doot

nice cmmt I like thNk

I hope it somehow gets stolen from Trump. Nothing would be better for the US than to have a president that is as hated and distrusted as Clinton.

I mean, they both have around 20% favourability rating, so I guess we're good. :o Even MLG DroneMasterX 9000 Obamba has like 50%, after 8 fucking years of lukewarm shit and failing on all his promises(pulling out troops, guantanamo, NSA scandal, etc.)

But he has funny gifs on the internets.

I am completely serious here, that's why so many people love him.
Fucking comedy TV shows and gifs.

kinda similar thin to Dubya

You're clearly right numberswise but there is something to what pacman wrote, which is why he might have an easier time swaying the public opinion than the warmongering hag, whose only appealing characteristic to her voters was being a woman and a Democrat - otherwise they would hate her with a passion.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/Elections2016?src=tren

TEARS & AGONY

Twitter is currently a goldmine for hilarious people of colour rants.

The butthurt is amazing.

It's all because sexism and racism.
God bless open-minded, progressive people!

I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you suggesting that sexism and racism are NOT bad? Or?

The point is that the racism and sexism card is overplayed and not everything that bothers you magically becomes sexism. The fact that a male won isn't misogynistic, the fact that he's white doesn't have anything to do with racism and so forth. Sexism/racism is bad, but so are the tumblr/twitter hordes that will apply that epithet to literally anything.

[IMG1]

u wasted alot of letters sayin absolutely nothin, about a concept that requires alot of letters

No, actually it doesn't require a lot of letters. It's pretty simple really. You cant associate racism with sexism on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE that others don't agree with you on. Only the libtard simpletons eat that shit up.

This is exactly the reason he won. People are tired of these pussies crying RACIST THIS! SEXIST THAT! on issues that have literally nothing to do with either.

Sexism/racism is [sic] bad

source?

NBC, CBS, Washington Post, CNN, yahoo news, most American Universities, the infested Internet and all the morons of this Earth.

The problem starts when people want to rip new anuses to people who they think are committing "thought crime".

Left is all about changing meanings of words and symbols.
They will say government is giving you something.
In reality government puts a gun against your head and steals from you just to give you back the change.
If you are opposing to that violence you are becoming "greedy".

Left is fighting with christianity and their universal values. It's facist and not open minded.
But if you don't belive their fairy tales about social justice and equality - that's a thought crime.

I am suggesting that you signalling your so-called superiority to normal simple people who are just driven by the way nature or evolution build them is atrocious or Satanic -depending on whether you are a believer or not.
Racism means me defending my blood and thus my own biological existence nothing more and sexism means appreciating other on their real merit, not wanna be qualities written down on by dogmatic "thinkers".
superior ideologues of this world should build a troika under this logo: monsters at work

The winner is irrelevant. The US as a society lost when it came down to those two already.

It was lost long before

^this

they picked obama twice in a row. i beg to differ.

Did you see the opposition??

living in russia its hard to see why obama could be called a good us president. our country is in shams and what has he actually accomplished? the people are even more poor, the crooks are just fine and keep stealing from people, sanctions are a joke. i support trump because he as republican stands for universal values backed by thousands of years of human civilization and not based on some whim of the moment concerns like gay marriage.

Lol at your universal values backed by thousands of years of human civilization. What are those values, grabbing women by the pussy? Trump is just another capitalist american pig, but at least he's isolationist, so that hopefully america will fuck less with the rest of the world, and that's why I'm happy.

I have read democrat vs republican values and to me democrats are the antithesis of all moral values. Every time America chose democrats I only seen anti-Russian rhetoric and senseless confrontation with Russia solely based on the fact that we in Russia don't support gay marriage.

I mean that you isolate this down to gay marriage is hilarious

As for antithesis of moral values, you didn't list anything else besides that.

PS. You guys blame obama when you slip on ice in moscow. Hardly surprising you dislike him.

I am not saying its the only issue but its basically a series of "issues" like gay marriage that democrats use to demonize conservative countries like Russia. The thing is Russia never meddled in Americas spheres of influence, its the other way around. Trump is not a Putin's puppet the way democrats are trying to spin it, American people are simply tired of bs rhetoric that gay marriage (among other things like it) is a value to begin with.

Trump is not a Putin's puppet the way democrats are trying to spin it,

That's probably right.

American people are simply tired of bs rhetoric that gay marriage (among other things like it) is a value to begin with.

http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-a...-marriage/

Americans probably disagree with you.

What other things? Specify. You're talking like there are universal agreements on human rights, but there aren't, so it's not at all clear what you mean.

All these studies are actually manipulated, I for one would never think that any family oriented heterosexual couple would ever think that homosexuality is normal. I am not against them I just don't think that homosexuality is something that a person can claim as a value as it's basically an abnormal psychological disorder.

All these studies are actually manipulated, I for one would never think that any family oriented heterosexual couple would ever think that homosexuality is normal.

Wrong. I know couples who think it is normal (in the sense of fine, not a bad thing) who think that. So even my personal experience denies that. Not sure what orientation towards family has to do with anything, or being a couple.

PS. Please do list other values that you think are bullshit, or which are part of the universal human values (funny that you think that's a real historical / philosophical thing).

What's with Russians not being able to deal with homosexuality? Where does this unhealthy fixation on dudes that take it up the ass come from?

It comes from the fact that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice meaning its not a natural thing, it's like smoking or drinking abuse and needs to be treated by psychologists like many other disorders. In Russia there is no hate for them, they are simply not promoted as some kind of value of the developed world. To me personally its a psychological disorder that needs to be treated.

In the same post you first say its a choice, then later you say its a disorder. Make up your mind.

And its perfectly natural, the fact that it exists makes it natural. Its not as usual as heterosexuality, but that doesn't make it unnatural.

Why would you treat people for something that has proven to be untreatable and has zero negative effect on you. Why is it hard do let people be happy doing whatever they want as long as it doesn't jeopardize others?

I am saying it's a psychological disorder and is based on choice. It not being treated en mass doesn't make it normal and letting people demonstrate their sexual disorders in public has nothing to do with any values the way democrats are presenting it.

>a psychological disorder and is based on choice

that's a contradiction in terms from the start. disorders are not based on choice, they are beyond someone's control. you don't choose to be bipolar or schizophrenic.

secondly, you cannot choose who you are attracted to, unless you force yourself to like women. then i have some bad news for you, buddy.. :P

The reason why you want me to think its normal is because you want to be protected from the fact that it would have been a sexual abuse of people who would have been deceived by you into having an intercourse with them. Making gay being normal is exactly that, it gives all the sexual perverts protection to do whatever they want feeling its ok to deceive people to have intercourse with them which in fact may be classified as rape.

you seem to be afraid of the world. how old are you?

i just wanted to warn some people on things that i think are bad, but people are people, not everyone is going to listen.

how would the world look like according to you?

Hundreds of animal spieces have homosexual behavoirs, so it is perfectly natural. I agree that the ones who claim that homosexuality is a value are stupid as much as people who say that liking tomatoes is a value. But that's not what happens in the west.

A lot of people also do drugs and end up homeless on the street doesn't make it either natural or normal. The thing is I can not actually say that homosexuality is a good thing, I can't seriously feel proud for them, I can feel sorry for them at best, it's their choice and it doesn't mean I want to be around people like that let alone seeing them demonstrating their sexual disorders in public. There is things like keeping simple decency in public, it has nothing to do with gay pride.

oh my holy god, where do I even begin

1) why are you so OBSESSED with gays? why do you care what they do in their bedroom? it has literally ZERO effect on you. are you projecting? studies show that people obsessed with homosexuality who talk about it and hate on it all the time, are often closet homosexuals themselves, or have other insecurities, unresolved issues.
2) sexual orientation is NOT a choice. this is common sense, as well as studies have shown you are born that way. you can choose your partner, that's a choice. you cannot choose whom or what or which gender you're sexually attracted to.
3) indecency has nothing to do with sexual orientation. for instance, a heterosexual couple sloppy kissing right next to me in a crowded train could be viewed as indecent. the real issue here is that you - in your own admission - view it as a disorder(which is merely your opinion nothing more), and thus, you will find seeing ANY gay couple disturbing. the problem lies with YOU, not with decency or lack thereof.

"A lot of people also do drugs and end up homeless on the street doesn't make it either natural or normal."
??? non sequitur

"It comes from the fact that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice meaning its not a natural thing, it's like smoking or drinking abuse and needs to be treated by psychologists like many other disorders"
what an absolutely stupid false equivalency. drinking and smoking are addictions - short-term relief with long-term adverse effects. homosexuality has nothing to do with addiction, or abuse, and has no negative effects on the person.

"I just don't think that homosexuality is something that a person can claim as a value"
that's a straw-man argument. no-one claims it's a special 'value'. they simply want to be left alone, and not be discriminated against in everyday life(most likely by homophobes such as yourself).

To summarize: if being gay is not a value then why is it promoted as some kind of virtue in day to day news, I am not against them, I just want everyone to see it as it is. Being in a gay relationship vs normal family relationship is very different so equating one with the other is very misleading. Gay relationships promote promiscuity whereas family relationship is about staying true to your values as a human being.

i agree being straight is a value. If a teen was gay he would masturbate on the internet all day long.

Oh dear how could I've mistaken [+] for reply button. :-(

It's not being gay what's promoted. It's about one's immanent and natural desire to live as they want and exercise their basic rights and freedoms: choose places to stay and go, where to build a house, whom to sleep with, create family and raise children (or prefer not to); it's about being socially protected and not harassed or discriminated just because some idiots don't like the way they fuck. If you read Russian, here's quite passionate, yet eloquent and clear explanation.

When you think that something is "wrong" or "unnatural", there's a simple test: does it hurt anyone, or deprive of their own rights and freedoms? And if the answer is "no", it is neither wrong nor unnatural. It's not our business whom and how someone sleeps with. No one will die or get hurt (except from unanswered love or jealousy perhaps), and no one should stick their nose in others' beds.

This is a cultural war that we must win whatever the costs! Liberals must be hanged!

Homosexuality is not conditioned from birth. Where did you get this s* from? People with sexual insecurity and mental disorders as well as hormonal problems are more vulnerable to homosexual advances especially if it happens when the subject is young because inexperience produces vulnerable subjects. Put on top of this a culture based on wrong education -Hollywood would praise homosexuals for 50 years by now, putting them above normal guys -and you got the perfect victims.

