Divider in chief calls for gun bans and registration

Better hope they come for me before I come for you.

>Divider in chief
You know what divides a country? Staging a violent coup to overthrow democracy like Turmp and the Republicans did.

Post the goddamned article you interloping moron.

But not Antifa in CHAZ. They get a pass, right?

>Whataboutism
Right on cue.

We are a constitutional republic that has laws put in place to protect the human rights of the minority. We are not a democracy. The whole "democracy shows we want gun laws" is because city cucks are low information voters who do whatever the 1% tells them to do.
Cool, you will be the first one in the stack?
Denying people their basic human rights so you can put them in death camps is what causes protests.
you post it, faggot.

Your own source lists 6 different polls with the 3 lowest being 48%, 49% and 52% and the 3 highest being 56%, 60% and 61%. In the lowest support for the ban it's virtually even, in the highest it's a clear majority. And after further analysis your own source concludes:

>The use of more direct wording points to the conclusion evident from the preponderance of other research conducted in 2018 and 2019 -- that a majority of Americans support a ban on assault weapons at this time.

>Cool, will you be first in the stack?
Sorry Rambo, there won't be a stack. You'll just suddenly be a greasy spot that your mum will have to clean up ;^)

Fuck off Nigel, this thread is for humans, not Europeans.

>Terrorist believes the right to murder is a basic human right.

it's called applying your logic to a different context to hopefully show you how retarded you are through an example your tiny ape brain might be able to handle

Not a coup.

No, it was just more deadly, caused more harm, was seditious, secessionist, arguably treasonous, and overall had very negative results.
But yeah, it wasn't a coup

Are you really arguing that the CHAZ bullshit is worse than the president using his supporters to attack the capitol and go after elected representatives in a bid to remain in power illegally? Are you able to keep a straight face while doing so?

Screaming "whataboutism!" isnt a get out of jail card, faggot.

Well, it did last far longer, result in many more deaths, and result in far more collateral damage as far as burned structured and looted businesses go
But it wasnt ordered by Trump and it didn't involve people attacking the House of Porky so, no, it wasn't nearly as bad as Jan 6.
Viking man selfie scary
Porky my friend

No, its called whataboutism. It isn't even relevant to this thread because not a single person has come out in support of CHAZ. You are attempting to claim hypocrisy for an argument that nobody in this thread has made. The argument in this thread, at least from me, is that CHAZ wasn't good but the attempted coup was much worse. These two positions don't contradict each other in the slightest.

>Are you arguing that seizing a police station, attempting to seize a federal courthouse, declaring that you are separate from the united states, forming your own militia that does not answer to the laws of the land and shooting half a dozen people
>is worse than breaking into the capital building
Yes.

>CHAZ = Summer of love!
>Capital Building Riot = OMG HEKKIN COUPERINO!
Pointing out the selective outrage isnt whataboutism, its a demonstration of the selective outrage on the left.

Objectively, CHAZ caused more damage than Jan 6.
Ethically jan 6 is complicated
The end they were fighting for was bad
The means they were using were ineffective
But the reason of doing was acceptable, ie protesting "a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information"

I wish I could say it was surprising to see people arguing that the CHAZ incident was worse than the attempted overthrow of the government by a sitting president via mob attack on the national legislature because he wanted to stay president. I don't really know what to say to that and to be honest I'm having trouble believing that you guys genuinely believe what you're writing because of how ridiculous it is on its face.

What's your opinion on secession?

>Pointing out the selective outrage isnt whataboutism
It is when you're pointing out the hypocrisy of an argument that the person you're talking to has not made. Its the definition of whataboutism to pivot to the wrongdoing of some completely different group when we're specifically talking about one. "Well other groups aren't treated like this when they do bad stuff" is not a defense of the group we're talking about. Its obfuscation.

>its a demonstration of the selective outrage on the left
You're not debating "the left". You're debating the handful of people in this thread engaging with you. Instead of pivoting to generalized arguments how about you stick to the things that we've actually said.

>Objectively, CHAZ caused more damage than Jan 6.
It depends on what you define as "damage". I don't value the property of a few city blocks more than the institutions of democracy we use to keep our country functioning. Also, the January 6th insurrection cost almost half a billion dollars so I don't think this is the hill you want to die on.

