2020 the battle of the septuagenarians - Trump vs Biden, Part 2

biko

A top Democratic operative says voter fraud, especially with mail-in ballots, is no myth. And he knows this because he’s been doing it, on a grand scale, for decades.

“You have a postman who is a rabid anti-Trump guy and he’s working in Bedminster or some Republican stronghold … He can take those [filled-out] ballots, and knowing 95% are going to a Republican, he can just throw those in the garbage.”

https://nypost.com/2020/08/29/political-insider-explains-voter-fraud-with-mail-in-ballots/

namloc1980

biko wrote: »

A top Democratic operative says voter fraud, especially with mail-in ballots, is no myth. And he knows this because he’s been doing it, on a grand scale, for decades.

“You have a postman who is a rabid anti-Trump guy and he’s working in Bedminster or some Republican stronghold … He can take those [filled-out] ballots, and knowing 95% are going to a Republican, he can just throw those in the garbage.”

https://nypost.com/2020/08/29/political-insider-explains-voter-fraud-with-mail-in-ballots/

An anonymous source in the New York Post. That's the very definition of fake news that Trumpists continue to tell us all about isn't it?

Timberrrrrrrr

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Can you define hate speech?

I would consider this to be hate speech

“Other countries” are allowed to shoot migrants, he lamented to supporters back in May as his reelection campaign flooded the internet with ads about an “invasion” on the southern border. “Other countries stand [at the border] with machine guns, ready to fire,” he told Sean Hannity in March, noting that “it’s a very effective way of doing” things. 

LessOutragePlz

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I would consider this to be hate speech

So you can't define it?

Timberrrrrrrr

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

So you can't define it?

I'll let the dictionary do it

abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.

Timberrrrrrrr

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I'll let the dictionary do it

abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.

All dictionaries are leftist publications, everyone knows that.
Some serious bottom of the barrel posts from the trump supporters on here lately.

Timberrrrrrrr

DubInMeath wrote: »

All dictionaries are leftist publications, everyone knows that.
Some serious bottom of the barrel posts from the trump supporters on here lately.

Desperate times call for Desperate measures.

DraftDodger

America's largest police organisation endorse the president for 4 more years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84v8SwytCgE

namloc1980

DubInMeath wrote: »

All dictionaries are leftist publications, everyone knows that.
Some serious bottom of the barrel posts from the trump supporters on here lately.

New talking points have dried up so it's the exact same talking points day after day. They're even posting anonymous source stores from mainstream media outlets now so you know things are getting desperate.

Timberrrrrrrr

namloc1980 wrote: »

New talking points have dried up so it's the exact same talking points day after day. They're even posting anonymous source stores from mainstream media outlets now so you know things are getting desperate.

Its like a Trump rally but in text form.

Cody montana

DraftDodger wrote: »

America's largest police organisation endorse the president for 4 more years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84v8SwytCgE

Is that not from a few weeks ago?

duploelabs

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Its like a Trump rally but in text form.

Lock her up
Build that wall
Drain the swamp

All empty (and still unfulfilled) promises to cajole the minds of fools

LessOutragePlz

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I'll let the dictionary do it

abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation.

There's a reason you can't define it, because hate speech doesn't exist it's just another tactic used to silence people that disagree with the narrative or agenda that is being pushed.

Who defines what is and isn't hate speech?

Very slippery slope if we allow the government or anyone to regulate the words that come out of our mouths.

Just look what happend to Jordan Peterson when the woke mob attacked him and called him transphobic for daring to challenge the bill that would have resulted in misgendering a person being grounds for discrimination.

"The bill sought to expand human-rights law by adding “gender identity and gender expression” to the list of grounds upon which discrimination is prohibited"

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/05/jordan-petersons-gospel-of-masculinity

Hate speech doesn't exist because it can't be defined.

DraftDodger

Cody montana wrote: »

Is that not from a few weeks ago?

I think the 2020 logo gives it away buddy.

Nice edit BTW.

Timberrrrrrrr

duploelabs wrote: »

Lock her up
Build that wall
Drain the swamp

All empty (and still unfulfilled) promises to cajole the minds of fools

Oh and how they lap it up.

Danzy

namloc1980 wrote: »

Man this is embarrassing. Hundreds of people leaving a Trump rally while he's still talking. Obviously not being paid enough to stay for the whole thing. #enthusiasm

.

Thousands don't get in.

Cody montana

DraftDodger wrote: »

I think the 2020 logo gives it away buddy.

Nice edit BTW.

This was announced at the start of the month, why you recycling old news?
Also what edit?

Timberrrrrrrr

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Desperate times call for Desperate measures.

Personally I don't think America can be fixed regardless of who gets into power unless they address the fundamental issues that have screwed them up especially education, health care, especially mental health and workers rights. They are a lesson on what not to do around these areas that unfortunately some Irish and U.K. politicians haven't learned.

Timberrrrrrrr

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

There's a reason you can't define it, because hate speech doesn't exist it's just another tactic used to silence people that disagree with the narrative or agenda that is being pushed.

Who defines what is and isn't hate speech?

