Upload
Login or register
Newest
auto-refresh every 1 2 3 5 seconds
Online User List [+] Online: (7): borderlineparanoid, effort, MuahahaOfLore, pebar, thereasonableperso, tyrano, youregaylol, anonymous(4).
asd
#127329 - lotengo
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Been thinking about this pink tax thingy. Womyn being charged more for the same product and still buying it because its pink.
Focusing on the still buying it part. This is actually a great argument for people who think women should not have the right to vote.
#127392 to #127329 - figatron
Reply 0
(09/23/2016) [-]
Even if they were completely similar products, men and women use them for different things, with a different frequency and have a different willingness to pay. Men and women have different demand curves for razors which leads to a different price
#127355 to #127329 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Women's and Men's razors are not the same. The 'pink tax' thing is bullshit when it comes to razors.

There are no good arguments for women not to have the vote.
#127343 to #127329 - akkere
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
It'd be a rather petty argument, especially when men are marketed towards the same kind of branding.
Razors especially, because unless you're using a safety or a straight razor, you're practically giving your wallet over to companies in a way not unlike those that buy the 'pink' tax.

If the price of voting was determined by who was most resistant to marketing, very few would be able to vote.
#127340 to #127329 - theism
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
You say that as if men don't do the exact same thing with soap. It's marketing.
#127342 to #127340 - feelythefeel
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
I don't do that with soap. Generic shampoo, generic soap, and some shower water is all I need.
#127360 to #127342 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Yes, I imagine you smelling terrible.
#127365 to #127360 - feelythefeel
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
lolnope
#127345 to #127342 - theism
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Good for you.
#127338 to #127329 - feelythefeel
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
The pink razor has name brands and other forms of bells and whistles.


The blue razor is Bic, and has the same level of technology as an ink pen.
#127277 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
twitter.com/Souria4Syrians/status/778990196830371840
thumbfortrump want to give these people supply's and food.
#127278 to #127277 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
When did I say that lmao
#127279 to #127278 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
someone who was whining about the supply trucks being blown up going to them.

you wonder who is he
#127280 to #127279 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
You apparently don't understand English very well.

I said Russia considered the UN convoy as carrying humanitarian aid. You said was carrying arms for terrorists.
I asked you if you then believed that Russia was supplying arms for terrorists, which you still haven't given me an answer to.
#127283 to #127280 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
1- yes
2- what? lol? no.. who are they even?
#127284 to #127283 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Why then would Russia consider trucks full of alleged arms to terrorists as 'humanitarian aid'?
#127285 to #127284 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
because actually Russia said it is not the one who bombed that shit. because what kind of bomb being used that does not create a crater. not even the SyAF is capable of doing night flights.

so yes. enjoy more UFSA false flags like always
#127287 to #127285 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Who bombed is not what is important here.

What is important is that you believe it was filled with arms for terrorists.
Russia believes it was humanitarian aid.
#127288 to #127287 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
well. it seems after times of reading yesterday in /sg/ we concluded that this UN supply's was all a plan for a false flag. so just US could have a U turn on their shitty plans on syria but it is failing horribly for now.
#127289 to #127288 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
But why does Russia think it was humanitarian aid?
#127290 to #127289 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
so Russia does not appear here as the boogeyman while US goes fun Al-Qaeda by your tax dollars
#127291 to #127290 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
That doesn't make sense.
#127293 to #127291 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Russia is playing against US very good. dont you see since it has joined all your tax dollars flushed down in one day.

imagine the 2 trillion dollars your country wasted on Al-qaeda burned in one day. imagine what could 2 trillion dollars could do to your country :^)
#127295 to #127293 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
I'm gonna try to make it real simple.

You believe the trucks were aiding your enemy.
Russia believes they were not aiding your enemy.

Three scenarios are possible:
1. The trucks were filled with humanitarian aid, and you are wrong.
2. The trucks were filled with weapons to terrorists, and Russia was incredibly naive
3. The trucks were filled with weapons to terrorists, but Russia knew about it
#127296 to #127295 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
all i could say it is all a false flag from US to their phony "muh humanitarian aids"
#127298 to #127296 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
It doesn't bother you that Russia thinks weapons to your enemies is "humanitarian aid"?
#127299 to #127298 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
US and "Humanitarian aids" dont mix.
#127300 to #127299 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
I can't believe I'm still trying to get a clear answer from you.
Does or does it not bother you that Russia thinks weapons to your enemies is "humanitarian aid"?
#127301 to #127300 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
i cant be sure what Russia thinks. but all we know is the aids was just a false flag.
#127317 to #127301 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
I don't want any US involvement in the Middle East. We don't have any business there.
#127320 to #127317 - shekelnator
0
(09/22/2016) [-]
remember your country is a puppet for Israel. you and your people allowed unwanted entity to rule over USA. now the beautiful Utopia for mankind which is built by the great american founding fathers flushed down to the sewers

This whole war harmed USA more than any the country's it harmed. just look for fuck sake most of the world hate US.
USA destabilized:
Europe X
Middle East X
Asia X
East Europe X
North Africa X
Africa X
South America X
USA neighbors X
USA itself X
#127314 to #127301 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
I'm just saying it because I want you to be critical. Don't assume Russia wants what is best for you. They might be your allies today, but in the end they serve the Russian people, not the Syrian.
#127315 to #127314 - shekelnator
0
(09/22/2016) [-]
you might be right here. but we welcome anyone that kicks CIA ass. Russia did it good and maybe the best
#127310 to #127301 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
I'm not going to investigate very much into it, I don't think it's a very big issue.
I just wanted you to deal with the fact that while you believe it was terrorist supplies, Russia doesn't agree with you.
#127312 to #127310 - shekelnator
0
(09/22/2016) [-]
i guess so...
#127308 to #127301 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
I haven't seen any compelling evidence for or against. I have only read the statements of the US and Russia.
#127309 to #127308 - shekelnator
0
(09/22/2016) [-]
but have you seen your damage control? IT WAS RUSSIA !!111111ONEE.

