# Who won the first presidential debate?



## x65943 (Sep 30, 2020)

Trump and Biden mostly held their own - no giant shockers tonight. 

Who do you think won?


----------



## rick191 (Sep 30, 2020)

Trump wiped the floor with him and it wasn't even close.

Sleepy Joe couldn't even say the words "law and order".


----------



## Delerious (Sep 30, 2020)

The winner is whoever shifts the polls in their favor. Even then, the voters the ones who have the final word. Polls only hold so much value.


----------



## Shadow#1 (Sep 30, 2020)

rick191 said:


> Trump wiped the floor with him and it wasn't even close.
> 
> Sleepy Joe couldn't even say the words "law and order".


Um what debate did u watch?


----------



## Deleted User (Sep 30, 2020)

You're obviously biased if you think Biden even got close to winning. Trump is a world class debater Biden stumbled over his lines.

BTW it was 2 against 1 Chris Wallace and Joe Biden vs Donald Trump and Trump still won. Sorry Dems.


----------



## Paulsar99 (Sep 30, 2020)

2 against 1 and I still think trump won.


----------



## rdurbin (Sep 30, 2020)

Chris Wallace


----------



## MikaDubbz (Sep 30, 2020)

Whole thing was a shitshow.  No one really won that thing. However, as I suspect it was Trump's goal to derail the whole thing from the start since he's not equipped to do actual debating, I guess to an extent he won, because he accomplished just that.


----------



## SG854 (Sep 30, 2020)

Trump is the chosen one that will lead our people to the promise land


----------



## morvoran (Sep 30, 2020)

Trump had to debate against two opponents and still came out on top of Sleepy Joe and Crazy Chris.  He just proves over and over that he is the best man for the job and will only make the US greater in the next 4 years.

Edit: According to the poll and comments at this moment, the majority of leftists on this site must be too busy screaming into their pillows after that "elder abuse" of a debate.


----------



## MikaDubbz (Sep 30, 2020)

Undecideds seem to be remaining undecided overall after that debate, so I'd say it's fair to say there was no real winner.  People that were cheering for their guy will think he came out on top, but the people that are supposed to actually be getting something from these debates to inform their decisions remain unmoved, so they both failed to win tonight if we're being truly honest about what it should mean to "win" one of these debates.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 30, 2020)

"No one", should be an option.


----------



## Iamapirate (Sep 30, 2020)

I think the both of them did pretty terribly in advocating for themselves. It just seemed like two guys that disdain each other yelling incoherently with a horribly biased debate moderator.

Biden needed to not stumble and say some weird shit. Trump needed to get aggressive and shake him. Both of them somewhat achieved in that regard.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Sep 30, 2020)

Not a trump supporter but I think it went exactly as he planned. His camp loves it.


----------



## Chary (Sep 30, 2020)

Hard to even call what happened a debate, and not just a train wreck on ice.

Biden actually managed to seem competent, but he also didn’t do much to win anyone over. Considering I expected a barely-there man—especially after all the “dementia” snark due to the headlines—I’m genuinely impressed. But I also didn’t see anything that made me confident in him.

As for Trump, he pretty much puppeteered that whole event. Even if you hate Trump, he has that bully-level attitude to make sure he’s heard by everyone in a million mile radius. He acted like a complete buffoon at points, but he also never let the tables turn on him, really. Biden got maybe one solid hit in, and that was it.

In the end, no one wins. The Americans, the Democrats, nor the Republicans. But we’re a country so divided by politics, and we treat it as such a sports game, well, everyone thinks their side won, then. Trump supporters will believe that Trump 4D chess’d Biden by yelling a lot, while the left will take it as a prize that Biden didn’t fall apart on stage.

Also did anyone else want to die from cringe when the moderator of the debate had to scream “MISTER PRESIDENT. MISTER PRESIDENT PLEASE STOP TALKING!!!”? Gosh, how awkward.


----------



## notimp (Sep 30, 2020)

> However, Biden was able to hold his own through much of the debate, and if nothing else, his performance largely invalidated the president’s prior attacks on Biden’s mental acuity and cognitive abilities.


says Fox News:
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/first-presidential-debate-who-won-style-substance-doug-schoen

60% said Biden won, 28% said Trump won, according to CNN poll of watchers conducted by SSRS.
src: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/29/politics/donald-trump-joe-biden-debate-poll/index.html

edit: On the CNN poll:


> The voters who watched the debate were more partisan than Americans as a whole -- 36% identified as independents or non-partisans compared with around 40% in the general public, and the group of debate watchers was more Democratic than a typical survey of all adults, with 39% identifying as Democrats and 25% as Republicans.


Someone do the math..


----------



## Axido (Sep 30, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Trump is the chosen one that will lead our people to the promise land



If hell is the land you were promised, you are certainly right... and already arrived.

Man, this is the pinnacle of that South Park episode about voting and at the same time it's like the current console wars. No interesting games to show on both sides, but they sell like hotcakes.

If I had to decide which participant of that debate I would vote for, it'd be Chris Wallace. Then again there are other candidates that are actually going to be on the ballot which in fact were not present at that nonsensical debate. But you guys argue about the two least votable of them all.


----------



## notimp (Sep 30, 2020)

Chary said:


> As for Trump, he pretty much puppeteered that whole event. Even if you hate Trump, he has that bully-level attitude to make sure he’s heard by everyone in a million mile radius. He acted like a complete buffoon at points, but he also never let the tables turn on him, really. Biden got maybe one solid hit in, and that was it.


? Trump actively did one thing. In terms of the economy, he gave tax cuts, then Covid tanked the economy, then he printed more money for wall street, and largely ignored mainstreet. This resulted in the economy recovering 'quicker than the FED expected'. https://www.businessinsider.com/fed...n-expected-coronavirus-risks-2020-6?r=DE&IR=T But they are incentivized to say that to create positive buzz for business. Even though its still true.

Thats about all that he has done. Constructively, if you want to call it that.

In all (?) other instances he has basically stuck to business as usual and inaction, and that includes trade deals.

(If you dont want to vote on things like 'display of strength, by sending in the military into his own country, or holding up a bible'.)

And because of covid the US is now in a recession.

Now people are trying to decide, if the country is hurting bad enough, or if you can let that continue for another 4 years. 

That kind of stuck.. 



On the climate issue they differed to a large extent:

Also, on the climate issue, if you havent seen through that his response of "I want clean water and clean air", has nothing to do with climate, then you know now.  But he still is the candidate, that would use fossile fuels for a longer time (those companies get more revenue), and in the process prevent earlier action by other countries. You cant win this via a blame game like 'china does more than US and europe combined', because china is a developing nation (not like the US and europe), and the 'factory of the world' and rangling a much larger inequality issue in country in terms of income and opportunity. So if they take a further hit on production... Stuff kind of doesnt shake out so well. In addition to that they did invest in R&D and they are producing much of the solar energy infrastructure. (You try to bring production back to the US and europe, but china has kind of cornered the resource market for solar as well, thats why you produce electric cars, when you are the US..  )

Retrofitting houses is always a good idea, if you have no industry in that sector going, economic losses from that shouldnt be that high, but gains in terms of CO2 reduction also are low there. (The Biden position.) Biden also would mandate the brasillian forests not being destroyed and prop up a large investment fund on reforestation (in other countries, not so much the US, because thats cheaper per amount of CO2 storage you get), which also is a mitigation strategy (not too radical, not too costly in terms of CO2 reduction but low gains).


On the affordable health care issue during the past 4 years almost nothing happend. (Industry lobbying won.)


On the take womens rights of choice away - it was all "deny, deny, deny". with Biden only being able to mention that there are about 20 motions 'near' reaching the supreme court that would do that one salami slice at the time. But that dindt 'hit big' because people dindt understand that.


What else?


----------



## Chary (Sep 30, 2020)

notimp said:


> ? Trump actively did one thing. In terms of the economy, he gave tax cuts, then Covid tanked the economy, then he printed more money for wall street, and largely ignored mainstreet. This resulted in the economy recovering 'quicker than the FED expected'. https://www.businessinsider.com/fed...n-expected-coronavirus-risks-2020-6?r=DE&IR=T But they are incentivized to say that to create positive buzz for business. Even though its still true.
> 
> Thats about all that he has done. Constructively, if you want to call it that.
> 
> ...


What? I was talking solely about the debate, not his actual presidency. That’s an entire other can of worms. When it came to tonight’s debate, Trump did as Trump does. He got loud, over the top, and wouldn’t back down. Everything his audience loves to see. Normal republicans who might have not cared could get fired up by hearing how “poor Trump got 2v1’d by Biden and Wallace!!! How evil!!! But our hero still won despite that!!!” Or how Trump continues to hold his ground on not 100% liking masks, or the fact that the mail in ballots could be messed up, or that he’s pumped the economy so hard, etc. his voters will gobble that up.


----------



## Zap Rowsdower (Sep 30, 2020)

...Russia and mental illness.


----------



## notimp (Sep 30, 2020)

Chary said:


> What? I was talking solely about the debate


I'm talking about policy postitions that were presented in the debate, and for that it is important to say what happened in the past four years. Or at least starting with Covid, because before that it was largely business as usual and tax cuts. (And dismantling nuclear treaties).

If you want to focus purely on the 'who won the rhetorics' part of the debate, I think all you have to know is, that Trump pressured by both the moderator (only in that one instance, and trying to keep him from interrupting (equal time budget for both candidates should be upheld), in more instances..  ) and Biden managed to say the following on the 'extreme right wing militias, may swarm the streets post election, armed'.

"Please stand down. And (insinuated: but) stand by."

Then pretty much low level bickering on rhetorical jabs for a good third of the debate, just like you see in this forum, just more than a third of the time.. 

And please, dont just go by style. (Who looked like they could dominate the other person. And did they do it? With words. This is not american gladiators..  )

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



Zap Rowsdower said:


> ...Russia and mental illness.


Oh yeah that part. Both parties blaimed the other side for being more cosy with Putin and China. The Putin part is largely overplayed, and so is the China part imho, because - similar as with climate change, but even more closely in position, both parties would roughly hold the same positions on Russian election interferance, or trying to prevent China from becoming the dominating world economy.

US soy farmers currently are hurting, if you want to know that.  But so are chinese development ventures.


----------



## YBI (Sep 30, 2020)

rick191 said:


> Trump wiped the floor with him and it wasn't even close.
> 
> Sleepy Joe couldn't even say the words "law and order".


lmao 

who comes away with this thought after watching that?

America is FUCKED


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 30, 2020)

notimp said:


> "Please stand down. And (insinuated: but) stand by."


He couldn't even say stand down. He said "stand back and standby".


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 30, 2020)

Needs a third option - "we won". That was the best WWE match this season, they should just replace Wallace with McMahon and remove all the pretense. Neither candidate said anything of substance in terms of policy and I heard a lot of stats made up on the spot, so nothing interesting in that sense, but between Biden's emotional appeals dead on into the camera that almost made him cry and Trump slamming him left and right like a ragdoll it was a hilarious spectacle. Can't wait for the cage rematch.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Sep 30, 2020)

I don't think anyone "won" Both did as well as anyone could have expected. Trump continues to do his biggest enemy and glass Joe over there said nothing of value. I don't think this really changed anyone's mind. errrrrrrrrr 6/10 an entertaining trash fire


----------



## seany1990 (Sep 30, 2020)

That whole thing was an embarrassment, Trump is a clown


----------



## MurraySkull (Sep 30, 2020)

seany1990 said:


> That whole thing was an embarrassment, Trump is a clown


No, he isn't!


----------



## Shadow#1 (Sep 30, 2020)

seany1990 said:


> That whole thing was an embarrassment, Trump is a clown


So true


----------



## YBI (Sep 30, 2020)

MurraySkull said:


> No, he isn't!


----------



## MurraySkull (Sep 30, 2020)

Shadow#1 said:


> So true


But it ISN'T true!


----------



## Shadow#1 (Sep 30, 2020)

MurraySkull said:


> But it ISN'T true!


He's always been a clown


----------



## rick191 (Sep 30, 2020)

Biden is an even bigger clown for saying 200 million Americans had died due to COVID-19 when the real figure was actually in the hundreds of thousands and not hundreds of millions lmfao.

People who vote for him have a screw loose.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 30, 2020)

rick191 said:


> Biden is an even bigger clown for saying 200 million Americans had died due to COVID-19 when the real figure was actually in the hundreds of thousands and not hundreds of millions lmfao.
> 
> People who vote for him have a screw loose.


Just yesterday he was taking about "911 calls" while nonsense was spewing out from both sides of his mouth, seconds apart. His plan is not the Green New Deal, but the Green New Deal will pay for itself. He doesn't want to defund the police, but actually seconds later he isn't opposed to it. You couldn't pin him down to a single policy, he just kept swerving. He's not opposed to fracking except for the times he is. No more conventional power plants either, and that will "generate hard jobs" somehow. At this point anyone can make a wild guess on what his program is.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 30, 2020)

I think they both did a shit job. Trump came off like the Tazmanian Devil, and Biden clearly wanted to avoid certain topics and Chris Wallace did his best to make sure he didn't have to.


----------



## emigre (Sep 30, 2020)

No one won, it was a complete shitshow and a damning portrayal of politics. It suits Trump because being an abrasive cunt is his schitck and will probably appeal to his supporter base.


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 30, 2020)

Well, tbf, I've learn more about Joe's green plans.


----------



## alepman90 (Sep 30, 2020)

Both too senile and out of touch screaming at the cloud, we are fucked by recession and pandemic with no competent leadership just makes me angry and sad


----------



## orangy57 (Sep 30, 2020)

Biden definitely won just because Trump couldn't compose himself for that entire time. He made a constant effort to dodge questions and couldn't give a straight answer when he wasn't spending all of his time insulting somebody. A debate shouldn't just be a braindead shit-slinging fest, even Biden would cut in on uninterrupted time. I didn't learn jack shit about either one's policies because of it, which sucks because I'm really interested about how they both would answer their questions because you know it's a debate and I want to actually learn more about who's running for president.


----------



## crimpshrine (Sep 30, 2020)

I don't see anyone in media talking about Joe cheating today other than people on twitter.  He is on video hiding his wire at least 2 times during the debate last night.  One under his lapel and another in his left cuff.


----------



## digipimp75 (Sep 30, 2020)

Trump, hands down.


----------



## Nightwish (Sep 30, 2020)

Putin and Xi won, they'll get to keep the US distracted and divided over who has less to offer to american workers. All Joe had to do to take him to the cleaners was present his plan, but the can't run the risk of upsetting anyone!
Still, who's in front isn't going to change with that shitshow, and if voters are finally tired of the great economy, the great order of armed and uncontrolled militia, and degrading of the greatest military money can buy, a one man Twitter performance isn't going to change that.


----------



## notimp (Sep 30, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> I don't see anyone in media talking about Joe cheating today other than people on twitter.  He is on video hiding his wire at least 2 times during the debate last night.  One under his lapel and another in his left cuff.


The theories are getting dumber and dumber.

First, anyone in that kind of debate is at least double mic'ed.

Second, candidates are prepped for months in staged debates, under pressure, going through different scenarios 'learning their lines'. Which btw. are all written for them. (scenarios, stingers, ...)

Do you think Biden comes up with "will you shut up man" in the moment, then would not be shocked by a slip of his tongue, because - and I quote all the stations afterwards "there are children listening as well". All of that is production. He did it three times in escalating fashion (not always saying shut up), while masking/muffling any anger in 'bored' body language.

Third, do you have any idea, how an interaction looks if someone is fed their pointers?

Fourth same rumor was spread with clinton in 2016:
https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/09/29/biden-earpiece-debate-rumor/



> The “secret earpiece” claim above was just a prelude to the onslaught of disinformation that would get churned out after the first 2016 presidential debate. One such rumor was centered on an odd wrinkle on Clinton’s suit. While propagandists claimed that this was evidence that Clinton was again using a secret earpiece, the wrinkle was actually caused by the wire from the lapel microphone that both Clinton and Trump were wearing during the debate.



Cant you think of anything new?


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 30, 2020)

notimp said:


> The theories are getting dumber and dumber.
> 
> First, anyone in that kind of debate is at least double mic'ed.
> 
> ...




