Upvote Upvoted 45 Downvote Downvoted
1 ⋅⋅ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ⋅⋅ 40
Donald Trump
posted in World Events
361
#361
3 Frags +
Queyhmusmausratonsourismyshhttps://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/705010478200717312

People shoving a black protestor out of a Trump while screaming deragatory curses at her. That's the group of people you stand with.
why are you posting from your alt lias

?

[quote=Queyh][quote=musmausratonsourismysh]https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/705010478200717312

People shoving a black protestor out of a Trump while screaming deragatory curses at her. That's the group of people you stand with.[/quote]
why are you posting from your alt lias[/quote]
?
362
#362
0 Frags +

What does he have to do with KKK though?

p.s if he has anything to do with illuminati, im moving to mars

What does he have to do with KKK though?

p.s if he has anything to do with illuminati, im moving to mars
363
#363
-2 Frags +
RTCRealistically, I can't see Trump winning the Presidential election, especially against Clinton. Clinton's moderate views may have turned off several of the left-wing demographic who supported Sanders during the Democrat primaries, but come November, there's no chance in hell the Sanders supporters will vote Republican, let alone Trump, and unless they waste their vote on a third-party, their votes will be going to Clinton. The moderates will be turned off by Trump's extremist views, which will further solidify Clinton's route to the White House. To add to this, a few Republicans are repulsed with the idea of Trump becoming President, which could easily see votes flow away from the Republican and into the Democrats favour. This isn't a large percentage of course, but these aren't just votes disappearing from the GOP, these are votes reappearing on the other side of the fence, which has twice the impact.

Trump will earn votes from the die-hard Republicans, even those currently backing other candidates and will secure common strongholds within the Republican dominated states, but will struggle in most other areas. His anti-political rhetoric is attractive to the undecided voter, but ultimately, I can't see enough of them voting Trump to give him the edge over Clinton.

As a side-note, it's so cute seeing Chris Christie attempting to cling onto relevancy. He's trying so hard to be Trump's running mate, it hurts.

this isn't about left or right wing in the end, it's for or against the establishment, and if you think the majority of bernie voters will switch to clinton, who they utterly despise instead of voting for trump http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2016/02/amid_trump_surge_nearly_20000_mass_voters_quit_democratic_party well, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-do-the-voting-turnout-numbers-say-about-the-2016-presidential-race/
you're in for a surprise, in 2008 5 million republicans voted and 8 million democrats, now it's the opposite, the republican party is growing, unless, the GOP establishment goes third party, and it's 1912 over again. And if you actually listened to the speeches Chris Christie gave, he declared no intention to be running mate becuase he wants to do his full term as governer of New Jersey. Blow it out your ass, clueless euro furry.

flyyyyflyyyyhow many europeans are discussing us politics?
Fellow europeans, would you like to change anything in your countries?

We voted that in, and then it takes 536 days to form a government.

[quote=RTC]Realistically, I can't see Trump winning the Presidential election, especially against Clinton. Clinton's moderate views may have turned off several of the left-wing demographic who supported Sanders during the Democrat primaries, but come November, there's no chance in hell the Sanders supporters will vote Republican, let alone Trump, and unless they waste their vote on a third-party, their votes will be going to Clinton. The moderates will be turned off by Trump's extremist views, which will further solidify Clinton's route to the White House. To add to this, a few Republicans are repulsed with the idea of Trump becoming President, which could easily see votes flow away from the Republican and into the Democrats favour. This isn't a large percentage of course, but these aren't just votes disappearing from the GOP, these are votes reappearing on the other side of the fence, which has twice the impact.

Trump will earn votes from the die-hard Republicans, even those currently backing other candidates and will secure common strongholds within the Republican dominated states, but will struggle in most other areas. His anti-political rhetoric is attractive to the undecided voter, but ultimately, I can't see enough of them voting Trump to give him the edge over Clinton.

As a side-note, it's so cute seeing Chris Christie attempting to cling onto relevancy. He's trying so hard to be Trump's running mate, it hurts.[/quote]
this isn't about left or right wing in the end, it's for or against the establishment, and if you think the majority of bernie voters will switch to clinton, who they utterly despise instead of voting for trump http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2016/02/amid_trump_surge_nearly_20000_mass_voters_quit_democratic_party well, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-do-the-voting-turnout-numbers-say-about-the-2016-presidential-race/
you're in for a surprise, in 2008 5 million republicans voted and 8 million democrats, now it's the opposite, the republican party is growing, unless, the GOP establishment goes third party, and it's 1912 over again. And if you actually listened to the speeches Chris Christie gave, he declared no intention to be running mate becuase he wants to do his full term as governer of New Jersey. Blow it out your ass, clueless euro furry.


[quote=flyyyy][quote=flyyyy]how many europeans are discussing us politics?[/quote]

Fellow europeans, would you like to change anything in your countries?[/quote]
We voted that in, and then it takes 536 days to form a government.
364
#364
eXtelevision
12 Frags +
trippaTrump is pretty moderate politically to be honest, I would not consider him an extreme conservative

eXcept yknaow, that whole forcibliy deporting every illegal immigrant, blocking legal immigrants because they're muslim, saying that he'd kill the families of terrorists (war crime) and stating that he'd interrogate people using methods worse then waterboarding (waterboarding is tourture and a war crime).

But besides that, yeah pretty moderate.

