What does Sup Forums think of Steven Crowder?

What does Sup Forums think of Steven Crowder?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=TpyPpwkM3Fw
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

He's a neocon good goy, but at least he's better than most of the brainwashed Marxist millennial icons on YouTube.

I like when he buries his tongue in ben shapiros kike asshole

He's a cuckservative in many respects

he blames Democrats for Detroit and not niggers

A "Dems are the real racist" cuck faggot. He also said Dylann Roof was a liberal lol. Best goy

I don't agree with him on some points but overall he's bretty cool

he's the definition of "meh"

The John Oliver of the right.

Edge lord "hurr durr are u offended yet?"

General candy ass

YOU'RE A STRANGE ANIMAL

kek, Dylann iz da man

Bluepilled as fuck.

a hilariously young relic of the old right

he's like a late investor into MySpace or something, the poor fuck.

Friendly reminder that the tranny debating Steven is an advocate for consciously spreading AIDS/HIV.

youtube.com/watch?v=TpyPpwkM3Fw

>he's like a late investor into MySpace

at least he evolved from predicting that the internet is going to be stillborth to investing in myspace

his tears over El Rato being "the real anti-establishment" are fucking delicious

yep, real cuckservative

other than that, an "alt-right" shitty e-celeb, fuck'im

Better than being on the regressive left.

First post best post

he's alright

says some stupid shit

could be worse I guess

He's funny, and makes some excellent points about gun control and whatnot, but can often be stupid and not that great to watch.

Basically his target audience is the college republicans club and the young conservatives. The neocon-right's version of TYT only with comedy and sometimes more coherent argument

I actually am very thankful for this man. I was browsing youtube one day and his video was one of the one's listed randomly for the day and I clicked it and didn't think much of it, then later watching it again and was really shocked. Then I watched Molyneux and Milo and all that faggot shit.

But randomly stumbling upon his video brought me here which is pretty awesome.

Dude is a fucking retard whose "arguments" rely entirely on completely misrepresenting the positions of the people he's talking about. Double-digit IQ retards eat that kind of shit up.

Controlled opposition comedian and as intellectually valuable as a donut. And a former liberal like Antitrump Dana Loesch.
Good for some laughs but don't expect any red pills.
He didn't push as aggressive against Trump as Shapiro but he is in the same category.

He's alright but Sup Forums can't get over the fact that he doesn't 100% share their opinions. A bloo bloo he respects trump but doesn't smoke his cock! How dare he not be the right-wing version of SJWs (like a lot of Sup Forums is)

One of his videos he did admit that he would have no problem marrying a black women and having a nigger baby.

Trump said that about his daughter too, doesn't make it real. It is just virtue signalling.

Liberals don't make arguments based on logic or common sense, but on their personal feelings. They then get devastated by facts so they resort to being rude and emotional because reality is a pill that is too hard to swallow.

Theocrat, creationist, idiot.

mmmmmm hott

>think of
the latest darling of the clickbait shills

See this is what I'm talking about. When you learn to stop being such a presumptuous arrogant ass, then come see me. Until then, I'm not even going to entertain double-digit IQ retards like you and Crowder who think saying this kind of shit is the same as actually making an argument.

Wow.

You and your feelings though.

Same here

You literally reacted the exact way you were stereotyped into reacting. You got emotional, acted rude, and stormed off pretending to be taking the higher ground. Nice one.

Got an example, or are you just talking out of that gapped asshole of yours?

>What does Sup Forums think of...

These threads are nigger-tier and you should leave.

Not at all. I was making the point that people like that guy, and Crowder, aren't interested in an honest debate on the issue. All they want to do is try to frame the opposition in a way that makes them look bad on a personal level. That kind of shit is incredibly immature, and has no place in our political discourse.

The fact that you can't see my point is exactly the problem. That's not how this shit is supposed to work.

Lame cheeseball

Fucking hilarious and fun

Oh you mean like retarded liberals do all the time. Get the fuck over yourself and go back to sucking off refugees for charity or whatever it is leftists do now a days.

I (very briefly) watched one of his videos on Bernie Sanders, and his entire argument was essentially "Bernie is an evil communist who wants the government to control your life and destroy the economy." That is wrong on every single level. It is tailored specifically to the lowest-common denominator - the low-information folks who aren't capable of acknowledging the difference between Bernie and Stalin. It's just pathetic.

>Oh you mean like retarded liberals do all the time
People in general are probably prone to engage in similar behavior regardless of political affiliation. That doesn't really speak to the left or the right so much as it does to the individuals who do it.

>Get the fuck over yourself and go back to sucking off refugees for charity or whatever it is leftists do now a days.
Thanks for your "contribution."

How is it wrong? How is saying that the goal of socialism is to consolidate all industry under the government, wrong?

I like him, he's not full Sup Forums but he doesn't have to be for me to enjoy listening to him and hearing other points of view. I'm an Anglo originally from Quebec as well so I may be a slight bit biased.

Cuckservative. He even said he used to date a black girl.

Could that be because that video was aimed at millennial Sanders supporters?

For being so astute on debating tactics you seem to be awful at debating.

You don't get to make a new statement and then say "I said that all along and if you didn't realize that then you're stupid". Off the bat that's a lie and an ad hominem, both of which render your whole argument invalid.

