Politics Turning GA, NC, NV, and/or PA into victory (Biden vs Trump, 2020 election!) (2 Viewers)

[Orion Bailey]

I can't see just what you've put in order. You're going to have to translate for me.

sorry you will have to hire help. Maybe wizen can help you. He is so good at thoroughly investigating prior to assuming and dismissing.

He seems to be training you well to follow in those footsteps too.

 

[kjironman1]

is this for real?

Yeah its real. The whitehouse photo was doctored to the extreme. He is losing Florida at this point.

 

[kjironman1]

If he loses both Texas and Florida this election goes down as the worst landslide in the history of politics. And that is pretty tough with how badly Reagan beat Carter.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Yeah its real. The whitehouse photo was doctored to the extreme. He is losing Florida at this point.

But...Fake news right????

hahahaha

 

[Lanny]

sorry you will have to hire help. Maybe wizen can help you. He is so good at thoroughly investigating prior to assuming and dismissing.

He seems to be training you well to follow in those footsteps too.

Sorry, but I do my own thinking although I do accept the rare valuable tip.
I can see we are at a dead end so I'm going to bow out.

 

[kjironman1]

But...Fake news right????

hahahaha

Oh i'm certain.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Sorry, but I do my own thinking although I do accept the rare valuable tip.
I can see we are at a dead end so I'm going to bow out.

i already assumed you bowed out when you said your not watching the video. From then on i didn't take a thing you posted seriously on the subject.

but you may join the crickets, while falsely claiming wizen wanted some rational conversation, of which i proved he didnt , or he would have had a response to chris’s poll post and tortured explanation of the video.


i think there is a beach somewhere with a bunch of heads in the sand.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Oh i'm certain.

im sure its a fake news post falsely claming the white house did it.
It will be the spin anyhow.
And you know, im not so sure i cant just not believe that. People being deceitful to make it look like another was being deceitful.
Its just a big game im sick of.
People cNt live honestly. Cant be truthful?

got no room in my life for those kind.

 

[Lanny]

i already assumed you bowed out when you said your not watching the video. From then on i didn't take a thing you posted seriously on the subject.

but you may join the crickets, while falsely claiming wizen wanted some rational conversation, of which i proved he didnt , or he would have had a response to chris’s poll post and tortured explanation of the video.


i think there is a beach somewhere with a bunch of heads in the sand.

This is the anger I was referring to.

 

[Orion Bailey]

This is the anger I was referring to.

again what you think you see is innacurate.
Just because a person claims bullshit doesnt mean he is angry about it.

but nice try at changing the subject because you and Wizen were judging without educating yourself on the video.
If that's making you angry then that's on you.
Im just keeping it real.
Dont mistake that for anger.

 

[Sedatedfork]

 

[wizenheimer]

sorry you will have to hire help. Maybe wizen can help you. He is so good at thoroughly investigating prior to assuming and dismissing.

He seems to be training you well to follow in those footsteps too.

I did not see that finally, somebody posted the poll. That's all I was asking. I notice that it wasn't you though

looking at the poll, I have several criticisms

the main one being that there is no definition of "progressive activists" or "conservative activists". I think that renders the poll close to useless. I'd say there's a huge conflation problem. How many people saying that progressive activists will be violent are thinking of antifa as progressive activists? I consider BLM a progressive activist group. Antifa is not...they are a radical left group prone to lawlessness. But after 2 months of protests with sensationalized coverage by right wing media, of course there's going to be conflation. The percentages in that poll would likely have been reversed if it was taken after Charlottesville.

but more than that, what does a poll like that prove? Does is prove anything real about progressive activism, or does it just prove that polling sentiment will shift with recent news

if some asshole antifa fool shoots a bottle rocket at a courthouse does that prove that 1oo million progressives are violent? There's a lot of progressives posting here...if trump wins are we all going to track you down and beat the shit out of you?

 

[Chris Craig]

They have been doing this for a while now. Picture #1 is actual crowd. #2 is what the Whitehouse released. #3 and #4 are the ways it was doctored.

#1

#2

#3

#4

I found Waldo!

