MEGA landslide 2020 because Americans are fed up of all the fake news BS last 3.5 years

Trump doing a great job

Aaaaahahahaha-ha-ha-aaaaaahahahahaha!
That's a good one, Bob. We hate fake news, so we want the fake news president who's told more lies in his official capacity in 3.6 years than all presidents combined.
Another red tsunami just like 2018? I'll be on the beach waiting.

Come on Bobby, even you are better than that twaddle.

Edit:
32.9% drop in GDP is a great job to you, but Obama's constant positive and higher than Trump's numbers were proof he's incompetent.
180000 dead Americans and rising faster all the time with no end in sight is a great job to you, but two dead by Ebola (a more deadly and more infectious disease btw) with zero infections in America is a horrific failure Obama should have quit over.
A conservatively estimated 30000000 jobs lost, 1/2 permanently (some estimates say over 50000000) is a great job to you.
Failed trade talks and wars that have cost us hundreds of BILLIONS in losses is a great job to you, and Obama's successful trade deals and no trade wars made him a failure.
Untold trillions wasted thanks to a disastrous pandemic response, much stolen thanks to zero oversight is a great job, but the federal loans Obama offered to halt the Republican recession were socialism because he took collateral for the money and didn't just hand it out for nothing.
🤦‍♂️

Odd how America does so much better when you say we are failing, and infinitely worse when you say we are doing a great job....almost like you're rooting for our failure....comrade.

Name something great he's done.

I have to confess. Trump inspired me. Last time I voted in a presidential election was 1976 for Jimmy Carter. This year I registered to vote again for anyone other than Trump. So, there's that.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, August 31st, 2020 1:18am PDT - promote requested by eric3579.

Sounds like, against the protests from the mayor and residents, Trump is going to Kenosha to stand with the killers of unarmed black men.
He in his infinite wisdom thinks that will calm things down and bring them together.

For someone with his head that far up Trump's arse you'd think Bob would have no trouble naming something, anything that he approves of. It's the third time I've asked a simple question that he either can't or won't answer.

More evidence that he's trolling or one of many shit stirring shift working gov stooges.

I can understand why you all still respond to @bobnight33. It's satisfying to smugly respond to him who, effectively, is a real live straw man. It makes you feel righteous (and frankly, it's pretty easy).

But really, Bob's been around for 11 years and has not conceded literally anything.

You're not changing his mind. Obviously. Why do you keep trying?

If anything, a new person who is (admittedly, astoundingly) undecided will see your vainglorious responses and dig their heels in to any existing conservative leanings.

I don't respond to feel righteous or change his mind, I respond to give a clear, factual contradiction to the ridiculous propaganda he regurgitates to stop the spread of Trump Derangement Syndrome with as many references as possible to back my position....and because it's funny to me.
If no one does that, there are plenty of ignorant and lazy people who might just take his certitude as an indication he knows what he's talking about and never look for the facts.
If someone is biased enough that hearing verified facts contradict irrational misrepresentations makes them dig their heels in in support of the irrational lies, they were voting for Trump anyway no matter what they claim.

I just want some indication that he's not a bot or troll.

You mean all the fake ass news / BS & lies that spew forth from tRumps mouth on a daily basis, yes we are looking forward to a Biden landslide win in November and being able to send you slime balls back under the rocks from whence you came....

Fair enough.

The one point I'd contest is that if someone is to dig their heels in upon receiving (arguably smug) contradictory remarks, I don't think that necessary indicates that they'd vote for Trump no matter what.

When you attack someone's belief that they've had for years and probably decades (i.e., their identity), it is painful and difficult to change one's belief.

A question I like to ask people who say things like what you said is, "When's the last time you admitted being incorrect to a long-held belief?" We've all been confronted with this, but how many times were you able to change your identity?

For instance, "Are you an animal-lover?" and then, the obvious vegan query, "Then why do you eat animals?" There's a pretty strong moral case for not eating animals and I would argue that it's a case that time will show to be both true and moral. I believe (assuming humans survive) humans will look upon this time of killing billions of animals for nothing but human pleasure with disgusting disgrace.

You could say that I, looking upon meat eaters, feel the same way you feel about Bob, at least in some ways.

