Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 112

anyone got a link to his manifesto? i can only find scraps of it

On March 15 2019 16:47 Loco wrote: Done. Let's just do a huge bet. You said you'd make it fair and ask the poor. Let's do it in the barrios in Venezuela. I think it would be ideal to send a third party with you though, I don't trust that you will do this properly on your own. (Can you blame me? Look at what you just did with the pictures...). If you choke and insist to stay in Mexico, I accept if you go to Chiapas where the poorest people reside. You are going to ask if they support Juan Guaido as the legitimate president of Venezuela (and why they do or don't). You will also ask them if they thought that Chavez was a "boogeyman" as you claim.. i.e. whether he did more harm than good. That second one can just be a side bet.

* 100nl regs playing and one is talking shit

- Thats it, lets play HU you cunt

_ Ok, lets play 8 tables of 5,000nl

- -___- typical dodge

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not fucking going to Venezuela.

Chiapas has 4 times as many people as Quebec, this is Chiapas:








I know that in your mind they are all riding donkeys because thats what you imagine while reading crap in your socialist propaganda outlets about the EZLN.

Do you want me to drive 9+ hours to chiapas, then drive another 6+hours into the mountainous jungle to speak with indigenous people who dont know how to read or write about Juan Guaido (who they have no idea who he is or even Maduro or Chavez)? I'm obviously not doing that.


I will go downtown which is a mid-low income zone and ask 100 people a simple binary question.

edited my skin color post to put the picture, forgot to add it.*

On March 16 2019 00:54 Stroggoz wrote: anyone got a link to his manifesto? i can only find scraps of it

there is an archieve of the post of 8chan where he posted it I think, google it up.

Its full of inside memes, a minefield for journalist, its going to require a "contrapoints" kind of work to decypher this one.

On March 16 2019 00:16 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On March 15 2019 16:01 Loco wrote: Have not read any of the posts yet. Just came to say that New Zealand has just had its worst mass shooting in its history. Who was responsible? Antifa? Jihadists? Neo-fascism isn't a real problem though; like Baal said just two days ago, it's just in my imagination. you are the two sides of the same coin.

Dear god. You are telling a guy who has never voluntarily physically harmed another human being, who even abstains from eating animal products, that he is the equivalent of a guy who has just live streamed himself slaughtering 49 harmless people. Just how far off the rails are you going to go? I don't know what to say to you.

These guys fight ISIS: people who enslave people, terrorize them, rape them, mutilate them, murder them. They fight them because they don't believe anyone should do these things, because these things are a threat to peace and democracy. According to you, they are the same thing as a result. Just amazing.

On March 16 2019 00:56 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On March 15 2019 16:47 Loco wrote: Done. Let's just do a huge bet. You said you'd make it fair and ask the poor. Let's do it in the barrios in Venezuela. I think it would be ideal to send a third party with you though, I don't trust that you will do this properly on your own. (Can you blame me? Look at what you just did with the pictures...). If you choke and insist to stay in Mexico, I accept if you go to Chiapas where the poorest people reside. You are going to ask if they support Juan Guaido as the legitimate president of Venezuela (and why they do or don't). You will also ask them if they thought that Chavez was a "boogeyman" as you claim.. i.e. whether he did more harm than good. That second one can just be a side bet. * 100nl regs playing and one is talking shit - Thats it, lets play HU you cunt _ Ok, lets play 8 tables of 5,000nl - -___- typical dodge ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm not fucking going to Venezuela.

It's not the same thing, you said that the one thing stopping you from going to Venezuela is the amount of money. But if that was the only thing, I'd be fine betting a large amount. The Venezuelans are the ones who have lived under Chavez and Maduro, they are the most reliable people to poll.

There are two problems. First, you claim that large polls from diverse sources are all unreliable, but you don't explain why. So I'm supposed to grant that to you for some reason, and accept that you can come up with a more reliable way to find out what the real consensus is. You tell me to put my money where my mouth is. My position is that the majority of the Venezuelans don't want Guaido. It's not that most people in downtown Puebla are aware that most Venezuelans don't want Guaido. I have no idea if they know that, so why would I bet thousands on it? I'd only do it if I know that the Mexicans you poll have a reason to be well-informed... i .e. they share a common struggle with the Chavistas and the other anti-imperalists, so that's why I say it's acceptable if you go to Chiapas, even if it's not to the ELZN directly... they are close enough, I'd be willing to bet that just by virtue of proximity and being the poorest state, and with the history of their state, they are largely anti-imperialists. I could be wrong though.

