Donald Trump discuss

[kylexv]

So Ted Cruz just dropped from the running, essentially making Trump the nominee, since Kasich stands no chance.

He wants to build a wall with Mexico and Canada, and want to bomb the EU. While I'm pretty sure it's a trick to get the votes, as the Americans seems to be fed up with all that political correctness and for this corrupt government, it is actually pretty likely that he gets in. Let's not forget how the German government at the time wanted to frame Hitler - it didn't work. All he do is avoid the questions and topics by saying "The American's are fed up" and "I'm going to do this to this country" and he just racks up all the votes.

I'm actually scared of what he can do if he gets in. I feel like all everyone wants is just to get involved, and Trump gives them the occasion to do so.

All these comparisons between Trump and Hitler just make me hate him even more.

 

[Grandpoobah]

More like make America HATE again.

 

[Iceweasel]

So, even though I dislike Trump, I was very disappointed to see Ted Cruz drop out. I was hoping that the RNC would do what the DNC is doing now and just declare their establishment candidate the winner, regardless of the popular vote. Why? If we have both candidates get the popular vote, and neither of them ran for office, we might finally see some positive change in this horrible political system.

 

[FlusteredBat]

Finally, now the various branches of conservatism can get over themselves and unite against the real threat that is Hillary. Let the ultimate showdown against progressivism begin.

 

[Sucumbio]

Everybody says Trump won't win because of the minority's, but that's exactly what they are, minority's. What about the majority's? Isn't that what decides the election? I think Trump has a better shot than you guys think and I personally support him for president.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html

When talking about presidential election we really look at the population diversity of states individually. California is a Mega state with a staggering 55 votes. They are the highest with Texas coming in 2nd at a distant 38 (which also has a large Hispanic population).

There's all kinds of interesting statistics going into the election this year. Millennial dependents now outnumber baby boomers. Progressivism is saturating what used to be clearly defined lines. It's no wonder a game show host is winning the RNC.

On another note: 277618 Trump is getting serious, finally. If you notice his rhetoric is less inflammatory and more policy driven. And I hate to admit it some of what he says isn't half bad.
I know this much. If Hilary beats Sanders at the DNC, Trump will get my vote because Hillary is a horror show with no happy ending.

 

[Iceweasel]

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html

When talking about presidential election we really look at the population diversity of states individually. California is a Mega state with a staggering 55 votes. They are the highest with Texas coming in 2nd at a distant 38 (which also has a large Hispanic population).

There's all kinds of interesting statistics going into the election this year. Millennial dependents now outnumber baby boomers. Progressivism is saturating what used to be clearly defined lines. It's no wonder a game show host is winning the RNC.

On another note: 277618 Trump is getting serious, finally. If you notice his rhetoric is less inflammatory and more policy driven. And I hate to admit it some of what he says isn't half bad.
I know this much. If Hilary beats Sanders at the DNC, Trump will get my vote because Hillary is a horror show with no happy ending.

I've been following the Democratic nomination, and nothing short of several acts of god is going to get Bernie the nomination. The DNC simply doesn't care about the popular vote, they're going to put Hillary in the 2016 Presidential race regardless. While Hillary is slightly ahead in popular vote now, that hasn't always been the case, but what has is that she's had an overwhelming amount of delegates pledge themselves to her rather than waiting to see how the people would vote.

 

[Kaiduru Zeta]

If it comes down to Hillary v Trump, most likely but sadly enough Trump will take it.

 

[Stu R]

You can't argue the fact that minority's are minority's, and if they weren't then they wouldn't call them that.

 

[Luggy]

I'm wondering something. Now, I don't know a lot about politics, but it seems that the old generation is fed up with globalization, wich brings back nationalism on the spotlight with Trump and other political figures usually seen as extremists. The same thing is happening with France, with "Marine Le Pen" wanting France to get out of Europe, as well as David Cameron in the UK or even in Germany, if I'm not wrong.
However, I feel that the younger generation is far from that view, as seen with a lot of young people going for Bernie. They always knew a world very connected.

So, aren't we f-ing ourselves by going with Trump and the other nationalists ? Maybe I'm saying something completely off topic, but I'm just wondering.

 

[Sucumbio]

You can't argue the fact that minority's are minority's, and if they weren't then they wouldn't call them that.

That's just it, Latinos are not a minority anymore in California. But people would rather lump all Latinos in together which is inaccurate when calculating voter bases.

Besides if you add all the "minorities" who vote together, in many states, they outnumber the white votes. And yes that's what the opposite of "minority" is, White.

 

[Stu R]

If I were you I would check my numbers.

 

[Buddhahobo]

I've been following the Democratic nomination, and nothing short of several acts of god is going to get Bernie the nomination. The DNC simply doesn't care about the popular vote, they're going to put Hillary in the 2016 Presidential race regardless. While Hillary is slightly ahead in popular vote now, that hasn't always been the case, but what has is that she's had an overwhelming amount of delegates pledge themselves to her rather than waiting to see how the people would vote.

