Upload
Login or register
Newest
auto-refresh every 1 2 3 5 seconds
Online User List [+] Online: (3): asotil, effort, MuahahaOfLore, anonymous(3).
asd
#126842 - asotil ONLINE
Reply +2
(09/17/2016) [-]
"I wonder what the traffic is gonna be like for work this morning.

OH"
#126851 to #126842 - anon
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
delete this.
#126845 to #126842 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
The border between the realms of Man and Memes has been disturbed.
#126839 - anon
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
I'm a big proponent for the free market (big fan of Friedman and a newbie to all of this, just started to develop a side interest for economics), however, I stumbled upon a few humps.

During Reagan's presidency, there was a huge recession, does anyone think his policies helped relieve the recession?

Also during Clinton's presidency, it's arguable that he had a better economic impact than Reagan (more jobs created, lower unemployment, higher economic growth per quarter and etc). Is this boom a delayed effect of Reagan's policies?

Does anyone believe in the NIT? If so, it's hard to comprehend how incentives to find a job would be different from the current welfare system.

How would one solve the jobs being sent overseas?

What are the general opinion about the Federal Reserve? Is it okay for it to exist, as long as its power is restricted and checked?

Would love a detailed response!
#126879 to #126839 - anon
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
You should ask pebar for an answer.
#126849 to #126839 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
I honestly don't know much about Reagan and his policies. But the popularisation of the internet and personal computer along with the boom in the IT industry is greatly responsible for a worldwide economic boom in the mid to late 90s.
#126840 to #126839 - anon
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
Let me save you the response you'll get on this board
Reagan = Good
Clinton = Bad
Welfare = Bad
Federal anything = Bad

Which isn't that far from the truth, but they're not going to give you very good reasons
#126866 to #126840 - anon
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
this didnt happen, you shoudl apologize for being a crybaby
#126841 to #126840 - anon
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
I wouldn't mind any type of response. Actually, what is the reasoning as to why people prefer Regan over Clinton?
#126846 to #126841 - anon
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
Plus, During Bill's presidency, he had better results. However, some people say it's the lagging effect of Reagan's policies, but, I would like a much more detailed response as to why it is.
#126847 to #126846 - anon
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
George 41 continued Reagan's policies, basically touched nothing. Yet, his term was considered anything special. Not sure, how Reagan's policies are an effect of Clinton's boom.
#126848 to #126847 - anon
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
wasn't considered*

are a cause*
#126833 - levvy ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
The parliamentary elections are tomorrow - I expect the same result as 2011.

#1: United Russia
#2:CPRF
#3: Just Russia
#4: LDPR

But with the death of Nemtsov I expect the Conservatives of the Republican party of Russia and the Liberals of the Yabloko party to protest when they lose... Again...
#126844 to #126833 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
Oh really.
#126821 - feelythefeel
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
Where can a Canadafag get a MAGA hat on the cheap?
#126828 to #126821 - theism
Reply +2
(09/17/2016) [-]
Dumpsters all across America this November.
#126843 to #126828 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
America would've already been made great, it makes sense. I wonder if Trump will release America is Great Again caps.
#126834 to #126828 - feelythefeel
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
I'll fuck you 'till you love me, faggot.
#126835 to #126834 - theism
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
Too bad I'm dead inside.
#126829 to #126828 - pebar
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
#126802 - canyou
Reply 0
(09/16/2016) [-]
New Trump rally uses "Les Deplorables" backdrop. Plays music from "Les Míserables"
#126837 to #126802 - anon
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
I would vote for him if he would stop behaving like a child for 5 minutes
That shit wins rednecks who think bravado equals any sort of credential
That shit ain't going to fly when Xi Jinping is fucking him in the ass and all he can do is say "Your cock is smaller than Putin's, I've heard things about Asians y'know?"
That he can only even dream of standing up to fucking Mexico says millions, because anyone who's on a standing even close to the US would dance circles around this fucking buffoon in any actual international meeting
#126804 to #126802 - anon
Reply +1
(09/16/2016) [-]
Weird that he would use a Communist song.
#126805 to #126804 - canyou
Reply +3
(09/17/2016) [-]
Didn't you know? Putin and Nigel Farrage and Pepe the Frog are conspiring to make America a nationalist country for some reason.
#126807 to #126805 - anon
Reply +1
(09/17/2016) [-]
>The evil empire of Russia are why we are losing.
Democrats are sounding more like McCarthyites.
#126796 - theism
Reply +1
(09/16/2016) [-]
Considering its never been a focus this election, who wants to have an actual discussion of Trump's policies. You can't bring up Hillary Clinton, except as a comparison of policy, you can't bring up Trump's past either. You have to be specific no vagueries, eg "Hello hire the best people" or "he's literally a white supremacist".
#126830 to #126796 - pebar
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
His trade policies are an absolute joke
you'll have a hard time finding any economist, on either the left or the right, who believes high tariffs protect local jobs
#126836 to #126830 - figatron
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
There are a lot of modern schools of economic thought that differ on a lot of subjects, but free trade producing better outcomes for everyone is one thing they mostly unanimously agree on.
#126831 to #126830 - theism
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
The thing people don't realize also is that our trade relationship with China gives them a major reason to have our backs. For example with North Korea China has every incentive to keep them from attacking us.
#126867 to #126831 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
You say it like it's a good thing.
#126921 to #126867 - theism
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
Alliances also have stipulations and members can be removed. If Russia pursued a war with Turkey it would be very simple for the rest of Nato to not support Turkey. Much like China would with North Korea.

And again, the situation is controlled in such a way as to not start a war between the US and Russia. Russia won't retaliate.

Again, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that we shouldn't kill a massive trade relationship for essentially nothing.
#126922 to #126921 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
Are you actually saying that NATO would back off if Russia attacked Turkey? That might be the most retarded thing I've ever heard on this board. Your understanding of geo-politics is abysmal.

>I'm arguing that we shouldn't kill a massive trade relationship for essentially nothing.
Essentially nothing? You mean the by now very real, constantly growing threat of a nuclear strike in the region, soon to become a global? That is 'nothing'?
#126923 to #126922 - theism
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
Why would they enter a war with Russia because Turkey attacked Russian forces. That's simply retarded.

