/baw/ - General Discussion

Gonna try to clarify something, but will probably just cause a shit storm, o well:
While political discussion can get hot and heavy--especially in places where the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory thrives like *chans--personal attacks are not allowed. Yeah, sure, call Trump or Clinton or King Edward VII a dick, but only viciously attack the arguments/posts put forth by other posters here, not the posters themselves. Brief examples:
>Your idea is shit and the worst fucking thing I ever heard, how could that even seem like a good idea?
Low quality post, but not a "personal attack".
>You are a monstrous human being and probably the result of inbreeding, that's such a dumb idea
Low quality post and personal attack.

(Attacking me is the exemption from this rule because I am already morbidly depressed and so IDGAF.)

(Also sorry about losing that other new politics thread; I tried to make the top post generic and merge them together and just wound up breaking it.)

About fucking time.

>>406878
>Moviebob
>One of the most pathetic male feminists
>gets called MRA
Full circle

>>406878
You have to wonder how many of these outlets actually believe in what they're putting out.

>>406880

Considering the author of that piece used a stock photo for their Medium profile image, I’d say “not very much”.

>>406874
It needed to be nuked and forgoten, Moose.

>>406882
Gotta protect those poor, innocent, MRAs.


New GB seems bad.

>>406883
Trailer getting like 99% dislikes suggests it very strongly.

>>406884
Nah, a lot of that is just MRA types swarming the thing.

Does seem quite bad even subtracting the angry loser brigade though.

MRAs trying to stop women from entering the music industry.
//youtube.com/watch?v=kfVsfOSbJY0

>>406888
Nobody mentioned any organization as such, and what's more that poster specifically said that said film looks terrible, quite odd that you feel the need to jump in on the defense.

I love how there's all this talk about MRAs, but I have not once, ONCE seen a complaint about the Ghostbusters being female. I've seen complaints about the idea of making them all female for no other reason than to pander to SJWs and ensure that they'll use this in their everlasting fight against white male cis scum, which is a legitimate concern, but never on the sole basis that they're female and should be male.

>>406891
>I love how there's all this talk about MRAs, but I have not once, ONCE seen a complaint about the Ghostbusters being female.

>Goes on to post a diatribe full of MRA buzz words and railing at boogeymen.

>>406893
>numales
Are you actually completely incapable of not speaking in your weird, masturbatory terminology, because I have to tell you, it rather undermines your attempts to pretend uninvolved.

>>406894
Hmm. Still no counterargument to my original point with evidence to refute it. Yup, that's feminist logic right there.

>>406895
Counterarguments, and indeed debate in general, is really more for those who are, ya know, credible. You're like the anti-climate change person expecting to be taken seriously in a scholarly setting.

And that's really the thing with #GGers, MRAs, whatever label you'd like to apply to them, everyone here knows who they are whether they'll admit it or not: they prattle on and on about how nobody is willing to engage them in this or that argument (which is often not true to start with) but when they are actually engaged they'll never attack the argument: they'll go after semantics, or flat out deny the facts. Because the truth is they aren't part of any kind of legitimate movement, interested in ethical issues of any kind save for as might benefit them opportunistically (back LGBT to attack minorities, back minorities to attack women, back women to attack LGBT, etc, we've seen the behavior in these threads and elsewhere), or willing to debate honestly in any setting. They are interested in one thing and one thing only, and that is to attack anything they see as a thread to the status quo which they believe benefits them. They will deny it until they're blue in the face, and indeed the very next post will probably be such a denial, but at the end of the day, we all know what the score is.

>>406878
Jesus, the fucking language in that image. Even if I supported her point of view, I still think I'd hate her.

>>406889
Laughing right now

>>406886
I think it's equally likely that 80% of the thumbs-up on that video are obsessive feminists who believe the like-dislike ratio is a battle against the oppressive clutch of internalised sexism. The other 20% are traffic bought by Columbia Pictures.

>>406896
>Counterarguments, and indeed debate in general, is really more for those who are, ya know, credible.
Whoever taught you this did you a huge disservice, you poor poor thing.

And that's really the thing with BLM, feminists, whatever label you'd like to apply to them, everyone here knows who they are whether they'll admit it or not: they prattle on and on about how nobody is willing to engage them in this or that argument (which is often not true to start with) but when they are actually engaged they'll never attack the argument: they'll go after semantics, or flat out deny the facts....

And being as everyone knows the score, and nobody is fooled by MRA codewords, denials, etc, the question then becomes "What do /pol/-kun, his little buddy, and Slowpoke hope to accomplish here?" Certainly they are well aware that nobody is fooled by their attempts to, for example, paint #GG as a legitimate movement (one need only look at their dodging of various rebuttals in the last thread's end to see that) or any of/pol/-kun's favorite weirdo YouTubers and charts from orc groups, so what do they imagine they're accomplishing?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36353200

Austria dangerously close to reembracing right wing politics, with the scum of the right seeking to use the presidential post as an in for future elections.

>>406905
Fortunately the Austrian presidency is largely ceremonial, but it's one more worrying upsurge of the uncompromising populism that's gaining traction across the western world. Predictions are that postal votes will nudge Hofer's Green opponent slightly ahead, but it's going to be a nailbiter of a night.

>>406906
>Fortunately the Austrian presidency is largely ceremonial
Yes it is, but it's a very useful platform for them to be able to broadcast their propaganda from, which allows them an easier road to ACTUAL positions of power.

And being as everyone knows the score, and nobody is fooled by feminist codewords, denials, etc, the question then becomes "What do salon-kun, xir little nonbinary platonic relation, and Stone hope to accomplish here?" Certainly they are well aware that nobody is fooled by their attempts to, for example, paint social justice as a legitimate movement (one need only look at their dodging of various rebuttals in the last thread's end to see that) or any of salon-kun's favorite weirdo YouTubers and charts from orc groups, so what do they imagine they're accomplishing?

>>406903
lol this is what feminism does to people.
//youtube.com/watch?v=-uR5jmI-vAU

>>406908

“I know you are, but what am I?” is not a quality rebuttal.