[quote=trippa]Trump is pretty moderate politically to be honest, I would not consider him an extreme conservative[/quote]

eXcept yknaow, that whole forcibliy deporting every illegal immigrant, blocking legal immigrants because they're muslim, saying that he'd kill the families of terrorists (war crime) and stating that he'd interrogate people using methods worse then waterboarding (waterboarding is tourture and a war crime).

But besides that, yeah pretty moderate.
365
#365
3 Frags +
flyyyyhow many europeans are discussing us politics?

It might be a weird realization for you but can you believe us politics actually effect the entire world?

I lived this first hand because my father actually lost his company because of the 2008 crisis (which we know how much of a shitshow in the US it was) and I personally still suffer from the consequences of all that through my family and my life until today.

So yes, europeans have a right to discuss us politics because it effects us all. You know, what the world actually wants is for "you" to get your shit together and elect a decent human being, not a closet racist sociopath warmonger with a narcissistic personality disorder. That's all we ask. Is it too much?

[quote=flyyyy]how many europeans are discussing us politics?[/quote]

It might be a weird realization for you but can you believe us politics actually effect the entire world?

I lived this first hand because my father actually lost his company because of the 2008 crisis (which we know how much of a shitshow in the US it was) and I personally still suffer from the consequences of all that through my family and my life until today.

So yes, europeans have a right to discuss us politics because it effects us all. You know, what the world actually wants is for "you" to get your shit together and elect a decent human being, not a closet racist sociopath warmonger with a narcissistic personality disorder. That's all we ask. Is it too much?
366
#366
0 Frags +
Kanecoflyyyyhow many europeans are discussing us politics?
It might be a weird realization for you but can you believe us politics actually effect the entire world?

I lived this first hand because my father actually lost his company because of the 2008 crisis (which we know how much of a shitshow in the US it was) and I personally still suffer from the consequences of all that through my family and my life until today.

So yes, europeans have a right to discuss us politics because it effects us all. You know, what the world actually wants is for "you" to get your shit together and elect a decent human being, not a closet racist sociopath warmonger with a narcissistic personality disorder. That's all we ask. Is it too much?

I agree with this man, I would hate to see Clinton in office

[quote=Kaneco][quote=flyyyy]how many europeans are discussing us politics?[/quote]

It might be a weird realization for you but can you believe us politics actually effect the entire world?

I lived this first hand because my father actually lost his company because of the 2008 crisis (which we know how much of a shitshow in the US it was) and I personally still suffer from the consequences of all that through my family and my life until today.

So yes, europeans have a right to discuss us politics because it effects us all. You know, what the world actually wants is for "you" to get your shit together and elect a decent human being, not a closet racist sociopath warmonger with a narcissistic personality disorder. That's all we ask. Is it too much?[/quote]
I agree with this man, I would hate to see Clinton in office
367
#367
4 Frags +

I think Europeans are more wary of fascism since it found fertile ground there in relatively recent history.

I think it's right to be afraid of fascism.

I think that Clinton has policies which I can reason about and evaluate while Trump bends whatever direction the wind blows in the state hes currently running in. Moreover Trump seems to be a sociopath, a racist, and a misogynist. Worse than this possibility is the possibility that he is just a sociopath who is willing to support those views so long as they garner him votes.

I think Sanders has some really good ideas when it comes to what would be the best policies for America, but that nothing he wants to do is possible without a large democratic majority in the house and the senate (possible, seems improbable at this juncture).

I think Europeans are more wary of fascism since it found fertile ground there in relatively recent history.

I think it's right to be afraid of fascism.

I think that Clinton has policies which I can reason about and evaluate while Trump bends whatever direction the wind blows in the state hes currently running in. Moreover Trump seems to be a sociopath, a racist, and a misogynist. Worse than this possibility is the possibility that he is just a sociopath who is willing to support those views so long as they garner him votes.

I think Sanders has some really good ideas when it comes to what would be the best policies for America, but that nothing he wants to do is possible without a large democratic majority in the house and the senate (possible, seems improbable at this juncture).
368
#368
-2 Frags +
Kanecoflyyyyhow many europeans are discussing us politics?
It might be a weird realization for you but can you believe us politics actually effect the entire world?

I lived this first hand because my father actually lost his company because of the 2008 crisis (which we know how much of a shitshow in the US it was) and I personally still suffer from the consequences of all that through my family and my life until today.

So yes, europeans have a right to discuss us politics because it effects us all. You know, what the world actually wants is for "you" to get your shit together and elect a decent human being, not a closet racist sociopath warmonger with a narcissistic personality disorder. That's all we ask. Is it too much?

Europeans don't have a right to vote for american president. It's irrelevant to get mad over who's going to be the next president in the US. That's what I was trying to say.

[quote=Kaneco][quote=flyyyy]how many europeans are discussing us politics?[/quote]

It might be a weird realization for you but can you believe us politics actually effect the entire world?

I lived this first hand because my father actually lost his company because of the 2008 crisis (which we know how much of a shitshow in the US it was) and I personally still suffer from the consequences of all that through my family and my life until today.

So yes, europeans have a right to discuss us politics because it effects us all. You know, what the world actually wants is for "you" to get your shit together and elect a decent human being, not a closet racist sociopath warmonger with a narcissistic personality disorder. That's all we ask. Is it too much?[/quote]

Europeans don't have a right to vote for american president. It's irrelevant to get mad over who's going to be the next president in the US. That's what I was trying to say.
369
#369
-5 Frags +
liasIf you support a candidate that is backed by a group of white supremacists, you should probably reconsider who you are voting for.

if you're part of a religion that is backed by a group of islamic radicalists, you should probably reconsider who you're worshipping

[quote=lias]If you support a candidate that is backed by a group of white supremacists, you should probably reconsider who you are voting for.[/quote]
if you're part of a religion that is backed by a group of islamic radicalists, you should probably reconsider who you're worshipping
370
#370
4 Frags +

I am, have been, and will be an atheist?

