Qhimm.com Forums
Off-topic forums => Completely Unrelated => Topic started by: Shard on 2016-01-29 03:52:56
-
Those of you in the US who are eligible to vote and currently support Clinton or Trump, I honestly want to know what the fern is wrong with you.
What is the appeal of Hillary Clinton? Are you just so stupid and tunnelvisioned that you don't remember anything she says 5 minutes after she says it? If you tell me one thing she said that you agree with, there's a 95% chance I can find a video of her saying exactly the opposite. She's a chronic liar (http://"https://www.facebook.com/supremepatriot/videos/213718368969550/"). She's just good at telling stupid people what they want to hear.
What is the appeal of Donald Trump? Ok, what I really mean here is, even if you think Trump is a good candidate, are you willing to risk putting Sarah Palin in a position of power? Voting for any ticket with her name on it should be considered treason because it will undoubtedly cause the government to collapse. I'm being completely serious. The only people who would ever vote for her are people who want to see the country fail. She's had 8 years of practice since the last election and she still can't complete a sentence.
Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree. Most of the people in this community are pretty bright.
-
I don't like any of our options this term. It's not just the celeb frontrunners, I mean the competent ones that are trailing behind in the "poles".
Celebrities have the potential for being decent pres. Reagan managed it. I don't think know Trump would be a terrible Pres. His foreign policies would disgrace our country for decades after his impeachment.
I'm also not against a female pres. But I don't want THAT ill-tempered ultra fem b**** in control of our military!
Sanders, Cruz et al aren't impressing me either. That actually might be the media's fault. They focus more on Clinton and Trump because they're the front-runners. Yahoo clearly wants us to hate Trump and love Clinton (or maybe there really IS nothing redeemable about Trump) and I've left several comments on their Trump articles about how they always pick the dumbest pictures of him, but I digress.
Actually, I'm going to refrain from saying more. I have nothing positives to say about any of the candidates and it's hard to type out long diatribes on a phone while partially propped up in bed. Man, I really need sleep. %( Maybe more tomorrow.
-
They are all liars Shard, they are all playing to win. For most people, the most likeable personality gets their vote because that is their only metric for comparison. I imagine the majority of people who actually vote and hold very strong opinions toward one candidate or another don't actually know each candidate's true stance on most issues. It's kind of stupid. Part of Trump's appeal is that he just says whatever he thinks, there isn't a thick lawyer-esque facade covering everything, even if what he says is pretty racist and ridiculous, he sounds honest-ish in his ideas.
Edit: If my only options are sociopaths, my vote goes to Frank Underwood. The deep southern accent is endearing.
-
People like Clinton because they recognize her name. There are also more than a few people that think "It's time for a woman president"
People like Trump because he stands up against the establishment and he doesn't play games like other politicians (If he wins, I'm actually very curious to find out how much of what he says is just pandering to the right demographic so he can get votes)
You know what the real problem is though? Education. We're so damn uneducated and gullible that it's likely one of these two will be president. It's a god damned disaster. Just look at the other options in the republican party if you really want to see how pathetic things have gotten.
-
Politics.. I feel we're all in the same boat anyway, American or not. Each time, we're given a "choice" between 3 or 4 puppets, all planning to head towards the same horizon.. be it puppet n°3 or puppet n°1 or whichever, they all do the same things just not the same way, and the result is the same anyway. Countries are multinational companies and politics have no other desire than leading them as that, and they're not gonna listen to anyone. They've been preaching change for ages now, they do every time, and either people trusting it or not they won't stop the masquerade.
-
You know what the real problem is though? Education. We're so damn uneducated and gullible that it's likely one of these two will be president. It's a god damned disaster. Just look at the other options in the republican party if you really want to see how pathetic things have gotten.
This is the fundamental flaw in any democracy. If EVERYONE is allowed to vote then even the uninformed weigh-in on important decisions. If I were a rocket scientist (which KSP is constantly teaching me that I'm not :) [RIP, Jebediah...again]) then I wouldn't want lawyers "voting" on where to put my engines. Theoretically the information on every candidate is out there, but unless you are equally and unbiasedly (that's apparently not a word) informed on each candidate or side of every issue then you're voting incorrectly.
Mostly I end up voting AGAINST a candidate, which is equally as valid, but I'll never exactly get what I want in a president.
Relevant:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90RajY2nrgk
-
I see the question as ironically pointless.
Namely, I am not judging candidates based on their verbal appearance, education, passion or charisma - and if you remove that, there is basically no difference, thus no choice.
-
I see the question as ironically pointless.
Namely, I am not judging candidates based on their verbal appearance, education, passion or charisma - and if you remove that, there is basically no difference, thus no choice.
You could always judge candidates based on their historical stances on key issues. When it comes down to that, Sanders is quite different from all the other candidates, and then becomes the obvious choice.
-
Bernie seems pretty likeable, but he's also 74 years old. He would be closing in on 80 after his hypothetical first term. He should have ran two or three decades ago
-
True, he's old. But him getting elected can show the population that we do still have some say in politics and can change things.
As well as he and trump are doing, I think at least by next election we will start to see a real change in government.
I'm not saying I like trump, I'm saying people like him because they perceive him as anti establishment
-
The problems in the political institutions are mirrors of the problems of the human institution and therefore will not be resolved until the underlying driving motive of this species shifts. I can argue effectively that the core human motive in the majority of this world is a perverted type of greed. I'd like to note that, in my opinion, greed in it of itself is actually a positive driving motive. In the truest sense of greed and individual would realize that by doing best for his species he is doing best for himself as well, and harming others can only create conditions in which he is at greater risk of also being harmed. This is not philosophical or mystical but simply mathematical. However the kind of greed that drives this species is not pure, it is more of a desire to position oneself over others than to really do best for oneself.
In other words a person in this society is willing to sacrifice even their own best interest in an effort to fulfill their underlying base desire to dominant others and/or gain material advantage. This takes into account that a human being can often act in conflict to what would actually be the best outcome for them in any given situation. A simple hypothetical; a billionaire who is grossly obese. Obviously it is not in his best interest to be grossly obese however his pursuit for power over others is far more motivating and dominating in his psyche than his own physical well being, and furthermore there is no force in his life strong or influential enough to convince him that he urgently needs to change his will. In fact its quite the opposite, since he is a billionaire most of his actions are rewarded with material gain regardless of his underlying intent, and the behaviors that drive his obesity are reinforced positively. This is just a surface level example and the reality is even more frightening as all of us have deluded ourselves in one fashion or another regardless of social status or position. Its probably the one thing I have noticed that we all share.