So...you're saying the DNC is going to disregard the popular vote by giving the nomination to the runner with the #1 spot in popular vote (and electoral vote)?

 

[Iceweasel]

So...you're saying the DNC is going to disregard the popular vote by giving the nomination to the runner with the #1 spot in popular vote (and electoral vote)?

Reread my post. Hillary wasn't always ahead in popular vote. Even at the beginning of the race she's had the overwhelming majority support from the party establishment, something the Sanders campaign hasn't enjoyed.

 

[Buddhahobo]

Reread my post. Hillary wasn't always ahead in popular vote. Even at the beginning of the race she's had the overwhelming majority support from the party establishment, something the Sanders campaign hasn't enjoyed.

What's your point? Before the race started, Sanders wasn't even part of the Democratic Party.

Why is it shame on the DNC for backing their actual member who everyone knew was and has always been the clear favorite to win the primary? Her numbers show that the support was well warranted, certainly not "ignoring the popular vote".

It's like complaining that Trump never had the backing of the GOP establishment when until recently he was a democrat, and half of his campaign is that the establishment sucks.

 

[Stu R]

Are we even talking about the same thing

 

[Floor]

I should stay away from a Trump thread. Usually nothing but slander being thrown by alas, I can't stay away. Fortunately, I can trust my fellow smashers to at least speak out professionally against my candidate

 

[ARISTOS]

I should stay away from a Trump thread. Usually nothing but slander being thrown by alas, I can't stay away. Fortunately, I can trust my fellow smashers to at least speak out professionally against my candidate

What makes you want to support Trump?

 

[Floor]

What makes you want to support Trump?

A variety of reasons. First, looking at the democratic side, i can't say there's much there. The democratic party has had better.

The most important thing for me is foreign policy and trump is clearly motivated to stop crime terrorism and drugs, even if many don't agree with his methods (if it works, it works). Plus, he's a billionaire buisinessman so I'll leave the economy up to him. Those are just my views. I know they're unpopular but I'd like for people to be respectful about it. After seeing these riots in San Diego and what not, I feel afraid to voice this opinion.

At the end of the day, there's no perfect candidate. And there never will be. If there was, no one would be split and the vote would be unanimous. People can say this election would be between a liar and a hot-head racist if they wanted to. It's the lesser of two evils scenario. A lot of Democrats don't like Clinton and a lot of Republicans don't like Trump.

Also, as a Pennsylvanian, the energy debate concerns me. PA hasn't experienced any significant Global Climate change (let's not get into it) and relies heavily on nuclear and coal generated power

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I should stay away from a Trump thread. Usually nothing but slander being thrown by alas, I can't stay away. Fortunately, I can trust my fellow smashers to at least speak out professionally against my candidate

I'd be willing to listen.

Personally I just hated every single person running for president outside of Ted Cruz who dropped out.

It's green party or pick my poison for me at this point since everyone running is doing something I don't like. I don't hold it against people to vote for who they do.

I will outright state that I hate candidates but not necessarily the people voting for them.

 

[ARISTOS]

A variety of reasons. First, looking at the democratic side, i can't say there's much there. The democratic party has had better.

The most important thing for me is foreign policy and trump is clearly motivated to stop crime terrorism and drugs, even if many don't agree with his methods (if it works, it works). Plus, he's a billionaire buisinessman so I'll leave the economy up to him. Those are just my views. I know they're unpopular but I'd like for people to be respectful about it. After seeing these riots in San Diego and what not, I feel afraid to voice this opinion.

At the end of the day, there's no perfect candidate. And there never will be. If there was, no one would be split and the vote would be unanimous. People can say this election would be between a liar and a hot-head racist if they wanted to. It's the lesser of two evils scenario. A lot of Democrats don't like Clinton and a lot of Republicans don't like Trump.

Also, as a Pennsylvanian, the energy debate concerns me. PA hasn't experienced any significant Global Climate change (let's not get into it) and relies heavily on nuclear and coal generated power

Interesting.

I heavily disagree with the foreign policy approach Trump takes; it's unnecessarily antagonistic and won't work. There's an argument to help curb illegal immigration, in which I agree needs to be brought down, but IMO what's more important is what happens to the people here.

Trump has never been a particularly good businessman fyi.

I don't know I just don't see it; help me understand why Donald is so popular. His policies, like his healthcare one for example, are just right-wing stump policies that have consistently been estimated not to work. Not really seeing anything revolutionary.

Clinton isn't that great but all the Republicans I know are either voting for her or not voting at all

 

[Iceweasel]

Interesting.

