Jeb Bush
Ben Carson
Chris Christie
Ted Cruz
Carly Fiorina
Jim Gilmore
Lindsey Graham
Mike Huckabee
Bobby Jindal
John Kasich
George Pataki
Rand Paul
Marco Rubio
Rick Santorum
Donald Trump
Hillary Clinton
Martin OMalley
Bernie Sanders
Other - Independent
Other - Green
Other - Libertarian
Other - Other
Suck it
I made an extra option
SLEs are very ego driven, yes, but Trump truly seems like a man on a mission. Like i said, i think he really does want to make america better. Maybe Trump does have some visions of grandeur... maybe he'll work extra hard to actualize it... I'll still take someone with good intentions over bad intentions any day. Clinton lies to your face, and operates in the shadows doing god knows what.Originally Posted by inumbra
there's no point in debating this. you believe that trump is a good person. i believe he has NPD. he is not a "normal" SLE. there is really no point in trying to excuse his behavior by his type. mainly this is coming down to character judgment. and we just see it differently. i see it as 1) he doesn't truly care about the american people; and 2) even if he did, his approach with his businesses has been pretty reckless so even if he really did care about all of us, he still has the potential to fuck up royally. and i have too much to lose. with clinton i would just hope she could hold things together for 4 years and then hopefully we can elect someone else.
anyway, if trump does get elected, we'll see if all those who see him as a good person are right. we'll also see if he will help the u.s. or destroy it. not to mention it will be a test of just how well the other branches of govt can prevent a dictatorship.
lol, things trump said previously about the clintons: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...interview.html
this is what i mean. like i would expect from NPD, he's quite nice to you when it serves him; and when it no longer serves him, he changes his entire tune and says shit about you. beneath it, is someone callous. am i wrong? because there is a small part of me that still wants to be swayed by his presentation--that oh all the nasty shit he says it is just talk (he isn't really a racist misogynist etc.) and there's really a sweetheart under all that who just hasPoLR problems.
can you not also see it in the last video @replica posted. norm m. is busy defending him, they have a history where norm thought trump liked him. now no more. just brushes him off.
i already noticed that trump is deeply hurt by even the smallest slight and lashes out in revenge, but here he is basically saying that's what he does. former miss universe didn't welcome him and he hurts her for it.
also, trump's poor supporters:
there's this man who was just trying to get a note to trump to ask him to stop being such a bigot, he's been a trump fan like forever: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate..._mistakes.html
there's this poor woman who trump would consider 0-1 on the attractiveness scale who took all his comments about the election being rigged to heart and committed voter fraud: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...re_rigged.html
also since i've posted so many slate articles, here's another one which i think is more fair than just saying he has NPD, like i have: http://www.slate.com/articles/health...ald_trump.html
Last edited by marooned; 10-30-2016 at 11:34 PM.
Yeah, lets face it, both these candidates are unsavory. If we just stick to character judgements we won't get anywhere productive. Essentially, as far as policy goes, Trump comes out on top for me. He wants to make peace with Russia and Syria, I think he'd negotiate better trade deals, he would do something about the cheap labor coming over the border (inb4 DEY TOOK ER JERBS), i think his tax policy would be beneficial, and so on.
So says you, if she wins we'll almost certainly end up in a hot war with Russia. Yeah, THAT Russia, with thousands of nuclear warheads to launch everywhere. THAT Russia that cooked up the insane idea of the "Tsar Bomba" just to show that yeah, they can compete with Americans for the title of "most batshit insane nation" award.
Trump doesn't want war, he's the peace candidate. Hillary is the war candidate with the very important caveat that she seeks war with an advanced Nuclear Power. If you vote for that well... I just pray you're within the instant death radius of a nice nuclear fireball. The vaporized denizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the lucky ones. I encourage you to read up on what happened to those who were not granted such a fortunate fate. Radiation... not a good way to go.
yes, well, you seem like a political conservative and i'm a liberal, so naturally i will have opposing views to all that.