To fully understand the complexity of the issue you have to have the ability to observe the system completely neutral to your position within it. Which is impossible for a single human being to do, as we will inevitable become blind to our own bias at one turn or another and not even realize when we have entered the realm of ignorance. Therefore no one person is fully aware as to the full extent of the "human" problem and so there can be no one person who can fully realize and therefore fully formulate a solution. That's not to say that brilliant minds cannot formulate technological solutions to core human problems such as energy or hunger. However, implementing those technologies is out of the individuals hands and requires a collective desire to solve each problem in the best possible way, regardless of short term gains or position. Unfortunately, the solution lies in reaching out and comparing our differences and accepting our individual disparities between one another and using that knowledge to fill the void in our competencies against our biases. That type of practice is in direct contradiction to a system that promotes dominance as the core human virtue.
We live in a system where it is okay to be ignorant so long as you are also rich. It is considering respectable to commit despicable acts of human violence so long as the shareholders stock increases. Essentially this system actually promotes and rewards criminals so long as they are never actually caught. In others words con artists rule the world. People who are best at covering their tracks. That is hardly the kind of person who should have sway over the most important decisions facing our species. And we see the consequences of this every day we draw breath. These situations are so plain, and so overwhelming that most of us simply chose to blatantly ignore what is in front of our face and deny the intellect we inevitable are given. People are not stupid. They are choosing not to act on their intelligence out of an underlying fear of change. One that has been coding into our very DNA. After all, from an evolutionary standpoint, change presents a very real risk of extinction.
It is ironic then, that the only way we can prevent extinction is by overcoming our evolutionary impulses and choosing to act on our highest ideals. In other words to evolve we have to embrace the intelligence that lies dormant in most everyone. You can't turn off your brain, you can only ignore its output. Its a very profound and beautiful struggle for our intelligence to assert its dominance over impulse and lead us to an era where unlike other animals we are truly guided by our best thought rather than our first one. However nobody really knows if we can or will reach this point before we have crossed the proverbial "point of no return".
I'm not trying to frame this as if I know the solution to this system because I definitely do not. I am just cutting it as plain as I can try from my own bias point of view. However I definitely know enough to know that their are better systems of voting in other countries that are more effective at representing the point of view of all the different groups of interests in a society than the system that we have. I just get frustrated when people put so much stock into the political system when that system is never going to be the one where the change sparks. In fact the political institution will undoubtedly be the last stronghold of ignorance on humanities path to intellectual maturity. Its seems to me as the last place to look for change, at least certainly not the first.
-
True, he's old. But him getting elected can show the population that we do still have some say in politics and can change things.
As well as he and trump are doing, I think at least by next election we will start to see a real change in government.
I'm not saying I like trump, I'm saying people like him because they perceive him as anti establishment
Don't get me wrong, if I absolutely had to pick one of them I'd go with Bernie, but he'd better pick a young and like minded VP if senility or nature strikes. If he won, wouldn't he be the oldest active U.S. president? 84 ish years old after two full terms, I don't know if anyone could do that job at that age
-
Should he get elected, I'd be surprised if he served two terms. My guess is he would get down to business in that first term and not have to worry about trying to get reelected
-
1) Bernie may be old; but he is in pretty damn good health, especially considering his age
2) The problem even if we do manage to get him elected, is not whether or not he will get down to business, but whether or not he CAN get down to business. Same thing happened with Obama; the Republicans stonewalled him every chance they got, in the hopes that he'd be viewed as a failure and become a one-term president. That only half-worked, he's viewed as a failure, and I feel that's a bit unjust. It's not that he didn't bring change, it's more that he couldn't. Unfortunately, people view them both as the same thing.
-
the Republicans stonewalled him every chance they got, in the hopes that he'd be viewed as a failure...
This is so true. So many blatant LIES were spread about the affordable health care act by Republicans that most of my "intelligent" friends are completely against it. However, I know loads more people that only have health insurance now because of it and can actually afford the medicines and supplies they NEED to survive now.
Repubs were also so anti-Obama that they allowed the government to literally stall for days over budget issues rather than come up with some temporary compromise. I can't trust Republicans anymore, but I don't like Democrats either. USA politics really suck. :P
-
I think the good thing about Sanders is he gets people involved and excited. He realizes for him to win, mass amounts of people have to vote. That could in turn result in establishment senators losing their seats in following elections
-
I will get a lot of hate for posting this, but I mean no ill-will, I am just passionate about these topics and some of it gets a little close to offensive. I've tried to make sure all of the offensive bits aren't directed at anyone in particular, but are more of rant towards ideas that bother me.
Young/naive people fall in love with Bernie Sanders, because his messages apply to people who have not yet been exposed to real life, for one reason or another. It's easy to go into a campaign promising all these great things (free this, free that, etc.) expecting that it will help everyone and not hurt anything. It's borderline idiotic.
"Increase minimum wage to $15 per hour!" One of the dumbest sentiments I've heard in the race, quite possibly stupider than Trump's Muslim immigration ban. People don't seem to understand that areas with low wages tend to have products for sale at lower costs (a lower cost of housing, in particular). Some people make around $15 per hour in those areas now, and have some sort of a living going for themselves, but as soon as minimum wage is increased to $15, the difference between their wage and the bottom is eliminated. Now, suddenly, their $15 per hour has the same value in terms of local purchasing ability as the person who was making $8-$9 per hour minimum wage before, which is nothing. Will the businesses raise the pay of all their employees to reflect the increase in minimum wage? Hell no, business are not going to pay out more from the bottoms of their hearts, they will try to save money any way they can. Even if they did adjust, just follow me here: Say minimum wage is $10, then it is increased to $15, now someone making $20 per hour had a purchasing power of 200% minimum wage which is now 133%, and if the business raised their wage to $25 per hour it would only be at 166% the minimum wage. You would have to have your wage increased to $30 per hour to have the same type of purchasing power as you used to, and no business is going to do that. The people hurt the most by increasing minimum wage are the people who managed to get a decent job making money over it.
Not only that, but business's are going to start looking to cut lazy workers, because since every worker must be valuable to a business to be employed, all the slack-jaw lazy ass people who are wanting the government to increase their pay will be fired because they aren't worth $15 per hour in terms of productivity. The market will eventually work itself out, but businesses sure as hell are not going to be the ones who take the hit, it will be all the hard working people who tried to get ahead in life, being slowed down by the people demanding they get paid more for nothing.
