Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 186

On December 12 2019 22:39 Spitfiree wrote: I'm basically calling your entire argument bullshit since happiness isn't something measurable and those 'reports' don't mean shit. The standard of living is something measurable however and its obvious there are far less people living in poverty, much more people are educated, free, living in places where basic human rights are not violated etc. The fact that rates of mental issues e.g. depression, anxiety etc. are at their all time high doesn't mean you should revert all the progress and put women back as care givers? Obviously, if that's what a woman feels like doing thats cool. However, your argument has zero rationality behind it, its just looking at two completely untangible variables and making conclusion based on them. Something as relatable would be like saying "hm there were more bees during Nazi Germany, makes sense to get Nazi Germany back so we save the bees" The fact that you don't realize it is mind boggling

wow yeah that would be pretty stupid if i had said literally any of that and it wasn't just you arguing against a straw boogeyman conservatard out of nowhere

believe it or not i understood what you said. let me dumb what i said down so we're not playing the repeat game forever. the logic you're using doesn't favor you the way you think it does.
Spitfiree: hey, we can't trust people to know what makes them happy, clearly we know better than them
Hypothetical Patriarchal Oppressor: you're absolutely right. we can't trust women to know what makes them happy. luckily we know better

put women back as caregivers? they're not caregivers now? so men have to be caregivers? wow that seems sexist. or are there no caregivers? oh there are caregivers? hmm maybe the people who are biologically programmed to be adept at it and literally come built with baby food dispensers should play some significant role in raising our youth

and people call ME a troll jesus fucking christ

On December 12 2019 22:39 Spitfiree wrote: FWIW you're also intellectually dishonest, since "continuing the genetics chain" isn't really an issue our species have at the moment. Problems like the risk of wiping ourselves due to nuclear weapons or needing to colonize a new planet and find technologies to get out of our solar system are probably much higher in the level of requirements our species need to "survive"

wow holy fuck those sound like huge issues. i wonder who's conceiving and raising the next generation of human beings who will have to face those issues, eh nvm probably not important

On December 12 2019 22:39 Spitfiree wrote: I just wonder what your take is on the abortion ban in the US .. .guessing you're fine with it

"the abortion ban in the US"
t. huffpost

On December 12 2019 22:39 Spitfiree wrote: Then again my take on traditions is the same as my take on money. The only "importance" and "value" both have is whatever society think they have. You have much more in common with people that grew up having the same standard of living, had close to your level education and interests than people that share your traditions. So in the sense of traditions building bonds, there are actually way better tools... that is of course, in case that you don't blindly follow things, which traditionalists usually do.

oh i didn't know that. thanks for telling me. i literally never realized until reading this post how important tradition was in bonding together people who have nothing else in common

On December 13 2019 04:19 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + HOW IS THIS A CONSERVATIVE POSITION? IS THE OPPOSING LIBERAL VIEW THAT MEN'S FULFILLMENT COMES THROUGH MOTHERHOOD? The liberal position is that motherhood isn't the only path of realization for women, liberals challenge traditional societal roles, conservatives don't, by fucking definition. Conservatives want traditional familites, housewives and children, liberals don't value that vision as much.... Why am I ever arguing this obvious things that everybody knows? I thought we reached peak stupidity while discussing Gulags with Loco but you sir are trying hard to top this.

conservatives like polygamous mormons? conservative want children, liberals don't value them

okay liberal position is that motherhood isn't the only path of "realization" for women. conservative position is that motherhood is the only path? what about running for vice president?

traditional families meaning families? what's a nontraditional family? a childless one? i do not understand what you're talking about except you have these meme conceptions of left and right, which seem far from the actual reality of how people are, and just trying to paint the right as retards but when i read your posts it just makes me think you're saying people with families are conservative and the only children liberals can have are themselves. i'm not trying to be dense but i really don't know what your point is except for that. yeah if you think having children is inherently conservative then obviously the molymeme and taytay thing makes sense now.

Jesus fucking christ...

A young housewife devoted to her children and a man working to support them is something conservatives value much more than liberals.

Anybody who sees that tweets knows broadly the political alignment of the person who posted it, the same way that if you saw somebody posting along the lines of "single mothers rule the world!" you can safely assume that person has liberal views.

Is it fucking clear now or are you going to waste more of my time?

On December 13 2019 11:03 Stroggoz wrote: His goal stated on the web page is to use anti trust laws to break up the internet monopolies, so people can have cheaper access to the internet. he doesn't mention nationalisation

No, that is only one of the many bulletpoints in his plan did you read it?

