Who Will be Our Next President?

Tools    





What's most interesting to me about the shenanigans going on is that it's a clear illustration of how well (and easily) our tribalistic natures can be exploited. Our desire to belong (on a macro level) outweighs our desire to think critically about information that's presented to us - especially if it goes against what we've decided is 'true'. It also illustrates a fundamental mistrust of government from both 'sides'.



My “no” was to your ridiculous suggestion that people who hate Trump should have voted for him. The wannabe Dictator in Chief can throw his childish tantrums on Twitter all he wants once he’s out of office. IDGAF about anything he has to say at that point.



I’m no fan of Biden (hell, I’m not even a Democrat) and I don’t think he’s going to be a great president. But I don’t need him to be a great president, I just need him to suck less than Trump. I’ll agree that the Dems don’t have any great potential candidates on the horizon but I think it would be a mistake for the Republican Party to nominate Trump ever again. Yeah his supporters are united in their support of him, but his mishandling of the pandemic, lies, and refusal to denounce white supremacist groups have lost him a lot of votes and caused some not insignificant division within the party.
That's a false narrative that's been out there with no basis as to why it would be needed in the first place. There's a very real argument to be made that Biden has a more questionable history when it comes to racism.




It's borderline hysterical what people say about Trump and white supremacists. It's so easy to tell that he's fed up with people asking him about it. I don't blame him because there's never been any reason for it.



So yes, the narrative that he has refused to denounce white supremacists has cost him votes. Unfortunately it's a narrative based upon media and Democrat lies-unfair to him and the rest of the country! People should be pissed off about getting played like that. That's how I got interested in this stuff, from hearing the lies.



That's a false narrative that's been out there with no basis as to why it would be needed in the first place. There's a very real argument to be made that Biden has a more questionable history when it comes to racism.
He was specifically asked to denounce them during the first presidential debate and was asked to tell militia and white supremacist groups to stand down. He kept trying to turn it around on ANTIFA and then told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by.” This is not “false narrative,” it is fact. You’ve repeatedly accused liberal media of taking things out of context and twisting facts to suit their own agenda then present garbage like this montage with crucial context strategically omitted to make Trump look good. The left is by no means innocent of distorting the truth but quit acting like the right is some bastion of integrity.



He was specifically asked to denounce them during the first presidential debate and was asked to tell militia and white supremacist groups to stand down.
You could clearly see he was frustrated with the question as he said sure 3 times and there's reason for his frustration. He's been doing it for years. Why aren't they asking Biden who had a strong bond with a former Klan member and has a racially questionable voting history as pointed out by Kamala Harris?

He kept trying to turn it around on ANTIFA and then told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by.”
It is curious why no democrats will condemn antifa and even deny their existence, although I think I know why. As for The Proud Boys, Trump said he didn't even know who they were and apparently neither did Chris Wallace since he labeled them a white supremacist group which they are not.

This is not “false narrative,” it is fact. You’ve repeatedly accused liberal media of taking things out of context and twisting facts to suit their own agenda then present garbage like this montage with crucial context strategically omitted to make Trump look good. The left is by no means innocent of distorting the truth but quit acting like the right is some bastion of integrity.
If you can't give me a valid reason why Trump, and Trump only, is continuously asked to condemn white supremacy, then it's a false narrative.



I can't go a day without hearing someone in the media claim Trump called white supremacists very fine people and some of you want to deny there's a false narrative out there. It's so unreal it's like a dream.



You could clearly see he was frustrated with the question as he said sure 3 times and there's reason for his frustration.
Saying “sure” he will do something is not the same as actually doing it. IDGAF if he was “frustrated.”

It is curious why no democrats will condemn antifa and even deny their existence, although I think I know why.
I’m not a Democrat and can’t answer that question, either way it’s irrelevant to what he was specifically asked to do and is, IMO, a clear example of him trying to deflect and avoid directly addressing the actual issue under discussion.

As for The Proud Boys, Trump said he didn't even know who they were and apparently neither did Chris Wallace since he labeled them a white supremacist group which they are not.
Irrelevant. They were presented to him as a group that he needed to denounce. “Stand back, Stand by” has a distinctly different meaning than “Stand down.”


If you can't give me a valid reason why Trump, and Trump only, is continuously asked to condemn white supremacy, then it's a false narrative.
Because white nationalist and militia groups have been very vocal in their support of him.



Yeah, I see what you're trying to do here: create an equivalence between straightforward reporting and baseless rumors. Trying to muddy the waters so that all claims are equally speculative, all "reports" equally valid just because, hey, somebody said them.