If homosexuals would be born like this than no one would cease to be homosexual. But there are then ex-homosexuals who converted to being straight: "That's why it is so simultaneously amazing and refreshing that there is now a film out called I Am Michael, based on the true story of Michael Glatze, who left his gay identity over a decade ago and has since become a pastor and married"

"In addition, the film's subject, Mr. Glatze, wasn't just a garden-variety activist:

After becoming editor of Young Gay America magazine at age 22, Glatze received numerous awards and recognition, including the National Role Model Award from the major homosexual-rights organization Equality Forum. Media gravitated toward him, leading to appearances on PBS television and MSNBC and quotes in a cover story in Time magazine called "The Battle Over Gay Teens."
...............................
"He produced, with the help of PBS affiliates and Equality Forum, the first major documentary film to address homosexual teen suicide, "Jim In Bold," which toured the world and received numerous "best in festival" awards. Young Gay America's photo exhibit, telling the story of young people across North America, toured Europe, Canada and parts of the U.S.

In 2005, Glatze was featured in a panel with Judy Shepard, mother of slain homosexual Matthew Shepard, at the prestigious JFK Jr. Forum at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.

In a previous interview, Mr. Glatze noted that it was shortly after the JFK Jr. Forum that he began to question his own words and, with that, his life's direction. Recently married, he offered more insight into himself and his journey from homosexuality"

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/...ality.html



"they simply want to be left alone, and not be discriminated against in everyday life"
You are a stinking liar right here: if homosexuals want to be left alone then they would not try to steal the sense of marriage, but use something different instead -the very try to put themselves inside our system is an attack against our values. This is also an explicit attack against family values and against the sense of marriage. If homosexuals want to be left alone then they would not try to force clergy to marry them in the church. This is an attack against religion -which makes many stupid atheists feel sympathy towards homosexuals, wrongly believing that the enemy of their enemy is their friend -they are not.

And finally the most important aspects are the demographic factors on one hand -giving sanctuary laws to homosexuals and other sexual deviants would contribute to the decrease of the demography of Europe and the USA -and the social factor on the other -giving the traitorous liberal tendency to encourage the accumulation of foreign cultures, especially Islam into the Western world and put this together with homosexuality which the Islamic world see as deadly sin would most likely not end nice, if not to say could result in a lot of very nasty and deadly conflicts, but even if these conflicts would be avoided the animosity between the "enlightened" Europeans and the Muslims would grow -right now this animosity do exist but the number of Muslims in the West did not reach yet the critical number to make them able to start enforcing their culture.

Of course that I am not replying this to you without hoping that other people more smart would read it.

haha. you think ppl who refuse to subscribe to primitive religious ideologies are 'stupid', enough said really.
you are a paranoid, insecure, conservative homophobic imbecile.

science has already proven that homosexuality is something you're born with.
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/27/9403.abstract

who you are sexually attracted to is given, you can't just flip a switch.
repressed homosexuality / bisexuality also doesn't change this fact.

basically you represent everything that's wrong with the world, religious and conservative ideologies and ways of thinking that are inherently flawed. who ppl are sexually attracted to or what they do in their bedroom has zero effect on you, the problem lies with you.
to be fair, I shouldn't even dignify your horseshit with a reply. you are an idiot, you are factually wrong on everything, and you are terrified of ppl different from you because of your own personal issues. just fucking kill yourself already.

Lots of animals don't do drugs and engage in homosexual behavoir. But almost all of them are homeless so you are probably right and it's not natural.

In Russia there is no hate for them,

Are you serious?

http://www.rferl.org/a/russia-gay-rape-uzbek-...05544.html

>Viewers on WhatsApp overwhelmingly praised the violence as a well-deserved punishment.

There's this kind of shit happening all the time. Do you guys not receive news of this? Or do you not think beatings, torture and killings are displays of hate?

Perhaps it's all doctored?

The way news treats gay people as somehow above average in value than heterosexual people, there is all sorts of crimes committed every day, a lot of people get raped in prison, should we also defend gay rapists?

Gay people often contract HIV to their partners so it's not even a joke being raped by one of them. Many people get raped in their childhood by gays and get HIV, this is not a joke.

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/

You said there is no hate for gays in Russia. I know it's false from many accounts I've seen in general. I see similar, although weaker attitudes in Eastern Europe.

I gave you an example of a hate crime. I also quoted the part which said the comments were *praising* this as a deserved punishment. And you know it's true that people think this way - that violence isn't that bad a thing for a gay to experience, as he's doing something bad.

Your reply doesn't explain this away. Stop dodging.

Why am I even supposed to be apologizing for my dislike of gays? Gay HIV rates alone for me are enough to stay away from them. Again you are dodging the fact that gays also rape and molest a lot of straight people and spread HIV to their unwilling victims. Should we also say that gays have a right to deceive young straight men and women into having intercourse with them because they think its "normal" to be gay, causing HIV pandemic? There is no way I would ever think that being gay is normal or that they were born this way and there is no decision on their part to be gay, meaning they have full responsibility for their actions. In that way we can explain away any sexual disorder including pedophilia as "normal" since you know that pedophiles are "born this way".

You're confused as fuck, pretending to have nothing against them, then disliking them, then it's a choice, then it's a disorder.

Nice pedophilia comparison; traumatizing children is definitely a good comparison (???)

This was about dislike for gays in Russia, you denied it, didn't seem to understand when I noted it, pretended it wasn't there, now suddenly "oh ya we dislike gay people they're bad HIV and shit".

You're a snake oil salesman man, get your mind in order.

That's the thing gays always are fucked up because they keep defending their perversion with superfluous arguments on the same order with all the other deviants. Just because some bought scientific study says its okay doesn't make it so, any person with common sense knows that their preferences are their own and they have full responsibility for their actions, the way gays act is treat people like animals as if we have no responsibility for our actions which is absurd.

What superfluous arguments? What are we talking about? Did I say homosexuals have no responsibility for contracting someone with HIV? I never said anything about it.

I was talking about different things.

It's not that you are supposed to apologize. You're just a shitty person. Gays have no effect on you and couldn't care less about you, you dislike them simply for being gay. That's the definition of bigotry. It's the same as disliking blacks simply for being black. Them being gay or black has no effect on your life at all.

Oh, so straight ppl do not rape and molest, and cannot spread STD-s now, only gays? Amazing.

A homosexual person does not abuse young children, it has absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia. Another false equivalency from you!

"That's the thing gays always are fucked up because they keep defending their perversion with superfluous arguments on the same order with all the other deviants."

The irony here is that you are the one with the disorder in your head, and you're desperately trying to defend your bigoted position, but your failed arguments have no leg to stand on.
Truth is, you're just another textbook russian homophobe.

I am not supposed to like someone if they are gay, whats wrong about that? The same way gays use arguments from all pro gay liberal media to convince straight people to become gay. It's your own choice, I am not against choice but saying gays have moral rights to promote gay culture is wrong the same way people promote pedophilia and drug use.

saying gays have moral rights to promote gay culture is wrong the same way people promote pedophilia and drug use.

...?

do gays have moral rights to promote gay culture, what is there to not get? many people get deceived into thinking that being gay is okay... well its not and should never be taught this way.

Yes, because being gay is as bad and harmful in and of itself as being a pedophile or doing drugs.


??????????

Now you are being an irrational gay bigot, do you realize that thousands if not millions of straight teens get deceived into becoming gay based on gay culture propaganda, then contract HIV and lead a very horrible life?

Could it be that if they contract HIV (I kind of doubt your numbers but I haven't researched it I guess), it's because of poor protection by them and their partners, rather than because being gay itself is evil?

Can you really not separate the two? If not, straight relationships in general are evil by your logic.

Anal sex is known to have the highest risk of HIV that plus the fact that gays use no protection most of the time. The problem is not HIV itself but the way gay culture is presented as some kind of equality issue whereas in reality its a sexual disorder practiced by people with psychological and mental issues.

Man you're fucked up

Science doesn't support you on the disorder thing, and you were just calling it a choice so it's hard for me to believe your other claims about HIV.

I understand it's hard for you to understand but trust me the way gay media is promoting gay rights reminds me way to well how things like sex abuse operate in the real world. Not everyone is gay and the way people get treated by gay propaganda it suddenly makes it all okay to convince all kinds of people that being gay is the right thing to do even if they have no interest in it.

I guess propaganda still works as good now as it did back in the late 1930's.

Facts have no place at all in current politics.

You're getting it all wrong. No one is telling you, or anyone else, that being gay is the right thing. Just like no one is telling that being left-handed is the "right" thing (that would be quite ironic and funny though, lol).

What is the right thing here is stop assessing, judging, and discriminating people by their race, sex, gender, or whom they prefer to sleep with. If you have "no interest in it" then why are you so concerned of some people being simply different?

You're telling me that it's hard for me to understand and then change topics again, avoiding what I said and making more weird points.


Clearly, you think the status quo should be homosexuals are not mentioned anywhere, and that's somehow the right thing because being gay is somehow a bad thing. But that thing you can't really argue, you're just throwing out halfbaked points that might go in Russia, but don't pass a more critical eye.

can anyone explain why there is so much hate about Trump even among non-americans?

Misrepresentation of character by the USA media whom according to wikileaks was in collusion with the clinton campaign.

Because he's wildly incompetent, his policy changes from week to week (it's okay to change your mind as a person, but as a representative in democracy, there has to be somebody to represent), he has said a bunch of shit that would be incredibly terrible if it happened.

The only reason people voted for him was because they don't trust and like the establishment, the problem is there is no way he's the solution.

Because (s)he's wildly incompetent, his(her) policy changes from week to week (it's okay to change your mind as a person, but as a representative in democracy, there has to be somebody to represent), (s)he has said a bunch of shit that would be incredibly terrible if it happened.

:^)

Is she as incompetent?

Does her policy change as often?

There's a huge discrepancy there.

The last part is harder to measure I guess. I still stand by it though.

both are awful let's not beat the dead horse here.

but I'm content with dodging that WW3 bullet(at least for now).

Oh so.. you're playing the frequency card.

Well this guy only changed his mind 10 times, while she did it 7 times, hence he is a bad person and she isn't.

(s)he has said a bunch of shit that would be incredibly terrible if it happened.

You mean like opnely admitting her plans for the syrian no fly zone, waging war with Russia which experts (not twitter girls with Snapchat dogface filters) say may result in global war?

In other news, both are financed by the same companies and corporations, both are just figureheads.

Murica is run by nestlé q: D

In other news

Ketchup still unaffected.