>>406910
“I know you are, but what am I?” is a quality rebuttal to ad hominem allegations with no evidence or supporting arguments.

So incapable is the MRA of even the most basic intellectual engagement that when confronted, they retreat into their shells, hiding behind fabrications and nonsense like
>>406902
>>406908
taken up entirely because they know we're not going to be fooled by any of the garbage breitbart or whatever other no account outlet churns out. They go on and about censorship, but their entire ethos is predicated upon anyone who so much as suggests the imperfections of the status quo need changing. That they create things like NotYourShield a specifically to shield themselves only underlines that the whole affair is predicated upon a base of hypocrisy.

So incapable is the Feminist of even the most basic intellectual engagement that when confronted, they retreat into their shells, hiding behind fabrications and nonsense like
>>406897
>>406903
taken up entirely because they know we're not going to be fooled by any of the garbage Feministing or whatever other no account outlet churns out. They go on and about patriarchy, but their entire ethos is predicated upon anyone who so much as suggests that the patriarchy wouldn't give women better healthcare, education or fund feminism if it truly existed. That they create things like KillAllMen specifically to reveal the depths of vitriol they are capable of underlines that the whole affair is predicated upon a base of hypocrisy.

>>406915
Irrelevant.

>>406917
>It's not part of rape culture when a rapist passes a law to let him rape more?
Does his case have anything to do with crossdressing to attack a girl in the bathroom? Does this BLM fellow's activities change the fact that black people are killed by police in numbers disproportionate to their population? Or, as I suspect, are you attempting to use tangentially related elements to attack the law and movement themselves?

>>406919
>Does this BLM fellow's activities change the fact that black people are killed by police in numbers disproportionate to their population?
They are killed in proportion to the criminal element in their population.

Actually slightly less often.

>>406917

>It's not part of rape culture when a rapist passes a law to let him rape more?

A trans-inclusive non-discrimination ordinance neither decriminalizes rape nor gives a rapist any sort of “justification” for committing a rape.

>>406922
Yet a city without such an ordinance also allows transgender people to use bathrooms, as long as they've had SRS, any HRT, or even just put effort into their appearance, because no one is going to look twice.

>Little girl says man watched her using bathroom say police
> Sexual predator jailed after claiming to be ‘transgender’ to assault women in shelter
>University of Toronto Dumps Transgender Bathrooms After Peeping Incidents
>Seattle man in women's locker room cites gender rule
>Girl, 8, Choked by Man, 33, In Store's Public Restroom
>Man Dressed as Woman Arrested for Spying Into Mall Bathroom Stall, Police Say
>Man in Drag Caught in Macy's Women’s Restroom Secretly Taping Women

Just like migrant rapes, this seems to be another case of "ignore rape culture if it interferes with our narrative".

>>406926
It certainly bears a similarity to migrants rapes: that you wouldn't care about these incidents if they didn't let you attack people.

All of the above are still crimes whether transgender people are discriminated against or not, legislation against transgender people isn't going to stop these people from committing said crimes because as you might notice, they don't care about things being illegal.

>>406926

Quick question: have you stopped to notice who’s committing these crimes?

In any city or state where this issue has become a Full-Scale Thing™, bills and laws (such as HB2) target transgender people. Anti-LGBT legislators in favor of anti-trans bills frame the issue as a “protect the children from predators” issue, which implies that transgender people are sexual predators. (Anti-LGBT activists/legislators did the same thing when supporting bills and laws that targeted gay people.) But the entire gist of their “protect the children” argument never explicitly says “trans people are the problem”—more often than not, their argument goes along the lines of “cisgender men who do awful things are the problem, and they’ll use pro-trans laws as an excuse to commit crimes”.

(Side note: that argument often ignores sex crimes committed against young boys and men, as young girls and women are more often brought up as those who need protecting.)

But what was stopping them from committing their crimes before states started passing pro-trans non-discrimination ordinances? Rhetorical question; the answer is “nothing”. And what about those pro-trans laws excuse sex crimes committed in public restrooms/showers? Again, the answer is “nothing”. A cis man can slap on a wig and a dress, but his committing an act of rape doesn’t suddenly become “not-rape” because he says “I identify as a woman.”

If you have an argument against letting trans people use the restroom that matches their gender identity, you can deliver it without the fearmongering about what cis people might do.

>>406927
>legislation against transgender people
Strawman.

>>406928
>which implies that transgender people are sexual predators
Strawman #2.

It implies sexual predators are taking advantage of poorly written laws.

Having the good intentions to help transgender people is not in itself enough to write legislation. They need to put more thought into the possible ramifications of the law.

Although I doubt >>406915 bothered to put much thought into it whatsoever.

>But what was stopping them from committing their crimes before states started passing pro-trans non-discrimination ordinances?
The fact that people could forcefully eject them, or call the cops to do so. Now they fucking can't and the police are paralyzed. For every case that makes it into the courts there are nine that we never hear of.

>>406932
>The fact that people could forcefully eject them, or call the cops to do so. Now they fucking can't and the police are paralyzed. For every case that makes it into the courts there are nine that we never hear of.
Strawman #1

>>406933
You're acting like PC culture doesn't force law enforcement to treat minority criminals with kid gloves.

>>406934
Strawman #2, bonus points for having barely any relationship to the post whatsoever .

Making a handbrake turn back to Austria for a second:
>>406907
The Green candidate (Van der Bellen) managed to squeak a win with 50.3% of the vote after postals were counted. Incidentally, that makes him the first nationally-elected Green head of state, although I'd be wary of patting oneself on the back after a result this tight. Establishments across the west need to take a long hard look at what's driving people towards these extremes.

>>406932

>It implies sexual predators are taking advantage of poorly written laws.