What you're doing is not speculation. Speculation is what someone does when information is not available. It's not speculation to avoid information because finding it might prevent you believing what you want. It is, in fact, a form of dishonesty, especially when that avoidance is presented as if it were genuine skepticism.

I asked you quite clearly if you were aware of some of the basic facts about registration and overseers. You refused to answer, and the only reason you would not is if the answer is "no" but you wanted to avoid admitting it. Therefore, you heard a rumor and chose to believe it without making any attempt at all to see if it was true. You could have learned more about both topics in a matter of minutes, with minimal effort. You chose not too. Ask yourself why that is.
Chris, you accused me of lying.

Saying "the fix is in" is a belief it's not a lie. It's a sentiment (that is kind of popular at the moment).

It would only be a "lie" if I knew for a fact that no fix was in (something no one can know right now) and then I intentionally said the opposite in order to mislead.

(I'm basing my belief on the fact that Democrats have said for 4 years they'd do anything to get Trump out of the white house. Combined with watching 4 months of rioting and crime by largely Biden supporters - if they're willing to try to set federal buildings on fire with workers still inside them - which one Democrat mayor called "attempted mass murder," then would voter fraud be too much for people with a shared political agenda? I'm basing it on all the past voter fraud stories - showing how flagrant it's been & how easy it is, and on all the recent stories from my own state involving mail destruction, ballot harvesting and voter suppression. Combined with current reports that discrepancies are showing up that could not occur under fair voting and are too one-sided to be simple clerical errors.)

For all the people still saying that Trump colluded with Russians to rig the 2016 election - are you going to call them all liars? Even if that claim is erroneous and an extensive investigation found absolutely no evidence to support it, are the people who still believe it & repeating it anyway "lying" and "liars" or do they simply believe it despite the lack of evidence?

You could argue the issue with them to refute any arguments they have or support your own, but to argue that they are all lying means they know for a fact that nothing in the claim took place, yet they are perpetuating the claim and lying about the very idea that they themselves still believe it's true.

"Bush lied!" became a slogan. Bush invaded Iraq based on not just U.S. intelligence, but global intelligence that was also believed by other world leaders. Democrats in Congress were convinced to vote to give the President the authority to invade Iraq by that same evidence. So were they all liars because they believed something agreed upon by many when later it proved to be untrue or mistaken? Did John Kerry lie when he said he believed the intelligence enough to vote to grant authority? The evidence at the time obviously didn't pan out - so does that mean Kerry lied about his belief that the reports were true? Does it mean Bush lied?

Did I hear a rumor and repeat it? Maybe. Did I know it was a rumor? I don't know.

It's hard to tell what's a rumor and what's not anymore. I posted a newscast that reported what I had relayed about poll observers. Was that a rumor? I don't know. If it's reported by Sean Hannity is it a rumor? Is it fact? Is it sometimes one or the other? Is it sometimes where the truth lies in the middle? If Rachel Maddow reports something, is it rumor or is it fact or is it a lie?

Should it be forbidden to mention new headlines or discuss anything until you've got complete confirmation, 10 sources of proof, peer review studies and 5000 eye-witness accounts sworn to under oath with a jury and judge's ruling on it?

Sorry about the long post, but you can probably tell the issue with me right now is having been accused of telling lies.
When what I did was relay things currently in the news and state my belief on what those things mean.



Saying “sure” he will do something is not the same as actually doing it. IDGAF if he was “frustrated.”
And he probably dgaf what you think about it because he's been doing it for years.

I’m not a Democrat and can’t answer that question, either way it’s irrelevant to what he was specifically asked to do and is, IMO, a clear example of him trying to deflect and avoid directly addressing the actual issue under discussion.
I think it is relevant because the two candidates were not being treated and questioned equally, and they never were.

Irrelevant. They were presented to him as a group that he needed to denounce. “Stand back, Stand by” has a distinctly different meaning than “Stand down.”
They were presented to him (for some reason) as a white supremacist group (which they're not) and he said he didn't know who they were. Do you really want him to denounce somebody when he doesn't know who they are, or do you want him to take Chris Wallace's word for it when he didn't know who they were? Btw, if they are a hate group, the people they hate are another hate group, Antifa. I don't believe you or anybody else knows what he meant by stand back standby.

Because white nationalist and militia groups have been very vocal in their support of him.
That's not his fault and he has condemned them consistently for years. No need to keep asking him. It gets tired.



Remember that group recently that got arrested for planning to kidnap that Democrat governor? Trump was getting all types of blame. They just assumed they were his supporters. They hated Trump.



And he probably dgaf what you think about it because he's been doing it for years.
This was during an official presidential debate that was shown around the world. He should GAF about his image in that moment and do everything he can to get and keep people on his side.