I heavily disagree with the foreign policy approach Trump takes; it's unnecessarily antagonistic and won't work. There's an argument to help curb illegal immigration, in which I agree needs to be brought down, but IMO what's more important is what happens to the people here.

Trump has never been a particularly good businessman fyi.

I don't know I just don't see it; help me understand why Donald is so popular. His policies, like his healthcare one for example, are just right-wing stump policies that have consistently been estimated not to work. Not really seeing anything revolutionary.

Clinton isn't that great but all the Republicans I know are either voting for her or not voting at all

It's as much to do with the Regressive Left as anything else, if you ask me. The left is currently the dominating political force, and the most common strain of leftist politics is neoprogressivism. Neoprogressivism is a highly authoritarian, collectivist, hegemonic, and in general backwards movement that is becoming increasingly unpopular with the citizens of a country built on liberal concepts like the right to free expression, the right to free thought, and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. People are getting more an more sick of being disenfranchised for using the wrong words, holding the wrong opinion, or being falsely accused of a serious crime after being part of a bad breakup or embarrassing morning.

Donald Trump has zero ****s to give. He doesn't care about hurting somebody's feelings, or having somebody call him a racist. If anything, he goes out of his way to antagonize the permanently offended. This really resonates with this growing block of people who feel like they've been shut out of the system for saying something almost ten years ago that's become unpopular today, that they may not have fully believed when they said it.

Liking Donald Trump has become, in and of itself, an act of protest. Look at how the the main political sytsem has treated him. He's been the most scrutinized candidate by far. Every time he says something, everyone from the media, major political figures, and armies of Tumblrites all search for something in it to be upset about, whether or not there actually is anything worth being annoyed at. Many no longer see Donald Trump as a businessman, or a politician candidate, but a figurehead who will fix everything wrong with America today. This is absolutely ridiculous, but at this point Trump is too big to stop. Ironically, it is the people who most want to stop Trump who have given him such a massive following, and continue to do so because they don't understand what makes him so popular.

 

[ARISTOS]

It's as much to do with the Regressive Left as anything else, if you ask me. The left is currently the dominating political force, and the most common strain of leftist politics is neoprogressivism. Neoprogressivism is a highly authoritarian, collectivist, hegemonic, and in general backwards movement that is becoming increasingly unpopular with the citizens of a country built on liberal concepts like the right to free expression, the right to free thought, and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. People are getting more an more sick of being disenfranchised for using the wrong words, holding the wrong opinion, or being falsely accused of a serious crime after being part of a bad breakup or embarrassing morning.

Donald Trump has zero ****s to give. He doesn't care about hurting somebody's feelings, or having somebody call him a racist. If anything, he goes out of his way to antagonize the permanently offended. This really resonates with this growing block of people who feel like they've been shut out of the system for saying something almost ten years ago that's become unpopular today, that they may not have fully believed when they said it.

What are some examples of this?

I feel like when I hear the term the"Regressive" Left, it is people often putting down very real problems. I disagree with things like using the term safe space to keep people out of conversation, but things like privilege are undoubtedly real topics of concern that should be talked about honestly.

I agree that information dug up from the past should not be used to hurt people in the present. People should be allowed to change.

 

[Iceweasel]

What are some examples of this?

I feel like when I hear the term the"Regressive" Left, it is people often putting down very real problems. I disagree with things like using the term safe space to keep people out of conversation, but things like privilege are undoubtedly real topics of concern that should be talked about honestly.

I agree that information dug up from the past should not be used to hurt people in the present. People should be allowed to change.

Inciting a mob against and publicly accusing someone of **** without evidence (rarely even filing a police report), telling white people that their very existence is oppressive, manspreading, mansplaining, and only offering positions of power to people who they ideologically agree with, to name a few things. Generally, denigrating someone because of their race and gender, among other factors, but it's okay because they're white men.

Yes, "privilege" is real, but white people don't have it, and men sure as **** don't have it. When discrimination against a certain group of people has become enshrined in law, you lose any and all ground to claim that group is privileged.

 

[ARISTOS]

Inciting a mob against and publicly accusing someone of **** without evidence (rarely even filing a police report), telling white people that their very existence is oppressive, manspreading, mansplaining, and only offering positions of power to people who they ideologically agree with, to name a few things. Generally, denigrating someone because of their race and gender, among other factors, but it's okay because they're white men.

Yes, "privilege" is real, but white people don't have it, and men sure as **** don't have it. When discrimination against a certain group of people has become enshrined in law, you lose any and all ground to claim that group is privileged.

Your first paragraph doesn't seem based in any sort of reality. Do you actually come across people like that in real life?

If you say privilege is real, then say "X doesn't have it", you have basically said it isn't real. Which one is it?

I'm struggling to see how white men are burdened by current systems, outside of maybe Affirmative Action (the real losers of which are Asian students).

 

[Floor]

My only real input here is that, according to society "black people hate white people" just as much or more then "white people hate black Poeple". Racism, sexism, and eveything else isn't a one way street.

