Election 2020 Election Fraud: Let's face it, this year will be a shitshow

Megadeath

Well-known member
So? Trump can't control who supports him.
So, as I said before, the other people sharing the hill you've chosen to fight and die on are objectively shit humans. If the only people fighting with you are people you don't want to be associated with, maybe reconsider what you're fighting for. Or, if you are happy to be associated with garbage tier scum, at least try and own it. Pretending it doesn't mean anything would be like the American left pretending that the fact big tech support them is irrelevant. It's just stupid.
 

mesonoxian

Well-known member
You do realize Richard Spenser backed Biden right. So don't be so quick to use that argument.
Yeah, I don't really see the problem, there. Spenser is vastly outnumbered, and is a loser trying to be relevant again. But who supports Biden is just a worth looking at.
White supremacists only see Trump as a lesser evil and even then i've seen a lot of them say Trump is a " jewish shill".
That's certainly one possibility. That doesn't square with my experience of how passionately racists seem to support Trump, though.
As entertaining as this is, I have no idea why you or anyone else even bothers trying to argue with someone like them; they're clearly delusional.
This might be a bit unkind, but didn't you say you expected to be imprisoned for not being far enough left in a few mongths if Biden won? I don't think that you are in a strong place to throw around the term "delusional" in this regard.
 

Morphic Tide

Well-known member
That's not even contestable; we can point to public support, from admitted white supremacists.
So what about Richard Spencer coming out in favor of Biden?

If the only people fighting with you are people you don't want to be associated with, maybe reconsider what you're fighting for.
Then it's a good thing they're barely statistically relevant margins! Not anything remotely approaching the only people "fighting with" Trump. In fact, the hardcore white nationalist circles mostly hate Trump because he's pro-Israel. Kinda hard for Neonazis to get behind a Zionist.
 

Duke Nukem

Hail to the king baby
So, as I said before, the other people sharing the hill you've chosen to fight and die on are objectively shit humans. If the only people fighting with you are people you don't want to be associated with, maybe reconsider what you're fighting for. Or, if you are happy to be associated with garbage tier scum, at least try and own it. Pretending it doesn't mean anything would be like the American left pretending that the fact big tech support them is irrelevant. It's just stupid.

Lmfaoo white supremacists are just a bunch of fringe losers, they are not even close to being a majority.
 

mesonoxian

Well-known member
Lmfaoo white supremacists are just a bunch of fringe losers, they are not even close to being a majority.
Overt members of political racist groups are a minority. That doesn't seem relevant to the point you are replying to, though.

Racism in general is quite prevalent in the US. And racial animosity was highly correlated with voting for Trump.
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
Imagine being so limited that you think sticking some kind of label on a person tells you everything about them. Or believing that a wealthy socialite could never have disturbing sexual predilections. *Cough-Epstein-cough*

Imagine being so hell-bent on finding fault in someone, that you're willing to treat a joke as if it were serious.

Are all Aussies this autistic or is it just you?

So I see what I want to see because I dislike him, and I dislike him because of what I see?

Adorable attempt at pushing someone into circular logic, but no.

You dislike him and most people try to find a "because" to present as unassailable reasoning for not liking someone. Because if someone were to say "I dislike his x policy", then you might have to debate the subject. If however, you can simply say "I dislike him because --moral repugnant quality, real or otherwise--", then you don't have to explain yourself.

Yeah, he wasn't just "complimenting his daughter's looks" he literally said he'd be dating her if she wasn't his daughter. And that's messed up. Would you compliment your mother's looks by saying you'd sleep with her if she wasn't your mom?

I didn't say it was something I'd say. A great many people, yourself included, spew verbal diarrhea that I wouldn't repeat. I just won't take something that was clearly intended as a joke as if it were anything else. Regardless of how low brow it might present them.

And that speaks a lot more to their issues than anything else.

So when they see sexual deviancy from something that may be innocent, it's because they're probably degenerates themselves, but when you do it to Trump, it's because you're being objective?

Please.

