lainchan archive - /civ/ - 4445
[ Return /
Go to bottom ]
File: 1485450816129.png (22.7 KB, 300x200, Donald_Trump_swearing_in_ceremony.jpg)
So fellow amerifats, we're going full authoritarian police state.
Enormously expensive vanity projects[0], intimidating federal agents, orwellian language and outright lies from the propaganda mounthpieces[3].
[0]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/paul-ryan-congress-will-pay-border-wall/
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/fear-materialized-border-agents-demand-social-media-data-americans
[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts
And it hasn't even been a week. What's the plan? Do the elites think they can take him out before he causes too much damage?
Enormously expensive vanity projects[0], intimidating federal agents, orwellian language and outright lies from the propaganda mounthpieces[3].
[0]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/paul-ryan-congress-will-pay-border-wall/
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/fear-materialized-border-agents-demand-social-media-data-americans
[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_facts
And it hasn't even been a week. What's the plan? Do the elites think they can take him out before he causes too much damage?
Americans are going to fall in love with Trump.
In a month everyone will go 'hey, he isn't that bad'
In a couple more everyone will love him.
In a month everyone will go 'hey, he isn't that bad'
In a couple more everyone will love him.
>>4447
What elite that controls both parties? Are you talking about the capitalist ruling class from which politicians draw their funds? If so, the Trump team has received millions in dollars from capitalists, one outspoken supporter of his as you know was Peter Thiel, the Koch brothers have funded Mike Pence and so on. Just look at the cabinet he has proposed, it is filled with capitalists.
You could argue that Trump himself, a billionaire, is part of the elite that controls the American political reality, since he is a capitalist that previously has shown to be willing to do financial investments into Washington and just by nature of being a capitalist his interests get represented there through the other capitalists funding the political landscape of the US.
What elite that controls both parties? Are you talking about the capitalist ruling class from which politicians draw their funds? If so, the Trump team has received millions in dollars from capitalists, one outspoken supporter of his as you know was Peter Thiel, the Koch brothers have funded Mike Pence and so on. Just look at the cabinet he has proposed, it is filled with capitalists.
You could argue that Trump himself, a billionaire, is part of the elite that controls the American political reality, since he is a capitalist that previously has shown to be willing to do financial investments into Washington and just by nature of being a capitalist his interests get represented there through the other capitalists funding the political landscape of the US.
My hope was that Ryan would have enough balls to call him out, but he appears just to be ensuring his long game in the "the national deficit is too high" schtick.
*yawn*
As >>4449 said, people are already starting to love him. The simple fact that he already started to do something on question of The Wall (tm) already puts him ahead of any lying politician before him. There are plenty of left to centre leaning people who, in their own words, would "love trump if he actually brought back jobs to US and build the wall but he isnt going to do it".
Give it half a year and 80% of country will be for him. The rest of people will be those drinking the MSM kool aid or leftists extremists
As >>4449 said, people are already starting to love him. The simple fact that he already started to do something on question of The Wall (tm) already puts him ahead of any lying politician before him. There are plenty of left to centre leaning people who, in their own words, would "love trump if he actually brought back jobs to US and build the wall but he isnt going to do it".
Give it half a year and 80% of country will be for him. The rest of people will be those drinking the MSM kool aid or leftists extremists
>>4451
Not necessarily.
I'm quite certain the fact he does what he claims is actually what gives him strength.
Just taking the example of 'The Wall'. Assuming he is able to get it done, realistically, how will your average American be affected?
Not at all. Immigration from Mexico will continue as it normally would.
As an idea, The Wall isn't bad at all. You could maybe argue that it would cost, but if he actually does pay it with taxes on Mexican import, Americans won't notice a thing.
All this opposition against The Wall is silly, really. The only reason people are against it is because of the spin in the narrative it has been given (i.e. discrimination against mexicans).
In all reality, it's just a reinforcement of immigration policy.
Even if Trump does all he promised, the narrative against him will die down and people will be okay with the things he does.
>>4452
>problem
kek
>>4453
By the time things start occasionally going wrong, American will already be in love with him. They'll be on his side ;)
Not necessarily.
I'm quite certain the fact he does what he claims is actually what gives him strength.
Just taking the example of 'The Wall'. Assuming he is able to get it done, realistically, how will your average American be affected?
Not at all. Immigration from Mexico will continue as it normally would.
As an idea, The Wall isn't bad at all. You could maybe argue that it would cost, but if he actually does pay it with taxes on Mexican import, Americans won't notice a thing.
All this opposition against The Wall is silly, really. The only reason people are against it is because of the spin in the narrative it has been given (i.e. discrimination against mexicans).
In all reality, it's just a reinforcement of immigration policy.
Even if Trump does all he promised, the narrative against him will die down and people will be okay with the things he does.
>>4452
>problem
kek
>>4453
By the time things start occasionally going wrong, American will already be in love with him. They'll be on his side ;)
I can't believe people on this site of all places would support this guy. Not that the alternative would be better but seriously guys... you think he's gonna defend your rights to privacy or security?
With the new administration of lainchan I'm witnessing the cyberpunk of this board culture diminish in exchange for a wooden alt-fascism.
That sure would be an unfortunate development.
That sure would be an unfortunate development.
>>4461
Yeah, but most of those people don't love the rest of his platform.
As far as MSM does, don't let a former reality TV show star surrounded by media people fool you. Trump IS the Main Stream Media.
Another pro-tip, he's not rebelling against anything. He represents the rich and powerful who already run this country and he'll help them cement their hold on power.
We live in a capitalist system, and if you're not a socialist of some variety, you're not really a rebel.
Yeah, but most of those people don't love the rest of his platform.
As far as MSM does, don't let a former reality TV show star surrounded by media people fool you. Trump IS the Main Stream Media.
Another pro-tip, he's not rebelling against anything. He represents the rich and powerful who already run this country and he'll help them cement their hold on power.
We live in a capitalist system, and if you're not a socialist of some variety, you're not really a rebel.
>>4493
There's more idiots sucking his cock than criticizing him here, and sucking authoritarian cock is the least cyberpunk thing I can imagine. You don't have to be a leftist to see what a disaster this guy is. Look how many prominent, life long Republicans abandoned ship when he took over.
There's more idiots sucking his cock than criticizing him here, and sucking authoritarian cock is the least cyberpunk thing I can imagine. You don't have to be a leftist to see what a disaster this guy is. Look how many prominent, life long Republicans abandoned ship when he took over.
>>4478
It's the entire internet being divided between the neat ant tidy factions of the alt-right and the regressive left.
Coming in here to use language coined and created by a campaign of people who were revealed to be wholly corrupt and divisive during their email leaks seems strange to me.
People have never been so actually divided during the age of the internet and no one seems to see it - the left believing they can manipulate language and exclude and label opinions they disagree with as lies or wrong and the right slowly marching to put ogliarches in power as a reaction to it - all the meanwhile a massive benefit to the millionaire and sometimes billionaire thinktank members behind it.
I'm sad that even after something as cyberpunk as the election dataleaks that lains are just still being made into useful idiots. How quick we forget.
It's the entire internet being divided between the neat ant tidy factions of the alt-right and the regressive left.
Coming in here to use language coined and created by a campaign of people who were revealed to be wholly corrupt and divisive during their email leaks seems strange to me.
People have never been so actually divided during the age of the internet and no one seems to see it - the left believing they can manipulate language and exclude and label opinions they disagree with as lies or wrong and the right slowly marching to put ogliarches in power as a reaction to it - all the meanwhile a massive benefit to the millionaire and sometimes billionaire thinktank members behind it.
I'm sad that even after something as cyberpunk as the election dataleaks that lains are just still being made into useful idiots. How quick we forget.
>>4495
The alternative, Hillary Clinton, was an authoritarian leftist who had a long history of trying to censor things like violent video games and who came from the administration who pushed for TPP, which would have heavily censored the internet, from the first year of entering office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#Intellectual_property
This current administration will not be perfect by any means with all the neo-conservatives who also supported TPP Trump let in, but refusing to help the US to dodge another authoritarian leftist regime out of some misplaced liberal sense of cynicism is one of the least cyberpunk things I can imagine.
Leftism =/= Libertarianism
Unless you are going to tell me I should have voted for Gary Johnson. I was honestly considering it.
The alternative, Hillary Clinton, was an authoritarian leftist who had a long history of trying to censor things like violent video games and who came from the administration who pushed for TPP, which would have heavily censored the internet, from the first year of entering office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#Intellectual_property
This current administration will not be perfect by any means with all the neo-conservatives who also supported TPP Trump let in, but refusing to help the US to dodge another authoritarian leftist regime out of some misplaced liberal sense of cynicism is one of the least cyberpunk things I can imagine.
Leftism =/= Libertarianism
Unless you are going to tell me I should have voted for Gary Johnson. I was honestly considering it.
File: 1485536792966.png (185.18 KB, 200x143, 1378608229.png)
its not authoritarian, its alternate freedom
>>4497
Just because we think Trump is a problem doesn't mean anyone here was pro-Hillary. Is it beyond your intellectual capacity to realize that either one would have been awful?
The pro-Trump nonsense around here lately isn't much of the lesser of evils variety. Some of it maybe but not most. Half the people here drank his koolaid and it's almost embarrasing.
Just because we think Trump is a problem doesn't mean anyone here was pro-Hillary. Is it beyond your intellectual capacity to realize that either one would have been awful?
The pro-Trump nonsense around here lately isn't much of the lesser of evils variety. Some of it maybe but not most. Half the people here drank his koolaid and it's almost embarrasing.
>>4497
You seem to understand that leftist =/= libertarian, but not that leftist =/= liberal. HRC is very obviously a liberal, just like Trump. She just stands for the status quo that we have been upholding since about the 70s where real wages of Americans have started stagnating due to free trade, she has some mildly more generous stances on social programs and appeals to different identity politics (minorities, women, intellectuals, urban) than Trump (Whites, religious, rural, capitalists). Trump is a neoliberal as well (or neoconservative if you go by US terminology but there is really not much of a difference) with weird protectionist stances on trade who makes use of neofascist tools and propaganda to get into power and has otherwise deepthroated the capitalist dick of PURE IDEOLOGY.
Hillary would have by all means and purposes likely stopped TPP as well, ultimately it doesn't really matter anyways, it's all just a big game that is being played and now delayed by a couple of years. I wouldn't put my hope on Trump either, you will likely see an eradication of net neutrality under him and he has voiced before he wants to fuck over ´´cyber´´, as in for example put tariffs on video games (lol).
The major difference between the two in terms of impact on the US people is probably their different trade stances and honestly I am of the opinion over the coming years we might see the end of capitalism as we know it. Neither the traditional way of going about things works anymore and if what we learn from economics holds true in regard to Trump's upcoming policies he too will massively shit the bed: A protectionist stance in which you limit China's and Mexico's trade relationships to the US means both of those countries will flood the global market with cheap goods, the US can not compete, loses out on its economic domination in the region, a depression occurs and in the worst case scenario it will enter austerity, but its people can't be bled dry anymore, the debt market explodes and everything goes to shit.
I just hope until then we can see a strong leftist front of old-school social democrats and socialists that are willing to return to the way capitalism has operated from post-WW2 to the 70s, ideally of course we would do away with the system completely but that is something I don't see happening anytime soon.
You seem to understand that leftist =/= libertarian, but not that leftist =/= liberal. HRC is very obviously a liberal, just like Trump. She just stands for the status quo that we have been upholding since about the 70s where real wages of Americans have started stagnating due to free trade, she has some mildly more generous stances on social programs and appeals to different identity politics (minorities, women, intellectuals, urban) than Trump (Whites, religious, rural, capitalists). Trump is a neoliberal as well (or neoconservative if you go by US terminology but there is really not much of a difference) with weird protectionist stances on trade who makes use of neofascist tools and propaganda to get into power and has otherwise deepthroated the capitalist dick of PURE IDEOLOGY.
Hillary would have by all means and purposes likely stopped TPP as well, ultimately it doesn't really matter anyways, it's all just a big game that is being played and now delayed by a couple of years. I wouldn't put my hope on Trump either, you will likely see an eradication of net neutrality under him and he has voiced before he wants to fuck over ´´cyber´´, as in for example put tariffs on video games (lol).
The major difference between the two in terms of impact on the US people is probably their different trade stances and honestly I am of the opinion over the coming years we might see the end of capitalism as we know it. Neither the traditional way of going about things works anymore and if what we learn from economics holds true in regard to Trump's upcoming policies he too will massively shit the bed: A protectionist stance in which you limit China's and Mexico's trade relationships to the US means both of those countries will flood the global market with cheap goods, the US can not compete, loses out on its economic domination in the region, a depression occurs and in the worst case scenario it will enter austerity, but its people can't be bled dry anymore, the debt market explodes and everything goes to shit.
I just hope until then we can see a strong leftist front of old-school social democrats and socialists that are willing to return to the way capitalism has operated from post-WW2 to the 70s, ideally of course we would do away with the system completely but that is something I don't see happening anytime soon.
>>4464
You already gave up your rights to privacy so you could play Candy Crush.
The simple fact is that liberty in America would be impossible without first deporting illegal immigrants. It wouldn't matter what your feelings were about privacy policy if every single governor, Mayor, and president was a Democrat, which is exactly what would happen if you gave illegal immigrants amnesty. Hillary Clinton would have created a supreme court that would have effectively banned the 1st amendment.
Trump is not perfect, but I refuse to make perfect the enemy of great.
You already gave up your rights to privacy so you could play Candy Crush.
The simple fact is that liberty in America would be impossible without first deporting illegal immigrants. It wouldn't matter what your feelings were about privacy policy if every single governor, Mayor, and president was a Democrat, which is exactly what would happen if you gave illegal immigrants amnesty. Hillary Clinton would have created a supreme court that would have effectively banned the 1st amendment.
Trump is not perfect, but I refuse to make perfect the enemy of great.
>>4506
Just because I think Yiannpolous is cute does not make me think listening to the new state propaganda arm is somehow going to be more informative than the "lamestream media." I don't necessarily think the US is going to implode, especially as Trump picks fights with CNN rather then acting as president, but I oppose the overwhelming majority of his policies.
Just because I think Yiannpolous is cute does not make me think listening to the new state propaganda arm is somehow going to be more informative than the "lamestream media." I don't necessarily think the US is going to implode, especially as Trump picks fights with CNN rather then acting as president, but I oppose the overwhelming majority of his policies.
Simple fact: If you're pro-trump you're anti liberty.
File: 1485568143963.png (26.81 KB, 151x200, imagefearbush1.gif)
There is something I have been forgetting to say.
I am old enough that I can recall all the paranoia centered around the Bush administration which circulated during the early 2000s. I was about 12 to 14 at the time, so of course I bought into it.
Oh no, he's going to make Christianity a state religion!
Oh no, the Patriot Act is going to take away our rights to free speech over the telephone!
The draft is going to get reinstated and we'll all have to fight in his Middle-Eastern wars!
He's the next Hitler!
What actually happened though? I lived my life for the most part completely uneffected by the Bush regime. I was even an outspoken atheist at the time in school. We pirated the hell out of everything with KaZaA and torrents. I made jokes about blowing up federal buildings over the phone. Maybe I was effected by the economics of the time, but that was fairly convoluted. Hell it was only after he was gone that I had my first notification from Charter about downloading Disney property. I hated Bush like I was supposed to though, like the good little liberal special snowflake I was.