I am, have been, and will be an atheist?
371
#371
4 Frags +
flyyyyKanecoflyyyyhow many europeans are discussing us politics?
It might be a weird realization for you but can you believe us politics actually effect the entire world?

I lived this first hand because my father actually lost his company because of the 2008 crisis (which we know how much of a shitshow in the US it was) and I personally still suffer from the consequences of all that through my family and my life until today.

So yes, europeans have a right to discuss us politics because it effects us all. You know, what the world actually wants is for "you" to get your shit together and elect a decent human being, not a closet racist sociopath warmonger with a narcissistic personality disorder. That's all we ask. Is it too much?

Europeans don't have a right to vote for american president. It's irrelevant to get mad over who's going to be the next president in the US. That's what I was trying to say.

Thats not what you originally said nor my answer at all. Ive bolded it for you.

[quote=flyyyy][quote=Kaneco][quote=flyyyy]how many europeans [b]are discussing us politics[/b]?[/quote]

It might be a weird realization for you but can you believe us politics actually effect the entire world?

I lived this first hand because my father actually lost his company because of the 2008 crisis (which we know how much of a shitshow in the US it was) and I personally still suffer from the consequences of all that through my family and my life until today.

So yes, europeans have a [b]right to discuss[/b] us politics because it effects us all. You know, what the world actually wants is for "you" to get your shit together and elect a decent human being, not a closet racist sociopath warmonger with a narcissistic personality disorder. That's all we ask. Is it too much?[/quote]

Europeans don't have a right to vote for american president. It's irrelevant to get mad over who's going to be the next president in the US. That's what I was trying to say.[/quote]
Thats not what you originally said nor my answer at all. Ive bolded it for you.
372
#372
-4 Frags +
liasI am, have been, and will be an atheist?

im not talking about you

[quote=lias]I am, have been, and will be an atheist?[/quote]
im not talking about you
373
#373
0 Frags +
KanecoflyyyyKanecoflyyyyhow many europeans are discussing us politics?
It might be a weird realization for you but can you believe us politics actually effect the entire world?

I lived this first hand because my father actually lost his company because of the 2008 crisis (which we know how much of a shitshow in the US it was) and I personally still suffer from the consequences of all that through my family and my life until today.

So yes, europeans have a right to discuss us politics because it effects us all. You know, what the world actually wants is for "you" to get your shit together and elect a decent human being, not a closet racist sociopath warmonger with a narcissistic personality disorder. That's all we ask. Is it too much?

Europeans don't have a right to vote for american president. It's irrelevant to get mad over who's going to be the next president in the US. That's what I was trying to say.
Thats not what you originally said nor my answer at all. Ive bolded it for you.

Another question: Who would you vote for?

[quote=Kaneco][quote=flyyyy][quote=Kaneco][quote=flyyyy]how many europeans [b]are discussing us politics[/b]?[/quote]

It might be a weird realization for you but can you believe us politics actually effect the entire world?

I lived this first hand because my father actually lost his company because of the 2008 crisis (which we know how much of a shitshow in the US it was) and I personally still suffer from the consequences of all that through my family and my life until today.

So yes, europeans have a [b]right to discuss[/b] us politics because it effects us all. You know, what the world actually wants is for "you" to get your shit together and elect a decent human being, not a closet racist sociopath warmonger with a narcissistic personality disorder. That's all we ask. Is it too much?[/quote]

Europeans don't have a right to vote for american president. It's irrelevant to get mad over who's going to be the next president in the US. That's what I was trying to say.[/quote]
Thats not what you originally said nor my answer at all. Ive bolded it for you.[/quote]

Another question: Who would you vote for?
374
#374
5 Frags +
sacquintoshhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQquintoshgood, then move on and ignore the facts, whatever makes you feel better
So you take a media show as your source of facts and call others ignorant? .

ok should i go ahead and quote the other people in this thread who posted the videos of him devowing KKK and david duke? just because john oliver is a comedian doesn't make what he says more or less true, since none of the researches were done from HBO.
yes, he is making a joke out of his name, but even in the hardcover book "The Trumps: Three Generations That Built an Empire" by Gwenda Blair it states when the name change happened and why it happened. whether it was to "anglicize" the name (since the family migrated from germany) or whether it was because it sounded retarded doesn't make a difference.
yes, it's inadequate to dislike a candidate for an odd-sounding name, but it's equally inadequate to like a candidate for their name. a name doesn't have the power to bring fortune and blessings to a country, like he praises it so much.

look at his behaviour and his ineloquent speeches, how is this guy trying to "make america great again"? not to mention his policies that obviously target people who are unhappy with the government, which is what every right-wing party does to gain votes

[quote=sac][quote=quintosh]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ[/quote]

[quote=quintosh]good, then move on and ignore the facts, whatever makes you feel better[/quote]

