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
Chris Hu said:

There is no need for a coherent argument if you got half a brain you can figure out that the alternate media and the right wing media is run by a bunch of mororns and snakes oil sales man plus they are twice as likely to post false info then left leaning media. 

[citation needed]



Around the Network
Nuvendil said:
hershel_layton said:

The thing I'm wondering is how there can be so much damage from them. Aren't refugees expected to work like with the Chinese and European immigrants during the rise of America? Or do they just sit in refugee camps?

 

I know some refugees are rotten apples, but dear lord. There's no way they all are useless to society.

The issue with masses of refugees and also illegal immigrants is a complete lack of integration.  Many don't want to be citizens and don't want to integrate into society while simultaneously of course taking money from the government while paying none to it.  On top of that, since they don't pay taxes, they can get jobs by working for less than any citizen can.  And on top of THAT, in the case of illegal immigrants from nearby countries, many don't put money back into the economy that much, instead spending the absolute bare minimum and kicking the rest of the money back to their home country.  It's the very definition of leeching.

But for the Syrian refugees, I have some sympathy but not as many as others.  The sheer number of healthy, strong young men - some times whole masses of single young men - who could have stood up and fought to defend their home land but instead fled bothers me a fair bit.  And it no doubt bothers others and is part of why their value to society is questioned: if they just pissed off from their home country en masse, how can they be trusted to be contributing members of their new society and not just piss off when things get a bit rough?  I have no doubt that bothers some people.

Honestly, IMO, I think the borders of the US need securing, especially the southern border, absolutely.  But that needs to come hand in hand with a MASSIVE improvement to our legal immigration and integration efforts. It should not take years and years to become a naturalized citizen for people who want to.  I don't want to get rid of all undocummented inhabitants, I want to get rid of the criminal ones and the ones who have 0 desire to integrate or become citizens or otherwise contribute to society.  The millions who want to be citizens I want to be citizens.  Which seems to be Trump's new tune, get the bad apples out and find a way to naturalize the ones who want to.  No idea HOW he plans to do that, but it's a good plan.  And this at least partly applies to refugees, I would be perfectly pleased if they came here to be part of America rather than just crash on the couch indefinitely with no commitment.

With regards to refugees, I don't think it is responsible for the US to take on more burdens.  Our spending is completely out of control, our entitlements spending is absolutely batshit insane, and despite taxing corporations more than any other developed western civilization we are still racking up debt like no one's business.  We are in no condition to essentially take on massive groups of people who will live off government funded programs and yet pay not one thin dime to the government to cover it.  The US government's responsibility is to the citizens of the US first and foremost, just as the responsibility of any other nation's government is that nation's well being first and foremost.  The citizens pay the taxes and vote in elections, serve in the army, and sign on to be eligible for the draft, they should be the first concern of the government.  And right now, the government has a lot of work to do to get into shape to be able to concern itself with other issues.

I used to believe the same thing for Syrian men- why can't they just fight?

 

After having a lengthy talk with one of my professors, he pointed out a good question- who would they fight for, and who would they fight against?

 

Syria is just a huge mess as of now. Fighting will simply add more oil to fire(i.e make it bigger than it is).

 

 

Personally, I have an idea: let the Syrian refugees stay in certain areas right next to the border(make sure they don't leave from here). once the Syrian crisis comes to an end, we send them back to help rebuild Syria. that way Europe won't suffer from leeching and we get to see some sort of progress in the middle east (unless some other country wants to fuck it up).

 

All in all, things are a mess. just wow. Pretty sad for the actual refugees who suffer from xenophobia and hatred due to the rotten apples 



 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12/22/2016- Made a bet with Ganoncrotch that the first 6 months of 2017 will be worse than 2016. A poll will be made to determine the winner. Loser has to take a picture of them imitating their profile picture.

hershel_layton said:
Nuvendil said:

The issue with masses of refugees and also illegal immigrants is a complete lack of integration.  Many don't want to be citizens and don't want to integrate into society while simultaneously of course taking money from the government while paying none to it.  On top of that, since they don't pay taxes, they can get jobs by working for less than any citizen can.  And on top of THAT, in the case of illegal immigrants from nearby countries, many don't put money back into the economy that much, instead spending the absolute bare minimum and kicking the rest of the money back to their home country.  It's the very definition of leeching.

