I never came to prove the point, I just wanted to point out that it's easy to dismiss things as smear jobs when they say negative things about someone you like, regardless if it was a smear job or not.
But you could say that about any of the candidates. If you work under the assumption that all the evidence is fabricated and every word is a lie, then any (or all, for that matter) of the possible candidates could be the reptilian choice. So why not vote for the one that at least appears not to be?
It's also worth noting that having "a lot of fun and life experiences" is not generally considered a qualification for the presidency. And it should be fairly clear to you that Trump has not created jobs, as these jobs are ancillary to his property business, which has underperformed: that is, he has created jobs at a lower rate than the real estate market as a whole.
"A man maced a 15 year old girl at a Trump rally in Janesville Wisconsin yesterday. The teenager also punched a man who she says grabbed her breast."
Now, compare that sequence of events with the video tape. The girl punches a dude, THEN gets maced. Dear Dinosaur Media: This is the age of the internet, you can't lie anymore.
In that one specific article you have a point. But my point is that no matter what article or source, you'd find a way to discredit it and label it as a smear job. Of course now that I point that out, I'm sure you will deny it.
Well, what phase would you like them to move to now that they are almost done with the investigation? Investigating someone doesn't mean they are guilty.
What if I told you that trump says all this stupid shit because he knows how exploit the entire MSM into being his personal pro bono ad agency? Hes a billionare, hes pretty old, and he is very well connected. I seriously doubt he is in any way stupid like he pretends to be.
This is either very dangerous, or great news for america, and im not aure which.
Actually, the evidence from Trump's actual business career (as opposed to his media career) is that he's fairly stupid. He's managed to grow the wealth he inherited at less than the risk-free rate, which suggests he's not even averagely smart.
You can find a useful first discussion of the subject here. I have also seen a discussion of his investment returns relative to a risk-free T-bill index, though don't have the link to hand; the conclusion was similar.
His actual IQ is 156, he needed to take a test before entering Wharton. And I have no idea why you'd trust the opinion of some random blogger working off of observation.
I'd rather have a president with an IQ of 100 and decent character than any kind of genius. (IQ isn't, on its own, a useful measure of anything very much.)
"Current Directions in Psychological Science" (1993, Volume 2, Number 1, pp. 1-5). Robert Sternberg & Richard Wagner.
The discussion of "tacit knowledge" is particularly compelling, but the discussion of the difference between practical and academic intelligence is also rather good.
For more details, you need to speak to a specialist, as this is about as far as my own knowledge goes.
I know exactly why. But if I tell you, I'll be labeled as a crazy [insert numerous negative adjectives] person. Even if you think you won't react that way, you probably will because people in the west has been taught, through both media and schools, to react like that towards the thing.
The Honorable Chairman Comrade Sanders still takes money from special interests and from the Democratic Party. He does go against the establishment in some ways, but he pushes for the things the establishment wants the most (bigger government, open borders, amnesty, free trade) of his own volition anyways, so they let him do his song and dance. He's controlled opposition.
Yeah I don't think it's just the elite that are scared of Trump. The rest of the world and a good chunk of the US is terrified of just how much permanent damage he could do as president. Remember that Back to the Future II's Biff was based on Trump.
The rest of the world isn't voting for Trump, their opinion doesn't matter. That "chunk of the US" is the chunk that takes what the lugenpresse says as gospel. And BttF II was a shit movie.
I don't agree with everything Bernie says but he certainly comes off as a much more genuinely spoken person. Trump is just out there to say what people want to here or to incite reaction.
If you actually did some research instead of parroting media rhetoric, you would know that's bullshit. He said the same things he's saying now in Crippled America and The Art of the Deal, it's more than clear that these are his genuine views. And Sanders has done his own share of pandering with lines like "white people don't know what it's like to be poor."
Europe here. We've got plenty of experience of watching wannabe dictators slowly rise to power. On the plus side, I don't think Trump is America's Hitler. One the minus side, I fear he's probably your Mussolini.
Wow the fact you are being downvoted for this comment, along with the replies make me realize that the people on this site really are retarded. I don't know about you but I'm out lol.
Has it occurred to you that our constitution doesn't allow that sort of person to gain that much power? The president holds a lot of cards, but he cannot suspend the constitution or dissolve the congress. Congress can override almost any decision he makes and the courts can override things congress/states do.
People who say he's going to become some kind of dictator are delusional.
No. Trump has many non-standard features, of which the most dangerous is that he isn't a career politician.
The advantage of electing a career politician is that they want to leave the game in one piece at the end, so that they can play it again. The disadvantage of electing a populist is that he will give the people what they want. This is a problem because most people don't understand that what they want is (a) probably inconsistent, and (b) almost certainly bad for them. Give the electorate what they want and they'll leave the country bankrupt and ruined within a couple of years. The risk is compounded in the United States by the horrific damage done to the electorate by the Republican Party's cynicism (which, to an outsider, is several orders of magnitude greater than the Democratic Party's), which has dangerously damaged your body politic.
The country is already bankrupt. We've been fucking inundated with shitskins for decades and all our manufacturing has been moved overseas. Even with all that- Europe is STILL more fucked than we are.
No, the USA isn't already bankrupt. It certainly has its problems, as do all countries, but it's not bankrupt. On balance I'm not sure whether the USA has more or fewer problems than Europe - the problems are different, so it's hard to provide a meaningful comparison.
The interesting thing about your response is that you do seem to be a typical Trump voter - howling with racist unhappiness and a poor grasp of what makes an economy valuable (hint: it hasn't been manufacturing for 30 years), and now hoping that a populist demagogue will magically turn back the clock to a time that never existed and an isolationist America that never was. (I'm not seeking to make an ad hominem attack here, just describing how you seem to me from your words.)
You are the one howling "waaaaaayyycist" with no support. The value of the dollar is shit, no one under 40 honestly believe they'll ever retire, and the Saudis and Chinese own most of the nation's wealth.
You seem like a typical armchair economist faggot European, likely Jewish, who is going to be calling for committees and more taxes to fund "the immigration of our quintessentially European new citizens the Muslims" as your daughter is raped and your rabbi murdered.
The united States was isolationist for large parts of its history, it was only since 1965 that the gates were flung open and the reduction in quality of life began.
I think using an epithet like "shitskin" makes it fairly clear that you're a racist.
As for my being an "armchair economist", well, that's only true when I'm sitting in an armchair. At other times I'm just an economist. I teach and research, and even do some consulting for financial firms from time to time. I mostly work in areas round financial economics and econometrics (with a particular interest in the forecasting of macroeconomic variables), and in various rather specialised areas that are of little interest to non-economists, though my teaching burden covers a very wide range of topics. I'm not Jewish, so don't have a rabbi; my ancestry is largely Scandinavian and Celtic, I believe, though I've never had much interest in genealogy.
I'm not a communist, either. My friends and colleagues are from a wide range of ethnicities, and I suppose I like them all. I aspire to keep my love life private.
Well, I mean, considering that the Republican party was previously taken over by the populist Tea Party movement, maybe it needs a new populist to break their extremist foundation. I mean, the other options are a religious fanatic who honestly believes God chose him to be president, and a guy who is as standard far right wing as you get.
Trump is at least different. He's a little nuts, but he's not stupid, and he's definitely not a standard Republican talking head.
The problems in the Republican Party go way back beyond the Tea Party. I'd say they go back to Nixon's "Southern Strategy", but have gradually been getting more and more extreme. If I had to specify the point at which the rot became dangerous, I'd probably pick Rumsfeld and Cheney's tenure in the Ford White House, as they seem to have been the point at which the Republican Party explicitly decided to split the electorate.
Trump is substantially more than a little nuts: he is readily classifiable as a sociopath (see Wikipedia for a number of tests that you can modify to apply to people who won't take a self-assessment). He is also fairly obviously stupid, largely because he has learnt to bully his staff instead of think for himself. He was not a successful businessman: he would have made more money putting his inherited wealth in T-Bills than running his own business. And, no, I agree, he's not a standard right-winger: he's a populist, and that's far more dangerous.
Well, I don't fully agree with all your points, but I also lack an in-depth expertise on the subject, so I can only speak for a cursory knowledge of each available candidate. I can only hope that things end up alright in the end.
My own expertise is in economics. In this area it appears that Trump's positions (where I've been able to identify them) would, if implemented, be ruinous for the US economy. His tariff plans would likely create a very deep recession. His plans to repatriate a large number of migrants would lead to a further hollowing out of industry in the US, along with higher prices for a wide range of consumer goods and services. His tax plans would benefit other millionaires, true, but they would likely increase the direct and indirect tax burdens on the middle class, and would make working class people much worse off, as there would be a net shift to consumption taxation.