It does that, too, but it also tries to make the same sort of implicit “[x] = perverts and sexual predators” connection (where [x] is “trans people”) that anti-LGBT lawmakers used for years to demonize gay people. Trans people remain “socially acceptable” in regards to mockery and derision—and discrimination—so why else wuold all these “bathroom bills” target the activity of trans people, if not to control what they do in such a way as to make them feel unwelcome in the public sphere?

And as for the implication that sexual predators are “taking advantage” of pro-trans laws, I ask you again: What was stopping them from committing their crimes before states started passing pro-trans non-discrimination ordinances?

>The fact that people could forcefully eject them, or call the cops to do so. Now they fucking can't and the police are paralyzed.

Pro-trans “bathroom bills” make it illegal for public accomodation businesses and such to discriminate against trans people. Those laws don’t decriminalize rape, sexual assault, or other such crimes; the cops can still arrest people who commit them, regardless of whether the person is actually transgender.

>Having the good intentions to help transgender people is not in itself enough to write legislation. They need to put more thought into the possible ramifications of the law.

If you worry that pro-trans laws will allow cis people to commit sex crimes, ask legislatures to pass laws that target sex offenders, not trans people. A trans person is not a sex criminal by default. And for all the examples of “cis men dressing up like women to commit sex crimes”, I haven’t seen a single example of trans people using non-discrimination laws as justification for committing a sex crime.

>>406938
I'm sorry but I don't see that. Maybe some people somewhere are making this connection, but I've never seen anyone actually do it, or even imply it slightly. If anyone has said anything about gays it is that the LGBT community has a high rate of abuse, which is true and ties back to them being bullied as kids more often.

The classic anti-LGBT implication is that if a gay person married to a woman and with a family enters public office or the military, and the soviets were to find out hes gay, they could use that to blackmail him because he might not want to be outed to his wife. This was actually a classic soviet tactic and concern, same with gambling debts, which gay marriage solves perfectly.

>why else wuold all these “bathroom bills” target the activity of trans people, if not to control what they do in such a way as to make them feel unwelcome in the public sphere?
I already explained this, the bills are a reaction (often overreaction) to really shitty laws that predators are exploiting, and he police are reluctant to act because they aren't sure what's politically correct. Predators who aren't gay, please dont be bringing this up yet again. When peoples kids are threatened they turn off the part of their brain that is rational, and they go on the offensive.

The rational response would be to write better laws from the outset. Not this bad law, counter-bad law, counter-counter bad law chain if misery and loopholes.

>Pro-trans “bathroom bills” make it illegal for public accomodation businesses and such to discriminate against trans people.
And again if someone has gone through SRS they can't be discriminated against already.

>>406939

>Maybe some people somewhere are making this connection, but I've never seen anyone actually do it, or even imply it slightly.

Then you haven’t been paying attention hard enough. Prior to the increasing “normalization” of gay people in society (circa the mid-to-late 1990s), anti-gay activists either implictly or explicitly painted gay people as sexual predators (“They want to recruit children into the homosexual lifestyle”) and sex-obsessed deviants who represented a “public health hazard”. They feared the idea that if the evil icky faggots were allowed to become part of public life and society, that acceptance would pave the way for the acceptance and normalization of other sexual deviancies (i.e., pedophilia). By the time Obergefell gave gay people the right to marry, anti-gay activists could only prey on those fears to win political points in highly homophobic areas. They'd lost the fight against keeping gays out of society. So now they’ve turned to the one last major “outgroup” with the political clout to ask for equal treatment under the law—trans people—and started using the same sort of demonizing tactics in a bid to control whether trans people receive the same kind of social acceptance.

>the bills are a reaction (often overreaction) to really shitty laws that predators are exploiting, and the police are reluctant to act because they aren't sure what's politically correct

If a person commits a crime in a public restroom/shower, I seriously doubt the police will refuse to arrest that person because they toss out an “I identify as transgender” excuse. And I don’t see any pattern or trend of pro-trans laws being “exploited” in ways that let criminals commit crimes without punishment.

>The rational response would be to write better laws from the outset.

I’d love to know what you think a “better law” means, in this regard.

>And again if someone has gone through SRS they can't be discriminated against already.

Only in places with pro-trans laws in place can trans people not be discriminated against. There is no federal law barring discrimination of LGBT people in public accomodations, employment, and housing. (Legal arguments advancing the idea of anti-trans discrimination as sex discrimination are only now making their way through the courts, and there’s no telling how those will hold up.)

I think my favorite part of your current evasion attempt is that your "I'm not transphobic!" defense is an espousing of transmedicalism which is itself transphobic.

New point of discussion: why does the Internet Alt-Right love sealioning so much?

>>406943
>transmedicalism
>the belief that transgenderism is a medical condition
What the fuck do you believe, that it's a magical condition?

>>406942

>they painted them as having all kinds of problems with abuse, from domestic violence to rape, out of proportion with the straight communities

You’re either not looking in the right places or listening to the right people. Or you could be actively ignoring the rhetoric I’m talking about.

The most rabidly anti-LGBT voices—the ones who created anti-gay rhetoric that thrived until gay people became braver about being openly gay and straight people started figuring out that the rhetoric didn’t align with the gay people they knew—crafted the image of gay people as disease-ridden predators because it was far easier to win political points by stoking “think of the children” fears about gay people. A lot of that kind of rhetoric had religious backing, sure. (It still does, too.) But it was crafted with an eye towards secular appeal; the insistence that “the gay agenda” involved “recruiting children into homosexuality”, for example, could be understood without religious fervor backing that fearmongering.

As large swaths of society began to see gay people as people instead of AIDS-ridden child molesters, this rhetoric fell out of favor with all but the most rabid gaybashers. “Moderate” anti-LGBT people turned to a different kind of fearmongering—namely, the idea that gay people having civil rights such as adoption and marriage would lead to polygamists and pedophiles and even zoophiles asking for the same rights. Now that gay people have the right to marry, anti-LGBT people know they’ve lost that specific fight—and the broader fight against society accepting gay people—so they’re turned to stoking similar fears about trans people asking for civil rights protections. If you think that isn’t true, look at the rhetoric coming from anti-trans groups in re: “bathroom bills”.

