Richard Dawkins suffered a stroke.
Serves him right for criticizing Islam, which is an oppressed religion, not an oppressor religion like Christianity. Also for word-raping girls in elevators.
Last shitpost from previous thread
>Scalia was found with a pillow over his head with unwrinkled bed clothes, according to the lodge owner.
>Judge was the one who declared it to be a heart attack, and she did it without seeing the body.
>She also barred the ME from doing an autopsy or even taking a cursory look at the body.
>Then she sent the body to the funeral facility to be embalmed.
>What the fuck is going on?
I don’t agree with a lot of the things Dawkins has said and done in the past few years, and even I’m not jumping up and down about him having a stroke. Th’fuck is wrong with you.
She should’ve been Jon Stewart’s replacement, goddammit.
Considering her show draws a full million and a half more viewers than The new, toothless Daily Show? Comedy Central is kicking themselves for not doing just that.
You can hear the bile she has for Hillary's "vote with your vagina for a vagina" politics, and she was the only one to call out Rubio's asinine "Delivery day abortions" AKA a Cesarean section.
So do I, but it's clear he can't get Hillary's tit out of his mouth due to company fuckery.
So Hillary pulls the Super Delegate game and Bernie gets it stolen from him. Whats the reaction given his support is Millennials?
I strongly doubt it'll happen. Bernie winning is still a long shot, but if he clearly has the People's support, the Superdelegates aren't going to overrule that. If it's 51%/49%, they might, but they're going to switch sides if the tides have clearly turned in Bernie's favor.
I hope but both establishments are doing all they can to make sure their bases don't run off. Personally I'd like both to fail at that and leave them in the wind all the way to the election.
The CIA approved narrative:
>putin creates syrian refugees and we refuse to take in syrian refugees because we are evil
>ISIS and FSA create syrian refugees and we refuse to take in non-syrian migrants who aren't refugees because their number vastly exceeds that of syrian refugees and the system in place for settling syrian refugees has crashed because of non-syrian applicants
Also furthermore, Europe had a system for resettling Syrian migrants for the first year of the conflict, and it worked just fine.
It didn't stop working until retarded amounts of non-Syrians started applying on the same visa basis.
The Kosovo, Albania and Serbia sections are all actually Albanians. If it's put together you can see Albanians alone outnumber Syrians three times over, despite there being no fucking war in Albania since WWII.
I'm mostly curious as to why he thinks the CIA wants to bring refugees in.
The CIA are just a front organization for the lizard people, obviously.
Dude like, nobody buys what you're selling, I don't really understand what you even think you're achieving with this weird grandstanding.
>Doesn't believe in the lizard man conspiracy despite all the evidence I've provided.
Post more altered info graphics, he'll be convinced soon enough.
Post the original, which you must have seen to make such an accusation.
So why do minority voters support Hillary? like what has she done in comparison to other candidates for them?
Bernie's nice voting track record is great and all but you don't put a a soup kitchen attendant at the helm of a battleship and you don't put a socialist at the head of a global superpower.
Maybe we shouldn't be a superpower any more.
Man, that would be wonderful. We could cut our defense budget by like 75%, reduce spying operations, probably get a lot less terrorism, and maybe people in foreign countries would stop hating us so much.
Wait what? what does that have to do with Hillary's minority majority?
Hillary is spending a ridiculous amount on propaganda among minorities, and she's the favored candidate by the mainstream Democratic party, which is also putting out propaganda for her.
Most minorities are working class, they don't have time to absorb Bernie memes on twitter, they get their news from mainstream media sources like CNN. Which favored Hillary for most of the programming.
>don't put a a soup kitchen attendant at the helm of a battleship
Exactly! We put an incompetent bitchy cat lady at the helm of a battleship. 'Murka!
I think this guy is schizophrenic.
People write one thing in their posts but the voices in his head interpret it as something completely different.
Hillary's "minority majority" mostly comes from the fact that--whether or not it's true--Bill Clinton is still seen as having done a lot to make the lives of minorities better, and people tend to associate a Hillary Clinton presidency with a second Bill Clinton presidency. Also, she's seen as being Obama's chosen heir. Add in to that all the stuff that makes her popular in general, like name recognition and recent national executive experience and it makes a big difference.
I still personally believe a lot of this has to do with Bernie not being well known enough, and the increased exposure he's getting form his win in New Hampshire (and hopefully his performance in Nevada on Saturday) will get more people aware of him, and of his history in the civil rights movement.
But Bernie's got another problem as far as making inroads with minorities goes--he sees a lot of issues of civil rights as being built on a foundation of economic oppression, and therefore feels that implementing his economic agenda will do more to combat systemic racism and the like than Hilary's policies. Personally, I agree (economic oppression is a HUGE catalyst for all other forms of oppression), but it isn't always inherently obvious to the public that giving people increased control over their lives in the form of economic opportunity will reduce the power of oppressors to bully minorities. And this makes him less popular than he could be because it comes off as tone deaf if he argues economic solutions to things that are perceived as purely social problems.
>But Bernie's got another problem as far as making inroads with minorities goes--he sees a lot of issues of civil rights as being built on a foundation of economic oppression, and therefore feels that implementing his economic agenda will do more to combat systemic racism and the like than Hilary's policies. Personally, I agree (economic oppression is a HUGE catalyst for all other forms of oppression), but it isn't always inherently obvious to the public that giving people increased control over their lives in the form of economic opportunity will reduce the power of oppressors to bully minorities. And this makes him less popular than he could be because it comes off as tone deaf if he argues economic solutions to things that are perceived as purely social problems.
It goes to more than tone. Race is arguably an economic sub-class. A poor white person in the U.S. doesn't suffer the economic and social disadvantages an equally poor black person does; a rich black man is still subject to racism. While serious social democracy (free healthcare and education, living wage, and more radical measures like guaranteed housing and income) would alleviate many ills that spring from or are exacerbated by race, without a plan of racial justice he's at best addressing symptoms. Not that Hillary would be any better, but she has the "cool by association" from Bill thing you mentioned.
That and Bernie's support of Israel, U.S. bombing of Yugoslavia, and (despite voting against them initially) financing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq undermine his credibility with opponents of imperialism. (Of course, Hillary is worse in that regard.)
>A poor white person in the U.S. doesn't suffer the economic and social disadvantages an equally poor black person does
Oh, I agree, but increasing the economic independence of more black people means more black people empowered to acquire positions of political sway. Increased economic power for black people means more of them can afford to be politicians, or to pursue the arts and thereby directly influence culture. Social stuff is important too, but personally I think that trying to litigate social issues is not an effective way to deal with them, whereas slower, more subtle shifts of culture (which can be brought about through granting economic incentives and independence) will do more to fix those social issues than telling pig-headed people to stop being pig-headed.
Like a lot of white people are nervous when approached by black people in the street. That's not something that can be litigated away, but if black people are everywhere in our culture, and not relegated to the bottom due to economic oppression, they become less "other" and that increases acceptance even by people who might otherwise be racists. A lot of racism happening in 2016 isn't racism that comes from people who *think* of themselves as seeing one race as superior to another, but from people who unconsciously give in to cultural conditioning and expect "normalcy" to be equated with whiteness, due in large part to economic factors placing whites at the top of most companies' chains of command and in the forefront of most media.
Just giving black people in poor communities money would never fly in the current cultural climate, but making poverty less of a barrier to success accomplishes much the same thing--black people coming from poor inner-city communities are then much more easily able to pursue higher education and have more paths out of desperate home environments than just rap and sports. It doesn't solve 100% of the problem, and I would never suggest it's the only thing that needs to be addressed to solve our problems with racism, but I think it's a much bigger influence on systemic racism than mere intuition would suggest.
>slower, more subtle shifts of culture
The counter argument I would levy is that justice delayed is justice denied, and we've had more than four hundred years of delayed justice in this nation. Incremental change ignores the severity of the evil this nation has continuously committed.
Britannia no longer rules the waves. South Africa no longer has nukes. We don't have to rule half the world. Of course, if we stopped another country would fill the void as long as the current global dynamic persists. But we might enjoy a couple of generations of pleasant social democracy and no war until we fall under the next superpower's sway or some disaster like global warming destroys civilization as we know it.
>The counter argument I would levy is that justice delayed is justice denied, and we've had more than four hundred years of delayed justice in this nation. Incremental change ignores the severity of the evil this nation has continuously committed.
I'm not saying "delay making changes." I'm saying that rapid change doesn't, as a rule, happen, and even when it does, it doesn't have the effect you want it to. Making slow but steady progress, over time, has much larger--and much longer lasting--effect than attempting to force a revolution that people will fight back against. And that you're not going to succeed *at all* in the rapid changes you want to make, because people are naturally resistant to change, especially when the majority will see no benefit from it.
Slow changes and hard work might not be fun, but they have the advantage over other methods in that they actually work.
>Britannia no longer rules the waves. South Africa no longer has nukes. We don't have to rule half the world. Of course, if we stopped another country would fill the void as long as the current global dynamic persists. But we might enjoy a couple of generations of pleasant social democracy and no war until we fall under the next superpower's sway or some disaster like global warming destroys civilization as we know it.
A single polar world isn't possible, stability is only possible with multiple major powers working in concert (if not truly cooperating). I don't want us to continue being the overwhelming bulk of force for the Allies in all conflicts because it lets (for example) the French kick back essentially on our time, but by nature of being the largest and most productive we will always be at least a First Among Equals kind of deal in the Western Bloc.
Meh. Let China do it. Or India. They're bigger and more productive than us anyway.
>A single polar world isn't possible, stability is only possible with multiple major powers working in concert
Putin knows that and has tried for years to get Obama to play ball and he won't.
Not to it's not an unbelievable stupid concept but they absolutely exist.
Cause ya know, that Bernie, HE'LL put those women back in their place.
China and India are not part of the Western Allies?
I mean India KIND OF is but not in the sense that, to use other Pacific examples, Australia, Singapore, South Korea, or Japan are. China is straight up the enemy.
