Candace Owens...

Candace Owens: Fan or Not A Fan?


  • Total voters
    35

TFG

Jul 23, 2013
8,260
4,846
I'm just not outraged by him existing. :conf



We will have to agree to disagree on the idea of my supposed 'defence mechanisms' but I think you were correct to change the wording from 'debate' to 'conversation'. If only because we haven't actually been debating. It's just a matter of being correct, something you are usually a stickler for.



It's honestly not a unique view. You can count the amount of posters here who wilfully engage in Trump discussions on maybe two hands. I think it would be logical to assume that the other posters don't engage in the debate simply because they don't really care and have other priorities in life. Now granted, I do engage sometimes on these matters but it is primarily to troll Haggis, who bites with impressive frequency.

I don't think we should be hard on Donnie. He applied for a job for a laugh, not expecting to get it, and he got it. So he has done what anyone else would do in that situation and tried to wing it best he could without being found out. I honestly see his position as being more symbolic than anything else anyway.

You're usually more clinical than this, TFG.
I didn't ask if you were outraged by his existence my guy, I asked what your opinions on his political beliefs and overall personality are, if you don't want to answer the question then just say, it'd be a lot easier than just answering a different one and would save everyone time :lol:

The line between a conversation and debate is a very thin one and really not that important, I perhaps gave you too much credit in thinking you would reply with your reasoning, I would disagree and that would be the debate. Let's not forget you replied to my critiscms of Ben with reference to his books sales statistics and his subscriber count...that seems like a counter argument to me, a monumentally stupid and irrelevant one, but a counter none the less.

Not engaging in discussion regarding Trump does not equate to being indifferent to him as a politician and person, though I think you already know that. We've had plenty of political debates on here before, I've seen you actively participating in Trump threads and making very developed arguments on people like Ben Shapiro, so I don't think asking you to elaborate on a potential political opinion is too much to ask for.

Tbf this is my own fault and I should have known that asking you a question like this was a huge leap of faith so never mind :lol:
 

Jack

P4P Star
Jul 29, 2012
9,523
4,087
I would be interested in seeing some data where this is concerned.

I think you are grossly understating the amount of black people that have had positive interactions with the police and who can claim to have been helped or even saved by them. This is obviously their job, so I am not suggesting we pat them on the back, but I think it's important to look at the overall picture rather than focus on a couple of news headlines.
It's interesting the way that the media has manipulated this subject to create division. It's certainly been effective, there are many people who genuinely believe the rhetoric despite the fact it doesn't stand up to any factual scrutiny. It's not hard to see when and where this came from:





People have this scenario backwards. They think that racism or police brutality is a bigger problem than ever before, despite all the facts proving otherwise. What is happening is that people have developed deeply bigoted views - similar to homophobia or racism - because the media have told them it's a valid position to hold. When it comes to hatred of police officers, people can be just as myopic as the KKK member who views black people as subhuman because it's what the narrative tells them is true, despite the facts not holding any weight.

It's an interesting one actually, the sort of hatred you see of police officers has very little basis on facts - which is why you're not getting proper answers - and yet it's becoming a more commonly held view. It's the product of propaganda that creates an 'us vs. them' mentality, no different to 'white man vs. n*gger', and no less fueled by the same bias, lies and hatred that was once dispelled from civilised society. It's back in full force due to the media who exagerrate the number of interactions and their application of racism onto the stories.
 

Bachafach^^^

ANTIFA *funded by Soros* cucking the fash
Dec 6, 2019
7,678
5,835
20
Varaždin, Hrvaška
It's interesting the way that the media has manipulated this subject to create division. It's certainly been effective, there are many people who genuinely believe the rhetoric despite the fact it doesn't stand up to any factual scrutiny. It's not hard to see when and where this came from:





People have this scenario backwards. They think that racism or police brutality is a bigger problem than ever before, despite all the facts proving otherwise. What is happening is that people have developed deeply bigoted views - similar to homophobia or racism - because the media have told them it's a valid position to hold. When it comes to hatred of police officers, people can be just as myopic as the KKK member who views black people as subhuman because it's what the narrative tells them is true, despite the facts not holding any weight.