On other areas I am not an expert, but I am informed by colleagues who are, and whose judgements I trust, that Trump's diplomatic policies would be dangerous to international peace, that his policies on housing would lead to higher rental rates, and that his educational policies would be neutral or mildly negative. His defence policies would be severely damaging to the stability of Western Europe.
Has it ever occurred to you that some/many of the "wannabe dictators" actually have tried to do what's best for their people? For example if we look at the current leadership of Europe, particularly the western and northern part, do you think they're good leaders for their own people?
I favour her because she seems to be capable of adjusting her thoughts and actions, and, I suppose, because she seems capable of introspection. "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
He also cites a video endorsement he gave Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the Jewish state’s January 2013 election, expressing pride that it was “at the time the only ad done by a celebrity” for Netanyahu.
How close, in fact, is Trump’s relationship with Judaism? Unlike the name of his reality TV show, he is no apprentice when it comes to the Jewish faith. Trump’s daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism in 2009, and her observance of Shabbat with her husband Jared Kushner (a well-known real estate developer as well as the owner and publisher of the New York Observer newspaper) is well-documented
“I have great respect for [the Shabbat traditions], and I see Ivanka during Saturday, and from Friday evening on through Saturday night, she won’t take phone calls and they live a very interesting life,” Trump said. “And it’s actually a beautiful thing to watch, with Jared and Ivanka. In a very hectic life, it really becomes a very peaceful time. So there’s something very nice about it.”
There are already 14 declared Republican presidential candidates, and many of them are publicly expressing support for Israel, but Trump argues—in his typically brash and blunt fashion—that his history with the Jewish people and the Jewish state can set him apart from the rest of the crowded GOP field.
Donald Trump: “I think President Obama is one of the worst things that’s ever happened to Israel. I think he’s set back [Israeli] relations with the United States terribly, and for people and friends of mine who are Jewish, I don’t know how they can support President Obama. He has been very bad for Israel.”
“I know so many people from Israel. I have so many friends in Israel. First of all, the Israelis are great businesspeople. They have a natural instinct for business and their start-ups are fantastic. I deal with the Israelis all the time, and I deal with people who are Jewish all the time, whether they are Israeli or not.”
This is genuinely the best argument you can conjure? Really? Based on that we should be convinced Trump is a Jewish shill? Phew ... you're going to have to do better than that, bub.
A) Pretty sure the onus is on you to prove the argument.
B) Trump having a Jewish-converted daughter and making comments that he thinks Obama fucked up relations between the US and Israel, and that he can do better, is not convincing.
C) Prove he's been taking Jewish money in order to hold a position and you'll have a start at saying he's a shill. This is just bullshit nothingness you're swinging around. Who gives a fuck? It's literally non-evidence for what you're arguing.
So that's your full gun of evidence? That earlier post? Because your bar for evidence is horrifically low.
that is very convincing. Not my fault you're putting your hands over your eyes.
Your evidence is shit. Convince me, I'm asking you to, but don't think what you've offered is a first step.
Do you really think he'd fuck over his new family?
Fuck them over? Not being a shill is fucking them over? Further, if he's not taking heeb money, how is he by definition a shill? That's what shills do--take money covertly to support a position they might ordinarily not support.
His words in the link are good enough. The fact that his daughter and son married kikes is good enough. Saying Obama has been bad for our relationship with Israel is good enough. Muh friends in Israel. Kek. He's a kike shill.
I will make a thread if Trump wins and turns out like the rest.
There is an equal chance you are too. So fucking what.
I'm voting for the guy that takes the least bribes for favors. And wants to repeal the Obamacare slavery payments. And wants to deport illegal alien criminals. And wants to finish the border wall. And wants to tax shitty chinese imports and knockoffs. And wants keep unvetted muslims\refugees\terrorists out of the US. And wants to punish companies that outsource production with taxes. And wants to bring back manufacturing jobs by taxing imports. And doesn't sign shitty trade deals like TPP.
I could go on, but any single one of those things is 100% more than any other candidate will actually do.
There is an equal chance you are too. So fucking what.
How so?
I agree with most of his statements. Mainly the wall, Mexicans and mudslimes. But do I think he'll do it? Fuck no. Nothing that has happened in the past 20 years tells me he will any different.
Re: the link I posted about his comments about his kike daughter and son and Obama and Israel.
So you agree with most of his statements (especially the racist ones), but post big huge diatribes about how he is awful and you shouldn't vote for him. That Smells So Shilly.
No one in the past 20 (or 100) years has been elected that isn't completely owned by donors. Your waiting for the perfect candidate won't happen, this is as close to good as it gets.
Honestly, considering that it's a fact that she kept the server secret from the state department, it's a fact she stored 2000+ emails with classified intel, 20 or so with top secret information (and this is stuff not needing to be marked, it's classified at birth, and Hillary had the authorization level to recognize its classification and report it for being on a non-state server), it's a fact that she used her charity foundation to do state business.
Something she did was illegal, and the feds will nail her for it.
Honestly, considering that it's a fact that she kept the server secret from the state department,
So did the last two secretaries of state Rice and Powell, who both have now had emails retroactively classified as top secret.
it's a fact she stored 2000+ emails with classified intel, 20 or so with top secret information (and this is stuff not needing to be marked, it's classified at birth, and Hillary had the authorization level to recognize its classification and report it for being on a non-state server)
And none of that was illegal:
In addition to the classified email system used in SCIFs, there are personal email accounts. Prior to 2013, these could be accounts inside the relatively unsecure State Department system or private email accounts. If they are private—running through a commercial or personal server—they have to follow some rules set up in the Federal Register . There are no guards, no red-black procedures, no construction rules, no special rooms, no TEMPEST, no TSCM. And most important: Until 2013, there was no rule against using them. In fact, the rules specifically allowed for them. Check out the relevant section in the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR Chapter XII, Subchapter B, section 1236.22b) for the rules regarding the use of personal email accounts by any State Department official.
From this Newsweek article. Oh, and there is also this:
“There are plenty of unattractive facts but not a lot of clear evidence of criminality, and we tend to forget the distinction,” American University law professor Stephen Vladeck, an expert on prosecutions involving classified information, told me. “This is really just a political firestorm, not a criminal case.”
So, essentially, while you don't like it, and personally I don't like it, it's very unlikely it was against the law.
it's a fact that she used her charity foundation to do state business.
No, again it is not, pure supposition.
Something she did was illegal, and the feds will nail her for it.
That's your fervent hope, I understand that, but really, it's all smoke and no fire. Much like Benghazi, just because folks yell really loud, doesn't mean they are right.
Well besides the comments on Mexicans(no its not a race, but he sure uses it like one, he's really just talking about brown people, but thats semantics), and being sued for discrimination and being forced to change his practices, there's stuff like this:
A well-educated black has a tremendous advantage over a well-educated white in terms of the job market. I think sometimes a black may think they don't have an advantage or this and that... I've said on one occasion, even about myself, if I were starting off today, I would love to be a well-educated black, because I believe they do have an actual advantage.
and
I have black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else. Besides that, I've got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy. And it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It's not anything they can control... Don't you agree?
Hmmm. What is the cause of this? It's affirmative action. Along with affirmative action, that same educated black will be out over the same educated white. Learn what you're talking about before you say it.
Again, not a fact, it's a stupid generalization.
Oh but it is. Kek you have no idea what you're talking about bro.
Hmmm. What is the cause of this? It's affirmative action.
LOL those percentages don't mean shit. Show me the raw numbers. Was it 56.4 of 100 applicants or a thousand? Were there 10-fold more white applicants? Asian ones? My bet is you use these numbers to make your point because they seem to show what you want them to, but without the context, this information is essentially useless. But I know this from debating you in the past, same shit different day.
Oh but it is. Kek you have no idea what you're talking about bro.
Only if you are trying to skew the viewpoint, I can figure out percentages all by myself. Show me the raw numbers, I'd be willing to bet that even those those numbers look bad, that there are still significantly more white applicants accepted, because of the numbers. But, of course, that doesn't fit your agenda, now does it.
What have we debated in the past?
Mostly your stupid racist bullshit and trying to skew numbers to make them say what you want them to. You know, just like you are doing now.
Do you know anything about jew history? I doubt it.
What the fuck does that have to do with the price of tea in china? Did you get lost somewhere? Was that the right window?
Even if Trump is racist so what? Given the context I'm inclined to think that's a good thing if anything.
The racism smear has lost a lot of its potency anyway. White people get called racist and it's become like blacks getting called nigger. It's little more than a cuss word at this point.
Why are you hurling it by the way? I notice that you do it frequently. Aren't you some white bread dude whose folks were here in the colonial era? Seems like an odd sort to be an in your face SJW type.