FWIW the same "wire" claims were made about George Bush for a debate in 2004. Salon went so far as hiring a "NASA Photo Analyst" to bolster the claim.

https://www.salon.com/2004/10/30/bulge_5/

Why a specialist in space photography would also be an expert for this topic, I guess nobody bothered to wonder. Anyway, I'm inclined this once to agree with you @notimp.

Besides, Chris Wallace was doing a much better job of contexting and cueing up Biden's utterances than wearing a wire or earpiece would've accomplished.


----------



## notimp (Sep 30, 2020)

Its easier to prep someone for four months in staged debating and improv, than to make someone getting pointers, trying to recollect lines look natural on camera. Thats just a given.

Both of them are 'charismatics' not much in the brain, naturals at connecting with people, you pick them for the purpose, that they can communicate at least partly on message, in front of large audiences.

Coincidently, those are also good leader personalities. Sometimes.


----------



## IncredulousP (Sep 30, 2020)

Nightwish said:


> Putin and Xi won, they'll get to keep the US distracted and divided over who has less to offer to american workers. All Joe had to do to take him to the cleaners was present his plan, but the can't run the risk of upsetting anyone!
> Still, who's in front isn't going to change with that shitshow, and if voters are finally tired of the great economy, the great order of armed and uncontrolled militia, and degrading of the greatest military money can buy, a one man Twitter performance isn't going to change that.


Sanders should have been the primary candidate.


----------



## crimpshrine (Sep 30, 2020)

notimp said:


> The theories are getting dumber and dumber.
> 
> First, anyone in that kind of debate is at least double mic'ed.
> 
> ...



I know what I saw, him pushing a wire back in under his lapel.  As for the cuff one, I see people saying it might be a rosary bracelet.   

Seeing that wire coupled with the claim that Bidens handlers abruptly reversed having them checked for electronic ear pieces before the debate seems like someone trying to avoid something.

Why would his camp agree to the verifying before hand and then reverse course before the debate?

Is this not true?

“Joe Biden’s handlers several days ago agreed to a pre-debate inspection for electronic earpieces but today abruptly reversed themselves and declined,” Trump campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh said in a statement Tuesday.

I have watched Biden speak the last 3 weeks when he is available and whatever they did to him last night, he seemed much more responsive than in the last 3 weeks (to be fair that bar is REALLY low at this point) 

Not really a debate, a fight that Trump dominated him in and even had Wallace picking Biden back up in the ring over in my opinion.


----------



## GhostLatte (Sep 30, 2020)

rick191 said:


> Trump wiped the floor with him and it wasn't even close.
> 
> Sleepy Joe couldn't even say the words "law and order".


He also couldn’t denounce white supremacy.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 30, 2020)

GhostLatte said:


> He also couldn’t denounce white supremacy.



He already is on record condemning white supremacists/nationalists/neo-Nazis. It's part of the quote the liberals always delete when they repeat the "fine people" lie.


----------



## GhostLatte (Sep 30, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> He already is on record condemning white supremacists/nationalists/neo-Nazis. It's part of the quote the liberals always delete when they repeat the "fine people" lie.


Why couldn’t he say it last night then?


----------



## SG854 (Sep 30, 2020)

GhostLatte said:


> Why couldn’t he say it last night then?


Check mate


----------



## seany1990 (Sep 30, 2020)

So to conservatives just shouting over people whilst saying absolutely nothing constitutes a win does it. I wonder where this low-iq demographic stereotype comes from


----------



## djnate27 (Sep 30, 2020)

George Washington


----------



## rsx (Sep 30, 2020)

Didn't watch it but I'll tell you how it ends: Neither of them won, we're the ones who lost and pay for everything.


----------



## crimpshrine (Sep 30, 2020)

What I find odd is that trump had already denounced white supremacy.   Multiple times publicly.

Didn't he also designate the KKK as a terrorist organization?

Here he is pretty darn specific.  


*Trump, Aug. 14, 2017*: As I said on Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America.

And as I have said many times before: No matter the color of our skin, we all live under the same laws, we all salute the same great flag, and we are all made by the same almighty God. We must love each other, show affection for each other, and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry, and violence. We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans.

Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.

We are a nation founded on the truth that all of us are created equal. We are equal in the eyes of our Creator. We are equal under the law. And we are equal under our Constitution. Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America.


----------



## leon315 (Sep 30, 2020)

It's not a debate who's the better choice, You americans are just choosing who's of those 2 is the Lesser Evil to be you next president.


----------



## crimpshrine (Sep 30, 2020)

https://streamable.com/sr9o2s

20+ times on video where he has condemned racism/hate/white supremacy.   Some of you are just wacky.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 30, 2020)

"Please denounce white supremacy and violence" is just a distraction, nobody actually cares about that. Trump has a Jewish son-in-law, this is a complete non-story. The problem with theorising whether or not Trump supports a "white ethnostate" is the fact that it requires being completely myopic in regards to the composition of his family. If he really was a klansman in disguise, his entire family would be the first to get tossed over the wall - he's openly an Israel sympathiser, the favourite country of all nazis in the world. Some people really have vivid imaginations.


----------



## morvoran (Sep 30, 2020)

leon315 said:


> It's not a debate who's the better choice, You americans are just choosing who's of those 2 is the Lesser Evil to be you next president.


This was true for previous elections prior to 2016.  In 2016 and now, it's a choice of saving our country and voting Trump or letting the communists/socialists take over and destroy it and voting for Biden's handlers.  


Also, I see that the leftists here finally stopped crying into their pillows after that terrible performance by their "candidate" and decided to join the conversation.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Sep 30, 2020)

Winning is a weird concept for a debate, specially when Americans are really a mystery on why they choose one or other side.

That said, the debate was shameful, pure vicarious embarassment.
It looked like a scene you could expect from brats, a tantrum.
Like a bratty child in kindergarten that doesn't want to listen what the teacher is telling him and keeps screaming and talking over.
And in the other side it looked like an inept kindergarten teacher that couldn't control the tantrum of the children.
This shouldn't have a place in a presidential debate, not even in a banana republic


----------



## dawnbringer (Sep 30, 2020)

Not American  wth is trump's problem.  If you take was he says literally he is flawless.... always making stuff better etc etc  but anyone else says the opposite. 

He is hungry for power he wont accept the result if he thinks something was manipulated

 If he is so sure about himself why not propose fair elections.  ITs like having to choose between a cash minded hoarder or a shaky non assertive man.   I think this is something worldwide, choosing the better of 2 evils


----------



## morvoran (Sep 30, 2020)

To those who say Trump won't or hasn't condemned white racist, here's this: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/

Plus, I hear him condemn Democrats everyday, so that's pretty much the same thing.  You don't see Republicans getting on their knees asking for forgiveness for being "superior" to POCs.  That's because we don't see our skin as making us better than anyone else, but this is for another thread.
Also, does anyone remember back in January when Richard Spencer, the white nationalist" and his group, who were at Charlottesville, disavowed Trump and the main stream media was so happy about it?


----------



## Doran754 (Sep 30, 2020)

Imagine thinking Biden won this debate. To be fair there was a very low bar set, the fact he didn't fall flat in his face is a win I guess. Also he was wired up, he was being fed answers and I dont think it's out of the realms of possibilities to assume he knew the questions beforehand too just like Clinton was fed them in 2016. Also he had an IV line in, why did he need this?


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 30, 2020)

morvoran said:


> To those who say Trump won't or hasn't condemned white racist, here's this: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/
> 
> Plus, I hear him condemn Democrats everyday, so that's pretty much the same thing.  You don't see Republicans getting on their knees asking for forgiveness for being "superior" to POCs.  That's because we don't see our skin as making us better than anyone else, but this is for another thread.
> Also, does anyone remember back in January when Richard Spencer, the white nationalist" and his group, who were at Charlottesville, disavowed Trump and the main stream media was so happy about it?




Even focusing on last night, when initially asked if he denounces white supremacists he said, "Sure." When asked again if he was willing to denounce white supremacists, he said he was. Then he turned it around a bit and asked that they specifically identify what it was, who it was, that they were asking him to denounce. And that's important, because leftists appear to have a very broad definition. In a tweet later, the Biden campaign ran a video including an image of Kyle Rittenhouse as being among "white supremacists." That's bullshit. And Rittenhouse's attorney says he will now sue the Biden/Harris campaign for libel (same attorney who has already successfully hit CNN and the Washington Post over Nick Sandmann).


----------



## morvoran (Sep 30, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Even focusing on last night, when initially asked if he denounces white supremacists he said, "Sure." When asked again if he was willing to denounce white supremacists, he said he was. Then he turned it around a bit and asked that they specifically identify what it was, who it was, that they were asking him to denounce. And that's important, because leftists appear to have a very broad definition. In a tweet later, the Biden campaign ran a video including an image of Kyle Rittenhouse as being among "white supremacists." That's bullshit. And Rittenhouse's attorney says he will now sue the Biden/Harris campaign for libel (same attorney who has already successfully hit CNN and the Washington Post over Nick Sandmann).



Exactly.  Also, I can't remember who said it, but either Chris or Biden said "The Proud Boys" were a "white nationalist" group when they are only trying to prevent antifa from destroying property.  I find it odd that a white nationalist group would have non-white members, but like you said, democrats have a "very broad definition".
The funny thing is that democrats can't see that Antifa are the "white supremacists" that the FBI is warning about.  They are a group of spoiled white kids that go through and destroy black communities.


----------



## USUKDecks (Sep 30, 2020)

trump was being the rude douche bag dictator wanna be he always is and at this point the ONLY people who will vote for him are racists, complete idiots who lack I.Q. and common sense and the wealthy. He's done nothing for people in this country whose incomes fall in the lower 80 percentile , but racist dopes who are just brainless sheeple and for some reason who want to get rid of democracy ... love this guy and will vote for him no matter what.

But then again, look at all the followers people like Hitler, Manson, Jones, Koresh...etc all had. And ultimately , look how well it ended for them. His trumpTARDS will vote for him, because racist people only need ONE motivation and that is hate and he has that in spades. And his sheep are soooo stupid they can't even understand the level of their stupidity so they don't see it. The rich and corporations want him because he makes them richer, it's the traditional and absolute recipe of putting in an authoritarian regime in place and the morons can't even see it and literally make up excuses to support it. Unreal.


----------



## Viri (Sep 30, 2020)

USUKDecks said:


> trump was being the rude douche bag dictator wanna be he always is and at this point the ONLY people who will vote for him are racists, complete idiots who lack I.Q. and common sense and the wealthy. He's done nothing for people in this country whose incomes fall in the lower 80 percentile , but racist dopes who are just brainless sheeple and for some reason who want to get rid of democracy ... love this guy and will vote for him no matter what.
> 
> But then again, look at all the followers people like Hitler, Manson, Jones, Koresh...etc all had. And ultimately , look how well it ended for them. His trumpTARDS will vote for him, because racist people only need ONE motivation and that is hate and he has that in spades. And his sheep are soooo stupid they can't even understand the level of their stupidity so they don't see it. The rich and corporations want him because he makes them richer, it's the traditional and absolute recipe of putting in an authoritarian regime in place and the morons can't even see it and literally make up excuses to support it. Unreal.


I couldn't read this wall of text without laughing. I swear I must be on Twitter/Resetera/Reddit's /r/pol! Also, I don't think you know what an "Authoritarian Regime" is. Also, I'm one of those buzzwords that plan to vote for Trump, in his swing state. I hope we can swing it red again!


----------



## Jokey_Carrot (Sep 30, 2020)

didn't watch the fucking thing


----------



## GhostLatte (Sep 30, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Imagine thinking Biden won this debate. To be fair there was a very low bar set, the fact he didn't fall flat in his face is a win I guess. Also he was wired up, he was being fed answers and I dont think it's out of the realms of possibilities to assume he knew the questions beforehand too just like Clinton was fed them in 2016. Also he had an IV line in, why did he need this?


I can see you watch Fox News.


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 30, 2020)

I watched it and didn't care for both candidates interrupting each other the entire time and both of their childish insults and old lady bickering didn't impress me. I wanted to hear about policy or changes and most of the time it was just utter garbage. Hopefully in the next debate both candidates will give each other time to speak and present their plans, but after watching this first one I doubt that'll happen. I'm not impressed at all.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 30, 2020)

USUKDecks said:


> the ONLY people who will vote for him are racists



Good example of that broad definition I was talking about.


----------



## crimpshrine (Sep 30, 2020)

USUKDecks said:


> trump was being the rude douche bag dictator wanna be he always is and at this point the ONLY people who will vote for him are racists, complete idiots who lack I.Q. and common sense and the wealthy. He's done nothing for people in this country whose incomes fall in the lower 80 percentile , but racist dopes who are just brainless sheeple and for some reason who want to get rid of democracy ... love this guy and will vote for him no matter what.
> 
> But then again, look at all the followers people like Hitler, Manson, Jones, Koresh...etc all had. And ultimately , look how well it ended for them. His trumpTARDS will vote for him, because racist people only need ONE motivation and that is hate and he has that in spades. And his sheep are soooo stupid they can't even understand the level of their stupidity so they don't see it. The rich and corporations want him because he makes them richer, it's the traditional and absolute recipe of putting in an authoritarian regime in place and the morons can't even see it and literally make up excuses to support it. Unreal.



Funny, based on your tone and word choice you sound like a pretty intolerant person who shares more characteristics with racist people then you probably understand or know.

I know plenty of people who will be voting for Trump, but they would never admit it in open company because of fear of intolerant people like yourself.


----------



## Doran754 (Sep 30, 2020)

GhostLatte said:


> I can see you watch Fox News.


Ouch, hit me where it hurts. Don't forget to police my pronouns. Haven't you got some buildings to set on fire?


----------



## J-Machine (Sep 30, 2020)

I can tell you who lost. the moderator. i thought this was supposed to be a debate not babysitting oof


----------



## th3joker (Sep 30, 2020)

The news media and russia won. Its just a shitshow for the joke that is the american political system


----------



## gregory-samba (Sep 30, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> Good example of that broad definition I was talking about.



racism noun
rac·ism | \ ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm
also -ˌshi- \

Definition of racism

   1. anything the intolerant Liberal Left disagrees with or dislikes. It has nothing to do with actual Racism (see 2)

   2. belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race


----------



## notimp (Sep 30, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> racism noun
> rac·ism | \ ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm
> also -ˌshi- \
> 
> ...


Here, add that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_and_out-group More descriptive..


----------



## crimpshrine (Sep 30, 2020)

https://streamable.com/ngnwth

Too funny.  I did not catch Biden saying play it yesterday.


----------



## omgcat (Sep 30, 2020)

trump failed the easiest layup in the world. "do you denounce white supremacists?" any answer other than "Yes I do" is disqualifying. instead we got "stand down and stand by". like sure, even if he some how didn't know who the proud boys are, he could have just said, "hey, i don't support white supremacy". literal idiot.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2020)

CNN is this generations MTV. Making hopelessly braindead idiots who believe every word they say "Dems good Republicans bad"

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



J-Machine said:


> I can tell you who lost. the moderator. i thought this was supposed to be a debate not babysitting oof



The moderator who every question he asked to Trump was asked to put him down? Fuck him. It was Biden and Wallace vs Trump Wallace clearly is voting for Biden and it showed. He should not be allowed to moderate the other debates.


----------



## Velorian (Oct 1, 2020)

What matters are the independent voters that are just trying to get by, not the hard core Republicans or Dems. The dynamic of this race is entirely different from 2016.  This is a different shit show. If we look back at 2016 Trump he was arguing for Universal Healthcare, ending NAFTA, and took some of Bernie's policies.  In some ways he was arguing that he was left of Hillary, despite the fact that he was clearly lying and contradicted himself all the time. But in 2016 he was actually speaking to those regular folks struggling to get by and there were a lot of people that were hurting and needed change and were willing to risk it on Trump. Now in 2020, Trump isn't speaking to those people anymore, he is hardcore culture war and appealing to the farthest right people.  He has 4 years under his belt in which the economy has imploded and unemployment is past 20% with more than 30% not able to pay rent right now.  Costs have skyrocketed and the US has had more deaths from the coronavirus than any other country on the planet.  He needed to secure those independents that pushed him over in the last election and he did the exact opposite of that last night.  Biden, despite being terrible in his own ways literally just has to avoid appearances and do nothing from now until the election day and he will most likely win.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2020)

Velorian said:


> What matters are the independent voters that are just trying to get by, not the hard core Republicans or Dems. The dynamic of this race is entirely different from 2016.  This is a different shit show. If we look back at 2016 Trump he was arguing for Universal Healthcare, ending NAFTA, and took some of Bernie's policies.  In some ways he was arguing that he was left of Hillary, despite the fact that he was clearly lying and contradicted himself all the time. But in 2016 he was actually speaking to those regular folks struggling to get by and there were a lot of people that were hurting and needed change and were willing to risk it on Trump. Now in 2020, Trump isn't speaking to those people anymore, he is hardcore culture war and appealing to the farthest right people.  He has 4 years under his belt in which the economy has imploded and unemployment is past 20% with more than 30% not able to pay rent right now.  Costs have skyrocketed and the US has had more deaths from the coronavirus than any other country on the planet.  He needed to secure those independents that pushed him over in the last election and he did the exact opposite of that last night.  Biden, despite being terrible in his own ways literally just has to avoid appearances and do nothing from now until the election day and he will most likely win.