@End, i simply don't agree. nice of you to try to use a scare tactic though in addition to being condescending.i found someone who agrees with you.
Last edited by marooned; 10-31-2016 at 07:48 AM.
Here's a nice quote:
"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world." - Thomas Jefferson
Last edited by rat200Turbo; 10-31-2016 at 01:19 PM.
I only wish I was employing rhetorical scare tactics on that one instead of being deadly serious. She WILL get us into a nuclear conflict, her owners think it'd be great. They want a World Population of around 500 million (reference the Georgia Guidestones, scary shit), as we currently have 7 billion well, there's only a few ways to get that number down within our lifetimes and they all involve either WMD's or a Giant Meteor.@End, i simply don't agree. nice of you to try to use a scare tactic though in addition to being condescending.
Also, the Russian dude you linked to is a bit off his rocker but he's still largely right. I would tone it down a bit but on the other hand if ya wanna get heard then going full tilt seems to be the winning strategy. I know one thing about this election cycle, moderates don't get coverage or attention. Mike Cernovich even admitted this on some podcast. If you are Alt-Right for example, you may not even like or agree in any way with the neo-nazi screaming "14/88 gas the ****s race war now!", but saying that stuff in public gets the Overton Window to move right far faster than being "reasonable" and such. The reason? Well, if you happen to be a shy moderate who really digs Civic Nationalism and couldn't give a fuck about race and you then happen to hear someone say that extreme Nazi shit in a grocery store, well now, why the fuck are you so shy? This random fucker is openly channeling the Fuhrer. So your closet Civic Nationalism is in truth downright reasonable and ya best speak up and get it set in stone before those damn Nazis get a Fourth Reich going and gas you and your minority friends (and possibly lovers, they don't take kindly to race mixing)!
The left has been doing it for decades, the right is simply finally learning the lesson from its enemy. NEVER punch your extremist elements. I don't see the DNC bashing BLM or Antifa and all the violent shit they do or the vile hatred they spew, so it'd be foolish for the right to bash their equivalents for doing the same like they've been doing for far too long. They finally get it. Win first, then you can indulge in purity spiraling, but win first!
tl;dr It pays to be a hardcore shitlord/commie in public. Wherever you want the Overton Window to be, advocate to the far right/left of the ideal placement you desire. This is far more effective than making a "reasonable" case for your desires.
Last edited by End; 10-31-2016 at 03:47 PM.
i'm worried about clinton and war as well btw. i wouldn't at once jump to nuclear war in my fears though.
i have never liked what the u.s. does in the middle east (or how it has throughout history interfered with the governments of other nations). and i was interested in trump's remarks about trying to work together with others like russia to stabilize the situation. eta: i also thought clinton's response to that in whatever debate it was where she went to accusing him of being friends with putin was quite polarizing, not acknowledging the gray area in which sometimes you ally with someone for one thing in particular because it is simply a better course of action--and that doesn't mean you are now best friends, agree on everything, and will be allies on everything forevermore. and it doesn't mean that you think your ally is an upstanding person of good character whose values you approve of, either.
(but part of the problem is u.s. politics in general in which one must have a clear stance on everything--a yes or a no. the real world is not so black and white. a thoughtful person doesn't think in absolutes. but it's important i suppose for the voting base to see strong stances and absolutes--to reduce the complex into overly simplistic singular statements. i fear that clinton does think in absolutes though...)
i wish the u.s. hadn't started the war under george w. and was against it at the time (i was afraid of george w. before he was even elected bc i knew it would mean war). basically i blame that for what's happened with the middle east--though i don't know if the first bush started it with the gulf war. but i do fear hillary clinton's carelessness and arrogance in dealing with the situation. she seems (my impression only so far) to go back and forth between being utterly open to advice and completely dismissive of it--and all possibly at the wrong times.
