Oh yeah I forgot... dragonslayer51, it's okay man, I still have respect for you

Lol. I honestly feel the guy I would want to get in won't get the nomination. Course I'm looking at both Republicans and Democrats. They are mostly junk. I don't much like trump, but I don't see one candidate with the qualifications to be president, with one meeting more the the rest. So honestly I wouldn't want neither Hillery or Trump, but it may come down to those two, and its a shame. Course idk where you'd find the right man or woman for the job (that would want the job), but not where the current ones are coming from.

Lol. I honestly feel the guy I would want to get in won't get the nomination. Course I'm looking at both Republicans and Democrats. They are mostly junk. I don't much like trump, but I don't see one candidate with the qualifications to be president, with one meeting more the the rest. So honestly I wouldn't want neither Hillery or Trump, but it may come down to those two, and its a shame. Course idk where you'd find the right man or woman for the job (that would want the job), but not where the current ones are coming from.

I think it's more likely Sanders will get the Dem nomination.

I haven't been keeping with them too much, but I think Sanders has more support.

Well in any elections, it doesn't trickle down to who has the loudest shouters behind them but who has the least loathers hating them.

 

Society is build on compromise, you might think this is flawed from an individual standpoint (and you are right, shelfishness is a thing), but this is SOCIETY. You want to be able to continue living with what you decided. A party might get 45% of the votes, but that still means 55% don't want them and if they all band together, they win!

 

Basically the primary's have once again come down to a pissing contest of "who gets the loadest idiots supporting them". Both sides have this issue, heck it aint an issue for the US alone, its just that you are like, "world news".

 

Trump made billions for himself and select few. Grats to him. Does this mean he can run a society? Heck no. A society isn't even run by 1 man however fond you are of that thought. Society is run by the continued support of its inhabitants, of the support of ALL (of close to all) of its inhabitants. If your desire is to run a society just on a simple 50%+1 majority, I wish you to go find an island for yourself.

 

Narcissism isn't a good guide in leadership, it is the guide to victory. The moment a society is going for "a victory", it has lost already. You wish to survive, to thrive, to leave a legacy. A victory means there were defeated. A society build opun the victory of one with the defeat of many is one that is the US. And many desire to get out of that spiral of societal destruction meant to glorify the select few that are "special".

 

Newsflash, nearly all of the republicans have lost what Christianity means, and that is something ironic comming from a largly atheist europe that actually still tries (but fails aswell) to life by the tenants set out by tradition.

 

Again, if you so like to have a "strong" leader, go to Russia, China, North Korea, half of Africa. But please, don't make yet another nation fall into the pit of authoritarian/totalitarian leadership. You already have it bad with a 2-party system, don't make it fall into a flip-flop every 4/8 years between plague and cholera.

 

 

if they all band together,

Thing is, neither side has completely banded together. Trump is winning because he's getting support from groups of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.

I'm an Independent, I would be voting 3rd Party if it wasn't for Trump.

 

 

 

Basically the primary's have once again come down to a pissing contest of "who gets the loadest idiots supporting them".

 

The Primaries are won by vote. Trump has the most votes. The "loudest" groups in the USA are groups like the BLM movement who go around looting places.

 

 

 

Does this mean he can run a society? Heck no.

The President doesn't run the whole society; we're not a dictatorship.

 

 

 

If your desire is to run a society just on a simple 50%+1 majority, I wish you to go find an island for yourself.

 

A President receiving the vote from a whole 50% of Americans is almost unheard of.

 

 

 

Narcissism isn't a good guide in leadership, it is the guide to victory. The moment a society is going for "a victory", it has lost already. You wish to survive, to thrive, to leave a legacy. A victory means there were defeated. A society build opun the victory of one with the defeat of many is one that is the US. And many desire to get out of that spiral of societal destruction meant to glorify the select few that are "special".

The thing is, Trump is pushing a Nationalist agenda, which appeals to the Majority of Americans who are sick of seeing what the Left-Wing has done which is basically try to sacrifice our rights in order to accommodate the "special" people who just can't be bothered to care for themselves.

 

 

 

Newsflash, nearly all of the republicans have lost what Christianity means, and that is something ironic comming from a largly atheist europe that actually still tries (but fails aswell) to life by the tenants set out by tradition.

 

It's funny that you would automatically associate the Republican Party with Christianity.

Politicians using religion as a basis for support usually fail; we have a separation of Church and State for a reason.

 

 

 

 

  Again, if you so like to have a "strong" leader, go to Russia, China, North Korea, half of Africa. But please, don't make yet another nation fall into the pit of authoritarian/totalitarian leadership. You already have it bad with a 2-party system, don't make it fall into a flip-flop every 4/8 years between plague and cholera.

 

It's not about just having a "strong," there are cultural influences at play.

Trump isn't an Authoritarian or a Totalitarian. 

 

Europe is currently drowning itself with Immigrants; Sweden's sexual assaults went up 1400%, Germany is on the verge of collapse, etc. Many Americans look at that and think "damn, I don't want that to happen here."

Sanders is OK. I wouldn't mind him. He the best front runner I see. Course the competition is junk.

 

@bestsy, this is today society. Doesn't mean I agree with or like our society. Our society is on a dangerous path. This much is certain. History is doomed to repeat if we do not learn from it.

Sanders is OK. I wouldn't mind him. He the best front runner I see. Course the competition is junk.

 

@bestsy, this is today society. Doesn't mean I agree with or like our society. Our society is on a dangerous path. This much is certain. History is doomed to repeat if we do not learn from it.