When I said that the picture of the countries supporting Guaido did not represent a democratic consensus, I was stating a fact. I was not in any way implying that I was confident that more than 50% of people didn't support it in a small sample in some areas of those countries. The truth is I have no idea how politically aware the people in your area are. There's no reason for me to bet anything on such an unknown, and that is why you proposed it, knowing that it would be an unrepresentative sample that doesn't teach us anything anyway.

If you are convinced that most people you'll poll support Guaido and you think it means something, then you don't need a profit motive, you can just do it for the pleasure of owning me. A simple binary question means that it would take you less than an hour to ask 100 people. I'm certainly curious to find out if people are as ill-informed as you in your area, but I'm not willing to bet on it.

On March 16 2019 01:13 Loco wrote: Dear god. You are telling a guy who has never voluntarily physically harmed another human being, who even abstains from eating animal products, that he is the equivalent of a guy who has just live streamed himself slaughtering 49 harmless people. Just how far off the rails are you going to go? I don't know what to say to you. These guys fight ISIS: people who enslave people, terrorize them, rape them, mutilate them, murder them. So they are the equivalent of them because they fight them too?

I'm obviously not directly comparing you to the shooter, and objectivly ANTIFA isn't remotely as bad as NAZI groups but they are the two sides of a coin with warped views of threats and are willing to initiate violence to stop those percieved threats.

When americans go paranoid about muslims terrorists its easy to laugh how its more likely they die from a vending machine crushing them than a terrorist attack, but when a Nazi kills minorities then fearing that is justified to the point that we have to curtail freedom of speech and we have to proactively harm people to stop this.

Many more MAGA soldiers than ANTIFA soldiers fighting ISIS, does that make MAGA good?

I think what you fail to see is that nobody thinks they are a bad, this guy didn't see himself as evil, he sees himself like a martyr for a great cause, thats why I have a HUGE issue against initiating political violence, when one does it it justifies it for everybody else, no matter how rightful you think your cause is, they think the same of their own.

Yeah but that's just because you are a comfortable fool who has no skin in the game. You can afford to play these games of righteous non-violence because you don't have to defend yourself or your community. Once your survival is on the line, things change, but you don't understand that living in your individualistic bubble, with your Margaret Thatcher philosophy.

Your point makes no sense, you think that you are righteous too, but you don't include yourself on that same coin, how is that? Because you collapse the coin into meaninglessness by only taking into account one variable: violence. We don't judge people based on how they see themselves, we judge them based on their actions and what motivates their actions. But you have decided that what motivates antifascists is violence for the sake of violence, and you will forever work backwards from this conclusion, imagining that it can only ever be counter-productive to respond to violence with violence, even when the facts say otherwise (like it does in Syria where ISIS is pretty much gone).

Many more MAGA soldiers than ANTIFA soldiers fighting ISIS, does that make MAGA good?

No there aren't, what the fuck are you talking about? You think white nationalist air strikers outnumber the Kurds and their allies fighting on the ground? .... They are ALL antifa.

On March 16 2019 01:59 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On March 16 2019 00:56 Baalim wrote:   On March 15 2019 16:47 Loco wrote: Done. Let's just do a huge bet. You said you'd make it fair and ask the poor. Let's do it in the barrios in Venezuela. I think it would be ideal to send a third party with you though, I don't trust that you will do this properly on your own. (Can you blame me? Look at what you just did with the pictures...). If you choke and insist to stay in Mexico, I accept if you go to Chiapas where the poorest people reside. You are going to ask if they support Juan Guaido as the legitimate president of Venezuela (and why they do or don't). You will also ask them if they thought that Chavez was a "boogeyman" as you claim.. i.e. whether he did more harm than good. That second one can just be a side bet. * 100nl regs playing and one is talking shit - Thats it, lets play HU you cunt _ Ok, lets play 8 tables of 5,000nl - -___- typical dodge ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm not fucking going to Venezuela. It's not the same thing, you said that the one thing stopping you from going to Venezuela is the amount of money. But if that was the only thing, I'd be fine betting a large amount. The Venezuelans are the ones who have lived under Chavez and Maduro, they are the most reliable people to poll. There are two problems. First, you claim that large polls from diverse sources are all unreliable, but you don't explain why. So I'm supposed to grant that to you for some reason, and accept that you can come up with a more reliable way to find out what the real consensus is. You tell me to put my money where my mouth is. My position is that the majority of the Venezuelans don't want Guaido. It's not that most people in downtown Puebla are aware that most Venezuelans don't want Guaido. I have no idea if they know that, so why would I bet thousands on it? I'd only do it if I know that the Mexicans you poll have a reason to be well-informed... i .e. they share a common struggle with the Chavistas and the other anti-imperalists, so that's why I say it's acceptable if you go to Chiapas, even if it's not to the ELZN directly... they are close enough, I'd be willing to bet that just by virtue of proximity and being the poorest state, and with the history of their state, they are largely anti-imperialists. I could be wrong though. When I said that the picture of the countries supporting Guaido did not represent a democratic consensus, I was stating a fact. I was not in any way implying that I was confident that more than 50% of people didn't support it in a small sample in some areas of those countries. The truth is I have no idea how politically aware the people in your area are. There's no reason for me to bet anything on such an unknown, and that is why you proposed it, knowing that it would be an unrepresentative sample that doesn't teach us anything anyway.

