Führer Trump

[Oberon]

"This is like saying every Trump supporter is a member of the proud boys"
Except I wasn't talking about the average Biden supporter, I was talking about the average antifa supporter.

"Most people did not vote for Trump"
Most people are voting for Trump now. And the most hilarious part about that election is that the media used to love Trump, but they started hating him because he 1) ran for president and wasn't part of the political club 2) insulted/attacked people who were (like Obama). Trump managed to steal that election even though literally nobody would have considered Trump a viable candidate. This goes to show just how shit the other candidates (I'm including Republicans here as well) were, that people were willing to risk an unconventional, bombastic, inexperienced, very disagreeable person for presidency, in spite of all the other choices that were there. Remember that the Republicans themselves couldn't provide a better candidate. That's how horrible the Republican party was (and is).

"I don't want a President who advises white supremacist groups to be ready"
More slander. What are you referring to?

"Both candidates are pedophiles/sex offender"
Don't believe everything you hear on TV. Politicians getting slandered for things that they didn't do isn't worthy of mention. I'm including Biden and nearly everyone who's gotten accused of pedophilia, from British royals to whoever else you want (unless there's strong evidence for it, like there was for Epstein).

"Only 1/4 of the population voted for Trump"
Only 1/2 of the population voted. I fail to see how that's relevant. What's the usual turnout?

[Lysergic]

Most people are voting for Trump now.

[citation needed]

[BananaCucho]

[citation needed]

HE NEVER GIVES ANY

[Lysergic]

HE NEVER GIVES ANY

Neither does his president, so I guess it's appropriate.

[Lysergic]

Well if you look at the polls, and if you consider the polls to be accurate (watch what happened previously), most people, of a significant proportion, ARE voting for trump.

[citation needed]


https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/pr...ls-trump-biden - U.S. as a whole, Biden is +8 (if polls are as wrong as in 2016, then +5)


https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...tion-forecast/ - Biden leading significantly


https://www.foxnews.com/official-pol...d-pennsylvania - According to Fox News, Biden leads Trump in Nevada and Pennsylvania.



Which polls do I need to look at to see Trump winning "significantly"? Stormfront's poll?

[Marshmallow Marshall]

"I don't want a President who advises white supremacist groups to be ready"
More slander. What are you referring to?

come on lol

Antifa is extreme left and isn't innocent, that is true... but it's definetly not true that the right has nothing to do with the riots either (if moderate left had been listened to, the issues causing riots wouldn't be there anyway).

But most importantly, whether you agree with my views on the riots or not, you have to admit that Trump literally told a known fascist group to "stand back and stand by".

[Lysergic]

Well firstly, I did not state that Trump was winning at all. I said Trump had a significant number of voters -- 41%, most polls show him somewhere between the 40 - 50% range. Why would you misconstrue my words like that? Even the 40% is a significant portion of people, worthy of being "most", as Oberon would describe. Of course, not a majority, but we know that majority vote wins elections, right?

Dude, I know how to scroll up by 1 post.


This is what you said:

Well if you look at the polls, and if you consider the polls to be accurate (watch what happened previously), most people, of a significant proportion, ARE voting for trump.

You said according to polls, most people (of a significant proportion, which I took to mean by a significant margin) are voting for Trump.


According to polls (which I linked to you), that is not the case, and it seems like most people are voting for Biden (aka Biden is winning). The only poll I found that didn't indicate Biden was just flat out ahead was the Fox News one, which said Biden was ahead in key battleground states and that they were tied in others (aka not "most people" voting for Trump, and definitely not by a large margin).


So which polls were you referring to?


lol at this whole "how could you twist my words?" spiel. Obvious scum tactic is obvious.

-vote Plotato

[BananaCucho]

Dude, I know how to scroll up by 1 post.


This is what you said:





You said according to polls, most people (of a significant proportion, which I took to mean by a significant margin) are voting for Trump.


According to polls (which I linked to you), that is not the case, and it seems like most people are voting for Biden (aka Biden is winning). The only poll I found that didn't indicate Biden was just flat out ahead was the Fox News one, which said Biden was ahead in key battleground states and that they were tied in others (aka not "most people" voting for Trump, and definitely not by a large margin).


So which polls were you referring to?


lol at this whole "how could you twist my words?" spiel. Obvious scum tactic is obvious.

-vote Plotato

You're arguing with Potato

[Lysergic]

You're arguing with Potato

Don't be fooled by a Jester claim.

[Lysergic]

Jeez you are no fun at all. I could pick up the new oxford dictionary and see "lysergic" under the definition of "actually", and perhaps "narcissist" too.