>A single polar world isn't possible, stability is only possible with multiple major powers working in concert
Which America has never wanted or had. America systematically destroyed the military development infrastructure of allied countries so those allied countries would depend on America for supplies. This isn't the action of someone "working in concert".
Look at Canada, in WWI they had the second largest fleet in the world, and their fighter jet manufacturing was superior to America until it was crushed by CIA. Now the most advanced thing Canada produces is an armored vehicle with a school bus engine, and a copy of an American gun.
Besides, peace since WWII was guaranteed by a mexican standoff of apocalyptic proportions, not "working in concert".
Which makes one rogue dictator with a nuke very dangerous.
Nukes are useless if there's no way to deliver them. Bombers stopped being a serious threat in the 60s, with all altitude defenses. A single missile is easily countered since the late 70s, which is why all serious nuclear powers have arsenals numbering in hundreds of missiles.
Unconventional means likel container ships, trucks, trains and aircraft heading into the country are scanned for residual radiation.
Even if the bad guy invents a teleport device and beams the nuke into London or something, modern cities are huge and require multiple bombs to destroy. So worst case scenario, he blows up a portion of a city before getting BTFO by everyone. Which isn't the end of the world, Syria has been through worse and I'm sure they'll rebuild.
Nukes are only a horrible threat when major countries use them, by virtue of the sheer numbers and the sophistication of delivery systems.
It's really, really bizarre to me when people are just fine with the current wealth distribution in the US.
Just two days ago i saw a homeless pregnant woman napping against a newspaper dispenser, yet there are people who live in the exact same city who can literally buy islands--people who are richer than entire countries.
And people will argue that that is how it should be. It's awful.
>Which America has never wanted or had. America systematically destroyed the military development infrastructure of allied countries so those allied countries would depend on America for supplies. This isn't the action of someone "working in concert".
American allies are not military major powers, they are part of the allied bloc. The only other real military contributors are Japan (do not be fooled by the name, the SDF is armed to the teeth), South Korea, Signapore, France, and Britain, all of whom are really just regional powers.
The other major blocs militarily are the Russian bloc, which is made of rusted tech and shitty conscripts, and China, which isn't terrible but has no real projection because their military is more for internal policing than anything else.
"From the start, they said, Bush appeared to misjudge the mood of the Republican base. In December 2014, for instance, Bush gathered his senior aides and a small group of national political operatives for a meeting in Miami to talk about his coming candidacy. A survey to gauge the national mood of the party was dismissed by Bush and his aides as unnecessary. Such polling, a participant said, would have made clear to Bush the rebellious sentiment of the conservative base of the party."
Of all of Jeb's mistakes, gonna take a wild swing that he regrets this one the most.
If you want to blame anything for income disparity, blame this.
Look at what was happening before the war on poverty (late 60s), the number of the poor was decreasing rapidly.
WOP actually stagnated the poverty rate and prevented it from getting any better, and because populations naturally grow the number of the poor is skyrocketing.
I guess you'll have to stop reading the thread then.
What a shame.
Also not a great sign for Bush, most of his staffers are floating their resumes around.
Bush fell behind Kasich! FUCKING KASICH! Stick a fork in Jeb, he's done.
the /pol/fuck cannot complain of shitposting, for he is, by nature, a living shitpost
I have literally never even visited /pol/, closest i came was looking at screenshots of the meltdown after Obama beat Mittens.
Just goes to show, you can buy party loyalty and media coverage, but you can't buy likeability.
Inb4 he pays media to say dumb shit like "well it just wasn't time for another bush".
That's not the reason Jeb failed.
He failed because he's a fucking idiot with zero personality.
I wouldn't call him an idiot but zero personality nails it.
But his real killer? Trump nailing him with the cold hard truth.
God, even his obituaries are embarrassing.
As if Michigan wasn’t already in the news for all the wrong reasons: someone in Kalamazoo drove around the city and shot nine people, six of whom have died, at three separate locations. He was apprehended alive by police, so I’ll give you three guesses as to the guy’s race.
why would you speak positively about the clown? kill yourself.
How was I speaking positively about Trump? I hate the man, but I do not underestimate him, that's what cost Bush a 140 million dollar failure, Trump correctly tore into Jeb's Achilles heel while he was trying to ignore him and no matter how many millions Jeb spent he couldn't heal from it and the infection Trump started in his campaign was ultimately fatal.
>Ah, angry, misogynistic Bernie Sanders supporters.
Hello Hillary supporter.
How does it feel voting for a dried up vagina paid for by Citigroup and Goldman Sacs?
Feel free to join the rest of us over here voting based on a candidates policies, rather than their crotch content.
I am a Sanders supporter actually.
That doesn't mean that you aren't transparently against her for the entirely wrong reasons.
The list of reasons someone could be against her for are a mile long, why the fuck would you straight assume it's because he's "sexist"?
Stop assuming everyone is bigoted, it makes you sound like a fucking bigot yourself to be thinking about that 24/7.
referring to her as a "dried up vagina" may not have helped his case
>I am a Sanders supporter actually.
So you were calling yourself a misogynist? lol transparent bullshit.
List the wrong reasons you psykered out of my head.
I'm not calling Hillary a vagina. I've never seen a Hillary voter put forward a reason for support that isn't her vagina, ergo they aren't voting for Hillary as a person, they are voting for a body part she happens to have. And I'm pointing that out.
I can't very well call it a fertile, pink, virginal, innie lips vagina.
>So you were calling yourself a misogynist? lol transparent bullshit.
No, I was saying that there are misogynists, such as yourself, who support him simply because Hillary is a woman.
If I was an actual misogynist I'd vote republican you fucking retard.
Do you honestly think Bernie is going to go around suppressing women?
Obviously not, which I was mocking the very notion of "Bernie bros" to begin with.
And no, not necessarily, since the Republicans quite clearly lack appeal to the general public. They don't have a prayer of getting in.
Bernie Sanders would probably do more good for women than Hillary would. But that doesn't change the fact that many of Bernie's supporters *are* misogynists, who are against Hillary primarily because she's a woman, or whose issues with her are gendered--like calling her "ugly" or complaining about her not being able to keep Bill in line or things like that. Not all of them by a long shot--there are plenty of reasons to dislike Hillary even without bringing her gender into it.
There's no reason to bring up Hillary's looks or "bitchiness" or to ever mention Monica Lewinsky in relation to a Hillary Clinton presidency, other than misogyny. There are many Bernie Bros who do bring those things up constantly. Luckily, the Sanders constituency is getting better about self-policing and calling those people out when they do that sort of shit, but for a while there they were turning a blind eye toward it that reflected badly on the Sanders campaign.
>many of Bernie's supporters *are* misogynists
You are fucking insane.
Their accusations are fleshed out and even mirrored in this very thread (likely by you yourself but it could merely be another of your ilk) so by what basis do you make a claim of insanity regarding them?
Christ it's scary where the US and Europe are heading.
If Trump actually becomes President, we’re fucked.
Luckily the internet has already given me a proper contingency plan in that unlikely situation:
You could call Navada right now for Trump, he has a near 50% while his nearest rivals are Trump and Cruz are at roughly 20%, rather than disperse back to the party almost all of Jeb's support was devoured by Trump.
The frustrating thing about Trump is his continued treatment as a joke has allowed him to get within striking distance of the GOP nomination with double the delegates of his remaining challengers AND STILL people are calling him shit like clown.
TRUMP. IS. NO. JOKE.
You wanna beat him? stop helping him by consistently being a pompous pretentious prick who continues to underestimate him. He's got secret service, he's got the most delegates, he has the most wins, he very clearly has the embittered hearts and minds of the GOP base. Super Tuesday is coming and it is as of right now CRUSHINGLY likely he will win.
>TRUMP. IS. NO. JOKE.
He is, it's just getting more likely the joke is on America at this point. And he still has very little chance of ever being President even if he gets the Republican nomination.
Holy shit, these are the most out of touch and butthurt idiots, no wonder Jeb lost. some choice quotes:
"I don't understand our country any more," lamented St. Petersburg developer Mel Sembler, a board member for the super PAC that spent more than $100 million on Bush's behalf.
"The best man is now out. I can't vote for Trump or (Ted) Cruz. (Marco) Rubio is an opportunist who is not near ready," Lewis said in an email. "I will write in Jeb's name in November."
"I kept telling myself that won't happen, that can't happen.... I now fear it may happen," said former Ambassador Sembler, who now roots for Rubio but expects to devote most of his energy this year to fighting marijuana legalization ballot initiatives.
People have been calling on his failure and underestimating him this whole time, hard to believe "little chance" when he's already beaten every thing they said he had no chance of beating.
>People have been calling on his failure and underestimating him this whole time, hard to believe "little chance" when he's already beaten every thing they said he had no chance of beating.
And yet, he's managing only to get about a third of the Republican vote despite his "popularity." The only reason he's doing all right right now is because the field is still so large. Jeb dropping out is going to give Rubio's campaign a lot of benefit and it's going to give Trump little, because most Republicans don't like Trump and very few have him as their second choice.
Basically, Trump gets the nomination only if Cruz stays in the race for long enough to keep the rest of the party's votes away from Rubio. Even if that happens, Trump's even more unpopular with independents and democrats than he is with Republicans. So yes, he's done better than it would have ever seemed he could have, but that isn't some sign that he's suddenly become popular or that the things standing in his way stopped mattering or that his base is large enough to carry him to victory. His base consists pretty much solely of about a third of the Republican party. That is nowhere near enough to make him President, even if the rest of the Republicans vote for him under protest to keep a Democrat out of the office.
It's essentially impossible for Trump to win the White House. Even if he completely blew out the white vote to a level Republicans haven't managed in my lifetime, he would still, mathematically, need more than 40% of the latino vote. Which is never going to happen.
He's been polling well among them and the numbers have shown he's done well aside from the supposed immigration boogeymen and he's got crossover appeal which aids him.
Don't see how Hillary could do any better since they arm twisting the unions to tighten her support is the only reason Sanders likely won't be able to get it. They'll probably get one of the Castro Brothers to be her Veep as they are relatively young (Early forties) and shore up that Hispanic vote.
