who else is afraid donald trump will get elected?

[FaithIsFilth]

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.

[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.

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

[Gerard]

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

[Gerard]

Could 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

[Baruch]

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

[Gerard]

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

[Baruch]

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.

[mauricio]

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

[mauricio]

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.

[Mr.Obvious]

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

[trdsf]

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.

[Gerard]

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

[Baruch]

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

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

[Gerard]

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

[mauricio]

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.