I never said I thought Clinton was a good person. I agree that both are terrible.

it's not some frequency. Many of his positions are legit incoherent or contradictory. He doesn't believe in global warming. He wants isolationism, AND wrecking isis somehow. What the fuck? He actually proposed a wall on the border of mexico. He's suggesting a ban on Muslim immigration - an advance on big brother like nothing else I know - insane for any country with freedom of religion. He suggested boycotting Apple when they didn't break their crypto endangering millions of their customers' phones. He didn't seem to know what a nuclear triad was just months ago. I repeat. New US commander in chief didn't know what a nuclear triad was just months ago.

[Edit: Oh, this is the best. On the internet, he said

"We have to see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what's happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some ways. Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people."

LMAO.]

His solutions to most of the problems are memes, of the sort like "well make good deals", "tscyna", "make america great again" and he feels completely fine talking about unrelated things or just making promises about how he'll be great instead of talking policy.

Forget all this incompetence. He's said he's very, very flexible on many issues. So what the fuck did the people vote for? Hillary had a mildly progressive platform, and despite representing wall street, there perhaps were reasons to think she'd be held accountable for it to some degree. Trump? He openly says he'll cut taxes in half. He openly says he doesn't have to do much of anything he promised. He has congress and a landslide win. He can do whatever the fuck he wants. As bad as Hillary would have been, she wouldn't have nearly the flexibility to do whatever the fuck she wants / pleases her donors.

His solutions to most of the problems are memes

All I need to know. He's a wildcard, no one really knows what to expect next - all we know is that we're in for a treat. Guy's entertaining. I laugh at him, not with him.

I'm not in it for the deep political debates and which one has a more wholesome and sensible plan - that thing went out the window when you're left with two sides, both a joke. Now all you have to pick is how much you want to laugh.

If he does some of the things he promised about NATO, my country might get Ukraine'd. Not a joke :(

Maybe now Murrica won't fund Ukrainian revolution?

It would help.

Would help Russia not invade? I know it's really hard for them. The fingers must be really itchy.

I'm not saying Russia did a good thing. Just saying USA tried to push their dick into Ukraine and Russia said "get if my lawn, nigguh".

By sending troops into a sovereign nation and fucked shit up. In terms of realpolitik understandable, but morally disgusting and not excused by American involvement, to whatever degree there was American involvement.

Ye... Russians don't fuck around.
Obambo should know better.

Mixing morality into all of this is nonsensical. NATO pushed into Ukraine as a show of force. Funding, supporting and applauding a revolution and pushing Ukraine into the EU, basically just to show Russia the middle finger. Russian retaliation was inevitable. While greatly diminished, they are still a world power. If they let that shit slide, they might as well just give up on trying to mean anything.

I mean, how absolutely insane do you have to be to think for one second Putin would allow a NATO-controlled navy base, and possibly missile sites and resupply points RIGHT ON HIS FUCKING DOORSTEP. Of course he made sure that wouldn't happen. Not in a nation that hates Russia. Not so close. Would you, were you in his shoes? It just makes sense.

And honestly, I am nervous about Russia as well. But I don't think you guys over in the Baltics have anything to worry about, unless USA starts placing more bases and moving more troops there. And with Trump in power, that just won't happen.

Let's be real, here. Russia has nothing to gain from invading Baltics and CE. Massive manpower and monetary drain that just gets them territories in a constant state of revolt. They would ruin themselves economically just sustaining it, while they have an emerging superpower rubbing lotion on its yellow dick on the ass-end of their country, interests to protect in the Middle East against the Jihadi revolution and their House of Saud sponsored Sunni shitheads and the USA to rub dicks with.

I mean, fuck. Just recently, Putin ordered heavy arms to be moved into the Kaliningrad Oblast. He did that in anticipation of Hillary winning and escalating influence and aggression. That bitch winning would possibly mean very, very dark times for you guys in the Baltics and us in Central Europe. Now... maybe shit will calm down a little. Hopefully the attention will move fully into the Middle East and we all can take some time to re-assess the situation.

well, Kasich said that when he was asked to be Trump's VP he was asked to run the country while donald was doing his thing. If you want to look for what kind of policy they'll use, chances are you have to do a big dive into Pence's curriculum vitae.

so wait u just backed up? i thought u were trying to speak up for this guy wasting everybodys time as if u have some conviction with these stupid fuckin comments, now you're saying u only waste ur life on here typing arbitrary stuf about world matters because u like to laugh @ him?

There are good reasons for the wall if you live in heavily populated area's of illegals. Tons of people getting child support/food stamps what'have'you and not paying any taxes etc. horrible

You gay bro?

what?

I don't know where you are living in, but you pose a real danger both for the US and for Russia.

In other news, both are financed by the same companies and corporations, both are just figureheads.

Didn't he do all financing for his campaign by himself?

No. Although he got the funding later, less of it, and in general didn't seem to need it much as the meme and shock value press publicity machines were in force.

of course he's not the solution. this election has been a huge joke, with the most disliked candidates in us history. thanks to honorable ppl like the ones at wikileaks, ppl are finally starting to wake up to the truth, and they're sick of the corruption. they're hungry for change, even if it means trump.
all our systems are totally fucked, we're wasting resources like crazy and making the environment uninhabitable, human civilization is unsustainable on all levels. we're on the verge of huge changes to come, and things will get worse before they get any better.

Because he's wildly incompetent

source?

his policy changes from week to week

source?

(it's okay to change your mind as a person, but as a representative in democracy, there has to be somebody to represent)

source?

he has said a bunch of shit that would be incredibly terrible if it happened

source?

The only reason people voted for him was because they don't trust and like the establishment

source?

the problem is there is no way he's the solution.

source?

Since you've said you'd have voted for Shkreli... I'll happily not bother.

because they were told to think that by the media.

''millions of dumbfounded dipshits'' who heard it on the 'ol teletube.

Also he is the con-type. To the point that you don't know how much money he has. Amongst the success he boasts about, there are the infamous 1Billion loss in the early 90s on money he mostly rented starting from a much smaller capital, how he didn't pay workers and his debts repeadetly during his career, how almost nobody of his coworkers ever came up to say how much money they made with Trump, how he refused to spend almost at all during the election both his money and the tons he got donated by small donors. Stuff like Trump university was a scam that taught sudo-knowledge and his foundation fund management was worse than clinton's (altough much less big and influencial), he has a trail in late november coming up, and it's about that IIRC.

Sudo knowledege is only useful on Macs though, why would he focus an entire university for a linux system?

We all know that windows is rigged

The left controls the media. The general population are brainwashed sheep.

http://gizmodo.com/canadas-immigration-site-k...socialflow

You did this to yourselves, Americans. Just mocked Trump voters so they hid instead of talking to them, and then they turned up in force on election day.

you cant stop the majority- leftists like to lock themselves up in their cities and become increasingly disconnected and out of touch with everyone else in the country :>>; not even any trump voters to talk to in NYC? but anywhere else you can see what its really like, while the far left sits in their own little bubble.

liberals are not important; even though maybe its all europeans see, and all the left media wants to show; completely worthless when the rust belt hears trump talk about bringing the car factories back...

only people leaving are liberals realizing that their ideology is irrelevant to the future of the USA :]

The election was clearly characterized by antiestablishment winning over the establishment. Examples include the Democrat candidate pushed to the brink by a fucking social democrat (I'm well aware of the stigma that those words bring in the us), and an incompetent clown wrecking the entire rightwing field, battling his own party and ultimately taking the whole election.

If the left was irrelevant, neither Clinton nor Sanders would have gotten so many votes. Even more convincingly, if people wanted the right wing, then perhaps some of the actual Republicans would have done well. Many of their suggestions were more extreme rightwing than Trump's. But clearly, people wanted the anti-establishment candidate, even if he's a clown.

How could you possibly say that this was rightwing vs leftwing that decided this with a straight face is beyond me.

not saying both candidates are your textbook left-right; pointing out that you seem to only be able to notice the Americans in left-wing cities- consider who you were talking about when you said "Americans" in contrast to "trump voters"- very specific groups there. Which places do you think are full of people who mock trump voters? Its the increasingly radical cities (that's "center-left" for Europeans reading :>) meanwhile in the rest of the country... its more rational.

Leftists are sanders (radicals), not Hillary(corps)- but they cheered for her after sanders failed..., so, its obv that not only did their candidate fail, but the fall-back ideas, keeping Trump out of office, failed too... I don't consider Hillary being very left-wing, just in favor of globalization. Plan B got so many votes just by being the go-to canidate for media shills and big money :O ( not saying TRUMP didnt get those.. just not as much) so two losses? At least for four years they can be held off.. :>

Not going to argue that Trump doesnt like the corps, but you should think... if the news, which is a corporation, shills against him this hard, then they obviously like Hillary better

Its obvious that Trump is on the right... hardcore neocons lost hard to him because they lost two elections, not because the supporters became less right wing... its obvious that trying the same thing doesnt work... also, the news makes him look way more right wing or extrme than he actually is;; and we all know, its mostly about how you look

try characterizing trump without using TV buzzwords ;> it can make you sound smarter

I was right. It was obviously about establishment vs antiestablishment. No buzzwords, the obvious truth. If anything it's the media that's failing to realize this, trying to interpret it in their old right vs left narrative.

Curious you paint sanders as a radical but hillary as moderate, when her platform got brought to a similar point during the primaries.

It's like lefties are the biggest bigots on this planet.
Shocker.

Before more people in this thread accuse me of listening to the lying media, read this.

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/democrats...of-brexit/

or just watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLG9g7BcjKs

I've been saying the same thing, including in the post I'm replying. Stop assuming everyone's brainwashed sheep out to get you.

Great that the USA made the RIGHT CHOICE again :>> and voted for AMERICA not globalism. I am looking forward to seeing the sheer amount of salt as the liberals have to look around them and notice that their dying ideology is a total minority in this country... and wont get any life-lines with all 3 branches going red :]

Best president since REAGAN coming through and of course its a landslide, I hope most of them run away to Canada so that their shit politics dont come back

lots of commies on ESR but too bad you Europeans didnt get to vote :O im sure that you all would have liked that seeing how closely you follow the (((liberal))) media about the USA election

yep, the citizens of the EUSSR wished they could have voted in this US election.
what's next for them? More economic migrants?

what's with the idea in people that reagan was a good president?