They were presented to him (for some reason) as a white supremacist group (which they're not) and he said he didn't know who they were. Do you really want him to denounce somebody when he doesn't know who they are, or do you want him to take Chris Wallace's word for it when he didn't know who they were?
If he truly didn’t know who The Proud Boys are, then the appropriate response would have been to say “I don’t know who that is.” But that’s not what he said. At least not until after the backlash happened. He does a whole lot of running his mouth and then backtracking and denying things later or else having someone do it for him.



This was during an official presidential debate that was shown around the world. He should GAF about his image in that moment and do everything he can to get and keep people on his side.
So suddenly you think that should be his concern? Usually people say he's concerned about it too much.

If he truly didn’t know who The Proud Boys are, then the appropriate response would have been to say “I don’t know who that is.” But that’s not what he said. At least not until after the backlash happened. He does a whole lot of running his mouth and then backtracking and denying things later or else having someone do it for him.
You can debate all you want about what you think he should have said about the proud boys. They are not a white supremacist group so I don't even know why you're talking about them. Why are you so worried about a group that hates antifa?



I questioned your statement that he refuses to condemn white supremacist groups because it is not true. You don't like the video but that's the evidence. If you want to look up the separate videos, you can do that too. If you want to look up the transcripts you can do that too. He's done it for years. There's no reason to keep asking him. If somebody wants to know they can look it up. It gets old.



So suddenly you think that should be his concern? Usually people say he's concerned about it too much.
What is this “suddenly” bullcrap? It’s a presidential debate. Making a good impression and presenting your stances on issues succinctly is the entire point. Also I generally stay out of political discussions on this forum so the only thing I’m “suddenly” doing is engaging. You can’t know my opinion of whether his image should be his concern if I haven’t stated that opinion previously.

You can debate all you want about what you think he should have said about the proud boys. They are not a white supremacist group so I don't even know why you're talking about them. Why are you so worried about a group that hates antifa?
You said “Do you really want him to denounce somebody when he doesn't know who they are, or do you want him to take Chris Wallace's word for it when he didn't know who they were?” You specifically asked me what I think his response ought to have been. I answered that if he didn’t know who they were then that should have been his answer. Now you’re ignoring my response and giving me some crap about them not being a white supremacist group. Okay. I’ll bite. Educate me. If you know so much about them and “liberal media” (Chris Wallace btw is a journalist from Fox News) is lying about them, then what are they really and what evidence do you have to support that?



What is this “suddenly” bullcrap? It’s a presidential debate. Making a good impression and presenting your stances on issues succinctly is the entire point. Also I generally stay out of political discussions on this forum so the only thing I’m “suddenly” doing is engaging. You can’t know my opinion of whether his image should be his concern if I haven’t stated that opinion previously.
I just found your statement a bit humorous but still none of this has to do with the point.

You said “Do you really want him to denounce somebody when he doesn't know who they are, or do you want him to take Chris Wallace's word for it when he didn't know who they were?” You specifically asked me what I think his response ought to have been. I answered that if he didn’t know who they were then that should have been his answer. Now you’re ignoring my response and giving me some crap about them not being a white supremacist group. Okay. I’ll bite. Educate me. If you know so much about them and “liberal media” (Chris Wallace btw is a journalist from Fox News) is lying about them, then what are they really and what evidence do you have to support that?
I know who Chris Wallace is. I responded to your comment about Trump not condemning white supremacists, you brought up the proud boys, and I'm telling you who cares because they're not white supremacists.

Make up your own mind about them, here is their leader (not white)



So if we can now get off the irrelevant proud boys and get back to the point. You mentioned his refusal to condemn white supremacists, I said it wasn't true and gave you evidence, and from there it seems your new issue is that he hasn't done it when or in the fashion that you want him to. I would say he's done it much more than enough and doesn't owe it to you or anyone else. Maybe someone should question Biden's racist history now? Or is that people don't actually care about racism, they just care about people who annoy them? At least that's how it seems.



You could argue the issue with them to refute any arguments they have or support your own, but to argue that they are all lying means they know for a fact that nothing in the claim took place, yet they are perpetuating the claim and lying about the very idea that they themselves still believe it's true.
No, that's not a reasonable definition of "lying." It is not merely when someone says something they know to be false. I'm sure you've heard of the phrase "lie of omission." If you omit information you have in order to mislead, it is morally akin to lying. Same thing if you claim something is true without knowing if it is, especially if you've avoided easily available information that contradicts that claim.

You are, I think, confusing legal definitions for ethical ones. You're not being accused of perjury. You're being accused of misleading people.