You really haven't explained why killing our trade relationship would help that situation.
#126925 to #126923 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
In the situation that unfolded last year, a Russian jet was shot down over Turkish territory. By international law, that is considered an act of self-defense, not aggression. If Russia subsequently had attacked Turkey, that would trigger Article 5. If they didn't, the whole Alliance would completely collapse, which is also what many experts are betting Putin is planning on demonstrating, for example by invading the Baltics.
#126926 to #126925 - theism
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
So you don't want to explain why souring relations with China helps us in this situation?
#126927 to #126926 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
Apparently you have issues staying on a single subject when you get called out for your ignorance on the subject.
#126928 to #126927 - theism
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
Chinese trade was the original subject. You brought up Turkey. So one last time. How does souring relations with China helps us exactly?
#126950 to #126928 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/18/2016) [-]
You put 'North Korea' in your original comment, and it has been the subject throughout the thread.
I don't know why you keep talking about China, but I can say that any move that leads to less trade with China is a good move.
#126951 to #126950 - theism
Reply 0
(09/18/2016) [-]
Well if you notice, the real original comment was about Trump's policy. Next came Chinese trade. North Korea was a bonus point because the economic arguments are well understood already. My point, which you never really contested, was that removing our trade leverage with China was an idiotic proposition, because it is. The evidence being that a North Korea with the backing of China is more dangerous than the one we have.
#126953 to #126951 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/18/2016) [-]
No it isn't. What you're talking about is appeasement policy towards North Korea because you think it's dangerous to go to war now. But what do you honestly think will happen?
Do you think China will become any weaker? Do you think North Korea will stop developing hydrogen bombs?
Everyone in the region, except North Korea, despises China. We can easily find new trading partners in the area, China cannot. They are totally depending on us. Reducing trade with China is a matter of national security, but I know you don't care about that.
#126954 to #126953 - theism
Reply 0
(09/18/2016) [-]
No there's two points I've made that you don't feel like responding to.

1. A war on North Korea's terms isn't what we want. Chinese support would tip the balance in their favor.

2. Our trade relationship with China helps to tip the balance against them backing North Korea. Furthermore it gives us leverage in any diplomatic relationship we have with them. Other trade partners would help us in negotiations but a tariff solves nothing.
#126955 to #126954 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/18/2016) [-]
>Chinese support would tip the balance in their favor

How delusional are you. We are the greatest military power in the world, with backing of 27 other nations.
I think I have made this point like 10 times now, so this is the last time I'll try pushing it though your thick skull. It doesn't matter if China won't back North Korea in the future, if North Korea has nuclear weapons. If they have a nuclear arsenal and capability to strike anywhere in the world, it's done. There is nothing we can do.
But we haven't reached that critical date yet, which is why we need to act before that happens.
And trading with China is not beneficial to us at all. A stronger China only means a weaker America on a global scale. But I think we have a established by now that what you really want is a weaker America.
#126957 to #126955 - theism
Reply 0
(09/18/2016) [-]
The point you keep avoiding is that China opposing us in this in no way helps us. You keep dancing between two points.
1. We should attack north Korea.
2. North Korea should attack us.
2 is absolutely retarded and 1 isn't helped by your proposal, it's actively harmed. Try to make coherent points please.

I can guarantee you don't have the understanding of macro economics to argue that position or else you wouldn't hold that position.
#126959 to #126957 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/18/2016) [-]
It's incredible how you're yet to get my point, even though I've explained it in terms a kindergartener could understand.
We should consider any North Korean aggression an attack as a pretext to invade North Korea.

I can assure you that my understanding of macro is miles above yours. I have taken several courses on the matter, even one specifically dealing with China's trade relations to the West and foreign investments in major developing countries, i.e. BRICS. I say this from the bottom of my heart. Of all the people on this board, you are the only one who continues to make incoherent statements without ever backing them up with anything.
Please elaborate, how is a strong China, economically and military wise, beneficial to the West? How do you plan to have a world with the US as the strongest player?
#126984 to #126959 - theism
Reply 0
(09/18/2016) [-]
Which point exactly?
#126992 to #126984 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/18/2016) [-]
Don't worry, I will.
#126990 to #126984 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/18/2016) [-]
No I don't.
#126991 to #126990 - theism
0
(09/18/2016) [-]
Keep telling yourself that.
#126986 to #126984 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/18/2016) [-]
I frankly have better things to do on a Sunday evening than repeating the same thing a normal person would have understood a long time ago.
#126987 to #126986 - theism
0
(09/18/2016) [-]
It's just difficult to understand when you ramble like a schizophrenic. You really need to work on your coherence.
#126974 to #126959 - theism
Reply 0
(09/18/2016) [-]
So situation 1. Therefore Chinese trade is irrelevant. Thanks for playing.

Not so much a strong China however our trade relationship is beneficial to both countries. Chinese consumer goods can be acquired at a fraction of the cost they could be produced in America. This helps increase our standard of living faster than we could on our own. Furthermore, killing our trade with China prevents any positive relationship, making any strength China a concern for US interests.
#126979 to #126974 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/18/2016) [-]
For a person who demands evidence for pretty much everything, you sure do make a lot of baseless assumptions.
#126981 to #126979 - thumbfortrump
0
(09/18/2016) [-]
It's amazing how you keep missing my point.
#126980 to #126979 - theism
0
(09/18/2016) [-]
>Cheaper goods improve standard of living.
>Trade improves diplomatic relationship.

Yeah, pretty baseless claims right?
#126977 to #126974 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/18/2016) [-]
Coming from you it doesn't mean a lot.
#126978 to #126977 - theism
0
(09/18/2016) [-]
Coming from you that means less.

Guess you've given up. Thanks for playing, you lose.
#126975 to #126974 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/18/2016) [-]
That didn't make any sense lmao.
#126976 to #126975 - theism
0
(09/18/2016) [-]
No you're just retarded.
#126873 to #126867 - theism
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
Say what like it's a good thing? That we have a world power looking out for our interests in Asia? Yes that's pretty fucking good.
#126874 to #126873 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
Are you saying China is looking out for American interests in Asia? How gullible are you.

It would be good if North Korea actually attacked us, that would give us a pretext to invade. Instead we have your utopian world with North Korea developing hydrogen bombs and ICBMs. Thank god we have pacifists like you keeping the world safe.
#126875 to #126874 - theism
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
I guess you don't give a fuck about the American troops in South Korea. Good to know. Fucking chickenhawk.
#126885 to #126875 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
I guess you don't give a shit about America all together. Fucking traitor.
#126887 to #126885 - theism
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
If you're going to make this into name calling at least have some basis. Us attacking north Korea is one thing. Them attacking us is not acceptable.
#126888 to #126887 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
You're the one tolerating a nuclear threat from North Korea, not me. It's completely justified to call you a traitor.
#126889 to #126888 - theism
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
What I said was, China refusing to support North Korea is a good thing.