>But the reason of doing was acceptable, ie protesting "a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information"
What a crock of shit. Protesting against made up conspiracy theories you've dreamed up to justify your own conservative victim complex is not acceptable, no. If what you're saying is true then the same could easily be said of Fox News, Newsmaxx, OAN and all of the other conservative propaganda outlets these people are aligned with. They don't give a shit about media coverage or the flow of information. They give a shit about power.

>its a demonstration of the selective outrage on the left.
The left? Peaceful transfers of power are a partisan lefty thing now that nobody else cares about?

>You're not debating "the left". You're debating the handful of people in this thread engaging with you. Instead of pivoting to generalized arguments how about you stick to the things that we've actually said.

It's pretty telling that they have to do that. Deep down they know how fucked up January 6th was and they have a deep need to try to draw equivalencies or to say the other guys are worse as a distraction.

After the last 4 years, good. Retardicans can't be trusted with a shooty shooty bang bang. You can't even trust them to accept reality or uphold the law.

Pretty much. Conservative ideology is incoherent. There is no logical through-line to anything they think or believe because in the end they won't abandon conservatism when logic doesn't agree with them - they will abandon logic. Every thing they argue for is just a post-hoc justification for an emotional bias they had before they even began speaking with you. They can't defend their own ideas with any kind of logical consistency so all they can do is try to vaguely gesture at the hypocrisy of everyone else's. That's why appealing to a sense of anger or outrage is the only argument they can ever really produce. We talk about the actions of the insurrectionists on January 6th and the first thing this user can think to retort with is "OH, SO THAT MEAN ITS OKAY IF ANTIFA RAPES EVERYONE'S GRANDMOTHER AND SETS MY CHILDREN ON FIRE?". Its honestly pathetic. Debating conservatives should be considered child abuse.

>Debating conservatives should be considered child abuse.

They're not conservatives, they're like some kind of unhinged fan club. No platform, no ideas that can't be immediately changed upon one mans word. Conservatives are out there but these ain't them lol

Why does anyone need a gun for? We have this thing called 'police' if you're in trouble.

>trusting the police

> "Well other groups aren't treated like this when they do bad stuff" is not a defense of the group we're talking about. Its obfuscation.
Establishing a percent for societies response to a pattern of behavior is not obfuscation. All summer we heard "mostly peaceful", that now applies to the events of Dec 6 - it was mostly peaceful thus criticism is unwarranted.

>still kvetching about the one insurrection and silent on the other
Point proven i guess.

>argue about a set of facts
>ha! your arguing about a set of facts! you dont have an ideology!
okay, retard.

>Conservatives are what i say they are

Nigel? I live in sweet home Alabama, sweaty.

So how do you feel about half a dozen murders, rapes, business being looted, burned, and lawlessness?
Or are you ok with it as long as it's not the responsible politicians being affected?
Or are you simply ok with whatever tv and your Twitter account tells you to be ok with?

>It depends on what you define as "damage
I define it objectively, not subjectively.
damage done to democracy is a subjective concept as some may believe it's different than others
Where is physical damage, ie the number of deaths and the dollar amount of loss is an objective value

>Establishing a percent for societies response to a pattern of behavior is not obfuscation.
You're arguing against a point that nobody in this thread has made. You've strawmanned us to make it easier to do your vague gesture at hypocrisy without actually engaging with the things we've said. Nobody gives a shit what boogeyman version of the "left" you've dreamed up has said. Engage with what WE have said, user, not some random lefties on twitter. Its very telling that you have to bring in other arguments that other people have made to engage with me personally. I never gave CHAZ a "pass" so I have no fucking idea why you're citing the general attitudes of "society" in a conversation with me, one singular person.

>All summer we heard "mostly peaceful"
93% was peaceful. Statistically. I can link you to the data. Also, its possible to say that 93% of the BLM protests were peaceful and also criticize the 7% that wasn't. Now you're not even gesturing at things that are contradictory. Now you've just completely abandoned the concept of logical consistency altogether.

>that now applies to the events of Dec 6 - it was mostly peaceful thus criticism is unwarranted
There was one demonstration on January 6th at the capitol. This one demonstration was not peaceful, therefore, 100% of demonstrations to protest the results of the election at the capitol on January 6th were violent.