It's actually a precursor chemical for LSD.

Anyway, if my basement was flooded up to 40% of the total volume would I say, oh well, its not at halfway capacity, guess I'll ignore it the situation.

If I had a glass that was 40% full, I would not say "most of this glass is full" because I know what words mean.

[Plotato]

I feel so reassured that I can sit on airplanes knowing that the plane will always fly over your head, even for one as inflated as your lexicon!

[Oberon]

I don't trust the polls. All I know is that many democrats this summer are voting for Trump.
Nobody likes Biden or those riots. The riots are effectively a massive "Joe Biden for President rally".

And yeah as far as I'm concerned there is absolutely no way Trump won't win this election lol.

[Oberon]

come on lol

Antifa is extreme left and isn't innocent, that is true... but it's definetly not true that the right has nothing to do with the riots either (if moderate left had been listened to, the issues causing riots wouldn't be there anyway).

But most importantly, whether you agree with my views on the riots or not, you have to admit that Trump literally told a known fascist group to "stand back and stand by".

"It's definitely not true that the right has nothing to do with the riots"
No, it is true. The overwhelming majority of the rioters were anarchists/BLM/insert-your-other-left-wing-group-here.

"Stand back and stand by"
What Trump said is that he isn't concerned about extremist right wing groups (because their... influence and numbers are vanishingly small), as most of "what's happening is coming from the left". I actually watched that and I agreed with him. Did you know Chris Wallace is a member of the Democratic Party? So much for Fox News being hard-right.

[Oberon]

[citation needed]


https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/pr...ls-trump-biden - U.S. as a whole, Biden is +8 (if polls are as wrong as in 2016, then +5)


https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...tion-forecast/ - Biden leading significantly


https://www.foxnews.com/official-pol...d-pennsylvania - According to Fox News, Biden leads Trump in Nevada and Pennsylvania.



Which polls do I need to look at to see Trump winning "significantly"? Stormfront's poll?

Those polls are I'm pretty sure fake or wrong. That's what happened to the polls in 2016, too.
Also, it's a literal fantasy that more people would vote for Biden than for Trump. Biden doesn't inspire confidence in anyone, he's literally senile lol.

Edit: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rump-joe-biden
I found an aggregate of multiple polls showing Biden winning several states that Trump won in 2016, and that is literally a fantasy. Do you really think Trump has lost voters between 2016 and 2020? Because he hasn't.

I personally know many people who are very anti-Trump over here who've told me they would vote for Trump if they were American simply because all other options were untenable. Joe Rogan, who's a Bernie Sanders supporter (can't get more left than that), also said he would vote for Trump over Biden, simply because he would vote for anyone over Biden.

Those polls are so wrong you have to wonder if they correct for sampling bias or indeed if they willfully engage in it.

[Norwee]

Trump caught Covid i just heard.

[yzb25]

Trump caught Covid i just heard.

The irony is something else. Honestly, you couldn't make this stuff up.

[Stealthbomber16]

"It's definitely not true that the right has nothing to do with the riots"
No, it is true. The overwhelming majority of the rioters were anarchists/BLM/insert-your-other-left-wing-group-here.

"Stand back and stand by"
What Trump said is that he isn't concerned about extremist right wing groups (because their... influence and numbers are vanishingly small), as most of "what's happening is coming from the left". I actually watched that and I agreed with him. Did you know Chris Wallace is a member of the Democratic Party? So much for Fox News being hard-right.

lmao ok

He wasn't asked to comment on left wing groups. Left wing extremism is just as bad as right wing extremism. Trump was asked to condone right wing supremacy groups and he couldn't. He physically could not.

It doesn't matter whether or not he's concerned about them, what matters is whether or not he shuts them down, because like it or not, a lot of these groups support and follow trump. They would listen if he said to fuck off. They will definitely listen if he says "stand back and stand by".

At this point its clear you're delusional. As in FM, if you come to a conclusion before you do the research, all of the research you do will magically support your conclusion. Even if faced with evidence that disproves it you'll still be focused on that end goal.

Let it be clear here that I don't think Trump is fascist or that he'd try to remove the two term limit or anything. I do think that he is definitely not the choice.

[Stealthbomber16]

"Both candidates are pedophiles/sex offender"
Don't believe everything you hear on TV. Politicians getting slandered for things that they didn't do isn't worthy of mention. I'm including Biden and nearly everyone who's gotten accused of pedophilia, from British royals to whoever else you want (unless there's strong evidence for it, like there was for Epstein).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H5NJZMDumY
For the record I fucking hate the music and editing on this video but it gets the point across

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormy..._Trump_scandal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald...ct_allegations
This isn't just "the media". These are genuine people. And there are around 100 of them coming out against Trump. That's ridiculous. I don't care about political policy at that point. I care about electing someone who isn't a fucking predator. It's insane that I can't choose to do that this year.

