[POLL] 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

[omgcat]

this line of logic always gets me, "the democrats were the racists! they fought for slavery in the civil war" to which i respond, "let us take down our confederate statues if they were made by democrats".

 

[UltraSUPRA]

this line of logic always gets me, "the democrats were the racists! they fought for slavery in the civil war" to which i respond, "let us take down our confederate statues if they were made by democrats".

Those statues represent an important part of history.

 

[omgcat]

I'd like to post these up:




and the last video which is a very interesting video:

Basically the lady is saying there is no systematic racism for people of color, no white privileges, etc.
I do not know if any of these videos are truthful or not.

>claims BLM is marxist movement
>literally cites PragerU, Heritage Foundation, and Sky news

>ISHYGDDT

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

Those statues represent an important part of history.

yeah, but supposedly they are democrat made, so we can take them down if we want.

also:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-for-rightwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim

literal rightwing conspiracy/propoganda

 

[UltraSUPRA]

yeah, but supposedly they are democrat made, so we can take them down if we want.

It doesn't matter what political party, I'm not for scrubbing out important parts of history.

 

[Deleted User]

It doesn't matter what political party, I'm not for scrubbing out important parts of history.

why is it important when it's a symbol of oppression for black Americans? the statues being taken down are confederate statues. You know, the ones who wanted to keep black people slaves. If it was statues of people who saved the slaves or helped them, then yeah I would consider that important.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

why is it important when it's a symbol of oppression for black Americans?

1. The black people that weren't slaves owned them.
2. Most slaves were imported from Africa, where they were still...slaves, and also owned by blacks.
3. I said important, not happy.

 

[omgcat]

why is it important when it's a symbol of oppression for black Americans? the statues being taken down are confederate statues. You know, the ones who wanted to keep black people slaves. If it was statues of people who saved the slaves or helped them, then yeah I would consider that important.

not only that, but it took until fucking 2020 for them to remove a LITERAL SLAVE AUCTION BLOCK from downtown Fredericksburg in Virginia.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/08/us/fredericksburg-slave-auction-block-removal-trnd/index.html

like, imagine being black and seeing the spot where your people were sold just casually sitting there every day.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Laughs in a google search
View attachment 227062

I judge people by what they say, not what others say about them.
I will not call you gay unless you tell me you are or I see you in bed with men.

The proud boys - if their former "leader" is an indication of what the group is about - are American nationalists (not white nationalists), somewhere between a Bush era "Murica" group and Trump followers. If they are white supremacists because they prefer western civilization, then large parts of the world are white supremacists (in fact I might be a small minority on this board who is not).

 

[RandomUser]

>claims BLM is marxist movement
>literally cites PragerU, Heritage Foundation, and Sky news

>ISHYGDDT

Found this https://fee.org/articles/is-black-lives-matter-marxist-no-and-yes/
It seems to correlate to what one of the video is saying. But who knows if it is fact or not? I may not understand what this has to do with Democrat or Republican and what they are saying about both of them is either true, false, or half truth. I do not know. People will have to decide for themselves what to make of the info, perhaps a whole lot of nothing or a whole lot of something.

 

[gregory-samba]

Cool story but give me your source. You provide a lot of talking points with nothing to back it up. I played my hand. Show yours.

Source = Ability to read through Democrats lies and common sense. You should try it sometime. Do you actually believe that after starting a party to end slavery and fighting a war that tens of millions of Republicans suddenly said "fuck it, we hate Blacks now" and both parties "switched places"? You're pretty gullible if you believe that nonsense.

 

[notimp]

Found this https://fee.org/articles/is-black-lives-matter-marxist-no-and-yes/
It seems to correlate to what one of the video is saying. But who knows if it is fact or not? I may not understand what this has to do with Democrat or Republican and what they are saying about both of them is either true, false, or half truth. I do not know. People will have to decide for themselves what to make of the info, perhaps a whole lot of nothing or a whole lot of something.

Politifact is actually pretty clear in its analysis:
https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/jul/21/black-lives-matter-marxist-movement/

The issue here is, if you just brand a movement 'marxist' - which republican ideologs do, you do that to discredit intention, bases on mostly structural misinformation in the general public, stemming from PR, again - on the left, and on the right.

Marxist to most people you are coining the message for is an ideologic term they'd think of synonymous with 'communist', which it is not. Then comes the followup, so what is it then? And the answers you could give would be 'its an ideological spectrum', or a viewpoint, or an historical ideology, or ...

