Atheistforums.com

I know so many dumbasses ready to vote for him. I think our country is headed down a dark road indeed.

If he is, I'm looking to flee the country. I don't know if he is actually going to make it. I give the country here too much credit as a whole to let him be elected.... but on the offchance that he is. Canada, here I come.

I think he has a snowballs chance in hell... or less. He is like Ron Paul at this point of the season a few elections back; yes he was topping in these early polls... but once the actual "regular" voters start getting involved the more central candidates will pull ahead.

Look at things multi-culturally ...

Politics is Kabuki ... and elections are Bunraku

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oidE2SSDczw

Nah. Trump is Hermann Cain. I think it will be Rubio vs Clinton with Rubio taking it.

I am quite afraid of it.

I believe most Americans who keep Trump ahead in the polls now find his xenophobic rants gratifying, but they aren't dumb enough to vote for him as their commander-in-chief and chief diplomat.

dis agree

my whole family intends to vote for him. Every one I talk to around here plans to vote for him and yes they are that dumb!

Quote from: doorknob on November 30, 2015, 07:06:16 PM
dis agree

my whole family intends to vote for him. Every one I talk to around here plans to vote for him and yes they are that dumb!

Yyyeeeah. This scares the shit out of me.

Yeah it scares me to no end.

I'm poor and I'm already struggling to get by. I can't work due to having a disability that is pretty severe. No one can see my disability though because it's mental so more than once I've been told I don't have a real disability and I'm using the system. So I guess it'll be nothing but a huge fuck you to all the poor people out there. And if you can't work then double fuck you!

I look forward to being homeless again. I guess it's laundromats and coffee shops in my future. Luckily I have a car for now.

Quote from: doorknob on November 30, 2015, 07:37:01 PM
Yeah it scares me to no end.

I'm poor and I'm already struggling to get by. I can't work due to having a disability that is pretty severe. No one can see my disability though because it's mental so more than once I've been told I don't have a real disability and I'm using the system. So I guess it'll be nothing but a huge fuck you to all the poor people out there. And if you can't work then double fuck you!

I look forward to being homeless again. I guess it's laundromats and coffee shops in my future. Luckily I have a car for now.

I'm in that boat too - struggling to hang onto my cramped and dumpy house which the bank robbers (the banks, not the fools who think they can rob those anti-social but legally protected thugs) gouge me for more each year while I only have less, now seriously doubting that I'll get through the last 10 years of my mortgage.

If Trump makes it to the White House, maybe we can organize and lead the blacks in a militia, or maybe Britain will be interested in taking her colonies back. They can tax tea here all they want to, so long as they leave my coffee alone.

But I still doubt the election will go that way for Trump.

• People rarely do what they say they will when it comes to how they will vote.
• Trump has been trailing Rubio, and if he surged ahead again since earlier last week, he will drop further behind when he falls again (it's like the drowning process).
• If Trump surges ahead again and holds it for awhile, there's still several months for all the red-voting chatterheads to change their minds, and all of 11 months until the final contest.

He is our best hope. He has established himself as someone who won't play by any rule book other than his own. Therefore he will not get the Republican nomination. Which means he MAY end up running as an independent. Which will effectively split the vote and allow whoever the Democrats pick to easily walk away with the election. He is, our best hope.

Quote from: Johan on November 30, 2015, 08:25:52 PM
He is our best hope. He has established himself as someone who won't play by any rule book other than his own. Therefore he will not get the Republican nomination. Which means he MAY end up running as an independent. Which will effectively split the vote and allow whoever the Democrats pick to easily walk away with the election. He is, our best hope.

I've been saying this all along, although it would be interesting if Bernie ran as an independent as well.

Quote from: TrueStory on November 30, 2015, 08:35:58 PM
I've been saying this all along, although it would be interesting if Bernie ran as an independent as well.

I think it was some wit on SNL who predicted Bernie would be Hillary's vice president (after she takes the nomination). She scored that way with Obama after running against him, so it would be a smooth move on her part. But I'm not sure how cohesively they could work together on their pet issues.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on November 30, 2015, 06:02:35 PM
Nah. Trump is Hermann Cain. I think it will be Rubio vs Clinton with Rubio taking it.

You can bet anyone like Rubio or Cruz, who is Cuban ancestry, has been vetted by the CIA.

The anti-politician election ... Bernie/Donald national unity ticket?  The Donald would make a good VP ... maybe find a good toupee in Cheney's man sized safe.  And Bernie can play the adult.

Bernie as VP under Clinton ... he would be as marginalized as Clinton's VP ... what's his name?  Hillary will follow the Wall Street script given her ... like the Young Republican she actually is.

I don't have a lot of faith in the American public, but I can't envision any scenario that gets Donald Trump elected that doesn't involve Lyndon LaRouche being the Democratic nominee.

Quote from: doorknob on November 29, 2015, 10:37:14 PM
I know so many dumbasses ready to vote for him. I think our country is headed down a dark road indeed.

I have a place picked out in Queensland.

However, I believe in the old saying, "There may not be anyone in an election to vote FOR, but there is always someone to vote AGAINST."

The fact that this is even a question is terrifying to me. The president can only be as good as the people that vote for him. If this is the kind of people we have in this country that would vote for him it shows how far we have gone down as a species and in our humanity and compassion and decency. We are doomed no matter who gets in, because money talks, and so does bull shit now. We are being manipulated by powerful people and organized criminals who worship money and power, and could care less for the working men and women they exploit. This has happened to every country in the past when the rich and powerful follow selfish desires and destroy their country and the people beneath them.  :sad:

He scares the bejesus out of me.

Quote from: trdsf on December 01, 2015, 12:06:30 PM
I don't have a lot of faith in the American public, but I can't envision any scenario that gets Donald Trump elected that doesn't involve Lyndon LaRouche being the Democratic nominee.

LaRouche has been an interesting nut case.  Reminds me of Carson.

Quote from: Solitary on December 01, 2015, 01:15:47 PM
The fact that this is even a question is terrifying to me. The president can only be as good as the people that vote for him. If this is the kind of people we have in this country that would vote for him it shows how far we have gone down as a species and in our humanity and compassion and decency. We are doomed no matter who gets in, because money talks, and so does bull shit now. We are being manipulated by powerful people and organized criminals who worship money and power, and could care less for the working men and women they exploit. This has happened to every country in the past when the rich and powerful follow selfish desires and destroy their country and the people beneath them.  :sad:

Go long ... Medici and Borgias.  Republican values started in Renaissance Italy.  Capiche?

Being British, it worries me too. Inevitably, our politicians will want to ride on his coat-tails into whichever interminable conflict will make them and their friends the most money.

Quote from: Youssuf Ramadan on December 02, 2015, 05:45:56 AM
Being British, it worries me too. Inevitably, our politicians will want to ride on his coat-tails into whichever interminable conflict will make them and their friends the most money.

Now if we could just get the UN to encourage all international disputes be settled by team paintball tournaments ...

I shake my head in shame every time I look at the title of this thread. I've never claimed to be good at spelling guys and my apologies!

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on November 30, 2015, 06:02:35 PM
Nah. Trump is Hermann Cain. I think it will be Rubio vs Clinton with Rubio taking it.

Rubio winning is arguably worse than Trump.

He might get elected.  I'm not good at this sort of second guessing.  Either way, except for Bernie Sanders, I'm not impressed with any of the candidates.  Even if by some fluke, Sanders was elected, he wouldn't be able to get much done.  But take heart, the president rarely gets what he wants due to the checks and balances.  Trump is a jerk, but we've had jerks in the office before.  The country doesn't seem to mind that too much.

Quote from: SGOS on December 02, 2015, 10:37:41 AM
He might get elected.  I'm not good at this sort of second guessing.  Either way, except for Bernie Sanders, I'm not impressed with any of the candidates.  Even if by some fluke, Sanders was elected, he wouldn't be able to get much done.  But take heart, the president rarely gets what he wants due to the checks and balances.  Trump is a jerk, but we've had jerks in the office before.  The country doesn't seem to mind that too much.

Hmmm...I'd like to agree with you on that, except that our country made the worst mistakes of its history. We lost thousands of our own in a pointless war to remove our own pet dictator from Iraq, who was the only dude who maintained stability in the region. On account of Gerk W. Bush, now there's ISIS. Which is why I consider the possibility of another jerk, much less an even bigger one something to be very concerned about at best.

Quote from: peacewithoutgod on December 02, 2015, 10:46:29 AM
Hmmm...I'd like to agree with you on that, except that our country made the worst mistakes of its history. We lost thousands of our own in a pointless war to remove our own pet dictator from Iraq, who was the only dude who maintained stability in the region. On account of Gerk W. Bush, now there's ISIS. Which is why I consider the possibility of another jerk, much less an even bigger one something to be very concerned about at best.

I don't disagree at all.  And I didn't mean to sound like we shouldn't be concerned.  We should be concerned.

Let's not forget that it only takes a majority of votes to elect a Democrat, thanks to election gerrymandering.  Republican presidential winners rarely have the majority.  So it is a real possibility.  Even my more intelligent friends are drinking the Republican Kool-Aid these days.  Learning about politics is hard.  Fortunately Faux "We're Calling This Shit" News condenses it down for them into a few scary sound bites ending with "They're commin' fer yer guns!", which they very much should, but never really will.

In the Crazy Shit Donald Trump Says segment for today, apparently the Donald says the only way to beat a terrorist is to become a terrorist.

QuoteDonald Trump Says He’d ‘Take Out’ Terrorists’ Families
http://time.com/4132368/donald-trump-isis-bombing/

Donald Trump said Wednesday that he’d like to “take out” the families of terrorists.

“I would knock the hell out of ISIS… [and] when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families,” the Republican presidential candidate said on Fox & Friends. “I say ISIS is our number one threat, we have a president who doesn’t know what he is doing and all he’s worried about is climate change, he thinks climate change is something that’s going to go kill us.”

Trump, who regained his standing atop the GOP field in a new national poll out Wednesday, has enjoyed a boost thanks in part to heated rhetoric about Muslims following the terrorist attacks in Paris last month. He said he was concerned about civilian casualties but that he believed militants are using civilians as human shields.

Quote from: doorknob on November 29, 2015, 10:37:14 PM
I know so many dumbasses ready to vote for him. I think our country is headed down a dark road indeed.

I'm afraid the Chump will get elected, but I doubt very much that he will, so I'm not overly worried.

:c002:

At least we don't have to look forward to a Santorum surge!

Quote from: Baruch on December 02, 2015, 07:05:45 AM
Now if we could just get the UN to encourage all international disputes be settled by team paintball tournaments ...

I'd rather we take anyone who wants war, drop them in a big desert with all the conventional weapons they need, and let 'em fuck each other up good.  Whoever wins, nuke them too. In an ideal world the rest of us could then just get on with our lives.    :bedtime2:

Meanwhile.......  :sad:

Quote from: widdershins on December 02, 2015, 03:18:35 PM
Fortunately Faux "We're Calling This Shit" News condenses it down for them into a few scary sound bites ending with "They're commin' fer yer guns!", which they very much should, but never really will.

Maybe that's because they very much so want to come for the guns. Hillary is saying the US should be looking at what Australia did with mandatory gun buy-backs. It couldn't be any clearer at this point. A lot of these politicians do want to take the guns, so I don't see why this "you're a moron if you think politicians want to take away yer guns!" meme is still going when Hillary and others are openly talking about looking at how Australia does mandatory gun buy-backs. You're blind if you can't see that Democrats want to take guns and ban many guns. Who knows how much they are really going to be able to achieve as far as taking guns, but guns are clearly a big part of their agenda. I don't say this because I'm a 'gun nut' or Fox News fan either. I've never owned or fired a gun. I voted for Justin Trudeau, someone far more liberal than Bernie Sanders, and I voted for a Muslim in my area, so yeah, I'm no right wing guy in love with guns, but it's clear that the Democrats are super anti-gun and they have every intention of trying to take away people's rights when it comes to guns.

Unfortunately the elite think that their chosen or unavoidable activity ... will bring retribution.  Naturally in that case, any smart elite would want to enslave the people.  Unfortunately, after the 60s, the idea that the Establishment was part of the problem died out in a sea of irrational partisan politics.

There are a lot of other ways that the DINOs and RINOs are gunning for the citizens ... and there are steps that you can take to mitigate these bad policies, even before they are attempted on real people.  Negative interest rates and elimination of cash and checks ... is a direct dictatorial measure.

I will say to one thing. If I was to engage in a war with islamic nut jobs, i would indeed consider taking out their families as well. If it is going to be war, then war is what it is going to be. Frankly I almost think the donald would be a pretty interesting study in how "nazism" came to amurica.

and so there is no mistake, let me clarify. If I was in a war with "you" I would not kill you. I would kill every single member of your family except your youngest and let them understand why their mother or father was to blame for this and then let you live. Of course I would also cripple you to the point where you could not retaliate nor could your child. Yeah, I can be like god.

A society where because of conditions, everyone is feral, randomly robbing and killing each other ... is exactly what we see at the end of the Roman Empire.  The Roman Empire is the mafia ... with powerful Dons ... but when they fall out and society collapses ... you have the war of everyone against everyone else ... exactly what feral capitalism is ... but with money and lawyers rather than swords and spears.  And in those conditions, families don't survive, just the fittest young thugs and their gun mols.  Bonnie and Clyde.

I'm not even a little afraid Trump will win. Frankly, I don't think any Republican has a chance. But that doesn't stop me from poo-pooing Trump to my elitist Republican friends. Because ha-ha!

Vote Sanders in the primary, so the general is already won.

Elections these days are arranged ... to be 50.0001 in favor of A and 49.9999 in favor of B, so that only one voter has to be bribed to turn the outcome one way or another.  Too bad Chad wasn't hung in 2000 ;-(  I don't really believe that voters are that evenly divided.

Don't under estimate the stupidity of humans is all I'm gonna say. If trump would win for some reason I may stop taking my pills and run away to live the rest of my life as an insane hobo eating from your garbage bins so I don't have to deal with anything. Ignorance is bliss after all.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 02, 2015, 07:21:33 PM
Maybe that's because they very much so want to come for the guns. Hillary is saying the US should be looking at what Australia did with mandatory gun buy-backs. It couldn't be any clearer at this point. A lot of these politicians do want to take the guns, so I don't see why this "you're a moron if you think politicians want to take away yer guns!" meme is still going when Hillary and others are openly talking about looking at how Australia does mandatory gun buy-backs. You're blind if you can't see that Democrats want to take guns and ban many guns. Who knows how much they are really going to be able to achieve as far as taking guns, but guns are clearly a big part of their agenda. I don't say this because I'm a 'gun nut' or Fox News fan either. I've never owned or fired a gun. I voted for Justin Trudeau, someone far more liberal than Bernie Sanders, and I voted for a Muslim in my area, so yeah, I'm no right wing guy in love with guns, but it's clear that the Democrats are super anti-gun and they have every intention of trying to take away people's rights when it comes to guns.

That is not even remotely correct.  They do not want to take "your guns" away.  Certain guns, yes, but taking "certain guns" is a far cry from taking "your guns", which implies all.  And they very much should be looking at some reasonable gun laws and taking certain guns away because it works.

As for Democrats being "anti-gun", that is also not true for the most part.  Most Democrats want common-sense gun laws, just like more than 80% of the country last I knew.  Guns for hunting and self defense, those can be defended with realistic, common sense arguments.  Assault rifles with 30+ round clips, not so much.  We don't need them for hunting.  We don't need them for self defense.  We want them because it makes our dicks feel bigger.  And you can take them without removing any rights whatsoever.  We have "the right to bear arms", not "the right to bear any weapon we feel we need".  I can't have a bazooka.  I can't have a nuclear missile.  Or any missile, for that matter.  I'm pretty sure a flame thrower is right out.  Artillery cannon, I've never seen one.  I can't make my own guns in my garage.  I can't saw off my shotgun.  And STILL I have the right to bear arms.  If we took away the weapons used in mass shootings and only those weapons I would STILL have the right to bear arms AND (and this is the important part) there would be fewer mass shootings!

The fact of the matter is that almost all of the pro-gun arguments are partially or completely false.  They are not coming for "the" guns, as even your non gun-nut argument plainly suggested.  They are coming for "some" guns, as past laws already have (I still don't have that RPG), and I very much hope they get them.  Enough is enough already.  How many grade schools need to be shot up before the NRA is finally ready to say, "You know what?  If I just go with the penis enlargement it won't just FEEL bigger, it will BE bigger!  I'm good with that."?

So no, you are NOT correct that Democrats are coming for "the guns" and a person is not automatically "anti-gun" if they want to remove SOME guns as anti-gun suggests doing away with the Second Amendment altogether, which very few extreme leftists are proposing, Hillary Clinton NOT being one of them as the Australian gun buyback did not take THE guns, it took SOME guns.  Your entire argument there was fallacious and disingenuous.  Want to try again with an honest argument?

Quote from: widdershins on December 04, 2015, 12:20:06 PM
That is not even remotely correct.  They do not want to take "your guns" away.  Certain guns, yes, but taking "certain guns" is a far cry from taking "your guns", which implies all.  And they very much should be looking at some reasonable gun laws and taking certain guns away because it works.

As for Democrats being "anti-gun", that is also not true for the most part.  Most Democrats want common-sense gun laws, just like more than 80% of the country last I knew.  Guns for hunting and self defense, those can be defended with realistic, common sense arguments. 

I'm sorry, the rules are quite clear.  In all gun debates, no middle ground can be considered as valid for consideration.  Any argument which doesn't argue from the extremes and employ the fallacy of the excluded middle, will be invalidated by the judges.  You shouldn't have to be told this.  Everyone knows it.   :biggrin:

I hear Canada's nice

Quote from: SGOS on December 04, 2015, 12:34:06 PM
I'm sorry, the rules are quite clear.  In all gun debates, no middle ground can be considered as valid for consideration.  Any argument which doesn't argue from the extremes and employ the fallacy of the excluded middle, will be invalidated by the judges.  You shouldn't have to be told this.  Everyone knows it.   :biggrin:

:redface: Sorry.  I should know better.

Quote from: JBCuzISaidSo on December 03, 2015, 01:59:17 AM
I'm not even a little afraid Trump will win. Frankly, I don't think any Republican has a chance. But that doesn't stop me from poo-pooing Trump to my elitist Republican friends. Because ha-ha!

Vote Sanders in the primary, so the general is already won.

Funny thing is, in most national polling, Sanders clobbers Trump while he's only at parity with most other candidates.  I would love to see Bernie disassemble Donny in a Presidential debate.

I also am not convinced that Trump won't run independent when he starts failing to win primaries.  Which will only serve to turn a Democratic win into a Democratic landslide.

Somehow I hope he takes the Republican nomination. He'll never ever be elected President. There might be a third party candidate if he get's the nomination. Republicans will have something to think about when the clownshow is over. Big purge! Well, that's what I hope.

Gerard

But I think that when the first primaries are over, we'll see that the Donald will not be eaten as hot as he's being cooked now. My guess? Once the primaries are underway it will become a game between either Bush, Christie or Rubio against a somewhat more teapartyite type. No Cruz, no Carson, no Huckabee and yes... no Donald. But thenagain I'm not that good at prophesy.....

Gerard

Is Paul Ryan competing even?

