Donald Trump discuss

[~ Gheb ~]

It's actually very simple.

How much does illegal immigration cost compared to two decade-long wars [that were both not only unjustified but also ultimately failed]? What's gonna hurt the economy more - some X00.000 illegal immigrants coming in or millions of jobs being outsourced through things like TTP? I think it's fairly obvious that the damages caused by illegal immigration amount to a mere fraction of the damages done by the very people that end up being "elected" to take care of these issues.

If you're arguing that it's the illegal immigrants that "pilfer our children's future" then you'll have to ignore a lot of facts.

Wait which is it, that illegal immigrants are becoming welfare cases thus draining the future economy or that illegal immigrants are a convenient scapegoat for all the problems in America, or both? Can they even be both?

I think they can be both. Like I pointed out above, I think they should not be the main cause of concern but that doesn't necessarily mean that they cause no problems at all.

It's also worth pointing out that a major reason why so many mexicans emmigrate into the USA are the disastrous economic results of NAFTA - as it turns out the USA are largely to be blamed themselves for the problems that illegal immegration causes. If Trump actually argued for the termination of NAFTA then his logic would at least be somewhat consistent but that's not in the cards - NAFTA exists almost exclusively for the benefit of US corporations after all.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

New It's actually very simple.

How much does illegal immigration cost compared to two decade-long wars [that were both not only unjustified but also ultimately failed]? What's gonna hurt the economy more - some X00.000 illegal immigrants coming in or millions of jobs being outsourced through things like TTP? I think it's fairly obvious that the damages caused by illegal immigration amount to a mere fraction of the damages done by the very people that end up being "elected" to take care of these issues.

If you're arguing that it's the illegal immigrants that "pilfer our children's future" then you'll have to ignore a lot of facts.

I have no problem with your dispute of that claim. I think it's nonsense as well. My objection is to you supporting the idea that such expensive actions pilfer our children's future at all. It seems a simplistic view of how the debt works in the first place.

 

[comics]

I wouldn't mind Trump being the president. Better than any Democrat in my opinion. In a perfect world I would want Rand Paul, as I am a Libertarian.

 

[Jim Jam Flim Flam]

I wouldn't mind Trump being the president. Better than any Democrat in my opinion. In a perfect world I would want Rand Paul, as I am a Libertarian.

What makes you think he would be better than someone like Bernie Sanders? (only democratic candidate I like at this point)
I try to view this as unbiased as possible, and it seems to me, even though I disagree with Sanders on much of what he says, he is much more fit to run the country. He has decades upon decades of experience in the political system, and has shown, in my opinion, that he knows how to deal with issues like stalemates in congress. I don't want to just say, "donald trump sucks he's a rich fat businessman" and all that, but his credentials are very lacking. He has zero experience with politics, and has spent his career growing a business and his TV persona. He has also shown he is quite out of touch with most Americans, although I will admit that doesn't necessarily mean he would be a poor president.
His solution to foreign problems is, "bomb the **** out of them, and send Exxon in there" and "build a wall, and make em pay for it!" That is not the mark of a good politician. Although I agree with him on a few issues, he hasn't shown me that he is fit to run a country.
What is it about trump that makes him a good presidential candidate?

 

[divade]

I was up late and wanted to try to get more into politics, found this, watched that Half-hour video (with some skipping). anyway is that video total bull on it's immigrant statistics? or are the numbers reason for other issues (like the fact that immigrants will naturally have less asests than a native).

 

[Coolaid_Mix]

Well I'm moving to Japan really soon, but I would feel bad feel bad for the U.S citizens if he actually becomes president.

 

[Sucumbio]

More reasons to not support his candidacy:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-punched-at-donald-trump-rally-in-birmingham/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ew-jersey-muslims-celebrated-the-911-attacks/

 

[Chainz]

More reasons to not support his candidacy:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-punched-at-donald-trump-rally-in-birmingham/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ew-jersey-muslims-celebrated-the-911-attacks/

Ain't that some ****. Smh

 

[eltoroguaco]

Honestly... I think it looks like a dirty Eevee is sleeping on his head. We should try throwing a rock at it and see what happens!

