Who won the first presidential debate?

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 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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

 

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

— Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

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.

 

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?

 

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'.

 

Why did Gavin Mcinnes step down then?

 

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.

 

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.