But for the Syrian refugees, I have some sympathy but not as many as others.  The sheer number of healthy, strong young men - some times whole masses of single young men - who could have stood up and fought to defend their home land but instead fled bothers me a fair bit.  And it no doubt bothers others and is part of why their value to society is questioned: if they just pissed off from their home country en masse, how can they be trusted to be contributing members of their new society and not just piss off when things get a bit rough?  I have no doubt that bothers some people.

Honestly, IMO, I think the borders of the US need securing, especially the southern border, absolutely.  But that needs to come hand in hand with a MASSIVE improvement to our legal immigration and integration efforts. It should not take years and years to become a naturalized citizen for people who want to.  I don't want to get rid of all undocummented inhabitants, I want to get rid of the criminal ones and the ones who have 0 desire to integrate or become citizens or otherwise contribute to society.  The millions who want to be citizens I want to be citizens.  Which seems to be Trump's new tune, get the bad apples out and find a way to naturalize the ones who want to.  No idea HOW he plans to do that, but it's a good plan.  And this at least partly applies to refugees, I would be perfectly pleased if they came here to be part of America rather than just crash on the couch indefinitely with no commitment.

With regards to refugees, I don't think it is responsible for the US to take on more burdens.  Our spending is completely out of control, our entitlements spending is absolutely batshit insane, and despite taxing corporations more than any other developed western civilization we are still racking up debt like no one's business.  We are in no condition to essentially take on massive groups of people who will live off government funded programs and yet pay not one thin dime to the government to cover it.  The US government's responsibility is to the citizens of the US first and foremost, just as the responsibility of any other nation's government is that nation's well being first and foremost.  The citizens pay the taxes and vote in elections, serve in the army, and sign on to be eligible for the draft, they should be the first concern of the government.  And right now, the government has a lot of work to do to get into shape to be able to concern itself with other issues.

I used to believe the same thing for Syrian men- why can't they just fight?

 

After having a lengthy talk with one of my professors, he pointed out a good question- who would they fight for, and who would they fight against?

 

Syria is just a huge mess as of now. Fighting will simply add more oil to fire(i.e make it bigger than it is).

 

 

Personally, I have an idea: let the Syrian refugees stay in certain areas right next to the border(make sure they don't leave from here). once the Syrian crisis comes to an end, we send them back to help rebuild Syria. that way Europe won't suffer from leeching and we get to see some sort of progress in the middle east (unless some other country wants to fuck it up).

 

All in all, things are a mess. just wow. Pretty sad for the actual refugees who suffer from xenophobia and hatred due to the rotten apples 

A neutral zone would be good, but who pays the price?  A collective fund from the members of NATO or the UN would be nice.  Problem is, we all know those organizations are so loath lift a finger.  Shoot the US isn't just the tip of the spear in all NATO operations peaceful or otherwise, we're usually the tip, head, and most of the shaft.  And I suppose that's a major bug bear of mine:  whenever the words "international effort" come along, the US seems to foot a very large chunk of the bill in either man power or money.  We're big, but not big enough to just shoulder the world's problems.  Which is partly our own fault, we've had a major hero complex ever since the 40s that I have always found troublesome.



Don't get involve with Syrian Refugees. We don't have the money or resources to take care of them as well as Americans.



StarDoor said:
Nem said:

You continue with the same overpropotionate alarmist rhetoric. Immigrants may need social support at the start, but they do not use up the majority of the social system, quite the contrary.

Assaults happened in one occasion across many many thousands of refugee's. You condemn them all for the actions of only a few. Again, rhetoric without sense of proprotion. The balance is probably the same or lower than a native doing the same thing. Actually, if we are talking about the US. How about those shootings? Was it immigrants?

No, its not a fallacy. Saying that all your troubles come from immigrants and saying that sending them away will solve them is the fallacy.

The latest refugee wave was actually cause by Russia, go figure. Because the US was passive. See, you can;t put your hand on the cake and then pretend you didn't. The cake will just fall appart. The middle east is indeed the problem, and that is where it can be solved. Not with extremism.

Oh and btw, two can play that game: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-news-second-eu-referendum-leave-voters-regret-bregret-choice-in-millions-a7113336.html

The english know they gone and messed up. They were also brainwashed (the prone to) into thinking that someone else is the cause of all their problems. It is incredibly easy to blame others for your problem. Its difficult to get up and solve them together. 

