Who won the first presidential debate?

[Deleted User]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.