[yzb25]

Some of the paedophillia accusations in recent years have been very dubious. But the accusations against Prince Andrew hold a lot of weight. He made several very absurd statements in an interview intended to clear his name of the accusations, including the claim that he has a disorder that prevents him from sweating due to "trauma from the Falklands war" and a claim that he couldn't have been with the minor on the night of intercourse 20 years ago because he remembers being at a pizza express that day (he remembers going to pizza express that exact day because it was a pizza express he typically doesn't go to)

[yzb25]

https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2019/11/17...pizza-express/

^this article is really funny and also horrible.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

"It's definitely not true that the right has nothing to do with the riots"
No, it is true. The overwhelming majority of the rioters were anarchists/BLM/insert-your-other-left-wing-group-here.

"Stand back and stand by"
What Trump said is that he isn't concerned about extremist right wing groups (because their... influence and numbers are vanishingly small), as most of "what's happening is coming from the left". I actually watched that and I agreed with him. Did you know Chris Wallace is a member of the Democratic Party? So much for Fox News being hard-right.

But he was asked specifically to condemn them...
He's not saying he "isn't concerned" about them, he's literally telling them to "STAND BY", that's his words. Also, I don't know Chris Wallace and don't watch Fox News, so the "Fake News" narrative doesn't work here :P.

And sure, the majority of the rioters were from the left, but the original protesters were right to protest, and if there hadn't been a real issue, there would have been no protests leading to no riots and to no radicalisation.

[BananaCucho]

Imagine seeing riots under a Trump presidency, and somehow coming to the conclusion that "a vote for Biden = a vote for more riots" and "a vote for Trump = a vote for less riots"

[Oberon]

But he was asked specifically to condemn them...
He's not saying he "isn't concerned" about them, he's literally telling them to "STAND BY", that's his words. Also, I don't know Chris Wallace and don't watch Fox News, so the "Fake News" narrative doesn't work here :P.

And sure, the majority of the rioters were from the left, but the original protesters were right to protest, and if there hadn't been a real issue, there would have been no protests leading to no riots and to no radicalisation.

He did actually denounce them later, and said he didn't know anything about them (tbh he should've said so at start, but thats just Trump for you).
Anyways, idk much about them either. That was literally the first time I've heard of them.

'Legitimate issues to protest'
To some degree, yes. The police seem to have a bit too much power in America (that or they aren't well-trained enough). The data does not indicate that the police is racist (which... think about it for a second: in order for a government organization like the police to be racist like that, they need to have racist people recruiting other racist people to become cops, KEEP it SOMEHOW hidden from the rest of the population, and going 'hey, go arrest more black people than white people, I won't care'. like seriously has anyone actually thought about the implications of that?), however, which is what most of the protests and the riots were about.

That being said, I'm not sure what your point with the protesters having a legitimate point is, unless you're arguing that Trump failed to fix that or caused it; which is wrong. The number of police shootings of unarmed people has decreased since 2016. I don't even necessarily think Trump had anything to do with that decrease, it's just strange to lay that at his feet.

Also, at the end of the day, I think the influence/danger posed by/the membership of right-wing extremist groups is exaggerated. KKK has what, a few thousand members? And the proud boys have a couple hundred.
And yet, the head of the FBI says white supremacists are the biggest threat in the country
??? I don't see white supremacists looting stores or beating people senseless on the street just for carrying the American flag; its not that they wouldn't do harm, its just that... there's very, very few of them.
Nazism has such a tainted past that nobody in the world is a nazi right now. No, right now the real danger is coming from left (and IMO, although right now it isn't such a big threat, the Libertarian Party also has the 'potential' to become one, assuming people will actually vote for them which I don't think will happen).

[Oberon]

I also think the decrease in police shootings has many variables influencing it, though IMO BLM has ironically played a huge part in it indirectly. White cops who don't want to be seen as racist will try to avoid shooting blacks even if it means taking a (personal) risk. If you were a BLM supporter, you would've expected police shootings to go up after Trump got elected President. Lo and behold, the complete opposite happened: they went down, thus heavily discrediting the theory of institutional racism.

