U.S.A. 2016 General Election

[Larks2242 251]

Cruz clearly establishing himself as the Anti-Trump, It is time everyone teams up to elect Cruz.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

10 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

1. The problem is that the 'millennials' are fighting phantoms. They are Don Quixotes tilting at windmills. They're like soldiers still fighting a war they don't know is over. Previous generations had actual oppression to fight against. Now it's just first world problems. College rape epidemic/rape culture - myth, wage gap -- actually an earnings gap, homophobia - rare, systemic racism - exaggerated.

2. Just look the crazed 'millennials' in BLM inspired protests at Universities like Missouri, Yale, or Claremont McKenna, where they're grasping at straws to invent racism as a way to whip up racially polarizing frenzies.

3. At Missouri they were protesting because someone allegedly yelled the n-word from a red pick up truck at they gay black student body president, off campus, and because someone allegedly drew a swastika out of feces. That same student body president later claimed that he spotted KKK on campus, but it later turned out that wasn't true. They demanded the President of the Missouri system step down and write and hand written letter admitting his "white male privilege". A hand written letter!

4. At Yale they were mad at that professor because his wife wrote an e-mail response to their objection to Halloween costumes. Read that e-mail, it's a thoughtful and respectful response and then compare that to the video of the girl at Yale I linked above. It's a totally disproportionate response and the it is so hostile because these social justice indoctrinated millennials are spoiling for a fight. They find offense in everything because they're neurotically obsessed with oppression fantasies. They need to be oppressed, they want it, because it confirms their world view.

5. At Claremont they just seemed to do it because everyone else was on the bandwagon of demanding 'safe spaces' (i.e. segregated spaces for black students). The best part in that Claremont video is when an Asian girl steps up to the mic to say that white people can be good and that she was attacked with racial slurs by a group of black guys. Watch how the crowd reacts to that. Also notice how they can't point to any real incidents of racism.

6. These aren't isolated events either. These social justice flavored millennials are constantly trying to shut down people's ability to speak. There's a reason they're accused of being anti-free speech, it's because they are. They can't stand people with alternate viewpoints. Look at all those incidents where they try to disrupt conservative or MRA speakers at Universities. Now, they're perfectly within their rights to do so, but it reveals their authoritarian character and inability to hear out opposing viewpoints. Notice how it's only these types of millennials doing this. You don't see it happening the other way around. You don't see conservative millennials trying to shut down liberal events, you don't see MRAs trying to shut down feminist events. Why? Who really has the institutional power here?

7. A lot of young people are voting for Trump too.

1. Activists on the Internet are pretending to fight. They believe they are fighting but they just banter in an echo chamber against phantoms. University students sometimes fight injustice, sometimes demand coddling (leaving them unprepared for the real world after they buy their piece of paper) and sometimes are just vainglorious attention whores.

2. I know the full context and most of these protesters have seriously fracked up priorities and commit counterproductive means that are NOT justified by the ends.

3. True

4. I know the full context and all the complainers (including distant sympathizers on the Internet) to the reasonable and respectful email on Yale have made my enemy list. I interact with some of them. I try to maintain a respectful and polite atmosphere without holding any respect for them, whether here, on Facebook or IRL.

5. I don't know the full context but intersectionality is important and minorities can be racist; it is worst when historically oppressed groups turn against each other. It achieves nothing besides animosity to whatever causes the bigots support.

6. MRA's are not good. They as a group do not lend support to oppressed, violated, victomized men (female on male rape). However, protests to conservative speakers are annoying. However, POC, neurodivergent, LGBTQ, and other historically oppressed groups have too much power to be considered systematically oppressed on campus.

7. Don Drumpf is a rude, dishonest, attention-whoring, money-grubbing media mogul. He contradicts the truth, he contradicts himself, he contradicts etiquette, he contradicts business ethics, and he contradicts logic. He has zero credibility and is guilty of impeachable offenses (fraud, defamation, theft, usury).

[Sabretooth78 808]

4 hours ago, Larks2242 said:

Cruz clearly establishing himself as the Anti-Trump, It is time everyone teams up to elect Cruz.

Thing is you can't fix stupid, and stupid is attracted to Trump like flies to a cowpat.  Especially among the single-issue conservatives that think the greatest problems facing this country are a dark-skinned president and that there are too many people on food stamps (and while that may be true in and of itself), ignoring the far greater elephant in the room (what an apt analogy) of corporations on the federal dole and other systemic examples of the game being rigged against them.

As such (and I'm no big fan of his), I'm sure Cruz will fight the good fight but I don't envy his position.  What will be the true test of his character is if he loses, how he loses.  Will he continue to speak out, perhaps withholding endorsement or will he capitulate and shamelessly boot-lick like McCain did in 2000?  He might just earn my respect with the former.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

A demonstration of the sense of humour of the American people.

Now I understand why they have the Electoral College.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

20 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Furthermore, its a fallacy to say that just because you deem a problem isn't as big as 'actual oppression' (whatever that means) its therefor not worth bothering with.

'Actual oppression' means to actually be oppressed.

