For those who assume supporting a Trump presidency over a Biden one means being a MAGA Trumper....

[Fuzzy1975]

They have actually done the job of convincing many away from your side,

Really? Do you have a citation, or proof of this? You post them, people like me don't even view them. So I fail to see how your posting them sway anyone. BTW I am not on anyone's side. I make up my own mind, I don't need someone to do it for me.

I have made my own opinion up on you, by the preponderance of what you have posted...no video is going to change that. You changing what you post is the only way I will ever change my opinion on you.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

I watched the whole video waiting for the moment when Nancy Pelosi would be “destroyed”.

All I saw was a Brit in a tux ranting to the House of Commons.

 

[JaySecrets]

I watched the whole video waiting for the moment when Nancy Pelosi would be “destroyed”.

All I saw was a Brit in a tux ranting to the House of Commons.

If you didn't see her hypocrisy exposed and her stance and arguments against Trump destroyed you are as actively blind as she is. The Brit, as you put it, made the powerful and cohegent argument. She just whined, virtue signaled, and proved what a hypocrite she is.

 

[Bn2f]

Last year, I was in Denver's airport and had just left one of the concourse Starbucks and happened to stroll by Patrick Mahomes and the rest of the Kansas City Chiefs. I cocked my arm back and threw my double mocha latte through the air in a perfect spiral and it landed directly in the trash. I crushed his ass and was named right there on the spot the Super Bowl MVP.

 

[YDB95]

They have actually done the job of convincing many away from your side, just as some of the better at making the argument for your side have won some over from mine.

You've already been asked for a cite on this. I'd like one too, because I have a very hard time believing anyone who's given these issues any serious thought has ever been swayed by such propaganda.

These kinds of videos are particularly effective because they are making very good cases, and solidly well reasoned cases.

You always say that, but I have yet to see the first one that lives up to the hype. What I do see are arguments (if you could even call them that) that are unimpeachably convincing to people like yourself who desperately want to be able to point to something supporting your beliefs.

It's why your side hates them so much and rails against the more outspoken black conservatives in the culture with the most vile racist of language.

No, that's not why we hate them. We hate them because they're full of lies and half-truths.

It's precisely BECAUSE they are winning people over... A LOT of people.

We'll see if that's true in November. But the likes of you have been predicting for decades that Blacks are going to flip to the Republicans any day now, and it hasn't happened yet.

And if you bothered to watch the videos, as I have on the liberal argument side (they usually come off as poorly reasoned and snarky, but I give them a shot), you would understand why.

I'll remind you that I not only watched your video about the Southern strategy, I provided over a dozen detailed rebuttals to it. And your response was to call me a communist.

 

[ll74]

They have actually done the job of convincing many away from your side, just as some of the better at making the argument for your side have won some over from mine. These kinds of videos are particularly effective because they are making very good cases, and solidly well reasoned cases. It's why your side hates them so much and rails against the more outspoken black conservatives in the culture with the most vile racist of language. It's precisely BECAUSE they are winning people over... A LOT of people. And if you bothered to watch the videos, as I have on the liberal argument side (they usually come off as poorly reasoned and snarky, but I give them a shot), you would understand why.

They are good for useful idiots.

Correct.

 

[JaySecrets]

You've already been asked for a cite on this. I'd like one too, because I have a very hard time believing anyone who's given these issues any serious thought has ever been swayed by such propaganda.

Candice Williams herself is a great example, as are the many former liberals of all creeds and colors who rejected liberalism for conservatism precisely because conservatives are the only ones making honest, full, well reasoned answers.
But since you want a longer list...

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLtc1M8G/

I mean, I could go on, but you don't want to hear these kinds of voices, so you pretend they don't exist at all.

You always say that, but I have yet to see the first one that lives up to the hype. What I do see are arguments (if you could even call them that) that are unimpeachably convincing to people like yourself who desperately want to be able to point to something supporting your beliefs.

Nope, you just choose not to see anything beyond your Marxist blinders.