>He's been polling well among them and the numbers have shown he's done well aside from the supposed immigration boogeymen and he's got crossover appeal which aids him.
Can you show me these polls? Every poll I've seen shows Trump as DEEP in the negative numbers when it comes to approval from every demographic, including Republicans, who dislike him least.
>Every poll I've seen
You realize he went from practically less support than Vermin Supreme, to being the republican frontrunner. That's a massive change, and I find a lot of people are still viewing Trump as the guy four elections ago.
>approval from every demographic
He's polling better than Romney and Bush among Hispanics, and he has actually four times more African American support than Romney.
Hispanics who took the 5 years and the effort to immigrate legally do not want illegal immigrants. 78% of Hispanics support improving security on the US-Mexico border. 76% want companies and government to check IDs, which liberals lost their shit over in Arizona.
Moreover, even 2nd generation children of illegal immigrants themselves are close to 50-50 (48-44%) on whether to support illegal immigrants.
81% of first generation Hispanics support larger government, whereas the number drops to 58% for third generation immigrants.
Currently he has twice the support of the second most powerful republican candidate. Whereas Hillary and Bernie are neck and neck. Trump might not have as much support among the very elite of the republican party, but the rank and file support him, and he has the overwhelming support among conservatives and independents. So the GOP elite will have to swallow their pride and accept him.
But the overall point is that simply assuming Hispanics are going to be pro Hillary because she's a Democrat is called "identity politics", and shows a massive misunderstanding of the demographic involved. It's a massive tactical mistake on the part of the democrats, it just depends on if you're fine with them making this mistake.
>What did the Trump skeptics find to like about South Carolina? Quite a lot, actually. They’d point out that Trump faded down the stretch run, getting 32 percent of the vote after initially polling at about 36 percent after New Hampshire, because of his continuing struggles with late-deciding voters. They’d note that Trump’s numbers worsened from New Hampshire to South Carolina despite several candidates having dropped out. They’d say that Rubio, who went from 11 percent in South Carolina polls before Iowa to 22 percent of the vote on Saturday night, had a pretty good night. They’d also say that Rubio will be helped by Jeb Bush dropping out, even if it had already become clear that Rubio was the preferred choice of Republican Party “elites.”
Try to stay away from the Trump Believers and people who don't pay attention to the numbers in favor of useless factoids like "He won three states!" This was not a good week for Donald Trump, unless you only look at short-sighted metrics and cherry pick polls that support what you already want to believe.
Kasich defunded planned parenthood in ohio, his state, hopeful it would give him a bump despite already being on top. Almost a day later he has fallen behind trump in his home state for the first time, probably regrets that after headlines reading "Kasich loves cancer."
This seems tone deaf as fuck.
Will they actually address what caused the problems (rerouting the water from a less secure source to "save money")
Or just play to the crowd that they are "angry" and will "see justice" and yadda yadda.
>rerouting the water from a less secure source to "save money"
That wasn't even the problem was that fuck Snyder wouldn't pay the incredibly small price of 100$ a day for Anti-corrosion agents that would have prevented the water from eating the lead pipes.
And now Michigan will likely end up having to pay millions upon millions of dollars to hundreds of families for the next few decades.
GOOD JOB, SNYDER.
>And now Michigan will likely end up having to pay millions upon millions of dollars to hundreds of families for the next few decades.
That's the entire Republican platform. Save $100 today, pay $10000 tomorrow, and pray tomorrow never comes.
Navada a CRUSHING victory for Trump, nearly 50% of the vote, so much for "high floor, low ceiling."
>so much for "high floor, low ceiling."
Not....really? About 3-5% of the population voted (Nobody likes caucuses), in a State that has always been one of Trump's best (his name is literally up in giant flashing lights in Vegas) and late-deciding voters were just as hard on Trump as they've ever been. Plus it's one step closer to Cruz getting out of the race, which makes it Rubio vs. Trump, which Trump loses.
It was a big victory to be sure, and I'm not trying to take away from that, but this really says nothing about his ceiling.
And you're just assuming the remainder don't like him? How ostrich like of you.
>Plus it's one step closer to Cruz getting out of the race, which makes it Rubio vs. Trump
Rubio is Jeb-lite, he was Rubios mentor, this guy isn't going to win. He's probably going to step down for the republican nominee soon because he fucking failing hard everywhere.
>which Trump loses.
How fucking ignorant are YOU? Rubio and Cruz would have to more than double their current voter base to challenge Trump.
Right now it's:
Trump - 35
Cruz - 18
Rubio - 12
If Cruz quits, 26% of his supporters go to Trump, 33% to Rubio. This makes the standing:
Trump - 40
Rubio - 18
THIS IS NOT A FIGHT THAT "TRUMP LOSES"!
Even if Rubio quits, 17% go to Trump and 31% to Cruz. This makes the standing
Trump - 37
Cruz - 22
Still not a loss for Trump.
Shitty math like yours is why Trump is a threat in the first place you retard!
Furthermore, the whole republican field is:
Trump - 35
Cruz - 18
Rubio - 12
Kasich - 11
Carson - 6
Bush - 4
If Bush quits, 19% go to Rubio, 12% go to Cruz, 11% go to Trump, 9% to Carson, 16% to Kasich, rest wouldn't vote for anyone else. This makes the standing
Trump - 35.44
Cruz - 18.48
Rubio - 12.76
Kasich - 11.64
Carson - 6.36
If Carson quits, 24% go to Cruz, 22% to Trump, 16% to Rubio, 7 to Kasich.
Trump - 36.84
Cruz - 19.02
Rubio - 13.78
Kasich - 12.08
If Kasich quits, 24% go to Rubio, 16% to Trump, 10% to Cruz.
Trump - 38.77
Cruz - 20.22
Rubio - 16.66
And finally as you say, if Cruz quits, 26% of his supporters go to Trump, 33% to Rubio. This makes the standing:
Trump - 44.03
Rubio - 23.33
There's just no way Rubio wins.
If Rubio quits, Cruz has a better shot because 31% of Rubios supporters go to him, and 17% to Trump. That makes the standing at:
Trump - 41.6
But even though Cruz has the BEST CHANCE OF ALL to topple Trump, his chances are still basically nothing.
Barring some serious change like a major illness, Trump is practically assured as the Republican candidate.
>Barring some serious change like a major illness, Trump is practically assured as the Republican candidate.
It's going to be so hilarious watching everyone who actually bought the media hype about Trump try to explain it when he loses the nomination.
To whom? The Canadian "annointed by God" allied with barking mad "Blind Prophet" Glenn Beck or Marco "quickly becoming a pileup and tire fire" Rubio?
One of the biggest long running arguments against Trump has been "well they'll come back to us when they see he's not electable." But seeing how everyone else is coming off the rails (Cruz lost the evangelical vote in SC and Rubio is stagnate) he's going to be the last man standing.
Only chance the Dems will have is to get Sanders in to shore up the youth vote or if saddled with Hillary get her a forty or younger Veep that doesn't look like they'll drop dead of a stray breeze.
I feel like a lot of people are in real denial about Trump's extreme likeliness to be the GOP.
That said, I don't think it's at all possible he's going to be prez. He apparently said he could shoot someone in public and not lose any voters, but I think the opposite of that is true as well. No one is really lukewarm on Trump, they either ARE voting for him, or they AREN'T, there's no "well I might under [x] condition," so being that he doesn't even have the full Republican party's support, and the panicked frenzy that a potential TrumPOTUS would stir up in Democratic voters who may not have voted otherwise, I think his chances of actually securing the position is nil.
we elected Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and W twice. We elected Obama twice. Put nothing past the America. People, 'Poke.
>It’s probably worth re-emphasizing how few Hispanics have actually voted for Donald Trump so far. In Nevada, 8 percent of the turnout was Hispanic, according to the entrance polling, and 45 percent of those Hispanics voted for Trump. Based on a caucus turnout of about 75,000 Nevadans, that works out to about 2,700 Hispanics in a state that has around 800,000 of them.
The Houston primary was great, no wonder Rubio didn't say anything to challenge Trump, he was literally studying the man's entire history to catch him unaware.
>45 percent of those Hispanics voted for Trump
>almost half of hispanics that voted
>voted for trump
>this is very little
>because we're going to assume the hispanics that didnt have the time to vote at all, hate trump
P A T H E T H I C
Did you have enough hatred for Chris Christie? Because MAN FUCK THAT FAT SHIT
It's not "assuming" anything. It's stating the simple fact that less than 0.3% of a population is not a representative sample one way or the other. That is not a controversial statement other than to people who really want to believe that bad science that supports their point is automatically good science.
TELL ME MORE MR. SCIENCE MAN!!!
25000 people is a representative sample for Hispanics, and 75000 is a representative sample for Nevadans.
Is this how you always argue? Just pretend to know shit, and hope no one is educated enough to call you on it?
>Just pretend to know shit, and hope no one is educated enough to call you on it?
It seems to me, /pol/-kun, that you should not criticize your own methods.
What made you faggots think /pol/-kun was ever an insult in a politics thread anyway?
Feigning a lack of awareness does nothing.
I love how you refuse to get a name or trip (because you aren't actually from plus4 and don't get that it's fine here), but it's still super clear that it's you from all your stupid images and links you put in every post.
Lol Im the guy you called pol-kun last time and he isn't even me. At this point, pol-kun is more of an idea than a person.
Maybe we should give you a nickname.
Also, it's not fine. Tripfagging is only fine for artists or people who are useful or fun to troll.
From an outsider's perspective, one who happened to notice those last bit of this exchange of posts on the front page, that nickname doesn't look like an insult attempt. Even the part about the methods doesn't, more like criticism with a hint of mordacity.
>that nickname doesn't look like an insult attempt
No it totally is.
Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but over the years I've seen the "-kun" affix used numerous times and I can't remember a single one where it was meant as an insult. Examples include "anon-kun", "drawfag-kun" etc. As far as I know, it comes from either anime or manga and just indicates that the person the speaker is referring to is male.
You mean just suggesting someone is a frequenter of a 4chan's board is an insult?
