By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Next President Of The United States Is Donald J Trump

 

Trump is the president. What do you think?

I hate myself and want to die. 232 25.38%
 
I am so happy and want to... 238 26.04%
 
Eh. I honestly don't care 204 22.32%
 
How the hell did 11,000 U... 240 26.26%
 
Total:914

As a Libertarian I'm pro gay marriage pro choice and pro weed etc.

And I'm tired of having to vote straight party line Republican because Democrats and their supporters want to ban assault rifles or all guns in general.

 

As NFA, Australia, and GB prove, once you lose it you will never get it back.

 

No thanks.

 

We had a compromise in 1934.  It had regulation, registration, background checks, finger prints, a tax, everything Dems want.  But it's never enough with you.  Everything else after is just more steps to an eventual ban, just like the machine gun "ban" in 1986 and the attempted semi auto ban in 1994-2004 and every year since.

You guys need to drop the anti gun shit. Now you are paying the price. 

I hope 1986 Hughes Amendment, if not the entire NFA, gets scrapped so I can buy a full auto AR15 for $1100 and I hope we end up with a 6-3 conservative court to affirm it and seal gun rights for the next 50 years.

I will never vote liberal or Democrat if they always come with the poison pill of wanting to ban guns or even "just certain types of guns". Immediate reject no matter how sensible they are on anything else.

Give it a rest. Next time pick a party and candidate who can respect your rights and equality without taking mine away forever.

In fact... with the way Trump's supporters have been behaving, if you are minority group, you might want to discover those 2nd ammendment rights you hate so much for yourself for the next 4-8 years.



Around the Network
Zkuq said:

Good for you if you like Trump. I specifically tried to keep me comment separate from any specific elections (such as this one), and instead talked on a general level. I just don't think the system is very good, no matter who wins.

There's better ways to get around (geographical) tyranny of the majority, if that's what you're worried about. Probably the easiest way is to have votes in different states have different weights, but otherwise have each vote count directly. Weighing states differently seems to essentially be the part of the electoral college that you're defending, so it shouldn't be a problem.

Personally I think tyranny of the majority is a troublematic concept for several reasons, and I don't necessarily think anything should even be tried to be done about it. That said, the above still seems like a valid solution to geographical tyranny of the majority. What we have for parliamentary elections here is pretty close to it, and it's working pretty well, I think. Ironically, it's the power it grants less populated areas that I find problematic about it. It makes getting elected in some election areas much, much more difficult than in others, and even some quite popular politicians have suffered for it, I think (if I recall correctly, the leader of a party didn't get elected because of that 'somewhat recently').

Are you implying that we have electoral votes be split popular vote wise per each state ? It sounds like a good idea at first when you realize 3rd parties are more likely to prevent the leading two parties from reaching 270 electoral votes which would cause us to go in limbo ... 

Tyranny through majority is a very real thing when the entire population cannot be trusted to protect the rights of minorities. There's a reason why the founding fathers created America to be a federal republic and not a pure democracy. While several electoral systems give more power relative to less populated areas I think that is meant to be a defense against the voices of more populated areas so it may be harder to win certain elections but once it happens at least it's justified with some multipartisan support ... 



fatslob-:O said:
Zkuq said:

Good for you if you like Trump. I specifically tried to keep me comment separate from any specific elections (such as this one), and instead talked on a general level. I just don't think the system is very good, no matter who wins.

There's better ways to get around (geographical) tyranny of the majority, if that's what you're worried about. Probably the easiest way is to have votes in different states have different weights, but otherwise have each vote count directly. Weighing states differently seems to essentially be the part of the electoral college that you're defending, so it shouldn't be a problem.

Personally I think tyranny of the majority is a troublematic concept for several reasons, and I don't necessarily think anything should even be tried to be done about it. That said, the above still seems like a valid solution to geographical tyranny of the majority. What we have for parliamentary elections here is pretty close to it, and it's working pretty well, I think. Ironically, it's the power it grants less populated areas that I find problematic about it. It makes getting elected in some election areas much, much more difficult than in others, and even some quite popular politicians have suffered for it, I think (if I recall correctly, the leader of a party didn't get elected because of that 'somewhat recently').