The question is, "How does it feel? How easily are you able to change your long-held beliefs when (from my perspective) you're on the wrong side of history?" Do you find yourself recoiling? If someone came at you with not only the question, but says it in a self-congratulatory, condescending way, would you respond to that well? I wouldn't. I'd tell you to fuck off.

Give someone the facts clearly and without prejudice, and you can at least plant an earworm for them to digest later.

If you are vegan, I gotta come up with another example.

You are clearly an artist. 👍

If the remarks being contradicted are not only smug they're also ridiculous, devoid of fact, racist, and or dangerously stupid (like insisting in May that Coronavirus is a hoax that's not dangerous and is a "nothing burger", and everyone should be back at work), and contradicting them with facts and references and +- 1/4 the disrespect the original remarks contained makes people vote for Trump, that does indicate they were already trumpsters imo.

Edit: It's like Democrats have a high bar to clear, but Republicans have no depth too deep to stoop to.

Trump changes Bob's beliefs daily, every time he changes a position Bob changes his belief to make the new position seem reasonable to him. He is not consistent. No other opinion matters to him.

I don't hold beliefs, I have theories. It's easy to change your theory when given new information, I do all the time. Beliefs don't work that way, so I avoid them as much as possible.

Yes, and I eat animals because they're delicious. I would eat people if they were raised and fed better, but we are polluted beyond recovery imo.

You may be correct, but eating meat is hardly the worst thing humans are up to. Killing for sport seems worse, so do kill "shelters", puppy mills, habitat destruction, ocean acidification, etc....I could go on for pages with that list. I try to eat free range locally farmed on family farms meat, not factory farm meat. I know the difference in quality.

I gladly discuss vegetarianism with honest people, but I'm prepared when they start spouting bullshit like " eating any red meat is more harmful than smoking two packs a day of filterless cigarettes" (yes, someone insisted that was true because they didn't care it wasn't, it helped scare people, I contradicted him every time he lied.) The difference is, I could agree with some of their points that weren't gross exaggeration, I agreed that excessive meat eating is horrible for people, I agree that most meat is produced under horrific conditions, I would not agree that ALL meat is unhealthy in any amount and ALL meat is tortured it's entire lifetime because I know from personal experience that's just not true. We raised cattle, free range cattle, in the 70's. They were happy cows that had an enjoyable life roaming our ranch until the day they went to market, a life they wouldn't have if people didn't eat meat.

I've never met a vegan that wasn't a bold faced liar in support of veganism, so I'm less likely to give them a full chance at convincing me. The fact checking part of my brain goes on high alert when talking with them about health or other issues involved in meat production, with excellent reason.

Again, that would be long held theories in my case, and it's not hard to change them. Mad cow disease got me to change until I was certain it wasn't in America. No, I'm not recoiling. I'll listen to anyone who's respectful and honest.

Here's the thing, Bob consistently trolls in a condescending, self congratulatory, and bat shit crazy way. Turnabout is fair play.
As the only person willing to reply to him for long stretches, I know him. I've had many private conversations with him where he's far more reasonable, honest, willing to admit mistakes, etc. (Something I gave up when he applauded Trump lying under oath because "only a dummy tells the truth under oath if the truth might harm them, Trump winning!") When someone is so anti truth and snide, they deserve some snidely delivered truth in return. Bob has proven he's undeserving of the civility you want him to receive, it's never returned.

Bob does not take anything in from any source not pre approved by Trump. I've tried for a decade, and now know he only comes here to troll the libtards. It doesn't matter if you show him video proof and expert opinions, he'll ignore them and regurgitate more nonsense claiming the opposite of reality. He's not trying to change minds, in case you're confused. He's hoping to trick people who for whatever reason refuse to investigate his factless hyper biased claims and amplify the madness. That he comes here to do that, a site he regularly calls a pure liberal site (it's not) is proof enough to convict him of just trolling.

Trolls deserve derision.