Even if Trump is racist so what? Given the context I'm inclined to think that's a good thing if anything.
Good for you?
The racism smear has lost a lot of its potency anyway. White people get called racist and it's become like blacks getting called nigger. It's little more than a cuss word at this point.
Yeah, that's what the racists keep saying.
The racism smear has lost a lot of its potency anyway. White people get called racist and it's become like blacks getting called nigger. It's little more than a cuss word at this point.
I'm not an SJW of any kind, not my thing, but I really don't like racism and will call it out when I see it. Sorry that offends you ... well not really, I don't give a fuck about you.
I'm not offended. I'm trying to understand what I'm dealing with more like. A person's background, lifestyle, and relationships says a lot about what kind of political views he/she is going to have.
Though your uncalled for, gratuitous use of the f bomb is also a bit out of character for a colonial WASP type so maybe I'd be better off ignoring you.
But if you're what you've said you are I figure you either have Mexican family members or are affluent enough to be out of touch with the effects of mass immigration. Well off shitlibs looking down their noses at white rednecks who have to actually, you know, live around these people is nothing new in American history, after all.
I'm not offended. I'm trying to understand what I'm dealing with more like. A person's background, lifestyle, and relationships says a lot about what kind of political views he/she is going to have.
You judge a man by his bloodline and that happens. I grew up in the projects in Alabama with a single mother and 2 siblings. My mom was a school teacher and we were dirt poor. I now work in the technology field and make a damn good living. I spend a good deal of time and money supporting the causes I believe in.
Though your uncalled for, gratuitous use of the f bomb is also a bit out of character for a colonial WASP type so maybe I'd be better off ignoring you.
I use whatever language I think will get my point across. I'm a bit of a chameleon in the sense as I tailor my responses to those that I receive.
But if you're what you've said you are I figure you either have Mexican family members or are affluent enough to be out of touch with the effects of mass immigration.
I see the effects, I see small businesses that are carried by illegal immigrants. I see MANY business owners making money of the backs of many of these immigrants. I see lots of good things that these immigrants bring, not just the bad ones. I find it telling that the story is they are lazy illegal immigrants, yet they are taking all of our jobs. I've seen rednecks live on welfare while simultaneously complaining about the lazy mexicans taking their jobs. I also see the other side, the taxing of public services, the dumbing down of the schools to the lowest common denominator. I'm not willing to place all the problem in our country on a single segment of society. We've got problems all over the place, and immigration is just a sliver of it.
Well off shitlibs looking down their noses at white rednecks who have to actually, you know, live around these people is nothing new in American history, after all.
Yes, they do, just as the elite right-wing nut jobs do they same. The monied elite are really no different regardless of what color they wear. As long as all the plebes stay quiet, everything is good.
In other words, I have a very wide array of life experiences I use as my lens to the world. I try my best to see both sides of every argument so that not only can I tailor my message, but I can at least try to understand where the other side is coming from.
That being said, there are a lot of dense motherfuckers around these parts that need to be slapped into reality every now and again.
yeah. do you think stereotypes just magically appear out of nowhere? if i told you that all asians are amazing drivers would you laugh or agree? if i told you that blacks typically have the smallest cocks would you laugh or agree? if i told you that irish people are never alcoholics would you laugh or agree?
blacks are perceived as lazy because that's what they've proven to be time and time again. stereotypes exist for a reason
I believe any thinking person must hate all 3, and any other person egotistical enough to run for any high-level political office, but the backlash against Trump makes him appear to be the most anti-establishment of the choices.
The only question that remains for me is if he is an insider that has stepped out of the box and the backlash is because he angered his keepers, or is he an insider that is playing a part to get the outsiders' votes.
This is where I'm at. I fear that the establishment can sense the will of the people pulling away from established paradigms and hope to trick us into picking their guy while thinking it was our choice. Honestly, if a candidate isn't bent on overturning citizens united, I feel that they are part of the establishment regardless of what they or the media says. So far, that's none of them.
Given the number of people who are actively working against him, I'd say Trump's fairly genuine in breaking out of the box. He might simply be doing this because he was losing in establishment back office politics, but he's certainly smashing the establishment order.
As for the theory that he's playing spoiler and intends to throw the election for Hillary, I wouldn't be surprised if that's how it started, but Trump would've had to be playing a huge act for years if he isn't enough of an egomaniac to alter the deal once it became clear he has a real shot of winning.
And honestly, morality is for civilians. When you fight a war, the only rule of engagement should be "fuck up the enemy." War will always be a terrible, visceral thing; polishing a turd to try and pretend it's something else will only make things worse in the long run. In any case, the majority of war crimes (like no expanding rounds) aren't actually more cruel than the traditional methods of killing, they just look or sound more cruel to the uninformed, and as such a ban is pushed by way of emotional appeal.
I'm sure there are better ways than sexually humiliating them and shoving tubes up their ass to force feed them when they go on a hunger strike because they'd rather starve themselves to death than live through another day of torture.. Only somebody with absolutely zero empathy would actually advocate torture.
I didn't say they were. But we're fighting whether we like it or not, so if we have to fight, let's do it correctly. Pussyfooting around and fretting about the most "moral" way of killing people is the reason we've been fighting for 15 years. So let's (quickly) finish what we started, and take that as a lesson not to needlessly meddle in foreign affairs. Which is almost exactly what Trump is advocating, as it happens.
We're fighting a very unconventional war against an unconventional enemy. I don't particularly favor torture but I would rather combatants be tortured than innocents killed. It's a case of the lesser evil. I support the use of the NSA for intelligence gathering and cyber warfare. I am as adamantly opposed to the NSA's domestic spying as I am of Obama's support of it. Honestly, I think Trump is the candidate which I am concerned in this regard. Is Trump racist? He is certainly white as well as a man and under the new rubric this qualifies him as racist as well as sexist but I tend to find the people making the new rubric to be the worst people of all.
No, he's referencing the people that are living in Mexico, immigrated legally or illegally from Mexico. Hispanic is the preferred term to use, since liberal progressives made "Mexican" a dirty word.
a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
The term racist was invented by Trotsky in the 1920s. It's now used as a shut down word so all conversations are ended before getting good. Liberals use the word to attempt to stifle discourse because they know they can't discuss matters of race with someone like myself.
but of course, you are more smarter than all those stupid lawyers.
Don't put words in my mouth.
She's done tons of illegal things. Why the fuck are you defending her.
The term racist was invented by Trotsky in the 1920s. It's now used as a shut down word so all conversations are ended before getting good. Liberals use the word to attempt to stifle discourse because they know they can't discuss matters of race with someone like myself.
Yes, I'm only here talking to you because I want to stifle discourse .... derp.
She's done tons of illegal things. Why the fuck are you defending her.
Im not defending her, per se, I think she's a fucking horrible troll and will make a worse president, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to throw her under the bus without any evidence of clear wrongdoing, which is exactly what you folks want to see happen.
Honestly, I see any other reason why trump would build a wall other than racism.
Actually now that I type that, I can think of one. Political Campaign reasons, to have something for people to vote on. And only people who are racist would realistically vote for a big ass wall between US and Mexico.
Edit: Fucking hell everyone, this comment was a joke about how anyone who thinks about it can see through the whole racism guise in a heartbeat. Chill the fuck out.
I don't see North America having to deal with ISIS and the like.
And I don't believe that fences make good neighbors. It makes for neighbors that you hate but don't have to look at. And when those fences falls down...
Well, the thing is, a wall isn't going to stop them.
If the wall is 30 feet high, all it takes to beat the wall is a 31 foot ladder, unless it's constantly guarded, and the guards are either disgustingly well armed, or can outnumber any assailants that would dare attack them.
It's beyond impractical, and I don't think the Mexicans appreciate trump demanding them to pay for the damn wall.
And immediately after that, I thought of a reason why trump would be so much about the wall, but I decided that it would be best if I left the comment in it's original form rather than re-writing it.. I don't think Trump is racist, I think Trump is a dipshit. A dipshit that would be hilarious if he became president.
What I do not have respect for, is militarizing police and guards. Unless the border wall is being patrolled constantly by multiple guards at all times, all it takes is to rally up 5 or so of your mates with guns, planks, and whatever to take down a single guard, if there even is a guard there at the time they arrive at the wall.
And if a single guard can take out 5 or so armed assailants, then that is a militarized guard, no way around it.
Do you honestly believe that the US is in such immediate danger that they should recall all military forces to build a wall and man it with military personnel?