to make it short I"m not going to Venezuela, the ammount of money required for me to do that alongside with my margin of confidence of the result isn't enough to justify it.

Your assumption that Chiapas is against imperialism is correct, so is most of Mexico and latinamericans, in general we have a very bad perception of the US government more so with Trumps as president and the obvious history of interventionalism, however our perception is also that Chavez and Maduro were terrible presidents and destroyed Venezuela, and you don't seem to believe me on that so that was the point of the bet, to prove you that its true.

To be honest, the bet is an absolute lock for me, I would bet my entire net worth on it, I would estimate that I would win it at 95 to 5 or something like that, there is a reason why Lopez Obrador never ever publicly aligned himself with Chavez, he would have lost the elections if he did.

Its stupid that you presume that you know much better than me the collective sentiment of the people towards a political figure and think I dont know because im a lightskin or something, I've told you many times that my social circle leans left, most of my friends have careers in social sciences.

So to sum it up, latinamerica hate imperialism but we also hate Chavez

If you are convinced that most people you'll poll support Guaido and you think it means something, then you don't need a profit motive, you can just do it for the pleasure of owning me. A simple binary question means that it would take you less than an hour to ask 100 people. I'm certainly curious to find out if people are as ill-informed as you in your area, but I'm not willing to bet on it.

They dont support Guaido, (I would be surprised if more than 10% of people downtown knew who he was) they hate and fear Chavez/Maduro

And no thanks I wont do it for free... I own you on a daily basis with far less effort

On March 16 2019 02:39 Loco wrote: Yeah but that's just because you are a comfortable fool who has no skin in the game. You can afford to play these games of righteous non-violence because you don't have to defend yourself or your community. Once your survival is on the line, things change, but you don't understand that living in your individualistic bubble, with your Margaret Thatcher philosophy.

The shooter thought he was saving his heritage from oblivion from invaders, he felt he had skin in the game.

You say "survival is on the line", you think as if you were in a trench in verdum fighting nazis, you both have the same paranoid schizophrenic view of the world.

I have the same skin in the game as eveyrbody else, you think I dont because you consider me a lightskin, and if i had darker skin you would simply say I'm a deluded Uncle Tom.

But you have decided that what motivates antifascists is violence for the sake of violence, and you will forever work backwards from this conclusion,

No, violence is a mean, not a motivation.

The motivation for Nazis isn't violence either, they want a clean homogenous and prosperous society, and they will pursue this goal through violence.

I don't think Antifa pursues violence, they want an inclusive, empathetic and prosperous society, and they will pursue this goal through violence.

This doesn't mean both ideas are equally valid of course, it just means that they are automatically wrong when you use violence as a mean to archieve it.

imagining that it can only ever be counter-productive to respond to violence with violence, even when the facts say otherwise

I'm fine with violence in self defense but it has to be a direct initiation of force against you first, you can claim ideological violence and act upon it, the shooter will easily say that "the great replacement" is a form of violence against so he is defending himself, thats why self defense cannot be from ideologies.

So if you do see a Nazi pull a gun on a minority then by all means, put a bullet between his eyes.

To sum it up, the people who didn't live under Chavez are the ones who hate him the most. It's no surprise considering how much propaganda there has been against the guy, I don't know anyone else who has been more targeted by misinformation campaigns than him. Most of the people who did live under him don't hate him, even those who didn't like him very much for specific reasons. Living under him, it was essentially only the rich gochos who regarded him as one of the worst leaders in history. John Pilger has a very comical scene with one of them in "The War on Democracy".