I spent years ignoring his little jabs, insults, derisions, and whinging and trying hard to dispassionately contradict his false claims with pure facts and references, it was no different then.
While privately he would admit he's wrong, he would then publicly repeat the claims he had just admitted were bullshit. When he started supporting perjury from the highest position on earth down as long as they're Republican but still calls for life in prison for democrats that he thinks lied even not under oath, he lost any right to civil replies imo. He bought it when Republican representatives said publicly in interviews that they have no obligation to be truthful with the American people, and he applauds it and repeats their lies with glee.

Edit: in general I agree that dispassionate fact based replies with references are better at convincing people than derision, there are exceptions, and there are those who are unconvinceable and disinterested in facts that don't support their lies. How long are you capable of rebutting them with just fact and references when they are smug, snide, insulting, dangerous, and seriously delusional if not just purely dishonest?

Rebuttal?

I'm curious why you didn't ask Bob that question.

He's not changing any minds, he's smug and self righteous, vainglorious, trolling, and wrong factually at least 90% of the time. Why don't you think he's creating liberals digging their heels in to any existing liberal leanings?

Personally, I don't give up hope. If you know what the truth is then all you have to do is wait for them to burn themselves while playing with matches even though you told them 1,000 times about the consequences. Then when they learn the hard way, as most of us do, be there for them when they find you were truthful with them the whole time.

Your great work does not go unnoticed, newt. It's something that I could not do on my own and you have my support and admiration.

I too have gotten private messages from bob. I have even sent him power points once when he showed compassion. I let him know I don't hate him but I do like to use him for a funny reply once in a while.

Regardless of his intentions or beliefs I still give him the chance to burn his fingers. It's the flame that teaches the lesson.

If you need to 🤦 do it. Just don't stop doing what you are doing for all of us.

Love you, man

Thanks for the support.

My problem is, more often than not, children playing with matches burn other people and, because they lack empathy, they learn nothing and do it again.
If there was a way to isolate the mini arsonists, I could go along. Unfortunately, we live in the same house, and when it burns down we all lose. That's why when you catch children playing with fire the responsible thing to do is douse them with accelerants so the next time is the last.

I don't hate Bob, I'm on the fence on the question of his existence, it seems at least as likely he's multiple actors playing Bob the American.
I do hate his lies he tells with certitude and vitriol, his snide little quips and cheering for Trump totally divorced from reality, his reveling in lawless governance if it triggers some libtards, and his bat shit crazy racist insistence that racism doesn't exist in America and Democrats are all racists. How can you refrain from ridiculing that? I'm not capable of such restraint.

When he does burn, are you standing by ready to fill the room with halon and lock the doors? I don't want that job, it's long and thankless.

Yes, especially since I just found out how, I do need to 🤦‍♂️ ;-)

Thanks again, and love you too, but you still aren't getting my last bud light.

https://youtu.be/t9VxYfHfz-Q

FUCK! 😠

Perspectives on Rittenhouse seem to track perspectives on where one imagines one would be found in that situation.

Do you imagine being a looter or rioter?
Rittenhouse is bad.

Do you imagine being a resident of the street in question?
Rittenhouse is good.

The protest angle is moot, since Rittenhouse didn't go there to interact with protesters.

I personally wouldn't go attack property that doesn't belong to any of the people that ostensibly inspired the protest (the police officers responsible for the shooting). So I am more likely to imagine myself being a simple resident.

If it were the homes of the police officers being looted, then at least the looting would have some logical reason behind it.
I'm actually surprised, that after all these protests, and all the looting, and all the destruction, that nobody has bothered to actually target the people that are responsible. Brings into question sincerity.




Side note, I actually think that police were way in the wrong to shoot, or even bother, Jacob Blake. The man only stopped to break up a fight. Cops (responding to a call, ostensibly about that very fight) just showed up and went after him, without taking any time to assess what was going on. Absolutely reckless cowboy behavior with little regard for the state.

-scheherazade

So, you're ok with armed kids traveling to come shoot up your neighborhood? Ok. Interesting position, but I bet it would change the nanosecond a bullet enters your house.

They have attacked police stations in some cases, but now police deploy heavily at their stations knowing they're a target so it's harder to get close.

Have you seen homes looted? I haven't.

I'm not OK with armed kids shooting up any neighborhood.

If you're presenting Rittenhouse as such a kid, that's a bad faith argument. There is no evidence that 'shooting up the neighborhood' was in any way his motivation when he positioned himself in that neighborhood.