They are stupid. Its that simple

Nostalgia effect. You only remember the good things from the past and almost always portrait it way nicer than it actually was.

communist "trigger words" include "ronald reagan" add to your posts for best effect (replies)

Reagan also got landslide victories since everyone made up their mind that he was the best :> except COMMIE states ... makes them MAD when the reminders happen

you're actually calling states in the US commie? seriously?

ever been to any major blue city ? loads of sanders supporters ;0

i guess its not "true communisim" which has never been tried :>>>

by the way... its working ;]

it's neither true nor communism.

Sanders isn't even a socialist, he's a social democrat.

You might want to know the difference.

obviously you are out of the loop here... start back at "Ronald reagan, the best president ever"

Off topic.

i guess i have to explain the JOKES of it to you... did you know that the amount of upset left-wing replies that you get on your posts is a function of the amount of key phrases that make left wing people upset are in your post?

watch this:

RONALD REAGAN, THE BEST PRESIDENT EVER

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

AYN RAND WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG

STALIN'S RUSSIA IS THE ONLY EXAMPLE OF TRUE COMMUNISM

I assume you're not devoting crazy amounts of your time to politics. Why do it this way, then? Surely you understand that the meming takes a toll on the level of discussion you're having.

I know some people will laugh and say this is ESR, it's all a joke. Yeah? Why aren't you arguing for the opposing candidates half the time, then? Why are you making arguments that are at least somewhat similar to those that you believe in?

I am doing memes because I find it to be fun to see what replies come back;

you posted more serious things in another comment discussion we are having, so i posted serious things back - but not here because you still didnt figure the meme out- got stuck on "COMMIE states"

I like writing joke posts, but the point isnt purely to troll people, I just decided to set the bar low because I found it to be fun... (it worked, i had fun) cant say there is a larger motive behind this, I just had thought of the Reagan joke a while ago and wanted to write it

have you ever stood in line for bread at 5 AM? no.. then shut the fuck up about communism.

when idiot Americans start calling each other communist, it's like hearing 12 year olds on Xbox Live calling each other gay and how they fucked each other's mom.

cant handle the bants ;]

obvious you didnt read the replies to this...

reagan came out of office with a sky high approval rating, one of the very few who was followed by one of his party winning the election after him.
Also much of his fiscal policies are very dear to the heart of conservativism in america such as lowering government spending, regulation and taxes. Which one of these 2 lead to which, changes wildly and hilariously depending on who you ask.

"Also much of his fiscal policies are very dear to the heart of conservativism in america such as lowering government spending"

Yes, it really does come down in the 80s, especially compared to the decades before and after xD

GOVERNMENT SPENDING SHARE OF GDP

REAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Quick question - which of the 2 actually happened:
1) Did you look at the data before and then decided to write what you wrote?
2) Did you fire away a lefty talking point about Reagan slashing spending without bothering to check?

nope i just said what i remembered were the core points of his principles from what i studied in Uni on the subject of history of economics, since nobody had actually given a real answer so far. Lowering/controlling gov spending it's not a detriment per se anyway, i don't see why you think it implied judgement.

I feel like I'm speaking Chinese here. You said:

"Also much of his fiscal policies are very dear to the heart of conservativism in america such as lowering government spending"

And I showed that lowering government spending wasn't anywhere near his fiscal policies with two widely accepted measures:

a) Government spending as a share of GDP went up from 34.9% in FY1981 (last budget by Carter) to 36.1% in FY1989 (last budget by Reagan)
b) Absolute government spending adjusted for inflation went up from 1.62 trillion in 1981 to 2.13 trillion in 1989, which is an increase of 31%.

"i just said what i remembered were the core points of his principles from what i studied in Uni on the subject of history of economics"

I guess that answer aligns with answer No. 2 to the question from my initial post.

I didn't say a word about passing judgement. I focused solely on your characterization of Reagan's record on government spending and how it struggled to match reality.

Yes and then you gave me the reason why my mistake happened, which was your immagination taking over. Then when i show how ludicrous that is you think i'm contesting the data. Maybe i should have spoken your language and just said:

1) did you actually know everyone's train of tought, partizanship and do you have a degree in mind reading?
2) did you fire away a righty talking point about something being a lefty talking point despite it not implying judgement?

I see you are offended because I branded your falsehood learnt in university as a talking point. My mistake.

i wonder when will people realize that the abuse of this "offended" meme is as useless as the PC that it generated it.

seems pretty useful to the people using it

Reagan wouldn't be allowed anywhere near today's US conservative movement. He's way too liberal compared to the current conservative consensus. The Clinton administration later finished his work with a few gifts to social concerns of liberals before the second Bush drove the train off the track fighting the "Clash of Civilizations"

As scary as Trump is, and I predict as awful as will be, maybe he can keep us entertained with late night Twitter spasms.

About 70% of my family voted for Trump. Just about all them have no idea what's in a newspaper for 20 years unless Rush Limbaugh is reading from it. The coming holidays will be fun indeed.

Yeah the corporations getting their taxes slashed in half will sure show globalism. As will trump's strong ideological commitment to helping the poor; and not changing his stance every week.

You're really biting the bullet here. Apparently the alternatives were so bad you delude yourself into thinking that somehow Trump will help you. Kind of mindblowing.

lets see... no amnesty for illegal aliens... high tariffs on imported goods... liberal media is upset... but none of those cool guy hillary clinton TRADE DEALS :>>>>> that would total stop globalisim :o ? TPP

more like dodged the bullet; and its very good, because if we hadn't, there might not have been a chance to elect someone like trump again... those 11 million arent going to deport themselves ;;]] demographic shift not to mention all the ideologically ((misaligned))) who will.

As if any of that will matter more than your corporations paying two times less tax.

Even more so, he's been open about not being committed to much of what he has said. Why do you think he'll do things that hurt him, as a multibillionaire? Because he's a consistent, committed ideologue? lol

You believe the deportation meme, even though he changed his position on that how many times? Actually using the triple quotes? lmao

Essentially, your whole point is Trump is different, so he'll solve our problems and do all the good things he promised, none of the bad things he promised, and all the good things he didn't mention. And you have 0 reason to think that, quite the opposite.

point is that the deportation meme is manifesting itself as we speak :>>
just on the merit of being "not hill-dog"; the future is so bright, i dont need EYES to see it;;; doesnt matter if corps pay less taxes if jobs :] start happening

on some level; the deportations meme will become real... great PR ;0

in fact, there is no distinction between memes and policies anymore- you just pick the memes that you can get behind and hope for the best :>

doesnt matter if corps pay less taxes if jobs :] start happening

And where are the jobs from? a return to unproductive factories that are bound to die anyway? More useless jobs?

Better deals with Tschyna won't save you. More factories won't save you. I think Middle and lower class incomes have been stagnating for a long time, all over the place in the first world while the productivity of the word has remained increased dramatically. So where does the money go to? Could it be that the way to generate a decent living standard for a society is to tax the elites, rather than try and revive dead industries?

as for the distinction between memes and politics, you're relly doing a disservice to yourself. Just not conductive towards finding the truth.

industries are dead only when it was realized that chinese slaves were cheaper and also allowed to be used (thanks NAFTA) - factories in USA are only unproductive because of a lack of tariffs that used to exist

but no, forget all that.. why dont we try some of this cool socialism? ;] forget getting your jobs back, just take government handouts

for a communist you dont have a good idea of things... how do you seize the means of production if the capitalists moved it across the pacific? :0

I'm not communist, nor do I want to seize the means of production (= not socialist either).

Industries are dead because there's an advance in technology, and you can't stop it. If you take more jobs from China, at best it will help temporarily and then hurt you, by making people who went into those jobs / angled themselves towards getting those jobs skilless and lost in 20 or so years when the jobs are lost.

Good luck getting a job then. You need social democracy. And to get jobs, ultimately you'll need cheaper healthcare, education, to pay a lesser portion of the taxes than the upper class so that you're competitive in the market to earn an okay wage.

why is your flag USSR? I don't know another way to interpret that

jobs can be lost to advances in the future, but you wont be importing anymore... it will be because of advances in the factories, and not some kind of loss to another country. I don't see how you think it can ever be a negative to have more factories. Especially once the automation comes, it will be important to not depend on china's factories anymore; since third-world sweatshops are less relevant.

It's a joke. USSR was a horrible, brutal regime that I despise more than any regime.

Factories are great and all. You just can't run away from the future, and the future is that traditional blue collar jobs won't be good enough anymore for most of the blue collar population fairly soon. So welfare, training, education need to be upgraded to accommodate that.

we will see... even when jobs pay less, everything is much cheaper with all this cool automation stuff, right? :> I agree that education is good, but perhaps the solution to the education bubble is to let it pop as fast as you can, so the pain happens for a small amount of time, instead of desperately trying to keep it, and the flawed systems that created it, alive?

I think we could just look at how the situations changed in the western world in terms of productivity increases (huge) and monetary compensation (huge for the upper class, stagnant for middle and lower class), and conclude that we're headed in a bad direction because automation and tech just favours the upper echelons. Plebs will be unhappy, and it won't even end well for the rich if it continues. The rich chipping in for the poor is the obvious and effective solution.

Not sure what you mean in terms of the education bubble? Don't you Americans spend your money on wars and skimp on education?

Relatively yes we do... But we still give so much that it's created this bubble. Govt hands out money to colleges and as corporations they will still keep prices high as possible... For max profits So then the govt hands out even more of that $$$. Not as expensive as our bombs but enough to fuck the prices up. If no-one can pay anymore then the price will go down.. And those who don't change will just go out of business

Socialism -> Shit's retarded as fuck. Purge it from the planet Earth.
Democracy -> This shit never worked out. It's all illusion. Don't bother with this shit.

Let's put these ideas together!

Wait, so you're against democracy? Or do you just pull this card out in discussions when you need it, while still supporting it?

PS. The ironic thing is, when people mean social democracy, it has little to do with socialism! So your point isn't even about the same thing.

Democracy in its current form is worthless.
Stalin - the father of democracy - was right.
It doesn't matter who votes but who counts the votes and even more important is the political alternative.

So no matter who will win, the elections will be won.

If you really want to vote maybe let people vote only ONCE in their lifetime after they are at least 30.

wow. I do hope you're trolling. I know current demoracies aren't great, but the alternatives are worse.

I think it's far worse than "aren't great".
Basically secret service is setting up the game called democracy and then poor people can think they matter.
Maybe scrap this shit and let them do they work openly? ;)

I really don't have idea what other system could be less exposed to this kind of abuse.
But it's obvious democracy is not the end game. And if it is it's the most shit end game from all end games.

I think the situation is effectively a plutocracy for most western nations, especially US. However the plebs have human rights that cause some ruckus if broken, and do have chances to have meaningful political participation - to the degree they can actually organize and realize what's needed, which hasn't been great so far. Better than an authoritarian regime.