We were told these things because panic sells and to instill fear before election 2004. I cannot tell you exactly what is going to happen over the next four to eight years, but you cannot tell me that either. I am not a psychic and neither are you.
>>4534
Last time I checked the news, the negations for that are still ongoing. It's not even the end of year one for the new regime.
I am old enough that I can recall all the paranoia centered around the Bush administration which circulated during the early 2000s. I was about 12 to 14 at the time, so of course I bought into it.
Oh no, he's going to make Christianity a state religion!
Oh no, the Patriot Act is going to take away our rights to free speech over the telephone!
The draft is going to get reinstated and we'll all have to fight in his Middle-Eastern wars!
He's the next Hitler!
What actually happened though? I lived my life for the most part completely uneffected by the Bush regime. I was even an outspoken atheist at the time in school. We pirated the hell out of everything with KaZaA and torrents. I made jokes about blowing up federal buildings over the phone. Maybe I was effected by the economics of the time, but that was fairly convoluted. Hell it was only after he was gone that I had my first notification from Charter about downloading Disney property. I hated Bush like I was supposed to though, like the good little liberal special snowflake I was.
We were told these things because panic sells and to instill fear before election 2004. I cannot tell you exactly what is going to happen over the next four to eight years, but you cannot tell me that either. I am not a psychic and neither are you.
>>4534
Last time I checked the news, the negations for that are still ongoing. It's not even the end of year one for the new regime.
File: 1485570138566.png (160.65 KB, 200x134, 1483375355347.jpg)
>>4535
Don't you notice a little difference in the kind of counter reaction to Bush compared to Trump?
There's quite literally a ton of people saying they miss Bush when compared.
Sure Trump won't be the end of the world, the US or the like but the steps back happening now are rightfully making people flip their shit.
I mean this is a bunch that would love to imitate Putin. I've never liked the way the American government worked, the way it's democracy functioned but this is some next level shit.
Lifting sanctions for shares in rosfet for Page, building pipelines Trump had a share in a probably still indirectly has, constantly attacking the media, makes up bullshit about vote-fraud even though he won, denies climate change & actively imposes measures hampering any type of ecology, etc, etc.
To those that disliked Bush he appeared gullible & wrong.
To those that dislike Trump he appears like a malicious powerhungry & egotisitical toddler.
Don't you notice a little difference in the kind of counter reaction to Bush compared to Trump?
There's quite literally a ton of people saying they miss Bush when compared.
Sure Trump won't be the end of the world, the US or the like but the steps back happening now are rightfully making people flip their shit.
I mean this is a bunch that would love to imitate Putin. I've never liked the way the American government worked, the way it's democracy functioned but this is some next level shit.
Lifting sanctions for shares in rosfet for Page, building pipelines Trump had a share in a probably still indirectly has, constantly attacking the media, makes up bullshit about vote-fraud even though he won, denies climate change & actively imposes measures hampering any type of ecology, etc, etc.
To those that disliked Bush he appeared gullible & wrong.
To those that dislike Trump he appears like a malicious powerhungry & egotisitical toddler.
>>4537
People's opinions of past presidents improve with time. If you can recall, there was also a big ado about Bush's election undermining democracy because of the supreme court case. President Bush also maintained throughout his time in office that there wasn't enough conclusively known about climate change to implement any preventative measures.
People's opinions of past presidents improve with time. If you can recall, there was also a big ado about Bush's election undermining democracy because of the supreme court case. President Bush also maintained throughout his time in office that there wasn't enough conclusively known about climate change to implement any preventative measures.
>>4537
To be honest, years before Trump even announced his candidacy, I pined for a politician who would openly recognize and criticize media biases, and not just in subtle jabs like with our last president.
The voting fraud? I have heard accounts from friends which make that seem more substantial. Screenshots from people's social media accounts were they boosted about taking advantage of no ID counties and voting multiple times. There were even reports on NPR long before this election about rigged voting machines in local elections. We knew it was going to happen, and really those of us who voted for Trump thought the rigged machines would sway the election towards HiIllary before Trump even said a word about that.
>>4538
At the time Bush was in office, I was a firm believer in the theory of man made global climate change. I even bought into that hype about cities being permanently flooded within 20 years. An Inconvenient Truth started to change my mind about all that though, making me realize it might be more political propaganda than actual scientific fact. I learned that apparently "climate change denial" was not just something for tinfoil hat kooks, but a real legitimate concern.
Then I saw those Penn & Teller's Bullshit episodes "Being Green" and "Environmental Hysteria". Penn Gillette said in an interview that "Trump has no heart", and seemed like he was voting for Gary Johnson. Yes it was spun for entertainment purposes, but that show really put it into perspective to me as to how even intelligent, well-intentioned people can get swept away into shortsighted trends and how mentalities can override facts. Oh and of course there is Michael Crichton.
I have talked about all of that before here, so I will try not go into it further except to say that now I pretty much agree 100% with what Bush said. If we can't verify it as fact, it's a waste of tax dollars, and with news articles predicting that New York would be underwater by 2014 due to melting ice caps(yes that was a real article), I don't think we can call this scientific fact.
To be honest, years before Trump even announced his candidacy, I pined for a politician who would openly recognize and criticize media biases, and not just in subtle jabs like with our last president.
The voting fraud? I have heard accounts from friends which make that seem more substantial. Screenshots from people's social media accounts were they boosted about taking advantage of no ID counties and voting multiple times. There were even reports on NPR long before this election about rigged voting machines in local elections. We knew it was going to happen, and really those of us who voted for Trump thought the rigged machines would sway the election towards HiIllary before Trump even said a word about that.
>>4538
At the time Bush was in office, I was a firm believer in the theory of man made global climate change. I even bought into that hype about cities being permanently flooded within 20 years. An Inconvenient Truth started to change my mind about all that though, making me realize it might be more political propaganda than actual scientific fact. I learned that apparently "climate change denial" was not just something for tinfoil hat kooks, but a real legitimate concern.
Then I saw those Penn & Teller's Bullshit episodes "Being Green" and "Environmental Hysteria". Penn Gillette said in an interview that "Trump has no heart", and seemed like he was voting for Gary Johnson. Yes it was spun for entertainment purposes, but that show really put it into perspective to me as to how even intelligent, well-intentioned people can get swept away into shortsighted trends and how mentalities can override facts. Oh and of course there is Michael Crichton.
I have talked about all of that before here, so I will try not go into it further except to say that now I pretty much agree 100% with what Bush said. If we can't verify it as fact, it's a waste of tax dollars, and with news articles predicting that New York would be underwater by 2014 due to melting ice caps(yes that was a real article), I don't think we can call this scientific fact.
>>4538
>there was also a big ado about Bush's election undermining democracy because of the supreme court case.
& yet it imo pales to what Trump is doing.
What happened there was Gore calling for a recount after he lost. The whole story sucks & could've gone differently though I don't think he would've won as a result of it.
Trump however won & is literally trying to entrench his victory further which given his past rhetoric on leadership & fondness of people like Putin seems a lot more scary.
>President Bush also maintained throughout his time in office that there wasn't enough conclusively known about climate change to implement any preventative measures.
& yet he still produced an alternative plan to the Kyoto protocol. One that wouldn't be nearly as effective an effort but still a plan. Even if Bush didn't believe shit one could see it as a concession.
Note that back then even though he did that:
>In June 2005, US State Department papers showed the Bush administration thanking Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, including the U.S. stance on Kyoto. Input from the business lobby group Global Climate Coalition was also a factor
Compare that to now...
Tillerson the CEO of Exxon literally leaves the chair to become secretary of state, Page probably will get shares from Rosneft (which also a nice deal with exxon for arctic oil development), Scott Pruitt fought the EPA on every inch of the way with donations from oil & gas industry, Ryan Zinke is the same material when it comes to this, Rick Perry, Ben Carson, Mike Pompeo, Jeff Sessions(this one especially retarded) again climate change deniers, Elaine Chao, Betsy de Vos, Tom Price, the list goes on & on.
The only ones that seem reasonable on this are Mattis & Kelly but they're on the security front.
Oh & then there's Mnuchin of course the Goldmann Sachs stooge for whom we don't know his stance.
& of course Trump himself goes on babbling about climate change being a Chinese conspiracy.
>there was also a big ado about Bush's election undermining democracy because of the supreme court case.
& yet it imo pales to what Trump is doing.
What happened there was Gore calling for a recount after he lost. The whole story sucks & could've gone differently though I don't think he would've won as a result of it.
Trump however won & is literally trying to entrench his victory further which given his past rhetoric on leadership & fondness of people like Putin seems a lot more scary.
>President Bush also maintained throughout his time in office that there wasn't enough conclusively known about climate change to implement any preventative measures.
& yet he still produced an alternative plan to the Kyoto protocol. One that wouldn't be nearly as effective an effort but still a plan. Even if Bush didn't believe shit one could see it as a concession.
Note that back then even though he did that:
>In June 2005, US State Department papers showed the Bush administration thanking Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, including the U.S. stance on Kyoto. Input from the business lobby group Global Climate Coalition was also a factor
Compare that to now...
Tillerson the CEO of Exxon literally leaves the chair to become secretary of state, Page probably will get shares from Rosneft (which also a nice deal with exxon for arctic oil development), Scott Pruitt fought the EPA on every inch of the way with donations from oil & gas industry, Ryan Zinke is the same material when it comes to this, Rick Perry, Ben Carson, Mike Pompeo, Jeff Sessions(this one especially retarded) again climate change deniers, Elaine Chao, Betsy de Vos, Tom Price, the list goes on & on.
The only ones that seem reasonable on this are Mattis & Kelly but they're on the security front.
Oh & then there's Mnuchin of course the Goldmann Sachs stooge for whom we don't know his stance.
& of course Trump himself goes on babbling about climate change being a Chinese conspiracy.
File: 1485573343896.png (14.44 KB, 200x199, 1396719202240.jpg)
>>4539
>To be honest, years before Trump even announced his candidacy, I pined for a politician who would openly recognize and criticize media biases, and not just in subtle jabs like with our last president.
There's media biases true. Yet actively attacking the media is a way different thing. It's not just pro-democrat biased ones either, conservative ones too. It's not mild criticism it's actively blocking many from events, calling them liars across the board & threatening to abuse libel laws.
We're talking about the guy who has the executive of Breibart as his Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor & drops an interview for Alex Jones so what exactly is he doing about it?
>and with news articles predicting that New York would be underwater by 2014 due to melting ice caps(yes that was a real article), I don't think we can call this scientific fact.
I won't try to convince you on it since that will lead us very much of topic but I don't think you should base your opinion against something around the most extreme of it's (pr)opponents. That goes for most things. Alarmists won't give you a nice view on anything so I suggest you just go after data reports yourself whilst keeping an eye on the source.
Also Bush still implemented policies to counter it, not nearly as strong as others did with kyoto since yeah he feared it would harm industry but he did it anyway. Perhaps he did believe in it, perhaps just a whatif precaution, an "it's a thing but not that bad" precaution or even just something to help the quickly growing renewables sector so the US wouldn't be left behind but still.
Trumps cabinet however looks like it'll go the complete other way though & not even only on climate change.
>To be honest, years before Trump even announced his candidacy, I pined for a politician who would openly recognize and criticize media biases, and not just in subtle jabs like with our last president.
There's media biases true. Yet actively attacking the media is a way different thing. It's not just pro-democrat biased ones either, conservative ones too. It's not mild criticism it's actively blocking many from events, calling them liars across the board & threatening to abuse libel laws.
We're talking about the guy who has the executive of Breibart as his Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor & drops an interview for Alex Jones so what exactly is he doing about it?
>and with news articles predicting that New York would be underwater by 2014 due to melting ice caps(yes that was a real article), I don't think we can call this scientific fact.
I won't try to convince you on it since that will lead us very much of topic but I don't think you should base your opinion against something around the most extreme of it's (pr)opponents. That goes for most things. Alarmists won't give you a nice view on anything so I suggest you just go after data reports yourself whilst keeping an eye on the source.
Also Bush still implemented policies to counter it, not nearly as strong as others did with kyoto since yeah he feared it would harm industry but he did it anyway. Perhaps he did believe in it, perhaps just a whatif precaution, an "it's a thing but not that bad" precaution or even just something to help the quickly growing renewables sector so the US wouldn't be left behind but still.
Trumps cabinet however looks like it'll go the complete other way though & not even only on climate change.
>>4540
Trump tends to babble on about things because he thinks aloud. He has no filter. I can't say that's a habit I would encourage for anyone since it tends to get people in trouble, but it does mean you get to hear almost all his thoughts, even the craziest ones. It's a bit socially awkward and it makes people uncomfortable naturally, but it's a kind of harsh honesty. Really I was never a fan of him on The Apprentice or his other TV appearances.
When other, more traditional politicians speak, it's contemplated, rehearsed, diplomatic, polished, and perhaps most importantly disingenuous.
There are times when they get caught off guard though.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/25/campaign.wrap/index.html?iref=hpmostpop
Now you can tell me that you think the way Trump speaks is all an act, just playing the character of the crazy man. There might be some legitimacy to that. Who knows? I am not even sure putting him in front of a psychiatrist could confirm anything.
Trump tends to babble on about things because he thinks aloud. He has no filter. I can't say that's a habit I would encourage for anyone since it tends to get people in trouble, but it does mean you get to hear almost all his thoughts, even the craziest ones. It's a bit socially awkward and it makes people uncomfortable naturally, but it's a kind of harsh honesty. Really I was never a fan of him on The Apprentice or his other TV appearances.
When other, more traditional politicians speak, it's contemplated, rehearsed, diplomatic, polished, and perhaps most importantly disingenuous.
There are times when they get caught off guard though.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/25/campaign.wrap/index.html?iref=hpmostpop
Now you can tell me that you think the way Trump speaks is all an act, just playing the character of the crazy man. There might be some legitimacy to that. Who knows? I am not even sure putting him in front of a psychiatrist could confirm anything.
Okay it's getting late and I need to do some work, so I don't have time for this discussion anymore. I voted for Trump, but in my head there is still a little voice that screams "Don't trust authority! Be cynical! Even if the candidate you wanted won, doesn't mean he's not going to screw you over!"
Not all of us who voted for him are meme-spouting brainwashed neo-nazis. I really had to think about it every day for months and read all the anti-Trump stuff I could take in. Some of us really are objective thinkers, but a few specific events(I will not name) finally solidified my opinion and made me realize why I could not just stay that cynical holier-than-thou fence-sitter forever.
I'll know whether or not I want to vote for him again in four years. I am not going to reply after this since any responses will be on deaf ears.
Goodnight.
Not all of us who voted for him are meme-spouting brainwashed neo-nazis. I really had to think about it every day for months and read all the anti-Trump stuff I could take in. Some of us really are objective thinkers, but a few specific events(I will not name) finally solidified my opinion and made me realize why I could not just stay that cynical holier-than-thou fence-sitter forever.
I'll know whether or not I want to vote for him again in four years. I am not going to reply after this since any responses will be on deaf ears.
Goodnight.