Oh, and border guards should not be military either. I'm in favour of regulated borders, but not such blatantly xenophobic practices to the point where we have military soldiers patrolling the borders constantly. And if it ever get's to such mental security levels, I would just bypass the wall all together with a boat. Hell, even if it was just a guy in a rifle and bullet proof vest I would fancy the chances with a speed boat instead of trying to get through him.
In fact, I wonder if any illegal immigrants get into US through a guy ferrying people with a speed boat... That seems like a smart way to do things, actually.
You're part of the problem- the primary role of the government is to provide for the security of the people. The military are to defend the country, not to occupy protectorates like Germany and Japan.
You are calling the protection of our borders xenophobic. First off,I don't give a shot about your fucking SJW buzzwords. We should be xenophobic towards the people that are invading this country and burdening our healthcar, welfare, and judicial systems. Nonamericans don't have a right to be in our country. You claim to be in favor of regulated borders, yet you are repelled by any means to regulate them- or you suggest that it is impossible for the strongest country in the world to keep a bunch of fucking Mexicans out of it.
Keks. Having a constant military presence in the borders is xenophobic! And saying that it's a buzzword doesn't change it, and then you go to use your buzzwords of your own.
Stopping illegal immigration is practically impossible. People are clever, they're just going to find a way around it. And raising security in one place, makes it more obvious where there isn't security. There is just too many if ands or buts for it to become practical.
Only the most extreme measures could realistically stop it, and by extreme measures, I mean fucking extreme measures that quite frankly is just not necessary, and would cost too much. And calling me apart of the problem, wont do jack shit except make you look like a stupid xenophobic american nationalist.
Eh. A few sensor clusters placed in the right places let a pretty small border control team cover a lot more ground than you would expect. It's actually pretty unsettling how effective the technology is. I still don't give a sideways shit about whether or not the wall goes up, but it would definitely be a more effective deterrent than people realize. Especially with Trump's policy on limiting the amount of visas that are issued, coupled with the increased penalties on overages he states he'd put in place.
Even if the plan is utter idiocy bound to fail, attempting to thwart illegal immigration isn't racist.
I don't think the Mexicans appreciate trump demanding them to pay for the damn wall.
Yes, but Americans appreciate it. And Trump isn't trying to get votes from Mexicans living in Mexico.
I don't think Trump is racist, I think Trump is a dipshit.
He's had his moments, I'll grant that. But he's smart enough to understand how to run his campaign to the point that the establishment is approaching panic.
Meanwhile, people constantly flick claims of racism at Trump but never seem able to back it up when asked for details. Frankly, those people are the real dipshits. Glad to see you're not one of them.
Well, I gotta give it to you there. It is good to attempt to thwart illegal immigration, but we have got to have a better plan than a wall. But the thing is, America might be responsible for itself only, but that doesn't mean that the president should be able to piss off mexico with this whole wall kerfuffle.
I made it obvious that I don't like trump, but for the record, I think he's the better of the candidates, but of course he's a racist, and a misogynist, and what the fuck ever. It's quite shocking how much a well place article or news story can do to someones public image.
Sorry. I was just joking around. Having a GF that doesn't care if I get a BJ from another girl would be fun. (until she starts to give BJs to other dudes)
I feel ya. I'm just not sure many of those exist. My wife doesn't think a BJ is technically sex either, but she would be pissed if I got blown by some ho.
TelescopiumHerscheli ago
The evidence seems to be fairly clear.
SlappyHo ago
I never came to prove the point, I just wanted to point out that it's easy to dismiss things as smear jobs when they say negative things about someone you like, regardless if it was a smear job or not.
p0ssum ago
I know, amazing right.
ArchmageMordenkainen ago
But you could say that about any of the candidates. If you work under the assumption that all the evidence is fabricated and every word is a lie, then any (or all, for that matter) of the possible candidates could be the reptilian choice. So why not vote for the one that at least appears not to be?
TelescopiumHerscheli ago
Please see my response to /u/Sciency above.
TelescopiumHerscheli ago
It's also worth noting that having "a lot of fun and life experiences" is not generally considered a qualification for the presidency. And it should be fairly clear to you that Trump has not created jobs, as these jobs are ancillary to his property business, which has underperformed: that is, he has created jobs at a lower rate than the real estate market as a whole.
gregorypeckerwood ago
1010 Wins News the other day:
"A man maced a 15 year old girl at a Trump rally in Janesville Wisconsin yesterday. The teenager also punched a man who she says grabbed her breast."
Now, compare that sequence of events with the video tape. The girl punches a dude, THEN gets maced. Dear Dinosaur Media: This is the age of the internet, you can't lie anymore.
SlappyHo ago
Cuz I lost your mom's number. Can you give it to me? That trap has me sprung bro.
SlappyHo ago
In that one specific article you have a point. But my point is that no matter what article or source, you'd find a way to discredit it and label it as a smear job. Of course now that I point that out, I'm sure you will deny it.
Techius ago
So what you're saying is that if someone is getting an abortion whilst it's illegal that isn't allowed to call it an illegal abortion? The fuck?
Techius ago
How is it making up shit if they're just quoting what he said?
p0ssum ago
Oh she did? It wasn't the State Department that did that?
Show me specifically where Clinton violated a court order .... I'll wait.
SlappyHo ago
Is there even any article he could post that speaks negatively of Trump that you wouldn't consider a smear job?
Vladimir_Komarov ago
Thus the elite must put forward a candidate whom the people will believe is not beholden to them, but is actually fully under their control.
ArchmageMordenkainen ago
If you're talking about Trump, he's hardly "under control."
eagleshigh ago
^^^^^^^^^
Finally someone with some sense.
SlappyHo ago
I'd ask that you go live in an actual third-world shit hole before you say stupid shit like this.
SlappyHo ago
Well, what phase would you like them to move to now that they are almost done with the investigation? Investigating someone doesn't mean they are guilty.
Sciency ago
What if I told you that trump says all this stupid shit because he knows how exploit the entire MSM into being his personal pro bono ad agency? Hes a billionare, hes pretty old, and he is very well connected. I seriously doubt he is in any way stupid like he pretends to be.
This is either very dangerous, or great news for america, and im not aure which.
eagleshigh ago
To Jews.
Sciency ago
To everyone really, but theres definately some jews in the mix.
TelescopiumHerscheli ago
Actually, the evidence from Trump's actual business career (as opposed to his media career) is that he's fairly stupid. He's managed to grow the wealth he inherited at less than the risk-free rate, which suggests he's not even averagely smart.
Sciency ago
How much did he inherit, and what is his net worth today?
TelescopiumHerscheli ago
You can find a useful first discussion of the subject here. I have also seen a discussion of his investment returns relative to a risk-free T-bill index, though don't have the link to hand; the conclusion was similar.
eagleshigh ago
His IQ is around 125.
http://pumpkinperson.com/2015/07/22/estimating-the-iq-of-donald-trump/
ArchmageMordenkainen ago
His actual IQ is 156, he needed to take a test before entering Wharton. And I have no idea why you'd trust the opinion of some random blogger working off of observation.
gregorypeckerwood ago
That's not a great IQ.
eagleshigh ago
What. IQ 130 is only found it 2. 2 percent of the population. How is that not a great IQ?
gregorypeckerwood ago
Closer to 4-5% really, which would mean there are 15 million Americans who are smarter than the president. Unacceptable!
TelescopiumHerscheli ago
I'd rather have a president with an IQ of 100 and decent character than any kind of genius. (IQ isn't, on its own, a useful measure of anything very much.)
eagleshigh ago
Citation needed.
TelescopiumHerscheli ago
Sternberg & Wagner (1993), and various others.
eagleshigh ago
Please provide the cite for me. Thanks.
TelescopiumHerscheli ago
"Current Directions in Psychological Science" (1993, Volume 2, Number 1, pp. 1-5). Robert Sternberg & Richard Wagner.
The discussion of "tacit knowledge" is particularly compelling, but the discussion of the difference between practical and academic intelligence is also rather good.
For more details, you need to speak to a specialist, as this is about as far as my own knowledge goes.
eagleshigh ago
Stenberg? I refuted his theory of triarchic intelligence here.
http://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/02/21/robert-steinbergs-triarchic-theory-of-intelligence/
I'm pretty well versed on IQ and the like. I'll read that paper right now and get back to you.
TelescopiumHerscheli ago
From your website it's fairly clear that you're not academically competent, so please don't bother.
eagleshigh ago
What does that have to say about my refutation on Sternberg? It's laughable that he believes that.
TAThatBoomerang ago
I know exactly why. But if I tell you, I'll be labeled as a crazy [insert numerous negative adjectives] person. Even if you think you won't react that way, you probably will because people in the west has been taught, through both media and schools, to react like that towards the thing.
sineb ago
Well? Spit it out
RedditIsPropaganda23 ago
Ya Bernie is awesome!