What is most funny is that this is exactly what Hitler did when he rose to power. But alas, too many people are still just too easy to manipulate.

The only way you could think that it's over-proportionate is if you ignore statistics. Do the native populations of European countries create no-go zones where the police can't enforce laws because of how dangerous it is?

Yes, you are using a straw-man fallacy if you think that ending immigration is the same as kicking out all immigrants already here.

Your Brexit article was published two months earlier than mine at a time when the stock market was down. It's rebounded, so obviously no Leave voters have any regrets anymore.

You are so ideologically blinded that you can't even accept that immigration could have any downsides whatsoever. Furthermore, saying that immigration causes problems is not the same thing as saying that ALL problems are caused by immigration.

The only person being manipulated is you, because for your entire life you've been taught by propagandists how wonderful immigrants are and how diversity is our greatest strength. Now, when you encounter conflicting information, you just dismiss it.

Wow... i do believe the one that is blinded is yourself.

The sheer disregard for the consequences is astounding. I am idiologically blinded for defending equal rights for everyone? Sure, that must be it. I will never be unblinded into thinking racism and discriminatory behaviour is moral.

I am not beeig manipulated because i am not coerced into voting on something simply based on my own selfish needs, but the needs of the many, wich btw, i determine myself. Don't need a politian to tell them to me. I am educated and cultural. Not stuck in some vision of the past that is wrongly viewd as best. The past had constant wars. The present has been many times better.

The way for a better society is forward, not back. There may be some setbacks like this Trump election, but progress will continue to happen, wether theres a few bumps in the way or not.

In both regards we will soon find out what happens. Same thing with the brexit. I guess by then a new politian will come in and tell you how much better it was in the past and you vote for him again. This is like taking candy from a baby.

And by the way, your article about the brexit is one persons opinion, not an actual poll. But of course, you aren't easy to influence am i right? ^^



Around the Network
Nem said:
StarDoor said:

The only way you could think that it's over-proportionate is if you ignore statistics. Do the native populations of European countries create no-go zones where the police can't enforce laws because of how dangerous it is?

Yes, you are using a straw-man fallacy if you think that ending immigration is the same as kicking out all immigrants already here.

Your Brexit article was published two months earlier than mine at a time when the stock market was down. It's rebounded, so obviously no Leave voters have any regrets anymore.

You are so ideologically blinded that you can't even accept that immigration could have any downsides whatsoever. Furthermore, saying that immigration causes problems is not the same thing as saying that ALL problems are caused by immigration.

The only person being manipulated is you, because for your entire life you've been taught by propagandists how wonderful immigrants are and how diversity is our greatest strength. Now, when you encounter conflicting information, you just dismiss it.

Wow... i do believe the one that is blinded is yourself.

1.) The sheer disregard for the consequences is astounding. I am idiologically blinded for defending equal rights for everyone? Sure, that must be it. I will never be unblinded into thinking racism and discriminatory behaviour is moral.

2.) I am not beeig manipulated because i am not coerced into voting on something simply based on my own selfish needs, but the needs of the many, wich btw, i determine myself. Don't need a politian to tell them to me. I am educated and cultural. Not stuck in some vision of the past that is wrongly viewd as best. The past had constant wars. The present has been many times better.

3.) The way for a better society is forward, not back. There may be some setbacks like this Trump election, but progress will continue to happen, wether theres a few bumps in the way or not.

4.) In both regards we will soon find out what happens. Same thing with the brexit. I guess by then a new politian will come in and tell you how much better it was in the past and you vote for him again. This is like taking candy from a baby.

5.) And by the way, your article about the brexit is one persons opinion, not an actual poll. But of course, you aren't easy to influence am i right? ^^

1.) "Disregard for the consequences"? You're the one disregarding the negative consequences of immigration. Your spiel about "discrimination" and "racism" is a non-argument. Do you think it's equally sensible to let a convicted felon into your house compared to a family member?

And yes, you are ideologically blinded by your own admission if you think that every group is equal in every respect.

By the way, immigration isn't a right, it's a privilege. Sovereign countries can have any kind of immigration policy they want.