To hell with Black Lives Matter. The reality is All Lives Matter. But saying that is "racist" (ive been called a racist for saying that ).

I also thinks it's kinda BS in a way that we recognize "first black man to do this" or "first woman to___". Did you know George Washington was the 1st president of the US? Barack Obama was the 44th........ but just cause he was black means it's important.

If we want to stress equality, then why are the people preaching it doing eveything they can stress the minority rather then stressing the whole? If Blacks want equality, why start Black Lives Matter? They should have started with All Lives Matter. That's equality.

 

[ARISTOS]

My only real input here is that, according to society "black people hate white people" just as much or more then "white people hate black Poeple". Racism, sexism, and eveything else isn't a one way street.

To hell with Black Lives Matter. The reality is All Lives Matter. But saying that is "racist" (ive been called a racist for saying that ).

I also thinks it's kinda BS in a way that we recognize "first black man to do this" or "first woman to___". Did you know George Washington was the 1st president of the US? Barack Obama was the 44th........ but just cause he was black means it's important.

If we want to stress equality, then why are the people preaching it doing eveything they can stress the minority rather then stressing the whole? If Blacks want equality, why start Black Lives Matter? They should have started with All Lives Matter. That's equality.

I don't think your first statement is true under any circumstances. Moreover, we are focused on institutions, not individuals. I am sure there are individual accounts of racism all around but overall black people tend to have worse outcomes institutionally all around: worse health, worse education, lower house properties, you name it. Usually, this is what people are talking about.

All Lives Matter is obviously true, and to state otherwise is silly. Black Lives Matters is saying "Black Lives Matter, Too". In other words, we are stating the black lives have not mattered in the past.

Think of it like 5 people sharing a cake. Four people get slices, and you do not. Wouldn't you also want a slice? Imagine then, after you speak up and say "I want my slice of cake," and someone retorts "We all want our slice of cake." Yes, that's true... but you don't have any damn cake yet! That's the crux of the matter behind Black Lives Matter.

Your last statement is likely down to a difference of opinion. I don't think you can create equality simply by saying "Everyone is equal" and then waiting for it to happen; there is too much inertia and too many people who benefit from the status quo. Change needs to be created.

 

[Iceweasel]

Your first paragraph doesn't seem based in any sort of reality. Do you actually come across people like that in real life?

If you say privilege is real, then say "X doesn't have it", you have basically said it isn't real. Which one is it?

I'm struggling to see how white men are burdened by current systems, outside of maybe Affirmative Action (the real losers of which are Asian students).

*Inciting a mob against and publicly accusing someone of **** without evidence (rarely even filing a police report)
**This happens often. The next time somebody accuses a public figure of ****, take a look around and see who's asking/waiting for evidence and who Listens and Believes. Until two or three years ago, it was almost unheard of for the public at large to wait for actual evidence before commencing the Two Minutes' Hate, though this is thankfully changing.

*telling white people that their very existence is oppressive
**This is common. It's not usually this direct, but the implication is there. Usually it takes the form of shaming white people for the actions of white people hundreds of years ago for slavery or colonialism or something else. It's not even punishing the child for the sins of the father, it's punishing the child for the sins of someone else's father.

*manspreading
**We sit like that because testicles. It's just more comfortable. If you'd like somebody to move over a little, ask. Don't take pictures of the guy and shame him on Tumblr because you're too socially awkward to ask for a little room. That's your problem, not his. If this is all that feminism has to complain about these days, it truly has accomplished everything of worth.

*mansplaining
**This is directly intended to silence someone because of their gender. It's the very definition of sexism. Or was, before certain people decided to change the definition to suit their political agendas.

*only offering positions of power to people who they ideologically agree with
**This one is definitely on less firm ground than the others, but it makes sense if you'll bear with me. Hasn't it ever struck you as odd how, almost overnight, everyone in high places began marching in step to the same agenda? Or how quickly thing nobody had ever heard about became major political issues? I think it has something to do with the Internet mobs conducting campaigns to fire people in high places for what their opinions were a decade ago. Github's new (Jan 2014) removed their meritocracy rug. Google, which had previously not taken any position on the information their search engine presents, announced a think tank (Google Ideas) and suddenly decided that they were going to step in to stop online harassment. Two members of this think tank are Anita Sarkeesian (who thinks all criticism of her is harassment) and Randi Harper (who's known to be a bit of a bully herself). Mozilla's CEO was forced to step down in 2014 for a political donation made in support of a 2008 law. The replacement, a few months later, tweeted anti-GamerGate stuff, as though that has anything to do with what Mozilla does. Speaking of GG, the conversation started by criticizing some writers for lack of disclosure... Which was immediately met with cries of "Sexism!" for some reason, and nearly the whole gaming press decided to throw their audience (gamers) under the bus less than 24 hours apart. Before I stopped reading their biased shilling, I don't remember it being anywhere near that ideologically driven, which makes me think that the changes happened in those few years.