>These are real problems that need to be addressed, this is why gay community needs more domestic shelters for example. You can't just ignore negative lived experiences because you don't like them.

I’m not ignoring them. But I’m talking about the history of anti-gay rhetoric and how it’s transitioned (no pun intended) into anti-trans rhetoric, not the problems of LGBT people at large. Those problems, however real, have only a marginal impact on the rhetoric I’m discussing.

>most of the titles showing the pattern here have been happening for a long time before it got stopped

Got stopped by what—police arresting the perpetrators? Anti-trans laws won’t stop men from doing that sort of shit any more than pro-trans laws will allow them to do it without fear of punishment. And a series of cherry-picked headlines, which could be from stories that happened months or years apart in disparate places around the country/world, does not equal a pattern of either escalation or crimes going unpunished.

>America already has laws in every state allowing people who have undergone SRS or people who have changed their birth certificate to use the bathroom they want.

Okay, so…does this mean we need “potty police” at every public restroom/shower? Because they’re the ones who would be checking birth certificates to make sure people entered the right restroom. Also: people would need to start carrying their birth certificates around so they can pass the “potty police”. (Before you laugh, know that HB2 passed in my home state without any provisions for how the law was supposed to be enforced, and not even the cops know whether they’re supposed to staff an officer outside public restrooms.)

>If the law is stretched beyond this point and into people merely claiming to be trans, or people who merely put on a pair of pants or dress, the law is going to run smack into reality and break.

No one who supports pro-trans laws has ever suggested that people who either crossdress or merely claim a trans identity should be exempt from the law. Nor has anyone ever suggested that pro-trans laws should decriminalize crimes that take place in public restrooms/showers. But people who support anti-trans laws have no suggestions on how to properly enforce such laws, nor do they seem to care about the experiences of trans people—who are far more likely to be the victims of assault in public restrooms than the perpetrators.

Honestly, I couldn't give less of a shit about trannies and bathrooms.

Just feels like an issue that been inflated to be seem more important than it actually is.

>>406947

In all honesty, it has—mainly by anti-LGBT activists. Trans people just want to pee in peace.

>>406948
And then there are the cis, straight ladies who get chased out of bathrooms because their hair is too short or they're not super pretty. I guess collateral damage is fine for people who are defending the honor of pooping in the right poop hole.

>>406945
Yes, yes, feigning ignorance, stick to the playbook at all costs!

>>406946
Maybe you're looking in the wrong place and talking to the wrong people. Honestly you'd have to be going to klan rallies to hear this shit... change your friends.

>large swaths of society began to see gay people as
By large swaths do you mean you and your friends? Because no one else does. Seriously google any poll on gay acceptance.

>Because they’re the ones who would be checking birth certificates to make sure people entered the right restroom.
Are you implying there are crotch police checking crotches before people walk into toilets? Generally people will not even challenge someone entering a bathroom as long as they look vaguely like they belong there, even the ugliest hon is less ugly than some women/grannies.
It's a completely self regulating system.
It barely even needs the laws already protecting trans use country-wide, those are only there on the astronomically low chance that the police and courts need to get involved because someone who knew the trans person before their transition wants to deny them toilet rights.

>>406952
I don't know why I keep responding to you, since every time you post you remind me I should ignore you.

>>406953
>Honestly you'd have to be going to klan rallies to hear this shit...
or pay even the slightest attention to the news

Like, seriously dude, what is the point of this "god where do you HEAR such things?" act when nobody believes it?

>>406954
>>406955
Why do you have to assign malicious intent just because I don't know something? Feel free to post examples ffs.

>>406957
>Why do you have to assign malicious intent just because I don't know something?
Because you very blatantly do and are pretending not to, seriously, this DOESN'T WORK, STOP TRYING.

>>406958
You're still not posting examples, put some efforts into replies man.

>>406964
>The hush over the crowd when more than of trump supporters aren't white
And your point is?

"The Afghan Taliban have announced a new leader to replace Mullah Akhtar Mansour who was killed in a US drone strike."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-36375975

"A section of the embankment of the River Arno in central Florence collapsed on Wednesday morning, sending part of the road and at least 20 parked cars into a newly formed ditch."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36377407

"Members of the anti-Islam protest group Pegida in Germany have complained about images of non-white children on Kinder chocolate bar packets."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36377394

Also Beijing tries to attack Taiwan's president for being a single lady.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36375963

>>406969
>It's funny because Japan is breaking away from USA slowly and building up their military
that's not a break from the US, that's doing exactly what the US has encouraged them to do for the last 20 years, it's a break from weakening anti-military internal forces

So Trump won the necessary votes for the republican nomination.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/26/politics/donald-trump-has-delegates-to-clinch-gop-nomination/

>>406990

May God have mercy upon us all.

>>406992

get ur passports ready....

>>406992

Polls at this stage in the game mean nothing. I mean, literally nothing. They have no predictive power whatsoever. At this point in 1988, Dukakis looked like he was going to win in a landslide.

>>406994
Yeah I agree even though polls are showing Hillary ahead we just can't take that at face value.

Polls also showed Jeb would win the republican nomination and look how that turned out.

>>406995
>Yeah I agree even though polls are showing Hillary ahead we just can't take that at face value.
You're really, suspiciously some might even say, fixated on a Trump victory.

>>406996
It would be the end of America as we know it, might even touch off WWIII.

Why aren't you fixated on this? What possible event in your life could take precedence?

>>406997
my country

>>406997
Okay, so vote for Hillary.

>>406999

she has no personality fam.

//youtube.com/watch?v=8q29F1jPvNk

>>407000
That's nice. Trump, Hillary, pick one, or abstain from the political process and forfeit all right to complain.

>>406998
Yeah that's what's at stake.

>>407001
>abstain from the political process and forfeit all right to complain.
Wouldn't these people complain the most, considering they aren't satisfied with either candidate?

