Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 24

I mean obviously it isn't that hard to pick out any number of drooling lunatics on the right from any large crowd. The difference is that one of them was elected president.

Nah people like Mortensen are retards cuz they are fighting the " fuck the libtards " war, which is essentially just as dumb as being the people in his videos.

How do you not realize that the info war's goal is to just provoke the "two camps" to go against each other while the corrupt system continues with full power. Good luck ever creating a flourishing society with those views.

Also I really don't see how Trump is a lunatic, are you that naive to believe the things he says in the media? He hit his target audience perfectly, yes obviously he s not even close to being as smart as Obama considering the way he speaks when not prepared, a fifth grader probably has a bigger vocabulary... even thought he s been to an ivy league school and he knows words lmao, lack of vocal expression in public doesn't necessarily mean he cannot take adequate decisions however

Also if we should call someone a lunatic its definitely Obama considering he managed to create the biggest terrorist organization the planet has ever seen ( if we dont count stuff like dark times church and such... )

On January 06 2017 23:51 Santafairy wrote: and i just won a pot but it doesn't count because the average person loses hundreds of dollars in a casino per day

lol dam. thats retarded. that piece by kruger is truth

all he is saying is the economy is huge and headlines talking about Trump keeping a few hundred jobs in the US are BS. That should be obvious. It is pandering to the misguided "factory workers etc" that elected him. Truth is congressional law , his appointments and his policies are what will actually have any substantial impact on the American people.

There is a clearly growing gap between the wealthy and the rest. Before long it will be the oligarchs vs the busto like in Russia with very little inbetween. Tax cuts and slashes to entitlements (social security, medicare/cal) are going to hurt the people banking on Trump to help them. The economy has been steadily growing year over year yet the real spending power of the wage earner has remained static for decades while all gains have been concentrated at the top. Taxes are a large part of that problem as the poor are taxed disproportionately. Capital gains being taxed at a far lower rate than hourly earnings is absurd. The dismantling of a progressive tax system hurts as well.

The highest tax rates reached 94% in the 50s. Critics argue this is counter to growth however that has proven untrue as the period post WW2 exhibited some of the greatest growth in history. The taxes allowed the country to build an infrastructure (that is decaying now) that spurned further economic growth and the development of a healthy middle class. The constant lowering of corporate tax rates and multitudes of exploitable tax breaks allow the rich to pay true tax rates on their wealth far lower than your average citizen.

Ideally taxes would be based on overall wealth rather than income. It would lead to a far more equitable system from top to bottom while allowing for things that truly help the future of the people and the economy like free higher education (and better funded schools in general), free efficient health care, Infrastructure growth/ maintenance, and strong entitlement programs. This would take a higher level of financial transparency than currently exists but it is feasible and in my opinion quite sensible.

I'd recommend the book "why save the bankers", a collection of essays by French economist Thomas Pinketty

On January 22 2017 22:06 Spitfiree wrote: Also I really don't see how Trump is a lunatic, are you that naive to believe the things he says in the media?

He's not a lunatic because he's a compulsive liar? That's actually your argument?

On January 23 2017 05:23 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On January 22 2017 22:06 Spitfiree wrote: Also I really don't see how Trump is a lunatic, are you that naive to believe the things he says in the media? He's not a lunatic because he's a compulsive liar? That's actually your argument?

unlike Obama who isnt a liar right?

On January 21 2017 15:41 Mortensen8 wrote:

I could tell you how the management of resources work in an anarcho-capitalist society if you are interested but obviously you cannot just hoard resources.

On January 23 2017 06:13 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On January 23 2017 05:23 NMcNasty wrote:   On January 22 2017 22:06 Spitfiree wrote: Also I really don't see how Trump is a lunatic, are you that naive to believe the things he says in the media? He's not a lunatic because he's a compulsive liar? That's actually your argument? unlike Obama who isnt a liar right?

Expand on this please, the correlation between your reply and his.