What you said was, I hope north Korea attacks us.

Which of these two statements includes a better outcome for national security?
#126890 to #126889 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
What you don't seem to grasp is that we have an interest in a conflict with North Korea. Or at least we had. Their military is outdated, and a conventional war would not be costly.

However because of pacifists like yourself, we now stand in a situation with North Korea developing hydrogen bombs capable of wiping out millions and millions of people, and still you claim that it's somehow good for our national security.
That's called being either completely retarded or a traitor.
#126891 to #126890 - theism
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
So if north Korea is a security threat, rather than pushing a conflict on our terms, we should wait for them to strike first? Are you actually retarded? You think a situation where North Korea has the support of China and the opportunity to push a first strike, decimating our forces in South Korea by the way, is better than one where they're unilaterally opposed by all world powers? Do you think before you speak?
#126893 to #126891 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
But they're not unilaterally opposed by all world powers you, you utter fucking retard. I cannot overstate how completely moronic your statement is.
They have the support of both partly Russia and especially China, who have time and time again vetoed resolutions, or even non-binding statements, against NK in the UNSC. It's pretty cute that you accuse me of not thinking before speaking, when all you're capable of is spewing out unintelligent shit like that. It's been a while since you said some dumb shit so I thought you might had gained some sense finally. Guess I was wrong.
#126897 to #126893 - theism
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
Name one world power that would support North Korea in a war with the US. Not China, for the reasons I've stated. Not Russia, that isn't the hill they want to die on.

You're an idiot if you actually don't understand what I'm saying and you're not twisting it around to support your claim.

The fact is, the argument you're pushing is that a North Korea, with the full backing of China, preemptively attacking us and wiping out our forces in South Korea, is better than a North Korea with no military support not attacking us. You know this is an indefensible position which is why you're twisting around it.
#126900 to #126897 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
China would support North Korea, that's a given. Only a retard would think otherwise. Russia would definitely also do whatever is in their power to deter any military intervention by Western forces in North Korea.

What I'm suggesting, unlike you, is that next time they as much as threaten us or our allies, we hit them with everything we've got. Your idea that I want to wait until they hit us with a nuke is completely batshit insane, and could only come from your delusional mind.
What your minuscule 'brain' doesn't seem to understand is that every day that North Korea is not reduced to ash, their nuclear capabilities become more and more sophisticated. At some point they will have developed such a nuclear deterrent, that any future conflict with them will instigate global nuclear war.
#126901 to #126900 - theism
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
So China is willing to cripple their economy for, what exactly? Political favors from what is essentially a failed state? Russia wants to risk war with US and the rest of Nato for what exactly? I'm interested to hear what delusions you cook up.

That's not what you initially said. You said you would like North Korea to attack us. Furthermore, that situation is not helped by a hostile relationship with China. It's hurt as China would be more willing to support NK. So what exactly is your point here?
#126905 to #126901 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
"muh economy". The only people who think economics are the only factors that govern inter-state relations are economists. And you of course.
You must be completely oblivious to global politics if you do not see why China would support North Korea.
They are willing to risk a war with the US over artificial islands in the South China Sea, but they wouldn't want to support the incredibly strategic territory of North Korea? top kek.

Russia would risk war, as they have multiple times during the last decade, to stop any American influence. They violently invaded Eastern Ukraine to keep Ukraine from turning pro-Western. They support Assad in Syria while NATO allies bomb there to keep it pro-Russian. North Korea is incredibly strategic to the East Asia Region, their incentive to support them in a war against the US is even greater than to support Assad.

I said I wanted them to attack us, not wipe out thousands of US troops. I know you suffer from an intellectual disability, but it is possible to for someone to attack you without actually killing you.
But it's settled. You want Americans to be targets for North Korean missiles. I'm pretty sure by now that you're just sitting behind a proxy somewhere in the Middle East or Beijing.
#126910 to #126905 - theism
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
Oh yeah you're final point. A strike from North Korea would wipe out our forces in South Korea. Possibly Japan as well. They have nukes in range. That's simply what's going to happen. And once again, how does them having Chinese support benefit us in this situation at all?
#126920 to #126910 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
And the only reason they have nuclear weapons, is because of people like you who think it's wise to maintain a little sense of security right now, and disregard what the future will look like. If we had invaded when it became obvious they were developing nuclear missiles, we wouldn't even be talking about this right now. But you're too fucking retarded to realize that.
#126915 to #126910 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
Yeah, they'd wipe out our forces with their 1950's military equipment. top kek.

The only threat they possess is a nuclear one. The idea that a conventional war against North Korea would be costly is borderline retarded, much like yourself so I guess that it makes sense to you.
#126916 to #126915 - theism
0
(09/17/2016) [-]
And there nuclear weapons. They don't have ICBMS but they could hit south Korea and Japan. And in your scenario they have Chinese support. So I'm not sure why you're pretending that won't factor in.
#126909 to #126905 - theism
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
Jesus Christ you can't even respond to the words in front of you. Who said trade was the only factor? It's a pretty fucking big one though and it gives China incentive to keep Korea smart. This is what we call a negative for Trump's plan. Combined with the economic impact it's just all around retarded.

And yes they have incentive, so we should tip the balance more on the favor of war? Give up our leverage because there's good odds against us? That's retarded.

If you pay attention the US and Russia are doing everything to prevent war. Negotiating strikes so that US and Russian forces don't collide. Of course you're not paying attention though.
#126919 to #126909 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
I forgot that you're unaware of how alliances work.

You see, Turkey is a part of this thing called NATO. We are too. In this 'NATO', we have something called article 5 that consider an armed attack against one member state, in Europe or North America, to be an armed attack against them all. So if Russia attacks Turkey, they attack us.

Assad, and therefore the SAA, are allies of Russia. So an attack against the SAA, is an attack against an ally in the country they're directly involved in military wise.

I hope this illuminates your otherwise evidently cloudy mind about the concept of alliances.
#126911 to #126909 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
I like how you ask me to provide evidence that China and Russia would support NK, and once I do you completely ignore it, because you know I'm right.

>Negotiating strikes so that US and Russian forces don't collide
Which is why a Russian jet was shot down over Turkish territory, and US Air Force just today bombed the SAA. You're completely unhinged, seek medical help.
#126914 to #126911 - theism
0
(09/17/2016) [-]
Just because someone disagrees with your points doesn't mean they ignore them. Air Patrols and a direct land war aren't comparable.

