Post: #151

(10-23-2012 05:27 PM)captaingeneric Wrote:  Athlone:

Look, other than your forum contributions, I don't know you from a hole in the ground. I don't wish you and yours any harm, but at the same time, in an election, the greater good should take precedence over what's best for the individual, in my view anyway. And while I perfectly understand the rational desire for self-preservation, only one of us has the truth on our side, and it's not yours. It's all been said ad infinitum in the manosphere and I'm sure you've been around long enough to know better, even if, should the dreaded right-wing/anti left-wing revolution of your worse nightmares ever occur, you as an individual would not benefit from it.

Also, as I've alluded to before, this should not be read as an endorsement for the Republican party. I support them insofar as they are the lesser of two evils, but I recognize that they aren't a particularly attractive option either. If I were American on November 6, I would simply stay home. Which begs the question: why don't you do the same? Your vote won't matter anyway.

1. I'm not voting. Reasons why were touched on a month ago. I do not live in a swing state so no, it won't matter.
2. I'm not convinced that the right is for the "greater good", nor would I consider it the "lesser of two evils". I've made my case for this several times before. I'll concede that we're looking at two evils, and that's it.

Post: #152

(10-23-2012 05:27 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(10-23-2012 05:13 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  Kosko, I think the major difference between the parties is what they would do if they could get away with it. Of course once in office, they tend to move away from the base of their party and towards the middle while throwing an occasional bone to the diehards(a nod to gay marriage, or vow to kill Obamacare). They do this because this is really the only way you can govern.

Now let's say both parties were allowed to do whatever they wanted unfettered from opposition, you'd see a major difference. One would be banning abortion, gutting social programs, the department of education, ramping up military spending, probably ending immigration,have all conservative justices and deregulating the economy. The other party would usher in gay marriage, have single payer healthcare, abortion on demand for all, increase the education budget, slash military spending, have everyone on public transit or hybrid cars, and dramatically raise taxes on the wealthy.

At the end of the day, neither will be able to do half the stuff they wish they could do.

No speakeasy, the logical conclusion to leftist ideas is central planning on all levels, and ultimately the rise of a tyrant who then controls through a police state.

At least the "ideology" of conservatives is to "conserve" the size of gov't thereby preserving some manner of freedom.

Personally I believe in Libertarianism as the best form of gov't which is in opposition to conservatism and liberalism.

Fisto, pound for pound you are the most politically ignorant person on this forum. First off you're conflating liberal and leftist. Secondly not all on the left are for large authoritarian government. See Noam Chomsky for example. And many conservatives have been authoritarian. It's called fascism. There's a long history of it.

Post: #153

(10-23-2012 05:47 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  Fisto, pound for pound you are the most politically ignorant person on this forum. First off you're conflating liberal and leftist. Secondly not all on the left are for large authoritarian government. See Noam Chomsky for example. And many conservatives have been authoritarian. It's called fascism. There's a long history of it.

Noam Chomsky -- irrelevant political figure that he is or isn't -- is not our benchmark here.

Look, is there any doubt that the leftist strain in this country espouses feminism, big government do-gooder social programs, rabid green environmentalism, anti-business pro-union sentiments, love of regulaton with only passing consideration of the cost-benefit tradeoff, huge entitlement programs, an apologetic attitude toward the actions of the United States, nanny statism, and a general sense of "I am a liberal, I am enlightened and non-ideological, and if you are not thinking like me you are a right wing extremist nutjob."

It's indisputable.

That's why liberalism, as it is currently constituted in the USA, is a rot.

Post: #154

(10-23-2012 05:57 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(10-23-2012 05:47 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  Fisto, pound for pound you are the most politically ignorant person on this forum. First off you're conflating liberal and leftist. Secondly not all on the left are for large authoritarian government. See Noam Chomsky for example. And many conservatives have been authoritarian. It's called fascism. There's a long history of it.

Noam Chomsky -- irrelevant political figure that he is or isn't -- is not our benchmark here.

Look, is there any doubt that the leftist strain in this country espouses feminism, big government do-gooder social programs, rabid green environmentalism, anti-business pro-union sentiments, love of regulaton with only passing consideration of the cost-benefit tradeoff, huge entitlement programs, an apologetic attitude toward the actions of the United States, nanny statism, and a general sense of "I am a liberal, I am enlightened and non-ideological, and if you are not thinking like me you are a right wing extremist nutjob."