>I define it objectively, not subjectively.
No, you're defining it in terms of physical property damage. Things can be damaged in more ways than just physically. Stop pretending like you know what objective and subjective means. You're embarrassing yourself. Also, the price of physical property is subjective, dipshit.

>Where is physical damage, ie the number of deaths and the dollar amount of loss is an objective value
I'd love to attend whatever dipshit ethics class you went to that told you the death of a human being has an objective value. Wow you are fucking pants on head retarded.

>You're arguing against a point that nobody in this thread has made.
The point was made all summer. When the country was enduring some of the worst riots in its history and there was open insurrection in Oregon there was crickets from the left. And you want us to take your arguments seriously now?

Get fucked.

>93% was peaceful. Statistically.
Same deal on Dec 6 :)

>93%
Doesn’t that mean there were hundreds of violent ones?

>The point was made all summer.
Yes, by some generalized boogeyman you call "the left". You have yet to engage with a single argument I've made. Every time I say something you vaguely pivot to "well what about the left". How the fuck am I supposed to take responsibility for what some other unnamed, mystery people on "the left" who you refuse to name have said? Do you understand how completely moronic you sound right now?

>When the country was enduring some of the worst riots in its history and there was open insurrection in Oregon there was crickets from the left.
You're not arguing with "the left". You're arguing with me. I've never made any of the claims you're accusing "the left" of making. You're actually allergic to engaging with anything I've said.

>Same deal on Dec 6
January 6th. And no, not the same deal. It doesn't surprise me you don't know basic math either.

>Doesn’t that mean there were hundreds of violent ones?
Yes. I think the number were something like 200 out of somewhere near 7700 demonstrations.

>That's why appealing to a sense of anger or outrage is the only argument they can ever really produce.
Your entire post doesn't really apply to conservatives, it applies to the cult party of Trump which yes many traditional conservatives, but not all, have joined. And it summarizes exactly what their 2020 campaigns were like - no policy proposals, no plans to deal with the domestic, economic and international toxic waste dump that 4 years of mismanagement had turned the US into, just wildly absurd assertions about the Dems and their plan to turn the US into Venezuela, outlaw Christianity and guns, allow China to takeover the US, flood the country with hordes of brown people whose only goals in life are to murder and rape whites, and perhaps the most bizarre of all, Dems would destroy Obamacare, Medicare and Social Security. That was their campaign from Representative on up to the President.

>Every time I say something you vaguely pivot to "well what about the left"
Thats precisely the point. All summer a certain pattern of behavior was established as being acceptable, why now should we hold ourselves to a separate standard?

>And no, not the same deal. It doesn't surprise me you don't know basic math either.
There were upwards of 30 000 people at the rally. So far the FBI has arrested ~200. The math works out: Mostly peaceful.

>what their 2020 campaigns were like - no policy proposals, no plans
Your inability to follow the campaign is not a reflection of a lack of a policy platform, its a reflection of you and your bubble.

>4 years of mismanagement had turned the US into
It was fine for the first 3

>why now should we hold ourselves to a separate standard?
This is not to say I endorse what happened on Jan 6

Alabamans don’t refer to their mothers as mum

>All summer a certain pattern of behavior was established as being acceptable
You've said this about a dozen times and not only have you not named a specific person who has done this but you've also used their positions to accuse me, personally, of hypocrisy. Please don't make me repeat this point again because at that point I'm just going to assume you're illiterate.

>why now should we hold ourselves to a separate standard?
I'm going to come off this point because you're actually incapable of engaging with me. All you can do is vaguely gesture at the hypocrisy of "the left" but you don't have any specific claims against any specific people. You speak so vaguely because you have no argument against me in particular so you need to import arguments that other, unnamed people have made in order to dismiss my points. Its pathetic, dishonest, and moronic.

>There were upwards of 30 000 people at the rally. So far the FBI has arrested ~200. The math works out: Mostly peaceful.
That isn't how the data is collected. You're absolutely bending over backwards to justify your incoherent argument.