Gerard

hmmmm

this thread looks derailed.

Quote from: Gerard on December 04, 2015, 07:47:33 PM
Is Paul Ryan competing even?

Gerard

Paul Ryan became Speaker ... same as PM in GB, right?  Well at least when the Speaker looks in the mirror in the morning!  And more powerful than under Speaker Orange ... now that the House of Lards is held by the same party as the Un-Commons.

Quote from: widdershins on December 04, 2015, 12:20:06 PM
That is not even remotely correct.  They do not want to take "your guns" away.  Certain guns, yes, but taking "certain guns" is a far cry from taking "your guns", which implies all.  And they very much should be looking at some reasonable gun laws and taking certain guns away because it works.

So we are in agreement. They want to take any decent guns that might pose a threat to them. Those in power don't give a shit about human life. If you think they do, even a little, you are mistaken. They want to take the guns so they have all the power. If you want all the decent guns taken, that means you want to see the police state have 100% of the power and for the people to have none.

I don't trust the government enough to say that guns should be banned. If you think the actions of the government are fucked up now, wait until they have absolutely zero incentive to not just completely put the boot down on the people's throats. They already have the boot on your throat, and they are looking for ways they can take away what remaining rights you have, little by little. Now, this doesn't mean that Hillary Clinton is Hitler. It's not going to be obvious like that. They will take your rights little by little over time. This is not to say that they will take every last right, but they will take a shitload, and that is enough.

Bush ripped up the constitution after 9/11. Obama ripped it up into smaller pieces. The police state is rising. The streets of America are now filled with military vehicles. Protesting is banned in places like that shithole France and we see the freedoms that have been taken there. The information war wages on, which Hillary Clinton admits the US is losing. Independent media is under attack. Videos that deal with war and politics on youtube have recently been de-monetized. The US government, working with google, is trying to stop these people from making money, so they have less of an incentive to report on the sick shit Western governments are doing at the moment. We have Youtube closing down people's accounts because they have an anti-government message. Western leaders are on the so called "news" calling anti-government people who don't accept the official story of 9/11 terrorists who are no better than ISIS. On other "news" stations, we have people making the case that anti-government people like 9/11 truthers should have their guns taken or be banned from buying guns because those beliefs are just too "crazy". You know what? What the 9/11 truthers believe is a thousand times less crazy than what any religious person believes, but you don't see people on the news saying ban all theists from having guns because they're just so "crazy". The anti-gun agenda is clear. Anti-government people are not being demonized in the media because these media people are just so upset that the anti-government people say such 'offensive' things. These prestitute media whores demonize the anti-government people because it is their job to do so. Western governments see these anti-government people as a threat to their bullshit, and that is why they call them terrorists and that is why they are fighting an information war.

I used to be an anti-gunner, and I get it. You want to stop people from dying. Having a gun at home makes you more likely to get shot. I get it. That's partly why I don't have a gun. That, plus I'm really poor and can't really afford one. You look at a place like my country, Canada, and you wish your gun death rate was similar to ours. I get it. You have to also acknowledge that you are taking a leap of faith when you give up all the decent guns, and you are putting your faith in the American government. The same government that is the biggest terrorist around the world. The same government that has nuked cities. The same government that locks up non-violent drug offenders. The same government that locks up whistleblowers. The same government that arms the friends of ISIS and Al Qaeda, or that arms the people that join ISIS and Al Qaeda. The same government that just ok'ed the shootdown of a Russian jet and who may be responsible for getting World War III started. Because of the US government, the women of Syria have gone from wearing tanktops to wearing beekeeper outfits and getting their heads chopped off.

I get that you think banning guns is going to solve things, but if you don't think there is going to be any downside to that, I just don't know what to tell you. If you are willing to make that leap of faith and risk giving someone like Trump, Cliton, or another Bush and their police state 100% of the power and control, be my guest. If you believe that someone like Hillary Clinton is not a threat to your freedoms, you are free to go ahead and put your faith in her.

The part that worries me most about tRump isn't the economic issues. tRump knows that even poor people vote. That's not really the issue because I don't think that any politician gives a rats ass about our bank account or lack of.  What really bothers me about tRump is that he's a fascist and would drum up the support to back a lot of brown shirt types to become very violent towards any opposition. He might go so far as to attempt to outlaw opposition parties.  Now that gives me the eebiejeebies.

Quote from: doorknob on December 02, 2015, 08:14:03 AM
I shake my head in shame every time I look at the title of this thread. I've never claimed to be good at spelling guys and my apologies!

FYI  You can modify posts to change spelling and other mistakes.  What you may not realize is that you can modify the title of a thread too, but that option only appears when you modify the first post of the thread.

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on December 06, 2015, 05:13:52 AM
The part that worries me most about tRump isn't the economic issues. tRump knows that even poor people vote. That's not really the issue because I don't think that any politician gives a rats ass about our bank account or lack of.  What really bothers me about tRump is that he's a fascist and would drum up the support to back a lot of brown shirt types to become very violent towards any opposition. He might go so far as to attempt to outlaw opposition parties.  Now that gives me the eebiejeebies.

I would like to be so egotistical ... that like Nixon ... I could keep an enemies list.  But I am anonymous and unimportant ... so I will never be important enough to play golf or have personal bodyguards ... or have an enemies list (real or imagined).  Am I missing out?  Mr Trump, having had a rich father, has had a personal bodyguard his whole life.  Has to be odd to constantly fear being kidnapped for ransom.  Might make one paranoid.

The US is not based on a semi-religious faith in government, with the President as a semi-Pope ... but we do now have this faith and this ex-cathedra authority.  Sheeple.  It may not be that everyone is Hitler under the skin, but we do all seem to be Nixon under the skin.  Such a person has no business voting, running for office or holding office.  Such a person has no business being in Business either ... people and any power at all, don't mix.  And that is why, skepticism of all government, even when I work for that government, and see it from the inside out, as well as the outside in ... something not all of you can claim ... I am still skeptical.  You can't unlike George W ... look into Putin's soul ... or Obama's.

Now do I think that having a gun will protect me from feral police or the army should they take notice of me?  Of course not.  So I am still divided on guns just like the rest of you.  Crazy people shouldn't have access to a spork.  No President should have access to the Bomb.

Now I would love to see opposition parties outlawed ... serially, if we can't do this simultaneously.  Party feeling is contrary to George Washington ... and Thomas Jefferson knew it!  Thomas Jefferson invented partisanship, though it was to tie down excessive Federal power exerted by Washington and John Adams.  So here we are ... still battling between the Federalists vs the Jeffersonians.

Given the size and nature of America, it would be very difficult to regulate guns like Australia.  I am totally gobsmacked that the Australians agreed to be a bunch of castrated wallabies!  I used to look up to Crocodile Dundee, but not anymore.

One point I forgot to add. Rifles only account for 3 hundred some odd murders a year in the US. Under 400 murders a year by rifle, so banning these won't do much, and if you think politicians motive here is just to save lives, you are wrong. The rifle issue is extremely overblown. I read over on af.org last night that the overall homicide rate in the US is 121st. The gun homicide rate is over 50% lower than it was 20 plus years ago, and we're talking about banning rifles to save what, a couple hundred lives, because people are still going to commit these acts with other types of guns?

Don't fear stupid voters, the ones to fear are the fearful voters. Like religion, you cannot fight fear with reason. Right now, you have a nation of very frightened people who are convinced that a war with muslims is imminent and they are eyeing their dark skinned neighbors very carefully.

Quote from: aitm on December 06, 2015, 02:31:38 PM
Don't fear stupid voters, the ones to fear are the fearful voters. Like religion, you cannot fight fear with reason. Right now, you have a nation of very frightened people who are convinced that a war with muslims is imminent and they are eyeing their dark skinned neighbors very carefully.

For Americans, Muslim and Black are closely aligned ... so our alienation from minorities is colored by that relationship, in a way it wouldn't be in Germany.  We have always viewed our Black neighbors very carefully ... mostly to protect our residential real estate prices.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 06, 2015, 04:42:06 AM
So we are in agreement. They want to take any decent guns that might pose a threat to them. Those in power don't give a shit about human life. If you think they do, even a little, you are mistaken. They want to take the guns so they have all the power. If you want all the decent guns taken, that means you want to see the police state have 100% of the power and for the people to have none.

No, we are not in agreement as they already have all the "decent guns" that would "pose a threat to them".  They have missiles they can fire from a ship of the coast of China that will go to your house, knock on your door and wait for you to answer before blowing up.  Okay, not quite, but pretty damned close.  If you have an underground bunker they do have missiles that will count the floors it goes through to blow up at the one they want destroyed.  There are no guns that are a threat to that.  I don't care what guns you have, you can't take out a satellite or a battleship with them.  AND you switched the conversation back to "the guns" again.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 06, 2015, 04:42:06 AMI don't trust the government enough to say that guns should be banned. If you think the actions of the government are fucked up now, wait until they have absolutely zero incentive to not just completely put the boot down on the people's throats. They already have the boot on your throat, and they are looking for ways they can take away what remaining rights you have, little by little. Now, this doesn't mean that Hillary Clinton is Hitler. It's not going to be obvious like that. They will take your rights little by little over time. This is not to say that they will take every last right, but they will take a shitload, and that is enough.

I don't trust the government either.  They are wholly owned by corporate interest.  If there's a politician out there who can't be bought then unicorns live up my ass.  But assault rifles are being used to kill kids, not politicians, so your slippery slope argument doesn't pan.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 06, 2015, 04:42:06 AMBush ripped up the constitution after 9/11.

Quote
I agree with that, specifically with the Patriot Act (you see, I have specific reasons for thinking the way I do).

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 06, 2015, 04:42:06 AMObama ripped it up into smaller pieces.

In what way?  Because he's using his power to get something, ANYTHING done in an era of 6 year olds running Congress on the idea that if they are going to give him something (which is always something EVERYONE wants, INCLUDING THEM!) then they had better get something in return.  EVEN IF you count the immigration plan as anti-constitution, at least with that, the courts will work it out.  The Patriot Act is unchallenged for the most part.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 06, 2015, 04:42:06 AMThe police state is rising. The streets of America are now filled with military vehicles. Protesting is banned in places like that shithole France and we see the freedoms that have been taken there. The information war wages on, which Hillary Clinton admits the US is losing. Independent media is under attack. Videos that deal with war and politics on youtube have recently been de-monetized. The US government, working with google, is trying to stop these people from making money, so they have less of an incentive to report on the sick shit Western governments are doing at the moment. We have Youtube closing down people's accounts because they have an anti-government message. Western leaders are on the so called "news" calling anti-government people who don't accept the official story of 9/11 terrorists who are no better than ISIS. On other "news" stations, we have people making the case that anti-government people like 9/11 truthers should have their guns taken or be banned from buying guns because those beliefs are just too "crazy".

There's a lot there and I'm afraid I'm going to have to stop you at "9/11 truthers".  There is no "truth" to the 9/11 conspiracy crap any more than there is to the Roswell crap.  I watched "Loose Change" and it was bullshit.  I only remember one of the stories, the one that made me laugh at how absolutely ludicrous this all was.  It was about a man having a conversation with another man whose skin was hanging off the ends of his arms, peeled off by extreme heat.  I'm not a doctor, but I've heard of "shock" and I know enough about trauma to know that you don't just have coffee and a casual conversation with a man injured that badly.  It doesn't happen.  So in place of "9/11 truthers" may I, instead, offer the term "9/11 nutbags"?  It seems more accurate to me.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 06, 2015, 04:42:06 AMYou know what? What the 9/11 truthers believe is a thousand times less crazy than what any religious person believes, but you don't see people on the news saying ban all theists from having guns because they're just so "crazy". The anti-gun agenda is clear. Anti-government people are not being demonized in the media because these media people are just so upset that the anti-government people say such 'offensive' things. These prestitute media whores demonize the anti-government people because it is their job to do so. Western governments see these anti-government people as a threat to their bullshit, and that is why they call them terrorists and that is why they are fighting an information war.

You call a nut a nut.  That's just the way it is.  And all the "anti-government" people I've seen, the people who stockpile guns because they think that when the government attacks they are going to fight back and shoot that missile in its face, are nuts.  I don't care how well armed you are.  I don't care if you have rocket launchers and flame throwers.  Your guns won't mean shit if the government truly assaults the people with a military strike.  They have binoculars that can pick out scopes AND EYES from miles away.  They can find you if you just LOOK AT THEM!  It uses infisible infrared lasers which reflect off transparent surfaces.  They have satellites that can track your every move.  They have helicopters which can see you in the dead of night and shoot you dead through an engine block before you even hear the shots ring out.  You fight politics with politics.  If you think you're going to fight with guns, I'm sorry, but you're a nut.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 06, 2015, 04:42:06 AMI used to be an anti-gunner, and I get it. You want to stop people from dying. Having a gun at home makes you more likely to get shot. I get it. That's partly why I don't have a gun. That, plus I'm really poor and can't really afford one. You look at a place like my country, Canada, and you wish your gun death rate was similar to ours. I get it. You have to also acknowledge that you are taking a leap of faith when you give up all the decent guns, and you are putting your faith in the American government. The same government that is the biggest terrorist around the world. The same government that has nuked cities. The same government that locks up non-violent drug offenders. The same government that locks up whistleblowers. The same government that arms the friends of ISIS and Al Qaeda, or that arms the people that join ISIS and Al Qaeda. The same government that just ok'ed the shootdown of a Russian jet and who may be responsible for getting World War III started. Because of the US government, the women of Syria have gone from wearing tanktops to wearing beekeeper outfits and getting their heads chopped off.

I get it, you're scared of the government and you think a gun will make you safe from them.  The government is evil and guns keep us safe.  Except they don't.  They make us less safe.  You think that the only way you can be safe is if you have the "good guns", meaning the ones used in mass killings, the ones used to shoot up grade schools, the ones use to TAKE more innocent lives than they ever have the power to save.  I understand, but it's shortsighted.  You want to trade innocent lives today on the perception that those guns MAY save you from the big, bad government tomorrow.  It's the most common argument for keeping guns designed only for killing people.  It's also an uninformed, shortsighted and ignorant argument.  You can't protect yourself from napalm dropped in a carpet bombing run from 30,000 feet with an AK-47, so your argument is wrong.  You can't protect yourself from a mortar shell fired from 300 miles away with an AK-47.  You can't protect yourself from an attack helicopter firing rounds from a canon that can see you in pitch black and shoot you through the engine block of a huge truck (I've seen video of just this) with an AK-47.  You just can't.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 06, 2015, 04:42:06 AMI get that you think banning guns is going to solve things, but if you don't think there is going to be any downside to that, I just don't know what to tell you. If you are willing to make that leap of faith and risk giving someone like Trump, Cliton, or another Bush and their police state 100% of the power and control, be my guest. If you believe that someone like Hillary Clinton is not a threat to your freedoms, you are free to go ahead and put your faith in her.

No "faith" comes into play.  I don't trust the government to do the right thing for me, ESPECIALLY when Republicans are in charge.  But you spout off about how the government is shutting down information, let's talk about the REAL, PROVEN ways they're doing that.  Since 1996 the CDC has been essentially banned from doing any research into the dangers of guns.  Government officials are currently making effort after effort to curb ANY research into climate change and have been for some time.  These are REAL, PROVEN things which you can EASILY find evidence for.  What you are giving is, I'm sorry, but insane rantings about how the government MIGHT be worse if we didn't have "good" guns.  Kids are being killed by these "good" guns NOW.  What MIGHT happen IF those guns are banned is a matter for discussion after it comes out of your fevered brain and into reality.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 06, 2015, 01:55:15 PM
One point I forgot to add. Rifles only account for 3 hundred some odd murders a year in the US. Under 400 murders a year by rifle, so banning these won't do much, and if you think politicians motive here is just to save lives, you are wrong. The rifle issue is extremely overblown. I read over on af.org last night that the overall homicide rate in the US is 121st. The gun homicide rate is over 50% lower than it was 20 plus years ago, and we're talking about banning rifles to save what, a couple hundred lives, because people are still going to commit these acts with other types of guns?

Only a couple hundred lives, huh?  That's not much.  Let's have a look at some of them, though, just for kicks.
(https://timenewsfeed.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/nf-sandy-hook-victims-1217.jpg?w=720&h=480&crop=1)

This is from ONE mass shooting.  Save a couple hundred victims?  WORTH IT!

Well, the Supreme Court's not taking up the Chicago assault weapon ban (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35031293) despite previous rulings overturning handgun bans.  Looks like they're tacking towards a line between reasonable self defense, and unreasonable levels of firepower.  It'd be nice to live in a world where people didn't feel the need to be armed, but we don't live in that world, so you just gotta get as close to common sense as you can.

Senator Sanders (who is no friend of gun control (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-gun-control-no-fly-list/index.html)) has an approach that makes sense to me, grounded in the fact that the urban and rural communities perceive guns very differently, and that both sides are going to have to give a little to come to any sort of solution, and both extremes--absolute ban and absolutely anything goes--are untenable.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 06, 2015, 04:42:06 AMI don't trust the government enough to say that guns should be banned. If you think the actions of the government are fucked up now, wait until they have absolutely zero incentive to not just completely put the boot down on the people's throats.

(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2011/06/carrier_battle_group1-660x425.jpg)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4d/US_Navy_071016-N-6552M-149_SEAL_Qualification_Training_students_endure_a_long_hike_after_finishing_their_second_day_of_close_quarters_combat_instruction.jpg/512px-US_Navy_071016-N-6552M-149_SEAL_Qualification_Training_students_endure_a_long_hike_after_finishing_their_second_day_of_close_quarters_combat_instruction.jpg)

"I can't wait to finally kick down Americans' doors and really lay the smack down on fellow Americans.  But only after they enact strict gun control measures."  - a Marine, probably

Quote from: Hydra009 on December 07, 2015, 02:45:25 PM
(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2011/06/carrier_battle_group1-660x425.jpg)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4d/US_Navy_071016-N-6552M-149_SEAL_Qualification_Training_students_endure_a_long_hike_after_finishing_their_second_day_of_close_quarters_combat_instruction.jpg/512px-US_Navy_071016-N-6552M-149_SEAL_Qualification_Training_students_endure_a_long_hike_after_finishing_their_second_day_of_close_quarters_combat_instruction.jpg)

"I can't wait to finally kick down Americans' doors and really lay the smack down on fellow Americans.  But only after they enact strict gun control measures."  - a Marine, probably

I'm pretty sure I can take them so long as I have an assault rifle and 30 round clip.  It is, after all, only about 11 times the military force of the next biggest military force on the planet.  I just need a crapload of AKs (only one of which I can fire at any given time) and it's easy peasy.

By the way, I played paintball once with 2 ex-marines.  Guess which 2 guys battled it out alone after everyone else went down.  Go on.  Guess.

"Yes, but if the public at large is (heavily) armed, then mass shootings could be prevented."
Wouldn't that be nice. Did it ever happen by the way?

Gerard

Quote from: Gerard on December 07, 2015, 03:54:02 PM
"Yes, but if the public at large is (heavily) armed, then mass shootings could be prevented."
Wouldn't that be nice. Did it ever happen by the way?