It's indisputable.

That's why liberalism, as it is currently constituted in the USA, is a rot.

Sorry man, I can't argue against straw men and caricatures.

Post: #155

(10-23-2012 05:27 PM)captaingeneric Wrote:  Also, as I've alluded to before, this should not be read as an endorsement for the Republican party. I support them insofar as they are the lesser of two evils, but I recognize that they aren't a particularly attractive option either. If I were American on November 6, I would simply stay home. Which begs the question: why don't you do the same? Your vote won't matter anyway.

I am looking forward to Justin Trudeau taking over the leadership of the Liberal party, so that we can finally kick that Bush wannabe Stephen Harper out on his ass.

Post: #156

(10-23-2012 05:27 PM)captaingeneric Wrote:  but at the same time, in an election, the greater good should take precedence over what's best for the individual, in my view anyway.

Communist. Socialist. Marxist.

Post: #157

(10-23-2012 06:02 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  Sorry man, I can't argue against straw men and caricatures.

Straw men, if they are truly straw men, are the EASIEST claims to argue against.

For some, anyway.

Post: #158

(10-23-2012 05:47 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(10-23-2012 05:27 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(10-23-2012 05:13 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  Kosko, I think the major difference between the parties is what they would do if they could get away with it. Of course once in office, they tend to move away from the base of their party and towards the middle while throwing an occasional bone to the diehards(a nod to gay marriage, or vow to kill Obamacare). They do this because this is really the only way you can govern.

Now let's say both parties were allowed to do whatever they wanted unfettered from opposition, you'd see a major difference. One would be banning abortion, gutting social programs, the department of education, ramping up military spending, probably ending immigration,have all conservative justices and deregulating the economy. The other party would usher in gay marriage, have single payer healthcare, abortion on demand for all, increase the education budget, slash military spending, have everyone on public transit or hybrid cars, and dramatically raise taxes on the wealthy.

At the end of the day, neither will be able to do half the stuff they wish they could do.

No speakeasy, the logical conclusion to leftist ideas is central planning on all levels, and ultimately the rise of a tyrant who then controls through a police state.

At least the "ideology" of conservatives is to "conserve" the size of gov't thereby preserving some manner of freedom.

Personally I believe in Libertarianism as the best form of gov't which is in opposition to conservatism and liberalism.

Fisto, pound for pound you are the most politically ignorant person on this forum. First off you're conflating liberal and leftist. Secondly not all on the left are for large authoritarian government. See Noam Chomsky for example. And many conservatives have been authoritarian. It's called fascism. There's a long history of it.

I have no idea what that word means and neither did google.

Edit: found conflating. How is "liberal" different from "leftist"? Is this one of those word puzzles "all liberals are leftists but all leftists aren't liberals"? It's the same thing, you may personally want to draw the line at a certain point in gov't power but that's never going to happen. What do you think a guy like bloomburg, who regulates the size of soda would do if he had cart blanche power? You think he's respect your wishes? I wouldn't trust Ronald Reagan or Ron Paul with that kind of power. That's the whole reason the founders wanted checks and balances.

I'm not ignorant at all. Every tyrant that has ever risen in the history of the world has claimed to be doing atrocities for the greater good. Regulation leads to central planning because inherently IT IS. You can say you're on the left and not "for" authoritarian gov't but that doesn't mean that your choices don't lead there. You think the gov't officials who know what's best for you just stop giving orders about how you can live once they finally get everyone driving hybrids? That's laughable bro. I'm ignorant?

Edit: You really should look up what facism is before you start bandying the word about.

Post: #159

(10-23-2012 06:09 PM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(10-23-2012 06:02 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  Sorry man, I can't argue against straw men and caricatures.

Straw men, if they are truly straw men, are the EASIEST claims to argue against.

For some, anyway.

Speakeasy is actually a smart guy, I usually read his posts. Right now he's smart enough not to try and defend what you brought up. That's why he's avoiding it.

Post: #160

Republican Senator Lindsay Graham knows the score. He says it like it is.