If you want more examples of any of my points, subscribe to Sargon of Akkad and watch his series "This Week in Stupid". Neoprogressives make the news literally every week. Sargon himself is away on vacation right now and has guest posters doing his videos, so watch the ones from a few weeks back. He even puts links to the articles in the description, so if you're skeptical you can go look at them directly. If TWIS is too long, he often does rebuttals to videos made by neoprogressives.

To address the rest of your post:
Affirmative action is enough. The system gives incentives to employers and colleges for having more women and minorities, regardless of their actual ability. Today, not only are women 60% of college graduates, but in But, for more examples, there's the entire family court system (which heavily favors women over men), domestic violence laws, where the man is seen as the aggressor by default, how breast cancer research is by far the best-funded, and the general gynocentrism of Western society. Every time men have a problem, nobody cares, but whatever minor piddling nonsense feminists say women have to deal with about is suddenly Top Priority(tm).

I don't think your first statement is true under any circumstances. Moreover, we are focused on institutions, not individuals. I am sure there are individual accounts of racism all around but overall black people tend to have worse outcomes institutionally all around: worse health, worse education, lower house properties, you name it. Usually, this is what people are talking about.

All Lives Matter is obviously true, and to state otherwise is silly. Black Lives Matters is saying "Black Lives Matter, Too". In other words, we are stating the black lives have not mattered in the past.

Think of it like 5 people sharing a cake. Four people get slices, and you do not. Wouldn't you also want a slice? Imagine then, after you speak up and say "I want my slice of cake," and someone retorts "We all want our slice of cake." Yes, that's true... but you don't have any damn cake yet! That's the crux of the matter behind Black Lives Matter.

Your last statement is likely down to a difference of opinion. I don't think you can create equality simply by saying "Everyone is equal" and then waiting for it to happen; there is too much inertia and too many people who benefit from the status quo. Change needs to be created.

Black people born in the last 20-30 years have not experienced any significant amount of racism. BLM is trying to take a nonracial issue and make it about race. Doing so obscures the real problem, which is the justice system's reliance on the police which spawns an unwillingness to hold them to the same standards as ordinary people. Of course, this isn't mentioning the blatant hatred the group displays to white people.

 

[ARISTOS]

This is a lot to work through so I'll move slowly

*Inciting a mob against and publicly accusing someone of **** without evidence (rarely even filing a police report)
**This happens often. The next time somebody accuses a public figure of ****, take a look around and see who's asking/waiting for evidence and who Listens and Believes. Until two or three years ago, it was almost unheard of for the public at large to wait for actual evidence before commencing the Two Minutes' Hate, though this is thankfully changing.

Give me an example from the past to work with, not entirely sure of what you mean.

*telling white people that their very existence is oppressive
**This is common. It's not usually this direct, but the implication is there. Usually it takes the form of shaming white people for the actions of white people hundreds of years ago for slavery or colonialism or something else. It's not even punishing the child for the sins of the father, it's punishing the child for the sins of someone else's father.

I don't hear this often, and I went to a very liberal university.

What people do talk about are the systems and institutions that were set up often being to the detriment of black people ie segregated housing and educational systems from the 50-60s generally being worse for wear for black people. These systems have repercussions, and can be felt in society today. Remember that the 50-60s are not that long ago.

Don't mistake idiots from Tumblr for the mainstream.

*manspreading
**We sit like that because testicles. It's just more comfortable. If you'd like somebody to move over a little, ask. Don't take pictures of the guy and shame him on Tumblr because you're too socially awkward to ask for a little room. That's your problem, not his. If this is all that feminism has to complain about these days, it truly has accomplished everything of worth.

Both manspreading and complaints about manspreading are insignificant in the large scheme of things.

*mansplaining
**This is directly intended to silence someone because of their gender. It's the very definition of sexism. Or was, before certain people decided to change the definition to suit their political agendas.

Nah, mansplaining is used to stop what sometimes occurs when a woman is trying to speak her point and gets shut down for a man to talk in her place. I agree however that it can sometimes be used to silence a man trying to give an opinion, but I think the former happens more than the latter.

