, and even if he does win Pennsylvania, Trump has to win Georgia (which is INCREDIBLY close compared to other elections, and Dem counties have yet to report), AZ (which is also close), and NV (which will most likely go to Biden). 

SC shenanigans by the losers is guaranteed though. Explains Trump's rush to fill the SC seat, and how confident Trump really is in his reelection.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 5, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> ...I've got a question. I hate to ask because it inevitably leads to partizan responses, but still...
> 
> Was Trump at one point actually in the lead?
> 
> ...



I don't believe Trump was ever in the lead, but it's still close and he could still win. I just don't think he will as the leftist media has been fighting for this election since they refused to accept the 2016 election results. Trump values freedom and liberty and the left can't have that as it doesn't fit into their socialist agenda and their media has spent 4 years running headlines that were mere fabrications or slanted truths.

I'm actually not too sure how recounts are handled, but it seems that it's within the rules to request them even before the final tally is made. I also don't want there to be any invalid votes, but then I really don't feel like waiting weeks to figure out who won. Sadly, due to people being manipulated by the leftist media they overwhelmed the system with mail in ballots and now we just have to wait until they are counted.


----------



## smf (Nov 5, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Plus you're probably not even going to know you have it if you catch it so I'm not sure what the big deal is.



Maths is obviously not your strong point, out of 140 million if you probably don't die of covid then still quite a lot of people die.

So you can choose russian roulette of visiting a polling booth, or using your democratic right to voting by mail.

I'm sure if they knew that an angry troll on the internet would become unhappy then they would have risked death for you.

Trump is lying scum and he's brain washed you.



gregory-samba said:


> I'm actually not too sure how recounts are handled, but it seems that it's within the rules to request them even before the final tally is made.



It depends on the state, I think one of them can't be requested until December 1st when the official results are issued. Other states have about three weeks to issue the results. Trumps lawsuits are without merit, they are just to stoke the civil war he has planned.

It's like taking a shit on your ex girlfriends lawn because she dumped you.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 5, 2020)

Big Man Tyrone2 said:


> SC shenanigans by the losers is guaranteed though. Explains Trump's rush to fill the SC seat, and how confident Trump really is in his reelection.



I'm interested what you think about the shenanigans by the Liberals during the past 4 years? Their refusal to accept the results, fabricated news stories, deciding to impeach Trump before he took office regardless of guilt and the Russian Collusion Hoax?


----------



## Lacius (Nov 5, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I don't believe Trump was ever in the lead, but it's still close and he could still win. I just don't think he will as the leftist media has been fighting for this election since they refused to accept the 2016 election results. Trump values freedom and liberty and the left can't have that as it doesn't fit into their socialist agenda and their media has spent 4 years running headlines that were mere fabrications or slanted truths.
> 
> I'm actually not too sure how recounts are handled, but it seems that it's within the rules to request them even before the final tally is made. I also don't want there to be any invalid votes, but then I really don't feel like waiting weeks to figure out who won. Sadly, due to people being manipulated by the leftist media they overwhelmed the system with mail in ballots and now we just have to wait until they are counted.


Fact check - Nobody refused the 2016 election results.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 5, 2020)

smf said:


> Maths is obviously not your strong point, out of 140 million if you probably don't die of covid then still quite a lot of people die.
> 
> So you can choose russian roulette of visiting a polling booth, or using your democratic right to voting by mail.
> 
> ...



I gladly took the 00.8% risk of becoming infected and handed in my ballot in person and I've also ignored the quarantine orders since this debacle started and I still haven't even gotten a slight cough. There's much more deadly things in life that everyone simply ignores so I don't see any need to freak out over something that's not near as deadly as other things that we accept as just part of life.


----------



## Rail Fighter (Nov 5, 2020)

smf said:


> As long as you think Trump perma lying to whip up civil unrest, just because he hates losing, is nothing to worry about.
> 
> To 47.9% of the voters in the election all the lies coming out of Trump's mouth is true & they will always believe it even if it's been proved false beyond reasonable doubt. He knows this, it's all part of his plan.
> 
> ...


For example?


----------



## smf (Nov 5, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I gladly took the 00.8% risk of becoming infected and handed in my ballot in person and I've also ignored the quarantine orders since this debacle started and I still haven't even gotten a slight cough. There's much more deadly things in life that everyone simply ignores so I don't see any need to freak out over something that's not near as deadly as other things that we accept as just part of life.



People smoke all the time and don't immediately die of cancer. You seem to have some perverted ideas about risk.

What things do you "accept as just part of life" that is deadlier?



Rail Fighter said:


> For example?



Example of what? A lie? He claimed that he'd won the election when the votes were still being counted. If you're saying he's not lying then he's a moron who is unfit for office. Which is it?

He's a sociopath who accuses others of what he is guilty of "stealing an election" "a fraud of the american people". Yes that is exactly what Trump is trying to do.


----------



## Joom (Nov 5, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Fourth, tenth and fourteenth amendments.


You probably shouldn't quote amendments if you have no idea what they mean. None of these say the president can't enact a national plan during a pandemic. Nor do they say he's allowed to sling executive orders in order to bypass the senate and the house, but here we are. I swear, it's like you all have Stockholm syndrome.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 5, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I gladly took the 00.8% risk of becoming infected and handed in my ballot in person and I've also ignored the quarantine orders since this debacle started and I still haven't even gotten a slight cough. There's much more deadly things in life that everyone simply ignores so I don't see any need to freak out over something that's not near as deadly as other things that we accept as just part of life.


Fact check:

Just because you haven't gotten sick doesn't mean you won't get sick.
Just because you haven't felt sick doesn't mean you haven't gotten sick and spread it.
Your choices affect whether or not others get infected and potentially die.
235,000 Americans have died from COVID-19 so far this year. That number will likely hit around 372,000 by January 20.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 5, 2020)

incoming meltdown in 3, 2, 1


----------



## Joom (Nov 5, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I was on Stonetoss's Twitter for five seconds and found this.
> View attachment 232844


*cough* Mail-ins... *cough* Oooo, this level of cope is just so delicious.



Taleweaver said:


> Was Trump at one point actually in the lead?


Yes, for just a couple of hours Tuesday night. And then the moment he lost the lead, he tried to call a coup. I don't see how republicans can call themselves patriotic when the republican party couldn't be the furthest thing from freedom and democracy.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 5, 2020)

smf said:


> People smoke all the time and don't immediately die of cancer. You seem to have some perverted ideas about risk.
> 
> What things do you "accept as just part of life" that is deadlier?



What you substance you smoke can greatly increase the risk of death. What other causes are there? Car accidents, obesity, deadly drugs, cancer are a few of the main ones. Though, I don't accept them all. Driving, sure, it's the 3rd most killer in the USA, but I stay clear of drugs made from battery acid and draino, I exercise and eat well so I'm not obese and I try to cut down on things that would cause me to have a heart attack or stroke or that are known to cause cancer. It shouldn't matter that some of these things don't kill you right away because the Chinese Wuhan Corona Virus is also known to take its time.

Look at it this way. Only 00.8% are going to die, and out of that % most are old people with preexisting problems. They would have died regardless. Sure, it sucks, but death is part of life. There's no reason to be hiding from something that's not that deadly. Well, there is a reason from the Left and it's all about power and control, but for people who value personal freedom and choice there's not really much extra to worry about.


----------



## Joom (Nov 5, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Look at it this way. Only 00.8% are going to die, and out of that % most are old people with preexisting problems.


Except there have been deaths in all age groups. And if you don't want to take the death toll seriously, what about the life-long damage COVID causes? It's leaving people with both physical and neurological disabilities. But hey, no big deal amirite? It's just a hoax from the satanic, pedophillic deep-state and Hollywood elite Jews. Jesus Christ, you seriously can't be this dense. You're obviously not a doctor, let alone a scientist, so why do you disregard what actual doctors and scientists have to say? Science doesn't have an agenda to push. It isn't political. Science can either be true or false, and to decry truth as false because you believe conspiracy theories is just astounding. Like I said, it's you and people like you who are to blame for COVID being as bad as it is because you opinionated, politically obsessed dumb shits refuse to accept science because a retard got on TV and tickled your balls so you'd believe otherwise. You're part of a death cult. Recognize that already.


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Nov 5, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I'm interested what you think about the shenanigans by the Liberals during the past 4 years? Their refusal to accept the results, fabricated news stories, deciding to impeach Trump before he took office regardless of guilt and the Russian Collusion Hoax?


The Russia Situation, in my opinion, had some merit in the sense that there are Russian bots on the internet who spread false information that tends to advocate for Trump. I doubt there was collusion at an election wide level. Trump has enough impeachable offenses that he has picked up in his time in office anyways. It also appears to me that Republicans en masse are refusing to accept the results of this election, so theres that. 

Republicans are also hell-bent on assuming everything not Pro-Trump is _clearly_ Communist, Socialist, Chinese Propaganda. Reminds me of the Alien and Sedition Acts. _Clearly_ anything not Pro-Adams is French propaganda.


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 5, 2020)

does trump actually believe that lawsuits will change the outcome the man baby is done on jan 11th may we never have another authoritarian president again they could recount 200+ times in Michigan won't change the blue flip


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 5, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> does trump actually believe that lawsuits will change the outcome the man baby is done on jan 11th may we never have another authoritarian president again they could recount 200+ times in Michigan won't change the blue flip


"We don't want an authoritarian free market, we want libertarian communism! No, those aren't oxymoronic, what is an oxymoron?"


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Nov 5, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The actions of some rioters are not reflective of BLM or liberals broadly.


BLM/Antifa/Islamists burn buildings: the few do not represent the whole.
BLM/Antifa/Islamists murder people: the few do not represent the whole.
BLM/Antifa rob stores: the few do not represent the whole.
BLM/Antifa conquer government buildings or parts of a street: the few do not represent the whole.

Please exchange BLM/Antifa/Islamist with white nationalists and imagine the political, media and your own reaction.


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 5, 2020)

I'm just preparing for ww3 over here since/if trump has no power over the US Putin has no need for that fatass anymore and will probably nuke us


----------



## Joom (Nov 5, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> "We don't want an authoritarian free market, we want libertarian communism! No, those aren't oxymoronic, what is an oxymoron?"


Lulwut....There you go again, having absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You should probably start paying more attention in civics class.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 5, 2020)

Joom said:


> Lulwut....There you go again, having absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You should probably start paying more attention in civics class.


I'm 15 and homeschooled.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 5, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I'm 15 and homeschooled.


Oh... home schooled....
that would explain everything.
I don't know if I should feel sorry for you, or just... not.


----------



## Joom (Nov 5, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> BLM/Antifa/Islamists murder people: the few do not represent the whole.
> BLM/Antifa rob stores: the few do not represent the whole.
> BLM/Antifa conquer government buildings or parts of a street: the few do not represent the whole.


Can you please find examples of any of this happening? Because none of it has, but whatever. Also, why are you lumping Muslims in with protesters? Why do you even care if you don't live in this country? Yet another racist xenophobe coming out of the woodwork.


UltraSUPRA said:


> I'm 15 and homeschooled.


And I pity you, because your parents are the ones filling your head with this tripe.


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 5, 2020)

biden only needs two states AZ+NV which he will get according to current numbers


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 5, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> biden only needs two states AZ+NV which he will get according to current numbers


Do you see how close they are? Especially Nevada.


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 5, 2020)

I hope the NY DA is very fast to indite trump needs to go to prison not only because of his crimes but because he's a literal security threat since he knows a lot of top secret shit he could flee to russia and for exchange for all that top secret info they'll give him amnisty


----------



## Joom (Nov 5, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> So... what civics do you know? I'm now curious.


His parents just teach him the Trump curriculum; American Exceptionalism! AKA, Hitler Youth 2.0.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Nov 5, 2020)

Joom said:


> Can you please find examples of any of this happening? Because none of it has, but whatever. Also, why are you lumping Muslims in with protesters? Why do you even care if you don't live in this country? Yet another racist xenophobe coming out of the woodwork.
> 
> And I pity you, because your parents are the ones filling your head with this tripe.



You must have lived under a rock in the past few years. American streets looked like battle zones, police station were taken over, a part of town taken over and called "Chaz".
I lumped Muslims in together to make a comparison to Europe where the same happens (with regards to media coverage).

If I was a xenophobe, i.e. afraid of foreigners, I wouldn´t have lived the majority of my live in foreign lands, which is typical for my people, you anti-semitic racist.


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Nov 5, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I'm 15 and homeschooled.


That explains everything.


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Nov 5, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Do you see how close they are? Especially Nevada.


Also, Nevada is not close. Biden will win NV. Arizona, though, is close. Fox and AP called it too early.


----------



## Chary (Nov 5, 2020)

Can't you people debate for five seconds without resulting to name-calling or throwing insults? Cut that out. If you can't discuss things in a civil manner, then your debate manners are as bad as your insults. You don't have to attack a person to prove your point.


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 5, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> lmao. comment was targeted at the person who is home schooled.


my bad cause my post was above yours my mistake


----------



## Joom (Nov 5, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> You must have lived under a rock in the past few years. American streets looked like battle zones, police station were taken over, a part of town taken over and called "Chaz".


You're the one living under the rock. The streets looked like battle zones because the police were attacking peaceful protests. No unrest happened at these until the storm troopers marched in and started tear gassing literally everyone. Only one police station was "taken over". It was actually given to them, and this block turned into "CHAZ". The Seattle police tried to instigate a riot by saying over the radio that the Proud Boys were planning a march (which was a lie), so they abandoned the police station in the hopes of it being burned down just so they'd have an excuse to go after protesters. Nothing was taken over, the police literally just walked away. And it wasn't burnt down like they had hoped, either. Keep up with the facts if you're gonna spew this bullshit. You sound like someone who listens to nothing but right-wing propaganda pieces. I guess it's easier to buy into fear mongering than it is to accept what's actually going on, though.


UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> If I was a xenophobe, i.e. afraid of foreigners, I wouldn´t have lived the majority of my live in foreign lands, which is typical for my people, you anti-semitic racist.


Projecting, much? You obviously don't know what xenophobic means, and you expressed xenophobia quite clearly by lumping in Muslims with BLM as a means to equate them to terrorists. And what did I say that was anti-Semitic, and why is it any time I call someone a racist, they immediately and quite incorrectly retort with "NUH UH, U R TEH RACIST"?


----------



## Lacius (Nov 5, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> BLM/Antifa/Islamists burn buildings: the few do not represent the whole.
> BLM/Antifa/Islamists murder people: the few do not represent the whole.
> BLM/Antifa rob stores: the few do not represent the whole.
> BLM/Antifa conquer government buildings or parts of a street: the few do not represent the whole.
> ...


Fact check:

BLM, Antifa, and Muslims are separate entities.
The actions of a few who aren't even necessarily part of a group don't represent the group.
White nationalism is, by definition, racist and separatist, with or without the terrorist actions you described.
White domestic terrorism is by far the most prevalent terrorism in the United States.
BLM, Antifa, and Islam are not terrorist organizations, nor are they hate groups.
White nationalist groups are, at worst, terrorist organizations, and at best, hate groups.
I am not a member of Antifa nor Islam. I can be critical of both.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 5, 2020)

Chary said:


> Can't you people debate for five seconds without resulting to name-calling or throwing insults? Cut that out. If you can't discuss things in a civil manner, then your debate manners are as bad as your insults. You don't have to attack a person to prove your point.


So...
when someone states this:
""We don't want an authoritarian free market, we want libertarian communism! No, those aren't oxymoronic, what is an oxymoron?""
as a response to someone else. When multiple of us had conversations about systems of economics, to only then be completely ignored, along with again, hundred times over, pointing out that what they state is untrue. But when we finally call on the kettle's color, and the raw absurdity  then it crosses the line?
I'm not here to fight you, but I do find it quite absurd.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Nov 5, 2020)

Joom said:


> You're the one living under the rock. The streets looked like battle zones because the police were attacking peaceful protests. No unrest happened at these until the storm troopers marched in and started tear gassing literally everyone. Only one police station was "taken over". It was actually given to them, and this block turned into "CHAZ". The Seattle police tried to instigate a riot by saying over the radio that the Proud Boys were planning a march (which was a lie), so they abandoned the police station in the hopes of it being burned down just so they'd have an excuse to go after protesters. Nothing was taken over, the police literally just walked away. And it wasn't burnt down like they had hoped, either. Keep up with the facts if you're gonna spew this bullshit. You sound like someone who listens to nothing but right-wing propaganda pieces. I guess it's easier to buy into fear mongering than it is to accept what's actually going on, though.
> 
> Projecting, much? You obviously don't know what xenophobic means, and you expressed xenophobia quite clearly by lumping in Muslims with BLM as a means to equate them to terrorists. And what did I say was anti-Semitic, and why is it any time I call someone a racist, they immediately and quite incorrectly retort with "NUH UH, U R TEH RACIST"?



xeno- foreign, phobic- fear (+adj.)
Where was I wrong, teacher? I am not afraid of Muslims. I have lived with them both in the Middle East and Europe. As long as I do not display my "faith" (which I do not have anyway), I get along and understand them quite well. In fact, I much prefer their company over people like you.
What I stated remains true: if anything of the things I mentioned were reversed, hell would have broken lose. Just imagine a "MAGA" part of town. Do you think the media would call it "romantic" as well? (while rapes and other crimes are going on). Imagine "MAGA" people taking over a police station (even if it was not occupied; how the fuck does it matter?)


----------



## Joom (Nov 5, 2020)

Lacius said:


> White nationalist groups are, at worst, terrorist organizations, and at best, hate groups.


And they've been on the rise. If anyone can watch this and say these people aren't taking part in domestic terrorism, I won't want to live on this planet anymore. Nothing Antifa or BLM have done could be compared in any way, except maybe for the burning of that Wendy's. That Wendy's didn't deserve it.

A woman was chased down because she had a #blacklivesmatter flag on her car. The police came and... pic.twitter.com/n3tQZ4gUP9— BallerAlert (@balleralert) November 2, 2020


----------



## Chary (Nov 5, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> So...
> when someone states this:
> ""We don't want an authoritarian free market, we want libertarian communism! No, those aren't oxymoronic, what is an oxymoron?""
> as a response to someone else. When multiple of us had conversations about systems of economics, to only then be completely ignored, along with again, hundred times over, pointing out that what they state is untrue. But when we finally call on the kettle's color, and the raw absurdity  then it crosses the line?


Dogpiling on someone is against the rules, regardless of their political viewpoints. Being "wrong" doesn't give others free rein to sling insults or call people clowns, fruit cakes, idiots, etc.


----------



## Joom (Nov 5, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Where was I wrong, teacher? I am not afraid of Muslims. I have lived with them both in the Middle East and Europe. As long as I do not display my "faith" (which I do not have anyway), I get along and understand them quite well. In fact, I much prefer their company over people like you.


You're xenophobic by putting Muslims and BLM/antifa together as a means to call them terrorists. You can stop taking definitions from Dictionary.com and reposting them already.


UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> What I stated remains true: if anything of the things I mentioned were reversed, hell would have broken lose. Just imagine a "MAGA" part of town. Do you think the media would call it "romantic" as well? (while rapes and other crimes are going on). Imagine "MAGA" people taking over a police station (even if it was not occupied; how the fuck does it matter?)


Why would a bunch of white nationalists start burning down shit when things have been going their way? It wouldn't make sense. You also still don't seem to understand what the protests have been all about. They had nothing to do with Trump and were all about police brutality and injustice. Again, don't involve yourself in American politics if you don't keep up with any of it in a proper fashion.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Nov 5, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Fact check:
> 
> White nationalism is, by definition, racist and separatist, with or without the terrorist actions you described.


By your definition. Logic disagrees with you. If white nationalism is by definition racist and separatist, then black nationalism would be as well. I doubt you agree that it is.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 5, 2020)

Chary said:


> Dogpiling on someone is against the rules, regardless of their political viewpoints. Being "wrong" doesn't give others free rein to sling insults or call people clowns, fruit cakes, idiots, etc.


It's not even a political view point at this point chary. Are you seriously telling me that democrats, moderate right individuals of today are going to bring in libertarian communism. It is factually wrong by the book. And it definitely makes a point for someone who is at worst, disenfranchised to reality (an idiot, fruitloop, whatever word), and at best, misinformed. And when they are told they are wrong, many times over.


----------



## Chary (Nov 5, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> It's not even a political view point at this point chary. Are you seriously telling me that democrats, moderate right individuals are going to bring in libertarian communism. It is factually wrong by the book. And it definitely makes a point for someone who is at worst, disenfranchised by reality, and at best, misinformed.


You literally called a guy a fruitcake. I don't give a crap about the politics involved. Absurd or not isn't for me to say because I'm trying to stay impartial, but adhering to the rules is. Your comment had NOTHING political in it, just an insult. Just keep the debating clean.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 5, 2020)

Chary said:


> You literally called a guy a fruitcake. I don't give a crap about the politics involved. Absurd or not isn't for me to say because I'm trying to stay impartial, but adhering to the rules is. Your comment had NOTHING political in it, just an insult. Just keep the debating clean.


actually it did have something political. 
I was commenting on his statement
""We don't want an authoritarian free market, we want libertarian communism! No, those aren't oxymoronic, what is an oxymoron?""
I was pretty much heavily implying his statement was absurd.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 5, 2020)

If I recall correctly, this was my original statement
"the person above me is a fruitcake. I'm not going to explain why, the statement above explains itself"
Inherently, me calling this statement, even if I didn't quote it. was political in your rules to the line of logic I can understand. Since you could argue it's an opinion and a political statement.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Nov 5, 2020)

Joom said:


> You're xenophobic by putting Muslims and BLM/antifa together as a means to call them terrorists.


I did not call either of them terrorists.
I lumped them together soley for the purpose of exposing media/polticial/your bias.



Joom said:


> You can stop taking definitions from Dictionary.com and reposting them already.


I don´t need to. Unlike arrogant Americans, Jews usually speak several languages fluently and know some aspects of etymology.



Joom said:


> Why would a bunch of white nationalists start burning down shit when things have been going their way?


They are statistically being replaced (which is *BIAS ALERT* a conspiracy theory when they say it, and a cause for celebration when the media says it). They have not burned things down but they have killed people, including my people. I condemn these actions but I also don´t deny bias and facts (unlike you).



Joom said:


> They had nothing to do with Trump and were all about police brutality and injustice. Again, don't involve yourself in American politics if you don't keep up with any of it in a proper fashion.


That wasn´t my point (see above).


----------



## Lacius (Nov 5, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> By your definition. Logic disagrees with you. If white nationalism is by definition racist and separatist, then black nationalism would be as well. I doubt you agree that it is.


Whether I agree is irrelevant, since BLM is not black nationalism.


----------



## Chary (Nov 5, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> actually it did have something political.
> I was commenting on his statement
> ""We don't want an authoritarian free market, we want libertarian communism! No, those aren't oxymoronic, what is an oxymoron?""
> I was pretty much heavily implying his statement was absurd.


Absurdity and idiocy, if they exist, will speak for themselves.

I'm not here to debate anything. For all I care, I _agree _with you. But you didn't bother to explain anything, and your comment boiled down to giving up and resulting to calling a guy an idiot. I get that it's totally frustrating, but everything past that was a chain of everyone mudslinging. Let the words speak for themselves if it's that ridiculous.


----------



## IncredulousP (Nov 5, 2020)

Me reading this thread like https://giphy.com/gifs/popcorn-movie-nothing-RHiD0K65NxxLO


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 5, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Whether I agree is irrelevant, since BLM is not black nationalism.


Black power, perhaps?

They mean the same thing.


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Nov 5, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> By your definition. Logic disagrees with you. If white nationalism is by definition racist and separatist, then black nationalism would be as well. I doubt you agree that it is.


BLM does not advocate for black nationalism.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 5, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Black power, perhaps?
> 
> They mean the same thing.


Fact check:

BLM is not black nationalism.
Black Power is not black nationalism.
BLM is not necessarily Black Power.
Black Power is about self-determination, which is not black nationalism.


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Nov 5, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Black power, perhaps?
> 
> They mean the same thing.


Black Power and White Power have, at least in the US, very different origins. 

They do not mean the same thing, a basic understanding of African-American history in the US can tell you this.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Nov 5, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Whether I agree is irrelevant, since BLM is not black nationalism.


Neither is MAGA (which I oppose btw) white nationalism, but it doesn´t matter the media and certain people.

If MAGA people talked about "allies" and "justice for white people", I am sure you will be ready to call them white nationalists.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 5, 2020)

Chary said:


> Absurdity and idiocy, if they exist, will speak for themselves.
> 
> I'm not here to debate anything. For all I care, I _agree _with you. But you didn't bother to explain anything, and your comment boiled down to giving up and resulting to calling a guy an idiot. I get that it's totally frustrating, but everything past that was a chain of everyone mudslinging. Let the words speak for themselves if it's that ridiculous.


Yes let word for speak for themselves, but we live in a time where disinformation is high, so you have to point out the absurdity or else it gets lost within the mess. Anyways, done discussion here.


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Nov 5, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Neither is MAGA (which I oppose btw) white nationalism, but it doesn´t matter the media and certain people.
> 
> If MAGA people talked about "allies" and "justice for white people", I am sure you will be ready to call them white nationalists.


Yes, if you compare both statements in a vacuum. But context is _very _important to understand these statements. Swapping black with white does not have the same effect.

By the way, MAGA does not equal white nationalism.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 5, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Neither is MAGA (which I oppose btw) white nationalism, but it doesn´t matter the media and certain people.
> 
> If MAGA people talked about "allies" and "justice for white people", I am sure you will be ready to call them white nationalists.


I never said MAGA was white nationalism. That being said, while not everyone who supports MAGA is a white nationalist, nearly all white nationalists support MAGA.


----------



## omgcat (Nov 6, 2020)

i was told COVID would disappear by 11/3, why are we almost breaching 110k a day now?


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Nov 6, 2020)

omgcat said:


> i was told COVID would disappear by 11/3, why are we almost breaching 110k a day now?


Because Trump was lying (or exaggerating the rate in which a vaccine would be out)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Georgia could VERY well go to Biden. 18k votes remaining, mostly from Democrat districts.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2020)

omgcat said:


> i was told COVID would disappear by 11/3, why are we almost breaching 110k a day now?


To be fair, Trump said it would disappear the day after election day, so 11/4. However, on 11/4, we had the following:

103,087 new cases
52,049 hospitalizations
1,116 deaths
So, no, it hasn't disappeared. It's not some plot against Trump to cause him to lose re-election. Perhaps though we will get a real federal response to COVID-19 after Biden is sworn in (assuming he wins). Unfortunately, we will probably have an additional 137,000 COVID-19 deaths between now and then, thanks in part to Trump's utter failings.



Big Man Tyrone2 said:


> Because Trump was lying (or exaggerating the rate in which a vaccine would be out)
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> Georgia could VERY well go to Biden. 18k votes remaining, mostly from Democrat districts.


If Biden gets 60% of those votes (he likely will), he will win Georgia.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 6, 2020)

meh...


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Nov 6, 2020)

Lacius said:


> If Biden gets 60% of those votes (he likely will), he will win Georgia.



He will most likely get 70+% of the vote. This election is over. He will win NV.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 6, 2020)

Big Man Tyrone2 said:


> He will most likely get 70+% of the vote. This election is over. He will win NV.



The only unfortunate part if Biden wins, is that the election will not be over. For some odd reason or another (sarcasm) I think the results are going to be tied up in the courts for a while. We all know Trump is going to do everything he can to try to overturn such a result and refuse to leave office until there's nothing left for him to try.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2020)

Big Man Tyrone2 said:


> He will most likely get 70+% of the vote. This election is over. He will win NV.


My subjective take:

Nevada: Biden's got it
Georgia: Looks really like Biden has it
Pennsylvania: Probably Biden
Arizona: Probably Biden
North Carolina: Probably Trump, but the odds are about 50/50
Biden is probably going to win, but those could also be my famous last words.



D34DL1N3R said:


> The only unfortunate part if Biden wins, is that the election will not be over. For some odd reason or another (sarcasm) I think the results are going to be tied up in the courts for a while. We all know Trump is going to do everything he can to try to overturn such a result and refuse to leave office until there's nothing let for him to try.


I could be wrong, but Trump's only viable gambits were:

Stop vote-counting while he was ahead
Prevent recounts where he was ahead
Once the votes have been counted, I don't see much that can be done.


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Nov 6, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> The only unfortunate part if Biden wins, is that the election will not be over. For some odd reason or another (sarcasm) I think the results are going to be tied up in the courts for a while. We all know Trump is going to do everything he can to try to overturn such a result and refuse to leave office until there's nothing left for him to try.