Quote:“The demographics race we’re losing badly,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.). “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a...story.html

Post: #161

When someone asks me who won Monday night I say the Bears....

Post: #162

(10-23-2012 05:14 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  Interesting.
So we're cool then. We're both into game and "red-pill" philosophy when it comes to chicks. We post on the forums and (let's say hypotehtically) we get along swimmingly when it comes to talk of game and the like.

But when I suddenly get with a cute white girl, you're going to be grossed out by it...because I'm black. Not because I'm a thug, or a pathetic beta/mangina, or because you have a thing for the particular girl I'm with...but because I'm black.
Were I white, I'm sure you'd have no problem, even if I were white trash. But I'm black...so there's an issue, even if we're otherwise cool.

And you consider it irrational for me to take offense to this?

Most of the women in my extended family are married to white men and/or regularly date them. I have Jewish and Italian uncles and cousins, English nephews, and much more.
So no, it really doesn't bother me. I'm not uncomfortable with the idea of black women dating out (with whites, asians, or whoever) anymore than I am with the idea of seeing a black male or a white male dating outside of his race. I'm simply not that insecure.

I see plenty of nationalists on the far-right advocating just that.
If we're going to get into a pissing contest about who's associated with who, then I'm going to take them into account.

I recognize some guys are angry and insecure about interracial dating because of their inability to score, I'm less bothered because I like you can handle it, but I definitely recognize the primal feeling, I just don't act on it for moral reasons. I have a hard time believing your largesse is representative for all African-Americans. Maybe it is...

Post: #163

(10-23-2012 06:03 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(10-23-2012 05:27 PM)captaingeneric Wrote:  Also, as I've alluded to before, this should not be read as an endorsement for the Republican party. I support them insofar as they are the lesser of two evils, but I recognize that they aren't a particularly attractive option either. If I were American on November 6, I would simply stay home. Which begs the question: why don't you do the same? Your vote won't matter anyway.

I am looking forward to Justin Trudeau taking over the leadership of the Liberal party, so that we can finally kick that Bush wannabe Stephen Harper out on his ass.

Don't be so eager. Trudeau is a flaming homosexual and nothing like his idealist-yet rational Father.

Both Harper and Trudeau are not ideal.

One is a Neo-Con hack stuck in the Stonge age the other is PC hack waiting to export the "Toronto model" all over the Country.

To me a NDP as a stable middle block/wedge which slowly breaks off its union strongholds to maintain Governance is ideal. Minority Government in which they have to broker deals with both sides.

Democracy is messy and slow. Its a fools game to expect to be expedient.

Nobody complained in the early days of the Harper Minority but people grew tired of it as it chipped away at his opposition while propping up the NDP and setting up the stage where they ended-up dissolved the separatism Bloc from Quebec.

Post: #164

(10-23-2012 06:52 PM)ElJefe Wrote:  I recognize some guys are angry and insecure about interracial dating because of their inability to score, I'm less bothered because I like you can handle it, but I definitely recognize the primal feeling, I just don't act on it for moral reasons. I have a hard time believing your largesse is representative for all African-Americans. Maybe it is...

Sorry to digress from politics, but I found this ^^ interesting and had to reply...

Calling it a primal feeling suggest that it's something inborn. There's no evidence that that's the case. I'd say what we're seeing rather is the result of 400 years of bad racial history(though getting better of course over time) living within the context of a country that was founded on racial hierarchy and slavery. These old views of racial hierarchy are still deeply embedded in the culture. Jim Crow once you scratch the surface was largely about keeping black men from having sex with white women. Of course white men always had carte blanche to use black women as sex objects, like Thomas Jefferson. You know, I recently found out that part of the reason marijuana was banned in America is because there was a belief that it made white women want to sleep with black men. Yeah, Google it. In the riot of Tulsa, whites torched an entire middle class black community to the ground because they thought some black guy had assaulted a white woman(she never even pressed charges on this herself). There are endless stories like this from our history. I think this legacy is why black male/white female couples are always considered the most controversial, at least in America. The paranoia regarding this coupling runs very, VERY deep in our culture.

Post: #165

Forget it. Not worth it.

Post: #166

(10-23-2012 02:31 PM)ManAbout Wrote:  

(10-23-2012 02:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Feminists are universally voting for Obama. Why are you guys voting with the feminists? Blue-pill.