All public information points to him being there to discourage destructive elements (such as armed looters) from taking action in that neighborhood.

The ostensibly guilty parties being a hard target doesn't transform innocent easy targets into valid targets.

Most damage is done to private businesses and of vehicles (with the odd unfortunate being beaten to a pulp on the street).
Minneapolis had homes and churches damaged. I can't speak to homes in other locations because I haven't read up on them.




Property wise:
Property takes money to acquire.
Money takes time to acquire.
Time requires life.

(Not all insurance covers 'angry mob')

If it takes you 3 months to work to purchase something, and someone destroys it, they are taking 3 months of working life away from you. Unless they can refund you that life time, that's life time lost forever.

Reality is : Property is only 'just property' when it's not your own property.
If you can't defend property with force, then people are simply free to show up and take everything you have, and you just have to accept it. I don't know anyone who is ok with that (I doubt you are ok with it happening to you, but maybe I'm wrong).

Generally, I empathize with innocent people. So I lean towards the property owners in these cases.

-scheherazade

It's not at all bad faith, since it's what he came for and what he did. He crossed state lines armed looking for trouble he might stop using his gun. He went armed to play cop with zero training and illegally carrying a weapon he was too young to have. He might have Intended to only shoot at arsonists, but what he did was randomly shoot into crowds and down the streets, killing two non arsonists, allegedly while blind due to being pepper sprayed.

I can't decipher your good guilty easy innocent hard targets. What?

He has no right to deputize himself, no matter what property crimes he assumed were forthcoming.

Yeah, try to equate property crime to violent murder, it only shows you aren't arguing in good faith yourself.

He was blocks from the parking lot he came, uninvited, to "protect". Was his beat the whole city now?

Big difference between crossing state lines to guard someone else's business and guarding your own home, more bad faith arguments. You can use force to protect your home and family from threats of serious harm, you can't shoot your neighbor for trespassing and cutting some tree branches you didn't want cut.

Do you know who owned the property he murdered the first guy on? Maybe he stands with the crowd and militia boy was trespassing, brandishing a rifle, and eventually murdering someone there before running and gunning his way back home without reporting the shootings, ensuring that property will be torched within a week.
Great job protecting them. For all he knew he was shooting the owner, he wasn't protecting property when he shot.
That is the innocent property owner here, not the owner of the owner of the original parking lot he was guarding, not the kid or his parents, and this gung ho kid's actions ensured their properties destruction and exacerbated the unrest, triggering more property damage. Good job, fucknuts...enjoy big boy prison.

Woo boy, this is a doozy! The fact of the matter is a video comment section is not the place to have this conversation. There's too much to discuss, too many questions from one another that are best asked soon after they're conceived, etc. I frankly just don't have the time to respond to everything you said. Don't take this as acquiescence; if you'd like to have a Zoom chat some time, I'd be down.

In any event, I'll respond to what I find either the most important or at least most interesting:

Having theories is definitely the best way to go about most of the things you consider fact (for the moment), but the fact of the matter (no pun intended) is that at some point you'll need to use some of those claims as fact/belief in order to take action. And it's just human nature to, if one believes in a claim for long enough, it becomes fact, despite all your suggestions of objectivity. It's easy to say you're a scientist through and through, but if you're really someone who doesn't believe anything and merely theorize things, I think you'd be a sad human being. But that's a claim that I leave up to the scientists.

> Yes, and I eat animals because they're delicious.

You think that's a defensible moral claim? I find that disgraceful. If you truly think your own pleasure is worth sentient beings' lives then... I don't know what to say to you. That strikes me as callous and unempathetic, 2 traits you often assert as shameful. This is my point. You sound pretty obstinate to at least a reasonable claim. To respond with just "they're tasty". You don't sound reasonable to me.

> You may be correct, but eating meat is hardly the worst thing humans are up to.

Aw, come on @newtboy, I thought better of you than to give me a logical fallacy. The fact that you're resorting to logical fallacies wwould indicate to me that either you're confronting some cognitive dissonance, otherwise why would you stoop to such a weak statement?