Turkey and the US are separate entities, not sure what your point is there. Yes, attacking Syrian forces, not Russian. Do I have to explain the difference to you?
#126832 to #126831 - pebar
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
isn't it beautiful

it is no coincidence that the longest period of global peace comes in a time when our economies are so intertwined
#126818 to #126796 - figatron
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
his trade policies are based on ideas that became obsolete 300 years ago when economics became a thing
#126820 to #126818 - theism
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
But Chyna
#126823 to #126820 - figatron
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
They destroy their currency and we get cheap goods. And yet we're somehow getting the raw end of the deal. I remember studying economics in college we used to laugh at liberals who believed in fair trade. now the Alt right has Republicans believing it now too.
#126799 to #126796 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(09/16/2016) [-]
As far as any modern mainstream american politician goes, his plan for border security is amazing. The wall, no matter who pays for it, will be an immense job booster as well as tightly increasing security along the southern border. Walls work, as shown by the Israeli wall where illegal immigration plummeted the year of completion.

As far as deportations go, even though he has backed off his some of his earlier positions in regards to the deportation force (which I am still strongly for and hope that he will reconsider when hes in the white house), the immediate deportations of all criminal illegal aliens would be a remarkable step forward.

This, added with the defunding and potential punishment of sanctuary cities, will make real inroads in the illegal immigration issue, far better than the Clinton amnesty plan which offers no long term solutions and exasperates the issue.
#126838 to #126799 - anon
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
A reminder that over 60% of illegal immigrants enter the US through overstayed VISAs so the wall would do shit.
Bureaucratic solutions? Yes
The wall is for fucking retards.
#126800 to #126799 - theism
Reply 0
(09/16/2016) [-]
The Israeli wall is a fence one 8th the length of a border wall, a fraction of the size and was built in response to mass terrorism. The US currently has comparable defenses over much of its borders. Trump's wall would constitute a massive increase on this concept when Israel and the US already spend significant amounts on their current defenses. Are there estimates of the annual, not initial costs of Trump's wall? I imagine manning and maintaining it would be immensely expensive.

A deportation force would be an even greater expense and given the massive number of illegal immigrants even a small margin of error could provide huge negatives for US citizens. Given about 11 million illegals, even a mere 1% rate of wrongful deportation would displace 110,000 legal citizens, and that's an exceptionally low estimate. Is that worth the benefits I wonder?

Amnesty also has problems but it's cheaper than deportation and provides a means of turning illegal immigrants to productive citizens. It's key issue is the increased motivation to illegally Immigrate, but how does that compare to the pressure already present?
#126801 to #126800 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(09/16/2016) [-]
The wall hasn't been built yet, we don't know the exact size considering we have many natural barriers in place. Israels border defenses are far greater than the USA's, because as you said it was built to protect against terrorism. The causes may be different, but the problems (illegals causing trouble in a country they aren't supposed to be in) are the same, and the solution should be the same.

Whatever the cost of maintaining the wall we've wasted 100x times that defending the borders of foreign countries, far better than we defend our own as well. This will at least create american jobs at home.

It would be very, very hard to deport an american citizen because Trump is raising the standard on being an american citizen. By getting rid of birthright citizenship an illegal cant just squat out an anchor baby and stay anymore. That means that american citizens would be assimilated into the country, have the proper identification, and will be able to speak english.

And if there are mistakes, so what? We have to shut down the whole system? There are maybe 100,000 current inmates in US prisons who may be innocent, should we stop arresting criminals because we may get it wrong?

The cost of keeping illegal immigrants, putting them on welfare, driving down property values, taking jobs, bringing crime, bringing drugs, consuming social services, will more than make up for a quick investigation and a bus trip back home. We don't need unskilled workers anymore, this is a modern economy, the uneducated we have will soon be out of work due to automation, why should poor people lose work to import new citizens? Because rich business owners want cheap labor. It must end.

It's simple, if we allow amnesty our borders now mean nothing. If people who are thinking about crossing over know that there will be no consequences for crossing over, thats a massive relief for them and one more reason why they should enter the country the wrong way. Clintons plan will increase immigration 10 fold, just like Reagans amnesty.
#126803 to #126801 - theism
Reply +1
(09/16/2016) [-]
Before taking any action you have to justify the expense, bottom monetary and otherwise. We already know the wall will span at least 2000 miles, going off the current border fence, and cost approximately $10 bn, a figure taken from Trump directly . And it will cost an unknown amount, as Trump has yet to even speculate on this, annually to maintain and patrol. It's effectiveness is limited by how well manned it is and the more patrols, the more expensive it will be. The group best able to make it over the wall will be cartel members, who are also the most dangerous.

Universal amnesty, and even generous amnesty is certainly not viable, however is zero tolerance any more viable? How many man hours are we committing to this project? What are our standards for citizenship to prevent wrongful arrests (as in what's our expected burden on citizens?). What about injury to agents and citizens? Do we even have a preliminary risk assessment at all?
#126806 to #126803 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
We have an enormous amount of money in so many different places in US government that the costs of a maintaining and effective border are trivial, as I said we have spent the last 25 years or so defending borders in the middle east during wartime not to mention the hundreds of other US installations around the world. We have enough to defend our own borders if we can defend everyone elses.

How many man hours are we committing to gang task forces, overworked hospital staffs, social workers, bureaucrats, prisons, homelessness, joblessness, and public works that are impacted by illegal immigration?

The standards are simple, every legal american citizen has certain identification and information that the government has that tells them we're citizens. SS cards , birth certificates, drivers licenses, school records, tax records, property records, vehicle registrations, voting registration, arrest records, census reports, there are a hundred ways to determine if you're a citizen in todays age. If someone is suspected they can be asked to produce two or three, if they can great, if not, there will be more investigating. But really, throwing out the whole system just because some mistakes may happen is ridiculous, we don't throw out the justice system when a man is wrongly convicted.

As far as injury and risk goes, living with an unprotected border with millions of people we know nothing about from a country with a ridiculous record is far, far more risky than removing said people.
#126808 to #126806 - theism
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
Many people would oppose those actions, many others would argue they were completely incomparable to illegal immigration.

Comparing the mitigating effects of the wall to the cost is exactly what I'm saying. The cost of illegal immigration with our current enforcement is $182 bn annually. How much of a dentist can the wall put in that?