 

The thing about Sanders is that a lot of people trust him right now. With as much information as there is out there, I don't think he'll be able to maintain his good reputation for 11 Months.

I'm talking about his voting record and his big economics plan.

for me I would have to agree honestly what Dagon has to say because I don't hate him because of his wealth I hate him because of his character and his remarks and what he tries to do. Money can't buy and win the presidential election, not every president who won the presidential election have won cuz of money. Its mainly about the policies and promises that they make and in order guarantee the audience for the people. 

for me I would have to agree honestly what Dagon has to say because I don't hate him because of his wealth I hate him because of his character and his remarks and what he tries to do. Money can't buy and win the presidential election, not every president who won the presidential election have won cuz of money. Its mainly about the policies and promises that they make and in order guarantee the audience for the people. 

Trump has the biggest ego in any room he enters... that is the character you hate, but there is nothing wrong with a big ego, especially in a President. He's admired or hated, but never ignored. That's what you need in a US President. Obama has been ignored for years. I don't even listen to the guy anymore, because everything he says has a political angle, and whatever he's saying means nothing, because Congress will never support him. He's a bad negotiator.

 

He hasn't tried to do anything but stay in the news. What he says, is why he's in the news constantly. Everyone in the country is either saying, "You know something?... he's got a point" or they are calling him every name in the book. This is what he wants. My god, Shah even started this thread from Dubai... just about him. That is his reach, and it is long and wide.

 

I have already told you... he has spent no money on his campaign... just gas for his plane and a limited staff. He isn't running a normal campaign. He doesn't even take donations. He's getting all his air time... absolutely free. He tweets something, and everyone talks about it for weeks. He takes all interviews, he's on every channel, and he's on everyone's mind. He despises lobbyists, and he goes along with no party platform.

 

Remember Jorge Ramos? The guy from Univision that wanted to bring Trump down? He crashed a Trump news conference a while back and Trump said two words to him... "Sit Down!" That was pretty much the last you saw Jorge. I loved it.

 

He wants to do what is best for the country... not everyone is gonna like what is best for the country... just like you guys don't.

for me I would have to agree honestly what Dagon has to say because I don't hate him because of his wealth I hate him because of his character and his remarks and what he tries to do. Money can't buy and win the presidential election, not every president who won the presidential election have won cuz of money. Its mainly about the policies and promises that they make and in order guarantee the audience for the people. 

 

Sadly, money has bought more elections than what is lead on to be believed. Just ask the Koch brothers, or Tom Cotton (IIRC, a lot of his money came from the NRA).

 

for me I would have to agree honestly what Dagon has to say because I don't hate him because of his wealth I hate him because of his character and his remarks and what he tries to do. Money can't buy and win the presidential election, not every president who won the presidential election have won cuz of money. Its mainly about the policies and promises that they make and in order guarantee the audience for the people. 

 

Sadly, money has bought more elections than what is lead on to be believed. Just ask the Koch brothers, or Tom Cotton (IIRC, a lot of his money came from the NRA).

 

 

 

That goes both ways. Lobbyists buy off both Republican and Democratic candidates.

Which is one of the big turn-ons that people have for Trump: He doesn't accept money from Lobbyists.

 

 

for me I would have to agree honestly what Dagon has to say because I don't hate him because of his wealth I hate him because of his character and his remarks and what he tries to do. Money can't buy and win the presidential election, not every president who won the presidential election have won cuz of money. Its mainly about the policies and promises that they make and in order guarantee the audience for the people. 

 

Sadly, money has bought more elections than what is lead on to be believed. Just ask the Koch brothers, or Tom Cotton (IIRC, a lot of his money came from the NRA).

 

 

 

That goes both ways. Lobbyists buy off both Republican and Democratic candidates.

Which is one of the big turn-ons that people have for Trump: He doesn't accept money from Lobbyists.

 

 

And neither has Bernie, but oddly enough how media shows so very little of him. While true, I know Hillary does, but seriously, it's come down to the silent one vs. the loud one. Oh well. I guess we'll find out during election time.

From a statistics point of view, it's very unlikely that any republican candidate is actually going to end up being president. This whole republican primary race is just a reality TV show, and the American media is drawing it out as much as they possible can in order to get ratings. Bernie and Hillary are the only two candidates fit to run the country, and that's going to be reflected in how people vote next year.

 

With regard to Donald Trump in particular, I'm very disappointed how he's raising hatred against Muslims. It's stepping over the line to demonize a minority. Political leaders have done this all throughout history, and it's never turned out pretty.

  And neither has Bernie, but oddly enough how media shows so very little of him. While true, I know Hillary does, but seriously, it's come down to the silent one vs. the loud one. Oh well. I guess we'll find out during election time.

 

 

Look at what I said above. Bernie showed his hand and has little else to offer, so he was cast aside. It's not as much about who's Louder. 

If it was about who's louder, Bernie would be on 24/7 because he threw his lot in with the BLM movement who, as I noted earlier, are constantly protesting and looting.

 

 

From a statistics point of view, it's very unlikely that any republican candidate is actually going to end up being president. This whole republican primary race is just a reality TV show, and the American media is drawing it out as much as they possible can in order to get ratings. Bernie and Hillary are the only two candidates fit to run the country, and that's going to be reflected in how people vote next year.

 

With regard to Donald Trump in particular, I'm very disappointed how he's raising hatred against Muslims. It's stepping over the line to demonize a minority. Political leaders have done this all throughout history, and it's never turned out pretty.

 

What's any of that got to do with Statistics?

 

From a Historical point of view, 8 years of a Democratic President means at least 4 years of Republican. 