20 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Also, while you pass off those problems as myths or 'rare' you are actually demonstrably wrong. They exist, they are problems, not small ones or rare ones and they are definitely not myths. If you want to ignore them because you feel they aren't real because you aren't affected by them, fair enough. But don't berate others when they do feel the need to address those problems.

Yes, they are myths. Demonstrably so, but it seems there's no point in going over it because evidence doesn't even matter. They want to believe and can't be dissuaded by facts. Facts are constructs of patriarchy, and logic was invented by the white man.

I don't berate anyone. I'm just being critical.

20 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Another fallacy, cherry picking examples of protesters who seem a little extreme or who seem to be overreacting and use them as an excuse to pass off every student protester as being like that.

This isn't cherry-picked, this is a trend. How many examples do I have to give until it's not cherry-picked? Sure, not every student protester is like that, but that's not what I'm trying to say. I'm just pointing out a pattern in people protesting for social justice oriented causes in American colleges.

20 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

But if you imagine that there have been tons of problems where African Americans are mistreated, ignored and discriminated against, well then you can imagine that at some point something as stupid as that will set people off.

You mean if I'm a son of a millionaire trust fund kid like Johnathan Butler? The guy who lead the Missouri protests and went on a hunger strike. The guy that ran in front of a the Mizzou President's car then claimed he was hit by it (on video)? Oh yeah, I can imagine how terribly oppressed I'd feel. Poor them, going to college, getting a higher education, they're so terribly oppressed! Poor them, having their every whim catered to, getting national media attention, and support of the majority of students on campus, they're so maligned and ignored. Just look at how dark their skin is, they can't possibly have had a 'normal' life. They must have faced some kind of racial hardships! They couldn't possibly have grown up in an average middle class home, they couldn't possible be rich, or privileged. They couldn't possibly be brainwashed by an education that has taught them to perceive racism in literally everything. No, they grew up all in the ghetto where police shot at them every day and hillbillies in red pick up trucks yelled the n-word at them on the way to school. The horror. That's why they're so easily triggered.

The experiences of African Americans aren't uniform.

20 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Perhaps rather than pretending that these people are all idiots getting worked up over nothing, having nothing better to do than spend thousands of dollars on a college and then whine about how awful it is, it is a good idea to listen what these people say and consider that they, as members of a minority community in America, have infinitely more experience with the racist elements of the United States that permeates nearly every aspect of American society.

Yes, just listen and believe. Don't ask for evidence, don't look for facts. Just look at the color of their skin, make sure it isn't white, and believe anything they say.

20 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Excuse me? You mean aside from posting anonymous rape and death threats to the speakers at such events? Oh right, MRA's don't do that, it are feminists who do it so they can blame it on the MRA's and play the victim card.

You're excused.

They're anonymous rape and death threats, we don't know who did them. Could be MRAs, could be feminists, could be 3rd party trolls. Neither you nor I know.

But it's not like feminists have never lied to play the victim card. Just look at the Rolling Stone UVA rape hoax, or this story of a woman who sent rape threats to herself. The idea that someone sent a threat on themselves to play the victim isn't beyond the realm of possibility.

And if someone sends death or rape threats it's on the speaker to shut down the event. The vast majority, like 99.9% of these threats aren't credible.

20 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Aside from that, when have feminists actually shut down MRA events?

At the University of Toronto they shut one down by pulling the fire alarm. At another one they blocked the doors and prevented people from entering the building (don't know if it was 'shut down').

I'll grant you that they have rarely been able to 'shut down' these events, but they do disrupt them quite frequently.

20 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Unless we are talking about the really hardcore MRA/PUA events where speakers advocate such lofty positions like how they should be able to rape women and whatnot. Yeah, Feminists can shut down those events for all I care, if you want to use your free speech to advocate such trash you deserve your event to be crashed by protesters.

MRAs and PUAs aren't the same thing, but feminists can't tell the difference when blinded by rage.

What MRA doesn't advocate the rape of women? That's all they do isn't it? MRA stands for Men's Rape Association after all. But seriously, feminists of the millennial social justice variety accuse all their opponents of supporting rape and being an MRA. Although it would seem they aren't entirely wrong in the case of Roosh V.

20 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

As for conservatives, well again I can't really think of enough examples where liberals managed to disrupt a conservative gathering. Maybe a handful of protesters show up at some of them, but I would hardly call that disruptive.

How much is enough? What's the threshold of acceptance? Could you, if presented with 'enough' evidence, admit their 'disruptiveness'? Also define disruptive? I've seen multiple videos where they yell over the speaker, bring horns, heckle, physically intimidate people, and pull fire alarms. This has happened to people like Christina Hoff Summers, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Ben Shapiro. That is disruptive.

20 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Finally it appears there is some confusion over what free speech means. Free speech means just one thing and one thing only, namely that no government can tell you what you can say and not say. Everyone else is free to be as mean to you as they like if they disagree with your speech. So social pressure used in such a way to shut people up? Not actually a breach of anyones free speech. That by itself is actually covered by free speech. As long as the government doesn't tell MRA and conservative groups to shut up and ban them from gathering, their right to free speech is not breached. The argument that the free speech of these groups is threatened is actually just code for 'we don't like it when people disagree with us and criticize our opinions.' 