Then he also wants to tax the rich more, which, I'm not even going to argue against at this point, but you're going to trust a POLITICIAN and the government to do something good with money they stole from people who earned it? There is definitely corruption in corporations and with all the strawberries they pull with lobbyists, but acting like imposing a high tax on high income people is also completely moronic. You're effectively insuring you will never in your lifetime, and possibly the lifetime of your entire lineage, will never become wildly rich and successful. It's easy to take from people who have when you don't, but when you have an opportunity to make money, don't complain when someone comes and takes it all and donates it to charity because they thought you had more than you deserve.
I don't like either the democrats or the republicans as they are both completely and totally corrupt. But everyone (especially college students and the jobless losers from places like Portland Oregon) need to get Bernie's 90-year-old wrinkled knob out of their throat and think about how all of his magical promises might actually come true.
This is so true. So many blatant LIES were spread about the affordable health care act by Republicans that most of my "intelligent" friends are completely against it. However, I know loads more people that only have health insurance now because of it and can actually afford the medicines and supplies they NEED to survive now.
Repubs were also so anti-Obama that they allowed the government to literally stall for days over budget issues rather than come up with some temporary compromise. I can't trust Republicans anymore, but I don't like Democrats either. USA politics really suck. :P
I've also had first-hand experience of people who COULD afford health insurance who now have to wait until November to get health insurance, because the idiocy of Obamacare has it so people can only sign up for Obamacare during open enrollment. (Yes, I understand risk and special enrollment periods, but its still absolutely retarded that there is no way to actually sign up, even with a penalty or something, once you have missed open enrollment). That's just one example. In the area where I live, if you have insurance 100% free, nearly every office in the area will have you waiting from 6-8 months just to see specialist or dentist or just about anything. Not to mention the fact that these places often have the worst customer service, and are pretty awful all around. Some aspects have been "okay" revolving obamacare, but in terms of it being a substantial improvement on what we had before, it is pretty terrible (don't get me started on how hospitals and other health services are being reimbursed by arbitrary "value" measures that don't have clear definitions and are instead in place in a way that leads companies to "game" the system to prop these numbers up as much as possible to get the highest reimbursement). We definitely needed reform, and it could have even been public healthcare, but Obamacare failed to do anything that great. We could have just copied Canada's healthcare system for Christ's sake.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A question everyone forgets when it comes to making sure EVERYONE has health care, is whether or not it is morally ethical to force charity on someone. If there was a world where no one had any taxes, or any obligations, and made money completely independent of each other, is it right to force the successful ones to care for those who are not? Maybe the end justifies the means for some people, but I'm not entirely sold. At the end of the day, the crushing inevitability of death that will engulf EVERY SINGLE HUMAN LIFE EVER means that making sure people have access to healthcare may not be the most important thing in the universe. Maybe making sure we aren't actively hurting some people's lives in order to prop up others with no attempt at fairness or consent might be a bigger issue. Personally, when I eventually end up on the low side of life I don't want to feed off of others like a leech on life-support, I'd rather find use for myself, be self-sufficient, or be dead because death is something we all have to accept at some point. We can't force others to make sure we stay alive, especially because of how futile it is.
-
Socialism works until the money (tax payers') runs out. As for Obama, he is a weak president who armed IS and brought about the situation in Egypt. Blaming the Republicans for his failed leadership is non constructive and, imho, excuse making. Obama can't even bring himself to say "Islamic terrorism" - he prefers workplace violence.
For all Trump's "ills", he is at least a realist who says what he thinks.
As for his Muslim ban - I don't that's idiotic at all. Foreign Muslims coming to the US should be under far more scrutiny. There are 130 French families who would agree. Obama wants to allow thousands of Syrians and other "refugees" into the US that cannot possibly be checked. That's criminal negligence, and Merkel did the same with Germany. Nobody will care about "hoooooman rights" when arms and legs are flying. They'll just wonder why these people were even allowed in.
Do you think Japan would allow it? No. And no one expects them to, because they'd be laughed at for even suggesting it.
But it's all a waste of time anyway. I don't think republicans stand a chance, because certain sections of America - especially black people, welfare claimants, and women - will vote democrat, even if the Democrat candidate were a self-confessed murderer. Most of the electorate vote based on personal greed and emotion. This will change, of course, as soon as things get far worse, and America is driven into the ground with rampant socialism. Europe is falling to bits, btw, for the same reason.
So many like to bang on about how "ridiculous" the Republican Party is - but the Republicans are not stupid enough to have Hillary as president.
So Democrats can enjoy their victory - but it won't last long term. That's not to say the republicans will fix all the issues either. They have their own types of silliness to contend with.
-
I'd like to first give my credentials for not being young and for having definitely been exposed to "real life".
The highest minimum wage (adjusted for inflation) was something like $8.50 an hour I think. So while 7.25 is on the low side, it's not too far off the norm. I think a lot of people demanding huge increases in minimum wage simply don't know how to live within their means (most likely due to a poor education/upbringing).
I don't understand the problem with businesses cutting lazy workers? Do you want income? Do you know you'll be fired for being lazy? Solution: quit being lazy.
There is a TON of corruption in politics. That's basically Sanders slogan. No one else up there is preaching about the rich getting richer by pushing their agendas in Congress.
I'm not trying to straw man your argument, but I think you're linking money with happiness saying people will never become wildly rich and successful. Recent studies have shown that people who make around 60k are the happiest. I would argue that being happy in life is far more important than making millions.
The problem with the Affordable Care Act is that it was originally crafted so that it could get through a corrupt Congress. It didn't work. So it had to be cut and cut and bastardized to the point that it's barely helpful at all. That's why it's not some great magical healthcare reform. It can't be. There's too much corruption for something like that to happen. But there's hope. One candidate is running on a platform to battle all that corruption.
As far as everyone having healthcare, the US is arguably one of the most powerful and influential countries in the world. Why in the hell can't we take care of our own citizens? Yes everyone will die, but if you get a bad cut on your leg, and don't go to the hospital because of lack of insurance/healthcare, it gets infected and you die because you couldn't afford it, there's something wrong there. We aren't some third world country. We need to realize that the extremely rich are taking advantage of the system and us, and put a stop to it. We need to quit putting a fucking price on everything. A man shouldn't have to choose between feeding his family or getting his bad hip replaced so he can continue to work/live.
As for Trump, I like to think that the President should represent the best of us. That isn't Trump. Trump is an expression of our anger at the system. Yes things need to change, but Jesus Christ, if Trump gets elected that's just one more step (leap) towards Idiocracy
-
I'd like to first give my credentials for not being young and for having definitely been exposed to "real life".