Also, Statistics show that Trump is currying huge favor throughout the Country. He didn't "raise hatred," he said "we need to step letting them in until we can properly vet them." 

 

 

If he knew nothing about Politics, he wouldn't be winning. Quite the contrary; he knows Politics so well that he's winning in a way that no one has ever imagined.

 

It is not politics it is business.

 

 

Oh yeah I forgot... dragonslayer51, it's okay man, I still have respect for you

Sorry 'bout that man. I was angry at some stuff and this just took the cake. My most sincere apologies, but I still want to state that Trump should not be president.

 

Right now, every candidate is crap. These elections will be some of the worse. I sincerely don't feel that Trump wants to do everything he says for others and for the sake of America. The only thing I can admire from him is his ability in business. And while that might help him with his campaign, if he manages to win, then he'll have a lot to do to learn about politics. Or he could get someone like Cyrus Beene and then everything would be solved. 

 

I don't support Trump in any way and I don't want him to win. It would be a mistake. But as the saying goes, You should be afraid of ignorance, because the ignorants are many and they choose a president.

He didn't "raise hatred," he said "we need to step letting them in until we can properly vet them."

You are helping prove my point about raising hatred against Muslims. Trump is marginalizing that minority to benefit his campaign. It's "us" (Trump supporters) versus "them" (the Muslims).

 

With regard to statistics, the GOP has work to do in order to change enough blue states to red states.

Just to throw in some reality.

 

Sanders us a very distant second place to hillary in voting intention, and Trump consistently loses in head to head polling. His broad appeal is a creation of his own propaganda not of reality.

 

Edit: Also interesting that Trump is polling second in Iowa and has consistently lower support in early states. Which I suspect shows a more real story. You can't win an election without organised boots on the ground. If Trump isn't spending money that means he doesn't have a community reach. So where it matters in the early states he will stop being a front runner.

 

He didn't "raise hatred," he said "we need to step letting them in until we can properly vet them."

You are helping prove my point about raising hatred against Muslims. Trump is marginalizing that minority to benefit his campaign. It's "us" (Trump supporters) versus "them" (the Muslims).

 

With regard to statistics, the GOP has work to do in order to change enough blue states to red states.

 

 

Do you know the history that our country has of restricting immigration in times of trouble? 

The only "us" that I belong to is the American People; I couldn't give fuck-all if Trump wins or loses. 

There's nothing racist about wanting to vet immigrants, especially when they come from places where it's more likely that they'll be killers. This is the same line of logic that tells me that we should be doing background checks on gun purchases; it's common sense!

 

Also, I looked at your stats and it's all about the Obama elections, things have changed since 2012. People aren't basing everything on party lines as much because the parties have expanded to the point that they're starting to in-fight. For instance, Bernie Sanders is a self-declared Socialist (Not Democratic Socialist, just Socialist) against Clinton who's a regular Democrat, and on the Republic front you've got Trump who isn't even a politician facing up against the career sellouts Republicans and Winning. I've seen polls that (claim) up to 70% of Trumps current supporters would vote 3rd Party if Trump didn't get the nomination; that would cripple the Republicans.

 

 

 

Trump consistently loses in head to head polling. His broad appeal is a creation of his own propaganda not of reality.

 

 

I've actually seen evidence that Trump is the only potential Republican who could even have a chance against Clinton, which is fascinating to me. Clinton is a blatant criminal but people would still vote for her.

 

 

 

Trump is polling second in Iowa and has consistently lower support in early states.

 

He's still leading overall and leading the debates; if things keep going the way they're going he'll win the nomination easily.

 

 

 

 

 

Trump consistently loses in head to head polling. His broad appeal is a creation of his own propaganda not of reality.

 

 

I've actually seen evidence that Trump is the only potential Republican who could even have a chance against Clinton, which is fascinating to me. Clinton is a blatant criminal but people would still vote for her.

 

 

 

Trump is polling second in Iowa and has consistently lower support in early states.

 

He's still leading overall and leading the debates; if things keep going the way they're going he'll win the nomination easily.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

 

Clinton consistently beats Trump. (Currently 4 point lead, never in aggregate polling behind Trump)

 

Compare that to Clinton v Rubio

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_rubio_vs_clinton-3767.html

 

Some back and forth since the debates began, but currently Rubio leading by 1.5 points. 

 

That doesn't fit the narrative that only Trump can beat Clinton. 

 

Other candidates tend to be more mixed, but even Carson has a better record than Trump in head to head polling. 

 

As for why it matters that he is losing in the early states, it has two main impacts. 

 

1) It shows that the other candidates are running more focused campaigns with actual community engagement. A voter in the final nomination states doesn't matter until July. So they don't need as much upfront investment as Iowa does. And one thing the democrats got in a big way last time round that the Republicans did not is that elections are won on the ground, in the community, as much as they are won on television.

2) Trump get support from being shown a "winner." The moment he is behind in the nomination race, he stops being a winner. "Shout a lot no substance" candidates need momentum otherwise they sink and sink and melt away. Losing in early states bursts the bubble and he will suffer badly for it.

1) It shows that the other candidates are running more focused campaigns with actual community engagement. A voter in the final nomination states doesn't matter until July. So they don't need as much upfront investment as Iowa does. And one thing the democrats got in a big way last time round that the Republicans did not is that elections are won on the ground, in the community, as much as they are won on television. 2) Trump get support from being shown a "winner." The moment he is behind in the nomination race, he stops being a winner. "Shout a lot no substance" candidates need momentum otherwise they sink and sink and melt away. Losing in early states bursts the bubble and he will suffer badly for it.