You may not like it when people say "Bernie is a dirty communist" but you don't get to say that it's invalid when he follows up the statement by saying stuff like "Bernie is a dirty communist because his plan is to increase taxes in order for the people who make more money to support the people who make less money", but he made a claim and he backed it up with a fact so that makes it completely valid. That's not "on a personal level" like you claim, a personal insult would sound something like, oh I dunno, "that shit is incredibly immature".

Nigger tier loudness, obnoxious. No, no and no.

Well, first of all, "socialist" in the traditional sense is not even the proper word to use to describe Bernie's policies. Maybe in an ideal world he would like a command economy, I don't really know, but what I do know are the policies he argues in favor for on the campaign trail. Based on those policies, referring to himself as a "socialist" in the first place was just as factually incorrect as it was politically damaging.

Bernie is, more accurately, a social democrat, at least as he has presented himself for this election. He is not advocating for a command economy, but instead wants to continue operating within the underlying market economy with an activist government that seeks to represent the interests of all the people rather than simply the business class. a Bernie presidency would support collective bargaining, unions, and a state-mandated minimum wage in the private sector rather than eliminating the private sector entirely. In other words, he would be a pro-labor President, not a socialist dictator. The only exception would likely be healthcare, which is one area where he has been quite vocal about his desire for a single-payer approach.

Aside from pro-labor domestic policies, he would also serve as President with the goal of implementing tuition-free attendance at state universities. This would be paid for partly (about 2/3rds) with a small tax on the least productive sector of the economy, which does nothing but build wealth for the already-wealthy, and the other 1/3 would come from the states. Naturally, this would mean some states would fight it, and those states probably wouldn't reap the benefits of educational availability. He is not, in any sense, a traditional "socialist/communist," as you and people like you want to claim he is.

>increase taxes in order for the people who make more money to support the people who make less money
That's not communism. So, yes, I can say that argument is wrong. It relies on a completely incorrect understanding of what communism even is.

Exactly. Maybe he is just a babby's first redpill, but we need this sort of "accessible" guys too.

was for

Ok. So the whole argument you made in your second paragraph is that he wants to have command over the economy. You have but refuted my original point.

Secondly, the government in America shouldn't be advocating for anything. Our founding document is based on the idea that the government shouldn't be advocating at all. States have rights. Not the federal government. You'll excuse me if I don't support someone who wants to expand the power of the executive even more.

>So the whole argument you made in your second paragraph is that he wants to have command over the economy
No.. Not at all.

Tell me something. Do you even know what a command economy is? Because it sounds like you don't.

>You'll excuse me if I don't support someone who wants to expand the power of the executive even more.
I've got some bad news for you, user. The expansion of the powers of the federal government is a process that has been taking place since the moment we replaced the Articles of Confederation. Our own constitution represents a significant increase in the power of the federal government in the first place. As for the executive, well, even Thomas Jefferson expanded the President's powers while in office. This, too, is something that the U.S. has a long history of, dating back to the earliest days of the country.

Naturally, states do have rights. However, the history of the U.S (the real history, not your idealized make-believe one,) is a story of an expanding federal government and strengthening chief executive. Even the politicians of the past who you admire most assuredly contributed to this process.

As far as states' rights are concerned specifically, it seems to me that your interest in those rights generally goes only as far as the "right" of states to enact discriminatory legislation and policy. As a matter of fact, so-called 'conservatives' have historically supported the expansion of federal powers when it comes to advancing issues *they* care about, while simultaneously decrying it when it comes to issues they don't like. Consider DOMA, for example. Where were states' rights then?

> Tell me something. Do you even know what a command economy is? Because it sounds like you.

> I'm going to say your wrong and not refute you.

Cool argument.

And yes, so called conservatives have expanded the power of the executive. Sometimes. Historically, it's been Democrats and fiscal liberals to expand the power of the executive. Our greatest presidents, have been the executives that left well enough alone. Calvin Coolidge being the biggest example. Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower are other examples. Our greatest moments of economic prosperity and growth in the private sector are from presidents and congress who were fiscal conservatives who stayed out of things the government shouldn't be in to begin with.

>not refute you
You didn't even understand the post you were responding to, which is why the only thing you took from it was that "Bernie wants to have command over the economy." I suggest going back and reading it again, because I very clearly stated the exact opposite. The reason why I asked if you know what a command economy is is because the question is at the heart of the matter when it comes to whether or not you understand what communism is. If you have no understanding of a command economy, then you have no understanding of communism, and should frankly stop calling people communists when they are not.

>Our greatest presidents, have been the executives that left well enough alone
>Teddy Roosevelt
Teddy Roosevelt was an unapologetic progressive who used the power of the federal government in a way not unlike a President Warren would, and in a way that is similar in some ways (albeit to a lesser extent) as what we would see from a President Sanders.

Teddy would very much disagree with your assertion that the government should "leave well enough alone," and his many actions as President illustrate that.

>Eisenhower
Eisenhower literally deployed federal troops to enforce Brown v. Board of Education. Eisenhower supported the Federal Interstate Highway Program, which is the opposite of "leaving well enough alone.

I watch his broadcast every Saturday after work. Whether or not he's particularly good is up for debate, but I enjoy his points.