Gerard

Open carry by White skinheads with Nazi symbols ... will keep the peace ... sort of.  Just put Blackwater in charge, like Hillary did at the State Department ;-(

Lame. I voted for someone far, far more liberal than who you're going to vote for, Widdershins, or who you'll ever vote for, I'm anti-war, all about peace, and have never touched a gun in my life, yet you can't help throwing out your childish second grade insults calling me a nutjob. Good one.

You defend the mainstream media. I guess I shouldn't be surprised there. You express no concern with media people saying guns should be banned for those who question the government's official stories. You express no concern with these people being called terrorists. Instead, you defend the media and say they are right to smear anti-government people. Do you honestly think the media is talking about these people just for shits and giggles? Do you think some Western leaders are calling them terrorists just for shits and giggles? That sure seems to be your position. If you really think that, you are extremely gullible. Now, I didn't say I agree with 9/11 truthers about bombs in the WTC, and that's not what this is about. They are smearing people who question the government as terrorists, and in some cases the media is saying these people are too nuts to have guns. Would you agree that these people are too nuts to have guns, or no, because you didn't really make it clear in your post? The point is that they are smearing anti-government people in general, and trying to convince the public that these anti-government people should be looked at as more dangerous than the average Joe. Forget about 9/11 or Sandy Hook for the moment. We're talking about stuff like questioning what's really going on in Syria (Mainstream media won't tell you what's really going on and neither will the White House). What is the end game? Is it to ban people that are "too anti-government" from having guns? I don't know. It could be.

Let's go back to the bombs in the WTC thing. So what if someone thinks there were bombs in there? That doesn't make this person a physical threat. Truthers are usually against the wars going on. Why is it that someone who is anti-war would be looked at as any kind of significant threat? Militias or people with rifles are not who you have to fear. You should fear your own government. Those who are anti-war should not be looked at as our enemy.

Where did you ever get the impression that I think US citizens with rifles are going to defeat the US Army militarily? It seems like all you have is arguing against points that were not even made, throwing out childish insults, and talking about common sense this and common sense that. Giving up rights is never common sense. 3000 people died on 9/11. You ban ALL rifles, which is something even you are not calling for (right?), and  it's going to take 15 long years to save just 3000 lives. Honestly, I respect the argument that all guns should be banned more than I do the argument that just assault rifles or certain assault rifles should be banned. At least the people calling for the ban of all guns are actually calling for something that would make quite the difference. Why are you not in favour of banning all handguns? The majority of gun deaths are by handguns. Rifles account for a tiny, tiny percentage of gun deaths. I'll use your own words here since you like to throw them around so much. Isn't it just "common sense" to ban all handguns? Isn't the Patriot Act "common sense"? Americans need to be kept safe from the Muslims and white anti-government terrorists afterall, right? What if the government announced that because of the Patriot Act, they estimate that they have saved 200 lives annually? Would that mean that the Patriot Act is awesome and completely justified? What about stop and frisk? Better safe than sorry, right? A black guy with a gun he shouldn't be holding could very well get into a gun fight and children can (and do all the time) die in the crossfire. Why do you care so much about the children that die in mass shootings, but don't have that same concern for the children that die via handguns? Where is your common sense? Do you have no common sense?

As far as you asking how Obama ripped up the Constitution, do I really have to explain this? Ramped up NSA spying is not ripping up the Constitution even further? More wars with no Congressional approval is respecting the Constitution? Drone striking American citizens with no trial? I'll stop there.

Edit - Just looked up the numbers and they are lower than I thought. 248 murders by rifle in 2014 in the US. Ban all rifles and you save what, 150 lives maybe and that is being generous? You don't want to ban all rifles though. Only ban the rifles that the government is worried about? How many lives do you save then? Somewhere around 100 lives? One hundred people out of a country of 300,000,000? At that rate of saving lives, it will take 30 years to get to 3000 lives saved. So yeah, you can go on about common sense this and common sense that, but the only way you are going to make a real difference is by doing something about handguns. Handguns should be your concern.

Young people think that Hitler was a liberal (National SOCIALIST Party OMG!) ... because Cheney.  They have even forgotten the editorial cartoon where Darth Vader commented about Dick Cheney ... "Now that is scary".  The American collective memory is only good for 3 months at best.

Yes, except for those hippie kids and Scoobydoo ... we would still be killing $&%^$ in the rice paddies of Vietnam, just as G-d intended.  Amen!

Questioning the official narrative ... going back to FDR and Pearl Harbor ... that is dangerous.  And people here think they are skeptics?

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 07, 2015, 08:06:52 PM
Lame. I voted for someone far, far more liberal than who you're going to vote for, Widdershins, or who you'll ever vote for...

You see, this is why I can't take you seriously.  Unless you have my voting record right in front of you then you can't possibly know that.  It's just one more wild claim without the slightest backing.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 07, 2015, 08:06:52 PM...I'm anti-war, all about peace, and have never touched a gun in my life, yet you can't help throwing out your childish second grade insults calling me a nutjob. Good one.

That wasn't specifically aimed at you, and if it came off that way I apologize.  And the term was "nutbag", not "nutjob".  9/11 "truthers" piss me off.  It's a slap in the face to the victims and survivors of that terrible incident and to those still suffering today to get a boner over some wild conspiracy involving our government doing it on purpose.  We know who's responsible.  They took responsibility for it.  They bragged about it.  And to propagate wild conspiracy theories for your own self-amusement disrespects those who were hurt by it and puts their very real pain second to the "truthers'" need to feel important by having some "secret knowledge".  It's nothing more than a religion without a god.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 07, 2015, 08:06:52 PMYou defend the mainstream media. I guess I shouldn't be surprised there. You express no concern with media people saying guns should be banned for those who question the government's official stories. You express no concern with these people being called terrorists. Instead, you defend the media and say they are right to smear anti-government people. Do you honestly think the media is talking about these people just for shits and giggles? Do you think some Western leaders are calling them terrorists just for shits and giggles? That sure seems to be your position. If you really think that, you are extremely gullible. Now, I didn't say I agree with 9/11 truthers about bombs in the WTC, and that's not what this is about. They are smearing people who question the government as terrorists, and in some cases the media is saying these people are too nuts to have guns. Would you agree that these people are too nuts to have guns, or no, because you didn't really make it clear in your post?

I'm going to stop there, because I really don't know what you're talking about.  What is an "anti-government person"?  Someone who is arming themselves in case the government attacks?  Yes, THOSE people are too nuts to have guns because their too nuts to know that if the government ever did attack there is nothing you could do about it and too nuts to know the "government" isn't this hive-mind of officials and military personnel which will do whatever "it" wants.  We are talking about individual people being ordered to fire on individual people and choosing for themselves whether this is right.  "The government" is not a big, all powerful black box with a single mind.  It is millions of individuals.  Yes, some are corrupt and power hungry.  Yes, some would follow if ordered to attack their own.  I would bet that most would not, and yes, I would bet my life on that.  People, in general, are good, not bloodthirsty.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 07, 2015, 08:06:52 PMThe point is that they are smearing anti-government people in general, and trying to convince the public that these anti-government people should be looked at as more dangerous than the average Joe.

If we're talking about gun hoarders with doomsday bunkers, I don't know that I disagree with that.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 07, 2015, 08:06:52 PMForget about 9/11 or Sandy Hook for the moment. We're talking about stuff like questioning what's really going on in Syria (Mainstream media won't tell you what's really going on and neither will the White House). What is the end game? Is it to ban people that are "too anti-government" from having guns? I don't know. It could be.

It "could be"...so let's act like it is!  This fear of the "mainstream media" is very Limbaugh of you.  You do know that the Internet lets you get a lot more information, including information from other countries, right?  American media is less information than, say, the BBC on some issues.  That's why you go to a variety of sources.  Hell, I don't even bother with The Huffington Post anymore because, while the news is accurate and informative, it is very left-leaning and I don't want biased news, I want news, which is supposed to be impartial.

But back to the argument at hand, while it may be convenient for your argument to ignore the facts (except the ones you post, of course), no, I do not agree to ignore the facts.  Sandy Hook happened.  Your government taking over what it already controls conspiracy, that hasn't.  We need to address the threats that are undeniably real and you don't get to ignore those threats because you perceive a bigger threat for which there is no evidence.  Now, I'm sure you have tons of "evidence" which is enough to convince you, but the reality is there is none.  Most of what you're arguing here is one giant "what if" slippery slope argument.  All the "evidence" you've presented is "look what they've done in the past that was NOT turning the armed forces on its own citizens.  That's pretty bad!"  Yes, the government has done bad things many, many times.  But none of those things even remotely resembled turning the armed forces on the populace.  Nothing even close to that has ever happened (unless you're a 9/11 "truther", in which case there's a whole lot of other bad and misconstrued "evidence" we need to talk about).  And the media is making the vaguely defined "anti-government" group look bad.  Oh my!  People in the media think a person stockpiling guns to protect themselves from a government invasion on the lands they already control are unstable!  Well, so do I, I'm not in the media and I didn't get that opinion from the media.  I do not see that fear and behavior as "normal", "healthy" or "stable".  I have heard of people with similar beliefs using those guns.  As far as the Branch Davidians were concerned the government WAS attacking.  Except they had a legal and legitimate search warrant.  The wackos at Waco attacked the government, not the other way around.  And THAT is why I think this way of thinking is unnatural and dangerous.  If you see the bogeyman in the face of every ATF agent when he comes knocking with a search warrant for perfectly legitimate reasons you're going to shoot him in the face because you've worked yourself up into a frenzy about how the government is out to get you, so if they ever show up, even for legitimate reasons, you automatically assume it's an attack and act in kind, murdering innocent people just there to do the same job they've done every day of their careers.

I don't think we're ever going to agree on this.  You have beliefs, I need facts.  That's just the way it is.  I find your belief that the government is out to get you irrational and, frankly, mentally unhealthy.  Do I think you're going to go crazy and shoot a bunch of people?  No, I don't think you're going to set out to do that.  BUT, if some government officials were to show up at your door there is every chance you will see it as the attack you seem so sure is coming and "defend yourself" from ordinary people doing their jobs, which very much does not include beating you down.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 07, 2015, 08:06:52 PMLet's go back to the bombs in the WTC thing. So what if someone thinks there were bombs in there? That doesn't make this person a physical threat. Truthers are usually against the wars going on. Why is it that someone who is anti-war would be looked at as any kind of significant threat? Militias or people with rifles are not who you have to fear. You should fear your own government. Those who are anti-war should not be looked at as our enemy.

Anyone who tells lies, spreading discord and furthering the suffering of 9/11 survivors just so that they can feel super-special pretending that they have some secret knowledge is my "enemy" as far as I'm concerned.  Anyone who spread ignorance in place of reason is an "enemy" to the people and common sense.  And do you think it stops with 9/11 conspiracies?  If one person hears and believes some 9/11 conspiracy bullshit, do you think that's where it stops for them?  Now they don't trust the government.  Now they've accepted "some random jackass on the Internet" is more trustworthy.  And now they come across some random jackass on the Internet who tells them that vaccinating their kids will give them autism.  And now kids start dying from preventable diseases.  9/11 "truthers" are very much a problem, stuck so far up their own asses that they have no concern whatsoever for the very real damage they cause.  Spreading this bullshit isn't just spreading "theories" about what "really" happened on 9/11.  It's spreading general discord and distrust, which causes specific harms in other, seemingly unrelated areas in much the same way that the intelligent design "just a theory" bullshit has caused a general mistrust of science allowing people to "safely" ignore climate science, which could be the death of us all, AND vaccine science.  These fanciful fairy tales spread as some kind of secret truth do real harm.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 07, 2015, 08:06:52 PMWhere did you ever get the impression that I think US citizens with rifles are going to defeat the US Army militarily?

From the fact that you seem to be arguing that the reason we need the "good guns" is to protect ourselves from "the government", which, presumably, would include military forces.  Or are we talking a general overthrow of the government?  Because I'm pretty sure that's actually illegal, one of the few free speech exceptions and the view of people who hate democracy and Republicans, who believe an election is only "fair" if they one and "democracy" means all Republicans, all the time.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 07, 2015, 08:06:52 PMIt seems like all you have is arguing against points that were not even made, throwing out childish insults, and talking about common sense this and common sense that. Giving up rights is never common sense.

Christians just lost the right to persecute homosexuals when it came to marriage and spousal benefits.  Giving up those rights was common sense.  About 200 years ago plantation owners lost the right to own people.  Giving up that right was common sense.  So while saying, Giving up rights is never common sense" SOUNDS good and right, it's ultimately meaningless and very, very wrong.  Sometimes people have rights they never should have had in the first place.

As for the childish insults, that was not my intention.  Just speaking my mind.  Again, if I insulted you, I apologize.  It was not intentional.  I sometimes get...passionate when I debate.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 07, 2015, 08:06:52 PM3000 people died on 9/11. You ban ALL rifles, which is something even you are not calling for (right?)...

Not right.  Ban guns specifically designed to kill people.  Guns designed to kill animals or clay targets, I'm okay with.  But I question the mental stability of one who wants a gun designed to kill people and, personally, I think that's a fair assessment.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 07, 2015, 08:06:52 PM...and  it's going to take 15 long years to save just 3000 lives.

Quote
So?  There were more mass shootings this year than days in the year.  Many of them were children.  I value a single child's life more than I value the right to make my dick feel bigger.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 07, 2015, 08:06:52 PMHonestly, I respect the argument that all guns should be banned more than I do the argument that just assault rifles or certain assault rifles should be banned. At least the people calling for the ban of all guns are actually calling for something that would make quite the difference.

That's not what the results from a similar ban in Australia shows.  Real, actual data does not support your belief.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 07, 2015, 08:06:52 PMWhy are you not in favour of banning all handguns? The majority of gun deaths are by handguns. Rifles account for a tiny, tiny percentage of gun deaths.

Again, guns designed to kill people are what I am against, as well as common sense gun laws including background checks and mandatory gun safety training, perhaps with regular licensing just like you have to do with a driver's license, except with a test you must pass each time you renew the license.  I just read an article the other day about a man who cleaned his shotgun, loaded it, set it on his lap, facing his baby's crib, went to stand up and blew his baby away.  Most gun deaths are caused by stupid people who have no business owning a gun.  You should have to prove you're not an idiot to own one just like you have to prove you're at least not too much of an idiot to drive a car.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 07, 2015, 08:06:52 PMI'll use your own words here since you like to throw them around so much. Isn't it just "common sense" to ban all handguns? Isn't the Patriot Act "common sense"? Americans need to be kept safe from the Muslims and white anti-government terrorists afterall, right? What if the government announced that because of the Patriot Act, they estimate that they have saved 200 lives annually? Would that mean that the Patriot Act is awesome and completely justified? What about stop and frisk? Better safe than sorry, right? A black guy with a gun he shouldn't be holding could very well get into a gun fight and children can (and do all the time) die in the crossfire. Why do you care so much about the children that die in mass shootings, but don't have that same concern for the children that die via handguns? Where is your common sense? Do you have no common sense?

Nice false equivalency argument there.  You can have "common sense" gun laws without abandoning the Second Amendment altogether, and neither has anything to do with the Patriot Act, Muslims, stop and frisk or your slippery slope argument.  You're trying to equate a ban on assault rifles with blatant rights violations.  The two are not the same.  The Second Amendment says you have the "right to bear arms".  It does not spell out which arms you have the right to bear.  And I know that's the only part of it you like to hear, but it actually starts with WHY you have the right to bear arms, because of the need for a well regulated militia, which is no longer a need.  And you're switching the topic again from mass shootings back to gun deaths in general, which only shows the need for MORE gun regulations, again, to prove you're not an idiot before you can get a gun.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 07, 2015, 08:06:52 PMAs far as you asking how Obama ripped up the Constitution, do I really have to explain this? Ramped up NSA spying is not ripping up the Constitution even further? More wars with no Congressional approval is respecting the Constitution? Drone striking American citizens with no trial? I'll stop there.

How would I know what you're talking about unless you explain it?  The increased NSA spying, I'll give you that.  The "wars" are within his rights as President.  The drone striking of American citizens is no different than the drone striking of any other terrorist.  A terrorist is a terrorist, no matter what country his is a citizen of.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 07, 2015, 08:06:52 PMEdit - Just looked up the numbers and they are lower than I thought. 248 murders by rifle in 2014 in the US. Ban all rifles and you save what, 150 lives maybe and that is being generous? You don't want to ban all rifles though. Only ban the rifles that the government is worried about? How many lives do you save then? Somewhere around 100 lives? One hundred people out of a country of 300,000,000? At that rate of saving lives, it will take 30 years to get to 3000 lives saved. So yeah, you can go on about common sense this and common sense that, but the only way you are going to make a real difference is by doing something about handguns. Handguns should be your concern.

Again, people don't need guns designed to kill people.  What is the purpose of owning such a gun?  Because the purpose of the gun is to kill people.  And, of course, never once did I say banning all the "good guns" (whatever that means) that the "government is worried about" (whatever THAT means) would solve all the problems with gun deaths.  We also need common-sense gun laws.  Background checks, licensing, etc.  These are things more than 80% of the country wants.  In a democracy that SHOULD mean these are things we have.

Quote from: widdershins on December 08, 2015, 12:29:27 PM
Not right.  Ban guns specifically designed to kill people.  Guns designed to kill animals or clay targets, I'm okay with.  But I question the mental stability of one who wants a gun designed to kill people and, personally, I think that's a fair assessment.

You don't see the folly in this statement?

I am a hunter...  I once prepared for a hunting trip for Grizzly.  I went through about 10 different rifles before I settled on one that would do the job.

That gun will EASILY kill a human at 500 yards.  It looks the same as all the other rifles out there.  This things was considered barely enough for a grizzly.  You trying to tell me that a govt regulator knows better than me what I am comfortable with in a hunting scenario like that?  I guarantee there is no difference between a gun "designed" to kill a human and a grizzly... the differences exist in how you use the weapon only - and you can't legislate intent. 

In other words, how in the world is what you just stated going to come about in the real world?  It is fine to theorize about guns... but reality is much different.  I can easily take a semi-automatic weapon and turn it full auto in about 10 minutes with the right tools - how is this keeping automatic weapons out of terrorist hands.  I can also get a milling machine and produce my own actions... no need to register anything... or even pay attention to gun laws.

And I will state, the second amendment was not put in place to protect my rights as a hunter - but instead as a check against government tyranny.  Govt has now grown to the point where any one gun will not matter in this regard - so do we discard the second amendment?  Or do we expand it like the gun lobby wants us to to restore its original intent - to keep the citizenry armed and the government in check?  If the govt uses automatic rifles, then the people must be allowed to in order to maintain parity.  If the government has bear cats - then private citizens also have the right to anti-personnel equipment.  My views don't go this far... but some I know do.  I would take the bearcats AWAY from the cops - not give then to civilians.

I am a farmer and can get a nearly unlimited supply of diesel fuel and the right fertilizers - these are far, far more dangerous than an automatic rifle.  And yet easier to get than a gun and certainly far easier to steal - it lies in huge, unguarded piles all over the midwest - why no bitching about this? A well placed bomb will make an automatic rifle seem quaint.  Just look at the difference between OK City and San Bernardino.

As a people, we oftentimes ignore the obvious and keep our eyes focused on bright shiny objects... much to our detriment.  Though politicians love this fact as it makes their job easier...