 

 

That's funny, because I used the same site and it's showing that Trump has a really large (one might say "yuge") lead over the other Republicans. Interesting.

In my opinion, all of the other Republicans are just too much of the same old stuff; nothing would really change if any one of them were elected. Clinton and Sanders would be disastrous. Trump is a joke, but I see him as less dangerous to be honest. That's just my opinion lol.

 

1: Very true. It could be that they're slow to start but pick it up as we get closer to election time. I'm interested in seeing how it unfolds. 

2: Also very true. Hopefully Trump maintains his lead. I've seen the "(insert name) surges ahead of Trump!" headline probably three times now. Fiorina, Carson, and now Cruz were all supposed to be the end of Trump; then he came back like a nasty itch.

 

if they all band together,

Thing is, neither side has completely banded together. Trump is winning because he's getting support from groups of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.

I'm an Independent, I would be voting 3rd Party if it wasn't for Trump.

 

.

He is getting support from people who are against "the current politicians". Newsflash, people desiring and voting in "change" rarely get it (look at all of Obama's "changes").

 

He has the disillusioned voters, the people who couldn't care less about the present ruling or backed politicians. We have such a voting block aswell, usually around 15% of the population. They swing certain parties to the top of the polls but the next election they are allmost all voting for someone "fresh" again. You should listen to voters who are informed and with a notion of how politics or a society in general is run. If you follow the "I like him/her cause they stood on a dead bear with a large M16", you might have lost alltogether...

.

 

 

Basically the primary's have once again come down to a pissing contest of "who gets the loadest idiots supporting them".

 

The Primaries are won by vote. Trump has the most votes. The "loudest" groups in the USA are groups like the BLM movement who go around looting places.

 

.

Voted by people wanting to vote, not by majority support.

 

And yes I can see BLM being loud, but so is any stadium filled with supporters of Presidentional Candidate X. Sad thing is that its usuall the same group of people, you are ignoring the majority of the population who:

a) can't be bothered

have better things to do

c) actually care more about it then fr the 5min they get to see their "idol".

.

 

 

Does this mean he can run a society? Heck no.

The President doesn't run the whole society; we're not a dictatorship.

 

.

He is the face and heart of society, the leader of your nation should embody its fundamental tenants. If you get Trump you are embodying libertarian capitalism sprinkled with dictarorship tendency's against "the people I don't like today".

.

 

 

If your desire is to run a society just on a simple 50%+1 majority, I wish you to go find an island for yourself.

 

A President receiving the vote from a whole 50% of Americans is almost unheard of.

 

.

Well, that should be your first alarm signifying your political system is broken. If you can't even get a majority of voting elligable people behind you, how can you be expected to govern your nation?

 

You guys have 2 groups of voters: the ones who idolize their chosen candidate (and thus demonize anyone else, even if that other person is only 1 point of from the standpoints of their chosen candidate). The other group is the one who thinks more then 1 second before casting a vote. Sadly group 1 shows more and more signs of running the show .

.

 

 

Narcissism isn't a good guide in leadership, it is the guide to victory. The moment a society is going for "a victory", it has lost already. You wish to survive, to thrive, to leave a legacy. A victory means there were defeated. A society build opun the victory of one with the defeat of many is one that is the US. And many desire to get out of that spiral of societal destruction meant to glorify the select few that are "special".

The thing is, Trump is pushing a Nationalist agenda, which appeals to the Majority of Americans who are sick of seeing what the Left-Wing has done which is basically try to sacrifice our rights in order to accommodate the "special" people who just can't be bothered to care for themselves.

 

.

I am all for redistribution off wealth and power to everyone in society (rights), but offcourse coupled with some involvement from everyone (duties).

 

Your "left-wing" is hilariously moderate right for the rest of the world. Your idea of "freedom" is more about personal lackness then true harmonious society.

 

No nationalist agenda is worth persuing, perhaps I am biased cause of the history europe has gone thruw but you guys have history aswell showing what evils nationalisms does. Heck you guys had invasive nationalism, the one that made european powers claim all of the world in the 15/18 centuries and carved/fucked over Africa and half of Asia in the 19th century.

 

Nationalism seems to be "for the nation", it is not. It never is. It is for the select few in power. And power gets more centralized then ever in a nationalistical government. You disliked some extra "rules" when under this so called "left-wing" government? Well enjoy your loss of any and possible all rights from your constitution when you fall out of grace from a nationalist government.

.

 

 

Newsflash, nearly all of the republicans have lost what Christianity means, and that is something ironic comming from a largly atheist europe that actually still tries (but fails aswell) to life by the tenants set out by tradition.

 

It's funny that you would automatically associate the Republican Party with Christianity.

Politicians using religion as a basis for support usually fail; we have a separation of Church and State for a reason.

 

.

Please, you guys can't get enough of "the man upstairs" and throw out songs of praise whenever you see fit. The only seperation of "church and state" you guys enjoy is that it isn't the Pope thats running the show. Nah, its a couple of god-fearing, "divine-inspired" smucks who like nothing more then read select passages from an 2000y old book about morality which couldn't even be translated properly cause the leaders of that religion fiddled with it in the 5th century.

 

Nearly half of the political agenda is motivated by that one religion, the other half by the "stay off my lawn" religion you people call "freedom".

.

 

 

Again, if you so like to have a "strong" leader, go to Russia, China, North Korea, half of Africa. But please, don't make yet another nation fall into the pit of authoritarian/totalitarian leadership. You already have it bad with a 2-party system, don't make it fall into a flip-flop every 4/8 years between plague and cholera.