It's an interesting one actually, the sort of hatred you see of police officers has very little basis on facts - which is why you're not getting proper answers - and yet it's becoming a more commonly held view. It's the product of propaganda that creates an 'us vs. them' mentality, no different to 'white man vs. n*gger', and no less fueled by the same bias, lies and hatred that was once dispelled from civilised society. It's back in full force due to the media who exagerrate the number of interactions and their application of racism onto the stories.
Katie Hopkins





[/URL]

The Rise in Police Killings
Figuring out how many people are killed by police can be a daunting task. There are many data sources on killings by police officers, but none manages to cover a long period of time and have a high degree of completeness in any given year.
The most complete estimates, which provide the 1,700 figure above, come from the Fatal Encounters database, which collects data by scraping local news sources, making FOIA requests of public agencies, searching legal databases, and using verified crowd-sourced information. This method is reliable, because it uses public verification (anybody can check a news report to see if the police really killed somebody), can be applied transparently around the country (local crime news is digitally available essentially everywhere), and is free of reporting biases or possible influence by police departments themselves. As a result, multiple academic studies using different methods have confirmed the accuracy of Fatal Encounters data.
Fatal Encounters data reach back to 2000, though before 2013 their accuracy probably diminishes, as fewer records were digitally available to researchers. However, some other data sources reach back further. The Centers for Disease Control’s official death statistics also track killings by police officers, extending back to 1968, but only if the death certificate expressly mentions a police officer, which isn’t always the case. Quite frequently, the certificate only lists physical cause of death (e.g., “gunshot”), not who caused it. CDC data are woefully incomplete: academic study suggests that the CDC’s method misses about half of police killings. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system also tracks killings by police officers, but only if they are officially ruled as justified killings of felons, and even that database appears to under-report police killings. Furthermore, a considerable number of police departments fail to report their statistics to the FBI at all. Finally, a relatively new statistical system, the National Statistics on Violent Deaths database, promises to provide somewhat better statistics. However, it only began to be rolled out in 2003, and as of the latest data in 2017 still has only thirty-five states participating. Nonetheless, the figure below shows all available data on killings by police, with NSVD and FBI UCR data adjusted for incomplete coverage areas.

Using the year-over-year change in the most reliable data sources for each period, I estimate a likely “true pattern of police killings” over time. The data suggest that police killings were relatively high in the late 1960s, declined until the 1980s, rose in the mid-1990s before falling again, then rose during the 2000s. They have been approximately stable at high levels for the last several years.


 
Reactions: TFG

Bachafach^^^

ANTIFA *funded by Soros* cucking the fash
Dec 6, 2019
7,678
5,835
20
Varaždin, Hrvaška


