There Will Be Hell Toupée! (The Donald Trump Thread)

[heyimdb]

2 hours ago, Shitty Rambo said:

 

One could argue that the left is the most bigoted collective of all. Nobody actively hates white people more than Liberals.

 

But what do I know? I'm a minority from the coast. I got white college kids from the midwest explaining racism to me on the Internet all the time. Clearly they have more insight on it than I can ever know from first hand experience.

Rambo, nobody collectively hates the individual more than Liberals.

But yeah, they hate civil rights. Historically, they hate blacks. That's why the Democratic Party endorsed slavery so much. 

We have modern American Socialism because of this one really awesome Liberal dictator named Roosevelt who did such amazing things as seizing mass amounts of private property, sending Feds to kill people's livestock (regulating the mean evil unfair economy), sending hundreds of thousands to their deaths in a war, and effectively creating a welfare system that would solidify his terrorist party votes to this day. He was a real fuck. But yeah... that's most of them. But it is for the greater good. Right?

[heyimdb]

6 hours ago, texan4life said:

The country could make marijuana legal, tax it, and let all of the people out locked up for non-violent drug crimes related to marijuana. That would make money and save money for the country and could contribute to free healthcare.

Fuck your taxes. You pay em. 

[heyimdb]

As a minority in three categories, I hate Liberals. They're racist. Collectivism is racism. 

[heyimdb]

@Shitty Rambo Would hate living where I live. Iowa is not only a fly over state, but a place where thinking for yourself goes to die. A liberal Death Valley in the middle of a fucking smelly ass farm. Except where I went to school. Iowa State. Bunch of Neo Cons that run their school as a business and nothing more or less. Even there, there were a bunch of liberal professors being indoctrinated by the system. 

[SeeMoreGlass]

I can't help but feel like we are getting too caught up with labels in this thread...I feel like those things are created purposely to divide us and keep us divided...If there will ever be any progress we need to set aside the labels and have conversations about the current problems in our country and how they can be solved. 

 

I might get some hate for this but I would recommend the documentary on Netflix "Requiem for the American Dream" which I found very insightful when looking at the history of our country and why we are where we are today. It is only 70 minutes so it is a short watch but it is quite interesting. I'm a huge fan of the novel 1984 by George Orwell and see some major parallels between what Noam Chomsky is talking about and the novel, specifically in the beginning where he is talking about the concentration of wealth leading to a concentration of power that leads to legislation that proliferates that concentration of both. It is an unbroken cycle. In the totalitarian state of Oceana in the novel 1984 The Party keeps people controlled by the cycle of war. They go to war (in the middle east) to build the labor force, to make weapons for war, to get destroyed in the war so the cycle continues. I feel like Chomsky is making the argument that while we are told we are living in a democracy, it has become more of a liberal totalitarian state. We get all this rhetoric from the media (both liberal and conservative) that we live in the "greatest country in the world" and that "America is a democracy" but what if that is all just rhetoric to continue our belief in the lie that we are a democracy? It is an interesting question. I mean look at what happens when the people protest against what they feel is something that is wrong and how the police respond to it. Is our first amendment right to free speech and the ability to protest just a ruse that our government wants us to keep believing we have? 

 

Also, he makes and interesting discussion about the idea of socialism and compares it to public education. "From the point of view of the masters you are only supposed to care about yourself and not care about others. It has taken a lot of effort to drive these basic human notions from peoples heads and we see it today in policy formation in social security. Social security means I pay payroll taxes so the widow across town has something to live on. This means nothing to the rich so they put a lot of effort into destroying it. The public schools are based on this same principal of solidarity. I no longer have children in school, they are all grown up, but the principal of solidarity says that I should pay taxes so that other students have the same right to go to school." (all of that is paraphrased from the documentary) I feel like these are the same things we are trying to do with healthcare and higher education right now and it brings up an interesting point. Should we care about our neighbors and help them or should we just care about ourselves and the bottom line? 