 

[Jim Jam Flim Flam]

It looks like someone found a ****ty toupee on a homeless guy, stole it from him, and just set it on Trump's head. I don't know how it is even possible to have hair that looks that bad.

 

[Foxus]

Well, Trump said something particularly unnerving today. Whether or not you heard about it, you will now.

His next big plan? Ban everyone from around the world of the Muslim faith from entering the U.S. I have not seen such discriminatory extremism so far in this election season, from either side of the aisle. That is 1. automatically assuming all Muslims are bad people and 2. is proof this Trump guy is mad with power. Just when you thought this guy couldn't get anymore bizarre.

 

[FlusteredBat]

Well, Trump said something particularly unnerving today. Whether or not you heard about it, you will now.

His next big plan? Ban everyone from around the world of the Muslim faith from entering the U.S. I have not seen such discriminatory extremism so far in this election season, from either side of the aisle. That is 1. automatically assuming all Muslims are bad people and 2. is proof this Trump guy is mad with power. Just when you thought this guy couldn't get anymore bizarre.

You know Japan already does that, right? (when it comes to immigration at least)

The Quran outlines approved methods on how to subjugate/punish those who disagree with your violent expansionist rulers. There's nothing noble about tolerating such an intolerant set of beliefs. I assume the majority here are in support of gay rights, respect for women and freedom of speech? Well Islam is not.

Calling yourself a Muslim while living by contrary values is evil in the eyes of Allah, it is said that he will send them to hell for not joining the slaughter against infidels.

Most are well aware of the horrific acts of violence that Western powers have inflicted upon the Middle East in recent times, the rage felt by Islamic terrorists is like what Americans experienced after 9/11 multiplied by 10,000. Regardless, what possesses the left into thinking that open borders with your enemy is sensible? (let alone providing them with welfare!)? Imagine if Churchill freely admitted German "refugees" into England during WW1.

 

[the.tok]

The Quran outlines approved methods on how to subjugate/punish those who disagree with your violent expansionist rulers. There's nothing noble about tolerating such an intolerant set of beliefs. I assume the majority here are in support of gay rights, respect for women and freedom of speech? Well Islam is not.

By the same standard, then ban all Christians. Why differenciate? Islam, Chistianism and Judaism are basically the same religion, based on the same foundations. The old testament has no respect of gay rights, women or disbelievers

 

[Chainz]

Using ignorance to fight ignorance?

Hmmmm.

 

[FlusteredBat]

By the same standard, then ban all Christians. Why differenciate? Islam, Chistianism and Judaism are basically the same religion, based on the same foundations. The old testament has no respect of gay rights, women or disbelievers

Go read their associated (and contemporary) holy texts then tell me they're all "basically the same religion".

Modern Islam is like Christianity 1000 years ago. Why not just say that all life on Earth is "basically the same" because we evolved from the same common ancestor?

Even so, Islam's formative history is far more violent than the origin of Christianity.

 

[Jim Jam Flim Flam]

Go read their associated (and contemporary) holy texts then tell me they're all "basically the same religion".

Modern Islam is like Christianity 1000 years ago. Why not just say that all life on Earth is "basically the same" because we evolved from the same common ancestor?

Even so, Islam's formative history is far more violent than the origin of Christianity.

Islam's history is irrelevant, though, if you are basing your belief about the religion on its texts. The texts of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are all abhorrent, although I would agree with you that the Quran is especially disgusting. Saying Muslims will be violent because of their texts is just like saying Christians will murder homosexuals because of their texts. The texts order them, but these occurrences are rare if not unheard of in America (although they are quite common in theocratic countries in the middle east) I despise Islam because of its disgusting holy book, but Muslims rarely follow the directions of their holy books, save of course for the extremist groups. Muslims are not our enemy, violent Muslims are. We cannot ban all mexicans just because a lot of them traffic drugs or engage in violent cartel activity, and just the same we cannot forbid muslims from entering the country because some of them are violent and disturbed individuals. There are people who need help with nowhere else to go, and we can leave them to suffer in an oppressive theocracy in the middle of a desert, or we can try to help them. I think, as a fellow human being, we should brave the danger and try to help them

 

[FlusteredBat]

Islam's history is irrelevant, though, if you are basing your belief about the religion on its texts.