If you cant discuss the meaning of those terms in action, but rather use them to come up with the as group identifications, your agenda is not 'lets have a discussion'.

Marxist can be anything from - capitalism needs co-regulation to, people should seize means of production and capital. 'Trained marxist' could be 'guy thats a little on the fringes of society, finding solace in a group of similarly a little off kiltered folks' (which is largely where political change comes from), and in the mind of another person its 'a communist kabal trying to destroy democracy'.

If discussion about those terms or ideas never becomes part of the public sphere (which is what media is needed for), everyone makes up their own explanation, and as we all know, they currently could be pretty extreme and devided.

 

[gregory-samba]

Found this https://fee.org/articles/is-black-lives-matter-marxist-no-and-yes/
It seems to correlate to what one of the video is saying. But who knows if it is fact or not? I may not understand what this has to do with Democrat or Republican and what they are saying about both of them is either true, false, or half truth. I do not know. People will have to decide for themselves what to make of the info, perhaps a whole lot of nothing or a whole lot of something.

BLM is made up of various elements such as Antifa and Liberals that want to rip up our Constitution and replace it with socialism. You also have BLM funneling donations into the DNC. Then there's just some normal members that think they are doing the right thing. It's a mixture of sorts.

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

>claims BLM is marxist movement
>literally cites PragerU, Heritage Foundation, and Sky news

>ISHYGDDT

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



yeah, but supposedly they are democrat made, so we can take them down if we want.

also:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-for-rightwingers-who-love-to-play-the-victim

literal rightwing conspiracy/propoganda

Killing the messenger is a lame tactic. Just because you don't like the source doesn't mean the information is invalid.

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

1. The black people that weren't slaves owned them.
2. Most slaves were imported from Africa, where they were still...slaves, and also owned by blacks.
3. I said important, not happy.

Erasing history is stupid because anyone that actually studies history knows that we're doomed to repeat it if we don't learn from it. Sure, the lesson may be tough to listen to and it might not make you happy, but life isn't all peaches and roses. The Liberal left really wants to erase the fact that the Democrats fought a war to keep their slaves and started the KKK to harass blacks and the Republicans who were on the other side of that war from voting. They don't want people to get wind of the fact they're still just as racist now as they were then.

 

[notimp]

Source = Ability to read through Democrats lies and common sense.

You havent gotten it. Subjectivity, and personal believes, are not a virtue - when trying to educate others.

You get closer to 'some version of the truth' if different sides can dissect an argument, and bring interpretations about logic errors, or issues, or different interpretations. For that an argument has to be usually pretty concise, and preferably written down.

If someone is saying, no - man you dont understand, its my godlike ability to filter through democrats lies, and it only makes sense in my head, and thats fine that way... Ehm, you dont make that person your king.

 

[gregory-samba]

You havent gotten it. Subjectivity, and personal believes, are not a virtue - when trying to educate others.

You get closer to 'some version of the truth' if different sides can dissect an argument, and bring interpretations about logic errors, or issues, or different interpretations. For that an argument has to be usually pretty concise, and preferably written down.

If someone is saying, no - man you dont understand, its my godlike ability to filter through democrats lies, and it only makes sense in my head, and thats fine that way... Ehm, you dont make that person your king.

Nah, it's easy to figure out that tens of millions of people who millions just fought in a war to end slavery didn't simply decide "well, we fought the war and now we want to switch sides and own slaves and be racist". Common sense man. Plus, if you read history via sources other then manipulated modern web shit there's no mention of this way too convenient "party swap". It's just another one of the Left's fabrications used to justify their racism and bigotry.

 

[notimp]

Erasing history is stupid because anyone that actually studies history knows that we're doomed to repeat it if we don't learn from it.

Everyone studying history knows, that people almost never learn from history, but that societies nevertheless get more advanced over time.

F.e.
'Disturbing' lack of Holocaust knowledge in US
https://www.dw.com/en/us-holocaust-knowledge-jews/a-54955649

 

[leon315]

So getting back to the politics, this happened today.View attachment 226016

Aren't votes secret? then how did they know the votes are for Trump? XRAY?

 

[gregory-samba]

Everyone studying history knows, that people almost never learn from history, but that societies nevertheless get more advanced over time.

F.e.
'Disturbing' lack of Holocaust knowledge in US
https://www.dw.com/en/us-holocaust-knowledge-jews/a-54955649

I agree there's a lot of stupid people in this world, especially regarding who Hitler was and what he did, but that's got nothing to do with the Liberals lie of a "party swap". The people who actually study history learn from it. The ones that are trying to erase it are the ones you need to be careful around.