So you take a media show as your source of facts and call others ignorant? .[/quote]

ok should i go ahead and quote the other people in this thread who posted the videos of him devowing KKK and david duke? just because john oliver is a comedian doesn't make what he says more or less true, since none of the researches were done from HBO.
yes, he is making a joke out of his name, but even in the hardcover book "The Trumps: Three Generations That Built an Empire" by Gwenda Blair it states when the name change happened and why it happened. whether it was to "anglicize" the name (since the family migrated from germany) or whether it was because it sounded retarded doesn't make a difference.
yes, it's inadequate to dislike a candidate for an odd-sounding name, but it's equally inadequate to like a candidate for their name. a name doesn't have the power to bring fortune and blessings to a country, like he praises it so much.

look at his behaviour and his ineloquent speeches, how is this guy trying to "make america great again"? not to mention his policies that obviously target people who are unhappy with the government, which is what every right-wing party does to gain votes
375
#375
4 Frags +
omnificliasI am, have been, and will be an atheist?im not talking about you

Oh good, you're generalizing Muslims to be radicals not referring to me.

[quote=omnific][quote=lias]I am, have been, and will be an atheist?[/quote]
im not talking about you[/quote]
Oh good, you're generalizing Muslims to be radicals not referring to me.
376
#376
0 Frags +

its amazing that all you have to do is switch from normal political bullshit to edgy racist political bullshit and people think you are "telling it how it is" - the reality is that its just pandering to a different crowd

all this railing against "political correctness" - just because something isn't "PC" doesn't make it inherently more true or real. You WANT a president who is politically correct! International relations is a thing, you want someone who knows how to behave socially

its amazing that all you have to do is switch from normal political bullshit to edgy racist political bullshit and people think you are "telling it how it is" - the reality is that its just pandering to a different crowd

all this railing against "political correctness" - just because something isn't "PC" doesn't make it inherently more true or real. You WANT a president who is politically correct! International relations is a thing, you want someone who knows how to behave socially
377
#377
2 Frags +
sacRTCRealistically, I can't see Trump winning the Presidential election, especially against Clinton. Clinton's moderate views may have turned off several of the left-wing demographic who supported Sanders during the Democrat primaries, but come November, there's no chance in hell the Sanders supporters will vote Republican, let alone Trump, and unless they waste their vote on a third-party, their votes will be going to Clinton. The moderates will be turned off by Trump's extremist views, which will further solidify Clinton's route to the White House. To add to this, a few Republicans are repulsed with the idea of Trump becoming President, which could easily see votes flow away from the Republican and into the Democrats favour. This isn't a large percentage of course, but these aren't just votes disappearing from the GOP, these are votes reappearing on the other side of the fence, which has twice the impact.

Trump will earn votes from the die-hard Republicans, even those currently backing other candidates and will secure common strongholds within the Republican dominated states, but will struggle in most other areas. His anti-political rhetoric is attractive to the undecided voter, but ultimately, I can't see enough of them voting Trump to give him the edge over Clinton.

As a side-note, it's so cute seeing Chris Christie attempting to cling onto relevancy. He's trying so hard to be Trump's running mate, it hurts.
this isn't about left or right wing in the end, it's for or against the establishment, and if you think the majority of bernie voters will switch to clinton, who they utterly despise instead of voting for trump http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2016/02/amid_trump_surge_nearly_20000_mass_voters_quit_democratic_party well, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-do-the-voting-turnout-numbers-say-about-the-2016-presidential-race/
you're in for a surprise, in 2008 5 million republicans voted and 8 million democrats, now it's the opposite, the republican party is growing, unless, the GOP establishment goes third party, and it's 1912 over again. And if you actually listened to the speeches Chris Christie gave, he declared no intention to be running mate becuase he wants to do his full term as governer of New Jersey. Blow it out your ass, clueless euro furry.
.

Are you even aware of what a moderate is? Moderates are primarily not associated with a particular ideology, and tend to only vote in the final decision and not so much in the lead-up to said decision. These are often who determine the winners and losers of any political election, not the extremes on either side, and this is what makes the campaigning progress of any vote so important. Trump's radical proposals are the complete opposite to this train of thought, and Clinton, whilst flawed in her own way, is much more likely to garner votes from this large portion of voters. In fact, I would say this selection of voters is far larger then the official members of the Democrats and Republicans combined.

And if you sincerely believe Christie doesn't have an ulterior motive for his sudden support for the Republican front-runner, you're a fool.

Also, the first two thirds of your insult also apply to you and the third is irrelevant to the argument. Do I really have to scrutinize this?

[quote=sac][quote=RTC]Realistically, I can't see Trump winning the Presidential election, especially against Clinton. Clinton's moderate views may have turned off several of the left-wing demographic who supported Sanders during the Democrat primaries, but come November, there's no chance in hell the Sanders supporters will vote Republican, let alone Trump, and unless they waste their vote on a third-party, their votes will be going to Clinton. The moderates will be turned off by Trump's extremist views, which will further solidify Clinton's route to the White House. To add to this, a few Republicans are repulsed with the idea of Trump becoming President, which could easily see votes flow away from the Republican and into the Democrats favour. This isn't a large percentage of course, but these aren't just votes disappearing from the GOP, these are votes reappearing on the other side of the fence, which has twice the impact.

Trump will earn votes from the die-hard Republicans, even those currently backing other candidates and will secure common strongholds within the Republican dominated states, but will struggle in most other areas. His anti-political rhetoric is attractive to the undecided voter, but ultimately, I can't see enough of them voting Trump to give him the edge over Clinton.