 

My personal interpretation is that it is a basic human emotion to care about others and I agree with Chomsky in his argument that the people in power are trying to drive this principle of solidarity out of us because it serves no purpose to them and it only makes us stronger as a democracy...

 

I hope this incites a healthy debate and discussion because all of the hatred and bigotry towards "liberals" and "conservatives" and "republicans" and "democrats" gets us nowhere...

[heyimdb]

29 minutes ago, thispartysucks128 said:

I can't help but feel like we are getting too caught up with labels in this thread...I feel like those things are created purposely to divide us and keep us divided...If there will ever be any progress we need to set aside the labels and have conversations about the current problems in our country and how they can be solved. 

 

I might get some hate for this but I would recommend the documentary on Netflix "Requiem for the American Dream" which I found very insightful when looking at the history of our country and why we are where we are today. It is only 70 minutes so it is a short watch but it is quite interesting. I'm a huge fan of the novel 1984 by George Orwell and see some major parallels between what Noam Chomsky is talking about and the novel, specifically in the beginning where he is talking about the concentration of wealth leading to a concentration of power that leads to legislation that proliferates that concentration of both. It is an unbroken cycle. In the totalitarian state of Oceana in the novel 1984 The Party keeps people controlled by the cycle of war. They go to war (in the middle east) to build the labor force, to make weapons for war, to get destroyed in the war so the cycle continues. I feel like Chomsky is making the argument that while we are told we are living in a democracy, it has become more of a liberal totalitarian state. We get all this rhetoric from the media (both liberal and conservative) that we live in the "greatest country in the world" and that "America is a democracy" but what if that is all just rhetoric to continue our belief in the lie that we are a democracy? It is an interesting question. I mean look at what happens when the people protest against what they feel is something that is wrong and how the police respond to it. Is our first amendment right to free speech and the ability to protest just a ruse that our government wants us to keep believing we have? 

 

Also, he makes and interesting discussion about the idea of socialism and compares it to public education. "From the point of view of the masters you are only supposed to care about yourself and not care about others. It has taken a lot of effort to drive these basic human notions from peoples heads and we see it today in policy formation in social security. Social security means I pay payroll taxes so the widow across town has something to live on. This means nothing to the rich so they put a lot of effort into destroying it. The public schools are based on this same principal of solidarity. I no longer have children in school, they are all grown up, but the principal of solidarity says that I should pay taxes so that other students have the same right to go to school." (all of that is paraphrased from the documentary) I feel like these are the same things we are trying to do with healthcare and higher education right now and it brings up an interesting point. Should we care about our neighbors and help them or should we just care about ourselves and the bottom line? 

 

My personal interpretation is that it is a basic human emotion to care about others and I agree with Chomsky in his argument that the people in power are trying to drive this principle of solidarity out of us because it serves no purpose to them and it only makes us stronger as a democracy...

 

I hope this incites a healthy debate and discussion because all of the hatred and bigotry towards "liberals" and "conservatives" and "republicans" and "democrats" gets us nowhere...

Dude. 

 

Go to Freedomfest in Vegas.

Free-thinking folks there. Basically what you're talking about. I picked up new copies of 1984 and A Brave New World. 

Might go again this year. Lots of entrepreneurs. Lots of intellectuals. Look into it. It's basically all the things the government hates. 

Noam Chomsky was cool in Zeitgeist.

If you haven't seen that series, watch it. Google it. It's free to watch on YouTube. 

Also look up Adam Kokesh. And Thomas Paine. 

No hate here. Just don't buy into the Liberal machine. They act like their your friend. They're really the enemy of progression, human evolution, and individuality. 

[daegor]

Someday someone will figure out that stereotyping anyone or anything is self-defeatist.

 

 

 

but probably not.

 

 

 

if at any point your argument becomes any form of me/us vs them/you, you've lost.

[Shitty Rambo]

"Here's why we should try Democratic Socialism"

 

-Here's why we shouldn't.

 

"Here's why Libertarianism won't work."

 

-Here's why it can.