Yes, the legal effort to allege fraud is failing. Because it's barely even being made, isn't supported at all by Trump's own legal team, and has been repeatedly laughed out of court when others do try to make it.

Trump's team has repeatedly alleged in public, including state senate hearings, that there was likely fraud. His lawyer has stated as such and so has their witnesses. So unless you have some actual evidence to present to me that they're pulling a bait and switch, I'd have to wonder why they would go to all this effort.

As for the "only 3 cases" BS, what's the point of pretending that the other cases aren't relevant?

You can't claim that Trump's legal team has lost 40 some cases if they haven't waged 40 some cases. That's blatant dishonesty.

Like, if someone other than Trump does manage to prove fraud, or win some other victory, will you still pretend it's not a win for him just because he wasn't directly involved? If those cases bought by other people alleging fraud and other issues, relying on the same pool of evidence and witnesses fail it's a loss for him, as surely as it would be a win for him if they could prove anything.

He would benefit, no doubt. That is not however, the same as claiming that Trump's legal team had overturned the election. Rather, it would be another legal team, who although of a similar political allegiance, is nevertheless separate. If I had to phrase it in terms of politics, I would say Republicans have brought 40 some cases. And that is of course, a reasonable claim to make. Because as I understand it, these are all Republicans alleging fraud.

:ROFLMAO:

Anarchists are of course well known for trusting politicians to solve problems for them.

You've already well established your love for radical collectivism. How you manage to make that work with your *ahem* anarchist views is something you and a therapist should work out.

I'm not going to bother with most of your post, but I do find it amusing that your defense of Trump is "he can't be an incestuous racist, he's not poor and rural!" Champions of the white working class, here.

Well, one might also imply that old blood who have some delusion about pure noble blood might also be in the running for that. Really, what generally leads to inbreeding is a lack of a breeding pool. That can be expected to occur more often when you simply have a smaller population or when you decide that the rest of the breeding pool is not an acceptable source of genetic rejuvenation.

Since for long term genetic rejuvenation for long term survival, you need a pool of 5,000 randomly selected people (or 500 specific, non-relatives) to avoid genetic errors from being produced, the idea that Trump, a city socialite who comes a city of over 8 million (and I think approximately 3 million in the 1920s, well before Trump was active, I think) is enough of a sexual deviant that he's into sleeping with his own daughter because of one dirty joke that he told on air, I think it's more likely you're stretching for something you want, rather for something that you have proof of.
 

mesonoxian

Well-known member
Imagine being so hell-bent on finding fault in someone, that you're willing to treat a joke as if it were serious.

Are all Aussies this autistic or is it just you?



Adorable attempt at pushing someone into circular logic, but no.

You dislike him and most people try to find a "because" to present as unassailable reasoning for not liking someone. Because if someone were to say "I dislike his x policy", then you might have to debate the subject. If however, you can simply say "I dislike him because --moral repugnant quality, real or otherwise--", then you don't have to explain yourself.



I didn't say it was something I'd say. A great many people, yourself included, spew verbal diarrhea that I wouldn't repeat. I just won't take something that was clearly intended as a joke as if it were anything else. Regardless of how low brow it might present them.



So when they see sexual deviancy from something that may be innocent, it's because they're probably degenerates themselves, but when you do it to Trump, it's because you're being objective?

Please.



Trump's team has repeatedly alleged in public, including state senate hearings, that there was likely fraud. His lawyer has stated as such and so has their witnesses. So unless you have some actual evidence to present to me that they're pulling a bait and switch, I'd have to wonder why they would go to all this effort.



You can't claim that Trump's legal team has lost 40 some cases if they haven't waged 40 some cases. That's blatant dishonesty.



He would benefit, no doubt. That is not however, the same as claiming that Trump's legal team had overturned the election. Rather, it would be another legal team, who although of a similar political allegiance, is nevertheless separate. If I had to phrase it in terms of politics, I would say Republicans have brought 40 some cases. And that is of course, a reasonable claim to make. Because as I understand it, these are all Republicans alleging fraud.



