U.S. Riots of May 2020 over George Floyd and others - ITT: a bunch of faggots butthurt about worthless internet stickers

Status
Not open for further replies.
druid said:
What was that saying, islam was right about women?
Click to expand...

I watched this interview today, which was posted earlier.


My thoughts are that in hindsight this muzzie has some redpilled takes on how the birth rates for whitey is decreasing while for the muslims its increasing. Also was steadfast in his belief about Islam and its views on faggots and queers. And also was correct that demographic changes will lead to massive changes in society in a hypothethical sceanario where lets say Canada becomes like legitimate 80 percent muslim, and by muslim i mean a practicing muslim and not some secular muslim cunt like Linda Sarsour then the laws will change to make it in line with Sharia law.

Its a waste of time though at this point this interview muslims at some anti-Israel event and promote to liberals and independents as look, Muslims hate faggots, which I am sure they deep down know but will still vote for liberal politicians who bring in more. The Salman Rushdie event was the apex of liberalism meeting Islam and looks like the liberals just decided to cuck to Islam rather than defend their principles of free speech. And its only gotten worser.

You can't blame some practicing muslims for what he believes in as there is a lot of posters on this website that hate or despise Christians that have made the religion more progressive or blm oriented or homosexual oriented. I don't even understand why the faggots want Christianity or Islam to change as wouldn't it be better to their benefit for Islam or Christianity to die out. I have noticed that rather than leaving the religion in countries where they have the freedom to, they still want to change the teaching rather than letting it die off.

The real problem is that big business and the elites that control media and the government don't care and will import more muslims since they care more about short term profits rather than the heritage of the nation and of their children. But then again most of them probably don't even have kids or the ones they have are all retards. And they most likely athiest and don't give two fucks about tradition since they have adopted a cosmopolitan outlook.

In the long run, doing gotcha interviews with some muslim layperson will not save your society but rather standing up for the heritage of the nation and driving out the traitors that are allowing this all to happen. Can't get mad at the muzzie that was imported here, get mad at the white asshole that changed the rules and allowed him to come here. And the white assholes don't encourage integration but rather multiculturalism and letting people do their own thing. Get mad at the white guilty asshole who bends over backwards for allowing other languages to be taught rather than encouraging English and now it may get to the point that some white assholes want to drop proper English grammer.

I also saw Coonskin and Fritz the Cat thanks to people here who posted about it and amazed by how relevant it is to the current era. Fritz the Cat basically talks about the sexual immorality and degeneracy of the left wing in their attempts to start revolutions or gain power and Coonskin was some good takes on the state of Black America being grifted by people who hate whitey like BLM but make money off it and being fucked by White America in the end at every turn with the symbolism of Miss America.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Feels
  • Like
Reactions: Allakazam223, HIVidaBoheme, spiritofamermaid and 17 others
murgatroid said:
Why does the wife sound like a spastic?

"We don't have maAHSks, this is a neighborhoOOAHD"
Click to expand...
Because she's probably one of the methed out banshees pretending to be something she's not for propaganda purposes. Is anybody retarded enough to think that an actual parent would be more worried about tear gas than the crazies throwing explosives and firebombs near their homes?
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Coal Burner Account, Allakazam223, Confused Doggo and 8 others
  • Agree
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: Coal Burner Account, Bungus Scrungus, Allakazam223 and 23 others
stupidpieceofshit said:
I don't really think 08 and 12 were outliers, speaking in general historical trends, 8 years of GOP normally follows a DNC election and vice versa, and 2012 was a re-election, historically incumbents win re-election.
If you want an outlier 1992, when Bush Sr. lost his re-election campaign. Only happens 5 times in the 20th century. (Taft, Hoover, Ford, Carter, Bush) 25 to 26 depending if you count the 2000 election cycle as "20th century" (since it started in '99)
So just looking at the 1900s there is about a 95% chance of an incumbent president winning re-election.
Click to expand...
20 out of 25 elections won by the inumbent is 80%, not 95%.