 

"You guys are [insert childish expletive]!"

 

-No. We're not.

 

"We all need to stand together, hold hands and sing kumbaya."

 

This is the most bi-polar political conversation I've ever been apart of. There will always be groups and subsects of individuals bringing different ideas and methods to the table. That's how progress and change happens. There is separation. There should be separation. Wheter or not you want to embrace that is on you. How about instead of trying to get everyone on the same page we just stop being dicks to people who don't think the exact same way we do? It's really not that difficult.

[futures]

3 hours ago, heyimdb said:

But yeah, they hate civil rights. Historically, they hate blacks. That's why the Democratic Party endorsed slavery so much. 

lol yes, because the democratic party that existed pre-1950 is the exact same democratic party of today.

[Bladewillisisdead]

3 minutes ago, futures said:

lol yes, because the democratic party that existed pre-1950 is the exact same democratic party of today.

Lincoln was a republican! A republican legally cannot be a racist.

[heyimdb]

20 minutes ago, Bladewillisisdead said:

Lincoln was a republican! A republican legally cannot be a racist.

Lincoln was kind of an asshole. 

[heyimdb]

20 minutes ago, Bladewillisisdead said:

Lincoln was a republican! A republican legally cannot be a racist.

Lincoln was kind of an asshole. 

[daegor]

1 hour ago, Shitty Rambo said:

"Here's why we should try Democratic Socialism"

 

-Here's why we shouldn't.

 

"Here's why Libertarianism won't work."

 

-Here's why it can.

 

"You guys are [insert childish expletive]!"

 

-No. We're not.

 

"We all need to stand together, hold hands and sing kumbaya."

 

This is the most bi-polar political conversation I've ever been apart of. There will always be groups and subsects of individuals bringing different ideas and methods to the table. That's how progress and change happens. There is separation. There should be separation. Wheter or not you want to embrace that is on you. How about instead of trying to get everyone on the same page we just stop being dicks to people who don't think the exact same way we do? It's really not that difficult.

There is a huge difference between stereotypes and separation.

 

Separation, differering ideas, fresh perspectives, these are all good.  Like you said, just don't be a dick.

 

Stereotypes cheapen the separation, they are dismissive.  The whole point of 'separation' is to promote change and growth and learning. Stereotyping rejects and dismisses any value from the group you're labelling.

 

Learn from those you disagree with.

[futures]

...we do understand that the parties were flipped back then, right?

[Shitty Rambo]

8 hours ago, daegor said:

There is a huge difference between stereotypes and separation.

 

Separation, differering ideas, fresh perspectives, these are all good.  Like you said, just don't be a dick.

 

Stereotypes cheapen the separation, they are dismissive.  The whole point of 'separation' is to promote change and growth and learning. Stereotyping rejects and dismisses any value from the group you're labelling.

 

Learn from those you disagree with.

Thanks for explaining stereotypes to me, as a person of Mexican descent I was 100% oblivious to what they are and how they can be detrimental.

 

Gimme a break dude. Stop trying to talk down to people as if you're on some higher level of reasoning and understanding. If you guys don't like the discussion at hand go back to your Bennie thread. I promise nobody is going to go in there and say no-no words or exercise their free will.

[daegor]

4 minutes ago, Shitty Rambo said:

Thanks for explaining stereotypes to me, as a person of Mexican descent I was 100% oblivious to what they are and how they can be detrimental.

 

Gimme a break dude. Stop trying to talk down to people as if you're on some higher level of reasoning and understanding. If you guys don't like the discussion at hand go back to your Bennie thread. I promise nobody is going to go in there and say no-no words or exercise their free will.

Totally not trying to rag on you, Shitty Rambo, I like you.

 

And I'm totally not trying to be all high and mighty about shit, there has just been a lot of useless labels been thrown around which truly don't facilitate any sort of rational discussion.  Saying all liberals are this, or democrats that doesn't actually get anywhere.  Talking about different (separate) ideas without relegating everyone into boxes is much more productive.