The Donald's recent comments (potentially) gave his Republican opponents a weapon that might enable them to unite against him. Let's see if they're up to that. I have my hopes / doubts.....

Gerard

Quote from: GreatLife on December 08, 2015, 01:29:09 PM
You don't see the folly in this statement?

I am a hunter...  I once prepared for a hunting trip for Grizzly.  I went through about 10 different rifles before I settled on one that would do the job.

That gun will EASILY kill a human at 500 yards.  It looks the same as all the other rifles out there.  This things was considered barely enough for a grizzly.  You trying to tell me that a govt regulator knows better than me what I am comfortable with in a hunting scenario like that?  I guarantee there is no difference between a gun "designed" to kill a human and a grizzly... the differences exist in how you use the weapon only - and you can't legislate intent.

I never said the government knows better than you about anything, and your "comfort" is not my concern.  I don't care what makes you "comfortable".  Not even a little.

And I never said to ban guns that "could" kill people.  I was talking specifically about guns "designed" to kill people, which I'm pretty sure aren't the same rifles you would choose for hunting bears.

This is the perfect example of how irrational the gun lobby is.  You swap out what I say for whatever strengthens your argument any time you like and spin it to to boost your own argument.  If you people argued honestly I guess you wouldn't have an argument, though.

Quote from: GreatLife on December 08, 2015, 01:29:09 PMIn other words, how in the world is what you just stated going to come about in the real world?  It is fine to theorize about guns... but reality is much different.  I can easily take a semi-automatic weapon and turn it full auto in about 10 minutes with the right tools - how is this keeping automatic weapons out of terrorist hands.  I can also get a milling machine and produce my own actions... no need to register anything... or even pay attention to gun laws.

Once again, taint the argument with twisted reality.  NOBODY mention terrorists in this argument.  I didn't argue about keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists.  When the hell did terrorists come into this?  Oh yeah, when you wanted to inject something into the argument and project it onto me to boost your position.  If you don't have an honest argument you don't have an argument worth arguing.

And, yes, you could probably do all that.  Could he?
(http://static3.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2261297.1434564741!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_635/newtown-school-shooting.jpg)

Once again you are changing MY argument to suit your needs.  MY argument had nothing to do with terrorists.  MY argument had nothing to do with illegally modified or manufactured guns.  MY argument was about LEGALITY, not off the wall POSSIBILITY.

Quote from: GreatLife on December 08, 2015, 01:29:09 PMAnd I will state, the second amendment was not put in place to protect my rights as a hunter - but instead as a check against government tyranny.  Govt has now grown to the point where any one gun will not matter in this regard - so do we discard the second amendment?  Or do we expand it like the gun lobby wants us to to restore its original intent - to keep the citizenry armed and the government in check?  If the govt uses automatic rifles, then the people must be allowed to in order to maintain parity.  If the government has bear cats - then private citizens also have the right to anti-personnel equipment.  My views don't go this far... but some I know do.  I would take the bearcats AWAY from the cops - not give then to civilians.

Yeah, we already covered the government tyranny thing.  "Come on men!  Their tens of thousands of cruise missiles which can pinpoint our exact location from thousands of miles away using satellite surveillance are no match for our assault rifles which require line of sight, do almost no damage by comparison and have vastly inferior range!"  Arming yourself against the government is a pipe dream.  If you don't have nukes you can't defend against the government.  But the REALITY is that the government would never use that against you.  EVEN IF they wanted to they would have to get cooperation from each individual in the chain of the armed forces.  I guarantee you one or two just might have a problem firing on their own.  Do you know when they wouldn't have a problem doing that?  When those people were firing at them.

If the purpose of the Second Amendment was to protect us from the government then I have bad news for you, the Second Amendment has failed, is outdated, no longer serves its intended purpose and, thus, is invalid.  YOU CAN NOT get enough/powerful enough weapons to protect you from cruise missiles.

Quote from: GreatLife on December 08, 2015, 01:29:09 PMI am a farmer and can get a nearly unlimited supply of diesel fuel and the right fertilizers - these are far, far more dangerous than an automatic rifle.  And yet easier to get than a gun and certainly far easier to steal - it lies in huge, unguarded piles all over the midwest - why no bitching about this? A well placed bomb will make an automatic rifle seem quaint.  Just look at the difference between OK City and San Bernardino.

Um, maybe because there weren't more mass BOMBINGS this year than days in the year?  Maybe because MAKING a bomb is a lot different/more difficult than BUYING a gun, even if you have previous domestic abuse and mental illnesses on your record?  Maybe because, once again, that's not the discussion we're having?

Quote from: GreatLife on December 08, 2015, 01:29:09 PMAs a people, we oftentimes ignore the obvious and keep our eyes focused on bright shiny objects... much to our detriment.  Though politicians love this fact as it makes their job easier...

I agree.  That's how they so often use a shiny gun to distract people from the real issues, like climate change and assaults on women's rights.

Quote from: Gerard on December 07, 2015, 03:54:02 PM
"Yes, but if the public at large is (heavily) armed, then mass shootings could be prevented."
Wouldn't that be nice. Did it ever happen by the way?

Gerard

It's sad, but I am just waiting for the day when this idea is tested.  One person sees something, pulls their gun and opens fire, then other people see a man shooting at another man who's ducking, trying not to get shot and pull their guns to defend him and, before you know it, you have a bunch of people all shooting at each other because nobody knows who is firing at who and why and nobody is trained to defuse the situation, only to "protect themselves and others" by shooting at "bad guys", which, obviously, is the asshole firing the gun...until it's you.

Quote from: Gerard on December 08, 2015, 01:29:52 PM
The Donald's recent comments (potentially) gave his Republican opponents a weapon that might enable them to unite against him. Let's see if they're up to that. I have my hopes / doubts.....

Gerard

You know what, you just pointed out that we are getting WAY off topic.  If anyone wants to keep talking about gun control, take it to another thread.  I'd be happy to do a one on one or something, but this thread isn't about gun control, so I'm done with it in here.

Quote from: GreatLife on December 08, 2015, 01:29:09 PM
You don't see the folly in this statement?

I am a hunter...  I once prepared for a hunting trip for Grizzly.  I went through about 10 different rifles before I settled on one that would do the job.

That gun will EASILY kill a human at 500 yards.  It looks the same as all the other rifles out there.  This things was considered barely enough for a grizzly.  You trying to tell me that a govt regulator knows better than me what I am comfortable with in a hunting scenario like that?  I guarantee there is no difference between a gun "designed" to kill a human and a grizzly... the differences exist in how you use the weapon only - and you can't legislate intent. 

In other words, how in the world is what you just stated going to come about in the real world?  It is fine to theorize about guns... but reality is much different.  I can easily take a semi-automatic weapon and turn it full auto in about 10 minutes with the right tools - how is this keeping automatic weapons out of terrorist hands.  I can also get a milling machine and produce my own actions... no need to register anything... or even pay attention to gun laws.

And I will state, the second amendment was not put in place to protect my rights as a hunter - but instead as a check against government tyranny.  Govt has now grown to the point where any one gun will not matter in this regard - so do we discard the second amendment?  Or do we expand it like the gun lobby wants us to to restore its original intent - to keep the citizenry armed and the government in check?  If the govt uses automatic rifles, then the people must be allowed to in order to maintain parity.  If the government has bear cats - then private citizens also have the right to anti-personnel equipment.  My views don't go this far... but some I know do.  I would take the bearcats AWAY from the cops - not give then to civilians.

I am a farmer and can get a nearly unlimited supply of diesel fuel and the right fertilizers - these are far, far more dangerous than an automatic rifle.  And yet easier to get than a gun and certainly far easier to steal - it lies in huge, unguarded piles all over the midwest - why no bitching about this? A well placed bomb will make an automatic rifle seem quaint.  Just look at the difference between OK City and San Bernardino.

As a people, we oftentimes ignore the obvious and keep our eyes focused on bright shiny objects... much to our detriment.  Though politicians love this fact as it makes their job easier...

This issue is not about people hunting animals. It’s about people hunting people. It's also not about individual situations. It's about rather worrying statistics of deaths.

The idea that the people being armed can protect themselves and their fellow citizens from their government turning into a tyranny is nothing more than an 18th century naive delusion. It was naive in the 18th century and is even more so now. It’s also a rather self aggrandizing and frankly dangerous idea that the fuckers with the guns fighting the government will be on the right side of that equation when it happens. Some may not trust the government or politicians. Will you trust the fuckers with the guns? If it really comes to that? Even if such a scenario were possible? Crazy persons in log cabins shooting at law enforcement officers somehow enter my mind now....
People carrying guns in shopping malls, churches and movie theatre’s will not prevent mass shootings from happening. They will mostly just shit their pants and run like all the others… Any meaningful statistics about such heroism?

Also, angsty teens or others with mental issues generally don't make fertilizer bombs. It's too much trouble. People have made them, but that's not something for impulsive idiots of the sort that shouldn't be trusted with blunt objects or guns. That's for determined terrorists. And that's a problem mostly (not always) but mostly unrelated to gun deaths generally.

Gerard

Quote from: widdershins on December 08, 2015, 03:13:52 PM
You know what, you just pointed out that we are getting WAY off topic.  If anyone wants to keep talking about gun control, take it to another thread.  I'd be happy to do a one on one or something, but this thread isn't about gun control, so I'm done with it in here.

No kidding, I thought I selected the wrong thread there for a minute.

Ok then, back to Trump.  I'm not afraid of Donald, I'm actually kind of warming up to him.  I like his pro-American attitude ("Make America Great Again") and agree with some of his policy stances.  He's unapologetic and thinks America comes first.  If you're going to be the US President, that kinda makes sense. 

I'm not surprised he's doing so well. 

Quote from: Jack89 on December 08, 2015, 04:33:43 PM
No kidding, I thought I selected the wrong thread there for a minute.

Ok then, back to Trump.  I'm not afraid of Donald, I'm actually kind of warming up to him.  I like his pro-American attitude ("Make America Great Again") and agree with some of his policy stances.  He's unapologetic and thinks America comes first.  If you're going to be the US President, that kinda makes sense. 

I'm not surprised he's doing so well. 

Unfortunately, I am also not surprised he's doing well.  He's xenophobic and racist, which is what much of America still secretly longs for.  And he's not so much "pro-America" as he is "anti-people different than me".  He's also full of shit, too stupid to not make idiotic claims and WAY too stupid to back down on a claim once it has been proved idiotic.  But I don't think he's a stupid man.  I think he's trying like hell to self destruct (I don't think he wants to be president any more than he did last time, he's just having fun) and laughing his ass off that it only makes him more popular.  He probably laughs himself to tears after every speech.  He'll either finally manage to self destruct or get bored and walk away again.

I'd rather vote for any of these guys:



(http://havokjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Pat-Paulsen.jpg)

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tVslQV7MRGA/TrRuDBlcQHI/AAAAAAAACHE/-rgQx363HWs/s200/scan0072.jpg)

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YvKwI0Tyb58/UJjblPE4gqI/AAAAAAAAOlA/ZMQD3PKQgBo/s1600/Picture+380.png)

(http://www.artsjournal.com/dewey21c/Fields.jpg)

To be honest, I haven't been following the news much lately, so really don't know what you mean when you say he's racist. Are you referring to his strong stance against illegal immigration, or his anti-Islam views?

Quote from: Jack89 on December 08, 2015, 05:08:42 PM
To be honest, I haven't been following the news much lately, so really don't know what you mean when you say he's racist. Are you referring to his strong stance against illegal immigration, or his anti-Islam views?

Well, Islam isn't a race, so obviously not that.  And his "stance against illegal immigration" (specifically Mexicans) sure makes it sound a lot better than some of the things he's said about it.  Here are a few quotes for you.

Racist

QuoteWhen Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

QuoteLaziness is a trait in the blacks. ... Black guys counting my money! I hate it.

QuoteThe only kind of people I want counting my money are little short guys that wear yamakas every day.

QuoteThere were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations. They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down.

QuoteOur great African American President hasn't exactly had a positive impact on the thugs who are so happily and openly destroying Baltimore!

QuoteI have a great relationship with the blacks. I’ve always had a great relationship with the blacks.

Misogynistic

QuoteYou know, it really doesn’t matter what the media write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.

QuoteLook at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?! I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not s'posedta say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?

QuoteAll of the women on The Apprentice flirted with meâ€"consciously or unconsciously. That’s to be expected.

QuoteShe gets out and she starts asking me all sorts of ridiculous questions. You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.

QuoteAriana Huffington is unattractive, both inside and out. I fully understand why her former husband left her for a man â€" he made a good decision.

Just stupid

QuoteI will build a great wall â€" and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me â€"and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words.

QuoteOne of the key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace. Good people don’t go into government.

QuoteYou take this little beautiful baby, and you pump â€" I mean, it looks like just it's meant for a horse and not for a child, and we've had so many instances ... [in which] a child, a beautiful child went to have the vaccine, and came back and a week later had a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic.

]quote]There could be some man-made something. But, you know, if you look at China, they're doing nothing about it, other countries are doing nothing about it. It's a big planet.[/quote]
/quote]It’s freezing and snowing in New York â€" we need global warming![/quote]

And with that I'm sick of looking up Trump quotes.  I'm pretty sure there are a ton more, but I'm literally tired of copying and pasting them.

Quote from: widdershins on December 08, 2015, 12:29:27 PM
You see, this is why I can't take you seriously.  Unless you have my voting record right in front of you then you can't possibly know that.  It's just one more wild claim without the slightest backing.

I'm Canadian and you are American, right? I'd say it's pretty unlikely you vote more liberal than I, but please do tell, who are you voting for that's more liberal than Liberal Canadians? I didn't say that to brag either. I'm just pointing that out to show your tactics. It doesn't matter if you're arguing with someone who jerks off to Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, or someone like myself who has voted for a freaking Liberal Muslim multiple times. Your whole argument is nutjob this and nutjob that. Common sense this and common sense that. If I was doing a drinking game while reading your posts and seeing the phrase "common sense", I would have taken probably twenty drinks already lol. Good thing I don't drink.

QuoteThat wasn't specifically aimed at you, and if it came off that way I apologize.  And the term was "nutbag", not "nutjob".  9/11 "truthers" piss me off.  It's a slap in the face to the victims and survivors of that terrible incident and to those still suffering today to get a boner over some wild conspiracy involving our government doing it on purpose.

Oh, so you're a sensitive Suzy, eh? Do you know anyone that died on 9/11? No. Being a pussy that's afraid of hurting any feelings is never the way to go. You can choose to tuck your dick between your legs and go lock yourself in your safe space, and that's fine, but you shouldn't expect others to do the same just because you can't handle seeing the questioning of the American government's official stories.

QuoteWe know who's responsible.  They took responsibility for it.  They bragged about it.  And to propagate wild conspiracy theories for your own self-amusement disrespects those who were hurt by it and puts their very real pain second to the "truthers'" need to feel important by having some "secret knowledge".  It's nothing more than a religion without a god.

Your complete trust in George W Bush and Dick Cheney (you at least have complete trust in them concerning the day that 9/11 happened) is worse than a religion. You do not know what went on behind the scenes any more than I or any one else does, and it's a joke for you to pretend that you do. I am agnostic about the event, personally. Neo-Cons outright said they needed a Pear Harbour to accomplish their goals in the Middle East. They got their Pearl Harbour. I, and you, have zero reason to assume that the Administration didn't want it to happen, or that they weren't high fiving as the towers fell to the ground. You are completely assuming, and that's called faith my friend. I have no reason to think the US wasn't absolutely overjoyed by the 9/11 attacks, so I stay on the fence and don't believe one way or the other. I think there's a great chance Bush and Cheney were thrilled about the attacks and would happily have them happen again if they could go back in time, but I can't prove this (and you can't come close to proving this is not the case), so officially I stay agnostic.

QuoteI'm going to stop there, because I really don't know what you're talking about.  What is an "anti-government person"?  Someone who is arming themselves in case the government attacks?  Yes, THOSE people are too nuts to have guns because their too nuts to know that if the government ever did attack there is nothing you could do about it and too nuts to know the "government" isn't this hive-mind of officials and military personnel which will do whatever "it" wants.  We are talking about individual people being ordered to fire on individual people and choosing for themselves whether this is right.  "The government" is not a big, all powerful black box with a single mind.  It is millions of individuals.  Yes, some are corrupt and power hungry.  Yes, some would follow if ordered to attack their own.  I would bet that most would not, and yes, I would bet my life on that.  People, in general, are good, not bloodthirsty.
If we're talking about gun hoarders with doomsday bunkers, I don't know that I disagree with that.

What is an anti-government person you ask? Someone who calls out the government for their bullshit. Someone who doesn't trust the government just quite as much as you seem to trust them. I could be called anti-government because I'm against C51 and our bombing campaign, but I still consider myself loyal to Canada, just like plenty of the anti-government Americans love the United States because it is their home.

So the truth comes out... You are just a super paranoid quack worried about white anti-government terrorist attacks and the like, meanwhile cows are responsible for more deaths than terrorist attacks by these people. You want these people to be completely disarmed, not later, but NOW, because they don't agree with your politics or have as much trust in government as you do. Wow. You are something else. You are worse than probably 90% of the anti-gunners on here. At least most of them are not arguing for completely disarming gun owners who don't share their political views.

QuoteIt "could be"...so let's act like it is!  This fear of the "mainstream media" is very Limbaugh of you.  You do know that the Internet lets you get a lot more information, including information from other countries, right?  American media is less information than, say, the BBC on some issues.  That's why you go to a variety of sources.  Hell, I don't even bother with The Huffington Post anymore because, while the news is accurate and informative, it is very left-leaning and I don't want biased news, I want news, which is supposed to be impartial.

Yes, might be. I try to never speak as if I'm certain about something if absolute evidence is not there just yet. The demonization of anti-government views is clear though. The words conspiracy theory are now being used to label any views that question politicians or government. You ask what Hillary Clinton was trying to hide by trying to wipe clean and blow up her email server and Hillary will respond by calling you a partisan conspiracy theorist. She's not trying to hide anything, right? Those are just conspiracy theories, right? It's completely normal to blow up your email server, right? You say that it looks like the US wants to see ISIS succeed and that's another conspiracy theory, even though it's pretty darn clear at this point that the US is the biggest terrorist in the world, trying to knock out Assad and being responsible for the shootdown of Russian aircraft. Does it matter if 9/11 was an inside job, or is that debate just a distraction at this point? You can say the Bush administration had nothing at all to do with 9/11, but that doesn't change the reality than the US is the biggest terrorist on the planet. With or without 9/11. 9/11 is beside the point, and I know you like to whine about the big old meanie truthers hurting feelings, but I think you need to grow up and grow some balls.

So now you don't just want to ban the assault rifles? Now you want to ban all guns that are used to kill people? That's not what you said before. Why did you leave that part out of your argument before? You just got done saying it's such "common sense" to take the assault rifles. Is Obama arguing that it's common sense to ban all guns that kill people, or just assault rifles? I've just seen him talking about the assault rifles lately, so what he's calling for is not going to accomplish what you want to see accomplished. He just wants to take the guns that are a threat, for now. That doesn't mean they won't try to take the handguns later though.