Human rights weren't a thing a while back, why think we couldn't improve from the situation we are now? I think we could move towards a more genuine democracy, in the sense that plebs would have more actual control.

In terms of open dictatorships, you know the old problem. It's all about if the leader is competent and benevolent, and you can't guarantee that the successor will be. It's a crapshoot.

Also a monarchy, or similar gov. where you can't change its decision makers or do it rarely, lacks the flexibility to adapt to the real world and to keep in touch with the real world. You need a system that can find new life after the shocks that hit it and it's able to renew itself in the people who run it, at the very least.

But doesn't democracy strive towards some kind of pathological version of itself over time?

Can a small government be a dictatorship?
But then again in small government there is no place for wellfare.
Can we rely on government providing fair help to poor?
Are humans incapable of helping each other on lower level?
Does pope dance?

Essentially, your whole point is Trump is different

Full stop. People are tired of same old same old bush/clinton dynasty. They are willing to opt in for anyone, even Trump if it means some kind of change.

Go ahead and say that. And repeat it. Maybe then they'd be heard. Maybe then Clinton wouldn't think that she can replace Sanders. Maybe then the americans that vote for trump would be honest with themselves.

But they are not. They're repeatedly giving other reasons. They're rationalizing. They're deluding themselves and others. Look at the posts in this thread, they're half arguments half memes. If carefull speech is how you get at honesty and truth, this kind of talk is how you delude yourself.

absolutely no content in that argument... no, i'm sure nobody would ever vote for trump to get X policy they wanted, its all memes. X policy is a meme and also a defense mechanisim so that people can pretend they had a REAL REASON for voting Trump. Whenever a trump supporter tries to explain the policies they wanted; its just them frantically trying to distract themselves from the fact that thye voted from Trump without knowing why. Nobody could ever have a real reason for voting for a system that isnt social democracy :> its all just projection. Everyone is brainwashed because they didn't watch the news call Trump names enough :-D.

They would vote for it. I'm saying many of them did. However, it was all under a confused haze, where many supporters were openly meming and just trying to bring the establishment down, others actually thought Trump would do those things. I explained why it's irrational to trust that he will enact the policies (not that he won't, just irratioanl to trust) promise, in the post that Ahnje replied to, as well as here http://esreality.com/post/2847237/#pid2847107

You guys yourselves undermined representative democracy voting for a lying, flipflopping memer, and the way the discourse AMONG TRUMP SUPPORTERS (not the media you so distrust) is going supports that.

As for social democracy, I never said Americans want that. However they didn't vote for the normal rightwingers, they wanted Trump. So I'm thinking it wasn't right wing policies that they wanted the most, esle more would have supported normal right wingers in addition to Trump.

Finally, the media is fucked up. I'm talking about it myself in this very thread. Stop trying to paint me as their defender, or assuming that anything I'm saying is informed by some media conspiracy. Media bias doesn't mean there aren't real experts giving informative opinions on this election.

You have a list of policies in your head that you want, and then a list of policies from either candidate... you have to pick which of those lists matches yours the closest- should you pick one that is wildly different, just because you don't think that the person who's list matches yours is 100% going to follow through?

The fact that everyone voted for a candidate that you didn't like doesn't mean democracy has been "undermined", it means you lost... get over it...

The news joke has to do with your comments using buzzwords that get used on the news; just a claim without any content. How is "X is dumb because its STUPID" productive? Im sure you don't like the media, but that's TV-tier arguing...

Let me simplify my point:

People voted for trump to:

1) blow shit up, wreck the establishment then maybe hope things turn out better afterwards

2) they like his policies.

3) a combination of both - hopefully not a confused one

part 1 makes sense in a way, but if they do that I hope they don't rationalize it and pretend it's 2),

2) doesn't really make sense, as there's little guarantee trump will do what he said, for the reasons I listed in the post I linked and the one Ahnjje replied to. You could think other politicians are liars and unreliable, but Trump is worse in that regard. A cat in a bag.

In terms of undermining democracy, reread what I said. It's not about policies, it's about consistency and seriousness, which are needed to make your votes matter.

As for buzzwords, I think I'm being perfectly serious - where do you think I'm not giving you content, only buzzwords?

Re read my first point about the canidate not doing what they say... I think i don't have more points there to make, you didn't really respond to it.

Undermining democracy means that people voted for someone else, not that you think a canidate was bad on his word... That doesn't set trump apart

You're happy to say the media is all lies, the politicians are all liars, representing not the people but the donors...

And then you get fooled for Trump doing it OPENLY. He's fucking doing it OPENLY. That you pretend like this isn't even a worry, just "oh maybe he won't do 100% of it" is amazing. Like if Kanye West runs at 2020, talks even less policy openly, promises things will be "gangsta", gives you contradictory policies, many of which change week to week...

Are you going to once again, call out the media for being liars, others for being sheep, and vote for Kanye expecting him to do not a 100% but essentially to be the best option?

It's like you're pretending this isn't an issue or that there aren't serious indicators for this. What the hell man.

I never said that I didn't think Hillary would do 100% of what she said either... I don't see how this is "fooled" or "pretending". Do you think that when one candidates fake promises sound better than another candidates fake promises, you should vote for the other candidate, because they're all fake? That's all you have to go by.

The double standard here is that when Hillary will do things like support the TPP and then not support the TPP when people don't like it anymore... same thing for gay marriage... how can you say that Hillary winning the election wouldn't "undermine democracy" , as your argument implies? She is openly lying just as well... whats your point here?

Its like you're pretending that none of your arguments here are applicable to the candidate that you would have rather had win :>>

Hillary should be rightly considered untrustworthy in terms of some issues, especially the TPP.

[Edit: and untrustworthy in general, sure; but it's a matter of degree]

Overall though, there is just no comparison. Maybe if you convince yourself that the media is just 100% lying you could think that, but just looking at Trump's statements there is no comparison, he's super flippant. You must be living in some sort of "media is all lies" bubble to ignore the flippancy that Trump displays and compare it to that of Hillary's.

I think the comparison is very easy to make. Right now I think you are just choosing to ignore the flaws of the candidate that you wanted to win. "in terms of some issues", lol

I cant stop you from projecting your ideal candidate onto Hillary :]] Not going to pretend that Trump has a coherent position on anything either, but he doesn't completely change his tune every time... You're just sticking your fingers in your ears at this point if you think there is no comparison.

I don't quite see a way of continuing to make more points about it, if you're just going to blow off facts.

people don't like clinton and the establishment she represent, but republicans down ballot overperformed trump more often than not, and the democrats lost soundly.

well said.

lol. hate to be like told u so, but when bernie first endorsed hillary, I was like that's it, prez trump. well done dnc.

shoutout to wikileaks
free assange, snowden, manning

wasn't this election all rigged so poor donald couldn't win? LMAO

hm?... of course it was rigged. the only reason hillary lost is wikileaks. that's the point you dumbass. :D
I understand that you're mad, go hold hands and mourn with the other clinton bot naghokez. lol

btw funny how you've never replied in the other thread after I've linked you cold hard facts. haha. you two must be allergic to truth.
bye bye now.

free assange, snowden, manning

Cheers.

this :D

So that means Kanye West is next US president?

gg ez

He played well ooc I have to say

Pink Floyd spoke of a wall.

Trump puts up a wall.

????????

Tear down the wall?

How can you have any pudding if you don't beat your meat?

All in all it's just a

another brick in the wall

he was right about quake.

Yup.

I can't think of any wall (in this sense of the word) that did good for the world.

Hadrian's wall.

The ramparts of Magog.

rofl america 10/10 trolling
maybe gone too far for voting for a troll for president for the lulz though
xD

if the trolls won, it would have been bernie

harambe

Shkreli

Shkreli is based as fuck, just like the God Emperor. I'd have voted for him in a heartbeat.

are you saying that you can compare the seriousness of Sanders' platform to Trump's, and that Trump's comes out on top

???????

oh, absolutely. Trump trumps.. SIGNIFICANTLY. not only is Bernie a joke--he's hysterical.

Just above you're saying you would've voted for Shkreli. I guess you love memes :) But not being able to tell them from seriousness is worrisome.

there's no trolling. we are completely serious, and so is our president. the fact that you liberal cucks are so out of touch with reality that you can't even fathom Trump or his supporters being sincere is .. disturbing and sad really, but at least you're truly a minority when and where it matters.

Most news from the media I saw on Trump leading up to this election was around 90% negative towards him.

I woke up this morning thinking Trump had basically no chance of winning so I didn't really pay attention to the progress of the voting. Nek minut, I see Trump winning by a large margin.

The amount of negative articles and news covering I saw on Trump was outrageous.

You did this to yourselves, Americans. Just mocked Trump voters so they hid instead of talking to them, and then they turned up in force on election day.

(c) son1dow

Damn right.

lol also I just +'d because I read the thread title again and noticed the subtleness of the naming.

Trump supporters showing up in force is only half of the cause. Fielding a great candidate against him is the other. Trump's team were scared of Sanders and his grassroots outrage/populism.
Trump took full advantage of the RNC's years-in-the-making voter registration drives and permanent on-the-ground staffing a la Obama 2008's campaign.
Clinton was a staid opponent: too established, too lethargic and way too much shady baggage(plus several carry-ons!).

p.s. apparently some people not happy with Tuesday's outcome are blaming voters like me who voted for Johnson(3rd party choices).

Seems like you're one of the rarer people that know their stuff. What do you mean in terms of permanent on the ground staffing?

I thought more people who voted Johnson would have voted Trump as a 2nd choice. Which would mean that if you tell random people to not vote 3rd party, you'll end up having them support Trump.

news is trash; nobody believes in any of it

its purely there to push a narrative and make it look like other things are happening; a vocal minority

What do you do, if the news is trash? I sure hope your alternative isn't just "thinking for yourself" without reading anything, or just talking to your friends who aren't reading news either.

Read positions and debates... It's important to read news, but also to understand how biased it is. Most important thing about the articles are what narrative is being spun and WHY the narrative is being pushed... Try and separate the facts from the opinions (rather hard nowadays...)

although his positions are rather ironically horrible, Sagan's Demon-Haunted World is a good primer for this kind of razor-blade reasoning.

sounds like a good read, if i had time to sit down with books anymore with all the other things i want to work on...