i wish the u.s. would stop interfering with foreign govts, especially in the middle east where the situation is highly complex & volatile and actions taken out of ignorance of those complexities and arrogance of u.s. superiority only make the situation worse. afaik the u.s. has never interfered with a foreign govt (choosing who will rule, what political structure it is to have) with successful results (at least not since ww2, which was a just war as opposed to most/all that came after). i am against imposing democracy or u.s. values on nations that operate differently.
but the middle east now is such a disaster (thanks to the u.s. in large part) that i no longer know what should be done. i have to hope that hillary clinton would be prevented from creating an all out war. i don't know if at this point it's inevitable already (no matter who is elected). she gave humanitarian reasons i seem to recall for the no-fly zone, but the u.s. has never acted for purely humanitarian reasons in the middle east. there is always another agenda.
the u.s. 9/11 response annoyed me as well (i know that some of you believe that the u.s. govt did it just so they could start a war in the middle east) because rather than looking into what had happened and why and trying to make decisions that ensure a more peaceful future, almost instantly the "war on terror" was declared by warmonger george w. i think a lot of politicians made decisions based on emotional reactions to 9/11 in backing him.
@End you posted while i was writing this. but i don't see a point in responding to your post because you are simply declaring your absolute certainty that there will be a nuclear war again. and i think you're kind of crazy. the only part i have nagging feelings about with nuclear war is it happening actually *in* the middle east due to how unstable the situation has become and how extreme some of the players are. i don't believe that russia will nuke the united states--i think that they know better.
oh and ps. your scare tactics were mentioning what happens to people in nuclear war (the same thing you were being condescending with)--it's an attempt to rile my emotions is it not?
i should use the direct quote feature more often.
also @End, sorry once again. i'm finally done with my 3 billion edits to this post.
Last edited by marooned; 10-31-2016 at 04:23 PM.
You know that political compass test? I always end up in the libertarian left quadrant.
Instead of paying more taxes, I'd prefer if the government would stop wasting the money we already give them.
Last edited by replica; 10-31-2016 at 05:30 PM.
trump's immigration policy, tax stuff, and trade stuff is on the conservative end. i've always been against being tough on immigration (i would rather try to find a win-win and am sympathetic to many illegal immigrants); i've always been against lowering taxes for the extremely wealthy (conservatives always want to do that); as for trade, i could be wrong that this is "more conservative." but the first two are definitely in line with a conservative agenda, as is trump's pro-life stance, his gun stance, and the sorts of people he would appoint to the supreme court. he's a conservative, and i think that's pretty clear. i mean compare to sanders (far left) in my earlier post. (clinton unfortunately is rather closer to center.)
oh there's also his stance on the environment which is also in line with conservatives. trickle down economics: also a conservative stance.
Putin and Russia very publicly and clearly state they want to remain peaceful with America. America are the antagonists here because only they want to be king of the hill. The mainstream media demonizes Russia at every opportunity.
In a related topic, Clinton warned and pleaded with Obama at several occasions to go after al-Baghdadi long before ISIL became a thing and infiltrated and took over Iraq and Syria, playing on Shiite and Sunni ethnic conflict. It was Obama who refused to act decisively back in the early 2012-16 and it was Obama who's inaction was a factor in the growth of ISIL after USA pulled out of Iraq, leaving a power vacuum. So although Clinton was there and played a role, it is not the role Trump likes to tout around as her playing.
When there's a large influx of cheap labor, everybody's wages go down. You're sympathetic to illegal immigrants... that's good, but imagine the US as a lifeguard, and there's a bunch of poor immigrants out to sea trying to keep their heads above water. We can't save them all. Especially when our strength gets sapped with every one that we save. I don't think there is a win-win, because there simply isn't enough wiggle room in the economy. It's also important to consider the fact that 51% of illegal immigrants are on welfare (maybe more). If you want to come to this country, you should contribute, instead of sucking off the government teat.
As I've said earlier, there's a reason why Clinton is Wall Street's prefered candidate. The super wealthy elites love Clinton, because she'll keep loopholes open.