The highest minimum wage (adjusted for inflation) was something like $8.50 an hour I think. So while 7.25 is on the low side, it's not too far off the norm. I think a lot of people demanding huge increases in minimum wage simply don't know how to live within their means (most likely due to a poor education/upbringing).
I don't understand the problem with businesses cutting lazy workers? Do you want income? Do you know you'll be fired for being lazy? Solution: quit being lazy.
It's not even a matter of not knowing how to live within your means sometimes. Let's say I work at minimum wage in NJ, where I live, which is $8.38. and say I work 40 hours a week, every week of the year. This gives me a grand total of $17,430.40 before taxes. Where I live, you're lucky if you can get a single bedroom apartment for less than $1,200 a month. That alone comes to $14,400. This leaves you with $3,030.40 for food, utilities (if they're not included in your rent), transportation, and other necessities (such as toilet paper) for the entire year. This is without even factoring in taxes. It is literally impossible to support yourself on minimum wage here, and I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no reason that any person in this country should not be able to support at the very least, themselves, on minimum wage.
There is a TON of corruption in politics. That's basically Sanders slogan. No one else up there is preaching about the rich getting richer by pushing their agendas in Congress.
I'm not trying to straw man your argument, but I think you're linking money with happiness saying people will never become wildly rich and successful. Recent studies have shown that people who make around 60k are the happiest. I would argue that being happy in life is far more important than making millions.
This is part of what makes Sanders such a great candidate. He's also very upfront in saying that he alone will not be able to change anything, he is but one man... but he can get the ball rolling, so to speak.
The problem with the Affordable Care Act is that it was originally crafted so that it could get through a corrupt Congress. It didn't work. So it had to be cut and cut and bastardized to the point that it's barely helpful at all. That's why it's not some great magical healthcare reform. It can't be. There's too much corruption for something like that to happen. But there's hope. One candidate is running on a platform to battle all that corruption.
As far as everyone having healthcare, the US is arguably one of the most powerful and influential countries in the world. Why in the hell can't we take care of our own citizens? Yes everyone will die, but if you get a bad cut on your leg, and don't go to the hospital because of lack of insurance/healthcare, it gets infected and you die because you couldn't afford it, there's something wrong there. We aren't some third world country. We need to realize that the extremely rich are taking advantage of the system and us, and put a stop to it. We need to quit putting a ferning price on everything. A man shouldn't have to choose between feeding his family or getting his bad hip replaced so he can continue to work/live.
Let's not also forget that the original Affordable Care Act was written by republicans. However, the Republican party's distaste for Obama was so great, they essentially forced him to gut the bill, and fill it with crap that changed nearly nothing in the health care system of the United States, which I'm sorry to say, is a very poor model of health care. Health care shouldn't be reserved for the wealthy and the wealthy alone. It's something we all need, and something we can absolutely make a reality; but not if the right wing has anything to say about it.
As for Trump, I like to think that the President should represent the best of us. That isn't Trump. Trump is an expression of our anger at the system. Yes things need to change, but Jesus Christ, if Trump gets elected that's just one more step (leap) towards Idiocracy
Trump is.... I don't even want to get started on Trump, so I won't.
-
Tin foil hat time: does anyone feel like things would generally not change much no matter who gets elected?
There is so much money floating around, that it seems nearly impossible to curb its influence. I remember the Obama campaign, it was all about making change. He had my support because he made it seem like he was going to pop the artificially inflated industries caused by the war on drugs. In actuality, when he got into office the budgets for those programs actually increased. I'm not sure if that can be attributed to systematic lying or a real lack of influence that the president actually has.
-
A drastic change? No. But I think if we keep pecking at it here and there, making tiny baby dents, eventually something will give.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3461407/You-right-wear-hair-want-Hillary-tells-black-voter-says-s-treated-differently-Ferguson-wearing-hair-natural.html
When this is what your average voter is worried it, it's little wonder you're fucked.
-
100% relevant:
(http://i.imgur.com/AdKdjie.jpg)
Or yeah, not really.
-
That is even better than the lightning_cloud mashup
-
Tin foil hat time: does anyone feel like things would generally not change much no matter who gets elected?
I don't like how, in this society, stating the obvious truth is somehow considered taboo as if your some sort of wack job conspiracy nut. I know its just a joke its just sad to me that you have to present this statement in this way.
A drastic change? No. But I think if we keep pecking at it here and there, making tiny baby dents, eventually something will give.
This is unfortunately a flawed statement. This assumes that any damage you do to the system of inequality is not quickly repaired and reinforced on the other end faster than you can do any damage. Not to say that trying is meaningless. Look, in this system nobody likes to feel apathetic in the face of overwhelming odds. Unfortunately nobody likes to go out on a limb and risk something precious either. Therefore people fall behind causes that keep them from feeling apathetic, like what they support will make a difference, all the while not risking anything that would bring about a meaningful change. We are all guilty of this, myself included, but being aware is the starting point. The only thing that would really change this system is a system that works more efficiently. One that can replace it, not fight against it. There is no "ism" in existence that could classify what we need to become. We would have to create a whole new paradigm. Again this is contrary to our evolutionary instincts to avoid change so it is a slow and violent process.
Despite all my nay saying however I do believe change will come. Just not through this corrupt sphere of socioeconomic political warfare. It will happen in the realm of technologies that solve these problems more efficiently than they have ever been solved to date. Unfortunately technology is advanced at a much faster rate than it is released to the public. And many of the major contributors to technology today are looking only to advanced weaponry, not society. Another major issue is that the vast majority of citizens don't really understand today's advanced technology and so those who do gain and almost unstoppable advantage. Because of these factors there is a very real incentive to keep a lid on technology and only release it to the masses in small quantities so as not to the lose the grip of control on the masses.
So it comes down to only two obvious outcomes, we either reach a point of technological sophistication enough to feed all peoples, travel the stars and become a truly immortal species. Or will die in the process of trying by destroying ourselves with our own inventions. It really comes down to something quite simple and not technologically dependent. It all depends on how mature this species really is or can become, and that is still sort of up in the air at this point. I just advocate for people to put their hope in more practical solutions rather than those that have failed us time and again, and that by design will continue to fail.
-
A drastic change? No. But I think if we keep pecking at it here and there, making tiny baby dents, eventually something will give.
Any system tends towards an increase of entropy, not a decrease. Keep poking it and all we'll have is system full of holes that is unusable, but there is no replacement.
-
As a Scotsman, for the love of god don't vote Trump, he's already tried to turn Scotland into one big golf course, he'd only use the presidential influence to get the job done properly.