ArchmageMordenkainen ago
The Honorable Chairman Comrade Sanders still takes money from special interests and from the Democratic Party. He does go against the establishment in some ways, but he pushes for the things the establishment wants the most (bigger government, open borders, amnesty, free trade) of his own volition anyways, so they let him do his song and dance. He's controlled opposition.
RedditIsPropaganda23 ago
Sanders is for closed borders. Open borders are a "Koch gimmick".
https://berniesanders.com/open-borders-a-gimmick-not-a-solution/
ArchmageMordenkainen ago
Doesn't change my greater argument. He still shills for enough pro-establishment policies that he's effectively controlled opposition.
RedditIsPropaganda23 ago
No. No, he does not. No.
ArchmageMordenkainen ago
solidwhetstone ago
Yeah I don't think it's just the elite that are scared of Trump. The rest of the world and a good chunk of the US is terrified of just how much permanent damage he could do as president. Remember that Back to the Future II's Biff was based on Trump.
ArchmageMordenkainen ago
The rest of the world isn't voting for Trump, their opinion doesn't matter. That "chunk of the US" is the chunk that takes what the lugenpresse says as gospel. And BttF II was a shit movie.
frankenham ago
I don't agree with everything Bernie says but he certainly comes off as a much more genuinely spoken person. Trump is just out there to say what people want to here or to incite reaction.
ArchmageMordenkainen ago
If you actually did some research instead of parroting media rhetoric, you would know that's bullshit. He said the same things he's saying now in Crippled America and The Art of the Deal, it's more than clear that these are his genuine views. And Sanders has done his own share of pandering with lines like "white people don't know what it's like to be poor."
TelescopiumHerscheli ago
Europe here. We've got plenty of experience of watching wannabe dictators slowly rise to power. On the plus side, I don't think Trump is America's Hitler. One the minus side, I fear he's probably your Mussolini.
eagleshigh ago
Whats wrong with Hitler? What wrong with Mussolini? They did NOTHING WRONG.
TelescopiumHerscheli ago
So all those dead jewish people and gay people and jehovah's witnesses don't cause you any problems?
Aaaron ago
Wow the fact you are being downvoted for this comment, along with the replies make me realize that the people on this site really are retarded. I don't know about you but I'm out lol.
Motoko ago
We just ignore them
variable ago
Has it occurred to you that our constitution doesn't allow that sort of person to gain that much power? The president holds a lot of cards, but he cannot suspend the constitution or dissolve the congress. Congress can override almost any decision he makes and the courts can override things congress/states do.
People who say he's going to become some kind of dictator are delusional.
TelescopiumHerscheli ago
Dictatorship, contrary to the popular image, arises by creeping steps. Trump's current campaign strikes me as one of these steps.
crazy_eyes ago
You are delusional. Only see what you look for I guess
TelescopiumHerscheli ago
It's always a good sign when people who disagree with you start making *ad hominem" attacks - it means they've run out of reasoned argument!
variable ago
You could argue that of any candidate, I think. Trump's only special feature is that he's not a career politician.
TelescopiumHerscheli ago
No. Trump has many non-standard features, of which the most dangerous is that he isn't a career politician.
The advantage of electing a career politician is that they want to leave the game in one piece at the end, so that they can play it again. The disadvantage of electing a populist is that he will give the people what they want. This is a problem because most people don't understand that what they want is (a) probably inconsistent, and (b) almost certainly bad for them. Give the electorate what they want and they'll leave the country bankrupt and ruined within a couple of years. The risk is compounded in the United States by the horrific damage done to the electorate by the Republican Party's cynicism (which, to an outsider, is several orders of magnitude greater than the Democratic Party's), which has dangerously damaged your body politic.
Elefante ago
The country is already bankrupt. We've been fucking inundated with shitskins for decades and all our manufacturing has been moved overseas. Even with all that- Europe is STILL more fucked than we are.
TelescopiumHerscheli ago
No, the USA isn't already bankrupt. It certainly has its problems, as do all countries, but it's not bankrupt. On balance I'm not sure whether the USA has more or fewer problems than Europe - the problems are different, so it's hard to provide a meaningful comparison.
The interesting thing about your response is that you do seem to be a typical Trump voter - howling with racist unhappiness and a poor grasp of what makes an economy valuable (hint: it hasn't been manufacturing for 30 years), and now hoping that a populist demagogue will magically turn back the clock to a time that never existed and an isolationist America that never was. (I'm not seeking to make an ad hominem attack here, just describing how you seem to me from your words.)
Elefante ago
You are the one howling "waaaaaayyycist" with no support. The value of the dollar is shit, no one under 40 honestly believe they'll ever retire, and the Saudis and Chinese own most of the nation's wealth.
You seem like a typical armchair economist faggot European, likely Jewish, who is going to be calling for committees and more taxes to fund "the immigration of our quintessentially European new citizens the Muslims" as your daughter is raped and your rabbi murdered.
The united States was isolationist for large parts of its history, it was only since 1965 that the gates were flung open and the reduction in quality of life began.
In summary, fuck off you communist nigger lover
TelescopiumHerscheli ago
I think using an epithet like "shitskin" makes it fairly clear that you're a racist.
As for my being an "armchair economist", well, that's only true when I'm sitting in an armchair. At other times I'm just an economist. I teach and research, and even do some consulting for financial firms from time to time. I mostly work in areas round financial economics and econometrics (with a particular interest in the forecasting of macroeconomic variables), and in various rather specialised areas that are of little interest to non-economists, though my teaching burden covers a very wide range of topics. I'm not Jewish, so don't have a rabbi; my ancestry is largely Scandinavian and Celtic, I believe, though I've never had much interest in genealogy.
I'm not a communist, either. My friends and colleagues are from a wide range of ethnicities, and I suppose I like them all. I aspire to keep my love life private.
variable ago
Well, I mean, considering that the Republican party was previously taken over by the populist Tea Party movement, maybe it needs a new populist to break their extremist foundation. I mean, the other options are a religious fanatic who honestly believes God chose him to be president, and a guy who is as standard far right wing as you get.
Trump is at least different. He's a little nuts, but he's not stupid, and he's definitely not a standard Republican talking head.
TelescopiumHerscheli ago
The problems in the Republican Party go way back beyond the Tea Party. I'd say they go back to Nixon's "Southern Strategy", but have gradually been getting more and more extreme. If I had to specify the point at which the rot became dangerous, I'd probably pick Rumsfeld and Cheney's tenure in the Ford White House, as they seem to have been the point at which the Republican Party explicitly decided to split the electorate.
Trump is substantially more than a little nuts: he is readily classifiable as a sociopath (see Wikipedia for a number of tests that you can modify to apply to people who won't take a self-assessment). He is also fairly obviously stupid, largely because he has learnt to bully his staff instead of think for himself. He was not a successful businessman: he would have made more money putting his inherited wealth in T-Bills than running his own business. And, no, I agree, he's not a standard right-winger: he's a populist, and that's far more dangerous.
variable ago
Well, I don't fully agree with all your points, but I also lack an in-depth expertise on the subject, so I can only speak for a cursory knowledge of each available candidate. I can only hope that things end up alright in the end.
TelescopiumHerscheli ago
My own expertise is in economics. In this area it appears that Trump's positions (where I've been able to identify them) would, if implemented, be ruinous for the US economy. His tariff plans would likely create a very deep recession. His plans to repatriate a large number of migrants would lead to a further hollowing out of industry in the US, along with higher prices for a wide range of consumer goods and services. His tax plans would benefit other millionaires, true, but they would likely increase the direct and indirect tax burdens on the middle class, and would make working class people much worse off, as there would be a net shift to consumption taxation.
On other areas I am not an expert, but I am informed by colleagues who are, and whose judgements I trust, that Trump's diplomatic policies would be dangerous to international peace, that his policies on housing would lead to higher rental rates, and that his educational policies would be neutral or mildly negative. His defence policies would be severely damaging to the stability of Western Europe.
TAThatBoomerang ago
Has it ever occurred to you that some/many of the "wannabe dictators" actually have tried to do what's best for their people? For example if we look at the current leadership of Europe, particularly the western and northern part, do you think they're good leaders for their own people?
TelescopiumHerscheli ago
On balance I think they're somewhere between OK (Merkel) and reasonably good (Solberg), with the UK's Cameron somewhere in the middle.
TAThatBoomerang ago
To clarify, you think that Merkel (the German) is an OK leader for Germany? "OK" as in like, 5/10?
TelescopiumHerscheli ago
I'd probably give her a 6 for her recent performance, though her earlier performance was more in the 8 range, in my view.