Also, abortion is a non-issue, Roe v. Wade will never be overturned.
And you're wrong, Trump's trade policies are very protectionist, which is a classical liberal stance.
perhaps i am wrong about her.
still @replica, you would agree that trump is conservative overall right? he is on the right. i was simply attempting to summarize in my post how he *is* on the right in most of his stances. and i was simply saying that i typically dislike conservative stances. my only reason for ever considering trump was just because he is something different; a possible way out of the status quo. eta: to elaborate on that i think our political system has a lot of problems both in terms of how funded it is by special interests and in terms of how we always end up with the same kinds of thinkers involved (the majority of these people are lawyers), and i think it's keeping us from a progressive path into the future. then there are the republicans, many of whom idealize the world of the 1950s or something and actually want to go backwards in time rather than forwards.
but i also see how trump uses his anti-establishment visage to sway and control his voter base (he's discovered that it's his ticket to *win* and that is most important to him)... and there are too many things to consider. i think a lot of trump supporters actually would like anarchy. there is a lot of anger behind the trump movement. one thing i've considered is, is it possible that some of the "bad guys" (e.g. the banks) are less bad than we think. is it possible that rather than trying to do something truly diabolical (like @End suggests) that they realize that in order to maintain the stable society that they themselves rely upon, that they must make some changes. clinton and all of her "promises" (oh and we will see how that goes...) if they are indeed approved by these so-called powers-that-be (rather than being a rouse to distract us all from their underlying diabolical plan of global destruction), could indicate that a change is underway. the enemy they face is all the angry people, who are so upset they would risk overturning all stability by voting for extremists. is it possible that the so-called ptb are realizing too late their error? because even if clinton wins, this problem is not going away. it may return in future election cycles. if trump himself is not the fascist one might fear, another after him could be. he's demonstrated to any power-hungry person interested how you can manipulate this voter base (how there is indeed great potential to do something truly extreme in the u.s. and have "the people" behind you).
(of course the complex question of these powers isn't necessarily a bunch of people all in unanimous agreement...)
i personally prefer to maintain stability to the great risk of upending the entire system. and i have experienced improvements under obama. it's very difficult to run a test on if such policies are moving in a useful direction when we keep alternating between right and left every 8 years. i would like to see left policies running 16 years and observe what happens.
Last edited by marooned; 10-31-2016 at 06:52 PM. Reason: sorry i've been so distracted i can't finish a post, and the edits are worse than ususal
This is not true. They are not eligible for welfare.
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
Have you ever considered that the anger in his base is justified? You have too much faith in the system. I've read too many of these leaks to have any faith at all.
This was said in regards the Trump movement:
“And as I’ve mentioned, we’ve all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly."
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599
We're all getting hosed, my friend. Trump wants to "drain the swamp" in Washington. Hillary IS the swamp.
Last edited by replica; 10-31-2016 at 06:50 PM.
Not according to the Census Bureau, illegal immigrant households benefit mostly from food programs like food stamps and Medicaid through their native-born children.
Their children are citizens, so "illegal immigrants receive welfare" doesn't apply unless you don't acknowledge birthright citizenship. They can apply for benefits for their children, not themselves. Plus this:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society...rn-US-citizens
“Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
― Anais Nin
ofc it's justified. but i don't see a reason to tear out a path of utter destruction with it. there may be a less dangerous course than some all-out revolution.
also btw i was still adding to my post.
where you see faith, i see my take as being: don't be stupid and reckless. just wait a little while longer.
also, i do think people forget what they have when they demand more. you *do* still have more opportunities in this country than you would in most.