I also feel like the bet would work in my favor, but that's because I am thinking of the correct bet, the one that is representative of the picture that you posted. The picture is about which countries recognized Guaido as legitimate, not about which countries regard Maduro with disdain, so the bet would be about Maduro versus Guaido, necessarily. My position from the beginning is that the Venezuelans want change, but that change cannot come at the cost of their sovereignty; that they hate imperalism more than they hate Maduro for his incompetence. That's where my money is.

On March 16 2019 03:18 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On March 16 2019 02:39 Loco wrote: Yeah but that's just because you are a comfortable fool who has no skin in the game. You can afford to play these games of righteous non-violence because you don't have to defend yourself or your community. Once your survival is on the line, things change, but you don't understand that living in your individualistic bubble, with your Margaret Thatcher philosophy. The shooter thought he was saving his heritage from oblivion from invaders, he felt he had skin in the game. You say "survival is on the line", you think as if you were in a trench in verdum fighting nazis, you both have the same paranoid schizophrenic view of the world. I have the same skin in the game as eveyrbody else, you think I dont because you consider me a lightskin, and if i had darker skin you would simply say I'm a deluded Uncle Tom.   But you have decided that what motivates antifascists is violence for the sake of violence, and you will forever work backwards from this conclusion, No, violence is a mean, not a motivation. The motivation for Nazis isn't violence either, they want a clean homogenous and prosperous society, and they will pursue this goal through violence. I don't think Antifa pursues violence, they want an inclusive, empathetic and prosperous society, and they will pursue this goal through violence. This doesn't mean both ideas are equally valid of course, it just means that they are automatically wrong when you use violence as a mean to archieve it.   imagining that it can only ever be counter-productive to respond to violence with violence, even when the facts say otherwise I'm fine with violence in self defense but it has to be a direct initiation of force against you first, you can claim ideological violence and act upon it, the shooter will easily say that "the great replacement" is a form of violence against so he is defending himself, thats why self defense cannot be from ideologies. So if you do see a Nazi pull a gun on a minority then by all means, put a bullet between his eyes.

"I have the same skin in the game as eveyrbody else"

Are there cops outside of your home right now? Because there are cops around the mosques here, since the New Zealand killer had the name of the Quebec city mosque shooter on his gun. There are people who are fearing for their life, who think that they take a big risk going out with a head scarf. That's having skin in the game. Once your closest friends or relatives have been slaughtered, or once you'll feel unsafe leaving your home because people not only question your humanity, but want you to physically leave, you can put your "only direct retaliation is warranted, let them organize" ideals to the test and claim to have skin in the game. Until then, your idealism is just some disconnected and false heroism.

I am not saying that I am in the trenches. I don't have skin in that game; I'm not targeted. What I have is solidarity with the people who do, and I am willing to hear them out on what they think are the best strategies to protect themselves. I am placing more weight of their opinions than mine. I also believe that I share a global struggle with them against the structures that fuel intolerant ideologies.

On March 16 2019 03:46 Loco wrote: Are there cops outside of your home right now? Because there are cops around the mosques here, since the New Zealand killer had the name of the Quebec city mosque shooter on his gun. There are people who are fearing for their life, who think that they take a big risk going out with a head scarf. That's having skin in the game.

The same way westerners fear after a islamist terrorist attack, do they have skin in the game or not?

Lol police outside mosques...dude I live in Mexico, I'm 10 times more likely to get shot in the face today than any scarf-wearing muslim in Quebec.

Once your closest friends or relatives have been slaughtered, or once you'll feel unsafe leaving your home because people not only question your humanity, but want you to physically leave, you can put your "only direct retaliation is warranted, let them organize" ideals to the test and claim to have skin in the game.

As you know a close friend was slaughtered by homophobes, I dont profess the ideology of going punching homophobes in the face.

What about you, what family died slaughtered by fascist? oh... no one? then shut the fuck up.

What I have is solidarity with the people who do, and I am willing to hear them out on what they think are the best strategies to protect themselves. I am placing more weight of their opinions than mine

Yeah you weight their opinion sooooo heavily, unless they contradict your ideology, then you probably tell them their skin is too light or that they are ill-informed uncle toms.