>>407002
>Wouldn't these people complain the most, considering they aren't satisfied with either candidate?
Irrelevant to my point.You have two options. If you don't pick one, you have no right to complain if the other wins. So if, in fact, you don't want Trump, you need to vote Hillary.

>>407003
Complete 180 from reality. If you vote you have no right to complain, because you made your choice. People who don't vote are the only ones with any right to complain.

>>407004
>If you vote you have no right to complain
You made an effort to choose your preference and the majority didnt agree. You have a right to complain, but no right to dispute.

If you dont support your side, you cant complain when they don't get in, because you are too fucking lazy to sign a piece of paper but apparently still cares who your president is.

>>407005
That's not how this works, it's not a sports match for fucks sake.

If you voted, that means at least one party represented you, and as you took part in the voting process you can't complain at the outcome because you're partly responsible for the outcome.

If you don't vote, that means you didn't get proper representation, couldn't take part in the voting process, and you have every right to complain.

>too fucking lazy
>option between two tyrants of opposing parties
>its lazy not to choose one of them
You. Are. Mental.

Ok, let's do it your way. You have two choices, either get off this website, or leave this website. If you don't choose either option, you're lazy and have no right to complain about any posts here.

>>407006
False equivalence and a misrepresentation of how democracy works.

You have two options. Trump, or Hillary. You can pick one, or abstain from the political process entirely. Do you not want Trump to be president? Vote for Hillary. Very simple. NOT voting for Hillary doesn't mean you aren't going to get Hillary, it just means you stood aside and let others decide for you.

>>407008
>two tyrants
Happily, the choice is between an idiot and an establishment Democrat.

>>407009
Nope.

Nice try to shift the topic though.

>>407010
How is that a shift in the topic? You are going to be governed by either the idiot or the establishment Democrat, it is your choice to pick or do nothing.

>>407008
Well actually your losing the electoral process doesn't constitute a loss of your voting rights but it's good that you've dropped all pretense and are just showing your true colors by threatening us I guess.

>>407008

…what the actual fuck…

I for one am shocked that an angry young right winger would threaten others.

>>407017
>Nooooope.
You're almost slimy enough to wriggle out of this one

almost

>>407017

If you’re so pissed off about “tyranny”, go join a right-wing militia.

>>407017
>don't care how intelligent they are
really good at this leader selection business huh

>>407018
>>407019
>only right wingers care about oppression
And here I thought liberalism was far more concerned with liberty.

>>407020
I don't care whether a criminal that robs me has a low IQ either, I'm still out of a VCR. Although it goes without saying, if you're worried which of the two evil people holding near absolute power over you is more intelligent, that says something about your intelligence.

>>407021
You know nobody buys this bit right?

>>407021

>VCR

Are you fucking serious right now, holy shit

>>407024
>exhibit some good examples of extremism on both side
please point out where in these threads communism got a big push (unless you're talking about Toradora, who hasn't posted in forever)

>>407022
>>407023
I'm not selling anything folks, feel free not to respond.

>>407024
Sorry mate, good webm.

>>406992
Just as an aside, I think a major barrier for Hillary is her health.

She's currently incontinent and has problems with blood pressure. There were problems with a blood clot in her brain and a concussion which didn't heal properly. She's taking blood thinners for blood clots which is a dangerous drug (a friend recently died because of this). Also taking a drug for thyroid cancer for some reason. Her full minute of smokers cough interrupting a speech isn't inspiring confidence.

>>407029
That's nice, I'm not voting for Trump.

>>407038
good to have another bernie supporter.

>>407040

Bernie isn’t gettin’ the nomination, bro. I’d vote for him. I’d like him to be the next President. But he ain’t gettin’ the nomination, Hillary is—and I’ll vote for her because I’d rather not see the Republicans get a chance to fuck up the Supreme Court for the next ten-to-thirty years.

>>407041
Hillary might die before being nominated so....

>>407042

We can worry about that if it happens. For now, Hillary is the presumptive Democratic Party nominee, and I will vote for her in the general election.

>>407043
I like to worry about things before they happen, not after.

>>407044
Your Totally Real Concern regarding Hillary's health in no way changes her delegate count.

>>407045

And Bernie could drop dead before the convention, too, but I don’t see anyone concern trolling about his age and health.

>>407046
Because he's not shitting himself on stage and having brain aneurysms ever time he coughs.

>>407047

[citation needed]

(That goes just as much for the claims about Hillary as it does for any similar claims about Bernie.)

I'm seriously disgusted by both Hillary and Trump, so my vote is fucked no matter which way it goes.
I'm literally left without recourse when it comes to who to vote for.

>>407047
>>407048
And again I say: even IF your health claims are true, your Totally Real Concern will not change her number of delegates.


>>407049
>I'm seriously disgusted by both Hillary and Trump, so my vote is fucked no matter which way it goes. I'm literally left without recourse when it comes to who to vote for.
Ah, we're back to this again huh?

>>407049

This is the issue you need to figure out where you stand on: Who do you want in control of nominating people for the Supreme Court? That is, quite literally, the single most important issue of this election. Forget everything else brought up in the debates and the ads and the mudslinging—the next POTUS will be naming someone to the existing empty spot on SCOTUS (provided Obama’s nomination remains stalled until the end of his term), and there may be as many as three other Justices taking their leave of the court within that President’s term (given their ages). The next POTUS could have the opportunity to name as many as four Justices to the bench, and their appointments will determine the ideological leaning of the court for the next ten-to-thirty years.

So would you rather have a SCOTUS that leans left or right—with all that entails about issues such as worker’s rights, LGBT civil rights, abortion, and other such partisan issues? That is the big issue of this election; if you’re not ready to make a decision on that, you’d do well to get ready.

>>407051
>So would you rather have a SCOTUS that leans left or right—with all that entails about issues such as worker’s rights, LGBT civil rights, abortion, and other such partisan issues?
He would prefer right, obviously?

>>407048
lol google either before making a fool of yourself.