Are you implying that we have electoral votes be split popular vote wise per each state ? It sounds like a good idea at first when you realize 3rd parties are more likely to prevent the leading two parties from reaching 270 electoral votes which would cause us to go in limbo ... 

Tyranny through majority is a very real thing when the entire population cannot be trusted to protect the rights of minorities. There's a reason why the founding fathers created America to be a federal republic and not a pure democracy. While several electoral systems give more power relative to less populated areas I think that is meant to be a defense against the voices of more populated areas so it may be harder to win certain elections but once it happens at least it's justified with some multipartisan support ... 

Yeah, that's sort of what I'm saying. What you're saying is a problem with the current electoral system for sure. It's easily solvable if you just have a second voting round between the two top candidates if no one reaches 270 votes during the first round of voting. That said, I'm not sure if such a change would require changing the constitution, which would be a huge hassle and probably isn't going to happen any time soon. Ideally though, the whole electoral college would be abolished and replaced with a direct voting system where the votes count directly (with the possibility of weighting by state to defend against tyranny of the majority). There's literally no reason to use the electoral college as a defense against tyranny of the majority when there's a better system.

Yeah, like I said, tyranny of the majority is a troublesome concept, and you make good points. I agree that such tyranny is not good, but it can also be really difficult to draw the line between tyranny and democracy with regard to tyranny of the majority. Even weighting by state helps only with geographical tyranny of the majority, but what about other forms? It's a tricky issue (we wouldn't be having this debate if it wasn't), and that's why I'm not completely opposed to weighting votes by state or something else sensible.



konnichiwa said:

Good gracious! This was his plan all along! 



Chris Hu said:
Ronster316 said:
First, there was BREXIT..... now we have BREXIT 2: Retribution, the west has spoken, your time is up ISIS, the Clintons and Caliphonia can go do one, Mr "if if if if if if if" can finally crawl under a rock, speaking of California, a personal "fook you" to that old fart de Nero, Miley Cyrus (Canada awaits you) and all the other Hollywood shills, hahahahaha, also.... Praise Paul j Watson, he is correct, micheal Moore is a hypocritical sack of shit. And finally, I will Say this.....TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP 😁

 

How exactly is Michael Moore a hypocritical sack of shit he is pretty much the only liberal that saw the Trump victory coming.

In case you have not seen it........https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rtqJ3W3g1c

Oh, and here's the john lewis christmas ad (parody version)  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDVU_TGLJU0

You're welcome...!!!!!



Around the Network
Nem said:
Slimebeast said:

He won because of outrageous accusations like yours and CaptainExplosions'.

The left doesn't give one millimeter. It's just open the gates for foreigners, the Western man must pay for them all and then be kept being called a fascist.

Your country Nem is filled with foreigners and submissive white guys, and yet you have stomach to play the racist card and fascist card.

This kind of backlash will happen in many European countries too. The Western man rising up because he's tired of getting leeched off but always receiving the hate. So why on earth would white guys vote on the party who calls us racist and fascist? What do SJWs and Hillary have to offer us for giving them their vote? It's mindboggling this arrogance.

And whose fault do you think it is that there are so many refugees in the first place? America in particular should be open to taking responsibility for the consequences their actions brought.

You don't make any sense btw. Fascism is the opposite of a multi-cultured nation. "Submissive white guys" That is your problem right there. Beeing responsible and culturally and educationally capable makes one a member of a modern society. Wich is the opposite of racism, sexism and other such questionable behaviours. Fun to joke with the friends, but in reality not to be practiced.

And btw i talk with the immigrants every week. They are learning a new language, just like i happen to be atm, and they are not these villains you think they are. They are normal people, who had a normal life until some western power decided to drop some bombs on their homes. They are not bitter about it either. Just like you, they just want to build a peaceful life for themselves. The fact that they are treated in this way and used as a scapegoat by the white low educated men is frankly disgusting. Those are hard working people trying to live in a desperate situation that don't nearly compare. Your arrogance is entitlement. None of them is living off you and they actually face very harsh requirements to be incorporated into the society.

This judgment without knowledge of the fact is the actual problem. The lack of empathy and the entitlement. Should i even call it racism? Someone tell's you its the fault of the other guy that you have problems (wich is a fat lie) and you believe like a ducky. That is the problem. Because it's so much easier to blame and hate someone else for your own problems.