 

It's not about just having a "strong," there are cultural influences at play.

Trump isn't an Authoritarian or a Totalitarian. 

 

Europe is currently drowning itself with Immigrants; Sweden's sexual assaults went up 1400%, Germany is on the verge of collapse, etc. Many Americans look at that and think "damn, I don't want that to happen here."

 

 .

Trump is a man of ego, as you stated, a big ego. Any "succesfull" enterprise (as in succesfull for its shareholders) is run like a authoritation state, in what way do you think he wouldn't run the US like that? The guy is used to nearly threaten his viewpoints on his underlings and business partners, now you think that he would just "play ball" to get everyone to like him? HAHAHAHAHAH.

 

Yeah, europe is doomed, when did I last hear that sentence.

 

Fine we aren't doing well, but we aren't doing well for all the people who need out assistance. You guys aren't doing well FOR YOUR OWN PEOPLE.

 

As for your Sweden reference, you do know they basically widened the definition so that offcourse the amount went up. But yes, people with an immigration background are probably making up a bulk of the cases. But perhaps it isn't just their history that makes them like that but also there present state.

 

You think europe is falling in decline, sad notion is that we aren't. Neither are you. What is happening is that the other parts of the world are rising up to our standard. You just dislike not being the sole top-dog. Well grats, after some time the local bully gets overthrown, big deal, the local geeks still go to school and rise past it.

.

Sanders is OK. I wouldn't mind him. He the best front runner I see. Course the competition is junk.

 

@bestsy, this is today society. Doesn't mean I agree with or like our society. Our society is on a dangerous path. This much is certain. History is doomed to repeat if we do not learn from it.

.

Less about repeating, while it may look like that I rather belief that a society always had seeds of any ideological flow in it, it is rather the present that makes out which seed can flourish in the near future. We should try to keep the present normal to keep the future safe.

 

Change is only good when done slowly and on acceptable terms. The only people who like a revolution are the folks initiating it, not the rest. In that way I am a true "conservative", I like the present, stop messing with it for the sake of messing with it.

.

 

 

He didn't "raise hatred," he said "we need to step letting them in until we can properly vet them."

You are helping prove my point about raising hatred against Muslims. Trump is marginalizing that minority to benefit his campaign. It's "us" (Trump supporters) versus "them" (the Muslims).

 

With regard to statistics, the GOP has work to do in order to change enough blue states to red states.

 

 

Do you know the history that our country has of restricting immigration in times of trouble? 

The only "us" that I belong to is the American People; I couldn't give fuck-all if Trump wins or loses. 

There's nothing racist about wanting to vet immigrants, especially when they come from places where it's more likely that they'll be killers. This is the same line of logic that tells me that we should be doing background checks on gun purchases; it's common sense!

 

I liked this gem: (link)

He is getting support from people who are against "the current politicians". Newsflash, people desiring and voting in "change" rarely get it (look at all of Obama's "changes").   He has the disillusioned voters, the people who couldn't care less about the present ruling or backed politicians. We have such a voting block aswell, usually around 15% of the population. They swing certain parties to the top of the polls but the next election they are allmost all voting for someone "fresh" again. You should listen to voters who are informed and with a notion of how politics or a society in general is run. If you follow the "I like him/her cause they stood on a dead bear with a large M16", you might have lost alltogether...

 

 

I'm pretty well informed m9

And if the whole "change" thing isn't something people buy, as you say, how'd Obama get reelected? 

 

 

 

And yes I can see BLM being loud, but so is any stadium filled with supporters of Presidentional Candidate X. Sad thing is that its usuall the same group of people, you are ignoring the majority of the population who: a) can't be bothered have better things to do c) actually care more about it then fr the 5min they get to see their "idol".

 

 

You misunderstand. When Trump has a rally, they fill Stadiums; When the BLM goes out, they literally loot and assault people. 

I don't know of anyone who idolizes Trump, just see him as a good candidate who (might) help clean up our system so that we don't end up like Europe.

 

 

Then there's people like me who just want to watch the world burn

 

 

 

 

He is the face and heart of society, the leader of your nation should embody its fundamental tenants. If you get Trump you are embodying libertarian capitalism sprinkled with dictarorship tendency's against "the people I don't like today".

 

As a Classical Liberal, yes, a lot of our fundamental tenants revolve around Libertarian Capitalism and Leadership that some would consider Dictator-esque ~ Look at our History. FDR is popular as fuck but he literally detained every Japanese citizen in the US (But no Germans or Italians, funny eh?)

 

 

 

Well, that should be your first alarm signifying your political system is broken. If you can't even get a majority of voting elligable people behind you, how can you be expected to govern your nation?   You guys have 2 groups of voters: the ones who idolize their chosen candidate (and thus demonize anyone else, even if that other person is only 1 point of from the standpoints of their chosen candidate). The other group is the one who thinks more then 1 second before casting a vote. Sadly group 1 shows more and more signs of running the show .

 

There's also Group 3, which is the "Democracy is overrated so I won't vote but then I'll bitch about who's in charge."

I completely agree with you here; what we have today is what the Founding Fathers would have called "Tyranny of the Majority." 

It's truly a shame.

 

 

 

I am all for redistribution off wealth and power to everyone in society (rights), but offcourse coupled with some involvement from everyone (duties).   Your "left-wing" is hilariously moderate right for the rest of the world. Your idea of "freedom" is more about personal lackness then true harmonious society.   No nationalist agenda is worth persuing, perhaps I am biased cause of the history europe has gone thruw but you guys have history aswell showing what evils nationalisms does. Heck you guys had invasive nationalism, the one that made european powers claim all of the world in the 15/18 centuries and carved/fucked over Africa and half of Asia in the 19th century.   Nationalism seems to be "for the nation", it is not. It never is. It is for the select few in power. And power gets more centralized then ever in a nationalistical government. You disliked some extra "rules" when under this so called "left-wing" government? Well enjoy your loss of any and possible all rights from your constitution when you fall out of grace from a nationalist government.