And given the conservative majority in the SC, it is likely that Trump and Barrett, "worked out a deal" in order to guarantee that the SC will vote in a way that Trump wants (goes to show how confident the Trump administration actually was for this election). The positive about this is that this really only applies in Pennsylvania, a state that Biden does not have to win in order to be declared President-Elect.

Also, none of this would be an issue if Republicans in PA allowed the polls to open mail-in ballots before election day.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I am curious what the GOP will do when Trump leaves office.

They cannot replace Trump - his energy is unparalleled, making anyone that the GOP tries to bring up look like dogshit to Republican voters. I imagine that R's will not win the Presidency for the next 12-16 years, and will probably lose the Senate eventually, as the gap between pro-Trump R's and anti-Trump R's will widen.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2020)

Big Man Tyrone2 said:


> And given the conservative majority in the SC, it is likely that Trump and Barrett, "worked out a deal" in order to guarantee that the SC will vote in a way that Trump wants (goes to show how confident the Trump administration actually was for this election). The positive about this is that this really only applies in Pennsylvania, a state that Biden does not have to win in order to be declared President-Elect.
> 
> Also, none of this would be an issue if Republicans in PA allowed the polls to open mail-in ballots before election day.
> 
> ...


Arguably, the best-case scenario for the Republican Party was a narrow Trump loss while Republicans retain the Senate, which is likely what they're going to get. Trump is doing long term damage to the Republican Party (the extent of the damage is hard to measure), and now they can move past it as quickly as possible while retaining power where it's only second to the executive branch. That, and conservations have a solid majority on the Supreme Court.

Republicans also have inherent advantages with regard to all three branches of government (the House is gerrymandered to hell and will likely stay that way, the Senate is a nonrepresentative body giving power to rural and white Americans, the executive branch is burdened by the electoral college, and the supreme court has the same burdens as the Senate and executive branch). The Republicans will be fine, unfortunately.


----------



## GhostLatte (Nov 6, 2020)

Remember how the Russians interfering in the 2016 election was a "hoax?" And now when they're losing, the election is a fraud.


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Nov 6, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Arguably, the best-case scenario for the Republican Party was a narrow Trump loss while Republicans retain the Senate, which is likely what they're going to get. Trump is doing long term damage to the Republican Party (the extent of the damage is hard to measure), and now they can move past it as quickly as possible while retaining power where it's only second to the executive branch. That, and conservations have a solid majority on the Supreme Court.
> 
> Republicans also have inherent advantages with regard to all three branches of government (the House is gerrymandered to hell and will likely stay that way, the Senate is a nonrepresentative body giving power to rural and white Americans, the executive branch is burdened by the electoral college, and the supreme court has the same burdens as the Senate and executive branch). The Republicans will be fine, unfortunately.


Very true. I just wonder who will be the new face of the Republican party.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



GhostLatte said:


> Remember how the Russians interfering in the 2016 election was a "hoax?" And now when they're losing, the election is a fraud.


"It's only fraud when I'm losing!"

There's less evidence of election fraud this year compared to Russian interference in 2016. Trumpists are grasping at straws, and relying on _fake news_ of all things to prove that the election is rigged.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2020)

Big Man Tyrone2 said:


> Very true. I just wonder who will be the new face of the Republican party.





Spoiler






Spoiler






Spoiler


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 6, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He is basically already is. With all the blocking he is doing.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> He is basically already is. With all the blocking he is doing.


In fairness to Mitch, his hands are much uglier that a turtle's. That's my bad.


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Nov 6, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


McConnell is a blight on my home state. Has not done anything for us for 40+ years. Explains why Kentucky is one of the dumbest states.
And Republicans like to complain about Biden for not doing anything while in office.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 6, 2020)

Lacius said:


> In fairness to Mitch, his hands are much uglier that a turtle's. That's my bad.


You mean in fairness to turtles? 

Seriously tho, I hope one day that it will be straight up illegal to not even have a debate on bill.


----------



## notimp (Nov 6, 2020)

Lets play a little devils advocate. 

1. Media coverage was overwhealmingly _off_ when extrapolating the trends from earlier in the election night, to when mostly mail in ballots were left to count. They enforced the narrative that 'something might be wrong here' simply by reporting without any knowledge about statistical trends being able to reverse in the counting of the vote, or knowledge about a potential 'blue wave' in mail in ballots.

2. When researching on the possibility of a blue wave in mail in ballots, most of the articles at that point (one or two days before the election, when I posted the California institute of tech paper on it) out there where completely certain, that there would be no inherent bias for one party or the other in mail in votes. (Partly because no one expected, that the Trump campaign could mobilize that much latino and black votes as in person votes at that point?). This included many major news sources.

3. Polling was off as hell.

4. Trump is loosing by a far smaller margin than anyone expected beforehand.

5. If democrats mess up the senate race this time around, we really have to talk about campaign strategy, and the DNCs approach to creating a major common narrative.


That all said, suing four states, before the counting finished, because of reports you got because you incited that people should go out there an look for something fishy, is way out of line also. So is announcing yourself to be the winner while none of the major news networks has declared you as such. So is championing a 'stop the vote counting' message.

edit: Correction: Suing three states (to stop the vote count), and demanding a recount in the fourth.


----------



## USUKDecks (Nov 6, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> The only blindness here is coming from you as you've also been infected with TDS and drink what the Left is pouring.



Nah not the left... just facts. Nothing but facts. There's no kool-aid to drink (and that's sTILL much better than bleach!! )
Your nazi reich party has no facts or truths, trumpo is the biggest con in history, it has NOTHING to do with the left
and that's the trick he pulled off into making you think it does. But you keep worshiping that false god of yours, 
the ONLY thing he's proven is that he's a draft dodging, non-business knowing, 6x bankrupt filing, hitler wanna-be
who has already crapped all over the constitution. But you're an idiot, if trump told you to bury your shit because
it'll sprout gold bars...you'd do it without question.  

your sheep and nothing more than that.


----------



## notimp (Nov 6, 2020)

Btw. the trend reversal in the democratic preelections (when Sanders got shafted by coordinated action) was still overwhelmingly unlikely - because that voting system depended on 'making trends open, and then influencing future vote by preannouncing past trends' (such a freaking racket).

There all it took was 'vote bundling' (three candidates stopping their race and advocating Biden coordinately) at the most inopportune time for Sanders.

This was rigged.

edit: Also Trump didnt expect for Murdoch to f*ck him:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-rage-Fox-News-outlet-call-Arizona-Biden.html

https://theweek.com/articles/948132/fox-news-brings-trump-knees

Theres a story for you as well...


----------



## digipimp75 (Nov 6, 2020)

What an epic sh*tshow this election is.


----------



## Rail Fighter (Nov 6, 2020)

smf said:


> People smoke all the time and don't immediately die of cancer. You seem to have some perverted ideas about risk.
> 
> What things do you "accept as just part of life" that is deadlier?
> 
> ...



You can't prove what you're saying, you're just making accusations. Let's wait and see if there was no fraud, this is part of the democratic system, being able to prove the outcome of an election.


----------



## djpannda (Nov 6, 2020)

Rail Fighter said:


> You can't prove what you're saying, you're just making accusations. Let's wait and see if there was no fraud, this is part of the democratic system, being able to prove the outcome of an election.


sorry not taking side but... in the US,  You have to PROVE Fraud, not prove there is no fraud. so wild lawsuit don't mean anything


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 6, 2020)

Rail Fighter said:


> You can't prove what you're saying, you're just making accusations. Let's wait and see if there was no fraud, this is part of the democratic system, being able to prove the outcome of an election.


https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-falsely-claims-he-won-presidential-election-2020-10
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...llions-votes-trump-falsely-claims-he-n1246336
yeah. about that part with you claiming he's just making an accusation...
It's pretty well known fact at this point that trump did prematurely say he won the election.


----------



## Rail Fighter (Nov 6, 2020)

djpannda said:


> sorry not taking side but... in the US,  You have to PROVE Fraud, not prove there is no fraud. so wild lawsuit don't mean anything


Trump isn't the only one saying there was frauds. There's already some primary evidences and witnesses of it. He deserves the benefit of the doubt, at minimum, so let's wait for the case to be settled on the court.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 6, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-falsely-claims-he-won-presidential-election-2020-10
> https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/20...llions-votes-trump-falsely-claims-he-n1246336
> yeah. about that part with you claiming he's just making an accusation...
> It's pretty well known fact at this point that trump did prematurely say he won the election.



Biden has also said he's won too so I'm not sure what your point is.


----------



## djpannda (Nov 6, 2020)

Rail Fighter said:


> Trump isn't the only one saying there was frauds. There's already some primary evidences and witnesses of it. He deserves the benefit of the doubt, at minimum, so let's wait for the case to be settled on the court.


IF there is fraud, they need a real lawsuit needs to happen. The only real fraud lawsuit was the poll worker  stating they saw 53 ballots placed incorrectly, and a Republican Georgia state judge threw it out instantly for no proof.
and also Georgia Governor is a Trump supporter, if there was any hint of fraud he would also be one of the first ones saying something.
Right now its all talk until they put out a real lawsuit with valid proof of fraud.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 6, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Look... every person on here knows that I support Biden.  It's no secret.  However, you called me out for major bias by claiming that I "post nothing, but links to news coming from the left side of the isle," which is an *outright lie *and definitely a personal attack.  Sharing links to moderately liberal and conservative websites (foxnews, nasdaq, marketwatch, fortune, forbes, etc.) with highly factual reporting isn't proof of anything other than the fact that I don't read or promote extremist propaganda.
> 
> Perhaps you wouldn't feel the need for these *petty call-out posts* if you had a history of doing the same.



You're accusing me of lying and that would have to include the intent to deceive, which there is none. I've not seen you post a single one of your linked story posts shining a positive light on Trump or Conservatives. Since I've been a member here all your linked story posts contain pro-Left content.


----------



## FAST6191 (Nov 6, 2020)

Something actually interesting happened in the US elections? I did not predict that one.

Also imagine having basically the entire media and communications platforms of the world in your corner to call someone horrid for 5 years and still at best managing a break even (never mind the other branches of federal government) on whether people believe it even for most intents and purposes, that or your pick for someone to oppose them was that unlikeable.

Re fraud or no fraud. I do like to ponder indicators here (turnout rates, specific instances of dubious calls, counting room shenanigans, locations of turnout and differences in there as it pertains to demographics and political setups) but a bigger problem is the mere appearance of impropriety. For all I am of the "do it or don't, find it pointless myself" when it comes to voting if people believe the system is rigged and/or unfair*... that is when bullets start flying which has not happened yet and I don't wish to see happen (from what I have seen thus far nobody with any kind of real training, tools and talent has done anything).

*people tell me we have just seen a summer of people risking life and limb during a big old virus that is killing us all because of some police going a bit too far on a few occasions (despite millions of police and even more daily interactions that go just fine), and that realistically had no great bearing outside the state it occurred in. A handful of debatable calls by police (even more so if we actually believe the narrative that the US is so incredibly racist that the majority don't care) has nothing on that.


----------



## notimp (Nov 6, 2020)

Rail Fighter said:


> You can't prove what you're saying, you're just making accusations. Let's wait and see if there was no fraud, this is part of the democratic system, being able to prove the outcome of an election.


You have to admit, that this is funny though... 



Referring to the part starting at 13:30, but you can watch the entire thing.. 

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



FAST6191 said:


> Re fraud or no fraud. I do like to ponder indicators here (turnout rates, specific instances of dubious calls, counting room shenanigans, locations of turnout and differences in there as it pertains to demographics and political setups) but a bigger problem is the mere appearance of impropriety.


It is. But post src links, pls. 

Or are you reffering to those 'box on a dingy' and 'small suitcase on wheels' videos, that were already posted.


----------



## djpannda (Nov 6, 2020)

notimp said:


> You have to admit, that this is funny though...



 lol Rudy " from the top to the bottom" had me dying


----------



## Rail Fighter (Nov 6, 2020)

djpannda said:


> IF there is fraud, they need a real lawsuit needs to happen. The only real fraud lawsuit was the poll worker  stating they saw 53 ballots placed incorrectly, and a Republican Georgia state judge threw it out instantly for no proof.
> and also Georgia Governor is a Trump supporter, if there was any hint of fraud he would also be one of the first ones saying something.
> Right now its all talk until they put out a real lawsuit with valid proof of fraud.



"Sky News host Alan Jones says there is something odd about the hundreds and thousands of postal votes which "have magically materialised for Biden" in the last 24 hours.

"Even if, as some statistics suggest, Biden's supporters had submitted 616,000 absentee votes in Pennsylvania, compared with 162,000 from Trump supporters, how on earth could Biden make up the 690,000 deficit that he faced this time last night,” Mr Jones said.

“The same could be said of Michigan and Wisconsin.

“With 92% of the vote counted, last night, in Wisconsin, Mr Trump held a lead of 119,000 votes - 54%, 46% Biden.

“Now, a day later it's 49.6% to Biden, not 46% and 48.9% to Trump, not 54%.

“Far from being 119,000 votes ahead, Biden is 20,000 in front, a turnaround of 139,000 votes for Biden.

“It was described as 'a late dump of votes'. Where are these votes from?

“In Michigan, while only 86% of the vote had been counted when I spoke to you last night, Trump was well in front, 54 to 43.

“Now Trump's 54 is suddenly 48, and Biden, from pre-polling, goes from 43% to 50.5%, that is an almost 8% swing.

“8% of the vote in Michigan is 400,000. It is not believable.

“This is not to buy into this argument that we must race off to the Supreme Court.

“But there is something odd about all of this.

“I am not a conspiracist, but I have been in this game a long time.

“I have never seen anything like this in my life.”"


----------



## djpannda (Nov 6, 2020)

Rail Fighter said:


> "Sky News host Alan Jones says there is something odd about the hundreds and thousands of postal votes which "have magically materialised for Biden" in the last 24 hours.
> 
> "Even if, as some statistics suggest, Biden's supporters had submitted 616,000 absentee votes in Pennsylvania, compared with 162,000 from Trump supporters, how on earth could Biden make up the 690,000 deficit that he faced this time last night,” Mr Jones said.
> 
> ...



ok... of course this is never been seen with the Cornavirus f"d up the whole year....  unless someone present a lawsuit with real proof, its all rhetoric. and to pump up the base. 
where are the lawsuits


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 6, 2020)

Rail Fighter said:


> "Sky News host Alan Jones says there is something odd about the hundreds and thousands of postal votes which "have magically materialised for Biden" in the last 24 hours.



It's not odd whatsoever given the high possibility of mail in votes being counted last and the high possibility that the majority of mail in votes are pro Biden.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 6, 2020)

aaaaaaaaaaaaaanyways, biden either dies in office or loses in 2024 so yang 2024


----------



## Rail Fighter (Nov 6, 2020)

djpannda said:


> ok... of course this is never been seen with the Cornavirus f"d up the whole year....  unless someone present a lawsuit with real proof, its all rhetoric. and to pump up the base.
> where are the lawsuits


So, the ballots gonna be checked if they're legit or not.


----------



## wartutor (Nov 6, 2020)

I cant wait for biden to win so he can instantly fix this covid19 thing cause apparently its all trumps fault and biden wouldnt of let anyone fucking die FROM AN UNSTOPPABLE VIRUS. Masks dont stop it. Social distancing dont stop it. It will do what it does just be glad it doest have a 98% mortality rate and fucking deal with it. In election news wtf do they have 10 year olds counting these ballots with a black board and a piece of chalk tallying up these votes or what.


----------



## djpannda (Nov 6, 2020)

Rail Fighter said:


> So, the ballots gonna be checked if they're legit or not.


. soo you don't know how votes are processed ?
In Georgia, the moment the ballot gets in they get logged and grouped. The moment the chain of custody is broken or the ballot is in-regular. the ballot does a hard stop to be checked. 
Saying  they "going to be check" is claiming the voting process of the Great state of Georgia is wrong from the start


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 6, 2020)

I'm pretty sure Biden is already talking with people on how to deal with the virus.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Nov 6, 2020)

I hope Biden wins. Too few right-wing people woke up during the Trump presidency. Maybe left-wing people will wake up during a Biden/Harris administration.

BTW did you know that 18 states in the US don´t allow or limit OSCE access to the election? We never hear about it in Europe.


----------



## vincentx77 (Nov 6, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This motherfucker isn't going to live forever (though likely longer than he should). Why do I get the feeling the GOP is going to turn to that spineless piece of shit Lindsey Graham as their new lord and saviour? After the massive campaign to get rid of him in SC this time and he's still there, I think he's a reasonably safe bet.


----------



## notimp (Nov 6, 2020)

Oh, the meltdown is happening:


----------



## LumInvader (Nov 6, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> *You're accusing me of lying* and that would have to include the intent to deceive, which there is none. I've not seen you post a single one of your linked story posts shining a positive light on Trump or Conservatives. Since I've been a member here all your linked story posts contain pro-Left content.





gregory-samba said:


> *Pointing out you only post information from the left wasn't a personal attack it's a fact*. If I was personally attacking you I'd call your mother a bitch. *You also keep posting links to all sorts of Liberal sources and never post any Conservative ones.* That's not fair nor balanced.


Except I have sourced Fox News and other conservative outlets *numerous times*.  You ARE lying.

Proof:

https://gbatemp.net/threads/poll-2020-u-s-presidential-election.571721/page-85#post-9231403
https://gbatemp.net/threads/poll-2020-u-s-presidential-election.571721/page-76#post-9227953
https://gbatemp.net/threads/poll-2020-u-s-presidential-election.571721/page-108#post-9238227
https://gbatemp.net/threads/poll-2020-u-s-presidential-election.571721/page-135#post-9249355

Case closed.


----------



## AkGBA (Nov 6, 2020)

Can emotions be left out of politics ?
Genuinely thinking about it.


----------



## LumInvader (Nov 6, 2020)

AkGBA said:


> Can emotions be left out of politics ?
> Genuinely thinking about it.


Tribalism is a byproduct of humanity dating back many thousands of years.  Any time decisions are made based on competing ideologies, tribal behaviors tend to influence how competing parties react and treat one another.  With little compromise in modern politics, issues are treated as a zero sum game.  Thus, even single-issue voters exhibit tribalism tendencies (abortion, gun rights, climate change, etc).


----------



## notimp (Nov 6, 2020)

AkGBA said:


> Can emotions be left out of politics ?
> Genuinely thinking about it.




Not that that pundit is the barometer for it, but - trend seems to say otherwise.. 

edit: Way otherwise...


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 6, 2020)

Looks like memes and laptops wasn't enough to change this election.


----------



## LumInvader (Nov 6, 2020)

notimp said:


> Oh, the meltdown is happening:



The segment that started @14:45 with the minister chanting to music was brilliant.


----------



## smf (Nov 6, 2020)

Rail Fighter said:


> You can't prove what you're saying, you're just making accusations. Let's wait and see if there was no fraud, this is part of the democratic system, being able to prove the outcome of an election.



I can prove that Trump lied on TV as it was broadcast to the world. He hasn't won, his comments were to mislead his sheep.

Trump hasn't proved any of his allegations. Nothing Trump is doing is part of the democratic system.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 6, 2020)

Looks like the Pennsylvania Convention Center barely avoided an attack. Link

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Georgia has officially flipped.


----------



## smf (Nov 6, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> What you substance you smoke can greatly increase the risk of death.



You choose to smoke knowing the risks. Non smokers don't accept it as normal life.

Those people who don't want to die of cancer, don't smoke. Those who don't want to die of covid use mail in voting.



gregory-samba said:


> What other causes are there? Car accidents



Six times more people have died of covid in the USA this year than died in car accidents in 2018. How are car accidents deadlier?

We also don't just accept car accidents, there is lots of research into making cars safer. There are also rules that restrict your rights and liberties on the road, the police can arrest you for driving as fast as you want and if you drive on the side of the road that the government is forcing you to.



gregory-samba said:


> They would have died regardless.



Everyone will die regardless, but you have absolutely no right at all to bully people into hastening it just because you have been brainwashed into believing that mail in voting is fraudulent. When Trump has always voted by mail.



AkGBA said:


> Can emotions be left out of politics ?
> Genuinely thinking about it.



Yes, but only if emotionally unstable people like Trump stay out of it. He only got into power because he triggered people, someone should pass a law that outlaws those techniques.

Most presidential candidates have ignored his techniques because they are immoral and it's like shooting fish in a barrel. We know that half the population are morons and will fall for it.


----------



## LumInvader (Nov 6, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Looks like the Pennsylvania Convention Center barely avoided an attack. Link
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> *Georgia has officially flipped*.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 6, 2020)

This may sum up this election.


----------



## omgcat (Nov 6, 2020)

>implies we rigged and stole an election
>dems didn't win the senate

hmmmmmmmmm


----------



## seany1990 (Nov 6, 2020)

Bye Trump, I would say it was nice having you but that would be a ridiculous thing to say


----------



## AkGBA (Nov 6, 2020)

He's not gone yet. A lot of damage can be done until then.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2020)

vincentx77 said:


> This motherfucker isn't going to live forever (though likely longer than he should). Why do I get the feeling the GOP is going to turn to that spineless piece of shit Lindsey Graham as their new lord and saviour? After the massive campaign to get rid of him in SC this time and he's still there, I think he's a reasonably safe bet.


Tortoises live a really long time though.


----------



## smf (Nov 6, 2020)

Trumps latest announcement sounded like he was having real trouble reading from the script.

I think he needs his ritalin dose increased.


----------



## LumInvader (Nov 6, 2020)

Biden just took the lead in Pennsylvania by 5000+ votes.
Decision Desk HQ projects that @JoeBiden has won Pennsylvania and its 20 electoral college votes for a total of 273.Joe Biden has been elected the 46th President of the United States of America.Race called at 11-06 08:50 AM ESTAll Results: https://t.co/BgcQsEyt3j— Decision Desk HQ (@DecisionDeskHQ) November 6, 2020


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 6, 2020)

smf said:


> There are also rules that restrict your rights and liberties on the road, the police can arrest you for driving as fast as you want and if you drive on the side of the road that the government is forcing you to.



I agree with everything you said except for what I quoted. The rules you speak of do not restrict ANY rights or liberties, and are by no means whatsoever forced. People are still 100% free to make their own decisions. No freedoms are being stripped and nothing is being forced. Everyone is completely free to drive as fast as they want and on whatever side of the road they want to drive on. No one is being forced to do ANYthing.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 6, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Except I have sourced Fox News and other conservative outlets *numerous times*.  You ARE lying.
> 
> Proof:
> 
> ...



I wasn't lying, I've just never seen you do it. All of those articles are Pro-left. Do you have any links you've posted that shine a positive light on Trump or Conservatives?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



wartutor said:


> I cant wait for biden to win so he can instantly fix this covid19 thing cause apparently its all trumps fault and biden wouldnt of let anyone fucking die FROM AN UNSTOPPABLE VIRUS. Masks dont stop it. Social distancing dont stop it. It will do what it does just be glad it doest have a 98% mortality rate and fucking deal with it. In election news wtf do they have 10 year olds counting these ballots with a black board and a piece of chalk tallying up these votes or what.



The idiots who are voting for Biden that think some washed up old time politician is going to fix their problems are delusional. He can't cure the COVID-19, he's not going to help the environment. All he's going to do is tax people and the money will vanish just like it normally does in Washington. I agree things are going to change a bit, but for the worst not the better. If you want examples of Liberal leadership and what happens under them just look at LA, Chicago, Detroit or New York City.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 6, 2020)

Chary said:


> Dogpiling on someone is against the rules, regardless of their political viewpoints. Being "wrong" doesn't give others free rein to sling insults or call people clowns, fruit cakes, idiots, etc.





gregory-samba said:


> The idiots who are voting for Biden that think some washed up old time politician is going to fix their problems are delusional.



Yet the post remains while mine and others were deleted for the very same thing. Either moderate the entire thread from the beginning and delete all posts in violation of the rules, don't delete any, or lock the thread.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 6, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Biden has also said he's won too so I'm not sure what your point is.


https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/joe-biden-2020-election-night-speech-transcript
"Your patience is commendable. We knew this was going to go long, but who knew we’re going to go into maybe tomorrow morning, maybe even longer. But look, we feel good about where we are. We really do. I’m here to tell you tonight, we believe we’re on track to win this election. We knew because of the unprecedented early vote and the mail-in vote it was going to take a while. W*e’re going to have to be patient until the hard work of tallying the votes is finished. And it ain’t over until every vote is counted, every ballot is counted*."
again false.
Do you ever check anything you say?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



gregory-samba said:


> I wasn't lying, I've just never seen you do it. All of those articles are Pro-left. Do you have any links you've posted that shine a positive light on Trump or Conservatives?
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Hold on. HOLD THE FUCK ON
are you seriously moving the bar from
"you source nothing but pro left sources" to "The specific articles you are linking is pro left, therefore is wrong, even though it's on a FAR right wing media outlet"
holy crap the moving is real.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 6, 2020)

So much Trumper melting going on it warms my heart. I love how he told his supporters not to vote by mail so they didn't, and now they're wondering why the mail in ballots are so blue. Fraud? Nope, people were just following orders. Lmao. So much fail.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 6, 2020)

If Democrats can just rig elections, Trump woudn't' be president in the first place.


----------



## silien3 (Nov 6, 2020)

I do not like the right because often racist yet I will have been American its Donald trump the best for me in addition I read that biden was embarrassed because confused his little girl and spoke as if his son was still alive a by a senile or one who has alzheimer's
nobody would do her
biden = what is this red button (o its nothing it's just the atomic bomb) and even without having a button next to it it would be a puppet so its not helping to believe in its false democrats

and it is to vote by posted (dead grandmother or litle boy and girl and immigrate (therefore no voting rights normally) = 1 voted) its easy to cheat 

this is why it is normally illegal to votes by correspondence but in person to limit cheating

I specify that I hate the right and the extreme right, however, logic speaks for itself especially that Donald Trump is pointed out by the democrats and the social networks (so neutral the hypocrite) not to pay all his taxes (remember that he does not pay his salary as president who is probably higher than his tax)
therefore democrate = false democrate

to avoid the censorship which often has these last times especially if we give points for Trump that I always consider as a demon from hell
I specify that its what I think and concerns only me

i use google translate sorry english


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 6, 2020)

SO...how about I tell my experience voting. and what you need to vote. Here in North Dakota you do not need to register to vote. However, you must have an id. To get an id, guess what you need?
A social security card, and a birth certificate.And proof of address.
said birth certificate needs to be the original.
to get proof of address, you must live and prove that you lived in ND for 4 months.
I'm really getting pretty pestered by people who think you can just walk into a voting station, as an illegal person and somehow effect the vote.
And that's for North Dakota, the rest of the country requires you to register before you even try voting.


----------



## silien3 (Nov 6, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> SO...how about I tell my experience voting. and what you need to vote. Here in North Dakota you do not need to register to vote. However, you must have an id. To get an id, guess what you need?
> A social security card, and a birth certificate.And proof of address.
> said birth certificate needs to be the original.
> to get proof of address, you must live and prove that you lived in ND for 4 months.
> ...



precisely by post you do not go to the office to voted therefore more complicated to control


----------



## Ibcap (Nov 6, 2020)

silien3 said:


> I do not like the right because often racist yet I will have been American its Donald trump the best for me in addition I read that biden was embarrassed because confused his little girl and spoke as if his son was still alive a by a senile or one who has alzheimer's
> nobody would do her
> biden = what is this red button (o its nothing it's just the atomic bomb) and even without having a button next to it it would be a puppet so its not helping to believe in its false democrats
> 
> ...


Where do I begin here. First, you know the presidents dont just have unsecured unlabeled nuke buttons right? And I'm not sure what you mean by false democrats. Are they Republicans?
Second, the dead people thing has been debunked. They voted BEFORE dying.
Third, it is not and has never been illegal to vote by mail, what the fuck are you talking about
The taxes thing is probably false. The presidential salary is in the low millions, thats very little for someone with a company as big as his. Giving up that salary is pennies.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Why haven't mods deleted @gregory-sambas MULTIPLE messages calling the left idiots and other names, ranging as far back as days ago. Is name calling against the rules or not?


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 6, 2020)

Ibcap said:


> Where do I begin here. First, you know the presidents dont just have unsecured unlabeled nuke buttons right? And I'm not sure what you mean by false democrats. Are they Republicans?
> Second, the dead people thing has been debunked. They voted BEFORE dying.
> Third, it is not and has never been illegal to vote by mail, what the fuck are you talking about
> The taxes thing is probably false. The presidential salary is in the low millions, thats very little for someone with a company as big as his. Giving up that salary is pennies.
> ...


Nothing to refute, just noting your @ was wrong


----------



## Ibcap (Nov 6, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Nothing to refute, just noting your @ was wrong


Yeah fixed it. Adding the s at the end broke the @.