TelescopiumHerscheli ago
Even though I'm not keen on the Germans, I'd rather have Merkel than any number of Trumps, Cruzes and Rubios.
eagleshigh ago
Why?
TelescopiumHerscheli ago
Because she appears to be capable of changing her mind (although slowly). Trump, Cruz and Rubio don't appear to have this facility.
gregorypeckerwood ago
You favor her because she's indecisive?
TelescopiumHerscheli ago
I favour her because she seems to be capable of adjusting her thoughts and actions, and, I suppose, because she seems capable of introspection. "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
gregorypeckerwood ago
She changes her mind because she's spineless, not because she's intelligent.
TelescopiumHerscheli ago
The evidence from her earlier career suggests a reasonable degree of intelligence, though I'm not sure how we can quantify these things.
gregorypeckerwood ago
Ben Carson was a neurosurgeon. Let that sink in.
Pawn ago
it doesn't matter, the US is pretty sunk. Trump will just make sure it goes out with a bang
p0ssum ago
there's nothing fairytale about it, you just don't want to believe it.
eagleshigh ago
Let his own words speak on how he is a shill:
http://www.jns.org/latest-articles/2015/6/28/when-it-comes-to-israel-donald-trump-says-he-is-no-apprentice#.VmHjzbgrKUk=
What say you, pro-Trump shills?
>H-he doesn't need the Jews money!!
>Goes on JEW-RUN MEDIA and says to the Jews I DON'T WANT YOUR MONEY!!!
If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Dereliction ago
This is genuinely the best argument you can conjure? Really? Based on that we should be convinced Trump is a Jewish shill? Phew ... you're going to have to do better than that, bub.
eagleshigh ago
What makes him not a jew shill from those statements?
Dereliction ago
A) Pretty sure the onus is on you to prove the argument.
B) Trump having a Jewish-converted daughter and making comments that he thinks Obama fucked up relations between the US and Israel, and that he can do better, is not convincing.
C) Prove he's been taking Jewish money in order to hold a position and you'll have a start at saying he's a shill. This is just bullshit nothingness you're swinging around. Who gives a fuck? It's literally non-evidence for what you're arguing.
eagleshigh ago
A I have already.
B that is very convincing. Not my fault you're putting your hands over your eyes.
C I never claimed he was talking heeb money. I claimed, from his own comments from September as well as AIPAC that the Jews have him.
Do you really think he'd fuck over his new family?
Dereliction ago
So that's your full gun of evidence? That earlier post? Because your bar for evidence is horrifically low.
Your evidence is shit. Convince me, I'm asking you to, but don't think what you've offered is a first step.
Fuck them over? Not being a shill is fucking them over? Further, if he's not taking heeb money, how is he by definition a shill? That's what shills do--take money covertly to support a position they might ordinarily not support.
arrggg ago
Everyone has to go on TV and pander to AIPAC to get elected, according to your own views, you dimwit.
Trump hasn't taken any money from them, and won't specifically so he won't owe them favors, and specifically told them that.
No one else has the balls to do or even say that.
eagleshigh ago
kek
arrggg ago
You have to admit, that was some damn good pandering! He even busted out a prewritten speech so he would phrase everything jewst right.
eagleshigh ago
I see what you did there.
His words in the link are good enough. The fact that his daughter and son married kikes is good enough. Saying Obama has been bad for our relationship with Israel is good enough. Muh friends in Israel. Kek. He's a kike shill.
I will make a thread if Trump wins and turns out like the rest.
There's an 88 percent chance he's a shill.
arrggg ago
There is an equal chance you are too. So fucking what.
I'm voting for the guy that takes the least bribes for favors. And wants to repeal the Obamacare slavery payments. And wants to deport illegal alien criminals. And wants to finish the border wall. And wants to tax shitty chinese imports and knockoffs. And wants keep unvetted muslims\refugees\terrorists out of the US. And wants to punish companies that outsource production with taxes. And wants to bring back manufacturing jobs by taxing imports. And doesn't sign shitty trade deals like TPP.
I could go on, but any single one of those things is 100% more than any other candidate will actually do.
eagleshigh ago
How so?
I agree with most of his statements. Mainly the wall, Mexicans and mudslimes. But do I think he'll do it? Fuck no. Nothing that has happened in the past 20 years tells me he will any different.
Re: the link I posted about his comments about his kike daughter and son and Obama and Israel.
arrggg ago
So you agree with most of his statements (especially the racist ones), but post big huge diatribes about how he is awful and you shouldn't vote for him. That Smells So Shilly.
No one in the past 20 (or 100) years has been elected that isn't completely owned by donors. Your waiting for the perfect candidate won't happen, this is as close to good as it gets.
eagleshigh ago
Let me repeat. I agree with most of his things, but do I believe he'll do them? Hell. No.
Racism is ethnocentrism. Racism is a retarded word and used to shut down discourse.
He's just like the rest. You'll see.
p0ssum ago
LOL, what proof is there she DID break the law? Remember innocent until proven guilty?
Here is a good nutshell of where I stand.
variable ago
Honestly, considering that it's a fact that she kept the server secret from the state department, it's a fact she stored 2000+ emails with classified intel, 20 or so with top secret information (and this is stuff not needing to be marked, it's classified at birth, and Hillary had the authorization level to recognize its classification and report it for being on a non-state server), it's a fact that she used her charity foundation to do state business.
Something she did was illegal, and the feds will nail her for it.
p0ssum ago
So did the last two secretaries of state Rice and Powell, who both have now had emails retroactively classified as top secret.
And none of that was illegal:
From this Newsweek article. Oh, and there is also this:
From here.
So, essentially, while you don't like it, and personally I don't like it, it's very unlikely it was against the law.
No, again it is not, pure supposition.
That's your fervent hope, I understand that, but really, it's all smoke and no fire. Much like Benghazi, just because folks yell really loud, doesn't mean they are right.
p0ssum ago
Not likely. But that's ok, fantasies are important in life.
p0ssum ago
Well besides the comments on Mexicans(no its not a race, but he sure uses it like one, he's really just talking about brown people, but thats semantics), and being sued for discrimination and being forced to change his practices, there's stuff like this:
and
But, that's not racist, right?
eagleshigh ago
This is a fact.
Kikes are good with shekels. The truth I "racist" now? It's called ethnocentrism, not racism.
http://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/03/17/genetic-similarity-theory-as-a-cause-for-ethnocentrism/
p0ssum ago
No, it isn't and your insistence that it is doesn't make it true.
Again, not a fact, it's a stupid generalization.
eagleshigh ago
http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/medschool.jpg
Hmmm. What is the cause of this? It's affirmative action. Along with affirmative action, that same educated black will be out over the same educated white. Learn what you're talking about before you say it.
Oh but it is. Kek you have no idea what you're talking about bro.
p0ssum ago
LOL those percentages don't mean shit. Show me the raw numbers. Was it 56.4 of 100 applicants or a thousand? Were there 10-fold more white applicants? Asian ones? My bet is you use these numbers to make your point because they seem to show what you want them to, but without the context, this information is essentially useless. But I know this from debating you in the past, same shit different day.
No, it isn't, but thanks for playing.
eagleshigh ago
Percentages matter not numbers.
What have we debated in the past?
Do you know anything about jew history? I doubt it.
p0ssum ago
Only if you are trying to skew the viewpoint, I can figure out percentages all by myself. Show me the raw numbers, I'd be willing to bet that even those those numbers look bad, that there are still significantly more white applicants accepted, because of the numbers. But, of course, that doesn't fit your agenda, now does it.
Mostly your stupid racist bullshit and trying to skew numbers to make them say what you want them to. You know, just like you are doing now.
What the fuck does that have to do with the price of tea in china? Did you get lost somewhere? Was that the right window?
LagunaBeachCA ago
Honestly you seem like the biggest racist on this thread, you're worse than those people from the racist subverses on this site.
At least they admit they are racist. You're pretending you're not while calling everyone else racist.
p0ssum ago
Perhaps you should read back through the thread, I called exactly one person racist, that would be Trump.
Joe_McCarthy ago
Even if Trump is racist so what? Given the context I'm inclined to think that's a good thing if anything.
The racism smear has lost a lot of its potency anyway. White people get called racist and it's become like blacks getting called nigger. It's little more than a cuss word at this point.
Why are you hurling it by the way? I notice that you do it frequently. Aren't you some white bread dude whose folks were here in the colonial era? Seems like an odd sort to be an in your face SJW type.
p0ssum ago
Good for you?
Yeah, that's what the racists keep saying.
I'm not an SJW of any kind, not my thing, but I really don't like racism and will call it out when I see it. Sorry that offends you ... well not really, I don't give a fuck about you.