You've already well established your love for radical collectivism. How you manage to make that work with your *ahem* anarchist views is something you and a therapist should work out.



Well, one might also imply that old blood who have some delusion about pure noble blood might also be in the running for that. Really, what generally leads to inbreeding is a lack of a breeding pool. That can be expected to occur more often when you simply have a smaller population or when you decide that the rest of the breeding pool is not an acceptable source of genetic rejuvenation.

Since for long term genetic rejuvenation for long term survival, you need a pool of 5,000 randomly selected people (or 500 specific, non-relatives) to avoid genetic errors from being produced, the idea that Trump, a city socialite who comes a city of over 8 million (and I think approximately 3 million in the 1920s, well before Trump was active, I think) is enough of a sexual deviant that he's into sleeping with his own daughter because of one dirty joke that he told on air, I think it's more likely you're stretching for something you want, rather for something that you have proof of.
Radical collectivism sounds like it should involve TMNT comicbooks. Not an argument, just an observation.

I just think Trump's a creepy old pervert, myself.
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
Overt members of political racist groups are a minority. That doesn't seem relevant to the point you are replying to, though.

Racism in general is quite prevalent in the US. And racial animosity was highly correlated with voting for Trump.

What garbage.

You'd have to be a complete moron to assume that a federation with 11 different dominate nations are all voting for Trump on the basis of racism. Most laughable of all is when this claim is matched up to states that Trump won in the north. Most certainly, Trump might have energized small racist groups in the Deep South and the Greater Appalachia region.

But you're also alleging that this is why he captured Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan? Two of which states not only enthusiastically joined in a civil war to free slaves from the slave lords of the south, but have long standing monuments declaring their participation?

How brain damaged are you?
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
Overt members of political racist groups are a minority. That doesn't seem relevant to the point you are replying to, though.

Racism in general is quite prevalent in the US. And racial animosity was highly correlated with voting for Trump.
The problem with this argument is that the "Racist" card has been played so many times even people of color are routinely getting called racists, and leftist publications are having to scramble at this point to explain why so many of the people they label "white supremacists" are Black, Hispanic, and Asian.

 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
Radical collectivism sounds like it should involve TMNT comicbooks. Not an argument, just an observation.

I just think Trump's a creepy old pervert, myself.

And Biden no doubt also comes off as a creepy old pervert to the Republicans. Given his tendency towards his creepy grandpa moments. That however, does not implicate Joe Biden in any sexual misconduct.

And no, radical collectivism is exactly what socialism and communism is. And that sort of thinking is exactly what the hardline collectivist German culture has fallen into, repeatedly. It's just as bad and just as oppressive as radical libertarianism, which was practiced in the Deep South and other parts of the world.

And all of that is not Donald Trump. He is a middle of the road, former Democrat who acts like every wide-eyed New Yorker that you've ever seen "Where is my money? You're cheating me! LET ME TALK LOUDER TO DROWN YOU OUT! I CAN TALK OVER NEW YORK TRAFFIC! VOTE FOR ME!"

Donald Trump is doing the same political shit that New York City has done since it was founded by the Dutch centuries ago. Only an idiot would believe that Donald Trump supports skinheads. At best, he will do what every New Yorker has done since this country was founded and say "Let's just try to get along" while turning around and shouting as loudly as he can for his money.

He has followed this New Yorker policy for the past four years. His trade wars? All about the money. His Muslim ban? Radical Islamic terrorists flew planes into his fucking city to kill people. His negotiations with Middle Eastern Dictators? A New Yorker protection racket. His oversea deals to withdraw troops? Not wanting to be involved in conflicts.

Trump is a New Yorker. For better or for worse. Pretending that he's a secret Grand Wizard who is using secret whistles and hand signs to rally the Deep South to murder dark skinned people is a delusion that people engage in to justify their inability to accept that they were wrong.
 

mesonoxian

Well-known member
What garbage.

You'd have to be a complete moron to assume that a federation with 11 different dominate nations are all voting for Trump on the basis of racism. Most laughable of all is when this claim is matched up to states that Trump won in the north. Most certainly, Trump might have energized small racist groups in the Deep South and the Greater Appalachia region.