*only offering positions of power to people who they ideologically agree with
**This one is definitely on less firm ground than the others, but it makes sense if you'll bear with me. Hasn't it ever struck you as odd how, almost overnight, everyone in high places began marching in step to the same agenda? Or how quickly thing nobody had ever heard about became major political issues? I think it has something to do with the Internet mobs conducting campaigns to fire people in high places for what their opinions were a decade ago. Github's new (Jan 2014) removed their meritocracy rug. Google, which had previously not taken any position on the information their search engine presents, announced a think tank (Google Ideas) and suddenly decided that they were going to step in to stop online harassment. Two members of this think tank are Anita Sarkeesian (who thinks all criticism of her is harassment) and Randi Harper (who's known to be a bit of a bully herself). Mozilla's CEO was forced to step down in 2014 for a political donation made in support of a 2008 law. The replacement, a few months later, tweeted anti-GamerGate stuff, as though that has anything to do with what Mozilla does. Speaking of GG, the conversation started by criticizing some writers for lack of disclosure... Which was immediately met with cries of "Sexism!" for some reason, and nearly the whole gaming press decided to throw their audience (gamers) under the bus less than 24 hours apart. Before I stopped reading their biased shilling, I don't remember it being anywhere near that ideologically driven, which makes me think that the changes happened in those few years.

The tides of politics is forever changing. Segregation wasn't a problem until it became a problem. The crack (and now Oxycontin) epidemic wasn't a problem until it became a problem. There are always new problems emerging and new things to solve, and as such there will be new political issues.

Meritocracy as a ideology is super shaky, and I can talk about that in more detail later.

Google stopping online harassment is good, no? Sarkeesian and Harper aren't great representatives but the benefits of a panel is that there is a wide base for opinions.

GamerGate got derailed, same as Occupy Wall Street. Their original message got diluted by other ****, allowing it to be attacked outside of it's main domain. GamerGate got derailed SUPER hard, Jesus.

Mozilla's CEO was forced out by the community, not the board, which is a big difference. It is completely legitimate to be upset at a law, and not wanting to stand with a company that does not fit their views. Prop 8's effects are still heavily felt in California, so it is definitely still a recent issue. He had the right to free speech in giving the donation and sticking to his cause, and his community had the right to disagree with that stand and refuse to work with Brendan, and to freely say so.

If you want more examples of any of my points, subscribe to Sargon of Akkad and watch his series "This Week in Stupid". Neoprogressives make the news literally every week. Sargon himself is away on vacation right now and has guest posters doing his videos, so watch the ones from a few weeks back. He even puts links to the articles in the description, so if you're skeptical you can go look at them directly. If TWIS is too long, he often does rebuttals to videos made by neoprogressives.

I'll look into it.

To address the rest of your post:
Affirmative action is enough. The system gives incentives to employers and colleges for having more women and minorities, regardless of their actual ability. Today, not only are women 60% of college graduates, but in But, for more examples, there's the entire family court system (which heavily favors women over men), domestic violence laws, where the man is seen as the aggressor by default, how breast cancer research is by far the best-funded, and the general gynocentrism of Western society. Every time men have a problem, nobody cares, but whatever minor piddling nonsense feminists say women have to deal with about is suddenly Top Priority(tm).

Minorities continue to have poor economic, health, and social outcomes, irregardless of things like AA. It is a massive program but it remains clear that there are gaps that needs to be dealt with earlier in life.

Meritocracy as an ideology, again, is super shaky.

Family court system heavily favors women, yes, due to past societal failures. Don't think it should remain the same though.

Domestic violence is a very dangerous topic to go into. It is very hard to say men are treated unfairly when the Stanford **** incident has been blowing up and the rapist got 3 months in prison and the father treated it as "20 minutes of action".

Breast cancer is one of the most common forms of cancer and really easy to treat if caught early. We've also had a lot of celebrities come on board to help the cause, which has led to the pouring in of funding. Testicular cancer is similar in ease of treatment, it's not as marketable though.

I think mens issues are underplayed in society, and we'll have to examine the roles men and women play in the 21st century. However, just because men's issues aren't brought into the fold as much doesn't mean women's issues aren't also problems.

Black people born in the last 20-30 years have not experienced any significant amount of racism. BLM is trying to take a nonracial issue and make it about race. Doing so obscures the real problem, which is the justice system's reliance on the police which spawns an unwillingness to hold them to the same standards as ordinary people. Of course, this isn't mentioning the blatant hatred the group displays to white people.

Yeah, no, this is false. Look at the effects of the crime bills passed in the 1990s, the crack epidemic that played out in the 1980s, general economic, educational, and health trends up to now, racial profilling of police of both Black and Muslim people, etc. Nah, this is false. Just because black people are not having fire hydrant opened up in their faces doesn't mean they are no longer facing discrimination at all. Cmon, man.

 

[Duplighost]

I am not intending to get in too deep because political arguments are battles that can never be won, but I would like to say that Trump gets a large portion of his hate due to the methods he has in approaching problems in the country. If he were to say, "I am going to end this issue by [so on and so forth]" in a peaceful and professional manner rather than in an antagonistic one, people would be more likely to value his opinions. I think we have a propensity to join the bandwagon of political correctness, so let's strip away the blinding veil of Trump's cockiness, hot-headedness, and egotistical comments; let's look at these things on paper, not spoken from his mouth. One of the only way to shed truth on a subject is to look at it from others' perspectives unbiasedly.