As a side-note, it's so cute seeing Chris Christie attempting to cling onto relevancy. He's trying so hard to be Trump's running mate, it hurts.[/quote]
this isn't about left or right wing in the end, it's for or against the establishment, and if you think the majority of bernie voters will switch to clinton, who they utterly despise instead of voting for trump http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2016/02/amid_trump_surge_nearly_20000_mass_voters_quit_democratic_party well, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-do-the-voting-turnout-numbers-say-about-the-2016-presidential-race/
you're in for a surprise, in 2008 5 million republicans voted and 8 million democrats, now it's the opposite, the republican party is growing, unless, the GOP establishment goes third party, and it's 1912 over again. And if you actually listened to the speeches Chris Christie gave, he declared no intention to be running mate becuase he wants to do his full term as governer of New Jersey. Blow it out your ass, clueless euro furry.
.[/quote]

Are you even aware of what a moderate is? Moderates are primarily not associated with a particular ideology, and tend to only vote in the final decision and not so much in the lead-up to said decision. These are often who determine the winners and losers of any political election, not the extremes on either side, and this is what makes the campaigning progress of any vote so important. Trump's radical proposals are the complete opposite to this train of thought, and Clinton, whilst flawed in her own way, is much more likely to garner votes from this large portion of voters. In fact, I would say this selection of voters is far larger then the official members of the Democrats and Republicans combined.

And if you sincerely believe Christie doesn't have an ulterior motive for his sudden support for the Republican front-runner, you're a fool.

Also, the first two thirds of your insult also apply to you and the third is irrelevant to the argument. Do I really have to scrutinize this?
378
#378
1 Frags +
flyyyyKanecoflyyyyKanecoflyyyyhow many europeans are discussing us politics?
It might be a weird realization for you but can you believe us politics actually effect the entire world?

I lived this first hand because my father actually lost his company because of the 2008 crisis (which we know how much of a shitshow in the US it was) and I personally still suffer from the consequences of all that through my family and my life until today.

So yes, europeans have a right to discuss us politics because it effects us all. You know, what the world actually wants is for "you" to get your shit together and elect a decent human being, not a closet racist sociopath warmonger with a narcissistic personality disorder. That's all we ask. Is it too much?

Europeans don't have a right to vote for american president. It's irrelevant to get mad over who's going to be the next president in the US. That's what I was trying to say.
Thats not what you originally said nor my answer at all. Ive bolded it for you.

Another question: Who would you vote for?

Given the chance. Bernie, I love what the man stands for and his track record is untouchable, I would love to have a candidate like him here in Portugal actually. He is such a breath of fresh air in politics.

I would not like to be in a country whose only choices are Hillary or Trump. Then again, we don't have a bipartisan democracy, thankfully

[quote=flyyyy][quote=Kaneco][quote=flyyyy][quote=Kaneco][quote=flyyyy]how many europeans [b]are discussing us politics[/b]?[/quote]

It might be a weird realization for you but can you believe us politics actually effect the entire world?

I lived this first hand because my father actually lost his company because of the 2008 crisis (which we know how much of a shitshow in the US it was) and I personally still suffer from the consequences of all that through my family and my life until today.

So yes, europeans have a [b]right to discuss[/b] us politics because it effects us all. You know, what the world actually wants is for "you" to get your shit together and elect a decent human being, not a closet racist sociopath warmonger with a narcissistic personality disorder. That's all we ask. Is it too much?[/quote]

Europeans don't have a right to vote for american president. It's irrelevant to get mad over who's going to be the next president in the US. That's what I was trying to say.[/quote]
Thats not what you originally said nor my answer at all. Ive bolded it for you.[/quote]

Another question: Who would you vote for?[/quote]
Given the chance. Bernie, I love what the man stands for and his track record is untouchable, I would love to have a candidate like him here in Portugal actually. He is such a breath of fresh air in politics.

I would not like to be in a country whose only choices are Hillary or Trump. Then again, we don't have a bipartisan democracy, thankfully
379
#379
1 Frags +
quintoshsacquintoshhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQquintoshgood, then move on and ignore the facts, whatever makes you feel better
So you take a media show as your source of facts and call others ignorant? .

ok should i go ahead and quote the other people in this thread who posted the videos of him devowing KKK and david duke? just because john oliver is a comedian doesn't make what he says more or less true, since none of the researches were done from HBO.
yes, he is making a joke out of his name, but even in the hardcover book "The Trumps: Three Generations That Built an Empire" by Gwenda Blair it states when the name change happened and why it happened. whether it was to "anglicize" the name (since the family migrated from germany) or whether it was because it sounded retarded doesn't make a difference.
yes, it's inadequate to dislike a candidate for an odd-sounding name, but it's equally inadequate to like a candidate for their name. a name doesn't have the power to bring fortune and blessings to a country, like he praises it so much.

look at his behaviour and his ineloquent speeches, how is this guy trying to "make america great again"? not to mention his policies that obviously target people who are unhappy with the government, which is what every right-wing party does to gain votes

The name change isn't just because it sounded "retarded", but because of a suppression of the German identity, many new Americans had, as Germany historically was always one of the biggest emigrant countries toward the USA, German roots, which they were proud off, but in WWI policies were enacted to force Anglicization on them as

During World War I (1917–18), German Americans were often accused of being too sympathetic to Imperial Germany. Former president Theodore Roosevelt denounced "hyphenated Americanism", insisting that dual loyalties were impossible in wartime. A small minority came out for Germany, or ridiculed the British (as did H. L. Mencken). Similarly, Harvard psychology professor Hugo Münsterberg before his death in 1916 had become an informal spokesman for Germany, and was attacked by his colleagues.