I respectfully disagree; Nationalism is the only thing that can save us. The "Liberals" over here want us to flood our country with immigrants, outlaw free speech, and tax the fuck out of everything we make so that we can all be equally poor and equally miserable.

Equality of opportunity, not equality of result. That's an American value.

 

 

 

Please, you guys can't get enough of "the man upstairs" and throw out songs of praise whenever you see fit. The only seperation of "church and state" you guys enjoy is that it isn't the Pope thats running the show. Nah, its a couple of god-fearing, "divine-inspired" smucks who like nothing more then read select passages from an 2000y old book about morality which couldn't even be translated properly cause the leaders of that religion fiddled with it in the 5th century.   Nearly half of the political agenda is motivated by that one religion, the other half by the "stay off my lawn" religion you people call "freedom".

 

 

I'm Catholic. I see Protestantism as predominantly a Political tool that's being used by the Republicans as a way of pushing scare-tactics. On the flip-side, Democrats push for a kind of hedonism that would lead to absolute chaos. Just look at Tumblr.

Ironic, right? 

 

 

 

You think europe is falling in decline, sad notion is that we aren't. Neither are you. What is happening is that the other parts of the world are rising up to our standard. You just dislike not being the sole top-dog. Well grats, after some time the local bully gets overthrown, big deal, the local geeks still go to school and rise past it.

 

If they were all rising to our level, they wouldn't be having to ditch their countries and come over to ours on make-shift rafts and then sew their mouths shut in protest of not being let through the Macedonian border, would they?

 

 

NSFW 

 

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/11/GettyImages-498564614.jpg

 

I believe we need to help these people, but not by committing suicide. We should be going to their countries and helping them instead of fucking their shit up and then letting them flood our countries. The West is declining. It's not the Middle East or Africa who is rising; it's the East.

 

 

 

Less about repeating, while it may look like that I rather belief that a society always had seeds of any ideological flow in it, it is rather the present that makes out which seed can flourish in the near future. We should try to keep the present normal to keep the future safe.   Change is only good when done slowly and on acceptable terms. The only people who like a revolution are the folks initiating it, not the rest. In that way I am a true "conservative", I like the present, stop messing with it for the sake of messing with it.

 

 

I would argue that our Country has put itself in a position where if we don't change, we will be belly-up in the next 50 or so years. Mainly because we've fucked our Political system and made ourselves subservient to the Media.

 

 

 

I liked this gem: (link)

 

 

No matter my opinions, I will always enjoy a good satire. Arizona State LMFAO     

If it really is true that this is the process, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Thank you for sharing this with me; through debates like this, we learn! 

 

He is getting support from people who are against "the current politicians". Newsflash, people desiring and voting in "change" rarely get it (look at all of Obama's "changes").   He has the disillusioned voters, the people who couldn't care less about the present ruling or backed politicians. We have such a voting block aswell, usually around 15% of the population. They swing certain parties to the top of the polls but the next election they are allmost all voting for someone "fresh" again. You should listen to voters who are informed and with a notion of how politics or a society in general is run. If you follow the "I like him/her cause they stood on a dead bear with a large M16", you might have lost alltogether...

 I'm pretty well informed m9

And if the whole "change" thing isn't something people buy, as you say, how'd Obama get reelected?

 

.

He got reelected cause the "other side" had 1 basic plan: throw all out the small change already done.

 

Sorry, running a campaighn on "I shall undo everything my predecessor (who was elected) did" is kinda flawed and petty. Also as you like funny things.

.

 

 

And yes I can see BLM being loud, but so is any stadium filled with supporters of Presidentional Candidate X. Sad thing is that its usuall the same group of people, you are ignoring the majority of the population who: a) can't be bothered have better things to do c) actually care more about it then fr the 5min they get to see their "idol".

 

 

You misunderstand. When Trump has a rally, they fill Stadiums; When the BLM goes out, they literally loot and assault people. 

I don't know of anyone who idolizes Trump, just see him as a good candidate who (might) help clean up our system so that we don't end up like Europe.

 

 

Then there's people like me who just want to watch the world burn

 

.

Protestors =/= people desiring to break stuff =/= face of a movement. (unless the movement is offcourse meant to just break stuff ).

 

I wouldn't necesairly equate the KKK supports with the guys who actually put people on burning crosses. You demonize the entire side when doing that.

.

 

 

He is the face and heart of society, the leader of your nation should embody its fundamental tenants. If you get Trump you are embodying libertarian capitalism sprinkled with dictarorship tendency's against "the people I don't like today".

 

As a Classical Liberal, yes, a lot of our fundamental tenants revolve around Libertarian Capitalism and Leadership that some would consider Dictator-esque ~ Look at our History. FDR is popular as fuck but he literally detained every Japanese citizen in the US (But no Germans or Italians, funny eh?)

 

.

Indeed, but the thing that people should wonder about, is that a way of running a society? Quick fixes and scapegoating "undersireables"?

.

 

 

Well, that should be your first alarm signifying your political system is broken. If you can't even get a majority of voting elligable people behind you, how can you be expected to govern your nation?   You guys have 2 groups of voters: the ones who idolize their chosen candidate (and thus demonize anyone else, even if that other person is only 1 point of from the standpoints of their chosen candidate). The other group is the one who thinks more then 1 second before casting a vote. Sadly group 1 shows more and more signs of running the show .