To sum this all up, I think you are far worse than those that are absolute supporters of the Patriot Act and stop and frisk. You are far, far worse because you want people's rights taken away because they have a different political mindset than your own. That really is a disgusting position to hold. I would never argue that you should have this or that right taken from you though, because you have a different political mindset form myself.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 08, 2015, 05:35:42 PM
I'm Canadian and you are American, right? I'd say it's pretty unlikely you vote more liberal than I, but please do tell, who are you voting for that's more liberal than Liberal Canadians? I didn't say that to brag either. I'm just pointing that out to show your tactics. It doesn't matter if you're arguing with someone who jerks off to Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, or someone like myself who has voted for a freaking Liberal Muslim multiple times. Your whole argument is nutjob this and nutjob that. Common sense this and common sense that. If I was doing a drinking game while reading your posts and seeing the phrase "common sense", I would have taken probably twenty drinks already lol. Good thing I don't drink.

"Pretty unlikely that..." is a far cry from "I voted for someone far, far more liberal than who you're going to vote for, Widdershins, or who you'll ever vote for..."  I can't tell you who I'll vote for in 2032.  What I can tell you is your crystal ball doesn't see that far.  You are very confrontational.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 08, 2015, 05:35:42 PMOh, so you're a sensitive Suzy, eh?

Historically, no.  But I'm trying to do better.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 08, 2015, 05:35:42 PMDo you know anyone that died on 9/11? No. Being a pussy that's afraid of hurting any feelings is never the way to go.

And once you turn total prick, I'm done.  I'm not even reading the rest.

Quote from: widdershins on December 08, 2015, 05:52:25 PM
And once you turn total prick, I'm done.  I'm not even reading the rest.

Don't worry. You will be safe. Safe, away in your safe space, from meanies and nutjobs like me.

Quote from: widdershins on December 08, 2015, 04:45:55 PM
Unfortunately, I am also not surprised he's doing well.  He's xenophobic and racist, which is what much of America still secretly longs for.  And he's not so much "pro-America" as he is "anti-people different than me".  He's also full of shit, too stupid to not make idiotic claims and WAY too stupid to back down on a claim once it has been proved idiotic.  But I don't think he's a stupid man.  I think he's trying like hell to self destruct (I don't think he wants to be president any more than he did last time, he's just having fun) and laughing his ass off that it only makes him more popular.  He probably laughs himself to tears after every speech.  He'll either finally manage to self destruct or get bored and walk away again.

Interesting angle - a political troll so to speak? I don't like to give him credit for being intelligent - maybe because of how much I can't stand the guy. Sounds possible tho.
I have a conspiracy theory angle - he's being used by others far more intelligent than him, allowing him to be as outrageous as hell to drag, pull out, and expose those that think like him. Many must crawl from caves - not having seen the light of day in years. Now we know what you think and where you live.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 08, 2015, 06:11:00 PM
Don't worry. You will be safe. Safe, away in your safe space, from meanies and nutjobs like me.

Voted for PM Justin Trudeau?  Seems very young and very liberal ... like Gov Moon Beam (Jerry Brown) during his first term as Cali governor.  But now Moon Beam has become an old fart, he is pretty conservative.  Maybe if you live long enough, you will find a future PM Justin Trudeau is just another Stephen Harper ;-)

Political faith isn't a religion, it is an ideology.  Like religion, but without the funny bits.

I feel like most white people are still racist. I feel like it's those same backward thinking mother fuckers who are going to vote for him. Too many of those where I live.

My own family is a bunch of racist bigots. And half of them aren't even religious so I don't get it. But these are the fools voting for him.

I'm not sane as it is. Don't blame me when this country is finally run into the ground with it's final nail in the coffin I'll be getting high and committing crimes again. Much better than dealing with that reality.

Quote from: doorknob on December 08, 2015, 06:43:31 PM
I feel like most white people are still racist. I feel like it's those same backward thinking mother fuckers who are going to vote for him. Too many of those where I live.

My own family is a bunch of racist bigots. And half of them aren't even religious so I don't get it. But these are the fools voting for him.

How to develop empathy.  Get into method acting.  Try to inhabit the life of one of your backward relatives, on a mental plane.  Then you will know why they are the way they are ... sort of.  Of course you might end up eating a lot of squirrel and possum ;-))

Quote from: Baruch on December 08, 2015, 06:45:35 PM
How to develop empathy.  Get into method acting.  Try to inhabit the life of one of your backward relatives, on a mental plane.  Then you will know why they are the way they are ... sort of.  Of course you might end up eating a lot of squirrel and possum ;-))

that is probably the most scary suggestion I have ever heard of. I'm already narrow minded and a general asshole with out doing that!

Quote from: doorknob on December 08, 2015, 06:48:46 PM
that is probably the most scary suggestion I have ever heard of. I'm already narrow minded and a general asshole with out doing that!

Exactly!  Existential proof is in your emotional reaction ;-)  A leap of faith into the fan boat over the alligators.  To develop ... one must take up the risk of change.  To change, you have to look outside of your current mode of consciousness ... as a different person, as an animal (familiar) etc.  Looking into the Abyss (well) of potentiality, to pull out a bucket of new actuality.  But the Abyss is also plumbing your depths.  Que Alfred Hitchcock music ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-tr9HOGciI

I don't think Donald Trump winning the presidential election is as far-fetched as some would like to believe.

Poll: Islamophobia Fueling Trump NC Rise

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/12/08/poll-islamophobia-fueling-trump-nc-rise.html?source=TDB&via=FB_Page

A poll from Public Policy Polling released Tuesday revealed that Donald Trump has hit his highest approval rating to date among North Carolina Republican primary voters surveyed. He’s at 33 percent, largely fueled by the increasing Islamophobia in his rhetoric, according to PPP analysts. Of those polled, 67 percent indicated that they supported a national database of Muslims, 62 percent believe his claims that Muslims in New Jersey were cheering after the 9/11 attacks, and only 24 percent of his supporters in the state believe Islam should be legal in the United States.

Quote from: Baruch on December 08, 2015, 06:43:03 PM
Voted for PM Justin Trudeau?  Seems very young and very liberal ... like Gov Moon Beam (Jerry Brown) during his first term as Cali governor.  But now Moon Beam has become an old fart, he is pretty conservative.  Maybe if you live long enough, you will find a future PM Justin Trudeau is just another Stephen Harper ;-)

Political faith isn't a religion, it is an ideology.  Like religion, but without the funny bits.

I don't like Trudea, but what choice did I really have? All shit choices. I knew none of them were ever going to do anything about C51. They all love it, whether they admit it or not. They use the same BS "common sense" argument that you will hear from American politicians. I'm sure Trudea will continue being the United States lapdog in many ways just like Harper was, and I know very well that he's a huge liar like the rest of them. I really did not want to vote for the son of a former PM either, because he learned how to be dirty from the best. A former PM. My choices were pretty much conservative flavoured NWO or liberal flavoured NWO. I went with the liberal flavour, because at least they are going to do a better job helping poor people. I think he's more liberal than his counterparts in the States at least. You are right that I should be careful about overstating how liberal someone like a Trudea is, though.

He may be liberal today.  But in 30 years, who knows ... and he may still be in public life ;-)

Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 08, 2015, 07:04:48 PM
I don't think Donald Trump winning the presidential election is as far-fetched as some would like to believe.

A poll from Public Policy Polling released Tuesday revealed that Donald Trump has hit his highest approval rating to date among North Carolina Republican primary voters surveyed. He’s at 33 percent, largely fueled by the increasing Islamophobia in his rhetoric, according to PPP analysts. Of those polled, 67 percent indicated that they supported a national database of Muslims, 62 percent believe his claims that Muslims in New Jersey were cheering after the 9/11 attacks, and only 24 percent of his supporters in the state believe Islam should be legal in the United States.

I didn't think a B movie actor would be governor of California, or US President either.  Be careful who you vote for, because you just might win 8=p

I would rather vote for the b movie actor than donald trump. At least the actor was hip and cool one time.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 08, 2015, 06:11:00 PM
Don't worry. You will be safe. Safe, away in your safe space, from meanies and nutjobs like me.

I think widdershins probably has too much class to address this, but I am not likewise encumbered. I am not speaking for anyone by myself here (though I suspect many will agree with me). Do not ever flatter yourself. It ain't about wanting to be safe. Its about being unwilling to waste time conversing with ignorant assholes.

Quote from: widdershins on December 08, 2015, 05:33:44 PM
And with that I'm sick of looking up Trump quotes.  I'm pretty sure there are a ton more, but I'm literally tired of copying and pasting them.

Yep, some of those are pretty bad.  I think I've heard a couple of them.  The one that really struck me as a little too incredible was "Laziness is a trait in the blacks. ... Black guys counting my money! I hate it", so I looked it up.  It's apparently second-hand, in a book written in 1991 by a former employee.  In any event, the quotes that can be verified don't seem very presidential.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 08, 2015, 05:35:42 PM
Your complete trust in George W Bush and Dick Cheney (you at least have complete trust in them concerning the day that 9/11 happened) is worse than a religion. You do not know what went on behind the scenes any more than I or any one else does, and it's a joke for you to pretend that you do. I am agnostic about the event, personally. Neo-Cons outright said they needed a Pear Harbour to accomplish their goals in the Middle East. They got their Pearl Harbour. I, and you, have zero reason to assume that the Administration didn't want it to happen, or that they weren't high fiving as the towers fell to the ground. You are completely assuming, and that's called faith my friend. I have no reason to think the US wasn't absolutely overjoyed by the 9/11 attacks, so I stay on the fence and don't believe one way or the other. I think there's a great chance Bush and Cheney were thrilled about the attacks and would happily have them happen again if they could go back in time, but I can't prove this (and you can't come close to proving this is not the case), so officially I stay agnostic.

The Bush administration may have wanted the 9/11 attacks to happen.
They may have needed them to happen.
Perhaps they were even overjoyed that they happened.

But none of these mean that the administration carried out the attacks.

Quote from: FaithisFilthYour complete trust in George W Bush and Dick Cheney (you at least have complete trust in them concerning the day that 9/11 happened) is worse than a religion. You do not know what went on behind the scenes any more than I or any one else does, and it's a joke for you to pretend that you do. I am agnostic about the event, personally. Neo-Cons outright said they needed a Pear Harbour to accomplish their goals in the Middle East. They got their Pearl Harbour. I, and you, have zero reason to assume that the Administration didn't want it to happen, or that they weren't high fiving as the towers fell to the ground. You are completely assuming, and that's called faith my friend.

There's a thing called burden of proof. We saw what happened. The rest is to be proven by the people who make allegations, but don't tell us that refusing to swallow unsubstantiated and opinionated political bullshit is "faith". You're at the wrong address for that.

Gerard

Quote from: Jack89 on December 08, 2015, 04:33:43 PMI'm not afraid of Donald, I'm actually kind of warming up to him.  I like his pro-American attitude ("Make America Great Again") and agree with some of his policy stances.  He's unapologetic and thinks America comes first.  If you're going to be the US President, that kinda makes sense. 

I'm not surprised he's doing so well.

These are the same platitudes that politicians have been serving up since there were politicians, coupled with his personal brand of demagoguery that has lately been skating the line between being a "maverick" and being an outright bigot.

Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 08, 2015, 07:04:48 PM
I don't think Donald Trump winning the presidential election is as far-fetched as some would like to believe.

Poll: Islamophobia Fueling Trump NC Rise

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/12/08/poll-islamophobia-fueling-trump-nc-rise.html?source=TDB&via=FB_Page

A poll from Public Policy Polling released Tuesday revealed that Donald Trump has hit his highest approval rating to date among North Carolina Republican primary voters surveyed. He’s at 33 percent, largely fueled by the increasing Islamophobia in his rhetoric, according to PPP analysts. Of those polled, 67 percent indicated that they supported a national database of Muslims, 62 percent believe his claims that Muslims in New Jersey were cheering after the 9/11 attacks, and only 24 percent of his supporters in the state believe Islam should be legal in the United States.

NC Republicans are...[redacted disparaging comments]...not particularly representative of voters in general.  Those Muslim yellow badge comments brought a fresh wave of disapproval from liberals and moderates at the same time they pleased the [disparaging comments] Republican base.

Just remember ... as demonstrated way back in 2000 ... after New Hampshire ... the Republican primary season is front loaded with Southern states.  As long as Trump or other rides high thru Super Tuesday or whatever ... it will be a done deal within a few months ... because one of them has proven momentum, the cheap moneybags backing them will strangle the funds for the losers.  Some states are more important, by design.  The Democrats are different ... they just want a coronation of the PC candidate of the week, and skip the primaries, once someone is anointed by the DNC.  This is one reason why I am no longer a Democrat.

Quote from: Hydra009 on December 09, 2015, 04:15:43 AM
NC Republicans are...[redacted disparaging comments]...not particularly representative of voters in general.

I should hope not.

Polls are polls. Elections (even primaries) are elections. And then there is a convention. We'll see. Conventional wisdom is however that things can (and mostly do) turn out very differently from where they stand now.

Gerard

I am not afraid of him being elected; I am afraid that after the election the people who agree with him will still be active members of a so-called "civilized" society. That scares me more than anything.

Quote from: doorknob on December 08, 2015, 06:43:31 PM
I feel like most white people are still racist. I feel like it's those same backward thinking mother fuckers who are going to vote for him. Too many of those where I live.

My own family is a bunch of racist bigots. And half of them aren't even religious so I don't get it. But these are the fools voting for him.

I'm not sane as it is. Don't blame me when this country is finally run into the ground with it's final nail in the coffin I'll be getting high and committing crimes again. Much better than dealing with that reality.

I am ashamed to admit that I still occasionally have racist thoughts.  In the time in which I grew up it was considered "normal" and still is in much of these parts.  I've said things in my youth and used words truly good people would not consider (not just about race, but also sexual orientation).  But I realized what it was and how very wrong it was and am constantly trying to be a better person.  Still, the old ways of thinking sneak back in once in a while , but they NEVER make it out my mouth any more and I try to stamp them out as soon as I recognize them for what they are.  Now, it's not any white power neo-nazi shit or anything like that, just occasional racial stereotyping which I am ashamed of as soon as I realize that I did it.  So, am I a "racist"?  Honestly, I would have to say, "A little, but I'm trying not to be".  It's a hard thing to admit and I work for the day when I can think back on who I am inside as well as out and say with all honesty, "No, I am not", but as long as I occasionally racially stereotype, even if I immediately feel badly about it as soon as I realize it, I can't honestly say, "I am not racist" because that insinuates not even a little bit.  But as long as I can call it as I truly see it and not justify it with shit like, "I think everyone is a LITTLE racist" (which may or may not be true but, for me, is still not acceptable) then I will never become comfortable with just being "a little racist" or pretending that just a little bit is okay because it's "normal".  I'm a work in progress.

I think this eagle speaks for us all...

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v644/SkinningDocs/ezgif.com-video-to-gif_zpsgxxn12dk.gif)

Quote from: TomFoolery on December 09, 2015, 03:24:44 PM
I think this eagle speaks for us all...

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v644/SkinningDocs/ezgif.com-video-to-gif_zpsgxxn12dk.gif)

One wonder what the Donald was thinking when he arranged a photo op with the Eagle.

Gerard

Look at the bright side. Gun prices will go even lower.

Quote from: Gerard on December 09, 2015, 03:42:39 PM
One wonder what the Donald was thinking when he arranged a photo op with the Eagle.

Gerard

It was for a TIME magazine cover story, if you can believe it.
http://time.com/4141783/time-person-of-the-year-runner-up-donald-trump-eagle-gif/

Trump is in to the finish: he has the money so he doesn't have to answer to anyone; he has threatened to go solo if the GOP don't accept him. Anyone remembers Perrot and how the GOP lost even with an incumbent president? The GOP can't afford to run him out or else the party will be be run out.

Quote from: TomFoolery on December 09, 2015, 04:40:19 PM
It was for a TIME magazine cover story, if you can believe it.
http://time.com/4141783/time-person-of-the-year-runner-up-donald-trump-eagle-gif/

Trump:  "How's my hair look?"

Like Bernie Sanders and Doc Brown can make fun of it!  What do you think it looks like?!

Quote from: Sylar on December 09, 2015, 01:44:06 AM
The Bush administration may have wanted the 9/11 attacks to happen.
They may have needed them to happen.
Perhaps they were even overjoyed that they happened.

But none of these mean that the administration carried out the attacks.

I never claimed they did, and I don't even lean in that direction. The direction I lean in is that they let them happen, and that's just as bad as making them happen, because 3000 avoidable dead bodies are 3000 avoidable dead bodies.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 09, 2015, 06:52:41 PM
I never claimed they did, and I don't even lean in that direction. The direction I lean in is that they let them happen, and that's just as bad as making them happen, because 3000 avoidable dead bodies are 3000 avoidable dead bodies.

I won't quite say that I believe the Bush administration deliberately ignored warning signs hoping for a "Pearl Harbor" event that they could use to leverage the country into war... but given the existence of the August 6 PDB (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US) and the Phoenix Memo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Memo), I can't convince myself that they didn't.  That's as close as I'm willing to get to the conspiracy theory.

Quote from: Gerard on December 09, 2015, 02:28:48 AM
There's a thing called burden of proof. We saw what happened. The rest is to be proven by the people who make allegations, but don't tell us that refusing to swallow unsubstantiated and opinionated political bullshit is "faith". You're at the wrong address for that.

Gerard

Where did I tell you to swallow anything? Read what I actually am claiming before you post. I don't think it was an inside job.

You know why you should remain agnostic about the event imo? The United States is currently in bed with Al Qaeda. They created Al Qaeda before 9/11. They armed Al Qaeda. They are arming Al Qaeda as we speak! Seriously. Shouldn't that be what is seen as offensive to victims family members? Your countries continued arming and supporting of Al Qaeda? The Congresswoman from Hawaii said it a few days ago. "Stop arming Al Qaeda!", she said on CNN a few days ago. This was the same lady that Hillary Clinton got disinvited from the Democratic Debates. Hmm. I wonder why? You're not allowed to be anti-Al Qaeda anymore, I guess. You question those who are in bed with Al Qaeda and you get shamed for it. That is beyond lame.

So tell me again, why should you be putting your trust in the official story that was put out by the American government, who is Al Qaeda's best friend at the moment, and was their best friend years prior to 9/11? The US is Al Qaeda. Rand Paul says that ISIS is obviously an ally of the United States. Tell me, what incentive did the Americans have to stop the 9/11 attacks? Doing so would have destroyed their whole agenda. You can give me no motivation for the United States to stop the attacks. Isn't motive supposed to be kind of an important thing though, Gerard? So you see, I'm not telling you to buy anything.

Quote from: trdsf on December 09, 2015, 07:05:55 PM
I won't quite say that I believe the Bush administration deliberately ignored warning signs hoping for a "Pearl Harbor" event that they could use to leverage the country into war... but given the existence of the August 6 PDB (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike_in_US) and the Phoenix Memo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Memo), I can't convince myself that they didn't.  That's as close as I'm willing to get to the conspiracy theory.

And that is my position as well. Agnosticism. I don't doubt that Al Qaeda guys hijacked the planes. I doubt that Bush would have stopped the attack or wanted to stop it.

OK, so, it may have happened this one conspiracy-based way, and I can't take sides here, but MAYBE, so...(dot, dot,dot)...