[Lysergic]

I also think the decrease in police shootings has many variables influencing it

Why lie about something so easily verifiable?


https://killedbypolice.net/

[BananaCucho]

Why lie about something so easily verifiable?


https://killedbypolice.net/

I wish I could rep every one of your posts

[Oberon]

those are the total fatal police shootings.
these include police shootings of ARMED suspects.
the number of unarmed people killed by police has decreased. it isnt even a very high number and actually never was.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/24/e...ice-shootings/
last year for instance, only exactly 40 unarmed people died shot by police.
MANY more policemen die in the line of duty.
https://dailycaller.com/2020/06/03/t...ings-genocide/

also, if we're going to engage in blatant personal attacks and call what other people are saying "lies" without even verifying if you're correct, you better buckle up, mate.
here's the statistics for 2019: https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/h...ow-these-stats
also, the stats for 2020: https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...ople-are-down/

the narrative breaks down. unarmed police shootings are down PRECISELY because people don't want to be seen as racist/want to avoid another George Floyd incident. the data simply doesn't support that theory.

i'd post a video by tucker carlson where he actually mentioned the total number of police shootings of unarmed suspects over the years, but a) I can't find it b) i know you dont like tucker.

[oops_ur_dead]

those are the total fatal police shootings.
these include police shootings of ARMED suspects.
the number of unarmed people killed by police has decreased. it isnt even a very high number and actually never was.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/24/e...ice-shootings/
last year for instance, only exactly 40 unarmed people died shot by police.
MANY more policemen die in the line of duty.
https://dailycaller.com/2020/06/03/t...ings-genocide/

also, if we're going to engage in blatant personal attacks and call what other people are saying "lies" without even verifying if you're correct, you better buckle up, mate.
here's the statistics for 2019: https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/h...ow-these-stats
also, the stats for 2020: https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...ople-are-down/

the narrative breaks down. unarmed police shootings are down PRECISELY because people don't want to be seen as racist/want to avoid another George Floyd incident. the data simply doesn't support that theory.

i'd post a video by tucker carlson where he actually mentioned the total number of police shootings of unarmed suspects over the years, but a) I can't find it b) i know you dont like tucker.

Denounce white supremacy, NOW.

[Oberon]

but im not white
im jewish
i cant be a white supremacist :P

[oops_ur_dead]

Why won't you denounce white supremacy?

[Oberon]

do you really want me to go on full troll mode? lol
im not denouncing it for the same reason i didnt ask you to denounce antifa: if youre an antifa supporter, that's YOUR problem, not mine. i aint gonna deal with someone else's issues.
also, denouncing something is incredibly easy and means absolutely nothing.

[Oberon]

oh shit, saint peter hath blessed us with plotato

[Lysergic]

those are the total fatal police shootings.

Wow, an almost textbook example of moving the goal posts.

“Police shootings have decreased.”

“No they haven’t.”

“Obviously I meant police shootings of unarmed people! How could you twist my words and personally attack me? Muh victimhood.”

It’s also baffling to me that you can acknowledge something like “police are being more careful not to murder unarmed people due to the BLM movement” while simultaneously supporting a president who claims the BLM movement is a bad thing that hasn’t accomplished anything except rioting.

Like the cognitive dissonance is remarkable - you can’t make the jump to “maybe there was a problem to begin with, if suddenly the police aren’t just executing suspects after months of civil unrest over police executing unarmed suspects.”

, though IMO BLM has ironically played a huge part in it indirectly.

Btw, this is not what “indirectly” means, nor is this ironic.

If the police are killing fewer unarmed people because they are worries about negative attention from the public because of BLM, then there is nothing indirect about that - that’s a direct result of the BLM movement. And if that is the case, it’s not ironic - it’s exactly what I would expect to happen.

[oops_ur_dead]

I don't denounce antifa because I think antifa is pretty cool guys.

I denounce white supremacy.

Why don't you want to denounce white supremacy?

[Oberon]

'moving the goal posts'
having a discussion on something is not moving the goal posts. the change in the total number of deaths is irrelevant if those were attributed to people committing.
the best metric is how many unarmed people get killed by police, because there is a much higher probability that one is innocent if unarmed than if they are armed. much, much higher.
its a better metric. a lot of those 'deaths' of armed suspects can literally just be people pointing guns at policemen or stupidly reaching for their guns when stopped by police, or some other bullshit like genuinely shooting at cops.
its a lot harder for unarmed people to pose a genuine threat, which is those are the ones you want to look at, and fortunately, theres not even that many unarmed shootings. tucker carlson broke them down (the ones for 2019) in that video i just linked.

'it's not ironic'
considering that BLM has been saying that police are racist and whatnot, i find it pretty damn ironic, if you ask me.
primarily because BLM supporters would expect police brutality and whatnot to have INCREASED, not DECREASED, since 2016. the data literally contradicts this theory.