 

There's also Group 3, which is the "Democracy is overrated so I won't vote but then I'll bitch about who's in charge."

I completely agree with you here; what we have today is what the Founding Fathers would have called "Tyranny of the Majority." 

It's truly a shame.

 

.

Group 3 is the most fun, you can pick those out nicely as their entire rebuke is usually less then 1 sentence

 

It isn't really a majority, its tyranny of the shouters.

.

 

 

I am all for redistribution off wealth and power to everyone in society (rights), but offcourse coupled with some involvement from everyone (duties).   Your "left-wing" is hilariously moderate right for the rest of the world. Your idea of "freedom" is more about personal lackness then true harmonious society.   No nationalist agenda is worth persuing, perhaps I am biased cause of the history europe has gone thruw but you guys have history aswell showing what evils nationalisms does. Heck you guys had invasive nationalism, the one that made european powers claim all of the world in the 15/18 centuries and carved/fucked over Africa and half of Asia in the 19th century.   Nationalism seems to be "for the nation", it is not. It never is. It is for the select few in power. And power gets more centralized then ever in a nationalistical government. You disliked some extra "rules" when under this so called "left-wing" government? Well enjoy your loss of any and possible all rights from your constitution when you fall out of grace from a nationalist government.

I respectfully disagree; Nationalism is the only thing that can save us. The "Liberals" over here want us to flood our country with immigrants, outlaw free speech, and tax the fuck out of everything we make so that we can all be equally poor and equally miserable.

Equality of opportunity, not equality of result. That's an American value.

 

.

Nationalism, as any -ism, is a brilliant and usefull ideology up until its used in the real world, in which it gets manipulated and twisted to serve the users agenda. Same could be said for all te -ism's, they are brilliant on paper, sadly they stay on paper.

 

Every society has a mix from all the -ism's out there, it is up to the people present to decide and mix the appropiate answers into 1 form of society.

 

Indeed, that is "liberals", which we would call "capitalists" funnely enough. It isn't the people in the street who desire all what you describe there, its actually some of the people in power who would like such things.

a) more immigrants = more cheap labor

less free speech = my word trumps yours

c) tax everyone = expect me, cause I got them secret deals with the IRS.

 

What you describe as "liberals" are actually people desiring a more level and equal playing field to all. This doesn't mean everything gets the same bland gray shirt and is off to the goulag. It means that everyone below the majority's mean should be lifted up with assistance from the majority. Assitance is the big word here, if said person is just desiring to revoke all of society except the free ride, then by all means, let him enjoy the rollercoaster down to the lowest level. But don't ignore the masses of potentional just cause there are some rotten apples, you find those anywhere.

.

 

 

Please, you guys can't get enough of "the man upstairs" and throw out songs of praise whenever you see fit. The only seperation of "church and state" you guys enjoy is that it isn't the Pope thats running the show. Nah, its a couple of god-fearing, "divine-inspired" smucks who like nothing more then read select passages from an 2000y old book about morality which couldn't even be translated properly cause the leaders of that religion fiddled with it in the 5th century.   Nearly half of the political agenda is motivated by that one religion, the other half by the "stay off my lawn" religion you people call "freedom".

 

 

I'm Catholic. I see Protestantism as predominantly a Political tool that's being used by the Republicans as a way of pushing scare-tactics. On the flip-side, Democrats push for a kind of hedonism that would lead to absolute chaos. Just look at Tumblr.

Ironic, right?

 

.

Very, hence I keep shuckling when the "god bless america" is mentioned and I can't help but think that said god would want nothing of the people who utter those words.

.

 

 

You think europe is falling in decline, sad notion is that we aren't. Neither are you. What is happening is that the other parts of the world are rising up to our standard. You just dislike not being the sole top-dog. Well grats, after some time the local bully gets overthrown, big deal, the local geeks still go to school and rise past it.

 

If they were all rising to our level, they wouldn't be having to ditch their countries and come over to ours on make-shift rafts and then sew their mouths shut in protest of not being let through the Macedonian border, would they?

 

 

NSFW 

 

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/11/GettyImages-498564614.jpg

 

I believe we need to help these people, but not by committing suicide. We should be going to their countries and helping them instead of fucking their shit up and then letting them flood our countries. The West is declining. It's not the Middle East or Africa who is rising; it's the East.

 

.

But we are helping alot of nations, but you can't help everyone at the same time nor can you stop any injustice from hampering said aid in the places it is being received. And you shouldn't complain about like 2M refugees, if the ALL came over then you should start complaining.

 

Also, about "rising up to our level", this should be done both gradually and with local support. Dropping some $$ into a bankaccount of the leader does nothing. Hence NGO's do the work on the ground, aid should be more directly funneled to NGO's then to the leaders of those nations.

.

 

 

Less about repeating, while it may look like that I rather belief that a society always had seeds of any ideological flow in it, it is rather the present that makes out which seed can flourish in the near future. We should try to keep the present normal to keep the future safe.   Change is only good when done slowly and on acceptable terms. The only people who like a revolution are the folks initiating it, not the rest. In that way I am a true "conservative", I like the present, stop messing with it for the sake of messing with it.

 

 

I would argue that our Country has put itself in a position where if we don't change, we will be belly-up in the next 50 or so years. Mainly because we've fucked our Political system and made ourselves subservient to the Media.

 

.

Well first off, out-law reality TV that showcases anything but "reality", maybe that should help

.