More gun use by criminals will always lead to a rise in police killings. This is why you can't use facts in isolation, saying 'something is happening' is not enough. You have to explain why.
FBI Releases 2019 Statistics on Law Enforcement Officers Killed in the Line of Duty
According to statistics reported to the FBI, 89 law enforcement officers were killed in line-of-duty incidents in 2019. Of these, 48 officers died as a result of felonious acts, and 41 officers died in accidents. Comprehensive data tables about these incidents and brief narratives describing the fatal attacks are included in Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 2019, released today.
Felonious Deaths
The 48 felonious deaths occurred in 19 states and in Puerto Rico. The number of officers killed as a result of criminal acts in 2019 was 8 less than the 56 officers who were feloniously killed in 2018. The 5- and 10-year comparisons show an increase of 7 felonious deaths compared with the 2015 figure (41 officers) and a decrease of 7 deaths compared with 2010 data (55 officers).
Officer Profiles. The average age of the officers who were feloniously killed was 40 years old. The victim officers had served in law enforcement for an average of 13 years at the times of the fatal incidents. Of the 48 officers:
  • 45 were male
  • 3 were female
  • 40 were white
  • 7 were black/African American
  • 1 was Asian.
Circumstances. Of the 48 officers feloniously killed:
  • 15 died as a result of investigative or law enforcement activities
    • 6 were conducting traffic violation stops
    • 4 were performing investigative activities
    • 2 were drug-related matters
    • 2 were interacting with wanted persons
    • 1 was investigating suspicious person or circumstance
  • 9 were involved in tactical situations
    • 3 were barricaded/hostage situations
    • 3 were serving, or attempting to serve, search warrants
    • 2 were serving, or attempting to serve, arrest warrants
    • 1 was reported in the category titled “other tactical situation”
  • 5 were involved in unprovoked attacks
  • 4 were responding to crimes in progress
    • 2 were robberies
    • 1 was larceny-theft
    • 1 was reported in the category titled “other crime against property”
  • 3 were involved in arrest situations and were attempting to restrain/control/handcuff the offender(s) during the arrest situations
  • 3 were assisting other law enforcement officers
    • 2 with vehicular pursuits
    • 1 with foot pursuit
  • 3 were responding to disorders or disturbances
    • 2 were responding to disturbances (disorderly subjects, fights, etc.)
    • 1 was responding to a domestic violence call
  • 3 were involved in vehicular pursuits
  • 2 were ambushed (entrapment/premeditation)
  • 1 was serving, or attempting to serve, a court order (eviction notice, subpoena, etc.).
Weapons. Offenders used firearms to kill 44 of the 48 victim officers. Four officers were killed with vehicles used as weapons. Of the 44 officers killed by firearms:
  • 34 were slain with handguns
  • 7 with rifles
  • 1 with a shotgun
  • 2 with firearms in which the types of firearms were unknown or not reported
Regions. Felonious deaths were reported in four U.S. regions and Puerto Rico.
  • 27 officers were feloniously killed in the South
  • 9 in the Midwest
  • 9 in the West
  • 1 in the Northeast
  • 2 in Puerto Rico
Suspects. Law enforcement agencies identified 49 alleged assailants in connection with the felonious line-of-duty deaths.
  • 36 of the assailants had prior criminal arrests.
  • 12 of the offenders were under judicial supervision at the times of the felonious incidents.
Accidental Deaths
Forty-one law enforcement officers were killed accidentally while performing their duties in 2019, a decrease of 9 when compared with the 50 officers accidentally killed in 2018. The majority (19 officers) were killed in motor vehicle crashes.
Officer Profile. The average age of officers who were accidentally killed was 40 years old; the average number of years the victim officers had served in law enforcement was 11. Of the 41 officers accidentally killed:
  • 38 were male
  • 3 were female
  • 39 were white
  • 2 were black/African American.
Circumstances. The 41 officers accidentally killed died in a variety of scenarios:
  • 19 died as a result of motor vehicle crashes
    • 18 while operating cars, SUVs, trucks, or vans
    • 1 while operating an ATV or a motorcycle
  • 16 were pedestrian officers struck by vehicles
  • 3 were killed in firearm-related incidents
  • 2 officers drowned
  • 1 officer was reported to have died in the category of an other type of duty-related accident when they were struck by a tire/wheel while assisting a motorist.
Use of seatbelts. Of the 18 officers killed in motor vehicle crashes while operating cars, SUVs, trucks, or vans, 9 were wearing seatbelts, and 6 were not. Data about seatbelt usage was not reported for 3 of the officers.
Regions. Accidental deaths were reported in four U.S. regions.
  • 22 of the accidental deaths occurred in the South
  • 8 in the Midwest
  • 8 in the West
  • 3 in the Northeast
 

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
42,581
19,526
@Haggis what do you make of this conversation, is Pedders always like this?
Fuck him, who even cares. Enjoy the relentless avalanche of dumb. Have fun talking politics with Pedderrs and Clarence and Medicine and Vino and Joe. Enjoy Jack's walls of text where he rants about the Left for ten paragraphs no matter what. Enjoy Trump testing positive for corona, and Fat Pete's immediate response is literally to say "Biden looked sick at the debate."

After four years, the cunts are STILL pathetically pretending like Biden will be or Hillary would have been worse? Fuck them. Either they are absolute cretins, completely ignorant, or just vile people. At this point, there is no other option - no other category. There's nothing to be gained by trying to have a sensible conversation with a disingenuous low-information little shitstain like Pedderrs. But, have fun trying. Good luck to you. :conf

:hat
 
Aug 2, 2013
11,872
6,245
They are virtually all Fox News contributors and I have seen Yank reference his disdain for Tim Pool on numerous occasions.
Actually, I know Owens more from youtube, twitter, and this board. I barely know of her from being on fox news. I'm not even sure how much she goes on that channel.