This is a wall of text, and I don't expect you to address it all Nem (you don't have to reply at all), because it's written for the debate, with the VGC reader in mind, more than it's addressed to you specifically, okay?

I think your post is a good example of the inability of the left to analyze why Trump won.

This is an example of what I mean by the left not being willing to give even one millimeter: "They are victims and they are just normal and hardworking and it's our responsibility to take care of them."

To me it seems you have so easy to say negative things about your own but show almost endless understanding for the foreigners. This is why I talk about the Western guy being submissive, your post represents the submissive white mentality quite well. According to the left, a Western guy's purpose in life is to understand that he is privileged, that he is an oppressor, ask for forgiveness and then do everything he can to sacrifice himself for the groups the left has decided are vulnerable. Getting raped or beaten up while doing it doesn't matter.

It's much like the Church of medieval times. The only thing the priests could offer was endless condemnation. The peasant has sinned so he must confess more and sacrifice more. "forgive me because I'm a sinner".

How can it be so easy for you to acknowledge and take for granted that the West has caused suffering in the third world by dropping bombs, but its a "fat lie" that some of our problems are in fact caused by foreigners?

What happened in Cologne? Oh yeah, it's because they are frustrated and the victims of racism, they were even bombed by Westerners, so it's not strange that they took out their frustration on the native's women. Is this the only analysis you have to offer?

"white low educated men", you have learned the rhetorics well. But that's very humiliating. By saying that, you're lifting yourself above ordinary people. You're implying that you are enlightened (of course), while the white low-educated are ignorant. They don't know any better.

Your analysis is very common in media and among politicians. "Oh, but they're lowly educated". The people with power, the left, don't even bother to take our opinion seriously, which is very humiliating. This is why we see a backlash like Trump winning. People are tired of this patronizing attitude from Cultural Marxists.

The truth is that it's not so much about education. It's just that the higher educated you are, the more hypocrite and politically correct you become. Higher educated people are very worried about social stigmatization. Also, with a higher education chances are that you get a better life, which means you can isolate yourself from problems and therefore tolerate them better. With more money you can make sure to buy a house in a stable, high-income area and put your kids in schools with other stable rich kids. Money makes it able to simply avoid getting exposed to social problems.

It's not so much that education allows you to see moral truths like the leftist believe in their hubris. There is some truth to this claim, but it's largely a myth.

I grew up in a low income area, already in the 80's half of the kids in our school had foreign background. I've witnessed the problems that come with multiculturalism first hand. Since then I've become highly educated (I'm a freaking medical doctor), and I'm still of the opinion that foreigners don't belong here. Foreigners don't belong in Europe. I talk with foreigners not just every week, I talk with them every day. The majority of my friends over the years have been foreigners. I know them from the inside out.

This is another myth by the left, "oh, but xenophobia grows from the fear of the unknown. If you would get to know foreigners you would change your opinion. You should become more openminded and travel the world, man". It's so humiliating and so far from the truth. In fact xenophobia is strongest in those areas of society where people are exposed to multiculturalism. Where cultures clash.

I haven't seen as much a correlation between education and right opinions, as much as I've seen a correlation between education and a social anxiety of being percieved to have the right opinions. A correlation between high education and hypocrisy.

I don't think you have much to offer to the person who feels worried about the development in the West. About increased crime, chaos in schools, about ethnic change in neighborhoods.

I offer an alternative analysis.

What if it's true that cultures and ethnic groups around the world are different in how far they have reached in matters that have to do with gender equality, respect of your fellow human beings, compassion for the weak? What if it's true that there's a pressure of people who seek to come to the West in search of better lives and that these people largely bring their culture and customs with them?

There is going to be friction when people with different backgrounds meet.

Many white guys go out of their way to be polite and helpful toward others, including foreigners. But it doesn't work like this in all cultures. Foreign cultures take it as a weakness. They take it as a sign that you are weak and you will be ran over. Even our own females work psychologically this way, because no matter what feminists or leftists say, a female seeks strength in a man. She will respect and choose the strong, dominating man, not the man who is polite and altruist towards everybody.