>>4457
Yeah you're right that time Trump endorsed Slim Shady for president in 2004 for example.
https://youtu.be/2NBwt24PTe0
Trumps strength is that although he is a 'capitalist' he doesn't seem like a shady fuck like George Soros.
Yeah you're right that time Trump endorsed Slim Shady for president in 2004 for example.
https://youtu.be/2NBwt24PTe0
Trumps strength is that although he is a 'capitalist' he doesn't seem like a shady fuck like George Soros.
>>4480
Depends where you are doesn't it? What about the student protesters in Venezuela or Brazil? Most of them lean right libertarian or capitalist, but they are resisting what they believe is state tyranny and corruption right? You can be a rebel irregardless of your belief system.
Even if you don't want to acknowledge it the difference between the FARC and the Contras, or between Antifa, the 3 Percenters, and the Oath Keepers is insignificant.
Depends where you are doesn't it? What about the student protesters in Venezuela or Brazil? Most of them lean right libertarian or capitalist, but they are resisting what they believe is state tyranny and corruption right? You can be a rebel irregardless of your belief system.
Even if you don't want to acknowledge it the difference between the FARC and the Contras, or between Antifa, the 3 Percenters, and the Oath Keepers is insignificant.
File: 1485587056373.png (87.42 KB, 200x196, proxy-state.jpg)
>>4543
>Not all of us who voted for him are meme-spouting brainwashed neo-nazis. I really had to think about it every day for months and read all the anti-Trump stuff I could take in. Some of us really are objective thinkers, but a few specific events(I will not name) finally solidified my opinion and made me realize why I could not just stay that cynical holier-than-thou fence-sitter forever.
I get it. Shillary was a corrupt meat puppet of the elite.
Troump made a fucking spectacle out of actually speaking to the working class without being paid to show up. Truly amazing that in 2016 a member of the Burgerian political elite would actually show up and start talking to flyover states about things that truly matter to them. I am awestruck.
Troomp is still going to fuck the working class, however. And the working class is going to fuck an economy that does nothing to improve the worsening living conditions of its hardest working members.
Nationalistic authoritarianism fucks everyone except those outside of a country. It can causes a massive brain drain like we're currently seeing in China. Smart money finds smarter places to live and work.
Troump's "strength" is that he's going to fuck intelligent Americans under the guise of fucking outsiders. "Terrorism" is not the greatest threat to your survival, Burgers. Inequality, disinformation, and your own domestic religious extremists are causing you to fuck yourselves harder than any extremist ragheads could.
>Not all of us who voted for him are meme-spouting brainwashed neo-nazis. I really had to think about it every day for months and read all the anti-Trump stuff I could take in. Some of us really are objective thinkers, but a few specific events(I will not name) finally solidified my opinion and made me realize why I could not just stay that cynical holier-than-thou fence-sitter forever.
I get it. Shillary was a corrupt meat puppet of the elite.
Troump made a fucking spectacle out of actually speaking to the working class without being paid to show up. Truly amazing that in 2016 a member of the Burgerian political elite would actually show up and start talking to flyover states about things that truly matter to them. I am awestruck.
Troomp is still going to fuck the working class, however. And the working class is going to fuck an economy that does nothing to improve the worsening living conditions of its hardest working members.
Nationalistic authoritarianism fucks everyone except those outside of a country. It can causes a massive brain drain like we're currently seeing in China. Smart money finds smarter places to live and work.
Troump's "strength" is that he's going to fuck intelligent Americans under the guise of fucking outsiders. "Terrorism" is not the greatest threat to your survival, Burgers. Inequality, disinformation, and your own domestic religious extremists are causing you to fuck yourselves harder than any extremist ragheads could.
>>4546
To be fair there's not very many other places left to flee to unless you're willing to be a complete sore thumb or learn an East Asian language fast. It's seeming likely that Merkel's in jeopardy and that it's just a matter of time until Europe succumbs to the spector of authoritarian nationalism. Where then? Australia/NZ? Canada?
To be fair there's not very many other places left to flee to unless you're willing to be a complete sore thumb or learn an East Asian language fast. It's seeming likely that Merkel's in jeopardy and that it's just a matter of time until Europe succumbs to the spector of authoritarian nationalism. Where then? Australia/NZ? Canada?
>>4505
>>4505
>The simple fact is that liberty in America would be impossible without first deporting illegal immigrants.
I have literally no idea what you're trying to say here. Deporting people against their will is the very antithesis of liberty. Unless you mean liberty for a select few people, tyranny for the rest?
>>4505
>The simple fact is that liberty in America would be impossible without first deporting illegal immigrants.
I have literally no idea what you're trying to say here. Deporting people against their will is the very antithesis of liberty. Unless you mean liberty for a select few people, tyranny for the rest?
Trump and the GOP are a disastrous choice for the US. Sadly Hillary and the majority of Dems offered no real alternative. I might have been tempted to vote for her because she at least acknowledged climate change (one of two great threats to human survival) but then again her rhetoric on Russia sounded like a precursor to nuclear war (the other great threat to our survival) so it's six of one, half a dozen of the other, as we say in the UK. Say what you like about Sanders, but the truth is HE was the only moderate in the race, and someone the whole world could have got behind.
>>4554
Going against laws of a country is a definition of liberty? Don't get me wrong, these people should have a chance, but exploiting the system has nothing to do with liberty.
>>4555
I agree. If had to choose from these two, I would've gone for Trump but I wouldn't be happy about it. The fact that Trump won doesn't say much about him or people who voted for him, it does say much about the Democratic alternative. The fact that people were that hungry for a change in powers says that Democrats really didn't do a great job last few years.
I also have a hard time understanding how people think it's A-OK to just go to streets and smash what they see because the candidate they preferred lost.
Going against laws of a country is a definition of liberty? Don't get me wrong, these people should have a chance, but exploiting the system has nothing to do with liberty.
>>4555
I agree. If had to choose from these two, I would've gone for Trump but I wouldn't be happy about it. The fact that Trump won doesn't say much about him or people who voted for him, it does say much about the Democratic alternative. The fact that people were that hungry for a change in powers says that Democrats really didn't do a great job last few years.
I also have a hard time understanding how people think it's A-OK to just go to streets and smash what they see because the candidate they preferred lost.
File: 1485602788419.png (8 MB, 200x113, authoritaries.webm)
>>4555
>Say what you like about Sanders, but the truth is HE was the only moderate in the race, and someone the whole world could have got behind.
This is what I like to say about Sanders.
Tokenism and vote-rigging in the DNC killed his chances. He had a lot more genuine credibility among the voting population than Shillary did.
Tokenism won the battle but lost the war.
>Say what you like about Sanders, but the truth is HE was the only moderate in the race, and someone the whole world could have got behind.
This is what I like to say about Sanders.
Tokenism and vote-rigging in the DNC killed his chances. He had a lot more genuine credibility among the voting population than Shillary did.
Tokenism won the battle but lost the war.
File: 1485605428247.png (406.09 KB, 200x137, [].gif)
>>4560
>Going against laws of a country is a definition of liberty? Don't get me wrong, these people should have a chance, but exploiting the system has nothing to do with liberty.
In current year? Who do you think the "system" works for right now? Those who work or the parasites who perpetuate the "system"?
Certainly, you can't objectively state that the country with the planet's largest systematically incarcerated population understands or values "liberty".
>>4548
>To be fair there's not very many other places left to flee to unless you're willing to be a complete sore thumb or learn an East Asian language fast. It's seeming likely that Merkel's in jeopardy and that it's just a matter of time until Europe succumbs to the spector of authoritarian nationalism. Where then? Australia/NZ? Canada?
You're right. Merkel's Germany is being targeted by Russian disinfo the same way the US was pre-election. If the Euro fails (increasingly likely as parasitic elites hoard resources and increase inequality) then authoritarian nationalism could return to Europe for a decade or more. And being a "sore thumb" in an East Asian country means you're charged more for goods and treated as an outsider for the rest of your life. Not to mention the piss poor human rights records most East Asian countries have. It's easy to ignore when you can't read the local news, but lack of human rights and systemic inequality is equally present and harder to ignore when you're living and working there. I've already tried.
If Europe and the US fall to authoritarians then outlying "anglosphere" countries are fucked as well. They're already being flooded with immigrants who will perform work for a fraction of what it would cost to hire a local and the social welfare systems aren't designed to handle the massive influxes of poorly paid workers being insourced.
There's nowhere to go, really. The only real choice is to fight wealthy economic parasites on your home turf while improve labor standards for those who actually work. Social systems were not designed to support this many people in living in poverty so that a relative handful of parasites can live like savage, fascist kings.
People who have nothing left to lose are the most brutally effective fighters on the planet, and they massively outnumber those benefiting from the current state of affairs.
>Going against laws of a country is a definition of liberty? Don't get me wrong, these people should have a chance, but exploiting the system has nothing to do with liberty.
In current year? Who do you think the "system" works for right now? Those who work or the parasites who perpetuate the "system"?
Certainly, you can't objectively state that the country with the planet's largest systematically incarcerated population understands or values "liberty".
>>4548
>To be fair there's not very many other places left to flee to unless you're willing to be a complete sore thumb or learn an East Asian language fast. It's seeming likely that Merkel's in jeopardy and that it's just a matter of time until Europe succumbs to the spector of authoritarian nationalism. Where then? Australia/NZ? Canada?
You're right. Merkel's Germany is being targeted by Russian disinfo the same way the US was pre-election. If the Euro fails (increasingly likely as parasitic elites hoard resources and increase inequality) then authoritarian nationalism could return to Europe for a decade or more. And being a "sore thumb" in an East Asian country means you're charged more for goods and treated as an outsider for the rest of your life. Not to mention the piss poor human rights records most East Asian countries have. It's easy to ignore when you can't read the local news, but lack of human rights and systemic inequality is equally present and harder to ignore when you're living and working there. I've already tried.
If Europe and the US fall to authoritarians then outlying "anglosphere" countries are fucked as well. They're already being flooded with immigrants who will perform work for a fraction of what it would cost to hire a local and the social welfare systems aren't designed to handle the massive influxes of poorly paid workers being insourced.
There's nowhere to go, really. The only real choice is to fight wealthy economic parasites on your home turf while improve labor standards for those who actually work. Social systems were not designed to support this many people in living in poverty so that a relative handful of parasites can live like savage, fascist kings.
People who have nothing left to lose are the most brutally effective fighters on the planet, and they massively outnumber those benefiting from the current state of affairs.
>>4564
>increasingly likely as parasitic elites hoard resources and increase inequality
You claim that elites in europe are hoarding resources and therefore its somehow bad?
"Increase inequality"? Inequality isnt a bad thing, not everyone really needs to be equal to one another, nor is it ever the case.
But I wonder, where do you get your info that European elites are hoarding money.
>increasingly likely as parasitic elites hoard resources and increase inequality
You claim that elites in europe are hoarding resources and therefore its somehow bad?
"Increase inequality"? Inequality isnt a bad thing, not everyone really needs to be equal to one another, nor is it ever the case.
But I wonder, where do you get your info that European elites are hoarding money.
>>4576
>Inequality is bad. Check your privilege if you think otherwise.
>If you think inequality isn't bad, it must be because of your background.
0 intellectual honesty
Proud white male telling you here that inequality (of results) isn't necessarily bad, per se.
Equality (of results), on the other hand, is always negative.
>Inequality is bad. Check your privilege if you think otherwise.
>If you think inequality isn't bad, it must be because of your background.
0 intellectual honesty
Proud white male telling you here that inequality (of results) isn't necessarily bad, per se.
Equality (of results), on the other hand, is always negative.
File: 1485619990713.png (6.51 KB, 112x150, 1396382997591.jpg)
>>4544
>Trumps strength is that although he is a 'capitalist' he doesn't seem like a shady fuck like George Soros.
What? Clearly you're not able to disconnect societal believes from economic ones here.
Sorros, walks into the shop, takes the money of the counter & says. This is too easy, this shouldn't be possible. He gets an audience because one of the few coming in to steal the cash. Many scream hypocrite but let's be real nobody would pay attention if he wasn't filthy rich.
Of course he also has other opinions on things like culture & whatnot that many dislike & uses his money on those but what does that have to do with being a sharky capitalist.
Trump on the other hand is part of the group that doesn't say there should be a lock but that really they should raise the prices in the shop so they can come steal more & that the door should be removed so they would't have to bother opening it.
They couldn't see personal bias if they crashed into it at 200km/h.
>Trumps strength is that although he is a 'capitalist' he doesn't seem like a shady fuck like George Soros.
What? Clearly you're not able to disconnect societal believes from economic ones here.
Sorros, walks into the shop, takes the money of the counter & says. This is too easy, this shouldn't be possible. He gets an audience because one of the few coming in to steal the cash. Many scream hypocrite but let's be real nobody would pay attention if he wasn't filthy rich.
Of course he also has other opinions on things like culture & whatnot that many dislike & uses his money on those but what does that have to do with being a sharky capitalist.
Trump on the other hand is part of the group that doesn't say there should be a lock but that really they should raise the prices in the shop so they can come steal more & that the door should be removed so they would't have to bother opening it.
They couldn't see personal bias if they crashed into it at 200km/h.
>>4585
>Trumps strength is that although he is a 'capitalist' he doesn't seem like a shady fuck like George Soros.
Is it not clear that he is only talking about Trump's appearance, and not the actual state of things?
>What? Clearly you're not able to disconnect societal believes from economic ones here.
He clearly was only describing 'societal believes' [sic].
No need to go after him for what is simply your misunderstanding of what he said.
>Trumps strength is that although he is a 'capitalist' he doesn't seem like a shady fuck like George Soros.
Is it not clear that he is only talking about Trump's appearance, and not the actual state of things?
>What? Clearly you're not able to disconnect societal believes from economic ones here.
He clearly was only describing 'societal believes' [sic].
No need to go after him for what is simply your misunderstanding of what he said.
>>4555
>but then again her rhetoric on Russia sounded like a precursor to nuclear war (the other great threat to our survival)
You didn't honestly believe that did you?
Did you?
Jill Steins comments on how Hillary suggesting a low fly zone over Syria -> nuclear war.
I don't want to be dismissive of Americans but goddamn.
>>4586
Are we really going to talk about Trumps appearance? Because I can't see how you describe Trump as "not shady" in that case.
>He clearly was only describing 'societal believes' [sic].
No need to go after him for what is simply your misunderstanding of what he said.
And how does that factor in? His donations & believes are mostly out there in the open. You may dislike him & his rhetoric but at the end of the day if he's gonna drop money on a bunch of marginal feminists & stuff I won't care much. A stupid waste sure, i'll dislike em sure.
Sorros (even with the retarded conspiracy theories about him being a nazi) lived facism & decided to stupidly fling himself to the complete other extreme of the spectrum. An idiot but no authoritarian nor a corporate stooge now in government chair like a good chunk of Trumps cabinet appears to be.
>but then again her rhetoric on Russia sounded like a precursor to nuclear war (the other great threat to our survival)
You didn't honestly believe that did you?
Did you?
Jill Steins comments on how Hillary suggesting a low fly zone over Syria -> nuclear war.
I don't want to be dismissive of Americans but goddamn.
>>4586
Are we really going to talk about Trumps appearance? Because I can't see how you describe Trump as "not shady" in that case.