If you still do not find morals in Trump's beliefs in this manner, then your opinion is valid. However, if you're just going along with the idea that Trump should not be president because of the way he looks and presents his points, I think it would be only necessary for us to see things the way they are. Trump brings up a lot of huge issues that must be addressed, and whether we like the way he says it or not, who else is going to fix it? Not Hillary, that's for certain, and she's the only other person running. You have to pick your poison.

Whether you agree or disagree, I'd like to leave this here.

 

[greatbernard]

I'm not voting for Trump, but I do think he has a strong possibility of winning the presidency (and his chances should not underestimated).

Trump is far more charismatic than Hillary, and Americans tend to put style over substance. JFK had no legislative and foreign policy accomplishments, but he was still popular. Reagan doubled the size of government and people still found his conservative message invigorating. Trump may not substantiate how he will reduce debt, build military/infrastructure and cut 10 trillion dollars of taxes at the same time. But he may not even have to.

The main question is whether Trump will be able to enough new voters from the anti-establishment and white working class people to replenish the votes he's losing from hispanics, moderates and core conservatives.

 

[ARISTOS]

I am not intending to get in too deep because political arguments are battles that can never be won, but I would like to say that Trump gets a large portion of his hate due to the methods he has in approaching problems in the country. If he were to say, "I am going to end this issue by [so on and so forth]" in a peaceful and professional manner rather than in an antagonistic one, people would be more likely to value his opinions. I think we have a propensity to join the bandwagon of political correctness, so let's strip away the blinding veil of Trump's cockiness, hot-headedness, and egotistical comments; let's look at these things on paper, not spoken from his mouth. One of the only way to shed truth on a subject is to look at it from others' perspectives unbiasedly. If you still do not find morals in Trump's beliefs in this manner, then your opinion is valid. However, if you're just going along with the idea that Trump should not be president because of the way he looks and presents his points, I think it would be only necessary for us to see things the way they are. Trump brings up a lot of huge issues that must be addressed, and whether we like the way he says it or not, who else is going to fix it? Not Hillary, that's for certain, and she's the only other person running. You have to pick your poison.

Whether you agree or disagree, I'd like to leave this here.

The methods one uses is almost as important/ is as important as the means. Even when people are presenting reasonable answers, if presented aggressively it could turn off people who might agree with you. Politics is coalition building, after all. It takes more than just presenting solutions to get things done, irregardless if you agree with the solutions chosen.

I'm not voting for Trump, but I do think he has a strong possibility of winning the presidency (and his chances should not underestimated).

Trump is far more charismatic than Hillary, and Americans tend to put style over substance. JFK had no legislative and foreign policy accomplishments, but he was still popular. Reagan doubled the size of government and people still found his conservative message invigorating. Trump may not substantiate how he will reduce debt, build military/infrastructure and cut 10 trillion dollars of taxes at the same time. But he may not even have to.

The main question is whether Trump will be able to enough new voters from the anti-establishment and white working class people to replenish the votes he's losing from hispanics, moderates and core conservatives.

Trump's difficulty is in demographics. He's losing VERY hard among white women and all minority groups. Don't think he'll pull in enough Bernie or Bust people to make it count, especially after Bernie endorses Hillary.

 

[greatbernard]

Trump's disadvantage with women is canceled out by his advantage with men. Women do have a higher turnout rate than men, but Trump is appealing to the bruised male ego much (in a very Fight Club like manner). Muslims are only 1% of the population. Blacks vote 90% Democrat anyway, and with Obama gone, less will show up. Hispanics hate Trump, but half of them don't vote. Trump could get millions of angry whites. At least he needs to. But will millions of extra hispanics show up for Hillary?

 

[ARISTOS]

Trump's disadvantage with women is canceled out by his advantage with men. Women do have a higher turnout rate than men, but Trump is appealing to the bruised male ego much (in a very Fight Club like manner). Muslims are only 1% of the population. Blacks vote 90% Democrat anyway, and with Obama gone, less will show up. Hispanics hate Trump, but half of them don't vote. Trump could get millions of angry whites. At least he needs to. But will millions of extra hispanics show up for Hillary?

There are more women in the country than men, and Trump will not win enough men to cancel that out.

Hispanics are registering in record numbers, they're pissed.

I don't see Trump pulling enough disaffected white males to win this thing

 

[Duplighost]

The methods one uses is almost as important/ is as important as the means. Even when people are presenting reasonable answers, if presented aggressively it could turn off people who might agree with you. Politics is coalition building, after all. It takes more than just presenting solutions to get things done, irregardless if you agree with the solutions chosen.

