@El Chinito Loco

I agree with a lot of those points with the exception of the EPA, i have recently turned very anti green energy subsidies. I think right now the technology exists to make them even cheaper without guv subsidies but its just the big guys that want to keep that going. They are actually hurting innovation from the smaller companies as well. Also Tesla and GM are releasing mass produced affordable electric cars in 2017. Not sure why they need subsidies now. Apple and Google certainly don't with their coming cars. And their alliance with the SJW crowd is very very bad for us. Lastly, while a revolution in green energy will kill the Saudis in the longterm i think for the short term, the key stone pipeline and more fracking will severely damage them. On top of this, Trump has a very anti Saudi stance. When it comes to the pro-israeli stance, Trump has proven himself a staunch Anti-Neocon, that fact that they hate him so much proves he is the best Candidate for that issue. The surveillance is definitely an issue but he is so correct on so many issues that its very hard to agree with ron paul now.

Mark “OZ” Geist and John “TIG” Tiegen, two members of the security team that helped rescue dozens of Americans during the Benghazi terror attacks, have endorsed Donald Trump for president

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...ium=social

(02-28-2016 09:57 PM)Libertas Wrote:  Still, this episode is proving once again that the 1488 crowd is totally useless. You guys like David Duke want to help nationalism? Here's how:

Shut the fuck up.

That's what leads me to think there's more to it than a mere endorsement.

Duke knows the effect his endorsement has on Trump. If he really wanted him to win he'd say something like "Fuck Trump" and the media would either ignore him or reticently say that racists hate Trump which would boost his support in independent/lib-leaning circles.

So he's either an opportunistic type, looking to gain more fame by talking about Trump, or someone paid him off to make Trump look bad.

(02-28-2016 10:09 PM)Lucky Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:57 PM)Libertas Wrote:  Still, this episode is proving once again that the 1488 crowd is totally useless. You guys like David Duke want to help nationalism? Here's how:

Shut the fuck up.

That's what leads me to think there's more to it than a mere endorsement.

Duke knows the effect his endorsement has on Trump. If he really wanted him to win he'd say something like "Fuck Trump" and the media would either ignore him or reticently say that racists hate Trump which would boost his support in independent/lib-leaning circles.

So he's either an opportunistic type, looking to gain more fame by talking about Trump, or someone paid him off to make Trump look bad.

To make it worse, he told the Daily Beast that Trump knew who he was (which is true, but it'd be better to say he didn't)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...-i-am.html

(02-28-2016 10:09 PM)Lucky Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:57 PM)Libertas Wrote:  Still, this episode is proving once again that the 1488 crowd is totally useless. You guys like David Duke want to help nationalism? Here's how:

Shut the fuck up.

That's what leads me to think there's more to it than a mere endorsement.

Duke knows the effect his endorsement has on Trump. If he really wanted him to win he'd say something like "Fuck Trump" and the media would either ignore him or reticently say that racists hate Trump which would boost his support in independent/lib-leaning circles.

So he's either an opportunistic type, looking to gain more fame by talking about Trump, or someone paid him off to make Trump look bad.

It's the latter. All these 1488 losers are false-flaggers-for-hire.

GOPe says to David Duke:

This is on the front page of Reddit:

Reddit Calls out Hillary

(02-28-2016 09:30 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  Domestic spying. I really don't like Trump's position on this one bit. I don't care one bit how he plans to handle international terrorists however as citizens we live under the U.S. constitution. Patriot act (which he has openly supported) and other NSA taps violate that. If he wants to tap non citizens, drone them, or violate their shit I couldn't care less. However citizens deserve due process under constitutional rights.

