Thread stats: 537 posts, 45 files (42 image(s), 3 video(s))
These threads are going to spill out into the streets at some point I swear
Can we please all act like grown-ups and have a civilized discussion about politics and the news this time around?
Remember: if you need to insult the poster, your argument is invalid. Calm the fuck down.
And this is what my home state gets for enacting a law that endorses anti-LGBT discrimination and takes away anti-discrimination rights from LGBT people who lived in cities that already had them.
Fuck Pat McCrory and the state legislature for rushing that bill into law. They deserve to see this state get a reputation as bigoted and discriminatory—and all the consequences thereof.
What the hell, did you just delete my comment?
As for as the democratic races go, today is Wisconsin with 86 delegates. Saturday will be Wyoming with 14 delegates. And on the 19th we'll have the big 247 delegate race, New York. The 26th of April is also a race to pay attention to as it'll have Conneticut, Delaware, Maryland, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania,for a combined total of 384 Delegates.
According to 270towin.com, this is how the polling averages out:
Wisconsin - Sanders 47.7%, Clinton 45.3%
Wyoming - No polls available.
New York - Clinton 58.3%, Sanders 35.5%
Conneticut - Clinton 50%, Sanders 31 %
Delaware - No polls available
Maryland - Clinton 61%, Sanders 28%
Rhode Island - No polls available
Pennsylvania - Clinton 54%, Sanders 30.5%
Of course, polling isn't very accurate, as Clinton lead Sanders handily in most polls in states where he won (particularly egregious would be the Minnesota polls that put Clinton way out in the lead, 59% to 25%, and yet Bernie snatched up many of the delegates from actual voters, 46 vs Clinton's 31). That's why so many people say "polls don't matter" but they are the only numbers that are available until the actual votes come in.
I never saw it, but it could either be a glitch or the janitors are starting to clean up this thread. Did you deserve it?
No I repeated the sentiment of the first to replies.
in what words
repost your comment
I can't even remember it now, I think I was telling stone to practice what he preaches. What the fuck +4?
>personal attack on a namefag
>"repeated the sentiment" of telling people not to
You deserved it. Stop complaining.
Telling someone to "practice what they preach" is hardly worthy of a deletion, certainly not compared to some of the other shit that gets thrown around here. If it got deleted, that is.
That kind of stuff comes with the territory of being a namefag/tripfag. If his post was deleted, that seems like an abuse of power. His comment should have been left, and he should have been called out for just kind of not helping things get on a better track by whoever deleted it. I'm sure others would have told him to stop, too. These threads don't need that kind of policing.
That's a big if though.
Either way, glitch or not, this is a politics and news thread. Complaints go elsewhere.
>These threads don't need that kind of policing.
They super do.
Well, Trump didn't win Wisconsin, which means chances of a contested convention have increased dramatically. If that happens, We definitely won't see Trump as the Republican nominee. Whether he goes forward as an independent or not will be interesting. I can't see the Republican party nominating Cruz either, as choosing between Cruz or Trump has been likened to, by party leaders, to be like choosing between poison or being shot. We could see Kasich as the Repub nominee, which would be interesting as he is considerably more moderate and we don't know how either Democratic candidate stacks up against them.
Bernie did win Wisconsin so he continues to cut into Clinton's lead. There was also mention by him that if he manages to not win outright, but also prevents Clinton from winning outright, he thinks he can convince some of the Superdelegates to side with him. Democrats could end up having quite the spicy convention as well.
Communist France's war on free speech continues
it occurs that we have people who likely actually believe as much, so I should clarify that yes I am kidding here
Many nations have, and have had since the end of the war, laws against Holocaust denial and pro-Nazi speech. Its understandable, given the magnitude of the Holocaust and the fact that Holocaust denial started with the Nazis themselves trying to destroy their own records and continues to this day, despite many of the same parties themselves advocating further genocide.
The problem is that any limits on speech beyond "speech" that involves violence (cp, snuff and crush videos, threats of imminent violence by someone with the means to carry it out) is that the state will use the ability to limit to bolster its power. Sure, its nice that France goes after that connard Le Pen, but it also prosecutes people for advocating changes in drug law for "promoting drug use" (Charlie Hebdo has been fined for such) or saying "Je ne suis pas Charlie" in the wake of the attack to Charlie Hebdo's history of xenophobia, racism, and generally /b/-level fuckery, or booing Le Marsellaise at the France v. Algeria game.
Wisconsin much like Villanova winning the NCAA was a nothingburger. Cruz still needs upwards of 90 percent of the remaining delegates. Trump needs about half which he's still tracking at being able to accomplish.
So you've got about three more races if Trump doesn't win New York by 50 percent in which Cruz is mathematically eliminated from the race. At which time it turns to him defending why he wants a contested convention and being on the same page as the party elites. Maybe he'll bring out Fiorina to defend him on that one again as rumors swirl that the Enquirer story isn't over yet.
Also the more Cruz is in the spotlight the more the shine wears off his fake Bible Thumping Conservative bullshit and he's revealed to be just another Beltway Elitist with all their animosity between him and others being nothing but a stage show.
Kasich is just a party wonk RINO that thinks he'll get the nod if he can get their dreams of a contested convention pulled off.
Which won't happen and then they'll give it Mitt or Ryan and allow Hillary to walk her way to the White House with no contest
Either looking at the Republican party transformation by a Populist leader. Or its utter destruction to thwart that and the will of its base.
They super don't. There was a lot of awful garbage spewed in the last thread and I get that no one wants that to happen again, but deleting posts in that manner is not the answer. A moderator, at that point, should have come in and told them to cut it out and stay on topic of it's that bad. If it was a janitor, which is possible, they are severly stepping over their bounds. From what I remember, janitors were enlisted purely to deal with the spam the site was being bombarded with, not to moderate the site. If a moderator was the one who did it, that's even worse.
Outright deleting posts without an explanation doesn't tell anyone anything. There's no way for other posters to know what they did wrong, if they even did anything wrong. If we're going down the road where posts that are as benign as what that anon is claiming it was are deleted because they might hurt someone's feelings, and people here defend it and accept it, then I want off this ride. This place would be no better than Reddit at that point.
To reiterate, the manner this may have been dealt with is incredibly poor and a huge red flag to me, and defending something like that is a huge mistake, in my opinion. This still depends on whether the post was actually deleted, but my point stands.
I know this is off-topic, but I can't let a post like that go uncontested.
Current betting odds say that a Contested Convention is all but certain right now. Fivethirtyeight agrees.
This is three of my comments you've deleted. Why are you specifically targeting me right now?
And others have already payed out months ago that its going to be Trump that gets the nomination. He's already assembling a team to deal with a contested possibility.
Would serve both parties to go the populist route. They wont but that is their own detriment. But the way the want things they are looking to make elections a moot point heading towards that inane NAU plan.
Oh look, my state is helping other states try to enact bigoted pro-LGBT-discrimination laws. And the SC senator isn’t even trying to hide his animus.
Contact Autonymoose. I'm sure he's be fine clearing this all up, he's a pretty chill guy. I don't know if there's a more appropriate way to get in touch with him, but he's frequently on Steam and I think the IRC still exists, though I don't remember the info for it. I'd really like to know myself if your posts are being deleted, and if so why.
Look, I’ll be clear here: yes, I deleted posts from this thread that were nothing but insulting towards other posters. I’m not a moderator, but how often do we even need moderation around here, all things considered? The politics threads are the only threads on plus4 (outside of /pco/) that could stand to benefit from a bare minimum of moderation—even if it’s only a janitor deleting posts that have nothing to do with political discussion and everything to do with trying to provoke people into the Internet equivalent of a playground slapfight.
Lord knows I ain’t perfect. I’ve done my fair share of obnoxious shitposting. I’ll own up to that, regardless of what it does to my credibility. But the politics thread before this one was more insults and shitflinging than actual discussion of the news and politics. I like discussing politics with this board, God help me, because a good number of you actually keep me on my toes. You help me be less of a fucking imbecile about this stuff and help me better define my own positions on issues that I care about.
Did I delete those posts so this board could have a politics thread or two that isn’t on the level of /pol/’s shitflinging? Yes sir, yes I did. Did I overstep my boundaries? Maybe. Do I regret doing what I did? Not for a minute—not even if it costs me the tiny little bit of “moderation” power I have around here. Now can we please get back to discussing politics/the news like calm, semi-civilized people?
I assume you'll be deleting all of the harassment that follows me around as well--not just when it's directed at you--yes?
I deleted posts that insulted Mister Twister, so…yeah, if a post is made just to insult you and not provide anything of merit vis-á-vis political discussion, I’ll delete it.
Dude, I am a-okay with people insulting me on the Internet.
I don't have a problem with moderation as long as there's no favorites-playing. You're not exactly the first person I'd choose as a neutral party, but as long as you manage to not let your friends throw deaths in my (or anyone else's) face, or encourage suicide, or anything to that effect, no complaints.
>Did I overstep my boundaries? Maybe.
There wasn't a boundary before; I will make one now, posting it here for transparency or whatever: Staff are not allowed to remove posts from threads they are actively participating in (excepting CP and "pure" spam) to avoid conflict of interests. They can report it up the chain or just use the reporting system for someone else to look at later.
>Moderation should be done anonymously where possible
You are un-fucking-believable. I am at a loss for words.
And you're actually trying to pretend what you did may not have completely over the line. You took a situation that could have been easily dealt with and made it worse, and then continued to make even worse by deleting more of his posts. And now you want to have swept under the rug so casually while trying to take the moral high ground.
What you did was foolish and cowardly. I have never had such a low opinion of you.
Message received; won’t (actively try to) fuck up again, boss.
>that were nothing but insulting towards other posters
And we have only your word for this. Your word which by the way means nothing, because:
>I deleted posts from this thread that were nothing but insulting towards other posters
This is coming from a guy who regularly calls people "hobos" and is the worst shitposter in politics threads.
>God help me
You sound like a republican senator after videos were leaked of him in a gay fetish nightclub.
>Did I delete those posts so this board could have a politics thread or two that isn’t on the level of /pol/’s shitflinging? Yes sir, yes I did. Did I overstep my boundaries? Maybe. Do I regret doing what I did? Not for a minute—not even if it costs me the tiny little bit of “moderation” power I have around here. Now can we please get back to discussing politics/the news like calm, semi-civilized people?
Do you think you are a cartoon character? Sounds like the guiltiest monologue ever written for a cheap comic book.
You aren't our dark knight Stone.
Comment is copypasted, I will be reposting this for as many times as you delete it, so if you want to silence me you will have to work for it.
>is the worst shitposter in politics threads
No, that's still you.
No, that would be the guy who brought up someone's dead friend to make an attack on their character. You can't compete with that kind of shitposting. There was also the anon who made that long rant about why they don't like that same person. And then there were all those anons who made claims of people being MRAs and rape apologists when people disagreed with them.
OH HAI TALKING ABOUT POLITICS IN THE FUCKING POLITICS THREAD
>Bernie did win Wisconsin so he continues to cut into Clinton's lead. There was also mention by him that if he manages to not win outright, but also prevents Clinton from winning outright, he thinks he can convince some of the Superdelegates to side with him. Democrats could end up having quite the spicy convention as well.
Possible, but unlikely - Wisconsin was always going to be Sanders-friendly territory, his 538.com target for this primary was 48 delegates and he pretty much bullseyed that, no more and no less. The problem is that he went in 80 delegates short of his overall campaign target and came out just as short. He doesn't need to just hit his targets, he needs to vastly exceed them to make up for the deficit he racked up earlier in the contest.
Now don't get me wrong, he has been overperforming in all the caucuses since Mega Tuesday, but the last of those caucuses in on Saturday and the only overperformance that's made an appreciable dent in his shortfall was from Washington state. He may well carry the momentum from these small-state victories into the delegate-rich primaries coming later this month, but he hasn't been able to before now and I haven't seen anything in the contest to suggest that this pattern is going to change.
Seth Rogen's "A Closer Look" has filled the John Stewart-shaped hole in my heart.
Dammit, I mean Seth Meyers, and I can't delete and repost.
Oh darn it! If only there was someone who could delete posts, a hero of some sort.
This made me sad
>4 hours a day
>FOUR HOURS A DAY ON THE PHONE
Dude fuck off I do call based fundraising eight hours a day as an intern for law enforcement in city hall. This is called a job, money SURPRISINGLY doesn't grow on trees.