No, that's not why we hate them. We hate them because they're full of lies and half-truths.

You hate the because you are racist and cannot stand for a black person, or any minority your side has been enslaving in different ways (LBJ was an open racist who stated his goal with the welfare acts was to "have those n******s voting Democrat for the next 200 years) , think for themselves and see you for what your side is. Which is what minority conservatives are openly telling you in their posts, but you write them off with the most racist words imaginable.

We'll see if that's true in November. But the likes of you have been predicting for decades that Blacks are going to flip to the Republicans any day now, and it hasn't happened yet.

More blacks voted for Trump in BOTH elections than for any other Republican in history. I think you are losing that argument already.

I'll remind you that I not only watched your video about the Southern strategy, I provided over a dozen detailed rebuttals to it. And your response was to call me a communist.

Your rebuttals were nothing but extended liberal tropes, lies, and bumper stickers.

 

[JaySecrets]

They are good for useful idiots.

Correct.

Ironically, the ones who used the term "useful idiots" (a very good historical term, by the way, thanks for that) were the the Communists and the Nazis. Your side is fully tied to Communism (don't like it, talk to AOC, Bernie, and a whole host of your mainstreamed Marxists), and your side has the youth in mobs tearing down statues, burning and looting businesses, blocking roads, putting courthouses under siege for more than a month, and generally doing violence to others they don't agree with and snitching them out to liberal authorities... like the Nazi brown shirts.

 

[ll74]

Ironically, the ones who used the term "useful idiots" (a very good historical term, by the way, thanks for that) were the the Communists and the Nazis. Your side is fully tied to Communism (don't like it, talk to AOC, Bernie, and a whole host of your mainstreamed Marxists), and your side has the youth in mobs tearing down statues, burning and looting businesses, blocking roads, putting courthouses under siege for more than a month, and generally doing violence to others they don't agree with and snitching them out to liberal authorities... like the Nazi brown shirts.

Ironically, you don't seem to know anything about the term "useful idiots" and instead make up shit about it.

Like a useful idiot would do

 

[JaySecrets]

The term was often used during the Cold War to describe non-communists regarded as susceptible to communist propaganda and psychological manipulation. A number of authors attribute this phrase to Vladimir Lenin, but this attribution is not supported by any evidence. Similar terms exist in other languages.

Sounds kinda like what I just said

 

[JaySecrets]

Ironically, you don't seem to know anything about the term "useful idiots" and instead make up shit about it.

Like a useful idiot would do

"Useful idiot" is a specific historical term used by KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov to describe the Soviets' naive, idealistic western communists and fellow travellers who thought they "had seen the future and it works". Its use is not pejorative, but impersonally historical and contextual. The shoe fits Dunn, which is why it fits him as well as it did his political ancestors--Lincoln Steffens, the Holodomor-hiding NY Times reporter Walter Duranty, the socialist activist Webbs, GB Shaw, the "don't fight the imperialist war!" 1939-41 CPUSA:

"“[T]he useful idiots, the leftists who are idealistically believing in the beauty of the Soviet socialist or Communist or whatever system, when they get disillusioned, they become the worst enemies. That’s why my KGB instructors specifically made the point: never bother with leftists. Forget about these political prostitutes. Aim higher. [...] They serve a purpose only at the stage of destabilization of a nation. For example, your leftists in the United States: all these professors and all these beautiful civil rights defenders. They are instrumental in the process of the subversion only to destabilize a nation. When their job is completed, they are not needed any more. They know too much. Some of them, when they get disillusioned, when they see that Marxist-Leninists come to power—obviously they get offended—they think that they will come to power. That will never happen, of course. They will be lined up against the wall and shot.”

 

[stxjimmy]

I watched the whole video waiting for the moment when Nancy Pelosi would be “destroyed”.

All I saw was a Brit in a tux ranting to the House of Commons.

That’s a university debating society not the House of Commons. Yes Nancy Pelosi wasn’t in sight!