----------



## silien3 (Nov 6, 2020)

Ibcap said:


> Where do I begin here. First, you know the presidents dont just have unsecured unlabeled nuke buttons right? And I'm not sure what you mean by false democrats. Are they Republicans?
> Second, the dead people thing has been debunked. They voted BEFORE dying.
> Third, it is not and has never been illegal to vote by mail, what the fuck are you talking about
> The taxes thing is probably false. The presidential salary is in the low millions, thats very little for someone with a company as big as his. Giving up that salary is pennies.
> ...


yes it's more of an image the button it's the puppet part which is essential in this part
no all democrates are false for me

for the salary nobody knows how much a president gets because nobody don't be there So this point subject to personal interpretation but often pointed by third parties all the same to put Trump as a big bad guy (which is not very neutral and raises questions when its the media and social networks)

to voted before dying your point is not logical because they are not supposed to voted at all since they are dead


----------



## Ibcap (Nov 6, 2020)

silien3 said:


> yes it's more of an image the button it's the puppet part which is essential in this part
> no all democrates are false for me
> 
> for the salary nobody knows how much a president gets because nobody don't be there So this point subject to personal interpretation but often pointed by third parties all the same to put Trump as a big bad guy (which is not very neutral and raises questions when its the media and social networks)
> ...


"Nobody knows how much the president gets"
False: https://www.thebalance.com/presidents-salary-4579867 I actually overestimated it, under half a million. Thats nothing for Trump.
"Big news networks aren't neutral"
News should defend both sides equally, even if one is wrong? Thats a dumb argument. If the News reported on 9/11 would you call them biased for attacking the terrorists and saying they're bad guys? Obviously not equating trump to a terrorist before anyone implies otherwise. Its an extreme example to illustrate a point.
"They shouldn't have voted before dying"
Oh yeah they should have just seen into the future and known they would die. Brilliant.


----------



## notimp (Nov 6, 2020)

Ibcap said:


> "Nobody knows how much the president gets"
> False: https://www.thebalance.com/presidents-salary-4579867 I actually overestimated it, under half a million. Thats nothing for Trump.
> "Big news networks aren't neutral"
> News should defend both sides equally, even if one is wrong? Thats a dumb argument. If the News reported on 9/11 would you call them biased for attacking the terrorists and saying they're bad guys? Obviously not equating trump to a terrorist before anyone implies otherwise. Its an extreme example to illustrate a point.
> ...


*cough*cough*
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...rden-trumps-golfing-hard-pin-down/3718413001/


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 6, 2020)

Look!!!! Voter fraud!!!!! Voter fraud!!!! Voter fraud!!!!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/wisconsin-republicans-caught-apparently-encouraging-141226986.html


----------



## silien3 (Nov 6, 2020)

notimp said:


> *cough*cough*
> https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...rden-trumps-golfing-hard-pin-down/3718413001/


if it's really a tweet made and not remove from be tweeter
it proves it is not neutralized what i said
trump we remove everything because no proof but they we leave for them and also this article without proof


----------



## Ibcap (Nov 6, 2020)

Shulk95 said:


> God is why Trump will win on November 3rd.... It's the only reason he is gonna win! God is even using people who don't know him as voters for Trump as well. That's why even LGBTQ is voting for him. This is historical and biblical.. deal with it.. After he wins, I'd love to see yalls reactions! I'll be back November 3rd to say I told you so. Till then, take it easy because I know Trump derangement syndrome makes yall biden supporters and BLM nuts. This is gonna be so much fun laughing at yall!  I'll be back after we win to rub it in.





Shulk95 said:


> LOL you actually think Trump is gonna let the Democratic/Socialist party cheat by saying that a bunch of mail in voters haven't been counted and toss in a bunch of fraudulent ballots?? The democrats have a history of cheating during elections...Seriously? COME ON Trump has shot down all the cheating these dems have tried, including the Russian collusion impeachment crap.  You highly underestimate Trump if you think he isn't aware of the cheating stunt the democrats are gonna try and isn't ready to combat that. If they delay announcing Trumps victory till 1 to 2 weeks after. He won't let the cheating dems get away with it anyways! SO... WHAT NOW?   Lol I'll be back on the day they announce he's won.


Hey man, just waiting for your promised announcement

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



silien3 said:


> if it's really a tweet made and not remove from be tweeter
> it proves it is not neutralized what i said
> trump we remove everything because no proof but they we leave for them and also this article *without proof*


??? the article goes through all the numbers carefully and provides 18 different sources. I cant tell if you cant read or if youre a troll.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 6, 2020)

The irony I've seen of claiming voter fraud, while also hoping the courts reverses every state in their favor.


----------



## silien3 (Nov 6, 2020)

Ibcap said:


> Hey man, just waiting for your promised announcement
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


and since when do they have access to the account of trump and the white house to confirm that its the taxpayer's expenses unless they have access to are account and that of the white house i don't see how

I may have missed something since I use google translate


----------



## Ibcap (Nov 6, 2020)

silien3 said:


> and since when do they have access to the account of trump and the white house to confirm that its the taxpayer's expenses unless they have access to are account and that of the white house i don't see how
> 
> I may have missed something since I use google translate


Heres an example of one of the sources used: 
"A portion of Germain's calculations are sourced from a 2019 Government Accountability Report that details expenses incurred by federal agencies between Feb. 3 and March 5, 2017.

Using the same data for a February 2019 report, the Washington Post estimated Trump's trips to Mar-a-Lago alone cost the U.S. taxpayer approximately $64 million during his first two years in office."
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/696512.pdf


----------



## silien3 (Nov 6, 2020)

Ibcap said:


> Heres an example of one of the sources used:
> "A portion of Germain's calculations are sourced from a 2019 Government Accountability Report that details expenses incurred by federal agencies between Feb. 3 and March 5, 2017.
> 
> Using the same data for a February 2019 report, the Washington Post estimated Trump's trips to Mar-a-Lago alone cost the U.S. taxpayer approximately $64 million during his first two years in office."
> https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/696512.pdf


his figures are not supposed to be confidential
 good it doesn't matter even if I wanted it
I will be blocked by the language and would not understand everything the fact remains that even the democrats do this kind of thing its what I think so obviously personal opinion


----------



## smf (Nov 6, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> I agree with everything you said except for what I quoted. The rules you speak of do not restrict ANY rights or liberties, and are by no means whatsoever forced. People are still 100% free to make their own decisions. No freedoms are being stripped and nothing is being forced. Everyone is completely free to drive as fast as they want and on whatever side of the road they want to drive on. No one is being forced to do ANYthing.



You are forced to keep your speed below the limit. At least if you keep doing it and you'll end up in jail. How is that not stripping your freedom?

You also have to wear a seat belt.

Some states force you to wear clothes in public. You do not have the freedom to walk without clothes.

You do not have freedom and liberty to murder people either.

The point I'm making is that some freedoms are stripped for the good of the people. It's a compromise.



gregory-samba said:


> The idiots who are voting for Biden that think some washed up old time politician is going to fix their problems are delusional. He can't cure the COVID-19, he's not going to help the environment.



Well it looks like he's going to have four years to prove you wrong.

Trump is a disaster, some say the biggest disaster. It's sad that some people do listen to him and have let him steal america. He had less votes than Hilary & a small inauguration crowd


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I wasn't lying, I've just never seen you do it. All of those articles are Pro-left. Do you have any links you've posted that shine a positive light on Trump or Conservatives?
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Fact check: Unless Republicans get in the way, Biden can actually do the following:

Mitigate COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations, and deaths
Pass the Green New Deal to help the environment
For a good apples to apples comparison of what can be accomplished under a Democratic president, I refer you to Obama's presidency.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 6, 2020)

smf said:


> You are forced to keep your speed below the limit. At least if you keep doing it and you'll end up in jail. How is that not stripping your freedom?
> 
> You also have to wear a seat belt.
> 
> ...



Except you're wrong. You are not forced to keep your speed below the limit. I can go get in my car and drive as fast as I want. You do not have to wear a seat belt. I can go get into my car right now and drive dow nthe road without my seat belt on. I am free to make that choice. If I lived in a state with some type of public clothing laws, I would still be 100% free to walk outside completely naked if that's what I wanted to do. I can also freely murder anyone I would wish to murder.

I've said this a number of times. Freedom does not equate freedom of consequence for acting on said freedoms. Laws are so that there are punishments for breaking them. They are not for taking freedoms away. In every instance you mentioned, you, myself, and everyone else are STILL free to make the choices. There is ZERO forcing of anything or freedoms being stripped.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Except you're wrong. You are not forced to keep your speed below the limit. I can go get in my car and drive as fast as I want. You do not have to wear a seat belt. I can go get into my car right now and drive dow nthe road without my seat belt on. I am free to make that choice. If I lived in a state with some type of public clothing laws, I would still be 100% free to walk outside completely naked if that's what I wanted to do. I can also freely murder anyone I would wish to murder.
> 
> I've said this a number of times. Freedom does not equate freedom of consequence for acting on said freedoms. Laws are so that there are punishments for breaking them. They are not for taking freedoms away. In every instance you mentioned, you, myself, and everyone else are STILL free to make the choices. There is ZERO forcing of anything or freedoms being stripped.


Is there any point to splitting hairs like this? It's a purely semantic argument (i.e. what does "forced" mean?).


----------



## smf (Nov 6, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> You are not forced to keep your speed below the limit. I can go get in my car and drive as fast as I want. You do not have to wear a seat belt. I can go get into my car right now and drive dow nthe road without my seat belt on. I am free to make that choice. If I lived in a state with some type of public clothing laws, I would still be 100% free to walk outside completely naked if that's what I wanted to do. I can also freely murder anyone I would wish to murder.
> 
> I've said this a number of times. Freedom does not equate freedom of consequence for acting on said freedoms. Laws are so that there are punishments for breaking them. They are not for taking freedoms away. In every instance you mentioned, you, myself, and everyone else are STILL free to make the choices. There is ZERO forcing of anything or freedoms being stripped.



Well obviously I wasn't saying that you couldn't physically do those things. If it were possible to stop people breaking laws then there would be no crime.

Freedom means you can do something without constraint, a law that says you can't do something is a constraint


----------



## Xzi (Nov 6, 2020)

PA and GA flipped to blue, it's all over but the crying (and a number of Trump supporters have obviously gotten a head start at that).  I was pleasantly surprised at how smoothly the election ran overall...I expected a lot more trouble with armed nazi LARPers at polling stations.  Not loving how slow certain states are with their counts, but what ya gonna do.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Nov 6, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Pass the Green New Deal to help the environment


The US has considerable investments in the alternative/clean energy market, both public *and private*. We have achieved unprecedented levels of innovation and progress with our current research efforts, well-guided by some great scientific minds. 

The great hurdle to making alternative/clean energy economical/practical is in energy storage, which is a very difficult engineering problem, not to be solved by any government policy.


----------



## DeMoN (Nov 6, 2020)

Just remember it's still not over. There's a lot of fuckery that Trump can try to pull such as overriding a state's popular vote with the Legislature's vote (which will be Republican-favored). This will likely go to the Supreme Court, which is also heavily Republican. It'll be the 2000 election all over again.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 6, 2020)

smf said:


> Well obviously I wasn't saying that you couldn't physically do those things. If it were possible to stop people breaking laws then there would be no crime.
> 
> Freedom means you can do something without constraint, a law that says you can't do something is a constraint



I'm not sure how much more clear I need to be on this. A law does not prevent you, me, or anyone else from freely doing what they wish. Fact. There is not even a debate to be had on this. End of story. Freedom does NOT equal freedom of consequence.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 6, 2020)

https://twitter.com/PhocaeanD/status/1324531466404044801?s=20


----------



## Joom (Nov 6, 2020)

Mmmm, Stephen Colbert, you wonderful man.




DeMoN said:


> Just remember it's still not over. There's a lot of fuckery that Trump can try to pull such as overriding a state's popular vote with the Legislature's vote (which will be Republican-favored). This will likely go to the Supreme Court, which is also heavily Republican. It'll be the 2000 election all over again.


The gap is so wide now that no court could consciously uphold the suit. It's looking like Biden is gonna win at 302, provided Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Georgia all close at blue (and it's looking more than likely that that's going to happen). Every judge so far, even Republican, has thrown out his state-level lawsuits. Trump's getting absolutely murdered, and only those with the cope blinders on think otherwise.



UltraSUPRA said:


> https://twitter.com/PhocaeanD/status/1324531466404044801?s=20


*yawn* You ain't got anything new yet? Every time someone does this, it gets debunked, so whatever. Go back to your cry corner on /pol/ with the rest of the MAGA dupes.


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 6, 2020)

in other news https://www.wavy.com/news/national/...lot-to-attack-pennsylvania-convention-center/ now what did you say about trump supporters being fine people?


and https://www.wavy.com/news/elections...nor-has-dems-seeking-ouster-of-kck-candidate/ (how can this guy even get elected with prior convictions of domestic abuse/revenge porn? it boggles my mind)

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

i predict ten or 20 people will be arrested for trying to threaten or assassinate biden and harris and I'm sure the death penilty will be handed down in each case (sure hope it does) but i'm sure he'll be protected 24/7 by Secret service members like trump was befor he was elected


----------



## Joom (Nov 6, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> now what did you say about trump supporters being fine people?


Don't generalize! There's only *some* bad apples! We're not *all* terrible, degenerate, racist cult members! ;O;


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 6, 2020)

wtf the page disappeared? it was on 4 mins ago


----------



## silien3 (Nov 6, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Fact check: Unless Republicans get in the way, Biden can actually do the following:
> 
> Mitigate COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations, and deaths
> Pass the Green New Deal to help the environment
> For a good apples to apples comparison of what can be accomplished under a Democratic president, I refer you to Obama's presidency.


1. I don't really see that he can cope with a virus which even in countries led by democrats following the directives of the oms or other expert does not succeed so I can hardly see an old man doing anything more

2. before making any agreement fire the business that pollutes and that we do nothing to stop and that earns millions in money see billions and stop those who have jet deprived and Yachts who use them all the time for no reason or for small trip and stop throwing waste on the ground  also stop mass hunting and deforestation
but all that will not be seen in this agreement, it will affect too many companies and people
then see further with agreements and not find the excuse of the electric car pollutes in addition to killing children and people from poor countries who will recover the necessary to manufacture this electric battery (yes pollutes less than those with gasoline and everything
but first make the other point that I have mentioned before
and find better like the car has sea salt water for example
because apart from making people pay and killing them I do not see that there is ecological) and the cow who emits gauze and pollutes (the story of the cow is the worst that I have heard we wonder if its true ecological)

So nothing will be done except to sign an agreement which in poor countries there will be deaths.There are many points that could be improved or even modified in this agreement.
finally who will live will see as they say

warning I do not say biden will do nothing or other I only raise the points and the disagreement that I have on the assertion that they will do something more

I hope to succeed in making me understand sorry for my English I use google translator


----------



## Joom (Nov 6, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> wtf the page disappeared? it was on 4 mins ago


It's still there. Don't worry, though. These attempts at terrorism are happening everywhere, so we won't be starved of this lunacy.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> The US has considerable investments in the alternative/clean energy market, both public *and private*. We have achieved unprecedented levels of innovation and progress with our current research efforts, well-guided by some great scientific minds.
> 
> The great hurdle to making alternative/clean energy economical/practical is in energy storage, which is a very difficult engineering problem, not to be solved by any government policy.


The United States government isn't doing enough to tackle climate change, pure and simple. This is a problem that is getting worse in the US, not better.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



silien3 said:


> 1. I don't really see that he can cope with a virus which even in countries led by democrats following the directives of the oms or other expert does not succeed so I can hardly see an old man doing anything more
> 
> 2. before making any agreement fire the business that pollutes and that we do nothing to stop and that earns millions in money see billions and stop those who have jet deprived and Yachts who use them all the time for no reason or for small trip and stop throwing waste on the ground  also stop mass hunting and deforestation
> but all that will not be seen in this agreement, it will affect too many companies and people
> ...


I understand English is your second language, but I listed what Biden can do, not what he will do.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Nov 6, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> I'm not sure how much more clear I need to be on this. A law does not prevent you, me, or anyone else from freely doing what they wish. Fact. There is not even a debate to be had on this. End of story. Freedom does NOT equal freedom of consequence.


One of the problems here is the use of the word "freedom", which is far too general a concept for meaningful discussion. "Liberty" is the preferred term, since it is a concept of freedom that involves both the individual and the rule of law. 

Ah, Semantics! (yes I am aware), but a necessary distinction, I'm sure you would agree!


----------



## silien3 (Nov 6, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The United States government isn't doing enough to tackle climate change, pure and simple. This is a problem that is getting worse in the US, not better.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


as much for me as they say in his cases


----------



## 0x3000027E (Nov 6, 2020)

Lacius said:


> This is a problem that is getting worse in the US, not better.


Sir, what is getting worse exactly? Please elaborate, (this statement is broad). 

Also, please consider my view that private investment capital has been instrumental in achieving our current path to clean energy.


----------



## Joom (Nov 6, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> Sir, what is getting worse exactly? Please elaborate, (this statement is broad).
> 
> Also, please consider my view that private investment capital has been instrumental in achieving our current path to clean energy.


He means climate change, obviously. I mean, the west coast being on fire and the southeast being pummeled by hurricanes is one example. Trump disbanded the EPA so he could pass environmentally dangerous laws for corporations. He touted wind energy to be too dangerous for birds, but lifted the protections for birds that prevent them from falling into chemical vats. All the while, we have oil lobbyists who continue to dump millions into congress to prevent clean energy from being a thing because oil is too lucrative for them. This by proxy convinces a large portion of the population that climate change doesn't exist and renewable energy is just a dangerous pipe dream.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 6, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> One of the problems here is the use of the word "freedom", which is far too general a concept for meaningful discussion. "Liberty" is the preferred term, since it is a concept of freedom that involves both the individual and the rule of law.
> 
> Ah, Semantics! (yes I am aware), but a necessary distinction, I'm sure you would agree!



The terminology can be changed. I'm fine with that. But my opinion stays the same.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 6, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/joe-biden-2020-election-night-speech-transcript
> "Your patience is commendable. We knew this was going to go long, but who knew we’re going to go into maybe tomorrow morning, maybe even longer. But look, we feel good about where we are. We really do. I’m here to tell you tonight, we believe we’re on track to win this election. We knew because of the unprecedented early vote and the mail-in vote it was going to take a while. W*e’re going to have to be patient until the hard work of tallying the votes is finished. And it ain’t over until every vote is counted, every ballot is counted*."
> again false.
> Do you ever check anything you say?



A few days ago Biden got in front of cameras saying he think he's going to win the election. I checked over 20 sites and watched the video.



> Hold on. HOLD THE FUCK ON
> are you seriously moving the bar from
> "you source nothing but pro left sources" to "The specific articles you are linking is pro left, therefore is wrong, even though it's on a FAR right wing media outlet"
> holy crap the moving is real.



Nope, I meant Left leaning "content" when I wrote my original statement. I'll clarify, he posts nothing, but content that aligns to the left. I also had no idea he had linked to Foxnews, because I don't read every one of his posts. I would by lying if I claimed he never linked to Foxnews and knew he did, but since I didn't know that's not a lie because I never meant to deceive anybody.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



smf said:


> Well it looks like he's going to have four years to prove you wrong.
> 
> Trump is a disaster, some say the biggest disaster. It's sad that some people do listen to him and have let him steal america. He had less votes than Hilary & a small inauguration crowd



I really hope Biden doesn't turn the entire country into one big cesspool, but that's exactly what the type of policies that have been implemented in current cesspools that made them cesspools ... the same ones he's going to put the entire country under. I hope that doesn't happen.

Trump wasn't a disaster and he's done so much good with the evil Liberals and Liberal Main Stream media attacking him. I can't help it you fall in line to the programming and can't open your eyes to the truth.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Nov 6, 2020)

Joom said:


> He means climate change, obviously. I mean, the west coast being on fire and the southeast being pummeled by hurricanes is one example. Trump disbanded the EPA so he could pass environmentally dangerous laws for corporations. He touted wind energy to be too dangerous for birds, but lifted the protections for birds that prevent them from falling into chemical vats. All the while, we have oil lobbyists who continue to dump millions into congress to prevent clean energy from being a thing because oil is too lucrative for them. This by proxy convinces a large portion of the population that climate change doesn't exist and renewable energy is just a dangerous pipe dream.


Ah, sir, he certainly cannot mean climate change, since that is a global issue, of course. In any case, he will reply an explaination, I'm sure. 

I have trouble replying to the rest of your statement, since it is another debate entirely, and one I am frankly not interested in. Our discussion here is mainly focused in US investment in clean/alternative energy, and the impact of private and public investments,  and the progress we have made thus far.


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 6, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> The terminology can be changed. I'm fine with that. But my opinion stays the same.



And yet some how according to Liberals if you value Liberty or Freedom you're a nationalist and a fascist.


----------



## Joom (Nov 6, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> Ah, sir, he certainly cannot mean climate change, since that is a global issue, of course. In any case, he will reply an explaination, I'm sure.


Sure, but America also isn't the globe. Other countries have themselves to handle climate change. The US itself isn't doing anything to help itself or the rest of the world, yet we're one of the leading contributors per capita. Behind China and India, we're the worst polluter on the planet when you take our population into consideration compared to the former two countries.


0x3000027E said:


> I have trouble replying to the rest of your statement, since it is another debate entirely


Mm, no, it's relevant. When the government says we can't have clean energy because "x", but then totally disregards "x" for burning fossil fuels, that kinda ties in with "what do we do about climate change and clean energy".


----------



## notimp (Nov 6, 2020)

silien3 said:


> if it's really a tweet made and not remove from be tweeter
> it proves it is not neutralized what i said
> trump we remove everything because no proof but they we leave for them and also this article without proof


It just pulls it into perspective. But you are correct. It doesnt disprove what you said.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 6, 2020)

So, if everything stays on course, will Trump be the only one that got impeached, lost the popular vote twice and didn't get a 2nd term?


----------



## Joom (Nov 6, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> So, if everything stays on course, will Trump be the only one that got impeached, lost the popular vote twice and didn't get a 2nd term?


Probably so. He's not the first incumbent to lose, but he might be the first to lose this miserably. His presidency has been an absolute disgrace and embarrassment for this country. It's such sweet, poetic justice, too. I'm so glad the American people saw him for the conman he is and turned out in historic numbers to vote him out. It still worries me that this has been such a close race, though. It really tells you that half of the US is truly insane that believes any conspiracy theory they're told. It also tells you we have a major problem with nationalism and ignorance of politics in general. It makes me wonder how we got so far gone, but I think it lies majorly with the media (the internet included). It's so easy to fall into fascistic ideology when you're made to believe nobody cares about you except the fascists.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 6, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> And yet some how according to Liberals if you value Liberty or Freedom you're a nationalist and a fascist.



Another flat out lie from you. Keep em coming. it's nothing but amusing at this point. What you just told us all is that liberals don't value liberty or freedom.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 6, 2020)

Joom said:


> Probably so. He's not the first incumbent to lose, but he might be the first to lose this miserably. His presidency has been an absolute disgrace and embarrassment for this country. It's such sweet, poetic justice, too. I'm so glad the American people saw him for the conman he is and turned out in historic numbers to vote him out. It still worries me that this has been such a close race, though. It really tells you that half of the US is truly insane that believes any conspiracy theory they're told. It also tells you we have a major problem with nationalism and ignorance of politics in general. It makes me wonder how we got so far gone, but I think it lies majorly with the media (the internet included). It's so easy to fall into fascistic ideology when you're made to believe nobody cares about you except the fascists.


Well, this probably wouldn't be going away, but hopefully some of it deflates.


----------



## Joom (Nov 6, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Another flat out lie from you. Keep em coming. it's nothing but amusing at this point.


It's what fascists do. Claim to love freedom, yet support the exact opposite. Their opponent is always incredibly weak, but should also remain the biggest fear because they're a danger. It's nothing but double standards all meant to push a false narrative so these people can have power. It's like how some guys become police officers just because they were bullied in school and now have some inferiority complex, so now they have the power to control people and use it to tickle that complex. Look at Trump. He's an absolutely insecure, narcissistic egomaniac. All fascists are and always will be. It's nothing but a power trip.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 6, 2020)

So I'm just curious.
If COVID never goes away, and every possible vaccine is proven ineffective,  when will we stop with the mask mandates?


----------



## Joom (Nov 6, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> So I'm just curious.
> If COVID never goes away, and every possible vaccine is proven ineffective,  when will we stop with the mask mandates?


Why? Is it that hard for you to care about somebody else other than yourself? Y'know, if you people would actually abide by mask orders and shelter-in-place orders, COVID might actually get under control. But no, you're all too busy stepping on *my* and everybody else's right to life and liberty because you're too much of a crybaby snowflake to wear a fucking face mask so this shit can stop spreading. "B-b-b-but it's muh right to go to Walmart and cough on people!" You wanna cry about "muh freedom"? Well, you're stepping all over everybody else's by refusing to acknowledge their freedom and right to not be exposed to plague rats like you.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Nov 6, 2020)

Joom said:


> When the government says we can't have clean energy because "x", but then totally disregards "x" for burning fossil fuels, that kinda ties in with "what do we do about climate change and clean energy".


Sir, the US federal government invests billions in clean/alternative energy every year. Of course, this amount _will_ fluctuate given the power structure of the country (as it _has _lowered under Trump administration and Republican Congress), however this is really not relevant since the _federal government is always in flux. _Thus, the level of funding will always be in flux. 

The private sector has been quite brilliant in its support for clean/alternative energy, I believe this is the more interesting discussion. 

I am going to go ahead and assume Lacius was referring to the CO2 pollution rate per capita (if this assumption is wrong, please forgive Lacius!). Though this figure is not surprising given that the countries with higher equity use _more petrol and have higher levels of industrial production_. Thus,_ GDP per capita_ should be factored into this calculation. We should also factor in a subtractive element to our equation, for the amount of effort that is put into reducing the CO2 output (this would be with regards to achievement, not level of funding). Again, the US has spent considerable money and resource on this problem, where other countries have fallen short.

Now, _some_ governments throughout the world do contribute to the reduction of their emissions, however my argument is that government funding alone is not sufficient. The US has achieved a sudden renaissance in clean/alternative energy technology over the last decade thanks to a surge of private funding and investment. The advancements have been astounding. This is where I have been trying to center the conversation.

Government policy/regulation may assist with climate change, however with the government constantly in flux, how dependable are these policies and regulations? They are but temporary measures.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 6, 2020)

Joom said:


> Why? Is it that hard for you to care about somebody else other than yourself?


Not my responsibility.


Joom said:


> Y'know, if you people would actually abide by mask orders and shelter-in-place orders, COVID might actually get under control.


Sweden has it under control and they did nothing.


Joom said:


> But no, you're all too busy stepping on *my* and everybody else's right to mitigate a 99.8% survival rate because you're too much of a "crybaby snowflake" to tear your fucking ears off so this shit can start spreading faster.


FTFY


Joom said:


> "B-b-b-but it's muh right to go to Walmart and cough on people!"


I'd imagine covering your mouth with a thick, juicy arm would work better than with a thin sheet of cloth.


Joom said:


> You wanna cry about "muh freedom"? Well, you're stepping all over everybody else's by refusing to acknowledge their freedom and right to not be exposed to plague rats like you.


Those who are willing to give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


----------



## Joom (Nov 6, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Not my responsibility.


Whose is it then, you little sociopath?


UltraSUPRA said:


> Sweden has it under control and they did nothing.


Lie. Taiwan and Vietnam are really the only two that got it under control without thousands of deaths. Wanna know why? They wore masks and actually gave a shit about somebody else's life other than their own. It's almost like acting for the greater good is better for society all around.


UltraSUPRA said:


> I'd imagine covering your mouth with a thick, juicy arm would work better than with a thin sheet of cloth.


But you won't do this either, nor will you even use soap because "washing your hands is for sub-male soybois". Masks have also been scientifically proven to mitigate the spread, sooo.....


UltraSUPRA said:


> Those who are willing to give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


What essential liberty would that be? And please, don't give me something you made up.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 6, 2020)

Joom said:


> Whose is it then?


The responsibility of those people, their family, their doctors, and anyone else who cares about them.


Joom said:


> Lie.








Joom said:


> But you won't do this either, nor will you even use soap because "washing your hands is for sub-male soybois". Masks have also been scientifically proven to mitigate the spread, sooo.....


Covering my mouth when I cough and washing my hands after using the bathroom is an instinct.


Joom said:


> What essential liberty would that be? And please, don't give me something you made up.


Freedom to breathe.

Look at it this way. My mom has asthma and she agrees with me.


----------



## Joom (Nov 6, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> The responsibility of those people, their family, their doctors, and anyone else who cares about them.


The solution is simple, then. You're not allowed to go out in public. These people aren't responsible for you and people like you coughing on them and spreading the virus, so if you refuse to wear a mask and do anything preventative since it's "not your responsibility", you can't go in public anymore. Done. Next.