Our country is slowly crumbling to nothing due to the uprise of radical terrorism. I would graciously assume you are aware of just unmanageable this situation is getting for us Americans, considering a multitude of innocents are being ruthlessly slaughtered for expressing their religion or sexual orientation, among more. There are extreme terrorist attacks occurring ubiquitously in the nation, and by no means is Obama taking appropriate action to assuage this violence and by no means will Hillary Clinton attempt to do any different. Would you rather Hillary Clinton "peacefully" ignore terrorism in a "politically correct manner," or allow Donald Trump to fix the issue, though aggressively?

It is better to do something rather than nothing. I am not implying that Trump will do the politically correct thing, but he will do the correct thing in order to at least maintain the absurdity taking place in the country. Being president is an endeavor that can never be handled perfectly, but I believe we need to consider Trump's motives rather than his demeanor and presentation.

 

[Sucumbio]

How quickly people forget the good in the face of the bad. Just sayin. Obama got bin Laden m, something Bush couldn't do in 2 terms. Obama is a lame duck now so he's not in a position to do much other than talking. Hilary is probably the only candidate who actually understands what Terrorism is. This makes her better qualified to be the one handling our domestic terrorism issues.

 

[ARISTOS]

Our country is slowly crumbling to nothing due to the uprise of radical terrorism. I would graciously assume you are aware of just unmanageable this situation is getting for us Americans, considering a multitude of innocents are being ruthlessly slaughtered for expressing their religion or sexual orientation, among more. There are extreme terrorist attacks occurring ubiquitously in the nation, and by no means is Obama taking appropriate action to assuage this violence and by no means will Hillary Clinton attempt to do any different. Would you rather Hillary Clinton "peacefully" ignore terrorism in a "politically correct manner," or allow Donald Trump to fix the issue, though aggressively?

It is better to do something rather than nothing. I am not implying that Trump will do the politically correct thing, but he will do the correct thing in order to at least maintain the absurdity taking place in the country. Being president is an endeavor that can never be handled perfectly, but I believe we need to consider Trump's motives rather than his demeanor and presentation.

There's quite a bit of hyperbole in this- we survived 9/11, and we'll get through the tragedy in Orlando.

What is slowly becoming untenable is our decision to not deal responsibly with gun violence. It's clear current regulation is not working.

Donald Trump's ban on Muslims does nothing to stop American citizens already here. Unless he is proposing banning Muslims forever, which is entirely antithetical to who we are as Americans.

"It is better to do something rather than nothing."

This is 100% false. Doing nothing is ALWAYS a policy response. Sometimes, it may be the right one. It is better to do nothing and have the option of response open than to do nothing and close a window, or worse, institute terrible policy.

Politics is coalition building. Even if he is saying the right things, if he pisses people off they're not going to work with him. Assuming what he's doing is even right.

I don't assume for a second Trump isn't doing what he's doing out of love for the country, but his policy choices remain empty and without depth.

 

[Falc0ofspades]

If you listen to some of the things he says you'll know he would be a bad president

 

[greatbernard]

With a history of choosing style over substance, I'll never trust American voters to be rational.

 

[FlusteredBat]

How quickly people forget the good in the face of the bad. Just sayin. Obama got bin Laden m, something Bush couldn't do in 2 terms. Obama is a lame duck now so he's not in a position to do much other than talking. Hilary is probably the only candidate who actually understands what Terrorism is. This makes her better qualified to be the one handling our domestic terrorism issues.

Really, Sucumbio? You attribute Bin Laden's death to "all I do is placate special interests, make a fool of myself and play golf" Obama? Clearly! He displayed such admirable leadership in authorizing a course of action (after delaying it for months) which would have never become available without the persistent effort of US military and intelligence since 9/11.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUvqPgYC4U0

Hillary is qualified to handle domestic terrorism?! People like Hillary are the reason we even have domestic terrorism issues in the first place. They carelessly open our borders for the most violent, hateful, envious masses out to destroy Western culture (and by extension, modern civilization) simply to stack the political deck with a reliable supply of high fertility, welfare-dependent voters. Need I remind you that Gaddafi held the last line of defense against unsustainable Islamic immigration into Europe? "We Came, We Saw, He Died".

 

[ARISTOS]

Really, Sucumbio? You attribute Bin Laden's death to "all I do is placate special interests, make a fool of myself and play golf" Obama? Clearly! He displayed such admirable leadership in authorizing a course of action (after delaying it for months) which would have never become available without the persistent effort of US military and intelligence since 9/11.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUvqPgYC4U0

Hillary is qualified to handle domestic terrorism?! People like Hillary are the reason we even have domestic terrorism issues in the first place. They carelessly open our borders for the most violent, hateful, envious masses out to destroy Western culture (and by extension, modern civilization) simply to stack the political deck with a reliable supply of high fertility, welfare-dependent voters. Need I remind you that Gaddafi held the last line of defense against unsustainable Islamic immigration into Europe? "We Came, We Saw, He Died".

is this real