STFU.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 09, 2015, 06:52:41 PM
I never claimed they did, and I don't even lean in that direction. The direction I lean in is that they let them happen, and that's just as bad as making them happen, because 3000 avoidable dead bodies are 3000 avoidable dead bodies.

And like Pearl Harbor and FDR ... it was immoral, but necessary ... as it turned out.  Of course such deliberate malfeasance won't always turn out well.  George W wasn't FDR ... nor as lucky.

 Petition to ban Trump from UK passes 300K, could be debated in Parliament (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/09/politics/uk-donald-trump-ban-petition/)

Quote from: pr126 on December 10, 2015, 12:59:47 AM
Petition to ban Trump from UK passes 300K, could be debated in Parliament (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/09/politics/uk-donald-trump-ban-petition/)

Meh this is just being silly (like the Justin Bieber petitions). Let him come and (probably?) be laughed at as the joke he is. Banning him just seems petty.

I don't expect Mr Trump to be welcome in Mexico City either.

Quote from: Shiranu on December 10, 2015, 01:04:07 AM
Meh this is just being silly (like the Justin Bieber petitions). Let him come and (probably?) be laughed at as the joke he is. Banning him just seems petty.

We want to show our solidarity with Muslims.
Anyone badmouths Muslims or Islam is persona non grata in the UK.

I am watching how the media is demonizing Trump.
All photos depict him in the worst possible unflattering light. He is portrayed as a loony.

Well, he is not a democrat. In the USA that is worse that being a serial killer.

QuoteI am watching how the media is demonizing Trump.
All photos depict him in the worst possible unflattering light. He is portrayed as a loony.

Quote“Did you read about Starbucks? No more 'Merry Christmas' at Starbucks. No more. Maybe we should boycott Starbucks."

“We have to have a wall. We have to have a border. And in that wall we’re going to have a big fat door where people can come into the country, but they have to come in legally.”

“He’s not a war hero. He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they’re telling us what we’re getting.”

“I have a great relationship with the blacks. I’ve always had a great relationship with the blacks.”

“I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.”

Doooo go on. Please.

QuoteWell, he is not a democrat. In the USA that is worse that being a serial killer.

Ah... I see you understand American culture about as well as you do Islamic. Excellent.

You are a man out of your time in a land far from home; you truly do belong in 1930's South Carolina... you would fit in wonderfully.

I do find it amazing though that the two "harshest critics of Islam" on here (see; chronic liars and posters of misinformation) as well as the "one of the greatest critics of Islam" (Sultan) and that nutty Dutch or Danish guy who is "harsh on Islam" apparently think Trump is anything but looney. I thought of you two as actually... somewhat reasonable people... who had just bought into the fearmongering boogieman of the day.

Guess you learn something new everyday.

Quote from: stromboli on December 09, 2015, 04:06:33 PM
Look at the bright side. Gun prices will go even lower.

Isn't it the opposite? As more people buy guns, depleting inventories, prices go up.

Quote from: pr126 on December 10, 2015, 02:30:48 AMWell, he is not a democrat. In the USA that is worse that being a serial killer.

(http://i.imgur.com/y91Dmrk.gif)

I just showed this to my roommate.  We both hurt ourselves laughing.

Donald Trump Solidifies His Lead, but Leaves Many Nervous

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-solidifies-his-lead-but-leaves-many-nervous/ar-AAgfox9?ocid=spartandhp

Donald J. Trump occupies his strongest position yet in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, yet nearly two-thirds of American voters say they are concerned or frightened about the prospect of a Trump presidency, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News nationwide poll.

The poll was taken largely before his statement on Monday afternoon proposing to temporarily bar Muslims from entering the United States.

On the Democratic side, the poll found Hillary Clinton is maintaining her 20-point lead over Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. The possibility of her winning the presidency in 2016 is only marginally more palatable to American voters than that of Mr. Trump.

Mr. Trump commands the support of 35 percent of Republican primary voters, leading his closest competitors, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas (16 percent) and Ben Carson (13 percent) by a more than 2-to-1 margin. While Mr. Carson’s support was cut in half since the last time The Times and CBS News polled on the race in late October, Mr. Cruz has quadrupled his share. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida’s support stands at 9 percent, with the rest of the candidates at 4 percent or less.

Enthusiasm for and attention to the campaign are higher among Republican primary voters than among their Democratic counterparts. A 54 percent majority of Democratic primary voters said they had made up their minds about who they will support, while 64 percent of Republicans say it is still too early to be sure. Majorities of Trump and Clinton supporters say their decision is firm.

Over all, 24 percent of voters expressed concern and 40 percent fear about what Mr. Trump would do if elected president, whereas 23 percent said they are concerned and 34 percent scared about the possibility of a Clinton presidency. Not surprisingly, voters were sharply divided along partisan lines.

While Republican voters were most likely to say they were excited (24 percent) or optimistic (41 percent), a full one-third of Republicans say they are concerned or scared about Mr. Trump. Mrs. Clinton’s base views her potential presidency more favorably than does Mr. Trump’s. Twenty-two percent of Democratic voters are excited and 54 percent are optimistic, while only 23 percent said they were concerned or scared.

The nationwide telephone poll was conducted Dec. 4-8 with 1,053 registered voters, including 431 Republican primary voters and 384 Democratic primary voters. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points for registered voters and plus or minus 6 percentage points each for Republican and Democratic primary voters.

Quote from: Shiranu on December 10, 2015, 02:57:03 AM
Ah... I see you understand American culture about as well as you do Islamic. Excellent.

Maybe it's not that he misunderstands... maybe it's that he saw this obviously "legitimate" portrayal of American life and extrapolated it to all 321,000,000~ American citizens.
(http://i64.tinypic.com/rws8xi.jpg)

You know, it's exactly how like this image obviously explains the actions and motivations of the planet's more than 1,000,000,000 Muslims.
(http://i65.tinypic.com/143nzn4.jpg)

Sounds like someone needs a trip to Portland, Austin, San Francisco, or New York City.

Quote from: pr126 on December 10, 2015, 02:30:48 AM
We want to show our solidarity with Muslims.
Anyone badmouths Muslims or Islam is persona non grata in the UK.

I am watching how the media is demonizing Trump.
All photos depict him in the worst possible unflattering light. He is portrayed as a loony.

Well, he is not a democrat. In the USA that is worse that being a serial killer.

The Demon-crats put fluoride in the water supply .. they are demon-ic ;-)

Hayek's Road to Serfdom (https://mises.org/system/tdf/Road%20to%20Serfdom%20in%20Cartoons.pdf?file=1&type=document)

In this pdf simplified format you will see both Trump and Hillary on step 9.

Quote from: Baruch on December 10, 2015, 01:13:17 PM
The Demon-crats put fluoride in the water supply .. they are demon-ic ;-)

It's an evil conspiracy...something involving teeth, I'm sure.  Probably tracking chips implanted at the dentist or something.  Don't want them falling out.

And they're behind meth, too.  They want all our teeth to fall out so we're completely unarmed when...new world order, or something.

Yeah, I know they're opposites.  They're still BOTH true!

Quote from: pr126 on December 10, 2015, 02:30:48 AM
Well, he is not a democrat. In the USA that is worse that being a serial killer.

I don't know about worse than being a serial killer, but Ted Cruz would say equivalent.


Ted Cruz lashes out: ‘The overwhelming majority of violent criminals are Democrats’

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/ted-cruz-lashes-out-the-overwhelming-majority-of-violent-criminals-are-democrats/

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) accused news outlets of covering up what he described as violent tendencies among Democrats.

“Here’s the simple and undeniable fact. The overwhelming majority of violent criminals are Democrats,” Cruz told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. “The media doesn’t report that.”...

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on December 10, 2015, 03:13:10 PM
Hayek's Road to Serfdom (https://mises.org/system/tdf/Road%20to%20Serfdom%20in%20Cartoons.pdf?file=1&type=document)

In this pdf simplified format you will see both Trump and Hillary on step 9.

Link didn't work on my PC as expected ... it was a download, not a live document.

My great-grandfather ... in the Bohemian province of the Austro-Hungarian Empire ... was at step 14.  A foreign religion was enforced (Catholicism), conscription was enforced (on him and earlier on his father) and he was told what his profession was going to be ... his father was a wheat farmer but the Emperor Franz Joseph (who helped create WW I) knew there was a shortage of bakers, and ordered him (thru his minions of course) to be a baker.  So they took the difficult step of coming to the US in 1874 ... thereby avoiding the terrible WW I ... partly.  One of his sons was drafted and sent to France ... though the war stopped before he got to the Front ;-)

Notice how China wants to make it illegal to sell their stocks and bonds.  And India wants to confiscate private gold.  Russia of course has its own predictable autocracy.

Quote from: Baruch on December 10, 2015, 06:19:31 PM
Link didn't work on my PC as expected ... it was a download, not a live document.

My great-grandfather ... in the Bohemian province of the Austro-Hungarian Empire ... was at step 14.  A foreign religion was enforced (Catholicism), conscription was enforced (on him and earlier on his father) and he was told what his profession was going to be ... his father was a wheat farmer but the Emperor Franz Joseph (who helped create WW I) knew there was a shortage of bakers, and ordered him (thru his minions of course) to be a baker.  So they took the difficult step of coming to the US in 1874 ... thereby avoiding the terrible WW I ... partly.  One of his sons was drafted and sent to France ... though the war stopped before he got to the Front ;-)

Notice how China wants to make it illegal to sell their stocks and bonds.  And India wants to confiscate private gold.  Russia of course has its own predictable autocracy.

I never knew Austria-Hungary was a communist state....

Gerard

Quote from: Gerard on December 10, 2015, 07:05:24 PM
I never knew Austria-Hungary was a communist state....

Gerard

The primary form of society, for 5000 years, is totalitarianism.  Mostly monarchy and empires.  Austro-Hungary was a failing empire teetering on the abyss, since about 1866 (Bismark, of Prussia, leading pre-Imperial Germany, kicked their ass).  Of course Napoleon had done great damage before that, as had King Frederick the Great of Prussia.  Communism is just one form of modern totalitarianism.  The US has been totalitarian since 1865, with a brief respite from 1935 - 1965.  Democracy has been a failure everywhere it is tried.  Fortunately the mice in the maze still don't realize they are mice.

Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 10, 2015, 05:37:02 PM
I don't know about worse than being a serial killer, but Ted Cruz would say equivalent.


Ted Cruz lashes out: ‘The overwhelming majority of violent criminals are Democrats’

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/ted-cruz-lashes-out-the-overwhelming-majority-of-violent-criminals-are-democrats/

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) accused news outlets of covering up what he described as violent tendencies among Democrats.

“Here’s the simple and undeniable fact. The overwhelming majority of violent criminals are Democrats,” Cruz told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. “The media doesn’t report that.”...

Ted Cruz is a Cuban-Canadian racist ... whose father, a theocrat, thinks is the second coming of Jesus.  Only a maniac would vote for him.  Unfortunately there are a lot of maniacs out there.

Quote from: Baruch on December 10, 2015, 07:10:44 PM
The primary form of society, for 5000 years, is totalitarianism.  Mostly monarchy and empires.  Austro-Hungary was a failing empire teetering on the abyss, since about 1866 (Bismark, of Prussia, leading pre-Imperial Germany, kicked their ass).  Of course Napoleon had done great damage before that, as had King Frederick the Great of Prussia.  Communism is just one form of modern totalitarianism.  The US has been totalitarian since 1865, with a brief respite from 1935 - 1965.  Democracy has been a failure everywhere it is tried.  Fortunately the mice in the maze still don't realize they are mice.

I see we have some disagreements there. But anyway. I don't know what your great-grandfather told his descendants but:
a) Forcing people to have a certain occupation was an aspect of the (Western) Roman Empire and Communist states. Not of Austria-Hungary.
b) Catholiscism wasn't forced there on anyone since at least the 17th century
c) Catholiscism wasn't foreign to Bohemia.
d) Austria-Hungary (Empire is a misnomer), although not a democracy as we would understand it nowadays was a fairly free set of countries, in which the rule of law was pretty well established for those times. Including full freedom of religion.
e) Many forces in that society may have tried to force people to do something they didn't like. Francis Joseph was most probably not one of them.

Gerard

Quote from: Baruch on December 10, 2015, 07:12:27 PM
Ted Cruz is a Cuban-Canadian racist ... whose father, a theocrat, thinks is the second coming of Jesus.  Only a maniac would vote for him.  Unfortunately there are a lot of maniacs out there.

There is a YouTube movie with Ted's father preaching. I saw it. It's frightening!

Gerard

(http://i.imgur.com/Ts6ci9d.gif)

(http://i.imgur.com/R2dg4GT.gif)

I love that eagle so much

Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 10, 2015, 05:37:02 PM
I don't know about worse than being a serial killer, but Ted Cruz would say equivalent.


Ted Cruz lashes out: ‘The overwhelming majority of violent criminals are Democrats’

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/ted-cruz-lashes-out-the-overwhelming-majority-of-violent-criminals-are-democrats/

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) accused news outlets of covering up what he described as violent tendencies among Democrats.

“Here’s the simple and undeniable fact. The overwhelming majority of violent criminals are Democrats,” Cruz told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. “The media doesn’t report that.”...

Quote from: Baruch on December 10, 2015, 07:12:27 PM
Ted Cruz is a Cuban-Canadian racist ... whose father, a theocrat, thinks is the second coming of Jesus.  Only a maniac would vote for him.  Unfortunately there are a lot of maniacs out there.

Maybe so, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's correct.

Quote from: Munch on December 10, 2015, 07:33:06 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/Ts6ci9d.gif)

(http://i.imgur.com/R2dg4GT.gif)

I love that eagle so much

OMG that is gold right there! I love that eagle too. Animals can sense evil or maybe just the stupid.

Jack89 - You don't get the subtext ... he is implying that all criminals are Black and all Black folk are Democrats ... unless of course one is hiding under one's bed from the hive mind of the Mexicans ... in which case all Mexican-Americans are Democrats too ;-(

I know some law abiding African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans ... and some European-Americans give me the creeps.  Politics brings out the fluoride in people ;-((

Quote from: Gerard on December 10, 2015, 07:05:24 PM
I never knew Austria-Hungary was a communist state....

Gerard

Communism isn't the only form of totalitarianism.

Quote from: Baruch on December 10, 2015, 07:45:25 PM
Jack89 - You don't get the subtext ... he is implying that all criminals are Black and all Black folk are Democrats ... unless of course one is hiding under one's bed from the hive mind of the Mexicans ... in which case all Mexican-Americans are Democrats too ;-(

It's hard to get your precise meaning sometimes with all the hyperbole and sarcasm you throw out there.  I think he was addressing left-leaning media bias more than anything.  What I find interesting is that you turned his comments about Democrats into a racist thing.

QuoteI know some law abiding African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans ... and some European-Americans give me the creeps.  Politics brings out the fluoride in people ;-((

So do I.  What's your point?  Do you have something against "European-Americans?" 

Jack89  - Well ... is that projection on your part?  If the whole point is ... who should be be bigots about?  Maybe the greater question is why be bigots at all?  There were probably people, particularly in Chinatown, in San Francisco in the 1930, who blamed all Japanese, including those in California, for the brutal rape of Nanking.  Do you think they would be right to engage in hate speech or worse against Japanese living in California at that time?  Would it have been reasonable as per Pr126 ... for them to have supposed that the Japanese hive mind would be reason not only to suspect that all Japanese everywhere, even in Peru and Brazil ... were threats to humanity as a whole ... because of writings by Nichiren (a nationalist Buddhist of Japanese Medieval times)?  I would hope the answer to all of those is no.

But clearly race baiting ... is a sign of "awesome genius and infinite personal integrity" right?  But if you want to join Mr Cruz in coming out of the partisan closet ... there will be strings where you can get down.

What Left Media?  You mean Marxists R Us Broadcasting?  The Left is nearly extinct, except for folks slightly to the Left of Hitler.

Well ... an example of a good X, disproves the insane hyperbole of all X are bad.  Also if all X are good, that is demolished by finding one bad X.  Not speaking of you, but Ted Cruz et al.

Quote from: Baruch on December 11, 2015, 01:02:36 AMWhat Left Media?  You mean Marxists R Us Broadcasting?  The Left is nearly extinct, except for folks slightly to the Left of Hitler.

Nearly extinct = 30% affiliation (http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx) (44% if you count leaners).  And we have a self-described socialist in this election, but somehow he's just slightly left of Hitler.  I guess their platforms look so similar that it's easy to confuse the two.

"to the left of Hitler" is pretty much everybody on the planet, since Hitler is about as right-wing as you can get. Maybe ISIS might be further to the right of Hitler. Trump and the American teabaggers would be slightly to the left of Hitler.

Fear of Terrorism Lifts Donald Trump in New York Times/CBS Poll (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/us/politics/fear-of-terrorism-lifts-donald-trump-in-new-york-times-cbs-poll.html?emc=edit_th_20151211&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=60854848)

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 11, 2015, 06:08:45 AM
Fear of Terrorism Lifts Donald Trump in New York Times/CBS Poll (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/us/politics/fear-of-terrorism-lifts-donald-trump-in-new-york-times-cbs-poll.html?emc=edit_th_20151211&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=60854848)

As I said back on post 108, Trump doesn't need financial money to go all the way, but his threat to go solo would ruin the GOP to get the oval office with this coming election.  So if Trump wants the nomination, he's pretty much in command to get it.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 11, 2015, 06:08:45 AM
Fear of Terrorism Lifts Donald Trump in New York Times/CBS Poll (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/us/politics/fear-of-terrorism-lifts-donald-trump-in-new-york-times-cbs-poll.html?emc=edit_th_20151211&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=60854848)

Interestingly, Hillary polls higher than Donald on how they'd handle terrorism.

It's kind of fun to watch, in a train-wreck sort of way.  If Donnyboy becomes the nominee, he's going to have to start off fighting to get back the GOP voters who are more scared of him than they are of another four to eight years of Democrats in the White House, and there will be precious few crossover voters -- I don't expect any noticeable 'Democrats for Trump' as there were Democrats for Nixon and Democrats for Reagan.

Meanwhile, I found something I wrote many years ago predicting a split in the GOP in 2017 into a moderate/right of center 'classical' Republican party, and a wingnut right-wing "American" party (essentially, the teabagger wing).  And you know, led by Donnie, I am starting to think there will be a split, possibly as early as next year when the GOP establishment starts cooking the delegate books to keep Trump from getting the nomination.

I also predicted a Green surge in 2022 and a comparable split in the Democrats at that time, leading to the rise of coalition government in Congress, typically Green/Dem, Rep/Wingnut, or even Dem/Rep and legislating from the center.  I'm less confident of that happening.

Quote from: Baruch on December 11, 2015, 01:02:36 AM
Jack89  - Well ... is that projection on your part?  If the whole point is ... who should be be bigots about?  Maybe the greater question is why be bigots at all?  There were probably people, particularly in Chinatown, in San Francisco in the 1930, who blamed all Japanese, including those in California, for the brutal rape of Nanking.  Do you think they would be right to engage in hate speech or worse against Japanese living in California at that time?  Would it have been reasonable as per Pr126 ... for them to have supposed that the Japanese hive mind would be reason not only to suspect that all Japanese everywhere, even in Peru and Brazil ... were threats to humanity as a whole ... because of writings by Nichiren (a nationalist Buddhist of Japanese Medieval times)?  I would hope the answer to all of those is no.