UltraSUPRA said:


> Covering my mouth when I cough and washing my hands after using the bathroom is an instinct.


Nobody said anything about using the bathroom. Are you going to wash your hands every single time you cough into them? I highly doubt it.


UltraSUPRA said:


> Freedom to breathe.
> 
> Look at it this way. My mom is at risk and she agrees with me.


A mask doesn't prevent you from breathing, and by not wearing one and spreading this disease THAT LITERALLY FUCKING DROWNS YOU, you're stepping on other peoples' supposed freedom to breathe. Your mother is also a fool, and it's a shame you believe she's so infallible that you won't question her ignorance. Doctors and scientists disagree with her, and I'm pretty sure they're a bit more credible than some middle-class suburbanite who's such a lunatic that they homeschool their child with absolute disregard toward the social ramifications. Sorry bruh, but you're being raised by a wingnut fundamentalist. I just hope one day you reach an age of reason and learn how to question things.

Also, in regard to your screenshot that I can't bring myself to quote, that doesn't prove that Sweden did "nothing" to reach that point. That's what I'm obviously calling a lie.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 6, 2020)

Joom said:


> The solution is simple, then. You're not allowed to go out in public. These people aren't responsible for you and people like you coughing on them and spreading the virus, so if you refuse to wear a mask and do anything preventative since it's "not your responsibility", you can't go in public anymore. Done. Next.


If I felt sick, I'd stay home regardless.


Joom said:


> Nobody said anything about using the bathroom. Are you going to wash your hands every single time you cough into them? I highly doubt it.


I don't touch my elbow to other things.


Joom said:


> A mask doesn't prevent you from breathing, and by not wearing one and spreading this disease THAT LITERALLY FUCKING DROWNS YOU, you're stepping on other peoples' supposed freedom to breathe.


I don't feel like I have COVID.


Joom said:


> Your mother is also a fool, and it's a shame you believe she's so infallible that you won't question her ignorance. Doctors and scientists disagree with her, and I'm pretty sure they're a bit more credible than some middle-class suburbanite who's such a lunatic that they homeschool their child with absolute disregard toward the social ramifications. Sorry bruh, but you're being raised by a wingnut fundamentalist. I just hope one day you reach an age of reason and learn how to question things.


I speak out against my parents. They don't like the mask mandate, but they comply without question. I ended up pointing out the hypocrisy and it backfired on me when they said we would stop pirating stuff.


Joom said:


> Also, in regard to your screenshot that I can't bring myself to quote, that doesn't prove that Sweden did "nothing" to reach that point. That's what I'm obviously calling a lie.


What did they do?


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> Sir, what is getting worse exactly? Please elaborate, (this statement is broad).
> 
> Also, please consider my view that private investment capital has been instrumental in achieving our current path to clean energy.


https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/...ns?tab=chart&time=earliest..2017&country=~USA

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



UltraSUPRA said:


> If I felt sick, I'd stay home regardless.
> 
> I don't touch my elbow to other things.
> 
> ...


Fact check: You can have and spread COVID-19 without feeling like you have COVID-19.


----------



## Joom (Nov 6, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> If I felt sick, I'd stay home regardless.


Except you could be asymptomatic, which is very likely due to your age. So, what you're telling me is that you don't care if someone else dies just because you felt fine and didn't feel it necessary to consider their life by taking preventative measures. What happens when one of your parents get this and choke in their sleep? Oh well? I'm sure you won't feel the least bit sad or upset by their entirely preventable demise.


UltraSUPRA said:


> I speak out against my parents. They don't like the mask mandate, but they comply without question. I ended up pointing out the hypocrisy and it backfired on me when they said we would stop pirating stuff.


So, by contradicting them, they threatened to cut you off from stealing shit? My god, what a morally reprehensible family you have there. "That's it! You gotta spend money like everyone else does!" I seriously feel like I'm being trolled, but if you really are homeschooled, this is what I meant about the social ramifications of such. Rather than receive your morals from the general public and your peers like healthy kids do, your parents are morally bankrupting you. I can't believe you consider being cut off from theft a punishment. You exude all the traits of a sociopath, and you've got your parents to thank.


----------



## smf (Nov 6, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Trump wasn't a disaster and he's done so much good with the evil Liberals and Liberal Main Stream media attacking him. I can't help it you fall in line to the programming and can't open your eyes to the truth.



Liberals aren't evil, you've been listening too much to the lies of Qanon and Trump.

Even Republicans aren't putting up with Trump now, it's really only the blind faithful that listen to a word he says.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2020)

Joom said:


> Except you could be asymptomatic, which is very likely due to your age. So, what you're telling me is that you don't care if someone else dies just because you felt fine and didn't feel it necessary to consider their life by taking preventative measures. What happens when one of your parents get this and choke in their sleep? Oh well? I'm sure you won't feel the least bit sad or upset by their entirely preventable demise.
> 
> So, by contradicting them, they threatened to cut you off from stealing shit? My god, what a morally reprehensible family you have there. "That's it! You gotta spend money like everyone else does!" I seriously feel like I'm being trolled, but if you really are homeschooled, this is what I meant about the social ramifications of such. Rather than receive your morals from the general public and your peers like healthy kids do, your parents are morally bankrupting you. I can't believe you consider being cut off from theft a punishment. You exude all the traits of a sociopath, and you've got your parents to thank.


He admitted weeks or months ago that he doesn't care if people die when they're "strangers." There's no use debating someone who doesn't value human life.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 6, 2020)

Joom said:


> Except you could be asymptomatic, which is very likely due to your age. So, what you're telling me is that you don't care if someone else dies just because you felt fine and didn't feel it necessary to consider their life by taking preventative measures. What happens when one of your parents get this and choke in their sleep? Oh well? I'm sure you won't feel the least bit sad or upset by their entirely preventable demise.





Lacius said:


> Fact check: You can have and spread COVID-19 without feeling like you have COVID-19.


Y'all two need some evidence.


Joom said:


> So, by contradicting them, they threatened to cut you off from stealing shit? My god, what a morally reprehensible family you have there. "That's it! You gotta spend money like everyone else does!" I seriously feel like I'm being trolled, but if you really are homeschooled, this is what I meant about the social ramifications of such. Rather than receive your morals from the general public and your peers like healthy kids do, your parents are morally bankrupting you. I can't believe you consider being cut off from theft a punishment. You exude all the traits of a sociopath, and you've got your parents to thank.


Piracy is copyright infringement, not theft.


Lacius said:


> He admitted weeks or months ago that he doesn't care if people die when they're "strangers." There's no use debating someone who doesn't value human life.


Give me liberty or give me death.


----------



## Joom (Nov 6, 2020)

Lacius said:


> He admitted weeks or months ago that he doesn't care if people die when they're "strangers." There's no use debating someone who doesn't value human life.


The homeschooled sociopath; an unfortunate but very real facet of our society.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 6, 2020)

Joom said:


> Y'know, if* you people* would .....




Sounds kinda racist. Or at least of the same thought process as racism.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Y'all two need some evidence.


https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-1595_article



UltraSUPRA said:


> Piracy is copyright infringement, not theft.


It's still illegal and immoral.



UltraSUPRA said:


> Give me liberty or give me death.


You're foolishly comparing the tyrannical oppression of the Revolutionary War with not wanting to wear a cloth mask because it's, like, uncomfortable or something, when doing so will protect you and others from a deadly pandemic. Mindlessly parroting a quote you think sounds patriotic doesn't mean you've done anything to support your point.



Hanafuda said:


> Sounds kinda racist. Or at least of the same thought process as racism.


I suggest you learn what racism is.


----------



## Joom (Nov 6, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Y'all two need some evidence.


That's not how the burden of proof works. What we said is objectively true and has been proven undeniably.  But here you go, something from today.
https://www.livescience.com/woman-sheds-infectious-coronavirus-70-days.html


UltraSUPRA said:


> Piracy is copyright infringement, not theft.


The 15 year old copyright lawyer here to argue the DMCA. Piracy is theft, sorry. And regardless of how you classify it, it's still not a justifiable action. I really don't understand how you think this is a counter-argument.


Hanafuda said:


> Sounds kinda racist. Or at least of the same thought process as racism.


Yeah. Thank fuck most people can interpret context.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2020)

Joom said:


> That's not how the burden of proof works. What we said is objectively true and has been proven undeniably.  But here you go, something from today.
> https://www.livescience.com/woman-sheds-infectious-coronavirus-70-days.html
> 
> The 15 year old copyright lawyer here to argue the DMCA. Piracy is theft, sorry. And regardless of how you classify it, it's still not a justifiable action. I really don't understand how you think this is a counter-argument.
> ...


Legally, piracy isn't actually theft. It is, however, illegal and immoral nonetheless.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 6, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I suggest you learn what racism is.



Read it again. "Or at least of the _same thought process_ as racism."   

"you people" is the classic tell


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Read it again. "Or at least of the _same thought process_ as racism."
> 
> "you people" is the classic tell


I read it. You shouldn't have typed it, because there's nothing about the statement that is "racist or of the same thought process as racism."

"You people" is not racist unless there's racist context.


----------



## Joom (Nov 6, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Legally, piracy isn't actually theft. It is, however, illegal and immoral nonetheless.


I see this argument a lot, but it's still taking (or receiving) something that doesn't belong to you. I know the "imagine your car was stolen but it was still in your driveway the next morning" argument, too. That's still theft. It doesn't become copyright infringement until the material is used for unlicensed monetary gain. I argue against this notion wholeheartedly because copyright lawyers use it all the time to extort people out of tens of thousands of dollars in supposed lost revenue, when the person being charged didn't cause nearly the level of made up damage. This is the problem with the DMCA and intangible property. Lawyers who defend it can come up with any arbitrary number to represent loss under copyright, but it's just not true at all. I can use the inverse of the same above argument and say that car manufacturers and dealerships don't sue for copyright when someone steals a car, so why would any court consider car theft infringement?



Hanafuda said:


> "you people" is the classic tell


Again, thank fuck most people can interpret context. That's sort of the determining factor here. I'm sorry that just flies over your head, but you're making an incredibly stupid strawman just to try to snipe at me.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 6, 2020)

Lacius said:


> https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-1595_article


Well, the Coronavirus is evolving. Who knows, maybe it lost that ability in exchange for bypassing masks.


Lacius said:


> It's still illegal and immoral.


Illegal? Yes. Immoral? That's debatable.[/quote]


Lacius said:


> You're foolishly comparing the tyrannical oppression of the Revolutionary War with not wanting to wear a cloth mask because it's, like, uncomfortable or something, when doing so will protect you and others from a deadly pandemic. Mindlessly parroting a quote you think sounds patriotic doesn't mean you've done anything to support your point.


Tyranny is what is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2020)

Joom said:


> I see this argument a lot, but it's still taking (or receiving) something that doesn't belong to you. I know the "imagine your car was stolen but it was still in your driveway the next morning" argument, too. That's still theft. It doesn't become copyright infringement until the material is used for unlicensed monetary gain. I argue against this notion wholeheartedly because copyright lawyers use it all the time to extort people out of tens of thousands of dollars in supposed lost revenue, when the person being charged didn't cause nearly the level of made up damage. This is the problem with the DMCA and intangible property. Lawyers who defend it can come up with any arbitrary number to represent loss under copyright, but it's just not true at all. I can use the inverse of the same above argument and say that car manufacturers and dealerships don't sue for copyright when someone steals a car, so why would any court consider car theft infringement?
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


You don't seem to understand. The law is very specific about what is and is not larceny, and piracy is not larceny by definition. That's not an argument that piracy is good, bad, better, worse, etc. It's just a fact that it's not larceny. I already said it's immoral and illegal.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 6, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I read it. You shouldn't have typed it, because there's nothing about the statement that is "racist or of the same thought process as racism."
> 
> "You people" is not racist unless there's racist context.



I never said it was racist, now did I? This is where you're being obtuse, or illiterate. Because I said it "seems kinda racist. Or at least of the same thought process" I never said it was actually racist, but that @Joom is of the same simple-minded ilk that dehumanizes whole swaths of peoples based on them not being on his side or not behaving as he would have them behave.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 6, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Give me liberty or give me death.


Even if your family can be put at risk?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 6, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Even if your family can be put at risk?


They agree with me.


----------



## Joom (Nov 6, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> I never said it was racist, now did I? This is where you're being obtuse, or illiterate. Because I said it "seems kinda racist. Or at least of the same thought process" I never said it was actually racist, but that @Joom is of the same simple-minded ilk that dehumanized whole swaths of peoples based on them not behaving as he would have them behave.


Your strawman got shot dead. Just drop it. I feel embarrassed for how hard you're trying here.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Well, the Coronavirus is evolving. Who knows, maybe it lost that ability in exchange for bypassing masks.
> 
> Illegal? Yes. Immoral? That's debatable.



Tyranny is what is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.[/QUOTE]
If your career was to make digital items for sale, and people downloaded it for free instead of paying you, you'd be upset. If everybody did it, there would be very little digital items for sale, since there would be no demand. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 6, 2020)

Lacius said:


> If your career was to make digital items for sale, and people downloaded it for free instead of paying you, you'd be upset. If everybody did it, there would be very little digital items for sale, since there would be no demand. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out.


Digital items are worthless.


----------



## Joom (Nov 6, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Digital items are worthless.


Everything is worthless, you dolt. We apply monetary value to everything ourselves. But are you gonna go robbing stores?


----------



## omgcat (Nov 6, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Digital items are worthless.



tell that to the people who flipped bitcoins from $500 to $19k+ a few years ago.

hell, i mean BTC is still 15k a coin right now.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> I never said it was racist, now did I? This is where you're being obtuse, or illiterate. Because I said it "seems kinda racist. Or at least of the same thought process" I never said it was actually racist, but that @Joom is of the same simple-minded ilk that dehumanizes whole swaths of peoples based on them not being on his side or not behaving as he would have them behave.


Hanafuda, you're contributing nothing of substance to the discourse. You took something with no hint of racism and said "that sounds racist or like the same thought process as racism." You're pulling shit out of your ass and throwing it at the conversation because you saw some words that are sometimes used by racists. Great. Good job. You've wasted everybody's time. Mine especially, since I had to fact-check your mind-numbing post by acknowledging there wasn't anything racist or "like the same thought process as racism" about it.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 6, 2020)

Joom said:


> Everything is worthless, you dolt. We apply monetary value to everything ourselves. But are you gonna go robbing stores?


Things sold in stores exist. They are limited. They apply to the supply and demand curve.


----------



## Joom (Nov 6, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Hanafuda, you're contributing nothing of substance to the discourse. You took something with no hint of racism and said "that sounds racist or like the same thought process as racism." You're pulling shit out of your ass and throwing it at the conversation because you saw some words that are sometimes used by racists. Great. Good job. You've wasted everybody's time.


He's just one of these closet racists who are still seething over me calling Trump supporters racists a couple of weeks ago. It's really starting to seem like an unhealthy obsession to try to find his own faults in other people. What's that called? Oh yeah, projection.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Digital items are worthless.


The digital economy accounted for 6.9 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product, or $1.35 trillion, in 2017. With as much respect as possible, you and your one-sentence troll posts can fuck off. They're unhelpful and do nothing to contribute anything of substance to the conversation. They're as bad as your irrelevant memes.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Joom said:


> He's just one of these closet racists who are still seething over me calling Trump supporters racists a couple of weeks ago. It's really starting to seem like an unhealthy obsession to try to find his own faults in other people. What's that called? Oh yeah, projection.


I'm not saying he's racist, and I don't care. However, I'm not going to stand by while someone posts a lazy non-connection and pats himself on the back for doing so.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 6, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Hanafuda, you're contributing nothing of substance to the discourse. You took something with no hint of racism and said "that sounds racist or like the same thought process as racism." You're pulling shit out of your ass and throwing it at the conversation because you saw some words that are sometimes used by racists. Great. Good job. You've wasted everybody's time. Mine especially, since I had to fact-check your mind-numbing post by acknowledging there wasn't anything racist or "like the same thought process as racism" about it.




Take a good look at who you're defending, @Lacius, and then tell me I don't have a point. This is SOP for this guy :




Joom said:


> He's just one of these closet racists who are still seething over me calling Trump supporters racists a couple of weeks ago. It's really starting to seem like an unhealthy obsession to try to find his own faults in other people. What's that called? Oh yeah, projection.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Take a good look at who you're defending, @Lacius :


I'm not defending anybody. I don't care one bit about Joom or anything he's said. The idea that Joom could say anything and it would have anything to do with my response to you is asinine. I'm acknowledging that the post of yours I addressed was shit, and you should try to do better before you embarrass yourself more than you have already.


----------



## Joom (Nov 6, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I'm not saying he's racist, and I don't care. However, I'm not going to stand by while someone posts a lazy non-connection and pats himself on the back for doing something.


I never directly called anyone in this thread a racist until I made my statement, and then him along with two or three other people came out of the woodwork to somehow try and prove that I'm the racist one. One even went so far as to use tokenism to somehow prove that I was. Fighting supposed racism with actual racism, I guess that's how this works. But it's a prime example of how insecure and fragile *these people *really are.

Oh, I should also note that in my original statement, I said Trump supporters are *either* racist or delusional. But the racist comment is what got them going, so what does that tell you?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

In other news, the gap in Georgia is widening back up, except in the opposite direction. I can't believe Trump actually made traditionally red states turn blue. It's just astounding. This has definitely been the most exciting election in my lifetime.


----------



## Ibcap (Nov 6, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I ended up pointing out the hypocrisy and it backfired on me when they said we would stop pirating stuff.
> What did they do?


Very ironic that its a conservative complaining about not being able to download paid products for free when the right wing narrative is that "liberals just want free stuff".


----------



## GhostLatte (Nov 6, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Digital items are worthless.


I sell modded accounts and have made well over $2000.


----------



## Joom (Nov 6, 2020)

Ibcap said:


> Very ironic that its a conservative complaining about not being able to download paid products for free when the right wing narrative is that "liberals just want free stuff".


It's even more ironic that he somehow thinks it's something entitled to him that his parents have threatened to take away.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 6, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Hanafuda, you're contributing nothing of substance to the discourse.



I'd like to know who is.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> I'd like to know who is.


Did you put as much thought into that sentence as you did the racist one? Because plenty of people are having actual conversations about real things. Are you trying to be sassy to deflect from your bad posts? I'm not impressed.


----------



## Joom (Nov 6, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> I'd like to know who is.


Oh, I dunno, probably everyone else who isn't resorting to desperation to continue an argument from two weeks ago. The seethe is real, man.


----------



## vincentx77 (Nov 6, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Tortoises live a really long time though.



Touché


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 6, 2020)

At this point, doesn't even seem like room for recounts.


----------



## Ibcap (Nov 6, 2020)

The election is over at this point, the only thing left to see is how hard Trump can push the narrative that hes the legitimate president and Biden cheated. He is going to try his best to radicalize the right with conspiracy theories, but the republican leadership is already dumping him as quickly as they got in line when he won the nomination. Really shows how spineless many of them are, and gives me some respect for Bush, Romney and especially McCain for not shutting up and taking it like the rest of their party.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 6, 2020)

Ibcap said:


> Very ironic that its a conservative complaining about not being able to download paid products for free when the right wing narrative is that "liberals just want free stuff".


My problem isn't with free stuff, it's with "free" stuff. The difference is one affects nobody while the other is paid by taxes.
Bringing up Marxism won't work, as that affects everyone negatively.


GhostLatte said:


> I sell modded accounts and have made well over $2000.


Good for you.


----------



## Joom (Nov 6, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> My problem isn't with free stuff, it's with "free" stuff. The difference is one affects nobody while the other is paid by taxes.
> Bringing up Marxism won't work, as that affects everyone negatively.


Spoken like a true fascist. Like you know anything about Marx or what's good for the tax payer. You're not even old enough to legally pay taxes.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> My problem isn't with free stuff, it's with "free" stuff. The difference is one affects nobody while the other is paid by taxes.
> Bringing up Marxism won't work, as that affects everyone negatively.
> 
> Good for you.


You do know that piracy isn't "free" as you're using the word, yes? People took the time to work hard to make the thing you're downloading like a leech.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 6, 2020)

Joom said:


> Spoken like a true fascist. Like you know anything about Marx or what's good for the tax payer. You're not even old enough to legally pay taxes.


Sales tax exists.


Lacius said:


> You do know that piracy isn't "free" as you're using the word, yes? People took the time to work hard to make the thing you're downloading like a leech.


A few people like myself downloading these games off of the internet isn't going to prevent good developers from making a profit. Plenty of indie developers are okay with piracy, including the developers of Freedom Planet, Just Shapes & Beats, and even Minecraft (before it got bough out by Microsoft).


----------



## Ibcap (Nov 6, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> My problem isn't with free stuff, it's with "free" stuff. The difference is one affects nobody while the other is paid by taxes.
> Bringing up Marxism won't work, as that affects everyone negatively.
> 
> Good for you.


What about free college? College education isnt an object, it doesnt "steal" anything physical from the teacher, all it takes is their time and effort the same way making a game or movie would. But im sure you'd object to allowing people to go to college for free.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Sales tax exists.
> 
> A few people like myself downloading these games off of the internet isn't going to prevent good developers from making a profit. Plenty of indie developers are okay with piracy, including the developers of Freedom Planet, Just Shapes & Beats, and even Minecraft (before it got bough out by Microsoft).



If everybody pirated games, there would be no profit.
By pirating a game, you are reducing profit.
By pirating a game, you are leeching something of value from the hard work of others.
Whether or not some developers are okay with piracy is irrelevant to whether or not piracy is moral (it's immoral) or legal (it's illegal).


----------



## Joom (Nov 6, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Sales tax exists.


It sure does, doesn't it. What's your point?


UltraSUPRA said:


> A few people like myself downloading these games off of the internet isn't going to prevent good developers from making a profit. Plenty of indie developers are okay with piracy, including the developers of Freedom Planet, Just Shapes & Beats, and even Minecraft (before it got bough out by Microsoft).


Yeah, and you're not entitled to any of it for free, either. Also, anyone that pirates indie games is scum. I don't care if there's a handful out there who are trust fund kids who don't rely on their work as a means of survival. They aren't representative of the grand majority who have to grind tirelessly to kick out a passion just for some punk kid detached from reality to come along and steal it. And to think, you conservatives call us the degenerates. It's even sadder to see a kid such as yourself so detached, because it just means you're gonna have a really hard time adjusting to what actual reality is like once you're an adult.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 6, 2020)

Lacius said:


> If everybody pirated games, there would be no profit.


That's the thing: not everybody does.


Lacius said:


> By pirating a game, you are reducing profit.


No.


Lacius said:


> By pirating a game, you are leeching something of value from the hard work of others.


What are your thoughts on Epic Games' Free Game of the Month?


Lacius said:


> Whether or not some developers are okay with piracy is irrelevant to whether or not piracy is moral (it's immoral) or legal (it's illegal).


Illegal? True. Immoral? False.


Ibcap said:


> What about free college? College education isnt an object, it doesnt "steal" anything physical from the teacher, all it takes is their time and effort the same way making a game or movie would. But im sure you'd object to allowing people to go to college for free.


Fair point.


Joom said:


> Yeah, and you're not entitled to any of it for free, either. Also, anyone that pirates indie games is scum. I don't care if there's a handful out there who are trust fund kids who don't rely on their work as a means of survival. They aren't representative of the grand majority who have to grind tirelessly to kick out a passion just for some punk kid detached from reality to come along and steal it. And to think, you conservatives call us the degenerates. It's even sadder to see a kid such as yourself so detached, because it just means you're gonna have a really hard time adjusting to what actual reality is like once you're an adult.


If you're making a living off of game development, you probably have more than enough good people buying your games. Some indie developers see pirates as publicity.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> That's the thing: not everybody does.


When assessing the morality of an action, figuring the consequences of the action if everyone did it is a hallmark in figuring if it's immoral or not. Did you know that? You also never provided a substantive response to my point about you not wanting someone to download a free copy of something you worked hard to make. That's your MO. You ignore substantive rebuttals and just barrel through the conversation. Concede, offer a better rebuttal, or go away.



UltraSUPRA said:


> No.


If you pirate a game instead of buying it, the developer makes less money.



UltraSUPRA said:


> What are your thoughts on Epic Games' Free Game of the Month?


It's irrelevant. The developer receives a kickback and/or advertisement, and most importantly, the developer consents.



UltraSUPRA said:


> Illegal? True. Immoral? False.


Piracy is immoral. You are downloading for free something the developer intends for you to purchase. You are violating the rights of the developer. If you directly benefit from a service I provided, for example, it would be immoral for you to not pay me what I charge for that service.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 6, 2020)

Lacius said:


> When assessing the morality of an action, figuring the consequences of the action if everyone did it is a hallmark in figuring if it's immoral or not. Did you know that?


So I'm not the only homophobic individual here...


Lacius said:


> If you pirate a game instead of buying it, the developer makes less money.


If you buy a game used instead of new, the developer makes less money.


Lacius said:


> It's irrelevant. The developer receives a kickback and/or advertisement, and most importantly, the developer consents.
> 
> Piracy is immoral. You are downloading for free something the developer intends for you to purchase. You are violating the rights of the developer. If you directly benefit from a service I provided, for example, it would be immoral for you to not pay me what I charge for that service.


Would you say that Adblock is immoral?


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> So I'm not the only homophobic individual here...


There are no moral problems with everyone having consenting sexual relationships with the people they're attracted to. Hell, there are no moral problems with everyone being homosexual.



UltraSUPRA said:


> If you buy a game used instead of new, the developer makes less money.


If you buy a game used, you're paying (some of) the cost the original owner paid to the developer. Like, this isn't a hard concept to understand. The original owner also has the legal right to sell their own property.



UltraSUPRA said:


> Would you say that Adblock is immoral?


It is, yes.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 6, 2020)

A truly tight election, it was fun to watch. A few things are pretty sus, but that's for the courts to settle. Historic turnout for both sides, bigly energy - hopefully that's an indication for future . As far as the numbers go, GG Team Blue.

Regarding the off-topic discussion about piracy, it's most definitely immoral to download content you do not own a license for. With that said, piracy causes negligible losses to rights holders - the phenomenon of a "lost sale" is deceptive and grossly overblown. A pirate downloading a video game was highly unlikely to purchase the game in the first place - people with TB's worth of ROM's weren't planning to buy hundreds of games. If they would've bought any at all, it'd be a couple at best. The likelyhood that they would've bought a platform that they *can* pirate on instead is significantly higher. This is why many developers nowadays choose to distribute their games DRM-free - the primary victim of aggressive DRM is the consumer, not the pirates.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 6, 2020)

Lacius said:


> There are no moral problems with everyone having consenting sexual relationships with the people they're attracted to. Hell, there are no moral problems with everyone being homosexual.


Think of the effects on the population. That seems to be something you're obsessed over with the Coronavirus.


Lacius said:


> If you buy a game used, you're paying (some of) the cost the original owner paid to the developer. Like, this isn't a hard concept to understand. The original owner also has the legal right to sell their own property.


You own a house and you can let as many people as you want in.


Lacius said:


> It is, yes.


*laugh track*


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> So I'm not the only homophobic individual here...


How did you get homophobia out of that? My god, you conservatards really reach far, don't you?


UltraSUPRA said:


> Would you say that Adblock is immoral?


No, because there's a difference between consenting over your privacy, and stealing. Ad blockers don't cost sites or content creators money. It's not the same as theft in any way since the money didn't exist in the first place without those ads. In fact, in the case of YouTube, content creators either have to abide by YouTube's Draconian monetization rules, or go a different route. Even if they decide to stay monetization safe, Google takes most ad revenue (and Superchat revenue). What content creators get from ads is pitiful. This is why many create their own promotions for different companies, have Patreons, or some other third-party means one can support them through.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 7, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Think of the effects on the population. That seems to be something you're obsessed over with the Coronavirus.


There are no harmful effects on the population when everyone is having consenting sexual relationships with the people they're attracted to. There are no harmful effects on the population when everyone is homosexual. 99.9% of sex is not reproductive, and that doesn't change in either scenario. Hypothetically, people can and would continue to procreate in both scenarios.

Also, hypothetically, it's not immoral for a generation to choose not to procreate and for the human species to go extinct because of it.



UltraSUPRA said:


> You own a house and you can let as many people as you want in.


What is your point?



UltraSUPRA said:


> *laugh track*


I hope you understand that these mindless quips that don't convey anything of substance are analogous to a white flag of surrender. Actually respond or go away.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Joom said:


> How did you get homophobia out of that? My god, you conservatards really reach far, don't you?
> 
> No, because there's a difference between consenting over your privacy, and stealing. Ad blockers don't cost sites or content creators money. It's not the same as theft in any way since the money didn't exist in the first place without those ads. In fact, in the case of YouTube, content creators either have to abide by YouTube's Draconian monetization rules, or go a different route. Even if they decide to stay monetization safe, Google takes most ad revenue (and Superchat revenue). What content creators get from ads is pitiful. This is why many create their own promotions for different companies, have Patreons, or some other third-party means one can support them through.