>He clearly was only describing 'societal believes' [sic].
No need to go after him for what is simply your misunderstanding of what he said.
And how does that factor in? His donations & believes are mostly out there in the open. You may dislike him & his rhetoric but at the end of the day if he's gonna drop money on a bunch of marginal feminists & stuff I won't care much. A stupid waste sure, i'll dislike em sure.
Sorros (even with the retarded conspiracy theories about him being a nazi) lived facism & decided to stupidly fling himself to the complete other extreme of the spectrum. An idiot but no authoritarian nor a corporate stooge now in government chair like a good chunk of Trumps cabinet appears to be.
>>4587
>Are we really going to talk about Trumps appearance? Because I can't see how you describe Trump as "not shady" in that case.
Still not understanding it. Try to actually understand me here, instead of going so hard at this that you're missing the point.
I'm not saying he doesn't look shady to me.
I'm saying that he clearly doesn't look shady to quite a few people, and that he's actually liked by many, simply based on his successes during the election.
I'm not the guy, but I believe this is what he was trying to point out.
You may have whatever opinion of him, but a significant demographic actually does see him as 'less shady'.
>Are we really going to talk about Trumps appearance? Because I can't see how you describe Trump as "not shady" in that case.
Still not understanding it. Try to actually understand me here, instead of going so hard at this that you're missing the point.
I'm not saying he doesn't look shady to me.
I'm saying that he clearly doesn't look shady to quite a few people, and that he's actually liked by many, simply based on his successes during the election.
I'm not the guy, but I believe this is what he was trying to point out.
You may have whatever opinion of him, but a significant demographic actually does see him as 'less shady'.
>>4588
Ah all right. It's been mostly personal views in this thread so I was caught of guard.
I don't see how that part of the populace can keep seeing him like that though (other than the die hard trumpets). It's conflicts of interest left right & centre & it's not like his decisions will help the red states much either.
Then again it's happened before & he's pretty good at deflection.
Ah all right. It's been mostly personal views in this thread so I was caught of guard.
I don't see how that part of the populace can keep seeing him like that though (other than the die hard trumpets). It's conflicts of interest left right & centre & it's not like his decisions will help the red states much either.
Then again it's happened before & he's pretty good at deflection.
>>4589
>he's pretty good at deflection.
Pretty good? He's mastered it.
After taking a strong stance regarding torture, he gave up on it by saying "I don't necessarily agree, but I would tell you that he will override because I'm giving him that power".
He knows how 2 rhetoric, and he knows it well.
Good on him.
>he's pretty good at deflection.
Pretty good? He's mastered it.
After taking a strong stance regarding torture, he gave up on it by saying "I don't necessarily agree, but I would tell you that he will override because I'm giving him that power".
He knows how 2 rhetoric, and he knows it well.
Good on him.
>>4587
>>but then again her rhetoric on Russia sounded like a precursor to nuclear war (the other great threat to our survival)
>You didn't honestly believe that did you?
>Did you?
>Jill Steins comments on how Hillary suggesting a low fly zone over Syria -> nuclear war.
Nothing to do with Jill Stein. Everything to do with what happened the last time the US imposed a no fly zone.
>>but then again her rhetoric on Russia sounded like a precursor to nuclear war (the other great threat to our survival)
>You didn't honestly believe that did you?
>Did you?
>Jill Steins comments on how Hillary suggesting a low fly zone over Syria -> nuclear war.
Nothing to do with Jill Stein. Everything to do with what happened the last time the US imposed a no fly zone.
File: 1485643172308.png (210.49 KB, 200x143, The Passion of Cruz (2016).jpeg)
So how's the revolt going? Has any lainon seen or heard of local subvversive movements?
Well he just banned all the muslims from entering the US the other day.
Naturally, this caused an uproar on all the liberal media outlets but it's not actually that big of a deal in terms of the economy. As for religion, well it makes sense as the US is actually a Christian country (but people have conveniently forgotten that in recent times) so it is in their best interests to take action.
Both sides have their own beliefs but when you are a guest, you should observe the house rules.
Naturally, this caused an uproar on all the liberal media outlets but it's not actually that big of a deal in terms of the economy. As for religion, well it makes sense as the US is actually a Christian country (but people have conveniently forgotten that in recent times) so it is in their best interests to take action.
Both sides have their own beliefs but when you are a guest, you should observe the house rules.
>>4602
It's still in the first weeks, whatever larger movement(s) that will emerge from this are probably still in their embryonic stage(s).
Right now I guess all you can do is help out cultivating them.
Beware of centralism, critical points of failure usually follows.
Horizontal affinity groups is the way to go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affinity_group#Political_affinity_groups
It's still in the first weeks, whatever larger movement(s) that will emerge from this are probably still in their embryonic stage(s).
Right now I guess all you can do is help out cultivating them.
Beware of centralism, critical points of failure usually follows.
Horizontal affinity groups is the way to go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affinity_group#Political_affinity_groups
File: 1485648461089.png (485.51 KB, 153x200, ().jpg)
>>4605
>Well he just banned all the muslims from entering the US the other day
No, your Fascist in Chief can't ban all muslims from entering the us. Troump banned nationals from 7 muslim countries from legally entering the US. They might still enter illegally, and muslims from countries not on the blacklist will still be allowed to immigrate legally.
>US is actually a Christian country
Got any factual data to prove that? Just because you strongly desire to believe in something doesn't mean it's true. Having the world's largest incarcerated population isn't "Christian", it's fascist.
>Well he just banned all the muslims from entering the US the other day
No, your Fascist in Chief can't ban all muslims from entering the us. Troump banned nationals from 7 muslim countries from legally entering the US. They might still enter illegally, and muslims from countries not on the blacklist will still be allowed to immigrate legally.
>US is actually a Christian country
Got any factual data to prove that? Just because you strongly desire to believe in something doesn't mean it's true. Having the world's largest incarcerated population isn't "Christian", it's fascist.
>>4601
The UK has always been an oddball among the better parts of Europe.
It's banking industry is massive, it's the only country to use FPTP (which I really dislike), it's governance structure somewhat different in many places with results like the torries chopping at the NHS, traincosts being shitty & occasional tendencies like Cameron calling for worse encryption & the like. Stuff I'd expect more in the US.
It kinda feels like the middle-ground between EU & the US in places something partially noticed though misinterpreted by de Gaulle if I remember well.
(Note that I'm not as optimistic as the guy you replied to. EU has it's own set of different problems & it's not like the US or Anglo world does not influence it heavily either)
>>4605
>Well he just banned all the muslims from entering the US the other day.
He didn't. He blocked select countries & didn't block people entirely. The funny part is him not blocking countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc instead including a number of countries whom's immigrants pose less problems like Iran. Of course that would be bad for his business dealings there.
>the US is actually a Christian country
Certainly never acted like it. Bringing religion in politics is cancer anyway.
The UK has always been an oddball among the better parts of Europe.
It's banking industry is massive, it's the only country to use FPTP (which I really dislike), it's governance structure somewhat different in many places with results like the torries chopping at the NHS, traincosts being shitty & occasional tendencies like Cameron calling for worse encryption & the like. Stuff I'd expect more in the US.
It kinda feels like the middle-ground between EU & the US in places something partially noticed though misinterpreted by de Gaulle if I remember well.
(Note that I'm not as optimistic as the guy you replied to. EU has it's own set of different problems & it's not like the US or Anglo world does not influence it heavily either)
>>4605
>Well he just banned all the muslims from entering the US the other day.
He didn't. He blocked select countries & didn't block people entirely. The funny part is him not blocking countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc instead including a number of countries whom's immigrants pose less problems like Iran. Of course that would be bad for his business dealings there.
>the US is actually a Christian country
Certainly never acted like it. Bringing religion in politics is cancer anyway.
>>4608
Retweeting >>4611
You've got to willfully ignore culture and history if you want to claim the US isn't historically and culturally Christian.
>what are puritans
Also
>what are metal bands like slayer etc
If the US weren't a 'Christian nation' metal wouldn't have formed the way it did.
That's just recent history though.
Also, since I'm currently reasing Tocqueville's Democracy in America:
>Alexis de Tocqueville suggested in Democracy in America that Puritanism was the very thing that provided a firm foundation for American democracy.
Also, given Trump's swearing in, just look at the pic in OP.
That's a Bible.
>So help me God
Not Christian, nor pro-Christian, maybe even slightly anti-Christian in some sense, but I can't appreciate this silliness.
Retweeting >>4611
You've got to willfully ignore culture and history if you want to claim the US isn't historically and culturally Christian.
>what are puritans
Also
>what are metal bands like slayer etc
If the US weren't a 'Christian nation' metal wouldn't have formed the way it did.
That's just recent history though.
Also, since I'm currently reasing Tocqueville's Democracy in America:
>Alexis de Tocqueville suggested in Democracy in America that Puritanism was the very thing that provided a firm foundation for American democracy.
Also, given Trump's swearing in, just look at the pic in OP.
That's a Bible.
>So help me God
Not Christian, nor pro-Christian, maybe even slightly anti-Christian in some sense, but I can't appreciate this silliness.
>>4610
>(Note that I'm not as optimistic as the guy you replied to. EU has it's own set of different problems & it's not like the US or Anglo world does not influence it heavily either)
Sure, no questions about that. But education and healthcare are practically free even if you are homeless or rich. Private education is more a joke than a state one. You can't just say that there is no equality of opportunity when you have two most important things available for free.
>(Note that I'm not as optimistic as the guy you replied to. EU has it's own set of different problems & it's not like the US or Anglo world does not influence it heavily either)
Sure, no questions about that. But education and healthcare are practically free even if you are homeless or rich. Private education is more a joke than a state one. You can't just say that there is no equality of opportunity when you have two most important things available for free.
File: 1485650013414.png (327.94 KB, 152x200, (⍟⌄⍟).png)
>>4611
>Western countries have Christian history and culture. Period.
You don't have any proof? Sounds rough, oni-chan. I know how strongly you want to buhleef you're a handful of loving, forgiving "Christians", but mass incarceration and mass surveillance aren't "Christian" values. You've built an automated system of mass judgment and elected [Troump], a fascist authoritarian, as "judge".
Have fun laughing it up in your "Christian" disinformation prison state though. Your communications are not being recorded.
You're a proud Burgerian, aren't you?
>Western countries have Christian history and culture. Period.
You don't have any proof? Sounds rough, oni-chan. I know how strongly you want to buhleef you're a handful of loving, forgiving "Christians", but mass incarceration and mass surveillance aren't "Christian" values. You've built an automated system of mass judgment and elected [Troump], a fascist authoritarian, as "judge".
Have fun laughing it up in your "Christian" disinformation prison state though. Your communications are not being recorded.
You're a proud Burgerian, aren't you?
File: 1485650380148.png (614.26 KB, 200x113, ＃＋＃＝？.jpeg)
>>4614
>>4614
>Sure, no questions about that. But education and >healthcare are practically free even if you are homeless or rich. Private education is more a joke than a state one. You can't just say that there is no equality of opportunity when you have two most important things available for free.
"Equality of opportunity" requires more than just depreciated living costs. It involves personal connections, inheritance, opportunity to travel, opportunity to invest, etc.
"Opportunity" has never been less equal. 8 people own >50% of the world's economic resources. "Equality of Opportunity" is a disinfo meme.
>>4614
>Sure, no questions about that. But education and >healthcare are practically free even if you are homeless or rich. Private education is more a joke than a state one. You can't just say that there is no equality of opportunity when you have two most important things available for free.
"Equality of opportunity" requires more than just depreciated living costs. It involves personal connections, inheritance, opportunity to travel, opportunity to invest, etc.
"Opportunity" has never been less equal. 8 people own >50% of the world's economic resources. "Equality of Opportunity" is a disinfo meme.
>>4611
>>4605
And what does that mean to you?
That history directly shaped Europe & we butchered each-other by the thousands over it. Both over interpretation, who was doing the interpretation, out of plain bigotry or because it was easily abused as a political tool.
We dropped most of it because it's retarded with things like the new testament & most Christians don't apply a lot of the rest for the same reason whilst applying the remainder that sounds nice when it's convenient.
It's also not like it had to sole role in forming that culture, hell I'd say it had a minor function compared to the roles countless individuals & other factors played.
So why do conservatives like you seem to be so staunchly identify with it. I'd say it's simply because: you're Christian yourself & like to imprint that fact on your view of the nation.
At the end of the day you were the first with no official state-endorsed religion and:
>the framers of the Constitution rejected any religious test for office, and the First Amendment specifically denied the federal government any power to enact any law respecting either an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise, thus protecting any religious organization, institution, or denomination from government interference.
The fact that this started to change later is a damn change not to say I have anything against the religious makeup of the US or that it means you should allow copious amounts of Muslims or whomever but still a shame.
It's already been abused for political purposes & not surprisingly by the people that act very little like what you'd expect from a stereotypical Christian.
Meanwhile much of Europe has left that view behind.
>>4613
>Alexis de Tocqueville suggested in Democracy in America that Puritanism was the very thing that provided a firm foundation for American democracy.
If I remember well he found it a factor among many, also kind of thought of the early colonists as biggots & let's not kid ourself, that firm foundation was based on pre-existing democracies like France & the UK. Not some magical religious lines which the colonists staunchly went by.
>>4605
And what does that mean to you?
That history directly shaped Europe & we butchered each-other by the thousands over it. Both over interpretation, who was doing the interpretation, out of plain bigotry or because it was easily abused as a political tool.
We dropped most of it because it's retarded with things like the new testament & most Christians don't apply a lot of the rest for the same reason whilst applying the remainder that sounds nice when it's convenient.
It's also not like it had to sole role in forming that culture, hell I'd say it had a minor function compared to the roles countless individuals & other factors played.
So why do conservatives like you seem to be so staunchly identify with it. I'd say it's simply because: you're Christian yourself & like to imprint that fact on your view of the nation.
At the end of the day you were the first with no official state-endorsed religion and:
>the framers of the Constitution rejected any religious test for office, and the First Amendment specifically denied the federal government any power to enact any law respecting either an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise, thus protecting any religious organization, institution, or denomination from government interference.
The fact that this started to change later is a damn change not to say I have anything against the religious makeup of the US or that it means you should allow copious amounts of Muslims or whomever but still a shame.
It's already been abused for political purposes & not surprisingly by the people that act very little like what you'd expect from a stereotypical Christian.
Meanwhile much of Europe has left that view behind.
>>4613
>Alexis de Tocqueville suggested in Democracy in America that Puritanism was the very thing that provided a firm foundation for American democracy.
If I remember well he found it a factor among many, also kind of thought of the early colonists as biggots & let's not kid ourself, that firm foundation was based on pre-existing democracies like France & the UK. Not some magical religious lines which the colonists staunchly went by.
File: 1485650880379.png (633.05 KB, 164x200, POTUS.jpg)
>>4619
>it's a form of Christianity that Christ himself would hardly recognize and certainly not endorse.
An authoritarian mass incarcerated police state is [a form of "Christianity"?]
"form of Christianity" is that?
>it's a form of Christianity that Christ himself would hardly recognize and certainly not endorse.
An authoritarian mass incarcerated police state is [a form of "Christianity"?]
"form of Christianity" is that?