So you've heard the voices of the opressed and they whisper to your ear "censor and punch nazis", what if they whisper "kill nazis", is that kosher too or thats too far?

On March 14 2019 20:06 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On March 14 2019 08:17 Santafairy wrote: Almost forgot about the, lol, Email scandal. Its pretty much exhibit A of how Trumpkins live in alternate reality where running your own email server is somehow a treasonous offense. The argument that there was a massive govt cover up to protect Hillary is all well and good, Trump was saying exactly the same during the 2016 campaign. His supporters went rabid for this nonsense at his rallies chanting 'lock her up' and wearing 'Hillary for prison' t-shirts. He made it a campaign promise that if he's elected prosecuting her is going to be one of the first things he does. Then, absurdly, Trump actually is elected president. And to the surprise of no one, nothing actually happens. Its exactly the same as the stupid wall. His supporters mostly don't care though, because they were never really being genuine to begin with. As long as you're flinging shit at liberals on a regular basis nothing you do actually matters.

i think it's worth moving on for the sake of reconciliation as her public life is over anyway

the prosecution had agreements with clinton's lawyers about what evidence they could see, you know?

so when you say durr investigations around trump get actual results unlike investigations around squeaky clean democrats, it's not because the objective personification of justice investigated them both fairly, I mean it's right there in the link DOJ told the FBI not to investigate because they wouldn't charge clinton. like why do you think anyone would care about manafort? nobody voted for manafort, nobody cares about manafort and he was only around for like a month. I support all white collar criminals getting exposed and wrecked. I don't support a special exception for our pet presidential candidate just because she's too big to fail so the rules don't apply

NMcNasty Monday: the russians are attacking our democracy, they hack the elections and interfere and do cyberattacks and try to support their own agenda which is trump
NMcNasty Tuesday: so what's the big deal of the secretary of state putting classified information in a server in her basement

On March 16 2019 04:44 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On March 16 2019 03:46 Loco wrote: Are there cops outside of your home right now? Because there are cops around the mosques here, since the New Zealand killer had the name of the Quebec city mosque shooter on his gun. There are people who are fearing for their life, who think that they take a big risk going out with a head scarf. That's having skin in the game. The same way westerners fear after a islamist terrorist attack, do they have skin in the game or not? Lol police outside mosques...dude I live in Mexico, I'm 10 times more likely to get shot in the face today than any scarf-wearing muslim in Quebec.   Once your closest friends or relatives have been slaughtered, or once you'll feel unsafe leaving your home because people not only question your humanity, but want you to physically leave, you can put your "only direct retaliation is warranted, let them organize" ideals to the test and claim to have skin in the game. As you know a close friend was slaughtered by homophobes, I dont profess the ideology of going punching homophobes in the face

You are not being targeted by any violent group, so you don't have to care about strategizing against them; it's not hard to understand. Even if it were true that there was more violence where you live, you still don't live in fear, many people do, and you disgustingly banalize their experience and avoid dealing with the subject.

You don't profess the ideology of preferring to punch people than passively waiting until you have to fight them with guns and tanks, because you don't look at things historically, and you don't care about things that are systemic with your Margaret Thatcher bumper-sticker philosophy, "there is no society, only individuals". Acts of violence are just individual actions to you, so what could you have to fight against?

Yeah you weight their opinion sooooo heavily, unless they contradict your ideology

I already debunked that. Yes, I listened to people. Conferences, debates, documentaries, books. I didn't have this view two years ago, so they already "contradicted" my non-violent ideology for me to have changed my mind about it. I used to draw the line at direct retaliation like most people, uncritically. Now I think that when you threaten people with genocide, you've crossed the line, and your attempts to actualize this goal should be resisted in every possible way. I encourage people to take actions that are non-violent first, but if it comes to be violent, I understand it and I'm not going to lecture people, because it has a history of working, and something working is more important to me than some dogmatic tenet or deontological moral precept. Upholding an abstract ideal of moral purity and not looking at the way it plays out in the world is entirely self-serving.

So you've heard the voices of the opressed and they whisper to your ear "censor and punch nazis", what if they whisper "kill nazis", is that kosher too or thats too far

It's a matter of proportionality. I'm obviously fine with killing fascists when it is the proportionate response, i.e. when the war has broken out, like in Syria. But even in Syria, they aren't gunning down every ISIS terrorist; they first give them the opportunity to surrender during a siege, and they keep them captive when they do surrender. But they can do that because they live in a direct democracy, where there is no state with a monopoly on force. But that doesn't matter to you since your principles go beyond that, so perhaps they shouldn't be doing this, and they should be giving ISIS a platform to express their God-given commands to kill non-believers for the benefits of all of us? Marketplace of ideas and all. What would Margaret Thatcher say?