The Justice Department prepared a list of all German aliens, counting approximately 480,000 of them, more than 4,000 of whom were imprisoned in 1917–18. The allegations included spying for Germany, or endorsing the German war effort.[71] Thousands were forced to buy war bonds to show their loyalty.[72] The Red Cross barred individuals with German last names from joining in fear of sabotage. One person was killed by a mob; in Collinsville, Illinois, German-born Robert Prager was dragged from jail as a suspected spy and lynched.[73] A Minnesota minister was tarred and feathered when he was overheard praying in German with a dying woman.[74]

In Chicago, Frederick Stock temporarily stepped down as conductor of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra until he finalized his naturalization papers. Orchestras replaced music by German composer Wagner with French composer Berlioz. In Cincinnati, the public library was asked to withdraw all German books from its shelves.[75] German-named streets were renamed. The town, Berlin, Michigan, was changed to Marne, Michigan (honoring those who fought in the Battle of Marne). In Iowa, in the 1918 Babel Proclamation, the governor prohibited all foreign languages in schools and public places. Nebraska banned instruction in any language except English, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the ban illegal in 1923 (Meyer v. Nebraska).[76] The response of German Americans to these tactics was often to "Americanize" names (e.g., Schmidt to Smith, Müller to Miller) and limit the use of the German language in public places, especially churches.[77]

By taking a new name, you forge a new identity for yourself with a meaning that is dear to you, and this one is American, as the trend was, and the descendents of these families, would later be used all the time in wwII to act as translators, while still viewed with a suspicious eye, thus deemed "traitors" for both sides of the conflicts, but they did their job and showed they love for their new homeland by doing their duty. and its the patriotic love for the country, that he wants to rekindle it seems, they shout USA way more than Trump at certain rallies. and those 20-30k people per rally seem to find it very eloquent, especially it's all from the head, instead of a memorised 25 second soundbyte.

and i'm pretty sure the socialists and communists in the 20th century also fished a lot of the same disgruntled pool of voters, well until they get their shit kicked in by veterans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%9319

[quote=quintosh][quote=sac][quote=quintosh]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ[/quote]

[quote=quintosh]good, then move on and ignore the facts, whatever makes you feel better[/quote]

So you take a media show as your source of facts and call others ignorant? .[/quote]

ok should i go ahead and quote the other people in this thread who posted the videos of him devowing KKK and david duke? just because john oliver is a comedian doesn't make what he says more or less true, since none of the researches were done from HBO.
yes, he is making a joke out of his name, but even in the hardcover book "The Trumps: Three Generations That Built an Empire" by Gwenda Blair it states when the name change happened and why it happened. whether it was to "anglicize" the name (since the family migrated from germany) or whether it was because it sounded retarded doesn't make a difference.
yes, it's inadequate to dislike a candidate for an odd-sounding name, but it's equally inadequate to like a candidate for their name. a name doesn't have the power to bring fortune and blessings to a country, like he praises it so much.

look at his behaviour and his ineloquent speeches, how is this guy trying to "make america great again"? not to mention his policies that obviously target people who are unhappy with the government, which is what every right-wing party does to gain votes[/quote]

The name change isn't just because it sounded "retarded", but because of a suppression of the German identity, many new Americans had, as Germany historically was always one of the biggest emigrant countries toward the USA, German roots, which they were proud off, but in WWI policies were enacted to force Anglicization on them as [quote]During World War I (1917–18), German Americans were often accused of being too sympathetic to Imperial Germany. Former president Theodore Roosevelt denounced "hyphenated Americanism", insisting that dual loyalties were impossible in wartime. A small minority came out for Germany, or ridiculed the British (as did H. L. Mencken). Similarly, Harvard psychology professor Hugo Münsterberg before his death in 1916 had become an informal spokesman for Germany, and was attacked by his colleagues.

The Justice Department prepared a list of all German aliens, counting approximately 480,000 of them, more than 4,000 of whom were imprisoned in 1917–18. The allegations included spying for Germany, or endorsing the German war effort.[71] Thousands were forced to buy war bonds to show their loyalty.[72] The Red Cross barred individuals with German last names from joining in fear of sabotage. One person was killed by a mob; in Collinsville, Illinois, German-born Robert Prager was dragged from jail as a suspected spy and lynched.[73] A Minnesota minister was tarred and feathered when he was overheard praying in German with a dying woman.[74]

In Chicago, Frederick Stock temporarily stepped down as conductor of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra until he finalized his naturalization papers. Orchestras replaced music by German composer Wagner with French composer Berlioz. In Cincinnati, the public library was asked to withdraw all German books from its shelves.[75] German-named streets were renamed. The town, Berlin, Michigan, was changed to Marne, Michigan (honoring those who fought in the Battle of Marne). In Iowa, in the 1918 Babel Proclamation, the governor prohibited all foreign languages in schools and public places. Nebraska banned instruction in any language except English, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the ban illegal in 1923 (Meyer v. Nebraska).[76] [b]The response of German Americans to these tactics was often to "Americanize" names (e.g., Schmidt to Smith, Müller to Miller) and limit the use of the German language in public places, especially churches.[/b][77][/quote]

By taking a new name, you forge a new identity for yourself with a meaning that is dear to you, and this one is American, as the trend was, and the descendents of these families, would later be used all the time in wwII to act as translators, while still viewed with a suspicious eye, thus deemed "traitors" for both sides of the conflicts, but they did their job and showed they love for their new homeland by doing their duty. and its the patriotic love for the country, that he wants to rekindle it seems, they shout USA way more than Trump at certain rallies. and those 20-30k people per rally seem to find it very eloquent, especially it's all from the head, instead of a memorised 25 second soundbyte.

and i'm pretty sure the socialists and communists in the 20th century also fished a lot of the same disgruntled pool of voters, well until they get their shit kicked in by veterans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%9319
380
#380
-5 Frags +

The only people who I'd want to see president out of the cesspool of candidates is Rubio. I also want to see Michael Bloomberg run as an independent.