they early used their ISIS airforce to attack SAA and helped ISIS to advance. and now they whine of their trucks are blown up by airstrike without place having crater.
#127305 to #127301 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
No, I have very little trust in my government.
#127306 to #127305 - shekelnator
0
(09/22/2016) [-]
so do you think it was all false flag?
#127302 to #127301 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Putin, Lavrov and Churkin all called it humanitarian aid.
#127303 to #127302 - shekelnator
0
(09/22/2016) [-]
well then it is humanitarian aids. if this is true what you claims.

but do you think it was humanitarian aids even it is anounced by your country?
#127266 - PopcornViking ONLINE
Reply +1
(09/22/2016) [-]
Donald Trump says debate moderator Lester Holt shouldn't try to fact-check the candidates at next week's presidential debate.

Trump says it's up to the candidates themselves to call out their rivals when they are wrong. Trump spoke Thursday in a telephone interview on "Fox and Friends." He says the candidates should "argue it out."
#127385 to #127266 - akkere
Reply 0
(09/23/2016) [-]
The problem is candidates will ultimately pander to those that believe in what's otherwise considered to be objective falsehoods in science.

Take anti-vaxxers for instance. Both Clinton and Trump have a solid interest in preserving this voter base. As a result, neither of them will do anything to rebut or rebuke a claim that so much as implies vaccines have a link to autism. If both of them decide to take a passive stance, the misconception will live on - unless a third party steps in to stop it in its tracks.
The problem isn't that people are too stupid to critique; they're too corrupt to step on a potential voter's toes. The problem is if the leader of the free world advocates a falsehood, then people watching will consider it to have some form of truth, even if it's utterly baseless.
#127336 to #127266 - theism
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Fact checking will inherently disadvantage Donald Trump.
#127276 to #127266 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Fact-checking assumes people are too stupid to critique what the candidates are saying.
#127292 to #127276 - whoozy
Reply +1
(09/22/2016) [-]
Well they are!
They actually should fact check imo
#127294 to #127292 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
The position that the people don't know what's best for them is one of the most dangerous ideas in a democracy.
#127297 to #127294 - whoozy
Reply +1
(09/22/2016) [-]
It can be, but so is the position of easily getting carried away by carismatic leaders.
#127307 to #127297 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
I agree. But aside from the my point that fact-checking assumes people are ignorant, the area that fact-checking covers is also very undefined.

What in todays society can we point to as a fact, that is not challenged. Geopolitics, science, environment, economy etc. There are practically no matters where total consensus is achieved.
I do support that journalists should remind a candidate if they contradict something they've said earlier though.
#127311 to #127307 - whoozy
Reply +1
(09/22/2016) [-]
If you want to stretch it that far and get all philosophical about it we cannot even define what knowledge is.

The point is that for once this election I want the candidates to be serious and put solid plans and ideas on the table. And I want to make sure they're legitimate.

If this turns into another shitflinging contest along the line of "muh e-mails" and "muh xenophobia" I'm not even going to bother watching it.
#127313 to #127311 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
I want to discuss real political solutions as well, I've pushed for that a lot on this site. Of course that requires capable journalists.

But take for instance climate change, which is still a controversial topic. It wouldn't be a very objective debate if one of the candidates didn't believe in climate change, while a text saying "climate change is a fact" rolls over the screen.
#127384 to #127313 - akkere
Reply 0
(09/23/2016) [-]
But fact checking wouldn't just boil down to "climate change is a fact".
If the opposition presents a fallacious misconception, or an outright deliberate lie regarding the topic, fact-checking would allow it to be stopped in its tracks. More importantly, it would guarantee that the public watching the debate are aware of the falsehood, preventing it from spreading unchecked in social media.

Debates are a time where most of the public are watching; it's where political candidates can spread the most of their misconceptions. It's especially dangerous when both Trump and Clinton will pander to people like anti-vaxxers such that if one brings up the idea that they cause autism, the other won't argue against it to preserve the anti-vaxxers voting for them.
#127393 to #127384 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/23/2016) [-]
There are extremely few things where there is complete scientific consensus on a topic.
Lets for example take vaccines as you mentioned above. I don't think vaccines cause autism either, and I think they're one of the best inventions in medicine.

However, that's not to say they're without flaws. There has for example been numerous reports from young women receiving the Gardasil HPV vaccine who afterwards experienced postural orthostatic tachycardia and complex regional pain syndrome. www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/GACVS_HPV_statement_17Dec2015.pdf Also there have been numerous of reports of girls having neurological issues afterwards. While there isn't definite proof linking the vaccine to these symptoms, it is still a problem that only arose recently and still needs more research.
But there are either thousands and thousands of young girls who somehow created a conspiracy and blatantly lied about their symptoms following HPV vaccine, or there is a unknown side effect that has been illuminated yet.
However, it was from day one met with extreme skepticism from health experts. But even experts can, and have been a lot of times, wrong.