I understand that and I should have made the distinction because after I submitted the comment I feared this confusion would occur. However, behind the actual laws that grant or preserve free speech is the idea that people with dissenting opinions should be allowed to express them. Not just allowed by government, but that it is a courtesy people should grant each other. Sure, you have the right to use your free speech to shut down/disrupt another person's free speech, but at what point do you just become an authoritarian arm of your own political ideology? By using force to maintain your hegemony you're no better than a government using force to do the same.

Also, these people do want government to censor people too. They want institutions to censor people. This goes beyond just using the ability to protest. A guy in my city had his free speech on the internet suspended because a feminist accused him of harassment because he insulted her on twitter. People like the dreaded and wicked witch of the internet Anita Sarkeesian are going to the UN to promote structural changes that would limit what people can say on social media platforms.

 

10 hours ago, OcramsRzr said:

7. Don Drumpf is a rude, dishonest, attention-whoring, money-grubbing media mogul. He contradicts the truth, he contradicts himself, he contradicts etiquette, he contradicts business ethics, and he contradicts logic. He has zero credibility and is guilty of impeachable offenses (fraud, defamation, theft, usury).

He's also going to be the next President.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Something went through my mind this afternoon that was truly horrifying.  Who was the last political candidate with a disaffected people on his hands who made all kinds of loud speeches, many of them against specific racial groups like blacks, Jews, Islamics, etc.?  Most of you were not around for this misadventure, but happens that I was, so get out your history books.

Spoiler

Adolf Hitler

 

[Ocram's Razr 963]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/who-are-donald-trumps-supporters-really/471714/

There are winners and losers in trade. Those who lost the most due to Globalization and enforcement of Politically Correct communication are Trump's supporters.

I'm an independent because I'm also fed up with both parties. However, I'm an educated Utilitarian so instead of voting for whoever serves my personal interests/biases the most, I vote for measures which increase liberty and prosperity and vote for politicians of multiple parties. I have voted for Green, Libertarian, and unaffiliated politicians in addition to Democrats and Republicans.

Neoconservatives pushing Globalization and Progressive Liberals pushing Political Correctness disgruntled a sizable population. @LexusInfernus is such a Progressive Liberal but I find the neocons still around less disagreeable.

[GreekMan 246]

i think it is absolutely stupid to compare trump with hitler. Hitler MURDERED people!!!! were is the damn proof that trump will start killing people and building concentration camps..it is so absurd. Hilter was nuts. where is trumps mein kampf huh? where the bleep is it? hilter was a total racist right from the getgo. does anyone honestly believe that trump is a racist? come on people get a grip on reality. some mexicans are dangerous. some mexicans are murders and rapists. and thats what trump said. what is wrong with saying that? they are bringing in drugs!! what i cant say? im suppost to shut up and let people into my country without having a say. thats your perfect little utopia huh? and thats why trump is popular. he says things that other people never say. both parties sold the american people out decades ago. this is a political revolution here.

people are so afraid of hearing the truth. its is plain sad what is happening in the world. and whats wrong with building a wall? the Vatican is surrounded by one...Israel is surrounded by one but America cant build one because its is not fair to the illegals coming into the country? 

[krbe 193]

Oh stop whining. Donald Trump voters, they're not the best. They're not you. They're not you. They're people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems to the US government. They're bringing anger. They're bringing incompetence. They're racists. And some, I assume, are good people.

What can be simpler or more accurately stated? Donald Trump is forcing the most unwanted voters into United States campaigns. They are, in many cases, angry, incompetent, racists, etc.

[Sabretooth78 808]

^^ Sort of like Dolphy!  (Sorry, had to do it.)

Also, Stalin and Mao killed more people than Hitler (and among their own people, no less, if that somehow makes it worse), yet Hitler became the one whose name most ubiquitously conjures evil.  One could also throw Pol Pot and several others up into that category for contention as well.  In this respect, kill counts are meaningless; statistics as Stalin once famously said.  One is bad enough.

George W Obama has also killed more people than Trump (as has Hillary, technically) yet you don't see that being thrown around in campaign rhetoric.  Trump has, on the other hand, badly mismanaged more assets than most and now is powered simply by celebrity.  Just what we need for what is essentially the government's CEO.  Who is he going to name VP, Kim Cardassian?  And we thought too many monied interests alone were bad.

[LexusInfernus 908]

16 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

This isn't cherry-picked, this is a trend. How many examples do I have to give until it's not cherry-picked? Sure, not every student protester is like that, but that's not what I'm trying to say. I'm just pointing out a pattern in people protesting for social justice oriented causes in American colleges.

2 or 3 examples doesn't establish a pattern. You need more before you can argue there is a pattern. 