He's (incorrectly) arguing that if everyone were gay, then there would be no babies, and that's immoral.


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

Lacius said:


> He's (incorrectly) arguing that if everyone were gay, then there would be no babies, and that's immoral.


Oh, arguing subjective with objective. The conservative's favorite past time!


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 7, 2020)

I don't see how using an Adblock would in any way constitute an immoral act. Advertisers pay for advertising spots on websites, but at no point are they ever guaranteed that the ads will be delivered to every customer. You can choose to ignore a flyer in the same way when walking down the street - you just say "no, thank you". You're in no way obligated to look at ads and you're welcome to take any measure to avoid them, advertisers pay per click or per displayed instance, there is no extra cost attached to ads that were blocked by the user. It decreases the revenue for the website in question, that's the only verifiable "loss", and I still don't find it immoral. In fact, given the possible vulnerabilities associated with ads, I recommend using an adblocker on sites that you don't trust and whitelist on a case-by-case basis to protect your privacy and data.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 7, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Also, hypothetically, it's not immoral for a generation to choose not to procreate and for the human species to go extinct because of it.


You have lost the right to discuss morality if you'd be okay with the entire human race going extinct by our own doing.


Lacius said:


> What is your point?


You own a house and you can let in as many people as you want.
You own a copy of a game/movie and you should be able to let as many people play/watch as you want.


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> You have lost the right to discuss morality if you'd be okay with the entire human race going extinct.


Except you're fine with spreading COVID and have expressed extreme disregard for any other human life. Pot, meet kettle.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 7, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> You have lost the right to discuss morality if you'd be okay with the entire human race going extinct by our own doing.


This is hyperbolic nonsense. I've lost no rights.

That being said, there's nothing immoral about choosing not to have kids. Imaginary people who may or may not be born in the far future have no rights today. If the entire human population decides they don't want to have kids, who is harmed? If no one is harmed, it's not immoral.



UltraSUPRA said:


> You have lost the right to discuss morality if you'd be okay with the entire human race going extinct by our own doing.
> 
> You own a house and you can let in as many people as you want.
> You own a copy of a game/movie and you should be able to let as many people play/watch as you want.


I'm not preventing a developer from getting money for their work by letting people enter my house. I'm uninterested in false analogies. Please try again.

Also, I bought one copy of the game, which gives me the right to do with one copy of the game what I want. It does not make copying the game moral. It's their intellectual property.

You're not going to win the argument that piracy isn't immoral.


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> You own a copy of a game/movie and you should be able to let as many people play/watch as you want.


Tell that to the RIAA and MPAA. I'm sure they'll get a good chuckle, too.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 7, 2020)

Joom said:


> Except you're fine with spreading COVID and have expressed extreme disregard for any other human life. Pot, meet kettle.


1. If you don't want COVID, don't go outside.
2. I never argued that I was a good person.


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

Lacius said:


> That being said, there's nothing immoral about choosing not to have kids


This is white nationalist rhetoric. It's shit Neo-Nazis spread around because they think if you aren't actively working to advance the white race, you're immoral.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 7, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> 1. If you don't want COVID, don't go outside.


Great, that means I can finally stop wearing clothes. If you don't want to see me naked, don't go outside. Ever. I'm going to walk around naked outside your house all the time.

Respectfully, you haven't thought this through. I've also used this example before, and you never responded to it satisfactorily.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 7, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Great, that means I can finally stop wearing clothes. If you don't want to see me naked, don't go outside. Ever. I'm going to walk around naked outside your house all the time.


Alright, let's just ignore the fact that clothing has been a natural instinct ever since Eve ate the apple and most people find them to be comfortable.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 7, 2020)

If you don't want to die in a car accident because @UltraSUPRA is driving 100 mph over the speed limit, don't get on the road.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 7, 2020)

The amount of memes are insane. 

As for turnout, there might be more people because of all this, but without a populist, I doubt it will be nearly as high.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 7, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Alright, let's just ignore the fact that clothing has been a natural instinct ever since Eve ate the apple and most people find them to be comfortable.



There's no evidence Adam and Eve actually existed.
There's evidence Adam and Eve didn't exist.
Whether or not they existed does nothing to counter my point. See my speeding car example. If you don't want to die in a car accident because @UltraSUPRA is driving 100 mph over the speed limit, don't get on the road.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 7, 2020)

Lacius said:


> If you don't want to die in a car accident because @UltraSUPRA is driving 100 mph over the speed limit, don't get on the road.


I'd be protecting myself, too, by driving the speed limit.


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Alright, let's just ignore the fact that clothing has been a natural instinct ever since Eve ate the apple and most people find them to be comfortable.


Should we tell him? Someone oughta tell him...I'm getting the vibe this kid still believes in Santa.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 7, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I'd be protecting myself, too, by driving the speed limit.


Do you seriously not understand that the speed limit laws are analogous to mask ordinances? Masks protect you too. I think you just conceded my argument.

Also, this post does nothing to address or counter my point. Try again.


----------



## Deleted member 512337 (Nov 7, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Try again.


you shouldn't have asked


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 7, 2020)

Joom said:


> Should we tell him? Someone oughta tell him...I'm getting the vibe this kid still believes in Santa.


Santa Claus can be proven nonexistent. If there is no God, how do we exist?


Lacius said:


> Do you seriously not understand that the speed limit laws are analogous to mask ordinances? Masks protect you too. I think you just conceded my argument.


I'm not protecting myself by wearing a mask. Even if I was, the survival rate for children under the age of 18 is insanely high.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 7, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Santa Claus can be proven nonexistent. If there is no God, how do we exist?



Absence of disproof is not evidence of that thing existing.
Absence of an explanation is not evidence of another explanation.
We do not have absence of an explanation with regard to how we came to be as a species. We know that humans evolved on this planet over billions of years.



UltraSUPRA said:


> I'm not protecting myself by wearing a mask.


Fact check: Yes, you are.



UltraSUPRA said:


> Even if I was, the survival rate for children under the age of 18 is insanely high.


It is high, but it's also not 100%. You also don't want to get it because you might spread it to someone else.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 7, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Absence of disproof is not evidence of that thing existing.
> Absence of an explanation is not evidence of another explanation.
> We do not have absence of an explanation with regard to how we came to be as a species. We know that humans evolved on this planet over billions of years.


If the theory of evolution is true, how would that explain the existence of humanity on nearly every landmass of this Earth without some sort of divine being calling the shots?


Lacius said:


> Fact check: Yes, you are.


FACT CHECK: You can't call anything a "fact check" without citing sources.


Lacius said:


> It is high, but it's also not 100%. You also don't want to get it because you might spread it to someone else.


Oh, dear, you're right! If only there was some sort of way to mitigate that issue without causing physical pain or mental distress! Like, say...Hydroxychloroquine? Regeneron? Sputnik V?


----------



## linuxares (Nov 7, 2020)

God I want to ban so many of. You fucking whining people....


----------



## Lacius (Nov 7, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> If the theory of evolution is true, how would that explain the existence of humanity on nearly every landmass of this Earth without some sort of divine being calling the shots?


Human migration patterns out of Africa to all the places humans inhabit now are well-established and not even controversial. Also, a hypothetical absence of an explanation would not be evidence for another proposed explanation (e.g. a divine being did it). Before believing a divine being did it, you'd have to a.) demonstrate a divine being exists, and b.) demonstrate a divine being did it.



UltraSUPRA said:


> FACT CHECK: You can't call anything a "fact check" without citing sources.


I was going to provide a source just now, but then I decided I'd respond this way instead: Watch me call something a fact check without citing sources. I'm not wrong, and it's interesting you aren't actually responding to my actual point. That's called deflection.



UltraSUPRA said:


> Oh, dear, you're right! If only there was some sort of way to mitigate that issue without causing physical pain or mental distress! Like, say...Hydroxychloroquine? Regeneron? Sputnik V?


The drug treatments you mentioned are, at best, ineffective, and at worst, physically harmful to the point that they result in an increased mortality rate. Wear a fucking mask.

Also, do you see how off topic we've gotten? I demonstrate how you're wrong about one thing, and instead of conceding or providing a better response, you move on to something else. It's telling.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Nov 7, 2020)

linuxares said:


> God I want to ban so many of. You fucking whining people....


Ah, let us be. 
We are keeping to ourselves in this thread, which, (if you would take a gander), can be rather entertaining at times. 
Plus Chary already exercised her right to ban once; please, no more.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 7, 2020)

This is the last post I'm making because LinuxAres is here.


Lacius said:


> Human migration patterns out of Africa to all the places humans inhabit now are well-established and not even controversial. Also, a hypothetical absence of an explanation would not be evidence for another proposed explanation (e.g. a divine being did it). Before believing a divine being did it, you'd have to a.) demonstrate a divine being exists, and b.) demonstrate a divine being did it.


So what you're saying is that the Garden of Eden was located in modern-day Africa...which would mean that all races evolved from Africans...which would mean everyone has an N-pass.


Lacius said:


> I was going to provide a source just now, but then I decided I'd respond this way instead: Watch me call something a fact check without citing sources. I'm not wrong, and it's interesting you aren't actually responding to my actual point. That's called deflection.


FACT CHECK: The Earth is flat. No, I'm not going to provide any sources. Even if I'm clearly wrong, I'm right. Why? Because I said so.


Lacius said:


> The drug treatments you mentioned are, at best, ineffective, and at worst, physically harmful to the point that they result in an increased mortality rate. Wear a fucking mask.


Tell that to the independent doctors giving out Hydroxychloroquine to their patients and seeing them get better. Tell that to the Russians who created that vaccine without the knowledge of Putin. Tell that to Donald Trump, who took the Regeneron and never suffered any symptoms afterwards.


Lacius said:


> Also, do you see how off topic we've gotten? I demonstrate how you're wrong about one thing, and instead of conceding or providing a better response, you move on to something else. It's telling.


That's why I'm done talking.


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> If there is no God, how do we exist?


Hundreds of millions of years ago, protein strands that escaped the oceanic heat vents around underwater volcanoes began to form RNA, and then DNA, which later went on to form life as we know it through the incredibly slow process of evolution. The Big Bang also isn't a theory anymore, and we're now onto the part where we can observe remnants of past universes before the event by studying the presence of dead black holes. We're also on the trail of alternative universes thanks to quantum physics. In layman's terms, science is cooler and that's how God doesn't exist.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 7, 2020)

Joom said:


> Hundreds of millions of years ago, protein strands that escaped the oceanic heat vents around underwater volcanoes began to form RNA, and then DNA, which later went on to form life as we know it through the incredibly slow process of evolution. The Big Bang also isn't a theory anymore, and we're now onto the part where we can observe remnants of past universes before the event by studying the presence of dead black holes. We're also on the trail of alternative universes thanks to quantum physics. In layman's terms, science is cooler and that's how God doesn't exist.


Fact check:

Abiogenesis was billions of years ago, not hundreds of millions
We don't know for sure how abiogenesis occurred. Your explanation is sort of correct with regard to our best guess, but it's more complicated than that.
The Big Bang model is, by definition, a scientific theory, and it will always be a scientific theory. That doesn't mean it's not a fact. In science, theory does not mean guess.
We haven't demonstrated the existence of other universes, although they may exist.
A dead black hole is one that doesn't exist anymore after evaporating.
We haven't observed anything from before the big bang, if that's even possible.
Nothing about this disproves a god.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 7, 2020)

Actual last post.


Joom said:


> The Big Bang also isn't a theory anymore


Yes, I agree. God said it and *BANG* it happened.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 7, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> This is the last post I'm making because LinuxAres is here.
> 
> So what you're saying is that the Garden of Eden was located in modern-day Africa...which would mean that all races evolved from Africans...which would mean everyone has an N-pass.
> 
> ...



I never mentioned the Garden of Eden, and there's no reason to think it ever existed.
If I said the Earth is round, I don't have to cite my sources. It's common knowledge. The same goes for the efficacy of masks. I'm not taking the time to provide sources for obvious facts that you are willfully being ignorant about. You will notice I provide sources often when it is appropriate and worth my time. I don't get paid to do this, despite what some here might think. I'm also not saying something is true because I said so.
If I give patients my piss, and some of them get better, does that mean my piss healed them? Anecdotes are not evidence. What matters is the scientific method.
Hydroxychloroquine doesn't work, and it is physically harmful. Trump didn't even receive it when he had COVID.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 7, 2020)

Can you just let me leave this thread?


Lacius said:


> I never mentioned the Garden of Eden, and there's no reason to think it ever existed.
> If I said the Earth is round, I don't have to cite my sources. It's common knowledge. The same goes for the efficacy of masks. I'm not taking the time to provide sources for obvious facts that you are willfully being ignorant about. You will notice I provide sources often when it is appropriate and worth my time. I don't get paid to do this, despite what some here might think. I'm also not saying something is true because I said so.
> If I give patients my piss, and some of them get better, does that mean my piss healed them? Anecdotes are not evidence. What matters is the scientific method.
> Hydroxychloroquine doesn't work, and it is physically harmful. Trump didn't even receive it when he had COVID.


None of this refutes the effectiveness of Regeneron.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 7, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> Can you just let me leave this thread?
> 
> None of this refutes the effectiveness of Regeneron.


I never intended to.

Also, sorry babe. I didn't mean to, uh, hinder your freedoms.


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

Lacius said:


> Fact check:
> 
> Abiogenesis was billions of years ago, not hundreds of millions
> We don't know for sure how abiogenesis occurred. Your explanation is sort of correct with regard to our best guess, but it's more complicated than that.
> ...


Whatever. Semantics are semantics. I also don't ascribe to the logical fallacy of "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence". Sure, there might be some magical being out there that we have yet to discover, but the same could be said about literally anything that can't be proven or disproven. You can't prove a leprechaun exists or doesn't exist, either, but the general consensus is that they don't. The Judeo-Christian "God" can be treated the same way. I mean, the likelihood of some powerful being existing out there isn't zero percent, but it is highly unlikely that it's some humanoid with magic powers that farted everything into existence. And regarding theory, I know. But it's pretty much been proven at this point. 

Also, here's an interesting read you might like:
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...g-bang-roger-penrose-nobel-prize-b881031.html


----------



## Lacius (Nov 7, 2020)

Joom said:


> Whatever. Semantics are semantics. I also don't ascribe to the logical fallacy of "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence". Sure, there might be some magical being out there that we have yet to discover, but the same could be said about literally anything that can't be proven or disproven. You can't prove a leprechaun exists or doesn't exist, either, but the general consensus is that they don't. The Judeo-Christian "God" can be treated the same way. I mean, the likelihood of some powerful being existing out there isn't zero percent, but it is highly unlikely that it's some humanoid with magic powers that farted everything into existence.
> 
> Also, here's an interesting read you might like:
> https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...g-bang-roger-penrose-nobel-prize-b881031.html


I don't believe a god exists.

I am hyper aware of just about everything Penrose has said or done. What you linked to is speculation only.


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I don't believe a god exists.


I really didn't want to derail this thread and get onto religion anyway. It's not a subject that really interests me, and it's kinda been argued to death.


----------



## Joeseph Mother (Nov 7, 2020)

Atheists: How can you believe that God magically put people on Earth?

Also atheists: The world exploded into place from a magic fart.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 7, 2020)

Joeseph Mother said:


> Atheists: How can you believe that God magically put people on Earth?
> 
> Also atheists: The world exploded into place from a magic fart.


I'm not aware of a single atheist who believes that. Nice strawman. It's telling.

There's no sound reason to think a god exists.


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

Joeseph Mother said:


> Also atheists: The world exploded into place from a magic fart.


Atheists think the same thing about diamond, because there's no way matter can become so dense that it implodes into something new. Nope, it's just magic.


----------



## ov3rkill (Nov 7, 2020)

Other. Where's Kanye West? He would've won easily.

I'm just here for the memes.


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

ov3rkill said:


> Other. Where's Kanye West? He would've won easily.
> 
> I'm just here for the memes.


I remember hearing he did get like 60k write-ins, or something like that. Shame for Trump, considering Kanye was just another MAGA since he's a contrarion. He went from claiming that George Bush doesn't care about black people to riding the dick of the most racist president since Nixon.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Nov 7, 2020)

I will post one more thing.


----------



## 8BitWonder (Nov 7, 2020)

Joeseph Mother said:


> Atheists: How can you believe that God magically put people on Earth?
> 
> Also atheists: The world exploded into place from a magic fart.


Yeah it's really weird that people believe in the big bang when there's abundant evidence to support that it happened.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 7, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I will post one more thing.
> View attachment 233010



You've posted one more thing several times now. Nobody believes you.
That's funny coming from someone who is anti-choice with regard to a woman's body.
What are you even alluding to?


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I will post one more thing.
> View attachment 233010


Yeah yeah, we know you like to wear a libertarian sheet over your Nazi shell. This is something I really don't get, too. All of you claim to hate big government and the establishment, but boy howdy if you don't love the police and authoritarian leaders. It's a huge oxymoron.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> You've posted one more thing several times now. Nobody believes you.
> That's funny coming from someone who is anti-choice with regard to a woman's body.
> What are you even alluding to?


The far right likes to claim they're libertarian, or regurgitate libertarian quotes, when in reality they couldn't be the furthest thing from it. That's why you see all these bumpkins ignorantly flying "Don't Tread On Me" flags.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 7, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> I will post one more thing.
> View attachment 233010



So you believe that government should not be able to make medical choices for us. Right? Or does that rule of thumb only apply to yourself and where you see fit?


----------



## omgcat (Nov 7, 2020)

*State-mandated stay-at-home orders and public mask mandates coupled with case investigations with contact tracing contributed to an 82% reduction in COVID-19 incidence, 88% reduction in hospitalizations, and 100% reduction in mortality in Delaware during late April–June.*

huh, would you look at that... still, it's the 6th of november, why isn't the virus hoax gone?


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> So you believe that government should not be able to make medical choices for us. Right? Or does that rule of thumb only apply to yourself and where you see fit?


They should only control abortion, drug consumption, who gets AIDS treatment, and oversee forced eugenics. That's what it means to be "libertarian". I wish Ron Paul would speak out about the nationalists who put his name in their mouth. Them and his simp boot-licker of a son should be a total embarrassment to him that he makes everyone aware of so that they can feel the shame they deserve.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



omgcat said:


> *State-mandated stay-at-home orders and public mask mandates coupled with case investigations with contact tracing contributed to an 82% reduction in COVID-19 incidence, 88% reduction in hospitalizations, and 100% reduction in mortality in Delaware during late April–June.*
> 
> huh, would you look at that... still, it's the 6th of november, why isn't the virus hoax gone?


Yeah, wasn't it supposed to be gone after election day? Wasn't it supposed to be gone at the beginning of summer? Wasn't China supposed to "pay" for it? Not to seem like I'm supporting her, but had Hillary won and had to handle this, 20k people would have died and the Republicans would have been riding her about it for her entire presidency. Who wants to bet we break 300k before January, and people still won't hold Trump accountable?


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 7, 2020)

Lacius was probably mad and disappointed last election. (Rightfully so.) Now I can't tell if he just mad, having fun, or both.


----------



## omgcat (Nov 7, 2020)

Joom said:


> They should only control abortion, drug consumption, who gets AIDS treatment, and oversee forced eugenics. That's what it means to be "libertarian". I wish Ron Paul would speak out about the nationalists who put his name in their mouth. Them and his simp boot-licker of a son should be a total embarrassment to him that he makes everyone aware of so that they can feel the shame they deserve.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



2 Americans died during the Ebola outbreak and the right lost their collective shit at Obama.


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Lacius was probably mad and disappointed last election. (Rightfully so.) Now I can't tell if he just mad, having fun, or both.


I mean, if he's like me, he's been irked by arguing with a 15 year old Nazi all day. But hey, when it's quarantine, you got nothing better to do with your time. :\


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

omgcat said:


> 2 Americans died during the Ebola outbreak and the right lost their collective shit at Obama.


Eyup.

Update: https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/co...-meadows-tests-positive-for-covid-19/2438782/

Woops. @UltraSUPRA, you wanna tell the president and his staff that if they didn't want COVID they just shouldn't have gone outside? Trump made it very clear that he couldn't do that because America needed his strength! What a sacrifice he made for this country by infecting the entire White House along with his cronies.


----------



## omgcat (Nov 7, 2020)




----------



## KingVamp (Nov 7, 2020)

It is pretty ridiculous that we are still waiting. We don't just have a plurality of the votes, but a majority. I really hope the voting pact becomes a thing someday.


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> It is pretty ridiculous that we are still waiting. We don't just have a plurality of the votes, but a majority. I really hope the voting pact becomes a thing someday.


You can thank COVID. These mail-ins are what's taking up so much time. It's what makes me incredibly glad for living in a tiny rural town. I voted on election day an hour before the polls closed with maybe 10 other people there. Makes me really feel for those who had to stand in line for hours, but I commend them for getting out and doing it. Voting lines and rallies have become super-spreader hotspots, and you can only thank a fascist administration for that. Shutting down polling locations in order to suppress voters has not only lead to more inevitable deaths, but Trump's demise as well. American's stood up and said "fuck you", which is what we do.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 7, 2020)

Joom said:


> You can thank COVID. These mail-ins are what's taking up so much time. It's what makes me incredibly glad for living in a tiny rural town. I voted on election day an hour before the polls closed with maybe 10 other people there. Makes me really feel for those who had to stand in line for hours, but I commend them for getting out and doing it. Voting lines and rallies have become super-spreader hotspots, and you can only thank a fascist administration for that. Shutting down polling locations in order to suppress voters has not only lead to more inevitable deaths, but Trump's demise as well. American's stood up and said "fuck you", which is what we do.


True, but if this was going by the popular vote, this election would have already been called.


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> True, but if this was going by the popular vote, this election would have already been called.


Oh no kidding. Trust me, I want the electoral college dead. Gerrymandering is a serious contradiction to democracy, but it's kept there, because without it, a Republican would never win an election. But the arguments for keeping it are dumb. They say it's to prevent population centers like big cities from controlling the vote, but they control the economy anyway, so it's a rather redundant point. You'll hear that you need farmers for food, but the population centers are the ones who pay for the food, so another redundant point. People in this country vote against their best interest all because of identity and societal politics. If that could end, we'd all be better off.


----------



## silien3 (Nov 7, 2020)

Joom said:


> Hundreds of millions of years ago, protein strands that escaped the oceanic heat vents around underwater volcanoes began to form RNA, and then DNA, which later went on to form life as we know it through the incredibly slow process of evolution. The Big Bang also isn't a theory anymore, and we're now onto the part where we can observe remnants of past universes before the event by studying the presence of dead black holes. We're also on the trail of alternative universes thanks to quantum physics. In layman's terms, science is cooler and that's how God doesn't exist.


You have no proof that gods do not exist religion is based and is made by and for human beings so distorting the base despite this does not mean that there is not a superior being even the big genius we say we don't know how to explain everything

the evolution has different theory meteorite volcano is therefore to assert that its thanks to the volcano that we appeared while even the scientists are sharing it's absurd of more it lacksa missing ancestor in the table of evolution I do not believe in religion because written by man and no god but its does not mean that there is nothing above everything

and your big bang is created there how in a vacuum where there is nothing proves nothing at all these are only theories and hypotheses because impossible to verify you will really be on the side of science you would not affirm anything all



UltraSUPRA said:


> This is the last post I'm making because LinuxAres is here.
> 
> So what you're saying is that the Garden of Eden was located in modern-day Africa...which would mean that all races evolved from Africans...which would mean everyone has an N-pass.
> 
> ...



as said above, it is not because religions are false that evolution exists and the earth is round and not flat that God does not exist but to blindly believe in something and speak its truth while there are human beings who are led to believe themselves equal to god (belief of almost all religions no you are not gods and compare the human being as the equal of god his being precisely against him)

There are so many passages that I can say and who are against religion as with adam and eve are the first their child are therefore incest so its should be legal for religion yet its seen as the worst thing for some
(no I am not for incest on the contrary but by following religious logic it should be tolerated) and seeing that Eve is a side of Adam it is therefore an unfinished man and even I will go so far as to say that he sleeps with himself so homosexuals should be allowed by the bible and no this is not the case so still a contradiction

moreover since it is the women who are pregnant gods prefer them to the man since he gives birth and like him create life but its the men who are put forward and as master in the religion
there are many others but I stop the

and despite all its its does not mean that god does not exist

but believe what you want, free will is there for

sorry i use google translate and i bugged


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

silien3 said:


> ...


As I said earlier, religion isn't a topic I really get on because I just don't care, and it's been done to death by philosophers elsewhere. I know how we got here, and how the universe began. I know that Christianity was created by the Roman empire in order to control the lower class, so I know to not be indoctrinated into any religion with promises of a spectacular afterlife, and I know what happens when we die because I've medically died on a few different occasions (spoiler: nothing happens, and you don't even know you're dead because you're dead). On top of this, I've used LSD and DMT for several years now, and those kinda demolish any idea of deities you might have as well as teach you that your "gods" come from your mind.That's all I care about, and don't care to get much more into it.

If you wanna see where I derive spirituality and my beliefs from, read into the stoned ape theory, and check out Timothy Leary's "Your Brain Is God". I guess you'd call me a hippy, but I align more toward the science behind it and not the mysticism.

Also, on this topic, go Oregon for legalizing the first psilocybin mushroom therapy clinic in the US! That's one of the good things to come out of this election.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 7, 2020)

Ironically, this election seems to be the beginning of the end for the war on drugs.


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Ironically, this election seems to be the beginning of the end for the war on drugs.


Maaaan, us psychonauts saw the psychedelic renaissance on the rise about a decade ago. Drugs like LSD and MDMA that have been a rarity since the 80s have come back in full force. DMT, 2-cb, psilocybin, ketamine, and a plethora of other things have been recognized by the medical community to be beneficial to the human condition. Just this year, they also discovered that tryptamine psychedelics (DMT, psilocybin, LSD) promote neuroplasticity, something once thought entirely impossible. These substances rewire our brains to unlock potential, and could be the stepping stone for the next enlightenment.


----------



## silien3 (Nov 7, 2020)

Joom said:


> As I said earlier, religion isn't a topic I really get on because I just don't care, and it's been done to death by philosophers elsewhere. I know how we got here, and how the universe began. I know that Christianity was created by the Roman empire in order to control the lower class, so I know to not be indoctrinated by any religion with promises of a spectacular afterlife, and I know what happens when we die because I've medically died on a few different occasions (spoiler: nothing happens, and you don't even know you're dead because you're dead). On top of this, I've used LSD and DMT for several years now, and those kinda demolish any idea of deities you might have as well as teach you that your "gods" come from your mind.That's all I care about, and don't care to get much more into it.
> 
> If you wanna see where I derive spirituality and my beliefs, read into the stoned ape theory, and check out Timothy Leary's "Your Brain Is God". I guess you'd call me a hippy, but I align more toward the science behind it and not the mysticism.
> 
> Also, on this topic, go Oregon for legalizing the first psilocybin mushroom therapy clinic in the US! That's one of the good things to come out of this election.



precisely even science does not explain everything and well I do not speak as if gods exist but more on it is possible that he exists as the reverse and is not because there is no hell and paradise and even while being dead healthy one or the other that there does not exist his does not mean anything because if his him who made the universe his does not mean that he made a hell and paradise his human beliefs his
god may be an eye in the center of the universe and the rest are the planets, the white and red blood cells who know
we cannot affirm anything because we are only human beings based on human things
(who told you that it was not your hell or nothing heaven)

well, no matter each one's beliefs


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Nov 7, 2020)

Joom said:


> He went from claiming that George Bush doesn't care about black people to riding the dick of the most racist president since Nixon.



Since Reagan, actually. 

Kanye really needs to get on his meds, though. He's an amazing artist, but apparently his bipolar medication, "kills his creativity".


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

Big Man Tyrone2 said:


> Since Reagan, actually.
> 
> Kanye really needs to get on his meds, though. He's an amazing artist, but apparently his bipolar medication, "kills his creativity".


Sort of. They were both terrible in their own right. Nixon started the persecution of minority and counter-culture groups by heavily regulating weed, and the Reagan administration just made it worse with "THE WAR ON DRUGS" and "lol DARE will scare kids away". There's also the crack conspiracy if you wanna believe that, but it's rather plausible. The Reagan administration saw to the death of the worker union as well, but that's the socialist in me coming out. I think my point is that conservatives = bad, heh. Hell, LSD carries an attempted manslaughter charge just for possession. It literally causes no physical harm and has a zero possibility of addiction, but these administrations determined it this dangerous because it promotes free thoughts. You can thank MKULTRA for this.