Last edited by marooned; 10-31-2016 at 07:07 PM. Reason: sorry i can't stop editing :(
I'll let Obama make my case for me:
https://twitter.com/NumbersUSA/statu...13722824855552
i'll just put this in a new post since i got to it too late. i'm not sure it means what you seem to imply it means. bill ivey is not a politician afaict. a book of his: https://www.amazon.com/Arts-Inc-Negl.../dp/0520267923 he doesn't like what's been going on with the entertainment industry, and that now someone from that industry is in the running for president (our democracy merely a blind reality tv show). he might mean that where we've gone culturally in the arts has created this problem--that people cannot tell entertainment from reality. and by doing nothing to stop this trend, one is complicit in it. by "we" he may mean those in the arts/media/entertainment world?
i would just hesitate before writing this off as a massive conspiracy to make sheeple of us all.
ps. i looked up ivey in wikileaks trying to find more, but there wasn't much. he did though have some detailed suggestions to how clinton should answer certain questions in an attachment...
Last edited by marooned; 11-01-2016 at 03:20 PM.
Bill Ivey was Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts under President Bill Clinton, and he worked with Obama as well.
https://www.opensecrets.org/revolvin...y.php?id=70835
It's hard to deny that he is an insider, and he's says they've conspired to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. How do you explain that away?
Last edited by replica; 10-31-2016 at 08:37 PM.
To me, wanting an unaware citizenry clearly means they don't want the people to know what they are up to.
“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” - Jefferson
i think that you may be giving this too simple of a read. and i think there is context missing. to think that he is opposed to people being aware and able to make informed decisions runs contrary to all the other stuff he seems to say. i am not seeking to explain away, just asking you to think critically. you assume he wants an unaware citizenry, when the very content of his email is complaining about how they *are* unaware in his view.
as an examplethis book is about what has gone wrong and what we must do. to recover democracy's spiritual center, we must undo the effects of free market ideology that have dominated public policy for the past thirty years. we must reregulate media in the public interest and blunt the damaging effects of new technologies in the home and workplace. we must revamp education to provide every citizen with the tools of creativity and political participation and with the knowledge required to resist the refined techniques of manipulation that empower big advertising and right-wing messaging. we must give every young citizen the tools required to hold govt accountable. we must reconsider democracy as a secular sacred space and consider how we can strengthen our nation's soul
Last edited by marooned; 10-31-2016 at 09:09 PM.
I really don't think that's what he means.
"The unawareness remains strong but the compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking - and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging." He refers to the lack of compliance here as the problem doesn't he?
You have grasped what I have @inumbra. Even if Trump loses, the movement he has inspired will not just wither away and die. In my mind, he's level 2 of a three stage process that only reached full fruition after WWI. It all depends on who has the power and what they do but in the end it all goes through 3 phases. Phase 1 is largely innocuous and is downright reasonable to anyone who is not part of the PTB. That, in the modern U.S. experience, was the Tea Party and Ron Paul. If they'd have just let Ron win we'd be pretty good right now. He and his ancap ilk could have reforged the "American" identity to be rather inclusive and not all that racially charged. Yeah, White People would still be ahead and all, but it'd be within a non-PC context. Whitey ended his/her infatuation with the enslavement of "other" unwilling people faster than any other culture. I say that's something to celebrate!
Phase 2 is Trump. It's pretty explicit but it ain't full on 14/88 race war now shit. The other "minorities" are OK, but only so long as they dump their previous identity and instead assimilate into an explicitly "white" identity that gleefully extols the value of figures like Shakespeare, Beethoven, and other titans of "European" culture. There was an article on Cracked that spoke of this. The "South Park" podunk Rust Belt rednecks don't really much mind the "minorities" in their communities. The black and brown are totally OK but only on one condition That condition is that they act, talk, and feel/vote exactly like the white people who comprise the majority. It's called "passing" in sociological terms. If ya just so happen to "go native" then humanity seems to have this nice tendency to ignore the fact that you in particular don't look like the natives. You may not look like em', but you sound, act, eat, sleep, snore, and hold all the most important values they hold dear to such an extent that the looks now seem pretty superficial. "Good Enough for Us, welcome aboard new friend!" says the tribal collective unconscious. Don't believe me? Well, I doubt you feel bad if someone "appropriates" your culture. I don't, I gleefully encourage them. Yes! More people who like what I like! World Peace is close at hand!!!