Do you think what is perceive as the word of God is not taken seriously? What exactly do you think forges the content of a religion's holy text? Apparently it isn't history because that's irrelevant.

The texts of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are all abhorrent, although I would agree with you that the Quran is especially disgusting.

Abhorrent compared to what? Would you say that a single murder is equally as evil as mass murder?

Saying Muslims will be violent because of their texts is just like saying Christians will murder homosexuals because of their texts. The texts order them, but these occurrences are rare if not unheard of in America (although they are quite common in theocratic countries in the middle east)

Devout Christians typically view homosexuality as unfavorable, though the Bible never explicitly commands them to kill said individuals. Modern Christianity does not institutionally compel the murder of homosexuals whereas Islam does (along with any other group labelled as infidels).

Nobody with half a brain believes that being Muslim automatically makes somebody a violent bigoted sociopath, but such is certainly the paragon of virtue as commanded by their holy text. Did you know the word "Islam" means "submission"?

I despise Islam because of its disgusting holy book, but Muslims rarely follow the directions of their holy books, save of course for the extremist groups. Muslims are not our enemy, violent Muslims are.

The so-called "extremist" Muslims are following exactly what is commanded by their religion. Moderate Muslims are in fact the apostates, though you would be hard-pressed to find one who would openly denounce terrorist motives, only the methods.

We cannot ban all mexicans just because a lot of them traffic drugs or engage in violent cartel activity, and just the same we cannot forbid muslims from entering the country because some of them are violent and disturbed individuals.

JIM! No country possess the moral obligation to settle non-citizens within their borders regardless of the threat level!

Please! Consider the ramifications that "progressive" self-congratulatory desire to sacrifice the sustainability of your own tribe for the sake of those who possess cultural values diametrically opposed to civilization and prosperity, especially within a democratic society.

Furthermore there isn't even enough room to take in every single asylum seeker on the planet. How about they work on fixing their own problems? It's not like they lack examples of what works. The heavy-lifting has already been done.

There are people who need help with nowhere else to go, and we can leave them to suffer in an oppressive theocracy in the middle of a desert, or we can try to help them. I think, as a fellow human being, we should brave the danger and try to help them

Nowhere else to go? Give me a break! They come here to mooch off our hard-won prosperity and destroy it in the process. If all they seek is physical safety then there are plenty of sensible places to relocate, even within their own countries.

Do you think the European's ancestors had a place to run when they were threatened with death and destruction? No. They defended their homeland.

 

[the.tok]

Devout Christians typically view homosexuality as unfavorable, though the Bible never explicitly commands them to kill said individuals. Modern Christianity does not institutionally compel the murder of homosexuals whereas Islam does (along with any other group labelled as infidels).

Ahem

Leviticus 20:13King James Version (KJV)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

If that is not a call to murder, I don't know what this is.

 

[FlusteredBat]

Ahem

Leviticus 20:13King James Version (KJV)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

If that is not a call to murder, I don't know what this is.

Contemporary Christianity, not Old Testament Christianity.

 

[the.tok]

Contemporary Christianity, not Old Testament Christianity.

The Bible does include the Old testament. Contemporary Christianity is quite diverse too (Catholics, protestants and orthodoxes do not agree on a lot of points), but for almost all of the different branches, Leviticus is canon.

My point is there is no difference between Christianity and Islam on this : their book says to kill homosexuals, but most believers understand that this is outdated.

 

[gmBottles]

Contemporary Christianity, not Old Testament Christianity.

I hate this argument. You can't just pick and choose what things to follow based on how you feel about it. Either you agree with the religion's views, or you don't. Everything in the Bible is Christianity, whether you like it or not.

Edit: Wow I didn't even realize this was a Trump thread, I opened a bunch of threads at once, saw religion, and thought it was another religious argument thread.

 

[Jim Jam Flim Flam]

Furthermore there isn't even enough room to take in every single asylum seeker on the planet. How about they work on fixing their own problems? It's not like they lack examples of what works. The heavy-lifting has already been done.