----------



## silien3 (Nov 7, 2020)

Joom said:


> Sort of. They were both terrible in their own right. Nixon started the persecution of minority and counter-culture groups by heavily regulating weed, and the Reagan administration just made it worse with "THE WAR ON DRUGS" and "lol DARE will scare kids away". There's also the crack conspiracy if you wanna believe that, but it's rather plausible. The Reagan administration saw to the death of the worker union as well, but that's the socialist in me coming out. I think my point is that conservatives = bad, heh.


if we believe wikipedia the vice president Kamala Harris of the democrats is homophobic and has banned gay marriage by being a judge so his help not to believe that they are with the minority
if wiki is true so not 100 percent safe either but if its true its not a true leftist


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Nov 7, 2020)

Joom said:


> Sort of. They were both terrible in their own right. Nixon started the persecution of minority and counter-culture groups by heavily regulating weed, and the Reagan administration just made it worse with "THE WAR ON DRUGS" and "lol DARE will scare kids away". There's also the crack conspiracy if you wanna believe that, but it's rather plausible. The Reagan administration saw to the death of the worker union as well, but that's the socialist in me coming out.


I would argue that Reagan had done worse for America. The man basically doubled the incarceration rate in just 8 years through his War on Drugs and privatized prisons, basically creating most of the issues that plague poor Americans today. Not to mention his handling of AIDS.


This clip is damning enough to call him a racist, but neocons praise him like he is the second coming:


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 7, 2020)

Another note, Democrats need to do some serious repair with minorities. Florida was just sad.


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

silien3 said:


> if we believe wikipedia the vice president Kamala Harris of the democrats is homophobic and has banned gay marriage by being a judge so his help not to believe that they are with the minority
> if wiki is true so not 100 percent safe either but if its true its not a true leftist


Oh trust me, us leftists are fully aware of Copmala. We know she's a liar who saw to the conviction of thousands of black people for minor drug charges. Something most don't seem to realize is that we weren't voting for Biden, but instead we were voting against Trump. The left hates Biden and everything he stands for. And of course we don't expect him to do anything meaningful with his position. We just had to get Trump out because he's a fascist and a threat to everything America stands for.


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Nov 7, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Another note, Democrats need to do some serious repair with minorities. Florida was just sad.


Florida has a fairly large Cuban and Venezuelan population, so advertising Biden/Harris as commies/socialists was a pretty good play by the Trump campaign.


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

Big Man Tyrone2 said:


> I would argue that Reagan had done worse for America. The man basically doubled the incarceration rate in just 8 years through his War on Drugs and privatized prisons, basically creating most of the issues that plague poor Americans today. Not to mention his handling of AIDS.
> 
> 
> This clip is damning enough to call him a racist, but neocons praise him like he is the second coming:



Hey, new information. I don't educate myself on these people all too much because I already know they're terrible, so there's no point in learning more just to know how terrible they are. I agree with you, though. For all intents and purposes.


Big Man Tyrone2 said:


> Florida has a fairly large Cuban and Venezuelan population, so advertising Biden/Harris as commies/socialists was a pretty good play by the Trump campaign.


This is also true. Both groups are majorly conservative because authoritarians ruined them. Cubans especially won't move left because of Castro.


----------



## silien3 (Nov 7, 2020)

Joom said:


> Oh trust me, us leftists are fully aware of Copmala. We know she's a liar who saw to the conviction of thousands of black people for minor drug charges. Something most don't seem to realize is that we weren't voting for Biden, but instead we were voting against Trump. The left hates Biden and everything he stands for. And of course we don't expect him to do anything meaningful with his position. We just had to get Trump out because he's a fascist and a threat to everything America stands for.


why not vote the others in this case the 2 will not have the victory in this case


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

silien3 said:


> why not vote the others in this case the 2 will not have the victory in this case


I see you don't have much of an understanding of American politics. In a fair world, us US citizens could do that, but both the Democrats and Republicans are funded by billionaire interest groups. The rich control our country, so we really have no choice but the two parties. It's disgusting, and why there's such a rise for socialism in this country. The working citizens of this country want actual representation, instead of some empty suit shill. However, under a democratic rule, we're much more likely to get social prerogatives pushed through than under a republican rule. Conservatism doesn't care about advancing our society because they all have this delusion of the nuclear family. Watch the show Leave it to Beaver, and that's the kind of reality the republicans think we can have.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 7, 2020)

Big Man Tyrone2 said:


> Florida has a fairly large Cuban and Venezuelan population, so advertising Biden/Harris as commies/socialists was a pretty good play by the Trump campaign.


Which is insane, considering they are nowhere near either of those. Just shows how emotionally swayed people can be.


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Which is insane, considering they are nowhere near either of those. Just shows how emotionally swayed people can be.


Like I said, you can blame Castro for that. But because of this, they don't see Trump putting regulations on their country that heavily affects their economy. IE, preventing people from staying in government owned hotels if they're there for tourism, but all hotels are government owned, so he just killed their tourism.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 7, 2020)

Joom said:


> I see you don't have much of an understanding of American politics. In a fair world, us US citizens could do that, but both the Democrats and Republicans are funded by billionaire interest groups. The rich control our country, so we really have no choice but the two parties. It's disgusting, and why there's such a rise for socialism in this country. The working citizens of this country want actual representation, instead of some empty suit shill. However, under a democratic rule, we're much more likely to get social prerogatives pushed through than under a republican rule. Conservatism doesn't care about advancing our society because they all have this delusion of the nuclear family. Watch the show Leave it to Beaver, and that's the kind of reality the republicans think we can have.


something that is generally forgotten.(just adding on to your point if you don't mind) Is democracy, specifically voting, is a replacement for guillotines. And a lot of unrest has built up since both sides, more specifically republicans and democrats, due to being part of the top 1% having money interests. There's a reason Bernie got screwed over, and that's because his  polices, would screw over interests.


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> something that is generally forgotten.(just adding on to your point if you don't mind) Is democracy, specifically voting, is a replacement for guillotines. And a lot of unrest has built up since both sides, more specifically republicans and democrats, due to being part of the top 1% and having money interests. There's a reason bernie got screwed over.


And you couldn't be any more correct, comrade.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 7, 2020)

Joom said:


> Conservatism doesn't care about advancing our society because they all have this delusion of the nuclear family. Watch the show Leave it to Beaver, and that's the kind of reality the republicans think we can have.


The messed up thing is, they can have that kind of family or reality, but it becomes a problem when some of them keep trying to force the same for everyone else.


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> The messed up thing is, they can have that kind of family or reality, but it becomes a problem when some of them keep trying to force the same for everyone else.


They can't if they expect to conform with the future. That's their fear. too. Unfortunately for them. though, humans keep reproducing, especially since they believe in the "it's a child, not a choice" nonsense, which is contributing to the overpopulation of this planet. Our resources are running out and the climate is getting to a point beyond irreparable damage because these people still have this romanticized vision of when people had white picket fences, a black man knew his place, and women and men could only marry because of "the sanctity of marriage". It's a delusion, and these people will be better off opening their minds to the incoming changes. To add, though, older generations are dying out as the X'ers and millennials move into their respective 30s and 40s, which is bringing a change in American society as a whole. The majority just isn't hung up on these old ideas, but there's still a good amount hanging on. Most of us want to see the human race live because we know babies will still be born even if gay people are allowed to marry. but like I said, you have the romanticization of the nuclear family holding us back.


----------



## silien3 (Nov 7, 2020)

Joom said:


> Conservatism doesn't care about advancing our society because they all have this delusion of the nuclear family. Watch the show Leave it to Beaver, and that's the kind of reality the republicans think we can have.


yes but even the no conservatism we tend to want to force their point of view while there are pros and cons in each

There may not be this kind of thing but to show that we must each take each element in tale here is an example of authorizing drugs in a recreational way without judging would have been more on the left side yet its very bad favor overconsumption and therefore the dependence which in the long term will kill the latter and the young generation who will leave depend

finally everything is subject to interpretation and they must each time see the whole before deciding on a thing and put restrictions when necessary


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

silien3 said:


> finally everything is subject to interpretation and they must each time see the whole before deciding on a thing and put restrictions when necessary


What American politics stand for is rather objective, though. Not much inference is needed because our politicians are two dimensional. It's very easy to recognize what's going on, because thanks to the internet, people are much more politically literate. And there's no such thing as "good" conservatism in American politics. The Republican party has become so far right that it's actually damaging the country. This is why a bunch of lefties are joking about getting the Republican party disbanded, and starting a far left party now since the Democrats are actually the centrist party. I'd like to see it, honestly. It'd be a lot better than half of our country being Nazis and tinfoil hat makers.


----------



## silien3 (Nov 7, 2020)

Joom said:


> What American politics stand for is rather objective, though. Not much inference is needed because our politicians are two dimensional. It's very easy to recognize what's going on, because thanks to the internet, people are much more politically literate. And there's no such thing as "good" conservatism in American politics. The Republican party has become so far right that it's actually damaging the country. This is why a bunch of lefties are joking about getting the Republican party disbanded, and starting a far left party now since the Democrats are actually the centrist party. I'd like to see it, honestly. It'd be a lot better than half of our country being Nazis and tinfoil hat makers.


they would be better than everyone get along and do things together  

but its a utopia that will never happen 
it's too bad


----------



## notimp (Nov 7, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> something that is generally forgotten.(just adding on to your point if you don't mind) Is democracy, specifically voting, is a replacement for guillotines. And a lot of unrest has built up since both sides, more specifically republicans and democrats, due to being part of the top 1% having money interests. There's a reason Bernie got screwed over, and that's because his  polices, would screw over interests.


Dang, this hits close on some esoteric stuff around the french enlightenment period I've never looked into.

Is it worth to do so, or is it just 'public needs a form of catharsis - lets have them vote'?

Please explain that statement a little.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 7, 2020)

I guess hindsight is 2020, for the people that changed their mind about Trump.


----------



## seany1990 (Nov 7, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Which is insane, considering they are nowhere near either of those. Just shows how emotionally swayed people can be.



Or to put it more bluntly, it shows how unbelievably moronic conservatives are


----------



## notimp (Nov 7, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Which is insane, considering they are nowhere near either of those. Just shows how emotionally swayed people can be.


False narrative.

Even though that was part of the angle, that was not the decider. The decider was, that Republicans literally outspent Dems targeting those demographics 10:1 and showed their faces in those communities, while Dems decided to jerk off young educated suburban voters, who were in no risk voting for Trump, with much of their (much larger, this time around) funds during the last weeks prior to election.

You could read this two ways.

1. It was seen as an investment into the future (long term loyalty).
2. It was literally empty spending to get campaign money into the pockets of PR firms and NGOs run by rich young white folks, targeting rich young white folks.


How come you always end up at the wrong conclusion, three days after I discarded it - that then fits 1:1 with the most dumbfounding democrats narrative.

You dear sirs, are the idiots. 

And people in the democratic party that championed that strategy should be fired. But they will be promoted. Because to be honest - to win the presidency, and to loose the senate, was a feat this time arround, that ensured no structural change for four more years.

So the party that doesnt care if the Democrats, or the Republicans win, as long as its close - won. Centrists. The establishment. Wallstreet that doesnt care one bit if they give 100 million more to one side or the other.

Political messaging this time around was _literally_ "Vote for the guy that will not kill you." That was the slogan of the left.
With the dumb mediapundits, like Colbert CHAMPIONING, OUTRIGHT GLOATING, over - 'oh finally we can bring more boring stories and jokes again - that dont have to be political'. Finally, america will become more boring again.

Which spells out to those demographics. WE VOTED FOR CHANGE FOUR TIMES IN A ROW. AND WE'VE BEEN IGNORED FOR 12 YEARS, now make that 16.

They were right to vote how they voted. From their perspective. Not dumb.

So if you try to pull that stunt (uneducated black and latino votes ending up with republicans in vast amounts, are just the dumb people....) one more time...


The acting philosphy (epistemology) for the democratic party on the ground, this time around, was - no spending on those demographics - we have them "locked" they'll always vote democrat. Now talking about being dumb as a rock...Locked away in your ivory towers... Getting info only from carrer chasing aholes, that care about virtue signaling and nothing else - so you give them virtue signaling. (The democrats ran with a "the first ever" policy for more than three years now, to appease those career chasing social justice warriors, which as far as I can tell was solely what brought you "the first ever female black vice president". What a win.)


----------



## notimp (Nov 7, 2020)

https://www.salon.com/2019/06/19/jo...ng-would-fundamentally-change-if-hes-elected/

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...fundraiser-controversy-segregationists-donors
(Dont follow that explanation word for word. Think critically.)

Biden backtracking on "the black monolith vote":
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/07/9001...ing-diversity-in-black-and-latino-communities


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 7, 2020)

notimp said:


> https://www.salon.com/2019/06/19/jo...ng-would-fundamentally-change-if-hes-elected/
> 
> https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...fundraiser-controversy-segregationists-donors
> (Dont follow that explanation word for word. Think critically.)
> ...




Oh, please. Is that the best you can do? We can all post hundreds of videos of Trump backtracking and saying/doing the most retarded shit anyone has ever heard a President say in their lifetime.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Nov 7, 2020)

Joom said:


> We just had to get Trump out because he's a fascist and a threat to everything America stands for.


Being constantly at war, toppling foreign governments, false flag operations... has there ever been a time America hasn´t been "fascist"? Maybe pre WW2.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 7, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Being constantly at war, toppling foreign governments, false flag operations... has there ever been a time America hasn´t been "fascist"? Maybe pre WW2.


All the more reason to elect Democratic candidates.


----------



## notimp (Nov 7, 2020)

NYT saying the same, without actually saying it, because they are too busy interviewing partisan polling PR gurus, "if THEY had done enough", when they should refer to actual numbers. But hey - NYT.

https://web.archive.org/web/2020110...2020/11/03/us/politics/biden-latino-vote.html


----------



## dude1 (Nov 7, 2020)

Joom said:


> We just had to get Trump out because he's a fascist and a threat to everything America stands for.


I’ve never understood this argument, considering he was trying to pull troops out of the Middle East which is a left-wing position, first President in over 40 years not to start a new war, which used to be a left position.
He didn’t renew the patriot act (unlike Obama ) which was hated by the left.
Well in the beginning of his presidency he kept up The previous administrations drone strikes until he got rid of Bolton, Once Trump loyalists were installed, those went down to near nothing so cumulatively he did fewer in his four years by far than Obama did In his 1st 4  and Obama did more than Bush did because Obama for all of his rhetoric was really bush Jr. 2.0, just as assuming Biden follows the Obama administration‘s path it’s gonna be bush Jr. 3.0.

You can argue about the economy pre-Covid, but I can see from the Canadian perspective trump did a good job for his country with the new USMCA because Canada got royally screwed on it, it heavily favors the US

was the left lying About these supposed left-wing positions being bad through all the Bush years and then the Obama years or are they actually pro war, pro big business etc.?
Because Trump has a lot of problems, and even with his good policies he’s in a-hole, But he was an anti-establishment a-hole which is why you had all the Crony big business RINO Republicans against him.

realistically the far left should’ve sided with Trump because they already put up with it for 4 years, what’s another four because it leaves the door open for them to do a clean Progressive sweep in 2024.
Instead they sided with the crony Democrats who are going To lock up the ivory tower again and make sure that no populist on either side left or right gets back in.

congratulations far-left you set your cause further back.
unless of course, as I say it was all a lie and the far left are actually pro war, pro crony politics, pro big business etc.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 7, 2020)

He is literally trying to stop the election before all the votes are counted.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 7, 2020)

dude1 said:


> I’ve never understood this argument, considering he was trying to pull troops out of the Middle East which is a left-wing position, first President in over 40 years not to start a new war, which used to be a left position.
> He didn’t renew the patriot act (unlike Obama ) which was hated by the left.
> Well in the beginning of his presidency he kept up The previous administrations drone strikes until he got rid of Bolton, Once Trump loyalists were installed, those went down to near nothing so cumulatively he did fewer in his four years by far than Obama did In his 1st 4  and Obama did more than Bush did because Obama for all of his rhetoric was really bush Jr. 2.0, just as assuming Biden follows the Obama administration‘s path it’s gonna be bush Jr. 3.0.
> 
> ...


Most of the information here is incorrect. I'll address some of the incorrect points:

Trump has talked about pulling troops, but he hasn't done so. He has also deployed additional troops into the Persian Gulf. Pay attention to what he does, not what he says, because usually what he says is nonsense. In fact, Trump lawyers recently argued in court that Trump's tweets don't mean anything, since Trump would have otherwise had to declassify items related to the Mueller Report like he tweeted he'd do. A judge was about to force him to do so before Trump's own lawyers argued Trump's tweets are bullshit.
Trump is not the first president in over 40 years not to start a new war.
Trump and the Republicans in the Senate attempted to renew the Patriot Act. The Democratic House blocked it.
Drone strikes and civilian casualties have spiked under Trump.
The rate of economic growth was unchanged between the time Obama left office and just before COVID-19 hit. Trump inherited a booming economy from a Democratic president and took credit for it. Trump then ran the economy to the ground with his pathetic COVID-19 "response." In other words, the only Trump economy is the COVID-19 economy.


----------



## 8BitWonder (Nov 7, 2020)

dude1 said:


> realistically the far left should’ve sided with Trump because they already put up with it for 4 years, what’s another four because it leaves the door open for them to do a clean Progressive sweep in 2024.
> Instead they sided with the crony Democrats who are going To lock up the ivory tower again and make sure that no populist on either side left or right gets back in..


I remember back when Biden was chosen in the primary that briefly ran through my head.
Biden imo is one of the most lukewarm democrats and wasn’t pushing for a lot of the progressive policies I’m interested in. But I’d be damned if I threw my morals away by voting for Orange.

Very dumb scenario where I realized that, if I vote for Biden and he wins their group may end up saying “oh people want this and it works, keep doing it” staying as close as possible to status quo instead of embracing progressive ideas later.
Already some more recent comments made by Pelosi and Spanberger have me thinking this is the exact conclusion they’ve drawn from this election.

That being said I still don’t think it was the wrong move for progressives to back him, considering the alternative is an authoritarian that rejects science.


----------



## notimp (Nov 7, 2020)

D34DL1N3R said:


> Oh, please. Is that the best you can do? We can all post hundreds of videos of Trump backtracking and saying/doing the most retarded shit anyone has ever heard a President say in their lifetime.


Hey - guy - this is not "my console is better than yours", this is FLIPPING democrats not addressing vast amounts of untapped voter potential with ANY political messaging, because they had this f*cking idea, that they voted like a monolith, for them to be picked up with 'US will be like Cuba PR from Republicans' subsequently.

(We talk about how flipping unreal that PR angle is another time. (Hey, turns out having sponsored the Chicago Boys ("The US need a villain") can pay off even today...))

THE F*CKING outrage, of Dems spending money on young white suburban voter grooming instead, just because QUOTE "they turn out to be more loyal, over the years" or NOT A QUOTE Missy in the social justice warriors department set up a PR agency for her and her friends, and they want to mostly target white young folks, not to get their hands dirty, will have long lasting impact on the US voting system.

So what do you do next? Lull down those voters so they dont matter again in the future, because your entire campaign behavior was based on "that they dont go to the polls in large numbers"?

This is more than Trump vs Biden.

This is the Democrats gifting away political power for years to come (hey if you are a politician, and you are the first person to talk to me in my language, caring about me - I might vote for you as well), and gifting away ANY chance to change something in this country for the next 4 years FOR WHAT?

The more loyal young educated white demo? Empty ad spending, to fluff your own staffers?

You had the money this time arround - now you went and spent it on BS? So you could just narrowly win?

And Reps got out of it what they wanted as well. No loss of face. Ample opportunity to berate you for the next four months. Get rid of Trump. Get all the justices in on "for life" engagements. What else could they have wanted for christmas?


While the US is so amped up on 'looking at the guy in charge' - lets ask the more serious question, do you think opportunities like these come often?

The other party has a pandemic on hand which it mishandled, your political opponent dogwhistles to radicals and talks about the genes of his voters, is half a billion USD in debt due next election period, fantasizes about leaving the country if he loses - only has Adelson and the Mercers in his backpocket, which is hardly the US financial establishmant, nor the international elite. Borderline flirts on destroying the planet (but going all in on that - doesnt work, because no one listen to Chomsky - what a surprise) -- and then you OVERLOOK the fact, that people hate virtue signaling and dont care about issues that dont represent what they can see in their own life - and gift a whole new subset of voters to your pollitical opponents because QUOTE 'the educated white vote would still be enough to win'.

Are you mad? I mean, honestly.

*bellyclap* for sitting duck Biden. Who announced, that he wanted to be president to be a sitting duck, for his whole life. Not to have to change too much.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I mean what - people in here spent hours of their free time disabling right wing conspiracy memes. And then the democratic party forgets, that there are people in the US that speak spanish?

Here is your conspiracy narrative of the week.

Sponsors didn't want change. So they ensured, that Biden didnt win by too much. By banking on having that money gifted to spending on 'whatever demographic you like most' PR agencies, you decide. Then they made sure Republicans addressed latinos very efficiently - because HEY, thats the long term play.

If you want a country always closely divided on what inactive figuerehead to pick next.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 7, 2020)

notimp said:


> False narrative. Even though that was part of the angle, that was not the decider.


I didn't want to imply that was the only reason, but I have seen videos of people saying that they voted for Trump because of socialism.



8BitWonder said:


> I remember back when Biden was chosen in the primary that briefly ran through my head.
> Biden imo is one of the most lukewarm democrats and wasn’t pushing for a lot of the progressive policies I’m interested in. But I’d be damned if I threw my morals away by voting for Orange.


Democrats aren't perfect, but they have done good when they get power, especially when they are not getting blocked all the time. At the very least, can reverse some the harm he did without congress. I did pick Bernie, but honestly, now I don't think he would have made it in such a politically charged landscape. 



8BitWonder said:


> Very dumb scenario where I realized that, if I vote for Biden and he wins their group may end up saying “oh people want this and it works, keep doing it” staying as close as possible to status quo instead of embracing progressive ideas later.
> 
> Already some more recent comments made by Pelosi and Spanberger have me thinking this is the exact conclusion they’ve drawn from this election.
> 
> That being said I still don’t think it was the wrong move for progressives to back him, considering the alternative is an authoritarian that rejects science.


Eh, I think people like that are going to come to that conclusion regardless. That just means more progressives need to take more seats.


----------



## MadonnaProject (Nov 7, 2020)

dude1 said:


> I’ve never understood this argument, considering he was trying to pull troops out of the Middle East which is a left-wing position, first President in over 40 years not to start a new war, which used to be a left position.
> He didn’t renew the patriot act (unlike Obama ) which was hated by the left.
> Well in the beginning of his presidency he kept up The previous administrations drone strikes until he got rid of Bolton, Once Trump loyalists were installed, those went down to near nothing so cumulatively he did fewer in his four years by far than Obama did In his 1st 4  and Obama did more than Bush did because Obama for all of his rhetoric was really bush Jr. 2.0, just as assuming Biden follows the Obama administration‘s path it’s gonna be bush Jr. 3.0.
> 
> ...



You echo my sentiment entirely. However you have to understand, americans are just as fundamental in their views as the middle easterners. This is true for both the left and right. As soon as trump was labelled anti-feminist, anti-gay, and the modern day lynch tool "anti-black" and "anti-semite", he basically had no hope.

The sad truth is Trump did more for the american black community than Obama ever did (introduced initiatives which let out black prisoners from their long sentences early who had committed smaller crimes - ironically due to laws supported by Biden and Kamala). Same for the Economy. He did not go into another war with the middle east AND he opened an embassy in Israel. He also brokered a deal with Korea and calmed things down on that front.

BUT, blah blah blah, against immigrants, against black people against women.

P.s: Have you seen Biden's track record on black people and kamala harris'? Both are responsible for incarcerating more black youths than anyone and destroyed more black families than katrina. The plight of american Black community will never change because they are so easily preyed upon and fooled by virtue signalling.

You can't throw pearls before swine, especially pearls of wisdom, and americans are the most ignorant sort of swine. They have just landed themselves a hellish 4 years, but let's be honest, do they not deserve it? They spent the past 20 years destroying other nations, its time to pay the piper.


----------



## smf (Nov 7, 2020)

dude1 said:


> I’ve never understood this argument, considering he was trying to pull troops out of the Middle East which is a left-wing position, first President in over 40 years not to start a new war, which used to be a left position.
> He didn’t renew the patriot act (unlike Obama ) which was hated by the left.



His trade war with china, poking north korea & mexico, the war on the environment, siding with the white supremacists & the war on the truth.

It's not just about troops.

Trump is a disaster of a person, let alone a president. He is a really really sore loser, his dads money must have bought a lot of getting his own way. That is why he thinks the election is a fraud, he's never learned that it's possible to lose & so he just can't cope when he can't buy his way.

I wonder if he booked four seasons total landscaping for his lawyers press conference by mistake?

_He tweeted the location and time – 11:30 a.m. ET – after posting then deleting an earlier tweet that said a "Lawyers Press Conference" would be held at 11 a.m. at "Four Seasons, Philadelphia," which seemed to suggest it would be held at a hotel. 

"To clarify, President Trump's press conference will NOT be held at Four Seasons Hotel Philadelphia," the hotel tweeted Saturday. "It will be held at Four Seasons Total Landscaping- no relation with the hotel."_

Lawyers will say what they are paid to say, as long as it's not illegal (and some will try to ignore that), so don't believe anything they say either.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 7, 2020)

notimp said:


> Hey - guy - this is not "my console is better than yours", this is FLIPPING democrats not addressing vast amounts of untapped voter potential with ANY political messaging, because they had this f*cking idea, that they voted like a monolith, for them to be picked up with 'US will be like Cuba PR from Republicans' subsequently.
> 
> (We talk about how flipping unreal that PR angle is another time. (Hey, turns out having sponsored the Chicago Boys ("The US need a villain") can pay off even today...))
> 
> ...


----------



## notimp (Nov 7, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Democrats aren't perfect, but they have done good when they get power, especially when they are not getting blocked all the time.


Look this isnt about 'my camp is best, because my camp is moral'.

Here - watch this:


If all you are today - until today is the party for social justice warrior careerists who want to spend money on their young white educated friends. Up to the point where you entirely forget, that you could address a demographic thats untapped yet (easiest, most cost effective way to gain votes). To the point where you forget, that you might need spanish messaging out there as well. And this then results in you loosing another opportunity to instill any effective change as a result of it (lame duck president). Then first - "f*ck you" (not you personally), and second - its more than apt to think about the US as a political system stuck in perpetual inactivity at this point - and maybe to even philosophize if thats wanted.

Because that IS what gets sold to the donor class. Vers betum.


Also - your claim that, well this time it was an honest oversight, but normally, when we are in power - we do good, but this time it was so hard to win, is flipping BS. You've done nothing for decades. You've messed up even the Obama presidency, twice - making it all about a wallstreet bailout, and your opponent this time around was a flipping joke. Just ask your international friends.

Its a miracle how you could have won the election only by three percent, loosing the senate race.

Well, how about not doing any in person events in the last few days, and not talking to latinos? Well - that would certainly do it... Great, lets do that then.



D34DL1N3R said:


>


Ah, personal ostracizing.  Without arguments. The favorite move of the social justice warrior class whenever they hit social media.

Sorry, I have Andrew Yang and the NYT on my side of the argument this time around. Just that they pull punches... 

What I'm saying is not ridiculous. Its what happened.

And you are shills for actively pretending to not see it. Ideologically coopted. Trying to win the argument with platitudes of 'but we are so moral, when we are in power'. BS. Or with 'but Trump is worse' so what? Now you can be entirely incompetent?

Suck on this win - that will prolong the status quo for another four years. (At least the republicans got judges being appointed out of Trump.) Which to be honest, was always the goal of the left.

Or what was your messaging to the voter classes you didnt address?


This?

Damn it - the Prince of Bel Air, and the Cosby Show where more honest that this. 

This?


Arent those just lies?


----------



## emigre (Nov 7, 2020)

It's official now. Hello President Biden!

Edit: you guys seriously need to get rid of the EC, it's an insane way of electing a president, Seriously, runoff systems make much more sense. It's almost as if this system was setup by some slave owners or something.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Nov 7, 2020)

I'm just here for the reactions:


----------



## Lacius (Nov 7, 2020)

emigre said:


> It's official now. Hello President Biden!


President-elect Biden.



emigre said:


> It's official now. Hello President Biden!
> 
> Edit: you guys seriously need to get rid of the EC, it's an insane way of electing a president, Seriously, runoff systems make much more sense. It's almost as if this system was setup by some slave owners or something.