Phase 3 is the Fourth Reich. The only problem is that there is no true opposition to that now. If it hits phase 3, all of Europe, the Anglosphere, and America will go full Fash. I don't want the Furher's last words to be found prescient. He said that one day his spirit would rise from the grave and the world would know he was right. I'd... rather he not be right. I may be a right winger, but I really think it could have worked out far better if he didn't try to actively kill anyone who wasn't Aryan. Bad idea, genocide never works out well!
@End, i also observed the connection from the tea party to this; and how someone more extreme could come along after trump if the anger is not addressed (it will only grow) and if a chunk of the citizenry remains so disaffected. and i am afraid that hillary clinton who once called them all deplorables might not sufficiently address this if she is in office... i think in a way she is trying to in what she proposes; for instance she has been going hard at least in rhetoric on making the wealthy pay their share of taxes (though follow-through is needed), she's said repeatedly that she wants to make sure the american dream is accessible to everyone, and her magical plan of making college debt free could go a long way to help people who are poor. she would need to make progress in these proposals in a way where people can see it (that is to say, significant progress). i think she might be able to push harder on this stuff than obama perhaps, and i also think that with 8 years of a democrat behind her, it will help a lot. it's difficult for any party to carry out their aims when they only have 8 years before the other party takes control--so i think that 16 years matters in this.
but scores having a college degree and no sufficiently paying job still remains a problem (and how to keep it from just expanding?), and it really depends on how the economy goes and how well the next president/administration does at facilitating the creation of more jobs. i like clinton's idea about creating more jobs in clean energy as a way of moving forward, but i don't know that this is really enough (not by a long shot). i'm just afraid that there hasn't been enough creative thought going into what the future of u.s. is in terms of jobs and what its working citizens will be doing. i'm a little bothered actually in a way at the idea of bringing back our factory jobs (i know that practically sounds heretical) because basically i think those jobs are part of the development of a nation, and we are beyond that point so we need to be looking ahead to what jobs of the future are and not behind. also as much as i cannot stand the terrible labor practices for oversea workers (i think it is unacceptable and wrong), it is true that for some they may only have a choice between working in a factory or farming and many prefer working in a factory. these jobs are helping certain nations actually develop and grow their economies (and we need them developed if we are to have a more sustainable future ecologically speaking as a planet, among other things). i kind of feel like the u.s. went through its factory period and now it needs to "pioneer ahead," forging out the new rather than trying to re-create the old.
i just in my gut though feel like if trump is elected the economy will get worse... and we'd still be in danger of extremist leaders because the worse things get for people and the more desperate they get, the more they cave looking for Strong Father (though perhaps we could have Strong Mother) to save them.
the other issue though is that expecting the govt to do everything for us, is unreasonable.
Last edited by marooned; 11-01-2016 at 04:07 PM.
i suspect he sees both compliance and lack of awareness as the problem. when he says "as i've mentioned," i think he's referring to previous conversations in which he has complained about this same thing (without having those previous convos, we're missing context). he's complaining about a mainstream media that runs more as entertainment than actual news ("TV so-called news"), he's looking at how this reality of celebrity politics has occurred, complained of the lack of civics in education.