 

Since you bring up Bernie (Bennie?), I'm not actually a fan.  I love the socialist idea, it's worked in a lot of countries, but the problem is he's unrealistic.  The US is a big machine, with a lot of momentum in the opposite direction.  In four years he'll only be able to just barely start turning the boat around, people won't be happy with where the country is in four years and kick him out, leaving things half finished and just a huge fucking mess.

 

Truth is, all three are terrible options, I don't envy any of you who actually have to decide who to vote for.

[NapalmBrain]

I don't feel like my views fully align with any candidate or party, I'm in favor of whoever is the least hawkish of the 3 (who I believe to be Sanders). I also don't think Bernie will be able to get much done if he somehow got elected. But since a supreme court justice isn't being selected this presidency (even though anytime one has been selected in election year it has been selected by the incumbent) I would like a democrat to win the presidency even if it means crooked Hillary, so that a conservative justice isn't selected and we stand less of a chance of stepping backwards on social issues. I think it's important to vote this election whether you feel disenfranchised or not, if the republicans win the presidency, and retain the senate it could be really bad especially for women's rights 

[Bladewillisisdead]

12 minutes ago, NapalmBrain said:

I don't feel like my views fully align with any candidate or party, I'm in favor of whoever is the least hawkish of the 3 (who I believe to be Sanders). I also don't think Bernie will be able to get much done if he somehow got elected. But since a supreme court justice isn't being selected this presidency (even though anytime one has been selected in election year it has been selected by the incumbent) I would like a democrat to win the presidency even if it means crooked Hillary, so that a conservative justice isn't selected and we stand less of a chance of stepping backwards on social issues. I think it's important to vote this election whether you feel disenfranchised or not, if the republicans win the presidency, and retain the senate it could be really bad especially for women's rights 

Not to mention trans rights. This bathroom bullshit is the most ridiculous and hateful garbage, but it's turned into a big deal and I'm glad Obama stepped up.

[Shitty Rambo]

[daegor]

15 minutes ago, NapalmBrain said:

I think it's important to vote this election whether you feel disenfranchised or not

 

This is very important, I used to subscribe to the idea that if there was no candidate that lined up with my ideals/needs/wants that I wouldn't vote (and didn't).  That my abstaining would send a message in and of itself.  Except it doesn't, the way the system is run an abstained vote may as well be a vote for the person winning the race in your riding.

[abovetheearth]

The government will run how it wants to no matter what clown is in the seat. They have their ways.

There will be a catastrophe, a few setbacks, a gas hike (what an asshole) then decline (yay he fixed it!)

 

Wag the dog baby. Wag that dog.

 

[Shitty Rambo]

Jesus christ, I can't believe you guys would be OK with Hillary taking office. It sounds like you're concerned with all human's well-being, as long as they're tax paying Americans who will fund your, "guaranteed human rights."

 

If innocent people are getting drone bombed overseas, fuck it. We got bathroom rights to worry about (the dumbest fucking government intervention to ever come to fruition. It should have been vetoed or never even discussed in the first place).

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

10 hours ago, futures said:

...we do understand that the parties were flipped back then, right?

Clearly, it doesn't matter.

[daegor]

1 minute ago, Shitty Rambo said:

Jesus christ, I can't believe you guys would be OK with Hillary taking office. It sounds like you're concerned with the all human's well-being, as long as they're tax paying Americans who will fund your, "guaranteed human rights."

 

If innocent people are getting drone bombed overseas, fuck it. We got bathroom rights to worry about (the dumbest fucking government intervention to ever come to fruition. It should have been vetoed or never even discussed in the first place).

 

I'm unsure of whether Hillary or Trump would be worse.  I feel like Trump might be offensive enough to start a war.  And I think Hillary is just a puppet, so you'll end up in a 'peace-keeping' war.

[abovetheearth]

I think it's a pretty shitty thing to do to say that the sales of a book you 'wrote' would go to charity but never did.

 

Veterans or any other charitable group. None saw a dime (yet?)