>You mean just suggesting someone is a frequenter of a 4chan's board is an insult?
stop being fucking dumb
So Clinton Dynasty still has the connections to keep things at bay for the moment and push Sanders aside while the Republicans are basically a sinking ship in the face of the Trump Behemoth.
Rubio is falling apart just scrambling to hold it together and Cruz is just fading. I think the Beltway elite plan of trying to go against him in the General Election will damage them severally.
If Trump can communicate and give cover to enough officials to launch a full indictment of Hillary going into the General, its game over.
>If Trump can communicate and give cover to enough officials to launch a full indictment of Hillary going into the General, its game over.
there is quite literally nothing that Trump could say about Hillary that would make the public at large think less of her than they do of him but ok
The Republicans have made Hillary pretty much untouchable. They have gone after her so incessantly, over such minor things, for so many years now, that people just roll their eyes any time a new scandal erupts. There is genuine shit to be concerned about over this email thing but no one gives a shit because they assume it's just another Benghazi situation.
I prefer Bernie Sanders, but one thing Hillary has that he doesn't is nigh-immunity to scandal. A gift granted to her by the Republicans.
>I prefer Bernie Sanders, but one thing Hillary has that he doesn't is nigh-immunity to scandal.
he does, insofar as he has nothing scandalous to bring to the table
There's that "rape letter" or whatever from the 70's. Which is a bit of a stretch, but never doubt rival politicians' abilities to be petty. Of course Trump really needs to not bring up anything to do with rape, if he gets the nomination, since it's just going to bring a lot of attention to that time between he and Ivanna that he doesn't need the media to start covering. But Rubio or Cruz might very well be able to get some mileage out of it.
It's getting bleak, they've brought in Karl Rove, which is hilarious because he's the mastermind behind everything bad the republicans have become.
They've tried to spearhead SuperPACs to Run Negative ads (Its one of the reasons Kasich is still in the race as they've used his for that purpose)
And McConnell has declared that the Legislative Republicans will run negative adds aginst Trump in the General election.
Some reason the Beltway wants to Desperately defeat Trump regardless to anything else. I kinda want him to win just to see why.
Dumb? So you can't even explain why assuming someone is a regular of a 4chan's board is supposed to be an insult? I guess if that's how /pol/'s regulars roll, then that was, indeed, an insult. Apologies for the misunderstanding.
>McConnell has declared that the Legislative Republicans will run negative adds against Trump in the General election.
That is the dictionary definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
You are such a transparent piece of shit but fine, I will play ball
"/pol/-kun" is an insult because /pol/ is infamous for being a nesting ground of racism, misogyny, and every kind of backwards attitude you can possibly find on the internet, it's Imageboard Stormfront.
Now fuck off back to it.
>"/pol/-kun" is an insult because /pol/ is infamous for being a nesting ground of racism, misogyny, and every kind of backwards attitude you can possibly find on the internet, it's Imageboard Stormfront.
See, you can communicate like an intelligent human being, after all! You do seem to lose your composure rather quickly in an inconsequential exchange of brief messages on a message board, just a friendly note.
>Now fuck off back to it.
I'd have to be a "/pol/ack", or whatever it is they call themselves now, to go back. As far as I'm concerned, /pol/ was a mistake.
>That is the dictionary definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
In this case, not really. Many people on both sides of the aisle believe that Trump winning the nomination, or even winning the Presidency, is the worst thing that could happen to the Republican party. Worse than losing the election entirely with someone respectable.
Significantly less than you seem to desperately need to believe.
Every conservative out there would rather burn the party down than let the GOP keep serving the interests of people who aren't their constituency.
People finally attacking Trump now but because the Republicans are so splintered they are literally tripping over each other and thus instead of "devastating controversies" they are just making noise.
And that Mussolini retweet shit is literally why people don't trust media, when you construct a bot specifically to trick Donald Trump into retweeting out of context Mussolini quotes all you are accomplishing is looking like an asshole and giving credence to Trump's rallying cry of a dishonest media.
I actually agree that the Mussolini quote was a really lame "gotcha" that won't change any minds, but in the same 24-hour period we got:
>Hey uh I didn't get the three questions about disavowing David Duke and the KKK because my earpiece was of loser quality.
Which is such a lame lie you think Young Marco made it. Trump could just have said "It was a long, stressful day, I don't really care about paying attention when I'm with mainstream morons like Tapper, and I've already condemned DD in August 2015 and back in 2000 so shush."
Getting awful close to a lot of crow needing to be eaten in this thread.
But see even that seems off because we have two separate occasions of him disavowing the guy, once in 2005 and before that in 2001, what they should be focused on is how Trump could somehow not know what white supremacy is.
John Oliver did a great comprehensive take down on him but I'd honestly say it will have no effect, why would someone voting for Trump ever listen to Oliver?
What's even more awful is that the extremism of the others is just swallowed whole.
Rubio and Cruz wants to force raped women to make their rapists fathers, even if they want an abortion within, say, 10 weeks instead of 20? Carson says getting healthcare is not a right? Kasich defunds Planned Parenthood in Ohio completely just because it performs abortions (again, without receiving any tax money for abortions)? Naw man, Trump said something cartoony and crude so that's the gold standard of "Beyond the pale". Let's have our talking heads chattering about that like a bunch of basic, repetitive troglodytes.
I don't think republicans understand that lefties hate mainstream media just as much as they do.
Trump is kinda great in only this context because he beats them at their own game, like Cruz went "Yes, I will torture people with waterboarding."
to which Donald Trump responds he will bring back WORSE torture, he just uses empty words to reflect their madness back at them and the electorate eats it up.
Yeah, all the other candidates had to throw out the carefully-crafted dogwhistles and say the shit they meant just so they’d have even a chance of getting a fraction of the media attention given to Trump. But Trump outdoes them every time, and his bombastic personality makes hearing/watching him fling insults and advocate for war crimes an entertaining time (in some perverse sense of the word “entertaining”, natch).
The GOP has to worry about Trump because he’s all but destroyed any sense of decorum and “respectable” politics on the Republican side of the aisle. His campaign is the logical endgame of a Republican strategy of obstructionism, partisanship, and coded bigotry; he has let loose what the GOP has kept safely hidden behind a thin veneer of “respectability”, and it can’t put the genie back in the bottle. The Democrats, on the other hand, have to worry about Trump because there is an actual chance, however small some people think it is, that he can win the election and become President—and if Trump’s victory means anything, it means a GOP-controlled executive branch, the possibility of the GOP holding both houses of Congress, and a conservative-leaning Supreme Court. All of that sounds fucking awful if you’re…well, if you’re anyone but a wealthy GOP donor, really.
>rallying cry of a dishonest media.
Media is dishonest though, even Bernie has felt this.
Chief legal counsel Mike Gadola quickly responded, telling chief of staff Dennis Muchmore and others that using Flint River water was "downright scary" and noting that his mother lived in the city. "Nice to know she's drinking water with elevated chlorine levels and fecal coliform," he said, adding, "They should try to get back on the Detroit system as a stopgap ASAP before this thing gets too far out of control."
And they basically told this man and his mother to go fuck themselves. That whole top layer of government needs to be pulled off because god bless these angels who fought their damnedest to be heard.
>Every conservative out there would rather burn the party down than let the GOP keep serving the interests of people who aren't their constituency.
The only way to serve the best interests of the GOP's constituency is to ignore their votes.
This is worse than the truther bullshit.
Honestly he should just keep silent on it from now on, it is degrading just to answer at all, and there is no such thing as a right answer.
Also no one else is being asked these questions, not Cruz, Rubio, Berinie, not even Hillary. I'm sure there's someone in history whose last name was Clinton and who was associated with the KKK, and didn't she shake a white-supermacists hand? I want to know if she repudiates them damn it! And I want to be assured of the repudiation at least once per week.
Fifteen years ago
>Media: Are you against the KKK?
>Trump: Of course.
DONALD TRUMP DENIES BEING A MEMBER OF THE KKKwe're not saying he's not a part of the kkk, just that he denies it... that's just what a member of the kkk would do!
THE KU KLUX KLAN - DONALD TRUMP CONNECTIONyeeees let those two terms percolate into your brainwaves
Ten years ago
>Media: Do you agree with the KKK?
WAS DONALD TRUMPS GERMAN IMMIGRANT FATHER A NAZI? well no, but it's a nice title, let it sink into your brain sheeeeeep.
Five years ago
>David Duke: "All of the other candidates want to perpetrate muh white genocide, I might as well vote Trump."
KKK ENDORSES DONALD TRUMP! well not really, david duke is not a part of the kkk, nor did he actually endorse trump.
DONALD TRUMPS MOTHER HAD A RACIST PARKING TICKET! can you prove it wasn't racist? i cant
A few weeks ago.
>Media: "Will you repudiate the KKK."
>Trump: "Of course."'
TRUMP SAYS HE REPUDIATES THE KKK, DO YOU BELIEVE HIM? I don't
DID TRUMP LIE ABOUT NOT SUPPORTING THE KKK? we have no proof, but we're going to assume he did
IF TRUMP IS AGAINST THE KKK, WHY DOES THE KKK SUPPORT TRUMP? its a conspiracy
TRUMP IS A SECRET RACIST! obviously
>Media: Will you repudiate David Duke.
>Trump: Uh I don't know who that is.
>Media: He's a white supremacist.
>Trump: I would repudiate him if I knew he was doing something wrong.
>Media: So you refuse to repudiate white supremacists?
>Trump: Why don't you send me a list of people and groups and I can research and assess them for you.
TRUMP WONT DISAVOW THE KKK!
TRUMP REFUSES TO REPUDIATE ALL WHITE SUPREMACISTS!
TRUMP LIED ABOUT REPUDIATING THE KKK!
TRUMP'S SILENCE ON WHITE SUPREMACISTS SPEAKS VOLUMES
"TRUMP KNOWS EXACTLY WHO DAVID DUKE IS!" - RUBIO rubio is not paying us to constantly ask trump this question and keep the words "kkk" and "trump" co-located in the short term memory of the public
I'm not even going to vote anymore, fuck this shit.