 

 

I liked this gem: (link)

 

 

No matter my opinions, I will always enjoy a good satire. Arizona State LMFAO     

If it really is true that this is the process, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Thank you for sharing this with me; through debates like this, we learn!

 

.

Learning good, listening better

 

 

He got reelected cause the "other side" had 1 basic plan: throw all out the small change already done.   Sorry, running a campaighn on "I shall undo everything my predecessor (who was elected) did" is kinda flawed and petty. Also as you like funny things.

 

LOL the P could stand for Pig Shagger       

If I'm correct, Conservatives are a bit different over in the UK right?

 

 

 

Protestors =/= people desiring to break stuff =/= face of a movement. (unless the movement is offcourse meant to just break stuff ).   I wouldn't necesairly equate the KKK supports with the guys who actually put people on burning crosses. You demonize the entire side when doing that.

 

The BLM movement was started in support of a man who tried to steal a Police Officer's Gun and was summarily shot; they said the Cop was racist and started looting the city of Ferguson Missouri. In my opinion, they're just as bad as Anarchists or Communists.

 

 

 

Indeed, but the thing that people should wonder about, is that a way of running a society? Quick fixes and scapegoating "undersireables"?

 

Sadly, human nature is to look for the easy out. I believe that we should commit to the long haul and band together as Americans as a whole instead of allowing these groups to break us up into smaller groups. Together we stand, divided we fall. That's Nationalism. But we'll need a strong leader to do it.

 

 

 

Group 3 is the most fun, you can pick those out nicely as their entire rebuke is usually less then 1 sentence   It isn't really a majority, its tyranny of the shouters.

 

True. But it's ironic (at least to me) that the Founders of our Country called it ~300 years ago and we're turning it into reality.

 

 

 

Nationalism, as any -ism, is a brilliant and usefull ideology up until its used in the real world, in which it gets manipulated and twisted to serve the users agenda. Same could be said for all te -ism's, they are brilliant on paper, sadly they stay on paper.   Every society has a mix from all the -ism's out there, it is up to the people present to decide and mix the appropiate answers into 1 form of society.   Indeed, that is "liberals", which we would call "capitalists" funnely enough. It isn't the people in the street who desire all what you describe there, its actually some of the people in power who would like such things. a) more immigrants = more cheap labor less free speech = my word trumps yours c) tax everyone = expect me, cause I got them secret deals with the IRS.   What you describe as "liberals" are actually people desiring a more level and equal playing field to all. This doesn't mean everything gets the same bland gray shirt and is off to the goulag. It means that everyone below the majority's mean should be lifted up with assistance from the majority. Assitance is the big word here, if said person is just desiring to revoke all of society except the free ride, then by all means, let him enjoy the rollercoaster down to the lowest level. But don't ignore the masses of potentional just cause there are some rotten apples, you find those anywhere.

 

I'm afraid I must, once again, completely agree with you my friend.

What works for one country probably doesn't work for all countries due to Culture and what-all; the United States is so diverse that without a sense of unifying Nationalism everything will fly to bits (as we're seeing it do so right now). A system based purely on one system or another is always destined to fail. Nationalism+Democracy would, in my opinion, be a great combination for the United States.

The whole mass-immigration thing is definitely being done by the Politicians, and most of the people here don't want anything to do with (Irony: The country of Immigrants has always been opposed to more immigrants)

I believe in offering help to the people who legitimately need it. Over here the system is broken though; my Father went on disability for a few months because of medical problems, when he came off of it and went back to work the Government said "oh yeah we want all of our money back" whereas I know people who live their entire lives on disability/welfare because they're just lazy.

Due to my association IRL with Scouting and Masonic organizations, I've done a lot of charity work in my community; nothing beats the feeling of giving someone in need a free meal. The problem is, and this has legitimately happened, you'll be volunteering at a soup kitchen and see people playing on cellphones and wearing blutooth headsets and wearing expensive clothes. 

 

 

 

Very, hence I keep shuckling when the "god bless america" is mentioned and I can't help but think that said god would want nothing of the people who utter those words.

 

We truly have put ourselves in a very perverse situation. Half of the people want a Religious Oligarchy like Iran (except ruled by Brimstone-and-Hellfire preachers) and the other half wants to resurrect Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

 

 

But we are helping alot of nations, but you can't help everyone at the same time nor can you stop any injustice from hampering said aid in the places it is being received. And you shouldn't complain about like 2M refugees, if the ALL came over then you should start complaining.   Also, about "rising up to our level", this should be done both gradually and with local support. Dropping some $$ into a bankaccount of the leader does nothing. Hence NGO's do the work on the ground, aid should be more directly funneled to NGO's then to the leaders of those nations.

 

The problem that I have with this "refugee crisis" is that it's been completely manufactured by our Governments; these people would still be living in Damascus or Homms right now if it hadn't been for the West giving weapons and training to terrorists "moderate rebels."

 

 

 

Well first off, out-law reality TV that showcases anything but "reality", maybe that should help

 

LOL are you familiar with Honey-booboo? 

 

 

 

Learning good, listening better

 

 

He got reelected cause the "other side" had 1 basic plan: throw all out the small change already done.   Sorry, running a campaighn on "I shall undo everything my predecessor (who was elected) did" is kinda flawed and petty. Also as you like funny things.

 

LOL the P could stand for Pig Shagger       

If I'm correct, Conservatives are a bit different over in the UK right?

 

In what sense? They are probably more economically liberal than the American Republican Party, as they do support things like an NHS (currently) and at least theoretically pay lip service to the benefit of a welfare state. However they are fairly right wing in their views.