 

[BigGameDamian]

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I did not see that finally, somebody posted the poll. That's all I was asking. I notice that it wasn't you though

looking at the poll, I have several criticisms

the main one being that there is no definition of "progressive activists" or "conservative activists". I think that renders the poll close to useless. I'd say there's a huge conflation problem. How many people saying that progressive activists will be violent are thinking of antifa as progressive activists? I consider BLM a progressive activist group. Antifa is not...they are a radical left group prone to lawlessness. But after 2 months of protests with sensationalized coverage by right wing media, of course there's going to be conflation. The percentages in that poll would likely have been reversed if it was taken after Charlottesville.

but more than that, what does a poll like that prove? Does is prove anything real about progressive activism, or does it just prove that polling sentiment will shift with recent news

if some asshole antifa fool shoots a bottle rocket at a courthouse does that prove that 1oo million progressives are violent? There's a lot of progressives posting here...if trump wins are we all going to track you down and beat the shit out of you?

Well, there are some issues, Elections have been increasingly 'violent' in every election in the last 40ish years.
https://www.the-american-interest.c...r-of-electoral-violence-in-the-united-states/
https://www.economist.com/united-st...ican-cities-reflects-the-fury-of-polarisation

The real issue at hand is the radicalization of people and how much that is spurned on by big tech and the media. When people are radicalized they get more violent, I'd say that is basically historical fact, but I'm sure it could be argued.

You say the right-wing media sensationalized it, and yes that's probably true, but the left-wing media does its fair share of under or over sensationalization on things based on their views too.

The Overton window is very slanted to the left-right now and everything becomes a political issue for them to polarize people with. Which is why basically all classical liberals get called, 'far-right', 'alt-right', etc because they're not left enough for the modern-day left. You go against the narrative of either political party on anything and they label you an 'extremist' for the other side. I've heard Tim Pool talk about in one 24 hour news cycle he was called an extreme leftist and far-right over his opinion on the same subject, and I've seen that happen with other journalist types too.

Also doxxing has become a huge issue, so it might not be s2'ers doing it but it's become a very real thing for people to get gunned down and hunted based solely on their political, or world views.

If you're looking for what the poll itself proves, it's that the radicalization of people has gotten the US into an extremely volatile, dangerous place, and that people are bracing for and expecting violence around the election, because of being groomed by their echo chambers, and media sources that feed into their preconceived notions about anyone who dares disagree with them on anything.

 

[Minstrel]

 

[wizenheimer]

Well, there are some issues, Elections have been increasingly 'violent' in every election in the last 40ish years.
https://www.the-american-interest.c...r-of-electoral-violence-in-the-united-states/
https://www.economist.com/united-st...ican-cities-reflects-the-fury-of-polarisation

The real issue at hand is the radicalization of people and how much that is spurned on by big tech and the media. When people are radicalized they get more violent, I'd say that is basically historical fact, but I'm sure it could be argued.

You say the right-wing media sensationalized it, and yes that's probably true, but the left-wing media does its fair share of under or over sensationalization on things based on their views too.

The Overton window is very slanted to the left-right now and everything becomes a political issue for them to polarize people with. Which is why basically all classical liberals get called, 'far-right', 'alt-right', etc because they're not left enough for the modern-day left. You go against the narrative of either political party on anything and they label you an 'extremist' for the other side. I've heard Tim Pool talk about in one 24 hour news cycle he was called an extreme leftist and far-right over his opinion on the same subject, and I've seen that happen with other journalist types too.

Also doxxing has become a huge issue, so it might not be s2'ers doing it but it's become a very real thing for people to get gunned down and hunted based solely on their political, or world views.

If you're looking for what the poll itself proves, it's that the radicalization of people has gotten the US into an extremely volatile, dangerous place, and that people are bracing for and expecting violence around the election, because of being groomed by their echo chambers, and media sources that feed into their preconceived notions about anyone who dares disagree with them on anything.

ok...fair enough

but I don't think it's as radicalized as what you may be implying. If it was, then there would have been lots of violence in 2016 when Clinton got 3 million more votes but trump won because of an obsolete and undemocratic electoral college. I don't remember cities on fire then

if it's become so much worse in the last 45 months, then I think it's fair to point at the divider-in-chief as the main cause

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

ok...fair enough

but I don't think it's as radicalized as what you may be implying. If it was, then there would have been lots of violence in 2016 when Clinton got 3 million more votes but trump won because of an obsolete and undemocratic electoral college. I don't remember cities on fire then

if it's become so much worse in the last 45 months, then I think it's fair to point at the divider-in-chief as the main cause

There were protests and riots in Berkley for months after the election. I think it has very little to do with Trump. I think it's been a divide and conquer attack for years that has gotten more refined and better at their "jobs" for the last 2-3 decades. Starting with a partisan impeachment process with Clinton, a supreme court ruling on the GWB election, and moving forward. Trump's just an easy target for it now because he's a boisterous idiot.
There were definitely cities burning after the 2016 election.
https://abc7news.com/donald-trump-protest-oakland-protests/1599421/
https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/us/oregon-protest-riot/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/us/trump-election-protests.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ayed-demonstrations-erupt-across-us/93633154/

So that was all long before his '45 months', the country was divided long ago, and the gap gets bigger and bigger every day.

 

[wizenheimer]

There were protests and riots in Berkley for months after the election. I think it has very little to do with Trump. I think it's been a divide and conquer attack for years that has gotten more refined and better at their "jobs" for the last 2-3 decades. Starting with a partisan impeachment process with Clinton, a supreme court ruling on the GWB election, and moving forward. Trump's just an easy target for it now because he's a boisterous idiot.
There were definitely cities burning after the 2016 election.
https://abc7news.com/donald-trump-protest-oakland-protests/1599421/
https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/us/oregon-protest-riot/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/us/trump-election-protests.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ayed-demonstrations-erupt-across-us/93633154/

So that was all long before his '45 months', the country was divided long ago, and the gap gets bigger and bigger every day.

I'm not buying nearly to the extent you're selling...sorry

there were protests for sure. And there was some ancillary rioting around it that the police were exaggerating. But again, I'm saying those people doing the damage are NOT progressive activists any more than Aryan Nations or the 3% are conservative activists, which is what that poll implied. Antifa seemed to spring out of the Occupy Wall Street movement in Obama's first term, and they have always been right on the edge of lawlessness

mainly I'm arguing against conflation. Millions of progressives shouldn't be defined by Antifa; and millions of conservatives shouldn't be defined by Timothy McVeigh and Dylan Roof

 

[Orion Bailey]

But yet millions of Americans can be defined by Trump.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I'm not buying nearly to the extent you're selling...sorry

there were protests for sure. And there was some ancillary rioting around it that the police were exaggerating. But again, I'm saying those people doing the damage are NOT progressive activists any more than Aryan Nations or the 3% are conservative activists, which is what that poll implied. Antifa seemed to spring out of the Occupy Wall Street movement in Obama's first term, and they have always been right on the edge of lawlessness

mainly I'm arguing against conflation. Millions of progressives shouldn't be defined by Antifa; and millions of conservatives shouldn't be defined by Timothy McVeigh and Dylan Roof

Do you have any proof it was exaggerated or is that just subjective? Both right wing and left wing media alike published a lot of articles about rioting and such after the 2016 election. Of course they spun it there way but it's out there.

I never said that progressives or conservatives should be defined by their fringe groups. They do get defined by their fringe groups all the time though and on here it tends to get a bunch of likes when someone calls all conservatives who don't denounce everything their fringe groups do as being racist, or nazi's, or far-right extremists. So the right does the same things. I believe that American's have been radicalized though, and maybe I'm wrong, but you haven't really provided proof otherwise other than saying you're not buying it. Seems to be a winning formula here, call conservatives nazi's, far-right, racists, etc. In fact, "Silence is violence right" is the new buzzword so I guess if were silent on any of it right or left wing then we're complicit in all of it, but my guess is most people on the right will be silent about the crappy fringe groups on the right, and most people on the left will be silent on the crappy fringe groups on the left.

 

[kjironman1]

But yet millions of Americans can be defined by Trump.

About 60 million as a matter of fact.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

About 60 million as a matter of fact.