I remember playing vs you in a FFA a few months ago, you were crushing it ;]

He didn't win by a "large margin" -- he played the Electoral College game well. He actually lost the popular vote, meaning more people actually voted for Clinton than Trump.
So when Republican Senate Majority Leader Ryan calls it a "mandate" I call BS on that.

There is value in a more 'geographical' approach, so that you don't leave behind parts of the country. That's kinda the point of this election as well.

There isn't value in geographical approach. Its not like the president is the representative of the territory, he should be the representative of the people. It shouldn't be about how many square miles you won, but how many votes you won.

It's not about square meters, it's about the service that other geographical areas provide to the whole system and how different factors influence more rural areas compared to big cities.

The argument for this system is that the majority living in urban areas can't impose their will on those living in rural areas. But it seems perfectly fine that the minority living in rural areas imposes their will on the urban majority.

Yes, dividig it simply by cities and rural areas is oversimplifying it and shows its flaws. We are still talking about states tho.
Anyway the argument for it is that a slight bias against some areas that have the tendency to accumulate a massive amout of people, then influence them directly with a different set of stuff (from cultural to economic) from what influences directly anoher part of the country, which can be underrepresented by conseguence by direct democracy in such a massive nation, that bias can be a good one for the whole as indirectly they both influence the system massively.

this is the dumbest post I may have read on ESReality all day. impressive.

um, when the nation is literally a FEDERATION OF STATES, then, yes, the value is EXACTLY geographically-weighted, rather than being based purely on population.

It shouldn't be about how many square miles you won, but how many votes you won.

square-miles has absolutely naught to do with it, you absolute nincompoop. thank God you're not a citizen. Europeans are so absolutely illiterate of world politics. you live in your own, sad little bubble of delusion and obliviousness.

ought from is? no, it damn well shouldn't be about how many votes you won. that's terrifying. something about democracy, sheeps, wolves, and dinner.

he got less votes and won. You can spin it however you like, but its still bullshit.

no, it damn well shouldn't be about how many votes you won

Pls elaborate

Youre just justifying the system because the one you voted for won, if it were the other way around youd be crying like a bitch. Even Trump was crying like a bitch about a rigged system and now when it benefits him hes silent about it.

And yes, thank god im not a citizen of the USA pih

"electoral college game?" um, that's how the system works. it's designed that way purposely. you clearly don't understand the significance of it. and you have the gall to use the adverb "actually." he actually lost the popular vote.

no shit? thank God the popular vote doesn't decide our elections. obviously, liberal cuck, psychotic California would have determined every presidential outcome, if this were the case.

inb4 petition for Trump to make Quake great again

^this last ad made him win in the end, not even kidding

#MAGA

gl with congress :)

senate and the house are all Red... no problems there!

[img1]

Just shows what centuries of inbreeding can lead to, masses of knuckledraggers electing the most incompetent wannabe there is.

not really. ppl are sick and tired of systematic corruption and the status quo. they are hungry for change, even if it takes electing a buffoon like trump to get things going.
without wikileaks, it would be president hillary clinton right now. 100%.

(also keep in mind that a LOT of trump voters were originally bernie supporters, who simply got cheated. now they have sweet revenge.)

So they elect a career fraud, thief and tax cheat?

Cannot say I'm surprised about the amount of subhuman filth in the US, they deserve all the fascist terror they will be getting.

Hail king Drumpf.

Really didn't think I'd see the USA wiped off the map before the 2nd half of the 21st century, great that it will happen now.

Stop being delusional.

Get your Hitler fantasies somewhere else.

Well one can hope.
Unfortunately Trump doesn't have the mental capacity to pull off anything significant.

So he is LITERALLY HITLER!!!!!1111111111111111111

But at the same time he can't tie his shoes?

Lack of consistency.

no, he absolutely has consistency. the consistency of a bowl of pure, putrid turd porridge.

king Drumpf

That's President Trump.

Gotta love salty commies.

lol the melodrama. it would be too easy to dissect and counter everything you just said, but the elections are over, time to move on with our lives. :D
just be glad we dodged that WW3 bullet, brah.

even if it takes electing a buffoon like trump to get things going.

And what will he get going? The promises that change every week? The policies that he suggested that are incoherent or contradictory, memes or even just simply great for more elite domination?

You're terribly naive if you think after all these issues of getting people accountable with normal politicians, who at least have to pretend to be consistent, they can elect Trump and he will do anything meaningful to help the plebs. Out of the goodness of his heart.

No, I'm not naive at all, and I have no expectations for Trump. Like I've said before, things will get worse before they get better. I didn't literally mean that HE would "get things going", but that he's an in-between step as society is moving from point A to point B.

Our civilization is unsustainable on every level. We are making the environment uninhabitable. We have to completely phase out fossil fuels by 2025-30(according to scientists). That's not a very long time, what the fuck have we done since 2000? Nothing.
We're running out of clean drinking water, our oceans are polluted which affect the rest of the ecosystem. We're extremely wasteful with our resources, due to consumerism and a broken monetary/market system. And when resources become scarce, you know what happens.
Automation of jobs is also inevitable, soon we'll need guaranteed minimum income/basic living necessities. A few countries have already toyed with this concept(Switzerland had a referendum on it).

So, my point with all that, is that we are on the decline as a species, have been for some time. According to current projections, we'll simply self-destruct in a few decades. And I'm not exaggerating for dramatic effect or anything. We'll need to make drastic changes, and it's going to be very difficult. If we could cooperate and use science and technology to solve our problems, we could provide for all. But that's not very likely to happen. Especially since you have things like Islam, with a Convert or Die conquering philosophy, that cannot be reasoned with.
So, Trump is merely a step along the way as changes occur.
Just think about this election, what an enormous joke it's been. All time low favourability ratings for the two major candidates. All time low trust for mainstream media, while alternative news keep gaining popularity.
Thanks to groups like WikiLeaks, ppl are waking up to the reality of corruption. We've known this for a while, but it takes longer to register with John Doe with a 9 to 5.
It could've been almost anybody in place of Trump, it just happened to be him.
We all know Trump's many shortcomings. The denial of climate change, the failed Reaganomics, his bankruptcies, his 'success' being based on daddy's hard work, etc. I won't make a list, you (should) know it by now. So, no expectations.
As for his real intentions, who really knows, other than himself? :)
My guess is, the presidency for him is just very simple narcissism.

Right now, people are high on the election aftermath and the celebration of 'winning'. When it fades, they'll realize that all of our problems are still here, and our lives haven't just instantly improved.

(I had to go afk and totally lost my train of thought, it's a wall of text anyway so I'll cut it here. But yea I think you get the point: Of course, Trump has no idea how to solve human problems on a scientific, technological, or social level. Things will continue to worsen gradually, reaching breaking points(like losing your job, not being able to pay rent, natural disasters caused by climate change, etc.), forcing ppl to finally wake up and take action. Might be too late.)

You didnt mention the worst part.

Nuclear plants, aka, hundreds of time bombs each with hundreds of used fuel rods waiting to melt Fukushima style. They need constant active cooling, once the cooling fails, the plant fails.

Global warming is a drop in the ocean compared to nuclear plants.

lol

"most incompetent "

wat? trolling or stupid? The guy created an empire with his bussines, hes much more competent than puppets like Obama and Hillary.

Anyone can end up with an empire eventually with n+1 tries, daddy's money and connections as well as stealing and defrauding masses of people.

Overall what the fuck does that have to do with running for public office?

How is your n+1 tryout going? Got your first million at least?

It has to do with being incompetent. Incompetent people burns capital and liquidate business. Smart people make them generate lotsa $$$.

Trump's dad was a billionaire himself. Trump Jr. had a million to play with / invest as a teenager.

Exactly.
Doesn't matter how much daddy gave him, he got the connections with it.
Sure maybe he took a loan for a few million from daddy, but due to him being his sun he got the backing to get as much loans as he wanted. Then just coin flip - invest it somewhere, if it succeeds you have twice the money you did before, pay back the loans and you're set, if you fail just take new loans, because daddy or daddy's reputation is backing you.

he lives in Estonia. he probably does have millions. in worthless Euros, or whatever third-world currency they have there.

Just for your information, 1 euro is worth more than 1 USD at the moment.

lmao

Estonia. lol, the irony.

Awkward.

the USA is suppose to become bankrupt on the 31/12/16 and has been known for years obama will be its last president,. etc etc

anonymous has had videos about it before

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=...s+bankrupt

those channels have been changing the upload dates and the title of the same video for over 3 years now.

still, america is kept alive by oil, and nobody cares about oil anymore, it won't be long until the 3 trillion dollar deficit that keeps them afloat creeps over the bankrupt line

hillary or trump, america would have been fucked anyway, either of them has to put up all the taxes and make budget cuts hard and fast like the uk had to do and bring the deficit down in 5 years

A total boss in economics and one-liners.

what point is the tweet making?

That a lot of people who were very critical of Bush's foreign policy mellowed when Obama got into office. Now they will be adequately outraged again.

Murphy is my main nigga.

What a time to be alive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2Sz_fTfr1E Here's looped version.
Make America Great Again not war <3

Trump OpieOP

Sure, there is collusion between big business and big government but if anyone wonders which is the dominant party in this relationship, here's my argument for why it's the government.

... don't like Trump but happy Republicans finally win

as for the main stream media...

I love that faggot.

yeah he's cool :)

he's a god among men.

lmao@usa

gl to all 324,720,797 players

Kinda funny hearing people call trump names, when he's a world famous businessman whose built empires while most of the people talking about him have not built anything.

Kinda funny how in spite of massive bias, he knew exactly what to say and do even with all the money and advantages crooked Hilary had with the people in her pocket.

They slag him off, but he could have bought his own island and did nothing but lie back in the sun, instead he choose to get his name dragged through dirt, and subject himself of the very real danger of being assassinated to give something back to his country because he has NO other reason to do this.

Remarkable man IMO.

I think he'll surprise everyone and you could do far worse than a business genius who'll fight and gives a shit about his people.

Don't forget his polices will have to get approved, so its not like he's going to run chaos. Plus much of the rhetoric about trump being a bad man is the usual over inflation from the left as they see anything that does not agree with their way as evil and bad so they can take you down with their buzzwords.

Jamming!

The vast majority of people are fucking retards don't forget that.

#IAmVerySmart

This isn't reddit so kindly fuck off

world famous businessman

-- Famous BAFTA Winning Game Designer

He's a president that openly talks about sexually assaulting women. Every single girl that gets assaulted in school because the President says it's all cool if you say it's a joke in the end will be credited to his deranged attitude. The guy is a clown, a liar, a tax fraud expert who went bankrupt 7 times (iirc) and god knows how many small companies did he destroy along the way.