[Oberon]

I don't denounce antifa because I think antifa is pretty cool guys.

I denounce white supremacy.

Why don't you want to denounce white supremacy?

i don't give a shit about denouncing anyone, idk why thats relevant on a forum that only around 10-20 people frequent... i honestly think this is taking things FAR too seriously lol (although that was already the case... pages back).
like, what? what the fuck do you think "denouncing antifa" or "denouncing white supremacy" does? thats just a form of virtue signalling in this context LOL. sure the president should, but there needs to be a recipient. who is the recipient? everyone else on the forum? lol

[oops_ur_dead]

Why is it so hard for you to say the words "white supremacy is bad"?

[Oberon]

also, you're failing to take into account the fact that we DON'T know who the people that didn't get shot this time around were. police being afraid of shooting suspects isn't necessarily a good thing. maybe they avoided shooting genuinely innocent people or maybe they avoided shooting criminals who went on to kill others.

further, officers are putting themselves at risk by doing these things. and its quite ironic that policemen have been getting a bad rep because honestly, a lot more policemen get killed every year fighting crime than unarmed civilians do (from cop shootings).
41 have already died this year. and only around 10-20 unarmed people died.

furthermore, look at New York. after BLM got what it wanted (defunding the police), the crime rate exploded.
they don't care about black lives. in fact, they don't care about any lives, at all. and how ironic that many of these high-level dudes pushing this movement are themselves WHITE, not black. just goes to show how much some people would sacrifice in the pursuit of power.

[Oberon]

Why is it so hard for you to say the words "white supremacy is bad"?

oh, white supremacy is bad.
but, probably because im a white supremacist, amirite?

[oops_ur_dead]

No, all you have to just do is denounce white supremacy. It's really not hard...

[Oberon]

also completely off-topic btw. i dont see what white supremacy has to do with police shootings of unarmed people, unless you weren't trying to make a point about that, and your intent is simply to troll and to move away from a part of the conversation that you don't like?

[oops_ur_dead]

I've done it and I'm not a white supremacist...

[Oberon]

-vote oops_ur_dead

confirmed scum

[oops_ur_dead]

Why is it so hard? I denounce white supremacy, why can't you?

[Ash]

and how ironic that many of these high-level dudes pushing this movement are themselves WHITE, not black. just goes to show how much some people would sacrifice in the pursuit of power.

Yeah, why are white people marching with black people? Why aren't we segregating the blacks from the whites? TRUMP DO SOMETHING.

[Lysergic]

having a discussion on something is not moving the goal posts

Making a general, inaccurate statement and then when correctly called out on it trying to spin it as a much more specific statement that wasn’t reflected in the original post = moving the goal posts.

the change in the total number of deaths is irrelevant if those were attributed to people committing.

It’s relevant when you make a super broad statement like “police shootings are down” when that isn’t the case.

the best metric is how many unarmed people get killed by police, because there is a much higher probability that one is innocent if unarmed than if they are armed. much, much higher.

So those open carrying NRA-types are far, far more likely to be criminals? I always suspected that was the case. Clearly the police need to crack down on open carry, by your own logic.

i find it pretty damn ironic,

I find it ironic that you admit that before BLM the police were unnecessarily killing unarmed people while still trying to claim that there is no issue with racism in policing.

Because I know what irony is. Protip: it’s NOT like rain on your wedding day.

[Lysergic]

Why is it so hard for you to say the words "white supremacy is bad"?

I have a theory.

[Oberon]

Making a general, inaccurate statement and then when correctly called out on it trying to spin it as a much more specific statement that wasn’t reflected in the original post = moving the goal posts.




It’s relevant when you make a super broad statement like “police shootings are down” when that isn’t the case.




So those open carrying NRA-types are far, far more likely to be criminals? I always suspected that was the case. Clearly the police need to crack down on open carry, by your own logic.





I find it ironic that you admit that before BLM the police were unnecessarily killing unarmed people while still trying to claim that there is no issue with racism in policing.

Because I know what irony is. Protip: it’s NOT like rain on your wedding day.

"before BLM the police were unnecessarily killing people"
no, i claimed no such thing. again, we don't know who the people they would've killed were. maybe they were completely innocent or maybe they were ted bundies. the world will never know.

"making a general, inaccurate statement"
my statement was not inaccurate. the number of unarmed deaths by police is very relevant, being much more indicative of "police brutality" than the number of armed deaths.

"NRA-types are criminals"
NRA types don't get shot by police.

[Oberon]

lmao what is that

[Lysergic]

NRA types don't get shot by police.

They get a bottle of water and pat on the back instead.