And there's ways to fake those things. Presumably there's some further screening involved.
#126809 to #126808 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
Maybe, but that has nothing to do with cost. If we can afford to live in a state of perpetual war and global hegemony, we can afford to protect our borders.

Logically it's likely that building the wall will cost more than the annual fee, but lets say it does cost 10 billion a year, the equivalent of a wall being built every year, thats still remarkably less than 182 billion assuming that number is accurate. But lets go even further. Lets say is costs 100 billion dollars a year, 10 walls a year. Thats still 80 billion less, plus less drugs, less gangs, less crime, and less human suffering for both the native citizens and the illegals.

Maybe there are but people counterfeit money as well, it doesn't mean we should stop using or trusting in the dollar. It's the current year, I find it hard to believe that a significant amount of illegals will get their hands on believable fake identification.
#126810 to #126809 - theism
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
The point is what cost is justifiable. Trump wants to cut taxation and increase military spending. Yet he also wants expenditures like this. The plan doesn't seem to work when taken as a whole.

We still haven't established the effectiveness of the wall. Compared to our current defenses the wall isn't much more insurmountable especially considering the main avenues for immigrants are still the "natural barriers" Such as rivers and mountains that the wall wouldn't cover. The comparison isn't between the burden of immigration and cost, it's the cost against the benefit of the wall.

Getting a fake drivers license is trivial. Children do it to buy alcohol. Passports are also available. Therefore there needs to be a way to verify legitimacy. As stated, even a small error would leave sizable problems.
#126811 to #126810 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
He wants to rebuild our military and cut waste fraud and abuse. This doesn't necessarily imply drastic military spending or cutting taxes on the wealthy. He has stated publically that he wants to cut foreign aid and make NATO countries pay for their defense.

But thats besides the point, according to the numbers you've given me we would save billions on border enforcement. Even if we didn't, the budget is huge, we can always find room for policing borders.

We've already established that walls work, they have for centuries and they still work today. Theres a reason why illegal immigration dropped considerably in hungary after it just put up a simple fence. It's a simple fact that well manned obstacles stop movement drastically.

I don't actually think it is easy to get a fake drivers license. That sounds like something shown in the movies but not true in real life. Also theres a big difference between buying booze with a fake ID and passing the litmus test of the government. They can scan that you know. I also posted multiple forms of verification if you're not happy with that.

And again, as I said, we don't throw out the justice system because a person was wrongly convicted. You're going in circles.
#126812 to #126811 - theism
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
www.google.com/amp/mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/politics/trump-tax-plan.amp.html?client=ms-android-att-us
mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/08/us/politics/donald-trump-speech.html?0p19G=c

The tax plan is unclear but he certainly wants to increase military spending by $90 bn annually.

We would save billions if the wall was effective. As stated the biggest avenues of illegal immigrants would be entirely unaffected and would see more used.

If a fence is effective and we already have a fence why do we have such a significant amount of illegal immigrants? The US Mexico border is thousands of miles. The most effective barrier won't be physical, it will be manpower.

And they make scannable fake id's. People use lost and stolen legitimate id's. People self their id. Same with passports and birth certificates. Identity fraud is currently a serious issue and this creates further demand.

We also consider the effects of legislation on innocents. This would effect potentially millions of innocent people, that's a high burden to satisfy.
#126813 to #126812 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
That doesn't include the billions we'd save cutting foreign aid and demanding NATO countries pay their fair share. This is off topic though, in the grand scheme of the US budget the wall is nothing when you considering what we've handled in the past.

If they somehow did see more use would that not make it easier to stop their flow if they're going through a chokepoint? That seems like another advantage for the wall. Instead of just walking over the fence they'd have to travel significantly farther following paths through mountains that they may not be able to navigate and with a lot of other people. This is a huge deterrent. Also i dont believe that the biggest avenues of illegal immigration will be unaffected.

A fence with proper security and policies that discouraged immigration. An armed wall would be even more effective. We have policed other countries borders with our manpower since ww1 and even before that, it's silly to think we couldn't handle it.

Yea, not buying that getting fake ID's that can pass the governments eye are easy to obtain.

This is what, the sixth time I've explained this? There will be mistakes in every facet of government, that does not mean that we should stop those facets of government or dismiss them. Innocent people in jail, don't throw out justice system, yada yada.

If you're talking about the millions here illegally, well, they're breaking the law. They are not innocent. People should stop caring about them and start worrying about the poor generation of workers that will be made obsolete in the coming years. Taking away more of the uneducated american jobs because of increased competition from imported foreigners is immoral, yes?

#126815 to #126813 - theism
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
So then any expenditure should be justifiable yes? No that's idiotic reasoning. If the benefit does not out weight expense it's a terrible plan. We can't spend tax money just because we've spent more in the past if it's not a justifiable expense.

It's over 1000 miles of mountain, river, swamp and other terrain hazards that hardly constitute a "chokepoint". The wall really isn't much more insurmountable than a fence. It just increases crossing time, supplementing the effectiveness of patrols. This of course applies to the areas it covers exclusively. Presumably Trump doesn't want to step down border patrols so we won't see cost reduction in that respect. It's telling that no one has examined the effectiveness of a border wall in numbers though.

People currently do it constantly. Identity fraud is a serious concern. There's also legitimate id's, as I said, purchased from the original owner or someone that stole it. And even if these are minimally effective it necessitates further investigation, which segues into the next point.

You seem eager to ignore the impact on legal American citizens. It's undeniable that some will come under scrutiny and also undeniable some will be wrongly deported. The more stringent the tests, the more people will wrongly fail. So either you catch fewer illegals or you deport more citizens.

The issue here is weighing the costs to the rewards, the same as we did with the money. Yes we don't throw things out for having consequences but something having as extreme a consequence as this may have (potentially deporting millions of (yes legal) US citizens for the chance at getting a large portion of illegal immigrants out, just doesn't seem worth it to me. That depends of course on how much you value the rights of our legal citizens though.
#126817 to #126815 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
Also, and heres a major point I think you're missing. Mass deportation isn't even trumps policy as of this point. This is what I want him to revisit.

His policy is build the wall, deport criminal aliens, defund sanctuary cities, and no amnesty.

These are completely reasonable, logical proposals. If you want to debate Trumps policies you should focus on that, but it's incredibly hard because this is just common sense.
#126816 to #126815 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
Yes I agree thats idiotic reasoning, glad I didn't say it. We can however afford expenditure that is only a small tiny fraction of what we've handled before and that could potentially save up more than we put in.