We had a very similar guy run for mayor in my town 8 years ago. A clown businessman whose only good side was that he wasn't a politician. The attitude 'he's got money so he's gonna fuck us up less' ended up with him employing his whole family in the city service and spending a lot of city money to build docks for his hotel while the city turned to shit.

Whoever celebrates picking that orange piece of shit is a retard by default. Noone should feel bad in their own country just because their name is ahmad or fucking carlito. His own wife is an immigrant. All of his buildings were built by cheap workforce.



Then again, hillary is equally terrible, just in a different way.

I hear normal woman, 20-30, constantly saying things on par with, and above what he said about grabbing womens ######, on a regular basis.

I do not think locker room talk means anything. Did not anyone else remember locker room talk? I hear this and worse every day at work around the horney women lol.

lol. are you triggered? crawl back to huffpo, cuck.

as triggered as you waking up to that same face every morning

We had a very similar guy run for mayor in my town 8 years ago. A clown businessman whose only good side was that he wasn't a politician. The attitude 'he's got money so he's gonna fuck us up less' ended up with him employing his whole family in the city service and spending a lot of city money to build docks for his hotel while the city turned to shit.

Shocker: this happened with Trump as well.

Oh my.
https://youtu.be/tx7_yz6Jusk
https://youtu.be/Mi2F5vB20KM


Can't wait till January.
I can call people fags again.
Can start hunting muslims.
Get to put all those extra bed sheets in the closet to good use.
It's halloween every sataurday With a big bright fire.
And don't think we're not inclusive. we hold all are parties at black peoples houses.

I think you're being facetious, but unfortunately what you're saying is probably true, which is scary as fuck. 10 steps back for civilized society.

That's the narrative the media has put out over the last year.
you can thank them.

People forget he was a democrat.

What? No, thats the conclusion I've come to myself as an intelligent and critical citizen who is concerned for both his family and his country. I don't care if he's a fucking saint, Donald Trump draws out, encourages, and empowers a large amount of hatred and discrimination that I believe to be bad for the country (and my family), so the fact that he may have identified as a Democrat doesn't matter.

hahahahahaha. I already knew you were a complete welfare, entitled, liberal-cuck faggot from how you exploit warp for free frags in Quake with no actual skill. I'm totally not surprised this is merely a reflection of your general leech-like worldview of pure naivete and idiocy, to boot.

don't worry, e-bird shitbird. your 10 ping warp IL toxicity safe-space is two clicks away at any time.

'About half of eligible Americans voted in the 2016 presidential election'

So that means there's around 100 million lazy cunts that cba to vote, good job 'murica ((((

How would it make democracy better?
plz explain thx

Nothing to explain?

My point was simple, out of the eligible voters, a truly massive amount of people didn't care to use their vote, it was a low turn out for such a monumental event. I simple can't understand why so many Americans didn't use their right to cast an opinion in the form of a vote. Can you?

The vote is secret. No opinion is cast by it.

If you vote on a strawpoll for map choices in tdm, you are casting an anonymous opinion of map choice. My point was who in their right mind would not cast their vote, I don't understand your point. Opinion/choice/preference are interchangeable words in my statement. The secrecy of the vote is irrelevant, the action of voting can change the outcome and result of an election or strawpoll.

If dm20 is losing by 20 votes to tornado, I may as well save myself the click and 5 seconds of my life. If I can only vote on who will represent Poland in the electoral college vote for the mappool, and I know that Poland has always been 2:1 tornado favourites, my vote for a representative who likes dm20 is an excercise in futility.

In the case of a national election, the likelihood of tipping the vote in my favour is lower and the time and effort savings are higher.

If the potential benefit doesn't justify the very certain cost, it's precisely the people in their right mind who will not take action, unless someone feels good about identifying with a certain "faction" but that can be the case without taking part in a vote.

Your scenario suggests the likely outcome of the election was a foregone conclusion, when in fact it wasn't. It also focuses on you voting as a single entity, whereas my original point was that 50% of the electorate didn't vote. Statistically, 50% of voters have a very high chance to effect the outcome.

But i think pacmanpl sums it up perfectly, 'people just don't give a fuck.'

"Your scenario suggests the likely outcome of the election was a foregone conclusion, when in fact it wasn't."

My scenario is what the electoral system in the US is. Noone who voted for Trump in New York or California had any impact on him winning. They could have stayed home and he still would have won. Same deal with Hillary voters in the red states - literally no impact because all the electoral votes went to Trump regardless whether he got 51% or 99% of the vote in a given state.

Secondly, an individual's choice whether or not to vote has to be analyzed from the perspective of the individual. Nationwide Hillary had 200 000 more votes (there is still several million votes to count btw.), so one vote makes no difference.

"It also focuses on you voting as a single entity, whereas my original point was that 50% of the electorate didn't vote. Statistically, 50% of voters have a very high chance to effect the outcome."

When you say that 50% of the electorate has a high chance of influencing the result, well, true, but so is, for example, counting only every other vote. But there is no reason to assume that when the pool of votes changes, it will sway the elections in a particular direction. If more people had voted, maybe it would have favoured Trump more heavily, maybe it would have made Hillary the president.

'If more people had voted, maybe it would have favoured Trump more heavily, maybe it would have made Hillary the president.'

Your statement there is exactly my original point lol, we've been in a big circle gienon <3

I do however agree with your other comments, and as experienced with brexit, come to the conclusion that the voting system on national matters is flawed. A candidate can have the majority vote in raw numbers, but still lose due to having less electoral area wins. Separating a country into areas, for a national vote, is just an inaccurate way to take votes, and open to manipulation, as was the case with Bush. It changes the odds of the outcome.

Nice discussion though, enjoyed ))

p.s. maybe the Electoral Colleges will vote for Clinton, and ignore their states vote for Trump. Highly unlikely but still legal and still feasible lol

I do however agree with your other comments, and as experienced with brexit, come to the conclusion that the voting system on national matters is flawed. A candidate can have the majority vote in raw numbers, but still lose due to having less electoral area wins. Separating a country into areas, for a national vote, is just an inaccurate way to take votes, and open to manipulation, as was the case with Bush. It changes the odds of the outcome.

If we don't want regional differences to be taken into account, then perhaps we ought to separate these regions into different countries. People in different regions live different realities and opinion discrepancies are bound to happen. Without a system with regions in mind, people in less densely populated places basically will have to live by rules they don't get to decide and possibly largely don't agree with. That's not good.

Regional differences should be taken to account, but only on regional matters. In the UK people vote for different political parties than they would for a General Election (national vote). It's an entirely different vote. But again this national vote is divided into separate areas, when it simply shouldn't be.

When the Americans went to vote between Trump and Clinton, it's a Federal vote, and should have no bearing on State governance, and hence should not be counted on a regional basis.

Do you not understand the concept that someone in state 'X' might want to vote Republican for a state election, but prefer the Democratic Presidential candidate? It's a very common thing in the UK that party 'A' runs your local area the best, but you wouldn't want their party leader as Prime Minister, so in a General Election you vote for party 'B'.

People just don't give a fuck.

why should anyone necessarily have an opinion about arbitrary things like narrowly-contested presidential elections? and/or why should their lack of voting be an inherent reflection of apparent complacency?

god. liberal idiots just cannot fathom the concept of NUANCE. it's honestly really, very simple. but simple to a liberal is.. well. their basic economic philosophy hinges upon massively recursive levels of debt-spending, and a monetary system which has no fundamental rational tie to value. when you think of it that way, it beggars the mind why one should even be remotely surprised. I'm just kinda used to assuming humanity is mostly capable of at least a modicum of intellectual fortitude. alas.. liberalism, Western Civilization's most plaguing mental disease.

Yeah man, that pisses me off so much!

what makes you think they're lazy or that they "can't be arsed?" or that they're necessarily "cunts" because of some preconceived, backward notions you have dredged up in your head as a result of years of public education?

oh. I guess I answered my own question.

Can someone help explain something to me as I'm unfamilar with american politics? Why are people so scared of Trump? Like people think it's the end of the world because he might shoot nukes, build walls etc but afaik usa isn't a dictatorship so whatever his plans people need to vote to push through his plans. So it seems to me either Trump cannot deliver on his words because no one will be on his side or he won't be as extreme as we think he'll be because real life is much more mundane.

He Still has a lot more power to do those things than he did before. Im fact, he now has more power to do those things than anyone else in the USA. So if you don't like the possibility of the things he might do with that power (I certainly don't), then you are scared of trump.

Everyone has been reading the news which will tell you that Trump is a rapist, and also a puppet for the Russians, but he is also going to launch nukes at the Russians, starting world war 3, and that all the illegals will be gassed :>>

In reality, Trump is no more extreme than the articles that are on his website make him look. He will be able to get things done because the senate is also a majority republican senate, which means that the Democrats cant slow him down. They've completely lost control. Everyone is going to whine really badly about it no matter what happens, which will be funny.

I was watching the election live and they said some states by law have to follow what the people voted for instead of the electoral college's vote which means some republican senators could hate trump in those states right?

the electoral college only decides on the president, that is all. Some states, instead of giving all electoral votes if one majority wins, will split them based on which districts voted on what. Only Maine and one other state uses this system.

Senators are not voted for by the electoral college. Republican senators do not pass laws in the states that they represent, the governor does this.

Yeah I have no clue lol.

The US has been extending presidential power, especially recently, and is already a presidential country. The president can start war maneuvers without congress consent if he doesn't declare it officially . That's one thing. The other is that Trump has less people he's beholden, which makes him more free to do whatever. Finally, he didn't know what a nuclear triad was recently, and much of his rhetoric about foreign policy has been flipflopping, from isolationist to completely mad ('I would bomb the s--- out of' ISIS).

So US president has lots of power, Trump has less strings, he's incompetent and we have no idea what he wants to do with his inconsistent statements.

I hope it turns out well but I don't think we know what's gonna happen. I'm somewhat scared of him letting up on NATO to the degree that we (Lithuania) aren't protected anymore.

I see, thanks for actually showing a convincing for the Trump scare lol.

america is nothing todo with nato, most armed forces are british, german and french

americans just do the paper work

What about decisions?

https://blogs.state.gov/sites/default/files/s...eeting.jpg

Why are people so scared of Trump?

the government, the crony capitalist, globalist, Marxist elites and their media cohorts, are exactly those responsible for the average American's educational curricula.

does that start to give you some idea?