But you're also alleging that this is why he captured Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan? Two of which states not only enthusiastically joined in a civil war to free slaves from the slave lords of the south, but have long standing monuments declaring their participation?

How brain damaged are you?
Do you think all the racists live in the South? Between this and the "he can't be a racist, he isn't a hillbilly", I do have to wonder. anyway, if you don't like it, take it up with all the Trump voters who answered the poll incorrectly.
And Biden no doubt also comes off as a creepy old pervert to the Republicans. Given his tendency towards his creepy grandpa moments. That however, does not implicate Joe Biden in any sexual misconduct.

And no, radical collectivism is exactly what socialism and communism is. And that sort of thinking is exactly what the hardline collectivist German culture has fallen into, repeatedly. It's just as bad and just as oppressive as radical libertarianism, which was practiced in the Deep South and other parts of the world.

And all of that is not Donald Trump. He is a middle of the road, former Democrat who acts like every wide-eyed New Yorker that you've ever seen "Where is my money? You're cheating me! LET ME TALK LOUDER TO DROWN YOU OUT! I CAN TALK OVER NEW YORK TRAFFIC! VOTE FOR ME!"

Donald Trump is doing the same political shit that New York City has done since it was founded by the Dutch centuries ago. Only an idiot would believe that Donald Trump supports skinheads. At best, he will do what every New Yorker has done since this country was founded and say "Let's just try to get along" while turning around and shouting as loudly as he can for his money.

He has followed this New Yorker policy for the past four years. His trade wars? All about the money. His Muslim ban? Radical Islamic terrorists flew planes into his fucking city to kill people. His negotiations with Middle Eastern Dictators? A New Yorker protection racket. His oversea deals to withdraw troops? Not wanting to be involved in conflicts.

Trump is a New Yorker. For better or for worse. Pretending that he's a secret Grand Wizard who is using secret whistles and hand signs to rally the Deep South to murder dark skinned people is a delusion that people engage in to justify their inability to accept that they were wrong.
I don't think you have any idea what "collectivism", "socialism", or "communism" mean. And I think trying to explain to you would be a waste of both our time.

Nobody thinks the thing you are arguing against. Nobody believes Donald Trump hangs with the KKK or skinheads. When you make up a weaker position to argue against, it is called a "straw man" and is usually evidence you either don't understand what is being argues, or recognize you can't effectively defeat the actual argument.

The idea that wealthy northerners were never racist is just completely wrong. Just like the idea that all poor southerners were racist. Fred Trump wouldn't have been engaging in racial discrimination in his real estate business if it didn't make him money, and it wouldn't make him money if New Yorkers weren't racist like the rest of the US.
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
Do you think all the racists live in the South? Between this and the "he can't be a racist, he isn't a hillbilly", I do have to wonder.

No, of course not. Trump could in theory be a racist. But he doesn't act as one would expect a racist to act. He appoints a black member to his administration. He releases black prisoners. He reforms prison for the benefit of black prisoners. He gives money to black colleges. These are not the actions of a hardened bigot. These are the actions of someone who wants their vote.

Nor does his background indicate that this was the case. Trump grew up in the New Netherlands region, where the Dutch originally settled. The entire settlement had never had a strong, cohesive ethnic identity and was thus had developed an early tolerant culture. Not everyone acted that way of course, but a dominate culture does not require that everyone act that way, but only that everyone is expected to act that way. You never had to LIKE the black kids, but you were expected to not try and lynch the black kids.

You are however, trying to match him up as if he came from a Deep Southern family, where social status is locked in at birth and everyone is expected to remain in their social caste. Where laws are bent to favor the rich and wealthy (without shame) and the rest can see to themselves. You've confused mercantilism with Deep Southern libertarianism.


anyway, if you don't like it, take it up with all the Trump voters who answered the poll incorrectly.

Or I'll just ignore it, because as we've seen in this election, most polls are complete and utter bullshit.