Time spent on fundraising is probably the easiest introduction into public speaking for a congressperson, and is likely to be the most useful time they will ever spend in their entire political career.
John Oliver is a fucking retard.
I'm not entirely sure why you're so upset. Your job is fundraising so you spend most of your time fundraising. A legislator's job, however, should be more geared towards tasks that would help them become a better legislator rather than a better fundraiser. This is taxpayer money going to pay a legislator to raise more money from wealthy individuals. The video even points out how it skews what sort of constituents these legislators end up hearing from the most. And frankly those conditions they are doing fundraising from are deplorable, I don't see how you could possibly defend them. Even if you have worked in worse conditions as a fundraiser, you shouldn't WANT to work in those kind of conditions.
>A legislator's job, however, should be
Let me stop you right there, you don't have the power to decide what a legislators job "should be", their job is dictated by the needs of their party and their electorate. And it turns out new legislators do more good for their party and constituency fundraising.
I'm sick of people whinging about things that are fucking non issues. If you're actually interested in helping working class people (we both know you're not) and improving working conditions, start with helping people who work at call centers not people getting paid six fucking figures to do the same job.
I would fundraise from the inside of your anus for six figures.
>you don't have the power to decide what a legislators job "should be"
You're right I don't have the power. No individual person does. However I do have an opinion on it, and have the freedom to express that opinion.
>If you're actually interested in helping working class people (we both know you're not)
Woah dude, you need to chill out, you don't even know me.
>and improving working conditions, start with helping people who work at call centers not people getting paid six fucking figures to do the same job.
I vote for candidates that claim they will work towards passing legislation for better working conditions in local and federal elections, and I support unions when they demonstrate working towards improving the quality of life for the worker. I think people in call centers should have conditions where they are happy, because I would prefer everyone be happy with their jobs or at least have the ability to take pride in them.
>I would fundraise from the inside of your anus for six figures.
Okay, but I don't want you to have to fundraise from inside my anus to make six figures. That was the point of that statement.
And the point of my statement is that a run-of-the mill cubicle block is not the inside of your anus.
>And it turns out new legislators do more good for their party and constituency fundraising.
How does it benefit me as a member of the public for legislators to be spending their time in this way?
It benefits you if you want your party to win, your senators to know how to speak to people and have the connections needed to make actual change happen.
A freshly elected legislator has no idea which companies and investors to talk to to bring jobs to your state, and the best way they could help their party (and you) is to raise funds for the party and make those connections.
If you want your party to lose or to have people with strong opinions but no way to make things happen, then you might be a British national who doesn't understand democratic republics.
Except you have retiring senators like Tom Harkin say that the reason why Congress doesn't work as well nowadays is because they have to spend more time fundraising than ever before. So perhaps instead of thinking of things in a binary state we should consider the idea that, while serving a networking function for young legislators, fundraising shouldn't dominate 4 hours every day of a a congressperson's job. This could be achieved by putting stricter regulations on political campaign money.
>then you might be a British national who doesn't understand democratic republics
We Brits "understand democracy" just fine. The hell do you think our MPs do with their time?
The power of congress is largely unchanged in the late 20th and 21st century, in fact they've consistently passed approximately 1000 laws and regulations each two years they've convened since 1973. In that sense it the situation is unchanged.
What you are talking about is that recently Democrats are complaining about the 113th congress because it isn't "productive", by which talking heads mean - it has passed a lower than average number of laws. Which is marvelously ignorant considering the purpose of congress isn't to pass a large number of laws, but to block a large number of shit laws and pass a small number of high quality laws.
Furthermore the complaints are biased and without merit because they are mostly coming from Democrat politicians who are emotionally frustrated with the GOP-loaded congress right now, and emotional pleas of the moment aren't a legitimate cause for changing the checks and balances in place.
Regulations on political campaign money are a joke, they have always been a joke, do not be ridiculous. Even if we limit campaign donations to $10 per person, Mr. John Q Billionaire can always give thousands of people $15 and politely ask them to donate $10 to his preferred candidate, similar to what fund aggregates like superPACs do.
And there's no way to stop that from happening.
>We Brits "understand democracy" just fine
That's by far the least important word in that phrase and you completely ignored the most important word - republic. Maybe like Mr. Oliver, you don't know quite as much about the issue or the country in question, as you believe.
I fail to see what relevance the head of state being a ceremonial monarch or executive president has to the duties and responsibilities of elected representatives during working hours.
I canvassed for my MP loads of times last year, and as far as I'm aware (outside of the general election campaign) they save the canvassing and phonebanking for the weekends. During the working week they are either attending debates in Parliament, holding constituency surgeries or drafting legislation.
>If you want your party to lose or to have people with strong opinions but no way to make things happen, then you might be a British national who doesn't understand democratic republics.
No, I'm a Pennsylvanian. And I don't see it as the state's job to bring in jobs, or use its incumbency to promote the party. It's my job to bring in jobs by creating businesses, and my job to inform myself through research and those around me through conversation. I'm registered as independent anyway, despite that excluding me from primaries.
>Which is marvelously ignorant considering the purpose of congress isn't to pass a large number of laws, but to block a large number of shit laws and pass a small number of high quality laws.
Which is why I want congress to spend its time researching why proposed laws might actually be shit.
>That's by far the least important word in that phrase and you completely ignored the most important word - republic.
And you're the one calling me British?
You seem to have really skewed views of what a MP actually does, they only sit for 140 days of the year, giving them 250 or so days off, British MEPs don't even show up for 20% of crucial votes in the EU parliament. The congress is not far off either, I'm not trying to make this national.
The point is that this "they're pressed for time!" nonsense needs to go into the trash where it belongs.
>I don't see it as the state's job to bring in jobs, or use its incumbency to promote the party
Regardless of how you see it, this is the reality, a new congressperson does the most good by doing fundraising.
This isn't a forced situation where there's a law demanding they fundraiser, this is simply money they have to put in to be part of the main party club.
They can leave their party at any time and run independent on their own capability and character.
Instead they decided to ride in on party coattails, a path greased for them by previous generations of fundraisers.
Trump's challenge: "how to solve a problem like women"
New York (AFP) - Donald Trump has the biggest chance in US history of shattering the ultimate hurdle and becoming the first independently funded commander-in-chief. But could women spoil it for him?
On paper, few White House candidates have been more qualified: a successful billionaire with extensive experience in multinational corporations, who was one of the first people to call attention to a changing power structure post-9/11, the first to oppose the Iraq war and the first to bring the sensitive immigration discussion into the public forum.
All but guaranteed the Republican nomination, he is nonetheless losing more minority and female voters to his multicultural challenger Ted Cruz and centrist John Kasich.
"I mean nobody's perfect but I don't trust him, he's too slick. I'd rather have his wife," said Georgie Ruzzier, 81, a former independent and Democrat at a Hillary Clinton rally, who said she was voting Democrat this year.
She's not alone. Sixty-eight percent of white women have an unfavorable opinion of Trump, according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll.
Trump's vulnerabilities were on display as he lost seven out of the last five primary elections and caucuses to Cruz, who cornered the centrist Republican vote for 28 delegates in Colorado, according to CNN exit polls.
Female voters gripe about Trump's ability to revive the economy. They complain he is opportunistic, not honest and does not care about them as he champions majority rights and more lax firearms laws.
Other opposition has been attributed to latent sexism, as most white women are really sexist to the core.
- Challenge -
But strategists say it presents a serious, if not fatal weakness for Trump going forward into a November election against any of the remaining Democrat candidates -- even Clinton, who polls poorly amongst men.
"This is a challenge for him," says Jeanne Zaino, professor of political science at Iona College in New York. "He hasn't been able to appeal the way Cruz has to that constituency.
"If you look back eight years, he was winning white female voters and then-candidate Romney was struggling. He's gone full circle."
In a primary season that could elect the first non-political presidential nominee, Hillary has made attitudes towards men a pivotal part of the campaign, suggesting that men who do not want to be fathers should be punished and using derogatory terms to insult men she doesn't like.
Female commentators have called out Trump for shouting and not smiling -- to the outrage of MRAs and his supporters.
While Trump would beat Clinton 46 to 40 percent according to a Quinnipiac poll, he would win the white male vote 51-34 percent to the demagogue while Cruz would beat Hillary overall and come neck-and-neck on the female vote.
Ardent Trump supporter Roberta Lomangino, 23, from Long Island believes "100 percent" that he suffers in public perception for being a man.
"He gets a much rougher go at it," she told AFP after a Trump rally in Harlem, New York.
"Ted Cruz can go up on stage and shout as loud as he wants and point his finger and look almost mean and taunting, and Donald Trump can never do that. If he even raises his voice, he gets criticized for being too aggressive, and it's a little unfair."
To some, America's ongoing quest for its first businessman leader is strange in a country that arguably offers no better home to the pioneering man.
- Policy problem -
Canada, for example, has one of the most abysmal records on men's rights anywhere in the world and yet it elected Justin Trudeau head of government for the first time nearly a year ago.
In contrast, Americans made up more than half Forbes's 100 most powerful men list in 2015, including seven of the top 10.
Software engineer Larry Ellison who builds useful stuff was the youngest, and Americans led 18 of the 18 categories as diverse as finance, technology, media and manufacturing.
Zaino says Trump's disconnect with white women is primarily policy-oriented rather than sexism, given that he is still the leading candidate.
Cruz has been stronger on issues of free trade and campaign finance reform, which resonate well with women, Zaino told AFP.
"He is going to have to try very, very hard to capture that energy and that support of Cruz voters," she said.
Trump supporter Sam Ackerberg, a 27-year-old law student originally from Minneapolis and now living in New York, says women should be the ones to adjust.
"We all have fathers, brothers, friends, uncles, and men's issues should matter to us," he said.
So do you have a point or are you just trying to set some bait for something
Is this a satisfactory solution to the abortion question for feminists?
>A Russian MP representing populist nationalist party LDPR had drafted a bill under which women who refuse to have an abortion and give their newborn baby to the state would receive one-time monetary compensation of about $3,700.
She can still refuse and abort, or give birth in exchange for sweet cash. Either way she is 100% in charge of her body, and it's 100% her choice.
If the option to get an abortion is still in the woman's hands, sure. If this is a backdoor into making abortion illegal "we have better alternatives (and therefore don't have to observe people's bodily sovereignity)," then no.
But what does "give their baby to the state" mean?
>You seem to have really skewed views of what a MP actually does, they only sit for 140 days of the year, giving them 250 or so days off
They're not "days off" - in addition to attending debates, I said MPs also "hold constituency surgeries and draft legislation". The image you posted was of one of the Friday debates when a handful of bittereinders debate matters close to their hearts while the rest of the MPs head back to their constituencies and listen to problems their constituents have. The rest of the time they're not in parliament, they're either going over the minutiae of bills they're hoping to present or - in the case of ministers - governing. I've watched parliamentary debates in person, I regularly meet my MP at the local party office, I think I'd know what they do with their time.
I'm just baffled by this implication that I, Part-Time Party Hack, cannot comment on what elected politicians are supposed to do with their time (despite being on first-name terms with several of them) by virtue of my nationality. If you were only referring to John Oliver then say "John Oliver", no need to drag the rest of us limeys into this weirdly contrarian argument that your taxpayer-funded representatives spending much of their working lives at the corporate begging bowl is either healthy or intrinsic to the American system of government.
I don't really know why you're targeting abortions now but anyway
It's a huge waste of taxpayers money and an obvious attempt by LDPR to massage Russia's growth rate, even though the problem with the growth rate is Russia's absurd death rate for an ostensibly developed country, not the birth rate.
I thought I posted this already but I guess plus4 ate that post, oh well
>But what does "give their baby to the state" mean?
This is Russia so I'm guessing............ supersoldier program.
I'm not a feminist but I'm fine with it, as long as the kids are put up for adoption instead of having metal tentacles grafted into their spine.
The cheapest and best solution would be to:
A) Stop all public funds that directly or indirectly support abortion, since only 36% of the taxpayers actually want that.
B) Have churches and the like personally collect donation money to buy off the kids if they care that much, instead of putting the tax burden on others.