Have you learned nothing from the protests these past few years? ACAB

>No, you're defining it in terms of physical property damage. Things can be damaged in more ways than just physically.
Listen, Fáygo Le Maximus de Bútthürt stop being retarded and trying to ignore I stated "objectively" not "subjectively"
I know you have a liberal arts degree and this is a tough thing for you
Immaterial things valued based upon personal conceptions are not objective measurements

Number of deaths is an objective measurement, dollar value of human life is not, Duke of Dipshìt

>>Doesn’t that mean there were hundreds of violent ones?
>Yes. I think the number were something like 200 out of somewhere near 7700 demonstrations.
You know there is some bullshit cherry-picking going on. Police clashed with protesters so much in Portland (100+ nights straight) that the epa was making the city test the river to see how much capsaicin and tear gas residue was present. So I’m guessing that Portland and Seattle counted as a 2 instead of the 150 or so. 93% is a bulls hit number, there was much more.

>Nigel? I live in sweet home Alabama, sweaty.
Oi mat, good on ya gubnah getting that bees and honey are ya? It's all box o toys up in here mate, wot with ye mum's all meshugenah and such

>BUT WHO
The Democratic party, WaPo, NYT, Network Television. You had a guy standing infront of a burning building saying the protest was "mostly peaceful" you had news anchors gnashing their teeth that Trump was a fascist for dispersing a crowd outside the White House that had recently burnt down a church and forced the WH into lockdown. You had breathless reporting about how fascism is afoot because some US Marshels spent a couple months trying to stop a mob from burning a federal courthouse.

Holy shit nigger, were you in a coma over the summer?

>That isn't how the data is collected.
Only a tiny fraction of those present on the day in question performed acts of violence, thus was mostly peaceful. This is permissible; the new normal.

>I stated "objectively" not "subjectively"
The value of property is not objective. The fact that the dollar amount can be written down and the value of a democracy cannot doesn't mean there isn't an argument that one isn't more valuable than the other. You can disagree with the argument if you want. That doesn't mean there isn't one.

>I know you have a liberal arts degree and this is a tough thing for you
You guys need to come up with more than one joke.

>Immaterial things valued based upon personal conceptions are not objective measurements
Irrelevant. The value of a human life isn't objective measurement yet its illegal to kill people. Something's value not being able to be written into quantifiable metrics is utterly irrelevant to the argument.

>Number of deaths is an objective measurement, dollar value of human life is not, Duke of Dipshìt
Don't word your bad arguments like a retard and you won't be treated like a retard with bad arguments

>The value of property is not objective.
This fucking guy.

The data was collected by The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED). They analyzed more than 7,750 Black Lives Matter demonstrations in all 50 states and Washington D.C. between May 26 and August 22. If you have an issue with their data collection then go their website, review their methodology and then explain to me how it was incorrect. Until then your random guesses about how the data might be wrong is irrelevant. I care about the data, user, not your feelings.

>The value of property is not objective.
Well, then there is no objectivity to be had if you refuse to admit that property has a market value

I've talked about this before.
I wholeheartedly agree that the vast number of BLM demonstrations were peaceful.
when I was in Oregon last I was in a small town of about 5000 people and saw about seven or eight white people on the corner protesting for BLM.
And yeah man it was 1,000% peaceful

one of the things I've wondered is what the percentage of peaceful protests were when they were greater than maybe 100 people participating

>The value of property is not objective.
>This fucking guy.
Like that blm chick said after the looting in chicongo “it alright that they looted those stores, they now had food to eat, and besides that those stores were insured. It be reparations “

>Hey mom, look at me, I redefine my opponent's arguments for them and refuse to accept normal interpretations of words and concepts to the extent that once I have laid out my rebuttal it becomes impossible for my opponent to argue under the context of the arbitrary rules and definitions I've laid out before them
>Damn I'm cool.jpg

Its a childish game they play. They conflate thousands of small and peaceful protests in Small Town USA with the mobs that torched LA, Portland, Seattle, the Twin Cities, Chicago, New York, Dallas, Houston and a dozen other major cities.

The riots were the most expensive IN THE HISTORY OF THE NATION
axios.com/riots-cost-property-damage-276c9bcc-a455-4067-b06a-66f9db4cea9c.html

>The value of property is not objective.
It isn't. See my response below because its obvious that none of you fucking knuckle-draggers know what the word "objective" means.

>Like that blm chick said after the looting in chicongo “it alright that they looted those stores, they now had food to eat, and besides that those stores were insured. It be reparations I don't care what some black girl in Chicago said. That isn't my argument and has nothing to do with me.