Yeah any president would be facing those numbers or worse. There's been this thing called the coronavirus maybe you haven't heard. Before then best economy ever. Try not to be so biased. Blaming Trump for the unemployment numbers is plain ignorant and they're dropping significantly even since the 2nd quarter of the year.


----------



## SG854 (Oct 1, 2020)

Trump won for being so sexy


----------



## DarkFlare69 (Oct 1, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> Yeah any president would be facing those numbers or worse. There's been this thing called the coronavirus maybe you haven't heard. Before then best economy ever. Try not to be so biased. Blaming Trump for the unemployment numbers is plain ignorant and they're dropping significantly even since the 2nd quarter of the year.


They are not directly Trump's fault but the result of his failure to lead the country properly during a pandemic. Other countries are not seeing unemployment rate spikes like the USA is. Europe as a continent has remained at a steady unemployment rate, and some countries such as France have fallen. The United States is one of the only countries that has spiked like this. I'm sure someone will respond to this post with an excuse as to why it is so much higher. That's the result of delaying a lockdown and not taking decisive action in a dire situation. But they are indeed falling, which is a good sign.





Source: https://data.oecd.org/unemp/unemployment-rate.htm


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2020)

DarkFlare69 said:


> They are not directly Trump's fault but the result of his failure to lead the country properly during a pandemic. Other countries are not seeing unemployment rate spikes like the USA is. Europe as a continent has remained at a steady unemployment rate, and some countries such as France have fallen. The United States is one of the only countries that has spiked like this. I'm sure someone will respond to this post with an excuse as to why it is so much higher. That's the result of delaying a lockdown and not taking decisive action in a dire situation. But they are indeed falling, which is a good sign.
> 
> View attachment 226668
> Source: https://data.oecd.org/unemp/unemployment-rate.htm



He locked down in March not long after Biden called him a racist for locking out China. In February Dr Fauci said the virus wasn't serious. This was the guy in charge Trump is not a doctor and he listened to him and locked down the country when requested to. You're saying though that if he locked down sooner unemployment would not be as high that makes no sense it was the fact that there was a lockdown that unemployment sky rocketed having it earlier would not have changed a thing. There was nothing else Trump could have done to stop unemployment from skyrocketing. It would have happened under any president holding a lockdown.

It would make more sense if you were arguing about the amount of deaths but saying we should have lockdown earlier to prevent unemployment makes absolutely no sense at all. That's what a lockdown does it shuts businesses down and inevitably forces businesses to die or lay people off.

You seem to think lockdowns cure all but if Biden wins and locks us down again the economy will collapse. He seems to be in favor of it too. I honestly don't care about other countries because if a President says lock down the country and they end up with more unemployment than other countries I mean that's not in their control it's a lockdown a business can lay people off because there isn't income coming in. You're the one praising lockdowns and the fallout cannot be controlled. Those numbers may double if there's another lockdown. I'm sure if we were under Biden we'd still be under the same lockdown and the economic hit would be absolutely devastating. I know businesses personally that will shut down instantly if there's another lockdown. They're holding on by a thread as it is.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2020)

I don't care who the President is we can't have another lockdown. This virus while a little more dangerous than the flu mostly for the elderly is not causing people to die all over the streets. Keep social distancing keep wearing masks as long as it takes, but another lockdown would devastate the country.

I remember the estimation when the virus first hit America was 2 million deaths, so far there's been 200,000. In my book, that tells me Trump has done an excellent job handling the virus.


----------



## AnimeIsDead (Oct 1, 2020)

I grabbed some popcorn and had a blast watching these old farts go at it with each other. Honestly they should consider making these debates pay per view and spend that money on another yacht or Epstein island 2.0


----------



## omgcat (Oct 1, 2020)

Disregarding independents for the moment, the death of RBG, Trumps SC choice, the risk to the ACA, and a bad covid response has energized democratic voters to levels we haven't seen since 2008. Trump won 2016 by VERY slim margins. if Young people vote in numbers similar to 2008, trump is fucked. full stop. on top of that, trump has lost a ton of female voters because of the RBG shenanigans, and Anti-choice sentiment. Trump is also starting to lose support of the elderly who are pissed that he said it was OK to sacrifice them for the economy, and threatened social security.

non-voters are being energized on the left like crazy, because abortion rights and healthcare is at risk.

older voters are being pushed towards Biden because they do not like how trump is acting, and trump has threatened social security and medicare.

the key race to watch is PA, because if Biden takes PA, Biden has around a 94% chance to win the electoral college. if Trump wins PA, Trump has around an 85% chance at winning the electoral college.

There have been more than 1,000,000 votes cast so far, up from 15,000 cast around the same time in 2016. people actually care this election.

I will update with more info as i get it.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2020)

I'm not going to sit here and say I know Trump will win because I don't. But I do think this election is NOT about how great Biden is. It's Trump vs I hate Trump. Very few people and no people with any sense actual think Biden would be a great President. He's got one foot in the grave.


----------



## drag4you (Oct 1, 2020)

Why did Biden won tho, in the vote polls? What did he promise?


----------



## AnimeIsDead (Oct 1, 2020)

drag4you said:


> Why did Biden won tho, in the vote polls? What did he promise?


The Biden plan


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2020)

drag4you said:


> Why did Biden won tho, in the vote polls? What did he promise?



Nothing, like I said it's Trump vs I hate Trump. A lot of people hate Trump. It's not about how good Biden is. Even his voters mostly know he'd be a bad president but they just want anyone but Trump. They drink the CNN koolaid who admits they lie about Trump.


----------



## drag4you (Oct 1, 2020)

AnimeIsDead said:


> The Biden plan


What's the Biden Plan?


----------



## AnimeIsDead (Oct 1, 2020)

drag4you said:


> What's the Biden Plan?


Apparently a very good plan.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2020)

drag4you said:


> What's the Biden Plan?





AnimeIsDead said:


> Apparently a very good plan.



It's like when two sports teams are going to play, they don't tell the other team their plan. Only in this case one team is Biden and the other team is America, who kinda needs to know it.


----------



## pleasehelpme2 (Oct 1, 2020)

The viewers won, this stuff is comedy gold


----------



## limpbiz411 (Oct 1, 2020)

i don't know who won, but i know who lost, we did


----------



## Viri (Oct 1, 2020)

omgcat said:


> the death of RBG


It's too late. Even if Trump loses in November, he's going to fill that seat. If she cared so much about her seat, she should have retired during Obama's first term.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2020)

Yeah Dems should have talked her into retiring under Obama. Too bad so sad.


----------



## Viri (Oct 1, 2020)

omgcat said:


> There have been more than 1,000,000 votes cast so far, up from 15,000 cast around the same time in 2016. people actually care this election.


Yeah, I'm sure that has nothing at all due to the Corana virus, and people not wanting to wait in line to vote.

Also, I look forward to the Pence/Harris debate more.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 1, 2020)

Viri said:


> Yeah, I'm sure that has nothing at all due to the Corana virus, and people not wanting to wait in line to vote.
> 
> Also, I look forward to the Pence/Harris debate more.




i agree, it should be interesting. I wonder if "mother" will even let pence debate a woman.

also, speaking of pence, where the hell has he been these 3+ years? like the guy a is a ghost.


----------



## Viri (Oct 1, 2020)

omgcat said:


> i agree, it should be interesting. I wonder if "mother" will even let pence debate a woman.
> 
> also, speaking of pence, where the hell has he been these 3+ years? like the guy a is a ghost.


Don't worry, there are plenty of people in the room, so he's allowed to be with another women. He just doesn't want to be alone with a women over dinner. And yes, Pence still exist, he'll probably be the one to break the tie for the next Supreme Court Judge if he's needed.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2020)

As a Trump supporter, there's probably assumptions about me that are not true.

-I am not a Christian, while I believe something created us because how the F are we here, I don't believe in the bible. I believe it's the biggest scam ever.
-I am whatever about abortion. I am not God to judge.
-Gay rights is fine with me.
-I don't nor have ever owned a gun

Here's the big one. Do I think Trump is an asshole? Absolutely yes. The thing is, we need an asshole. As President you are dealing with leaders of other countries who can be some of the most evil people alive, it's not puppy dogs and rainbows. While he hasn't been perfect by any stretch, I think he's trying to mostly do what's best for the people. I didn't feel that way about Obama or Bush Jr. The media is against him like no other President in the history of our country and he's handled it pretty well. He's been a Democrat 3 different times and he was pretty much loved by all before he was a Republican President. He even won an award from Jesse Jackson for hiring so many black people but the day he became Republican President he was a "racist". If he was a Democrat and did everything the same I know the treatment would be very different.  People forget how much especially in the beginning of his 2016 campaign and even after he was elected he was fighting with Republicans all the time. CNN and other media has done their job though they've lied so many times people believe he's Hitler reincarnated and it's not true.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 1, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> As a Trump supporter, there's probably assumptions about me that are not true.
> 
> -I am not a Christian, while I believe something created us because how the F are we here, I don't believe in the bible. I believe it's the biggest scam ever.
> -I am whatever about abortion. I am not God to judge.
> ...



he's a "racist" because he doesn't even do the bare minimum to not be. routinely espouses xenophobic media, won't denounce white supremacists, promotes voter suppression, etc. like it's easy, just say "I do not support white supremacy". hell the phrasing "stand down, and stand by" indicates control of that group, on top of him saying "I am urging my supporters to go into the polls and watch very carefully, because that's what has to happen". voter intimidation is a federal crime, and there is a long history of it in the south, when it comes to intimidating black voters. so you have someone who will not categorically denounce white supremacy, who then in the same debate, tells people to "go watch the polls", educated people can draw the line and make the connection.


----------



## Viri (Oct 1, 2020)

I'm a Trump supporter, and I don't give a shit about abortions, if they're legal, or illegal, IDGAF.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2020)

omgcat said:


> he's a "racist" because he doesn't even do the bare minimum to not be. routinely espouses xenophobic media, won't denounce white supremacists, promotes voter suppression, etc. like it's easy, just say "I do not support white supremacy". hell the phrasing "stand down, and stand by" indicates control of that group, on top of him saying "I am urging my supporters to go into the polls and watch very carefully, because that's what has to happen". voter intimidation is a federal crime, and there is a long history of it in the south, when it comes to intimidating black voters. so you have someone who will not categorically denounce white supremacy, who then in the same debate, tells people to "go watch the polls", educated people can draw the line and make the connection.



Yeah I'm sure CNN told you all that. He doesn't promote voter suppression he denounces voter fraud. Dems will cheat anyway they can and there will definitely be some mail in voter fraud. Someone can go online right now and say I'm selling my vote and there are people doing that. That's not to mention other ways of exploiting mail in voting. If you want to vote you should be forced to go to a booth show your license and vote. It's not like there isn't safe social distancing that takes place there like everywhere else no one is staying in there home 24/7 anymore so there really isn't a reason for mail in voting yet it's happening anyway. Wouldn't you want a fair vote? Probably not. You probably think there isn't any mail in voting fraud but if somehow the roles were reversed and perhaps there would be voter fraud in Trump's favor you would 100% be speaking out against mail in voting. But since it benefits your senile favorite you're all for it.

Black lives matter is a scam there were about 13 black men killed by cops last year and they were all committing crimes, there should be 0 yes but punish the cops that break the law and that's all. This thing was stirred up by Democrats to hurt Trump's chance of winning. They are very smart it's been very effective and may work. Also it's already been covered by someone else in this thread he did denounce them but Dems have a very broad definition of what white supremacy means. Probably anyone who is a white Republican.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> What I find odd is that trump had already denounced white supremacy.   Multiple times publicly.
> 
> Didn't he also designate the KKK as a terrorist organization?
> 
> ...





crimpshrine said:


> https://streamable.com/sr9o2s
> 
> 20+ times on video where he has condemned racism/hate/white supremacy.   Some of you are just wacky.



Since we're back to this again I thought I'd bring these posts back up.

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

Dems are doing a good job (credit where credit is due) to make it where if you stand for the National Anthem you're a racist. They've just turned this country upside down and some people absolutely love it.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 1, 2020)

drag4you said:


> What's the Biden Plan?


Basically promises to better handle the virus, climate change and jobs.



omgcat said:


> trump failed the easiest layup in the world. "do you denounce white supremacists?" any answer other than "Yes I do" is disqualifying. instead we got "stand down and stand by". like sure, even if he some how didn't know who the proud boys are, he could have just said, "hey, i don't support white supremacy". literal idiot.





omgcat said:


> hell the phrasing "stand down, and stand by"





KingVamp said:


> He couldn't even say stand down. He said "stand back and standby".


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 1, 2020)

omgcat said:


> he's a "racist" because he doesn't even do the bare minimum to not be. routinely espouses xenophobic media, won't denounce white supremacists, .



It's hard to read anything else you said because you don't pay attention.  And given that it would seem to me you are not in any position to form a fair judgment of someone.    Look at the video in this thread where Trump does EXACTLY what you claim he won't do with white supremacists NUMEROUS times over the years. 20 times at least.  It's all on video.

And here he is doing it officially in a posted statement.   How can anyone even attempt to have a discussion with you if you are going to ignore reality?


https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-trump/

As I said on Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence.  It has no place in America.

And as I have said many times before:  No matter the color of our skin, we all live under the same laws, we all salute the same great flag, and we are all made by the same almighty God.  We must love each other, show affection for each other, and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry, and violence.  We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans.

Racism is evil.  And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.

We are a nation founded on the truth that all of us are created equal.  We are equal in the eyes of our Creator.  We are equal under the law.  And we are equal under our Constitution.  Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America.


----------



## dreary79 (Oct 1, 2020)

My takeaway was there was no winner.  But I did note a few things...

1. Biden looks 20 years older than trump and talks 10 times slower, like he's getting old.
2. Biden needs to stop putting 100+ million to every number he says.
3. Trump didn't come across as presidential. 
4. The moderator worded his questions to try and get Trump to argue.  Trump bit on it every time.
5. The moderator bailed Biden out of answering questions multiple times by moving on to the next question. 
6. Biden didn't give hardly any policy or plans during the debate.  Everything he said was just anti-Trump.
7. My biggest takeaway is that Biden will do whatever it takes to prevent Covid from getting worse and Trump isn't going to shut down the country again.  They didn't outright say this, but that is what I gathered. 

This debate is unlikely to change anyone's minds.  Trump supports are going to vote for him regardless, Democrats are going to vote for Biden.  The question is... will anti-Trump get any votes this time?  Part of Hillary's loss was anti-Hillary vote.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2020)

dreary79 said:


> The question is... will anti-Trump get any votes this time?  Part of Hillary's loss was anti-Hillary vote.



Is this a serious question? Most of BIden's votes will be due to anti-Trump.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 1, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> Since we're back to this again I thought I'd bring these posts back up.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> Dems are doing a good job (credit where credit is due) to make it where if you stand for the National Anthem you're a racist. They've just turned this country upside down and some people absolutely love it.



Ok, so why didn't he during the debate? if it is so easy for him to do it, why didn't he? Also, i am not a single news source consumer. when MANY news sites are asking the same questions, or pointing out the same things, there might be something to the story. just about the only news source i dismiss out of hand is fox news. hell, fox new's legal stance on it own media is that ""'the general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "". 

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/9177...s-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye

it is dangerous to only consume media from one side, or one source.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 1, 2020)

dreary79 said:


> My takeaway was there was no winner.  But I did note a few things...
> 
> 1. Biden looks 20 years older than trump and talks 10 times slower, like he's getting old.
> 2. Biden needs to stop putting 100+ million to every number he says.
> ...