>>4614
I agree I'm just referring to the fact that whilst it's nice & all the existing problems don't make those good parts particularly entrenched depending on the country you're in. There's also more to it than those few things.
>>4617
To go over a few of those examples: personal connections are very hard to fix, inheritance is actually handled pretty well it's heavily taxed though as with many a thing the richest can get around a lot of stuff hence I'm not as optimistic when compared, opportunity to travel is pretty good & helped with freedom of movement, opportunity to invest again hard to fix.
What he describes though is a system that helps the stereotypical middleclass nicely & I agree with him that's something to praise even if the upperclass is a "swamp"
I think one of the harder things to fix & look out for is still mostly ahead of us. Automation is gonna be a big problem for the way we look at things & can heavily impact that current already shitty wealth & opportunity distribution and I don't think we'll adapt to it well in most of the west.
I agree I'm just referring to the fact that whilst it's nice & all the existing problems don't make those good parts particularly entrenched depending on the country you're in. There's also more to it than those few things.
>>4617
To go over a few of those examples: personal connections are very hard to fix, inheritance is actually handled pretty well it's heavily taxed though as with many a thing the richest can get around a lot of stuff hence I'm not as optimistic when compared, opportunity to travel is pretty good & helped with freedom of movement, opportunity to invest again hard to fix.
What he describes though is a system that helps the stereotypical middleclass nicely & I agree with him that's something to praise even if the upperclass is a "swamp"
I think one of the harder things to fix & look out for is still mostly ahead of us. Automation is gonna be a big problem for the way we look at things & can heavily impact that current already shitty wealth & opportunity distribution and I don't think we'll adapt to it well in most of the west.
>>4618
>So why do conservatives like you seem to be so staunchly identify with it. I'd say it's simply because: you're Christian yourself & like to imprint that fact on your view of the nation.
If that is his stance, so be it.
Your stance is just as ideological. You're not any closer to reality than he is.
I'd even go so far as to say that you have more weight against you if you were to argue against a 'Christian' US than if you were to argue for it, because of the cultural and historical Christian bias of the US.
>that firm foundation was based on pre-existing democracies like France & the UK. Not some magical religious lines which the colonists staunchly went by.
The point still stands. I'm not arguing for a Christian US in 2017. I'm only arguing for a cultural and historical Christian US.
>So why do conservatives like you seem to be so staunchly identify with it. I'd say it's simply because: you're Christian yourself & like to imprint that fact on your view of the nation.
If that is his stance, so be it.
Your stance is just as ideological. You're not any closer to reality than he is.
I'd even go so far as to say that you have more weight against you if you were to argue against a 'Christian' US than if you were to argue for it, because of the cultural and historical Christian bias of the US.
>that firm foundation was based on pre-existing democracies like France & the UK. Not some magical religious lines which the colonists staunchly went by.
The point still stands. I'm not arguing for a Christian US in 2017. I'm only arguing for a cultural and historical Christian US.
>>4624
>I'd even go so far as to say that you have more weight against you if you were to argue against a 'Christian' US than if you were to argue for it, because of the cultural and historical Christian bias of the US.
It has a bias sure what I'm arguing against is the descriptor "Christian culture" & the way many including a lot of conservatives use that as something to heavily identify with.
Often discarding the other aspects which actually were a lot more important in forming that culture & actually abusing that aspect which they hold high whenever convenient (whilst going heavily against it when not)
It's this planting of the concept as the root of the nation then hanging on it's branches to take some moral, political or other type of high ground when convenient that I'm heavily against.
It has no place in politics & is overblown as an identity (often for political reasons).
You can argue for a "cultural and historical Christian US" all you want but that won't change the fact that it's a very minor factor compared to the individual choices & environmental factors completely loose from Christian religions that made it (the culture) what it is today.
The reason why "Christian US" historical cultural or otherwise is held up high is the ideological bit I'm trying to outline.
The US could be animalist, agnostic, muslim or hindu on every front of their life. I don't give a shit, I'm not pushing any ideological stance on that or any similar front as you seem to claim.
>I'd even go so far as to say that you have more weight against you if you were to argue against a 'Christian' US than if you were to argue for it, because of the cultural and historical Christian bias of the US.
It has a bias sure what I'm arguing against is the descriptor "Christian culture" & the way many including a lot of conservatives use that as something to heavily identify with.
Often discarding the other aspects which actually were a lot more important in forming that culture & actually abusing that aspect which they hold high whenever convenient (whilst going heavily against it when not)
It's this planting of the concept as the root of the nation then hanging on it's branches to take some moral, political or other type of high ground when convenient that I'm heavily against.
It has no place in politics & is overblown as an identity (often for political reasons).
You can argue for a "cultural and historical Christian US" all you want but that won't change the fact that it's a very minor factor compared to the individual choices & environmental factors completely loose from Christian religions that made it (the culture) what it is today.
The reason why "Christian US" historical cultural or otherwise is held up high is the ideological bit I'm trying to outline.
The US could be animalist, agnostic, muslim or hindu on every front of their life. I don't give a shit, I'm not pushing any ideological stance on that or any similar front as you seem to claim.
>>4625
I acknowledge the previous points, but
>It has no place in politics & is overblown as an identity (often for political reasons).
This may be your point of view, but any 'true' Christian, Jew or Muslim would disagree.
The decrees of Abrahamic religions encompass every aspect of life, and thus also inform politics.
Religion would therefore (always from the point of view of the adherent) have a significant place in politics.
Christian-informed politics have been significantly weakened, but Islamic-informed politics is alive and well, to just give you an example.
> it's a very minor factor compared to the individual choices & environmental factors completely loose from Christian religions that made it (the culture) what it is today.
That could be a discussion point and a thread of its own.
If you were to take a look around, even the smallest details have Christian backgrounds.
Christian religion is simply rather pervasive in the Occident.
>The reason why "Christian US" historical cultural or otherwise is held up high is the ideological bit I'm trying to outline.
Fair enough.
> I'm not pushing any ideological stance on that or any similar front as you seem to claim.
I honestly still think you are. Just by saying
>it's a very minor factor compared to the individual choices & environmental factors completely loose from Christian religions that made it
you are taking a stance in the matter.
I acknowledge the previous points, but
>It has no place in politics & is overblown as an identity (often for political reasons).
This may be your point of view, but any 'true' Christian, Jew or Muslim would disagree.
The decrees of Abrahamic religions encompass every aspect of life, and thus also inform politics.
Religion would therefore (always from the point of view of the adherent) have a significant place in politics.
Christian-informed politics have been significantly weakened, but Islamic-informed politics is alive and well, to just give you an example.
> it's a very minor factor compared to the individual choices & environmental factors completely loose from Christian religions that made it (the culture) what it is today.
That could be a discussion point and a thread of its own.
If you were to take a look around, even the smallest details have Christian backgrounds.
Christian religion is simply rather pervasive in the Occident.
>The reason why "Christian US" historical cultural or otherwise is held up high is the ideological bit I'm trying to outline.
Fair enough.
> I'm not pushing any ideological stance on that or any similar front as you seem to claim.
I honestly still think you are. Just by saying
>it's a very minor factor compared to the individual choices & environmental factors completely loose from Christian religions that made it
you are taking a stance in the matter.
>>4627
>This may be your point of view, but any 'true' Christian, Jew or Muslim would disagree.
Of course they would. Is it hard to figure out why?
>The decrees of Abrahamic religions encompass every aspect of life, and thus also inform politics.
The majority of which ignored, applied depending on circumstance or interpreted according to own preconceptions.
>Religion would therefore (always from the point of view of the adherent) have a significant place in politics.
You can pick & choose plenty of examples on this but for the absolute majority of political issues I don't see it.
Take a political subsection that would fit this discussion well. A bunch of GOPers for example Take random laws something on the environment, social security net, taxes, defence, business. Now try to attach religious context to their decision that would explain it.
Sure you can do it for abortion, sure you can do it for government grants to religion based groups but overall?
>Christian-informed politics have been significantly weakened, but Islamic-informed politics is alive and well, to just give you an example.
Yeah because the majority of the west are not religious hard-liners. Look at the political role of clerics & the like in Islamic countries & compare it to the west.
We had the enlightenment a good while ago, our culture adapted to the industrial revolution, wars, political & ethnic feuds, etc, etc.
Lines run trough those things, religion being one of them occasionally influencing decisions & things but rarely if ever was it the sole, biggest or only one.
>If you were to take a look around, even the smallest details have Christian backgrounds.
Pointing at some kind of butterfly effect you could enlarge the role it has played but this can be done more so in much of Europe where it defines a few borders that exist trough this day (but again never purely because of it)
If we start from the early years of the US this can be implied much less. Yet in the US you hear about this concept a lot (comparatively) whilst you won't hear it uttered from the mouth of your average Dutchman, French, Swede, etc where it's been forced out of politics much longer & the Christian denominations are declining rapidly.
>you are taking a stance in the matter
If I'm taking a stance in the matter it's about American culture as a concept vs American Christian culture as a concept as far as the importance of these goes but not actually pro or against the later like I interpreted the first commenter doing.
>This may be your point of view, but any 'true' Christian, Jew or Muslim would disagree.
Of course they would. Is it hard to figure out why?
>The decrees of Abrahamic religions encompass every aspect of life, and thus also inform politics.
The majority of which ignored, applied depending on circumstance or interpreted according to own preconceptions.
>Religion would therefore (always from the point of view of the adherent) have a significant place in politics.
You can pick & choose plenty of examples on this but for the absolute majority of political issues I don't see it.
Take a political subsection that would fit this discussion well. A bunch of GOPers for example Take random laws something on the environment, social security net, taxes, defence, business. Now try to attach religious context to their decision that would explain it.
Sure you can do it for abortion, sure you can do it for government grants to religion based groups but overall?
>Christian-informed politics have been significantly weakened, but Islamic-informed politics is alive and well, to just give you an example.
Yeah because the majority of the west are not religious hard-liners. Look at the political role of clerics & the like in Islamic countries & compare it to the west.
We had the enlightenment a good while ago, our culture adapted to the industrial revolution, wars, political & ethnic feuds, etc, etc.
Lines run trough those things, religion being one of them occasionally influencing decisions & things but rarely if ever was it the sole, biggest or only one.
>If you were to take a look around, even the smallest details have Christian backgrounds.
Pointing at some kind of butterfly effect you could enlarge the role it has played but this can be done more so in much of Europe where it defines a few borders that exist trough this day (but again never purely because of it)
If we start from the early years of the US this can be implied much less. Yet in the US you hear about this concept a lot (comparatively) whilst you won't hear it uttered from the mouth of your average Dutchman, French, Swede, etc where it's been forced out of politics much longer & the Christian denominations are declining rapidly.
>you are taking a stance in the matter
If I'm taking a stance in the matter it's about American culture as a concept vs American Christian culture as a concept as far as the importance of these goes but not actually pro or against the later like I interpreted the first commenter doing.
>>4617
>"Equality of opportunity" requires more than just depreciated living costs. It involves personal connections, inheritance, opportunity to travel, opportunity to invest, etc.
>"Opportunity" has never been less equal.
Yeah, good old times 30 years ago when you were shot on sight of crossing border in like half of the world. When you couldn't even go on vacation without connections to the ruling party. When having even a slightly more money than you neighbor resulted in investigation (or more like interrogation) from secret services. Don't worry though, they didn't confront you directly, they stole a key from your child and investigated by themselves when you weren't home. The true equality of opportunity, am I right?
>"Equality of opportunity" requires more than just depreciated living costs. It involves personal connections, inheritance, opportunity to travel, opportunity to invest, etc.
>"Opportunity" has never been less equal.
Yeah, good old times 30 years ago when you were shot on sight of crossing border in like half of the world. When you couldn't even go on vacation without connections to the ruling party. When having even a slightly more money than you neighbor resulted in investigation (or more like interrogation) from secret services. Don't worry though, they didn't confront you directly, they stole a key from your child and investigated by themselves when you weren't home. The true equality of opportunity, am I right?
It's hard to know at this point if this is simply a bumbling unprepared administration or a malicious one. But the stakes are too high to wait it out. If it is malicious sowing confusion and turning citizens against themselves is exactly how you grab and maintain power. Add in damnation of speech that does not praise the leader and worship of authority (police, border agents, military) and perpetuate that there is a conflict between citizens and said authority.
>>4605
>the US is actually a Christian country
I don't like nitpicking, but the US was founded by Christian people. As a country it grants freedom of religion.
This little tidbit is what makes western countries so different from middle eastern ones.
You're free to be an unbeliever or a heretic in the west, that is part of what has made us great. Religion is something personal, it shouldn't be dictated by leaders or policed.
>the US is actually a Christian country
I don't like nitpicking, but the US was founded by Christian people. As a country it grants freedom of religion.
This little tidbit is what makes western countries so different from middle eastern ones.
You're free to be an unbeliever or a heretic in the west, that is part of what has made us great. Religion is something personal, it shouldn't be dictated by leaders or policed.
If he's against more people being in America why does he want to restrict abortions? That means more people living in America too and it'll be more poor people at that.
>>4640
Yeah there are repressive countries over there and more liberal ones but so many in the west still think "they hate us because we're free" and that the Crusades never ended. Rojava (not exactly a country at present, ok) has a far more progressive and inclusive constutution than any western country I know of even if it's just a piece of paper.
Yeah there are repressive countries over there and more liberal ones but so many in the west still think "they hate us because we're free" and that the Crusades never ended. Rojava (not exactly a country at present, ok) has a far more progressive and inclusive constutution than any western country I know of even if it's just a piece of paper.
File: 1485727703502.png (114.54 KB, 200x140, ShowImage.ashx.jpg)
>>4640
>The ME is more tolerant than you'd think
Depends entirely on the "than you'd think" part.
The "ME" is simply far (faaaar) less "tolerant" than "the West".
> Ask the Jewish people who tried to flee Germany.
>Using this example when trying to argue the Middle East isn't as intolerant as one would think
>What is the Six-Day War
>What is antisemitism in the Middle East
kek
>The ME is more tolerant than you'd think
Depends entirely on the "than you'd think" part.
The "ME" is simply far (faaaar) less "tolerant" than "the West".
> Ask the Jewish people who tried to flee Germany.
>Using this example when trying to argue the Middle East isn't as intolerant as one would think
>What is the Six-Day War
>What is antisemitism in the Middle East
kek
>>4644
I mean he's right. The region has never been homogeneous and the combined lack of personal experience, in-depth media, and a saturation of propaganda to justify the war efforts of the last few decades doesn't lead to an accurate picture of the region.
You also can't really compare the six day war, which in itself was partly a response to Israeli westerners slaughtering the native people of the region to most of the west standing idly by while Hitler killed millions of religious minorities out of pure bigotry.
I mean he's right. The region has never been homogeneous and the combined lack of personal experience, in-depth media, and a saturation of propaganda to justify the war efforts of the last few decades doesn't lead to an accurate picture of the region.
You also can't really compare the six day war, which in itself was partly a response to Israeli westerners slaughtering the native people of the region to most of the west standing idly by while Hitler killed millions of religious minorities out of pure bigotry.