So I hope you can follow my issue with fact-checking. If a candidate raises skepticism about something he or she should be allowed to do so without a moderator saying "nope sorry, I can't let you do that, you are just wrong". Then moderators tell people at home what to think about a certain issue, they monopolize the truth, they filter and censor the debate, and in the end we end up with a poor debate where the audience is assumed to be ignorant.
#127402 to #127393 - akkere
Reply 0
(09/23/2016) [-]
The point isn't that vaccines are flawless. The point is that people think ALL vaccines; flu, meningitis ACWY, etc. cause autism. A point that is more likely to be talked about in a debate because it's simple and generally talked about everywhere else. This problem is that people think there's a flaw that simply doesn't exist, and that's why fact-checking is necessary to correct this
.
Even the Gardasil HPV vaccine. is riddled with myths that requires staunch fact-checking. A group of scientists attempting to link the vaccine to behavioral issues ended up being retracted because of its serious flaws. retractionwatch.com/2016/02/25/removed-paper-linking-hpv-vaccine-to-behavioral-issues-gets-retracted/ This further extends to a barrage of other myths regarding the vaccine including ovarian dysfunction and even the idea that the human body can't sustain multiple vaccines when it's bombarded by exponentially more illnesses everyday. If you, a contender for the leader of the free world, want to deliver skepticism for the issue, do so with paramount research. If you're going to completely slack off and allow misconceptions to outright lies, you should be corrected - and if it's a dangerous oversight - utterly humiliated so people are skeptical of you. This isn't an issue of 'honest mistakes', it's an issue of calculated falsehoods.

If you think moderators have such control over the issues, then you in turn suggest that political candidates otherwise have the same control over the issues, which makes the cooperative pandering all the more dangerous. A moderator that stops a fundamentally wrong and dangerous health misconception from spreading and reaffirming its foundation is better than hoping candidates

The fact-checks don't have to interrupt the candidate. They can easily be voiced after both candidates have run their rounds of time and rebuttals have run course - so neither can use the fact-check to their privately held advantage, or take their opportunities to deliver what they know is incorrect of what the candidate said. This in turn gives plenty of time for a proper fact-checking basis to be confirmed (which they would no doubt have the information set-up the moment they prepare the questions for the debate) and be communicated to the moderator on an information board.

And if neither candidates correct the issue properly, then the moderator can step in and strike the misinformation from underfoot. That's the most acceptable - and necessary - component to the debates.
#127403 to #127402 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/23/2016) [-]
Well, I think you raise some valid points, but I still think it ruins what I consider a good debate. I only want the arguments of the candidates presented, not a third party opinion on what is right and wrong. Imagine a despotic regime that employed fact checking in otherwise free debates. Media is often no different than this, as many of them have a clear, political agenda. I want a moderator that challenges the candidates equally, not someone who towards the audience projects himself as knowing what is true and not true. That to me is inherently undemocratic.

And as I asked someone previously in this thread. If we imagine a scenario where there were undeniable facts.
What would happen if the fact-checker says something wrong? The idea is that it happens in realtime, but a correction cannot happen in real time. The idea of fact-checking would then defeat its own purpose, as it would support the post-factualism it seeks to defeat.
#127439 to #127403 - akkere
Reply 0
(09/23/2016) [-]
Seems like you've glossed over the entire latter half of my post, because everything you've wrote is pretty clearly answered in the presentation of a possible and effective circumstance for fact-checking to occur.

The actual debate can happen; the fact-checking just needs to occur after the candidates make their rounds. Fact-checking quick and live is not unheard of; plenty of news sites do it on the fly and they don't even know the questions that are going to be asked. The moderation, knowing the questions asked, can assess a significant amount of information relevant to the questions, and supplement with a team no larger than most fact-checking teams are made up of. By the time the candidates make their rounds, the moderator can go through each scrutiny that needs to be presented before moving on.

It's not about what's right or wrong, it's about what's factually correct and what's a glaring contradiction. There are numerous points in debates where this can be objectively assessed; it's why fact-checks exist for debates in general. 2012 Saw massive fact-checking done for the Romney-Obama debates, to the extent that it became not a question of what was wrong, but what was right. elections.nytimes.com/2012/debates/presidential/2012-10-03

It's because of the 2012 debates that I'm confident we need fact-checking now more than ever. Candidates are getting away with a great deal of falsehood in these debates, and in a time as sensitive as this, it's absolutely crucial that's stomped out.
#127450 to #127439 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/24/2016) [-]
All I can say is that I inherently disagree. I have provided all the arguments I can make, so I'm just going to leave it here.
#127316 to #127313 - whoozy
Reply +1
(09/22/2016) [-]
If you don't believe in facts that should be considered a weak point, should it not?
#127318 to #127316 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
I do believe in facts, I think most people do. But there is a big chance that something I consider a fact is not considered a fact by someone else.

I for instance consider evolution a fact, but god knows how many don't. Considering certain things as facts can quickly become biased towards a single candidate.
#127322 to #127318 - PopcornViking ONLINE
Reply +1
(09/22/2016) [-]
if one of them gives a number/percentage thats way off, a lot less people will care if they release that its wrong after the debate

if its in real time, one of them or both of them will look really foolish
#127324 to #127322 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
In what context are you talking about? Economics?
#127326 to #127324 - PopcornViking ONLINE
Reply +1
(09/22/2016) [-]
anything
#127330 to #127326 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
As I also listed below, I don't think it's reasonably possible to find any area where there is an almost absolute consensus on something, especially not economics.