A market value and an objective value are not the same thing. Even a "market value" is an arbitrary value we put onto things like currency. "Objective" is not the word you want to use when determining the value of physical objects. "Objective" is an ethical/moral term, "market" is an economic one. "Objective" doesn't mean "quantifiable". You're using those terms interchangeably and its incorrect. Its not my fault you build your arguments like a child who doesn't know the definition of the words they use.

>one of the things I've wondered is what the percentage of peaceful protests were when they were greater than maybe 100 people participating
I don't know. Read the methodology of the study and tell me.

>I know the definitions of words
FTFY

>They conflate thousands of small and peaceful protests in Small Town USA with the mobs that torched LA, Portland, Seattle, the Twin Cities, Chicago, New York, Dallas, Houston and a dozen other major cities.
Analyze the methodology of the study and prove it. Right now you're just vaguely hypothesizing with zero factual basis.

>The riots were the most expensive IN THE HISTORY OF THE NATION
Don't give a shit about your link. "The riots were mostly peaceful" and "The riots caused the most damage out of all riots in the U.S." are two completely separate arguments. Try to stick to the topic at hand without pivoting, user.

>mobs that torched LA, Portland, Seattle, the Twin Cities, Chicago, New York, Dallas, Houston and a dozen other major cities.
Wow I didn't know all of those cities burned down. What a tragedy.

>Dear Leader is solely responsible when things continue on the same trend Obama had going, but when the US turns into a toxic waste dump it's not Dear Leader's fault, it's everybody else's including Obama's!
The literal definition of a cult member.

My father's sister-wife would beg to differ.

>X divided the country!
>So did Y.
>W-Whataboutism! Y-You can't do that b-baka!

>X is bad and here are the reasons why I think X is bad.
>WELL WHAT ABOUT Y? Y IS BAD TOO RIGHT?
>Whataboutism

FTFY

>Are you really arguing that the CHAZ bullshit is worse than
Yes. All the more so because it had the encouragement of government and media.

The cost of a burned police car is objective if done by an impartial party. The cost to replace a buildings windows after they have bricks thrown through them, is objective. It is exactly the cost it takes to put new windows in.

If you know anything about statistics, you can get it to say pretty much anything you want to.

Ok Chang, stop trying to corrupt the democratic west. Stay in your commie shitholes

>not a single person has come out in support of CHAZ.
Seriously?
>usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/12/seattle-protest-chaz-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone-police-free/3173968001/
>nationalfile.com/mayor-says-chaz-has-always-been-autonomous-gives-support-to-new-nation-based-in-downtown-seattle/
>washingtonexaminer.com/news/we-could-have-the-summer-of-love-seattle-mayor-says-she-doesnt-know-when-chaz-occupation-will-conclude

>The cost of a burned police car is objective if done by an impartial party.
Wrong again. The cost of a burned police car is quantifiable in the context of how much was paid for the car and an estimate of what it would be worth in today's market. There is no such thing as an "impartial party" in the context of economics. The word "objective" doesn't apply here. The word "quantifiable" is what you're looking for. A dollar amount is not objective. Its a quantifiable metric. The value of a dollar is arbitrarily determined by an arbitrary system of supply and demand we've instituted for the purpose of economic convenience. Nothing about this system is objective. One person may estimate the car is worth $5000 depending on how available the parts and materials are or how in demand the vehicle is and another person may estimate the car at $3500 because their economic conditions are significantly different. A person who needs a medication may assess that a bottle of pills is infinitely valuable and would pay any amount of money to have it. A person who doesn't need the medication may think the bottle is worthless and wouldn't pay any amount of money. The fact that the same item can be worth many different prices to many different people and markets for many different reasons completely shatters this idea of yours that items have "objective" worth. They don't. You're dumb. You don't understand the definitions of the words you're using.

Not him but do you honestly think the Mayor of Seattle is representative of all democrats everywhere?

>>not a single person has come out in support of CHAZ.
Read better. What I said is that not a single person in this thread has come out in support of it. You're not debating the people who wrote these opinion pieces - you're debating us. Stop asking random strangers to take moral and ethical responsibility for the arguments that other random strangers have made. I'm not shouldering the burden of an argument that I haven't made. I don't hold that opinion so its not my responsibility to defend it. Expecting me to do so is called strawmanning.