-
He's placed a massive amount of investment in Scotland. I don't see that as a negative... He's done more for you than Hillary ever will.
-
I'd just rather not be living in a sand trap on the fairway at the 296th hole
-
Judging by the results of super Tuesday, what was kind of a joke is now looking pretty serious. Trump could actually win this thing. Having stayed at various trump hotels, I will say this much, if he turns Scotland into a golf course, it will be pretty high end.
-
At least Trump takes security and the truth seriously. The left don't. That's why we're waking up more and more these days with bombings and death. If the choice is between that and hurting the feelings of illegal immigrants and migrants - so be it.
-
I hear Wikileaks might be about to crap all over Hilary with the wondrous emails she's been hiding.
-
I hear Wikileaks might be about to crap all over Hilary with the wondrous emails she's been hiding.
I sincerely hope so. I understand those that don't want Trump in charge - but I really really don't understand those that DO want her.
-
At least Trump takes security and the truth seriously.
Security? Yes. The truth? No, not remotely. Almost everything he says is verifiably false, including frequent remarks about his own past statements.
-
He's the least politically correct politician there is, which automatically makes him the most truthful. I don't doubt he isn't perfect - but compared to the rest, he's a breath of fresh air. If politicians and public figures were more truthful, Trump wouldn't have the support he does. But, even now, most want to carry on sweeping issues under the carpet rather than tackle them. And then they turn around playing the race card or other ad hominem arguments to silence him. They aren't taking ANY responsibility for their own failings. And they don't care. I'm sure Obozo actually understands that, for example, Islam isn't a religion of peace - but he's far too busy pushing his face to the trough and bowing down to people who supply his party with money to care.
This is seen in virtually all "democracies". The guys at the top are setting laws that will never affect them, and they are not subject to the results of their own actions either. That's why modern style democracy is another failure. It all stems from the fact that their power stems from the people, and the people are generally ignorant and easily molded by the media or state into a being a conformist automaton. It doesn't change until a particular situation becomes untenable - then suddenly there is revolution. But if people weren't so thick or easily corrupted, it wouldn't come to that in the first place.
-
Can... Can I just say that Sanders is infinitely more truthful?
-
Sanders has friendlier policies that don't benefit rich people and companies over us peasants most of the time but I don't think that makes him more 'truthful'. It just means he's a chill dood. Trump isn't as chill, but you don't know if he's truthful. Neither have any power to make action on their stances except bash the other guy on tv.
-
Sanders has friendlier policies that don't benefit rich people and companies over us peasants most of the time but I don't think that makes him more 'truthful'. It just means he's a chill dood. Trump isn't as chill, but you don't know if he's truthful. Neither have any power to make action on their stances except bash the other guy on tv.
There are two reasons why Sanders won't win:
1) The Clinton family is connected to many of the liberal American news outlets, so most Americans don't know that Sanders is beating Hillary in the popular vote by a huge margin (as far as elections go).
2) Democrats don't want him to win, so they won't nominate him to be the democratic candidate.
Luckily, Democrats are so good at losing unlosable elections that they will nominate Hillary, which loses to Trump in virtually every poll you look at. So at the very least, we won't have Hillary unless she cheats to get elected.
-
Isn't another problem that the democrats have super delegates who are all voting for her?
-
Isn't another problem that the democrats have super delegates who are all voting for her?
The superdelegates don't actually mean anything unless neither candidate has enough normal delegates. They're just tiebreakers. Theoretically that is, because the whole process is total meaningless bullstrawberries anyway.
-
The election process made a lot more sense when there were a few hundred million less people. It didn't scale well to where we are now population/technology wise
-
I'd have liked to see Ben Carson win too - he seems like a nice dude who can bring people together. He's not as polarizing as Trump or Hillary (even though I like Trump ;) ) But I also hear he doesn't believe evolution and so on - and has made some pretty silly comments.
Still, he really strikes me as a nice person. And at least he actually has a qualification in something meaningful.
-
I'll answer without actually knowing the other participant your éléction, I focus mainly has a Trump! Yesterday, my country suffers attrocités on Brussels, Donald Trump, rather than being the support to victims, and to encourage our country do the same struggle awful lot of countries in the world, was present to "draw a wall "with our country, I have no understand you if you vote for this moron! This is a divisive, racist and bring your country into a war on and some and not against Daesh but against a big part of our world at all! Never forget that a Muslim is a Muslim and a terrorist is a terrorist (he does not bat in the name of their religion but in the name of an ideology) terrorists are tiny parts of the world, then think before to vote for a fascist! You will bring us an American Hitler! Your country is based on a multitude of nationality, must be pure strain that does not exist currently US home ... Never forget! Like many European, I have an American dream, because for me it is the most beautiful country in the world! But in these conditions, it will become one of the most horrible.
Sorry for my English, I have never learned the language.
Good day to all :)
-
It isn't divisive or racist to protect your own country. Your country (like my country) is insane, and allows people in unchecked and then wonders why it is blown to bits. Not just that - it does nothing to address the reasons these people (often their "own citizens") do what they do - the life of Muhammad (a man who plundered and conquered). All your politicians care about is sweeping problems under the carpet and hoping it will all go away. Japan has one of the most strict Visa systems in the world. Try going there without a job and see what happens. No-one calls them racist.
The government's first duty is to its OWN PEOPLE. Trump wants to ban Muslims from outside the US until he is satisfied there is no security risk. Do you think it's ok to allow migrants or other non-profiled Muslims in from abroad and then hope they don't cause mayhem? Are you prepared to take responsibility for such a reckless decision? Because I'm not. Japan doesn't suffer this nonsense - and nor do many nations - because they put their own safety above political correctness.
Also, Islam is not a race. This is nothing to do with colour. It is everything to do with followers of a death cult. More power to Trump that he wants proper controls in place - and wants to seal off Mexico to stop illegal immigrants who, by and large, are bound to impact negatively on the economy - and on crime levels.
Some of us are fed up of political correctness, do-gooders, the race card, and leftism entirely. People like you are, unfortunately, a problem. You'll keep shouting racist and doing nothing - and eventually people will turn to someone far worse than Trump because they are being ignored. You reap what you sow.