16 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

You mean if I'm a son of a millionaire trust fund kid like Johnathan Butler? The guy who lead the Missouri protests and went on a hunger strike. The guy that ran in front of a the Mizzou President's car then claimed he was hit by it (on video)? Oh yeah, I can imagine how terribly oppressed I'd feel. Poor them, going to college, getting a higher education, they're so terribly oppressed! Poor them, having their every whim catered to, getting national media attention, and support of the majority of students on campus, they're so maligned and ignored. Just look at how dark their skin is, they can't possibly have had a 'normal' life. They must have faced some kind of racial hardships! They couldn't possibly have grown up in an average middle class home, they couldn't possible be rich, or privileged. They couldn't possibly be brainwashed by an education that has taught them to perceive racism in literally everything. No, they grew up all in the ghetto where police shot at them every day and hillbillies in red pick up trucks yelled the n-word at them on the way to school. The horror. That's why they're so easily triggered.

Being rich is just one type of privilege and it does not shelter you from racism. At best, it dampens some of the effects a little bit. 

16 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

The experiences of African Americans aren't uniform.

No, they are not, but they are still in the best position to explain them to the rest of us. 

16 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Yes, just listen and believe. Don't ask for evidence, don't look for facts. Just look at the color of their skin, make sure it isn't white, and believe anything they say.

The evidence and facts back their story up quite nicely. 

16 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

You're excused.

They're anonymous rape and death threats, we don't know who did them. Could be MRAs, could be feminists, could be 3rd party trolls. Neither you nor I know.

But it's not like feminists have never lied to play the victim card. Just look at the Rolling Stone UVA rape hoax, or this story of a woman who sent rape threats to herself. The idea that someone sent a threat on themselves to play the victim isn't beyond the realm of possibility.

And if someone sends death or rape threats it's on the speaker to shut down the event. The vast majority, like 99.9% of these threats aren't credible.

The rape hoax is one example of bad journalism that has been used by the people that do not want to believe there is such a thing as rape culture to basically dismiss the problem, because that one story turned out to be fake, so everything must be fake. A perfect example of confirmation bias, placing excessive importance on singular pieces of evidence that support what you already believe while ignoring or dismissing all the evidence that contradicts it. The same is true for the idea that Feminists lie and send threats to themselves so they can play the victim card. You have one story and that one story will be used in every discussion as an example of how feminists lie and threaten themselves, as if its something that happens all that often and is significant enough to disregard their arguments and claims. 

And no, its not up to the speaker to shut down the event or decide to continue. Its on the owners of the venue where the event is held. If they deem they cannot guarantee the security of the event, they can and have shut it down. Even if the threat that someone is gonna bomb the event is probably not credible. 

16 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

At the University of Toronto they shut one down by pulling the fire alarm. At another one they blocked the doors and prevented people from entering the building (don't know if it was 'shut down').

Well fine, thats childish and stupid, not to mention dangerous. But again, thats two events shut down vs the god knows how many events they haven't shut down. Is that a pattern? 

16 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

MRAs and PUAs aren't the same thing, but feminists can't tell the difference when blinded by rage.

Not the same, but there is plenty of overlap in their attitudes towards women. 

16 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

What MRA doesn't advocate the rape of women? That's all they do isn't it? MRA stands for Men's Rape Association after all. But seriously, feminists of the millennial social justice variety accuse all their opponents of supporting rape and being an MRA. Although it would seem they aren't entirely wrong in the case of Roosh V.

Of course not, and I never said MRA's all advocate rape. In fact, some MRA's make pretty good points, points that even Feminist would agree with. The problem is that with those points often also comes a rather toxic attitude towards women, and a whole lot of people with some rather idiotic ideas about women. And thats kinda the problem with MRA's, its hard to take them serious, even the things I would agree with them on, because their movement contains so many rotten apples. 

16 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

How much is enough? What's the threshold of acceptance? Could you, if presented with 'enough' evidence, admit their 'disruptiveness'? Also define disruptive? I've seen multiple videos where they yell over the speaker, bring horns, heckle, physically intimidate people, and pull fire alarms. This has happened to people like Christina Hoff Summers, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Ben Shapiro. That is disruptive.

It happens I suppose. Although I would argue that these types of 'disruptions' are relatively small, they don't stop people from saying what they want to say. 

16 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

I understand that and I should have made the distinction because after I submitted the comment I feared this confusion would occur. However, behind the actual laws that grant or preserve free speech is the idea that people with dissenting opinions should be allowed to express them. Not just allowed by government, but that it is a courtesy people should grant each other. Sure, you have the right to use your free speech to shut down/disrupt another person's free speech, but at what point do you just become an authoritarian arm of your own political ideology? By using force to maintain your hegemony you're no better than a government using force to do the same.

Sure, but there are a few things that have to be taken into account here. 

First, yes, people should grant each other the courtesy to express their opinions. And this happens. No one is prevented from getting their opinions out on either the internet or in real life. Even if protesters disrupt speeches, it doesn't prevent people from saying their thing, its at its worst just very very annoying and childish. Only in rare cases is one side able to entirely shut down the other side. 