Another aspect that I also think people in favor of fact-checking seem to forget is this.
What happens if the fact-checker says something wrong? The idea is that it happens in realtime, but a correction cannot happen in real time.
#127319 to #127318 - whoozy
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Facts are supposed to be something different than belief. It is supposed to be objective truth. It should not matter wether I accept facts or not.

That's a good point. scientifically evolution is fact. Anyone that claims otherwise is factually wrong. If you are advocating for creationism your ignoring facts and not suited to be a biologist
#127323 to #127319 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Yes, but science is based on observation, and observations are made by people. And people of course observe things very differently.

In my country almost half believe God created mankind 10,000 years ago. Are they wrong? I think so, but half of the population don't.
#127325 to #127323 - whoozy
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
You're threading into dangerous territory now. This ends up in Descartes dream argument where no one can know anything for sure

Again, that is irrelevant. Consensus =/= facts.
#127328 to #127325 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
I'm not saying we should not trust our senses as Descartes did. Our only starting point is our senses, it's what we have to go with.

I can find a someone disagreeing on anything you would list as a fact. Remember that to say something is not up for discussion or to monopolize the truth is extremely undemocratic.
#127331 to #127328 - whoozy
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
If you cannot say that a fact is fact you have no truth
If you cannot separate opinion and fact you get relativism

Facts is not and SHOULD NOT be decided by popular opinion
#127332 to #127331 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
But again, this is your perception of what is factual, what is truth. And your voice is as valid as anyone else in a democratic debate. That also applies to the person you're arguing with.

It's perfectly fine for the candidates to argue on facts, but it is not suitable for a moderator who should appear impartial.
#127333 to #127332 - whoozy
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Facts can be used to support your ideas in a democratic debate, not conjured to suit your reality.

Why not?
#127334 to #127333 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Because when a moderator says something is not up for discussion, that naturally limits the debate. Something that was once subject to debate between the candidates is suddenly ruled to be a fact. Then the debate is no longer equal but biased towards a candidate, and such debates are poor in quality.

Moderators should challenge the candidates on their ideas, but never definite answer what is right and what is wrong.
#127335 to #127334 - whoozy
Reply +1
(09/22/2016) [-]
I disagree. If candidateA says X and X is verifiablyfalse it should be exposed as a falsity.
Be accurate and be honest. It's not that hard.

When it comes to facts then YES they should
#127281 to #127276 - PopcornViking ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
lol
#127282 to #127281 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
You don't think so?
#127274 to #127266 - redandgreen
Reply -1
(09/22/2016) [-]
Trump is probably saying this so he can lie about statements he made about Iraq etc.

The debate will be a mess.
#127271 to #127266 - figatron
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
I understand that moderators in debates have had a bad history fact checking and they tend to cherry pick facts and generally aren't that bright...but a debate where candidate just yell at each other and accuse each other of lying is easily a ball in Trump's court
#127253 - canyou
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#127250 - pebar ONLINE
Reply +4
(09/22/2016) [-]
Ever since Trump, Milo is turning into the same type of authoritarian asshole that he means to criticize.
#127341 to #127250 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
what did he do, specifically
#127346 to #127341 - pebar ONLINE
Reply +1
(09/22/2016) [-]
He'll talk about how using government to silence people like sjw leftists and Muslims is not a violation of freedom because these people are against freedom so if they are allowed to speak, then there is a threat to freedom

It's really ironic
#127347 to #127346 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Makes sense to me.

Absolutist free speech is suicidal and cannot be maintained.
#127350 to #127347 - pebar ONLINE
Reply +1
(09/22/2016) [-]
it's not absolutist; I'm not arguing to get rid of defamation laws

Not using government to silence people you disagree with is the exact reason free speech exists

Milo is completely disregarding the reason free speech exists
#127352 to #127350 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
If someone is of the opinion that free speech is cancer, and that persons opinion spreads, free speech will die.

It is better to have free speech be bent before being broken.
#127348 to #127347 - pebar ONLINE
Reply +1
(09/22/2016) [-]
#127349 to #127348 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
A group of settlers start a colony dedicated to free speech.

They have children. These children also believe in free speech, in theory.

These people have children. They believe in free speech, with restrictions on certain types of hate speech. No one corrects them.

These people have children. They believe that certain types of "free" speech, that don't advocate dangerous ideologies.

These people have children. They don't believe in free speech. They believe in controlled, regulated speech that doesn't rock the social boat.

These people have children. They abhor the idea of free speech as hatred and terrorism. And so the dream of free speech dies.

Without a method to keep the next generations ideologically sound, it will fall apart.
#127351 to #127349 - pebar ONLINE
Reply +1
(09/22/2016) [-]
And yet history contradicts you since free speech has been vehemently defended in the US since its founding
#127353 to #127351 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Completely untrue. Even from the beginning we had morality laws, defamation laws, censorship laws, political suppression laws during wartime, ect.

All of these actions served to preserve the nation and "free speech" as we know it today.

However, now that we have none of these laws and have allowed ourselves to degrade, free speech will fall apart and die with the country in a few generations. When half the country is being led social justice warriors, it's virtually over.
#127357 to #127353 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
GIF
And you made fun of Trudeau for the 'If you kill your enemies they win' bullshit.

Welcome to the Nazi doublethink - 'in order to preserve free speech we must remove free speech.'

#127379 to #127357 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(09/23/2016) [-]
I'm sorry I contributed to your depression and anger. I hope you get well soon.
#127358 to #127357 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
But those are two very different things my stupid little friend.
#127359 to #127358 - redandgreen
Reply +2
(09/22/2016) [-]
GIF
You really don't get the irony, do you.