>>4533
don't forget,
-right to life, if you have an illness and the ACA got you the care you needed
-right to being an arm of government recognized by the executive branch, if you're the judicial branch
-right to keep your job if you're gay
-right to ANYTHING related to birth control, since organizations like planned parenthood offered that too
-your job, if you were paid to recognize any of those things
-a home, if you were a low-income first-time homeowner
these are all things that already happened btw.
don't forget,
-right to life, if you have an illness and the ACA got you the care you needed
-right to being an arm of government recognized by the executive branch, if you're the judicial branch
-right to keep your job if you're gay
-right to ANYTHING related to birth control, since organizations like planned parenthood offered that too
-your job, if you were paid to recognize any of those things
-a home, if you were a low-income first-time homeowner
these are all things that already happened btw.
File: 1485768414183.png (46.16 KB, 200x89, rtea.gif)
>>4480
>We live in a capitalist system, and if you're not a socialist of some variety, you're not really a rebel.
It's really naive to think of the system as just it's official facade. Even the capitalism of the government is so much influenced by social-democratic (socialist-leaning) measures and habits that it can no more be considered capitalism directly.
Also, the main values spread by the system's propaganda machines are socialist-utopia-inspired victimization culture. You won't be a rebel if you're standing side by side with Hollywood, lad, sorry.
The whole game after Cold War was to keep people hanging in a false dichotomy between capitalism and socialism, as a way to keep everyone numb, while the system became a bizarre hybrid of both so that it would be harder to oppose it, to locate who the enemy really is. It's called soft Totalitarianism.
The worst thing that could happen to the system as is would be unpredictable change. And Trump was that, no matter what his actual policies are, they are counter-current. If anything, it bars and delays the realizations of their original plan. He created a void which people desirous of truly rebellious, outside the game strategies, could use.
>We live in a capitalist system, and if you're not a socialist of some variety, you're not really a rebel.
It's really naive to think of the system as just it's official facade. Even the capitalism of the government is so much influenced by social-democratic (socialist-leaning) measures and habits that it can no more be considered capitalism directly.
Also, the main values spread by the system's propaganda machines are socialist-utopia-inspired victimization culture. You won't be a rebel if you're standing side by side with Hollywood, lad, sorry.
The whole game after Cold War was to keep people hanging in a false dichotomy between capitalism and socialism, as a way to keep everyone numb, while the system became a bizarre hybrid of both so that it would be harder to oppose it, to locate who the enemy really is. It's called soft Totalitarianism.
The worst thing that could happen to the system as is would be unpredictable change. And Trump was that, no matter what his actual policies are, they are counter-current. If anything, it bars and delays the realizations of their original plan. He created a void which people desirous of truly rebellious, outside the game strategies, could use.
>>4505
>The simple fact is that liberty in America would be impossible without first deporting illegal immigrants
The simple fact is you can't deport them without giving up all your liberties and privacy to let the police state ensure they've got them all, and in fact they'll never get them all, and you'll never get those rights back because they'll find someone new for you to get mad at.
You still have zero rights to a well paying job, zero rights to healthcare, and zero freedoms regardless of your race or national origin.
Factories make enough to feed, cloth and care for everyone now.
Those most violent degenerates you mock also have a nasty habit of becoming the police in 5-10 years.
>The simple fact is that liberty in America would be impossible without first deporting illegal immigrants
The simple fact is you can't deport them without giving up all your liberties and privacy to let the police state ensure they've got them all, and in fact they'll never get them all, and you'll never get those rights back because they'll find someone new for you to get mad at.
You still have zero rights to a well paying job, zero rights to healthcare, and zero freedoms regardless of your race or national origin.
Factories make enough to feed, cloth and care for everyone now.
Those most violent degenerates you mock also have a nasty habit of becoming the police in 5-10 years.
>>4657
Not true capitalism.
Yeah, where have I heard this before. Don't kid yourself, its still a capitalist system, but thanks for reminding me it could be, and has been far far worse.
The few bits of mercy the system does how are the social programs. This does not make it a "socialist" system, because the capitalists(i.e. property owners with enough money to influence politics), are still for the most part in charge(as opposed to labor organizations such as labor).
Trump being truly rebellious is a complete fantasy. He's a capitalist who is there to protect private property, namely his own.
The Muslim "ban" proves it. Not banned are countries he does business with. Ironicly these are some of the most radical, violent, and dangerous of the lot, while ostracizing the moderates and anti-jihadists.
Not true capitalism.
Yeah, where have I heard this before. Don't kid yourself, its still a capitalist system, but thanks for reminding me it could be, and has been far far worse.
The few bits of mercy the system does how are the social programs. This does not make it a "socialist" system, because the capitalists(i.e. property owners with enough money to influence politics), are still for the most part in charge(as opposed to labor organizations such as labor).
Trump being truly rebellious is a complete fantasy. He's a capitalist who is there to protect private property, namely his own.
The Muslim "ban" proves it. Not banned are countries he does business with. Ironicly these are some of the most radical, violent, and dangerous of the lot, while ostracizing the moderates and anti-jihadists.
File: 1485844715133.png (49.14 KB, 137x200, NOPE.jpg)
>>4679
This is a strategy that has been employed to great effect by governors in red states.
If he blitzes all these executive actions, he'll piss people off for a while. At the end though he'll have kept his promises and he can begin to correct the consequences of his executive actions or bask in the praise if things start to go well.
This is a strategy that has been employed to great effect by governors in red states.
If he blitzes all these executive actions, he'll piss people off for a while. At the end though he'll have kept his promises and he can begin to correct the consequences of his executive actions or bask in the praise if things start to go well.
The no fly list will soon become the no gun list.
Y'all subversives better start buying guns.
Y'all subversives better start buying guns.
>voting for the man from the teevee
>being surprised he acts like the man from the teevee
trump voters are pretty silly
>being surprised he acts like the man from the teevee
trump voters are pretty silly
>>4633
yes, the instant someone raises taxes and pays for social services the slightest we are full on state socialism. False equivalent.
>>4638
OOO, I know. Its the west has liberals and socialists. liberals got the ball rolling on industrialization, socialism to distribute the results to the masses.
The middle east also had socialists, but the CIA killed them all. The socialists in the ME, where modernist, progressive, respected women and wanted peace as prosperity. So the CIA killed them.
yes, the instant someone raises taxes and pays for social services the slightest we are full on state socialism. False equivalent.
>>4638
OOO, I know. Its the west has liberals and socialists. liberals got the ball rolling on industrialization, socialism to distribute the results to the masses.
The middle east also had socialists, but the CIA killed them all. The socialists in the ME, where modernist, progressive, respected women and wanted peace as prosperity. So the CIA killed them.
>>4638
If we're going to be nitpicky about the founding fathers' religions, it's worth remembering that Deism was a big influence on college-educated men of that period. That's why the Declaration of Independence says, "Nature’s God," not, "Lord Jesus," or anything of that sort. George Washington refused to take communion, and Thomas Payne called Christianity a fable.
If we're going to be nitpicky about the founding fathers' religions, it's worth remembering that Deism was a big influence on college-educated men of that period. That's why the Declaration of Independence says, "Nature’s God," not, "Lord Jesus," or anything of that sort. George Washington refused to take communion, and Thomas Payne called Christianity a fable.
>>4691
>his reality show is the only thing he is known for, thats why I will condescend to him/his supporters and describe him only as TV personality
Whats so wrong about having a show that promotes entrepreneurship in an interesting and sensationalistic way?
It sounds like a good thing to me tbh
>his reality show is the only thing he is known for, thats why I will condescend to him/his supporters and describe him only as TV personality
Whats so wrong about having a show that promotes entrepreneurship in an interesting and sensationalistic way?
It sounds like a good thing to me tbh
>>4714
>his reality show is the only thing he is known for
What.... I had a tape by a hard rock band from 1991? who mentioned him in their lyrics. "Donald Trump is just a money whore". They were called Warrior Soul. People knew who he was for a long time, Lain.
And they hated him long before the "mainstream media" as he puts it started maligning him too. Everyone hates a landlord and he's the final boss of them.
>his reality show is the only thing he is known for
What.... I had a tape by a hard rock band from 1991? who mentioned him in their lyrics. "Donald Trump is just a money whore". They were called Warrior Soul. People knew who he was for a long time, Lain.
And they hated him long before the "mainstream media" as he puts it started maligning him too. Everyone hates a landlord and he's the final boss of them.
>>4715
>everyone hated him before
Not really
If you look up on lyrics online you see that "Donald Trump" or "Trump" comes up a lot in rap music.
Why? Because rap musicians used him as a metaphor for wealth and power, as in admiration, not hate.
He has always been a symbol of capitalism in US, especially in 80s.
>everyone hated him before
Not really
If you look up on lyrics online you see that "Donald Trump" or "Trump" comes up a lot in rap music.
Why? Because rap musicians used him as a metaphor for wealth and power, as in admiration, not hate.
He has always been a symbol of capitalism in US, especially in 80s.
>His 1987 novel, The Art of the Deal, sold extremely well as people began to identify him with American entrepreneurship and shrewd power brokering. It was around this time that Trump started to appear As Himself in television Dom Coms and films, including Home Alone 2 and The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, where the characters invariably treat him with a reverence usually reserved for royalty. His golden boy image took a beating in The '90s as the result of bankruptcies (which he insists were actually strategic business decisions), a much-publicized extramarital affair, and mounting debt (partly as a result of the 1980s recession), but he managed to bounce back.
(TVtropes)
Yeah, he's been in the public eye for a long time, as a symbol of both American ingenuity and industry, and American excess and tastelessness.
He was parodied in Gremlins 2, and Cherry Poptart, both long before his reality show.
(TVtropes)
Yeah, he's been in the public eye for a long time, as a symbol of both American ingenuity and industry, and American excess and tastelessness.
He was parodied in Gremlins 2, and Cherry Poptart, both long before his reality show.
File: 1485969728253.png (254.52 KB, 200x99, awlakifamily.png)
Why can't US stop killing its own children?
>>4478
come on man, alliance between corporations and government is not capitalism, is fascism
not to mention that the Obama administration funded all kind of leftist and anti-capitalist groups
the live we live on is far more complicated that some *-ism we can all berate by paintin our colour blue, anti-system has been coopted by the system
imo the most accurate way to describe the current power structure would be "postmodern situationist-theater techno-satanism"
come on man, alliance between corporations and government is not capitalism, is fascism
not to mention that the Obama administration funded all kind of leftist and anti-capitalist groups
the live we live on is far more complicated that some *-ism we can all berate by paintin our colour blue, anti-system has been coopted by the system
imo the most accurate way to describe the current power structure would be "postmodern situationist-theater techno-satanism"
>>4738
"Fascist" doesn't mean anything anymore. When Obama was president he got called a fascist by the right, when Dubya was president the left called him a fascist. That 14 signs of fascism list you might have seen was floating around for the past 16 years or more. Fascist is just an insult now.
"Fascist" doesn't mean anything anymore. When Obama was president he got called a fascist by the right, when Dubya was president the left called him a fascist. That 14 signs of fascism list you might have seen was floating around for the past 16 years or more. Fascist is just an insult now.
>>4742
but say when you have all the corporations that do shit for the military-industrial complex
and you got google/facebook doing diplomacy for the US and operating as the cyber branch of American government
and you got apple/microsoft operating as the hardware branch
and you got the banks so involved with economic policies
when you got an illegal jail in Cuba where you torture people
when you read everybody's mails and collect everybody's nudes
when you got an addict media conglomerate that serves as a global spokeperson for the government (representing both the republican and democratic parties)
isn't that LITERAL fascism?
im just asking
but say when you have all the corporations that do shit for the military-industrial complex
and you got google/facebook doing diplomacy for the US and operating as the cyber branch of American government
and you got apple/microsoft operating as the hardware branch
and you got the banks so involved with economic policies
when you got an illegal jail in Cuba where you torture people
when you read everybody's mails and collect everybody's nudes
when you got an addict media conglomerate that serves as a global spokeperson for the government (representing both the republican and democratic parties)
isn't that LITERAL fascism?
im just asking
>>4742
I read somewhere that Mussolini once said that the core ideas of fascism should seem broad enough that they apply to almost any government, so as to confuse the Americans into calling each other fascists and going on witch-hunts within the US, which would take resources and attention away from the war in Europe.
I read somewhere that Mussolini once said that the core ideas of fascism should seem broad enough that they apply to almost any government, so as to confuse the Americans into calling each other fascists and going on witch-hunts within the US, which would take resources and attention away from the war in Europe.
Calling Trump a fascist is as useless as calling him emperor.
Autocrat wannabe is more appropriate.
Autocrat wannabe is more appropriate.
File: 1486146298484.png (10.04 KB, 200x146, gyq3nsm.jpg)
>>4459
So my theory on that, for what it's worth, is that the GOP will push through their pet legislation in the first year, then spend the next 3 years keeping him in check. It lets them have their cake and eat it too. Already Trump is lifting sanctions on Russia, which can drive a divide between and main line repubs.
>>4461
This is something I don't understand. There are plenty of jobs in the U.S., its just industries that are changing. We're at a job to employee deficit right now.
>>4535
>>Oh no, the Patriot Act is going to take away our rights to free speech over the telephone!
Jury's still out on that one, isn't it?
And yeah, I too remember all of the Anti bush propaganda, but I don't remember Bush having the cult of personality Trump does. I don't remember Bush having the whole "God emperor thing"
My biggest problem with Trump voters is they seems to have some idea that he's going to "bring jobs back" when as I said earlier there are plenty of jobs available. They seem to all want to drive the economy backwards to a less technologically advanced one, and that's terrifying to me. I'd rather see the economy driven forward to the future than pushed back to an (arguably) more stable past. Right now the only people who seem to have a legitimate complaint about lack of work are people who refuse to move from failed cities who once relies on single industries. I'm sorry Kentucky, Pittsburgh, and the American Southeast that you never learned any skills beyond the one skill that would let you work in the one business that's in your town, that really does suck, but killing everyone elses employment because you didn't learn any further marketable skills is shitty.
Furthermore, as far as authoritarianism goes, yeah Trump might only be slightly more of a Tyrant than the executive has been since Nixon, but now the resistance exists, and they resistance might be blindly fighting Trump for now reason, but they can be used as a blunt instrument to push through real changes that does genuinely expand freedoms.
Finally, Ajit Pai is soon to be our, as Lainanons biggest enemy in the U.S. Government and enemies of our enemies are our friends. Anything that undermines Trump undermines his FCC and anything that undermines his FCC helps keep Net Neutrality alive that much longer.
So my theory on that, for what it's worth, is that the GOP will push through their pet legislation in the first year, then spend the next 3 years keeping him in check. It lets them have their cake and eat it too. Already Trump is lifting sanctions on Russia, which can drive a divide between and main line repubs.
>>4461
This is something I don't understand. There are plenty of jobs in the U.S., its just industries that are changing. We're at a job to employee deficit right now.
>>4535
>>Oh no, the Patriot Act is going to take away our rights to free speech over the telephone!
Jury's still out on that one, isn't it?