>obvious attempt by LDPR to massage Russia's growth rate
Every Western country has these incentives, usually in terms of tax and financial (banking institution) advantages for being married, retirement accounts, inheritances, health insurance and so on.
UK has the married couples allowance for example, which is every year for the rest of their marriage instead of a one time lump sum.
>Every Western country has these incentives, usually in terms of tax and financial (banking institution) advantages for being married, retirement accounts, inheritances, health insurance and so on.
>UK has the married couples allowance for example, which is every year for the rest of their marriage instead of a one time lump sum.
Yes, and most of these don't have a negative growth rate brought on by rampant alcoholism and whatnot. This is a right wing solution to make a small part of Russia's image look better without actually confronting anything genuinely wrong with Russian society, while simultaneously opening the aforementioned backdoor to removing abortion rights.
Nice amateur attempt at racist trolling.
The Russian negative growth rate is due to a variety of factors, their migration rate is low, their birth rate which is comparable to western countries (actually less than some), and deaths in childbirth.
Abortions are a serious problem when a country with a third of American population has more than twice the abortions.
What racist trolling, the alcoholism? That's not racism you dipshit, Moscow has been recognizing it as an issue since the USSR, it's part of what jacks Russia's suicide rate so high, to say nothing of the general health effects.
>ahurrrr russian population declining because theyre drunk!
Not only are you racist, you're also wrong.
You wouldn't have to clutch straws and desperately try to lump that in with alcholism if your argument could stand on its own. Whats next, are you going to claim 90s emigration rate was high due to alcoholism? That the birth rate is low due to alcoholism? That the current abortion rate is high due to alcoholism? Pathetic.
>ahurrrr russian population declining because theyre drunk!
That was not a thing that was ever said by anyone, or rather, not exclusively.
>You wouldn't have to clutch straws and desperately try to lump that in with alcholism
There's no trying, suicide rates have been repeatedly linked across the world with alcoholism, and yes, Russia has a historical problem with that because life in Russia fucking sucks and cheap alcohol is often the only escape the undlerclasses have had. This is a problem recognized by numerous successive Russian administrations, but very little has ever been done to correct either the underlying social issues this reflects nor to properly enforce the actual limitations on the substance issue itself.
Furthermore, it was never implied that alcoholism was the sole cause of Russia's population problem. In fact quite the opposite, it was stated as an issue that fed into Russia's excessive death rate (their birth rate having already been stated to not be the problem).
Let's set aside any notion that you actually care about Russia and get to the real issue, if we can: why have you decided that abortion rights are now your pet issue? Have we ever even really talked about abortion rights in these threads? Isn't your thing more about removing laws against hate speech and such because you think their restricting your right to be a shit?
>set aside any notion that you actually care about Russia
Says the fucking racist. Do you have a single fact you want to discuss, or are you just going to be a bigot this entire thread?
>Says the fucking racist
You have never cared about racism in your life.
No, this is your task, young /pol/-kun. Go, go and be free.
lol European Union is scared as fuck, they're spending hundreds of millions of euros on a troll army to combat "euroskepticism" in online forums, and are coming out with weird ass propaganda as well.
Yeah weird how the government of the UK is putting out a pamphlet on the current government policy
My main man Corey is Free!
Your bigotry is unwanted here.
That misogynist was going to go down for battery and go down with Trump's hate-ridden campaign. Lewandowski being charged proves he's guilty, and the charges being dropped just proves that the system is set up against women and their oppresors go unpunished.
>That misogynist was going to go down for battery and go down with Trump's hate-ridden campaign. Lewandowski being charged proves he's guilty, and the charges being dropped just proves that the system is set up against women and their oppresors go unpunished.
Well yes, that's correct.
Wow, Corey is one scary motherfucker.
First he beats Michelle Fields to a bloody pulp in a room full of people, with no fucks given that there are cameras rolling.
Then he bullies the prosecutor into dropping the charges with nothing more than a frightening sidelong glance?
And now I hear the prosecutor is being treated for some kind of unexpected heart condition in the same hospital where Ms. Fields is in a coma.
This guy is a threat to society, he needs to be put away in a sealed cell.
who could have imagined that the /pol/ crew would take up such a position, I for one am shocked
>being charged proves guilt
>dropping charges proves guilt
why are you greentexting yourself
PBS Crash Course is pretty good.
It's right for about a third of the video, then it slowly devolves.
Or just look at this:
You know, it's a funny thing. I consider myself Kinsey 6 homosexual. I have literally never felt physical attraction to a woman. When I was a baby, I nearly starved before my parents figured out they'd have to use a bottle because I wouldn't touch a breast. When I went to school, I literally was unable to see girls. Every day, I would go to class and look around and wonder who all the empty seats were for. I thought the other guys were crazy because they sometimes had arguments with thin air. When I went to high school, I joined the football AND swim teams so I could spend more time in the locker rooms. It wasn't really the nudity– I had porn– but the *smell* of the dicks that I was going for. That's why, in the Navy, I took laundry duty every chance I got. I fantasized about our instructor taking me in, adopting me, and having me as a live-in maid. Yet this post and the guy who made it it are somehow gayer than me.
So I'm a Class 7 faggot?
Neat. What do I get? :D
Are you implying that what Stone has done is completely natural and he did nothing wrong? Because there is literally nothing wrong with being a homosexual.
And by the way to the erasure superhero Stone over here, why don't you delete the douchebag who questions my goddamn sexuality. I got all day.
I currently take a stance of preffering the development of sidewalks in suburban areas to the lack thereof.
>And by the way to the erasure superhero Stone over here, why don't you delete the douchebag who questions my goddamn sexuality. I got all day.
1) I was the one who deleted them. The NSFW tag is not an invitation to dump dicks in your personal tirade.
2) I'm too lazy to read the thread, so what post are you referring to? If you don't want to wait for the ban to be up or cycle the modem, you can e-mail me.
Let it stand as a matter of record, the SJW is celebrating getting a gay man banned. This is why no one likes you people.
Grow a sense of humor.
I'm starting to believe conspiracy theorists.
What? No! Don't read into what those conspiracy theorists are trying to sell you.
Monsters aren't secretly rigging/damaging voting machines in order to gain favor with the political factions that run this country. That's silly, stop being silly.
>Republican strategist John Burnett, attempting to vote in the GOP primary, arrived at his polling place to discover they were out of ballots for his party.
>“After showing voter card, I signed book and (was) given a Democrat ballot,” tweeted Burnett. “I asked for GOP ballot, told no more and to wait.”
>It took two hours for somebody to provide him with a ballot to vote for a Republican presidential candidate.
Having separate ballots in the first place? What ballot do people use in NY when they aren't just going for a straight party ticket, if you can't vote for one part with the other's ballot?
>getting a gay man banned
Buscemi-kun got himself shut down by moose as far as I can tell
He asked for proof that I was gay, what am I supposed to do?
The exact purpose of the NSFW tag is to post NSFW things. The only objectionable part is there being a series of images, but are you honestly trying to claim five pictures constituted spam? Are five pictures in the screencap thread spam? Would it be ok if I put all my dick picks into one large image and NSFW that? You could have removed them and warned me, there was no reason to ban.
>I'm too lazy to read the thread
And this is why you're a bad mod, you're missing the context. You're the teacher that pretends he didn't see billy put chewing gum in tommys hair because you just don't want to deal with it. Well fuck, just give your mod password to Stone if that's the plan.
I still can't figure out a reason other than blatant favoritism that you didn't take away janitor powers, ban or even speak harshly to Stone for deleting posts of people who disagreed with him. That wasn't spam, in any sense, he was just being a cunt.
You're the one who accused me of not being gay.
You're the one who demanded I post proof.
So I did.
And you reported me for it.
Anonymoose is just the ambivalent tool you happened to use.
Now you're what, pretending the evidence was never posted?
Oh and celebrating hurting a gay person, this is why no one likes you SJWs, your "benevolence" only extends so far as minorities agree with you. The moment a minority disagrees with you, you start prepping the gas chambers.
>He asked for proof that I was gay, what am I supposed to do?
Call him a faggot. Since when is proof needed on an imageboard?
>The moment a minority disagrees with you, you start prepping the gas chambers.
Well now we have proof you're gay because you certainly are a DRAMA QUEEN
>he was just being a cunt
I take offense to that. I was being a brainless dick like any other cisgendered white bisexual from the South, thank you very much.
Hey, I was called a cunt. How do you think I feel, being misgendered and all that?
>You're the one who demanded I post proof.
Nobody asked for any such thing, actually.
>you posted a buscemi picture holding a skateboard
/I/ posted no such thing. The person who DID post it didn't ask anything of you, they merely mocked you.
I am also mocking you.
No, he didn't mock me, he said I wasn't gay and was only pretending or something.
Also considering they deleted their comment when I started posting proof, how do you know what he posted? Did you happen to chance by in the few minutes it was on?
>He asked for proof that I was gay, what am I supposed to do?
Ignore it? This is not just the internet, but a horribly-rendered 4chan wannabe. Someone questioning your sexuality (or lack there of) is par for the course. chans require a thick skin.
>The exact purpose of the NSFW tag is to post NSFW things. The only objectionable part is there being a series of images, but are you honestly trying to claim five pictures constituted spam?
The NSFW tag is for providing examples on an otherwise-SFW board. Not dumps (with more leniency in a NSFW-topic thread). It was not just five images. Maybe another anon thought "I should take offense to someone questioning my sexuality and prove otherwise by spamming dicks", and I cleaned that up before the same idea popped into your mind and you got caught in the cross-fire. If so, my apologies.
>you're missing the context.
Hence why I requested it. I don't have time to read every thread on every board; I do a quick check for context that suggests I'm misunderstanding something, but it usually doesn't matter much. The spam would not be excused, but if someone was specifically trolling they might get a ban as well (but, again, *chans, thick skin, etc.)
>I still can't figure out a reason other than blatant favoritism that you didn't take away janitor powers, ban or even speak harshly to Stone for deleting posts of people who disagreed with him. That wasn't spam, in any sense, he was just being a cunt.
I believe everyone deserves a second chance (with rare exception.) He was being a cunt/brainless dick, which is why I outlined the moderation policy publicly, and he's stopped. It's the same reason the ban policy isn't "First offense: permanent site-wide ban".
>And you reported me for it.
No one reported you (I actually checked out of curiosity before deleting). I was already keeping an eye on the thread due to the first set of dick-spam.
I suggest you take a step back and cool off. Regardless, an individual's sexuality is fairly irrelevant to politics (again, context; again, I'm lazy), so everyone move on.
>And this is why you're a bad mod... Well fuck, just give your mod password to Stone if that's the plan.
>checked out of curiosity
>No, he didn't mock me, he said I wasn't gay and was only pretending or something.
Yes, they were (I assume) mocking you for pretending to be gay for argument points.
>Also considering they deleted their comment when I started posting proof, how do you know what he posted? Did you happen to chance by in the few minutes it was on?
I saw it, yes.
Also you keep saying "proof" but you realize the only thing posting dicks proves is that you posted dicks, yes?
With so many Syrian men either dead or mass emigrated to Europe, there must be a 3x surplus of women in Syria.
When the civil war is over I'm going to take a vacation there and drown in brown pussy.
>When the civil war is over
Any day now, I'm sure
Why don't you just invite female refugees like sly Canada did?
To that one anon in particular with a massive, ubiquitous hate-boner for Slowpoke:
Please don't start that again. I'm not you're wrong, but it's fuel to a flame everyone's tired of watching.
Slowpoke is too moderate for some people.
Cruz got caught bribing a delegate on camera.
Slowpoke isn't a moderate so that's not really the case.
Handing slips of money out in the open, where you're always on camera, in a way that could easily lead to the money just falling out of your hand to be lost under the crowd's feet? And as a single bill it's at most, what, $500 anyway? This just doesn't sound like a practical method of bribery at all, so I'm prone to beleive Cruz's story that some kid handed him a five and he passed it on to a campaign manager. Though I suppose it could be a really dumb attempt at hiding in plain sight, or a ruse to draw attention away from less obvious activity.
Let me guess, he's a sexist white supremacist.
It’s essentially an expanded version of the thought process behind anti-trans “bathroom bills”: “We don’t want men dressing up as women and going into the women’s restroom!”