I don't think you have any idea what "collectivism", "socialism", or "communism" mean. And I think trying to explain to you would be a waste of both our time.

I expect that few would trust a commie to explain anything, given they've bought into failed economic policy masquerading around as an ideology.

Nobody thinks the thing you are arguing against. Nobody believes Donald Trump hangs with the KKK or skinheads. When you make up a weaker position to argue against, it is called a "straw man" and is usually evidence you either don't understand what is being argues, or recognize you can't effectively defeat the actual argument.

Hey, asshole, one of the fucking moderators in the 2020 election literally tried to poison the well by asking Trump to denounce white supremacy. The media ran with the idea that Trump supported the white supremacists in Charlottesville for years. And before then, it was a constant, unrelenting accusation that Trump was a racist in 2016. Including nation-wide commercials of a red pick-up truck with a Trump flag chasing down minority kids.

Not trying to paint Trump as a racist? Fucking blow me.

The idea that wealthy northerners were never racist is just completely wrong.

No one said that. I instead, have told you that social racism was imbedded primarily in the Deep South and of a degree of xenophobia in the Appalachian region. It was not something the north had.

Just like the idea that all poor southerners were racist.

Also not what I said.

Fred Trump wouldn't have been engaging in racial discrimination in his real estate business if it didn't make him money, and it wouldn't make him money if New Yorkers weren't racist like the rest of the US.

Or maybe you should educate yourself.

A lot of the former slaves came into contact with the Scott-Irish, who were historically portrayed for being horribly uneducated, uncivil, and very violent. A lot of the black slang you hear today is not something black communities invented, but rather something that was imported and incorporated into their new culture.

And the Scott-Irish were the most unpopular nation within the early United States. They first arrived in Pennsylvania, a region dominated by Quakers, whose basic motto was "People are good, government just gets in the way of them" and promptly proved them wrong. The Scotts-Irish came from war-torn parts of the UK at the time and many of them became characterized as opportunistic thieves, loiterers, and savage brawlers. It got so bad that they started pushing them down into the southern-western portion of the state and encouraged them to settle in the Appalachian mountains.

And they were routinely derided by Yankees, Quakers, New Yorkers, Tidewater gentlemen, and Deep Southern plantation owners for CENTURIES.

Given the draw of New York City of the times, what you probably saw was the spreading of African communities who had absorbed a strong degree of Scott-Irish culture moving into New York City. And so naturally, because they acted like the stereotypical Scott-Irish, they were TREATED as Scott-Irish. It was less about their race and more about their culture.

Regardless, what we generally see with Trump's father is that he cared less about racial standing than he did about who could pay him more money and who caused the most property damage. Because his father was a tightwad. This is a guy who would actually show someone how to properly tighten or install something because he wanted it done both right and with maximum efficiency. Everyone knew the guy paid like shit, but he always paid on time. And that was worth something.

His father was just a fucking tightwad.

But he's a New Yorker, so no surprises there.

And yes, you can still find racists, but those racists are a product of their own upbringing or experiences, NOT the cultural impression left upon them.
 

mesonoxian

Well-known member
Hey, asshole, one of the fucking moderators in the 2020 election literally tried to poison the well by asking Trump to denounce white supremacy. The media ran with the idea that Trump supported the white supremacists in Charlottesville for years. And before then, it was a constant, unrelenting accusation that Trump was a racist in 2016. Including nation-wide commercials of a red pick-up truck with a Trump flag chasing down minority kids.

Not trying to paint Trump as a racist? Fucking blow me.
Ooo, somebody's sensitive. ;D

Normally I'd suggest you reread my poist, but I think you need to reread your own. You are the one who claimed that people thought Trump was hanging out with skinheads and the KKK. Or do you think that is what racism is?
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
Ooo, somebody's sensitive. ;D

Normally I'd suggest you reread my poist, but I think you need to reread your own. You are the one who claimed that people thought Trump was hanging out with skinheads and the KKK. Or do you think that is what racism is?

Oh don't try and worm your way out of this.

The claim was that Trump is a racist or one who supports racist.