The Electoral College is 100% a joke; we know. But, since one political party shamelessly and unapologetically benefits from it, it's not going away anytime soon.


----------



## linuxares (Nov 7, 2020)

emigre said:


> It's official now. Hello President Biden!


You mean Hello President Biden and soon Hello President Harris?


----------



## Xzi (Nov 7, 2020)

emigre said:


> It's official now. Hello President Biden!
> 
> Edit: you guys seriously need to get rid of the EC, it's an insane way of electing a president, Seriously, runoff systems make much more sense. It's almost as if this system was setup by some slave owners or something.


It is ridiculous, isn't it?  We had to wait breathlessly for four days to find out if the candidate leading by over four million votes was the winner.


----------



## omgcat (Nov 7, 2020)

Congratulations to President-Elect Joe Biden, and Vice President-Elect Kamela Harris.


----------



## Deleted member 412537 (Nov 7, 2020)

Welp, I think my brother may have wasted his vote on Trump.
should have dug up the motivation to do it when he first ran for office. lol


----------



## Ericzander (Nov 7, 2020)

Xzi said:


> It is ridiculous, isn't it?  We had to wait breathlessly for four days to find out if the candidate leading by over four million votes was the winner.


At least this time around the person who won the popular vote actually wins the election. 

Thank. God.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 7, 2020)

Joom said:


> Oh, I dunno, probably everyone else who isn't resorting to desperation to continue an argument from two weeks ago. The seethe is real, man.



I never really engaged you on your comment mass-labeling all Trump supporters as racists. The closest I came was THIS responding to where you called all blacks, latinos, and Indians who supported Trump "Uncle Toms." You certainly do have a tendency for name-calling. Maybe some others directly engaged you at length about your 'racists' shit-fling, but except for that one response I did not. Considering your tendency to throw the ad hominem and labels around at whole groups of people though (i.e. _you people_) no surprise you'd include me.


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> ...


Holy hell, you're still on this. I was right, you do have some unhealthy obsession.


----------



## notimp (Nov 7, 2020)

Sanders:

"This election was not about political views, it was about much more. It was about ending pathological lying in the whitehouse and returning to democracy."

Really?

Well, too bad than - that you didnt even get enough votes to head the senate, when it was that obvious of a thing. And not at all about politics. But about universal morals.

"I think, that everyone else will be taking credit."
Really? I think everyone will be trying to distract from the fact, that nothing you have done matters, especially from your point of view, - if you dont get a majority in the senate.

"I think the media will make it something its not."
Really?

"I wanted to make the effort to thank all people in grass roots organizing, that made this victory possible."
Really? I thought it was about getting a liar out of the whitehouse. Something moral. Something that didnt need political organizing?

Also - the same messaging, that is pushed on Democracy Now as we speak, because it counters the 'good god, did the Democratic Party do nothing' so now they have to raise the importance of those that were involved in grass routes organizing. And hope that they claim, that they have brought victory, and look like winners.

The real story is - where the democratic party chose not to organize, and lost masses of first time voters.


Sanders works on becoming an Uncle Tom figure at this point.

Then he talks about how important the senate race is. Well *duh*.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 7, 2020)

Joom said:


> Holy hell, you're still on this. I was right, you do have some unhealthy obsession.



You lump me in on something I didn't do, label me a racist, why shouldn't I respond to that? So I did, with you and the mods. If nothing is done, I will eject myself from the conversation and this sub-forum for good. No point participating when the umpires are backing one team over the other.


----------



## LumInvader (Nov 7, 2020)

I WON THIS ELECTION, BY A LOT!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 7, 2020


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> You lump me in on something I didn't do, label me a racist, why shouldn't I respond to that? So I did, with you and the mods. If nothing is done, I will eject myself from the conversation and this sub-forum for good. No point participating when the umpires are backing one team over the other.


You've been deadset on trying to make me seem like I'm the racist for making my original comment. If you don't wanna be lumped in, maybe don't participate with the people who are doing the same thing. And, ooooo, you went and tattled, huh? Did our plan maybe backfire and now we're butthurt? The problem here is that you took it upon yourself to get involved. Nobody called you out or targeted you until you did the same. Have some personal accountability already.


----------



## GatoFiestero (Nov 7, 2020)

So..


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1325099845045071873


This is aging like old yogurt on a sun baked sidewalk.


----------



## EmanueleBGN (Nov 7, 2020)

So, this time the Russian hackers have helped the other one?


----------



## Lacius (Nov 7, 2020)

EmanueleBGN said:


> So, this time the Russian hackers have helped the other one?


The Russians tried to help Trump and the Republicans again this time, but it didn't work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2020_United_States_elections


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 7, 2020)

The White House can finally be sanitized.


----------



## EmanueleBGN (Nov 7, 2020)

Lacius said:


> The Russians tried to help Trump and the Republicans again this time, but it didn't work.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2020_United_States_elections


https://freebeacon.com/democrats/declassified-docs-clinton-authorized-trump-russia-smear-campaign/


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> The White House can finally be sanitized.


Yes, we can *finally* get the swamp drained. All this red pond scum everywhere has really made a mess.


----------



## notimp (Nov 7, 2020)

EmanueleBGN said:


> So, this time the Russian hackers have helped the other one?


Obviously.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 7, 2020)

EmanueleBGN said:


> https://freebeacon.com/democrats/declassified-docs-clinton-authorized-trump-russia-smear-campaign/


What are you trying to argue here? Clinton, rightfully so, considered acknowledging the Trump campaign's collusion with Russia. It also doesn't do anything to suggest the Russians tried to help Biden in 2020. Try again.


----------



## omgcat (Nov 7, 2020)

All trump had to do was tell Mitch to allow stimulus before the election. Could have walked right into a second term. It seems like Mitch didn't want the lasting damage of a second trump term and railroaded him.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 7, 2020)

Joom said:


> You've been deadset on trying to make me seem like I'm the racist .




no, just an asshole.


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> no, just an asshole.


Better get to deleting your posts where you're like "HUMMMM, THIS SURE SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING A RACIST WOULD SAY" then. because they really contradict your statement here. I will admit to being an asshole, though. I'll never deny that.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 7, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> no, just an asshole.


You pulled a claim of racism or "racist-like thinking" out of your ass and attempted to throw the aforementioned feces at Joom. Grow up or move on.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 7, 2020)

The amount of blow back these people are going to get, for just thinking he was still going to win even today, let alone what happened for 4 years.

They had a similar meltdown for Obama too.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 7, 2020)

Lacius said:


> You pulled a claim of racism or "racist-like thinking" out of your ass and attempted to throw the aforementioned feces at Joom. Grow up or move on.



Not pulled from anywhere, it was right there on display. You just couldn't see it because you're of the same opinion, even if you're not a person who's inclined to cast generalized aspersions like that. Go back and read this guy's posts and you'll see him calling every member who disagrees with him a racist, nazi, fascist, etc. There's no point trying to take part in the conversation when this is allowed here.


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> The amount of blow back these people are going to get, for just thinking he was still going to win even today, let alone what happened for 4 years.
> 
> They had a similar meltdown for Obama too.


I'm excited for the new South Park season to kick off. I think they purposely held off this time around, because in 2016, they didn't expect Trump to win, and had to scrap episodes and hastily make new ones.


Hanafuda said:


> ou'll see him calling every member who disagrees with him a racist, nazi, fascist, etc.


I mean, if it quacks like a fucking duck, dude...They don't have to disagree with me, they just have to act like a racist or a Nazi in order to be called one. It's pretty simple.


----------



## Ericzander (Nov 7, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1325099845045071873




Looks to me like he lost by a lot.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 7, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Not pulled from anywhere, it was right there on display. You just couldn't see it because you're of the same opinion, even if you're not a person who's inclined to cast generalized aspersions like that. Go back and read this guy's posts and you'll see him calling every member who disagrees with him a racist, nazi, fascist, etc. There's no point trying to take part in the conversation when this is allowed here.


You said Joom's words were racist or of the same kind of thought as racism for using words with no racial context whatsoever. There is no excuse for this, regardless of what Joom may or may not have said beforehand. You're too old to do anything other than apologize for your lapse in judgment. You sound like a petty child whining about how the other boy started it. Grow up. Joom's actions, regardless of what they were, don't excuse your actions.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 7, 2020)

Maybe we can stop seeing him in culture references now.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 7, 2020)

Joom said:


> I'm excited for the new South Park season to kick off. I think they purposely held off this time around, because in 2016, they didn't expect Trump to win, and had to scrap episodes and hastily make new ones.
> 
> I mean, if it quacks like a fucking duck, dude...


One of the good things is maybe they can finally bring the real Mr. Garrison back to South Park. I miss him.


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

Lacius said:


> One of the good things is maybe they can finally bring the real Mr. Garrison back to South Park. I miss him.


Agreed, but I don't think they could have picked a better character to represent Trump. Garrison has always been backwards with double-standards, so he fit the part perfectly.


----------



## notimp (Nov 7, 2020)

Here for people that dont read longform texts:

https://web.archive.org/web/2020110...2020/11/03/us/politics/biden-latino-vote.html



> Even as Mr. Biden’s campaign intensified its phone-bank efforts and Spanish-language advertising in Puerto Rican communities in Florida and North Carolina over the weekend, it was clear to many involved in the effort that time had run out.





> Mr. Biden is competitive among Latino voters, and could still win Florida based on his strength with educated whites. But he would be in better shape, campaign aides privately acknowledged, if the campaign had reached out earlier to recruit infrequent voters and soften Mr. Trump’s support among Hispanic men in the state.





> But much of the Democrats’ resources in the closing days is being devoted to providing basic voting information to registered Latino voters, rather than funding a deeper dive into the voter files to reach more voters, or a big effort to change the minds of wavering male voters, party officials said.



This translates into 'we didnt bother to translate our message into spanish' instead we had our social justice warriors spend money on interacting with their favorites, the white privileged classes - in NYT speech.

Just for the people that want to ignore this and respond with  instead.

You know who you are.


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Maybe we can stop seeing him in culture references now.


Have you heard of the huge writer exodus? A bunch of skit writers are either leaving because they're just sick of it, or have completely refused to write more Trump jokes. I don't blame them, really. These past 4 years have left everyone but the Trumpets jaded and lethargic. I can only imagine how drained these TV staff must feel.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 7, 2020)

Lacius said:


> You said Joom's words were racist or of the same kind of thought as racism for using words with no racial context whatsoever. There is no excuse for this, regardless of what Joom may or may not have said beforehand. You're too old to do anything other than apologize for your lapse in judgment. You sound like a petty child whining about how the other boy started it. Grow up. Joom's actions, regardless of what they were, don't excuse your actions.



When I said the "same thought process as racism" meant a person who passes judgment on whole groups of people, collectively, without basis or reason, as a way of subjecting them to a value-lowering smear. I didn't mean there's has to be a racial component to it, just the same kind of bigoted, simple-minded, generalized dismissiveness and hate. Prejudice. And you're enabling it by looking the other way and attacking those he labels. Like a sidekick.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 7, 2020)

Not hating or anything, but notimps deferentially fit the left eating the left meme.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Nov 7, 2020)

Like a bunch of petulant fucking children...

There was nothing "racist" or "racist minded" or whatever you want to call it when Joom said "you people".

@Hanafuda - shut up and drop that line of discussion. Nobody brings it up until you keep resurfacing it.

@Lacius and @Joom - also shut up about it and drop that line of discussion.

For fuck's sake. Don't make me come over there.


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

Sicklyboy said:


> Like a bunch of petulant fucking children...


That's politics, mate. It's dumb and brings the worst out of people.


----------



## notimp (Nov 7, 2020)

Here, this is democratic liberal social justice warriors, when it actually comes to caring about others:


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 7, 2020)

Sicklyboy said:


> Like a bunch of petulant fucking children...
> 
> There was nothing "racist" or "racist minded" or whatever you want to call it when Joom said "you people".
> 
> ...




So you're doing nothing about him labeling members here as racists, facists, nazis?? Repeatedly.

k then.


----------



## LumInvader (Nov 7, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Not hating or anything, but notimps deferentially fit the left eating the left meme.


"MITT ROMNEY'S NOT A REPUBLICAN -- HE'S A RINO!  MAGAAAAAAAAA"

Example of the right eating the right.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Nov 7, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> So you're doing nothing about him labeling members here as racists, facists, nazis?? Repeatedly.
> 
> k then.



YOU brought up racism before anyone else did.



Hanafuda said:


> Sounds kinda racist. Or at least of the same thought process as racism.



Edit - 2nd chance do drop that line of discussion. It's quite clearly going nowhere and contributing absolutely nothing to the thread.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 7, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> When I said the "same thought process as racism" meant a person who passes judgment on whole groups of people, collectively, without basis or reason, as a way of subjecting them to a value-lowering smear. I didn't mean there's has to be a racial component to it, just the same kind of bigoted, simple-minded, generalized dismissiveness and hate. Prejudice. And you're enabling it by looking the other way and attacking those he labels. Like a sidekick.


The only thing I'm attacking is your piss poor judgement in throwing around the term "racism" like an ape throws around feces. You take all meaning away from the word when you throw the label around like it can be ascribed to anything. I have no loyalty to Joom. I couldn't care less about you or Joom.

Again, you need to grow up. Racism is an actual thing, not just some word you can throw at people you disagree with.


----------



## AkGBA (Nov 7, 2020)

Great /s 
A democrat president with a republican senate.
Nothing will change, sadly.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 7, 2020)

gg ez


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 7, 2020)

Sicklyboy said:


> YOU brought up racism before anyone else did.



And I explained what that meant, in my last reply to Lacius. You're looking at a 15 degree slice of this, but I was reacting to something I've been seeing for a while. I invite you to peruse @Joom's previous posts where the name-calling happens, rather frequently. This isn't something new, it's a pattern of behavior that has been tolerated here for some time. I guess I just hit the boiling point over it. For that I apologize, but his behavior is simple bigotry, just not race-based. The majority taking part here are anti-conservative which is fine but that's why you don't hear more about it. I let it slide for some time but he just kept it up. If you don't see it, or won't see it, then that's that.


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> So you're doing nothing about him labeling members here as racists, facists, nazis?? Repeatedly.
> 
> k then.


Again, if someone is literally here posting Nazi or racist rhetoric, then I'm gonna call them out for it because it isn't behavior that belongs anywhere. You can post rhetoric without it being hate speech. I also didn't start doing this until I was initially called a racist for making a rather accurate generalization of Trump supporters. I'll continue to say it, too; if you're a Trump supporter, you're either racist, or fine with racism. I haven't seen the first MAGA at a BLM protest unless they were there to antagonize and terrorize while the president champions this despicable behavior. I haven't seen the first MAGA to speak out against Trump's dog whistling toward white nationalists and hate groups. I haven't seen the first MAGA to disavow the actions of the police, and instead shout out crap like 13/50. They support a man who perpetrates blatant systemic oppression of minority groups, and are so consumed by fear of the "radical left" that they feel it's their patriotic duty to "stop" these BLM "terrorists". So please, please, somehow pull some apologetics out of your ass to prove me otherwise.


----------



## LumInvader (Nov 7, 2020)

AkGBA said:


> Great /s
> A democrat president with a republican senate.
> Nothing will change, sadly.


Democrats get another crack at the Senate majority in 2 years.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 7, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> Democrats get another crack at the Senate majority in 2 years.


They get another crack at it in two months.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 7, 2020)

Joom said:


> Again, if someone is literally here posting Nazi or racist rhetoric, then I'm gonna call them out for it because it isn't behavior that belongs anywhere. You can post rhetoric without it being hate speech. I also didn't start doing this until I was initially called a racist for making a rather accurate generalization of Trump supporters. I'll continue to say it, too; if you're a Trump supporter, you're either racist, or fine with racism. I haven't seen the first MAGA at a BLM protest unless they were there to antagonize and terrorize while the president champions this despicable behavior. I haven't seen the first MAGA to speak out against Trump's dog whistling toward white nationalists and hate groups. I haven't seen the first MAGA to disavow the actions of the police, and instead shout out crap like 13/50. They support a man who perpetrates blatant systemic oppression of minority groups, and are so consumed by fear of the "radical left" that they feel it's their patriotic duty to "stop" these BLM "terrorists". So please, please, somehow pull some apologetics out of your ass to prove me otherwise.




"If you don't see every legal and political issue the same way I do, you're a racist. Prove me wrong."


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> "If you don't see every legal and political issue the same way I do, you're a racist. Prove me wrong."


Objectivity through demonstrable evidence. Maybe learn what that means. This isn't a matter of opinion.


----------



## Chary (Nov 7, 2020)

I hope all 51 of those votes in this poll for “other” were all for Kanye.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 7, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> And I explained what that meant, in my last reply to Lacius. You're looking at a 15 degree slice of this, but I was reacting to something I've been seeing for a while. I invite you to peruse @Joom's previous posts where the name-calling happens, rather frequently. This isn't something new, it's a pattern of behavior that has been tolerated here for some time. I guess I just hit the boiling point over it. For that I apologize, but his behavior is simple bigotry, just not race-based. The majority taking part here are anti-conservative which is fine but that's why you don't hear more about it. I let it slide for some time but he just kept it up. If you don't see it, or won't see it, then that's that.


It's not bigoted to criticize ideas.



Hanafuda said:


> "If you don't see every legal and political issue the same way I do, you're a racist. Prove me wrong."


Donald Trump is a racist. Anyone who voted for Donald Trump is either a racist, they don't know he's a racist, or they tolerate his racism.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 7, 2020)

Chary said:


> I hope all 51 of those votes in this poll for “other” were all for Kanye.


I know you're joking, but we know Vermin Supreme was among the Other votes.


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

Lacius said:


> I know you're joking, but we know Vermin Supreme was among the Other votes.


I wish they'd just give that guy a seat in the House already. He's been running for president for so long with the same held principles all this time. I think he deserves it, and then he can finally get to work on getting Americans what they deserve; a free pony.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 7, 2020)

Joom said:


> I wish they'd just give that guy a seat in the House already. He's been running for president for so long with the same held principles all this time. I think he deserves it, and then he can finally get to work on getting Americans what they deserve; a free pony.


If Vermin Supreme wants to hold office, he can run as a Democrat or Republican (or as a Libertarian in a race that's winnable). He doesn't actually want or intend to win anything, like Kanye.


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

Lacius said:


> If Vermin Supreme wants to hold office, he can run as a Democrat or Republican (or as a Libertarian in a race that's winnable). He doesn't actually want or intend to win anything, like Kanye.


Oh I know. He's just a satirical piece that's there to poke fun at our boondoggle of a political system. I still think a commemorative seat for his camaraderie and tenacity would be well deserved, though.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 7, 2020)

notimp said:


> Here for people that dont read longform texts:
> 
> https://web.archive.org/web/2020110...2020/11/03/us/politics/biden-latino-vote.html
> 
> ...



I haven't seen anyone respond with 

But I will respond once more with this


----------



## Rail Fighter (Nov 7, 2020)

Finally a president as good as Al Gore.


----------



## notimp (Nov 7, 2020)

Lacius said:


> They get another crack at it in two months.


Explanation: States where the 'winner' in a senate race didnt reach 50% of the vote and where three candidates were running go into a 'runoff'. And as it stands right now, democrats winning those states still looks dicey.

Which is why you have Sanders do the entire 'you were the greatest, what great grass routes organizing, you are the true winners - now lets focus on the senate race once more' spiel currently.

Its called motivating people with not much in the brain. 

But still, it could work.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



D34DL1N3R said:


> I haven't seen anyone respond with
> 
> But I will respond once more with this


Sorry, I dont speak emoji natively.


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

notimp said:


> Explanation: States where the 'winner' in a senate race didnt reach 50% of the vote and where three candidates were running go into a 'runoff'. And as it stands right now, democrats winning those states still looks dicey.
> 
> Which is why you have Sanders do the entire 'you were the greatest, what great grass routes organizing, you are the true winners - now lets focus on the senate race once more' spiel currently.
> 
> ...


I mean, it's really unlikely the Senate will go blue right now, but I have a good feeling it'll happen in two years. Trump has tarnished the Republican name so badly now that he's not only disenfranchised people from the party, he's brought people out who have never voted before just to get him out of office. Progressiveness is the majority in this country, and it'll slowly overtake more and more as time goes on, because society isn't immune to evolution. As it stands, the Republican party is currently seen as way too far-right, and those ideals are dying. It's like what I said earlier about the romanticization of Americana culture that the Republicans do. That era in our history is long gone, and it isn't coming back. Younger generations are much more likely to vote for the left, and those on the right are dying out from old age.


----------



## LumInvader (Nov 7, 2020)

Lacius said:


> They get another crack at it in two months.


At first glance it would seem unlikely for the Democrats to win both seats in the Georgia runoffs (being a traditionally red state and all).  The Republican Perdue actually would've won his election if not for the Libertarian draining his total down below 50%. 

But... the Dems do have a weapon working in their favor -- Trump's defeat could lead to a less enthusiastic Republican voter turnout.


----------



## notimp (Nov 7, 2020)

Joom said:


> I mean, it's really unlikely the Senate will go blue right now, but I have a good feeling it'll happen in two years.


Well then - lets not examine, that the reason for this was, that the democratic campaign forgot to translate their messaging into spanish, and instead had a big social justice warrior festival, looking like this:


...addressing mostly young white educated voters.

I think thats only fair - as it is exactly what Sanders is pleading right now. Just a bit longer, just a bit longer, until you're desire for change matters.

Just another two years, but then...!

Those apparently easy to acquire (someone just listened to them, and talked to them in their language) latin votes lost over the last months, are far harder to gain back on your side, than to suppress once more. I hope you realize that. NYT spoke about 'non loyal male latin votes' for a reason.

To translate that - thats 'fuck them, they werent supposed to show up'.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Nov 7, 2020)

notimp said:


> Sorry, I dont speak emoji natively.



I'll help you out. It means I find your novels to be laughable. Enjoy your weekend.


----------



## notimp (Nov 7, 2020)

> But much of the Democrats’ resources in the closing days is being devoted to providing basic voting information to registered Latino voters, rather than funding a deeper dive into the voter files to reach more voters, or a big effort to change the minds of wavering male voters, party officials said.


Donde esta la biblioteca?


----------



## linuxares (Nov 7, 2020)

AkGBA said:


> Great /s
> A democrat president with a republican senate.
> Nothing will change, sadly.


It's still up on the cards for senate no? House will probably be the democrats.

Man you yanks need more parties than two... honestly!


----------



## Joom (Nov 7, 2020)

notimp said:


> Well then - lets not examine, that the reason for this was, that the democratic campaign forgot to translate their messaging into spanish, and instead had a big social justice warrior festival, looking like this:
> 
> 
> ...addressing mostly young white educated voters.
> ...



You're not wrong. Virtue signaling like this only hurts the cause. It's just pandering, and comes off like they have no interest in actually representing the people. It also doesn't help that the Latin crowd in Florida have a major distrust of the Democratic party because they believe that they're communists or socialists, and they fear they'll get another Castro.


linuxares said:


> It's still up on the cards for senate no? House will probably be the democrats.
> 
> Man you yanks need more parties than two... honestly!


You're preaching to the choir, my friend. We've needed this for a long time. Both current parties are entirely unrepresentative of the working class. Capitalism is their drive, and social issues are the only difference they have. I don't believe Biden will do much (or if he'll even serve a single term), but we're much more likely to get stepping stones toward something we want or need under the Democratic party. Biden's a moderate, corporate shill, but he's not a fascist. That's how everyone has treated this election. If you look at the polls, less voted for Biden than those who were just voting against Trump. So yeah, we are poorly unrepresented in this country.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 7, 2020)

He has a virus task force. Almost like the virus isn't just going away.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 7, 2020)

Rail Fighter said:


> Finally a president as good as Al Gore.


Al Gore could string together a sentence without confusing his niece with his dead son.


----------



## notimp (Nov 7, 2020)

linuxares said:


> It's still up on the cards for senate no? House will probably be the democrats.


Technically, yes.

Here is how well the house election went:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/06/house-dems-losses-434783

Here is a theoretical challenge. Mess up an election against a Trump this much. You try.

I mean, you would have to - stay at home and dont do any in person events over the last weeks, and Idk, forget to address the latino an black constituency, because you want to spend the rest of your (far larger than republicans this time around) advertising budget on white educated folks, or something..

Oh....

Too soon?

And you are not getting those votes back. You will - for the next ten years try to supress them, because the same liberal justice warriors are too good to engage in 'populist politics', heck they probably put on gloves before talking to those people. You will not fight for those votes.

This is what kills me, you had that much untapped voter potential. Just ripe for the taking for anyone who even fainted to care. Because those people werent into politics. And you focus - for years - on how Trump was a protest vote of middle class white voters. Wasnt that a lie then? Wasnt it just that democrats had no idea, no direction, no political outlook all along? Wasnt it that as soon as the numbers where there you went back to 'same as it ever was Joe'? Enthusiastically, lovingly?

And you devotedly did it with the vote of white middle america, who you convinced to vote for Biden, but for a republic senator? Werent those the votes you always wanted, not caring in the least about black and latino sensibilities? (See Colbert videos posted, they verge on cultural appropriation.)

And then made up a story about the increadibly hard to beat Donald Trump?

Who are you kidding at this point?

Oh, and congratulations on your president. I hear its announced now.


----------



## Ericzander (Nov 7, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Al Gore could string together a sentence without confusing his niece with his dead son.


Biden can too when not being cherry picked for sound bites.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 7, 2020)

Ericzander said:


> Biden can too when not being cherry picked for sound bites.


It's a pretty good sound bite.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 7, 2020)

So, what does this means for polls? The polls I was looking at, Florida was really the only outlier.


----------



## djpannda (Nov 7, 2020)

....what happen this thread has been HOT all week and now no one wants to talk.. I wonder why?


----------



## notimp (Nov 7, 2020)

FT:


> https://www.ft.com/content/7eef4ec9-0dc5-4880-bb89-1fc83a72ad84
> 
> Biden risks being a lame duck president The real lesson from Tuesday’s hotly contested vote is that the US is almost ungovernable EDWARD LUCE
> 
> ...



New York Magazine:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/11/bidens-lame-duck-presidency.html

NYT:
https://web.archive.org/web/2020110...2020/11/07/opinion/biden-moderate-agenda.html

The Economist:
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/11/05/what-the-2020-results-say-about-americas-future
(slightly different spin)


----------



## Soulsilve2010 (Nov 8, 2020)

Seems like Biden is 100% guaranteed to be President regardless of any recount


----------



## omgcat (Nov 8, 2020)

notimp said:


> FT:
> 
> 
> New York Magazine:
> ...



here's an interesting take, the VP is able to recognize someone other than the senate majority leader. so in theory if Harris recognizes the senate minority leader, they can pull up bills for vote. while this will probably not result in bills passing, senators will have to vote publicly on record on particular bills. this means that senators in close areas cannot sit behind Mitch and claim "they would if they could".


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 8, 2020)

omgcat said:


> here's an interesting take, the VP is able to recognize someone other than the senate majority leader. so in theory if Harris recognizes the senate minority leader, they can pull up bills for vote. while this will probably not result in bills passing, senators will have to vote publicly on record on particular bills. this means that senators in close areas cannot sit behind Mitch and claim "they would if they could".


I read about that. The precedence is not to do that, but it is clear republicans don't care about precedence.


----------



## notimp (Nov 8, 2020)

All those shenanigans would potentially be refuted by 2024 (depending on the vote), which is exactly what Biden will do with Trumps legacy of presidential decrees.

On cases of international importance, this means what ever the US decides on in the next four years, cant be depended on to 'stick'.

Its bad. And its not only the looks. Also, you cant solve this by 'being clever'.


----------



## notimp (Nov 8, 2020)

The shining city on the hill is no more:


----------



## omgcat (Nov 8, 2020)

notimp said:


> All those shenanigans would potentially be refuted by 2024 (depending on the vote), which is exactly what Biden will do with Trumps legacy of presidential decrees.
> 
> On cases of international importance, this means what ever the US decides on in the next four years, cant be depended on to 'stick'.
> 
> Its bad. And its not only the looks. Also, you cant solve this by 'being clever'.



the USA will never not be "less than 4 years away from fucking itself".


----------



## notimp (Nov 8, 2020)

omgcat said:


> the USA will never not be "less than 4 years away from fucking itself".


Watch the video above on international repercussions.

also:
Covid wasnt that much of an issue in regards to voting behavior:


----------



## smf (Nov 8, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> because the same liberal justice warriors are too good to engage in 'populist politics', heck they probably put on gloves before talking to those people.



It's probably is a good idea to wear masks and gloves when going to talk to Trump supporters, they are high risk for catching covid19 and all the shouting they do will spread it.

The problem with populism is you incite rage and it shuts peoples rational thinking down. It literally people dumber. Not that they'll admit it, some people also think alcohol makes them a better driver.