So first these paths were the biggest avenues that they would use and they would see even more traffic, now they're hazardous death traps that we can't keep track of but the illegals can. You seem to be jumping from point to point to fit your argument, not very reasonable if you're never willing to change your mind. A fence you can cut through easily, a wall you must climb while avoiding both the increased patrols, lights, and barbed wire. It's just more effective, which is why people use walls and not chain linked fences to protect their most valuable things.

The cost argument is entirely ridiculous for the many reasons I've explained before, I'm done acknowledging it to move the conversation forward.

Still not believing that ID's that can fool the government are readily available and easy to obtain. But I've also said that multiple other identifications can be used, perhaps three or even four. Everything I listed should available to the average american citizen. Also as I said before, chinks in the system does not mean that we throw out the system. I am now done acknowledging this point as we keep going around in circles.

I refuse to believe that average americans are impacted in any way by providing basic identification to the authorities when they do so 100 times throughout their lives. It's undeniable that a whole bunch of criminals are going to get off scott free, and it's undeniable that a whole bunch of innocents are in jail. We do not throw out the justice system. Since I've addressed this multiple times and you refuse to acknowledge it, I'm not acknowledging this argument anymore either.

The idea that we would deport millions of legal citizens is beyond laughable. Even your 100k stat was a massive stretch but that is just utterly ridiculous and no intelligent person would honestly think there could potentially be millions of mistakenly deported IN 2016. It's frankly just hyperbole used to fearmonger, not realistic at all.

No legal citizens rights will be violated by doing exactly what they do every year, provide a few forms of the many identification they have.
#126819 to #126816 - theism
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
You really have a hard time responding to the arguments presented to you. I'm not sure if it's a failure of reading comprehension so I'll put this in a way you should have an easier time reading, making it obvious you deliberately misrepresent things.

There are two main issues to consider:

1. The cost of building and maintaining the wall. As you've stated and I've never contested this is a drop in the bucket for our federal budget. A wall wouldn't break the bank certainly although undergoing large government projects is something we should generally avoid when not strongly warranted.
2. The effectiveness of the wall. If the wall makes even a small dent in immigration it would save lots of money. The primary benefit would be as a force multiplier for patrols. It would increase the amount of time it takes to cross the border, increasing the effective range of each patrol. The question then becomes about whether the wall or increased patrols is more viable. I'll tell you which will make it through congress.

Secondary:

Terrain hazards doesn't mean death trap. These are wide stretches of land that are prohibitive to reinforce and patrol, which is why we currently don't. They're difficult to cross but not impossible, especially with a skilled guide which many have.

Now to your, as you're right that Trump has dropped the plan, desire to deport all illegals.
1. You seem to deliberately ignore the stolen, legitimate ids. These are legal government documents in the hands of people they don't belong to. One can acquire many documents like this including drivers licenses, birth certificates and even passports.
2. This is the part you have the mist trouble understanding. Either you let everyone with something through or you double check things. A lot of fakes are going to be poorly made and won't make it through screening. However are you claiming no false positives will happen? Are the agents and machines responsible infallible? I got 110k from a 1% error rate, assuming 11 million total deportations. Realistically the failure rate will be much higher.
3. The thing you're not getting is my point is the potential volume of harm enormous authoritarian action can have. Targeting 11 million criminals can result in an obscenely high number of misfires. I think millions if Americans freedom is too high and price to pay, you don't. That's just a difference of perspective.
#126822 to #126819 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
pls, if anything I've responded too much to your doubletalk. If I've already answered the question, I'm not going to repeat myself over and over again for you. You not addressing my response is not my problem.

1. Already addressed it.
2. Already addressed it.

So these paths are the biggest avenues, yet they are more dangerous than cutting through a chain link fence? I'm not sure I even understand your point, so building the wall will force them to go through these hazardous areas, wouldn't that just make them not want to pass through it more?

1. Already addressed it.
2. Already addressed it, but just for my sanity I have to remind you again that I never said mistakes or false positives wouldn't happen. In fact I said that it would happen. Multiple times. Fuck sake. But then I said, oh I dont know, maybe 10 times, that we cannot throw out the whole system because of some errors.
3. Already addressed, but again, sanity. I can easily say that we should throw out the entire police force of america because targeting millions of criminals can result in a bunch of misfires, which it actually does. 100k people are assumed to be innocent in jail right now. But the police are still there, because we have laws, and laws need to be followed, and we will benefit from those laws being followed.

Alright, I'm getting off Mr. Bones Wild Ride.
#126824 to #126822 - theism
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
You realize that smugly bowing out leaves me the opportunity to dissect your shitty arguments and leaves you unable to respond without losing face? It's a pretty terrible tactic honestly.

1. No you didn't, you stated we've spent money in the past, ignoring the root issue. cont. in 2
2. The real issue is by comparison. Building the wall returns the same result as increasing patrols. The wall has to justify it's existence by being more effective than an equivalent cost of manpower.

It's more time consuming but the major advantage is the lack of border patrols. As I stated, it's difficult to reinforce and we choose not to patrol it. A barrier just slows you down, a border patrol agent can force you to restart the entire process. Also these barriers are no more dangerous than the primary leg of the journey, which is the main deterrent anyways.

1. You did not address it. As I explicitly said, you have not responded to the existence of legitimate IDs in the wrong hands. These do exist, they can be acquired and, along with the illegitimate ids, necessitate further checks. You make it blatantly obvious to anyone reading you simply don't respond to the points presented to you.
2.Then once again, I value the freedoms of innocent americans more than you. Which is the part of the argument you've once again ignored. Thanks for proving your intellectual dishonesty.
3. Then you're arguing this deportation force is as valuable to the country than the entire police force. The thing is, I'm not debating efforts to track down illegal immigrants. I'm debating a nation wide task force to remove all illegal immigrants immediately. Because that's straight up retarded.
#126826 to #126825 - theism
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
Yet you typed out a whole new reply. It seems a bit contradictory no?
#126827 to #126826 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
i always have time for memes
#126798 to #126796 - canyou
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#126792 - lotengo
Reply +2
(09/16/2016) [-]
>be you
>election day
>watching live coverage on tv, laptop, desktop and phone all at once like a true /pol/andball
>and the next president of the United states is.....
>drumroll
#126793 to #126792 - lotengo
Reply +2
(09/16/2016) [-]
JOHN
O
H
N

ELLIS
L
L
I
S

BUSH
U
S
H

Post YFW Jeb enters on a guac party reform and slow and steady wins the race
#126814 to #126793 - Zaxplab
Reply 0
(09/17/2016) [-]
#126794 to #126793 - lotengo
Reply +2
(09/16/2016) [-]
this just in Gary 'pass the bong' Johnson is now president of A leppow.