You mean those same feminists that Romney is desperately trying to grovel and pander to with his "binders full of women" crap?

Yeah, magic underwear Romney is so red pill.. LOL

(10-23-2012 03:31 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(10-23-2012 02:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Feminists are universally voting for Obama. Why are you guys voting with the feminists? Blue-pill.

Can we stop with this type of glib nonsense? I can find plenty of reprehensible people that always fall behind Republicans. You're just defaulting to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thinking. Some racists in the south refuse to vote Democrat "because blacks and Jews vote Democrat." What kind of shit is that?

(10-23-2012 03:34 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(10-23-2012 02:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Feminists are universally voting for Obama. Why are you guys voting with the feminists? Blue-pill.

Instead I'll vote with the traditional/religious conservatives, white nationalists and assorted racialists who put women (particularly white women) on absurdly high pedestals.

That wouldn't be blue pill at all, I'm sure.

When did I say to vote for Romney?

Post: #167

My two thoughts on the election, not that anyone gives a shit:

It's sad that men bicker on internet message boards over things like who to vote for who ought to date whom. A real man recognizes that the US is culturally and fiscally rotten, and makes his own preparations for the inevitable. In other words, increase your value to society in order to make a healthy living, invest the proceeds defensively, look out for your own friends and family, and make backup plans. Don't burst a capillary trying to convince your relatives, co-workers and friends that Obama is a muslim Communist or that Mitt is a woman-hating feudal lord.

I think that Obama is a classic beta and Michelle wears the pants in the relationship. I think this is why Obama gets such an obvious thrill out of being commander-in-chief and being in charge of a kill list - kind of like a kid out at a gun range for the first time - it makes him feel important and empowered. All arrogance and amateur snobbery. I don't think his pandering to woman is an act - I think his frequent paeans to Michelle are phony.

I think that Romney is arrogant and amateurish on the economy and foreign policy. A classic right-wing Keynesian who believes that government spending and military adventurism leads will lead to prosperity. I have some respect for Mormons because even though their religion is crazy they tend to attract and marry hot women who are devoted to the home and the children. If you're going to be a religious nut this is not a bad way to go.

I'm not voting for either because they are both likely sociopaths. You're better off sitting at home with a drink and watching the show as you would a circus. I stole that line from H.L. Mencken, who said,

"Has the art of politics no apparent utility? Does it appear to be unqualifiedly ratty, raffish, sordid, obscene, and low down, and its salient virtuosi a gang of unmitigated scoundrels? Then let us not forget its high capacity to soothe and tickle the midriff, its incomparable services as a maker of entertainment."

Post: #168

If you don't vote, you are voting for the Republican party.

Post: #169

I'm gonna reply briefly to this, and leave it at that so we don't derail the thread. Would suggest that if you want to continue the topic, we take it to PM.

See comments below in italics.

(10-23-2012 02:28 PM)kosko Wrote:  

(10-23-2012 04:15 AM)Sabra Wrote:  

(10-22-2012 10:36 PM)LoveBug Wrote:  Its tough for me to watch these foreign debates for two reasons

1. Apparently Israel's safety has become our safety.. Iran threatenng Israel means Iran is threatening us.. Watching these two leaders grovel over who bends over more for this nation is embarassing.

2. We aren't the world police. Anything outside of our borders that doesn't threaten our national safety or vital economic interests is none of our business

As an Israeli and American I can understand your comment. Israel may be getting a disproportionate amount of coverage in this election, partly due to Netanyahu's meddling. But supporting the US's only ally and trusted military / intelligence partner in the region isn't a bad thing.

Don't underestimate the consequence of Iran getting a nuke. Iran's leadership hates the US about as much as they hate Israel. This is a country that openly supports Islamic terrorist groups.

Letting them get a nuke will result in another loose cannon in the area, just like Pakistan or N Korea, which the US will have to treat with kiddie gloves. It also may set off a nuclear arms race in the middle east (keep in mind that many of the Arab countries hate or distrust the Iranians as well, and won't let them be the only Muslim country in the area with a nuke).