In this specific instance he's not exactly wrong, the desperate attacks on Trump are servicing his martyrdom, the last twenty-four hours of desperate noise and controversy has simply given Trump better numbers.
Not really a surprise. Trump supporters would love him even more if he wore his KKK robes on stage.
Just a reminder to all you Trump fans that he's a terrible businessman and his only actual skill is Real Estate: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/29/the-myth-and-the-reality-of-donald-trumps-business-empire/
And a bullshit artist, who the media are presently helping in a bumblefuck attempt to connect him to the KKK. as I've made plain I hate the man, I consider him dangerous beyond measure.
BUT THIS SHIT? CAN YOU SMELL THAT DESPERATION? Congrats Post, now you've embarrassed yourselves and expanded Trump's appeal, now he's a shoe in for the racist vote and the martyrdom vote where it appears all the racial accusations are media slander.
>J'Accuse with more baseless attacks
Thank you for contributing to Trumps rise.
Not baseless at all. Polls show pretty unquestionably that Trump voters, while diverse on most political opinions, are united in two major ways--they have a strong tendency toward Authoritarianism, and they have a tendency toward racism and xenophobia.
I'm in college now, and I registered to vote back home, which is 3 hours away. So I think, "No big deal, I'm still a resident of Tennessee, I can still vote up here, right? RIGHT?" No. After going back and forth between two churches, having a bunch of 90yrold ladies be confused at my situation, making phone calls and having me fill out 2 forms, they tell me I can't vote today.
Because despite the fact that we live in the year 2016, the state of Tennessee requires that in order to vote, you need to be registered to vote in the specific county that you vote in. Nobody told me this before I tried to vote today. Nobody told me that voting in Tennessee didn't work like most other FUCKING states in the county, where it doesn't FUCKING matter where you are, as long as you are a registered voter of Tennessee and live in that state, you can fucking vote.
So now I'm literally the only person in this entire county that didn't vote, and I have to live with that knowledge for the next year.
>So now I'm literally the only person in this entire county that didn't vote
Not at all. The GOP has been putting in as many laws to make college students, the poor, and black people unable to vote as they can get by. You're in great company.
>claim trump is a member of the kkk
>get called on it
>shift goalposts to claiming his voters are racist
>but also include the xenophobe weasel word
I don't think you know what that word means. Either that or you don't know what xenophobe means.
I am going to laugh when the Dems win and you die of a heart attack
What xenophobe actually means
>one unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin.
What it means when you use it
>one fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin.
With such a broad brush it's possible to paint 99% of the planet, so yeah, it's a weasel word.
I'm not even American lol, the fuck do I care who wins.
So then your argument is that it's a "weasel word" because you disagree about where the line of "unduly" lies. But xenophobes would never consider their fear to be undue.
And you would always consider it to be undue. Therefore, weaselword.
>I'm not even American lol, the fuck do I care who wins.
Apparently quite a bit if you feel the need to troll for trump.
Even if you weren't American, which is a claim suspect to being a hastily erected lie to shield yourself, you should still care since, ya know, American politics affects the entire planet.
>What it means when you use it
>one fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin.
Actually if that poster is what I think it is, their definition for Xenophobe is closer to: "having anything but the most positive emotions about anything foreign, and especially of people of foreign origin."
If you think parts of foreign cultures aren't fucking awesome, you're a Xenophobe. If you're neutral, you're a Xenophobe.
Or, most pertinently to our conversation, if you're a xenophobe, you're a xenophobe.
>American politics affect the whole planet
I (difffag) agree.
>it affects new South Park and Family Guy episodes
>it affects the fresh new political memes
>it affects who will shake hands with my prime minister next summit
That's about it.
It also affects whatever countries he decides to take military actions against pretty well.
Not to mention countries that negotiate deals like trade agreements and foreign aid packages and such with the US.
After bernie, tump is the second most peaceful available candidate. Everyone else wants to bomb brown people and start a war with putin. Hillary actually started a cold war with russia.
The reality though is that no one cares about the american president.
No american allies care about the american president.
People doing business with america dont care about the american president.
Neutral countries dont care about the american president.
People being bombed by america don't care about the american president.
The congress doesnt seem to give a fuck what the president wants.
The president is getting insulted by people directly in his military chain of command.
Over 50% of americans dont even care about the american president.
The only people who care are the media who treat it like a reality show, and those few members of the public that consume that type of entertainment.
I haven’t seen this level of ignorance since the last time I was given a link to /pol/.
My kind are rational meritocratic egalitarian stoics, they wouldn't take kindly to an emotional entitled bigoted manbaby such as yourself.
>rational meritocratic egalitarian stoics
Is that what you define /pol/ as in your fucked up little worldview?
It drives me fucking crazy how many people in this country keep using the word "win" when it comes to elections. The fact that we keep thinking about it in those terms means something needs to change.
Yea, way to much focus on party vs party. Trump moved past that in his speech I've heard. While Cruz just kept taking swings at everyone else.
These terms are mutually exclusive. Meritocracy is a form of oligarchy. It is inherently unegalitarian.
Uh no? /pol/ are a bunch of nazis.
Nope. Egalitarianism means all people have equal intrinsic worth and should be treated equally. Such a situation doesn't prevent them from improving themselves or achieving merit.
Your mistake stems from the flawed assumptions of amateur philosophers, who mistake egalitarianism for utter sameness among all individuals. Anyone who wants to live in that world should shoot themselves, it will be less painful.
Well we are just all kinds of fucked.
No, I'm sorry, but you aren't going to make any progress with that silly argument. You support oligarchy.
It's not even that. It's the idea that the presidency is a contest or a sport that you "win".
Feel free to counter the silly argument if you are able.
If you can't counter an argument, which you yourself label as silly, I'm going to assume you're calling yourself retarded.
>If you can't counter an argument, which you yourself label as silly, I'm going to assume you're calling yourself retarded.
Or he considers you not worth the time and effort
Let me give you a hint which it is
I already have. You support giving more power to those who you deem most fit than those who you deem unfit. You would set yourself (or a representative of yourself) as arbiter of who is "meritorious" enough to deserve say over their political destiny and who deserves to be a serf.
You are an oligarch and a tyrant. You don't get to label that egalitarian no matter how you try to twist words around to say that "oh, no, it really is egalitarian because everyone has the opportunity to be more like
Meritocracy is just how nerds or crony capitalists try to word their desire to make it so people who disagree with them don't get any say in how the world is run, to make it seem noble. It is a desire to take power away from the weakest people and give it to yourself. We already have a better word for that. "Elitism." You pretentious fuck.
>You support giving more power to those who you deem most fit than those who you deem unfit.
I don't have any power so I can't give it to anyone, nor is meritocracy about one person deciding who is fit or unfit.
Meritocracy is about people who are objectively (not subjectively, not according to me) good at a thing, getting to do that thing.
Such as someone who is good at administering a city, getting to administer that city.
This can happen in an egalitarian system, it is not exclusive of that.
This is so fucking stupid that I can’t even get mad about how anti-gay it is.
Amusing how this shows that there actually weren't ever too many laws using the word marriage for them to get ammended to also provide the same benefits to civil unions, state government just didn't want to do it.
Oh, I see, you don't know what the word "meritocracy" means.
How about we just stop giving special privileges to married people?
No marital tax deductions, or filing taxes jointly. File your own fucking taxes like everyone else.
No ability to transfer social security or retirement account benefits from one person to another.
No automatic legal decision making benefits, unless a paper was signed beforehand.
No automatic inheritance benefits, unless they're written into the goddamn inheritance.
No automatic insurance benefits, unless it's a package deal by the insurance company.
No automatic visitation benefits, again, unless they're on the list of approved visitors.
Marital benefits were invented in the goddamn 19th century to help boost population growth, and to ensure a stable family unit. This was back when marriage always meant kids, which isn't even close to the truth now.
I see you don't have an argument.
>This was back when marriage always meant kids, which isn't even close to the truth now.
Nah man, the institution of marriage is still about raising kids. That is intrinsically the purpose of such an arrangement, so two people know their obligations towards the raising of a child.
Also what this guy said >>404897
Not really, YOU clearly object to that argument as part of your disgusting /pol/tard conservatism, which is hilarious because he's just one of you trying to defend attacks on gay marriage.
>the institution of marriage is still about raising kids
If that were even remotely true, we wouldn’t let couples marry unless they could prove they planned to raise children—or even be able to have kids in the first place.
>Nah man, the institution of marriage is still about raising kids. That is intrinsically the purpose of such an arrangement, so two people know their obligations towards the raising of a child.
No, actually, the institution of marriage is and always has been about showing off prosperity. Weddings were traditionally only held by the nobility, as a means to showing off their wealth to other nobles and basically prove who was the best, in terms of who was capable of wasting the most money on dresses that would only ever be worn once and ridiculous parties. The middle classes later began mimicking them to try to impress their friends into thinking they were on the same level as nobles. The lower classes finally began doing the same to mimic the middle classes.
Even when the nobility *had* children (which they frequently did solely to produce an heir), they rarely actually *raised* their own children. That was the job of servants.
Marriage and kids have basically nothing to do with one another. People have always had and raised children, even together, without being married, and people have always entered into marriages without raising or having any intention of raising children. Marriage is for joining the economic and political assets of two noble families, or about the lower classes trying to imitate their superiors. Marriage is a strictly economic institution that people have tried to turn holy because the one thing people of any denomination *really* worship is money and looking better than their peers.
We both object to it though, that's all that matters in the booth.
For example I too want a safe space for minorities and women, safe sections of campus, safe sections of subways, safe sections of the bus and so on.
Help me vote to make it true!
Watch the video.
>Weddings were traditionally only held by the nobility
Not remotely true because the meanest gypsy wench had a wedding, even tribes in the amazon and ancient cavemen had weddings. Congrats on putting together an argument though, that was actually solid.
>Not remotely true because the meanest gypsy wench had a wedding, even tribes in the amazon and ancient cavemen had weddings. Congrats on putting together an argument though, that was actually solid.
Cavemen didn't have weddings, and American wedding traditions are derived from European wedding traditions, not Roma traditions or Mezoamerican traditions, so your argument is both unsupported and irrelevant.
