Upload
Login or register

bokkos

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Date Signed Up:4/04/2011
Last Login:9/18/2016
Stats
Comment Ranking:#29991
Highest Content Rank:#6551
Highest Comment Rank:#456
Content Thumbs: 522 total,  635 ,  113
Comment Thumbs: 16339 total,  19220 ,  2881
Content Level Progress: 80% (8/10)
Level 51 Content: Sammich eater → Level 52 Content: Sammich eater
Comment Level Progress: 57.4% (574/1000)
Level 315 Comments: Wizard → Level 316 Comments: Wizard
Subscribers:1
Content Views:37357
Times Content Favorited:44 times
Total Comments Made:3307
FJ Points:16505
Favorite Tags: a (2) | my (2)
Who the fuck writes in these things?

latest user's comments

#66 - I don't think you get it... The Republicans are less popular t…  [+] (1 reply) 09/05/2016 on Trump train 0
User avatar
#67 - thegamepixel (09/05/2016) [-]
>"somewhat competent"
>claims to not know the (C) stands for classified

There are only 4% more registered Democrats than republicans and these polls over-poll them to a greater extent. A lot of people want to wait for the next president to select a supreme court judge.

Trump is actually getting a larger chunk of black and latino votes than in recent Republican history. Like I said, the polls are skewed against him, I proved so above.
#63 - That's just not true, but if that's what the media you consume…  [+] (3 replies) 09/05/2016 on Trump train -1
User avatar
#66 - bokkos (09/05/2016) [-]
I don't think you get it... The Republicans are less popular than the Democrats in the US; it's not a 50/50 split. Between Trump's nomination hard to believe but yes, he is objectively disliked by the majority of your country. Clinton may as well be too, but at least she's somewhat competent and the stunts the Republicans have pulled in recent years The Government shutdown is a pretty big one, not allowing a president to nominate a Supreme court judge would be another makes them a liability in most American's eyes.

This is why Republicans tend to win when voter turnout is low, because less independents voting allows the relatively lower number of Republican voters shift the results in their favor. So while there may be valid criticisms of specific polls, the fact there are more people who vote Democrat vs. Republican Like the latino and black communities' votes? Goodbye for this election, GOP is not one of them, and poll trends show Trump is cruising to lose, badly.
User avatar
#67 - thegamepixel (09/05/2016) [-]
>"somewhat competent"
>claims to not know the (C) stands for classified

There are only 4% more registered Democrats than republicans and these polls over-poll them to a greater extent. A lot of people want to wait for the next president to select a supreme court judge.

Trump is actually getting a larger chunk of black and latino votes than in recent Republican history. Like I said, the polls are skewed against him, I proved so above.
#8 - Oh Christ not Molyneux; the man knows hardly anything about ga…  [+] (16 replies) 09/05/2016 on Barbarians At The Gates -10
User avatar
#31 - greenjacketcs (09/05/2016) [-]
You're thinking about Peter Molyneux, fam.
#21 - cheshirecatless (09/05/2016) [-]
What does game design have to do with anything?
#10 - baronvonhuckle (09/05/2016) [-]
So you'd rather vote for her because Trumps supporters are fear-mongers?

Yet anti-Trump people think that he is going to deport muslims and throw all mexicans in jail.

Interesting way of looking at things you have there....
#14 - gorox (09/05/2016) [-]
The problem is that Americans are choosing between two very bad options (yeah sure 3rd party candidates do exist but how likely is that) and only a small amount of people understand that.
Hillary is corrupt. Hillary is involved in shady things. And she is bad at hiding it. (Face it, not the first time politicians are involved in that, and the actual good ones hide it better). But at the same time she is likely to end up being just a mediocre sequel to Obama.
Trump is a businessman. He has no idea about running a country. His propositions regarding foreign policy are quite frankly idiotic. And he makes a lot of promises he won't be able to fullfill. He plays on american mentality and abuses it.

And that, dear Americans, is why your political system is bad for democracy. Maybe it is time to accept that you cannot have just 2 big parties.
#50 - anon (09/05/2016) [-]
Nobody really needs more than two choices. Lol.
User avatar
#47 - allinthelegs (09/05/2016) [-]
Just asking for some context, which country you from? European?
#48 - gorox (09/05/2016) [-]
Yes, I am. I am from Poland.
If you also need my political stance I am mostly centrist with minor leaning towards left and liberal.
#19 - duudegladiator (09/05/2016) [-]
#40 - gorox (09/05/2016) [-]
Yes, the FOREIGN policies are idiotic. There are only two noted there - China and Mexico.
Building a wall (and making Mexico pay) is an idiotic idea. There is no country that would allow itself to such a thing. Billions of dollars for a project that will bring you absolutely nothing?
Changes regarding trade with China are unlikely to go well, because this is counter productive. They are such a strong economy because their stuff is CHEAP. What happens when cheaper things are gone from the market? Prices rise.
And then there are the ones that are NOT mentioned here. Like, for instance, the relations with NATO and Russia.