2.) Right, you're so self-made and independent that you've arrived at the exact same views as the entire education system and almost every media outlet. On another note, promoting mass immigration is not a selfless, enlightened position. The USA takes in around 1.2 million immigrants per year. There are 3 billion people living in poverty around the world. Immigration will NEVER cure global poverty. All it does is destroy Western countries from within. Without wealthy, Western countries, the world's poor will be in even worse shape than they are now. You can say goodbye to foreign aid if the West falls. Do you think China is going to become a humanitarian stalwart?

Of course, you probably know this, and you just like immigrants because they vote how you want them to. What an educated, noble position to take.

3.) Your "progress" will result in the end of western civilization, and people are realizing this. Hence, Brexit and Trump.

4.) I don't need a politician to tell me how much better it was in the past. I can see from the statistics for crime, life satisfaction, and income equality that the past had a lot of good things about it. Your "vote for him again" nonsense falls flat when you consider that Trump is the first anti-immigration candidate in 60 years, and even then we don't know if he'll reduce legal immigration. Is this projection? When you vote for candidates, do you blindly support them?

5.) "Prof Curtice said a series of polls through the summer show support for Brexit is still at 52% - the exact margin of victory on June 23."

I guess you don't realize the irony of saying that I'm easy to influence when your own views perfectly conform to the establishment's views.



I have seen a few End Time prophet videos on Youtube. The election of Trump fulfils the 777 Trump Prophesy. Trump will be 70 months, 7 months and 7 days old on inauguration day on January 20, 2017. Trump was hand picked by God as US President in his surprise election win against the odds. There are thousands of Americans out there that believe in the End Time prophesy videos. Donald Trump's name translates to victorious ruler of the world. Donald means 'ruler of the world'. Trump short for triumphant synonym for victorious.



StarDoor said:
Nem said:

Wow... i do believe the one that is blinded is yourself.

1.) The sheer disregard for the consequences is astounding. I am idiologically blinded for defending equal rights for everyone? Sure, that must be it. I will never be unblinded into thinking racism and discriminatory behaviour is moral.

2.) I am not beeig manipulated because i am not coerced into voting on something simply based on my own selfish needs, but the needs of the many, wich btw, i determine myself. Don't need a politian to tell them to me. I am educated and cultural. Not stuck in some vision of the past that is wrongly viewd as best. The past had constant wars. The present has been many times better.

3.) The way for a better society is forward, not back. There may be some setbacks like this Trump election, but progress will continue to happen, wether theres a few bumps in the way or not.

4.) In both regards we will soon find out what happens. Same thing with the brexit. I guess by then a new politian will come in and tell you how much better it was in the past and you vote for him again. This is like taking candy from a baby.

5.) And by the way, your article about the brexit is one persons opinion, not an actual poll. But of course, you aren't easy to influence am i right? ^^

1.) "Disregard for the consequences"? You're the one disregarding the negative consequences of immigration. Your spiel about "discrimination" and "racism" is a non-argument. Do you think it's equally sensible to let a convicted felon into your house compared to a family member?

And yes, you are ideologically blinded by your own admission if you think that every group is equal in every respect.

By the way, immigration isn't a right, it's a privilege. Sovereign countries can have any kind of immigration policy they want.

2.) Right, you're so self-made and independent that you've arrived at the exact same views as the entire education system and almost every media outlet. On another note, promoting mass immigration is not a selfless, enlightened position. The USA takes in around 1.2 million immigrants per year. There are 3 billion people living in poverty around the world. Immigration will NEVER cure global poverty. All it does is destroy Western countries from within. Without wealthy, Western countries, the world's poor will be in even worse shape than they are now. You can say goodbye to foreign aid if the West falls. Do you think China is going to become a humanitarian stalwart?

Of course, you probably know this, and you just like immigrants because they vote how you want them to. What an educated, noble position to take.

3.) Your "progress" will result in the end of western civilization, and people are realizing this. Hence, Brexit and Trump.

4.) I don't need a politician to tell me how much better it was in the past. I can see from the statistics for crime, life satisfaction, and income equality that the past had a lot of good things about it. Your "vote for him again" nonsense falls flat when you consider that Trump is the first anti-immigration candidate in 60 years, and even then we don't know if he'll reduce legal immigration. Is this projection? When you vote for candidates, do you blindly support them?