>>407051
>Who do you want in control of nominating people for the Supreme Court?
Yeah this seems to be whizzing right over some heads in this thread, let's hear a ringing endorsement of her ability to nominate SCOTUS: "She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality."

Why the fuck would anyone rational vote for a president to take a steaming dump on the constitution and start WWIII?

>>407056
>Why the fuck would anyone rational vote for a president to take a steaming dump on the constitution and start WWIII?
I agree, Trump voters are effectively traitors to this country.

>>407049
Trump is a non issue, I've never met a supporter of this guy. Even the Twitter accounts are all egg accounts or obvious trolls.

The bigger issue is why the hell people like Hillary at all. I constantly ask people in what way is she better than Trump, and all the bottom feeders can come up with is:
1. She's a woman.
2. She's a democrat.
3. She has more funding.

>>407057
No one here is voting for Trump, although it's really really cute how you think stabbing a strawman is a good riposte to everyone else in this thread!

https://weeklysift.com/2016/05/30/the-election-is-about-the-country-not-the-candidates/

>Judging by the amount of media attention they got, these were the most important political stories of the week: Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders agreed to debate, but then Trump backed out, leading Sanders supporters to launch the #ChickenTrump hashtag. A report on Hillary Clinton’s emails came out. A poll indicated that the California primary is closer than previously thought. Trump’s delegate total went over 50%. Elizabeth Warren criticized Trump, so he began calling her “Pocahontas”. Sanders demanded that Barney Frank be removed as the chair of the DNC’s platform committee. Trump told a California audience that the state isn’t in a drought and has “plenty of water“. Trump accused Bill Clinton of being a rapist, and brought up the 1990s conspiracy theory that Vince Foster was murdered. President Obama said that the prospect of a Trump presidency had foreign leaders “rattled“, and Trump replied that “When you rattle someone, that’s good.” Clinton charged that Trump had been rooting for the 2008 housing collapse. Pundits told us that the tone of the campaign was only going to get worse from here; Trump and Clinton have record disapproval ratings for presidential nominees, and so the debate will have to focus on making the other one even more unpopular.

>If you are an American who follows political news, you probably heard or read most of these stories, and you may have gotten emotionally involved — excited or worried or angry — about one or more of them. But if at any time you took a step back from the urgent tone of the coverage, you might have wondered what any of it had to do with you, or with the country you live in. The United States has serious issues to think about and serious decisions to make about what kind of country it is or wants to be. This presidential election, and the congressional elections that are also happening this fall, will play an important role in those decisions.

50% OF ONLINE ABUSE TARGETED AT WOMEN IS SENT BY WOMEN
40% OF ONLINE ABUSE TARGETED AT WOMEN IS SENT BY MEN
10% UNKNOWN
//youtube.com/watch?v=VcAHCp-6_k0
LOL

>>407058
>I've never met a supporter of this guy.
So you never leave your basement, why are we supposed to care?

>>407061
You're not, I've told you multiple times to fuck off and stop replying if you don't want to, no one is putting a gun to your head forcing you to reply.

The only reason you're still posting is because you get triggered when people point out your favorite politician is shit. Well she is, deal with it internally, quit whinging.

>>407062
I voted for Sanders in the primary, but him not winning doesn't mean I intend to back Trump. You however have taken up Trump's banner because he's an emblem of the ignorance you so cherish, and your pretenses to the contrary are paper thin.

Voting for Trump is the electoral equivalent of throwing a tantrum.

>>407063
>You however have taken up Trump's banner
>>407064
>Voting for Trump is the electoral equivalent of throwing a tantrum.
You keep saying this despite multiple times people have said they aren't doing it.

At this point this isn't a strawman anymore, now you're straight up lying. Provably lying.

>>407065
>You keep saying this despite multiple times people have said they aren't doing it.
There are two options, you are either voting for one of them or not voting at all. Being as you focus your attacks on Hillary, it stands to reason that you're not voting for her and you aren't an apolitical figure, ergo it is you who are in fact lying.

>>407066

We've been talking about the third option for awhile now buddy, learn to read.

>>407067
No, you haven't been, you've been alternating between rejecting the election process altogether (not shocking, as a right winger) and vaguely gesturing to the already effectively neutralized Sanders as a thin moral pretense to what is really just your ongoing anti-Hillary campaign.

You have been told time and again that your affectations aren't fooling anyone. You will continue to be told this, because it continues to be true.

>>407066
>two options
There are other candidates to prefer, or abstain altogether. Bit scary that you think in such black and white terms, must be easy for you to classify a ridiculous number of bystanders as your enemies.

>>407069
>There are other candidates to prefer,
Prefer yes, vote for, no. The system is designed so 3rd parties are wasted votes and the main candidates are essentially set.
>or abstain altogether.
Which I mentioned, but again, this requires you to be apolitical, which you are not.

>>407068
>>407070
Not voting is not an apolitical decision, it's a more powerful political message than your going along with the system.

>>407071

Resfuing to vote doesn’t send a message. At all.

>>407072
Sure it does, but a person has to have a baseline level of intelligence to see it.

"...The patterns, ahhh, the patterns. Liberal bigots are the ones who trouble me most. I distrust the extremes. Scratch a conservative and you find someone who prefers the past over any future. Scratch a liberal and find a closet aristocrat. It's true! Liberal governments always develop into aristocracies. The bureaucracies betray the true intent of people who form such governments. Right from the first the little people who formed the governments which promised to equalize the social burdens found themselves suddenly in the hands of bureaucratic aristocracies. Of course, all bureaucracies follow this pattern, but what a hypocrisy to find this even under a communized banner. Ahhh, well, if patterns teach me anything it's that patterns are repeated...."
Leto Atreides II

>>407071
>Not voting is not an apolitical decision, it's a more powerful political message than your going along with the system.
Refusal to participate in the democratic process is an abstention from it, one which forfeits any right to complain about political outcomes and will earn you nothing but dismissal.

You keep trying to force this angle, it's not happening.

>>407076
>When this number increases significantly it becomes a red flag to the parties
It really doesn't. It just marks you down as ignorable. That is, if you really were abstaining rather than backing Trump.