I would have no issue at all about imposing anti-trust laws, fuck monopolies, but government providing it? oh helllll no

On December 13 2019 15:18 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On December 13 2019 08:50 Spitfiree wrote: Johnson is a good example of what will happen to democrats in 2020 cause of using their same methods and tricks and not being related to their electorate in any way. Even though Johnson will now finalize Brexit he still got a crushing majority I think the lesson from the British election is that the democrats lose no matter what it does. If it selects a Social Democrat to run for president, they get ignored or lied about to the point that would make stalin proud, thus losing the election. If it selects an establishment figure like Hilary or Biden, they lose because everyone knows they represent the establishment. The only way social democrats can get into power is public pressure from below, this was true in the 1930's.

I think the lesson is that the masses don't think deeply about policies, the hard bases will vote for their color regardless and the undecided ones are the ones who swing the election every time and they mostly decide by simpler things like charisma.


Obama won because he is a cool cat, Hillary lost because she is a reptile, reason why Bernie who is broadly liked has a real shot at Trump and the rest are drawing dead.

On December 14 2019 03:55 Baalim wrote: Jesus fucking christ... A young housewife devoted to her children and a man working to support them is something conservatives value much more than liberals. Anybody who sees that tweets knows broadly the political alignment of the person who posted it, the same way that if you saw somebody posting along the lines of "single mothers rule the world!" you can safely assume that person has liberal views. Is it fucking clear now or are you going to waste more of my time?

none of which is contained in the tweet you reacted to. sure molyneux is conservative. but all he said was taylor swift would be a good mother, which is an opinion and compliment, and that she's running out of time, which is true. he didn't say she needed a man to take care of her or tell her to go to the kitchen or whatever you're imagining

if someone said single mothers rule the world i would think they were an idiot, not that they were a liberal (i also don't agree that you could safely assume that, i'm sure republicans get knocked up and then try to own it), and feel sorry for the way they're trying to probably cope with their own mistakes, and it's disingenuous to reduce a very serious political ideology to something so stupid. liberals which are a huge portion and often majority of countries (especially in europe which has "real" liberals whereas being a north american your natural framework is probably more like the american spectrum) and they're mostly straight and getting married and having children as much as anyone, and especially don't forget immigrants reproduce faster and gravitate towards liberal coalitions...

heterosexual liberals who get married and have children are not engaging in a form of conservative political activism or turncoating or something...

hitler liked dogs that doesn't make liking dogs a far right position. parenthood is... i mean is there anything that could be less controversial? anything more ubiquitous that connects humans of any race or creed? other than breathing and eating and shitting?

i mean again yes molyneux is right-wing but you're being divisive and i think impudently contrarian to try to claim liberals can't appreciate motherhood by saying something as equally innocuous as his tweet...

corrective violence at work!

oh look a 14yo kid gets attacked by another 14yo kid, that totally makes the language in which Trump speaks fine, that's the lesson here no?


FWIW your rhetoric follows a very narrow, predictive pattern, thus my response on the previous topic...

I like how 99% of right wing supporters find some dirt on the democrats and then just make it as that shit completely absolves Trump. Not sure if they re just plain stupid or very weak narrators. And dont get me wrong, what has happened to that kid is terrible, but that tweet is simply pathetic. He is even using the kid to make not only an awful but also an extremely weak point, how fucking stupid

no trump's rhetoric is fine by itself, the lesson is the hypocrisy of the media crying wolf about him but whitewashing the shit from their side. media always dogpiles any white or conservative crime and usually whitewashes or ignores liberal and minority crimes

Donald Trump continued the Republican tradition in South Carolina, carrying the state with 54.9% of the vote. Hillary Clinton received 40.7% of the vote, underperforming Obama by about 4 percent. Republicans have only lost South Carolina once since the assassination of John F.

Explain to me why I should vote?

On December 15 2019 13:38 Santafairy wrote: no trump's rhetoric is fine by itself, the lesson is the hypocrisy of the media crying wolf about him but whitewashing the shit from their side. media always dogpiles any white or conservative crime and usually whitewashes or ignores liberal and minority crimes

I agree, media is quite a trash and just ignored the left-wing shit that happens, which doesn't mean the right-wing should be absolved. This topic kid situation is much deeper than what is presented. Those kids were influenced by their parents, the school and their social peers to be that angry at a kid with MAGA hat. Also we don't really know what happened, we just see a kid attacking another kid right away. Why did it happen? Kids don't attack each other for no reason. Regardless its messed up but the issue is much deeper than it appears

You could see how retarded people are in the tweet's comments with stuff like "these kids should go to jail" and "this bus driver should be fired and put in jail" - those are your average republican voters

Also

Why should a Republican in California vote?