Post YFW
#126790 - Elk
Reply +1
(09/16/2016) [-]
**Elk used "*roll picture*"**
**Elk rolled image** Accidentally filled in Clinton's bubble on my ballot Gg no re
#126786 - feelythefeel
Reply +1
(09/16/2016) [-]
Robin Thicke  Blurred Lines Feminist Parody Defined Lines How do they keep finding these relatively attractive men to publicly prostrate themselves like this? Do they know that they could easily find a 5/10, and maybe even up to a 6 or 7? YOU DON'T HAVE TO LIVE THIS WAY!
#126791 to #126786 - lotengo
Reply 0
(09/16/2016) [-]
If womyn could just come up with their own stuff instead of just switching genders of old stuff that would be awesome
#126789 to #126786 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(09/16/2016) [-]
Buff guy probably plows all 3 relentlessly, is in it for a possible 4some.
#126787 to #126786 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(09/16/2016) [-]
they'e paid probably
#126783 - Elk
Reply 0
(09/16/2016) [-]
**Elk used "*roll picture*"**
**Elk rolled image** I hate John Kasich. He's such a child. "They call me the adult on the stage :^^^^))" How do Ohio still like him?
#126788 to #126783 - asotil ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/16/2016) [-]
Ohio is too busy doing meth and heroin purely out of boredom and lack of anything else to do
#126785 to #126783 - Elk
Reply 0
(09/16/2016) [-]
Oh, I re-worded my sentence and forgot to change my grammar. Does*
#126784 to #126783 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(09/16/2016) [-]
If Trump doesn't win I'm leaving the republican party if people like him and jeb are still running things. The time of cuckservatives is over.
#126777 - feelythefeel
Reply +1
(09/16/2016) [-]
You need to login to view this link

WHERE WERE YOU WHEN THE ELECTION WAS OVER BEFORE IT EVEN BEGAN!?
#126797 to #126777 - lotengo
Reply 0
(09/16/2016) [-]
wtf, are we letting this slide?
#126780 to #126776 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(09/16/2016) [-]
Implying everyone already doesn't know who Crowder or McGinnes is.
#126781 to #126780 - feelythefeel
Reply 0
(09/16/2016) [-]
Just making sure. Plenty of people use this board, some of them are bound to not know.
#126782 to #126781 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(09/16/2016) [-]
Gavin is hilarious and usually has decent points but can come off as legitimately sexist sometimes. I can bet a lot of people don't actually watch the whole channel though.
#126774 - feelythefeel
Reply -1
(09/16/2016) [-]
Anyone ever wonder if the theories about secret Nazi magi are true, and they they knew about meme-magic and shit?
#126795 to #126774 - anon
Reply 0
(09/16/2016) [-]
Dude stop. Nazism is dead.
#126775 to #126774 - anon
Reply 0
(09/16/2016) [-]
Nazis went to the moon in 1944.
#126757 - lotengo
Reply +3
(09/16/2016) [-]
I'd pay good money to watch Trump debait this leaf
#126772 to #126757 - feelythefeel
Reply 0
(09/16/2016) [-]
I wouldn't even put it past him to say this.
#126758 to #126757 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(09/16/2016) [-]
Did he actually say this?
#126768 to #126758 - anon
Reply 0
(09/16/2016) [-]
no.
#126760 to #126758 - lotengo
Reply +2
(09/16/2016) [-]
Probably not, but the fact that you can't be sure without asking speaks for itself
#126753 - canyou
Reply 0
(09/16/2016) [-]
Christian Mingle is just a site where gay guys challenge themselves by trying to catfish and convert god-fearing men.
#126750 - youregaylol
Reply +1
(09/15/2016) [-]
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/mount-royal-donald-trump-hat-make-america-great-1.3764642

This is the alt left. When will the media talk about it?

What annoys me the most is that this kind of stupidity is virtually unchallenged, I went to this cunts facebook page expecting at least some backlash, instead shes being called a hero who fights against oppression.

This is the reason why the "alt right" exists and is now determining elections, they were pushed to this by these mongoloids.
#126773 to #126750 - feelythefeel
Reply +1
(09/16/2016) [-]
Nu-male to the rescue by stealing private property. So stunning and brave.
#126779 to #126773 - youregaylol
Reply +1
(09/16/2016) [-]
Thats actually his friend apparently, he stole it to end the confrontation. Still Nu, should've called her a cunt and slapped her ass while *tipping maga cap*
#126762 to #126750 - anon
Reply 0
(09/16/2016) [-]
Maybe cause the media realizes that a bunch of racists with guns can do a lot more damage in the longrun compared to a bunch of pussies on social media.
#126759 to #126750 - whoozy
Reply -1
(09/16/2016) [-]
Sounds about as silly as your advocacy for dictatorship
#126761 to #126759 - youregaylol
Reply +1
(09/16/2016) [-]
A perfect example. I never embraced authoritarianism before I witnessed what the alt left was turning the west into. I realized that the classical cuckservative movement would eventually lose the culture war to these ingrates, and eventually the west would fall. So instead of embracing defeat I had to abandon some of my values and accept new truths.

The real world in painfully practical. Blind idealism solves nothing.

In my perfect world there would be no need to keep these people under control, they simply wouldn't spread their bullshit ideology. I would love if I could be the fervent american patriot who abides by every concept of the constitution and the ideals of teh founding fathers, but these people have crushed that hope. So now I want to crush theirs.
#126763 to #126761 - whoozy
Reply -1
(09/16/2016) [-]
"These people shouldn't be allowed to have opinions, but you should respect mine"

These people are proposing ridiculous safespaces to protect their ideology. You're proposing to make the entire society a ridiculous safespace to protect yours.

You're two sides of the same coin.
#126764 to #126763 - youregaylol
Reply +1
(09/16/2016) [-]
It's not a matter or respecting opinion, it's a matter of which opinion is respectable.
#126765 to #126764 - whoozy
Reply -1
(09/16/2016) [-]
Dictatorships isn't respectable.
No matter if they occur in the form of communism or fascism. In their core, they are the same.

In your quest to stop people like this, you became them.

"If you stare into the abyss long enough the abyss stares back at you"
#126766 to #126765 - youregaylol
Reply +1
(09/16/2016) [-]
Democracy is broken when a legion of underdeveloped manchildren can undermine an entire culture in it's media, business, and government.