- on being content to drop civics from education in high school, i.e. letting it fall from curricula. (his view is we need civics):
- being content to demean govt = laughing along while the news and entertainment industry demean govt; it really could refer also to the very thing trump does when he says it is all rigged, or to claims that govt ceases to function entirely (so overridden is it by special interests). (forgive my own "unawareness," but i rather agree special interests are too involved in govt.) this sort of thing affects public opinion; it influences people to not only see govt as increasingly ineffective but increasingly corrupt, and likely to believe a reality TV host (for example) over other sources of information.a reconfiguration of american education will be essential. we must provide citizens with the tools required to interpret and deflect the many manifestations of power that come at them every day. with his initiative to restore civics as a high school subject, richard dreyfuss is half-right; young citizens do need a better understanding of govt and politics, but they must also bundle a real grasp of campaign advertising, talk show spin, and political speech with the skills required to understand and perhaps deflect the manipulative power of modern-day corporate messaging. i argue that we need a "new civics" designed to equip citizens to engage and critique the sophisticated power of govt and markets in the 21st century.
though the above two are specific examples, it is a part of in general "conspiring to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry" and now as his email complains, "we" are facing the consequences of that: celebrity politics. his opinions on trump are quite clear:
it is clear he sees this as *bad* for our country in general.Trump masters TV, TV so-called news picks up and repeats and repeats to death this opinionated blowhard and his hairbrained ideas, free-floating discontent attaches to a seeming strongman and we're off and running.
he perceives people as being unaware and caught by the enchantments of people like trump (it is a problem in his view). that they have been compliant with govt until now (in spite of not really understanding the ins and outs of it) is also a problem because a democracy shouldn't be something you simply comply with or not. it's supposed to be something the citizens are an actual part of. i'm just guessing there as it seemed in his writing he emphasized citizens participating in the democracy.
the word "conspire" btw has more than one definition. one is, "to act in harmony toward a common end" or "to happen in a way that produces bad or unpleasant results." actual scheming need not be implied in the softer definition of the word. it can mean that through our actions (or lack of) we have in general been in harmony with everything that was moving towards this undesirable end: the compliant and unaware citizenry. and now there is a problem (a bad consequence of that).
anyway, you can take it or leave it. i've also looked up what ivey himself had to say about his remark. you may ofc just say that he is lying to cover for the greater conspiracy of making us all sheep. he's an odd one to wish to make us sheep since he's a folklorist (but i suppose you can find all kinds in the liberal autocracy, right?)
personally i thought sanders was a *good* thing. up yours, ivey! don't be so crusty.
I really do think people get swayed by appearances--that trump is charismatic and interacts with the crowd while clinton isn't as expressive. she doesn't have anyis really i think what it comes down to. trump (who i see as SLE) is much better at being expressive. both of them are cold (
); it's just one of them is a better actor.
To be fair, I like Clinton a lot better than Trump (though I can't really come out and honestly say I support her purely as a person) Most anybody compared to trump to me though is going to look like a saint. And I mean, I am super de duper Fe (as everybody obviously knows already) and I would rather the stern and serious Fi person with a stick up their ass won rather then the str8 male Fe asshole who said 'im just joshin ya buddy!' after they hurt your feelings and disrespected your self-worth. Trump is both the narc AND sociopath ... Hillary is just too serious female like.
I like you inumbra, but I feel like you are too unnecessarily bitchy with Fe vauers- like you don't understand us fully and view us in this simplistic way at times. But anyway....
The Hilary hatred is scary to me. Like... people won't be happy until they see her legit flayed alive or something. Well... if trump was flayed alive, I'm not sure if I would not cheer either. A lot of it is backwards white males from the south that can't handle women in power I think. Typical redneck morons. These people don't like jews or gays or cripples or muslims or anybody that's "different" all that well either though- they see themselves in trump. It's a very narcissistic thing to me- since I don't see myself much in Hillary at all , yet I still think she's the better candidate. Obviously they both suck cuz power is corrupt and evil yadda yadda - flay them both etc. But I mean... obviously this is a competition and you choose a side.
Like - a redneck bully would probably tell me I am being too overly emotional fag like for voting for liberals, but I think they are projecting as that is exactly what trump supporters feel like. They lack objectivity to me... yet I can't criticize somebody's lack of objectivity because I'm IEI Fe right? And a homo who feels deeply and likes fan fiction and art.