Basically, this issue requires international intervention. 'stay the hell out' may be the right policy in some cases, but sometimes, as in Afghanistan, the US isn't left with much choice. Better to try to avoid reaching that situation rather than being forced into it and needing to respond

You fail to understand the chess of Geo-politics. Iran with a nuke means more safety for the region and Israel. They will never use it.
Pretty easy to say when you're not the target. You're suggesting a replay of MAD, mutually assured destruction, but with two very differently sized and motivated players.

North Korea? Is a puppet of China. They mirror Chinese end goals. They can't even keep the lights on and you expect them to pull of a stunt like that? No aid from China means North Korea starves and has no power. They are past being Reactionary and now are just trying to survive. Korea would be used as a decoy/proxy if shit ever popped of.
Agreed. I don't know what you meant by "and you expect them to pull of a stunt like that". I don't expect them to pull off any stunt. It's an example of a country getting a nuke, and using it against the US's interests (i.e. selling nuke secrets to other enemy states/groups).

Pakistan is a USA puppet. Both double cross each other constantly. It is like a bad marriage but one the USA tries to maintain to hedge India vs Pakistan against each other and keep them from allying with Russia-China.
Also true. Again, a country that got the bomb against the US's wishes, and now we're stuck propping up a weak central gov't surrounded by feuding tribes and Islamist terrorists, just to make sure they don't get control of the Pakistani weapons cache.

Whom honestly thinks Iran would strike Israel with the USA standing right behind it. They would both pound it to the stone age and kill every Iranian within a 100 mile radius of Tehran. Israel would use one of its 50-100 nukes and hammer down on Iran so hard, so fuking hard. You honestly would think they are that dumb to slit thier own necks? Where would the mullahs hide when nukes rain down on them? Get real.
Maybe you're right. Maybe you're not. Again, hard to count on that when you're the target. This assumes that Iran will act completely rationally, as the US and Russia ultimately did in the Cold War (barely). Can we count on Iran acting rationally? Again, maybe. But maybe a government willing to dispassionately slay thousands of its own citizens at the first sign of an uprise is not a 'rational actor' as the West understands it.

Iran talks heavy because it knows that any move on it (first strike) would open a multi-directional can of worms that the USA could not contain:

Shipping lanes would close
US could contain this.

Oil skyrockets
Oil would increase somewhat, but much of the West has already diverged itself of most Iranian oil.

The sitting ducks of USA troops all stationed around Iran would become target practice.
True. There would be the fear of terrorist strikes against US troops, similar to in Lebanon years ago.

Navel fleet attacks left and right.
Same as above

Rockets into Israeli Cities.
Unquestionably

Uprisings all over the Shi'a Crescent. With back pressure on the borders and fringes of: Egypt, FSU/Russia, Turkey, Pakistan, Israel (3 of whom have nukes).
A little late for this, in light of the 'Arab Spring' already under way. And not certain that this would happen in a big sense either. May depend on the size of a foreign strike in Iran - a surgical air strike similar to what allegedly happened in Syria might not have this effect.

The protection of economic/military interests. Of these nations: Pakistan, India (both USA proxies); China, Russia via SCO would mean something would have to transpire to Proctect their heavy investments in Iran.
Not sure what you're getting at here. None of these countries would directly intervene militarily on behalf of Iran.

None of this shit helps America. It would be like a box of birds being cracked open and trying to get then back in the box. Good luck.
Same with letting Iran get the bomb. Like I said before, this could set off a regional arms race. Iraq is really an example of this. The US did not understand that Iran and Iraq are mortal enemies, and invading Iraq would only strengthen Iran.

This is all worse to the USA, 100% Israel is fortified and could care less if the rest of the world burns into rubble. It's Cities being shelled would be its price payed for the complete destruction of the region around it (The British used to call it "the cost/price of Empire"). In Israel's radical right wing this is thier warped version of peace.
This is where I lost you. Completely wrong, you're just way off point.

This is why the top brass of the Army warn against it, and why any President whom is trying to push for it (war with Iran) is simply a whore to Tel Aviv and has zero interests in helping American interests. Because it has no *real* net benefit to America (*there is a undercurrent of short economic gains made to the USD$ due to explosive oil prices*).
I explained the geopolitical benefit of preventing Iran from obtaining a bomb previously.