>>407076

>it becomes a red flag to the parties that they aren't supporting or producing representative candidates

No…no. You think the parties give a flying mile-high fuck about low voter turnout? Shit, the GOP practically counts on it during midterm elections!

>>407078
The parties love low voter turn out because they seriously do not give a shit about representing you. Politics is a business and if you don't participate, that doesn't remotely impact their bottom line. It effectively gives them more power to dictate your own life to you.

>>407076
>When this number increases significantly it becomes a red flag to the parties that they aren't supporting or producing representative candidates.

This has literally never happened. When people don't vote, politicians turn their attention to the people who ARE voting instead.

So, what I've gleaned from this is:

1. You have to vote if you want to talk about how utterly fucked our political system is.
2. You have to vote for one of the big two. Voting third party is meaningless.
3. You better not vote for Trump, motherfucker.
4. Your voting for Trump, aren't you? You piece of shit.

>>407081
Yes, all that's correct.

>>407081
>how utterly fucked our political system is.
if you are american, that is correct

>>407081

No; pretty much; yes; amen.

>>407081
>>407082
>>407083
>>407084
>motherfucker.
>You piece of shit.
So moose, are you going to ban these guys for personal attacks, or are you waiting to whip out that rule on someone you don't like.

>>407093
>personal attacks
This is why I was hesitant to clarify. >>407081 does not violate the rule: calling an entire group of people "motherfucker" is not a personal attack. Furthermore I'm pretty sure that anon was summarizing what they saw in the thread, it's not even necessarily their actual opinion.

>someone you don't like.
I don't like anyone, so if that was the case I'd whip it out all the time.

>>407094

>I'd whip it out all the time.

LEWD.

>>407093
Lol

This thread is filled with such extreme levels of baloney that people might actually think I was serious about the Trump stuff, so I suppose I should clarify.

I do not think someone is a piece of shit or a motherfucker for voting for him, or for anyone else for that matter. I do not think less of people who have opinions that differ from my own.

>>407094
Yeah fuck off, you might as well not have made that post.

Oh and since it's ok to insult groups and "summarize" what we see:
All of the admins of plus4chan posting in this thread are motherfucking pieces of shit.
^
This isn't necessarily my opinion by the way.

>>407097
>>407098
>>407099
lol

>>407099
>This isn't necessarily my opinion by the way.
But if it was you wouldn't be wrong.

>Trump says "my African-American", essentially a politer way of saying "mah nigga"
>meanwhile that mayor Hillary talked to talks about CPT on stage
Jesus christ.

>>407160

>Trump says "my African-American", essentially a politer way of saying "mah nigga"

And that wouldn’t be so bad if there wasn’t a history of white Americans using “my nigger” (or variants thereof) to talk about black slaves, so…yeah…

>>407160
>H-h-hey guys, I'm s-s-still here! You libs can't keep me down!

>>407164
Literally my first post in the thread.

>>407163
I just realised the ownership angle after posting.

>>407168
>Literally my first post in the thread.
Lol sure

>>407170
Yes I am sure.

>>407171
Your cheap attempt to return after being so utterly buried is noted, but not believed.

>>407172
Ok, I'm curious now; who am I?

is he australian too? I've also been accused of being Speedy the drawfag abuser this week. Curse my cultural shitposting heritage.

>>407177
You're even doing your little spoiler thing, this is just sad.

>>407184
At least put effort into your flame, mate. This isn't 4chan.

Call me /pol/-kun or something, so that I think you actually still believe in your accusation. If you don't step it up, I'll lose interest.

Barring an unprecedented shift in superdelegate allegiances—by his campaign’s own admission, Bernie hasn’t been able to flip a single Clinton-pledged superdelegate over to his side yet—Hillary Clinton will be named the Democratic Party’s next nominee for the office of President of the United States. This will put her in the running to become the first female POTUS in the country’s history; if she wins the seat, she will have done so just shy of a century after the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment secured for all American women the legal right to vote.

And considering that she’ll be running her campaign against the campaign of a racist oompa-loompa with an ever-changing set of political beliefs and policy ideas, shitloads of narcissistic tendencies, and a hair-trigger temper towards anyone that dares to bruise his ego…well…

Here. We. Go.

>>407188
I get that Sanders is staying in the race so his movement can influence the party platform at the convention, but I don't believe he has as much leverage as he thinks he has. For all the sound and fury, there isn't much of a tangible difference between his and Clinton's policy positions (they're both to the left of the party overall) which makes the minority report redundant if Clinton's going to adopt his policies anyway, so any demands he makes will likely focus on offices and personnel (frex booting Barney Frank and Dannel Malloy from the convention rules committee, as the article states).

Except what recourse does he have if the DNC gets back to him and says "no"? If he stands firm and forces a vote at the convention, he'll be handily beaten on the first ballot and his movement vanishes into the ether. Withholding his endorsement or going third party would be criminally irresponsible as long as Trump is the opposition, it would earn him an ignoble place in American political history alongside Nader. He may be petty and vindictive, as the article claims, but he's not an idiot, he must realise before long that the most positive and lasting impact he could make is to get on board with Clinton and bring his movement with him, and the sooner the better.

>>407202
>Withholding his endorsement or going third party would be criminally irresponsible as long as Trump is the opposition, it would earn him an ignoble place in American political history alongside Nader.

So then what you're saying is that Hillary's expectation is that Bernie is obligated to be the bigger man, and she has no responsibility if she doesn't do what she can to prevent it? Because to me it sounds like politics 101 that if you need something from someone, you compromise with them.

Hillary needs Bernie to not run third party because, like you said, he would have the same effect Nader had--the Dems would lose. Hillary has won the nomination but she has not won the general, and she has to decide now whether she is willing to gamble on the belief that Bernie--who wasn't a democrat until this election--is going to fall in line and stick to the Party Agenda.