>Fails entirely to respond to the points raised, still laughs smugly.
Your hypothesis was that weddings were only for european nobility, this has soundly been disproved.
>American wedding traditions
That's mentioned nowhere in his original statement, it is a goalpost shift.
His original statement
>No, actually, the institution of marriage is and always has been about showing off prosperity. Weddings were traditionally only held by the nobility, as a means to showing off their wealth to other nobles and basically prove who was the best, in terms of who was capable of wasting the most money on dresses that would only ever be worn once and ridiculous parties.
Why would a random second individual start parroting an obvious goalpost shift? Don't forget to post without your name in response to this you faggot.
Keep throwing slurs around, you shall surely be taken seriously eventually
I may be a faggot, dear sir, but at least I am not you, and that has made all the difference.
You know I've also noticed a discrepancy. Liberals are overrepresented in every single office of government except governorships.
According to Gallup 38% of the country is conservative versus 24% for liberal, rest are fence sitters and independents.
38/62*100=59% of those likely to care enough to vote for a party are conservatives.
246/434*100=56% of those who have seats in the house of representatives are conservative.
54/98*100=55% of those who have seats in the senate are conservative.
3043/5387*100=56% of those who have seats in state lower chambers are conservative.
1134/1966*100=57% of those with seats in the state upper chambers are conservative.
32/49*100=65% of governors are conservative.
Oh and the president is a liberal.
tl;dr Conservatives are underrepresented in the Presidency, the House, the Senate, the Lower state chambers and the Upper state chambers. The only place they are overrepresented is governorships.
It's a disgusting level of cronyism and corruption.
>Or maybe they just attract more moderate voters.
naaaaw, that's CRAZY TALK, most of the country wants the 50's back and are being held back from it by the liberal conspiracy!
You're counting all Democrats as liberals and all Republicans as conservatives, I assume, despite the fact that the voters Gallup polled weren't identifying that way? I'm going to go ahead and assume the answer is "yes," since you describe the president as a liberal despite the fact he's, in essence, a Goldwater Conservative.
And also ignoring the fact that polls show fairly constantly that the United States citizenry is considerably more liberal than they believe themselves to be.
When you're as far right as you are, everyone else is a liberal.
>The guy who negotiated the TPP, bailed out the banks, protected wall street during the housing crisis, negotiated a health plan that forces people to give money to insurance companies or pay a fine, and has expanded crony capitalism more than any president not named Bush in the last century.
>TPP negotiated with communist china to give them legislative power in USA
>bailed out the banks, thereby getting them in debt with the government/the fed, and giving government more control over the banks
>protected wall street during the housing crisis by nationalizing businesses behind the scenes
All socialist moves.
>negotiated a health plan that forces people to give money to insurance companies or pay a fine,
This is actually downright communist. Do you think the healthcare plan in USSR was optional?
A capitalist move would have been ignoring the banks losses, ignoring wall street losses, and not writing in legislation that gives monopolies to insurance. This is a concept called "free market", the idea being that inefficient businesses ARE ALLOWED TO FAIL.
In other words, I as a capitalist would not take money from you or anyone else to help a failing corner store, much less a multibillion dollar business.
Oh I see, you think Capitalism has not changed since the 1850's.
>This is actually downright communist.
It was the health plan conservative Republicans came up with as a subsidy to the insurance industry.
>This is a concept called "free market"
Free markets and capitalism are mutually exclusive. Free markets can only exist in anarchic environments, and even then they only last long enough for a capitalist or communist market to perform a coup, unless the market is very small, i.e. on the scale of a small village. Capitalism just takes freedom from the market and gives it to the most successful businesses (i.e. Disney, Universal, Viacom, Newscorp, Warner Bros., Wal Mart, Amazon, Google), whereas communism takes freedom from the market and gives it to the government.
>Obamacare? Then why did the Republicans fight it? Why are they still fighting it? Why is the main talking point in the GOP elections the elimination of it?
Because Obama backed it and if Obama backed oxygen the Republicans would oppose breathing.
Huh, Australia's terror level is "PROBABLE".
Right, the country with more billionaires than America. The one rapidly expanding its economic colonization of Africa. Second largest economy on earth with a growing middle class. Truly adherents of Mao and Marx.
>all socialist moves
Which one of those actions gave ownership of any industry to its workers? I might have missed it there but they all seemed to benefit big businesses.
>Why would they be so opposed to a fellow conservative?
Because it's not about conservative versus liberal, it's about Republican versus Democrat. It's tribalism, pure and simple. And in the case of Republicans, it's also about Republicans versus Black People of course because they've spent so long with the Southern Strategy that they don't know how to stop doing racial dog whistles.
> it's about Republican versus Democrat
If that's all that matters, why did you even bring up that Obama is apparently a conservative?
I'm really enjoying the mental gymnastics.
>If that's all that matters, why did you even bring up that Obama is apparently a conservative?
Presumably that's meant to say that's all that matters to Republicans.
The American (effective) two party system means that by default both parties actually have people from a wide piece of the political spectrum crammed under their banners, but the collapse of the Republicans has forced many people who would otherwise be part of the conservative party across the all, meaning that the democrats has an even wider array of political membership than it normally wood. Hell, Bernie is an actual, admitted socialist and spent most of his career as an independent but joined up because that's the only way the presidency is remotely possible, and people like Obama, who while COMPARATIVELY liberal within the American system is a middle of the road conservative in the larger context.
Not that any of this matters to you as you are, at best, fucking around and, more likely and considerably worse, as much of an insane shitbird as you come off as.
>If that's all that matters, why did you even bring up that Obama is apparently a conservative?
Because the Gallup poll was actually comparing citizens who were conservative versus citizens who were liberal, based on their policy positions, not comparing republicans versus democrats. Democrats outnumber Republicans by a pretty sizable majority, but it's voter turnout and swing voters (who might be registered as Democrats or Republicans but vote differently depending on the candidate, rather than being reliable voters on either side) that actually decide most elections.
In other words, the numbers you cited up above were complete nonsense. Liberals are not "overrepresented" in higher office, because you haven't actually tallied a number of liberal or conservative office holders, you've tallied a number of democrat or republican office holders. And the democrat and republican office holders match pretty much exactly with what anyone would expect based on census data and voter turnout in the years they were elected. Democrats vote more often on presidential election years, so democrats are more likely to win in presidential election years, because any election where Democrats vote, Republicans are at a disadvantage.
Do you think there are more conservatives in the Democratic party, or more liberals in the Republican party?
Because the 2nd has actual names and histories.
Also I'd like to see where Obama received his conservative conversion so to speak.
No, that isn’t fucking terrifying. Not one bit.
No, it’s true. There’s actual video of it.
Hm, I wonder if there might be a difference between personal gesticulation and getting a crowd at a rally to do it in pledging support for you
he is is own variety of monstrous
And if Hillary had thought to do it and got a response they'd cheer how she's bringing the party together and solidifying their movement. Or ignore it.
Because right now Trump is a racist fascist are the words of the day and this just aids that.
>if Hillary had thought to do it and got a response they'd cheer how she's bringing the party together and solidifying their movement
If a politician invokes Hitler/Nazi imagery, intentionally or not, that shit is getting called out. Trump is getting the bulk of such attention because his rise in this election season has a frightening similarity to Hitler's rise in Germany. Also: unlike the photos posted above (which are all essentially circumstantial photos of a brief moment where someone's arm is outstretched in a Nazi salute-style pose), Trump asked an entire crowd to raise their right hands and pledge loyalty to him, which they did. Now, did some people in that crowd only raise their hand as one would for, say, an oath-swearing ceremony or a swearing-in at court? Of course. But when you see more than a handful of people raising their right hand high and pointing it towards a man they want to vote into the most powerful governmental office in the country while reciting what amounts to a loyalty pledge…yeah…
Whatever floats your boat, as long as you realize you're not a mindreader and whatever follows the tilde is coming from your head.
Ya'll acting like you never heard of the flag salute. The point is to grab at your heart, then gift it at the flag as a symbolic thing.
Similar salutes have been used since ancient rome to modern day mexico, I don't understand why the fuck we can't have hindu simbols or and have to be careful how we're waving to people because a maniac existed 80 years ago.
If anything I'll use the salute proudly knowing my country stopped that maniac.
By the way from the angle it looks like they're pointing straight up, kind of a school-tier "raise your hand", some have bent elbows, others raised both hands. Yeah this doesn't look like Nazi salutes even remotely, kthnxmediabye.
Jesus fucking Christ, dude, can you at least do a collage of this shit?
Cruz has to play a Hardcore ground game just to either pull nearly even or barely beat Trump.
Man should learn from that and just quit. He'll get clobbered in the General.
so how much of your digestive system do you intend to shit out after the inevitable Dem victory pol-/kun/?
You say that like you think Trump even stands a chance in the General.
Frankly I expect either Cruz or Trump to get completely demolished because they can't appeal to moderates. They appeal to an extremist, anti-establishment crowd, and are very good at it, but that doesn't make up the majority of voters in presidential election cycles. Rubio might have had a chance purely on the basis of being young and handsome, but his campaign is only getting third place. Not to mention Obama's approval numbers continue to hold steady (They didn't drop off a cliff like Bush or Carter, instead fluctuating around area). Given how dismal the republican party's attempts have been at repealing Obama's initiatives, plus the current self-destruction of their party with the leaders vs. the followers, I don't see any path for the foothold the Republican party plans to make in this particular election cycle. My prediction based on this situation is a sweeping Democratic victory much the same that happened during Obama's first term, regardless of whether it's Bernie or Hillary leading the party.
Actually continuing on the Republican party fracturing line, I'm thinking what's going to happen is Trump is going to win the majority of delegates and the leaders of the party are going to present their own conservative alternative that has more moderate appeal and is controllable. At this point there is no reason for the Republican party to actually back Trump as a candidate because he won't play ball with them. We've seen it before with the Bull-Moose Party back in 1912.
I'm not seeing Cruz pulling even with Trump, it's just too late at this point.