 

[JaySecrets]

Ironically, you don't seem to know anything about the term "useful idiots" and instead make up shit about it.

Like a useful idiot would do

https://www.faithandfreedom.com/vision-a-values-useful-idiots-then-and-now/

Another great commentary on the term.

 

[JaySecrets]

That’s a university debating society not the House of Commons. Yes Nancy Pelosi wasn’t in sight!

She shows up on the video twice, both times unable to let the other side make his point, and instead interrupting and making his point for him anyway.

 

[JaySecrets]

Ironically, you don't seem to know anything about the term "useful idiots" and instead make up shit about it.

Like a useful idiot would do

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/bbc-history-magazine/20190905/282213717477909

And the historical references to the Nazi use of "useful idiots". Hmmm... Think I just pointed this out.

 

[JaySecrets]

That’s a university debating society not the House of Commons. Yes Nancy Pelosi wasn’t in sight!

Oh, and the event was set up AS a formal debate between him and Pelosi.

 

[YDB95]

Candice Williams herself is a great example, as are the many former liberals of all creeds and colors who rejected liberalism for conservatism precisely because conservatives are the only ones making honest, full, well reasoned answers.

"Honest, full, well reasoned" by your definition thereof, that is. Don't confuse reality with what you wish were real.

I mean, I could go on, but you don't want to hear these kinds of voices, so you pretend they don't exist at all.

Neither I nor anyone else here ever said Black conservatives don't exist. That's not the point at all.

You hate the because you are racist and cannot stand for a black person, or any minority your side has been enslaving in different ways (LBJ was an open racist who stated his goal with the welfare acts was to "have those n******s voting Democrat for the next 200 years) ,

No, he did not say that. The only source for that quote was an extremely unreliable one (he had a long list of equally sensationalistic quotes to his credit, which no one else ever claimed to have heard), and he said he overheard it on a noisy airplane where he was several feet away and probably couldn't have heard anything clearly.

Of course, it is true that LBJ was a racist. But be that as it may, he broke a 90-year stalemate to get the most important civil rights legislation in history through Congress. He was also a shrewd politician, and he knew perfectly well that if one wanted to exploit racial divides for political gain, the race you wanted in your corner was whites (which is why the Republicans have done just that ever since). It would make no sense at all to corner the votes of a group that wasn't a majority in any state, and he knew that.

He really did, incidentally, say he'd thrown the South to the Republicans for at least a generation. And he was right.

think for themselves and see you for what your side is.

Are you saying the 90% of Blacks who don't vote Republican can't think for themselves? (Note I don't say "who vote Democratic" - by and large they are not wedded to the Dems at all; what they are is solidly against the party that has built its success on resentment of them. That effectively means voting Democratic, but for the most part they're really just voting against the Republicans.)

Which is what minority conservatives are openly telling you in their posts, but you write them off with the most racist words imaginable.

Please show me where I have used "the most racist words imaginable".

More blacks voted for Trump in BOTH elections than for any other Republican in history. I think you are losing that argument already.

More than in, say, 1868 or 1872? In absolute numbers maybe, but proportionally speaking? No way.
Now, in modern times, your claim may well be correct. But so what? Ten percent would be "more than any other Republican", and I doubt it was even that high.

Your rebuttals were nothing but extended liberal tropes, lies, and bumper stickers.

Project much? You claim not to be a Republican yet you're a veritable greatest-hits of Republican propaganda!

 

[stxjimmy]

She shows up on the video twice, both times unable to let the other side make his point, and instead interrupting and making his point for him anyway.

Reported on the website Cherwell on the 25th April, the day after the debate in the Oxford Union:

“On Thursday night, the Oxford Union voted in favour of the motion “This House Believes that Populism is a Threat to Democracy.” The final count had 177 members voting for the motion and 68 members voting against.