>X is bad and divided the country because they want to violently overthrow democracy!
>Y actually, literally divided the country, violently and without any elections or votes from the people who lived there.
>I'm going to keep screaming whataboutism until you agree with me! REEEEEEEEE!

>If you know anything about statistics, you can get it to say pretty much anything you want to.
This statement is a sure sign that someone knows nothing about statistics. For some reason, it's usually asserted by those on the anti-science right when they don't like the data or what the analysis shows.

>It isn't even relevant to this thread because not a single person has come out in support of CHAZ.
>What I said is that not a single person in this thread has come out in support of it.
>Read better.
lol okay

>If you know anything about statistics, you can get it to say pretty much anything you want to.
False. In order to have a study recognized by any sort of scientific body you need to clearly state your methodology for data collection. Methodologies are then analyzed and determined to be either logically consistent with the data collected and the conclusion presented or not. Please, don't pretend like you know anything about statistics. You don't get to "say anything you want". Much like any mathematical discipline you have to thoroughly show your work, clearly define your parameters and then present your findings to a scientific body of your peers. If you have any evidence that the data collection methods performed by this study were dishonest I'd love to see it. If you don't have evidence you're just vaguely gesturing at the data being incorrect with zero factual basis. You're just making baseless assumptions because you don't like the conclusion.

>lol okay
Read the next sentence in my post that you quoted out of context you weasely fucking illiterate CHUD.

>You are attempting to claim hypocrisy for an argument that nobody in this thread has made

Yeah.

>you weasely fucking illiterate CHUD.
Wow, racist much?

>X is bad
>LETS FOCUS ON Y. Y IS BAD TOO. PLEASE. EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION TO Y. I DISAGREE STRONGLY WITH Y SO LETS ALL TALK ABOUT Y. I DONT WANT TO TALK ABOUT X LALALALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU.

I'm assuming that even you know at this point you're just trolling in lieu of any logical argument.

Cry harder. I don't give a shit about your pearl clutching, user.

>X is dividing the country.
>We're not allowed to talk about how Y is also dividing the country because I don't want to look like a hypocrite.

Someone's mad. Have a snickers. It's Valentine's Day.

Says the old woman who just publicly passed out onto her fainting couch because I called her a CHUD. Don't project your ass-blastedness onto me, child.

I don't understand whats so wrong about just admitting you don't give a shit about logical consistency and you hold people you politically disagree with to a different standard than you hold yourself.

You're the one who made this about X and Y. You could have kept it at gun bans and registration, but no. You had to get your two cents in on how Republicans want to violently destroy democracy. So now we're having a conversation on who is violently destroying democracy.

>logical consistency
>enter a thread about gun registration
>make a bullshit claim that republicans want to violently overthrow democracy
>gets ass-blasted when someone points how how democrats are the ones violently overthrowing democracy

>You had to get your two cents in on how Republicans want to violently destroy democracy.
Not all Republicans. The insurrectionists.

>So now we're having a conversation on who is violently destroying democracy.
Yes, the insurrectionists. The majority of the country supports the base ideals of the BLM movement while the majority of the country condemns the insurrectionist MAGA cultists. I don't know what "dividing the country" is supposed to mean. I don't see the issue with dividing the country from violent far-right cultists. That seems like a good thing to me.

>Not all Republicans. The insurrectionists.
>You know what divides a country? Staging a violent coup to overthrow democracy like Turmp and the Republicans did.
Oh okay.

>Yes, the insurrectionists.
Is that what we're calling BLM, Antifa, rioters, and whoever was behind CHAZ?

>I don't know what "dividing the country" is supposed to mean.
wew
>You know what divides a country? Staging a violent coup to overthrow democracy like Turmp and the Republicans did.
This is kinda funny.

>> of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

A bunch of right-wing dipshits try to conflate a violent mob of anti-democratic terrorists who planted pipe bombs in our nation's capitol and tried to overturn a democratic election with a bunch of cringey lefties protesting police brutality. Sorry, I just don't buy your newsmaxx bullshit. In a conversation about who is a bigger threat to democracy the people of CHAZ don't even compare. They weren't a threat to our institutions. People trying to murder politicians to keep their cult leader in power are.

>Is that what we're calling BLM, Antifa, rioters, and whoever was behind CHAZ?
Nope. They didn't try to overthrow a democratic election.