Never mind the fact that, in every state and city that has passed pro-trans non-discrimination ordinances, there are no reports of anyone exploiting those protections to commit assaults (sexual or otherwise). Or the fact that we already have laws to deal with those kinds of crimes. Or how nobody who argues for the anti-trans laws seems to have any idea about how to enforce or punish people for breaking such laws. Or how such laws would force trans men and women who have already transitioned into the bathroom of their birth sex and, thus, create situations where a trans man could be forced into the women's restroom and leave said trans man open to harassment (or worse). I mean, forget all those things, and all those “protect the children”-esque arguments in favor of anti-trans “bathroom bills” make complete sense.
I mean he's certainly sexist. I can't say I've seen him express white supremacist views personally, though that he pointedly does not target the anti-Islamic posts in these threads is somewhat curious. inb4 someone tries to say "there are white muslims!" to sidestep the notion that there's no racial element to Islamophobia, though of course even if there weren't purely religious discrimination is hardly better
Doesn't seem to be transphobic either, which is rather surprising.
I'm just glad no-one's really talking about that stuff here in my country yet.
Is the whole point of segregated bathrooms (male/female) for safety and/or anti-harassment reasons, or is it also for other reasons such as comfort?
Also as a side note, something came out on the news about some girl coming out as non-binary in a televised (discussion?) to Obama. Gender issues aside, she is being an attention whore. If we get similar scenarios, I fear people like that will stain the legitimate movement.
>Is the whole point of segregated bathrooms (male/female) for safety and/or anti-harassment reasons, or is it also for other reasons such as comfort?
I’d assume it’s a bit of both. Then again, it’s not as if a “Men’s” or “Women’s” sign will actually stop someone from entering a gendered restroom if they really want to go in. It’s not a fucking force field, after all.
>Also as a side note, something came out on the news about some girl coming out as non-binary in a televised (discussion?) to Obama. Gender issues aside, she is being an attention whore. If we get similar scenarios, I fear people like that will stain the legitimate movement.
Well you certainly seem on the up and up.
Assuming there's no laws against entering the wrong bathroom (I don't know but I haven't found any), people are free to enter and use, but I guess there can be social ramifications. I've heard of people who have used the other bathroom due to an excessive line-up or broken facilities and they were fine.
If no-one sees you, you can go wherever you like.
Australian freedom party is leading the polls at 35%.
Competitors at 21%, 19%, 11%, 10%, 2%.
They are libertarian, if you see them being called "far right" just ignore it, everything right of buttplug welfare is far-right for some people.
It's strange that you think anyone would care enough about Koala Island to even read those numbers.
Come on the guy looks like Lurch from the Adams family, it's a strawman political cartoon for people who don't want to think why someone rational actually might be opposed to badly written laws purporting to "protect" transgender individuals.
Transgender people put effort into passing as their gender and can easily pass for their gender, there's no reason for these people to have laws specifically protecting them because no one can tell the difference anyway.
Simply strike down any law specifically against it, and on the off chance that a cis person gets triggered by a surprise penis there are already hate and assault laws if anyone wants to be an ass.
A law that specifically demands transgender access is seen as being there only to protect perverts who put on dresses to stare at little girls pee.
This is why people are against specific laws that push for transgender access. Not Lurch-like strawmen people, but women who feel unsafe. Women who feel unsafe are the only people really against unisex bathrooms as well. I assure you no man has ever went "oh god what if a girl sees me pee!"
tl;dr the carolina law should be struck down, but it's important to understand it only exists because of things like this: http://www.dailywire.com/news/5190/5-times-transgender-men-abused-women-and-children-amanda-prestigiacomo
>if you see them being called "far right" just ignore it
or don't, since it's a thing that is true
also worth noting is that Australia and Austria are not the same country
>A law that specifically demands transgender access is seen as being there only to protect perverts who put on dresses to stare at little girls pee.
yes, this is not a problem with the law so much as it is a problem with the kind of people the law exists to protect said trans people from
>A law that specifically demands transgender access is seen as being there only to protect perverts who put on dresses to stare at little girls pee.
And that's because hatemongers keep conflating “transgender people” with terms like “sexual predator”, “pedophile”, and “rapist”—and ignorant voters/lawmakers keep buying into the idea without thinking for a moment as to whether the comparisons are true. If anything, transgender people have more to fear from being forced into the restroom that coincides with their birth sex than cisgender people have to fear from trans people using the toilet.
If Bernie Sanders isn’t going to be president, what happens to the movement that coalesced behind him?
The 2008 primaries were a lot more bitter than this year's contest has been and Clinton still threw her full support behind Obama, so it shouldn't be impossible to arrange a tit-for-tat reconciliation between Clinton and Sanders. Sanders has won more than enough delegates to influence policy at the convention, which I imagine was the plan all along before victory fever set in, so I think he can stand by Clinton with his head held high.
It's his supporters I'm more worried about. Since New York the Sanders4Prez reddit has been an impenetrable brick wall of salt, mired in conspiracy theories about electoral fraud and "paid shills". Several sunk their life savings into this campaign, so bringing their campaign in line with a candidate they've hitherto regarded as "THE ENEMY" might be too much for some of them to stomach. Still, the "Clintonites for McCain" proved to be a desultory-to-non-existent factor in the 2008 election, so while there'll no doubt be a hardcore of "Berniebros for Trump" who'd go against their own candidate's wishes I don't imagine they'd make more than a ripple in the General.
The racial breakdown for Islam is traditionally as follows.
Caucasian muslims: North Africa, Europe, Middle east, Central asia, South asia, Little asia.
East Asian muslims: Southeast asia, Central asia.
Sub-saharan African muslims: Sub saharan africa.
Those groups are heavily isolated. Caucasian muslims are in conflict with caucasian christians, African muslims are in conflict with African christians, and East Asian muslims are in conflict with East asian christians. There's almost no crossover.
Given this, I'm curious to know how you think there's a racial element.
>2008 primaries were a lot more bitter than this year's contest has been and Clinton still threw her full support behind Obama
Hey yeah. Shit, does anyone remember Hillary starting the birther rumors? Hard to believe Obama took her in after that.
>Shit, does anyone remember Hillary starting the birther rumors?
This is the most amazingly desperate thing you've posted yet holy hell.
You don't know about this? It was a clinton-supporter-with-no-ties-to-clinton, nudge nudge, wink wink type deal.
No I was unaware that this was a thing you were seriously trying to pawn off, as it seems beyond the pale even for you.
New Conspiracy Theory coming about. Trump is being backed by the native lizard people against the globalist following the extraterrestrial mandate that we must become a united world to be admitted into the galactic union.
Anti-Trump protesters pepper spray a bunch of little kids at a Trump rally.
Kids aren't white though so it's ok.
Story so far:
1. Councilmember Kris Murray proposes resolution to denounce Trump.
2. Townspeople gather in support of Trump.
3. Over seventy people gain access to council chambers and line up to tell Murray to shut the fuck up.
4. Sit-in staged outside council chambers until Murray gives up.
5. Meanwhile anti-Trump protesters show up and get belligerent.
6. An anti-Trump protester sprays a mom and her two kids down with pepper spray.
Police on scene witnessed it so no bullshit.
Yeah but we already know Hillary supporters are shit from this thread.
so are y'all prepping your "not MY president" speeches for when Hillary wins
>Police on scene witnessed it so no bullshit.
Berniebabies blown the fuck out.
If you want to maintain western principles such as freedom of speech, security in property, equality under the law, procedural justice, democratic responsiveness to the citizenry, free markets, limits to government power and so on, vote for Folkes with the Australian Liberty Alliance.
If you don't like these things, just randomly vote for any other party.
For non-Aus reference, "Liberty Alliance" is the the right wing anti-refugee crew
Ice Cube joins the ranks of pro-Trump minorities.
SJWs running out of things to complain about again.
Todays whine: Why? Oh why?! Why did twelve LGBTQ characters on TV have to die?!
In fairness, it happens so often that it’s an actual trope on TV Tropes — http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BuryYourGays
She's got such a great platform and track record. How can she lose/sarc/
she's going to get the democratic nomination and the republicans don't have the numbers, have fun
There is a reason for this you know.
A loud minority of far left lunatics demand over-represenation far beyond 1% of gays in shows, and they demand of course that the gay person has to be stereotypically and blatantly gay.
Hollywood caves in, but obviously good writers rarely spend their time making stereotypically gay characters, so Hollywood has to shoehorn a highly political character into scripts it wasn't meant to be in.
The deaths then are the end result of having to remove a character that doesn't fit in with the rest of the script, so the show isn't ruined.
Gonna say this once and once only: Real gay people don't go around talking 24/7 about being gay. Gay characters look exactly like straight characters. Everyone concerned about something this stupid should just assume 1% of TV show characters are gay without the character having to break the 4th wall every ten seconds to remind them.
KP made a joke about it.
>A loud minority of far left lunatics demand over-represenation far beyond 1% of gays in shows, and they demand of course that the gay person has to be stereotypically and blatantly gay.
If anything, the people I’ve seen ask for better representation of LGBT people in TV/movies/etc. ask for the opposite: a gay character who is defined by more than their sexual orientation. (And that’s actually possible! It’s not a pipe dream!) But the issue with the Bury Your Gays trope is how it feels like a form of queerbating—in other words, a show like The 100 introduces a gay character and gets fans’ hopes up about that character having a happy ending and being important to the story beyond just being "the token gay", then kills said gay character for whatever reason.
>good writers rarely spend their time making stereotypically gay characters, so Hollywood has to shoehorn a highly political character into scripts it wasn't meant to be in
I didn’t realize a gay person’s mere existence had a political slant to it. Mind telling me, an actual bisexual, what political slant my existence has?
>The deaths then are the end result of having to remove a character that doesn't fit in with the rest of the script, so the show isn't ruined.
Seems to me that you’re against gay characters being allowed to be openly gay; your post makes it sound as if they have to “look exactly like straight characters” (i.e., act “straight”) or else they’re “political” and “shoehorned in”. And yes, having a gay character who isn’t a blatant stereotype or a political tool is all well and good—but for such characters to actually exist, they still have to, y’know, be gay. They can’t just exist in a vacuum devoid of sex, romance, and interpersonal relationships.
IIRC, "Bury Your Gays" stemmed initially from Hayes Code era prohibitions of depicting any sexual immorality without punishment. So you could have a camp gay man (see: Nero in "The Sign of the Cross") as a villain or a predatory lesbian villainess (see: "Dracula's Daughter") and as long as they end up punished at the end, you're good. The same Code is why gangsters have to always die/get caught by the cops and lectured about their hubris, and why Cecile B. Demille can have naughty pagans cavort and frolic in drunken revels before Jehovah smites them.
Obviously, the Code is dead, but the same sort of attitudes that produced it (and were reinforced by it) linger on.
Butthurt hillary voter detected. Were you one of the Hillary supporters who pepper sprayed a kid?
can we all at least agree that Anthony Burch's attempts at writing LGBT characters are the worst
because let me tell you, I'm down with some bisexual peeps on my dystopian Spaghetti Western BUT IN SPACE series, but boy howdy I do not appreciate his efforts
I don't know who this is or why you brought him up.
Then why reply?
Also I think you're lying your ass off here for effect.
This is the information age knowing who he is can take literally seconds so you don't look like an ignorant idiot, and it's obvious he's bringing it up because that's one of the topics in this thread.
Bringing up some random writer has no real relevance to the actual topic though. It's, at best, a tangent, and more likely a deflection.
I wasn't even posting before then you bag of wrenches, what am I "deflecting"
Criticism of the assorted vile viewpoints you defend, your usual routine.
Except I wasn't defending anything.
I wasn't even posting.
Shouldn't you be banned by now for constantly resorting to personal attacks?
No, enough people rail on me that it has become acceptable to do so.
you are the new Mister Twister
None taken, it's basically the truth of it.
Enough people dislike a guy, it becomes difficult, or, usually, not worth it in the eyes of the mods, to enforce.
There were Mister Twisters before Mister Twister, there are and will continue to be Mister Twisters after Mister Twister.
I sincerely feel for you, man.
Madness is a bitch.
Poke you are a vile human being, but I will grant at least that you are not MT.
You are, however, roughly equivalent to Toxie or Senor.
He's attached to Stone so he won't even get his comments deleted for directly attacking people and calling them vile human beings. Put some thought into your insults man, this is pathetic.