But clearly race baiting ... is a sign of "awesome genius and infinite personal integrity" right?  But if you want to join Mr Cruz in coming out of the partisan closet ... there will be strings where you can get down.

There was no mention of race until you made the assumption.  It's the card liberals play to manipulate their constituents, along with any others involving perceived victimhood.  It gets old.  Conservatives are no better, using religion and traditional values to manipulate their voting fans.  I think both Democrats and Republicans cause more harm than good by pushing their particular pet agendas.  What's scary is that a lot of them believe the bullshit they're peddling.  I don't particularly care for Cruz, but I don't think he's the racist/general purpose bigot that you and the article are painting him to be.  Then again maybe I'm wrong, I don't know a lot about him.

QuoteWhat Left Media?  You mean Marxists R Us Broadcasting?  The Left is nearly extinct, except for folks slightly to the Left of Hitler.

I would say most major networks like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc are left leaning with the exception of FOX, and they're clearly right leaning.  Clear bias on all accounts.  I suppose it's relative and your view on what's left or not shows where you are on the spectrum.

QuoteWell ... an example of a good X, disproves the insane hyperbole of all X are bad.  Also if all X are good, that is demolished by finding one bad X.  Not speaking of you, but Ted Cruz et al.

Not sure where you're going with this and don't really care to try and decipher it.

Keep you inner Rush tuned in ;-)  Or is it Beck? ;-))

Quote from: Hydra009 on December 11, 2015, 03:34:48 AM
Nearly extinct = 30% affiliation (http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx) (44% if you count leaners).  And we have a self-described socialist in this election, but somehow he's just slightly left of Hitler.  I guess their platforms look so similar that it's easy to confuse the two.

Sanders wants to continue the same foreign policy as Obama, and Hillary agrees with him.  Kill all the brown folk.  But Sanders is Jewish ... and owned by the AIPAC I can assume ... so he is the sock puppet of Netanyahu.  And yes, that is only slightly Left of Hitler ... just like Likud.

Just because someone wants to say ... lower the retirement age, or make it easier for single mothers ... doesn't make him Lenin.  It makes him FDR ... but then he was a commie reptilian too ;-)

Quote from: Atheon on December 11, 2015, 05:24:45 AM
"to the left of Hitler" is pretty much everybody on the planet, since Hitler is about as right-wing as you can get. Maybe ISIS might be further to the right of Hitler. Trump and the American teabaggers would be slightly to the left of Hitler.

I agree vs the American Right ... but thinking that Hillary or Sanders are Left ... is ignorance.  But then people who think that Obama is a Marxist ... aren't very observant either.  I have to accept that most posters are so young ... that the 60s are ancient history to them.  You have to go back to McGovern to have an actual moderate Left in a Presidential election.  Carter doesn't count ... as he was a Trilateralist ... he was moderate Right.  In fact FDR, Truman and Eisenhower were all moderate Right.  No Left candidate has ever won the Presidency, except in the fevered imaginations of the John Birch Society.  That and the politicians are chameleons ... both Bill Clinton and Hillary are Republicans in disguise ... as is Obama.  We have had nothing but real or fake Republicans in the White House since Nixon.

Quote from: Atheon on December 11, 2015, 05:24:45 AM
"to the left of Hitler" is pretty much everybody on the planet, since Hitler is about as right-wing as you can get. Maybe ISIS might be further to the right of Hitler. Trump and the American teabaggers would be slightly to the left of Hitler.

Jesus Christ, you can't say that!  Today's Republicans can't be to the "left" of anything!  If they found out you said they were to the left of someone they'll go apeshit trying to get more right!

Quote from: Baruch on December 11, 2015, 12:16:38 PM
Keep you inner Rush tuned in ;-)  Or is it Beck? ;-))

There you go making assumptions again.

Quote from: trdsf on December 11, 2015, 08:50:46 AM
I also predicted a Green surge in 2022 and a comparable split in the Democrats at that time, leading to the rise of coalition government in Congress, typically Green/Dem, Rep/Wingnut, or even Dem/Rep and legislating from the center.  I'm less confident of that happening.

Me either.  It's certainly not the direction things are going.  History tells us the pendulum often changes direction, but I don't think that is actually some sort of law.  So I'm not confident that is going to happen any time soon, if at all.  I picture a scenario where disillusioned voters start grasping at straws, which doesn't bode all that well either.  There are some real issues facing us.  Radical Islam is only one, and hardly the most important.  It's in the limelight, not so much because of it's importance, but because it's a divisive political tool that instills fear, which is the politician's dream.  It's a good campaign issue, and a great distraction, as it redirects the voters attention.  Politicians need such issues.  Actual solutions, not so much.  Once they get into office, they can continue bad mouthing the other party, rather than actually fixing anything.  If things get fixed, what's left for them to play the blame game?  I'm not sure they really want to fix anything.  Mostly, they just want do favors for their biggest donors.

I wonder what will happen to the GOP if Donald Trump wins the nomination. Is it a nightmare scenario for the GOP? Will the party fall apart? Will GOP members like Bush, Christie or what have you make independent bids for the Presidency? And again what will that do to the "structure" of that party?

Gerard

Quote from: Gerard on December 11, 2015, 06:53:23 PM
I wonder what will happen to the GOP if Donald Trump wins the nomination. Is it a nightmare scenario for the GOP? Will the party fall apart? Will GOP members like Bush, Christie or what have you make independent bids for the Presidency? And again what will that do to the "structure" of that party?

Gerard

The Republicans might be assholes, but they aren't stupid.  OK, maybe the presidents and the congressmen for the party are sometimes, but there is a structure of intelligent committees working in the background that deals with this kind of shit.  I don't pretend to know their thoughts or their strategy, but they probably wield more power than the front men.

Quote from: SGOS on December 11, 2015, 09:54:29 PM
The Republicans might be assholes, but they aren't stupid.  OK, maybe the presidents and the congressmen for the party are sometimes, but there is a structure of intelligent committees working in the background that deals with this kind of shit.  I don't pretend to know their thoughts or their strategy, but they probably wield more power than the front men.

Well, looking at this from a (far) distance, that party looks to me like an organization in crisis that's lost the way. Or doesn't know what the way is supposed to be anymore. I.o.w., they live in "interesting times".....

Gerard

Quote from: Gerard on December 12, 2015, 12:20:19 AM
Well, looking at this from a (far) distance, that party looks to me like an organization in crisis that's lost the way. Or doesn't know what the way is supposed to be anymore. I.o.w., they live in "interesting times".....

Gerard

The Republican dodos did't have a plan, they were just winging it ... until 12 gauge shot cut them out of the sky!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RhqR2ZGkc0

Quote from: Gerard on December 11, 2015, 06:53:23 PM
I wonder what will happen to the GOP if Donald Trump wins the nomination. Is it a nightmare scenario for the GOP? Will the party fall apart? Will GOP members like Bush, Christie or what have you make independent bids for the Presidency? And again what will that do to the "structure" of that party?

Gerard

The only difference between Trump and the rest is that Trump says out loud what the others say privately. So it's not that they disagree with him on matters but more on public display. What they really don't like about him is that no one in the party has levers over him to exert any kind of clout, while the rest are tied to their donors.

Quote from: SGOS on December 11, 2015, 09:54:29 PM
The Republicans might be assholes, but they aren't stupid.  OK, maybe the presidents and the congressmen for the party are sometimes, but there is a structure of intelligent committees working in the background that deals with this kind of shit.  I don't pretend to know their thoughts or their strategy, but they probably wield more power than the front men.

This is why rogue candidates like Sanders and Trump should be avoided ... just vote for the candidates fronted by the DINO and RINO false opposites.  The "permanent government" includes the bureaucracy, not just politically active plutocrats.  In actual fact, there is no reason, other than propaganda, to allow ordinary people to vote at all ... they are idiots.

I think it's likely that the deep state (http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/) is in control of all of those who get elected, whatever party.

I for one hope to imaginary deities that Trump gets the Republican nomination.  I know the Republican inner circle will work hard to prevent that from happening. So, I honestly can't say what I think will happen.  I suppose I think it more likely that someone else will be the nominee, but I don't know.  But there is no way in hell that Trump would win in a general election.  It would be the embarrassment of gigantic proportions if Trump wins the nomination. I live in Texas and can vote in exactly one primary.  I'd be tempted to vote in the Republican primary and vote for Trump, except I really have to vote for Sanders in the Democratic primary.

Quote from: Gerard on December 11, 2015, 06:53:23 PM
I wonder what will happen to the GOP if Donald Trump wins the nomination. Is it a nightmare scenario for the GOP? Will the party fall apart? Will GOP members like Bush, Christie or what have you make independent bids for the Presidency? And again what will that do to the "structure" of that party?

The problem for the GOP is that Trump losing the nomination is also a nightmare scenario.

They can't win with Trump on the ticket -- he may energize the wingnuts and knuckledraggers, but they can't win on just those votes, and he scares the everlovin' Technicolor fuck out of anyone Pat Buchanan and leftwards.

And if Trump isn't on the ticket, either his people will fail to turn out, or he's going to take the teabaggers and run as an independent, and if they form a party with any sort of electoral success (and tragically, they will have some), that will keep the GOP out of power for a generation.  Several sitting members of Congress will bolt to the new party, and in following elections, the Repubs and Teabaggers will be fighting for the same votes.

Pass the popcorn, I'm enjoying this.  :D

Quote from: peacewithoutgod on December 02, 2015, 10:46:29 AM
Hmmm...I'd like to agree with you on that, except that our country made the worst mistakes of its history. We lost thousands of our own in a pointless war to remove our own pet dictator from Iraq, who was the only dude who maintained stability in the region. On account of Gerk W. Bush, now there's ISIS. Which is why I consider the possibility of another jerk, much less an even bigger one something to be very concerned about at best.

Invading Iraq, wasn't just a mistake, it was a war crime.  But then the prior embargo was also a war crime.  Just the 4th Reich doing its thing.

Now we know that Turkey has put troops into Iraq ... without Iraqi permission, near Mosul.  Iraq has asked them to pull them out and not repeat this act of war (covered by Uncle Terror Sam).  Iraq now wants to kick everything American/Nato out of Iraq, and ask for assistance from Russia, just like Asad in Syria.  Erdogan has said ... "make me".  We may soon see Istanbul and Ankara occupied by Russian special forces.

Quote from: SGOS on December 11, 2015, 09:54:29 PM
The Republicans might be assholes, but they aren't stupid.  OK, maybe the presidents and the congressmen for the party are sometimes, but there is a structure of intelligent committees working in the background that deals with this kind of shit.  I don't pretend to know their thoughts or their strategy, but they probably wield more power than the front men.

Trump is stuck at 30%.  Those saying he is the leader need to learn the difference between plurality and majority.

Moreover, he is not going to win over supporters of the other candidates.  He is nobody's second choice, and he knows it.  For every other candidate, they can be a second choice if some other candidate drops out.  Not Trump.  And Trump's followers can have a second choice.  What Trump has is all he has.

Quote from: Johan on December 08, 2015, 07:26:53 PM
I think widdershins probably has too much class to address this, but I am not likewise encumbered. I am not speaking for anyone by myself here (though I suspect many will agree with me). Do not ever flatter yourself. It ain't about wanting to be safe. Its about being unwilling to waste time conversing with ignorant assholes.

Oh, I know it's not about wanting to be safe for Widdershins. Even he doesn't believe what he has posted about a "slap in the face". This is garbage. He's using dead bodies to try to shame me, when in reality I think he is just upset that some would suggest that the people that run and have ran his country are terrorists. I think he's having trouble coming to terms with this reality. He doesn't really think it's a slap in the face of victims. He thinks it's a slap in the face of America, but he just throws out the dead bodies and says shame on you... dead bodies (probably parroting some mainstream media person)! It's ridiculous.

I have never insulted the people that died on 9/11, nor have any "truthers" I've seen. You know who has insulted the family members of victims of 9/11, right to their face? Bill O Reilly and other mainstream media people. I've seen liberals and conservatives shame the family members that don't completely buy into the official narrative. These are the victims family members that have been shamed and slapped. Widdershins can take his fake outrage/ offence and shove it, because people that question the official narrative are not insulting any family members or victims. That is dumb as hell and is not an argument that should ever be respected. Widdershins was not really being a pussy, so I take that back. He just seems to get off on shaming people over dead bodies, any way he can think of, even if it makes little to no sense.

I apologise for this thread getting off track. I never meant to get into a 9/11 debate. I only meant to respond to the point he made about guns, and we agreed on that point anyways, and then he started debating 9/11 with me.

If he wants to go at me for slapping anyone in the face or throwing anyone under the bus, I will accept that it is because of mindsets like mine that somewhere around 100 lives could be saved if for a ban on assault rifles. I will accept that I am throwing these victims under the bus, and that I have their blood on my hands. I don't have any issue with accepting that. I will never accept that I've slapped 9/11 victims and their families in the face, though. I will accept blood on my hands and throwing victims under the bus when the claim is legitimate. Slapping 9/11 victims though? Nah. That's some BS line that the corporate media threw out there for you to parrot.

Quote from: SGOS on December 11, 2015, 09:54:29 PM
The Republicans might be assholes, but they aren't stupid.  OK, maybe the presidents and the congressmen for the party are sometimes, but there is a structure of intelligent committees working in the background that deals with this kind of shit.  I don't pretend to know their thoughts or their strategy, but they probably wield more power than the front men.

Perhaps their brightness is overrated. Not sure. Whenever I'm told "these people aren't stupid" somehow always, the Nixon White House springs to my mind..........

Gerard

Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on December 12, 2015, 10:43:30 PM
Trump is stuck at 30%.  Those saying he is the leader need to learn the difference between plurality and majority.

Moreover, he is not going to win over supporters of the other candidates.  He is nobody's second choice, and he knows it.  For every other candidate, they can be a second choice if some other candidate drops out.  Not Trump.  And Trump's followers can have a second choice.  What Trump has is all he has.

That might very well be an insightful thing you say there, Jason!

Gerard

Quote from: the BBCCould Donald Trump be a secret double-agent, sent by Democrats to destroy their party from within?

Read this today on the BBC News website:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35066940

Gerard

A true paranoid can't even trust himself ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on December 13, 2015, 01:40:51 PM
A true paranoid can't even trust himself ;-)

You can rest assured that I, at least, don't really believe Trump is an agent of the democrats. But it's funny that the democrats don't need to conspire. I mean..... Donald just may serve them well without intent.... :098:

Gerard

Politics is a lot like football ... there are a lot of interceptions and fumbles ;-)  They want you to believe that they are master-minds ... when the truth is  ... master-bation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7eI8i6AssY

Quote from: widdershins on December 08, 2015, 12:29:27 PM
I'm going to stop there, because I really don't know what you're talking about.  What is an "anti-government person"?  Someone who is arming themselves in case the government attacks?  Yes, THOSE people are too nuts to have guns because their too nuts to know that if the government ever did attack there is nothing you could do about it and too nuts to know the "government" isn't this hive-mind of officials and military personnel which will do whatever "it" wants.  We are talking about individual people being ordered to fire on individual people and choosing for themselves whether this is right.  "The government" is not a big, all powerful black box with a single mind.  It is millions of individuals.  Yes, some are corrupt and power hungry.  Yes, some would follow if ordered to attack their own.  I would bet that most would not, and yes, I would bet my life on that.  People, in general, are good, not bloodthirsty.

I don't think you understand how civil wars work. Just look at unkraine. Voluntary battalions of armed civilians are a big thing in civil wars and the government is a chain of command whose members are pressed to follow to preserve themselves. This chain of command usually fractures in at least two sides at the start of the conflict due to ethnic/ideological/practical differences. Then most of the agents have to fall on the side that their nature and condition make the most comfortable and take up their position in the new chain to preserve themselves and the institution they belong to. With confirmation bias due to their in group and out group bias and lots of propaganda they glorify and demonize making the escalation of violence and resulting brutally bearable and justified.

As an outsider, i'm not as much worried as i am intrigued. I'm watching this whole thing unfold, eating popcorn with a fascinated look plastered on my face.
I'm basically now just waiting for trump to win and him inevitably firing the entire country

Quote from: Gerard on December 13, 2015, 02:09:46 PM
You can rest assured that I, at least, don't really believe Trump is an agent of the democrats. But it's funny that the democrats don't need to conspire. I mean..... Donald just may serve them well without intent.... :098:

Fundamentally, Trump doesn't have (and probably never has had) people around him who will tell him the truth.  I have no doubt in my mind that he's surrounded himself with nothing by sycophants (and anyone who did dare tell him "no" or "that's wrong" surely found themselves unemployed in short order).  So he really does believe he's the second coming, and he's only among people who are going to reinforce that self-image because no one values their integrity more than their paycheck -- or they fear Trump's vindictiveness more than they do their own self-respect.

I quite honestly think Trump's self-absorbment borders on sociopathy: watch how he reacts when he starts losing primaries.  He's going to blame everyone and everything but himself and his own message.  You won't even see the mildest sort of taking responsibility, like "We just didn't get our message across" -- it's going to be everyone else's fault but his.

Quote from: trdsf on December 14, 2015, 10:01:14 PM
Fundamentally, Trump doesn't have (and probably never has had) people around him who will tell him the truth.  I have no doubt in my mind that he's surrounded himself with nothing by sycophants (and anyone who did dare tell him "no" or "that's wrong" surely found themselves unemployed in short order).  So he really does believe he's the second coming, and he's only among people who are going to reinforce that self-image because no one values their integrity more than their paycheck -- or they fear Trump's vindictiveness more than they do their own self-respect.

I quite honestly think Trump's self-absorbment borders on sociopathy: watch how he reacts when he starts losing primaries.  He's going to blame everyone and everything but himself and his own message.  You won't even see the mildest sort of taking responsibility, like "We just didn't get our message across" -- it's going to be everyone else's fault but his.

Yes, I think that's nearer to the truth than "Trump is a democrat agent". I've never watched his TV show in which he hires and fires people, but from what I've heard of it,  I just guess it's telling
:)

Gerard

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sum+of+all+fears+preview

Welcome to the continuation of the 20th century ;-(

Quote from: mauricio on December 14, 2015, 02:25:28 PM
I don't think you understand how civil wars work. Just look at unkraine. Voluntary battalions of armed civilians are a big thing in civil wars and the government is a chain of command whose members are pressed to follow to preserve themselves. This chain of command usually fractures in at least two sides at the start of the conflict due to ethnic/ideological/practical differences. Then most of the agents have to fall on the side that their nature and condition make the most comfortable and take up their position in the new chain to preserve themselves and the institution they belong to. With confirmation bias due to their in group and out group bias and lots of propaganda they glorify and demonize making the escalation of violence and resulting brutally bearable and justified.

So, the government should not abridge the people's (or at least some people's) right to start a civil war against them? That seems like a very sensible constitutional principle to me.

Gerard

Quote from: Gerard on December 14, 2015, 10:27:05 PM
So, the government should not abridge the people's (or at least some people's) right to start a civil war against them? That seems like a very sensible constitutional principle to me.