Rubio might do it if Cruz and everyone else endorses him, and if the GOP stops pulling punches with trump and inserting feminist actors into his rallies like fucking amateurs.
>because they can't appeal to moderates
Trump is pulling the most moderates and independents, Sanders pulls worse in independents but better in moderates which are more numerous. I think Sanders comes ahead.
Also I think Jeb had something really sad, like 0 out of 1200 that got asked said they wouldn't vote for him as a primary or secondary choice.
You have to remember that there's the unaffiliated pool is larger for conservatives, who tend to be more independent and less social because of their larger amygdala.
>Trump is pulling the most moderates and independents
*out of the republicans
Meaning if Trump can't win, none of the other GOP candidates can either.
He got Massachusetts handedly in part due to massive (for primary voting) Defections of Dems to the Republican ticket. Also Democrat turnout for the primary has been tepid compared to Record Republican turn outs. Be the "Big Tent" politics actually working for Trump or people just driven by the Royale Rumble aspect of the current race. Who knows?
>for primary voting
The key point
Democrats mostly do not care about primaries. Nor does most of the populace.
lol bernie just copied trump, liberal tears are reported to have exceeded the liquid throughput of the amazon basin.
>Open borders? No, that's a Koch brothers proposal. It would make everybody in America poorer —you're doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don't think there's any country in the world that believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don't believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs.
>You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you're a white high school graduate, it's 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids? I think from a moral responsibility we've got to work with the rest of the industrialized world to address the problems of international poverty, but you don't do that by making people in this country even poorer.
literally using the same trump "reduce immigration = jobs for minorities/youth" talking point.
Any source given you would reject out of hand so what is the point of any of us giving you anything
>you would reject out of hand
Is the source for this information my brain, or yours?
The source is your behavior. If you took even a second to process what your insane rambling actually looks like you'd understand why nobody takes your shit remotely seriously.
Nor do they understand it. Though I think that is by modern politic design to keep people like Trump out by not informing the voters as to how a nominee is chosen. Not working too well this time as Turnout is way up.
Trump has a lot of Crossover appeal to those felt left behind by the current Democratic Party (Similar to Reagan in the 80s) and has the potential to hand an upset win of New York in the general election along with many other Northeast "write off" states.
If New York can put a boy from Queens in the White House they'll put a boy from Queens in the White House.
What behavior you loon? The anon made a oneliner response.
Democracy: Where the fate of a country is decided by top CEOs and politicians secretly convening on remote islands.
Sounds like something out of a paperback novel
Powerful individuals put aside their difference to channel their power into destroy an incredible social evil is the consummate form of the democratic ideal
Sorry I insulted your xenophobic, classist, rapist master.
Man, someone is going to get killed at a Trump rally sooner or later.
And who to blame the one speaking or the ones stoking the fires to get others to encite that violence while they run away only to come back later demanding the peace they destroyed be enforced?
This is why Radicalism breeds further radicalism. When people are pushed, it is human nature to want to push back. But as the adage goes "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." By endorsing more violent interactions with protestors, I believe Trump has only added more fuel to the fire. That is why in conflict resolution the first step is to deescalate the situation. Both Trump Supporters and Detractors are fueled by strong emotions and will not back down from each other. The most likely outcome of this will most likely result in someone being killed. As for blame, it will rest with whoever carries out the violent act as mob mentality is not a defense for murder.
I remember a certain similar situation arose between radicalized left and right protestors and counter-protestors during the 1960s.
Someone tried to assassinate him for fucks sake, do you expect the guy to just stand there and get stabbed? He almost pulled out a gun and unloaded on the fucker.
>By endorsing more violent interactions with protestors, I believe Trump has only added more fuel to the fire.
It's a fire that has to burn. Without a response from the right, the left will move further and further down the political horseshoe until we're back to communist terrorist groups bombing kids.
The organized protests against Trump are solidifying and expanding his power base. By attempting to shut up the guy, they're proving that the left is regressive and in-the-wrong on this issue.
That's why Trump had the rally in the extremely left-wing city of Chicago.
He knew the left would overreact and give him the event he needs to prove the country is too politically correct, and that the first amendment is in serious danger.
I'm sorry you aren't allowed to say "nigger," whitey.
lel :D omg :))))) smh do you have a single argument against what he's noticed, or what anyone else can notice every time we click on the hashtag?
You consistently fail to grasp that nobody is interested in arguing or engaging with you, and that you are generally treated as the outcast you have made yourself.
>>You consistently fail to grasp that nobody is interested in arguing or engaging with you
>literally engaging with him
Nuke from orbit
as always, the liberal media seeks to create a racial element to the trump voting base that just isn't there
The harder the media (not just liberal but keep in mind the conservative media has now turned on him) pushes the more they are feeding him, as much as I wanna see the republican party forced to reform Trump rallies are getting dangerous.
And yes, no one should be surprised various visible minorities show up to support Trump, many immigrants are desperate to belong. It's been known for years many first and second generation immigrants vote extremely conservatively.
Tiki I was being facetious, of course Trump's shit is racial to the core.
you realize this is like admitting that you really are /pol/-kun right?
As soon as people stop pointing fingers at random posters, calling people nazis or bums (?) because they disagree, I think we can have a more fruitful discussion.
Breitbart is imploding and in spectacular fashion.
That generally goes for both sides, but the provocative shitposting by our angry visitors from /pol/ isn’t helping because they don’t want to play by the “Don’t Be a Dick” rule. Don’t shame, mock, or insult them—just try your best to ignore them. Their bait is not worth the few fucks you have to give in a day.
A matressgirl got discovered for what she is and forced to resign. A few individuals taking money from Fox under the table used the incident to break their contracts.
Massive improvement for Breitbart overall.
I…uh…do I even want to know what this means?
Judging from context and history, a women who cries assault when no assault happened.
Context being that lady who claimed she was raped on her campus and decided to carry around her mattress everywhere she went until the school addressed it. She took him to court and eventually even her own witnesses were caught(? possibly admitted to, I don't remember deets, it was a while ago) lying about it, and the case was dropped.
>Judging from context and history, a women who cries assault when no assault happened.
Once again your tendency to assume Breitbarters and rape apologists are the ones in the right in any conflict makes you wrong: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mattress+Girl
He was just calling her ugly.
>once again, your assumptions are wrong
>and yet again, my assumptions are right
>a women who cries assault when no assault happened
also known as a statistical anomaly
Slowpoke is right bro.
I'd like to see those statistics when you have time, but until then we aren't talking about statistics. We're talking about an event.
A girl that cries assault or rape for attention. It has an official name if you like:
What this >>405098 guy is engaging in is called:
Or more accurately:
The term for this entire series of responses is:
Specifically the portion where no persecutor actually exists.
>The Victim, if not being persecuted, will seek out a Persecutor and also a Rescuer who will save the day but also perpetuate the Victim's negative feelings.
This is clearly the case of the girl who got gently brushed aside by a secret service agent because she was three feet into the area where press isn't allowed, then claimed the man in charge of the Trump campaign personally stepped around a secret service agent to throw her to the ground. As can be seen in this video:
I look forward to responses providing zero information but telling me I'm a mysoginist nazi bigot bum who should kill himself.
>I look forward to responses providing zero information but telling me I'm a mysoginist nazi bigot bum who should kill himself.
And I look forward to the day when you don’t have to bait people with confrontational bullshit to get a response. Alas, it is not this day.
>matressgirl got discovered
Using spurious terminology that compares arbitrary things to sex related actiity tends to distract from the main point of the discussion, as the following posts demonstrate. That's why I usually try to ignore statements using them outright, but now look how much of the thread is taken up by everyone else jumping on it.
>It's a major fucking tactic in the most popular sport on the planet, I don't care how strongly you want to believe this is rare, the fact is that it is common.
Then I would expect you would know better than to put yourself so wide open to it in your posts here.
Encouraging suicide is
>against site rules
>makes you and the people who support you look like absolutel apes
Grow up you absolute child.
Honestly I'm in full support of recreating Hidden Board +/pol/, we're never gonna get a bigger userbase with suicide encouragement on the front page of our main board. The politics thread needs to go, but if there's not somewhere else for these people to vent their violent urges they're just gonna put them in SYM.
Also literally your last post in this thread was attacking the character of the poster instead of their argument ijst
What's wrong with just posting on the /edgy/ board, also known as THE ACTUAL /POL/ ON ACTUAL 4CHAN?
It is known as a "containment board" for a raisin.
If it were a politics board with reasoned discussion and heavy moderation, that would be an option.
But it's basically /stormfront/, so it isn't a realistic option for people who want to discuss politics without seeing the word “nigger” or anti-Semitic caricatures every other post.
As long as whites aren't allowed to say "nigger" in public, that shit will never go away.
White people can say “nigger” in public. Ain’t no law against it. The problem is, there are actual societal consequences for that.
Contrast that with /pol/, where you can use any racist/sexist/homophobic slur you want without, say, being labelled a bigot or getting punched in the face.
>White people can say “nigger” in public. Ain’t no law against it. The problem is, there are actual societal consequences for that.
In the minds of psychopaths, being held socially accountable for the things you say is the same thing as having your freedom of speech impeded.
That's not how munchausen's by proxy works. If you're going to try to exploit mental illness for the sake of political capital, you really need to have a better understanding of the mental illnesses you're attempting to exploit first.
Then I guess you will eternally exist on the fringe where you belong.
I would rather be on the fringe than victimizing people for attention, as you're doing.
>"I'm being victimized when I don't get to call people niggers."
The end is nii for Bernie.
Don't forget, he's also being victimized when he's not allowed to harass rape victims.
Are you retarded? I'm not the one being victimized, learnu reading comprehension gweilo.
You're victimizing women and minorities by convincing them they can't succeed in life, by convincing them their only chance is to succeed in life is to rely on you. You're convincing women and minorities that they're going to be beaten and raped if they don't kneel and beg for your protection. This is cultish brainwashing behavior.
Pic related, this girl has been convinced by SJWs that men into the same hobby are going to rape her or something. She now can't enjoy herself, and is probably going to spend the rest of her life withdrawing from hobby after hobby, while sinking deeper into the clutches and dependencies of the SJW cult.