RodgerDodger said:
No they really don’t. If you actually look into said polls, they all show the Battlegrounds results to be well within the margin of error using the pollsters own methodology. If you look at their samples and apply proper methodology . here’s a hint Democrats don’t enjoy a 70% advantage in “Battleground” States. If they did they would not be battleground states. So weighting polls 36% Dem 26% GOP is crooked as shit. If Biden is ahead but within the margin of error within the battleground states, with the 70% Dem oversample, Then he is losing catastrophically.

Other presenting evidence seems to back this up. Biden has lost the unions in the Battleground states. They’ve heavily backed Trump (because their members swung Trump last time in spite of their Hillary endorsements.) Trump delivered heavily for the rust belt unions. Joe Biden spent decades selling them out. Trump seems to be polling up to and even in some cases above 30% with black voters. Especially Black males. There is virtually no set of circumstances where Joe Biden loses 30 percent of Black Voters and is legitimately polling above Trump in those states. At the point where the Dems lose 30% of the Black vote they become the Whigs.

Now as to how and why the pollsters are doing this and maintaining (badly) the aura of legitimacy. Presidential Polling generally uses the turnout for the previous two Presidential elections to calculate weighting and likely voters. But they also will often drop an outlier or Black Swan event election. This is letting them cheat badly. They leftist media pollsters claim 2016 was the Black Swan event, and calculate based on 2008 and 2012. Years that experienced grossly disproportionate black voter turnout and a general apathy among GOP voters. The real truth is 2016 turnout was in line with historical norms. 2008 and 2012 were the actual outliers. The literal Black Swan event the disproportionately altered the normal voting patterns was the Obama candidacy , not Trump. If when looking at 2016 polling you drop 2008 as the outlier and use 2004 instead, even leaving 2012, you can clearly see the Trump victory looming in the polls. Similarly this year if you keep 2016 and drop 2008, as honest polling would do, you see a clear Trump victory, probably not far removed from Reagan’s 1980 map. Not quite the complete blowouts of 1972 or 1984, but a clear sweep. With Trump taking 45-47 States.

While Trump won’t take California, he has a good chance of seeing better numbers in the popular vote this year. With all the rioting do you think more people in Cali and the Pacific Northwest will vote Dem than did last time? Safety is the single biggest driver of voting. If you don’t feel safe you don’t vote for the people making you feel unsafe. Joe Biden’s “Vote for me or my minions will burn your cities“ approach really doesn’t work. They won’t vote for the guy more likely to appease the rioters and give them your stuff. They vote for whoever promises to shoot the rioters. (Heck even the Nazi’s understood this, they somehow managed to both be the violent thugs, and campaign as the people who would shoot the violent thugs.)
Click to expand...
Is there any demonstration or visualization of this presented somewhere on the internet that can be shared in "polite" company?
 
  • Like
Reactions: chroma
Garm said:
Christ. That had better have been on repeat just to make it sound sadder. Otherwise there is some severe retardation going on.
Click to expand...
It's hard to say. So far the husband has tweeted about babies being gassed eight times in a row in the past 12 hours, so he certainly experiences persecutory delusions. He also uses "they" pronouns. Between the obvious signs of low grade mental illness and the fucked up way she's talking I think we could be looking at a tragically low IQ schizo couple who believes that antipsychotics are a Nazi trick.

On the other hand, the way he's tweeting is to couch his victim complex in dishonest questions. For example, he tweeted at some health organizations asking what the protocol is for breastfeeding after exposure to tear gas. It's a very obvious ploy to justify him tweeting about tear gas over and over forever, but I think if he was truly an off-his-meds schizophrenic he'd be too busy straight up saying DONALD TRUMP CAME TO MY HOUSE AND GASSED MY BABIES than trying to be the weaselly fuck he clearly is.