-
Confirm profile is quite normal, but not talking about criminal profile and others, only Muslim! I am not a Muslim, to be honest I'm even atheist, so I defend any religion, but in relation to dismiss a Muslim, it is not correct at all ... China's political e l considers also quite satisfactory either, if I recall canada do the same thing about work. This is something normal! And I would see this win here, but never rejected a Muslim because he is a Muslim, it would come to say that we must reject blind because he can not see anything? A disabled because it no longer works? Or can be simply tolerated only blond with blue eyes? I have a father in a wheelchair! A guy who is courageous and who would do anything to serve his country if he had rights, in France I see the FN that grew in strength, here in Belgium, I also expected, recalled our past ... and you stop these stupid things ... We're human first!
-
When the IRA were going around blowing people up in Britain, we profiled Irish people. It wasn't racist - it was sane. America doesn't owe you anything. It doesn't HAVE TO do anything. Its people decide whether they are willing to allow anyone to enter. That's their prerogative - and you have no right to anything outside of your own country.
If you want to take responsibility for any carnage that ensues from open border policy - be my guest. Just leave that philosophy in your own country.
Human first? So what? I couldn't give a monkey's. I care about innocent humans - not would be killers. It's about time we had someone with some balls to say NO MORE.
-
many radicals are rejected your security. I do not at all share your opinion .. Madness brings madness. In fact, the bombing of Paris . C was a resident of the country since its birth.
-
That's only partially true. One of them was certainly not from France. Islam has its own law. Muslims follow Muhammad's example, so where they are born is largely irrelevant, especially when your country does nothing to address the issues that exist. Virtually all Muslim countries have serious internal issues, especially regarding basic freedoms.
I don't share your opinion because thousands have died because of it. I don't have any blood of innocent people on my hands - directly or indirectly. I wouldn't have had an open border policy - and my country would have been better for it. If your country wasn't so tolerant to the intolerant, you'd also be better for it.
Just don't be surprised that the Right are on the rise, or that many people start to shift their opinions because they are tired of seeing body parts. :)
-
I don't particularly like Morgan (and he wouldn't vote for Trump - at least not before), but it's still a decent article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3504893/PIERS-MORGAN-comes-terror-isn-t-time-started-listening-seriously-Trump.html
and so is this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3506043/KATIE-HOPKINS-hell-solidarity-Europe-willing-accept-Muslim-terror-simply-new-normal-t-afford-stay-it.html
Until then you can draw cartoons, light up the Eiffel Tower, start a hashtag and carry on catching the Underground all you want. You can even pretend you are standing up to the suicide bombers. You can even make out Islam is the religion of peace, as Channel 4 do on a nightly basis.
The Managing Editor of Channel 4 News tweeted me last night, asking if I would share a picture of the people of Belgium chalking words of defiance in the public square as if they were all suddenly infantilised by their impotence.
I refused.
Because, you see, you are not standing up to terror. You are normalising it. Giving it a shiny coat. Pretending it's all going to be OK because we know what to do when bad stuff happens.
-
This is basically totally unrelated, but it is my all time favorite Piers Morgan interview relating to American policy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWQPZ-taYBs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWQPZ-taYBs)
Edit: Does anyone know the gun control policies between trump/clinton/bernie?
-
Trump is pro constitution in every way where guns are concerned. He also carries a gun with him at all times - and rightly so in his profession. Trump wants concealed carry permits in all 50 states.
Bernie wants a lot more restrictions. I could have guessed that without looking :P
Clinton wants restrictions. But she is not against them as much as Bernie is.
-
Makes sense, I would be packing some heat too if I talked as much strawberrys as Trump, especially about Mexican drug cartels.
Have you guys taken one of these: https://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz (https://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz)
It asks your opinions on all the big political issues, then tells you which candidate you actually side with. It is amazing how uninformed a lot of voters are, a lot of people vote just based on which personality they like/how religious they are.
Utah evidently loves Ted Cruz -- I wonder why.
-
Mine came back 86% in favour of Trump, 80% with Cruz, 41% with Killary, and 24% with the commie Sanders.
Issues me and Donald disagree on:
1. I believe in gun control for the mentally ill and criminals.
2. I believe children should be required to be vaccinated.
3. I do not believe those on welfare should be subject to drug tests.
4. I believe people on no fly list should be banned from guns and ammo.
5. I believe the government should fund space travel. I take this stance because I am well aware of the contributions to science NASA makes as a result of it. I think Donald is thinking of this in the rigid terms of "hand outs". A lot of people fail to see the massive contributions we gain in other areas because of this - especially aviation technology.
-
Issues me and Donald disagree on:
1. I believe in gun control for the mentally ill and criminals.
2. I believe children should be required to be vaccinated.
3. I do not believe those on welfare should be subject to drug tests.
4. I believe people on no fly list should be banned from guns and ammo.
5. I believe the government should fund space travel. I take this stance because I am well aware of the contributions to science NASA makes as a result of it. I think Donald is thinking of this in the rigid terms of "hand outs". A lot of people fail to see the massive contributions we gain in other areas because of this - especially aviation technology.
I would have a really hard time talking to someone who was against all of those things. What kind of society would we have if everyone felt this way?
1. The most dangerous group of people should definitely have guns
2. Everyone has polio at Disney Land
3. Nobody who would genuinely benefit from welfare would get it
4. Definitely give watched criminals guns
5. Space is stupid and expensive, let's not even bother
That kind of world sounds really dumb to me, I'd prob move to Canada
-
I understand his stance on guns - he believes in total freedom (assuming that site is correct) there because of the possibility of corruption by government to curtail freedom. I disagree with total freedom on that issue.
He's not happy with giving state money away, whereas I am a little more lenient . Not totally - we agree on many of the other things. I am against Obamacare in its current form - and Obamacare will only get more socialist. NHS over here is much the same. A good idea that's being abused and always has been abused.
On other issues, though, I believe he's spot on. I find Sanders and Hillary's view of allowing thousands of unvetted migrants into the country appalling - the same I do with no true mexican border.
The one thing I totally disagree with him on is drug tests for those on welfare. You can't go around testing innocent people because they are poor. That's a violation too far, even for me :-D But that would never be allowed anyway.
But clearly, we will disagree on certain issues with every politician. 86% will do for me :P
-
Hmmm I wonder if this kind of tolerance and liberal love-in could have something to do with the problems Belgium experiences. I wonder.....
2014:
Two Muslim politicians, who just won municipal elections in Belgium's capital, Brussels, on October 14, have vowed to
implement Islamic Sharia law in Belgium.
The two candidates, Lhoucine Aït Jeddig and Redouane Ahrouch, both from the fledgling Islam Party, won seats in two heavily Islamized municipalities of Brussels, Molenbeek-Saint-Jean and Anderlecht, respectively.