Libtards raging in new york.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAS9CeqOz78

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-39220...untry.html

they so fucking mad lol, all the illegal mexicans are shitting themselves, time to fuck off back to mexico.

And all the muslims with entitlement issues are mad as fuck that they now have to integrate properly with american society or get sent back home to catch a bullet

Behold, actual policy: http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-...t-100-days

* FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205
* SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership

Tbh, opposing TTP and NAFTA makes all the anti-minority nonsense almost worth it.

FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately

emph. mine, this sounds weird, mainly because all foreign<->US trade apart from exports and importing ressources negatively impacts american workers ("unfairly" is a meaningless buzzword)

* FOURTH, a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service;
* FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government;
* SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

Too bad he doesn't know what a lobbyist is. Or doesn't want to do anything against them.

* SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure
* FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars' worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.

Not good in my opinion. It seems he really does believe that climate change is a chinese conspiracy.

It's not about conspiracies, but instead all about economics.

China's Coal/Natural Gas consumption is far great than many western nations combined, so any resolutions that curb our own import/consumption of these resources simply frees them up in the marketplace and further reduces any incentive China has to commit to alternatives.

The real solution would be to buy up as much coal from the international market as a whole and stockpile amongst various western entities in order to put massive pressure on China to make changes NOW, instead of when it may be too late. However, very few people in government understand this. Trump's policies may not be very forward thinking, but the rationale is simply thus: If China is ignoring international efforts to address carbon pollution, then why should America keep (or increase) its dependence on foreign fossil fuels, when it could be making the lives of its citizens easier and stronger.

The sad truth is that the U.N. has a long history of being unable to coerce China to pursue Earthwise policies so a shift of resources back into the economies of its member states to seek measures of their own accord is likely more effective at this juncture.

Personally, I hope the Chinese people see the light before they doom us all in the name of Nationalism.

i dont really follow politics much but the only analysis I can make is that people are starting to vote for the risky option, the unknown.... Basically because there are so many professional politicians that are so corrupt nowadays that the mistrust is huge, despite having great carreers.

It is happening in almost every "democratic" country, political class has lost all its credibility because they abused their position, right or left wing, they thought they are untouchable.

in other words americans voting for Trump instead of Hilary shows that people are tired of politicians.

nope, trump is only one who is willing to do something against illegal immigration ... thats why most people elected him ... I am pretty sure that many american saw the absolute misery that is going on in europe and try to prevent another Merkel reigning in her country at all costs

obama deported more people than any other president in the last 30 years, how is that not fighting against illegals?

Trump won because middle class is being ruined, regular people are starting to lose jobs or have jobs with less wage while the rich people get richer because of globalization. That's the majority in USA, blacks, whites, men, woman, asians, etc... who are working more for less or not working at all.

What misery is going on in Europe? Are you talking about the refugees or illegals? Because that's a whole different story...

99% of them were from guantanamo bay

the u.s. has still a pretty low unemployment rate ... so they are not as much affected as you try to say with jobloss, etc ... actually all I read in the news is that the economy is getting better and better there and that the crisis is over ... the software developers over there still earn pretty good salaries ... so nothing of that is true ...

Pretty low? Their numbers are so fucking doctored. They dont count the people NOT LOOKING FOR WORK. I think the people out of work and not working is roughly 94 MILLION. Not the 4.4 (ish) percent these libtard fucks want to repeat.

this article says otherwise concerning your 90 million number:
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/10/21/wha...bor-force/

He won't do anything significant, all talk no action as usual.
What is he going to do? The wall thing is and always has been bullshit and he cannot marry them all.

ESR....where even Billionaires are failures & full of shit.

John D. Carmack II should have been the winner.


ALL HAIL TECHNOCRACY.

More rioting from the tolerant left :)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-39220...untry.html

Beautiful scenes.

Reading Scott Adams' blog alongside the elections was quite interesting:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152734465316/unh...-supporter
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/150919416661/why...clinton-to

11 / 9, never forget.

China!

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-...t-100-days

>D

Only thing missing on that list is legalizing online poker in the states.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/09/the-re...h-is-dead/

Nuff said.

88 percent of blacks voted Hilary.
98 percent of blacks used to vote for Obama.

Similar stats for Muslim's in the UK voting Labour, now they have their Muslim/sleeper mayor in London.

White people woke up and finally realized the multiculturalism rhetoric they have been force fed was just way a to weaken them while strengthening everyone else who behaved infinitely more racist and mono-cultural and would do if they ever become as saturated.

BREXIT was about immigration.
TRUMPS #1 issue is immigration.

Just look at how multi cultural Muslims are, as long as you don't ask them to give up anything, its cool.

Big Con.

except most people in britain are thick assholes, along with most of the media

they talk about netmigration where 80% of migrants are african, which EU laws have nothing todo with

while EU laws allow people to move about freely, you can only stay in another EU country for 6 months with only a EU passport, before you need to leave to apply for a visa, and immigration and migration to and from the uk has always been 300,000 a year since the early 90s

"they talk about netmigration where 80% of migrants are african, which EU laws have nothing to do with"

As long as we remain part of the EU we are powerless to stop people coming in.

The EU has made it somehow socially acceptable for the 3rd world to pack up their shit and move here. And that's exactly what many of them are doing.

They have no right to be here.
They are not wanted.
They are not needed.

We've been forced into a situation where giving people an inch has resulted in them taking a mile. Being tolerant and decent has descended into a never ending take piss where we're still being called rotten. And that expectation will never stop until we half the worlds poor living in our sheds.

It started with donating clothes and money and food and water.

Now they expect a house and money for life to be in a country which is one of the most densely populated in Europe. And all they need to do to get it is to break in.

What kind of retarded shit is that?

We now know the only way to stop it is to empty our hands of grain and close our hands, and stop feeding them.

If they make it back at home...great.
If they don't, then that's life.

Lefties will subscribe us to poverty and when the chaos kicks in, they'll just shrug their shoulders and go Oops!, by which time, it will be too late.

Did you really think we would sit back and let these ridiculous people ruin things?

I find it hilarious lefties talk about all the progress they have made, of course they stay quiet when we're living among people plotting to kill us, setup rape gangs which target white women in our major cities.

There are SO MANY negative aspects of immigration that certain people have tried to brush under the carpet.

Just look at the murder map in London.
http://www.murdermap.co.uk/news.asp

Virtually every day someone who's not been in this country for more than a few decades is killing someone.

We've imported too many bad eggs.
No more are needed or wanted.

not powerless, people leave the uk to go and stay in europe

uk has its own laws, which come into play after EU citizens 6 months are up, or from day 1 when the rest of the world comes to the uk

your just talking shit like ukip and the media, its all on national statistics

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcom...dmigration

"not powerless, people leave the uk to go and stay in europe"

Numbers are irrelevant, its the type of people coming in vs those who are leaving.

British people generally don't leave the UK penniless and destitue to go and live in the countries where they break into illegally, then are given a house, money, healthcare for free.

You're talking bollocks, you probably don't even have a job and will spend your life on benefits, so of course you want the system to keep looking after these people because you're in there somewhere like a little tick living out some meaningless existence.

P.S.

http://esreality.com/post/2847223/re-free-cle...something/

"working in a amazon warehouse will be easy if you have a forklift licence, everytime they advertise im suppose to goto the registration day in bristol, then you work out its £200 a month on the train to get there"

Reach for the stars my man.

"working in a amazon warehouse will be easy if you have a forklift licence, everytime they advertise im suppose to goto the registration day in bristol, then you work out its £200 a month on the train to get there"

Reach for the stars my man.

cunted

White people woke up and finally realized the multiculturalism rhetoric

tell that to the Polish who get harassed and even murdered in post-Brexit UK

Do people really do that in the UK? do you have any articles or police records you could point me towards? That sounds terrible!

That's mostly just BS put out by the media and lefties who mostly want to hijack Brexit and reverse it. Yes they will lie.

There are over 800,000 poles in the UK, guess what, some of them are going to get killed in the same ways many other ethics and home grown do. People die and get attacked from supporting a different football team, for their skin color, for their religion, and yes from their accent.
its life. I would not say there is a huge spike in attacks since Brexit. I would say there is a huge spike in the media and people abot it lying though.

Secondly, our country has been used and abused by foreigners for way too long now, whom our GVT have let pour in here with no thought or consideration to the social factors its having/had.
its just about how much money per hour they can earn.

That was the sole reason why Brexit won, because people have simply had enough and knew the only way to stop it was to get out of the EU.

The piss has been taken for way too long. And this country is not better for it.
The only people who benefited are the immigrants themselves and the liberals because they know they've got a free vote coming their way. But there are way more of us than them. So we voted to take it back.

People are really pissed off in this country at how their towns and cities are being radically changed in a small period of time.
Not for the better.

We have borders and religions, and cultures for a reason, people are different, and thinking it was ever going to work out great by allowing free movement through europe was a deluded and short sighted practice which is now crashing all around us. All it would do is stop people making their own countries work, because they could just go elsewhere.

Trump won because of immigration.
Brexit won because of immigration.

Sweden became the rape capital of Europe because of immigration.

Immigration is fine, but not when you're filling your land full of low end people and pissing off the indigenous by calling them racists, bigots nazis. Which is what is happening and that is why you now have the movement you do.

And it will only get worse. Its going to crash and burn, and i'm going to fan the flames along the way.

.

When your biggest selling point is 'better than Trump', you're not a very strong candidate. The loss of HIllary and DNC serves them right given what they've done to nominate Hillary. Seeing her lose was really satisfying.

should've been Bernie

I agree on its first part, but Bernie is not a good candidate. A former socialist will not fly in an america that is trying to digest Obamacare with massive pains. He didn't lose to Hillary because it was rigged, he just can't have enough reach in the US (maybe rightfully so), even despite the strong anti estalishment sentiment.

I don't know. He gained a lot of traction towards the end, who knows how much more that would've been hadn't the DNC and the media systematically and actively repressed him. I think he would have a really good shot at being the candidate if everything was handled fair and square.

"Bernie is not a good candidate."

Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump general election polls:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/...-5565.html
oops. bernie pooped all over him.


"A former socialist will not fly in an america that is trying to digest Obamacare with massive pains."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-su...ystem.aspx


"He didn't lose to Hillary because it was rigged"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic...email_leak
all explained in detail.
for a shorter read, pick one of the few hundred dozen news articles that covered the story.
http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-...democracy/
for a longer read, you can search the 20k emails yourself: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/


I LOVE how you're FACTUALLY WRONG on everything you say.