Bernie, meanwhile, has to gamble on whether he can get concessions from Clinton (despite your statement, their platforms are *not* identical--while they're similar, there are key areas of difference, most especially in the areas of campaign reform, campaign finance law, and socialized medicine) without risking making President Trump a reality. Or whether the risk is worth the reward.

>>407208
>>407212
>BOTH CANDIDATES ARE EXACTLY THE SAME
I admit to being a long-distance observing foreigner to this contest, but I still find it baffling that people say this with a straight face.

>>407203
>Bernie, meanwhile, has to gamble on whether he can get concessions from Clinton (...) without risking making President Trump a reality. Or whether the risk is worth the reward.
I just don't see Sanders throwing America under the bus over campaign finance reform. I realise that he's under no obligation to kowtow to a party he's only obliquely associated with, but while principled obtuseness may be an asset at the state level it's an awful risk taken to the national stage.

It really honestly feels like this election is the equivalent of Alien vs Predator.

>>407213
>I admit to being a long-distance observing foreigner to this contest, but I still find it baffling that people say this with a straight face.
well you see /pol/-kun here isn't actually doing that: he and his ilk are CLAIMING as such because they want to muddy the water between the two in order to bolster Trump's position, but that doesn't mean they actually believe what they're saying

>>407215
It stops being a claim when it's presented with video evidence.

>bolster Trump's position
We're comparing Hillary to Trump to show how bad Hillary is, this means we obviously think Trump is a bad thing. Otherwise the comparison would be complimentary. You fail at basic logic, try again.

>>407218
>We're comparing Hillary to Trump to show how bad Hillary is
to what political end

>>407208
>>407212
>>407216
>>407218
If Bernie won the candidacy I was going to start posting in this thread, but it looks like you're doing my job for me anyway. Also, the whole 'we' business seems to be a little excessive, but then I haven't read the last few /pol/itical threads to know if their is a cabal lurking here.

>>407216
>>407218
So there's no difference? Good, then you won't mind if I vote Hillary instead of Trump!

>>407216
>You're implying it's not so common as to be a fucking meme.
Yes, it was a meme. In past elections. To baldly state that Clinton and Trump are functionally identical in this election is an abject surrender of one's basic empirical faculties.

It's a psychological defence I've witnessed in the pathologically apathetic...I'm sure you've known the type, the ones that constantly insist "they're all the same" because the positive effort to form a concrete political conviction induces some kind of nervous breakdown in them.

Yeah, I’m not enamored with Hillary, but I’d rather vote for the person who won’t turn the Supreme Court into an institution that will turn back the clock on abortion, LGBT civil rights, worker’s rights, minority rights vis-á-vis voting, Obamacare/health care reform, and basically every other major progressive change in this country from the past few decades.

(Besides, state and local elections are far more important in the long run.)

>>407222
>>407219
Going for real ends here, not political ones friendo. The point is if we chase political ends we'll be slaves forever.

>>407221
You're still fucking the country over so... kind of not ok with that.

>>407224
>hillary advising on the deletion of electronic media

>>407225
>Going for real ends here
okay, what real ends are those, and if they are apolitical, how are they relevant to this thread

>>407227
>Yes, it was a meme. In past elections. To baldly state that Clinton and Trump are functionally identical in this election is an abject surrender of one's basic empirical faculties.
>
Clearly he's referring to the end TIMES, as in he intends to usher in the apocalypse by electing President Trump.

>>407223
I won't disagree with most of that, but health care is fucking broken either way. This bullshit with Obamacare needs to get the fuck out and stay out.

>>407231
>This bullshit with Obamacare needs to get the fuck out and stay out.
Truly, America's Apartheid.

>>407231

>health care is fucking broken either way

At least Obama tried to improve the system with the ACA. (Whether he succeeded is up for debate.) A right-wing SCOTUS in conjunction with a right-wing Congress/President combo would try to destroy the ACA; worse, they might actively try to further privatize health care and make the whole system shittier than ever. At least with a left-wing SCOTUS/Congress/President, progressives can keep up the pressure for further reforms. I know Bernie had a few ideas on that front, and if he’d play nice with the DNC, he might actually get the chance to push some of those ideas into the DNC platform (and thus push Hillary into expending some political capital towards making reforms).

>>407235
>up for debate
It's pretty clear that what we had before was better. There's a reason why coverage provisions are being waived for politicians, this isn't inspiring confidence in the ACA.

Obamacare is failing because it's yet another sweeping blanket "improvement" from Washington that doesn't recognize the simple fact that each of the states is different, each of the cities in the states is different, and when you get down to it every citizen is different.

Now a single mother in Detroit is forced to buy the same insurance plan as some millionaire in Hollywood. It makes no rational sense to force such an arrangement and puts an unconscionable level of burden on the poorer sections of the country.

The ONLY way to have a national health care plan is to follow the model of other developed countries, do it state by state (province by province), or even city by city.

>>407239
>It's pretty clear that what we had before was better.

No, it's not.

>>407240
Yeah, have to agree with this.
But on the other hand, most of the other points stand. Making it mandatory and punishable is the exact opposite of helping people that can't afford insurance. Instead you force them to pay for something they can't or take a chunk out of their income with nothing to show for it.

It's messed up.

>>407239

>It's pretty clear that what we had before was better.

Holy fucking shit, no.

>>407242
The stuff you're talking about is only true in states that refused the medicare expansion because Republican Governors wanted to make poor people suffer to hurt Obama.

>>407242
>>407240
>>407245
You need to wake the fuck up.

>>407248

By all means: sound the alarm.

>>407227
>okay, what real ends are those, and if they are apolitical, how are they relevant to this thread
I would still like your answers to these questions.

>>407249
http://www.npr.org/assets/img/2016/02/26/PatientPerspectives.pdf

>>407255
you realize this actually contradicts you yes

>>407256
Trump is done to death. Hillary Clinton is more interesting to make fun of at the moment, after all she may become the first F president.

>>407258
Sorry, I meant to say female but the emale got deleted

>>407260
Yes that's the sentiment you regularly express, what's your point