During a post-election press conference in Brussels on October 25, the two future councilors, who will be officially sworn in on December 3, said they regard their election as key to the assertion of the Muslim community in Belgium.
"We are elected Islamists but above all we are Muslims," Ahrouch said. "Islam is compatible with the laws of the Belgian people. As elected Muslims, we embrace the Koran and the tradition of the Prophet Mohammed. We believe Islam is a universal religion. Our presence on the town council will give us the opportunity to express ourselves," said Ahrouch, who refuses to shake hands or make eye contact with females in public.
You see, the issue is this: Islam is not a religion of peace, and it is not going to go away. As soon as it has enough followers, the host laws are changed - either through the vote or through violence - though usually by both (this has been seen through history numerous times). It all comes down to numbers. If you allow a disgusting ideology to spread - then it will. I think what most on the left forget is that Hitler didn't go away by appeasement or by hope. He and his conquering ideology had to be fought and, by the time everyone realized that, it claimed around 50 million lives. He was also elected.
It isn't clever or nice or enlightened to tolerate something that is the most intolerant ideology mankind has ever known. Sooner or later, people will wake up to this reality. But it seems we need a lot more arms and legs to be detached before the penny drops. Belgium is being conquered at an alarming rate - go and look online at what is going on there. And in large parts of France too. Not to mention here in Britain. Made even worse by Merkel, who sees no issue in inviting over ONE MILLION migrants into her country completely and utterly unvetted.
What kind of crazy lunatics do we have governing us? And when will people start to realize their children's future is at stake?
-
Tribalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism)
You see, the issue is this: Islam is not a religion of peace, and it is not going to go away. As soon as it has enough followers, the host laws are changed - either through the vote or through violence - though usually by both (this has been seen through history numerous times).
That is unfair and bias; <Insert Group Here> has done it also. Lets just look at how the English have done this to countless cultures and on just about every content of the planet...
Tribalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism) has no place in our world any longer. We as a species can do better then bickering with one another.
-
Sanders has friendlier policies that don't benefit rich people and companies over us peasants most of the time but I don't think that makes him more 'truthful'. It just means he's a chill dood. Trump isn't as chill, but you don't know if he's truthful. Neither have any power to make action on their stances except bash the other guy on tv.
I say he's more truthful because he has a rock solid voting record, he has never changed his stance on any of his major issues, he is not beholden to lobbyists and superpacs, and has no qualms stating things that are true but you never hear a politician say (such as [paraphrased]"I cannot fix all the problems we face, and I probably won't be able to implement all the changes I am pushing for; but at least I can get it started")
-
commie Sanders.
in what world is bernie a communist? I'm assuming you just don't like him because he's a socialist. We all know how evil socialism is, what with our highway system, free public education system, police, firefighter, emergency medical response services, public transportation systems, and our military all being entirely socialist. We should go back to the days of dirt roads and 15% high school graduation rates, right?
-
I believe in socialism up to a point. What I don't believe in is the modern brand of socialism, whereby the workers get shafted at the expense of the lazy, unfit, and irresponsible (and don't take me for a rich person - I live on a council estate and have all my life. I am as poor as they come. A lot of my family vote socialist for the very reasons I HATE). Let's take the UK, since that's got one of the most generous health services in the world.
People flock here from numerous countries simply for the benefits (tax payers money). "Free" treatment. Then you have the people who have a crap diet, smoke, and don't exercise, who are far more likely to be ill. Who pays for it? You got it - the workers. Many of these same people will be on benefits long term, sometimes sickness benefits for the rest of their lives. Who pays? You got it - the workers. Women who can't be bothered to use contraception? No problem. Let's just have an abortion and be done with it. Who pays? You got it - the workers. And on and on and on. Who suffers in this world? The workers and those who ARE RESPONSIBLE (take someone responsible wanting to go and have treatment, but is put on a huge waiting list [very common here] simply because the NHS is swamped by DUMB and DUMBER). Leftism is a mental illness. It's always championing criminals and lowlifes over the law abiding and prosperous (which is another reason 30+ people are dead in Belgium).
Modern socialism isn't a good thing. It's a crap thing. It's every bit as crap as the opposite uncaring side was. What we need is a balance. A socialism where people can't abuse the system (Obamacare is the weasley opposite). Churchill summed up socialism as the equal sharing of misery - and he wasn't wrong. It's current manifestation is broken. Modern socialism may as well be commie, because it shares in some of its primary philosophy.
Also, I wouldn't put Sanders in charge of a bath. He's every bit as ridiculous and deluded as Merkel. He's a modern day Neville. When I am forced to side with Hillary over him, that's not a good sign. People are laughing at the Republicans and saying how silly Trump is - but nothing is as bad as those two.
5 seconds on Google: http://nypost.com/2016/01/16/dont-be-fooled-by-bernie-sanders-hes-a-diehard-communist/
There are a ton.
-
LMAO really the new york post.. if you lived here in the US you would know that they are basicly our "Sun" magazine very few people take them seriously since murdoch bought them.
background on the post...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/New_York_Post
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post#Murdoch_ownership
-
So what they are saying and what everyone else is saying - and the facts they do list are just not relevant because of the messenger and because you don't like the message? That isn't a good argument. It's a typical denial response (the absolute worst response is "LOL! FOX!" as if that somehow validates an opposite view). I've read enough of his polices and history to know he's a gone in the head socialist with a lot of commie influences.
None of your post counters anything I linked to.
Frankly, I'm not even sure what I am doing back here. It's not like anything ever gets solved by offtopic threads, is it? What does solve it is ignoring a problem until something really bad happens (more correctly, the situation becomes unbearable) and everyone then pulls together to do something about it. My way would be quick and relatively painless. But the majority seem to have a kick for long, drawn out, and deadly.
So fun days. ;D
-
OK, I've had very few posts here on this forum, but been lurking here and this thread for many years now.
DLPB, you're not alone. I remember how ever since I settled back in Western Europe (about 10 years ago) I was taught all of this about "human rights", "multiculturalism is nothing new", "tolerance" and similar claptrap, but off course that narrative's been around for longer. The problem is that we're taught about freedom of press, but there's virtually none: nearly the entirety of our press is controlled by a few corporations (http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-illusion-of-choice-ninety-percent-of-american-media-controlled-by-six-corporations/5472690) with very similar views that continue to affirm the very policies that are bringing ruin to the world. The link is about the United States, but USA's been controlling Europe since 1945 and (I'm firmly convinced) is behind the creation of EEC (later EU). No offense to Americans, this is just about the American government and other institutions on its soil that steer the policy of the continent.