There proof to support such a claim is old, open to multiple interpretations, and has been widely produced by the media and the left of proof of his social crimes.

Where as proof that he is in fact, has enacted policies and legislation that benefitted black people is in abundance and rarely, if ever discussed by the media and the left.
 

mesonoxian

Well-known member
Oh don't try and worm your way out of this.

The claim was that Trump is a racist or one who supports racist.

There proof to support such a claim is old, open to multiple interpretations, and has been widely produced by the media and the left of proof of his social crimes.

Where as proof that he is in fact, has enacted policies and legislation that benefitted black people is in abundance and rarely, if ever discussed by the media and the left.
Worm out of what? your inability to remember what you claimed?
 

Tel Janin Aman

Well-known member
Comrade
Oh don't try and worm your way out of this.

The claim was that Trump is a racist or one who supports racist.

There proof to support such a claim is old, open to multiple interpretations, and has been widely produced by the media and the left of proof of his social crimes.

Where as proof that he is in fact, has enacted policies and legislation that benefitted black people is in abundance and rarely, if ever discussed by the media and the left.
I wouldn't bother with him anymore friend as he obviously isn't arguing in good faith. Just look at his attack on your masculinity with his sensitivity comment, a favorite tactic of people who argue with emotion not logic.
 

ShieldWife

Marchioness
I have addressed this issue again and again - why is Trump some how guilty by association from the most radical people who might support him, even if those people are a tiny fringe among his supporters and even if Trump himself disagrees with those people and even declares his disapproval - yet the left for some reason isn’t to blame for radicals even more extreme within their ranks who are not only influential within the Democrat Party but are openly embraced by the leadership?

Like Louis Farrakhan. I just talked about this. 🙄
 

mesonoxian

Well-known member
Lol.

You know a debate gets horribly slanted when one side keeps giving shorter and shorter replies that tend towards personal attacks, not substance.

Get wrecked commie.
Ha! Shows what you know! I was wrecked when I got here.

No, I mean I legitimately don't get what you are on about. You said people thought Donald Trump was a skinhead or member of the KKK. I pointed out that no, in fact that is really dumb. You got pissy and told me to blow you. So what do you think I am "worming" my way out of? Because my intent was just to mock you for being pissy about it.

If you want an argument Donald Trump is a racist, sure:

First off, why wouldn't he be? His father's business was racist when he worked for him,. We know he's a misogynistic piece of shit. He makes fun of disabled people. He sexually harasses women. He cheats on his wives. And he's a white dude in his 70s. What are the chances a son of a bitch like that isn't going to be a racist assclown?

Anyway, Donald Trump said a ton of racist shit, so I suspect he is probably a racist. (There's usually a correlation). I don't think that is why he pushes for racist policies (which he does, the border wall, the "Muslim ban", the constant fear mongering about "Jina"). The reason is because he has an audience of gullible rubes who desperately need to feel like their persecuted, so they don't have to deal with the fact their failures are their own faults, and so they can pretend the end of US global hegemony is an evil plot against America and not the natural result of a nation of a billion and a half people fully modernizing its economy.

I wouldn't bother with him anymore friend as he obviously isn't arguing in good faith. Just look at his attack on your masculinity with his sensitivity comment, a favorite tactic of people who argue with emotion not logic.
I would never attack someone's masculinity. I don't even know if I am arguing with a male. I am attacking their maturity.
I have addressed this issue again and again - why is Trump some how guilty by association from the most radical people who might support him, even if those people are a tiny fringe among his supporters and even if Trump himself disagrees with those people and even declares his disapproval - yet the left for some reason isn’t to blame for radicals even more extreme within their ranks who are not only influential within the Democrat Party but are openly embraced by the leadership?

Like Louis Farrakhan. I just talked about this. 🙄
Do you think it is okay that Louis Farrakhan is tolerated by the Democrats? I don't. Over on SV you can find a long ass thread of people working over the Democrats for their tolerance of anti-Semitic figures, Farrakhan chief among them. The Democrats being imperfect doesn't make Trump any more tolerable.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top