And yeah, I too remember all of the Anti bush propaganda, but I don't remember Bush having the cult of personality Trump does. I don't remember Bush having the whole "God emperor thing"
My biggest problem with Trump voters is they seems to have some idea that he's going to "bring jobs back" when as I said earlier there are plenty of jobs available. They seem to all want to drive the economy backwards to a less technologically advanced one, and that's terrifying to me. I'd rather see the economy driven forward to the future than pushed back to an (arguably) more stable past. Right now the only people who seem to have a legitimate complaint about lack of work are people who refuse to move from failed cities who once relies on single industries. I'm sorry Kentucky, Pittsburgh, and the American Southeast that you never learned any skills beyond the one skill that would let you work in the one business that's in your town, that really does suck, but killing everyone elses employment because you didn't learn any further marketable skills is shitty.
Furthermore, as far as authoritarianism goes, yeah Trump might only be slightly more of a Tyrant than the executive has been since Nixon, but now the resistance exists, and they resistance might be blindly fighting Trump for now reason, but they can be used as a blunt instrument to push through real changes that does genuinely expand freedoms.
Finally, Ajit Pai is soon to be our, as Lainanons biggest enemy in the U.S. Government and enemies of our enemies are our friends. Anything that undermines Trump undermines his FCC and anything that undermines his FCC helps keep Net Neutrality alive that much longer.
File: 1486147561293.png (68.48 KB, 200x171, DAH_REZIZTANZE.jpg)
>>4783
not that anon but look the first minutes of this, literally up till 3:00, when he talks about what the democrats said about Romney, does it remembers you of anything?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9npUXVx2pg
>but now the resistance exists
lol, yeah, The Resistance™, everyday, 24hs through your nearest screen!
not that anon but look the first minutes of this, literally up till 3:00, when he talks about what the democrats said about Romney, does it remembers you of anything?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9npUXVx2pg
>but now the resistance exists
lol, yeah, The Resistance™, everyday, 24hs through your nearest screen!
File: 1486154366777.png (178.32 KB, 200x200, 2013_july_4_molly_by_cesca_specs-d6c1gcd.jpg)
>>4784
Saging as this isn't immediately related, but from the first 10 or so minutes a few things he left out about why Romney lost was sabotage by his own party.
I remember in 2012 Republican's weren't on board with Romeny because the ACA was essentially modeled after legislation Romney was the architect of AND Mitt Romney believe Jesus came to the united states and demanded all real Christians had to wear magical underwear. Shapiro, while being smart and for the most part right is obviously choosing to ignore the 4 years of conservative hit jobs against Obama that made the GOP look like frothing lunatics (I.E the birther movement)
But yeah, Trump definitely ran a Campaign that was built on smearing Clinton, and Clinton ran a campaign built on her not being a frothing lunatic like Trump, believing Trump's very being would be a good enough smear tactic.
And yeah the "resistance" is basically a fucking joke, but as I said it can be used as a blunt instrument to get things done we want done if handled properly.
Saging as this isn't immediately related, but from the first 10 or so minutes a few things he left out about why Romney lost was sabotage by his own party.
I remember in 2012 Republican's weren't on board with Romeny because the ACA was essentially modeled after legislation Romney was the architect of AND Mitt Romney believe Jesus came to the united states and demanded all real Christians had to wear magical underwear. Shapiro, while being smart and for the most part right is obviously choosing to ignore the 4 years of conservative hit jobs against Obama that made the GOP look like frothing lunatics (I.E the birther movement)
But yeah, Trump definitely ran a Campaign that was built on smearing Clinton, and Clinton ran a campaign built on her not being a frothing lunatic like Trump, believing Trump's very being would be a good enough smear tactic.
And yeah the "resistance" is basically a fucking joke, but as I said it can be used as a blunt instrument to get things done we want done if handled properly.
File: 1486158101647.png (44.24 KB, 200x134, dat_ass.jpg)
>>4787
Aside from the Romney thing, which is entirely another thing, if you listen he says:
"the nice guy, even if he is the less prepared person for the job, wins", thats why Trump won; both campaigns were built on "the other is the most horrible person in the planet", the difference is that Clinton only half-succesfuly painted him as a racist/homophobe/xenophobe/sexist, while he (accurately) painted her as a Pedoglobalist Semenwitch Overlord, i was kind of dissapointed that Clinton wasn't able to procure proof of Trump's serious skeletons.
Also the whole "grab her by the pussy" horribly backfired on Clinton, who then was presented with all the documented cases of her being an apologist of her husband being a fucking rapist.
My point was that the "resistance" is comprised by all the corporations (and ONGs) that lost their position of leverage on the white-house (not saying there aren't others who won it), not by people or organizations of people decided to act and with a clear plan and view on things. Its all just a fuzzy cloud of discontent feelings.
How serious is a person that wears a pussy-hat when protesting a perceived fascist? What kind of convinced revolutionary complies with protesting regulations or wastes his time looting a fucking starbucks?
Aside from the Romney thing, which is entirely another thing, if you listen he says:
"the nice guy, even if he is the less prepared person for the job, wins", thats why Trump won; both campaigns were built on "the other is the most horrible person in the planet", the difference is that Clinton only half-succesfuly painted him as a racist/homophobe/xenophobe/sexist, while he (accurately) painted her as a Pedoglobalist Semenwitch Overlord, i was kind of dissapointed that Clinton wasn't able to procure proof of Trump's serious skeletons.
Also the whole "grab her by the pussy" horribly backfired on Clinton, who then was presented with all the documented cases of her being an apologist of her husband being a fucking rapist.
My point was that the "resistance" is comprised by all the corporations (and ONGs) that lost their position of leverage on the white-house (not saying there aren't others who won it), not by people or organizations of people decided to act and with a clear plan and view on things. Its all just a fuzzy cloud of discontent feelings.
How serious is a person that wears a pussy-hat when protesting a perceived fascist? What kind of convinced revolutionary complies with protesting regulations or wastes his time looting a fucking starbucks?
File: 1486178487748.png (471.63 KB, 200x151, proudhon.jpeg)
I voted for Trump and would do it again. I am Mexican and I sure as fuck do NOT want Mexico here. Leftists have NO fucking idea of the horror that is that godforsaken country when night falls. Absolutely none, you can whine bitch and moan about MUH POPO but without a strong Arm of the Law and not Bongo's fucking disgrace of support for them you would have NOTHING.
Not your house, your car or even a decent computer.
>>4783
>We're at a job to employee deficit right now.
Then explain why we have an unemployment rate at all then.
Not your house, your car or even a decent computer.
>>4783
>We're at a job to employee deficit right now.
Then explain why we have an unemployment rate at all then.
>>4800
>they're providing a service by owning property,
Yes they are. They are providing a service in the form of running utilities and overall upkeep. If you don't like it then go and live on the street or buy a piece of land without any housing on it.
You may say "well if I wanted to do that i'd just buy a house XD", no shit, that's because it COSTS to own things.
>they're providing a service by owning property,
Yes they are. They are providing a service in the form of running utilities and overall upkeep. If you don't like it then go and live on the street or buy a piece of land without any housing on it.
You may say "well if I wanted to do that i'd just buy a house XD", no shit, that's because it COSTS to own things.
File: 1486189812404.png (223.29 KB, 128x128, IMG_5595.jpg)
>>4809
>They're not spending all of the money earned on the property. They're devils.
Honest question; what's the end goal of all you socialists in this thread? Especially of those of you against things like property rights. I'm not saying I know the answer to these things, but I can't imagine a world in which everyone gets distributed to them 20m^2 a very happy place. Equality of outcomes is absolutely awful. The idea of this ultimate equality is probably one of the most repugnant ideas I can imagine. The noble goal of ending suffering should be followed to its logical conclusion; the extinction of all intelligent life forms.
If there is one thing that actually has some real foundations in wanting happiness for all, it's libertarian thinking, although I haven't delved deep enough down that rabbit hole to come to any conclusions.
>They're not spending all of the money earned on the property. They're devils.
Honest question; what's the end goal of all you socialists in this thread? Especially of those of you against things like property rights. I'm not saying I know the answer to these things, but I can't imagine a world in which everyone gets distributed to them 20m^2 a very happy place. Equality of outcomes is absolutely awful. The idea of this ultimate equality is probably one of the most repugnant ideas I can imagine. The noble goal of ending suffering should be followed to its logical conclusion; the extinction of all intelligent life forms.
If there is one thing that actually has some real foundations in wanting happiness for all, it's libertarian thinking, although I haven't delved deep enough down that rabbit hole to come to any conclusions.
>>4811
>end goal of all you socialists in this thread
Worker control of the means of production. You should look up left market anarchism and mutualism if you're a lolbert with an interest in socialist ideas.
Go here: https://c4ss.org, or look up Kevin Carson.
>everyone gets distributed to them 20m^2
Three acres and a cow is preferred. I have strong sympathy for Distributism.
But nobody is in favour of handing each person an identical parcel of land. Occupation and use, nerd.
>The idea of this ultimate equality is probably one of the most repugnant ideas I can imagine.
Equality is repugnant, or the bizzaro land scheme you just mentioned is repugnant, If the former, why?
>the noble goal of ending suffering should be followed to its logical conclusion; the extinction of all intelligent life forms.
>not being anti-natalist
Socialism isn't claiming to end all suffering.
>If there is one thing that actually has some real foundations in wanting happiness for all, it's libertarian thinking
I have some sympathy for the right libertarian mindset, but in practice it seems to be reducing the state to the parts that protect the interest of a certain class, which I can't see ending any way but badly.
There's also the crypto-social Darwinist thing, it's happiness for those who do well in the market, the weak and unfortunate suffer greatly. Look at historical working conditions, or Hoppe, or their "ironic" worship of Pinochet, if you dare to suggest collective bargaining or whatever you're getting le helicopter ride or worse.
>end goal of all you socialists in this thread
Worker control of the means of production. You should look up left market anarchism and mutualism if you're a lolbert with an interest in socialist ideas.
Go here: https://c4ss.org, or look up Kevin Carson.
>everyone gets distributed to them 20m^2
Three acres and a cow is preferred. I have strong sympathy for Distributism.
But nobody is in favour of handing each person an identical parcel of land. Occupation and use, nerd.
>The idea of this ultimate equality is probably one of the most repugnant ideas I can imagine.
Equality is repugnant, or the bizzaro land scheme you just mentioned is repugnant, If the former, why?
>the noble goal of ending suffering should be followed to its logical conclusion; the extinction of all intelligent life forms.
>not being anti-natalist
Socialism isn't claiming to end all suffering.
>If there is one thing that actually has some real foundations in wanting happiness for all, it's libertarian thinking
I have some sympathy for the right libertarian mindset, but in practice it seems to be reducing the state to the parts that protect the interest of a certain class, which I can't see ending any way but badly.
There's also the crypto-social Darwinist thing, it's happiness for those who do well in the market, the weak and unfortunate suffer greatly. Look at historical working conditions, or Hoppe, or their "ironic" worship of Pinochet, if you dare to suggest collective bargaining or whatever you're getting le helicopter ride or worse.
ITT: Trumpettes get socially engineered into socially engineering the commies into autistic shit-flinging over landlording morality
>>4812
>Worker control of the means of production. You should look up left market anarchism and mutualism if you're a lolbert with an interest in socialist ideas.
Not what I asked; I asked what the end goal of all the socialists in this thread is, not the end goal of socialism. Even then, is the end goal of socialism simply to capture the means of production? is everything else fine, do you hang up your boots as long as that one condition is fulfilled? If you don't I don't think its fair to call it the 'end goal'.
>Three acres and a cow is preferred. I have strong sympathy for Distributism.
>But nobody is in favour of handing each person an identical parcel of land. Occupation and use, nerd.
Who decides who gets what? what checks are in place?
>not being anti-natalist
Atleast you lot select against yourself.
>Socialism isn't claiming to end all suffering.
Fair enough, what is it claiming then?
>Worker control of the means of production. You should look up left market anarchism and mutualism if you're a lolbert with an interest in socialist ideas.
Not what I asked; I asked what the end goal of all the socialists in this thread is, not the end goal of socialism. Even then, is the end goal of socialism simply to capture the means of production? is everything else fine, do you hang up your boots as long as that one condition is fulfilled? If you don't I don't think its fair to call it the 'end goal'.
>Three acres and a cow is preferred. I have strong sympathy for Distributism.
>But nobody is in favour of handing each person an identical parcel of land. Occupation and use, nerd.
Who decides who gets what? what checks are in place?
>not being anti-natalist
Atleast you lot select against yourself.
>Socialism isn't claiming to end all suffering.
Fair enough, what is it claiming then?
>>4823
not a retarded socialist
our group is making strides to support our local community without the need for the government, however we still vote, we still take part in our local government as that is important.
for us the goal isn't revolution through force, necessarily, but revolution through helping those in need and being apart of the system to make real positive changes.
not a retarded socialist
our group is making strides to support our local community without the need for the government, however we still vote, we still take part in our local government as that is important.
for us the goal isn't revolution through force, necessarily, but revolution through helping those in need and being apart of the system to make real positive changes.
>>4757
So if you didn't own someone's house, they wouldn't have a house?
What do you actually do? Other than state made busy work, property taxes, or maintaining the property with assets the current residents would otherwise have if they weren't paying you? Took the risk on the initial investment? Isn't that more of a problem with the way the economy currently works, that people would prefer to avoid the risk of owning their own home? To the point that people like you exist. People who buy homes and property in such a way that the risk is minimized, eventually leading to more and more wealth accumulating in your hands? Wouldn't everyone be a property owner if they could muster the initial investment?
No one enjoys the fact that they don't own the place they live. I don't like you for collaborating with a market which lends itself to centralization of property. It isn't to say I think you're a bad person, but I can certainly see why people would believe that.
So if you didn't own someone's house, they wouldn't have a house?
What do you actually do? Other than state made busy work, property taxes, or maintaining the property with assets the current residents would otherwise have if they weren't paying you? Took the risk on the initial investment? Isn't that more of a problem with the way the economy currently works, that people would prefer to avoid the risk of owning their own home? To the point that people like you exist. People who buy homes and property in such a way that the risk is minimized, eventually leading to more and more wealth accumulating in your hands? Wouldn't everyone be a property owner if they could muster the initial investment?
No one enjoys the fact that they don't own the place they live. I don't like you for collaborating with a market which lends itself to centralization of property. It isn't to say I think you're a bad person, but I can certainly see why people would believe that.
>>4828
>So if you didn't own someone's house, they wouldn't have a house?
You know, sometimes, houses are built before somebody intends to live there. You are suggesting that he forced somebody out of their house, which is absolutely disgusting. I think that you are the bad person here.
>No one enjoys the fact that they don't own the place they live.
True. Especially before 1989, people hated that they got shitty, small, half-finished flats and had to pay outrageous rent to cover the costs. It wasn't too rare to get these "rented" for 40 years and then it became yours. Most of the people after 1989 ended up getting them for a reasonable one time payment, since capitalist country has no intention of getting in the way of living.
>I don't like you for collaborating with a market which lends itself to centralization of property.
So you don't like any socialist/communist regime before 1989? Because that was exactly what they were doing. Not that you know or lived in one, because you wouldn't have believed that bullshit otherwise.
>So if you didn't own someone's house, they wouldn't have a house?
You know, sometimes, houses are built before somebody intends to live there. You are suggesting that he forced somebody out of their house, which is absolutely disgusting. I think that you are the bad person here.
>No one enjoys the fact that they don't own the place they live.