Interesting take, curious do you think there is any chance Biden might have potentially annoyed those more extreme progressives when he made it clear on a few points his standing?  Things that he has done a pretty good job avoiding talking about. (I believe on purpose))


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2020)

Who exactly is the racist? In addition this year Biden said black people ain't black if they vote for Trump. Damn, if I was black I would sure love for a white guy to say something like this.

Mr. Biden’s “record” of putting down minorities is also part of his pattern. In 2007, speaking of Barack Obama, Mr. Biden told Jason Horowitz of The New York Observer: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

Last August, while speaking to the Asian and Latino Coalition in Des Moines, Iowa, Mr. Biden associated black people with poverty: “Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids.”

In 2006, while contemplating a run for president, Mr. Biden said, “You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.”

 In 1977, Mr. Biden worried about the results of certain desegregation policies: “Unless we do something about this, my children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle with tensions having built so high that it is going to explode at some point.”

In 2010, Mr. Biden delivered a eulogy for former KKK Exalted Cyclops Robert Byrd, who died in 2010: “He was a friend, he was a mentor and he was a guide.”

In 2019, Mr. Biden bragged about working with Sen. James Eastland: “Even in the days when I got there, the Democratic Party still had seven or eight old-fashioned Democratic segregationists. You’d get up and you’d argue like the devil with them. Then you’d go down and have lunch or dinner together.”

James Eastland was for segregation who also said "the n**** soldier was incapable of serving in combat" Biden's lunch buddy.







Ok Liberals, your rebuttal please.


----------



## dreary79 (Oct 1, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> Interesting take, curious do you think there is any chance Biden might have potentially annoyed those more extreme progressives when he made it clear on a few points his standing?  Things that he has done a pretty good job avoiding talking about. (I believe on purpose))


Like the Green New Deal?  Biden will get more moderate votes by being more moderate.  He went further left than he ever has to get the democrat ticket.  He caved on some of his strongest principles to get the ticket.  Now he needs to be a little more moderate to get true Moderates and keep Moderate Democrats.  He is going to annoy the Progressive Left, but he won't lose their vote.


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 1, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> Who exactly is the racist? In addition this year Biden said black people ain't black if they vote for Trump. Damn, if I was black I would sure love for a white guy to say something like this.
> 
> Mr. Biden’s “record” of putting down minorities is also part of his pattern. In 2007, speaking of Barack Obama, Mr. Biden told Jason Horowitz of The New York Observer: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
> 
> ...



Those are all valid points.  Trump says 20+ times he denounces racism over time, they keep asking the same question.   They just want the sound bite figuring Trump is going to say it in a way that they can sell as being racist(ignoring the FACT that he has denounced them so many times it is not funny) so they can all jump on it and push that narrative it would seem.

What makes me feel like the democrats are hypocrites is that you have Kamala Harris who all but said she believes Biden is a racist in the primaries, and went as far as to say she 100% believed those that accuse Biden of sexual assault.

Her taking that offer, what does that say to American women by her actions?  That power means more to her than then morals depending on what is being offered?  Seems like more typical behavior from career politicians.  They just say what they believe people want to hear at the time, not genuine in any way shape or form.  Biden has been doing that left and right, he is MILKING covid-19, pandering to black people with bald face lies, acting like he cares about what Cardi B has to say? 

Trump is an abrasive pompous man at times.  But if you know anything about past history and leaders, that personality type can be very common with leaders that get things done.

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



dreary79 said:


> Like the Green New Deal?  Biden will get more moderate votes by being more moderate.  He went further left than he ever has to get the democrat ticket.  He caved on some of his strongest principles to get the ticket.  Now he needs to be a little more moderate to get true Moderates and keep Moderate Democrats.  He is going to annoy the Progressive Left, but he won't lose their vote.



I believe he could get more moderate votes if people have faith in him.  With all the waffling and pandering he does I don't see that happening.   Comes off too much like a car salesman just telling you WHATEVER it takes to get the deal done.    Like Fracking, in 3 weeks he changed his mind 3 times from what I recall.  And it is still not 100% crystal clear from my understanding.  And I myself could see progressives being turned off and just not voting.  It happened in 2016.

I think Biden comes across as being weak.  To be fair I thought he was night and day different in composure last night compared to his in person engagements over the last 3 weeks.  (Very low bar though)  To the point that people I know that was the main thing they spoke about, like how is that possible.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2020)

@omgcat please respond.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2020)

I hope @omgcat is alright. You doing alright buddy?


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 1, 2020)

So as long as we were talking about racism.  Can someone explain to me why so many think this quote from Trump is racist in nature? 

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best — they’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us,” he said. “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

I never understood that.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 1, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> Who exactly is the racist? In addition this year Biden said black people ain't black if they vote for Trump. Damn, if I was black I would sure love for a white guy to say something like this.
> 
> Mr. Biden’s “record” of putting down minorities is also part of his pattern. In 2007, speaking of Barack Obama, Mr. Biden told Jason Horowitz of The New York Observer: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
> 
> ...



all i see are a list of "gotchya's" that take events out of context, or respect for their time period.

also those links don't even work.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2020)

omgcat said:


> all i see are a list of "gotchya's" that take events out of context, or respect for their time period.



Wow you may be the most blind person I've ever seen. I thought maybe you'd either not respond or at least say "well their both racist" but this is ridiculous. Well it tells me everything I need to know about you your mind can't be changed because it's weak. You keep doing you but Biden is a racist you know it and I know it keep telling yourself lies if you want.

Excuse me about the link https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/27/joe-bidens-disturbing-pattern-of-putting-down-mino/


----------



## omgcat (Oct 1, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> Wow you may be the most blind person I've ever seen. I thought maybe you'd either not respond or at least say "well their both racist" but this is ridiculous. Well it tells me everything I need to know about you your mind can't be changed because it's weak. You keep doing you but Biden is a racist you know it and I know it keep telling yourself lies if you want.



i might potentially be blind, but I'm not voting for the guy who's senior campaign adviser attempted suicide.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2020)

omgcat said:


> i might potentially be blind, but i'm not voting for the guy who's senior campaign adviser attempted suicide.



What is the point of this post that Trump lead him to attempt suicide? People try to commit suicide for many different reasons. But everything is Trump's fault Ok he got demoted. So if you owned a company and you demoted someone and they commit suicide from it is that your fault? Maybe in your liberal mind it would be. But in a rational mind it absolutely isn't.

BTW there's a line of dead bodies rooting back to the Clinton's, they did the suiciding for them.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 1, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> What is the point of this post that Trump lead him to attempt suicide? People try to commit suicide for many different reasons. But everything is Trump's fault Ok he got demoted. So if you owned a company and you demoted someone and they commit suicide from it is that your fault? Maybe in your liberal mind it would be. But in a rational mind it absolutely isn't.
> 
> BTW there's a line of dead bodies rooting back to the Clinton's, they did the suiciding for them.




good ol conspiracy theories: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-body-bags/


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2020)

omgcat said:


> good ol conspiracy theories: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-body-bags/



Yeah but when it comes to new media they post the conspiracy theories as facts on TV and newspaper so they're just conspiracy sites that are public.

How can one site debunk every rumor about dozens of death? They must have been there. I'm sure they also have a page that says "JFK was not murdered by anyone but Lee Harvey Oswald" doesn't mean I believe it.

Even by your argument it's dumb because there were at the very least actual suicides while you point to Trump having someone attempting suicide. So you must be anti-Clinton?


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 1, 2020)

On a slightly different note, Amazon banned "Stand Back and Standby" shirts.


----------



## omgcat (Oct 1, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> On a slightly different note, Amazon banned "Stand Back and Standby" shirts.




sadly that won't make a difference as there are tons of POD stores that would jump to sell these t-shirts.


----------



## granville (Oct 1, 2020)

The question isn't who won, but who did the least harm to their campaign. I think both did horribly. Not even really sure I can reasonably vote in this poll. Most of it was just a bunch of personal attacks with zero substance or policy from either candidate.

Trump focused a lot on the "economy", or rather how he perceives it in terms of stock market value. And he grilled the Hunter Biden stuff. Hunter's finance scandals I do consider a serious concern (the cocaine and military discharge are not). Though i'm not sure if it will imprint itself in the public mind as Trump wants it to. Partly because he seems to struggle with understanding and explaining it himself. It also hasn't really caught as much public interest as all of Hillary's scandals. Also not sure how many people will still care about "stock value" with the mass unemployment and poverty going on. He has no healthcare plan and no way to counter any criticism about his handling of Covid.

That said, Biden also didn't bring anything to the table either. Mostly just personal attacks on Trump, which ARE absolutely valid, but he largely failed to explain what he'd do better. He was even baited into waffling on his already weak and doomed healthcare plans. Not that there was ever any chance he'd be fighting for a universal healthcare system. He's owned by big pharma and the insurance industry and vowed to veto M4A even if the house and senate did miraculously pass it (and said this during the pandemic). He also didn't have any defense against the attacks on his son, he just got angry and said it was all lies.

I do think Trump had the overall biggest single fuck-up of the night. His refusal to say what he'd do if he lost the election. Alongside his very unsubtle *wink wink hint hint* direction at his supporters to be at the ready if things don't go so well for him.

In terms of composure, it was also an embarrassment all around. Trump acted like an obnoxious 2 year old who kept interrupting Biden with random incoherent babbling (even trying to argue with Wallace, who also did a horrendous job moderating). That said, it did have an intent which I noticed was actually somewhat successful- rattling Biden. Biden being constantly spoken over distracted and confused him, severely exacerbating his already shaky ability to speak. I'm almost inclined to give Trump the slight edge in this round. Not because he seemed more composed either, just because he succeeded in baiting and dragging Biden down to his toddler level and Biden embarrassingly struggled to contend with it.

I don't think the debate will have swayed the bases of either candidate. People more on the fence however I don't know, I could see a lot of undecideds just sitting this election out or voting third party.


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 1, 2020)

granville said:


> The question isn't who won, but who did the least harm to their campaign. I think both did horribly. Not even really sure I can reasonably vote in this poll. Most of it was just a bunch of personal attacks with zero substance or policy from either candidate.
> 
> Trump focused a lot on the "economy", or rather how he perceives it in terms of stock market value. And he grilled the Hunter Biden stuff. Hunter's finance scandals I do consider a serious concern (the cocaine and military discharge are not). Though i'm not sure if it will imprint itself in the public mind as Trump wants it to. Partly because he seems to struggle with understanding and explaining it himself. It also hasn't really caught as much public interest as all of Hillary's scandals. Also not sure how many people will still care about "stock value" with the mass unemployment and poverty going on. He has no healthcare plan and no way to counter any criticism about his handling of Covid.
> 
> ...


While I did prefer Biden's overall message over Trump's, I felt Trump rattled Biden quite a bit.  I think Biden said, "Here's the deal" about 10 times.  Ok, _maybe_ not that often, but he leaned on that phrase a lot as a segway from Trump's constant interruptions.  

It's clear to me that Trump's plan all along was to constantly interrupt Biden in the hope Biden would lose his train of thought so he could fire "Sleepy Joe" zingers, but that tactic mostly backfired.  While Trump's bait didn't generate the headline grabbing one liners he was looking for, it did lead to some personal attacks, which I don't believe would've happened quite as often in a "clean" debate where Trump's mic is turned off while Biden speaks.  If the mic rule is enforced in the final two debates, Trump's biggest advantage -- chaos -- will be effectively neutralized.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 1, 2020)

The person who won barely got to speak.
The loser said "shut up".


----------



## PiracyForTheMasses (Oct 1, 2020)

LumInvader said:


> While I did prefer Biden's overall message over Trump's, I felt Trump rattled Biden quite a bit.  I think Biden said, "Here's the deal" about 10 times.  Ok, _maybe_ not that often, but he leaned on that phrase a lot as a segway from Trump's constant interruptions.
> 
> It's clear to me that Trump's plan all along was to constantly interrupt Biden in the hope Biden would lose his train of thought so he could fire "Sleepy Joe" zingers, but that tactic mostly backfired.  While Trump's bait didn't generate the headline grabbing one liners he was looking for, it did lead to some personal attacks, which I don't believe would've happened quite as often in a "clean" debate where Trump's mic is turned off while Biden speaks.  If the mic rule is enforced in the final two debates, Trump's biggest advantage -- chaos -- will be effectively neutralized.


Biden refused to be inspected for an ear piece. Biden clearly had no train of thought and was definitely wearing an ear piece. You could tell by the way he was stumbling with his words that he was trying to listen to what Wallace or Trump was saying while also trying to listen to the voice in his ear piece. On top of that Wallace was clearly a biased moderator. Which is a perfect example for why media needs to stay out of politics.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Oct 1, 2020)

PiracyForTheMasses said:


> Biden refused to be inspected for an ear piece. Biden clearly had no train of thought and was definitely wearing an ear piece. You could tell by the way he was stumbling with his words that he was trying to listen to what Wallace or Trump was saying while also trying to listen to the voice in his ear piece. On top of that Wallace was clearly a biased moderator. Which is a perfect example for why media needs to stay out of politics.



The fuck? He's a fox news moderator, what more do you want? If trump managed to make a fox news moderator appear biased against him and literally only because he did the bare minimum of mention that it wasn't his fucking turn to speak in the 80+ times he interrupted Biden, the problem isn't with the moderator.

Also, why is gbatemp still allowing such dumpsterfire threads? It barely took a page for dozens of lies to be plastered in it and you know where this will end form the other 5000 threads that went exactly the same way in the last couple years.


----------



## wartutor (Oct 1, 2020)

granville said:


> Also not sure how many people will still care about "stock value" with the mass unemployment and poverty going on. He has no healthcare plan and no way to counter any criticism about his handling of Covid.


You say that like any of this is trumps fault. U do know trump wanted to keep the country open. That would of kept people employed and unemployment numbers would of stayed at there all time low. (Doing that they wouldnt be able to make him look bad. And yeah peopke would of died. But in all honestly they still are just more spread out now instead of all in 2 weeks.) (Theres no way of knowing if more would of died if the country stayed open versus it shutting down and fucking everything up. Just a left ploy to use against trump and its there only weapon.) And how exactly was he suppost to handle covid 19. Its a fucking virus that has to run its corse until theres a cure. The left wants to shut down everything (except there stupid fuckin riots and protests. (If u can protest and riot might as well fucking work.)) They screamed shut down the country and now scream "its all trumps fault." Bunch of dumb fuckin americans just follow like sheep.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 1, 2020)

Anyone under the delusion that things would be different if Trump said that he "denounces racism" for the n-th time is a naive fool. This is just a ploy designed to separate Trump from his support base by making him disparage it. Nobody asks another person "excuse me, are you a racist?" in polite company, that's an attack on character. He said that people should "stand down" like he was told to do, and what's in today's headlines? "Trump commands his troops to await further instructions", or something stupid along those lines. The election is not about racism, xenophobia, the LGBTQ+, women's rights or any of that assorted nonsense - the election is, and always has been, about money. One side wants to take less of it and the other wants to throw it on a bonfire of virtuous causes that people are welcome to support in private, but shouldn't be forced to support by the long arm of the government. If Trump asked Biden "can you please tell your BLM troops to stand down and refrain from burning any more federal buildings or private businesses", he'd be asking the exact same gotcha question and nobody would raise an eyebrow if it was completely ignored, because it should be ignored. The question, in an out of itself, suggests that one has direct control of groups which they have no control over whatsoever.


----------



## Chains (Oct 1, 2020)

These two geriatric retards are a great demonstration of why the government in general, and the presidency most especially, needs to have a lot less power & authority than it currently does.

Its literally just a nursing home fight, we are the real losers here.


----------



## notimp (Oct 1, 2020)

Chains said:


> These two geriatric retards are a great demonstration of why the government in general, and the presidency most especially, needs to have a lot less power & authority than it currently does.
> 
> Its literally just a nursing home fight, we are the real losers here.


Because of one guy? That mostly hangs out on twitter and whos claim to fame is this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/us/politics/trump-coronavirus-misinformation.html
?

He cant sign presidential decrees on anything with lasting value, he can ruin international relations, but chances are that he didnt do that becaus he came up with an idea, but because the establishment low key wanted him to. Even currently the president essentially is a figurehead in anything but military decision making and a national crisis.