Building up a big army so noone messes with us? You already have the biggest army in the world. You are ALREADY unlikely to have to fight a war on your own land because of how horrendously big operation it would be to somehow drop troops and equipment in your country. It is pointless. If you did not invade any other countries every now and then majority of your military would be basically useless

This man perfectly abuses American mentality. He knows what to say to make you listen. Because of how your country was founded, the mentality being ingrained in your mind since you are a kid. "Manifest Destiny", "Land of the free", "Second Amendment" other things like that. Mix into it the typical, most basic promises like lower taxes, playing on current events (immigration, political correctness) and BOOM - you get Trump.
User avatar
#24 - Ruspanic (09/05/2016) [-]
>tax cuts for everybody
>almost no spending cuts
>"I'll take care of the deficit"

yeah no thx bro
#27 - duudegladiator (09/05/2016) [-]
>Tax cuts bring more money into the American Household, more money, more spending in most cases.
>Spending cuts on the beauracracy, and inefficiency of goverment, about 80% of the problem.
>Lower business taxes mean the businesses come back, seeing as they ran away with the higher taxes, which means more business, which means more money.
>More industrial businesses are promoted, higher amount of employment, more money going into economy, more money that can be spent in said economy.
>Economy starts to recover, losses turn into gains, and the debt is paid off regularly over his 4 year presidency.


What would you rather have, lower taxes and stronger spending base, or higher taxes, worse and more inefficient nanny state?
User avatar
#35 - Ruspanic (09/05/2016) [-]
Of course I would prefer the former, based on how you worded the question. But I don't want lower taxes if that means a massive increase in the national debt, and I don't remotely trust Trump to handle the economy.

You're making a lot of assumptions without evidence. Trump's math simply does not add up. Like, not even close. You say households will have save money and that more businesses will come back due to lower taxes, but the increased tax revenue does not come remotely close to making up the lost revenue of the tax cuts. Nor do his meager proposed spending cuts.
His tax/spending plan is projected to increase the national debt by $10 trillion over the next decade. If Trump drops tax revenue to 13.6% of GDP, as this report says crfb.org/papers/promises-and-price-tags-fiscal-guide-2016-election , then over that time period he'd have to increase the GDP from $16.77 trillion to like $73.5 trillion, which is just under the GDP of the entire world economy as of now. Now my math is obviously oversimplified, but you can still clearly see that's an impossible goal.

This is Trump when he was asked about his spending plan on the debate stage:
Chris Wallace Challenges Trump on Budget Figures 3316 Republican Debate
He's asked to be specific about what "waste, fraud and abuse" he'd cut, and he names the EPA and Dept. of Education and says he'd "really cut down" every single other agency (with no further specifics). Chris Wallace clearly shows that his proposed spending cuts wouldn't even come close to eliminating this year's deficit, much less the deficit left by Trump's generous tax cuts.
And then he claims he'd save Medicare over 3x more money on drug prices than Medicare actually spends on drugs. He's clearly pulling all this out of his ass, how can you not see that?

To be fair, last month Trump said in a speech that he'd increase his proposed taxes to the relatively more reasonable numbers proposed by House Republicans (12, 25 and 33% for each bracket, respectively, up from 10, 20 and 25). www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/an-america-first-economic-plan-winning-the-global-competition Perhaps that's why his specific tax plan can no longer be found on his website. This new plan would obviously be less costly than his original one, but still not nearly enough to be responsible.

Aside from that, lowering taxes on businesses would incentivize them to operate out of the US, but it still wouldn't lower production costs to the levels of the third-world countries where they prefer to manufacture. The reason US manufacturers move overseas is not just to escape burdensome taxes, but because American workers are too expensive.

That's to say nothing of his retarded trade policy, which would raise costs on US companies and consumers and make it harder for us to sell our products abroad, by starting a trade war with two major trading partners.

Here's what Moody's Analytics says about the overall economic impact of his plans:
"what he is asking for is fiscally unsound. His tax and spending proposals will result in very large deficits and a much higher debt load. A future Congress may be able to rein in this profligacy, but it will not be easy, as there is a gulf between what he says he wants on taxes and spending and what it will take to make the budget arithmetic work."
"The upshot of Mr. Trump’s economic policy positions under almost any scenario is that the U.S. economy will be more isolated and diminished."
www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2016-06-17-Trumps-Economic-Policies.pdf
User avatar
#57 - nigeltheoutlaw (09/05/2016) [-]
Damn, I haven't seen anybody get fact smacked that hard in a long ass time.
User avatar
#53 - Ruspanic (09/05/2016) [-]
just realized:

"lowering taxes on businesses would incentivize them to operate IN the US"
my bad.
#32 - anon (09/05/2016) [-]
lol whys he heiling
#29 - anon (09/05/2016) [-]
US will never have as low taxes as some tax haven, it's too big. Whole country would collapse without money for organizing it. And if corporations can pay 1% less by using them, they will. Without this "nanny" state you won't have democracy, you will have feudal lords controlling everyone, like pic related. Like Trump, who was born into wealth, not chosen by anyone.
#19 - The level of denial Trump supporters operate on is astounding.…  [+] (7 replies) 09/05/2016 on Trump train +4
User avatar
#44 - theladystrangler (09/05/2016) [-]
QUIET HILLARY SHILL! THE CLINTON FOUNDATION RUNS THE NEW YORK MAFIA AND HAS BEEN ASSASSINATING JOURNALISTS AND WHISTLEBLOWERS FROM ALL AROUND THE WORLD! ALL POLLS ARE RIGGED! THE MEDIA IS MAKING TRUMP LOOK BAD BY SHOWING HIS TWEETS BUT DOESN'T EVEN BOTHER TO SHOW THE RACIST MISOGYNISTIC TWEETS THAT SHILLARY PUTS OUT DAILY!
#29 - thegamepixel (09/05/2016) [-]
Cause the polls are definitely not skewing data.

Sanders would never win. His economics make no sense and statistically, that's voters' biggest concern.
User avatar
#63 - bokkos (09/05/2016) [-]
That's just not true, but if that's what the media you consume says, so be it.
User avatar
#66 - bokkos (09/05/2016) [-]
I don't think you get it... The Republicans are less popular than the Democrats in the US; it's not a 50/50 split. Between Trump's nomination hard to believe but yes, he is objectively disliked by the majority of your country. Clinton may as well be too, but at least she's somewhat competent and the stunts the Republicans have pulled in recent years The Government shutdown is a pretty big one, not allowing a president to nominate a Supreme court judge would be another makes them a liability in most American's eyes.

This is why Republicans tend to win when voter turnout is low, because less independents voting allows the relatively lower number of Republican voters shift the results in their favor. So while there may be valid criticisms of specific polls, the fact there are more people who vote Democrat vs. Republican Like the latino and black communities' votes? Goodbye for this election, GOP is not one of them, and poll trends show Trump is cruising to lose, badly.
User avatar
#67 - thegamepixel (09/05/2016) [-]
>"somewhat competent"
>claims to not know the (C) stands for classified

There are only 4% more registered Democrats than republicans and these polls over-poll them to a greater extent. A lot of people want to wait for the next president to select a supreme court judge.

Trump is actually getting a larger chunk of black and latino votes than in recent Republican history. Like I said, the polls are skewed against him, I proved so above.
#25 - anon (09/05/2016) [-]
How's that $8/h for shitposting working for ya CTR?
#196 - Gee, its almost as if they set up the bike in impoverished urb…  [+] (2 replies) 08/25/2016 on Tasering Bike Thieves -23
#199 - humanjelloman (08/25/2016) [-]
So you're saying it's okay for the dindus to steal because they are black and its in a black held ghetto.....wow that logic you liberals really are braindead
User avatar
#270 - spyderslicer (08/25/2016) [-]
I actually thought the point was that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. You leave the bike in a black neighborhood and then go 'haha look at all these nig nogs proving our point'. It's like, yeah, you left the bike in an area that's like 99.95% black, of course statistically a black guy will steal it if anyone. He isn't saying it's okay for blacks to steal, he is saying that people in a shitty area would be more likely to steal a bike as an easy mode of transportation and that the comments are stupid because chances are this was filmed in 'da hood'.

Look at op 'look it's only blacks in the video', it's like fucking duh. It's probably in a neighborhood that has a grand total of like 9 white guys; you're going to be surprised that it's only blacks in the video? Some equally retarded black could go to some white area and do the same video and go 'see black people are all awesome, not a single black gentleman stole the bike' of fucking course they didn't there isn't a black fucker in a hundred miles if you don't count the dip with the camera.

Although most of these comments are just having a laugh so he kinda goes fucking springy at the end of his comment.
#25 - That's a ******** lie; then you just have another location som…  [+] (4 replies) 07/15/2016 on Falling down 0
#51 - anon (07/15/2016) [-]
Blind stops should be checked with a look over you shoulder before changing lanes

Well in the uk at least, other wise you fail your test
#60 - anon (07/15/2016) [-]
But if you are in the middle of a lane change and some faggot comes flying down inbetween the lanes how am I at fault?
User avatar
#36 - silentautumn (07/15/2016) [-]
I live in the country the content occurred in and it's much more annoying if all the scooters are stuck behind cars at a light. There's no extra unofficial lane because everyone stops at the light (and partially because the scooters drive wherever the fuck they want, anyway). Accidents like this aren't common, since no one opens car doors in the middle of the road and everyone knows to watch out for it.
User avatar
#26 - frenzyhero (07/15/2016) [-]
You know nothing of traffic law, apparently.