On January 21 2017 12:26 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On January 21 2017 05:18 Baalim wrote:   On January 21 2017 01:06 Mortensen8 wrote: lol I doubt those are anarchists, and I'm not falling into true Scotsman fallacy here. I dont think their goal is to live in a stateless society, if anything classic republican ideals align more with anarchism (smaller government, deregulation etc). They are obviously liberals otherwise why throw such a crazy tantrum? Baal what's the methodology for a stateless society according to the anarchism that you have in mind? Because street presence for most anarchists I've ever met is like a fetish and mild rioting like that is not frowned upon by anyone. Also, since when did people other than the alt right start using "liberal" as a phrase that describes childish frustration? Not that I care about the last one that much, but you started your comment saying you're not falling to the No true Scotsman fallacy

What do you mean methodology? You mean as means to archive it or you mean how it works?

"Street presence" is idiotic, I think protests are stupid, violent and peaceful, they are almost always misdirected and pretty useless (Occupy wallstreet is the perfect example).

So I think those people in masks destroying property with the Anarchist flag are idiots, not because they are violent, I have no problems with extreme violence but when it is used rightfully and intelligently, but sadly as somebody mentioned it long before, they appear to be the majority of self-called anarchists so the word now its beyond salvation and its associated with chaos rather than a political/societal structure.

On January 23 2017 06:25 uiCk wrote: Show nested quote + On January 23 2017 06:13 Baalim wrote:   On January 23 2017 05:23 NMcNasty wrote:   On January 22 2017 22:06 Spitfiree wrote: Also I really don't see how Trump is a lunatic, are you that naive to believe the things he says in the media? He's not a lunatic because he's a compulsive liar? That's actually your argument? unlike Obama who isnt a liar right? Expand on this please, the correlation between your reply and his.

You said his argument was that Trump was either a lunatic or a liar.

I dont think anyone besides maybe Mortensen here is pretty aware that Trump is a liar and probably not very bright, what you dont seem to be aware is that Obama is also a liar because if you were you wouldnt use it as point of criticism of Trump.

On January 23 2017 06:43 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On January 23 2017 06:25 uiCk wrote:   On January 23 2017 06:13 Baalim wrote:   On January 23 2017 05:23 NMcNasty wrote:   On January 22 2017 22:06 Spitfiree wrote: Also I really don't see how Trump is a lunatic, are you that naive to believe the things he says in the media? He's not a lunatic because he's a compulsive liar? That's actually your argument? unlike Obama who isnt a liar right? Expand on this please, the correlation between your reply and his. You said his argument was that Trump was either a lunatic or a liar. I dont think anyone besides maybe Mortensen here is pretty aware that Trump is a liar and probably not very bright, what you dont seem to be aware is that Obama is also a liar because if you were you wouldnt use it as point of criticism of Trump.

OK.
How does this reasoning conclude that Trump is not a lunatic?

On January 23 2017 06:13 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On January 23 2017 05:23 NMcNasty wrote:   On January 22 2017 22:06 Spitfiree wrote: Also I really don't see how Trump is a lunatic, are you that naive to believe the things he says in the media? He's not a lunatic because he's a compulsive liar? That's actually your argument? unlike Obama who isnt a liar right?

Obama's worst "lie" was his "you can keep your coverage" comment that's mostly true since the vast majority of insurance plans easily fell within Obamacare's standards. Other than that please cite. Trump lies on an almost daily basis, but you know that already. In fact you accused me earlier of "stereotyping" his supporters merely because I implied they actually believed things Trump was saying. How horrible of me.

On January 23 2017 08:25 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On January 23 2017 06:13 Baalim wrote:   On January 23 2017 05:23 NMcNasty wrote:   On January 22 2017 22:06 Spitfiree wrote: Also I really don't see how Trump is a lunatic, are you that naive to believe the things he says in the media? He's not a lunatic because he's a compulsive liar? That's actually your argument? unlike Obama who isnt a liar right? Obama's worst "lie" was his "you can keep your coverage" comment that's mostly true since the vast majority of insurance plans easily fell within Obamacare's standards. Other than that please cite. Trump lies on an almost daily basis, but you know that already. In fact you accused me earlier of "stereotyping" his supporters merely because I implied they actually believed things Trump was saying. How horrible of me.

I need to cite? google is your friend I found dozens http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/statements/byruling/false/


Of course Obama is better at lying than Trump, he is a brilliant Lawyer and a career politician, you wont find many people more equipped to lie properly, for example.

When all the shitty media were saying as a fact that Russia in fact hacked the DNC and collabored with Wikileaks the president didnt confirm it... he is too smart to put himself in a tricky spot so he said "Russia is trying to influence the election", now that doesnt say shit, he didnt say hacks, he didnt say in favour of Trump, and the media simply used it to confirm it and even imply that Russians might have directly hacked voting machines.