Why should anyone vote? The probability of any single vote swinging the entire election for a country of 300+ million people is approximately 0% regardless of where you live. If you think your vote doesn't make a difference because you don't live in a swing state then good news: your vote wouldn't make a difference even if you did live in a swing state.

On December 15 2019 23:20 blackjacki2 wrote: Why should anyone vote? The probability of any single vote swinging the entire election for a country of 300+ million people is approximately 0% regardless of where you live. If you think your vote doesn't make a difference because you don't live in a swing state then good news: your vote wouldn't make a difference even if you did live in a swing state.

agreed 100%

On December 14 2019 17:45 Santafairy wrote: none of which is contained in the tweet you reacted to. sure molyneux is conservative. but all he said was taylor swift would be a good mother, which is an opinion and compliment, and that she's running out of time, which is true. he didn't say she needed a man to take care of her or tell her to go to the kitchen or whatever you're imagining if someone said single mothers rule the world i would think they were an idiot, not that they were a liberal (i also don't agree that you could safely assume that, i'm sure republicans get knocked up and then try to own it), and feel sorry for the way they're trying to probably cope with their own mistakes, and it's disingenuous to reduce a very serious political ideology to something so stupid. liberals which are a huge portion and often majority of countries (especially in europe which has "real" liberals whereas being a north american your natural framework is probably more like the american spectrum) and they're mostly straight and getting married and having children as much as anyone, and especially don't forget immigrants reproduce faster and gravitate towards liberal coalitions... heterosexual liberals who get married and have children are not engaging in a form of conservative political activism or turncoating or something... hitler liked dogs that doesn't make liking dogs a far right position. parenthood is... i mean is there anything that could be less controversial? anything more ubiquitous that connects humans of any race or creed? other than breathing and eating and shitting? i mean again yes molyneux is right-wing but you're being divisive and i think impudently contrarian to try to claim liberals can't appreciate motherhood by saying something as equally innocuous as his tweet...

Ok lets make it the gambler way.


We show that tweet without a name to random people and ask them to try to guess if this person is either a conservative or a liberal, if 50%> say a conservative then you pay me $100 bucks deal?



People will know its a conservative because liberals don't pester random pop-superstars about how her womb is drying out... the only people who do that are conservatives and perhaps nosy moms who want grand children.

On December 15 2019 17:34 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On December 15 2019 13:38 Santafairy wrote: no trump's rhetoric is fine by itself, the lesson is the hypocrisy of the media crying wolf about him but whitewashing the shit from their side. media always dogpiles any white or conservative crime and usually whitewashes or ignores liberal and minority crimes I agree, media is quite a trash and just ignored the left-wing shit that happens, which doesn't mean the right-wing should be absolved. This topic kid situation is much deeper than what is presented. Those kids were influenced by their parents, the school and their social peers to be that angry at a kid with MAGA hat. Also we don't really know what happened, we just see a kid attacking another kid right away. Why did it happen? Kids don't attack each other for no reason. Regardless its messed up but the issue is much deeper than it appears

sure their parents, school, and peers were all told by the media that baseball caps are hitler.

kids don't attack each other for no reason lmao

yeah the most rational creature ever to walk the earth is the 14 year old. i think that's from aristotle.

I will not be trolled at Christmas. fuck off

On December 15 2019 17:34 Spitfiree wrote: You could see how retarded people are in the tweet's comments with stuff like "these kids should go to jail" and "this bus driver should be fired and put in jail" - those are your average republican voters

i think beating the shit out of people is bad and not excused because you're at the hall pass age but whatever

So you're saying they do attack each other for no reason, thus making the entire MAGA argument pointless is that it?

If you also believe a 14yo should go to jail cause of fighting with someone you must be one decent human being, then again the US is one big jail, so no wonder you'd be fine with that. They're starting to get caught with the slavery in jail, maybe they should switch to child jail slavery instead, it would give them some more room for profit. Oh also guess which political wing turned the jails into business in the US and helped propagandize laws to do so

No reason means no good reason

If I gather 10 friends and beat the shit out of you because you invented cancer we have attacked you for no reason in common parlance

There isn't a second side to the story like maybe you did something to bring it on yourself

You never heard of juvenile detention I don't know why I'm still answering

Read a book

There isn't a second side to the story, good thing you're not a policeman. Making statements based on 20s video that is caught mid-action, totally unquestionable.

Also, there's totally no difference between juvi and jail, what was I thinking, shame on me. Also indeed, detention centers for teenagers have proven to be the best rehabilitator, what was I thinking again, questioning such stuff.

Won't someone think of the 5 helpless kids who either beat the shit out of someone for wearing a hat or being a different color, or even more innocently, just for the hell of it