This is sick.
>you/i/whomever is victimising people
You guys will cry over anything in this thread.
Don’t trolls and “anti-SJWs” and whatnot keep telling people to “just block the mean stuff” in re: harassment on social media?
Can you explain to me how that's even a thing
"i don't want a government but I want the government to be wholly responsible for the distribution of all goods and currency"
I've never understood it
But I guess I support armed pacifism so there's a bit of contradiction as well
>Reporting people who disagree to law enforcement is going a bit too far.
Reporting those guilty of harassment however is perfectly fair, being as that is a crime
Anarchism (left anarchism; right anarchism is basically Mad Max/Bioshock) is in essence about a lack of social hierarchy and coercive social organization. Anarchism is therefore (in many formulations) anti-state (obviously, it's a coercive institution maintaining its power by force) as well as property (private property; personal property, your actual home and chattels, are seen as ok, although for fixed structures/limited resources like land it's more a "right to use while in possession" not "ownership"), as well as organized religion (and religion/deity in general, although there are Christian, Muslim, Jewish anarchists). The socialism refers to ownership of the means of production (farmland, factories, mines) by the workers and management by them for communal benefit.
Your confusion, Slow, is from conflating socialism-socialism (the economic state of workers owning managing everything) with the ideology/state of authoritarian socialism (specifically, Marxism-Lenninism/Stalinism/Maoism) wherein a government owns and manages everything "on behalf of" the people ("Full Communism soon, comrades! Now meet your boot quotas or it's the gulag!") or Social-Democracy (typical liberal democracy and capitalism, just lots of welfare and regulation).
Anarcho-Socialism, ergo, refers to an ideology aiming to achieve a stateless, classless (no division between proletarian and bourgeois) society where voluntary association and economic decisions are reached by consensus. Many of founders of Anarchism were socialist/communist anarchists (see Kropotkin). It's the same ideological milieu as Marxism, just with less emphasis (if any) on materialist dialectics, more emphasis on individual needs, and rejection of the idea of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" (a transitional stage where the workers seize control of the state and means of production prior to Full Communism (tm).)
Insults, even multiple insults, are not harassment, harassment is essentially stalking and threats and such.
In Canada generally two of these have to be true for a harassment case to proceed.
>Repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;
>Repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;
>Besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or
>Engaging in (such) threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family."
The threats must be actual threats (kill yourself =/= threat) and they must be credible.
Often the police will dismiss a harassment claim unless the person has a history of violence, a threat from a person without a record is generally not considered credible.
An IP from another city, state, country or continent saying they're going to murder someone is not a credible threat, as one example.
As another example if the IP is traced to a thirteen year old kid or a woman so fat she can't fit through her door, it's also not considered a credible threat.
There is maybe one successful case of criminal harassment per year. Last year it was a guy threatening an MP, and he was sentenced only to house arrest and community service. This was basically a liberal party voter with a record threatening to kill a conservative MP, while living in her city.
The entire concept of harassment is so often misused when it comes to the internet that the word "harassment" on the internet well be substituted for "disagreeing with me".
Well you said it better than I could. Essentially what anarchosocialists like me want and vote for is a reduction of government, and among ourselves we work to foster a community spirit and consensual interaction. It's probably an unreachable utopia of course, but one worth striving towards.
>Well you said it better than I could. Essentially what anarchosocialists like me want and vote for is a reduction of government, and among ourselves we work to foster a community spirit and consensual interaction. It's probably an unreachable utopia of course, but one worth striving towards.
What a bunch of hot bullshit.
Because he's very obviously an MRA taking up one of their usual tactics of pretending to adopt one progressive social position in order to attack another (in this case, defending harassment), come the fuck on Stone.
And suspecting someone of such disingenuous argument is exactly the time to say "Either explain why or GTFO."
It’s also because of this: if you’re going to assert that someone’s opinion/idea/blathering blatherskite is bullshit, you can at least explain why.
It should be obvious considering he does it all the time. Remember when he claimed to have a trans girlfriend so he could get away with complaining about someone labelling a bathroom set as with/out urinels as "too extreme?" It's one of their most basic methods.
It's the most regressive position imaginable, it's basically a return to the natural state of humanity, which has been denied to us since the birth of civilization. Without having our spirit beaten into a useful tool of civilization, people would live in natural, self sufficient communities operating on consensus, as we have lived before the neolithic, and as many communities of Amazonian natives exist now.
Taming and suppressing the animal inside us is the cause of all inequality, all mental disease, all conflicts, all wars.
What are you talking about?
Good to hear.
Probably because I'm right. Thinking that people are Always Bad because they're bad sometimes, or Always Wrong because they disagree with you on an issue or two, is really childish and best left out of debate.
it's also one of the big symptoms of BPD, and something I'm constantly fighting myself
how about thinking people are bad because they're racist, sexist bastards
is that allowed king slow
is that okay
I don't think it's possible to name a person who isn't racist or sexist to some degree.
Everyone has blind spots when it comes to race, gender, etc. Nobody gets it right 100% of the time. Hell, I don’t get it right 10% of the time.
This actually requires a somewhat delicate and lengthy response, which, much like that "bi people in het relationships face no struggles, my sociology class told me so" post, means I'll probably never get around to respond to it the way it needs to be.
So here are the cliffnotes.
>It's allowed, doesn't mean anyone has to accept it from you.
>I disagree with it. I know sexists and racists who are good people. That part of them is obviously bad and I do try to correct it and call them out on it, but 99% of the time it stems from ignorance. No one is knowingly evil.
>Almost no one in these threads has actually been sexist or racist, you and/or people like you just keep making mental leaps, i.e., "oh, that anon doesn't believe that that specific woman was assaulted, therefore he's a sexist/MRA." This is a logical fallacy and seems to hint at the idea that all marginalized groups must ALWAYS be right and trusted and must NEVER do anything wrong, which is simultaneously infantilizing and idolizing, and removes agency from minorities, which is itself, with mental leaps, sexist and racist.
>Almost no one in these threads has actually been sexist or racist
did you forget all the anti-Islamic rhetoric, or are you going to do the hairsplitting "well it's not a RACE" thing
There's also been some anti-Semitism and racism in the form of black-hate too. Not much though.
dude the anti-immigrant shit is RAMPANT where have you been
>pocs are immigrants
Do you hear yourself? Most minorities grow up here, or have been here for generations. You're acting like people just showed up yesterday.
For that matter most white people are immigrants as well! Settlers account for less than a third of all white people in north America, all others are immigrants after America became independent.
And since the fall of USSR and Yugoslavia (~90s) white people have been the top group of immigrants, for example Polish migrants are more numerous in UK than any other kind of immigrant.
Disingenuous debate is so 2012 man, don't you know it's all about basic situational awareness now?
Remember when the internet sapped 9 million dollars from Gawker and Denton whined about that?
The Hulk Man just came in for the kill with an $115 MILLION court payout!!!
That's more than the total yearly revenues of the company!
It's a third of the gross value of the company!
JC Denton reported to be a suicide risk.
They're also paying an additional 60 million in punitive damages, 175 in total.
Their main mistakes were hiring a complete psychopath, then exhibiting him in public.
>Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?
>If they were a child.
>Under what age?” enquired Hogan’s lawyer.
>Four,” replied Daulerio bluntly.
>No 4-year-old sex tapes, OK
Yeah.... probably shouldn't have said they'd release 5 year old sex tapes in front of a jury.
Juries don't like that.
>remember when the internet sapped 9 million
Email campaign to show how shit Gawker was to advertisers cost Gawker a lot of money, but they basically brushed it off and said it didn't matter.
…y’all know the ruling isn’t immediately binding and that Gawker is going to appeal, right?
>Same is true of murder trials, but the convict is generally called a murderer.
Not if they’re acquitted. Maybe wait until the outcome of Gawker’s appeal to start celebrating its demise, hmm?
>Maybe wait until the outcome of Gawker’s appeal to start celebrating its demise, hmm?
have you seen how they've been running their defense
Haven’t followed the trial. I have no investment one way or the other in the outcome. If Gawker lives, it lives; if it dies, it dies. But it ain’t dead yet, so don’t go poppin’ the champagne and throwing a party with the Gamers of the Gate just yet.
>Gamers of the Gate
Stone there are a lot of reasons to hate Gawker that are actually legitimate, it's a fucking terrible organization
I'm aware of Gawker's shittiness. But the Gamers of the Gate want it dead almost specifically because of Kotaku, and they're practically foaming at the mouth in glee because of the verdict. If anyone would throw a party to celebrate Gawker's demise (and Kotaku's by extension), it'd be them.
Kotaku is less bad than Gawker itself but is still bad by an large. The people that GGer's want gone, like Klepek or Totillo, have the connections to move to other, better sites anyway in the event of its demise (which isn't certain if Gawker goes under anyway, as its enough of an independent operation that it could be acquired by another company).
Most ggers that I've seen want it gone because they're some of the scummiest, least ethical "journalists" out there, not above paying a male prostitute to out a married man for clicks.
They're pretty trash Stone, it's okay to be happy that they're crashing and burning. You won't get The Gamer Cooties from it.
>Most ggers that I've seen want it gone because they're some of the scummiest, least ethical "journalists" out there
No, that's why they claim to want it gone (and part of why it deserves to be gone). Why they ACTUALLY want it gone is because while one wing of Gawker does that, another shelters the hated Es Jay Dubyas like Klepek or Hernandez.
And in fact, being as a supposed support of journalistic integrity has been the core lie of GG from the start, it's baffling why you'd believe them now.
Are you seriously trying to push the "GG isn't a hate movement" thing
is this a thing you are doing
>Maybe wait until the outcome of Gawker’s appeal to start celebrating its demise, hmm?
Dude they have to post 50 million right now in order to get to proceed with appeals process.
This is a company that promotes the sexual abuse of animals and children on its front page, I'll start celebrating their demise whenever I damn well please.
It's possible that he gives the Klan the same sort of benefit of the doubt.
>comparing #gg to the kkk
Almost as funny as comparing $gg to ISIS.