Second, conservatives of complain about how everyone else plays the victim card, but they themselves play it much more often than anyone else. War on Christmas? War on Christianity? The dreaded gay propaganda machine? War on men? War on the rich? All of that is conservatives pretending to be victims of something. And in the vast majority of cases we are talking about things that are so inane and non threatening that its hard to understand why they feel so threatened by it. So much of their complaints that they aren't allowed to say their things are conservatives just overreacting to criticism and their complaints that they are gagged are hollow. 

Yes, in some cases their events are shut down and yes in some cases their events are disrupted. But in most cases, conservatives just confuse valid criticism on their speech as 'censorship' and start crying that the evil liberals are trying to end their freedom of speech. 

16 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Also, these people do want government to censor people too. They want institutions to censor people. This goes beyond just using the ability to protest. A guy in my city had his free speech on the internet suspended because a feminist accused him of harassment because he insulted her on twitter. People like the dreaded and wicked witch of the internet Anita Sarkeesian are going to the UN to promote structural changes that would limit what people can say on social media platforms.

Oh boohoo, someone uses twitter to insult someone else and then gets mad when that person rightly accuses him of harassment. If I would insult people on Simtropolis, I would get banned as well and rightfully so. If I would start insulting people on the streets, those people could go to the cops and accuse me of harassing them and they would be right to do so. If you use your free speech to insult and harass you shouldn't be surprised when someone stops you from doing it. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

@GreekMan: Get your history in the right order.  Hitler never murdered anyone before he came to power.  He was just another mountebank until he got elected by a frustrated and depressed populace.  And I doubt he ever killed anyone himself.  It was all proxy.

The worst thing about The Donald is that he can get away with this because the other guy was so long ago that most Americans, who are notoriously weak on world history, don't know about Adolph the Aryan.

[inspire224 13]

The system is completely corrupt and lobbying is just another form of pay off. The people rarely have a voice once the political hacks are elected 
and do the will of the donor class. Trust me, America is extremely corrupt -- we are just better at hiding it that a lot of countries.

4 minutes ago, A Nonny Moose said:

@GreekMan: Get your history in the right order.  Hitler never murdered anyone before he came to power.  He was just another mountebank until he got elected by a frustrated and depressed populace.  And I doubt he ever killed anyone himself.  It was all proxy.

The worst thing about The Donald is that he can get away with this because the other guy was so long ago that most Americans, who are notoriously weak on world history, don't know about Adolph the Aryan.

Sooner or later the History channel is going to have to come up with new material and WW2 talking points won't be in-focus. Every single time someone doesnt like 
someone whether it be Obama or Trump -- they call them hitler....dopey is what it is!

[Sabretooth78 808]

Fact of the matter is WWII is probably the most recent "reset point" which has defined the world as it is today; or at least the so-called Western world.  So we should just stop discussing and analyzing it?  OK, maybe we can do that once we've learned from it.  Talk about burying your head in the sand.

Besides, if the focus at hand is "Making America Great Again (r)", perhaps we should talk more about WWII since that was the last major conflict we ever entered into justly* and moreover, the last conflict where we indisputably came out on the winning side.  You know, as a matter of pride, maybe it'll help our feelings.  Maybe we were doing something back then that we're not any more, and maybe we ought to try to figure out what it was.

One possible indication of slippage is the caliber of presidential candidates now vs. then.  Instead of FDR (though I'm not much of a fan of his), Truman, Ike, etc. we now have Trumps, Palins, Hillarys (ies?), Santorums, etc.  Tell me with a straight face that these people stack up.  Heck, even Nixon looks like a decent choice now.  At least a guy like Sanders could probably go toe-to-toe with a Goldwater.  A good reflection of the populace, perhaps.

(I'm more critical of republicans than democrats because republicans USED to be, or so it seems to me, the more intellectual ones.  Not any more.  They've also sold out their base and abdicated their principles far more and more often.)

[krbe 193]

3 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Oh boohoo, someone uses twitter to insult someone else and then gets mad when that person rightly accuses him of harassment. If I would insult people on Simtropolis, I would get banned as well and rightfully so. If I would start insulting people on the streets, those people could go to the cops and accuse me of harassing them and they would be right to do so. If you use your free speech to insult and harass you shouldn't be surprised when someone stops you from doing it. 

Oh they do crusade to shut people down on the internet today. Funny coincidence (although not American), I woke up to war types about this one woman who had 'discovered' that people shared disgusting baby jokes, often including paedophilia and incest and the like on Facebook. This must obviously be thrown off the internet, as the woman herself had been the victim of some form of abuse. As such non-specified jokes are obviously not 'hate speech' or intended to promote or degrade a specific group, the answer was that this is the police(!) 'approving' of such conduct. The logical disconnect is strong with those who are offended. (On a side note, in a search intending to find today's article, Google also listed similar attempts every now and then from various English-language sources as well from the last few years.)

Besides, you need only hold meetings discussing issues such as religion and free speech, immigration and integration, or abortion and women's access before the righteously offended turn up and disrupt you, unless a mad man decides you're better off dead.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

An interesting point of view.  Wasn't it one of the modern philosophers who declared that nobody learns anything from history?  Well, it is worse than that if history is not taught because the lessons are too painful for the people setting the curriculum.