I'd argue that the US, until it radically changes its foreign relations platform in the Middle East, is at war. It is not a conventional nation-against-nation war -- that era more or less ended when the Atomic Bomb was dropped -- and it is a stupid war and one that the US should not have gotten itself into, but it is a war nonetheless. The very definition of "wartime conditions" mean that things work significantly differently than in normal conditions. Insofar as the domestic surveillance has a reason, that's the (weak) justification I see for it. The real pity about it is that the US has not been as ruthless militarily in fighting that war as it has been with its domestic surveillance policies. It literally has encumbered the liberties of its own people for the sake of playing fair with its enemies. Perhaps, with a more nationalistic US, this might change. Much of the reason for the domestic surveillance in my view could be ended with a few well-placed nukes on certain areas of the Middle East, but I'm being a cold bastard right now.

Quote:The whole wall thing is good and I agree 100% on Trump's immigration stance however I don't see in practical terms how he's going to throw up a wall without spending a lot of money. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to this but I really don't think Mexico will be chipping in anything. I suppose he could impose some kind of trade sanction or tax on goods from Mexico to make this happen though. We'll see.

Trump's line about making Mexico pay for it is not, as far as I can remember, qualified by how this would happen. You would think the only way it's going to happen is by the US exerting some serious pressure on Mexico by way of trade terms, i.e. via a trade war of some kind, the tax thereby paying indirectly for the wall. To me the only question then becomes: what capacity is there for that trade war to widen beyond the US/Mexico relationship, and what are the consequences domestically for that trade war taking place?

Quote:Not a fan of some of Trump's past business dealings. Especially the way he maneuvered and used bankruptcy laws. I realize all billionaires have probably done at least a few shady things to get where they are though.

Pretty much every response I could make here is going to be at least partially guilty of the tu quoque fallacy, but I'll make the point nonetheless. What do you prefer: someone who scrupulously attends to the letter of the law even if it can be seen as a subversion of that law's "intent" ... or someone who's cavalier with the letter of the law, as I regard Hilary Clinton in relation to the e-mails?

My vote is for the guy who attends to the law as written, simply because he's wary of the consequences if he goes outside the law. And also because that guy -- if he's genuine, which is the real moral question -- knowing all the tricks that can be pulled is in the best position to advise how to stop those tricks being pulled in future.

Quote:I don't like Trump's position on not pursuing wall street criminals either especially the ones involved in 2008. Nearly all of them skated. It feels too much like he has close friends there and he's willing to protect guys in the finance and banking industry.

It would be interesting to see the rationale for him not pursuing them and what he's specifically said on the subject. If it's because too much time has passed since the offences and there's no prospect of recovering any of the funds lost, that would be a pragmatic though distasteful reason to not do so. Yes, you'd get a few old white guys in prison, and I appreciate "Justice be done though thy heavens fall", but if he gets advice from Justice that it simply is not in the public interest to pursue, he would be faulted if he kept on pursuing ghosts.

Quote:Trumps position on energy kind of disturbs me too. He wants to pump more and frack more but he's not really interested in clean or alternative energy. This appears to be oil industry sympathies to me. The sooner we start using alt energy the sooner that nations like Saudi Arabia (and OPEC) becomes less relevant on the world stage. This would be a good thing.

I don't want to clog up the thread with a debate on alternative energy, but on this I'd say he's right: every source of alt-energy (bar fusion, which is still at least a decade or two away) people come up with is not proving cost-effective. Solar doesn't convert enough energy to a useable form. Wind turbines burn out too quickly and they do tremendous environmental damage as well. Trump's line on energy could be based around a simple free-market orientation that you might expect from a businessman: when alt-energy becomes viable, the free market will orient to it naturally, since if it can be made viable, it makes more sense to use the sun, wind, and fusion than it is to dig rotting remains of dead dinosaurs out of cars and pollute the atmosphere as a result.

Quote:Trump continues to be very pro Israel on the surface. I'm not sure what this means in policy form until he becomes president but it could just be a continuation of what we've seen before with foreign policy in the middle east. The same program that doesn't work and is done for the benefit of Israel and a few neo con run defense companies.

Hopefully foreign policy is in for a major shakeup. From what I remember Trump's said he's neutral on Israel. But disregard my view on this, since I do hold the idea Israel should in fact exist.