Joe_McCarthy ago
I'm not offended. I'm trying to understand what I'm dealing with more like. A person's background, lifestyle, and relationships says a lot about what kind of political views he/she is going to have.
Though your uncalled for, gratuitous use of the f bomb is also a bit out of character for a colonial WASP type so maybe I'd be better off ignoring you.
But if you're what you've said you are I figure you either have Mexican family members or are affluent enough to be out of touch with the effects of mass immigration. Well off shitlibs looking down their noses at white rednecks who have to actually, you know, live around these people is nothing new in American history, after all.
p0ssum ago
You judge a man by his bloodline and that happens. I grew up in the projects in Alabama with a single mother and 2 siblings. My mom was a school teacher and we were dirt poor. I now work in the technology field and make a damn good living. I spend a good deal of time and money supporting the causes I believe in.
I use whatever language I think will get my point across. I'm a bit of a chameleon in the sense as I tailor my responses to those that I receive.
I see the effects, I see small businesses that are carried by illegal immigrants. I see MANY business owners making money of the backs of many of these immigrants. I see lots of good things that these immigrants bring, not just the bad ones. I find it telling that the story is they are lazy illegal immigrants, yet they are taking all of our jobs. I've seen rednecks live on welfare while simultaneously complaining about the lazy mexicans taking their jobs. I also see the other side, the taxing of public services, the dumbing down of the schools to the lowest common denominator. I'm not willing to place all the problem in our country on a single segment of society. We've got problems all over the place, and immigration is just a sliver of it.
Yes, they do, just as the elite right-wing nut jobs do they same. The monied elite are really no different regardless of what color they wear. As long as all the plebes stay quiet, everything is good.
In other words, I have a very wide array of life experiences I use as my lens to the world. I try my best to see both sides of every argument so that not only can I tailor my message, but I can at least try to understand where the other side is coming from.
That being said, there are a lot of dense motherfuckers around these parts that need to be slapped into reality every now and again.
Joe_McCarthy ago
Okay. Upvote for the good and reasonable response. Thank you.
p0ssum ago
For you as well.
eagleshigh ago
I'll look for the raw numbers after work.
Which did I skew for my "racist bullshit"?
No it was the right window. You're saying Jews aren't good with money, history shows you're wrong.
p0ssum ago
Great, though I have no confidence you will actually provide anything ....
I don't know and Im certainly not going back to find out, but needless to say, I have you tagged...
Just like any other race some jews are good with money and some aren't. Generalizing them is what you are doing ... correct?
Iforgotmy_other_acct ago
Facts: The most racist lies you'll ever face.
EarlPoncho ago
how are facts racist
p0ssum ago
LOL, facts?
EarlPoncho ago
yeah. do you think stereotypes just magically appear out of nowhere? if i told you that all asians are amazing drivers would you laugh or agree? if i told you that blacks typically have the smallest cocks would you laugh or agree? if i told you that irish people are never alcoholics would you laugh or agree?
blacks are perceived as lazy because that's what they've proven to be time and time again. stereotypes exist for a reason
eagleshigh ago
Stereotypes are based on truth.
That is a myth.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/unique-everybody-else/201210/the-pseudoscience-race-differences-in-penis-size
McBitches ago
Propaganda is legal.
eagleshigh ago
Propaganda can be used both positively and negatively.
cointelpro_shill ago
that's why we have meme magic
ratsmack ago
Unfortunately yes, but much of what the MSM does is libelous.
p0ssum ago
Actually, there's ALOT of information out there about his racism, you just refuse to believe it. That's fine ....
SlappyHo ago
Bro you are arguing with some of the most racist people on the planet. One of them literally said:
Voat is a giant Trump circle jerk just like Reddit is a giant Sanders circle jerk. You can't win with these people, they are too blinded by ignorance.
p0ssum ago
Oh I agree wholeheartedly, but sometimes I get bored at work :)
Mr_Wolf ago
I saw this last night on Facebook, people were posting articles with misleading headlines and getting upset about the headline.
I read the article and commented on the post ended up in an argument because they didn't read past the headline.
I have a fb feed of people that hate hillary, sanders and trump, they all seem to hate all three.
Fenrirwulf ago
I believe any thinking person must hate all 3, and any other person egotistical enough to run for any high-level political office, but the backlash against Trump makes him appear to be the most anti-establishment of the choices.
The only question that remains for me is if he is an insider that has stepped out of the box and the backlash is because he angered his keepers, or is he an insider that is playing a part to get the outsiders' votes.
Vladimir_Komarov ago
This is where I'm at. I fear that the establishment can sense the will of the people pulling away from established paradigms and hope to trick us into picking their guy while thinking it was our choice. Honestly, if a candidate isn't bent on overturning citizens united, I feel that they are part of the establishment regardless of what they or the media says. So far, that's none of them.
ShinyVoater ago
Given the number of people who are actively working against him, I'd say Trump's fairly genuine in breaking out of the box. He might simply be doing this because he was losing in establishment back office politics, but he's certainly smashing the establishment order.
As for the theory that he's playing spoiler and intends to throw the election for Hillary, I wouldn't be surprised if that's how it started, but Trump would've had to be playing a huge act for years if he isn't enough of an egomaniac to alter the deal once it became clear he has a real shot of winning.
afsa ago
I've always thought it is the latter.
TheDude2 ago
You would be surprised at the amount of people that only listen to CNN and Soros funded twitter feeds.
They honestly think Trump is a racist and Hillary didn't do anything wrong.
frankenham ago
Trump favors torture and the NSA and openly admits to wanting to commit war crimes.. those aren't lies or propaganda it's words from his own mouth.
ArchmageMordenkainen ago
It's only a war crime if you lose.
And honestly, morality is for civilians. When you fight a war, the only rule of engagement should be "fuck up the enemy." War will always be a terrible, visceral thing; polishing a turd to try and pretend it's something else will only make things worse in the long run. In any case, the majority of war crimes (like no expanding rounds) aren't actually more cruel than the traditional methods of killing, they just look or sound more cruel to the uninformed, and as such a ban is pushed by way of emotional appeal.
Alybad ago
I agree with torture in certain circumstances. If you can torture one person to save 1000, how is that not a net positive?
frankenham ago
Because its been shown to be ineffective. Torturing's for the torturer.
Alybad ago
What else can you do? Ask him politely?
frankenham ago
I'm sure there are better ways than sexually humiliating them and shoving tubes up their ass to force feed them when they go on a hunger strike because they'd rather starve themselves to death than live through another day of torture.. Only somebody with absolutely zero empathy would actually advocate torture.
ArchmageMordenkainen ago
You don't win wars with empathy.
frankenham ago
Perhaps war isn't entirely necessary then. I'm not sure if you've noticed but all the wars the U.S. is involved with has nothing to do with defense.
ArchmageMordenkainen ago
I didn't say they were. But we're fighting whether we like it or not, so if we have to fight, let's do it correctly. Pussyfooting around and fretting about the most "moral" way of killing people is the reason we've been fighting for 15 years. So let's (quickly) finish what we started, and take that as a lesson not to needlessly meddle in foreign affairs. Which is almost exactly what Trump is advocating, as it happens.
frankenham ago
Except we don't have to fight, and most especially don't need to be torturing and sexually humiliating prisoners.
ArchmageMordenkainen ago
It's like you didn't even read my comment.
leweb ago
You mean like every other politician in DC? The difference is that at least he doesn't lie about it.
Ooga_Booga ago
We're fighting a very unconventional war against an unconventional enemy. I don't particularly favor torture but I would rather combatants be tortured than innocents killed. It's a case of the lesser evil. I support the use of the NSA for intelligence gathering and cyber warfare. I am as adamantly opposed to the NSA's domestic spying as I am of Obama's support of it. Honestly, I think Trump is the candidate which I am concerned in this regard. Is Trump racist? He is certainly white as well as a man and under the new rubric this qualifies him as racist as well as sexist but I tend to find the people making the new rubric to be the worst people of all.
frankenham ago
Prisoners are being tortured AND innocents are being killed.. Whether Trump is racist is the least of his problems.
Ooga_Booga ago
The thing I hate about this argument is that it's already going on but Trump is apparently retroactively responsible.
TheDude2 ago
Agreed. Hillary does as well, as least in a complicit way.
Bernie doesn't, but he supports Israel in ways that I don't like and his spending plan seems dangerous to me.
frankenham ago
How so?
Rellik88 ago
He's a Jew.
p0ssum ago
he is
No, she didn't do anything illegal ... there's a difference.
ratsmack ago
There isn't one thing you can quote Trump on that is racist... your just parroting the MSM tripe.