Combined with current reports that discrepancies are showing up that could not occur under fair voting and are too one-sided to be simple clerical errors.
Like what? You mentioned two, both of which I responded to already. Assuming it isn't one of those already-addressed things, what happens when I debunk the next one? Do I get back another "I refuse to debate"? And do we immediately move on to another without any acknowledgement that the last one was false? I'll bet we do.

Even if that claim is erroneous and an extensive investigation found absolutely no evidence to support it, are the people who still believe it & repeating it anyway "lying" and "liars" or do they simply believe it despite the lack of evidence?
This is another deflection, since I could be a total hypocrite/partisan/whatever, and it would have absolutely nothing to do with whether you've been dishonest. But I'll answer anyway to prove a point: yes, if they cannot provide evidence, state it as if it's a fact, and can't even be bothered to spend a minute Googling basic facts that are at odds with the claim...then they are being dishonest. Of course.

Note that I'm now answering your irrelevant questions more than you've answered my relevant ones. What does that tell you?

Did I hear a rumor and repeat it? Maybe.
Did I know it was a rumor? I don't know.
If you didn't know, then by definition it's a rumor. That's what a rumor is. The question is why you didn't even try to find out. And now, an additional question is what you think you're accomplishing by being cagey, since it's obvious what happened and this is just coming off as stubborn and deceptive.

It's hard to tell what's a rumor and what's not anymore.
Yeah, it's particularly hard if you spend absolutely no time at all trying to find out.

I posted a newscast that reported what I had relayed about poll observers. Was that a rumor? I don't know. If it's reported by Sean Hannity is it a rumor? Is it fact? Is it sometimes one or the other? Is it sometimes where the truth lies in the middle? If Rachel Maddow reports something, is it rumor or is it fact or is it a lie?
Geez, dude. You're really working overtime to try to make this seem thoughtful or complicated, but it's neither. You heard a thing, it fit what you wanted to believe, so you believed it and repeated it without any knowledge, and without expending any effort to learn about it. I'm not sure why you think an entire paragraph of meaningless rhetorical questions is a response to that.

Should it be forbidden to mention new headlines or discuss anything until you've got complete confirmation, 10 sources of proof, peer review studies and 5000 eye-witness accounts sworn to under oath with a jury and judge's ruling on it?
This is a comically disingenuous question, based entirely on hyperbole. You say "complete confirmation" and "5000 eye-witness accounts," when what's actually happened is you failed to spend 30 seconds Googling how voter registrations work.

Honestly, this response is insulting, given how stupid someone would have to be to find it reasonable. It's like me saying "hey, you shouldn't scream at children" and you saying "OH SHOULD IT BE FORBIDDEN TO EVEN TALK?!"

(Also, don't think I don't notice how the "reports"--which seem to be randos on Twitter and reddit--was just now described as "news headlines.")

When what I did was relay things currently in the news and state my belief on what those things mean.
The problem is that "in the news" seems to mean "anything I hear, from anywhere" and that your "belief" can be anything you like hearing.



I just found your statement a bit humorous but still none of this has to do with the point.
Way to avoid the question.

you brought up the proud boys, and I'm telling you who cares because they're not white supremacists.
I'd say given the controversy surrounding their mention in the debate and the fact that they've taken up the "stand back, stand by" statement and celebrated it, a lot of people care.

You say they're not white supremacists. I say, "Okay, then what are they?" and you give me a video of a man you say is their leader stating that they are not a white supremacist group and that they condemn the KKK. That doesn't answer my question. You laugh about supposed misrepresentation of the group and whine about misinformation being spread, yet refuse to provide what you say is the truth when asked for it.

So if we can now get off the irrelevant proud boys and get back to the point.
I'm still waiting for the actual evidence that they are irrelevant. I will ask again. What do the Proud Boys stand for?

Maybe someone should question Biden's racist history now? Or is that people don't actually care about racism, they just care about people who annoy them? At least that's how it seems.
As I have stated, I am not a fan of Biden. Actually, I'm not a fan of ANY politician and I've said that before as well. I said that in 2016. I wasn't a fan of Obama and I certainly wasn't a fan of Hillary. I think all politicians are lying, two-faced pieces of crap regardless of party affiliation. The only question is who is less crappy? The highest praise I have given Biden is that I think (really, it's more like hope) he sucks less than Trump. That's not exactly a glowing endorsement. Is Biden a racist? I don't know. Maybe. But the evidence that you've provided saying that he is racist are things that he did in the 1970s and 1990s. Are you the same person you were 20 or 30+ years ago? I know I'm not. So I'm not really interested in things he said or did then. I'm interested in the things he is doing and saying now.