To prevent a world where young boys are injected with estrogen and forced to wear dresses, where the mentally handicapped and the disturbed become national heroes, where 40 year old men run around in the street with pink thongs for "pride", where masculinity is shamed and attacked, where common decency is deemed oppressive, where the white race is mocked and scapegoated, where the borders of the country are flooded with third world savages, where the very idea of nation states and western culture is backward, where pedophilia becomes tolerated or even accepted, where professional victims dictate national policy, and where western strength is diminished and replaced with globalist corporate marxism, I will embrace whatever means necessary.

To do otherwise would be accepting these things as an inevitability, which I cannot do. I would sell the soul of my country if it would prevent the slow torturous death and eventual destruction that I see on the horizon.
#126767 to #126766 - whoozy
Reply -1
(09/16/2016) [-]
Appereantly they can't. The US is very right leaning and liberal. Donald Trump has a good chance to beat the more left leaning democrates.

Alright, you've got a lot of examples here so I'll adress a few of them.
Nobody is forced to wear dresses, they can choose to (liberty). The people injected with estrogen represent less than 0,002% of the population. It is literally a non-issue. You can dislike it and vote for it to be illegal to undergo such a procedure before you are of legal age and I would agree with you.
As for the "national hero" issue, this is a reoccurring pattern of cultural backlash. Once something that has been taboo in the past becomes okay, these issues will become widespread and catch a lot of attention in the initial period of socieatal adaptation. The same thing happened with the end of apartheid. In some years it will normalize and no one will give a shit.
Masculinity should be shamed and attacked just like femininity is and has been. Masculinity will always prevail as it's very principle make it stand against such mockery.

These things you mentioned is not a necessity. Here in "leftist" Europe a lot of us has a stricter immigration policy than you for example. It is very possible to stand by your core values without lowering yourself to the methods of those you despise. As a matter of fact this is key... or else we would all become savages.


#126769 to #126767 - youregaylol
Reply +1
(09/16/2016) [-]
Anyone who understands the US political landscape knows that the middle ground is shrinking, a self described socialist almost became the candidate of a major US party and the winner will adopt any policy that benefits her and her corporate leaders who promote left wing social policy 24/7. The media, including tv and movies, is all run by far left elites, as is the government. Trump is a response, not an attack. The left made him strong.

People should choose to carve dicks into their foreheads and it will be fine (liberty). If it's anon issue then why does everyone know about it? Oh thats right, because the regressive left is promoting it and encouraging it and they have the media.
Sometimes tboo things in the past should remain taboo, thats my entire point. The fact that they're hero worshiped is just 100x worse.

Thank you for demonstrating why I support what I do. You hit it right on the money. It will become mainstream. Nobody will give a shit. If the left right now decides that fucking 9 year olds is a great societal cause, in 50 years nobody will give a fuck about fucking 9 year olds. Thats societal degeneration. Thats exactly why I support getting the alt left under control, they're dangerous. Their ideas are harmful. Real people will suffer if we simply shrug and say "ok, cut off your cock, you go girl."

Someone who is masculine can handle more criticism than someone who cant. However if the idea of masculinity is mocked and destroyed thoughout culture, many boys will simply reject all ideas of masculinity because they feel it''s wrong. Thats why this generation is like it is now.

Unfortunately your continent and country is likely already gone. Thats possibly why you can't the reality of the situation. In many ways what I've described is already happening in europe, the later stages of the disease is infecting you people to the core. I predict in 30 years the continent will be in a massive war, and that your respective cultures and national identities will be forever lost to you.

In the USA there is still hope for nationalism though. Although there are surging far right groups in europe as well I see them being defeated in the long run, even if the governments they oppose collapse.

#126770 to #126769 - whoozy
Reply -1
(09/16/2016) [-]
At this point I struggle to see the difference between you and that guy with a tinfoil hat and a sign saying "the end is near".

Sheesh you're more intense than climate fanatics.

Everything will be fine. When those 30 years have passed you will see.
#126771 to #126770 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(09/16/2016) [-]
Everything I've said has precedent. Indeed in many ways you can see it happening now, and has been happening for years.

If it wasn't, Trump wouldn't be close to the presidency. Theres a reason his slogan has created a passion in so many people, positive and negative. Because it's the truth.
#126754 to #126750 - uglychino
Reply 0
(09/16/2016) [-]
When you take facebook post seriously
#126755 to #126754 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/16/2016) [-]
Why shouldn't you take Facebook seriously. It's the main platform of discussion for all the regressive.
#126751 to #126750 - youregaylol
Reply 0
(09/15/2016) [-]
Also found this in the replies. Can't make this shit up.
#126749 - thumbfortrump
Reply +4
(09/15/2016) [-]
The fact that established politicians and mainstream media are seriously writing about and debating Pepe is the greatest testimony to meme magic ever. He will actually become part of the history books when Trump wins.
#126724 - asotil ONLINE
Reply +2
(09/15/2016) [-]
There will openly be a large group of people actually worshipping Kek next year with how 2016 has been so far

Has 4chan grown too powerful? Should we stop it? Can we stop it?
#126739 to #126724 - anon
Reply 0
(09/15/2016) [-]
#126728 to #126724 - theism
Reply 0
(09/15/2016) [-]
The only people following 4chan trends are the channers forcing them.
#126722 - asotil ONLINE
Reply 0
(09/15/2016) [-]
#126717 - canyou
Reply 0
(09/15/2016) [-]
I'm an antidisestablishmenttarianist. Debate me.
#126747 to #126717 - Zaxplab
Reply +2
(09/15/2016) [-]
Well I'm an antipneumonoultramicroscopicsilicavolcanoconiosis advocate. I demand that people stop inhaling silica dust.
#126752 to #126747 - PopcornViking
Reply +1
(09/16/2016) [-]
gesundheit
#126748 to #126747 - canyou
Reply +1
(09/15/2016) [-]
You're a mad man
#126727 to #126717 - thumbfortrump
Reply +1
(09/15/2016) [-]
no platform for racists
#126721 to #126717 - marinepenguin
Reply 0
(09/15/2016) [-]
You're deplorable
#126720 to #126717 - whoozy
Reply +2
(09/15/2016) [-]
ur dumb
#126756 to #126720 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0
(09/16/2016) [-]
Germany was a mistake
#126734 to #126720 - canyou
Reply 0
(09/15/2016) [-]
#126718 to #126717 - anon
Reply 0
(09/15/2016) [-]
no