Sheeple much.
p0ssum ago
Really, you're going to tell me this isn't racist?
ratsmack ago
You're delusional if you believe that statement is racist.... context.
p0ssum ago
You must be a moron if you think it isn't. He's generalizing and entire race of people, that is the textbook definition of racism.
ratsmack ago
I don't see the connection... and neither do you.
p0ssum ago
Let's start here. Is Trump generalizing an entire race of people?
ratsmack ago
No, he's referencing the people that are living in Mexico, immigrated legally or illegally from Mexico. Hispanic is the preferred term to use, since liberal progressives made "Mexican" a dirty word.
p0ssum ago
So now all Hispanics are Mexican? That's good to know.
eagleshigh ago
Define racist.
How did Hillary not do anything illegal?
p0ssum ago
a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
See how easy that is.
Because the law says she didn't do anything illegal .... but of course, you are more smarter than all those stupid lawyers.
eagleshigh ago
The term racist was invented by Trotsky in the 1920s. It's now used as a shut down word so all conversations are ended before getting good. Liberals use the word to attempt to stifle discourse because they know they can't discuss matters of race with someone like myself.
Don't put words in my mouth.
She's done tons of illegal things. Why the fuck are you defending her.
p0ssum ago
Yes, I'm only here talking to you because I want to stifle discourse .... derp.
Im not defending her, per se, I think she's a fucking horrible troll and will make a worse president, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to throw her under the bus without any evidence of clear wrongdoing, which is exactly what you folks want to see happen.
eagleshigh ago
She deserves it. Emails, etc. I will go in depth this afternoon.
New_years_day ago
Found one, guys
TheDude2 ago
I know you believe that, but I don't.
I can say Clinton definitely broke the law and there is no denying that fact.
Vladimara ago
Honestly, I see any other reason why trump would build a wall other than racism.
Actually now that I type that, I can think of one. Political Campaign reasons, to have something for people to vote on. And only people who are racist would realistically vote for a big ass wall between US and Mexico.
Edit: Fucking hell everyone, this comment was a joke about how anyone who thinks about it can see through the whole racism guise in a heartbeat. Chill the fuck out.
bones50 ago
So if us Canadian's started jumping border en masse due to issues here, he would be racist to step up border patrol? think about it.
TheTrigger ago
We'll be the first ones to build a wall.
Vladimara ago
Peh, the comment was satirical in nature.
Very bad satire, but satire none the less.
Washingtons6pack ago
This makes me literally can't even. Israel has a nice big wall that seems to be working.
Have you ever heard the saying "fences make good neighbors?"
Vladimara ago
I don't see North America having to deal with ISIS and the like.
And I don't believe that fences make good neighbors. It makes for neighbors that you hate but don't have to look at. And when those fences falls down...
Dereliction ago
Just to be clear, stopping illegals from Mexico is racist? Is that the official position of the "Trump is racist" crowd?
Vladimara ago
Well, the thing is, a wall isn't going to stop them.
If the wall is 30 feet high, all it takes to beat the wall is a 31 foot ladder, unless it's constantly guarded, and the guards are either disgustingly well armed, or can outnumber any assailants that would dare attack them.
It's beyond impractical, and I don't think the Mexicans appreciate trump demanding them to pay for the damn wall.
And immediately after that, I thought of a reason why trump would be so much about the wall, but I decided that it would be best if I left the comment in it's original form rather than re-writing it.. I don't think Trump is racist, I think Trump is a dipshit. A dipshit that would be hilarious if he became president.
Elefante ago
You are fucking retarded. "Disgustingly well armed" - I see what respect you have for our second amendment.
Vladimara ago
I have immense respect for the second amendment.
What I do not have respect for, is militarizing police and guards. Unless the border wall is being patrolled constantly by multiple guards at all times, all it takes is to rally up 5 or so of your mates with guns, planks, and whatever to take down a single guard, if there even is a guard there at the time they arrive at the wall.
And if a single guard can take out 5 or so armed assailants, then that is a militarized guard, no way around it.
Elefante ago
Border guards shouldn't be police. We need to close down overseas bases and protect our own borders with the military.
If illegals try to conduct warfare at our border they'll get it.
Vladimara ago
Wait, what?
Do you honestly believe that the US is in such immediate danger that they should recall all military forces to build a wall and man it with military personnel?
Oh, and border guards should not be military either. I'm in favour of regulated borders, but not such blatantly xenophobic practices to the point where we have military soldiers patrolling the borders constantly. And if it ever get's to such mental security levels, I would just bypass the wall all together with a boat. Hell, even if it was just a guy in a rifle and bullet proof vest I would fancy the chances with a speed boat instead of trying to get through him.
In fact, I wonder if any illegal immigrants get into US through a guy ferrying people with a speed boat... That seems like a smart way to do things, actually.
Elefante ago
You're part of the problem- the primary role of the government is to provide for the security of the people. The military are to defend the country, not to occupy protectorates like Germany and Japan.
You are calling the protection of our borders xenophobic. First off,I don't give a shot about your fucking SJW buzzwords. We should be xenophobic towards the people that are invading this country and burdening our healthcar, welfare, and judicial systems. Nonamericans don't have a right to be in our country. You claim to be in favor of regulated borders, yet you are repelled by any means to regulate them- or you suggest that it is impossible for the strongest country in the world to keep a bunch of fucking Mexicans out of it.
Vladimara ago
Keks. Having a constant military presence in the borders is xenophobic! And saying that it's a buzzword doesn't change it, and then you go to use your buzzwords of your own.
Stopping illegal immigration is practically impossible. People are clever, they're just going to find a way around it. And raising security in one place, makes it more obvious where there isn't security. There is just too many if ands or buts for it to become practical.
Only the most extreme measures could realistically stop it, and by extreme measures, I mean fucking extreme measures that quite frankly is just not necessary, and would cost too much. And calling me apart of the problem, wont do jack shit except make you look like a stupid xenophobic american nationalist.
Elefante ago
I am a nationalist, thanks. You're a (((globalist))) defeatist.
Also, >implying Mexicans are clever
Why is their country so shitty then?
Vladimara ago
I'm... a what?
I honestly have no words. Your a walking stereotype of an arrogant American.
xXx_420_xXx ago
Eh. A few sensor clusters placed in the right places let a pretty small border control team cover a lot more ground than you would expect. It's actually pretty unsettling how effective the technology is. I still don't give a sideways shit about whether or not the wall goes up, but it would definitely be a more effective deterrent than people realize. Especially with Trump's policy on limiting the amount of visas that are issued, coupled with the increased penalties on overages he states he'd put in place.
I'm not a Trump supporter, either.
Dereliction ago
Even if the plan is utter idiocy bound to fail, attempting to thwart illegal immigration isn't racist.
Yes, but Americans appreciate it. And Trump isn't trying to get votes from Mexicans living in Mexico.
He's had his moments, I'll grant that. But he's smart enough to understand how to run his campaign to the point that the establishment is approaching panic.
Meanwhile, people constantly flick claims of racism at Trump but never seem able to back it up when asked for details. Frankly, those people are the real dipshits. Glad to see you're not one of them.
Vladimara ago
Well, I gotta give it to you there. It is good to attempt to thwart illegal immigration, but we have got to have a better plan than a wall. But the thing is, America might be responsible for itself only, but that doesn't mean that the president should be able to piss off mexico with this whole wall kerfuffle.
I made it obvious that I don't like trump, but for the record, I think he's the better of the candidates, but of course he's a racist, and a misogynist, and what the fuck ever. It's quite shocking how much a well place article or news story can do to someones public image.
p0ssum ago
You can say it all you like, that certainly doesn't make it true.
TheDude2 ago
I didn't say which Clinton.
Bill committed perjury:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonperjury.html
I know this says he didn't commit perjury, but I picked it on purpose because it is so fucking ridiculous. Of course he committed perjury.
p0ssum ago
LOL, and that's the best you have ... I guess we're done here.
TheDude2 ago
I was just fucking around. We disagree on a lot, but I thought you would find it humorous. Unless you really think a BJ is not sex.
SlappyHo ago
If BJ == sex, then mouth == vagina
TheDude2 ago
If you are saying BJ's do not equal sex and you are a female, I want you as a GF. Unless you mouth someone else
SlappyHo ago
I fail to see the logic. A girl may not see a BJ and sex as the same thing, but that doesn't mean she wants to blow you.
TheDude2 ago
Sorry. I was just joking around. Having a GF that doesn't care if I get a BJ from another girl would be fun. (until she starts to give BJs to other dudes)
SlappyHo ago
I feel ya. I'm just not sure many of those exist. My wife doesn't think a BJ is technically sex either, but she would be pissed if I got blown by some ho.