Speaking in favour of the motion were Nancy Pelosi, the first female Speaker of the House, and Oli Dugmore, editor of PoliticsJOE. Secretary Rachel Haddad of Balliol College also spoke in favour of the motion.
British musician, podcaster and former lead guitarist of Mumford & Sons, Winston Marshall, as well as Union committee members Sultan Kokhar (Chair of Consultative Committee) and Oscar Whittle (Director of Research) spoke against the motion.
Rachel Haddad opened the debate for the proposition, explaining that populism is a force which slowly chips away at the foundations of democracy, naming Trump and Modi as key perpetrators. She continued by suggesting that populism also sows divisions in many areas of society, giving Trump’s ‘muslim ban’ as a key example. Her opening speech was also peppered with jovial remarks and digs at opposition speaker, Sultan Khokhar, commenting on his various attempts at assuming office in a number of different student societies – and even in his own JCR.”

 

[stxjimmy]

Oh, and the event was set up AS a formal debate between him and Pelosi.

And as a formal debate Pelosi was on the victorious side, winning the debate by 177 votes to 68 against.

That’s hardly being destroyed. Jay Secrets you’re just another lying deplorable with an edit button trying to deceive and manipulate opinion.

 

[JaySecrets]

"Honest, full, well reasoned" by your definition thereof, that is. Don't confuse reality with what you wish were real.

Ummm.... Watch the videos I posted. They are the ones saying who were and are making the honest, well reasoned arguments. And they are former libs. You know, the ones you said aren't convinced by such arguments. And they are pretty friggin smart people. Hmmm... You or them? You or... Yeah, you are definitely out the running here.

Neither I nor anyone else here ever said Black conservatives don't exist. That's not the point at all.

Nope, you and your ilk either just ignore their voices (very racist of you) or label them in passive racism at best, active racism (remember when your side started calling Tim Scott "Uncle Tim"? And we aren't even starting with what your side says of Candice Owens or Larry Elder or Thomas Sowell) at your ugliest.

No, he did not say that. The only source for that quote was an extremely unreliable one (he had a long list of equally sensationalistic quotes to his credit, which no one else ever claimed to have heard), and he said he overheard it on a noisy airplane where he was several feet away and probably couldn't have heard anything clearly.

Of course he said it. Your side just hates that he did . Not supposed to say the quiet parts out loud.

Of course, it is true that LBJ was a racist. But be that as it may, he broke a 90-year stalemate to get the most important civil rights legislation in history through Congress. He was also a shrewd politician, and he knew perfectly well that if one wanted to exploit racial divides for political gain, the race you wanted in your corner was whites (which is why the Republicans have done just that ever since). It would make no sense at all to corner the votes of a group that wasn't a majority in any state, and he knew that.

Again, you might not want to tout your side's history on race. It's not good.

He really did, incidentally, say he'd thrown the South to the Republicans for at least a generation. And he was right.

That shift happened under Reagan with the Regan Democrats.

Are you saying the 90% of Blacks who don't vote Republican can't think for themselves? (Note I don't say "who vote Democratic" - by and large they are not wedded to the Dems at all; what they are is solidly against the party that has built its success on resentment of them. That effectively means voting Democratic, but for the most part they're really just voting against the Republicans.)

I'm saying watch the videos. That is specifically addressed by members of the black community in at least 3 of them, from different angles too. Pretty good analysis too.

Please show me where I have used "the most racist words imaginable".

Everything you have said about black conservatives has, for the most part, been at least passively so. And lazy, passive racism is the most dangerous kind. It enslaves minds while wearing the facade of "virtue".

More than in, say, 1868 or 1872? In absolute numbers maybe, but proportionally speaking? No way.
Now, in modern times, your claim may well be correct. But so what? Ten percent would be "more than any other Republican", and I doubt it was even that high.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/609776/democrats-lose-ground-black-hispanic-adults.aspx

Project much? You claim not to be a Republican yet you're a veritable greatest-hits of Republican propaganda!

Again, I take you to the videos of former libs. Maybe listen to what they say before commenting.

 

[JaySecrets]

And as a formal debate Pelosi was on the victorious side, winning the debate by 177 votes to 68 against.