True. Especially before 1989, people hated that they got shitty, small, half-finished flats and had to pay outrageous rent to cover the costs. It wasn't too rare to get these "rented" for 40 years and then it became yours. Most of the people after 1989 ended up getting them for a reasonable one time payment, since capitalist country has no intention of getting in the way of living.
>I don't like you for collaborating with a market which lends itself to centralization of property.
So you don't like any socialist/communist regime before 1989? Because that was exactly what they were doing. Not that you know or lived in one, because you wouldn't have believed that bullshit otherwise.
>>4464
>I can't believe people on this site of all places would support this guy.
I don't exactly support him. I support the push back to the regressive/authoritarian left that has all but taken over the governments, institutions and minds of the west, and I support the unintentional dismantling of the US political system and any chaos that ensues. It's unfortunate that a person like Trump has to head such a movement, but you take what you can get.
>you think he's gonna defend your rights to privacy or security?
No, but nor do I think any other potential US leader would defend said rights in a substantially better way. We just had the dream democrat as president for 8 years and we're now living in an Orwellian nightmare.
One thing I do support Trump on is his "xenophobia". Few people realize the seriousness of our demographic crisis; we are facing an existential threat, and if we don't start acting now to secure our own future, it will be too late for our children. I'm not entirely sure if I actually believe that Trump truly cares about anything other than his own ego, but as long as he implements what he promises, it doesn't really matter.
>I can't believe people on this site of all places would support this guy.
I don't exactly support him. I support the push back to the regressive/authoritarian left that has all but taken over the governments, institutions and minds of the west, and I support the unintentional dismantling of the US political system and any chaos that ensues. It's unfortunate that a person like Trump has to head such a movement, but you take what you can get.
>you think he's gonna defend your rights to privacy or security?
No, but nor do I think any other potential US leader would defend said rights in a substantially better way. We just had the dream democrat as president for 8 years and we're now living in an Orwellian nightmare.
One thing I do support Trump on is his "xenophobia". Few people realize the seriousness of our demographic crisis; we are facing an existential threat, and if we don't start acting now to secure our own future, it will be too late for our children. I'm not entirely sure if I actually believe that Trump truly cares about anything other than his own ego, but as long as he implements what he promises, it doesn't really matter.
>>4830
>the regressive/authoritarian left that has all but taken over the governments, institutions and minds of the west
Stop believing in conspiracy theories. The left has been dead like since like the 70s. "Globalism" and liberal identity politics are nothing but the culture resulting from neoliberal capitalist policies. The US is the father of neoliberal capitalism, it's no wonder its population and institutions are getting drowned in its own decadent culture. I don't want to meme here but the most likely outcome out of the western political landscape is actual fascism; these policies won't fix anything and the ones who wanted to fix this were tortured and murdered decades ago.
>the regressive/authoritarian left that has all but taken over the governments, institutions and minds of the west
Stop believing in conspiracy theories. The left has been dead like since like the 70s. "Globalism" and liberal identity politics are nothing but the culture resulting from neoliberal capitalist policies. The US is the father of neoliberal capitalism, it's no wonder its population and institutions are getting drowned in its own decadent culture. I don't want to meme here but the most likely outcome out of the western political landscape is actual fascism; these policies won't fix anything and the ones who wanted to fix this were tortured and murdered decades ago.
>>4831
>Stop believing in conspiracy theories. The left has been dead like since like the 70s. "Globalism" and liberal identity politics are nothing but the culture resulting from neoliberal capitalist policies.
Although I think you're wrong, I'm not going to engage in a semantic debate over labels. It doesn't matter what you call it; whatever it is, it needs to stop. And it's not just going on in America. It's happening to an even greater degree in Europe and Canada.
> I don't want to meme here but the most likely outcome out of the western political landscape is actual fascism
It's impossible to have a fascist state when you have a populace armed to the teeth. This is why the second amendment exists, and why it is so goddamned important.
>Stop believing in conspiracy theories. The left has been dead like since like the 70s. "Globalism" and liberal identity politics are nothing but the culture resulting from neoliberal capitalist policies.
Although I think you're wrong, I'm not going to engage in a semantic debate over labels. It doesn't matter what you call it; whatever it is, it needs to stop. And it's not just going on in America. It's happening to an even greater degree in Europe and Canada.
> I don't want to meme here but the most likely outcome out of the western political landscape is actual fascism
It's impossible to have a fascist state when you have a populace armed to the teeth. This is why the second amendment exists, and why it is so goddamned important.
>>4832
>Although I think you're wrong
Please explain to me why. Identity politics are used by the ruling class to divide the worker class and get them to fight among themselves and it's been working wonderfully. Globalism is nothing more than the international movement of cheap labor to lower wages (immigration) and resource cost (third-world outsourcing). Economic instability can be explained by capitalist crisis, especially the 2008 financial crisis. Racism and crime can be explained by economic segregation. Most problems have their roots in the dominant economic system. It's not a conspiracy of evil people who want to destroy the country or the white race just because they can.
>I'm not going to engage in a semantic debate over labels.
It's not a semantic debate. It's not about what we call them, it's about what they are and do. Calling someone out for calling a deer a "dog" isn't a semantic debate.
>whatever it is, it needs to stop
And I'm telling you what it is.
>And it's not just going on in America. It's happening to an even greater degree in Europe and Canada.
That's expected; capitalism has spread over the entire world. That includes Europe, Canada, China, Russia and everywhere. And with violent methods, a lot of the time.
>Although I think you're wrong
Please explain to me why. Identity politics are used by the ruling class to divide the worker class and get them to fight among themselves and it's been working wonderfully. Globalism is nothing more than the international movement of cheap labor to lower wages (immigration) and resource cost (third-world outsourcing). Economic instability can be explained by capitalist crisis, especially the 2008 financial crisis. Racism and crime can be explained by economic segregation. Most problems have their roots in the dominant economic system. It's not a conspiracy of evil people who want to destroy the country or the white race just because they can.
>I'm not going to engage in a semantic debate over labels.
It's not a semantic debate. It's not about what we call them, it's about what they are and do. Calling someone out for calling a deer a "dog" isn't a semantic debate.
>whatever it is, it needs to stop
And I'm telling you what it is.
>And it's not just going on in America. It's happening to an even greater degree in Europe and Canada.
That's expected; capitalism has spread over the entire world. That includes Europe, Canada, China, Russia and everywhere. And with violent methods, a lot of the time.
>>4832
>It's impossible to have a fascist state when you have a populace armed to the teeth.
I think you underestimate the power of the army. They have thousand times more the amount and quality of weaponry than the whole population combined, not to mention the strategical expertise (many wars are not fought with weapons).
>This is why the second amendment exists, and why it is so goddamned important.
The constitution is merely an instrument of representative democracy; it becomes irrelevant after a fascist takeover.
Don't take me wrong though, I'm not saying Trump will bring fascism, he's not a fascist, just a protectionist neoliberal; but the political climate of the people might slowly and eventually do. Fascism last century was caused by nothing but economic unrest, fearmorgering, populism and promises of magic solutions, just like it seems to be happening now.
>It's impossible to have a fascist state when you have a populace armed to the teeth.
I think you underestimate the power of the army. They have thousand times more the amount and quality of weaponry than the whole population combined, not to mention the strategical expertise (many wars are not fought with weapons).
>This is why the second amendment exists, and why it is so goddamned important.
The constitution is merely an instrument of representative democracy; it becomes irrelevant after a fascist takeover.
Don't take me wrong though, I'm not saying Trump will bring fascism, he's not a fascist, just a protectionist neoliberal; but the political climate of the people might slowly and eventually do. Fascism last century was caused by nothing but economic unrest, fearmorgering, populism and promises of magic solutions, just like it seems to be happening now.
>>4829
You assumed I was socialist or communist. You're also ignored my argument about the assumption of risk, I think you're missing the point and fighting the boogeyman you know you can beat.
I understand that houses need to be built in order to be lived in. Further, they need to be maintained. In order for a rental system to work, it must be worthwhile for the person renting to not have a risk obligation and for the land lord to be willing to take on the risk obligation. Usually this risk comes in the form of debt for the initial price of construction and the maintenance of the home. so, therefore, it must be either an impossibility or an inconvenience for the renter to provide the initial investment. The inconvenience could stem from a semi-nomadic or unstable lifestyle in which being tied to the property would be an inconvenience in the long term. The impossibility would be a lack of financial capitol or 'credit', making it impossible to provide the initial investment. The latter is far more likely, from what I've seen (anecdotal I know but I'm too lazy to look up any real figures right now.)
For the land lord, the risk must have an adequate reward for the investment to make sense. Therefore, the renter will pay more than the value of the investment and the maintenance unless subsidized by an external entity, or the landlord must value ownership of the property above monetary recompense and be willing to take a loss.
This means that in the case of long-term renters, they will pay more money to live in the property than they would if they could have taken the initial risk on a long enough time frame. The argument could be made that they also assume less risk in the case of disaster, such as dry rot or the house exploding. They can simply move out and pay rent on a similar property elsewhere. However, with home insurance being practically universal this isn't as much of a risk to the property owner as it once was. Another compelling reason for a person to rent is the risk of a market crash. The value of their property suddenly dropping. For the average person actually living in a home with no intention of selling or borrowing against the property this shouldn't matter. If it does, it's because of the unfortunate structure of the current system.
In this system, for a long term renter (greater than 10 years) living in the same area for all that time would it not make more sense to simply invest in a property? This has become a practical impossibility for most. The value of property is simply beyond their reach without falling into a predatory loan, and will be for the foreseeable future. As long as these people are not paid a living wage and cannot save, they will be stuck on mr. landlord's wild ride forever.
Eventually the land lord buys more property and better property. They start hiring people to manage it. They start buying out other land lords and property owners. They develop more land. More and more value comes to be in the hands of fewer and fewer property owners. In order to protect their position it makes sense to keep others out of the market. Since it's so hard to enter the market in the first place no or little new talent does, and cannot compete effectively if they do. The old owners start to select for the most powerful. The pool of owners continues to decrease.
I'm not saying everyone should be a land owner, or that everyone should be given property, or that we should redistribute wealth using regulatory forces. I'm simply stating that the market as it currently stands naturally tends to centralize the ownership of property. In my opinion that is a bad thing. I'm not providing a solution because I don't have one. Claiming that there is not a problem doesn't fix it. Pointing out that it used to be worse doesn't fix it.
I should point out that I'm not the person you were originally having the argument with. the post you were replying to was mine, but no other before it was mine.
You assumed I was socialist or communist. You're also ignored my argument about the assumption of risk, I think you're missing the point and fighting the boogeyman you know you can beat.
I understand that houses need to be built in order to be lived in. Further, they need to be maintained. In order for a rental system to work, it must be worthwhile for the person renting to not have a risk obligation and for the land lord to be willing to take on the risk obligation. Usually this risk comes in the form of debt for the initial price of construction and the maintenance of the home. so, therefore, it must be either an impossibility or an inconvenience for the renter to provide the initial investment. The inconvenience could stem from a semi-nomadic or unstable lifestyle in which being tied to the property would be an inconvenience in the long term. The impossibility would be a lack of financial capitol or 'credit', making it impossible to provide the initial investment. The latter is far more likely, from what I've seen (anecdotal I know but I'm too lazy to look up any real figures right now.)
For the land lord, the risk must have an adequate reward for the investment to make sense. Therefore, the renter will pay more than the value of the investment and the maintenance unless subsidized by an external entity, or the landlord must value ownership of the property above monetary recompense and be willing to take a loss.
This means that in the case of long-term renters, they will pay more money to live in the property than they would if they could have taken the initial risk on a long enough time frame. The argument could be made that they also assume less risk in the case of disaster, such as dry rot or the house exploding. They can simply move out and pay rent on a similar property elsewhere. However, with home insurance being practically universal this isn't as much of a risk to the property owner as it once was. Another compelling reason for a person to rent is the risk of a market crash. The value of their property suddenly dropping. For the average person actually living in a home with no intention of selling or borrowing against the property this shouldn't matter. If it does, it's because of the unfortunate structure of the current system.
In this system, for a long term renter (greater than 10 years) living in the same area for all that time would it not make more sense to simply invest in a property? This has become a practical impossibility for most. The value of property is simply beyond their reach without falling into a predatory loan, and will be for the foreseeable future. As long as these people are not paid a living wage and cannot save, they will be stuck on mr. landlord's wild ride forever.
Eventually the land lord buys more property and better property. They start hiring people to manage it. They start buying out other land lords and property owners. They develop more land. More and more value comes to be in the hands of fewer and fewer property owners. In order to protect their position it makes sense to keep others out of the market. Since it's so hard to enter the market in the first place no or little new talent does, and cannot compete effectively if they do. The old owners start to select for the most powerful. The pool of owners continues to decrease.
I'm not saying everyone should be a land owner, or that everyone should be given property, or that we should redistribute wealth using regulatory forces. I'm simply stating that the market as it currently stands naturally tends to centralize the ownership of property. In my opinion that is a bad thing. I'm not providing a solution because I don't have one. Claiming that there is not a problem doesn't fix it. Pointing out that it used to be worse doesn't fix it.
I should point out that I'm not the person you were originally having the argument with. the post you were replying to was mine, but no other before it was mine.
File: 1486254196896.png (40.1 KB, 128x128, hippie.jpg)
>>4831
>The left has been dead like since like the 70s
Funny
>I think you underestimate the power of the army
You underestimate civil wars
>The left has been dead like since like the 70s
Funny
>I think you underestimate the power of the army
You underestimate civil wars
>>4835
>I think you underestimate the power of the army.
They have thousand times more the amount and quality of weaponry than the whole population combined, not to mention the strategical expertise (many wars are not fought with weapons).
And how well has that served them in Afghanistan and Iraq, where they don't even have much incentive to care about civilian casualties?
>The constitution is merely an instrument of representative democracy; it becomes irrelevant after a fascist takeover.
The guns along with their angry owners won't just disappear in the case of a fascist takeover. The constitution isn't just some theoretical piece of paper.
>I think you underestimate the power of the army.
They have thousand times more the amount and quality of weaponry than the whole population combined, not to mention the strategical expertise (many wars are not fought with weapons).
And how well has that served them in Afghanistan and Iraq, where they don't even have much incentive to care about civilian casualties?
>The constitution is merely an instrument of representative democracy; it becomes irrelevant after a fascist takeover.
The guns along with their angry owners won't just disappear in the case of a fascist takeover. The constitution isn't just some theoretical piece of paper.
>>4689
Only commanded the murder of hundred thousands of people (Iraq war), instigated a surveillance and torture regime (which after Obama's embracing effectively rendered people's constitutional rights null and removed that fact from the public debate) and was the most powerful man on earth for 8 years right before the global financial system collapsed.
>>4742
It's only fair that both ends of the political spectrum (and not just one) get their terms completely obfuscated and ridden of meaning.
Only commanded the murder of hundred thousands of people (Iraq war), instigated a surveillance and torture regime (which after Obama's embracing effectively rendered people's constitutional rights null and removed that fact from the public debate) and was the most powerful man on earth for 8 years right before the global financial system collapsed.
>>4742
It's only fair that both ends of the political spectrum (and not just one) get their terms completely obfuscated and ridden of meaning.