The only people who I'd want to see president out of the cesspool of candidates is Rubio. I also want to see Michael Bloomberg run as an independent.
381
#381
2 Frags +

Well - Germans weren't exactly "forced" to Anglicize their names - it was mostly done to avoid any possible problems arising from one's name (avoiding undue suspicion, difficulty finding work, etc during and after the WWs) or sometimes simply because the spellings were odd and were changed later down the road (Braun ---) Brown for example) the practice in this instance is *very* common with immigrants of Slavic, Greek, Turkish, and Arabic origin since many of the transliterated spellings don't make much sense.

Well - Germans weren't exactly "forced" to Anglicize their names - it was mostly done to avoid any possible problems arising from one's name (avoiding undue suspicion, difficulty finding work, etc during and after the WWs) or sometimes simply because the spellings were odd and were changed later down the road (Braun ---) Brown for example) the practice in this instance is *very* common with immigrants of Slavic, Greek, Turkish, and Arabic origin since many of the transliterated spellings don't make much sense.
382
#382
-4 Frags +

the majority of people who vote trump are the kind of people that can't be arsed to read long texts and would rather hear simple and short speeches because they can't be arsed with more

the majority of people who vote trump are the kind of people that can't be arsed to read long texts and would rather hear simple and short speeches because they can't be arsed with more
383
#383
-4 Frags +

I think the argument that Bernie supporters will not vote for Clinton if she is the eventual nominee appears quickly to be an unsound one if you have any familiarity with American politics.

Consider possible general election contests under this category:

Clinton v Trump
Clinton v Cruz*
Clinton v Rubio*

Bernie's support is highly concentrated among young, white, and educated voters (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-young-democrats-love-bernie-sanders/). This voting demographic typically self identifies as very liberal, and in all three of these contests Clinton is obviously the choice more in line with their views. Bernie's attacks on Trump have made some of the most popular speeches so far in the Sanders campaign. Moreover I'd expect Bernie to endorse and speak in support of Clinton if he loses the primary contest.

Its likely these demographics will have a lower turnout in support of Hillary relative than what they would do for Bernie, but its also highly improbable that anything more than a miniscule percentage of these voters would defect to trump.

Thinking of it as Democrats and Republicans really oversimplifies the issue and if you live in America and pay attention to politics this is pretty obvious to see.

*Of course Trump is favored now and I admit seems to be the probable nominee, but the other two candidates aren't utterly out of the picture yet.

I think the argument that Bernie supporters will not vote for Clinton if she is the eventual nominee appears quickly to be an unsound one if you have any familiarity with American politics.

Consider possible general election contests under this category:

Clinton v Trump
Clinton v Cruz*
Clinton v Rubio*

Bernie's support is highly concentrated among [b]young[/b], white, and educated voters (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-young-democrats-love-bernie-sanders/). This voting demographic typically self identifies as very liberal, and in all three of these contests Clinton is obviously the choice more in line with their views. Bernie's attacks on Trump have made some of the most popular speeches so far in the Sanders campaign. Moreover I'd expect Bernie to endorse and speak in support of Clinton if he loses the primary contest.

Its likely these demographics will have a lower turnout in support of Hillary relative than what they would do for Bernie, but its also highly improbable that anything more than a miniscule percentage of these voters would defect to trump.

Thinking of it as Democrats and Republicans really oversimplifies the issue and if you live in America and pay attention to politics this is pretty obvious to see.

*Of course Trump is favored now and I admit seems to be the probable nominee, but the other two candidates aren't utterly out of the picture yet.
384
#384
-3 Frags +
eXtineeXcept yknaow, that whole forcibliy deporting every illegal immigrant, blocking legal immigrants because they're muslim, saying that he'd kill the families of terrorists (war crime) and stating that he'd interrogate people using methods worse then waterboarding (waterboarding is tourture and a war crime).

But besides that, yeah pretty moderate.

I don't know what kind of insanity would lead you to think that deporting illegal immigrants is a bad thing. There are immigration laws for a reason. If deporting illegal immigrants is a bad thing then would you just let every illegal immigrant stay and have the government pay for them therefore giving an incentive for more of them to enter illegally. I mean I can understand being against waterboarding (I certainly am) or being stricter on the families of terrorists but that is just ridiculous. Also considering how massive Radical Islam is today, I think it's understandable why you would want a temporary ban on them.

[quote=eXtine]
eXcept yknaow, that whole forcibliy deporting every illegal immigrant, blocking legal immigrants because they're muslim, saying that he'd kill the families of terrorists (war crime) and stating that he'd interrogate people using methods worse then waterboarding (waterboarding is tourture and a war crime).