Either way I'd peg this couple's combined IQ at 130 tops, but the question is whether or not they're also clinically insane remains unanswered.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Allakazam223, Granola Grenadine, Justa Grata Honoria and 5 others
oh no, the police gave her little booboos
Untitled.png
 
  • Feels
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Christ on a crutch, Coal Burner Account, Bungus Scrungus and 27 others
Simpadoo said:
Are the elites smart or just wealthy enough to be allowed into the social circles that lets them i to better schools and opportunities?
Click to expand...
Honestly? No, our current crop of Elites are uppity nouveau riche and bureaucrats who compensate by massively funding these social justice movements and generally just chimping out in the way people with massive inferiority complexes do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Granola Grenadine, Justa Grata Honoria, Maggots on a Train v2 and 4 others
Puff said:
You seem to forget that bribing your way into and through Ivies has been commonplace for decades, if not centuries. Also being smart and knowing things are different. The politicians have been training to deal with people and only people. Not things. Even the smart ones know little to nothing of real-world stuff unless it falls into one of their hobbies.
Click to expand...
I have been literally fighting the VA, my state and federal reps to start implementing open source training paths for tech. I architected the system, I laid all of it out ground to sky. The most honest dude I talked to after ~6 month of daily stonewalling finally clued me in. I have to now build a company to make a profit off my idea to then sell my training path back to the government.

Fuck that, my established data pipeline is fucking solid. I'm making the company and I'm going to work to fuck over every derelict faggot in government with my fuck-you money. It's going out open source and it's going to cause masses of chaos because of 4G/5G faggot attack vectors.

I spent months trying to give them for free what they'd readily pay for. I've been trying to open all this up, tutor anyone and no one wants to achieve. I have to fight all these faggots tooth and nail to do something in their interest, for free, the right way because its the right thing to do. Fucking rages me.
 
  • Feels
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Informative
Reactions: Christ on a crutch, Coal Burner Account, Complete Reprobate and 26 others
stupidpieceofshit said:
I don't really think 08 and 12 were outliers, speaking in general historical trends, 8 years of GOP normally follows a DNC election and vice versa, and 2012 was a re-election, historically incumbents win re-election.
If you want an outlier 1992, when Bush Sr. lost his re-election campaign. Only happens 5 times in the 20th century. (Taft, Hoover, Ford, Carter, Bush) 25 to 26 depending if you count the 2000 election cycle as "20th century" (since it started in '99)
So just looking at the 1900s there is about a 95% chance of an incumbent president winning re-election.
Click to expand...

2008 and 2012 were outliers with regard to who showed up to vote. The US Black population turned out at near 90%. This is a group that typically turns out in the 20-30% range. It was understandable with Barrack Obama on the ticket. But it was presumptive to assume that those elevated turnout levels would continue without Obama headlining the ticket, The media polling you see today assumes 2008’s turnout patterns. Not 2016’s or 2004’s or the decades prior. That shift in Black voter turnout for the First Black man to run for President is the outlier. Without that “historic moment” voter turnout returns to more normal patterns.

1992 was an unusual year, largely because you had a spoiler in the race that was appealing directly to the sitting Presidents core voters. But somewhat similar events happened in both 1976 and 1980. It’s just the spoilers were in party. In ’76 Reagan Primaried Ford, which weakened him heading into the General. In 1980 Ted “Killer” Kennedy Primaried Carter doing even more damage. But there were not huge shifts in voter turnout patterns for any of those. About the only thing close to Obama’s Black turnout was JFK’s Catholic turnout surge in 1960. But even then Catholics, particularly Irish, Italian and to a lesser extent Polish had been a much more politically active group than American Blacks, so the turnout surge wasn’t anywhere near as sharp. Even with “historic first” candidates you don’t often see a historic turnout reflected in a radical voter shift. Hilary really didn’t bring out more women. Even if Romney did bring out more Mormons it had minimal national impact.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: legalkochi, Allakazam223, Justa Grata Honoria and 6 others
Invoke-Mimikatz said:
Isn't a doctored video disclaimer the exact opposite of Orwellian...
Click to expand...
Only when they're applied honestly and equally to both sides. If you're using them to trick people into believing that truncated highlights or silly soundtracks are on the same level as splicing sentences together or fabricating footage, that's dystopian as fuck.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: Christ on a crutch, Coal Burner Account, chroma and 18 others
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back