Quote:It's good to have healthy skepticism with any political candidate especially one who hasn't really done anything in office yet. Trump is by far the best candidate though but let's not drink the kool aid too much until actually seeing what he does for the American people first.

I have a feeling the people most fanatical about Trump right now will be disappointed in 2-3 years. The ones who have milder expectations will probably be just fine. My expectations are that I believe he's fully capable of what he says but whether he will or can execute everything without major caveats or exceptions is another matter entirely. He's a businessman first and foremost.

No argument here.

   

(02-28-2016 10:18 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  This is on the front page of Reddit:

Reddit Calls out Hillary

The guy the Clinton's embrace (former KKK leader):





1:15

(02-28-2016 10:09 PM)Lucky Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:57 PM)Libertas Wrote:  Still, this episode is proving once again that the 1488 crowd is totally useless. You guys like David Duke want to help nationalism? Here's how:

Shut the fuck up.

That's what leads me to think there's more to it than a mere endorsement.

Duke knows the effect his endorsement has on Trump. If he really wanted him to win he'd say something like "Fuck Trump" and the media would either ignore him or reticently say that racists hate Trump which would boost his support in independent/lib-leaning circles.

So he's either an opportunistic type, looking to gain more fame by talking about Trump, or someone paid him off to make Trump look bad.

Or he's just a total dumbfuck that doesn't understand tactics, operations, and strategy, like most 1488 stormers.

   

(02-28-2016 10:04 PM)Liberty Sea Wrote:  Mark “OZ” Geist and John “TIG” Tiegen, two members of the security team that helped rescue dozens of Americans during the Benghazi terror attacks, have endorsed Donald Trump for president

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...ium=social

Have them sit in the front row for the debates against Hillabeast.

(02-28-2016 09:30 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:05 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  "Possible" is not really a sufficient argument. Demonstrate how Trump would be "much worse".

I'm more or less a Trump supporter but since Jasond isn't coming out with any substantive arguments aside from ~feels i'll throw in a few issues I have with Trump.

Domestic spying. I really don't like Trump's position on this one bit. I don't care one bit how he plans to handle international terrorists however as citizens we live under the U.S. constitution. Patriot act (which he has openly supported) and other NSA taps violate that. If he wants to tap non citizens, drone them, or violate their shit I couldn't care less. However citizens deserve due process under constitutional rights.

The whole wall thing is good and I agree 100% on Trump's immigration stance however I don't see in practical terms how he's going to throw up a wall without spending a lot of money. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to this but I really don't think Mexico will be chipping in anything. I suppose he could impose some kind of trade sanction or tax on goods from Mexico to make this happen though. We'll see.

Not a fan of some of Trump's past business dealings. Especially the way he maneuvered and used bankruptcy laws. I realize all billionaires have probably done at least a few shady things to get where they are though.

I don't like Trump's position on not pursuing wall street criminals either especially the ones involved in 2008. Nearly all of them skated. It feels too much like he has close friends there and he's willing to protect guys in the finance and banking industry.

Trumps position on energy kind of disturbs me too. He wants to pump more and frack more but he's not really interested in clean or alternative energy. This appears to be oil industry sympathies to me. The sooner we start using alt energy the sooner that nations like Saudi Arabia (and OPEC) becomes less relevant on the world stage. This would be a good thing.

Trump continues to be very pro Israel on the surface. I'm not sure what this means in policy form until he becomes president but it could just be a continuation of what we've seen before with foreign policy in the middle east. The same program that doesn't work and is done for the benefit of Israel and a few neo con run defense companies.


It's good to have healthy skepticism with any political candidate especially one who hasn't really done anything in office yet. Trump is by far the best candidate though but let's not drink the kool aid too much until actually seeing what he does for the American people first.

I have a feeling the people most fanatical about Trump right now will be disappointed in 2-3 years. The ones who have milder expectations will probably be just fine. My expectations are that I believe he's fully capable of what he says but whether he will or can execute everything without major caveats or exceptions is another matter entirely. He's a businessman first and foremost.