>wew
I didn't know we were to the "I'm going to pretend to be retarded so I don't have to address your point" portion of the debate.

>This is kinda funny.
Dividing a country from the institutions we use to check state power is bad. Diving a country from domestic terrorists that will kill, bomb or destroy whatever they need to in order to keep their cult leader in power is bad. I don't know how I can explain it any simpler.

>In a conversation about who is a bigger threat to democracy the people of CHAZ don't even compare.
Remind me again which side did the most damage? Caused the most deaths? Most property destruction? Most assaults?

>Nope. They didn't try to overthrow a democratic election.
No they just seceded from the US. Violently.

>I didn't know we were to the "I'm going to pretend to be retarded so I don't have to address your point" portion of the debate.
Says the retard who says
>Staging a violent coup to overthrow democracy like Turmp and the Republicans did.
Then says
>Not all Republicans. The insurrectionists.
Then says
>I don't know what "dividing the country" is supposed to mean.
Hence the wew.

>Diving a country from domestic terrorists that will kill, bomb or destroy
Sounds a lot like Antifa, BLM and every left-wing rioter last year. But according to you they don't count.
>It's only a peaceful protest when WE do it!

the left wants to destroy America. This is further proof of what is already blatantly obvious to anyone who isn't blind. Fuck Biden. Take it from my cold dead hands you glowing faggot bootlickers.

LARP

Both side say the same thing about each other every goddamn election

Whataboutism.

Except it was the right wing that staged a violent coup to install a dicatatorship and murder said dictator's political enemies.

>pay no attention to our much more violent coup

I've never heard something so un-American
>f-fuck the police! ACAB!
>but only the police can be trusted with guns

How about you retards stop breeding school shooters or chose to not pass on your disgusting genetic lineage

>the vast majority of Americans support
Source?

>pay no attention to the hundreds of ruined neighborhoods and businesses that happened because of BLM

You guys always act as if you even like America. If the left wants to stop being hypocritical, then maybe they should overthrow the "orange dictator" with the boomers.

>thread about something Biden said
>But Drumpf!
>The Capitol!
>Your mum

Just admit when you don't have an argument. If dems would drop gun control they would get more voters and would have less trouble trying to get shit done. Nothing in Biden's letter would stop gun violence.

Nah, the left decided to follow the rules and vote him out. The fascist right got furious and decided to stage a coup and destroy democracy.

>The majority of the country hates white people and wants to murder police
Wrong

>Nah, the left decided to rig an election and vote him out.
FTFY

>the left decided to follow the rules
Vandalism, arson, assault, brandishing firearms, shootings, murder, and actual sedition are not following the rules.

>Nah, the left decided to follow the rules and vote him out. The fascist right got furious and decided to stage a coup and destroy democracy.
This.
The left get Trump out legitimately and they were backed by a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.

Conservatives aren't what I say they are, they're defined by a set of beliefs and whatnot.

Adherents to Donald Trump necessarily cast off their adherence to any beliefs because they can change at a moments notice, on whatever the big man says.

Conservatives and Trump fanatics are not the same thing.

gotquestions.org/how-can-I-be-saved.html

Correct OP's. This is what the Faggot Commies want for our society on the futre. For us to be weak to a point where they can pass whatever fooking laws they want, and we'll eat that up faster than a nigger on fried chicken. Anyone who doesn't will either be silenced, killed, or maybe even worse. Our freedoms will be slowly but surely eroded until it's a shell of a ghost of what it once was. Godspeed u beautiful fags.

Nice one
It sounded like you were going one way and then you veered the other

>backed by a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.
Just like the right, sadly.

All politicians are slaves to economics, as is the nation.

>change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information.
You mean change rules and laws by governor’s executive order, thus violating that state’s constitution? Thus being invalid? Big tech and msm not allowing/deplatforming, or simply burying anything that doesn’t fit their political agenda? How they all decided to back off if Hunter all together? Journalists used to have some integrity, they used to at least tell the story. Now, if they don’t report it, it didn’t happen.

It's no coincidence that the Democrats and other leftists hate corporate personhood rights even more than they hated negro personhood rights 200 years ago. They could never force a free, self-owned media corporation to sell lies and oppress dissidents for them. They want to keep the media under their boot forever. It's the American way: Slavery, oppression, deprivation of the most basic civil rights.