"Ein volk!  Ein Reich! Ein Fuehrer!"  -- Guess who said that around 1932.

"Make America great again!" -- We know who hollered that.

History never repeats itself exactly.  But what if the sheeple get stupid enough to vote for this guy?  Remember, he would (nominally) be Commander in Chief of all Armed Forces, and have ultimate control over foreign policy.  Does too much power rest in the Presidency?  Where does advise and consent fit in to this picture?  Who picks the Cabinet (they are not elected, eh?)?  What controls are there that would kick in before he did too much damage?

 

THIMK!

[InvisiChem 121]

I have to be very careful what I say here, considering the POTUS is the top of my chain of command (no, not currently military). As I have seen Congress and the presidential races unfold throughout my lifetime here in the United States, I have never voted for a president or congressman yet. I attempt to vote for the least corrupt of them all. Unfortunately, the two party system has made this impossible. It really doesn't matter who wins anymore. They are all deceivers, interested only in lining their own pockets to the demise of the society they are supposed to govern. 

Trump may be outspoken, but this is all just a play of the media. He is a marketing genius. Bad publicity is free publicity. Coupled with the fact that he has more to spend on this election than any other candidate, Trump will be president. He will then do as all others have done. 

I have no hope that the system will get any better in the United States. The only hope I have left for this country is there is not another Civil War. 

[krbe 193]

29 minutes ago, InvisiChem said:

Trump may be outspoken, but this is all just a play of the media. He is a marketing genius. Bad publicity is free publicity. Coupled with the fact that he has more to spend on this election than any other candidate, Trump will be president. He will then do as all others have done. 

Mr Trump, in true businessman style, apparently spends less than other candidates, based on economy of scale (fewer, larger rallies, having a pre-existing organisation), as well as utilising modern corporatist tools, such as lending his campaign his own money (which will presumably be written off if he loses, or recouped with the help of the White House souvenir shop and 'Make America Great Again' stickers and banners if he win).

Messrs Trump and Sanders are really the interesting candidates. Without money, someone else must own you. The interesting situation, however, is when the Republicans can't nominate a candidate because of lack of majority; what will Mr Trump do then? Why would the Republicans believe that they'd stand a chance with a guy the Republicans didn't want in the first place?

2 hours ago, Sabretooth78 said:

Hillarys (ies?)

'Harpy' becomes harpies, so I suggest the correct plural would be Hillaries.

[inspire224 13]

4 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

@GreekMan: Get your history in the right order.  Hitler never murdered anyone before he came to power.  He was just another mountebank until he got elected by a frustrated and depressed populace.  And I doubt he ever killed anyone himself.  It was all proxy.

The worst thing about The Donald is that he can get away with this because the other guy was so long ago that most Americans, who are notoriously weak on world history, don't know about Adolph the Aryan.

Notoriously weak on history? We wrote a lot of the world history by saving Europe and being, regrettably so, the worlds daycare. We police the world from 
not allowing Japan to defend itself to keeping 30,000 troops on the DMZ and we get nothing for it. 

We fund the UN more than any other nation and its a joke. Again, a lot of countries including Nations like France receive US Aid. When we wanted to withdraw our troops from Germany they begged us to stay. If it wasn't for "Merica" Europe would be Heiling some Nazi leader or trying to get their ration stamps from a USSR leader that implements filthy socialist policies like Bernie Sanders.

[Thin White Duke 4,072]

@inspire224 I was going to try to avoid getting into this topic myself, because while I find it an interesting one, I fear I'll see a whole lot of refutal no matter what I say and that can be really annoying a lot of the time. 

What I want to say is that a lot of americans are incredibly proud of the military influence of the USA, when really most of the rest of the world just wants you to go away. The US military had nothing to do with the seemingly never ending conflicts in the Middle East, but yet it was deemed important for the US to settle it all. They've been there for about thirty years now if I'm not mistaken, and look at what a good job they're doing. 

Speaking of the "policing the world" situation, what was Vietnam all about? Was that the USA policing that a war in Vietnam was necessary to maintain law and order in the world? The US started it, and a police officer starting conflicts instead of settling them isn't doing it's job properly. I know the Vietnam war is a historic event, but it wasn't long ago, and the tendencies for such events to be repeated don't seem too far fetched, especially not with Trump running for president.

And let me ask you, what makes Socialism a bad thing? Sweden is socialist, and we experience one of the absolute highest living standards in the world.

[krbe 193]

1 hour ago, inspire224 said:

We fund the UN more than any other nation and its a joke.

Not surprisingly, given the heavy American influence on the UN coupled with American economic might. If someone tells you anything else, it's because they have no idea of history and merely political commissars for an ideology who despises that organisation That being said, the US is by no means burdened the most. The UK funds a larger share in comparison to its gross national income.

19 minutes ago, __B said:

Was that the USA policing that a war in Vietnam was necessary to maintain law and order in the world? The US started it, ...

Hardly. Not that I believe Vietnamese history matters much in either Sweden or the US, but that conflict had been going on for a long, long time.