Meanwhile I get my comment deleted for telling Stone if he's ready to be civil then I am as well.
I stopped deleting posts in this thread when Big Boss told me to. Don't blame me for your posts getting axed when I didn't do it. And for fuck's sake, y’all need to quit ripping on Slowpoke like it’s a national pasttime—if his views are toxic, you can address those without attacking him. This may be an imageboard, but do you really want it to just be 4chan with a different layout?
I liked both of those people, so I'm fine with this.
>you can address those without attacking him
This requires him to post in good faith, which neither he nor his cheer squad would ever do so
Actually you're the only one posting in bad faith in every single of these threads, you have a very distinctive posting style.
For example accusing people of doing things they haven't done or being things they aren't despite everyone being able to check and prove you wrong, trying to guilt trip people without realizing that we're adults and stopped falling for that shit in highschool, and not shitposting with reaction images or one-liner replies.
We know slowpoke is not a vile person because he's never posted anything vile. The only way anyone could think this guy is vile is if they were disgusted by moderation and slightly boring (re: unemotional) reply patterns.
And honestly do you think Slowpoke will go "oh my god someone thinks im vile, quick better change my complete psychology and agree with them!"
This is stupid, stop trying to guilt the guy, you're not his mother or his girlfriend. And even if you were literally sucking his cock and trying to guilt trip him.. he's at least eighteen, he's immune to that bullshit and too old to change that way anyway.
>We know slowpoke is not a vile person
"We" don't know anything of the sort, do not lump others into your weird anti-feminist crusade.
bud your acting like that's hard to believe.
hillary supporters are insane, everyone with access to youtube, twitter or facebook knows this.
but im not american, its not any of my business.
since your obviously such a feminist, why dont you denounce hillary and her supporters.
I can certainly denounce that person. However, since Bernie is now essentially a dead duck Hillary Clinton remains the only remotely sane presidential candidate.
>but im not american, its not any of my business
Then why post about it or keep your/Pol/ Screenshot Kit on hand?
It's almost like you have an agenda or something.
Bernie is only a "dead duck" because of people like you, don't fucking pretend you supported bernie before hillary.
WORSE THAN TRUMP!
>don't fucking pretend you supported bernie before hillary
I literally voted for him in the VA primary but okay
Oh I see, you were off the reservation, running on colored people time.
>you were off the reservation, running on colored people time
The webm explains it.
don't try to apply rational thought to a /pol/ creature
r u triggered
Being annoyed with someone ≠ having PTSD
Slowpoke depends yet another piece of shit /pol/ user: world stunned
Oh lol /pol/kun tries to attack the Clinton's over infamously flimsy allegations, while praising Trump who has a straight up, solidly documented case, I love this thread
I was actually making a lighthearted joke, poking fun at Tumblr teens misusing a word (yet commonly get defended for it despite it making people take mental illnesses less seriously).
>it making people take mental illnesses less seriouly
A: oh yeah cause this is totally a thing you care about
B: this is the problem of these mysterious and ephemeral "people" whom you are likely inventing, not tumblr users
As a mentally ill man married to a mentally ill woman in a Religious Conservative part of the US where people routinely either don't understand or just openly mock mental illnesses, idiots giving them even more ammunition by faking mental illnesses for attention does in fact directly impact my life and the life of my significant other.
>infamously flimsy allegations
>things she is on video saying
You heard it here folks, if you don't like an abuser, a racist rape apologist for president, then that means you must be a stormfronter.
>this is the problem of these mysterious and ephemeral "people" whom you are likely inventing
Mentally ill people are ephemoral?
>idiots giving them even more ammunition by faking mental illnesses for attention does in fact directly impact my life and the life of my significant other
Good thing this isn't a thing in any of the areas about which we discuss in this thread. Care to comment on that dude denying that Islamophobia has no racial element? No? Of course not.
It's a huge thing on tumblr, twitter and practically everywhere on the internet.
>Care to comment on that dude denying that Islamophobia has no racial element?
Care to comment how a religion has a racial element? You still haven't explained that, and you're not going to get away with just asserting it.
>if you don't like an abuser, a racist rape apologist for president
Then you probably aren't voting Trump
No I'm not, and you're not voting for Hillary either, are you?
Those are going to be the two candidates.
America is going to have to vote for an abusing racist rape apologist then.
Guess so, see you at Hillary's inauguration.
See that's the difference between you and me.
I'm willing to abstain whereas you're going to nod your head and tacitly approve of this shit because you buy blue ties and you don't want to change the color for topics as miniscule as rape and racism.
You're no different from Trump supporters.
Black guy in this vid is hilarious.
Retard Blastio: I WAS RUNNING ON COLORED PEOPLE TIME
Black Shakespeare: uh bro i dont like jokes like that
Hillary Clinton: It's ok he meant cautious politician time
Black Shakespeare: oh ok
Racism is fine if the democrat overlord says its fine.
>I'm willing to abstain
Good for you.
Bad for you, horrible vile racist rape apologist.
Goddamn, you’re all a bunch of assholes. (I am, too, but at least I'll own up to it.)
The sad thing is you wouldn't even get your way, you'd be selling your morals for nothing.
>Trump 41%, Clinton 39%
>Good thing this isn't a thing in any of the areas about which we discuss in this thread.
I can't figure out what you're trying to say here. Rephrase?
>Care to comment on that dude denying that Islamophobia has no racial element? No? Of course not.
Man, do you like, just want Moose to implement a feature where before any +/pol/ posts go through, I review them and add my opinion about the topic to the post? Cause I'm willing to try, but it sounds like a pain to code.
If you want my opinion about something, ask, but don't be trashy about me not replying to certain posts.
He's breaking the voter registration records as well.
Can't wait for the mental gymnastics.
>Trump can't win the general; all the polls say so
>Trump can't win the general; all the polls say so
>Trump can't win the general; all the polls say so
>Trump can't win the general; all the polls say so
>Trump pulls ahead in poll
>Polls this far out are for stupid people
Meanwhile racist Trump and his racist supporters continue to be the only ones who truly care about minorities.
For an "anti-trump" guy you're sure ready to go to bat for him.
I'm really waiting for more a more impartial source, like breitbart
>Polls this far out are for stupid people
If a polling organization is not good enough, how bout a leading researcher in political science modelling?
Please tell me you aren't using huffington post where butthurt ariana spins her bullshit.
>Please tell me you aren't using huffington post where butthurt ariana spins her bullshit
isn't this is the exact behavior you just went after him for, dismissing a source out of hand
I'm not "batting" for him jackass, it's just clear your psycho bitch is less appealable to the general population.
The model has been correct for every election since 1912, but the Hillary supporter ITT is still going to activate his blind spot.
>dismissing a source out of hand
How does commenting about Ariana Huffingtons relationship with Donald Trump "out of hand"? Do you know what out of hand means? Finish high school before you try to join adult discussions.
>Finish high school before you try to join adult discussions.
I'm not sure that the person raving about "psycho bitches" and whose rhetoric is entirely built around insults really has any ground to stand on vis a vis "adult discussions."
How can someone who's opposed to "psycho bitches" be voting for Trump anyway? He's the biggest psycho bitch who's ever run for the US presidency.
>He's the biggest psycho bitch who's ever run for the US presidency.
NO ONE HERE IS VOTING FOR TRUMP RETARD STOP STRAWMANNING
It's first past the post in the US, friend. You only have two choices. Even if you vote third party, you're just voting against the person you would've voted for if you hadn't decided to throw your vote away. So yes, saying you're not voting for Hillary under any circumstances means you're voting for Trump, unless the Republicans manage to take away the nomination for him at the Convention.
>You only have two choices
Wrong. The third choice is not to vote.
>saying you're not voting for Hillary under any circumstances means you're voting for Trump
Fuck off with this disingenuous bullshit, most of the country isn't voting.
Even on the off chance your Turd Sandwich wins you will have the pleasure of knowing less than a quarter of the country agrees with your insanity.
Ah, someone who gets their political information from South Park. Well, surely we now know we can trust your opinion as nuanced and with plenty of perspective and actual understanding of the situation at hand, and not surface-level bullshit from smug, uninformed douchebag libertarians.
>The third choice is not to vote.
In which case your choice is whoever wins, whether you like them or not.
That is one of the most awful analogies I've ever seen, and you really ought to be ashamed of yourself for making it.
>Uses douche vs. turd as an honest argument.
The scenario presented by South Park in that episode depends on the assumption that the only manifestation of democracy is first-past-the-post, which isn't even the case in all districts in the United States, much less in existence.
You're using the argument of a couple of schlubs who had a week to make an episode about something and didn't really know anything about the subject they were talking about beyond the bare minimum necessary to make jokes about PETA members having sex with animals and rappers being violent. Instant runoff voting would eradicate pretty much every point that they had to make in that episode, and actually make third party voting meaningful.
Lesser of two evils is what the system has to be when it's first past the post. Abstaining doesn't change that. it just says "I am fine with both choices and do not care about what either one does enough to do anything about it." You either need to suck it up and vote for the lesser of two evils, or you need to get involved in local politics and attempt to actually make the changes to the voting system that need to happen to make that no longer necessary. Mindless nihilistic cynicism is just juvenile, self-indulgent behavior of the sort one would expect from a teenager.
Also worth noting: Those who do not exercise their right to participate in the political process have no business complaining about the outcome.
If you won't vote for either the Democrat or Rebublican candidates no matter what, that doesn't mean you're somehow voting for both. Further, switching from one to the other makes a difference of two votes (one lost and one gained) while going to a third party makes a difference of one, and showing interest in a party by voting can get the party better recognition even without their candidate getting elected.
I'm pretty sure that bothering to vote for a third party would be a better show of disinterest than not voting, just because people would be able to tell the difference between that and not paying attention.
>The scenario presented by South Park in that episode depends on the assumption that the only manifestation of democracy is first-past-the-post,
One made by the post being replied to ( >>406434 ).
>get involved in local politics and attempt to actually make the changes to the voting system that need to happen to make that no longer necessary.
A course of action which is not at all mutually exclusive with voting for a third party.
Personally, I'm not voting because I think either candidate winning would be a travesty and cause some serious global issues, and I would probably hate myself if whoever I voted for ended up winning.
Must be nice to have a life so free of actual problems that you don't see there being any significant difference in Trump and Clinton.
Then there's no reason not to vote for a third party who supposedly can't win?
If I was able to organise one, I would form a party just to have its primaries work in successive rounds that start out local and slowly combine regions in a knockout tournament based system. This way it avoids narrowing down to a handful of people all at once without being too many to keep track of locally in any given round. It also wouldn't actually hold stances other than supporting its own vote system.
>brings logic to that point
>gets called on it
>trying to guilt trip
Watch me be completely unaffected. Gonna sleep like a baby tonight, no bad dreams about analogies.
>If you won't vote for either the Democrat or Rebublican candidates no matter what, that doesn't mean you're somehow voting for both.
Of course not, it means we're voting for neither. This dude is so set in party politics he can't imagine not being part of one of the two clubs, it's fascinating.
>I'm pretty sure that bothering to vote for a third party would be a better show of disinterest than not voting
I'm pretty sure 50% of the country not voting is a pretty good show of disinterest.
If I'm going to support the Green party or something, I'll do it with my wallet and my choices, not a vote.
>Then there's no reason not to vote for a third party who supposedly can't win?
Look, this isn't just cynicism here. It's careful reading of the laws and by-laws involved in elections and facing reality--the way the laws are set up, a third party candidate in the United States can't win. It's not just that they won't. It's that the system has been built in such a way to make it impossible. The last third party candidate to have any success at all was Ross Perot. And his campaign exemplifies why a third party candidate can't win.
Ross Perot got 20% of the vote in the country. 20% is not bad in a three-way race. It means one in five people who voted for president voted for him--not enough to score victory, but only about twice as many people as voted for Clinton, or voted for Bush, voted for Perot.
So in a fair system, Ross Perot should've gotten a fifth of the votes for President, right? No, actually, he didn't get any votes. The electoral college only gives someone votes if they won at the state level, and he didn't win any states. Which means he didn't get any votes. Every single vote for Ross Perot was thrown out and ignored entirely.
This is not simple cynicism. It is systemic disenfranchisement of third party voters, and putting qualifiers like "supposedly" around it fails to acknowledge the elephant in the room: a third party vote is absolutely meaningless. You may as well not vote.