(02-28-2016 09:59 PM)SirTimothy Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:30 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  The whole wall thing is good and I agree 100% on Trump's immigration stance however I don't see in practical terms how he's going to throw up a wall without spending a lot of money. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to this but I really don't think Mexico will be chipping in anything. I suppose he could impose some kind of trade sanction or tax on goods from Mexico to make this happen though. We'll see.

I can see what you're saying on some of the other stuff, and it is good to have a healthy skepticism, but I think the wall will be a piece of cake for Trump. CNN estimated the cost for the materials for a basic wall at 10.5 billion dollars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkSo0QQLUfE

Last year Mexico imported 294 billion dollars worth of goods into the U.S. https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c2010.html

Imagine if that had just a 5% import duty, not to mention what could be done if all foreign aid was abolished and welfare cut back.

(02-28-2016 10:24 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:30 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  Domestic spying. I really don't like Trump's position on this one bit. I don't care one bit how he plans to handle international terrorists however as citizens we live under the U.S. constitution. Patriot act (which he has openly supported) and other NSA taps violate that. If he wants to tap non citizens, drone them, or violate their shit I couldn't care less. However citizens deserve due process under constitutional rights.

I'd argue that the US, until it radically changes its foreign relations platform in the Middle East, is at war. It is not a conventional nation-against-nation war -- that era more or less ended when the Atomic Bomb was dropped -- and it is a stupid war and one that the US should not have gotten itself into, but it is a war nonetheless. The very definition of "wartime conditions" mean that things work significantly differently than in normal conditions. Insofar as the domestic surveillance has a reason, that's the (weak) justification I see for it. The real pity about it is that the US has not been as ruthless militarily in fighting that war as it has been with its domestic surveillance policies. It literally has encumbered the liberties of its own people for the sake of playing fair with its enemies. Perhaps, with a more nationalistic US, this might change. Much of the reason for the domestic surveillance in my view could be ended with a few well-placed nukes on certain areas of the Middle East, but I'm being a cold bastard right now.

Quote:The whole wall thing is good and I agree 100% on Trump's immigration stance however I don't see in practical terms how he's going to throw up a wall without spending a lot of money. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to this but I really don't think Mexico will be chipping in anything. I suppose he could impose some kind of trade sanction or tax on goods from Mexico to make this happen though. We'll see.

Trump's line about making Mexico pay for it is not, as far as I can remember, qualified by how this would happen. You would think the only way it's going to happen is by the US exerting some serious pressure on Mexico by way of trade terms, i.e. via a trade war of some kind, the tax thereby paying indirectly for the wall. To me the only question then becomes: what capacity is there for that trade war to widen beyond the US/Mexico relationship, and what are the consequences domestically for that trade war taking place?

Quote:Not a fan of some of Trump's past business dealings. Especially the way he maneuvered and used bankruptcy laws. I realize all billionaires have probably done at least a few shady things to get where they are though.

Pretty much every response I could make here is going to be at least partially guilty of the tu quoque fallacy, but I'll make the point nonetheless. What do you prefer: someone who scrupulously attends to the letter of the law even if it can be seen as a subversion of that law's "intent" ... or someone who's cavalier with the letter of the law, as I regard Hilary Clinton in relation to the e-mails?

My vote is for the guy who attends to the law as written, simply because he's wary of the consequences if he goes outside the law. And also because that guy -- if he's genuine, which is the real moral question -- knowing all the tricks that can be pulled is in the best position to advise how to stop those tricks being pulled in future.

Quote:I don't like Trump's position on not pursuing wall street criminals either especially the ones involved in 2008. Nearly all of them skated. It feels too much like he has close friends there and he's willing to protect guys in the finance and banking industry.

It would be interesting to see the rationale for him not pursuing them and what he's specifically said on the subject. If it's because too much time has passed since the offences and there's no prospect of recovering any of the funds lost, that would be a pragmatic though distasteful reason to not do so. Yes, you'd get a few old white guys in prison, and I appreciate "Justice be done though thy heavens fall", but if he gets advice from Justice that it simply is not in the public interest to pursue, he would be faulted if he kept on pursuing ghosts.