You complain about SJWs but you're so in need of YOUR safe space that you propose to remove free speech in order to protect YOUR speech and precious feels!

#127361 to #127359 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
But thats not ironic because it's not true.

You should calm down, you sound depressed and angry.
#127364 to #127361 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
You want to remove free speech to preserve free speech. You don't think that's ironic?
#127367 to #127364 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Not remove, regulate.

Regulation is key to preserving many facets of society, as a snowflake I'm sure you've written many dissertations on it.
#127368 to #127367 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Free speech is already regulated. You pretty clearly want to remove it from people you disagree with in case your safe space is threatened.
#127369 to #127368 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
No, I'm sorry but that is wrong.
#127372 to #127369 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Why?
#127373 to #127372 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(09/23/2016) [-]
I only want to prevent lefties from spreading their cultural marxist propaganda which will eventually destroy free speech entirely. There are many people who I disagree with who would still be allowed to speak freely, like libertarians.

By bending free speech, I am saving free speech from being broken.
So you see you're mistaken, silly billy.
#127374 to #127373 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(09/23/2016) [-]
Your proposal IS breaking free speech. You propose to do to cultural marxists exactly what you claim cultural Marxists would do to you!

Don't you see that?
#127377 to #127374 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(09/23/2016) [-]
Everything I've said is completely logical though.
#127378 to #127377 - redandgreen
+2
(09/23/2016) [-]
You're either trolling or utterly retarded. Either way, I'm done with the conversation.
#127375 to #127374 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(09/23/2016) [-]
Cultural marxists would silence everyone, I would only silence cultural marxists.

So you see your point is incorrect I'm afraid.
#127376 to #127375 - redandgreen
0
(09/23/2016) [-]
Please tell me you're trolling FFS
#127264 to #127250 - redandgreen
Reply +1
(09/22/2016) [-]
Because Trump is an authoritarian.
#127261 to #127250 - alfonshister
Reply +1
(09/22/2016) [-]
in all honesty, i never really like his attitude. No matter wether yo're right or not, acting like a douchebag is annoying.
#127262 to #127261 - thumbfortrump
Reply +1
(09/22/2016) [-]
Exactly, for a college dropout he's incredibly pretentious.
#127252 to #127250 - thumbfortrump
Reply +2
(09/22/2016) [-]
He's been acting like a faggot for a long time. That's on Milo, not Trump.
#127249 - asotil
Reply +5
(09/22/2016) [-]
I laughed but it hurt a little as I still have trouble finding work here
#127251 to #127249 - pebar ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
International trade does not reduce jobs in total

As long as immigrants spend money (sending it home still keeps it in the system) then new job are created.

Git gud
#127260 to #127251 - canyou
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
I think he means the jobs themselves were outsourced
#127255 to #127251 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
What if immigrants work below minimum wage.
#127256 to #127255 - pebar ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
why would they do that when so many higher paying jobs are available?
#127286 to #127256 - asotil
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
You've never worked a job that pays less than $20/hr in your life is what you're saying right now

Why hire an American kid to work for $8.25/hr when I can hire two Mexicans who'll work for $4/hr each, pay them cash, and not have to deal with all the employee paperwork or legalities if something happens? They don't go for higher paying jobs because those require them to learn any amount of English or have some set of skills other than the ability to work outside in the heat for 8 hours at a time, which if they had they'd be holding political office in whatever south american country they come from. Or they're like the guys at my work who work Country club golf course here during the season, live together in a shithole apartment, then go back to the Dominican Republic during the off season and live like fucking kings because of the currency exchange rate, and repeat the process when April comes back around.

"But that still doesn't explain why they don't get better jobs!" Why the fuck should they when they can already live on government benefits taken out of my check and get even more money for every kid they pop out? Then those kids are raised in the same shithole neighborhoods they all group up in, get raised on drugs and crime and checks from the government, then grow up to be just another gangster blaming whitey saying he doesn't care enough to fix all his problems instead of getting a fucking job or making an attempt at an education. The cycle just repeats until they kill each other off and another group of illegals comes in

Why bother working when you can get money from the government for free? Why bother working to get better living conditions when you can just have more kids and get more government money for each of them? Some do actually go to work, granted their """work""" is 3 hours working and 5 hours on Siesta then going in the back to gamble on Dominoes, then the money goes toward Nino #7 new iPhone, but that's still work, right?

They've taken all low paying low skill jobs for lower wages than natives will work for. Youth now cannot get employed because of this, rely on mommy and daddy to take care of them financially, and develop an entitlement complex we see so many fucking people with today while eventually working at a department store or coffee shop or some other dead end job. Alternatively, the more well off kids go to school, get their degree, etc etc, but have no job experience, and subsequently no work ethic
#127304 to #127286 - pebar ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Why would mexicans work for $4/hr when there are jobs for $10/hr
If employers wouldn't have to pay any additional fees such as social security, that would increase their wage, not decrease it

Even with the bajillions of immigrants in the country, there are still more jobs.

effects on the welfare system and culture are solid arguments but beside the point
#127321 to #127304 - asotil
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Because those $10/hr jobs have competition. If you're willing to work for less than offered, the company is going to hire you, don't think for a second they won't. And because they're not citizens and not even here legally the company doesn't have to pay them minimum wage or above, they don't exist as far as anyone is concerned. The job may as well magically do itself everyday according to the books

Employers don't have to pay additional fees like social security etc. Why pay the person willingly working for less than minimum wage more when you can turn a larger profit at the end of the year

Do you genuinely believe businesses do whats morally best instead of what creates more profit? Have you ever held any kind of job in your life?