20 minutes ago, __B said:

And let me ask you, what makes Socialism a bad thing? Sweden is socialist, and we experience one of the absolute highest living standards in the world.

How is Sweden 'socialist'? By what yardstick? The Nordic countries are mixed economies, just as the US is. In some instances government regulation is tougher in Sweden, in others its tougher in the US. Call it social liberal or social democratic; socialist it is not.

The Soviet Union was socialist.

[Thin White Duke 4,072]

The Soviet Union was communist.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Be careful what you say on the Internet.

The idea of someone potting The Donald certainly got more attention that it is worth.  Too bad the poster was a foreign national.  The Donald isn't worth a cartridge, let alone ruining your life.

Now, about how America saved the world.  Boy, have you been propagandized.  In WW I America went along with the Treaty of Versailles which impoverished Germany.  This gave rise to Hitler and his gang of thugs.  Then, the U.S. carefully stayed out of WW II while making a profit supplying (at one point) both sides with munitions.  If Japan hadn't attacked the U.S. they would never have entered the war, and the mess in Europe would have taken considerable longer to resolve.

The one good thing that happened out of WW II was the Marshall Plan which rebuilt the defeated enemies and sort-of befriended them.  This was exactly the reverse of the Treaty of Versailles, where the sins of the leaders were visited on the people with a vengeance (mostly due to the French).  General Marshall was one of the greatest statesmen that ever lived and you don't have him nor anyone like him around today. 

Just do a little imagineering with me for a moment and think what would have happened if Wendell Wilkie has beaten FDR for the presidency.  Wilkie was a PACIFIST.  Something like Neville Chamberlain but more so.  He would have given Japan the entire Pacific basin in appeasement if they would only leave him alone.  This would have left the Southeast Asia Co-prosperity Sphere run by Japan, and it would have been hard to keep them out of Australia and New Zealand, but we sure as hell would have tried.  The Japanese would have had free reign to take over China and all of Southeast Asia, and if you can believe the history books (written by the winners, us) it would have been a massive slave state similar to what Hitler would have created in Europe.  And yes, that includes Hawaii and all the other U.S. possessions in the Pacific such as Guam and Midway.  America would have been lucky to keep Santa Catalina.  The next question is whether Tojo and his boys would have been happy with that half of the world.  Empires either grow or die.

So, before you get too involved with The Donald's bandwagon, think what will happen when the wheels fall off.

[inspire224 13]

1 hour ago, __B said:

@inspire224 I was going to try to avoid getting into this topic myself, because while I find it an interesting one, I fear I'll see a whole lot of refutal no matter what I say and that can be really annoying a lot of the time. 

What I want to say is that a lot of americans are incredibly proud of the military influence of the USA, when really most of the rest of the world just wants you to go away. The US military had nothing to do with the seemingly never ending conflicts in the Middle East, but yet it was deemed important for the US to settle it all. They've been there for about thirty years now if I'm not mistaken, and look at what a good job they're doing. 

Speaking of the "policing the world" situation, what was Vietnam all about? Was that the USA policing that a war in Vietnam was necessary to maintain law and order in the world? The US started it, and a police officer starting conflicts instead of settling them isn't doing it's job properly. I know the Vietnam war is a historic event, but it wasn't long ago, and the tendencies for such events to be repeated don't seem too far fetched, especially not with Trump running for president.

And let me ask you, what makes Socialism a bad thing? Sweden is socialist, and we experience one of the absolute highest living standards in the world.

Did you miss the part where I said regrettably? I along with many many Americans want to withdraw from the world when it comes to our Military and let you all handle yourselves. See America is in a "damn if you do and damn if you don't" situation. When Ukraine was in trouble everyone asked America for assistance or insights. Europe, at any point and time can step up and be the change it wants to see in the world. 

Sweden, beautiful country, but very sad whats going on there. Essentially you are losing your identity as a Nation and your culture. I have a friend living in Sweden and your leaders aren't leaders. Their so weak and literally say "Native Swedish People Have No Culture". It's almost a Government that has a fetish for hurting its own heritage. 

The Swedish economy has grown a pathetic 1.3% according to my research which is sad. When was the last time Sweden really did something amazing? It's political class has slowly given away your national pride and the people dont mind because the Government takes care of everything for you. America while imperfect has been around a little over 200 years and with a capitalist economy has amassed more than any of Europe besides the British Empire which is now a little island. So Europe in whole is a mess and America is much more a mess these days too. Western Strength has withered away. 

[inspire224 13]

 

 

[Thin White Duke 4,072]

I didn't miss the "regrettably", but I thought you meant you wanted the rest of the world to offer more military actions, rather than those of America to dwindle. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Yes, the current Swedish government is a pathetically bad joke. Almost everyone I know agrees with me on that, but the previous government (which lasted until september 2014) had things under control and most people were happy with it. 