Quote:Trumps position on energy kind of disturbs me too. He wants to pump more and frack more but he's not really interested in clean or alternative energy. This appears to be oil industry sympathies to me. The sooner we start using alt energy the sooner that nations like Saudi Arabia (and OPEC) becomes less relevant on the world stage. This would be a good thing.

I don't want to clog up the thread with a debate on alternative energy, but on this I'd say he's right: every source of alt-energy (bar fusion, which is still at least a decade or two away) people come up with is not proving cost-effective. Solar doesn't convert enough energy to a useable form. Wind turbines burn out too quickly and they do tremendous environmental damage as well. Trump's line on energy could be based around a simple free-market orientation that you might expect from a businessman: when alt-energy becomes viable, the free market will orient to it naturally, since if it can be made viable, it makes more sense to use the sun, wind, and fusion than it is to dig rotting remains of dead dinosaurs out of cars and pollute the atmosphere as a result.

Quote:Trump continues to be very pro Israel on the surface. I'm not sure what this means in policy form until he becomes president but it could just be a continuation of what we've seen before with foreign policy in the middle east. The same program that doesn't work and is done for the benefit of Israel and a few neo con run defense companies.

Hopefully foreign policy is in for a major shakeup. From what I remember Trump's said he's neutral on Israel. But disregard my view on this, since I do hold the idea Israel should in fact exist.

Quote:It's good to have healthy skepticism with any political candidate especially one who hasn't really done anything in office yet. Trump is by far the best candidate though but let's not drink the kool aid too much until actually seeing what he does for the American people first.

I have a feeling the people most fanatical about Trump right now will be disappointed in 2-3 years. The ones who have milder expectations will probably be just fine. My expectations are that I believe he's fully capable of what he says but whether he will or can execute everything without major caveats or exceptions is another matter entirely. He's a businessman first and foremost.

No argument here.

I support Trump, I want him to win, I think he's the best alternative we have and I absolutely think everyone else would be either worse or much worse, but I agree with El Chinito, it's healthy to question and not fall into mindless adoration, and I have some of the same concerns myself. I think SirTimothy and Paracelsus did a good job with their insights though, they make good sense. I'd just like to add one more thing, Trump has many times said he wants to make the military great again and that if he's president he'll make it the best military America ever had. What does this mean though? The US has by far the biggest military in the world, no other can even come close, does he mean he wants to make it even bigger and thus keep increasing the size and profits for the military industrial complex or does he mean he wouldn't take on expensive projects like the F35 jet, make the military less wasteful and more efficient? I'm really curious to know this.

I am planning to do this, in a liberal area, a library, Starbucks, preferably around a college. That would be a great opener without even talking.



Fixed

(02-28-2016 08:47 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 08:20 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  PS: I love that Bernie supporters, when faced with a loss, are choosing to flee to Canada or commit suicide.

OK that's it. I'm mixing concrete right now. I'll build the damn wall along the 49th parallel my damn self.

Who is going to pay for the wall?

Mexico as well ?

(02-28-2016 10:51 PM)Irenicus Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 08:47 PM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 08:20 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  PS: I love that Bernie supporters, when faced with a loss, are choosing to flee to Canada or commit suicide.

OK that's it. I'm mixing concrete right now. I'll build the damn wall along the 49th parallel my damn self.

Who is going to pay for the wall?

Mexico as well ?

Nah... Quebec. Them and the newfies, who owe for all the EI they collect.

Those who are quibbling about where Trump stands on this or that issue are missing the most important point about his candidacy, and the reason that it arouses such intense passion on both sides.