5.) "Prof Curtice said a series of polls through the summer show support for Brexit is still at 52% - the exact margin of victory on June 23."

I guess you don't realize the irony of saying that I'm easy to influence when your own views perfectly conform to the establishment's views.

I won't bother to debate the other points anymore because its obvious we are in disagreement. But if said polls on point 5 were binding, we would be seeing them, not the opinion of some guy.



StarDoor said:

Acknowledge what? Your incredibely flawed argument? Disease killed the vast majority of the native population, not warfare:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#Depopulation_from_disease

The only other thing you could be objecting to is the land itself being stolen from natives, but that doesn't hold up either. The various native tribes in North America did not have a state in the modern sense, and thus could not have had any meaningful diplomacy with the European colonial powers; the difference in the level of political organization was too great. Given how sparsely populated it was, especially after the outbreaks of disease, the New World was terra nullius for all intents and purposes. The right of conquest was universally recognized for almost the entirety of human history up until 1945, so you're going to have to vilify a lot more people than just white Americans if you want to push irredentism.

1.  While the epidemics were incredibly devastating to native populations, it's very wrong to think that white settlers just moved into empty spaces.  They forced native populations aside.  Ever hear of the Trail of Tears? 

2.  Claiming that the native tribes were so different from European powers that diplomacy was just impractical ignores the existence of advanced societies like the Iroquois Confederacy. 

3.  Your "blame the diseases" argument also did not acknowledge the fact that, while Eurpoeans did not deliberately inflict the great majority of the epidemics, there was a non-trivial use of disease as biological warfare, as the Wikipedia article you cite mentions. 

4.  "Right of conquest" arguments break down where broken treaties are considered.  Unless you think dirty dealing and betrayal count as part of conquest. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Final-Fan said:
StarDoor said:

Acknowledge what? Your incredibely flawed argument? Disease killed the vast majority of the native population, not warfare:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#Depopulation_from_disease

The only other thing you could be objecting to is the land itself being stolen from natives, but that doesn't hold up either. The various native tribes in North America did not have a state in the modern sense, and thus could not have had any meaningful diplomacy with the European colonial powers; the difference in the level of political organization was too great. Given how sparsely populated it was, especially after the outbreaks of disease, the New World was terra nullius for all intents and purposes. The right of conquest was universally recognized for almost the entirety of human history up until 1945, so you're going to have to vilify a lot more people than just white Americans if you want to push irredentism.

1.  While the epidemics were incredibly devastating to native populations, it's very wrong to think that white settlers just moved into empty spaces.  They forced native populations aside.  Ever hear of the Trail of Tears? 

2.  Claiming that the native tribes were so different from European powers that diplomacy was just impractical ignores the existence of advanced societies like the Iroquois Confederacy. 

3.  Your "blame the diseases" argument also did not acknowledge the fact that, while Eurpoeans did not deliberately inflict the great majority of the epidemics, there was a non-trivial use of disease as biological warfare, as the Wikipedia article you cite mentions. 

4.  "Right of conquest" arguments break down where broken treaties are considered.  Unless you think dirty dealing and betrayal count as part of conquest. 

All you've done is counter my general arguments with highly specific exceptions.

1.) True, native populations were forced aside by whites. But how was this different than the tribes fighting among themselves? It's not like they were all innocent victims. Even the Iroquois Confederacy subjugated other tribes through warfare and forced adoption.

2.) My point about diplomacy is about sovereignty. Did any of the indigenous tribes have a state, in any meaningful sense? What power did they exert over their territory? You say the Iroquois were advanced, but they didn't even have a writing system for their language. How can diplomacy ever be fair if only one side can record the treaties?

3.) 90% of the natives were killed by accidental disease spread, but we should ignore that because less than 1% were killed by purposeful disease spread?

4.) Broken treaties are even more irrelevant, unless you think that white Americans are the only people to have ever broken treaties in human history. How much land do you think was taken because of broken treaties? How much land do you think the indigenous peoples "owned" in the first place? The entire continent? If you only count land that they lived on and used for agriculture, hunting, and gathering, it would just be around 3% of that.

Whites have never committed a unique crime. If they had the opportunity, every Old World population would have done the same thing to the indigenous Americans, if not worse. Unless you drop your anti-white bias, I won't argue this with you any further.