Gerard

by phrasing the question like that you make it meaningless. "'people's (or at least some people's) right to start a civil war" Obviously there's not right to start civil wars this question seems like pure smuggery rather than a proper question. BTW i made zero arguments about gun control, i just described how civil wars work from my experience and that armed civilians play a big factor and can be a considerable obstacle to a professional military force specially when the chain of command has been recently fractured due to the start of the civil war. Also the slow escalation of violence, the fear of destroying national infrastructure and innocent civilians, the fear of international reprisal for using full military force on your own cities and the growing hatred between factions generating more insurgency.

Replaying the US civil war or the English civil war would be a ... bad idea.  Such events weren't anti-government, not anarchist.  It was about one idea of government against another.  The idea of continuous revolution, was supposed to be resolved by democratic elections, so that armed insurrection is unnecessary.

Quote from: mauricio on December 14, 2015, 10:41:22 PM
by phrasing the question like that you make it meaningless. "'people's (or at least some people's) right to start a civil war" Obviously there's not right to start civil wars this question seems like pure smuggery rather than a proper question. BTW i made zero arguments about gun control, i just described how civil wars work from my experience and that armed civilians play a big factor and can be a considerable obstacle to a professional military force specially when the chain of command has been recently fractured due to the start of the civil war. Also the slow escalation of violence, the fear of destroying national infrastructure and innocent civilians, the fear of international reprisal for using full military force on your own cities and the growing hatred between factions generating more insurgency.

Yes I see and I apologise. The point I was trying to make was not directed at you, but at the notion that some people seem to have about the right to bear arms and how it would enable them to resist perceived tyranny.

Gerard

Quote from: trdsf on December 14, 2015, 10:01:14 PM
I quite honestly think Trump's self-absorbment borders on sociopathy: watch how he reacts when he starts losing primaries.  He's going to blame everyone and everything but himself and his own message.  You won't even see the mildest sort of taking responsibility, like "We just didn't get our message across" -- it's going to be everyone else's fault but his.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/donald-trump-narcissism-therapists

For mental-health professionals, Donald Trump is at once easily diagnosed but slightly confounding. “Remarkably narcissistic,” said developmental psychologist Howard Gardner, a professor at Harvard Graduate School of Education. “Textbook narcissistic personality disorder,” echoed clinical psychologist Ben Michaelis. “He’s so classic that I’m archiving video clips of him to use in workshops because there’s no better example of his characteristics,” said clinical psychologist George Simon, who conducts lectures and seminars on manipulative behavior. “Otherwise, I would have had to hire actors and write vignettes. He’s like a dream come true.” ...

Mr. Trump’s bullying natureâ€"taunting Senator John McCain for being captured in Vietnam, or saying Jeb Bush has “low energy”â€"is in keeping with the narcissistic profile. “In the field we use clusters of personality disorders,” Michaelis said. “Narcissism is in cluster B, which means it has similarities with histrionic personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, and antisocial personality disorder. There are similarities between them. Regardless of how you feel about John McCain, the man servedâ€"and suffered. Narcissism is an extreme defense against one’s own feelings of worthlessness. To degrade people is really part of a cluster-B personality disorder: it’s antisocial and shows a lack of remorse for other people. The way to make it O.K. to attack someone verbally, psychologically, or physically is to lower them. That’s what he’s doing.” ...

What of Trump’s tendency to position himself as a possible savior to the economy despite the fact that four of his companies have declared bankruptcy? “It’s mind-boggling to me that that’s not the story,” said Michaelis. “This man has been given more than anyone could ever hope for,” he added, referring to the fact that Trump is not wholly self-made, “yet he’s failed miserably time and time again.” Licensed clinical social worker Wendy Terrie Behary, the author of Disarming the Narcissist: Surviving and Thriving with the Self-Absorbed, said, “Narcissists are not necessarily liars, but they are notoriously uncomfortable with the truth. The truth means the potential to feel ashamed. If all they have to show the world as a source of feeling acceptable is their success and performance, be it in business or sports or celebrity, then the risk of people seeing them fail or squander their success is so difficult to their self-esteem that they feel ashamed. We call it the narcissistic injury. They’re uncomfortable with their own limitations. It’s not that they’re cut out to lie, it’s just that they can’t handle what’s real.” ...

Asked what, if Mr. Trump were their patient, they would “work on” with him, several of the therapists laughed. “I’d be shocked if he walked in my door,” said Behary. “Most narcissists don’t seek treatment unless there’s someone threatening to take something away from them. There’d have to be some kind of meaningful consequence for him to come in.” Simon concurred but added, “There is help available, but it doesn’t look like the help people are used to. It’s not insight-oriented psychotherapy, because narcissists already have insight. They’re aware; the problem is, they don’t care. They know how you’d like them to act; the problem is, they’ve got a different set of rules. ...

But for at least one mental-health professional, the Trump enigma, or should we say non-enigma, is larger than the bluster of the man whose own Web site calls him “the very definition of the American success story, continually setting the standards of excellence”â€"to this mind-set, Trump may be a kind of bellwether. Mr. Gardner said, “For me, the compelling question is the psychological state of his supporters. They are unable or unwilling to make a connection between the challenges faced by any president and the knowledge and behavior of Donald Trump. In a democracy, that is disastrous.”

I think we have yet to actually meet Donald Trump. I also think we have yet to meet Hillary Clinton or any other candidate for that matter. We don't truly figure out who a politician really is or what they really stand for until its too late for us to alter our vote.

All of this insane crap he says is, in my opinion, nothing more than a cold calculation. Theres no way a savvy businessman like Trump is simultaneously close minded and stupid enough to really believe that a blanket "solution" like banning all Muslims from the United States would really work. But he does believe that saying it will would get him elected. So far, he has been shown to be right. He is, after all, the republican front-runner by a long margin despite all the overtly racist and bigoted positions he has parroted.

He has a formula that works, at least for winning the Republican nomination. The more he appeals to racists and makes it look like hes thumbing his nose at progressive liberals, the more he energizes the aging republican base to form up behind him. They hate liberals, and he knows it. Hes using that reality to better effect than any candidate before him has ever managed to.

I'll say it again: I believe this is nothing more than cold, hard calculation. If I'm right, then nobody will have any idea what sort of president he would be until after hes already in office, not even his most rabid supporters.

Will he be elected? I doubt it. Once he wins the nomination you will see him start to backpedal to a much more moderate stance because he knows that he can't get into office on the backs of just the Republican voters. He will have galvanized those voters, possibly to levels never seen before. However, the way he managed to galvanize them ensures that opposing voters are equally galvanized.

I don't see a winning scenario for Trump, despite how strong his campaign looks right now. Unless Hillary truly screws up she probably has this one in the bag.

QuoteAll of this insane crap he says is, in my opinion, nothing more than a cold calculation. Theres no way a savvy businessman like Trump is simultaneously close minded and stupid enough to really believe that a blanket "solution" like banning all Muslims from the United States would really work.

I wouldn't call him an overly savvy businessman; he came from money and didn't build his way up. And once you are at the top like that... it's much harder to fall than to stay afloat. He has spent his life surrounded by people who know how to keep him afloat (and thus their paychecks).

Likewise... I think you give even savvy businessman too much credit. There are savvy businessmen...brilliant doctors... fantastic mathematicians who believe all sorts of the craziest things you can believe... stuff even more crazy than anything Donald Trump said. Being smart in your field of work does not mean you cant be an idiot in every other possible way.

Quote from: SGOS on December 11, 2015, 09:54:29 PM
The Republicans might be assholes, but they aren't stupid.  OK, maybe the presidents and the congressmen for the party are sometimes, but there is a structure of intelligent committees working in the background that deals with this kind of shit.  I don't pretend to know their thoughts or their strategy, but they probably wield more power than the front men.

I think this is what we all hope is true. That there are intelligent and rational individuals behind the scenes pulling the strings and handling strategy for the buffoons in office. But it is all easily undone with one word. Palin.

But it is all easily undone with one Mr Potatoe Head, Dan Quayle.  And who can forget Spiro T?

Yes, we should never forget Dan Quayle.  Any type of bone head can get elected to a high office, and Trump as self absorbed as he is, is probably smarter than Dan Quayle.  Palin also deserves special consideration, only she was rejected by a small number of electoral votes.  Still, she was the governor of Alaska.

People who have met Trump on a personal basis say that he is engaging, warm and listens to what people have to say. So perhaps Nonsensei is on spot, that his public rhetoric is just cold calculation to get the Republican base to elect him to the nomination. Whether this will work is another matter. 

Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 15, 2015, 10:36:34 AM
People who have met Trump on a personal basis say that he is engaging, warm and listens to what people have to say. So perhaps Nonsensei is on spot, that his public rhetoric is just cold calculation to get the Republican base to elect him to the nomination. Whether this will work is another matter. 

People say the same thing about Kim Jong-il and other psychopaths as well... that is part of having a narcissistic and manipulative personality. It's what these people do when they have power that matters.

Really, people are looking for far to complex of explanation rather than just admit idiots and narcissistic people exist...

Is Trump a narcissist or a megalomaniac?

(http://www.quotationof.com/images/narcissist-quotes-1.jpg)

Actually bad people in high places, can do quite well for us ... if they are for us and not against us, and they are sufficiently non-marginal in function that they can win.  Presidents Wilson and FDR are examples.  The Kaiser and Hitler are counter-examples.  If the Kaiser had played his cards right (if he was a smart as Bismark) he would have kept his crown and had a net gain from the first year of the war.  Similarly ... if Hitler had been marginally sane, given his genius ... he would have gone down as the greatest German leader of all time.  It isn't the guy who can overcome his fear of heights that is the problem, it is the guy who thinks he can jump off the high roof and fly ... mania and overconfidence are only good if you can manage them.

Quote from: Shiranu on December 15, 2015, 03:54:01 PM
People say the same thing about Kim Jong-il and other psychopaths as well... that is part of having a narcissistic and manipulative personality. It's what these people do when they have power that matters.

Really, people are looking for far to complex of explanation rather than just admit idiots and narcissistic people exist...

Idiots and narcissistic people exist, and he is manipulating them to further his own ends.

I don't think my theory is particularly complex. In fact, manipulating the sensibilities of the voter base is something every politician does. The only thing different in what Trump is doing is that he doesn't seem to be respecting any limits on what he is willing to say to manipulate his supporters, and of course that he is meeting with uncommon success for the moment.

I mean lets face it, people who really think building a wall between the US and Mexico to stop illegal immigration, or who think that banning Muslims from the US will accomplish anything are dumb, uneducated or simply afraid. And to actually, genuinely hold those beliefs you need to be dumb, uneducated and/or afraid. Do any of these things describe Trump?

The man is well educated and, more importantly, has a lifetime of real world experience that most people would never have the opportunity to get. He is highly successful in business, and its just hard for me to believe that a guy like this would seriously support something as financially non-viable as building a US/Mexico border wall. He would be able to see how insane such a project would be. That he purports to endorse it is highly suspicious to me, and smacks of voter manipulation.

Lets keep in mind that, just ten years ago, this guy described himself as a Democrat. Hes a chameleon, just like every other politician is to some degree or another. Hes just saying what he has to to get past the primaries. This is why, when pressed for details on many of his ridiculous "plans" he comes up short. Because they aren't his genuine beliefs, he hasn't spent any time thinking about how to make them work. Additionally, it isn't important to the success of his campaign to provide those details. His dumb, uneducated supporter base is pleased enough to have a serious national candidate talking about banning all Muslims and shit that he doesn't need to get into how he is going to make any of this work.

QuoteIdiots and narcissistic people exist, and he is manipulating them to further his own ends.

Yes... but that doesn't mean he somehow exists outside that class.

QuoteI don't think my theory is particularly complex. In fact, manipulating the sensibilities of the voter base is something every politician does. The only thing different in what Trump is doing is that he doesn't seem to be respecting any limits on what he is willing to say to manipulate his supporters, and of course that he is meeting with uncommon success for the moment.

So he is a male Sarah Palin or a white Ben Carson... yet we do not call Sarah Palin or Ben Carson intelligent people even though they are both highly successful individuals (with Carson being a well-educated doctor).

QuoteI mean lets face it, people who really think building a wall between the US and Mexico to stop illegal immigration, or who think that banning Muslims from the US will accomplish anything are dumb, uneducated or simply afraid. And to actually, genuinely hold those beliefs you need to be dumb, uneducated and/or afraid. Do any of these things describe Trump?

Do they? I think so... yes.

QuoteThe man is well educated and, more importantly, has a lifetime of real world experience that most people would never have the opportunity to get.

Education =/= smart outside your field of study as men like Ben Carson prove. Nor would I call Donald Trump's lifetime of "real world experience" any more valid than someone who actually has to work to put food on their table. I honestly do not even understand what you are trying to say... that being rich and isolating yourself around one class of people somehow makes you more "experienced" than someone who has to work for everything they have?

QuoteI mean my whole life has really been a no...and I fought through it. You know I have talked about it; it has not been easy for me... it has not been easy for me. I started out in Brooklyn and my dad gave me a small loan of ONE MILLION DOLLARS...

Yes... tell me more about his "lifetime of experience" that I am suppose to relate to... that is suppose to make me think he has experience with the issues that affect the common man.

QuoteHe is highly successful in business, and its just hard for me to believe that a guy like this would seriously support something as financially non-viable as building a US/Mexico border wall.

A. A successful businessman is someone who built his way up to the top... not someone who was born at the top and has been surrounded by people all his life who know how to keep him there.
B. Are you shitting me? Have you seen the stupid shit rich people spend money on? Have you seen how quickly the ultra-rich are to play with the economy and send it (and thus their own cash) tumbling to the ground?

I think you give rich people far too much credit. They are human just like us.

QuoteLets keep in mind that, just ten years ago, this guy described himself as a Democrat. Hes a chameleon, just like every other politician is to some degree or another. Hes just saying what he has to to get past the primaries. This is why, when pressed for details on many of his ridiculous "plans" he comes up short. Because they aren't his genuine beliefs, he hasn't spent any time thinking about how to make them work. Additionally, it isn't important to the success of his campaign to provide those details. His dumb, uneducated supporter base is pleased enough to have a serious national candidate talking about banning all Muslims and shit that he doesn't need to get into how he is going to make any of this work.

Or we can look at all the evidence from before he was running and see that he is just not a very bright man. That doesn't mean he cant be manipulative or cunning... but it doesn't mean that he is some political mastermind genius. You again are really giving him far more credit than he deserves. He is an old white man Kardashian... unless we want to start arguing that the Kardashians are geniuses (which to an extent I think they are in a very limited field) then we cannot act like Donald Trump is anything less than an arrogant buffoon.

Several come before his nomination...

http://www.bustle.com/articles/90679-the-16-worst-donald-trump-quotes-are-all-the-evidence-you-need-that-hell-never-and

http://www.ibtimes.com/pulse/donald-trump-quotes-50-best-sayings-republican-presidential-candidate-2040644

(https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.thecelebrityauction.co/picture/dd/afd384e7cc83149895401a6f009b55.jpg%253Fi%253DCxcXE1lMTBQUFE0GDA0PCg0GTQAMDkwGDA88Cg4CBAYQTCYNFwoRBjwwChcGTFFTUlZWUlVMERA8VVNTG1dXVk5SVlNVUlVSUlZbV1BOFxEWDhNSU00JEwQ%253D&imgrefurl=http://thecelebrityauction.co/wp2/cwitter-article/youll-never-guess-the-latest-recipient-of-donald-trumps-hatred/&h=445&w=600&tbnid=madMxlNzop8ljM:&docid=3GBaPHmCJmnYtM&ei=b75wVp7DAYTzjgT22oOQCg&tbm=isch&ved=0ahUKEwjetqaund_JAhWEuYMKHXbtAKIQMwgdKAAwAA)

(https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.viralthread.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Donald-Trump-Quotes-540x282.jpeg&imgrefurl=https://quotesgram.com/quotes-about-donald-trump/&h=282&w=540&tbnid=5U69OP7rgGsn9M:&docid=zbT5PJskAsusZM&ei=b75wVp7DAYTzjgT22oOQCg&tbm=isch&ved=0ahUKEwjetqaund_JAhWEuYMKHXbtAKIQMwgkKAcwBw)



Yep. Not an idiot. It's all just an elaborate act... cant you see the simplicity about that?

I think Trump banning Muslims and building a wall is about as likely as Ted Cruz not really being anti-Assad like he claims. Trump's playing up to the bigots with this fake debate over banning Muslims which will never come about, and Cruz seems to be playing up to the Christians who may appreciate that Assad is the only one keeping Christians safe in Syria right now. In reality, Cruz is as anti-Assad and anti-Russia as the rest, and Trump has about as much intent to ban Muslims and build a wall as Hillary does. It aint happening.

The Republicans, when in power, mess up the country terribly, then "the powers that be" allow a Democrat to get into the office so they'll have someone to blame for the mess. Once the Democrat cleans up the mess, the Republicans return to power so they can mess the country up again.

This time around, the mess isn't yet cleaned up, so the Democrats will stay in the office for at least another 4 years, and they can continue to try to clean up (and be blamed for) the mess made by the last Republican to hold the office.

So the Republicans running for the presidencey know they can say just about anything at all, since none of them are slated by "the powers that be" to get into the presidency this time around.

It's all kabuki theater.

Quote from: Unbeliever on December 16, 2015, 04:10:56 PM
The Republicans, when in power, mess up the country terribly, then "the powers that be" allow a Democrat to get into the office so they'll have someone to blame for the mess. Once the Democrat cleans up the mess, the Republicans return to power so they can mess the country up again.

This time around, the mess isn't yet cleaned up, so the Democrats will stay in the office for at least another 4 years, and they can continue to try to clean up (and be blamed for) the mess made by the last Republican to hold the office.

So the Republicans running for the presidencey know they can say just about anything at all, since none of them are slated by "the powers that be" to get into the presidency this time around.

It's all kabuki theater.

You know way to much ... take a pill ... Neo.

Shiranu I guess we just look at this differently, probably because I never take any politician at face value. If they say something, its always calculated in my mind. There are very few exceptions, like Palin, and they are all invariably stupid as hell. So when a politician is a highly educated former democrat with a multi billion dollar business empire and he says 'build a wall between the U.S and Mexico' my deception meter hits the red zone ESPECIALLY when it WORKS and he experiences a meteoric rise from an unknown with 2% of the republican voter base to the frontrunner with 42% of the base in the span of a few months.

Its calculated, and its overwhelming success is evidence of that to me. We have even seen some other candidates like Carson attempt to copycat the strategy. To my view, its a strange mixture of sad and hilarious watching the republican voter base be manipulated like play-doh without even realizing it.

Frankly, I'm afraid of all of the Republican candidates but he is probably the worst.

Remember what Ur-fascism in the US is like.  The primary principle is racism ... and the White proles/peasants are waiting for a Great White Hope ... originally in heavy weight boxing, but also in politics.  Trump is able to tap into the ur-fascism of that demographic.  If Cruz wasn't a Canadian deep-throat he could have a chance as a theocrat ... and might still pick things up if Trump/Carson fall.  The R-base can never go for Carson, for obvious reasons.

it's a democracy illusion that people are made to think they choose the president by voting...there are only two candidates who is determined by oligarchy, by little group of people who govern the usa far from eyes...this is a system comprising of lots of mechanisms...