My dual is shit. I WILL not be secretly wanting his cock inside me and sending him love letters to prison like that weird british fag Milo! It sickens me if people think that I would like trump because I'm IEI or something... Trump only has one idea that I somewhat agree with logically but totally ruins it because of who he is.
Last edited by Hot Scalding Gayser; 11-01-2016 at 06:36 PM.
i don't know if i agree on the particulars as i may be fe valuing myself. but in terms of my overall behavior, how i have treated and regarded others, out of covering for my own ego-weaknesses... you are right. it needs to change.I like you inumbra, but I feel like you are too unnecessarily bitchy with Fe vauers- like you don't understand us fully and view us in this simplistic way at times. But anyway....
My dual is shit.
Entrepreneur, venture capitalist, paypal co-founder Peter Thiel on the case for a Trump presidency:
Don't be fooled by Hillary, she's a total psychopath that's becoming president for power. Trump is the obvious narcissist that everyone loves to hate, but Hillary isn't much better, she's just better at hiding her malicious side. I'd love for a woman to be president personally, just not her. She also has weak
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
maybe if we elect clinton she will be impeached if the fbi finds enough stuff and then tada we don't have to have either clinton or trump.
it's just tim kaine is kind of creepy and weird.
I predict neither Hillary, nor Trump will get enough electoral votes.
And then Hitla will come out of hiding and the house will be forced to elect our new fuhrer.
Only Trump was the Fuhrer all along, so he gets impeached after wikileaks releases the truth about el Trumpo.
In the midst of the confusion, all the bombs will drop and the Chinese and Russians will be fighting on US soil for control of the continent and the extermination of all the Native Americans, just as it happened before.
I have the seen the visions
It is coming
It can't be stopped
NOV 8 IS UPON US
BE WARNED
And Clinton is so pretty
I like what you have to say @inumbra, you may be a leftist but you don't seem to suffer from the incredibly low IQ most suffer from. I mean god damn, so many leftists are so, SO dumb (case in point: SJWs, yeah I said it and I'll say it a million times more. Fuck those morons!). It actually fits with the findings of a study I read about. You'd think the top levels of academia or any given "intellectual" field would logically be dominated by those who have the highest IQ's. Wrong! 130ish is the top, anyone who scores 150 and above gets gangbanged out of the establishment by the other 130's who fear being overtaken by such superior intellects. And the lower ranks go along with it with abject glee!
Why? Simple really. You can only really grasp people within 2 standard deviations of yourself (i.e. you can only "understand" people within 30 I.Q. points of thine own score). To the right (i.e. higher end) of that lies alien quasi-Lovecraftian supe-rintelligences that must be playing you like a foolish pawn without even trying (thus you resent them and exclude them from the table ASAP), and to the left of that lies people whom you necessarily question how they can even function. They fail to grasp what is, to yourself, blatantly apparent. Those dumb-dumbs don't even get how 2+2=4, how the fucking hell are they still alive in this modern world?!
I mean, I recently had such an encounter. I went to a Taco Bell because I had coupons for free tacos. I don't normally eat such low level fast food but fuck it, I was hungry and ya can't hate on free food. This blond haired bimbo waited on me, and her manager was a nappy haired black girl. Every last thing about them, before they even began to talk to me, spelled it out very explicitly. I was orders of magnitudes smarter than them. Got my food and all, but the whole process of how they even managed to get my order right was... Lovecraftian to be honest. It felt like I was watching a Shoggoth get my tacos. And how happy they looked as they handed me my mostly fake taco meat filled tacos, the joy of them hearing me say thank you so very politely and pretty earnestly (as I can't knock anyone who does what is asked of them)...
People wonder why people like me take up a very earnest love for alcohol. Consult "Rick Sanchez" on the subject. Wub A Luva Dub Duuuub!
It's almost upon us now
The Conservative Case for Voting for Clinton
"To vote for Trump as a protest against Clinton’s faults would be like amputating a leg because of a sliver in the toe; cutting one’s throat to lower one’s blood pressure."
Real talk
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote