*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10665
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6320 on: October 01, 2020, 03:26:24 AM »


Wrong. Trump has condemned white supremacists repeatedly.

They're not mutually exclusive. Trump has condemned white supremacists and racists repeatedly, and he has also refrained from condemning them or otherwise tried to mitigate or distract from their behavior on multiple occasions. The latter fact is notable, and doesn't become diluted or less significant in the wake of subsequent disavowals.

lol no.

We suddenly have widespread media panic about white supremacy when the issue is actually rioting and looting from the left. Widespread supremacy hasn't really been in the news at all, whereas widespread liberal violence and uprest has.

I just posted a video of Trump repeatedly condemning white supremacy. He says it over and over and over. The issue is not with Trump. The issue is with the increasingly desperate lies necessary to maintain these liberal delusions.

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3360
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6321 on: October 01, 2020, 04:27:52 AM »
We suddenly have widespread media panic about white supremacy when the issue is actually rioting and looting from the left. Widespread supremacy hasn't really been in the news at all, whereas widespread liberal violence and uprest has.

There's no "suddenly" about it. Right-wing domestic terrorism and racial violence has been a major problem for years, as Christopher Wray recently affirmed:

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/516888-wray-says-racially-motivated-violent-extremism-makes-up-most-of-fbis

Violence can be inspired by all manner of political beliefs, and Democratic politicians have no problem condemning looting or unrest caused by likely liberals. Trump is the one who refuses to admit that his side has a major problem with political violence, and it's presumably because he knows that most of the culprits are avid supporters of his.

Quote
I just posted a video of Trump repeatedly condemning white supremacy. He says it over and over and over. The issue is not with Trump. The issue is with the increasingly desperate lies necessary to maintain these liberal delusions.

Again, those repeated disavowals do not diminish the notability of the times he's refused to outright condemn his racist supporters. We don't just blend every instance of him commenting on the subject together and take an average, like if he condemns racism nine times but doesn't once he's ten percent supportive of racists, or if he condemns racism nineteen times and doesn't once he's five percent supportive of racists. That's not how it works. He can and should be judged for those specific instances where he's refused to disavow his racist supporters.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10665
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6322 on: October 01, 2020, 04:51:44 AM »
You linked me to an article titled "Racially motivated violent extremism makes up most of FBI's domestic terrorism cases"

Where does it say that those are Republicans or right wing? You represented this article as evidence of wide spread right wing violence, yet it  says nothing about that, fibber.

Left wing racial domestic terrorism:

« Last Edit: October 01, 2020, 05:21:26 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6323 on: October 01, 2020, 07:13:33 AM »
There are hundreds, if not thousands of instances of police brutality, barbarism, impatience and abuse toward citizens recorded on video since the beginnings of the BLM/Breonna Taylor/general police brutality protests in March or April. Both on Twitter and Reddit, there's so many it's difficult to keep track. Most recently, someone was holding a sign (encouraging the public to get out and vote) at a protest. The police tried to take it off him. He refused to yield it, and within seconds, the officer concerned pepper-sprayed him in the face at point-blank range, from barely a couple of inches away. This is nothing but malicious, spiteful barbarism. Totally unnecessary, and not what the police are there for.

A protester in a wheelchair was manhandled by police the other day, the officer grabbing him by the arm, almost yanking it out of its socket, and dragging him and his chair across the sidewalk. For what? He was sitting down in his wheelchair, talking. And how difficult is it to arrest someone in a wheelchair without harming them? You walk around the wheelchair, grab the handles, and wheel it along. Absolutely no need to grab at the disabled person at all.   

There are documented cases of the police lying, distorting and bending the truth to make them appear the victims in this. Most recently, police were seen "raiding" homeowners flower beds for rocks and stones. Why would they need to do this, when they have state-issued weaponry? It wouldn't be so that they could photograph the rocks and claim they were attacked, would it?

There's a number of instances recently where the police have executed random sweeps against the public, and have been brutalising and arresting those who have just been passers-by. The motorist who wanted to leave the area, but had tyres slashed and windows smashed by the police. The Uber delivery cyclist who just happened to be cycling past the police truck when it stopped.

When protesters have successfully implemented defence against the police brutality and weaponry, such as the group who used shields to form a Roman-style phalanx to defend themselves, and the police could not penetrate this, the authorities then banned the public from carrying shields. Can't you see what's wrong with this, Tom? Banning defensive tools such that it makes it easier for the police to brutalise their citizens?

Even outwith the protests, examples of casual brutality from the police, and excessive use of firearms resulting in totally unnecessary death or injury to the public are coming in daily.

The rest of the world looks on and thinks; it's only a matter of time before the public, whether left, right, or centrist, will decide they've had enough of this. There's limits.

From the Benny meme you posted - who, exactly, do you claim is "cheering them on"?     
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6324 on: October 01, 2020, 07:37:15 AM »
They are talking over each other and Joe Biden says Proud Boys before Trump at the 42 second mark:

... and Trump didn't say "I haven't heard of them" at that point?

He only realises that he hasn't heard of them the following day, when he needs to revise and reformat what he actually said to try and make it acceptable?

"I don't know who the Proud Boys are", he says. Which is either an outright lie, given he did not say this at the debate when they were first mentioned, or it's a shameful lack of knowledge on the part of the man who is supposed to hold the highest office in the land.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6325 on: October 01, 2020, 08:55:25 AM »
"In the last 10 years, 76% of terrorist attacks (in the USA) have come from the right wing"

Elizabeth Neumann, a former assistant secretary in Trump's DHS, on MSNBC

That means ALL other attackers; ethnic, religious, miscellaneous and left-wing, only make up the remaining 24%. So left-wing terrorism is less than 24% of the total.

 



=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10665
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6326 on: October 01, 2020, 04:43:30 PM »
Former assistant secretary.... she was fired, and is now starting an anti-trump group.

https://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2020/08/25/nielsens-former-dhs-allies-form-anti-trump-group/

Quote
Taylor and Neumann’s anti-Trump group — which is funded by Never Trump’s Bill Kristol, Sarah Longwell, and Tim Miller — also includes two senior administration officials who currently work for Trump, according to Politico. One of those officials is set to reveal their identity in the coming weeks. The group is looking to get other former Trump administration officials to sign onto their efforts to defeat the president in the upcoming election.

"Right wing extremists" are spuriously defined by media leftists to malign their opponents.

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/myths-of-right-wing-terrorism/

Quote
He was clearly anti-Muslim, but journalists decided that he was ‘right-wing’. BBC Radio 4 news used this event as evidence for a growth in right-wing terrorism, on top of an attack on an American synagogue last year. Hang on: anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic are different motivations. A religious position is not necessarily a political position. And why assume right-wing? Anti-Semitism tends to be left-wing, as Britain’s neo-Marxist labour Party and America’s newly socialist Democratic Party illustrate.

...

The Daily Mail had a long report on the ‘right-wing mosque shooter’ Brenton Tarrant, but this headline is contradicted by the report’s own evidence. The Mail quoted Tarrant’s manifesto, in which he identifies as the son of a ‘working class, low-income family’, a defender of the working class, ‘a communist, then an anarchist and finally a libertarian before coming to be an eco-fascist’.

According to the media anyone who attacks Muslims must be right-wing, even if they've declared themselves as 'defenders of the working class', and communist and anarchist.  ::)

This is just like the poorly thought assumption honk gave us above, that any racially motivated violent extremism must be right wing. The KKK was founded by democrats. Slavery was promoted by democrats, FYI. Nazis were socialists, and were closer to the left than the right. Nazi is short for National Socialists. It's in the name. The left has always been very racist.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2020, 04:54:27 PM by Tom Bishop »

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #6327 on: October 01, 2020, 04:47:09 PM »
Slavery was promoted by democrats, FYI. Democrats have always been very racist.

One day Tom, you will step in to the light of honesty and accept that the Dems of two centuries ago are not the same the Dems now.  Same with the GOP.  Until that day, godspeed you silly, silly boy.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10665
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6328 on: October 01, 2020, 05:38:45 PM »
Slavery was promoted by democrats, FYI. Democrats have always been very racist.

One day Tom, you will step in to the light of honesty and accept that the Dems of two centuries ago are not the same the Dems now.  Same with the GOP.  Until that day, godspeed you silly, silly boy.

Nope. It's a consistent trend. Democrats have been historically pro-slavery, anti-women's rights, and who filibustered civil rights. It is the Republicans who were anti-slavery, pro-women's rights and who championed civil rights.

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/national-party-news/343960-false-advertising-how-the-democrats-attempt-to-rewrite

Quote
Ridiculing Trump’s so-called “alternative facts,” the Democrats have some “alternative facts” of their own.

Take this statement from the “Our History” page of the DNC website:“For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights, health care, Social Security, workers' rights, and women's rights.”

Any student of history can immediately identify why this statement is not only misleading but in some respects an outright lie.

The Democrats of today may claim to champion these ideas, but this has certainly not been the case for “more than 200 years.”

With the possible exception of the party’s support for worker’s rights, these issues were not the Democrats’ concern for nearly a century of the party’s existence.

Most significantly, the Democrats were hardly champions of civil rights. For much of its history, the party struggled with division over the question of minority rights. The issue of the expansion of slavery tore the Democrats apart before and after the Civil War.

It was actually the Republican Party that was founded on the idea that slavery should be abolished.