So when people vote for Biden, are they defined by everything he is or has done? When did voting for someone mean you agree with, condone or should be defined entirely by them?
Cause Bidens got 40+ years of political history and a lot of it frankly sucks.
Im not a republican and I wont be voting for Trump but this logic is either good for all or not good for anyone.

 

[Orion Bailey]

I'm not buying nearly to the extent you're selling...sorry

there were protests for sure. And there was some ancillary rioting around it that the police were exaggerating. But again, I'm saying those people doing the damage are NOT progressive activists any more than Aryan Nations or the 3% are conservative activists, which is what that poll implied. Antifa seemed to spring out of the Occupy Wall Street movement in Obama's first term, and they have always been right on the edge of lawlessness

mainly I'm arguing against conflation. Millions of progressives shouldn't be defined by Antifa; and millions of conservatives shouldn't be defined by Timothy McVeigh and Dylan Roof

So when people vote for Biden, are they defined by everything he is or has done? When did voting for someone mean you agree with, condone or should be defined entirely by them?
Cause Bidens got 40+ years of political history and a lot of it frankly sucks.
I'm not a republican and I wont be voting for Trump but this logic is either good for all or not good for anyone.

Unless i'm misreading you, that's exactly what we are agreeing with and its a counter to the above highlighted section from Wizen. This very conflation is used on anyone who is a republican or Voted for Trump.

 

[CupWizier]

So when people vote for Biden, are they defined by everything he is or has done? When did voting for someone mean you agree with, condone or should be defined entirely by them?
Cause Bidens got 40+ years of political history and a lot of it frankly sucks.
Im not a republican and I wont be voting for Trump but this logic is either good for all or not good for anyone.

trump is in a league of his own when it comes to corruption and if you can't see that, then not sure what to tell you. As for Biden, a lot of it doesn't "suck", especially considering who he is going up against.

 

[wizenheimer]

Unless i'm misreading you, that's exactly what we are agreeing with and its a counter to the above highlighted section from Wizen. This very conflation is used on anyone who is a republican or Voted for Trump.

trump is the fucking president who got 60 million votes and still has wide support. He controls all the levers of power of the federal government. He's the leader of the republican party and will be their nominee again. Conservatives own his shit because they put him in power and have supported his agenda for 45 months. especially packing the courts. And for most of them, including some in this forum, they'd give him 4 more years of the same total corruption

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

trump is in a league of his own when it comes to corruption and if you can't see that, then not sure what to tell you. As for Biden, a lot of it doesn't "suck", especially considering who he is going up against.

He's really not, and Biden's said and done a lot of racist crap too. The point isn't about Trump or Biden though, the point is a 'vote' for one does not mean someone agrees with everything about them, and it does not mean they as individuals should be defined by the person they voted for.
In fact, it's kinda laughable that there are so many lifers in politics, Schumer, Pelosi, Biden, McConnel, Graham, etc, and where we're at in politics today is solely attributed to "Trump" who's been in office for 45 months instead of 45 years...

 

[CupWizier]

He's really not, and Biden's said and done a lot of racist crap too. The point isn't about Trump or Biden though, the point is a 'vote' for one does not mean someone agrees with everything about them, and it does not mean they as individuals should be defined by the person they voted for.
In fact, it's kinda laughable that there are so many lifers in politics, Schumer, Pelosi, Biden, McConnel, Graham, etc, and where we're at in politics today is solely attributed to "Trump" who's been in office for 45 months instead of 45 years...

And we disagree. Besides, who are all these people that you attribute to saying if you vote for Biden you stand for everything he stands for?

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

And we disagree. Besides, who are all these people that you attribute to saying if you vote for Biden you stand for everything he stands for?

You have that inversed. The logic posted on this very site all the time is if you vote for Trump you're basically complicit in everything Trump does, and you can now be defined entirely by that vote.

 

[Road Ratt]

If you knowingly vote(d) for a candidate who shares your morals, your morals are directly tied to that candidate. Same goes for candidates you yourself openly support.

The only time that I feel that this isn't true is when it comes to... holding your nose and voting against the opposing candidate.