Non-conformist voices are largely drowned in this sea of disinformation that preaches things that don't correspond to reality: "multiculturalism is nothing new", first of all, state-sponsored mass immigration IS new, most of Western and Northern Europe began it in 1960s and 1970s without any referendum or popular vote (in Britain it began as early as 1948). At most the parliaments approved it (like Sweden in 1975), but again, almost all politicians represent the upper class of society and break promises so regularly after getting elected, no one can honestly say they voice the opinion of the larger population. What was the next devious step to make it somehow look legitimate and natural? Buy up and beat into submission/ruin the editorials that noticed and criticized the policy. And that's where almost all of the population got its "news" from. Here we like to look down and criticize Russia, Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and other dictatorships in North Africa and Middle-East about how they repress dissenting thoughts, yet somehow we naively assumed this wasn't happening in the "free world". Popular opinion in Europe has always been opposed to mass immigration, but it was never given the due air time and all we ever saw was occasional angry rebuttals on radio, dailies and TV about how "ignorant", "racist" and "fascist" those opposed to this undemocratic policy were. And even when such opinions were seen, they had no effect on the governments, which even promised to curb it once elected, but surprise, surprise! scaled it up once in power.
Then, after immigrants from outside Europe gathered sizable numbers, the press started parading about how "wonderful" and "multicultural" our countries had become. Feature films, programs and documentaries started appearing and showing their increased presence in the society. The entire education from cradle to grave was written by people that strictly adhered to this new ideology. The newer generations gradually stuck more and more to the leftist ideology of the 60s sexual revolution (again, supported by the press) and were born into a more and more advanced state of "multiculturalism", which is where the perception of it being "natural" comes from. They were led through an entire education and environment where all of these myths were affirmed, not knowing about reality in the past and/or being conditioned to be disgusted at it. Crimes and problems that arose because of this development were covered up, especially that of Islam in Europe. off course, the Left also pushed the narrative of how bad colonialism was (which is true to some extent), while refusing to acknowledge the good aspects of it, along with claiming that "everyone is mixed", which created guilt in the former colonial nations and also tried to validate mass immigration by saying "we're all mixed anyway, so why are you racists somehow against it now?". Leftists claimed that they were merely "telling the vanquished's side of the story", which is fine enough, but then proceeded to make it the only acceptable one! Meaning, they simply reversed the situation. This stuff is, btw, what I hear in my university, which does not tolerate counter-arguments (I also know it's the case in most others). It's especially bad when students are frequently just as, if not even more intolerant of them than the teachers (http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/12/free-speech-is-so-last-century-todays-undergraduates-demand-the-right-to-be-comfortable/). Basically, aside from probably Japan, entire societies are taught about how evil their ancestors were, while failing to teach about the invasions and enslavement of Europeans by Huns, Moors, Tartars, Turks and the Barbary Pirates, as well as things like the colonization of Africa by Arabs prior to the Europeans setting foot there. I'm all for the negative aspects about us being brought up, it's good for self-improvement as well, but at least be consistent and apply it to everyone!
I've only told here a small fraction of how deep the rabbit hole is (I could continue for dozens of times the amount I wrote here), but in short, our entire societies are constructed to continue this dire situation further and further. I said after the Paris attacks (which themselves followed the January 2015 shooting and others before) that these terrorist attacks would increase in number, and sure enough, the bloodbath in Brussels proved me right. And off course, the entire media is silent, or in denial about the link to Islamic terrorism and the ongoing catastrophe of the millions of illegals and Muslims (comparatively few are refugees, yet another of the media lies) flooding into Europe, which sparked a vast increase in crime. What kind of free press is this?!?! Why are mass demonstrations all over Europe against this madness covered up, while those in favor of it get wide coverage? Why is Merkel putting in prison Germans that criticize this insanity??? One doesn't have to be intelligent to predict this is going to continue to get worse. One just needs to have access to different sources of information, and that's what the majority of the population lacks. Hence the total denial of reality from so many people.
Now about the presidential elections, I see all this fear-mongering about Trump, but echoing DLPB's sentiment, even acknowledging that he's not perfect, being the only likely anti-PC candidate in the elections, that automatically makes him better than the others. Also, what is wrong about stopping illegal immigrants from Mexico and being in a partnership, rather than constant antagonism against Russia? Political correctness is the disease of our societies that prevents honest discussion and constructive measures to be proposed, only allowing room for those points of view that perpetuate the calamity, while silencing a priori those against as "hateful" and "unworthy". I honestly don't see Donald Trump changing that much even if he's elected, and he may well also break his promises in that case. Heck, he may even turn out to be catastrophic as strawberries. Still, other candidates look even worse. He's at worst the lesser evil right now. Literally the only reason there is this entire attack by the Western press on him is because he's resolute and doesn't accept their prejudiced view of how the world really is.
P.S: I'll try putting posts like these in a more appropriate thread, but I needed to respond to DLPB's thoughts here just this once. This kind of stuff affects everyone, I really wish humanity could progress, but it's difficult with this kind of people ruling us...
-
Ben Carson said it right - it's all to make sure the liberal elite cling to power. They're desperate not to lose it. It suits their purpose to bring in tons of immigrants and other welfare dependents - because those people later vote for them - and not for anyone on the right. The last thing they want getting in their way is the truth :P
And you can only ignore the truth for so long. It becomes impossible to ignore when the situation is obvious to everyone - and people start rebelling against the false narrative.
I also hope that Trump is made president and actually does a lot of what he claims he will. I'd have to believe that someone who is this outspoken and non-PC actually has the desire to make those things happen. Someone who didn't would do what the rest do - ignore. And if he was just a load of hot air, the elite wouldn't be running around in desperation to stop him. They're terrified.
Also, thanks for the post. Not because it agrees with me - but because you put a lot of effort into it. The saddest indictment of the human race is that we allowed all this to happen. Well, not "we" as in me and you - but the majority - who are easily led by the media and their upbringing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0FpDCZdvHk
Yes, "it's fox" omg omg. It's about the only place you can see a man like Robert Spencer wiping the floor with these guys. This Imam is avoiding the issue because he knows the truth. And it's frightening that 80% of mosques are teaching this crap and that this Imam is the kind of person teaching people anything. Although, he is absolutely spot on about Saudi - which Spencer agrees is a huge issue (see his speeches online).
-
I agree with tarts.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3d0LOIMmQQ
I'll leave this dicussion with this.
This man speaks more sense in the first 10 minutes alone than any other American politician out there. He makes Obama look like he is - a weak and foolish appeaser.