That’s hardly being destroyed. Jay Secrets you’re just another lying deplorable with an edit button trying to deceive and manipulate opinion.

In a largely liberal setting, it's hardly a surprise Pelosi and her ilk won the vote. But common sense people who haven't bought into socialism and language redefinition were not convinced, as public response to the video demonstrated.

And it's funny, Obama was eagerly calling himself a populist, as well as Bernie. Obama, your god, lord, and savior, said Trump WASN'T a populist. Because until the left conveniently redefined and reframed the word, populism had a synonym: democracy.

It is in fact your side who lies and decieves in what I, as a writer and a poet, consider to be the most insidious of ways. You literally change the meanings of words, mid-conversation, in order to reframe the debate any way you need to in order to feel like you have won.

Problem is, most of us aren't that stupid.

 

[stxjimmy]

In a largely liberal setting, it's hardly a surprise Pelosi and her ilk won the vote. But common sense people who haven't bought into socialism and language redefinition were not convinced, as public response to the video demonstrated.

And it's funny, Obama was eagerly calling himself a populist, as well as Bernie. Obama, your god, lord, and savior, said Trump WASN'T a populist. Because until the left conveniently redefined and reframed the word, populism had a synonym: democracy.

It is in fact your side who lies and decieves in what I, as a writer and a poet, consider to be the most insidious of ways. You literally change the meanings of words, mid-conversation, in order to reframe the debate any way you need to in order to feel like you have won.

Problem is, most of us aren't that stupid.

The Oxford Union is not a largely liberal setting, it’s far from it.

Populism has never been a synomyn of democracy, they are entirely different concepts.

You may conceive of yourself as a writer and poet, if that is the case buy yourself a good thesaurus.

You’re the manipulator here, presenting half a debate and omitting the result.

 

[JaySecrets]

The Oxford Union is not a largely liberal setting, it’s far from it.

Oxford anything is, in today's world, one of the biggest bastions of liberalism. It wasn't founded to be. In fact it was founded to be a place to train what today would be considered Conservative Christian teachers and preachers. All one has to do is read all the Scriptures engraved on their oldest campus buildings to know that. Today though, like most of the major universities, they are bastions of socialism and brainwashing.

Populism has never been a synomyn of democracy, they are entirely different concepts.

Populism: the power being held by the populis. Democracy: the rule of the majority. Sounds pretty close to me.

You may conceive of yourself as a writer and poet, if that is the case buy yourself a good thesaurus.

If you want to have a write off, I invite you to present your considerable prowess, which I am sure you have, in the poetry threads. Liberal, Conservative, anything in between, we always enjoy new voices there.

You’re the manipulator here, presenting half a debate and omitting the result.

What I am doing is showing where Pelosi's liberal hypocrisy was openly exposed to the unbiased viewers. And as you watch the responses to those who watch that exchange, well, those who are not brainwashed Kool-Aid drinkers, the response is pretty consistent: Pelosi is a liar and a hypocrite.

 

[JaySecrets]

The Oxford Union is not a largely liberal setting, it’s far from it.

Populism has never been a synomyn of democracy, they are entirely different concepts.

You may conceive of yourself as a writer and poet, if that is the case buy yourself a good thesaurus.

You’re the manipulator here, presenting half a debate and omitting the result.

My favorite moment, by the way, is when he starts citing headline after headline and quote after quote from Democrats and liberal mainstream media sources, all questioning whether Democracy is a good thing and whether voters can be trusted.

 

[stxjimmy]

What I am doing is showing where Pelosi's liberal hypocrisy was openly exposed to the unbiased viewers. And as you watch the responses to those who watch that exchange, well, those who are not brainwashed Kool-Aid drinkers, the response is pretty consistent: Pelosi is a liar and a hypocrite.

If that’s the case then why not show Pelosi’s speech or the fact that her side won the debate.
Instead you post a video purporting to show her being destroyed, yet no mention of that result 177-68.
That’s cherry picking and deception.