You cannot just "fix" a totalitarian theocracy that has been there for ages. That is why they come here, to a secular state, because it is a place where they can escape the tyranny they have been subjected to their whole life. The heavy lifting has not already been done - and it is almost impossible for it to be done. Previous attempts have failed to change the middle east, even with the impressive military might of the United States and many european countries. It is not their own problem, it is the problem of a few theocrats who rule as tyrants. Should we leave the innocents there, if we can take them in? As fellow human beings, we cannot sit by as those innocent people are slaughtered just because we don't like Muslims. Many of these people have been indoctrinated and the only way to help them is to bring them to a secular state where they can realize the error of their thinking. Of course it has its risks, but to ban an entire religious group from entering the country is just plain discrimination. There are a lot of people who hate muslims in America, and those people give Trump the support he needs to say things like he does. We should not join those intolerant and close minded bigots.

 

[Sucumbio]

Edit: Wow I didn't even realize this was a Trump thread, I opened a bunch of threads at once, saw religion, and thought it was another religious argument thread.

This.

While I appreciate the recent surge in activity please remain on topic. Someone can make another (sigh) religion thread discussing the difference between old world and new world ideology. You may however continue to discuss Donald Trump's ideas in immigration.

 

[FlusteredBat]

I hate this argument. You can't just pick and choose what things to follow based on how you feel about it. Either you agree with the religion's views, or you don't. Everything in the Bible is Christianity, whether you like it or not.

Edit: Wow I didn't even realize this was a Trump thread, I opened a bunch of threads at once, saw religion, and thought it was another religious argument thread.

This is ultimately a matter of comparing personal freedoms within contemporary Christian nations (long since matured to separate church from the state) and modern Shari'ah. It is disingenuous to juxtapose modern Islam against ancient Christianity as if modern Christianity is practically the same.

People are free to express Muslim beliefs under the Western tradition, but they are not free to express Christianity under Shari'ah.

Sucumbio , seriously? You don't see the relevance here? You don't see the looming cultural incompatibility on the horizon?

 

[Sucumbio]

No, I don't think Chainz wanted his thread to become yet another religion debate. Trump is just mouthing off as usual. He'll spend this week with this rhetoric and by next week he'll be on to his next target. Probably blacks or asians. Meanwhile as I said discussing his position on Islam is fine, but let's not turn this into a purely religious debate. Every post should somehow tie back into Trump's run for President.

 

[FlusteredBat]

No, I don't think Chainz wanted his thread to become yet another religion debate. Trump is just mouthing off as usual. He'll spend this week with this rhetoric and by next week he'll be on to his next target. Probably blacks or asians. Meanwhile as I said discussing his position on Islam is fine, but let's not turn this into a purely religious debate. Every post should somehow tie back into Trump's run for President.

When was the last time you heard about a Buddhist terrorist attack on US soil? How about radical Confucians?

 

[Chainz]

When was the last time you heard about a Buddhist terrorist attack on US soil? How about radical Confucians?

Here's something interesting.

http://world.time.com/2013/06/20/extremist-buddhist-monks-fight-oppression-with-violence/

Not a terrorist attack, but the point still remains.

You can't stereotype someone based on their religion. You have some members of a religion that are radical, and some that aren't.

 

[FlusteredBat]

Here's something interesting.

http://world.time.com/2013/06/20/extremist-buddhist-monks-fight-oppression-with-violence/

Not a terrorist attack, but the point still remains.

You can't stereotype someone based on their religion. You have some members of a religion that are radical, and some that aren't.

Did you just ignore "on US soil"? Funnily enough, these Buddhists appear to have been retaliating against Muslim aggression (doesn't make it right, of course). Just another example of the failure that is multiculturalism.

 

[Sucumbio]

So if I'm to assume your stance is an elaborated version of where Trump is coming from, we have to close our borders to save ourselves?

How does this jive with his own origins? He's of German ancestry. Immigrants.

And refugees? Uh, the Puritans? Religious refugees. Ireland, Italy, China, India, everyone except African Slaves were at one point refugees who sought America as their new home. And you could even argue that slaves wwre freed and became refugees fron their former lives.

No matter how you look at it, this country is built on immigration. To suddenly deny that, or to play into this idea that only specific groups of immigrants are "worthwhile" is basically akin to racial purity. It doesn't work.

And just to clarify no one is saying take on charity cases en masse. Immigration = more workers.