For many reasons both obvious and complex, Trump's entire persona and view of life represents a difference in kind from the Year Zero / SJW cultural elites that have been making seemingly inexorable strides in dominating more and more aspects of our society. It's not so much that Trump merely "disagrees" with these people; there are others who disagree. It's something more basic, he's not OF them, he is cut from an altogether different cloth, which strangely enough is pretty much the almost forgotten and much maligned normal guy cloth. I wrote about this in this post in the wake of Roosh's press conference, which I'll quote in part:

(02-07-2016 09:08 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Lucky, there is a great deal of sameness in all ideological discourse, whatever the ideology. That is why so much purely ideological text is so harshly reductive and impoverished -- it is fundamentally a betrayal of the true variety of life, of all the irreducible differences.

The Internet as it is today is an efficient machine for organizing and weaponizing this sameness; that's true across ostensibly different corners of the Internet, left and right alike. And those who recognize this sameness in the corners which they dislike are not really wrong to do so.

However, the great distinction between the Year Zero SJWs and the men on a forum like this one is that the YZ SJWs are fundamentally committed to the perpetuation of their kind of sameness; they truly wish to impose it on the world all the way down the line. Whereas the men here -- while we have our own ideological excesses from time to time -- are instinctively drawn to irreducible differences.

That is a big part of the whole phenomenon of TRUMP: the main reason he is so beloved is not any particular program or ideology but the deep sense that he does not belong to the world of ideological sameness, he is not of it. It's as if he is made of a different material than so much of the web is made of. Even the great and almost inexplicable charm of his tweets consists of the surprise of two things that are different in kind meeting each other in strangely agreeable harmony. That is what makes all the young Miscers and channers on the rally Youtube streams so crazed with love, enthusiasm, and creativity -- their awe before a completely unexpected spectacle of irreducible difference of character, personality, and comic verve.

While in that post I emphasized the LOVE that many men feel for Trump, the even more significant flip side to this love is the HATRED and TERROR he inspires among the Year Zero and SJW brigades. Again, this is not mainly because of his stance on any particular "issues" but because his very persona, manners, behavior and attitudes come from a world which to them is a world that can only exist as part of nightmare parody. These people KNOW -- know as deeply as they know anything -- that this is the year 2016, and it's time for credentialed academic researchers to discuss "green energy", and it's also time for legal activists to "fundamentally transform consent laws". And all of a sudden here comes this Queens billionaire with his weird hair and his red face and his love of fast food and he seems to live in a world where these "commitments" do not even exist. I don't think guys here fully comprehend just how offensive -- to the bottom of their nasty soles -- the very reality of Trump is to these people.

If Trump should win the election and actually become president, it will be one of the most stunning and unexpected rebukes an entire cultural class has ever received. It will deeply and fundamentally demoralize these people; demoralize them to such a grievous extent that they may just GIVE UP on trying to, for example, transform the model penal code for sexual assault to reflect the "yes means yes" approach throughout. Because why even try when TRUMP. This demoralization would be so utter and so profound that a great deal of evil -- particularly evil done to normal men trying to go about their lives -- would be permanently forestalled. The climate hysteria, the false rape hysteria, so many of these discharges of Year Zero SJW energy, will be fundamentally depleted and exhausted, faced with the unanswerable and incomprehensible rebuke of Trump's ascendance.

That, above and beyond any issues and specifics, is the best and main reason for men on this forum to hope for Trump's victory; indeed, it is the main reason so many are instinctively drawn to his cause. The enemy of our enemy is our friend; and we do have an enemy, and Trump is their enemy in ways more basic and deeper than any other.

**********************

A comment about possible outcomes. It is of course very possible -- maybe even likely -- that Trump will not prevail. I would not want to estimate the odds, anything seems possible from a Trump landslide to a Hillary landslide to a cliffhanger. And here is what I would like to say to forum guys:

Do not think of a HAG victory, should it happen, as a tragedy. It would not be a tragedy; it would be, merely, the resumption of regular programming, it would be what we could have always reasonably expected to happen. It would mean that certain social trends will have quite a while longer to go before they exhaust themselves and are reversed or altered in the face of FACTS. No, it will not mean "civil war", "societal collapse", or any of those things.