> I gladly discuss vegetarianism with honest people, but I'm prepared when they start spouting bullshit like " eating any red meat is more harmful than smoking two packs a day of filterless cigarettes" ...

There is a lot of scientific research (not funded by Big ___) that is currently spouting this "bullshit". What happened to your receptive, scientific, theory-based lifestyle? It's true nutrition science is a fucking smog-filled night mare considering how much money is at stake, but I find it telling that a lot of the corporations are using the same ad men from Big Cigarette to stir up constant doubt.

Again, I find it peculiar that you are highly suspicious of big corporations... except when it comes to something that you want to be true.

Again, this is my point. Take a moment, take a few breaths, and look inside. Can you notice that you're acting in the exact same fashion as the people you purport to be obscenely stubborn?

Check out NutritionFacts if you want to see any of the science. Actual science. I would hope that it would give you at least somedoubt and curiosity.

That's a true scientist's homeostatic state: curiosity. Are you curious to investigate the dozens (hundreds?) of papers with a truly non-confirmation-biased mind? How much of a scientist are you?

> I've never met a vegan that wasn't a bold faced liar in support of veganism, so I'm less likely to give them a full chance at convincing me.

This, for me, raises all sorts of red flags. That's quite a sweeping claim.

> Again, that would be long held theories in my case, and it's not hard to change them. Mad cow disease got me to change until I was certain it wasn't in America. No, I'm not recoiling. I'll listen to anyone who's respectful and honest.

So, you're willing to make decisions based on self-interest and not morality? Well, duh. Everyone does that. It doesn't sound like you had a self-reflective moment. It sounds like you merely had a self-interested decision based on the risk to your own health.

And finally, all your talk about Bob -- of course he acts, consistently, like a twat. I just don't like feeding trolls. I don't think there's anyone on Videosift who's on the precipice and would be pushed over into the Alt-right Pit by Bob's ridiculous nonsense.

> Edit: in general I agree that dispassionate fact based replies with references are better at convincing people than derision, there are exceptions, and there are those who are unconvinceable and disinterested in facts that don't support their lies.

Ironically, I think science has disproved this. Facts don't change minds in situations like this. There are lots of articles on this. I didn't have the wherewithal to dig into their citations, but I leave that (non-confirmation-biased) adventure for you. [1]

---

I knew I wouldn't make this short, but I think it's shorter than it could have been.

Lastly, I'm with @BSR; I do appreciate your perseverance. Not everyone has as much as you seem to have! Whenever I see Bob... doing his thing, I can always be assured you'll take most of the words from my mouth. [2]

[1]
Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds | The New Yorker
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds

This Article Won’t Change Your Mind - The Atlantic
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/this-article-wont-change-your-mind/519093/

Why People Ignore Facts | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/words-matter/201810/why-people-ignore-facts

Why Many People Stubbornly Refuse to Change Their Minds | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/think-well/201812/why-many-people-stubbornly-refuse-change-their-minds

Why Facts Don't Always Change Minds | Hidden Brain : NPR
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/743195213

[2] This comment has not been edited nor checked for spelling and grammatical errors. Haven't you got enough from me?

Because he's a troll and a twat. It's no use asking him any questions. By asking you the questions, I'm communicating that I actually respect your answers.

Ahhh. Thank you. I was honestly unsure.

Moving reply to @eoe 's profile page

Why? What difference does that make?

There would still be a human behind the curtain. What matters is how you respond to the symptoms.

One thing I do know about bob. He LOVES the attention.

*controversy

Videos are limited to being in a maximum of 7 channels - ignoring all requests by MrFisk.

The difference is fucking obvious!

If it is a bot it should be banned.
If it is a troll it should be ignored.

Do you think a drinking bird toy is enjoying the water because it keeps "going back for more"?

Don't go there.

Dude. DO NOT GO THERE!

Do not ruin it for me or I SWEAR... I will jump off a bridge with my underwear still attached to it.

It depends on the material used. If burlap, yes.

If you able to ignore the troll, it should be a piece of cake to ignore the bot.

I stand with newt. bob serves a purpose here.

MEGA= Moscow's Emissary Governing America
Derp.


https://youtu.be/sbVr5FvASYU