In 1864, the Republican Party platform stated, “Slavery is hostile to the principles of Republican Government. Justice and the National safety demand its utter and complete extirpation from the soil of the Republic.”

Sorry, Tom Perez, it was your own party that started the Civil War because you supported the “civil rights” of slave owners.

Disagreement on civil rights issues within the Democratic Party continued long after the Civil War. Because of division within the party, the Democrats were only able to hold one presidency between 1896 and 1932. In 1948, the first time the Democrats officially adopted a pro-civil rights platform, Southern Democrats walked out of the Democratic National Convention in protest.

The divide remained throughout the 1950s and 60s, with southern Democrats attempting to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In fact, 80 percent of Republicans voted in favor of its final passage in contrast to less than 70 percent of democrats who supported it.

Does this sound like a party that has “led the fight for civil rights” for over 200 years?
« Last Edit: October 01, 2020, 06:02:47 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1367
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6329 on: October 01, 2020, 05:40:48 PM »
Slavery was promoted by democrats, FYI. Democrats have always been very racist.

One day Tom, you will step in to the light of honesty and accept that the Dems of two centuries ago are not the same the Dems now.  Same with the GOP.  Until that day, godspeed you silly, silly boy.

Nope. It's a consistent trend. Democrats have been historically pro-slavery, anti-women's rights, and against civil rights. It is the republicans who were anti-slavery, pro-women's rights and pro-civil rights.




I see you are at least consistent in using ages old information as proof of anything.
Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

Rama Set

Re: Trump
« Reply #6330 on: October 01, 2020, 05:53:34 PM »
Slavery was promoted by democrats, FYI. Democrats have always been very racist.

One day Tom, you will step in to the light of honesty and accept that the Dems of two centuries ago are not the same the Dems now.  Same with the GOP.  Until that day, godspeed you silly, silly boy.

Nope. It's a consistent trend. Democrats have been historically pro-slavery, anti-women's rights, and filibustered civil rights. It is the republicans who were anti-slavery, pro-women's rights and championed civil rights.

Your abililty to use irrelevant comments to fail at rebutting me is truly spectacular.

Quote
Does this sound like a party that has “led the fight for civil rights” for over 200 years?
[/quote]

No, I never said they were.  Thanks for playing.  Next time the move is to rebut what I actually said and not use the pointless talking point you are trying to refine so you can Destroy Libs with Facts and LogicTM.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10665
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6331 on: October 01, 2020, 06:42:37 PM »
The worst has always come from the left, historically and presently. They are bad people. Legislature in California, which is controlled by the left, is presently trying to REPEAL Civil Rights protections.

See: http://archive.is/yvMXz



Guess who is voting for repeal of Civil Rights protections. Democrats:



Who would have thought? Bad throughout history. Bad now.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6332 on: October 01, 2020, 07:33:50 PM »
The worst has always come from the left, historically and presently. They are bad people. Legislature in California, which is controlled by the left, is presently trying to REPEAL Civil Rights protections.

See: http://archive.is/yvMXz



Guess who is voting for repeal of Civil Rights protections. Democrats:



Who would have thought? Bad throughout history. Bad now.

You are misrepresenting this using a buzz phrase like, "REPEAL Civil Rights protections". The Prop is about bringing Affirmative Action back into the CAL constitution. Which is actually an extreme, if not controversial, protection of civil rights, not a repeal of those rights. It all comes down to how one feels about Affirmative Action and it's usefulness in the protection of the underrepresented. It is very pro-civil rights, but certainly not exempt from misuse or abuse under less than optimal circumstances. Equally so is the existing prop 209 it seeks to amend.

Both the existing 209 and the proposed 16 have their pluses and minuses. Neither have sought nor seek to remove civil rights. Just two different ways of preserving civil rights and we need to decide which methodology is best. So lighten up on the rhetoric and stick to the facts.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10665
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6333 on: October 01, 2020, 07:59:17 PM »
Nope, they are repealing the protections, not amending them with more protections. That is a blatant lie. The content of the page clearly says that they are repealing the Civil Rights protections which contains following text:

Quote
(a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
(b) This section shall apply only to action taken after the section's effective date.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the State.
(f) For the purposes of this section, "State" shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the State itself, any city, county, city and county, public university system, including the University of California, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State.
(g) The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured party's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of then-existing California antidiscrimination law.
(h) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the United States Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.[2]

All of that is crossed out. They are repealing that. They are not adding in protections. There is no text for anything that they are adding in. Go to that link and find the text they are adding in. Just read the link.

There is not a section on that page where they are adding anything in. Repeal only.

From the link:



This would make discrimination legal.

This is one of the D arguments:



They want to be able to discriminate by race for college admissions, so therefore the Civil Rights protections for the entire state needs to go.