The right view of things is not to regard a Trump defeat as a tragedy; it is, rather, to regard a Trump victory -- should it happen -- as a stunning and wholly unexpected triumph, almost a gift from the heavens. It is not right or proper to expect such fantastical reversals; it's fine to hope for them and fight for them when the chance presents itself -- but they are not to be relied upon. When you're down 3 to 0 in a best of 7 playoff series, what you expect is to have a long offseason, make some good trades and draft picks, and live to fight another day; but when all of a sudden a player on your side becomes a f'ing MONSTER and hits walk off home runs in games 4 AND 5 -- and that's about where we are now -- you start thinking, damn, one more win and it's game 7 winner take all for the whole thing; could it be? And that's fine and you fight like hell for it. But if you get shut down in either game 6 or game 7, you don't kill yourself -- you shake it off and start thinking about those trades. Maybe you'll occasionally wonder what might have been if that one base could have been stolen -- but that is an idle thought, and no serious man should ever indulge it for too long.

But that's for the future. For now, let's do all we can to be holding that stunning and endlessly sweet trophy at the end of extra innings in an endless, bloody, legendary and never to be forgotten game 7, as the other team sits on their benches in stunned silence and desolation too deep even for tears.

@Lizard

The US doesn't have "by far the biggest military".

Just like with every other fucking thing in this gov't we just spend by far the most money on shit we don't need or isn't that great compared to what we would get if these businesses had to compete.

What he has said is that we can open up competition, save money, and grow the military while taking care of our Vets with sufficient use of resources and a more competitive market.


edit - also of course the 3 major ones; waste, fraud, and abuse.

(02-28-2016 10:14 PM)Liberty Sea Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 10:09 PM)Lucky Wrote:  

(02-28-2016 09:57 PM)Libertas Wrote:  Still, this episode is proving once again that the 1488 crowd is totally useless. You guys like David Duke want to help nationalism? Here's how:

Shut the fuck up.

That's what leads me to think there's more to it than a mere endorsement.

Duke knows the effect his endorsement has on Trump. If he really wanted him to win he'd say something like "Fuck Trump" and the media would either ignore him or reticently say that racists hate Trump which would boost his support in independent/lib-leaning circles.

So he's either an opportunistic type, looking to gain more fame by talking about Trump, or someone paid him off to make Trump look bad.

To make it worse, he told the Daily Beast that Trump knew who he was (which is true, but it'd be better to say he didn't)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...-i-am.html

Sometime last year he was asked about how he would feel if David Duke endorsed him and he said "I don't even know who that is. But if it will make you happy then I would repudiate it."

i imagine he looked him up after that.

ill grab the link for it when I get to my computer.

I've yet to see an argument against Trump that doesn't boil down to "he's a meanie!"

Someone tried to argue that Hillary was the most experienced candidate. I said "if you want experience, vote for Sanders. He's been in elected positions far longer."

Decent post, but this cracked me up:

No, it will not mean "civil war"

The only argument I've ever encountered among those who don't think we are headed to major societal upheaval is:

No, it won't happen.

That's it. No reasons, just, NORMALCY BIAS.

Civil war has ravaged the Middle East, spread to Europe via Ukraine, and now the Migrant Crisis, and WILL spread here if not Trump.

The West is out of money and out of tricks for kicking the can down the road, and in addition, is facing demographic Armageddon.

People, listen to those like Samseu. He's well read and lays out an argument for his beliefs.

The Normalcy bias, "No this can't happen because America" argument has no basis in reality.

This isn't a computer game. Reality eventually bites. And it bites hard.

(02-29-2016 08:01 PM)username Wrote:  



Haha Glenn Beck is going to lose everything.

(02-29-2016 07:58 PM)Last Parade Wrote:  Oh my god. Forum favourite (and one of the top Trump supporters) Andrea Tantaros has a new book coming out...

The title suggests it might contain some red pill knowledge aimed towards women. Might be worth a read?

Also, the classic Andrea shot:

   

FLCAIST3R1 day ago
"We are Anonymous, we will ring your doorbell and run away. Expect us".
Reply6
Miniburka