But besides that, yeah pretty moderate.[/quote]

I don't know what kind of insanity would lead you to think that deporting illegal immigrants is a bad thing. There are immigration laws for a reason. If deporting illegal immigrants is a bad thing then would you just let every illegal immigrant stay and have the government pay for them therefore giving an incentive for more of them to enter illegally. I mean I can understand being against waterboarding (I certainly am) or being stricter on the families of terrorists but that is just ridiculous. Also considering how massive Radical Islam is today, I think it's understandable why you would want a temporary ban on them.
385
#385
6 Frags +

I love how even when extine is calling someone out on politics he still capitalizes the Xs

I love how even when extine is calling someone out on politics he still capitalizes the Xs
386
#386
6 Frags +

As a queer son of illegal Mexican immigrants (who gained citizenship eventually) Bernie is the only rational choice for me. Trump has mentioned that he would want to deport the children of anyone who was an illegal immigrant and has implied more than once that he would try to get rid of Obama's executive order for mandatory gay marriage. Perhaps Trump got fooled by the meme that it means everyone HAS to get gay married?

As a queer son of illegal Mexican immigrants (who gained citizenship eventually) Bernie is the only rational choice for me. Trump has mentioned that he would want to deport the children of anyone who was an illegal immigrant and has implied more than once that he would try to get rid of Obama's executive order for mandatory gay marriage. Perhaps Trump got fooled by the meme that it means everyone HAS to get gay married?
387
#387
10 Frags +

and my parents barely rape anyone!

and my parents barely rape anyone!
388
#388
-4 Frags +

Trump would be a lot easier to stomach if he wasn't so racist and shitty to minorities, and his policies on immigration weren't harsh. I would never vote for him in a million years, but he'd be a lot less scary. I still think he's sadly a better option than either Rubio or Cruz, they're both the worst out of the bunch by far imo.

I'm also surprised more people aren't skeptical of Bernie's campaign. His campaign reminds me a lot of Obama's first presidential campaign, where most of his promises were either reversed or failed to come to fruition. I guess it's just hard to see anything in the political world these days and not feel either cynical or apathetic these days.

Trump would be a lot easier to stomach if he wasn't so racist and shitty to minorities, and his policies on immigration weren't harsh. I would never vote for him in a million years, but he'd be a lot less scary. I still think he's sadly a better option than either Rubio or Cruz, they're both the worst out of the bunch by far imo.

I'm also surprised more people aren't skeptical of Bernie's campaign. His campaign reminds me a lot of Obama's first presidential campaign, where most of his promises were either reversed or failed to come to fruition. I guess it's just hard to see anything in the political world these days and not feel either cynical or apathetic these days.
389
#389
-6 Frags +
SpaceGhostsCoffeeTrump would be a lot easier to stomach if he wasn't so racist and shitty to minorities, and his policies on immigration weren't harsh. I would never vote for him in a million years, but he'd be a lot less scary. I still think he's sadly a better option than either Rubio or Cruz, they're both the worst out of the bunch by far imo.

I think although Trump's policies might be slightly less terrible then Cruz, the fact that Trump seems genuinely unintelligent and liable to act based solely on emotion means he'd be the worst president out of all the candidates.

[quote=SpaceGhostsCoffee]Trump would be a lot easier to stomach if he wasn't so racist and shitty to minorities, and his policies on immigration weren't harsh. I would never vote for him in a million years, but he'd be a lot less scary. I still think he's sadly a better option than either Rubio or Cruz, they're both the worst out of the bunch by far imo.[/quote]

I think although Trump's policies might be slightly less terrible then Cruz, the fact that Trump seems genuinely unintelligent and liable to act based solely on emotion means he'd be the worst president out of all the candidates.
390
#390
-2 Frags +
whymeoSpaceGhostsCoffeeTrump would be a lot easier to stomach if he wasn't so racist and shitty to minorities, and his policies on immigration weren't harsh. I would never vote for him in a million years, but he'd be a lot less scary. I still think he's sadly a better option than either Rubio or Cruz, they're both the worst out of the bunch by far imo.
I think although Trump's policies might be slightly less terrible then Cruz, the fact that Trump seems genuinely unintelligent and liable to act based solely on emotion means he'd be the worst president out of all the candidates.

I don't think trump is genuinely unintelligent, but yeah it's hard to tell with him sometimes. One of the reasons I consider Trump as a more palatable option than either Cruz or Rubio, is his record against wars. From everything I've heard, he is rather anti-war, which is good because Cruz and Rubio would probably send a bunch of americans off to somewhere to kill brown people, which I really don't want happening.

[quote=whymeo][quote=SpaceGhostsCoffee]Trump would be a lot easier to stomach if he wasn't so racist and shitty to minorities, and his policies on immigration weren't harsh. I would never vote for him in a million years, but he'd be a lot less scary. I still think he's sadly a better option than either Rubio or Cruz, they're both the worst out of the bunch by far imo.[/quote]

I think although Trump's policies might be slightly less terrible then Cruz, the fact that Trump seems genuinely unintelligent and liable to act based solely on emotion means he'd be the worst president out of all the candidates.[/quote]

I don't think trump is genuinely unintelligent, but yeah it's hard to tell with him sometimes. One of the reasons I consider Trump as a more palatable option than either Cruz or Rubio, is his record against wars. From everything I've heard, he is rather anti-war, which is good because Cruz and Rubio would probably send a bunch of americans off to somewhere to kill brown people, which I really don't want happening.
1 ⋅⋅ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ⋅⋅ 40
This thread has been locked.