Bad people.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16082
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6334 on: October 01, 2020, 08:11:30 PM »
I just posted a video of Trump repeatedly condemning white supremacy. He says it over and over and over. The issue is not with Trump. The issue is with the increasingly desperate lies necessary to maintain these liberal delusions.


Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6335 on: October 01, 2020, 08:38:45 PM »
Nope, they are repealing the protections, not amending them with more protections. That is a blatant lie. The content of the page clearly says that they are repealing the Civil Rights protections which contains following text:

Quote
(a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
(b) This section shall apply only to action taken after the section's effective date.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the State.
(f) For the purposes of this section, "State" shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the State itself, any city, county, city and county, public university system, including the University of California, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State.
(g) The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured party's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of then-existing California antidiscrimination law.
(h) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the United States Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.[2]

All of that is crossed out. They are repealing that. They are not adding in protections. There is no text for anything that they are adding in. Go to that link and find the text they are adding in. Just read the link.

There is not a section on that page where they are adding anything in. Repeal only.

From the link:



This would make discrimination legal.

This is one of the D arguments:



They want to be able to discriminate by race for college admissions, so therefore the Civil Rights protections for the entire state needs to go.

Bad people.

Nice cherry-picking as usual. It's far more complicated than you make it out to be. 16 is intended to bring affirmative action back onto the playing field where 209 dispensed with it. Like I said, two different methodologies trying to achieve the same end. And both have their merits. In some cases some underrepresented groups faired better under 209, specifically women. Where people of color are still underrepresented in, for instance, the UC system. I don't know if 16 will alleviate the situation. The problem with any form of affirmative action is that it can be perceived to, and in some cases, in actuality, discriminate against one group while benefiting another in order to proportionally balance the population demographics against the make-up of institutions. And in some ways 209 does nothing to balance that proportion and perhaps inadvertently allows for discrimination in the name of protection. There's no easy answer and neither is a panacea.

The only bad people here is you as your myopic view is not helpful and is neither measured, holistic, thoughtful, nor thought through.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10665
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6336 on: October 01, 2020, 08:57:03 PM »
No, there is nothing they are adding to the California constitution in this. Repeal only. Stop fibbing. You are suggesting that there is some future vote which will put this back in. Another lie from you.

They say exactly what they want to do in that link. They don't want to put it back in. Here is the argument from a state senator:



They want us to stop "saying that race is not a factor". This is straight from the senator and not from your distrustworthy fingers.

They are arguing that it's okay to be racist. They want to hire based on race and are asking us to stop pretending that race is not a factor. This is a pro-racism argument. End of story. You are defending admitted racists and their attempt at institutionalized racism.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2020, 09:11:25 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3360
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6337 on: October 01, 2020, 08:58:22 PM »
I just posted a video of Trump repeatedly condemning white supremacy. He says it over and over and over. The issue is not with Trump. The issue is with the increasingly desperate lies necessary to maintain these liberal delusions.



Again, those repeated disavowals do not diminish the notability of the times he's refused to outright condemn his racist supporters. We don't just blend every instance of him commenting on the subject together and take an average, like if he condemns racism nine times but doesn't once he's ten percent supportive of racists, or if he condemns racism nineteen times and doesn't once he's five percent supportive of racists. That's not how it works. He can and should be judged for those specific instances where he's refused to disavow his racist supporters.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6338 on: October 01, 2020, 10:08:41 PM »
No, there is nothing they are adding to the California constitution in this. Repeal only. Stop fibbing. You are suggesting that there is some future vote which will put this back in. Another lie from you.

They say exactly what they want to do in that link. They don't want to put it back in. Here is the argument from a state senator:



They want us to stop "saying that race is not a factor". This is straight from the senator and not from your distrustworthy fingers.

They are arguing that it's okay to be racist. They want to hire based on race and are asking us to stop pretending that race is not a factor. This is a pro-racism argument. End of story. You are defending admitted racists and their attempt at institutionalized racism.

You clearly don't have a handle on what Prop 16 is actually about. If you need it dumbed down, here you go. Prop 16 explained in a 60 seconds. Yes to reinstating Affirmative Action in Cal or No:


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10665
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #6339 on: October 01, 2020, 10:21:06 PM »
Do you even read or watch the racist content that you spew? Here is a quote from that video:

    "Prop 16 would allow public agencies such as local governments and state universities to consider race, gender and ethnicity as factors in hiring, contracting and admissions."

Yep, deleting Civil Rights protections would allow the government to hire based on race and universities to admit based on race. That's a bad thing, FYI. The law before that, which they are erasing, said that all races were equal.

All races are equal = Good Republican position

Some races better than others = Bad racist Democrat position

You are merely here promoting racism, admitting that this is a racist proposition.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2020, 01:22:31 AM by Tom Bishop »