 

[Chainz]

Did you just ignore "on US soil"? Funnily enough, these Buddhists appear to have been retaliating against Muslim aggression (doesn't make it right, of course). Just another example of the failure that is multiculturalism.

Yea I did cause that ain't the damn point.


And Sucumbio pretty much beat me to it. Lol

 

[FlusteredBat]

Who do you think would have an easier time adapting to US culture Sucumbio ? A German Christian or a Syrian Muslim? Whose values are more likely to fundamentally clash with their new host country?

There was also no massive welfare state to take advantage of during the period of significant European immigration.

Given enough fellow kin, immigrants inevitably end up forming bubble-like microcosms of their home country within the new one. They need at least a generation of open interaction with the locals to properly integrate--notice the period of relatively low immigration immediately after 1900-1909?

The only reason Democrats are in favor of unrestricted immigration is to rig the game, i.e. to import masses of easy votes. That has been their strategy for quite some time.

 

[Sucumbio]

All that chart illustrates to me is that post Great Depression era America was unfavorable for would be immigrants. It says nothing about policies - we - had in place.

Besides which that's the point. Immigrants bring diversity to America. Being American doesn't mean being White Anglo Saxon Protestant. Or German. Or Italian. It means being part of a greater whole whose constituents are rooted in foreign ideology but share one commonality. The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Trump's family was no less entitled to the American Dream than a Muslim fleeing Syria. And there's no shortage of racial bigotry against Germans historically. All peoples have underwent social and political pressure and nuance aimed at limiting them. How many Jewish presidents have we elected for instance. None..it was a far cry to allow a Catholic and we see how JFK turned out.

Democratic voter initiative is eaay. They want to represent minorities. The underdogs. Good! Every American deserves representation. Gays, Mexicans, Blacks, rich, poor, everyone. Trump wants to further rich white America while stepping on poor minority Americans. Shame on him.

 

[Jim Jam Flim Flam]

The only reason Democrats are in favor of unrestricted immigration is to rig the game, i.e. to import masses of easy votes. That has been their strategy for quite some time.

Can a democrat not be in favor of immigration because he is empathetic towards those who are less fortunate? Even if they only wanted to allow immigration for more votes, why should we stop the immigrants because of that? In my opinion, what makes this country beautiful as opposed to a place like, say, Japan, is that we welcome everyone. We don't discriminate based on religion or race. The problem is that Trump is trying to discriminate based on religion - something that is totally incompatible with the constitution. Should we be allowed to stop people from coming here because they worship a different god than us? Of course not, even if Muslims do commit more violent acts than Buddhists or Hindus or Roman Catholics. As a secular state, we should make every effort to remove religion from every single part of the government, and leave it to the privacy of people's homes or churches, etc. I don't think that Trump would like to ask people if they are a christian or a Buddhist when they come through our borders, but he does want to ask people if they're Muslim. I can't see how that is acceptable.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

The only reason Democrats are in favor of unrestricted immigration is to rig the game, i.e. to import masses of easy votes. That has been their strategy for quite some time.

Such allegations kinda undermine the rest of your arguments imo. Unlike some of the other stuff you backed up this is just a blanket statement that doesn't serve a purpose to this discussion.

And if you think that Trump of all people will be the one to improve things in this ... or any matter, really, then you're being foolish. Neither is the president in a position to decide such things nor has Trump shown any signs of being able to deal with issues not related to migration. Trump represents corporate fascism as much as every other candidate does, if not moreso. He also has a relatively conservative outlook on how a society works. The only difference between him and any old GOP candidate is that he has zero care to tackle controversial issues from his point of view. You may or may not find that to be a good thing. But it shouldn't be enough to argue in favor of him, let alone give him your vote. Not that it actually matters because the president doesn't have **** to say to begin with but your argument makes precious little sense to me.

And if you valued non-interventionism anywhere near as highly as one would expect a "true" libertarian to do then you wouldn't argue in Trump's favor, at least not to this extent.

 

[FlusteredBat]

Such allegations kinda undermine the rest of your arguments imo. Unlike some of the other stuff you backed up this is just a blanket statement that doesn't serve a purpose to this discussion.

Being offended doesn't automatically make everything I have to say incorrect. Perhaps you should stop taking debating lessons from feminists. Oh wait, you probably are a feminist...