Speaking of proportionate response, here's a Nazi Senator and his supporters' response to being harmlessly egged today. It's almost like these people just pretend to be civilized human beings, pretend to care about free speech and peaceful ethnocentrism, while they are really just waiting for an excuse to be more violent than others. Almost. History can't teach us anything about that I'm sure. /s

On March 16 2019 06:02 Santafairy wrote: i think it's worth moving on for the sake of reconciliation as her public life is over anyway

Trump, the great uniter.

the prosecution had agreements with clinton's lawyers about what evidence they could see, you know? so when you say durr investigations around trump get actual results unlike investigations around squeaky clean democrats, it's not because the objective personification of justice investigated them both fairly, I mean it's right there in the link DOJ told the FBI not to investigate

What prosecution? She was never charged, there was no court case. WTF do you mean DOJ told the FBI not to investigate. The FBI did investigate. From wiki:

On July 5, 2016, FBI Director Comey announced in a statement he read to press and television reporters at FBI headquarters in Washington, DC, that the FBI had completed its investigation and was referring it to the State Department with the recommendation 'that no charges are appropriate in this case.'

I mean if your line is 'its all just a cover up', I get it. Your posts aren't worth responding to, but at least I get it. But it seems as if you don't have enough base information to even put your conspiracy theories out in a coherent fashion.

NMcNasty Monday: the russians are attacking our democracy, they hack the elections and interfere and do cyberattacks and try to support their own agenda which is trump NMcNasty Tuesday: so what's the big deal of the secretary of state putting classified information in a server in her basement

The situation is akin to a burglar complaining to police that someone left their doors unlocked.

honestly, i'm not sure hitting them with an egg is a good idea. I'm sure the senator wants that to happen because it gives him more publicity and attention. He gets to whine for a couple years about how the left are violent and wont listen to reason, ect. Best to just ignore him and interview people in the media that researched all the appropriate content for spree killings and ultra right wing ideology. His comments are obviously well calculated to solidfy support amoung his base and the attention he gets will get him a few more supporters. The shooting was a golden opportunity for him and he seized it. He said:

"The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand's streets today is the immigration program which allowed Muslin fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place."

It is normally the case that an oppressive group will see themselves as the victims. They take big leaps of logic and fact selection to enter this completely delusional state of ideas. In this case, there has never been a single recorded case of muslim violence in new zealand, the closest we have come to islamic fanatacism was one guy leaving the country to join ISIS-which received massive media coverage, and for sure one of the causal factors behind why some of these neo-fascists think islam is such a massive problem. The last case of terrorism we had in the country was when the french government bomb'ed a boat and killed a couple people that were protesting nuclear testing in the pacific. The other thing is that we can see a lot of these spree killers are spending their time on echo-chamber's on the internet, particularly 4chan type forums. (this was 8chan). I know a former bogan that has turned marxist, it's not impossible to actually get people out of their echo chambers and fix the media but of course all the politicians are going to do is offer their completely vacuous and empty platitudes, perhaps do a little law changes on gun control. That's it, they will not look into the root cause of the problem because politicians are no longer real human beings but are robots carefully programmed to do and say whatever their PR advisor tells them to do.

On March 16 2019 21:01 Stroggoz wrote: honestly, i'm not sure hitting them with an egg is a good idea. I'm sure the senator wants that to happen because it gives him more publicity and attention. He gets to whine for a couple years about how the left are violent and wont listen to reason, ect.

You're making a joke right? He can't say that "the left is violent" when he was caught on tape punching a 17 year old over a harmless egg (it only hurt his ego).........

He already had plenty of publicity: he was on the news at that moment. He's already someone you can't ignore; he's a Senator who spews hateful crap, which makes headlines and money. You say this as if suddenly the guy now has a bunch of opportunities to go on talk shows and talk about how victimized he is due to the egg.... jesus christ, that isn't happening. It would be some Black Mirror shit.

Don't feel like reading the entire argument, but I suggest you guys to poll North Koreans on whether Kim Jong Un is the best possible leader to ever exist as well while you're at it
It's only the people living under him that must definitely know the real answer, everything else is just propaganda