Effects on the welfare system and culture are the main reason people want illegals out now, it is the point
#127339 to #127321 - pebar ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Because if they don't pay them more, some other profit maximizing employer will in order to attract that cheap labor. Competition works both ways.

>have you ever held a job
Yes, I worked my way through college virtually debt free with a degree in economics
#127344 to #127339 - asotil
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
I don't mean competition as in some other business is going to pay them more, I mean they have competition as in there's someone more qualified for the position Although once you hit $20/hr around that area it stops mattering because typically those jobs require either a degree of some sort or some other previous qualification and they stop being able to compete solely on working for less. Sure there are jobs that will pay them more, I won't argue that but do remember the work is different and more strenuous for the higher pay. You never see Mexicans working in offices or front desks or positions other than dishwashers or fry-cooks or landscapers/construction workers of some kind, do you? It's always something menial, correct? Guess why

Allow me to use a personal example. I know you'll pull the "That's not a facts and statistics based argument using the sources I deem ok because I used them for mine" argument so take it with a grain of salt: During July I worked for a landscaping company. They paid me $14 an hour, on the books, 7am to 5pm monday through friday. The other people I worked with were all Mexican or some other form of Spanish, point being none of them spoke a word of English save for one who very poorly translated the job to the rest of the crew. At the end of every day, when we'd finish cleaning up at the main building, each of them got a $50 note from the boss and went home. I was the only one getting a check on fridays besides the receptionist.

Why would any other landscaper pay them more when you can put up a Help Wanted sign and get 50 people the next day? Why bother doing that when you can pull the truck up to the line hanging outside Home Depot at 6am and take whoever gets in the back the fastest? They go to another landscaper it's the same $50 a day, maybe a few hundreds at the end of the week instead. They go construction it's the same deal, just a different job. If they stay at a single place long enough, maybe the boss will take to them and pay them a bit more. I know there's like 4 or 5 guys at my place making $11-18 an hour right now but they've also been there 5-10 years. There's no competition between businesses to hire illegals, you're a damn fool for thinking they're something of an exclusive item and not a permanent bargain bin buy 1 get 1 free type of deal. There's competition at higher paying jobs between people who are more qualified, and the problem they've caused is now less people are qualified because they have no previous work experience.

Let's say you're a completely average 20 year old white guy, no work experience. You're applying to be a dishwasher or lawn mower or some other low skill min wage job. Give me one good reason why I should hire you to work for $8.25/hr, plus social security, plus paperwork for me, plus taxes, plus workers comp, etc. instead of hiring Jose who I can hand a $20 at the end of the night and deny all accountability for anything that might happen to him as well as never having to fill out paperwork of any kind nor even give time off to if I don't want, plus I can work him for more than 8 hours, and he doesn't need a break should I decide not to give him one, and if he quits I have 8 others just the same lined up behind him. One reason that would make me hire you over him
#127259 to #127256 - thumbfortrump
Reply +2
(09/22/2016) [-]
Because of unemployment in their own country, or below minimum wage in the host country is still better than minimum wage in their own country. Western European countries have had a lot problems with immigrants working below minimum wage in manual labor and construction, taking jobs from domestic workers. And because of cost of living is high, domestic workers cannot compete.
#127243 - enlightednatzie
Reply +2
(09/22/2016) [-]
Its funny that in every ((((american)))) produced propa... I mean movie the bad guy is always a tall blond and blue eyed aryan masterrace human being and the ''good guy'' is always some subhuman NIGGER or KIKE like in this case, where the main character ((((sylvester stallone)))) with his black, subhuman hair collor, his brown soulless eyes and shorter length than the ''bad guy'', dolph lundgren (a swede) who is 190 cm tall, aryan racial features and a general better looks and physical features than the subhuman ((((stallone, o vey!)))) who surprisingly wins because of the soule reason he's american and have the (questionable) superpowers to become an obese fat idiot, and being milked and slaved out for atleast three more movies (yay capitalism!)

The same can be said about Terminator, the evil guy here is a body builder from austria (qoincidence?) who come sfrom a future where mankind has been replaced by superior beings (robots, like our austrian friend is portrayed as) and the humans in this movie gets exterminated in genocides (muh 60 gorrillion) and if you watch these movies and analyze them as carefully as i do you can see little hints here and there that the aryan race (i dont know about you guys but this defeneatly gets applied to me) are better off exterminated becus in ALL american action movies the bad guys are either blond and blue eyed (an aryan appearnce) or its directly hitler references, liek the star wars series.

In star wars the ''bad guys'' are the ones who wants law and order in the universe and by doing that they need to blow up inferior planets thats in the way, but ofcourse the rebel scum (the so called ''good guys'') who consists of a dessert dweller with incestual tendensies (hmm... Which group of people can that be applied to irl?) and some old fart that talks to a dog... This is the american standards when it comes to the good guys in movies. And now they have released their seventh (?) starwars movie with a black guy as a main character who's only purpose is to make sexual advances to the white female main character, further propagating for race mixing.