Julian Assange mentied not long ago his "lawyery talk"

But do you want big lies? How about swearing to protect whistleblowers and then going after them, Manning, Snowden, Assange?

How about saying he would close Guantanamo bay and not doing shit about it?

How about lying about NSA allowing peoples constitutional rights to privacy to be broken and being spied on and justified it with a metadataba bullshit excuse

If you label someone a lunatic because he s a lier then you should label 99% of politicians.
Obama is just a better liar thats all.

But yeah as Baal has pointed out Guantanamo and NSA are among his biggest lies. NSA that tracks your privacy you know? Compared to that Trump's lies are ones of a 5yo child that just broke something and doesn't admit it.

Paired with policy of bombing the shit out of the mid east, creating ISIS together with Turkey and NOT taking any measures against them ( against Turkey whose government is buying petrol directly from ISIS ), selling guns to Saudis and constantly threatening Iran, which is the only nation that can put balance on the scales in that region and those are just on top of my head. Now obviously you will instantly disagree with many of those, because the media has brainwashed you, but thats not my problem, then again you believe Trump is a lunatic exactly, because of the same reason.

There is no way one can have a rational opinion on politics and international issues while listening to the media's opinions, whose job by the way is not to have an opinion, but only cover the news, except people have already forgotten that.


Also if you re a Clinton supporter, then you've surely realized by now that she has some kind of a serious medical condition that they are not going public with, yet she still ran for president. All those outbursts can't be coincidental. That's quite a problem, I havent read your laws, but I'm pretty sure she wouldn't be able to run if she went public with it. I really doubt anyone with a problematic health will have teh chance to step in office.

Btw I don't see any media, neither american or european talking about this, but Trump has repeated countless times that its about time they stop dumping money into the defense of other nations. Now the media does not react to this as people would mostly think he s envisioning the Mid East, while he s actually talking about the European Union. The European Union has been mostly defended by the USA since WW2, the idea was that the countries would recover faster if they didn't have to invest into the military and/or making a local military union, thats why NATO came to exist to begin with.


While the negotiations they did, came to the EU eventually increasing the % of GDP invested in local defense, the amount is not even close to one that matters. This is going to change under Trump now I'm guessing, and its the worst timing possible for the EU to start worrying about such issues as well considering the lack of stability in the union and the migrant crisis plus the constant terrorist attacks and threats of such.

The thing is I'm not sure he can do anything about it though as the contracts are most likely defended by tons of clauses that cannot be escaped

On January 23 2017 06:13 Baalim wrote: How about saying he would close Guantanamo bay and not doing shit about it?

I'm not familiar with the details but I've read that Obama tried to get it closed several times and supposedly got outplayed by the Pentagon for years, wasn't backed by a lot of people etc, do you know otherwise?
I'm not sure this counts as a lie, rather a promise not delivered after trying

erling what's the source for that first one? like what newspaper posted that picture? Because 'mainstream media' is comprised of literally thousands of different news outlets and one of these outlets doing something (absolutely ridiculous) like what this picture would indicate doesn't really invalidate mainstream media as a whole. I also think it's such a garbage photoshop job that it looks more like someone faked the faked job than that this was something 'mainstream media' did. The same guy 14 different places, it's not very hard to notice.
the second, wtf kind of complaint is that?

and third, if you actually think infowars is a more legitimate source of news than 'mainstream media' then you're an irredeemable idiot. Alex Jones believes in fish people. He believes the sandy hook massacre was a fabrication. He believes Obama is a literal demon from hell - not a figurative demon - but a literal demon. Infowars is a complete garbage site - you can be as critical as you want of mainstream media - there are many legitimate ways of criticizing them for pushing a particular narrative, you don't have to buy that narrative, be skeptical, whatever. But don't fucking criticize mainstream media while linking to infowars. You might as well argue that the earth is flat.

And fourth, why would you say niqab/hijab when the lady in the picture clearly wears a hijab? Niqab and hijab are different pieces of clothing. Even pro-multiculturalism leftists like myself, who have few problems with hijabs, find the niqab troubling.

He posted a photoshoped image from 4 chan. I know, because I have the ability to google O_O

Pro tip: Google fake Hillary Clinton crowds