If I'm wrong then where's your counter-argument? Please explain why Democrats love unrestricted immigration without evoking petty sentimentality. Of course it's just a happy coincidence that immigrants overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

And if you think that Trump of all people will be the one to improve things in this ... or any matter, really, then you're being foolish. Neither is the president in a position to decide such things nor has Trump shown any signs of being able to deal with issues not related to migration. Trump represents corporate fascism as much as every other candidate does, if not moreso.

Did you know "Fascism" was derived from the Latin word fasces? That means "bundle of sticks", as in "collective stronger than individual". Hitler and Mussolini may have looked right-wing compared to Stalin, though I assure you that they were both quite socialist. Note: Nazi means National Socialist German Worker's Party. Mussolini was greatly inspired by Karl Marx.

Funny how progressives project the tyrannical consequences of their own ideology, historical failure and utter practical ineptitude onto conservatism/Trump.

The only difference between him and any old GOP candidate is that he has zero care to tackle controversial issues from his point of view. You may or may not find that to be a good thing. But it shouldn't be enough to argue in favor of him, let alone give him your vote. Not that it actually matters because the president doesn't have **** to say to begin with but your argument makes precious little sense to me.

I like Trump because he provokes this pathetic b*tchy hysteria from people such as yourself. He is just as narcissistic as any other candidate, but at least wishes to preserve the prosperity of his own homeland unlike those weaselly placating Democrats.

By the way, I'm not a US citizen.

And if you valued non-interventionism anywhere near as highly as one would expect a "true" libertarian to do then you wouldn't argue in Trump's favor, at least not to this extent.

The kind of change I support is impossible while the Dunning-Kruger effect still dominates social discourse on ethics. I would prefer to keep the chance alive rather than squander Western civilization for the sake of piss-ant political correctness.

Anyway, whether or not I call myself a Libertarian (I don't) is irrelevant.

...

Here's another related entry from Mr. Molyneux--I now await the unthinking vitriolic backlash.

You guys love to ignore my questions.

 

[Tino]

I would vote for anyone over Donald Trump, I really don't care. If he becomes president, it'll be the end of the world. He's a damn racist and it's just sad that there are people actually voting for him. He should go back to being a businessman where he belongs, not wasting his time running for the White House. I used to like him until he made those bull**** comments about illegal immigrants, which I was greatly disturbed about it. I mean, why?

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Being offended doesn't automatically make everything I have to say incorrect. Perhaps you should stop taking debating lessons from feminists. Oh wait, you probably are a feminist...

If I'm wrong then where's your counter-argument? Please explain why Democrats love unrestricted immigration without evoking petty sentimentality. Of course it's just a happy coincidence that immigrants overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

The wrong assumptions. All of them.

I wasn't offended by your arguments. No idea why you'd assume that.
I'm not a feminist. No idea why you'd assume that.
I wasn't even arguing the point you were making. I don't know whether or not "democrats" "love" "unresctricted immigration". I'm not a supporter of the democratic party. Not that it matters because I'm not an US citizen anyway.

Interesting to see though how you perfectly fulfill all the clichés people have about Trump supporters. Full of prejudice and assumptions - it's no surprise that people choose to not take you serious. Political correctness is not the reason for that. It's your own fault.

Did you know "Fascism" was derived from the Latin word fasces? That means "bundle of sticks", as in "collective stronger than individual". Hitler and Mussolini may have looked right-wing compared to Stalin, though I assure you that they were both quite socialist. Note: Nazi means National Socialist German Worker's Party. Mussolini was greatly inspired by Karl Marx.

Funny how progressives project the tyrannical consequences of their own ideology, historical failure and utter practical ineptitude onto conservatism/Trump.

Again, assumptions. I'm not particularly progressive and I'll be the first to agree that fascism being a collectivistic ideology makes it what people would call "left-wing". Not everybody who calls out the failures in your arguments is left-wing, progressive, politically correct or whatever empty shell of a word you like to throw around though. They just know how to handle the pathetically limited vocabulary and cliché arguments of a wannabe libertarian.

I like Trump because he provokes this pathetic b*tchy hysteria from people such as yourself. He is just as narcissistic as any other candidate, but at least wishes to preserve the prosperity of his own homeland unlike those weaselly placating Democrats.