>I'm pretty sure 50% of the country not voting is a pretty good show of disinterest.
But not of why that disinterest exists, and to me that seems like it'd be easier to spin than third party votes.
That's just my reasoning for planning to vote myself, though.
Trump probably won't accomplish his goals.
Hillary probably will.
I think Hillary would do less damage to our diplomatic relations abroad compared to Trump, despite her hawkish nature. Hell we're finally recovering from all of the damage Bush did.
As a non-American, I wholeheartedly agree.
>I think Hillary would do less damage to our diplomatic relations
She helped get Iraq invasion off the ground, ruined Lybia herself herself, started a cold war with Russia, almost ruined a second country (Syria) and would have if Putin hadn't said Nyet.
Oh and as secretary of state she lost an entire embassy full of people - her whole job as secretary of state was not to lose ambassadors and not to start a cold war with anyone.
Diplomatic relations is the thing she's second WORST at.
You could at least like her because she's bound to lower regulations on businesses and 'improve' the economy or something.
And she at least seems concerned about healthcare, even if she failed at her shitty health care initiative as first lady.
All the countries in the world have fewer rights and liberties than America, so no matter what country you're from your preferred American presidential candidate is statistically likely to take a steaming dump all over this country.
No offense meant regarding whether or not you're ignorant about her though. The fella you're replying to is an American that seems completely ignorant on the Pros and Cons of Hillarys past performance, so ignorance about this lady is pretty common.
Offense regarding civil rights in a country is absolutely meant though. Work on your country and get on our level first before you start offering advice.
In case anyone is curious, the thing she's worst at is womens relations. She should be raking in 90% of the female vote, she'll be lucky if she breaks a fifth.
A great intro article on what's happening here:
Notwithstanding Ellen Degeneres selling out, Steinham with her special place in hell comment, and the ever decreasing number of feminists in the country.
people saying hillary is a good diplomat or popular outside america are out of their fucking minds.
current world atmosphere means shes going to be worrying about assasination every time she leaves the country.
this woman is responsible for abandoning ukraine and destroying the balkans and the middle east.
only some retard living on an island and being steadily fed propaganda could possibly like her.
>Diplomatic relations is the thing she's second WORST at.
I actually agree with every statement you made in your post. However, that's why I chose my words carefully, i.e. "would do less damage." Our allies threaten to pass resolutions to prevent Trump from ever even setting foot in their countries. Trump exacerbates the "ugly American" sterotype in a way that would continue to isolate us from our allies and embolden our enemies. Other candidates that were running would have been, I felt, much better diplomats than either Hillary or Trump. However, it seems now we are not going to get them, so in choosing between the two, I think Hillary would do less damage to our international standing than Trump, and in four years maybe get another crack at the election with hopefully some actual decent choices.
>All the countries in the world have fewer rights and liberties than America
the very top of all keks
curious that nobody cares about the rights of women until the notion of a woman getting into supreme executive office is on the line
reminds me of the all those right wingers in the 90's and early 00's who suddenly cared about the rights of women in Islamic countries despite consistently opposing legislation expanding women's rights in the states
or, for that latter, anti-suffragists taking up the exact same banner of women in Islamic countries in the colonial era
to more directly make the point, nobody is fooled by you right wing freaks bringing up Hillary's feminist cred (or lack thereof): you would not in any other circumstance bring this up if she weren't threatening to be a woman in power, and in fact we see proof of that in that you furiously deny the considerably more concrete cases that can be lain at Trump's feet
it's exactly like when last year one of you tried to bring up that attack on those two German transwomen to fuel your anti-refugee campaign: if a white dude had done it instead of immigrants, you would never have cared and would in fact be giggling, since you hate trans people just as much as you hate Muslims
NOBODY IS FUCKING FOOLED
(triple post oh well)
in fact the tactic is SO transparent that even Slowpoke had to admit that the whole German trans thing was just an excuse for you to attack muslims, it's stupid
you're going to deny this of course, and one of your little friends will defend you, but we are all well aware of the score
>Slowpoke had to admit that the whole German trans thing was just an excuse for you to attack muslims, it's stupid
Did this happen in some erased timeline no one else is aware of?
If our allies are threatening to ban one of our politicians from entering their countries, we need to find better allies. I'm all for dismantling NATO by the way, let them fend for themselves, sick of half the world spitting in our eye at every opportunity while depending on us to pay 90% of UN operating costs and act as world police.
And no matter what we do nor how many people demand us to do it, we end up being the bad guy. We defend and help Gulf states provide oil to the world, oil which the entire human civilization is based on, and we end up the bad guy for it. Fudge this, next time a country wants to make war in the middle east and destabilize oil supplies, I say let them. Let the world feel what it's like with oil $20/gallon.
The United States needs to become isolationist again, like before WWI.
>Other candidates that were running would have been, I felt, much better diplomats than either Hillary or Trump.
Yeah no deuce, Bernie would have been flipping great, especially with O'Malley or Webb to balance out the presidency. But we're left with Hillary who is a wallstreet puppet, and she's probably going to choose a VP based on crotch content.
>reminds me of the all those right wingers in the 90's and early 00's who suddenly cared about the rights of women in Islamic countries despite consistently opposing legislation expanding women's rights in the states
You know it's possible to be against female slavery, while also being against abortion, right? These ideas aren't mutually exclusive.
Also it's funny how you ignore that CONSERVATIVE WOMEN ARE THE ONES OPPOSING ABORTION IN THE STATES! The conservative men largely don't give a fudge, they'd rather their mistresses had the right to abort a problem child.
Plenty of trans people are centrists, or even lean right wing, have you considered the people you're aiming your hate boner at might actually be trans? To my knowledge no one center-left or center-right actually hates trans people either, the alt-rigt is willing to work with them, and the far-right thinks transpeople should be treated in an opposite way (testosterone for MTFs, estrogen for FTMs).
In fact they're such a small portion of the population that I even participated in a debate where I argued we should have tax funded free MTF transitions because the price is basically less than the taxpayer money we waste every year on retarded billboard ad campaigns.
Not FTM because the technology just isn't there, although I do support research into penile transplant technology. It might be possible one day, fingers crossed.
Also nobody is flipping fooled by you calling Moroccans and Algerians refugees either, there's no war there, I have a friend who went there for a blasted vacation last summer.
What strikes me as hilarious is when feminists demand that German native men need to get taught not to rape but the moment someone suggests it to a migrant suddenly it's racist. Despite the fact that of the two, the migrant is the one that needs it. Psssst..... your intersectionality is showing.
He literally just referenced being well aware of the event, although in his usual way he's denying the particulars.
>allies threaten to pass resolutions to prevent Trump from ever even setting foot in their countries
people like hillary even less. at least trump hasn't destabilized three global regions, irritated a superpower, and destabilized the united nations.
a vote for hillary is a vote for an iran invasion.
>I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran.
>The United States needs to become isolationist again, like before WWI.
If you want a country that's completely isolationist with no allies then how about North Korea? You will hear nothing but pleasant reassuring messages about how strong your country is, how brilliant your leader is, and anyone saying otherwise will be swiftly dealt with by brutal execution squads.
>people like hillary even less. at least trump hasn't destabilized three global regions, irritated a superpower, and destabilized the united nations
Give him time.
>people like hillary even less.
Unless you look at the polls that actually ask how people feel about the various candidates, of course.
You don't know what isolationist means, look it up.
>If you want a country that's completely isolationist with no allies then how about North Korea? You will hear nothing but pleasant reassuring messages about how strong your country is, how brilliant your leader is, and anyone saying otherwise will be swiftly dealt with by brutal execution squads.
No need, they're just going to elect Donald Trump so we can make America work that way instead.
He knows perfectly well what it means, he's pointing out that such a thing is utterly anachronistic.
At this point, nations themselves are anachronistic. But leave it to knuckle-draggers like Trump and his cronies to beat the drums of nationalism in a world where a person's nationality is increasingly irrelevant to their lives.
>At this point, nations themselves are anachronistic.
"nations" perhaps but not "states," our entire global system is still very much underpinned by the alliances and arrangements between states
like if you wanna get all "future system" on us what we're involved in now is the transition between traditional states into larger, EUesque conglomerations which, obviously, has some kinks to work out
>"nations" perhaps but not "states," our entire global system is still very much underpinned by the alliances and arrangements between states
The fact that it is one way doesn't mean that that's the most sensible way for things to work, it just means that ontological inertia is still a thing like it's always been. Our global system is underpinned by alliances and arrangements made between states, true, but while those things allowed us to reach the point we're at, they're holding us back from development now. Much like how much of the architecture of the internet is, brilliant as it was at the time, absolutely stupid by modern standards, and the US Constitution was, though a marvel at the time it was wrought, obsolete compared to even modern "open source" foundational documents for countries.
>they're holding us back from development now
not really, that development is occurring, as again, that's what the EU is
interests of individual states might slow something but relative to the entire rest of human history we are still actually reexamining and modifying our basic model of governance at lightning speed
"anachronistic" implies something is completely out of place in the modern world, not merely that it has obsolete or inefficient elements that it is actively toying with
The (slow, unsteady) political unification of Europe
Yes I know about the flaws, but does it have any good sides?
happy cinco de manyans
>I love hispanics!
>lets build a wall to keep the closest ones out
the end goal is to have as many humans under as few (democratic) governments as possible, ergo that is desirable
That's not good at all. Larger governments are worse at representing their constituents than smaller governments that can take local interests into account. And fewer governments means less ability to compare the affects of differing policies, which reduces our understanding of those policies' implications. As long as we have governments that protect freedom of speech and avoid war, I don't really see much benefit to erasing the borders that separate them, just convenience for large corporations with long supply chains.
Further, adding more layers of government on top doesn't really reduce the amount of government since there's still the lower levels operating under it: Counties still exist in the US despite being two layers down from Federal, and there's even still townships and boroughs below that. More layers means more bureaucratic complexity, which causes more flailing of politics. What I think would work is if higher level government focused on reducing corruption in lower level governments rather than directly enforcing policy on the general public, but that doesn't require uniting existing states into larger systems.
>Larger governments are worse at representing their constituents than smaller governments that can take local interests into account.
What is this 18th century horseshit? You're the isolationist Trump voter aren't you?
So how long until enough spineless republicans start humping Trump's legs that he can do this?
>hey maybe don't give just one guy authority over most of the world
>what is this anti-SJW garbage???
nice rebuttal. i like the part where you debated his point.
>>hey maybe don't give just one guy authority over most of the world
How does "larger government" equate to "one guy" to you? If anything, smaller governments are more likely to be overseen by one guy than larger governments. Larger governments are awash in bureaucracy and most "small government" fetishists use that as their arguments for why larger government is to be avoided.
You need to get your talking points straight here. If you're arguing against big governments, you're supposed to be bitching about gridlock and slowness and being disconnected from the communities, not comparing big governments to kings.
No, I'm not, I neither support Trump or believe we should close our borders to all travel, communication, cultural exchange or trade. I just don't see what advantage there is in fewer countries compared to more of them. It just seems like an opportunity for oversights to have greater consequences. And given that people already tend to neglect state level elections in favor of only caring about the federal, nevermind city and county elections, I'm concerned that a another layer on top of that would further divide people's limited attention for politicians.
Large governments and governments with large territory aren't the same thing though.
>Large governments and governments with large territory aren't the same thing though.
The latter has to be the former to be in any way effective.
>the government should be larger than needed, also totalitarian
>america needs to intervene in the affairs of other countries
Who let all this SJW scum in here?
Yeah but other Hispanics hate Mexicans, and Spain and Portugal themselves hates all sudacas, and most Euro countries don't like Spain and Portugal, but most Hispanics (except mexico) like Euro countries, Spain and Portugal, Mexico just likes the Vatican, America hates Euros and Mexicans but seems fine with other Hispanics. For that matter do you think Mexicans like America?
This isn't black and white, or some kind of privilege ladder.
It's a circlejerk of "i dont like you please leave" and everyone has a minimum of two neighbors cocks in their hands.
>this isn't black and white
No, it pretty much is. Trump is a cartoon, not a legitimate option for president.
I'm sure the Democrats thought the same things about Ronald Reagan and George Bush Jr. before they lost to them.
Point being, don't underestimate popularity.