Very slippery slope if we allow the government or anyone to regulate the words that come out of our mouths.

Just look what happend to Jordan Peterson when the woke mob attacked him and called him transphobic for daring to challenge the bill that would have resulted in misgendering a person being grounds for discrimination.

"The bill sought to expand human-rights law by adding “gender identity and gender expression” to the list of grounds upon which discrimination is prohibited"

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/05/jordan-petersons-gospel-of-masculinity

Hate speech doesn't exist because it can't be defined.

Would you walk up to a black person and call them a N*$#er?

Would you walk into a synagogue and declare that Hitler had the right idea?

Those would be perfect examples of hate speech.

duploelabs

DraftDodger wrote: »

I think the 2020 logo gives it away buddy.

Nice edit BTW.

So it could be as much as 9 months ago by having a 2020 logo in it. Bigly brain

Cody montana

“Act Blue has raised 312 million dollars since it was announced that Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died.”

ActBlue is a FEC-certified Democratic fundraising site

Phenomenal!

Timberrrrrrrr

Danzy wrote: »

Thousands don't get in.

So they just mill around outside spreading covid? Very responsible of them and Trump for encouraging that sort of thing dont you think?

LessOutragePlz

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Would you walk up to a black person and call them a N*$#er?

Would you walk into a synagogue and declare that Hitler had the right idea?

Those would be perfect examples of hate speech.

I believe they are called racsism and anti-Semitism?

Where's the define of hate speech still waiting for you to define it?

Or maybe you can't because it's not possible?

LessOutragePlz

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

There's a reason you can't define it, because hate speech doesn't exist it's just another tactic used to silence people that disagree with the narrative or agenda that is being pushed.

Who defines what is and isn't hate speech?

Very slippery slope if we allow the government or anyone to regulate the words that come out of our mouths.

Just look what happend to Jordan Peterson when the woke mob attacked him and called him transphobic for daring to challenge the bill that would have resulted in misgendering a person being grounds for discrimination.

"The bill sought to expand human-rights law by adding “gender identity and gender expression” to the list of grounds upon which discrimination is prohibited"

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/05/jordan-petersons-gospel-of-masculinity

Hate speech doesn't exist because it can't be defined.

Eh it's been defined by plenty world wide, just because you don't like specific people because of their colour, sexual orientation etc or don't agree with the definition doesn't mean it hasn't been defined.
My personal definition is that someone who does want to dislike and encourage mistreatment of someone due to their race, religion, sexual orientation etc, is that their just a c*nt.

Timberrrrrrrr

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I believe they are called racsism and anti-Semitism?

Where's the define of hate speech still waiting for you to define it?

Or maybe you can't because it's not possible?

Hate speech has been defined

The term hate speech is understood as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality

Just because you don't like the definition doesnt mean it doesn't exist or is wrong.

DraftDodger

Cody montana wrote: »

This was announced at the start of the month, why you recycling old news?
Also what edit?

You put years in on your first post then edited it. Of course you know this.

namloc1980

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So they just mill around outside spreading covid? Very responsible of them and Trump for encouraging that sort of thing dont you think?

I like the way there are dozens of coaches bussing them in. Definitely not paid actors.

namloc1980

Cody montana wrote: »

“Act Blue has raised 312 million dollars since it was announced that Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died.”

ActBlue is a FEC-certified Democratic fundraising site

Phenomenal!

That can't be true. The Trumpists on here told us there was no enthusiasm on the Democrat side for this election campaign.

gizmo

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

There's a reason you can't define it, because hate speech doesn't exist it's just another tactic used to silence people that disagree with the narrative or agenda that is being pushed.

Who defines what is and isn't hate speech?

Very slippery slope if we allow the government or anyone to regulate the words that come out of our mouths.

Just look what happend to Jordan Peterson when the woke mob attacked him and called him transphobic for daring to challenge the bill that would have resulted in misgendering a person being grounds for discrimination.

"The bill sought to expand human-rights law by adding “gender identity and gender expression” to the list of grounds upon which discrimination is prohibited"

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...of-masculinity

Hate speech doesn't exist because it can't be defined.

A minor note on this, important if only to highlight the legal side of the terminology and its effects when legislated.

The Bill Peterson opposed was known as C16 or, by it's full name, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code. As per the New Yorker article you linked, Peterson "argued that such a law could be a serious infringement of free speech" however his concerns were dismissed by not only law professors at his own University but also the Canadian Bar Association who not only supported the passage of the bill but also detailed, in an open letter, why it did not pose any risk to freedom of expression.

On the off-chance you didn't click on the wiki link for the Bill above, the reason I highlighted the words "would have" in your quoted reply is because the law has been on the books now for over three years and to date there have been no prosecutions of any kind under the act. The incident at Wilfrid Laurier University, also referenced in the article, is, however, a somewhat amusing reference under the circumstances as it came about due to a different group of academics who also misinterpreted the Bill for a number of similar reasons.

duploelabs

duploelabs wrote: »

Lock her up
Build that wall
Drain the swamp

All empty (and still unfulfilled) promises to cajole the minds of fools

A bit like "abolish the police"?