 

[notimp]

Nah, it's easy to figure out that tens of millions of people who millions just fought in a war to end slavery didn't simply decide "well, we fought the war and now we want to switch sides and own slaves and be racist". Common sense man. Plus, if you read history via sources other then manipulated modern web shit there's no mention of this way too convenient "party swap". It's just another one of the Left's fabrications used to justify their racism and bigotry.

Language - 'Its pretty easy to see whose manipulated, and who is slaves, and that it dint just end, because people changed their minds, and fabrications and lies, and bigotry and...' is entirely useless.

If you have your mind made up on a position, the idea is to convince other people by bringing an argument that is void of most emotional filler terms. You use a different language, to signal to other people, that you actually are capable of a rational argument, and actually have something, beyond an 'emotional notion' of something.

All that you have been able to show as of now is, that you can absolutely HATE and BERATE an entire half of your society (mainstream), and will use every loaded word you can think of to prevent rational discussion on anything.

You are pretty much the antichrist of critical debate. If you cant say shit, biggottry, lies, and manipulation - in a sentence, you have nothing.

And talking about stupid people... "Just knowing" that you have the truth and hiding behind attack language against, almost half of society, I'd also consider 'stupid behavior'.

Furthermore - its not at all easy to spot manipulation. As its often subtle, and even part of everyday communication. Where you draw the lines often is interpretation. More than that - one of the first things you should learn, when you are researching those subjects is, that you yourself are not immune. And the people who think that they are, are usually the most ideologically 'malleable'.

Or simply put - advertising and PR work. Otherwise people would not spend money on it. And both advertising and PR work, by selling you 'emotional truths'. Something that makes you feel good, or feel that you lack something, or feel that you are a better person, when you have something... But in essence, emotion.

 

[gregory-samba]

Aren't votes secret? then how did they know the votes are for Trump? XRAY?

The ballots aren't that secure and in some states you can tell if it's a Republican or Democrat ballot without the need to open it. I'd assume if you found a bunch of ballots all you'd need to do is open a few to know for sure. Voter fraud was bound to happen as there's too many people in the loop with mail in voting. Is it widespread? I'm not sure. Voter fraud exists. It's a real thing.

 

[notimp]

The ballots aren't that secure and in some states you can tell if it's a Republican or Democrat ballot without the need to open it. I'd assume if you found a bunch of ballots all you'd need to do is open a few to know for sure.

The idea is, that you cant find out by looking at the envelope, thats what makes it pseudonymous. The idea then is, that inside that envelope you have another envelope, that has no personal details on it whatsoever, which makes that one anonymous. (If you dont track attribution (the connection between the two).)

Opening 'some envelopes' - 'when you find them' would likely lead to mixed results, and invalidating them. And then? You dont know anything more.

If you are playing with statistics, in a system that is set up to prevent voter fraud (which mail voting is), the idea is - that you manipulate 'big leavers' like -- democrats are more likely to vote per mail, lets demonize all voting per mail.

Its not good at all to 'manipulate 1000s of votes as one guy and then...' the system set up pretty much prevents that (you check if outer envelope is entitled to vote, and if they signed on a seal telling you that they werent preassured, and the seal is valid), and than one guy having an opportunity to open envelops doesnt scale.

Its far easier to simply manipulate, by telling your side - voting via mail is fraudulent, better dont do it. Then get increased in person votes, relatively, for your side, during a pandemic, and then to question legitimacy of mail votes, slowing down delivery, and cutting them off from being counted at a certain point. Pulling the bigger leavers (if you can get away with it) makes much more sense, than 'having a guy, at every place'.

Because voting systems are literally set up, so that people look at other peoples hands, to see what they are doing. Vice versa. You check me, I check you. Thats hard to break by "having a guy".

Electronic voter fraud f.e. is possible, because you have far too few people being able to 'look at code' and 'verifying 'trusted computing environments'' to understand process. In those cases "having a guy" would be a way to pull it off.

But in the case of mail envelopes, people know what 'counting those' means, and what they are supposed to do. And the way they are set up (two envelopes within each other, one to check if its 'you the person' thats voting, and that you did that without being pressured, the other one to ensure 'anonymity' before counting), is enough to prevent "having a guy" at a voting center somewhere. If both camps are watching over the other 'process'.

As a result 'structural voting fraud' (someone trying to game that system on that low of a level) has never been seen/effective in the US, says the head of your FBI.