That isn't to say that republicans don't have some good policies, but then so do democrats.

You can engage in politics without the division that Trump has promoted. He had a great responsibility to lead, but he abused his position.


----------



## notimp (Nov 8, 2020)

smf said:


> It's probably is a good idea to wear masks and gloves when going to talk to Trump supporters, they are high risk for catching covid19 and all the shouting they do will spread it.
> 
> The problem with populism is you incite rage and it shuts peoples rational thinking down. It literally people dumber. Not that they'll admit it, some people also think alcohol makes them a better driver.
> 
> ...


Better metric: https://covid19risk.biosci.gatech.edu/

Also meeting =/ being infected. On average infection rate per person is 1-3 (other people, over several weeks).

Also, as soon as you reach an event with 1000 attendees, you are at 100% risk pretty much throughout the US.


----------



## FredrickConnor (Nov 8, 2020)

smf said:


> It's probably is a good idea to wear masks and gloves when going to talk to Trump supporters, they are high risk for catching covid19 and all the shouting they do will spread it.
> 
> The problem with populism is you incite rage and it shuts peoples rational thinking down. It literally people dumber. Not that they'll admit it, some people also think alcohol makes them a better driver.
> 
> ...



I think you need to talk to your party about social distancing, because he seems because Joe Biden is projected to win now they have all stopped social distancing and their government has stopped enforcing social distancing.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 8, 2020)

FredrickConnor said:


> I think you need to talk to your party about social distancing, because he seems because Joe Biden is projected to win now they have all stopped social distancing and their government has stopped enforcing social distancing.


While there are many cases of people who should be farther apart than they are, people are generally continuing to social distance and wear masks, as they should.


----------



## smf (Nov 8, 2020)

FredrickConnor said:


> I think you need to talk to your party about social distancing, because he seems because Joe Biden is projected to win now they have all stopped social distancing and their government has stopped enforcing social distancing.



What do you mean by "their government has stopped enforcing social distancing"? What power does the democratic party have to enforce anything?

I would recommend to everyone to maintain social distancing though.



notimp said:


> Also, as soon as you reach an event with 1000 attendees, you are at 100% risk pretty much throughout the US.



I was talking about meeting individual Trump supporters. The number of attendees is less relevant than the distance between them (and between them and you), the air flow if it's inside & any other transmission reduction methods in use.


----------



## djpannda (Nov 8, 2020)

smf said:


> What do you mean by "their government has stopped enforcing social distancing"? They don't have the power to enforce anything.
> 
> I would recommend to everyone to maintain social distancing though.


well actually they can, its call public safety, people tend to forget things like seatbelts an dhelmet laws,
Heck the US has also made spreading disease knowingly illegal already,   As of 2020, 37 states have laws that criminalize HIV exposure, So people are kidding themselves if they think the Government can not do anything.
The way some people act and think about Covid , we might just need laws like this.


----------



## smf (Nov 8, 2020)

djpannda said:


> well actually they can, its call public safety, people tend to forget things like seatbelts an dhelmet laws,
> Heck the US has also made spreading disease knowingly illegal already,   As of 2020, 37 states have laws that criminalize HIV exposure, So people are kidding themselves if they think the Government can not do anything.
> The way some people act and think about Covid , we might just need laws like this.



But the democratic party can't enforce anything, it's up to state and federal government to do so. Fe

So I'm not sure why talking to the democratic party would help. I'm kinda confused about what the post I replied to actually means.

I'm not sure if it would meet mens rea if someone passes covid 19 on but claims that as a Trump supporter they followed the presidents advice.


----------



## djpannda (Nov 8, 2020)

I know, I know the last 4 year taught everyone that the government does not do anything for any one but..
but a real government does the right thing to save its people from a serious pandemic.. its does not matter what party you are. Saving American lives should be the only thing that matters.


----------



## smf (Nov 9, 2020)

djpannda said:


> but a real government does the right thing to save its people from a serious pandemic..



Republicans are hot on crime that other people commit, but not so hot on crimes they commit themselves.


----------



## notimp (Nov 10, 2020)

1. Posting on democrats saying, that they invested no money on reaching black and latino voters (message wise), but that they won because they so efficiently reached black and latino voters at the same time. Which is touted as the "why we won' narrative at the same time  (First election result reactions, democratic party)



notimp said:


> Well then - lets not examine, that the reason for this was, that the democratic campaign forgot to translate their messaging into spanish, and instead had a big social justice warrior festival, looking like this:
> 
> 
> ...addressing mostly young white educated voters.
> ...



Wow, the reality distortion is strong:


So much dumb and not wanting to accept reality, and basking in that the stance in the title of the video is now used to cover up what happened (why Trump came this close, why this wasnt a landslide victory), is... well, something.

People sticking to what they want to believe, even if they say the entire opposite has happened... Not just an exclusive for republicans.
--------------------------------------------

2. Posting on democratic elites trying to frame the results as 'dumb uneducated masses cant be trusted to think' we cant even allow the Sanders wing to speak at all (Democratic party election result reactions a day later.)

Oh, this is sugar as well. 



Thought the NYT 'not frequently voting, not college educated, latino males' werent supposed to show up - stance is rough? Watch this. 
--------------------------------------------

3. Posting on how none of the conventional political narratives that were peddled before the election match up with the results. (media reaction)

More sugar. 

--------------------------------------------

4. Establishment wing in the democratic party pushing for a different interpretation than the progressive wing, and what this resulted in, in one of the most 'progressive leaning' media outlets out there reporting (media report)

If you want to see Democracy Now saying the opposite of Katie Halper (at least somewhat). Watch this:


God this is kingly. 

Left doesnt know what to do with the results. And how would they.
--------------------------------------------

5. Personal commentary. Interpretation.

Broken down, this is literally "the left wanted to win, by adhering to college educated voters and wannabes from the people that could get a leg up in the virtue signaling contests (acted like college educated voters), and at least had one racial minority property". 

Same as with climate change, btw.  F*ck all those people that dont have any social mobility perspective - but with much money for the people that let themselves being sold out to pacify the dumb stupid masses. (Those organizers were the people that were allowed to declare themselves the 'true winners' this time..  ) And now part of the DNCs perspective is, to pacify the stupid sell outs, that cant be explained to easily, why in all racial minorities Trump actually gained more voters over the race against Clinton (percentage wise), and why the fault lines are REALLY, do you have a higher education or not - throughout america. 

Next step - idk, civil war?  Oh no - a Biden that says, that he's the president of 'bringing America back together again'. By addressing none of his voters needs, and trying to pacify the uneducated voters instead (which costs money), which will rile up his educated constituency, so civil war.. 

I'm only joking of course. War isnt what follows.  But its a little bit tough to get out of this situation, and its entirely obvious - why most western democracies turn to 'what lessons on 'not to drive democracy into the ground' do we derive from this?'.

I wonder what Putins reaction to this is.. 

Bwhahaha, this is good. 

edit: Oh, and if Biden actually follows a progressive agenda - he doesnt get senate majorities (presumably), and the stuff that gets through wont be enough to bring the rest of the minority vote around next time, and would minimize support within his 'educated' base. So in four years time, you'd see a likely backlash on this years vote. 
--------------------------------------------

6. Trying to find a way that would allow both wings of the democratic party to work together for the next four years, theoretical analysis, commentary (trying to explore concepts I might have missed)

Oddly enough - a way out of this would be to go full in on "climate change prevention". So you do the following:

1.  You f*ck over your higher educated constituency and give them nothing but the warm feeling to do something good for their grandchildren (thats free).
2. You put all your investment into domestic infrastructure renewal (make it pro climate change as well). Which would leave poorer constitencies with hope that there is something going on in the economy.
3. This would also allow you to coin 'progressives' as the winners (which is happening right now).

Issue - in four years about every low income person should realize that going all in on renewable energy isnt the growth engine its made out to be. And at the same time everey higher education voter might realize, that they got not much out of it (maybe so, maybe not). So in four years you have the policy reversal? And a stronger republican party for the following 100 years? 

Or you make 'climate change prevention' *work* as both a growth engine for college educated folks and non college educated folks. And have it be a success story thats big enough to actually make that 'pact' not look so implausible.

But that would not bring the "country closer together" in a way - because that would deminish republican importance.  And thats not what Biden has announced.  Or is known for.

Bwhahaha.
--------------------------------------------

7. Preliminary summary, commentary

Most likely outcome probably is still 'f*ck over uneducated people'. You do 'climate change prevention stuff' (just as an example, your not in it with your entire heart). You take what little gains you can get from it and distribute it amongst international elites, produce jobs outside of america, and so on. Let AOC run her 'this is the job creation motor of the future' gambit into the ground. Then loose to republicans once the non college educated have realized it. Then let republicans f*ck them over, and the cycle continue...

Issue - this time around, as democrats, you are loosing face. And voters. Probably long term. (Give them health care to mitigate. (Although probably not achievable.))
But its the most stable perspective for industry interests and the donor class. So best growth perspective?

All this is presuming Dems dont get the senate this time around, which is somewhat likely.

If Dems get the senate, they could change policy longterm in favor of progressives, so you could do bigger projects and lets say - have an investment phase, followed by a growth phase, without policy outlook changing in between. Which would potentially align both parties with this. (Could be in the interests of both parties.)

But as it stands currently, the gains are just too high for republicans to f*ck over democrats, to ruin them longterm, by making sure that whatever they try to do in the next four years in terms of significant change, doesnt stick (making _many_ people mad).  Imho.
--------------------------------------------

8. News item on top GOP representatives backing Trump for about 2 more months for the looks and populism

Bwahaha! Top republican representatives back Trump to hang himself for as long as possible, to sew chaos. 


This gets better by the minute. 

(And is probably to be seen as a move in a fight for the senate majority.  )
--------------------------------------------

9.  Establishment conclusion and outlook (media report)

The Economist Panel:

"Would be great if you could keep that high voter turnout, without this sense of doom on both sides." Translation: Would be great to suppress the infrequent male, less educated latino vote.



I dont think this is confirmation bias on my part.. 

*called it* 

edit: Other points in the video:
- probably most likely to have little changes that look ambitioned (and do much alongside the progressives agenda)
- probably something on climate change that would profit international elites only
- healthcare not likely...
- republicans probably following a scorched earth strategy (or at least likely) to cash in on the next elections

Hey, we think along the same lines, I like! 
--------------------------------------------

10.  Left wing conspiracy theory (investigative reporting on voter suppression by dempgraphic and state) media reporting

If you want to read a few left wing conspiracy theories, Greg Palast delivers. 

He is one of the main guys behind the 'voter register shenanigans' followups in the past years (get black, latino and asian votes delisted), and a little bit excentric, a little bit strapped for cash (sensationalistic) - but nevertheless, he does ivestigative journalism work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Palast

Did so as well this time around.

Quick summery here (in german use google translate on it or smthg): https://blog.fefe.de/?ts=a153d90b

Or read his current book ("How Trump Stole 2020")


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 12, 2020)

Based on the poll from 2016, a lot of "other" voters may have changed their mind.


----------



## notimp (Nov 12, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Based on the poll from 2016, a lot of "other" voters may have changed their mind.


See republican PR (the election followup one). (Watch the following video.)

40 more years of democrats. Not.


Palast was just more an indication of two things.
1. Voter suppression is going on, and a foster childs of elites on both sides.
2. Especially look into this with the successful suppression attempt against Sanders this time around, because that came from the democrats.

Also we have a new term for the 'upstart sellouts' that dont have college education, but they want to act like they do, and they (optionally) have one racial minority background, that dems were banking on to get the minority vote.

"Woke white consultants." "The ascended"  (The white doesnt quite fit, but hey, its the classification that counts..  (That we can talk about that group.))

Same as with the establishment highjacking that went on on the left (and cost them this election in terms of meaningful political change possibilities (see the "deplorables" video on this page (the one where its was suggested, that socialism cant even be mentioned, because the election results would show, that voters still took it as "the boogieman" - even though dems didnt even talk to latino voters, and its now indicated, that they might have voted, because of the stimulus checks)), there is now establishment highjacking going on in the GOP as well:


This was an election, that was fought on identity politics, racial devides, high emotional issues - no political issues at all. And as a result - benefited - the (economic, cultural) elites.

Questions? 

Have the idiots shout about Trumps chances to become president for three more months. Lets even back that, as the GOP - just to give them the feeling, that they are participating.   That Trump was wronged.  That the GOP supports them.

Lets let the cultural activists on the left claim, that they were what won the election (even if dems lost in all demographics except white males), so dems lose the senate race for sure...  (On this item I'm theorycrafting..   Its probably more likely, that that path of action was promised to them (as making sense), if they'd win the election, but nobody told them, that they'd lost all demographics (see f.e. CNN (https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2020/11/politics/election-analysis-exit-polls-2016-2020/)), and could not enact any meaningful policies because of it -- and so they were still in "narrative takeover mode" - when all was over and lost already. What idiots.)



Foxi4 said:


> I just merged *9* double-posts from the usual suspect, this is getting ridiculous. Next one's a warn - either use the Edit function as intended or wait for someone else to post first. Stop bumping, stop double-posting, follow the rules.
> 
> ~Foxi4


Thats just your way of trying to get me perma banned.

Your participation on this election was one populist posting. Thats all.

You literally merged threads where I explained the following, completely separate types of thought strain.

You merged

Instant reactions with
Establishment feedback with
Left fringe with
Conspiracy with
Policy planning with...

for no reason at all.

As a result you produced a wall of text, thats now unparsable.

Any sense of 'time passing' (some statements where policy reactions, that came a day after other statements) - is gone.

The interest on the subject is there (so this is not necrobumping, or pushing something that not many people have interest in), and I would rather focus on policy changes, than on competing in the high frequency thread talking mostly about extremist emotional sensibilities, where you participated as well.


None of this is me trying to promote 'me me me'.

If you think you have editorial capabilities - over what I post, cite something different, than a forum rule on 'not double posting' in a forum thats about 'reporting on news items' most of the time.


What a zealot you are, that you think that you did this forum a favor, by copy/pasting together 9 different text messages on different topics, reporting on different angles of reactions into one mega posting, that now just reads like a confused person with different personalities must have had no clue what was happening.

Round of applause for your strict adherence to the rules.
-


edit: Took the time to add separators again on 10 (!) newsitems you merged into one unreadable mess.

And let me tell you - before you did 'your work', all of this had higher readability, and more context (in terms of when what response was made (at what time, after the election).


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 12, 2020)

I just merged *9* double-posts from the usual suspect, this is getting ridiculous. Next one's a warn - either use the Edit function as intended or wait for someone else to post first. Stop bumping, stop double-posting, follow the rules.

EDIT: Make it 10 now.

~Foxi4


----------



## notimp (Nov 13, 2020)

You zealot just gave me another warning point, for speaking up. You are the worst. Leave the political subforum, never come back.

You are so vindictive it hurts.

Or - alternatively, speak up and tell us, why your way of handling things, makes any sense.

The rules are laughable, and not fit for this subforum. (To keep up on newsreporting on a topic, you cant and shouldnt be forced to edit the same thread 12 times, because no other user has replied in the meantime.)

You are completely out of line, and mostly sh*t posting in this sub.

When you are not adding populist memes in the other election thread.

Want to make this forum a bureaucratic nightmare, to get rid of a person you are targeting for half a year? Drunk on power and in a headspace that hasnt you learn from you past failures of moderating this community, and instead playing power games?

If you 'person' want to make my life a living hell, looking behind me and adding up warning posts for every response I write, do you really think that I will respect you more? Or anyone in here for that matter?

Also - OF COURSE you demanded, that my response to your moderating action had to be mixed in with a previous posting that was on topic.

Why? So you can hide your actions better?

Or to drive down a principle, which is wrong - for this forum?

Who made you a moderator? Or are you 'inventory'. Simply being awarded the badge, because of legacy rights? Can you think? Can you argue? Or can you just make peoples lives around here hell, throwing the book at them?

Jury and executioner in one. Other people too afraid to stir up the moderating team structures to speak up.



Here is another thread, where you could merge together 20 different posting into one, making it completely unreadable:
https://gbatemp.net/threads/release-macos-linux-scripts-to-interface-with-android.531237/
here is another one
https://gbatemp.net/threads/how-to-remote-pc-vpn-wake-on-lan-microsoft-remote-desktop.565108/

Hey its well within the rules.

Give me warning for every one of them and have me permabanned for good.

But dont use your executive powers to hide your actions. And intentions.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 13, 2020)

We make concessions for long-form writing such as tutorials and guides, mostly due to character and attachment limits making them unfeasible otherwise. You were reminded about the rule, both by myself and by the site bot, and immediately chose to defy both. My arsenal is limited - the only corrective actions available to me are speech and warning points - you don't listen to the former, so you receive the latter. Asking you to follow the rules is not an unreasonable request. You having a conversation with yourself is not conducive to maintaining the discussion and is immediately alienating to any user entering the thread and wanting to participate. No content was lost, I don't see the issue.


----------



## notimp (Nov 13, 2020)

Give me a reasoning aside from 'the book says so'.

Also - 'you were reminded and then immediately...." is the same kind of arguing you gave me the last time, when I stopped engaging with you, once the discussion erupted, and was punished for it, by you, because 'i aught to have read the messages, and therefore lied, because we have the time logs' (Other moderators arguing - I dont want to pin that on you.)

You have no idea, what my headspace on this things is at the time I'm posting. The idea in here was certainly not to 'defy' or to rile someone up.

As you can see from my reaction, I immediately assumed, it was you going by hurt ego.
-

And now on the issue again, I'm not a spring chicken, you lecture on how this forum works after eleven years of participation. I've seen the bot message probably several thousands of times by now. They idea, that this would lead to any immediate reaction is simply unbelievable.

Also you have dodged all questions.

Why is this rule enforced in here, for people that post updates on news items? I had the same moment in here today once more, where I literally wanted to update a broader topic, with a current development, but then immediately was confronted with - wait, maybe I cant - because that might get me banned.

The whole idea about masspostings in a political section is, that they can be kept updated. Which helps this community to provide something 'news sites' cant. Context on a topic - over time.

Now - what you essentially are saying is -- this would only be possible in this forum, on often highly divisive, popular threads, otherwise - please resort to long walls of edited previous postings, that lead to absolute unparsability - and missing context over time.

Thats wrong.

If you make exceptions for tutorials (mainly because of attachments) - make an exception here also.

I submit, that the three postings containing personal reflection could have been merged into one - but it is absolutely impossible, to merge

news,
commentary,
conjecture,
rebuttles,
updates,
...

in one topic. Stuff becomes completely unparseable.

I'm not saying this to put up an antagonizing stance for anything - I literally have about 10-15 threads in here (some of which I've fallen off), that I regularly update with recent developments.

If you stick to your stance, I cant do that anymore.

Plain and simple.

So you wont have current updates on procedural stuff with brexit, you wont have a collection thread on 'political corruption', you wont have a thread on developments in Venezuela - all those topics are not popular or divisive enough, that people will comment on them all the time.

But if I cant explore more complicated issues over a longer period of time, this forum quite literally looses all pull it has for me.

I mean correcting your (and others) populist postings all the time, is only so fun - and actually feels mostly like empty soulless work. Because the adherence to partisan believes, memes, and partially fake news is strong in this community.

I havent seen you correcting those inputs once. But if someone posts multiple postings in a row, by god - have you no idea how to handle that, and throw the term rules, around as if they had a purpose in itself.

What good did you on behalf of this thread. What became better, because of your intervention?


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 13, 2020)

So it seems Biden is projected to be the winner of the 2020 Presidential Election, but it isn't sealed in stone just yet. The electoral college still has to cast their vote. Trump is suing over fraud allegations so if there ends up being massive fraud there could be recounts and he could still possibly win. However, it is unlikely there was massive fraud regardless of what the lying left wing media claims.

For the record the left wing fake news sites aren't reporting there was massive fraud, but these are the same sights that haven't posted 1 single positive story about Trump in the last 4 years that didn't contain some sort of attack since before he took office. The same leftist media that supported impeaching Trump before his inauguration took place. The the same media that changed their wording from "projected President elect" to "President elect" before the actual vote that makes Biden the actual President elect has taken place.

Biden is not currently the President Elect, he's only "projected" (by the media) to become it. The way voting works isn't that the media gets to decide who wins or who loses, but it's the electoral college vote that does. I'm already displeased that the media took sides in the election and I've had it up to here with reading fabricated attacks on Trump for the last 4 years.

What's even more hilarious is the left suddenly says they want peace and unity and are blaming Trump for their actions against our Constitutional Republic. Yeah, that's not gonna happen. I intend to treat the left exactly how they treated my side for the last 4 years. They've earned that as there will be "no peace" when the people saying they want it are holding out their right hand claiming tolerance when hiding a noose behind their back in their left hand.

It also would seem that the same leftist media that has been attacking conservatives for congregating together in large numbers had zero issues with the lack of social distancing happening during their fabricated "Biden has won" mumbo jumbo. Biden hasn't won just yet and it's hypocritical to allow for people to not social distance regardless if it's because they are celebrating something that hasn't happened yet or not. Churches still can't have service for hundreds of members, but hundreds of thousands of Biden supporters don't have to social distance? That's pretty fucked up, but it just shows what sort of time we're living in. You know, when the liquor store and abortion clinics are open, but you can't go to Church. The devil is at work and if he had a candidate to support it would be Biden.

Biden's proposed policies are the same ones that have destroyed once great cities and countries around the world so I'm praying that won't happen here in the USA, but there's a big chance it will now. Allowing people to come and go as they please and giving them free health care while on our soil while getting rid of the police and legalizing deadly drugs isn't going to have the outcome these progressives who claim they care about peace and unity are expecting. If Biden gets his way the entire country will reflect Los Angeles with homeless drug addicts and human feces littering the streets and Chicago that is more deadly than Iraq is. I pray we don't fall further into perversions, but it looks like the devil is winning the hearts and minds of the people.

So now it's time to act just like the Liberals did and claim Biden isn't my President and we should start calling to impeach him as soon as possible. The Liberals still haven't accepted the results of the 2016 election so why should I accept the results of this one? Impeach Biden now!


----------



## djpannda (Nov 13, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> So it seems Biden is projected to be the winner of the 2020 Presidential Election, but it isn't sealed in stone just yet. The electoral college still has to cast their vote. Trump is suing over fraud allegations so if there ends up being massive fraud there could be recounts and he could still possibly win. However, it is unlikely there was massive fraud regardless of what the lying left wing media claims.
> 
> For the record the left wing fake news sites aren't reporting there was massive fraud, but these are the same sights that haven't posted 1 single positive story about Trump in the last 4 years that didn't contain some sort of attack since before he took office. The same leftist media that supported impeaching Trump before his inauguration took place. The the same media that changed their wording from "projected President elect" to "President elect" before the actual vote that makes Biden the actual President elect has taken place.
> 
> ...


ur sad... and you should feel bad..


----------



## gregory-samba (Nov 13, 2020)

djpannda said:


> ur sad... and you should feel bad..



I noticed all you've done in this thread is harass and troll. You're now blocked.


----------



## djpannda (Nov 13, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> I noticed all you've done in this thread is harass and troll. You're now blocked.


lol thanx I was just going to say the same.. I guess my fellow TRumper, is still coping..


----------



## Joom (Nov 13, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> For the record the left wing fake news sites aren't reporting there was massive fraud, but these are the same sights that haven't posted 1 single positive story about Trump


"They're wrong because they were mean to Trump, and wouldn't blow smoke up his ass for doing terrible things." :(((((


----------



## notimp (Nov 14, 2020)

*Yanis Varoufakis: *It would have been better if Trump won, if you compare it to the actual result of the election (narrow left wing win, that means prolonging inaction).

https://www.republik.ch/2020/11/14/...-aber-das-neue-weigert-sich-geboren-zu-werden (german)

(Use google translate on it.)


----------



## Joom (Nov 14, 2020)

notimp said:


> (narrow left wing win, that means prolonging inaction).


Narrow? Hardly. Biden's win was unprecedented. Left wing? Not when Biden's a right leaning centrist. Prolonging inaction? Sure, but what president hasn't done this over the past 50 years? Biden hasn't even taken office yet, so we have no idea how he's going to do, and I'm not one to ascribe to conjecture.


notimp said:


> It would have been better if Trump won


Sorry, Yanis, but Trump had 4 years to do something good with this country. This is weird coming from a leftist, too.


----------



## notimp (Nov 14, 2020)

Joom said:


> Narrow? Hardly. Biden's win was unprecedented. Left wing? Not when Biden's a right leaning centrist. Prolonging inaction? Sure, but what president hasn't done this over the past 50 years?


Context. This is not me spitting fighting words. 

First - you are looking at the wrong stuff.  On the popular vote front the dems did well. On the 'power to enact stuff' front, all high profile sources (Economist, FT, The Agenda Panel, NYT, ...) are doing obituaries, that they lost the senate, and (seats in the) the house _bad_, and that in 2021 gerrymandering might get worse - and they have no power to stop it. The progressive left is either in denial, or in shock right now. And the party will swing to centrist politics. (So far you are correct.  ) (Left wing - sure, as opposed to right wing, I didnt mean more than that.)

Inaction means 'more of the same' which means, no higher wages, no social mobility, no universal healthcare (at least unlikely), not a huge overhaul on education spending, internationally still slow retraction (? not entirely sure, but likely) and thats it. (Apart from stuff Biden can sign into action via executive orders, which is limited.) In an economy that currently benefits upper income brackets, where middleclasses are reduced by 10% per generation, where Covid is ramrodding the US economy (just wait and see..  ) - inaction, is 'not great'. Especially not, if the entire democratic electorate notices, that the flipping identity politics 'ascended' are in it for themselves and no one else. 

Bigger institutions (FED and so on..) will still steer, but thats not ideal. (Not very 'efficient'.)

On the other hand. Varoufakis is a highly ideological person, cobbling together an international progressive movement, so he is bound to see the outcome a little more extreme than democratic centrists.

That said. DONT believe the progressive wing one word currently, when they are lying to you about social mobility. Growth. Job perspectives. And probably even healthcare. They couldnt mobilize the people they said they would bring to the polls. At least not under Biden. That realization will sink in.

That said, we are still unsure, if Biden will start an infrastructure spending plan in the US. If the republicans are clever, they will not let him. Neither will they let him start any domestic policy programs that people might like. And dont forget, they control the senate. (House is just 'implementation' - so trying to lower impact of laws, and even that could become republican by the end of the Biden administration.)



Joom said:


> Sorry, Yanis, but Trump had 4 years to do something good with this country. This is weird coming from a leftist, too.


 He was outplayed by EU finance ministers, and then ousted.  (There was a coup.  ) He released tapes. Listen to them some time.. 

Greece is currently 3rd world status (according to Varoufacis), with western media not reporting on it. Which is probably correct. Its a way to reduce the migration crisis.


----------



## Joom (Nov 14, 2020)

notimp said:


> Context. This is not me spitting fighting words.


I know. That's why I addressed the author.


----------



## notimp (Nov 14, 2020)

Joom said:


> I know. That's why I addressed the author.


You slammed the content based on the author.  Content is correct. Your view of the author also partly so.

But your overall view is off.  ("So what, we have a centrist democratic leader with no power that will be lead by his hand to only enact measures, that are international elite petprojects (thats where the republican vote will fall in line" but not on domestic projects, far too great of a voter potential on pissed off democratic voters) - thats how it always was, thats great.  )

Also I forgot to mention 40 years of wage stagnation in the US. But everyone knows that by now.

(Wages only rise, if there is a shortage of (quaiified) labor. The whole system currently is prepped up on a service economy, where there is _never_ a shortage of labor. (No growth dynamics that are linked to 'production', or educated labor linked to innovation. (Actually the opposite. automation, digitization..)))

Also, I think I stated, that the same view (just pulling punches, and from the perspective of an international investor class) is stated in The Economist, the Financial Times, The NYT, ...

So its not 'just Varoufakis'.  Progressive leftists have the potential of getting played here (getting a cabinet position - then not being able to act at all), then rolled over by a center push.

The democratic party is no party for the people that arent international elites, and identity politics warriors anymore. (Is projected, by pretty much everyone right now.) At least not in the current configuration.
---------------------------

edit: On a different note:

AOC not knowing what she is talking about, as per usual.. 




PiracyForTheMasses said:


> Tell us again how the electoral college brings democracy. Most of you fail to realize that a presidential candidate can win 100% of the popular vote & not win any electoral college votes because there are no laws in place that prevent electoral college votes from going against the people vote.


Why Big-City Dominance Is a Problem for Democrats
Metro power comes with huge political and cultural drawbacks.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/why-big-city-dominance-problem-democrats/617161/

edit: Please dont ban me for double posting.

edit2: Lean back, easy watching version.


----------