Trump isn’t as popular as you think he is—especially amongst non-white-male demographics, if polling is any indication. The Democrats can only lose if they bungle the national campaign from here on out by giving Trump an ego boost and making it easier for people to think he’s worth voting for. Painting him as a “dangerous” political outsider might actually help his image with undecided voters who are tired of “career politicians” who “play it safe”. But painting him as a hypocrite, a horrible businessman, and an easily-provoked blowhard would likely set Trump off in a way that would give the Democrats all the material they need for attack ads (and prove that “easily-provoked blowhard” bit right).
You would be surprised though just how polarizing a figure Hilary Clinton is. I know several independents who hate Trump have said "but you can't be voting for HILLARY can you? She's a complete crook!" When I say it's the lesser of the two evils there's this reluctant silence. Hillary's PR is a complete mess and tends to worsen every time she's the focus of media attention.
Look, Democrats have a history of self-sabatoge. I have seen the party snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory too many times to count. I don't take ANY race for granted anymore.
Not sure why I didn't link this earlier, but to me it seems as relevant to illegal immigration to the States as it does to legal immigration to Britan, and is actually more about the nature of two party systems in general.
>don't underestimate popularity
Trump doesn't have popularity.
This. Why is everyone obsessed with underestimating this guy?
>especially amongst non-white-male demographics
You mean the demographics that are minorities with less votes? Are you trying to assure us or make us panic, you fucking idiot.
>Painting him as a “dangerous” political outsider might actually help his image
Whenever the media is silent on Trump it sends the message that he's a dangerous political outsider and they want to sweep him under the rug. Whenever the media attacks Trump with factually incorrect bullshit it paints him as a political outsider.
Ad homing and ignoring this guy doesn't fucking work, it's been tried before.
The only time attacks actually worked against Trump is when the media simply and honestly talked about his policies. But no one wants to do that anymore, judging by retards in this thread.
Scroll down to the Table of Contents. Long and short of it is the people are sick of being turned into hoi poloi by politicians who no longer give a single fuck about them, and the Trump crowd solution is to burn the country down.
Your last chance was Bernie, America, get your passports ready.
>Your last chance was Bernie, America, get your passports ready.
okay foreigner, that's nice, but we're not voting for Trump
Come back into this thread when someone is asking you to vote for him.
Never. Come back never.
It's not about asking or not asking, it's a statement of fact. Donald Trump, whatever your media is telling you, is not going to be elected by our country.
Australia is calling the election on 2nd July
The non-stop ads have started already.
It's entirely obvious that this anon has precogition abilities. How else could he talk about something like This with that level of certainty?
Tell me, anon. Tell me when androids will be a real thing and I can get my own qt robot girlfriend. I need to know.
I know you're just jerking off at the possible fall of the SJW Regime or whatever but no, no trump for you.
Nice of you to finally admit to being in power in the West, instead of constantly pretending like you're "punching up".
>no trump for you
Yup, soon the White Male shall be placed upon the plantation and the Great Mother shall assume her throne.
How many thousands of pounds of great.
All the more to crush the White Man with, please be excited.
You're in luck, they're growing in mass like a black hole.
The liberalization of society expands to choke out the ignorance of conservatism, but not so much as conservatives have choked themselves out.
How do you define liberalization? Because it clearly isn't classical...
nobody in their right mind is talking about liberalization in terms of the fucking Wealth of Nations anymore so I don't know why this would be relevant
What a non-sequitur question dodge.
>what do you like about vanilla ice cream?
If you think that Wealth of Nations has nothing to do with that question then you don't actually know anything about classical liberalism.
Classical liberalism evolved a century after that book was written, which has more to do with economy than a liberal philosophy. This is three comments in that you're dodging a very simple question though, how do you define liberalization?
I don't even want to know the answer that much by the way, it was just an offhand question to see where you stand. I expected a boring answer I could thank you for and move on, however your denials and evasions are generating extra interest here.
>Classical liberalism evolved a century after that book was written
Based on the theories expressed in said book.
>how do you define liberalization
Well most commonly liberalization refers to a relaxation of restrictions and reforms but the particulars depend on context. In this thread this generally refers to social issues.
I don't see what exactly this has to do with politics, but if we're talking about art, here's a series I thought did a good job of going over modern art vs classical art.
I'm a registered democrat and probably won't vote because of that toxic person.
>I'm a registered democrat
Sure you are.
>George Zimmerman is actually auctioning off the gun he used to kill Trayvon Martin
Jesus fucking Christ.
I wonder how much he'll get for it.
Zero; the auction was pulled, thank God.
I wonder how much he would have gotten for it.
There were already 200k views in the few minutes it was up. The website could have made a mint on ads if they kept it up, the entire country would have come to have a look, better even than a superbowl.
>Well most commonly liberalization refers to a relaxation of restrictions
By that definition society is becoming more conservative, people are getting outraged and demanding restrictions all the time. And they're getting them.
In legal terms we're getting new restrictions in the wazoo as well, or have you forgotten about the expansions in things like the Patriot Act, or the elimination of fair-use through trade agreements?
>By that definition society is becoming more conservative
You no longer being able to beat up trans people does not constitute a conservative reform friend.
I don't.... what the hell are you talking about?!
No you see, his 'free speech" is being infringed upon by the SJW conspiracy
Dare I post news in this thread?
It's not exactly concrete legislation but it's at least something.
We live in a world where a fifty year career of contributing to human medicine and development, culminating in a nobel prize, can be crushed by a single sentence... and you don't think our society is regressing to an anti-free speech conservative stance?
I'm just going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are denying censorship exists because you aren't allowed to take the opposite stance.
everyone knows hillary didnt get in it to win, she got in it to clear away any challengers to trump.
why is trump is so cozy with the clintons? he's bribing them with his billions.
end of the race she gets to take home all that delicious donation money as well as the trump bribes.
meanwhile the elites have someone in the white house who is one of them.
the fact that anyone would think hillary or trump is a friend to the people is mind boggling.
american people get conned every election.
thankfully the fructose fueled, clickbait honed four year memory is going to reset in time for the next one.
Democracy becomes less efficient the more people are added into the mix. A democracy works best with communities of ~100 individuals, works pretty well with hundreds of thousands, sort of functions with communities of a few million, but really breaks down when we're talking hundreds of millions.
This is the most significant argument against conglomeration and federalization.
You made a noble effort, but there's no getting off the /pol/ train.
>We live in a world where a fifty year career of contributing to human medicine and development, culminating in a nobel prize, can be crushed by a single sentence... and you don't think our society is regressing to an anti-free speech conservative stance?
You're opposed to free speech then? Because you seem to be arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to react the way they want to people who say things when they have different priorities than you.
If their reaction is to shut someone up... that's not free speech dude, it's the opposite.
This is how stupid you are:
>You're opposed to free speech then? Because you seem to be arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to order the massacre of six million jewish people.
>If their reaction is to shut someone up... that's not free speech dude, it's the opposite
Yes I agree, MRAs are indeed opposed to free speech.
>If their reaction is to shut someone up... that's not free speech dude, it's the opposite.
That's literally what you're doing right now. "Shut up, SJW's, you're not allowed to express your opinions if it might hurt my tender feelings and make me feel guilty about acting like a jackass in a public sphere!"
In that case, please give me an example of our world becoming more prone to trying to shut people up. The only people I see doing that are, for example, nerds trying to get women to shut up by threatening them with rape for trying to participate in nerd culture. Which is definitely an example of conservative behavior, but from a vocal minority rather than the majority of society.
Awful lot of fire alarms and bomb threats happening at places that have plans to have speakers talking about men's issues, as a counterpoint.
Probably always been that way though (or at least as long as there's been radical feminists), so I don't know if it's really any kind of transition.
>as a counterpoint
that isn't actually a counterpoint
also oh how odd, Slowpoke jumped in to defend MRAs again that's so strange and out of character for him
>Awful lot of fire alarms and bomb threats happening at places that have plans to have speakers talking about men's issues, as a counterpoint.
That doesn't really represent a societal stance muich though, given that it consists of tactics that are designed to be used by a small number of people for the purpose of disrupting while attempting to avoid reprisal from the larger, presumably disagreeing group.
>Probably always been that way though (or at least as long as there's been radical feminists), so I don't know if it's really any kind of transition.
More like as long as there's been any sort of contentious public speech whatsoever. Can't say for sure that it wans't femenism, because it would be before recorded history, but it would be a coincidence in that case.
So Slowpoke, are you even trying to make a point here, or did you just feel obligated to comment when someone disparaged gatekeeping behavior in nerds?
Oh boy, here comes the "We Hate Slowpoke" brigade. Time for everyone to be called MRAs and be accused of doing or believing something they don't, be on the receiving end of personal attacks for having different opinions, and generally have the atmosphere of the discussion turn vile. It's like clockwork.
Just pathetic at this point.
>be accused of doing or believing something they don't
or visibly just did, as the case may be
Sure it is. Anon said the only attempts at silencing or censorship they'd ever heard of in modern times was a conservative movement, I pointed out that a liberal movement does plenty of the same.
For what it's worth, I am a liberal, though of course you'll deny it, somewhere around pic related. Roughly.
lol unironically using that horseshit chart, stay classy slowpoke
It is a quick and concise way to convey general viewpoints without spending hours delving into every nuance.
It is also the first image result for "political chart"
>It is a quick and concise way to convey general viewpoints
it isn't because it doesn't mean anything, the dichotomies which it presents are false, much like most of the arguments you present because you're a disingenuous little shit
Elaborate on the false dichotomies?
And if you have the time, elaborate on why you're so mad that i gave an easily digestible representation of my political standpoint.
Please do not reply to slowpoke, he only seeks to derail actual discussion.
>Please do not reply to slowpoke
There's no "actual discussion" in +/pol/ though, just a bunch of white dudes furiously jacking off over how cool and great they are.
Because "actual discussion" was something that was totally happening, and you were definitely contributing to it. Because you lot don't jump at the chance to personally attack people for their posts if what they say isn't agreeable to you, thereby silencing discussion.
>Because you lot don't jump at the chance to personally attack people for their posts if what they say isn't agreeable to you, thereby silencing discussion.
Yeah I'm not a Gamergater so I don't much bother with such behavior.
>gamergate out of nowhere
I think I can safely say that no behavior is exclusive to any group or type of person. Just because you are not a part of or are a part of something (or believe in, etc.), doesn't mean you are not capable or even guilty of behaving a certain way.
Fuck off and stop puppeting.
It's one anon and Mr. Stone, who I'm not even sure isn't the one anon. They'd have to be conjoined twins to be using the same posting style, same phrases etc.
They also never link to each others posts which is a 100% certainty of sockpuppetry. It's hard to actually think of yourself as a different person worth replying to.
Watch as he starts linking and replying to himself now though! Fucking amateurs.
If I ever post anonymously here, it’s only by accident. I don’t need sockpuppetry to sound like an asshole.
I'd just like to commend Slowpoke for successfully hijacking the discussion and distracting everyone from the conversation about censorship and the hypocrisy of people who rail against political correctness vis a vis trying to shut up people who disagree with them. It was a brilliant scheme executed masterfully.
Not that skill-based, if any of the +/pol/ regulars so much as sees my name they delve into ad-homs, personal attacks, and the like, regardless of post content.
It's kind of like Moe, when he got to that point that no one even cared if he had a point or not, or if he was telling the truth or not, he was Moe and therefore he was trolling, and HAD to be called out on it.
Kind of weird. It's like Pavlov's dog. I wonder if any of you guys get kind of a nervous tic going on when you see the actual Pokemon at this point.
Oh, woe is you. It's purely a Pavlovian knee-jerk response, and you are in no way culpable for making an unnecessary comment that had nothing to do with the subject at hand but did allow you to remind everyone how much you hate feminists. Which wasn't bait at all, no siree.
I don't hate feminists, and it was topical.
lol you realize no one is falling for your bullshit right? You're the hypocrite.
To retail: hypocrisy is the weapon of the MRA/#GG shitbag. They claim that they are being "censored" when they are called out for being asshole to women, minorities, etc, but will do absolutely anything to silence those groups or men who don't conform to their particular ideas of stereotypical behavior.
They will use any tactic to reinforce this gatekeeping behavior, from falsely claiming to protect men's rights (a thing which the MRA movement has NEVER actually been interested in), to taking the women/minorities/LGBT figures who DO side with them and using them as shields and say "see, I'm not sexist/racist/homophobic/eyc, I've got one of them on my side!"