This gentlemen, are the American values that millions of americans go to war for. This is the giftsts that democrazy and capitalism has given us. I hope you americans are proud over this. Plus the fact that you pay billions on billons to keep your parasi... I mean buddy Israel alive.
#127268 to #127243 - Zaxplab
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Wow, that's not a copypasta, is it?
#127327 to #127268 - enlightednatzie
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Nope, i never use copypastas. Its an insult to my intelligence to cope someone elses work and quite frankly, people who do that should be shot. I am too proud to write anything but my own words.
#127257 to #127243 - enlightednatzie
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
>>#127254, *burp*
#127258 to #127257 - pebar ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
oh shit; I completely forgot I blocked you

ill unblock you now
#127254 to #127243 - pebar ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
shitting on star wars is unacceptable

apologize now or I'll have the government shut down your business for discrimination
#127245 to #127243 - marinepenguin ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Star Wars is a shitty example because the Empire was directly a purposeful representation of the Nazis.

Also that's some cherrypickin you've been doing son
#127247 to #127246 - marinepenguin ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
I am confused
#127248 to #127247 - enlightednatzie
Reply +1
(09/22/2016) [-]
The empire was a shitty excuse for using the old stereotype that ''nazis are evil hurr durr'' when in fact a better representation would be if the empire was driven by a ''democratic'' and capitalst agenda where they would invade and exterminate any planet that didnt want to buy their products and force them at gun point to consume their inferior products.

Vietnam for example had a democratic election to become socialist and ofcourse america went to war with them and killed two million women and children, just so the survivors could buy m'cdonalds and coca cola. Same with varius south american socialist politicians that have secretely dissapeared.

America doesnt stand for freedom at all. They just want to have control over the rest of the world so their jewish bankers can send them in debt and keep them as slaves. Your so beloved ''freedom'' is limited to what brand of soda you wanna consume today, or what kind of shitty made telephone you want to buy this year that's built in the hands of starving children in india and china. The ''echonomic growth'' is nothing but exploitation of the plantes resourches and america has indirectly created this whole refuggee crisis in europe by supporting ''rebels'' and shit in the midle east, creating million of refugees to europe and they all want to have our ''freedoms'' wo eat at mcdonalds and buy american apple telephones, making amercan companies even richer on the european tax payers.
#127235 - Zaxplab
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Canadian Student Removed From Class For Speaking Up About AntiTrump Lecture


Anyone got that picture of America, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand with their hands of Canada's shoulder? I really feel bad for our brothers up north.
#127265 to #127235 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
The teacher obviously violated his safe space.
#127241 to #127235 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
You need to login to view this link

On my phone so cant post pics
#127233 - esselhornthal
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
anyways i have a thought. I want feedback.

Clinton gets elected and if she [spoiler] but will [/spoiler ]sucks: We will likely still get stuck with her for 8 years
Trump gets elected and if he sucks: Most likely voted out of office after 4 years

either way the next election following will have a better chance of a third party canidate

any opinion on this. I lean towards believing this but i feel like it can be easily shot down.
#127267 to #127233 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Both Clinton and Trump are terrible choices.

Hopefully 4 years of whichever and then Elizabeth Warren for President
#127242 to #127233 - lotengo
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
If he sucks.
Well, we can't be to sure about any of that, is there any talent in the dems that can take him on? Bernie and Hillary will be to old in 4 years. She's to old now.
#127237 to #127233 - figatron
Reply +2
(09/22/2016) [-]
Republicans are in bigger trouble than we think. I'm not speaking strictly presidential elections. Virginia being a blue state and North Carolina being a toss up can't happen if you wan't to win in the future. Republicans need to win toss ups a lot more than Democrats do. If it were just lean blue vs lean red, Democrats would win everytime. If they don't get that shit fixed they could be looking at further decline in the future which could lead to the GOP declining and making way for a new party, but that would necessarily mean at least a decade of unchallenged democrat dominance, the result of which would be we wouldn't have a country left to fix.
#127234 to #127233 - pebar ONLINE
Reply +2
(09/22/2016) [-]
this election was the best chance in decades for a 3rd party but due to the 15% rule to make it into the debates, it's virtually impossible
our only hope is for someone like Rand Paul to infiltrate the party and change it from the inside
#127224 - pebar ONLINE
Reply +1
(09/21/2016) [-]
The federal erserve chose not to raise interest rates today
#127231 to #127224 - canyou
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Well, at least my savings account will go up by $0.12 this month again
#127232 to #127231 - pebar ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
#127213 - canyou
Reply +4
(09/21/2016) [-]
Donald Trump said good morning to a reporter today, but after some fact checking, in some parts of America it is in fact NOT a good morning. In some places it's cloudy and even a little rainy. When will he stop being so grossly generalistic?
#127214 to #127213 - thumbfortrump
Reply +2
(09/21/2016) [-]
Omg, this is why we need fact checking! Imagine if he had gotten away with that!
#127215 to #127214 - canyou
Reply +1
(09/21/2016) [-]
And people actually want this man for president? *eye roll*
#127216 to #127215 - thumbfortrump
Reply +2
(09/21/2016) [-]
Is a man who generalizes times of day and weather conditions really fit to have the nuclear codes That's a disaster waiting to happen!
#127200 - feelythefeel
Reply +5
(09/21/2016) [-]
SHE HAS NO GUILE
SHE CAN'T SAVE FACE
THIS KONG IS A FUCKING DISGRACE

SHE CAN GRANDSTAND
WHEN SHE NEEDS TO
AND SHE TELLS LIES
JUST LIKE A BUFFOON
#127207 to #127200 - pebar ONLINE
Reply +2
(09/21/2016) [-]
IDK... she's a pretty skilled liar
#127225 to #127207 - feelythefeel
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Is it lying that makes you a Lanky Kong, or just getting caught?