Hannity - I've always hated and he's basically an overgrown crybaby which makes him really entertaining to watch whenever the republicans lose a presidential election or a midterm election

Ingraham - Is just a vile nasty cunt, she makes Ann Coulter look almost pleasant and sweet

Tucker - I actually used to be ok with him, even used to watch him sometimes on crossfire back in the day, msnbc back in the day and watch a clip of him every now and then the first year he was on Fox but he's shown himself to be a total piece of shit the last 2 years, plus he's more oversensitive than a woman on her period so watching him having a meltdown over a Trump landslide loss would be amazing to watch, "Must see tv"

Tim Pool and Candace Owens - These are a new category of people I can't stand, overemotional, disingenuous and full of shit grifters. I didn't even know who either one of these 2 was a couple of years ago but I'd like to see their reaction to a Trump landslide loss also. I would put David Rubin in the "grifter" category also but he won't be as entertaining to watch because he keeps his emotions in check. I think he's more focused on the dollar anyway, it's probably for him, 90% about the money and 10% about the politics. Hell, I wouldn't even be surprised if most of his views are still liberal






@TFG
 
Reactions: Leftsmash

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
42,581
19,526
I don't think we should be hard on Donnie. He applied for a job for a laugh, not expecting to get it, and he got it. So he has done what anyone else would do in that situation and tried to wing it best he could without being found out. I honestly see his position as being more symbolic than anything else anyway.
Is this you being a pure troll, or is this you being a genuine retard? Essentially, there is no difference, as this sort of braindead shit is all we'll ever get from you.

:hat
 
Aug 2, 2013
11,872
6,245
Ben Shapiro will be a wasted slot. I'm sure the two of you disagree fiercely on nearly everything politically, but he has actually been appropriately critical of Trump throughout the last 4 years. He didn't have a lot of nice things to say about him from the first debate either, whereas most of the people on Bal's list are partisan to the core. Especially Hannity. No, Shapiro probably won't have a meltdown if Biden wins the election because he partly expects it and he has no loyalty to Trump.
Yeah, you're right about this. I didn't even think about putting Shapiro on my list. I've listened to him enough to know that he doesn't even like Trump, probably just views him more of a "lesser of 2 evils" to vote for and would probably "look on the bright side" at a Trump loss and would focus more on rebuilding the republican party.
 
Reactions: Pedderrs
Aug 2, 2013
11,872
6,245
Tim Pool will be my go to, he's already advocating for terrorism, cant wait to see what the next step is going to be especially once the libs start legislating against incels.
What's your top 5?

Btw, after you make your list, use that for motivation to vote for Biden since you're on the fence about it

I partially wrote my list so I could go back and refer to it in the probable event of a Biden victory
 

Pedderrs

It's a strange world
Jun 1, 2012
23,559
15,899
31
United Kingdom
The line between a conversation and debate is a very thin one and really not that important, I perhaps gave you too much credit in thinking you would reply with your reasoning, I would disagree and that would be the debate. Let's not forget you replied to my critiscms of Ben with reference to his books sales statistics and his subscriber count...that seems like a counter argument to me, a monumentally stupid and irrelevant one, but a counter none the less.
You likely used the word 'debate' because you were trying to manufacture one. I appreciate it is Sunday and there isn't a lot to do at the moment given the climate, but I don't have the motivation.

I apologise.

Not engaging in discussion regarding Trump does not equate to being indifferent to him as a politician and person, though I think you already know that. We've had plenty of political debates on here before, I've seen you actively participating in Trump threads and making very developed arguments on people like Ben Shapiro, so I don't think asking you to elaborate on a potential political opinion is too much to ask for.

Tbf this is my own fault and I should have known that asking you a question like this was a huge leap of faith so never mind :lol:
I'm willing to forgive you. Just don't do it again.
 
Reactions: Joe E

Pedderrs

It's a strange world
Jun 1, 2012
23,559
15,899
31
United Kingdom
Yeah, you're right about this. I didn't even think about putting Shapiro on my list. I've listened to him enough to know that he doesn't even like Trump, probably just views him more of a "lesser of 2 evils" to vote for and would probably "look on the bright side" at a Trump loss and would focus more on rebuilding the republican party.
I think it is fair to say that Ben would much rather a Trump victory than a Biden one, but I don't envisage him having a meltdown if Trump were to lose.

It is not uncommon for people to brand Shapiro as a 'never Trumper'.

Don't waste your slot, Bal.
 
Reactions: Big Yank Bal

Icemmann

Breakin it down.
May 16, 2013
12,048
5,253
41
The tree outside GABBY'S room


More gun use by criminals will always lead to a rise in police killings. This is why you can't use facts in isolation, saying 'something is happening' is not enough. You have to explain why.
Suicide, idiot.

The murder rate as well as the number of overall murders are lower than in 90's, 80's, 70's and 60's despite their being far more people now.


What a babbling fucking stooge.
 

Pedderrs

It's a strange world
Jun 1, 2012
23,559
15,899
31
United Kingdom
Actually, I know Owens more from youtube, twitter, and this board. I barely know of her from being on fox news. I'm not even sure how much she goes on that channel.

Hannity - I've always hated and he's basically an overgrown crybaby which makes him really entertaining to watch whenever the republicans lose a presidential election or a midterm election

Ingraham - Is just a vile nasty cunt, she makes Ann Coulter look almost pleasant and sweet

Tucker - I actually used to be ok with him, even used to watch him sometimes on crossfire back in the day, msnbc back in the day and watch a clip of him every now and then the first year he was on Fox but he's shown himself to be a total piece of shit the last 2 years, plus he's more oversensitive than a woman on her period so watching him having a meltdown over a Trump landslide loss would be amazing to watch, "Must see tv"

Tim Pool and Candace Owens - These are a new category of people I can't stand, overemotional, disingenuous and full of shit grifters. I didn't even know who either one of these 2 was a couple of years ago but I'd like to see their reaction to a Trump landslide loss also. I would put David Rubin in the "grifter" category also but he won't be as entertaining to watch because he keeps his emotions in check. I think he's more focused on the dollar anyway, it's probably for him, 90% about the money and 10% about the politics. Hell, I wouldn't even be surprised if most of his views are still liberal






@TFG
Do you genuinely not believe the words 'overemotional' and 'disingenuous' are applicable to the majority of reporters on either side of the political spectrum? Perhaps your real issue with these people isn't that they are partisan, but that they are partisan for the other side?
 

Bachafach^^^

ANTIFA *funded by Soros* cucking the fash
Dec 6, 2019
7,678
5,835
20
Varaždin, Hrvaška
What's your top 5?

Btw, after you make your list, use that for motivation to vote for Biden since you're on the fence about it

I partially wrote my list so I could go back and refer to it in the probable event of a Biden victory
I'll have to think about it, the schadenfruede from magas will keep me well satisfied. I dont know if I will find as much entertainment from the Crowder, Shapiro and Candace crowd just because I know its a grift and insincere.

The salt from magas will probably outrank them all. Especially if Joe doesnt make it 4 years
 

TFG

Jul 23, 2013
8,260
4,846
You likely used the word 'debate' because you were trying to manufacture one. I appreciate it is Sunday and there isn't a lot to do at the moment given the climate, but I don't have the motivation.

I apologise.



I'm willing to forgive you. Just don't do it again.
Seems like you've got some weird brand of PTSD from getting scolded on here in the past, now you are too scared to even entertain any potential debate in case it happens again, even when someone is trying to hold your hand through the ordeal :lol:

Got to blame Haggis for dunking on you tbf
 
Reactions: Pedderrs

TFG

Jul 23, 2013
8,260
4,846
Do you genuinely not believe the words 'overemotional' and 'disingenuous' are applicable to the majority of reporters on either side of the political spectrum? Perhaps your real issue with these people isn't that they are partisan, but that they are partisan for the other side?
Ah the classic false equivalence.

I'd ask you to compare these issues person to person to establish whether they are indeed equal but I don't want to trigger some repressed defense mechanism so I will lurk quietly why iceman eventually sends you to the shed.

As you were.
 

Pedderrs

It's a strange world
Jun 1, 2012
23,559
15,899
31
United Kingdom
Seems like you've got some weird brand of PTSD from getting scolded on here in the past, now you are too scared to even entertain any potential debate in case it happens again, even when someone is trying to hold your hand through the ordeal :lol:

Got to blame Haggis for dunking on you tbf
PTSD is nothing to joke about, TFG!

What does that stand for again? :think1