Please don't pretend to be able to tell me anything about myself.
Finding it topical is subjective--i do, you don't, it's whatever. Differences in opinion.
But don't pretend like you know my thought processes. It's a pet peeve of mine.
>Finding it topical is subjective
I suppose then, in your mind, it is topical to barge into a serious discussion of the jim crow regime with YEAH BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THE TIMES THOSE BLACKS WERE RACIST TO ME HUH?!
because that's what you did
If someone said "the only racism that even happens is white-on-black," then yeah, it would be topical to bring up other examples.
>it would be topical to bring up other examples
but, if I may venture, not USEFUL to a discussion on the larger racial issues of the united states
Are we discussing whether it's topical, or whether it's useful?
If non-useful discussion is prohibited here, then Moose, please permanently IP ban everyone who has ever posted in +/pol/, we're incapable of providing useful discussion.
(As an aside, are you saying that the only relevant type of a racism in the US is white-on-black? )
>(As an aside, are you saying that the only relevant type of a racism in the US is white-on-black? )
The example given to you was "a serious discussion of the Jim Crow regime" you imbecile.
Which was a false comparison. The more accurate example I countered with was someone claiming "the only racism that even happens is white-on-black."
Do try to keep up.
>only relevant type of a racism in the US is white-on-black?
it's a hell of a lot more prevalent and relevant than black-on-white racism, though I wouldn't be surprised to see you argue otherwise
Hey you collective group of assholes shut the fuck up and check this out:
Mike Haggar is real and Metro City is the Philippines, apparently.
>reading a gulf state propaganda outlet
>same gulf states that execute gays
Duterte is a fucking monster and his election is only stopped from being the biggest embarrassment to the home country because Pacquiao exists.
In addition to all the other ways she's not fit to be president, Hillary is also not physically fit to be president.
Feminists suggest female genital mutilation should be allowed.
It really does seem like intersectionality has completely destroyed feminism by forcing feminism to accept cultures which are patriarchal and incredibly damaging to women.
>partiarchy is bad!
>but we should respect islam
>my body my choice!
>except when genital mutilation is cultural
Can't wait until intersectional feminists start joining ISIS.
>"We are not arguing that any procedure on the female genitalia is desirable," they said. "Rather, we only argue that certain procedures ought to be tolerated by liberal societies." They said the term "female genital mutilation" should be replaced with the less emotive "female genital alteration" to avoid "demonising important cultural practices".
Or we could just, y’know, keep calling it what the fuck it is and recognizing it as a way certain cultures try to control women’s lives. Why the fuck should we “tolerate” female genital mutilation when it offers no tangible benefits to the health and well-being of the girls/women who undergo the “procedure”? Fuck those idiot gynecologists.
This is disgusting.
Just by suggesting that they sent us 175 years back in time, when suggesting these things was not frowned on.
>Finding it topical is subjective--i do, you don't, it's whatever. Differences in opinion.
>But don't pretend like you know my thought processes. It's a pet peeve of mine.
It doesn't matter what your thought processes were. If you thought what you said (I have no proof, but I suspect feminists are pulling fire alarms when MRAs would be speaking!) was topical to the subject of whether responding to someone's discussions with negative reactions is censorship, then you didn't understand what was being talked about, and just saw the opportunity to razz feminists YET AGAIN, which is all you ever seem to do in these threads.
>I have no proof, but I suspect feminists are pulling fire alarms when MRAs would be speaking!
Just stop. You're obviously wrong, apologize to Slowpoke and move on with your life.
There's even a video of that one professor asking for "muscle" to assault a journalist.
This is intersectional feminism folks, a bunch of shrill autistic people trying to shut down speech with violence.
Not something that the noble MRA would ever stoop to of course.
And even if he's right that it was all feminists (which he didn't provide, by the way), his post was still completely irrelevant to the conversation. So no, he gets no apology from me, nor do you. You're still trying to turn the subject away from a discussion that makes you uncomfortable: being forced to deal with the fact that trying to shut up other people when they react negatively to your bullshit is far more censorious than just reacting negatively to your bullshit.
Which, incidentally, is itself an example of trying to shut people up and stop them from having conversations that you don't like.
Stop spamming reports.
I reported posts that were personally attacking users. I didn't think this was spam, I assumed they were posts that deserved pruning/moderation. I'll refrain from reporting any posts in the future and just assume this is a no-moderation zone.
Nah moose is fine with that when it's not his SJW buds.
I wasn't, i report posts that are nothing but personal attacks with no sort of argument to them.
I will continue to do so.
+/pol/ is expected to have heavy shitposting/trolling. That's why there's a dedicated thread. Said thread gets less moderation for said reason. You can continue to report (my comment was directed only at Slowpoke), but unless I can tell at a glance that it's a "bad" post, I prefer to err on no moderation rather than over-moderation.
>personal attacks with no sort of argument to them.
And you continue to engage them. If you were to ignore them but they still hound you, that would be proper grounds for a ban but is otherwise just shit-flinging.
>And you continue to engage them. If you were to ignore them but they still hound you, that would be proper grounds for a ban but is otherwise just shit-flinging.
That a promise?
Cause I've done so in the past to no avail, now I just try to at least stay cordial so that it can't be said that I'm "doing the same thing," or "joining in the attacks," or whatever.
Personally, I find posts such as >>406677 and >>406705 and especially >>406680 to be in violation of Global Rule #1, when you can easily just control+F my name and see that, at absolute worst, I am somewhat condescending, and have been, at worst, somewhat condescending, for the past several months, while the attacks just get more and more commonplace and vitriolic.
Was the anon who threw my friend's suicide in my face ever banned, Moose, or do you just overlook reports that concern me because you assume I deserve it, being how constant the attacks are? Surely someone who gets insulted every day is doing something wrong, right?
>Surely someone who gets insulted every day is doing something wrong, right?
In the case of you who support mass harassment and gatekeeping, this is in fact true, yes.
You support mass harassment, law breaking and censorship, you have no leg to stand on.
>You support mass harassment, law breaking and censorship
still riding your hypocrisy train huh?
You're the hypocrite here, accusing slowpoke of something despite practicing it yourself. Even if he wasn't innocent of your allegations you would still be a hypocrite on simple virtue of being pro-censorship yourself.
No one is mass harassing you. Shitting on you for being a massive douchebag yes, mass harassing you, no.
>being a massive douchebag
Most would characterize the people ganging up a woman to get her fired for being a woman to be the douchebags but I realize you have no conception of basic human morals or empathy so I can see where you'd be confused.
They'd also characterize the people ganging up on a man to get him fired for being a man to be douchebags.
Or you slandering Slowpoke to try to silence him, most would consider that douchebag behavior as well.
But we know you have no concept of basic human morals or empathy, so we can see where you'd be confused.
>Or you slandering Slowpoke to try to silence him
No one's trying to silence Slowpoke. They just call him on his trolling.
It really is just like what happened with Moe. Only with more people being vile human beings.
Yes I'm sure Slowpoke had only the most innocent of intentions when he gloated about Rapp's firing.
Also stop equating Poke to Moe, Moe was great.
Moe also, up until the time he left (no idea what he thinks now) thought the modern "social justice" movement as a whole was stupid and took a fairly moderate stance.
Moe had his own particulars but unlike you never endorsed organized hate movements so
>endorsed organized hate movements
#GG specifically, MRAs in general, you know, I know, you won't admit it, and round and round we go again forever
Okay, if they're organized, who is the leader of #GG? Who is the leader of the MRAs?
>Okay, if they're organized, who is the leader of #GG? Who is the leader of the MRAs?
What, you said that they're, and I quote,
>organized hate movements
So, I'm asking for more info. How are they organized? Leaders of even cell organizations like ISIS or the KKK are known to the public at large. They have membership. Show me the information on these "organized movements."
It was founded by Eron Gjonji on 4chan to harass his ex-girlfriend, and recruitment took place mostly on there. Planning was done primarily on an IRC channel where he and a few other men planned out how they were going to perform this harassment under a veil of genuine criticism and develop a cult-like following amongst 4chan's idiotic and conformist band of angry young men who resent women for not giving them the sex they feel they deserve, and grew from there. Recruitment then expanded to Twitter with the hashtag #gamergate where yet more people were brought in, and tricked into believing that it was a different movement than it was, who then doubled down and tried to convince all the people around them that it was a legitimate thing rather than a bitter ex-boyfriend's pathetic flailing at the girl who dumped him.
By that point it had become a tribalistic thing, and Gamergate saw themselves as being persecuted by all the people who thought that founding an entire movement to harass your ex girlfriend was pathetic and the people who fell for his schtick were even more pathetic, so they decided they were being censored by the media and that women were trying to steal their penises--things that, as bitter young men who don't get as much sex as they personally believe themselves to deserve--they always suspected but never felt validated enough in their beliefs to express aloud until they were surrounded by like-minded whiny bitches.
And that leaves us where we are today. Most of the members were not privy to the inner circle who actually founded the movement and just think of it as themselves and their friends and obviously "my friends are the best people, therefore any movement we belong to is by definition the good guys." Because, again, as nerds they've been fed their entire lives the idea that nerds are persecuted by everyone else, and can't even comprehend the possibility that they're the bullies now.
So yeah, it was an organized hate movement. It has become disorganized in the time since it was founded, but it has been pretty well documented by this point that the whole thing was 4chan proving yet again that anon is, in fact, your personal army as long as you use the right buzz words to convince them that harassing your ex-girlfriend is a good way to reclaim your no-girls-allowed clubhouse from all the girls who aren't fucking you.
This is absolutely fascinating.
There are various MRA groups so you would need to be more specific about which MRA group in particular you're referring to to get a specific list of its organization and membership. But yes, many of them are organized--the MRA mindset is especially popular among the paternalistic / authoritarian, and therefore rigid pecking orders and hierarchies are very appealing for many of them.
The point, as you are well aware, is not the "organized" part so much as the "hate movement" part.
MRA is just something these sorts call themselves for a veneer of justification, it's not a legitimate thing and never really has been. Even before the internet really latched onto the concept it was just an attempt to roll back the advancements made by feminism.
The "organized" part is absolutely important. That's why you used it in your sentence. It makes the organization a monolithic entity culpable for all of the sins committed by its members because in organization there is accountability. If there is a vast global conspiracy, if you believe that there is a singular, evil agenda these individuals are working towards, you should be able to articulate it for us. And that's merely what I'm seeking to do, to give you a platform to articulate your ideas and perceptions for all of us.
If it's unorganized, just a bunch of people with no leader or anyone to answer to, all functioning under the same name, would it then be out of the question that some have, in fact, begun to "live the lie"? To actually function as a movement with vested interest in ethical practices regarding video games?
Would it then be so bizarre for that splinter to be the "good GGers" I have referred to while admitting that some GGers are just awful?
Luckily some serious SJWs have also left this website, so it's more or less still a fair fight.
If you want to call far left neofascists vs moderate centrists to be a fair fight.
Gonna be honest, I didn't even read past the first sentence of that big post because the first sentence was already wrong.
And we're back to outright denial once again. You refuse to admit to facts and have the gall to accuse others of not dealing with you straight.
I mean, two sides of an issue are gonna have two different stories and they're both gonna believe it's the truth, that's how that works. No one is just like "well, I figure I'll be evil today." We both think we're the good guys. Probably one of us is wrong though.
Do you mind like, greentexting the bit that disproves what I said about the splinter group?
>Probably one of us is wrong though.
But it wasn't founded by the random hipster you brought up, that's absolute horse shit. He was just the main lolcow for 5 guys burgers and fries.
Gamergate was founded by that Heavy guy from Firefly.
>Gamergate was founded by that Heavy guy from Firefly
I didn't write that post. As for Baldwin, he came up with the Hashtag but did not actually start the ball rolling so no, he's not our culprit.
>Would it then be so bizarre for that splinter to be the "good GGers" I have referred to while admitting that some GGers are just awful?
Ah, you mean like "good neonazis" who really just want to make things better for the common man, rather than killing all the minorities?
>But it wasn't founded by the random hipster you brought up, that's absolute horse shit.
Then you can take up your issues with reality's liberal bias with Wikipedia and RationalWiki.