The immigrant situation, yet again, terrible. Some fairly major crimes, such as vandalism and assaults, are being committed in ghettos across Sweden (such as Rosengård or Rinkeby) where the population mainly consists of middle eastern muslims, on an almost daily basis, and the politically correct social justice warriors are butthurt about that fact that refugee children are being body searched at the border. I have to agree, that is unquestionably wrong. 

But there is no way of denying that these issues exist in the U.S as well. Sweden has a low crime rate, good education, good healthcare and is leading the world in gender equality issues, the last of which is basically just evidence that we've run out of excuses not to deal with the immigration situation. High taxes work. Government interference works. We are some of the happiest people in the world. The vast majority of the country is in perfect order. We just need to change the government, sort out the ghettos and sharpen the border control. And lower the prices of public transit, but that's a different story.

Return the topic to the USA, shall we? 

 

[Ocram's Razr 963]

3 hours ago, __B said:

[edited for brevity and clarity]

1. What I want to say is that a lot of americans are incredibly proud of the military influence of the USA, when really most of the rest of the world just wants you to go away. The US military had nothing to do with the seemingly never ending conflicts in the Middle East, but yet it was deemed important for the US to settle it all. They've been there for about thirty years now if I'm not mistaken, and look at what a good job they're doing. 

2. Speaking of the "policing the world" situation, what was Vietnam all about? Was that the USA policing that a war in Vietnam was necessary to maintain law and order in the world? The US started it, and a police officer starting conflicts instead of settling them isn't doing it's job properly. I know the Vietnam war is a historic event, but it wasn't long ago, and the tendencies for such events to be repeated don't seem too far fetched, especially not with Trump running for president.

3. And let me ask you, what makes Socialism a bad thing? Sweden is socialist, and we experience one of the absolute highest living standards in the world.

1. Only those who benefit from the American military industrial complex or believe nationalistic propaganda are proud of the military.

2. The USA became the World Police in 1991, in the vacuum left behind by the collapse of United Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.

3. Voluntary social-democracy is a good thing. A mixed/partially planned free market is optimum. The alternative is bad: Involuntary socialism dominated by the state (AKA Dictatorship of the Proletariat), where (communist) party officials live in luxury and everyone else lives in poverty. The other problem is crony corporatism, which fascist Italy and the Empire of Japan (Axis Powers) were, while China and the USA have become since WTO.

[inspire224 13]

29 minutes ago, __B said:

I didn't miss the "regrettably", but I thought you meant you wanted the rest of the world to offer more military actions, rather than those of America to dwindle. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Yes, the current Swedish government is a pathetically bad joke. Almost everyone I know agrees with me on that, but the previous government (which lasted until september 2014) had things under control and most people were happy with it. 

The immigrant situation, yet again, terrible. Some fairly major crimes, such as vandalism and assaults, are being committed in ghettos across Sweden (such as Rosengård or Rinkeby) where the population mainly consists of middle eastern muslims, on an almost daily basis, and the politically correct social justice warriors are butthurt about that fact that refugee children are being body searched at the border. I have to agree, that is unquestionably wrong. 

But there is no way of denying that these issues exist in the U.S as well. Sweden has a low crime rate, good education, good healthcare and is leading the world in gender equality issues, the last of which is basically just evidence that we've run out of excuses not to deal with the immigration situation. High taxes work. Government interference works. We are some of the happiest people in the world. The vast majority of the country is in perfect order. We just need to change the government, sort out the ghettos and sharpen the border control. And lower the prices of public transit, but that's a different story.

Return the topic to the USA, shall we? 

 

I'm glad you are happy and I wish your country well, but European models aren't for everyone. The demographics and total model is different. =) Government interference doesn't work in America that well and the less the better. Obamacare has been a disaster. Can't get over 29 hour jobs, premiums through the roof, and worse care.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

1 hour ago, inspire224 said:

I'm glad you are happy and I wish your country well, but European models aren't for everyone. The demographics and total model is different. =) Government interference doesn't work in America that well and the less the better. Obamacare has been a disaster. Can't get over 29 hour jobs, premiums through the roof, and worse care.

A) European countries are homogeneous (monocultural, mostly mono-ethnic)

B) European countries without oil have productive industry or get bailed out

C) ObamaCare is a mandate to purchase a private good (which is bad), socialized medical care turns it into a public service, removal of insurance turns medical care into a perfectly competitive market

D) The minimum wage should be tiered [by tip status, educational status demanded, physical exertion demanded, and every 10 hours working on premise or clocked in, telecommuting]

[Thin White Duke 4,072]

59 minutes ago, OcramsRzr said:

1. Only those who benefit from the American military industrial complex or believe nationalistic propaganda are proud of the military.

2. The USA became the World Police in 1991, in the vacuum left behind by the collapse of United Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.

3. Voluntary social-democracy is a good thing. A mixed/partially planned free market is optimum. The alternative is bad: Involuntary socialism dominated by the state (AKA Dictatorship of the Proletariat), where (communist) party officials live in luxury and everyone else lives in poverty. The other problem is crony corporatism, which fascist Italy and the Empire of Japan (Axis Powers) were, while China and the USA have become since WTO.

Yeah, sorry, that was some awful writing by me. That's embarassing.