So, right now the policies of our authorities benefit the foreigner and disbenefit the natives and it's been like this for several decades. White guys are being told to be endlessly understanding, polite, helpful and as a thanks they get pissed in the face. The thanks is that they get called racist and fascist. Meanwhile the foreigners show their manly, aggressive, dominant, often violent behaviour, and yet it's interpreted that they are traumatized, vulnurable, victims of discrimination, the ones who need society's support.

But this just doesn't add up. It's not fair. It's all morality put upside down.

This means tolerance is not a solution anymore. To just nurture a submissive attitude among the natives is not a solution. To hope that the polite Western guy will keep absorbing all the problems doesn't work. Society, politicans and school must stop demanding this from the Western guy.

We need another solution, a solution that is realistic. A solution that is in harmony with human nature. A solution that is just and moral. And that is to close the borders, to put a halt to immigration. We can only absorb so many. Close the borders and focus on integration and regaining harmony and stability in society.

Trump was just the beginning. In all Western countries the so called "populist" parties will be victorious because the western guy is sick and tired of being the scapegoat who has to sacrifice himself and still be called a xenophobe, a racist and a fascist, and never get any thanks.

My solution will be victorious.



Finally have wifi (on vacation on a cruise, goddamn hell not having gaming news). Oh the bitter sweet moment msnbc seeing him declared president!



Made a bet with LipeJJ and HylianYoshi that the XB1 will reach 30 million before Wii U reaches 15 million. Loser has to get avatar picked by winner for 6 months (or if I lose, either 6 months avatar control for both Lipe and Hylian, or my patrick avatar comes back forever).

AsGryffynn said:
konnichiwa said:

Good gracious! This was his plan all along! 

Should add: "That you're not qualified to get!" 

:D



Slimebeast said:
-snipped some. The Wii U can't handle walls of text-

This is a wall of text, and I don't expect you to address it all Nem (you don't have to reply at all), because it's written for the debate, with the VGC reader in mind, more than it's addressed to you specifically, okay?

So, right now the policies of our authorities benefit the foreigner and disbenefit the natives and it's been like this for several decades. White guys are being told to be endlessly understanding, polite, helpful and as a thanks they get pissed in the face. The thanks is that they get called racist and fascist. Meanwhile the foreigners show their manly, aggressive, dominant, often violent behaviour, and yet it's interpreted that they are traumatized, vulnurable, victims of discrimination, the ones who need society's support.

But this just doesn't add up. It's not fair. It's all morality put upside down.

This means tolerance is not a solution anymore. To just nurture a submissive attitude among the natives is not a solution. To hope that the polite Western guy will keep absorbing all the problems doesn't work. Society, politicans and school must stop demanding this from the Western guy.

We need another solution, a solution that is realistic. A solution that is in harmony with human nature. A solution that is just and moral. And that is to close the borders, to put a halt to immigration. We can only absorb so many. Close the borders and focus on integration and regaining harmony and stability in society.

Trump was just the beginning. In all Western countries the so called "populist" parties will be victorious because the western guy is sick and tired of being the scapegoat who has to sacrifice himself and still be called a xenophobe, a racist and a fascist, and never get any thanks.

My solution will be victorious.

This is all very rich. Do you know? Everyone is the US except the natives are immigrants and descendants of immigrants. This includes Trump himself! What makes you more than the others? Why is it ok for you but not for others? The hipocrisy is right there.



Nem said:

This is all very rich. Do you know? Everyone is the US except the natives are immigrants and descendants of immigrants. This includes Trump himself! What makes you more than the others? Why is it ok for you but not for others? The hipocrisy is right there.

First of all, Slimebeast is Swedish. It says so on his profile.

Bolded: What you said is false. The first people who came to North America were settlers, not immigrants. They were not migrating to an already-existing society. They didn't enter native American communities and adopt their culture. The initial American population was mostly English, partly Scottish, and a little bit German. Those are the people who created the United States. They created our currently existing political institutions. We are not a "nation of immigrants", we are a European nation founded in English political tradition that successfully integrated millions of northern and western Europeans mostly before 1880, successfully integrated millions of southern and eastern Europeans mostly between 1880 and 1924, and has failed to integrate millions of non-Europeans since 1965.