Real-ass questions, yo.
#127228 to #127225 - pebar ONLINE
Reply +1
(09/22/2016) [-]
You said like a bafoon, so like an idiot
#127229 to #127228 - feelythefeel
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Idiots lie.
#127230 to #127229 - pebar ONLINE
Reply +1
(09/22/2016) [-]
Idiots get caught
#127209 to #127207 - anon
Reply +1
(09/21/2016) [-]
#127194 to #127193 - shekelnator
Reply +1
(09/21/2016) [-]
ENJOY MORE MDOERATES
#127181 - figatron
Reply +3
(09/21/2016) [-]
Whenever they bring up a border wall leftists act like we're gonna wall off the country and have no contact with outside world. Like its 1450 and planes and electronic communication don't exist. Like virtually every border wall ever doesn't have specific points of entry with which people can enter legally. It's not like a border wall makes us immediately isolationist. What would leftists argue if strawmen didn't exist?

I'm not even saying we should definitely have one because most illegal immigration can be eliminated without one by just enforcing paperwork already on file. But I'm not completely against the idea either. Just saying these arguments are ridiculous.
#127198 to #127181 - thumbfortrump
Reply +1
(09/21/2016) [-]
We need a wall.
#127206 to #127198 - figatron
Reply 0
(09/21/2016) [-]
We can eliminate most illegal immigration without it. We can increase enforcement and border patrol resources for sure. But is building a wall along a massive stretch of wasteland when most illegal immigration these days doesn't happen there, worth the cost?
#127217 to #127206 - theism
Reply 0
(09/21/2016) [-]
The best way to approach it is going after employers hiring illegals. Supply side thinking doesn't really address the issue.
#127218 to #127217 - figatron
Reply 0
(09/21/2016) [-]
go after expired and bogus visas already in the country and that accounts for most of it
#127222 to #127218 - theism
Reply 0
(09/21/2016) [-]
About half. You can account for another third over areas the wall won't even cover. Add a few more agents and go after employers in addition to monitoring visas and you'll do more than the wall ever could.
#127226 to #127222 - figatron
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Which is why I ask, is it even worth it? Maybe fortify cartel hotspots and known smuggling routes but so much of that border is just dirt. Seems to be an enormous cost for a marginal benefit. If we had the money then why not? But we don't. And with either condidate's economic policies... we won't.
#127227 to #127226 - theism
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
Well I'm against the wall so obviously I'll say no. I imagine that the argument for it largely comes to symbolism and sending a message that our borders are in fact secure.
#127210 to #127206 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/21/2016) [-]
>doesn't happen there

What do you think will happen when the usual crossings are monitored.
#127183 to #127181 - redandgreen
Reply 0
(09/21/2016) [-]
Congrats on your unfounded generalisation.
#127174 - anon
Reply 0
(09/21/2016) [-]
#127175 to #127174 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(09/21/2016) [-]
The Chimpout UNGA BONGA HUNGA
#127177 to #127175 - anon
Reply 0
(09/21/2016) [-]
America cucked again!
#127179 to #127177 - Zaxplab
Reply +4
(09/21/2016) [-]
Please leave this country.
#127178 to #127177 - shekelnator
Reply +1
(09/21/2016) [-]
we dont call it "United Failed States of America" for nothing
#127188 to #127178 - whoozy
Reply +3
(09/21/2016) [-]
Because Syria is very successful?
#127190 to #127188 - shekelnator
Reply +1
(09/21/2016) [-]
exactly
#127155 - canyou
Reply 0
(09/20/2016) [-]
#127244 to #127155 - enlightednatzie
Reply 0
(09/22/2016) [-]
>america
#127153 - asotil
Reply +1
(09/20/2016) [-]
#SaveBill
#127201 to #127153 - feelythefeel
Reply 0
(09/21/2016) [-]
I actually feel kinda bad for Bill. I mean, he's Bill fucking Clinton, but I'd feel bad for Pol Pot if he was married to Hillary.
#127152 - thumbfortrump
Reply +3
(09/20/2016) [-]
Trudeau just called Syrian refugees "new Canadians".
#127202 to #127152 - feelythefeel
Reply 0
(09/21/2016) [-]
So when are we going to colonize Syria? I mean, New Canadians would have to come from New Canada, right?
#127212 to #127202 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/21/2016) [-]
It would be fitting, since Trudeau's new Canada is also going to be filled with mooslimes.
#127165 to #127152 - whoozy
Reply 0
(09/20/2016) [-]
Why is that so bad?
#127168 to #127165 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(09/21/2016) [-]
most of these syrian refugees are not even syrian
#127169 to #127168 - whoozy
Reply 0
(09/21/2016) [-]
Yeah, but if they're going to live there they might as well be called canadians... right?
#127173 to #127169 - shekelnator
Reply 0
(09/21/2016) [-]
the new americas is built by immigrants. and not refugees or ex-jihadis
#127171 to #127169 - theism
Reply -3
(09/21/2016) [-]
If you have a problem with the refugee program you'll have a problem with anything supporting it. If anything, trying to integrate refugees into Canadian culture is the best move.
#127172 to #127171 - anon
Reply 0
(09/21/2016) [-]
1/10 for bait.
#127151 - beyondthebatman ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/20/2016) [-]
Anyone see reports that, that Paul Combretta guy is gonna spill the beans?
#127154 to #127151 - canyou
Reply 0
(09/20/2016) [-]
What beans
#127156 to #127154 - beyondthebatman ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/20/2016) [-]
Idk, he's the guy who asked Reddit for help on how to delete Hillary's emails so I assume it has something to do with them.
#127157 to #127156 - canyou
Reply 0
(09/20/2016) [-]
please let there be a shitstorm god