And to his credit, he didnt start any wars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_of_the_president_of_the_United_States

Apart from that he has veto powers on laws, but thats not that dangerous.

The principle of 'separation of power' has to be put in pretty early to be able to claim yourself a democracy.

A President in the best days is a motivator, with an idea, or a legislative agenda, that could potentialy bring the country forward, and then things start to happen, because people believe in that vision. Whats that with Trump? More golf courses in the Philippines?

So he then signs decrees that either get overruled or contested by law if they exceed their mandate, and they go *poof* once they leave office.

Oh, and he appointed judges, a metric ton of them, because of political position plays to hold open vacencies, thats lasting and thats another layer of said separation of power.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...cent-presidents-in-appointing-federal-judges/

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/26/trump-legacy-supreme-court-422058

But on that I'm sure you are able to pressure other people into party picks, just as well...


Oh, and he made extremism, more 'ok' in public speech and action, but thats not something you could blame the position for. Thats just people looking up to their leader figure and changing behavior.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020...legacy-will-remain-regardless-of-the-election

US president is the "most powerful man on earth" because the commands the US military, but apart from that...
(In war you need delegation of responsibility to one person. Waging a war on 'consensus opinion' usually doesnt work so well. Cabinet comes up with plans, president decides. Military follows.)


And isnt that what america wanted? The guy with the buillding background to find his legacy in appointing 200 judges to 'lifelong positions'?


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 1, 2020)

Trump actually never speaks about jobs. He clearly talks about "jabs". He is the king of jabs.


----------



## granville (Oct 1, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> The person who won barely got to speak.
> The loser said "shut up".


Trump spoke for 39:06 minutes, compared to Biden's 37:56 minutes. That is not including the additional time he took by running his mouth through most of Biden's time and arguing with Wallace (who made no attempts to stop this other than request Trump abide by the rules, which he refused to do). Trump's voice encompassed at least 85% of the debate. Biden telling him to shut up was the only good thing that came out of this "debate".


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 1, 2020)

PiracyForTheMasses said:


> Biden refused to be inspected for an ear piece. Biden clearly had no train of thought and was definitely wearing an ear piece. You could tell by the way he was stumbling with his words that he was trying to listen to what Wallace or Trump was saying while also trying to listen to the voice in his ear piece. On top of that Wallace was clearly a biased moderator. Which is a perfect example for why media needs to stay out of politics.


Well, it's not every day that someone throws a debunked Facebook conspiracy in my face.  That much I will give you.  However, the "story" itself is total horseshit.  Either you believe this crap or you're just trolling, but either way you're on the record for spreading a debunked conspiracy theory.

Debunked:

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...n-being-wired-or-using-earpiece-idUSKBN26L3D0
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-joe-biden-wearing-earpiece-false/3578805001/
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/09/no-evidence-biden-was-wearing-a-wire-in-debate/

Politifact.org also debunked this conspiracy theory, but I didn't post their link out of respect to conservatives who don't trust left wing media outlets.  I couldn't find anything from the AP, or I would've listed them as well.  Of the 3 I'm sharing, Reuters fact checking stood out the most.

Media bias citations (all 3 websites rank as neutral):

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/usa-today-media-bias
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/reuters
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/factcheckorg-media-bias


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 1, 2020)

One of the items from the debate that Biden was insistent on:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/30/hunter-biden-burisma-payments-detailed-treasury-de/

*Treasury reports rebut Biden's 'totally false' claims about Hunter's cash haul*

“When somebody gets 3½ million dollars from the mayor of Moscow,” Mr. Trump said.
“That’s is not true. That report is totally false,” Mr. Biden said.

A Senate Republican report by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee says Mr. Trump is right, though it was not Moscow’s mayor, but his wife, whom the U.S. suspects of corruption in attaining billionaire status.

Hunter Biden received a single wire transfer of $3.5 million from Elena Baturina. The Senate report said she became a billionaire through illegal construction contracts awarded by her husband, since deceased.

This is based on Treasury Department reports received by committee Chairman Ron Johnson, Wisconsin Republican, and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> One of the items from the debate that Biden was insistent on:
> 
> https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/30/hunter-biden-burisma-payments-detailed-treasury-de/
> 
> ...



Corruption is always allowed if you're a Democrat. Do you not watch the news?


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Oct 1, 2020)

As a Biden, "supporter", I think Trump won. I, however, don't think that anyone lost. Trump came in and did what he had to do. He created a ruckus on the debate stage, and his supporters eat that shit up. Biden spoke pretty well honestly, not as good as his 2008/2012 performances, but much, MUCH better than his DNC 2020 Primary performance. What they should add, however, is a mute button for the first 4 minutes of the debate, enough to let both Trump and Biden get their thoughts out. Afterwards, it is up to Biden in the next debate to handle Trump's unique debate style. 

Wallace was pretty decent. He should have pressed Biden more on the, "pack the court" question, but other than that, he made sure that both parties held up to the terms that they agreed to (or at least tried). Biden also needs to be able to catch on to the shit Trump is constantly spewing out. A lot of it was easily debunk-able, but Biden just let it slide. I think the VP debates will be much better.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 1, 2020)

Sorry to sound like a broken record, but "stand down" wasn't what he said. 


As far as wars go, did he not abandon the Kurds, iirc, then use that same army to protect oil?


----------



## wonkeytonk (Oct 1, 2020)

The GAYS won


----------



## crimpshrine (Oct 1, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Sorry to sound like a broken record, but "stand down" wasn't what he said.
> 
> 
> As far as wars go, did he not abandon the Kurds, iirc, then use that same army to protect oil?



If you take EVERYTHING he said regarding that in the debate -  minus the standby word (alone) it would seem to indicate that was the wrong word choice.  Not even sure why they keep asking the same question in different versions over and over again.

Trump, Aug. 14, 2017: As I said on Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America.

    And as I have said many times before: No matter the color of our skin, we all live under the same laws, we all salute the same great flag, and we are all made by the same almighty God. We must love each other, show affection for each other, and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry, and violence. We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans.

    Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.

    We are a nation founded on the truth that all of us are created equal. We are equal in the eyes of our Creator. We are equal under the law. And we are equal under our Constitution. Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 1, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Sorry to sound like a broken record, but "stand down" wasn't what he said.


Let's look at what he did say:


Sounds to me like he said "I'll disavow anything and tell anyone to stop, but that includes the left as well". Hardly a racist sentiment.


----------



## Big Man Tyrone2 (Oct 1, 2020)

wonkeytonk said:


> The GAYS won


... what does that mean?


----------



## Deleted member 397813 (Oct 1, 2020)

yo mama oooo gotten


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 1, 2020)

crimpshrine said:


> *If you take EVERYTHING he said regarding that in the debate -  minus the standby word (alone) it would seem to indicate that was the wrong word choice.  Not even sure why they keep asking the same question in different versions over and over again.*
> 
> Trump, Aug. 14, 2017: As I said on Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America.
> 
> ...


Had Chris Wallace challenged Trump to condemn Antifa, does anyone here honestly believe he would've waffled his way to a wrong choice of words?  Rather than provide an immediate answer like the rest of us, Trump deployed a stalling tactic, which ultimately led to him sticking his foot in his mouth because he refused to use the words "condemn" or "disavow" so-and-so in the same sentence.  So for me it isn't so much about the wrong word choice -- which I agree is a plausible argument.  

It's the fact that he attempted to soften his tone when challenged to condemn a specific group of Trump supporters.  The next day it was more of the same, when given a second chance to condemn Proud Boys, he again told them to "stand down" while offering that *he doesn't know who they are.*  Now where have we seen that one before? 

By the same token, Joe Biden should be held to the same standard when challenged about Antifa and violent BLM protests.  There is absolutely no wriggle room on the topic of extremism in the USA.

I agree with the rest of your post, btw.


----------



## pustal (Oct 1, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Trump is the chosen one that will lead our people to the promise land



Indeed, chosen by Lord Putin himself, leading to the wondrous land of oligarchs.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2020)

pustal said:


> Indeed, chosen by Lord Putin himself, leading to the wondrous land of oligarchs.



Comments like this are why Trump is playing chess and people like you are playing checkers. Maybe it isn't all that smart to piss off perhaps the most dangerous man in the world who has a nuke pointed right at you. Maybe it's best to get along with this guy. Hilary would have had us in a war with him. Now maybe you're not in this country and don't care or maybe you are, but I don't think anyone would think a war with Russia is a good idea. Hillary who is supposed to be the peaceful liberal made comments about going to war with several countries including Russia while Trump got us out of wars and didn't start any. Liberals who are for peace and smoking weed are not in alignment with modern day Democrats. Modern day Democrats are war hungry, power hungry deceitful people. You only have to look on Television for proof as they encourage rioting. Peacful Liberals are being fooled and lied to.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 1, 2020)

KingVamp said:


> Sorry to sound like a broken record, but "stand down" wasn't what he said.




The Proud Boys aren't white supremacists anyway. Extremists maybe, but not white supremacists.


----------



## pustal (Oct 1, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> Comments like this are why Trump is playing chess and people like you are playing checkers. Maybe it isn't all that smart to piss off perhaps the most dangerous man in the world who has a nuke pointed right at you. Maybe it's best to get along with this guy. Hilary would have had us in a war with him. Now maybe you're not in this country and don't care or maybe you are, but I don't think anyone would think a war with Russia is a good idea. Hillary who is supposed to be the peaceful liberal made comments about going to war with several countries including Russia while Trump got us out of wars and didn't start any. Liberals who are for peace and smoking weed are not in alignment with modern day Democrats. Modern day Democrats are war hungry, power hungry deceitful people. You only have to look on Television for proof as they encourage rioting. Peacful Liberals are being fooled and lied to.



8D chess indeed.

Btw, have you ever heard of the concept of mutually assured destruction? There is no way there would or will ever be a direct war between the US and Russia.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 1, 2020)

pustal said:


> 8D chess indeed.
> 
> Btw, have you ever heard of the concept of mutually assured destruction? There is no way there would or will ever be a direct war between the US and Russia.



I'm glad you're here we have someone who knows the inner workings of both USA and Russia and can assure everyone there would never be a war. I'm sure there was someone like you before World War 1 and 2 saying the same thing. Bad blood can make anything happen. Hilary was already spreading bad blood while she was a Presidential candidate.

It's also funny to me everything against Dems is a conspiracy but everything heard about Trump is fact. He did not collude with Putin to win the Presidency that's a conspiracy started by Dems and they tried to use it to get him out of the White House and they failed. So they just move on to the next thing taxes, BLM, handling of the virus. I'm sure if he's re-elected there'll be a half a dozen new things.

Speaking of conspiracies it's funny how main stream media was covering Pizzagate for awhile then just dropped it and you've never heard a word from them about it since. The way I see it Podesta, crooked Hilary and others got caught red handed with those emails and somehow it just disappeared. Very interesting. The guy who said he found those emails who worked in the FBI recently said he was treated very badly after revealing those emails by others in the FBI. But why wouldn't they want the truth to be known? I think there is corruption running rampted through the U.S. Government.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 1, 2020)

Friendly reminder that Wallace was biased and Biden told Trump to "shut up, man".


----------



## notimp (Oct 1, 2020)

> Hilary would have had us in a war with him. Now maybe you're not in this country and don't care or maybe you are, but I don't think anyone would think a war with Russia is a good idea. Hillary who is supposed to be the peaceful liberal made comments about going to war with several countries including Russia while Trump got us out of wars and didn't start any. Liberals who are for peace and smoking weed are not in alignment with modern day Democrats. Modern day Democrats are war hungry, power hungry deceitful people. You only have to look on Television for proof as they encourage rioting. Peacful Liberals are being fooled and lied to.





> 8D chess indeed.
> 
> Btw, have you ever heard of the concept of mutually assured destruction? There is no way there would or will ever be a direct war between the US and Russia.



Fallback to that is nuclear winter, which always happens if enough nukes are launched at any cities, doesnt matter which ones. That also ensures, that there never will be a fully fledged nuclear war.

Want proof?  Kim Jong-un has only become a thing in the collective consciousness of US citizens, because of 'mandatory diplomacy' that follows, if another state has developed nuclear warfare capabilities. From that point forward, some methods used to pressure countries are not used anymore, and you dont use them as patsies in situations anymore where you redraw borders.

Russia doesnt want to wage war either, economically and militarily the US would still be on top. What russia wants and does, is to 'secure its borders' and 'stabilize' its ally states (the not so neutral neutrals), strike down revolts in countries on the edge of its sphere of influence, and fight proxy wars in countries in the middle east, like everyone else.

US wouldnt want war (aside from proxy wars), because if they cant draw in china - whats the point? International and economic importance would suffer, at least for a while. The way the US gained dominace over the world economy at one point was to enter WW2 - late.

Currently wars between developed nations are fought economically, if at all.

Reasons given for war that start with 'democracy' are BS, under Pax americana ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana ) and

starting at 4:01 (sadly its german dubbed, but if you listen to whats said in english, this imho is the best primer) - whats done is the following:

Everyone profits if flow of resources and goods is uninterrupted (this is on the verge of changing somewhat

- but still important.).

If as a small unimportant state, you want to become something, in the past first you tried to get your population up, then had an access of young males, you could first exploit labour wise to buy weapons, and then intervene in your neighbor state, that might be richer, but 'older' in terms of population age. Issue: While that is going on and you try to become the new head honcho, flow of ressources and goods is interrupted. Which is why as a developed nation, you dont want that - so you intervene. US did this for ages as 'the world police' (people outside the Nato dint like, but what are they gonna do), which you could read about by reading up on the concept of american exceptionalism.

Then relative worth of oil sank (because the US became a net exporter of gas and aquired new reserves (fracking, new pipelines from canada), and the US got less interested in 'doing that service' for the oil rich countries in the middle east (Last wars kinda didnt go so well also.).

Then OPEC dropped the oil price to the point where fracking wasnt viable anymore, and that industry largely went bankrupt in the US (but it could be restarted in the future, if there wasnt the climate change thing), partly because they needed a stable income at a certain rate (their own populations wouldnt have been happy otherwise), partly because you bought US interests for a while longer, that and they bought US weapons overpriced, and in high quantities, not to use them, but to basicaly 'hold interest'/bribe also to hold the US in the region for a while longer. That and Israel wants it as well - because rich, but old (demography) country, with a bunch of 'natural' enemies around it.

Russia, is more agressive currently, because if they have to stabilize something, now is the time, because demography wise, they'll lack young people/solders 20 years from now as well. Also they try to uphold a sphere of influence, that basically runs north/south, so from russia, down to the middle east. Conflicts are mostly baked in with US allies (Europe), not with the US themselves.

Russia interfering in the US election and maybe sponsoring Trump (loans) was just some high risk/potentially high reward international play, with no concrete purpose, that - if anything allowed them to focus on getting their boarder infrastructure under wraps, while sabotaging US/European ally relations.

US and Europeans being allies (NATO) loses importance, as - first more countries become a little less globalized in terms of their economic flow of goods, less important with russia becoming less important (as is the case now), and with the middle east becoming less important.

This means that Europe has to increase military spending, which it has done. Diplomacy still is preferred when dealing with other first world countries, but agein - the stabilizing effort.

As Nato and the UN become less important, another goal like fighting climate change, would ensure international cooperation. Thats not me saying that climate change is not real, thats just another angle to the whole thing.

Hillary would have, and war and, ...: Hillary was seen as a Hawk, that would have reacted in some proxy wars with more military intervention. Thats all.

For US military families, this still sucks, but none of this is a reason to fear another world, or even nuclear war.

On the nuclear front, US has to replace old nuclear weapons right about now, and moves out of treaties, that are supposed to reduce weapon count and potency (so its not constantly on heads of states mind), so it can upgrade their toys to never seen before capability (threat factor), russia cant compete, no money. The other question is - should they compete, the answer is still no, the US should not be upgrading capability. But tell that to the US. So US is dismantling international treaties, and says it does so, to force china to get into newer ones - but that is largely bull, chinas capabilities are still rather basic in that sector (because it wasnt a priority for anyone for quite a while).

Issue - if climate issues cause insurance companies to default and retract, and there is much more 'pressure to survive' in certain regions of the world, and the US has just enhanced nuclear capabilities (including smaller nukes), preassures could arise to use them against states without the ability to strike back. Thats what has everyone worried in that sector currently.


ANY idea that goes beyond that and talks about the possibility of a hot war in or near the US, or a war with russia, or a nuclear war - is entirely 'off the charts' and only exists in common peoples minds, mostly because of extremist propaganda. Left or right in that case.

Didnt cover south east asia conflict potentials which are largely china asserting dominance over trading routes and getting into conflict with US allies (f.e. Japan, whose position is solely dependent on being an active sea power in the region (in itself its a comparatively very small island)).

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



UltraSUPRA said:


> Friendly reminder that Wallace was biased and Biden told Trump to "shut up, man".


Untrue, and the President interrupted Biden 73 times during the debate:
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54350538


----------



## pustal (Oct 2, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> I'm glad you're here we have someone who knows the inner workings of both USA and Russia and can assure everyone there would never be a war. I'm sure there was someone like you before World War 1 and 2 saying the same thing. Bad blood can make anything happen. Hilary was already spreading bad blood while she was a Presidential candidate.
> 
> It's also funny to me everything against Dems is a conspiracy but everything heard about Trump is fact. He did not collude with Putin to win the Presidency that's a conspiracy started by Dems and they tried to use it to get him out of the White House and they failed. So they just move on to the next thing taxes, BLM, handling of the virus. I'm sure if he's re-elected there'll be a half a dozen new things.
> 
> Speaking of conspiracies it's funny how main stream media was covering Pizzagate for awhile then just dropped it and you've never heard a word from them about it since. The way I see it Podesta, crooked Hilary and others got caught red handed with those emails and somehow it just disappeared. Very interesting. The guy who said he found those emails who worked in the FBI recently said he was treated very badly after revealing those emails by others in the FBI. But why wouldn't they want the truth to be known? I think there is corruption running rampted through the U.S. Government.



Nobody thought that before WWII because war was a constant. What changed after WWII was the nuclear bomb. If USA and Russia exchanged bombs there would be a decade long nuclear fallout that wipe out most of the human population. There are no incentives, political, monetary or whatsoever to start a war, only deterrents, that's the whole point of the nuclear arsenal of both countries. That's the whole reason why the cold war was a cold war and not an actual war. You only saw proxy conflicts. I can't believe I have to type this out to you. Is your school system that bad that you don't lay out the intricacies of it?

That's why Putin wants to expand his empires as he can, that's why he invaded Crimea. He can only do that with non-NATO countries exactly because of that, that's why he didn't lay a finger on the Baltics. Nuclear power is a no-go.

And yes, there is corruption running rampant through the US government, Clintons aren't innocent, and you don't need a crazy made up BS like pizzagate. The corruption simply comes from traffic of influence.

Trump however is not a cure, he's steroids overdose for corruption. From tax evasion to freaking treason attempts for the extra buck. And he is destroying not only the government as the society as a whole for it. And potentially even the democratic process as he intents.

I don't know why I give a bother though. If you can't see the blatant obvious, if you don't aknowledge reliable sources, if you don't even know or care to know the basics of history and foreign affairs, I mean...


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 2, 2020)

pustal said:


> Nobody thought that before WWII because war was a constant. What changed after WWII was the nuclear bomb. If USA and Russia exchanged bombs there would be a decade long nuclear fallout that wipe out most of the human population. There are no incentives, political, monetary or whatsoever to start a war, only deterrents, that's the whole point of the nuclear arsenal of both countries. That's the whole reason why the cold war was a cold war and not an actual war. I can't believe I have to type this out to you. Is your school system that bad that you don't lay out the intricacies of it?
> 
> That's why Putin wants to expect his empires as he can, that's why he invaded Crimea. He can only do that with non-NATO countries exactly because of that, that's why he didn't lay a finger on the Balcans. Nuclear power is a no-go.
> 
> ...



It's funny it's always crazy made up bs on this site. But there were emails. It's not really a crazy nutjob conspiracy when there's evidence. Even liberal news was covering it for awhile, until they didn't. I wonder why they would have been covering crazy made up bs? even if you're right and it is crazy made up b.s. does that not prove that EVERYTHING they say is not true?

I am not going to claim Trump is 100% innocent, but neither are Dems by any stretch of the imagination. Jesus could not be POTUS, he would be too innocent and kind for that job.


----------



## Little_Anonymous_Hacker (Oct 2, 2020)

The billionaire donors.


----------



## pustal (Oct 2, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> It's funny it's always crazy made up bs on this site. But there were emails. It's not really a crazy nutjob conspiracy when there's evidence. Even liberal news was covering it for awhile, until they didn't. I wonder why they would have been covering crazy made up bs? even if you're right and it is crazy made up b.s. does that not prove that EVERYTHING they say is not true?



There were e-mails about going to eat pizza. The level of crazy to transform that into pedophilia is out of this world. No self-respecting news source covered that aside the point of stating that some people claim that, there was no story there otherwise.

And I told you they aren't saints, I don't know why you continue with this whataboutism.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 2, 2020)

pustal said:


> There were e-mails about going to eat pizza. The level of crazy to transform that into pedophilia is out of this world. No self-respecting news source covered that aside the point of stating that some people claim that, there was no story there otherwise.
> 
> And I told you they aren't saints, I don't know why you continue with this whataboutism.



You can't be that stupid. Emails about eating actual pizza. You're a waste of time there's no way you actually even believe that bullshit. It wasn't just about child sex ring either there was talk of Hilary committing treason and a lot of the emails were destroyed. It was swept under the rug. And all your favorite Liberal News WERE covering it so you're pretty much admitting they're all discredited.

But I get it you're a hardcore liberal and not even from this country. I'm wasting my own time with you.


----------



## pustal (Oct 2, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> You can't be that stupid. Emails about eating actual pizza. You're a waste of time there's no way you actually even believe that bullshit. It wasn't just about child sex ring either there was talk of Hilary committing treason and a lot of the emails were destroyed. It was swept under the rug. And all your favorite Liberal News WERE covering it so you're pretty much admitting they're all discredited.
> 
> But I get it you're a hardcore liberal and not even from this country. I'm wasting my own time with you.



Because it's not natural to go for pizza? And it is perfectability expected that already filthy rich and high profile people are messed in a sexual exploration scheme? Do you read out loud what you write? If you tell me that Bill probably had sex with a late teen but possibly underage girl in Epstein's island, sure, I can see that. But to have an entire operation that would risk their positions for something they already have over saying they go out for pizza? Come on. The low effort on these conspiracies is laughable.

I'm not a hardcore anything. I'm a reasonable person. I'm not the one saying that going for pizza literally means selling a kid for sex. That's hardcore nuts.


----------



## notimp (Oct 2, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> It wasn't just about child sex ring either there was talk of Hilary committing treason and a lot of the emails were destroyed.


Grant you one point, there where emails that were destroyed, most likely. The whole point of running an email server in your own home, instead of on the state email system is to make that possible/easier.

Now you deliver on 'Hillary has committed hight treason' (source please), and tell, why this and pizzagate are the only things you got out of the email controversy.

And what made the Clinton thing different to the Ivanka thing:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46377563
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/28/18116326/ivanka-trump-emails-hillary-clinton-gma

And when you end up at the answer (which is propaganda btw),you tell us, ok? 

Seriously, when you throw arround things  like, a presidential candidate commited high treason, provide a src. Pls. So we can understand where you are coming from.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 2, 2020)

The emails are still on the web. They are obviously not about pizza. Who knows what they are about, but it is obviously symbolic language. There is no excuse to remain that naive. Just read them yourself.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 2, 2020)

Nah I'm not going to put the time in effort into providing things that you hardcore democrats will just try to discredit which is only REAL point in trying to get me to find all the links and post them here. If you REALLY care, you can do the research yourself. You're living in a world that's not reality, and you seem to be happy with it. It's not my job to try to wake up you. I mean you believe world leaders need to make dates for actual pizza with pepperoni and cheese through email. You're clearly beyond reproach. There were other code words as well that would make no sense if they actual meant what they were saying. It's ok though, keep taking the blue pill. The red pill you can't handle.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 2, 2020)

Anyone who reads the emails and thinks they are actually about pizza, probably also thinks that "laying the pipe" is actually about plumbing in certain types of movies.

Again, we are not in the 1400s and speculating what is written in the bible. Just look it up yourself with a few clicks.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 2, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Anyone who reads the emails and thinks they are actually about pizza, probably also thinks that "laying the pipe" is actually about plumbing in certain types of movies.
> 
> Again, we are not in the 1400s and speculating what is written in the bible. Just look it up yourself with a few clicks.


source please. people are morons, so just give a source to show how moronic we are


----------



## wartutor (Oct 2, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> source please. people are morons, so just give a source to show how moronic we are


Omg told to look it up and still insist on a source so here i did the hard part for your lazy ass https://www.google.com/search?sourc...gEDOS4xmAEAoAEBsAEA&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-hp


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 2, 2020)

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-email...o=&nofrom=&noto=&count=50&sort=6#searchresult

0% chance any of you actually do the research though. You would actually have to dig deep into all the pages to find the juicy stuff. I know and you know you aren't going to. You know and I know you didn't ask for the links to be proven wrong. You asked to try to discredit and you can't do that unless you spend a week. I'm not going to play the gotcha game with you though where I post something pretty obviously a criminal email and you just deny it, then use that to discredit the entire 1174 pages of emails. That's already clearly been happening in this thread with other stuff and I'm not playing that game. Either do the research or shut up about it. 

If you REALLY care there is an advanced search option where you can type key words.  But that's the last I'm saying about it because it's just an endless circle of accusations then denials. You wanted the emails you got em.


----------



## gregory-samba (Oct 2, 2020)

wartutor said:


> Omg told to look it up and still insist on a source so here i did the hard part for your lazy ass https://www.google.com/search?sourc...gEDOS4xmAEAoAEBsAEA&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-hp



Today's Democratic Liberals are so spoon fed and entitled they can't even be bothered to work a search engine. It's like if there's not a URL handed to them something just doesn't exist. Sorry, but not everything is on the Internet and people need to stop being so fucking lazy. If Switch homebrew programming worked the same way these Liberals do in this forum, nothing would ever get made.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 2, 2020)

gregory-samba said:


> Today's Democratic Liberals are so spoon fed and entitled they can't even be bothered to work a search engine. It's like if there's not a URL handed to them something just doesn't exist. Sorry, but not everything is on the Internet and people need to stop being so fucking lazy. If Switch homebrew programming worked the same way these Liberals do in this forum, nothing would ever get made.


In their defense, I act the same way.


----------



## notimp (Oct 2, 2020)

ForgotWhoIam said:


> https://wikileaks.org/podesta-email...o=&nofrom=&noto=&count=50&sort=6#searchresult
> 
> 0% chance any of you actually do the research though.


You must be kidding or insane. You just linked to the wikileads dump of emails showing 58660 individual results, and then said 'do your research' on why I called something in there 'Clinton committing high treason'.

We ask for sources, so someone cant pull what you just tried. "I have the trough in my head, to me its obvious I just cant explain or show it to anyone else".

Please, once more - show us a src for why Clinton committed high treason.

edit: Apparently this should be the proof?
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/press-release


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 2, 2020)

notimp said:


> wikileads dump of emails showing 58660 individual results


If I was able to read the pizza Emails in China back when they were news, I am sure you can as well. Pizzagate was never disproven (as the media claimed). I was only disproven that a specific pizzeria had anything to do with it. The emails - the core of the argument - remain. We don´t know for sure what the code words really mean. Maybe it has nothing to do with children. But that´s the job of journalists. Unfortunately they don´t exist.


----------



## notimp (Oct 2, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> If I was able to read the pizza Emails in China back when they were news, I am sure you can as well. Pizzagate was never disproven (as the media claimed). I was only disproven that a specific pizzeria had anything to do with it. The emails - the core of the argument - remain. We don´t know for sure what the code words really mean. Maybe it has nothing to do with children. But that´s the job of journalists. Unfortunately they don´t exist.


Dude, I did parsable ereader versions for the diplomatic cable leaks and read maybe one third of them myself to get a notion for how that sort of communication works. I have no effing interest to do that in the case of an alleged sex trafficing ring that lead to a debunked conspiracy theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory

I'm not that mentally ill and in need of something to puzzle together, that billionaires eat children.

Also this is sidetracking to the freaking question asked. What made you think that Clinton committed high treason (and was never subsequently charged?). If a response to that question you link me 60k emails, you are either trolling, or insane.

edit:

How networks of power work, and what element alleged 'sexual intercourse with pigs heads', or similar 'rites' play is pretty understandable, without supplementing 'some element that could lead to 'mutually ensured social destruction of members' with - has to be kiddy pron. I dont need to read too many bad conspiracy theories, that are trying to tell me, no with billionaires its kiddy pron or nothing. Because, billionaires. The heck.

On the other hand, looking more into alleged associations of Epstein with national security agencies, if you have allegedly compromised heads of state, I'd find 'potentially interesting'. Or simply put, the 'get out of jail for free' card of Epstein spanning almost decades is - kind of odd...
edit: roughly: https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffr...ent-informant-as-part-of-sweetheart-plea-deal


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 2, 2020)

notimp said:


> What made you think that Clinton committed high treason (and was never subsequently charged?).


I haven´t made that claim. I responded to the naive claim that the mails were actually about pizza. I don´t know what they were about, child abuse is one possibilty.


----------



## notimp (Oct 2, 2020)

Sorry, liked too early. Child abuse is one possibility?

What are you smoking?

Other possibility could be that they were about carpentering? How can you be 'unsure' about stuff like that? Oh, because you made up an entire freaking tale about the term cheese pizza being code for child pornography, and then analyzed the entire thing from that perspective?

Sure - why not get a few other children gamers into that made up tale, have them think that democrats are the devil, and have them part of your fringe cults for all times. Your 8chan founders have to make a living too!

Flipping hell.

Then on top of that - you string them on, by not posting analysis of that complex (and you have the entire media ecosystem to do so - post your rightwing blogs if you have them), no - you tell people that "they should google" (what? child abuse, cheesy pizza?) and reference the 'legend' of 60k emails, you know that no one is going to parse. So they google. Search terms, which right wing fringe groups have popularized, and therefore high rankings for. And they find an entry to a rabbit hole, of a flipping group disassociating young people from a reality where they can trust a media infrastructure, and have at least two parties they could vote for.

Sell them on mystery - cash in on adviews. You know that those are the stories that spread fastest on flipping 'no ones regulating' social media.

Abuse human weakness, popularize it on a gaming forum, why not. Dont care about the conversations those people will have in society following your believes.


----------



## linuxares (Oct 2, 2020)

The entertainment industry.


----------



## notimp (Oct 2, 2020)

linuxares said:


> The entertainment industry.


Ratings were down. Thankfully.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 2, 2020)

notimp said:


> Sorry, liked too early. Child abuse is one possibility?
> 
> What are you smoking?
> 
> Other possibility could be that they were about carpentering? How can you be 'unsure' about stuff like that? Oh, because you made up an entire freaking tale about the term cheese pizza being code for child pornography, and then analyzed the entire thing from that perspective?


Yes, child abuse is a possibilty, carpeting is not. Nobody needs to conceal carpeting. Things people conceal are drugs, child abuse and other illegal or morally questionable activities.
We know these things are going on (see Saxony in Germany or Epstein´s case in the USA and beyond). Where there is power, there is corruption.
But you haven´t even acknowledged that East Asian parents are more likely to birth East Asian children, so I am not surprised regarding your level of self-delusion.

Some people tend to go overboard and are convinced of ritual sacrifices etc. This is simply the other extreme of your naivity.


----------



## notimp (Oct 2, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Yes, child abuse is a possibilty, carpeting is not. Nobody needs to conceal carpeting. Things people conceal are drugs, child abuse and other illegal or morally questionable activities.


You have a bunch of leaked emails, due to spear fishing.

First thought is -- no, whats in there is too plain, they HAVE to conceal something!

Why dont they use encryption? Whoo, all evidence gone...

No they have to use coded language using a code so easy to decifer, that random person on 8chan can do it - it was child porn all along, we knew it - which is what happened.

What is your idea based on that there were messages conceiled in there, hidden in plain sight, dont you seee?!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory#Debunking


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 2, 2020)

notimp said:


> No they have to use coded language using a code so easy to decifer, that random person on 8chan can do it - it was child porn all along, we knew it - which is what happened.


I am not on 8chan or 4chan. I don´t read blogs. I have not told people to "google" anything and I have not talked of "child porn". I merely stated that leaked Podesta emails can be read in their original form thanks to Wikileaks and that they are obviously not talking about pizza. So no, carpeting is out (why would you use coded language for carpeting?) and child abuse is still a possibility.


----------



## notimp (Oct 2, 2020)

Yeah, bring me that 'obviously not talking about pizza' part - I dont know that. And bring it in a way - where I'm not expected to read through 60k emails, getting deeper into 'there has to be something there, I cant have wasted all my time doing that' territory.

As far as I know, people linked something to an actual pizza joint, with an owner, that was also mentioned(?) in those emails. So the pizza thing is certainly not about pizza, but about pizza, when we want to. And certainly not about carpentary. So it could be child pron?

What is this? You cant disprove a negative monday? Are we hitting the 'you cant prove, that god doesnt exist discussion again?'

I want to see which logic trail you followed, to end up at 'could be about child porn'.

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

Are those the emails in question?
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/58006
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/53200
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/29931

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/21136


edit: This the smoking gun?
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/55433

This?
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/53745


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 2, 2020)

No, they are not.


----------



## notimp (Oct 2, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> No, they are not.


Then dig them up please, there are not that many emails mentioning either Alefantis or pizza, just enough, that I wont spend an hour reading through all of them. So which ones...


edit: Also, most cited email IS the handkerchief one, see:
https://web.archive.org/web/2016121...tive/2016/12/10/business/media/pizzagate.html

Go figure. My story allegory spidy senses work top notch.

And you dear sir, are a liar. (Or didnt read the edit in time.)

edit: Also please read through the NYT (web archive) article above to see how freaking insane soggy the contemplations got. Walnut sauce pasta? Oh dear god! NOT WALNUT SAUCE PASTA!


----------



## LumInvader (Oct 2, 2020)

*Most voters say Biden won his first debate against Trump*
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/01/biden-leads-polls-voters-say-he-beat-trump-in-first-debate.html

Three polls asking who won Tuesday night's debate show Biden coming out on top – though respondents, along with most commentators and even the moderator himself, gave dismal reviews to the contest itself, which appears to have changed few minds.

A CNBC/Change Research poll conducted Tuesday night and Wednesday found* 53% of likely voters nationwide said Biden did a better job in the debate, compared with 29% for Trump.* The poll also found 45% of those surveyed saying Trump performed worse than expectations, while 11% said the same for Biden.

Another poll from CBS News' battleground tracker *gave Biden the edge in the debate, 48%-41%, while 10% said it was a tie.* A large majority of respondents in that poll, 69%, said they felt annoyed watching the debate. That poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.

An instant poll from CNN and SSRS, with a higher margin of error of plus or minus 6.3 points,* showed 60% of respondents calling Biden the victor and 28% saying Trump won the debate.*

Regarding the trustworthiness of the pollsters, according to fivetheirtyeight.com:

- Change Research has a C- Pollster rating.
- The CBS News poll was conducted by YouGov, which has a B rating.
- SSRS has a B/C rating.

Citation:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Oct 2, 2020)

notimp said:


> Then dig them up please, there are not that many emails mentioning either Alefantis or pizza, just enough, that I wont spend an hour reading through all of them. So which ones...


Pizza was merely one of the terms. I have no interest in digging into this topic. It is old news and the Epstein case is much more interesting. I do not keep a catalogue of links in order to bring them up years later.
How about you and I go out for a glass of water? I can bring my spoon if you don´t have a television.


----------



## notimp (Oct 2, 2020)

UltraDolphinRevolution said:


> Pizza was merely one of the terms. I have no interest in digging into this topic. It is old news and the Epstein case is much more interesting. I do not keep a catalogue of links in order to bring them up years later.
> How about you and I go out for a glass of water? I can bring my spoon if you don´t have a television.


This one is afraid of Walnut sauce pasta:











OH DEAR GOD, not Walnut sauce pasta!





*wilhelm scream*




Spoiler



edit: *howie scream* actually works better


----------



## spotanjo3 (Oct 2, 2020)

I don't care! All presidents are the corrupt. Always was and always will be. They are the piece of trash and a junk anyway!


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 2, 2020)

Can I declare covid-19 the winner of this debate?


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 2, 2020)

Wanna bet that the people who are saying that there was no winner voted Biden in this poll?


----------



## sarkwalvein (Oct 2, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> Can I declare covid-19 the winner of this debate?


Yep, Covid takes the crown /s
Just wait a couple of days when Biden also starts testing positive and we declare Covid-19 the new POTUS. /s


----------



## TheCasualties (Oct 3, 2020)

Finally watched *most* of that shitshow. No surprise, trump doesn't know how debates work or what a moderator is. It's just another reality show to him. "Ratings were good". lmao no shit it was a presidential debate!

Totally in support of a mute button. It's not right to talk over the opponent in a debate. Guess he never did youth legislature or model UN.. I've seen 15 year olds know how debates work, but he defiled the whole thing. 

Really I wish the Libertarian and Green Parties got a podium but whatever. 2 party system is fucked. Anyways...

That was a huge embarrassment to both the presidential seat and the republican party. They should feel ashamed.  

And WTF was that about saying "stand back and stand by" to the 'proud boy' bitches? Wow. He's trying to instigate shootings.. Good lord how can anyone feel "good" about this dude?


----------



## SG854 (Oct 3, 2020)

notimp said:


> Ratings were down. Thankfully.


On Big Main News Channels which people are sick of already, but views on other sources are up like smaller youtube channels. People are looking at memes on it. They're in it for the entertainment value.


----------



## UltraSUPRA (Oct 3, 2020)

TheCasualties said:


> Finally watched *most* of that shitshow. No surprise, trump doesn't know how debates work or what a moderator is. It's just another reality show to him. "Ratings were good". lmao no shit it was a presidential debate!
> 
> Totally in support of a mute button. It's not right to talk over the opponent in a debate. Guess he never did youth legislature or model UN.. I've seen 15 year olds know how debates work, but he defiled the whole thing.
> 
> ...


"Would you shut up, man?"
_-Joseph Biden_​


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 12, 2020)

Hanafuda said:


> The Proud Boys aren't white supremacists anyway. Extremists maybe, but not white supremacists.


Meanwhile proudboys were at the 2017 united the right rally. Which very similar rhetoric to a KKK rally was used.
Oh and was set up by Jason Kessler. A white supremacist.
You sure you want to continue arguing proud boys aren't white supremacists?

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

Oh and this might be something you want to see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys#Counter-terrorism_and_extremism_intelligence_reports


----------



## omgcat (Oct 12, 2020)

UltraSUPRA said:


> "Would you shut up, man?"
> _-Joseph Biden_​



the line that resonated with the world.

like trump interrupted the moderator and Biden more times in that debate than the autistic children in my summer camp interrupted class in the 8 weeks i taught.

71 interruptions in 90 minutes is one interruption every 1:16, for 90 minutes.

22 interruptions for Biden is an interruption once every 4:05 for 90 minutes.

a good majority of Biden's interruptions was because he was shorted time from trump's Interruptions.

Trump's behavior could be explained in 2 ways, either he was incessantly interrupting Biden to make his stutter worse, or the president has the mentality of a 11 year old. the first option is malicious, the second option is just sad.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 12, 2020)

People are treating this like a sport/contest/reality show rather than take it seriously. It saddens me that Ron Paul never had the chance to become a U.S. President and now he's retired.

There are very, very few politicians I respect and cherish and Mr. Ron Paul is one of them (and Jesse Ventura).

Sigh. This is kinda depressing that the two options are either Trump or Biden. So much for democracy.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 12, 2020)

omgcat said:


> the line that resonated with the world.


Including "I'm speaking."


omgcat said:


> Trump's behavior could be explained in 2 ways, either he was incessantly interrupting Biden to make his stutter worse, or the president has the mentality of a 11 year old. the first option is malicious, the second option is just sad.


How about both?


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 12, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Meanwhile proudboys were at the 2017 united the right rally. Which very similar rhetoric to a KKK rally was used.
> Oh and was set up by Jason Kessler. A white supremacist.
> You sure you want to continue arguing proud boys aren't white supremacists?
> 
> ...


The Proud Boys are not white supremacists, they're western chauvinists. In fact, one if their top leaders, Enrique Tarrio, is a black latino originally from Cuba. He's also the director of Latinos for Trump. I'm sure that some members espouse white supremacist views, but that's not the organisation's creed, and never has been. They're often lumped with white supremacists due to their opposition to Islam, more specifically Sharia law, as well as their rejection of the concept of "white guilt". If anything, you could accuse them of "western exceptionalism", but that's more associated with culture, not race. They still don't shy away from going fisticuffs against their opposition and you probably wouldn't want to associate with them, but get your hate facts straight - Colorado clearly hasn't in their designation.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 12, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> The Proud Boys are not white supremacists, they're western chauvinists. In fact, one if their top leaders, Enrique Tarrio, is a black latino originally from Cuba. He's also the director of Latinos for Trump. I'm sure that some members espouse white supremacist views, but that's not the organisation's creed, and never has been. They're often lumped with white supremacists due to their opposition to Islam, more specifically Sharia law, as well as their rejection of the concept of "white guilt". If anything, you could accuse them of "western exceptionalism", but that's more associated with culture, not race. They still don't shy away from going fisticuffs against their opposition and you probably wouldn't want to associate with them, but get your hate facts straight - Colorado clearly hasn't in their designation.



think I'll just put this here.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 12, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> think I'll just put this here.


The most dangerous ideology the Proud Boys espouse is the whole "no fap" thing which I just don't get. Sounds cringe and virgin AF. Other than that I don't have a huge problem with them, I certainly don't see them looting businesses and setting them on fire - that's actually criminal. With that being said, extremes on both sides of the aisle should generally be avoided - if someone's *that* straight edge one way or the other, something's not quite right with them.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 12, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> The most dangerous ideology the Proud Boys espouse is the whole "no fap" thing which I just don't get. Sounds cringe and virgin AF. Other than that I don't have a huge problem with them, I certainly don't see them looting businesses and setting them on fire - that's actually criminal. With that being said, extremes on both sides of the aisle should generally be avoided - if someone's *that* straight edge one way or the other, something's not quite right with them.


You did not watch the video I sent you did you?
Because tl;dr
yeah no they are white supremacists. That whole thing is mostly a facade so nobody takes them seriously. Why do you think in the KKK people are called really stupid names like grand wizard, nighthawks etc. It's meant to make you write them off. So when they actually do bullshit, they can go right back to hiding behind it. And they have done shit. If you read more of that Wikipedia page I linked. You would of noticed Charlottesville on that page. Which I can prove that, the rhetoric used, was DEFINITELY white supremacist.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 12, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> You did not watch the video I sent you did you?
> Because tl;dr
> yeah no they are white supremacists. That whole thing is mostly a facade so nobody takes them seriously. Why do you think in the KKK people are called really stupid names like grand wizard, nighthawks etc. It's meant to make you write them off. So when they actually do bullshit, they can go right back to hiding behind it.


I don't have a habit of taking political advice from YT commentators - I have Google too, I can read an actual source. Can't say that I've ever seen a group of white supremacists led by a black latino, but whatever floats your boat.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 12, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't have a habit of taking political advice from YT commentators - I have Google too, I can read an actual source. Can't say that I've ever seen a group of white supremacists led by a black latino, but whatever floats your boat.



 I give a video explaining why proudboys are essentially white supremacist. you decide to pivot the conversation away from proud boys to something else.
That's not sus at all.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 12, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> I give a video explaining why proudboys are essentially white supremacist. you decide to pivot the conversation away from proud boys to something else.
> That's not sus at all.


It's actually pretty relevant. You claim that a group led by a black latino are in fact white supremacists. That premise alone is so comedic that it used to be a Chappelle sketch. If you have trouble picking up on the "subtle" comedy in the accusation, I can't help you. Guilt by association is not a thing in civil society - *a lot* of right-wing groups attended the Unite the Right rally, attempting to put them all in one basket because they attended the same event is no different than equating the entire left side of the aisle with communists - both of those premises are silly and lack nuance. Proud Boys are a lot of things - mysoginists, islamophobes etc., "white supremacists" is not one of them.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 12, 2020)

Uh oh, Hillary might not be out of the woods yet.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Friday dropped a little October surprise said his department has Hillary Clinton’s ‘deleted’ emails and will release them before the election.

“We’re getting them out,” Pompeo told Fox News Dana Perino.


Recall, it was Judicial Watch in 2015 that blew the story wide open about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server while she was the head of the Department of State.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...ails-will-begin-releasing-election-day-video/

I was taught something when I was kid those who have nothing to hide hide nothing. Hilary ran a department of crime and Obama allowed it to happen. This crazy woman could have been POTUS if crazy Dems had their way.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 12, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> It's actually pretty relevant. You claim that a group led by a black latino are in fact white supremacists. That premise alone is so comedic that it used to be a Chappelle sketch. If you have trouble picking up on the "subtle" comedy in the accusation, I can't help you. Guilt by association is not a thing in civil society - *a lot* of right-wing groups attended the Unite the Right rally, attempting to put them all in one basket is no different than attempting to equate the entire left side of the aisle with communists - both of those premises are silly and lack nuance.



Yeah and? I know a cop who was racist to his own people.Just because a person is on the side that would put them as the victim doesn't mean they cannot hold those views. Your quite frankly lacking nuisance yourself, as this is not a impossible thought. Is it bizarre? yes. But flawed logical views exist. If the world was truly of pure logic, racism wouldn't exist. There have been KKK members who are black by the way.

your still trying to move the conversation by the way. Here's why it isn't relevant. I told you proud boys are white supremacist. Part of it was one of their founders not only went to the unite the right protest, but also  urged the proud boys to go to it. But also explicitly told them not to wear the attire. Along with by the way claiming that biologically there is some difference between white and other skin colors in IQ. Which is totally not a racist undertone to have. He had his own article. Which if you saw the video I sent you, would be aware of this.
You moved from "proudboys aren't white supremicist"
to
"they can't be white supremacist because their black. AND you can't associate them with the unite the right with proud boys just because they were at that rally"
Which is essentially trying to control the conversation.  Which by the way really isn't a good look on you. Since any person who has enough knowledge about a certain type of rhetoric would know where it generally comes from.

Your trying to steer away from a conversation you know you can't win. You cannot win the argument against proud boys are white supremacist. Hence why your trying move away from it. it is not a favorable argument.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 12, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Yeah and? I know a cop who was racist to his own people.Just because a person is on the side that would put them as the victim doesn't mean they cannot hold those views. Your quite frankly lacking nuisance yourself, as this is not a impossible thought. Is it bizarre? yes. But flawed logical views exist. If the world was truly of pure logic, racism wouldn't exist. There have been KKK members who are black by the way.
> 
> your still trying to move the conversation by the way. Here's why it isn't relevant. I told you proud boys are white supremacist. Part of it was one of their founders not only went to the unite the right protest, but also  urged the proud boys to go to it. But also explicitly told them not to wear the attire. Along with by the way claiming that biologically there is some difference between white and other skin colors in IQ. Which is totally not a racist undertone to have. He had his own article. Which if you saw the video I sent you, would be aware of this.
> You moved from "proudboys aren't white supremicist"
> ...


I'm not "backing away" from the argument, I am making fun of it because it's a stupid argument. You're just using a buzzword to describe the group, a group that I don't support anyway and have no business in "defending". I pointed out that your argument is silly by definition.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 12, 2020)

let's look a the line of logic here then shall we?
this quoted hanfuda arguing proud boys are not white supremacist


monkeyman4412 said:


> Meanwhile proudboys were at the 2017 united the right rally. Which very similar rhetoric to a KKK rally was used.
> Oh and was set up by Jason Kessler. A white supremacist.
> You sure you want to continue arguing proud boys aren't white supremacists?





Foxi4 said:


> The Proud Boys are not white supremacists, they're western chauvinists. In fact, one if their top leaders, Enrique Tarrio, is a black latino originally from Cuba. He's also the director of Latinos for Trump. I'm sure that some members espouse white supremacist views, but that's not the organisation's creed, and never has been. They're often lumped with white supremacists due to their opposition to Islam, more specifically Sharia law, as well as their rejection of the concept of "white guilt". If anything, you could accuse them of "western exceptionalism", but that's more associated with culture, not race. They still don't shy away from going fisticuffs against their opposition and you probably wouldn't want to associate with them, but get your hate facts straight - Colorado clearly hasn't in their designation.


Adopting the argument that they are not white supremacist. AND they are more associated with culture.

I then link a video that explains that they are.



Foxi4 said:


> The most dangerous ideology the Proud Boys espouse is the whole "no fap" thing which I just don't get. Sounds cringe and virgin AF. Other than that I don't have a huge problem with them, I certainly don't see them looting businesses and setting them on fire - that's actually criminal. With that being said, extremes on both sides of the aisle should generally be avoided - if someone's *that* straight edge one way or the other, something's not quite right with them.


conversation attempt to move that Proud boys are just silly. AND they aren't causing any harm.



monkeyman4412 said:


> You did not watch the video I sent you did you?
> Because tl;dr
> yeah no they are white supremacists. That whole thing is mostly a facade so nobody takes them seriously. Why do you think in the KKK people are called really stupid names like grand wizard, nighthawks etc. It's meant to make you write them off. So when they actually do bullshit, they can go right back to hiding behind it. And they have done shit. If you read more of that Wikipedia page I linked. You would of noticed Charlottesville on that page. Which I can prove that, the rhetoric used, was DEFINITELY white supremacist.


I point out that they are dangerous, and the reason they seem silly is to have a facade to hide behind.



Foxi4 said:


> I don't have a habit of taking political advice from YT commentators - I have Google too, I can read an actual source. Can't say that I've ever seen a group of white supremacists led by a black latino, but whatever floats your boat.


You then try moving the conversation again, trying to state they cannot be white supremacist because they are black.



monkeyman4412 said:


> I give a video explaining why proudboys are essentially white supremacist. you decide to pivot the conversation away from proud boys to something else.
> That's not sus at all.


I noticed right then that you were trying to control the conversation.



Foxi4 said:


> It's actually pretty relevant. You claim that a group led by a black latino are in fact white supremacists. That premise alone is so comedic that it used to be a Chappelle sketch. If you have trouble picking up on the "subtle" comedy in the accusation, I can't help you. Guilt by association is not a thing in civil society - *a lot* of right-wing groups attended the Unite the Right rally, attempting to put them all in one basket because they attended the same event is no different than equating the entire left side of the aisle with communists - both of those premises are silly and lack nuance. Proud Boys are a lot of things - mysoginists, islamophobes etc., "white supremacists" is not one of them.


You again try that argument again, this time with the and of. It's stupid that a black man would be a white supremacist.



monkeyman4412 said:


> Yeah and? I know a cop who was racist to his own people.Just because a person is on the side that would put them as the victim doesn't mean they cannot hold those views. Your quite frankly lacking nuisance yourself, as this is not a impossible thought. Is it bizarre? yes. But flawed logical views exist. If the world was truly of pure logic, racism wouldn't exist. There have been KKK members who are black by the way.
> your still trying to move the conversation by the way. Here's why it isn't relevant. I told you proud boys are white supremacist. Part of it was one of their founders not only went to the unite the right protest, but also  urged the proud boys to go to it. But also explicitly told them not to wear the attire. Along with by the way claiming that biologically there is some difference between white and other skin colors in IQ. Which is totally not a racist undertone to have. He had his own article. Which if you saw the video I sent you, would be aware of this.
> You moved from "proudboys aren't white supremicist"
> to
> ...




essentially we've gone from you saying they aren't white supremacists. To well they can't be white supremacist they have a black leader. To a argument that states mine is stupid so therefore they are not white supremacist.



Foxi4 said:


> I'm not "backing away" from the argument, I am making fun of it because it's a stupid argument. You're just using a buzzword to describe the group, a group that I don't support anyway and have no business in "defending". I pointed out that your argument is silly by definition.


You state that you have no intent on defending them, but at the same time, you effectively are.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 12, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> You did not watch the video I sent you did you?
> Because tl;dr
> yeah no they are white supremacists. That whole thing is mostly a facade so nobody takes them seriously. Why do you think in the KKK people are called really stupid names like grand wizard, nighthawks etc. It's meant to make you write them off. So when they actually do bullshit, they can go right back to hiding behind it. And they have done shit. If you read more of that Wikipedia page I linked. You would of noticed Charlottesville on that page. Which I can prove that, the rhetoric used, was DEFINITELY white supremacist.



Proud boys don't set buildings on fire, they don't loot, they don't murder. Just TWO days ago a trump supporter was murdered by an antifa activist  masquerading as some sort of security guard. 

Also the proud boys were co-founded by a black man. Can you liberals PLEASE come with any argument that has substance that isn't about race. Id genuinely love you to go and talk to the co-founder and call him a white supremacist. I've no doubt he'd put you in your place very quickly.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 12, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Proud boys don't set buildings on fire, they don't loot, they don't murder. Just TWO days ago a trump supporter was murdered by an antifa activist  masquerading as some sort of security guard.
> 
> Also the proud boys were co-founded by a black man. Can you liberals PLEASE come with any argument that has substance that isn't about race. Id genuinely love you to go and talk to the co-founder and call him a white supremacist. I've no doubt he'd put you in your place very quickly.


Proud boys vandalize, proud boys also have charges of assault. they've also been told that after Gorge Floyd's death there needs to be "armed agitators" And they are still white supremacists. Seriously try to prove that I am somehow miraculously mistaken.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys#Anti-BLM_protests,_COVID-19_misinformation_and_arrests

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

You might as well look at my conversation with foxi4
just because your black doesn't mean you can't be racist. Or even racist to your own.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 12, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Proud boys vandalize, proud boys also have charges of assault. they've also been told that after Gorge Floyd's death there needs to be "armed agitators" And they are still white supremacists. Seriously try to prove that I am somehow miraculously mistaken.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proud_Boys#Anti-BLM_protests,_COVID-19_misinformation_and_arrests



Comparing looting and murdering to vandalism after your comrades have spent close to 100 nights rioting and tearing down statues, It's like you don't even realise you're spouting nonsensical bullshit. Yeah something tells me you wouldn't call the Black man a White supremacist to his face. You've also clearly never looked for yourself, you just gouge on CNN fake news narrative because if you looked for yourself you'd see loads of non White proud boys. Seeing as though we're making unfounded claims I'll just call you a Black supremacist and be on my way.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 12, 2020)

shamzie said:


> Comparing looting and murdering to vandalism after your comrades have spent close to 100 nights rioting and tearing down statues, It's like you don't even realise you're spouting nonsensical bullshit. Yeah something tells me you wouldn't call the Black man a White supremacist to his face. You've also clearly never looked for yourself, you just gouge on CNN fake news narrative because if you looked for yourself you'd see loads of non White proud boys. Seeing as though we're making unfounded claims I'll just call you a Black supremacist and be on my way.


A lot of ad hominem and lot's of assumption from you. Nice to see that. What part of my logic is nonsensical? Are you seriously telling me that because the leader is black, they can't be white supremacist. that's like saying picking two Mexican individuals for a job makes you not racist to Mexican people. Or choosing a black president twice means that America cannot be racist. You are still failing to argue that they aren't white supremacist. you have also failed to consider them as violent. You intentionally targeted vandalism and not the assault. Why is that?


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 12, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> A lot of ad hominem and lot's of assumption from you. Nice to see that. What part of my logic is nonsensical? Are you seriously telling me that because the leader is black, they can't be white supremacist. that's like saying picking two Mexican individuals for a job makes you not racist to Mexican people. Or choosing a black president twice means that America cannot be racist


You misunderstand the argument entirely. The Proud Boys are western-chauvinist, that means they're a male-only organisation. There are zero women in it, they're actually quite strict about that. In your reality, the same group is also "white supremacist" and "accidentally" let a bunch of different ethnicities to join - bah, not just join, lead the whole shabam. I can assure you with 100% certainty that there are no black KKK High Dragons, or Wizards, or other assorted nonsense (besides that one black cop who infiltrated the organisation using a stand-in - that was quite funny) - your argument wouldn't hold in that scenario for the same reasons why it doesn't hold in relation to the Proud Boys. You have somehow convinced yourself that because some members of the Proud Boys have displayed white supremacist sentiment, the entire organisation is white supremacist by nature. That is not the case. I could very easily say that the Democratic Party is a white supremacist party since they started the KKK, but I won't because that argument is stupid and ignores any nuance, just like yours does.


----------



## Doran754 (Oct 12, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> A lot of ad hominem and lot's of assumption from you. Nice to see that. What part of my logic is nonsensical? Are you seriously telling me that because the leader is black, they can't be white supremacist. that's like saying picking two Mexican individuals for a job makes you not racist to Mexican people. Or choosing a black president twice means that America cannot be racist. You are still failing to argue that they aren't white supremacist. you have also failed to consider them as violent. You intentionally targeted vandalism and not the assault. Why is that?



Foxi said it better than I could, you already know they're not a White supremacist organisation but because you're so far left on the political spectrum all you can see is race. 

Anyway, it weren't the Proud Boys who tore down an Abraham Lincoln statue last night was it, it was 'an idea'.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 12, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> You misunderstand the argument entirely. The Proud Boys are western-chauvinist, that means they're a male-only organisation. There are zero women in it, they're actually quite strict about that. In your reality, the same group is also "white supremacist" and "accidentally" let a bunch of different ethnicities to join - bah, not just join, lead the whole shabam. I can assure you with 100% certainty that there are no black KKK High Dragons, or Wizards, or other assorted nonsense (besides that one black cop who infiltrated the organisation using a stand-in - that was quite funny) - your argument wouldn't hold in that scenario for the same reasons why it doesn't hold in relation to the Proud Boys. You have somehow convinced yourself that because some members of the Proud Boys have displayed white supremacist sentiment, the entire organisation is white supremacist by nature. That is not the case. I could very easily say that the Democratic Party is a white supremacist party since they started the KKK, but I won't because that argument is stupid and ignores any nuance, just like yours does.


Why did Gavin Mcinnes step down then?


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 12, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Why did Gavin Mcinnes step down then?


Because his legal team advised him to do so. He has multiple defamation lawsuits in progress and associating with a group that routinely engages in street clashes isn't a good thing when you're trying to get on a jury's good side. If you believe he followed any other reasoning then you're pretty naive - there are big bucks and his name at play here.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 12, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Because his legal team advised him to do so. He has multiple defamation lawsuits in progress and associating with a group that routinely engages in street clashes isn't a good thing when you're trying to get on a jury's good side. If you believe he followed any other reasoning then you're pretty naive - there are big bucks and his name at play here.


And what are those "defamation" lawsuits? and how did he get them? Lawsuits don't just happen. So, for what reasons did he get them, or what caused them.
If you don't respond with what I'm thinking, I'll state it. But there is a method to my madness here.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 12, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> And what are those "defamation" lawsuits? and how did he get them?


Use Google. It's really not that hard. Gavin McInnes sued the SPLC because their wrongful designation had caused measurable harm to his income. This is well-documented and still going through the courts. Now it's sort of less relevant considering the fact that he stepped down, but groups like the SPLC should still be held accountable for branding people with a scarlet letter and destroying their commercial enterprises. A quick reminder that the same organisation also features Ben Shapiro prominently in their "Hatewatch" column - Ben Shapiro is Jewish. They haven't quite gone the full monty with him by dedicating a whole article to his organisation, the Daily Wire, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did eventually.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 12, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> Use Google. It's really not that hard. Gavin McInnes sued the SPLC because their wrongful designation had caused measurable harm to his income. This is well-documented and still going through the courts. Now it's sort of less relevant considering the fact that he stepped down, but groups like the SPLC should still be held accountable for branding people with a scarlet letter and destroying their commercial enterprises. A quick reminder that the same organisation also features Ben Shapiro prominently in their "Hatewatch" column - Ben Shapiro is Jewish. They haven't quite gone the full monty with him by dedicating a whole article to his organisation, the Daily Wire, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did eventually.


Well isn't that just sad, you dodged the question.
So here's that lawsuit
"
Lawsuit against the SPLC

Although McInnes cut ties with the Proud Boys publicly in November 2018, stepping down as chairman,[18][68] in February 2019 he filed suit against the Southern Poverty Law Center over their designation of the Proud Boys as a "general hate" group. The defamation suit was filed in federal court in Alabama. In the papers filed, McInnes claimed that the hate group designation is false and motivated by fund-raising concerns, and that his career has been damaged by it. He claimed that SPLC contributed to his or the Proud Boys' being "deplatformed" by Twitter, PayPal, Mailchimp, and iTunes.[81][82]

The SPLC says on its website that "McInnes plays a duplicitous rhetorical game: rejecting white nationalism and, in particular, the term 'alt-right' while espousing some of its central tenets," and that the group's "rank-and-file [members] and leaders regularly spout white nationalist memes and maintain affiliations with known extremists. They are known for anti-Muslim and misogynistic rhetoric. Proud Boys have appeared alongside other hate groups at extremist gatherings like the 'Unite the Right' rally in Charlottesville."[17][82] In response to the suit, Richard Cohen, the president of SPLC, wrote "Gavin McInnes has a history of making inflammatory statements about Muslims, women, and the transgender community. The fact that he's upset with SPLC tells us that we're doing our job exposing hate and extremism."

So he stepped down, then sued the law center, over the group he used to be in...
Now isn't that just a strange?
Surely from a group he stepped down he wouldn't have to defend it. But why did he step down?
Well, let's go to logic. but in a moment.

So who should I trust?
The person who is trying to rebrand themselves even their their actives and rhetoric are clearly white supremacist?
Or you the moderator, trying to state that proudboys are not white supremacist at all, and trying to state they are something else.

Or come to the logical conclusion that they are white supremacist, given all the actives they have had in the past. And him (thefounder)  trying to argue that he isn't a hate group in a organization he had stepped down from, and then suing over it.
It's not a good look to be identified as a hate group. Makes your messaging and branding less effective when people point it it out.
Which would explain him stepping down. It's an ass cover. He knows that proud boys are actually white supremacist. And still identifies with them. But to make legality less complicated, he stepped down, in attempt to save face.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 12, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> Well isn't that just sad, you dodged the question.
> So here's that lawsuit
> "
> Lawsuit against the SPLC
> ...


The excerpt you posted is entirely correct - the group is known for misogynist and anti-Muslim (or rather, anti-radical Islam) rhetoric, as I stated previously, and McInnes can be quoted on both subjects extensively. Not sure how you draw the "logical conclusion" that either of those sentiments is equivalent to white supremacy, but then again, it's not the first time I have trouble following your train of thought, so that's all good.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 12, 2020)

Foxi4 said:


> The excerpt you posted is entirely correct - the group is known for misogynist and anti-Muslim (or rather, anti-Islam) rhetoric, as I stated previously, and McInnes can be quoted on both subjects extensively. Not sure how you draw the "logical conclusion" that either of those sentiments is equivalent to white supremacy, but then again, it's not the first time I have trouble following your train of thought, so that's all good.


bad faith argument again.
How many times must I bear repeating myself.
Founder made an article trying to prove that the white race is more intelligent than other races, saying that other races are incapable.
Founder also went to Charlottesville unite the right and told the people in it to go there.
That is no accident.

People within the group have been told to be "armed agitators" after the george folyd protests.
That is no accident. Tell me who would be on the streets after his death?
Is it, black people. and what are the guns for? Is it to perhaps, idk, scare them?

Why is it proud boys called a general hate group. I don't think that's just because. 

I also must ask another question. and I'm going to tie this to something else.
 why did the NYPD sided with them when they got into fights with protestors?


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 12, 2020)

monkeyman4412 said:


> bad faith argument again.
> How many times must I bear repeating myself.
> Founder made an article trying to prove that the white race is more intelligent than other races, saying that other races are incapable.
> Founder also went to Charlottesville unite the right and told the people in it to go there.
> ...


I think that's enough silliness for one night, thanks. You very clearly have your mind made up and I'm not interested in changing that. As for NYC police, you'd have to ask their representative - I'm not a NYC police chief. I can only assume that they sided with whoever wasn't actively breaking the law and causing trouble in the streets.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 16, 2020)

Donald Trump


----------



## YBI (Nov 16, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Donald Trump




poor guy


----------



## SG854 (Nov 16, 2020)

YBI said:


> poor guy


I quit my liberal filled job to support Donald Trump full time in a better city with like minded Trumpers.


----------