And to mirror what I said with Romney (a top level Mormon) wanting to plunge the USA into the depths of hell - which is what a war with Iran would do - because it would (eventually in time) 100% lead to WWIII... 100%. Romney is giving the war hungry neo-cons the keys to the Foreign Policy file, while Obama is a whore to Big-Bank and Israeli money. America is somewhat fucked regardless but at least Obama has to pretend he is on the Left and has to dance around the whole Iran situation - Proxy wars would continue.
You've got a long way to go to show how this will lead to WW3. Did the alleged strike at Syria's nuke facility lead to WW3? There were people making the same arguments as you make back then, but it didn't pan out that way.

A world war in which Men aka You and Me are the main victims. War as a feminine trope feasts and targets Males, hundreds of millions of us would be killed...with our children left to suffer. I can't fuking support that.
Fair enough. I'm not supporting war. I'm supporting the West's (led by the US) support for Israel NOW, before a war is necessary, in preventing Iran from obtaining a bomb, without force if at all possible.

Back to less alarming talk.

The Iran vs Israel debate is simply that Israel wants to be the only power in the region. It does not want to be forced to have legitimate diplomatic dialogue with a nation that would be an equal. Israel runs on a hamster wheel so fuking large it does not want have to look in the mirror and conduct itself rationally at the table of diplomacy.
You don't understand Israel at all. A nation the size of New Jersey, founded in the shadow of the Holocaust. Being threatened by a nation 100 times its size, who openly denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Who would blame us for defending ourselves? Or our allies for having our backs.

You have top level people like Gates and Patraues calling that a war with Iran serves the USA no good.
Fair enough. Again, no one's looking for a war. And in the aftermath of the huge mistake of invading Iraq (which most generals supported), not surprising that there's a rise in isolationism in the States. But that doesn't always work, and sometimes devolves into appeasement, a la WWII.

A strike on Iran is not needed.

&

Nobody is going to fuck with Israel.
Certainly hope you're right.

It's enemies are its own creation that all Reactionary States produce. Israel's greatest threat to itself... is itself. All Reactionary States crumble from within due to its own paranoia. History always repeats itself. Israel is on a path to destroy itself from within just like the other domimant reactionary State: America. So much talk on outside threats that don't exist when internally both economies are crumbling, and it's citizens standards of life slowly dwindling.
Again, this is just an out of line, incorrect rant.

This is when massive war budgets must be trimmed. But this never happens in a Reactionary State as they simply just justify the war budgets by turning the war machine onto its own people (USA examples: Patriot Act, NDAA, etc).

I have my own views on Israel obviously in which I believe it is trying to hedge shit to eventually fuck over the USA for its own gains (As I said Israel cares not if the whole globe lays in ruins as long as their borders are held, and goals achieved).
Right, clearly Israel has a lot to gain by screwing over its strongest ally. Ridiculous, have nothing to say to this.

But regardless of my views there will have to a fork in the road moment when the cord is cut between the two. There will have to a point where one side finds it toxic or a suicide mission to go through with whatever the mission the other side proposes may be at that time. We are far from that scenario (I hope) but it is one that will eventually have to happen in time.[/i]

Post: #170

(10-24-2012 01:45 AM)soup Wrote:  If you don't vote, you are voting for the Republican party.

Not in my state.

Post: #171

Sarah Palin: "Obama's shuck and jive ends with Benghazi Lies."

And some wonder why black people will almost unanimously vote for Obama.

Now I'll sit back and wait for the usual suspects to chime in and say her statement was taken out of context, incorrect, etc.

Post: #172

(10-24-2012 07:13 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  Sarah Palin: "Obama's shuck and jive ends with Benghazi Lies."

And some wonder why black people will almost unanimously vote for Obama.

Now I'll sit back and wait for the usual suspects to chime in and say her statement was taken out of context, incorrect, etc.

Does anyone ask why 90% of Republican votes come from whites? Does anyone ask why virtually all Mormons are behind Romney?

Hey btw folks, did you guys hear about that stupid announcement from Donald Trump? Supposedly he was going to be dropping some devastating secret info on Obama today that would guarantee a Romney win. This is what it turns out to be:





What a fucking attention whore. It bewilders me how such a moron became so wealthy.