So you like Trump because unlike the other politicians he makes no secret about being an asshole. Cool. How does that make him a good president again? It doesn't - he won't be. Just imagining the amount of times he'll make himself and his country a fool when he has to deal with actual politicians like Putin makes me laugh.

The bolded part is laughable. You assume the most extreme things about everybody who disagrees with your point of view but of course good ol' Donald only whishes the best for his children, right? You're strikingly naive for somebody who likes to play the professional cynic.

 

[Jim Jam Flim Flam]

Being offended doesn't automatically make everything I have to say incorrect. Perhaps you should stop taking debating lessons from feminists. Oh wait, you probably are a feminist...

If I'm wrong then where's your counter-argument? Please explain why Democrats love unrestricted immigration without evoking petty sentimentality. Of course it's just a happy coincidence that immigrants overwhelmingly vote Democrat.



Did you know "Fascism" was derived from the Latin word fasces? That means "bundle of sticks", as in "collective stronger than individual". Hitler and Mussolini may have looked right-wing compared to Stalin, though I assure you that they were both quite socialist. Note: Nazi means National Socialist German Worker's Party. Mussolini was greatly inspired by Karl Marx.

Funny how progressives project the tyrannical consequences of their own ideology, historical failure and utter practical ineptitude onto conservatism/Trump.



I like Trump because he provokes this pathetic b*tchy hysteria from people such as yourself. He is just as narcissistic as any other candidate, but at least wishes to preserve the prosperity of his own homeland unlike those weaselly placating Democrats.

By the way, I'm not a US citizen.



The kind of change I support is impossible while the Dunning-Kruger effect still dominates social discourse on ethics. I would prefer to keep the chance alive rather than squander Western civilization for the sake piss-ant political correctness.

Anyway, whether or not I call myself a Libertarian (I don't) is irrelevant.

...

Here's another related entry from Mr. Molyneux--I now await the unthinking vitriolic backlash.

You guys love to ignore my questions.

Maybe, just maybe, immigrants vote for Democrats because democrats:
1. Typically are more appealing to poor people
2. Typically do not have any unreasonable immigration restriction they want to impose ( I consider building a ****ing wall blocking us from a country unreasonable, and I consider a ban on all people based on their religion unreasonable)
3. Democrats are obviously more in touch with and more prone to listen to minorities.

Now, this does not make democrats better candidates or better at running the country, but it does make them much more appealing to immigrants. As I said, you paint the picture as if democrats want nothing but votes. They are people, and they care about immigrants. Sometimes, democrats aren't looking for lots of votes, they're just looking to help people. I see nothing wrong with that. Are there democrats who just want votes? Of course. But they are not all like that. I don't like many of the new things to come out of the liberal side of politics, namely issues with political correctness and free speech (to name a few), but would we rather vote for a candidate who eschews that in favor of discrimination and shutting off our borders with a wall? You may not think the U.S. should help people from other countries, but I like to help people who are not as fortunate as me, and I like to let immigrants in to our country, because that's one of the tings that makes this country great, although I know Trump would disagree.
Stefan Molyneux is not at all a credible source. He has proven many, many times that he cannot accurately report facts, statistics, or science without ****ing it up to favor his agenda.
Just because people spew bull**** about Trump doesn't make him a better candidate. No, he is not a fascist Hitler, and he is not trying to deport all muslims, but he is still a ****ty candidate who is obviously out of touch with regular citizens.
What is it about the democrats that makes them weaselly and placating? Can a republican/conservative not be weaselly and placating? Your accusations seem to be very biased. Also, I answered your questions. Don't act like I'm dodging you. If I haven't let me know and I would be happy to answer them.

 

[Alienz_King]

I personally don't like the thought of having Trump as president. I'm independent, but lean more conservative, but having someone like Trump being in charge sounds like a bad idea. I would sooner not vote in this election if he was one of my choices.

 

[Foxus]

I personally don't like the thought of having Trump as president. I'm independent, but lean more conservative, but having someone like Trump being in charge sounds like a bad idea. I would sooner not vote in this election if he was one of my choices.

I rather have Clinton in the White House over Trump.